MacArthur Study Bible on True Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter FanOfU2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stop listening to MacArthur.

God Bless
I am glad I didn’t stop. The man helped me become Catholic by doing the same thing he is doing here in his Timothy commentary, while trying to establish sola scriptura. Namely, he kept adding to Scripture while decrying Catholics for adding to Scripture. He kept shoe-horning the word “sufficient” into the verse with the flimsiest of logic. Once I realized that Scripture itself did not teach sola scriptura, then all bets were off and I had to look to history and the first century church. Thus, …

And I was a hard-core Baptist fundamentalist.
 
Once you decide to cross fully into the symbolic realm, scripture is all you need or want. You then require no priesthood, no established Church, no authoritative leaders, no divine liturgy. Thus begins the deconstruction of the Church - an entropic process whereupon Christianity devolves into a heterogenous mass of individuals, all having private relationships with Christ, but a decreased sense of being part of the Body. As well, there is a diminished sense of relationship with one another. Being part of the Body requires a sense of subjection, of belonging, of obedience to a larger whole, which meshes rather well with Jesus’ counsel in Luke 9:23 “If a man will follow Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, then come, follow Me”.

A side issue, but the major issue for many non-Catholics is that of Church authority. However, Jesus gave unprecedented authority to the twelve, and advised his hearers to take disputes to “the Church” for final resolution. I note that nothing can be taken to the bible for final resolution - only for further dispute and argumentation about just what those words “symbolize”.

If you are looking for a Catholic bible with footnotes, please avoid the New American Bible (NAB), even the revised New America Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE). The footnotes are closer to being Catholic, but are still very squishy and imprecise for Catholics, and those who desire to learn more of the Catholic faith. Salvatore123 can point you in the right direction.
This is the crux of the issue for me. If Protetants believe all of these major points of Chritsianity are symbolic, then what is the purpose of their Church?

I go to mass to be closer to God, to take in the body and blood which is the ultimate profession of my belief in Jesus. These are no simple symbolic practices too look pretty, these are very real and meaningful, literal sacraments. Baptism is really the cleansing of original sin, not a sybolic show of being “saved”. To put it plainly, the sermon isn’t the focus of our mass because the mass is about the body and blood.

So if the sermon is symbolism pack with more symbolism and commuion, baptism and marriage are symbolic ceramonies : When do we get to the real part of faith?🤷

Sorry, rand over.:o
 
Further, MacArthur confuses the issue by saying that communion “had not been instituted yet.” MacArthur has created an arbitrary rule that Jesus is not allowed to teach the importance of something yet to come. For instance:

John 3:5 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
AND, “…must take up his cross and follow me…” What sense would that have made before Calvary?

Glennonite
 
I’ve never considered myself a hardcore fundamentalist, and I’ve been a protestant for 22 years of my life. First Church of Christ, and now Southern Baptist.

I see alot of beauty and truth in doctrine held by the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Communion of Saints, True Presence, praying the rosary (or saying the Jesus prayer), and honoring the Virgin Mary.

However, alot of my Baptist brethren feel differently, and it’s hard to talk to anyone in my congregation about these topics without feeling like I am wrong. (I don’t even like to think what would happen if I mentioned communion of saints to my preacher, he is an extreme suit and tie fundamentalist, albeit a good man) If they found out I occasionally wear a St. Dymphna medal I would probably be excommunicated!
 
I’ve never considered myself a hardcore fundamentalist, and I’ve been a protestant for 22 years of my life. First Church of Christ, and now Southern Baptist.

I see alot of beauty and truth in doctrine held by the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Communion of Saints, True Presence, praying the rosary (or saying the Jesus prayer), and honoring the Virgin Mary.

However, alot of my Baptist brethren feel differently, and it’s hard to talk to anyone in my congregation about these topics without feeling like I am wrong. (I don’t even like to think what would happen if I mentioned communion of saints to my preacher, he is an extreme suit and tie fundamentalist, albeit a good man) If they found out I occasionally wear a St. Dymphna medal I would probably be excommunicated!
I had the same problem, and while I am not a Catholic for reason I will not elaborate here, I am glad that you are looking to the history of the faith in stead of taking what you have at face value.
 
I’ve never considered myself a hardcore fundamentalist, and I’ve been a protestant for 22 years of my life. First Church of Christ, and now Southern Baptist.

I see alot of beauty and truth in doctrine held by the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Communion of Saints, True Presence, praying the rosary (or saying the Jesus prayer), and honoring the Virgin Mary.

However, alot of my Baptist brethren feel differently, and it’s hard to talk to anyone in my congregation about these topics without feeling like I am wrong. (I don’t even like to think what would happen if I mentioned communion of saints to my preacher, he is an extreme suit and tie fundamentalist, albeit a good man) If they found out I occasionally wear a St. Dymphna medal I would probably be excommunicated!
Have you ever listened to the conversion stories on Marcus Grodi’s “Coming Home Network”? EWTN posts his videos of interviews with protestant, Jewish, LDS and JW converts to Catholicism on their website as well as on YouTube. You will find that each of them experienced what you are experiencing along their journey. You will not feel so isolated or alone.

Christ’s peace be with you.
 
Have you ever listened to the conversion stories on Marcus Grodi’s “Coming Home Network”? EWTN posts his videos of interviews with protestant, Jewish, LDS and JW converts to Catholicism on their website as well as on YouTube. You will find that each of them experienced what you are experiencing along their journey. You will not feel so isolated or alone.

Christ’s peace be with you.
Yes! I really enjoy The Journey Home. As a matter of fact, I watched an episode last night that included the conversion story of Brian Robbins, a former Jew. Mr. Robbins was very, very intelligent when it came to scripture, and showed many parallels between the old testament sacrifices and the life of Christ. I believe he even discussed True Presence.
 
Yes! I really enjoy The Journey Home. As a matter of fact, I watched an episode last night that included the conversion story of Brian Robbins, a former Jew. Mr. Robbins was very, very intelligent when it came to scripture, and showed many parallels between the old testament sacrifices and the life of Christ. I believe he even discussed True Presence.
His parallels between events in Christ’s life and the Jewish holy days were most impressive, I must say. I have heard that he drops in here occasionally, as well.
 
Hello Everyone,

I’m a Southern Baptist, and as you know we do not believe in Christ’s literal presence in communion. However, I am starting to believe that when Christ said This is My Body, he was speaking literally.

Anyway, I own a MacArthur study bible, and wanted help refuting his notes on Luke 22:19

LUKE 22:19
"And when He had taken some break and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

MacArthur Study Bible Notes on Luke 22:19
“This is My body. I.e, it represented His body (c.f the words of 8:11, “the seed is the word of God”- and also v. 20). Such metaphorical language was a typical Hebraism. No eucharistic miracle of transubstantiation was implied, nor could the disciples have missed the symbolic intent of His statement, for His actual body- yet unbroken- was before their very eyes. See note on Mt. 26:26. do this Thus He established the observance as an ordinance for worship. remembrance of Me. Passover had looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ; He transformed the seder into an altogether different ceremony, which looks back in remembrance at His atoning death.”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

How does a symbol provide eternal life as oppose to God giving His own flesh and blood?

If it were symbolic,then why this reaction by many Jews:

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” 61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you?

Why be offended over a symbol? So how does MacArthur defend his words:

‘nor could the disciples have missed the symbolic intent of His statement…’

If the disciples understood,why be offended? Second of all, does not Jesus explain Himself when people misunderstood Him? Why didn’t He tell them flat out it was merely of symbolic intent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top