Who is John MacArthur?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DJB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you, New Life, for your observations. One of the challenges in a “letter to the editor” format I selected (in order to improve likelihood of actually being read) was that it can seldom address all the details and complexities of the issues at hand. It would take a book to really do the issue justice, but I am just a children’s writer.

You asked what writings I was referring to in particular. After reading the board and doing some internet research, I examined the “On Doctrine” website containing his sermon entitled “The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood”. (See ondoctrine.com/2mac0095.htm.) I suppose several things “disappointed” me concerning his approach. First, the tone of the piece seems disrespectful towards another group of believers. Don’t take me wrong…While a Protestant, I wrote some critical comments regarding the emotion-based religion of some charismatics. If we see something as wrong, we should point it out, but we should point it out in the right way–with care that we don’t strike the wrong chord in our message and further incite the discord between our traditions. Second, as I read the sermon I was struck with the fact that none of this is new. I have read it all before. It seemed to represent some of the worst generalizations concerning the Catholic Church one could compile in a single spot. One after another, I read misconception after misconception. Third, the presence of so many “apoligetic cliches” began to give me pause concerning his other writings and sermons. If he is so far off on this, has he done better research on his other topics? I can only hope that his deficits in scholarly pursuits are neatly compartementalized to attacks on the Catholic Church, but, to me, it throws everything else I have heard him preach over the years into question and doubt.

Being new to the Catholic Church (formerly associated with Nazarene, Free Methodist, Lutheran, and Episcopal Churches), I only know that the “Co-Redemptrix” is given no credence by the Catholic Church in an official capacity, and it is not widespread in the United States. If it is gaining in popularity outside the USA, the Church needs to certainly combat this false doctrine, and you would have no disagreement with me on that. I see it as another example of man’s fallen state as declared in Romans 3:23. Some have taken something so beautiul and tried to transform it into something it is not. Speaking of Mary, however, it is clear that mainline Protestants have lost sight of her importance–as even attested to by Martin Luther himself.

In regards to Galations passage, it is passages like this which led to our move home to the Catholic Church in the first place. Look at the Episcopal Church, for example, and the ordination of Bishop Robinson. The ECUSA leadership declared that the Spirit moved them to make this decision. As I wrote in a piece on this topic, however, there may indeed have been a spirit at work, but it wasn’t the Holy Spirit. The Spirit won’t contradict the Word–otherwise we have a polythiestic belief system. You probably are thinking to yourself ‘Episcopalians…they’re as wrong-headed as those Catholics!’ Let me give you an example, however, of where you’re quite wrong. At the Lambeth Conference in 1930, the Anglican Church abandoned its opposition against birth control under societal pressures–fed by the earlier love affair with eugenics, but that’s another book. (As an aside, Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton was a major voice in consistent opposition to the dangers of eugenics.) When the Anglican Church caved, Protestant churches quickly jumped on the bandwagon. Chances are the church you belong to favors birth control, and therefore is contributing not only to a disunity but also “The Culture of Death” as Pope John Paul II described it in the 1990s.

I have to scoot, but I will watch for your response. Best regards…
 
Since some of MacArthur’s statements about Catholics are somewhat similar to recent dialogue between a good friend and me, I am going to copy a (small) excerpt of the letter here.

The saints are another example of confusion to Protestants. Hebrews 12:1 refers to the “great cloud of witnesses gathered in heaven”. The nineteenth chapter of Revelation also has a similar reference. True Catholic doctrine is not that we **pray **to the saints, but that we may come to them as fellow believers and ask for them to intercede with Christ on our behalf. We pray to Christ, but we may communicate to the saints just as we converse with friends in the here and now. As we read in James 5:16, “The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” Who better to speak to, then, (in addition to Christ) than a saint? It should not be done at the expense of time spent with the Lord, but as supplemental to our devotions. I think much of the confusion lies on the Catholic concept of time, which makes perfect sense to me. When Christ rose again, he atoned for the sins of humanity (past, present, and future). He is not bound by time. Since He is outside of time, we can pray for those who have passed away just as we can pray for our own friends or neighbors. Since the Bible says the Saints are now with God (and therefore outside of time), we can come before them to ask for their prayers on our behalf. Our priest gave a personal example of a request for healing directed to Saint James while standing alone beside the tomb of Saint James in northwest Spain. He reports that his injury was immediately healed and never troubled him again. As a final note, part of the problem is our vocabulary. The word “prayer” when used by Catholics in talking about communicating with the saints should not entail any connotations of worship, as Protestants believe it does.

“Mindless motions for the masses.” and “There’s a big difference between hearers of the word and doers of the word.” These are both important criticisms to be discussed, and they are somewhat connected. As we read in Romans 3:23, we are all fallen in our sinful nature. One’s decision to stay or go within a specific church should not (usually) hinge solely upon the behavior of its members; we are all sinners. Unfortunately, we met some great examples of Catholic sinners when we were in Catholic schools. You know, who else had a horrible time in school? Saint Augustine. He was beaten repeatedly by his teachers, and his family teased him about the beatings. Although, he rebelled as we read in his *Confessions, *he returned to do great good for the church. The fact that we are sinners does not, however, mean that the Catholic Church (past, present, and future) is any less holy than the Lutheran or Episcopal churches we used to attend. If one has the correct mindset of reverence and faith, the repetition within the Catholic Church can be viewed quite differently. By changing the approach to one of worship, we can sense that this is a service which connects the congregation to traditions of the past and, therefore, further unifies the church as an example of Christ to the world. In other words, the motions do serve a purpose, but the person going through these motions must have his heart in the right place to appreciate the associated meaning. There is also something powerful and unifying in the observation that, once we are confirmed Catholics, we could visit any Catholic Church in North America and experience a service which is similar in most of the important respects. I see it as a connection to the past, a reminder that we are only travelers passing through on a journey. This is not our home.
 
John MacArthur helped me in my conversion to the Catholic Church!

I had always been a fan of John MacArthur since the 70’s-80’s and had several sets of his preaching. When I studied Catholicism and approached the all-critical issue of authority, I wanted to get a balanced percpestive. Catholic apologists would claim that sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible, but I remembered a sermon by John MacArthur showing sola scriptura form the Bible.

In the sermon (from his series on the charismatic movement) he “proves” that the Bible alone is sufficient for Christianity. I could not believe my ears as I heard him quote II Timothy 3 and then, he just changed the wording from “useful” to “sufficient” by quoting the greek behind the word complete. The error in logic was so obvious I could not believe I had never heard it before. It was right up there with Martin Luther writing the word “alone” in his Bible.

What is ironic is that he applied the admonition from the end of Revelations not to add or take away from this book to the whole Bible and claimed that was what Catholics did.
 
I only know that the “Co-Redemptrix” is given no credence by the Catholic Church in an official capacity, and it is not widespread in the United States. If it is gaining in popularity outside the USA, the Church needs to certainly combat this false doctrine, and you would have no disagreement with me on that. I see it as another example of man’s fallen state as declared in Romans 3:23. Some have taken something so beautiul and tried to transform it into something it is not. Speaking of Mary, however, it is clear that mainline Protestants have lost sight of her importance–as even attested to by Martin Luther himself.

Writer,

Actually, “Co-Redemptrix” is not some perverted and twisted false doctrine. You are correct in that it is not a dogmatic pronouncement. Read the following compliments from PhilVaz’s website. Understanding what the teaching actually is, instead of the caricature that people like MacArthur and McCarthy make it out to be (along with countless other Catholic doctrines) is a good starting point.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num48.htm

Peter John
 
OfTheCross said:
I only know that the “Co-Redemptrix” is given no credence by the Catholic Church in an official capacity, and it is not widespread in the United States. If it is gaining in popularity outside the USA, the Church needs to certainly combat this false doctrine, and you would have no disagreement with me on that. I see it as another example of man’s fallen state as declared in Romans 3:23. Some have taken something so beautiul and tried to transform it into something it is not. Speaking of Mary, however, it is clear that mainline Protestants have lost sight of her importance–as even attested to by Martin Luther himself.

Writer,

Actually, “Co-Redemptrix” is not some perverted and twisted false doctrine. You are correct in that it is not a dogmatic pronouncement. Read the following compliments from PhilVaz’s website. Understanding what the teaching actually is, instead of the caricature that people like MacArthur and McCarthy make it out to be (along with countless other Catholic doctrines) is a good starting point.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num48.htm

Peter John
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I will read this site’s explanation more thoroughly this evening, but I am left with the question “why”? Even if the underlying thelogy were determined to be accurate and true (which I am not prepared to declare at this time), what is the purpose of creating this conflict with the confusing “Co-Redemptrix” term? As she is clearly not a co-redeemer in any sense approaching that of Christ is seen as the redeemer, this only muddies the water between believers and is in conflict with the spirit of passages such as Romans 14:21. I would assert that we may (and should) honor Mary appropriately without resorting to misleading terms which only further divide and confuse Christians. There is no purpose to it, and, furthermore, it detracts from the attention and focus we could be giving Christ.
 
40.png
Writer:
Thanks for the clarification. I will read this site’s explanation more thoroughly this evening, but I am left with the question “why”? Even if the underlying thelogy were determined to be accurate and true (which I am not prepared to declare at this time), what is the purpose of creating this conflict with the confusing “Co-Redemptrix” term? As she is clearly not a co-redeemer in any sense approaching that of Christ is seen as the redeemer, this only muddies the water between believers and is in conflict with the spirit of passages such as Romans 14:21. I would assert that we may (and should) honor Mary appropriately without resorting to misleading terms which only further divide and confuse Christians. There is no purpose to it, and, furthermore, it detracts from the attention and focus we could be giving Christ.
Click to expand...
I am by no means an expert, but “co” is defined as with. She participated in man’s redemption by saying yes to God. Calling Mary “co” Redemptrix does not make her equal to Christ in any way as the Redeemer.
 
According to almost every Catholic Apologist I know (including the big ones such as Scott Hahn), the doctrine of Mary as Co-Redemptrix is an official teaching of the Catholic Church, although it has not been elevated to Dogma. Pope John Paul II has called Mary Co-Redemptrix six (6) times in his writings. ETWN frequently airs a program promoting the Catholic teaching of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. The program features many Apologists, priests, bishops and theologians all giving the Catholic background and support to this teaching. Scott Hahn and Marcus Grodi where also in this program. I also find this teaching very common when I read the saints, even saints and venerables from 400 - 500 years ago!

It might be useful to do a search on Co-Redemptrix and do some research.

-Ric
 
Writer,

As go leafs go stated, co means “with”, not “equal to”. It is too bad that many non-Catholics (and Catholics) get tripped up by simply not understanding the Catholic definition of terms. In a very real sense, we are all “co-redeemers” with Christ, although to a lesser extent than Mary. Any time we evangelize or pray for others for their salvation, are we not becoming “co-redeemers” with Christ? If we are participating in bringing about the redemption that Christ won on the Cross to all of those around us, then we are working with Him to bring His redemption into time 2000 years later. Of course, when one enters a state of sanctifying grace through our witness or prayer, it is not our witness or prayer alone that achieves for them this salvation but we are simply working with God to this end.

Mary participates as a “co-redemtrix” by her humble “yes” to the Incarnation which allowed Salvation (which is Christ) to enter the world through Her womb. She also participates currently through her intercessory prayer in heaven to God for the salvation of mankind.

Keep studying the Faith. I am still new at this, and am a recent convert as well. I was troubled by the Mary “Co-Redemtrix/Mediatrix” terminology until I studied it a little bit and understood what it actually meant. Although I’m not a big fan of this being declared dogma at some future point, it is fully in line with the rest of Catholic dogma.

Peter John
 
go Leafs go:
I am by no means an expert, but “co” is defined as with. She participated in man’s redemption by saying yes to God. Calling Mary “co” Redemptrix does not make her equal to Christ in any way as the Redeemer.
Click to expand...
“Co” actually can also imply equality as in the word “coextensive”, but I understand what you mean…
 
40.png
OfTheCross:
Writer,

As go leafs go stated, co means “with”, not “equal to”. It is too bad that many non-Catholics (and Catholics) get tripped up by simply not understanding the Catholic definition of terms. In a very real sense, we are all “co-redeemers” with Christ, although to a lesser extent than Mary. Any time we evangelize or pray for others for their salvation, are we not becoming “co-redeemers” with Christ? If we are participating in bringing about the redemption that Christ won on the Cross to all of those around us, then we are working with Him to bring His redemption into time 2000 years later. Of course, when one enters a state of sanctifying grace through our witness or prayer, it is not our witness or prayer alone that achieves for them this salvation but we are simply working with God to this end.

Mary participates as a “co-redemtrix” by her humble “yes” to the Incarnation which allowed Salvation (which is Christ) to enter the world through Her womb. She also participates currently through her intercessory prayer in heaven to God for the salvation of mankind.

Keep studying the Faith. I am still new at this, and am a recent convert as well. I was troubled by the Mary “Co-Redemtrix/Mediatrix” terminology until I studied it a little bit and understood what it actually meant. Although I’m not a big fan of this being declared dogma at some future point, it is fully in line with the rest of Catholic dogma.

Peter John
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to explain it more thoroughly. I thought had a pretty good grip on this, but guess I don’t yet. Back to the books, I suppose… I don’t think I could ever accept that we act as co-redeemers when we assist in bringing someone to Christ, but I see your point. It is just a vocabulary issue, I suppose, but a “biggie”.
 
40.png
Writer:
I don’t think I could ever accept that we act as co-redeemers when we assist in bringing someone to Christ, but I see your point.
Click to expand...
It’s all a matter of terminology, really. Of course we are not “co-redeemers” in the sense that we do the same work that Christ did on the cross. However, this “co-redeemer” idea as in “redeeming with” does have Biblical support. First of all, simply the word “Christian” means “little christs.”

Consider also the words of Paul (in KJV):

1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

1 Corinthians 3
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20-6:4
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
3 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:
4 But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God,

God bless,
Lily628
 
I have John MacArthur’s book, “The Charismatics” in which he goes thru great lengths to expose and condemn the abuses of the Pentecostal Movement in the United States.

As a Catholic Charismatic, I can appreciate his point of view. There are abuses in every religious movement known to man. There ARE abuses in the Pentecostal movement, that is why great caution and wise guidance is necessary and should be welcomed.

However, his condemnation of the entire movement, which he bases on his own interpretation of the Bible, is not convincing. In fact, it wrankles.

There is a “pride” about the man - a good observation.
 
40.png
lily628:
It’s all a matter of terminology, really. Of course we are not “co-redeemers” in the sense that we do the same work that Christ did on the cross. However, this “co-redeemer” idea as in “redeeming with” does have Biblical support. First of all, simply the word “Christian” means “little christs”.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Lily628. You make a good arguement and have encouraged me to see this side of the issue in a different light. There is probably way too much digressing going on in this poor thread, but I’ll just write a few last words on the “Co-Redemtrix” issue. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, we might want to create a new thread for that purpose and leave the MacArthur thread to MacArthur dicsourse.

I am still reading through all the information sent to me on the “Co-Redemptrix” by relatives and forum members, but my gut feeling is that the theology, as explained by these sources at least, is not wrong in and of itself. As Lily pointed-out, we all are co-redeemers perhaps in a certain sense when we assist in bringing someone to the Lord. Although I personally struggle with saying this (must be my Lutheran background), I can agree that you have a definite point here worth consideration.

A relative of mine discussed this issue with a priest or bishop in a leadership capacity who summed up my view when he said that, while the theology can be argued, the term itself needs to be re-evaluated. It may make perfect sense in Latin, but one has to admit as soon as a Protestant hears this term, one could hear a possible open mind slamming shut like an iron gate. If for no other purpose as a stumbiling block to witnessing, I would suggest we find another way to put it. As we are reminded in Romans 14:21, we don’t want to errect unnecessary barriers to Protestants who are trying to come home. Good concept perhaps, but let’s change the term “Co-Redemptrix” to its English enquivalent. Thank you to everyone to sharing on this issue and helping a confused “Protestant” determine this isn’t as big a deal as I thought it was at first!
 
John MacArthur (Grace to You) is definitely anti-Catholic and against everything the Catholic church stands for. He puts out CDs for every topic he wants. I’ve listened to the one against the Church itself, one against the pope and how he is the anti-Christ, entitled “The Pope and The Papacy” and one about how Catholics worhip Mary. I couldn’t believe many of the statements he made. (Then I hear all about his “latest” as my wife thinks he knows everything and has it all right.)
 
Cantate said:
John MacArthur (Grace to You) is definitely anti-Catholic and against everything the Catholic church stands for. He puts out CDs for every topic he wants. I’ve listened to the one against the Church itself, one against the pope and how he is the anti-Christ, entitled “The Pope and The Papacy” and one about how Catholics worhip Mary. I couldn’t believe many of the statements he made. (Then I hear all about his “latest” as my wife thinks he knows everything and has it all right.)
Click to expand...
My father is the same way, and he’s cradle Catholic who became Methodist:eek:. He gets MacArthur’s CDs and has MacArthur’s Bible (why someone would need to be so pompous as to do that, I don’t know)

MacArthur would make a great Catholic, should he clean up his act and be open to the truth.

In Pax Christi
Andrew
 
My wife has “his bible” and I wondered the very same thing. She is a cradle Catholic, but now says she is no longer Catholic and sorry she ever was. (I work full-time in a parish that she wants nothing to do with.) It’s interesting though, when you know the history of who put the Bible together but I’m sure MacArthur will never admit that. It’s also very interesting that everytime he quotes people for his explanations, they all lived in the last 400 years. Once in awhile he will mention the Church fathers, but rarely by name, let alone the fact that they were Catholic. It’s like nothing existed between Jesus and Martin Luther.
 
John MacArthur is one of the most virulent anti-Catholics in the public arena today.
**I have a tape of his (given to me by a Protestant) that is FULL of errors, half-truths and outright lies about the Catholic Church. **In it, he relies HEAVILY on Lorraine Boettner’s error-filled manifesto, ‘Roman Catholicism’.
He also relies on the sentiments and thoughts of a few Catholic and former Catholic writers and makes their words seem like they are Catholic doctrine - which they most certainly aren’t!
To address New_Life’s defense of MacArthur, I have no problems with a Protestant writer expressing his disapproval of the Catholic Church. I do have a HUGE problem, however with liars. When somebody like MacArthur runs out of ammunition, he lies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top