John MacArthur on Mariolatry

Church Mouse ^ | November 18, 2010

[D-fendr]

MacArthur-If you do not address error, if you do not address strange doctrine…

Well, Harley, I guess I can see you following him as a "leaky dispensationalist" and with him on a premillennial and pre-tribulational rapture, and perhaps you are, like him, a cessationist; but were you with him on his doctrine of "incarnational sonship" or with him when he recanted it?

:)

[HarleyD]

There are still some aspects of MacArthur’s doctrine that I don’t buy into and never have (he’s a bit too works oriented for my taste). However, JM is an exceptionally honest and forthright preacher. I can overlook his lapses.

I just wished he let me critique him before he publishes. :O)

[dartuser]

They do say the Lords prayer at mass.

[D-fendr]

Not sure I would minimize incarnational sonship as a "lapse" and forthright is an understatement, but I too wish he let me critique his strange doctrine and damning heresy before he publishes it - out of love not indifference of course.

:)

[HarleyD]

People who go down the path of trying to explain the Trinity, and especially the incarnation, are bound to get burned. It’s like trying to explain the Xzehgeis on Saiubislgds-9.

[HarleyD]

BTW-I watched MacArthur a while back on TV where he was interviewed along with several other “Christians” including a high ranking priest. When asked if Christ was the only way to heaven everyone but MacArthur pussy-foot around the real answer. MacArthur was the only one who said that Christ was the only way to heaven.

You may quibble over some of MacArthur’s erroneous views which he later has recanted. One may recall that the great Augustine found himself in a similar situation, even to the point of having to recall his books to be burned. But MacArthur sticks up for the gospel time and again. He is an honorable man.

[Gamecock]

Amen Harley!

[D-fendr]

People who go down the path of trying to explain the Trinity, and especially the incarnation, are bound to get burned.

It was developed by the Church over hundreds of years. Every possible error arose and was dealt with. Yet, here they come along again and again, because "people" go down the same paths the Church has already covered.

MacArthur was the only one who said that Christ was the only way to heaven.

Pardon me, but big whoop. Now what does that mean? "People" will vary a great deal on that answer. And a bumfuddled priest doesn't change what the Church believes - you can look it up. :)

You may quibble over some of MacArthur’s erroneous views which he later has recanted.

So what's to keep him from re-re-canting. And the "incarnational sonship" was was no small quibble. What's the point in listening to him if it's only to reinforce what you believe when he agrees and ignore him when he doesn't? It's your authority picking those who agree as your authority. Unless you then recant. On and on...

One may recall that the great Augustine found himself in a similar situation

We're the Catholic Church not the Augustinian Church - people again.

MacArthur sticks up for the gospel time and again.

According to you and some other people. :)

Honestly, with all the mishmash of different doctrines and theologies, church becomes pretty meaningless. People get convinced one way, then another, leave this church, found another… Lots of people, no church.

Thanks for your reply.

[HarleyD]

HD-MacArthur was the only one who said that Christ was the only way to heaven.

D-F-Pardon me, but big whoop. Now what does that mean? "People" will vary a great deal on that answer. And a bumfuddled priest doesn't change what the Church believes

Ah, the standard pat answer-this "bumfuddled" priest doesn't speak for the Church and I should go look up what the Church believe. And when I go look up the Church teaching is that there really are other pathways to Christ, you'll just deny it-or ignore it-and rally around the Church blah, blah, blah. (Should I post the Pope kissing the Koran?)

The Roman Catholic Church has just about rejected or changed every major Christian doctrine there is-including our Lord Jesus being the only way to God. There is not much of a Christian Church in Rome. Rather it's more like a club. For a Catholic to tell me that MacArthur is a heretic is not very reliable source. It's like someone telling me that Martha Stewart is a great auto mechanic. Thanks but I think I'd like to check this out myself.

Tell me, not that I expect a straight answer, but do you believe that our Lord Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven? You can tell us all the Catholic Church's position on the matter. And this is your opportunity not be bumfuddled and to really put the matter to rest. Just post your source.

And you tell me John MacArthur is a heretic.

What's the point in listening to him if it's only to reinforce what you believe when he agrees and ignore him when he doesn't? It's your authority picking those who agree as your authority. Unless you then recant.

That is how we grow. I am reminded of the honorable Apollos who, when teaching wrong doctrine was taken aside and corrected. He then started teaching correct doctrine. Same way with those teaching the baptism of John. You listen to what someone states, you compare it with the scriptures which you know to be infallible, and then you trust God to guide you all.

There are some things that remain a mystery and you keep your mind open to the truth. Every Christian is on a pilgrimage. Once you find out the truth, you fit that piece of the puzzle into the picture and move on. After all, God said that He would guide us to all truths.

[D-fendr]

Thanks very much for your reply.

On your question about what we believe concerning whether our Lord Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven, the obvious answer is the creed: " He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." Of course, the Catechism will answer more fully if you have other questions.

In here, probably the briefest answer to your request is "1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately--or immediate and everlasting damnation." And there's also "1977 - Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the justice of God."

I am reminded of the honorable Apollos who, when teaching wrong doctrine was taken aside and corrected.

By Paul who had the authority of the Church. And whom met in Council with other leaders to decide what the Church believes. The New Testament is full of the story of the One Church led by the Holy Spirit, not individuals picking one leaders view or the other. It's the history of one Church, the same Church, the Church that Christ established and gave authority to.

That's my point. If you correct MacArthur, he can say "who are you?" And you can say the same to him - "he's right on this, wrong on that." But you both only have your own authority. How can this way hope to result in One Holy and Apostolic Church?

You listen to what someone states, you compare it with the scriptures which you know to be infallible, and then you trust God to guide you all.

But in practice you just have different people with different views of infallible scripture arguing with equal authority - none. Surely God does not guide us in all these different directions to different truths.

Every Christian is on a pilgrimage.

But not by themselves, each becoming their own authority and deriving their own doctrine - choosing from a plethora of churches.

[HarleyD]

On your question about what we believe concerning whether our Lord Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven...

Here is the Catholic Catechism:

•841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[330]

By Paul who had the authority of the Church.

It was actually by two other people in the church:

Act 18:24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.
Act 18:25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
Act 18:26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

But you both only have your own authority.

This would be true if you took a low view of the scriptures. However, if you view the scriptures as the ultimate authority, then we both have the same authority. If John MacArthur could show clearly to me out of the scriptures a particular view, then I have to give in to that view not because of MacArthur but because that is what the scriptures tells us.

This btw is a pet peeve of mine. When scripture clearly states something, it is unfathomable in my mind for Christians just to ignore it or say it's a mystery. I would hope people would want to reconcile the passages or try to understand.

But not by themselves, each becoming their own authority and deriving their own doctrine

The authority is the scriptures. I am reminded of the case in Samuel where Israel begged God for a king. After God told them of all the problems they will have with a king, they still wanted one. God granted them a king saying they had rejected Him as their king.

The Christian church is no different. Men still want a king other than Christ.

[D-fendr]

If John MacArthur could show clearly to me out of the scriptures a particular view, then I have to give in to that view not because of MacArthur but because that is what the scriptures tells us.

You have been clearly shown the Holy Eucharist in scriptures but you disagree. Scripture as we see here has no authority - it's not saying you're right and I'm wrong. It's not on the witness stand or in the judge's box saying MacArthur is wrong and you are right.

Scripture is scripture - what it means in regards to doctrine requires an authority outside scripture. We disagree on what scripture means, now what? Convince each other? Appeal to the authority of scripture? I'm convinced you missed the scripture's meaning. Now what? Which meaning does the Christian Church hold? You decide for you and I decide for me? How is that a church?

When scripture clearly states something, it is unfathomable in my mind for Christians just to ignore it or say it's a mystery. I would hope people would want to reconcile the passages or try to understand.

Then you understand how I'm completely perplexed when you can't see the Church, One Holy and Apostolic clearly throughout the scripture. Again - Scripture is not capable of saying I'm right and you're wrong. Sola scriptura results in sola sola.

The Christian church is no different. Men still want a king other than Christ.

Christ is Head of His Church. The alternative is people like MacArthur here. I initially responded to this:

"MacArthur-If you do not address error, if you do not address strange doctrine, damning heresy.."

Who died and made him king?

:)

[D-fendr]

Oh, and thanks very much for your reply..

[D-fendr]

As a side note, I should add that Priscilla and Aquila traveled with Paul before they corrected Apollos, according to Paul’s teaching, and that Paul’s correction of the Church in Corinth was key to Apollos becoming its bishop. Following Acts 18, we find Paul in Ephesus, teaching there and on and on. It’s accurate Paul, or others according to Paul, is correcting everyone in his travels and letters. It’s clear there was an authority in the Church.

[HarleyD]

You have been clearly shown the Holy Eucharist in scriptures but you disagree. Scripture as we see here has no authority - it's not saying you're right and I'm wrong.

I see nothing in scripture that states the elements actually turns into the blood and flesh of our Lord or that grace in imparted through the sacraments. On the contrary, scripture specifically states that we are to do this as a rememberance of our Lord until He returns. That's it, as a proclamation. But it is a very special sacrament handed down by our Lord Himself.

Then you understand how I'm completely perplexed when you can't see the Church, One Holy and Apostolic clearly throughout the scripture. Again - Scripture is not capable of saying I'm right and you're wrong.

I posted the Church's Catechism 841 with regards to Muslims because it is rather controversial even within the Catholic Church. It changes what has been taught throughout history. If you go over to justforcatholics.org (yes, I peek), there is an intense debate going on about this Catechism. Now the question is how can Catholics reject a Catechism given by the Church? Why should there be any debate what has been handed down? And, if you believe the Church to be fully knowledgable and unerring, then you must agree with Catechism 841 which plainly states that all a person has to have is a profession of faith of Abraham.

And let's not forget what the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 stated about heretics (ie John MacArthur):

3. On Heretics We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment.

- Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 - On Heretics

It's nice to know that the Church would call John MacArthur a heretic who believes Christ is the only way to God. Yet the Catholic Church would not call Muslims heretics. Since I don't hear any disagreement with the Church, I can only assume that you do not believe Christ to be the only way to God.

In is interesting how the Church confers on Muslims the title of the "faith of Abraham". And I keep hearing how right the Church is at making these types of decisions. My, my. What a difference 800 years makes when the Church was fighting the Holy Wars and calling them hetheans and infidels. Now they have the faith of Abraham (whatever that means).

Thanks, but it isn't difficult to pick out of the scriptures that Christ is the only way to God the Father. I'd have to say I'll agree with John on this one. It's too bad the Church has a hard time understanding this if even I can understand it.

[D-fendr]

I see nothing in scripture that states the elements actually turns into the blood and flesh of our Lord or that grace in imparted through the sacraments.

And I - and the Church - do. Now what?

scripture specifically states that we are to do this as a rememberance

So? One doesn't negate the other. Non sequitur. Now what? Which is the Christian belief?

Catechism 841 which plainly states that all a person has to have is a profession of faith of Abraham.

Nope. Read more of the Catechism on the Church, Economy of Salvation, Sacraments, Particular judgement, etc.

It's nice to know that the Church would call John MacArthur a heretic who believes Christ is the only way to God.

Actually my post was about your post on MacArthur determining heresy. Who does determine heresy in your view?

I'd have to say I'll agree with John on this one.

But, not the other one. This part he's right, there he's wrong. And he'd say you're right here and wrong there.. What does the Christian Church believe? Who do I ask?