This summary and following commentary is a modified email to a close friend whom I have been growing in the Lord with.  This summary runs on the heals of a successful mini-debate with a non-Christian at a point in my life when I am just beginning to recognize logical flaws.  It's quite a step to understanding them.  It's an even larger step to recognizing them in the real world, in my experience.

A non-Christian wrote:
To me a single error within the Bible ruins all credibility, just as a single verifyable supernatural occurance might help it`s credibility. Yet no one will admit error and no one will verify the supernatural.

Eric wrote:
To you, one error destroys "ALL" credibility, and one supernatural occurence "MIGHT HELP" its credibility.  I can clearly see where your true beliefs lie.  May I ask:  How are you able to determine what is an error in the Bible?

A non-Christian wrote:
An Error is something simple as a claim that is impossible naturally.

Eric wrote:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). As far as I know, no scientist has observed the creation of the universe before, nor have they been able to duplicate this in the lab. Is it safe to say this event is impossible naturally? Therefore this is an error in the Bible? But where did you get that arbitrary rule you're applying to the Bible? The Bible never says that. In fact, it says the opposite: "with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26). Looking at Genesis 1:1, I read that scientists didn't create the heavens and the earth. God did. How do you know that God cannot create the heavens and the earth? In order to say that Genesis 1:1 is an error you must positively know that God cannot do as he said he did.

Abiogenesis cannot occur naturally. Therefore all theories that rest on the bankrupt theory of abiogenesis are in error, according to you. You're starting to sound like a Creationist!

I think I'm getting better at this.  1) I'm seeing the holes in man-centered thinking.  2) I'm getting better at asking questions that bring these holes to light.  3) I was able to turn any arbitrary rule he cited against him to show how his ideas are grounded in quicksand.  

Pure debate is, generally, not very useful for the kingdom of God.  However, using debate to break down barriers and clear "smokescreens" is useful for some people, as it leaves an entry point for the Gospel.  As a debator, it is very easy to lose sight of the end goal and I need to remind myself of what exactly I'm doing constantly.  This person was quite a tough chestnut, but I managed to get the gospel out to him at least half a dozen times -- in relevant context of the debate -- in the course of a few months.