Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[chevyontheriver]

Jesus Christ being God is not based on any title given or not given to Mary.

Jesus Christ being God is ONLY possible if His human mother was the mother of God. Unless you are some sort of unorthodox adoptionist.

 

[Servus]

Jesus Christ being God is ONLY possible if His human mother was the mother of God. Unless you are some sort of unorthodox adoptionist.

The way I see it, the incarnation of God couldn't have come into existence without having been formed in a human womb. Unless perhaps the incarnation of God could have been formed out of dust the way Adam was.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I was surmising what the complaint is, considering that's the universal complaint against mariology.

I know that was your endevour, though the complaint is very far from universal with well over 50% of Christians rejecting it outright and probably another 25% rejecting it for all sorts of good reasons.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That means that as far as I can tell, it amounts to worship. I don't mean exalting her to the status of God

Okay, now we're nearer the truth; many Catholics do indeed venerate Blessed Mary, I do, but I do not worship Blessed Mary as God and am appalled at the suggestion that I, or the many mentioned above, do or may do so, as your posts have suggested.

It seems now, from the quote above, that you do not really think Catholics worship Blessed Mary as God, so what is your complaint? Is it a sin, in your view, to honour and venerate one who the scriptures say shall be called blessed by all generations? What was the intention of those posts you wrote to complain about Catholics worshipping Mary if worship does not mean "worship as God"?

 

[Servus]

I know that was your endevour, though the complaint is very far from universal with well over 50% of Christians rejecting it outright and probably another 25% rejecting it for all sorts of good reasons.

I wasn't saying it's a compliant that's universal among all Christians. I was saying the complaint is universal among those who have a complaint against mariology. Although I was speaking figuratively rather than stating the literal mathematical statistics of it. Put another way, most Protestants that I know of, don't attribute anything to Mary that's not clearly stated about her in scripture.

Although I myself am willing to go the extra mile and include not attributing anything to Mary outside of the writings of the early church fathers as well.

 

[Servus]

Okay, now we're nearer the truth; many Catholics do indeed venerate Blessed Mary, I do, but I do not worship Blessed Mary as God and am appalled at the suggestion that I, or the many mentioned above, do or may do so, as your posts have suggested.

It seems now, from the quote above, that you do not really think Catholics worship Blessed Mary as God, so what is your complaint? Is it a sin, in your view, to honour and venerate one who the scriptures say shall be called blessed by all generations? What was the intention of those posts you wrote to complain about Catholics worshipping Mary if worship does not mean "worship as God"?

A problem arises in that synonyms of "venerate" are "worship" and "deify".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I wasn't saying it's a compliant that's universal among all Christians. I was saying the complaint is universal among those who have a complaint against mariology. Although I was speaking figuratively rather than stating the literal mathematical statistics of it. Put another way, most Protestants that I know of, don't attribute anything to Mary that's not clearly stated about her in scripture.

Although I myself am willing to go the extra mile and include not attributing anything to Mary outside of the writings of the early church fathers as well.

Yes, well you are being reasonable. It's okay for people to say "I do not like the veneration of Mary because <insert reasons here>"; that's fair enough, no one really expects a Protestant to agree with everything that Catholics teach and do, but it is nice when those who disagree are reasonable about it. As you will have noticed, some leave matters undefined and use the ambiguity to make complaints like John MacArthur's complaints and such complaints led Mr MacArthur to say that Catholics are not Christians, he took the ambiguity in words like 'worship' and venerate and elevated it into doctrine that then enabled him to make the spurious claims that he made.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A problem arises in that synonyms of "venerate" are "worship" and "deify".

That's not really a problem, all one need do is ask; just ask the Catholic who has used the word, "what does venerate mean when you use it of Mary?" - the idea is that asking removes the ambiguity in the mind of the one asking, the Catholic being asked more than likely sees no ambiguity because for him/her 'venerate' means to honour and reverence, like one might honour and venerate a national founder or some other important figure in a nation's story.

 

[Servus]

Yes, well you are being reasonable. It's okay for people to say "I do not like the veneration of Mary because <insert reasons here>"; that's fair enough, no one really expects a Protestant to agree with everything that Catholics teach and do, but it is nice when those who disagree are reasonable about it. As you will have noticed, some leave matters undefined and use the ambiguity to make complaints like John MacArthur's complaints and such complaints led Mr MacArthur to say that Catholics are not Christians, he took the ambiguity in words like 'worship' and venerate and elevated it into doctrine that then enabled him to make the spurious claims that he made.

I definitely agree that there are plenty of Protestants who are unreasonable and defamatory in how they regard and portray the Catholic Church. And I'm sure there's a vice versa to that as well.

Personally I don't understand MacArthur condemning Catholic soteriology as being works based salvation, when the "Lordship Salvation" model he teaches seems to practically teach the same thing.

I came to realize that when I was debating the doctrine of "free grace" (taking that position for the sake of debate) with a Catholic and realizing everything he said, sounded just like "Lordship Salvation".

 

[Servus]

That's not really a problem, all one need do is ask; just ask the Catholic who has used the word, "what does venerate mean when you use it of Mary?" - the idea is that asking removes the ambiguity in the mind of the one asking, the Catholic being asked more than likely sees no ambiguity because for him/her 'venerate' means to honour and reverence, like one might honour and venerate a national founder or some other important figure in a nation's story.

Most people are inclined to go with how words sound and practices appear. I came to understand the practice of Mariology from the Catholic point of view, but only after I scratched the surface and delved into it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And I'm sure there's a vice versa to that as well.

The surprising thing for me as a convert to Catholicism from Presbyterianism, is that Catholics almost never speak about Protestants and the few that do want to now what Protestants teach and why some, Baptists in particular, speak so harshly about Catholics to them. But I live in Australia and maybe the USA is a bit different.

Personally I don't understand MacArthur condemning Catholic soteriology as being works based salvation, when the "Lordship Salvation" model he teaches seems to practically teach the same thing.

I came to realize that when I was debating the doctrine of "free grace" (taking that position for the sake of debate) with a Catholic and realizing everything he said, sounded just like "Lordship Salvation".

When I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church it seems very clear that Catholics teach salvation by grace apart from works of the law and works of righteousness. One is saved by grace through faith, as the scripture in Paul's letter says. At the same time Jesus said, If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and remain in his love, and who does not desire to remain in both the Father's love and the love of Jesus? So, like Paul said in another of his letters, work out your own salvation in fear and trembling, because you know that it is God who works in you. The notion that salvation is faith alone is a mistake, just like the idea that salvation is works alone is a mistake. Gregory the Great, a pope, wrote, The proof of love is in the works. Where love exists, it works great things. But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist, and that is also true of faith since the two cannot exist alone.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Most people are inclined to go with how words sound and practices appear. I came to understand the practice of Mariology from the Catholic point of view, but only after I scratched the surface and delved into it.

Had you asked me, I would have made your journey to enlightenment shorter

 

[notworthconsideration]

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.

I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have added anything after the comment on his ‘apostasy doesn’t mean apostasy.’ I got carried away.

I wasn’t implying a movement, but I’m sure I was thinking “fan base,” as people won’t buy John McArthur name-brand products unless they like John Mcarthur, specifically.

And yes, kings and queens do have bibles dedicated to them, which is how his name was errantly placed in the title.
I guess I just realized I find it repulsive that men knowingly put their names on God’s Word and receive royalties whenever someone buys the one with their name on it. And making a ‘study Bible,’ is nothing other than “adding words” to scripture… I know, it’s like a commentary, but it allows for ‘unique perspectives’ to influence people toward a ‘way of thinking.’ Mac has that sway on people.
I guess it just bothers me, for whatever reason…

I didn’t mean to go off topic by responding, I apologize.

((But, I have always wondered why Jesus’ brother Jacob is called ‘James’ when it’s recognizable in Greek, and well in Hebrew, as ‘Jacob.’ ))

 

[The Liturgist]

Jesus Christ being God is not based on any title given or not given to Mary.

I am afraid you have it quite backwards. Because Jesus Christ is God, and Mary is His mother, it therefore follows that St. Mary is the Mother of God, as @MarkRohfrietsch would insist I remind everyone that Martin Luther asserted.


One thing I don’t understand, as an aside, is why some Protestants feel the need to function outside the theological excellence and consistency of Anglicanism and Lutheranism (which are the the two largest Protestant traditions, and the third and fourth largest after Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism; Calvinism and Reformed Protestantism is in fifth place in terms of size(. As I see it, Lutheranism of the evangelical catholic variety and high church Anglicanism represent a proportionate response to the excesses of the 16th century Roman church while retaining enough commonality with the Early Church and what early Calvinists liked to call the consensus patrum so as to facilitate ecumenical reconciliation with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East.

But when one goes beyond that into some of the more radical Protestant denominations, there seems to be a shift in focus from mere reform of certain Roman errors to discarding anything deemed even remotely “Catholic”, and this approach is logically fallacious, in that it assumes that because Roman Catholics believe x and practice y, x and y must be in error. We see the most extreme example of this in the SDA and the Landmark Baptists seeking to claim various heretical sects like the Albigensians, Paulicans, Bogomils, Montanists and others as proto-Protestants, despite there being theologically almost nothing in common, and the actual beliefs of these early sects being rather frightful to all Christians who research them in earnest (for example, the Paulican Book of Keys, fragments of which survive, is beyond off-putting).

 

[The Liturgist]

Jesus Christ being God is ONLY possible if His human mother was the mother of God. Unless you are some sort of unorthodox adoptionist.

Or a Nestorian. Of course one could argue that Nestorianism is crypto-adoptionism. It certainly violates the Chalcedonian-Oriental Orthodox-Assyrian consensus that our Lord is fully human and fully divine, without change, confusion, separation or division of His divinity and humanity. Monophysitism, which was practiced by Eutyches, but never by the Oriental Orthodox, who in fact wound up having to anathematize him, had the same effect, and the Monophysites degenerated into tritheism before becoming extinct.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

if he denies that Mary is the Mother of God, that Mary is the Theotokos

this is denying Christ is God which is what the people that embrace eternal subordination of the son hold. Thus we are also eternally subordinated (as announced by some eminent pulpiteer) and our gifts in our lives are vetoed.

... I admired his previous work against charismatic worship with the Strange Fire concept ... his really nasty remarks about Dr. Hank Haanegraaf after the latter converted along with his famiy to Eastern Orthodoxy, despite the fact that Haanegraaf at the time was fighting cancer.

Either he was disingenuous (if I'm allowed to put the hypothesis so strongly) to oppose charismata in ordinary living under cover of staged induced excesses by his peers, or he fell for the fallacy of extending the sometime quality of the part to the entire existence of the whole. Couple that with a false puritan idea that intellect is a luxury, and we have the triple whammy almost universal now. All these ideas go back to Tertullian, or the scene of St Paul, or years BC: read Jeremiah's account of God's views on Josiah's revival.

This intermeshes with the thread about power over others and the portrayal of God.

 

[Servus]

I am afraid you have it quite backwards. Because Jesus Christ is God, and Mary is His mother, it therefore follows that St. Mary is the Mother of God, as @MarkRohfrietsch would insist I remind everyone that Martin Luther asserted.

Well it seems like what's been implied is that if you won't call Mary the "Mother of God" you're denying that Jesus is God, which is what I find backwards. It kind of feels like coercion to get onboard with Mariology.

One thing I don’t understand, as an aside, is why some Protestants feel the need to function outside the theological excellence and consistency of Anglicanism and Lutheranism (which are the the two largest Protestant traditions, and the third and fourth largest after Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism; Calvinism and Reformed Protestantism is in fifth place in terms of size(. As I see it, Lutheranism of the evangelical catholic variety and high church Anglicanism represent a proportionate response to the excesses of the 16th century Roman church while retaining enough commonality with the Early Church and what early Calvinists liked to call the consensus patrum so as to facilitate ecumenical reconciliation with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East.

But when one goes beyond that into some of the more radical Protestant denominations, there seems to be a shift in focus from mere reform of certain Roman errors to discarding anything deemed even remotely “Catholic”, and this approach is logically fallacious, in that it assumes that because Roman Catholics believe x and practice y, x and y must be in error. We see the most extreme example of this in the SDA and the Landmark Baptists seeking to claim various heretical sects like the Albigensians, Paulicans, Bogomils, Montanists and others as proto-Protestants, despite there being theologically almost nothing in common, and the actual beliefs of these early sects being rather frightful to all Christians who research them in earnest (for example, the Paulican Book of Keys, fragments of which survive, is beyond off-putting).

As I see it a lot of the time it depends on either what one's background is growing up or what type of denomonation they're introduced to starting out. I grew up with evangelical and charismatic churches, so that's what I'm used to. But I do enjoy listening to and talking with Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Servus]

I myself have had a bad taste in my mouth concerning MacArthur since his really nasty remarks about Dr. Hank Haanegraaf after the latter converted along with his famiy to Eastern Orthodoxy, despite the fact that Haanegraaf at the time was fighting cancer.

I didn't care for that at all either.

 

[Servus]

I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have added anything after the comment on his ‘apostasy doesn’t mean apostasy.’ I got carried away.

I wasn’t implying a movement, but I’m sure I was thinking “fan base,” as people won’t buy John McArthur name-brand products unless they like John Mcarthur, specifically.

And yes, kings and queens do have bibles dedicated to them, which is how his name was errantly placed in the title.
I guess I just realized I find it repulsive that men knowingly put their names on God’s Word and receive royalties whenever someone buys the one with their name on it. And making a ‘study Bible,’ is nothing other than “adding words” to scripture… I know, it’s like a commentary, but it allows for ‘unique perspectives’ to influence people toward a ‘way of thinking.’ Mac has that sway on people.
I guess it just bothers me, for whatever reason…

I didn’t mean to go off topic by responding, I apologize.

((But, I have always wondered why Jesus’ brother Jacob is called ‘James’ when it’s recognizable in Greek, and well in Hebrew, as ‘Jacob.’ ))

It's okay, no problem. I've heard far worse than that about MacArthur before lol.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

movement

As an aside (and agreeing with you both) there is a big movement through the unaccountable TGC and ESS