Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #123

General Comments

A few things:

1) Update on Breigh Gallagher: Breigh’s kidneys, which the doctors said had totally shut down and had no chance of ever starting up again on their own, have shown signs that they are starting to function again…so please keep praying for this little girl and her family!

2) I will be speaking in McKinney, TX (just outside of Dallas) on Monday, Sept 14th. St. Gabriel parish. If you’re in the area, I’d love to have you come out.

3) I will also be speaking at a fundraising event for Catholic radio in Wichita on Saturday, September 19th. Don’t know where the event is being held, but if you are in the area, call the radio station and they will let you know. The number for the station’s General Manager (Alan Green) is: 316-320-1360.

4) Orders for CDs have been relatively slow the last couple of months, which means the # of donations has been down. So, I need you guys to please let friends, family members, fellow parishioners, etc. know about the Bible Christian Society site (www.biblechristiansociety.com) and tell them to come to the site to get some of the free CDs and/or free downloads (and hopefully make a donation). Thank you!

5) I hope to start offering 4 of my talks in Spanish sometime next week! If you know anyone who is Latino or who works in Hispanic Ministry, please tell them to be on the look out.

Introduction

Okay, I want to wrap up this episode with Mike Patrick. First, I’ll point out a few things that Mr. Patrick has done that you will come across pretty much every time you talk about the Catholic Faith with someone, so you know what to keep an eye out for and what not to let the other guy get away with; and then I’ll get into a comparison of Mike Patrick’s view of the Church vs. the Bible’s view of the Church.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

[Note: Mike Patrick’s full response to Issue #121 can be found on the "Newsletters" page of his website: www.martignonirevealed.com.)

Okay, what I’m going to do first is quote from Mike Patrick’s response to Issue # 121. I’ll give you a paragraph from Issue #121, then his response to that paragraph, and then I’ll point out some things in his response that you need to pay attention to, because you will be faced with similar circumstances almost every time you engage someone about the Faith:

John Martignoni from Issue #121:

"On the flip side, exactly how is it that Mike Patrick believes one follows Jesus? Well, he believes that you read the Bible for yourself; come to some understanding of what is and is not true Christian doctrine and practice based upon your own fallible interpretation of the Bible; and then you follow what you yourself have determined – by your own authority – to be the teachings of Jesus. Mike Patrick does not follow the Church alone, he follows Mike Patrick alone. In fact, he does not follow the Church at all, except where the Church agrees with him. I would be very interested to see if he ever offers anything on his website that tells us what Church he belongs to, and what authority he submits to, in his understanding of exactly how it is one follows Jesus. I’ll give you the answer regarding what authority he submits to: None."

Mike Patrick’s response to Issue #121:

I knew that sooner or later John would prove my previous email point on spiritual bankruptcy, and here it is. It’s telling that John teaches that it’s not possible for anyone to come to a correct understanding of doctrine from reading the Bible. This is tacit admission that the Holy Spirit does not, or cannot work in the lives of the followers of Christ – spiritual bankruptcy. Because some people don’t really believe what they say they believe, it’s possible to claim spirituality, but not really believe that the Holy Spirit can, and does help us understand the Bible.

We read in 2 Tim 3:16-17 the following:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” KJV.

And we also read in 1 Cor 2:10:12

“…these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything,even the depths of God…Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, and we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.”

If Martignoni is correct, and no one but the Catholic Magisterium can understand the Scriptures, he’ll have to answer some questions:

1: Why can’t he see from the passages above that the Holy Spirit touches every believer and imparts clear understanding that leads to “training in righteousness”, and makes us “perfect – and “thoroughly furnished unto all good works,” so that we can understand the things freely given to us by God?

2: Does Mr. Martignoni believe, that the Holy Spirit is active in nearly every other aspect of our lives, and gives us gifts such as wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord, but then refrains from giving us an understanding of the Scriptures? Is this a heavenly “meanie joke?” Why did God give us His word in written form and place it in the hands of everyone, only to then make it impossible to understand it by reading it? Does this make any sense? We see above that the Bible teaches the Holy Spirit gives us understanding and knowledge, but looking at it from Mr. Martignoni’s point of view, we can only guess at what “knowledge” the Scriptures are talking about, since he’s already informed us it can’t be a knowledge of God’s Word.

John Martignoni:

Okay, what’s the first thing you notice about his response? The first thing you should notice is that it in no way responds to the argument I was making. Did he mention what church authority he submits to or what church he attends? No, of course not. Why? Because he does not submit to any church authority. The second thing you should notice is that, as I pointed out in the last issue, he claims I said a whole lot of things that I didn’t even come close to saying. Nowhere did I say that no one can understand the Bible, nor did I say that the Holy Spirit does not work in the lives of Christians. Yet, that’s how he "interpreted" what I said.

Again, this can, and will, happen to you. Do not let it cause you to get thrown off balance or cause you to get off topic. Stay with the point you are making and keep hammering away with the questions you have asked that have not been answered, or with the arguments you have made that have not been responded to. Do not try to answer the arguments he has brought up that are based on his misinterpretation of what you have said. That will simply lead to one frustration after another. Just simply say, "I never said, nor did I imply, such a thing. Please re-read what I said a little more closely," and then go on to repeat or re-emphasize what you said and repeat any questions you had asked that have gone unanswered, and point out that your questions have gone unanswered.

The whole point of what I said in that part of Issue #121 that Mr. Patrick quoted here, which is a point you can make in every single one of your conversations with a non-Catholic Christian, is this: Mike Patrick is telling me that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong; and he is telling me that Catholic teaching (where it disagrees with him) is wrong. Which leads one to quite naturally ask, "Who is Mike Patrick to say that his interpretation of the Bible is right and mine is wrong? By what authority does he make his claim? On what does he base his assertions?" The answer is, he bases his assertions on his own personal, private reading of the Bible. (By the way, this is the "But That’s MY Interpretation" strategy that I discuss in my talk, "Apologetics for the Scripturally-Challenged."

Now, he goes on to say this:

"We see Martignoni make the point on the ‘flip side’ as he puts it, that I follow Jesus wrongly. When speaking of me he says:

from Issue #121: "…[Mike Patrick] believes that you read the Bible for yourself; come to some understanding of what is and is not true Christian doctrine and practice based upon your own fallible interpretation of the Bible; and then you follow what you yourself have determined – by your own authority – to be the teachings of Jesus.”

John is incorrect, and unfair in his statement. I don’t come to an understanding of Scripture based on my own fallible interpretation of the Bible, but rather by God’s promise of help from the Holy Spirit, and lots of prayer.

Okay, what can we conclude about Mike Patrick, based on what he has said here? Well, I was "unfair" in my statement about him because, according to him, his understanding of the Bible is not based on his own fallible interpretation of the Bible, but rather, is apparently based on the Holy Spirit’s interpretation of the Bible. This statement would logically lead one to conclude what about Mr. Patrick’s reading of the Bible? That’s right…he believes he is infallible in his interpretation of the Bible. Now, he didn’t come right out and say that he is, and he will probably claim that he is not infallible when it comes to reading the Bible, but he has stepped too far into this pile of Martin Luther to get out without a horrific smell.

Let’s examine what he said more closely. His understanding of the Bible is not based on his own "fallible interpretation," but rather it is based on the help provided by the Holy Spirit. Well, we all know the Holy Spirit is infallible – He makes no mistakes. Therefore, if Mike Patrick’s understanding is based on what the Holy Spirit has guided him into, then his understanding of the Bible has to be infallible. So, whether he comes out and claims it directly or not, his words have already betrayed him – he believes his understanding of the Bible is infallible. Which means he believes he is infallible – incapable of teaching error – when it comes to Christian practice and doctrine.

But this presents a problem for him because, as I said, I doubt he will actually claim infallibility (he might, but I know of only one other Protestant I’ve come across who has actually been so bold as to do so). Yet, if he protests that he is not infallible, then how can he claim such direct guidance from the Holy Spirit in his interpretation of the Bible? After all, where does the Holy Spirit get it wrong? Or, does the Holy Spirit guide him some times, but not other times? If that’s the case, then how do we know, and how does he know, when the Holy Spirit is guiding him and when the Holy Spirit is not guiding him? And, if the Holy Spirit only guides him some of the time, then the rest of the time his understanding of the Bible is indeed based on his own personal fallible interpretation. Which gets us back to square one.

And, if he does indeed claim to be infallible, then that presents a whole other set of problems for him. If he is infallible, why would he have to submit to the authority of any church, which he claims he does (even though, in reality, he doesn’t). Also, where does the Bible say that Mike Patrick will have the gift of infallibility? And, if he is infallible, why can’t I be infallible? I mean, when I read the Bible I always pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Why does he believe the Holy Spirit helps him, but not me, or not anyone else who disagrees with him? And, if Mr. Patrick is indeed infallible, then does that mean that every other person in the world who disagrees with him over the meaning of any particular passage in the Bible, or over any particular Christian doctrine or practice is wrong? Also, in one place on his website, Mr. Patrick claims the church is necessary for such things as teaching. Well, if a believer is taught by the Holy Spirit, then what need does the believer have for the church to teach him anything? I would also ask Mr. Patrick if he is able to read the original Greek and Hebrew that the Bible is written in? I mean, after all, can’t the Holy Spirit read Greek and Hebrew? I can think of dozens more questions along these lines, but I think these convey the point I’m making quite well.

The fact of the matter is, that Mike Patrick, like so many of those you will come across, believes that he is infallible in his understanding and interpretation of the Bible, whether he actually admits to it or not. This is why, when I ask non-Catholic Christians if they are infallible or not in their interpretation of the Bible – which is one of the first questions you should ask someone who is questioning Catholic teaching – I seem to never get a direct answer. Why do I not get a direct answer? Because I believe somewhere in their psyche – consciously or subconsciously – they recognize the dilemma posed by my question. On the one hand, they have never claimed to be infallible and they have always scoffed at the thought of the Pope being infallible; on the other hand, if they do not claim infalliblity, then they are tacitly admitting that they could indeed be wrong in what they are telling you in regards to the Bible.

The whole point of this is to get them to at least have to think about exactly why it is they believe their interpretation of the Bible is right, and yours is wrong. After all, they believe every one can, and should, pick up the Bible to decide things for themselves. Yet, when you pick up the Bible, read it, and come to a conclusion that disagrees with their interpretation of the Bible, all of a sudden you shouldn’t be reading the Bible. You are wrong. Your interpretation doesn’t count. You are not guided by the Holy Spirit. You don’t really have faith. You don’t understand the Greek behind the text. You are not interpreting Scripture with Scripture, and so on. Oh, really? Says who?

This is the problem with Mike Patrick. When I first started this conversation with him, I said this in Issue #119: "He is going to turn out to be another one in a long line of folks who claim not to be infallible, but who, when responding to what I have to say, act as if they are indeed infallible."

And we have seen just that.

He has definitely acted as if he is infallible and he has even indirectly claimed that he is infallible in his interpretation of the Bible, because it is not his interpretation, but the Holy Spirit’s interpretation, according to him. So the question to ask from here is: By what authority do you claim that you are guided by the Holy Spirit and that I am not? After all, I pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance when I read the Bible, do you not believe the Holy Spirit can guide followers of Jesus Christ other than yourself? And, if the Holy Spirit is guiding you, does that mean that He is not guiding anyone who disagrees with you?

The other question I would ask is this: Is your pastor guided by the Holy Spirit? He should answer, "Yes," since he attends this particular pastor’s church and he wouldn’t be attending any church that has a pastor he has determined is not guided by the Holy Spirit, would he? Then, when he says his pastor is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit, ask this question: If you and your pastor got into a dispute as to a particular meaning of Scripture, would you both be guided by the Holy Spirit at that point? Does the Holy Spirit guide people into contradictory meanings of the same passage of the Bible? If not, how could you tell who was and was not guided by the Holy Spirit in that instance? Who could you and your pastor turn to in order to definitively and authoritatively decide the dispute as to what a particular passage of Scripture means? Did Jesus not leave us any way of solving disputes about Scripture that occur between Christians?

I am going to end this section by simply asking Mr. Mike Patrick a few questions. These are questions taken straight out of Issue #38 of this newsletter, and which have appeared in one way or another in several other issues as well. Which means they are questions that you can, and should, ask of just about anyone you discuss the Catholic Faith with:

1) Do you interpret the Bible? Yes or no?

2) If the answer to #1 is yes, is your interpretation infallible? Yes or no?

3) If the answer to #2 is no, then will you admit that your interpretations of the Bible could be wrong in one or more places? Yes or no?

4) If the answer to #1 is yes, then does anyone have the authority to tell you, Mike Patrick, that your interpretations of the Bible are wrong? Yes or no?

5) If the answer to #4 is yes, then who? Just one name please.

Or, another set of questions with the same basic thrust:

6) Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?

7) If #6 is yes, is your interpretation of Scripture infallible? Yes or no?

8) Am I an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?

9) If you are not an authentic interpreter of Scripture, then who is?

Mike Patrick, and anyone else for that matter, would have a difficult time answering these questions in a consistent and logical, and scripturally-based, manner. Make sure you get yes or no answers. Tell them they can expand on their answers all they want, but insist on a yes or no first, so that there is no doubt as to what their answer is. I’ve had people answer these questions in such a way that I had no clue what their answer was. So, insist on yes or no and then explanation, rather than explanation without a yes or no.

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

Now, on to Mike Patrick vs. the Bible in regards to the Church:

In the Bible we see a church that has the authority to bind believers to its teachings (Acts 15). Mr. Patrick has stated that one must first judge the church by the Bible before becoming a part of that church. Where is the authority of the church to bind believers in Mr. Patrick’s view of the church? It’s nonexistent because if a believer has the authority to first determine whether the church is the true church based on his personal assessment of that church vis-a-vis the Bible, then the church has no authority to bind the individual. Under Mr. Patrick’s system of theology, it is the individual that binds the church to his teachings, and if the church doesn’t listen, then the individual can declare the church apostate at any time and leave that church.

In one of my previous responses to Mr. Patrick, I mentioned the Council of Jerusalem, and how it had not followed Scripture to arrive at its decision to not hold the practice of circumcision, nor most of the practices of the Mosaic Law, binding any longer. This is what I said about the Council of Jerusalem:

Issue #121: “In Acts 15, when the Council of Jerusalem made a decision that circumcision was no longer necessary, and sent letters to the individual churches of their decision, was that decision based upon the Bible? No. Which means, that was a tradition that the members of the Church had to listen to because it came from the leaders of the Church. Not because they read their Bibles and came to that conclusion on their own. The leaders of the Church had authority over the rest of the members of the Church. It was true then in the Church of Christ, it is true now in the Church of Christ.”

Here is Mr. Patrick’s response to that:

"Martignoni clouds and confuses the issue. How does he know that the Council didn’t consult Scripture before making their decision? After all, the Old Testament did exist, and most likely would have played a role on a decision regarding circumcision. Again, John should not go beyond the written word. His conclusion is without foundation. I’m not saying there’s no place for Church leadership – there absolutely is. God has given authority to church pastors and teachers though the priesthood of all believers. We even have things to learn from the early Church Fathers."

How do I know the Council didn’t consult Scripture in order to do away with circumcision? Well, Mr. Patrick, first of all, I want to make clear that I am not saying they did not consult Scripture at all at the Council. I am saying specifically that their decision to cut out circumcision was not based on Scripture. Two reasons I say that: 1) Acts 15:28 has the Council Fathers saying this, "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…" They give us the reasons for their decision and Scripture is not one of them. And, even more importantly: 2) Exactly what verse of the Old Testament says to do away with the practice of circumcision and most of the practices of the Mosaic Law? Would that be found in Genesis 17:9-14? No, that’s where God institutes the practice of circumcision. Where in the Old Testament does God un-institute circumcision so that the Council of Jerusalem could have consulted that particular passage to make their decision? What I’m saying is that since there is no verse of the Old Testament that says to do away with circumcision, their decision to do away with circumcision could not have come from Scripture. So, despite Mr. Patrick’s claim, my conclusion does indeed have a very solid foundation. His, however, does not.

I would be very interested in knowing which verse of the Old Testament calls for the repeal of the practice of circumcision and the repeal of most of the Mosaic Law? Maybe Mr. Patrick can tell us. If he can’t, then that means his whole system of theology, which is based on the individual reading the Bible on his own to test what the church teaches, is directly contradicted by a very huge example in the Bible. So I repeat what I said in Issue #121 that the Christian teaching on the practice of circumcision: "Was a tradition that the members of the Church had to listen to because it came from the leaders of the Church. Not because they read their Bibles and came to that conclusion on their own. The leaders of the Church had authority over the rest of the members of the Church. It was true then in the Church of Christ, it is true now in the Church of Christ.” Which blows one huge hole in Mr. Patrick’s theological system.

Also, in Matthew 18:15-17, what does it say? Look at verse 17 where it is the church that is the ultimate arbiter in a dispute between Christians. Does this fit very well with Mr. Patrick’s system of theology? No, it doesn’t. Nowhere does it say that if your brother sins against you, you and he need to sit down and read the Bible so that you can show him he’s wrong. You take it to the Church. In Mr. Patrick’s system of theology, you don’t take it to the Church, you take it to the Bible. And listen to verse 18: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." Same words that Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:19. Mr. Patrick’s system of theology does not allow for a church with such authority. It does apparently allow for Mr. Patrick to bind and loose on earth, but not the church…unless, of course, the church is following the Bible as determined by Mr. Patrick.

1 Timothy 3:15 describes the church as the pillar and bulwark (or "ground" in some translations) of the truth. Nowhere does it say the individual reading the Bible on his own is the pillar and ground of the truth.

What kind of authority do the leaders of the church in Mr. Patrick’s theological system have? Let’s read some quotes from Scriptures about the leaders of the early church and see if Mr. Patrick would admit such for the leaders of his church:

Luke 10:16 – "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me…" Do you think Mr. Patrick would cede that type of authority to his pastor? I mean, if Mr. Patrick disagreed with his pastor, wouldn’t he tend to think, based on what he has said on his own website, that instead of Jesus referring to Mr. Patrick’s pastor – the leader of Mr. Patrick’s church – with these words from Luke 10:16, that Jesus was actually referring to Mr. Patrick? Think about it. Mr. Patrick believes that if we disagree with him, we are not actually disagreeing with his fallible interpretation of the Bible, but rather with the Holy Spirit’s infallible interpretation of the Bible as given to Mr. Patrick. Even though he probably will not admit it, he in practice believes that in Luke 10:16, Jesus was talking to him! Because if I disagree with Mike Patrick, I am not disagreeing with his personal fallible interpretation of the Bible, I am disagreeing with the infallible interpretation of the Holy Spirit, according to Mike Patrick.

1 John 4:6 – "We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

Would Mr. Patrick claim that one can know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error simply by listening to or not listening to the leaders of the church? No. He claims one can know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error by reading the Bible on your own.

Here is what he said in regard to 1 John 4:6 – "

"In 1 John 4:6, we see St. John (not Martignoni) addressing the church with regard to presenting Christianity as the only vehicle by which the Holy Spirit works among men. I have no quarrel with this, but it doesn’t make Mr. Martignoni’s point for apostolic succession, and the supremacy of the Catholic Church. He’ll have to show how it does (if that’s indeed the point he’s making) in order to be credible. In addition, the passage does not at all work against my assertion that we can know God and have a relationship with Him through His Word, without the trappings of the Catholic Church, or any other formal religion. We need the Church for many things: to learn, grow in Christ, and provide us with the corporate structure to exist as the Body, but we can still know Christ even if we don’t have access to the Church itself."

Once again, he answers claims that I did not make. Nowhere did I use the verse in 1 John 4:6 to argue for apostolic succession nor the supremacy of the Catholic Church – both of which I believe in, but did not argue for using this verse. The whole point of my using 1 John 4:6 was to show that the Bible tells us we can know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error, not by reading the Bible on our own as Mr. Patrick claims, but rather by seeing who listens and doesn’t listen to the leaders of the Church. He made absolutely no attempt to answer that argument.

1 Tim 4:11 – Paul tells Timothy to "command and teach these things." In other words, Timothy has authority to "command" the members of his flock. Does Mr. Patrick’s pastor have authority to "command" him to do anything? No. He cannot command Mr. Patrick to do anything without Mr. Patrick first saying, "Excuse me, Pastor, but I must decide for myself, based on my own personal reading of Scripture, as I believe the Holy Spirit is guiding me, whether or not what you are commanding me to do or believe is scriptural." Nowhere do we see any such thing in the Bible.

Oh, I know, Mr. Patrick will say, "Wait a minute, look at the example of the Bereans." The problem is, the Bereans were not interpreting the Bible for themselves to see if what Paul was saying was true or not, they were simply seeing if the passages Paul was telling them were in the Bible were actually in the Bible. Paul was teaching the Bereans what the Scriptures actually meant. He was giving them an authentic interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures – He was interpreting the Old Testament in the light of Jesus Christ – an interpretation which they obviously did not already have. So they got the correct interpretation of the Old Testament, not from their own personal understanding and interpretation of it, rather they got the correct interpretation of the Old Testament from one of the leaders of the Church, which is in direct contradiction of how its supposed to be – according to Patrick authority..

Again and again we find that Mr. Patrick’s view of the Church, which infects his entire theological system, is not found in the Bible. It is a view which is a tradition of men. And, particularly, it is a tradition of men which runs counter to the Word of God.

I will close with a few questions you can ask anyone who believes as Mr. Patrick does – that we need to test what the Church teaches against what the Bible tells us:

1) Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?

2) If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

You see, the Church teaches that Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote his gospel. Yet, if we test this teaching of the Church against the Bible, what are we left to conclude? The Church must be wrong, because nowhere does the Bible say that Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote his gospel. Hmmm…bit of a problem for Mr. Patrick’s system of theology, wouldn’t you say?

In Conclusion

I hope all of you have a great week. I’ll try to get something out next week, but I can’t promise anything as it is Labor Day weekend.

Please direct all comments about this issue of the newsletter to my public Facebook page: “John Martignoni and the Bible Christian Society.”

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.

$RemovalHTML$