Examples of mistakes/confusion from well known Prots/Evangelicals...

[JPrejean]

Physics96 is that you?

Obi-Wan: Obi-Wan Kenobi? Obi-Wan… Now, that’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time… A long time.
Luke: I think my uncle knows him. He said he was dead.
Obi-Wan: Oh, he’s not dead… Not yet.
Luke: You know him?
Obi-Wan: Of course I know him: He’s me.

 

[Shibboleth]

chrisg93:

Keven,

First, Catholics believe more firmly in the Bible than MacAuther, regardless of the fine distinctions you mentioned. That makes him a hypocrit.

Second, Did Jesus die for “all” our sins or just “some” of them? Are “all” the saints going to heaven, or just “most” of them. Do “all” the angles in heaven praise God, or just “many” of them?
MacArthur has set himself up as arbitor of the Bible as Prots do. My example was simply the latest in his line history of doing so.

It just isn’t that simple - if you start learning Koine (Common) Greek aka Biblical Greek you soon learn that things are not as a simple translation suggests. Same with Hebrew and Aramaic.

For instance look at Matt 26:27 in the DRB
“Drink ye all of this”

Now in English we are tempted to say that it means drink all of the drink but if you know Koine Greek or even Linear B you know that the ‘all’ is referring to the people.

In other words it is saying, “everyone drink of this”

This is just a minor example.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

chrisg93:

Gottle,

You have the insight of a mystic to catch my spelling errors. I will mention these at confession next time.

Poor spelling is hardly a sin - it’s just rather confusing at times, when people say one thing while clearly meaning something different. Maybe it would be better on a list of pet hates in a poll, instead of being confessed.​

I don’t hunt Prot mistakes. I actually listen to Stanley and MacArthur on the radio since Catholic radio is not available to me.

I bring these mistakes to light to show how very true it is that Prots do not have the fullness of Jesus and it brings them into error rather easily.

But how can we possibly know that ? “God’s grace is not bound to the sacraments”. The means of grace - Bible, Church., sermons, sacraments, sacramentals - are not limitations on God, but means of divine help. The limitatition is with the receivers of what is given - not with the God Who gives what is received.​

All other things being equal, a Protestant who makes the fulles use of what he has been granted in his walk with God, is better off than a Catholic who could not care less about God. It is not the group one belongs to that is decisive for one’s friendship with Christ, but, the grace of God and one’s grace-caused response to God.

It’s ridiculous to suggest - as the reasoning of those who criticise Protestants for not being visibly and totally Catholics risks doing - that a mere nominal Catholicism is better than a genuinely grace-filled Christian life shown in the life of a Protestant - that would make God a clannish God, Who is less concerned with the righteousness and grace that are his attributes and gifts than with what group a man is in. A lot of the Bible is spent hammering home the fact that God is concerned more with whether people live in righteousness, than with whether they belong to His chosen people by biological descent. Besides, those who belong to God’s people, are going to be more severely judged than other people - being chosen by God brings responsibility, not just privilege. ##

Charles Stanley flatley denies that if we don’t forgive then the Father will not forgive us. That is a mojor theological error and a denial of the clear meanning of the Bible.

If he is saying this, it is certainly not clear that he is. It is one thing to intend to forgive & to be determined to forgive: to desire to do so, is to do so.​

To feel forgiving, and to go on forgiving each time one is tempted to long to get one’s own back, is a very different thing indeed. My impression is that he was talking about
the latter. To forgive with the will, is genuinely to forgive, even if one’s emotions do not follow the will to do so. There is no reason why they must.

I still have the impression, from what he was reported to have said, that he was making a perfectly legitimate (and obvious) distinction, and not saying anything wrong. ##

The MacArthur examples shows that Catholics believe in the Bible more firmly that he does. He is a hypocrit.

Because he takes Christ at His word in John 10 ? Because he adopts the Augustinian view of the meaning of the word “all” (for which there is plenty of reason in the gospels) ? I can see no hypocrisy, but only an attempt to be faithful to what Scripture says.​

Besides, how can any one know how firmly John MacArthur believes, except for God and John MacArthur ? I used to think that only God, certain Protestants, and a sprinkling of Catholic Saints, knew what people they had never even met really had in their hearts and mind. It now appears that many Catholics are able to know the minds of those they have never met. So much for the knowledge of men’s hearts being the prerogative of God alone. ##

You have fooled yourself on the St Patrick question. I didn’t say that “all” my examples were Biblical. I can mean “many” or “most” or “some” of them were Biblical.

It would helped if that had been clearer, though. How, without your posts being explicit, is one meant to know which examples were meant ?​

Your posts haven’t proved that Protestantism or Evangelicalism is liable to any criticisms of “mistakenness” or “confusion” that cannot also be brought against Catholicism (for example). ##

 

[asteroid]

## Poor spelling is hardly a sin - it’s just rather confusing at times, when people say one thing while clearly meaning something different. Maybe it would be better on a list of pet hates in a poll, instead of being confessed. ##

But how can we possibly know that ? “God’s grace is not bound to the sacraments”. The means of grace - Bible, Church., sermons, sacraments, sacramentals - are not limitations on God, but means of divine help. The limitatition is with the receivers of what is given - not with the God Who gives what is received.​

There should not be a space before the question mark. The placing of the question mark here is confusing. Is it the end of the sentence? If that is the case, the question refers to the preceding quotation in the post, a quotation that does not mention grace or sacraments. The quotation after the question mark would therefore not follow on logically. Or does the question mark refer to the quotation after it? In that case the question mark would be in the wrong place and the sentence would therefore mean something very different than intended.

In any case, where does the quotation “God’s grace is not bound by the sacraments” come from? It is not in the post that had just been quoted or from any posts written by that poster in this thread.

I must agree with you. This truly is rather confusing.

There should not be a full stop after Church.

Limitatition should be limitation.

“Who” does not need a capital letter.

All other things being equal, a Protestant who makes the fulles use of what he has been granted in his walk with God, is better off than a Catholic who could not care less about God. It is not the group one belongs to that is decisive for one’s friendship with Christ, but, the grace of God and one’s grace-caused response to God.

“fulles” should be “fullest”.

No commas were needed around the word “but”. Indeed, they should not have been used.

That’s quite enough. I wouldn’t normally point out typos, spelling errors or errors in grammar. That’s mainly because I make lots of my own. There will probably be several here. Yes, even though my mother was a school teacher I still make errors! But when someone makes such a big point out of listing someone else’s errors I sometimes cannot resist listing a few of their own.

Anyway - I agree. The Catholic who couldn’t care less about God is far worse off than a Protestant who loves God and seeks to serve Him as much as possible. God is surely much more pleased with the hearts and lives of many Protestants I’ve known (including many in the church I only left recently) than he is with the hearts and lives of some who go by the title Catholic. That says nothing about the relative truth of Catholicism and Protestantism, just about individuals following or not following God.

On the other hand, how can a Protestant, who does not believe in or receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist and who does not believe in or receive the fulness of the teachings of the Church, really receive the fulness of what Christ wants them to receive?

 

[chrisg93]

asteroid,
Good point that Prots do not have the fullness of Jesus which allows them to fall into error more easily.

I listened to John Macarthur on Tuesday about “forgiveness”. Of course he left out Pennance which is the main avenue of forgivness, but otherwise it was excellent. That proves something.

 

[Kevan]

chrisg93:

I listened to John Macarthur on Tuesday about “forgiveness”. Of course he left out Pennance which is the main avenue of forgivness, but otherwise it was excellent. That proves something.

What Chris has written sounds like what the anticatholics accuse you of: salvation by works. I thought that Catholics believed penance was something that followed forgiveness, and that forgiveness was granted by grace on the basis of confession and faith. Has Chris expressed what Catholics actually believe, meaning that I haven’t understood correctly?

 

[JPrejean]

Kevan:

What Chris has written sounds like what the anticatholics accuse you of: salvation by works. I thought that Catholics believed penance was something that followed forgiveness, and that forgiveness was granted by grace on the basis of confession and faith. Has Chris expressed what Catholics actually believe, meaning that I haven’t understood correctly?

Note the capitalized Penance, referring to the Sacrament of Confession. That has nothing to do with works salvation; the Sacraments are the work of God.

 

[sonseeker]

chrisg93:

1. John MacAthur said in the Acts Of the Apostles says “all the Sanhedren” were gathered together, but “all” is not correct. It really means “most” or “almost all” because he doesn’t think Joeseph of Aramathea was there. (There are many other examples for where MacAthur does not believe in the innerancy of the Bible)
   So much for their supposed Faith in Biblical innerancy.

Hi. Could you attribute your statement so that I could look it up?

Thanks

 

[CatherineofA]

chrisg93:

Here are three latest examples of mistakes and confusion from well known Protestants/Evangelicals…

1. Charles Stanley (who believes in eternal security) said " Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. " doesn’t really mean whay it says. It only means the Father will forgive your tresspasses regardless but you will have the physcological and emotional guilt of unforgiveness.
2. D. James Kennedy said that Saint Patrick was not Catholic.
3. John MacAthur said in the Acts Of the Apostles says “all the Sanhedren” were gathered together, but “all” is not correct. It really means “most” or “almost all” because he doesn’t think Joeseph of Aramathea was there. (There are many other examples for where MacAthur does not believe in the innerancy of the Bible)

So much for their supposed Faith in Biblical innerancy.

Dr. Charles Stanley! Now THAT is a good example of a Southern Baptist minister! He is also a former president/head of the Southern Baptist Convention. His church services from First Baptist Church of Atlanta are nationally televised. His In Touch ministry has a great monthly devotional. He is also at www.intouch.org
I would have to hear his message for myself as he is one of the best I have ever heard preach the word of God!