John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[DLClark]

First of all, they didn’t kill “millions” of people - there weren’t millions of people around in Europe back then.

Second, every church has persecuted someone, as well as being persecuted themselves. Don’t throw stones unless you can prove that your church never persecuted anyone. We’re all sinners in the eyes of God.

Third, it’s “heresy”, not “heresay”. Unless you’re talking about “hearsay”, like the kind of evidence that you’re providing.

You do not know your church history very well. Check out the inquisition, the crusades and how the Catholic church persecuted people who did not accept the church’s faith. The church may not have killed millions but it did kill a lot of people and Jews for not believing.

 

[rtconstant]

“Behold my servant will act wisely, He will be raised, and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as many as were offended at Him, His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man, His form, marred beyong that of human likeness. Even so shall He sprinkle many nations and Kings will shut their mouth because of Him.” That was described of Jesus Christ and what the crucifixion was really like 700 years before He became flesh. Isaiah 52:13-15. “But He was pierced for our transgression, He was crushed for our iniquity, and the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him and by His wounds we are healed.” Isaiah 53:5, “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open his mouth.” v.7 No, Jesus gave His flesh over to be broken, crushed and bled out for our sin penalty. What Jesus was speaking were spiritual words, not literal. The food he offered was spiritual food for the soul, not literal bread for the stomach.

So you quote a verse that describes the literal persecution of Our Lord, to back up the novelty that the Eucharist is symbolic only? This recent innovation is not only against the rather blunt language of the Bible, but also assumes the early Church was completely in error on this doctrine, until modern reformers discovered the truth. Finally, it is irrational in that it makes the assertion that Jesus/God just gives us commands to perform rituals for the heck of it.

 

[RonaldH]

Take a look at post # 267, the one right above your last message. Care to comment?

Tomster, I read it, I don’t care to argue. lol do you look for a fight? curious Since I have been saved I marvel at the unity within genuine Christendom. I see the love of Jesus in the lives of various denominations. I see differences yes, but when those children of God are truly born again His love is larger than the differences, I can even see it in this forum. You err not knowing the power of God. When a person is truly born again the Spirit Himself guides individuals through His Word. No not in perfect unity for we are yet a fallen people even after we are saved, but as I see it what you defend has as much internal division as you so quickly seem to point out at others.

 

[Tomster]

Back in flash. Need

 

[Pixie_Dust]

“The Words I speak to you they are spirit and they are life”. John 6:63, spoke just after He told them to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus did not tell His followers to canabalize Him.

Yes, and even after he said this many of his followers left him. Cannibalism is eating dead human flesh. Jesus is not dead! He is rised and glorified! The words Jesus spoke are spiritually discerned. If he was speaking figuratively in John 6, why didn’t he clarify his meaning at that moment and stop those followers from walking away over a misunderstanding?

John 16:25, "“Though I have been speaking figuratively…” It was Jesus pattern of speech. He certainly did not intend for you nor I to eat His flesh but to partake of Him and His sacrifice, His body which was broken for you, His blood that was spilt for you. The issue here is salvation and you believe eating a wafer and drinking the wine gives you salvation.

No, we believe that eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood as He commanded gives us a participation in His death and resurrection, as St Paul says in 1 Corinthians. We also believe that without the Grace of God, and His gift of Faith, we can do nothing to inherit eternal life.

That is not consistent with the Scriptures, it is symbolic of Him, symbolic of the sacrifice and it is in Him, the real living Christ to whom you are to place your trust. “You believe in God, believe also in Me.” John 14:1, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” Acts 16:31, “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ” Acts 11:17

We believe it is the real, living Christ who comes to us in the Eucharist. We eat His Flesh and drink His Blood as he commanded us to do, for if we do not, He says we do not have life within us. May the Lord increase your faith.

 

[DLClark]

We do not have a problem with autority. We do have a problem when that authority does not line up with the Bible.

 

[Tomster]

Tomster, I read it, I don’t care to argue. lol do you look for a fight? curious Since I have been saved I marvel at the unity within genuine Christendom. I see the love of Jesus in the lives of various denominations. I see differences yes, but when those children of God are truly born again His love is larger than the differences, I can even see it in this forum. You err not knowing the power of God. When a person is truly born again the Spirit Himself guides individuals through His Word. No not in perfect unity for we are yet a fallen people even after we are saved, but as I see it what you defend has as much internal division as you so quickly seem to point out at others.

Save your pontificating. It doesn’t work here. You are not infallible. Your err is not knowing what the Church really is.

 

[Tomster]

We do not have a problem with autority. We do have a problem when that authority does not line up with the Bible.

Who or what is that “autority”?

 

[DLClark]

RonaldH:

I have a question for you since I think I understand that you are saying … one can read Scripture on their own, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, come to a correct understanding,

And the clearer the verse(s) is, the more likely we will agree on what the verse might mean.

so…

How do you understand this verse which I think is both clear in its instruction, and not as clear in the results which come from the instruction:

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.”

(yes, you can use St Paul for help if you wish… but not an outside source)

.

How would the Jews have understood it? To eat here is synonymous with faith. John 6:47. We use the same idea when we say “chew this over” , or “digest this fact”. Jesus was not teaching cannibalism.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

We do not have a problem with autority. We do have a problem when that authority does not line up with the Bible.

The authority was put in place well before the complete Bible was canonized, by about 350+ years. If something in the Catholic faith does not seem to line up with the Bible, perhaps it is your interpretation that is amiss? After all, our faith comes from the guys who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write those gospels and epistles. I think they’d know what they wrote and how to interpret it. It’s not a matter of “does this teaching line up with the Bible” it’s a matter of “does this interpretation of the Bible line up with Apostolic Teaching?”

 

[RonaldH]

Save your pontificating. It doesn’t work here. You are not infallible. Your err is not knowing what the Church really is.

I wasn’t “pontificating”, you asked me if I wanted to comment. I never claimed to be infallible. Why do you speak to me condescendingly? How is it that you think I do not know what the Church is? Are you speaking of your church or the Biblical church? I ask that honestly.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

How would the Jews have understood it?

They understood Jesus to mean exactly what He said - that’s why they were so put out at His statements and why so many of His followers walked away from Him that day.

To eat here is synonymous with faith. John 6:47.

Yes, it takes a great deal of faith to accept Jesus’ words as literal and know that what appears to us as bread and wine is truly His Flesh and Blood.

We use the same idea when we say “chew this over” , or “digest this fact”.

That puts a rather modern spin on ancient words, don’t you think?

Jesus was not teaching cannibalism.

No, because that involves eating dead human flesh, and He is not dead.

 

[DLClark]

There you go making the Protestant jump from figurative to literal speech once again. Jesus said unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you will not see eternal life, AND THEN at the last supper He took bread and said This IS MY BODY. Seems pretty literal to me.

Jesus was using a figure of speech here. In John 6, He was saking the people to believe in what He was saying to them.

 

[reteeks21]

Jesus was using a figure of speech here. In John 6, He was saking the people to believe in what He was saying to them.

What’s your basis for this? Furthermore, how do we decide what’s literal and what’s figurative?

 

[rtconstant]

You do not know your church history very well. Check out the inquisition, the crusades and how the Catholic church persecuted people who did not accept the church’s faith. The church may not have killed millions but it did kill a lot of people and Jews for not believing.

Actually she’s spot on.

The Inquisition over a period of several centuries there were about 3000 people who were put to death by their local governments because being found guilty of heretical beliefs. One was to many but that is about the extent of it.

That being said, Protestants are the last people to throw stones on this subject. Protestants not only killed Catholics in similar numbers, but also killed each other for believing the wrong things.

You bringing up the Crusades especially shows your ignorance on Christian history. While a lot of bad things happened in them, if it hadn’t of been for the Crusades you’d now be Muslim. The Crusades were fought because an alien power was invading the Christian world and taking it over.

 

[reteeks21]

Actually she’s spot on.

The Inquisition over a period of several centuries there were about 3000 people who were put to death by their local governments because being found guilty of heretical beliefs. One was to many but that is about the extent of it.

That being said, Protestants are the last people to throw stones on this subject. Protestants not only killed Catholics in similar numbers, but also killed each other for believing the wrong things.
**
You bringing up the Crusades especially shows your ignorance on Christian history. While a lot of bad things happened in them, if it hadn’t of been for the Crusades you’d now be Muslim. The Crusades were fought because an alien power was invading the Christian world and taking it over.**

Isn’t it amazing how ignorant people are when it comes to the Crusades? I attribute that to poor education in schools. As a history teacher I make darn sure my students know the truth. So many Christians point fingers at other Christians over events that were staged to try and help Christendom! What a shame.

 

[Tomster]

We do not have a problem with autority. We do have a problem when that authority does not line up with the Bible.

Seems like your problem has been ongoing for the past five hundred years or so. Read post # 265. Go now and read it.

 

[latin_rite]

I just find it so bizzare that a “preacher” can spend a whole sermon preaching against Catholicism!? This is their idea of Christianity and a worship service??

.what he is doing is a old trick basically he goes. " look at the big bad catholic church. look how wrong they are.they are evil. blah blah blah" and while they are looking at the big bad catholic church. They don’t notice the faults in his own teachings…or his hand in their pocket.

 

[MrS]

Jesus was using a figure of speech here. In John 6, He was saking the people to believe in what He was saying to them.

I STRONGLY suggest you ask someone fluent in Greek about “chew” or “gnaw”

You will find that it does not have any…ANY… intention of food for the mind or soul.

It is meant to mean chewing on real food, gnawing on actual edible items.

How strange that those who profess to be Christians can accept that their God came to us as a fragile, tiny infant…

and then put limits on how God can come to us when He promised He would not leave us orphans.

As to the word “is”… no different than a former president who wanted “is” to mean something else.

Until the 1500’s “This Is My Body” only meant one thing. And then, thanks to the reformers and their followers, private interpretation took over, and “This is my body” not only took on another meaning… but 200 meanings.

so, once again the Catholic Church dealt with the lack of authority of these people… and published a booklet that told of the shame of self-interpretation and the fact that all these people could not agree.

seanhyland.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/christoph-raspergers-1577-pamphlet-ducentae-paucorum-listing-200-protestant-interpretations-of-christs-words-this-is-my-body/

.

 

[Tomster]

I wasn’t “pontificating”, you asked me if I wanted to comment. I never claimed to be infallible. Why do you speak to me condescendingly? How is it that you think I do not know what the Church is? Are you speaking of your church or the Biblical church? I ask that honestly.

You certainly did claim to be infallible when you said that you are saved. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you receive some kind of interior message? The ultimate reality is that you are not saved. The only way you are going to know whether you are saved or not is the split second after you die. It’s called the final judgement. Until then you are just another sinner like the rest of us and as Scripture also says nothing unclean shall enter heaven.