MacArthur's Ignorant Misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching

[lori4dogs]

Not long ago, a poster on BB gave a link to a video with John MacArthur attempting to trash Catholicism. I noticed big misrepresentations of what the Catholic Church teaches. The most glaring error was his reference to Purgatory as being 'a second chance for salvation'.

I stumbled on to this site which lists a many other errors he makes in his teachings on Catholicism such as him stating that the Catholic Church teaches the 'Virgin Birth of Mary'! Is this OK? Are these kinds of lies alright as long as it 'brings people out of the Great Whore'?

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a137.htm

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not long ago, a poster on BB gave a link to a video with John MacArthur attempting to trash Catholicism. I noticed big misrepresentations of what the Catholic Church teaches. The most glaring error was his reference to Purgatory as being 'a second chance for salvation'.

I stumbled on to this site which lists a many other errors he makes in his teachings on Catholicism such as him stating that the Catholic Church teaches the 'Virgin Birth of Mary'! Is this OK? Are these kinds of lies alright as long as it 'brings people out of the Great Whore'?

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a137.htm

I haven't seen the video. However, a common view of non-Catholics is that If Mary had to be Immaculately Conceived for Jesus to be born; then does it stand to reason there must be a whole line of untainted people? Else if Mary's mother was sinful then isn't the trait passed on to Mary by virtue of birth?

Also note that the doctrine of the Immaculate conseption was defined by Pius the IX having an over reaction to the Italian revolution. In which he defined "immaculate conseption" and "papal infallibility" at once as can be seen in the Syllabus of Errors and the 1st Vatican council. These very issues lead Europe to separate from the Catholic Church and to the Old Catholic Church founded at Ultrech almost obliterating Roman Catholicism from the world together with protestantism. Now since these two issues are modern definition is it possible as has been determined in his syllabus of errors that Pius the IX went to far in defining this dogma thus creating a cult?

 

[BobRyan]

Not long ago, a poster on BB gave a link to a video with John MacArthur attempting to trash Catholicism. I noticed big misrepresentations of what the Catholic Church teaches. The most glaring error was his reference to Purgatory as being 'a second chance for salvation'.

I stumbled on to this site which lists a many other errors he makes in his teachings on Catholicism such as him stating that the Catholic Church teaches the 'Virgin Birth of Mary'! Is this OK? Are these kinds of lies alright as long as it 'brings people out of the Great Whore'?

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a137.htm

I agree that accuracy is key and that it makes no sense to accuse the Catholic church of teaching that the moon is made out of blue cheese - when such a complaint can be so easily shot down as baseless.

I see the reference where MacArthur said something about the "virgin birth of Mary" - which is certainly not a teaching of the RCC. He should have said the "immaculate conception of Mary".

I don't know of any Baptists or followers of MacArthur that go around claiming that they think Catholics teach that Mary was born of a virgin just as Christ was. I could be wrong - but this does not seem to be anything that I have heard them repeating.

The problem with Purgatory is much more common. I hear all the time from non-Catholics that they think Purgatory is another chance to either go to heaven or hell. This is simply a common misunderstanding among non-Catholics - and I do my best to inform the people I meet that Catholics claim that everyone that goes to Purgatory will eventually go to heaven.

It is kind of like the OSAS problem - I find a lot of people who reject the man-made tradition of OSAS - tend to paint all OSAS-believers as being those that reject the perseverance of the saints (a path Zenas took on this board recently).

Clearly 3 and 5 point Calvinists hold strictly to the Perseverance of the saints teaching as well as OSAS - it is only the 4-point Calvinists that reject Perseverance and use that to come up with a more "bulletproof OSAS". (Though still wrong of course)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[lori4dogs]

I haven't seen the video. However, a common view of non-Catholics is that If Mary had to be Immaculately Conceived for Jesus to be born; then does it stand to reason there must be a whole line of untainted people? Else if Mary's mother was sinful then isn't the trait passed on to Mary by virtue of birth?

Also note that the doctrine of the Immaculate conseption was defined by Pius the IX having an over reaction to the Italian revolution. In which he defined "immaculate conseption" and "papal infallibility" at once as can be seen in the Syllabus of Errors and the 1st Vatican council. These very issues lead Europe to separate from the Catholic Church and to the Old Catholic Church founded at Ultrech almost obliterating Roman Catholicism from the world together with protestantism. Now since these two issues are modern definition is it possible as has been determined in his syllabus of errors that Pius the IX went to far in defining this dogma thus creating a cult?

As you know, doctrines are only defined when something comes up that needs clarification. Also, when the magisterium thinks the laity can be assisted by emphasis brought out on an already existing belief. I believe these two issues to be an example of the latter.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As you know, doctrines are only defined when something comes up that needs clarification. Also, when the magisterium thinks the laity can be assisted by emphasis brought out on an already existing belief. I believe these two issues to be an example of the latter.

many catholics of the time felt it was inappropiate to define the doctrine which is why they left. Did Pius the IX over step his bounds?

 

[lori4dogs]

I agree that accuracy is key and that it makes no sense to accuse the Catholic church of teaching that the moon is made out of blue cheese - when such a complaint can be so easily shot down as baseless.

I see the reference where MacArthur said something about the "virgin birth of Mary" - which is certainly not a teaching of the RCC. He should have said the "immaculate conception of Mary".

I don't know of any Baptists or followers of MacArthur that go around claiming that they think Catholics teach that Mary was born of a virgin just as Christ was. I could be wrong - but this does not seem to be anything that I have heard them repeating.

The problem with Purgatory is much more common. I hear all the time from non-Catholics that they think Purgatory is another chance to either go to heaven or hell. This is simply a common misunderstanding among non-Catholics - and I do my best to inform the people I meet that Catholics claim that everyone that goes to Purgatory will eventually go to heaven.

It is kind of like the OSAS problem - I find a lot of people who reject the man-made tradition of OSAS - tend to paint all OSAS-believers as being those that reject the perseverance of the saints (a path Zenas took on this board recently).

Clearly 3 and 5 point Calvinists hold strictly to the Perseverance of the saints teaching as well as OSAS - it is only the 4-point Calvinists that reject Perseverance and use that to come up with a more "bulletproof OSAS". (Though still wrong of course)

in Christ,

Bob

I agree Bob, accuracy is key. MacArthur makes ridiculous and inaccurate claims about 'papal infallibility' as well. He says "He never makes a mistake, and nothing he says, therefore, can ever be altered." Which is total nonsense. Over the years on this board more than a few anti-Catholics have claimed that the Catholic Church teaches that the 'pope is sinless'. If that were true I would wonder why the pope feels it necessary to go to confession.

 

[lori4dogs]

many catholics of the time felt it was inappropiate to define the doctrine which is why they left. Did Pius the IX over step his bounds?

If this dogma was not what the Church had been saying all along, then I believe Pius X would have been over stepping his bounds. I believe that when speaking to all Christians as head of the Church and defining matters of faith and morals, the Pope through the Holy Spirit is protected from error. My Old Catholic friends differ with me on this one.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree Bob, accuracy is key. MacArthur makes ridiculous and inaccurate claims about 'papal infallibility' as well. He says "He never makes a mistake, and nothing he says, therefore, can ever be altered." Which is total nonsense. Over the years on this board more than a few anti-Catholics have claimed that the Catholic Church teaches that the 'pope is sinless'. If that were true I would wonder why the pope feels it necessary to go to confession.

Agreed - some of those are also common mistakes.

However the argument about the Pope only being infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra" is a point of clarification that only came about in the 19th century. (1870).

And the claim for infalliblity though only formally stated late in the 19th century is meant to apply retroactively to all centuries as well as the clarification about ex cathedra caveats. Thuse we are taken to centuries before 1870 when nobody was actually saying "yes but we all agree he is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, and we all agree on when something is ex cathedra and when it is not".

hence the confusion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ReformedBaptist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e.., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin.

In practice, popes seldom use their power of infallibility, but rely on the notion that the Church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the Church.[2] Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops, had proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary an ex cathedra dogma in December 1854.

This is from wikki by the way, so it could be off.

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

This whole notion of infallibility rests on the papal doctrine of the primacy of Peter and the popes holding "peter's chair" or that place of primacy.

Basically, it boils down to ultimate and final authority. True Christians hold to and rest that authority in God alone through the Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves act as the voice of God, the very speaking of God, and then are the rule and judge of all Christians and all Christian doctrine.

The pope(s) do not possess this authority, nor the magisterium, nor their traditions. Indeed, both the papacy and its traditions are rightly judged by the Scripture, and most certainly not the other way around.

 

[Salty]

Lori

In accordance with "misrepresenation"

Are you:

A. Roman Catholic
B. Anglican

 

[lori4dogs]

Lori

In accordance with "misrepresenation"

Are you:

A. Roman Catholic
B. Anglican

I was Anglican when I became a member of this board, now Roman Catholic. I would be happy to change my profile if someone would tell me how.

I followed this board for years as a Baptist and an anti-Catholic until becoming convinced that catholic doctrine was biblical.

 

[lori4dogs]

Lori

In accordance with "misrepresenation"

Are you:

A. Roman Catholic
B. Anglican

BTW, Salty, where are you with people like MacArthur and Jack Chick who teach and publish lies about the Catholic Church. Does the end justify the means?

 

[DHK]

I see the reference where MacArthur said something about the "virgin birth of Mary" - which is certainly not a teaching of the RCC. He should have said the "immaculate conception of Mary".
Bob

Lori, I am glad to see that you treat MacArthur so highly and esteem him as highly as you do the RCC pope. You believe that everything he says is infallible. He is the voice of all Baptists, if not evangelicals. Whatever he says is truth, ex cathedra. You have a very high opinion. Does he also sit in the very place of Christ in your opinion? I would like to know?

We believe he is a man and is prone to make mistakes from time to time.
Bob pointed out one to you. But you will forever condemn him for not believing the virgin birth of Christ. How terrible. It looks like you are the terrible sinner here. You need to repent of your sins or you will go to hell and never get even a chance to enter Purgatory, don't you think. Such a hateful spirit you have against all the Protestants and Baptists in the world. Repent Lori, Repent!!!

 

[lori4dogs]

Lori, I am glad to see that you treat MacArthur so highly and esteem him as highly as you do the RCC pope. You believe that everything he says is infallible. He is the voice of all Baptists, if not evangelicals. Whatever he says is truth, ex cathedra. You have a very high opinion. Does he also sit in the very place of Christ in your opinion? I would like to know?

We believe he is a man and is prone to make mistakes from time to time.
Bob pointed out one to you. But you will forever condemn him for not believing the virgin birth of Christ. How terrible. It looks like you are the terrible sinner here. You need to repent of your sins or you will go to hell and never get even a chance to enter Purgatory, don't you think. Such a hateful spirit you have against all the Protestants and Baptists in the world. Repent Lori, Repent!!!

Did you bother to even look at the link I provided? There is not just a mistake or two in his teachings on Catholicism. If he isn't going to speak the truth about what the Catholic Church teaches then he should shut-up about it.

I have no hateful spirit towards you Protestants. I once was one!

 

[DHK]

Did you bother to even look at the link I provided? There is not just a mistake or two in his teachings on Catholicism. If he isn't going to speak the truth about what the Catholic Church teaches then he should shut-up about it.

I have no hateful spirit towards you Protestants. I once was one!

Yeah! I was once a Roman Catholic too. And look at the accusations I get from you. Calling the kettle black are you?
Furthermore if you think I am going to trust a Catholic apologetic website about MacArthur you are crazy. Go and read MacArthur's site for yourself. Why read propaganda that has probably taken things that he has said out of context. I wouldn't touch that site with a ten foot pole.

 

[lori4dogs]

Watched one of his videos on Catholicism, DHK, and he said that the Catholic Church teaches that Purgatory is a 'second chance'. That is not off a Catholic apologetic site, that was out of his mouth. He teaches lies.

 

[DHK]

Watched one of his videos on Catholicism, DHK, and he said that the Catholic Church teaches that Purgatory is a 'second chance'. That is not off a Catholic apologetic site, that was out of his mouth. He teaches lies.

Maybe you should read what he actually stated instead of making false allegations. Have you read his own writings? Be truthful. Have you? Here is what he says:

A process dependent on the believer, not a judicial act of God
The Council saw justification as a process whereby the sinner is actually made righteous. In other words, Trent said justification entails the whole process of sanctification. According to the Council, justification is “not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts by which an unrighteous man becomes righteous.”
Moreover, according to the Council, justification is a lifelong process. In fact, the process extends beyond this life and into the next. Purgatory is necessary to blot out the full debt of eternal punishment:

If anyone says that the guilt is remitted to every penitent sinner after the grace of justification has been received, and that the debt of eternal punishment is so blotted out that there remains no debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened—let him be anathema.
​

There is no guarantee that anyone will persevere in the process, and some may fall away and be lost forever. But “those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of justification may be again justified . . . through the sacrament of penance.”
In other words, good works are necessary to preserve justification, and when believers sin, they must regain their justification through a religious ritual. This is an unmistakable denial of sola fide.

He is quoting from the Council of Trent.

He is using their words.

He is drawing conclusions from their statements.



This is taken from this article.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/jm-233879.htm


You need to read more on what MacArthur says about Catholicism. There are a number of articles here:


http://www.biblebb.com/mac-a-g.htm

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Maybe you should read what he actually stated instead of making false allegations. Have you read his own writings? Be truthful. Have you? Here is what he says:

He is quoting from the Council of Trent.

He is using their words.

He is drawing conclusions from their statements.



This is taken from this article.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/jm-233879.htm


You need to read more on what MacArthur says about Catholicism. There are a number of articles here:


http://www.biblebb.com/mac-a-g.htm


[/SIZE][/FONT]

where does he get second chance from that quote?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Arguing that MacArthur said this or didn't say that or whatever seems absurd to me. Lori, if you have a beef with Mr. MacArthur, then call him and face him head on.

If you want to discuss the doctrines of your church in light of the Scripture then let's discuss those.

I noticed no one responded to my previous post.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Arguing that MacArthur said this or didn't say that or whatever seems absurd to me. Lori, if you have a beef with Mr. MacArthur, then call him and face him head on.

If you want to discuss the doctrines of your church in light of the Scripture then let's discuss those.

I noticed no one responded to my previous post.

A lot of Catholics didn't buy it either which is why they went Old Catholic Church

This whole notion of infallibility rests on the papal doctrine of the primacy of Peter and the popes holding "peter's chair" or that place of primacy.

Basically, it boils down to ultimate and final authority. True Christians hold to and rest that authority in God alone through the Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves act as the voice of God, the very speaking of God, and then are the rule and judge of all Christians and all Christian doctrine.

The pope(s) do not possess this authority, nor the magisterium, nor their traditions. Indeed, both the papacy and its traditions are rightly judged by the Scripture, and most certainly not the other way around.
__________________

Remember the Papacy view that its defining of understanding scripture on doctrine faith and morals the Pope has the final say based on it being said in Ex Cathedra consistent with the council of Cardnals. This they see as unifying as 10 people can have 10 opinions to what God has to say with regard to scripture. However, you are right in your very last paragraph the papacy is judged by scripture.