John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Protestant101]

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.

Mary did not “create” Jesus by being His Mother. Thats a pretty simple equation.

 

[MrS]

Mary did not “create” Jesus by being His Mother. Thats a pretty simple equation.

Correct… she procreated Him.

You were procreated by your parents and by God.

God chooses the plan, and we should be in awe that He wants our cooperation in so much of Hid plan

That would include His Church. His plan was to build only ONE, and to build it on the Rock of Peter, whom He put in charge by virtue of the office of “prime minister” as referenced in Isaiah.

As to Mary… she is the vessel by which our Savior was given to us… God’s plan, her fiat.

You ought to consider that same channel, Mary, when you give back to God. Grace came to us through her… and she can go to her Son on our behalf… just like at Cana.

.

 

[guanophore]

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.”

I agree, we are not co-creators of Scripture, but those who penned it were.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

Mary did not “create” Jesus by being His Mother. Thats a pretty simple equation.

Actually, she did. He was “formed” in her womb, from her flesh. He was created in her just like all human embryos are created in their mothers. If you deny this, then you deny one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity. Your comment may reflect a gnostic or Arian view of Christ, both of which are heresies.

The reason the incarnation is a good metaphor for the Scripture is because of the nature of Christ. If you have the nature of Christ wrong, you will nto be able to understand the nature of the Scriptures, either.

 

[M0nkey]

Mary did not “create” Jesus by being His Mother. Thats a pretty simple equation.

That’s not my point. You seem to neglect that it was through human hands in which the bible was written. I think we can agree we did not “create” it, but God ordained it so that we could *cooperate *with His will. I think what you are saying is that it was God alone who wrote the scriptures, but the fact is that the bible didn’t just drop out of the sky and it took many years of work across many generations, which would prove you wrong.

 

[Protestant101]

That’s not my point. You seem to neglect that it was through human hands in which the bible was written. I think we can agree we did not “create” it, but God ordained it so that we could *cooperate *with His will. I think what you are saying is that it was God alone who wrote the scriptures, but the fact is that the bible didn’t just drop out of the sky and it took many years of work across many generations, which would prove you wrong.

None of those people who wrote the Bible as God directed were Catholics. Not a single one, for you can only trace your Church history to just after the death of Jesus - or so you say.

Bible authors include:

Moses, the adopted son of a famous princess of Egypt, ; David - shepherd boy of Judea who became king of a great nation; Solomon his son, the wisest of ancient sages; Ezra, the careful scribe and Godly scholar in the days of Cyrus the Persian; Daniel, the primeminister of two great universal kingdoms; Joshua, the freed slave of Egypt; Amos, a herdsman of Tekoa; Mathew the tax collector; John and Peter, two fishermen; Luke the physician; and Paul, the learned Pharisee. All of these wrote a unified gospel message which has been altered, IMHO by a purported Catholic Church “authority.”

While I can agree that MacArthur’s position on the “Protestant” version of “justification” is skewered with slippery slope error; I also have no trouble with the concept he espouses that there is inbuilt error with the Catholic version of “justification.” The intrinsic muscle of Catholic justification, is a tortuous departure from original Christianity; and depends upon Catholic Church “authority,” to “justify” a given person.

MacArthur makes many good points, all true, about the Catholic position on Sola Scriptura, the Catholic position being a radical shift from what was once delivered unto the saints.

MacArthur makes a number of incontrovertable points about the Bible; some of which I have quoted below. I think Catholicism has judged him in a very wrong light:

First, the Bible is true because it gives us the experience it claims it will. For example,
the Bible says God will forgive our sin (1 John 1:9). I believe that, and I can truly say
that I have a sense of freedom from guilt. The Bible also says that “if any man is in
Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17 ). That’s what happened to me when I came to Jesus Christ. The Bible changes lives. Someone has said that a Bible that’s falling apart usually belongs to someone who isn’t. That’s true because the Bible can put lives together. Millions of people all over the world are living proof that that is true. Maybe you know one or two of them. They’ve experienced the Bible’s power.

The Power of the Bible

The Bible is an amazing book. It’s amazing in that it stands up to many tests of
authenticity. But beyond that, it’s particularly amazing when looked at from a spiritual and
moral perspective.
The Bible claims to be alive and powerful. That’s a tremendous statement. I have never read
any other living book. There are some books that change your thinking, but this is the only
book that can change your nature. This is the only book that can totally transform you from
the inside out.
There’s a section in Psalm 19 that is Scripture’s own testimony to itself. This is what it
says:
The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether. (vv. 7-9)

 

[M0nkey]

None of those people who wrote the Bible as God directed were Catholics.

What? St. Paul was very much a Catholic. You need to read in his epistles when he talks about being submissive to the authority of the presbyters of the Church. Your ideas of self-imposed authority fly in the face of scripture.

 

[Protestant101]

What? St. Paul was very much a Catholic. You need to read in his epistles when he talks about being submissive to the authority of the presbyters of the Church. Your ideas of self-imposed authority fly in the face of scripture.

No; actually they don’t. You cannot deny the pre-eminent importance of Catholic “authority” in “interpreting” Holy Scripture.

But, none of the disciples were Catholic. None of them advocated Church authority over Scripture authority. MacArthur has tried to refute the role of “authority” which Catholics espouse, and it is understandable how you are obligated to oppose him, and to negatively characterize him; but he makes many good points for the case of Sola Scriptura.

 

[guanophore]

None of those people who wrote the Bible as God directed were Catholics. Not a single one, for you can only trace your Church history to just after the death of Jesus - or so you say.

You are right, only the NT was penned by Catholics, as those who were in Christ when the Church was born were Catholic. Those Catholics later collected and canonized the books of the OT and the NT into what we now call the Bible. In the middle ages, chapters and verses were added by the Catholic Church for ease of reference.

Bible authors include:

Mathew the tax collector; John and Peter, two fishermen; Luke the physician; and Paul, the learned Pharisee. All of these wrote a unified gospel message which has been altered, IMHO by a purported Catholic Church “authority.”

All of these persons were Catholics. I agree that they did not start out that way, but they were Catholic when they wrote what later became NT books.

If you believe that the CC has altered the gospel message, why are you here on CAF?

While I can agree that MacArthur’s position on the “Protestant” version of “justification” is skewered with slippery slope error; I also have no trouble with the concept he espouses that there is inbuilt error with the Catholic version of “justification.” The intrinsic muscle of Catholic justification, is a tortuous departure from original Christianity; and depends upon Catholic Church “authority,” to “justify” a given person.

It seems that you have a very warped perception of what the Catholic Church teaches, along with some significant hostility and fear of catholic authority.

MacArthur makes many good points, all true, about the Catholic position on Sola Scriptura, the Catholic position being a radical shift from what was once delivered unto the saints.

Such a statement emanates from a gross lack of knowledge about the early church.

MacArthur makes a number of incontrovertable points about the Bible; some of which I have quoted below. I think Catholicism has judged him in a very wrong light:

Actually, Catholicism does not “judge” anyone, including Catholics. We respect that judgement is up to God.

The Catholic Church is required to discern heresy, and speak out against it. MacArthur publishes many untruthful and heretical ideas. The one in the OP being a good example.

 

[guanophore]

You cannot deny the pre-eminent importance of Catholic “authority” in “interpreting” Holy Scripture.

Certainly not. The Apostles did consider themselves authoritative with regard to interpreting the scripture. They received this authority from Christ.

But, none of the disciples were Catholic. None of them advocated Church authority over Scripture authority.

If this is how you define Catholic, then I agree with you. However, this is not CAtholic teaching and practice, and only represents your personal misunderstanding, and therefore, is not correct.

The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are two equal strands of Divine Revelation that are not intended to be separated from one another. Each complements the other, and each is authoritative.

MacArthur has tried to refute the role of “authority” which Catholics espouse, and it is understandable how you are obligated to oppose him, and to negatively characterize him; but he makes many good points for the case of Sola Scriptura.

Yes, I believe he does make good points for SS. He is one of the most proficient proponents around today of this dangerous and destructive heresy.

 

[DLClark]

As I read this threadopcorn: when Baptists question our history I wonder if they ever look at there own Southern Baptist history and there use of scripture to rationalize slavery and segregation. If this is not true please correct me.

True Christianity is not found in any church. Those who follow sola scripturs and faith alone for salvation are the ones who make up the true church. the catholic church bases its salvation on works. They do not believe in faith alone for salvation. As a result they can never be sure that when they die that they will be in heaven.

 

[Protestant101]

Yes, I believe he does make good points for SS. He is one of the most proficient proponents around today of this dangerous and destructive heresy.

Of course; you are going to continue to say how I “misunderstand” Catholics, but I have made some statements and provided some quotes by MacArthur, regarding sola scriptura…It’s funny that inspite of all your rhetoric, you have made zero progress in proving that sola scriptura is “dangerous heresy.” How is it so dangerous? And where do we find that charge in official catholic writing?

Can you provide something MacArthur said re sola scriptura that you do not see as valid? Maybe then, we will have something less emotional than accusations of “misunderstanding” to go on, and some true facts can emerge.

Lets see who understands what. can you provide me with a definition of sola scriptura? What is your personal understanding of the concept?

 

[Protestant101]

True Christianity is not found in any church. Those who follow sola scripturs and faith alone for salvation are the ones who make up the true church. the catholic church bases its salvation on works. They do not believe in faith alone for salvation. As a result they can never be sure that when they die that they will be in heaven.

True Christianity can be found in all churches. God has His people everywhere. (Rev.18:4)

 

[MrS]

True Christianity is not found in any church. Those who follow sola scripturs and faith alone for salvation are the ones who make up the true church. the catholic church bases its salvation on works. They do not believe in faith alone for salvation. As a result they can never be sure that when they die that they will be in heaven.

So there is no such thing as “true Christianity” then in your opinion. Now I understand… by denying any Church as “true” you have the opportunity to both reject Catholicism, and even place your faith community on par with any other… that is simply easy believism.

If you have to follow SS and Faith alone… then there was no church until their was a full Scripture. That is not only goofy, it is heresy, and it is Baptist.

The Catholic Church believes and has always taught that we are saved by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, working in Love. If you choose to ignore that, or misrepresent it, as you have here, then you are the “un-true Christian”… And you are in error as much as a Catholic who does not understand their own faith.

As for the assurance of our salvation… many Catholics make the sin of presumption just as you are doing. The do it out of ignorance. I trust that is the only reason you also commit that sin.

I hope I never lose my free will to sin… I believe God’s gift of free will ( to accept or reject Him at any point in my life) is His way of allowing me to love Him more… not OSAS and then a free ride… to my own destruction.

.

 

[benedictus2]

Mary did not “create” Jesus by being His Mother. Thats a pretty simple equation.

And we never ever said she did. No one created Jesus. In the same way that your mother and father did not create you. God alone is responsible for creation.

But Mary bore Jesus in her womb. God could have caused the Incarnation from nothing in the manner of Adam and Eve but He CHOSE NOT TO.

The Incarnation through Mary is God’s choice and God’s choices are perfect because God is perfect. Just think how mind blowing that is, that a mere human being should bear in her womb the Lord of Heaven of Earth, the second Person of the Trinity through whom all things were made.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Depends on how you define “produce”. Man did help in the “production” of Holy Scripture because Scripture is God’s word IN man’s word.

Can you clarify what you mean by “we can be products of God’s word”?

 

[benedictus2]

None of those people who wrote the Bible as God directed were Catholics. Not a single one, for you can only trace your Church history to just after the death of Jesus - or so you say.

Well if you believe in Jesus then you have to believe in the New Testament. The writers of the New Testament were Catholics.

Bible authors include:

Moses, the adopted son of a famous princess of Egypt, ; David - shepherd boy of Judea who became king of a great nation; Solomon his son, the wisest of ancient sages; Ezra, the careful scribe and Godly scholar in the days of Cyrus the Persian; Daniel, the primeminister of two great universal kingdoms; Joshua, the freed slave of Egypt; Amos, a herdsman of Tekoa;

Yes these are all Old Testament writers but in the final sum of salvation these will be incorporated into Christ’s Church for the Old Testament is the prefiguration of the New. If these people are saved, then they are saved by Christ. If they are saved by Christ then they belong to His Body the Catholic Church.

Mathew the tax collector; John and Peter, two fishermen; Luke the physician; and Paul, the learned Pharisee. All of these wrote a unified gospel message which has been altered, IMHO by a purported Catholic Church “authority.”

And all these men - Peter, Paul, Matthew, Luke, John were all Catholics. They are the founding fathers of the Catholic Church.

While I can agree that MacArthur’s position on the “Protestant” version of “justification” is skewered with slippery slope error; I also have no trouble with the concept he espouses that there is inbuilt error with the Catholic version of “justification.” The intrinsic muscle of Catholic justification, is a tortuous departure from original Christianity; and depends upon Catholic Church “authority,” to “justify” a given person.

Can you explain what the error is in the Catholic version of justification?

 

[benedictus2]

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

If the human element has nothing to do with creation of Scripture then how do you explain the fact that there are 4 gospels and none of them exactly identical even the synoprtics. If God truly had not regard for the human element He would have caused this to be written without the need for man (just like the ten commandments which he wrote on stone tablets).

Before the OT was written, it was through man’s word of mouth that scripture was passed on. How do you explain that?

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.

Ahh this is where the issue of who has the right to decide what scripture is comes in.

Since prior to the formulation of the canon there were many books floating about, how do you know which of them is truly inspired by God?. Who decides which books should be included? By what authority do they decide which books are to be included?

Scripture was not “created” by men. It was spoken by God.

Spoken by God to be written by man? Is that how it really came about? Did God tell Luke to write what Luke has written, Did God instruct Matthew and Mark to pick up pen and paper and write their gospels? Did these men say that God has spoken to them to write these things?

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.”

If you read verses 1-3 carefully, John was not talking about being instructed by God to write 1 John 1. John was merely saying that he was writing about God in Jesus Christ who he has encountered.

 

[MrS]

God includes both man, and man’s cooperation in His plans.

Procreation… one man, one woman, and God

Scripture… one human author, one Divine author

Ministerial Priesthood… one “in-persona-Christi”, and Christ

Justification… man’s repentance, God’s grace

The Catholic Church… man’s guardianship, God as founder

Magisterium… man’s teaching, Holy Spirit guidance

.

 

[Tomster]

True Christianity is not found in any church. Those who follow sola scripturs and faith alone for salvation are the ones who make up the true church. the catholic church bases its salvation on works. They do not believe in faith alone for salvation. As a result they can never be sure that when they die that they will be in heaven.

Sola Scriptura = relativism.

Faith alone = determinism.

Puhleeese . . . . .

BTW - It seems that by your definition the church is some nebulous, invisible concoction, not the light on the hill that Jesus described.

Take care that you do not lose your “salvation.” Like the Apostle St. Paul said, “I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling.”

 

[ppasa316]

No; actually they don’t. You cannot deny the pre-eminent importance of Catholic “authority” in “interpreting” Holy Scripture.

But, none of the disciples were Catholic. None of them advocated Church authority over Scripture authority. MacArthur has tried to refute the role of “authority” which Catholics espouse, and it is understandable how you are obligated to oppose him, and to negatively characterize him; but he makes many good points for the case of Sola Scriptura.

Very well put Protestant. Sola Scriptura is in the scriptures!