Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #86

In Issue #84, I mentioned an “Opinion Poll” that Dr. Joe Mizzi, former Catholic turned anti-Catholic, had sent out to a number of you. This is what he asked:

According to the Bible, whose faith is accounted for righteousness?

* He who does not work but believes

* He who works and believes

The answer, from the Bible (Romans 4:4-5) is the former – he who does not work but believes has his faith accounted for righteousness. What Dr. Mizzi was trying to do, was to “prove,” by focusing on one particular verse of the Bible, without any context, that the Catholic belief that works are indeed part of the process of salvation is at odds with what the Bible says. “See,” Dr. Mizzi would say, “the Bible teaches that those who do not work will have their faith reckoned as righteousness, but you Catholics believe that it is your works that are reckoned as righteousness. So, the Catholic Faith is contrary to the Bible.”

And, I guess he succeeds in what he was trying to do if we overlook the fact that, in context, Romans 4 is referring to works of the law under the Old Testament; and if we overlook the fact that he has misrepresented the Catholic teaching regarding works and salvation (AGAIN!); and if we overlook the fact that the Bible tells us time and time and time again about the role of works in salvation. So, yes, if we overlook all those things…Joe succeeds in what he set out to do.

In response to Dr. Mizzi’s “Opinion Poll,” I put out my own “Opinion Poll” that many of you sent to Dr. Mizzi, in which, using Joe’s own methodology, I “proved” that the Bible is at odds with Joe’s belief of salvation by faith alone. The questions I asked were:

1) According to the Bible, God renders eternal life to every man according to what?

a) His works

b) His faith alone

2) According to the Bible, a man is justified by?

a) Works

b) Faith alone

The answer to each of these questions is (a) – see Romans 2:6-7 and James 2:24.

Below is Dr. Joe Mizzi’s response to my Opinion Poll. His response appears first in its entirety, and then I repeat it with my comments interspersed amongst his.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Dear friends,

Thanks for sending the two questions as suggested by John Martignoni. When understood in the context of Romans 2:6-8 and James 2:24, the answer to both is (a).

I should add that these scriptures are in perfect agreement with the historic Protestant teaching on salvation, just in case John did not tell you.

Unfortunately John did not discuss Paul’s statement in Romans 4. Romans 4:5 is one of the most glorious expressions on gratuitous justification anywhere in Scripture. Ask John to dedicate a few newsletters to expound, proclaim and celebrate the glorious truth that “to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.”

This issue is not Joe Mizzi and his dishonesty. The crucial question is how people like you and me, sinners by nature and practice, can be accounted righteous by God.

I pray that God will richly bless you in Christ,

Sincerely,

Joe

[The following is from a related email Dr. Mizzi sent to a subscriber:]

Domenic, forget about civilization for a moment - think about your soul. So you want to be justified by grace and by works. You’re contradicting yourself. If it is by grace, it cannot be by works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

I answer: have you ever been taught by that church, that to him who does not work but believes in God, such faith will be accounted as righteousness.

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

Dr. Mizzi

Dear friends,

Thanks for sending the two questions as suggested by John Martignoni. When understood in the context of Romans 2:6-8 and James 2:24, the answer to both is (a).

My Comments: In other words, Joe realized he was trapped by his own methodology, and had to admit that the Bible teaches, in more than one place, that works have a role to play in salvation and that we are not saved by “faith alone,” as he believes. He tries to backtrack by claiming that “in context,” these passages support the “historical Protestant teaching,” but, in context, they do nothing of the sort, as I will show in a moment by asking Joe one simple question.

The difference between the Catholic and Dr. Joe Mizzi, is that the Catholic does not “trump” one verse of the Bible with another verse of the Bible, but looks at all of them as an integrated whole. Joe, peering through some very thick scales, refuses to admit what the Bible clearly teaches about works playing a role in one’s salvation.

Dr. Mizzi

I should add that these scriptures are in perfect agreement with the historic Protestant teaching on salvation, just in case John did not tell you.

My Comments: You know what, I’ll bet that’s why Martin Luther referred to the Book of James as an “epistle of straw” – because it supports “historic Protestant teaching!” Oh, wait…there was no such thing as “historic Protestant teaching” when Martin Luther was alive. Sorry, my mistake!

And, just in case Dr. Mizzi didn’t tell you, Romans 4:4 is in perfect agreement with historic Catholic teaching, which did exist when Martin Luther was alive. You know, I notice that Dr. Mizzi is always mentioning and appealing to “historic Protestant teaching.” Yet, he seems to be somewhat of a Cafeteria Protestant when it comes to “historic Protestant teaching.” For example, he believes in the historic Protestant teaching regarding Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) and Sola Fide (Salvation by Faith Alone), but he denies “historic Protestant teaching” regarding several other matters – contraception, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and infant Baptism to name a few examples of historic Protestant teachings that he disagrees with.

Protestant teaching, across all denominations, for 400 hundred years, stated that contraception was morally evil…was repugnant in the eyes of God…yet Dr. Mizzi says it’s okay. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, yet Dr. Mizzi does not. Many of the first Protestants believed that infant baptism was acceptable…and that Baptism was regenerative (in other words, that one was born again through Baptism)…and the list of those who taught that included Martin Luther and, I believe, John Calvin as well (although I’m not absolutely sure about Calvin). Yet, Dr. Mizzi disagrees with Martin Luther and many other of the original Protestants on these matters regarding Baptism. So, Dr. Mizzi needs to answer the question of why it is that he agrees with some historic Protestant teachings but not with other historic Protestant teachings? How is it he appeals to “historic Protestant teaching” on some doctrines, but denies it on others? Is that not being a bit hypocritical?

Dr. Mizzi

Unfortunately John did not discuss Paul’s statement in Romans 4. Romans 4:5 is one of the most glorious expressions on gratuitous justification anywhere in Scripture. Ask John to dedicate a few newsletters to expound, proclaim and celebrate the glorious truth that “to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.”

My Comments: Unfortunately, Dr. Joe did not discuss the Catholic Church’s teaching that one is justified gratuitously by God’s grace alone (see Council of Trent and Catechism of the Catholic Church). He keeps claiming the Catholic Church teaches that one is justified by works, when it does nothing of the sort. Dr. Mizzi, read my caps:

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES THAT ONE IS JUSTIFIED BY GOD’S GRACE ALONE! HOWEVER, IF AFTER BEING JUSTIFIED BY GOD’S GRACE, ONE DOES NOT DO THE WILL OF GOD (MATT 7:21), ONE DOES NOT PRODUCE GOOD FRUIT (JOHN 15:1-6), ONE DOES NOT KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS (MATT 19:17), ONE DOES NOT DENY HIMSELF AND PICK UP HIS CROSS DAILY (LUKE 9:23), ONE DOES NOT CARE FOR HIS FAMILY (1 TIM 5:8), ONE DOES NOT EAT THE FLESH AND DRINK THE BLOOD OF THE SON OF MAN (JOHN 6:51-58), ONE DOES NOT LABOR FOR THE FOOD WHICH ENDURES TO ETERNAL LIFE (JOHN 6:27), ONE DOES NOT FORGIVE THE SINS OF OTHERS (MATT 6:14-15), ONE DOES NOT FEED THE HUNGRY AND CLOTHE THE NAKED (MATT 25:31-46), ONE DOES NOT PROVIDE A RETURN ON THE TALENTS GIVEN TO ONE BY THE MASTER (MATT 25:14-30), ONE DOES NOT LOVE HIS BROTHER (1 JOHN 2:9-11), THEN ONE CAN LOSE THEIR SALVATION! IT’S IN THE BIBLE, JOE!!!

Joe, I have dedicated newsletters to the “glorious fact” that it is he who does not work whose faith is reckoned as righteousness. Most of those newsletters were addressed to you. Please re-read the debate we had. Your problem is, Joe, you do not accept what I tell you, and show you, is authentic Catholic teaching on this matter. You want so badly to believe that Catholics have it wrong that you have to ignore authentic Catholic teaching and make up your own doctrines which you then claim we believe.

By the way, Dr. Mizzi, have you dedicated any space on your website to the “glorious fact” that God will render to every man “according to his works?” “To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honeor and immortality, He will give eternal life?” (Rom 2:6-7) Or to the “glorious fact” that a “man is justified by works and not by faith alone?” (James 2:24).

Dr. Mizzi

This issue is not Joe Mizzi and his dishonesty. The crucial question is how people like you and me, sinners by nature and practice, can be accounted righteous by God.

My Comments: Actually, it is, in part, about Joe Mizzi and his dishonesty. I have tried to give Dr. Mizzi the benefit of the doubt over and over again. I have tried to believe that his misrepresentation of Catholic teaching is simply due to ignorance. I thought, “He’s not stupid, he is a doctor, after all, so he must just be ignorant of Catholic teaching.” But, when it is pointed out to him over and over and over again, by myself and by other Catholics – and even by non-Catholic ministers who subscribe to this newsletter – that he consistently misrepresents Catholic teaching, yet he refuses to alter his claims, then I really have no option but to believe that he is being dishonest…that he is purposely trying to mislead people. If there is another option for why he consistently misrepresents Catholic teaching, then I am open to hearing him tell me what it is. Again, even non-Catholics…non-Catholic ministers!…have told him that he is misrepresenting Catholic teaching – but he continues to do so.

I will show, beyond a shadow of a doubt – for any thoughtful and rational person operating without a preconceived animus against the Catholic Church – that Catholics do not believe one is justified by works. As my proof, I hold up the practice of infant baptism…again, a practice which Martin Luther himself believed to be doctrinally correct. An infant can do no works, whatsoever, in order to be justified. Yet, we believe that an infant is indeed justified, by God’s grace alone, through baptism. God, acting on His own, in a completely gratuitous manner, pours His saving grace out upon the infant…entering into covenant with the infant, filling the infant with the Holy Spirit, and making the infant a member of the Body of Christ…all without any work done by the infant. Given that belief, how then can Catholics be accused, by any honest man, of believing one is saved by their works? What work did the infant do in order to be justified? Case closed.

Dr. Mizzi

Domenic, forget about civilization for a moment — think about your soul. So you want to be justified by grace and by works. You’re contradicting yourself. If it is by grace, it cannot be by works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Comments: This paragraph from Joe, and the next, were from another email that Joe sent to one of my readers, but which was on the same topic so I thought I would include them here and make a few comments. Again, Joe misrepresents Catholic teaching…we are not justified by our works. But, notice what Joe is saying…he is saying that one cannot be justified by grace and by works…that would be a contradiction. If it is by grace, he says, it cannot be by works. We can here, once again, use Joe’s own words against him. Joe believes in salvation by faith alone. Well, let’s substitute “faith” for “works” in Joe’s statement. “If it is by grace, it cannot be by [faith], otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Which is it, Joe, is it grace or faith that justifies us. If it is one’s faith that justifies, then what need of God’s grace?

In other words, Dr. Joe Mizzi, instead of making cogent, logical, rational, and scriptural arguments, tries to win the day by cheap linguistic tricks like the one above and like his “Opinion Poll.” That is because his arguments amount to little more than, “Well, that’s the historical Protestant position,” or “Well, that’s how I, Joe Mizzi, interpret Scripture so I declare it to be so,” or “Well, that’s how I, Joe Mizzi, interpret Catholic teaching, so I declare it to be wrong.”

We are justified by God’s grace…alone! Nothing we do, before the grace of initial justification…whether faith or works…merits justification, as the Council of Trent clearly teaches for anyone who is intellectually honest in reading Trent’s teachings. Once we have received the grace of initial justification, however, we then have to do the will of God and all the other things that the Bible mentions – several of which I note above – and all of which require both faith and works – in order to remain in a state of justification. If we lose our faith…if we do not do the works we are empowered by God’s grace to do…if we commit mortal sin…we can indeed lose our justification. The Bible is very clear on this. So, in this respect, faith and works are both necessary for our salvation and both are by God’s grace. We are not, for the last time, justified by our works. Using the analogy from John 15:1-6, we become branches of the vine through nothing we ourselves have done, but we remain branches by producing good fruit…by the grace of God.

I answer: have you ever been taught by that church, that to him who does not work but believes in God, such faith will be accounted as righteousness.

Comments: If you’re talking about the Catholic Church, then I answer, “YES,” we have been taught that by the Church, and we have been taught it in the context of all of Scripture.

One final comment: The example of Dr. Joe Mizzi ought to make all of you Catholics reading this very confident to go out there and share your faith with others. Dr. Mizzi, as I’ve previously stated, is obviously a very smart man – after all, he’s a medical doctor. Yet, this very smart man, cannot answer the simplest of arguments made by the Catholic Faith. He is reduced to linguistic trickery, taking single verses of the Bible out of context, and misrepresenting Catholic teaching in order to champion his beliefs. That is how weak, in relation to the Bible, to logic, and to common sense his arguments are. So, if this very smart man is reduced to such a level in his attacks on your faith, it must mean the arguments your faith makes are pretty doggone solid.

Now, I’ve dealt with this issue of Sola Fide with Dr. Mizzi on several occasions, and he is obstinate in his refusal to acknowledge authentic Catholic teaching regarding salvation, so I will not take up this topic with him again. I’m not done with Dr. Mizzi, however. Next week I’m going to deal with Dr. Mizzi’s response to my last newsletter on Sola Scriptura and show you, once again, the weakness of the arguments for this man-made doctrine from the Protestant position – historical or otherwise. Dr. Mizzi, in his response, has to pretty much ignore all of my arguments in making his counter – he doesn’t even touch the arguments from logic and history, and his response to my argument from Scripture is, well, to be quite blunt – pathetic.

Finally, I said above that I would show that the context of James 2:24 does not support Dr. Mizzi’s belief regarding Sola Fide. I’m going to ask him a question that I can almost guarantee he will not answer. I say that because I have asked this question of dozens upon dozens of Protestants, and I have yet to have anyone even try to offer a response. You need to have this memorized, because it will confound most, if not all, of the folks you talk with. Here it is:

Chapter 2 of James, including James 2:24, is summarized in the final verse of James 2 – James 2:26: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead.”

The analogy is this: faith = the body; works = the spirit. The Bible says both body and spirit are necessary for life – for physical life. So, for the analogy to hold true, then faith and works are both necessary for life – for spiritual life.

So, my question to Joe: How do you interpret James 2:26 in light of your belief that only faith is necessary for life? What does James 2:26 mean?

In Conclusion

Again, I appreciate all the feedback on the Sola Scriptura newsletter. I’ll probably start on Sola Fide in a few weeks or so.

I hope all of you have a wonderful weekend. Please pray for my safe travels to Boise and back and God’s protection over my family while I’m gone. I’ve never been to Idaho before and am really looking forward to it.

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.

$RemovalHTML$

Share this newsletter on: