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

[pnewton]

I am very familiar with John MacArthur. He is one of the reasons I became Catholic.

I had to bold that because it is almost too ironic to be true. When I was first confronted by the self-contradictory stance of sola scriptura (that is that it is no where taught in the Bible), his defense of sola scriptura is what led me to see it as indefensible.

For a man who is so careful to only read what the Bible actually says and not what he wanted it to say, he sure blew it. He consistently inserted the word “sufficient” into the text of 1 Timothy. I counted six or seven times in t five minute span. He ignored all the reasons the word can not go there. The fact that it is an incorrect translation and leads to logical absurdities. and kept plugging away, as if saying it enough would make it true.

The bottom line is that when he was done I was convinced of the untenable position of sola scriptura. What I have never known is whether or not the man was deliberately being intellecutually dishonest or was blinded by pre-conceived notions. I prefer to think the best and assume the latter.

In any case, I understand his position. From a fundamentalist, sola scriptura point of view, he makes sense. An error in the begining is an error indeed.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A fellow named John MacArthur, who has a radio program called “Grace to You” has a particularly anti-Catholic bias. He says that the Mass is anti-Christian on this link: gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231486. He also has numerous links on his website that accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary. What do you think is the best response to this fellow?

**A peaceable spirit **​

**1. He is mistaken **
2. He has “shown his reasoning” - and, by that reasoning, his conclusion is not unreasonable
3. So - go through what he says about Catholic things…
4a. …to find whether the conclusions about the non-Christian character of the Mass are necessarily connected with those Catholic things:
4b. - for it is possible to have a Catholic apologetic for the Mass that misrepresents it in some way
**5. Set out a Catholic case for the Mass which takes full account of the objections he makes: whether from Scripture, reason, or the theology & doctrine of his own form of Christianity… **
6. …explaining what & why the Mass implies - & also, what it does not.
7. Avoid focussing on the person, & deal fairly & squarely with the issues
**8. Above all, charity & firmness: & prayer **

**IMO, 4b & 6 is what often cause trouble. Objectors deserve the courtesy of a full hearing for their objections, worries, & so on; & he is our brother in Christ (even if he might not think so ) - while the Church & our fellow Catholics deserve to have the Faith on this matter presented with complete faithfulness. ****At least he has the courtesy to say why he thinks as he does - this gives us something to get a grip on. **

Many objectors to the Mass completely ignore anything taught since (say) 1900 - so they miss out the theology (& the spiritual teaching implied) in the documents issued by (say) Pius XII. This matters because the Mass is not just something “out there” - it is something we can, do, & should interiorise. Because Catholicism is not a purely external religion - yet this is often in the background of objections to the Liturgy, including the Mass. ##

 

[sandmountainsli]

A fellow named John MacArthur,

An upstart and a rogue.
I have never heard of him.
WP

 

[Unfinished]

This is the prayer at the end. Bold is mine.

We…we struggle with this, Lord, because it’s so dishonoring to You. We want to make a whip and clean it out. It is a den of thieves. It is a den of thieves, stripping people of their money and their souls in Your name. How it must horrify heaven, but our horror also is mingled with grief for the millions upon millions of people who are captive to this system and don’t even know what they teach, but worship a dead woman, Mary, and worship a box with bread in it and never the true and living God who trust in a priest who may have a wretched heart and not in the Lord Jesus Christ, the holy harmless undefiled one and only true great High Priest by whom access to You is given. Help us, Lord, to understand these things and to rejoice that we know the truth and have been delivered, many of us, from this satanic system. Help us to be eager to share the true gospel with those we know. We pray in the Lord’s name. Amen.

Help them indeed, Lord Jesus. For they are quite misguided. Help them understand.

 

[Harpazo]

I received the same letter, and your characterization of it is just that—a characterization.

There was nothing about sending money to be used to save “poor, lost Catholics,” those are your words.

Any money solicited by those letters are to support the radio ministry which stands on its own and is not supported by the Church.

Moreover, there was no mention of “furthering the rift of the Reformation,” again, those are your words; the reference to the reformation was restating what the reformation was about; I understand your not wanting to go into that again.

Yet in all fairness, can you honestly say he is trying to make things better, instead of making them worse? This man can’t even give us enough respect to consider us Christians. To him we are “hell bound.”

It literally makes me sick to think how this man views Catholics, not particularly Christ-like. Someone who devotes entire sermons on how Catholics are “bound to Hell” because they don’t follow Reformation “theology” is, in my eyes, not the best example to follow. That’s just me though.

I may be young (17) and I can speak as a former Protestant. Even as a Protestant, something about the man seemed amiss…

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

From the link to his talk about the Mass:

But according to the mediator day, the priests do this with the salvation of the world in view. Quote: “It is the sacrifice of the altar where the merits won by the Redeemer on the cross are distributed to the faithful.”

**It looks as though he may not be quoting Catholic documents at first hand - for if he had been quoting the Encyclical Letter ****Mediator Dei at first hand, he would (one would think) have spelt its title correctly. We all make mistakes, & we can’t all be good Latinists (sad to say): but even so it is risky, especially ****in ****matters of religion, not to quote directly from our sources, if we can (& maybe he couldn’t). **

Next he says:

When you try to nail down the Roman Catholics on what exactly is going on, they…they’re all over the map. And most of the poor folks who just go to the Catholic Church have no clue except they think this is Christ and they worship Him. In fact, this is so serious, skipping over to something, listen to Mother Teresa and I’ll stop here.

1. The Mass - like Predestination - is a mystery
2. However, just as Calvin (quite rightly) insisted on the mysterious character of P., while writing about it at length, so Catholic theologians too have written a great deal about this mystery.
**3. It is very desirable that Catholics should be able to give a detailed account of the Mass. But, important as this undoubtedly is, we cannot all do so - some people are more articulate, more intelligent, more gifted by grace than oters of us. But what all of us can do, by God’s grace, is love Him. That is even more important than than being able to explain this or that doctrine - so those who love Jesus Christ Present on the altar, have “chosen the better part”, or been given it. To love God, is a better thing even than “to know all mysteries” - & we have very good authority for thinking that. **
**4. So we need the theologians, the Biblical scholars, the metaphysicians, the clear-headed & articulate apologists who know the Faith extremely thoroughly & can explain it clearly, fully, & adequately - but none of this can replace the First, Great, Commandment, of love for God; indeed, all else is trash without that. **
5. As St. Paul says “I know whom I have believed…” - so do Catholics: so we are not poor in the sense of not knowing Christ; for we know Him in this Sacrament, no less truly than Evangelicals know Him through the ministry of the Spirit interpreting Scripture - for this sacrament is not bread after the consecration: it is converted into the Body & Blood of Christ by that same Spirit. (And there are good reasons why the dogma of His Eucharistic Presence does not imply “cannibalism” or “resacrifice”, etc.) ##

 

[Iraneaus]

You have not posted the teachings on self worth.

Actually I had at first, put there is a post limit off 5000 words so I left it off for now. Besides its easier to discuss one thing at a time IMO.

When you figure that out,

Some how I feel indignance in that statement. Ironic isn’t it.

would you state your point in posting the comments you have posted,

I thought it was rather obvious. The post before it was asked what his teachings were.

and would you comment and analyze, in your own words, what MacArthur is saying about the blood of Christ in the writings that you have offered,

Why? I mean honestly. If I read anything new that he had said that I thought needed a fresh perspective or refutation then I would offer one. There are countless refutations to his teachings on the internet, and multitudes on this very site to his primary points of veiw. I have spent plenty of time on other forums having theological debates with others, but I just did not feel any further explanation warranted my time at the moment. Would it really have made any difference, or would you like a reason to attack me personally?

and what it is that makes you as indignant as the writer you quote, and fail to name, concerning this?

Wait is that a label, you are assuming I am indignant when you just asserted that I offered no personal thought on the matter.

If anyone felt indignant about him then I would assume it would be for the simaler reason as you offered earlier.

Sandusky:

When preaching, or teaching on the RCC MacArthur lets the RCC speak for itself by using their documents; they are a sufficient indictment on their own.

I feel his articles and sermons serve the exact same purpose.

For the record, I have no problem naming the source. Here check it out for yourself here.

 

[Iraneaus]

You have not posted the teachings on self worth.

Actually I had at first, put there is a post limit off 5000 words so I left it off for now. Besides its easier to discuss one thing at a time IMO.

When you figure that out,

Some how I feel indignance in that statement. Ironic isn’t it.

would you state your point in posting the comments you have posted,

I thought it was rather obvious. The post before it was asked what his teachings were.

and would you comment and analyze, in your own words, what MacArthur is saying about the blood of Christ in the writings that you have offered,

Why? I mean honestly. If I read anything new that he had said that I thought needed a fresh perspective or refutation then I would offer one. There are countless refutations to his teachings on the internet, and multitudes on this very site to his primary points of veiw. I have spent plenty of time on other forums having theological debates with others, but I just did not feel any further explanation warranted my time at the moment. Would it really have made any difference, or would you like a reason to attack me personally?

and what it is that makes you as indignant as the writer you quote, and fail to name, concerning this?

Wait is that a label, you are assuming I am indignant when you just asserted that I offered no personal thought on the matter.

If anyone felt indignant about him then I would assume it would be for the simaler reason as you offered earlier.

Sandusky:

When preaching, or teaching on the RCC MacArthur lets the RCC speak for itself by using their documents; they are a sufficient indictment on their own.

I feel his articles and sermons serve the exact same purpose.

For the record, I have no problem naming the source. Here check it out for yourself here.

 

[Iraneaus]

Another lie. There are no seminars directed at evangelizing the Catholic church specifically, but all of the lost.

In a June letter to his ministry’s supporters, MacArthur wrote about John Paul II and the “amazing release of emotion” that accompanied his death. "From politicians and media pundits to Hollywood celebrities and everyday citizens, everyone had praise for John Paul II, his gentle ways and his social and political achievements as a world leader and statesman. I can understand that.

“What I cannot understand,” continued MacArthur, "is the response of some Evangelicals to what matters most about the pope: his beliefs about God and the gospel. … Influential leaders embraced the deceased pope as a brother in Christ and the Catholic church as just another Christian denomination. …

“During the Reformation, countless men and women died rather than deny the biblical truths of salvation. Countless others today are giving their lives as missionaries to people lost in the darkness and guilt of Catholicism.”

MacArthur goes on to write about the “damning error” that is Catholicism and notes that he has released a new 90-minute lecture called “Unmasking the Pope and the Catholic System.” He says that “the church I pastor is loaded with people who were saved out of the Catholic church. … A longtime Grace to You board member and dear friend of mine is a former Catholic. He speaks with great emotion about the bondage he and his wife lived under.”

Source

On the ECT Meetiings:

John MacArthur commented on the statement that “We together, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins against the unity, that Christ intends for all His disciples.” His objection is that Catholics should not be counted among Christ’s disciples. He recommends that Evangelicals and Catholics work independently of each other, and avoid common effort.

-They also disagreed with the prohibition against “sheep stealing.” John MacArthur said that "the Catholic Church…is the single most fertile ground for evangelism that exists in this community in which I minister."

Source

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**## I see Mr. Macarthur has been taken in by the myth that Catholicism is of Babylonian origin; like so many other preachers & sites. search for the name “Tammuz” here: **http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231474

No wonder he thinks we’re benighted heathens.** **

A sample:

**

Semiramis gave birth to a son, this is what was taught in these Babylonian religions. Semiramis gave birth to a son who was conceived by a sunbeam,

**## There is no evidence at all for such a thing, since no such character existed. “Semiramis” seems to be a composite character, made up of an historical Assyrian queen, & a goddess or two. It would be interesting to know where that sunbeam detail comes from.

**Statements about Babylonian religion can’t be made without evidence - & there is no evidence of any such teaching in that religion. Perhaps because it was not a teaching religion, unlike Catholicism. If there is no reason to think a thing was taught - it cannot be said to have been taught. Since the Tammuz myth is very different from what is said here, those statements about Semiramis & Tammuz, Lent, etc., can be ignored, as it is a “cunningly devised myth”. **

**Which means that the results said to be the historical results of this fiction, did not happen either. ****Which means that the argument of the anti-Catholic work behind Macarthur’s ****account ****collapses in ruins. ##

had no father, what’s that a counterfeit of the Virgin birth. The name of the son, by the way was Tammuz and Semiramis offered Tammuz as the worlds deliverer.

**

When grown Tammuz was killed, according to the story by a wild boar, and slain and he was dead, for forty days Semiramis wept and fasted, and at the 40th day Tammuz rose from the dead. You know where Lent comes from? Not the Bible. That’s where it comes from. The mishmash of Babylonian systems with Christianity."

For something accurate about Tammuz [aka Dumuzi] instead, go here: http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html

Since the Mass is sometimes explained as Babylonian, it is to MacArthur’s credit that he does not copy this fable. He does seem to rely on Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism” for some of his information & sources - which is better, though not a lot. ##

 

[sandusky]

Iraneaus:

I thought it was rather obvious. The post before it was asked what his teachings were.

I see; I thought you had some particular reason for specifically citing those two teachings, but you really don’t? You just offered them because they were attacks on MacArthur’s statements?

Iraneaus:

Why? I mean honestly. If I read anything new that he had said that I thought needed a fresh perspective or refutation then I would offer one. There are countless refutations to his teachings on the internet, and multitudes on this very site to his primary points of veiw. I have spent plenty of time on other forums having theological debates with others, but I just did not feel any further explanation warranted my time at the moment. Would it really have made any difference, or would you like a reason to attack me personally?

I didn’t ask for an explanation of why you didn’t analyze and comment on what you offered; I asked if you would analyze and comment on them; apparently you didn’t understand what I wrote.

Iraneaus:

Wait is that a label, you are assuming I am indignant when you just asserted that I offered no personal thought on the matter.

Yes, I assumed you were indignant about MacArthur’s statements, but I was wrong; you could care less about Bynum’s exception, but enjoyed it nevertheless because it attacked MacArthur’s statements, correct?
Iranaeus:

For the record, I have no problem naming the source. Here check it out for yourself here.

I know who the source is.

I am puzzled. What is it that you like about Bynum as a source?

 

[Iraneaus]

I see; I thought you had some particular reason for specifically citing those two teachings, but you really don’t? You just offered them because they were attacks on MacArthur’s statements?

No I cited them because I agree with them, does that count? I thought it did.

I didn’t ask for an explanation of why you didn’t analyze and comment on what you offered; I asked if you would analyze and comment on them; apparently you didn’t understand what I wrote.

No I understood it fine. The implied answer was, no I don’t care to and here is why. Perhaps you did not understand the answer.

Yes, I assumed you were indignant about MacArthur’s statements,

Thanks

but I was wrong; you could care less about Bynum’s exception, but enjoyed it nevertheless because it attacked MacArthur’s statements, correct?

No I took up particular issue with his view of Christ’s Blood and its significance. That is a particularly troubling viewpoint for me.
Your use of the word exception however is interesting.

I know who the source is.
I am puzzled. What is it that you like about Bynum as a source?

Not a whole lot really. But I did agree with a lot of what he was saying on this solitary issue. I did not go out looking for something he had written, I simply came across it while looking up MacArthur’s viewpoints. Regardless though do you have any comment on the matter or would you just like to continue questioning me instead?

 

[sandusky]

Iraneaus:

No I took up particular issue with his view of Christ’s Blood and its significance. That is a particularly troubling viewpoint for me.

Will you tell me what is so troubling to you about MacArthur’s statement concerning the Blood?

 

[AlegreFe]

… But subtle teaching that appears to be biblical yet pulls unwary souls away from the faith is a great danger to the church. (MacArthur’s Bible study guide, Avoiding Spiritual Counterfeiters, p. 17)

His teachings on “self worth” and the the Blood of Christ would be great examples of misleading teachings.

Although this man thinks he is for Christ, he is not. He is totally against Catholics without thorough study of the faith. He is judging Catholics and the leaders of the Church. He shows no love and compassion, he only thinks he does.
I fear for his soul tremendously.

40 For whoever is not against us is for us.
41 Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink
because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you,
will surely not lose his reward.
42 "Whoever causes one of these little
ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would
be better for him if a great millstone were
put around his neck and he were thrown
into the sea. Mk 9:40-42

Even if a Catholic only goes through the motions in the Church and believes in Jesus, that is faith in the measure that God gave that person. If at least, a Catholic obeys the Church and still believes that Jesus died for his sins, he believes in Jesus. But then to pull these Catholics away from Jesus when they already have Jesus right here is not good. It goes right back to the passage in Mark chapter 9. That is the way that I see it.

 

[AlegreFe]

This man is unleashed and the devil loves it! This is MacArther’s quote that Unfinished quoted. The red of course, is mine, and the faces too.

We…we struggle with this, Lord, because it’s so dishonoring to You. We want to make a whip and clean it out. It is a
den of thieves. ??? It is a den of thieves,
stripping people of their money and their souls in Your name. ??? How it must horrify heaven, but our horror also is mingled with grief for the millions upon millions of people who are captive to this system and don’t even know what they teach, but
worship a dead woman, Mary, ??? Don’t insult my Mother! She is ALIVE with Jesus Christ in Heaven! And we do NOT Worship or Adore Mary!
worship a box with bread in it ??? That is a Tabernacle and Jesus Christ is there!! and never the true and living God who trust in
a priest who may have a wretched heart and not in the Lord Jesus Christ, ??? the holy harmless undefiled one and only true great High Priest by whom access to You is given. Help us, Lord, to understand these things and to rejoice that we know the truth and have been delivered, many of us, from
this satanic system. ??? Only the Devil wants us all to believe that the Catholic Church is satanic!
Help us to be eager to share the true gospel with those we know. We pray in the Lord’s name. This is NOT in the Lord’s name who accuses us of such atrocities without evidence! Amen. NO! NOT Amen!

All in all, this is very sad. I fear for his soul.

 

[PhilVaz]

MacArthur is clearly ignorant of Church history and buys into the “Jack Chick” and “Alexander Hislop” and “Dave Hunt” style anti-Catholicism. Even though many of his books would be acceptable to Catholic doctrine, like "Faith Works" (re-published 2005 and now titled simply The Gospel According to the Apostles). I’ve listened to the GTY program off and on since 1988.

Phil P

 

[lak611]

Not a whole lot really. But I did agree with a lot of what he was saying on this solitary issue. I did not go out looking for something he had written, I simply came across it while looking up MacArthur’s viewpoints. Regardless though do you have any comment on the matter or would you just like to continue questioning me instead?

Is Bynum a co-worker or friend of MacArthur?

 

[pnewton]

Having a Christian ministry that tries to convert Catholics is not being a fisher of men. It is like going fishing and stealing another man’s stringer of fish to claim as your catch.

 

[lak611]

Having a Christian ministry that tries to convert Catholics is not being a fisher of men. It is like going fishing and stealing another man’s stringer of fish to claim as your catch.

:yup: Christian ministries need to focus on converting non-Christians. But then again, this man has a false belief that Catholics aren’t Christians!

 

[Fidelis]

Quote:
John MacArthur commented on the statement that “We together, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins against the unity, that Christ intends for all His disciples.” His objection is that Catholics should not be counted among Christ’s disciples. He recommends that Evangelicals and Catholics work independently of each other, and avoid common effort.

-They also disagreed with the prohibition against “sheep stealing.” John MacArthur said that "the Catholic Church…is the single most fertile ground for evangelism that exists in this community in which I minister."

Kind of says it all, don’t it?

It is impossible to have empathetic fellowship with those who do not see you as a Christian, but only as a pathetic target.