ARCHIVE: MacArthur Rant

[Clete]

Originally posted by billwald
"Upon what do you base your belief that you are saved?"

I have "invited Jesus into my heart" and "said the prayer" several times" and have been baptized. <G>

I have publicly confessed that Jesus is the Messiah and repented of my sins. I confess the ecumenical creeds as truth. I trust the Creator of the universe to do what is right.

I understand why you answer this way but this doesn't answer the question. What you've done here is little more than a simple restating of "I am saved."
What I'm trying to get too is what your belief is based on.
You say you are saved because you have confessed that Jesus is the Messiah and repented of your sins. What I want to know is what is it that makes you believe that "confessing and repenting" has anything to do with being saved?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[billwald]

Different tack. I know that I am saved because the Holy Spirit testifies to my spirit, I sleep with a clear conscience, and I don't worry about being saved.

You say the same?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by billwald

Different tack. I know that I am saved because the Holy Spirit testifies to my spirit, I sleep with a clear conscience, and I don't worry about being saved.

You say the same?

Jesus loves me, this I know
For the Bible tells me so.

 

[billwald]

Your leap of faith. Good enough.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by billwald

Your leap of faith. Good enough.

I think you miss my point. My "leap" of faith, as you call it, is based on objective Biblical facts!
You say that you trust the witness of the Spirit within you. I say that I trust the witness of the Bible, which agrees with the witness of the Spirit within me and which was written (inspired) by that same Spirit. You however reject the objective witness of The Word of God in favor of some subjective thing that is going on "inside" yourself.
My question to you is this; if you cannot trust the Spirit to write a trust worthy Bible, which is objective, then by what means do you trust the "witness" within your own spirit, which is subjective?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[billwald]

"My question to you is this; if you cannot trust the Spirit to write a trust worthy Bible, which is objective, then by what means do you trust the "witness" within your own spirit, which is subjective?"

I don't know what the Spirit intended to be included in the NT that that the Orthodox/Catholic Church provided for us. For example, my Bible probably has more books than yours does.

Second, no book is 100% objective because every book is edited, as Saint John noted in his Gospel. The stuff omitted is as important as the stuff included.



By the way, if it is true that OT appearences of God are Christophanies then it was Jesus who said, "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated." Maybe that's why "Jesus love me . . . " isn't in the Bible.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This thread.... "MacArthur Rant" has been inducted into the TOL Hall of Fame on this day June 7th 2004.

Hall of Fame.

 

[jeremysdemo]

You're wrong. This passage shows that Peter considered Paul's letters to be Scriptures. Please read Peter's passage again.

• and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-16

Peter is talking about "untaught and unstable people" twisting "Paul's letters" just like they do with "the rest of the Scriptures." The passage also makes reference to "the wisdom given to [Paul]" Given by whom? Paul claims in his letters (which Peter calls Scriptures) that it was given to him by Christ himself:
Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)...
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:1, 11-12[/list][/


You say you believe that Peter's epistles are inspired Scriptures, but you believe he included untrue statements? If he were against Paul, why wouldn't he come out and say it? Why would God inspire him to lie, calling Paul "our beloved brother" and endorsing his letters?

It is recognized that I Peter is likely to be pseudepigraph, then II Peter must also be one because it refers back to the first one (3:1)
If anyone is interested in actually learning about the origins of the the text they build their beliefs off of I offer this site:
History of II Peter
This site is run by Peter Kirby a well respected author in the feild of Biblical Literary studies. He uses references to all the top liguistic analyst in that feild as well.

HERE is one exerpt from that site:

Polycarp and Irenaeus show that II Peter wasn't known in the second century church although I Peter was. The self-identification of the author as "Symeon Peter" provides no evidence one way or the other. II Peter does indeed show signs of hellenization as mentioned by Kummel above, and in any case Jewish Christians were not obliterated c. 70 CE. The construal of "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" as presenting a significantly lower christology than "our Savior and God Jesus Christ" borders on the absurd. Both expressions refer to Christ with the terms Savior and God, and thus the christological expressions are equivalent. Indeed, critical scholarship recognizes the appelation of Jesus as Savior or as God to be a second century phenomenon, and thus this lends further weight to the case that II Peter is to be dated firmly in the second century. Wallace sees "a humility, a pathos" in the statement that there are things in the collection of Paul's letters that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction. If there really is such, it is the affectation of the pseudipigraphist. Wallace relies on the supposition that the apostle Peter was actually informed of his martyrdom by the risen Christ as described by the redactor of John 21 in order to explain the comment in II Pet 1:14. Wallace even proposes that the guidance of the Holy Spirit in selecting the books of the canon lends support to the authenticity of II Peter. It is clear, then, that any scientific approach to the NT demands that II Peter be regarded as spurious.

As to dating, Perrin suggests (The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 262): "He is probably the latest of all the New Testament writers, and a date about A.D. 140 would be appropriate." Nearly all scholars would agree with a date sometime in the second century, probably in the second quarter.

It is more commonly believed by scholars that II Peter was written in or around 140 AD which was well after Peters death. And was most likely written by a patriarch of the day who was fond of Pauls letters, therfore gave him the nod in his addition, which later became cannocal in 325 AD.

• Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
  They wrote this, letter by them:
  
  The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
  
  To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
  
  Greetings.
  
  Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" --to whom we gave no such commandment-- it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

• 
  
  You will notice they sent Paul out to reprotr the same things by word of mouth.
  One of those things was:
  For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us[/b], to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
  Which Paul clearly did not do.
  .Colossians 2:16-17
  1 Corinthians 8:3-13 1 Corinthians 10:19-29 Romans 14:21
  

  Farewell. Acts 15:22-29

If the apostles didn't trust Paul, why did they write this glowing endorsement of him and his ministry? And why did Luke make a record of it, if he was so unsympathetic to Paul? (Where do you get that idea anyway?)

Actually by all accounts Luke was quit fond of Paul, him also being a Gentile and all, they had common ground.
As a matter of point Luke is the ONLY one in the entire Bible going on record calling Paul an apostle.
Acts 14:4 Acts 14:14

All of these datas and more are already layed out for discussion in TWO differnt threads.
One titled, "Paul the false Apostle" another "Some serious things to consider in the NT"
I have my hands full with other forums and the two simular topics already in this one, otherwise I would entertain you all for a third.

keep shinin'

jerm

 

[billwald]

The Apostle would agree to almost anything to get Paul out of Jerusalem. They were hoping he would self-destruct. (hint- why didn't they go to his defense when he was arrested in the Temple?)

If Luke liked Paul then I would hate to have Luke writing my obit if he disliked me.

 

[Jackson]

And yes, MacArthur is a Calvinist. I'm not sure that he claims to be one although he brobably does. Either way, his theology is full of Clavinistic teaching.


Resting in Him,
Clete

That would explain why he can't stand the Vineyard... :idea:

 

[jeremysdemo]

The Apostle would agree to almost anything to get Paul out of Jerusalem. They were hoping he would self-destruct. (hint- why didn't they go to his defense when he was arrested in the Temple?)

If Luke liked Paul then I would hate to have Luke writing my obit if he disliked me.

HEy bill,

You seem to have things to contribute to this topic.

I would be curious as to the references either scriptural or historical that you are using to support the idea that Luke and Paul were not pals.

Furthermore, as stated before there are two threads already started on a very simular topic to the one this threads has gone off on.
And for the sake of finding others interested in dicussing it would be wise to use one of those threads.
Since "ARCHIVE: MacArthur Rant" really doesn't DRAW anyone by it's title who would be interested in discussing these things.
As a matter of fact, I would never had known where this discussion was if not for Clete leaving a link in one of the other threads that ARE about simular topics.
I have already comprised a lenthly Outline with data on this topic, and posted it in the TWO formentioned threads and am not inclined to SPAM yet another which by all accounts would be off topic to begin with.

Here both of those threads are should yo ube interested in contributing to that research and discussion.


Was Paul a false apostle? Scripture reveals he preached "another" gospel:

Some serious things to consider about the NT

Although no one has yet discussed the data in the outline, with the right people you never know it could happen.

Be blessed and bless those whom He sends you, In Jesus name.

keep shinin'

jerm