- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostTraining For The Ministry
- Next Post »A La Carte (04/21)
Wading In
- 04/20/06
- 47
On the thirteenth of April, one week ago, John MacArthur was invited to be a guest on Larry King Live. I have lost track of the number of times that MacArthur has been asked to participate in King’s show, but it seems that when King needs a person to defend traditional, biblical Protestantism, he calls MacArthur. It is always a good choice.
When MacArthur appears on Larry King Live he usually appears as part of an interesting cast of characters. More often than not he is seated between Deepak Chopra on one side and Michael Manning on the other. Chopra is a New Age guru and founder of The Chopra Center for Well Being in California while Michael Manning is a Roman Catholic priest, pastor at St. Anthony’s Parish in San Bernardino, and host of The “Word in the World.” Last week, though, MacArthur found himself in different company. While he was still seated beside Michael Manning, every other one of the seven guests on the show, was Roman Catholic. The topic of discussion was a new, exploitive “reality” show entitled God or the Girl?. The show follows four young men as they wrestle with the decision of whether or not to train for the priesthood, knowing that this will require a life of celibacy.
For the first few minutes of the broadcast, King spoke with the four men who will be featured in God or the Girl?. He then asked questions of Anthony Podovano, a Roman Catholic theologian and author and Father John Bartunek, who is a Legionnaire of Christ (whatever that is) and rejected evangelicalism in favor of crossing the Tiber and becoming a Catholic priest.
He then turned to MacArthur. And this is what I love and admire about John MacArthur. MacArthur did not beat around the bush. He did not spend a few sentences seeking common ground and affirming his love and respect for Catholic tradition before addressing what he feels is error. No, he just waded in.
I think from a biblical standpoint we need to readdress this issue on a couple of fronts. Number one, according to the New Testament, you can’t be a pastor unless you are the husband of one wife and have proven that you’re able to manage your household well.The apostle Paul also said that one of the false doctrines, he called doctrines of demons, 1 Timothy 4, is forbidding to marry. There is no biblical basis for this whatsoever. You can’t use Jesus as an example. He’s God in human flesh.
There is no biblical foundation. In fact, Paul said it’s better to marry than to burn. So, you put a priest in an impossible situation, then stick him in a confessional all day to listen to people reciting all their sexual sins and I think that’s just way over the top if you expect somebody to live a pure life with that kind of temptation thrown at them.
He then provided the historical basis for the Roman Catholic requirement of priestly celibacy. “I don’t think it’s a biblical idea at all and it came, as Father Manning noted, because priestly families were building fortunes and in 1079 when that became law at the Lateran (ph) Council, it was because Rome started seeing that money was being kept in these massive families. If you don’t have any children, you can’t pass on anything.”
A few minutes later he spoke of the tremendous blessing of marriage and family.
I took God and the girl. And my life — my ministry is aided by my wife and her faith and my children and my grandchildren, who undergird what I preach by the life they live.They are the greatest support in my ministry. They give confidence to my — I’m not an island. They see me in a real world and they see my family surrounding me and they know what my life is like because it manifests itself in them.
A caller asked about homosexuality and King took the opportunity to press MacArthur, clearly hoping he would say something outrageous. MacArthur spoke of the sin of homosexuality and, when asked how Jesus would react to homosexuals, said: “I think he would endeavor to communicate the truth and the gospel. He would confront the sin and he would offer the salvation through repentance and faith in himself and his death and resurrection.” He quickly became involved in a back-and-forth with Manning who felt MacArthur had gone too far. As always, MacArthur slipped the gospel into his few minutes of camera time.
If you would like to read the transcript, you can do so here. I suppose the point in posting this is just to draw attention to MacArthur’s faithfulness. He stuck to the Scriptures and surely made an impact on Larry King’s audience. He did not back down and was not apologetic in defending the truth. And that, I think, is why King continues to invite him back.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (47)
Whoa. That’s way cool. I love hearing someone defend the truth.
MacArthur is always solid. What a shame that so few evangelicals are as bold as he.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. You’ve got to admire someone who can make the most of a soundbite surrounded by opponents on all sides. I’d be shakin’ in my boots.
Hey Challies.
I agree with what you said.
“And this is what I love and admire about John MacArthur. MacArthur did not beat around the bush. He did not spend a few sentences seeking common ground and affirming his love and respect for Catholic tradition before addressing what he feels is error. No, he just waded in.”
That is a major reason I love MacArthur. He doedn’t seek common ground apart from scripture because there is no common ground apart from scripture. I am glad that King keeps having him on because he keeps standing up for the truth. I look forward to his next appearance.
Michael Terry
Number one, according to the New Testament, you can’t be a pastor unless you are the husband of one wife and have proven that you’re able to manage your household well.
This is the only part of his dialogue with which I take issue. Paul also told the Corinthians that it would be better if everyone could be like him - single. The point of the pastoral (and diaconal) qualifications is that the man must be committed to his family if God has ordained he have one. He shouldn’t be a divorcee (typically), and if he is married, he should be faithful to his wife and the bringing up of their children.
I would agree that it is typical for pastors to be married, but that there is a place for single pastors, too. As I read recently (don’t recall where off the top), celibacy is a gift for the celibate. If God hasn’t granted a man a wife and family, it doesn’t necessarily mean he cannot be a pastor. Paul was single. Peter was married. At least when Paul met him, Timothy seems to have been unmarried, though he was set up as a pastor.
Certainly a married man has had more opportunity to show himself faithful in managing a small family, and could then be expected to manage God’s people, also.
Unfortunately what a debate like this all boils down to, if you put everything in a big mixing pot and refine it down to the essential subject, what you would find is a debate about biblical authority.
YES! John MacArthur defended the truth and proclaimed the gospel. Amen. It brings me much joy to see someone like BigMac defend the faith with authority.
But what is discouraging is the fact that until those of the church repent and embrace the Bible as Gods inspired infallible and inerrant Word, then debates like this will continue to go round after round.
I can’t count how many times I?ve tried defending orthodox biblical truth using Scripture against liberal Christians to no avail. When self proclaiming Christians believe that God communicates and imparts truth to them through a plurality of different means, then the Bible no longer is the only rule to faith and practice. Eventually it becomes more of a problem then an aid to “know” God and his will because of all the hard versus like “homosexuality” being a sin. So liberals decide that they instead of “knowing” God objectively, they would rather “experience” God subjectively without the whole counsel of God.
So the Bible becomes just another aid into mystical and charismatic approach into trying to look “inward” to find God and His will for the liberals life. Being a Christian stops being about obedience and worshiping the one true God in spirit and truth, instead it becomes about being humanistic, idolatrous and self or man centered.
This is where the battle is in the modern Evangelical church and John MacArthur has been fighting it for a very long time. We should all be grateful for his commitment in his continuance of flying the banner of truth high.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Dave.
John MacArthur and Rick Warren head to head on Larry King.
I can only read the transcripts over here, but I would love to read that one, should it ever occur.
MacArthur makes me cry, because of the rarity of someone speaking the truth of the Christ in such an uncompromising, and yet winsome way.
*fangirl exits*
“if you put everything in a big mixing pot and refine it down to the essential subject, what you would find is a debate about biblical authority.”
Absolutely. The fact that MacArthur could quote Scripture while the priests or wannabe priests could or would not did not perturb them. After all, they rely on an authority apart from Scripture.
“John MacArthur and Rick Warren head to head on Larry King.”
I suspect MacArthur would be too wise to take that opportunity. After all, airing the church’s dirty laundry on television is probably not a great idea. And, as far as I know, Warren does not engage in that type of debate. But it would be fun to watch…
This is the only part of his dialogue with which I take issue. Paul also told the Corinthians that it would be better if everyone could be like him - single.
I don’t think MacArthur was saying that a Pastor must be married, but pointing out that the very existence of this verse of scripture implies that the notion that a Priest or Pastor must remain single is simply not Scripturally justified.
Mikbry24 beat me to the punch. Yes, that’s what MacArthur meant about a pastor and a wife. He wasn’t saying there can’t be single pastors. I don’t know if there are any single pastors presently at Grace Church, but we had them when I was there.
Thanks, Tim, for calling our attention to this. I wasn’t aware this panel had taken place on Larry King Live. It’s always cause for rejoicing when someone stands for the truth so clearly.
John MacArthur is a refreshing oasis in the huge desert of deception. Dave, I really appreciated what you had to say. I can’t agree more.
I think MacArthur ought to be applauded simply for being on LKL. The few times that I’ve braved even trying to watch that show, I haven’t been able to stomach a full-hour of King’s unfathomable inability to pay attention to what his “guests” are saying.
I’m glad MacArthur pulled no punches. I won’t pull any, either. Here’s Fr. Benedict Groeschel:
“The Christian discipline of celibacy as a suggested practice and later as a requirement for the clergy goes back at least to St. Paul (I Cor. 7:32-35). Those who consider themselves followers of the Gospel might do well to ponder what Christ means when he praises those who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 19:12). Celibacy finds its roots in the admonition of Christ to his disciples to leave everything, including wives and children, to follow him (Mt. 19:26-29). The monastic tradition brought mandatory celibacy into the Church, although the practice was much older, and to this day is widespread in Hinduism and Buddhism. There are even rare examples of monastic celibacy in Jewish and Islamic history.”
As MacArthur notes in the show’s transcript, Paul did say that he had a right to marry. But he didn’t exercise that right— and he was indisputably a pastor, as were the other apostles, some of whom never married. So I take MacArthur’s interpretation of pastoral prerequisites with a grain of salt. John Paul II and many others — who are not slouches when it comes to scripture — would differ with him.
Nevertheless, it’s great to see an exchange like this on network TV, of all places.
“As MacArthur notes in the show’s transcript, Paul did say that he had a right to marry. ”
Well if Paul had the right to marry as the other apostles did, who is anyone to say that anyone else does not have the right to marry? Paul settles the matter then. Priests now have the right to marry if they choose and not worry about losing their position in the church. Good enough for Paul, good enough for me.
I’m going to dissent here, because I don’t think MacArthur has the faintest idea of what he’s talking about. (Pause a moment for the cries of “heretic!” to die down.)
He used the phrase “doctrines of demons,” but presbyteral celibacy isn’t a doctrine. It’s not mandated by the Bible, and nobody pretends it is (although there IS some Biblical basis for it if we take Paul for an example). It’s simply a discipline practiced by the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, and not even binding on the other 24 Rites. A doctrine can’t be changed; a discipline can. In fact, there are married priests today even in the Latin Rite: married converts from Anglican or Lutheran churches who were given special dispensation to be ordained. It’s not possible to have dispensations in doctrinal matters.
I know, that sounds like a semantic quibble, but it’s not. Protestants often have trouble understanding that there’s a distinction in Traditional Christianity between doctrines and disciplines. A doctrine is part of the original deposit of faith, the “faith once delivered.” It’s like the Trinity or the Resurrection; it’s not subject to change. A discipine is simply one of the rules that the leaders of the Church impose to keep the Church true to its calling. A discipine like presbyteral celibacy, for instance, is meant to keep the priest from having to have divided loyalties, and to enable him to put all his resources into ministry.
MacArthur is also wrong about the origins of the practice. It may have been made a matter of canon law in the 11th century, but clerical celibacy in one form or another has been the norm since ancient times. Originally, it was customary to select bishops from among celibate orders, so the episcopate was made up of celibates, while presbyters were often married men. That’s how it’s done today in the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. By the fifth century it was standard for the priesthood to be limited to celibates as well. Gregory merely codified something that had been happpening all along on a local basis. (Although Fr. Manning is right that accumulation of wealth by the clergy was a factor. But it doesn’t seem to have solved the problem, as the simony of the Renaissance proves.)
Frankly, from what I’ve heard of MacArthur, I’m really disappointed. He’s reputed to be a brilliant teacher and scholar, and he should have done his homework.
Joel,MacArthur used the description “doctrines of demons” because that is the description that Paul gave to the practice of forbidding marriage in 1 Timothy 4.
And I think you are playing semantics with the words doctrines and disciplines. The Greek word translated ‘doctrines’ that Paul uses in 1 Timothy is ‘didaskalia’, and simply means: teaching, instruction, that which is taught, doctrine, teachings, precepts.
Paul was not referring to only the ‘essential’ doctrines, as we call them today (ones like you mentioned above…Trinity, resurrection, etc.), but any and all teaching…any and all didaskalia that adds to or takes away from the true gospel.
That is what MacArthur was referring to, and rightly so.
Rick Warren and Jonny Mac on Larry King? What would it be called? The purpose driven debate??But seriously…. I praise God for people like John MacArthur who defend the truth with boldness.
Joel wrote “…clerical celibacy in one form or another has been the norm since ancient times”
And this is one of the (many) ongoing debates between Protestants and Catholics. The fact that it has “been the norm” does not make it a Biblical mandate. That was MacArthur’s point. Catholic (or any other) tradition is nothing more than that - tradition.
——bill
My birthday was yesterday and I received two commentaries from John Macarthur as presents! (James and Colossians).
I was blessed by the faithfulness of this man of God and his defense of the absolute truth of the Bible.
Another Scripture verse supporting married pastors is 1 Corinthians 9:5: Don’t we have the right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas?
I dunno. Paul wrote of the “right” to be accompanied by a Christian wife. That is strong language, ISTM.
So, Joel,
God says forbidding marriage = a doctrine of demons.
You say forbidding marriage = a discipline of the church.
I’ll go with God.
Joel—there you go splitting hairs again.Applying your definitions to MacArthur’s comments may allow you to dismiss them, but it also makes him say what he did not say.
David put it well-God says forbidding marriage = a doctrine of demons.
You say forbidding marriage = a discipline of the church.
I had the same thoughts as MacArthur when I heard about the show—why can’t you have God & the girl?If God has truly blessed you, it’s possible.
David’s equation is an extreme misreading of both Joel’s point and God’s, following MacArthur’s unusual interpretation of 1 Timothy 4. That letter (1 Timothy) certainly warns against a false asceticism that prohibits marriage and regards certain foods as forbidden, though they are part of God’s good creation, but it does not equate presbyterial celibacy with the false asceticism that it condemns.
Were such celibacy its target, it wouldn’t square with other Pauline encouragement to that same celibate state. Paul wasn’t given to contradicting himself, though as Peter rightly pointed out (in 2 Peter 3:16), Paul’s letters do contain some things that are hard to understand “that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction.”
That’s the trouble with “proof-texting” in support of one argument or another.
Moreover, it’s dishonest to dismiss the distinction between “discipline” and “doctrine” as “hair-splitting,” Catholic or otherwise. The Trinity (doctrine) is not on par with the practice of Wednesday night bible study, for example.
1 Timothy in general (please don’t reply with a bunch of attacks that completely ignore those last two words) is an officers’ manual of sorts. Almost every issue raised is either exclusive to the presbyter or the deacon, or first to them and then by way of further application to others.
1 Tim 4:1 is exactly about presbyterial celibacy and other forms of unwarranted presbyterial asceticism… a doctrine into which those hastily ordained were apparently following, because Paul (gently) scolds Timothy for participating in such a sin (5:22-23), warning him that continued participation will lead to exposure of the sin on the last day (5:24-25).
This, by the way, applies to anyone who forbids elders to marry (it doesn’t matter what you call it; if you forbid it, you forbid it, and that is a doctrine of demons, according to Scripture) no more than it applies to tee-totaling evangelical fundies, who forbid alcohol.
An important issue in 5:23 is that this asceticism was keeping Timothy from serving God as well as he ought, and without beginning to deal with de-contextualized misreadings of 1 Cor 7, it’s safe to say that in almost every other context, a godly wife and family is a boon, not an hindrance to this service.
Thank God for my wife and children, who are deep and fast flowing currents in the ocean of His blessing to me, pulling me down and swallowing me up, so that on most days, I can see nothing but blessing all around me. How impoverished not just my life, but especially my ministry, would be without them. Praise be to God!
(Also note the underlying issue of Scriptural authority, even in the interchange of the last few comments. How well the first few comments seemed to anticipate it! It’s all about the “SOLA”s, folks.)
The Trinity (doctrine) is not on par with the practice of Wednesday night bible study, for example.
Wednesday night Bible study is not a ‘didaskalia’ (teaching, precept) found in Scripture…so, of course it is not on par with the Trinity.
Why in the world would you describe what I said about how Joel made a distinction between doctrine and discipline as “dishonest”???
Finally… prooftexting, when done correctly and in context, is THE only sound way to refute one argument over another. Christ did it with Satan, and the NT writers have done it all through their letters. If you can’t provide PROOF for your argument (any given argument) through the TEXT of Scripture, then you might need to rethink your position on whatever it is you are discussing.
Paul wasn’t given to contradicting himself, though as Peter rightly pointed out (in 2 Peter 3:16), Paul’s letters do contain some things that are hard to understand “that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction.”
I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the Roman church has not only distorted Paul’s teaching, but they’ve institutionalized it. There is no contradiction in the Protestant position. There are some who have a special calling from God to be celibate, and that’s good for them. 1 Cor 7:32-34 is not a requirement for the clergy. We know this, because in verse 34 he goes on to say the same thing for women, who can’t be clergy. This passage in Corinthians is basically saying that it’s good for people to be celibate if they can be, but it’s not a requirement. Unfortunately, the Roman church has made this a requirement for the clergy (whether it’s a discipline or doctrine is irrelavent), which is the same false asceticism that Paul condemns in 1 Timothy 4.
What a blessing it is to have the Scripture and to know the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2.16) that we can actually answer questions about what Christ does or does not think without flinching.
I’m not splitting hairs here. It’s a distinction Protestants don’t make, so I’m having trouble finding an analogy that translates, but it’s not unlike the issue of whether a pastor should live in a parsonage or a private house. The fact that a denomination has a policy on it doesn’t make it doctrinal. In our case, if it were doctrinal, it would apply to everybody, not just to priests in the Latin Rite.
The problem with discussing this with Protestants is that for y’all, everything is either doctrinal, or it’s private. By that I mean that Christian liberty is primarily exercised on an individual level, and not by the church body or denomination as a whole. We do these things much more corporately than you do, is all.
And “forbidding to marry” doesn’t really apply. Nobody is forbidden to marry, as such. But under the rules of the Latin Rite, a man may not simultaneously exercise the office of a priest and that of a husband. There are cases where priests have married, but if they do, their faculties are removed to exercise the priesthood. Likewise, ordination is open only to bachelors. A man may either marry or be ordained, and if there’s a choice, it’s not forbidden.
There’s talk every so often about lifting the celibacy requirement at the presbyteral level, but the priests I’ve known are usually opposed to doing so, saying that they feel they can serve God much more effectively without a wife and children. Which is what Paul appears to have been saying as well.
Joel, I see what you are saying here. That someone isn’t forbidden to marry - they just can’t be a priest if they want to marry. If we step back a bit though and read 1 Timothy 3 we find that:
1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);
MacArthur is simply basing his position on what scripture clearly teaches. Who is the bishop referred to here in this passage? Is it not the leader of a church? Whether you call them pastors or priests.
Why would the RCC allow for exceptions for converts from Anglican and Lutheran churches? This doesn’t take away from the unwavering RC stance that new priests not marry. Why would they allow for exceptions, and then take such a hard line against marriage for new priests? This doesn’t make sense to me. It’s either okay or it’s not. And if this issue is simply a discipline and not a doctrine, then why would you treat it as something not to be tampered with (doctrine) and forbidden for new priests?
And Patrick, you even say Paul says he has the right to marry, and then you say, “The monastic tradition brought mandatory celibacy into the Church…” and admit that the Church has completely taken away the right to marry from individual priests. What did they rely on? Tradition. Monastic tradition. Not scripture.
I’ve read a lot of what Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) has to say on many of these issues and the fact is that he rests on the “3-legged stool” example of scripture, tradition and the church all being of equal value. That sounds great until tradition or the church start teaching things that conflict with clear scripture. Then the stool example no longer works because you have to decide what to elevate. And with issues like forced celibacy you elevate tradition and/or church teachings way over scripture and, in fact, many times conflict with scripture. Then you are left putting your faith in the church and traditions and not in the word of God.
Now I know you may say they don’t conflict. But how then do we explain the above verbage for the office of bishop? And Paul simply saying it’s a good thing if people reamin single for Christ - but not even he making it a requirement?
A couple of good questions there, Davey. I’ll do my best to answer them. :)
MacArthur is simply basing his position on what scripture clearly teaches. Who is the bishop referred to here in this passage? Is it not the leader of a church? Whether you call them pastors or priests.
No, actually there’s a difference betwen the three, although the line wasn’t as sharp in Paul’s time. A bishop is the direct successor of the Apostles, and holds all the authority of them as well. Priests are what’s referred to in the NT as “elders.” In fact, the English word is directly derived from the Greek “presbyteros,” and that’s what they’re still called in Greek today. A pastor is either a bishop or a priest who is in direct charge of a parish. A parish may have several priests (mine has three), but the one in charge of administration is the pastor. (I don’t mean to sound pedantic, but we do use the three terms differently frrom you.)
As for why Paul said “husband of one wife,” I take that to mean that he’s not given to skirt-chasing. Obviously, the custom of celibate bishops doesn’t go back that far; it became common a century or two later.
Why would the RCC allow for exceptions for converts from Anglican and Lutheran churches? This doesn’t take away from the unwavering RC stance that new priests not marry. Why would they allow for exceptions, and then take such a hard line against marriage for new priests? This doesn’t make sense to me. It’s either okay or it’s not. And if this issue is simply a discipline and not a doctrine, then why would you treat it as something not to be tampered with (doctrine) and forbidden for new priests?
I don’t think we treat it as doctrine, really. It looks unwavering because we end up debating it a lot. :) Where that comes up a lot in Catholic circles is when people start clamoring for both married and female priests. Married priests are possible; it just takes a change of canon law: discipline, IOW. But female priests would violate doctrinal precepts, and that’s not possible at all. That may be why we sound so strident about not lifting the celibacy requirements; the two tend to be demanded by the same set of liberals.
Then, too, there’s the practical angle. For better than a thousand years, the church’s administrative structure has been set up to accommodate only bachelors in the rectories. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare that would result from suddenly turning it around and trying to accommodate family men? Payrolls, housing, the difficulty of transferring them as needed? The Eastern Rites are set up for married priests; we’re not. I’ve heard that it’s been really difficult for those converts who come in with a dispensation, trying to manage the rather heavy workload priesthood requires while meeting the needs of their families.
That sounds great until tradition or the church start teaching things that conflict with clear scripture.
“Clear scripture” is a bit of an oxymoron, Davey. :) We don’t even agree on the definition of the term “bishop,” which makes it a little difficult to reconcile our ideas of what his duties ought to be. What most people mean by “clear Scripture” is “Scripture whose interpretation I’ve already been convinced of.” From where we sit, no authentic Catholic tradition contradicts Scripture. (Some of it isn’t explicitly given in the Bible, however; that’s quite true.) We have the same Word, but our interpretation is different.
Dave Armstrong’s “stool” analogy kind of irritates me, to be honest. It implies that Scripture, Tradition and Church are separate entities that need to be balanced, and that description doesn’t really work. The Church isn’t permitted to violate Tradition (doctrinal tradition, that is), nor may either of them violate Scripture.
Now I know you may say they don’t conflict. (Yep. I did.) But how then do we explain the above verbage for the office of bishop? And Paul simply saying it’s a good thing if people remain single for Christ - but not even he making it a requirement?
Because Paul wasn’t the last person in charge. (For that matter, just how much “in charge” he was at the time is up for discussion.) The Bible doesn’t mandate married clergy; it’s fairly vague on most matters touching ordination, in fact. The first Apostles were building from scratch; it was the next few generations that mostly organized the Church. That’s a bit of a stumbling block in conversations between Catholics and Protestants: that the Apostles’ successors were given the authority to guide the Church as well, in ways that didn’t actually contradict the faith the Apostles taught.
Sorry to be so long-winded. :)
“I’m not splitting hairs here. It’s a distinction Protestants don’t make”
Because there is no distinction such as you make—as has been pointed out and explained—much better than I could have.
Anyway—MacArthur did a stand up job.
Joel:
I must say before I begin that I admire your tone in your posts. Thank you for not being vitriolic, even though you stand on sandy tradition vs. the Word of God, you present your case respectfully.
The main issues here are: authority of the church (where does it lie? Man’s tradition, or the Bible alone? The pope, or the apostles and prophets?), and the nature of Scripture. Joel wrote the following:
“Because Paul wasn’t the last person in charge. (For that matter, just how much “in charge” he was at the time is up for discussion.)”
This in answer to the query of Paul’s including proper marriage (being married to one woman) as a qualification of bishop, and his not commanding the clergy to be celibate. To say the “Paul wasn’t the last person in charge” and “just how much in charge he was at the time is up for discussion” is to question the authority of God-breathed Scripture. Jesus says, “Scripture cannot be broken.” Joel says,
“”Clear scripture” is a bit of an oxymoron, Davey. :) We don’t even agree on the definition of the term “bishop,” which makes it a little difficult to reconcile our ideas of what his duties ought to be. What most people mean by “clear Scripture” is “Scripture whose interpretation I’ve already been convinced of.” From where we sit, no authentic Catholic tradition contradicts Scripture. (Some of it isn’t explicitly given in the Bible, however; that’s quite true.) We have the same Word, but our interpretation is different. ”
Joel, by your admission, we do NOT have the “same Word.” The “Word” you describe is a Bible that is unclear, and may be interpreted to mean that which it does not. The Bible of Rome is subject to the interpretation of the Church. The Bible of the Prostestant itself interprets/defines the church. Rome has it backwards: “Church” with a capital “C,” “bible” with a small “b.” The pope and priests interpret Scripture and bend Paul’s words (according to Peter—wasn’t he the “first pope?”) to their destruction.
I’m with the apostles, that is, the original, biblical variety, not the “really, we promise we’re in true succession from Peter who really was the first pope even though that title didn’t exist in Peter’s time” variety—pastors/bishops/presbyters can have God AND the girl.
Then again, if Rome didn’t live and die on false dichotomies, then not only would the church itself cease to be, but this show wouldn’t either, would it? False dichotomies like, “serve God in ministry or be married,” and “dulia vs. latria” veneration (a fancy legal loophole around the idolatry of Mary and the saints). Here’s another: “submit to papal authority or be anathema….”
Joel, you have a way with words and you do know your history, but sandy foundations built on the traditions of the synagogue of Satan will get you nowhere closer to the Truth which can be found in the Bible alone, in Christ alone, by grace (not the “infused”/synergistic kind!) alone, and to God alone be the glory. Until then, may Jesus call you out of that dark, dead “church.”
—James H (former Roman Catholic)
I saw it and was disapointed they didn’t let the legionaire, Fr. Bartunek, rip that mans arguments to shreds.
Mr. Macarthur offered an excellent eisegesis of the scripture he used, which means he begins with an agenda and uses the bible, falsely, as a proof text to get his point across. As it has been been mentioned there are other verses that support celibacy, but a proper understanding of the verse in question can help us out as well.
Macarthur says, “Number one, according to the New Testament, you can’t be a pastor unless you are the husband of one wife and have proven that you’re able to manage your household well. ”
Obviously, the important part of this insight is to prove that you have the leadership skills required to be a pastor. Back in the days Paul was writing, this was simply the best way to prove your skills. But today with society the way it is we have lots and lots of opportunities to prove this. And now, the Catholic Church even has Seminaries to help form leadership skills.
Do the Pauline epistles apply to us today? YES! But in order for us to get the most out of the scriptures (which I’m sure you all want) we need to exegete the text and figure out the core of what Paul was saying. Thank you God for giving us the Church to make sure we don’t drift into error.
Bryan (Current Roman Catholic, Current Seminarian, future priest)
Bryan said:“Thank you God for giving us the Church to make sure we don’t drift into error.”
You mean, things like:-Purgatory-Baptismal regeneration-Infused Righteousness-Transubstantiation-Indulgences-Mary as co-redeemer-Praying to Mary-Sinlessness of Mary-The Church over the Word instead of the Word over the Church-Justification by faith + works
These are just the ones off the top of my head…there are many, many more. Are these the kinds of things you are thankful to God for keeping your “Church” from drifting into???
GOD GAVE US SCRIPTURE - NOT THE CHURCH - TO KEEP US FROM DRIFTING INTO ERROR.
THE WORD HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE CHURCH…THE CHURCH IS NOT ABOVE THE WORD.
by GRACE alonethrough FAITH alonein CHRIST aloneas revealed in the SCRIPTURES aloneto the GLORY of GOD alone
Brian, I am an occassional visitor to this site and have appreciated much of what you have written on other posts, including this one.
However, due to the nature of this debate, I feel I must address your last post before the group.
1) Your tone is quite harsh. I don’t think this is the place to ‘get a laugh’ at the RC’s in front of your buddies. Is there such a place?
2) You said:GOD GAVE US SCRIPTURE - NOT THE CHURCH - TO KEEP US FROM DRIFTING INTO ERROR.
I think that Eph. 4 clearly teaches otherwise. Moreover, the whole NT. I would cite ‘church discipline’ in the Matt.18 sense as just one example here. Or could we not cite the more pointed Heb. 10:23-25 clearly God has given both the church and the Scripture to keep us from drifting into error.Surely the Scripture is our authority, but when we allow ourselves to become so reactionary, we lose the truth. We can drift just as far away from ‘right’ by reacting against abuses.
CT
Christ ascended on high and gave us both.
Note that in the four offices (pastor-teacher is just one in the Greek) that he mentions there, three are involved in giving us Scripture during the apostolic period, and one is involved in the application and teaching of that Scripture thereafter (you can make it 2 and 2 if you want to point to Timothy’s being commanded by Paul to do the work of an evangelist, but then it becomes 2 and 1, since the last two belong to the same office).
One makes errors; the other doesn’t. From the Scriptures, not one jot or tittle passes away. From various congregations/localities, Christ, the ascended King and judge not just of the world but especially the church, removes lampstands as He sees fit.
And what has He given the church to keep it faithful, so that it doesn’t get its lampstand removed? Right. The Scriptures.
From the point of the gospel, the lampstand has been absent from the RC church for centuries. The things that Brian mentions in his post (perhaps with more zeal than to have the appropriate, gentle and respectful tone—1 Pet 3:16, my brother—but at least there is zeal) are not part of the case against Rome but the sentence. The lampstand was long since gone before these errors were indoctrinated.
But my heart breaks for American Evangelicalism as she ignores her first love, ignores the means of grace, worships worship rather than God, indulges herself in whatever seems to tickle her ears at any given moment. I often wonder if her lampstand is going, already gone, or perhaps there is still time for repentance.
History will tell that story. I hope it is not a sad one, but I see all around her doctrines of which what I have said about Rome’s may be said a few generations hence.
And no, don’t mistake me for an emergent, who thinks the next great thing is coming. The Reformers got it right because they returned to the historic faith of Scripture, and even the Fathers. But if American Evangelicals think that what goes broadly by that name represents the religion of the Bible, or the Fathers, or the Reformers, we are sadly mistaken.
I am afraid it doesn’t do us much good, if we are hurtling over the precipice after them, to yell at Rome, and tell her that she has gone over. Let us not give so much attention to that activity that we fail to realize that we need to stop our horse and trot back from whence we came before we are over the edge, and our lampstand is gone.
Brian,
I welcome your rebuttal, however I ask that you stick to the topic. Where in my analysis of 1 Timothy 3, concerning married clergy, was I wrong? Scripture itself says:
“I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. ”
This verse comes just after Pauls expectations of pastors and deacons. Please address my comment above point by point.
To Chad, Bryan and others:
It was not my intent to “get a laugh” by what I wrote, but to show how I believe the Catholic Church has, in fact, drifted into error.
I apologize to Bryan and others for posting what may have seemed to be a rant and also disprespectful. I was merely knee-jerk reacting to Bryan’s remark about his belief that the Church has prevented Catholicism from drifting into error…which I strongly -but still (respectfully) - disgree with.
Please accept my apologies, while taking into consideration that I believe those who do NOT hold to justification by faith alone have much more serious issues they should be dealing with other than what is being discussed here.
I know this last statement will not make me any new Catholic friends…but I fear for the eternal souls of those who trust in something other than Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.
I am thankful for the faithfulness with which John MacArthur adheres to the WORD of GOD, as well as the boldness with which he proclaims Jesus Chrsit and HIM crucified, as well as the clarity of thinking that God has gifted him with. I am aware that this clarity comes from years and years of faithfully being in the WORD. I am also thankful for his ability to pointedly address the biblical principle or doctrine at stake, and that he does so with grace.
I am also thankful for this blog of Tim’s and the carefulness and attention to detail of his posts.
And I am thankful for Brian’s post #34. The strength of conviction was clear and the urgency, but there was no sense of interacting disrespectfully. Error about such issues - as to our source of TRUTH- has eternal consequences.
In responding to Brian’s (#34) statement: “GOD GAVE US SCRIPTURE - NOT THE CHURCH - TO KEEP US FROM DRIFTING INTO ERROR” post #35 says”I think that Eph. 4 clearly teaches otherwise. Moreover, the whole NT. I would cite ‘church discipline’ in the Matt.18 sense as just one example here. Or could we not cite the more pointed Heb. 10:23-25 clearly God has given both the church and the Scripture to keep us from drifting into error.Surely the Scripture is our authority…”
The TRUE CHURCH (the redeemed children of God), having their thinking formed by HOLY SCRIPTURE, applies GOD’S WORD, practices GOD’S WORD, instructs in GOD’S WORD, lives GOD’S WORD and indeed, in doing so, keep the sheep from error. First cause, though, is GOD’S WORD. Final authority is God’s WORD. The foundation of all TRUE CHURCH teaching is GOD’S WORD, never vice versa.
Looking, in a wider context, at the verse quoted in post #37—- we read:
1 Timothy 3:15- 4:5 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth. 16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:He was manifested in the flesh,vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels,proclaimed among the nations,believed on in the world,taken up in glory.4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
The “church of the living God” is not refering to all who claim Christ as their own- the visible church. The liars and teachers of “teaching of demons”- the ones whose consciences are seared- identify themselves with Christ and come into the visible church as wolves.
The “church of the living God” is the invisible CHURCH that is comprised of all who have been “born again” by the SPIRIT of the living GOD. They are HIS redeemed ones. They are the ones who are a “new creation”. These are the ones who, in Christ, walk in obedience to the WORD and have the WORD appropriated in their lives. And they indeed are “the pillar and buttress of truth.” Kim
Well said, Kim…excellent post!
Kim,
You may have misundersttod what I wrote. Notice that I also quoted the Scriptures for my point. I was not elevating any group of professing Christians higher than, or anywhere near, the Bible. I am certainly no RC.
your post was well written and very good. But still, I think that it is saying too much the way Brian siad it in post 34 — going too far in reaction to the RC abuses.
When I said, “I think that Eph. 4 clearly teaches otherwise. Moreover, the whole NT.” etc. It was not intended to sound as if I would reverse his statement. I did nto say, “I think Eph. 4 teaches the opposite” but “otherwise” Notice the difference. In other words, it is not God’s normal way of developing Christians to do so in an ivory tower, but rather, among a godly fellowship. in fact, though not quite what I had in mind, this blog is one form of that. ;)
CT
Brian T,
No problem. I was never mad at you. I do believe that you are legitimately concerned for us RC’s, and you show that by spending time here. Thanks.
But…
One problem I have in these sorts of debates is when I make an argument, I will begin from True premises, use Logic and then arrive at conclusions. Now the way to argue this is not to try and demonstrate my conclusions are flawed in and of themselves, but to demonstrate that the argument leading up to them is unsound (either pointing out false logic, or more likely, demonstrating one of the premises are false).
When I debate people, usually of the evangelical mindset, it seems as though their arguments are logical, but begin from false premises, which we point out only to be ignored.
Kim’s post was very good…I wasn’t interested in a debate on Church authority, but a debate on celibacy, which is how I found this thread in the first place.
Kim’s post though was very good. It made a lot of sense. It is definately a possible understanding of authority…But it is not the only sound theory either. To settle it, I suggest, we look at what the early christians believed, and try to understand our history as Christians. I would like to see some theories…(In another thread…lets stick to the topic of Mr. McArthur and his remarks on celibacy for this on)…on how the Bible came to be. There were many communities all over Christendom including different books in the scriptures. How did we figure out what books are scripture without the Holy Spirit working through the visible hierarchy of the Church? I don’t see how this is possible, and I would welcome(in another thread) any ideas.
God Bless…and I mean that.
“I would like to see some theories…(In another thread…lets stick to the topic of Mr. McArthur and his remarks on celibacy for this on)…on how the Bible came to be. There were many communities all over Christendom including different books in the scriptures. How did we figure out what books are scripture without the Holy Spirit working through the visible hierarchy of the Church?”
I would enjoy a discussion on that, as I had the priveledge of putting together a class on the history of the English Bible, which took me through the history of how we came to have our current Bible and the books therein.
Without getting too much into it here and now, there is a monumental difference in opinion between you and I as to the church’s role in the Bible. You believe the Church (RC) determines(d) what the Bible does/would consist of…whereas I believe the church simply discovered what would be in the Bible. In a nutshell, RC’s believe the RC Church determines the Word, and Protestants believe the church discovers the Word.
That’s a big difference. One ultimately places the church above the Scriptures…and the other sees the church’s authority coming from (therefore placing itself under) the Scriptures.
Anyway, I am guilty of taking this thread off track. Maybe we can do this under a different thread in the future. In the meantime, justification is by faith alone…
BT
Can I call you BT?
Well, I think its safe to say that this discussion on celibacy died, so I think its probably ok if we continue the discussion here. What do you think?
There is something wrong (I feel) with your assertion that the RC church believes that it “determines” the Bible. I’ll get to that in a second.
I also don’t really think that you think that the church “discovers” or, more appropriately put (in past tense that is) “discovered” the Bible. I mean, do you think that some people one day were just walking around and said, “hey. Whats that book looking thing on the ground? It must be the word of God!” I doubt it. I bet that what you really mean by “discover” is that the writers of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they discovered about God’s Truth that was reavealed to them by Jesus Christ, the Word Made Flesh. If that is true, than I agree.
But what does this imply? It implies that God used a person to articulate this Truth. Could the Bible have fallen out of the sky? yeah, He could have done it that way I guess. But he didn’t. Instead, he used Paul, John, Mark and others to be his coworkers in articulating the Truth. So were these people simply free-lance Truth writers? Or were they leaders of their community…Their Ekklesia?
Now is the time where I’ll address where I think you got the Church wrong. You say the RCC believes that it determines the Bible. I think its more appropriate to say that the Church wrote the Bible. In other words, the origin of the Bible is the Church, and Not the other way around.
Thus, it seems then, that the Church and the Bible are intimately united. Both of them are instruments of God. The Bible is the written Word, and the Catholic Church interperets it. And since it came out of this community, the Bible is correctly defined by this community.
A couple questions. Again, how do you determine which books are scripture and which aren’t without people, who make up the Church? And then, assuming you do this, what gave Martin Luther the authority to take books out of the Bible, if the church “discovered” it?
BTW, sounds like a cool class. What school did you go to?
B
Hi Bryan,
BT is fine…
Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of time right now to delve into this (my Wife’s B-day is today, and she gets the bulk of my attention today!), but I do want to put forth some initial thoughts about this. There are many others who have come before me and have really done all the work concerning this issue, so much of what I included in the class I taught comes from them: McDowell and Geisler, for example.
Here are some initial thoughts on this, and let’s see if you agree with these statements or not:
1. There are two distinct views concerning the development of the Canon of Scripture, or what would make up the Bible - the Word of God.
-One view places the Church above the Scriptures-One view places the Scriptures above the Church
-One view believes that the Church is the determiner, mother, magistrate, regulator, judge, and master of the Canon-The other view believes that the Church is the discoverer, child, minister, recognizer, witness, and servant of the Canon.
2. This is straight from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:
“In the “Incorrect View” the authority of the Scriptures is based upon the authority of the church; the correct view is that the authority of the church is TO BE FOUND in the authority of the Scriptures. The incorrect view palces the church OVER the canon, whereas the proper position views the church UNDER the canon…It is God who regulated the canon; man merely recognized the divine authority God gave it. God DETERMINED the canon, and man DISCOVERED it.” -(caps mine)
Geisler quotes Louis Gaussen who summarizes this thought like this:
“In this affair, then, the Church is a SERVANT and not a mistress; a DEPOSITORY and not a judge. She exercises the office of a MINISTER, not a magistrate…She delivers a TESTIMONY, not a judicial sentence. She DISCERNS the canon of the Scriptures, she does NOT make it; she has RECOGNIZED their authenticity, she has NOT given it…The authority of the Scriptures is NOT founded, then, on the authority of the Church: IT IS THE CHURCH THAT IS FOUNDED ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES.” - (caps mine)
Bryan (and others), I would be interested to know your agreement/disagreement with this position, as it may help in establishing a good foundation from which to proceed further with this discussion.
Thanks,BT
Bryan (Not “BT”)
Just a point here, and I know this has nothing to do with celibacy…
You wrote:
“The Bible is the written Word, and the Catholic Church interperets it. And since it came out of this community, the Bible is correctly defined by this community.”
Friend, I know you and could argue this point until we’re blue in the face, but there was *no* “Roman Catholic Church” at the time of the writing of the Canon. The RCC developed over centuries of time, and though even Protestant theologians dispute the “exact birthday” of the RCC, I’ve been schooled to pinpoint Gregory the Great, circa 590 a.d., as the actual “first pope” of the RCC. It was he who usurped the power of the sword from the state in the wake of the fall of Rome, among other things.
Anyhow, the Bible arose from the inspired authors, who were all with Christ in the real sense by the time the church “officially” figured out her canon. It didn’t arise out of any denomination as such—there were no denominations as we know them at the time of the NT.
Food for thought-James H
Gentlemen,
Thank you for responding. I have class almost all day today, then I have to pack and drive about an hour to a friends house, then I have to get to bed early to catch a plane tomorrow to Seattle. I don’t know what type of internet access I will have. I might respond then, but I might not respond until monday, or even Tuesday. If you are interested in continuing the discussion, we can either keep it here, or switch to email. BT, I see that you have a website, and that I might be able to get your e-mail address there. Let me know.
I will say that there are points I agree with each of you (BT and James), but there are a couple disagreements.
Enoy your wife’s birthday. Pamper her like she deserves.