Catholicism is NOT a denomination - John McArthur

[Diakoneo]

I know that many of you have listened to John McArthur, read his books, and likely even used some of his study aids. In the past month or so he sent out a lesson on, "Is the Pope Christian". In this study he delves into the doctrines of Catholicism - older and newer. He examines the theology and the papacy through the eyes of history, Catholic doctrine, and the writings of historical protestants and the like including Spurgeon, Luther, and Calvin. Probably one of his most poignant conclusions:

Quote - John McArthur (Is the Pope Christian - 2005):
"Catholicism is Not a different denomination - it's a different religion"

If you have not heard this study you should contact him via his website and ask for a FREE copy of it on CD. It clears up a lot of the "muddy water" on the subject and presents a clear Biblical commentary on the religion.

Quote - John McArthur (Is the Pope Christian - 2005):
"What is at risk [he says] - whether or not Catholic people are our mission field, or our co-laborers. That is what is at risk here."

His conclusion to the oft-asked question "Is the Pope in Heaven?"

Quote - John McArthur (Is the Pope Christian - 2005)
"When people asked me if the pope was in heaven, I answered, "Is the Pope Catholic?" "

He does not speak at all towards Catholic folks, merely at the doctrines of the catholic church and how they line up Biblically (which naturally some do not since they are traditional rather than scriptural). He also takes a look at some of the scriptures that are commonly used by catholic theologians to defend some of their positions - and provides a logical exegesis on them to see whether or not they line up.

Anyway just an interesting study that came out from one of the greatest Bible teachers that we have today. (I do not personally endorse all things that John may say but if you've ever heard him or read his commentaries you'll know why he is considered such).

Has anyone else heard it?

 

[aReformedPatriot]

I know that many of you have listened to John McArthur, read his books, and likely even used some of his study aids. In the past month or so he sent out a lesson on, "Is the Pope Christian". In this study he delves into the doctrines of Catholicism - older and newer. He examines the theology and the papacy through the eyes of history, Catholic doctrine, and the writings of historical protestants and the like including Spurgeon, Luther, and Calvin. Probably one of his most poignant conclusions:

Quote - John McArthur (Is the Pope Christian - 2005):
"Catholicism is Not a different denomination - it's a different religion"

If you have not heard this study you should contact him via his website and ask for a FREE copy of it on CD. It clears up a lot of the "muddy water" on the subject and presents a clear Biblical commentary on the religion.

Quote - John McArthur (Is the Pope Christian - 2005):
"What is at risk [he says] - whether or not Catholic people are our mission field, or our co-laborers. That is what is at risk here."

His conclusion to the oft-asked question "Is the Pope in Heaven?"

Quote - John McArthur (Is the Pope Christian - 2005)
"When people asked me if the pope was in heaven, I answered, "Is the Pope Catholic?" "

He does not speak at all towards Catholic folks, merely at the doctrines of the catholic church and how they line up Biblically (which naturally some do not since they are traditional rather than scriptural). He also takes a look at some of the scriptures that are commonly used by catholic theologians to defend some of their positions - and provides a logical exegesis on them to see whether or not they line up.

Anyway just an interesting study that came out from one of the greatest Bible teachers that we have today. (I do not personally endorse all things that John may say but if you've ever heard him or read his commentaries you'll know why he is considered such).

Has anyone else heard it?

Not this particular one you speak of, but yes I have heard it. It is actually a prominent position within the Southern Baptist Convention and like minded groups. They maintain that "justification by faith alone is the article by which the church stands or falls" which was the position of the reformers. What that means is we are justified, declared not guilty, by our faith through grace by Christ alone. It is the dividing line from a works based salvation.

It is a touchy issue. In a Catholic textbook I picked up titled History of the Catholic Church Schmandt writes "to understand the development of the Lutheran doctrine one must remember that Luther was a heretic before the indulgence controversy... As a young novice Luther had been abnormally worried about his salvation. At length he had arrived at the consoling theory that man is justified solely by his trust in God. Good works are unnecessary. Thus Luther shifted the burden of salvation from the individual's shoulders to Christ's alone" (pp. 310-311).

McArthur's conclusions then are not surprising at least from a conservative evangelical perspective.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

MOD HAT ON

This discussion has serious potential to sway into rule breaking territory. While it is not against the rules to discuss the beliefs of others we must becareful to observe the rules. I just wanted to make that clear up front.

MOD HAT OFF.

 

[Beoga]

Anyway just an interesting study that came out from one of the greatest Bible teachers that we have today. (I do not personally endorse all things that John may say but if you've ever heard him or read his commentaries you'll know why he is considered such).

I agree that MacArthur is one of the most godliest men today. Great preacher and great writer. He is dedicated to upholding Scripture (though like you, there are some things where we don't see eye to eye).

Anyways, I have heard of the serious, havn't listened to it though. James White defends MacArthur and you can read it here:
www.aomin.org

 

[ZiSunka]

Just when it all seemed to settle down, we have to dredge up strife again.

 

[Diakoneo]

Just when it all seemed to settle down, we have to dredge up strife again.

It's not strife, considering what's at stake.

 

[Diakoneo]

I agree that MacArthur is one of the most godliest men today. Great preacher and great writer. He is dedicated to upholding Scripture (though like you, there are some things where we don't see eye to eye).

Anyways, I have heard of the serious, havn't listened to it though. James White defends MacArthur and you can read it here:
www.aomin.org

Thanks for the link. While I don't see eye to eye with Dr. White in all things I have to admire his desire to find and reveal the truth and his scholarly approach to presenting the Biblical facts! Good on 'im!

 

[arunma]

Don't you think this is going a little too far? I agree that there are some serious errors in Roman Catholic theology, that there are many unsaved people within the Catholic Church, and that Catholic doctrine will probably lead to the eventual collapse of the Catholic system. But I think we're jumping to conclusions if we say that they aren't Christians. I don't think it's right to unquestioningly condemn an entire church who professes Jesus as Lord.

Besides that, remember that at one time, the Catholic Church was a godly institution. Such great Christians as Augustine were Catholics. It is possible that at some time in the future, the Catholic Church may reform its theology.

 

[P_G]

Sr Administrator butting in here a moment

I want to just let you know that if any one says that the RCC is not Christian
or that Catholics are not Christian or not saved or a different religion or along those lines it is in violation of CF rules.

I want to also remind any one who is not BA that if you debate here that is also against CF rules.

So having said that and very gently before you hit that send key on your post I want you to ask yourself if you are abiding by the rules that you promised to obey when you got the account on CF.

I am saying these things because I do not want to spend the entire day on Thursday giving out warnings and trashing posts.

Thanks

PG

 

[Gold Dragon]

I would agree with MacArthur and say that there are things about Catholicism that I disagree with and consider unbiblical. I would say the same about many baptist churches.

I would disagree with MacArthur and say that I don't consider Catholicism to be a different religion and do consider it to be another Christian denomination.

 

[Flynmonkie]

I would agree with MacArthur and say that there are things about Catholicism that I disagree with and consider unbiblical. I would say the same about many Baptist churches.
I would disagree with MacArthur and say that I don't consider Catholicism to be a different religion and do consider it to be another Christian denomination.

I think this sums it up for me too.

I actually like MacArthur, and own all of his teachings...however there are statements I either misunderstand his direction regarding Catholicism or just do not agree. He does seem to use various forms of faith as example of "how not to". So at times I feel he can seem a bit legalistic in statements. No one is perfect. One thing I have noticed, if someone calls him out on it to clarify.. It turns out a better statement through clarification.. I have not had a chance to check this out, but I will..

 

[JPPT1974]

I agree that MacArthur is one of the most godliest men today. Great preacher and great writer. He is dedicated to upholding Scripture (though like you, there are some things where we don't see eye to eye).

Anyways, I have heard of the serious, havn't listened to it though. James White defends MacArthur and you can read it here:
www.aomin.org

He seems to be godly and wears his Christianity with his sleeve. And that he realy wants to be seen as a godly man of God.

 

[sneezingleopard]

I won't stay with this thread cause I'm sure it would become more of a debate than anything if I did, but I do have some questions for you to ponder. It's obvious that Catholicism is very different than Protestantism, we don't have to dig very deep to figure this out. I guess my question to you would be, which is the real Christianity? IS it one of the numerous protestant denominations which came years after Christs death who all claim to be based on the bible alone (I won't debate how many years or how many denominations) or is it the church that was set up by Christ almost two thousand years ago which he said the gates of Hades would not prevail against and the spirit would guide into all truth?

posted by:diakeneo
He also takes a look at some of the scriptures that are commonly used by catholic theologians to defend some of their positions - and provides a logical exegesis on them to see whether or not they line up.

Well I'm certainly glad that he takes a look at what catholic theologians have to say on the issues. haha. But my question to you would be, does he represent catholic beliefs and the arguments of these theologians properly before he shoots them down or is he just completely misinterpreting what catholics believe? HAve you read these catholic theologians that he speaks of? Are these the best theologians the church has to offer or is John Mc Arthur just creating straw man arguments?
I haven't read McArthur but I have read a few other baptist (and other protestant) theologians. In this case I would like to read one of his books, are there any you could suggest to me? perhaps the one this thread is about. If you are interested, I would like to present a few catholic theologians for you all to read if you haven't already. Dr. Scott hahn, Dr. Edward "ted" sri, Michael Barber, and Karl Keeting. These are just few for you to start with. Hope this thread doesn't lean towards debate, just wanted to point out some things that I am sure you all know already anyway.
In Christ,
Matthew

 

[aReformedPatriot]

If you are interested, I would like to present a few catholic theologians for you all to read if you haven't already. Dr. Scott hahn

Scott Hahn, good author. I am currently reading and half way through Hail Holy Queen. Fascinating work.

 

[Joykins]

Well, Catholicism kept Christianity alive in the West for over a thousand years. In a sense, all Protestant sects exist as a reaction to it.

While I don't agree with every Catholic dogma by a long shot, I don't think that arguments over which is "the true Christianity" are very productive. Catholics are Christians who believe that our guides in the faith are scripture (as interpreted through holy tradition)+ holy tradition , while most Protestants believe that our guide in the faith is scripture (as interpreted by individuals usually through more recent traditions). They are both truly Christian.

 

[Song of Songs]

Couldn't resist checking out this thread...

I studied Greek and Scripture under one of John MacArthur's protegee's who is now pastor of a super large Baptist church in the Southwest... and dated his youth minister who also grew up under John McArthur's teachings... Both attended John's church in L.A.

I also sat at the same dinner table with John MacArthur one night and got to see him "as himself" rather than as a minister on "stage".

I don't think you can say someone is "godly" unless you know them on a personal basis. It is possible for people to be one thing in public and another in private...

John has a LOT of confidence in his opinions on every subject... and tends to make them into dogma, if you will.

The fact is that none of us has the complete grasp on Divine Truth. We will never know everything there is to know about God or His ways...

If you read about St. Augustine's life, this was a constant struggle for this very brilliant man whose intellect once led him into heretical beliefs. Fortunately his heart -- his love for God -- won out and he became more and more humble with age. And he made major, invaluable contributions to the early church.

It is important to remain humble and teachable so the Holy Spirit can guide us in the ways of love -- which is the path Jesus walked.

Blessings!
Song of Songs

"To be a witness is a living mystery. It means to live one's life in such a way that it would not make sense if God did not exist."

 

[arunma]

Matthew, I do consider Catholics to be Christians (at least those Catholics who really trust in Christ for their salvation). That said, I'm not sure about your claim that the RCC is the original church that Christ set up. After all, the Orthodox Church says the same thing, and they believe that you guys are in a state of schism. The Coptic Church claims to have been founded by the Apostle Mark. A certain church in India claims to have been founded by the Apostle Thomas. Are these churches the true church, or is the RCC the true church?

Furthermore, there's also an important question: if a church deviates from true doctrine, is it still the true church? For example, the church in India was founded by Thomas, but today certain Indian churches include the worship of false Hindu gods in their services. Despite being founded by Thomas, are these churches still faithful to the apostolic tradition?

Now, the RCC certainly hasn't worshiped false gods (if you say that you don't worship Mary, I'll take your word for it). However, I don't believe that they obey the apostolic teachings as well as other churches. So even if they are the "original church," I'm not sure that such a status matters.

 

[Flynmonkie]

Well I'm certainly glad that he takes a look at what catholic theologians have to say on the issues. haha. But my question to you would be, does he represent catholic beliefs and the arguments of these theologians properly before he shoots them down or is he just completely misinterpreting what catholics believe?

I truly like MacArthur, but at times this is the question I have regarding his statements. I don't know about the straw man argument. But I do see the "worst case" scenario mentioned here and there. For example: He teaches it is important that we not take our eyes off God - vs. should not focus on Mary instead of our relationship with God. (I really should not quote this without finding exact point of reference but it is just an example)

My experience with Catholics in the every day world this does not seem to be the case- Those are the types of comments I raise my eyebrows at. So yes it could be a bit of perpetuating a straw man. I guess because I view all as fallible humans (Pope included!) People make mistakes and are imperfect. All the more reason to keep a close eye on scripture and pray. We don't have to discount what he says that is good.

sidenote: There is no issue of real Christianity here. Catholics and Baptists are both Christians. Last I checked both entities formally felt this way about each other?

John has a LOT of confidence in his opinions on every subject... and tends to make them into dogma, if you will.

This is sort of how I have taken it too. Glad to see someone else thinks this way. But I do not get a feeling of "superiority" from Him, over confidence in explanation at times, but I have seen him retract and clarify - unless his work is taking him into a different realm?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

John has a LOT of confidence in his opinions on every subject... and tends to make them into dogma, if you will.

I take this as being a negative view of John. I find this quote interesting coming from a Catholic. Specially when you consider all the dogmas in catholicism. Not only that but the pope being considered infallible when it comes to him on doctrine.

 

[arunma]

I take this as being a negative view of John. I find this quote interesting coming from a Catholic. Specially when you consider all the dogmas in catholicism. Not only that but the pope being considered infallible when it comes to him on doctrine.

I think Song of Songs is pointing out this person's hypocritical practices. If a person criticizes the Pope for being infallible and the RCC for holding fast to extrabiblical dogma, he ought not to claim infallibility for himself (whether explicitly or implicitly), nor should he also hold to extrabiblical dogma.

Whatever else we may hold against the RCC, we cannot say that the Pope is hypocritical by believing himself to teach infallible doctrine.