MacArthur

[commenter]

The problem with Pastor MacArthur’s position, as with all Sola Scriptura, is that it’s unbalanced. While he doesn’t officially count “tradition” as authoritative, in effect his way of interpreting scripture is simply one more tradition, refuting many other Sola Scriptura interpretations. He takes for granted certain principles then applies those to the Bible; most especially, he unconsciously assumes the “traditional” 27 book NT canon (where did THAT come from?)

In a way, I admire him for the courage of his convictions. At 75, he represents a strain within Protestantism that is fading. He may say he disagrees with Catholicism, but keep in mind he, like the RCC, strongly believes there are some absolutes in doctrine and morality, and in supernatural realities. He’s right about that.

Looking at Protestantism, I see the mainline liberals abandoning Christianity, following whatever trends are in the media. But even among evangelicals, I see non denominational churches springing up. They don’t teach heretical doctrine; they teach almost no doctrine. The whole message is how to feel good about yourself, spend time with your children, communicate with your spouse, eat a balanced diet, exercise, feel the joy in the moment, rainbows, sun coming up, listen to that lonely person you meet, care, come back again so we can meet your needs. Even if it were proven God did not exist, the non denominationals and liberals would continue functioning, without missing a beat.

In a way, someone like MacArthur who will criticize doctrines of Catholics (and many, many other Christians) is a better influence than the non denominationals, who criticize nothing except frowns. If MacArthur had taken a few steps differently early on, he would have made a good Catholic evangelist. (The non denominational pastor almost was a Yoga instructor). MacArthur offers a lot of raw material for good, but he’s got some basic elements wrong. I don’t see potential for good in the Mainline, or non denominationals. I think MacArthur was shaped by a Protestant world that is shrinking, so we won’t see many like him in the future. For better or worse. We should pray for his well being.

 

[asd72]

1 Timothy 3:15: “but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”

This verse by Timothy actually supports sola scriptura, because the Church, the “pillar & support of the truth” accepts what Paul has written. It doesn’t say that they accepted what Paul did not write that conflicted with, or “exceeded” Scripture. In fact, Paul commands the opposite (1 Corinthians 4:6).

I think we have a problem.

The same Paul that said do not go beyond what is written and that*** the Church is the pillar and support of the truth***, also said this:

*2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by **WORD OF MOUTH *or by letter.

How does your interpretation that The Apostle Paul was advocating sola scripture in 1 Corinthians 4:6 account for the fact he claims authority for his teaching both oral and written in 2 Thessalonians 2:15?

 

[ericc]

carm.org/early-church-fathers-communion

cont’d

1. Augustine (354-430)

 1. Augustine says the elements are a resemblance of the actual body and blood. "Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? **For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all.** In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.** As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood**,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Augustine, Letter 98:9)

I thought the words said it very clearly:

“For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all.”
“As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood…”

Where is the issue? The sacraments are Christ’s Blood and Body. The real thing itself.

1. Augustine said regarding John 6:63 says Christ said not to eat the body or blood which you see, referring to Christ saying to the disciples. “But He instructed them, and saith unto them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” (Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)

Important part that was omitted:

“It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing.”…But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.” John 6:54 Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein."

" I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood."

cont’d

 

[ericc]

carm.org/early-church-fathers-communion

cont’d

1. Augustine says Christ’s words in John 6 about his body and blood are figurative. “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”–(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

ekaristi.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=554

John 6:63
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

When Jesus said, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” He knows that those who listen to him think of eating a flesh as a mere flesh of some carcass! Jesus understood what they think and He agreed. A mere flesh from a carcass doesn’t do anything to you (well you will be eating something but that’s it).

But it’s the spirit that gives life to the flesh. Just as our body would be an empty vessel if our spirit left it (we call this being dead Smile). With the spirit inside our body can function as it’s supposed to be.

Jesus added the final sentence, “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”. In this He meant that the words that He just said, which is about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, are spirit and life. So we are not to understood His flesh (and blood) as a mere flesh (and blood). We have to understand that His flesh (and blood) is a flesh with His spirit inside. Because when the spirit is WITHIN the flesh, the flesh is no longer a mere carcass but a flesh that profited abundantly!

So when we eat His body, is not just like with any body/flesh. Jesus’s body has within it His Spirit! Unlike a dead person whose body is only a body without a spirit, Jesus body is JOINED with His Spirit forever!! When we take the Holy Communion, we are taking the body and blood, soul and divinity.

Alternatively another reading (my version)

It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh is of no avail. The Spirit is in caps which refer to the Holy Spirit. And indeed it is the HS the Lord and Giver of Life as we proclaim in the Creed. The flesh is of no avail as it is mortal.

The words I have spoken are Spirit and lifeThe words refer to the discourse from John 6:26 onwards. With the HS abiding in him Jn1:32, Jn 3:34-35, he taught that to have everlasting life they must eat his flesh the bread from heaven.

But look at Augustine’s other writings.

earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
Sermon 272
“What you see on God’s altar, you’ve already observed during the night that has now ended. But you’ve heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ’s body, the cup is Christ’s blood.”

“So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit."

david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html
Sermon 227
" I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ.†2 That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ."

 

[oldcatholicguy]

John MacArthur is a bigot and a false teacher. Lots of people can quote the Bible back and forth but that doesn’t mean they have correct theology. John uses the Bible to fit his wrongly based theology. He read and quotes what he wants to you believe and sweeps in the gullible.

He’s been studying Christianity for most of his life, has at least one degree on religion, has a blog, has a website, writes books and articles on Christianity and Catholicism, and lectures/debates on it, and has people who call him mean names because of his views. He sounds qualified to me.

 

[estesbob]

He’s been studying Christianity for most of his life, has at least one degree on religion, has a blog, has a website, writes books and articles on Christianity and Catholicism, and lectures/debates on it, and has people who call him mean names because of his views. He sounds qualified to me.

What qualifies him to interpret scripture for the rest of us?

 

[Porknpie]

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.” 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).

True - much disagreement in the early Church, particularly on the divinity of Christ. There were many heretics on this point and much discussion and debate in the Church. That you trust that the Church got it right …

Yet there were no councils debating the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Not until the reformation…

Even then, based on sola scriptura, Martin Luther saw the problem of individual’s interpreting scripture apart from the Church, and was pretty annoyed at Zwingli for his heretical view on the Lord’s Supper only being symbolic.

Luther couldn’t believe such a man-made doctrine could be made based on both Scripture and Tradition.

Interesting that Zwingli not only rejected the authenticity of the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, but also the theology that they contained (wonder what Zwingli thought of the Justin Martyr’s words describing the Mass in the mid-second century?)

He figured he knew better than the Church, 1,500 years after the fact.

And now we have those today, 2,000 years after the fact, figuring that they know better, can read and interpret the bible apart from the Church’s teaching of 2,000 years.

Itching ears…twisting of the Word of God…a new gospel.

Scripture is clear that it would happen.

 

[thetazlord]

True - much disagreement in the early Church, particularly on the divinity of Christ. There were many heretics on this point and much discussion and debate in the Church. That you trust that the Church got it right …

Yet there were no councils debating the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Not until the reformation…

Even then, based on sola scriptura, Martin Luther saw the problem of individual’s interpreting scripture apart from the Church, and was pretty annoyed at Zwingli for his heretical view on the Lord’s Supper only being symbolic.

Luther couldn’t believe such a man-made doctrine could be made based on both Scripture and Tradition.

Interesting that Zwingli not only rejected the authenticity of the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, but also the theology that they contained (wonder what Zwingli thought of the Justin Martyr’s words describing the Mass in the mid-second century?)

He figured he knew better than the Church, 1,500 years after the fact.

And now we have those today, 2,000 years after the fact, figuring that they know better, can read and interpret the bible apart from the Church’s teaching of 2,000 years.

Itching ears…twisting of the Word of God…a new gospel.

Scripture is clear that it would happen.

But a Protestant’s authority isn’t Martin Luther, nor Ulrich Zwingli, nor Ignatius, but the Scriptures themselves. In fact, if you read the writings of the early fathers, it was the Scriptures that they lent their authority to. In fact, many early Christians did not believe in the “real presence” in the Lord’s Supper, especially the early Greek fathers. But even “their” views need to be compared to Scripture, which they themselves would agree with. So, the real question in, do the Scriptures, in the Greek, support the “real presence” of Jesus in the Eucharist? This question is why Protestants don’t believe it does.

 

[thetazlord]

I think we have a problem.

The same Paul that said do not go beyond what is written and that*** the Church is the pillar and support of the truth***, also said this:

*2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by **WORD OF MOUTH ***or by letter.

How does your interpretation that The Apostle Paul was advocating sola scripture in 1 Corinthians 4:6 account for the fact he claims authority for his teaching both oral and written in 2 Thessalonians 2:15?

Simple, you have to read the previous 14 verses in 2 Thessalonians 2 to find out what “oral & written” Paul is referring to:

The ‘traditions’ which Paul says that were to be received ‘by word of mouth or by letter from us’ aren’t different traditions (ie: one tradition by mouth & a separate tradition by letter), but rather the same traditions that would ‘either’ be ‘taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.’ These ‘traditions’ were what Paul had just written, because he begins this verse with ‘So then’ or ‘Therefore,’ indicating that the ‘traditions’ he was talking about were what he had just communicated to them in writing, which were about the Second Coming of Jesus (v.1-14).

It’s important that when you view any single verse in Scripture to exegetically examine the surrounding passages, in order to get a clear understanding of that individual verse. This is what MacArthur does, which makes him a very good Bible expositor, even though a lot of people have a problem with him. Perhaps this is why.

 

[JustaServant]

But a Protestant’s authority isn’t Martin Luther, nor Ulrich Zwingli, nor Ignatius, but the Scriptures themselves. In fact, if you read the writings of the early fathers, it was the Scriptures that they lent their authority to. In fact, many early Christians did not believe in the “real presence” in the Lord’s Supper, especially the early Greek fathers. But even “their” views need to be compared to Scripture, which they themselves would agree with. So, the real question in, do the Scriptures, in the Greek, support the “real presence” of Jesus in the Eucharist? This question is why Protestants don’t believe it does.

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

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Understanding John 6, in context with Leviticus, and specifically with John 6:35, Jesus speaking figuratively would explain “why” they walked away…because they misunderstood Him to be speaking literally. And the reason He didn’t stop & correct them, is because being the Omniscient God, Jesus knew their hearts. Nothing He would say to them would change their minds, just as what He said didn’t change the minds of the Pharisees.

But this is never made explicit in the chapter. Nowhere in John 6 does it say “But Jesus knew their hearts…”. This seems to imply that this is a mind problem more than a heart issue. They simply do not understand. Whenever Christ is speaking figuratively, there are always indicators that he speaking figuratively like when Christ says He will rebuild the temple in 3 days. John says He was referring to Himself. So my point still stands. John would have left some evidence is He was just speaking metaphorically…

Also, what about the greek verbs used for “eats”? If it means “animal gnawing”, doesn’t that seem to suggest a more than symbolic act? I don’t know if you can say Christ is just using Hyperbole here.

 

[estesbob]

Simple, you have to read the previous 14 verses in 2 Thessalonians 2 to find out what “oral & written” Paul is referring to:

The ‘traditions’ which Paul says that were to be received ‘by word of mouth or by letter from us’ aren’t different traditions (ie: one tradition by mouth & a separate tradition by letter), but rather the same traditions that would ‘either’ be ‘taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.’ These ‘traditions’ were what Paul had just written, because he begins this verse with ‘So then’ or ‘Therefore,’ indicating that the ‘traditions’ he was talking about were what he had just communicated to them in writing, which were about the Second Coming of Jesus (v.1-14).

It’s important that when you view any single verse in Scripture to exegetically examine the surrounding passages, in order to get a clear understanding of that individual verse. This is what MacArthur does, which makes him a very good Bible expositor, even though a lot of people have a problem with him. Perhaps this is why.

Okay I reread the previous 14 verses andv I disagree with your interpretation of them. How do we resolve that.

 

[Porknpie]

But a Protestant’s authority isn’t Martin Luther, nor Ulrich Zwingli, nor Ignatius, but the Scriptures themselves.

You are arguing with Luther … the original Sola Scriptura man? He disagrees with you.

In fact, if you read the writings of the early fathers, it was the Scriptures that they lent their authority to.

Have you read St Ignatius of Antioch? He directs everyone to listen to the Bishop, to be of One Faith and to be One with the Church. Here’s a audio link to his writings. I listened to it today while on the treadmill (450 calories! yeah).

In fact, many early Christians did not believe in the “real presence” in the Lord’s Supper, especially the early Greek fathers. But even “their” views need to be compared to Scripture, which they themselves would agree with. So, the real question in, do the Scriptures, in the Greek, support the “real presence” of Jesus in the Eucharist? This question is why Protestants don’t believe it does.

Taz, you should simply through you bible away, at least the NT portion. If you can’t trust the Church on the Eucharist, then in no way can you trust that it got right on the canon of scripture. That the Church would be wrong in the 2nd century (St. Ignatius, St Justin Martyr as examples) on the one, but be infallibly right on the canon in 400 ad…is most SPOCK.

Who were these early Greek fathers who did not believe in the Real Presence?

Every Catholic Saint believed in the Real Presence…every single one.

(the CARM references were simply awful … awfully wrong as the previous posts indicate … the head of that website needs to keep searching for some better quotes, better evidence)

 

[oldcatholicguy]

What qualifies him to interpret scripture for the rest of us?

What doesn’t qualify him to interpret scripture for the rest of us? Does he not use the Bible?

 

[estesbob]

What doesn’t qualify him to interpret scripture for the rest of us? Does he not use the Bible?

Yes. But so do I and so do you. Who decides which of us right if we disagree?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Yes. But so do I and so do you. Who decides which of us right if we disagree?

Apparently it involves more than just having one degree in religion, claiming to have studied the faith for years, writing books and articles on the subject, giving lectures and debates on it, and having a website. What else does Rev. MacArthur need in order to be deemed an expert on Christian theology?

 

[estesbob]

Apparently it involves more than just having one degree in religion, claiming to have studied the faith for years, writing books and articles on the subject, giving lectures and debates on it, and having a website. What else does Rev. MacArthur need in order to be deemed an expert on Christian theology?

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

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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

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

 

[thetazlord]

estesbob:

Again based on who’s interpretation of Scripture?

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)

 

[commenter]

It’s important that when you view any single verse in Scripture to exegetically examine the surrounding passages, in order to get a clear understanding of that individual verse. This is what MacArthur does, which makes him a very good Bible expositor, even though a lot of people have a problem with him. Perhaps this is why.

True. The problem is that the “context” or reference for a verse can be a few chapters away, or even in a totally different book; many possible places that lead to different interpretations. Scholars disagree about which context influences a given passage, or what passage at all answers a given question. Dr. MacArthur makes a number of assumptions - about the canon, about contexts, interpretation, tradition, and other things. All his scholarship rests on those assumptions, as well as the Bible. Other Sola Scriptura scholars make different assumptions, and come to different conclusions. You can’t really prove him “better” than the other Sola Scriptura scholars then, because they use different assumptions. He has been in extensive disagreement with other Sola Scriptura scholars, who refute each other, as well as refuting him, with the Bible.

None of this is meant to demean the man. We should pray in gratitude for the souls he has led to Christ.