IHS, I really like it when we agree on something :^) ... 2 Timothy 3:2-5 - "Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itchi...more

IHS, I really like it when we agree on something :^) ... 2 Timothy 3:2-5 - "Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry."less

Clover001, Thanks :^) I'm sorry BTW if I spoke out of turn there. Purpose without God is something I've tried very hard to contemplate; It always seems to come up short when my next thought is of our sun swelling up into a red giant and swallowing Earth and any charred human remnants and memories of valor along with it in 5B yrs or so. I'm predicting our Lord will come ... hmmm ... sometime be...more

Clover001, Thanks :^) I'm sorry BTW if I spoke out of turn there. Purpose without God is something I've tried very hard to contemplate; It always seems to come up short when my next thought is of our sun swelling up into a red giant and swallowing Earth and any charred human remnants and memories of valor along with it in 5B yrs or so. I'm predicting our Lord will come ... hmmm ... sometime before that :^)

Steveh20 ... Thanks, I appreciate the compliment, but you're really putting me on the spot here ;^) You know the next thing I write is going to be really stupid or just go for the cheap humor.less

califredwood ... That's all fine and dandy, for now. But your good time will end, and whether you're in hell or just rotting in the ground somewhere, you won't be able to gloat at Christians anymore or revel in how level-headed you were. Steveh20 ... Sorry mate. I think I just invoked Pascal's Wager with this last comment :^)

bobbeecher says, "People only continue to believe because each generation passes it on to the next." -- You have to account for atheists who come from faithful families, but never grasp an understanding of who God is, and on the flip-side, atheists who become believers ... because they DO understand. Scripture tells us they were called to the Lord. God has a purpose for all, even the non-belie...more

bobbeecher says, "People only continue to believe because each generation passes it on to the next." -- You have to account for atheists who come from faithful families, but never grasp an understanding of who God is, and on the flip-side, atheists who become believers ... because they DO understand. Scripture tells us they were called to the Lord. God has a purpose for all, even the non-believer. I've been on both sides and understand both perspectives and for me it still comes down to considering my future and the future of others. The non-believer can have a wonderful glorious present (as well as he/she can define it), but absolutely no future.less

Very good, John. Don't forget this one ... "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless." - Steven Weinberg.

steveh20, when Christians use the words purposeful or meaningful, they're intended to have the same definition an atheist would give them ... but within an eternal scope. Those words should imply longevity in some grand design. With God, every aspect of a Christian's life will have meaning forever (as in without any end ... for eternity). With no God, humanity's longevity against the relative s...more

steveh20, when Christians use the words purposeful or meaningful, they're intended to have the same definition an atheist would give them ... but within an eternal scope. Those words should imply longevity in some grand design. With God, every aspect of a Christian's life will have meaning forever (as in without any end ... for eternity). With no God, humanity's longevity against the relative supposed age of the universe, and its unpredictable future doesn't exist. In the atheist view of the grand scheme, humanity is a temporal blip in the rather dull, ongoing existance of the whole universe. So, that means, when humanity dies and we dead and gone ... and not even a memory on some supposed alien world, our purpose will be dead with us ... so then, who cares? It's all about now, so make the most of it and then be dead and completely unaware that you don't exist anymore. Seeing the emptiness yet?less

George said, "Figuring out what's right and what's wrong isn't rocket science. A child can figure it out". --- Hmm, HumanApe. Is this another data point to give us insight into your fallacious logic? A child (especially young children) definitely cannot establish a proper foundation of right & wrong all on their own. They are only interested in what serves them at the immediate moment and must...more

George said, "Figuring out what's right and what's wrong isn't rocket science. A child can figure it out". --- Hmm, HumanApe. Is this another data point to give us insight into your fallacious logic? A child (especially young children) definitely cannot establish a proper foundation of right & wrong all on their own. They are only interested in what serves them at the immediate moment and must be taught what you would call simple altruism. You've obviously never had children ... or if you have they must be just as well-adjusted as you are now, and we'll leave the rest of that alone.

BTW, did you tell your good friend that you think she's a terrorist and that "we" (presumably you mean the U.S. but really meaning "you") kill terrorists? Maybe you should invite her to read your blog.

You know ... your posts seem a lot less like rants here today. Did you take my advice and go visit that center in Coral Springs I suggested some time back?less

Mike, Honestly ... what is with your constant negativity? It's really weird too, because a lot of times, you're not exactly bashing our beliefs. At least not Christians as individuals. But you seem to have a huge problem with pastors/priests and church in general. GLOOM, DOOM, everything sucks ... it seems like you have nothing to look forward to. When was the last time you attended...more

Mike, Honestly ... what is with your constant negativity? It's really weird too, because a lot of times, you're not exactly bashing our beliefs. At least not Christians as individuals. But you seem to have a huge problem with pastors/priests and church in general.

GLOOM, DOOM, everything sucks ... it seems like you have nothing to look forward to.

When was the last time you attended a service? Was it JUST LIKE your description? You pick out all this negative stuff under a microscope, and then say it's ALL like that. Mike ... what is really bothering you?

Are you having a little problem with forgiveness, yourself? I mean, I see some of the problems you talk about among televangelists and "prosperity preachers", but I move on with my OWN relationship with God. They're not God. Why should I care so much what they do? I don't dish out funding to get blessings from charlatans.

Mike, find yourself a church with a nice small congregation, attended by people who drive cars/truck 5 years old or more ... and sing off-key in choir ... and dress a little more shabbly ... but have smiles when they sing. If you can't find the smiles, start smiling first. And really mean it.less

Nice article. I understand the metaphor he uses here, but I had to laugh when I read the title, because the pastor of my church has a prosthetic leg and literally does walk with a limp :)

DB0175, Interesting take. Your perspective is as blue as the ocean.

BTW ... without some kind of explanation, I have NO knowledge of what responders "agree" or "disagree" with. I'm not psychic. So a mouse-click for either/or means nothing.

For as long as I've listened to John MacArthur, I've always found him to be a very bold and consistent preacher, and very conscientious to the truth; He provides a lot of background information and explanation for his personal interpretation of scripture. I've never really heard him say anything that didn't appear to be well thought over and reasoned through prayer and meditation via the Holy Spi...more

For as long as I've listened to John MacArthur, I've always found him to be a very bold and consistent preacher, and very conscientious to the truth; He provides a lot of background information and explanation for his personal interpretation of scripture. I've never really heard him say anything that didn't appear to be well thought over and reasoned through prayer and meditation via the Holy Spirit ... I've never been compelled to question any of his commentary as heretical or unbiblical.

Plus, I like him because he's a "tell-it-unsugarcoated-without-apology" kind of guy :^)

The bible doesn't "condone" slavery ... it acknowledges its existance. Despite it being against the law worldwide, it is still very real and literally practiced (illegally) today. But those individuals can still be reached by the Gospel and many are still saved. Out of love for their TRUE master, Jesus Christ, they can choose to serve him as Christians to the best of their ability.

Back to MacArthur's commentary ... Note that his message focuses around the term "Slave" within the context of implication for having been "bought for a price". That price was paid in blood by our Lord and Savior. Jesus is not just my "Savior", he is first and foremost my "Lord". He purchased me from the bondage of sin, and ultimate condemnation of my soul and spiritual death.

So, are we getting TOO hung up on the word, itself ... clinging to the justifiably evil connotations it has always beared here in the world? God's ways are not OUR ways. It seems the context of JM's message focuses on "ownership" and not subsequent obligations of what we've always known to be associated with slavery.

Additionally, is there any reason why a slave cannot be adopted by his/her master and become a son/daughter of God ... brother to Christ and his co-inheriter of the Kingdom of Heaven? Think of the account of Joseph, who started as a slave and became the greatest historical ruler of Egypt before the Exodus. Every event that's accounted for in the Bible seems to have multi-faceted meaning and purpose, and one of the reasons for Joseph's life may have been to illustrate (demonstrate?) a precursor of what will be ours. But while Joseph worked his way up ... it's been handed to us on a platter.

Before JM wrote a book about this, he mentioned it briefly in a sermon many months ago. It shocked me, but after praying about it, it occured to me that the term "slave" was exactly what JM is asserting now ... not about works or obligation, but rather acknowledgement of ownership. I "belong" to Lord Jesus ... and holy freaking cow, I'm GLAD I AM. Because, otherwise I'd be in the same boat as "free" nonbelievers who are slaves to self, sin and death.less

MaxVeritas, Excellent testimony of our Lord's power, mercy and grace in your life! Thank you for that! :^)

BTW, the statement on sole authority of interpretation: Obviously, some pastors and churches will make HUGE and salvation-endangering mistakes. I believe the Body of Christ's Church is best served by a collective effort to rebuke as well it being each born again Christian's responsibility to do so.

Hyperion, I couldn't say what circumstances were most influential for that time period. I'm not really much of a historian. When a topic demands my attention, I usually try to limit investigation to that topic and not veer away too much. I've never studied that, but I'm assuming the Church has always been a big influence, particularly on monarchies and feudal systems of that time period. ...more

Hyperion,

I couldn't say what circumstances were most influential for that time period. I'm not really much of a historian. When a topic demands my attention, I usually try to limit investigation to that topic and not veer away too much. I've never studied that, but I'm assuming the Church has always been a big influence, particularly on monarchies and feudal systems of that time period.

I agree that no organization which claims to be Christian should claim sole "authority" on scriptural interpretation. But I would compliment IHS on the amount of info he brings to the table. I kind of want to brush up on my history surrounding the canonization of scripture.

While you're reading, could you take a look at my last post before yours; about lofgrenmark115? What's your take? Should I not worry about this guy's welfare? ... is the Koolaid reference just hyperbole? :)less

IHS, we have a lot of similarity in our beliefs. We also have a lot of differences. What makes those differences trivial or important should be based on what compromises the Divinity of Our Lord. We're both going to have different perspectives on that ... but if eccumenical endeavors are of interest, then it's THOSE differences that need to be overcome. One, more thing ... now that our audie...more

IHS, we have a lot of similarity in our beliefs. We also have a lot of differences. What makes those differences trivial or important should be based on what compromises the Divinity of Our Lord. We're both going to have different perspectives on that ... but if eccumenical endeavors are of interest, then it's THOSE differences that need to be overcome.

One, more thing ... now that our audience has thinned out, I actually have something I'd like to ask for your help on. Despite our differences, we will definitely have a common interest in this:

There is a poster, here on CP called lofgrenmark115. The last time he posted was almost 2 days ago. He is a "date setter" He believes that the Rapture will occur on May 21 of this year. At first I didn't really take him too seriously and I doubt others are as well; we were content to state our point, back it up with a little scripture and move on.

But he seems VERY SINCERE in his belief.

However, I'd like a little backup if he posts again. If he's so sure about the May 21 date, I'd like support from others to confront him "politely" and ask him to promise that he will post "anything" under the same moniker on May 22, if he's "still on Earth".

I'm worried about his well-being (maybe I'm over-dramatizing it). I'd REALLY like to know that he's OK at that time. I don't know much about the ministry he's part of but I want to make sure he doesn't "drink the kool-aid", you know.

I think he should be approached in the same way we'd approach a fellow believer. Follow his responses at http://www.christianpost.com/comments/lofgrenmark115/.

Thanks, IHS and God bless.less

IHS, "The word Transubstantiation was a word invented to describe the change in the elements when Christ said "This is His Body". The Word Transsubstantiation is not a biblical term, but then again neither is Trinity so your argument is voided." IHS, you're attempting to void my argument based on the appearance of "terminology" in scripture??? Are you serious??? The gays do that by claiming...more

IHS, "The word Transubstantiation was a word invented to describe the change in the elements when Christ said "This is His Body". The Word Transsubstantiation is not a biblical term, but then again neither is Trinity so your argument is voided."

IHS, you're attempting to void my argument based on the appearance of "terminology" in scripture??? Are you serious??? The gays do that by claiming homosexual behavior is not sinful because "the actual word" doesn't appear there. The scripture that supports the dual nature of Christ and the Trinity is THERE, in scripture no matter what they called it. Let's NOT get wrapped up in terminology semantics.less

IHS, "The Catholic Church does have the right to interpret scripture, as it is her book." ... Whoa! It's statements like that that lead me right back to why I left the Catholic Church in the first place. The longer I stayed the more it became apparent that the Catholic Church collectively believes in salvation through the Church, first ... and not in salvation through Christ. Christ is the one...more

IHS, "The Catholic Church does have the right to interpret scripture, as it is her book." ... Whoa! It's statements like that that lead me right back to why I left the Catholic Church in the first place. The longer I stayed the more it became apparent that the Catholic Church collectively believes in salvation through the Church, first ... and not in salvation through Christ. Christ is the one and only Advocate between us and God the Father. I agree that not every person should take it upon themselves to interpret scripture without guidance ... but it is certainly clear that some are "called" to be leaders in the Church, without some special authority handed down by men. That authority is given through the Spirit. That is what was established at Pentacost.less

IHS, "You make a strong assumption that my findings about 1st and 4th century Christians is highly biased when I read them as an Evangelical." ... I apologize for that. I didn't mean to say that you are taking a biased approach. "How could the earliest Christians already have it wrong when they were discipled by the Apostles themselves and how did we evangelicals get it right 1600 years lat...more

IHS, "You make a strong assumption that my findings about 1st and 4th century Christians is highly biased when I read them as an Evangelical." ... I apologize for that. I didn't mean to say that you are taking a biased approach.

"How could the earliest Christians already have it wrong when they were discipled by the Apostles themselves and how did we evangelicals get it right 1600 years later?" ... Getting it wrong after clarification and reclarification is going to happen, and left unchallenged, will be wrong for generations to come. What's so hard to believe about a church becoming more invested in their own interests than the interests of God? Some of the earliest Christians had it right all along, but once faith becomes over-institutionalized with religion, it ceases to be faith and becomes obligation. At least that's the tendancy for those part of the institution.

"Historically, infants were always baptized. This is why Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Reformed, Catholics and Orthodox all baptized infants. Later Christian sects like baptists do not. For their's is too the Kingdom of God and you must be born again through water and spirit." ... I don't doubt infants have been baptized through history. But the scripture doesn't support it. History is full of rights and wrongs. Baptism is a splinter discussion ... let's leave it there for now.

"Look at the book called the Didache" ... I'll do a little research when I can find some time.

"I apologize about any assumption I made. You are a Christian brother and nothing was intended" ... No problem.

"When you say RCC you denigrate without knowing 30 million Eastern Christians who are fully Catholic just not Roman." ... Let's minimize our concern over semantics of terminology. I'll just say "Catholic".

"The New Testament as an example was attacked in the 3rd century by a heretic who taught the Gospel of Thomas and Mary Magdalene were inspired" ... not to mention the others. I agree. The Gnostic Gospels are worthless.

"The Catholic Church tends to make doctrine over time as certain things are attacked." ... Changes in doctrine??? I hope you meant "clarification".less

IHS, The second followup of history and what Christians believed in the 1st vs. 4th Century is highly biased on some of your bullet points and contains a lot of what are most likely half-truths and others just can't be substantiated. I'm NOT calling you a liar, BTW. So let's make that clear. I'm saying that although you believe your sources I'd question them. On you 3 points: 1) You're ...more

IHS, The second followup of history and what Christians believed in the 1st vs. 4th Century is highly biased on some of your bullet points and contains a lot of what are most likely half-truths and others just can't be substantiated. I'm NOT calling you a liar, BTW. So let's make that clear. I'm saying that although you believe your sources I'd question them.

On you 3 points: 1) You're forgetting that I don't believe in transubstantiation (Just Not Biblical), so your claim that I could not have Communion on a desert island is wrong. However, I like your comment about baptizing with coffee; I agree, especially hot coffee. Seriously, it should be with flowing water ... AFTER you come to the faith and can make a true decision in your heart to accept Jesus. NOT BEFORE, as a baby who has no idea what's going on. There's also no scriptural support for "infant baptism".

2) OK. You've been to Seminary. You've read a lot during and after that time. There is a lot of conjecture about which books of the Bible were inspired, which were apocryphal, etc. It doesn't change the fact that you're simply labelling all the early churches Catholic. I KNOW it didn't just SPRING out of nowhere in the 4th Century.

... I don't appreciate the way you just apparently skim over my statements and pull assumptions about my understanding out of a hat ...

Most Important Statement for Point 2) What the RCC believes now doesn't ALL coincide with what it believed in the 1st, 4th, 14th or even 20th Century. The RCC writes its own dogma as it goes.

3) You keep saying everything is the Catholic Churches interpretation of scripture. The Catholic Church DOES NOT have the exclusive ability to interpret scripture, and if they do, WHY do Protestants have such excellent arguments about RCC interpretation contradicting what God's Word says?

I will not outright deny that the Catholic Church may have grown out of The Way, but if they did, they have gotten WAAAY off track from what Jesus and the apostles instructed us for our church. Some of the things I've heard about what comes out of the Vatican seem ABSOLUTELY heretical.

That being said, I STILL DO believe there are a LOT of Christians in the Catholic Church (along with a lot of pluralist, worldly, or ride-alongs). I can't say I'm so sure about some members of its clerical heirarchy in terms of the former.less