MacArthur's Ignorant Misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching

Online Etymology Dictionary

 

There are liberal Baptists, liberal Protestants, and liberal Catholics.
I have met Catholics that are into the occult and worship Satan.
So what!

 

Just to clarify, MacArthur never said Catholics believe Mary was born of a virgin. What he said is that if you're going to believe that Mary was sinless, as Catholics believe, then the logical conclusion is that she was born of a virgin just like Christ, lest she inherit a sin nature through her father.

So, before I start trotting out all of the Catholic sources Lori embarrassed herself so by claiming don't exist, are you saying that the Catholic church does not teach that Purgatory is an opportunity for sinners to expiate their own sins?

 

And that is precisely why I would never go to a Catholic site to get so-called "truth" about people like MacArthur. People ought to know better.
Go to the source Lori.

 

I believe he is asking clarification from you as to what you believe Purgatory is.

If you believe Purgatory is for saints only, and for further "purging" for sins, then in the mind of many it still remains a "second chance." You don't see it that way. But it is a logical conclusion.

First, no one knows how long they will spend in Purgatory, or even if they will ever get out of that place of torment. There is no actual guarantee. That in itself makes God a monster.

Second, whereas the Bible teaches: only two choices--heaven or hell, this third "go-between-place" can be seen as a second chance. Why? Because the sins of the so-called saint, who perhaps didn't do quite enough works, now can have a chance to pay for the rest of his sinful life in order to make into heaven.

Third, it teaches the insufficiency of the blood of Christ. Christ failed on the Cross. The RCC has created a place to help where Christ failed. They have a man-made doctrine to pay a part of the penalty where Christ could not pay. Christ's blood was insufficient to pay; so the RCC is making up the short-fall by creating this "purging" place.

 

How much difference is there between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth? Bob pointed this out to you pages ago. In fact we both did. But you hold MacArthur to such high esteem, to a greater honor than the Pope himself, that every word he speaks is inspired of God, perfect and without mistake. Isn't that true Lori?

 

Actually - my statement was that there is a big difference between the two - and that it must have been simply a slip on John MacArthur's part to speak of the virgin Birth of Mary - (As if Mary was born of a Virgin). Certainly I have never heard John argue for such an idea and I don't know of anyone in his church that claims that Catholics think that Mary was born of a virgin. I am thinking it was just a one-time slip - a mis-statement on John's part.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Well - again I don't think that argument is as solid as one might have hoped.

But here is what I think is the "truth" in what MacArthur might be trying to say.

Christ had TWO attributes that are in focus in the case of the Virgin Birth.

1. He was pre-existant GOD incarnated as man - and so the "God-man". Therefore not the same as "procreation" of man and woman.

2. He was sinless - no sinful nature. No taint of sin.

If we ignore the "incarnation" aspect for a minute and just deal with the issue of being born sinless - with no taint of sin - then:

IF Christ needed to be "housed" in a sinless womb to be the sinless one - (and so then Mary also needed to be sinless) -- then Mary too would need to be housed in a sinless womb so that she could be the sinless one that housed the fetal Christ. Which means all the women in a line from Mary to Eve would have had to be either born sinless and therefore housed in a sinless womb - or created sinless as in the case of Eve. However Eve is on record as "having sinned" so that entire "sinless only from a sinless mother" argument is dead in the water.

IF on the other hand - Mary's Mother could be SINFUL and yet give birth - to a SINLESS Mary (As the Catholic church i fact claims) - then there is no longer a need for Mary to be sinless - in order to give birth to a SINLESS Jesus. She could participate just as the RCC now imagines Mary's Mother participated and gave birth to a SINLESS child even though she was a sinFUL mother. The entire need for an "immaculate conception" for Mary is thus ended.

If JFD's clarification point above accurately reflects John MacArthur's statement - then MacArthur did err by conflating the "incarnation" aspect (which required a virgin birth -- no earthly Father) - with the "sinless nature" aspect which required ... a miracle of God such that a sinLESS being is born directly from a sinFUL mother (just as the RCC happened in the case of Mary born of a mother with a sinful nature, or as the rest of us say in the case of Christ born of a mother who had a sinful nature and who needed salvation).

in Christ,

Bob

 

I was agreeing with you Bob. My post was poorly worded.
It should have said: "How much difference is there between the virgin birth and the immaculate conception, anyway? (my question)
As Bob (and I) pointed out earlier he got two terms mixed up. It happens to many of us.

 

I was thinking that I addressed that point as well by saying that many people do say that - and they are wrong to argue that the Catholic teaching is that Popes have never made mistakes. In fact the Catholic church itself has a list of admittedly "wicked popes".

But in my prior comment on this - I also point out that the statement by the RCC in the 1800's that the Pope is in fact infallably correct on matters of Doctrine when he speaks "ex cathedra" (in his role or office as Pontiff) - they introduced a caveat that is not found in prior centuries.

Thus it would have been very difficult for catholics in the 13th or 14th centuries to know that they need not pay attention to popes not speaking "ex cathedra" and oh by the way the Popes did not bother to add "I am saying this ex cathedra" in the first place.

So while you are right that MacArthur is promoting a common misconception - the subject itself brings up some interesting questions for the RCC.

in Christ,

Bob

 

There is a note of sarcasm there. However the idea is taught all throughout the prayers of the Catholic Church, even in the most common "Hail Mary," else why go through Mary at all? The Bible Clearly describes Jesus as our "mediator" "advocate" "High Priest" "Intercessor". He is the one that we must go through and none other. But the RCC teaches otherwise which is heresy.

 

MacArthur's point appears to be that the RCC claims you will get far more results going through Mary than going directly to God yourself.

If you are asking just how far off that claim is from what the RCC actually publishes - then you are getting to a grey area for many readers.

After all --There are some pretty explicit statements from RC sources along those lines.