MacArthur

[JasTromba]

It seems he’s anti quite a lot of people and groups. Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Pentacostals, Orthodox. Disagreement is fine, but I don’t think religion (which is not a dirty word in my opinion) and salvation is just about getting the right answer on a theology exam. Truth, beauty, goodness-these are what drew me to the Catholic faith.

 

[Porknpie]

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.

Magdalena -

What brought you back? Please describe these stepping stones …

 

[ericc]

Being in communion with the One True Church. His opinion on Scripture is no more valid than yours or mine. That is the fatal flaw of Sola scriptura-no authority, everyone gets to draw their own conclusions and if they don’t find agreement start their own denomination

Actually I sort of disagree on the application of sola scriptura on authority. It is selective. If Protestant go strictly by the book, pun intended, they would have taken all their disputes to the Catholic Church in the 15th century. It said so in the Bible! Take it to the Church. But no , let us splinter off.

Ok, let say they are already out and no way will they submit to the RCC. When they have a dispute on doctrine, they don’t really take it to their church. They splinter off, again! And again! And again! Now they are 33,000 strong. Not one will ever take it to the church, whatever the denomination. So how come Sola Scriptura didn’t apply when it comes to splitting? Don’t they know the Bible? Aren’t they “experts”? Or is it “inconvenient” to go to the church to settle the disputes? Some claim they do. They put it to a vote. And again. And again. Until the losing party eventually win and the new doctrine becomes irreversible. And grumpy folks just go off and do something traditional, i.e., splinter off or join another church more to their liking. None of these actions are ever sanctioned by the HS. Democracy wins, HS lose. Democracy empowers. I decide. Which seems to be opposed to the Christian faith. When A&E , decided to empower themselves, you see the results. When Lucifer decided to empower himself, you see the results. When Reformers empowered themselves, you see the results.

So on the topic of experts, who or what is an expert? Is it one that knows the Bible by heart? Is it one that can create doctrine by weaving certain chapters/verses together while ignoring conflicting verses? Can an expert who belongs to a church that can change its doctrine by popular vote be properly called an expert if tomorrow what he believes is negated by popular vote? Example, an expert believes in a set of doctrines of his church but which was removed by popular vote tomorrow, can he still be an expert of that faith? What does it mean to be an expert in a constantly changing environment? One who can keep up with the times such as in science and IT or one that stays true to the founder’s intention?

Can a Buddhist or a Muslim who know your Holy Books inside/out while not professing to be a believer be an expert? If yes/no, why yes or no? This person may out speak, out write you , out debate you but he is not a Christian.

In my mind, an expert knows better the intention of the founder. The mind of God so to speak. He may or may not be able to follow the teachings but he can explain what God’s intention was, what God wants us to do. And he can do it holistically, total picture, helicopter view. Everything ties. And he can only do it as a baptized Christian, one who has internalized the faith and not merely as an academic discipline. For example, Catholics have the Sacraments. Take the Eucharist. One can technically study as much as they want about the Eucharist, but without partaking the Eucharist and believing that it is the Body of Christ, will never ever understand the immensity of it no matter how many paper qualifications that person has. There is a difference between so call experts who study and those who lived it. One can study love their whole life but without ever being loved or feeling love for another, will never be a love expert although they may host newspaper columns, have psychology degrees, write books, consulting others etc.

 

[PRmerger]

Where in the Bible does it say our only authority is from the Bible?

No where, actually.

It is a man-made tradition that folks have been duped by.

Someone heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it…but no one heard that the Bible is our only authority from the pages of the Bible.

In fact, the Bible says that the Church is our pillar and foundation of truth.

“Pillar and foundation” is the same thing as saying “authority”.

 

[Magdalena59]

Magdalena -

What brought you back? Please describe these stepping stones …

Hi Porknpie

The biggest thing that brought me back was authority. I think after being raised Catholic, but not really understanding the faith, going out into to the protestant world, well it is a very confusing place. I found so many differences and no one had any authority, except for their own thoughts and individual beliefs. I am not saying they weren’t Christian or doing their best to follow Jesus, they were just all over the place with what they believed and I struggled with where to go and what to believe.

Such things as, there would be Bible verses that would stand out to me that didn’t fit right, people would argue over scripture, churches closed in my area due to who was truly following the Bible, pastors would predict the return of Jesus and it wouldn’t happen, little comments people would say about the Catholic faith that didn’t make sense, entertainment instead of prayer. Some would even argue over who was really a Christian and who wasn’t. As these things bothered me I would keep them in my heart, kind of like Mary pondered things in her heart. I prayed a lot, that God would lead me in the right direction and as I look back, I can remember each of those moments and what I thought and felt and I see them now as stepping stones Jesus used to bring me home to the Catholic church. One of those was the contradictory talks of John MacArthur. It was on Calvinism.

There was a funeral in a Catholic church that I went to and during that Mass I found prayer and worship and the True Presence and knew then what I was truly missing.

I came across the prayer St. Francis prayed in front of the St. Damian cross, prayed that and Psalm 27:4 every day and little by little God led me home.

Thank you for asking.

God bless.

Magdalena

 

[Porknpie]

There was a funeral in a Catholic church that I went to and during that Mass I found prayer and worship and the True Presence and knew then what I was truly missing.

I came across the prayer St. Francis prayed in front of the St. Damian cross, prayed that and Psalm 27:4 every day and little by little God led me home.

Beautiful revert story, especially the St. Francis part and Psalm 27:4. I was in Assisi last Summer and it will always have a special place in my heart.

I play Angelina’s song every once in a while to remember Assisi and the Saint… Francis.

 

[oneofmany]

That is beautiful—thanks for sharing.

 

[spedteacherita]

May I ask where in John 6 does it say the bread & wine “becomes” the body & blood of Christ, as it does in John 2 when it says the water “became” wine? In fact, where in John 6 does it say that Jesus is talking about communion, or that communion is even occuring? What about John 6:53 where Jesus says, “Unless you eat the flesh & drink the blood of the son of man, you have no life in you”? What happens to baptized babies who die, those invincibly ignorant, those baptized by desire (like the repentant thief on the cross) or those baptized of blood (martyrs) who die without receiving communion? Since Jesus said “unless,” which in Greek means “except, or if not,” then wouldn’t Jesus be saying “except, or if not” you eat Jesus’ flesh & drink His blood, you have no life in you"? Wouldn’t these people end up in Hell?

Hi, Taz,

The Lutheran Church is a bit different from Catholic in Holy Communion. We take Jesus for His words when He says:

Matthew 26: 26-28
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

We take seriously the words "This is - My body and This is My blood of the covenant.

Baptized babies have become part of God’s family through their baptism. They’re not old enough to understand the impact of not examining yourself and clearing up situations that may be unworthy to bring to the Holy Table.

 

[Kliska]

I came across the prayer St. Francis prayed in front of the St. Damian cross, prayed that and Psalm 27:4 every day and little by little God led me home.

I had never read this prayer before, thank you so much for mentioning it, I love it, and never would have known about it unless you posted it.

God bless!
K

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I came across the prayer St. Francis prayed in front of the St. Damian cross, prayed that and Psalm 27:4 every day and little by little God led me home.

God bless.

Magdalena

I have a San Damiano Cross Rosary with an icon of San Padre Pio.

 

[PJM]

=JasTromba;12781120]As a convert from the Baptist denomination (lots of people love his stuff), this guy really breaks my heart. gty.org/Blog/B150225

Many years ago when I was discerning my vocation as a Catechist, I listened to him and other Protestants to gain a better understanding of their beliefs.

What I personally found more disconcerting was the overriding of Christian Love, so predominate in Scripture and in the Life example of Jesus Himself.

**John 13: 33-35 ** “Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me; and as I said to the Jews: Whither I go you cannot come; so I say to you now. A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.”

I understand not everyone understands or likes us Catholics; BUT the disregard for civility and charity were SHOCKING

God help us if we shy so far from HIS most elementary TRUTH:blush:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Magdalena59]

I had never read this prayer before, thank you so much for mentioning it, I love it, and never would have known about it unless you posted it.

God bless!
K

Oh, thank you.

Magdalena

 

[thetazlord]

Omg, he’s quoting from Carm? That’s the best he can do?

No, actually I could quote a lot more, including Eusebius in his Ecclesiatical History, “Getting to know the Church Fathers” by Bryan Liftin, etc, but I was at work when I wrote this, where I don’t have my notes readily available. And why are you ridiculing CARM for simply because it’s not a Catholic site?

 

[thetazlord]

Another split about something in protestantism?

What’s the number at now?

Also “faith alone” isn’t in the bible, even well-known protestant bible scholars recognize this.

Neither is the word “Trinity,” but both concepts are found in Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

It is important to note that later on in the chapter, in vs. 52 the Jews take him literally and so do some of his disciples. At this point Christ would have had a moral obligation to correct them. In those other passages you cited, no one seriously contemplates Christ being an actual door or vine. The audience knew Jesus was speaking figuratively. If Christ was only speaking figuratively about his body in John 6, then He would have told them because He cannot lie.

Scripture also says that Jesus knows the hearts of ALL men. So, Jesus didn’t correct them, because - like the Pharisees - He knew that no matter what He would tell them, they would reject His teaching. That’s why Jesus didn’t correct them, as well as why they walked away. They walked away, because they misunderstood Him to be speaking literally. Jesus speaking figuratively doesn’t mean He was lying anymore than calling Himself a door or vine. My point was that the other “I AM” statements Jesus makes about Himself are never understood to be taken literally. So, “why” would Jesus suddenly mean ‘this’ “I AM” statement to be taken literally? Also, when the apostle Paul rebukes the Corinthian Church for taking the communion bread & wine in an “unworthy manner,” it was because they were gorging themselves on the bread & literally getting intoxicated on the wine. If Jesus is referring to His literal physical blood that was “transubstantiated” from literal wine, are you saying that a person can get literally & physically drunk on the transubstantiated blood of Christ that although “appears” to be wine, it’s actualy wine anymore?

Also, the greek word for “eats” used in vs. 54-58 is the greek verb used for animal gnawing. I understand that throughout the gospels, Christ doesn’t render what He is actually saying explicit so everyone can understand Him but in those cases, He says things such as “He who has ears let him hear”, indicating that He is speaking figuratively. There is no such indication here. Christ is not a deceiver.

Yes, it’s “trogos” which means to gnaw on, which - again - can be meant either literally or figuratively, like something “gnawing on your conscience.” So, if Jesus was speaking literally, if they hadn’t walked away, they would have to start “gnawing” on Jesus’ literal flesh right then & there since communion wasn’t taken place. If fact, if you read earlier in John 6, it states that Jesus literally “fed” people with bread earlier & in a different location. So, Jesus isn’t even discussing communion in John 6, because the context of it doesn’t call for it. Again, read John 6:35, which makes it clear that Jesus is speaking figuratively, unless you believe Jesus is speaking about literal “hunger” & literal “thirst”? And no offense, but Jesus not saying “he who has ears let him hear” in this passage isn’t really a strong argument that Jesus wasn’t speaking figuratively. In fact, normally when He’s saying this, Jesus is discussing a parable, which He’s not doing in John 6.

 

[thetazlord]

Hi, Taz,

The Lutheran Church is a bit different from Catholic in Holy Communion. We take Jesus for His words when He says:

Matthew 26: 26-28
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

We take seriously the words "This is - My body and This is My blood of the covenant.

Baptized babies have become part of God’s family through their baptism. They’re not old enough to understand the impact of not examining yourself and clearing up situations that may be unworthy to bring to the Holy Table.

Hi spedteacherita, nice to meet you.

I have friends from the Lutheran Missouri Synod who used to attend my home Bible studies. May I ask if you believe water baptism saves a baby, & if they aren’t baptized & die, what happens to their soul. As a former Catholic, I had always believed that baptizing babies is what secured them into Heaven if they died as infants, & if they weren’t baptized & died, they would “theoretically” end up in Limbo. Now, I’ve been told that there is “hope” of salvation for unbaptized babies who die. I’m curious, since the Lutheran Missouri Synod doesn’t believe in the “theory” of Limbo, then what happens to the souls of unbaptized babies who die? If the purpose of water baptism isn’t salvation, or to “enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), then why do you baptize babies if unbaptized babies who die end up in Heaven anyways?

My original question was related to the fact that “if” the communion bread & wine literally “transubstantiate” into the literal body & blood of Jesus, and Jesus is not strictly speaking figuratively in John 6, then Jesus would be saying the same thing He is in John 3:5 - that “unless” (which in Greek means “except, or if not”) a person is baptized in water (or in John 6 literally eats & literally drinks Jesus’ literal body & blood) then they can’t enter Heaven (or in John 6, have no life in themselves). So, “how” does a person enter Heaven without literally eating & literally drinking Jesus’ literal body & literal blood, as well as without being baptized IN water, since Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE wording in both verses?: “unless.” MacArthur gives a good explanation for both of these passages that are not only found in His study notes, but in them, cross-references them with other related Scripture. IOW, he uses Scripture alone to literally explain Scripture, rather than imputing his own preconceived religious or personal view of the passage. It’s worth checking them out.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on the subject of the OP please.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

And no offense, but Jesus not saying “he who has ears let him hear” in this passage isn’t really a strong argument that Jesus wasn’t speaking figuratively. In fact, normally when He’s saying this, Jesus is discussing a parable, which He’s not doing in John 6.

None taken. I made a hasty response. It is just striking that earlier in John when Jesus mentions that he will raise the temple in three days, John clarifies what Jesus means–He was referring to Himself. This indicates John wants the reader to understand what Jesus is saying without confusion. So in this case, Jesus doesn’t explain to the Pharisees what He means because He knows they are hostile, but John clarifies for the reader.

Also, if the crowd was hostile to Jesus in John 6 then why does it mention that His disciples were also offended? The very fact that they are disciples suggests they have a genuine desire to follow Him even if they do not completely understand Him. So why would Jesus refuse to explain what He really means to them and correct their misunderstanding?

 

[estesbob]

Scripture also says that Jesus knows the hearts of ALL men. So, Jesus didn’t correct them, because - like the Pharisees - He knew that no matter what He would tell them, they would reject His teaching. That’s why Jesus didn’t correct them, as well as why they walked away. They walked away, because they misunderstood Him to be speaking literally. Jesus speaking figuratively doesn’t mean He was lying anymore than calling Himself a door or vine. My point was that the other “I AM” statements Jesus makes about Himself are never understood to be taken literally. So, “why” would Jesus suddenly mean ‘this’ “I AM” statement to be taken literally? Also, when the apostle Paul rebukes the Corinthian Church for taking the communion bread & wine in an “unworthy manner,” it was because they were gorging themselves on the bread & literally getting intoxicated on the wine. If Jesus is referring to His literal physical blood that was “transubstantiated” from literal wine, are you saying that a person can get literally & physically drunk on the transubstantiated blood of Christ that although “appears” to be wine, it’s actualy wine anymore?

Yes, it’s “trogos” which means to gnaw on, which - again - can be meant either literally or figuratively, like something “gnawing on your conscience.” So, if Jesus was speaking literally, if they hadn’t walked away, they would have to start “gnawing” on Jesus’ literal flesh right then & there since communion wasn’t taken place. If fact, if you read earlier in John 6, it states that Jesus literally “fed” people with bread earlier & in a different location. So, Jesus isn’t even discussing communion in John 6, because the context of it doesn’t call for it. Again, read John 6:35, which makes it clear that Jesus is speaking figuratively, unless you believe Jesus is speaking about literal “hunger” & literal “thirst”? And no offense, but Jesus not saying “he who has ears let him hear” in this passage isn’t really a strong argument that Jesus wasn’t speaking figuratively. In fact, normally when He’s saying this, Jesus is discussing a parable, which He’s not doing in John 6.

So again we are faced with the problem of whose interpretation of Scripture is best . And since Protestants accept no authority other than their own understanding of Scripture it is, ,from the Protestant standpoint, an unsolvable problem . Thus we see the constant verse wars we have seen in this thread and the other misunderstanding of Catholic theology as MacArthur shows . Protestants like MacArthur would have us believe that Jesus ascended to heaven and left us under the guidance of a book that hadn’t even been completed yet . A book who’s Cannon wasn’t set for another 400 years and a book who the overwhelming majority of humans on the earth were incapable of reading . He would also have us believe that it took 1500 years for God to decide to reveal to Chrisrians that they had it all wrong .

Catholics believe that Jesus founded a Church, not a book . And that he left his Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit . A Church he gave the authority to bind and loose , a Church whose magestrium can trace their authority in an unbroken line back to Jesus himself . A Church that does not change its doctrines and theology every time the culture tell them they’re wrong or one of their members decides they have a new novel and of course better interpretation of Scripture . Catholics don’t have to parse words and argue about translations on the meaning of John 6 Those who Christ gave the authority told us 2000 years ago exactly what Jesus meant in John 6

The Sola Scriptura approach leads us us to the McCarthurs of the world . Reciting scripture verses , twisting history and attacking the one true Church . The other approach leads us to men like Pope Francis, the vicar of Christ and the head of the one true Church .

 

[PRmerger]

Neither is the word “Trinity,” but both concepts are found in Scripture.

Similarly: purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, papacy…

Remember, one cannot reserve for himself what he objects to in Catholicism.