John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Tomster]

Luther was a heretic.

He prefered his own authority over that of the Church, although he recognized that :

“Anyone who is to find Christ must first find the church. How could anyone know where Christ is and what faith is in him unless he knew where his believers are?”

This site is one I happened to just stumble across…

interesting…
home.inreach.com/bstanley/sorigin.htm

.

And the wait continues for any non-Catholic Christian out there to give us a definition of just exactly what they believe to the Church to be.

Perhaps we should examine what Dr. Luther had to say on the topic and compare it to what the other Reformers had to say. I wonder if all the Reformers agreed completely on this vital matter?

Great link MrS. Thank you! (Care for a cigar?)

 

[Tomster]

No, you’re pointing out what you consider to be a false conclusion by Dr. M. What DLC asked was what false statements did Dr.M make regarding Catholic teaching.

The proof is in the pudding.

The Protestant Reformation was founded on three claims:

1. Sola Fidei/Sola Gratia - Faith/Grace Alone
2. Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone
3. Sola Christus - Christ Alone

Now, if you are sincere and want to discuss the issues, then, by all means, let’s talk.

For now, I will just say that:

1. Sola Fidei/Gratia = Determinism
2. Sola Scriptura = Relativism
3. Sola Christus = Pantheism

 

[MrS]

Perhaps we should examine what Dr. Luther had to say on the topic and compare it to what the other Reformers had to say.** I wonder if all the Reformers agreed** completely on this vital matter?
(Care for a cigar?)

Again I ask as I did in #545:

As you may surmise by now, this is my offering on that question, and the corresponding question

“Which non-Catholic should I believe?”

.

*I think the best (though impossible) thing that could happen would be to have Howie, and Prot101 , and actually anyone who has a question or problem with the authority of the Catholic Church…

So we can only, at this time… IMAGINE:

[1] being 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

*As always, I welcome your thoughts on these two scenario.

.

 

[Protestant101]

Again I ask as I did in #545:

As you may surmise by now, this is my offering on that question, and the corresponding question

“Which non-Catholic should I believe?”

.

I think the best (though impossible) thing that could happen would be to have Howie, and Prot101 , and actually anyone who has a question or problem with the authority of the Catholic Church…

*So we can only, at this time… IMAGINE: *

[1] being 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

As always, I welcome your thoughts on these two scenario.
.

Right now; I am in the same room as “Me, Myself, and I.” All of us are in complete disagreement with your post.

 

[MrS]

Right now; I am in the same room as “Me, Myself, and I.” All of us are in complete disagreement with your post.

hahahahah thanks for the laugh.

I guess that is your way of saying the first group would agree on those topics… yeah, right.

.

 

[guanophore]

From the passages that tell us not add or subtract from the Bible or we are in grave danger from God, tells us that the Bible alone is our sole authority for faith and practice, Rev. 22:18; Proverbs30:6; Deut. 4:2; 12:32.

No, DL, you are not understanding about “adding” to Scripture. You see, the Catholic Church “added” the entire NT to the Alexandrian Septuagint, and called it “Bible”.

God does not tell us that the Bible is the sole authority for fatih and practice. You are misunderstanding the scriptures you have cited here. However, this is not an SS thread. Suffice to say that what was referenced about Macarthur is in error, because the Doctrine of SS iself is not biblical, and the Catholic Church produced the Bible, making it the most biblical of all.

 

[Protestant101]

No, DL, you are not understanding about “adding” to Scripture. You see, the Catholic Church “added” the entire NT to the Alexandrian Septuagint, and called it “Bible”.

God does not tell us that the Bible is the sole authority for fatih and practice. You are misunderstanding the scriptures you have cited here. However, this is not an SS thread. Suffice to say that what was referenced about Macarthur is in error, because the Doctrine of SS iself is not biblical, and the Catholic Church produced the Bible, making it the most biblical of all.

Actually, we cannot produce one iota of Scripture; we can only discover it; we are not producers of Holy Scripture, but we can be products of God’s Word.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, we cannot produce one iota of Scripture; we can only discover it; we are not producers of Holy Scripture, but we can be products of God’s Word.

The creation of the scripture, just like the nature of Christ, is incarnational. It has a divine element, and a human element. Men, inspired by God, wrote. It is a cooperative act between the HS and men.

Most people are products of what they think God’s word is. In all sincerity, they interpret it according to their own experiences, attitudes and education (or lack of it). This is why there are so many divisions in ecclesial communities where SS is practiced. Each man does what is right in his own eyes.

 

[Protestant101]

The creation of the scripture, just like the nature of Christ, is incarnational. It has a divine element, and a human element. Men, inspired by God, wrote. It is a cooperative act between the HS and men.

Most people are products of what they think God’s word is. In all sincerity, they interpret it according to their own experiences, attitudes and education (or lack of it). This is why there are so many divisions in ecclesial communities where SS is practiced. Each man does what is right in his own eyes.

The “human” element has nothing to do with “creation” of Scripture. It is all from God, to us. If we go by the exact way you say it here; then it really just boils down to the men who wrote God’s Voice to us simply used their own private interpretations to “create” the Scripture - something you seem to love accusing Protestants of.

Scripture was not “created” by men. It was spoken by God. And likewise led by God, we speak it and write it as we “have seen and heard and handled of the Word of life.” (1 Jo.1:1-3) That is nowhere near the Biblical concept of “private interpretation.”

 

[M0nkey]

The “human” element has nothing to do with “creation” of Scripture.

That maybe true since God is at source of our very being and thoughts, but there is a cooperative part in which God wills for us to join in His will. For example, in Mary’s fiat: “be it done unto me according to thy word”, it’s not that the angel came and *told *Mary to conceive this child, she willingly *cooperated *with the work of the holy spirit.

 

[Tomster]

Again I ask as I did in #545:

As you may surmise by now, this is my offering on that question, and the corresponding question

“Which non-Catholic should I believe?”

.

I think the best (though impossible) thing that could happen would be to have Howie, and Prot101 , and actually anyone who has a question or problem with the authority of the Catholic Church…

So we can only, at this time… IMAGINE:

[1] being 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

As always, I welcome your thoughts on these two scenario.

.

Well, from an historical point of view, Protestant scholars have always tried to analyze the background of American sectarianism. They frankly admit that while Protestants have been divided into different sects from the beginning, the division has not been so rapid or radical as in the United States.

Most Protestants are agreed that sectarianism is evil. They are ashamed and deeply concerned about their destiny. 'We call the world," they confess, “burdened with its own tragic divisions of race and class and nationality, to find unity in the one Father and the one Christ, and then we add other divisions to those with which it already struggles. ‘Woe unto the world because of its offenses.’ The simple are confused and the sensitive are offended by the incongruity between the churches and the Church.” (Lambeth Conference, London, 1920, Resolution 68)

Unlike European Protestantism which has a semblance of some stability behind its denominations, the American churches have no valid objection to make when a dissatisfied group wishes to secede. In fact, secession was part of the American tradition since practically every sect which migrated to the States had broken away from the parent denomination in Europe. How could the parent now chide her children for doing what she herself had done a century or two before?

The Baptists had originally been Anglicans who as Separatists were opposed to English ritualism. The Methodists had broken with England for much the same reason. Evangelical Lutherans escaped Germany where the Emperor tried to amalgamate them them with the hated rationalists. Quakers were an offshoot of Non-Conformism. Disciples and Christians were malcontents from the Baptisits and Presbyterians. When they began to splinter into sects it was because of this concept of liberty had been bred into them by their forebearers. They had learned to express dissatisfaction by starting a new religious body.

 

[MrS]

‘Woe unto the world because of its offenses.’ The simple are confused and the sensitive are offended by the incongruity between the churches and the Church." (Lambeth Conference, London, 1920, Resolution 68)

.

do you mean the same conference at which the idea of contraception was changed from evil to good?

Another BIG difference between the Church founded by Jesus Christ and many if not most of the usurpers that are formed by a man (or woman)… contraception.

.

 

[Tomster]

do you mean the same conference at which the idea of contraception was changed from evil to good?

Another BIG difference between the Church founded by Jesus Christ and many if not most of the usurpers that are formed by a man (or woman)… contraception.

.

Yes I do, my friend. Yes I do!

 

[guanophore]

The “human” element has nothing to do with “creation” of Scripture. It is all from God, to us.

Such a statement reflects a deficient understanding of how God works through humans.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

The Scriptures did not simply fall out of the sky in completed form. Although the “impulse” (creative force) behind Scripture is Divine, God brings it to us through the human element (men, moved by the HS). To say that there is no human element is to deny the revelation of God.

Here is another example:

2 Peter 3:15-16
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Peter testifies that the letters Paul wrote are Scripture. He also testifies that Paul is writing “according to the wisdom given him”. This came from Divine Revelation, but is expressed through Paul’s human faculties.

Peter also testfies that the wisdom of humans is insufficient, by itself, to understand the scriptures properly. This is why Jesus appointed a teaching authority in the Church.

Here is another example:

2 Peter 1:12-15
12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. 15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

Peter writes to the disciples that he is writing them “by way of reminder”. They have already received the Word of God by preaching of the Gospel. Now, he knows that his end is near, and that he will be departing his body soon. Up until now, Peter brought the inspired/inerrant word to the disciples through his humanity, in his preaching and writing.

If we go by the exact way you say it here; then it really just boils down to the men who wrote God’s Voice to us simply used their own private interpretations to “create” the Scripture - something you seem to love accusing Protestants of.

I see what you are saying, but these are two different things. When one is moved by the HS, one is able to act infallibly, and to speak and write the word of God without error.

An example of this is Peter’s statement:

Matt 16:15-19
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Even non-Catholics will agree that the statement made by Peter here is an infallible revelation of God.

However, in the next verse, we see Peter upbrading the Lord about the crucifixion, and the Lord tells him:

Matt 16:21-23
21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

So it is clear that an inerrant, God inspiried statement and a satanic one can come from the same person, even within a few minutes of each other! This is the nature of the human person.

 

[guanophore]

Scripture was not “created” by men. It was spoken by God. And likewise led by God, we speak it and write it as we “have seen and heard and handled of the Word of life.” (1 Jo.1:1-3)

Yes and no. Those that wrote scripture were co-creators with God. They participated in His Divine Nature so that the inspired/inerrant Word might be made manifest through their writing.

That is nowhere near the Biblical concept of “private interpretation.”

I agree. I think the root of “private interpretation” comes from those who have departed from the authority appointed by Christ to teach what they wrote. Every time it is interpreted apart from the mindset of those who wrote it, error results.

2 Peter 1:16-20

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

To what does the Apostle refer when he testifies “we have the prophetic word made more sure”? He is speaking about the glory of the Son, revealed to them, and their own experience as eyewitnesses to His majesty. This is why it is so essential not to be separated from the eyewitnesses. Being connected to them makes the “prophetic word more sure”.

Many in our day and age have departed from what the Apostles beleived and taught, along with the authority they appointed to shepherd the Church.

 

[MrS]

I agree. I think the root of “private interpretation” comes from those who have departed from the authority appointed by Christ to teach what they wrote. Every time it is interpreted apart from the mindset of those who wrote it, error results.

.

I tend to give them (God, actually) a little more credit than that. After all, when one departs from the Church, and thus the Authority of the Church…

1] They lose/reject many of the sources of grace gives us by Jesus (sacraments for one…errr for seven)
2] They are left with the coin flip on some things… and sometimes they get it right
3] They retain some things of the Truth, like Jesus is God,
4] and (hot topic then, now and forever) they reject/downplay others like Mary. Strange they want grace, and God, and then have no concept of the vessel by which grace has come to us sinners.

.

 

[guanophore]

I tend to give them (God, actually) a little more credit than that. After all, when one departs from the Church, and thus the Authority of the Church…

1] They lose/reject many of the sources of grace gives us by Jesus (sacraments for one…errr for seven)
2] They are left with the coin flip on some things… and sometimes they get it right
3] They retain some things of the Truth, like Jesus is God,
4] and (hot topic then, now and forever) they reject/downplay others like Mary. Strange they want grace, and God, and then have no concept of the vessel by which grace has come to us sinners.

I agree with you, but I stated it that way because, to the extent that they “sometimes get it right” and do retain the Truth, they ARE in union with the Magesterium.

 

[MrS]

I agree with you, but I stated it that way because, to the extent that they “sometimes get it right” and do retain the Truth, they ARE in union with the Magesterium.

they are??? Wow… I know that when the Church clarifies a doctrine it is for all Christians, in all ages, everywhere… yep that would include them if they claim to be Christians.

.

 

[Protestant101]

Yes and no. Those that wrote scripture were co-creators with God. They participated in His Divine Nature so that the inspired/inerrant Word might be made manifest through their writing.

I agree. I think the root of “private interpretation” comes from those who have departed from the authority appointed by Christ to teach what they wrote. Every time it is interpreted apart from the mindset of those who wrote it, error results.

2 Peter 1:16-20

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

To what does the Apostle refer when he testifies “we have the prophetic word made more sure”? He is speaking about the glory of the Son, revealed to them, and their own experience as eyewitnesses to His majesty. This is why it is so essential not to be separated from the eyewitnesses. Being connected to them makes the “prophetic word more sure”.

Many in our day and age have departed from what the Apostles beleived and taught, along with the authority they appointed to shepherd the Church.

I have a topic somewhere here which I have started some time ago - called “Questions About The Bible.” I will look for it, and when I find it; we can dig deeper into the concept of “private interpretation.” I will pm you with the link.

While I can agree that MacArthur did in some cases fall victim to it; I also see much of what He says about the Catholic approach to Scripture as quite true. The man was not wrong about everything.

We are not “co-creators” of Holy Scripture. This is a very deficient understanding of God’s Word, and it is a very “private” interpretation. Scripture is given to us, and we discover it; we do not create it. Jesus, the ultimate Word, was given to us - we do not create Him, when He is “formed withing us.”

 

[M0nkey]

Jesus, the ultimate Word, was given to us - we do not create Him, when He is “formed withing us.”

Well then how you explain the need for Mary? Clearly if it was God alone, God could have made Him from rocks. But He didn’t.