Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #206

General Comments

If you’re in Birmingham or Huntsville, please plan on attending the Strong Men Strong Faith Conference – Sunday night at 6:30 PM at Holy Spirit parish in Huntsville. Alan Keyes and Tim Staples are the speakers.

Monday night at 7:00 PM at St. Peter’s in Birmingham. Tim Staples and Curtis Martin are the speakers.

I hope to see you there.

Introduction

Okay, after my last newsletter, which was a tract on Sola Scriptura, I received an email from one of our subscribers who sent me an email they had received from our old pal, Dr. Joe Mizzi. Apparently, he gets my newsletter, or someone sent him a copy of it, and he felt compelled to respond to the tract I had written. Below is his response, first in its entirety, and then with my comments interspersed.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

If I were a Catholic Apologist

If I were a Catholic apologist, I would concentrate my attacks on evangelicals on two doctrines, namely sola scriptura and sola fide. Given the gross spiritual ignorance and rampant error among evangelicals, I should be able to destroy the very foundations of their religion in no time.

Take the popular concept of sola scriptura among many evangelicals. They think that the Bible teaches that the Bible alone is the only authority, and thus they reject the claims of an infallible magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed of every other authority, including the authority of their own local churches and their pastors.

There is no need for many arguments. One is enough. I would ask a very simple question: “Since you believe that the Bible is the only authority, show me from the Bible alone which books should be included in the Bible and which should be excluded?”

Their answer will be dead silence. You cannot show from the Bible alone which books are inspired and which books are not canonical. That concept of sola scriptura cannot be defended from the Bible.

It’s an easy win. But my conscience would not let me sleep. I cannot be at peace with myself knowing that I have been deceptive.

For contrary to what many people think, sola scriptura does not assert that the Bible alone is the only authority. Sola scriptura asserts that the Bible, being the Word of God, is the only INFALLIBLE authority. Sola scriptura most definitely allows and upholds the authority of the church and tradition, which the Bible itself affirms.

We know which books belong to the canon and which are apocryphal through the work of our forefathers in the faith, namely the church. That is the way that things happened historically. God gave his inspired Word through chosen men like Matthew, Peter and Paul, which were handed on to the first Christian believers, who then copied and passed them on to other churches and to successive generations. The church received the holy books and preserved them to this very day as her most precious heritage. Thanks to the church we can hold the Book in our hands and say, ‘This is the Word of God!’

Now I can almost hear someone object, ‘But how can you know for certain which books are canonical since you do not believe that the church is infallible?’

The answer is simple. The church does not have to be infallible to be correct. I am certainly not immune from error, but if I say that 4 plus 6 equals 10, I am nonetheless correct in my answer. We should ask, therefore, can God use a very fallible church – for evidently the church has made many mistakes during its history – to establish correctly the canonical books?

The staunchest Catholic apologist must admit this is possible. Moreover, we know that God has already done so before the church era. To our spiritual brethren, the saints of the Old Testament, God also gave the Holy Scriptures. The Jews knew which books were canonical Scriptures not on the basis of an infallible degree of their king, high priest or an ecumenical council of their leaders. They cherished the sacred books which they had received from their forefather without attributing infallibility to their leaders.

We can to do the same today. We can confidently accept and treasure the canonical scriptures, as indeed our spiritual forefathers had done for the first fifteen hundred years since the birth of the NT church (prior to the Council of Trent). We should be grateful to God for his people and his appointed leaders – fallible as they were – as he used them throughout the centuries to identify, preserve and transmit the Scriptures to us today.

If you are a Catholic I hope that tonight you will sleep peacefully after you realize that one of the main argument against the unique, ultimate and absolute authority of the Bible is spurious.

Gospel e-Letter (February 2013) © Dr Joseph Mizzi

-———————————————————————————————————

Joe Mizzi

John Martignoni
I find it interesting that Dr. Mizzi would speak of the “gross spiritual ignorance and rampant error among evangelicals.” Of course, he is speaking of the great unwashed masses of Evangelicals and would not be including himself amongst the peasants. I also find it interesting that he seems to feel very comfortable putting words in the mouth of a Catholic apologist. I suppose it makes sense, though, since he already feels very comfortable putting words in the mouth of the Church – passing off to all of his “grossly spiritually ignorant” readers things that he claims the Catholic Church teaches that, as I have shown numerous times in previous exchanges with him (Newsletters #24-26, 28-31, 46-47, 50, 52, 86-90), the Catholic Church does not actually teach.

So, in contrast to what Dr. Joe Mizzi would claim he would do as a Catholic apologist, as a Catholic apologist, what I say is this: I do not concentrate my attacks on any Evangelicals, I concentrate my attacks on the errors that are believed by many Evangelicals. And, two of the biggest errors are indeed Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, so I do indeed spend a great deal of time on them. Also, my intent is not to destroy the foundations of anyone’s religion, my intent is to bring all men to the truth (1 Tim 2:4).

Joe Mizzi

Take the popular concept of sola scriptura among many evangelicals. They think that the Bible teaches that the Bible alone is the only authority, and thus they reject the claims of an infallible magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed of every other authority, including the authority of their own local churches and their pastors.

John Martignoni
Oh, my…what is Dr. Mizzi doing here? He is setting up a straw man that he can then knock down and proclaim himself champion of the corn field. You see, Joe is saying that all of these “grossly spiritually ignorant” Evangelicals out there, simply do not understand the true teaching of Sola Scriptura in the same way as the “spiritually advanced” folks, like Joe, do. But, as I will show below, on the most important point of this issue – who decides what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice – Joe believes the exact same thing as the Evangelicals he calls "grossly spiritually ignorant."

Joe Mizzi

There is no need for many arguments. One is enough. I would ask a very simple question: “Since you believe that the Bible is the only authority, show me from the Bible alone which books should be included in the Bible and which should be excluded?”

Their answer will be dead silence. You cannot show from the Bible alone which books are inspired and which books are not canonical. That concept of sola scriptura cannot be defended from the Bible.

John Martignoni
Joe Mizzi concedes the argument that the Bible nowhere tells us which books should or should not be in the Bible. In other words, he concedes the argument that in order to have the Bible in the first place, Christians have to believe in some authority outside of the Bible. Now, he is going to do his best to talk around this, as we see below, but I am going rope him and tie him up like a calf in a rodeo.

Joe Mizzi
It’s an easy win. But my conscience would not let me sleep. I cannot be at peace with myself knowing that I have been deceptive.

For contrary to what many people think, sola scriptura does not assert that the Bible alone is the only authority. Sola scriptura asserts that the Bible, being the Word of God, is the only INFALLIBLE authority. Sola scriptura most definitely allows and upholds the authority of the church and tradition, which the Bible itself affirms.

John Martignoni
Well, if Joe Mizzi’s conscience doesn’t let him sleep when he has been deceptive, then he must not have had much sleep since he put up his justforcatholics website however many years ago. Talk about deceptive. And talk about relying on the ignorance of others – Catholic and non-Catholic alike – in order to get away with teaching falsehood. That is his website in spades.

So, Joe Mizzi is trying to say that Sola Scriptura is not really “Sola” Scriptura. It is actually Scriptura plus church plus tradition. Really?! My, that’s sounds very…uhmm…uh…what’s the word I’m searching for here…oh, yeah…Catholic! Methinks Dr. Mizzi is not being entirely sincere here, however. If you go to his website and do a little reading, you will find out about how, according to Joe, the church has added traditions to the Bible, and that, according to Joe, this is a bad thing. So, it’s Scripture + church + tradition here, but on his website it is Scripture, period. Any tradition not found in Scripture, as Dr. Joe interprets it, is not to be believed. The church only has authority – in matters of Christian teaching and practice – when it teaches according to Dr. Mizzi’s interpretation of Scripture.

In fact, here is a quote from his website. It’s from his story about why he left the Catholic Church: “Eventually I reluctantly left the Roman Catholic Church because I could not remain a member of an institution that teaches a different way of salvation than what is taught in the Scriptures.” In other words, Joe did not believe his church at the time, the Catholic Church, had any authority over him to tell him what the Scriptures mean and what is and is not authentic Christian teaching. He believed that his own fallible, non-authoritative, man-made, private interpretation of the Scriptures was more authoritative than his church and his church’s traditions. How, may I ask, is that any different than the poor, “grossly spiritually ignorant” Evangelicals that he spoke of earlier, who leave their churches when they believe that their church and its traditions are contrary to their own fallible, non-authoritative, man-made, private interpretations of Scripture?

If Sola Scriptura “most definitely allows and upholds the authority of the church and tradition,” as he claims, then why did he reject the authority of the church and tradition? It seems to me that Dr. Mizzi speaks with forked tongue. He gives lip service to the authority of church and tradition, but in practice, he gives them no authority unless church and tradition just happen to agree with his fallible interpretation of Scripture. Yet, again, he lambasts the poor “grossly spiritually ignorant” Evangelicals who do the exact same thing. Someone needs to write a book about Dr. Mizzi and call it: “The Scarlet H.”

Finally, I find it a bit humorous that Dr. Mizzi is taking issue with Evangelicals who disagree with his interpretation of what Sola Scriptura actually means. After all, nowhere does the Bible give the definition for Sola Sciptura that Dr. Mizzi gives – which means he is pushing an extra-biblical man-made tradition – so by what authority does he claim to be right on this matter and the "grossly spiritual ignorant" Evangelicals wrong? Is he infallible on this matter? Here we see proof of what I said in my last newsletter – the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has done nothing but divide Christians. Thanks, Joe, for proving my case.

Joe Mizzi

We know which books belong to the canon and which are apocryphal through the work of our forefathers in the faith, namely the church. That is the way that things happened historically. God gave his inspired Word through chosen men like Matthew, Peter and Paul, which were handed on to the first Christian believers, who then copied and passed them on to other churches and to successive generations. The church received the holy books and preserved them to this very day as her most precious heritage. Thanks to the church we can hold the Book in our hands and say, ‘This is the Word of God!’

John Martignoni
Again, Joe Mizzi concedes the argument that we have the Bible because of the Church and because of Sacred Tradition. I find this absolutely fascinating. But, I wonder which church it was that preserved the Sacred Tradition as to which books should and should not be in the Bible? I wonder to which church did the folks who copied and handed on the books of the Bible belong? The Baptist Church? The Lutheran Church? The Methodist Church? The Presbyterian Church of America? The Church of Mizzi? Which church, Dr. Joe? Now, let’s read as he digs himself an even deeper hole…

Joe Mizzi

Now I can almost hear someone object, ‘But how can you know for certain which books are canonical since you do not believe that the church is infallible?

The answer is simple. The church does not have to be infallible to be correct. I am certainly not immune from error, but if I say that 4 plus 6 equals 10, I am nonetheless correct in my answer. We should ask, therefore, can God use a very fallible church – for evidently the church has made many mistakes during its history – to establish correctly the canonical books?

John Martignoni

Oh my goodness! Let’s talk a little circular reasoning here. Let’s talk a little distraction here. Let’s talk deep left field. First of all, Joe believes the church is correct in its choice of canonical books. How does he know it’s correct? Because he believes it is. He starts with the assumption that his Bible is exactly what it should be, and since the church gave him his Bible, that means the church was correct in this instance. Circular reasoning.

Now, Joe will claim that he believes what he believes about the Bible because of the authority of the church and tradition. The question is, though: Which church? Which tradition? Who gets to decide which church and which tradition is authentic? The Catholic Church has a tradition, that is far older than any Protestant tradition, that the Bible contains 73 books, rather than 66 as Joe Mizzi and all other Protestants believe. It is historical fact that Martin Luther threw out seven books of the Old Testament when he split from the Catholic Church. How does Joe Mizzi decide which church or which tradition is authoritative in this matter? Well, he decides based on his authority…none other. He doesn’t decide based on Scripture, or the church, or tradition. So, while he may say that church and tradition indeed have authority, when it comes right down to it, he grants authority to no one other than himself in deciding what is authentic Christian teaching and practice.

So, how does he know for certain which books are canonical? He knows for certain because he knows that 4+6=10. Well, that certainly makes sense. He is getting off the point here. The whole question is not about whether or not the church is infallible. The question is, is there some authority, outside of the Bible, that Christian’s rely upon in order to know what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice…yes or no? The answer, as he has admitted, is yes.

This whole thing about arithmetic is just a distraction. Yes, fallible man can indeed know some things with certainty, such as the fact that 4+6=10. However, an arithmetic equation is much different than a theological question. You see, I can get 4 apples and put them together with 6 other apples and I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that 4+6=10. I can speak infallibly on the question of what does 4+6 equal? 10. That is an infallible answer.

The problem is, that Dr. Mizzi cannot make a similar demonstration when it comes to the books of the Bible. Can he demonstrate that the writer of Mark was indeed inspired by God in the writing of that Gospel in some manner that does not rely upon Sacred Tradition? No, he cannot. So, if he wishes to stick to his claim that “the Bible is the only INFALLIBLE authority,” and the Church is not nor has it ever been infallible, then he has a huge problem. He is left with, as Protestant theologian R.C. Sproull states it, "A fallible collection of infallible books," which is an absurdity.

He’s also setting up a straw man when he implies that "infalliblilty" means one is "immune from error," and that Catholics believe one has to be infallible in order to be correct. That is not the how the Catholic Church uses the word "infallibility" and he knows it. Someone who is infallible, can indeed make mistakes, just not any mistakes when teaching on faith and morals to the Church. The problem for him is, though, that without a church that can speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals, then you have no authority that can decide disputes between Christians on such matters. You have no authority that can definitively teach what is and what is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. You have no authority that can definitively decide what is and is not inspired Scripture.

Is it infallible teaching that the Bible has 66 books as he believes? If not, then it is fallible teaching. Fallible teaching is teaching that could be wrong. Will Joe then admit, that since there is no infallible authority that can pronounce definitively which books should and should not be considered inspired Scripture, that he could be wrong about how many books there are in the Bible? He has to admit that – although he won’t – because he admits that there is no infallible authority that can pronounce on such things. I say there are 73 books in the Bible. He says there are 66 books in the Bible. By what authority does he tell me I’m wrong? None but his own.

Joe Mizzi

The staunchest Catholic apologist must admit this is possible. Moreover, we know that God has already done so before the church era. To our spiritual brethren, the saints of the Old Testament, God also gave the Holy Scriptures. The Jews knew which books were canonical Scriptures not on the basis of an infallible degree of their king, high priest or an ecumenical council of their leaders. They cherished the sacred books which they had received from their forefather without attributing infallibility to their leaders.

John Martignoni
The staunchest Catholic apologist will admit that God can indeed give men – men who are prone to mistakes and errors and sin – the grace to infallibly pronounce on matters of faith and morals. Will Joe Mizzi deny this? He gave Peter the grace to make an infallible pronouncement in Matthew 16:16-17. The high priest Caiphas made an infallible prophecy, not "of his own accord," in John 11:49-52. Will Joe Mizzi deny that God can use fallible men to teach the Church infallibly on matters of faith and morals?

Joe is a bit ignorant of history and Scripture it seems. He says the Jews knew which books were canonical not because of any infallible decree from king, high priest, or ecumenical council. Really? How can he say that the Jews knew which books were canonical when the Jews disputed amongst themselves as to which books were canonical? The Sadducees had one canon of Scripture. The Pharisees had another. The Greek-speaking Jews had another. Hmm. Seems like the Jews needed an infallible authority to decide the matter. Furthermore, how can he say the Jews did not attribute infallibility to their leaders? Maybe they didn’t, but maybe some of them did? What source is he using to make such a claim? The Bible? Well, in the Bible, it seems like Jesus (Matthew 23) might be implying that those that sit on Moses’ seat are indeed infallible in their teaching, even though they behave badly. After all, He tells His own disciples, and the crowds, to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees tell them to do. Again, hmm….

Also, regarding the swipe he took at the infallibility of an ecumenical council, would Joe deny that the Council of Jerusalem, in chapter 15 of Acts, issued an infallible decree about circumcision? Indeed it did. How then, can Dr. Mizzi claim that the church has never acted infallibly?

Joe Mizzi

We can to do the same today. We can confidently accept and treasure the canonical scriptures, as indeed our spiritual forefathers had done for the first fifteen hundred years since the birth of the NT church (prior to the Council of Trent). We should be grateful to God for his people and his appointed leaders – fallible as they were – as he used them throughout the centuries to identify, preserve and transmit the Scriptures to us today.

John Martignoni

Joe Mizzi can "confidently accept and treasure the canonical scriptures" only because, whether he admits it or not, he relies on the infallible authority of the Catholic Church to pronounce on such matters. Without the Church, and without the gift of infallibility that God has given to His Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit, then the best we can do is know that we have a fallible canon of what we think is infallible scripture, but we would have to admit that we could be wrong, because we are relying on a fallible church to tell us these things.

Joe Mizzi

If you are a Catholic I hope that tonight you will sleep peacefully after you realize that one of the main argument against the unique, ultimate and absolute authority of the Bible is spurious.

John Martignoni

If you are a member of the Church of Mizzi, I hope you will sleep restlessly tonight, knowing that you are relying on man-made, non-authoritative, fallible interpretations of the Bible for your beliefs, while at the same time relying on some authority outside of the Bible in order to have your Bible in the first place. And, what authority could that be?

To conclude, Joe Mizzi’s response to my tract has all kinds of problems, but the point to really focus on, is that even though he says that the church and traditions have authority, he is just giving lip service to that idea. In reality, Joe cedes authority to no one and to no thing that disagrees with him, and with his interpretation of the Bible, in matters of faith and morals. If there is a church or a tradition that disagrees with him, then he is just like all of those poor "grossly spiritually ignorant" Evangelicals that he speaks of – who believe in one authority and one authority only – Sola Scriptura. Which means that everything I said in my tract is valid and holds true for Joe Mizzi and all those Evangelicals that he looks down upon.

In Conclusion

I hope all of you have a great week!

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.

$RemovalHTML$