Apologetics for the Masses #326 - The Sinlessness of Mary (cont'd)

Topic

A Debate on The Sinlessness of Mary

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

If you did not sign up for this newsletter and you would like to be removed from our distribution list, just click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe, then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." 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: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,

Here are my next few speaking engagements, if you happen to be in these areas:

1) Oneonta, Alabama - July 11; I will be speaking at Corpus Christi parish - 6:30 PM

2) Hays, Kansas - August 11; Diocesan Men's Conference

3) Mobile, Alabama - August 17-19; Men of St. Joseph retreat

Also, several people have asked about this recently, so I wanted to let you know that the "Donations" page of the website has been modified to where you can set up automatic monthly payments via your credit card. You do it through the PayPal "Donate" button, but it is not necessary to have a PayPal account.

Introduction

Okay, continuing now with my "debate" with anti-Catholic Steve Fitz on "The Sinlessness of Mary." Last week, I gave you Mr. Fitz's 2nd round comments, which were in response to my reply to his 1st round comments. The homework assignment I gave you last week was to try and determine what the main thrust, or the main point, of my response to his comments would be.

Well, what most of you did not seem to hone in on, was the fact that Mr. Fitz, for the most part, failed to answer my questions. He either did not answer them - at all! - or he responded to them in such a way that you could call it anything but a direct answer. Yet, the one condition I had asked him to agree to before the debate was this: That he answer all of my questions with direct answers. He agreed. So, what does he do when I start asking him questions? He dodges them.

So, I told him that I was not going to respond to his comments until he gave direct answers to my questions and I listed the questions that he had not given answers to. He refused to answer them. He even went so far as to send me a private message through Facebook to say that he had not agreed to my condition, even though his best buddy from his Facebook page said that he had indeed agreed to my condition. So, his witness agreed with me!

Since he did not live up to his agreement to answer all of my questions in a direct manner, I ended the "debate." And that's what you need to do each and every time you are talking to someone about the faith and it is a situation where you are asking question after question that goes unanswered, while you are answering most, if not all, of the questions being asked of you. DO NOT waste your time with people who want to preach to you, but who do not want to listen and learn.

Below is the exchange I had with him. First is the list of questions, and then his responses. After the last of his responses, I will go through each of the questions and explain why he didn't want to answer them. Then, in the next issue, I will respond to his 2nd round comments so that you can see how feckless they truly are as arguments against the sinlessness of Mary.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

In response to Steve Fitz's 2nd round comments (see last week's newsletter: (http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/417-apologetics-for-the-masses-325-the-sinlessness-of-mary-cont-d):

John Martignoni

     Steve Fitz, when I agreed to this debate, I had one condition - that you answer any questions I ask with a direct answer. You gave your word that you would do so. Yet, you have not done so. So, I will ask them again. If I do not receive direct answers to these questions, then I will assume that you have no intention of honoring your word, and this "debate" will be over.

     Here are those questions once again:

1) Is it fair to say that everything you post here, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself?

2) When you state: “If Mary was sinless...there would be...bible verses that teach that Mary was sinless,” will you agree that is nothing more than your fallible opinion?

3) Would you further agree that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, as I do, that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong?

4) Have babies sinned?

5) Have the mentally handicapped sinned?

6) Do you contend that Elizabeth and Zechariah, in fact, did not walk in ALL the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless, in spite of what Scripture says?

7) Are you seeking God in your life?

8) You agree that just because the Bible calls someone "good," it doesn't mean they are sinless, even though Jesus said, "there is none good but one, that is, God"?

9) Do you agree that your statement: “No need for Mary to have a Savior if she was sinless,” is nowhere found in the Bible and, therefore, is nothing more than your fallible opinion?

10) Can you point to a single Scripture passage that says, "Mary was a sinner?"

11) Is it possible to save someone from something before it happens to them?

12) Have you ever been an alcoholic? If you answer, “No,” would you agree that Jesus saved you from alcoholism?

     Once you answer these questions, with direct answers - a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice - then I will respond to the arguments you have posted above.

Strategy

When engaged in a debate/dialogue/discussion about the faith, I always ask questions. It's the "How to Be Aw-fensive Without Being Uh-fensive" strategy from Blue Collar Apologetics. I ask questions so as to lead the discussion to a logical conclusion, rather than to just throw Bible verses at each other ad infinitum. So, when I ask the questions, I expect answers. I'll answer your questions, why won't you answer mine?

You need to have the same basic attitude. I'll answer anything you ask, but I expect you to answer my questions in return. And I expect you to answer them with clear, direct answers. That's why I ask so many yes or no questions. A yes or a no is clear and direct. If someone wants to explain their yes, or their no, after giving it...fine! But give me a yes or a no first so that I don't have to guess what your answer ultimately means. I have discovered that yes-no questions are to anti-Catholics like garlic is to vampires. They hate them and they recoil in horror at the asking...

Everyone of the above questions can be answered with a simple yes or no - one of them also requires a Scripture verse if the answer is yes. I can answer all 12 questions in less than a minute. Yet, Mr. Steve Fitz avoided them like the plague.

Steve Fitz

You are deflecting from the debate

John Martignoni

Those questions were part of my arguments and you need to answer them - directly - in order for this to qualify as a "debate."

Steve Fitz

John those questions do not help you prove Mary was sinless. What does alcoholism have to do with Mary being sinful? Nothing

John Martignoni

Steve Fitz, are you choosing not to answer my questions, then? Yes or no? Final chance.

Steve Fitz

I answered those questions John in my debate

John Martignoni

Not with direct answers. I don't want to wade through your verbosity and have to assume which of your many words might apply to which question.

Steve Fitz

John your [sic] the one not answering questions.

John Martignoni

I responded to every one of your arguments. If you have specific questions from your first response that you feel I did not answer...lay them out. In the meantime, answer the questions that I have laid out. A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Are you going to give direct answers to the questions I have laid out or not? Yes or no?

[He refused to answer.]

Strategy

I gave him 3 chances - he refused to answer. I gave him the opportunity to list all of his questions he believed I did not answer. He wouldn't do it. Although, in a PM through Facebook, he pointed out that I had not answered his question as to whether or not there were any Scripture verses that said Mary was sinless. So, right here and right now, I will answer that question: No, there is no passage in all of Scripture that states: "Mary was sinless." Just as there is no passage in all of Scripture that states: "Mary was a sinner."

Now, what was Steve Fitz so afraid of that he refused to answer the questions I asked him? Well, here's the thing. Every question I asked him, led away from his private, fallible conclusion that Mary was a sinner. So, instead of trying to argue against the logic of the arguments, he chose to ignore them. Why? Because he cannot argue against the logic of the arguments - logic is not on his side in this debate, and neither is the Bible.

Folks, you can defeat arguments from people like this using the Bible, but you can also defeat arguments from people like this by attacking the assumptions and conclusions they make with some plain ol' common sense and simple logic. You can destroy the foundation of their arguments with logic...simple logic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's go through those 12 questions to see what exactly it was that he didn't want to deal with:

1) Is it fair to say that everything you post here, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself?

Analysis

I ask the question because, when it comes to authority, Steve Fitz is a nobody. He has no authority - none whatsoever! - when it comes to deciding issues of doctrine, discipline, morality, biblical interpretation, and so on. He does not claim to be infallible. He does not even claim to be a fallible church. His name nowhere appears in the Bible. So, when it comes to religion, he has ZERO authority over anyone or anything. So, I ask the question because I want to see if he will admit that he is fallible and that he has no authority over me or any other Catholic in matters of faith.

All Protestants have a problem with Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the Pope. If they admitted the Pope was infallible, then they would, to be logically consistent, have to become Catholic. So, they will say, "No man is infallible, including your Pope!" So, I always (!) take advantage of that by asking anyone I'm talking to: "Are you infallible?" They answer, "No." But then, when you dispute with them over doctrine and interpretations of the Bible, they won't even admit of the possibility...the possibility!...that they could be wrong. It's a condition I like to call: "Fallible in Theory, Infallible in Practice."

So, Mr. Steve Fitz wants to stay away from this question because he does not want to be forced to admit, particularly in a discussion with a Catholic, that he is fallible and that he has no authority whatsoever and the logical conclusions that admission leads to - there is the possibility that he could be wrong, and he has no authority to tell any Catholic, or anyone else for that matter, that they are wrong in what they believe.

2) When you state: “If Mary was sinless...there would be...bible verses that teach that Mary was sinless,” will you agree that is nothing more than your fallible opinion?

Analysis
Basically the same reasoning as that behind question #1 above. He does not want to admit that he could be wrong, and he knows that if he admits he is fallible, then the next question I will ask him is: "So, since you are fallible, then the things you're telling me could be wrong, right?" He will run from that question 24/7/365.

3) Would you further agree that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, as I do, that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong?

Analysis

Hammering the above points home.

4) Have babies sinned?

5) Have the mentally handicapped sinned?

Analysis

These questions are in response to him trying to use Rom 3:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," to "prove" that Mary did indeed sin since the word "all," in his line of argumentation, is an absolute. Absolutely everyone - all - have sinned. But, he will then make an exception for Jesus. Fine, no problem there. Many times, though, Protestants will also make exceptions for babies and the mentally handicapped, since they do not have the capacity to commit sin. Well, if there are exceptions to "all," for babies and others, then that means "all" is not an absolute, and there could be other exceptions as well...like Mary, maybe? It's just pointing to the possibility...

There are those, however, like Mr. Fitz, who will say, "Yes, babies have sinned, and, yes, the mentally handicapped have sinned." They will point to the total deprivation of man, as they see it, and say something along the lines of all flesh being sinful. But, there is a problem with that. There is a difference in being created in a state of sin, in the flesh - outside of covenant with God - as we all are when we are born and before we are baptized, and "having" sinned. "Having" sinned implies that one has committed personal sin. Romans 3:23 says that "all HAVE sinned." Babies have not sinned. The mentally handicapped have not sinned. They may be in a state of original sin, but they, personally, HAVE NOT sinned.

The other thing about Romans 3:23 is this: Paul is not talking about individuals when he says "all." He is talking about groups of people. Specifically, he is talking about the Jews vs. the Gentiles as a whole, not as individuals. The Jews thought they were better than the Gentiles. So, in verse 3:9, Paul states specifically that he is referring to Jews and Gentiles and tells the Jews that they are not better than the Gentiles as they are not above sin just because they are Jews.

6) Do you contend that Elizabeth and Zechariah, in fact, did not walk in ALL the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless, in spite of what Scripture says?

Analysis
In Luke 1:6, it says that Elizabeth and Zechariah walked in ALL (there's that word "all" again) of the commandments and the ordinances of the Lord "blameless." If they are blameless, in "ALL" of the Lord's commandments and ordinances, then I've got a pretty good argument that they were without sin (personal sin). So, this question was asked because it also points to exceptions to the rule of "ALL" being an absolute in Romans 3:23. Which would mean that interpreting "ALL" in Romans 3:23 as an absolute, is problematic.

7) Are you seeking God in your life?

Analysis

Why did I ask this question? Because in Romans 3:11, it says that "no one" seeks for God. Well, if you ask every Protestant if they are seeking God in their lives, what do you think their answer will be? "Yes!" But, Rom 3:11 says the answer is, "No!" I mean, if "all" in Rom 3:23 is an absolute, then "no one" in Rom 3:11 must be an absolute. So, the Protestant who says Rom 3:23 means everyone, without exception, has sinned, cannot be seeking God in his life because Rom 3:11, according to his methodology of interpreting Scripture, says that absolutely no one is seeking God.

So, either the Protestant is not seeking God in his life, or the Bible is lying...at least, according to the Protestant interpretation. The only other possibility, is that the words, "no one," are not being used in an absolute sense. And, if they are not being used in an absolute sense, then it can be argued that the word "all" in 3:23, is also not being used in an absolute sense. Which shoots a hole in their argument about Mary.

Steve wants no part of that.

8) You agree that just because the Bible calls someone "good," it doesn't mean they are sinless, even though Jesus said, "there is none good but one, that is, God"?

Analysis
In his first round comments, Mr. Fitz, pointed to Mark 10:18, which says that only God is "good," and essentially argued that Mary can't be sinless because if she was, then she, too, would have been called "good." Well, I pointed out in my reply to him that there are a number of places in the New Testament where people are called "good," but they aren't God and they aren't sinless. Which, first of all, points to problems with his method of interpreting the Scripture. Secondly, it shows that his argument about Mary not being called "good" is meaningless. Even if Mary was called "good" somewhere in the New Testament, he would still say she was still a sinner.

His argument is completely without merit and I asked him that question to highlight that fact. Which is why he doesn't want to respond to it because it makes him look to be not as smart as he could be.

9) Do you agree that your statement: “No need for Mary to have a Savior if she was sinless,” is nowhere found in the Bible and, therefore, is nothing more than your fallible opinion?

Analysis

When you're dialoguing with someone, remember that everything they say - every assertion, every assumption, every conclusion - if it is not a direct quote from the Bible, is their private, fallible, non-authoritative opinion. Everything! And you need to remind them of that over and over and over again, by asking simple questions like the one above.

Steve Fitz does not want to be reminded of that and he definitely does not want to admit that, so he will not ever - ever - answer such a question. And that eats at the craw of an anti-Catholic like him. It's not that he can't answer the question, it's that he won't answer the question. And he won't answer the question, because it exposes the holes, the huge gaping holes, in his theology.

10) Can you point to a single Scripture passage that says, "Mary was a sinner?"

Analysis

He cannot. Why not? Because there is no such verse in all of Scripture. I asked that question to force him to admit that Scripture nowhere says what he so desperately wants it to say. Which means he is left with nothing but his own fallible, private, non-authoritative interpretations of the Bible in order to "prove" Mary was a sinner. And what is the value of Steve Fitz's private, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture to a Catholic - diddly squat! So, he will not answer this question because, once again, it runs contrary to his fallible opinion.

11) Is it possible to save someone from something before it happens to them?

Analysis

This whole thing about Mary needing a Savior "proving" that she was a sinner is built on the logic that if one is saved from something, they necessarily have to have been saved after the fact. My question attacks that logic. No, someone can be saved from something before the fact. He does not want to admit that, so has to ignore the question.

12) Have you ever been an alcoholic? If you answer, “No,” would you agree that Jesus saved you from alcoholism?

Analysis

Making the same point as in #11 above, but this time making it personal. Did Jesus save him from alcoholism before he was ever an alcoholic? He has to say, "Yes." He knows answering that question destroys the logic of his argument about Mary being a sinner because she needed a Savior. So, he runs away from it. Will not answer it.

Again, there is a good reason why he refused to directly answer my questions. The reason is that he knows exactly what the logic behind my line of questioning is, and he knows that if he gives direct answers to those questions, the lack of logic in his arguments will be made plain for all to see.

Okay, in the next issue I will respond directly to his 2nd round comments and then that will be that for Mr. Steve Fitz...

Closing Comments

Remember...ask questions. If they are not answered, ask them again, and again. Do not move on until your questions are answered. Stop answering the other guy's questions until he answers yours. If it doesn't look like you're going to get direct answers to your questions, then withdraw from the dialogue, because there is no point in dialoguing with someone who wants to preach, but does not want to listen.

I hope all of you have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

If you did not sign up for this newsletter and you would like to be removed from our distribution list, just click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe, then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." 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 http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.