MARTIGNONI AND SOLA SCRIPTURA

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

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter

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:

“Does the Bible teach that it is the sole infallible authority for deciding matters related to Christian teaching and practice?  In other words, does the Bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith for the Christian?”
 

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:

“However, it nowhere says anything about the Bible being the sole rule of faith for the Christian.”
 

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:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/10/martignoni-and-authority-to-interpret.html

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:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-apostles-practice-sola-scriptura.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/08/welcome.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/12/sola-scriptura-and-divisions.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html

We also have an eight-part series on Sola Scriptura starting here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/03/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-1.html

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 7)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

There is another attack on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, an attack which doesn’t seem to be as common as the previous arguments.  But it is more of an attempt to address the “practical” side of the Sola Scriptura debate.

This article will only be “specific” in the sense that it is only about practical issues concerning Sola Scriptura.  Within this framework we will touch on several different, but related, points:

ARGUMENT #7 – THE CONCEPT OF SOLA SCRIPTURA CANNOT BE TRUE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL FOR THE EARLY CHURCH.  FOR EXAMPLE, HOW COULD IT BE TRUE BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE PRINTING PRESS IN THE 1400’S?  FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA TO WORK BACK THEN, THERE HAD TO BE PLENTIFUL ACCESS TO SCRIPTURE - EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE HAD THEIR OWN PERSONAL BIBLE.  BUT VERY FEW COULD AFFORD TO OWN A BIBLE, AND MOST PEOPLE WERE ILLITERATE, ANYWAY.  ALSO, IN THOSE DAYS, BECAUSE OF THE LONG DAYS OF HARD LABOR, EVEN IF THEY COULD READ, THEY DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO STUDY LIKE WE DO TODAY.  FURTHERMORE, A LACK OF PROPER NUTRITION PREVENTED THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO PROPERLY STUDY GOD’S WORD.  SO BECAUSE OF ALL THESE PRACTICAL REASONS, SOLA SCRIPTURA COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.

All these are misrepresentations of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  Let us remember the simple definition of Sola Scriptura that we shared at the beginning of this series:

“Scripture is the only infallible Rule of Faith for the church today.”

With this definition in mind, one should recognize the fact that easy availability or mass distribution of Bibles has nothing to do with the truthfulness of Sola Scriptura.  A person does not need to own a Bible in order for Sola Scriptura to be true.  It is true whether he owns a Bible or not.  Scripture can be the only infallible Rule of Faith even if only a few Bibles exist.

Literacy and education also have nothing to do with the truthfulness of Sola Scriptura.  Scripture can be (and is) the Ultimate Authority, whether a person can read or not.  And just because someone can’t read or write does not mean that he is stupid or that he has no comprehension skills.  Even if illiterate, he may still easily memorize Bible verses and understand biblical concepts that he was taught by someone else.  The learning and spreading of God’s Word was not prevented by illiteracy.  

The fact that many in the early church were illiterate proves nothing.  Just as they were taught their catechism by others, they could just as easily have learned the Scriptures from others.  God is fully able and willing to reveal Himself to the lowly, the poor, and the uneducated (Matthew 11:25; 1 Corinthians 1:26-27; Acts 4:13; Proverbs 1:1-7; Psalm 119:130).  But being illiterate does not demand that one should need an “infallible” Magisterium to teach him.

Concerning the people of the early church not having time, we all have 24 hours in every day.  Anyone can take a Bible passage, ponder on it, and have discussions about it during the day while working.  It is not just the mere reading of it that counts.

Concerning improper nutrition, this is a pitiful argument for two reasons:  1) The church leaders more than likely had the same basic diet that the “common people” had, so how is it that church leaders were able to learn?  And 2) If the common people could understand the catechism and other teachings that were taught to them, they could certainly also understand Scripture that was taught to them.  It takes no more nourishment to understand Scripture than it does these other things.   

But to further demonstrate the absurdity of these arguments, let’s put them in simpler terms:

Imagine being at a baseball game and there was a dispute about the official rule book of baseball (i.e., its ultimate authority).  What if someone said about this rule book:

• “This can’t be the ultimate authority because everyone in the stands and all the players don’t have a copy of it!”

• “This can’t be the ultimate authority because I can’t read!”

•  “This can’t be the ultimate authority because I don’t have time to study it!”

• “This can’t be the ultimate authority because I haven’t eaten anything all week and my thinking is not up to par!”

These are all equally ridiculous reasons, but many Catholics (and others) resort to using these same arguments against Sola Scriptura.  None of the above reasons stops the official rule book in baseball from being the ultimate authority for baseball.  In the same way, these arguments cannot be applied against Sola Scriptura.  Thus, the “Sola-Scriptura-doesn’t-work-because-it-is-impractical” argument is shown to be an empty one.