I’ve
previously devoted several of my articles to addressing comments made by
Catholic apologist and speaker John Martignoni, who maintains the Bible Christian Society newsletter. Today, we will deal with his Newsletter
#410. You can find it here:
John often
speaks about how Protestants (who admit to being fallible) will have a problem
correctly interpreting Scripture, while claiming it is not an issue with
Catholics. He emphasizes that what the
Protestant believes depends entirely on his private, fallible interpretation of
the Bible, while the Catholic can rest confidently in the authority of the
Catholic Church for correct interpretations.
In this
particular newsletter, he gets a question from someone named “Cary L.” who
asks:
“Why is your
potentially fallible decision to trust the claims of the Roman Catholic Church
for your salvation correct?
John
Martignoni states that it is an excellent question, and I agree! In fact, I don’t think that John (or any
other Catholic) can adequately answer it the way he wants to without violating
Scripture or common sense.
First Things First
But John
requests that Cary first deal with a question of his (John’s) own:
“If you are not infallible
in your interpretation of Scripture, then how do you have any sure way of
knowing what is and is not authentic Christian doctrine and practice?”
Ok, so let me try to
adequately answer John Martignoni’s question to Cary L. It’s about certainty. The question is assuming that infallibility is a must to be able to
know basic Christian doctrine. But this
doesn’t follow. This is the same old
false dichotomy that some Catholic apologists use over and over: 1) either your
interpretation is infallible (i.e., unable to err), or 2) it has to be
wrong. It is as though there is no third
option. But every single person is fallible, yet, many times a person gets the
interpretation correct! Just because an
interpretation could possibly be
wrong doesn’t mean that it will indeed be wrong.
Post-apostolic
Christians don’t have infallibility, but we don’t need it to have enough certainty to come to the knowledge of the
truth, or to be saved. We only need a sufficient amount of certainty.
Are there some
passages more difficult than others?
Yes, there are (2 Peter 3:15-16). Do we get it wrong sometimes? Yes, we may.
And you may say, “That’s not very reassuring if it’s possible that we
can be wrong!” But that’s what Bible
study is for, and nowhere in that Bible are we told that we need infallibility
to interpret a Bible verse. In fact,
Scripture points out that the common person
can indeed understand it. Jesus expected
exactly that! See here:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=interpretation
In fact, it was
mostly the common people who listened
to and followed Jesus. Basic
hermeneutical concepts (i.e., Bible interpretation principles) and common sense
go a long way here.
What’s the Difference?
Ok, back to Cary’s
question. Cary is basically asking: “Isn’t
the reasoning of the Catholic who is trusting in his understanding of Church
teachings just as fallible as the reasoning of the Protestant who is trusting in
his understanding of Scripture? The
answer is yes, indeed.
But Martignoni is
saying no, it isn’t. He says that what
Protestants do “does not at all equate with my accepting the teachings of the
Catholic Church as being authoritative and infallible.” In other words, the Protestant has a problem,
but the Catholic can’t go wrong when trusting in his “infallible” church.
Supposedly,
Protestants can’t read and understand infallible Scripture with certainty, yet
Catholics can confidently read and understand their church’s “infallible”
teaching. But how is it that the
Catholic is supposed to somehow have more certainty than the Protestant? He doesn’t.
There is no difference. Even if
they end up with an infallible source, they still both have to begin with their fallible reasoning.
Martignoni’s “Infallibility”
John
Martignoni goes on to state that he is indeed infallible in his first-hand
knowledge of some things, for example, he “infallibly” knows that he is
married, that he lives in Birmingham, that 2+2=4, etc.
He further
says that he can know something infallibly about matters of which he has
second-hand knowledge, like the speed of light, the fuel for the sun, the year
of the death of George Washington, etc.
Ok, I get
his point, but these last things he mentioned would have less certainty, since
some scientists, researchers, historians and authorities may have actually got some
of their information wrong. It happens
from time to time.
But, of
course, the infallibility that we are concerned with here is not about these
things. We are speaking of having
infallible certainty in spiritual and
moral matters. No one but God has
this level of certainty. But again, He
does give humans sufficient certainty
in spiritual matters (1 John 5:13).
But John’s
whole point, I think, is that the things he mentioned here are told to us by an
“authoritative” source (scientists, researchers, historians, etc.). So, apparently, according to John, if it’s
based on some authority, it must be true, correct? And of course, depending on an authoritative
source is exactly what John will claim, concerning the Catholic Church. He also makes a big deal over Cary’s admission of
fallibility, and he keeps throwing it back into Cary’s face. But fallibility is not necessarily a weakness
when it comes to Bible interpretation. We
all have fallibility and Martignoni needs to stop pretending that Catholics are
somehow immune to it, just because they believe their Church to be infallible.
Double Standard
We use our
fallible reasoning daily in everything
we do, and most people use it effectively.
By the way, every type of
communication has to be interpreted. And
the Catholic, just like the Protestant, is obligated to use his own fallible,
“non-authoritative,” “private” understanding to interpret not only the Bible,
but also to interpret his own church’s teachings. Again, no one has moral infallibility today, and
it doesn’t take such a gift to have a sufficient amount of certainty. There is no getting around this fact, in
spite of what John Martignoni says. There
is a double standard being used here.
All
Christians should use the Scriptures to evaluate their own church’s teaching. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to “…
test all things.” But this does
not apply only to the leaders, but to the “laity,” as well. Checks and balances.
The problem
is that John has been pushing his version of “fallibility-can’t-produce-certainty”
for a long time. He refuses to give up
his argument, but he is still wrong
on this.
Biblical “Proof” of the Need for an
Infallible Magisterium?
He then
demeans the God-breathed Scriptures when he tells Cary:
“The Scriptures
reflect the tradition of the Christian faith, they are not the source of the Christian faith, as you
make them out to be.” (Emphasis mine)
Ok, first of all,
I’ve never seen a Catholic who can actually fully define this Sacred Tradition. You can’t trust in it if you can’t accurately
tell us what all it contains. See here:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html
Second, the Christian
faith is indeed encapsulated in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This is how we know what the true Christian faith is, and this is
also how we detect false doctrine.
John
proceeds to mention a couple of Bible passages to attempt to prove that we need
more than just the Bible. He uses Nehemiah 8:1-8 to suggest that it
was the leaders in this passage (like
in the Catholic Magisterium) who had to explain what the Book of the Law was saying. But we have to remember that, in this context,
these Jews had just returned from Babylon (whose language had become ingrained
in their minds for many years while there).
Many of those Jews grew up
with the Babylonian language. But the
Book of the Law was written in Hebrew, so, many Jews in that seventy-year exile
had to now “brush up” on their native language, while some could probably speak
very little Hebrew! That’s why the Jewish leaders had to expound/translate the Law for
the people. So, this passage does not at
all prove that we need an infallible magisterium to interpret for us.
Again, John
Martignoni also uses Acts 8:30-31 for the same purpose. In this passage, the Ethiopian eunuch is
reading the book of Isaiah aloud, and Philip asks the eunuch if he understands
what he is reading. The eunuch responds,
“How
can I unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31).
Catholics will often respond,
“See, there it is! We need an infallible
Magisterium to interpret Scripture for us.”
But, to use
the words of John Martignoni, “Not so fast!”
Philip was NOT an apostle, a pope, or part of an infallible magisterium,
but simply a deacon in the church (Acts 6:5)! So why does John use this passage to try to
prove a magisterium? Is there some intentional
deception going on here?
Furthermore,
these passages that John quoted do not negate the abundance of verses showing
that the common man is expected to
understand Scripture, as revealed in the links above.
Later on,
John points out more passages to demonstrate that the (Catholic) Church has
authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19), to decide between
disputes (Matthew 18:15-19), to teach with authority (Luke
10:16), etc., etc., to suggest that the Catholic Church fits all that
criteria. But most of these points are
addressed in the following links:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/09/pillar-and-foundation.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html
John’s attempt
to use Scripture to show that the Catholic Church is infallible falls far short
of its goal.
John’s System
It’s a
losing battle, but John gives it his best shot and waxes eloquent in his
explanation of how he arrives at his conclusion:
“My theological system
is based on the teachings of the 2000-year old Catholic Church which I believe,
after careful consideration of the available evidence, and there is a lot of
evidence - historical, scriptural, logical, etc. - was founded by Jesus Christ
and is guided by the Holy Spirit and operates with the authority of Jesus
Christ which He Himself gave to it.”
But unfortunately,
John had to use his fallible
reasoning, step by step, to come to this conclusion! This happens in each of those steps in this
process, yet John thinks he is bypassing this issue of man’s fallibility. He is not.
John Martignoni
greatly downplays fallibility, but if it weren’t for his fallible reasoning, he
would have never discovered his “infallible Church” (even though his conclusion
is wrong). So, if John’s fallible
reasoning is good enough to get him to that conclusion (after plowing through
the logical data, Scripture, tons of church history, studying the multitude of
church fathers, studying Sacred Tradition, etc., etc.), wouldn’t that same
fallible reasoning be good enough to simply read and understand Scripture in
the first place? If your fallible
reasoning can help you navigate through all
that, you should be able to trust it to understand and interpret Scripture. Apparently, the Catholic Church can’t trust
you to read Scripture directly, but they can trust you to go through all the
above process with no issues!
Interesting logic.
Conclusion
It is not
only John Martignoni, but there are many Catholic apologists that emphasize the
Catholic Church’s ability to “infallibly interpret” the Bible.
We need to
ask, though, exactly how much of the Bible is actually interpreted infallibly by the Church? No one really knows, since Catholics disagree
on the number of verses with such a status.
But know this for sure… it is only an
incredibly tiny fraction of the
Scriptures that the Catholic Church has interpreted with such certainty! If infallible interpretation is so critical
(and the Catholic Church seems to think that it is), then why are so few verses rendered as “infallibly”
determined? What about the “certainty” of the rest of the verses in the Bible?
If you
appeal to common sense (or something like it) then why can’t Protestants do the same thing? The Catholic’s certainty is not any greater than ours. See also this link:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/10/martignoni-and-authority-to-interpret.html
Catholics will
say, “But if you misunderstand something in Scripture, the ‘Living Church’ can
correct you, unlike the Bible.”
But
misunderstandings don’t just happen to Protestants.
There are plenty Catholics who also misunderstand “infallibly-interpreted” Church
teachings.
But the
Bible is indeed a living book (Hebrews 4:12), given to us by the
Word of God, Himself (John 1:1), and its words will judge
us on the last day (John 12:48). It is not
the Catholic Catechism that will judge us on the last day. And neither will the Catholic Church. It will be the words of Jesus Christ, the
Messiah, penned inside the greatest book the world has ever known. It is a miraculous, God-proven and God-breathed
book (2
Timothy 3:16), with its contents perfectly interwoven by God. And if a person studies it, he will soon see
that it does indeed correct misunderstandings, if you take it in context, and in its totality. It is a life-changing book of such great
magnitude, yet it can be understood sufficiently by mere humans whose hearts
are right.
So what’s the answer
when we disagree with someone else about Bible passages? Horror of horrors [for some Catholics], it
simply comes down to us debating the Bible using our fallible minds (along with decent biblical hermeneutics, common
sense and a humble attitude -Luke 8:15).
John Martignoni, I
hope that you will be humble enough to recognize (and admit!) that your worn-out
arguments about man’s uncertainty due to his fallibility don’t hold water. Stop misleading your audience. Since this is a losing battle for any Catholic, let’s put this false
teaching to rest.
