It is said that some people never think for themselves because no one ever told them to. At the beginning of our lives, to do so is actually very silly. Children, while they may think they know everything, actually have very little understanding. Left to themselves, they would die very quickly. Thus, they require adult supervision up to a point.
But as time goes on, we should become gradually more independent. Not only in the sense that we should learn to wash our own clothes, but even form our own worldviews. Where once we depended on our parents to teach us how to think, we should eventually learn to think independently ourselves.
Sadly, as much as we should eventually move on to independent thought, we very often simply shift our reliance to other sources. We see this all over the place. We see Muslims boasting in Zakir Naik, we see atheists championing Richard Dawkins, we see Catholics setting forth Trent Horn as their champion. And of course, it's not a terrible thing to merely listen to other people who happen to believe what you also believe. Human beings are a communal species, and we often have specialists in various areas. It becomes a problem, however, when they become a cornerstone of your faith.
As an apologist, I experience this kind of thing a lot. "If you're so confident you're right, why don't you debate Matt Dillahunty?" "I bet you wouldn't be this smug in front of Muhammad Hijab". But here's a question: If these men did not exist, would my arguments be any stronger? Would my beliefs be any more true?
If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", you've got a bit of a problem. You're not interested in the truth of our beliefs, but the personal skill with which we defend them. You're following charisma, nothing more. But if the truth really matters to you, you can stop treating your favorite apologists as gatekeepers.
Personally, I have no interest in being some great celebrity. The fact that I don't even use my own name on the site should clue you in to this. You know me as "Bible Brian", but you won't find such a name on my birth certificate or passport. No one calls me Brian in real life. This is because I never want the focus on me, but on the quality of the case I present. I don't want my Christian audience going to non-Christians and being like "oh, you won't debate Bible Brian? You must be scared he'll expose you." Not only do I know this is illogical, but I know how it feels when people do the same to me. It doesn't convince me to go off and debate their favorite apologist, all it does is tell me this particular person has a preference for a particular apologist, who could say the daftest of things and they would still practically worship them.
To illustrate the point I'm making, consider the following argument:
Jesus obeyed the law perfectly. The 10 commandments sum up the law. In the 10 commandments, we are told to honor our father and mother. Therefore, Jesus honored Mary. We are to imitate Jesus. Now, if Jesus honored Mary, and we are to imitate Jesus, then logically, we must honor Mary, too.
Whose argument is this? Although I am not 100% sure he came up with it, I do know one Catholic apologist who uses it. If you do not know his name, this is not the article where you will find out. I am deliberately not going to tell you who makes the argument, because I want to make the point that arguments matter more than the people making them.
Now of course, I cannot conceal my own identity, but for sake of argument, let's imagine you find this certain Catholic apologist dealing with my response to his argument, but do not know it is mine:
There are a large number of flaws with this logic, starting with the fact that while Mary is uniquely "venerated" in Catholic theology, she was not so uniquely honored by Christ. To begin with, Joseph, as His step father, would have actually been more authoritative in His household than Mary. Yet, Catholics tend not to make as much of a fuss over him... On top of this, Jesus was also notoriously submissive towards the Roman government. Whereas the Jews of the time were expecting the Messiah to show up and lead them against their Roman oppressors, Jesus would not say a word against them. "Hey Jesus, should we pay taxes to Caesar?" "Well, it's his portrait on the coins. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26). Even when Pilate asked if He understood that he had the authority to crucify Him, Jesus affirmed "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Thereforethe one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11).
Now, thinking about this now, the Roman Catholic Church is, indeed, quite Roman. Even the Pope bears the title "Pontifex Maximus", a title taken straight from the Chief High Priest of the College of Pontiffs. So, it's quite possible Catholics might argue that they are the continuation of the Roman government, and so yes, we must technically submit ourselves to the same government Christ submitted Himself to. But this would bring with it a host of other problems, starting with finally confessing that a lot of their religion is stolen from Roman paganism.
At any rate, you see how this argument immediately breaks down when you give it any thought what so ever. If it only works when it applies to Mary, then it does not even work when applied to Mary.
Now, notice how I still have not mentioned the name of the apologist who makes this argument. Nor did I appeal, in any way, to myself. I do not challenge this apologist to a debate. I will not even be chasing him down and demanding an answer. If our paths happen to cross, and this becomes a discussion, then it will be by sheer ordinance of God, and not because I insist that I must receive an answer in order for the apologist to prove himself. No, this whole time, the apologist's argument stands or falls on its own merit, and my response stands or falls on its own merit. Obviously, I will strongly contend that his argument falls, for the reasons I presented (and more that I left out so I could return to the topic of this article), but none of this comes down to Bible Brian vs. unsung Catholic apologist.
The same is true in cases where I am the one presenting the initial case. Throughout this site, I have written a number of articles explaining why I believe the Christian faith is the truth, and why I believe certain other religions, such as Islam, Mormonism, Evolution, and Catholicism, are not. And unless you plan to respond directly to them, you do not even have to read them! I see myself the way I wish all apologists did: Just some guy, born into a world full of competing beliefs, holding one particular belief, and representing it to the best of my abilities. I am not some gatekeeper. I'm not the boss level. That honor, I believe, goes to Jesus.
See, ultimately, death is coming to us all. We can delay it for a time, if indeed the Lord wills, but a time has been arranged for when each of us will pass on from this life and stand before God, who will judge our every deed, every word, and every thought. This has been the role He has fulfilled for 6,000 years. Can you imagine a human being reaching such an old age? Most of us will be lucky to reach 80. Thus, how significant do you think Sam Harris is in His eyes? Or what about Ali Dawah? John Gee? There isn't a man on this Earth that can convince God that He is in error. Thus, when we stand before Him, we stand alone, and fully accountable for the nonsense we fall for.
But there is one man who walked this Earth who can change how God will respond to us. Objectively, all of us are guilty of some sin or another, and God is more than justified in condemning us for it. But He had no grounds to punish Jesus. No grounds but one. Submitting to His Father's will, Jesus, who knew no sin, received the full wrath of God against sin in Himself. Thus, we can make one valid argument for why God should not condemn us eternally: "My price is paid". But you can only claim that if you confess Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead.