John MacArthur

[mwfields]

I need some help. My wife, raised Methodist/Baptist and converted to Catholocism 13 years ago, was given a CD calleed “Unmasking the Pope and the Catholic Chuch” (or something like that) by MacArthur. Now shes very confused and thinks the Catholic church is the great Satan, praying to Mary is a sin, we shouldn’t call priests “Father”, only God can forgive sins, etc., etc., etc. She has promised me that If I can show her where things are “in the Bible” she’ll listen. But I have no idea where to begin. There is a lot of stress around here and I’m worried this may cause real problems in our marrage. PLEAS HELP ME.

 

[Siena]

First-

Take a deep breath.

Then, repost this is the apologist section. They will be able to help you better over there.

Please, make sure you start out with some of the fundamental problems she has, we need a point to start with.

God bless!

(My :twocents: - Ask her where MacAurther recieved HIS authority to preach his opinion as truth?)…

 

[Michael_Francis]

Better yet, let me just move this over to Apologetics for you. I promise the folks here will help.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

O.K. I will respond to the things you have listed, if there are any others please post them in a slightly more organize fashion.

“Praying” to Mary is not a Sin. You see Jesus communicateing to Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. In Rev. It talks about Some elders bowing before the Lamb (Jesus) with incense which is the prayers of the saints ← Big one right there as well as numerous other scriptures showing consciousness. It also says that the Prayers of a righous Man availith much and overtly a person in heaven (oh lets go with Mary just for fun) is a rightous person, or they wouldn’t be there. So bang, why wouldn’t her prayers availith much?
If it is the term “Pray” that is the problem, tell her about the old english meaning that simply means to ask. Like you see in the old King Author movies, “I pray thee don’t my lord…”
As well, asking someone to pray for you is not a sin (Live or in heaven).

The call no man Father thing. I looked at that passage way before I became Catholic and found this, he was not saying that “Father” was bad, it was that the Scribes and Pharisees were pridefull, demanding that they get the promentent places in the syngouge and parties, so on and so forth. He was condemning this false praise they were having poured apon them. It was the Me program. God doesn’t have a problem with “Father”. Why else would it be in a commandment. And I know that he wasn’t saying hounor your Mother and me and… well who cares about you dad tell him off. Please. And besides Paul called Timothey (and Titus I think) his spiritual sons and that he was their spiritual “Father” .

On confession just show her the scripture that says, "and he breathed on them saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit, whoever sins you forgive they are forgiven, and whoever sins you retain they are retained.” That is pretty clear.

again if there is anything else come back and ask, we will be more than happy to help you talk to your wife.
P.S. Good luck I’ll send and our Father and a Hail Mary up for you on this.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hello mwfield!
I am so sorry for you guys. This is a real drag I know. I promise to be praying for you both. You, that Our Lord will keep this very Biblical promise to you. Luke 21:15 for I myself shall give you a wisdom in speaking that all your adversaries will be powerless to resist or refute. and for your wife that te Holy Spirit will guide her into the truth.

Now let’s see about getting you those Biblical answers that you need.
Hunting the Whore of Babylon in the CA ma(name removed by moderator)age library should help with that silly notion.

Here’s a whole passle of articles on Anti-Catholicism

Here’s one called Praying to the Saints and here’s the rest on Mary and the Saints

Here’s the answer to Call No Man Father (which BTW was part of today’s Gospel at Mass. 31st Sunday in Ordinary time).

Here’s Forgiveness of Sins and Confession (From the Early Church Fathes).

One of the biggest problems is that MacArthur has told her that all that we Christians believe and practice must be supported by the Bible alone, a false doctrine known as Sola Scriptura, that didn’t exist until the reformers popped up with it about 500 years ago. They’ll tell you that it’s in the Bible, but the fact is that that’s just their messed up interpretation of what the Bible says.

In fact the Word of God says something completely else:
John 20:30 & 31 says "30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. "
and, 2nd Timothy 3:16-17. “16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” Notice that it says that it is profitable for many things…but does that say that it is all suficient and the source of all truth for Christians? No it doesn’t, though some non-Catholics will tell you that that is what it means.

In fact, the New Testament is VERY clear as to what is the source of all truth. 1st Timothy 3: 14 & 15 says, “These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Now, just exactly what does the New Testament say is the pillar and ground of the truth in that verse? It doesn’t say it’s the Bible does it? Here’s a great article on this called Scriptural Reference Guide that I know will help.

Feel free to print out all this and hand it to her to read and study, but YOU read it all too.

My friend, if you haven’t been much of a Bible reader before now…you’re gonna become one now. And that is a very good thing. You and your wife can come through this with a faith stronger than you ever imagined. I did, about 5 years ago.

I know this is a lot but don’t let her overwhelm you. Deal with one topic at a time, so that you’re both on the same page all the way.

By the way…better get yourself a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you don’t have one. Call your parish office…they probably will outright give it to you, especially if you tell them what is going on. If not, it’s about one of the best investments you’ll ever make for under $10.00.

One other thing that you might wanna invest in and that will be an invaluable tool for this and really build up your faith, is the Beginning Apologetics Series from San Juan Catholic Seminars. These guys have 9 study booklets that are GREAT and cover most all of this. They’re like a K-Mart radio…they don’t play.

Please feel free to PM or e-mail me through my profile here (Just click on my name and it will take you there) if you need ANYTHING at all…even just moral support.
Pax tecum,

 

[mwfields]

Thank you both. All of this will be very helpful to me. I would like to start at the beginning - and that is, I guess, the Bible itself. My understanding is that the books of the Bible were written in, other languages (ancient Greek and others perhaps) and have been translated many times to Latin, German, English and then to this ‘version’ and that ‘version’ that people use today. Word usage, nuance, etc. must surely have been changed, either unintentionally or intentionally over the many years, language changes and versions. Since my wife is willing to accept the Bible as the final arbiter, which version of the Bible (in English) would get us closest to what the original writers words and meaning?

And where can I get a history of the Bible so we can speak directly to how it’s been changed in meaning over the years (if that’s true).

And lastly, help me, I read the same passages in seeveral different versions of the Bible and can easily get many interpretations of each and certainly different meanings from the different versions. How does this square with the bible being God’s holy Word. It seems like His word is ever changing as people write different ‘versions’ and include or exclude different books etc. I want to go to the Bible for answers, but it’s plain to me that different versions will lead me to different answers. It seems to be quite a mess.

Help!

 

[zian]

See this link here from the “Scripture and Tradition” link on the Catholic Answers home page. Read through all of the information on these articles, and have your wife read through them too. I suppose Luther, Calvin, etc. thought that they were going to simplify Christianity by just saying ‘sola scriptura’; the last 500 years (and dozens of flavors) of Protestantism certainly make one wonder about the wisdom of that idea. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the Bible came to us from the Church, not the other way around.

Check all the links on Church Militant’s post too; excellent.

I was born and raised Catholic, but then drifted away for many years. I could easily have been sucked into the realm of Protestant fundamentalism, but these same challenges you mention are what prompted me to start reading up on Catholicism at an adult level. Convinced me (and continues to convince, as I continue to study) that the fullness of Christian truth lies within the Catholic Church. I didn’t say it was simple, but then, neither is life.

 

[Church_Militant]

mwfields:

Thank you both. All of this will be very helpful to me. I would like to start at the beginning - and that is, I guess, the Bible itself. My understanding is that the books of the Bible were written in, other languages (ancient Greek and others perhaps) and have been translated many times to Latin, German, English and then to this ‘version’ and that ‘version’ that people use today. Word usage, nuance, etc. must surely have been changed, either unintentionally or intentionally over the many years, language changes and versions. Since my wife is willing to accept the Bible as the final arbiter, which version of the Bible (in English) would get us closest to what the original writers words and meaning?

And where can I get a history of the Bible so we can speak directly to how it’s been changed in meaning over the years (if that’s true).

And lastly, help me, I read the same passages in seeveral different versions of the Bible and can easily get many interpretations of each and certainly different meanings from the different versions. How does this square with the bible being God’s holy Word. It seems like His word is ever changing as people write different ‘versions’ and include or exclude different books etc. I want to go to the Bible for answers, but it’s plain to me that different versions will lead me to different answers. It seems to be quite a mess.

Help!

Good morning my friend!

Good questions all. The debate as to which English translation is best is fairly common and most folks have one or another that suits them best. I personally read the Douay-Rheims version (The Catholic contemporary of the KJV) and mainly use it, the New American Bible, (The Catholic contemporary of the New International Version) and the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition (Ignatius Press).

One thing that has to come up is the fact that one needs a Bible that is complete…in other words it contains all the 73 books of the Biblical canon that have been confirmed since the 4th century (382 AD) and in the early church writings.

Where We Got the Bible is a great book that you can buy, but is available online. I STRONGLY advise you to get it, read it and hand it to your wife, because the first problem that she has is that the canon of Bible the people she’s been listening to is not the one of the early church and (at best) the one of the Jews who rejected Jesus. The 7th booklet in that “Beginning Apologetics” series that I linked you to above is all about these Biblical issues. This Bible Translations Guide might help you out some.

The OT of the Bible was indeed written in Hebrew and the NT survives to us in Greek, though there is some evidence that at least one Gospel (Matthew) may have been originally penned in Aramaic, (the language of Israel at the time of Christ. Hebrew, like Latin today, was all but a dead language even at that time.)

One thing that is also critically important is that you challenge the doctrine that everything that we believe must be supported by the Bible. (Sola Scriptura). I suggest that you read and use this philosophy in your discussions from the outset. This is because this unBiblical concept is the basis for every other error from the reformation era. Sola Scriptura is Unscriptural is a must read as is this Quick Ten-step Refutation of Sola Scriptura. I urge you to print 2 copies, study it and give it to your wife, as it will be criticallly important in these discussions.

Keep us posted.
Pax tecum,

 

[pnewton]

I had a great tape bu John MacArthur I wish I still had to send you (I gave them all to my mom). In it John MacArthur laid out the reasons for sola scriptura, focusing primarily on II Timothy 3:16. In it he consistenly added the word “sufficient” (five times) without justifying the addition. This was the final protestant arguement I heard when I decided to join the Catholic Church, i.e., sola scriptura must have words added to the Bible to make it proveable.

He also tried to argue from the end of Revelations about “adding to this book”, but that was just silliness and total intellectual dishonesty.

I have always included JM as one of the primary influences in me becoming Catholic.

 

[Della]

What troubles me in all of this is that a) your wife should take the word of a rabid anti-Catholic over that of the Church and her own husband! b) That she has apparently received such poor catechesis since being received into the Church that she can’t even see through JM’s obvious lies and distortions. And c) that she hasn’t figured out for herself by now that if the Church gave us the Bible then surely the Church would know what it says, and even more importantly, what it means. Maybe you should bring up some of these points with her. Ask her if she is more willing to believe some sensationalist demagogue like JM or the Church Christ himself founded?

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks to DavidFilmer who posted this on another thread and it makes so much sense that I swiped it and post ithere because it may be helpful.

Quote DavidFilmer:
The folks you describe are those who insist there is some sort of “secret teaching” that isn’t in the Catechism or the writings of the Early Church, etc.

The trouble with the idea of “secret teaching” is that it’s secret. How is the laity supposed to find out about it? How are we supposed to know we should worship Mary if that teaching is secret?

Ask them how they found out about the secrets. They won’t have a very good answer.

Here’s what usually happens: someone leaves the Church for reasons that have little to do with doctrine (often an irregular marriage situation, or maybe they don’t like what the Church says about birth control or women priests, etc). They don’t feel comfortable going to another “denomination” because they are at least Catholic enough to realize these all evolved from Catholicism. So they go to non-denominational churches where anti-Catholic propeganda is common. THIS is where they learn the “secrets.”

Pax tecum,

 

[mwfields]

Thanks to you all. The past few days (nights) have been a whirwind for me. As you can likely tell, I have been pretty passive in my own faith and a poor spiritual leader of my family. A good example, a good man, a good father, but faith without works, so to speak. I let Sunday be my (and our family’s) spiritual feasting (as well as Catholic school for the kids), and our little country church is pretty dead. the kids are bored and the ‘worship’ can’t compare iwth the sound and light show my wife grew up with. She’s longing for something richer, deeper, more personal and has not felt it on sunday and I’ve not done much else. I can se how appealing the “church of what’s happening now” is to her.

so I’ve read more, prayed more, talked with more people in the past week or so than in my whole life put together before this. So, in a weird way, I’m thankful to that jerk brother in law who gave her the macArthur CD.

My wife has calmed down a little. She’s not going anywhere and has committed, for the time, not to make any dramaitc changes in her Sunday, until we, together take a look at all of this.

So I have a huge respponsibility here and need your prayers, help, advise while I continue to do a lot of work, be patient and let God work too.

I’ve bought a lot of material and have begun to digest it, but ANYHTING that any of you can suggest will be received with an open mind by me.

My soul, my wife and my children depend on me beginning to lead this family passionately today and on into the future.

Thank you all for your help to this point.

Now, can anyone explain to me the concept of “Covering”? It seems that the reformers use the term in many ways, coverd by God, coverd by the blood of Jesus, covered by the new Conenant, etc. Where is it in the Bible and what does it mean?

Next, some definitions:

Righteous

Salvation

Sanctified

Justified

Attoned

Saved

I thought I knew what these terms meant, but they are thrown around so loosly by the reformers that I can not tell what they mean. I read them in the Bible and my head swims to understand the passage in light of the way some use the words. So help me if you can. is there a dictionary of sorts for scriptural terms?

Next, Who is this guy Spurgeon (I don’t know if I spelled it correctly)? Apparently he was an Anglican minister from way back. But I’d like toknow more about him and the ax that he had to grind on us.

Next, If Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, why is he never mentioned by Paul in his letters from the Roman jail?

Can I demonstrate, Biblically, that Peter ever went to Rome?

Does 1 Peter 2:5 mean that Peter “taught against the priesthood”?

Does Galatians 2:7-8 and 11-14 mean that Peter was never called to convert the Gentiles?

They claim no Apostolic succession of Popes until Gregory made it up and “filled in the blanks” to secure his power. How do I deal with this?

Was there a time when 3 people claimed to be the Pope at the same time? Explain?

They calim that Pope Alexander had sex orgies at the "Banquet of Chestnuts) - huh? Where is this comming from? they can’t tell me, but do any of you have an idea of how this got started?

(You can see that I’m being deluged with questions here and it’s like trying to drink from a fire hose to find the answers)

Did PJP II say, in a general audience in May 1997 that Mary was the key to Heaven? and if so, what did he mean?

Did Benedict, on his recent rise to the Papacy, “place the church and (him)self into the hands of Mary” and if so, what did he mean?

Was Papal infallability “voted in” in 1870 by s “split vote”?

Take your pick folks. There is a lot of venom and hate out there, and it’s comming at me from a lot of directions now. I seems like the enemy of our soul is making a real strong effort to pull my family away from the Catholic Church. I’m pretty tough, but I can not do this myself. I’ve given to God what is His, but I need to keep working, praying, loving and talking with my wife about all of these as she gets more and more questions from all around her.

God Bless You All - I can’t wait to hear back from you.

 

[BlackKnight]

One thing that you have to remember is that if they can’t offer you a definitive reference that they got their stuff from then they are the ones who must prove the allegations with factual citations, and until they do, their assertions have no more weight than a person alleging that the sky is purple and green.

“Prove it” is one of your very best defenses, because in any debate an allegation that cannot be substantiated with facts is discarded. This is the same as any legal case, and so a literal “put up or shut up” is appropriate. This works well since a great deal of what they allege has no basis in fact and when they can’t provide their proofs, they may then begin to really question their own sources.

Yes there were 3 “popes” at one point, but 2 were “anti-popes”. So what, there is (to the best of my knowlege) at least one anti-pope today. It doesn’t mean a thing and certainly doesn’t invalidate the office any more than Jefferson Davis’ presidency of the Confederacy invalidated the office of the President of the US. (DUH!)

There have indeed been immoral and messed up men who have been popes…so what? Though bad, it does not affect the truth of the Catholic Church any more than the bad and immoral men who have been presidents of the US invalidates the US. Moreover, the Holy Spirit has kept the promise of Christ to the church in that none of the bad guys ever attempted to change the truths of the faith. Human failings of its members does not invalidate the truth of the faith any more than the moral failings of non-Catholcs invalidates whatever denom they are from. (Begin to see the holes in their logic here?)

Tradition told us all along that Peter was in Rome and that he was buried there after being crucified upside down when he said he wasn’t worthy to die as his master had. We knew that he was buried under the hill at Vaticanus, but they did find the actual body of St. Peter right there under the altar of St. Peter’s basilica during some renovation and excavation during WWII. The body has no feet because the Romans didn’t spend any great effort in removing it and just hacked it down the easy way. Nothing was said about this at the time it was discovered because the Nazis occupied Italy at that time and you don’t have to be Indiana Jones to figure out the rest…

Now, can anyone explain to me the concept of “Covering”? It seems that the reformers use the term in many ways, coverd by God, coverd by the blood of Jesus, covered by the new Conenant, etc. Where is it in the Bible and what does it mean?

“Covering” is one reason that your wife has calmed down probably…When I was in the Assembly of God we were taught that based on 1st Cor, 11:2-16 that every man was to be the spiritual authority over his household, and as such provides a “spiritual covering” for his wife and children. Basically it comes down to being obedient to the authority set over you in the Body of Christ because the pastor etc form the cover for each parish church… I wasn’t very surprised since the Catholic Church has taught this forever, it’s Biblical and it’s traditional, and in general it works pretty well. I was surprised to find it being taught in non-Catholic churches ( ). The idea being to be in submission to those set over you in the church, right? The biggest problem is that in n-C churches it got way all outta hand and there was (and are) some bad abuses among some denoms.

My main question to n-Cs who try to teach this is how then do they justify the revolt and rebellion of the “reformers” since nothing in the NT or the teachings of these preachers justifies breaking away from the church and the authority. They really don’t have any very good answers for that.

Covered by the blood of Christ is just a non-catholic phrase for the sacrifice that Christ made for our sins on the cross. We believe that too. but they interpret to mean that once they are “saved” that God no longer sees any of their sins and they are headed to heaven pretty much regardless of their good or bad works. It has to do with “Eternal Security” and what some call “Once Saved, Always Saved”, (“OSAS”) both of which are names for the notion that once they pray that “sinner’s prayer” and “get saved” that they can never lose their salvation. Not all non-Catholics believe this and the Catholic Church has never and will never teach it because it’s unBiblical. Just have a good long look at Matthew 25: 31-46 and that will pretty much remove all doubt. There are whole pile of proof texts that they may offer you, but if you check them out you’ll see that they are all taken out of context and taken to mean something that the New Testament does not say.
Relevent answering passages are as follows:
Matt 7:21, 12:37, 24:13, Romans 6:23, 11:22, 1st Cor 4:3, 9:27, 10:11-12, 15:2, 2nd Timothy 2:11-13, Philippians 2:12, 3:13 & 16, 2nd Peter 2:20.

 

[BlackKnight]

If you wanna see what Spurgeon believed (He was a bigtime preacher and anti-Catholic Calvinist & a big hero of that guy John MacArthur) have a look at his personal “A Puritan Catechism”

Wanna read something really funny that tells you that modern n-Cs don’t listen to him even.

81. Q. What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord’s Supper?​

A. It is required of them who would worthily partake of the Lord’s Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:28-29), of their faith to feed upon him (2 Cor. 13:5), of their repentance (1 Cor. 11:31), love (1 Cor. 11:18-20), and new obedience, (1 Cor. 5:8) lest coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

One thing that you DO NOT want to fall into is the trap of having to “prove” everything according to the Bible. This is something called Sola Scriptura and as with most of the reformation’s doctrines is unscriptural itself.

Have a look at this : Apologetics Backwards and Aw-fensive Strategies.

This one is VERY Important! “Come Out from under the Roman Catholic Church!” Four Mistakes Never to Make When Talking to a “Bible Christian”
Be assured that you are in my prayers.

 

[BlackKnight]

They calim that Pope Alexander had sex orgies at the "Banquet of Chestnuts) - huh? Where is this comming from? they can’t tell me, but do any of you have an idea of how this got started?

Here’s the facts of this Pope Alexander VI. Though they say he may have had some good points it seems that he was an immoral nitwit. As if non-Catholic denoms have had no immoral leaders. It’s just cheap shots IMO.

 

[BlackKnight]

Papal Infallibility

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other “Bible Christians” often confuse the charism of papal “infallibility” with “impeccability.” They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

From Papal Infallibility. This doctrine was defined in 1870 at this Vatican Council and the vote was far from the “split” that they are trying to allege.

On Monday, 18 July, 1870, one day before the outbreak of the Franco-German War, 435 fathers of the council assembled at St. Peter’s under the presidency of Pope Pius IX. The last vote was now taken; 433 fathers voted placet, and only two, Bishop Aloisio Riccio of Cajazzo, Italy, and Bishop Edward Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas, voted non placet

The debate seems to have been more about whether the timing was right than about the belief itself. This is a good article and well worth reading.
God bless!

 

[WynCatholic]

mwfields:

My soul, my wife and my children depend on me beginning to lead this family passionately today and on into the future.

You have been and will be in our prayers.

mwfields:

Now, can anyone explain to me the concept of “Covering”? It seems that the reformers use the term in many ways, coverd by God, coverd by the blood of Jesus, covered by the new Conenant, etc. Where is it in the Bible and what does it mean?

Others will answer perhaps better than I in my limited time, but lemme take a run at it.
The concept of ‘covering’ is part and parcel of the reformed concept of a forensic atonement. It is a judicial perspective on our salvation that discounts the repeated NewTestament description of our being United with Christ in His life death resurrection and reign… REALLY UNITED. not merely a judiciaial act that covered our sin, but one that is the divine familial act of redemption, of becoming sin for us, of bearing our sin in his own body on the tree. … of our being united with him in His ressurrection and life. In fact His saving work continues in and through us, members of His Body, partakers in the divine nature, we, his church, seated with Him in the heavenlies…
my goodness, I am getting carried away there. Read the New testament letters as your source documents, the plain sense of the words , of what they heard and understood is catholic teaching. , 'cause they are Catholic documents.
A Year ago last Easter my train ride of intimacy with God hit high speed when I discovered that the God who always worked personally and incarnationally did it again when when in Christ He saved us (me) as members of His Body, and all the new testament descriptions of that truth were REALLY true, and not mere ‘word pictures’. Despite the warmth and music and fellowship of my MB (Mostly Baptist aka MennoniteBrethren), I followed the Bible’s theology and started RCIA in fall '04 and am now a Catholic. I am where God wants me, even though Church is now pretty different.

mwfields:

Next, Who is this guy Spurgeon (I don’t know if I spelled it correctly)? Apparently he was an Anglican minister from way back. But I’d like toknow more about him and the ax that he had to grind on us…

Baptist, long time dead, the ‘prince of preachers’. One of my many baptist preacher ancestors went to the school for preachers at Spurgeon’s tabernacle. I grew up reading old reprints of Spurgeons sermons.
The best place for you to start is the stories of the conversions by many reformed/calvinistic baptists to the Church. start with Scott Hahn (calvinistic but not baptist)

mwfields:

Take your pick folks. There is a lot of venom and hate out there, and it’s comming at me from a lot of directions now. I seems like the enemy of our soul is making a real strong effort to pull my family away from the Catholic Church. I’m pretty tough, but I can not do this myself. I’ve given to God what is His, but I need to keep working, praying, loving and talking with my wife about all of these as she gets more and more questions from all around her

Get some 'why I became Catholic" type books. and we shall pray for her and you and those others also.
And remember this: your faith walk with Christ as a Catholic can be even more deep and personal and meaningful than any protestant could imagine, because the Bible really means it when it says 'in Christ" “in Him”, “in union with” . and you don’t need any complex theological structure to reinterpret the words to take away their meaning… like John MacArthur does, and like I used to.

 

[arieh0310]

mwfields:

Can I demonstrate, Biblically, that Peter ever went to Rome?

They claim no Apostolic succession of Popes until Gregory made it up and “filled in the blanks” to secure his power. How do I deal with this?

*1 Peter 5:
13: She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.
14: Greet one another with the kiss of love. Peace to all of you that are in Christ. *

Because of Christian persecution at the time Rome was always referred to as Babylon. Also, there is tons of extra-biblical evidence that Peter was in Rome

Peter’s successors were also listed prior to Gregory “filling in the blanks”.

 

[worm]

I am an ex-catholic. No hiding. I never heard the gospel for the first 30 years of my life (first 19 active) in the RCC. Was not told that we must **believe **the gospel (1 Cor 15, Mark 1:15) ,that we are to repent of our sins(Mark 6:12), that we must be born again (John 3:1-7). I hope mwfields could objectively look at the other side of the coin. I was going to post a bunch of sites mwfields could visit, but they would all get slammed for being anti-catholic. I hope he does his own searching, mabey for testimonies of former catholics/priests/ nuns. By the way I have never heard a protetant or evangelical or bible fundamentalist call anyone a anti-protestant, ever.

 

[arieh0310]

worm:

I am an ex-catholic. No hiding. I never heard the gospel for the first 30 years of my life (first 19 active) in the RCC. Was not told that we must **believe **the gospel (1 Cor 15, Mark 1:15) ,that we are to repent of our sins(Mark 6:12), that we must be born again (John 3:1-7). I hope mwfields could objectively look at the other side of the coin.

I have been investigating Catholicism for 6 months and have discovered all that you “missed” and more. I have never heard the Gospel preached more clearly and fully than by the Catholic Church. At one mass I hear more Scripture than a whole month at my “Bible only Church”.