Examples of mistakes/confusion from well known Prots/Evangelicals...


#1

Here are three latest examples of mistakes and confusion from well known Protestants/Evangelicals…

  1. Charles Stanley (who believes in eternal security) said " Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. " doesn’t really mean whay it says. It only means the Father will forgive your tresspasses regardless but you will have the physcological and emotional guilt of unforgiveness.

  2. D. James Kennedy said that Saint Patrick was not Catholic.

  3. John MacAthur said in the Acts Of the Apostles says “all the Sanhedren” were gathered together, but “all” is not correct. It really means “most” or “almost all” because he doesn’t think Joeseph of Aramathea was there. (There are many other examples for where MacAthur does not believe in the innerancy of the Bible)

So much for their supposed Faith in Biblical innerancy.


#2

Could you please provide a link to these quotes?

I would love to read these in context.


#3

Doesn’t the Catholic Church in the USA say that “all” and “many” mean the same thing? For example, in the Consecration of the Wine, the R. Catholic Church in the USA has translated the phrase pro multis as for all? Why is it a booboo for a Protestant to do something similar?


#4

Bo bo wasn’t that a monkey Ronald Reagan acted with?


#5

This is a terrible misunderstanding of Protestant faith and even worse un-Christian behavior.

Anyways, inerrancy does not extend into what you believe it to be… there are many factual accounts written into the Bible that are symbolic in one form or another, or contextual, or a plethora of other things. Many of the works written in the Bible one must take into account the cultural linguistic behaviors of the author. For instance if an American says “wow there are 144,000 people in time square” – it means roughly 144,000 people are in Time Square – however, if an America states, “wow, there are like a billion people in time square” – it means, “there sure are a lot of people in Time Square”

In some cultures saying 144,000 was kind of like saying, ‘wow there are a billion.’ Also if a person comes back from a party and states, “man, everyone was at the party” he means, “man, all the people that I am friends with and then some were at the party – well Henry wasn’t but most everyone else.” This doesn’t mean that he is lying – it is just the verbiage that American’s tend to use.

So although things in the Bible are based on factual events and are told in truth the cultural verbiage of the writers need to be considered.

If we took everything literally in the Bible we would all have to be 6 day creationists and believe that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters.

I don’t know who Charles Stanley is, apparently he speaks for all of Protestantism by your logic – but I disagree with the statement as you present it… I would like a link or something so I could research it further.

I mean honestly, what if they did say it as you mean it – so what, what if a Catholic Priest in Arkansas stated that Catholics have to hit themselves in the face with a hammer during mass – would that make it true or would that discredit the Roman Catholic faith?

I could just as easily say about your post, “Is this what Catholic’s concern themselves with during Holy Week?”

Of course I know that many fine Catholic’s thoughts are elsewhere during these wondrous hours.


#6

Shibboleth,

With all due respect I disagree with you…

  1. If you don’t think this discussion is appropriate for Holy Week then why did you respond? Are you wearing sack cloth and ashes this week? Can’t we discuss religion during Holy Week?

  2. Many people use cultural and linguistic excuses to gut the Bible of it’s clear meaning but I think that is wrong. Unless you are a Biblical scholar then you are simply repeating a generalization that you heard somewhere without any expertise of it’s specific application.

  3. As you well know, Prots/Evan have no authoritive head. Charles Stanley is a famous preacher with a wide reach and tremendous following. He, and others like him, are the closest they will ever get to leadership and authoritive statements. The hammer analogy is way off base. My quote was from his radio show on “Forgivness”. intouch.org/intouch/site.show_page?p_id=76101&p_id_from=77395&p_current_date=03%2F15%2F2005&tag=DOMESTIC. I can’t remember if it was Part 1, 2 or 3, most probably it is under “Forgiving Others”.

  4. There is no basis for calling this a misunderstanding or my posts as unchristian. If what I have said is the truth then the truth will set you free.


#7

stanley123,

I am not a Biblical scholar so I can’t answer your question. A know I trust the Church. I know what “all” means today. I know John Macathur meant this as an alteration, a correction to the Bible, if you will. “All the Sanhedrin” was there…nope, not Joeseph of Aramathea. It was on his radio show of Saturday (Friday?).


#8

[quote=chrisg93]stanley123,

I am not a Biblical scholar so I can’t answer your question. A know I trust the Church. I know what “all” means today. I know John Macathur meant this as an alteration, a correction to the Bible, if you will. “All the Sanhedrin” was there…nope, not Joeseph of Aramathea. It was on his radio show of Saturday (Friday?).
[/quote]

You know just because you are not a Biblical Scholar does not mean that you cannot study into something or read. I am not a mechanic but I know how to change my oil. Or do you just have enough education to tell Biblical Scholars that they are wrong?


#9

This MacArthur example is silly. MacArthur, no matter how much I disagree with him, does not believe that the Bible errs at any point.

If you care to actually examine his claim, you’ll be hard pressed to find New Testament instances where “all” means “each and every.” It usually means less than that.

BTW, I agree with you regarding Charles Stanley’s understanding of forgiveness, but even that is no commentary on his belief in errancy.


#10

Kevan,

You are mistaken about John MacArthur.

  1. He believes that the books of the Bible are not infallibe.He admits they could be the wrong books. He admits the collection is not inspired as a divine collection.

  2. He believes that the two passages were added to the Bible later and are not trustworthy. First, the woman cought in adultery and second, the passage about handling snakes without harm. He says no tust can be put in the passages to be inspired.

PS… If “all” does not mean “all” then the Bible translation is in error and should be changed, else there is chaos.


#11

[quote=chrisg93]Kevan,
PS… If “all” does not mean “all” then the Bible translation is in error and should be changed, else there is chaos.
[/quote]

Depends on if you are looking for a Literal translation or a Dynamic Translation I suppose


#12

First, I want to apologize for characterizing your allegations as “silly.” I see now that you are genuinely trying to understand MacArthur.

[quote=chrisg93]You are mistaken about John MacArthur.

  1. He believes that the books of the Bible are not infallibe.He admits they could be the wrong books. He admits the collection is not inspired as a divine collection.
    [/quote]

Canon and inspiration/infallibility are distinct topics. One may believe that the canon is correct without believing that it was established by inspiration. I have no suspicion that he doubts the canonicity of any of the sixty six books in the Protestant canon.

  1. He believes that the two passages were added to the Bible later and are not trustworthy. First, the woman cought in adultery and second, the passage about handling snakes without harm. He says no tust can be put in the passages to be inspired.

There’s also the “Trinity” passage in 1 John: “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” Nearly all inerrantists believe that these passages were not a part of the original text. Text and inerrancy are distinct topics.

FWIW, my New American Bible (Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat) also omits the Trinity passage in 1 John.

PS… If “all” does not mean “all” then the Bible translation is in error and should be changed, else there is chaos.

Not really. Get a concordance and look up some occurrances of the word in the New Testament and see how it is used.

Here’s one example: Matthew 3:5-6 says “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” But the reader is not expected to understand that each and every person, without exception, went out to John and was baptized. Even the next verses say that some were not, and common sense would point in the same direction.

Most uses of “all” will follow this pattern. :slight_smile:


#13

[quote=chrisg93]Here are three latest examples of mistakes and confusion from well known Protestants/Evangelicals…

  1. Charles Stanley (who believes in eternal security)
    [/quote]

Maybe he’s read John 10. ES is at least as sensible a belief as is belief in the indefectibility of the Church - for which, see Matthew 16. Both beliefs rely on the words of Christ.

said " Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. " doesn’t really mean whay it says. It only means the Father will forgive your tresspasses regardless but you will have the physcological and emotional guilt of unforgiveness.

That should be “psychological” - those who are going to laugh at Protestant “mistakes” or “confusion” should at least know how to spell without mistakes.

It is by no means clear that Stanley has said anything wrong - do Christians, all, and always, have no difficulty in forgiving others ? This reported opinion is if anything a truism, not an error. ##

  1. D. James Kennedy said that Saint Patrick was not Catholic.

And…? What has this to do with Biblical inerrancy ? Nothing.

It does not in the least follow from a Protestant’s having said a thing, that the Protestant is wrong. The right thing to do, if one disagrees, is to give a reasoned refutation - not to stop short with quoting the supposed error. Is that assertion about Patrick an error ? If so, how ? ##

  1. John MacAthur said in the Acts Of the Apostles says “all the Sanhedren”

Sanhedrin

were gathered together, but “all” is not correct. It really means “most” or “almost all” because he doesn’t think Joeseph

Joseph

of Aramathea

Arimathea

was there. (There are many other examples for where MacAthur does not believe in the innerancy of the Bible)

St. Augustine is probably the source for this understanding of “all”. It may be incorrect, or it may be correct, but at least it is a respectable attempt to face both what the texts say, and, to uphold Biblical inerrancy. Some people should read more widely, before brandishing this as a trophy example of Protestabnt silliness - if this is a mistake, it is a mistake made in excellent company.

BTW, it’s MacArthur.

It would be nice to have a reference for the relevant passage in Acts - then MacArthur’s supposed error can be discussed.

I don’t see the point of this thread - it would be easy to make Catholics look like brain-dead zombies, if one quoted the right bits of paper or the right authors. To err is human - even if one can spell.

None of this is proof, or even evidence, of Protestant or Evangelical error - it’s far too trivial. And if it is thought serious, then the same reasoning also tells against Catholicism. As has been pointed out.

Catholics who go truffle-hunting for Protestant errors and turn up nothing worse than this, should be joyful that they have found so little - not that Christians on the Web have that attitude. :frowning: :mad: Apparently the devil, like God, is being elbowed out of his job. ##

So much for their supposed Faith in Biblical innerancy.


#14

Gottle,

You have the insight of a mystic to catch my spelling errors. I will mention these at confession next time.

I don’t hunt Prot mistakes. I actually listen to Stanley and MacArthur on the radio since Catholic radio is not available to me.

I bring these mistakes to light to show how very true it is that Prots do not have the fullness of Jesus and it brings them into error rather easily.

Charles Stanley flatley denies that if we don’t forgive then the Father will not forgive us. That is a mojor theological error and a denial of the clear meanning of the Bible.

The MacArthur examples shows that Catholics believe in the Bible more firmly that he does. He is a hypocrit.

You have fooled yourself on the St Patrick question. I didn’t say that “all” my examples were Biblical. I can mean “many” or “most” or “some” of them were Biblical.


#15

Gottle,

You have the insight of a mystic to catch my spelling errors. I will mention these at confession next time.

I don’t hunt Prot mistakes. I actually listen to Stanley and MacArthur on the radio since Catholic radio is not available to me.

I bring these mistakes to light to show how very true it is that Prots do not have the fullness of Jesus and it brings them into error rather easily.

Charles Stanley flatley denies that if we don’t forgive then the Father will not forgive us. That is a mojor theological error and a denial of the clear meanning of the Bible.

The MacArthur examples shows that Catholics believe in the Bible more firmly that he does. He is a hypocrit.

You have fooled yourself on the St Patrick question. I didn’t say that “all” my examples were Biblical. I can mean “many” or “most” or “some” of them were Biblical.


#16

Keven,

First, Catholics believe more firmly in the Bible than MacAuther, regardless of the fine distinctions you mentioned. That makes him a hypocrit.

Second, Did Jesus die for “all” our sins or just “some” of them? Are “all” the saints going to heaven, or just “most” of them. Do “all” the angles in heaven praise God, or just “many” of them?
MacArthur has set himself up as arbitor of the Bible as Prots do. My example was simply the latest in his line history of doing so.


#17

Don’t worry about the typos. Even Thomas Jefferson was a lousy speller.

Chris, it isn’t necessary to ignore the “fine distinctions” I mentioned. They aren’t all that “fine.” They’re ordinary theology. Any bright person is capable of learning them if he’s willing to, but they are not the kinds of things that one knows automatically without study.

It doesn’t really matter how we use the word “all.” The primary question is how the writers of Scripture used it You probably have a concordance; but, if not, Bible search tools are on the web. If you will patiently look, you will see how they use it. Sometimes it means “each and every,” usually it does not.

I disagree with MacArthur on many points. When I listen to him I’m constantly saying “Nope. No. That’s an assumption. Oh yeah? You’re forgetting that verse over in …” etc. But I never view these disagreements as evidence of hypocrisy. He believes in inerrancy as firmly as I do, and the only people narrower that I are the King James folks.

I have found both MacArthur and Stanley to be very insightful, generally speaking. Their mastery of Scripture and the Christian life is commendable, despite the places where I think that they err.


#18

[quote=chrisg93]Kevan,

You are mistaken about John MacArthur.

  1. He believes that the books of the Bible are not infallibe.He admits they could be the wrong books. He admits the collection is not inspired as a divine collection.

  2. He believes that the two passages were added to the Bible later and are not trustworthy. First, the woman cought in adultery and second, the passage about handling snakes without harm. He says no tust can be put in the passages to be inspired.

PS… If “all” does not mean “all” then the Bible translation is in error and should be changed, else there is chaos.
[/quote]

Is #1 true? I would be very suprised. I thought he believed that the Bible was infallible - and not insprired as a divine collection? I am doubting very seriously that John MacArthur feels that way. Did you actually hear him say that???


#19

If they weren’t conufsed, they wouldn’t be Protestants! :wink: :smiley:


#20

Physics96 is that you?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.