Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #89

Dr. Mizzi responded to the questions I asked in my last newsletter. But, before he did, he first accused me of “blackmail” and of being “insolent.” Well, I take great exception to that. I did not blackmail him. I was simply holding his email hostage. Doesn’t he know the difference between blackmail and hostage-taking?

I had told him that I would leave his personal email address (the address, by the way, which he uses to email all of his anti-Catholic bilge to Catholics whose emails he has collected) in the newsletter that is posted on my website until he answered my questions. He doesn’t want me to do that because he only wants his Catholic “targets” to use that email address – he doesn’t want spammers to possibly pick it off my website. But, again, that’s not blackmail – it’s hostage taking. I took his email hostage until he met my demands. Well, he met my demands, so I released the hostage. Why, I would never stoop so low as to blackmail someone.

Now, regarding the charge of insolence, may I remind Dr. Mizzi of one of his original emails to me? After I had sent him an email pointing out some misrepresentations of Catholic belief on his website, this is what he said:

"John,

That’s weak! Frankly, I don’t think it’s worth the time to answer.

Perhaps YOU should be reading and observing your own religion to learn what Catholicism is all about!

This will be my last letter to you.

Sincerely, Joe

I think that might qualify as being insolent. Plus, I have never condemnded anyone to Hell the way Dr. Mizzi condemns Catholics to Hell. That, too, just might be considered insolent.

All I did was tell Joe not to answer my questions, because no matter how he answered, he would be in trouble. All I said was, “Joe, don’t answer the questions!!!!” Is that insolent? I was just trying to be helpful.

Now, Joe, to his credit (somewhat), attempted to answer the questions, and indeed got himself in trouble, as I will demonstrate below. But, that’s what happens when you ignore sound advice.

Anyway, below are the questions and his answers. My response to each of his answers is immediately below his answer. Then, at the end, I will ask him some more yes-no questions, and once again take his email hostage until he responds.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

1) Could the Holy Spirit, through the universal Church (which is the Body of Christ), have enabled believers – particularly the Bishops (the successors of the Apostles), in the first few hundred years of the Church, to faithfully and accurately pass along the traditions Paul taught by “word of mouth”? Yes, or no?

Dr. Joe Mizzi Yes. But they could have also mixed the apostolic teaching with much error, just as God’s people of old did before to the teaching of the Prophets. “Could” implies possibility not certainty! Could God have created a 3-legged creature on Pluto? Yes. Did he? I don’t know for sure, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t.

Comments/Strategies Thank you, Dr. Joe Mizzi! Joe admits that his protest against the Catholic belief regarding the passing on of Apostolic teaching through oral tradition, is built on a less than solid foundation. Let’s recap, shall we?! Joe believes that Catholic teaching on Tradition – Apostolic teaching that was passed from one generation to the next by “word of mouth” – is in error because he believes that we cannot trust either individual Christians, or the leaders of the Church…which is the Body of Christ…to accurately and faithfully transmit Apostolic teaching by “word of mouth.”

Yet, he admits very clearly (although he tries to quickly cover up his admission) that the Holy Spirit could indeed have enabled the Bishops of the Church – the successors of the Apostles – to faithfully and accurately pass along the traditions Paul taught them by “word of mouth.” What is the implication for Joe? Well, quite clearly, Joe has admitted that his beliefs could be wrong and Catholic beliefs could be right. He will, however, deny this when I word it this way in a yes-no question to him – which I will do at the end of the newsletter. Joe is, as I will show, still talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he admits that it is “possible” that the Holy Spirit could have enabled the Bishops to pass on Apostolic teaching via oral tradition, and he also admits that his interpretations of Scripture are not infallible, but when I ask him directly if it is then “possible” that Catholic belief in the matter of Sacred Tradition is true, what do you think he will say? He will say, “No.”

Why do I say that he will refuse to admit this possibility, even though he has already in essence admitted it by answering “yes” to question #1? Because look what he does after he says, “Yes,” in answer to my question: he immediately shifts the focus to his opinion that Apostolic teaching could not have been passed on orally from one generation to the next without being free from error. And it is indeed his opinion – not one single verse of Scripture from the Sola Scriptura apologist to back up his statement regarding Tradition. Rather than quoting Scripture, he goes off on some tangent about God having created a 3-legged creature on Pluto. And he poses the question, could God have done that? He answers, “Yes. Did he? I don’t know for sure, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t.” Do you see how Joe is trying to muddy the waters to throw you off the track here? I ask a question about Apostolic teaching, and I get an answer about a 3-legged creature on Pluto. The irrelevance of his answer is surpassed only by its absurdity.

But, notice very closely what he did, and did not, say. He did say that he is quite sure that God didn’t create a 3-legged creature on Pluto, but he did not say that he is “quite sure” the Holy Spirit did not enable the successors of the Apostles to faithfully and accurately pass on Apostolic teaching by “word of mouth.” Why didn’t he say that? Because he knows that my next question would be: Joe, since all your beliefs about Christianity supposedly come from the Bible, where in the Bible does it say Apostolic teaching was not passed on by “word of mouth” from one generation to the next? To which I suppose he would have to respond by talking about 4-eyed creatures on Venus.

Let’s look at Joe’s situation. Right now, the best possible way that his position can be characterized vis-a-vis the Catholic position is this: It is admitted, by Joe Mizzi, that it is indeed possible the Holy Spirit enabled the successors of the Apostles to faithfully and accurately pass on Apostolic teaching via “word of mouth” from one generation to the next; it is Joe Mizzi’s opinion; however – not the teaching of Scripture – that this did not happen. In other words, Joe, having implicitly acknowledged that Catholic teaching on this matter could possibly be right, is basing his opposition to Catholic teaching on Sacred Tradition on nothing more than his opinion. He wants you and me to trust our eternal salvation to his OPINION. Yet, at the same time, he claims to go only by the Bible…he claims to get all of his beliefs solely from the Bible! I think that might be a little bit of a contradiction.

And it is indeed nothing more than Joe Mizzi’s opinion that causes him to rail against Catholic teaching on the matter of oral tradition. Do you think that if the Bible anywhere stated that Apostolic teaching was not passed on from generation to generation “by word of mouth,” that Joe would have admitted this possibility? Of course not. For example, if I asked Joe: Is it possible that Jesus did not rise from the dead, what do you think he would have said? He would have said, “No! Absolutely not! No, no, a thousand times no!!!”

Yet, when asked if it is possible that the Holy Spirit enabled the Apostles’ successors to faithfully and accurately pass on Apostolic teaching from generation to generation “by word of mouth,” how does he answer? “Yes, it’s possible.” The only conclusion one can draw from this, is that Joe Mizzi is not going by the Bible for this particular belief – if he was getting this belief from the Bible, then he would not have admitted to this possibility. The question, therefore, for Joe Mizzi is: Why? Why do you not believe Apostolic teaching was passed on from one generation to the next “by word of mouth”? Does the Bible say that? No, in fact, it doesn’t, or Joe never would have admitted to this possibility. So, Joe Mizzi bases his opinion on what? On Protestant tradition that has been passed on “by word of mouth” for some 400 years or so. Joe doesn’t believe in 2000-yr. old Catholic tradition…why? Because of 400-yr. old Protestant tradition. Irony of ironies. Or, rather, hypocrisy of hypocrisies.

What does the Bible say about the passing on of Apostolic teaching “by word of mouth”? Does it say not to do it? Does it say it shouldn’t happen? No! In fact, I mentioned at least one Bible verse, 2 Tim 2:2 (which Joe conveniently never mentions) that commands the passing on of oral tradition. The Bible teaches very directly, very plainly, the passing on of oral tradition, yet Joe Mizzi doesn’t believe in it. Who goes by the Bible and who doesn’t?

And, does the Bible tell us anything about whether or not oral tradition can faithfully and accurately, without error, be passed on from one generation to the next? Yes, it does. As I mentioned in the last newsletter, the oral traditions about the Creation, Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, etc. were indeed faithfully and accurately passed down, for thousands of years, before they ever got written down by Moses. So, we have an example, from Scripture, of oral tradition being faithfully and accurately passed down – without error. How does Joe Mizzi respond to that? He doesn’t and he won’t.

Furthermore, we have the Bible telling us that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church founded by Christ (Matt 16:16-18). Doesn’t that imply some sort of divine guidance for the Church? And, in 1 John 4:6, we see that we can discern the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error, how? By picking up the Bible and reading it? No! By listening to John and the other leaders of the Church. All of these verses point to the Church, through the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, as having the ability to pass on Apostolic teaching to succeeding generations by “word of mouth” with the protection of the Holy Spirit and the promise of Christ that the gates of Hades will not prevail against His church. Joe Mizzi is swimming against the scriptural tide with his belief that this “word of mouth” teaching had to be filled with error.

Also, in addition to the Bible, simple logic tells you that the folks who heard Paul and Peter and the other Apostles teach, would indeed pass along their teachings orally to their children, their friends, their in-laws, and on and on. They didn’t wait for a complete New Testament to appear before they went out and evangelized family, friends, and neighbors. They taught others what they themselves had been taught – orally. And, if there was a question about the accuracy and reliability of their teaching, who did they turn to for affirmation and correction? The leaders of the Church – the bishops – who had been ordained by the Apostles and those who succeeded the Apostles.

2) Are you infallible in your interpretations of Scripture? Was Martin Luther infallible in his? Or John Calvin? Yes, or no? (Note: this question concerns not your personal infallibility, but the infallibility of your scriptural interpretations.)

Dr. Joe Mizzi No, no, no, and so will any sensible Christian, and especially Christian teachers, say. We are not infallible. We can all make mistakes in our understanding and explanation of the Bible.

Comments/Strategies Thanks again, Joe! As mentioned above, Joe is admitting to the possibility that he “can” make mistakes in his understanding and explanation of the Bible. In other words, he could be wrong and Catholics could indeed be right in the areas we disagree on. Now, the question remains, though, will he admit that he not just “can” make mistakes, but that he “has” indeed made mistakes in his interpretation, understanding, and explanation of the Bible? I’m going to ask him.

3) Is the canon of the Bible infallible? In other words, does the Bible contain exactly the number of books, and the correct books, that it should contain? Yes, or no?

Dr. Joe Mizzi If by “infallible” you mean “correct”, yes, I am convinced that the Bible contains the correct and exact number of inspired books.

Comments/Strategies See Question 4.

4) If you answered, “Yes,” to #3, then by what authority do you believe this to be so? The Bible, or oral tradition?

Dr. Joe Mizzi By what authority? By God’s authority who’s character and purposes are revealed in the Holy Scriptures. In his wise providence, God has so directed his people (fallible and imperfect as they are) to recognize his Word. The Good Shepherd promised that his sheep would hear his voice, and that they will not be mislead by the voice of a stranger – and that is exactly what happened, and what continues to happen today. “My sheep hear my voice!”

Historically God gave the inspired Scriptures to Israel and the early church. God’s people then passed on the sacred writings to future generations, and they were received as such by believers, to this very day. The canon is not a doctrine to be deduced from the Bible. The Christians in the early centuries simply collected the canonical books on the basis of the internal and external evidence that they are indeed Holy Scripture.

Did the church receive the canon on the presumed authority of some “infallible” declaration of an ecumenical council or pope? No, and neither did the Jews for centuries, nor did Catholics for 15 long centuries, nor do Christians to this very day.

How then could we be certain? We can be certain because we rely ultimately on God who alone is infallible, and who in his all-wise providence uses very fallible and weak instruments to fulfill his eternal purposes.

Comments/Strategies Is this rich, or what?! Let’s re-visit Dr. Mizzi’s answer to question #1 in which he said the following about the early generations of Christians: “But they could have also mixed the apostolic teaching with much error, just as God’s people of old did before to the teaching of the Prophets.” In other words, he doesn’t believe the early Christians could have faithfully and accurately passed on Apostolic teaching “by word of mouth.” Now, what does he say about the early Christians in his answer to question #4? “God’s people then passed on the sacred writings to future generations, and they were received as such by believers.” In other words, he doesn’t believe they could have mixed the written Apostolic teaching with error – they could not, for example, have passed on a letter purportedly written by Paul but not actually written by him. They could not, for example, pass on a false gospel. They could not, for example, have added a word or two here or there to the original writings. No, these Christians were able to faithfully and accurately, and with certainty, pass on Apostolic teaching “by letter,” but they were totally unreliable, according to Dr. Mizzi, when it came to passing on Apostolic teaching “by word of mouth.” This man is living on the other side of the looking glass.

So, Joe believes the early Christians can faithfully and accurately pass on the teachings they receive “by letter,” but he does not believe they can faithfully and accurately pass on the teachings they receive “by word of mouth.” Well, the problem for Joe is, they received “by word of mouth” that the canon they were passing on was indeed apostolic in origin. It was passed on “by word of mouth”…oral tradition…that 1 and 2 Corinthians were indeed authentic letters of Paul. It was passed on “by word of mouth”…oral tradition…that Matthew and John were indeed authentic writings of Matthew and John. It was passed on, “by word of mouth”…oral tradition…that the writing of Mark represented the oral traditions of Peter; and it was passed on, “by word of mouth”…oral tradition…that the Luke who wrote the Gospel that bears his name was indeed the companion of Paul and was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit.

All of these things were passed on by “word of mouth.” Yet, Dr. Mizzi claims that cannot be so. He claims error would have crept in to this oral tradition. By his reasoning, the canon of Scripture must be suspect because the likelihood of the early Christians being able to faithfully and accurately pass along the canon of Scripture by “word of mouth” is as likely as God having created a 3-legged creature on Pluto! And, according to Dr. Mizzi’s own words, “I’m pretty sure He didn’t.” So, Dr. Mizzi is “pretty sure” that it didn’t happen, when answering one question about the passing on of oral tradition; but then when answering another question about oral tradition…the passing on of the canon of Scripture…he is certain it happened “because we rely ultimately on God who alone is infallible.”

This is what the adherents of Sola Scriptura are ultimately left with…an indefensible, illogical, self-contradicting, scripturally-challenged position. The passing on of the canon was done “by word of mouth.” If we can be “certain” that it was passed along faithfully and accurately because of “God who alone is infallible,” then why can other oral traditions not also be passed along faithfully and accurately because of “God who alone is infallible”? Well, they can be, and they were. Dr. Mizzi has proven himself, once again, to be a hypocrite. He says one thing cannot be when it comes to Catholic belief, but he says that very same thing is “certain” when it comes to his belief.

Furthermore, Dr. Mizzi says, “God has so directed his people (fallible and imperfect as they are) to recognize his Word.” So, God’s people cannot pass along oral Apostolic teachings because they are fallible and imperfect, but they can recognize “his Word” even though they are fallible and imperfect. One contradiction after another. Joe Mizzi believes that fallible and imperfect people can recognize God’s Word when it’s passed along “by letter,” but they cannot recognize God’s Word when it’s passed along “by word of mouth.” Yet, Scripture very plainly tells us that God’s people can indeed recognize God’s Word in what they have “heard” (1 Thes 2:13). Joe Mizzi’s beliefs are directly contrary to the written Word of God.

Another contradiction in Joe’s answer: When asked by what authority does he believe the canon of Scripture to be infallible, or correct, how does he respond? “By God’s authority who’s character and purposes are revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Yet, in the very next paragraph, what does he say? “The canon is not a doctrine to be deduced from the Bible.” He believes the canon is correct because of the Scriptures, yet he states the canon is not a doctrine to be deduced from the Scriptures. If hypocrisy and self-contradiction and illogic were crimes, they would have taken Joe out and hung him by now.

One more thing that is contradictory in what Joe says. Quote: “The canon is not a doctrine to be deduced from the Bible.” From whence does it come then, if not from Scripture? From oral tradition? But, Joe doesn’t believe in oral tradition. Joe is admitting one cannot know the canon from the Scripture. In other words, he implicitly admits that the teaching of Sola Scriptura, cannot be true. We know the canon from oral tradition. Oral tradition that was indeed confirmed by the Church.

Do you see what lengths Dr. Mizzi has to go to in order to avoid the self-contradiction that is inherent in Sola Scriptura? The verbal gymnastics he has to engage in to avoid the illogic that is inherent in Sola Scriptura? The hypocrisy that he has to yield to in order to say oral tradition has to be false when it comes to the teachings of the Catholic Church, but it has to be true when it comes to the teachings of the Church of Mizzi?

5) If I were to deny that the Letter of James was inspired Scripture, by what authority would you declare me to be wrong? Does the Bible say James is “God-breathed?” Yes, or no?

Dr. Joe Mizzi The church does not determine the canonicity of a particular book on an inspired contents page! If you doubt the inspiration of James, as some early Christians did in the first centuries, and even Luther in the 16th, I would seek to convince you on the basis of the internal and external evidence, just as the church did in the formation of the canon. Notwithstanding his doubts, Luther included the Epistle of James in his translation of the Bible and gave it to the German people in their native language; something the Roman Church failed to do until after the Reformation.

Comments/Strategies Let’s start with Joe’s last sentence first. His claim that the “Roman Church” did not give the German people the Bible in their native language until after the “Reformation,” (so-called). This is absolutely and utterly false. Let me quote to you from the original Preface to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible: “…yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the Language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin…but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided Translations into the vulgar for their Countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their Minister only, but also by the written word translated.”

In other words, the folks who translated the KJV, a Protestant Bible, admit that “most nations” had translations of the Bible in their mother tongue shortly after their conversion. So much for the myth, that Joe obviously adheres to, that the Catholic Church kept the Bible out of the common tongue of the people. The Preface goes on to specifically mention translations of Scripture in Egyptian, Indian, English, French, Dutch, Syrian, Persian, Ethiopian, Arabic, Slavonian, Saxon, Gothic, and more. German is not specifically mentioned, but “Gothic” is a Germanic language. So, in the 4th century, the Bible was translated into Gothic, which was a Germanic language. There were, in fact, several editions of the Bible in German before Luther was even born. For example, Charlemagne commissioned German language translations in the early 9th century. There was the Augsburger Bible of 1350, the Wenzel Bible of 1389, and the Mentel Bible – the first German language Bible to come off the printing press – in 1466. And there were some 27 editions of the Bible in German before Martin Luther ever came up with his translation. Dr. Mizzi appears to be dreadfully ignorant on this matter. It makes one wonder what else in regards to history and the Catholic Church he is ignorant of?! Much, I’m afraid.

Next, his comment that the Church does not determine the canonicity of a book based upon an “inspired contents page,” is just more of his misdirection and obfuscation. No, the Church does not determine the canonicity of a book based upon an inspired contents page – no one ever said they did. The Church determined the canon of Scripture based on Tradition…Tradition that had been passed down orally from the beginning of the Church. And, that canon was set at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

Now, onto his claim that one can determine the canonicity of a book of Scripture “on the basis of the internal and external evidence.” My first question: Is this a scriptural teaching, or another of Dr. Joe Mizzi’s non-scriptural opinions? It is, quite obviously, the latter. Another question: Why was Martin Luther, the Father of Protestantism, supposed Scripture scholar extraordinaire, spiritual forefather of Dr. Joe Mizzi, unconvinced regarding the canonicity of the Letter of James? What was it about the internal and external evidence for the canonicity of the Letter of James that such a sage as Martin Luther himself was left unconvinced? Martin Luther did indeed include the Letter of James in his German translation, but he included it in the non-canonical section, along with the deuterocanon – the 7 books of the Old Testament that were in the Bible for hundreds of years until Martin Luther came along and threw them out of the Protestant Bible. And, if Martin Luther was unconvinced regarding James’ canonicity, then how does Joe Mizzi know that the Letter of James is indeed truly a part of the canon…that it truly is inspired Scripture? How does he know that Martin Luther wasn’t right and that he, Joe Mizzi, is wrong? Does Joe Mizzi fancy himself a greater Scripture scholar than the Father of Protestantism?

And, notice how he did not answer my question: By what authority would he declare me to be wrong if I rejected, as did Luther, the Letter of James as part of the inspired Scripture? He has no answer! He has no authority to which he can appeal other than his own powers of persuasion – which, as I’ve demonstrated, leave much to be desired. That’s it! He dare not say the authority of the Church because then he would have to toss out his entire Sola Scriptura system of theology. He can’t say the Bible because he knows the Bible does not contain a list of which books should be in the Bible. So, what authority are we left with? None.

And, furthermore, what external evidence is there that the Letter of James is inspired? Is there evidence of James’ canonicity from other books of the Bible? No. Therefore, any external evidence for the canonicity of the Letter of James would have to come from where? Tradition! I tell ya what, in answering just five yes or no questions, Dr. Mizzi has shot himself in the foot so many times that they would have to amputate his legs below the knees. And we’ve got one more question to go!

But, before we get to that last question, how does Joe deal with the deuterocanon? I have examined the internal and external evidence for the canonicity of these 7 books of the Old Testament, and I, like the Church and the Christians of the first 15 centuries, find that they are indeed inspired Scripture. Joe has no authority to tell me I’m wrong to do so, yet he indeed tells us Catholics we are wrong to do so.

6) If Bible-only Christians can get it wrong when it comes to their interpretation of the Bible in regard to traditions, as you stated can be the case, then can they get it wrong when it comes to their interpretations regarding doctrines? Yes, or no?

Dr. Joe Mizzi Whatever the preamble means, we do not hesitate to admit that we can be wrong in biblical interpretation; we can be mistaken in some of our beliefs and doctrines. If it were not for the grace of God, we would not believe a single truth rightly.

But being fallible does not imply that one is necessarily mistaken. I am fallible when it comes to mathematics. My math teacher used to remind me of my fallibility each time she corrected my homework. But that does not mean that I got all my sums wrong! Long before the bishop of Rome asserted himself as the infallible head of the universal church, the saints of the Old and New Testaments believed and cherished Gods truth, albeit their many false beliefs and mistakes. Think of the Corinthian church. Where they Christians? Yes. Did they believe the true gospel? Yes. Did they also hold false teaching? Oh yes! Evangelical Christians are happy to continue in the tradition of our forefathers in the faith, and we invite Catholics to return to the roots of our most holy faith.

We may be wrong on many things, but we are most certainly right when we exalt Jesus as the only Name given in the world by which we must be saved. We preach Christ crucified. We preach Christ resurrected, glorified, Lord of heaven and earth. We trust our soul solely to his care. We have no other desire but to glorify our Beloved by living in obedience to his Word. May the Sovereign God open all our minds to understand the Scriptures, and grant us the grace to believe in his Son for our salvation.

Comments/Strategies Only two comments here: First, he says that he can indeed be mistaken in some of his beliefs and doctrines, but then he says in the very next sentence, that it is only by the grace of God that he believes a “single truth rightly.” Well, if he knows that he could be mistaken in some of his beliefs, then how does he know he believes any “single truth rightly?” How can he know, on any given doctrinal belief, that he has gotten that one right? If he can be wrong in his biblical interpretation, then that means he could be wrong in any single, or all, of the disagreements he has with the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Second, I am absolutely stunned by the admission he makes here. Let me repeat what he said: “the saints of the Old and New Testaments believed and cherished Gods truth, albeit their many false beliefs and mistakes. Think of the Corinthian church. Where they Christians? Yes. Did they believe the true gospel? Yes. Did they also hold false teaching? Oh yes! Evangelical Christians are happy to continue in the tradition of our forefathers in the faith…”

Can you believe what he is saying here!? He calls the Corinthians, and the other early Christians, his “forefathers in the faith,” and he says that they believed in “God’s truth” but also in “many false beliefs and mistakes.” And then he says…and this is what blows me away…he says that he is “happy to continue in the tradition” of these forefathers in faith. The tradition that they believed in both “God’s truth” and “many false beliefs and mistakes.” Dr. Joe Mizzi has just admitted that he believes in “many false beliefs and mistakes,” just like his forefathers in the faith, and he is “happy” about it!!! And then he invites us Catholics to return to doing the same?! In essence, he’s saying, “Catholics, abandon your false beliefs and practices, and accept mine.”

My answer? Joe, abandon your admitted “false beliefs and mistakes”…abandon the “many things” you are wrong about…abandon the insecurity that is inherent in relying on your own fallible opinions and, by your own admission, sometimes mistaken understandings of Scripture…and join the Church founded by Jesus Christ…the Church that has the surety of being right on all matters of doctrine and morals…that has the protection given to it, by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, that it will never err. Come back to the Catholic Church. You belong to a “church” that you admit has false beliefs. I belong to the Church that teaches the truth necessary for one to know in order to be set free. How can one be set free in a church where truth and error are happily co-mingled? Come back to the Church that has adhered to the fullness of Apostolic truth throughout the centuries.

Joe’s responses are a perfect example of what I always teach people – if you ask questions, and keep asking questions, you will, sooner than later, be met with answers that are absolutely absurd. Dr. Mizzi admits that he apparently has “many false beliefs and mistakes.” Well, why doesn’t he correct these false beliefs and mistakes? If the Bible is the sure guide, the sure compass, that he says it is – and he is guided by the Holy Spirit when he reads the Bible – then how is it he has fallen for false beliefs and made so many mistakes? And, if he can’t correct his false beliefs and mistakes because he doesn’t know which of his beliefs are false and which aren’t, then how can he ever say anything we believe as Catholics is wrong?

This is a very sad and very obvious case of outright bigotry. Joe Mizzi’s mind is closed to the truth because of his anti-Catholic bigotry and because of his pride. His responses are filled with illogic, hypocrisy, self-contradiction, absurdity, and the downright bizarre. His answers make no sense, but he refuses to make a critical examination of what he has been saying. I’ve pinned him down in such a way as to make him admit that he has no authority, other than himself, to appeal to. After all, how many Scripture verses did he cite to support his opinions amongst these six answers? None. I’ve also pinned him down in such a way as to make him admit that he holds to false beliefs. I’ve pinned him down in such a way as to show the hypocrisy, illogic, and self-contradictions inherent in his beliefs. I’ve pinned him down in such a way that he had to admit that there is no authority, in his belief system, behind the canon of the Scripture. I’ve pinned him down in such a way as to show that he relies on Protestant tradition, rather than Scripture, for much of his belief.

And listen how he closes: “We may be wrong on many things, but we are most certainly right when we exalt Jesus as the only Name given in the world by which we must be saved…” He admits he is wrong on “many things,” but he will never admit he is wrong on a single thing that he disagrees with the Catholic Church on. Why? Bigotry and pride. Plus, as Catholics, we also exalt the name of Jesus as “the only Name given in the world by which we must be saved.” So, since we do that, why aren’t we allowed to also be “wrong on many things?” Hypocrisy. It’s okay for him to “be wrong on many things”…it’s okay for him to adhere to “many false beliefs and mistakes”…but he does not allow the same latitude for Catholics. Hypocrisy.

Now, that’s not to say that Catholics have errors in our doctrinal beliefs, we don’t. And, we have an infallible guide given to us by Jesus Christ Himself to make sure that we can know the truth in matters of faith and morals and know it with certainty. But, Dr. Mizzi is once again saying it’s okay for him to believe in error, as long as he believes in the Name of Jesus above all other names, but it’s not okay for Catholics to believe in error (as he defines it), even though we also believe in the Name of Jesus above all other names. In other words, Dr. Joe Mizzi is just as comfortable with double standards as he is in knowing that he believes in “many false beliefs and mistakes.” A very sad situation indeed. He is in need of much, much prayer so that the scales may fall from his eyes.

New Questions for Joe Mizzi:

1) Joe, you have admitted that it is “possible” that the Holy Spirit could have enabled the successors of the Apostles to “faithfully and accurately pass along the traditions Paul taught by ‘word of mouth.’” You, however, do not believe this happened. Is it possible that you are wrong on this matter and that Catholics are right…yes or no?

2) You do not believe in the passing on of Apostolic Tradition by “word of mouth” from one generation to the next. Is your belief based on your understanding and explanation of the Bible…yes or no? If, “yes,” please give me the specific verse or verses from the Bible that you draw your belief from.

3) Do you believe that all of the Apostolic teachings that were initially taught by “word of mouth,” were eventually written down in the Scriptures…yes or no? If, “yes,” please give the specific verse or verses in the Bible that say such a thing. If “no,” then please give the specific verse or verses in the Bible that say none of these non-written Apostolic teachings were passed on to future generations “by word of mouth.”

4) Does 2 Timothy 2:2 command the passing on of Apostolic teaching via oral transmission…yes or no?

5) You have admitted that you “can” make mistakes in your “understanding and explanation of the Bible.” Have you, then, ever actually made a mistake in your understanding and explanation of the Bible…yes or no?

6) Since you can make mistakes in your interpretation of the Bible, could you have a mistaken interpretation and understanding of certain Bible verses that is causing you to mistakenly deny the truths of one or more Catholic teachings…yes or no?

7) Since you admit to “many false beliefs and mistakes,” could you be wrong in one or more of the areas where you disagree with Catholic doctrine…yes or no? In other words, could the Catholic Church actually be right on at least one, possibly more, of the doctrines you deny…yes or no?

8) Are you guided by the Holy Spirit when you interpret Scripture…yes or no? If, “yes,” then how can you admit to errors in understanding and explanation of the Scriptures? If, “no,” then how can you be sure of any of your understandings and explanations of the Scriptures since it is based on your human reasoning and understanding?

9) Were you unaware that there were several editions of the Bible available in German before Martin Luther was even born…yes or no? If your answer is, “yes,” will you now admit that you were wrong on that account?

10) Does the Bible say that the Letter of James is “God-breathed”…Holy Spirit-inspired and inerrant…yes or no? If, “yes,” please give chapter and verse. If, “no,” then will you admit that your knowledge of the inspiration of James has its roots in oral tradition…yes or no?

11) Is it possible that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead…yes or no?

12) Does the Bible say, directly or indirectly, that we are to discern the spirit of truth from the spirit of error by individually picking up the Bible and reading it…yes or no? If, “yes,” please give chapter and verse.

And, once again, here is Joe’s email address that you can cut and paste and send these questions to: josephmizzi@onvol.net.

And, Joe, I am once again holding your email hostage on my website until you answer these questions. Should just take a couple of minutes. Yes, no, and/or Bible passage. Very simple. Of course, you are more than welcome to add commentary after each yes-no answer as you see fit.

In Conclusion

Again, for those so inclined, please cut and paste the questions and send them off to Joe. I will be very surprised if he actually answers these. In fact, I’m so confident he won’t, that I’m comfortable saying that next week’s issue will start my “Protestant-friendly” version of Sola Fide.

Joe will probably protest that he isn’t bound to answer any more of my questions…that we should just read the applicable verbiage on his website. Well, not good enough. His website does not address these questions in the manner they need to be addressed. If he is truly honest and truly wants to convert Catholics, well here is his chance to get his words, without alteration, out to over 8000 Catholics.

I’m hoping enough of you will send these questions to him, that he’ll either respond or be forced to recognize that maybe he needs to take a good long, hard look at what he believes and why he believes it. If he does respond, you will see him attempt to circle back to things he’s already said, and you may even see him reach new heights in his climb of Mt. Absurdity.

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: