Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #121

General Comments

Two things up front:

1) Please direct all comments about this or any future newsletters to the Facebook page: “John Martignoni and the Bible Christian Society.” You need to have a Facebook page to get to my page. If you do not have a Facebook page, just go to www.facebook.com and sign up for one. It’s pretty easy and they’re free. Once you get to my page, just go to the “View Discussion Board,” then click on “Apologetics for the Masses,” and leave your comments.

Also, please do not direct comments or “Friend Requests” to my private page (which is just “John Martignoni”), as I reserve that primarily for connecting with folks from my high school graduation class.

2) Wow! Talk about a range of responses to that last newsletter. From, “Brilliant,” and “Right on the money,” to “Angry,” and “Childish.” Just goes to show you that with close to 25,000 folks reading the newsletter, you can’t please all of the people all of the time. Somebody is always going to find something to complain about…such is life. I always find it fascinating, though, how two people can read the exact same words and come to such different conclusions. Of course, those who said it was brilliant and such…well, they got it right…

Anyway, for those of you who were concerned about this guy, Mike Patrick, “getting to me,” while I appreciate the concern, there is no need to worry. The things that he has said to me and about me don’t even come close to what some folks have said to me in some of the emails that I have hanging on my wall – I call it my “Wall of Shame” – “Yellow-bellied,” “A voice on the airwaves of Hell,” “blatant liar,” “blasphemous,” and some that I can’t print. But, my all-time favorite was: “You are dumb. I just wanted you to know.” I’ve even had a complaint lodged with a Church tribunal against me – which was summarily dismissed. So, no need to worry about him “getting to me” or “upsetting” me – I simply do not cede to him, nor to anyone else, the power and control over my emotions that is necessary to get under my skin. If I did, I would get out of the apologetics business in a hurry and go back to working in the bank.

Also, for those who thought I was angry, I will say again, as I have occasionally in the past, be very careful about discerning “tone” in an email. ‘Tis a very difficult thing to do. When I wrote that last newsletter I was in a very good mood, rather jovial actually, and put a decent amount of my humor into it. Now, I admit, you may need to be a bit warped to fully appreciate my humor, and/or you may have needed to read my newsletters for a while to better understand it, so you folks who are more on the straight and narrow and who are newer to this audience may not have taken it the way it was intended, but there’s not a whole lot I can do about that.

To the one person who wrote to say it was “childish,” I will respond with the immortal words of that brilliant third-grade philosopher, Kenny Jones: “I’m rubber and you’re glue, it bounces off me and sticks to you.”

One last comment along these lines. I welcome constructive criticism. But, if you write me to criticize, back up what you say. Don’t just say, “You seem angry,” or, “That was childish,” give me some detailed comments about why you think that way. Everything I do in this newsletter is geared towards teaching you how to form better arguments to defend your faith – well, if you write me with a complaint, give me the arguments behind the complaint. What words or phrases conveyed anger or childishness? How would you have worded something differently, and so on. If you’re willing to teach, I’m willing to learn. But if you wish to just complain, I will pay no attention to you, whatsoever.

For example, I had one gentleman who wrote last week to say that I seemed “hot under the collar” with that last newsletter. Well, he wrote in such a way that was honest and reasoned and seemed to be well-intentioned. So, I wrote him back to ask him some questions and we had an exchange of a few emails in which we came to a better understanding of each other. That’s the kind of thing that I appreciate and is most useful and constructive.

Introduction

One thing to say as introductory remarks to this week’s newsletter, which dovetails with what I just said above, is that I think it is important for any reader of this newsletter to know that I do not have a wimpish view of Christ, as so many Christians, and so many Catholics in particular, seem to have these days.

Jesus spoke the truth, in season and out, and it made a lot of people mad. He wasn’t concerned about whether or not He would hurt someone’s feelings or about their self-esteem. He called a spade and spade and He gave people verbal kicks in the teeth on more than one occasion – especially when dealing with the religious leaders of the day, but also sometimes when dealing with the regular folks of the day, as well. He used words like, “hypocrites,” “vipers,” “dogs,” “blind guides,” “fools,” “liar,” and more.

All of which is to say that just because I am perfectly blunt with someone, and just because I might give someone a verbal kick in the teeth, does not necessarily mean that I am being uncharitable. It could be that I am actually being very charitable. Most of the folks that I deal with in these newsletters are “religious leaders” of one sort or another – some self-appointed. And, as I said, Jesus was very blunt with them and very “in their face.” So I am often blunt, direct, and in their face, because it seems to me, based on my past experiences with many such folks, that that might be the only way to get one or two of them to wake up and smell the piles of Martin Luther that they’ve been stepping in, theologically speaking.

So, if you’re a bit squeamish and not at all comfortable with directness and bluntness, you may not want to read this newsletter when I’m having a back-and-forth exchange with someone. Let the buyer beware, so to speak…

And one last thing. Several people wrote to say that Mike Patrick “isn’t worth your time,” or some such thing. Well, he is worth my time for two reasons: 1) He has an immortal soul which could very well be in danger of eternal perdition, and God wants him to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; 2) He is a very useful example in teaching you what you will probably run into sooner of later – if you haven’t already. Someone who, knowingly – or usually unknowingly – talks out of both sides of their mouth; their arguments are as inconsistent as an argument can be; they pay no attention to what you say and they do not answer your questions; and they have one set of rules for themselves, and an entirely different set for you.

Now, with most folks you encounter these things may not be as blatantly obvious as they are with this guy, but I can guarantee you that the folks you deal with will, usually without realizing it, be exhibiting one or more of these characteristics. You need to recognize it as soon as possible and bring it out into the open and deal with it. If someone refuses to recognize inconsistencies that you point out; if they refuse to answer your questions and your arguments directly – even though you are answering theirs; if they expect you to listen to them but they do not wish to listen to you; then you need to simply tell them that you want no part of what is essentially a “rigged” discussion.

No more splainin’, on to the good stuff.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Okay, I’m going to pick up here where I left off dissecting Mike Patrick’s original emails in Issue #119. I want to get into Mr. Patrick’s theology of the Church, as I had previously promised. (By the way, don’t bother emailing Mr. Patrick anymore, as I have heard from a number of you that he is apparently blocking the emails of many of the Catholics that have tried to engage him in conversation. Hmmm….)

Mike Patrick

As for following the Church, my assertion is that we are called to follow Jesus, and be members of the body, not to develop our faith on, and in the Church alone. Jesus’ Church is the body of Christ – I agree – but then the question becomes where is that Church, and who does it consist of? I believe Jesus was clear that His Church is comprised not of ritual and dogma, but of believers that have based their lives on God’s word. This is shown by Paul when he commends the Bereans for testing what they heard against the Scriptures. He didn’t bring the Body of Christ into it. If a member of the body chases after traditions (the Bereans did not), or rituals (the Bereans did not), or theology developed over the ages (the Bereans did not), that person has lost his way. So – the question then becomes, are Catholics following the right church? That’s another article all together, but I think it’s safe to say that anyone who centers their life around a church without testing it against Scripture is committing the same error the Pharisees did, since it’s not the church that should define a person, but a personal relationship with Christ. I know Catholics that have been harmed by the Catholic Church – sexually abused, and their spirits broken by authoritative members of the Catholic "body." Are those people supposed to keep following a Church that Christ said could be identified by its "fruits?" No, those people need to develop a relationship with Christ – and then become part of His body. Relationship first, church body second. Catholics get it backwards.

John Martignoni

What he is doing here, is making a mistake that I find all too common among Protestants – he is separating Christ’s Head, from Christ’s Body. This is particularly common when discussing prayer to Mary and the Saints. People will say that we are praying to Mary instead of to Jesus. Well, if Mary is part of Jesus’ Body, and she is perfectly united to Him in Heaven, then it is impossible to pray to Mary – or to any other Saint – and leave Jesus out of the equation. Unless, of course, Jesus has been decapitated…unless His Head has been separated from His Body…which is exactly what many Protestants do – they decapitate Christ. All abilities that Mary has to hear our prayers and to then intercede with Jesus on our behalf come from Him, to her, as a member of His Body. Anytime we ask Mary or a Saint to pray for us, we have to go through the Head to get to the Body. Mary, a part of the Body, can hear no prayer, save by the will and grace of the Head. Mary can do nothing if she is separated from the Head. Mary does not act of her own accord as if separate from the Head, she acts perfectly in accordance with the will of God. It is not an either-or situation, it is a both – and situation, since Mary is a part of Christ’s Body.

Let’s dissect a little more thoroughly what Mike Patrick says about the Church and also compare it to what the Bible says about the Church:

1) Mike Patrick: "As for following the Church, my assertion is that we are called to follow Jesus, and be members of the body, not to develop our faith on, and in the Church alone."

First of all, what does Mr. Patrick do at the outset here? He decapitates the Body of Christ. He separates Jesus Christ, the head, from the Church, which is His body (Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:24). Unless Jesus’ head is indeed somehow separated from His Body, then when one is following the Body, one is following the Head, Jesus Christ. So, to follow the Church, is to follow Christ. Unless, Mr. Patrick believes that the Church Jesus Christ founded and gave authority to can lead someone away from Christ? He has developed a false dichotomy between Jesus and the Church. As if one can follow Jesus without following Jesus’ Body, and as if one can follow Jesus’ Body without following Jesus. He has rent asunder what God has joined together.

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.

2) Mike Patrick: Jesus’ Church is the body of Christ – I agree – but then the question becomes where is that Church, and who does it consist of?

Excellent question. Where is that Church? "That Church" is connected to Jesus Christ, as the Body is connected to the Head. So, find the Church, and you find Christ. You cannot have Christ without the Church, and you cannot have the Church without Christ. They are one (Eph 5:31-32).

Who does the Church consist of? Another excellent question. The Church consists of all those who are members of Christ’s Body. So, the question is: How does one become a member of Christ’s Body? Is it by accepting Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior? If so, where does it say such a thing in the Bible? It doesn’t. So, what does the Bible say about how one becomes a member of the Body of Christ? "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body," (1 Cor 12:13). "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ," (Gal 3:27). Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ. So, all those who have been validly baptized are members of the Church. If you have not been baptized, you are not a member of the Church.

3) Mike Patrick: I believe Jesus was clear that His Church is comprised not of ritual and dogma, but of believers that have based their lives on God’s word. This is shown by Paul when he commends the Bereans for testing what they heard against the Scriptures. He didn’t bring the Body of Christ into it.

Notice, first of all, by what authority he calls us to accept what he is saying: "I believe…" He believes, so we are to accept. He bases his whole theological system on his belief, which he has come up with, based on his personal, fallbile interpretation of the Bible. Nowhere does he call upon the authority of the Church established by Jesus Christ – whichever Church he might believe that to be. He calls upon his own authority.

And, once again, he sets up a false dichotomy. According to Mike Patrick, if you have ritual and dogma, you can’t have the Church. Christ makes it clear, according to Patrick authority, that there is no ritual or dogma in Jesus’ Church. So, if your Church has a dogma that says Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead, then that cannot be Jesus’ Church because His Church is not comprised of dogma. If your Church has a dogma that says there is one God, but three Persons in God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then that cannot be Jesus’ Church because His Church is not comprised of dogma. And, if your Church has a ritual that fulfills the commandment of Jesus at the Last Supper, to "do this" in remembrance of Him (Matt 26, Mark 14, Luke 22), then then that cannot be Jesus’ Church because His Church is not comprised of rituals. And, if your Church has a ritual of "laying on of hands" to ordain elders (1 Tim 4:14, 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6), then that cannot be Jesus’ Church, because His Church is not comprised of ritual. I could go on, but I think you get the picture – Mike Patrick’s words are just that…Mike Patrick’s words.

Regarding Paul not "bring[ing] the Body of Christ into it" – into his evangelization of the Bereans (Acts 17:10-12), how does Mr. Patrick know that? To argue from silence is not at all a good argument. Apparently, using Mr. Patrick’s line of reasoning, Paul did not bring the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ "into it" either. Nowhere is that mentioned in regard to Paul and the Bereans. Also, the Bereans being Jews, what Scriptures were they "searching"? The Old Testament. So, the part of God’s Word that the Bereans based their lives on, according to Mike Patrick, was filled with what? Rituals. Very interesting. Plus, Paul was a member of the Church. He was speaking as a leader of the Church. And, the Bible is very clear, that we need to listen to the leaders of God’s Church, not simply rely upon our own fallible understanding and interpretation of God’s written Word.

For example, Luke 10:16 – "He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects me." The leaders of the Church speak for Christ Himself. 1 John 4:6, "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." How do we know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error? By picking up the Bible and reading and deciding for ourselves? Not according to the Bible.

4) Mike Patrick: If a member of the body chases after traditions (the Bereans did not), or rituals (the Bereans did not), or theology developed over the ages (the Bereans did not), that person has lost his way.

Again, this is according to Patrick authority. Nowhere does the Bible ever say such a thing. For example: 2 Thes 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." I guess St. Paul had "lost his way," because he was teaching those horrible traditions to people, and commanding that they be followed. 1 Cor 11:2, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." Again, that poor Paul. And those poor Corinthians. They had all "lost [their] way" by following the traditions that lost soul Paul taught to them.

Regarding rituals, again, at the Last Supper, Jesus commanded the Apostles to "do this" in remembrance of Him. Jesus commanded that ritual be followed. And, again, the laying on of hands is a ritual.

And, once more, the Bereans were searching the Old Testament – to see if what Paul was telling them was in there was really in there – and what did the Old Testament contain? "Theology developed over the ages." Besides, what an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Christian theology was only 25-yrs. old or so, so how could any of the Bereans who converted to Christianity have followed a "theology developed over the ages," in the strict sense of the phrase as Mr. Patrick means it. Christian theology has indeed "developed over the ages," as we gain greater understanding and greater insights into what Christ taught to us through the Apostles and through their successors, the Bishops. Just because a theology has developed doesn’t mean, however, that it is something that contains novelties or "new" teachings. An acorn develops into an oak tree, but that doesn’t mean that anything, other than nutrition, has been "added to" the acorn. Just so theology that has been "developed" over the ages. There is nothing "new," or "added to" it, except greater understanding and greater insight. The teachings on the Trinity that we receive from the Councils of Nicea and Carthage was "theology developed over the ages," yet I assume Mr. Patrick believes in the Trinity being One God in Three Persons, each consubstantially God? If so, then he is, once again, not fully understanding what it is he is saying.

Plus, in a broader sense, the Bereans did indeed follow a theology developed over the ages, because the Word of God they were reading from – the Old Testament – was written over a thousand years or so. And, the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament, "…the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities," (Heb 10:1). Which means that what we believe and practice now is a development from what they believed and practiced in the Old Testament. So, what the Christian Bereans believed, as can be said for all Christians, was indeed a theology developed over the ages.

5) Mike Patrick: So – the question then becomes, are Catholics following the right church? That’s another article all together, but I think it’s safe to say that anyone who centers their life around a church without testing it against Scripture is committing the same error the Pharisees did, since it’s not the church that should define a person, but a personal relationship with Christ

Excellent question once again. Are Catholics following the right Church? Well, whatever Church your following, and I believe that Mike Patrick follows no church, should be a Church that can trace its roots back to Jesus Christ through the Apostles. And, the primary way one can do that is to trace the line of authority that their leadership has. Can the laying on of hands – the ritual by which authority is passed on in the Church founded by Jesus Christ – can the laying on of hands of your pastor be followed back through the man or men that laid hands on him through the men or men that laid hands on them and so forth and so on back to the Apostles? If not, then you definitely should not follow that church, because guess what? It’s not really a church. It’s simply a tradition of men.

Read very carefully what he says here and let’s substitute some words from the Bible into Mike Patrick’s words and see if they make any sense: "It’s not the [Body of Christ] that should define a person, but a personal relationship with Christ." Again, he is cutting the Head off of the Body. You cannot have a personal relationship with Christ, without also having a personal relationship with His Body. Christ and His Church are one…at least, according to the Bible. Plus, where are his words coming from…the Bible? No. From Mike Patrick’s own fallible interpretation of the Bible. Notice in this whole paragraph from him, the only Bible passage he even references, is about the Bereans, and he adds a whole lot of words to that passage that are actually nowhere to be found in that passage. He is actually adding words to the Bible.

He states: "I think it is safe to say…" Again, he "thinks" it is safe to say. Well, Mike, you think wrongly. What is his test that he outlines for us here? The individual has to test what the church teaches against the Bible. Which means, the individual has to test what the church teaches against his own fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of the Bible. In other words, it is the individual who has authority over the Church, not the other way around. It is as I said earlier, Mike Patrick, if he is a member of any church, allows that church authority over him only unto the extent that that church agrees with Mike Patrick. Is that how it is in the Bible?

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.

6) Mike Patrick: I know Catholics that have been harmed by the Catholic Church – sexually abused, and their spirits broken by authoritative members of the Catholic "body." Are those people supposed to keep following a Church that Christ said could be identified by its "fruits?"

Let Mr. Patrick name his church that doesn’t have a sinner as the pastor, or sinners as members of that church, and I will join it tomorrow. Oops – if I joined it, then it would have a sinner as a member, so I guess I can’t join Mr. Patrick’s church. Let him name the Christian faith tradition that has never had any "bad fruit" coming from it. For example, can he name me a Christian faith tradition where the pastors and members did not own slaves before and during the Civil War? If not, then what Christian faith tradition does his line of thinking leave as a possibility for being the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

Did the Catholic Church teach as doctrine that it was a sin to molest children? Yes. Did some members of the Catholic clergy defy Catholic teaching and molest children and did other members of the clergy defy Catholic teaching and cover up that molestation? Yes. But, again, name me the Christian faith tradition that hasn’t had a pastor who molested a child, or who cheated on his wife, or who beat his wife and children, or who committed theft from the collection plate, or any one of any number of other sins? He cannot do it, so his reasoning here means that no one can join any church – because every church is filled with sinners and is pastored by a sinner. So the answer is, "Yes," they are supposed to keep following the church founded by Jesus Christ even though it is filled with sinners. After all, let’s look at the 12 Founders of Jesus’ Church – one betrayed Him; one denied Him; and 9 of the other 10 abandoned Him in His hour of greatest need. Should anyone follow a Church founded by these guys?

7) Mike Patrick: No, those people need to develop a relationship with Christ – and then become part of His body. Relationship first, church body second. Catholics get it backwards.

Bible verse for that, Mike? Again, a teaching authoritatively given according to Patrick authority. And, once again, we see a false dichotomy. So often the Protestant sees things as either – or, whereas the Catholic sees them as both – and. According to Mike, you develp a relationship with Christ, apparently all on your own, not needing anyone else, then you go and find a church. Of course, it needs to be a church that teaches about Jesus in the same way that you already believe about Jesus. So, you develop this relationship with Christ, all by yourself, then you check a church’s teachings against the Bible, as you have come to understand the Bible based on your own fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of the Bible, and if the church passes your test, then you can join it. So, relationship with the Head, which has apparently been severed from the Body, then go and find the Body and develop a relationship with it. Makes sense to me, how ’bout you guys?

Now more from Mike Patrick’s email that I had in the last newsletter:

Mike Patrick

I can have faith in Christ and what He did for me without the Catholic Church, but as a Catholic, you can’t. It’s essentially bondage because you’re tied to the Church, not Christ. We are the "Bride" of Christ, and a Bride follows her husband, not herself.

John Martignoni

Again, what’s wrong with this statement? Let’s again insert biblical language into what he says and see if it makes sense: "I can have faith in Christ and what He did for me without the [Body of Christ], but as a Catholic, you can’t. It’s essentially bondage because you’re tied to the [Body of Christ], not Christ." We are tied to the Body of Christ, but not Christ. Do you see how easy it is to take someone who is sounding all biblical and all authoritative and scholarly and make their words look foolish when you look at them through the prism of the actual words of Scripture?

Yes the Bride follows her husband. But, if the Bride is following the husband, then if you’re following the Bride, are you not then also following the husband? Paul tells us to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor 11:1). Why didn’t he just say, "Read the Bible?" Paul says in other places to be imitators of him. Why did he say that? Why didn’t he say, "Be imitators of Christ," or "Read the Bible?" Why Paul and then Christ? Why not just Christ? And in 1 Cor 4:17, Paul tells us that he sent Timothy to the Corinthians to remind them of Paul’s "ways in Christ," which he, Paul, says he teaches everywhere and in every church. What strange language, at least, from Mike Patrick’s theological perspective: "No, Paul, you got it wrong. We aren’t supposed to follow you or imitate you or any of the other leaders of the Church. The Bride can’t imitate herself or follow herself, you need to be saying we should imitate Christ and follow Him. We need to establish a relationship with Christ before establishing a relationship with you."

Paul, unlike Mike Patrick, does not separate the Head from the Body, so when he says to imitate him, he is saying to imitate Christ, because he is imitating Christ. And, what are these "ways in Christ" of Paul’s? Shouldn’t Paul be teaching the churches everywhere to read the Bible for themselves and not about his "ways in Christ"? Sounds like he was teaching folks some [say it very quietly] "traditions."

In Conclusion

I’ll finish up with Mike Patrick’s view of the Church in the next newsletter, and then get back to my book. Hope everyone has a good week.

And, don’t forget about the Facebook page for comments: “John Martignoni and the Bible Christian Society.” Go to the “View Discussion Board” page and then have at it.

How to be added to, or removed from, the list

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.

$RemovalHTML$