John Macarthur: The pope and papacy

[Kepha]

According to a council of bishops practicing roman catholicism the biblical gospel is anathema. Anathema means to be damned.

1. CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

That contradicts the following:

1. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3:20).
2. "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24).
3. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).
4. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).
5. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).
6. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).
7. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Titus 3:5).

Link: Council of Trent: Canons on Justification. | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

You left out the very first Canon which will give the one you quoted a little context.

CANON I.- If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You left out the very first Canon which will give the one you quoted a little context.

CANON I.- If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

There's no doubt that Catholics aren't Pelagians. It's not strict works-righteousness. But the problem Lutherans and Calvinists have is the synergism (why Arminians have a problem with it I have no idea).

 

[Tangible]

(why Arminians have a problem with it I have no idea).

Romaphobia.

 

[MrPolo]

He knows what he is talking about.

John MacArthur doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Catholicism. That's just a fact. I wrote about some of his factual errors.

 

[MrPolo]

Anathema means to be damned.

Also factually wrong.

 

[DesertSky]

Wow. I just watched the OP video. This guy certainly is a wackjob. It's nice to know that CF allows vicious, unfounded attacks on religions. What an idiot.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Romaphobia.

Oh yeah! That!

 

[TEPO]

Also factually wrong.

HEY, ITS MARCO POLO...! One of my fav. posters from other forums... Great to see you.

By the way, I agree.

 

[OpenDoor]

It's nice to know that CF allows vicious, unfounded attacks on religions.

It does not!
You are free and encouraged to defend yourself, your faith, and your church against any unfounded attacks.
(you can also report misconduct to a mod)

 

[OpenDoor]

Also factually wrong.

In the NT it meant accursed, damned, to be cut off from Christ.
However, you are correct that the meaning of the word changed during the Council of Trent to mean excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't know why they did not just say, "let him be excommunicated" but w/e...

 

[OpenDoor]

Bitte! Thank you for being open to gentle correction! That's a rare trait on these boards, one which I cannot say I have always possessed in full measure.

btw, I presume Lutherans view Mathew 16:18 to be referring to the faith of Peter (the statement made in Mathew 16:16) "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Not a church built on the man Peter, correct?

 

[narnia59]

Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
Isaiah 44:8

Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'"
Isaiah 44:8

Do not tremble; do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim my purposes for you long ago? You are my witnesses—is there any other God? No! There is no other Rock—not one!”
Isaiah 44:8

Yet in John 1:42, the first time he laid eyes on Peter Jesus named him Cephas, which means 'rock'.

A contradiction? If so, scripture contradicts itself in many places and ways.

The question is not whether Christ is the rock or Peter is. The question is how Christ manifests his being the 'rock' to us throughout history.

Consider a careful reading of Ezekiel 34 for example. God begins in verse 2 with "Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?"

He then establishes himself as the shepherd of the flock of Israel:

. 11 " 'For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.

But how will God do these things? How will he manifest this to the people? We find out in verse 23: "I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd"

It is not a question of whether Christ is the rock or Peter is the rock any more than it's a question of whether God is the shepherd or David is. The question is how God manifests his leadership to the people.

 

[narnia59]

btw, I presume Lutherans view Mathew 16:18 to be referring to the faith of Peter (the statement made in Mathew 16:16) "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Not a church built on the man Peter, correct?

Many make that assumption. I think the main problem with that view is that Christ did not change Peter's name at the point in time he made his pronouncement of faith, but rather at their first meeting. The first words ever Christ spoke to Peter were ""You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter )."

In other words, the changing of Peter's name to 'rock' does not coincide with Peter's revelation and pronouncement of faith but precedes it. If Christ's intent in the name change is to highlight his statement of faith and not the person, wouldn't he have changed his name when he made the statement, instead of when he first laid eyes on the person?

Aside from that Peter's role in the Gospels overshadows the other apostles in quite astouding proportion.

 

[Tangible]

Not the changing of his name, but Peter's confession - "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

 

[NoBama2012]

>
>

Here is a good online post:
"You Can't Get Past this Rock" By Tim Staples

>> You Can't Get Past this Rock (This Rock: November 2006)

 

[narnia59]

Not the changing of his name, but Peter's confession - "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

?

Not sure if that's in response to me or not.

But if the 'rock' is intended to be his confession, then it would seem logical to me the point in time when Christ first correlates 'rock' to Peter would be then, when he confesses.

Instead, he makes that connection to the person of Peter, the first time he ever sees him and with the first words he ever speaks to him. He connects 'rock' to the person Peter long before his confession of faith.

 

[NoBama2012]

<snip> if the 'rock' is intended to be his confession, then it would seem logical to me the point in time when Christ first correlates 'rock' to Peter would be then, when he confesses.

Instead, he makes that connection to the person of Peter, the first time he ever sees him and with the first words he ever speaks to him. He connects 'rock' to the person Peter long before his confession of faith.

Very good post

 

[narnia59]

Very good post

Thank you.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

btw, I presume Lutherans view Mathew 16:18 to be referring to the faith of Peter (the statement made in Mathew 16:16) "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Not a church built on the man Peter, correct?

I think Lutherans would be perfectly comfortable saying either. The church is built on the confession that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah and Yahweh in the flesh, or God and Savior. At the same time, Peter was the most obvious central authority within the church, when the church was still being built. But after the change was built and established, what reason would there be that the personal authority granted to Peter would be passed on to his successor in the office of the Bishop of Rome?

So either way you take the verse-- and I think it's meant to be taken both ways-- the passage itself isn't the verse upon which the papacy stands or falls. The verse, and the papacy, are both far stronger than that.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

?

Not sure if that's in response to me or not.

But if the 'rock' is intended to be his confession, then it would seem logical to me the point in time when Christ first correlates 'rock' to Peter would be then, when he confesses.

Instead, he makes that connection to the person of Peter, the first time he ever sees him and with the first words he ever speaks to him. He connects 'rock' to the person Peter long before his confession of faith.

I think Lutherans would be perfectly comfortable saying either. The church is built on the confession that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah and Yahweh in the flesh, or God and Savior. At the same time, Peter was the most obvious central authority within the church, when the church was still being built. But after the change was built and established, what reason would there be that the personal authority granted to Peter would be passed on to his successor in the office of the Bishop of Rome?

So either way you take the verse-- and I think it's meant to be taken both ways-- the passage itself isn't the verse upon which the papacy stands or falls. The verse, and the papacy, are both far stronger than that.

Didn't Augustine imply the same thing?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7451655-7/#post54356007
Did Augustine retraction concerning Peter and the Rock?

*snip OP*:

............... But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.
But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)