Cold Case Christianity: Yes, Christian hypocrisy falsifies some New Testament promises

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: 

Quick Shot: “Christian hypocrisy proves Christianity is false”

Posted: 14 Jan 2019 01:10 AM PST

Our “Quick Shot” series offers brief answers to common objections to the Christian worldview.

Thus increasing the chances that the Christian reader will be misled by a superficial treatment of the issues.

Each response is limited to one paragraph.

Somehow, I'm not feeling threatened by your apologetics.

These responses are designed to (1) answer the objection as concisely as possible, (2) challenge the objector to think more deeply about his or her claim, and (3) facilitate a “gospel” conversation.

So if an atheist did something similar and offered the reader a response that (1) answers the Christian objection as concisely as possible, (2) challenges the Christian objector to think more deeply about his or her claim, and (3) facilitate an "unbeliever" conversation, you would agree that this shows objectivity on the part of the atheist.

In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, Quick Shot: “Christian hypocrisy proves Christianity is false.”

Response #1:

“Does atheist hypocrisy prove atheism is false?

No.  But if we claimed atheism was guided by a higher intelligence that wasn't 'god', and that as long as you are sincere in seeking out and living by that intelligence, your life will be morally transformed, then the better the evidence that a person was a "real" atheist, and the better the evidence that no serious moral transformation has taken place despite their years of being a committed atheist, then the more likely it would be that atheism was false.  The problem would not be limited to the individual person failing to live up to their professed standard.  The standard itself would appear to be false.  In the case of other atheists who did undergo a moral transformation, this would not show that the intelligence causing the moral transformation existed, because such a change would be explainable in purely naturalistic terms not requiring the positing of any higher intelligence.

By the way, Jesus apparently wanted unbelievers to conclude Christianity was true from the fact that his disciples consistently followed his morals:

 16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16 NAU)

That means Jesus wasn't really smart, otherwise, under the same principle, non-atheists should glorify atheism if they find atheists walking according to "atheist morals".

If Christianity did not assure its followers that they are transformed, you wouldn't be having a problem.

If a scientist lies about his findings, does this undermine all scientific endeavors, or just expose a single hypocrite?

 If the scientist claims to be guided by an omniscient invisible and 100% honest space alien, how long would you trifle about the fact that his dishonesty doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of the honest space alien?  Not long.

All of us are hypocritical in some way; it’s part of our human condition. We are consistently inconsistent, some more than others. This says less about our respective belief systems than it does about our human condition.

Unless the belief system you pretend to follow insists that you'll stop sinning if you are truly born again.  It does:

 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. (1 Jn. 3:6 NAU)

Wallace continues:

I won’t hold the inconsistent behavior of some atheists against atheism as a whole, if you don’t hold the inconsistent behavior of some Christians against Christianity as a whole. Does that sound fair?

No, atheism has never made claims that it causes its followers to become more morally conservative.  If you delete the parts of the bible that assure Christians of a new morally conservative nature in Christ, then bunches of Christians sinning wouldn't operate to falsify Christianity.

So technically, Christians sinning obviously doesn't operate to deny the historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead (which is very weak on historical grounds anyway),  but their sinning DOES falsify portions of Christianity that promise the believer that they won't sin.  Yes, 1st John makes room for the possibility of Christians sinning, but that does not automatically require that we become obligated to harmonize the "you won't sin" stuff with the "you might sin" stuff and accept any logically possibly harmonization scenario.

I see nothing wrong with assuming the author of 1st John was like most of today's Christians...he held to an inconsistent theology.

Isn’t it more important to examine the evidence for our claims than to critique each other’s misbehavior?”

Yes, I think so, but not according to Jesus, who takes the possibility of others critiquing his follower's behavior, as a motive for them to act righteously so they don't give the critics an excuse: 

  46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
 47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:46-48 NAU)

  28 "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
 29 "Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him,
 30 saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' (Lk. 14:28-30 NAU)

 Apostle Paul also felt possible critique from unbelievers was a reason to avoid certain behavior:

 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? (1 Cor. 14:23 NAU)

Wallace continues:

Response #2:

“Why would you be surprised when a Christian behaves hypocritically? There are two reasons why Christians will always be considered more hypocritical than non-Christians. First, our worldview is public and objective rather than private and subjective. Non-Christians understand the standard Christians are trying to personify. It is publicly available (just read a Bible) and hasn’t changed in two thousand years.

One has to wonder about the allegedly changeless text of the bible over the centuries. It certainly hasn't proven itself to be of any benefit to the churches using it, which disagree with each other on nearly every bit of theology taught therein, except perhaps God's existence and Jesus' gender.  God is like the stupid father who tries to assure his daughter she can get to college reliably, with a new car...but never gives her the keys.

We ask the same question of Catholics and their papal infallibility doctrine:  How exactly has papal infallibility or the changeless nature of the biblical text resulted in any theological benefit to Christians?  Doesn't their ceaseless division over interpretation and bible doctrine thwart any good the changeless nature of the text might otherwise have bequeathed?

Christians, however, have no idea if an unbeliever is violating his or her moral standard because the unbeliever holds it privately as a matter of personal opinion.

 That's not true of most unbelievers.  They all have friends and family who recognize that person's unique morality.  Unbelievers are often involved in personal relationships where a moral act by one of them causes more intimacy or even division.  Saying unbelievers keep their morality hidden is total bullshit.

But Christians have a more difficult problem because it doesn't matter if the NT ethics are publicly known, Christians disagree with them.  Smart Christians realize not all stealing is sin, not all lying is sin,  not all intimate contact before marriage is sin, and dumb Christians seriously argue that the NT doesn't condemn homosexuality.  No, it is far from clear that a Christian's committment to the NT thus arms his critics with potential to critique him.  He can do away with anything in the bible he doesn't like, through the artifice of interpretation.  And after that point, he isn't acting contrary to NT ethics, because you either misunderstand the NT, or you don't realize that those 1st standards no longer apply 21st century Christians.

Secondly, the Christian standard is grounded in the perfect moral nature of God.

All you are doing now is preaching to your classical theist choir.  You wouldn't be able to get away with this if you were talking to a bunch of Christians who denied god's perfection, such as open-theists.

While atheists can meet their own personal standards, Christians never achieve the moral perfection of God’s standard.

Which makes them stupid for trying.  How long will you try to jump 200 feet in the air utilizing no other propulsion mechanism than your own unaided biological muscular strength...before you decide that the impossibility of ever achieving the goal constitutes good reason to give up?  4 days?

And lets not forget the many Christians who have tried the conservative approach and failed because their genetics cause them to find normative human behavior too enticing to resist.

We know – in advance- that we will always fall short of the mark.

Probably because you don't know your NT very well.  Several passages express or imply that human beings can actually achieve all that God requires of them.  See Luke 1:6:

 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
 6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. (Lk. 1:5-6 NAU)

 Really?  God thought they were righteous because they walked blamelessly in all his commands?  Wouldn't that contradict Romans 3:10-23?   No, of course not.  If the asshole defense attorney can think of a logically possible way to reconcile evidence of his client's guilt, with his own theory that his client is innocent, well then gee, the jury has no choice but to see things his way or admit their own stupidity...right?

Given the objectively high, public standard posited by Christianity,

 Correction, posited by your particular fundamentalist form of Christianity.  Many other Christians, with good reason, are far more relaxed about sin.  Like James Patrick Holding, whose 20 years of internet apologetics still has him engaging in the sin of slandering even more than he did when he first started.  I'm waiting for the day when Holding writes an article entitled "Why Jesus might want you to tell lies about other people".

why would you ever be surprised to witness Christian hypocrisy,

because the NT makes very plain that those who sin are hypocrites who never knew Jesus:

 6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. (1 Jn. 3:6 NAU)

 But actually we aren't surprised when Christians sin, we just note that it often conflicts with what the particular hypocrite professes to believe about his own moral obligations under Christ.

and why would you hold this against Christianity, rather than applaud Christianity for its high standard?”

Remove the "be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind" bullshit from the NT, then sinful Christians won't falsify Christianity's promise to morally transform people.

While atheists can meet their own personal standards, Christians never achieve the moral perfection of God’s standard.

 Wrong, Luke 1:6.

A fine example of why James Patrick Holding uses cartoons to teach his supporters

Apparently some follower of James Patrick Holding, using the pseudonym "Victor Polk" just can't stand the heat, and is now following me around the web replying to my posts about James Patrick Holding.

Polk's latest was in reply to what I said at another Christian webpage entitled Apologetics Harms and Offends People.

Here's what I argued there, and how Polk replied:

barry says:  Thanks for the reply.Mr. Holding attempts to show biblical justification for his insulting style, with the article at the link i provided, www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.... Since you clearly disagree with Holding's conclusions, I was wondering what flaws you believe are present in the arguments he sets forth in said article to support his vitriolic name-calling. What I'm still trying to process is that the Context Group scholar he cites most there, Richard Rohrbaugh, has already read the article and told me it is an "obvious perversion" of Context Group work (personal email to me), and although I've been repeatedly reminding Mr. Holding of that criticism for more than a year, he has refused to change the article!

Victor Polk
He insults others who were either mean to him or showing some intellectual dishonesty towards theology. While he may uses some attacks to call out their misinformation, he is still what I call a gifted apologist.
 Wouldn’t that be ironic to say that he insults others while you basically insulted him? Whoops.

As usual, there are multiple problems with Polk's attempt to save Holding's reputation:

First, the only reason I mentioned something about Holding at that webpage, was because that was the writing of another Christian whose view was directly opposite to Holding's, and I was seeking another Christian opinion.  Polk found that post and now apparently wants to soil that webpage with his own faulty arguments that he is apparently hoping I will reply to there.  I won't participate in helping Polk throw his shit around on other people's websites, so instead I answer him here.

Second, like most of Holding's minions, Polk's attempted defense of Holding's integrity involves no scripture quotes.  I sued Holding for libel, twice.  One would expect that if a supporter of Holding wished to defend his reputation this late in the game, one would show Holding's conduct didn't violate the many NT commands against slander.  Nope, as predicted, Holding panders to intellectual lowlifes who seek him out for a verbal thrill-fest, not because they give two-shits about their alleged faith.

For these losers, Christianity is not reality, it is instead a fun game to enter so as to give them something to bitch about, not too different from football or wrestling.  For obvious reasons, there are no spiritually mature people who give the least fuck about Holding's ministry, the only people who donate their cash to him are immature juvenile delinquent "20-something-going-on-12" types who get a psychological high from his cocky confidence, nothing more.

Third, Jesus said slander is among the evils that proceed from the heart,

 18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.

 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." (Matt. 15:18-20 NAU)

and there is nothing in the context to limit it to slanders against other Christians (that wouldn't matter anyway, as Holding slanders his Christian opponents like Hays and White no less than he slanders unbelievers, see here).  and nothing in the context allowing an exemption for slanders based on "truth".

And you cannot use other parts of the bible as an interpretive lens through which to see this verse since

a) Jesus apparently gave that saying orally before the NT was written, so what it meant to the original hearers its original context form is a more objective way to exegete, and

b) bible inerracy is hotly debated by Christians themselves, from what its scope and extent are, to outright denial of the doctrine (i.e., the position taken by most Christian scholars on it).  Because bible inerrancy has nowhere near the universal acclaim that other tools of interpretation have, such as "grammar" and "context" and "genre" (i.e., tools that everybody agree are valid), using bible inerrancy to get away from what Jesus said (i.e., limiting the scope of his slander-prohibition in Matthew 15 by merely running away to some other bible verse you think justifies Christians in slandering others) is nothing short of dishonest.

Third, at least one of those defamation prohibitions was interpreted by Holding's favorite scholars, the Context Group, as forbidding Christians from engaging in verbal insult-for-insult even when talking with unbelievers.  As I pointed out in another blog piece:

Holding lauds the Context Group (or did before he found out they think he is a dishonest immoral perverter of basic biblical morality, and yet the Context Group thinks Peter requires modern Christians to avoid insulting the unbelievers who insult them:
... this is what John H. Elliott, chair of the Context Group, had to say about riposte when discussing the instruction given by Peter to the addressees of 1 Peter.

First, the addressees are warned not to engage in the usual spitting match of riposte and retaliation. They are not to return "injury for injury" or "insult for insult" (3:9; see also the proscription of slander in 2:1), just as Jesus when insulted did not retaliate (2:23, echoing Isa 52:7and details of the passion narrative [Mark 14:61//Matt 26:63; Mark 15:5//Matt 27:12-14; Luke 23:9; John 19:9]). Rather, they are urged to bless their insulters (3:9c) and to disprove their slanderers with honorable and irreproachable modes of behavior within and beyond the community (2:12), for actions speak louder than words (3:1-2).

See here for this quote from the original source. 

Jesus' slanderers were unbelievers, yet he still did not return insult-for-insult.  Yet Holding's 20-year history of internet-based slanders is too well known, as I document extensively here, and as documented even more extensively in my First Amended Complaint from my federal lawsuit against Holding, a full copy of which I will gladly give to anybody who asks, you can contact me by reply to this blog or request by email to barryjoneswhat@gmail.com

I'll now answer Polk point by point:

He insults others who were either mean to him or showing some intellectual dishonesty towards theology. 

-------------The problem is
a) there is no biblical justification for Christians to do this,
b) the bible clearly prohibits Christians from insulting others,
c) as documented extensively here, every Christian scholar with a Ph.d that I've been able to contact (including Blomberg), thinks Holding's slanders violate basic NT ethics,  and
d) as documented extensively here the Context Group said the same and worse, specifically, Dr. Richard Rohrbaugh, who said Holding's magnum opus argument to justify vicious insults (which Holding has changed about 10 times following my lawsuits against him), constituted an "obvious perversion" of all Context Group scholarship as well as the NT itself.

So merely pointing out that Holding insults critics who were mean or dishonest with him, proves nothing, except perhaps that Holding never graduated from Christian kindergarten.

Also, Holding's illegal slanders of me in 2015-16 did not arise from me being mean to him or me showing any intellectual dishonesty toward him.  They arose solely from my making sure plenty of Holding's supporters at theologyweb knew that the scholar Holding relied on the most to justify insults, said Holding gives Christianity a bad name, deserves no respect, and that nobody should pay any attention to him.

As I said in another piece:

The first disowning

----In 2008, I had a debate with Holding at Tweb, in which he engaged is his usual unnecessary amounts of spite and invective.  I emailed Dr. Rohrbaugh in 2008, sent him a sample of Holding's highly insulting unnecessarily vituperative language toward me, and asked him in several different ways whether a modern-day Christian could justify using that kind of language from the bible.  Rohrbaugh replied that such words indicate Holding gives Christianity a bad name, he needs serious psychological help, he has no manners, and neither Rohrbaugh nor any other scholar he could think of, would wish to be associated with Holding.

----I posted Rohrbaugh's answer to Tweb in my defense.  As predicted, Tweb, like any jailhouse lawyer or politician, invoked the trifling technicality that I didn't first get Rohrbaugh's permission, and thereby deleted the post (as if violation of their rule was more frightful to them than the obvious truth that their faith-hero Holding was proven to be a dishonest scumbag). But, asshole that I am, I knew that would happen, so I posted the same to the old FRDB boards, and it is thankfully still preserved in full.  Check it out.

 THAT is what made Holding go crazy with his "Internet predator alert" obsession, which he was forced to take down because his lawyer told him it constituted genuine libel.  Holding is a fucking asshole in every way, he doesn't extend mercy to his critics, especially those he considers the most vile, like me.  So when you ask Holding why he took down his Internet Predator Alert on me despite believing sincerely that it was factually and legally justified, you can be sure that "I wanted to extend barry some mercy" won't be one of his excuses.  He got slapped in the head with a legal 2x4, that's the only reason an obsessed know-it-all asshole like Holding would ever back down from any verbal assault.  

While he may uses some attacks to call out their misinformation, he is still what I call a gifted apologist.

Holding didn't insult me in that limited way, he spread provably false lies about me and my history with other people, even saying 7 police reports showed I had definitely not been a good boy, when in fact those 7 police reports never expressed or implied that I was accused of, arrested for or convicted of any crime or civil infractions.

And you'll be horrified to learn that under NT criteria, Holding's intentional sins of slander and homosexuality would continue disqualifying him from any "teaching" position even if one could prove Holding was a super smart scholar of the bible.  Apparently, you supporters of Holding have not much more than a cartoon-level understanding of the bible (which might explain why Holding tries to teach you theology by means of cartoons).  A teacher's level of smarts cannot ever trump his moral failings.  But you blind bats apparently don't give a fuck, Holding is fun to read and watch, thus testifying to the unspeakably shallow nature of your "faith".  

Wouldn’t that be ironic to say that he insults others while you basically insulted him? Whoops.

-------Is there no end to your thickheadedness?

a) I never subscribed to a bible or ethical system that identifies slander as sin or always immoral.  Holding did. America forbids slander and libel, that's why lawsuits for such are allowed.  And since these laws of America don't contradict anything in the bible, Holding's profession of "biblical" faith requires him to obey Romans 13 and thus obey all civil authorities where they don't conflict with the bible, such as America's laws against libel.

So either find those bible verses that allow Christians to spread lies about unbelievers (the way Holding spread lies about me, justifying my two lawsuits against him) or admit that Holding not only sinned against me, but did so willfully (the smarter he is, the less excuse he has spreading lies about me).  No, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not the only unforgivable sin, any sin that is done intentionally is also unforgivable, Hebrews 10:26.

No, Holding has never apologized for telling such lies about me.  Gee, maybe there's a bible verse in your head that says Christians who spread lies about others, don't have to apologize to the victim?  But Paul said the Christian teacher was to do all that is possible to live peaceably among all men (Romans 12:18), and that would obviously include the peace-making gesture of apologizing for his wrongs,  a thing most mature adults require their small children to do.

And my lawsuits documented multiple times in which Holding intentionally lied in circumstances where any reasonable person with even half of his professed intellect would have known the truth.  But you won't be asking me for a copy of those Complaints, because of how scared you are of the truth yourself.  Just keeping telling yourself that Holding is a gifted apologist, while carefully turning away from any evidence to the contrary.  That's how battered women convince themselves to stay in situations to stay with men who are obviously no good to them.

b) You aren't taking any of the heat off of Holding by pointing at your enemy and telling the teacher "but he does it too!?"  Holding is still a foul-mouthed hypocritical asshole.  What other people do doesn't change the facts about Holding.

c) My insults of Holding do not rise to the level of defamation or libel that is actionable in a lawsuit, while Holding's insults toward me did.  Be sure to ask him why he didn't seek to have my lawsuits dismissed on the merits with a motion to dismiss, if he seriously believed, as he publicly asserted so many times, that his words about me were factually and legally justified truth.  Motioning to dismiss on the merits (i.e., proving his words about me were truthful and thus not defamatory) could have been accomplished within one month of his receiving the Complaint in each case, especially given Holding's boast at Tweb in 2015 that my lawsuits against him were as frivolous as if somebody sued Colorado merely because it looked like Wyoming.

Yet Holding didn't dare attempt dismissal on the merits.  That's because he is a lying conniving pig, more worried to escape justice by means of dishonest technicalities invented by non-Christian Pharisee-types,  than in doing the morally right thing.

The facts are not on your side, and if you support Holding, you deserve to be fleeced and fucked accordingly.

Sometimes Christian apologists say good things

This is my reply to a post by Christian apologist Jonathan McLatchie, entitled

When the Head Meets the Heart: The Art of Biblical Integrity for the Christian Intellectual

March 11, 2016

Do you really believe what you say and think you believe, and how can you know? The answer may at first brush appear obvious — “of course I believe what I say and think I do,” you might say. If you didn’t, after all, why would you be spending so much time engaged in the intellectual defense of it? This raises an interesting question: Can you believe that you believe something which you do not in fact believe in your heart? Is it possible that we deceive ourselves about what our own beliefs are?

So many people in our modern evangelical culture assent to a set of propositional truths about God but in their hearts are practical atheists.

I could not agree more.  By their works, most apologists of today appear to believe Christianity is little more than a fun game of intellectual jousting.  James Patrick Holding is the most extreme example, given his 100% apathy toward the bible being the inspired word of God, and yet despite this, manages to be published by otherwise conservative evangelical outfits like Christian Research Institute, and has, at least in the past, obtained accolades for some of his books by conservative evangelicals like Dan Wallace, Gary Habermas and Craig Blomberg.  Mitigating these accolades is the undeniable fact that Haberbas is also willing to endorse resurrection apologetics books that are absurdly weak and presumptuous and little more than a repeat of what Habermas and other scholars have argued.

snip

One danger, especially for those involved in the intellectual defense of the faith (i.e. apologists), is that one’s Christianity becomes reduced to merely an intellectual belief, one that has little or no bearing on the way one lives.

I assume that is the cast for most apologists who practically live online with ceaseless apologetics blogging, but who clearly don't want anybody to know what their personal life is like, such as the imposters over at Triablogue, particularly Steve Hays and Jason Engwer.

What sets real Christians apart from any other person of any religious affiliation is that we have a genuine relationship with the God of the Universe. That is something truly phenomenal which we should never take for granted.

What is there that separates us and sets us apart from, say, the Jehovah’s witnesses or the Mormons? Is it merely a difference in theological belief? If the only thing that makes you different from members belonging to those groups is a difference in doctrinal content, then you have to answer the question “In that case, do you believe that you are saved by your doctrine?” The Bible, however, makes it clear that we are not saved by our doctrine. As James 2:19 says, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” If your doctrine is the only distinguishing factor, then you are in effect no different from a Jehovah’s witness or a Mormon and you have much reason to be afraid. You may have the correct doctrinal content and you may even be able to articulate and defend your beliefs with clarity and precision. But at the end of the day, before God, it will really do you no good. To quote Thomas Watson again, he writes in The Doctrine of Repentance,

"Some bless themselves that they have a stock of knowledge, but what is knowledge good for without repentance? It is better to mortify one sin than to understand all mysteries. Impure speculatists do but resemble Satan transformed into an angel of light. Learning and a bad heart is like a fair face with a cancer in the breast. Knowledge without repentance will be but a torch to light men to hell."

What a stinging indictment of James Patrick Holding, a closet homosexual "apologist" who has never admitted wrongfully defaming or libeling anybody in his 20+ year career of doing little more than talking shit to any Christian or skeptic that happened to disagree with him.

Think about what beliefs you hold that are not reflected by the manner in which you live out your life! You believe that apart from the empowering grace of God you can do nothing in and of yourself. You are doctrinally correct, but the measure of your belief in this proposition is reflected by your prayer life — what does your prayer life say about whether you really believe this in your heart?

 Judging by his works, I'd say James Patrick Holding never prays, but is willing to go through the motions and look like he believes that crap when he thinks giving such false appearance will put him on better terms with Christians near him.   The same for Steve Hays and Jason Engwer.  Engwer clearly doesn't want his personal life to be investigated, and Hays is a 5-Point Calvinist.  When he refuses to pray as he should, this is because God predestined him to so refrain.  So he couldn't avoid it.

You believe that God’s judgment for sin is an eternity separated from God in Hell — again, you are doctrinally correct, but the measure of your belief lies in your zeal for evangelism, intercessory prayer, and seeing soul’s saved. You believe that the Bible is God’s inspired revelation to mankind — but how often do you study and meditate upon it?

 Actually, James Patrick Holding doesn't even care whether the bible is the inspired word of God, and yet he wants his followers to think him rational for dedicating his life to promoting the inerrancy of a book whose divine authorship he is so 100% apathetic about.

You believe that God is sovereign, but are you content in all circumstances as Paul was (Philippians 4:11)?

Clearly most apologists aren't, such as J. Warner Wallace, whose ceaseless promotion of his "forensic faith" gimmicks makes you think Wallace didn't believe God was capable of doing better in the world until Wallace published "Cold Case Christianity".