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

[pnewton]

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…

Here I have evidence for me to know that you absolutely do not know what anyone believes. I embrace relativism? That is hilarious. The fact that we do not agree totally on what is truth does not mean that I do not view it as objective and absolute. The only thing I was arguing was relative was the way we use language. Guess what? You gave more proof of how we use language differently by the term “relativism.” The philosophy of relativism has nothing to do with language, terminology, or emotions. It has only to due with the lack of existence of absolute truth.

In fact, relativism is one of the arguements against the Protestant faith, in which every believer interprets for themselves. Heck, even something critical to salvation, such as whether we can lose it, or once we are saved, we are always saved, has opposite answers even within the same denomination. Since I reject relativism, one most absolutely be true.

Likewise whether I commit idolatry must have an absolute yes or no answer. My only point is that flameburn is clueless to the answer, where as God is not. As with John Mac, I believe in absolute truth and and absolute God who knows all truth, it is just not John Mac.

If the Holy Spirit is the one who will lead us into all truth, the which denomination has it?

 

[lak611]

As with John Mac, I believe in absolute truth and and absolute God who knows all truth, it is just not John Mac.

The impression I get when I listen to his “Grace to You” show is that he thinks that he is the only person who knows absolute truth. I suspect that his church will fall apart if he is no longer the pastor there.

 

[jim1130]

The impression I get when I listen to his “Grace to You” show is that he thinks that he is the only person who knows absolute truth. I suspect that his church will fall apart if he is no longer the pastor there.

He is the “star” and I suspect he views his listners as minions whom he will cast out if they stand up to him. He sounds like a knucklehead, but a dangerous knucklehead at that who shoud be confronted and chanllenged at eveyr pporturnity to prove that he is poison and what he espouses is pure poison.

By the way, I am a Browns fan and cannot take the Browns constant losing! Can’t you do something about the Browns up there in Cleveland?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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)

++ “My Country, 'Tis of Thee” is a hymn. I wonder where this leaves lullabies. ++

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?

1. 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?
2. 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

++ This is a really good post - keep 'em coming

 

[brkn1]

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

1. 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?

Non-Catholic Christians also see the saints “who died in Christ” as being eternally alive. The role of those saints is what many non-Catholic Christians question.
The souls of the martyrs still praise and petition God according to Rev.6, but the example does not seem to be inspired by any earthly prayers to those saints first.
Jesus’ parable in Luke 16:27-31 has Abraham dismissing any role on his part in helping those still on earth. If Abraham could have done anything, I’m sure he would have, since Paul and Moses (while alive) both spoke of being willing to surrender their own salvation in order to bring fellow Israelites to God.
Instead of speculating on whether we can have the dead saints pray for us, why not just ask our fellow live believers to pray for us. There is plenty of biblical support for that method. Christ asked for such prayers for Himself during His agony in the garden.

 

[lak611]

Non-Catholic Christians also see the saints “who died in Christ” as being eternally alive. The role of those saints is what many non-Catholic Christians question.
The souls of the martyrs still praise and petition God according to Rev.6, but the example does not seem to be inspired by any earthly prayers to those saints first.
Jesus’ parable in Luke 16:27-31 has Abraham dismissing any role on his part in helping those still on earth. If Abraham could have done anything, I’m sure he would have, since Paul and Moses (while alive) both spoke of being willing to surrender their own salvation in order to bring fellow Israelites to God.
Instead of speculating on whether we can have the dead saints pray for us, why not just ask our fellow live believers to pray for us. There is plenty of biblical support for that method. Christ asked for such prayers for Himself during His agony in the garden.

Why not ask both the saints in heaven and our fellow Christian family members and friends to pray for us? After all, the more prayers, the better. Jesus did say that when two or three are gathered in His name that He is in their midst.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Why not ask both the saints in heaven and our fellow Christian family members and friends to pray for us? After all, the more prayers, the better. Jesus did say that when two or three are gathered in His name that He is in their midst.

Better yet, why not ask Jesus to pray for us seeing as He ever lives to make intercession for His people?

Aren’t we forbidden to attempt to contact the dead?

Please forgive me if this has been addressed. I haven’t taken the time to read this entire thread yet. I just saw the last post.

As for John McArthur being a hostile anti-catholic, is he any more hostile than anti-protestant catholics who declare protestants to be anathema or anti-protestant catholics who killed protestants for getting baptized again as adults?

 

[JohnPaul0]

Better yet, why not ask Jesus to pray for us seeing as He ever lives to make intercession for His people?

We’re in the same boat, I didn’t read all the posts, either, but I can answer you, Hoosier.

Yes, you can ask Jesus. Nothing stopping you.

Aren’t we forbidden to attempt to contact the dead?

Yes, by means of the occult, but asking for the intercession of a saint is different for two reasons:

1. You are not conjuring up that saint and asking for conversation.
2. Instead, you are simply asking that saint to pray for you, just as you may ask another Christian to pray for you.

Biblical? You bet! In Rev 8:3-4, you can read of the saints in heaven presenting prayers to God.

As for John McArthur being a hostile anti-catholic, is he any more hostile than anti-protestant catholics who declare protestants to be anathema or anti-protestant catholics who killed protestants for getting baptized again as adults?

Would you like to provide examples?

-JohnPaul

 

[lak611]

As for John McArthur being a hostile anti-catholic, is he any more hostile than anti-protestant catholics who declare protestants to be anathema or anti-protestant catholics who killed protestants for getting baptized again as adults?

Catholics do not declare Protestants to be anathema. According to number 818 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church**, “However, we cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason they are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the Catholic Church.” That isn’t hostile.

MacArthur doesn’t even consider Catholics to be Christian, which is WAY more hostile than official Catholic doctrine on Protestants.

 

[Titus03]

This topic has gotten a bit out of hand. I didn’t read all five pages, but I did read the first two.

Anyway, I tend to agree with John MacArthur a majority of the time, and I find him a very knowledgeable man of God. He does his research, and doesn’t seem to use faulty sources. I say this to defend the man’s integrity, which has come under attack a number of times so far.

I would also like to address the fact that he doesn’t declare Catholics to be Christian, and the post above mine says that he doesn’t respect Catholics enough to call them Christians when Catholics declare Protestants to be Christian. Well, it isn’t really a give and take thing. It isn’t that he disrespect Catholics, and it isn’t a personal attack against you as a Catholic believer. It is merely his view point. He believes that salvation, that which makes you a Christian, is through Christ alone. And, from what he has read and from many sources I have come across, the Catholic church claims itself to be the source of salvation.

I know that there was a post earlier that quoted the Catechism as saying that there is salvation outside of the Church, but it also says there isn’t salvation outside of the Church. This can be very confusing to anyone trying to read and understand the book, but MacArthur stands on the Church’s claim of infallibility when it comes to matters of faith, which it does claim, specifically in regards to the Pope when he speaks about matters of faith in a certain regard.

I am not up on my terminology, but the Pope can declare that he is speaking under a certain type of oath, for lack of a better word, and when he speaks under this he is infallible, because his words are said to have come directly from God. Anyway, MacArthur stands on that piece of Catholic doctrine, and since it was written in the Catechism that there is no salvation outside the Church, that must be an infallible statement. The problem comes when Vatican II hits, and starts to change things. But, things cannot be changed because of the infallibility doctrine. So, now we arrive at the current state of the Church, a state of compromise and self imposed hypocrisy, not said in an offensive manner, it is just that the Church is declaring itself to be wrong in the past, but the past is, in essence, declaring the present to be wrong.

It is all very messy, but the history of the RCC is just that. Popes declaring other popes to be heretics, then the next pope taking it away. Then you have the evolving traditions of the Church that tend to, in protestant eyes, contradict scripture, so you have Scripture and Tradition standing side by side, contradicting each other, and to men like MacArthur and myself, it would seem that the RCC tries to cover it up or ignore it altogether. Case in point, have any of you compared the organization of the Protestant Ten Commandants to the RCC Ten Commandments?

 

[Mickey]

I would also like to address the fact that he doesn’t declare Catholics to be Christian, and the post above mine says that he doesn’t respect Catholics enough to call them Christians when Catholics declare Protestants to be Christian. Well, it isn’t really a give and take thing. It isn’t that he disrespect Catholics, and it isn’t a personal attack against you as a Catholic believer.

It’s called, “prejudice”.

So, now we arrive at the current state of the Church, a state of compromise and self imposed hypocrisy, not said in an offensive manner, it is just that the Church is declaring itself to be wrong in the past, but the past is, in essence, declaring the present to be wrong.

Yet your statement is extremely offensive! You have made many accusations against the Church. Perhaps you should start new threads using specific examples of this “so-called” compromise, self imposed hypocisy, and error.

It is all very messy, but the history of the RCC is just that.

More insults!
History is a messy thing because people are sinners. When you point the finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.

it would seem that the RCC tries to cover it up or ignore it altogether.

More accusations. Start a thread and try to prove it.

Case in point, have any of you compared the organization of the Protestant Ten Commandants to the RCC Ten Commandments?

There have been many threads on this subject. Do a search and you will find them.

 

[lak611]

He believes that salvation, that which makes you a Christian, is through Christ alone.
Case in point, have any of you compared the organization of the Protestant Ten Commandants to the RCC Ten Commandments?

Catholics also believe that salvation is through Christ alone.

As for the Ten Commandments, Lutherans (who are Protestant) use the same list of the Ten Commandments that Catholics do.

 

[pnewton]

Everyone uses the same Ten Commandments. The only difference is where the line is drawn between them. Not worshipping graven images is in the catholic ten, for example, as part of the first commandment. The Jewish numbering also combines graven images under the commandment to worship God alone. If you are going to argue which is “best” why not go with the original list and use the Jewish system as opposed to the Catholic or Protestant?

 

[tspoonfan]

I heard him preach a few times and every time I heard him, I was discouraged,

He even has a MACARTHUR STUDY BIBLE in the NKJV.
JR

 

[lurdes]

**I HAVE NEVER HEARD ABOUT THIS MAN, BUT WHAT I HAVE READ TELL ME HE IS NOT JUST ANTI-CATHOLIC BUT AN ANTI-CHRIST, HIS TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK THAT THE BLOOD OF CHRIST IS WORTH NOTHING AND MAKING JESUS AS A LIER IN MATT. CH.26 26-29, SO HOW DOES HE EXPLAIN THIS PASSEGE? **
IT IS ALSO SAD THAT HE SPENDS HIS TALKING BAD ABOUT OUR BEAUTYFUL ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH
INSTED OF TEACHING WHAT JESUS CAME HERE TO TEACH US WHICH IS LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS HE HAS LOVE US.
MAY GOD BLESS EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM
YOUR SISTER IN CHIST,

 

[Titus03]

I actually have his study bible, it has a very insightful commentary, and his teaching is not belittling Christ in the least, it is clarifying that Christ’s physical blood is not what saves, but it was His death, as someone already posted. Focusing on His blood as a physical object is where the error occurs and we lean towards idolatry. When we start claiming that wine becomes literal blood, though it looks and taste like wine it is actually blood, these things, the mystical the magical, they’re not of God.

In regards to the Ecumenical movement and those that support it, I am not saying they are trying to set up some dark series of events. They firmly believe they’re in the right, but they are misguided. The devil does not work openly, but makes us think we’re doing what is right, when it is really wrong. Of course, I wait for the majority of you to say that I am doing this very thing, being in the wrong, but your saying that will not persuade me otherwise.

Also, in regards to the Ten Commandments, of course it is part of the Catholic Ten Commandments, because it is in the bible, you cannot toss it out entirely, though the Church tends to do that from time to time, but the fact that it is not actually listed is, to my eyes, a form of subversion. I believe it was said that the graven image commandment was not listed in the Jewish ten commandments, so that should be a sign that it is better that way? Well, the Jews didn’t have everything right. If I am not mistaken, they missed the Messiah, aye? They tried to murder Him, thinking they were in the right.

 

[lak611]

because it is in the bible, you cannot toss it out entirely, though the Church tends to do that from time to time

The Church never tosses out anything in the Bible! :bigyikes: It is the Church that gave us the Bible.

 

[lurdes]

I actually have his study bible, it has a very insightful commentary, and his teaching is not belittling Christ in the least, it is clarifying that Christ’s physical blood is not what saves, but it was His death, as someone already posted. Focusing on His blood as a physical object is where the error occurs and we lean towards idolatry. When we start claiming that wine becomes literal blood, though it looks and taste like wine it is actually blood, these things, the mystical the magical, they’re not of God.

In regards to the Ecumenical movement and those that support it, I am not saying they are trying to set up some dark series of events. They firmly believe they’re in the right, but they are misguided. The devil does not work openly, but makes us think we’re doing what is right, when it is really wrong. Of course, I wait for the majority of you to say that I am doing this very thing, being in the wrong, but your saying that will not persuade me otherwise.

Also, in regards to the Ten Commandments, of course it is part of the Catholic Ten Commandments, because it is in the bible, you cannot toss it out entirely, though the Church tends to do that from time to time, but the fact that it is not actually listed is, to my eyes, a form of subversion. I believe it was said that the graven image commandment was not listed in the Jewish ten commandments, so that should be a sign that it is better that way? Well, the Jews didn’t have everything right. If I am not mistaken, they missed the Messiah, aye? They tried to murder Him, thinking they were in the right.

THEN HOW DOYOU EXPLAIN THE PASSEGE IN MATT. 26 26-29?

 

[Titus03]

You know I explain it as a metaphor. Why ever would you ask?

If you read verse 29, after Jesus, as you say, declared the wine to actually be His blood, he then says he will not drink of -this fruit- of the vine until he drinks it with us in the kingdom of his Father, as per the NIV and the KJV, probably others, but I only crossed NIV and KJV together. So, why would Jesus refer to His actual blood, after he had blessed it and transubstantiated it into his blood, as merely the fruit of the vine?

 

[lurdes]

You know I explain it as a metaphor. Why ever would you ask?

If you read verse 29, after Jesus, as you say, declared the wine to actually be His blood, he then says he will not drink of -this fruit- of the vine until he drinks it with us in the kingdom of his Father, as per the NIV and the KJV, probably others, but I only crossed NIV and KJV together. So, why would Jesus refer to His actual blood, after he had blessed it and transubstantiated it into his blood, as merely the fruit of the vine?

ITHINK YOU SHOULD READ 1 COR.11 1-2 AND 23-33