Posted on 09/14/2015 3:18:13 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Poorly written article and the author did not prove his thesis.
No sale.
I praise the Lord for you scoffers. You have unwittingly given me the perfect opportunity to recommend two of John’s recent sermons.
We Will Not Bow
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-425/we-will-not-bow?Term=we will not bow
We Will Not Bow 2
https://www.gty.org/video/category/television?Term=we will not bow
Amen, FRiend! I am so thankful for John and his ministry.
I agree with MacArthur; Catholics are trapped in the works lie.
Catholics do works because they believe, they don’t do works in order to believe.
I agree with you who agrees with MacArthur.
The need for works seems right to them. It’s a lie from the pit.
Yes, he does. I have his study bible.
I don’t agree with MacArthur about every single verse, but he is better educated in God’s Word than any Catholic “priest” you will run into.
“Grace to You is built around one man.”
I suspect there is a succession plan in place.
“It may have many employees, but when John MacArthur dies, his ministry will die.”
I predict MacArthur will still be on the radio and his books in print long after the author of this article is dead and gone. J. Vernon, as an example, continues worldwide even today.
“His flock will scatter, taking with them the silly prejudices he has imbued them with. “
Hopefully, they’ve entrusted themselves to Christ alone and will all be heaven bound.
I listen to at least one of MacArthur’S sermons daily to hear the Gospel truth as he goes through it one verse at a time...his We Will Not Bow sermon was so good, I ordered a copy for my Pastor...say what you will about MacArthur, but he confirms that my decision to leave the Catholic church after 64 years, was the absolute right thing for me to do...
I am curious as he mentions the gospel.
Does John MacArthur believe Jesus died for our sins on Good Friday, according to Rome, or Passover, according to scripture?
Paul preached a ‘gospel’ according to scripture. And His gospel follows Passover,Unleavened Bread and First Fruits- not Good Friday, Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday. And there is a difference.
Quite a bit of a difference.
MacArthur may be more in line with Rome’s catechism than the Word Paul understood.
But that premise would have to start with believing Rome is selling another gospel and another Jesus..
John MacArthur may be just another daughter of Rome and not know it.. I pray His eyes open to Rome’s counterfeits.
I was a Protestant who didn’t see it until I came out of the world and relied exclusively on His Word for Truth..
When I discovered I was no different, I realized I was the hypocrit.. So I had to repent and turn to Him and to His full Truth.
And it would put the John MacArthur’s and the Pope on the same side,to John’s shock, I would be sure..
What a blessing!
I would say that depiction is very much the minority in the Catholic church. Lots of rules, regulations and expectations that create guilt are all the opposite of what Christ calls us to.
The litmus test is whether you feel completely loved by Jesus if you did NOTHING.
Two that I NEVER listened to, were Family Radio's Harold Camping, and Gunther Von Haringa Sr. Now, Family Radio had the best gospel music I ever heard, and they did have some great devotional programs, with J Vernon McGee, John Rice, Duane Spencer, Robert Cook and Charles Stanley, but when Camping came on, I turned it off. I couldn't handle his 2nd coming of Christ predictions.
I am an ex catholic, so you can probably guess, I am not into ANY works based religions. KR is right, that line of thinking is DIRECTLY from the pit of Hell.
I was fed milk by J. Vernon McGhee immediately after I trusted Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. His communication style (direct and uncompromising) was exactly what I needed. His “Thru the Bible” series is a great lesson. Highly recommended.
“May God richly Bless you, my beloved!”
God bless you. Maranatha.
Welcome Home!
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a137.htm
Evangelical Pastor John F. MacArthur’s Ignorant Misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching
From posts by P and others on the Catholic Answers boards, December 2006
MacArthur is clearly wrong and ignorant
Sandusky << ...none of you can deliver on this final point, namely, that MacArthur has materially misrepresented the Catholic Church....No one has provided any factual misrepresentation made by MacArthur concerning the Catholic Church. >>
When MacArthur quotes the Catechism, the Council of Trent, or Vatican II documents, he is not misrepresenting the Catholic Church. When he goes on to say, “therefore the Catholic Church teaches X....” The X is where the misrepresentation comes in, whether we’re talking Mary, the Pope, the priesthood, Justification and Salvation, or sacraments and grace, etc.
“If he believes his salvation is provided only through grace by faith in Jesus Christ, he could be saved. But, if he accepts the full sweep of Catholic dogma, there’s no way. He has cluttered up the simplicity of salvation with a works/righteousness system.”
“Works/righteousness” means salvation is earned. You won’t find that in Trent or the Catechism which specifically rejects the idea salvation is earned. He also thinks no Catholic can be saved.
“We could talk about the idea that God is a tough guy, and if anybody wants grace out of God, it’s only Jesus who could get it from Him; but you can’t expect to go to Jesus because He’s pretty tough himself, so you need to go to Mary, because nobody can resist his mother.... “
That’s baloney too, you won’t find that in the official sources of doctrine. If he would just stick with the official sources (Catechism, etc) but he does not. The above is a misrepresentation, a material misrepresentation of official Catholic teaching.
“We could talk a lot about those things; concepts of purgatory, concepts of the sinlessness of Mary, the virgin birth of Mary, a lot of things about Catholic theology...”
The virgin birth of Mary? Please give me the Catholic document that speaks of the “virgin birth of Mary.” If he means the Immaculate Conception, fine, that is Catholic doctrine. If he means the Virgin Birth of Christ, fine, that is Catholic doctrine. But he doesn’t say that. He says the “virgin birth of Mary.” That is not Catholic doctrine, that is just ignorance.
“They also possess pastoral power, and the way they define that is quite interesting. In the Catholic dogma, it is refined as — defined as legislative, judicial and punitive. Their idea of pastoral work is not comfort and care and compassion. It is legislative, judicial and punitive.”
Show me the Catholic document (Catechism, etc) that says pastoral ministry does not involve comfort, care, and compassion.
“He never makes a mistake, and nothing he says, therefore, can ever be altered.”
Show me the Catholic document (Vatican I, etc) that says papal infallibility means the Pope never makes a mistake and nothing he says can ever be altered.
After quoting a lot from the Council of Trent, MacArthur says:
“That is why in the history of the Catholic church, nothing ever changes. The church absorbs its dissidents. It absorbs its immoral. [?] It absorbs its heretics. It absorbs everybody, and perpetuates the system. The one thing the Catholic church cannot tolerate is any kind of schism. And so it just keeps absorbing the dissidents in the perpetration of the system. And, therefore, it is full of all wretched kinds of beliefs, all levels of immorality and all different kinds of disregard for Catholic law down through the laity.”
That’s nice, but you won’t find any of that in the official sources: Catechism, Trent, Vatican II and the Councils, etc. When a person is excommunicated, he is not absorbed. Show me the official Catholic document that says heretics and schismatics are “absorbed.” If you can’t, that is a material misrepresentation of official Catholic doctrine. “Absorbed” is not a Catholic term, that is a MacArthur misrepresentation.
(The above from The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood, 2002 by John MacArthur)
He also doesn’t know anything about Church history when he suggests the Catholic Church was invented at the time of Constantine, or that the Catholic Church takes her doctrines from Babylonian paganism (i.e. The Two Babylons by Hislop), or that the Fathers have anything to do with his evangelical fundamentalist Protestant doctrines (he has quoted St. John Chrysostom by name on his GTY program). That shows a complete ignorance of early Church history, the Church Fathers, and the history of Christian doctrine. I suggest a good reading of
JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines or
Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition (volume 1)
P
More MacArthur ignorance
Oh, I’m not done yet. Try these on:
From The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood
MacArthur: “In the eyes of the priesthood there is an inherent uncleanness in marriage and it’s a hangover from that sort of Manichaean/Gnostic idea of the evil of the flesh. There’s an uncleanness in romantic desire. There’s an uncleanness in normal love. There’s something shameful in that. And the desire for procreation is somehow the enemy of spiritual devotion.”
Show me the official Catholic document (Catechism, etc) 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. Where does he get that one?...........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.