MacArthur's Ignorant Misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching

[lori4dogs]

BTW, as far as indulgences go. The Catholic Church does not claim any knowledge about how long the process of purgation will be. You can not buy your way out of Purgatory by way of indulgences. A person cannot buy forgiveness with an indulgence. A person cannot buy an indulgence. The excuse that Martin Luther used involved alms giving to certain charities and abuses crept in. There was no outright selling of indulgences. "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1,)"

"The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth." San Juan Seminar

 

[BobRyan]

Plenary indulgences provide for an unlimited payment - the Catholic church says that if even one plenary indulgence is granted and actually approved of by Christ - then no matter how much more "time served" the person in purgatory might owe - they are immediately sent on their way to heaven.

But what is more interesting is that the mechanism by which indulgences are supposed to even exist in the first place - has to do with "excess sufferings" of "others" that is applied to your "account".

Which get's us back to the subject of the Atonement of Christ, Purgatory and Indulgences.

Your argument above that Tetzel was not actually selling indulgences is the first I have heard of that change.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darrell C]

Hello lori4dogs,

There is a 'lunatic fringe' within and outside of the Catholic Church. They claim to be devout Catholics but often buy into radicalism such as what you see on this video. Here is another group (outside of the Catholic Church) that makes similar claims:

http://www.cmri.org/

Remember, these people (CMRI) are NOT part of the Catholic Church. They are schismatic.

There is a lunatic fringe in most faiths, if you ask me.

I have known Catholics, and while I disagree with their doctrine (true catholic doctrine), I believe there are people within that group, justlike any other, that don't know enough about their particular denomination to be either saved or damned.

I am happy to see you denounce this video as mis-representative of your beliefs, at least, I am assuming that.

Do you disagree with trans-substantiation?

I have visited methodist churches that believe it, but again, that church does not represent all protestant churches.

Have you studied Catholic Doctrine in earnest?

Just a few questions, I don't get the chance to converse with Catholics very often, and you, having converted to catholicism, could answer some interesting questions.

Not being antagonistic, just curious.

God bless.

 

[Trotter]

The Catholic Church does not claim any knowledge about how long the process of purgation will be.

What does it matter? If purgatory does exist then Jesus died in vain because it would mean that His death, burial, and resurrection was not enough to completely pay for the penalty of our sins. That thought might be OK with the Pope and the RCC, but if denies the bible and what it says... it is a different gospel that Paul warned us against.

 

[lori4dogs]

That video does not represent my beliefs. Unfortunately, there are people in every denomination that not only do not know the teachings of their church, too many that do know what their church teaches don't know why they teach it or could give you a scriptural basis for the belief.

I prefer the term 'Real Presence' in reference to Holy Communion. One thing I will say in this regard. If the Catholic teaching is wrong about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then Catholics are guilty of idolotry. It was only after becoming convinced that there was scriptural support as well as early Church support for this doctrine, along with a deep sense of the reality of Jesus' presence in the Eucharist, that I began the process of becoming a Catholic Christian. I had years and years of indoctrination while a Baptist that made it fairly long process. I continue in several Catholic bible studies but have a time each week in fellowship and prayer at a Freewill Baptist church right down the street from our home.

 

[lori4dogs]

What does it matter? If purgatory does exist then Jesus died in vain because it would mean that His death, burial, and resurrection was not enough to completely pay for the penalty of our sins. That thought might be OK with the Pope and the RCC, but if denies the bible and what it says... it is a different gospel that Paul warned us against.

Trotter, it has nothing to do with our being forgiven. If we have repented of our sins and have placed our faith in Christ then our sins are forgiven. He payed the penalty for our sins on the cross.

Here is a partial explanation from a thread on Catholic Answers:

"When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).

Augustine said, in The City of God, that "temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59)."

 

[lori4dogs]

My reason for starting this thread was to show that too often people who speak as though they know what the Catholic Church teaches actually do not. The reason I mentioned Purgatory was because MacArthur is WAY off when he says that Catholics believe it to be a 'second chance'. The link to the webpage in the OP documents (by way of direct links to his writings) many other errors he makes about Catholic teaching. The Virgin birth of Mary, REALLY?? I think the majority of the people on this board know the Catholic Church doesn't teach that.

Isn't accuracy rather important when attacking another Christian faith?

 

[BobRyan]

"When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27).

Heb 9 - does state the judgment happens after you die - but does not say how long after. In Rev 14:6-7 we see the time of judgment taking place in heaven while saints and sinners are both still living on earth.

In Daniel 7 we see the judgment takes place in heaven -- while the saints are still being persecuted on earth - and some time after the rise of the pagan Roman empire. (The 4th Beast of Daniel 7). As soon as "judgment is passed in favor of the sainst" - according to that Chapter - you get the 2nd coming.

. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."

They are separated because as Matt 24 stated "immediately after the great tribulation of those days.. He will gather His elect". The rapture of the church separates the righteous from the wicked.

As Christ says in Rev 22:12 "Behold I am coming quickly and My reward is with Me".

It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59)."

In Luke 12:40-49 the context for the Luke 12:59 statement shows that Christ is talking about salvation vs damnation.

34 ""For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
35 "" Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps lit.
36 ""Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks.
37 ""Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.
38 "" Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.

39 "" But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
40 "" You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect.''
41 Peter said, ""Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?''
42 And the Lord said, "" Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time?
43 ""Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
44 ""Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

45 ""But if that slave says in his heart, "My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk;
46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47 ""And that slave who knewhis master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
49 ""I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!

50 ""But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!
51 "" Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division;
52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three.
53 ""They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.''

 

[DHK]

The Virgin birth of Mary, REALLY?? I think the majority of the people on this board know the Catholic Church doesn't teach that.

Isn't accuracy rather important when attacking another Christian faith?

You don't need to harp on that. All you need to do is read the context in which it was said and realize that he made a mistake. Bob Ryan caught it. If you don't believe it ask him. In fact I would challenge you to do so. Better yet, I think you should stay away from stating a false allegation lest you bring slander on a person, all from a mis-spoken statement. People aren't perfect. Have you ever said something that you didn't mean?

You are one person that treats MacArthur with such great esteem, that every thing that he says, is ex cathedra, perfect, right from God Himself, with no error. I really am amazed at your such high regard for this man. It is almost as if you worship the man. He can never make a mistake. Right?

 

[lori4dogs]

It's not just that one error, DHK. It's many errors. Since you refuse to visit that site (which links each error to MacArthur's actual writings) you wouldn't know, would you?

 

[DHK]

It's not just that one error, DHK. It's many errors. Since you refuse to visit that site (which links each error to MacArthur's actual writings) you wouldn't know, would you?

I visited his own site in which he has written many articles on Catholicism. I would advise you to do the same instead of receiving information second hand. In a court of law it would not be accepted. It is termed "hearsay." Go to the source itself.

 

[lori4dogs]

I visited his own site in which he has written many articles on Catholicism. I would advise you to do the same instead of receiving information second hand. In a court of law it would not be accepted. It is termed "hearsay." Go to the source itself.

The links TAKE you to the source itself. How is that not sinking in?? Are you afraid that the evil Catholics have gone so far as to set up counterfeit MacArthur websites to pull off their evil plot to discredit him? I'll bet the Jesuits and the Knights of Columbus are behind it!

 

[DHK]

The links TAKE you to the source itself. How is that not sinking in?? Are you afraid that the evil Catholics have gone so far as to set up counterfeit MacArthur websites to pull off their evil plot to discredit him? I'll bet the Jesuits and the Knights of Columbus are behind it!

So you don't believe (or are afraid) to go to his actual web page, where he has every topic alphabetized, and thus very easy to find. There you can look it for yourself. What is holding you back? Why believe in hearsay? Directions to other links or not, I don't need to go to a RCC website to find out information about John MacArthur when I can go to his own web page. You are not making sense.

 

[lori4dogs]

So you don't believe (or are afraid) to go to his actual web page, where he has every topic alphabetized, and thus very easy to find. There you can look it for yourself. What is holding you back? Why believe in hearsay? Directions to other links or not, I don't need to go to a RCC website to find out information about John MacArthur when I can go to his own web page. You are not making sense.

No, you are not making sense. The link on the page takes you directly to MacArthur's website. I guess I can only prove it this way:

"I see Mr. Macarthur has been taken in by the myth that Catholicism is of Babylonian origin; like so many other preachers & sites. search for the name "Tammuz" here: http://www.gty.org/Resources/ NOTICE THE LINK TO HIS PAGE, DHK

No wonder he thinks we're benighted heathens. A sample:

Quote: "Semiramis gave birth to a son, this is what was taught in these Babylonian religions. Semiramis gave birth to a son who was conceived by a sunbeam..."

There is no evidence at all for such a thing, since no such character existed. "Semiramis" seems to be a composite character, made up of an historical Assyrian queen, & a goddess or two. It would be interesting to know where that sunbeam detail comes from.

Statements about Babylonian religion can't be made without evidence - & there is no evidence of any such teaching in that religion. Perhaps because it was not a teaching religion, unlike Catholicism. If there is no reason to think a thing was taught - it cannot be said to have been taught. Since the Tammuz myth is very different from what is said here, those statements about Semiramis & Tammuz, Lent, etc., can be ignored, as it is a "cunningly devised myth".

Which means that the results said to be the historical results of this fiction, did not happen either. Which means that the argument of the anti-Catholic work behind Macarthur's account collapses in ruins."

Notice the link supplied takes you right to Mac's site. So I've been there, done that. Please don't continue to accuse me of not going to the source.

 

[lori4dogs]

BTW, who is REALLY afraid to visit a website. Pot-Kettle?

 

[Darrell C]

Hello lori4dogs,

My reason for starting this thread was to show that too often people who speak as though they know what the Catholic Church teaches actually do not. The reason I mentioned Purgatory was because MacArthur is WAY off when he says that Catholics believe it to be a 'second chance'. The link to the webpage in the OP documents (by way of direct links to his writings) many other errors he makes about Catholic teaching. The Virgin birth of Mary, REALLY?? I think the majority of the people on this board know the Catholic Church doesn't teach that.

Isn't accuracy rather important when attacking another Christian faith?

Isn't accuracy important when attacking anything we see as false?

Have you studied true Catholic Doctrine?

Have you studied the teachings of MacArthur on Catholic Doctrine?

There is a difference between the presence of Christ when we partake of communion and the wafer and wine being transformed into His literal body and blood.

As I said, not all Catholics believe this, but the question is, the source of their doctrine.

Do you see the Apocrypha as inspired scripture?

Just curious.

God bless.

 

[DHK]

No, you are not making sense. The link on the page takes you directly to MacArthur's website. I guess I can only prove it this way:

"I see Mr. Macarthur has been taken in by the myth that Catholicism is of Babylonian origin; like so many other preachers & sites. search for the name "Tammuz" here: http://www.gty.org/Resources/ NOTICE THE LINK TO HIS PAGE, DHK

No wonder he thinks we're benighted heathens. A sample:

Quote: "Semiramis gave birth to a son, this is what was taught in these Babylonian religions. Semiramis gave birth to a son who was conceived by a sunbeam..."

There is no evidence at all for such a thing, since no such character existed. "Semiramis" seems to be a composite character, made up of an historical Assyrian queen, & a goddess or two. It would be interesting to know where that sunbeam detail comes from.

Statements about Babylonian religion can't be made without evidence - & there is no evidence of any such teaching in that religion. Perhaps because it was not a teaching religion, unlike Catholicism. If there is no reason to think a thing was taught - it cannot be said to have been taught. Since the Tammuz myth is very different from what is said here, those statements about Semiramis & Tammuz, Lent, etc., can be ignored, as it is a "cunningly devised myth".

Which means that the results said to be the historical results of this fiction, did not happen either. Which means that the argument of the anti-Catholic work behind Macarthur's account collapses in ruins."

Notice the link supplied takes you right to Mac's site. So I've been there, done that. Please don't continue to accuse me of not going to the source.

I didn't get your link Lori. I just got MacArthur's web page (one of them) with some interesting sermons.

The truth about Semiramis and Tammuz. If he believes in the connection, he has good reason and he is not the only one. One of the most thorough writers on the subject is Alexander Hislop's "Two Babylons." But there are still others who have written similar material all coming to the same conclusion. Certainly the RCC will deny any such thing. But these men can't all be wrong, and it is not one man simply copying another either. If I were in your place, it would cause me to do some serious thinking and research; not just a "I am right and all the world is wrong" attitude.

 

[lori4dogs]

Isn't accuracy important when attacking anything we see as false?

Have you studied true Catholic Doctrine?

Have you studied the teachings of MacArthur on Catholic Doctrine?

There is a difference between the presence of Christ when we partake of communion and the wafer and wine being transformed into His literal body and blood.

As I said, not all Catholics believe this, but the question is, the source of their doctrine.

Do you see the Apocrypha as inspired scripture?



Just curious.

God bless.

I have watched one video and read more than a few of his teachings to know that he is inaccurate about the teachings of the Catholic Church. Have you looked at the web page in the OP? I don't find MacArthur credible.

I do believe the bread and wine become Christ's body and blood. I believe that the Bible and the Early Church support this. You are right, up to half the Catholics you talk to might not believe this.

I do accept the Deuterocanonical books as inspired.

 

[lori4dogs]

I didn't get your link Lori. I just got MacArthur's web page (one of them) with some interesting sermons.

The truth about Semiramis and Tammuz. If he believes in the connection, he has good reason and he is not the only one. One of the most thorough writers on the subject is Alexander Hislop's "Two Babylons." But there are still others who have written similar material all coming to the same conclusion. Certainly the RCC will deny any such thing. But these men can't all be wrong, and it is not one man simply copying another either. If I were in your place, it would cause me to do some serious thinking and research; not just a "I am right and all the world is wrong" attitude.

DHK, that was my POINT. The web page I provided the link for in the OP has quotes from MacArthurs teachings on Catholicism and points out the many errors. With each error is provides the link to the actual page in which he made the statement. The one link, the one you admit takes you to one of his web sites was posted by a Catholic who was pointing out the fallacy in MacArthur's teaching. Surely this is starting to sink in??

 

[lori4dogs]

I didn't get your link Lori. I just got MacArthur's web page (one of them) with some interesting sermons.

The truth about Semiramis and Tammuz. If he believes in the connection, he has good reason and he is not the only one. One of the most thorough writers on the subject is Alexander Hislop's "Two Babylons." But there are still others who have written similar material all coming to the same conclusion. Certainly the RCC will deny any such thing. But these men can't all be wrong, and it is not one man simply copying another either. If I were in your place, it would cause me to do some serious thinking and research; not just a "I am right and all the world is wrong" attitude.

I attempt to read all theological positions, DHK, before coming to a conclusion. You dismiss all Catholic apologetic work as 'propaganda' and will not even look at it. You didn't even read the objection the brother had to MacArthur's accusation. You prefer to read garbage like 'The Two Babylon's and Hunt's 'Great Whore Rides The Beast' and conclude they are right. That is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do as well. Only their publications will do. Kinda closed minded don't 'ya think?