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

[sandusky]

Mickey:

A conclusion which misrepresents the Catholic Church, even though it may be based on valid facts, is still a misrepresentation.

Thanks for your conclusion, Mickey. I only wish you had told me the argument leading up to it.

 

[sandusky]

He certainly did misrepresent these teachings…to his congregation.

And thank you for your unsupported conclusion as well, Catherine.

Thank you all; it’s been enlightening.:tiphat:

 

[Church_Militant]

No your idea of a good teacher is one who sings: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, another soul from purgatory springs.

"

But, you cry, “that’s not fair!” That error was corrected. MacArthur corrected his error as well. Why do forgive the one, and not the other?This is bunkum. For one thing, I know better than to buy into any such teaching and if you have an issue with Tezel…take it up with him when you meet him.

But, Church Militant, I did just here and tell you that, and he is my pastor; do hear anything anyone else says, or just what you want to hear?

No I hear it all and know better than the trash your pastor talks about my Christian faith. I read that bunk and go, "Well, I’d be worried about that if it was true, but since it’s not…

But you are not thinking logically and rationally. You are thinking emotionally; this is all about your Feelings

.This is one place where you really are out in left field. My response has zero to do with my emotions, and everything to dowith objectively calling a spade a spade. In this case, your pastor is a spade, either he’s intentionally misrepresenting Catholic teachings (in which case he’s dishonest and a liar), or he is hasn’t got nearly the level of knowledge and understanding that he asserts himself to have when speaking on Catholicism. The fact that he (and you!) make no secret about seeking to proselytize Catholics away from our most holy faith lends credence to the former because you have a stated agenda.

Which is it Sandusky?

You guys still don’t get it. OK, let me illustrate.

A logical conclusion; however, MacArthur

’s facts and his model may be incorrect; he has not presented his facts for examination; if his facts are wrong, that is a misrepresentation.Actually we do…but you’ll note that your comment is just as easily true with your pastor’s name replacing Setter’s.

MacArthur has done what Setter has done, and he has gone one step further, namely, MacArthur presented his facts to a group of Catholic Priests and Apologists, and, after examining those facts, those same Priests and Aplogists affirmed that those facts were correct

. From those correct facts, MacArthur has concluded that Catholics adore Mary.Gee…if that is true, then I suggest your pastor still doesn’t comprehend what was told him. No surprise there, it was this same bogus allegation that I knew to be dead wrong that began my research for the truth and ultimately led me back into the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, if memory serves me correctly, MacArthur presents the Catholic argument that Catholics do not adore, or worship Mary, and he goes into the semantics of latria, dulia, etc., and he still concludes that Catholics adore, or worship Mary

. A logical, rational conclusion based upon the affirmation of those whose doctrines he was examining, that his facts are correct.Bunk…it sounds to me more like your pastor just can’t let go of his agenda even as you can’t let go of his doctrinal coattails. If this is the result of his “logical, rational” thought processes then I’d never listen to him talk about so much as the weather, because he’s inaccurate…not to mention vitriolic and inconsiderate (i.e. his “sermon” upon the death of Pope John Paul II!).

Again, you are may disagree with his conclusion, but he is not misrepresenting you.

Bunk…I disagree on both counts.

Do you understand now?

Oh yeah… I understand all too well.

Anyone else here “not understand” this poor dear wonderful and saintly man?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[pnewton]

Mel, see my post #104 above; MacArthur is not assuming anything; he is reasoning from facts, affirmed to be correct by a group of Catholic Priests and apologists, and he is arguing to a conclusion from those facts.

At the least he is not accurately representing his views as being opinions and conclusions** he** has drawn and nto actual church teaching. He is hold this reasoning which is one level removed from the actual fact of church teaching out as official Cathoic teaching instead of his opinion that Catholics worship Mary. Well, my opinion, as an actual catholic and not just is critic is that he is full of bunk. He is using more rhetoric than substance. Catholics know the difference between Mary and God and do not worhips Mary as God. Call it whatever terms you want, it is still empty rhetoric.

 

[rtconstant]

Of course you do! I didn’t expect you to think any differently. But maybe there are some thinkers on the forum who will understand.

You’re projecting RT.

Not really your posts show it rather clearly. I could be wrong but the post I’m replying too now is again belies your agitation you will of course deny that but that is what I would expect.

You didn’t read it very well, RT, because there was no mention of “a few minutes.”

Here is what he said:

You’re right he didn’t mention a few minutes. At least in the link that you provided he was giving a sermon in which he preludes by mentioning him speaking too Apologists in the Green Room to confirm his understanding. This basically implies a few minutes it certainly doesn’t imply a lengthy period time.

Why do you think he wouldn’t be honest about it? Because he realized my need to have him be honest, and so he lied, because the alternatives are just too horrible for me, and so he preyed on my ignorance?

Well in a nutshell yes. He’s wrong in his statements. This leaves us only two alternatives. He realizes that his congregation isn’t going to know any better so you are ripe for deception. It’s an old game we’ve seen it hundreds of times. Ironically you actually domonstrate the point. You yourself have done no research yourself into what you’re posting here. You simply believe what you have been told. If you had then you would be seeing the same things that we do. Even if you still didn’t agree with our theology.

Since Protestantism lacks the historical foundation of Catholicism some Protestants make the mistake of thinking that to discredit us adds validation to themselves. Instead of realizing that if the CC is pagan and apostate then the Protestant Church isn’t even on the radar.

I presented you with links to the transcripts to read them. That statement shows you haven’t read them, but instead, you want to argue from your hypothetical. You are lazy.

Says the guy who depends on his “pastor” to tell him what he can look up for himself.

But let me explain. I created a theoretical question because we don’t know what he asked specifically. Since he brought up issues like praying to Mary and her being a Co-mediatrix I figured that meant that he asked for confirmation on the subjects he was speaking too. Is that not correct, was he asking about Marian doctrine or not?

The rest that is written is his own extrapolation on what he “learned”.

There is a difference; I can see my friend because I know where he is; you assume that the saint is in the right place to help you.

But, how can you know? Catholics claim that they are not so arrogant as to know the eternal disposition of anyone, correct?

Well, geez I don’t know you think Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist, the Apostle’s salvation is up in the air but you’re feeling good about the guy whoes setting next too you?

Yeah in general we don’t make assumptions about the states of peoples souls but some are no brainers. If Mary didn’t make it to heaven then the rest of us might as well give it up.

 

[pnewton]

First of all, it would seem that many Catholics think that all MacArthur does is continually preach about the Catholic Church; he does not.

I have heard several good series he has done on Colosians and Ephesians. That is why I do not view him as a particuarly hostile person. he is not a one-trick pony that focuses on Catholics.

 

[Fidelis]

I have heard several good series he has done on Colosians and Ephesians. That is why I do not view him as a particuarly hostile person. he is not a one-trick pony that focuses on Catholics.

No, he does manage to find time to preach about other things, but while doing so he almost always manages to sneak in a dig at the Catholic Church when he can. Only the ignorant and only the most decieved of MacArthur idolators would not see it for what it was and swallow it whole.

Honestly, with all the support he gives to anti-Catholic groups and time he spends writing forewords for anti-Catholic books, it’s a wonder he has time for anything else!

 

[lak611]

Of course he is a Baptist. I Calvinistic or Reformed Baptist if you like, but his core beliefs are baptist. You don’t have to have Baptist of the fornt door of a church to be baptist. His beliefs are Reformed Baptist. He would not deny that.

I saw a Baptist Study Bible in a store a while back, with commentary by several people. One of them was John MacArthur. He wouldn’t be doing Baptist Bible commentary if he WASN’T Baptist.

 

[lak611]

No, he does manage to find time to preach about other things, but while doing so he almost always manages to sneak in a dig at the Catholic Church when he can. Only the ignorant and only the most decieved of MacArthur idolators would not see it for what it was and swallow it whole.

I heard him give a sermon called “Four Ways to Miss Out on Heaven”. He mentioned legalism as one of those, then went off on a long anti-Catholic spiel. Almost every time I have heard him preach, he manages to say something anti-Catholic, even if the Catholic Church is not the main topic of his sermon.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

First of all, it would seem that many Catholics think that all MacArthur does is continually preach about the Catholic Church; he does not.

I can count on two hands the number of sermons I have heard him preach about your Church; and I have found them all to be factual to the best of his ability.

Secondly, that CD was from a recording of a sermon that was preached shortly after the death of JPII. It was a timely message in that the eyes of the world were focused upon the funeral of the one who, at that time, was the head of The Church that claims to be the representative of Christ on earth, and the representative of true Christianity.

It was this Pope as well, who claimed to Mary, that he was Totus Tuus, totally yours.

As I watched television coverage of the funeral, I was saddened to here Catholic clergy, from young priests, to old and seasoned Cardinals, from all over the world, sitting in news commentary booths and proclaiming the surety of JPII’s advance to heaven because he had “lived a good life of charity and suffering.” Over and over again I heard that statement, and variations of it proclaimed to a watching world.

That is not the gospel, and the Catholic Clergy should know that. Each had an opportunity to proclaim the true gospel of Jesus Christ, and none did, at least, not that I saw. Perhaps they are Ashamed of the Gospel.

What is wrong, unChristian, ungodly, about “living a life of charity & suffering” ? How does that not rather greatly glorify God ? And how could it be lived at all, without the grace of God ?​

Did anyone claim that to do so was the Gospel ?

Is it a damnable sin, hateful to God, to “live a life of charity & suffering” ? How can it be, if charity is itself God’s gift ? Salvation is by totally by grace, certainly - but that is not a reason for rejecting it, in case one should be guilty of living a holy life. Care for the five Solas has gone too far when it becomes the enemy of or an obstacle to Christian obedience, rather than a means to it.

As to the teachings on Mary that your linked thread mentioned, here is the opening statement of the first of a four part series of sermons preached on Mary and the Catholic Church; this is MarArthur’s statement after his analogical introduction:

Analogical ? What is analogous to what ?​

It is difficult to believe that Macarthur is well-informed, when he twice mangles the name of the author of “The Glories of Mary”. It would be hard to believe a man had read any of President Reagan’s speeches, if he spelled him Ronald Ray-gun - so how can Macarthur be believed, when he can’t spell the name of a well-known Saint whom he claims to have read ? There is such a thing as naivety, & it seems naive to suppose he can have read anything by St. Alphonsus de Liguouri, if he cannot spell his name. If we are to take him seriously, as someone thoroughly well acquainted with what he talks about, I wish, I really do wish, that he would give us some reason to think that he is competent to speak as he does. ##

He then goes on to quote Papal statements concerning Mary, and then reads heavily from the book, The Glories of Mary, by Alphonsus de Liguori.

MacArthur says:The transcript of that preached sermon can be read here.

(continued below)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Who is this? Who is Barth? What is an Archeoconservative? How is it possible for him to be both Catholic and Protestant? :whacky:

Sandusky is quoting my self-description from my profile ​

Karl Barth (1886-1968) was an outstanding Swiss Reformed theologian & pastor, who had the respect even of Pius XII - if Pius XII can have an appreciative attitude of that sort, I don’t why we lesser fry can’t.

Being Catholic is entirely compatible with respect & admiration for Christians of other Christian traditions - C. S. Lewis was not a Catholic, but that hasn’t stopped a great many Catholics having a very great respect for him: as is entirely right. So I can admire him, & Barth, and the Puritans. That makes one more fully Catholic, not less - for by reading what other men (& women !) of God have said, we can learn a deeper & fuller appreciation of our own faith, understand something of why others don’t share it, & can see how their insights can enrich our own understanding of what we believe.

“Archaeoconservative” is a private joke - there are Palaeocons; so there should also be Archaeocons

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I did not perceive an attack; my perception is the opposite.

Actually, I am very curious what a “Barth-affirming TULIP-loving Archeoconservative CathoProt” has to say on that subject.

Please explain.

See post 127 (I think )​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sandusky,

I have no doubt that McArthur is sincere and really bellieves what he says. But he is just the typical type that is raised to believe the worst about Rome and thus thinking Catholics lost he assumes the worst possible understanding of their beliefs. he interprets them according to his own preconceptions instead of letting them define their own beliefs. It always comes down to “This is what you really believe…”. I absolutely hate it when Catholics, on this board even, ignore what protestants say about their own beliefs and pour their own worst possible understanding into their beliefs. One example is faith alone. How many time has a well menaing, but ignorant Catholic said “See they think they can do whatever they want and live like a heathen!”. Of course anyone who knows Evangelicals can tell you they put most of the rest of us to shame is godly living. But it cuts both ways. MacArthur is cut from the same cloth and distorts Catholics beliefs in the same manner.

You want to know what Catholics believe? Ask a Catholic.

Mel

​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That’s true, Mel; I will not argue with you; a Baptist he is.

Mel, see my post #104 above; MacArthur is not assuming anything; he is reasoning from facts, affirmed to be correct by a group of Catholic Priests and apologists, and he is arguing to a conclusion from those facts.

But - what facts ? If we don’t know what facts the “priests and apologists” “affirmed to be correct”, telling us that “he is reasoning from facts, affirmed to be correct by a group of Catholic Priests and apologists, and he is arguing to a conclusion from those facts” does not tell us much at all. ​

And one can perfectly well draw wildly inaccurate conclusions from facts that are accurate & are said to be so - Muslims persist in thinking that Jesus is the Son of God in a carnal sense, though they’ve been told time and again how far that is from Christian belief, even though they are right in saying we believe Him to be the Son of God: so can one be any more confident that a Protestant pastor (say) won’t draw wild conclusions from admitted facts ? It would be human to do so - but it would be as wrong as when Catholics misunderstand Evangelical ideas.

Even to know facts correctly, is not the same as to judge rightly of them. That is something over & above knowledge of what are the facts; for one has also to understand what they mean. The facts about Jesus, gave (& give) no clue to His true significance, His real meaning - that could be known only by the Father’s revelation, as we see in Matt. 16 & 17; & elsewhere. ##

 

[lak611]

Sandusky is quoting my self-description from my profile ​

Karl Barth (1886-1968) was an outstanding Swiss Reformed theologian & pastor, who had the respect even of Pius XII - if Pius XII can have an appreciative attitude of that sort, I don’t why we lesser fry can’t.

Being Catholic is entirely compatible with respect & admiration for Christians of other Christian traditions - C. S. Lewis was not a Catholic, but that hasn’t stopped a great many Catholics having a very great respect for him: as is entirely right. So I can admire him, & Barth, and the Puritans. That makes one more fully Catholic, not less - for by reading what other men (& women !) of God have said, we can learn a deeper & fuller appreciation of our own faith, understand something of why others don’t share it, & can see how their insights can enrich our own understanding of what we believe.

“Archaeoconservative” is a private joke - there are Palaeocons; so there should also be Archaeocons

I agree with what you said. I have respect and admiration for many non-Catholic Christians; Lewis is one of my favourites. I’ll have to investigate Barth more fully. I just don’t respect people like Mr. MacArthur who make false statements about my faith or think that they need to “save” me because they don’t think I’m a Christian.

 

[Mickey]

And one can perfectly well draw wildly inaccurate conclusions from facts that are accurate & are said to be so

**AMEN! :yup: **

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Thanks for the post, you agree with MacArthur’s conclusion, but with the qualifications listed above; IOW, you really disagree with MacArthur’s conclusion, and that’s fine.

But the topic is whether or not MacArthur misrepresented the Church in the facts he presented concerning Marian devotion; he did not. He presented his facts to a group of Catholic Priests and Apologists, who affirmed that MacArthur’s facts are correct.

I did not conditionally agree. I said Catholics do pay respect and honor past men and women of God. By definition, the word worship does apply. BUT…By his own conclusion wrongly applied to Catholics, you are worshiping John MacArthur in the very same manner. You obviously adore, respect and pay homage to him here and at church.

Lets compare apples to apples please.

I bet you’ve asked him or one of the pastoral staff to pray for you at some point. That is as far as Catholics go in their communication with saints to include Mary. We do not give worship due God to his faithful servants. We do remember those who came before us and lived the life of Christ. I also bet you have many “men of god” that you worship in this manner as well.

Catholic and Protestant alike believe that the faithful once dead ARE alive in Christ. According to Revelation, saints do have access to the throne of God himself. Its not a bad thing to ask those men and women to offer up our prayer to God, any more than it is to ask your pastor or another member of your church to do the same.

The only difference between us is you think we’re guilty of something we’re not and you also practice the very same kind of worship.

 

[sandusky]

Gottle-of-Geer:

What is wrong, unChristian, ungodly, about “living a life of charity & suffering” ? How does that not rather greatly glorify God ? And how could it be lived at all, without the grace of God ?

Did anyone claim that to do so was the Gospel ?

There is nothing wrong with “living a life of charity & suffering,” but that is not how one gains eternal life.

The impression was given that one gains eternal life through good living.

If you believe that, then Catholic soteriology is, as I have always said, by your works; that is why I left the Catholic church; not because I believed in sola fide, at that time, but because I knew the depth of my sin, and my inability to live a good a life.
Gottle-of-Geer:

Is it a damnable sin, hateful to God, to “live a life of charity & suffering” ? How can it be, if charity is itself God’s gift ? Salvation is by totally by grace, certainly - but that is not a reason for rejecting it, in case one should be guilty of living a holy life. Care for the five Solas has gone too far when it becomes the enemy of or an obstacle to Christian obedience, rather than a means to it.

You are beginning to drone Michael.

With respect to what I bolded and italicized, you are now acting in the manner you condemn; rather than presenting what you say in a such a way as to imply that it is the belief of all n-c’s, you should ask if that is the belief.

None of you is acting any better than your worst criticism of MacArthur in that respect.

In your words Michael, you all act as the heathen.
Gottle-of-Geer:

It is difficult to believe that Macarthur is well-informed, when he twice mangles the name of the author of “The Glories of Mary”. It would be hard to believe a man had read any of President Reagan’s speeches, if he spelled him Ronald Ray-gun - so how can Macarthur be believed, when he can’t spell the name of a well-known Saint whom he claims to have read ? There is such a thing as naivety, & it seems naive to suppose he can have read anything by St. Alphonsus de Liguouri, if he cannot spell his name.

Assumes that the transcript is from his hand.
Gottle-of-Geer:

See post 127 (I think )

You misunderstood my post Michael.

I presented you with an opportunity, and all you can do is speak about yourself, your personal profile, and your criticisms of John MacArthur.
Gottle-of-Geer:

But - what facts ? If we don’t know what facts the “priests and apologists” “affirmed to be correct”, telling us that “he is reasoning from facts, affirmed to be correct by a group of Catholic Priests and apologists, and he is arguing to a conclusion from those facts” does not tell us much at all.

If you were to read the transcripts of the sermons at the links I provided you would get those facts.

Here are MacArthur’s words:

I was checking on my facts as I had the opportunity to do that in talking to them about things and it was affirmed to me that the very things that we are talking about in this study of Mary are the things to which they are truly and genuinely devoted.

So far, all I am hearing is a great Catholic whine about MacArthur’s conclusion.

As I have stated over and over again, you may disagree with his conclusion, but his facts were verified.

You accuse the man of misrepresenting Marian doctrine in his sermons, and yet, none of you has presented even one concrete misrepresentation found in the transcripts.

So, I must conclude one of two things: either none of you has read all of the transcripts (and I would understand your not wanting to), or the transcripts have been read by at least one of you, and no misrepresentation was found.
Gottle-of-Geer:

Even to know facts correctly, is not the same as to judge rightly of them. That is something over & above knowledge of what are the facts; for one has also to understand what they mean.

Your droning is beginning to put me to sleep Michael.
Gottle-of-Geer:

And one can perfectly well draw wildly inaccurate conclusions from facts that are accurate & are said to be so

 

[Mickey]

If you believe that, then Catholic soteriology is, as I have always said, by your works;

And so you also misrepresent–like your pastor Mr MacArthur.

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

And so you also misrepresent–like your pastor Mr MacArthur.

That is a conclusion Mickey.

It seems that Michael (aka, Gottle-of-Geer), is the only Catholic participating on this thread who understands the difference between a misrepresentation of fact, and a conclusion.

Perhaps the rest of you should go and learn that difference instead of continuing to present someone’s conclusion as a misrepresentation.