MacArthur

[Jon_Mallory]

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 .

But that doesn’t address Thetazlord’s argument…The Macarthurs of the world will continue to scare Catholics away from their own Church if their arguments aren’t addressed. It is easy to dismiss them as horrible people but to do so is to give them the victory and admit defeat. It gives the impression that Catholics are too scared to face the arguments and so they sidestep them by lambasting Protestant doctrines. The burden of proof is on Catholics to make a defense of the Eucharist, which Mcarthur attacks.

 

[PRmerger]

The burden of proof is on Catholics to make a defense of the Eucharist, which Mcarthur attacks.

No. Catholicism professes that there is a final arbiter and guardian of the interpretation of Scripture.

It is MacArthur, taz and other Protestants, who proclaim that each of us has our own authority to interpret Scripture as we deem, who has to prove that the Catholic interpretation is incorrect.

But it’s an inconsistent, untenable and irrational position for them to espouse. For if the paradigm is that they don’t need anyone to tell them what Scripture means, how is it that they are telling Catholics what Scripture means?

 

[Per_Crucem]

But it’s an inconsistent, untenable and irrational position for them to espouse. For if the paradigm is that they don’t need anyone to tell them what Scripture means, how is it that they are telling Catholics what Scripture means?

Understood. Not to quibble, but Catholics do this, too.

“You cannot privately interpret Scripture. But wait! Here’s this awesome private interpretation of Isaiah 22 by Scott Hahn, not seen by any church fathers, popes or councils, but it totally proves our POV, so read it and know it’s true!”

 

[PRmerger]

Understood. Not to quibble, but Catholics do this, too.

“You cannot privately interpret Scripture. But wait! Here’s this awesome private interpretation of Isaiah 22 by Scott Hahn, not seen by any church fathers, popes or councils, but it totally proves our POV, so read it and know it’s true!”

If any Catholic tells you; “you cannot privately interpret Scripture” you can tell him, “Actually, I know your faith better than you, it seems, for your Catholic faith has NEVER stated that Catholics may not ‘privately interpret Scripture’.”

I would find that amusing to see a Lutheran tell a Catholic that, and be correct.

 

[PRmerger]

Understood. Not to quibble, but Catholics do this, too.

“You cannot privately interpret Scripture. But wait! Here’s this awesome private interpretation of Isaiah 22 by Scott Hahn, not seen by any church fathers, popes or councils, but it totally proves our POV, so read it and know it’s true!”

Incidentally, I have read a lot of Scott Hahn and have never seen him claim that his interpretation of Isaiah 22 has never been seen by the ECFs, popes or councils.

Can you offer some proof that this is his position?

Instead, I have heard him say, many times, how he thought he was discovering some innovation, only to find out that his eureka moment is as old as the Church herself.

 

[asd72]

i have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of god, which is the flesh of jesus christ, who was of the seed of david; and for drink i desire his blood, which is love incorruptible. (letter to romans 7:3)

they [the gnostics] abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our saviour jesus christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the father, in his goodness, raised up again. (letter to smyrn 7:1)

macarthur would actually agree with ignatius, because there is nothing that ignatius is saying in his non-inspired writing that assumes a literal presence of jesus in the communion bread. In his letter to the romans, ignatius is equating love incorruptible with “drinking,” or “desiring” his blood, which refers not to the wine, but his shed blood on the cross. When he says “flesh,” ignatius is not using it any different than jesus did in john 6, which elsewhere in scripture refers to christ’s “nature” or his “life” that he sacrificed on the cross for us. Eucharist in scripture simply means “thanksgiving.” but it never refers to the actual communion bread itself. So, when ignatius refers to “eucharist,” he’s referring to the “thanksgiving” for the “nature” or “life” (“flesh”) that christ “suffered for our sins,” not the actual communion bread itself. Try replacing “eucharist” with “thanksgiving” in the above writings of ignatius, & you’ll see what i mean.

I would just to point out that unless John MacArthur believed Jesus symbolically died for our sins and rose again, he very much disagrees with Ignatius of Antioch!

Ignatius was of a generation called Apostolic Fathers, which is the generation thought to have had contact with the actual Apostles. No, his writings are no considered canonical, but they are very important and significant.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Incidentally, I have read a lot of Scott Hahn and have never seen him claim that his interpretation of Isaiah 22 has never been seen by the ECFs, popes or councils.

Can you offer some proof that this is his position?

I didn’t say it was his position. However, it is factually true regardless of his view of it. The only major church exegete from the first, say, millennium of Christianity who even draws somewhat of a parallel between Isaiah 22 and Matt 16 is St. John Cassian.

Incidentally, I am not criticizing his interpretation of it. Only pointing out that it is, indeed, his private interpretation.

 

[Per_Crucem]

If any Catholic tells you; “you cannot privately interpret Scripture” you can tell him, “Actually, I know your faith better than you, it seems, for your Catholic faith has NEVER stated that Catholics may not ‘privately interpret Scripture’.”

I would find that amusing to see a Lutheran tell a Catholic that, and be correct.

I am sure that is the reality, PR (that Catholics believe you can interpret Scripture). However, the polemic in debate doesn’t always compare to this reality.

 

[PRmerger]

I am sure that is the reality, PR (that Catholics believe you can interpret Scripture). However, the polemic in debate doesn’t always compare to this reality.

Irrelevant, PC.

You need to argue against what is actually Catholic teaching.

It’s inutile to argue against what’s not even a belief of the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t say it was his position. However, it is factually true regardless of his view of it. The only major church exegete from the first, say, millennium of Christianity who even draws somewhat of a parallel between Isaiah 22 and Matt 16 is St. John Cassian.

Incidentally, I am not criticizing his interpretation of it. Only pointing out that it is, indeed, his private interpretation.

I doubt that very much.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Irrelevant, PC.

You need to argue against what is actually Catholic teaching.

It’s inutile to argue against what’s not even a belief of the Church.

I wasn’t stating that it was Catholic teaching. I prefaced my remarks with pointing out the polemic used in Catholic apologetics (which, for the most part, is not done by the officials of the Church, but by participants in internet forums)

 

[PRmerger]

I wasn’t stating that it was Catholic teaching. I prefaced my remarks with pointing out the polemic used in Catholic apologetics (which, for the most part, is not done by the officials of the Church, but by participants in internet forums)

Understood.

And all you have to do, if any Catholic on this forum, or any other forum, asserts that we cannot privately interpret Scripture is to say: “Actually, I know your faith better than you, it seems, for your Catholic faith has NEVER stated that Catholics may not ‘privately interpret Scripture’.”

Nothing more can be said by this Catholic who doesn’t know his faith.

#endofpolemic

 

[Per_Crucem]

I doubt that very much.

I would be happy to accept correction on what the luminaries of the church have previously said on the matter.

 

[PRmerger]

I would be happy to accept correction on what the luminaries of the church have previously said on the matter.

I’ll start another thread.

 

[PRmerger]

I would be happy to accept correction on what the luminaries of the church have previously said on the matter.

Thread started 9 minutes ago.

Your position refuted already.

Not Scott Hahn’s personal interpretation.

QED

 

[Per_Crucem]

Thread started 9 minutes ago.

Your position refuted already.

Not Scott Hahn’s personal interpretation.

QED

Where?

 

[PRmerger]

Where?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12794169#post12794169

 

[PRmerger]

I’m going to delete the above posts where I can as they are off topic, Per Crucem.

 

[ericc]

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 .

.

Actually it wasn’t a problem of interpretation, it is a problem of disobedience. The Bible says to take it to the Church to sort it out. They don’t . Sola Scriptura doesn’t work when 2 protestants don’t agree with each other. Ultimately, the solution for them is to each one do their own thing, because none of them want to submit to the other.

Have you ever heard of any councils convened by the Protestants the last 500 years to solve these doctrinal issues? None. Question is why? Because all of them want to be their own pope! I’d rather be pope in my own church rather than subject to somebody else.

 

[estesbob]

But that doesn’t address Thetazlord’s argument…The Macarthurs of the world will continue to scare Catholics away from their own Church if their arguments aren’t addressed. It is easy to dismiss them as horrible people but to do so is to give them the victory and admit defeat. It gives the impression that Catholics are too scared to face the arguments and so they sidestep them by lambasting Protestant doctrines. The burden of proof is on Catholics to make a defense of the Eucharist, which Mcarthur attacks.

You cant address his argument. Since he acknowledges no authority other than his own personal interpretation of scripture there can be no right or wrong. only endless verse wars and arguments over what the real meaning of words like"trogos" .

Its not a matter of being afraid to address their arguments-its matter of not buying into their false premise in the first place. The burden of proof lies on those who want to reject 2,000 years of teachings and replace them based on no authority but their own.

Sola Scriptura is really a form of Gnosticism-salvation through “knowledge.” I don’t need to parse scripture verses to arrive at the Truth. Christ assured I would always have the truth as entrusted to his Church