Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[Mark Quayle]

In the UK, NZ, Australia, Canada a judge is referred to as "your worship"; perhaps USA usage is causing problems with Catholic usage. Worship does not apply to God alone, that is why I earlier included [as God] in one of my posts. In Catholic and Latin usage adoration is what God receives from his people. Let us adore the Lord, we say. Though in the modern English liturgy "worship" is used. Is the issue one of usage for you, do you think that every time a Catholic publication writes of worship it means worship-God?

I don't read catholic publications. I wouldn't know about them.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't read catholic publications. I wouldn't know about them.

Does that mean that you have no idea if "worship" means something different from what you've been saying Catholics offer to Blessed Mary?

 

[Davy]

It's a welknown quote of his. I couldn't find a video but I found audio and a picture of him being quoted. Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: An Overview

How can one prove the audio is his? Anyone can post audio and say that's MacArthur speaking when that is not proven.


Furthermore, Apostle Paul gave this warning for all Christians...

Col 2:18
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
KJV

Paul said there by worshipping angels your "reward" can be beguiled.

We are to worship The Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, and that does NOT mean to include worship of Lord Jesus' flesh mother Mary.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In the UK, NZ, Australia, Canada a judge is referred to as "your worship"; perhaps USA usage is causing problems with Catholic usage. Worship does not apply to God alone, that is why I earlier included [as God] in one of my posts. In Catholic and Latin usage adoration is what God receives from his people. Let us adore the Lord, we say. Though in the modern English liturgy "worship" is used. Is the issue one of usage for you, do you think that every time a Catholic publication writes of worship it means worship-God?

I suspect it is also a matter that they reflexively consider any prayer as worship. Thus if we address a prayer to Mary it automatically comes off to them as worship of Mary as a god. Could you, pray tell, explain the problem with that? Sure. To ‘pray’ is to ‘ask’ in common English and not to ‘worship’ and definitely not to ‘adore’ or even to ‘venerate’. But in common Protestantism to ‘pray’ is to ‘worship’ and thus to ‘adore’. Two very different things.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yet they demonstrated the public worshiping in some sense, just as the Catholic church has exaggerated her position, and, for that matter, that of those who it credits with Sainthood, as if all believers are not saints. More reverence and adoration than is her scriptural due.

Would you agree that a saint who has persevered to the end is a better example than someone who might consider or call himself or herself a saint but has not yet persevered and may not actually be a believer?

 

[Servus]

I suspect it is also a matter that they reflexively consider any prayer as worship. Thus if we address a prayer to Mary it automatically comes off to them as worship of Mary as a god. Could you, pray tell, explain the problem with that? Sure. To ‘pray’ is to ‘ask’ in common English and not to ‘worship’ and definitely not to ‘adore’ or even to ‘venerate’. But in common Protestantism to ‘pray’ is to ‘worship’ and thus to ‘adore’. Two very different things.

It's just simply too close for comfort to many.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It's just simply too close for comfort to many.

Why pray tell? The English language usage of ‘pray’ is simply to ask. Your discomfort is I fear a bit manufactured to maintain an animosity and a distance from your brother Catholics.

 

[Servus]

Why pray tell? The English language usage of ‘pray’ is simply to ask. Your discomfort is I fear a bit manufactured to maintain an animosity and a distance from your brother Catholics.

I have no animosity towards my Catholic brethren. Rather for me personally it seems too close to worship for me to be comfortable with practicing it. I'm sure that's true for others as well.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have no animosity towards my Catholic brethren. Rather for me personally it seems too close to worship for me to be comfortable with practicing it. I'm sure that's true for others as well.

And yet when we say we don’t worship Mary you tell us we are wrong about that?

 

[Servus]

And yet when we say we don’t worship Mary you tell us we are wrong about that?

No I say as I just said, that for me personally it appears too close to worship for me to personally be comfortable with practicing it myself. I'm not telling you or anyone else what they should or shouldn't practice.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No I say as I just said, that for me personally it appears too close to worship for me to personally be comfortable with practicing it myself. I'm not telling you or anyone else what they should or shouldn't practice.

One can form a similar cautious approach towards sola scriptura and the tendency it appears to produce in some to render sacred devotion towards their bibles.

 

[Servus]

One can form a similar cautious approach towards sola scriptura and the tendency it appears to produce in some to render sacred devotion towards their bibles.

I also refer to the writings of the apostolic and early church fathers regarding Christian practices and doctrines.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Synonymous, maybe. The same, no. The man's quote was taken out of context, purposely, distorting what he was trying to say. You very well know he was not trying to say that Jesus was not Mary's son.

I wasn't talking about what MacArthur said, rather I was talking about the historic and orthodox Christology itself.

To say "Mary is the mother of God" is identical with saying "The Child which Mary gave birth to is God". Those are identical statements and have the same meaning.

Both speak of the Child Mary had, Jesus. These are Christological statements.

So when someone says that Mary is not the mother of God, they are denying that the Child Mary bore is God.

This isn't a Protestant vs Catholic thing. Which is how so many contemporary Protestants imagine it. This is a matter of good Christology on the one hand, and bad Christology on the other.

I'm not going to accuse John MacArthur of heresy, because I don't know if he is speaking out of his own personal ignorance, or if he is attempting to undermine the foundational doctrines of the Incarnation. But I think it fair to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is simply ignorant.

The reason for this modern problem isn't, I don't think, because of heresy; but ignorance, it is the all too prevalent problem of theological illiteracy among Christians.

People take issue with this for the same reason people frequently get the doctrine of the Trinity completely wrong.

Saying "Mary isn't the mother of God" is like when I see people argue against the Eternal Generation of the Son. They are ignorant, they have not been taught basic Christian doctrine in such a way that they understand what it is that we confess and believe as Christians.

So the point of my post wasn't to address MacArthur directly, or even indirectly; but rather to give defense of basic Christian doctrine.

To say that Mary is the mother of God is synonymous with saying the Child which Mary bore is God. These statements are identical in meaning.

Understanding that is key to healing this particular theological confusion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I want to also help clear up some frequent confusion I see.

One of the most common objections to "mother of God" being used is the objection that "Well, Mary didn't give birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit, she only gave birth to Jesus, therefore she can't be the mother of God".

The objection fails because: This is akin to saying that we cannot say "Jesus is God", because that would mean Jesus is also the Father and Holy Spirit. However, those of us who confess the Doctrine of the Trinity recognize, almost instinctively, that this isn't the meaning of the statement "Jesus is God". Because we know, or at least should know, that when we say Jesus is God we are saying Jesus is God the Son.

"God" in the statement "Jesus is God" refers to God the Son, it refers to the fact that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, the only-begotten of the Father, the Eternal Logos; He who was in the beginning with God and is God because He is of the Father's own Being: He is God with and from the Father.

In the statement "Mary is the mother of God" it means the same thing. "God" here refers to God the Son, to Jesus Christ.

This is inarguable, because that's what it means, that's what it has always meant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[notworthconsideration]

I don't know if you're all familiar with John Mcarthur but he is a reformed theologian that is the leader of the mega church Grace Community church. This might be news to some of you and many of you probably know this already but John Mcarthur may be guilty of heresy by denying that Mary is the mother of God.

I know when he made this statement he was trying to be as anti catholic as possible (in fact he denies that Catholics are even saved in the first place even though they hold to the nicene creed like every other true mainline Christian Denomination.)

But anyway, by saying that Mary is not the mother of God is he guilty of heresy? Since historically the Christian church holds to the fact that Mary WAS the mother of God because Jesus is the son of God and Mary was his mother.

So him openly denying that Mary was the mother of God means that be doesn't believe that Jesus is divine. Because if Mary carried a half human half God baby In her womb than, she definitely is the mother of God. There's nothing Catholic about it it's a fact.

Thoughts? Can you think of other heresies Mcarthur might be openly teaching? If he doesn't repent I feel bad for him.

Audio of his claims Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: An Overview

In one of his prophecy books, he actually wrote that “apostasy in the Bible does not mean ‘apostasy’.”

His self-given title of “chancellor” is a fancy word for “Lord.” (He likes being called that)

Interestingly, his name also appears as part of the title of the Bible he publishes- with his words added to it. I’ve never even seen Jesus’ Name on a bible before… (of course, I may be blowing this out of proportion, but I don’t think so!)

We have a local radio ministry for men where I’m at, and a few weeks ago, they unashamedly changed all their doctrinal references to phrases commonly spoken by mcarthur (& his contemporaries in that movement)

 

[Servus]

I wasn't talking about what MacArthur said, rather I was talking about the historic and orthodox Christology itself.

To say "Mary is the mother of God" is identical with saying "The Child which Mary gave birth to is God". Those are identical statements and have the same meaning.

Both speak of the Child Mary had, Jesus. These are Christological statements.

So when someone says that Mary is not the mother of God, they are denying that the Child Mary bore is God.

This isn't a Protestant vs Catholic thing. Which is how so many contemporary Protestants imagine it. This is a matter of good Christology on the one hand, and bad Christology on the other.

I'm not going to accuse John MacArthur of heresy, because I don't know if he is speaking out of his own personal ignorance, or if he is attempting to undermine the foundational doctrines of the Incarnation. But I think it fair to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is simply ignorant.

The reason for this modern problem isn't, I don't think, because of heresy; but ignorance, it is the all too prevalent problem of theological illiteracy among Christians.

People take issue with this for the same reason people frequently get the doctrine of the Trinity completely wrong.

Saying "Mary isn't the mother of God" is like when I see people argue against the Eternal Generation of the Son. They are ignorant, they have not been taught basic Christian doctrine in such a way that they understand what it is that we confess and believe as Christians.

So the point of my post wasn't to address MacArthur directly, or even indirectly; but rather to give defense of basic Christian doctrine.

To say that Mary is the mother of God is synonymous with saying the Child which Mary bore is God. These statements are identical in meaning.

Understanding that is key to healing this particular theological confusion.

-CryptoLutheran

The problem being expressed by MacArthur is what's attached to "Mother of God" regarding Mary herself. Does her being the mother of God mean she is the "Queen of Heaven"? Or that she should be prayed to? And it isn't mother of God, but rather Mother of God, as if that's her royal title.

 

[Servus]

In one of his prophecy books, he actually wrote that “apostasy in the Bible does not mean ‘apostasy’.”

His self-given title of “chancellor” is a fancy word for “Lord.” (He likes being called that)

Interestingly, his name also appears as part of the title of the Bible he publishes- with his words added to it. I’ve never even seen Jesus’ Name on a bible before… (of course, I may be blowing this out of proportion, but I don’t think so!)

We have a local radio ministry for men where I’m at, and a few weeks ago, they unashamedly changed all their doctrinal references to phrases commonly spoken by mcarthur (& his contemporaries in that movement)

MacArthur doesn't call himself a prophet, and neither do those who attend Grace Community church. MacArthur produced a study Bible. So have many other pastors. It just means that person put together the study materials that go along with that Bible. Does King James Version Bible imply that King James wrote the Bible? Also there's not a MacArthur movement, just like there wasn't a Charles Stanley movement.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The problem being expressed by MacArthur is what's attached to "Mother of God" regarding Mary herself. Does her being the mother of God mean she is the "Queen of Heaven"?

Only if understood in the appropriate sense that the mother of a king is a queen. But, also, there are ways to have a conversation--with the nuances deserving of that conversation--over appropriate veneration of Mary and inappropriate.

I believe there is a rightful way to honor Mary, and I also believe that there are ways which Rome has gone too far; dulia vs hyperdulia, basically.

What we can't do is throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Or that she should be prayed to?

As a Lutheran I don't practice invoking of the saints for their prayer; but I do believe that the Blessed and Holy Theotokos, like all the saints in heaven, pray for us.

And it isn't mother of God, but rather Mother of God, as if that's her royal title.

Whether one uses a lower-case 'm' or upper-case 'M' is probably irrelevant here. At that point we're talking about a quirk of English. The use of an upper-case 'M' would indicate a proper noun, while a lower-case 'm' would indicate a regular noun, and a descriptor. I don't really think that's a significant issue to be worried about.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Neostarwcc]

How can one prove the audio is his? Anyone can post audio and say that's MacArthur speaking when that is not proven.


Furthermore, Apostle Paul gave this warning for all Christians...

Col 2:18
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
KJV

Paul said there by worshipping angels your "reward" can be beguiled.

We are to worship The Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, and that does NOT mean to include worship of Lord Jesus' flesh mother Mary.

Because it's on his website. Grace to you (or gty) is his ministry.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The problem being expressed by MacArthur is what's attached to "Mother of God" regarding Mary herself. Does her being the mother of God mean she is the "Queen of Heaven"? Or that she should be prayed to? And it isn't mother of God, but rather Mother of God, as if that's her royal title.

Do you reject a true thing that you know is true just because there are correlated things you disapprove of?