John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Tomster]

Being raised CATHOLIC I am offended by the calous way you renounce people of other beliefs Tomster. Do you EVER feel any accountability to your words or do you actually enjoy your slanderous statements? I was baptised Catholic, I was educated in a ***Catholic school and was confirmed Catholic and alter boy and I know your church probably better than you! I have never disrespected you, you speak proudly about your church, where is your love of Christ? I never *** once “admitted” to “heresies” as you state. I said I held to those doctrines to baptise babies is wrong, to sprinkle is not Biblical, to baptise one prior to a confession of faith is anti-biblical. I am a re-baptised believer in Jesus Christ, born again by faith alone in Him who died for me! I do not have the freedom on this site to tell of heresies of the CC, for we both know who runs this website. Howie does not have binders on, I read these posts, he has been very gracious and extremely long-suffering with many of yours and other’s slanderous statements. Jesus Christ said, "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken" Matthew 12:36

You tell how it offends you that I would call you the Roman Church with disrespect to my acceptance of your church’s claim to be “Catholic” and you slander my church calling it a “sect”. For one who “thinks” his way is right your spirit does not display much godliness.

You have just admitted to believing the heresies I outlined for you. The “doctrines” you hold are heresies. Really, as a fallen away Catholic with as much education as you have claimed to received you should have been able to understand that. There is only one Church. Show me in the Bible where Jesus instituted more than one Church. You can’t. It’s not there. Only the true Church of Christ has the authority to condemn the various heresies I outlined for you.

My love for Christ is shown by sharing the Truth which He gave us. For He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and for the ONLY Church He instituted. The Baptist church is heretical.

Now, go finish the exercise I outlined for you and get a grip on the errors your sect promulgates. :hey_bud:

 

[Howie01]

guanophore:

It does address the question asked, at the most fundamental level. It addresses the faulty premise upon which the question was based.

It doesn’t even come close to answering the question, but what it does resemble is what Catholics on this forum call “dodging the question.”

guanophore:

Not all of our separated brethren are anti catholics. John MacArthur, and those who espouse his views would fall under this category.

Another dodge.

guanophore:

I would think that y’all would be proud that you are anti-Catholic. How is that a wickedness? Don’t you believe that is is righteous for you to oppose Catholicism? IT seems reading MacArthur’s material, that he certainly believes what he is doing is righteous. You have indicated that pulling Catholics “out” of the Church and "into " the Truth as you know it is a righteous deed. Where is the wickedness?

And another.

guanophore:

I guess what you are trying to say is that you think that the way of life passed on to us by the Apostles ought to somehow be reduced to a list? Do you think that any of these things you have noted here describe the lifestyle of the Christian?

Dodge #4.

guanophore:

Is that not because you deny the Apostolic Succession?

That, and the Papacy.

guanophore:

Actually, you have. You have discounted my experience as an ex catholic as well.

Actually, you have.

I know you have difficulty listing things, guanophore, but please, list the post #s where I’ve done that.

guanophore:

No more than I can support from scripture that everything necessary to salvation is found in the scripture.

Realizing your great aversion to lists, I respectfully ask you to list all of the things necessary to salvation that are not found in Scripture?

guanophore:

Yes.

Yes what, please?

guanophore:

that was not the statement to I was responding. It was one made by MrS.

That is your statement guanophore, trace it back.

IMO, guanophore, you’re showing yourself, at best, to be quite careless, and at worst, quite deceitful. :tsktsk:

guanophore:

I think both are immoral. But, I don’t think those that are on EWTN in the “coming home” program are being forcibly united. I think, through much study and prayer, they chose to come home. That is what happened to me too.

Then consistency demands that you accept that exit interviews, were they to be shown on EWTN, would not be "forcible separations."

guanophore:

I am not aware of any ancient language dictionaries online that I can link. This is an old Latin transliteration of diabolokos.

OK, guanophore.

 

[Howie01]

guanophore:

No more than I can support from scripture that everything necessary to salvation is found in the scripture.

This is an amended response to your above statement, in which I remind you now that Paul states the scriptures are able to lead to the knowledge of salvation through faith in Christ. (The OT is able to do that).

 

[Protestant101]

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?

You mean like the Catholics do here?

 

[guanophore]

Another non sequitur that fails to answer the question asked.

Actually, it is something that “does not follow”. It may refer to an illogical step of arguement. In this case, I did answer your question. I pointed out that the question is based upon a faulty assumption. Using faulty premises will often result in faulty results.

However…I’ve been reading your response over and over, and over and over again, and it’s truly a remarkable statement you make.

Apparently the repitition is not helping you any. Your preconceived prejudices are an impediment to understanding perhaps?

You’re saying that the phrase “crossing the Tiber” is heretical, and that every expression not found in scripture, but proliferated after the NT was written is heretical.

No, Howie, that is not what I said, even remotely. However, the fact that you could read what I wrote, and come to this conclusion, does say a lot about your thought process.

Congratulations, guanophore, you’ve brought down all of Catholicism all by yourself.

Well, I suspect that anything said to you on this board would have that result, because you came in here with your mind made up to that conclusion before you started reading.

 

[Protestant101]

You seem to be suffering under the erroenous expectation that everything pertaining to the faith can be found in scripture.

The Church Christ founded is Catholic,and He only founded One Church. During the Protestant Reformation, on the the far side of the Tiber River, European Catholics abandoned the One Church founded by Christ and formed their own churches, based upon theologies that departed from what Christ taught. If you think they were not anti- Catholic, I suggest you read their writings. Your current pastor embodies their sentiments towards Catholics, hence, the thread topic.

Its funny how disagreement by a protestant with a Catholic, is “anti-catholic” or “hatred” or some such thing, but when it’s the other way around, all the Catholics on this board applaud one another. Why isn’t it “anti-protestant” when you call us heretic? or Pseudo-churches? Or when your forum members are allowed to post clearly anti-protestant hate sites in their signatures. Or any of a number of hate-filled labels that I have had thrown at me from forum members here?

You will probably give another of your many trite replies like: “Takes one to know one,” but it will be interesting to see if anyone can give a decent answer to my question

 

[MrS]

You mean like the Catholics do here?

Sure, why not. You all have free will, remember. Also remember that God’s gift of that free will allows you to reject Him, or some of the teaching He gave to the Apostles.

Others walked away in John 6.

Protestants, Adventists, Pentecostals, Baptists… each faith community has the free will to love the Lord… and IMHO, they do.

But they also have the free will to reject some of the instructions, directives, and graces which the Apostles received from Lord, which the Apostles were empowered to protect and pass on, which the Apostles handed on to their successors.

Some Catholics profess to be Catholics, and then either deny (or just don’t ask for the faith to believe) some of the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus.

Some non-Catholics are taught in a way that they can’t overcome (or won’t) the comfort level they feel in their current faith. In this case, we Catholics hope and pray that they continue to study history, and read every commentary they can find.

At some point their eyes are opened to the fact that their beliefs are built on a man or woman, and not fully on Christ.

Actually, I think the best (though impossible) things that could happen would be to have Howie, and Prot101 etc

[1] be in the same room as Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, White, MacArthur, Olson, etc while this group discusses ^Infant Baptism ^Divorce/ReMarriage ^Justification ^OSAS ^the Solas ^Atonement ^Real Presence ^End Times etc…

then
[2] be in the same room as Peter, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, a few Early Fathers (pick any) a few dozen popes (pick any), a few dozen saints (pick any), and a handful of Church Doctors (33 - pick any)… while they discuss the same topics.

what a hoot…
1st room… chaos… and probably the start of a few more denominations.

2nd room… consistent teaching

.

 

[MrS]

Its funny how disagreement by a protestant with a Catholic, is “anti-catholic” or “hatred” or some such thing, but when it’s the other way around, all the Catholics on this board applaud one another. Why isn’t it “anti-protestant” when you call us heretic? or Pseudo-churches? Or when your forum members are allowed to post clearly anti-protestant hate sites in their signatures. Or any of a number of hate-filled labels that I have had thrown at me from forum members here?

You will probably give another of your many trite replies like: “Takes one to know one,” but it will be interesting to see if anyone can give a decent answer to my question

Don’t take it personal.

The “hatred” you see is most often a disgust, or a dislike for the lies.

I don’t hate Luther. I hate his lies which formed the solas - they are heritical
I don’t hate Calvin. I hate his lies which formed the fruits from TULIP
I don’t hate Baptists. I hate the selective, out of context misuse of St Paul’s writings.

The fact that all the faith communities have one thing in common, no authority from Christ, is easy to prove.

Authority, or the rejection of it, has been the downfall of man since… well, the fall of man.

.

 

[guanophore]

It doesn’t even come close to answering the question, but what it does resemble is what Catholics on this forum call “dodging the question.”

Well, ok. If it is a dodge not to fall for a question based upon a faulty premise,then I accept the accusation.

Another dodge.

You may not wish to accept this, but it is true. Not all of our separated brethren are anti-Catholic. It may seem like all of them are because they are the only kind you know?

And another.

You asked me to substantiate something you called “wickedness”. I cannot see it, so of course, I cannot substantiate it. Are you not proud of rescuing Catholics from the pit of hell? Am I not correct that this, for you, constitutes a “good work” and not a wickedness?

Dodge #4.

Perhaps, if you think I am dodging, you can help me out. Can you please show how the way of life taught by the Apostles to the disciples can be reduced to a "list’? If you can do this, perhaps I might be able to comply.

Realizing your great aversion to lists, I respectfully ask you to list all of the things necessary to salvation that are not found in Scripture?

Actually, since you do realize my aversion to lists, is this not disrespectful in itself?

Catholics have received the fullness of the faith from the Apostles. This is found in both Sacred Tradition, and Sacred scripture. We do not separate them from one another, as they both came from the same Source. Therefore, we do not make distinctions between the portion of the revelation that is outside of scripture, and that which is within. Protestants must do this because they jettisoned the Sacred Traditions during the reformation, in order to dispense with the Apostolic Succession and the Papacy.

Catholics are also not bound by the mondern fundamentalist innovation of reducing the message of salvation to some sort of readers digest nugget. We consider that Jesus did not do or teach anything that is unnecessary to us. What is necessary, in our view, is everything.

Acts 1:1-3
I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

Matt 28:19 - Mark 1:1
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

1 Cor 11:2
2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

1 John 5:1-5
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith.

We consider that Jesus did not teach the Apostles things that are “unnecessary”, and that it is incumbent upon us, if we love Him, to obey them all.

Yes what, please?  That is your statement guanophore, trace it back.

You will notice that my responses to you have the little blue triangle in them, so that you can trace back. Yours do not. Therefore, it is much more difficult to trace back, because you did not include the links. Also, if you want to know what I am responding “yes” to, all you need to do is click on the little blue icon, and it will take you back. You can go back through the whole thread this way, except for your posts, because you don’t include the links.

IMO, guanophore, you’re showing yourself, at best, to be quite careless, and at worst, quite deceitful. :tsktsk:

Thank you! that is the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day.

Someone was asking where the love is on this thread, and I think I found it!

Then consistency demands that you accept that exit interviews, were they to be shown on EWTN, would not be "forcible separations."

No, it does not, Howie. I did not characterize the interviews as forcible separations, you did. And of course, I understand that you believe they ought to be done.

However, the Catholic Church teaches that it is immoral to participate in other mens sins. This would be a way of promoting wrong, and therefore, should not be done.

I am surprised that Hon MacArthur does not have a program of this kind. I would think personal testimonies from ex-Catholics would do great things for the ministry.

 

[guanophore]

This is an amended response to your above statement, in which I remind you now that Paul states the scriptures are able to lead to the knowledge of salvation through faith in Christ. (The OT is able to do that).

Yes, of course. As Jesus testified, they point to Him. He is the source of salvation, and the scriptures lead to Him. The scriptures are profitable. But, Jesus founded a Church, and we believe He did not do anything that was not necessary. He trained His Apostles, and commissioned them to teach, then He directed that they should ordain others to take over their duties. This is the Aposotlic Succession. It was that Apostolic Succession, ordained and appointed by Christ, that created the canon of scripture.

Jesus appointed pastors and teachers to lead and guide the flock, so that the divisions caused by Sola Scriptura woudl not divide the One Church. Men rebelled against the authority appointed by Christ, and tried to replace that authority with scripture, a duty that scripture cannot fulfill. Each man, then, becomes his own “pope”, reading, interpreting and applying it “as it is right in his own eyes”.

The Scripture was never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

 

[guanophore]

You mean like the Catholics do here?

Did I miss a back clapping? Doggone it! The only thing I got lately is you and Howie chastizing my posts! If you here where the meeting is, let me know!

 

[guanophore]

Its funny how disagreement by a protestant with a Catholic, is “anti-catholic” or “hatred” or some such thing, but when it’s the other way around, all the Catholics on this board applaud one another.

Personally, I don’t believe that all of my separated brethren are anti-Catholic. I know you are, because I have read your posts for a long time. I know John MacArthur is, because I have listened to him, and read his publications. I now know that Howie is, by his affiliation with MacArthur, and his posts. Y’all have not been “hateful” in here, though. You may be in your thinking and expressions outside your posts, but it seems to me that you try real hard to control it in here.

Why isn’t it “anti-protestant” when you call us heretic? or Pseudo-churches?

I have not called anyone a heretic. I think it is against the forum rules. But, even if it is not, I am not pursuaded that it fosters discussions. I have identified certain beliefs as heretical, but I did so because that is the teaching of the Church.

I also do not use the term “pseudo-Churches”. Technically speaking, though, I can see that it is a correct term. Just not fostering for conversation.

Or when your forum members are allowed to post clearly anti-protestant hate sites in their signatures. Or any of a number of hate-filled labels that I have had thrown at me from forum members here?

I do think there is a strong pro-catholic bias here. I think Catholics can get away with things others cannot. However, since I came, I have had my quota of reprimands, and I have seen just as many Catholics get them, or get banned as non-Catholics.

You will probably give another of your many trite replies like: “Takes one to know one,” but it will be interesting to see if anyone can give a decent answer to my question

It seems that I cannot answer your question because it apparently does not apply to me. Good luck!

 

[RonaldH]

I am sure you believe they are not. I believed that too when I was a practicing Baptist!

You are welcome to post the multitude of heresies of the CC… I recommend you do it over in apologetics, though,as it is a more appropriate forum for that.

I do not have “postition of judge”. What I have is an understanding of what the Aposotles believed and taught, supplemented by an education on some of the ways that modern ecclesial communites have departed from them.

Let me reiterate, modern evangelicals, Baptists, Reformed, etc. are not to be charged with the sin of heresy for espousing heretical views. Most of them don’t know anything else, and have been brought up, steeped in these heresies. For them, it is the only right way to believe. They cannot qualify as heretics, never having known the truth.

It is my duty,however, to recognize heretical teachings, and respond to them. This is not a judgement on anyone, but a discernment about right doctrine. As has been pointed out, many of us here are “indoctrinated”. We are steeped in the Traditions of the Apostles, rather than the Reformers,and that is why our beliefs seem so different. The Reformers departed significantly from what the Apostles believed and taught, to the point where the adherants of these doctrines no longer recognize the truth.

In your opinion

 

[Howie01]

guanophore:

No, Howie, that is not what I said, even remotely.

It’s exactly what you wrote, guanophore, (I even asked my wife, without comment, to read what you wrote, and to tell me what you were saying; her response was the same as mine).

Nevertheless, I know you don’t believe what you wrote; therefore, we’ll chalk it up to carelessness on your part.

 

[M0nkey]

Calling the Church as the way is not condemning, obviously God has the final say, and what we Catholics engage in is not a form of self-adulation but merely pointing out the crux of the matter. The way I see it, it’s kind of like a tunnel and a particular mode to get there, in other words, God the Son is that tunnel, but the only way to Him is through the Catholic Church. Not to offend anyone, but this is what the Church proclaims from it’s early foundations. No one can find God on their own, He has to come to us, and this He did when He instituted His Church. Without the Church, no salvation. And the best way I can think of to prove it is that you wouldn’t even have a Bible, if it weren’t for the Catholic Church, yes it says all scripture is inspired, but that doesn’t even begin to address which books and where to find them. Read the history of the early Church, you are going to find it was only Catholic, e.g., Augustine, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, etc. If not for learning, for the sake of your own souls.

 

[Howie01]

guanophore:

No, it does not, Howie. I did not characterize the interviews as forcible separations, you did. And of course, I understand that you believe they ought to be done.

Yes, you did, guanophore, but you look good in denial, so I’ll leave you there.

Anyone interested in reading back can see what you’ve in. When I do it, and point it out to you, it leads to more denial.

guanophore:

I am surprised that Hon MacArthur does not have a program of this kind. I would think personal testimonies from ex-Catholics would do great things for the ministry.

I’m not surprised that you’re surprised by that, guanophore.

 

[MrS]

Back and forth
…back and forth
…back and forth

so I repeat…

I think the best (though impossible) things that could happen would be to have Howie, and Prot101 etc

[1] be in the same room as Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, White, MacArthur, Olson, etc while this group discusses ^Infant Baptism ^Divorce/ReMarriage ^Justification ^OSAS ^the Solas ^Atonement ^Real Presence ^End Times etc…

… you will leave the room no more or less befuddled that you already are

then
[2] be in the same room as Peter, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, a few Early Fathers (pick any) a few dozen popes (pick any), a few dozen saints (pick any), and a handful of Church Doctors (33 - pick any)… while they discuss the same topics.

… you will leave the room probably still saying “… that is just your opinion…”

what a hoot…
1st room… chaos… and probably the start of a few more denominations.

2nd room… consistent teaching

We can disagree among ourselves forever…

But you can’t argue with history, with facts, with clear teaching, with the Holy Spirt

The Catholic Church is only gifted with all those things because it is founded by Jesus.

all other faith communities are not gifted with those things, because they are founded by a man or a woman… regardless of their good intentions, or their claim of a restoration of Truth. That is not the plan of the Savior.

One Lord… One Faith … One Baptism

.

 

[Howie01]

Yes, of course. As Jesus testified, they point to Him. He is the source of salvation, and the scriptures lead to Him. The scriptures are profitable. But, Jesus founded a Church, and we believe He did not do anything that was not necessary. He trained His Apostles, and commissioned them to teach, then He directed that they should ordain others to take over their duties. This is the Aposotlic Succession. It was that Apostolic Succession, ordained and appointed by Christ, that created the canon of scripture.

Jesus appointed pastors and teachers to lead and guide the flock, so that the divisions caused by Sola Scriptura woudl not divide the One Church. Men rebelled against the authority appointed by Christ, and tried to replace that authority with scripture, a duty that scripture cannot fulfill. Each man, then, becomes his own “pope”, reading, interpreting and applying it “as it is right in his own eyes”.

The Scripture was never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

“Scripture,” Paul says, “is able to lead you to the knowledge of salvation through faith in Christ.”

Paul nowhere says “tradition” has that ability.

 

[guanophore]

In your opinion

I think I was pretty clear on that point.

It’s exactly what you wrote, guanophore, (I even asked my wife, without comment, to read what you wrote, and to tell me what you were saying; her response was the same as mine).

Really? Does she frequent MacArthur also? Do all those in his congregations suffer warped perceptions?

Nevertheless, I know you don’t believe what you wrote; therefore, we’ll chalk it up to carelessness on your part.

I certainly don’t believe waht you wrote about what you think I said.

It may be carelessness, for sure. I will try again. You asked me where in the Bible it said you had to “cross the Tiber”. I said it was not in there, because the heresies that arose North of the Tiber occurred 1500 years after the NT was written.

For some reason, reading that makes you think that I believe everything not found in Scripture is a heresy.

Yet, at the same time you castigate me (as a Catholic) because I follow the Apostolic teaching to maintain the Traditions, just as they were delivered, whether they were delivered by word of mouth, or by letter. So, on the one hand you criticize me because I acknowledge Truth that is not confined to Scriptures, yet you claim that I believe everything must be found in Scripture or it is a heresy.

Yes, you did, guanophore, but you look good in denial, so I’ll leave you there.

Thanks. I have a real hard time tracing back through your posts, becauase you don’t include the links, so it is easier for me to just accept that we have had a misunderstanding. Perhaps I do not communicate well.

I don’t believe that any Catholics leave the church as a result of forcible separation.

Anyone interested in reading back can see what you’ve in. When I do it, and point it out to you, it leads to more denial.

It would be easier to do that if you would include the links.

I’m not surprised that you’re surprised by that, guanophore.

Do you not agree with me that a ministry of this kind could reach and save a lot more Catholics?

“Scripture,” Paul says, “is able to lead you to the knowledge of salvation through faith in Christ.”

Paul nowhere says “tradition” has that ability.

The entire NT is a product of sacred tradition, including this saying of Paul’s. The Church excluded any writings that were not part of Sacred Tradition. For Catholics, there is no separation between the revelation of God in the Holy Writings, and in the Holy Tradition.

2 Tim 1:12-14
13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; 14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

Have you never wondered why it was so important for the bishops to guard the Sacred Tradition? This “pattern of sound words” is that which leads to life. This is why the Church, the custodian of the Sacred Tradition, is called the pillar and bulwark of the Truth.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God at work in the believers. This is why it is not reduced to a “list”. One cannot “list” all the ways the Spirit is at work in the believers. However, this is as much the Word of God as that Word which has been committed to the Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Where in Scripture does the Spirit teach that God makes people Catholic? (Catholic with a capital “C”).

Where in Scripture do any of the writers refer to those who oppose the body of Christ as anti-Catholic?

Where in Scripture is it stated that in order to be saved one must cross the Tiber?

All of these questions rest on the premise “where in Scripture”, indicating that you seem to expect everything pertaining to salvation to be found in scripture.

For Catholics, the first two are no-brainers, because we recognize the NT church as the Catholic Church. Jesus only founded one church.

The third one is a strange question, since the Protestant Reformation, which is what is being referenced in the phrase “crossing the Tiber” did not occur for 1500 years after the NT was written. Why would you expect to find it in Scripture?

Please explain how it would immoral for EWTN to air a television program conducting interviews with Catholics exiting the Church, but it’s not immoral for them to air a television program conducting interviews with Protestants entering the Church?

EWTN has a commitment not to air anything that is contrary to the teaching if the Church. The Catholic Church teachies that it is immoral to focus upon and promote wrongdoing of any kind.

Phil 4:8-9
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

Promoting separation and division in the body of Christ is a moral evil. It is contrary to what we have learned and received from the Aposltes. The Apostles taught that the Body of Christ is One,and that Jesus wants unity among us.

I do acknowledge that all who leave the Catholic Church do so of their own free will. When I said that division is diabolical, I was not referring to the people as the source of the division. There is one, however, who delights in separating and dividing the Body of Christ.

Most of us who left/leave Catholicism do so with all sincerity. I was seeking what I thought was authentic spiritual experience. I craved fellowship, and sincerity. I was never taught to study scripture, and found great enthusiasm among my separated brethren for all these things.