B
brb3
Guest
And for those who don’t fully abide in Christ til their final day … there is need of Purgatory. Yes ?
- Status
B
brb3
Guest
Yes … appears THE PROOF TEXT.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I don’t think that it’s really right to say that MacArthur “alludes to Purgatory” because, just as we have seen here in this thread. Every n-C fan of his is going to flip totally out at the very thought, and we all know that no matter what he says, there is no way on God’s green earth (short of direct divine intervention, [Please God?]) he’s ever going to say anything good about anything Catholic. That’s just the reality. 
If he ever did start to acknowledge the accuracy of Catholic teachings well…http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/hell_freezing_over.jpg
If he ever did start to acknowledge the accuracy of Catholic teachings well…http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/hell_freezing_over.jpg
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
J
JustaServant
Guest
That’s the funny thing. They come very close to saying the same things Catholics are saying, yet deny they are saying it. I found myself doing the same thing at one time.
All (theological) roads lead to Rome.
B
brb3
Guest
the H.S. is subtly guiding him to the Truth. Our prayers for him are working.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
.
B
brb3
Guest
Lets challenge him to debate the topic … here at CAF. Any John Mac followers here who can personally relay the offer to him ?
.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I’d be happy to debate him, but he has mentioned on his show, if I remember right, that he does not believe Christians should be collaborating with Catholics like on these Manhattan Declaration type things. I would think he would not debate. I’ve not known him to debate.
L
Lampo
Guest
I just invited him via email. We’ll see.
B
brb3
Guest
Perhaps he might accept a ‘tag team’ forum debate. He and his select partner … might be willing to take on several of our finest …
Let it go for 12 rounds or so. Thats unless the Catholics scored a decisive early KO …
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I don’t know why you guys bothered to invite him to debate on CAF.
I mean he’s going to claim that it is not a level playing field because CAF’s rules will not allow the kind of polemics that are usually part of these kinds of exchanges even as CAF does not allow similar polemics from our own Catholic members.
I don’t really think that that will be productive.
I mean he’s going to claim that it is not a level playing field because CAF’s rules will not allow the kind of polemics that are usually part of these kinds of exchanges even as CAF does not allow similar polemics from our own Catholic members.
I don’t really think that that will be productive.
J
JustaServant
Guest
In fairness MacArthur’s not the typical wide-eyed fundamentalist anti-Catholic. He is a pretty intelligent guy and a confirmed Calvinist (and those guys love to showoff thier ‘knowledge’).I don’t know why you guys bothered to invite him to debate on CAF.
I mean he’s going to claim that it is not a level playing field because CAF’s rules will not allow the kind of polemics that are usually part of these kinds of exchanges even as CAF does not allow similar polemics from our own Catholic members.
I don’t really think that that will be productive.
But I think there’s a better chance of an icestorm in you-know-where.
B
brb3
Guest
I don’t think he would. But, we could do it at his Website, if that was his concern … giving out that link for CAF viewers.
And, if he wanted a live debate … Staples, Corapi, or Hahn could do honors and insure a Catholic victory.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Remember also that under CAFs rules we are not allowed to set up “Board Swarms” of others forums or sites.I don’t think he would. But, we could do it at his Website, if that was his concern … giving out that link for CAF viewers.
And, if he wanted a live debate … Staples, Corapi, or Hahn could do honors and insure a Catholic victory.
I’ve seen that a couple of times and it was (as they say), “nuthin’ nice”.
Better, I think to continue training ourselves here and avoid anything that might increase the ill will between the camps.
We all know JMcA wasn’t teaching Purgatory and like JustaServant says there’s a better chance of an ice storm in hell than that to happen.
B
brb3
Guest
I’ve read his internet mp3 rant against the Catholic Church. It is most vitriolic. I think it represents his old beliefs/fears.
I’m gonna email him and ask if he still believes this. If he does, I’m gonna ask him to reconsider his beliefs and revise it accordingly.
In today’s radio message he was teaching Cor. 13 … and his theme was TRUTH thru LOVE, quoting Apostle Paul. He was very contrite, admitting that w/o love, his theology & preaching is w/o value, is rubbish.
I’m gonna call him on this … reminding him that he showed no love to the Catholics … and his mp3 is RUBBISH, … and if he doesn’t retract it, his theology is RUBBISH.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I can assure you that he has not changed at all. In my ministry to Catholic prisoners I have one man who is so bored he is doing MacArthur’s “college level” courses, and nothing has changed at all.
If you get a response, it should be at least interesting.
Well at least there he’s correct and that is something that we all should keep in mind because it’s easy to show off knowledge in our dialogs and debates and become (as St. Paul says) “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal…nothing”. It makes our knowledge useless. Sometimes people forget that we are supposed to be fishers of men with nets…not snatch rigs.
Good luck with that.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Earlier in the thread there was question as to whether John MacArthur still taught OSAS. The answer is yes. His sermon that aired this morning explicitly supported it. He began:*The guarantee of Scripture and therefore the promise of God is that salvation is forever. And this is not a stand-alone doctrine. This not one that you can believe or not believe without any major effect on other doctrines. In fact, quite the opposite is true. To get this doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or the eternality of salvation wrong is to produce chaos in regard to the doctrine of predestination, the doctrine of election, the doctrine of justification, the doctrine of sanctification, and the doctrine of glorification. ((“http://ht.salemweb.net/oneplace/mp3/3214944/gt20100310.mp3?siteid=Podcast”) archive will be available for a few days)*Now to me, the last sentence there translates to: “if anyone debunks OSAS, all the other versions of my salvation doctrines are ruined.”
At any rate, in this morning’s sermon he went on about not losing salvation and assurance of salvation, and how to convince young people who are afraid that they could lose salvation that it’s impossible. He started with the standard John 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. And that passage has been discussed in these forums, definitively that the passage does not teach OSAS.
He went on about how if our salvation depends on us living righteously, then how righteous do you have to be? He thinks not having a legalistic barometer would cause chaos. At the same time, he argued in the sermon that even though a person will sin, an elect person will not “go on sinning” because he’s elect. He expressed belief in the idea of “never saved to begin with” regarding those who fall back into sin. Yet he does not apply to himself the same standard he does of non-OSAS believers. He does not challenge himself with, " Well, how much sinning proves you were never saved to begin with?"
At any rate, in this morning’s sermon he went on about not losing salvation and assurance of salvation, and how to convince young people who are afraid that they could lose salvation that it’s impossible. He started with the standard John 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. And that passage has been discussed in these forums, definitively that the passage does not teach OSAS.
He went on about how if our salvation depends on us living righteously, then how righteous do you have to be? He thinks not having a legalistic barometer would cause chaos. At the same time, he argued in the sermon that even though a person will sin, an elect person will not “go on sinning” because he’s elect. He expressed belief in the idea of “never saved to begin with” regarding those who fall back into sin. Yet he does not apply to himself the same standard he does of non-OSAS believers. He does not challenge himself with, " Well, how much sinning proves you were never saved to begin with?"
B
brb3
Guest
Not exactly. He has been on this subject for the last 3 days. On days 1 & 2 … he premised OSAS as conditional. Perseverance is absolute part of the equation. [OSAS = Rebirth in H.S. + Perseverance ------ to the final curtain call]
And, he doesn’t say the OSAS will not fall back into serious sin. He admits that happens. But, these Prodigals will repent, and return to their first faith/love. Until they do repent, they will never deny Christ & their rebirths. This is the key differentiator of a wayward sheep from an unsaved goat.
Finally, he premises his belief primarily on 1st Chp. Peter and John’s Gospel, Chp. 10:25-30. Catholic must admit that Christ is definitive on not losing ALL the Father had given to him. Yes, it applies to the 11 Apostles, but then in John’s Gospel, Christ binds all other Christians to this promise [making the promise a timeless guarantee].
I don’t think we should fault John Mac or those Protestants who believe OSAS … provided they qualify this teaching to include perseverance, and allow that there will always be pretenders, w/o enduring discipleship … who will tolerate sinning easily. They may not be discovered til the end … like Judas.
Was Judas a non-believer, pretender … or a saint who lost his wings on his last day? Even if we argue as Catholics he was saved / then lost, ------ Protestants could say it doesn’t invalidate their OSAS belief, since he didn’t persevere to his last day. Its our ending that matters … for both Catholics & Protestants [at least those holding John Mac’s soteriology of OSAS].
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I know he includes perseverance, but he insists anyone who has even been a genuine believer necessarily has the gift of perseverance and can never be lost. That’s OSAS. (And it’s why he believes in John Calvin’s double-predestination.) Anyway, here’s another quote from the same podcast as he starts out with John 10: *…and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hands. I and the Father are one. We are held in the secure hands of the Father and the Son. By such statements and many, many more we are to be confident that those who are genuinely children of God through faith in Christ are secure in that relationship forever and will never perish. If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you will never perish. Salvation is the gift of eternal life and those who receive it will never lose it or forfeit it. … Any idea of salvation that leaves out security is a distortion of the truth. And any idea of security that leaves out perseverance is a distortion of the truth. So if you’ve ever been saved, you can never be lost.*Also, I think if he believed some won’t be “discovered” until the end like Judas cannot be his view otherwise he would not preach “security” and “assurance” as he repeats over and over.
- Status