Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[Mark Quayle]

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"?

Here's a good example/description of what you are claiming is not happening with Mariology. My posts, to you, suggest that people worship Mary as God. You think I'm disingenuous to call "not worship as God", "worship".

You think that if it isn't "worship as God" it isn't worship. I think it easily can be, and in some cases, is. Some people don't even exalt God above the level of Mary. To them, he's just another divine being. Well, Mary isn't a divine being. I think you're disingenuous to claim "worship" has to be "worship as God".

When the veneration and adoration (not just honor), reaches the level as what was written about in the article, yeah, "Worship" is the right word. Maybe it's time to enter another word into the fray, "superstition".

 

[hedrick]

That the baby Mary had was actually God the eternal Son of the Father and that consequently Mary was the mother of God. Are you accepting or rejecting that? MacArthur seems to reject at least some of that. The syllogism is pretty direct. A.) Mary was the mother of a child named Jesus. B.) Jesus is fully human but also fully eternal God from the moment of conception in her womb. Therefore C.) Mary was the mother of God. MacArthur says 'no'. Nestorius also said 'no'. Traditional Christians of all sorts say 'yes'. What say you?

It's not as clear as it looks. Chalcedon says Mary bore Christ according to his manhood, although it also calls her Mother of God. So it is apparently orthodox to connect the birth with the humanity specifically. Orthodox Christology has always recognized that certain actions of Jesus are associated primarily with his humanity, even though they are done by the single divine/human person. Considering his birth to be one of those doesn't imply denying that Jesus is God. Denying that Mary is mother of God contradicts Chalcedon, so it's by definition heretical. But it may not imply any real problem with Christology. You'd want to see more about MacArthur's Christology to judge that.

I think a lot of Protestants, not all of them ignorant, consider Mother of God to be more Mariology than Christology, both in the original historical context and now. But that doesn't necessarily imply anything about their Christology.

 

[notworthconsideration]

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

I also encourage people with, “Teachers are powerless without itching ears.” A talented, educated person can influence a culture- as a deceiver, or as one deceived.
I think he actually believes most of what he says. I used to listen to him, read his books, etc….. his “tone” changes based on topics… if it’s his pet doctrine, he speaks down on others & engages an authoritative tone, almost demanding adherence to (his) rational thinking.
He has actually made comments and expressions focused on “belittling’ of his audience if they believe anything other that what he teaches.
I also realized that his interpretations of end times prophecies use manipulative phrases and serve only to distract from more important things.
LOL, don’t ask how I know that; but, I can analyze his handwriting and facial expressions also! (leftover skillset from previous life)

 

[ViaCrucis]

Already been through that. And since you're repeating yourself, I'll repeat myself. No, they are not the same.

What's the difference?

Let's try some other examples:

Susan is the mother of Billy.
Susan's child is Billy.

Are these different?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

Would it be too mariological to say that Jesus was the child of Mary? Or that Mary was the mother of Jesus? Just checking.

Can you then correct this syllogism? A.) Mary was the mother of Jesus. B.) Mary was NOT the mother of God. Because mariology. C.) Jesus was not God, at least not at his conception or his birth.

I look forward to seeing how this works for you.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You think I'm disingenuous to call "not worship as God", "worship".

I think your readers likely believe that when you write "worship" you intend "worship as God" or maybe (in a few cases) "worship as a goddess".

You think that if it isn't "worship as God" it isn't worship

Odd that you wrote that when I said exactly the opposite - at least as far as Catholic vocabulary goes - for Catholics and for many English speaking people "worship" need not imply worship as God nor worship as a goddess. When a lawyer in court calls a judge "your worship" the word is clearly being used with no implication that the judge is God or a god. What is meant is that the judge is venerable and due honour and deference because of his/her office. similarly one may worship Blessed Mary, venerate her, because of her role as mother of the Lord, Jesus Christ (aka mother of God).

Some people don't even exalt God above the level of Mary. To them, he's just another divine being.

Who, specifically, says this or means it, or does it? Name these alleged teachers or pew filling faithful who say that Blessed Mary is God and that the Blessed Trinity is just another divine being?

I think you're disingenuous to claim "worship" has to be "worship as God".

When the veneration and adoration (not just honor), reaches the level as what was written about in the article, yeah, "Worship" is the right word. Maybe it's time to enter another word into the fray, "superstition".

With that your post has overstepped the bounds of civil discourse.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Would it be too mariological to say that Jesus was the child of Mary? Or that Mary was the mother of Jesus? Just checking.

I Agree with your approach insofar as it highlights the razor one is walking when one tries to deny that Mary is the mother of God.

I think that Arius' followers would agree to the quote above; that is why the formula of Chalcedon made it explicit as Mary is theotokos which means she bore God in her womb and is hence the mother of God. They wanted to leave no wriggle room for the Arians to claim they were maintaining the faith of the Catholic Church.

 

[notworthconsideration]

Would it be too mariological to say that Jesus was the child of Mary? Or that Mary was the mother of Jesus? Just checking.

Can you then correct this syllogism? A.) Mary was the mother of Jesus. B.) Mary was NOT the mother of God. Because mariology. C.) Jesus was not God, at least not at his conception or his birth.

I look forward to seeing how this works for you.

Not sure if this helps, it’s similar to how I’ve explained it at times.

Mary is a child of God the Father, To say she birthed God would be claiming she existed before the father.
Mary gave birth to a human son who, at 30 yrs of age, was given the fullness of the Spirit of God to dwell in him. Three + years later, His body went up to permanently be God-with-us in a human form.
He wasn’t God when He was born, He had to become worthy as a human first.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No saints including the Apostles have such a lofty title bestowed upon them such as Blessed and Holy Theotokos.

How about the Blessed and Holy Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ? Or the Blessed and Holy James the Brother of God?

Well I'd refer to how it's rendered in Greek using a lexicon, but that can't be done in this case since it doesn't appear in scripture.

In older Greek it's Ματηρ Θεού, modern Greek Μήτηρ Θεού.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[chevyontheriver]

Not sure if this helps, it’s similar to how I’ve explained it at times.

Mary is a child of God the Father, To say she birthed God would be claiming she existed before the father.

Which is a claim supported by zero Catholics and zero Orthodox and zero traditional Christians.

Mary gave birth to a human son who, at 30 yrs of age, was given the fullness of the Spirit of God to dwell in him. Three + years later, His body went up to permanently be God-with-us in a human form.
He wasn’t God when He was born, He had to become worthy as a human first.

At least your position is consistent with the belief that Mary was not the mother of God. Kudos for consistency on that. But your position is not orthodox Christianity. That requires that Jesus was the divine person of the eternal Son of the Father now also a fully human being, those things united in a being that was both fully God and fully human.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Denying that Mary is mother of God contradicts Chalcedon, so it's by definition heretical.

Contradiction with Chalcedon = heretical?

 

[chevyontheriver]

With that your post has overstepped the bounds of civil discourse.

And I believe has also violated the SOP.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What's the difference?

Let's try some other examples:

Susan is the mother of Billy.
Susan's child is Billy.

Are these different?

-CryptoLutheran

If the logic is reasonable to say that "Mary is the mother of Jesus" is the same as to say, "Mary is the mother of God", you may as well say "Mary is the mother of the Father and the Spirit".

This is becoming inane. Good day to you.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Contradiction with Chalcedon = heretical?

By definition. Of course the successors to the Reformation have myriad different opinions about that and many call the other successors heretics over all sorts of other things. Or tolerate all sorts of heresies they have never even heard of.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If the logic is reasonable to say that "Mary is the mother of Jesus" is the same as to say, "Mary is the mother of God", you may as well say "Mary is the mother of the Father and the Spirit".

Except that no Catholic or Orthodox or Traditional Christian would ever say or think such a thing. THAT would be inane. But it’s not even a thing except in the minds of a few Protestants.

 

[Servus]

How about the Blessed and Holy Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ? Or the Blessed and Holy James the Brother of God?

That's the first time I've encountered those.

In older Greek it's Ματηρ Θεού, modern Greek Μήτηρ Θεού.

-CryptoLutheran

Is that from a lexicon of the bible?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
Contradiction with Chalcedon = heretical?

By definition. Of course the successors to the Reformation have myriad different opinions about that and many call the other successors heretics over all sorts of other things. Or tolerate all sorts of heresies they have never even heard of.

What in the world is Chalcedon to be The Truth? I very much like the WCF but I don't consider it The Truth.

Conversely, does "Heretical" = "Disagrees with Chalcedon"?

Like the WCF, Chalcedon presents "a way to put it". It may be very good, but heresy is contradiction with Scripture, not contradiction with Chalcedon.

 

[notworthconsideration]

Which is a claim supported by zero Catholics and zero Orthodox and zero traditional Christians.

At least your position is consistent with the belief that Mary was not the mother of God. Kudos for consistency on that. But your position is not orthodox Christianity. That requires that Jesus was the divine person of the eternal Son of the Father now also a fully human being, those things united in a being that was both fully God and fully human.

I’m anything but orthodox, lol. But that was the only aspect I wanted to speak on. Thanks.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Contradiction with Chalcedon = heretical?

Depending on whether it is merely a semantic contradiction or a substantial contradiction.

The Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox aren't heretics because they don't deny the substance of what Chalcedon was saying. The difference between the Non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians is merely semantic as it pertains to what is meant by the word physis/physeon.

Chalcedon's formula is that Christ is one Person and Hypostasis of two natures (ek dyo physeon); where "nature" or physis correlates with the two ousie of Christ, God and human. That Christ is consubstantial (homousion) with the Father as God, and consubstantial (homoousion) with us as human. Thus Christ, as God and human, is one undivided Person of two natures.

The Oriental Orthodox say Christ is one Person and Hypostasis of one nature (ek mia physis); where "nature" or physis correlates with His Person and Hypostasis. The two ousie of Christ, God and human, are united but unmixed and unconfused in His undivided Person and physis.

Both Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians condemn Eutychianism as heretical; wherein Eutychus taught (wrongly) that the divinity has swallowed up the humanity and resulted in a new, single nature (mono physis).

Thus both affirm, contra Nestorius and Eutychus: The one undivided Jesus Christ, both God and man without confusion and without division. The formulas of ek dyo physeon and ek mia physis being different only in their semantics, not in their essential meaning.

It is heretical to deny that Jesus Christ is one Person who is both God and man without confusion or separation, yes. Which is what the term Theotokos is all about: Mary was not the mother of a nature (humanity) as Nestorianism implied, but she is the mother of the Person, Jesus Christ, who is both God and man.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Mark Quayle said:
Contradiction with Chalcedon = heretical?

What in the world is Chalcedon to be The Truth? I very much like the WCF but I don't consider it The Truth.

Conversely, does "Heretical" = "Disagrees with Chalcedon"?

Like the WCF, Chalcedon presents "a way to put it". It may be very good, but heresy is contradiction with Scripture, not contradiction with Chalcedon.

The Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is one Person who is both God and man. To deny this--to deny the essence of what Chalcedon was trying to say--is to deny the Scriptures.

-CryptoLutheran