|A Conversation : Eigth Response - Mr. John Martignoni
|In this response, Mr. John Martignoni responds to Mr. Edward Walker's previous e-mail (Seventh Response). Mr. John Martignoni responds directly to Mr. Walker's comments and quotes rather than injects his comments into Mr. Walker's e-mail.
Dear Pastor Walker,
I asked you the following question: âCould you be wrong on one or more of your interpretations of Scripture that are at variance with Catholic interpretations? Yes or no?â
Your response? âYES.â
Well, I have to congratulate you. You are the first person I have ever engaged who has actually admitted that he could be wrong and the Catholic Church could be right. I believe thatâs a bit of a breakthrough.
Pretty much everything Iâve written in these emails has been driving towards this one point: You could be wrong in what you teach and the Catholic Church could be right. And I very much appreciate the fact that you have admitted this.
And I hope your fellow pastor, Ernest Martinez, and his wife and sister, all of whom have written me emails telling me that Iâm wrong, and that Iâm not guided by the Holy Spirit, and so on, are paying very close attention to your answer. You could be wrong, which means they could be wrong, and the Catholic Church could be right. With this admission on your part, Pastor, I believe we have the possibility of beginning a fruitful discussion.
With this admission, Pastor, I am hoping that you realize that the best you can hope for when discussing theology with someone like me is, in a sense, a tie. This is proven by your answer above. In other words, I hope you realize that you cannot tell me in an absolute manner that I am wrong. The best you can do is say that I am wrong, âIn your opinion.â
By your theology, I have the right, nay, the duty, to read and interpret Scripture for myself to come to my own conclusions about what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine. To come to my own conclusions about what are good morals and what are bad morals. To come to my own conclusions about what are holy practices and what are unholy practices.
So, when I read the Bible and come to a conclusion about a doctrine, and you disagree with my conclusion, the best you can do is say that you disagree with me and that your fallible interpretation of the Bible is better than my fallible interpretation of the Bible...in your opinion.
But thatâs not how youâve approached this conversation, is it? No, it isnât. You have approached this conversation with an air of absoluteness concerning your interpretations of the Bible vis-a-vis a Catholic interpretation of the Bible. Letâs look at some of your comments:
âWhat I have said is that Roman Catholic Teaching is not found in scripture.â
âI would not consider you a brother in Christ, because if you practice some of the things taught by the Roman Catholic Church, than you canât please [God].â
âThere are many people caught in the lies of the Roman Catholic Church, who really want to please God...I feel sorry for them when they meet Him face to face and he will say depart from me I never knew you.â
âYou need to compare what the Roman Catholic Church teaches against Godâs word. They are at odds with each other.â
âAny messenger from God will have the same message and will not contradict what we have already believed in scripture.â
âI teach what the Bible says.â
âSimply put the Roman Catholic Church does not follow the God who describes himself in the Bible, they follow a God that the papacy describes.â
âHowever there are some major issues in Roman Catholic teaching that in my opinion make it another gospel entirely. These issues are not debatable matters.â
âIf you follow what the Roman Catholic Church teaches than you are in fact trusting in another gospel and not following the God of the Bible.â
âWhy is it wrong for me to point out that what scripture says and what the Catholic church teaches do not agree. It isnât a matter of judgment just facts."
Can you understand, Pastor Walker, after reading these statements why I think you believe yourself to be infallible? Please tell me where in any of these statements we see any hint that might lead us to believe that you realize you could be wrong when you state these things? Where do we see any hint that you realize you could be leading people astray with your teachings? Where do we see any hint of your belief that you are fallible in these words? Where do we see any hint that your âfactsâ could possibly be wrong?
So, on the one hand, you have stated your belief that the Catholic Church is wrong in a number of its teachings in terms of absolute certainty ; but, on the other hand, you claim to be fallible and that you could indeed be wrong, and you also admit to believing in error (although youâre not really sure what errors you believe in) and you admit that the Catholic Church could, in fact, be right in matters that you disagree with it on:
âI can be and am wrong on many parts of the Bible. I continue to search for where these are and to correct them.â
"I have never claimed infallibility, no human is infallible. Nor do I understand all scripture.â
âNever have I said or acted in a way that reflected one who thought he was infallible.â
âAgain I donât think that I have all the answers or that I understand everything...I do not place my own interpretations at a level that they canât be questioned even from myself.â
âI know that I am wrong on some things, I continue to search so I can find out where and fix it.â
âThere are views that I have had to change, when I realize that they are not taught in scripture. This is an honest approach to seeking truth.â
Again, on the one hand, you say things with quite the infallible air about them in regard to what you believe to be errors in Catholic teaching; and then on the other you hand you claim to be fallible, you claim to know that you are indeed wrong on some things in regard to the Bible, and you admit to having changed your beliefs in the past based on a new understanding or interpretation of Scripture. Do you not see the incongruity in those positions?
You also say that you want to approach this conversation without preconceived beliefs. Yet, you approach it with all kinds of preconceived beliefs, which you apparently donât recognize. For example, you approach this conversation with the preconceived belief that the Catholic Church is wrong on a number of issues. Yet, what do you base this belief on? Your interpretation of the Bible. But, you have admitted that your interpretation of the Bible is fallible and could be wrong and that the Catholic Church could be right. So, if your interpretation of the Bible could be wrong, how can you categorically and unequivocally state without any hesitation whatsoever that the Catholic Church is wrong? With all due respect, but that is intellectually dishonest.
Do you not understand the problem I have with that type of thinking? If you had approached this conversation with the attitude of, âI have done my own study of the Bible, and, in my opinion, the Catholic Church is wrong on this and that, but I realize that my own understanding could be wrong, so I am open to being shown the truth,â thatâs one thing. But to say, as you have, with apparently infallible certainty, that the Catholic Churchâs teachings go against the Bible, is quite another. What you should be saying is that the Catholic Churchâs teachings go against YOUR fallible interpretation of the Bible. To claim that the Church goes against the Bible, is to equate your fallible interpretation of the Bible, with the Bible...which you have actually done as evidenced by one of your quotes above. Do you not understand that?
The Catholic Church disagrees with YOUR fallible interpretation of the Bible. Rather, I should say, that your fallible interpretations of the Bible disagree with the Catholic Church (seeing as how the Church held its positions long before you were born). So, when you speak of your disagreements with the Catholic Church - whether to Catholic or non-Catholic - you should not speak with the language of the absolute, you should not speak as if what you say is gospel, you should not say things like, âThe Catholic Church disagrees with the Bible,â because that is not being honest. The Catholic Church disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, not with the Bible itself.
The Catholic Church agrees with the Bible, as it understands it, 100%. Just as you agree with the Bible, as you understand it, 100%. So, this is not a disagreement about the Bible, itâs a disagreement over interpretation of the Bible. And, who should I trust more: you, or a church that can historically trace its roots back to the Apostles?
Now, you have admitted here that your interpretations of the Bible could be wrong and the Catholic interpretations right. By admitting that you do indeed believe in error, you are admitting that at least some of your interpretations of the Bible are wrong. You freely admit this. Given that, it is very possible that the errors you admit to believing in could, in fact, be where you disagree with the Catholic Church. And, you have freely admitted as much. So how then can you claim that the Catholic Church is wrong with any level of certainty?! Why do you not instead say that, âIn your opinion,â the Catholic Church is wrong in this or that area, but you realize that it is just your opinion and not speak as if it is infallible certainty?
Iâm curious, have you ever said anything like that to anyone at your church? Have you ever said something like, âI disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, but I know that my interpretation of the Scriptures are fallible and that I could be wrong, and the Catholic Church could be right?â When talking with Catholics, have you ever told them that while you disagree with their beliefs, you realize that they could be right, after all? I donât think Iâm going out on much of a limb to say that I doubt you have ever said anything like that to anyone at your church or to any other Catholic youâve ever talked to. Why not? Because, again, you say you are fallible, but you speak as if you are infallible.
When you state unequivocally that the Catholic Church teaches things contrary to Scripture, you are not speaking as one who believes he is fallible, and that he could be wrong. You speak as if you have incontrovertible proof, when actually all you have is your opinion.
This is why I say that the best you can do with your theology in a discussion with someone like me is a tie...because in your theological system it basically boils down to your opinion about what the Bible says vs. my opinion about what the Bible says. Your fallible interpretation vs. my fallible interpretation. When we both read the Bible, and come to separate conclusions as to what it says, you have no higher court of appeal than to say...âWell, thatâs my opinion.â My theological system has a higher court of appeal, yours does not.
You have previously stated that you donât want me to follow you, that you want me to think for myself and to read and discern Scripture for myself. Yet, in my last response to you, I stated that I have done that very thing, but you then reject the results of the very thing you say I should do. You reject the results of my own investigation of Scripture. You reject the results of my own reading and study and discernment of Scripture. You said,
âI reject the results, because they are wrong."
Well, do you not see how hypocritical you are being here? I do what you want me to do, and then you tell me Iâm wrong. How can you tell me Iâm wrong, with any degree of certainty, when you have already admitted that you could be wrong? How can you tell me that Iâm wrong, when you admit to believing in error? How can you tell me Iâm wrong, when you have already admitted that you have changed your beliefs based on newer understandings, newer interpretations, of Scripture? If you could be wrong, then I could be right; therefore, you have no business telling me that Iâm wrong.
I will allow that you can tell me you disagree with me, but you cannot tell me Iâm wrong! Not with any degree of certainty. The best you can do - within your theological system - is tell me that, in your fallible opinion, you disagree with my fallible opinion. To tell me youâre fallible, and that you are wrong on some things, and that you believe in error, and then turn around and infallibly state that Iâm wrong in my beliefs; means that you are either lying when you say you believe yourself to be fallible, or you are a hypocrite, or you are completely blind to the contradictions of your theology. Or, quite possibly, that the truth is so frightening to you, and the consequences of that truth so unnerving, that you cannot bring yourself to face it.
Letâs look at one more statement of yours:
âIf it was a debatable matter, I can accept that we are both fallible humans and we will get the answers when we are with God.â
âIf it was a debatable matter?â Meaning that there are some things that you have concluded to be non-debatable in your interpretation of Scripture. Which means you have infallibly declared them to be true. They are beyond debate. If they are beyond debate, then the issue has been infallibly decided, right? Well, which fallible person infallibly decided that? You? You must have, since you go by your understanding of the Bible alone. But, youâre fallible, so could you possibly be wrong on these things which you claim are beyond debate? And, if they are debatable, then your statement here proves my point that you have no higher authority, other than your own fallible opinion, to appeal to in your theological system. Do you really think Jesus left us with no authoritative means to decide doctrinal disputes? How did they decide them in the early Church? Did everybody pick up a Bible and decide for themselves, as you believe we should do today? I donât think so.
You have accused me of trying to âtrapâ you. Well, youâre absolutely right. I am trying to trap you. But, not to win an argument, rather to simply get you to think. To examine your beliefs. I am hoping to force you to see that your belief system rests on a very shaky foundation - your own limited understanding of the Bible. Your beliefs do not rest directly on the Bible, but directly on your limited understanding of the Bible - only indirectly on the Bible.
I am trying to get you to understand that you should not go around telling other people they are wrong, when you admit that you are indeed the one who could be wrong. What if you teach someone something today, and in 10 years, based on your continued study of Scripture, you come to believe that you were in error on that particular teaching? And, what if that particular preaching is a âdoctrine of demonsâ that causes someone you taught to reject the truths of God? How can you live with that possibility?
I can accept it if you say you âthinkâ youâre right, or âin your opinionâ you believe the Catholic Church to be wrong, but that is not the language you use. You use the language of infallibility, while all the time claiming to be fallible. And I cannot accept that you tell me I am wrong, when I do the very thing you say I should do...read and study the Scriptures for myself...and come to my own conclusions about what Scripture says. I can accept that you disagree with my conclusions, but you have no authority with which to pronounce them as being wrong.
âNuff said on that. Now, in regards to Catholic doctrines and the Bible. In your reply you kept mentioning that I have been hesitant to go into Scripture to support Catholic doctrine. Far from it. In fact, it seems that when I get into Scripture, you get out of it. For example, when I asked you about whether or not you are seeking God, you answered, âNo,â and you claimed that no one can seek God. When I then gave you about a dozen or so Scripture verses showing that not only does God tell us to seek Him (which He wouldnât do if it was not possible for us to seek Him), but that there are numerous instances in the Bible of people in fact seeking Him, you responded by saying, âWe could study that.â
And the discussion on this is not a ârabbit trailâ as you called it. My purpose is to show that if you could be so off the mark in your interpretation of Scripture on this point, how then can your interpretation of Scripture on anything be trusted? It seems to me that on this point you are operating from a preconceived belief, and not letting Scripture speak for itself. If that is true here, I believe it will prove true on other points as well.
When I showed you that you had gotten the interpretation of Psalm 14 totally wrong...you said David was talking about himself when it says that no one seeks God, when actually it was referring to evildoers who say in their heart that there is no God - which is not a description of David...you said âWe could study that.â
You keep saying that faith without works isnât really faith. But, when I point out that nowhere does the Bible say that, and I show you in James 2:26 where the analogy between faith and works and the body and the spirit is made, and I ask you if the body without the spirit really isnât a body, what do you say? Do you answer yes or no? Do you give me a Scripture verse that says the body without the spirit isnât actually a body or that faith without works isnât actually faith? No! You simply ignore the scriptural analogy, an analogy given by the Holy Spirit Himself, and give me your opinion that faith without works isnât really faith - that the body without a spirit really isnât a body - and then you say, âWe can study that.â
You stated, âWhat I donât understand on your part Mr. Martignoni, is why you will not simply go through the scripture with me and show me how these Catholic doctrines are formed.â Well, again, Iâm more than happy to defend my beliefs using just the Bible...I will give just a few examples below And I can defend my beliefs, solely from the Bible, in a much more complete and thorough manner than you can defend yours. But, what you need to understand, is that Catholic doctrine is not formed from the Bible. If it is, then that is proof that the Catholic Church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ.
The church founded by Jesus Christ existed before a single word of the New Testament was written down. The early Christians did not pick up a Bible to decide what they would and would not believe, as you do. They were taught by infallible men who had been given the authority to teach them from Jesus Christ Himself. The New Testament scriptures reflect the doctrines of the Church...reflect what the Church believed...before the New Testament was ever written down. The true Christian church founded by Jesus Christ had its doctrines before it had a Bible...at least, before it had the New Testament portion of the Bible. Your preconceived belief in each individual picking up a Bible and deciding truth for themselves was unknown to the early Christians. They relied on an infallible teaching authority that had been appointed over them by God Himself. Between you and me, which of us relies on an infallible teaching authority appointed by God, and which of us relies on his own fallible opinions?
You want me to âstudyâ the Bible with you not so that I will come to my own understanding of the Bible, as you purport...because I have already done that...you want me to come to YOUR understanding of the Bible. Why wonât you admit that? Can you really not see that? You want the opportunity to convince me that YOUR interpretation is THE correct interpretation. You do not want to teach me to read and study on my own, you want me to believe that your interpretation is the right one. I have no problem in you thinking Iâm wrong and youâre right, but I do have a problem in you not recognizing exactly what it is you want me to do.
You, in essence, are willing to gamble my salvation on whether or not your interpretation of the Bible is right. Because it is your interpretation that you wish to convince me is right. Yet, you admit to being fallible. You admit to believing in error...even though you donât know what error it is you believe in. You admit to getting parts of the Bible wrong. And, you admit to having changed your past beliefs at least once as you came up with new and better interpretations of the Bible. Can you not understand, after you have admitted to all these things, why I would have a problem accepting your interpretation of the Bible as being the absolutely correct, no-doubt-about-it, interpretation of the Bible?!
I trust in the Church that Jesus Christ founded for my beliefs. I trust in the infallible teaching authority that God has given me as a guide in interpreting His Word. Because it is through that Church that the Word of God has been transmitted to all of us. My beliefs are found, directly or indirectly, in the Word of God. But, what the Word of God says is not dependent upon my own fallible personal interpretation. I rely on the unbroken chain of authority that stretches from Pope Benedict XVI all the way back to Peter and the Apostles, for an authentic interpretation of the Word of God. God gave the early Christians infallible men to teach them the truth. I believe God still gives us such men - you believe God has left it up to each individual to decide for themselves - although you believe that if any given individual does not come to your same interpretation of Scripture, then he or she is headed to Hell. I believe God has given us infallible teachers, you believe God has given us a book with each person acting as their own fallible teacher and interpreter of that book. Each person acting, in essence, as their own pope.
You stated: âReally, what is more arrogant to say that we need to continually go back to the very word of God, or to say that any person could be infallible and could teach things contrary to the word of God?â
First of all, we do not believe the gift of infallibility gives anyone the ability to teach things that are contrary to the Word of God. Secondly, shouldnât you have said: âReally, what is more arrogant: to say that we need to continually go back to the Word of God, or to say that any person could be infallible and could teach things contrary to MY interpretation of the Word of God?â Because that is what you really mean, isnât it? Isnât it the height of arrogance to believe that someone who disagrees with your interpretation of the Word of God is thereby not following Godâs Word and is headed to Hell? Which is more humble: To submit to an infallible authority that God has put over you, or to submit to no authority other than your own fallible interpretation of the Bible?
Now, I will give a few Catholic doctrines that you disagree with and then give the scriptural support for these doctrines. I do this not to get into a discussion at this point in time on any of these, but just to show you that I am more than happy to defend my beliefs using only the Bible:
1) Men have the authority on earth to forgive sins:
Matt 9:6-8, ââBut that you may know the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sinsâ...and they glorified God Who had given such authority to MEN.â Note the plural.
John 20:22-23, âAnd when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, âReceive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.ââ
James 5:14-16, âIs any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church...and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another...â
2) We are not saved by faith alone:
James 2:24, âYou see that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith alone.â
James 2:26, âFor as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.â
James 2:22, âFaith was completed by works.â Can an incomplete faith save us?
James 2:14, âWhat does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?â
James 2:20, âDo you want to be shown you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren?â Note, it doesnât say it isnât faith, it says it is barren faith.
Matt 19:16-17, âWhat good deed must I do, to have eternal life?...If you would enter life, keep the commandments.â Doesnât that fall into the category of works?
Matt 25:34-36, âThen the King will say to those at his right hand, âCome, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink...I was naked and you clothed me.â Works.
Matt 25:14-30 - the parable of the talents. The servants who gave a return on what the master had given them enter into âthe joy of the master.â The servant who did nothing with what he had been given is cast into the outer darkness.
Rom 2:6-7 - those who in patient well-doing seek for glory, immortality, and honor are given eternal life.
John 15:1-6 - the branches (us) must produce good fruit (works) or they are cut off from the vine (Jesus).
Matt 6:15, âIf you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.â
Matt 5:7, âBlessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.â
Rev 20:13 - judged by what they had âdone.â
Matt 7:21, âNot everyone who says to me, âLord, Lord,â shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father Who is in Heaven.â
James 1:22, âBe doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.â
Rom 2:13, âFor it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.â
And on and on and on I could go. One quick analogy. Did you hear the story of the American soldier from the 1st Iraq War, who was wounded in battle and, in the fog of war, got left behind in the desert and was listed as MIA? It seems it was a nighttime battle out in the desert on the first day or two of the U.S. invasion of Kuwait. Shrapnel hit him in the head and in the chest and knocked him unconscious. He woke up several hours later in the middle of the desert, none of his comrades in sight. Fortunately, his helmet deflected the main force of the shrapnel hit to his head, and his flak jacket absorbed the main brunt of the shrapnel hit to his chest, so his wounds were slight rather than mortal. He used his GPS unit and his compass to navigate back to base. But, walking in the sand of the desert, it took him two days to get back to base. He would have died of dehydration if it wasnât for his two canteens of water.
So, we can rightfully say that he was saved by his helmet. But, was it his helmet alone that saved him? No! We can rightfully say that he was saved by his flak jacket. But was it his flak jacket alone that saved him? No! His compass saved him. His GPS unit saved him. The water in his canteens saved him. But none of those things alone saved him. So, yes, we are saved by faith, but not faith alone. Faith and works, by the grace of God. Or, as Scripture puts it, âFor in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision are of any avail, but faith working through love,â (Gal 5:6).
3) Mary as the Queen of Heaven. In the Old Testament, beginning with Solomon and his mother, Bathsheba, the mother of the king was known as the Queen Mother and sat on a thrown next to the king. Jesus is of the line of David. Therefore, His mother would also be considered the Queen Mother. If Jesus is King of Heaven and Earth, then His mother is Queen Mother of Heaven and Earth. And, again, Rev 12:1 and following - a woman, in heaven, with a crown on her head. And, this woman is the woman who gives birth to the child who will rule all nations with a rod of iron.
4) The Eucharist is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine - John 6:51-68; 1 Cor 10:16-18; 1 Cor 11:23-30; Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20.
5) Two types of sin - mortal (deadly) and venial (not deadly) - 1 John 5:16-17
6) Purgatory - you stated the following in your response: âI know that I am wrong on some things, because I am a human. And have not yet entered into Godâs presence.â
From this I will assume that you believe we do not reach perfection in this lifetime, but that we are perfected when we come into Godâs presence. If that assumption is incorrect, please let me know. Now, if we are imperfect when we die, and we know that nothing imperfect enters Heaven, then there must be some process by which the imperfect soul is made perfect by God, right? In fact, Scripture tells us as much in Heb 12:22-23, âAnd you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God...and to the spirits of just men MADE perfect...â
You can call this process whatever you like, we call it Purgatory, because the imperfect is purged from the soul to make it perfect. Also, 1 Cor 3:10-15 which says that when men are judged, it is possible that their work will be burned up and that they will suffer loss, âas through fire,â yet still be saved. Does one suffer loss as through fire in Hell, yet still be saved? No. You donât get out of Hell. Does one suffer loss in Heaven? No. No more tears in Heaven. So, where does one suffer loss, as through fire, yet is still saved? Hmmm.
7) Needing an infallible guide to properly interpret Scripture - Acts 8:30-31, the Ethiopian eunuch. He couldnât understand Scripture without someone to guide him. Philip, an infallible guide, did just that. The Bereans, Acts 17:10-11, if they were truly Sola Scriptura folks, which no Jews were, then they were very poor examples. Paul kept telling them all these things that were in their Scriptures which referred to Jesus, and they had to go âsearchâ in the Scriptures to make sure Paul was telling them the truth. In other words, they werenât all that familiar with their Scriptures. Furthermore, they obviously didnât have a proper understanding of their own Scriptures if Paul had to explain the meaning to them. Again, an infallible guide leading folks into the truth of Scripture.
8 ) Not Sola Scriptura. In the New Testament, if there was a doctrinal dispute, how was it decided? Well, in Acts 15, they called a Council. At the Council, did they consult Scripture to decide whether or not the Gentiles needed to be circumcised? No! Because, if they had, then they would have made the Gentiles be circumcised, because the O.T. clearly states that Godâs people need to be circumcised. In other words, Peter and Paul and James and the other Church leaders at the Council of Jerusalem, were not adherents to the dogma of Sola Scriptura..
1 John 4:6 - How does it say that we will know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error...by each of us reading the Bible on our own? No! By listening to âusâ...the Church leaders.
9) Baptism saves us - 1 Peter 3:21, âBaptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you...â
Now, I would like to end by saying, once again, that you cannot accuse me of merely being a dupe of the Catholic Church. As I have previously stated, I was out of the Church for many years. And, even when I came back to the Church, I still did not believe all the Church taught. I was just like you. I accepted some of the Churchâs teachings and rejected others. But, when I started reading and studying Scripture - not to prove or disprove any doctrines, but just to read it - I kept coming across Catholic doctrine after Catholic doctrine as plain as could be in the pages of the Bible. So, it was the Bible that made me believe all that the Catholic Church teaches. And I have heard your same arguments from hundreds of different people with hundreds of different twists and turns, and none have been convincing. So, donât think that I havenât already heard what it is you seek to convince me of. I have, and I have found it wanting from a scriptural point of view, an historical point of view, and a logical point of view.
Again, though, I want to thank you for being honest enough to admit that you could be wrong and the Catholic Church could be right. You are the first I have come across who has made such an admission. Would you do me a favor, though, and answer just a few more simple yes or no questions? And, yes, I am trying to trap you. But, if your answers are consistent with Scripture, then there is no way I can trap you, is there?
1) Is the body, without the spirit not really a body? Yes or no.
2) If a man, by patience in well-doing, seeks for honor, glory, and immortality, will God give Him eternal life? Yes or no?
3) If you have faith, but have not works, can your faith save you? Yes or no?
4) If Jesus Christ was merely a man, and not God, would you call Him Lord? Yes or no?
5) Are we justified by works and not by faith alone? Yes or no?
6) Is it scriptural to need an infallible guide when interpreting Scripture? Yes or no?
|Posted on Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:38 am by accesservant
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register
|SIHH 2011 JeanRichard Aquascope Woman Evening (Score: 1)|
by miin on Fri May 27, 2011 7:51 am
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.watchesbook.com
|th afterward exit unique of creation a discrepancy also at that instant in attendance are a variety of who present your confront as well as holiday an increasingly lasting perception together with the intention of refuses headed for wither absent. Rolex has ended itself hooked on a identification whose inheritance refuses headed for wither lacking commencing open reminiscence immediately after that continues to be regarded by way of countless headed for ensue the paramount contemplate maker popular the globe. Rolex has ended immediately after that marketed a allocation of watches mainly because it absolutely was standard a century previously afterward all model continues to be thrilled simply because a undying precious stone that is priceless afterward cannot be actual traded. individual from the preliminary|
|Taylor (Score: 1)|
by miin on Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:44 pm
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.watchesbook.com
|Thank you for another great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am on the look for such information.|
||Average Score: 1