Apologetics for the Masses #480 - A Protestant Replies to My Blue Collar Apologetics Book (Chapter 4)

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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

Topic

A Protestant - Tom ExCatholic4Christ - is doing a 42-part rebuttal to my Blue Collar Apologetics Book, one part for each chapter of the book. This is my response to his "rebuttal" of Chapter 4.

Introduction

As noted in previous newsletters, there is a Protestant out there, his name is Tom, who has a website called: ExCatholic4Christ.wordpress.com. He is doing a 42-part series on my book - A Blue Collar Answer to Protestantism (Catholic Questions Protestants Can't Answer). He is taking one chapter per week and giving a "rebuttal" of that chapter. Well, that's what he calls it anyway. Although, for something to actually be a rebuttal, I think it needs to maybe, just possibly, rebut the arguments that were actually made. Anyway, I've been rebutting his "rebuttals" in the last few newsletters, and I'm going to do one more - Chapter 4 - before moving on from Tom.

Here's the original post for his "rebuttal" of Chapter 4: A Blue Collar Answer to Protestantism - Chapter 4 Rebuttal

As I have in the last 3 newsletters, I'll 1st put his summation of my "argument" from the chapter in my book, respond to that, and then I'll give his "rebuttal," with my comments interspersed between his. His comments will be in italics.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Tom ExCatholic4Christ
Protestant Problem #4: There is No Protestant Catechism (Part 1)

This week, Martignoni continues his “Problems with Protestantism” section with “problem” #4, There is No Protestant Catechism (Part 1). Martignoni proposes that Protestantism’s lack of an official catechism is evidence of its lack of authority, while the Roman Catholic church’s possession of an official catechism demonstrates its authority.

Martignoni’s Argument

States Martignoni, “The nonexistence of a Catechism of the Protestant Church is a significant issue for Protestants because it highlights the fact that there is not one, official, authoritative set of beliefs in Protestantism.”

Martignoni begins his argument by citing 1 Timothy 1:3 as his foundational proof-text: “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine.”

He develops his case as follows:

A. There are many different Protestant denominations and non-denominational churches and they disagree on various doctrines. There is no central authority and no officially published catechism to which all Protestants must recognize.

B. Because of the doctrinal differences existing between the various Protestant sects, no Protestant denomination or church can claim to be teaching genuine and authoritative doctrine as cited in 1 Timothy 1:3.

C. However, because the Roman Catholic church is under the jurisdiction of its magisterium (the teaching office of the pope in conjunction with his bishops) with its doctrinal solidity manifested in the Catholic catechism, the RCC and only the RCC is able to claim the authority referred to in 1 Timothy 1:3.

Martignoni attempts to preclude Protestant rebuttals by arguing 1) Protestants claim Sola scriptura, Scripture alone, as their authority, but they differ on their interpretation of Scripture, and 2) Protestants claim to agree on essential doctrines and perhaps differ on non-essentials, but there is no Protestant magisterial authority to define what those essentials are.

John Martignoni
As he has done previously, Tom ExCatholic4Christ gets it partly right in his summary of the "Problem With Protestantism" that I highlight in this particular chapter (Chapter 4) of my book; however, he leaves out some very crucial arguments that I make, as I will mention below, and, once again, he says that I said things that I did not say. For example, in his point "B" above, he claims that I argued: "no Protestant denomination or church can claim to be teaching genuine and authoritative doctrine as cited in 1 Timothy 1:3." Nowhere in Chapter 4 of the book did I say such a thing. The whole focus of the chapter was on the fact that, throughout Protestantism, different doctrines are taught all over the place. From the rising of the sun to its setting, different doctrines are taught. I never said that "no Protestant denomination or church" could teach genuine and authoritative doctrine. Most, if not all, of them do indeed teach genuine and authoritative doctrine. Any doctrine of the Catholic Church they have not rejected and still teach is a genuine and authoritative doctrine. So, no, I never said what he is saying I said.

The same holds true for his point "C" above - never in Chapter 4 of my book did I make a positive claim about the Catholic Church being the only church able to "claim the authority referred to in 1 Tim 1:3." Again, I was not making positive arguments about the Catholic Church, I was making negative arguments about Protestantism.

Finally, regarding the two arguments of mine that he mentioned in his last paragraph above - about Protestants having different interpretations of Scripture and having no authority within Protestantism that can define what an "essential" doctrine is - he made, as you will see below, absolutely no attempt, whatsoever, to "rebut" those arguments. This whole "rebuttal" of his, once again, turns out not to be a rebuttal of arguments I actually made against Protestantism; rather, he turns it into a rebuttal of arguments for the Catholic Church that I nowhere mentioned in the chapter.

Essentially, his "rebuttal" is yet another classic "bait and switch". When arguing/debating/discussing/dialoguing with Protestants, you need to be aware of them trying to do this same thing with you. You make a point about Protestantism and, instead of a direct response to what you've said, they start attacking some aspect of Catholic teaching. So, instead of them having to defend what it is they believe and why they believe it, they try to turn it around and make you defend what it is you believe and why you believe it. They try to throw you off your line of attack. Why? Because they have no rational, logically consistent, nor scripturally consistent arguments for what they believe. If a Protestant has some argument against a particular Catholic teaching, I'm more than happy to address that. But first, they need to respond to the argument I've made against Protestant teaching. I'm not going to let them distract me from the arguments I've made, or the questions I've asked, about Protestantism. Don't let them distract you, either.

Oh, one more thing - notice that when he quoted 1 Tim 1:3, he underlined two words in that verse: "different doctrine". He did not, however, underline the word "any". Very deliberate decision on his part, because in Chapter 4 of the book, I have a very pointed and pivotal argument centered on that very word, which I'll lay out below, and which he completely ignores.

Tom ExCatholic4Christ

My Rebuttal

Evangelical Protestants correctly recognize God’s Holy Word, the Bible, as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. While man-authored Protestant confessions, catechisms, and statements of belief can be helpful, they do not replace Scripture. Evangelicals hold to the perspicuity of the Bible, the belief that Scripture is clear in all essential matters of faith. Certainly the Good News! Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone is THE essential red thread that runs through the entire Bible, from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 22:17. It is self-evident that nothing is more essential than the Gospel. Evangelicals certainly do disagree on non-essential, secondary doctrines, but we can rejoice in our unity in salvation in Jesus Christ by faith alone.

John Martignoni
"Evangelical Protestants correctly recognize God’s Holy Word, the Bible, as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice." How can Tom ExCatholic4Christ be sure that Evangelical Protestants are "correctly" recognizing the Bible as what he says it is? Does the Bible say it is what he says it is? No, it doesn't. Which means, then, Evangelical Protestants must be relying upon some fallible source of authority outside of the Bible for their belief that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority. But, since this extra-biblical source of authority is necessarily a fallible source of authority (according to Protestant belief), then when it proclaims the Bible as the "sole infallible source of authority," well, being fallible, that means it could be wrong. And therein lies the logical inconsistency that is the trap door through which all of Protestantism falls.

Again, though, since the Bible doesn't say it is the "sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice," then who, or what, is the extra-biblical authority that Protestantism relies upon for this belief? Who? I doubt Tom ExCatholic4Christ would be able to provide an answer to that question - at least, not one that makes any kind of sense.

"Evangelicals hold to the perspicuity of the Bible, the belief that Scripture is clear in all essential matters of faith." Where does the Bible say that it is clear in all "essential matters of faith"? Actually, the Bible is quite clear that it isn't always clear in essential matters of faith. For example, 2 Peter 3:16 tells us that there are some things in Paul's letters that are "hard to understand". Well, of course, Tom ExCatholic4Christ would say that Peter is referring to the non-essential matters of faith in Paul's letters, right? Well, two problems with that:

1) These things in Paul's letters that are hard to understand, and that are being "twisted" by certain folks...well, that's leading to the "destruction" of those folks. Or, one might say, their damnation. Is that what happens when you get the "non-essential" things wrong...it causes your destruction? Nope. So these things in Paul's letters that are hard to understand must be...must be!...referring to "essential" matters. So much for the perspicuity of Scripture in "all essential matters of faith."

2) If you say there are things in Paul's letters, or any part of Scripture for that matter, that are "non-essential", then what you are saying is that there are non-essential parts of Scripture. That there are non-essential parts of the Word of God. Yet, that very same Word of God tells us that man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). Maybe Matt 4:4 is one of those "non-essential" parts of the Word of God.

Furthermore, where does the Bible say that "THE essential red thread" that runs throughout the Bible is "the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone"? It doesn't. And I've always wondered about faith alone in "Jesus Christ alone". So...we don't have to have faith in God the Father? Or God the Holy Spirit? I mean...alone means alone, right?

Finally, when he says, "Evangelicals certainly do disagree on non-essential, secondary doctrines," he makes the point that I make in Chapter 4 - different Protestants teach different doctrines. That's why they can't have a Protestant Catechism. Does he address my argument about who is it, exactly, that gets to decide which doctrines are essential vs. which ones are non-essential? No. Does he address the point I make in the book regarding the fact that 1 Tim 1:3 states, very clearly and unequivocally, that Paul is telling Timothy to instruct folks not to teach ANY different doctrine? "Any," as in none! No. Paul didn't say to Timothy, "...charge certain persons not to teach any different essential doctrine, but it's okay to teach different non-essential doctrine." Does Tom ExCatholic4Christ rebut my arguments on that matter. No! He doesn't go anywhere near them.

Folks, you need to keep 1 Tim 1:3 in the forefront of your mind when talking with Protestants. Ask them if they think it's okay to disagree on "non-essential" doctrines as long as you agree on the "essential" doctrines. If they say, "Yes," then hit them with 1 Tim 1:3 which says not to teach ANY different doctrine and ask them how they reconcile that with this whole essential vs. non-essential garbage.

Tom ExCatholic4Christ

In contrast, the Roman Catholic church declares its magisterium and alleged sacred oral traditions are on equal par with Scripture. For the RCC, in all cases where the magisterium and traditions are not in agreement with Scripture, it’s Scripture that is overridden. The Roman Catholic Catechism is filled with traditions/doctrines that can’t be found in the Bible and are antithetical to Biblical doctrine. The most offensive and dangerous teaching is Rome’s false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit.

John Martignoni
He starts out here with a flat out lie. Nowhere does the Catholic Church declare that the Magisterium is on "equal par" with Scripture. Furthermore, there is not a single place...not one...where the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition are "not in agreement" with Scripture. And, never is Scripture "overridden", at least, not by Catholics. No, that only happens within Protestantism where they get to essentially chuck out all of the "non-essential" Scripture and everyone gets to decide for themselves what each and every verse of Scripture means.

Also, the Roman Catholic Catechism is not "filled with traditions/doctrines that can't be found in the Bible." It is filled with traditions/doctrines that can't be found in Tom ExCatholic4Christ's private, fallible interpretation of the Bible. Or, Tom ExCatholic4Christ has flawed, or deliberately distorted, interpretations of the doctrines/doctrines of the Catholic Church that can't be found in the Bible. But, those are his version of Catholic teaching, not actual Catholic teaching.

"The most offensive and dangerous teaching is Rome’s false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit." So, he disagrees with Catholic teaching that we are saved by God's grace which was merited for us by Jesus Christ through His death and Resurrection? Wow!

Tom ExCatholic4Christ

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is hardly the Rock of Gibraltar that Marignone implies. It’s been subject to the whims of the ever-changing RC church. In a Catholic article tracing the history of the Catholic catechism, 13 different published catechisms are cited, beginning with the catechism promulgated by the Council of Trent in 1566. Why so many? Why does the RCC keep revising its catechism? In 1992, pope John Paul II promulgated yet another version. The 1566 Trent catechism had declared that only Catholics could be saved (see here), but the 1992 catechism reflects Vatican II’s liberal reforms and states that all non-Catholic religionists can also possibly merit Heaven (CCC paras 846-848). Which is right? The new catechism holds out the hope of Heaven for unbaptized babies (CCC 1261), contradicting the 1885 Baltimore catechism, which relegated unbaptized infants to Limbo. In 2016, pope Francis nullified CCC 2384 of JPII’s catechism by lifting the ban on sacraments for remarried divorcees with his Amoris Laetitia encyclical. In 2018, Francis officially revised the catechism to read that capital punishment is inadmissible in all cases. With the 2023 Fiducia Supplicans declaration, pope Francis ipso facto neutralized CCC 2357 by authorizing priestly blessings of same-sex unions. The greatest challenge to the alleged authority of Martignoni’s vaunted catechism in the last decade has turned out to be Martignoni’s pope!

John Martignoni
Here, his ignorance of Catholic teaching is on full display. Not only does he apparently not understand (or he is deliberately distorting) what the Church teaches, but he's also getting a number of his facts wrong. For example, he states that Fiducia Supplicans authorized priestly blessings of same-sex unions. It did not. In fact, Pope Francis directly stated the other day that it did not do so. Nor did Francis "lift the ban" on "sacraments [i.e. Communion] for remarried divorcees [those without annulments]". Regardless, notice what he's doing - he is deflecting from my arguments about Protestantism. He's not addressing them...at all! He's trying to distract from my arguments against Protestantism by attacking Catholicism. This is not a rebuttal, it is an attack.

Tom ExCatholic4Christ
We could go into much more detail regarding the historical doctrinal disagreements and fierce sectarianism within the Roman Catholic church. Suffice to say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is hardly the unassailable Rock of Gibraltar presented by Montignone, both because of its heretical contents and because of its evolving, contradictory history.

John Martignoni

Again, avoidance of the arguments I make, and the questions I ask, in my book. He has no direct response to them.

Tom ExCatholic4Christ
Praise God for the infallible and unassailable Word of God, the sole authority for faith and practice for evangelical Protestants. The absence of a comprehensive Protestant catechism is not a problem for evangelicals. We have God’s Word and the essential doctrine of the Gospel of grace.

John Martignoni
And, once again, what authority does he rely upon to know that the Bible is the "infallible and unassailable Word of God"? Well, we don't know for sure, but we know it's not the infallible Word of God he relies on for that, because nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the "infallible and unassailable Word of God".

And, of course "the absence of a comprehensive Protestant catechism is not a problem for evangelicals", because logical and doctrinal and scriptural consistency is not a requirement in their system of theology. Besides, we all know that, in 1 Tim 1:3, the word "any" - as in tell folks not to teach any different doctrine - doesn't really mean "any" different doctrine, it means any different "essential" doctrine. Teaching different "non-essential" doctrine is perfectly fine. Silly Catholics...

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week! Please keep the Bible Christian Society in your prayers. We keep you and yours in ours!

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:

https://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!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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