John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Protestant101]

A word of advice, friend, if you claim you’re a Christian than starting act like one.

That’s good advice…for all of us.

 

[Protestant101]

Great post buffgbob, thanks for joining the thread. Speaking of joining, will you join me in prayers to the Apostles, that they may be enabled to enlighted the minds of those who have twisted the scriptures through ignorance?

You go ahead and pray to your “apostles” I will follow MacArthur’s example of praying to Jesus. He alone is our Light.

 

[Protestant101]

P.S. Make no mistake, Howie, make one more remark (“harlotry”) and I will report you to the mods.

That’s a mighty fine sentiment indeed. For once I am speechless. I will say that your threat is quite useless. I suppose we could call it your “ironic comment of the day.”

 

[sellgood]

Good news

 

[Cinette]

Instead of the “anti-Catholic” rhetoric, which is always stated in the light of characterizing your protestant victim; you should be able to just speak for or against the truth and provide Biblical references for same. You and many others like to label as “anti-Catholic” anyone who disagrees with Catholic teachings, and canot be moved as quickly or easily as you would like them to be.

If you had even half an idea of the Catholics in my life, and how dearly I love them; and how sweet our time is together, you would never mention “anti-Catholic” again. You don’t need to characterize people the way you do with such terminology, as you do on this forum; although you do have a right to - as Christians, we do not always have to exercise our rights.

I can understand how MacArthur would bug the daylights out of you - he speaks forcefully; but that doesnt mean all that he says is error or heresy. An honest examination using the Bible as a guide would show quite the opposite.

Hi P101!

Gosh I had wondered what had happened to you! Anyway a rest from you has done me good! LOL!

You have made my blood boil on many occasions and I think I told you that I felt like challenging you to a boxing match!! LOL! We fought ferociously in the past but for some reason I have always considered you my favourite Protestant. Why? Don’t ask me. Maybe you gave us a glimpse into your soul? Perhaps.

Guanophore is also one of my favourite posters and I consider Guano a very good debater, knowledgeable and very patient. You have been mean to Guano in the past which was not very gracious of you. I have not read all the postings as I have been ill but was going thru and when I saw your name way back I got interested and subscribed but have not been back until now so I have missed out on a lot. I hope to do some catching up.

All I wanted to say is that I still believe we can all be friends and I hope you can cast your prejudices aside and be nice. I just know that you are really a nice person and think it is a pity that we can’t learn from each other and discuss civilly even though we may not agree.

Jesus told us to love one another. I know you love Jesus and so do we and I think we should think about it and ask Jesus to help us to do his bidding.

cheers
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Correct; what Paul is saying is, the OT scriptures are able to give one the wisdom needed to be led to salvation through faith in Christ.

You’re not answering my question: where does Peter say the ”bible is hard to understand?”

Yes. You should understand the doctrine as its adherents define it, and that definition includes the role of the church, and god-sent teachers, and their writings and teachings; Mkay?

Hi Howie!

I don’t know whether this question has been answered since you posted this but I am going to give it to you anyway, just in case:

*“For there are many things in scripture that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures to their destruction.”
*
2 Peter 3:16

Cinette

 

[MrS]

Hi Howie!

I don’t know whether this question has been answered since you posted this but I am going to give it to you anyway, just in case:

*“For there are many things in scripture that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures to their destruction.”
*
2 Peter 3:16

Cinette

Welcome to the discussion. Yes the verse has been quoted often already. And by now Howie has seen it, read it, and knows the verse incorporates the word “scripture”.

The difficulty is that Catholics have also quoted the verse - correctly, and then commented that the “bible” is hard to understand.

Howie can’t find much to support his (MacArthur’s) errors so he often resorts to a level of argument centered on the use of the two words, Bible, and Scripture.

Consider if you will:

You know, when someone first watches a hockey game, and has not been “versed” in the rules… the hockey game is hard to understand. The basics are clear. But the “off-side”, and the “interference” etc rules are not clear.

Is the whole game impossible to understand… no

Is the whole game difficult to understand… no

Is some of the game difficult to understand… yes

Howie… is the whole of hockey difficult? Or are some parts of the game difficult? Or are some parts of the game difficult for some people?

Does hockey need a rule book?? If just a couple of teams are playing, oral rules will suffice. But as the league grows, and time passes, rules are written down.

Does hockey need an authority (not the people in the stands) to interpret the rule book?

and… should all the teams follow the same rules??.. in order to call themselves a hockey team???

.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

It’s you who’s confused, Buff. (And I’ve “snipped” some your post as well.)

Let’s look at the passage, rather than go from your memory:2 Peter 3:14-16

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for THESE THINGS, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of THESE THINGS, IN WHICH are SOME THINGS hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.The “These things” Peter talks of in v14 can be found by continuing back in the verses. “These things” are things pertaining to eschatological events.

Peter continues in v16 saying that “Some things” of these ESCHATOLOGICAL THINGS (as indicated by “IN WHICH” referring back to “these things”) are hard to understand. Peter does not say that all things Paul writes about eschatology are hard to understand, but only some things of them are hard to understand, and Peter certainly does not make the statement that all of the Bible is hard to understand. (You read that into the text.)

Peter then continues saying the untaught and unstable distort those eschatological things as they also distort the rest of Scripture.

So the things that are hard to understand are found in Paul’s eschatological writings, and not all of them are hard to understand, and hard to understand doesn’t mean impossible to understand.

IMO, the Church tells you that the Scripture is hard to understand, and you believe the Church.

I know Howie won’t be able to read this but I thought it would be beneficial to anyone lurking to point out that Peter does tell us just this in the remaining part of verse 16, which I’ve emphasized in quoting Howie’s post.

 

[Tomster]

This could be interesting … or not.

.

What is interesting at this point in time is that Ronald H. has failed to give us his definition of the Church. Maybe Howie could jump in and give us his?

How about it Howie? Give us your best shot.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

What is interesting at this point in time is that Ronald H. has failed to give us his definition of the Church. Maybe Howie could jump in and give us his?

How about it Howie? Give us your best shot.

Howie is no longer with us.

 

[Tomster]

Howie,

I didn’t write or imply anywhere in my statement that all the Bible is hard to understand. I did quite the opposite. I added “[Part of]”.

It’s simple:
[You admit that] part of Paul’s eschatological writings are hard to understand.
Paul’s eschatological writings are part of the Bible.
Therefore, part of the Bible is hard to understand.

As for how much of the rest of the Bible is hard/easy to understand: that’s for the individual reader to figure out.

Also, I agree with you that the early Church was guided by the same deposit of faith that you see in the Bible. The Bible reflects this deposit of faith very well. Your assumption is that these were the only things taught and therin lies your error. Our current Church is guided by that same exact deposit of faith and in the same way that those early Christians were: by teachings of the Apostles and those appointed by the Apostles. This Church I speak of, the Catholic Church, has been teaching this same deposit of faith inerrantly for 2000 years. A brief interview with history will teach you that much. Good luck finding your Protestant ideas in any early Church writings. When your Protestant ideas were formed, they were quickly deemed heresies, the Church excommunicated the persons perpetuating the heresies, and thus the tradition of defending the deposit of faith continues in the same way it has since her [the Church’s] inception.

buffgbob,

It appears that Howie and Ronald H. are having a hard time explaning how they view the Church that Christ founded. I asked for a definition from Ronald H. but apparently he is hiding somewhere unable/unwilling to give us his definition.

It is interesting to note that in a previous post Ronald H. did in fact admit that he believed that ceratin early heresies condemned by the Church were in fact part of the doctrines he believes in. Fancy that. The ol’ slippery slope of private interpretation together with the fallible teachings of Mac Arthur et.al. and this is what you get.

BTW - our esteemed adversaries have still not explained how one can interpret Scriptures all by themselves, you know, sola scriptura, but still need a fallible teacher to help stay on the straight and narrow. Methinks the contradiction here is obvious.

 

[Tomster]

howie is no longer with us.

nuts !

 

[MrS]

What is interesting at this point in time is that Ronald H. has failed to give us his definition of the Church. Maybe Howie could jump in and give us his?

How about it Howie? Give us your best shot.

I understand that the word Church was never used in the OT… the foundation, the central physical location, the word used for noun, adjective, and adverb was Temple.

There is no more temple. It is actually impossible to be a fully practicing Jew because they cannot go to the temple.

Further, Jesus Himself first uses the word Church in Matt 16:18. It is One, it is His, and He is the One Who will build it. His plan begins with building it on Peter, whom He declares as the holder of the Keys to the Kingdom (read Isaiah which Jesus refers to)

Church is reserved to what Jesus intended it for… NOT for other faith communities, not founded by Jesus to incorporate into their titles.

For 1500 + years there was only one Church which incorporated two lungs… East and West. All other claimants were deemed heretical… just like the Reformers.

And that would include Henry VIII who wanted his own “church” and even wanted to take the name Catholic for his own. Thus he began the insults of the Catholic Church centered in Rome by “re-naming” it Romish, etc. so that he could have the lone word “Catholic”

Our friends here can thank Henry for the confusion of “Roman Catholic”

They can also consider dropping the word Church from all their own titles, but we know that time and continued mis-usage will not let that happen:shrug:.

therefore… what is a Church? It is the one and only one entity which the world knows as the Catholic Church. All other usurpers are at best faith communities of well meaning Christians who do love the Lord… they just happen to chose their way to love Him, instead of His way.

.

 

[MrS]

Howie is no longer with us.

Perhaps then it is time to reflect. Was it Howie who banned himself. Or was it the consistency of the Catholic position that irked him.

There has to be a better way to continue dialogue with our separated brethren. A better way to present the truth, and not loose future Howies.

.

 

[Tomster]

Welcome to the discussion. Yes the verse has been quoted often already. And by now Howie has seen it, read it, and knows the verse incorporates the word “scripture”.

The difficulty is that Catholics have also quoted the verse - correctly, and then commented that the “bible” is hard to understand.

Howie can’t find much to support his (MacArthur’s) errors so he often resorts to a level of argument centered on the use of the two words, Bible, and Scripture.

Consider if you will:

You know, when someone first watches a hockey game, and has not been “versed” in the rules… the hockey game is hard to understand. The basics are clear. But the “off-side”, and the “interference” etc rules are not clear.

Is the whole game impossible to understand… no

Is the whole game difficult to understand… no

Is some of the game difficult to understand… yes

Howie… is the whole of hockey difficult? Or are some parts of the game difficult? Or are some parts of the game difficult for some people?

Does hockey need a rule book?? If just a couple of teams are playing, oral rules will suffice. But as the league grows, and time passes, rules are written down.

Does hockey need an authority (not the people in the stands) to interpret the rule book?

and… should all the teams follow the same rules??.. in order to call themselves a hockey team???

.

HOCKEY! Did you say hockey? Did you watch the “Wings” yesterday? What a performance. I had my doubts about my “winged warriors” going up against the Hawks. But after yesterday, I must say, they are hittin’ on all cylinders.

Tomster
(Born and raised in the motor city!)

 

[Tomster]

Perhaps then it is time to reflect. Was it Howie who banned himself. Or was it the consistency of the Catholic position that irked him.

There has to be a better way to continue dialogue with our separated brethren. A better way to present the truth, and not loose future Howies.

.

Ah, a couple of checks into the boards never hurt anybody.

Seriously, I think it was combiantion of both.

The truth was presented accurately and fairly and aggressively. They way it should when you are dealing with with someone of Howie’s mentality.

 

[M0nkey]

IMO, the Church tells you that the Scripture is hard to understand, and you believe the Church.

No Howie, your example tells us how the Bible can thwart the proud and arrogant into a path of self-destruction. What we have in the Church is a full deposit of faith, what comes down as the correct interpretation of scripture in a systematic doctrine that fits in perfectly with faith and reason.

 

[josie_L]

That’s a mighty fine sentiment indeed. For once I am speechless. I will say that your threat is quite useless. I suppose we could call it your “ironic comment of the day.”

I guess it’s not so ironic after all, since Howie has been banned.

 

[josie_L]

Perhaps then it is time to reflect. Was it Howie who banned himself. Or was it the consistency of the Catholic position that irked him.

There has to be a better way to continue dialogue with our separated brethren. A better way to present the truth, and not loose future Howies.

.

The best thing we could do is pray for him.

 

[MrS]

HOCKEY! Did you say hockey? Did you watch the “Wings” yesterday? What a performance. I had my doubts about my “winged warriors” going up against the Hawks. But after yesterday, I must say, they are hittin’ on all cylinders.

Tomster
(Born and raised in the motor city!)

I find that very easy to believe… not that the Wings could inspire doubt…

but

that your name is Thomas

Doubt no more… your sin is forgiven… go (Wings) and doubt no more!!

.