MacArthur

[estesbob]

Again, nobody’s “interpretation,” since ALL interpretations belong to God (Genesis 40:8; 2 Peter 1:20-21). That’s why understanding “solely” on what Scripture states is so important & eliminates personal interpretation. I understand that there are Protestants who “claim” to be sola scriptura, who disagree with each other. But that doesn’t make sola scriptura invalid or unbiblical. It only proves that at least one of them “is” personally interpreting Scripture, even though they claim not to be. And the way to determine “who” is personally interpreting & who is not, is by comparing what they believe TO Scripture. For example, if a Christian claims to be sola scriptura, but in the same breath beliefs in “gay marriage” & ordaining gay clergy, we can look to Scripture alone to prove they aren’t actually sola scriptura, because “Scripture alone” doesn’t support it, but rather contradicts it. But sola scriptura “is” strongly supported by Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19)

So why does the Spirit allow so many to go astray. For instance we both cant be right about John 6 can we? Why would the Spirits allow such confusion and misunderstanding. He has allowed 1 billion Catholics to be misled? He has allowed thousands of different protestant denominations all clamming the same Bible but disagreeing on much of it??? Is God the author of confusion

 

[estesbob]

So one has to be a Catholic in order to be deemed an expert on Christian theology?

An expert can be dead wrong.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

An expert can be dead wrong.

That doesn’t actually answer my question. Does one have to be a Catholic in order to be deemed an expert on Christian theology?

 

[estesbob]

That doesn’t actually answer my question. Does one have to be a Catholic in order to be deemed an expert on Christian theology?

Catholic Theology? Yes.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Catholic Theology? Yes.

I see. Does this apply to just Catholics or does it also apply to other religions too? One has to be Baptist to be an expert on Baptist theology, Jewish for Jewish theology, Muslim for Islamic theology?

 

[thetazlord]

estesbob:

You really need to do some more research.For instance:

“I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” — Saint Augustine

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

St Jerome

Yet once again you and I disagree on what Scripture says How do we resolve that? Is God the author of confusion?

I believe I need to clarify my last statement. When I said “The point is that “universality” in every Christian doctrine or belief was not a trait found in the early Church, even among later “canonized saints” like Augustine & Jerome,” I wasn’t saying that later ECF’s like Augustine & Jerome disagreed on “every Christian doctrine or belief,” but they didn’t agree on “every” doctrine or belief. For example, both of them agreed on Mary’s perpetual virginity, but they disagreed on “who” the “brothers” & “sisters” of Jesus were. So, “if” Mary’s perpetual virginity was “universally” taught in the early Church & passed on through the apostles to the days of Augustine & Jerome, wouldn’t the identity of “who” these “brothers” who are named in Mark 6:3, as well as His “sisters,” be known & passed on as well? The fact that His brothers are named would indicate that those first century Christians would have known “who” they were. And what we do find in the first & second centuries are “unofficial” church fathers (ie: they were never “officially” recognized by the church) as ECF’s, although “some” are, like St. Melito & St. Basil) who did believe they were younger half-brothers of Jesus.

With all due respect to Jerome, when he stated “We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it” that completely conflicts with the fact that Scripture does state that she was married to Joseph, & even refers to him as her husband, & Mary his wife. Also, the “belief” of Jerome that Joseph was a virgin & that the “brothers” of Jesus were actually His cousins, that CA Jimmy Akin isn’t fond of, completely eliminates Proto-James as the earliest source for these “brothers” being older step-brothers of Joseph from a previous marriage, because Joseph couldn’t have “been a virgin too” with Mary and had children prior to “marrying” Mary. So, now you’re pushing the PVM - at the earliest - to the late-second century, & more likely the early-third century.

So, although Jerome “disagreed” with Tertullian, as well as Helvidius (the former being even closer to the actual NT events than even Helvidius or Jerome), Jerome’s “belief” in “who” these “brothers” are, isn’t supported by Scripture at all. Perhaps this is “why” Mr. Akin disagrees with Jerome. But this still leaves us with “who” are these “brothers” of Jesus who are named, & “who” do some of the earliest Christians believe they are based on the NT? And what you find by “unofficial” ECF’s, is that they are younger half-brothers, that - unlike the “older step-brother theory” from an “alleged” first marriage of Joseph, as well as the later “cousin” theory proposed by Jerome - the younger, half-sibling belief “does” have Scriptural support.

 

[estesbob]

I see. Does this apply to just Catholics or does it also apply to other religions too? One has to be Baptist to be an expert on Baptist theology, Jewish for Jewish theology, Muslim for Islamic theology?

It helps.

 

[thetazlord]

So why does the Spirit allow so many to go astray. For instance we both cant be right about John 6 can we? Why would the Spirits allow such confusion and misunderstanding. He has allowed 1 billion Catholics to be misled? He has allowed thousands of different protestant denominations all clamming the same Bible but disagreeing on much of it??? Is God the author of confusion

I think we would both agree that God is not the author of confusion. I think we would both agree with Scripture that there are two spiritual forces in this world. I think we would both agree that Scripture is the Inspired Word of God. And I think we would both agree that my previous 3 statements aren’t “my interpretation” of Scripture, but rather directly supported by it. I refuse to comment about “who” has gone astray, as I wish to respect both Catholics & Protestants. John 6 is indeed a chapter that both groups disagree on, so I agree with you that both of them can’t be right, since they conflict with one another. The only way to know which one of them is right & which one of them isn’t, is to go back to the Word of God, & examine both of their views, & find out which one is supported by it (like John 6:35), & which one of them conflicts with any other verse or passage in Inspired Scripture (like Leviticus 17:10-14). We all have free will, which means that we are all capable of being right & wrong - even God’s elect (look at Peter, who not only denied our Lord three times, but even after the Church was founded at Pentecost, Paul had to rebuke him). I hope this helps.

 

[estesbob]

I think we would both agree that God is not the author of confusion. I think we would both agree with Scripture that there are two spiritual forces in this world. I think we would both agree that Scripture is the Inspired Word of God. And I think we would both agree that my previous 3 statements aren’t “my interpretation” of Scripture, but rather directly supported by it. I refuse to comment about “who” has gone astray, as I wish to respect both Catholics & Protestants. John 6 is indeed a chapter that both groups disagree on, so I agree with you that both of them can’t be right, since they conflict with one another. The only way to know which one of them is right & which one of them isn’t, is to go back to the Word of God, & examine both of their views, & find out which one is supported by it (like John 6:35), & which one of them conflicts with any other verse or passage in Inspired Scripture (like Leviticus 17:10-14). We all have free will, which means that we are all capable of being right & wrong - even God’s elect (look at Peter, who not only denied our Lord three times, but even after the Church was founded at Pentecost, Paul had to rebuke him). I hope this helps.

But if the Spirit is guiding why would anyone go astray-more or less billions of Christians?. Your contention is God left us a book and left it to us to figure things out-kind of Gnosticism lite. I believe God left us a Church that is the depository of truth. Their is nothing for us to figure, no need to parse verses and argue about who’s translation is best. We know the Truth. He entrusted it to the One Holy Catholic Church

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s not the point. The point is that “universality” in every Christian doctrine or belief was not a trait found in the early Church, even among later “canonized saints” like Augustine & Jerome. In fact, many early Christians did not agree with their own Church even in matters of “official” doctrines, such as the Eucharist, Mary’s perpetual virginity, etc, including Christians who would later be “canonized” as “saints.”

That is exactly the point. A Catholic is free to disagree as long as it is not a matter of faith and morals.

That is exactly the point. Just because there were differing opinions, *dissension *was not the path taken by any of the two ECF’s you mentioned. In fact, it was not the path taken by numerous ECF’s as you like to point out.

And what Paul stated was the “pillar & support of truth” they early first century Church accepted was based on what he wrote (1 Timothy 3:15).

The Church receives the writings of Paul and the others and then confirms to us that they are indeed the writings of Paul and the others. Because their writings belong to the Church. Not the other way around. Those writings belong to the Body of which the Head utters those Words. Not apart. To use said writings to foment dissension is to bring about destruction, like Peter says (2 Peter 3:16).

***Because ***the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, we know what is and isn’t Scriptures.

Paul, himself, says that in his absence we need to go to that Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. He did not say, go to the Scriptures and do as you think.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You’re kind of making my point. What about those infants & children who don’t “partake of communion”? What happens to them when they die if they have “no life in them,” since they didn’t “partake in communion”? And if the passage “no life in you” Jesus isn’t referring to communion, they “why” are those infants & children who do “partake of communion” partaking in it? It still doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is saying “unless” in John 6:53, which in Greek means “except, or if not.” Jesus is not specifying “who” this refers to. He is speaking in general.

So missed my post pointing to who the audience was…

In contrast to baptism, where it says that it’s for the entire household and that the promise is for us and our children.

In this case, let’s say we disagree. Where do you go to settle this matter? To a Church that is outside of the laying of the hands by those designated by the Apostles and outside of Scriptures? Or do you think you need to go to the one that directly received the teachings from the Great Commission?

Is it acceptable to differ in this matter of faith and each go our own way? Further, is it scriptural to this?

 

[commenter]

That doesn’t actually answer my question. Does one have to be a Catholic in order to be deemed an expert on Christian theology?

Catholicism relies on God, but through Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. A scholar (and this includes some non-Catholics) who is guided by all 3 of these elements has the potential, if they are good enough, to be an “expert” on overall Christian Theology, in the sense of being reliable writing about God.

A scholar who denies the Magisterium, for instance, might have expertise in some areas, but it would be harder for them to be an “expert” in Christianity overall, in the sense of reliability. For an extreme example, there are “experts” within the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. They have advanced degrees. But I would consider them only as expert within the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, rather than overall Christianity. I trust their descriptions of their own faith traditions, not necessarily their views of God.

Dr. MacArthur is more reliable than anyone I know of in those groups. But I would consider him as “expert” only within one of the movements within Evangelicalism, and most Protestants reject his theology. Since he rejects the Magisterium he has to rely heavily on his assumptions about Scripture, which might or might not be valid. To put it another way, instead of following the (Catholic) Magisterium everyone else can see, he follows a de facto magisterium based on assumptions we cannot fully see.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It helps.

It helps? So what’s different between Catholic theology, which apparently requires one to be a Catholic to be deemed an expert on, and theologies of other faiths, which one apparently doesn’t have to be a member of in order to be deemed an expert on?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Catholicism relies on God, but through Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. A scholar (and this includes some non-Catholics) who is guided by all 3 of these elements has the potential, if they are good enough, to be an “expert” on overall Christian Theology, in the sense of being reliable writing about God.

A scholar who denies the Magisterium, for instance, might have expertise in some areas, but it would be harder for them to be an “expert” in Christianity overall, in the sense of reliability. For an extreme example, there are “experts” within the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. They have advanced degrees. But I would consider them only as expert within the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, rather than overall Christianity. I trust their descriptions of their own faith traditions, not necessarily their views of God.

Dr. MacArthur is more reliable than anyone I know of in those groups. But I would consider him as “expert” only within one of the movements within Evangelicalism, and most Protestants reject his theology. Since he rejects the Magisterium he has to rely heavily on his assumptions about Scripture, which might or might not be valid. To put it another way, instead of following the (Catholic) Magisterium everyone else can see, he follows a de facto magisterium based on assumptions we cannot fully see.

So for someone to be deemed an expert on a faith, they must be accepted as such by those with the authority to deem them so? In the case of Catholic theology by the Magisterium, and in the case of other less centralized or clearly defined faiths in terms of authority by a consensus of already recognized theological experts?

 

[Porknpie]

John 6 is indeed a chapter that both groups disagree on, so I agree with you that both of them can’t be right, since they conflict with one another. The only way to know which one of them is right & which one of them isn’t, is to go back to the Word of God,

You can’t go back to the written Word of God Taz, because you can not trust that the Church got it right. You don’t know that all 27 books of the NT, and only 27 books are the Written Word of God.

Makes no sense that those Catholic Bishops could be infallible on the canon … discerning 27 books out of several hundred writings …

But completely miss the mark on the Real Presence.

You do understand that the canon was compiled in part, for catechesis, but also to have a universal set of readings at Mass?

Scripture itself says that the pillar and bulwark of truth is the Church - and that Christ would guide it, protecting it from error on faith and morals until the end of time.

On a very positive note, I think you’ll make a great RCIA leader someday.

 

[commenter]

So for someone to be deemed an expert on a faith, they must be accepted as such by those with the authority to deem them so? In the case of Catholic theology by the Magisterium, and in the case of other less centralized or clearly defined faiths in terms of authority by a consensus of already recognized theological experts?

Perhaps that’s a good way of putting it, though it would be better for let Orthodox and Protestant Christians speak for themselves, and Protestants speak differently. I am uncomfortable with the word “expert”. Someone might know a lot about, say, Lutheranism, but not really agree with it. Is he an expert? Maybe. Especially for the NY Times. But more relevant to me, “is she a faithful and knowledgeable teacher of Lutheranism?”

The problem is compounded by the secular media culture in which we live. If the media likes a theologian, their books are available in mass market bookstores. They get quoted frequently as “a Highly Respected Theologian”, or Huffpost will annoint them as Highly Regarded Social Justice Advocate, or whatever.

It’s hard for the average layperson, priest, or minister to see “the consensus” about who’s really reliable. 60 years ago churches were left alone to discern their destiny, checking (their own) consensus of already recognized experts. Today the Media, and government, are powerful figures sitting in the room, trying to shape the churches’ consensus. Without the Magisterium, it’s harder for churches to consult and follow their own consensus.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Perhaps that’s a good way of putting it, though it would be better for let Orthodox and Protestant Christians speak for themselves, and Protestants speak differently. I am uncomfortable with the word “expert”. Someone might know a lot about, say, Lutheranism, but not really agree with it. Is he an expert? Maybe. Especially for the NY Times. But more relevant to me, “is she a faithful and knowledgeable teacher of Lutheranism?”

The problem is compounded by the secular media culture in which we live. If the media likes a theologian, their books are available in mass market bookstores. They get quoted frequently as “a Highly Respected Theologian”, or Huffpost will annoint them as Highly Regarded Social Justice Advocate, or whatever.

It’s hard for the average layperson, priest, or minister to see “the consensus” about who’s really reliable. 60 years ago churches were left alone to discern their destiny, checking (their own) consensus of already recognized experts. Today the Media, and government, are powerful figures sitting in the room, trying to shape the churches’ consensus. Without the Magisterium, it’s harder for churches to consult and follow their own consensus.

Thank you. It’s refreshing to see I’m not the only one who thinks along these lines with regard to who can or can not be deemed an expert on a particular faith or that there is necessary criteria that needs to be met for such a label to be applied to a person.

 

[Magdalena59]

IJohn 6 is indeed a chapter that both groups disagree on, so I agree with you that both of them can’t be right, since they conflict with one another. The only way to know which one of them is right & which one of them isn’t, is to go back to the Word of God, & examine both of their views, & find out which one is supported by it (like John 6:35), & which one of them conflicts with any other verse or passage in Inspired Scripture (like Leviticus 17:10-14)…

So, taz, I know others have asked this question. I haven’t seen the answer so I am going to ask you. I am not asking this to be rude, so I hope it does not sound that way. I once was where you are. A Catholic who left the faith and believed I could interpret scripture on my own or would listen to individual different pastors and pick and choose what I wanted to believe.

So, the question is. When and where did God say that you have authority over Scripture or that your interpretation of scripture is what we all should listen to. I know as an ex-protestant myself that there are many, many different interpretations of scripture out there and so what is it about your interpretation that is different than others and is right compared to others.

God bless.

 

[Magdalena59]

As a convert from the Baptist denomination (lots of people love his stuff), this guy really breaks my heart. gty.org/Blog/B150225

I use to listen to him in my protestant years and as time went on came to realize his teachings did not make sense. Seeing this thread reminded me of his own individual interpretations and them being a stepping stone to my return to the Catholic faith. Not so much because of what he said against the Catholic faith, though it is horrible, I just wasn’t listening to that at the time, but because when he discussed other of his own teachings, which are very Calvinist, it didn’t make sense. He said once he had kind of his own Calvinist viewpoint different than other Calvinists. I can still remember one day listening to his teachings while driving in the car and it all seemed okay and then he gets to the last five minutes and pretty much totally contradicted every thing he said. Even as a protestant I could see he didn’t make sense.

He is totally anti-Catholic and should be avoided at all costs.

 

[Magdalena59]

As a convert from the Baptist denomination (lots of people love his stuff), this guy really breaks my heart. gty.org/Blog/B150225

I use to listen to him in my protestant years and as time went on came to realize his teachings did not make sense. Seeing this thread reminded me of his own individual interpretations and them being a stepping stone to my return to the Catholic faith. Not so much because of what he said against the Catholic faith, though it is horrible, I just wasn’t listening to that at the time, but because when he discussed other of his own teachings, which are very Calvinist, it didn’t make sense. He said once he had kind of his own Calvinist viewpoint different than other Calvinists. I can still remember one day listening to his talks while driving in the car and it all seemed okay and then he gets to the last five minutes and pretty much totally contradicted every thing he said. Even as a protestant I could see he didn’t make sense.

He is totally anti-Catholic and should be avoided at all costs.