John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Pixie_Dust]

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.

Who decides what is critical to salvation?

Even the Apostle Paul confronted Peter when Peter himself was in error!

Peter wasn’t teaching 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.

Actually there is a minor list of dogmas that must be accepted as true, and if one doesn’t understand or agree, the problem is not with the dogma but with the person holding their intellect as an idol above the Truth given to the Apostles by Christ.

Concerning having the Son, He dwells in one’s heart by faith, and faith alone.

Faith alone is anti-biblical.

The Words were not literal but Spirital. To be taken literally is to be made a canibal.

Cannibalism is eating dead human flesh. Christ is not dead.

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”

No, we are made present at the once for all sacrifice at Calvary. To say otherwise is a gross misunderstanding of the Greek anamnesis

I’m curious, how do you feel of “your” first pope being married?

Priestly celibacy is a practice, not a dogma. There are currently married priests in the Catholic Church, did you know that? Being unmarried provides the man with the opportunity to give his whole self to the flock he shepherds, without having to balance between flock and family. Many a preacher’s child will testify that they were often made to feel second rate as their dad served his flock.

 

[RonaldH]

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.

seems that way, “round and round we go” I prayed with a Catholic yesterday and today already! (and I would pray with you!) I am in simple disagreement with your theology, I am not your judge.

 

[guanophore]

My bad, I should have posted Howie privately.  As you can see I'm a "New Member" here.

It is ok. Now it can be clear to all of us that you believe Catholicism comes from the Father of Lies, so there is no need to pretend otherwise.

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

No, Howie. This is not the source of division in the Body of Christ. This is the freedom for which Christ died. This is the freedom that He purchased for every believer. This freedom, originating in God, does not cause any division.

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.

It is true that the frailties of the flesh and our fallen nature do, indeed, result in variations of interpretation. This is why it was essential for Christ to provide and infallible guide. this is what the Magesterium (teaching authority) of the church is all about.

You are wrong, though, many of these variations are, indeed, critical to our salvation. And, since the inspired inerrant scripture does not point out which doctrines are “critical” and which are not, we are still in a world of hurt without an infallible authority.

Even the Apostle Paul confronted Peter when Peter himself was in error!

Of course! Peter was not acting in accordance with the infallible teaching of the church. The gift of infallibility applies to the doctrine, not the people. The HS will not prevent people from throwing themselves into error if they so choose. You have accurately pointed this out above. What He promised was that the HS would lead them into all truth. They may not follow the lead.

The problm 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.

I think this is a gross misunderstanding of Catholicism. In fact, most of us on CAF will testify that it was thinking, reading, praying and studying that got us in, or back into the Church. No, waht we must accept is what Jesus preached, that the Kingdom of Heaven is upon us. What the Catholic Church holds is the revelation of God. In most cases, it is the “thinking” of man that prevents him from accepting God’s revelation. Yes, we must accept that what Jesus taught was true, whether we understand it, or not. I don’t see how that makes us any different than the people that were standing in front of Him when He was teaching in Palsestine.

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.

No, Ronald, you are suffering a deficient understanding of reality. Literal does not necessarily mean material. Some Spiritual realities are more real than the physical! Jesus literally appeared to the Apostles in the upper room. That does not make this a physical or material phenomenon. He took food into His resurrected body, then His whole resurrected body disappeared from sight. He is literally risen. He is not bound by the material world.

The angel who spoke to Mary was literally an angel. He had no material or corporeal body.

The literal Body and Blood of the Lord is not confined to the material or corporieal realm. That does not make it less literal, any more than an angel is less literal because the reality is spiriutal, not physical.

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…

I am glad you said this, because it clarifies yet another area where you have been misinformed about Catholcism. Heb 10 says this about the once for all sacrifice because it was written by a Catholic, for Catholics, and represents what Catholics believe.

and it will never take away sin. “Do this in memory of me”

I hope sometime, if you are willing to take time from perusing anti-Catholic polemics, you will study the nature of the amanesis.

I’m curious, how do you feel of “your” first pope being married?

I think it is very likely that he never returned to normal marital relations after he was called, even though it seemed that his wife accompanied him on the road.

How do you feel about it?

 

[Howie01]

guanophore:

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

That’s a non-sequitur, guanophore.

Your refusal to recognize honest Catholic historians as Catholic, but insisting instead that they are really Protestants, demonstrates the level to which you’ve been reduced by Catholicism, IMO, and as I hear none of your fellow Catholics on this thread correcting you for your very unfair assessment of fellow Catholics, the same goes for them.

Birds of a feather flock together, eh?

guanophore:

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

I say again, guanophore, SS is not extra-biblical, but a case strongly made from scripture to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of many others, though it’s not to yours.

guanophore:

Scripture does have authority…They cannot exercise the role of teaching that Jesus gave to the Church.

Yes guanophore, Scripture does have authority and, quoting the apostolic teaching of Paul, the Scriptures "are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."
(But what does Paul know?)

guanophore:

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.

That’s an unsupported assertion, guanophore, IOW, a biased opinion. When you cite a significant number of authentic exit interviews of former Catholics perhaps I’ll hear you out.

guanophore:

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

I have an issue with your inability to follow either my line of thought, or to stay with your own from post to post, but I live with it.

guanophore:

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?

This demonstrates the truth of my last statement above: several times now, I’ve stated to you the major reasons Catholics have stated to me for their having left the church, but you don’t remember that I’ve done that.

 

[Howie01]

[1]
I assume this is an attempt to add humor to the thread - that my statement was an infallible Church teaching

You assume wrongly, MrS.

It was a response to guanophor’s inability to engage in the flow of a conversation, and an attempt to jar him into re-examining what I said so that he might answer that, rather than go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I said.

MrS:

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)

MrS, that’s has nothing to do with what I was saying.

That protestants leave Protestantism and enter the Catholic Church is common knowledge. I have no problem with that, it’s God’s way of keeping His Church pure.

MrS:

Rejoice, for their eyes have been opened.

In my church, we always rejoice when the Lord opens the eyes of Catholics, and He sends them to us.

[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 )

You know, MrS, you should encourage EWTN to begin a program called ”leaving Rome,” in which exit interviews are conducted with Catholics who have left, or who are leaving the Church, and then it can be seen how many Catholics when asked why they’re leaving the Church answer saying, ***“I’m leaving because I don’t know what I’m leaving.” ***

 

[MrS]

You know, MrS, you should encourage EWTN to begin a program called ”leaving Rome,” in which exit interviews are conducted with Catholics who have left, or who are leaving the Church, and then it can be seen how many Catholics when asked why they’re leaving the Church answer saying, ***“I’m leaving because I don’t know what I’m leaving.” ***

EWTN has had some lively discussion with anti-Catholics. However that is not their purpose… to give a forum to attacks on the Church. \

Again you show your spiritual immaturity with your blue comment.

You have chosen to either reject Christianity by rejecting some of what Christ taught, or else you are one of many who simply is living in the back yard of the Church until God sees fit to finish His work in you.

Lest you forget… you belong, at best, to a faith community of the Book.

Lest you forget… that Book is the Scriptures… the Book of the Catholic Church, not your faith community. You have no authority to defend it, to verse-pick it, or to use it against Jesus’ Church. You have simply borrowed it for personal use and abuse. So be it, for you are gifted with the free will to continue in your ways.

.

.

 

[M0nkey]

Honest question here, for you non-catholics, how many Christian denominations do you honestly think our Lord instantiated? Do you think the body of Christ is intrinsically broken with dissent and riddled with error? When you deny the authority of Peter, you deny the one who sent him, and to deny the Son, is to deny the Father. (Jn. 13:20) The issue at hand I think is the idea of truth, can truth be found through one’s own search alone or is it entrusted and revealed as a gift from God?

 

[guanophore]

Your refusal to recognize honest Catholic historians as Catholic, but insisting instead that they are really Protestants, demonstrates the level to which you’ve been reduced by Catholicism, IMO, and as I hear none of your fellow Catholics on this thread correcting you for your very unfair assessment of fellow Catholics, the same goes for them.

No, I do recognize that there are faithful Catholic historians. I also recognize that they have accurately identified Catholic who are anti-semeti (wasn’t that the topic?). My point is that ant-semitism is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church, and those who espouse it are failing to embrace Catholicity.

I say again, guanophore, SS is not extra-biblical, but a case strongly made from scripture to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of many others, though it’s not to yours.

It is an extrabiblical doctrine, Howie. there is no where in scripture where it says this about itself. On the contrary, Scripture attests only to persons as authorities. The reason that Scripture cannot be the final “authority” is because Scripture, holy as it is, does not posess the qualities needed to weild authority. These qualties are posessed only of persons. So, when espousing the doctrine of SS, the comitted Christian often unwittingly makes himself the final authority, since what he believes about what it says goes through his own filters. Each one believes, of course, that he is led by the HS, yet we still have many contradictory doctrines.

Yes guanophore, Scripture does have authority and, quoting the apostolic teaching of Paul, the ***Scriptures*** "are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."  (But what does Paul know?)

Paul knows that he, as an Apostle, has been given the authority by Christ to teach. He knows that the Scriptures are profitable for all the duties of a pastor (teaching, training in righteousness, correction and reproof). He knows that the Scriptures testify of Christ, who is the Source of salvation. The Scriptures lead us to Christ. They are not meant to be used in a vacuum, and were never meant to be separated from the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ.

That’s an unsupported assertion, guanophore, IOW, a biased opinion. When you cite a significant number of authentic exit interviews of former Catholics perhaps I’ll hear you out.

This work has already been done by others more qualified than I. Your own assertions here about what Catholics believe also demonstrates that you don’t know any more about the Apostolic faith than your fellow pew warmers.

I have an issue with your inability to follow either my line of thought, or to stay with your own from post to post, but I live with it.

I apologize for that. I did misunderstand your point about the Catholic historians.

This demonstrates the truth of my last statement above: several times now, I’ve stated to you the major reasons Catholics have stated to me for their having left the church, but you don’t remember that I've done that.

Oh, I do! it is clear that they left Catholicism because they did not know what they had. This is not uncommon at all. There is some very poor catechesis. I experienced it myself.

 

[guanophore]

That protestants leave Protestantism and enter the Catholic Church is common knowledge. I have no problem with that, it’s God’s way of keeping His Church pure.

Do you mean by this that the persons who are prone to fall into error and falsehood are drawn to the Catholic Church, thereby removing their impurity of faith from the evangelical community where it would provide a contamination?

If not, please explain, as I have misunderstood what you wrote.

In my church, we always rejoice when the Lord opens the eyes of Catholics, and He sends them to us.

I am curious to know what their eyes “open” to. You mentioned the study of scripture. It was a craving for scripture study that led me to leave Catholicism. I did not even have a Catholic Bible, and to my memory, was never encouraged to read the Bible on my own. When I started to do so with the Baptists, a whole new world opened to me.

you should encourage EWTN to begin a program called **”leaving Rome,”** in which exit interviews are conducted with Catholics who have left, or who are leaving the Church, and then it can be seen how many Catholics when asked why they’re leaving the Church answer saying, ***"I’m leaving because I don’t know what I’m leaving." *** :)

One of the parishes near here has such a ministry. This is good information to have. I think that most do have a clear idea why they leave, whether it is yearning for scripture, or desire for a more authentic christian fellowship (many complain they don’t feel cared about in their parishes). There have actually been an number of threads on here over this topic.

 

[Howie01]

RonaldH:

Howie, I have no idea your church affliation, honest I don’t care.

I attend Grace Community Church, pastored by the man under discussion on this thread.

RonaldH:

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.

Don’t be bothered by that Ronald the gospel is simple because the minds of men are simple. The issue Catholics love to push also has to do with the lack of unity within Protestantism. But the same lack of unity and bickering is found in Catholicism. Witness as one example of that guanophore’s referring to honest Catholic historians as really being protestants simply because they speak the truth concerning a long history of anti-semitism within the Church.

 

[Howie01]

RonaldH:

EWTN has had some lively discussion with anti-Catholics. However that is not their purpose… to give a forum to attacks on the Church. \

I’m not suggesting a forum for attacks on Catholicism, but an exit interview of Catholics leaving the church as a counterbalance to the great fanfare given by EWTN for the entrance interview given by EWTN of Protestants entering the Church.

MrS:

Again you show your spiritual immaturity with your blue comment.

That comment in blue is a quote cited by you, MrS, and made by one Jeff Cavins. So if you view that comment as being indicative of spiritual immaturity, at least chain the placard stating that around the neck of the one who coined it, and around your own neck if you agree with Cavins.

 

[jam070406]

the gospel is simple because the minds of men are simple

What need do have of MacArthur then?

 

[Howie01]

jam070406:

What need do have of MacArthur then?

I came to understand the gospel by reading the bible, and without having heard of MacArthur, or any other preacher; therefore, with respect to the gospel being simple because the minds of men are simple, I had no need of MacArthur.

 

[M0nkey]

The issue Catholics love to push also has to do with the lack of unity within Protestantism. But the same lack of unity and bickering is found in Catholicism. Witness as one example of that guanophore’s referring to honest Catholic historians as really being protestants simply because they speak the truth concerning a long history of anti-semitism within the Church.

Not so, show me where in the history of the Church has anti-semitism been taught officially by the magisterium? Even in the early Church there have been tensions throughout time, but even this divide is now beginning to heal. Your boy Martin Luther on the other hand had some very poignant opinions about Jews. Furthermore, the Church teaches a deposit of faith that is both inerrant and inline with the teachings of the apostles and Christ. Where in Protestantism are you going to find that? Save for the often casual bickering and arguing that my interpretation of the Bible is correct. Sure, Catholics can debate on just about anything, but when it comes to the deposit of faith that is linked back to the authority of Peter it free us from falsehood and ready to stand in defense of the truth of the gospel. What examples can you give of that in Protestantism? And how is the framework from which is built (faith alone, Bible alone, me alone, my interpretation v. yours) not building on sand?

 

[MrS]

I came to understand the gospel by reading the bible, and without having heard of MacArthur, or any other preacher; therefore, with respect to the gospel being simple because the minds of men are simple, I had no need of MacArthur.

Yeah… we agree on one thing at least

.

 

[M0nkey]

I came to understand the gospel by reading the bible, and without having heard of MacArthur, or any other preacher; therefore, with respect to the gospel being simple because the minds of men are simple, I had no need of MacArthur.

The why do you go to his church? In fact, why not start your own church? You could have three immediate members, me, myself, and I.

 

[MrS]

That comment in blue is a quote cited by you, MrS, and made by one Jeff Cavins. So if you view that comment as being indicative of spiritual immaturity, at least chain the placard stating that around the neck of the one who coined it, and around your own neck if you agree with Cavins.

You should read slooooooowwweeerrrr. Jeff Cavins opined that that only reason Catholics leave the Church is because they don’t know what they are leaving.

You twist it to say that the individual him(her)self says “I am leaving cuz I don’t know what I am leaving.”

That version of yours, again, makes not sense other than to be a display of spiritual immaturity on YOUR part.

 

[MrS]

The why do you go to his church? In fact, why not start your own church? You could have three immediate members, me, myself, and I.

Unholy trinity???

Seriously, your suggestion is taken by lots of individuals daily. Almost 5 new denominations spring up weekly. Others stay around as long as 50-150 or so are willing to pay the pastor’s upkeep.

As to MacArthur. He is called a pastor. I assume he hangs a divinity degree somewhere on his walls.

But I ask a chain of questions… who gave him his authority…who gave that institution or person their authority…who game them their authority etc etc etc.

No way can MacArthur trace his authority back very far… much less to the time when Jesus the Christ told Peter…alone(singular you)

“…feed My sheep…tend My flock…feed My sheep…”

I find nowhere in Scripture where just anyone was given authority over the flock of the Good Shepherd.

I find nowhere in Scripture where Peter’s instructions are recinded.

Perhaps John MacArthur has the only copy of Matthew 29.

.

 

[jam070406]

Unholy trinity???

The all Howie trinity?

 

[denwiles]

Oh my, I thought Jesus was coming back for a church without spot a Holy Chuch washed in His blood. Ya’ll need to stop fightintg. Paul said because of your fighting your still in the flesh. Jesus Loves you all and yes He Loves and died for John MacArthur too. How can you please the Father when your fighting with your brothers. Satan is having a good time with this post. Just stop and love and pray for each other. And by the way I don’t agree with John MacAthur, but He is a tool for the Lord. I think alot of us, because we are sinners would go astray if God didn’t keep someone on our toes. You have to addmit He keeps you saying “Why does He say we worship Mary, we don’t” Thats good we don’t, we are to only worship God and thats what we claim. It will takes some thought and prayer to understand what I am saying so don’t be confused. I can already hear it now people will say " are you saying we need John MacAuthur so we don’t worship Mary" No!!! But, God does use Him, He is also feeding the poor around the world, pulling people off the streets, and fighting against abortion, Becareful not to attack Gods people. I hope some of you understand what Iam saying. God Bless