John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Howie01]

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

How do you resolve the conflict between two seemingly different statements by the same man?

 

[MrS]

I think we are reaching the point at which the “rubber” of sola scriptura meets the “road” of everyday life. The final question we should ask the Protestant is this: “Can you show us where in history sola scriptura has worked.” In other words, where, throughout Protestantism’s relatively brief life span, can we find examples (just one will do) of sola scriptura actually working, functioning in such a way that it brings doctrinal certitude and unity of doctrine among Christians? The answer is nowhere.

As a rule of faith that, without recourse to Sacred Tradition and an infallible Magisterium, promises doctrinal certitude and a unity of faith, sola scriptura fails miserably.

Would quietly wooping one of my kids up side the head with a hard cover DR count??

.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

How do you resolve the conflict between two seemingly different statements by the same man?

By realizing that a lot of things are not either/or, but are both/and.

 

[Howie01]

Hhmmmmm … The founder of the Catholic Church was a Jew.

I thought you believed that all of those Jews were Catholics…

MrS:

And our theology and beliefs are rooted in Judism.

Because of the error of replacement theology.

MrS:

The New Covenant, and the only covenant coming from Jesus is found in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

The articulation of the new covenant is found in Jeremiah 31ff.

MrS:

The New and Eternal Covenant… does not sound like it was a one-time thing only symbolized at the Last Supper.

Again, the articulation of the new covenant is found in Jeremiah 31ff; the supper is the commemoration of it, and the sacrifice of the cross is the commencement of it.

MrS:

By the way, the Covenant is a one-way promise from God. We need only to believe.

That’s “faith alone,” which you don’t believe.

Read the book by Diprose.

 

[Tomster]

By realizing that a lot of things are not either/or, but are both/and.

It is interesting how Protestants try to distort and misreport the Church Fathers. This is a ploy that has been adopted by a growing number of evangelical apologists. It is a hijacking of the Church Fathers which attempts to press them into service for sola scriptura. This ploy mimics the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, who also attempt to defend their unorthodox teachings from behind a carefully - constructed facade of patrisic quotes - quotes invariably taken out of context and without regard to the complete writings of the Fathers.

 

[Howie01]

By realizing that a lot of things are not either/or, but are both/and.

How does that resolve the conflict?

 

[Howie01]

MrS:

Okay, I think you either don’t want to look it up, or you think it may not be there.

so without further I do…

It’s not there, MrS. Peter nowhere makes the statement that the bible is hard to understand; does he?

Paul certainly says that the OT is able to give wisdom to one that leads to the knowledge of salvation through faith in Christ.

That’s not hard to understand; is it?

In fact John states in his Gospel and first epistle, the reason for his writing them is so the reader may know he has eternal life.

So, ISTM, what you’re being taught contradicts what the apostles teach with respect to the writings.

MrS:

2Peter 3:

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Our separated brethren for the most part are actually untaught.

On what basis are they untaught, IYO?

MrS:

I am CERTAIN that Peter was not saying that there are more teachers with any authority outside the Church.

Correct. What Peter said had to do only with the difficulty of some of what Paul wrote; namely, “these things.”

In context, “these things” are eschatological, and only “some of them” are hard to understand.

Not “all of them.”

Neither does Peter say, “they’re impossible to understand.”

Methinks you’re “twisting” what Peter says; therefore, you’re unstable, and untaught, ISTM.

:coffeeread:

 

[Tomster]

How does that resolve the conflict?

Contextuality is not one of your strong points is it?

 

[Howie01]

Contextuality is not one of your strong points is it?

That doesn’t answer my question, as usual.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

How does that resolve the conflict?

It’s not either a metaphor or a reality, it is both a metaphor and a reality.

 

[Tomster]

That doesn’t answer my question, as usual.

And as usual you are attempting to do something you have no power to do. Specifically, to interpret Scriptures infallibly. Yours is just a mere opinion, fallible, subject to error.

 

[Tomster]

It’s not there, MrS. Peter nowhere makes the statement that the bible is hard to understand; does he?

Paul certainly says that the OT is able to give wisdom to one that leads to the knowledge of salvation through faith in Christ.

That’s not hard to understand; is it?

In fact John states in his Gospel and first epistle, the reason for his writing them is so the reader may know he has eternal life.

So, ISTM, what you’re being taught contradicts what the apostles teach with respect to the writings.

On what basis are they untaught, IYO?

Correct. What Peter said had to do only with the difficulty of some of what Paul wrote; namely, “these things.”

In context, “these things” are eschatological, and only “some of them” are hard to understand.

Not “all of them.”

Neither does Peter say, “they’re impossible to understand.”

Methinks you’re “twisting” what Peter says; therefore, you’re unstable, and untaught, ISTM.

:coffeeread:

The verse has been shown and explained to you. Methinks you are stuck in your own in your own fallible mistakes.

 

[MrS]

The verse has been shown and explained to you. Methinks you are stuck in your own in your own fallible mistakes.

Perhaps he can enlighten us as to the specific verses of St Paul to which St Peter is referring.

no… wait, that would be a personal interpretation, right?

.

 

[Howie01]

And as usual you are attempting to do something you have no power to do. Specifically, to interpret Scriptures infallibly. Yours is just a mere opinion, fallible, subject to error.

This question has nothing to do with Scripture, but with Augustine, and you still are not answering my question, as usual.

 

[Howie01]

It’s not either a metaphor or a reality, it is both a metaphor and a reality.

Where’s that (both metaphor and reality) discussed in the article you’ve linked?

 

[Howie01]

And as usual you are attempting to do something you have no power to do. Specifically, to interpret Scriptures infallibly. Yours is just a mere opinion, fallible, subject to error.

And so is your choice of the RCC as "the" authority and truth, "merely an opinion, fallible, and subject to error.

 

[MrS]

This question has nothing to do with Scripture, but with Augustine, and you still are not answering my question, as usual.

Perhaps you have missed the history of the Church… lots of councils, lots of discussion, years of discernment to arrive at a decision.

Just as in ACTS when there was much discussion, and disagreement… but then St Peter stood up and made the decision… whether every one agreed or not.

Then, as now, there is a primacy among equals. The Bishop of Rome has the final say… sometimes as a result of centuries of study.

I guess it would be easier to go to a faith community and watch/listen to the hired pastor preach on HIS favorite verses, make HIS personal observations, and expound on HIS claim to being an authority.

Until the people in the pews object and replace him … or her and hire someone who will tell them what they want to hear.

And that is not meant to deny that the Catholic Church has many weak priests and bishops… we do.

But there is a foundation of faith and morals and doctrines by which we know they are wrong.

.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Where’s that (both metaphor and reality) discussed in the article you’ve linked?

The article is not a comprehensive list of every both/and belief in Catholicism, but a handful of examples. One must “interpret” Augustine’s writings in light of everything he wrote, not picking out one paragraph that seems to support the metaphor to the exclusion of everything else he wrote describing the reality, especially when you don’t share your source for that one paragraph so that others can read it in context.

One must also not use Augustine as the sole authority on Catholic teaching. We don’t get our doctrine from Augustine.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

And so is your choice of the RCC as "the" authority and truth, "merely an opinion, fallible, and subject to error.

Actually, the authority of the Catholic Church (not just the Latin Rite) was given by Jesus Christ. Unless you think Christ Himself was just sharing an opinion, fallible and subject to error when He said, “You are Kephas, and upon this kephas I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” and when He said, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”

 

[Howie01]

Actually, the authority of the Catholic Church (not just the Latin Rite) was given by Jesus Christ. Unless you think Christ Himself was just sharing an opinion, fallible and subject to error when He said, “You are Kephas, and upon this kephas I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” and when He said, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”

Again, that’s merely "an opinion, fallible, and subject to error;" correct?