The sufficiency of Christ

[izoid]

As I said before, I was baptized a Catholic, now you tend to think I’m a not. I have mentioned elsewhere that I have reconsidered the Catholic Church. The jury is always still out on that. Convince me otherwise. But for now, I still find the evidence of my own life experiences quite convincing.

Let me tell you, if you are really searching for the truth, do not listen to MacArthur regarding the catholic church. The formative years of my Christian walk were under his teaching and he is VERY hostile to Catholics. Look for balanced voices. His is one of the very worst of the worst regarding Catholicism.

My advice to Adam was to look at church history. What does history tell us, what do the ECF’s teach about the faith? Is it protestant? Is it Catholic? You must determine if the protestant ideas regarding the reformation and the Catholic Church are actually true. o they rightly convey the teachings of the Church or are they misleading. Once you have done this the answer will be there for you.

Remember, this is all about Jesus and not about your life experiences.

 

[Rocket_Man]

I really have say how disappointed I am with what has happened here. We are finally having, what I thought was, honest conversation regarding important theological ideas. Both sides have encouraged open minds and respect and I really thought we were getting there. I even credited Rocketman for his efforts only to find out they are not his ideas at all. Worse yet, they are the claims, plagiarized claims, of one of the most Anti Catholic, hostile, voices in evangelicalism.

If there is to be any ecumenism here, we need to leave MacArthur out.

Do you see why I couldn’t credit MacArthur’s name on these responses and how fast the table turned once you knew they were written by him. On the other hand, I promise to read anything you throw out with an open mind no matter how hostile it is to my beliefs.

 

[izoid]

Do you see why I couldn’t credit MacArthur’s name on these responses and how fast the table turned once you knew they were written by him. On the other hand, I promise to read anything you throw out with an open mind no matter how hostile it is to my beliefs.

Come on now Rocket. MacArthur calls the pope the antichrist, he claims Catholics are not true Christians an that we teach a false gospel. I have not seen anyone here show that level of hostility to you or anyone else. Well, maybe 2ndadam to Zee but that is a different story. YOu have not encountered hostility anywhere near the level that MacArthur throws out.

 

[izoid]

Do you see why I couldn’t credit MacArthur’s name on these responses and how fast the table turned once you knew they were written by him. On the other hand, I promise to read anything you throw out with an open mind no matter how hostile it is to my beliefs.

Unfortunately his arguments don’t hold water. Careful exegesis of the verse will prove him wrong. MacArthur uses eisegesis when interpreting these verses. He draws conclusions from his own ideas and not from the text.

 

[tweetymom]

It was a tough choice. It wasn’t an issue with giving credit where credit is deserved but rather which one of you would actually read it with an open mind with his name on it.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Come on now Rocket. MacArthur calls the pope the antichrist, he claims Catholics are not true Christians an that we teach a false gospel. I have not seen anyone here show that level of hostility to you or anyone else. Well, maybe 2ndadam to Zee but that is a different story. YOu have not encountered hostility anywhere near the level that MacArthur throws out.

I just read a article by doing a google search “MacArthur Catholics”. Wow! You are rightly upset. I always thought he had a talent to explain the scripture in a comprehendible manner. How about R. C. Sproul, is he considered to be anti-Catholic too?

 

[izoid]

I just read a article by doing a google search “MacArthur Catholics”. Wow! You are rightly upset. I always thought he had a talent to explain the scripture in a comprehendible manner. How about R. C. Sproul, is he considered to be anti-Catholic too?

RC Sproul is not anti Catholic in my book. He may not agree with Catholicism but I don’t think he rises to the same level of hostility as others.

 

[Rocket_Man]

RC Sproul is not anti Catholic in my book. He may not agree with Catholicism but I don’t think he rises to the same level of hostility as others.

Good, sometimes I listen to him teach and tears fall as he explains God’s word.

 

[izoid]

Good, sometimes I listen to him teach and tears fall as he explains God’s word.

I would recommend going to Lighthouse Catholic Media and downloading some of Scott Hahn’s MP3’s. I am very impressed with him and with his knowledge of scripture.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Do you see why I couldn’t credit MacArthur’s name on these responses and how fast the table turned once you knew they were written by him. On the other hand, I promise to read anything you throw out with an open mind no matter how hostile it is to my beliefs.

The tables turned because you plagiarized the man. Integrity Rocket_Man… Integrity.

God bless you

 

[PRmerger]

Good, sometimes I listen to him teach and tears fall as he explains God’s word.

Interesting, but peculiar comment, Rocket. Isn’t the Protestant paradigm, as cited by
2ndAdam’s Westminster creed: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” that is, “the Scriptures interpret themselves”?

If that is indeed one’s paradigm why does a Protestant need any explanation of God’s word?

 

[Rocket_Man]

Remember, this is all about Jesus and not about your life experiences.

Through my life experiences, being raised in the Catholic Church, I’ve been able to sample both sides of the claim. The Catholic Church as a mother did not quite hold up to the claims she advertised. On the otherhand, while experiencing a drug, alcohol, and sex infused life, the Jesus of the Bible as I learned it did turn out to be all that He said He would be. Bit by bit these desires faded and was filled by a deeper love for Him. How can I argue with proof like that?

 

[Rocket_Man]

Interesting, but peculiar comment, Rocket. Isn’t the Protestant paradigm, as cited by
2ndAdam’s Westminster creed: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” that is, “the Scriptures interpret themselves”?

If that is indeed one’s paradigm why does a Protestant need any explanation of God’s word?

You might understand the “Scriptures interpret themselves” meaning differently than the intent of the authors. Please refer to all the text in the creed to correctly understand the infallibility rule.

 

[Rocket_Man]

The tables turned because you plagiarized the man. Integrity Rocket_Man… Integrity.

God bless you

Your being silly! As I explained, it was a tough choice. If you were following this forum, his name was brought up a few pages back before these posts. There was no chance that any of you would have gave these posts any weight with his name on them. There wasn’t any intent in any way to claim his work.

If I had to do it over again, I would have decided differently. If some of you would have discredited the explanations only because of his name being on it, then I should have let that be your choice and not mine.

 

[PRmerger]

Your being silly! As I explained, it was a tough choice. If you were following this forum, his name was brought up a few pages back before these posts. There was no chance that any of you would have gave these posts any weight with his name on them. There wasn’t any intent in any way to claim his work.

If I had to do it over again, I would have decided differently. If some of you would have discredited the explanations only because of his name being on it, then I should have let that be your choice and not mine.

Exactly, It’s the right thing to do, to give credit to someone else’s workmanship, regardless of the response it receives.

It’s like a teenager not telling his parents he lost the car keys. When confronted, he says, “Well, I was worried that you’d freak out–and, see, you’ve proven me right!” Irrelevant. Teenage son was dishonest by not telling his parents something they deserved to know.

 

[PRmerger]

You might understand the “Scriptures interpret themselves” meaning differently than the intent of the authors. Please refer to all the text in the creed to correctly understand the infallibility rule.

Ok. So please connect the dots for me. Do you need someone to help explain the Scriptures to you?

If so, what guarantee do you have that this well-informed person’s interpretation is the correct one, vs another contrary yet well-informed opinion. How do you know?

 

[Rocket_Man]

Ok. So please connect the dots for me. Do you need someone to help explain the Scriptures to you?

If so, what guarantee do you have that this well-informed person’s interpretation is the correct one, vs another contrary yet well-informed opinion. How do you know?

In this case, when you have two varying opinions, we would go back to scripture for the answer. Many times, there isn’t a clear answer, especially when it’s not central to the Gospel. Such as baptism for the dead in 1 Cor. 15:29. Mormon’s have built a whole salvation doctrine from this one verse. We on the otherhand, and I think that includes you, find it inessential to the faith.

 

[PRmerger]

In this case, when you have two varying opinions, we would go back to scripture for the answer. Many times, there isn’t a clear answer, especially when it’s not central to the Gospel. Such as baptism for the dead in 1 Cor. 15:29. Mormon’s have built a whole salvation doctrine from this one verse. We on the otherhand, and I think that includes you, find it inessential to the faith.

Fair enough.

And what is your belief about what’s “central to the Gospel”? Are there any Scripture verses that tell you these are essential? I assume you mean that these are things that we must have the same interpretation of.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Your being silly! As I explained, it was a tough choice. If you were following this forum, his name was brought up a few pages back before these posts. There was no chance that any of you would have gave these posts any weight with his name on them. There wasn’t any intent in any way to claim his work.

If I had to do it over again, I would have decided differently. If some of you would have discredited the explanations only because of his name being on it, then I should have let that be your choice and not mine.

I would rather be considered silly and keep my credibility. You say it was a tough choice, that tells me even more about you as a person.

I would rather you just admit that you were caught then trying to turn the tables and blame us for your error. Telling us that you didn’t think that we could be, “open minded” and therefore you had to post his works without giving him credit… Take some responsibility.

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

In this case, when you have two varying opinions, we would go back to scripture for the answer. Many times, there isn’t a clear answer, especially when it’s not central to the Gospel. Such as baptism for the dead in 1 Cor. 15:29. Mormon’s have built a whole salvation doctrine from this one verse. We on the otherhand, and I think that includes you, find it inessential to the faith.

Yes but the question becomes, how do you decide when something is non-essential? I have yet to see in the Bible where the list of essential and non-essential beliefs are outlined.

God bless