Posted on 05/21/2006 2:04:31 PM PDT by Full Court
? and so the point is what? since everyone I know considers them biblical, except for FC, who seems to dislike James, or has said to me previously that it's not meant for today's Christians..
>> dear Dangus, transubstantiation is a fundamental difference in our religions. It is not a slander, it is a fact. <<
Like I said, I had no problem with the passage, all of most of which had to do with transubstantiation, right up until that one statement.
As for the reference to slander, I am pretty sure the author of the work cited did not mean to slander anyone. It just amazes me how people who are not Catholic will continually assert what Catholics believe, and be wrong 99% of the time. Ironically, the author is criticizing the attackers of McArthur for calling McArthur a heretic without clarifying what McArthur actually believes. Yet he does the same to Catholics.
But I would not characterize such misrepresentation as slander. Repeating false statements out of a willfull ignorance is very wrong, but not slander. Slander is knowingly repeating false statements, and I think the author comes close enough that he is sincerely trying to correctly state the Catholic position. I thought the laughing smileys would make clear I was joking about the need to slander Catholics. But I was not joking when I called his statement "outrageous."
Are you claiming that you RELUCTANTLY posted this thread?
If so, then I apologize.
Now, while I've got your attention, can you point to some heresy in post 52?
Ya ever see how they make those dome churches? They inflate a giant bubble, build a shell around it, then remove the bubble. The shell remains standing.
Many Protestant doctrines are sorta like that, IMHO. They were created on the bubble that those 14 books were not biblical. A false interpretation of the remaining books was built. The bubble is removed, but the false interpretation remains.
The Catholic Church has always interpreted the bible in a way which refutes at least three of the "five solas." Protestants are so used to attaching a different meaning to certain bible verses, they usually fail to even acknowledge that Catholicism constructed its beliefs based on the bible. They see it as the natural way to interpret it, because they were taught the Catholic way was false probably before they could understand either.
Interpretation is based on tradition. The Protestant tradition was established on an incomplete bible. Certainly, modern authors have been able to invent arguments, for instance, that James does not contradict the Protestant interpretation of Paul, but the fact remains that the Catholic interpretation is based on the inerrancy and sufficiency of the entire bible, while the Protestant interpretation is a forced attempt to reconcile doctrines created apart from the full bible with the actual contents of the full bible.
Oh, by the way, Catholics, of course, fight the battle of interpretation with one hand tied behind their back, because the Calvinists came up withe a basis on which to agree with Luthers removal of some of the books of the bible.
I am totally amazed at the inclination there is, to hang MacArthur. He needs no defense, nor shall I offer one. This is just one of those things, beyond words...
I don't disagree that some believers have a difficult time seeing the bible as a complete whole, but this is not limited to Protestants. Some of us have just recently commented on the disconnect between the Old T and the New T we encounter on this forum, and it's on both sides.
To add to that you get opinions of men, some following Paul, some Peter, some Apollos and some Mother Teresa, and many just following themselves, and here I refer to mystics with their visions. Stir all that into the pot and after awhile you can get a strange mixture indeed-- in fact it appears regularly on Larry King and Dr. MacArthur sits there and refutes it.
It looks like a burning at the stake to me!
are you a descendent of Wycliff?
Any way what did you do
then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court,
then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court, then I apologize Full Court,
My niece went Masters and graduated about 4-5 years ago.
Really? Was it missionary training or something else as I was under the impression only men who aspired to be church leaders could enrol? At any rate, it's good to know.
I don't know what her major was. Her 2 brothers also graduated from Masters. Until now I didn't know they limited certain majors with regard to women, although the preaching/pastor vocation is usually not available in conservate circles, so a limit on major would probably make sense. I'll have to check this out.
To what extent do you cut yourself off from fellowship with others just for the sake of being doctrinally correct in your own judgment? I have known many a person who refused to have contact with any person beyond their strict belief only to watch them fall away from the faith. There are limitations to be sure. I don't think John MacArthur has reached those liimits.
BTW-Fair disclosure. I have listened to a number of sermons by John MacArthur, have his set of commentaries, and support his ministry. I may not agree with everything he states (so what else is new) but I have never known him to compromise any part of the gospel.
Is there anything in your mind that is between gleeful and reluctant?
It's a topic of discussion, nothing more, nothing less.
Hey man, what did you do?
FM
1000S: Now this is true, FC, but have we sprinkled it on our doorposts, do we dabble it behind our ears, or God forbid, do we drink it in Communion?
PRECISELY!
For me personally, in the area of music, I wouldn't go to a church that used CCM.
Many CCM groups come from AOG backgrounds, and they teach that you can lose your salvation. So I wouldn't want to be under the influence of those groups, nor subject my kids to that.
Same for Catholic CCM singers. I wouldn't have their music in my church if I couldn't support the doctrine they believed.
How about you?
The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Hebrews, pg 238
I am no big fan of John MacArthur, but I would hardly refer to him as a hyper-Calvinist.
If CTD says someone is not a hyper-Calvinist, that pretty much setles the matter. ;-)
I'm too busy to read much of the article or the replies.
Given that, I think blood represents both life and death in that it is only through the shed blood and death of Christ that his believers can have eternal life.
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.