John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Howie01]

MrS:

will you interpret them too??? Hehehehehe

You say you have non-Catholic children, MrS; you should ask them to do that for you.

 

[M0nkey]

Webster’s (those at my disposal) don’t even have a listing for “Catholic Church,” and in its entry for the Roman Catholic Church, it makes no mention of it having been the “Church founded by Jesus Christ,” in fact, in makes no specific mention of Christ at all, but only “Christian.”

Lets see, look up the word catholic, and the etymology of it. A Merrian-Webster dictionary ought to suffice. I see no mention of Roman in there. Sadly, many Protestants seem to think the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church as the Roman church or as another denomination. Goes to show what err can do in the face of revisionist definitions of the original intention of the word. The Church of the One True Living God is anything but exclusive in pertaining to a specific place, ethnicity, or nationality.
CATHOLIC:

1. 
   *]the church universal
   *]broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests
   
   Etymology: *kata *by + *holos *whole
   

   In his argument that the Catholic Church is not Biblical, he cites as the most significant reason: “its denial of the doctrine of sola Scriptura”

   Sounds like he forgot to mention where do Protestants get the idea of the Bible? Or how do Protestants know that indeed the Bible is the Bible and the authoritative aberrant word of God, and where does it mention “this is the Bible and how you assemble it together and the aberrant word” in the Bible? Big over step and what they often so conveniently forget to mention in my opinion. For if they did they would be forced to thank the early Church, the Catholic Church.

 

[MrS]

You say you have non-Catholic children, MrS; you should ask them to do that for you.

Actually they were all baptized Catholic.

Because I was out of any church for 25 years, they were fair game for the first huckster who convinced them that all their past sins and all punishment for them was totally absolved if they simply said a sinners prayer (not in Bible), made an altar call (not in Bible) and were born again with a dunking (which tells God He did not do it right the first time).

One is in a “Bible College” and I see some signs of him starting to question the stuff his profs teach (interpret) as “their” real truth.

hahahahah…two of the profs ended up arguing about predestination.

Nope, Howie, you have bought into an easy believism that allows you to believe what you think you can understand… not believe what you think is unbelievable… and then claim the Holy Spirit is doing it to you.

Wrong.

The Holy Spirit will not divide us on the Truth.

So as more and more study the Bible - closely - more and more leave the confusion of the reformation and its fruits.

Gotta love that Gordon Cromwell seminary… produces a lot of Bible Scholars… more and more of whom become Catholic.

.

 

[MrS]

Sounds like he forgot to mention where do Protestants get the idea of the Bible? Or how do Protestants know that indeed the Bible is the Bible and the authoritative aberrant word of God, and where does it mention “this is the Bible and how you assemble it together and the aberrant word” in the Bible? Big over step and what they often so conveniently forget to mention in my opinion. For if they did they would be forced to thank the early Church, the Catholic Church.

Matthew 29

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Matthew 29

I thought it was in Romans 17!

 

[M0nkey]

Matthew 29

You had me on that one. (I was thinking in my head; wait, there is no 29! Actually pulled my Bible just to be sure.)

 

[distracted]

The veneration of Mary, pregatory, salvation by works, traditions that are not found in the Bible, believing one can lose their salvation, praying to saints. Lack of assurance of being in heaven when you die, These just a few.

Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant - she, unlike the original Ark, carried God in the flesh in her womb… so why should we not venerate her?

Purgatory: 1 Cor 3:13, St Mt 18:23 (you CAN lose your salvation), Forgiveness in the age to come: St Mt 12:32… II Maccabees 12:46 (praying for the dead tht they may be loosed from sins)… Rev 21:27

Salvaton by works? Catholcis don’t believe in that. They believe we are saved by Jesus Christ (grace) and works brings grace (intimacy with God).

Praying to saints: Saints know what its like to be human and to follow Jesus devoutly in a godless world… Why should we not be friends with them…? better than some earthly friendships we could make (FOR SURE)… i oughta know…

you don’t understand the Catholic faith… and you probably never will until you go to RCIA but then, maybe you are reluctant to learn catholicism from an actual, practicing Catholic?

 

[RonaldH]

Once again, there were not “millions” of people in Europe at that time, let alone millions of Christians.

     Clearly, from the names of the groups mentioned, they were founded by a man or group of men, and were not founded by Christ. The Catholic Church was the only Church in existence founded by Christ Jesus. The Catholic Church did not begin with the legalization of Christianity by Constantine, it began with Jesus Christ who appointed Peter, the Apostle, to tend and feed His sheep while He was physically absent from the Earth. You are right, there have always been groups of people who have separated themselves from the Apostles' Teachings, but they are not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ Himself.

“Every man’s (and woman) way is right in their own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart” Proverbs 21:2 There were a million people in Rome alone 1200 years before Pope Innocent II instituted the Inquistion itself!! You defend a church I defend His Word, a writing you errantly claim to be Catholic and do not even know! If you knew it you would know that many of your doctrines are not even found in it nor can be supported by it! I post carefully and I do not mean to offend, the problem is in ignorance you claim the truth and claim it IN your church, when the truth is in personally knowing the Savior who is the Truth incarnate. “Unless a man is born again he shall not SEE the Kingdom of heaven” John 3:3, go, learn what the Savior truly meant by that and then you will find mercy. You trash non-catholic churches and have the audacity to claim they didn’t even exist before the Reformation. I have majored in Theology study at the college level, I have my Bachelor’s degree IN it, I am not ignorant as some of you claim. I challenge you who arrogantly and incorrectly proclaim the RCC was the only church in the first 15 centuries to study real history. Read Braght, Thieleman J. van. *The Bloody Theatre *or Martyrs’ Mirror of the Defenseless Christians Who Baptized Only upon Confession of Faith and Who Suffered and Died for the Testimony of Jesus Their Saviour . . . to the Year A.D. 1660. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1951 It tells the story of AnaBaptists, (so called by the CC because they rebaptised former Catholics as they came to the knowledge of the truth of salvation in Christ alone by faith alone. Or read, *“Punishment of the Anabaptists in the Low Countries.” *Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest men who ever lived, declared it was “his conviction that the Baptists were the only Christians who had not symbolized with Rome” Memoirs of, written by himself, 201 Alexander Campbell, probably the greatest and absolutely accepted as one of the greatest theologians of the early 1800’s in an 1820 debate with William Latta McCalla, stated, "I would engage to show that baptism as viewed and practiced by the Baptists, had its advocates in every century up to the Christian era and independent of whose existence (the German Anabaptists), clouds of witnesses attest the fact, that before the Reformation from popery, and from the apostolic age, to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists, and the practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced (Macalla and Campbell Debate on Baptism, 378, 379, Buffalo, 1824). You may read about the debate here: focusmagazine.org/tdoy/articles/campbellwalkerdebate.htm

“Come let us reason together”

 

[Pixie_Dust]

“Every man’s (and woman) way is right in their own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart” Proverbs 21:2

Are you adding to the Word of God?

There were a million people in Rome alone 1200 years before Pope Innocent II instituted the Inquistion itself!!

So, you’d rather that Europe had been taken over by the Moors? Did not God command Joshua to utterly destroy every living thing in Jericho?

You defend a church I defend His Word, a writing you errantly claim to be Catholic and do not even know! If you knew it you would know that many of your doctrines are not even found in it nor can be supported by it! I post carefully and I do not mean to offend, the problem is in ignorance you claim the truth and claim it IN your church, when the truth is in personally knowing the Savior who is the Truth incarnate. “Unless a man is born again he shall not SEE the Kingdom of heaven” John 3:3, go, learn what the Savior truly meant by that and then you will find mercy.

I do know who Jesus is, I know Him intimately. So, in order for me to get to Heaven I need to repent of my popery and return to the Baptist church? There are many Baptist doctrines that are not found in Scripture, or by twisting Scripture, or by glossing over/ignoring parts of Scripture that disagree with Baptist theology. The phrase “born again” is one good example. It’s clearly a command to be baptized, where our sins are washed away and we receive the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t mean making a decision to follow Jesus and praying a prayer asking Him to come into your heart. It was in a Baptist church that I learned to study the Bible, and in prayerfully studying the Bible, God. made. me. Catholic.

You trash non-catholic churches and have the audacity to claim they didn’t even exist before the Reformation. I have majored in Theology study at the college level, I have my Bachelor’s degree IN it, I am not ignorant as some of you claim.

As I said earlier, while some might incorrectly say that there was no other “church” before the 16th century, I am well aware that other faith communities did exist before the reformation, but they were founded by a man who was not an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and they taught another gospel.

I challenge you who arrogantly and incorrectly proclaim the RCC was the only church in the first 15 centuries to study real history. Read Braght, Thieleman J. van. *The Bloody Theatre *or Martyrs’ Mirror of the Defenseless Christians Who Baptized Only upon Confession of Faith and Who Suffered and Died for the Testimony of Jesus Their Saviour . . . to the Year A.D. 1660. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1951 It tells the story of AnaBaptists, (so called by the CC because they rebaptised former Catholics as they came to the knowledge of the truth of salvation in Christ alone by faith alone.

Faith alone is anti-Scriptural.

Or read, *“Punishment of the Anabaptists in the Low Countries.” *Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest men who ever lived, declared it was “his conviction that the Baptists were the only Christians who had not symbolized with Rome” Memoirs of, written by himself, 201 Alexander Campbell, probably the greatest and absolutely accepted as one of the greatest theologians of the early 1800’s in an 1820 debate with William Latta McCalla, stated, "I would engage to show that baptism as viewed and practiced by the Baptists, had its advocates in every century up to the Christian era and independent of whose existence (the German Anabaptists), clouds of witnesses attest the fact, that before the Reformation from popery, and from the apostolic age, to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists, and the practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced (Macalla and Campbell Debate on Baptism, 378, 379, Buffalo, 1824). You may read about the debate here: focusmagazine.org/tdoy/articles/campbellwalkerdebate.htm

“Come let us reason together”

So, I should read anti-Catholic propaganda again, like I did when I was an independent, fundamental, pre-millenial, KJV-only Baptist? You forgot to mention Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and Carroll’s The Trail of Blood.

The Catholic Church (which is not Roman) can trace her lineage back to Christ and the Apostles. That there were other groups claiming the name Christian yet not in communion the One Church which Christ established, Himself the Head of the Body, I do not deny. If you truly study some of the beliefs those groups held you’d never want to associate them with modern-day Baptists. The founder of the Waldensians, as a matter of fact, was a Catholic before he decided he knew better than the Apostles and fomed his own sect.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, there are a number of historians, claiming to be Catholic, who do not espouse the teaching of the Catholic Church. In my opinion, they are really Protestant, and don’t realize it. Fortunately, RC historians do not define the Teaching of the Church. The Teaching of the Catholic Church comes from Jesus, through the Apostles., all of whom were Jews.

Indeed, there have been many Catholics with anti-semetic attitudes. This is not right. But asserting that they represent the Teaching of the Church is like saying that what Judas said and did was representative of what Christ taught.

On the contrary, what the Church believes and teaches is found in Scripture. “Salvation is of the Jews”.

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

Of course you are free to cling to your ignorance and prejudice. It is my duty to speak out against such anti-Christian attitudes. We have both done, then, what we believe is right.

Here’s a link to a google search illustrating that fact:

Howie, I am sorry, but your choice to be ignorant and prejudiced is not a “fact”. I am sure you can find countless “google” links, and other anti-Catholic polemics on the internet to support it, but that does not make it so. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

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:

Thank you. Since the Catholic Church is the one built by Christ, I know that there is no distinction between defending the Truth of His bride, and Himself.

 

[Howie01]

MOnkey:

Lets see, look up the word catholic, and the etymology of it. A Merrian-Webster dictionary ought to suffice. I see no mention of Roman in there.

You’ll find that under R.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is quite true, the doctrine of SS being the top of the list. Don’t you think that, a doctrine as essential as that, would be found in scripture?

On the contrary, Scripture demonstrates that “rule” and “authority” are the purview of persons, not Writings, however Holy. Authority requires the exercise of discernment, will, intellect, and above all, ability to take responsibility. The Scriptures, essential as they are, do not posess these qualities belonging only to persons. This is why the doctrine is flawed. Adherants to SS force the Scripture into a role they were never meant to fulfill.

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

Such refuations are not really necessary, since Protestantism is self refuting, beginning with the erroneous doctrine of SS. Neither are any of the doctrines “fresh”. All espoused by those protesting the Church founded by Christ were already defeated by the Church in the early centuries. I have not seen any “fresh” heresies, either.

 

[Howie01]

MrS:

Actually they were all baptized Catholic.

That didn’t work very well; did it?

MrS:

Because I was out of any church for 25 years, they were fair game for the first huckster who convinced them that all their past sins and all punishment for them was totally absolved if they simply said a sinners prayer (not in Bible), made an altar call (not in Bible) and were born again with a dunking (which tells God He did not do it right the first time).

I’m wondering MrS, if your sons have jobs, own cars and houses, and are married, do you consider them to have been huckstered into those situations, or do you consider their choices in those matters an out-working of their free will?

MrS:

One is in a “Bible College” and I see some signs of him starting to question the stuff his profs teach (interpret) as “their” real truth.

Then you should start laying the foundation for a “reverse huckster,” and huckster them home to Rome.

MrS:

hahahahah…two of the profs ended up arguing about predestination.

Well, when they come home to Rome, they’ll see no more arguing about anything theological, but will bask in the perfection of argument-free Roman Catholic unity.

MrS:

Nope, Howie, you have bought into an easy believism that allows you to believe what you think you can understand

I’ll make a note of that, MrS, I hadn’t realized that what I have bought into is easy-believism.

MrS:

… not believe what you think is unbelievable… and then claim the Holy Spirit is doing it to you.

Whatever that means.

MrS:

So as more and more study the Bible - closely - more and more leave the confusion of the reformation and its fruits.

Unlike you, MrS, I don’t sit back and pontificate on things like this, but I engage Catholics, both current and former (75% of my church are former Catholics), and the former Catholics I’ve spoken with say the exact opposite of what you say.

MrS:

Gotta love that Gordon Cromwell seminary… produces a lot of Bible Scholars… more and more of whom become Catholic.

Well, if your hunch is correct, MrS, your son will join you in Rome as soon as he becomes a Bible Scholar.

 

[Protestant101]

That is so silly and you just don’t get it. You say “sole”. That means only. That means nothing else rules.

Well, my protesting friend… get your bible out put in on your lap or endtable… and wait patiently for it to speak to you. If you open and read… you are self interpreting. If you listen to your faith community leader… you are accepting an outside authority.

No wonder the most common phrase among our Protestant separated brethren is"

“The Bible says…”



.

Isnt that just such a heinous thing!! Christians quoting the Bible!! My! My! What is this world coming to?!

 

[Protestant101]

Such refuations are not really necessary, since Protestantism is self refuting, beginning with the erroneous doctrine of SS. Neither are any of the doctrines “fresh”. All espoused by those protesting the Church founded by Christ were already defeated by the Church in the early centuries. I have not seen any “fresh” heresies, either.

No, they were not “refuted” or “defeated.” An attempt has been made to refute what protestants have been seeking to restore, but it is only an attempt; nowhere near successful yet.

The Reformation was a turning point in the history of the Christian Church.

The Church did not just start all of a sudden in the New Testament times; it was not a new thing conjured up by Luther, or any of the other “Reformers.” The Church has always existed. The Reformers were guided by God to restore the beautiful truths which God entrusted to His Church, back into the Church; after years of hiding behind pagan superstition, in an attempt to garner more church members.

We can find tremendous strength and inspiration from the experiences of the Reformers and how they continued to stand for truth in the face of overwhelming opposition. This includes our friend and brethren, MacArthur.

 

[jam070406]

No, they were not “refuted” or “defeated.” An attempt has been made to refute what protestants have been seeking to restore, but it is only an attempt; nowhere near successful yet.

The Reformation was a turning point in the history of the Christian Church.

The Church did not just start all of a sudden in the New Testament times; it was not a new thing conjured up by Luther, or any of the other “Reformers.” The Church has always existed. The Reformers were guided by God to restore the beautiful truths which God entrusted to His Church, back into the Church; after years of hiding behind pagan superstition, in an attempt to garner more church members.

We can find tremendous strength and inspiration from the experiences of the Reformers and how they continued to stand for truth in the face of overwhelming opposition. This includes our friend and brethren, MacArthur.

WOW, this may be one of the most ridiculous posts I’ve ever seen.

 

[guanophore]

That didn’t work very well; did it?

It is very good evidence that it well possible to fall away from the faith.

**’m wondering MrS, if your sons have jobs, own cars and houses, and are married, do you consider them to have been huckstered into those situations, or do you consider their choices in those matters an out-working of their free will?

Is it not possible to gain the whole world, and still lose one’s soul? Would you not think that such a person had be “huckstered” by the evil one?

Then you should start laying the foundation for a “reverse huckster,” and huckster them home to Rome.

Well, when they come home to Rome, they’ll see no more arguing about anything theological, but will bask in the perfection of argument-free Roman Catholic unity.

Unlike you, MrS, I don’t sit back and pontificate on things like this, but I engage Catholics, both current and former (75% of my church are former Catholics), and the former Catholics I’ve spoken with say the exact opposite of what you say.

Actually, you do a fair amount of pontificating. Perhaps it is easier to see the speck in another’s eye?

Of course “former Catholics” will say things contrary to the teaching of the Church. If they did not, they would not be “former” would they? MOst Catholics who have been led astray by the errant ideas emanating from the Reformation did not know or understand their faith, and were easy prey. I know, I used to be one of them.

This whole post bears a sarcastic tone, Howie. May I remind you that you are welcome here as long as you are willing to respect the faith of Catholics. You do not have to agree with our doctrines, but you do have to be courteous.

The purpose of CAF is to answer sincere questions about the faith. It is not a venue for you to pour anti-Catholic hostility.

 

[guanophore]

No, they were not “refuted” or “defeated.” An attempt has been made to refute what protestants have been seeking to restore, but it is only an attempt; nowhere near successful yet.

Indeed, all the modern heresies present in Protestantism have been addressed and refuted, some of them in the very earliest days of the Church before the canon was formed. Such is the strength that God has infused into the pillar and bulwark of the Truth He has formed.

It is not necessary to “restore” what God has built, as it was perfect from the moment He created it.

What requires restoration is mankind - man is always in need of reform. He will not be healed, though, by espousing notions contrary to what God has already revealed about Himself.

The Reformation was a turning point in the history of the Christian Church.

Indeed it was. The birthplace of the most vast disintegration of Christendom ever imagined, the diablolical fruit of which is still at work every day, creating more division.

The Church did not just start all of a sudden in the New Testament times; it was not a new thing conjured up by Luther, or any of the other “Reformers.” The Church has always existed.

Perhaps I was in error when I said that there were no new heresies? No, the Church did not exist until it was built by Jesus, and yes, this did happen just prior to the "NT times’.

The Reformers were guided by God to restore the beautiful truths which God entrusted to His Church, back into the Church; after years of hiding behind pagan superstition, in an attempt to garner more church members.

This is a belief to which you must cling, in order to justify the authority appointed by Christ.

We can find tremendous strength and inspiration from the experiences of the Reformers and how they continued to stand for truth in the face of overwhelming opposition. This includes our friend and brethren, MacArthur.

Perhaps you will be inspired to start your own website, where you and MacArthur and all others who wish to reject those whom Jesus sent can clap one another on the back?

 

[Howie01]

guanophore:

Yes, there are a number of historians, claiming to be Catholic, who do not espouse the teaching of the Catholic Church. In my opinion, they are really Protestant, and don’t realize it.

I don’t think so, guanophore; be that as it may, were I you, I wouldn’t worry about it; it’s not the end of the world.

guanophore:

Fortunately, RC historians do not define the Teaching of the Church. The Teaching of the Catholic Church comes from Jesus, through the Apostles., all of whom were Jews.

Correct guanophore, the role of the historian is to record the actions and practices of those about whom they’re writing…

guanophore:

Indeed, there have been many Catholics with anti-semetic attitudes.

There have been anti-semites of all stripes.

guanophore:

Such refuations are not really necessary, since Protestantism is self refuting…

I don’t think so, guanophore.

guanophore:

Howie, I am sorry, but your choice to be ignorant and prejudiced is not a “fact”. I am sure you can find countless “google” links, and other anti-Catholic polemics on the internet to support it, but that does not make it so. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

You know, guanophore, in some of the google results were articles by Roman Catholics, about Roman Catholics, and about the Roman Catholic Church, and those titles were found both in the article titles, as well as the body.

You would do well to clean your own house first regarding that, guanophore.

guanophore:

This is quite true, the doctrine of SS being the top of the list. Don’t you think that, a doctrine as essential as that, would be found in scripture?

Well it is to my satisfaction, and the satisfaction of many others, but obviously it’s not to yours.

guanophore:

On the contrary, Scripture demonstrates that “rule” and “authority” are the purview of persons, not Writings, however Holy. Authority requires the exercise of discernment, will, intellect, and above all, ability to take responsibility. The Scriptures, essential as they are, do not posess these qualities belonging only to persons. This is why the doctrine is flawed. Adherants to SS force the Scripture into a role they were never meant to fulfill.

I’ll note that according to guanophore, scripture has no authority, but according to the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent scriptures do have authority.

 

[M0nkey]

You’ll find that under R.

My point has only to do with the word catholic. Go read what it says.

“Unless a man is born again he shall not SEE the Kingdom of heaven” John 3:3

John 3:5 follows with, “unless one is born of *water *and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” How is God made flesh not speaking strictly about Baptism?

I challenge you who arrogantly and incorrectly proclaim the RCC was the only church in the first 15 centuries to study real history.

The true Church must be One under the authority given by God to Peter, correct? (Matt. 16:18)