Last month,
we specifically addressed the “authority to interpret Scripture” concept which
we found in one of John Martignoni’s newsletters (#268). Martignoni is a well known and influential
Catholic apologist who has thousands of people who subscribe to his newsletter
and other materials. So, we feel that it
is important to address some of his errors and misrepresentations.
This month,
we will take a look at Martignoni’s view of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible
Alone”). In newsletters #83 through #85,
which can be found here
Martignoni
addresses Sola Scriptura and claims that this doctrine is not logical, not
historical, and not scriptural. But his foundational argument is based on a
couple of false premises. For example, Martignoni
first defines Sola Scriptura in this way in newsletter #83:
“First, let
me define the dogma of Sola Scriptura so that you know exactly what I mean when
I use the term. As I understand it, it
is the belief that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the only thing that a
Christian needs in order to know whatever they need to know about Christian
teaching and practice.”
This
definition is the first false premise. Perhaps
there are some Protestants who would define Sola Scriptura in this way, but that
is certainly not a biblical definition.
We believe that Sola Scriptura is indeed a biblical concept and we would
simply define it this way:
- Scripture is the only infallible Rule of Faith for the church today.
Key word, “infallible.” There are indeed other sources of authority
(or rules of faith) in the church today, like church leaders, theologians, the
writings of church fathers, archaeological and historical evidence, traditions,
councils, Bible commentaries, catechisms, etc.
We are free to use these things to help us learn and grow spiritually,
but none of these are infallible. Scripture
is the ultimate Rule of Faith today because it is the only infallible one. But John Martignoni’s false premise is that
those who believe in Sola Scriptura must use ONLY the Bible to learn anything
spiritual. But that is a
misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura.
At the end
of this particular newsletter, Martignoni appeals to his audience to help him
by asking for advice from his readers so he can “tweak” his upcoming article on
Sola Scriptura. And, in fact, in
newsletter #84, his readers are the
ones who pointed out that his original definition was “too narrow,” and
convinced him to use a somewhat more biblical definition of Sola Scriptura. His second (refined) definition is this:
“The Bible
is the sole authority that one needs to decide what is and is not authentic
Christian teaching and practice. Now,
that is not to say that one cannot learn things from sources other than the
Bible, but these other sources are not infallible, as is the Bible, and do not
carry the kind of binding authority that the Bible carries.”
Here, it
appears that he is starting to understand the meaning of Sola Scriptura. But immediately after this, Martignoni turns
right around and contradicts this new definition by saying:
“In other
words, the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the Christian. If it’s not in the Bible, then I, as a
Christian, am not bound to believe it.”
He misses
the fact that Sola Scriptura allows for the Christian to believe in other rules
of faith, as long as that rule does not conflict with Scripture. Again, he goes from “sole authentic teaching” to “sole rule of
faith.” He reverts back to his original
(faulty) definition.
And once
again, in newsletter #85, Martignoni does another word switch:
Do you see
what he does here? In the first half, he
gets the biblical definition right, but then turns right around and switches back
to his original wording. This is a
typical bait-and-switch tactic.
Still again,
he later contradicts his refined definition of Sola Scriptura by saying:
Martignoni
seems to have trouble maintaining a consistent definition of Sola
Scriptura. How many times do we need to
remind him that Sola Scriptura DOES NOT mean that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. It is the sole INFALLIBLE
rule of faith. There is a world of
difference.
Is
Martignoni intentionally muddying the water?
A professional apologist like himself should know better; he should
easily be able to recognize the difference between the two definitions. Apparently (by his own admission) even his
readers can tell the difference, since they were the ones who suggested the new
definition.
John
Martignoni’s second false premise in these articles is that we need infallible
authority when we interpret the Bible and we cannot allow “individual
interpretation” of Scripture. But we
already addressed that error in last month’s article here:
Again, this
“authority to interpret” argument is one of Martignoni’s foundational arguments that he uses often. For him, it is a major building block for
many (if not most) of his teachings. But
exposing this false “need” for infallible interpretations undercuts
Martignoni’s whole “authority argument” and brings it crumbling down.
We cannot
emphasize this enough: Even if John Martignoni’s
church was infallible (and we strongly assert that it is not) and if they were able to perfectly and infallibly interpret Scripture,
he would still be in the same “trap” as the Protestant. He must still
use his own fallible mind and faculties, along with common sense, to
interpret his supposed infallible source (the Catholic Church). He cannot claim that fallible interpretations
are a problem for Protestants, but not for Catholics. We are
all fallible.
So, John
Martignoni is off to a very bad start if he cannot even get the definition of
Sola Scriptura right, and if one of his most foundational arguments (“authority
to interpret”) is invalid. Interested
readers can find, in this blog, answers to Martignoni’s other arguments against
Sola Scriptura, as well. See these
links:
We also have
an eight-part series on Sola Scriptura starting here:
