John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[guanophore]

Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God “for every good work.”

Actually, the passage does not say either of these things. Scripture cannot be an “absolute authority” since it does not contain the elements needed to exercise authority, an activity belonging to persons.

Second, the passage never says that it is scripture that equips the man of God. On the contrary, the Scripture itself states that this duty was given to persons who have been authorized and gifted by God for that purpose. What this passage says is that scripture is profitable in that task.

The Catholic Church also teaches that Scripture is sufficient.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Scripture is “sufficient,” and I think you are well aware of that.

Time to check your catechism again, 101. You are bearing false witness against the Catholic Church.

I apologize to all those reading the thread for these long posts. I felt it necessary to give P101 the most complete answer to his question as possible There were so many wrong things, I am surprised that it is only one page.

 

[Daedelus76]

Sola Scriptura has been twisted to the point that alot of folks like MacArthur take it to absurd extremes. In actuality, they are reading the Bible through their own experiences. You really can’t read the Bible apart from experiences, reasoning, and the traditions you were given.

Luther coined the term “sola scriptura”, but he never really thought of the lengths some people would take that to. What Luther’s Reformation was really about, like the Schism in the 11th century, was ecclessiology. Luther never rejected the Ecumenical Councils or anything else that later “reformers” rejected.

Also, MacArthur’s emphasis on justification by faith alone (in an intellectual sense) as something that the scriptures teach is misplaced. Alot of modern Evangelicals, like N.T. Wright (an Evangelical Anglican bishop of Durham, and NT scholar), have a less Reformed or forensic understanding of salvation, one that is more in keeping with the Orthodox or Roman Catholic understanding. This is called the “New Perspective” on Paul, and there’s as much, if not more biblical evidence for it than what Luther, Calvin, and others took out of what Paul said, trying to pit Paul against James. Simply put, the Reformers were basing their understanding of Judaism on erroneous medieval Roman beliefs about what the Jews did, and didn’t believe about the Torah.

I see questions of biblical inerrancy, infallibility as being misguided. It’s a serious misuderstanding of Christianity to say that faith rests on an infallible or inerrant document. This is actually more like Islam in many ways than Christianity or Judaism. A Christian’s faith ultimately should rest upon God.

 

[Tomster]

The invention of Sola Scriptura may be the best of all, since it has functioned to continually splinter and divide Christendom for centuries after it was coined. You know them by their fruits, and separation and division has been the constant fruit of the Reformation.

And this is a fact that our esteemed adversaries will just not acknowledge.

 

[guanophore]

And this is a fact that our esteemed adversaries will just not acknowledge.

When they do, they return home, which demonstrates the inherent danger in opening one’s eyes to this reality. Sometimes, one will do whatever they can to avoid having to become Catholic, even deny the reality right in their face.

 

[M0nkey]

Not to mention, the tradition of sola scriptura suffers from a severe case of historic amnesia. The early universal church could not have upheld such doctrines by the mere fact that the scriptures were not made widely available until the printing press.

 

[Tomster]

The invention of Sola Scriptura may be the best of all, since it has functioned to continually splinter and divide Christendom for centuries after it was coined. You know them by their fruits, and separation and division has been the constant fruit of the Reformation.

Protestant dogma makes no distinction between an inerrant Bible and its fallible readers. The latter, exercising talents and capacities they do not have - an impossibility - manage yet another impossible feat, they make the Bible yield up error.

 

[Tomster]

Not to mention, the tradition of sola scriptura suffers from a severe case of historic amnesia. The early universal church could not have upheld such doctrines by the mere fact that the scriptures were not made widely available until the printing press.

Ah yes, the historical angle. Our esteemed adversaries do have a serious problem when it comes to discussing the history of sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura was certainly not the belief of the early Church, for it is contradicted by the historical practice of the first generation of Christians, who did not have the NT, but only the Church - the Apostles and their successors - to teach them how the New Covenant fulfilled and surpassed the Old Covenant inscripturated in the OT.

 

[moondweller]

Protestant dogma makes no distinction between an inerrant Bible and its fallible readers. The latter, exercising talents and capacities they do not have - an impossibility - manage yet another impossible feat, they make the Bible yield up error.

It’s impossible for the theopneustos, inerrant Bible to yield up to error - it exposes it, even Roman Catholic.

Ah yes, the historical angle. Our esteemed adversaries do have a serious problem when it comes to discussing the history of sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura was certainly not the belief of the early Church, for it is contradicted by the historical practice of the first generation of Christians, who did not have the NT, but only the Church

You can’t be serious! You think the writers of the N.T. were “2nd generation” Christians???

 

[MrS]

It’s impossible for the theopneustos, inerrant Bible to yield up to error - it exposes it, even Roman Catholic.You can’t be serious! You think the writers of the N.T. were “2nd generation” Christians???

Since a generation is often represented by 40 years, and lots of the NT was written between 30+ and 100 AD, you can call them what you will.

Regardless, they were all of the same Church… and there was only one.

.

 

[benedictus2]

The Sufficiency of Scripture
First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
v
v
v
This is an erroneous conclusion, based upon an erroneous premise. Scripture cannot wield authority. This is an activity that requires a person.

v
v
v
v
This is basically a statement admitting Bibliolatry, replacing Christ as our standard with the book. Furthermore, Scripture cannot be “infallible”. Fallibility is a quality that requires the ability to act, again, a quality of humans, not writings, however Holy. In order to be infallible, it must be possible to make a mistake, which the Scriptures cannot. Scripture is inspired, and inerrant, but cannot exercise acts of the will.

:tiphat::clapping::clapping: Another excellent post from the highly esteemed Guanophore

 

[Protestant101]

If all truth that were necessary for aour salvation and spiritual life were in scripture, then it would be pointless for Jesus to appoint pastors and teachers. On the contrary, scripture states that scripture is profitable for the duties that Jesus appointed to those he authorized to teach.

Eph 4:11-14
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

Basically what the doctrine of SS says is that these gifts are unnecessary, since all that is needed is found in scripture.

This is basically a statement admitting Bibliolatry, replacing Christ as our standard with the book. Furthermore, Scripture cannot be “infallible”. Fallibility is a quality that requires the ability to act, again, a quality of humans, not writings, however Holy. In order to be infallible, it must be possible to make a mistake, which the Scriptures cannot. Scripture is inspired, and inerrant, but cannot exercise acts of the will.

Christ is The Book. If it’s His Word; it has to be a part of Him. He spoke and it was done. This is evident from creation; and in my own life, as His Word indeed forms acts of my will. for my will is His will; and His Word is for you and I personally; as well as corporately, in our respective Churches. If it doesn’t form your will, then we can ask some other questions.

I find your’s and Benedictus’ explanations against what you think Sola Scriptura is to be very unfortunate; and to be a denigration of the intended authority of God’s Word. Scripture is indeed infallible because the One who really gave it to us is infallible. If indeed scripture is not infallible, as your church teaches, then what you tell the world is that “you don’t have to obey God if we say so.” “Our Church authority is higher than God’s Word.” And that’s just what your Church does.

Your explanations so far against God’s Word are to me superficial apologetics. The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical “only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon”. In other words, it didn’t create the canon. Rather, it confirmed the identity of the canon which already existed. So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. But it did change the Bible at Trent. This is just the kind of thing MacArthur speaks against; and in this he was 100% right.

 

[benedictus2]

Christ is The Book. If it’s His Word; it has to be a part of Him.

Christ is not the book. The Word of God in John 1 is not the Bible. It speaks of Him but is not part of Him. The Church on the other hand is part of Him becuase she is His body and He is the head. After the final judgment the Bible will no longer be but His body the Church will remain.

He spoke and it was done.

This is more God the Father, speaking into being all of Creation.

This is evident from creation; and in my own life, as His Word indeed forms acts of my will. for my will is His will; and His Word is for you and I personally; as well as corporately, in our respective Churches. If it doesn’t form your will, then we can ask some other questions.

I find your’s and Benedictus’ explanations against what you think Sola Scriptura is to be very unfortunate; and to be a denigration of the intended authority of God’s Word. Scripture is indeed infallible because the One who really gave it to us is infallible.

But the one thing that every single protestant so far has failed to answer is how do we know that Scripture is indeed the word of God?

Please, please, please humour me and answer that.

If indeed scripture is not infallible, as your church teaches, then what you tell the world is that “you don’t have to obey God if we say so.” “Our Church authority is higher than God’s Word.” And that’s just what your Church does.

Where and when did we say that Scripture is not infallible? We never ever said that.
But what I am tryinig to get at is how do we know that for sure. Who determines the infallibility of Scripture. And please don’t say Christ becuase Jesus did not do any writing. Not one single Letter or Gospel can be said to have been physically written by Christ.

Your explanations so far against God’s Word are to me superficial apologetics.

This is fallacious argument. We are not arguing against God’s word. We are arguing against your take on God’s word.

The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical “only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon”. In other words, it didn’t create the canon. Rather, it confirmed the identity of the canon which already existed.

Nope, there were other books at that time. The first canon was actually the heretic Marcion’s. The council sorted through all these books to determine which ones should belong to the Bible. And when they were determining this, they always referred it back to the ongoing apostolic traditions. That is why when Pope Clement spoke of the canoon, he called it “the canon of our traditions.”

So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible.

Yes, she did as I have shown above.

But it did change the Bible at Trent. This is just the kind of thing MacArthur speaks against; and in this he was 100% right.

No it did not. What happened at Trent was to once and for all promulgate that the canon that the Church has always used is the true canon. Not the mutilated version that Luther came up with. The protestant chopped up the Bible to suit their doctrine of Sola Fide.

 

[guanophore]

It’s impossible for the theopneustos, inerrant Bible to yield up to error - it exposes it, even Roman Catholic.You can’t be serious! You think the writers of the N.T. were “2nd generation” Christians???

Definitely most of them were. Paul, whose letters comprise a vast amount of the NT was called after the Resurrection, and quite some time after the Church was established. Luke was a disciple of His, Mark a disciple of Peter. They all received the faith from the Church.

The problem with using scripture to discern error is that the reading of it is subject to the reader. If a person reads it with a predisposed mindset that the “Roman Catholic Church” has errors, then one will inevitably find “proof” in the NT that this is the case.

This is what happens when non-Trinitarians read scripture, and “expose” that Jesus and the HS are not divine.

 

[ppasa316]

Christ is The Book. If it’s His Word; it has to be a part of Him. He spoke and it was done. This is evident from creation; and in my own life, as His Word indeed forms acts of my will. for my will is His will; and His Word is for you and I personally; as well as corporately, in our respective Churches. If it doesn’t form your will, then we can ask some other questions.

I find your’s and Benedictus’ explanations against what you think Sola Scriptura is to be very unfortunate; and to be a denigration of the intended authority of God’s Word. Scripture is indeed infallible because the One who really gave it to us is infallible. If indeed scripture is not infallible, as your church teaches, then what you tell the world is that “you don’t have to obey God if we say so.” “Our Church authority is higher than God’s Word.” And that’s just what your Church does.

Your explanations so far against God’s Word are to me superficial apologetics. The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical “only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon”. In other words, it didn’t create the canon. Rather, it confirmed the identity of the canon which already existed. So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. But it did change the Bible at Trent. This is just the kind of thing MacArthur speaks against; and in this he was 100% right.

keep on preaching the Good Word Brother.

 

[ppasa316]

Hey P101, we have known each other for some time and I have been in your group and you still don’t know that I am her/she?

Since in my post I have written down the text (from the NAB) would you care to put the KJV or whateve bible version you use, next to it and let us discuss where the NAB may have erred in its rendition? Are you up to this challenge?

I have not read the post you mention but I will give it an off the top of my head answer:
SS, Scripture Alone is sufficient. From the way I understand it, you need no other guide to live a Christian life other than the Bible hence you are free to interpret it yourself. Which means that the Bible is self explanatory in whatever language it is written. If I got that wrong, would be very happy to be corrected.

Yes I did say ppasa316 is not able to read because when he said “Very well put Protestant. Sola Scriptura is in the scriptures!” ,the post of yours that he was replying to did not even cite any scripture passages to support SS.

I have already provided scripture Benny. Yes I did say Benny LoL. Here are the scriptures again. Scripture states that it is “inspired” and competent" for a believer to be “equipped for every good work” 2 Tim 3:16-17. Paul stresses the need to cling to the scriptures 1:13, 2:15, 3:15-16, 4:2. This supports the doctrine of sola scriptura. Jesus also appealed to the bible as the final court of appeal. This was done often with the phrase “it is written” Matt 4:4,7,10. Jesus made it clear that the bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. “why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition Matt 15:3,6”

 

[benedictus2]

I have already provided scripture Benny. Yes I did say Benny LoL.

And ppasa I have already demolished their supposed support for SS on my post 686. Perhaps you failed to read that one.

Here are the scriptures again. Scripture states that it is “inspired” and competent" for a believer to be “equipped for every good work” 2 Tim 3:16-17. Paul stresses the need to cling to the scriptures 1:13, 2:15, 3:15-16, 4:2. This supports the doctrine of sola scriptura.

No they don’t. Nowhere in these verses do they claim that scripture ALONE is sufficient. Yes they are inspired but they do not say that Scripture alone is enough. Please show the text (yes I challenge to write them here" that says that.

Jesus also appealed to the bible as the final court of appeal. This was done often with the phrase “it is written” Matt 4:4,7,10.

Sweetheart, when Jesus said 'it is written" he was talking about the Old Testament not the New Testament When Jesus spoke those words, NONE of the New Testament was yet written.

Jesus made it clear that the bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. “why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition Matt 15:3,6”

Nope. What tradition was he talking about. Please, please, please learn to read the Bible. Not just itsy bitsy parts of it. Ppassa if you are reading this, pray tell what tradtion did Christ speak of in verse 1-2 of Matthew 15. Unless of course you don’t happen to have those verses in your abridged versioin of the Bible.

Now SS is a tradition of man, nowhere found in the Bible at all. So therefore since it is a tradition that has nullified the word of God.

 

[Tomster]

Christ is The Book. If it’s His Word; it has to be a part of Him. He spoke and it was done. This is evident from creation; and in my own life, as His Word indeed forms acts of my will. for my will is His will; and His Word is for you and I personally; as well as corporately, in our respective Churches. If it doesn’t form your will, then we can ask some other questions.

I find your’s and Benedictus’ explanations against what you think Sola Scriptura is to be very unfortunate; and to be a denigration of the intended authority of God’s Word. Scripture is indeed infallible because the One who really gave it to us is infallible. If indeed scripture is not infallible, as your church teaches, then what you tell the world is that “you don’t have to obey God if we say so.” “Our Church authority is higher than God’s Word.” And that’s just what your Church does.

Your explanations so far against God’s Word are to me superficial apologetics. The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical “only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon”. In other words, it didn’t create the canon. Rather, it confirmed the identity of the canon which already existed. So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. But it did change the Bible at Trent. This is just the kind of thing MacArthur speaks against; and in this he was 100% right.

You mean 100% wrong don’t you? Your historical revisionism is a hoot.

 

[benedictus2]

I have already provided scripture Benny. Yes I did say Benny LoL. Here are the scriptures again. Scripture states that it is “inspired” and competent" for a believer to be “equipped for every good work” 2 Tim 3:16-17. Paul stresses the need to cling to the scriptures 1:13, 2:15, 3:15-16, 4:2. **This supports the doctrine of sola scriptura. Jesus also appealed to the bible as the final court of appeal. This was done often with the phrase “it is written” Matt 4:4,7,10. **Jesus made it clear that the bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. “why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition Matt 15:3,6”

And another thing. The scripture verses which you provided as support for Sola Scriptura were all NT verses which were not yet written during Jesus’s time. So He was not referrering to these verses at all.

As for traditions of man and commandments of God. Christ (who happens to be God Himself) commanded us to eat His body and drink His. Protestant traditions of men says no He did’nt even though Jesus clearly said so in the Bible

 

[Tomster]

keep on preaching the Good Word Brother.

I take it that you consider the “Good Word” your brother is preaching is infallible. If you do, aren’t you accepting his interpretation, his own personal oral tradition, as Gospel truth? If you do accept your Brother’s preaching as such, what becomes of your own “right” to interpret Scriptures? What if your interpretation differs with his? Who decides which interpretation is correct?

Simple questions.

Got answers?

 

[benedictus2]

I take it that you consider the “Good Word” your brother is preaching is infallible. If you do, aren’t you accepting his interpretation, his own personal oral tradition, as Gospel truth? If you do accept your Brother’s preaching as such, what becomes of your own “right” to interpret Scriptures? What if your interpretation differs with his? Who decides which interpretation is correct?

Simple questions.

Got answers?

A coin toss or maybe whoever pulls the longest string?