That Awkward Moment When The Title of the Book Contradicts the Author’s Worldview

Gerry Matatics was once a well known “Catholic” apologist. Gerry has a book titled How the Bible Converted Me To Catholicism: One Protestant Minister’s Surprising Journey of Faith. However, according to Gerry’s own public statements, and Catholic teaching itself, it is actually impossible for the Bible to convert someone to Roman Catholicism.

In almost any debate with Protestants, Gerry follows classic Catholic Apologetic methods and jumps to an argument I call “pulling rank.” Gerry will mention how Protestants are fallible humans, so they cannot know they are interpreting the Bible correctly. That is why we (allegedly) need Rome as an infallible Church in order to guarantee we know infallibly what the Bible is teaching. Gerry will use this argument even in debates that have nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. One example is during the cross-examination period of his debate with Dr. James White on Justification by Faith Alone. Dr. White asked Gerry how Gerry could affirm the peace guaranteed in Romans 5:1 when he believes he could be come an enemy of God at any moment in time. Gerry however, avoided the point and answered by telling Dr. White that he can’t have assurance he is interpreting the Bible correctly since Dr. White is fallible. This is an argument Gerry prefers.

There is a big problem with his book title in light of this argument. If one cannot interpret the Bible with the Spirit alone and come to a true knowledge of it’s teachings, then the Bible can never convert anyone to anything certainly. Gerry’s current position is that the Bible cannot be assuredly interpreted correctly without Rome. How then, could the Bible convert someone to the Church that they needed to interpret the Bible in the first place?

The Bible could not have converted Gerry to Rome since Rome is one must assume Rome’s authority before you can know what the Bible means. Therefore, Gerry is stuck with two positions: either he assumed Rome’s authority to “properly” interpret Scripture which confirmed Catholicism, and his book title is false, or Gerry cannot claim to know Rome to be the true Church because his fallible interpretations of the Bible lead him to that conclusion. However, if one can’t trust their own interpretations of Scripture, then they must assume Rome’s authority first, before the Scripture can convince them of anything. The book contradicts Gerry’s theolofy before it even begins.

The book title contradicts a separate but similar Roman Catholic arguments, namely that one can’t even know what the Bible is without submitting to Rome’s authority. Therefore, Gerry had to assume Rome’s authority to know what the Bible is and that it’s inspired, and then he had to assume Rome’s authority in order to trust his interpretations of Scripture, which means Gerry was a Catholic long before he even read the Bible.

If the Bible can convert someone to Rome, then the Catholic is forced to admit that the Bible can be interpreted correctly and assuredly without Rome, and he is obviously not able to believe that.

This is a great representation of the problems with this common Roman Catholic apologetic claim. It’s a classic circular argument that Rome refuses to acknowledge. The idea that we must submit to Rome in order to know the Bible we have is from God and to have infallible assurance of it’s teachings has many holes.

First, Roman Catholics cannot have any more assurance about anything than any Protestant. They claim to have this because they appeal to an infallible authority (like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses). However, their choice to trust this authority was fallible. Therefore, they can have only fallible assurance of anything that Church declares. The same fallible process we use to determine the truth of Scripture is the same process they used to pick a church. They have no more assurance.

Another gaping hole is that Rome fails their own test because they still have to interpret the Church’s declarations and interpretations. They are forced to admit that the Bible which is infallible Divine Word cannot be interpreted privately, but somehow the Church and Tradition which are also infallible Divine Word can be interpreted correctly. They fail their own test. Those interpreting the Bible for the Catholic still need to be interpreted. Therefore they have only kicked the can further down the sidewalk.

Ultimately, this circular reasoning exposes that Rome does not in fact have three rules of faith (Scripture, Church & Tradition). Gerry made this claim in his debate with Dr. Greg Bahnsen on the John Ankerburg show, and Catholic apologist Mitch Pacwa made this claim in a debate with James White in which he described it as a “three legged-stool.”

However, if the Church is the one who gave us the Bible, and it’s the one who interprets the Bible, and it’s the one who gives us tradition, and it’s the one who interprets tradition, then the Church is, of necessity, the supreme rule of faith, and the ultimate authority for the Catholic. Tradition and Scripture have no benefit, value, or purpose unless they are read in light of the Church, which means that Rome is promoting Sola Ecclesia, no matter how often she says she is not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s