Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #78

Bible Christian Society

General Comments

Sorry for no newsletter the last couple of weeks, I was on the road for 4 straight weekends and when that happens, things start piling up at home and work, and I’ve just gotten a bit behind. However, I don’t have any more travel scheduled for a month, and certainly not 4 weekends in a row any time soon, which means the newsletters should be back on a more regular schedule for a while.

Introduction

This week I wanted to print a response to my last newsletter from, what I am told, is one of the top dogs in anti-Catholic apologetics on the web – Mr. James Swan. I’ve never heard of him personally, but then that could be because I try to stay away from folks like that – after all, it only takes one person who can actually read the Bible to cause all the arguments on behalf of the Catholic Faith to come tumbling down…right?


Anyway, I’ve posted his response to my newsletter in its entirety, and then I go back and insert my comments betwixt and between his. So, I give him his say, and then in a very kind and gentle way – that’s the new me, kind and gentle – I show his arguments to be totally specious.


I tell ya what…first Mr. James White analyzes some of my talks on his internet radio program a while back – he told his listeners he was going to contact me about that, but I guess he must have gotten busy; then a Professor of Law at the Univ. of Alabama takes up with me; then a Doctor of Neurology at the Yale School of Medicine; and now Mr. James Swan. Lawsy! I guess I should go ahead and retire while I’m at the peak of my game, eh?! And to think, I’m just a small town Alabama boy. All I ever wanted to do was picket an evangelical radio station playing anti-Catholic garbage. God certainly does work in mysterious ways!


By the way, Mr. Swan’s response was posted on James White’s blog.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Alpha & Omega Ministries Blog – James White


Apologetics for The Masses


02/26/2008 – James Swan


I am subscribed to a number of Roman Catholic e-newsletters. One particular newsletter is Apologetics for The Masses by John Martignoni. The latest issue included some interesting comments on how to dialog with Protestants. John claims to have developed a line of questioning that is supposed to befuddle Protestants. When encountering “someone who has a problem with Catholic teaching and they seem to think their opinion is what the Scripture actually says,” John suggests asking in response “are you an authentic interpreter of the Bible?” He explains:


“If someone says they are an ‘authentic interpreter’ of the Bible, then that leads to the question of infallibility. If they are an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then they must be infallible. Yet, most Protestants… will never claim to be infallible. So, that puts them in a predicament. Plus, if they claim to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then the logical question is: Who appointed you to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible? If they say the Bible did, then you ask them for chapter and verse as to where their name appears so that you might believe them. If they say anyone else, then you ask by what authority that person or persons appointed them authentic interpreters of the Bible. If they don’t claim to be an ‘authentic interpreter’ of the Bible, then that means their interpretation of the Bible must necessarily be fallible- in other words, they have to admit their interpretation could be wrong. And, if they could be wrong, then why should you, or anyone else, risk the salvation of your soul on what this person is saying?”


Here we have an excellent example of obfuscation by Catholic rhetoric. This is a version of the typical, “You need an infallible authority to understand the Bible” argument.


One must apply the claim being put forth to see if it works in practice. Catholic apologists use these tired arguments as if… they actually work. They do not. Rather than actually opening the Bible, looking at a passage and its context, Mr. Martignoni suggests questioning if any of us are infallible interpreters. For Martignoni, the Bible must be so cryptic, confusing, and difficult, that none of us could ever understand any of it without being infallible! Just think of how difficult it is to understand such verses like Acts 3:1, “One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer- at three in the afternoon.” Imagine, for Martignoni, without an infallible understanding of this text, none of us could ever comprehend even this simple verse.


Martignoni’s argument actually insults the author of the Bible. Throughout the Scriptures, it is stated and implied that the Bible can be understood. Luke tells us the Bereans “were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). How would Martignoni approach these people? Where was the Roman Catholic infallible interpreter guiding the Bereans to read their Bibles? To be consistent, Martignoni would have to conclude the Bereans were in quite a predicament! He would have to similarly ask, “Who appointed them to be an authentic interpreters of the Bible?”


I would argue, even a non-believer could exegete a verse of Scripture and comprehend a passage in a context. Of course, that person would never savingly believe in the power of the text without the work of God’s Spirit illuminating and giving understanding. The words of the Scripture would be nothing more than foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18). When the Lord chastised the Sadducees in Matthew 22, he stated they were in error because they did not know the Scriptures. He further states, “have you not read what God said to you?” (Mt. 22:31). The Lord Jesus clearly held these men responsible for knowing and understanding the Scriptures. Were the Sadducees supposed to respond, “How could we? We did not have an authentic interpreter of the Bible!”


Martignoni’s apologetic reminded me of a section from A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) pp. 11-12. In speaking of the Reformation, the commentary states, “A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church, in order that each one should be able to make for himself the religion which suited his feelings.” It is pointed out how positive it has been for the Roman Church to keep the Bible out of the hands of individuals: “We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted.”


The irony of course, is that Roman Catholics are forced to excessive amounts of private interpretation because their infallible interpreter rarely does what it says it can do. It rarely, if ever, infallibly interprets Scripture. Sure, Rome makes dogmatic pronouncements. Up until something is dogmatically defined, Roman Catholics are free to interpret Biblical passages. Also, what Roman apologists rarely tell you is that the Biblical texts used to support a dogma haven’t been infallibly defined. That is, the dogma is infallible, but the proof texts supporting the dogma have not been infallibly interpreted. In essence, Martignoni’s Church can’t deliver the goods promised.


Martignoni then suggests methods of doing apologetics, and it was simply too ironic not to mention:


“What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you’re discussing. Don’t hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there. If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out- I don’t see any problem, as long as you’re doing it in private correspondence.”


Irony of ironies: Martignoni doesn’t direct his readers to infallible Roman documents, he directs them to Catholic apologists and websites! He directs his readers to fallible interpreters of Roman Catholicism! He then states,


“I don’t know of any Catholic apologist who would mind if you quote them without citation- not for the purpose of self-aggrandizement or for profit- but for the purpose of saving a soul. After all, I don’t know of any Catholic apologists who are coming up with original stuff. These arguments have been out there for hundreds of years. I always tell people that if there is anything original in any of my stuff, it’s quite by accident.”


Well, he does have point. The new e-pologists have not reinvented the Catholic wheel. What should be obvious, is that Catholic apologists are not infallible, and they are interpreters of Roman Catholicism, and they are not always unified in their argumentation. The very avenue of certainty Martignoni directs his readers down is a dead end. Enough of these arguments that the Bible can’t be understood without Rome. Rome hasn’t really infallibly interpreted much of the Bible, and based on what it comes up with by dogmatic pronouncements, I’m going to stick with the work of exegesis and the Holy Spirit to confirm the message of Scripture.


-————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-


Apologetics for The Masses


02/26/2008 – James Swan


I am subscribed to a number of Roman Catholic e-newsletters. One particular newsletter is Apologetics for The Masses by John Martignoni. The latest issue included some interesting comments on how to dialog with Protestants. John claims to have developed a line of questioning that is supposed to befuddle Protestants. When encountering “someone who has a problem with Catholic teaching and they seem to think their opinion is what the Scripture actually says,” John suggests asking in response “are you an authentic interpreter of the Bible?” He explains:


“If someone says they are an ‘authentic interpreter’ of the Bible, then that leads to the question of infallibility. If they are an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then they must be infallible. Yet, most Protestants… will never claim to be infallible. So, that puts them in a predicament. Plus, if they claim to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then the logical question is: Who appointed you to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible? If they say the Bible did, then you ask them for chapter and verse as to where their name appears so that you might believe them. If they say anyone else, then you ask by what authority that person or persons appointed them authentic interpreters of the Bible. If they don’t claim to be an ‘authentic interpreter’ of the Bible, then that means their interpretation of the Bible must necessarily be fallible- in other words, they have to admit their interpretation could be wrong. And, if they could be wrong, then why should you, or anyone else, risk the salvation of your soul on what this person is saying?”


Here we have an excellent example of obfuscation by Catholic rhetoric. This is a version of the typical, “You need an infallible authority to understand the Bible” argument.

John Martignoni


What! No website address?! He mentions my newsletter but doesn’t give folks a link so that they can go and read it for themselves or sign up for it themselves?! I am bitterly disappointed (in a calm and serene way). Well, at least he spelled my name right.


But, moving past my own personal feelings of disappointment and devastation, does he entirely miss the point of what I said, or what?! I’m sure Mr. Swan is a very intelligent man, and far be it from me to disparage anyone’s intelligence (after all, I am from Alabama – by the way, average high school SAT scores in Alabama got into triple digits last year!!!!), but golly gee whiz, his argument is so far off the mark it makes me wonder ‘bout that boy.


Nowhere do I say, nor do I even imply, nor do I think, believe, or teach, that you need an infallible authority to understand each and every verse of the Bible. That is not my argument at all, and to miss it so badly indicates Mr. Swan must have been distracted while he was reading my newsletter. Perhaps he was watching American Idol or maybe the latest version of Survivor. Whatever the reason, Mr. Swan has framed an argument of his own making…one which he believes he can best…and then goes out and does his best to best it. Problem is, it’s not my argument that he’s beating up on…it’s one of his own making. And, what’s really kind of funny, is that even though he made up the argument himself, he still loses it, as I will show.


James Swan


One must apply the claim being put forth to see if it works in practice. Catholic apologists use these tired arguments as if… they actually work. They do not. Rather than actually opening the Bible, looking at a passage and its context, Mr. Martignoni suggests questioning if any of us are infallible interpreters. For Martignoni, the Bible must be so cryptic, confusing, and difficult, that none of us could ever understand any of it without being infallible! Just think of how difficult it is to understand such verses like Acts 3:1, “One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer- at three in the afternoon.” Imagine, for Martignoni, without an infallible understanding of this text, none of us could ever comprehend even this simple verse.


John Martignoni


Okay, let me explain this to you, Mr. Swan, and I’ll type this real slow – the argument I made is not that one needs an infallible interpreter in order to understand each and every verse of the Bible. The argument I made is this: Let’s say that I pick up the Bible and start reading. And, let’s say that I come to a passage that says something like, oh…I don’t know…“You see that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone.” And, I think to myself, “Wow, I’m justified by works and NOT by faith alone.” But, let’s say someone like you comes along and says, “Well, what that means is, you’re justified before men by works…the works are merely evidence of the faith that justifies you, they don’t really have anything to do with your actual justification.” Or, you might say, “The faith James is talking about is an intellectual faith, not a saving faith; Paul is talking about a saving faith, James is talking about a faith that is merely surface level,” or some such thing.


And, let’s say I listen very closely and very intently to your argument, and then I do like the Bereans and I examine the Scriptures to see if they say what James Swan says they say. And, let’s say, that upon examination of the Scriptures, I realize that nowhere in them does it say anything similar to what James Swan says. So, I decide that my original thought after reading the verse mentioned above, that we are indeed justified by works and NOT by faith alone – in other words, that it actually means exactly what it says – is the correct meaning of this verse. Where does that leave us?


You have two people who have both opened up the Bible and read it, yet who disagree on the meaning of a particular verse from the Bible. How then does one decide which meaning, if either meaning, is the correct meaning? This is where my argument comes into play about authentic interpreters. Are you following me now…or was I typing too fast?


James Swan


Martignoni’s argument actually insults the author of the Bible. Throughout the Scriptures, it is stated and implied that the Bible can be understood. Luke tells us the Bereans “were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). How would Martignoni approach these people? Where was the Roman Catholic infallible interpreter guiding the Bereans to read their Bibles? To be consistent, Martignoni would have to conclude the Bereans were in quite a predicament! He would have to similarly ask, “Who appointed them to be an authentic interpreters of the Bible?”


John Martignoni


You know, I keep hearing about these Berean folks from Acts 17. And, every time I hear about them, someone is using them to “prove” Sola Scriptura…that one should go by the Bible alone. But, nowhere does it say that they went by the Bible alone. In fact, it is well known that Jews, whether in Berea or elsewhere, did not go by the Bible alone…they did not practice Sola Scriptura. (Which means Jesus, being a good Jew, didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura.) Neither did the early Christians believe in Sola Scriptura.


What was going on here in Acts 17, is that Paul would be preaching to them about Jesus being the Messiah. And Paul, in his preaching, would quote Scripture verses – from the Old Testament – that he would say pointed to Jesus. Paul would say something along the lines of, “It has been testified somewhere…” and the Bereans would then simply open up their Scriptures to see if what Paul said was actually in the Scriptures. The fact that the Bereans: a) Didn’t already know the Scripture verses were there, and b) had to “search” the Scriptures to find the verses Paul was quoting, actually might indicate that they weren’t all that familiar with the Scriptures, don’t you think?


Furthermore, the fact that the Bereans obviously did not understand the true meaning of the Scriptures until Paul explained it to them, actually works to support my position and is pretty much the exact opposite of what Mr. Swan was trying to prove. Mr. Swan: Was Paul an infallible interpreter of the Scriptures? Did he help the Bereans understand the Scriptures or not? In other words, Mr. Swan, the passage you quote from Acts 17 about the Bereans, says the opposite of what you think it says. Which means, even though Mr. Swan was addressing an argument that he contrived, he still lost his own argument.


Also, to say that “Martignoni’s argument actually insults the author of the Bible,” is, as I’ve already pointed out, missing the point entirely. I don’t know if what I said in my last newsletter just went over his head entirely, or if he is deliberately mis-characterizing it, but either way, Mr. Swan reminds me of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz – she, too, had a deep affection for the straw man.


One last thing here, is that Mr. Swan states that “Throughout the Scriptures, it is stated and implied that the Bible can be understood,” yet he seems to forget some very prominent verses from Scripture – some of which contain some sober warnings – about how some of the passages are indeed difficult to understand. In Acts 8, Luke (the same Luke who wrote about the Bereans) tells us that the Ethiopian eunuch, when asked if he understood the Scriptures he was reading, stated rather plaintively, “How can I unless some one guides me?” So, what happened? Philip, an authentic interpreter of Scripture, got up into the chariot with the man and explained Scripture to him. Does that passage show the ease with which folks can interpret the Bible? And keep in mind, the Ethiopian eunuch was a very educated man.


In 2 Peter 1:20, it tells us very clearly that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation. In 2 Peter 3:16, there is a very clear statement that there are things in Paul’s letters that are “hard to understand.” I think Mr. Swan may not be familiar with that particular verse. And, that verse goes on to say there are those who twist Paul’s letters, and other parts of Scripture, “to their own destruction.” Why is that, I wonder, if every single verse of Scripture is so easy to understand? I tell ya what…that must be a pretty scary verse for all those folks out there interpreting the Bible on their own…by their own authority. That is, if they’ve actually read that verse.


Lastly, the fact that Mr. Swan himself has so badly misinterpreted the Scriptures about the Bereans, as I’ve shown above, again serves to undercut his argument about how easy it is to understand each and every passage of Scripture.


James Swan


I would argue, even a non-believer could exegete a verse of Scripture and comprehend a passage in a context. Of course, that person would never savingly believe in the power of the text without the work of God’s Spirit illuminating and giving understanding. The words of the Scripture would be nothing more than foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18). When the Lord chastised the Sadducees in Matthew 22, he stated they were in error because they did not know the Scriptures. He further states, “have you not read what God said to you?” (Mt. 22:31). The Lord Jesus clearly held these men responsible for knowing and understanding the Scriptures. Were the Sadducees supposed to respond, “How could we? We did not have an authentic interpreter of the Bible!”


John Martignoni


First, let me point out how badly Mr. Swan has contradicted himself in just a few sentences. His initial point is about how easy it is to interpret Scriptures – even a non-believer can do it; then he points out how Jesus slammed the Sadducees because they couldn’t understand the Scriptures. Mr. Swan, you really ought to proofread your stuff before you send it out.


Mr. Swan has strengthened my argument here. I agree with him 100% that “even a non-believer could exegete a verse of Scripture and comprehend a passage in context.” So, what if a non-believer exegetes a verse of Scripture and comprehends a passage in context, and comes up with a different interpretation than Mr. Swan? What then, Mr. Swan? Should he simply bow to your “superior” interpretation because you inform him that you are a believer and you have been given illumination and understanding by God Himself? I’m sure that would convince him.


And, what about folks like me, who are believers and who pray to the Holy Spirit for understanding and illumination – whether Catholic or non-Catholic (because I know you disagree on the interpretation of the Bible with a number of non-Catholics, too)? What if a believer comes up with a different interpretation than yours? By what authority do you claim your interpretation to be THE interpretation? By what authority do you claim your interpretation to be valid and the other person’s interpretation not to be valid?


This is where my argument comes into play Mr. Swan. It is at this point…the point of disagreement…that I would ask you, “Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture, and, if you claim to be so, what proof can you offer to confirm what you say?” Are you kind of starting to understand the argument now? I never, ever, said – as you claim that I did – that someone needs an infallible interpreter to understand each and every verse of the Bible, If you can find anything that I’ve ever written that says that, I’ll send $1000 to your favorite charity.


No, Mr. Swan, my actual argument is completely different than the one you made up on my behalf. So, I will ask you straight out, what is your interpretation of James 2:24? And, if your interpretation of that verse is different than mine, and we know that it is, my next question is: Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture? You will not answer that question, will you? Because you can’t. You know that if you do, it will lead you down a path that you don’t want to go.


Also, I would like to point out that your example of the Sadducees not knowing Scripture, is yet another example, you yourself have provided, of the fact that we need an authentic interpreter to properly understand some parts of Scripture. You would agree that Jesus was an authentic interpreter of Scripture, wouldn’t you? And, you would further agree that the Sadducees needed Jesus to point out to them the meaning of Scriptures, wouldn’t you? In other words, every Scripture passage you’ve been referring to actually supports my case rather than yours. It seems that you need a little help from an authentic interpreter of Scripture.


James Swan


Martignoni’s apologetic reminded me of a section from A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) pp. 11-12. In speaking of the Reformation, the commentary states, “A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church, in order that each one should be able to make for himself the religion which suited his feelings.” It is pointed out how positive it has been for the Roman Church to keep the Bible out of the hands of individuals: “We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted.”


John Martignoni


I have a question for Mr. Swan: Do you believe each person should be able to make for himself the religion which best suits his feelings? Obviously you do since you apparently disagree with what the writer of this passage states. If so, how can you then say anything against Catholicism?


Furthermore, Mr. Swan, I would ask you if you actually understand what was said by the passage you quoted? I don’t think you do. I’ll explain it for you. First of all, the book is “dumb” because it does not speak. In other words, to gain information from the book, one cannot merely “listen” to it, one must “read’ it. One does not talk to a book, one reads a book.


Second, the book is “difficult”: a) If you cannot read – which was the vast majority of the population at the time of the Deformation; b) Because it has difficult passages; and c) For those who, while they might be able to read, may not be educated enough to understand the relation of the Old Testament to the New, hermeneutics, proper techniques of interpretation, and so on. Do you disagree, Mr. Swan, that the Bible is indeed “difficult” for all of these reasons? And remember the Sadducees that you referred to…wasn’t the Bible difficult for them – and they were very well educated people, weren’t they?


Also, Mr. Swan, do you disagree with the statement you quoted: “We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted.” I find it hard to believe that you would approve of reading that endangers the purity of Christian thought.


Furthermore, while Mr. Swan might verbally distance himself from that quote about the “dumb and difficult book,”in practice he agrees with it 100%. If I disagree with him on an interpretation of Scripture, what does he do? He tells me I’m reading it incorrectly. He tells me that I’m not reading in context. He tells me that I don’t have a proper understanding of the underlying Greek or Hebrew. He tells me that I’m not interpreting Scripture with Scripture. He tells me that my reading of the Bible will lead me straight to Hell. In other words, he wishes I wouldn’t read the Bible and come to a false conclusion – he would prefer that I not read the Bible and just listen to him. In other words, in practice, he agrees 100% with what the writer he quoted said.


James Swan


The irony of course, is that Roman Catholics are forced to excessive amounts of private interpretation because their infallible interpreter rarely does what it says it can do. It rarely, if ever, infallibly interprets Scripture. Sure, Rome makes dogmatic pronouncements. Up until something is dogmatically defined, Roman Catholics are free to interpret Biblical passages. Also, what Roman apologists rarely tell you is that the Biblical texts used to support a dogma haven’t been infallibly defined. That is, the dogma is infallible, but the proof texts supporting the dogma have not been infallibly interpreted. In essence, Martignoni’s Church can’t deliver the goods promised.


John Martignoni


Mr. Swan has once again missed the mark. Roman Catholics are never forced to privately interpret Scripture. Neither I, nor any Catholic apologist, has to rely upon our own private interpretations of Scripture to come up with the doctrines and dogmas we explain and defend. No Catholic apologist relies on his own private interpretation of Scripture when determining what is correct doctrine and dogma. However, every non-Catholic apologist who believes in Sola Scriptura, by definition, has to rely on their own private fallible interpretation of Scripture to determine what is correct doctrine and dogma.


The point, which Mr. Swan missed, is that under Mr. Swan’s theology, I am allowed to interpret Scripture on my own – in fact, I not only have the right to do so, but the duty and the obligation to do so. So, playing by his rules, I read Scripture and come to believe that Scripture means exactly what it says. For example, I read that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone,” and I believe it exactly as written. Or, I read Matt 9:6-8 and I believe exactly what it says: that the authority on earth to forgive sins was given to men. Mr. Swan, however, disagrees with my interpretations. The question is then, once again: Which interpretation, if any, is the correct interpretation? Who is there to decide disputes on the meaning of Scripture when two people – both of whom have the right, the authority, the duty, and the obligation to read Scripture, and both of whom pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance when reading Scripture – disagree as to what a particular verse of Scripture means? Who decides? Who is an authentic interpreter of Scripture?


I do not claim to be an authentic interpreter of Scripture. I do not try to persuade people to believe Scripture based upon my private interpretations. Every apologist who believes in the dogma of Sola Scriptura, however, IS trying to persuade others to believe according to his private interpretations. So, my question is a valid and legitimate question: Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture?


In other words, can I trust in you as an infallible interpreter…an infallible guide…in my interpretation of Scripture? Can I trust in you as the Ethiopian eunuch trusted in Philip? Can I trust in you as the Bereans trusted in Paul? Can I trust in you as the early Christians trusted in Peter? In other words, are your private interpretations of Scripture…which you rely upon for your beliefs on doctrine and dogma…are your private interpretations of Scripture infallible? And, if you claim to be an authentic interpreter of Scripture, then it is also a valid and legitimate question to ask who gave you that authority and what proof is there that I should believe your claim? If you want me to believe based upon your interpretation of Scripture rather than the interpretation that I have arrived at based on my own reading of Scripture, then tell me why? Are your interpretations infallible or not?


James Swan


Martignoni then suggests methods of doing apologetics, and it was simply too ironic not to mention:


“What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you’re discussing. Don’t hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there. If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out- I don’t see any problem, as long as you’re doing it in private correspondence.”


Irony of ironies: Martignoni doesn’t direct his readers to infallible Roman documents, he directs them to Catholic apologists and websites! He directs his readers to fallible interpreters of Roman Catholicism! He then states,


“I don’t know of any Catholic apologist who would mind if you quote them without citation- not for the purpose of self-aggrandizement or for profit- but for the purpose of saving a soul. After all, I don’t know of any Catholic apologists who are coming up with original stuff. These arguments have been out there for hundreds of years. I always tell people that if there is anything original in any of my stuff, it’s quite by accident.”


Well, he does have point. The new e-pologists have not reinvented the Catholic wheel. What should be obvious, is that Catholic apologists are not infallible, and they are interpreters of Roman Catholicism, and they are not always unified in their argumentation. The very avenue of certainty Martignoni directs his readers down is a dead end. Enough of these arguments that the Bible can’t be understood without Rome. Rome hasn’t really infallibly interpreted much of the Bible, and based on what it comes up with by dogmatic pronouncements, I’m going to stick with the work of exegesis and the Holy Spirit to confirm the message of Scripture.


John Martignoni


It’s the “irony of ironies” that I don’t direct my readers to “infallible Roman documents”? I thought Mr. Swan was concerned with context? If he is, he would know that I often refer my readers to materials that contain the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church…like the Bible, the Church Councils, the Catechism, etc. In fact, taken in context, the person I was responding to quite plainly stated that he is more into the Bible now because of what he has learned from me (Mr. Swan neglected to mention that part, though). Plus, the immediate context was not to simply give someone the teachings of the Church, but this person asked me how he could more quickly respond to folks who were questioning and attacking the Church’s teachings. So much for considering context…


Mr. Swan’s “irony of ironies” is an absurd point. Why would you want to refer someone to an “infallible Roman document” when they don’t accept the Church’s teachings on infallibility? If Mr. Swan was talking to an atheist, to someone who rejected the authority of the Bible, would he try to convince him that there is a God by saying, “The Bible says so?” Of course not. At least, not if he wants to make any headway with this person. So, to suggest that it’s the “irony of ironies” that I wouldn’t tell a novice Catholic apologist to simply quote from Church documents in order for him to more quickly formulate a response to the questions of non-Catholics is, well, not the smartest of things to say. Besides, the more seasoned Catholic apologists do cite the Bible in support of Catholic teachings, and cite various Church documents in order to explain Church teachings.


Mr. Swan blustered the following: “Enough of these arguments that the Bible can’t be understood without Rome. Rome hasn’t really infallibly interpreted much of the Bible, and based on what it comes up with by dogmatic pronouncements, I’m going to stick with the work of exegesis and the Holy Spirit to confirm the message of Scripture.


I would ask Mr. Swan this question: Have you ever taken a course on theology? If so, why? What can you learn about the Bible from a teacher in a school that you can’t learn from “God’s Spirit illuminating and giving understanding” to you while reading the Bible on your own? That is actually the “irony of ironies.” There are all these folks who say that we should go by the Bible alone, and who say that everyone should simply read the Bible for themselves, and that with the illumination and understanding given by the Holy Spirit they will be able to decide on doctrine and dogma for themselves without answering to any authority other than themselves. Yet, these same folks who are “guided” by the Holy Spirit have to take classes to learn about the Bible. How ironic is that?!


Furthermore, they have to take classes to learn things like Greek and Hebrew. Doesn’t the Holy Spirit know Greek and Hebrew? Why do they have to take classes in these subjects if they’re being guided by the Holy Spirit? And, in these Scripture classes they take, do they read books other than the Bible? You bet they do! But isn’t that ironic?! Folks who believe in going by the Bible alone, have to read books other than the Bible to learn about the Bible! Irony of ironies!!! And, they have to learn it from human beings…not from the Holy Spirit! Irony of ironies, indeed!


In Conclusion


Hope you enjoyed this issue. As always, comments are welcomed and all will be read. Hope you have a great week!


How to be added to, or removed from, the list


If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.


$RemovalHTML$

Apologetics for the Masses