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

[jim1130]

Is there any profit in being anti-Catholic?

Big bucks to be amade. They feed on people’s emotions and fears.

 

[djrakowski]

The prayer begins with the words “Hail Mary” and continues with the blasphemous petition, “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners”. The prayer is addressed to Mary and the ordinary expectation of Catholics is that it is Mary who will hear and answer the prayer. No Biblical warrant exists that she can hear such a prayer, that she would accept what equates to worship on her behalf, nor that she has the power to answer such prayers if she could know of them. Certainly she would disavow any claim to being the ‘mother of God’.

Folks, these claims by flameburns623 are quite staggering if you look at them closely. Basically, he’s asserting that a directly scriptural claim is blasphemous. Either that, or he missed the following:

Luke 1:41-43 (NIV) - “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’”

Did Mary object when Elizabeth said this? If not, then why do you?

flameburns623, would you care to tell us other scriptures that you find blasphemous?

You’re Anglican, right? Are you aware that there are Anglicans who have devotions to the saints, including Mary? And that there are some who pray the Rosary?

 

[flameburns623]

Jesus = God
Mary = Jesus’ Mother
Mary is the Mother of God.

The proper understanding is that Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Bearer of God: ***Theotokos ***in the Greek.

The mother of a thing is it’s author, it’s source, it’s life-spring. God is the eternally uncreated, unborn, self-existent One. Christ is True God and True Man, but Mary is not the mother of His Divinity. While Christ’s human nature is hypostatically linked to His Divine nature, it is His humanity exclusively of which Mary is the source. She is NOT the mother of God. God has no mother. She was merely the vessel of Deity, in a unique sense.

Certainly {Mary} would disavow any claim to being the ‘mother of God’.

If so, she would have to be extraordinarily obtuse.

It is English-speaking Roman Catholics who are singularly obtuse. They ascribe to a sinful woman an attribute that no human being can possibly possess. I understand the need to refute Nestorianism, but here’s a newsflash: the Nestorians have died off, centuries ago. And in any case, one heresy does not justify another. The original formulation–“Theotokos”, “bearer of God” was correct. The English translation is wrong-headed.

Which takes us far afield from John MacArthur. My apologies to the OP and all those striving to remain on-point.

 

[djrakowski]

It is English-speaking Roman Catholics who are singularly obtuse. They ascribe to a sinful woman an attribute that no human being can possibly possess. I understand the need to refute Nestorianism, but here’s a newsflash: the Nestorians have died off, centuries ago. And in any case, one heresy does not justify another. The original formulation–“Theotokos”, “bearer of God” was correct. The English translation is wrong-headed.

Perhaps you need to consider taking this up with Eastern Catholics, whose native language is not typically English. Not only that, but this is Catholic teaching that is binding not just on the English-speaking world, but all Catholics everywhere, and demonstrably so from the earliest periods of Church history.

 

[sandusky]

I’ll re-post the following statement by MacArthur:

We have been looking at the subject of the idolatry of Mary worship in what is really a study of false religion, Roman Catholicism, and its worship of Mary. Interestingly enough I this past week had the opportunity to be on the Larry King Show, some of you probably saw it, with a whole group of Roman Catholics and several priests. And in the Green Room there were some Catholic apologists and Catholic media people, and Roman Catholic publicity people and there were some young men from the Vatican Seminary and the usual Father Manning. 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…

**It ** [de Ligouri’s book *The Glories of Mary

] is fully authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. Its latest edition that I have is a smaller abridged version of it, published by the Catholic Book Publishing Company of New York and officially stamped by the Vicar General, the Archdiocese of New York. The original was fully sanctioned as well. One of the sanctioners of this are the Redemptorist Fathers and they sanctioned an edition of it in 1931 through the Cardinal in New York City.It goes without saying that any other statements of the Church concerning Marian doctrines that MacArthur cited are authorized as well.

To recap, I have shown that the RCC in general, and individual Catholics in particular refuse criticism and correction with regard to Marian devotion.

The recent posts of pnewton and Fidelis give further insight into how that is.

pnewton:

There is a common error and misconception in both of these statements.

One can not argue over others emotions, feelings or beliefs…I say that I love my father more than my mother, no one but me has any basis for arguement…If I say my Rosary does not detract from my worship to God, it is absurdity to have an opinion on me.

Again, while you may have every right to disagree with the beliefs of others, you cross the line forbidden by Christ into judgementalism when you start assuming that you know more of what goes on in the heart of your fellow Christians, even more than they do.

Fidelis:

1. Unless you are a mind-reader, I think the person who is doing the praying should know better than you who he is praying to.
2. Even the Hail Mary ends with the invocation “pray for us now and at the hour of our death” which clearly shows the prayer is ultimately directed toward God.

What we see in pnewton’s and Fidelis’ comments are hearts embracing relativism. But, to be fair, many Catholics use that argument of relative truth to dismiss criticism of Marian devotion.

Today, society in general, and relativism in particular, argues that it is impossible for one person or group to get inside the head of another person or group, and verify, one way or the other, the meaning behind the actions of that person, or group being scrutinized; thus, the relativist frees himself to do whatever he chooses, claiming that no one can rightly judge him, or his group; if it “feels good” do it; scripture calls that argument (self)-deception.

pnewton:

You and J Mac can continue to say that what we do is worship of Mary, but you both lack total authority for such comments. That level of judgement belongs to God alone.

”That level of judgment belongs to God alone,” says pnewton; however, God does not forbid His people judging others; to the contrary, one must have the ability to judge, or one cannot recognize right from wrong; besides, judgment is a communicable attribute of God that man possesses.

The authority for that judgment is found in the scripture.

The Christian understands that it is what “comes out” of the heart that defiles the man; so then, all that is necessary for the Christian to do is to observe what comes out of the heart, and compare it to scripture to know whether or not the heart being observed is defiled; in this case, the contents of the heart were affirmed by those MacArthur queried in the green room.

Thus, one can argue “over those emotions, feelings, beliefs,” when one has been assured that those emotions, feelings, beliefs “are the things to which they, [the ones holding those emotions, feelings, beliefs] are truly and genuinely devoted;” one is able to rightly judge, when one understands that such devotion is against God (cf 1 Cor 2:14-16).

One will search the NT in vain to find Jesus, or the apostles praying to anyone but the Father; likewise, one will search the OT in vain to find anyone praying to someone other than God being called anything but an idolator, a harlot, and such.

 

[Mickey]

I understand the need to refute Nestorianism, but here’s a newsflash: the Nestorians have died off, centuries ago.

Then stop trying to revive it!

 

[Mickey]

To recap, I have shown that the RCC in general, and individual Catholics in particular refuse criticism and correction with regard to Marian devotion.

You have shown nothing of the sort.

 

[Fidelis]

The recent posts of pnewton and Fidelis give further insight into how that is.What we see in pnewton’s and Fidelis’ comments are hearts embracing relativism. But, to be fair, many Catholics use that argument of relative truth to dismiss criticism of Marian devotion.

Today, society in general, and relativism in particular, argues that it is impossible for one person or group to get inside the head of another person or group, and verify, one way or the other, the meaning behind the actions of that person, or group being scrutinized; thus, the relativist frees himself to do whatever he chooses, claiming that no one can rightly judge him, or his group; if it “feels good” do it; scripture calls that argument (self)-deception.

To equate to fact that one cannot look into anothers mind and judge his motivation with relativism is absolute nonsense. If I accuse you of worshipping the Bible because you happen to be holding one when you pray, would it be relativism on your part to deny it?

The Christian understands that it is what “comes out” of the heart that defiles the man; so then, all that is necessary for the Christian to do is to observe what comes out of the heart, and compare it to scripture to know whether or not the heart being observed is defiled; in this case, the contents of the heart were affirmed by those MacArthur queried in the green room.

Excuse me, but that passage says nothing about the *individual Christian *making that judgment. All will be judged by God, not by John MacArthur and his sychophants.

To recap, I have shown that the RCC in general, and individual Catholics in particular refuse criticism and correction with regard to Marian devotion.

Perhaps in your own decieved mind you have, but have you considered maybe – just maybe – that nobody buys this guff because you are WRONG?

 

[sandusky]

Fidelis:

To equate to fact that one cannot look into anothers mind and judge his motivation with relativism is absolute nonsense.

It is relativism.

Here are the statements:

One can not argue over others emotions, feelings or beliefs…

I say that I love my father more than my mother, no one but me has any basis for arguement…

If I say my Rosary does not detract from my worship to God, it is absurdity to have an opinion on me.

Unless you are a mind-reader, I think the person who is doing the praying should know better than you who he is praying to.

You maintain that within the context of the language of your heart, and within the context of the language of your sect—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—can only rightly be judged by the one latriaing, duliaing, and hyperduliaing.

Furthermore, it is a cognitive relativism in that the claims of the truth or falsity of your statements are relative to your particular sect, namely, Catholics do not latria Mary, they hyperdulia Mary; Catholics do not pray to Mary, but through Mary, and, Catholics have had this relationship with Mary for more than 2,000 years; therefore, only Catholics can judge rightly concerning their relationship with Mary.

OTOH, it would be absurd of you to accuse me of worshipping the Bible because I happen to be holding one when I pray.

Unless of course, you first asked me if I was indeed praying to the Bible; if I answered yes, then your accusation is not absurd; if I answer no, it is.

And that is what MacArthur did—he checked whether or not he had his facts right with respect to Catholic devotion to Mary, and he was told that he did, and he judged Catholic devotion to Mary to be wrong within the context of Scripture—a language you claim is common to us both.

Fidelis:

Excuse me, but that passage says nothing about the individual Christian making that judgment.

I never said it did; I cited 1 Cor 2:14-16.

Fidelis:

Perhaps in your own decieved mind you have, but have you considered maybe – just maybe – NOBODY BUYS THIS…?

Now you are a mind-reader!

 

[jim1130]

sandusky:

We have been looking at the subject of the idolatry of Mary worship in what is really a study of false religion, Roman Catholicism, and its worship of Mary. Interestingly enough I this past week had the opportunity to be on the Larry King Show, some of you probably saw it, with a whole group of Roman Catholics and several priests. And in the Green Room there were some Catholic apologists and Catholic media people, and Roman Catholic publicity people and there were some young men from the Vatican Seminary and the usual Father Manning. 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…

Personally speaking, I am not particularly sure I am going to take MacArthur’s word on anything or his interpretation of the dialogue than ensured or the events that transpired. “Distortion” is a word that comes to mind when I think of the presentation of his material. I would be interested to know how he phrased his questions and would not mind hearing from those in the Larry King room how they answered. With only MacArthur’s word on the exchange that followed, and considering how he has presented other information, I am not going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

The Rosary, nonetheless, is a prayer.

Who ever said it wasn’t?

You have no Biblical justification believing that Saints are in any position to hear your prayers. In any case, whatever those in Heaven do (and this is likely to include prayer on behalf of us on Earth), the prayers of the Saints are addressed, rightly, to the God Who can hear and answer those prayers. Your prayers are wrongly addressed to departed souls who cannot.

No?

First look at Rev 5. The saints prayers are heard by God. Revelation does not differentiate here between alive or “alive” saints. So we will have to look elsewhere for “proof”.

In Rev 6, John witnesses the “dead saints” petitioning God for justice. Are you going to tell me thats the ONLY time they got to appear before the throne of God and offer up their petitions and worship? Were they put back to sleep after this one event?

In Rev 8, John states the prayers of ALL the saints go to the altar.

However it is sinful for us to pray to or have devotions on behalf of those who are departed. We are forbidden to worship the creature in place of their Creator.

Who is worshiping in place of the Creator? How is this done when ALL prayers and petitions are done so in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, Son & Spirit? All prayers go to God alone. The only thing a Catholic does when they pray to Mary is ask for her to agree with you in prayer. I see absolutely nothing inherently wrong with that. Mary can not answer prayer any more than you or I. No one with proper understanding of the Churches teaching would say otherwise. The focus is always to Christ, our highest priest and ultimately the Father as Christ did. It’s your personal choice to enlist saints in prayer. I don’t except when a corporate petition is offered in mass. However, I do not believe petitions made to Mary are useless prayers sitting in her heavenly voicemail box (since she’s sleeping), with God being unaware of them and our intentions to bring all prayers and petitions to Him.

With all due respect:
No Biblical warrant exists that she can hear such a prayer, that she would accept what equates to worship on her behalf, nor that she has the power to answer such prayers if she could know of them. Certainly she would disavow any claim to being the ‘mother of God’.

No Biblical warrant exists to oppose either. Welcome to sola scriptura. How the departed keep tabs on us is way beyond our comprehension or understanding. But we know they do. Moses, and Abraham were quite aware of current events when Christ talked with them. What it comes down to is you either believe the departed saints are alive in Christ or they are not. It appears you fall in the latter category.

Let me respectfully suggest you ponder your position further. If nothing else, extend a little respect and charity to those who do pray to saints. And for those of us that do pray in this manner to be equally respectful and charitable to you who choose not to believe in this way.

 

[Mickey]

and he judged Catholic devotion to Mary to be wrong

Exactly! And his conclusions are a misrepresentation of the Catholic faith based on his erroneous judgements. Hasn’t this been settled by now? Sheesh!

 

[Fidelis]

You maintain that within the context of the language of your heart, and within the context of the language of your sect—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—can only rightly be judged by the one latriaing, duliaing, and hyperduliaing

Correction: we are maintaining only that 1) Only God and an individual can definitively read what’s in that person’s heart, and 2) the definitions of these terms are what they are. If you disagree with what they mean, that’s one thing, but if you are intent on mis-representing or assigning motives to those who recognize the basic meanings of these words, that’s another. You can’t re-define them to reinforce your own predjudices.

Furthermore, it is a cognitive relativism in that the claims of the truth or falsity of your statements are relative to your particular sect, namely, Catholics do not latria Mary, they hyperdulia Mary; Catholics do not pray to Mary, but through Mary, and, Catholics have had this relationship with Mary for more than 2,000 years; therefore, only Catholics can judge rightly concerning their relationship with Mary.

The definitions of the terms themselves stand on their own. Take them or leave them, but don’t twist them.

As far as anyone person’s relationship with God or Mary or anyone else (and I’m starting to feel like a broken record), only God and an individual can definitively read what’s in that person’s heart – not you, not me, not John MacArthur, not all the anti-Catholic bigots in the world who imagine themselves mindreaders.

OTOH, it would be absurd of you to accuse me of worshipping the Bible because I happen to be holding one when I pray.

Unless of course, you first asked me if I was indeed praying to the Bible; if I answered yes, then your accusation is not absurd; if I answer no, it is.

It is too much for me to hope you can see the irony and self-contradiction in this statement.

I never said it did; I cited 1 Cor 2:14-16.

Ahem!

The Christian understands that it is what “comes out” of the heart that defiles the man; so then, all that is necessary for the Christian to do is to observe what comes out of the heart, and compare it to scripture to know whether or not the heart being observed is defiled

 

[jim1130]

May want to send people over to this thread: “Condemning Nectorianism & defending the title Mother of God”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121332

 

[sandusky]

Fidelis:

Correction: we are maintaining only that 1) Only God and an individual can definitively read what’s in that person’s heart, and 2) the definitions of these terms are what they are. If you disagree with what they mean, that’s one thing, but if you are intent on mis-representing or assigning motives to those who recognize the basic meanings of these words, that’s another. You can’t re-define them to reinforce your own predjudices.

I have not redefined anything, Fidelis; why are you whining about that?

I said, “within the context of the language of your sect—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—can only rightly be judged by the one latriaing, duliaing, and hyperduliaing. No redefining, but that your claim is that only a Catholic can rightly judge what he is doing with respect to Catholic context; where’s the redefining?

Fidelis:

As far as anyone person’s relationship with God or Mary or anyone else (and I’m starting to feel like a broken record), only God and an individual can definitively read what’s in that person’s heart – not you, not me, not John MacArthur, not all the anti-Catholic bigots in the world who imagine themselves mindreaders.

Same old, same old; praying, within Christian theology, is worship; so when you pray to Mary, you show your heart to be what it is.

As I said before, one will search the NT in vain to find Jesus, or the apostles praying to anyone but the Father; likewise, one will search the OT in vain to find anyone praying to someone other than God being called anything but an idolator, a harlot, and such.

Fidelis:

It is too much for me to hope you can see the irony and self-contradiction in this statement.

There is no irony, or self-contradiction in what I said, you just don’t understand what I said, and I’ll take partial responsibility for your misunderstanding in that my statement obviously was not clear enough for you to understand.

Your hypothetical accusation—that one worships the Bible because one is holding a Bible when he prays—is non-parallel to the accusation made by MacArthur, therefore your hypothetical is absurd.

In the context of prayer, MacArthur does not reason that Catholics are worshipping Mary because they are holding Mary in their hands while they are praying; he reasons that Catholics are worshipping Mary when, by their own admission, Catholics pray to Mary; MacArthur knows that within Christian theology, prayer is worship; therefore, he concludes that Catholics, by praying to Mary, worship Mary.

Is that clearer?

Fidelis:

The Christian understands that it is what “comes out” of the heart that defiles the man; so then, all that is necessary for the Christian to do is to observe what comes out of the heart, and compare it to scripture to know whether or not the heart being observed is defiled

As you do with Scripture, so you do with my posts—quote them out of context.

Here is what I said:

The Christian understands that it is what “comes out” of the heart that defiles the man; so then, all that is necessary for the Christian to do is to observe what comes out of the heart, and compare it to scripture to know whether or not the heart being observed is defiled; in this case, the contents of the heart were affirmed by those MacArthur queried in the green room.

Thus, one can argue “over those emotions, feelings, beliefs,” when one has been assured that those emotions, feelings, beliefs “are the things to which they, [the ones holding those emotions, feelings, beliefs] are truly and genuinely devoted;” one is able to rightly judge, when one understands that such devotion is against God (cf 1 Cor 2:14-16).

Notice the word “Thus" in the beginning of the second paragraph Fidelis? It is a transitional word that begins a conclusion from the preceding paragraph—its antecedent context—and finishes with the citation: 1 Cor 2:14-16.

What you are doing is creative reading; stop it.

 

[Fidelis]

:banghead:

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Its simple math:

John MacArthur = hostile

John MacArthur’s followers = rabid sheep

 

[Knight4God]

If I may suggest a couple of things to help the road block:

1. arguing over the meaning of the English word “prayer” is pointless, we could call it “ziggy” and what really matters is what we mean by it. Protestant theology defines the code word “prayer” as worship by definition and Catholics define the code word “prayer” by a broader “make a request” meaning. No point in arguing over the meaning of a code word in two different theologies. Which also means both sides will have to come to a common definition of what it means to “worship”.
2. Arguing over outward “forms” is also pointless. Burning a candle to someone or singing them a song is not necessarily worship. (Although it can be) Outward forms that people express can mean different things depending on the context, and so making accusations of idolatry based on what one is doing. I can write a poem to my fiancé that is idolatrous or I can write one that isn’t. The question both sides need to ask is are there any outward forms that are by definition idolatry AND does it change if the person has died, so is a poem to my fiancé ok, until she dies and then if I read her the same poem is it considered worship or idolatry?
3. What, if any, is the difference between the living and the dead believers. Protestants will generally accuse Catholics of crossing the line more then is allowed and falling into some form of mediumship or necromancy, ect. And Catholics see dead Christians as not “really” dead. So is there a distinction? Is it ok to talk (better word the prayer for this discussion) to saints who have gone on to Heaven? Is it ok in theory, but just not possible?
4. If God will not share his glory with another and we are to honor him, and yet also we are to honor our parents AND give elders who rule well double honor, then we need to discuss how much honor is appropriate. RC Theology has done this by making distinctions between dulia, hyperdulia and latria. What do these terms actually mean? How does one tell the difference exactly? (goes with point #1) Even Protestants honor people, and honor God, what distinction are we making? Is there a biblical precedent for knowing when honoring another goes too far? And most importantly for this discussion: Do these rules change upon death? Are we to only honor our Father and Mother until they die? If Not, what kind of honor in death are we to give them?

It just looked like both sides where arguing in circles around each other, with a few word games here and there, so this should help keep it going

 

[flameburns623]

If I may suggest a couple of things to help the road block:

1. arguing over the meaning of the English word “prayer” is pointless, we could call it “ziggy” and what really matters is what we mean by it. Protestant theology defines the code word “prayer” as worship by definition and Catholics define the code word “prayer” by a broader “make a request” meaning. No point in arguing over the meaning of a code word in two different theologies. Which also means both sides will have to come to a common definition of what it means to “worship”.
2. Arguing over outward “forms” is also pointless. Burning a candle to someone or singing them a song is not necessarily worship. (Although it can be) Outward forms that people express can mean different things depending on the context, and so making accusations of idolatry based on what one is doing. I can write a poem to my fiancé that is idolatrous or I can write one that isn’t. The question both sides need to ask is are there any outward forms that are by definition idolatry AND does it change if the person has died, so is a poem to my fiancé ok, until she dies and then if I read her the same poem is it considered worship or idolatry?
3. What, if any, is the difference between the living and the dead believers. Protestants will generally accuse Catholics of crossing the line more then is allowed and falling into some form of mediumship or necromancy, ect. And Catholics see dead Christians as not “really” dead. So is there a distinction? Is it ok to talk (better word the prayer for this discussion) to saints who have gone on to Heaven? Is it ok in theory, but just not possible?
4. If God will not share his glory with another and we are to honor him, and yet also we are to honor our parents AND give elders who rule well double honor, then we need to discuss how much honor is appropriate. RC Theology has done this by making distinctions between dulia, hyperdulia and latria. What do these terms actually mean? How does one tell the difference exactly? (goes with point #1) Even Protestants honor people, and honor God, what distinction are we making? Is there a biblical precedent for knowing when honoring another goes too far? And most importantly for this discussion: Do these rules change upon death? Are we to only honor our Father and Mother until they die? If Not, what kind of honor in death are we to give them?

It just looked like both sides where arguing in circles around each other, with a few word games here and there, so this should help keep it going

Thank you for your very very helpful contribution to this and any number of other on-going discussions.

 

[sandusky]

:banghead:

:tiphat: