G
graceandglory
Guest
I like to think of being Catholic as the** Full **Gospel of truth. Not the abbreviated version.
- Status
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
He might be a smart man, but when it comes to Catholicism he is so anti-Catholic that he will say almost anything, no matter how off the wall it is. I have seen some outrageous leaps of logic on his part.
I havn’t read this link yet, but here I go:To put it simply, because the Roman Catholic Church has refused to submit itself to the authority of God’s Word and to embrace the gospel of justification taught in Scripture, it has set itself apart from the true body of Christ. It is a false and deceptive form of Christianity.This is a fair claim to make. I would just note that it is actually Protestants who have those doctrines wrong.In the words of reformer Martin Luther, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means that "what is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed." Roman Catholicism flatly rejects this principle, adding a host of traditions and Church teachings and declaring them binding on all true believers–with the threat of eternal damnation to those who hold contradictory opinions.Ironically those words by Luther are just as dogmatic as a infallible decree by Rome. In no sense could the creeds and pronouncements of the churches ever constitute an authority equal to or higher than Scripture. Scripture always takes priority over the church in the rank of authority.
One need only read Acts 15 to see how absurd and unBiblical this comment is. This claim is nothing short of “traditions of men” which, ironically, Catholics are accused of embracing.The error in the Catholic Church’s position on justification may be summed up in four biblical arguments. First, Scripture presents justification as instantaneous, not gradual.
This is contradicted by simply pointing out references to justification in the future, like Mat 12:37 and Rom 2:13. Sure it can be described as “instantaneous” but that doesn’t automatically prove or imply unchangeable. Second, justification means the sinner is declared righteous, not actually made righteous. This goes hand in hand with the fact that justification is instantaneous. There is no process to be performed–justification is purely a forensic reality, a declaration God makes about the sinner. Justification takes place in the court of God, not in the soul of the sinner. It is an objective fact, not a subjective phenomenon, and it changes the sinner’s status, not his nature. Justification is an immediate decree, a divine “not guilty” verdict on behalf of the believing sinner in which God declares him to be righteous in His sight.This is a severe error in Protestant understanding of salvation. This error is foundational to their doctrine of Faith Alone, but it is still erroneous. There is no mention of a “courtroom” when Paul talks about Justification in places like Romans 3-4. True there is some legal language, but the theme is not one of a forensic “not guilty decree.”
Above, in bold, he says Justification takes place in the court of God, not in the soul of the sinner. This is contradicted by passages such as Luke 16:15, regarding the Pharisees, “you justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts.” The condition of the heart (soul) is very much what God considers during justification.Third, the Bible teaches that justification means righteousness is imputed, not infused. Righteousness is “reckoned,” or credited to the account of those who believe (Rom. 4:3-25).
This is a critical issue which Protestantism relies on for their doctrine of Faith Alone, the fact is the concept of imputing an external righteousness to someone is not taught in Scripture. Fourth and finally, Scripture clearly teaches that man is justified by faith alone, not by faith plus works. … In fact, it is clearly taught throughout Scripture that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28; see Gal. 2:16; Rom. 9:31-32; 10:3).
It is the fallacy of equivocation to equate “works of the Law” with any and all works. Paul is not condemning or excluding works of love in those comments. In contrast, Roman Catholicism places an undue stress on human works.
Now is where he starts his anti-Catholic tirade. And it is no surprise this gets in the way of his reasoning skills. Catholics don’t place “undue stress on human works,” not in the sense he is claiming. Catholic doctrine denies that God “justifies the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5) without first making them godly.
Catholics say “justify” means to make godly, so this assertion is ridiculous and not taking what the Catholic Church really teaches into account. The Protestant understanding of this verse is that God knowingly declares someone righteous who is in fact ungodly. It’s like judge knowing a criminal is guilty but instead declares him not guilty. Catholics call this nothing short of a lie by God, which He is incapable of doing. As thousands of former Catholics will testify, Roman Catholic doctrine and liturgy obscure the essential truth that the believer is saved by grace through faith and not by his own works (Eph. 2:8-9).
This is a complete strawman. You don’t appeal to numbers (especially ex-Catholics) to determine what Catholics teach or don’t teach. Further, he uses his Protestants definitions to condemn Catholic teachings (which use different definitions). That is similar to applying the rules of football during a basketball game. In a simple sense, Catholics genuinely believe they are saved by doing good, confessing sin, and observing ceremonies.
Yes, and this is precisely what the Bible teaches (Gal 6:7-9), but not in the way MacArthur thinks.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Good catch. In MacArthur’s quest to prove the “doctrine” of SS, he quotes the authority of…Martin Luther! I wonder if he embraces Luther’s belief in the Immaculate Conception?
I
inthecloud
Guest
I would simply ask good old Johnny to proble Sola Scriptura as biblical. 
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I would assume he is fairly knowledgeable. I can’t imagine someone in his position being ignorant of Catholic dogma.That suggests it is necessary to try to understand the reasons he says what he does; all the more so, as he sees evil where we see good.
How well informed about Catholicism is he ? Does anyone know ? If he isn’t, then surely he can’t be treated as though he were
However, from some of what he has said and written in the past, he has excoriated everyone from Catholics, to Lutherans, to Calvinists who do not hold to premillennial dispensationalism.
Personally, I would never listen to anything he has to say
D
DaveBj
Guest
I have a thank-you note to him sitting on my desk, and I can see I need to finish it off and send it. In the letter I credit him (with no tongue in cheek) with setting me on the path that led to my conversion to Catholicism.
DaveBj
DaveBj
M
mark_a
Guest
Maybe he needs a good dose of Bill Donohue.
G
graceandglory
Guest
Honestly, a little dabbling in reformed doctrine and I was on my way to Catholicism too. John MacArthur does know his Scripture. It’s clear he doesn’t know his Catholicism. I’ve heard much better protestant anti-Catholic apologists. If you’re going to argue a point, argue the real Catholic Church, not what you invent it to be.
Maybe he’s on his way. (Too bad this article was written 15 yrs ago)
We can pray for his conversion. And Chuck Smith’s cronies too!
G
graceandglory
Guest
I am secure in my Catholic faith too. Nothing will be able to shake it. What is concerning is that so many people hold him in such high esteem, and take John MacArthur’s word for Gospel Truth. Leads many people astray from the One True Church.
His heart isn’t to bash Catholics, it is to change Catholics and to show us the error of our ways.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I am curious, though, graceandglory… Where in MacArthur’s article do you feel he has misrepresented or falsified Roman Catholic teaching?Honestly, a little dabbling in reformed doctrine and I was on my way to Catholicism too. John MacArthur does know his Scripture. It’s clear he doesn’t know his Catholicism. I’ve heard much better protestant anti-Catholic apologists. If you’re going to argue a point, argue the real Catholic Church, not what you invent it to be.
Maybe he’s on his way. (Too bad this article was written 15 yrs ago)
We can pray for his conversion. And Chuck Smith’s cronies too!
G
graceandglory
Guest
I commented on a few points earlier in this thread. There are so many, I wanted to let someone else have some fun.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
He is knowledgeable in terms of the facts (at least the basic ones), but in his anti-Catholic zeal he doesn’t stay consistent and judges Catholic teachings by his Protestant definitions of them.That suggests it is necessary to try to understand the reasons he says what he does; all the more so, as he sees evil where we see good.
How well informed about Catholicism is he ? Does anyone know ? If he isn’t, then surely he can’t be treated as though he were
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
It just goes to show you that intelligence is not greater than wisdom.I do find this laughable. He really is a smart man, I can’t believe he would say this!
What about your denying the True Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus in John 6? Seems that you are “not submitting to the Authority of God’s Word…taught in Scripture…and setting yourself apart from the TRUE BODY OF CHRIST.”
C
Cat
Guest
A good researcher goes to straight to the source.
I think it would be good for every apologist who teaches against Catholicism to spend some extended time in the Catholic Church, reading the Catholic Bible, reading the Catechism, reading Catholic writings, and listening to Catholic clergy.
After all, if you are trying to become a surgeon, you don’t just read about other surgeons and how to do surgery; you go to an operating room and do surgery under the guidanace of those who are already surgeons!
Some of the apologists claim to have been raised Catholic, but it’s obvious from what they say that they never received (or listened to) correct catechesis about their faith. Pride and selfishness can close the soul to the Holy Spirit.
I think it would be good for every apologist who teaches against Catholicism to spend some extended time in the Catholic Church, reading the Catholic Bible, reading the Catechism, reading Catholic writings, and listening to Catholic clergy.
After all, if you are trying to become a surgeon, you don’t just read about other surgeons and how to do surgery; you go to an operating room and do surgery under the guidanace of those who are already surgeons!
Some of the apologists claim to have been raised Catholic, but it’s obvious from what they say that they never received (or listened to) correct catechesis about their faith. Pride and selfishness can close the soul to the Holy Spirit.
I
inJESUS
Guest
you got really strange people in your country…if such a person speaks as such in my country, we’d run out of tomatoes for a month…
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**I thought that might be so 
- & if that really is so, it has some important consequences; because if he is rejecting something that is not Catholicism, then he cannot really be called “anti-Catholic” - he could well be rejecting something that Catholics would also reject. Which means he is rejecting something he should reject, & that he is on the same “side” as we are. **
**If that is so, then the argument between him & us is about words & appearances, not about realities. If so, then we need to listen to him & he needs to listen to us, without polemics on either side. What reason can there be to attack someone whose objections are based on words & not on realities ? **
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Why not ? At a minimum, they are baptised in the Name of the Blessed Trinity, & believe in the same God as Catholics. The Popes of the last 40 years have thought they are Christians, & treated them as such - why otherwise would they allow this:
- Pro Unione - “INTERNATIONAL REFORMED CATHOLIC DIALOGUE”
Or this: - Reformed-Catholic Consultation Meets in Georgia, Continues Work on a Document on Mutual Recognition of Baptism
- Co-chair Rev. Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary commented on the significance of this consultation: “Our discussion of baptism has …made significant progress toward mutual understanding. Roman Catholics and representatives of Reformed bodies say clearly to each other, to the larger world, and, - perhaps most importantly - to local parishes and ecclesially divided families–that we embrace each other as pilgrims who share a common baptism in Jesus Christ.” Participants have emphasized that our mutual recognition of Baptism is not only a sign of our ties to the apostolic tradition, but is also an indispensable foundation for all our ecumenical efforts.
- Co-chair, Most Reverend Patrick R. Cooney, Roman Catholic Bishop of Gaylord, Michigan observed that: “The current dialogue between members of the Reformed tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition is a conversation on what we believe about Baptism and how we celebrate this sacrament liturgically. Our discussions clarify where we are one and where we differ, so that we may find the road to closer unity in our common apostolic Christian faith.”
- …
- …Already signaled in Lumen Gentium (1964), the validity of Christian Baptism creates the necessary precondition for the possibility of ecumenism since it establishes an ecclesial reality of real, though imperfect, communion. Any diminishment of that unity puts the ecumenical movement toward fully visible communion at serious risk.
my emphasis
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
There is truth to this, but the fact is he does go into anti-Catholic rants on his radio show and articles. He is attacking and rejecting Catholic things, but the reasoning for it is not fully logical. My only conclusion is that he has been trained for so long to hate Catholicism that he doesn’t think straight.**I thought that might be so
**If that is so, then the argument between him & us is about words & appearances, not about realities. If so, then we need to listen to him & he needs to listen to us, without polemics on either side. What reason can there be to attack someone whose objections are based on words & not on realities ? **
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
What I meant was that MacArthur doesn’t think there should be ecumenism with Catholics. I was not saying he is not a Christian.
I have been known to say he is not that far from converting and he doesn’t even know it.
- Status