J
- Status
T
Tomster
Guest
“Franzen!, Franzen!, Franzen!”Die hard Wings fan here too!
Ride the Mule!!!
(I’m from Motown as well.)
kpeople:
T
Tomster
Guest
M
MrS
Guest
I was thinking about that…
Since the Wings are so awesome, and the doubting of such awesome-ness imperils your very existence…
I suppose I should determine a penance based on both your level of sincerity (hhmmm) and the severity of your offense,…
let’s see… eternity… smoking or non-smoking… hhmmmm
.
C
Cinette
Guest
I am not surprised that Howie has been banned because he is obviously a very confused individual.Many on this thread have used that passage to attempt to make the case the Bible is hard to understand.
I find what all of you on this thread are saying with respect to that, laughable.
First, the context says no such thing, unless you consider the writings of Paul TO BE the “Bible.”
Can I have a show of hands—how many Catholics believe that the Bible = the epistles of Paul only ???
Second, Catholics on this forum maintain that there was no Bible at that time, and that there would be no Bible for 400 years.
In fact, MrS, in post #501, made that very statement yesterday.
He said, for 400 years, there was no Bible…no New Testament.
And a few days before that, MrS offered 2 Pet 3 as a proof that the Bible is hard to understand.
IMO, you folks are amazingly inconsistent and confused about a lot of things.
ISTM that you’re willing to say just about anything the situation demands in order for you to make a point, whether accurate or not, “who cares?” seems to be your attitude.
In fact, Cinette’s offering of the verse isn’t even accurate:2 Peter 3:15-16
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, 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.Peter’s speaking of the difficulty of some of the things Paul writes about. And what those things are is spelled out by the earlier context.
Note as well, that Peter doesn’t say the hard things are IMPOSSIBLE to understand, but one must work at it. IOW, you won’t get it from studying the Catechism, but Scripture.
Which Catholic should I believe?..Which one’s telling the truth?..and which one’s telling a tale to fit the situation?
ISTM, none of you guys has your story straight
This is unfortunate but necessary because it becomes impossible to debate with individuals full of aggression. Howie obviously was not nere to debate but looking for a fight. It is as plain as that.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Make no mistake about it; Howie was not banned for his confusion. He was banned by how he expressed his confusion.
God bless you
M
MrS
Guest
Yes and no…I am not surprised that Howie has been banned because he is obviously a very confused individual.
This is unfortunate but necessary because it becomes impossible to debate with individuals full of aggression. Howie obviously was not nere to debate but looking for a fight. It is as plain as that.
One of the great things about CAF is not just the discussions that occur with different posters of different faiths…
but also the number of “quiet” viewers that watch the direction of the threads as they look for answers.
We actually appreciate the Howies of the world because they tend to show viewers, or those just passing through, a good picture of the differences between the Catholic Church and all other usurpers (is my bias showing??)
.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think he is more likely to react to the possibility that the Apostles can hear our prayers, and respond to them. I dont think he believes in the communion of saints.Now, you just KNOW that Howie will jump out of his skin.
Howie will understand that you mean he twists “some” verses to fit his personal beliefs, but you said “Scripture”. So he will jump and shout that he does not twist ALL of Scripture through ignorance.
well…
maybe he does,… hehehehe
G
guanophore
Guest
Who are you to tell us what we “should” do ?
Some members here are anti-Catholic, and it is that prejudice against the faith that is at the basis of the misunderstandings. It does very little good to talk about other issues, if the faulty foundation is not addressed.
The other error you propose here is that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and morals. To accept this erroneous premise would be to abandon the Apostolic Faith that was committed to the Church.
No, this is not true. I am always grieved to find anti-Catholic sentiment. I find it saddening and I experience the wound of separation and division in the Body that He wanted to be One.
Not everyone who agrees with Catholic teaching is “anti”. Many do not even realize that they are opposing the Teachings that the Apostles committed to the Church.
Of course it is distressing to see people ignore the history of Christendom, and replace it with some strange fabrication of “apostacy” or other ideas, like Constantine starting the Catholic Church.
I am relieved that your anti-catholic sentiments (with regard to doctrine) have not prevented you from love and fellowship with those who espouse them. You are right, I have not “half an idea” about this. I can only go by the things you post, which have been consistently anti-catholic. The fact that you can embrace Catholics and love them is a testimony to the Spirit if God working in you.
At times it is not conducive to dialogue, and I acknowledge that. However, failure to identify the source of some of the material that is posted her is not ultimately helpful.
To the extent that I have failed to acknowledge the love and fellowship that you have extended to those in your life that you believe are embracing apostacy, I apologize. It does take a magnanmous person to embrace those who are on the road to perdition.
This is exactly true. I listen to Father John Corapi every day (if I can) and he is extremely forceful. Forceful does not equate to heresy.
I am equally certain that MacArthur has never been exposed to authentic Apostolic Teaching. He cannot qualify as a heretic, because that term presupposes that he was taught the Truth, and willfully chose to abandon it. Clearly, he has never really known what the Apostles believed and taught.
I believe that he engages in his anticatholic rhetoric in all sincerity.
An examiniation of the Bible often shows different people “opposites”. This is why we have such a plethora of “denominations”. Each one who gives an “honest examination” of the the Bible comes out where his own perceptions lead him. In this way “each one does what is right in his own eyes”. This is what has cause the splintering of Christendom, and it is the reason that Jesus appointed a teaching authority so that the scriptures could be opened according to Christ. Remember the disciples on the road to Emmaus!
G
guanophore
Guest
Of course, all the Apostles bring our prayers to Jesus. Anyone who askes an Apostle for prayer will have fortified prayers to our Lord. Have you ever realized that, when they asked Him to teach them to pray, He taught “Our Father”. We are together before Him. Yes, Christ alone is our light. Yet, being generous and full of grace, He enables us to participate in His Light.You go ahead and pray to your “apostles” I will follow MacArthur’s example of praying to Jesus. He alone is our Light.
Phil 2:14-16
14 Do all things without grumbling or questioning, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast the word of life,
The reason that we can shine as lights in the world is because we are infused with the light of Christ. We are to be light and salt to the world. This light does not come from ourselves, but from Him.
James 5:16 “pray for one another”
Do you imagine that the saints are no longer able to pray for one another, after they have gone to be with the Lord?
G
guanophore
Guest
Doggone it! Did he get himself banned? I thought we were just getting to the point!
I think banned people can still access the site, and read. They just cannot post. You are right, though, the thing to do is to post for the lurkers.
M
moondweller
Guest
Because “the flesh profits nothing” - her being the Mother of the Son of God would be nothing, had she not had faith. There are reasons to venerate her, but mere bodily relationship to Christ is not a good one. Especially as He set no store by them, but redefined such relationships. But we seem to ignore that - for Catholicism, the flesh is everything and the spirit next to nothing
From Matthew 18:
I can see how that “proves” that Jesus is no Saviour for us, & that we have no forgiveness of sins through Him: but how is any of it relevant to - which it must be, if it is to be a negation of - the unlooseableness of salvation ?
- [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew18.htm (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew18.htm)
Though if salvation can be lost, Jesus is no saviour,and his early followers were liars of the most contemptible kind. What could be more fake & deceitful & useless than a so-called Saviour who cannot save ? But if He’s the Saviour & can’t save, then faith in Him is mind-bogglingly pointless & worthless, & a massive waste of time, as well as being a gigantic delusion. So the Churches might as well shut up shop once and for all, and do something useful for once, rather than preaching comforting lies & picking people’s pockets of trillions of pounds & dollars, which go to educate people in the lie that is Christianity. Such shamelessness is beyond belief.
If that sounds harsh, it’s nothing in comparison with what ought to be said about Christianity. But* if* salvation can be lost, it follows that Christianity is an anti-social fraud, that deserves to be suppressed.
They can merit an increase of grease; but only per accidens - they cannot, in a googolplex of a trillion Kaliyugas (which is a very long time indeed), “bring grace” in any other way. Grace is - well, gratuitous, free, not paid for by us; so it cannot be a reward or a wage; for then it is not grace. It can come, if at all, only as an outright gift. To believe we could merit grace quoad substantiam, would indeed be "works salvation"
Extremely well stated, indeed!
D
DLClark
Guest
Can you share just one false statement that Dr. MacArthur has made concerning the Catholic church.
M
moondweller
Guest
Good question.
M
MrS
Guest
If the statement of faith of Grace Community Church is filled with false teachings and declarations (as I believe that it is),
and if those teaching are false on their own merit, not just because they contradict the Catholic Church… which IS Jesus Christ…
that is more than enough for any one searching for Truth, to avoid the man-made beliefs adhered to by MacArthur.
Making a false statement, even if that statement is honestly believed to be correct, is still a false statement. MacArthur does not necessarily have to decry the One Church founded by Jesus in clear attack mode, to still be guilty of attacking the Truth.
He is in error, thanks to the disconnects begun by the Reformers on justification and sanctification; the 2nd Coming; the rapture, tribulation and the end times in general; the canon of scripture; the supremacy of the Bible (ironic that he displays an authority that something else is the final authority); the atonement; predestination; OSAS; and on and on and on
In his own words… he actually describes himself…
T*he key to being a successful false teacher is to tell as much of the truth as possible" (MacArthur’s Bible Study Guide, Joy And Godliness, p. 17);
and
“The subtlety of false teaching is that it uses the Word of God but misrepresents its teaching. Those who teach something explicitly and overtly anti-biblical, anti-Christ, and anti-God pose no real threat to the Christian church. But subtle teaching that appears to be biblical yet pulls unwary souls away from the faith is a great danger to the church” (MacArthur’s Bible Study Guide, *Avoiding Spiritual Counterfeiters, p. 17).
from his study bible, this observation:
On the historic, orthodox, creedal view that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is immanent and eternal, this new Bible did indeed “let the systems go.” The notations on Hebrews 1:5 and 7:3 demolished the historic creedal view that Christ is the Eternal Son of God, hence there is no eternal and immanent Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not “new,” but compared to the view of Bible doctrine expressed in the Creeds, Confessions, and Theological “standards,” it is heterodox. In other writings, MacArthur has also expressed the view which makes the Trinity a “nameless” unity, as he believes the “Son” is a “role” assumed by the “second person” in the flesh, which also implies the “Father” is a “role” assumed by the “first person.”
*MacArthur contends in his *Study Bible that “Sonship” refers to Christ in the “role” of “Son” which supposedly began in a “point of time” when He was incarnated via the virgin birth. This birth constituted Him as the “Son.” This is sometimes called “incarnational sonship.” MacArthur uses the Syriac Pershitta translation on Hebrews 7:3 to bring the reading of the passage more in line with his theory. We view Hebrews 7:3 as one of the strongest Biblical affirmations of the Eternal Sonship of the “Son,” and the MacArthur note demolishes this great truth from that passage. (Excerpted from a 7/21/97 e-mail from Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications.)
and
“He [Christ] is no ‘eternal son’ always subservient to God, always less than God, always under God. … It [Son] is his human title, and we should never get trapped in the heretical idea that Jesus Christ is eternally subservient to God” (Commentary on Hebrews, 1983, pp. 28-29).
In late-August of 1999, MacArthur released an extensive statement recanting his position of Incarnational Sonship. A key portion of that statement read as follows: "I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of ‘incarnational sonship.’ Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ’s sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation
another perspective…
jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Lordship%20Salvation/macarthur.htm
or
jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/macarthur_heresy_on_the_blood.htm
In summary, you don’t have to be Catholic to see that MacArthur is his own authority.
The man-made denominations can duke it out all by themselves. Amazingly, most non-Catholics don’t see what this chaos has meant to them… missing out on the fullness of the Truth found only in the Catholic Church…
.
J
jam070406
Guest
Mac denies the Trinity??If the statement of faith of Grace Community Church is filled with false teachings and declarations (as I believe that it is),
and if those teaching are false on their own merit, not just because they contradict the Catholic Church… which IS Jesus Christ…
that is more than enough for any one searching for Truth, to avoid the man-made beliefs adhered to by MacArthur.
Making a false statement, even if that statement is honestly believed to be correct, is still a false statement. MacArthur does not necessarily have to decry the One Church founded by Jesus in clear attack mode, to still be guilty of attacking the Truth.
He is in error, thanks to the disconnects begun by the Reformers on justification and sanctification; the 2nd Coming; the rapture, tribulation and the end times in general; the canon of scripture; the supremacy of the Bible (ironic that he displays an authority that something else is the final authority); the atonement; predestination; OSAS; and on and on and on
In his own words… he actually describes himself…
T*he key to being a successful false teacher is to tell as much of the truth as possible" (MacArthur’s Bible Study Guide, Joy And Godliness, p. 17);
and
“The subtlety of false teaching is that it uses the Word of God but misrepresents its teaching. Those who teach something explicitly and overtly anti-biblical, anti-Christ, and anti-God pose no real threat to the Christian church. But subtle teaching that appears to be biblical yet pulls unwary souls away from the faith is a great danger to the church” (MacArthur’s Bible Study Guide, *Avoiding Spiritual Counterfeiters, p. 17).
from his study bible, this observation:
On the historic, orthodox, creedal view that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is immanent and eternal, this new Bible did indeed “let the systems go.” The notations on Hebrews 1:5 and 7:3 demolished the historic creedal view that Christ is the Eternal Son of God, hence there is no eternal and immanent Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not “new,” but compared to the view of Bible doctrine expressed in the Creeds, Confessions, and Theological “standards,” it is heterodox. In other writings, MacArthur has also expressed the view which makes the Trinity a “nameless” unity, as he believes the “Son” is a “role” assumed by the “second person” in the flesh, which also implies the “Father” is a “role” assumed by the “first person.”
*MacArthur contends in his *Study Bible that “Sonship” refers to Christ in the “role” of “Son” which supposedly began in a “point of time” when He was incarnated via the virgin birth. This birth constituted Him as the “Son.” This is sometimes called “incarnational sonship.” MacArthur uses the Syriac Pershitta translation on Hebrews 7:3 to bring the reading of the passage more in line with his theory. We view Hebrews 7:3 as one of the strongest Biblical affirmations of the Eternal Sonship of the “Son,” and the MacArthur note demolishes this great truth from that passage. (Excerpted from a 7/21/97 e-mail from Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications.)
and
“He [Christ] is no ‘eternal son’ always subservient to God, always less than God, always under God. … It [Son] is his human title, and we should never get trapped in the heretical idea that Jesus Christ is eternally subservient to God” (Commentary on Hebrews, 1983, pp. 28-29).
In late-August of 1999, MacArthur released an extensive statement recanting his position of Incarnational Sonship. A key portion of that statement read as follows: "I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of ‘incarnational sonship.’ Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ’s sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation
another perspective…
jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Lordship%20Salvation/macarthur.htm
or
jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/macarthur_heresy_on_the_blood.htm
In summary, you don’t have to be Catholic to see that MacArthur is his own authority.
The man-made denominations can duke it out all by themselves. Amazingly, most non-Catholics don’t see what this chaos has meant to them… missing out on the fullness of the Truth found only in the Catholic Church…
.
What other doctrines will Mac change his mind on and abandon??
M
MrS
Guest
More to the issue… since he does not have Apostolic Authority, he is free to change his mind… just like Luther, … just like Calvin… just like J White… just like the Catholics who leave their faith…Mac denies the Trinity??
What other doctrines will Mac change his mind on and abandon??
they all lack true understanding.
MacArthur can be the most sincere, and inspiring, and educated lover of the Lord ever…
but he has no Authority. Instead he is at odds with not only other faith communities (all started by a man or a woman), but also at odds with the Catholic Church (started by Jesus Christ).
,
M
M0nkey
Guest
That the Church is not biblical because it does not follow the heresy of sola scriptura (fail).
- Status