Need opinion on John MacArthur's sermon on Catholic belief.

[Willo]

G'day Everyone!

I was listening to Way of the Master Radio (www.wayofthemasterradio.com) and the question arose about 'Should evangelicals witness to Catholics?', so they played a sermon by John MacArthur.

Would you please have a listen to it, and let me know what you think.

The links for the sermon are: http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.c...9-06-Hour1.mp3
http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.c...9-06-Hour2.mp3

I look forward to your replies

Thanks

- Willo

 

[JimfromOhio]

G'day Everyone!

I was listening to Way of the Master Radio (www.wayofthemasterradio.com) and the question arose about 'Should evangelicals witness to Catholics?', so they played a sermon by John MacArthur.

Would you please have a listen to it, and let me know what you think.

The links for the sermon are: http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.c...9-06-Hour1.mp3
http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.c...9-06-Hour2.mp3

I look forward to your replies

Thanks

- Willo

You can see John MacArthur's direct answers to questioners regarding his views on Roman Catholicism. There are 12 questions and answers in John MacArthur's Questions and Answers Look at the bottome of the list under "Roman Catholicism".

Questions # 2 and # 8 are probably the answers you are looking for.

Hope this will help.

Jim

 

[Elderone]

This is slightly off subject of the OP but look at the answer to Rapture (02) here: http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/r.htm Not only does John MacArthur not call Herold Camping a false prophet (he predicted the end of the world in 1994) but calls him a Calvinist and reformed, then goes on to bash the reformeds. Thanks Jim for that link, I will make sure to avoid Mr. MacArthur completely.

 

[JimfromOhio]

This is slightly off subject of the OP but look at the answer to Rapture (02) here: http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/r.htm Not only does John MacArthur not call Herold Camping a false prophet (he predicted the end of the world in 1994) but calls him a Calvinist and reformed, then goes on to bash the reformeds. Thanks Jim for that link, I will make sure to avoid Mr. MacArthur completely.

John MacArthur is probably the most reformed for a "non-reformed teacher". I can understand why he will disagree some of the reformed doctrines but he also embrace many of the Reformed doctrines. I never met a pastor or Christian that that agree with 100%. Even some here I disagree even thought I am a Reformed follower.

 

[Elderone]

Even some here I disagree even thought I am a Reformed follower.

John MacArthur not only disagrees he bashes, in public,in writing. I don't see anyone here doing that even though we have our differences. You put a nice face on it Jim, but Mr. MacArthur, in my opinion, doesn't deserve your loyalty.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I will make sure to avoid Mr. MacArthur completely.

I dunno...avoiding MacArthur completely might a little overreaction. He's definitely Reformed in soteriology....but he is definitely dispensational in eschatology. He contributed a great article for an anthology by Soli Deo Gloria called Justification by Faith Alone, which also included article by RC Sproul and John Gerstner. He also wrote The Gospel According to Jesus and The Gospel According to the Apostles, which sparked the Lordship Salvation debate...and I have to agree with MacArthur on that issue. I've also found MacArthur's book on expository preaching to be very helpful as well. I just avoid his books on eschatology!!

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

John MacArthur not only disagrees he bashes, in public,in writing. I don't see anyone here doing that even though we have our differences. You put a nice face on it Jim, but Mr. MacArthur, in my opinion, doesn't deserve your loyalty.

MacArthur is a Calvinist and he has some good teaching, but I can't stand Christians who hammer and beat up on fellow believers because of disagreements on particular doctrinal points. I believe we give the world lots of weapons and ammo to use against the Gospel because of such ungodly in fighting. We do have very real differences and disagreements in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and these should never be swept under the rug, still we can disagree and debate without being name calling, rudeness and distortions.

In my own (slightly) extended family we have Roman Catholics (majority), Southern Baptists, Methodists, and Reformed. There are very important doctrinal differences between us, but we have learned to discuss the differences in a civil way.

Name calling and distorting or perverting the belief system of another individual will not make them more open or eager to listen to what you have to say. John MacArthur is only one of a countless number of Christians today who are willing to beat up on fellow believers and distort their teachings for the sake of the Gospel.

This is horrible testimony, but the world and Satan love it.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Plus, like most people who bash Roman Catholicism, he does not really address the real issue with the RC church. The RC church believes in salvation by grace alone, but they see grac as what God does in the believer, not His underserved favor in Christ. They blend justification in with sanctification. Sinse sanctification is never complete in this life, of coourse they believe in some kind of further purging of sin after death before God lets you into heaven. But if justification is seen as based on the finished work of Christ, we can believe that we are fully justified, even though we still struggle with sin til the day we die. By the way, Calvin and most of the mainline Reformers believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements, though defined differently than the RC view. MacArthur obviously has a Zwinglian view, and not the traditional Calvinist view.

 

[McWilliams]

Kenith, I'm wondering if you meant that to sound as ecumenical as it does?
Yes, I agree that we cant agree on every little petty detail but to not have agreement on our major doctrines is of great consequence, is it not?
Can two walk together except they be agreed?
To embrace RC as fellow believers is a stretch it would appear.
The bottom line is, do we give a sound, clear signal to the world about who we are and what is truly biblical and what is not? Even in many major denominations today there are so many pew sitters that have no clue to what real biblical doctrines are! This is a sad reflection on much contemporary preaching and should prayerfully be of great concern to all of us! However, we also must be discerning, judging the truth in love and not embrace those who believe every wind of doctrine as true and sound!
How and where is the line drawn in including others as 'fellow believers'?

 

[Elderone]

In my own (slightly) extended family we have Roman Catholics (majority), Southern Baptists, Methodists, and Reformed. There are very important doctrinal differences between us, but we have learned to discuss the differences in a civil way.

Our extended family is similar with Southern Baptist, a couple of Roman Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans and my wife and I the only Reformed. We maybe in the minority but we all get along and can discuss the Bible in a civilized manner also.

This is horrible testimony, but the world and Satan love it.

Agreed!

 

[Willo]

Wow, I thought this was the reformed section, but its sounding like an ecumenial council.

Maybe its time for a reformation of those that hold to Reformed theology.

 

[McWilliams]

My post was meant to clarify, not argue or even debate; just to come to a greater knowledge and understanding of truth and sound doctrine as determined by scripture.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Kenith, I'm wondering if you meant that to sound as ecumenical as it does?
Yes, I agree that we cant agree on every little petty detail but to not have agreement on our major doctrines is of great consequence, is it not?
Can two walk together except they be agreed?
To embrace RC as fellow believers is a stretch it would appear.
The bottom line is, do we give a sound, clear signal to the world about who we are and what is truly biblical and what is not? Even in many major denominations today there are so many pew sitters that have no clue to what real biblical doctrines are! This is a sad reflection on much contemporary preaching and should prayerfully be of great concern to all of us! However, we also must be discerning, judging the truth in love and not embrace those who believe every wind of doctrine as true and sound!
How and where is the line drawn in including others as 'fellow believers'?

Hello McWilliams,

Thanks for your comments. I agree that we are not to compromise the truth, but even when we have strong disagreements we can have very civil, calm and polite discussions and debates. There is no reason for name calling or for "exaggerating" the differences.

There are very real differences within the body of Christ, and there always have been differences. This will always be true.

Let me give an example. Jerome and Augustine were contemporaries and they disagreed on a couple of major points. Jerome agreed with the Protestant position on the books of the Bible, While St. Augustine agreed with what is today the Roman Catholic view (he held to canonicity of the Apocrypha).

On this issue, I think Jerome was correct and Augustine was in error. On Predestination Augustine held to a view that was like our own Calvinistic position. St. Jerome was more in what we would call the Arminian camp.

These church leaders exchanged many letters. The discussed their differences, but neither counted the other as a non-believers, because of these important differences.

I have VERY important differences with Roman Catholics. I know what they believe and teach (I was a RC at one time) and I know why I believe they are wrong on those issues. I can discuss those differences with them in a polite and friendly manner. I can also discuss them without exaggeration or distortion, because I know first hand, from Roman Catholic sources, what those differences are.

I also know that I have a lot of beliefs in common with Roman Catholics. We both hold to the Nicene, Apostles, Chalcedonian and Athanasian Creeds. We both believe the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are the Word of God, even though we differ on what they call the books of deutero-canon.

I can make like points about talking with Southern Baptists, Methodists, AofG, etc... We have real disagreements. I won't compromise my beliefs just to get along, but I can get along with these fellow believers without compromising my believes.

I need to love fellow Christians as Christ loves the Church. That means I treat them with respect, dignity and honesty. I think that I can talk to other Christians more, and by God's grace disciple them into better knowledge, if I act this way to others who claim Christ as Lord and Saviour.

I hope that better explains what I was saying.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Wow, I thought this was the reformed section, but its sounding like an ecumenial council.

Maybe its time for a reformation of those that hold to Reformed theology.

We can be VERY Reformed and debate and discuss real differences without being ugly and exaggerating or distorting those differences. They are real enough and don't need to be made greater than they are.

Many Reformed Christians today (if they actually read Calvin) would have ver serious differences with his views on baptism and Lord's Supper. On these Issues I am very close to Calvin and most Calvinists (especially among our Baptist contingent) would have great problems with his views on these matters.

I know the differences that I have with my Baptist brethren on these points, but they are still my brethren and I am to love them and deal with them in a loving way because we are all Christ's. I should not exaggerate those differences, or distort them when discussing them with a third party.

I don't think that is "ecumunism" but I do think it is part of a godly character that we should all be striving to be and to do.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[JimfromOhio]

John MacArthur not only disagrees he bashes, in public,in writing. I don't see anyone here doing that even though we have our differences. You put a nice face on it Jim, but Mr. MacArthur, in my opinion, doesn't deserve your loyalty.

I don't know if the word "loyalty" but I have learned so much about Reformed theology through John MacArthur. To me, he is one of my most respect teacher whether he is Reformed or not. The Holy Spirit gave me assurance of my faith and doctrines I follow. No Church, No Denomination, No pastors or anyone can do this for me. Holy Spirit is the ONLY person who can do this through the Word of God.

You have the freedom to not to respect John MacArthur.

 

[ACADEMIC]

Here is another enlightening read by MacArthur: The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood.

QUESTION:

CF allows Catholics on the forums. However, to be a good Catholic, one has NO OPTION except to adhere to the Catholic Church

This means for the Catholic that Protestants have been declared anathema.

But CF has a rule that no one can question the authenticty of those who self-define as "Christian" by the Nicene Creed, even though the bulk of their doctrine and their takes on the Nicene Creded may have exceedingly more in common with paganism than Biblical Christianity.

And again, Catholic presence here, by their very presence, would call Protestants "not Christians", and eternally damned.

Am I the only one that sees a big problem here???

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Here is another enlightening read by MacArthur: The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood.

QUESTION:

CF allows Catholics on the forums. However, to be a good Catholic, one has NO OPTION except to adhere to the Catholic Church

This means for the Catholic that Protestants have been declared anathema.

But CF has a rule that no one can question the authenticty of those who self-define as "Christian" by the Nicene Creed, even though the bulk of their doctrine and their takes on the Nicene Creded may have exceedingly more in common with paganism than Biblical Christianity.

And again, Catholic presence here, by their very presence, would call Protestants "not Christians", and eternally damned.

Am I the only one that sees a big problem here???

This is why its important to understand specific definitions. For the Roman Catholic when they announce "anathema" on those who do not adhere to their view of justification (for example) it does not necessarily mean that they are cursed of God and destined to hell. Strange, I know, but it's how it is.

 

[calmcoolandelected]

Here is another enlightening read by MacArthur: The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood.

QUESTION:

CF allows Catholics on the forums. However, to be a good Catholic, one has NO OPTION except to adhere to the Catholic Church

This means for the Catholic that Protestants have been declared anathema.

But CF has a rule that no one can question the authenticty of those who self-define as "Christian" by the Nicene Creed, even though the bulk of their doctrine and their takes on the Nicene Creded may have exceedingly more in common with paganism than Biblical Christianity.

And again, Catholic presence here, by their very presence, would call Protestants "not Christians", and eternally damned.

Am I the only one that sees a big problem here???

No, you aren't the only one. One of the reasons I quit posting on the General Theology Forum is because the way the rules are written (or at least the way they are applied) Catholics can basically say that about Protestants when Protestants cannot point out similar things to Catholics. In other words, they can say that there is eternal damnation to those outside of the church but we cannot point out the errors of the magisterium (or whatever it is called) without accusation of anti-catholic or catholic-bashing. It got old very fast.

CC&E

 

[ACADEMIC]

Yes. I am frankly going to probably abandon these CF boards for another board very soon because of it.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I would not abandon CF. Even though we are "limited" to do what can say but the Holy Spirit is not limited to convict people hearts through our words in the posts.

I would not give up that easily. If you do, Satan wins.