John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[guanophore]

Jesus was using a figure of speech here. In John 6, He was saking the people to believe in what He was saying to them.

I agree that He was asking the people to believe what He was saying. They understood what He was saying literally. That is why they walked away.

 

[guanophore]

There you go making that Catholic jump again making me out to be a “Protestant”.

No, none of the members at CAF “make you protestant”. What makes you Protestant is the fact that you have embraced the heresies of the Protestant Reformation. To claim to be Baptist is to claim to be Protestant.

Yes, it does, “seem pretty literal to you.” THAT does not mean it’s so.

You are right. What makes it literal is that Jesus meant it literally. Since He is God, then that settles the matter.

The ones that walked away from Jesus then took it SO literal they could not believe it.

There’s the crux, you have the phenomenal ability to believe it literally when it is not literal but do not have the ability to simply place your trust in the living Christ alone.

It is literal, and in fact, we can accept that BECAUSE we place our trust in the living Christ!

In your belief of transubstantiation you literally eat the body (in the wafer) and drink His literal blood in the wine. The catholic minister is called a “priest” and the place he stand up at is the “alter”, what he does is perform a rite whereby he claims to change the wafer and wine into the literal and actual body and blood of Christ. Then he takes this, and offers them to the congregation to eat, to actually sacrifice Jesus Christ afresh to you to consume. Am I correct?

No, but you are close. You were following up until the last sentence. Jesus was sacrificed once for all. There is no other sacrifice, and no repitition of the One Sacrifice. What we do in the Mass is a memorial, such as the Passover was.

And if I am you are saying that is what Jesus Christ intended when the Savior spoke those words?

Yes, this is what Jesus was referring to when He spoke those words. The Apostles did not understand it either, until the Last Supper, and it was revealed what He meant. They accepted His words on faith, knowing “you have the words of eternal life”. Not because they understood Him. They accepted that “the flesh is of no avail”. This is a mystery that is beyond human comprehension.

 

[guanophore]

Anti-Semitism is part and parcel of the RCC.

Sorry, Howie, you have been indoctrinated with error. Salvation is of the Jews. The Head of the Catholic Church is the best Jew that ever lived, and all HIs Apostles were Jews. The Catholic Church does not embrace “replacement theology” and is not anti-semitic. You ahve been misinformed.

PS.the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

 

[guanophore]

Augustine uses “eating flesh and drinking blood” as a typical example of a metaphor.

He states:“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, III).So much for “universal agreement” of the fathers.

Who said there was universal agreement of the fathers? I think you will find, if you are willing to read the rest of Augustine, and not cherry pick sections, that he is Catholic and believes in the Real Presence. What he states here is also true, and does not negate his belief that Jesus gave us his real flesh to eat.

 

[guanophore]

It’s not there, MrS. Peter nowhere makes the statement that the bible is hard to understand; does he?

Do you think he was referring to Scriptures that are not included in the modern Bible?

2 Peter 3:16-17
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.

Paul certainly says that the OT is able to give wisdom to one that leads to the knowledge of salvation through faith in Christ.

Indeed. However, it is also clear that this does not just present itself without authoritative teaching. This is why Jesus had to open the minds of the disciples to the scriptures, and why they had to be explained to the people by the Apostles. If they were self explanatory, all of Israel would have converted. On the contrary, the Pharisees were expecting a different messiah.

In fact John states in his Gospel and first epistle, the reason for his writing them is so the reader may know he has eternal life.

Yes.

So, ISTM, what you’re being taught contradicts what the apostles teach with respect to the writings.

Indeed, I am sure it seems that way to you.

What Peter said had to do only with the difficulty of some of what Paul wrote; namely, "these things."

In context, “these things” are eschatological, and only “some of them” are hard to understand.

Not “all of them.”

Which "scriptures’ do you think were being twisted by the ignorant?

Neither does Peter say, "they're impossible to understand."

I agree, Peter does not say they are impossible to understand. He was quite clear that the Truth had been revealed to the church, and that they could be understand in the context of what Jesus had revealed to the Church.

 

[matahari]

Re John MacArthur and Sola Scriptura - I believe that Sola Scriptura means … "we only believe what is in the Bible - Nothing more and nothing less " Where is that in the Bible? Nowhere. St Paul counsels us " to keep the teachings and traditions " And I think in 1 Timothy 3:15 he refers to the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth.The Church had been in existence quite a long time before the Canon of the Bible emerged.

:
Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ

 

[MrS]

Re John MacArthur and Sola Scriptura - I believe that Sola Scriptura means … "we only believe what is in the Bible - Nothing more and nothing less " Where is that in the Bible? Nowhere. St Paul counsels us " to keep the teachings and traditions " And I think in 1 Timothy 3:15 he refers to the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth.The Church had been in existence quite a long time before the Canon of the Bible emerged.

:
Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ

Yes it is… and sadly many here who protest against the Authority of the Catholic Church are ignorant of Christ.

If that is simple ignorance, then a continued and persistent effort to inform/teach them is the responsibility of the Catholic.

If that is outright rejections of even one of Christ’s teachings… like the Real Presence… then I reject their claim to be Christian.

You cannot just follow Christ… sort of… mostly… on some things.

That is even worse than lukewarm…

.

 

[Tomster]

This question has nothing to do with Scripture, but with Augustine, and you still are not answering my question, as usual.

Contextuality in reading St. Augustine. You are picking and choosing out of context. as usual.

 

[guanophore]

And so is your choice of the RCC as "the" authority and truth, "merely an opinion, fallible, and subject to error.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, Howie. This is an insulting term to use. No, the identity of the Church founded by Christ is not an “opinion”. It is infallible because it is built by God, and He preserves her from error. She cannot err because she has Christ as her Head, and her Soul is the Holy Spirit. It is these Divine elements that prevent the Church from error.

 

[Tomster]

Do you think he was referring to Scriptures that are not included in the modern Bible?

2 Peter 3:16-17
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.

Indeed. However, it is also clear that this does not just present itself without authoritative teaching. This is why Jesus had to open the minds of the disciples to the scriptures, and why they had to be explained to the people by the Apostles. If they were self explanatory, all of Israel would have converted. On the contrary, the Pharisees were expecting a different messiah.

Yes.

Indeed, I am sure it seems that way to you.

Which "scriptures’ do you think were being twisted by the ignorant?

I agree, Peter does not say they are impossible to understand. He was quite clear that the Truth had been revealed to the church, and that they could be understand in the context of what Jesus had revealed to the Church.

2 Peter 1:20-21 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”

This passage hardly needs commentary. You might think this warning contains sufficient evidence that “destructive heresies” are the natural outgrowth of the “every man for himself” approach to the Bible - an approach that is the foundation of sola scriptura. But almost as if St. Peter had foreseen the rise of Protestantism, he added another prescient warning abour private interpretation:

2 Peter 3:15-17 “There are some things in [Paul’ letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You, therefore beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose you own stability.”

 

[MrS]

2 Peter 1:20-21 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”

This passage hardly needs commentary. You might think this warning contains sufficient evidence that “destructive heresies” are the natural outgrowth of the “every man for himself” approach to the Bible - an approach that is the foundation of sola scriptura. But almost as if St. Peter had foreseen the rise of Protestantism, he added another prescient warning abour private interpretation:

2 Peter 3:15-17 “There are some things in [Paul’ letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You, therefore beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose you own stability.”

now we can await Howie’s comment that this is just your opinion.

.

 

[Tomster]

Re John MacArthur and Sola Scriptura - I believe that Sola Scriptura means … "we only believe what is in the Bible - Nothing more and nothing less " Where is that in the Bible? Nowhere. St Paul counsels us " to keep the teachings and traditions " And I think in 1 Timothy 3:15 he refers to the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth.The Church had been in existence quite a long time before the Canon of the Bible emerged.

:
Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ

Exactly:thumbsup:

All one has to do is take a look at the Westminster Confession of Faith which exposes all by itself the fallacy of the fundamental element of sola scripture, that is, that the scripture interprets itself.

“All things in Scripture . . . which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (1:7)

Such an assertion may plausible at first, but in reality it’s a scheme that simply does not - no, cannot - work. Protestantism has long asserted that the Bible is clear on essential issues. But how do they explain the vast divisions that have fractured Protestantism from the start? Lutheran theology is markedly different from, and often contradictory with, centrsal doctrines held by the Reformed Protestantism of John Calvin (e.g. infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, sacraments, the absolute assurance of salvation, etc.) Baptists will tell you that both of those groups are wrong about a whole raft of key doctrines. Not surprisingly, the succession of Protestant doctrinal disputes continues unabated, each camp wrapping itself in the mantle of “Religous Truth” and claiming that it has the correct interpretation of scripture. It’s not hard to spot the problem here: By using Scripture alone, no one can know for sure which of all the many competing, squabbling Protestant sects is the right one. And the best proof of this is Protestantism itself. Since the onset of the Reformation, Protestantism has been one roiling mass of protest. Its fragmented history aside, perhaps the most devastating evidence is that Christ and the apostles repeatedly remind us of the necessity of a teaching Church and its lived Sacred Tradition, and scripture also warns us against sols scriptura.

Howie just doesn’t get it.

 

[Tomster]

now we can await Howie’s comment that this is just your opinion.

.

Anticipating that, I posted #389.

 

[Tomster]

now we can await Howie’s comment that this is just your opinion.

.

Nah, if he’s true to form, he will just disregard the truth and not comment at all. His silence, though will speak volumes. :hey_bud:

 

[Howie01]

guanophore:

Sorry, Howie, you have been indoctrinated with error. Salvation is of the Jews. The Head of the Catholic Church is the best Jew that ever lived, and all HIs Apostles were Jews. The Catholic Church does not embrace “replacement theology” and is not anti-semitic. You ahve been misinformed.

My suggestion to you, my counter-indoctrinated friend, is read the book. In it you’ll find the author citing RC historians who concur with and support his findings concerning the anti-semitic attitude of the Roman church.

Here again is a link where you may purchase the book: Israel and the Church.

guanophore:

PS.the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

To me, and many others, your church will always be Roman Catholic.

Here’s a link to a google search illustrating that fact: The Roman Catholic Church.

I wish you well in your quest to re-write history and turn the world upside down, not for Christ, but for your Church’s name. :tiphat:

 

[Tomster]

My suggestion to you, my counter-indoctrinated friend, is read the book. In it you’ll find the author citing RC historians who concur with and support his findings concerning the anti-semitic attitude of the Roman church.

Here again is a link where you may purchase the book: Israel and the Church.

To me, and many others, your church will always be Roman Catholic.

Here’s a link to a google search illustrating that fact: The Roman Catholic Church.

I wish you well in your quest to re-write history and turn the world upside down, not for Christ, but for your Church’s name. :tiphat:

You got it wrong, again, Howie. Christ and the Church are ONE. The Church is not a roiling mass of contradictions as evidenced by the man-made creation called Protestantism. Cf. my fresh refutations of Protestantism above.

 

[Howie01]

Re John MacArthur and Sola Scriptura - I believe that Sola Scriptura means … "we only believe what is in the Bible - Nothing more and nothing less " Where is that in the Bible?

:
Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ

That’s not what sola scriptura states, my ignorant of sola scriptura friend.

In a nutshell, SS states that the scriptures are the sole rule of faith and morals.

Those who adhere to SS believe many things that are not stated in the Bible.

 

[Howie01]

You got it wrong, again, Howie. Christ and the Church are ONE. The Church is not a roiling mass of contradictions as evidenced by the man-made creation called Protestantism. Cf. my fresh refutations of Protestantism above.

I’ve yet to see you make any refutations of protestantism, let alone fresh refutations.

 

[Tomster]

My suggestion to you, my counter-indoctrinated friend, is read the book. In it you’ll find the author citing RC historians who concur with and support his findings concerning the anti-semitic attitude of the Roman church.

Here again is a link where you may purchase the book: Israel and the Church.

To me, and many others, your church will always be Roman Catholic.

Here’s a link to a google search illustrating that fact: The Roman Catholic Church.

I wish you well in your quest to re-write history and turn the world upside down, not for Christ, but for your Church’s name. :tiphat:

Just a little update for you, Howie, in case you didn’t hear this from the pool-pit. The Church is the prolongation of Christ in time and space. He is truly with us, Howie, in the Word (Scripture) and Sacrament (The Most Holy Eucharist).

It is you, Howie, and your various fellow Protestant devotees who have attempted to re-write and then interpret not only history by the very Word of God.

 

[Tomster]

I’ve yet to see you make any refutations of protestantism, let alone fresh refutations.

Of course you fail to see it. Take your blinders off and read man, read!