Register | Login | Contact | Home
A Conversation : The First Response - Mr. Walker
In this first response, sent to Mr. John Martignoni on August 3, 2008, Mr. Walker includes his comments in the e-mail where Mr. Martignoni responded to Mr. Walker's e-mail to Mr. A. Martinez.

Mr. Walker's Reply to Mr. Martignoni's Request to Answer His E-mail to Mr. A. Martinez

Mr. Martignoni,

I don’t mind that you respond to my email, as I am truly concerned for all people and want them to know the one and only way to God, that is through his son Jesus Christ alone. However, my words were written for Mr. Martinez out of love for him, as I am a personal friend of many members of his family and owe a great deal to one of his sons, who has been an excellent brother in Christ to me. I only mention that so you can understand my tone and motivation for this discussion. I have not set out particularly to attack the Roman Catholic church, however I do hurt for those caught by the lies taught by the organization, that lead people who have a zeal to know God to do things that are detestable to him. I do believe many of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church are in direct conflict with scripture and that anyone who follows them to be on the way to hell. That is not to say that many true believers do not get saved from within the Roman Catholic church, but I do find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit would allow someone who truly knows God to partake in the worship of idols, demons, or ancestors once they come to a saving knowledge of Him. Therefore I do not believe that most people who attend Roman Catholic churches and follow their practices, to truly know God. So this understanding does cause my heart to hurt for those who think they are pleasing God, but their worship is in vain. They follow the teachings of men and have forsaken God’s word. Now, I have read a few of your newsletters as forwarded to me by Mr. Martinez, so I know you will have your responses to these beliefs. And that is fine with me, but I think if we are truly seeking to know truth, we need to start with truth. Lets not start with a predetermined doctrine and seek to prove our points from the Bible, but instead wipe clean our the doctrinal slate and start to build it back up from scripture alone. The difference is that we let scripture speak for itself, without letting our preferences get in the way. My goal in responding to you is that I truly hope we can all learn to trust only in God and not mortal man (Psalm 146), and therefore present ourselves as holy and pleasing sacrifices to God.

So I have responded to your points below, I have put my comments in blue after each of your comments. Please let me know if you would like me to clarify any of my responses as it seems many of your points are based upon a misunderstanding of what Mr. Martinez and I have discussed previously.

Have good evening,

Eddie Walker

Mr. Walker Injects His Comments Into Mr. Martignoni's E-Mail Message.


Dear Mr. Walker,

I hope you don’t mind if I respond to your email to Mr. Martinez. Mr. Martinez knows his faith, and is learning more all the time, but I don’t think he feels sufficiently knowledgeable to adequately respond to some of the points in your email, so he asked for my assistance.

First, I would like to say that in your email there are a number of logical inconsistencies, which I will point out below, and factual errors concerning the Catholic Faith that, while I am not surprised to find, I am, however, continually amazed that intelligent people such as yourself continue to make them. I hope and pray that you are someone who values truth and that you will be open to hearing the truth about the Catholic Faith. I often tell people that if you want to disagree with what I believe…fine. But, disagree with what I really believe and not with some misconception, half-truth, or outright lie that someone has taught you about what I believe.

I will respond to each of your paragraphs individually. If you are serious about evangelizing Catholics and saving our souls from eternal damnation, you now have your chance to reach some 9000 Catholics, as I will be happy to print your response, in its entirety, in my weekly newsletter. And, again, I hope and pray that you are more concerned about truth, than you are about proving the Catholic Church wrong.

In Tan and Green Letters is Mr. Walker's Original Letter to Mr. A. Martinez. It is Quoted Throughout This Message in Whole and Again is Tan With Green Letters.

Eddie Walker

Mr. Martinez,

While the writings of early Christians are certainly important to help understand the thoughts of the early church, their interpretation of scripture is not necessarily more or less correct than others. We see even in Paul’s epistles that false teaching had already crept in. I simply urge you to build your theology and doctrine from the scripture, which you know to be true. The early Christian writings are not inspired and are the thoughts of men, therefore are not truth, even if they contain some truth.

Comments/Strategies: With all due respect, Mr. Walker, I don’t think you’ve really thought through your comments here. You state that the writings of the early Christians are “certainly important” to help understand the thoughts of the early church, and then you proceed (in the same sentence!) to dismiss their “interpretation of scripture” as being no more or less correct than any other person’s interpretations of Scripture.

I believe you may have misunderstood me here. We can read the books of Christians to get additional thoughts and view points of scripture. The church was given so that we can encourage and build each other up in the faith. So by all means we can help each other grow in the faith through study and reading each others thoughts in books. However because a respected Christian brother writes a book, it is not scripture, nor should I give it any authority. I should however challenge it against scripture test it and see how it compares. I can learn from this brother, but at the end of the day He is only a man writing from his own understanding. It is man’s wisdom.

Plus, in an earlier email you sent to Mr. Martinez, you stated that you believe in the apostolic truths taught for the last “2008 years” by the “ Universal Apostolic Church ” that was founded by Jesus Christ. (By the way, “Catholic” means “Universal”...I’m sure you’re aware of that, aren’t you?)

Yes, I am aware that the word catholic means universal. But I certainly do not believe that there is any apostolic succession founded by Jesus, nor that there is any additional teaching outside of the Bible that we can claim as God’s word or inerrant. I apologize if there was a misunderstanding, but that should be clear from the context of my emails. God’s word is truth and God has preserved it for us.

So, on the one hand, you say that the early Christian writings are “certainly important” because they help one to understand the “thoughts of the early church”...may I interpret that as the “beliefs” of the early church?...and, you also say that you believe the apostolic teachings that have been taught by the “Universal Apostolic Church” for the last 2008 years. Yet, on the other hand, you seem to be quite dismissive of the early Christians interpretations of scripture, saying they are no more or less correct than anyone else’s interpretation of scripture, and you state quite boldly that their writings are not the truth. In other words, you have left me thoroughly confused.

This is addressed here in my previous comment. Christian writings outside of the scriptures are not authoritative, they do allow us to see what some one that scripture meant at the time, but when the message originates from men, it is flawed. No matter what man delivers it. This contrasts with inspired scripture, as the Bible says their message did not originate from them, but from God.

If you believe in the “apostolic teachings” that have been taught for the last 2008 years by the church; and the writings of the early Christians give us, as you yourself state, the thoughts or beliefs of the early church – in other words, they tell us what the apostolic teachings of the church were in the early centuries – how can you then turn around and say that the writings of the early Christians are not the truth and that Mr. Martinez would be better served by going to the Bible and coming up with his own interpretations of Scripture? Or, how can you say what you are really saying, which is Mr. Martinez would be better served not to trust in the scriptural interpretations of the early Christians whose writings give us the “thoughts of the early church,” but rather he should trust in your scriptural interpretations?

Again, this seems to come from a misunderstanding, there is no contradiction here as I hold only to the original teachings of the apostles as provided to us in God’s holy inspired word. The Bible does not establish any apostolic succession to continue to bring forth new revelation. In fact we have several warnings against anyone who would teach additional doctrines, beyond what the original Apostles taught. And we see early on that many had already come and brought wrong and deceptive teachings in to the church. Which lead Paul to scold the church in Galatia and warn them that if ANYONE even himself or the apostles or an angel from heaven was to come to you and bring another message than the one that they had first taught them, than that person should be condemned. So we can best know that we are following the original gospel as taught by the original apostles by sticking to their writings. Paul basically says this same thing in 2 Timothy as he urges Timothy to stay true to the doctrine that he was taught and to the holy scriptures and he explains that the Holy scriptures are what we should use to teach, train, correct, rebuke and that by this we will be prepared for everything.

You further contradict yourself by telling Mr. Martinez to build his “theology and doctrine from scripture,” yet, when Mr. Martinez reads James 2:24, which states that we are “justified by works and not by faith alone,” and Mr. Martinez builds his theology and doctrine on this passage and therefore does not believe in salvation by faith alone – because that dogma is in direct contradiction of Holy Scripture – you turn around and tell him his interpretation is wrong, don’t you?

Mr. Martignoni, while that one verse isolated away from the passage and from scripture certainly looks like that, when read in context it is easy to see what James means by this. Much in the same way there was a misunderstanding in what I said that led you to think I contradicted myself. The context of what James wrote brings us to Abraham and how Abraham’s faith was real. Anyone can say they have faith but what James says is :

James 2:18 "But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."

Basically he is challenging those who with their mouths speak a faith in Christ, but in their actions show what their heart really trusts in. The only way Abraham is able to take Isaac up to the mountain and kill his son, that he was promised by God, is because he was FULLY persuaded that God would do exactly what he said he would do. (Romans 4:21) Those who have faith live by faith. This means it will be completely evident in their life who their faith is in. Is it God or man? This is the same faith that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego have, and it is the same faith that we are called to today. James is contrasting true faith, one that lives by faith, with faith of someone who just says “ I believe”. To this James say so what! The demons believe, and they even shudder in fear (something most people who claim him don’t do), but they do not live out their faith. If they did they would have not rebelled against him.

Or, when he reads John 6:51-58 which states several times that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man in order to have life within us, and he builds his theology and doctrine on this passage and therefore does not believe the Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper, is merely a symbol, but that it is indeed the real thing…you turn around and tell him his interpretation is wrong, don’t you?

Once again we need to understand what Jesus is saying here and how it compares with the rest of what he said and the whole of scripture. First of all, even if we did isolate this passage to build our doctrine from we would see that Jesus never established any succession of people who are capable of distributing Jesus’ flesh and blood for consumption. Meaning that if we take it outside of other scripture it would then mean that only those who were there to physically receive his body and blood could be saved, and the rest of us would be out of luck.

However, reading this in the context of where it is written and the many times that Jesus refers to himself being the bread of life, or living water, etc. We understand what Jesus is not talking about food as we know it. He is talking about “real” food. Man does not live by bread alone, but out of every word out of the mouth of God.

Deuteronomy 8:3 "He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD."

Jesus also makes this distinction when talking to the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus is the word, he sustains us and it is by him we live. Not bread, water, or wine. This is why he is telling us that he is “real” food. He illustrates this by saying that when we eat “fake” food we are hungry again and thirsty again. But when you get “real” food, that is the word of God, Jesus, you will never hunger or thirst again. Therefore bread and wine are really only temporary and inadequate pictures of the real and permanent food that is Jesus our Lord, creator, and sustainer.

Again, you really don’t want him to trust his interpretation of scripture, just as you don’t want him to trust the early Christians’ interpretations of scripture, do you? You really want him to trust your interpretations of Scripture, right? Well, my question to you is: Why? Why should Mr. Martinez, or anyone else for that matter, believe your interpretation of the Bible over their own interpretation of the Bible, or over the early Christians’ interpretations of the Bible ? Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Is your interpretation of Scripture infallible? Yes or no?

Don’t believe me, just read it for yourself. Don’t read it from the viewpoint of any religion though or from any predetermined point of view. Just read it in context. Many false religions claim to follow the word of God and say they esteem God’s word, but then proceed to tell people that they cannot understand it with out the help of their organization. The last thing I want Mr. Martinez or anyone to do is to believe it because I said it. I am not starting a religion. I don’t even hold to any denomination or seek to promote one over the other. Again what I advocate is getting rid of teachings that have human origins, regardless what name is attached to them and returning to what we KNOW to be true, the Bible.

Eddie Walker

As for changed doctrine, you are right there are certainly no lack of those willing to twist and distort the word for their own purposes. But clearly you do not mean to suggest that the teachings of the Roman Catholic church have not changed throughout history, that is to easy to prove. My point was not that the Roman Catholics are the only ones to deviate from the scripture, but that they are more likely to all sound the same as the get their doctrine from one organization. Similarly Jehovah’s Witnesses sound the same as they follow the teachings of the watchtower organization.

Comments/Strategies: I believe Mr. Martinez did indeed mean to suggest that the doctrinal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have not changed throughout history. You say it is easy to prove otherwise. I challenge you to do so.

This statement of mine was in response to Mr. Martinez saying that only “protestants” change the doctrine or teachings over time, and while there is no doubt that many people have changed their teaching over time, the Roman Catholic church is included in this as well. I don’t shrink from your challenge here, but honestly don’t know where to begin. How about the Roman Catholic church’s opinion of people who reject their teaching. Once labeled a heretic and killed, now called separated brothers and a desire that they return to the “faith”. My point to Mr. Martinez here was not to the degree to which the Roman Catholic church has changed their teachings, but to illustrate that they in fact have changed what they have taught though out time. It was in response to his statement that all “protestants” sound the same, that I said it would seem like all Roman Catholics would be more likely to sound the same because they would follow the teachings of the church.

Also, in the above paragraph, you continue to make statements that make me think you have not done a thorough and rigorous analysis of your own position. You are clearly implying that for all the members of an organization to speak with one voice in regards to doctrine is a negative thing. With all due respect, but I would really like to hear your reasoning behind that position. You seem to be suggesting that it’s a positive thing to disagree on doctrine? Again, you have stated in a previous email to Mr. Martinez that you believe in a set body of apostolic teaching that has been consistent for 2008 years. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the Catholic Church is the 2008-yr. old “Universal Apostolic Church” of which you spoke in your previous email to Mr. Martinez, then wouldn’t it be a good thing that Catholics “all sound the same” since they are getting their doctrine from one organization – the organization foun ded by Jesus Christ?

Again this was in direct response to Mr. Martinez’s accusation of all “protestant” speakers who seem to sound the same. I, like you thought that was a strange statement from a Catholic, as I usually hear this from Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses as a primary reason why I should believe their organization.

And again there is no Biblical succession of men set up to change or add to the Bible. We have it all, he has preserved it for us and it is waiting for us to read and discover who he is, who we are, and want he desires from us.

It would be a good thing if we all sounded the same as we got our doctrine from God and not man. Jesus Christ did not establish any succession of men to lead us to God. He did show us the way and gave us his unchanging word. And He did establish a church to help us grow in understanding and to be able to better survive in this world until he comes or takes us home. Jesus never established a Papacy nor did he ever establish an order of people that should be followed as a Pope or Vicar of Christ, or whatever you like to call it. Jesus is the head of the church and as we follow his words we are in his church. When we follow man’s words, our worship is in vain. Matthew (15:9)

Wouldn’t doctrinal differences be a sign that someone was not following the 2008-yr. old “apostolic teachings” of the church founded by Jesus Christ?

In my opinion (just my thoughts), I believe most doctrinal differences stem from our inability or reluctance to set aside our own thoughts, beliefs, and desires and to trust fully in the word of God. I believe the closer we come to trusting in the words of the creator of Heaven and Earth, the more we will see that our doctrinal differences clear up.

Eddie Walker

You are also right that there are many false teachers, but how can we know who the false ones are? Should we judge them by their message or by their title and the organization? If the traditions and doctrines of the Roman Catholic church did not contradict the Bible I would have no problem with them. However they have forsaken God’s word and decided to follow the traditions of men instead. And these traditions cause many well meaning people to try to worship God in ways that he finds detestable.

Comments/Strategies: With all due respect, but are you not declaring the traditions and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church at odds with the Bible based on your own personal interpretations of the Bible? Indeed you are. What if you are a false teacher and your false teachings are based on your personal, fallible interpretations of the Bible? Does that thought not horrify you? You could, unintentionally, be leading people astray by your teachings. What assurance do I, or Mr. Martinez, or anyone else have that your interpretations of the Bible are accurate? Why do you believe your interpretations more reliable than mine? More reliable than Mr. Martinez’s? More reliable than the early Christians’? Again, I ask, are you infallible in your interpretations of the Bible?

My faith is only in what God says, because I know that his words are real and are what will last forever. Everything else will perish. Many teachings of the Roman Catholic church are gravely against the Bible and are in fact another gospel entirely, that is no gospel at all. Before I decided to become a Pastor, I carefully looked at James’ words in chapter 3 verse1. And in fact I was reluctant to become a Pastor, because of this enormous responsibility. However the best way to make sure I don’t stray from the truth is to teach the truth. Not traditions, godless myths, geneologies, etc.

I have declared many of the teachings to be in violation of scripture in many areas. Not a single passage or verse taken out of context and distorted. I unlike other men, do not believe myself to be infallible or any man to be such. I don’t want anybody to follow my teachings, I only want to point them to God’s and let them stand or fall on them.

Are we not called to test all spirits? Didn’t the Bereans search the scriptures to see if Paul’s message was from God? To say that it is wrong to test or judge doctrines based upon scripture, because we are just men, would be to completely throw out all sound doctrine and allow for any interpretation regardless of how far from scripture it strays. No instead we must be on our guard against false teachers creeping in, and the best way to do that is tostick to what we KNOW to be true, the Bible.

This is precisely the reason I challenged Mr. Martinez and now you, to start with the Bible and build your doctrine from there. Don’t start with doctrine and find proof texts to support your doctrine. Lets see what the church looks like when built from the ground up from scriptures. I think there would be a great many changes, to a great many churches if they actually did this. And this is in fact how they should approach their doctrine. When we build it from the ground up we can know that we have a firm foundation from which to move forward.

Eddie Walker

Mr. Martinez, it is most certainly not in the Bible, that Jesus ever created the office or position of Pope. Even if Peter was given the position, no apostolic succession was setup or process given. In context the passage in which you refer does not even establish Peter as a Pope or Vicar of Christ, or whatever you want to call it. In fact Jesus calls him Satan in verse 23.

Comments/Strategies: You seem to be suggesting, Mr. Walker, that Jesus left His church on earth with no visible leader. Jesus’ last words to His disciples in Matthew 28 must have been: “Hey guys, everybody just do your own thing. Remember, I’m not leaving anyone in charge down here. Just tell everybody to get their own Bible, read it, and decide for themselves what is and is not correct doctrine. Of course, I’m talking about once the New Testament gets written. Until then, though, just do the best you can. Ciao!”

No, that is not what I am suggesting. Jesus’ actual words were that he would be with us until the end of the age. Again He is the head of the church. As for human leadership that is addressed as well.

Or, that if Jesus did leave Peter as the head of the church He established, that once Peter was dead, then there was not to be another leader of this church founded by Jesus Christ. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Walker: Is there any mention in your scripture about your church – the one you attend on Sunday – having a visible head, a pastor? And, furthermore, does the Bible say anything about your what your church should do if your pastor dies? I don’t think it does, does it?

Paul gives clear instructions on how we should choose elders and overseers for the church. These instructions can be found in 1 Timothy and Titus. Similar qualifications are found else where as well. And while these men are chosen because of their character and doctrine, never are they given a license to change the gospel to add or subtract from the message. In fact they are instructed to stick to what has been written, to hold fast to what they have already learn, to watch our doctrine carefully, and to be devoted to the public reading of scripture. These were to be chosen because in their lives they had shown the ability to follow the word and could therefore teach it to others, not because of any succession.

Yet, you have a visible head of your church, and, if that visible head of your church were to die, you would replace him, wouldn’t you? Furthermore, I’ll bet the process of hiring a new pastor that is in effect at your church is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, is it? (Does the Bible ever mention anything about pastors being hired? But I bet your church hires its pastors, doesn’t it?). You seem to be very quick to pronounce the Catholic Church as carrying on extra-biblical traditions, and condemning her for such, yet you do not apply the standards you use in regards to Catholic belief and practice, to your own belief and practice. There is a word for that, and it starts with an “h.”

The head of the church is Jesus, the Pastor/overseer/bishop is not the head of a true Christian church. He is only a man chosen because he has shown in his life to follow the word of God and is able to teach others to do the same. We should be training all men to be able to fulfill this role.

How do you know how my church operates? I realize that you are assuming this because a great many churches may do that, but you do not know how my church operates. As I have stated the Bible is very clear on how we should choose elders, overseers, and deacons. My church would look to the body of believers and seek a man that would meet these requirements and ordain them to the ministry. This is directly from scripture.

I don’t really have problems with extra-biblical traditions, as I have mentioned to Mr. Martinez, as long as they do not conflict with scripture or cause the practice of things that would conflict. Tradition is not bad in and of itself, just like Jesus’ example in Matthew 15:3, the problem comes when by your tradition you break the word of God. As I have stated before, I would not have a problem with the Roman Catholic church or any church’s traditions if they do not contradict God’s word or cause people to when they follow them.

One last thing, you would do well to read Matthew 16:16-18 in light of Isaiah 22, verses 20 and following.

Ok, I have read them both again,what is your point. Feel free to elaborate.

Eddie Walker

Mr. Martinez , I implore you to please search the scriptures and see if it even fits into scripture, that God would allow any man to receive his honor and praise. Search and see if God would ever allow someone to be called the “queen of Heaven” or allow us to pray to anyone other than God. Daniel faced Lions instead of praying to a man, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, faced fire instead of bowing to a statue. These Godly men would rather face incredibly painful deaths than to do what millions of Roman Catholics wrongly do daily in the name of God. And while they may have zeal for the Lord, their zeal lacks knowledge and therefore will not be acceptable to God.

I will continue to pray for you Mr. Martinez.

Eddie Walker

Comments/Strategies: Mr. Walker, I will assume, out of Christian charity, that your statements here are based on simple ignorance, and not on malice. And I don’t say that in a disrespectful manner, but merely to be factual. No Catholic, at least, no properly catechized Catholic, gives to any man the “honor and praise” that is due to God alone. The Catholic Church does not now, nor has it ever, taught that we should honor and praise any man with the honor and praise that is due only to God. If you can find such a teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, then I will renounce my Catholic Faith tomorrow.

Yet by their actions, they way in which they live their faith, they do it daily. As James explains just saying you have faith is not the same as living it out. Saying that you are not worshipping Mary or dead men and women, does not mean anything, when your actions actually have you giving to them what rightly belongs to God. We are not to consult the dead on the behalf of the living. We are not make any graven images and worship or bow to them.

As for an example from the Catechism, how about this:

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.”

We see here that it is taught that Mary is born without sin and remained without sin. This is in direct conflict with scripture that teaches that all have sinned, that no one seeks God, (Romans 3) and the fact that Mary herself said she needed a savior ( Luke 1:47). Next we see that that she is assumed into heaven (not-biblical, but created to make the sinless nature fit), And then we see that she is exalted as Queen!!! Over ALL things no less!!! This is a clear example of putting a created being in the place where only God deserves to be. Not only is this not found anywhere in scripture it is a direct affront to the whole of scripture. In fact search the scriptures for the term “Queen of Heaven”, you will find it in Jeremiah. See what God thinks about that and what he thought of anyone who followed this “queen”. God alone is God, no created being of any magnitude is worthy of our worship or praise or has any place alongside Jesus, the Father, and Holy Spirit. We certainly never even see a holy angel ascend to this place, let alone a sinful person. Mother of God?!!! She conceived the living God?!!! This is not biblical and when followed to conclusion clearly places Mary above Jesus as she “conceived” him and is in some way superior to Him as His mother. Yet we know this is not the case. While she was used to bring forth Jesus’ human body, she is only a woman, a created being that was likely quite young.

But Jesus says: “Before Abraham was born, I am” John 8:58 We know Jesus created ALL things, Colossians 1:16, John 1:3. And Jesus does not esteem her any higher than any other believer when he says” Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:48-50 So scripture tells us that Jesus conceived Mary, and that she was a sinner like everyone else and anyone who follows what God says is his mother, brother, and sister. And finally look at the last line, by your (Mary’s) prayers, will deliver our souls from death. Mary has the power to pray our souls out of death?!!! Where is this in scripture? There is only 1 way to God, one mediator, one name under heaven which men can be saved. That is Jesus Christ, not Mary! Romans 5:19 says “19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” It is only through Jesus’ work on the cross, his obedience to the Father, that we are delivered from the death that came at Adam. Not Mary’s obedience to God’s plan. If she was obedient, Jesus would have found another who was. But no one else was capable of doing what he did for us.

The source of your confusion may be the Catholic usage of the phrase “pray to.” In this instance, we use the word “pray” in the same manner as the English of old would use it…as a request. I pray thee, sir, do not spread false information about my faith. When we “pray to” the angels and the saints, we do not believe that they are somehow divine…in some way God…and that we can go to them to have our prayers answered instead of going to Jesus. You would be well-served to get a Catechism of the Catholic Church and study our teachings on the Communion of Saints, because your lack of understanding in this area is causing you to falsely accuse Catholics or something that we do not do.

Mr. Martignoni, I am well aware of the meaning of the English word “pray”, so I do not confuse it. Do you or do you not ask the dead for assistance in your life? It says in Isaiah that we are not to consult the dead on the behalf of the living, and that we should ask God. (Isaiah 8:19) I don’t care if you say that you do not think these dead people are gods or not, you are still giving the honor, respect, and admiration to them that is only due to God. That is like me having an adulterous relationship with a woman, and giving to her everything I promised to my wife, but because I do not call this woman my wife it doesn’t count. But the reality is I am giving her everything my wife deserves, I dishonor my wife, and by my actions venerate the adulteress. This is exactly the way God feels about it and the reason his anger burned against the Israelites who praised him with their mouths, but their hearts were far from him.

We are simply asking the saints and angels to pray for whatever intentions we bring to them. Do not the scriptures somewhere say, “The prayer of a righteous man availeth much?” Who is more righteous than the angels and saints in Heaven, who are united to Christ in a manner far beyond what we have attained here on Earth?

Once again do not consult the dead. Talking to dead people and spirits is expressly forbidden. Philippians 4:6, Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. Having other living people pray for you is indeed a good thing, but consulting the dead on behalf of the living is wrong.

Also, if you are saying that God does not allow us to give any honor and praise to men, then I would have to take issue with that. We do honor and praise the saints in Heaven, as well as ordinary men and women here on Earth, but not in the same way we honor and praise God. God Himself tells us to honor our father and our mother, does He not? God honored Mary by allowing her to bear His Son. And He said to her, “Blessed are you among women!” What an incredible honor! God honors Mary, are you saying we are not to do likewise?

Agreed, a different type of honor. We are even called to pay honor and respect to the authorities above us.

And, all I have to say in regards to your mention of the “Queen of Heaven,” is this: If the Bible mentioned a woman, and it said she was in Heaven, and it further said that she had a crown on her head, what would you call her?

Not the Queen of Heaven and so dishonor God and that woman. What would you call a dragon in heaven with 7 crowns? This passage does not speak of Mary or her authority over all things, to say so is dishonest at best. And if her crown signified her authority over all things, why would Satan have 7 crowns? No, this passage begins with the words:” A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven” this is a sign, a symobolic message. It by no means speaks of Mary being the queen of heaven. Which would be a disgrace to her, please see Jeremiah 7:18. God said the people were provoking him to anger by making and giving gifts to the Queen of heaven. Mary would not want to be like this “Queen of Heaven” she like the angels and all true followers of God would say get up! Don’t bow to me, I am a fellow worker. worship God only!

Finally, I would ask of you two questions, one of which has already been asked. I pray thee answer them:

1) Are you infallible in your interpretations of the Bible? Yes or no?

Of course not, no one is. But we know the Bible is true and we have to stick as close to it as we can to make sure we are not led astray.

2) If you believe in salvation by faith alone, then can you please explain to me how James 2:26 supports that belief?

I think I fully covered James 2:26. I believe in salvation by grace alone. We receive this through real faith. Not lip service. If you seek further clarification please let me know.

In Christ’s name,

John Martignoni

P.S. I will be asking all 9000 or so of my readers to please keep you in their prayers…that you will one day be able to see and acknowledge the truths contained in the scriptures.

Posted on Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:06 am by accesservant

"The First Response - Mr. Walker" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register
Related Links
· More about A Conversation
· News by accesservant

Most read story about A Conversation:
The Third Response - Mr. Walker - Part Two

Article Rating
Average Score: 1
Votes: 5

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

 Send to a Friend Send to a Friend

News ©
Access Christian all rights reserved. 1999 - 2008

QUICK LINKS: Bible | Roommates | Singles | Forums | Prayer | Theword | Devotionals | Discussions | Home
CLICK HERE >>> - Christian Singles <<< CLICK HERE