Answering John MacArthur, II

Answering John MacArthur, I · part II · part III

POPE & PAPACY Part 2 JOHN MACARTHUR
Blaze25z | 4.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5RMFu-JHGs

I

0:12 "and all the people said "amen", it was the Antichrist whom they beheld seated on the Pontifical throne"

What "all the people"?

Are you quoting from a Protestant history book?

It should be more precise on who these "all the people" were.

If you meant "all the people" who had gathered to hear this conclusion from Luther after it was already advertised, very possible.

If you meant "all the people" who had been Catholics up to Luther's time, no way. Not in Germany, see Eck, and most definitely not elsewhere, see how Henry VIII earned the title "defensor fidei" from a Pope.

II

0:16 - 0:22 "this new idea which derived greater strength through the prophetic descriptions"

And these were strong, precisely because Catholicism had kept inculcating these prophecies.

"launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries"

Nice to note you note they were new ideas and whom they were launched by.

A bit sadly ironic that Antipope Bergoglio so celebrates Luther.

"inflicted the most terrible blow on Rome"

So "terrible" that Pope Leo X noted Luther was involved in some other "monk brawl" ... in other words, nice rhetoric, but not born up by the facts of the time they refer to.

Oh, the Pope would hang Peter and crucify Christ again ... now, neither St. Peter nor Our Lord were walking on earth and with counterfactuals you have a nice playground for fancy.

1:33 I'd like to know what Calvin's argument for Papacy being the Antichrist of II Thessalonians was ....

I'm not guessing. Here is from his commentary:

"Here, however, the subject treated of is not the name of God himself, but his majesty and worship, and, in general, everything that he claims for himself. “True religion is that by which the true God alone is worshipped; that, the son of perdition will transfer to himself.” Now, every one that has learned from Scripture what are the things that more especially belong to God, and will, on the other hand, observe what the Pope claims for himself — though he were but a boy of ten years of age — will have no great difficulty in recognizing Antichrist."

Except, this is not true. The Pope does simply not demand to be worshipped as God. Calvin was simply lying.

1:40 "because they had some special insight"

From where? A man claiming special insight in a prophetic way would need to be exmined by the Church (to which Luther and Calvin did not submit, exalting themselves over the piety, if not over God's Person, as they recognised it, and therein in a conflict with each other, since Luther's disciple Melanchthon rejected Bucer and therefore also later Calvin).

A man claiming it from his studies, which is possible, would need even in absence of a way to get tested by the Church to give credible arguments, which Calvin and Luther didn't.

"that in fact the final Antichrist was actually to be a Pope?"

Ah, you are admitting they hadn't.

"No"

"Because the Pope personified everything that the Scripture described the Antichrist to be"

Except, not.

2:10 "Thomas Cranmer, one of the great martyrs in England"

One of the few who could be described as martyrs, from a Protestant point of view and who were Reformers.

The Coventry martyrs were not Reformers, but Lollards of a very vague tradition. Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Calvin and Knox were not martyrs, and neither was Melanchthon, nor the Petri brothers, nor Agricola ...

But if I were to name Reformers that were "martyred" there are basically two, Cranmer and Tyndale. [Make it four, see below]

However, martyred or other Reformers, you are appealing to them like a Catholic would appeal to Sts Augustine or Thomas Aquinas ... but they are not in the same martyrology and you are not accepting the martyrology in which Church Fathers and Scholastics are well represented.

2:41 Noted that Westminster Confession contradicts the Catechism of the council of Trent as well as the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X as well as Baltimore Catechisms 1 to 4.

I could resume this : you are appealing to something old, the Reformers, I am appealing to something older, the Church which was there before they came on the scene.

III

I looked up Westminster Confession of Faith, with Biblical proof texts.

There are two propositions about the Papacy, one indirect and one direct:

"6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.n"

The proof text is:

n. Col. 1:18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Eph. 1:22. … and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.

This does not dispose with the question whether there is a visible head.

"Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.o"

The proof text is:

o. Matt. 23:8–10. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 1 Pet. 5:2–4. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

The first seems to be somewhat relative in relation to other NT texts, like St Paul saying:

"For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you."
[1 Corinthians 4:15]

The second very clearly by calling Christ the "chief Shepherd, St Peter is also saying there are secondary Shepherds under Christ. To which the Pope would belong.

IV

2:59 Cotton Mather - as unwary of demons as to use spectral evidence in witchcraft trials, according to this:

[Wiki : ]
"In 1689, Mather published Memorable Providences detailing the supposed afflictions of several children in the Goodwin family in Boston. Catholic washerwoman Goody Glover was convicted of witchcraft and executed in this case.[9] Mather had a prominent role in this case. Besides praying for the children, which also included fasting and meditation, he would also observe and record their activities. The children were subject to hysterical fits, which he detailed in Memorable Providences.[10] In his book, Mather argued that since there are witches and devils, there are "immortal souls." He also claimed that witches appear spectrally as themselves.[11] He opposed any natural explanations for the fits, he believed that people who confessed to using witchcraft were sane, he warned against performing magic due to its connection with the devil and he argued that spectral evidence should not be used as evidence for witchcraft.[12] Robert Calef was a contemporary of Mather and critical of him, and he considered this book responsible for laying the groundwork for the Salem witch trials three years later:"

[quoting Robert Calef:]
"Mr Cotton Mather, was the most active and forward of any Minister in the Country in those matters, taking home one of the Children, and managing such Intreagues with that Child, and after printing such an account of the whole, in his Memorable Providences, as conduced much to the kindling of those Flames, that in Sir Williams time threatened the devouring of this Country.[13]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Mather#Pre-trials

V

3:41 "great Reform leaders through the ages"

Luther, Calvin, Knox, Cranmer, Cotton Mather, Spurgeon.

Luther started out in about 1520 (since the deed in 1517 was before he became really Protestant). Spurgeon died 1892.

1892
1517
=375

In Catholic parlance, "through the ages" is not limited to 375 years.

VI

4:01 "puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement"

Raving of Spurgeon.

Christ's atonement is available through the sacraments. Each of the 7 is shown in some place in the NT.

When a sacrament is efficacious and when it is not is about as useful a question as "was I really saved, or wasn't I". Except, generally it can be solved and in cases of doubt measures to ensure one valid sacrament of salvation in two acts (rebaptism sub conditione valid when the previous baptism wasn't for instance, and no offense to God if it was).

4:02 "and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour"

Oh, Spurgeon denied Real Presence and contradicted Our Lord in John 6?

4:06 "and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit"

Actually, John 3 Christ mentioned "water and spirit". They go together.

4:10 "and a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the Vicar of Christ on earth"

Popes are conscious that they are fallible in their personal capacity. That doesn't cancel the vicarship.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were also fallible men like ourselves, at times - but that doesn't cancel they wrote the Gospels and Acts inspired by the Holy Ghost and inerrantly.

If Spurgeon attacks papacy, why not hagiographers? If God can make exceptions for special occasions, like when hagiographers writing Gospels, why not for Popes when defining what the Gospels mean?

This attack is illogic and senseless.

VII

4:51 "all Bibles were removed from the Churches"

With mistranslated ones, like those before the Great Bible, well done.

"all Bible printing ceased and was forbidden, became a capital crime"

Here is wiki on this one:

"Under Edward VI, the regency cast off all restrictions on translation and publication of the Bible; all the suppressed versions were republished. The order for a Great Bible in every church was renewed, and there was to be added to it a copy of Erasmus's paraphrase of the four gospels, in an English translation undertaken in part by Princess Mary, the King's Catholic sister. Nearly fifty editions of the Bible, in whole or in part, appeared in those six years. When Mary herself succeeded to the throne in 1553, she maintained her brother's policy of encouraging public reading of the Great Bible and Paraphrases; but versions with overtly Protestant notes were once again liable to be burned."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English_Bible_translations#Great_Bible

One more:

"The Great Bible was issued to meet a decree that each church should make available in some convenient place the largest possible copy of the whole Bible, where all the parishioners could have access to it and read it at their will.The version gets its name from the size of the volume. That decree dates 1538, twelve years after Tyndale's books were burned, and two years after he was burned. The installation of these great books caused tremendous excitement as crowds gathered everywhere. Bishop Bonner had six copies of the great volume located throughout St. Paul's. The Great Bible appeared in seven editions in two years, and continued in recognized power for thirty years. Much of the present English prayer-book is taken from it. But this liberty was so sudden that the people naturally abused it. King Henry VIII became vexed because the sacred words "were disputed, rimed, sung, and jangled in every ale-house". King Henry began to put restrictions on the use of the Bible. There were to be no notes or annotations in any versions, and those that existed were to be blacked out. Only the upper classes were to be allowed to possess a Bible. Finally, the year before his death, all versions were again prohibited except the Great Bible, whose cost and size precluded personal use. The decree led to another great burning of Bibles in 1546—Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew—all but the Great Bible. The leading religious reformers took flight and fled to European Protestant towns like Frankfurt and Strassburg."

Same link.

Perhaps you were confusing Mary Tudor with her father?

VIII

5:10 Whether you admire John Rogers or not, even Fox would have said there were other things he burned for than translation.

"The circumstance of Mr. Rogers having preached at Paul's cross, after Queen Mary arrived at the Tower, has been already stated. He confirmed in his sermon the true doctrine taught in King Edward's time, and exhorted the people to beware of the pestilence of popery, idolatry, and superstition. For this he was called to account, but so ably defended himself that, for that time, he was dismissed. The proclamation of the queen, however, to prohibit true preaching, gave his enemies a new handle against him."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rogers_(Bible_editor_and_martyr)

Quoting the last big section.

"Ridley and Latimer"

The guys I tend to forget with Cranmer:

"In 1555 under the Catholic Queen Mary he was burned at the stake, becoming one of the three Oxford Martyrs of Anglicanism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Latimer

"The three martyrs were the Anglican bishops Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley and Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Martyrs

Do you agree with these being martyrs?

You cited Westminster Confession of Faith on no one but Christ being head of the Church.

But these were considered as heads of the Church in Worcester, London and Canterbury with all England (under the monarch, whom they recognised as visible head of the Church of England).

If you are sincere, why do you not condemn these Anglicans as much as Catholics?

Because they were martyred?

St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen was martyred by Calvinists, like the Gorkum martyrs and like that blessed Dominican Prior of Castres, but Anglicans also martyred a lot of Catholics, like Sts Thomas More, John Fisher, and about 300 more, saints or blesseds.

IX

5:32 "Tyndale ... finally martyred for the crime of translating the Bible into English"

That is a lie. The translation was known when he was arrested by Belgian Inquisitors in ... I had thought it was 7 years before he died, but even if it was only a year before ... 1535.

It took to 1536 to get him executed, well into second half of the year by which time he had documented a heretical understanding of Romans 3 in the exchange of writings between himself and Latomus.

So, while Bible translation was occasion of his arrest, the crime was heretical understanding of the Bible.

X

6:06 "Luther didn't mince words."

No, but what he said about Popes was arguably more true about himself.

Again, Schmalkald articles, it is a far cry from Westminster, on some issues, except in condemnation of papacy and it is within the last 1/4 of the time the Church has existed.

As said, when we Catholics say "through the ages" we may refer to anyone from Apostles to Father Kolbe who died in Auschwitz. That's about 4 times as long a period as Protestantism from Luther on.

Also, his accusation is hard to substantiate directly from Catholic material: you don't find Catholics denying redemption is from Christ. You do find Catholics saying Christ uses means which Luther didn't agree with. Like papacy, bishops, seven sacraments, Holy Mass.

6:11 Luther trying to paraphrase II Thessalonians 2 ....

Ironic that Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio all enjoin Ecumenism with Lutherans - even if most of them are not all that very Lutheran in this respect.

He also overdoes the extent of how many heretics were executed, in a way sounding a bit like Foxe or James Milton Carroll.

XI

7:23 "how could the Church live if its head were dead"

We do not consider popes as the lifegiving head of the Church, that being Christ alone, but as his visible representatives.

Sth which Christ made Peter, Himself the Good Shepherd, He made St Peter Shepherd, that is, representative of His own quality as "chief Shepherd".

Similarily, the Pope is not the source of holiness in the Church, therefore a wicked pope who really is pope doesn't make the Church unholy. He just refuses to use the Church to make himself holy.

7:29 "the true head ever lives and the true Church ever lives in Him"

Actually a true word.

Hence it is shameful to except so much of Church history, most between 33 and 400 and all between 400 and 1500 from the testimony of such a living Church.

7:40 "first makes a dupe out of others and then becomes a dupe to himself"

That's how we consider authors of Schmalkald articles or Coran or Book of Mormon or Westminster Confession ... unless we are charitably inclined to reverse the process and say these were deluded before deluding others.

XII

7:53 "what the Pope really believes he is infallible and shall be greeted His Holiness, it must have taken him a good time to arrive to that eminence of self deception."

As to the second, why would the exact words of adress be so weighty as to oppress a conscience not long in the process of delusion?

The Pope doesn't believe he is personally necessarily a saint, the words are adressed to him to remind him he needs to be one. As a Catholic, he has called others "His Holiness" before he was elected. And as to "call no man rabbi" ... St. Paul shows this is not to be taken with rigorous literal observance, since it was also said "call no one father" and St Paul tells the Corinthians he is their father.

As to infallible, Spurgeon seems to have imagined (though I would try to be careful not to practise pseudo-empathy) that Popes imagine they are infallible whenever they sneeze.

In fact, Popes take care before making the kind of decisions that require infallibility and that care usually involves consulting other collectively infallibles, like the Catholic bishops all over the world, like totality of previous popes and ecumenic councils and so on.

Here I must reject as blasphemous the contention of Westminster Confession of Faith that all visible churches are to some degree mixed with error.

This is expressly against Matthew 28:20 (as well as Matthew 16:18, and that observation does not depend on who is the rock).

XIII

8:11 Spurgeon's analysis of papacy is perhaps a better one of a Protestant ministry claiming to correctly interpret the Bible.

The ministers are surrounded by Protestants who confirm them in their being right to be supreme independent local ministers answering to no one on earth.