MARTIGNONI AND THE GOD OF THE MUSLIMS

 

I would like to address another one (actually two) of Catholic apologist John Martignoni’s newsletter articles, namely:

Newsletter #496 (Part 1) which can be found here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/705-apologetics-for-the-masses-496-do-muslims-and-christians-worship-the-same-god

And #497 (Part 2) which is here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/706-apologetics-for-the-masses-497-do-muslims-and-catholics-worship-the-same-god-part-2

Now John, as a faithful son of the Catholic Church, is in the unenviable position of having to do what I would call damage control for the Church.  I’ve seen Catholic apologists like John and others who struggle on the front lines in the apologetics war to try and reconcile what the Church is saying when it is not so clear in its official teachings. 

Case in point is paragraph #841 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims.  ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’” (CCC# 841)

Ok, so John Martignoni takes us on somewhat of a rollercoaster ride – at times seemingly defending the spiritual status of the Muslims and at other times, questioning it.

In Part 1, John quotes paragraph #841 and then states:

“In other words, the Church teaches – at least in the Catechism – that Muslims do indeed worship the same God as Christians.  However, that is not a doctrinal teaching of the Church…” (Emphasis added)

Not a doctrinal teaching?  That’s a strange thing to say for a Catholic apologist.  If it comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I would think that it is indeed doctrine.  On what basis does John Martignoni say such a thing?  Why would paragraph #841 NOT be a doctrine of the Catholic Church?

In at least one Catholic Answers article, it explains:

“In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals.”

See here:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-difference-between-doctrine-and-dogma

And I think that this is the general consensus of the Catholic Church.

So, does this mean that the salvation referred to in paragraph #841 is NOT about faith and morals?  What about the “acknowledging the Creator” part, or the “faith of Abraham,” or the “mankind’s judge” part?  Aren’t these obviously about faith and morals?  I would think yes, absolutely!

By Whose Authority?

So, who has given John Martignoni the authority to declare that this paragraph in the Catechism is not about matters of faith and morals?  I’m pretty sure that the Catholic Magisterium (Church leaders) would disagree with him.

Then John goes on to state, “… it is my belief that Muslims do indeed worship the same God as Catholics.  However, they obviously have serious misunderstandings about the God they worship.  But a misunderstanding about the nature of God does not constitute worshipping a false god… Just because they have erroneous beliefs about God, it doesn’t mean they are actually worshipping a different God.”

So, in other words, John is saying that the Muslims do indeed worship the true God of the Bible, but they are just doing it in an incomplete and deficient way, like the Samaritan woman in John 4:22. 

Martignoni’s Dilemma

A little later in this newsletter, John Martignoni says that the Muslims “profess” to hold the faith of Abraham, but he then says, “Just because they claim it, doesn’t make it true.”  I would agree wholeheartedly with John here.  But (in spite of what the Catechism says) he seems to be doubting the Muslims’ relationship with God here.  The language used in Paragraph #841 in the Catechism seems to strongly indicate that Muslims are indeed “brothers” with Catholics – for example, they “adore” the same God as the Catholic Church does.

To further demonstrate this idea, here is a quote from former pope John Paul II:

“As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham.  Thus it is natural that we have much to discuss concerning true holiness in obedience and worship to God.” (Address of Pope John Paul II to the participants in the Colloquium on “Holiness in Christianity and Islam” in Rome, Thursday 9 May 1985)

And again, Pope John Paul II later states:

“Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: ‘We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection.’” (John Paul II to a general audience, Wednesday 5, May 1999)

So, if Catholics and Muslims are “brothers and sisters” and if you both believe in and adore “the same God,” “the one God,” “the living God,” then according to the former pope AND the Catechism, you (Catholics and Muslims) must both be believers and both in right standing with God, right, John?

But I don’t think that John is comfortable with that idea.  I agree with him that Muslims are not in right standing with God, but doesn’t he have to comply with his Church and isn’t he obligated to agree with its doctrines? 

John is correct to suggest that Muslim teaching does not line up with the (biblical) faith of Abraham.  It’s tough when the Church puts you on the spot, isn’t it John?  In doing this, the Church is setting up its apologists for failure.  You shouldn’t have to clean up their mess.  But regretfully, John, you still choose to remain with the Catholic Church.

The Plan of Salvation

But then John Martignoni is forced to nuance paragraph #841 by stating:

“Saying that the Muslims are included in the plan of salvation is not the same thing as saying the Muslims are saved.”

And he goes on to mention (as examples) the Assyrians capturing the northern tribes of Israel, the Egyptians enslaving the Israelites, and the scribes and Pharisees arranging Jesus’ crucifixion.  He says this to prove that none of these were godly, yet even these guys were included in the “plan of salvation” in the sense that they helped bring about the ultimate plan of God.

Come on, John, you can do better than that!  First, I already demonstrated that the language of paragraph #841 and the language of Pope John Paul II is clear that you Catholics and the Muslims are “brothers and sisters.” 

Secondly, saying that the “plan of salvation” includes all these people that you mentioned does nothing to prove your case.  If you want to go that route, we could say that every human on earth is part of the “plan of salvation,” since Jesus (because of OUR sin) had to die for ALL OF US.  We all played a part in it – according to Scripture, we have all sinned (Romans 3:23), so, in a sense, we all had a part in Calvary – it’s just that we humans played a very negative and embarrassing part!  So your argument is meaningless, John.  It reduces your definition of the “plan of salvation” to nonsense.

I agree that Muslims are not “brothers” with Christians, but you have a dilemma in defending your Church.  Both the Catechism and the former pope are teaching Catholic doctrine because they are both addressing faith and morals.

Times of Ignorance

In the second newsletter mentioned (Part 2), John Martignoni asks:

“So the Jews of the Old Testament did not worship the real God?  It wasn’t the real God that gave the Jews the Old Testament Scriptures?  It wasn’t the real God that divided the Red Sea?  It wasn’t the real God that fed them in the desert with manna from Heaven?  It wasn’t the real God that created Adam and Eve along with the rest of the universe?”

To answer John’s question, of course it was the real God, the biblical God, who did all those things in the Old Testament.  Although the Jews truly worshipped the real God as best they could, they could only do so with a limited understanding (John 4:21-24).  But once they met the Savior (who is the very image of the Father), they could then begin to know and understand the Father much better. 

But before Jesus came to earth, they didn’t know the exact identity of the Savior of mankind.  They had many passages in the Old Testament that pointed to this Messiah, but they weren’t expected to know what we know today from the New Testament.  All they had was the “faith of Abraham,” which looked forward to the promise of the Jewish Messiah. 

But the Jews of the Old Testament were allowed to worship the real God while in a certain amount of ignorance:

“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.” (Acts 17:30)

But all we (i.e., all mankind) have no excuse today!  The gospel of Jesus Christ has pretty much been spread throughout the world, with very few exceptions, I think.  So the Jew, the Muslim, the Zoroastrian, the Sikh, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the witch doctor in the deepest and darkest part of Africa – everyone who is searching for spiritual truth – now has possible access to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  God promises that if you humbly and truly reach out to Him, He will make a way for you to find Him (Acts 17: 27; Romans 1:18-20).  So this gives no one an excuse to wrongly worship Him today, Muslim or otherwise.

Misunderstood God or False God?

In Part 2, John also made this statement:

“Even if the worship of Muslims, and Jews, is not pleasing to God, that still doesn’t mean those whose worship is not pleasing to Him are somehow worshipping some other God.  It simply means, again, that their worship is deficient.  I don’t understand why some believe improper worship of God necessarily equates to worshipping a different God.  Where does Scripture say that deficient worship of the one true God = worshipping a false God?”

In answering that question, the apostle Paul was grieved with the church at Corinth, who seemed to be eager to accept almost any message from almost anyone, and he told them:

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

Notice that Paul complained that the Corinthians were quick to accept “another Jesus,” “another spirit,” or “another gospel.”  You see, not every “gospel” message has the right “spirit,” or the right “Jesus.”  It’s a package deal.  And take note – Paul didn’t say that they were trying to worship the correct Jesus, just in a deficient way – he calls it another Jesus, thus pointing out that they were committing idolatry.

If one is not preaching the right Jesus, he is not preaching the right gospel.  Just calling the one you’re worshipping “Jesus,” doesn’t make it Him.

The Muslim “Jesus” (“Isa” in Arabic) is a holy prophet, but not the Son of God.  They agree that he did great works and even miracles, but he did not die on the cross to save mankind. 

This is, by definition, another Jesus, i.e., a false one.

If you are praying to the Muslim “Jesus,” you are praying to a false god.  You can call it Jesus if you want to, but it is not the Jesus of the Bible.  It is not just a “deficient” worship, it would be idolatry.

Conclusion

Of course, we know that no one has perfect worship.  All worship of God is deficient to some extent.  No one knows God, or the things of God, perfectly or completely.  But certain things about God are absolutely necessary to believe in order to truly worship Him.  Our worship of Him is totally dependent on recognizing both the person and work of Jesus Christ on Calvary.  Only then can you truly worship the Father.

The apostle John said:

“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” (John 5:23)

For proper worship, you need the Father AND the Son.  Again, you can’t have one without the other, or you end up with neither. (1 John 2:23; 2 John 1:9)

The apostle Paul gives us a stern warning about the message he first presented to the Galatians:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9)

Whoever doesn’t believe in Paul’s original gospel message and his original Jesus is utterly condemned.  The Muslims may believe in a “Jesus” (and a particular “gospel” that goes along with it), but they do not have the biblical message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, because they don’t recognize His true person and work.

Christians worship the God who inspired the Bible, Muslims worship the god who inspired the Qur’an.  Two different messages altogether.  Therefore, they DON’T have the same God as the Christians do. 

This refutes the claim of the Catholic Catechism and Pope John Paul II.  Muslims are guilty of idolatry in the eyes of God and the Catholic Church will be held accountable for the part they played in deceiving the Muslims.

See also this article on the topic of the Muslim god and the Christian God:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/10/same-god.html

 

JOHN MARTIGNONI’S LOSING BATTLE

 

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:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/586-apologetics-for-the-masses-410-private-interpretation-of-the-bible-vs-church-teaching

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.

MARTIGNONI, ASSURANCE OF SALVATION, AND WORKS

Today, I’d like to address another one of Catholic speaker/writer John Martignoni’s newsletter articles which is on faith, works, and assurance of salvation.  This one is #319, titled “Matt Slick’s False Teachings,” and it can be found here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/409-apologetics-for-the-masses-319-matt-slick-s-false-teachings

In this particular newsletter, John Martignoni critiques a letter from (Protestant) Christian apologist Matt Slick of C.A.R.M. (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry).

I do enjoy many of Matt Slick’s articles, but I don’t agree with his Calvinism.  For the record, I’m not associated with him, so I’m not one of his students trying to blindly defend him at all costs, or anything like that.  I just think what he wrote in his letter is correct.  But John Martignoni doesn’t agree.   

First, John Martignoni deals with the issue of assurance of salvation.  Matt Slick says that he knows he is going to Heaven.  But John accuses Matt of being arrogant in saying this and John responds with two Bible passages:

1 Corinthians 10:12 – Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

In the context of this verse, the apostle Paul is warning us not to do as the Jews did in the Old Testament, not to fall away from the truth through unbelief and disobedience.  Of course, this is great advice, but this verse is NOT saying that we can’t have the assurance of going to Heaven.  In fact, it is implying just the opposite!  Just as a coin has two sides, so does this promise in 1 Corinthians 10:12: 

1) There is a warning if we don’t learn from the Old Testament Jews’ example, and

2) There is the promise of eternal life if we do continue to trust God.  There’s the assurance.  

Either way, the warning/promise stands.  But John is wrong if he thinks that this verse denies us assurance.  If we maintain our faith, our trust in Jesus, we will make it to Heaven.  That is a promise from God.

The second passage John quotes is:

1 Corinthians 4:3 – But to me it is a very small thing that I should be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 

4) I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. 

5) Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.

This passage is speaking of passing judgment on someone concerning the stewardship of his ministry.  It is about divisions and boasting in favor of one minister over another (v. 6).  There is nothing at all here to indicate that we cannot have assurance of salvation.  So John is trying to twist these passages and force them to say something they’re not saying.  He seems to want them to say that we can’t have the assurance of making it to Heaven.

But the beloved apostle, John, says that we can know:

1 John 5:13 – These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. (Emphasis added)

So, it is not arrogant to say you have assurance of your salvation if you maintain your trust in Christ.  It is not wrong to say that you know you are going to Heaven.   

Salvation by Works

In Matt Slick’s letter, another of his main points is that the Catholic Church offers a works-based salvation, which means “faith plus works equals salvation.”  Matt quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church several times to prove his point:

“The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.” (CCC 1257)

“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.” (CCC 846)

“This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.” (CCC 980)

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” (CCC 1129)

“Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation...” (CCC 1816)

“The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation.” (CCC 2036)

Notice how many times “necessary for salvation” occurs.  This means that the Catholic Church believes these things are the MEANS and the CAUSE of salvation, at least indirectly; in the Catholic Church’s eyes, they are REQUIREMENTS to get to Heaven.

·      To recap the Catholic Catechism above, sacraments (like baptism, penance, etc.) are necessary for one’s salvation.  And these are works – no one can deny that.  They are religious formalities and rituals that one performs, or at least allows the priest to perform on him.

·      Also, the Church is mentioned as a means of salvation.  That’s because it is the (Catholic) Church who supposedly dispenses the true sacraments.  Again, works.

·      The Catechism also mentions service and witnessing.  These are also works.

·      And lastly, Matt Slick brings out one part of the Catechism that requires a person to observe the Law (the Ten Commandments).  The works of the Law are certainly considered good works.  No one denies this.

So, Matt is correct in saying that the Catholic Church promotes a works-based salvation.  This is clear by the Catechism quotes he used. 

Strangely though, Catholics are often offended when Protestants point this out. If you’ll notice when you debate a Catholic on justification, that it is almost a guarantee that they will initially deny that they teach a works-based salvation (just as John Martignoni does in his newsletter).  It is almost as if this concept would be embarrassing to them.  Yet, in the end, they will forcefully proclaim that works are indeed necessary for salvation (again, just as John does) and will often wrongly appeal to passages like James 2:24.  But the context of James 2 is NOT “how to be saved.”  It is about the demonstration of your faith when you are truly saved.

“Grace-empowered” Works?

But John Martignoni would say that Catholics do not believe that their works, in and of themselves, merit eternal life.  He says that it is not by a person’s “own goodness and abilities.”  He would say that only special works can merit salvation, those that he elsewhere calls “works empowered by God’s grace,” and he would therefore say that because of that, they contribute to your salvation. 

But EVERYTHING we can possibly do is by God’s grace!  You can’t speak or sing or even breathe, except by His grace.  Just because we are given grace to do something, doesn’t mean that that particular “something” will save us.  It is the work that Jesus did on the cross that saves us – but the way to enter into this eternal life is to believe, to trust in Him, accessing His benefits by faith, not works.

The Scriptures clearly teach that salvation is not by works of righteous (Titus 3:5) and that it is by faith apart from works (Romans 4:4-5).  It is by grace through faith:

Ephesians 2:8 – For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9) not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

10) For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Paul is saying about these works, to “walk in them,” meaning after salvation, not in order to be saved.

Question: Were these works that the apostle Paul speaks of here “grace-empowered” saving works?

If yes, then why does it say that we are NOT saved as a result of these works (v. 9)?

If someone says that the works in this context are merely “works of the Law” from the Old Testament, or some form of “lesser” works, we can ask, why then should we walk in them?  Those same works that we should walk in are the ones that cannot save us.  They cannot merit our salvation, but God does expect us to walk in them daily.

The Bible never makes a distinction between “works of righteousness that save” and “works of righteousness that don’t save.”

If these God-ordained, “grace-empowered” works that John Martignoni mentions can save, then Abraham should have been saved this way.  But he was clearly not saved by his circumcision (Romans 4:9-13) – even though his circumcision was a God-ordained work!  God specifically told him to do it.  I don’t think that John, nor any other Catholic, can answer this dilemma.  Again, no matter how great a work is done by mere humans (even if "grace-empowered"), it cannot save.  Only the work of the Savior on the cross can.

Justification vs. Sanctification

In Matt’s letter, he states that Jesus cleanses us totally of our sin.  But John asks him, “Oh, and one other thing: If Jesus has cleansed you from your sin ‘totally,’ then how come you still sin?”

The answer is, we still sin because we are not yet fully sanctified, even if we have already been justified through faith.  Catholics conflate the two terms and it causes them trouble by muddying the water, like in this scenario.  What Jesus did on the cross is to totally pay the penalty for sin.  He paid it all and there is nothing left to pay.  “It is finished!” (John 19:30).  No more works or suffering are needed as a payment for sin. 

In justification, Jesus paid the PENALTY for sin.  The sanctification process helps us against the POWER of sin, and final glorification will deliver us from the very PRESENCE of sin.

Conclusion

Those passages in Scripture that link salvation with works need to be balanced with the passages that teach faith APART from works.

Question: If salvation is by faith plus works, what were the works of the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43)?  He had none!  Yet, for centuries, the thief on the cross has been the great example of salvation by faith alone, i.e., by faith apart from works.

In the end, what does the Catholic do with passages like Romans chapters 3 and 4 (which actually deal with justification)?  There is nothing Catholics can do to escape the plain meaning of these passages, as well as the book of Galatians.  They either ignore them or misinterpret them by taking them out of their proper contexts.

And what about Romans 11:6:

But if it [salvation] is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

It can’t be any plainer.  It is telling us that grace and works are opposites!  John Martignoni would have us believe that they are actually in the same category!  It is not Matt Slick’s teachings in his letter that are unbiblical, but rather, John Martignoni’s.

I have previously seen John Martignoni accuse another Christian teacher of “linguistic trickery,” but, in this case, he is the one guilty of this.

THE END OF SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Sola Scriptura – the “Bible Alone” doctrine – is one of the main teachings of the Reformation.  It can be briefly and accurately described in one short sentence: “Scripture is the only infallible source of truth for the post-apostolic church.”  That is, after the apostles died off, there is no more need of new revelation from God.  We have all the infallible truth we need today in the Bible.  (2 Timothy 3:16)

“Infallible” means “unable to make mistakes or be wrong.”  This teaching of “Bible Alone” is loved by some and hated by others, often either fully embraced or completely rejected.  Many Catholics (and others) would love to see the end of Sola Scriptura.  It seems that those who believe in “the Bible plus some other source for infallible guidance” would prefer that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura just die.

Catholic apologist John Martignoni is one of those people and he often openly speaks against this doctrine.  In a recent newsletter of his (Apologetics for the Masses #357), he attempts to tackle a very important and relevant question.  His newsletter can be found here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/480-apologetics-for-the-masses-357-isn-t-that-just-your-opinion

In John’s newsletter, a fellow Catholic named Robert writes in and asks him:

“You constantly argue against the Protestant view because it is strictly their opinion and carries no more weight than my opinion, but can’t the same be said about the claims of the Catholic church being infallible just be your opinion and your interpretation of those verses in the bible?”

Excellent question!  I have often seen John attack Sola Scriptura (and often misrepresent it, by the way), but I have never seen him address this particular question before.  So I was eager to see how he would answer this.

To answer, John Martignoni starts off by presenting three premises.  In a nutshell, they are:

        1) Jesus Christ is God and He is a historical fact

        2) Jesus started a church

        3) The Bible is inspired

Ok, Protestants and Catholics will both agree with these premises. 

But then he says that the idea that “anyone’s opinions or interpretation of Scripture are no more valid than anyone else’s” is only true in Protestantism, and that this “fact” is the Catholic’s “ace in the hole” when discussing theology with a Protestant.  He also calls it the “Achilles heel of Protestantism.”  Then Martignoni says that it all comes down to the question of who wrote the Bible and how do we know we have the right canon? 

Actually, Robert’s question has nothing to do with the canon (list of Bible books) and much more to do with proper interpretation of the Bible texts.  But anyway, let’s address his assumption about who wrote the Bible.

Of course, John’s answer to that question is the Catholic Church, which is supposedly “the Church founded by Jesus Christ.”  He says that for us to trust that the Bible is inspired and without error, we have to trust “someone, somewhere, that we can rely on as being absolutely authoritative and trustworthy.”  I would actually agree with that, and those with such authority were the prophets and apostles, and those very close to the apostles, those who were inspired by God to infallibly write Scripture down (2 Peter 1:20-21).  So John, there’s your answer to the question of who wrote the Bible:  It was GOD who wrote the Bible, through certain temporarily inspired men: Old Testament prophets (Hebrews 1:1), New Testament apostles (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter) and some very close associates of the apostles (e.g., non-apostle Bible authors like Mark, Luke, James and Jude).

  

But John Martignoni goes on to say that we can know for sure that we can trust the Bible only if we have someone who came after the apostles who is “infallible in their decision regarding which books are, and are not, to be considered the inspired, inerrant, Word of God.”  In other words, we can only be sure of the Bible if we have someone today who knows the canon of Scripture infallibly.

See how he unnecessarily brings the canon into the equation?  But this has nothing to do with Robert’s question.

At the beginning of his answer, Martignoni first gives three premises, with which we agree.  But his conclusion is that we can only trust Scripture if an infallible person or persons (the Catholic Church) gives Scripture to us and tells us what it is.  In other words, he is telling us that one has to be infallible to recognize infallible Scripture.  But that’s not true.

An infallible person is not needed to recognize an infallible source (Matthew 27:54).  If he were, a fallible person could NEVER recognize when God (Who is infallible) is speaking to him.  But Martignoni’s view would create an infinite regress like this:

        1) God speaks infallibly to person A. 

        2) Person A (who must be infallible to recognize it) hands down the infallible information to Person B. 

        3) But since infallible information is being passed on, Person B must necessarily be infallible, also… etc., etc.  Thus, producing a never-ending chain of “infallible” people.  But this is ridiculous.

If Martignoni were correct about this, an infallible leadership would be no good to a fallible congregation.  At some point, the fallible MUST meet, and understand, the infallible.  And this is, in fact, exactly what happened in history – infallible Scripture was given to fallible men (the universal church – all true believers worldwide).

John also mentions “logic” a dozen times in this particular newsletter, but ironically his conclusion here is not based on good logic, because his belief that the Catholic Church is infallible does not at all follow from his premises.  Catholics start off with the assumption of the need for an infallible church.  But that is neither logical nor scriptural.

He also claims that his arguments are based on common sense.  We agree that common sense is certainly useful, so why can’t we simply use that common sense up front when interpreting Scripture to start with?

The bottom line is that John Martignoni does not really answer Robert’s question in a satisfactory way.  Robert’s question was basically, “If Protestants can never be sure of their interpretation of Scripture because Protestants are fallible, then shouldn’t we say the same thing about Catholics, since they, too, are fallible?”

The answer to this question is yes, because we are all fallible, and we are all prone to make mistakes.  No one today is infallible, individually or collectively.  Only the Scriptures (God’s word) are infallible (2 Timothy 3:16-17) – that’s why it is called “Sola Scriptura.”

But John’s response to Robert’s question was basically, “We have an infallible Church to interpret for us and Protestants don’t.”

That is not true, but even if that were true, it wouldn’t help Catholics at all.  If the Catholic Church is infallible, they’d have to have another infallible middle-man between the infallible Magisterium and the Catholic in the pew.  But, as we pointed out above, that wouldn’t solve what Catholics see as the “problem.” 

The point is, fallible interpretation of Scripture is not a problem at all, but simply a fact of life.  Again, because every one of us is fallible, and if we want to approach and interpret infallible Scripture, we must use our own fallible reasoning and imperfect understanding to do so.  And that goes for every person on the planet. 

John Martignoni needs to quit pretending that Protestants are “reduced” to using their fallible reasoning to interpret Scripture, but that Catholics are not.  Catholics are not exempt from fallible interpretation, even when it comes to trying to prove the infallibility of their Church.  They appeal to Scripture, but when they do that, they must still first use their fallible reasoning to interpret those Scripture passages that they claim “prove” the Church’s infallibility.  Fallible interpretation is unavoidable.

Again, the infallible must intersect with the fallible somewhere down the line.  There is no need for the existence of infallible people or infallible institutions today in order for “the common man” to understand the Bible (Matthew 7:24; Mark 4:9; Luke 6:47). 

Now, no one is suggesting that we can interpret Scripture just any way we want.  It is possible for someone to carelessly, foolishly, or unreasonably interpret the Bible.  But a fallible interpretation does not automatically mean a WRONG interpretation.  There are basic hermeneutical (interpretation) principles that we use all the time, e.g., context, history, Scripture interpreting Scripture, etc.  Though we are not infallible, God gives us sufficient ability to interpret and understand.

In the newsletter, John Martignoni states that he is not merely expressing his own opinion, but rather, his logic, based on “what the Church founded by Jesus Christ teaches.”  But have the verses that he uses to attack Sola Scriptura been “infallibly interpreted” by the Catholic Church?  No, most of them he generally uses have not.  In fact, there are very, very few verses that have this exalted status. 

But why are there actually so few Bible passages that are supposedly interpreted “infallibly” by the Catholic Church to become dogma?  Why is there such a very tiny percentage interpreted in this way if there is such a need for it?  Shouldn’t the Catholic Church have infallibly interpreted all of the Bible, or at least most of it if infallible interpretation is really that important?  One has to wonder.  See also this related article:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/08/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-8.html

Catholics put down Protestants because of their “lack of certainty” in Bible interpretation, but you see, Catholics don’t really have the certainty that they claim to have, or would like to have.  Their “infallible certainty” is simply a mirage.

So, with all the Catholic apologists attacking the “Bible Alone” doctrine today, is this the end of Sola Scriptura?  Not even close.  The Bible and its teachings are not merely profitable, but they are God-breathed (i.e., God-inspired) and sufficient to equip Christians for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and it will be so until the end of time.