I have listened to MacArthur regularly for a couple years. Sometimes he knows what he’s talking about and sometimes he goes off the deep end. He has a split-personality bent, and sometimes he contradicts himself from sermon to sermon.Very interseting. When I am tlod that I am wrong about something I ask for the accuser to support his accusations. MacArthur has given much biblical support for his reasons for the comments he makes. I would suggest you carefully look at what he says and comment on his statements rather than just write him off as a cook.
Hi Marco,
It most certainly does bother me.
You mean besides the quote in post 1 of this thread? And the rest of that talk?
He even denies the existence of relics despite (Acts 9:39, Acts 19:12, 2 Kings 13:21…)Yup!
Histrionics of that sort are tiresome at best, potentially dangerous at worst.*You mean besides the quote in post 1 of this thread? And the rest of that talk?
Lets look at these verses and do some good exegesis and see if they support the idea of relics.
Acts 9:39
9 So Peter arose and went with them. When he arrived, they brought him into the upper room; and all the widows stood beside him, weeping and showing all the tunics and garments that Dorcas used to make while she was with them.
NASU
Remember Acts is history and with this it just says what happened most of the time not if what happened is to be followed today.
How does this passage support the idea of relics? It just says what happened not if what happened has a meaning to it.
Acts 19:12
12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.
NASU
Same thing goes for this passage. It just tells us what happened and not if we are to do the same thing with handkerchiefs today. This miracle was an Apostolic one showing the power of god through His apostles. Miracles here confirm the work of the apostles. Today we do not have apostles and don’t need them because we have the word of God, 2 Peter 1:16-21. Is there another passage that says we can use the approach to miracles today?
2 Kings 13:21
1 As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a marauding band; and they cast the man into the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.
NASU
History just tells what happens. It does not always say if what happens is right or wrong. We must look to other passages in order to know if the historical passage is something that we can hold on to as a practice for today. First, is there any other passage in the Bible that supports this idea as a good and helps us understand what is going on here? The answer is no not unless you know of one. the passage does not says if this the norm or that it supports the idea of relics. For that matter no passage in the bible tells us use relics today. This sign that happened here was for Jehoash. It showed the power of God working even through His prophet’s corps and was used to encourage the king as he anticipated his battles with the Armenians. No other IOT or NT passage ays that this event proves the usage of relics for today. In fact thee is a NT passage that says we don’t need relics today because we have the Word of God, 2 Peter 2 Peter 1:16-21.
John Mac Arthur is correct in views on relics. We do not need them today because we have the bible and no passage of Scripture tells us that we are to use relics of keep them. t Keeping or using relics is a non-biblical idea and is pagan idea not found in the Bible.
Just a couple of things about relics; Keeping relics *is *found in the Bible, actually. A relic is any thing attached to the Saint or martyr or Apostle. Pieces of cloth belonging to the Apostle Paul or which had touched him were kept by the Christians, and were brought to the sick and ailing with a view to obtaining a cure or relief, and the sick were cured.*You mean besides the quote in post 1 of this thread? And the rest of that talk?
Lets look at these verses and do some good exegesis and see if they support the idea of relics.
Acts 9:39
9 So Peter arose and went with them. When he arrived, they brought him into the upper room; and all the widows stood beside him, weeping and showing all the tunics and garments that Dorcas used to make while she was with them.
NASU
Remember Acts is history and with this it just says what happened most of the time not if what happened is to be followed today.
How does this passage support the idea of relics? It just says what happened not if what happened has a meaning to it.
Acts 19:12
12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.
NASU
Same thing goes for this passage. It just tells us what happened and not if we are to do the same thing with handkerchiefs today. This miracle was an Apostolic one showing the power of god through His apostles. Miracles here confirm the work of the apostles. Today we do not have apostles and don’t need them because we have the word of God, 2 Peter 1:16-21. Is there another passage that says we can use the approach to miracles today?
2 Kings 13:21
1 As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a marauding band; and they cast the man into the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.
NASU
History just tells what happens. It does not always say if what happens is right or wrong. We must look to other passages in order to know if the historical passage is something that we can hold on to as a practice for today. First, is there any other passage in the Bible that supports this idea as a good and helps us understand what is going on here? The answer is no not unless you know of one. the passage does not says if this the norm or that it supports the idea of relics. For that matter no passage in the bible tells us use relics today. This sign that happened here was for Jehoash. It showed the power of God working even through His prophet’s corps and was used to encourage the king as he anticipated his battles with the Armenians. No other IOT or NT passage ays that this event proves the usage of relics for today. In fact thee is a NT passage that says we don’t need relics today because we have the Word of God, 2 Peter 2 Peter 1:16-21.
John Mac Arthur is correct in views on relics. We do not need them today because we have the bible and no passage of Scripture tells us that we are to use relics of keep them. t Keeping or using relics is a non-biblical idea and is pagan idea not found in the Bible.
Very good.Yup!
First of all, because intelligent discussion breaks down when one side resorts to slinging comments along the lines of “[you’re] a front for the kingdom of Satan.” That’s pretty much code for “I have no intention of having a reasonable discourse with you, so don’t bother.” And that means divisions grow deeper and hostility grows stronger, and that’s bad for everyone. Second, because I truly believe most people practice their faith, well… in good faith. Even if you think a particular religion is wrong, it’s not cool to attack and insult honest and well-meaning practitioners of that religion, and that’s exactly what inflammatory statements like that do.
And third, because as a Pagan, I have a vested interest in people NOT immediately pointing and shouting “SATAN-WORSHIPER!” at anyone who doesn’t follow their faith.
I created a new thread to respond to this. Go here for the new thread Are relics Biblical?. And it would serve you well to click on the other links in my post #185 so you can see just how inconsistent Dr. MacArthur is.
The Catholic practice of venerating the relics of the saints has its roots deep in the soil of ancient Christianity. This reverence for the remains of Christian faithful, especially for the martyrs, who gave their lives as a tesimony to Christ’s love, has always been a hallmark of the Christian religion and can be seen as far back as the New Testament era. This strong desire to locate, collect, and venerate the bones of the saints was not new to Christianity. The Jews had long venerated the remains of the Old Testament holy men and women, and in the Old Testament, we find this striking example ( 2 Kings 13:20-21) of how the relics of a prophet were used by God to convey grace and a miraculous resuscitation from the dead.
How do I find your post #185?
In the top right corner of each post is a number. You can scroll up to #185, or you can click here for post #185.
I have made my comments and find that you are mistaken about MacArthur.
It is strong language but you must ask, what evidence does he have to support such a claim. Make a statement like he did does not mean he hates Catholics as a group of people. You will never hear that come out of his mouth because he does not hate anyone. He has a problem with what the religion teaches. He has a problem justifying what this religious group teaches in light of what the Bible says. That is all. Pastor MacArthur is a very loving man. He is just doing what 2 Tim 4:1-5; Jude 3; Col. 2 says to do.Naw, I think satan knows who he is and the LAST thing he wants to be is catholic!!
