John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but** the word of our God shall stand for ever.

**Yep…
There is only one, unchangeable Truth. If all of Scripture were to be reduced to one word, that word would have to be Jesus, for He is Truth.

He will stand forever.

The Bible, on the other hand is first a compilation of love letters on the Truth. It is a material thing… produced by human authors under divine guidance. That divine guidance will stand forever. The material Bible will be as non-existent at the end of time, as it was before the Catholic Church canonized it.

It will all burn (like the grass and the flowers), as Baptists love to say.

For now, you have the use of the Book of the Catholic Church to help guide you to the Truth.

Your misuse of verses - self interpretation - is your desire to reject the same authority which give you the Truth. Your loss.

.
 
benedictus2 said:
Nope, there were other books at that time. The first canon was actually the heretic Marcion’s. The council sorted through all these books to determine which ones should belong to the Bible. And when they were determining this, they always referred it back to the ongoing apostolic traditions. That is why when Pope Clement spoke of the canoon, he called it “the canon of our traditions.”

Yes, she did as I have shown above.

No it did not. What happened at Trent was to once and for all promulgate that the canon that the Church has always used is the true canon. Not the mutilated version that Luther came up with. The protestant chopped up the Bible to suit their doctrine of Sola Fide.
Click to expand...
No; this is not how it is; and you should know that:
“In the early Church, there was no list of books accepted as canonical. Christ and then the Apostles did not provide any kind of authoritative statement as to what books might be consulted”, Taken from: Our Sunday Visitor’s ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CATHOLIC HISTORY, under “Bible.”
Click to expand...
You are right about Marcion:
“He was opposed by St. Irenaeus (d. 200) and others. Various lists appeared in succeeding years, but, as noted, uniformity was well in place by 350, receiving impetus for the NT canon from the aforementioned Councils of Hippo and Carthage and from St. Augustine,” Taken from: Our Sunday Visitor’s ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CATHOLIC HISTORY, under “Bible.”
Click to expand...
It wasn’t until the early 1500s that Catholics added the Apocrypha to what had already existed as God’s Word. Luther didn’t invent it; he tried to continue it and restore it:
" At the council in 1546, the Council Fathers gave formal definition of the Canon of the Bible (while declaring the Vulgate to be authentic), promulgating a list of the books accepted as entirely canonical in the decree Sacrosancta: in the OT there are forty-five books; the NT has twenty-seven books. The complete list as declared by the Council of Trent follows.

Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings, 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, 1 and 2 Esdras (also Nehemiah), Tobias, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Isaias, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdia, Jona, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, 1 and 2 Machabees." Taken from: Our Sunday Visitor’s ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CATHOLIC HISTORY, under “Bible.”
Click to expand...
As I said; and you have utterly failed to prove otherwise; the Catholic Church CHANGED THE BIBLE, at the council in 1546.
 
Protestant101 said:
No; this is not how it is; and you should know that:

You are right about Marcion: It wasn’t until the early 1500s that Catholics added the Apocrypha to what had already existed as God’s Word. Luther didn’t invent it; he tried to continue it and restore it:
As I said; and you have utterly failed to prove otherwise; the Catholic Church CHANGED THE BIBLE, at the council in 1546.
Click to expand...
Some History for you:

bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

.
 
You are engaging in revisionist history. The deuterocanonical books in the bible were part of the original canon. The council of Trent simply reaffirmed this because of Protestant speculation since they changed the book. There were violent debates (very bloody) within Protestant circles going on at that time, which goes to show what happens when you question authority.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Today, United States Reformed minister and radio preacher John MacArthur has as his featured homepage article: “Is Roman Catholicism Biblical?”

In his argument that the Catholic Church is not Biblical, he cites as the most significant reason: “its denial of the doctrine of sola Scriptura”

Now that is some world class irony.
Click to expand...
I agree with Dr. MacArthur and I know most internet Catholics misunderstand Sola Scriptura, just as Protestants misunderstand things that Catholics do. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures are the highest authority, but not the only one.

Unfortunately there are many Protestants who get that wrong and turn it into Solo Scriptura which is inaccurate, even some early Church leaders agreed that the Scriptures are the highest authority.
 
historyb said:
Unfortunately there are many Protestants who get that wrong and turn it into Solo Scriptura which is inaccurate, even some early Church leaders agreed that the Scriptures are the highest authority.
Click to expand...
Now that’s sounding more like Catholicity, keep up the search for truth brother! The only thing I would add, this is the reason we need a pope to give us the correct interpretation when disputes arise, but he is basically guided by the holy spirit and the words in scripture. 👍
 
M0nkey said:
Now that’s sounding more like Catholicity, keep up the search for truth brother! The only thing I would add, this is the reason we need a pope to give us the correct interpretation when disputes arise, but he is basically guided by the holy spirit and the words in scripture. 👍
Click to expand...
I was a catholic for 10 years, I searched for the truth and found Christianity 🙂
 
historyb said:
I agree with Dr. MacArthur and I know most internet Catholics misunderstand Sola Scriptura, just as Protestants misunderstand things that Catholics do. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures are the highest authority, but not the only one.

Unfortunately there are many Protestants who get that wrong and turn it into Solo Scriptura which is inaccurate, even some early Church leaders agreed that the Scriptures are the highest authority.
Click to expand...
Catholics do not misunderstand Sola Scriptura. We understand that some Protestants do in fact turn it into Solo Scriptura which is something that the solo-Protestants and sola-Protestants cannot reconcile among themselves. The fact is that those Protestants who have not turned it into Solo Scriptura must refer to an extra-Biblical source for interpretations. But since there is no binding, authoritative voice within Protestantism to make such authoritative decisions due to Protestantisms’ adherence to private judgement the point is mute.
 
Tomster said:
Which denomination?
Click to expand...
Possibly a new one. I could guess or buy a lottery ticket. Better success with the latter.

I, personally, did not find Christianity. It found me. By the grace of God I was given the opportunity to be and to stay Catholic. Perhaps He knew that if I was anything else, I would be too weak, and be in trouble.

I think, IMHO, that God “allows” some to be outside His Church, because He gives them the grace to study, to search, and to enter - by choice - the One Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Sadly, in their search, they are misled, and educated into error. Some even show up here with their chosen versions of faith understanding. I for one, am awed at the opportunity to discuss the Truth when I can… even if they refuse to accept.

I cannot convert anyone. Thank God that God is God.

.
 
benedictus2 said:
And ppasa I have already demolished their supposed support for SS on my post 686. Perhaps you failed to read that one.😉

No they don’t. Nowhere in these verses do they claim that scripture ALONE is sufficient. Yes they are inspired but they do not say that Scripture alone is enough. Please show the text (yes I challenge to write them here" that says that.🙂

Sweetheart, when Jesus said 'it is written" he was talking about the Old Testament not the New Testament 🙂 When Jesus spoke those words, NONE of the New Testament was yet written.

Nope. What tradition was he talking about. Please, please, please learn to read the Bible. Not just itsy bitsy parts of it. Ppassa if you are reading this, pray tell what tradtion did Christ speak of in verse 1-2 of Matthew 15. Unless of course you don’t happen to have those verses in your abridged versioin of the Bible.😃

Now SS is a tradition of man, nowhere found in the Bible at all. So therefore since it is a tradition that has nullified the word of God. 😃
Click to expand...
Sweetheart I have already provided scripture to support my point. Like I said before the arguement is not with me. It is with Christ. Study those verses again. If you need to go to a commentary try John MacArthur. Warren Wiersbe. I do have you on my prayer list. Read Gal 1:6-9 slowly.
 
M0nkey said:
You are engaging in revisionist history. The deuterocanonical books in the bible were part of the original canon. The council of Trent simply reaffirmed this because of Protestant speculation since they changed the book. There were violent debates (very bloody) within Protestant circles going on at that time, which goes to show what happens when you question authority.
Click to expand...
I got it right out of your own Catholic revisionist publications! Check my cited references.
 
MrS said:
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but** the word of our God shall stand for ever.

**Yep…
There is only one, unchangeable Truth. If all of Scripture were to be reduced to one word, that word would have to be Jesus, for He is Truth.

He will stand forever.

The Bible, on the other hand is first a compilation of love letters on the Truth. It is a material thing… produced by human authors under divine guidance. That divine guidance will stand forever. The material Bible will be as non-existent at the end of time, as it was before the Catholic Church canonized it.

It will all burn (like the grass and the flowers), as Baptists love to say.

For now, you have the use of the Book of the Catholic Church to help guide you to the Truth.

Your misuse of verses - self interpretation - is your desire to reject the same authority which give you the Truth. Your loss.
Click to expand...
What did I “lose?” If He writes His law in our hearts; how will He burn it out at this end of time or judgment as you claim? His law is part of His Word. What you state is impossible.
 
guanophore said:
Actually, the passage does not say either of these things. Scripture cannot be an “absolute authority” since it does not contain the elements needed to exercise authority, an activity belonging to persons.

Second, the passage never says that it is scripture that equips the man of God. On the contrary, the Scripture itself states that this duty was given to persons who have been authorized and gifted by God for that purpose. What this passage says is that scripture is profitable in that task.

The Catholic Church also teaches that Scripture is sufficient.

Time to check your catechism again, 101. You are bearing false witness against the Catholic Church.

I apologize to all those reading the thread for these long posts. I felt it necessary to give P101 the most complete answer to his question as possible There were so many wrong things, I am surprised that it is only one page. :o
Click to expand...
Poor guanophore - you would have no power at all here if you didn’t make fun of someone, and give such biased answers. You should be apologizing because your post creates more questions than answers. You are on public record here as saying that it is not good to use the scriptures to check for error…how sad that Christians have reached such conclusions.
 
MrS said:
Some History for you:

bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

.
Click to expand...
Some history for you:
In the 1500s, it became common practice to call these classifications protocanonical and deuterocanonical respectively.
Click to expand...
At the council in 1546, the Council Fathers gave formal definition of the Canon of the Bible (while declaring the Vulgate to be authentic), promulgating a list of the books accepted as entirely canonical in the decree Sacrosancta:
Click to expand...
Taken from Our Sunday Visitor’s ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CATHOLIC HISTORY under “Bible.”
 
Protestant101 said:
Some history for you:
Click to expand...
P101, in your post you imply that the church changed it’s canon, but everything you have cited so far does not say that, not even implicitly. The canon was still accepted prior to Trent, they merely re-referenced it to protocanonial and deuterocanonical, the books remained the same. I don’t know where you get your ideas other than your clear bias of trying to justify reformists revision of God’s word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top