John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[benedictus2]

Protestant101:

True Christianity can be found in all churches. God has His people everywhere. (Rev.18:4)

One other thing we agree on!

Hhmm, I did not think there would come a day when I would disagree with highly esteemed guano, but on this one I will have to disagree.

I believe True Christianity in its fullest can only be found in the Catholic Church. Churches who have watered down Christ’s teachings (as in the case of contraception, divorce, etc) or taught error (such as SS and SF ) can hardly be called true Christians because True Christianity means to follow all Christ’s teachings, regardless of pressures from the world. Only the Catholic Church has held fast to all of Christ’s moral teachings. Every one else has taken in one way or another the easier road.

Much like those who left Him over the hard teachings the concerning the Eucharist.

Having said that though, I do believe that in every church there are those who try to live as fully as they can (with what they have been taught or the lack of it) the Christian way. Can they be called truly Christian? Well I would baulked at affirming that considering that they do not follow all of Christ’s commands. But in so far as they have been taught that they are not really Christ’s command, well these can be classifified as mitigating circumstances.

 

[benedictus2]

Sure read 2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:15-16. Jesus chose the scriptures in Matt 4:4,7,10. Jesus also said in Matt 15:3-6 that tradition can add words to scripture teachings.

Here are the texts of the references you quoted:
2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Where in that does it say that Scripture ALONE is enough. Sure Scripture is is important, but it does not say that Scripture ALONE is essential for correction, training in righteousness, etc.

Also, during Paul’s time, only the OT is considered Scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.

Again, nowhere here do we find Peter saying that Scripture ALONE is enough.

Matt 4:4,7,10
4 - He said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’”

7 - Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’” 10 - At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’”
So for the third time, where in the above verses from Matthew does it say that Scripture ALONE is sufficient.

**Matt 15:3-6 **He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God 3 for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Now this particular last one is the most ridiculous support you have supplied. This highlight’s the protestants’s ugly practice of chopping up scriputure which leads to all kinds of ridiculous exegesis.

Did you even bother to read verses 1 & 2? If you did, then you would know that the tradition Jesus is talking about is a man made tradition of washing of hands before eating a meal.

So here is a little advise, before you start throwing out verses, read the entire passage first.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, of course it is. The Bible supports use of the Bible for all matters of faith and doctrine. For Christians to deny this, is not Christian.

But so far you have not been able to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with Scriptural support.

So please do so. We are waiting.

 

[MrS]

Hhmm, I did not think there would come a day when I would disagree with highly esteemed guano, but on this one I will have to disagree.

I believe True Christianity in its fullest can only be found in the Catholic Church. Churches who have watered down Christ’s teachings (as in the case of contraception, divorce, etc) or taught error (such as SS and SF ) can hardly be called true Christians because True Christianity means to follow all Christ’s teachings, regardless of pressures from the world. Only the Catholic Church has held fast to all of Christ’s moral teachings. Every one else has taken in one way or another the easier road.

Much like those who left Him over the hard teachings the concerning the Eucharist.

Having said that though, I do believe that in every church there are those who try to live as fully as they can (with what they have been taught or the lack of it) the Christian way. Can they be called truly Christian? Well I would baulked at affirming that considering that they do not follow all of Christ’s commands. But in so far as they have been taught that they are not really Christ’s command, well these can be classifified as mitigating circumstances.

I find that is what makes the only sense… after all Jesus did start only One Church. All other faith communities can call them selves whatever they wish. And they can even include the word “church” in their names. But that does not make it a true church, nor a true Christianity.

Jesus’ promises were made to His Church and His chosen apostles.

Jesus’ plan to attain salvation and holiness are in place only in the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

The Holy Spirit will guide that one Church into the Truth and it is available for all. The same Church encourages you to read the Bible… the book of the Catholic Church… and then, ask for the Church to explain the verses to you… not just self interpret and then form denomination #30,402 or whatever.

.

 

[benedictus2]

If the church teaches something different than what God’s Word says, Then yes we should not listen to them. You have not provided any scripture against sola scriptura.

But it is not the Catholic Church that teaches against God’s word. It is the Protestant Churches who do that. The Catholic Church is the only one who has held fast to the Truth of God’s word. Every other Christian church has buckled to the temptations of the world and has contaminated their teachings with the lies of the evil one.

And all that started from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

 

[benedictus2]

We are on the topic of sola scriptura. I do agree with you that we are not to follow the tradition of men. My concern is how a church can twist God’s Word.

Yes indeed. How can some protestant Churches so twist God’s word that it barely resembles God’s word.

 

[MrS]

As to the question of Sola Scriptura

It is not a Catholic concept, never was, never will be.

We, as Catholics, can only discuss what it is NOT. It is NOT the sole rule of authority in the Catholic Church. Jesus is. And His plan is to give us all the
Tradition He taught to the Apostles,
The Scriptures which the Church shares with the world, and the
teaching authority (Magisterium) which will guide us (if we let them) into the Truth.

So I invite our few non-Catholic friends here to suggest what they understand as SS… and see if even they all totally agree on something they seem to think is so critical and important to their salvation.

.

 

[guanophore]

Hhmm, I did not think there would come a day when I would disagree with highly esteemed guano, but on this one I will have to disagree.

I believe True Christianity in its fullest can only be found in the Catholic Church.

We are not in disagreement on this point. The fullness of the Christian faith does subsist in the Catholic Church. The erroneous accusation that was made, though, is that the Catholic Church does not recognize that true Christianity can be found in persons and ecclesial communities that are not in visible union with the bishoop of Rome. In fact,t he Church recognizes that there are many individuals in these other communities in whom the HS is working. They are like Apollos, who was lacking some matters of the faith. However Apollos was full of zeal and preached the Truth as he knew of it, as most of our zealous separated brethren do. As Prisca and Aquila took him aside to show him more accurately, so must be done today with our separated brethren.

Churches who have watered down Christ’s teachings (as in the case of contraception, divorce, etc) or taught error (such as SS and SF ) can hardly be called true Christians because True Christianity means to follow all Christ’s teachings, regardless of pressures from the world. Only the Catholic Church has held fast to all of Christ’s moral teachings. Every one else has taken in one way or another the easier road.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that those persons, even though they do espouse some error unwittingly, are sincere in their pursuit of the Christian way of life?

Having said that though, I do believe that in every church there are those who try to live as fully as they can (with what they have been taught or the lack of it) the Christian way. Can they be called truly Christian? Well I would baulked at affirming that considering that they do not follow all of Christ’s commands. But in so far as they have been taught that they are not really Christ’s command, well these can be classifified as mitigating circumstances.

I think the calumny forwarded was that the Catholic Church does not recognize and accept these things.

 

[benedictus2]

I find that is what makes the only sense… after all Jesus did start only One Church. All other faith communities can call them selves whatever they wish. And they can even include the word “church” in their names. But that does not make it a true church, nor a true Christianity.

Jesus’ promises were made to His Church and His chosen apostles.

Jesus’ plan to attain salvation and holiness are in place only in the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

The Holy Spirit will guide that one Church into the Truth and it is available for all. The same Church encourages you to read the Bible… the book of the Catholic Church… and then, ask for the Church to explain the verses to you… not just self interpret and then form denomination #30,402 or whatever.
.

Precisely. In verse 46-47 of Acts 2 Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart, praising God and enjoying favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved

Who is being referred to by “their number” here but the infant Catholic Church? And how was God effecting the salvation? He was adding to their number those who were being saved.

So to be saved is to be added to the Catholic Church.

 

[benedictus2]

In fact,t he Church recognizes that there are many individuals in these other communities in whom the HS is working. They are like Apollos, who was lacking some matters of the faith. **However Apollos was full of zeal and preached the Truth as he knew of it, as most of our zealous separated brethren do. As Prisca and Aquila took him aside to show him more accurately, so must be done today with our separated brethren. **

But no matter how zealous they are, if they preach erroneous doctrine which is contrary to true Christianity, can you really call them Christians?

 

[benedictus2]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that those persons, even though they do espouse some error unwittingly, are sincere in their pursuit of the Christian way of life?

Yes, I would agree with that 100%. I remember Scott and Kimberly Hahn being totally convinced that contraception is okay until they read and studied Catholic teaching and realized that the Catholic Church was the only one who had the Biblically correct stand on this.

When they were practicing contraception they were sincere, but it cannot be said that they were correct and that they were following Christ. When they realized the error of their belief, they abandoned contraception even whilst they still remained Presbyterian.

 

[guanophore]

We need to continue to pray for those that deny the authority of the Scriptures. The bible is pretty plain to understand what God wants us to do and believe. The scary part of denying Gods Word and interpreting it in another way is explained in Gal 1:6-9

Indeed, it is astonishing that people can read this, and not “get it”. The Apostle speaks here of the “preached” word, the Divine Deposit of faith that was delivered once for all to the saints. This gospel was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. However, some no longer recognize that this living gospel still exists, and has existed uncorrupted in the Church from the time of the Apostles preaching until now.

You and others come here to CAF preaching the very “different gospel” that theApostle warns us about:

Gal 1:6-9
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel - 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

I realize that you do not know any better. Having been separated from the Apostolic Succession, it was not possible for you to receive the authentic gospel. You preach what you know, which came from others who were also separated.

For that reason, you are not as culpable for accepting that different gospel as we would be, because we have received the fullness of truth from the Apostles.

 

[benedictus2]

We need to continue to pray for those that deny the authority of the Scriptures. The bible is pretty plain to understand what God wants us to do and believe. The scary part of denying Gods Word and interpreting it in another way is explained in Gal 1:6-9

And that is true it is scary how a lot of Protestant Churches so mangle God’s word. They claim that the Bible is their authority, yet when you confront them with a passage from Luke that exposes the lie of their belief, they fire back with a quote from Paul. When you cite Matthew, Mark, and John, they hope to debunk your point with Paul.

How can so many believe that the only books that truly matter are the epistles of Paul beats me . And they have the audacity to claim that the Bible is their authority. Perhaps the doctrine should be re-stated as Some Parts of Scripture Alone to be more accurate.

 

[guanophore]

benedictus2:
But no matter how zealous they are, if they preach erroneous doctrine which is contrary to true Christianity, can you really call them Christians?

This is a good question, and I would say it depends upon the degree to which they have retained the Catholic Teachings. For example, we believe that all those who are validly baptized are members of God’s One Church, even though imperfectly joined. When they come to the fullness of the truth, they are received as Christians.

In some cases, ecclesial communities have departed so far from the Apostolic Faith as to no longer be properly referred to as “Christian”, though they may refer to themselves in that way.

 

[Tomster]

True Christianity is not found in any church. Those who follow sola scripturs and faith alone for salvation are the ones who make up the true church. the catholic church bases its salvation on works. They do not believe in faith alone for salvation. As a result they can never be sure that when they die that they will be in heaven.

Please interpret this verse. It shouldn’t be too difficult. It’s just one verse.

“Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord . . . for their works do follow them.” (Revelation 14:13)

 

[benedictus2]

Please interpret this verse. It shouldn’t be too difficult. It’s just one verse.

“Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord . . . for their works do follow them.” (Revelation 14:13)

Good one:thumbsup: Short sweet and terrific!

 

[benedictus2]

This is a good question, and I would say it depends upon the degree to which they have retained the Catholic Teachings. For example, we believe that all those who are validly baptized are members of God’s One Church, even though imperfectly joined. When they come to the fullness of the truth, they are received as Christians.

In some cases, ecclesial communities have departed so far from the Apostolic Faith as to no longer be properly referred to as “Christian”, though they may refer to themselves in that way.

I suppose the term I have a problem with is not whether they are Christians but whether the word True can really be appended.

In 1 John 2 :4-6: The way we may be sure 2 that we know him is to keep his command ments Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him:
whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived.
If following Christ’s command is the mark of being a true Christian, then we cannot be called true Christian until we have followed His command to eat His Flesh and drink His blood because this is one of His commands.

But I do agree that imperfectly, they are indeed Christians.

 

[Tomster]

When one sets his mind against the Church, and thus against the authority given to her by Jesus Himself, well… there will be no convincing him. God will do that in His time. In the meantime, we can just continue to defend, share, and explain the faith we received from the Apostles… as per Jesus’ plan.

.

So very true. As I was going through my copy of “The Spiritual Life” by Tanquerey last night I came upon this:

821. The first form of pride is to regard oneself, explicitly or implicitly, as one’s own first principle.​

A) There are but few who go as far as to consider themselves explicitly as their own first principle.

a) This is the sin of atheists, who willfully deny God, because they want no master, “No God, no Master.” Of such the Psalmist speaks when he says: “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.” ( Psalm 13:1 )

b) This was, equivalently, the sin of Lucifer, who, desiring to be a rule unto himself, refused to submit to God; the sin of our first parents, who wishing to be like God wanted to know of themselves what is good and what is evil; the sin of heretics, who like Luther refused to acknowledge the authority of the Church established by God; the sin of rationalists, who in their pride of intellect refuse to submit their reason to faith. This is also the sin of certain intellectuals, who, too proud to accept the traditional interpretation of dogmas, attenuate and deform them to make them conform to their own views.

 

[benedictus2]

So very true. As I was going through my copy of “The Spiritual Life” by Tanquerey last night I came upon this:

821. The first form of pride is to regard oneself, explicitly or implicitly, as one’s own first principle.​

A) There are but few who go as far as to consider themselves explicitly as their own first principle.

a) This is the sin of atheists, who willfully deny God, because they want no master, “No God, no Master.” Of such the Psalmist speaks when he says: “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.” ( Psalm 13:1 )

And the pleasure of sinning with perceived impunity no matter how delusional that perception may be

 

[Tomster]

And the pleasure of sinning with perceived impunity no matter how delusional that perception may be

Exactly !