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

[cubanito]

I am more tolerant of the RC than most of y'all. However it is very true that there is a theme of throwing a stone and hiding the hand, of crying peace after a salvo was shot. The RC defines things with sufficient ambiguity so that it goes back and claims that was never meant.

Gregory (VIII?) put out a bull called Unum Sanctum (circa 1200), oficially declaring that outside of the Pope's blessing, no human could be saved. This has been repeatedly endorsed until Vatican II.

Now there are two distinct and opposite teachings on this (as on almost any subject by the RC). They cite whichever is convenient at any given time.

JR

 

[heymikey80]

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.

He is a basher, granted.

Were I to throw away all good things from bashers, I would have nowhere to turn. I'd be without John Calvin (check out "Eternal Predestination and Hidden Sovereignty"), Martin Luther ("The Babylonian Captivity of the Church", letters against Zwingli, Bucer, and Calvin), the Apostle Paul (Gal 6) and plenty of Calvinists. I'd be down the the pablum of the Crystal Cathedral.

Frankly, I think everyone needs to learn the gospel continuously (often with words).

I like John MacArthur, he taught me plenty in my early years.

My question is this. If Protestant Christianity has departed from Christ as MacArthur has said, why would he consider Protestant Christianity to be Christian, either?

To me the problem is quite clear: it draws the lines too narrowly.

Christ's Church crosses denominational lines like a grassfire blown by a Wind. The Spirit of God is Who scopes the church, and we're to look for faith in Christ to define His Church's boundary lines.

Doctrine is horribly important. Without it we create shipwrecks of people's souls. Without it we're blind, we can't tell who are in the faith and who are not. But doctrine by its very nature is informative, not definitive.

If a Roman Catholic believes in Christ Jesus, he is declared righteous. Period. It doesn't matter that the Roman Catholic doesn't believe he is declared righteous. Get that? If I take the cure, I get well. If I don't think I'm well, that doesn't matter.

But if I'm led to avoid the cure, if I believe RC doctrine and in so doing walk away from faith (ala Gal 6 or Heb 6), then I'm not in Christ's Church. The doctrine is anathema for this reason. Those rejecting and in heart against Christ's true teaching are thereby anathema as well.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I am more tolerant of the RC than most of y'all. However it is very true that there is a theme of throwing a stone and hiding the hand, of crying peace after a salvo was shot. The RC defines things with sufficient ambiguity so that it goes back and claims that was never meant.

Gregory (VIII?) put out a bull called Unum Sanctum (circa 1200), oficially declaring that outside of the Pope's blessing, no human could be saved. This has been repeatedly endorsed until Vatican II.

Now there are two distinct and opposite teachings on this (as on almost any subject by the RC). They cite whichever is convenient at any given time.

JR

Well said Cubinato. There is a thread UNAM SANCTAM and Vatican II on which this issue was discussed.

I agree with most of what you and Mikey have to say. I do agree that MacArthur has useful information on some topics and he is a good preacher, but his brash and ugly style has done a good deal of damage.

Mikey is correct about Calvin and Luther, but here too damage was done to Christ Church because of their own ugly tone and rhetoric. The Protestant Churches could never get together because of this. Luther treated Zwingli as though he were satan himself because they disagreed on Christ presence in the Supper. Westphal would have had men like Calvin killed over this issue.

The fact that Luther and Calvin spoke this way, is not a good excuse for us to continue this way.

On the subject of whether or not Roman Catholics are Christian, let me say this-- I, and many of my friends were baptised in the Roman Catholic Church. Our baptism in the RCC is recognised as Christian baptism in our PCA church. IF my baptism were not recognised I would not be rebaptised, but find a church with better theology on this subject.

Coram Deo,
Kenith
Ps. for my views on Roman Catholics and salvation look here:

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I want to male another point on this thread. We Calvinists are rightly angered, disturbed and saddened when we our views distorted by half truths and lies. This being the case we need to be careful when dealing with others so that we don't do the same thing to them that is done to us.

This is hard because we cant just lash out with rhetoric. Instead we need to study, think about what "they" actually say in their own words and not depend on critics (who may or may not be accurate).

Heated rhetoric and hyperbole is not the way to deal with those with whom we disagree. I don't like it when it comes my way, as we recently saw in the thread John Calvin and the Execution of Michael Servetus, and so I am trying to do as I say. I think all the Church would be better off if we turned down the rhetoric and actually discussed things without trying to draw blood from those with whom we disagree.

Our disagreements are real enough and don't need to be exaggerated or inflamed by heated rhetoric or hyperbole.

Those are just my thoughts.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[heymikey80]

I agree, CH. Too often we banter about heretics and anathemas without true declarations about their meanings. To call people such without evidence from the plain truth about their positions is to throw hand grenades at potential allies.

With MacArthur's exposition here there is still a point to salvation by faith alone, and it's not to be missed. We have to be precise about what it means for our theology; this is still extremely important. I've found Catholic loved ones on their deathbeds often realize the importance of faith -- and faith alone. For there's often nothing they can do but cling to that faith, alone. Let's take comfort that at our point of death we will be returned to stare this same fact in the face as a friend, and not with some fear God expects more.

And let's tell each other, too.

 

[ACADEMIC]

Were I to throw away all good things from bashers, I would have nowhere to turn. I'd be without John Calvin (check out "Eternal Predestination and Hidden Sovereignty"), Martin Luther ("The Babylonian Captivity of the Church", letters against Zwingli, Bucer, and Calvin), the Apostle Paul (Gal 6) and plenty of Calvinists. I'd be down the the pablum of the Crystal Cathedral.

The way this is worded gave me a huge smile.

 

[cubanito]

All in all, I think that MacArthur does far more good than ill. Though he says it, he does not stress enough that he separates the official doctrines from the people.

There are "Christian" denominations I can NOT abide. Unitarians, United Methodists, PC-USA and others are far more clearly set against God than the modern RCC. It is not possible to have the Gospel wo a clear doctrine of depravity. It is not "be saved" but "REPENT and be saved".

The RCC teachings on human depravity is clear. At every traditional mass they beat their breasts 3 times and exclame "my fault, my fault, for my terrible(?) fault."

The Gospel is in fact presented much clearer in the RCC than in most Protestant denominations. Were it today, Luther would be mostly content at the RCC and aghast at what goes for theology at liberal Lutheran circles.

I like McArthur. He is an honest man. And so many of the cloth are not...

 

[cajunhillbilly]

The RCC teachings on human depravity is clear. At every traditional mass they beat their breasts 3 times and exclame "my fault, my fault, for my terrible(?) fault."

Actually it goes "I have sinned by my fault, my own fault, my own most grievious fault"

 

[cubanito]

The RCC teachings on human depravity is clear. At every traditional mass they beat their breasts 3 times and exclame "my fault, my fault, for my terrible(?) fault."

Actually it goes "I have sinned by my fault, my own fault, my own most grievious fault"

The last couple of RC masses I've attended have omitted this part altogether. The priest there tends to be very unconventional, though I've no idea of his theology per se. In the more traditional Spanish masses around Miami, you get a little bell then it's "por mi culpa, por mi culpa, por mi gran culpa" Seems all pretty much the same to me: a fairly clear link between the cross and personal sin. BTW when I attend I do not kneel at the presentation of the Eucharist nor, of course, join in communion. I just respectfully sit silently through those parts, as well as the Mary this and saint that bit.

I used to be close friends w a PCA pastor who attended an RC mass and took communion. When both my wife and I rejoined that we found that shocking, his response was "I'm a pastor. I can do whatever I want." That was the last conversation we had.

I think a "basher" like McArthur is in the long run more respectful to the RC than that kind of attitude.

JR

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I used to be close friends w a PCA pastor who attended an RC mass and took communion. When both my wife and I rejoined that we found that shocking, his response was "I'm a pastor. I can do whatever I want." That was the last conversation we had.

I think a "basher" like McArthur is in the long run more respectful to the RC than that kind of attitude.

JR

McA is certainly more honest. The RCC fences the table and I am pretty sure that no one who has not been confirmed in the RCC is to come to the table.

I was an RC and I do attend Mass a number of times every year. I do go up to the front when those that I am with go, but I do not partake of the bread or wine. Instead, I cross my arms. This is a sign to the priest that I am not Catholic and he simply pronounces a blessing instead of giving you the host.

I think it is VERY dishonest and wrong to knowingly take part in the Eucharist at an RC Church if you are not invited to "take and eat," and I can't imagine a RC priest knowingly giving the host to a PCA minister.

I have problems with McA in this area (and the way he deals with paedobaptism and alcohol). I have big problems with Rome, which I think is clearly evident in what I posted here, UNAM SANCTAM and Vatican II.

With that said, much of the criticism I hear from non-Roman Catholics are half truths or just plain wrong. We have real differences so, as I said above, we don't need to exagerate them or make differences were they don't really exist.

Where those differences do exist we are not going to win over many RC by baggering or brow beating them. We need to speak the truth in love. I like to do this over a meal, a cup of coffee or a beer.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[McWilliams]

I, for one, do not see John MacArthur as a 'basher'. I see him as calling error where he sees it without compromise.
I would be interested in hearing how, why and when some of those here who were formerly RC decided to leave the RC, and why, once having left, they continue to return, attending their services, participating in what they must have at one time determined to be error!
Somewhere along the line one must decide what is right and true and stick with it and take the flak that goes along with such a decision!
We cant ride the fence but must contend for the faith and rule out error and be willing to separate when and where indicated.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hey McW,

My position on this issue is one that is very likely to be frowned upon in most Reformed circles, but I can tell you a bit of my reasons. First, in my case it was my parent who took me out of the Roman Catholic Church. I was then raised Southern Baptist. Today I am Reformed -- Which "for me" means that I am not only a Calvinist in soteriology, but I am covenantal and paedobaptist in my theology.

The overwhelming majority of my extended family are Roman Catholics, and I have occasion to attend because of weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc...

I have big differences with the RCC, and I also have big differences with the Southern Baptists Church. The SBC is the church of my parents and siblings. I disagree with the (most of) SBC in soteriology; they are mostly Arminian. I disagree with the SBC on Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Like Calvin, I believe these things are Sacraments and means of grace. My Southern Baptist brethren believe they are mere memorials. I believe the Supper should be observed weekly, they celebrate it only know and then.

I am mildly liturgical in my preference of worship style, as were the Reformed Reformers. I like a more structured and liturgical service, while my Baptist friends are strongly anti-liturgy.

I differ with the Catholics and the Southern Baptists on many points and yet I do attend both churches and have no problem attending either one of the no and then.

The Baptist deny that my baptism is real and do not accept the Baptism of my children. I could not join an SBC without my wife and children being re-baptised. This is something that I have very strong feelings about, but I understand the Baptist position and I worship with them despite what they think of our baptisms.

My point I am trying to make is that I am willing to worship with "Trinitarian" Christians even if I have strong theological differences with them. (Calvin, and the Reformers were no kinder to the “Anabaptists” than he was to the “Papists&#8221. I am able to attend the worship services of either and worship the true God.

I have read a good deal of writings from the Reformation period, from the Church of the Middle Ages and the early Church. I find that during and since the Reformation all most every side has tried to very narrowly define the faith. I have problems with that.

I recite the Creed (Nicene or Apostles) whenever I worship at a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal or Roman Catholic Church (I hope to visit and Eastern Church someday). In those creeds I say, "I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church" I am honest when I recite those words. And I pray for unity in the faith.

I want to know the history and theology of all Christian denominations. Not so I can argue with those with whom I differ, but so I can have an honest, frank, intelligent discussion with my brethren. I want to experience their worship. So I can speak from experience.

In the early Church Jerome and Augustine differed on many things, but they were both in the same catholic church. Today there are tens of thousand of Protestant denominations and there are dozens of Reformed/Presbyterian denominations. I see this as a great tragedy. Are we not to be one in Christ, yet we divide and split over minor points of doctrine? We fight and separate from one another over things that we should be willing to overlook.

Remember what Jesus said in John “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me…”

This is one of the great failings of the Church since the Reformation. I don't know how it can be fixed. Rome says the answer is "Return to Rome," but I cannot do that (even though I have no problem going to Mass now and then).

I pray that Christ words above will begin to be taken seriously by all Christians. We all take some part of His word to heart, but we all seem to ignore these words.

Coram Deo,
Kenith