John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Howie01]

MrS:

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.

MrS, what I’ve done has nothing to do with logic, but with fact checking.

What I’ve done is show that either you don’t remember what you’ve posted, or, IMO, you deliberately employ a “situational ethic” in your apologetic.

On separate occasions, you’ve stated that Peter says the Bible is hard to understand, AND, that there was neither a Bible, nor a New Testament for the first 400 years of the church.

Your words, MrS.

MrS:

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.

I’m sorry, MrS, but you no longer have much of my attention, what was it you were saying, if you can remember?

MrS:

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

Not correct, MrS, it was Peter. :doh2:

MrS:

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

You sound like the “Great Karnak.”

MrS:

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

It must you irk you more that can’t keep straight in you’re the head the things you’ve said.

 

[josie_L]

MrS, what I’ve done has nothing to do with logic, but with fact checking.

What I’ve done is show that either you don’t remember what you’ve posted, or, IMO, you deliberately employ a “situational ethic” in your apologetic.

On separate occasions, you’ve stated that Peter says the Bible is hard to understand, AND, that there was neither a Bible, nor a New Testament for the first 400 years of the church.

Your words, MrS.

I’m sorry, MrS, but you no longer have much of my attention, what was it you were saying, if you can remember?

Not correct, MrS, it was Peter. :doh2:

You sound like the “Great Karnak.”

It must you irk you more that can’t keep straight in you’re the head the things you’ve said.

A word of advice, friend, if you claim you’re a Christian than starting act like one.

 

[Howie01]

A word of advice, friend, if you claim you’re a Christian than starting act like one.

A word of admonishment to you, Josie, what I’ve said to MrS is the truth, and that’s what a Christian does—speaks the truth.

What I’ve said is mild compared to some of things said to and about me, my wife, my church, and my pastor by MrS, guanophore, and Tomster.

I’ve pointed out the overall inconsistencies of Catholics on this thread, I’ve overlooked some very unchartible statments by guanophore and MrS, and I’ve ignored Tomster completely.

If you’re so bothered by what I’ve said in my post to MrS, I strongly encourage you to contact the Moderators, and ask them to review all of the posts on this thread from the last fews days.

None of those three have done that.

 

[Howie01]

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

You’ve distorted what I’ve said, as usual, and taken other of my statements out of context, again, as usual, guanophore.

So, there’s nothing to which I’ll respond.

 

[M0nkey]

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

Well, in the reality of schisms and false dichotomy and that many have condemned themselves to hell because of idolatrous teaching; I wouldn’t be laughing. Tell me, if the Bible is *so *easy to understand, how do you explain the many denominations? That, I think flies in the face of your ‘facts’.

 

[guanophore]

MrS, what I’ve done has nothing to do with logic, but with ***fact checking***.

What I’ve done is show that either you don’t remember what you’ve posted, or, IMO, you deliberately employ a “situational ethic” in your apologetic.

On separate occasions, you’ve stated that Peter says the Bible is hard to understand, AND, that there was neither a Bible, nor a New Testament for the first 400 years of the church.

Actually, what you have done is demonstrate your cognitive inflexibility in this example of either/or thinking. You see, both things that MrS has forwarded are true. The Scriptures that Peter was referring to are the Alexandrian Septuagint, which is the collection that Jesus and the Apostles used. They were not bound together into the Bible until 382, when the NT was canonized. So you see, there was no “Bible” and the Scriptures are hard to understand. Both things are true.

It must you irk you more that can’t keep straight in you’re the head the things you’ve said.

Actually, your condescending attitude is what is most irksome.

 

[guanophore]

You’ve distorted what I’ve said, as usual, and taken other of my statements out of context, again, as usual, guanophore.

So, there’s nothing to which I’ll respond.

Great!

At first I was very reluctant to go back and read through this thread. As I said, it is very difficult to trace back the converstation without the links, since you don’t include them in your posts. Anyway, clearly this was worth the effort, as I have now situated all your comments within their context, and you have nothing to say.

 

[Howie01]

Well, in the reality of schisms and false dichotomy and that many have condemned themselves to hell because of idolatrous teaching; I wouldn’t be laughing. Tell me, if the Bible is *so *easy to understand, how do you explain the many denominations? That, I think flies in the face of your ‘facts’.

What I find laughable in the arguments presented by the Catholics on this thread is their appeal to 2 Pet 3 as a proof the Bible is hard to read, while at the same time for some, and at different times for others, and on different threads, those same Catholics will argue there was neither a Bible, nor a New Testament for 400 years.

While I’m certain that you, as a Catholic don’t appreciate the humor in that, it’s not lost on me.

 

[Howie01]

Great!

At first I was very reluctant to go back and read through this thread. As I said, it is very difficult to trace back the converstation without the links, since you don’t include them in your posts. Anyway, clearly this was worth the effort, as I have now situated all your comments within their context, and you have nothing to say.

You remind me of a tornado, guanophore, IMO, you’re the greatest of twisters. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

You remind me of a tornado, guanophore, IMO, you’re the greatest of twisters. :tiphat:

Thanks Howie! Since you claim that your house is built upon solid rock, this should not be a problem for you.

 

[buffgbob]

On separate occasions, you’ve stated that Peter says the Bible is hard to understand, AND, that there was neither a Bible, nor a New Testament for the first 400 years of the church.

It must you irk you more that can’t keep straight in you’re the head the things you’ve said.

I edited out most of your comment because it was merely libel.

You’re the only one confused Howie, so let’s look at all the statements and see if they truly contradict.

Statement 1: [Part of] the Bible is hard to understand.
What we definately get from Scripture is that Paul’s letters are hard to understand. I think we can all agree on that. Are Paul’s letters part of the Bible? Some of them certainly are. So no internal contradiction with this statement thus far. [Although the original poster didn’t insert ‘part of’ it is quite presumptuous to assume he meant ‘all of’, especially when that apparently damages his argument. Even though, it doesn’t really damage his argument; asserting ‘all’ doesn’t contradict any part of the Bible.]

Statement 2: There was no Bible for the first 400 years of the Church.
What is the Bible? The Bible is a collection of letters and writings. This statement isn’t saying the letters themselves don’t exist, it is saying those letters don’t exist as a compilation of works. This compilation is what we call the Bible, so it is appropriate to say, “the Bible doesn’t exist.”

How then can Peter be commenting on the Bible when it “doesn’t exist?” Granted, Peter would have no knowledge of a compilation of letters that have been deemed the Word of God. He would only have knowledge of his and the other Apostles’ oral teachings and letters. Peter comments on the teachings and letters of Paul. These letters exist; when he is commenting on them they don’t exist as part of a compilation called “the Bible.” They later become part of the Bible.

It’s almost like the only way you’ll reject your personal interpretation of Scripture is if one of the Apostles came down from heaven and corrected you. Luckily, we have their succesors on earth, who maintain apostolic teachings through Sacred Tradition, who can instruct you on exactly what the Apostles meant.

 

[josie_L]

A word of admonishment to you, Josie, what I’ve said to MrS is the truth, and that’s what a Christian does—speaks the truth.

What I’ve said is mild compared to some of things said to and about me, my wife, my church, and my pastor by MrS, guanophore, and Tomster.

I’ve pointed out the overall inconsistencies of Catholics on this thread, I’ve overlooked some very unchartible statments by guanophore and MrS, and I’ve ignored Tomster completely.

If you’re so bothered by what I’ve said in my post to MrS, I strongly encourage you to contact the Moderators, and ask them to review all of the posts on this thread from the last fews days.

None of those three have done that.

A word of admonishment to YOU, Howie, what we’ve said to you is the truth, and that’s what a Christian does—speaks the truth.

As far as Guanophore, Mr.S and Tomster, I have never heard them speak rudely or unkindly to anyone, l mean Guanophore has more than 13 000 plus posts without having been banned thus far, maybe just maybe the problem may be your utterly rude behaviour towards our Church. Because quite frankly Howie no one asked you to come to this forum, knowing full well it was Catholic, I rather think you were looking for trouble, or did you expect us to kowtow to your biblical interpretation without a fight on our part.

P.S. Make no mistake, Howie, make one more remark (“harlotry”) and I will report you to the mods.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant - she, unlike the original Ark, carried God in the flesh in her womb… so why should we not venerate her?

Because “the flesh profits nothing” - her being the Mother of the Son of God would be nothing, had she not had faith. There are reasons to venerate her, but mere bodily relationship to Christ is not a good one. Especially as He set no store by them, but redefined such relationships. But we seem to ignore that - for Catholicism, the flesh is everything and the spirit next to nothing ​

Purgatory: 1 Cor 3:13, St Mt 18:23 (you CAN lose your salvation), Forgiveness in the age to come: St Mt 12:32… II Maccabees 12:46 (praying for the dead tht they may be loosed from sins)… Rev 21:27

From Matthew 18:

• [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew18.htm (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew18.htm)

I can see how that “proves” that Jesus is no Saviour for us, & that we have no forgiveness of sins through Him: but how is any of it relevant to - which it must be, if it is to be a negation of - the unlooseableness of salvation ?

Though if salvation can be lost, Jesus is no saviour,and his early followers were liars of the most contemptible kind. What could be more fake & deceitful & useless than a so-called Saviour who cannot save ? But if He’s the Saviour & can’t save, then faith in Him is mind-bogglingly pointless & worthless, & a massive waste of time, as well as being a gigantic delusion. So the Churches might as well shut up shop once and for all, and do something useful for once, rather than preaching comforting lies & picking people’s pockets of trillions of pounds & dollars, which go to educate people in the lie that is Christianity. Such shamelessness is beyond belief.

If that sounds harsh, it’s nothing in comparison with what ought to be said about Christianity. But* if* salvation can be lost, it follows that Christianity is an anti-social fraud, that deserves to be suppressed.

Salvaton by works? Catholcis don’t believe in that. They believe we are saved by Jesus Christ (grace) and works brings grace (intimacy with God).

They can merit an increase of grease; but only per accidens - they cannot, in a googolplex of a trillion Kaliyugas (which is a very long time indeed), “bring grace” in any other way. Grace is - well, gratuitous, free, not paid for by us; so it cannot be a reward or a wage; for then it is not grace. It can come, if at all, only as an outright gift. To believe we could merit grace quoad substantiam, would indeed be “works salvation” ​

Praying to saints: Saints know what its like to be human and to follow Jesus devoutly in a godless world… Why should we not be friends with them…? better than some earthly friendships we could make (FOR SURE)… i oughta know…

you don’t understand the Catholic faith… and you probably never will until you go to RCIA but then, maybe you are reluctant to learn catholicism from an actual, practicing Catholic?

 

[Howie01]

buffgbob:

You’re the only one confused Howie, so let’s look at all the statements and see if they truly contradict.

Statement 1: [Part of] the Bible is hard to understand.
What we definately get from Scripture is that Paul’s letters are hard to understand. I think we can all agree on that. Are Paul’s letters part of the Bible? Some of them certainly are. So no internal contradiction with this statement thus far. [Although the original poster didn’t insert ‘part of’ it is quite presumptuous to assume he meant ‘all of’, especially when that apparently damages his argument. Even though, it doesn’t really damage his argument; asserting ‘all’ doesn’t contradict any part of the Bible.]

It’s you who’s confused, Buff. (And I’ve “snipped” some your post as well.)

Let’s look at the passage, rather than go from your memory:**2 Peter 3:14-16

**14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for THESE THINGS, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

15 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,

16 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.The “These things” Peter talks of in v14 can be found by continuing back in the verses. “These things” are things pertaining to eschatological events.

Peter continues in v16 saying that “Some things” of these ESCHATOLOGICAL THINGS (as indicated by “IN WHICH” referring back to “these things”) are hard to understand. Peter does not say that all things Paul writes about eschatology are hard to understand, but only some things of them are hard to understand, and Peter certainly does not make the statement that all of the Bible is hard to understand. (You read that into the text.)

Peter then continues saying the untaught and unstable distort those eschatological things as they also distort the rest of Scripture.

So the things that are hard to understand are found in Paul’s eschatological writings, and not all of them are hard to understand, and hard to understand doesn’t mean impossible to understand.

IMO, the Church tells you that the Scripture is hard to understand, and you believe the Church.

buffgbob:

How then can Peter be commenting on the Bible when it “doesn’t exist?” Granted, Peter would have no knowledge of a compilation of letters that have been deemed the Word of God. He would only have knowledge of his and the other Apostles’ oral teachings and letters. Peter comments on the teachings and letters of Paul. These letters exist; when he is commenting on them they don’t exist as part of a compilation called “the Bible.” They later become part of the Bible.

On Saturday, I made the same basic point to MrS here, but the elaboration you’ve made. Thank’s for your support of my position in that, Buff. :tiphat:

 

[buffgbob]

They can merit an increase of grease; but only per accidens - they cannot, in a googolplex of a trillion Kaliyugas (which is a very long time indeed), “bring grace” in any other way. Grace is - well, gratuitous, free, not paid for by us; so it cannot be a reward or a wage; for then it is not grace. It can come, if at all, only as an outright gift. To believe we could merit grace quoad substantiam, would indeed be “works salvation” ​

Granted. However, I have a question for you. What of the grace from faith: per accidens or quoad substantiam?

 

[Howie01]

A word of admonishment to YOU, Howie, what we’ve said to you is the truth, and that’s what a Christian does—speaks the truth.

As far as Guanophore, Mr.S and Tomster, I have never heard them speak rudely or unkindly to anyone, l mean Guanophore has more than 13 000 plus posts without having been banned thus far, maybe just maybe the problem may be your utterly rude behaviour towards our Church. Because quite frankly Howie no one asked you to come to this forum, knowing full well it was Catholic, I rather think you were looking for trouble, or did you expect us to kowtow to your biblical interpretation without a fight on our part.

P.S. Make no mistake, Howie, make one more remark (“harlotry”) and I will report you to the mods.

Don’t threaten me, Josie, report it now.

Here’s a list of posts on different threads mentioning the Pornocracy.

I said nothing untoward in my referral to that period of time, but was using it as an illustration to help MOnkey understand a point I was making.

MOnkey acknowledged that he understood my point.

Read my posts with respect to that in context.

And stop threatening me with going to the Mods. Either do it or don’t.

 

[buffgbob]

Howie,

I didn’t write or imply anywhere in my statement that all the Bible is hard to understand. I did quite the opposite. I added “[Part of]”.

It’s simple:
[You admit that] part of Paul’s eschatological writings are hard to understand.
Paul’s eschatological writings are part of the Bible.
Therefore, part of the Bible is hard to understand.

As for how much of the rest of the Bible is hard/easy to understand: that’s for the individual reader to figure out.

Also, I agree with you that the early Church was guided by the same deposit of faith that you see in the Bible. The Bible reflects this deposit of faith very well. Your assumption is that these were the only things taught and therin lies your error. Our current Church is guided by that same exact deposit of faith and in the same way that those early Christians were: by teachings of the Apostles and those appointed by the Apostles. This Church I speak of, the Catholic Church, has been teaching this same deposit of faith inerrantly for 2000 years. A brief interview with history will teach you that much. Good luck finding your Protestant ideas in any early Church writings. When your Protestant ideas were formed, they were quickly deemed heresies, the Church excommunicated the persons perpetuating the heresies, and thus the tradition of defending the deposit of faith continues in the same way it has since her [the Church’s] inception.

 

[guanophore]

I edited out most of your comment because it was merely libel.

You’re the only one confused Howie, so let’s look at all the statements and see if they truly contradict.

Statement 1: [Part of] the Bible is hard to understand.
What we definately get from Scripture is that Paul’s letters are hard to understand. I think we can all agree on that. Are Paul’s letters part of the Bible? Some of them certainly are. So no internal contradiction with this statement thus far. [Although the original poster didn’t insert ‘part of’ it is quite presumptuous to assume he meant ‘all of’, especially when that apparently damages his argument. Even though, it doesn’t really damage his argument; asserting ‘all’ doesn’t contradict any part of the Bible.]

Statement 2: There was no Bible for the first 400 years of the Church.
What is the Bible? The Bible is a collection of letters and writings. This statement isn’t saying the letters themselves don’t exist, it is saying those letters don’t exist as a compilation of works. This compilation is what we call the Bible, so it is appropriate to say, “the Bible doesn’t exist.”

How then can Peter be commenting on the Bible when it “doesn’t exist?” Granted, Peter would have no knowledge of a compilation of letters that have been deemed the Word of God. He would only have knowledge of his and the other Apostles’ oral teachings and letters. Peter comments on the teachings and letters of Paul. These letters exist; when he is commenting on them they don’t exist as part of a compilation called “the Bible.” They later become part of the Bible.

It’s almost like the only way you’ll reject your personal interpretation of Scripture is if one of the Apostles came down from heaven and corrected you. Luckily, we have their succesors on earth, who maintain apostolic teachings through Sacred Tradition, who can instruct you on exactly what the Apostles meant.

Great post buffgbob, thanks for joining the thread. Speaking of joining, will you join me in prayers to the Apostles, that they may be enabled to enlighted the minds of those who have twisted the scriptures through ignorance?

 

[MrS]

Great post buffgbob, thanks for joining the thread. Speaking of joining, will you join me in prayers to the Apostles, that they may be enabled to enlighted the minds of those who have twisted the scriptures through ignorance?

Now, you just KNOW that Howie will jump out of his skin.

Howie will understand that you mean he twists “some” verses to fit his personal beliefs, but you said “Scripture”. So he will jump and shout that he does not twist ALL of Scripture through ignorance.

well…

maybe he does,… hehehehe

 

[Protestant101]

Personally, I don’t believe that all of my separated brethren are anti-Catholic. I know you are, because I have read your posts for a long time. I know John MacArthur is, because I have listened to him, and read his publications. I now know that Howie is, by his affiliation with MacArthur, and his posts. Y’all have not been “hateful” in here, though. You may be in your thinking and expressions outside your posts, but it seems to me that you try real hard to control it in here.

Instead of the “anti-Catholic” rhetoric, which is always stated in the light of characterizing your protestant victim; you should be able to just speak for or against the truth and provide Biblical references for same. You and many others like to label as “anti-Catholic” anyone who disagrees with Catholic teachings, and canot be moved as quickly or easily as you would like them to be.

If you had even half an idea of the Catholics in my life, and how dearly I love them; and how sweet our time is together, you would never mention “anti-Catholic” again. You don’t need to characterize people the way you do with such terminology, as you do on this forum; although you do have a right to - as Christians, we do not always have to exercise our rights.

I can understand how MacArthur would bug the daylights out of you - he speaks forcefully; but that doesnt mean all that he says is error or heresy. An honest examination using the Bible as a guide would show quite the opposite.