John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Howie01]

guanophore:

Really? Does she frequent MacArthur also?

Yes, guanophore, she’s a member of the church also

Do all those in his congregations suffer warped perceptions?

Actually, guanophore, Christian congregations refer to their shared beliefs as being “like-minded.”

guanophore:

I certainly don’t believe waht you wrote about what you think I said.

I understand.

guanophore:

It may be carelessness, for sure. I will try again. You asked me where in the Bible it said you had to “cross the Tiber”. I said it was not in there, because the heresies that arose North of the Tiber occurred 1500 years after the NT was written.

I see—the reason that the expression “crossing the Tiber” is not in Scripture is because of heresies that arose north of the Tiber after the writing of the NT. So it would seem then, that if those heresies north of the Tiber hadn’t arisen, then the expression “crossing the Tiber” probably would have been in Scripture; is that correct?

guanophore:

Yet, at the same time you castigate me (as a Catholic) because I follow the Apostolic teaching to maintain the Traditions, just as they were delivered, whether they were delivered by word of mouth, or by letter. So, on the one hand you criticize me because I acknowledge Truth that is not confined to Scriptures, yet you claim that I believe everything must be found in Scripture or it is a heresy.

Actually no. I was just having a chuckle over what you’d carelessly written.

guanophore:

Do you not agree with me that a ministry of this kind could reach and save a lot more Catholics?

John’s international radio ministry does a good job of that.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, guanophore, she’s a member of the church also

Actually, guanophore, Christian congregations refer to their shared beliefs as being “like-minded.”

Is one of their “like minded shared beliefs” that the phrase “crossing the Tiber” be found in the Scripture?

I see—the reason that the expression “crossing the Tiber” is not in Scripture is because of heresies that arose north of the Tiber after the writing of the NT.

No. The reason it is not in the NT is because the phrase refers to events that occurred after the NT was written. It is the same reason the word 'Trinity" is not found in the NT. This word was developed in response to heresies that occurred after the NT was written.

What I said was (and perhaps carelessly so I will try to say it more carefully this time )
is that the phrase “crossing the Tiber” developed in response to the heresies that were located North of the Tiber. When people abandoned the heretical teachings, and returned the the Church, this was called “crossing the Tiber”.

So it would seem then, that if those heresies north of the Tiber hadn’t arisen, then the expression “crossing the Tiber” probably would have been in Scripture; is that correct? :hmmm:

No, this represents faulty logic. You can easily see this if you apply the same principle to the word Trinity. Obviously, if God had wanted the word Trinity to appear in Scripture, it would be there. We are in agreement that the Scripture is inspired/inerrant, are we not? Yet, it does not contain everything, the word Trinity being one important tenent of our faith that is not defined there.

Actually no. I was just having a chuckle over what you’d carelessly written.

OK. Glad I could be a source of amusement for you.

John’s international radio ministry does a good job of that.

If that is the case, why are you asking for us to do it?

 

[Cinette]

God has given us the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. Like i said before its not my way its Gods Word. The Bible is pretty easy to understand. I listen to other Godly Men like John MacArthur, My Pastor and read commentaries to make sure that i am not off base. Like the subject of purgatory. So how do you interpret the Scripture. Are you a Berean or do you just agree with everything you hear.

I just came across this thread and came upon your posting. You say that “the Bible is pretty easy to understand”. Well St Peter doesn’t seem to agree with you my friend! Take a look at what he said:

*“For there are many things in scripture that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures to their destruction.”
*
2 Peter 3:16

 

[RonaldH]

I am sure you believe they are not. I believed that too when I was a practicing Baptist!

You are welcome to post the multitude of heresies of the CC… I recommend you do it over in apologetics, though,as it is a more appropriate forum for that.

I do not have “postition of judge”. What I have is an understanding of what the Aposotles believed and taught, supplemented by an education on some of the ways that modern ecclesial communites have departed from them.

Let me reiterate, modern evangelicals, Baptists, Reformed, etc. are not to be charged with the sin of heresy for espousing heretical views. Most of them don’t know anything else, and have been brought up, steeped in these heresies. For them, it is the only right way to believe. They cannot qualify as heretics, never having known the truth.

It is my duty,however, to recognize heretical teachings, and respond to them. This is not a judgement on anyone, but a discernment about right doctrine. As has been pointed out, many of us here are “indoctrinated”. We are steeped in the Traditions of the Apostles, rather than the Reformers,and that is why our beliefs seem so different. The Reformers departed significantly from what the Apostles believed and taught, to the point where the adherants of these doctrines no longer recognize the truth.

You defend and act as I did when I was a practicing Catholic! I’d like to know what you mean by “practicing Baptist”. Tell me your story. II Tim. 3:7, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” The knowledge of the truth is to be born again and to personally know the One who called Himself, “the Truth”. No, but Catholics are “born again” when sprinkled as a baby, and just to “confirm” that so-called truth they go through “Confirmation”. I did and and I’m sure in your conversion to Catholism you did too. It is a sad day to those who truly believe they have a relationship with Jesus Christ to discover on that day, " Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’" Mat. 7:22-24. Salvation is not in a church, (big “C” or small “c”) it always has been and forever will be to the ones that have Christ dwelling in their hearts by faith. “so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” Ephesians 3:17. I pray the Holy Spirit will guide you to Jesus Christ that you might truly be saved by His grace (unmerited favor) through faith (alone), “Not of works, lest any man should boast”, Ephesian 2:8,9. You claim to know the doctrines of the Apostles, you ought to know this then.

 

[M0nkey]

Salvation is not in a church, (big “C” or small “c”) it always has been and forever will be to the ones that have Christ dwelling in their hearts by faith.

Let’s delve deep into this shall we, if not your for your sake for the sake of those who may be watching, what does it mean to say ‘salvation is not in a church?’ If you mean a physical building then you would be correct and Catholics do not profess that partaking of the sacraments will give you immediate access to heaven unlike most reformers seem to do (faith alone, bible alone, etc.), you could argue these are reconstructed sacraments and according to them the only means of eternal bliss. Rather, it is the Body of Christ, His bride, in a metaphorical sense it is the ark of the new covenant without which there is no salvation. In fine, a personal relationship with Jesus would indicate the real presence of Jesus, which can only be found in a catholic church in the Eucharist; no ordained priest (in persona Christ), no Jesus, no Jesus, no salvation.
Finally, it’s Sunday and a great day to worship the Lord, may you find His Real Presence dwelling in your heart so it be made into a clean heart. Happy Sixth Sunday of Easter!

 

[guanophore]

You defend and act as I did when I was a practicing Catholic! I’d like to know what you mean by “practicing Baptist”. Tell me your story. II Tim. 3:7, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Actually, I did quite a bit of learning about “rightly dividing the word of Truth” and many other things.

Did you also go to bible studies and a lot of preaching services?

The knowledge of the truth is to be born again and to personally know the One who called Himself, “the Truth”. No, but Catholics are “born again” when sprinkled as a baby, and just to “confirm” that so-called truth they go through “Confirmation”.

Actually, the Catholic church does not use “sprinkling” for babies, but pouring or dunking. In the Eastern Rites, full immersion is used, and the other initiation rites of eucharist and confirmation are also done at the same time. Clearly you don’t know that much about the Catholic faith.

There is a prophetic word, though that uses the word “sprinkling” that the Apostles applied to baptism:

**Ezek 36:24-27
25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. **

Baptism places a new heart and a new mind in us, sealing us with the HS, and enables us to walk in His commandments.

I did and and I'm sure in your conversion to Catholism you did too.  It is a sad day ..." Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"  Mat. 7:22-24.

Are you trying to say that Catholics do not know the Lord because they are Catholic?

Salvation is not in a church, (big “C” or small “c”) it always has been and forever will be to the ones that have Christ dwelling in their hearts by faith. “so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” Ephesians 3:17. I pray the Holy Spirit will guide you to Jesus Christ that you might truly be saved by His grace (unmerited favor) through faith (alone), “Not of works, lest any man should boast”, Ephesian 2:8,9.

There are several errors in this section. The first one is that those who are saved become members of His Body, the Church. That is why the Church teaches that there is no salvaiton outside the Church. When you become a member of Christ, you become a member of His Body, and are mystically joined to all others in that Body.

Second, if you pray that I may be saved, you are making an assumption that I am not.

Third, the Catholic Church teaches that a person is saved by grace, through faith, and not of works, lest any man boast. This is written in Scripture because Catholics wrote the NT, and everything in it is Catholic.

You claim to know the doctrines of the Apostles, you ought to know this then.

Yes. What knowledge is lacking is your understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches. You have been misinformed.

 

[RonaldH]

Did you also go to bible studies and a lot of preaching services?

Yes, that, and a lot of personal studies a bachelor’s degree in Theology and my personal commune with the one who died for me.

Actually, the Catholic church does not use “sprinkling” for babies, but pouring or dunking. In the Eastern Rites, full immersion is used, and the other initiation rites of eucharist and confirmation are also done at the same time. Clearly you don’t know that much about the Catholic faith

.

Those Catholics who arrogantly think they know religion miss the simplicity of the truth of the Gospel. To imply that I don’t know much about Catholicism is a statement itself ignorance. I simply don’t have all day to sit here and type to answer you. If you ever wanted to truly know the truth God has been there and will be until the day you die.

Ezek 36:24-27
25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

This was not baptism it was an old Hebrew ritual. A real baptism, symbolic of our Savior’s death, burial and resurrection must be immersion. It mean very little for to be a unregenerate sinner baptised is to simply come up and out a wet sinner.

Are you trying to say that Catholics do not know the Lord because they are Catholic?

I know that God is not bound and can save people dispite their errant theology, that said if one believes the CC in it’s teachings, then yes, they are lost. “You must be born again”, that was not baptism but personal faith in Christ. Read Acts 17:11

Second, if you pray that I may be saved, you are making an assumption that I am not.

That is not up to me to judge. “That Christ may dwell in your heart by faith.”

Third, the Catholic Church teaches that a person is saved by grace, through faith, and not of works, lest any man boast. This is written in Scripture because Catholics wrote the NT, and everything in it is Catholic.

Who told you Catholics wrote the N.T.? Is that in the Bible? Do you even know who James is who wrote the Epistle by his name? Or even the author of the Epistle of Jude for that matter?

Your church Anathamizes people for that position!

(Anathemas condemning anyone that accepts the idea of Justification by Faith Alone)

“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON IX

“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON XII

And those judgements are EXACTLY what the Scriptures says is required for salvation! “For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast” Ephesians 2:8,9

Yes. What knowledge is lacking is your understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches. You have been misinformed.

 

[Tomster]

I just came across this thread and came upon your posting. You say that “the Bible is pretty easy to understand”. Well St Peter doesn’t seem to agree with you my friend! Take a look at what he said:

*“For there are many things in scripture that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures to their destruction.”
*
2 Peter 3:16

This subject came up previously on this thread and the Protestants responding to it could not come up with an adequate response to it. The Protestant position states: the Bible teaches all necessary truth to all who approach the study of it in the right spirit. In the Scriptures God speaks to the human soul, and no interpreter of His words is needed but the soul itself, enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

The above is a fair statement of the Protestant view of private interpretation. It differs essentially from the Catholic principle, according to which private interpretation is controlled by the authority of the true Church.

But now a question. A question the Protestants have not answered. What are the grounds of the Protestant position? As the Bible is the Protestant’s final rule of faith, he should be able to quote chapter and verse for this as well as for any other article of faith. Where in all of the sacred writings is there a passage enunciating the principle of private and independent interpretation? There are passages in abundance setting forth the benefits resulting from a rreading of the Word of God, but none which declare that the indiviual reader is independent of all control in his interpretation of it.

Now, is it likely that every chance reader, however good his disposition, posseses a “key to the Scritpures” and sees his way through all their obscurity of thought and expression? St. Peter the Apostle, speaking the of the epistles of St. Paul, says of them that they “contain certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” ( 2 Peter 3:16). If this declaration, made by no less an authority than St. Peter, and to the very people to whom the epistles of St. Paul were addressed, was justified at this time, is it not to be feared that now, after twenty centuries, the same causes are producing worse effects?

The Apostle here mentions two effects which he traces to three causes. The two effects are: 1) The wresting - that is to say, the twisting or distorting - of the meaning of Scripture; 2) The spiritual self-destruction of the reader. The causes are: 1) The intrinsic difficulties of the text; 2) Ignorance; 3) Instability. The same three causes are in operation today, and doubtless tend, invarying degrees, to produce the same effects.

Religious chaos was never intended to be the result of the preaching of the Christian revelation. And yet chaos is the necessary result of Christian preaching when it is based on private interpretation. But worse than chaos are the ultimate logical consequences of the theory, for amid the chaos at least some fragments of truth remain; but even these are destined to disappear under the powerful solvent of independent judgment as evidenced by the rationalism which has overtaken liberal Protestantism.

Personal illumination is, therefore, in no absolute sense a safe guide. But, a guide has been provided and that cannot be a matter of doubt when one reflects on the unspeakable wisdom displayed in all of God’s works and, on the other hand, on the sad consequences which are seen to follow the rejection of authority in so important a matter as the interpretation of the word of God.

Eviidently, then, there is an infallible interpreter appointed by God Himself; and that infallible interpreter can be no other than the Church of Christ, which St. Paul tells us is “the pillar and ground of truth.” ( 1 Timothy 3:15).

Our esteemed adversaries on this thread have yet to refute any of this since they know that they cannot.

 

[RonaldH]

Let’s delve deep into this shall we, if not your for your sake for the sake of those who may be watching, what does it mean to say ‘salvation is not in a church?’ If you mean a physical building then you would be correct and Catholics do not profess that partaking of the sacraments will give you immediate access to heaven unlike most reformers seem to do (faith alone, bible alone, etc.), you could argue these are reconstructed sacraments and according to them the only means of eternal bliss. Rather, it is the Body of Christ, His bride, in a metaphorical sense it is the ark of the new covenant without which there is no salvation. In fine, a personal relationship with Jesus would indicate the real presence of Jesus, which can only be found in a catholic church in the Eucharist; no ordained priest (in persona Christ), no Jesus, no Jesus, no salvation.
Finally, it’s Sunday and a great day to worship the Lord, may you find His Real Presence dwelling in your heart so it be made into a clean heart. Happy Sixth Sunday of Easter!

You do realize that you come from a self serving premise, e.i. that the Church that Christ build was the CC. Even that truly doesn’t matter for it still is not ***in ***a church wherein salvation is found, to the question by the jailor, "He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, Acts 16:30 Paul replied, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”

 

[Tomster]

You do realize that you come from a self serving premise, e.i. that the Church that Christ build was the CC. Even that truly doesn’t matter for it still is not ***in ***a church wherein salvation is found, to the question by the jailor, "He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, Acts 16:30 Paul replied, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”

You do realize that you are way off base. St. Paul has told us that the Church of Christ “is the pillar and ground of truth”, ( 1 Timothy 3:15 ), not the Bible.

Now is the point in time, Ronald H., when you are going to have to give us your definition of “The Church”. And don’t ask Howie for the answer. If you did, you would be accepting the oral tradition of another person.

We Catholics on this board want your definiton of the Church RIGHT NOW.

I think you might be boarding on bibliolotry. You know, worshipping the Bible.

Be that as it may, though. Give us your definition of the Church, RIGHT NOW! :hey_bud:

 

[guanophore]

Those Catholics who arrogantly think they know religion miss the simplicity of the truth of the Gospel.

I don’t know any Catholics like this. Where would I find them?

To imply that I don’t know much about Catholicism is a statement itself ignorance. I simply don’t have all day to sit here and type to answer you. If you ever wanted to truly know the truth God has been there and will be until the day you die.

Well, ok. I was just noticing that you were posting misinformation about Catholicism.

This was not baptism it was an old Hebrew ritual. A real baptism, symbolic of our Savior’s death, burial and resurrection must be immersion. It mean very little for to be a unregenerate sinner baptised is to simply come up and out a wet sinner.

The Catholic Church has always taught that immersion is the fullest sign.

Technically speaking, all baptisms are those of unregenerate sinners. They enter the baptismal waters with a profession of faith, and when entering the water, are joined with Christ in HIs death. The HS applies the “circumcision made without hands” and that prophesy from Ezek. becomes a reality as they are given a new heart and a new mind.

I know that God is not bound and can save people dispite their errant theology, that said if one believes the CC in it’s teachings, then yes, they are lost. “You must be born again”, that was not baptism but personal faith in Christ. Read Acts 17:11

Baptism is what Christ was referring to when He told NIcodemus he had to be born from above by water and spirit. This is what the Apostles believed and taught,a nd this is what they taught to their successors, the bishops.

Who told you Catholics wrote the N.T.? Is that in the Bible? Do you even know who James is who wrote the Epistle by his name? Or even the author of the Epistle of Jude for that matter?

Actually, I learned that the early Church was Catholic in historical theology class. However, I could have learned it from the Magesterium of the Church. Yes, all the Christians in the Bible are Catholic. Yes, St. James and St. Jude are honored in the liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church, as authors, apostles, and saints.

Your church Anathamizes people for that position!

No, Ronald. You have been misled about Catholicism. The Church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast.

(Anathemas condemning anyone that accepts the idea of Justification by Faith Alone)

No, Ronald. You have espoused lies. I encourage you to read the Joint Declaration on Justification, then if you have any issues, start a thread on it. I hope you will be open minded enough to see that you are in error.

“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON IX “If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON XII

And those judgements are EXACTLY what the Scriptures says is required for salvation! “For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast” Ephesians 2:8,9

You have misunderstood the teaching of the Church, Ronald. That belongs on another thread.

 

[MrS]

You do realize that you are way off base. St. Paul has told us that the Church of Christ “is the pillar and ground of truth”, ( 1 Timothy 3:15 ), not the Bible.

Now is the point in time, Ronald H., when you are going to have to give us your definition of “The Church”. And don’t ask Howie for the answer. If you did, you would be accepting the oral tradition of another person.

We Catholics on this board want your definiton of the Church RIGHT NOW.

I think you might be boarding on bibliolotry. You know, worshipping the Bible.

Be that as it may, though. Give us your definition of the Church, RIGHT NOW! :hey_bud:

This could be interesting … or not.

.

 

[guanophore]

You do realize that you come from a self serving premise, e.i. that the Church that Christ build was the CC.

Jesus did built the Church to serve Himself, and also His Body. If He wanted to take us straight to heaven, he would, but since He wants us here to “work out our salvation” we need the Church in order to do this according to His will.

Even that truly doesn’t matter for it still is not ***in ***a church wherein salvation is found, to the question by the jailor, "He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, Acts 16:30 Paul replied, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”

You are creating a false dichotomy. Jesus identifies completely with His Holy Bride, the Church. There is no separation between them. Those who are joined to Him are members of His One Body. We find salvation through Him, and through His Body, the Church.

 

[Tomster]

This could be interesting … or not.

.

My guess is probably NOT! Although he may be looking up the answer right now, you know, getting some Protestant oral tradition. :hey_bud:

 

[Tomster]

This could be interesting … or not.

.

The silence says it all. He doesn’t know and he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know.

You would think that with a question as easy as this, he would have an immediate and ready answer. But I guess he isn’t prepared to give reasons, as the Apostle said, for his beliefs.

 

[Tomster]

You do realize that you are way off base. St. Paul has told us that the Church of Christ “is the pillar and ground of truth”, ( 1 Timothy 3:15 ), not the Bible.

Now is the point in time, Ronald H., when you are going to have to give us your definition of “The Church”. And don’t ask Howie for the answer. If you did, you would be accepting the oral tradition of another person.

We Catholics on this board want your definiton of the Church RIGHT NOW.

I think you might be boarding on bibliolotry. You know, worshipping the Bible.

Be that as it may, though. Give us your definition of the Church, RIGHT NOW! :hey_bud:

Going once, going twice, three times! No answers. He has no credibility with me. :hey_bud:

 

[Howie01]

I just came across this thread and came upon your posting. You say that “the Bible is pretty easy to understand”. Well St Peter doesn’t seem to agree with you my friend! Take a look at what he said:

*“For there are many things in scripture that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures to their destruction.”
*
2 Peter 3:16

Many on this thread have used that passage to attempt to make the case the Bible is hard to understand.

I find what all of you on this thread are saying with respect to that, laughable.

First, the context says no such thing, unless you consider the writings of Paul TO BE the “Bible.”

Can I have a show of hands—how many Catholics believe that the Bible = the epistles of Paul only ???

Second, Catholics on this forum maintain that there was no Bible at that time, and that there would be no Bible for 400 years.

In fact, MrS, in post #501, made that very statement yesterday.

He said, for 400 years, there was no Bible…no New Testament.

And a few days before that, MrS offered 2 Pet 3 as a proof that the Bible is hard to understand.

IMO, you folks are amazingly inconsistent and confused about a lot of things.

ISTM that you’re willing to say just about anything the situation demands in order for you to make a point, whether accurate or not, “who cares?” seems to be your attitude.

In fact, Cinette’s offering of the verse isn’t even accurate:**2 Peter 3:15-16

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.**Peter’s speaking of the difficulty of some of the things Paul writes about. And what those things are is spelled out by the earlier context.

Note as well, that Peter doesn’t say the hard things are IMPOSSIBLE to understand, but one must work at it. IOW, you won’t get it from studying the Catechism, but Scripture.

Which Catholic should I believe?..Which one’s telling the truth?..and which one’s telling a tale to fit the situation?

ISTM, none of you guys has your story straight

 

[MrS]

Many on this thread have used that passage to attempt to make the case the Bible is hard to understand.

I find what all of you on this thread are saying with respect to that, laughable.

First, the context says no such thing, unless you consider the writings of Paul TO BE the “Bible.”

Can I have a show of hands—how many Catholics believe that the Bible = the epistles of Paul only ???

Second, Catholics on this forum maintain that there was no Bible at that time, and that there would be no Bible for 400 years.

In fact, MrS, in post #501, made that very statement yesterday.

He said, for 400 years, there was no Bible…no New Testament.

And a few days before that, MrS offered 2 Pet 3 as a proof that the Bible is hard to understand.

IMO, you folks are amazingly inconsistent and confused about a lot of things.

ISTM that you’re willing to say just about anything the situation demands in order for you to make a point, whether accurate or not, “who cares?” seems to be your attitude.

In fact, Cinette’s offering of the verse isn’t even accurate:2 Peter 3:15-16

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.Peter’s speaking of the difficulty of some of the things Paul writes about. And what those things are is spelled out by the earlier context.

Note as well, that Peter doesn’t say the hard things are IMPOSSIBLE to understand, but one must work at it. IOW, you won’t get it from studying the Catechism, but Scripture.

Which Catholic should I believe?..Which one’s telling the truth?..and which one’s telling a tale to fit the situation?

ISTM, none of you guys has your story straight

Your logic (or lack thereof) reminded by of what we (you too) are taught about how the Jews could not keep the law… break one commandment, you have broken the Commandments!

Perhaps they would have been more content if you were their authority… and you told them not to worry, there was no problem if only one commandment was broken.

And yes there was NO New Testament for nearly 400 years after Christ.

While we may disagree about which books are in the OT, at least you guys (outside the Church founded by Christ) failed at removing some the NT books.

So you have history to look at to see all the choices of which books would become the NT… and none of your founders were around to voice their choice (praise God)

Correct, St Paul does not clearly say some of the NT is impossible to understand.

And if he were here today , he might say that there is still hope for you… God will open your eyes in His time.

It must really irk you to daily defend a faith community or a man-made rule of faith, which was not founded by Christ.

.

 

[guanophore]

Many on this thread have used that passage to attempt to make the case the ***Bible is hard to understand.***

I find what all of you on this thread are saying with respect to that, laughable.

It seems pretty clear that Peter is saying that some of the Scriptures are hard to understand, and that the ignorant and unstable distort.

I guess if you find the words of the Apostle Peter here “laughable” then at least that is consistent with your overall mocking and condescending attitude here at CAF. It is somewhat comforting to see that the Apostles are on the slab with us.

First, the context says no such thing, unless you consider the writings of Paul TO BE the “Bible.”

Can I have a show of hands—how many Catholics believe that the Bible = the epistles of Paul only ???

Actually, I have met quite a few reformed believers here that consider only Paul to have theology relevant to salvation. Be that as it may, what Peter says is “as they do the rest of the Scriptures”, so clearly, his reference to the ignorant and unstable distorting applies to more than the epistles of Paul.

Second, Catholics on this forum maintain that there was no Bible at that time, and that there would be no Bible for 400 years.

In fact, MrS, in post #501, made that very statement yesterday.

He said, for 400 years, there was no Bible…no New Testament.

Do you disagree with this? When do you think the Bible was formed?

IMO, you folks are amazingly inconsistent and confused about a lot of things.

The eye is the lamp of the body. One tends to perceive reality according to one’s mindset.

In fact, Cinette’s offering of the verse isn’t even accurate:2 Peter 3:15-16

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.Peter’s speaking of the difficulty of some of the things Paul writes about. And what those things are is spelled out by the earlier context.

Note as well, that Peter doesn’t say the hard things are IMPOSSIBLE to understand, but one must work at it. IOW, you won’t get it from studying the Catechism, but Scripture.

Oh, I agree - certainly not impossible. However, Jesus gave the Church pastors and teachers to prevent the ignorant and unstable from falling into error. What makes you think study of the catechism will not help with the understanding of scripture? Have you ever looked at it?

Which Catholic should I believe?..Which one’s telling the truth?..and which one’s telling a tale to fit the situation?

It is true that there are probably as many personal opinions as there are Catholics. However, the fact is that Peter does say the Scriptures can be hard to understand, and it is clear that the ignorant and unstable twist them to their own destruction. Now, the question is, who are the ignorant and unstable? You say it is Catholics, catholics say it is those who are separated from the Apostolic Tradition.

ISTM, none of you guys has your story straight

I am sure this particular verse in Peter is a major pain in the gluteal regions. It supports that Jesus appointed a Teaching Authority in the Church.

 

[MrS]

Which Catholic should I believe?..Which one’s telling the truth?..and which one’s telling a tale to fit the situation?

ISTM, none of you guys has your story straight

As you may surmise by now, this is my offering on that question, and the corresponding question

“Which non-Catholic should I believe?”

.

*Actually, I think the best (though impossible) things that could happen would be to have Howie, and Prot101 etc

[1] be in the same room as Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, White, MacArthur, Olson, etc while this group discusses ^Infant Baptism ^Divorce/ReMarriage ^Justification ^OSAS ^the Solas ^Atonement ^Real Presence ^End Times etc…

then
[2] be in the same room as Peter, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, a few Early Fathers (pick any) a few dozen popes (pick any), a few dozen saints (pick any), and a handful of Church Doctors (33 - pick any)… while they discuss the same topics.

what a hoot…
1st room… chaos… and probably the start of a few more denominations.

2nd room… consistent teaching

*As always, I welcome your thoughts on these two scenarios \

.