Ever hear of John MacArthur? He is a particularly hostile Protestant.

[Church_Militant]

Anyway…

The greek language is a very precise language, and the author of the book, here being Matthew, would have been aware of what Jesus was meaning, I would think, thus his reasons for choosing to use the words Petros and Petras. Am I mistaken in thinking this? If he meant to use rock for both peter and the next statement Jesus used, would not he have used Petras for both? I don’t see how you refuted my point.

As I pointed out, the discussion in question took place in Aramaic and in fact, there is evidence that Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Aramaic and then translated later on into Greek. I suggest this article Peter the Rock

And, well, it isn’t just a book. That book you hold is the living Word of God. It was, and is, God’s chosen method of conveying Himself to us. And we’re not alone in this, we’re not given this gift of the Word of God and then told to fend for ourselves. Just as Peter did not realize that Jesus was the Christ by his own superior knowledge, it was revealed to him by the Father in heaven, not by flesh and blood, just as he knew, so do we know and are able to discern the bible, with the aid of the helper, sent by Christ, the Holy Spirit.

The problem here is that you cannot support this (Sola Scriptura) position from the Bible. It is flawed from the outset by the fact that nowhere in the NT does Our Lord commission it’s writing and in fact , He did not establish a book or a collection of them, but a church. (Back to Mt 16:18 again.) There are many threads on this topic right now, perhaps I’ll catch you there, meanwhile I suggest you listen to this FREE MP3 Bible study on it.

The Holy Spirit, which is in every believer, not the Pope alone, not the Cardinals, every believer.

No Catholic would contest this. This is a straw man argument.

Yes, there is much debate over issues on the protestant end of this, and yes, it would be much easier if we had someone to tell us what everything meant, but that is not how God made it.

So then 1st Timothy 3:15 does not mean what it says?

He did not make someone infallible, which, if I read correctly on this very forum, the Pope has only spoken infallibly twice in 2,000 years, concering the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, either way, no man is infallible.

A grave misunderstanding of Papal infallibity & a typical argument. See this article for a better understanding.

And I understand the heirarchal structure of the Catholic Church, it is the very thing I disagree with. After Jesus gave up the ghost on the cross, the veil of the temple was tore from top to bottom. This veil seperated the holiest of holies from the outside world. Only one priest was allowed to enter, and then only once a year. If anyone else was to even look into the holiest of holies, the dwelling place of God Himself, the man would instantly die, but the moment Jesus died, the veil ripped completely…

No… actually, you do not. You understand the erroneous teachings that you have been exposed to, (are you perhaps a student of MacArthur’s…he has the same problem.) not Catholic belief.

… which Christ preached against on numerous occasions, and which was a main reason for the Jewish leaders wanting to kill Him, because His preaching was going to take away their power.

I don’t think that you can supply Biblical evidence of this claim. Our Lord preached against the misuse of same, not the priesthood.

The Catholic Church has reinstated this levitical priesthood, and said that you must go through a priest to have your sins properly confessed. This gave the RCC much power during the middle ages, and still allows it to flex an admirable amount of power in certain countries outside the US, especially countries with weak governments.

A return to the rhetorical propaganda without any substance, as well as perjorative commentary.

Catholicism does not “reinstate this levitical priesthood”. This shows more gross misunderstanding of Catholic belief.

As for confession: John 20 21-23 makes it quite plain that the ministry of reconcilliation was given to the apostles to be handed down through the church. James 5:16 confirms this again as does 1st John 1:9.

Your bolded remarks are pure rhetoric without any truth to them.

That is why you find a watered down Catholicism in the United States, which I assume is where most of you live, and you find a more hardcore, orthodox, and in my eyes -true form,- of Catholicism in these other countries.

Again…rhetorical misrepresentation. There may be cultures that are blessed with more fervor than many American Catholics, even as there are cultures where the faithful n-Cs might shame their American brethren, but it is still the same faith in both cases.
Pax tecum,

 

[Mickey]

Our God is untouchable. He is not physical.

Are you serious? God has given us the physical and the spiritual. Each sacrament has a physical and a spiritual component. Baptism has water and the Holy Spirit. Chrismation has oil and the Holy Spirit. The Eucharist has bread and wine which is consecrated by the Holy Spirit. Etc., etc., etc…

Jesus Christ Himself was completely human (physical) and completely divine (spiritual).

Your denial of the physical rings of an early heresy. Do you deny that Christ had a physical body? Are you a monophysite?

 

[Mickey]

There was no establishment, the Bishop of Rome never had the influence he does now until Constantine made Christianity powerful.

I was waiting for this one–the dreaded Constantine conspiracy!

There’s the facts.

These are not facts. What you offer is misinformation–whether intentional or not.

 

[Mickey]

You made an inaccurate statement, proposed as fact and I have offered you the chance to explain and defend your position. If you cannot, just say so, but if you intend to post in apologetics (which, by definition, is the explanation and defense of Christian beliefs) you need to insure that whatever you say is backed up by facts, not rhetoric from some preacher, book, or anti-Catholic agenda-driven source, because as a faithful Catholic I will challenge any misstatements concerning our most holy faith in the interest of keeping “myself refreshed on Catholic doctrines, … and to help others.”, especially so that Catholics avoid being misled by people who quote the Word of God but do not hold to a Biblical & Traditional position.
Pax tecum,

AMEN! smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/983.gif

 

[JoeyWarren]

Titus03 said:

Anyway, I am a bit confused. I said that the words used refered to Peter as a small pebble, and then the other word was a rock/foundation, which you in turn varified, but did not acknowledge the play on words.

The greek language is a very precise language, and the author of the book, here being Matthew, would have been aware of what Jesus was meaning, I would think, thus his reasons for choosing to use the words Petros and Petras. Am I mistaken in thinking this? If he meant to use rock for both peter and the next statement Jesus used, would not he have used Petras for both? I don’t see how you refuted my point.

Yes you should be confused, you have learned error from error givers. Matthew was using proper grammar. PERIOD.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Now if we substitue the only possible aramaic word for peter.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter(G4074), and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

G4074
Πέτρος
Petros
pet’-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

G2786
Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
kay-fas’
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.

G4073
πέτρα
petra
pet’-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

Why does Paul use the term Cephas when referring to Peter?

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Co 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your’s;

1Co 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Because Paul recognizes Peter as the Rock.

 

[JoeyWarren]

The Holy Spirit, which is in every believer,

This not true. If it were true then we would all believe the same thing. Jesus may dwell in every believer but the Holy Spirit does not. The Holy Spirit comes and goes IMHO.

not the Pope alone

agreed.

not the Cardinals, every believer.

disagree as noted above.

Yes, there is much debate over issues on the protestant end of this, and yes, it would be much easier if we had someone to tell us what everything meant, but that is not how God made it.

But he leave someone to tell us what everything means. He assigned Simon as his Prime Minister to oversee the flock and by the laying on of hands.

He did not make someone infallible, which, if I read correctly on this very forum, the Pope has only spoken infallibly twice in 2,000 years, concering the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, either way, no man is infallible.

Agreed he did not make people infallible, but he did give the gift of infallibility. All the writers of the Bible were in a state of infallibility when they were writing. Yes? Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose. And that authority is contingent of the Holy Spirit.

The Apostles were blessed with a gift of divine guidance in writing the new testament epistles, but they were given special abilities that no one has had since, nor will they have again.

Can you prove that from Scripture? You are also making an assumption that all the Authors were Apostles. Was Mark or Luke Apostles? Can you prove they were from Scripture? How about James? How about the book of Hebrews? There is only speculation that Paul wrote Hebrews.

 

[JohnnyReb]

John MacAuthur is open hostile to anyone that is not a spitting image of himself. He is hostile to Catholics, Pentecostals, Wesleyans(which are the Protestants who are closest to Catholics in some ways) and those who believe salvation can be lost through disodienence.

 

[lak611]

John MacAuthur is open hostile to anyone that is not a spitting image of himself. He is hostile to Catholics, Pentecostals, Wesleyans(which are the Protestants who are closest to Catholics in some ways) and those who believe salvation can be lost through disodienence.

You are correct. He wrote a book trashing the Charismatic movement, so he definitely doesn’t like Pentecostals either.

 

[JoeyWarren]

So he is actually anti-not-anything-he-endorses?

 

[dbacks5439]

Hey Titus. Several people explained the uses of Petros and Petras, so I’ll leave it as that. You mentioned that we have somehow revived the “levitic priesthood”? This is the problem that I have with protestants in general. You all seem to always look on the surface, never beneath that. In Catholic theology, yes forgiveness is with God, on a one on one basis. But you also need forgiveness with the church, as stated in your verses previously about taking your brother to the Church for forgiveness. The Church is the Body of Christ, so as a Catholic, I’d need to seek forgiveness with every Catholic on the planet. Seeing how that’s impossible, a priest acts as a representative of Christ’s body. In fact, during confession, the priest is actually Jesus, and Jesus forgives me for trangressing against His body. That is what makes Reconciliation such a wonderful Sacrament, you actually confess to Jesus, in person! Wouldn’t you like to do the same?

 

[lak611]

So he is actually anti-not-anything-he-endorses?

Probably anti-anything or anyone who does not favour dispensationalist, pre-tribulation rapture, strict Calvinist theory.

 

[vocatio]

Probably anti-anything or anyone who does not favour dispensationalist, pre-tribulation rapture, strict Calvinist theory.

He’s his own church…sad…very sad…this reaks of mental disorder. Pray for all anti-Catholics and the Catholics that misrepresent what the Catholic Church teaches too. We all need prayer. Crack that bible open and really read…study it. But learn the teachings of the Church too.

 

[inthecloud]

Probably anti-anything or anyone who does not favour dispensationalist, pre-tribulation rapture, strict Calvinist theory.

Young earth cretionist, dispensationalist, pre trib rapture, Calvinist Baptist theology.

He is well into Jack Chick territory but without the paranoid deliriums.

 

[dlightful9]

For a man devoted to the Word of God and a full-fledged follower of Jesus Christ, many of the posts here (from ppl who do not know the man as I do and have never talked to him as I have) sure have no problem disrespecting him and hurling less than Christlike comments at him. I see shallow ignorance at play, rather than an honest evaluation of the Scriptures. Once you are able without question to prove him to be wrong with sound scriptural references (on matters of justification through grace alone, or whatever it may be that you disagree with), I suggest a more humble approach to controversy, regardless of who it may be. A man who is clear about his goal being an honest evaluation of the Bible in utter reverence for Christ should not be so rampantly and insultingly opposed. Stop blindly (*key word here) * believing everything you have ever been told in church growing up by fallible people and start thinking and evaluating the Scriptures for yourselves. Then match them up against the teachings you’ve raised to believe. Ignorant conviction is a very dangerous game to play.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

For a man devoted to the Word of God and a full-fledged follower of Jesus Christ, many of the posts here (from ppl who do not know the man as I do and have never talked to him as I have) sure have no problem disrespecting him and hurling less than Christlike comments at him. I see shallow ignorance at play, rather than an honest evaluation of the Scriptures. Once you are able without question to prove him to be wrong with sound scriptural references (on matters of justification through grace alone, or whatever it may be that you disagree with), I suggest a more humble approach to controversy, regardless of who it may be. A man who is clear about his goal being an honest evaluation of the Bible in utter reverence for Christ should not be so rampantly and insultingly opposed. Stop blindly (*key word here) * believing everything you have ever been told in church growing up by fallible people and start thinking and evaluating the Scriptures for yourselves. Then match them up against the teachings you’ve raised to believe. Ignorant conviction is a very dangerous game to play.

Welcome to the forums delightful. This thread is over a couple but I would just like to add that I think we would all be delighted if MacArthur took an honest look at the scriptures and history.

God bless you

 

[pnewton]

For a man devoted to the Word of God and a full-fledged follower of Jesus Christ, many of the posts here (from ppl who do not know the man as I do and have never talked to him as I have) sure have no problem disrespecting him and hurling less than Christlike comments at him. I see shallow ignorance at play, rather than an honest evaluation of the Scriptures. Once you are able without question to prove him to be wrong with sound scriptural references (on matters of justification through grace alone,.

Actually, I did, on the matter of Scripture alone. I note you have opened an old thread.

I was a big JM fan and have heard countless hours on him. He was one of the last sources I went to before becoming Catholic. I went to his support of sola scriptura, as authority is the key issue here. He inserted and changed the same word in I Timothy three times without any logical justification, trying to make “profitable” into “sufficient”. I went over and over again the same area and found a pure, 100%, logical insertion, an eisogesis, into this scripture passage. It is proof, even if it is proof for no one but me.

That is why I always say John MacArthur is one of the main reasons I am Catholic today. He showed me that sola scriptura is not scriptural, but rather a man-made idea that spans only the last 25% of Christian history.

 

[dlightful9]

we would all be delighted if MacArthur took an honest look at the scriptures and history.

You seem to take the humble approach I am speaking of. You are not my intended audience. I am speaking of posts much further back that handle controversy in a much more childish manner. You will know them when you see them. As for your stance, he has preached one verse at a time throughout the entire new testament in the past decade…a task that could only be done by a man devoted to an honest examination of God’s Word. He does not preach what he perceives as truth; he preaches what the Bible clearly shows to be truth (and consequently what is in opposition to some of Catholicism’s “sacred tradition”). It’s not as much that he is opposed to Catholicism as it is that he is in agreement with the Scriptures. If authority was not placed in the hands of fallible men and deemed equal to the Word of God, these clear contrasts would become more obvious to those who give the inspired Word a competitor. The subject of justification alone is enough to prove a contradiction between what God teaches in His Word and what the Catholic church teaches. I prefer to serve one master as I am commanded.

 

[Zooey]

"dlightful9:

It’s not as much that he is opposed to Catholicism as it is that he is in agreement with the Scriptures.

It’s that old thing again of people telling with perceptions of what they think the Church is and teaches rather than what it is, witness this quote:-
It’s a classic false choice.

Thnak you, JharekC! You said it just right!!:sad_yes:

 

[Zooey]