Combine the patience of Job and a truly encyclopedic knowledge of The Faith and you get Mr. John Martignoni. If only all Catholics were even half this serious about The Truth...
Okay,
continuing with my response to anti-Catholic Tony Thorne (see
previous newsletter: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations)
Did you think about how you would have replied to his last response?
Let's see if your response is similar to mine. And, just so you
know, there is no one "correct" way to respond in this
situation. But, you do need to have a plan of attack, it shouldn't
just be a haphazard response that is 100% reactive...you need to
always be proactive in your dialogues/debates. You need to be
drawing them in...leading them...to the place where you want them to
go. You should be guiding and directing the conversation. Far, far
too many times I've seen Catholics who just respond to whatever the
non-Catholic says - regardless of how inane, idiotic, and/or off
point it may be. The non-Catholic goes wherever his theological
imagination, and his wild and crazy interpretations of Scripture,
take him, and the Catholic just follows along. No. You need a plan.
You lead. Make them follow.
Now,
I had a few people write to me telling me I should have said this or
I should have said that and how I could have done a better job in my
response to Tony and so on. I will respond by saying that what I did
in the last newsletter is what I call the setup phase - I'm trying to
get him to commit to a particular interpretation of a verse or
passage of Scripture. An interpretation that I know he has, but I
just want him to say it clearly and definitively. "So, Romans
3:23 means such and such...right?" Why do I want him to do
that? Because once he has committed to a particular interpretation,
it is easier to refute him by showing how his interpretation in this
one place actually contradicts his interpretation in another place.
I ask setup questions to get his responses which I can then use
against him later on. It's always a good thing to be able to convict
someone using their own words. With Tony, as with many
non-Catholics, it is difficult to pin them down...they want to go all
over the place. Why? Because they can't really give a direct answer
to your questions that is consistent and rational, so they have to
scamper here and there. That's why you need to have a plan and try
to lead them in a certain direction.
So,
for those of you who think I should have used this passage and that
passage and should have immediately gone in for the kill, so to
speak, that was not what I wanted to do at that time. I was being
very deliberate and patient. I want him to say what I want him to
say first, then I have the opportunity to, in essence, spring the
trap. But the trap has to be set first. You don't necessarily want
to put all your cards on the table in your first round or two of
dialogue.
Okay,
I am going to start with the response from Tony that I closed with in
my last newsletter and pick up the conversation from there.
Challenge/Response/Strategy
Tony
Thorne:
Tony
Thorne I believe what that verse [Romans 3:11] means in context as
Paul was exerting in v10 that none are righteous, non understand.
When you look up the greek word for seek, ( zetéo) you will find in
its semantic range, the meaning, get to the bottom of. "But it
was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit." For his
Spirit searches out everything and shows us God's deep secrets.(1 cor
2:10) then stretching across scripture (that never contradicts as we
contexualize) we come to Jerimiah 29:13 "You will seek me and
find me when you seek me with all your heart". Then contextual
staying with the theme of the Bible, we come to Mathew 7:7 "Ask
and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the
door will be opened to you. So, it seems my interpretation is in line
at this point. In theology, we call it topicalizing when you exhort
scripture noncontextually to prove a point, as you have attempted to
do in your previous post? Back to 3:11 In context, this verse implies
that man is unable to comprehend the truth of God or grasp his
standard of rightuessness. sadly his spiritual ignorance does not
result from a lack of opertunity, but is an expression of his
depravity and rebellion.
As
you have been shown, the Bible does tell us to seek God. Its very
important to keep things in context John. Could you please now answer
the question as to what makes you think mary never sinned? Please,
direct answer would be valued.
John
Martignoni:
Oh,
how I disagree with thee, let me count the ways:
#1:
You said in your response, “I believe what the verse means in
context...” Well, sorry, but I’m not interested in what you
“believe” the verse means. Your “belief” could be wrong.
What authority do you have to tell me what a passage of Scripture
means that I should believe your interpretation? None. So, I
believeyour interpretation is wrong. We have already established
that your interpretations of the Bible are not infallible, so will
you admit that this interpretation of yours could be wrong? And, if
it could be wrong, then why should I believe your interpretation vs.
the very clear meaning of the passage as it is written?
#2:
So, according to Tony Thorne, the word “seek” doesn’t really
mean “seek”? And, instead of saying, “no one understands, no
one seeks for God,” the English translation of Romans 3:11 should
have said, “Man is unable to comprehend the truth of God or grasp
his standard of righteousness.” Which means that the translators
of the King James Bible, the New International Bible, the Revised
Standard Version Bible, the Geneva Bible, the American Standard
Version Bible, the Darby Bible, the Wycliffe Bible, and pretty much
every other major Protestant English translation of the Bible gave us
a translation of God’s Word that we can’t trust? After all, they
all missed the translation that Tony Thorne came up with.
#3:
You stated, “When you look up the greek word for seek, ( zetéo)
you will find in its semantic range, the meaning, "get to the
bottom of.” Okay, so one possible meaning of the Greek word,
“zeteo,” which is translated “seek” in Romans 3:11, is “get
to the bottom of.” Well, that’s all nice and everything, but
there is a problem. Where does the Bible ever translate the Greek
word, “zeteo,” as “get to the bottom of”? It’s one thing
for that to be a “possible” meaning of the word - in its
“semantic range” - but it’s another thing for the translators
of the Bible to actually use that particular meaning of the word in
their translations. And, in this case, they don’t! In the King
James Bible (which is Protestant), the Greek word “zeteo” is
translated as “seek” exactly 100 times. I can find no
translation of the word as “get to the bottom of.” So, even
though the word "zeteo" can possibly, in some instances, be
translated as “get to the bottom of,” it is never translated that
way in the Bible. So your point is completely and totally
irrelevant, unless you believe all the English translators of the
Bible to be wrong.
#4:
To use your logic, when you look up the Greek word for “all,”
(pas), you will find in its semantic range the meaning, “all manner
of.” Which means, Romans 3:23 does not really mean “all” as in
every single person, it means “all manner of.” So, I could
translate Romans 3:23, using your logic, as “For all manner of men
have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” In context,
Paul is talking about Jew vs. Greek - “Are we Jews any better off?
No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews
and Greeks, are under the power of sin,” (Romans 3:9). When Paul
uses the word “all” here, he is not talking about individuals, he
is showing that Jews - as a group - are no better than the Greeks
when it comes to sin. So it seems my interpretation is in line at
this point. Which means, the word “all” does not necessarily
refer to Mary as having sinned. And, the Bible actually translates
the word “pas” in this manner - 11 times! Versus translating the
word “zeteo” as “get to the bottom of,” 0 times!
5:
Yes, the Bible tells us to seek God. So what? I never said it
didn’t. That is irrelevant to the point being made. The Bible says
to seek God, but it also says no one is seeking God. (Besides, you
stated that it doesn't mean to seek God here, it means to get to the
bottom of God.) Even though the Bible tells us to seek God, that
doesn't necessarily mean people are indeed seeking God. The Bible
also tells us not to sin, yet it also says people sin. And,
according to your interpretation of Romans 3:23, it tells us every
single person who has ever lived (Jesus as the lone exception) has
sinned. So your point here is, again, absolutely irrelevant.
#6:
If you want the context of this entire passage from Romans 3, you
need to look to the Old Testament so that you don’t “topicalize.”
In Romans 3:10-12, Paul is quoting from Psalm 14 and/or Psalm 53.
In those Psalms, Paul states there is none that do good, no not one;
that “all” have gone astray; all have fallen away. So, does that
mean every single person? No, because the context of Psalms 14 and
53 is that there are the evildoers, the sons of men - those who deny
God - and there are the people of God, the generation of the
righteous. And it is about those who deny God that the psalmist says
“all” have gone astray. In other words, the Old Testament,
biblical-wide context for this passage of Romans, is that the word
“all” simply does not mean every single person ever. If you
miss the Old Testament context of the passage, then you miss the New
Testament context of the passage, which you have done.
#7:
In Luke, chapter 1, verse 6, it states, “And [Elizabeth and
Zechariah - John the Baptist’s parents] were both righteous before
God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord
blameless.” So, if Elizabeth and Zechariah were blameless in “ALL”
of the Lord’s commandments and ordinances, do you contend that they
had sinned?
#8:
John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life,
even from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). Do you contend that he
sinned?
#9:
Have babies sinned?
Now,
to answer your question about Mary in a simple and direct manner, per
your request - I believe Mary was sinless her entire life because the
Church founded by Jesus Christ - and guided by the Holy Spirit -
which is the pillar and ground of the truth, tells me so. And, the
Word of God supports that teaching 100%.
Strategy
As
I said in the last newsletter, my first reaction to his reply was,
"Huh?" In fact, that is my first reaction to most of his
replies. Have you ever noticed how every time you pin a Protestant
down on something in the Bible, all of a sudden the words of
Scripture don't really mean what they say? It's funny how, "in
context," they actually mean pretty much the opposite of what
they say. Now, I am not saying context isn't important...it most
certainly is...but you rarely hear about context from the other side
in your debates unless you put forth one of the "Catholic"
verses. And the "context" they come up with is quite often
not the actual context.
So,
James 2:24 - "You see that a man is justified by works and not
by faith alone" - "in context" means, "You see
that a man is indeed justified by faith alone and that works have
nothing to do with justification." Or, John 20:23 - "If
you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the
sins of any, they are retained," - "in context" means,
"You don't really forgive or retain sins, but you can decide who
you want to preach to and those you preach to, if they accept Jesus,
will have their sins forgiven. But those you decide not to preach
to, their sins will be retained."
Romans
2:6-7 - "For He will render to every man according to his works;
to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and
immortality, He will give eternal life," - "in context"
means, "God doesn't really render eternal life to man because of
good works, but only by faith alone." And, one more for
emphasis, John 6:54-55 - "He who eats My flesh and drinks My
blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For
My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed," - "in
context" means, "For My flesh really isn't food and drink,
it's just a symbolic thing, and symbolically eating and drinking my
flesh and blood doesn't get you eternal life, either, because only
faith alone does that." That is called twisting the Scriptures
"to their own destruction," 2 Peter 3:16.
Okay,
even though I made nine different points, they generally lead in two
directions: 1) One is authority, particularly the authority of his
interpretations, or the lack thereof. I want to emphasize with him,
time and time and time again, that his interpretations are not only
fallible and lacking in authority, but they are just plain ol' bad
interpretations that don't make a lot of sense. This is a direction
you can, and should, always take folks in. 2) The fact that there is
plenty of evidence, from Scripture, that "all" in Romans
3:23 is not an absolute.
So,
I answered his points, such as they were, and used those answers to
keep moving in the direction I want to go - that "all" is
not an absolute "all." This guy is a bit "out there"
with his answers, I mean, look at what he says Romans 3:11 means, "
implies that man is unable to comprehend the truth of God or grasp
his standard of rightuessness [sic] ." Really?! Well, if
that's the case, why bother with reading the Bible? And why does
John 8:32 say, "Know the truth and the truth will set you free,"
if man can't comprehend the truth of God? That makes no sense
whatsoever. Talk about lack of context! Tony completely misses the
point...the context...of Rom 3:11. That verse is quoting from Psalm
14 and/or Psalm 53, and it is referring not to all men but to "the
fool [who] says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" So it is the
fool who doesn't believe in God who doesn't understand and who does
not seek God, not all men. Looks like he was "topicalizing"
by "quoting Scripture noncontextually." At this point, I
was fairly sure that this "dialogue" was not going to end
with any clear cut resolution, but since a bunch of folks on Facebook
were reading it, it was worth continuing for at least a little bit.
Now,
see what you can make of his next response...
Tony
Thorne:
It
seems you do not remember much of what you say, but I had copied and
pasted your whimsical understanding of scripture, that I might negate
your denial. And here it is, verbatim….You said,
“Now,
in an earlier post, I asked you if you were "seeking God."
You said you were. Well, that is contrary to the Bible, at least,
according to your interpretation of the Bible, because in Romans
3:11, it states the following: "No one seeks for God." If
"all have sinned" means that everyone, without human
exception, has sinned, then "No one seeks for God," means
that no one, without human exception, seeks for God. Yet, you say
that you do seek for God. Which means one of the following must be
true: 1) You were wrong and you do not seek for God in your life; or
2) You think the Bible is wrong when it says "No one seeks for
God." Which is it? Are you not seeking for God in your life, or
do you believe the Bible is wrong when it says "No one"
seeks for God?”
Clearly
you were excerpting my foolishness in suggesting the Bible does not
tell us to seek God. You say it’s not relevant, but when we are
talking about knowledge of scripture, and you say I am wrong for
saying the Bible tells us to seek God, when over and over again, it
does, and somehow you have found only one verse that says not true.
So one verse contradicts all other verses. Hermeneutics, which you
admit to not having a degree in teaches the opposite. My
interpretation, contrary to the mindless, makes far greater sense
than yours. You who said the Bible never tells us to seek God.
Where
does the Bible ever translate the Greek word, “zeteo,” as “get
to the bottom of”? Romans 3:11 John. It’s one thing for that to
be a “possible” meaning of the word - in its “semantic range”
- but it’s another thing for the translators of the Bible to
actually use that particular meaning of the word in their
translations. And, in this case, they don’t! Wrong John!! In the
King James Bible (which is Protestant), the Greek word “zeteo” is
translated as “seek” exactly 100 times. Nothing like
contradicting yourself John. Coming from a guy who tried to say the
Bible doesn’t tell us to seek God? hmmm. You have lost all
credibility John.
So,
your answer to where in the Bible does it say Mary was sinless is: “I
believe Mary was sinless her entire life because the Church founded
by Jesus Christ - and guided by the Holy Spirit - which is the pillar
and ground of the truth, tells me so. And, the Word of God supports
that teaching 100%.” Sorry John, but this is not a sufficient
answer. All you are saying is you believe the Bible says Mary was
sinless, but you have still failed to reveal scripture to prove that
blasphemes nonsense. Quite honestly john, you seem to be a man that
has difficulty with reading comprehension and you don’t seem to
remember things you say, like the bible tells us not to seek God. You
actually attempted to belittle me because I said the Bible says to
seek God. But, unlike you I provide scripture, and still you can’t
admit to your own fallibility. I'm leaving you with some more verses
that prove you wrong...
[Here
Tony put in a dozen or so verses about seeking the Lord, which are
not necessary to reprint as they lead to nowhere. His point, of
course, was that the Bible tells us to seek God. In other words, for
some reason he thinks I am arguing that the Bible doesn't tell us to
seek God, which I never did. He is either incapable of, or unwilling
to, actually understand the arguments I'm making.]
John
Martignoni:
Huh?
First of all, what the heck does "excerpting my foolishness"
mean? I don't think he reads back over what he writes before he
posts it, or simply doesn't pay much attention to what he himself is
saying, or something along those lines. So, you guys think about
that for a week, and I'll be back next Friday to continue this
dialogue.
Closing
Comments
Even
though his answers are fairly lacking in logic and good sense, he is
generally staying within the parameters that I am laying down. In
other words, I am the one setting the pace in this dialogue. Now,
even if this exchange ends up going absolutely nowhere, it will have
not been nearly as frustrating as it could have been if I were merely
passively responding to his accusations and attacks and going all
over the theological map. By asking questions of him and going on
the offensive by doing so, I am retaining at least some control of
the conversation. Keep that in mind when you get into these
dialogues. Always ask as many, if not more, questions than you
answer.
I
hope all of you have a great week!
Donations
The
Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies
solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to
tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the
world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can
donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations , or
send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove,
AL 35127 . Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!
If
this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like
to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter
and put your email
address in the box at the top of the page. Either way, it will take
you about 10 seconds.
Share this newsletter on:
TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.
No comments:
Post a Comment