Apologetics for the Masses #408: Taking on Dr. James White (Part 2)

Social Media - Please Share This Newsletter On...

Please click one or more of these links to share this newsletter with folks on the various social media platforms you frequent...thanks!

Topic

Responding to an email from a James White fan

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

General Comments

Hey folks,

I recently did an interview with the Rome Boys for their podcast. If you're not familiar with them, you might want to check them out...good group of guys and they get some really good guests on there - I think you'll like them. We talked about my Blue Collar Apologetics book. You can find my interview with them here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOPiLzBG0AI&t=233s

Introduction

After I sent out my newsletter a couple of weeks ago, in which I took apart some of Dr. James White's arguments about Peter and the Papacy from his book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, I received an email from a devotee' of Dr. White who took me to task for what I had said. This person's name is Cary L. Cary's email to me was the first of a series of emails that went back and forth between us. I am going to put that exchange here in this newsletter because it will serve as a good follow up to the one on Dr. White.

The pattern will be: Email from Cary, my response, then my comments on my response, then another email from Cary, and so on. I hope you enjoy...

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Cary L.

I find it interesting that after mocking Dr. White's scholarly credentials, at the end of the day, all you have is the infallibility of Rome doctrine to support Peter as the first pope. You are right, Dr. White is fallible, as is any other human institution, including Rome. Here, Rome is adding to Scripture what is not there from a plain reading of the text, and Revelation has a stern warning about those who add or take away from the inspired word of God.

Cary L.
Protestant

John Martignoni

Oh, you have it quite wrong. I am not "mocking" Dr. White's academic credentials, they are quite impressive. And that is crucial to the point I am making. I am highlighting the fact that when it comes to interpreting the Bible, his impressive credentials give his interpretations of the Bible not one iota more of authority than that of any one else who reads the Bible, even those who have never had a single course of Theology in their lives, and including each and every Catholic whom he believes to be headed to Hell. That's got to be pretty frustrating for him, don't you think?

And, I find it rather interesting that while, on the one hand, you're saying everyone is fallible; yet, on the other hand, you appear to be infallibly declaring that "Rome" has added to Scripture. So, let me ask you: Could you be wrong about Rome adding to Scripture, or is that an infallible statement on your part?

Here's the thing, Cary, under your theological system, where there exists no person or no institution that can infallibly decide what is true and what is false when it comes to matters of faith and/or morals, there is no way you can have absolute assurance of anything you believe being true, can you? No way of knowing the truth. Yet, Jesus says, "Know the truth and the truth will set make you free."

So, let me leave you with this question: For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? Yes or no?

In Christ,

John Martignoni

Comments/Strategy

1st strategy is to go immediately to the question of authority. He thinks I'm "mocking" Dr. White's credentials but, as I said, I'm not. I emphasized them - by calling him a "Scripture scholar extraordinaire" (which he is by Protestant standards) - because, under Protestant theology, as impressive as his, or anyone else's, scholarly background might be, his credentials mean absolutely nothing when it comes to having an authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Zero, zip, nada! In Protestantism, the interpretation of any person who can read the Bible is just as valid, just as authoritative, as the interpretation of any other person who reads the Bible.

So, my interpretations of the Bible, and your interpretations of the Bible, are just as valid and just as authoritative as Dr. James White's - Scripture scholar extraordinaire - interpretations. Use their theology against them, folks! No person or institution is infallible Cary L. says. When you think about that, what he is really saying - even though he doesn't realize it - is that there is no way to know for sure what is or is not true when it comes to the Christian faith and the Bible. Because without an infallible person or institution, then every single interpretation of the Bible done by anyone anywhere, carries with it the possibility of being wrong. There can be no such thing as "absolute assurance" of anything in Protestantism.

2nd strategy: Ask questions. Go on the offensive. "Could you be wrong about Rome adding to Scripture, or is that an infallible statement on your part?" Either he has to admit that he could be wrong, since he is fallible, or he has to claim infallibility. Since he has already stated that no one is infallible, then the only honest option he is left with is to claim that he could be wrong about "Rome adding to Scripture". Let's see if he does...

Another question, one of my favorites: "For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? Yes or no?" If he says the Bible, he contradicts the Bible. If he says the Church, then he agrees with the Bible (1 Tim 3:15), but he now opens himself up to the questions: "So, if the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, as the Bible says, then why do you go by the Bible alone?" And, "Which church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and how does it fulfill its role as pillar and ground of the truth?"

Learn to ask questions like these, folks...it will enable you to plant seeds. Plus, it makes these conversations a whole lot more enjoyable.

Cary L.

John,

Thank you for responding. It has been awhile since I have read through one your newsletters, this one piqued my interest as I am very familiar with Dr. White and his excellent work that exposes the apostate Roman Catholic Church.

To respond, "under your theological system, where there exists no person or no institution that can infallibly decide what is true and what is false when it comes to matters of faith and/or morals, there is no way you can have absolute assurance of anything you believe being true, can you?" Respectfully, this begs the question whether there is any Scriptural intent for such a person or institution to exist. The Holy Spirit provides the eyes to see and the ears to hear to each and every genuine believer in Christ. "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you." (Jn 14:16–17) "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." (Jn 14:26)

So, you have the third person of the Trinity as the communicator of Truth to the believer. God, in his mercy and grace, also gives us pastors, elders, teachers and other believers, who also possess the Holy Spirit, to help us understand God's Word. The only infallible interpreter of Scripture for the Christian, however, is the Holy Spirit. I realize that can make one feel insecure since one must trust and believe that God will lead those whom He has chosen for salvation in ALL truth rather a person or institution that has been falsely labeled as "infallible," but I will accept by faith that the Triune God is enough for my surety, not any earthly person or institution, such as the Pope, Rome, John Calvin, Martin Luther, my pastor, my Sunday School teacher, or a Protestant apologist.

Best regards,

Cary. L.

John Martignoni

Cary,

So, you completely avoided the questions I asked and the arguments I made. A perfect example of the "Wave of the Hand" style of argumentation that I am oh so familiar with in dealing with oh so many Protestant apologists. So, I am going to bring up those same questions/arguments again, along with a few others that are based on your response. Here is my guarantee to you: You will not be able to give logically consistent answers to these questions because you built your argument on contradictory assumptions. And these assumptions lead to logical inconsistencies that your theological system flat out ignores because it simply cannot handle them.

Now, let's try this again:

1) For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? Yes or no? Real easy question to answer, Cary.

Answer these questions for me if you will. Actually, if you dare make the attempt. Because, in case you haven't realized it from these questions, the logical inconsistency that is imbedded in your previous response is this: If the infallible Holy Spirit is guiding individual Christians in their interpretations of Scripture, then why is it that, as you claim, "there exists no person or no institution that can infallibly decide what is true and what is false when it comes to matters of faith and/or morals?" Wouldn't someone guided by the infallible Holy Spirit be infallible in their interpretations? Is the Holy Spirit guiding them into error, or are they not properly understanding the promptings of the Holy Spirit?

And there is another statement in your response that has an inconsistency imbedded in it. If no person or institution is infallible, then how can you claim "God will lead those whom He has chosen for salvation into ALL truth"? If they have been led into "ALL truth," then wouldn't that make them infallible in their interpretations of Scripture?

One last question: Do you and Dr. James White believe exactly the same things in everything regarding Christian faith and morals?

In Christ,

John Martignoni

Comments/Strategy

Do you catch what he said? Essentially, he is saying that he doesn't put his trust for his salvation in any human person or institution - not the Pope, Rome, Calvin, Luther, his pastor, his Sunday school teacher, or any Protestant apologist (such as Dr. James White). It's just him and his Bible with the Holy Spirit guiding him. That is amazing! And, it is going to result in him being caught in yet another contradiction, beyond the ones I've already pointed out to him, as we'll see when we get further into this discussion. And, truth be told, he is actually putting his trust for his salvation entirely in his private, fallible interpretations of the Bible and he is hoping that the Holy Spirit is guiding him. So, in essence, he is agreeing with me because he is saying that no one should trust their salvation to any human being or human institution. Which means, my interpretation of Scripture, that I believe the Holy Spirit is leading me to, carries the exact same validity and authority as everyone else's interpretations.

Furthermore, he completely avoided answering any of my questions. He said, "To respond...," and then didn't respond to my actual argument. I wasn't arguing as to whether or not there is "Scriptural intent" regarding infallibility, I was making the argument that without infallibility, there is no way of knowing for sure the truth in matters of faith and morals. It just boils down to one person's fallible opinion vs. another person's fallible opinion. He avoided tackling that directly, but, indirectly, and undoubtedly inadvertently, his answer confirmed my contention. Nonetheless, I called him out for not directly answering the questions and then repeated those questions, and added 2 or 3 new ones based on what he said in his 1st response.

And, I challenged him to answer my questions in a logically and scripturally consistent manner. And I even showed my hand as it were and told him exactly where I was going with my questions. I showed him the the logical and scriptural trap into which his theology leads him as directly as the crow flies. And he still won't be able to do anything to avoid stepping into that trap - other than to ignore it and pretend it isn't there.

I have yet to have a Protestant answer me - and I have asked a number of times - as to how one can be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture, yet still be fallible in their interpretation of Scripture? It's a theological, and logical, conundrum that all Protestants have given their theology - the infallible Holy Spirit guides people into fallible interpretations of Scripture? Really?! Sorry, but that cannot happen. Either, the Holy Spirit is not infallible, or the people who think they're being guided by the Holy Spirit really aren't being guided by the Holy Spirit. It has to be one or the other.

One other thing to note here, even though I did not include it in my response to him - although I might at some point in the future - is that in the passage that he cites - John 14:26 - Jesus is speaking directly to the Apostles, not to every Christian who will ever live, when He says the Holy Spirit will, "teach you all things". He is not speaking to all Christians everywhere, because all Christians everywhere were not "still with" Jesus (v. 25), nor did Jesus speak to them in person such that the Holy Spirit could bring to their "remembrance all that [Jesus] said to [them]," (v. 26). So one cannot properly interpret John 14:26 as meaning that the Holy Spirit will individually teach each and every Christian "all things".

Cary L.

Mr. Martignoni,

Thank you for the responses. I believe in a dialogue, so I will not be answering your questions when you are already "showing your hand" that you will not accept any answer I provide, but will characterize it as logically inconsistent, which is a monologue.

I am not interested in your monologues, if I were, I would purchase one of your books. I appreciate your time. Your concept of infallibility has indeed proven the overarching point..."Rome said it, I believe it, that's good enough for me." It is circular reasoning, in which I will not engage.

Take care,

Cary L.

John Martignoni
Cary,

I am giving you my arguments. If you truly "believe in dialogue," then you will give me yours in response. I have proven myself over and over again with Protestant apologists that I read everything they send me, carefully consider it, and give them the respect and courtesy of responding directly to their arguments and questions. As I have done with you.

Will you give me the respect and courtesy in reply...yes or no?

If I'm to be honest, it seems as if you have read my questions, decided you could not provide logically consistent answers, and have decided to instead cut and run.

I am hoping that's not true, but that has been my experience with so many of you who infallibly declare the Catholic Church to be wrong, and then when challenged to logically and scripturally defend your statements, it seems you take offense at someone daring to challenge you. You are the one apparently not interested in dialogue. You want to preach. You want to condemn. You want to judge. But you do not want to listen to and even consider any alternatives.

In Christ,

John Martignoni

Comments/Strategy

Okay, this is when I go into full, "Take no prisoners," mode. What a pathetic response. First, he attacks both me and the Catholic Church..."Rome," as he derogatorily puts it . I didn't ask him to sign up for my newsletter, nor did I request comment from him. But, when I give him the courtesy of taking the time to respond directly to what he wrote, what does he do? He goes into "Waive of the Hand" argument mode - i.e., he ignores my direct arguments and questions and continues to attack the "apostate Roman Catholic Church," and attacks me again as being "insecure".

So, I take the time to respond again, repeating my initial questions and asking a couple of new ones based on his previous response, and telling him exactly where I am going with my arguments so that he can, if possible, find good counter arguments, and what does he do? He looks in the mirror and accuses me of what he sees there - that I'm refusing to dialogue and that I will not "accept any answer" he provides and accuses me of "circular reasoning". Yet, he is the one who will not answer questions or directly address arguments and he is the one who, as I pointed out to him, has inherent contradictions in the very foundation of his theology.

Sorry, but I don't put up with that kind of garbage. So, I just gave back to him what he was giving to me. And, what do you think happened?

Cary L.

John,

I have stated my reason for not continuing the discussion. I have provided the reason, so please do not slander me with uncharitable accusations of my motives for ending the discussion at this point.

Respectfully,

Cary L.

John Martignoni

Cary,

Uncharitable accusations, eh? Is it "uncharitable" if it's true? By the way, it's okay for you to make "uncharitable accusations" about me, but how dare someone - and a poor ignorant unsaved Catholic of all people - say something to you that maybe strikes a little too close to home for comfort, huh?

Yes, I have decided your argument, such as it was, was logically inconsistent. But, here is where I differ from you...I gave my reasons why I believe it so. I give you the respect of actually replying directly to what you have actually argued and/or asked about. You do no such thing. I didn't just waive my hand and dismiss your arguments outright, as you have done with mine. I back up what I say with reasons for why I said it. You, however, do not.

You're just looking for a way to get out of this because it took you probably all of 60 seconds to realize that you had been backed into a logical corner from which you have little chance of escape. And, instead of either presenting arguments for why what you said is not logically inconsistent, or, having the Christian humility to admit that your argument was filled with contradictions, you have decided instead to take the same path as Sir Robin in Monty Python and the Holy Grail - "Brave Sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away away. When danger reared it's ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled."

Well, Sir Robin, with this act you have lost any right to say anything to me about Catholicism, or anything I might write about anything, in the future. So, please, either respond to these arguments or forever hold your peace.

One thing I do hope, though, I hope the utter inability of your theology to give you a response to my arguments, might plant a seed deep within you that the reason it cannot do so, is because it is a bankrupt theology that is built on the shifting sand...

In Christ,

John Martignoni

Comments/Strategy

He accused me of slander and of making "uncharitable accusations" because I called him out for being what he was being - a coward, and a hypocrite, although I did not use those words directly. It always astounds me when people feel it's okay to say anything they want about me and/or my Church, but heaven forbid that I turn around and say something about them and their beliefs.

Here's the thing, don't come at me with attacks on my church and on me and try and put me on the defensive, then, when I come back at you with some legitimate questions and rational arguments - that are based on your own words - all of a sudden you turn and run using some flimsy excuse about how I have already made up my mind, or any such similar lame excuse. As if he hasn't already made up his mind?! Nope, that is not acceptable behavior and I will go after you every time if you try to do that. If I give you the respect and courtesy of listening to you preach, by golly I am going to demand that you do the same for me!

So, I turned up the heat a little bit more and pulled out the brave Sir Robin. Which prompted a response. He finally replied to the questions I asked him.

Cary L.

1) For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? Yes or no? Real easy question to answer, Cary. No, it is the "church of the living God," which is comprised of all elect believers of all time.

2) When you say that "Rome has added to Scripture," could you be wrong about that since you have admitted that you are fallible in your interpretation of Scripture, or is that an infallible statement on your part? It is my Scripturally formed opinion, just as something you might say or type from the Bible. The only ultimate authority capable of being infallible is God, so to discredit an opinion, mine, yours, a Protestant, the pope, the Roman church, 1st Baptist anywhere, based on a fallible/infallible standard is a red herring.

3) Since I pray to the Holy Spirit before reading Scripture, does Dr. White's interpretation of Scripture, or yours for that matter, have more authority than my interpretation of Scripture? Yes or no? No individual interpretation of Scripture is more authoritative than another's. Your praying to the Holy Spirit before reading Scripture does not provide assurance that you will then interpret Scripture accurately. One could pray to the Holy Spirit and still write the Book of Mormon. However, he who has eyes to see, let him see. He has ears to hear, let him hear. God will lead His elect children into all truth. But how do we know who is interpreting Scripture properly? We must have an authority to rely on, right? God equipping each and every saint to know the truth and be set free, the priesthood of the believer, the FINISHED work of Christ is not enough. We must have an infallible earthly authority because FALLIBLE men can never attain to the truth, right? And that is the Roman Church and the Bishop of Rome, voila!

4) If the infallible Holy Spirit is guiding individual Christians in their interpretation of Scripture, then why do you claim that there are no Christians who can infallibly interpret Scripture? Wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture? The nature of a redeemed man is still the nature of a man, and a man remains in human form, which is finite and not all-knowing. A man has potential to properly interpret Scripture, but man is still limited by retaining his human nature, which includes the influence of the flesh that can cause Spirit-filled individuals to sin and err in understanding the kingdom of God. There is no scriptural basis supporting God's anointing "infallible Christians" or an "infallible Church." In fact, Scripture teaches the opposite, to wit, the Corinthian church, the 7 churches of Revelations, Paul's struggles with the flesh...

5) Are there Christians who are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations of Scripture, who have belief systems that are not exactly the same? I.e., while they agree on the vast majority of Christian doctrine and practice, they nonetheless differ on at least one, possibly more, of the doctrinal beliefs they hold? Yes, God will purify His church, the Bride of Christ. It is a future event, a part of the new heavens, the new earth, the new Jerusalem Yes, God loves variety and endures it, He is longsuffering, patient, slow to anger. There will come a day when all things become new (see above comments)

Now, sir, I think I gave reasoned responses, which I know you will disagree with most, if not every word I responded with. I also think that l have provided an answer that is given with gentleness and respect, as we are told by the Apostle Peter to give answers for the hope that lies within us. I do not think that even in my initial response, I came at you, yet because I did not wish to further engage, you came at me with a very terse and aggressive response that was not representative of Christian love, though you sign your name "In Christ."

Fallibly yours,

Cary L.

John Martignoni

I will leave my response to his answers to my questions for the next newsletter. In the meantime, why don't you think about how you would respond to what he has said. Do you see holes in his answers? Inconsistencies in what he has said? I'll give you a hint: There are inconsistencies and holes in each of the answers he gave and also between the answers he gave - they contradict one another.

Closing Comments

I hope all of you are staying healthy. Please pray for my household - my wife has a cold and I'm trying to catch it - we keep all of you in our prayers. 'Til next time...

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!