BobRyan
Well-Known Member
This question is still outstanding - do we have any Catholic members/observers here who would like to take a crack at it?
What did I miss?
What did I miss?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
MacArthur's Ignorant Misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching
- Thread starter lori4dogs
- Start date
Phil Vaz makes the following points about MacArthur's misrepresentations of the Catholic Church:
MacArthur thinks, in the order I have provided them:
* Catholic salvation is works/righteousness;
* that no Catholic priest can be saved; that God and Jesus are "tough guys" so we should go to Mary in prayer;
* that we teach the "virgin birth of Mary";
* that our teaching on "pastoral work is not comfort and care and compassion";
* that papal infallibility means the Pope "never makes a mistake";
* that heretics and schismatics and immoral people are "absorbed" (his term);
* that there is "an inherent uncleanness" in marriage and we have a "Manichean/Gnostic idea of the evil of the flesh";
* that "the desire for procreation is the enemy of spiritual devotion";
* that we have a "warped view of marriage" and that we "think marriage is all about sex and procreating little Catholics";
* that the priesthood and the Mass is "an aberrant, unbiblical bizarre pagan theology";
* that Catholicism is a "satanic religious system."
These are not just one or two accusations. There is a host of them. I'm sure DHK and other anti-Catholics on this board will totally agree with every accusation that MacArthur makes no matter whether it is false or not. The enemy is Catholicism is it not? Whatever it takes, bring her down!
If one wants to attack another Christian faith one needs to get their facts straight. That is all I'm saying.
MacArthur thinks, in the order I have provided them:
* Catholic salvation is works/righteousness;
* that no Catholic priest can be saved; that God and Jesus are "tough guys" so we should go to Mary in prayer;
* that we teach the "virgin birth of Mary";
* that our teaching on "pastoral work is not comfort and care and compassion";
* that papal infallibility means the Pope "never makes a mistake";
* that heretics and schismatics and immoral people are "absorbed" (his term);
* that there is "an inherent uncleanness" in marriage and we have a "Manichean/Gnostic idea of the evil of the flesh";
* that "the desire for procreation is the enemy of spiritual devotion";
* that we have a "warped view of marriage" and that we "think marriage is all about sex and procreating little Catholics";
* that the priesthood and the Mass is "an aberrant, unbiblical bizarre pagan theology";
* that Catholicism is a "satanic religious system."
These are not just one or two accusations. There is a host of them. I'm sure DHK and other anti-Catholics on this board will totally agree with every accusation that MacArthur makes no matter whether it is false or not. The enemy is Catholicism is it not? Whatever it takes, bring her down!
If one wants to attack another Christian faith one needs to get their facts straight. That is all I'm saying.
Bob, the problem I have with your theory is that you conclude that 'because Jesus needed to be housed in a 'sinless womb' that Mary needed to be housed in a sinless womb in order for Mary to be free from Original Sin. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states that God intervened to keep her womb sinless. God didn't have to have Mary's mother free from Original Sin in order to bring about this condition. God does whatever God wants and however He wants. The Church believes that this grace was given from the very beginning of Mary's life and so in no way is it something that Mary earned.
So here is what I'm looking into. Was the necessity for Mary womb to be absent of Original Sin necessary 'in order to give birth to a sinless Jesus' or is it a matter of God not dwelling in an unclean temple? I did glean this from a web site about the Immaculate Conception: "Catholics believe that God wanted a perfectly pure woman to carry His Son, the God of the universe, for nothing else short of perfection would do." This seems in line with I Cor.
There are many others far better prepared to answer this question than I am. Unfortunately, they are not allowed to join BB.
So here is what I'm looking into. Was the necessity for Mary womb to be absent of Original Sin necessary 'in order to give birth to a sinless Jesus' or is it a matter of God not dwelling in an unclean temple? I did glean this from a web site about the Immaculate Conception: "Catholics believe that God wanted a perfectly pure woman to carry His Son, the God of the universe, for nothing else short of perfection would do." This seems in line with I Cor.
There are many others far better prepared to answer this question than I am. Unfortunately, they are not allowed to join BB.
Last edited by a moderator:
Does God dwell in your temple?
I know he dwells in mine, and I also know that I wasn't born of a virgin nor was I immaculately conceived.
>The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135
Refers to the immaculate conception of Ste Veronica, Mary's mother. Could Mary be immaculately conceived if her mother was not a virgin? On the other hand, how far back can this be pushed?
Refers to the immaculate conception of Ste Veronica, Mary's mother. Could Mary be immaculately conceived if her mother was not a virgin? On the other hand, how far back can this be pushed?
Most of them say that Ste. Anne was the "grandmother" of Jesus.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
This is the point I keep raising. IF Mary could be immaculately conceived - a sinless child born to a sinful mother - having no need at for virgin birth - to do so... then the same holds for a sinful Mary giving birth to Christ - sinless and perfect.
the reason for the "virgin" birth is that this was an INCARNATION of an existing person - not a "pro-creation" of a new person.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In 1Cor 6 the issue is with the church and the statement is made that church members should not sin because our Bodies are the temple of God.
But getting to the point above - my follow on question is this - if the point I presented continues to hold and thus no immaculate conception of Mary - what difference does it make to Catholic doctrine?
in Christ,
Bob
Well, this has turned into a thread on the Immaculate Conception but, oh well.
In Luke 1:28 the angel declared to Mary "hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you'. It is my understanding that the phrase 'full of grace' is a translation of the greek word kecharitomene. This means it is a quality of Mary. It is also my understanding that 'full of grace' is a better translation than the more recent 'highly favored one' found in recent translations. I am told that the grace Mary experienced existed in the past (as indicated by the Greek word in the perfect tense) and not a result of the visit of the angel. We believe she was in a state of sanctifying grace from the moment of her existence and not because 'she was born of a sinless virgin' but as an act of God.
It is not necessary for Mary 'to be housed' in a sinless womb to be free from Original Sin. It was divine intervention for God's own purpose. "God wanted a pure woman to carry His Son, the God of the universe, for nothing else short of perfection would do."
As I said before, someone better schooled in this teaching could be presenting a much stronger position. I will continue my study on the matter.
In Luke 1:28 the angel declared to Mary "hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you'. It is my understanding that the phrase 'full of grace' is a translation of the greek word kecharitomene. This means it is a quality of Mary. It is also my understanding that 'full of grace' is a better translation than the more recent 'highly favored one' found in recent translations. I am told that the grace Mary experienced existed in the past (as indicated by the Greek word in the perfect tense) and not a result of the visit of the angel. We believe she was in a state of sanctifying grace from the moment of her existence and not because 'she was born of a sinless virgin' but as an act of God.
It is not necessary for Mary 'to be housed' in a sinless womb to be free from Original Sin. It was divine intervention for God's own purpose. "God wanted a pure woman to carry His Son, the God of the universe, for nothing else short of perfection would do."
As I said before, someone better schooled in this teaching could be presenting a much stronger position. I will continue my study on the matter.
The fact is, the English word priest is a cognate of Greek presbyteros, the NT office of elder. Only later was it applied by extention to OT, pagan religious figures, etc.
To suggest that the primary, original historical use of the word is somehow illegitimate is ridiculous.
To suggest that the primary, original historical use of the word is somehow illegitimate is ridiculous.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
--Many women are highly favored. My wife is highly favored. The Lord is also with her. She is also blessed. She is also among women. There is nothing special here.
Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.
Judges 5:26 She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples.
--Jael was blessed for killing Sisera. She was blessed above women--the same expression used in Luke 1:28.
Perhaps your understanding is wrong.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, thou favoured one! the Lord is with thee: blessed art *thou* amongst women. (Darby--very literal)
Luke 1:28 And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. (ASV)
Luke 1:28 Having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, you highly favored one! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women!" (WEB)
Luke 1:28 And the messenger having come in unto her, said, `Hail, favoured one, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women;' (Young's Literal)
One translation after another does not support your opinion.
You are right. It wasn't. Mary was a sinner like everyone else.
This is some man's fictitious imagination. It is not from the Bible. It is a fairy tale. From infancy she was a sinner, born with a sin nature. She never was born in a state of sanctifying grace. That is fairy-tale theology.
You can read God's mind? Very perceptive!
And just how did you know this was divine intervention for God's own purpose when you don't even know it happened in the first place? Kinda' circular reasoning there, eh?
It happened because I know God ordained it to happen. I know God ordained it to happen, because it happened.
Yep, sounds good.
My wife is a pure woman. She is saved.
My daughter is a pure woman--she is saved.
But none of them, and likewise not Mary, are perfect. Only Christ is perfect. Like everyone else Mary is a sinner.
Study the Bible not fairy-tales.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Lori,
This is what you titled the OP MacArthur's Ignorant Misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching
You then used as back up a web site that MacArthur could if he was so inclined, state that it misrepresents his views. Then what follows is this long drawn out discussion where topics A-Z are debated. Personally I'm a fan of John MacArthur but I would be very surprised if he expected me to believe everything 100% that he teaches. My understanding is that JM doesn't consider himself infallable.
I have been a regular poster on catholic answers (dot) com for almost 2 years. If you think that catholics get right every aspect of baptist or protestant theology that they are critical of then you are sadly mis-informed. One huge difference that catholics never acknowledge is that no one in the evangelical protestant, conservative or fundamental movement make the claim of infallability. This of course catholics make claim of their leaders.
Lori, folks in your camp make much of the fact that there are many protestant demoninations. We constantly hear that there are 30,000 of them and hence 30K totally different belief systems. Contrast that to catholics, where there is 1 belief system. This is used to say that the Bible in the hands of those outside of the CC will result in tens of thousands of belief systems, all totally incompatable with each other. Come "Home" to the one true Church that Christ founded is the call. The arguement we give that protestant denominations are started for various reasons not mainly due to vast differences in theology gets us no where with catholics and the claim that the RCC as known today is the very institution Jesus founded 2000 years ago is the subjuct of critical protestant debate just gets brushed aside by catholics because catholics claim it is the weak defense of selfish self-absorbed and free thinking protestants in full rebellion with God.
But now Lori, looking at your posts in this thread and ignoring the fact that most of what you hold dear with regards to your faith is outside of the teaching of the Scriptures, I see that you argue that catholics have many diverse views and that catholics are free to believe and/or practice things that are not official catholic dogma. If this is the case, how can catholics state with a stright face that non-catholics that hold the Bible up as infallable word of God and the only authority for christian beliefs are wrong because by claiming sola scripture we get all kinds (30,000) of different beliefs and demoninations?
This is what you titled the OP MacArthur's Ignorant Misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching
You then used as back up a web site that MacArthur could if he was so inclined, state that it misrepresents his views. Then what follows is this long drawn out discussion where topics A-Z are debated. Personally I'm a fan of John MacArthur but I would be very surprised if he expected me to believe everything 100% that he teaches. My understanding is that JM doesn't consider himself infallable.
I have been a regular poster on catholic answers (dot) com for almost 2 years. If you think that catholics get right every aspect of baptist or protestant theology that they are critical of then you are sadly mis-informed. One huge difference that catholics never acknowledge is that no one in the evangelical protestant, conservative or fundamental movement make the claim of infallability. This of course catholics make claim of their leaders.
Lori, folks in your camp make much of the fact that there are many protestant demoninations. We constantly hear that there are 30,000 of them and hence 30K totally different belief systems. Contrast that to catholics, where there is 1 belief system. This is used to say that the Bible in the hands of those outside of the CC will result in tens of thousands of belief systems, all totally incompatable with each other. Come "Home" to the one true Church that Christ founded is the call. The arguement we give that protestant denominations are started for various reasons not mainly due to vast differences in theology gets us no where with catholics and the claim that the RCC as known today is the very institution Jesus founded 2000 years ago is the subjuct of critical protestant debate just gets brushed aside by catholics because catholics claim it is the weak defense of selfish self-absorbed and free thinking protestants in full rebellion with God.
But now Lori, looking at your posts in this thread and ignoring the fact that most of what you hold dear with regards to your faith is outside of the teaching of the Scriptures, I see that you argue that catholics have many diverse views and that catholics are free to believe and/or practice things that are not official catholic dogma. If this is the case, how can catholics state with a stright face that non-catholics that hold the Bible up as infallable word of God and the only authority for christian beliefs are wrong because by claiming sola scripture we get all kinds (30,000) of different beliefs and demoninations?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Generally people of one faith rarely study the faith of another. Often times as I sought definition and understanding between protestant and Catholic faith I see a lot of overlap. And people arguing the same points but not able to understand the issues actually being discussed. For instance Catholic say that salvation is faith based and not works based. They agree you can't earn your way into heaven. However, since they also say that once you're on the path of salvation you have a filial obligation to live rightly and work to become christ like this effort is seen as an attempt to earn salvation rather than a necissary consequence of that salvation. Of course Catholics are sacramentalist in which case protestants see catholics as using this as a works based issue. When in fact if you read Lewis you get a clearer understanding of what Catholics are saying about sacraments. Just as humans are bound to the spirit reality of things by their souls. Nature has its bound to the spiritual. Therefore if they perform a rite on earth it does what it says in the spiritual reality. Its a way of communing with the spirit using objects and ritual in the temporal. Much like a pentecostal would look at laying on of hands for prayers of healing. I can lay hands on anyone and it means nothing but when I do it as a prayer there is the spiritual reality of covering the person in prayer which God can use. These are often the most misunderstood aspects of the Catholic faith. However, in discussion with Catholics they look at OSAS as a license to live however you want without consequences. So yes it goes both ways.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
3 and 5 point Calvinists say the same thing.
So also do Arminians.
So Also do Arminians that reject the traditions of OSAS.
That is more precisely the difference.
There may be some truth to the fact that the sacrament is to the Catholic church in regard to salvation - what laying on of hands is to healing in the Bible.
For example - the sacrament of the mass is the means by which the New Covenant is participated in - according to Catholic teaching. Thus those Protestants that are saved - are not saved by the New Covenant.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Do you believe the same thing regarding Stephen "full of grace" Acts 6:8?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
My question for you is - did Jesus need to be housed in a sinless womb for Jesus to be sinless - free from Original sin? If so - then so did Mary.
If not - if in fact Mary coulde be born sinless without having to be housed in a sinless womb - then so also Jesus.
Ok that is all fine. It means that Mary would have had the same situation for giving birth for Christ - she could have the sinful nature and still give birth to a sinless being - just as the Catholic church proposes happened to Mary. Thus no need for the Immaculate conception of Mary by her Mother.
Indeed that is the question. It appears that the Immaculate conception of Mary by her mother is not even needed - even using Catholic reasons for the event.
in that case - my next question was - what difference would it make to Catholic doctrine if they simply said "oops! - no Immaculate conception of Mary by her Mother. Instead it is just the Immaculate conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit in Mary".
1Cor 6 does not say "no one is a fit temple for God to dwell in but Mary" - which is the point that the Catholic doctrine would need to go if that was to be used for the birth of Christ.
In Acts 6:8 we have Stephen "full of Grace".
In Acts 7 we have Stephen "full of God the Holy Spirit"
I agree with you on that point - that is regrettable. It did not used to be the case here.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
>3 and 5 point Calvinists say the same thing.
>So also do Arminians.
It is not possible to resolve ANY theological argument in this life unless Jesus (or whomever) returns in person and 'splains us.
A more interesting question . . . if I am wrong about what I believe and God exists then will God forgive my unintentional error in my "believing?" No one WANTS to believe something which (that?) is wrong.
>So also do Arminians.
It is not possible to resolve ANY theological argument in this life unless Jesus (or whomever) returns in person and 'splains us.
A more interesting question . . . if I am wrong about what I believe and God exists then will God forgive my unintentional error in my "believing?" No one WANTS to believe something which (that?) is wrong.
Mary's "full of grace" announced by the angel is from her beginning " that is where the belief in the Immaculate Conception is indicated. Stephen's "full of grace" was "at that moment" and can't be compared to the Blessed Mother's.
I have been told that the greek word 'kecharitomene' is not used in Stephens reference but some kind of variation of 'charitoo' and would relate to a certain point in time.
The following was copied from Catholic Answers as posted by 'Jimmy':
Luke 1:28 reads:
kai eiselqwn proV authn eipen, caire, kecaritwmenh, o kurioV meta sou.
The word kecaritwmenh is used here. This is a perfect passive participle. It is also feminine. A participle is a verb that is used to describe the subject. The perfect tense describes an action in present time which has a completed aspect. In this verse it is used as a title and means basically "you who have been graced" or "you who have been filled with grace". This word is not speaking of just a little grace, it is speaking of an abundance of grace. Although this is a completed action, the effects are still on going in this verse. Mary is still full of grace when the angel says this.
Last edited by a moderator: