John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[M0nkey]

I’ll note that according to guanophore, scripture has no authority, but according to the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent scriptures do have authority.

I believe the point guanophore is making is the authority that made the canon of scripture that follows with the teaching magisterium of the Church. In other words, when two groups dispute over the meaning of scriptures, who gets to decide what is the infallible doctrine and correct teaching of the text? According to Protestantism the two groups will just split up and start their own new churches; a quick recipe for disaster, derision and dissension hence the reason why it’s self defeating. You see, without the teaching authority of the Church, the text stands for nothing as empirical data has shown Joe Blow off the street can decide for himself what exegesis they want to interpret and start a brand new name or style of Christianity. We can both agree that the text is authoritative and it tells the truth, however, the reason the Church is the pillar of truth is because she is the only one willing to defend the truth and entrusted with this work for the salvation of the world. (I Tim. 3:15)

 

[phoenix3212]

You know, guanophore, in some of the google results were articles by Roman Catholics, about Roman Catholics, and about the Roman Catholic Church, and those titles were found both in the article titles, as well as the body.

You’re being rude. What are we to think of the 22 Catholic rites that are not Latin, or, as you say, Roman? Are they not Catholic? You are insulting the Catholic Church by deliberately disregarding twenty-two rites that are not characteristically Roman.

 

[Howie01]

guanophore:

It is very good evidence that it well possible to fall away from the faith.

I agree.

That one has freely chosen to align himself with a protestant church after having been aligned with the Catholic Church is clear evidence that they’ve walked away from the Catholic faith.

guanophore:

Is it not possible to gain the whole world, and still lose one’s soul? Would you not think that such a person had be “huckstered” by the evil one?

Assumes that leaving the Catholic church results in one losing his soul. As I said above, leaving the Catholic Church is a free will choice.

guanophore:

Actually, you do a fair amount of pontificating.

As do you.

guanophore:

Perhaps it is easier to see the speck in another’s eye?

ISTM that’s what you’re doing, now; is it?

guanophore:

Of course “former Catholics” will say things contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Please direct me to the infallible church teaching that, as MrS states, “So as more and more study the Bible - closely - more and more leave the confusion of the reformation and its fruits.” Provide the paragraph number in the CCC for that, or the number of whatever council made that prouncement.

That was the subject and context of my remark.

guanophore:

MOst Catholics who have been led astray by the errant ideas emanating from the Reformation did not know or understand their faith, and were easy prey. I know, I used to be one of them.

What you’re doing here, guanophore, is attempting to establish a universal truth based upon your experience, as the norm for all who leave the RCC. That’s silly.

All of the ex-Catholics I’ve spoken with state that they left the RCC after studying the scripture.

So much for your experience as the universal norm for those who have left the RCC.

guanophore:

This whole post bears a sarcastic tone, Howie.

If sarcasm is forbidden, why does the forum supply sarcastic emoticons to indicate sarcasm, guanophore?

 

[Howie01]

You’re being rude. What are we to think of the 22 Catholic rites that are not Latin, or, as you say, Roman? Are they not Catholic? You are insulting the Catholic Church by deliberately disregarding twenty-two rites that are not characteristically Roman.

What I’m doing is stating a fact.

Had you used the google linked provided you would know that.

 

[Howie01]

I believe the point guanophore is making is the authority that made the canon of scripture that follows with the teaching magisterium of the Church. In other words, when two groups dispute over the meaning of scriptures, who gets to decide what is the infallible doctrine and correct teaching of the text? According to Protestantism the two groups will just split up and start their own new churches; a quick recipe for disaster, derision and dissension hence the reason why it’s self defeating. You see, without the teaching authority of the Church, the text stands for nothing as empirical data has shown Joe Blow off the street can decide for himself what exegesis they want to interpret and start a brand new name or style of Christianity. We can both agree that the text is authoritative and it tells the truth, however, the reason the Church is the pillar of truth is because she is the only one willing to defend the truth and entrusted with this work for the salvation of the world. (I Tim. 3:15)

If guanophore wants to backpeddle on what he said, let him do that.

He didn’t say what you’re saying he said, he said, “rule” and “authority” are the purview of persons, not Writings, however Holy.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think so, guanophore; be that as it may, were I you, I wouldn’t worry about it; it’s not the end of the world.

How would you define a Protestant, if not someone who calls themselves a Christian, and rejects unity with the bishop of Rome?

Falling into error most certainly is the end - maybe not of the whole world, but certainly for the one who rejects the Apostolic Teaching.

Correct guanophore, the role of the historian is to record the actions and practices of those about whom they’re writing…

So, we are in agreement that there were persons calling themselves Catholic who were anti-semitic (there still are!). This is not the Teaching of the Church.

There have been anti-semites of all stripes.

Indeed, but this is not the Teaching that Jesus committed to the Apostles.

I don’t think so, guanophore.

It is difficult for those steeped in error to actually see what it is that they are steeped within. I know, this happened to me for many years. I thought I was following “God’s Word”.

You know, guanophore, in some of the google results were articles by Roman Catholics, about Roman Catholics, and about the Roman Catholic Church, and those titles were found both in the article titles, as well as the body.

Yes, but articles by Roman Catholics do not define the teaching of the Church. Church teaching comes from Jesus, through the Apostles.

The Catholic Church is not Roman.

You would do well to clean your own house first regarding that, guanophore.

Sorry, can’t clean that one! There are 23 Rites in the Catholic Church. Only one is “Roman” (Latin). It happens to be the most common in America, and people who don’t know any better think it is the only one.

Well it is to my satisfaction, and the satisfaction of many others, but obviously it’s not to yours.

Certainly not! An extrabiblical doctrine that champions that everything must be found explicitlly in scripture seems self refuting to me.

I’ll note that according to guanophore, scripture has no authority, but according to the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent scriptures do have authority.

Scripture does have authority, but only when it is used by those who have been given that authority by Christ. Those who reject the authority appointed by Christ wield it by their own self appointed authority (people don’t realize they do this - they think they are being led by the HS).

The Scriptures are authoritative. They cannot exercise the role of teaching that Jesus gave to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

That one has freely chosen to align himself with a protestant church after having been aligned with the Catholic Church is clear evidence that they’ve walked away from the Catholic faith.

No it is not. In fact, in only a very small percentage of cases have these persons walked away from Catholicism. What they walk away from is their lack of understanding most of the time. MOst lapsed Catholics did not learn their faith, and do not understand what the Church teaches. This is why they are so easily drawn away. When they do understand the teaching (like no birth control) they have not learned why it is taught. One cannot be charged with apostacy when one never embraced the Teaching in the first place.

Assumes that leaving the Catholic church results in one losing his soul. As I said above, leaving the Catholic Church is a free will choice.

For some it may be. Those who leave because they reject the teaching of Christ imperal their souls. Of course, the road to perdition is a free will choice for all.

As do you.

I cannot deny it.

ISTM that’s what you’re doing, now; is it?

Bragging about “saving” Catholics? I don’t think so…

Please direct me to the infallible church teaching that, as MrS states, “So as more and more study the Bible - closely - more and more leave the confusion of the reformation and its fruits.” Provide the paragraph number in the CCC for that, or the number of whatever council made that prouncement.

This might come as a shock to you, Howie, but MrS was not a member ofthe infallible council, and his statements are not considered infallible, either.

However, I do agree with MrS that separation of the Holy Scriptures from the Apostolic Tradition that produced them is a recipe for error and division.

That was the subject and context of my remark.

I did not have an issue with the subject and context, just your sarcastic tone.

What you’re doing here, guanophore, is attempting to establish a universal truth based upon your experience, as the norm for all who leave the RCC. That’s silly.

Certainly not! I know there are other reasons people leave, and my research has extended far beyond my own personal experience. What would be your explanation for the reasons that Catholics leave?

All of the ex-Catholics I’ve spoken with state that they left the RCC after studying the scripture.

Yes, I had the same experience.

So much for your experience as the universal norm for those who have left the RCC.

I don’t see how.

If sarcasm is forbidden, why does the forum supply sarcastic emoticons to indicate sarcasm, guanophore?

Press on, Howie. If you cannot keep your anti-Catholic hostility in check, not even an emoticon will save you.

 

[matahari]

Well it is to my satisfaction, and the satisfaction of many others, but obviously it’s not to yours.

.

---

2 Timothy 3:16 states " All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting for instructing in justice." That is not a definition of what
Protestants mean when they preach Sola Scriptura . If SS is the basic premise of Protestant belief it is not in the Word of God

Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

 

[MrS]

[1] Please direct me to the infallible church teaching that, as MrS states, “So as more and more study the Bible - closely - more and more leave the confusion of the reformation and its fruits.” Provide the paragraph number in the CCC for that, or the number of whatever council made that prouncement.

[2] All of the ex-Catholics I’ve spoken with state that they left the RCC after studying the scripture.

[1] I assume this is an attempt to add humor to the thread - that my statement was an infallible Church teaching
The statement reflects the actuality of the growing number of ordained, well-taught, strong-in-Scripture, protestant ministers and pastors who are converting to Catholicism.
The numbers far out-weigh the few priests who seek marriage or freedom from their vows.
chnetwork.org/ …
I believe the “head-count” is very close to or over 1,000 conversions of protestant ministers… this is a relatively new group - about 10 years - around longer than about 3000 denominations (an average of 5 new faith communities are “born again” each week)
Rejoice, for their eyes have been opened.

[2] Most Catholics, sadly, don’t study Scripture. The best Bible-Study group I attend in mostly protestant (3 Catholics among about 30 non-Catholics - some extreme reformists). And yes we ALL have gained from the experience, including the few ex-Catholics who often say “I didn’t know that” or maybe “Hmm, I was never taught that.”
As Jeff Cavins noted… Catholics only leave Catholicism for one reason. They do not know what they are leaving. And let’s face it - not all of God’s children are mental giants. The average joe is the most likely to accept easy believism. Some, like Calvin, were simply well educated into imbicility (thanks Fr. Corapi)

.

 

[Tomster]

This is quite true, the doctrine of SS being the top of the list. Don’t you think that, a doctrine as essential as that, would be found in scripture?

On the contrary, Scripture demonstrates that “rule” and “authority” are the purview of persons, not Writings, however Holy. Authority requires the exercise of discernment, will, intellect, and above all, ability to take responsibility. The Scriptures, essential as they are, do not posess these qualities belonging only to persons. This is why the doctrine is flawed. Adherants to SS force the Scripture into a role they were never meant to fulfill.

Such refuations are not really necessary, since Protestantism is self refuting, beginning with the erroneous doctrine of SS. Neither are any of the doctrines “fresh”. All espoused by those protesting the Church founded by Christ were already defeated by the Church in the early centuries. I have not seen any “fresh” heresies, either.

It would be interesting at this point to state the defintion of sola scriptura given by, one, John MacArthur:

“Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.” John MacArthur - “Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible”

First, any proposed defintion of sola scriptura is by its very nature meaningless, except, perhaps, as a starting point to debate its existence or non existence. The definition is strictly a product of its adherent, who, wishing to promote the teaching, formulates his definiton to encompass what he desires sola scriptura to be. Since no statement in Scripture defines sola scriptura, any proposed definition is in reality begging the question and is subject to the biases and misconceptions of its proponent. Not only must he extract the principle of sola scriptura from a Scripture which does not explicitly teach the doctrine, he must perform the more difficult task of formulating a precise definiton of sola scriptura based on this same lack of information. :hey_bud:

 

[RonaldH]

If guanophore wants to backpeddle on what he said, let him do that.

He didn’t say what you’re saying he said, he said, “rule” and “authority” are the purview of persons, not Writings, however Holy.

Howie, I have no idea your church affliation, honest I don’t care. The RCC wants to label Christians as being false because of “our”, a term I use loosely, differences and how we come to different doctrinal beliefs. I pray for you, I pray now the Holy Spirit keeps your heart strong and clear from the frustrations that the father of lies tempts us to feel! Be strong in the Lord for you are not laboring in vain. Keep defending the faith and please pray for me also! “He that has the Son, has life and he that has NOT the Son, has not life”. I John 5:12 I attended the National Day of Prayer locally, there were Pentacostals, Baptists, Methodists, Non-Demominational Christians and Lutherns there, no judging no bickering, only oneness in prayer to God for our country!

 

[MrS]

This thread brings to mind the “classic” written by a non-Catholic (ex Catholic actually) who left the faith so he could minister to the world about the crisis of Catholicism.

His book, "The Gospel According to Rome" appeared in 1995, and is, at most, a rehash of Loraine Boettner silliness.

amazon.com/Gospel-According-Rome-James-McCarthy/dp/1565071077

I sometimes hear from an ex/anti-Catholic things that McCarthy opined.

However, about 6 years ago, a friend of mine wrote a detailed answer to this stuff in his book** “The Gospel According to James McCarthy”**
handsonapologetics.com/resources_2.htm

And a member here at CAF also did a good job.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num39.htm

I have, a number of times, given copies of both books to those searching for the truth. Call it fair and balanced, or whatever, but anyone deserves to see both “sides” of the Gospel.

I have never run into a non-Catholic who "knows the truth, claims inspiration or whatever from the Holy Spirit… and then offers both his source, and the sourch for dissenting opinion.

Poster’s like Howie can only use/abuse/misuse the Book of the Catholic Church to fight against the Catholic Church. They have nothing original of their own, except some man or woman’s personal “enlightenment”.

Another reason why the Catholic Church has survived for 2000 years, and will continue until He comers again, and beyond.

.

 

[Tomster]

Howie, I have no idea your church affliation, honest I don’t care. The RCC wants to label Christians as being false because of “our”, a term I use loosely, differences and how we come to different doctrinal beliefs. I pray for you, I pray now the Holy Spirit keeps your heart strong and clear from the frustrations that the father of lies tempts us to feel! Be strong in the Lord for you are not laboring in vain. Keep defending the faith and please pray for me also! “He that has the Son, has life and he that has NOT the Son, has not life”. I John 5:12 I attended the National Day of Prayer locally, there were Pentacostals, Baptists, Methodists, Non-Demominational Christians and Lutherns there, no judging no bickering, only oneness in prayer to God for our country!

Would you care to share how your doctrinal differences came about? Who among the many different Protestant sects has the authority to correct these differences?

 

[MrS]

Howie, I have no idea your church affliation, honest I don’t care. The RCC wants to label Christians as being false because of “our”, a term I use loosely, differences and how we come to different doctrinal beliefs. I pray for you, I pray now the Holy Spirit keeps your heart strong and clear from the frustrations that the father of lies tempts us to feel! Be strong in the Lord for you are not laboring in vain. Keep defending the faith and please pray for me also! “He that has the Son, has life and he that has NOT the Son, has not life”. I John 5:12 I attended the National Day of Prayer locally, there were Pentacostals, Baptists, Methodists, Non-Demominational Christians and Lutherns there, no judging no bickering, only oneness in prayer to God for our country!

That same inspired human author writes in John 6 on teaching that you must have the Son to have life, …"…unless you EAT the FLESH of the Son of Man, you have no life in you…"

and St Paul affirms the Real Presence when he warns the Church to discern the Body and Blood of their Savior.

Bottom line… The Church founded on Peter and the Apostles can provide that Real Presence through its ordained priesthood. No other faith community can even come close.

.

 

[RonaldH]

My bad, I should have posted Howie privately. As you can see I’m a “New Member” here. Differences came about because the freedom a genuinely born again child of God has, allows them to personally go to Him and ask Him to guide him personally through His Word. When we live in that liberty the frailties of the flesh and still having that fallen nature, there will be variations of interpretations on issues that are not critical to salvation. Even the Apostle Paul confronted Peter when Peter himself was in error! The problem you deal with as Catholics is that the church does your thinking *for *you and you *must *accept it as true even if you personally don’t agree nor understand it. Concerning having the Son, He dwells in one’s heart by faith, and faith alone. The Words were not literal but Spirital. To be taken literally is to be made a canibal. Besides if you truly believe the Bible, read Hebrews 10 and it makes it clear that Christ made one sacrifice for all time and sat down. In your transubstantiation you sacrifice Him over and over and over and over… and it will never take away sin. “Do this in memory of me” I’m curious, how do you feel of “your” first pope being married?

 

[fishisgood]

My bad, I should have posted Howie privately. As you can see I’m a “New Member” here. Differences came about because the freedom a genuinely born again child of God has, allows them to personally go to Him and ask Him to guide him personally through His Word. When we live in that liberty the frailties of the flesh and still having that fallen nature, there will be variations of interpretations on issues that are not critical to salvation. Even the Apostle Paul confronted Peter when Peter himself was in error! The problem you deal with as Catholics is that the church does your thinking *for *you and you *must *accept it as true even if you personally don’t agree nor understand it. Concerning having the Son, He dwells in one’s heart by faith, and faith alone. The Words were not literal but Spirital. To be taken literally is to be made a canibal. Besides if you truly believe the Bible, read Hebrews 10 and it makes it clear that Christ made one sacrifice for all time and sat down. In your transubstantiation you sacrifice Him over and over and over and over… and it will never take away sin. “Do this in memory of me” I’m curious, how do you feel of “your” first pope being married?

round and round we go… this again??? When you pray, as you have indicated (that you dont with Catholics) pray to see truth. Pray that we all do and I will do the same.

 

[MrS]

My bad, I should have posted Howie privately. As you can see I’m a “New Member” here. Differences came about because the freedom a genuinely born again child of God has, allows them to personally go to Him and ask Him to guide him personally through His Word. When we live in that liberty the frailties of the flesh and still having that fallen nature, there will be variations of interpretations on issues that are not critical to salvation. Even the Apostle Paul confronted Peter when Peter himself was in error! The problem you deal with as Catholics is that the church does your thinking *for *you and you *must *accept it as true even if you personally don’t agree nor understand it. Concerning having the Son, He dwells in one’s heart by faith, and faith alone. The Words were not literal but Spirital. To be taken literally is to be made a canibal. Besides if you truly believe the Bible, read Hebrews 10 and it makes it clear that Christ made one sacrifice for all time and sat down. In your transubstantiation you sacrifice Him over and over and over and over… and it will never take away sin. “Do this in memory of me” I’m curious, how do you feel of “your” first pope being married?

The Church has no problem with that. Although there is no record of any of the 12, married or not, whose wives accompanied them.

But that would be minor.

We have had popes who fathered illegitimate children, father and son popes, and lazy popes (especially during the Reformation) who were more concerned with art, pretige etc.

But the succession is unbroken… because, as Jesus planned, it is the Office that must be filled with a prime minister (not always a holy man) who is in charge until the King returns.

Christ established the authority in His Church. The Church He founded is perfect… but not the people in it… and certainly not the people outside of it.

.

 

[guanophore]

Howie, I have no idea your church affliation, honest I don’t care. The RCC wants to label Christians as being false because of “our”, a term I use loosely, differences and how we come to different doctrinal beliefs.

This is not true, Ronald. First of all, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. Secondly, the Catholic Church has no desire to label people, even her own. What the Church is required to do is identify and teach right doctrine. The Church is obligated to show heretical beliefs as false, especially when the method used to develop them departs from the teaching of the Apostles.

The fact that our separated brethren embrace falsehoods does not make them, as persons “false”. The vast majority do so in all sincerity, believing that what they have embraced is the truth.

 

[Tomster]

My bad, I should have posted Howie privately. As you can see I’m a “New Member” here. Differences came about because the freedom a genuinely born again child of God has, allows them to personally go to Him and ask Him to guide him personally through His Word. When we live in that liberty the frailties of the flesh and still having that fallen nature, there will be variations of interpretations on issues that are not critical to salvation. Even the Apostle Paul confronted Peter when Peter himself was in error! The problem you deal with as Catholics is that the church does your thinking *for *you and you *must *accept it as true even if you personally don’t agree nor understand it. Concerning having the Son, He dwells in one’s heart by faith, and faith alone. The Words were not literal but Spirital. To be taken literally is to be made a canibal. Besides if you truly believe the Bible, read Hebrews 10 and it makes it clear that Christ made one sacrifice for all time and sat down. In your transubstantiation you sacrifice Him over and over and over and over… and it will never take away sin. “Do this in memory of me” I’m curious, how do you feel of “your” first pope being married?

Wow, Ronald H, you are really all over the place here. But, being that you are new here, I’ll cut you a little slack. I don’t know what preacher you’ve been listening to but if you decide to stick around these message boards for any period of time you will come to understand that everything you have mentioned above has been discussed many times over. If you wish to be effective in promulgating your positions I would recommend taking them one at a time. By doing so, you will learn more of the truths of the Catholic Church than you would otherwise (if learning is the real reason you are here in the first place).

As I said before, I will cut you a little slack because you are new here. But trust me when I say, if you repeat what you said in your reply, you are going to have your hands full defending your positions on these message boards. Make no mistake about it. :hey_bud:

 

[MrS]

My bad, I should have posted Howie privately. As you can see I’m a “New Member” here. Differences came about because the freedom a genuinely born again child of God has, allows them to personally go to Him and ask Him to guide him personally through His Word. When we live in that liberty the frailties of the flesh and still having that fallen nature, there will be variations of interpretations on issues that are not critical to salvation. Even the Apostle Paul confronted Peter when Peter himself was in error! The problem you deal with as Catholics is that the church does your thinking *for *you and you *must *accept it as true even if you personally don’t agree nor understand it. Concerning having the Son, He dwells in one’s heart by faith, and faith alone. The Words were not literal but Spirital. To be taken literally is to be made a canibal. Besides if you truly believe the Bible, read Hebrews 10 and it makes it clear that Christ made one sacrifice for all time and sat down. In your transubstantiation you sacrifice Him over and over and over and over… and it will never take away sin. “Do this in memory of me” I’m curious, how do you feel of “your” first pope being married?

Thank you for providing an example that the Catholic Church members (Paul) are not required to have blind allegiance. Faith and reason are combined in the Catholic Church. It is both/and, not either/or.

Peter was a sinner too. And fallible too. HOWEVER, when he spoke on matters of faith and morals and when a pope declares such as a universal truth for all Christians in all ages , everywhere… it is fully protected by the Holy Spirit, free of error.

Peter was infallible in 1Peter, right?

By the way, infallibility is a “negative” protection as mentioned in Matt 16:19. Infallibility protects the Pope, and the Bishops in union with him, from EVER declaring Doctrine that is false. We have the guaranteed words of Jesus that this is so, and that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all Truth.
Thus when the Church declared the Canon of Scripture as what was inspired by God, and Trent reaffirmed it as it was attacked by reformers… the Church was infallible.

No faith community has that, in spite of all their feelings that the Holy Spirit allows or supports their dissention.

.