Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #154

General Comments

Next Saturday, October 16th, I will be speaking at the Rio Grande Catholic Men’s Conference in McAllen, Texas, along with Fr. Donald Calloway, Patrick Madrid, and Michael Cumbie. For more information on time and place and how to register, check out this link: http://www.rgvcmf.org/index.php.

If you’re in that area of the country, please try to join us.

Introduction

I want to follow-up on last week’s issue regarding the number of Protestant denominations that are out there. I claim that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Protestant denominations, and I wish to present, in this issue, Exhibit 1, from a Protestant, to back up what I was saying.

A denomination is basically just a division within Protestantism. These divisions exist because of differences in either belief or authority. There are thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Protestant denominations that have resulted from theological differences between various Protestants. No one really knows the exact number.

There are, however, many more denominations, many more divisions within Protestantism, that exist because of the issue of authority. Who has the right to decide what is and is not sound scriptural practice, what is and is not doctrinal, what is and is not moral, for a particular grouping within Protestantism? I contend, based on my communication with hundreds, if not into the thousands by now, of Protestants of all stripes, that there are probably millions of de facto denominations within Protestantism.

Each person (or each family) that reserves the right for himself to determine what is and is not scriptural, doctrinal, and moral based on his own private fallible interpretation of the Bible is, in essence, a de facto denomination. The one or more members of this denomination answer to no earthly authority outside of itself. It may agree doctrinally with other denominations, but then again, it may not. Each person who believes in Sola Scriptura and who submits to no authority regarding biblical interpretation outside of their own private fallible interpretation, is essentially Pope, Pastor, and theologian for their own denomination.

I received an email from a Protestant who is, essentially, agreeing with me whether he realizes it or not, and I want to examine that email here. Basically the guy takes me to task for being a hypocrite, as he sees it, but in the end he confirms exactly what I was saying about there being millions of Protestant denominations.

I begin with his comments in their entirety, in italics, and then with my comments interspersed amongst his.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

From Robert Wiese:

"John, you tell Protestants on a daily basis that their own private reading of the Bible and Church history can’t be trusted and has resulted in numerous (millions?) protestant denominations and therefore you need Rome’s infallible interpreter to come to a correct understanding of them.

John, who says the Catholic Church is the the authentic interpreter of Scripture. Answer—The Catholic Church. How do you know for certain that Rome is the true infallible interpreter? The Catholic church is not the only church that claims to be the true church with an infallible interpreter. There is the Eastern Orthodox, the Mormons, the Watchtower Society and many others who make this same claim. So John, when you and others like Scott Hahn decided to return to/ or join the Catholic church, you read the Bible, the church Fathers, discuss with others and pray about it like others do, but in the end you made a Fallible decision to join the Catholic Church.

But how can you be 100% certain that your choice of Rome over all others is the right choice? Yet, John, you constantly tell non-Catholics in your newsletter that they can’t trust their own private reading/interpretation of the Bible and Church history, that they need Rome’s infallible interpreter to come to a correct understanding of them. In the end, you and everyone else relies on his or her own fallible private judgement and interpretation to determine if Rome is or is not the true church. That is why I believe many times your newsletter has a ring of hypocrisy to it. You constantly knock non-catholics for doing something (private interpretation) that you and other Catholics are doing yourselves to arrive at the conclusion that Rome is the true Church and therefore the authentic interpreter of scripture in the first place. In the end it really does come down to what the Apostle Paul said—"let everybody be sure in his own mind"(Romans 14:5)."

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

Robert Wiese:

John Martignoni:

Actually, that’s not quite what I do. I do not tell Protestants that their own private reading of the Bible can’t be trusted. There are many Protestants who come up with legitimate interpretations of many passages of Scripture based on their own private reading of the Bible. The point I make is that no Protestant can say their private interpretation of any given Scripture passage is infallible, since they claim that no man is infallible. So, if you are not infallible when interpreting the Bible, and I have, according to your theology, just as much right as you do to interpret the Bible to determine what is and is not truth, then how is it you, a Protestant, dare to tell me, in an infallible manner, that I, a Catholic, am wrong on any particular interpretion of Scripture? You could be wrong in your interpretation since you are fallible, yet you tell me infallibly that I am wrong in my interpretation. What gives with that?

The basic point is this: If a Protestant would challenge a teaching of the Catholic Church by saying something along the lines of, "John, I know Catholics believe in Purgatory, but in my reading of the Bible I just don’t see anything like Purgatory. However, I know that I could be wrong in my interpretations, so could you please give me the Catholic argument for Purgatory from Scripture," I would have absolutely no problem with that attitude. That would be an intellectually honest attitude. But when a Protestant challenges me by saying, "Purgatory is not in the Bible, it’s one of the man-made traditions of the Catholic Church that are contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and anyone that believes in that papist garbage is going to Hell," then I take exception.

So, when I point out to Protestants that they are not infallible in their interpretation of the Bible, by their own claims, and that their fallibility could, therefore, lead them to believing in false doctrines, I am merely pointing out that they are being hypocrites, and that they have no leg to stand on, when they infallibly claim Catholics are wrong.

Also, I never tell any Protestants that their private reading of Church history is wrong. What I do say is that there are a lot of bogus Protestant "historians" out there who write books about Church history that are more conjecture than fact, yet they present all of it as if it is established fact, but they do so without any kind of source documentation to back up what they are saying.

Finally, I never say that one needs "Rome’s infallible interpreter" to come to a "correct understanding" of any given Scripture passage. The Catholic Church has, as far as I know, rarely stated in a definitive manner what this or that particular verse of the Bible means. So, no, we do not need "Rome’s infallible interpreter" to understand all of the Bible. However, what we do need, just as the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 needed, is a guide. A guide that doesn’t have to translate every single verse for us, but rather a guide that will tell us if we have gone out of bounds in our interpretation of any given verse. And that is what the Catholic Church provides for her children. The Church lays down the boundaries within which we are free to interpret Scripture as we feel led by the Holy Spirit to do. If we step outside of those boundaries, then the Church is there to provide correction and guidance and understanding.

Robert Wiese:

"John, who says the Catholic Church is the the authentic interpreter of Scripture. Answer—The Catholic Church. How do you know for certain that Rome is the true infallible interpreter? The Catholic church is not the only church that claims to be the true church with an infallible interpreter. There is the Eastern Orthodox, the Mormons, the Watchtower Society and many others who make this same claim. So John, when you and others like Scott Hahn decided to return to/ or join the Catholic church, you read the Bible, the church Fathers, discuss with others and pray about it like others do, but in the end you made a Fallible decision to join the Catholic Church."

John Martignoni:

The Catholic Church does indeed claim to be the authentic interpreter of Scripture. Doesn’t it make sense that the Church founded by Jesus Christ would claim to be the authentic interpreter of Scripture? Who says that God is the one true God? God. Does that make His claim somehow illegitimate? Oh, sure, there are others making the claim that they are the authentic interpreters of Scripture, but doesn’t that also make sense that there would be impostors who wish to usurp the authority of the one true Church of Christ by claiming that authority for themselves? The difference is, the Catholic Church has the witness of history on its side.

When did the Jehovah’s Witnesses get started? Was it 2000 years ago in Israel? No. Are there Jehovah’s Witnesses temples in the Promised Land dating back to the early centuries? No. In Rome? No. Anywhere in the Middle East? No. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have, in fact, no witnesses.

The Mormons? Again, no witnesses. Did they start 2000 years ago in Israel? No. Did anyone else see the angel Joseph Smith claims to have seen? No. What about those gold tablets? No. Any evidence of these two great civilizations that supposedly existed on this continent 2000 years ago that supposedly annihilated themselves in an epic battle somewhere in what is now the state of New York? No. Archeologists can find arrowheads and pottery from 10,000-year old Indian villages, yet not a single shred of evidence for either of these two great civilizations that Mormons claim existed just 2000 years ago. History tells us that Joseph Smith’s claims were bogus in oh so many ways.

The same holds for all the other pretenders to the throne. For all of them, they have no witnesses to bear out their claims. But, what about the Catholic Church? What witnesses does she have? Plenty. The witness of the Early Church Fathers, most of whom were bishops in the Catholic Church. They were not bishops in the Baptist church, nor the Presbyterian Church of America, nor the Missionary Evangelical church, nor the Lutheran church, nor the Anglican church, nor…

The witness of history. Historians of all creeds and of no creed will tell you that the papacy can be traced back 2000 years. That the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ around the year 30 A.D. Even the bogus Protestant historians I mentioned earlier, who hate the Catholic Church, actually bear historical witness to her when they claim that in the 4th century all the pagans supposedly entered the Church and brought their pagan beliefs with them. Well, what Church is it these bogus historians claim the pagans entered? The Lutheran church? No. The Anglican church? No. The Evangelical church? No. The Third Avenue First Free Will Evangelical Missionary Baptist Church of the Redeemer? No. They all claim these pagans entered the…Catholic Church. Which means they all acknowledge that it was the Catholic Church that was in existence at that time.

Was it the monks of the Methodist church that preserved and copied the Scriptures in their monasteries over the centuries? No. The monks of the Evangelical church? No. The monks of any of the "non-denominational" churches? No. It was the monks of the Catholic Church that did so. Which church is it whose witness we rely upon for the canon of Scripture – to know that the Bible is indeed the inspired, inerrant Word of God? The Mormon church? No. The Evangelical church? No. The Reformed church? No. The Catholic Church.

The witness of miracles. No church, that I am aware of, claims the existence of ongoing miracles – miracles that have eluded scientific explanation even to this day – other than the Catholic Church. The miracles of bodies of saints that are incorrupt. Eucharistic miracles that date back centuries. The miracles of such things as the tilma of Juan Diego, which should have disintegrated into dust over 400 years ago and whose image still cannot be explained by science. The many historical witnesses that relate the miracles performed by the saints – the Catholic saints – throughout the centuries – healings, raising people from the dead, bilocation, and many many more.

The witness of the Bible. The Bible gives a church, and the leaders of that church, authority that no Protestant church that I am aware of even claims to have. Plus, that church had to have the authority to infallibly pronounce on matters related to the canon of Scripture, so that we can trust our Bibles in the first place.

So, it was not my fallible interpretation of the Bible that led me back to the Catholic Church and it was not my fallible interpretation of the Bible that led me to believe that the Church’s teaching is infallible. I did not rely upon the witness of the Bible in order to come back to the Catholic Church. I did not rely upon the Catholic Church to come back to the Catholic Church. I relied upon the witness of history and the witness of miracles to come back into the Catholic Church. So, yes, I made a fallible decision that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ. But, the fact of the matter is, that based upon all of the witnesses mentioned above, the only logical conclusion that one can reach is that there is only one church out there that was founded by Jesus Christ, that is 2000-years old, and that preaches and teaches with the authority He gave it, and the witnesses point to exactly which church that is. Furthermore, I will state that if I were to believe the Catholic Church wrong, my only options would be to become either a Jew, or an atheist. In other words, if the Catholic Church cannot be trusted, then no Christian church can be.

Robert Wiese:

John Martignoni:

I can be as certain as a human being can possibly be because of all the witnesses that I mentioned above. Now, what I said above was just a quick taste of the testimony of those witnesses, it was not meant to be in depth at all, as that point is not the main point of this newsletter. But, no, I am not relying on my own private, fallible interpretation of Scripture to determine all of these things I believe, as Protestants do, so I am not being a hypocrite when I point out their fallibility when they interpret Scripture. For my beliefs I rely on authorities outside of my own individual private interpretation of Scripture. I rely on Jewish authorities, Protestant authorities, atheist authorities, and so on. I rely on scientific authorities and historical authorities. I rely on what my own eyes have seen. Now, does that mean I have to make a private, fallible judgment in all of these instances regarding the credibility of these witnesses? Indeed I do. But, what gives a fallible human being a greater assurance, a higher probability, of being right: the relying upon many witnesses, or the relying upon one witness?

Now, to the main point for my publishing this particular writer’s email. His last sentence: In the end it really does come down to what the Apostle Paul said—"let everybody be sure in his own mind"(Romans 14:5)." He is stating exactly what I stated in my newsletter about the millions of de facto Protestant denominations. Here is a Protestant, stating exactly what I have stated about Protestants. Everybody is on their own. No authority outside of the individual’s own personal, private authority. Forget that this passage is not even talking about the interpretation of Scripture nor does it mention anything about everyone deciding for themselves what is true and false doctrine, that doesn’t matter. Even though he has taken the pasage he quotes out of context, he has still summed up what I was saying about Protestantism. It’s essentially every man for himself. Forget about the fact that Jesus founded a church. Forget about the fact that nowhere does the Bible say every man for himself when it comes to doctrine. Forget about the fact that Scripture itself points to the need for a guide when interpreting Scripture. Forget about the fact that Scripture itself tells us that there are difficult things in Scripture that the unlearned and the unstable twist to their own destruction. No, none of that matters. All that matters is me and my private fallible interpretation of the Bible.

Finally, the very ironic thing in what Mr. Robert Wiese has written, is that he is completely devoid of any thought that underpinning his reliance upon the Bible as the sole authority in matters of faith and morals, is his reliance on some infallible authority outside of the Bible that has to exist in order for him to have his Bible in the first place. He is telling us that it is every man for himself (according to his fallible interpretation of Rom 14:5) in interpreting the Bible, yet it is every man for himself interpreting a Bible that was not determined by every man for himself. What we now call the Bible was determined by an authority that had to have been infallible, or we would have doubts about the Bible itself. Tell me, Mr. Wiese, what was the authority that determined the canon of the Scripture, that gave you your Bible in the first place?

In Conclusion

2 points to sum this up:

1)If, when determining doctrine, it is essentially, as Mr. Wiese contends, every man for himself interpreting Scripture on their own – which is the essence of Sola Scriptura – then how does any Protestant dare to claim their interpretation is more valid than any Catholic’s interpretation?

2) The difference between Catholics relying on their “fallible” judgment vs. Protestants relying on their “fallible” judgment is the difference between relying on many witnesses versus relying on one witness.

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.

$RemovalHTML$