Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #75

In this issue I want to share with you Rich’s response to the last newsletter. And, instead of giving you the response that I actually sent him, I’m just going to comment on his response. These comments will cover most of what I said in my response to him – wasn’t really anything new.

I also want to comment on a couple of emails that I received after the last newsletter about my “tone.”

So, below is Rich’s response in its entirety, and then broken up with my comments in between his. Following that is a little commentary on how my dad used to lock me up for hours in a dark closet which is why I’m as mean as I am.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Rich

Dear Mr. Martignoni,

The wisdom in your explanation of ( 1 Tim. 4:1-4 ) is like the wisdom of a raw egg that has been thrown up against a brick wall. I do feel very sorry for you. For you can not possibly understand what we have been saying (1 Cor. 2:14 ). In Matt 7:6 Jesus says not to cast you pearls before swine. The reason is that the swine can not understand the value of the pearls and would disregard them and walk all over them. I am not calling you swine. I am just saying that you can not see the value of what the Word of God says apart from your church. You can not see the value of Christ and what He did His death and resurrection (1 Cor 15:1-4 ). You can not see the value in what He said on the cross, when He said, “it is finished”. And you can not see the value of being justified by faith apart from works ( Rom. 3:28 ), ( Eph. 2:8-9), ( Rom.4:4-5). Jesus will remind you of all the communication you have had with other christians and His appealing to you from the Word of God on judgment day, but it will be too late. I will not communicate with you any more. Because each time that I do, you harden your heart even more. I will see you again at the Great White throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). I am not going to say, may God have mercy on your soul then, because the time for mercy is now (2 Cor.6:1-2). There will be no mercy for you then. For you are already judged ( John 3:18 ) and the wrath of God abides ON YOU! (John 3:36)

Because He Lives

Sincerely, Rich

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

Rich

Dear Mr. Martignoni,

The wisdom in your explanation of ( 1 Tim. 4:1-4 ) is like the wisdom of a raw egg that has been thrown up against a brick wall.

Comments/Strategies

Okay, ever have anyone answer you with a completely irrelevant remark? Well, here’s a perfect example. I have no clue regarding the raw egg analogy, but I am, on the other hand, quite sure that he didn’t respond to a single one of my arguments. I guaranteed you that he would not answer the questions that I asked him…he can’t answer them, because to do so would force him to acknowledge that his interpretation of 1 Tim 4:1-4 is bogus…100% bereft of logic, reason, and consistency with what is actually said in the passage.

The passage in 1 Tim 4 says that there will be those who “forbid marriage.” Rich claims that this passage is referring to the Catholic Church because, the Church requires most priests in the Latin rite to take a vow of celibacy in order to be ordained. There are obviously some things Rich failed to consider in his fallible man-made interpretation of this passage. For one, he does not take into account that the Catholic Church is the biggest supporter and advocate of marriage in the world. Does Rich’s “church” consider marriage to be a sacrament? Absolutely not. His “church” has no sacraments. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, considers marriage a sacrament that was implemented by Jesus Christ Himself. No church or religion or denomination or non-denomination on earth holds marriage in as high esteem as the Catholic Church. As verse 4 plainly implies, those who are said to “forbid marriage” will view it as something that is not of God – in other words, considering it to be evil.

Is that true of the Catholic Church? Absolutely not. Again, as I just mentioned, we view marriage as being a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. We believe it is of God and that it is good (verse 4) and we consecrate it by the Word of God and prayer (verse 5). In other words, when you take the full context of this passage into consideration, you realize that it cannot be referring to the Catholic Church – it is referring to folks who consider marriage to be evil and to not be of God and to not be something that should be consecrated by the Word of God and prayer.

Did Rich know that there were heretical sects – I gave him the names of a several of them – that started popping up very early on (late 1st or early 2nd century) that thought of marriage as being evil? No. Do you think Rich knew that these sects believed that marriage was not of God and they forbid any of their adherents from getting married? I guarantee you he didn’t. Does what these sects taught fit the words of this passage from 1st Tim 4 like a glove? Indeed they do.

What else did Rich not consider? Well, I was married in the Catholic Church, as were many people that I know. So, how can the Church be said to forbid marriage, when so many people get married in the Church? “Well,” Rich responds, “you know that I’m talking about forbidding priests to be married, John.” To which I respond: But that’s not what the passage says. It doesn’t say: “forbid marriage FOR PRIESTS.” The passage says “forbid marriage” – period. I see no qualifications here about priests, do you? No! Which means Rich has to “interpret” this passage in order to come to the conclusion he comes to. He has to add words to the passage to get it to say what he wants it to say.

Furthermore, I’ll bet Rich never considered the fact that there are married Catholic priests. I’ll bet, in fact, that he had no clue that there were married Catholic priests in all the various rites of the Church! I’ll even bet that Rich doesn’t know what I’m talking about when I say the “various rites.” I’ll bet he doesn’t know about the Latin rite, the Melkite rite, the Ruthenian rite, etc. And, I’ll bet that he didn’t know that most of these rites, within the Catholic Church, ordain married men as priests. In other words, you have a guy who is relatively clueless as to actual Catholic teaching and practice, yet claiming to be an expert because he is an ex-Catholic. And, he has folks who were never Catholic falling for his garbage, because he is an ex-Catholic. And, even though I’ve given proof to one of Rich’s cohorts that Rich is in error regarding at least some of his information about the Church – this particular cohort refuses to even acknowledge my proof. Who is interested in finding the truth, and who isn’t?

So, we have to further refine what 1 Tim 4:1-4 says in order to get it to fit Rich’s fallible interpretation: “forbid marriage FOR PRIESTS IN ONE PARTICULAR RITE OF THEIR CHURCH.”

But, we go even further. Another thing Rich failed to consider, is that there are indeed married men in the Latin rite of the Church – the one rite Rich is a little familiar with. So, we have to refine 1 Tim 4:1-4 a little bit further to make it say what Rich wants it to say: “forbid marriage FOR MOST, BUT NOT ALL, PRIESTS IN ONE PARTICULAR RITE OF THEIR CHURCH.”

Another thing that Rich didn’t take into account, is the rest of Scripture. Paul states, in 1 Cor 7, that if you wish to serve the Lord with undivided interest, you need to remain single. So, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to say, not as a doctrinal matter but as a practical matter, that it is desirable to be single if one wishes to devote themselves entirely to the Lord’s service. In the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, we simply follow Paul’s practical advice – not as matter of doctrine, but as a matter of practicality – when asking men who wish to be ordained priests to take a voluntary vow of celibacy. No one forces these men to take the vow of celibacy. No one forbids them to be married. They voluntarily take this vow in order to better serve the Lord and His people. So, we must further refine 1 Tim 4:1-4 to get it to fit Rich’s fallible interpretation: “forbid marriage FOR MOST, BUT NOT ALL, PRIESTS IN ONE PARTICULAR RITE OF THEIR CHURCH, IN ORDER TO FOLLOW PAUL’S ADVICE ABOUT NOT HAVING DIVIDED INTERESTS AND BEING FREE FROM ANXIETY WHEN SEEKING TO SERVE THE LORD.”

Lastly, Rich did not take into account Jesus’ own words in Matthew 19:11-12, “But He said to them, ‘Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” In other words, there are some who are called to make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. What is Jesus talking about here? Is He talking about men who physically castrate themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven? Ain’t no way! He’s talking about those who renounce their right to marry and have physical relations with their wife. And, he says that not every man can “receive” this precept. In other words, some men are called to do this, and some men aren’t. As I asked Rich, are there men in his “church” who fulfill these words of Christ? Absolutely not! Are there men who fulfill these words of Christ in the Catholic Church? Absolutely yes! But, what does Rich say about these men? He excoriates them. He says that taking a vow of celibacy is going against Scripture!

So, finally, let’s re-visit 1 Tim 4:1-4 one more time to make it read as Rich wants it to read: “forbid marriage FOR MOST, BUT NOT ALL, PRIESTS IN ONE PARTICULAR RITE OF THEIR CHURCH, IN ORDER TO FOLLOW PAUL’S ADVICE ABOUT NOT HAVING DIVIDED INTERESTS AND BEING FREE FROM ANXIETY WHEN SEEKING TO SERVE THE LORD, AND TO FULFILL JESUS’ WORDS ABOUT SOME WHO WILL BE ABLE TO ‘RECEIVE’ THE CALL TO MAKE THEMSELVES EUNUCHS FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.” In other words, folks, Rich’s interpretation simply makes no sense from any one of several points of reference – scripture, history, logic, common sense, linguistic, and practical. And, how does he respond to my arguments? By not addressing them. And I guarantee you that if you use any one of these same arguments with folks who cross your path, they won’t answer them either.

Oh, one more thing. As I mentioned in the previous email, if the Church allowed adultery for all of its members except the majority of priests in the Latin rite, do you think Rich would ever say that the Church “forbid” adultery? Of course not. He would be yelling from the rooftops that the Catholic Church not only allows adultery, but promotes it. That is what is called being a hypocrite. We “forbid” marriage if we allow everyone but the majority of priests in the Latin rite to marry, but we do “NOT forbid” adultery if we allow everyone but the majority of priests in the Latin rite to commit adultery. Rich wants to change the meaning of words as he sees fit to twist the Scriptures to say what he wants them to say.

Rich

I do feel very sorry for you. For you can not possibly understand what we have been saying (1 Cor. 2:14 )

Comments/Strategies
Well, I agree with him here – I can’t possibly understand what he’s saying because he’s not making any sense. The Holy Spirit does not lead anyone into anything that is contrary to logic and reason, because the Holy Spirit is the source of logic and reason.

Rich

In Matt 7:6 Jesus says not to cast you pearls before swine. The reason is that the swine can not understand the value of the pearls and would disregard them and walk all over them. I am not calling you swine. I am just saying that you can not see the value of what the Word of God says apart from your church. You can not see the value of Christ and what He did His death and resurrection (1 Cor 15:1-4 ). You can not see the value in what He said on the cross, when He said, “it is finished”. And you can not see the value of being justified by faith apart from works ( Rom. 3:28 ), ( Eph. 2:8-9), ( Rom.4:4-5).

Comments/Strategies

In other words, Rich is upset with me because I cannot see the “value” of Rich’s fallible, man-made interpretations of Scripture and I will not accept what he says simply because he says it. In chapter 1 of Titus, it says that a bishop must be able to confute those who contradict sound doctrine. I imagine Rich fancies himself a religious leader on equal footing with a bishop. So, if I’m contradicting sound doctrine, he ought to be able to refute me. He ought to be able to refute my arguments. Does he? No. He ignores my arguments and refuses to answer my questions. Which means either: I have the truth on my side because he is unable to confute it, or Rich should not be putting himself into the position of a religious leader; or both.

Rich

Jesus will remind you of all the communication you have had with other christians and His appealing to you from the Word of God on judgment day, but it will be too late.

Comments/Strategies

He keeps judging me even though the Bible says “Judge not lest ye be judged.” And, I hope and pray that Jesus will indeed remind me of all the communication I have had with other Christians. By the way, do you notice that he referred to me as a Christian? But, I can’t be a Christian since he’s judged me as being unsaved.

Rich

I will not communicate with you any more. Because each time that I do, you harden your heart even more

Comments/Strategies

He’s already communicated with me several times since he wrote this. His pride won’t let me get the last word in…which is something you should take full advantage of if you wish to continue a conversation when the other guy is backing away because of the beating the truth is giving him.

Rich

I will see you again at the Great White throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). I am not going to say, may God have mercy on your soul then, because the time for mercy is now (2 Cor.6:1-2). There will be no mercy for you then. For you are already judged (John 3:18 ) and the wrath of God abides ON YOU! (John 3:36)

Comments/Strategies

He judges me as not having believed in the name of the Son of God (John 3:18). I believe in the Name above all other names…the name of Jesus Christ. Rich claims to know my heart and that I am really not a believer…in other words, he judges me as he judges so many others. He places himself in a position over me that is reserved for God and God alone. Paul says that he doesn’t even judge himself in 1 Cor 4, yet Rich takes it upon himself to judge everyone including himself.

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

Now, as to the “tone” of my last newsletter that I received a couple of complaints about. Actually, I should say the tone of many of my newsletters – because it’s generally the same tone in a lot of what I write in the newsletters. I would offer the following observations – and I offer these not as defense, but as explanation, because I don’t want to offend anyone, if I can avoid it, and I would like those who do take offense to merely consider some things before they go ahead and take offense:

1) The people that I “feature” in these newsletters are generally the most rabid of anti-Catholics that I come across. And when I use the term anti-Catholic, I mean those who not only hate the Catholic Church, but who also refuse to believe – even after being shown proof – that Catholics do not believe and practice what they think we believe and practice.

One example: a common complaint against Catholics is that we “worship” Mary. Catholic response: “No we don’t, we love her, we venerate her, and we ask for her intercession, but we do not believe she is divine and we do not worship her – if you don’t believe me, you can read it for yourself in the Catechism.”

Non-Catholic response: “Oh, I didn’t realize that…thank you for clarifying your beliefs.”

Anti-Catholic response: “Yes you do!”

In other words, the anti-Catholic refuses to hear what Catholics actually believe about God, about Scripture, and about doctrine, even when presented with proof from the Catechism, Council documents, papal encyclicals, and the testimony of individual Catholics. They also take passages out of various Church documents, without context, and present them as “proof” that Catholic teaching is contrary to Scripture. When shown that these passages, when taken in context and interpreted as a Catholic interprets them, in nowise contradict Scripture, they refuse to accept what has been put before them and continue to preach their misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies. In other words, they are more comfortable believing ill about Catholicism, than they are making an honest attempt to search for the truth about Catholicism. That’s an anti-Catholic.

A non-Catholic will consider what is put before them and, while disagreeing with the Catholic point of view, will still allow the Catholic to believe what we actually believe. They will not insist we believe something we don’t believe. They will respond to rational arguments instead of just ignoring them or arbitrarily declaring them to be wrong.

I am not offended if someone disagrees with the Church or even hates the Church – it makes sense for someone who believes that the Church teaches error to hate the Church – but, as I often say, disagree with what we actually believe, and not what you mistakenly think we believe. And, if you wish to hate the Church, and teach others to do the same, then you at least have the responsibility to understand what it is you are hating – to understand what she actually believes and teaches.

Now, the reason I feature these folks is so that you can be prepared for the worst of what you’re going to come up against, or so that you can better deal with what you have already come up against. The arguments that these folks make are pretty much the same across the board. So, if you can deal with the type of folk that I usually feature here, you can deal with pretty much anyone. The responses that I give – especially the yes/no questions that I ask – can be used effectively by any of you to respond to the questions or attacks that we receive from even the most virulent of anti-Catholics. The Scripture arguments I use are sound, the logic is sound, and the rest is basic common sense. So, if the “tone” bothers someone, I simply say focus on the arguments.

2) I don’t believe in a milquetoast Jesus. Sometimes, I get the sense that people think Jesus was something akin to a ’60’s flower child. That He just kind of went around saying, “Peace and love, dude.” That He never got in anyone’s face. Well, that just isn’t the case. Let me give you a few passages from the Bible to consider:

Mark 3:5, “And He looked around at them with anger…”

Mark 7:6, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites…”

Mark 8:17-18, “Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?” (Was that a bit of sarcasm?)

John 2:15, “And making a whip of cords, He drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and He poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.”

Matt 23:13-33, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites…child of hell…blind guides…blind fools…blind men…full of extortion and rapacity…whitewashed tombs…full of hypocrisy and iniquity…sons of those who murdered the prophets…You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?”

Matt 17:16-17, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you?”

Matt 15:26, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs…”

Jesus gets angry with people and, at least once, to the point of becoming physically violent. He excoriates people. He gets frustrated with people. He calls them names. He tests people. He uses (at least in my opinion) sarcasm with people. In other words, Jesus got in the face of some folks. And the passages above are just a small sample of times when Jesus really put it to some folks – most often it was those who were the religious leaders of the day, but it was also occasionally the common man or woman. Most of the folks that I deal with in these newsletters are self-appointed religious leaders, and I am much harder on them than I am on the average man or woman who is asking questions about, or attacking, the Catholic Faith. But, even with those that I am a bit hard on, I don’t believe I’ve ever been as rough as Jesus sometimes was.

It is obvious that Jesus saw nothing wrong with giving someone a verbal punch in the nose or kick in the arse, or even with sometimes getting physical and tossing things around. I see nothing wrong with doing the same when someone has repeatedly refused to answer my questions and has steadfastly ignored direct responses to my arguments, yet they continue to spew bigotry, lies, hypocrisy, illogic, and outright absurdity. So, what I’m basically saying here is that if you try to hold me to a higher standard than Jesus, you will be disappointed every time. If you expect me to be nicer than Jesus…well, I don’t think that’s gonna happen anytime soon.

3) It is not always easy to discern “tone” by simply reading an email. I readily admit that I sometimes make use of sarcasm to get my point across and that I sometimes try to push people’s buttons – to see what kind of reaction I will get. But, the reader who is bothered by “tone” needs to keep in mind that bluntness and directness do not necessarily translate to meanness and uncharitableness. I am very direct and blunt in what I write. I don’t have time to do otherwise. For some folks, who aren’t used to that kind of thing, I understand how the “tone” of my newsletters can be a little disconcerting. But, the problem is not with me in those instances, it is with the reader. If they’re someone who is more passive and genteel, they may intepret bluntness as being aggressive and mean and disrespectful. Well, sorry, but I can’t help that. I interpret bluntness and directness as being respectful of someone else’s time and intelligence. I also assume that someone who is a Christian, a true Christian, will not be offended by such. In other words, I gotta be me. Can’t you just accept me as I am?! (If I used smiley faces, this would be the place I would put one.)

4) Truth can be difficult for those who believe it, but it can be downright brutal for those who don’t. A lot of times it might seem like I’m being really harsh towards someone, when what is actually happening is that it is simply a matter of the truth and logic of the Church’s teachings battering the illogic, inconsistency, and sometimes outright lunacy of their man-made teachings. There is no gentle way of exposing error and hypocrisy. As Chesterton once said, “Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.”

5) Finally, I recognize that I can’t please all of the people all of the time. I’ll have two people commenting on the same newsletter and one will take me to task for being such an ogre, and the other will take me to task for being too soft. So, every now and then I write something like this to let folks know that I appreciate their comments about my “tone,” but that I have to respectfully disagree with some of the conclusions they have come to. Also, I would say to those who offer criticism, that if you would be specific in your comments, for example: “John, when you said such and such, I thought it was too much,” it would be much easier for me to consider them, than when you just say something like, “You have a bad attitude.” And, to close, I just want you to know that I can’t be all bad, because my momma still loves me…(another place that would be a good candidate for a smiley face).

In Conclusion

Hope you’ve enjoyed this issue. Please let others know about all the free apologetics materials – tapes, CDs, downloads, newsletters – available at our website (www.biblechristiansociety.com).

Comments are welcome and all will be read.

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: