John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[MrS]

Thank you… my post has served a real purpose… exposing your lack of substance and credibility.

As the number of viewers increase on this thread, they read your flip flops, silly denials, persistent accusations of "opinion… and they will either laugh… or, if Catholic, have one more reason to remain Catholic.

Thank you very much, seriously.

IMHO .

.

 

[josie_L]

C’mon, MrS. Of course you engage in interpretation, how else would you understand what you believe?

You don’t want to admit that you engage in interpretation because that would rob you of one of your silly apologetic arguments (private interpretation) which you’ve been told is airtight, until it’s turned back on you, and you begin to see that it’s not—your argument, turned back on you, accuses you.

My suggestion to you, MrS, is rather than read scripture in light of what it inspires in you, read it for the authors’ intent.

And yet you won’t tell me what it is you think I’m missing–unbelievable. :doh2:

It makes perfect sense to me, MrS—you have no choice in what the church teaches because you agree to have no choice, but you prefer to simply do what you’re told—sans your private interpretation of church teaching by your own admission.

Everybody says that, MrS; again, you’re the same as everyone else, Catholic, Protestant, JW or Muslim—what’s your proof that Catholicism is God’s will for you? And please tell me without interpreting anything theological, because, as you claim, you don’t engage in that.

Explain how you do that, and please, do so without including any private interpretation of anything theological…

The world loves too, MrS (Mt 5:46; Lk 6:32), so you could be quite wrong about what you interpret as love within your faith community—it may not be Godly love at all, but merely your opinion that it is, when in fact, it’s really worldy love (Mt 5:46; Lk 6:32).

MrS, in case you haven’t noticed, most of non-Catholicism uses the same standard of measurement you’re using above against them against you. Good job!

Furthermore, if you truly believe that length of history is a deciding factor in how one finds the correct doctrine, and ultimately God, why aren’t you Jewish? And, please, explain that without interpreting anything theological, as you don’t engage in that.

And were I to use scripture, you wouldn’t understand anyway; after all, by your own admission, you don’t engage in interpretation.

And by offering that opinion, you negate your assertion that I’m the only one with an opinion.

Good job!

Howie, how are you, remember me, , anyways, I wanted to know: why is it you believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God but you don’t believe the CC who compiled it(through the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT) to be infallible? If God was able to keep his word inerrant, why not his Church? I mean what use is the Bible if any old person can pick it up to interpret it in any manner they wish? There would have to be an authorative interpreter, no (through Apostolic succession)? And didn’t Jesus promise that He would lead his apostles into all Truth?

 

[MrS]

Howie, how are you, remember me, , anyways, I wanted to know: why is it you believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God but you don’t believe the CC who compiled it(through the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT) to be infallible? If God was able to keep his word inerrant, why not his Church? I mean what use is the Bible if any old person can pick it up to interpret it in any manner they wish? There would have to be an authorative interpreter, no (through Apostolic succession)? And didn’t Jesus promise that He would lead his apostles into all Truth?

Please don’t confuse Howie with facts, and history, and verses from the book of the Catholic Church…

to him it is all opinion and fallible… and that is his infallible opinion.

.

 

[Protestant101]

Which Pope would that be of the 266 popes that we’ve had in an unbroken succession since Christ?

Catholics seem to pick and choose their Popes to “follow” kind of like smorgasborg style. LOL I’d rather have one to pick from than 266. Of course, now will come the strenuous arguments about how “united” they all were…

 

[Protestant101]

Howie, how are you, remember me, , anyways, I wanted to know: why is it you believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God but you don’t believe the CC who compiled it(through the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT) to be infallible? If God was able to keep his word inerrant, why not his Church? I mean what use is the Bible if any old person can pick it up to interpret it in any manner they wish? There would have to be an authorative interpreter, no (through Apostolic succession)? And didn’t Jesus promise that He would lead his apostles into all Truth?

The Catholic Church did not compile the Bible. Therefore; it is easy to believe the Bible, and not the Catholic Church; besides, even if a given Church did write/compile the Bible - it is possible for them to stray from it. People do it all the time.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The Catholic Church did not compile the Bible. Therefore; it is easy to believe the Bible, and not the Catholic Church; besides, even if a given Church did write/compile the Bible - it is possible for them to stray from it. People do it all the time.

So, which church was it that held the council near the end of the 4th century to determine the 27 NT book canon?

 

[josie_L]

Catholics seem to pick and choose their Popes to “follow” kind of like smorgasborg style. LOL I’d rather have one to pick from than 266. Of course, now will come the strenuous arguments about how “united” they all were…

Would you mind so much providing examples of this? Thanks.

 

[josie_L]

So, which church was it that held the council near the end of the 4th century to determine the 27 NT book canon?

It was the invisible one, didn’t you know that?

 

[jam070406]

It was the invisible one, didn’t you know that?

Or was it the one that was underground and emerged again in the 19th century?

 

[josie_L]

Or was it the one that was underground and emerged again in the 19th century?

Good one!

 

[MrS]

Catholics seem to pick and choose their Popes to “follow” kind of like smorgasborg style. LOL I’d rather have one to pick from than 266. Of course, now will come the strenuous arguments about how “united” they all were…

Well, how about a question for you Protestant101…

Considering not so much how united they were, but more… what it is that unites them to all Catholicism…and by extension, to all of Christianity in all ages and everywhere.

Show me one time… just one time… when any one of the Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI… declared anything to be infallible truth … and was wrong…

If you can show me one doctrine… just one… of the Catholic Faith that has changed in 2000 years…
(and remember, once the Truth is declared, that is the official Church declaration that that Truth was and always will be Truth… for Truth never changes… but our understanding of it does develope) … show me and

I will become Protestant 102.

Before you offer any thoughts on this, please review the difference between Doctrine, and discipline or practice.

Doctrine would include somethings like Jesus is God… or the Trinity… or the existence of angels, Heaven and Hell

Discipline would include married priesthood, eating meat on Fridays

Practices might include vestments, placement of feast days, etc.

.

 

[josie_L]

Well, how about a question for you Protestant101…

Considering not so much how united they were, but more… what it is that unites them to all Catholicism…and by extension, to all of Christianity in all ages and everywhere.

Show me one time… just one time… when any one of the Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI… declared anything to be infallible truth … and was wrong…

If you can show me one doctrine… just one… of the Catholic Faith that has changed in 2000 years…
(and remember, once the Truth is declared, that is the official Church declaration that that Truth was and always will be Truth… for Truth never changes… but our understanding of it does develope) … show me and

I will become Protestant 102.

Hehehehe!!! And it’s funny because it won’t happen.

 

[Howie01]

MrS:

Thank you… my post has served a real purpose… exposing your lack of substance and credibility.

MrS, it’s you who maintains that you do not interpret scripture with respect to doctrine, but only “read much of scripture in light of what it inspires in me.”

How warm and fuzzy, and how lacking in substance and credibility is that?

Again, MrS, if you don’t interpret doctrinal positions, or scripture, then how can you possibly understand what you believe?

MrS:

As the number of viewers increase on this thread, they read your flip flops, silly denials, persistent accusations of "opinion… and they will either laugh… or, if Catholic, have one more reason to remain Catholic.

MrS. neither of us has flip-flopped, I’ve pursued you on private interpretation of scripture, and you maintain that you don’t engage in that, and I haven’t denied anything concerning interpretation and opintion, but you have.

Also, you’ve forgotten one other possibility, MrS, one some honest Catholics acknowledged to in PM’s when I’ve pursued this point in the past; namely, they had never considered that with respect to their position. Don’t underestimate what I’ve said, MrS; it may yet cause you to think in the same manner, if it hasn’t already.

MrS:

Thank you very much, seriously.

Thank you, MrS, for bringing up one of my favorite Catholic apologetics argument, viz; “that’s your private interpretation.”

Thank you as well for your continued deflections and refusals to answer the questions I’ve put to you concerning how you know what the church teaches is true, while at the same time denying that you engage in private interpretation. I can only conclude from your position that yours is a “blind faith.”

In a conversation with one of your fellows on another thread a few months ago, your fellow, after repeated pressing, was reduced to making this statement:

But both Faith and logic dictate that the probability of me being wrong is far less than the probability of you being wrong.

Included in that fellow’s argument, was another of yours: history.

That fellow, in his stubborn (there’s that word you said signified a "Christian of his own form") refusal to admit that he indeed interpreted scripture, preferred instead to reduce his position to one of probability, or “playing the odds.”

He later told me that I had no understanding of the Catholic position regarding interpreting scripture. I responded with a short statement of his position, gleaned from his posts on the thread, saying this:

I told you, I get what you’re saying: you don’t have opinions about what scripture means, but you do have opinions on other things concerning the Catholic Church, and the veracity of her claims.

When your interpretation of scripture is found wanting, the opinion that drives the basis for your assumption that you’re wrong is not any opinion about what scripture means, because you have no opinion on that.

What drives the assumption that you’re wrong, is your study and interpretation of Church history, which has led you to the following opinion: the Catholic Church’s claims to “continuity of succession and doctrine are true.”

Further, you know that because you “know that Christ commissioned Peter to start his church,” and you also know that Christ “passed that commission on to his successors,” and you know both of those things because they’re “clear from scripture,” and you know the teaching is “clear from Scripture,” not because you have an opinion on what scripture means, because you don’t have an opinion on that.

You know it’s “clear from scripture” because of your willingness to submit to the church’s teaching, in faith.

I wrote that “tongue-in-cheek,” but he didn’t disagree, nor did others on the thread at that time. In fact, one fellow was amazed that I understood the Catholic position so well and yet, I was not a Catholic.

I find the agreement with my last sentence in that statement particularly striking.

So, thank you, MrS. :tiphat:

 

[fishisgood]

The Catholic Church did not compile the Bible. Therefore; it is easy to believe the Bible, and not the Catholic Church; besides, even if a given Church did write/compile the Bible - it is possible for them to stray from it. People do it all the time.

Yes they are called protestants… Does it ever come up that Protestants do take authority from someone??? they take authority from someone in their church or family or televangelist… Protestant101 I would bet you didnt come up with these ideas on your own… you must have had interperative influences, Luther, Calvin, pastor Bob…

 

[rtconstant]

The irony here is that that best argument that Protestants can come up with is one that ends in a draw.

Catholic scriptural analysis is a culmination of 2000 years of tradition and is unwavering. The Protestant model can all trace their origins to very well documented individuals of recent history. Yes you can say that its all just opinion but really where are the odds with this one?

Further, in order for evangelical denominations to be correct the Catholicism must be wrong. If Catholicism is wrong, then evangelicals can not be sure of anything regarding their faith. The Trinity, the New Testament, Christ as the Messiah all depend on Church Tradition. If the origin of those traditions is so flawed on fundamental subjects then none of its teachings can be trusted.

If the Church is wrong then odds are the Protestants are wrong. If the Church is right then the Protestants are still wrong. The Protestant movement has made the same mistake as Islam. By discounting the institution that defined the core of their belief system, they invalidate themselves.

 

[pismopal]

Is it acceptable in this forum to disagree? You make statements extremely authoritatively. I believe you are wrong. Umm so, is it then a debate to try and convince someone against their will? During the Inquisition the Roman church killed millions of people under the conviction that contrary beliefs of heresay justify such inhuman action.

That statement about the Church killing millions of people during the “inquisition” is absolutely and patently absurd. Cite one…just one, non lunatic, credible historian to back that up. You have simply heard this rubbish at some point in your life and you repeat it as if it is true, probably believing it yourself. Your ignorance is showing sir…and not just historically.

 

[guanophore]

You err not knowing the power of God.

I am curious to know more about this.

When a person is truly born again the Spirit Himself guides individuals through His Word.

It is interesting to me that so many well meaning, dedicated Christians believe this, and end up on opposite end of doctrine. It is surely evidence that the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is not only a matter of the HS, but that it flows through our own fallen perceptions. Our perceptions/understandings are influenced by our experiences and education (or lack of it). That is why the same HS can be leading but the followers end up in 30,000 different places.

No not in perfect unity for we are yet a fallen people even after we are saved, but as I see it what you defend has as much internal division as you so quickly seem to point out at others.

I understand what you are saying, but unity is not dependent upon the fallen nature of man. If this were true, then one would have to accept that Jesus prayer for unity was not answered. However, Catholics believe that Jesus is God, and that His will is done on earth, as it is in heaven. We believe that, when He prayed for unity, He sealed this reality on earth, as it is in heaven. He created, by the power of His Divine Person, unity in the Church. All who embrace truth, are therefore in unity with Him as the Head, and with the Apostles (and their successors). Those who refuse to embrace Truth break with the unity. This is the case with so called “cafeteria catholics” as much as it is with all heretical groups.

 

[guanophore]

We do not have a problem with autority. We do have a problem when that authority does not line up with the Bible.

Exactly! This, in a nutshell, describes the problem with authority. Once a person rejects the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ to interpret the Holy Writings, one substitutes oneself as the teaching authority.

Each person reading and applying it then “did what was right in his own eyes”. The result is the same as it was in the olden days.

 

[guanophore]

How would the Jews have understood it? To eat here is synonymous with faith. John 6:47. We use the same idea when we say “chew this over” , or “digest this fact”. Jesus was not teaching cannibalism.

They understood it exactly how He meant it. It is clear from the context, where Jesus increases His use of physicallly eating language. He upgrades to “chew, gnaw”. They walked away because they heard what He was saying “give us His flesh to eat”. They thought He was crazy, and many of His disciples no longer followed Him. You don’t see Him running after them to correct their misunderstanding, do you?

Yes, it does also have figurative meaning about faith and “chewing” mentally digesting. You are also correct that He was not teaching cannibilism. He give us His living, resurrected flesh to eat. This is how we have life within us.

 

[guanophore]

I never claimed to be infallible.

Basically you are. Whenever you claim that you are led by the HS, and your interpretation is more correct than the one the HS gave to the Apostles, you are purporting that you are infallible, and they are not.

Why do you speak to me condescendingly?

You have come here presenting yourself authoritatively, in contradiction to what the Apostles believed and taught. Did you think you would be perceived as anything else but ignorant?

How is it that you think I do not know what the Church is? Are you speaking of your church or the Biblical church? I ask that honestly.

Such a question is proof in itself that you do not know what Church is. There is no
contradiction between the Catholic Church, and the “biblical church” as they are one and the same. The fact that you cannot recognize this is proof that you do not know what the church is.