Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #96

General Comments

Hey folks, I hope all of you are well. I’ll be in Reno this coming week – speaking Thursday morning at the Catholic Business Club’s breakfast and then that evening (different talk) at St. Albert’s parish. Counting the travel days, I’ll be out of town for 3 days, so there will be no newsletter next week.

Introduction

I know that I said in the last issue that I would pick up where I left off with an explanation of NFP, but since I will not be able to get a newsletter out next week, I thought I should go ahead and respond to Pastor Walker’s latest email which came in earlier this week.

I’ll pick up with NFP in either the next issue or the one following that, as I don’t think this exchange with Pastor Walker will be lasting much longer. As you’ll see, his answers are simply not making a whole lotta sense. I’ve already heard from several of you to move on, but I thought I would give it at least one more shot.

So, my reply – with excerpts from his email – is immediately below, and then below that I have included his complete email. It’s some 24 pages or so long, so if you want to read it, please feel free. Just know that I replied to what he has in his first several pages, but I did not reply to anything after that. I don’t have the time to do so, but even moreso, I didn’t really see the need to do so. I am trying to continue to narrow the focus down to one of authority – which is at the crux of every doctrinal disagreement.

His comments are in italics.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Dear Pastor Walker,

With all due respect, but as I read through your response I could not help but think of the Scripture that says, “For this people’s heart has grown dull and their ears are heavy of hearing and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn for me to heal them.” It is with great sadness that I read such words as yours.

Our God is not a god of contradiction, yet you contradict yourself over and over again from one sentence to the next, and then you ask me to trust in and believe what you write…you ask me to trust in and believe in your contradictions. Now, you will undoubtedly say, “No, Mr. Martignoni, I’m not asking you to believe and trust in what I say, I’m asking you to believe and trust in what the Word of God says.” But, as a matter of fact, Pastor, you are indeed asking me to trust and believe in you, not in God nor in God’s Word.

I have told you that I have read Scripture. I have told you that it was my reading of Scripture that brought me to believe all that the Catholic Church teaches. I can point you to any number of converts to the Catholic Church – Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Church of Christ, Church of God, Methodists, Presbyterians, and on and on and on – who all say the same thing as I have said: It was their reading of the Bible that brought them to believe all that the Catholic Church teaches. Even though, quite often, they started off searching the Bible to prove the Catholic Church wrong!

I have read and studied Scripture for many hours, days, weeks, and years. I have read what scholars and theologians – Catholic and non-Catholic alike – have written on Scripture. I have prayed for understanding and wisdom. I have prayed for guidance from the Holy Spirit. I have repented of my sins (a work, by the way). I have asked God for forgiveness. I have trusted my life to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I believe on Him and Him alone for my salvation. I have sought first the Kingdom of God (even though you believe I can’t seek God) and He has lived up to His Word by providing all the things that are necessary for my family and me.

All this I, and many others in the Catholic Church, have done – we’ve read and studied Scripture and prayed to God for understanding, wisdom, and guidance. In other words, Pastor, I, and many other Catholics, do believe and trust in Scripture. Yet, my belief and trust in Scripture is unacceptable to you. It will only be such time as I believe and trust in your interpretation of Scripture that you will agree that I’m REALLY believing and trusting in Scripture. Only when I accept your interpretation of Scripture will you agree that I’ve gotten it right. I can’t be trusting in Scripture now you say, because I don’t believe in your interpretation of Scripture! In other words, Pastor Walker, you equate your fallible, man-centered interpretation of Scripture, with the actual Word of God. And you believe that anyone who disagrees with you and your interpretations of the Bible is not believing in the Bible, and, in essence, is headed to Hell.

You say I am headed to Hell for trusting in my interpretation of Scripture; that I am headed to Hell for following the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit as I am led through prayer to do. But, if I (the poor, dumb, gullible, misguided Catholic that I am) would only listen to you…follow your direction and guidance…believe and trust in your interpretation of the Bible – forget what my reading of Scripture tells me…forget what my mind tells me…forget what my heart tells me…forget what I have discerned through fasting and prayer – if I would just believe in your fallible interpretations of the Bible, then I can be saved just like you. So, please, do not protest when I say you are asking me to trust in your fallible interpretation of the Bible, rather than in the Bible itself, because that is indeed exactly what you are telling me to do.

You are asking me to believe and trust in you and your interpretation of Scripture for my salvation. The arrogance of your position would be astounding, if it were not something that I have run into time after time after time. You, who have admittedly created your own theological system, without reference to anything or anyone other than your own personal, and admittedly fallible, understanding of the Bible, want me to trust my salvation to you, instead of to what I find in the Bible. I am already trusting God’s Word for my salvation, but that’s not good enough for you. I have to trust in your understanding of God’s Word in order to be saved.

Now, let me respond directly to some of what you have said:

“Mr. Martignoni, I am not calling into question what you or the Roman Catholic Church teaches in their religion…I just want you, Mr. Martinez, and anyone else in the Roman Catholic Church to understand that when they meet the creator of the universe he is going to tell them that everything they did in his name was done in vain, because he did not know them. (Matthew 7:21-23 and 15:7-9)

So, let me get this straight: You’re not calling into question what the Catholic Church teaches, but you’re just letting us know that if we believe what the Catholic Church teaches, we’re going to Hell, right? Well, I’m certainly glad you’re not calling into question what the Church teaches.

Scripture says, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce, you will be judged.” Seems to me, Pastor Walker, that you just pronounced judgment upon every faithful Catholic in the world. Here you are, a fallible man, a self-proclaimed authority on Scripture and its meaning, pronouncing judgment on my soul in spite of Scripture’s clear warning not to do such a thing. You deem to know, with apparently infallible certainty, that everything I have done in His name has been done in vain. And yet, even though you are in violation of the Scriptures by doing this, you want me to believe that your understanding of the Bible is the one and only correct understanding that is necessary for salvation.

You further stated: “The doctrines and teachings [of the Catholic Church] are not found in the scripture, and as you have shown several times rely on such arguments as “the Bible doesn’t say we can’t do this or that we shouldn’t do that” or they are based on flawed logical progressions originated upon faulty foundations.

There is nothing in the Bible contrary to anything in the Catholic Faith, and there is nothing in the Catholic Faith contrary to anything in the Bible. My arguments do not show that Catholic doctrine and teaching are not found in Scripture, quite the contrary…they are showing that your doctrine and teaching is not found in Scripture. I am simply using your own theology (Bible alone) – simply playing by your rules – to show that you don’t go by your own rules.

Again, your words: “My challenge for you and Mr. Martinez is not start an argument with you, but simply to get to know the God, that by His Holy Spirit has written us and revealed his great mysteries. You do not need to read the scriptures the same way as I do, I never claimed to be infallible or to have all knowledge. However there are several problems with Roman Catholic teaching when you compare it to the Bible, not the least of which is that, when simply building your doctrine from scripture, you will not find most of them at all.”

So, your assumption is that neither I, nor Mr. Martinez, nor any faithful Catholic for that matter, knows God. What you’re really saying here is that until such time as we accept your fallible and limited understanding of Scripture, then we can’t know God. Again, what arrogance!

Then, you go on to say that we “do not need to read the scripture the same way I do,” yet you just finished claiming above that we are bound for Hell because we don’t read the Scriptures the same way as you do. You claim to be fallible in one breath, and in the next you infallibly proclaim the Catholic teaching to be wrong. Correct me if I’m wrong here, Pastor Walker, but the fact that you claim to be fallible and that you claim to not have all knowledge – does that not mean that you could be wrong when it comes to your understanding of the Bible at least some of the time? And, if you could be wrong in your understanding of the Bible, then does that not mean the Catholic Church could be right? It seems to me that you claim to be fallible, but definitely don’t act like you believe you are.

Your words: “I have never said that I was infallible…I never said you had to understand the Bible as I do. When I teach the word, I teach so that others will search it out for themselves. I do them no service if I train them to follow me. Even if all my teachings were right on, I would have then trained up people to not think for themselves, but to follow a man. No, my challenge for us, Mr. Martignoni, is not to follow what I tell you scripture says, but to read scripture and see where it takes us.”

With all due respect, Pastor Walker, but this is a lie. Now, I don’t think you’re lying to me as much as you are lying to yourself…deceiving yourself. What if you train and teach someone regarding Scripture, and they then come to an understanding of some passage that is contrary to yours? How do you know which of you is right and which of you is wrong?

I repeat: I have read Scripture. I have studied Scripture. I have searched it out for myself. I have thought for myself. I have done all that you say you teach people to do, and yet you reject the results. So, what you said above is not the truth. You do not want people to think for themselves, you do not want people to search out Scripture for themselves, you do not want me to go where Scripture has taken me. You want me to believe you. You want me to reject my search of Scripture in favor of your search of Scripture. You want me to reject my thinking in favor of your thinking. You want me to reject where Scripture has taken me in favor of where you believe it has taken you. With all due respect, Pastor Walker, you say one thing when you actually mean another.

Stop deceiving yourself, Pastor. You believe yourself to be an infallible interpreter of the Bible, and you also believe that anyone who deviates from your infallible interpretation of the Bible is putting their souls in jeopardy. You believe that you are guided by the Holy Spirit and that anyone who disagrees with you is not guided by the Holy Spirit. Why you cannot admit to these things is beyond me, as I can so easily read them in your words.

Now, you can claim that I (the poor, dumb, gullible, misguided Catholic that I am) have been sort of brainwashed by the Catholic Church – which I sense is what you actually believe, isn’t it? But that’s taking the easy way out. Simply dismiss what I say because I’ve had a computer chip implanted in my brain at Baptism and Rome controls my every thought and action. Two problems, though: 1) I did not initially believe all that the Catholic Church teaches, but came to believe in all the Catholic Church teaches because I read and studied the Bible; and 2) What do you do with all those folks who weren’t Catholic to begin with, but became Catholic through their reading of the Bible?

You can call me a liar, but that still leaves you with the problem of all those folks converting to the Catholic Church because of their reading, search, study, and understanding of the Bible. You would, and you do, judge them as headed for Hell not because they haven’t read, searched, and studied the Bible for themselves – as Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists, Calvary Chapel, etc. – but because they have done so and yet they disagree with your interpretations of the Bible. So, again, you believe your interpretations of the Bible to be right, and infallibly so, or you could not say the things that you say about Catholic teaching and practice.

Now, I asked you if you were seeking God. You stated, “I am not.” That’s a direct quote. When I then showed you that you were a bit out of step with Scripture on that, I knew you would backpedal on what you said. You said: “I knew you may have difficulty understanding this, so I will try to explain to you.” Sorry, but I had no difficulty understanding what you were saying. I understood it perfectly. The problem is, what you were saying is not in accord with Scripture, and your attempt at an explanation below is not in accord with Scripture and is, in fact, based upon a faulty reading of Scripture, not to mention faulty logic.

You said: “First of all, lets look who Paul is quoting here and the purpose to which he is quoting. Paul is quoting David here…So When he quotes David, a man after God’s heart ( I Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22), he is showing the Jews that even someone that they esteemed so highly, understood that he could never claim to be good or to be seeking God. David understood what, Isaiah would describe as our best works being like filthy rags “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.” Isaiah 64:6"

Indeed Paul is quoting David…from Psalm 14. But, and this is where your very fallible interpretation comes up a bit short, David is not talking about himself, as you seem to think, when he says that “there is none that does good” or that there is no one who is seeking God (verses 1-3). These things are being said about the persons described in the first part of verse 1. And, who is it that is mentioned in verse 1? Is it David himself, or the faithful people of Israel? No! It is the “fool” who says in his heart: “There is no God.”

There is a clear line of demarcation being drawn here between those who reject God – those amongst whom there is none that do good, none that seek God – and those who believe in God. Notice in verse 4, we have the “evildoers,” but then we also have God’s “people.” And in verse 5 we see that there is the generation of the righteous. What is being said in verses 1-3 is being said about those who do not believe in God, it is not being said about David and the faithful people of God, the generation of the righteous. Your interpretation here is totally, completely, and 100% wrong!

I show time after time after time how poorly you interpret Scripture, yet you still cling to your interpretations because you have your preconceived notions about doctrine and you will twist Scripture any way necessary so as not to give up on these unholy doctrines.

Plus, let’s look at Isaiah 64:6. Is Isaiah saying that “our best works are like filthy rags?” No! He is saying that the best works of those who have turned away from God are like filthy rags. What does Isaiah say in verse 5? “Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness.” The works of those who are righteous are not like filthy rags, it is the works of those that have turned from God that are like filthy rags.

Ezek 33:12-13, “The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses…the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered.” (By the way, I hope you don’t believe in once saved, always saved, because if you do, you’ll have to drop this passage from Ezekiel from your Bible – as well as many other passages.) The Bible tells us that good works, when done by the righteous, those who have not turned away from God, are not filthy rags.
Again, Pastor Walker, what you said about David above is simply, and unequivocally, wrong.

You further state the following: “This is similar to someone thinking that they can follow the commandments or that they could ever truly love God with ALL their hearts. The reality of the situation is that we are divided in our very bodies and there is a sin nature that will continue to fight us, never allowing us to be “good”, the best we can do does not even come close to what God is looking for. So when I say I do not seek God, I understand my humble state. I understand Paul’s words in Ephesians, that I have received salvation 100% by God’s grace, and not even a fraction of a percent on my ability to “seek” God. It is not that I don’t want or try to seek him and do good, it is that I truly am incapable of truly seeking him or of doing good.”

First of all, Pastor, as a Catholic, I believe my salvation is by God’s grace alone. I can do nothing in and of myself, to effect my salvation. If you are unaware of this, then you are truly ignorant of Catholic teaching. But, I also believe that with God, all things are possible. I believe that I can follow the commandments and that I can truly love God with “ALL” my heart. I am not saying that I do, but I believe that I can. To believe otherwise is to deny the power of God…which is what you are doing.

You apparently do not believe all things are possible with God. Your belief results in a God Who commands His children to do that which He knows they cannot do. God commands us to love Him with all of our mind, our strength, and our heart. But you say that it’s impossible to do so. Why then does God command such a thing? Yet I read Scripture and I see God commanding me to do so and I see where it says ALL things are possible with God, so I trust in God that it can be done and that I need to strive, with God’s grace, to do it. You, on the other hand, deny that it can be done and in so doing, you deny the power of God.

Furthermore, it is at this point of your explanation that you start re-writing the Scripture. Romans 3:11 says this: “No one seeks for God.” It does not say, “No one seeks for God with ALL their heart.” You’re starting to backtrack on your earlier statements here. Scripture says, “No one seeks God.” “No one does good.” “There is no fear of God.” It doesn’t say, “No one seeks God all the time.” “No one does good all the time.” “No one fears God all the time.” You have added to Scripture in order to justify your interpretation that no one seeks God.

Your fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture causes you to misinterpret this verse as an absolute. Which causes you to misinterpret Psalm 14, as I have shown above. Which causes you to say that you, a Christian pastor, are not seeking God and that you do not fear God, and, I assume, that you do not understand – Romans 3:11, “No one understands.” You deny that these things are possible. Yet, Scripture mentions many, many examples of people seeking God. Plus, Scripture tells us that fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

So, you do not fear the Lord, which means you do not even have the beginning of knowledge, and you do not seek the Lord, and you do not have any understanding; yet you want me to reject my understanding of Scripture for yours! To tell someone that you do not seek God, that you do not fear God, and that you do not understand, and that you do not have even the beginning of understanding because you do not fear the Lord; but that if they don’t agree with your understanding of God’s Word, then they’re headed for Hell…well, with all due respect, but that’s not the most convincing argument I’ve ever seen.

You say I am not seeking the Lord. Yet, I pray. Is that not seeking the Lord? I read and study Scripture. Is that not seeking the Lord? I gather with fellow Christians for worship. Is that not seeking the Lord. Pastor, with all due respect, but you’re having to do all sorts of verbal engineering and twisting of Scripture in order to justify your positions.

Your words: “It is only the understanding that I can not save myself, that I will never be able to please God by my works…So if anyone could in fact gain righteousness through their works, than Christ’s death was worthless and not necessary. Grace through faith, trusting in his name and not ours. This IS the Gospel of Jesus.”

Again, a contradiction. Romans 3:11 says that no one understands, yet you say it is only the “understanding” that you cannot save yourself…how is it you understand, if no one understands?
Also, the Catholic Church agrees that we are not justified through our works. That is the error of Pelagius that was condemned by the Church many centuries ago. Once again, your ignorance of Catholic teaching works against you.

Your words: “As for Romans 3:18, no I do not truly fear the Lord, especially not all the time. Anyone who says otherwise is deceiving themselves. If anyone truly feared the Lord all the time…To fear God, means that you would have to be without sin. And the scripture is clear that nobody fits this.”

Again, you add to Scripture. It says no one fears the Lord. It does not say, “No one fears the Lord all the time.” And, where does the Bible say, “To fear God, means that you would have to be without sin?” Once again, you have added to Scripture. Do you not see, do you not understand, how clever the adversary is to get you to very subtly add man’s word to God’s Word to get you to believe what he wants you to believe?

Now, after showing you the passages from Deut 4:29, 1 Chron 16:10-11, 2 Chron 11:16, Ezra 8:22, Psalm 9:10, Prov 28:5, Amos 5:4, Zeph 2:3, Matt 6:33, and Matt 7:7-8 – all of which speak of God telling us to seek Him or that there are in fact those that do seek Him, you responded as follows:

”Those verses do not teach this. Half of them aren’t even saying that anyone seeks God, but what God would promise to those who would seek him…Anyway I have tried to explain this to you earlier in this email. I understand it may be difficult for you, but the summation of the concept is that even the best I can do is nothing at all compared to what is required. I do not come close to meeting the perfect standard of God and no human born and conceived in sin can. This is why we need a savior.”

First of all, I thank you for being patient with me (the poor, dumb, gullible, misguided Catholic that I am). But, Pastor, I understand the concept. And I believe that nothing I do, in and of myself, can meet the requirements for salvation. I get it. I believe it. The Catholic Church teaches it. But that’s not the point here. The point is that your preconceived notions of doctrine, are leading you to badly…horribly even…misinterpret Scripture. You say that no one seeks God. The Bible says it so you believe it. You do not, however, even for a moment consider the fact that you could be misinterpreting this passage – yet you claim you are indeed fallible. So, when I show you that the Bible commands us to seek God, and that there are instances of people in the Bible seeking God, what do you say? “Oh, well, they’re not seeking God ALL the time. They’re not seeking God with ALL their heart.” Yet, nowhere do I see such words in the Bible. You’ve tried to backtrack on your words by adding to Scripture.

Let’s look more closely at a couple of these verses: Deut 4:28-29, “And there [scattered among the nations] you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of men’s hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him if you search after Him with all your heart and with all your soul.”

Your interpretation of Rom 3:11 would lead to an interpretation of this verse that would have God telling the Israelites that they’ll find Him if they search for Him with ALL their heart and soul, but, according to you, it’s impossible for them to search for Him with all of their heart and soul…which means they won’t find God. Your interpretation of this verse has God telling the Israelites that they will find Him only if they do something that He knows they cannot do. What a cruel God you have!

2 Chron 11:16 says that the folks who had set their hearts to seek God came to Jerusalem. It states clearly, unequivocally, that there were people who were seeking God. The passage from Ezra divides the world into those that are seeking God and those that are not seeking God. Psalm 9:10 says that God has not forsaken those who seek Him. You don’t believe anyone seeks Him, so you must believe God has forsaken everyone.

Heb 11:6 – “For whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.” Please explain this one to me in light of the fact that no one seeks Him. If no one seeks God, then He isn’t rewarding anyone. So, why do I have to believe He rewards those who seek Him, when it is impossible for anyone to seek Him? Your theology makes nonsense out of Scripture. But, of course, you want me to think for myself on this right? Sure you do!

With a simple wave of your hand you dismiss the very clear meaning of all of these Scripture verses in order to stick to your manmade tradition. And listen carefully to what you said: “Half of them aren’t even saying that anyone seeks God, but what God would promise to those who would seek him.”

How ridiculous is it for God to promise something to those who seek Him when He knows that no one can seek Him (again, according to you)?! What a ridiculous God your theology produces. I can almost hear the screams of these verses as you twist them this way and that. And, you say that half of those Scripture passages I cite aren’t “even saying that anyone seeks God,” which must mean that half of them do indeed say that.

You close this particular argument by saying this: “Well, I think I have answered you here. And have shown that no one can claim to be good, to seek God, or to fear him. However if you would like to search it out with me, I would love to study this with you. Let’s search scripture, reading all these passages in context and see what scriptures says regarding our ability to please God and see if it is possible to truly seek God and to be righteous..”

You’ve answered me? How? Where? You went off on some tangent that I’m not even arguing with you about. I agree that, without God, nothing we do can be pleasing to God. However, I claim to be seeking God. I claim to fear God. Your “answer” consisted of you basically saying all those Scripture passages I quoted don’t really mean what they say, and that no matter how many passages of Scripture I quote, I’ve obviously read them out of context if they say something that disagrees with your interpretation. Is it possible, just possible…that you are the one who is wrong here? Will you admit that I could be right? If you truly believe yourself to be a fallible person, who is relying upon his own fallible interpretation, you have to admit that you could be wrong. But you won’t, will you?

In my last email to you, I stated the following: “But, in reality you don’t give a hoot about what the early Christians said and what the mind of the Church was in the early centuries, or in any century, of Christianity, do you? You rely on your interpretation, and yours alone, to arrive at what you believe to be the truth.”

You replied with this: “My statement was to tell you that I was not regurgitating someone else’s teaching, but telling you what the Holy Spirit has shown me…I did not mean that I did not listen to or ever consult other men for their thoughts or inputs.”

Another contradiction. Why do you ever bother to listen to or consult other men when it is the Holy Spirit Who is directly teaching you? How is it you claim to be fallible on the one hand, yet claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit on the other? One is completely incompatible with the other. Does the Holy Spirit guide you sometimes but not other times? If the Holy Spirit is guiding you, how is it you ever sin?

You continued with the following: “In a way, I don’t give a hoot as what early Christians wrote about. I know their writing is not inspired and that it is merely the thoughts of a sinful man. Their writings originate with them, scriptures originates from the Holy Spirit. If a man has a doctrine that contradicts scripture, it is wrong.

Aye, and there’s the rub. Who is it that judges whether or not a man has a doctrine that contradicts Scripture? You? You can read St. Polycarp, a disciple of John, who heard the Gospel preached from the mouth of the Apostle Himself, and if his interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture disagrees with yours, you can simply dismiss his interpretation in favor of yours? By what authority do you declare Polycarp’s interpretations to be inferior to yours? By what authority do you declare my interpretations to be inferior to yours? The Holy Spirit? Well, then, you are infallible. But, you can’t be, because you claimed not to be. Someone who is infallible, would be wrong if they claimed themselves to be fallible. You act as prosecution, judge, and jury when it comes to deciding correct and incorrect doctrine. Who gave you such authority?! Who made you the arbiter of disputes between Christians on matters of doctrine? On matters of scriptural interpretation? You have placed yourself in a very dangerous position. Whether because of pride, or arrogance, or ignorance…it is a very dangerous thing you have done by assuming such authority for yourself.

And where does the authority of the Church come into play in your system of theology? You answer to no Church. You answer to no man Yet the Scripture is replete with examples of God placing men over other men in matters of doctrine and theology. And the Scripture very clearly shows the Church as the place to take disputes between Christians to. Yet you do no such thing…you rely solely on you. You are your own authority in all matters of doctrine.

This next thing you said was incredulous: “I do find it interesting to read what other Christians have found in their study of God’s word, but all things must be tested against the scripture. The same applies to anything I find, if it contradicts scripture, I must reject it as well.”

So, you must reject any personal interpretation of Scripture that you come up with, that contradicts the personal interpretation of Scripture that you have come up with? Forgive me, but do you not recognize the absolute absurdity of that statement? If you come to a conclusion based on your personal interpretation of Scripture, then you will never reject it because it is based on your personal interpretation of Scripture. And for you, your personal interpretation of Scripture is Scripture. With all due respect, Pastor Walker, but that was not one of the most intelligent things you’ve written in these exchanges. How can you ever decide that your personal interpretation of Scripture is wrong? What standard would you use to tell you that your personal interpretation of Scripture was ever wrong? Would the standard you used be your personal interpretation of Scripture? Sorry, Pastor, but that dog don’t hunt.

A few more of your comments:

”I know that I am not infallible and that God will guide me into all truth. I am not saying that you should accept what I say or teach as truth, but to search it out for yourself. I was not telling you that I had all truth and understanding, but again just that I did not arrive at my conclusions because I followed some other man. It is good to seek the counsel of Godly men. I did not mean that I am some sort of rogue man wandering in the wilderness seeking truth.

Again I am not spending my evenings writing and responding to your emails to make you a disciple of mine. I do not want anyone following me…On the contrary I know that I am wrong on some things, I continue to search so I can find out where and fix it. And I train others to read the scriptures and search it out for themselves. Just as I have done with you and Mr. Martinez, was not to have you accept my thoughts, but to instead search God’s word and see what it says not what I say.”

More of the same…contradictions and absurdities. You are not infallible, yet God is guiding you into all truth. How then, if you are being guided into all truth, are you not infallible? You are indeed saying to accept what you teach, despite your claims to the contrary. I have searched it out for myself, as have many others – converts to the Catholic Faith included – and you reject what I have searched out for myself. You tell me I should interpret the Bible for myself, and then when I do, you tell me that I’m wrong. With all due respect, but that is mighty hypocritical of you. You want me to reject my thoughts and to accept yours, and if you cannot see that, then you are truly a very blind man. And, you are indeed a “sort of rogue man wandering in the wilderness seeking truth.” You stated that you have built your theology all on your own. That you have decided, all by yourself, without answering to any other authority, on what is true and what is not true…on what is scriptural and what is not scriptural. You reject anyone’s interpretations of Scripture that do not coincide with yours, do you not?

Finally, you say that you know that you are wrong on some things. I’m sorry, but I think you are simply blowing smoke here. I do not think you really believe you are wrong on some things. How is that possible if the Holy Spirit is guiding you into all truth? And you know you are wrong on some things, but you don’t know what they are? Then how do you know you’re wrong? And why would you take the chance of teaching people these errors that you admit to believing in, when they could possibly jeopardize their souls? I find this fascinating that you admit to being wrong on some things in regard to Scripture, yet here you are teaching people about Scripture. You are rolling the dice with people’s souls. How irresponsible is that!!!

I’ve asked you this already, but I have yet to get a straight answer, so I will ask again: You admit to being fallible. You admit to being wrong on “some things.” Therefore my question is: Could you be wrong on one or more of your interpretations of Scripture that are at variance with Catholic interpretations? Yes or no? For example, could your interpretation of Romans 3:11 and Psalm 14:1-3 and the other verses I mentioned above…could they be wrong? Yes or no?

Also, is everything you have written to me in these emails the infallible truth? Yes or no? If yes, then, again, you see yourself as being infallible, even if you claim otherwise. If no, then where have you erred?

I am stopping here until I get direct answers. You see, if you say, “Yes,” you could be wrong in one or more areas of disagreement with the Catholic Church, then how dare you try to get me to believe what you are teaching, when you know it could be wrong. How dare you to be willing to gamble my soul on your interpretation of Scripture! If you say, “Yes,” you could be wrong, then all that you said about trying to get people to go by the Scriptures, and not by what you say, would be a load of garbage. Because, if you can be wrong in your interpretation of the Scriptures, yet you’re trying to get someone to not believe their interpretation (which could be right) and to believe your interpretation (which could be wrong) – as you are doing with me – then you are in fact trying to get them to follow you, and not the Bible.

But, if you say, “No,” you are not wrong in a single interpretation where you are at variance with the Catholic interpretation of the same verse, then your claim that you are fallible would be a load of garbage. You would in fact be claiming infallibility in your interpretation of the Bible. No matter how you answer that question, you have a problem. So, my prediction is that you will not answer that question. You will talk all around it, but you won’t answer it.

Oh, one last Bible verse that I want to point out to you that you have not answered my questions about and which you continually misinterpret…James 2:26. You again assert, quite unbiblically, that faith without works is not faith. Nowhere does the Bible say such a thing and certainly not in James 2:26. Try to understand this, please…the body and the spirit are analogous to faith and works, according to this verse from God’s Word. You correctly say that the body without the spirit is useless. The body, without the spirit, is dead. There is no life…no physical life.

But, nowhere does God’s Word say the body without the spirit is not really a body, does it? Does it? Those things down at the morgue are still bodies, even though they don’t have a spirit, aren’t they? I assume you will say, “Yes,” they are still bodies. (If my assumption is incorrect, please let me know.) So, for the analogy to hold, to make any sense whatsoever, then faith (the body) without works (the spirit) is still faith, is it not? But it is dead faith. Useless faith. Nowhere does the Scripture imply, or even hint, that faith without works isn’t really faith. That would mean that body without the spirit really isn’t a body. Which is why Catholics believe, and which is why the Bible says (James 2:24), that we are NOT justified by faith ALONE! Just as you need both body and soul for physical life, so you need both faith and works for spiritual life.

You want me to do a Bible study with you, yet you cannot even read this simple analogy without adding words and meanings to it that are nowhere found in the verse?! Please tell me where, in the analogy in James 2:26, we find that faith without works really isn’t faith? Is a body without a spirit not really a body? Yes or no? These are simple concepts, simple verses, yet you talk all around them in order to avoid the very clear and simple meaning. And you want me to do a Bible study with you? To what end? So you can convince me that your erroneous interpretations of Scripture are indeed true?

So, that’s it for now until I can get some direct answers to these questions.

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

His full response to last week’s newsletter:

Dear Pastor Walker,

I would have to say that, overall, you simply are not understanding the thrust of my arguments. I will assume responsibility for most, but not all, of the misunderstanding and seek to do a better job of clarifying my position. I say that I will accept “most” of the responsibility because I believe some of the misunderstanding comes from preconceived biases against the Catholic Faith on your part.

You speak of starting from scratch without preconceived notions when it comes to building one’s theology and doctrines, so I would simply ask the same of you when it comes to Catholics and what it is we believe and practice. You look at our Faith through what are, essentially, Protestant lenses and with an essentially Protestant understanding, rather than attempting to view our Faith through the eyes of a Catholic and with Catholic understanding.

Mr. Martignoni, I am not calling into question what you or the Roman Catholic Church teaches in their religion. I am seeking the truth and helping others to find it. My point is that the Bible is truth, and when I build my theology on it, I know it is true. The Roman Catholic Church can teach anything they want and you are free to believe anything you want. I just want you, Mr. Martinez, and anyone else in the Roman Catholic Church to understand that when they meet the creator of the universe he is going to tell them that everything they did in his name was done in vain, because he did not know them. (Matthew 7:21-23 and 15:7-9) I only wish to share with you and others the truth of scripture, because the truth will set you free. In other words we do not need to agree, just know that when you follow Roman Catholic teaching, you are not following the God described in the pages of scriptures. The doctrines and teachings are not found in the scripture, and as you have shown several times rely on such arguments as “the Bible doesn’t say we can’t do this or that we shouldn’t do that” or they are based on flawed logical progressions originated upon faulty foundations. My challenge for you and Mr. Martinez is not start an argument with you, but simply to get to know the God, that by His Holy Spirit has written us and revealed his great mysteries. You do not need to read the scriptures the same way as I do, I never claimed to be in fallible or to have all knowledge. However there are several problems with Roman Catholic teaching when you compare it to the Bible, not the least of which is that, when simply building your doctrine from scripture, you will not find most of them at all. Now as I respond to your questions, know that I am not debating you, but only interested in showing everyone the truth that is in scripture and how they can rest in his name and be saved.

It’s as if you went to a “football” game in Italy, expecting to see and hear things in a certain way, only to find them playing a game (soccer) that didn’t fit with your definition of football. So, you set about telling them that they’re not playing football in the right way and how they’ve gotten all the rules wrong and so on. Instead of realizing that they use the term “football” to mean one thing, and you use it to mean another, you try to force your definitions and your rules and your understanding onto their practice and their language and their understanding. Now, this is not a perfect analogy, but basically what you’re doing is taking your rules and applying them to our game. And when we don’t play by your rules, you condemn us to Hell.

First of all I condemn no one to hell. Not only do I not have the power, but when I show someone from scripture that they are doing something worthy of hell, it is not I that condemn them, but themselves and God. I would only be a messenger. However, I do agree with you, I would say this is obviously not the same sport as I know and I would make the clear distinction between the two based upon the aspects of the game and not on their similar names. And I feel the same way regarding the Roman Catholic faith and Biblical Christianity. They are entirely two different games. I do not believe you and I share a similar faith in the least, I only hope to show those who think they are playing the right game that, they are missing the real game. (No negativity intended here for the sport of football or soccer J) As I said you are free to “play” any game that you want. You are free to do as you want, I am not forcing you to “play” a different game, nor am I condemning you for playing a different game than I do.

But to use your analogy, if I went to Italy and I knew I was going to watch a football game, and the players, coaches and fans were very excited because they were anticipating scouts from the NFL to visit soon, then I would realize there was a problem. I would know that they were going to be sorely disappointed, if they thought the NFL scouts were looking for “football” (soccer) players, and had been practicing soccer in preparation. I would want to let them know, that they are practicing for the wrong game, the scouts will not be impressed, because they will be looking for different skills. So if I were to show the Italian players what the NFL scouts were looking for, it would not be a condemnation of their game. Instead it would be to help them to be ready for the scouts and to understand what they would be looking for. If they choose to keep practicing soccer and not listen to my words, I would feel sorry for them, but I would also know that they did not fail because no one told them, but that they chose to practice a different game.

And please don’t respond with, “It’s not my rules, it’s the rules of Jesus Christ as found in the Scriptures. I’m just going by what it says in the Scriptures.” No, you are not going by what it says in Scripture. You are actually going by your interpretation of the words of Scripture, but yours is an interpretation that is not grounded in anything other than your own understanding of the Bible, as you freely admit in your response to me; and your understanding of Scripture, and thereby your interpretation of Scripture, is fallible – as you also readily admit.

I have never said that I was infallible, as other men have done, but that simply does not mean that we can not know truth. This has been my challenge to you and Mr. Martinez from the beginning, to look at the scriptures together and see what we get, when we let the inerrant word of God guide us. I never said you had to understand the Bible as I do. When I teach the word, I teach so that others will search it out for themselves. I do them no service if I train them to follow me. Even if all my teachings were right on, I would have then trained up people to not think for themselves, but to follow a man. No, my challenge for us, Mr. Martignoni, is not to follow what I tell you scripture says, but to read scripture and see where it takes us. If from reading it, without something to prove, you are able to build the same doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, than that doctrine would be solid.

And relying on your own interpretation can lead you into a great deal of trouble. In my last email, I asked you if you were “seeking God.” I asked because you were interpreting Rom 3:23 (“since ALL have sinned…”) as an absolute statement and were thereby using it to “prove,” from Scripture, that Mary was a sinner. So, I asked you if you seek God, because in Rom 3:11 it says that, “NO ONE seeks for God.” I wanted to see if you thought Rom 3:11 should be interpreted as an absolute as well. I thought that there was no way you, as a Christian pastor, would claim not to be seeking God and I could then show that you were being inconsistent – interpreting Rom 3:23 as an absolute but not interpreting Rom 3:11 as an absolute.

I knew you may have difficulty understanding this, so I will try to explain to you. First of all, lets look who Paul is quoting here and the purpose to which he is quoting. Paul is quoting David here and making a statement in Romans 3:23, because he trying to show the Jews, that they are in the same boat as the Gentiles when it comes to sin. The Jews weren’t going to escape punishment because they had the law, in fact Paul said in Romans 2 that they even less an excuse for their transgressions, because the had the law and knew what was right or wrong but then did the same things. So When he quotes David, a man after God’s heart ( I Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22), he is showing the Jews that even someone that they esteemed so highly, understood that he could never claim to be good or to be seeking God. David understood what, Isaiah would describe as our best works being like filthy rags “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.” Isaiah 64:6

This is similar to someone thinking that they can follow the commandments or that they could ever truly love God with ALL their hearts. The reality of the situation is that we are divided in our very bodies and there is a sin nature that will continue to fight us, never allowing us to be “good”, the best we can do does not even come close to what God is looking for.

So when I say I do not seek God, I understand my humble state. I understand Paul’s words in Ephesians, that I have received salvation 100% by God’s grace, and not even a fraction of a percent on my ability to “seek” God. It is not that I don’t want or try to seek him and do good, it is that I truly am incapable of truly seeking him or of doing good.

But, you surprised me. When I asked if you were seeking God, you responded as follows: “I am not. I would say this is impossible, while living in this body of sin. We are in a constant battle with the flesh, and our hearts are always set on evil. (Romans 7) I would not presume to say that I am living this out, nor can I accept that you are. Especially when scripture tells us that no one does…So we can not say that we are really seeking God, especially when God say that no one does.”

Pastor, your preconceived bias about Catholic teaching on Mary has led you astray here because in order to be consistent in your interpretation of Scripture, and not to concede my point, you have to interpret not only Rom 3:23 in an absolute manner, you have to also interpret Rom 3:11 in an absolute manner. You are at least consistent, but you are consistent in error. By the way, you must not fear God either, because Rom 3:18 says, “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Do you not fear God, Pastor Walker?

Mary has absolutely nothing to do with this understanding. I can assure you neither she, nor the Roman Catholic Church was on my mind, when I read this or came to understand it. In fact this understanding is the very foundation of the gospel. It is only the understanding that I can not save myself, that I will never be able to please God by my works, that I am already condemned from the moment I am conceived and that I stand on death row, from a sentence that was past at Adam (Romans5), that makes the gospel truly good news. When we were all in death and powerless to do anything to save my self, God himself died for me, his enemy. This is the good news, taught by the apostles. Paul says in Galatians 2:21

“I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

So if anyone could in fact gain righteousness through their works, than Christ’s death was worthless and not necessary. Grace through faith, trusting in his name and not ours. This IS the Gospel of Jesus.

As for Romans 3:18, no I do not truly fear the Lord, especially not all the time. Anyone who says otherwise is deceiving themselves. If anyone truly feared the Lord all the time, they would understand that sin is an affront to him, it is a personal attack to him and he sees and knows everything. If anyone truly feared God there is no way they could sin. They would not fear starvation and think to even steal bread. They would never be proud or put anything before the Lord. Simply, when someone fears God they will not sin. John tells us in 1 John 1:8

1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

To fear God, means that you would have to be without sin. And the scripture is clear that nobody fits this.

Imagine, a Christian pastor who says he does not seek God! Is your interpretation of Rom 3:11, which states that ABSOLUTELY no one seeks God, consistent with the rest of the Scriptures, though? Let’s see.

Deut 4:29 – “But from there [the land of Israel] you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find him, if you search after Him with all your heart and with all your soul.”

1 Chron 16:10-11 – “Let the hearts of those who seek the Lord rejoice! Seek the Lord and His strength, seek His presence continually!”

2 Chron 11:16 – “And those who had set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel…”

Ezra 8:22 – “The hand of our God is for good upon all that seek Him…”

Psalm 9:10 – “For Thou, O Lord, hast not forsaken those who seek Thee.”

Prov 28:5 – “…but those who seek the Lord understand it [justice] completely.”

Amos 5:4 – “For thus says the Lord…’Seek me and live.’”

Zeph 2:3 – “Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land who do His commands.”

Matt 6:33 – “But seek ye first His kingdom and His righteousness…”

Matt 7:7-8 – “Seek and you shall find…for he who seeks finds.”

Heb 11:6 – “For whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.”

Yes, absolutely no one is good and no one truly seeks God.

There are many more passages that I could have cited, but these will suffice to show that your interpretation, Pastor Walker, of Rom 3:11 is inconsistent with the rest of the Scriptures. There are plenty of folks throughout the Scriptures who are seeking God. Scripture commands us to seek God! Yet, you say “I am not” seeking God. Your answer that you do not seek God is rather damning. 2 Chron 14:13, “And that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death.”

Those verses do not teach this. Half of them aren’t even saying that anyone seeks God, but what God would promise to those who would seek him. Anyway I have tried to explain this to you earlier in this email. I understand it may be difficult for you, but the summation of the concept is that even the best I can do is nothing at all compared to what is required. I do not come close to meeting the perfect standard of God and no human born and conceived in sin can. This is why we need a savior.

In other words, Pastor, your interpretation of Rom 3:11, and thereby the rest of Romans 3, is not in line with the Word of God. And, if you have so badly interpreted these passages, whose to say you haven’t done the same with many others? Your answer, “I am not,” to my question as to whether or not you are seeking God, speaks to the terrible bind you put yourself in when you rely on your own fallible understanding of Scripture. As Proverbs 3:5 says, “Lean not unto your own understanding.” Yet, that is exactly what you are doing. And your understanding has led you to believe and teach things that are contrary to the Scriptures, as I’ve just shown. For a Christian pastor to admit that he is NOT seeking God, is absolutely bizarre!

Well, I think I have answered you here. And have shown that no one can claim to be good, to seek God, or to fear him.

However if you would like to search it out with me, I would love to study this with you. Let’s search scripture, reading all these passages in context and see what scriptures says regarding our ability to please God and see if it is possible to truly seek God and to be righteous..

You said, “My beliefs are directly taken from scripture, from my own study and from the Holy Spirit.” In other words, you rely on no one other than yourself for your interpretations of Scripture. Yet, in an earlier email, you stated that the writings of the early Christians were important, as they give one insight into the mind of the Church in those early centuries. But, in reality you don’t give a hoot about what the early Christians said and what the mind of the Church was in the early centuries, or in any century, of Christianity, do you? You rely on your interpretation, and yours alone, to arrive at what you believe to be the truth.

My statement was to tell you that I was not regurgitating someone else’s teaching, but telling you what the Holy Spirit has shown me. Mr. Martinez seemed to think that I was simply restating what I had been fed by some teacher or Catholic basher. And I wanted you to know that my beliefs are based on solely on scripture. I did not mean that I did not listen to or ever consult other men for their thoughts or inputs. In a way, I don’t give a hoot as what early Christians wrote about. I know their writing is not inspired and that it is merely the thoughts of a sinful man. Their writings originate with them, scriptures originates from the Holy Spirit. If a man has a doctrine that contradicts scripture, it is wrong. I do find it interesting to read what other Christians have found in their study of God’s word, but all things must be tested against the scripture. The same applies to anything I find, if it contradicts scripture, I must reject it as well.

I think all history is important to read, but that does not make it anything I would build my faith on. If their writing did not originate with them, but with the Holy Spirit, than I would as I would know that it is truth. But I think both of us would admit that these writings were not inspired.

You say that you take your beliefs from the Holy Spirit as well as from your own study of Scripture, but how is that so? Is the Holy Spirit guiding you in all of your interpretations of Scripture? If He is, then why do you admit to being fallible when it comes to interpreting Scripture and why do you admit that you could be wrong in some of your interpretations and that I could be right? Being fallible in your interpretation of Scripture, and admitting to the possibility of being wrong in your interpretation of Scripture, are incompatible with being guided by the Holy Spirit, are they not? Is the Holy Spirit fallible? Can He get His interpretations of Scripture wrong? Plus, can you show me, in the Bible, where it says that we are to rely solely upon our own study of Scripture in order to decide for ourselves on matters of faith and morals? Where, and please give chapter and verse, is your doctrine of self-interpretation of the Scriptures…without relying on any outside authority…where is that taught in the Bible?

I know that I am not infallible and that God will guide me into all truth.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

I am not saying that you should accept what I say or teach as truth, but to search it out for yourself. I was not telling you that I had all truth and understanding, but again just that I did not arrive at my conclusions because I followed some other man. It is good to seek the counsel of Godly men. I did not mean that I am some sort of rogue man wandering in the wilderness seeking truth.

However, we do have in the scriptures a mandate to use them to teach and train and command to stick to the scriptures. Scripture is the authority.

1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

When we use the scriptures for matters of training, rebuking, correcting, and training we will thoroughly be equipped for every good work.

And, if the Holy Spirit is not guiding you in all of your interpretations of Scripture, then we can rightly say that your interpretations are man-made, can we not? Or, if you claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding you some of the time but not all of the time, why is He not guiding you all of the time? And, how do you know when He is guiding you and when He’s not?

With all due respect Mr. Martignoni, this accusation should not be pointed at me but the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. I never claim infallibility in any matters or whatever chair I am sitting in.

Again I am not spending my evenings writing and responding to your emails to make you a disciple of mine. I do not want anyone following me. I don’t teach in my church for them to follow me or any man. We are all sinners and fallible. We know in part and understand in part. On the contrary I know that I am wrong on some things, I continue to search so I can find out where and fix it. And I train others to read the scriptures and search it out for themselves. Just as I have done with you and Mr. Martinez, was not to have you accept my thoughts, but to instead search God’s word and see what it says not what I say.

I hope this helps to clarify that I am not seeking for anyone to simply leave the Roman Catholic church and follow me. Only that they seek the truth of the word of God and not rely on men to tell them what to believe.

So, to sum up this portion of my arguments, you admit that you rely on your own understanding, and no one else’s, when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Yet, you also admit that you are not seeking God. You further admit that you are fallible in your interpretations of Scripture, and that you could be wrong and I could be right when it comes to interpreting certain passages of the Bible. So, my question to you is, given all that you have here freely admitted, by what authority do you declare my interpretations wrong and yours right? If you could be wrong, as you have admitted, then that means the Catholic Church could be right on some of the doctrinal matters that you currently disagree with, couldn’t it? How then can you, as a Pastor, teach people regarding what the Word of God says when you admit that you could be teaching them error…that you could be leading them astray? Do you think, “Well, there’s a 99% chance that I’m right,” or some such thing? You are, in essence, gambling the souls of those in your flock on your fallible, and possibly wrong, interpretations of the Bible.

I think I clarified these points earlier in this email. I teach so that each person can search the scriptures and use proper study techniques to understand them.

Now, as to what you stated about building the Church from Scripture. Again, my question, which came first, the Church or the Bible? The Church came first. So, we have historical precedence for building the Scripture from the Church, but not for building the Church from Scripture. But, as I will show, you do not really even build your church from Scripture.

In what way did the church predate the scripture? I am curious to what you mean here. Are you referring to the body of Christ, than I could agree with you. As Adam was the first Christian as he knew Christ in the Garden as his creator. However if you are referring to the New Testament church, than are you dismissing that fact that the majority of the Bible was written before Jesus was born on Earth? Not only was it written prior, but firmly held to and known as the inspired word of God.

Did not the members of the early church hold all things in common (Acts 2:44)? Does your church do that? Did not the early church call councils to resolve doctrinal disputes instead of consulting the Bible (Acts 15)? Does your church do that? Did not the early church have leaders who said that we could know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error by listening to what they said…not by reading the Bible on our own (John 4:6)? Does your church have such leaders? Did not the early church believe in the Word of God in both written and oral form (1 Thes 2:13; 2 Thes 2:15)? Does your church do that? Did the early church not build its doctrine and theology on both written and oral tradition? Does your church do that? Did not the early church have leaders – Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons – who were ordained by the Apostles or whose line of ordination could be traced back to the Apostles. Does your church have such leaders?

In other words, Pastor Walker, your church is not really built on the Bible as you claim it is. It is built on a hollowed out version of the church we find in the Scriptures. In your church, as you have admitted, the members of the church choose and ordain their pastor. Where in the Bible does it relate such a thing happening? By whose authority were you ordained a pastor? Where did that authority come from? How far back can you trace your line of ordination? 25 years? 50 years? 150 years? You freely admit that there is no such thing as apostolic succession in your church…how then can you claim your church is the church founded by Jesus Christ? Wouldn’t the church of Jesus Christ be able to trace its line of authority all the way back to Jesus and His Apostles?

Again I am puzzled as to how you know what my church believes? You continue to assume things as to what I believe or teach. My church seeks to stick as close to the teachings of scripture as we can.

Anyway, as I have explained previously the Bible clearly shows us how overseers and elders and deacons should be ordained in a church. It did not have to be done by one of the apostles as we see that Paul leaves Timothy and Titus to do it in their respective areas. So when I was appointed to be the Pastor I was appointed in accordance with the qualification found in 1 Timothy chapter 3 and in Titus 1 and by its authority. This clearly would show a steadfast allegiance to the way in which they should be appointed going back to when the very first pastors were appointed.

However, as I contrasted before, an overseer, deacon, or elder is not an Apostle. They did not have to have been direct witnesses of Christ, but only faithful to hold to the teachings of the Apostles. When Matthias was chosen to replace Judas, the qualification for choosing an Apostle was set:

Acts1:

21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

Paul was only accepted as an Apostle after his message was seen to be the same message of the Gospel that the other Apostles taught.

On the other hand Overseers and Elders only had to be reliable and faithful men who would teach others the SAME gospel taught to them.

2 Timothy 2:2

2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

Again it is not I that claim infallibility or some unbroken succession of an apostleship. Paul, after he told Timothy how to choose overseers and Elders, warned against those who would come teaching the doctrines of demons. They would forbid people to get married and tell them to abstain from certain foods. He explained why this was wrong and then he said: “1 Timothy 4:6 “If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.”

In other words a good minister of Jesus Christ, is one that teaches the good teaching that Paul taught and Timothy followed.

Now regarding my questions about who wrote Mark. I do not have a misconception about what you believe. I never said you think that truth can only be found in the Bible. My argument is that you do not really build your theology and doctrines on the Bible alone, but on the Bible and some other authority outside of the Bible. You claim not to have preconceived notions, yet your assumption that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God is a preconceived notion. You came to the Bible with that belief already in place. You came to the Bible with the preconceived notion that we should only rely on the Bible for building our theology and doctrines. You came to the Bible with the preconceived notion that every one of the individual books of the Bible is rightfully in the Bible and is to be considered the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Even though the Bible nowhere tells us we should build our doctrines and theology based on the Bible alone and nowhere tells us which books should and should not be considered Scripture. Do you deny these things?

I did not approach the Bible as it was inerrant before I decided if it was truth. Instead I knew that if it weren’t 100% truth, than it is false, because how could I tell the lie from truth? I would have to either accept it as truth, something I could only do if I confirmed it’s truth, or I had to reject it in its entirety. How could anyone live their life by writings that they could not know what was truth and what wasn’t? That would be foolish. As Paul explains in 1 Corinthians, mans’ wisdom and God’s wisdom at opposition to each other. So in other words, there are many things in scripture that would fail the test of human wisdom and have to be believed by faith that if God said it will happen. Being fully persuaded that what God says will come true. If anyone is going to trust in his words, they must first know that they are his words.

When I examined scripture I did not approach it as it was all inspired, but instead I sought to prove it first. My reasoning was that if I was going to radically alter my life to follow the teachings of the Bible I better know that it is truth. If it is simply wise sayings or good thoughts, or even if most of it was true, but not all, than how could I know what to believe? How could I make life altering decisions, if there was a possibility that it was not completely reliable?

Let’s look again at my questions and then at your answers. I asked the following 3 questions: 1) Who wrote Mark? 2) Was the writer of Mark inspired by the Holy Spirit? 3) Where, in the Bible, does it give us the list of which books should be in the Bible?

You answered as follows: 1) The Holy Spirit, through a man. 2 Peter 1:21; 2) Yes, 2 Timothy 3:16; 3) It doesn’t.

With all due respect but you didn’t really answer my first two questions. The Holy Spirit did indeed write the Gospel of Mark through a man, but how do you know, and which man did He write it through? Who told you? Does the Bible tell you these things? No, it does not. So, how do you know? What authority do you rely upon to tell you that Mark is inspired Scripture? Plus, when you say that 2 Tim 3:16 tells you that the writer of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit because it says all Scripture is inspired by God, this is a beautiful piece of circular reasoning. You say not to bring preconceived notions to the table when building one’s doctrines and theology, yet that is exactly what you do. You assume Mark is Scripture, and then you say that 2 Tim 3:16 says all of Scripture is inspired of God; therefore, Mark is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

It is circular reasoning to use 2 Timothy to prove Mark, but not to affirm what Mark says. I rely on the Old Testament to tell me that Mark is inspired scripture. This is the same thing that all the early Christians had to do and the same thing we see the Bereans doing when Paul came to preach to them.

How do you know 2 Timothy is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Who testifies to this fact? The Bible cannot be its own witness. If you allow the Bible to be its own witness, then you must allow the Koran to be its own witness, unless of course you’re starting with preconceived notions as to the inspiration of the Bible.

Well we know that Paul wrote the letter, we know that Paul was an Apostle, that Jesus appeared to him directly and taught him. We also know that his message was consistent with the other Apostles as well as the Old Testament (see the Bereans), and we know that the other Apostles affirmed him and his teaching as well. We can read the message contained in 2 Timothy and compare it with other works we already know to be scripture and see how it compares.

The Bible can stand as a witness, because it is not just one book, but 66 books. It is not one standing on the witness of itself, but a continual chain of witnesses attesting to each other. However I think you bring up an interesting point. If the Roman Catholic church is responsible for collecting and giving the Bible, so making it a work of the Roman Catholic Church, then by what authority does the Pope or the church exist or operate? Would that be by the authority of Matthew 16? But if the Bible is a work of the church, than wouldn’t the church then be it’s own witness? Interesting?

With all due respect, but you talk about not bringing preconceived notions, and when I take you up on this, and start the conversation with the question of how do you know the Bible is indeed inspired Scripture…you all of a sudden stick hard and fast to your preconceived notions. I know that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God because of the testimony of the Church. I know that the 73 books of the Bible are the ones that belong there – no more and no less – because of the testimony and the authority of the Church. In other words, I know these things because of the Traditions that have been passed down in the church.

But if we both agree that the writings that we have are inspired and therefore truth, my point is why did we have to rebuild that. I understand that you believe the church to be the authority that chooses some of the books to be included. But we both say that it is the word of God. I am unclear as to why we can not look at this as a common starting ground. Why must we re-establish the only common ground that we seemingly share? I am willing to accept that you believe the Bible to be a product of the church, but if you believe that it is truth, we can start there. It is not a pre-conceived notion for us to both start with the one thing we have in common. I know that you approach it a different way, that is fine. If you believe that the Bible is truth, not just is true, than we can start there. If not that we have to go back further and we would truly have nothing in common.

But, you have stated that we must begin with the Bible to build our theology. We must begin with the Bible to develop our doctrine. So, is it part of your doctrine or not, that the Gospel of Mark is inspired Scripture? I believe you will say that it is. But, if you are building your doctrine from Scripture – starting from acratch as you say – where in Scripture does it say, “The Gospel of Mark is inspired Scripture?”

It says the Gospel of Mark is scripture in Genesis through Revelation.

Once again, if we both acknowledge the Bible to be the word of God, than when we build our theology from it, it will be built upon a firm foundation. Even if the church was the authority that chose what books to be included we would at least know that at that time the church deemed they contained the inspired writings and were truth. We could then build our theology on what the church established in writing as to what was the word of God and what was inspired, and again our theology would be solid.

In your reply to me, you speak of “testing” the books of Scripture to know that they are indeed Scripture. You say that, if we know Genesis is the truth, then we can test Exodus against Genesis to see that it is the truth, and then we can test Leviticus against Exodus to see if it is the truth and so on. Really? The first problem with that is, where does it say this in Scripture? What tests does the Scripture give us for Exodus and the other books based on Genesis? The second problem is that you have a preconceived assumption that Genesis is the inspired Word of God. Well, again, who told you this? What authority do you rely upon to know that Genesis is the inspired Word of God? Next, please give me an example of how you can “test” Exodus by Genesis to prove that Exodus is inspired of God? With all due respect, but that’s just a bunch of jibberish.

Well again, you apply the same tests to all scripture. But as you point out eventually you must have a starting point. You have to have to have a foundation to build upon. So you must accept something as truth. For me, it began with prophecy, as I could see in prophecy that there was no way that any human could know or foretell the things that God knew. The writings of Isaiah and Ezekiel mostly but also several other prophets really showed me that, whoever this YHWH is, he can surely back up his claims. Now is the God of Isaiah and Ezekiel the same God as Moses and Abraham, was my next question. This search lead me further and further back though the OT. And what I found was that this was one in the same, each writing, while penned through a different man, carried the same message, the same voice, and did not contradict itself. We know that this has to be the case because we know this YHWH says that He is unchanging. ( Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, Psalm 102:27) If he claims to be eternal and unchanging and we find contradiction, we must either conclude that the work is not inspired of YHWH or that YHWH is not who He claims to be. So this is how we can test each piece of scripture, how does it compare to what we already know is scripture. For me the starting point was that if the God of these men could do and know things well outside their own ability and life spans, than I have to find out who this god is and what else he says.

Now as to my jibberish on using other scripture to prove subsequent scripture, we see this throughout scripture. We see it when Moses warns them about false prophets, we see this When Moses and God warn Joshua to stick to the law and writings of Moses. We see this, When David sings about the Law of God in the Psalms. God always cautioned the people to not forget the things he had already done to help them determine the future. I have already mentioned that the Bereans did this with Paul, and we see that Jesus taught from the OT Scriptures, and opened their eyes to realize that it all was about him.

One of the tests can be in authorship. While we don’t know for sure, it is commonly thought that both Genesis and Exodus are authored by Moses. This is from tradition passed down orally or through written sources. It doesn’t mean that it is truth, but it can help us to understand why both books would be accepted as scripture by the Israelites. They knew that Moses had a special relationship with God and that his words came from God. Therefore the fact that they included this as inspired and written by Moses gives us some understanding to their trust worthiness.

But the real test must come in the message. Just as Paul warns us in Galatians, the message has to be the same. Is the same message being spoken in Exodus, the same as was given in Genesis? Exodus 33:1 says:

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Leave this place, you and the people you brought up out of Egypt, and go up to the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’

This is the Lord beginning to fulfill the promises made to Abraham, in Genesis. It continues along with the same message and theme started in Genesis. Exodus is clearly a continuation of the same story begun in Genesis and carries with it the same themes, the same overriding message, and is delivered in the same voice. And while we may not be able to test all the events spoken of in either book, I know that the God Isaiah wrote about is the same God Moses knew and wrote about because they describe themselves the same way and do the same things.

The truth is, Pastor Walker, as you have readily admitted with your answer to my third question above, that you rely on some authority outside of the Bible, in order to have the Bible in the first place. On the one hand, you admit that the Bible doesn’t tell you which books should be in the Bible, yet on the other hand you say we should build our doctrines from the Bible alone. Yet, you are relying upon someone or something, other than the Bible, in order to even have a Bible! You say that nothing outside of the Bible can be trusted in regards to determining what is and is not truth, yet you rely on something outside the Bible to give you the Bible – which you claim is the basis of all your religious truth. So, the basis of all of your doctrines – the Bible – is dependent upon, built upon, some unnamed source that is not at all trustworthy, because it’s not the Bible.

Slow down a minute. The Bible itself is only a collection of the books that we recognize to be inspired. The fact that there is no succinct list given by God as to which books should be included, doesn’t mean that I rely on an outside source to tell me which books should be included. We know from the writings we have, that not all of Jesus teachings or Paul’s letters are included. Did they contain truth? Yes. But God did not choose to preserve those writings or teachings and we don’t have them now.

So just the opposite of what you said is true. The writings we have in the Bible affirm each other as scripture. We can accept the New Testament because the Old Testament is its witness. I can trust that the books preserved here are in fact inspired. And the authority that has preserved them is God. Just a God is credited with writing them, he is credited with preserving them

If the Bible is truth, than any foundation built on it will be solid. What else in this world do you know to be true? Gravity? Inertia? There is nothing outside of God that we can know to be true.

So if I can fully attest to the Bible as a source of truth and can not attest to any others validity claims, than I must build my house on the firm foundation. Even the authority to which you claim the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church posses comes from the Bible. So if the word of God the Bible truly teaches these things than there should be no hesitation on your part to accept this challenge.

But, as you’ve stated, you can’t even trust the writings of the early Christians for doctrinal matters, right? Oh, to be sure, there is truth outside of the Bible, but it’s not something that can necessarily be relied upon for building doctrines and theology. Only the Bible can be relied upon for that. But where did you get your Bible from?! You start with a preconceived notion, based on something other than the Bible, to believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Yet, you say your doctrines and theology come only from the Bible! I don’t think so.

1 Peter 1:21 says:

21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

So if there is anyone that we can say is inspired from the Holy Spirit, than they have received their message from God and not from man. So if we both claim that the Bible is inspired than we are affirming that its message is one from God. Since the writings of the early Chirsitans or even modern Christians are not considered inspired than we can attest to their message not being from God. Therefore the conclusions they draw do in fact originate with men and can not be placed in authority. Do you believe their works to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore Holy scripture?

Furthermore, you say over and over again that there is truth outside of the Bible, yet you do not allow for even the possibility that Mary could have been assumed into Heaven, do you!? The Bible does not say she was, but it does not say she wasn’t. In other words, from a purely scriptural point of view, it’s an open question. So, you admit to there being truth outside of the Bible, the Bible is silent on the Assumption of Mary, yet you do not admit to the possibility of Mary being assumed into Heaven. You also admit that you are fallible and could be wrong on these matters, but then you say it’s not possible that Mary could have been assumed into Heaven. With all due respect, but you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth on this particular matter.

I did not say that Mary could not have been assumed into heaven. So could Joseph (Mary’s husband, not the son of Jacob) for that matter. My point here is that there is absolutely zero reason to even think that she was assumed. In fact we do know of two people that did not die but were taken up to heaven and she is not one of them. A better argument could be made against it her assumption than for it, as we are told of the abnormal ending to Elijah and Enoch, but not of anyone else, implying that everyone else died. To teach that Mary or any other person was assumed into heaven when we have zero proof, is deceptive at best, and at worst a blatant lie designed to cause people to worship her and to nullify Jesus’ death on the cross. Is it possible that she were assumed? Yes, but that doesn’t mean anything. Is it possible that she was conceived without sin or lived a sinless life? No, not at all. So if we have no reason to even guess that she was assumed, and more evidence that she probably died like everyone else, and we know she was a sinner and needed a savior than we have no reason to even begin a conversation about her being assumed.

In your response to me, you talked about a person being on a deserted island and that if they had a Bible to go by, they could build a replica of the early church. My question is, if someone was on a deserted island, and they found a Bible, and they had no preconceived beliefs about this book, what would make them believe that this is the inspired, inerrant Word of God? “Oh, look, a book washed up on shore…it must be the inspired Word of God!” Don’t think so. So, why do you believe it is what you believe it is?

I did not say that they had to believe it. There is no condition of believe here. Only a simple question, if someone had the inerrant word of God and no other knowledge of culture, tradition, or anything else, and they set on the task of recreating what a church would be, based solely on the inspired word of God, what would they get? What would that church look like, what would be fundamental precepts taught in it’s pages, what would be the practices of the people? I think this is a compelling question to be asked, one that we should both ask ourselves and then compare what we have now to it.

Now, I asked you some questions about your authority: 1) Since you are not infallible, could your interpretations of the meaning of certain Scriptures be wrong? 2) By what authority do you hold your interpretations of certain Scripture verses, for example James 2:24 and 2:26 to be right and mine to be wrong? 3) If a man says he has faith, and has not works, can his faith alone save him? Yes or no? 4) Please give me the meaning of the analogy drawn by the Holy Spirit in James 2:26. Are both faith and works necessary for life, just as both the body and the spirit are necessary for life? Yes or no.

These were your answers: 1) Of course; 2) By the authority of the whole of James and scripture. You can not just twist and distort a few passages and teach another gospel. Again we have to read it in context and be honest as to what it is saying and then interpret it with other scripture; 3) Faith alone does not save, but Grace alone does. God has made his grace available through faith, but even that is from God. Faith is not saying that you believe, or even knowing that God exists, it is being FULLY persuaded that God’s word is truth and living it out. 4) I think you may be confused, because you speak as if you can have faith and not live it. You can have works, but not have faith though. Matthew 7:22-23

I want to quickly mention just a few things here: 1) You admit your interpretations could be wrong. Yet, you persist in teaching others, and you persist in trying to persuade me that what you teach is right. You say you are fallible, yet you dispute with me as if you are infallible. How so? 2) I have read all of James, and I find my interpretation of James 2:24 and James 2:26 to be consistent with all of James 2 and all the rest of James and the rest of the New Testament and all of the Bible. By what authority do you say otherwise? The letter of James is a book, it cannot speak. If there is a dispute over what James really means, who decides the dispute? And, since you have already admitted that you could be wrong in your interpretations, how can you then assert that you’re right on this one and I am wrong? Again, you say things that I don’t believe you really mean. You say you’re fallible in your interpretations, but you certainly don’t act like you are.

1) I do admit to being fallible, a realistic and honest admission that should come from EVERY man. Yet I persist in teaching others to read scripture and base their faith on what we know to be true and not my words. Simply because I know that I am fallible does not mean that I must accept any old interpretation of scripture, especially when it is as flawed as many of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. How so? Because when these false things are taught they contradict scripture and teach that Jesus’ death was in vain. That is another gospel than the one that the Apostles taught and that the elders and overseers of the church were called to adhere to. 2) I am fallible and I do not insist that you believe what I teach. I insist that you build your doctrine on the word of God, however. The rest of scripture decides what James meant. James did not write James, the Holy Spirit dd. The Holy Spirit is consistent in all of inspired scripture.

3) Catholics believe we are saved by grace alone. You quote Ephesians 2:8 – 9, but we quote Eph 2:8-10. Grace alone saves us, but it is faith and works that keeps us there. In John 15:1-6, Jesus is the vine, Christians are the branches. How did the branch become a branch…by something it did? No. Solely by the action of the vine. How does the branch abide in the vine? By producing fruit. Does it produce fruit all by itself? Absolutely not! But, it cooperates in the process with the nourishment (grace) given to it by the vine. And, if it stops cooperating with the grace received from the vine, and doesn’t produce fruit (good works), then it is cut off from the vine (salvation is lost). Grace alone saves, but faith and works are both necessary to abide in that salvation. So says the Bible. Find me a passage on judgment that says we are saved by our faith, without works?

John 15:3

3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

This is from the very same passage you are referring to. Jesus is clear to contrast what he is saying about living productive lives for God, with that of salvation. We are made clean because we believe his words.

1 Corinthians 3:15

15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

This is directly dealing with judgment, as all our works will be judged and all those not made of eternal material will burn. If a Christian man’s work is burned, meaning it was not of eternal material but of earthly, than he will still be saved, but barely.

Galatians 2:16

16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:2-3

2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

4) I am not confused, because the Bible states that you can have faith without works, but it states that such faith is dead. James 2:26, if you have the body (faith), but you do not have the spirit (works), does that mean you don’t have a body? No, it means you have a dead body. When you say that faith without works really means one doesn’t have faith, you are bringing another one of your preconceived notions to this discussion. You state in your response about the demons believing, but not being saved. Scripture doesn’t say that that means the demons don’t really believe, it says they believe, but they did not do…so they were not saved. The believing part is there, the works part isn’t. Faith and works…by the grace of God. James does not say that faith without works is not really faith, as you try to make him say, he says it is dead! Stop putting words in the mouths of the Scripture writers! Stop adding to the Bible notions that are not found in the Bible!

I am not adding to the Bible. Saying that you believe in Jesus is not the same as putting your trust in him, is it? I don’t believe you to have put your trust in his name, and I am not sure what your feelings are about me, but we clearly follow two different gods. We can not both be trusting in the same name. So even though we both may claim faith in Christ, that does not make our faith equal . James says”

James 2:18
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

So what will separate the two of us who both say that we follow the same God, will be which one lives out this faith in what they do.

James 2:26 – “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, faith without works is not really faith?” No! That’s not what it says, because that is a bad analogy. The body without the spirit is still a body…but it’s a dead one. There is no life in it. Faith without works is still faith…but it’s dead. Please give me your interpretation of this verse (James 2:26)!? You’ve avoided doing so the last two times I’ve asked. What is the analogy, in your opinion, that is being made here? Is the body without the spirit not really a body? If you died at this moment and your spirit left your body, does that mean your body wasn’t really there to begin with? What a ridiculous notion! Yet, that is exactly the meaning you are trying to foist upon James.

I thought I thoroughly explained James 2 previously. But I will do my best to answer your question here on 2:26. The body without the spirit is useless, it is dead and of no use. Only when the two are joined together is the body of any use. Faith is of no use if it is not accompanied by the works, it really isn’t faith at all. Faith is only good when it is accompanied with the works of the faith. A Christian has been chosen by God, predestined to be saved and to do good work. However the faith is what saves you and the works are the result. You can not say that you have faith and not live it out in your actions. The two must work together. I don’t believe it is possible to have faith that does not produce works. How can someone say they have believe, if by their actions they deny him? The righteous will live by faith. This means that their lives will be lived out based upon their faith. If I claim that I have faith in the God of the Bible, than I will do as it says, I will do as Abraham, the man of faith did. I will live it out.

Titus 1:16

They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

Eph 2:10 – God has prepared works for us beforehand that we should walk in them. My question to you is: If we don’t do these works, which are the will of God for us to do, can we be saved? Yes or no?

No. If we have the spirit than we will do the things of the spirit. (Galatians 5.) What the individual works are, are different for each individual. The thief on the cross had only to repent and bear witness to the other thief. While others the Lord has other plans for.

What we need to look at here is the gospel itself, in the book of Galatians Paul, is confronting many errors that have come in to the church. He extols them to stick to the gospel he has taught and tells them not to believe any other gospel, even if he himself teaches it or an angel, or anyone. (1:8) As I pointed out earlier, Paul then asks this question in chapter 3:

“I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

They had begun with faith and believing but had become bewitched by the false teaching that was now telling them that they had to do works in order to be saved or to remain saved. In verse 10 he explains that if you think that you can earn it by observing the law, that we need to understand that we would be under a curse, as we would have to follow the entire law. As James also says in James 2:10. Since that is impossible, who ever trusts in their ability to do good to save them is cursed to fail.

I could spend hours and many, many pages responding to your last email, but I wish to only mention a couple of other things since I’ve gone on so long already. I will be happy to visit, at a future time, some of the things that I am not responding directly to, but I wish to narrow the focus of our discussion a little bit further with this email. Because I think we are zeroing in on the heart of the matter with the above discussion.

First of all, you stated that the Old Testament Scriptures were “well established” or some such thing in the time of Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth. Are you not aware that the Sadduccees only accepted the first 5 books of the Old Testament as scripture? Plus, the Essenes had a different canon of Scripture than did the Pharisees. The Samaritans had a separate canon as well. And, are you not also aware that inside and outside of Israel, many Greek-speaking Jews accepted the Septuagint – with the 7 books of the deuterocanon – as Scripture? You really do need to do more study on these matters.

I did not know about the Sadducees, I will l have to look into that sometime. However the OT canon was well established by the time of Christ. The new testament itself attests to the canon, through its quotes of the OT. Through the admonition of Jesus of the writings of Moses, the prophets, and writings, in Luke24:44. Josephus speaks as to how they were held as scripture and how no one would add or take away from them. The Babylonian Talmud speaks of inspiration ending after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

While there was certainly groups that may have held to different lists, just as you do from me, this doesn’t mean that these books were not generally known to be scripture and inspired.

My point to you here, is that the Roman Catholic Church in no way predates the Bible. Most of it being written and held to long before the Roman Catholic Church was ever started and long before Jesus’ ministry on Earth. We accept the testimony of the New Testament, because of the inspiration of the Old. The Bereans searched the OT to see if what Paul taught was true. The writers of the NT affirmed the OT and had the same message of salvation by faith that was promised to Abraham long before the law or circumcision.

Another point: you again state that Catholic doctrine has changed, yet you nowhere give an example. The Immaculate Conception being declared a dogma is not a change in doctrine. The Pope’s declaration was simply a definitive statement that this belief is of God. It simply settled the matter in the case of any doubt anyone may have held. It’s a way to settle any argument once and for all. Again, you show your ignorance of Catholic teaching and practice with such a statement. And, regarding the Inquisition, again you show your ignorance of Catholic teaching and of history. May I suggest you acquire a little booklet off the internet entitled, “Why Apologize for the Spanish Inquisition.” I think it will enlighten you a good bit. It quotes mostly non-Catholic sources to give a more accurate historical picutre of the Inquisition then what you seem to have.

If early church leaders, including Popes did not teach that Mary was born without sin, would this be proof enough that the teaching had changed? But even the fact that it had to be clarified, should serve as proof that somewhere at sometime it was not being taught.

Pope Innocent III said “Eve was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin. Mary was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” 2 De Festo Assum Colon,” 1552 (emphasis added)

Pope Gregory the Great said “For he (Christ) alone was truly born holy.” Tom. 1, page 598, Ben. Ed., Paris 1705 (emphasis added)

Thomas Aquinas said "So even if the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless the Blessed Virgin contracted original sin. Tert. Part Sum. Sac. Theol., Lug. Edition 6.144, Quest 27th, Art 2,60 (emphasis added)

Augustine said: “It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind. Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty” Augustine, A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin (emphasis added)

I don’t have the time to find any more quotes, but many early church leaders and other Popes did not teach this dogma. This was a doctrine that evolved over time and had to be clarified and made dogma to help hold other doctrine together.

Even Aquinas, who believed Mary to have been without sin in her life, acknowledges that she would have been born with original sin. Do you require any further evidence?

But again I don’t give a hoot about these beliefs, as I know just like myself they are fallible. Does scripture teach that Mary was born without sin? No it does not. But instead it teaches that all sin came to all men and death to all men at Adam.

Romans 5:12-14

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Sin came at Adam as did death. And Death reigned over everyone, even if they did not break a command and they ALL died. So if Mary herself recognizes she needs a savior and the whole of scripture teaches that everyone is a sinner and that all died at Adam. Then why should we even believe that Mary was born without sin. Because she must be without sin to produce Jesus without sin. But then obviously her parents must have been without sin, and their parents, and so on and so on. Or perhaps God divinely intervened in between Mary’s parents as to not impart sin unto Mary. But wait a minute, why would he have to do that with Mary, the product of a natural sexual relationship, but not have done this in the conception of Jesus already done by divine method? The logic used here is not based on scripture. Scripture gives us no hint to Mary being without sin and many statements regarding her being a sinner. This is where we can see the problem with starting with a concept and searching to find proof, or at least nothing that says it couldn’t happen. Instead if we found out who Mary is straight from scripture, you get a beautiful picture of a humble woman who submitted her life to God and was counted as blessed. We see an awesome relationship between her and Jesus, but one that we can each take part of. And most of all we see a Jesus who is Lord of All, yet uses us sinners to bring glory to him.

As for the Inquisition, we could study that after we study the Bible together. I don’t know too much on the subject, but would love to study it more. I did not offer it up as means of accusation against the Roman Catholic Church, but again it was simply to show that, in fact teaching has changed throughout the years. There was a time when people were killed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Popes for not following them. It was an official stance of the church as the Popes devised it and carried it out. This is no longer the case, so we can see a different teaching on how to handle “heretics”.

Peter De Rosa, a Roman Catholic historian, wrote a book called the Vicars of Christ, the dark side of the Papacy. He states “Today [The Roman Catholic Church] it prides itself and with much justification on being the defender of natural law and the rights of man. The Papacy in particular likes to see itself as the champion of morality. What history shows is that for more than six centuries without a break, the papacy was the sworn enemy of elementary justice. Of eighty popes in a line from the 13th century on not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine.” (emphasis added)

So after we study the Bible together, I would be all for a history lesson on the inquisition.

Regarding praying to the saints, there is nothing against this practice in the Bible. We are not “consulting” soothsayers and necromancers and mediums and wizards which the Bible does indeed proscribe. We are speaking to the living members of the Body of Christ. Tell me please, where does the Bible say, “Thou art not to ask for intercessory prayers from the members of Christ’s Body who live in Heaven?” You say that asking the saints in Heaven for prayer is the same as speaking to the dead. Yet, Jesus says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living. So, when I claim that Catholics are not talking to the dead when we ask the saints in Heaven to intercede for us, do you deny Jesus by saying that they are indeed dead rather than alive?

Using the argument that the Bible doesn’t forbid something is very shaky to say the least and again is what I am cautioning about. Starting with the teaching, which we can’t be sure of it’s validity, and then going to scripture. If we start with scripture, that we are sure of its validity, than we know that our teaching will be solid.

Anyway Isaiah 8:19 and 19:3 clearly contrast how Pagans seek for help, by consulting spirits and the dead with what God says:”… should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?”

He is talking about a physical death, as they were consulting physically dead people’s spirits. We see this 1 Samuel 28, when Saul, frustrated from not hearing from God, chooses to go to the spiritist and call Samuel. Saul had previously banished all spiritists, for the very reason that God’s people should inquire of Him and not of the spirits of dead people. We are instructed to bring our concerns and prayers to the Lord and clearly instructed not to bring them to the dead or the spirits of the dead.

Furthermore, when Roman Catholics pray to saints and venerate them, do they also burn incense for or to them and their image? What about this practice? When the Israelites had been doing this to the bronze snake, God had Hezekiah destroy it right along with all the high places, sacred stones and Asherah poles. II Kings 28:1-4

The practice that you describe as not being expressly forbidden in scripture, because it doesn’t use the words you have chosen for it. It is in fact condemned through out scripture. Consulting dead Christians, bowing to graven images, offering incense and thanks and praise to them is likened unto prostitution to a jealous God. This is not something to be taken lightly, and definitely not something that we should think we can twist and cajole to make work. God wants us to worship in spirit, without any images and to only pray to him and to only give him the thanks and praise that he alone is due.

Did Jesus ever pray to anyone other than God? When the disciples asked Jesus how they should pray, he told them to pray to their heavenly father. His example fits along with the rest of scripture, bring your petitions to the Lord.

You talked about Abraham and the fact that his circumcision did not save him. My question for you is, could he have been saved if he had refused to be circumcised?

Yes, but my question for you is could he really have faith and then refuse circumcision? Can you say you have faith and then not trust the very thing you say you are trusting in?? Moses was saved, but failed to keep circumcision for his sons, God almost took him out for it, but Moses was still saved.

Regarding Mary. You stated: “Mary was a sinner who needed a savior. She says it and the whole of scripture affirms that all have sinned. Please tell me where Mary says she was a sinner? She says she needed a savior, but she did not say she had sinned. Again, you add words to Scripture to get it to fit your preconceived notions. I have never been an alcoholic or a drug addict. May I rightly claim that Jesus saved me from being an alcoholic or a drug addict? Just so, could God have saved Mary before she was ever stained with sin? Yes or no? And, if He had saved Mary from sin, before she was tainted with sin, could she not rightly claim that God was her savior?

Why do you need a savior if you don’t need to be saved?

Mary says: “ My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed”

Mary clearly recognizes her humble state, and her need for a savior. Furthermore she adds that she is rejoicing in this and from now (the present time in which she is singing) on all generations will call her blessed.

And when we examine her song with the rest of scripture, we know that all have sinned, that sin entered the world at Adam, and death came to everyone, then her words are completely clear. There is no Biblical inference any where that Mary was born without sin nor that she lived a perfect life, or was ever ascended. It is only when you work backwards that this these theories work.

What, in the Kingdom of David, was the mother of the king called? Was she called a queen?

Is Mary Jesus’ mother or the mother or his human body. Was David the father of the Messiah? Why would David call his son Lord? Is David the King of Heaven?

You state that by believing Mary was assumed into Heaven, we are giving glory and worship to Mary that is rightfully given to God alone. Please specifically state how this is so? Are you not aware that we believe Mary was assumed into Heaven by God’s power and not her own? How does believing she was assumed into Heaven translate into giving her worship? We believe Elijah and Enoch were assumed into Heaven, does that mean we are worshipping them as well?

Because the teaching of Mary’s assumption is based solely on the notion that she was sinless and that her body could not see decay. However this is spoken of only for Christ, the Holy One in Psalm 16 and Acts 2. Unless Mary is the Holy One.

Again, there is much I’m not responding to – at this point in time – but would love to get back to in the future. One last thing I would like to say, however, which goes completely against the assumptions you are making about me, is this: I was out of the Church for many years. When I came back into the Church I was what we call a cafeteria Catholic. In other words, I didn’t buy into all of what the Church taught. I believed what I wanted to believe and rejected what I didn’t want to believe. It was reading the Bible, however, that brought me to believe all of what the Church teaches. So, I did not approach the Bible believing what the Church teaches and looking for a verse here or there to backup what the Church teaches. Far from it. I approached the Bible not believing much of what the Church taught. It was the Bible that made a believer out of me. I did not come to the Bible from the Catholic Church, I came to the Catholic Church from the Bible.

I apologize if I assumed what you believe. I tried to make a point of stating that I was dealing with the Roman Catholic Church and not you personally. I did not know how you came to follow them. My accusations of building theology backwards was to the Roman Catholic Church which in seeking to defend a position or to justify a practice will search scripture to find something that might support it or at least not abolish it.

I am glad that you have read the Bible, how it leads you to the Roman Catholic church, I don’t know. But perhaps if we studied it together you could show me. But I encourage you to stay with the scripture and continue to seek the truth. I will continue to pray for you and Mr. Martinez and anyone else who may read my emails. His sheep will recognize his voice.

You know if you don’t wish to just study the Bible front to back with me. I would be interested if you would like to study a few books together. I would like to study Romans and Galatians and would be very interested in studying James with you as well.

It doesn’t bother me that you don’t respond to all my points as I am not trying to win a discussion with you. I only hope that through God’s word that He may open your eyes or anyone else’s to the truth of his word.

Eddie Walker

In Conclusion

Hope you have a great week, and I’ll be back the week after next.

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: