John MacArthur and the Vatican Porn Collection

[lak611]

MacArthur’s response:

*JOHN MACARTHUR, EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN PASTOR: Yes, well I think from a biblical standpoint we need to readdress this issue on a couple of fronts. Number one, according to the New Testament, you can’t be a pastor unless you are the husband of one wife and have proven that you’re able to manage your household well.
*

This quote shows that MacArthur doesn’t know what is actually in the Bible. The verse he is referring to in 1 Timothy 3:2 would not mean that single men cannot be pastors. Paul, a single man, wrote 1 Timothy. Paul would not be saying that he himself is unqualified to be a pastor.

 

[johnnyjoe]

Here is a couple of good responses from Fr. Bartunek:

*KING: Father John Bartunek in St. Louis, you were a Protestant who changed?

BARTUNEK: That’s true. As a teenager I was involved in an Evangelical Christian Church. I was born-again, non-denominational church. And it’s funny, when I was in that church and when I was in that faith, I really never felt called to be a pastor.

It was only when I began to explore the Catholic faith and really came – became convinced that the Catholic church was the church Christ founded. And then when I became Catholic and as I was becoming Catholic my – I kind of began to have that desire which was my calling, which was to serve Christ as Christ had served his church, to serve his church wholeheartedly. And even as Saint Paul himself, who was not married, who gave himself wholeheartedly to serve the church. You know, there’s a lot of misunderstanding and I think the most important thing is to remember that first of all, historically, celibacy was not invented a thousand years after the foundation of the church.

There were always celibate priests and there were also married priests. And then, through the years, the church in her wisdom reserved the priesthood for the celibate, for celibacy. That’s historically.

And then common sense, you know, Larry, someone who is in love with the church and in love with his parish, in love with his parish family. It’s like a love affair. It’s like his family. And if he also has his own family, his own wife, it’s hard not to be divided. And St. Paul, in the Bible, actually discuss that if you read first Corinthians chapter seven and he actually says the better way is the celibate way, but it’s not the required way.*

And this is a real good response:

*CALLER: Yes, thank you for taking my call. I’m Orthodox and I just don’t understand how priests can understand families if they don’t have a family life. When they say you cannot divorce, they’re not put in that situation where they could understand what they’re supposedly preaching.

KING: Father Bartunek, how could a member of the Catholic church go into confession or discuss with a priest a major problem involving he and his wife and their children, when the priest has absolutely no experience?

BARTUNEK: Well, it happens all the time and it’s – in my own experience, I can say it’s very fruitful. The priest has a lot of experience. The priest meets with couples as they’re preparing for marriage, councils couples in difficulties during marriage. Sees hundreds of couples and families and follows them through their life.

Has a lot more experience you know than many married couples with only their own marriage. So a priest really becomes like a doctor of souls. You know, it’s like saying if a doctor had to suffer cancer in order to treat cancer, there’s kind of a contradiction there.

A priest is a man of God, for others, and his experience of dealing with so many families and so many couples enriches him. The other thing, is, Larry, the church never says that only the priest – that only priests can help council couples. The priest is a spiritual father, a spiritual counselor, but the church encourages lay men and women to also take on the role, different roles of ministry and help other married couples.

KING: Let me get a break. And we’ll come back with more and more of your phone calls. Barry Manilow is our special guest tomorrow night – Barry Manilow, don’t go away.*

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I think you may have inadvertantly proven my point.

Why were you so quick to assume that I meant he was going to hell? Could it be some kind of misunderstanding based on what you also have heard all your life about what Catholics do and do not believe?

It might have been. I’m sorry.

 

[pnewton]

*There is no biblical foundation. In fact, Paul said it’s better to marry than to burn. *

This is example of the lowest form of prooftexting, deliberately ignoring part of a sentence to in order to make it say the opposite.

1 Corinthians 7:8 ** I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
**
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Paul was single. He stated point blank that the unmarried state is superior. As to his other prooftext:

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

You can not convince me that John MacArthur is ignorant of the fact that this is aimed at gnosticism, specifically duallism. If he would quote more than three words in a row he would have no point. This doctrine which is being denounced is that of forbidding marriage period. To everyone. Catholics to not forbid marrying. That is why we have Catholic weddings. Only priest are to remain celebate, and this is not because of marriage is evil. That is what is being discussed.

Sheesh, what a con.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I have no problem with a priest voluntarily being celibate. I don’t think it should be forced upon them though. There are advantages and disadvantages to both married and single life in the ministry.

Note: I am directly answering something that was pointed out. I am not intending to take this thread off subject.

Back to the topic.

 

[SPH1]

Not here at CAF.:tsktsk:

Some posts pruned.

Why send a PM if you make a public post?

Perhaps you should have read my post more closely for the sarcasm re the “disclaimer.”

At any rate, I’m glad I’ve resisted the urge to contribute $.

 

[lak611]

This is example of the lowest form of prooftexting, deliberately ignoring part of a sentence to in order to make it say the opposite. Paul was single. He stated point blank that the unmarried state is superior. As to his other prooftext:
You can not convince me that John MacArthur is ignorant of the fact that this is aimed at gnosticism, specifically duallism. If he would quote more than three words in a row he would have no point. This doctrine which is being denounced is that of forbidding marriage period. To everyone. Catholics to not forbid marrying. That is why we have Catholic weddings. Only priest are to remain celebate, and this is not because of marriage is evil. That is what is being discussed.

But according to MacArthur’s “theory”, Paul would be unqualified to be a pastor because he was single. I wonder if MacArthur would be willing to admit that he thought Paul was unqualified to give instructions to pastors, as in 1 Timothy. I KNOW MacArthur would never say that!

 

[Church_Militant]

But according to MacArthur’s “theory”, Paul would be unqualified to be a pastor because he was single. I wonder if MacArthur would be willing to admit that he thought Paul was unqualified to give instructions to pastors, as in 1 Timothy. I KNOW MacArthur would never say that!

Wouldn’t that also mean that Our Lord Himself would not be qualified? :ehh:

That just disintegrates under the scrutiny of simple God-given common sense reasoning.
Pax domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[lak611]

Wouldn’t that also mean that Our Lord Himself would not be qualified? :ehh:

That just disintegrates under the scrutiny of simple God-given common sense reasoning.

Very true!

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I agree with you guys on this issue. However, is it certain that JM was not taken out of context? He would be wrong to say a pastor had to be married but he’s not wrong in saying a pastor must be the husband of one wife (if he is married). This says to me that he should be the husband of one wife at a time and not have multiple wives.

 

[juno24]

I agree with you guys on this issue. However, is it certain that JM was not taken out of context? He would be wrong to say a pastor had to be married but he’s not wrong in saying a pastor must be the husband of one wife (if he is married). This says to me that he should be the husband of one wife at a time and not have multiple wives.

I don’t see how his comments could have been taken out of context. By definition a transcript is a word for word transferance of a spoken interview to written form. And since Larry King Live is a live show, I don’t see how anything McArthur said could have been edited out to make him say something he didn’t want to say.
I believe JM said exactly what he meant to say.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Fair enough. But I am aware that the media does exceptionally well at taking statements out of context.

 

[kaycee]

You can not convince me that John MacArthur is ignorant of the fact that this is aimed at gnosticism, specifically duallism. If he would quote more than three words in a row he would have no point. This doctrine which is being denounced is that of forbidding marriage period. To everyone. Catholics to not forbid marrying. That is why we have Catholic weddings. Only priest are to remain celebate, and this is not because of marriage is evil. That is what is being discussed.

Sheesh, what a con.

The quote talks about the latter times, the future. Paul was addressing a group that did not exist!

**The text reads “forbidding to marry” NOT forbidding ALL to marry. Do not add to scripture what is not there. **

Does Rome forbid marriage? Obviously, for its priests. Does scripture forbid marriage? Certainly not.

The text talks about** a group in the future** that forbids marriage and abstaining from meat.

 

[kaycee]

Fair enough. But I am aware that the media does exceptionally well at taking statements out of context.

Hi Hoosier

Here is John M’s teaching on Marriage. He was certainly not saying that Pastors MUST be married.

biblebb.com/files/MAC/1829.htm

 

[lak611]

Here is John M’s teaching on Marriage. He was certainly not saying that Pastors MUST be married.
biblebb.com/files/MAC/1829.htm

Actually this article has nothing to do with pastors being married or unmarried. They are not even mentioned in this article, so it does not give any indication of MacArthur’s teaching on whether or not pastors need to marry.

 

[juno24]

Hi Hoosier

Here is John M’s teaching on Marriage. He was certainly not saying that Pastors MUST be married.

biblebb.com/files/MAC/1829.htm

Except that he said exactly that in the Larry King interview.

 

[pnewton]

**The text reads “forbidding to marry” NOT forbidding ALL to marry. Do not add to scripture what is not there. **

Does Rome forbid marriage? Obviously, for its priests. Does scripture forbid marriage? Certainly not.

Nor can you insert the word “SOME”. The scriptiures also does not say “forbidding priest to marry” or forbidding some group to marry. The Catholic Church does not forbid people to marry who want to be priest, it forbids them from being priests if they are not willing to be celibate. Drinking is not forbidden in the Bible, but a church would surely be open to not hiring a pastor who drinks. It is the right of any organization to define such disciplinary issues. The Catholic Church just acknowledges St. Paul that it is better to be unmarried, something John MacArthur did not do.

BTW, you say that this was in Paul’s future when he wrote it. Actually what was said was “in the last days”. Since this discipline is centuries old, how can this possible refer to the Catholic Church, unless one thinks that Christ returned a1000 years ago?

 

[Jeanette_L]

Nor can you insert the word “SOME”. The scriptiures also does not say “forbidding priest to marry” or forbidding some group to marry. The Catholic Church does not forbid people to marry who want to be priest, it forbids them from being priests if they are not willing to be celibate. Drinking is not forbidden in the Bible, but a church would surely be open to not hiring a pastor who drinks. It is the right of any organization to define such disciplinary issues. The Catholic Church just acknowledges St. Paul that it is better to be unmarried, something John MacArthur did not do.

BTW, you say that this was in Paul’s future when he wrote it. Actually what was said was “in the last days”. Since this discipline is centuries old, how can this possible refer to the Catholic Church, unless one thinks that Christ returned a1000 years ago?

It’s amazing how the non-Catholics can proclaim to the ends of the earth that they are strictly “Bible Christians”, “by the Book” and all that, right? And yet when things are so very clear in the Bible, like the fact that celibacy is preferred, especially in the service of Christ and the Church, or that believers should make a habit of fasting and prayer, these “Bible Christians” seem to not want to do anything but criticize the Catholic Church for taking these **Biblical **instructions seriously; for recognizing the wisdom in having devoted celibate shepherds, and for the whole Church to participate in the fasting from meat and other things on specified occasions, for the purpose of corporate unity in prayer and the remembrance of our carnal weaknesses. And then there is of course, dare I say, lots and lots of praying!

Oh, but Catholicism is an empty, dead and oppressive religion when they are following the precepts of Scripture. HUH? Maybe the Bible’s instructions weren’t for us today, or maybe they aren’t to be taken literally, right? Oh, wait, but the “Bible Christians” are the * literal and true interpreters * of Scripture, not the Catholics, aren’t they?

HUH?

So, who’s supposed to be able to keep all this stuff straight anyway, I mean, what is to be taken* literally*, and if not, what is to be thrown out as outdated or irrelevant or just explained away as not having meant what is clearly stated? By whose authority do we come up with these rules of interpretation anyway? Oh, that’s right, there is no authority. Hmmm.

So, how are we to navigate these treacherous waters, being tossed in the waves to and fro by all these conflicting winds of doctrines? You’d think that God would’ve planned ahead for such confusing times as these, I mean if He was a wise and loving Father, right? Who is the pillar and foundation of Truth anyway? Was the Bible very clear about this at least?

:whacky:

I’m glad I switched sides, no more confusion.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

First, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth but WHAT truth? You can spout of “pillar and foundation of truth” til the cows come home but you haven’t defined TRUTH. And the only thing that God left us to know TRUTH is Scripture.

Second, where does the Catholic Church get off forbidding married people to be priests? Does not the Bible teach that a minister in the Church must be the husband of one wife? That he must be able to rule his own household well, having his kids in subjection with all respect? That his children must be believers? Yeah…I think Scripture says that. Yet “your” version of “truth” (tradition) contradicts that. I find it interesting how many Catholics like to quote an out of context Scripture to (try and) prove their case yet when Scripture clearly refutes their belief they turn to “tradition”. No wonder you can do no wrong.

 

[lak611]

Does not the Bible teach that a minister in the Church must be the husband of one wife? That he must be able to rule his own household well, having his kids in subjection with all respect? That his children must be believers?

If a minister MUST be married, then Jesus and Paul were unqualified according to that statement. Would you say that Jesus could not start the Church and Paul could not be a minister, even though it was Paul who wrote 1 Timothy which you are quoting?