S
sandusky
Guest
Thank you Mickey.
Forgive me, I did not mean to put words in your mouth, but only wanted to clarify that my views are my own.
Ever hear of John MacArthur? He is a particularly hostile Protestant.
- Status
Forgive me, I did not mean to put words in your mouth, but only wanted to clarify that my views are my own.
S
sandusky
Guest
Indeed.
“I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.”—Paul, The Apostle of the Heart Set Free.
S
setter
Guest
I leave you on this point of agreement. God bless you in your salvation journey home.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Originally Posted by Gottle of Geer:
But what is that impression based on ? “Salvation is not based on” a lot of things. People cannot always be held responsible for the impressions of others; as a Calvinist can surely appreciate. If so, then why not apply that to Catholics too ? Muslims would have a very odd notion of Christian belief if they relied on a dozen or so sermons from Sermonaudio.com & nothing else. A funeral, Papal or no, is not the place for a disquisition on soteriology. ISTM it’s being criticised for being what it did not set out to be.
Me? I don’t believe it (since you suggest it); any more than Calvinists believe that salvation by grace alone is a licence to sin. If people misinterpret what they hear, that is not always the fault of the speaker: error is sometimes in the eye (or ear, or heart) of the beholder.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Originally Posted by Gottle-of-Geer:
sandusky:
sandusky:
I’m sorry to “drone”
- but why should criticisms go unanswered, if they can be ? ##
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.
sandusky:
sandusky:
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.Thank you, but that does not mean he understood those things. What things ? I still don’t know - all I do know, is that he remarks on certain matters - it doesn’t follow he discussed them in any depth; If he understood, the transcripts suggest that he did not. I’ll read them.
If he’s inaccurate, Catholics do not have to accept he is accurate. Object, but please don’t expect us to accept as true what we know is not true. However false our faith may seem to you, it looks true to us. Please try to understand this, even though you can’t agree. ##
An opportunity for…? You quoted my profile, asked (or seemed to ask) for an explanation of something in it, so you were given what you seemed to ask for. If that’s not what you wanted, please clarify.
If you are free as a Christian to criticise people we respect, is it wrong for us to criticise one you respect, as long as we explain why ? Fair’s fair - objections don’t oblige us to submit tamely to them if we can see they are mistaken. We are not obliged to see our faith through the eyes of its critics alone.I’m sorry to “drone”
- but why should criticisms go unanswered, if they can be ? ##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.
Quote:
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.Thank you, but that does not mean he understood those things. What things ? I still don’t know - all I do know, is that he remarks on certain matters - it doesn’t follow he discussed them in any depth; If he understood, the transcripts suggest that he did not. I’ll read them.
If he’s inaccurate, Catholics do not have to accept he is accurate. Object, but please don’t expect us to accept as true what we know is not true. However false our faith may seem to you, it looks true to us. Please try to understand this, even though you can’t agree. ##
I’ve answered that.
…just a bit more to come - sorry…]
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I’ve been responding to you, not to him, except indirectly - so that has not been a priority.
So here’s one (just for now): he derives the veneration of the BVM from veneration of Semiramis; but, as pointed out several posts ago, the lady is a fiction. You asked for a misrepresentation - & it was given before you asked. If you want more detail as to why “Semiramis” is a fiction, askTo think that our POV regarding the BVM is based on such a fiction, is almost to guarantee that one will misunderstand the Catholic POV regarding her.
The difficulty in discussing his criticisms is that our ideas about the BVM can’t be reduced to headlines - his criticisms need discussionir, but so do our faith, theology, & doctrine. A 5000-character limit does not allow one to say much: for our beliefs, & yours, are complexes of ideas; touch one, & all echo. You want an answer, you deserve one - it can’t be a headline. The WCF isn’t a set of headlines; neither is our faith.
You’ve not shown that he understood the facts - nor (more importantly) does he. Many Catholics know that Calvinists honour the WCF - does it necessarily follow that Catholics understand it ? ##
I’ve not read the whole thing: I do have other things to do - as I’m sure you do. If he says what’s untrue about Catholic things (& he does), it’s untrue. There may be 1000 good reasons why someone does that: it does not alter what’s said.
Originally Posted by 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.
I’m sorry to hear it; but that doesn’t make the distinction invalid. The distinction between facts & understanding saves his reputation, if not for understanding, at least for honesty. Some people don’t much care for analysis of things - some of us think it’s important, essential indeed
Gottle-of-Geer:
L
lak611
Guest
I never have either. Priests have always preached about the Catholic faith, but I have never heard one mention any particular Protestant or Protestant denomination at all.
S
sandusky
Guest
Gottle-of-Geer:
What bothered me is that several, not even the majority, but several different Catholic Clergy of varying ranks equated access to heaven with living a good life.
Gottle-of-Geer:
Gottle-of-Geer:
IOW, the sermons were not written by MacArthur. He does not type out a sermon and read it, but speaks from an outline of points; his sermons are recorded, and then transcribed. I wish that more attention to detail was paid by the transcribers, but that is not my call.
Gottle-of-Geer:
there.
I understood what a Barth affirming, Tulip loving etc., was. What I was asking for was an explanation of why the Hebrews passage we were discussing does not exclude the mass, and I wanted that from a Barth affirming, Tulip loving, CathProt.
Gottle-of-Geer:
.
Gottle-of-Geer:
The reason I didn’t ask for an explanation is that I have my doubts concerning Hislop; Hislop, whether fact or fiction, is never included in my argument. I can see the error in the veneration of the BVM in the claim that it is based upon Scripture, and Tradition. Scripture, and Catholic Tradition are contradictory IMO, particularly in this case: the veneration of the BVM.
Gottle-of-Geer:
Gottle-of-Geer:
It is not an issue that is beyond the comprehension of anyone but a Catholic. To claim that it is, or even to infer that, is cultish, IMO.
I understand that people cannot always be held responsible for the impressions of others; that is not what bothered me.
What bothered me is that several, not even the majority, but several different Catholic Clergy of varying ranks equated access to heaven with living a good life.
Gottle-of-Geer:
Misinterpretation was not my concern; the accolades were clear: JPII lived a good and charitable life, etc.;amongst those accolades was occasionally given that that is how one attains eternal life; those making that claim should know better.
Gottle-of-Geer:
I’m sorry Michael. I thought I said at least initially, and a few times following, that those were transcripts of preached sermons.
IOW, the sermons were not written by MacArthur. He does not type out a sermon and read it, but speaks from an outline of points; his sermons are recorded, and then transcribed. I wish that more attention to detail was paid by the transcribers, but that is not my call.
Gottle-of-Geer:
I should have put a
there.I understood what a Barth affirming, Tulip loving etc., was. What I was asking for was an explanation of why the Hebrews passage we were discussing does not exclude the mass, and I wanted that from a Barth affirming, Tulip loving, CathProt.
Gottle-of-Geer:
That was part of the above
.Gottle-of-Geer:
I will give a partial nod to that, as you yourself referred to that as a “dodgy foundation.” Clearly the CC claims to base the veneration of the BVM on the Scripture, and Tradition.
The reason I didn’t ask for an explanation is that I have my doubts concerning Hislop; Hislop, whether fact or fiction, is never included in my argument. I can see the error in the veneration of the BVM in the claim that it is based upon Scripture, and Tradition. Scripture, and Catholic Tradition are contradictory IMO, particularly in this case: the veneration of the BVM.
Gottle-of-Geer:
Again, a partial nod; what you say is true only if the POV is based solely on that fiction and nothing else. MacArthur’s primary thrust with any criticism of anything theological is how it lines up with Scripture, not necessarily how it lines up with another theologian.
Gottle-of-Geer:
I disagree with you Michael. That implies that the veneration of the BVM is somehow more difficult to understand than the WCF. The issue that n-c’s have with the veneration of the BVM is a simple one: is it right, or is it wrong according to the Scripture.
It is not an issue that is beyond the comprehension of anyone but a Catholic. To claim that it is, or even to infer that, is cultish, IMO.
R
rtconstant
Guest
[q]I disagree with you Michael. That implies that the veneration of the BVM is somehow more difficult to understand than the WCF.[/q]
No it doesn’t most protestants understand it perfectly well when it is explained to them. They’ve just never had a chance to hear an explanation except possibly from propaganda. To learn all you have to do is ask and listen.
As to deciding whether or not it lines up with scripture well one has to understand the concept before they can line it up with anything.
No it doesn’t most protestants understand it perfectly well when it is explained to them. They’ve just never had a chance to hear an explanation except possibly from propaganda. To learn all you have to do is ask and listen.
As to deciding whether or not it lines up with scripture well one has to understand the concept before they can line it up with anything.
L
lak611
Guest
This would only apply to Calvinists, right? As far as I know, Arminians (who are also Protestant) would have nothing to do with the Westminster Confession.
R
rtconstant
Guest
I wasn’t thinking in terms of denomination at all actually. I meant just individual protestants. I’m the only Catholic where I work and most of the protestants that I work with are very devout. We discuss theology often and when I explain the Catholic point of view on the saints or Mary they really don’t find it hard to understand nor do they find it troublesome. Most are usually glad for the clarification.
I’m not saying they necessarily agree with it but they don’t find it dangerous or heretical. To answer you more directly I would say that some are at least partially Calvinist (being either Baptist or Presbyterian). My area also has a strong Church of Christ representation I’m however not sure which they would fall into.
L
lak611
Guest
From Wikipedia: The theology of Churches of Christ is basically Arminian, although not often referred to as such. Original Sin and the idea of Total Depravity from which it ensues are rejected, although the human predilection to sin due to temptations and the limitations of human nature is affirmed. Election and predestination are functions of the exercise of free will – those who freely choose God’s way through Christ are elect and hence saved, others are lost. This decision can be changed based on the believer’s behavior – he or she can consciously elect to cease following Christ and hence be lost (“fallen from grace”), but can be restored upon repentance. God’s sacrifice of Christ provided sufficient grace to save all persons from their sins, but it is incumbent upon them to accept Christ’s will and follow Him for this grace to save them personally.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Sand << I agree; none of you can deliver on this final point, namely, that MacArthur has materially misrepresented the Catholic Church…No one has provided any factual misrepresentation made by MacArthur concerning the Catholic Church. >>
When MacArthur quotes the Catechism, the Council of Trent, or Vatican II documents, he is not misrepresenting the Catholic Church. When he goes on to say, “therefore the Catholic Church teaches X…” The X is where the misrepresentation comes in, whether we’re talking Mary, the Pope, the priesthood, Justification and Salvation, or sacraments and grace, etc.
For example: “If he believes his salvation is provided only through grace by faith in Jesus Christ, he could be saved. But, if he accepts the full sweep of Catholic dogma, there’s no way. He has cluttered up the simplicity of salvation with a works/righteousness system.”
“Works/righteousness” means salvation is earned. You won’t find that in Trent or the Catechism which specifically rejects the idea salvation is earned. He also thinks no Catholic can be saved.
More examples: "We could talk about the idea that God is a tough guy, and if anybody wants grace out of God, it’s only Jesus who could get it from Him; but you can’t expect to go to Jesus because He’s pretty tough himself, so you need to go to Mary, because nobody can resist his mother… "
That’s baloney too, you won’t find that in the official sources of doctrine. If he would just stick with the official sources (Catechism, etc) but he does not. The above is a misrepresentation, a material misrepresentation of official Catholic teaching.
More, on Mary: “We could talk a lot about those things; concepts of purgatory, concepts of the sinlessness of Mary, the virgin birth of Mary, a lot of things about Catholic theology…”
The virgin birth of Mary? Please give me the Catholic document that speaks of the “virgin birth of Mary.” If he means the Immaculate Conception, fine, that is Catholic doctrine. If he means the Virgin Birth of Christ, fine, that is Catholic doctrine. But he doesn’t say that. He says the “virgin birth of Mary.” That is not Catholic doctrine, that is just ignorance.
More, on pastors and priests: “They also possess pastoral power, and the way they define that is quite interesting. In the Catholic dogma, it is refined as – defined as legislative, judicial and punitive. Their idea of pastoral work is not comfort and care and compassion. It is legislative, judicial and punitive.”
Show me the Catholic document (Catechism, etc) that says pastoral ministry does not involve comfort, care, and compassion.
More, on papal infallibility: “He never makes a mistake, and nothing he says, therefore, can ever be altered.”
Show me the Catholic document (Vatican I, etc) that says papal infallibility means the Pope never makes a mistake and nothing he says can ever be altered.
After quoting a lot from the Council of Trent, MacArthur says:
“That is why in the history of the Catholic church, nothing ever changes. The church absorbs its dissidents. It absorbs its immoral. ?] It absorbs its heretics. It absorbs everybody, and perpetuates the system. The one thing the Catholic church cannot tolerate is any kind of schism. And so it just keeps absorbing the dissidents in the perpetration of the system. And, therefore, it is full of all wretched kinds of beliefs, all levels of immorality and all different kinds of disregard for Catholic law down through the laity.”
That’s nice, but you won’t find any of that in the official sources: Catechism, Trent, Vatican II and the Councils, etc. When a person is excommunicated, he is not absorbed. Show me the official Catholic document that says heretics and schismatics are “absorbed.” If you can’t, that is a material misrepresentation of official Catholic doctrine. “Absorbed” is not a Catholic term, that is a MacArthur misrepresentation.
(The above from The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood, 2002 by John MacArthur)
He also doesn’t know anything about Church history when he suggests the Catholic Church was invented at the time of Constantine, or that the Catholic Church takes her doctrines from Babylonian paganism (i.e. The Two Babylons by Hislop), or that the Fathers have anything to do with his evangelical fundamentalist Protestant doctrines (he has quoted St. John Chrysostom by name on his GTY program). That shows a complete ignorance of early Church history, the Church Fathers, and the history of Christian doctrine. I suggest a good reading of JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines or Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition (volume 1).
Phil P
When MacArthur quotes the Catechism, the Council of Trent, or Vatican II documents, he is not misrepresenting the Catholic Church. When he goes on to say, “therefore the Catholic Church teaches X…” The X is where the misrepresentation comes in, whether we’re talking Mary, the Pope, the priesthood, Justification and Salvation, or sacraments and grace, etc.
For example: “If he believes his salvation is provided only through grace by faith in Jesus Christ, he could be saved. But, if he accepts the full sweep of Catholic dogma, there’s no way. He has cluttered up the simplicity of salvation with a works/righteousness system.”
“Works/righteousness” means salvation is earned. You won’t find that in Trent or the Catechism which specifically rejects the idea salvation is earned. He also thinks no Catholic can be saved.
More examples: "We could talk about the idea that God is a tough guy, and if anybody wants grace out of God, it’s only Jesus who could get it from Him; but you can’t expect to go to Jesus because He’s pretty tough himself, so you need to go to Mary, because nobody can resist his mother… "
That’s baloney too, you won’t find that in the official sources of doctrine. If he would just stick with the official sources (Catechism, etc) but he does not. The above is a misrepresentation, a material misrepresentation of official Catholic teaching.
More, on Mary: “We could talk a lot about those things; concepts of purgatory, concepts of the sinlessness of Mary, the virgin birth of Mary, a lot of things about Catholic theology…”
The virgin birth of Mary? Please give me the Catholic document that speaks of the “virgin birth of Mary.” If he means the Immaculate Conception, fine, that is Catholic doctrine. If he means the Virgin Birth of Christ, fine, that is Catholic doctrine. But he doesn’t say that. He says the “virgin birth of Mary.” That is not Catholic doctrine, that is just ignorance.
More, on pastors and priests: “They also possess pastoral power, and the way they define that is quite interesting. In the Catholic dogma, it is refined as – defined as legislative, judicial and punitive. Their idea of pastoral work is not comfort and care and compassion. It is legislative, judicial and punitive.”
Show me the Catholic document (Catechism, etc) that says pastoral ministry does not involve comfort, care, and compassion.
More, on papal infallibility: “He never makes a mistake, and nothing he says, therefore, can ever be altered.”
Show me the Catholic document (Vatican I, etc) that says papal infallibility means the Pope never makes a mistake and nothing he says can ever be altered.
After quoting a lot from the Council of Trent, MacArthur says:
“That is why in the history of the Catholic church, nothing ever changes. The church absorbs its dissidents. It absorbs its immoral. ?] It absorbs its heretics. It absorbs everybody, and perpetuates the system. The one thing the Catholic church cannot tolerate is any kind of schism. And so it just keeps absorbing the dissidents in the perpetration of the system. And, therefore, it is full of all wretched kinds of beliefs, all levels of immorality and all different kinds of disregard for Catholic law down through the laity.”
That’s nice, but you won’t find any of that in the official sources: Catechism, Trent, Vatican II and the Councils, etc. When a person is excommunicated, he is not absorbed. Show me the official Catholic document that says heretics and schismatics are “absorbed.” If you can’t, that is a material misrepresentation of official Catholic doctrine. “Absorbed” is not a Catholic term, that is a MacArthur misrepresentation.
(The above from The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood, 2002 by John MacArthur)
He also doesn’t know anything about Church history when he suggests the Catholic Church was invented at the time of Constantine, or that the Catholic Church takes her doctrines from Babylonian paganism (i.e. The Two Babylons by Hislop), or that the Fathers have anything to do with his evangelical fundamentalist Protestant doctrines (he has quoted St. John Chrysostom by name on his GTY program). That shows a complete ignorance of early Church history, the Church Fathers, and the history of Christian doctrine. I suggest a good reading of JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines or Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition (volume 1).
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Oh, I’m not done yet. Try these on:
From The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood
MacArthur: “In the eyes of the priesthood there is an inherent uncleanness in marriage and it’s a hangover from that sort of Manichaean/Gnostic idea of the evil of the flesh. There’s an uncleanness in romantic desire. There’s an uncleanness in normal love. There’s something shameful in that. And the desire for procreation is somehow the enemy of spiritual devotion.”
Show me the official Catholic document (Catechism, etc) that there is an inherent uncleanness in marriage and we have a Manichean/Gnostic idea of the evil of the flesh, that the desire for procreation is the enemy of spiritual devotion. Where does he get that one?
Should be easy to do, right? Produce the Catholic teaching and official document on those (Catechism specifically).
MacArthur: “You know, I really…my heart goes out to priests. They are…they are literally, I think they are literally in many cases sexual time bombs, it’s only a question of when it’s going to go. That group of people in themselves has such a warped view of marriage because they’re so fixated on the sexual aspect of it. They think marriage is all about sex and procreating little Catholics.”
Show me the official Catholic document that “marriage is all about sex and procreating little Catholics.” Yes, in those exact words.
Two books on the history of celibacy:
The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundation by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius Press, 1995)
The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini (Ignatius Press, 1990)
From my Da Vinci Code article: The Bible states Jesus is spiritually married as the bridegroom to His Church, called “the Bride of Christ” (Eph 5:20-33; cf. Matt 25:1ff; Rev 21:2,9; 22:17). That is at least one good theological reason why Jesus remained single and celibate: He is married to His Church, and loves Her as a husband loves his wife. Other examples of single and celibate Jews and prophets include John the Baptist, Jeremiah the prophet, Moses probably after his encounter with God, the Essene community at Qumran, the great St. Paul the Apostle, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, according to Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc. Jesus Himself said some become eunuchs (virgins or celibates) for the sake of the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:10-12). St. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 7 it is sometimes better to remain single as he himself was; in 1 Corinthians 9 he mentions other apostles having wives, but never mentions Jesus having a wife when it would have been greatly advantageous to his argument. Jesus’ celibacy is in fact the basis for the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood. MacArthur forgets that. Or does MacArthur (like Dan Brown) think Jesus was married?
Here’s a nice one, same article again MacArthur: “There’s the scandal of an aberrant, unbiblical bizarre pagan theology of the priesthood and the Mass. There’s the scandal of the power and the grasping materialism of a satanic religious system that wants to engulf the earth.”
That’s nice. Yes this is a conclusion, not a statement of Catholic doctrine. But can you please show me where he gets the idea the priesthood and the Mass comes from paganisn and is satanic. Aside from The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, Jack Chick comic books, or Dave Hunt’s Whore of Babylon nonsense, I don’t know where you’d get that.
Again, read JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, and Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition, and my article on the Eucharist.
Phil P
From The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood
MacArthur: “In the eyes of the priesthood there is an inherent uncleanness in marriage and it’s a hangover from that sort of Manichaean/Gnostic idea of the evil of the flesh. There’s an uncleanness in romantic desire. There’s an uncleanness in normal love. There’s something shameful in that. And the desire for procreation is somehow the enemy of spiritual devotion.”
Show me the official Catholic document (Catechism, etc) that there is an inherent uncleanness in marriage and we have a Manichean/Gnostic idea of the evil of the flesh, that the desire for procreation is the enemy of spiritual devotion. Where does he get that one?
Should be easy to do, right? Produce the Catholic teaching and official document on those (Catechism specifically).
MacArthur: “You know, I really…my heart goes out to priests. They are…they are literally, I think they are literally in many cases sexual time bombs, it’s only a question of when it’s going to go. That group of people in themselves has such a warped view of marriage because they’re so fixated on the sexual aspect of it. They think marriage is all about sex and procreating little Catholics.”
Show me the official Catholic document that “marriage is all about sex and procreating little Catholics.” Yes, in those exact words.
Two books on the history of celibacy:The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundation by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius Press, 1995)
The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini (Ignatius Press, 1990)
From my Da Vinci Code article: The Bible states Jesus is spiritually married as the bridegroom to His Church, called “the Bride of Christ” (Eph 5:20-33; cf. Matt 25:1ff; Rev 21:2,9; 22:17). That is at least one good theological reason why Jesus remained single and celibate: He is married to His Church, and loves Her as a husband loves his wife. Other examples of single and celibate Jews and prophets include John the Baptist, Jeremiah the prophet, Moses probably after his encounter with God, the Essene community at Qumran, the great St. Paul the Apostle, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, according to Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc. Jesus Himself said some become eunuchs (virgins or celibates) for the sake of the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:10-12). St. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 7 it is sometimes better to remain single as he himself was; in 1 Corinthians 9 he mentions other apostles having wives, but never mentions Jesus having a wife when it would have been greatly advantageous to his argument. Jesus’ celibacy is in fact the basis for the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood. MacArthur forgets that. Or does MacArthur (like Dan Brown) think Jesus was married?
Here’s a nice one, same article again MacArthur: “There’s the scandal of an aberrant, unbiblical bizarre pagan theology of the priesthood and the Mass. There’s the scandal of the power and the grasping materialism of a satanic religious system that wants to engulf the earth.”
That’s nice. Yes this is a conclusion, not a statement of Catholic doctrine. But can you please show me where he gets the idea the priesthood and the Mass comes from paganisn and is satanic. Aside from The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, Jack Chick comic books, or Dave Hunt’s Whore of Babylon nonsense, I don’t know where you’d get that.
Again, read JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, and Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition, and my article on the Eucharist.
Phil P
F
FromTheCrossroa
Guest
Phil,
THANK YOU for doing homework. I now understand where this guy is coming from…sheesh
THANK YOU for doing homework. I now understand where this guy is coming from…sheesh
M
Mickey
Guest
Oh my–it’s worse than I imagined! :crying:
F
Fidelis
Guest
**I agree; none of you can deliver on this final point, namely, that MacArthur has materially misrepresented the Catholic Church…No one has provided any factual misrepresentation made by MacArthur concerning the Catholic Church.
**
Another anti-Catholic bigot busted by his own words!
Bravo, Phil P! :clapping:
**
Bingo!
Another anti-Catholic bigot busted by his own words!
Bravo, Phil P! :clapping:
F
flameburns623
Guest
I haven’t read this entire thread but kudos to Gottle of Geer and to Phil Vaz for stepping up to the plate and meeting Sandusky’s reasonable demand that one demonstrate where John MacArthur has made factual errors about RCC theology. I was not aware that MacArthur was so explicitly and expressly opposed to the RCC. When first I espied this thread, I rather expected to find that Catholics were being hypersensitive about the fact that MacArthur holds to different views about the Christian Faith than do Roman Catholics, without MacArthur’s expressly or mindfully attacking Catholicism itself. I see I was mistaken in that, as a number of persons have posted what appear to be clear and explicit criticisms of the RCC by MacArthur. Having established that, it remains to be shown that MacArthur’s critiques are based upon erroneous foundations.
S
sandusky
Guest
My request was very specific Phil. It had to do with the charge that MacArthur’s tape on the Papacy, at the time of the death of JPII almost caused a marriage breakup, and the charge that MacArthur’s teaching on that were misrepresentations of RCC teaching. Also included in that charge were his teachings concerning Mary and prayer to her etc. I linked to the page at GTY that contained those sermons; the sermons on Mary were to immediately follow the sermons on the Papacy, but were delayed, thus the time discrepancy of their recording.
I did not assert that MacArthur has never misrepresented anyone at anytime as that would be foolish of me; I have not read everything MacArthur has written, neither have heard every word that he has spoken.
Do you understand that?
Although I do not need to read any of the links that you have provided, because they are outside of the specific request that I made on this thread, I have read through the immediate context of each of the links only for the quotations that you have provided; I have not read the links in their entirety; again, I don’t need to.
I will start from the top, and stop when I want to stop.
PhilVaz:
I have no problem with what MacArthur says there. He is not attributing anything to Trent or the Catechsim, but is saying that Catholic soteriology is not scriptural; he is entitled to argue that position.
He agrees with me on that. As far his saying that no Catholic can be saved; I don’t go that far, but the argument he gives for that is scriptural, and well-reasoned. For me, however, there are other considerations.
As a side note, I think the RCC teaches salvation by works, and here’s why: I find the overwhelming teaching of scripture to be that works are completely excluded with respect to justification. The RCC makes only a half-claim to that by saying that works are excluded from justification initially; subsequent to that initial justification, the church teaches that the Catholic can lose his justification each time he performs badly; and as often as he performs badly, and loses his justification, the Catholic must just as often avail himself of the sacrament of penance, by performing a corresponding good work(s) of penance; that is a true teaching of the RCC; therefore, I conclude, that the Catholic Church does not exclude works from justification completely; if works are not completely excluded from justification then Catholic justification must be by works.
I have read the RCC teachings concerning workings of grace, and merit, and so on and so forth, with respect to justification, and many of the disclaimers put forth, but the bottom line for me is that if the Catholic can lose his justification, it can only be that his justification is based upon his performance—his works. That is my opinion, and one of the reasons I am no longer a Catholic.
I’ve discussed that on other threads; I am not wont to discuss it any further.
(continued below)
I did not assert that MacArthur has never misrepresented anyone at anytime as that would be foolish of me; I have not read everything MacArthur has written, neither have heard every word that he has spoken.
Do you understand that?
Although I do not need to read any of the links that you have provided, because they are outside of the specific request that I made on this thread, I have read through the immediate context of each of the links only for the quotations that you have provided; I have not read the links in their entirety; again, I don’t need to.
I will start from the top, and stop when I want to stop.
You say, ”he also thinks…,” Therefore, you understand that what he is saying is his opinion, correct? Then what’s your problem? You don’t like his opinion? Too bad.
I have no problem with what MacArthur says there. He is not attributing anything to Trent or the Catechsim, but is saying that Catholic soteriology is not scriptural; he is entitled to argue that position.
He agrees with me on that. As far his saying that no Catholic can be saved; I don’t go that far, but the argument he gives for that is scriptural, and well-reasoned. For me, however, there are other considerations.
As a side note, I think the RCC teaches salvation by works, and here’s why: I find the overwhelming teaching of scripture to be that works are completely excluded with respect to justification. The RCC makes only a half-claim to that by saying that works are excluded from justification initially; subsequent to that initial justification, the church teaches that the Catholic can lose his justification each time he performs badly; and as often as he performs badly, and loses his justification, the Catholic must just as often avail himself of the sacrament of penance, by performing a corresponding good work(s) of penance; that is a true teaching of the RCC; therefore, I conclude, that the Catholic Church does not exclude works from justification completely; if works are not completely excluded from justification then Catholic justification must be by works.
I have read the RCC teachings concerning workings of grace, and merit, and so on and so forth, with respect to justification, and many of the disclaimers put forth, but the bottom line for me is that if the Catholic can lose his justification, it can only be that his justification is based upon his performance—his works. That is my opinion, and one of the reasons I am no longer a Catholic.
I’ve discussed that on other threads; I am not wont to discuss it any further.
(continued below)
S
sandusky
Guest
(continued from post #176)
That is not a material misrepresentation, Phil, as you yourself say:
On a side note, my step-father (and his wife), who is an RCIA instructor, and a Eucharistic Minister, when queried as to why Catholics pray to Mary, states that “God is busy with other things,” and “Christ is a tough judge…but can’t resist his mother” I have a Catholic neighbor who says similar things. When I asked my wife for her thoughts on this, she said she has heard more than one Catholic say, “how can a Jewish boy resist his mother?”
There are Catholics who think that, Phil.
PhilVaz:
PhilVaz:
PhilVaz:
Nobody likes to be criticized, fairly, or unfairly, Phil. Many of you on this thread have been at least as unfair toward MacArthur with the statements that you have made against him, as you claim that he has been toward you and the RCC in the statements he has made.
But the fact is, that for MacArthur, and me, as well as for the RCC, and for each of you individually, that’s life.
I will look for the books you recommended, and thank you for the titles; I will read them, but not immediately.
PhilVaz said:
That is not a material misrepresentation, Phil, as you yourself say:
You say he is not quoting official sources, Phil, so what’s your problem? As I see it, you don’t like his opinion, and you don’t like his criticism. Too bad.
On a side note, my step-father (and his wife), who is an RCIA instructor, and a Eucharistic Minister, when queried as to why Catholics pray to Mary, states that “God is busy with other things,” and “Christ is a tough judge…but can’t resist his mother” I have a Catholic neighbor who says similar things. When I asked my wife for her thoughts on this, she said she has heard more than one Catholic say, “how can a Jewish boy resist his mother?”
There are Catholics who think that, Phil.
You are quibbling Phil; that was a slip of the tongue. Does John G. McCarthy ring a bell? If not see post #52 and 55 on this thread; a slip of the tongue.
As Catholics are quick point out Phil, you’ve raised the issue, it’s your responsibility to show me.
In what you presented, the immediate context is the Pope’s decisions are irreformable when he “speaks ex-cathedra.” What’s the problem?
Nobody likes to be criticized, fairly, or unfairly, Phil. Many of you on this thread have been at least as unfair toward MacArthur with the statements that you have made against him, as you claim that he has been toward you and the RCC in the statements he has made.
But the fact is, that for MacArthur, and me, as well as for the RCC, and for each of you individually, that’s life.
I will look for the books you recommended, and thank you for the titles; I will read them, but not immediately.
- Status