John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He says that about Paul’s epistles, but that’s not what Tomster said.
“There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

Peter refers here to Paul’s letters as Scripture, that there are things hard to understand. Nobody’s saying that the entire Bible is hard to understand, but there are certainly some tricky passages that require someone with authority to explain them.

Acts 8: 26-31 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza: this is desert.

27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.

28 And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?

31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
 
Thank you for your kind words, and if you don’t mind, I will quote the verse first from John 6:50-52, “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” To which our Savior replied, v.53-54, “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” You ask me how I understand this verse, but then caution me not to use an outside source. I wonder what you mean by that but I will tell you how I see the passage. We must look at the entire passage and make sure to put it in context to understand. Jesus had just performed the miracle of feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a couple fishes (v. 1-14). The Savior walks on the water v.15-24 as the disciples were in the boat and then immediately they were on the other side of the Sea of Galilee and of all things, the crowds found Him again! Notice Jesus’ rebuke of them! v. 26, “you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill”, the very next verse is critical to truly understanding what He meant in your question verse. v.27, “Do not work for food that spoils” Do you find it beyond our Savior to use metaphors? His life was depicted that way, He told parables, shared truth in the very manner as to require people to sincerely seek Him and God. The disciples even asked HIM of this, Matthew 13:10, "The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” Jesus did answer that query by his disciples, listen, v.12-14, "Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.” There is nothing more valuable than an eternal soul. My soul, yours cost God the Father His very and only Son’s life. Is it surprising that to gain such a glorious gift that Jesus made it so that one would have to search for it as gold or a treasure? (Read Matthew 13:44-46 about the treasure and pearl of great price).

Back to your passage of question in John 6: After Jesus rebuking them for bad motives in seeking Him (because they got filled with food!). They brought up Moses and God’s miraculous provisions through the wilderness wandering wherein God provided manna on the ground every day and asked Jesus for a miraculous sign! v.30. AMAZING, just after he’d fed them miraculously they still were missing it! "So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give?” Jesus used the metaphor! It was a perfect metaphor, they had just ate bread given by Him in a miracle, then the people bring up the manna (the bread from heaven). So Jesus talks of REAL life, real spiritual life and it had nothing to do with physical eating or bread. It was about HIM! v.29 is the key, "Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Believing in Him, trusting in Him (alone). That is how one appropriates eternal life into their very soul! v.55, “Your forefathers ate manna and died”, Jesus was teaching them, it is not about the gullet, it was not about bread, it was about their soul it was about the spirit. It was a hard saying, they did not understand and misunderstood in their offense of literally eating His flesh and literally drinking His blood! (BTW, that is exactly what Catholic doctrine declares occurs during transubstantiation!!). IT IS NOT what Jesus meant, and He even personally clarified it to His disciples in that very chapter! Note: v. 63, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Do you not see? THE FLESH COUNTS NOTHING! They were spiritual words, and those words apply to you and I! He alone died for your sins, it is yours and my responsiblity (and priveledge) to believe in Him, to trust in Him and to rely on Him alone to be saved. The difference in Catholic doctrine is that Catholic doctrine says the words were literal but that is not the case, they were spiritual.
Surely you’re not saying that Jesus’ flesh counts for nothing?

❤️ Love is Patient
 
Which Pope would that be of the 266 popes that we’ve had in an unbroken succession since Christ?
He’s applying a Protestant concept to the Papacy. In many Protestant denominations preachers, teachers, and really any individual can make up doctrine as they go. So they assume that the Pope does the same. They don’t understand that the doctrines of the Church belong to the Church not to the Pope. He is steward not an author. Which is why that the Church’s beliefs can always be tied to councils, while Protestant beliefs are tied single theologians.

If enough people like what a theologian says a new denomination may form, or an existing one will alter its beliefs to coincide with the current standard. No Pope has ever been giving as much leeway in doctrinal formation as any given Evangelical.
 
If enough people like what a theologian says a new denomination may form, or an existing one will alter its beliefs to coincide with the current standard. No Pope has ever been giving as much leeway in doctrinal formation as any given Evangelical.
That is profound.

And “enough people” usually is only a handful… enough to rent a storefront, or meet in an available school room, or lease out a space in a mall. I have no objection to any person wanting to share what HE thinks the Scripture verses mean to him.

And that is usually the common denominator. Pick-a-verse, be an authority, start a faith community.

As St Peter warned… some of St. Paul’s writings are hard to understand. Unfortunately we were not “warned” which verses… only that there would be some who will not understand. (I think St Peter was referring to Romans for a start)

And that is usually another common denominator. I am sure that many Catholics notice how the writings of St Paul are often the (only) parts of Scripture that our separated brethren use to build their faith on.

But I await the day when they “see” that St Paul believed and taught on the Real Presence in John 6. That is NOT hard to understand… just hard to accept now as it was then.

Authority… they have left Home without it.

.
 
Luther did nothing of the sort. Luther tried to restore truths being lost to superstitious pagan beliefs and practices. Luther actually set some very good Christian examples for us today who should learn from him rather than to vilify him.
Luther removed 7 whole books from the Old Testament, and tried to get rid of parts of the New Testament, including James because it didn’t fit with his theology. I suppose you think that’s OK. Do you know anything about history? Luther set very good Christian examples? Like being anti-semetic? I think you need to go make sure you have your facts straight before you say anything else regarding this.
 
History is not a strong point with those who left the Catholic Church. On the contrary, history is either ignored or “revised” to allow them to make the claim that the Catholic Church left them.

On that note, we see the release of very old documents relating to how the Catholic Church left the Church of England… ooopps… I mean how the Church in England severed themselves from the only Church founded by Jesus:

artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/vatican-reveals-letter-that-split-england-from-roman-church/?hp

and, again, it was a questions of Authority.
.
 
He wants you to practice what you preach, and search the Scriptures!

2 Peter 3:15-17
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

The fact is that God has appointed an authorized teacher so that this will not happen. He did not intend for us to be awash on a sea of self centered interpretation.
Bingo 👍. Give that man a cee-gar! :hey_bud:
 
:hey_bud:
Luther did nothing of the sort. Luther tried to restore truths being lost to superstitious pagan beliefs and practices. Luther actually set some very good Christian examples for us today who should learn from him rather than to vilify him.
Get real. Martin Luther’s protest quickly blossomed into a full-blown case of rebellion against most of the tenets of the Catholic Faith. Within a short period of time, the cry of sola scriptura was heard in pool-pits across the land.

In the name of sola-scriptura, every imaginable theological goulash, however exotic, was enabled to flourish and spread. Scripture had been wrested out of its rightful place in the Church, and had become the personal “Rubick’s Cube” of anyone who picked it up and endeavored to figure out what it meant for himself. Naturally, some pretty striking differences of interpretations emerged among Protestants.

Luther was hardly in his grave when the Calvinists were busy “reforming” Luther’s reformation. Calvin’s “Institutes” were aimed at codifying the doctrines of “true Christianity,” and in doing so, correct the doctrinal aberrations in the Lutheran, Anglican, Anabaptist and other seminal Protestant denominations. But even as this “reformation of the Reformation” was chugging along in Geneva, the Anabaptists in England, France, and elsewhere were hard at work pointing out where both Luther and Calvin had misstepped in their interpretations of Scripture. By the end of the 16th century, scores, if not hundreds of new, theologically distinct sects were alive and well each claiming to possess “The Truth,” each claiming to go by the Bible alone, yet no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means.

All of this brought to you, compliments of sola scriptura. :hey_bud:
 
Luther removed 7 whole books from the Old Testament, and tried to get rid of parts of the New Testament, including James because it didn’t fit with his theology. I suppose you think that’s OK. Do you know anything about history? Luther set very good Christian examples? Like being anti-semetic? I think you need to go make sure you have your facts straight before you say anything else regarding this.
Thanks for pointing this out. Luther chose to accept the O.T. canon that the some Pharisees chose to accept to the exclusion of the Septuagint. The Septuagint version was accepted by the Jews and Jesus Himself. It wasn’t till after the establishment of the New Law did these Pharisees reject the Septuagint and go back to old Hebrew canon.
 
That is profound.

And “enough people” usually is only a handful… enough to rent a storefront, or meet in an available school room, or lease out a space in a mall. I have no objection to any person wanting to share what HE thinks the Scripture verses mean to him.

And that is usually the common denominator. Pick-a-verse, be an authority, start a faith community.

As St Peter warned… some of St. Paul’s writings are hard to understand. Unfortunately we were not “warned” which verses… only that there would be some who will not understand. (I think St Peter was referring to Romans for a start)

And that is usually another common denominator. I am sure that many Catholics notice how the writings of St Paul are often the (only) parts of Scripture that our separated brethren use to build their faith on.

But I await the day when they “see” that St Paul believed and taught on the Real Presence in John 6. That is NOT hard to understand… just hard to accept now as it was then.

Authority… they have left Home without it.

.
An thank you for pointing this out. Scripture alone, as the tragic history of Protestantism has shown, become a private play toy of any self styled exegete who wishes to interpret God’s Word to suit his own views. The history of Protestantism, laboring under sola scriptura, is an unending kaleidoscope of fragmentation and splintering. It cannot provide any sort of doctrinal certitude for the Christian, because it is built on the shifting sand of mere human opinion what the individual pastor “thinks” Scripture means.
 
Surely you’re not saying that Jesus’ flesh counts for nothing?
“Behold my servant will act wisely, He will be raised, and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as many as were offended at Him, His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man, His form, marred beyong that of human likeness. Even so shall He sprinkle many nations and Kings will shut their mouth because of Him.” That was described of Jesus Christ and what the crucifixion was really like 700 years before He became flesh. Isaiah 52:13-15. “But He was pierced for our transgression, He was crushed for our iniquity, and the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him and by His wounds we are healed.” Isaiah 53:5, “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open his mouth.” v.7 No, Jesus gave His flesh over to be broken, crushed and bled out for our sin penalty. What Jesus was speaking were spiritual words, not literal. The food he offered was spiritual food for the soul, not literal bread for the stomach.
 
“Behold my servant will act wisely, He will be raised, and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as many as were offended at Him, His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man, His form, marred beyong that of human likeness. Even so shall He sprinkle many nations and Kings will shut their mouth because of Him.” That was described of Jesus Christ and what the crucifixion was really like 700 years before He became flesh. Isaiah 52:13-15. “But He was pierced for our transgression, He was crushed for our iniquity, and the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him and by His wounds we are healed.” Isaiah 53:5, “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open his mouth.” v.7 No, Jesus gave His flesh over to be broken, crushed and bled out for our sin penalty. What Jesus was speaking were spiritual words, not literal. The food he offered was spiritual food for the soul, not literal bread for the stomach.
Sorry, wrong! “Take this all of you eat it, this is my body.” “And when supper was over he said take and drink, this is my blood.”
 
“Behold my servant will act wisely, He will be raised, and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as many as were offended at Him, His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man, His form, marred beyong that of human likeness. Even so shall He sprinkle many nations and Kings will shut their mouth because of Him.” That was described of Jesus Christ and what the crucifixion was really like 700 years before He became flesh. Isaiah 52:13-15. “But He was pierced for our transgression, He was crushed for our iniquity, and the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him and by His wounds we are healed.” Isaiah 53:5, “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open his mouth.” v.7 No, Jesus gave His flesh over to be broken, crushed and bled out for our sin penalty. What Jesus was speaking were spiritual words, not literal. The food he offered was spiritual food for the soul, not literal bread for the stomach.
There you go making the Protestant jump from figurative to literal speech once again. Jesus said unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you will not see eternal life, AND THEN at the last supper He took bread and said This IS MY BODY. Seems pretty literal to me.
 
“Behold my servant will act wisely, He will be raised, and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as many as were offended at Him, His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man, His form, marred beyong that of human likeness. Even so shall He sprinkle many nations and Kings will shut their mouth because of Him.” That was described of Jesus Christ and what the crucifixion was really like 700 years before He became flesh. Isaiah 52:13-15. “But He was pierced for our transgression, He was crushed for our iniquity, and the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him and by His wounds we are healed.” Isaiah 53:5, “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open his mouth.” v.7 No, Jesus gave His flesh over to be broken, crushed and bled out for our sin penalty. What Jesus was speaking were spiritual words, not literal. The food he offered was spiritual food for the soul, not literal bread for the stomach.
Take a look at post # 267, the one right above your last message. Care to comment?
 
“Behold my servant will act wisely, He will be raised, and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as many as were offended at Him, His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man, His form, marred beyong that of human likeness. Even so shall He sprinkle many nations and Kings will shut their mouth because of Him.” That was described of Jesus Christ and what the crucifixion was really like 700 years before He became flesh. Isaiah 52:13-15. “But He was pierced for our transgression, He was crushed for our iniquity, and the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him and by His wounds we are healed.” Isaiah 53:5, “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open his mouth.” v.7 No, Jesus gave His flesh over to be broken, crushed and bled out for our sin penalty. What Jesus was speaking were spiritual words, not literal. The food he offered was spiritual food for the soul, not literal bread for the stomach.
Literal means He meant what He said. The fact that He is referring to a Spiritual reality does not make it less literal. He did offer His literal (not symbolic) Body and Blood. when He says “the flesh is of no avail” He means that this is a mystery that cannot be understood with the carnal mind of man. That is why it is called a mystery. It defies the comprehension of the human rational capacity.
 
Sorry, wrong! “Take this all of you eat it, this is my body.” “And when supper was over he said take and drink, this is my blood.”
“The Words I speak to you they are spirit and they are life”. John 6:63, spoke just after He told them to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus did not tell His followers to canabalize Him. John 16:25, "“Though I have been speaking figuratively…” It was Jesus pattern of speech. He certainly did not intend for you nor I to eat His flesh but to partake of Him and His sacrifice, His body which was broken for you, His blood that was spilt for you. The issue here is salvation and you believe eating a wafer and drinking the wine gives you salvation. That is not consistent with the Scriptures, it is symbolic of Him, symbolic of the sacrifice and it is in Him, the real living Christ to whom you are to place your trust. “You believe in God, believe also in Me.” John 14:1, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” Acts 16:31, “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ” Acts 11:17
 
Literal means He meant what He said. The fact that He is referring to a Spiritual reality does not make it less literal. He did offer His literal (not symbolic) Body and Blood. when He says “the flesh is of no avail” He means that this is a mystery that cannot be understood with the carnal mind of man. That is why it is called a mystery. It defies the comprehension of the human rational capacity.
:harp: Mysterium fidei :harp:
 
“The Words I speak to you they are spirit and they are life”. John 6:63, spoke just after He told them to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus did not tell His followers to canabalize Him. John 16:25, "“Though I have been speaking figuratively…” It was Jesus pattern of speech. He certainly did not intend for you nor I to eat His flesh but to partake of Him and His sacrifice, His body which was broken for you, His blood that was spilt for you. The issue here is salvation and you believe eating a wafer and drinking the wine gives you salvation. That is not consistent with the Scriptures, it is symbolic of Him, symbolic of the sacrifice and it is in Him, the real living Christ to whom you are to place your trust. “You believe in God, believe also in Me.” John 14:1, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” Acts 16:31, “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ” Acts 11:17
Obviously you did not read post # 267. Read it before we continue please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top