John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[fishisgood]

It just baffles me, honestly, that you would say that, when I know full well how very much the Word of God is revered, read, and taught in the Mass. I’m sure you never got the Protestant version of “Follow the Romans Road, Pray this Prayer and if You Really Mean it in Your Heart, You’re Saved for All Eternity” salvation message, so if that’s what you’re saying, then I absolutely agree that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that, because it’s not Biblical.

The Church* does* teach at every Mass, every day of the week, every hour of the day around the world that for our salvation, Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried and rose again the third day. Thirty-three years and you never heard that?

Boom… that just happened… shake and bake

 

[phoenix3212]

It just baffles me, honestly, that you would say that, when I know full well how very much the Word of God is revered, read, and taught in the Mass. I’m sure you never got the Protestant version of “Follow the Romans Road, Pray this Prayer and if You Really Mean it in Your Heart, You’re Saved for All Eternity” salvation message, so if that’s what you’re saying, then I absolutely agree that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that, because it’s not Biblical.

The Church* does* teach at every Mass, every day of the week, every hour of the day around the world that for our salvation, Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried and rose again the third day. Thirty-three years and you never heard that?

Not to mention that many parts of the mass are taken verbatim from the Bible.

davidmacd.com/catholic/catholic_mass_bible_references_full_text.htm

Of course, not many people know that much of the mass comes straight from Scripture, but I still find it rather bizarre that someone would say they were never alerted to the Word of God in the Mass.

 

[Jon_Hus]

No, I don’t make this stuff up, nor does the information I posted come from any one source. Americans are so driven by literacy that we forget that a large percentage of the world’s population still doesn’t read, some don’t even have an alphabet for their language. Does that mean they can’t be saved?

I think you make this stuff up. It’s the only logical explanation. No, on second thought, there is a guide book. Yes, and it’s published by IDG!

OK, thanks and have a great day!

 

[benedictus2]

This is funny because i told my pastor that i would get this reply. Its always the person who wasn’t listening or paying attention. Could never be that it was never taught or the Word of God misrepresented. Guess i never paid attention the whole 33 yrs i was there. Oh well

Too right! I learned of the word of God from attending Mass from age 7. I did not own a Bible till I was in college and yet I knew what the Word of God was from attending Mass.

So, If I learned God’s Word at Mass and YOU DIDN’T, what were you doing all the time you were going to Mass? Checking out the guys or girls as the case maybe? Or maybe you were trying to catch on some sleep, the place for which is your bedroom not the Church

 

[guanophore]

Your anti-Protestantism is leaking out - like a sieve here, and elsewhere.

I am not “anti-Protestant” 101. It was Protestants that taught me to read scripture, to use conversational prayer, and to enjoy fellowship. It was three years in a Protestant seminary that brought me home to the Church founded by Christ. I am very grateful to my separated brethren.

Catholic “Apologetics” teaches you to do this to people; whereas the doctrine of SS teaches one to search the Scriptures for an answer and then to tell others what you read.

No, P101 “catholic apologetics” did not teach me anything. I have never studied apologetics (except Protestant apologetics). What I have done is observe behavior and attitude over a long period of time.

I believe you when you say that the doctrine of SS teaches one to search the Scriptures for an answer and then to tell others what you read. This, however, is not what the Apostles taught.

You keep struggling to point out “differences” in the various denominations of Protestants in a warped effort to “disprove” SS -

Actually, I have not used this arguement here. Even if I had, every contention against SS is appropriate and necessary. It should be addressed whereever it appears.

but there is nothing wrong with people seeing something in the Bible differently; for Bible history will ALWAYS show God’s people in a state of growth, and developing knowledge and obedience.

No, of course not! I would hope that people would see something new in Scripture every day! And I would hope that God’s people are always in growth, developing knowledge and obedience. None of that, however, requires that a person embrace the extrabiblical doctrine of SS.

Your struggle here is just about as wobbly as Bel & Nebo’s idols would have been when carried on the back of a donkey. (Isa 46:1).

What struggle is that? Do you think I will not be able to convince anyone that SS is erroneous?

You and a few others are also teetering on the brink of mythos and confusion when you try to deny your Church is The Roman Catholic Church

I am sure it seems this way, especially to modern American Protestants, who are only familiar with the Latin Rite. Most evangelicals and fundamentalists are also woefully ignorant of world history, so it would not occur to them that there are cultures and languages different from their own.
Protestant101;5275781:
In several major cities I have been in recently; I have seen Catholic Board Of Education vehicles all with the following logo: “Roman Catholic Board of Education.” To deny this and a hundred other examples of your top leadership, in many different areas all condoning the use of ROMAN Catholic; is to admit that you do need to get some extreme reality into your dogmas here.

Dear brother, I am not denying that there is a Latin Rite, here in America called the “Roman” or that they are the largest Rite in the US. I am not objecting to Latin Catholics using the term “Roman” to distinguish themselves.

The Rites, by the way, are not dogma.

I believe you are guilty of private interpretation on this point, and I would like to see proof from official Catholic sources that we should not use ROMAN Catholic when referring to your denomination; but I would also like to see why so many of your ministries, in countries around the world use the term ROMAN Catholic, with full approval from the top.

Well, first of all, Catholicism is not a 'denomination". To denominate means to distinguish from, and delineate one’s differences from another. Everyone else has “denominated” from the Catholic Church. Second, there is no need to discount the plethora of ministries provided all over the world by Catholic persons belonging to the Latin Rite. Their fervency and dedication to ministry still does not make the Church “Roman”.

I think the reason this topic was started is because MacArthur taught Sola Scripture, as taught in the Bible.

In a manner of speaking. More accurately, it was started because MacArthur teaches SS and it is NOT found in the Bible, and he asserted that the Catholic Church is not “biblical” because we deny this extrabiblical doctrine.

And yes; that would be, and is a real threat to Catholic doctrine. About all you can do now guanophore is to simply appeal to Roman Catholic Church “authority” (which you did yesterday) to assert you points on this.

No, P101, there are no real threats to Catholic doctrine. The doctrine of SS is a threat to the souls of everyone who is misled by it. I do appeal to the authority of the Church, even though it is not “Roman”.

Protestants will continue to resort to the Bible; and the differences of doctrinal understanding will never separate them half as much as you would like people to think.

Yes, I believe that Protestants will do that, it is part of what makes them Protestants.

But, it really doesn’t matter what I think of how much people are separated. What matters is that people have separated themselves from the Apostolic Teaching, to their own peril.

 

[phoenix3212]

Too right! I learned of the word of God from attending Mass from age 7. I did not own a Bible till I was in college and yet I knew what the Word of God was from attending Mass.

So, If I learned God’s Word at Mass and YOU DIDN’T, what were you doing all the time you were going to Mass? Checking out the guys or girls as the case maybe? Or maybe you were trying to catch on some sleep, the place for which is your bedroom not the Church

I think most Catholics can agree that the state of Catholic education is awful. As a 15 year old in the Catholic school system, I can tell you that the schools do a very poor job of educating students in the faith. Most of what I’ve learned about the faith has been from outside sources. I really wish they would start teaching the faith in a “this is what we believe and why” way.

 

[guanophore]

“For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Rom. 13:1

Interpret this verse in context, guanophore. Paul’s talking about human government, not Apostolic authority or the political evolution of church authority in history (cf. Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13).

Ok, let me get this straight. God institutes all authority, except when it is Church government, or Apostolic, or the church when related to political evolution in history?

Who is responsible for Apostolic authority, if not God?

I reject the idea that Peter even had a “successor.”

Yes, of course! You have to, otherwise you could not, in good conscience, rebel against him.

According to the theopneustos Scriptures the church Christ is presently building is being built “on” the “foundation” of the Apostles (Eph. 2:20). That is, on their teachings which were delivered to the churches first orally and then preserved for future generations in theopneustos Scriptures.

Well, this is a nice twist, but that is not what the inspired Scriptures state. At the time Paul wrote this, the teachings were not yet in the form of the NT. All the Teachings (foundation) were in Sacred Tradition. Also, Jesus chose people, and built the church upon those people. To reduce those people to their “teachings” is to minimize the Work of God in the Church. It is the same as reducing Jesus to the Bible, another common error.

What God has revealed in the Scriptures regarding the church Christ is presently building is very different from what we read regarding the political evolution and power struggles between the western and eastern church (the Bishop of Rome vs. the Bishop of Constantinople).

I don’t think so. I think it is clear from scripture that wolves would come, that people would vie for authority and power, that errors would creep in and creep out…what NT are you reading?

Christ gave authority to the Apostles who were His eye witnesses of His bodily resurrection (Acts 1:8,22; 1 Cor. 9:1).

Wait a second…didn’t you just say above that God did not appoint apostolic authority?

There could be no Apostolic “succession” since (1) that office is foundational in nature, laid down only once and then built upon; (2) a prerequisite was that of being an eye witness to Christ’s bodily resurrection.

Clearly you have a deficient understanding of Apostolic Succession. According to your erroneous definition, though, I agree, it is not possible.

Who do you claim to be Peter’s “successor?” Clement? Do you say that your church is being built upon his teachings? What are they? Are they in theopneustos writings?

There has been an unbroken line of successors of Peter. Yes, Clement was one. Yes, the Church is built on the foundation of the teachings of the Apostles. They are contained in the Catechism. Yes, the NT reflects entirely what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. It was written by, for, and about Catholics.

Did he personally see the resurrected Christ? Who came after Clement? Did he have those credentials?Historically, by the end of the fourth century Christendom had come to be dominated by FIVE centers, each with its corresponding Bishop: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Those Bishops had come to be called "Patriarchs.

One of the requirements of being an Apostle was to see Christ. Most of the successors of the Apostles did not. That is why they are called successors (bishops) and not apostles. Yes, by the end of the fourth century there were five major patriarchies. There are valid apostolic successions in each today.

But this political struggle for power is all very different from what the Holy Spirit has revealed in theopneustos Scriptures concerning the true church Christ is quietly and presently building “upon the foundation” of the Apostles, Christ Himself its corner stone.

I agree that political struggle for power is contrary to what Christ desired for His Church. However, this does not make apostolic succession invalid. It just means that some of the successors of the apostles walked in the flesh, and not by the Spirit. The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

 

[guanophore]

I never said the Pontiff conjures up anything.

Oh I think your tone has implied this quite well.

I said whatever doctrines are developed by the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Magisterium must be believed by all RCs (including those who have subjected themselves to the authority of that Magisterium (teaching authority). I don’t think this is at all a misrepresentation of RC’ism.

Please don’t misrepresent me by putting words in my mouth. :tsktsk:

You represented yourself quite well, moon. It has been quite clear what you were purporting. It is a misrepresentation because the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

The Pontiff is not “Roman” (actually, he is German), and the Magesterium isn’t 'Roman". You are using this language to be deliberately insulting.

Subjection to the teaching authority appointed by Christ is inherint in our subjection to Jesus. He said “the one who receives you receives Me, and He who sent me”.

 

[M0nkey]

Boom… that just happened… shake and bake

The Church* does* teach at every Mass, every day of the week, every hour of the day around the world that for our salvation, Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried and rose again the third day. Thirty-three years and you never heard that?

Maybe they just slept through the apostles creed. It’s repeated every Sunday verbatim. Oh wait, but that would imply that you go to Church every Sunday. :doh2: I’m going through the book of Revelations and I’m seeing how many parallels there are between this holy liturgy that’s revealed to the apostle in heaven and the mass we celebrate on earth. Very powerful stuff.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

Ok, let me get this straight. God institutes all authority, except when it is Church government, or Apostolic, or the church when related to political evolution in history?

Who is responsible for Apostolic authority, if not God?

I said in that passage Paul is referring to human government. Believer’s are, in that passage, instructed to submit to the laws of human government.

Originally Posted by moondweller
I reject the idea that Peter even had a “successor.”

Yes, of course! You have to, otherwise you could not, in good conscience, rebel against him.

If I wanted to play that game I could just as easily say John MacAuthur is Peter’s “successor.” You have no recourse for rebuttal since Peter, nor any of the Apostles, ever spoke of appointing “successors” or ever named any. And the theopneustos Scriptures recognize only the original; and it says that the church is presently being built upon them. IOW, this whole idea of “Apostolic succession” being unbiblical and without any Apostolic authority behind it, is completely subjective — Hey, on second thought, I would appoint myself.

That’s why historically you had the Bishop in the west (the Latin church) claiming absolute authority, and the Bishop in the east (the Greek church) denying it, and claiming it for himself.

 

[Protestant101]

Oh I think your tone has implied this quite well.

You represented yourself quite well, moon. It has been quite clear what you were purporting. It is a misrepresentation because the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

The Pontiff is not “Roman” (actually, he is German), and the Magesterium isn’t 'Roman". You are using this language to be deliberately insulting.

Subjection to the teaching authority appointed by Christ is inherint in our subjection to Jesus. He said “the one who receives you receives Me, and He who sent me”.

The Catholic Church is not just “Roman;” it is Roman Catholic, and well beyond the borders of North America. it is not a misrepresentation to call it that; especially when we see it with our own eyes that this is what your church does. The Pontiff doesn’t have to be “Roman” for your Church to be called Roman Catholic. He rules from Rome, and your denomination is rightly called, worldwide, the Roman Catholic Church, both by your own brethren and the rest of the world, with some isolated exceptions. You are deliberately insulting and slanderous to have the nerve to characterize people like this, you misrepresent your own church as well as Protestants. Is there some reason you cannot give logical explanations, and solid Bible doctrine instead of this mind-bend?

 

[M0nkey]

You have no recourse for rebuttal since Peter, nor any of the Apostles, ever spoke of appointing “successors” or ever named any.

Your assertion is bereft of scripture. St. Matthias is clearly Juda’s successor. Likewise, Peter had a successor, it is mentioned in the epistles of St. Paul.

 

[PJM]

=DLClark;5240685]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.

Really:shrug:

Friend please allow me to fully explain the statement that I’m about to make, because it will be shown to be factually and Biblically true.

Much more than you, John McArthur’s position of OSAS is a non-biblical position, and because he considers himself a “bible expert” his cupability before God is far grater than you’re own.

If Mr McArthur, you or any of you’re community care to prove me wrong. Please feel free to do so factually and bring to light the evidence in THE Bible to support it.

2 Tim. 3:16 “16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Mt. 16: 18-19 “And I [Jesus] tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I [Jesus] will give you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Mt. 18: 18 “Truly, I [Jesus] say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Mt. 19:17 "And he [Jesus] said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”/COLOR] Not a suggestion, a COMMAND!

1 Jn. 5: 6 I"f any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." If there are sins that are NOT mortal there must also be sins that are “Mortal” that is having the effect of complete seperation of ones persoanl relationship with Christ, thus risking the eternal Fires of Hell.

Jn. 20: 20 " When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, **"Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained./**COLOR] Christ would only do this in consideration of 1 Jn. 6.

The biblical issue of "WORKS"

Eph. 2: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.** 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them**. Contradicted in the same book!

Heb. 6: **9 "Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation.For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. **

**READ JAMES Chapter 2! **

Jn. 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Jn. 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him."

Friend there is a GREAT deal more that I could share, but at this point you need to be asking yourself why you’re preacher is NOT sharing the entire word of God with you?

You’re postion of OSAS cannot be proven with the Word of God, so why then do you believe it?

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[PJM]

Very well put Protestant. Sola Scriptura is in the scriptures!

How nice:shrug:

I have shown mutiple time on this Forum and on this string that what you say is not proveable with biblical evidence.

Please provide the specifics of you’re position or retract it.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I think you make this stuff up. It’s the only logical explanation.

I’m making up that there are still people on this earth who can’t read, and people on this earth who don’t have an alphabet for their spoken language? Gosh, I really thought that was common knowledge amongst people who have studied world cultures.

No, on second thought, there is a guide book. Yes, and it’s published by IDG!

IDG? What is that?

OK, thanks and have a great day!

I intend to, thank you. I pray that you do likewise.

 

[M0nkey]

I’m making up that there are still people on this earth who can’t read

Now this just dawned on me: it means those who can’t read can’t possibly be saved since they have no access to scriptures. You must be part of the inteligentsia members only book club to uphold SS.

 

[Tomster]

How nice:shrug:

I have shown mutiple time on this Forum and on this string that what you say is not proveable with biblical evidence.

Please provide the specifics of you’re position or retract it.

Love and prayers,

Pat

He can’t do it. If he could have he would have.

 

[Tomster]

Your church has “rites” we have denominations. No difference.

Wrong again. All of the rites of the Catholic Church are subject to the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.

All of the denominations of Protestantism are subject to each individual interpreter of Scripture.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Protestant101
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.

One interesting thing I note here too is that a few posts ago; I asked a Catholic forum member to please give a definition of sola scriptura; “How do you personally understand it?” was my question. Out of all the fancy explanations and characterizations hurled at me since, not a one addressed this point. Catholics like to say how the poor misguided Protestants “fail to understand” but it is a pretty sure bet that they do not correctly understand Sola Scriptura.

And yes; it is unfortunate, but a number of protestants also do not understand it either. So I am asking the Catholics here to please tell me what you think SS actually is? Do you even know what you are so vehemently opposing?

Friend, I am truely sorry that somehow I missed this particular post.

“sola scriptura”

Means to me as a Catholic and I believe to other Catholics that "everything one needs to know, live and practice in order to attain heaven can ONLY be found in Sacred Scripture."

And this friend is why we Catholics don’t “but it.”

John 21: 25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

2 Thess. 2: 15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and **hold to the traditions **which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”.

Again sorry I missed you’re post!

Love and prayer’s

 

[Protestant101]

Friend, I am truely sorry that somehow I missed this particular post.

“sola scriptura”

Means to me as a Catholic and I believe to other Catholics that “everything one needs to know, live and practice in order to attain heaven can ONLY be found in Sacred Scripture.”

And this friend is why we Catholics don’t “but it.”

John 21: 25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

2 Thess. 2: 15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and **hold to the traditions **which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”.

Again sorry I missed you’re post!

Love and prayer’s

LOL, you don’t need to do “internet yelling” with those big red letters. I can read normal fonts just fine. ): Your above cited definition is not correct. There is one small word in it that does not belong. But I’ll let people think about that for a while - I can’t take all those big red fonts that would be sure to follow!!