Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[Mark Quayle]

Chalcedon's declaration is, in content, rather like the second part of the Athanasian Creed, can a Christian deny the incarnation and still be orthodox?

and the Athanasian creed says

That's fine. But to say that heretically disagreeing with the Scripture is the same as to heretically disagree with the Chalcedon, is, to me, at least, pretty doggone close to heresy itself. Chalcedon, WCF, nor anyone else besides the Bible, is Scripture.

I'd rather think that was poorly chosen wording or confused thinking, than to call it heresy.

 

[dzheremi]

And this means that the Blessed and Holy Elizabeth carrying the Blessed and Holy John the Baptist, and the Blessed and Holy Mary carrying God in her womb, are —specially the Blessed and Holy Mary— to adored and venerated more even than the Blessed and Holy Saints approved of and designated so by the Blessed and Holy Magisterium, or by whoever decides who is a Saint, as opposed to the common believer, for us to emulate and pray to for their help? The whole business feels (granted, 'to me') like superstitious religiosity.

Not religiosity in a religion, of all places!

Superstition is an interesting charge, given that it relies on an in-group/out-group dynamic in such a way that makes it meaningless in cross-communal discussions like this one. It's a bit like the use of "cult" as a pejorative, in that way: You or I may be able to martial millions to our side concerning what is a superstition or what is a cult, but when the "superstition-believing" side of the debate is still many, many times larger than that (as it definitely is, since the Catholics, Orthodox, and more traditional Protestants if taken together undoubtedly make up the lion's share of all Christianity that there is), it really calls into question who is actually acting and believing outside of the norm. The answer to that question doesn't get any better for the "Everything I don't like or understand is automatically foolish superstition" crowd when we look at things from a historical view, either, as I just attempted to demonstrate against the ignorance of Ordinary Christian regarding who is doing what and why and when. Put simply: It's the vast majority of Christians since the beginning of the faith insofar as we can refer to the written records of the same (read: not just "the Bible", which doesn't even exist as many Protestants would have it in the first place, due to differences in canon even within communions) affirming a shared theology and practice on some very specific points that later people (e.g., Nestorius, Wulfilas, now this McArthur guy, etc.) would take issue with, versus people like this McArthur guy, you, Ordinary Christian, and doubtlessly others who for some reason think it is necessary to justify the wheel (please note I'm putting it this way because no heterodox party ever thinks that they are creating something new). In reality, that is neither necessary or helpful, and your hoary old appeal to the supposed 'superstition' of those who are actually following the faith of our fathers and mothers is noted, and rejected as easily as the dust we are told to knock from our feet when the truth is not received.

Don't worry; our descendants will get a broom and pan to clean up the future iteration of this forum after everyone who has a problem with Christianity in the supposed name of Christianity has moved on to whatever better satisfies their roving intellects.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I use the term heretical to refer to violations of widely accepted standards. Otherwise it becomes simply a way to say that I disagree with something. Since Protestants don't consider those standards to be inerrant, that’s not necessarily the same thing as being wrong. However discussing possible errors in Chalcedon or Nicea would not be possible in this forum, nor in my opinion would MacArthur be likely to intend to hold heretical beliefs.

My reading of not just this, but other statements is that MacArthur intends to be orthodox but isn’t very careful about what he says. When discussing the Trinity and Incarnation it is very easy to use a word that at first glance seems right, but actually is heretical. Indeed it is very hard to say anything that is not a quotation from an accepted authority without opening oneself to plausible accusations of heresy. For example, my experience here is that almost every posting in CF purporting to explain or justify the Trinity is actually heretical, or at least can plausibly be accused of such. MacArthur, however, seems to be less careful about this than you’d expect from a well known supposedly conservative teacher

You have a point. (However, someone who, in the eyes of many, is representative of Calvinism/Reformed Theologians, who speaks hours per week, and writes volumes, can hardly help but misspeak. While I'm not saying he misspoke here, I'm saying he should not be blamed if he did. We all do it.)

But I have noticed with him and even more with John Piper, the employment of shock value in their communication. There is in all of us a tendency toward hyperbole, and this, heard from the POV of those inclined to find fault with what McA and JP say, will be taken as false or heretical or incoherent, and that, almost always presented to the rest of us, out of context.

I wouldn't be much surprised if, for example, CS Lewis' own carefully spoken prose and edited volumes still contained things that his detractors jeered at, that he, by clever use of phrase, wrote to re-posit Biblical principles that Christendom didn't (and still doesn't) consider; it would be hard to deny he had a unique point of view that would be hard to disprove Biblically. But small things he said, taken out of context, I can argue all day long.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Now that is heretical! Our LOrd is not a man who was also God. The idea itself is repellent. He is wholly God and wholly man. He can't be taken to bits and diferent parts isolated.

I reckon I'd worry about the log in my own eye first.

Thanks for the measurement. What I said, did not deny that he, being wholly man, was not wholly God. But God the Son, had no beginning with Mary. THAT is heretical. And that is all that I, and, I think, John McA were getting at, which I think you very well know, but want to find fault.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not religiosity in a religion, of all places!

Superstition is an interesting charge, given that it relies on an in-group/out-group dynamic in such a way that makes it meaningless in cross-communal discussions like this one. It's a bit like the use of "cult" as a pejorative, in that way: You or I may be able to martial millions to our side concerning what is a superstition or what is a cult, but when the "superstition-believing" side of the debate is still many, many times larger than that (as it definitely is, since the Catholics, Orthodox, and more traditional Protestants if taken together undoubtedly make up the lion's share of all Christianity that there is), it really calls into question who is actually acting and believing outside of the norm. The answer to that question doesn't get any better for the "Everything I don't like or understand is automatically foolish superstition" crowd when we look at things from a historical view, either, as I just attempted to demonstrate against the ignorance of Ordinary Christian regarding who is doing what and why and when. Put simply: It's the vast majority of Christians since the beginning of the faith insofar as we can refer to the written records of the same (read: not just "the Bible", which doesn't even exist as many Protestants would have it in the first place, due to differences in canon even within communions) affirming a shared theology and practice on some very specific points that later people (e.g., Nestorius, Wulfilas, now this McArthur guy, etc.) would take issue with, versus people like this McArthur guy, you, Ordinary Christian, and doubtlessly others who for some reason think it is necessary to justify the wheel (please note I'm putting it this way because no heterodox party ever thinks that they are creating something new). In reality, that is neither necessary or helpful, and your hoary old appeal to the supposed 'superstition' of those who are actually following the faith of our fathers and mothers is noted, and rejected as easily as the dust we are told to knock from our feet when the truth is not received.

Don't worry; our descendants will get a broom and pan to clean up the future iteration of this forum after everyone who has a problem with Christianity in the supposed name of Christianity has moved on to whatever better satisfies their roving intellects.

By religiosity, as I expect you knew, I meant the excessive attendance to periferal activity at best tangential to the Gospel and the Norms of Orthodoxy. Admittedly, I may be wrong, but I have not taken Orthodoxy to promote undue honor and veneration to Mary.

Now if one wants to admit into the whole of the meaning of the term, 'Orthodoxy', those who have from long, long ago promoted undue honor and veneration to Mary, then ok. But I don't consider Catholicism nor Easter Orthodox in their several flavors to represent Orthodoxy.

And of course, it is a matter of opinion, practice and habit what one considers "undue" and "excessive", and I suppose that is what I've been saying all along —my opinion is that what I objected to is that it is excessive, and undue. I don't trust the trappings of Religiosity.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks for the measurement. What I said, did not deny that he, being wholly man, was not wholly God. But God the Son, had no beginning with Mary. THAT is heretical. And that is all that I, and, I think, John McA were getting at, which I think you very well know, but want to find fault.

I agree that this was likely the intent.

 

[dzheremi]

By religiosity, as I expect you knew, I meant the excessive attendance to periferal activity at best tangential to the Gospel and the Norms of Orthodoxy.

And since when is this distinction between what is 'peripheral' and what is not to be decided by someone not involved in the particular Church or churches under consideration?

Good gravy, I'm an anti-Chalcedonian (...so much better than merely being a non-Chalcedonian!), and yet you still don't find me or anyone of my ilk telling the Chalcedonians that whatever specific thing they may believe or do is 'peripheral' or 'tangential to the Gospel and the Norms of Orthodoxy'. Why? Because I'm not a member of their churches, and it is obvious enough that it is because we have different ideas of what constitutes the 'norms of Orthodoxy' to begin with that we remain separate. In that particular case, it is the Tome and some of the things following from later councils that they held without our participation that continue to keep us apart down to today, but it should not be too difficult to imagine in the same vein why those same churches would say in one voice that the veneration of the holy Theotokos St. Mary, the intercession of saints, and many other things that Protestants object to are in fact crucial to the norms of Orthodoxy.

So really, on what basis do you think you or your opinions have a seat at their respective tables even hypothetically (as in a discussion like this one) if you cannot commune as one in faith with them precisely due to those opinions which violate their norms of Orthodox belief and practice? I'm sorry if that question comes off as rude or dismissive, but I mean it in the same sense that I could say that the Protestant bodies for their part are likewise not inviting Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox to clear out everything that those churches see as wrong in what you guys do or believe (nor should you, in my opinion; every church should have its own basis on which to be a church, even if the result is not something I can sign up with myself).

I may be wrong, but I have not taken Orthodoxy to promote undue honor and veneration to Mary.

No, you are correct about that. Some people seem to think it does, but that's neither here nor there. Some people follow Nestorius, and some even follow Alexander Hislop. There's no accounting for some people.

Now if one wants to admit into the whole of the meaning of the term, 'Orthodoxy', those who have from long, long ago promoted undue honor and veneration to Mary, then ok. But I don't consider Catholicism nor Easter Orthodox in their several flavors to represent Orthodoxy.

I'm sure the Chalcedonians are crushed at this highly unexpected and unusual revelation.

And of course, it is a matter of opinion, practice and habit what one considers "undue" and "excessive", and I suppose that is what I've been saying all along —my opinion is that what I objected to is that it is excessive, and undue. I don't trust the trappings of Religiosity.

Again, what any one individual thinks of anything is not the issue. If the popularity of the individual or the stance they put forward were any sort of deciding factor on what the Church actually accepts, then presumably we would all be Arians right now, but that's not how history shows things to have gone.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What you and the others are going on about is that there's an afterlife. No kidding. Now where in scripture does it say to pray or talk to people who are in the afterlife? People, not the Godhead nor angels, but people who are in the afterlife up in heaven. Barring that is there a quote from Clement, Ignacious, Polycarp et al saying to pray to people who are in the afterlife?

I'll take that as a long version of "that doesn't prove a thing". Thanks for the conversation, God bless.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Now where in scripture does it say ...

We've shown you, Moses and Elijah (in the afterlife) conversed with Jesus in the presence of Peter, James, and John. Jesus asserted that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive contrary to the teaching of the Sadducees and his reasoning is that God is the God of the living. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after teaching Martha that those who die and believe shall live and those who believe shall never die; this in the context of Lazarus' death. So, if those do not count nothing will. It does not matter if Judas Maccabeus prayed for the dead, or if Samuel returned from the dead the prophecy, nor does it matter if an angel and Jeremiah prophet spoke, long after he died, to the living. None of that will be sufficient for the kind of scepticism present in your posts . So, as I wrote in another post, I'll take your reply as, "that doesn't prove a thing", and ask the Lord to bless and keep you always in the faith and in his grace, as we part company on good terms.

 

[FenderTL5]

I don't consider Catholicism nor Easter Orthodox in their several flavors to represent Orthodoxy.

I suppose it's a good thing you're not the arbiter of what is Orthodox.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

nor anyone else besides the Bible, is Scripture.

Who said anything else was scripture aside from the scriptures (rather tautological isn't it?).

The Creeds and associated canons count for a lot because they are the scaffolding upon which the structure of Christian teaching is built. As the scriptures indicate, we are all maturing until we reach the fullness of Christ.

 

[Servus]

No. That's false. You have been given scriptural backing, and you know that because you subsequently asked for a specific citation from the Shepherd of Hermas after being told by TheLiturgist that intercessory prayer is explicitly found in it, and that the Shepherd is scripture in the Ethiopian and Eritrean traditions. You were subsequently also given specific reference to Tobit, which is considered canonical in many more churches than the Orthodox churches in East Africa.

You have scriptural backing; you just don't like what it says according to the people who have these books in their Bibles, and so have subsequently decided that this is insufficient or somehow doesn't mean what it has always meant to the Ethiopians, Eritreans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, and so have tried to pacify yourself by stating that we must be sharing what we are sharing here in an effort to 'convince ourselves' that our stances are Biblical and true. That's frankly really doing fellow Christians dirty. There's no way to turn that into a charitable view of how the thread has gone, or even an accurate one.

If you can follow the logic here (by simply acknowledging what has actually been presented already in the thread as coming from scripture according to the churches specified, because it does), that means that it is YOUR OWN FAULT (not anyone else's) that others supposedly haven't met your oh-so-important and not at all self-serving and malleable 'standard'. Maybe if you didn't move the goalposts every time someone brought you what you had previously asked for, you wouldn't need to keep asking for more and more kinds of evidence from people who are less and less likely to want to give it to you. We're not blind to what's going on here, and what you would thereby likely make of patristic references from the likes of St. John Cassian (or, rather, Abba Issac via St. John Cassian), the Apostolic Constitutions, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and the many others who wrote and preached on intercession in the early life of the Church.



Yeah, go figure...I have no idea why that might be the case. Whatever it is, I'm sure it's everyone else's fault for not reaching your standard, up to including the saints from whom we have inherited our ancient anaphoras which are the actual standard of Christian belief in every indisputably apostolic church (that is to say, those of the Romans, the Greeks, the Mesopotamians, the Indians, the Egyptians, the Armenians, etc., etc.).

That's it. Everyone can pack it up and go home now. Some random guy on the internet is unimpressed with our churches and their apostolic foundations and faith. Excuse me while I go replenish the Nile with my tears.

Or...

This is the hymn "Sub Tuum Praesidium" (variously translated as "Beneath Thy Protection/Compassion/Mercy"), which is the oldest extant hymn to St. Mary as Theotokos. It first appears in the historical record in a papyri containing the text of a Coptic (Egyptian) Nativity liturgy, which has been dated to the mid-3rd century (c. 250 AD). This is significant because the most effective voice to challenge what had been established in calling St. Mary Theotokos, the one-time patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius, was not even born until c. 386, and did not come into conflict with the rest of the bishops over this issue until the Council of Ephesus in 431 -- that is to say, almost two centuries after the earliest written evidence we have of this hymn.

Given how this hymn is still recited to this day in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches alike, the idea that this is anything other than acceptable and Orthodox belief and prayer is not sustainable. It was so even before c. 250 AD, of course (as it would be ludicrous to posit a scenario in which these churches, which are culturally, linguistically, and geographically distinct from one another, nevertheless converged on this one hymn which they would all thereafter use to express these beliefs and reinforce these practices which they likewise managed to all invent in like manner), and is to this very day, and will be forever into the future, since of course St. Mary's relation to her Son and Savior does not change.

And so when you read the translation given of the words that are being chanted here, you should be able to recognize this as an authentic source for the very early date at which asking for the intercession of the all-holy Theotokos St. Mary was considered entirely normal and indeed normative. The only earlier hymn to St. Mary in particular that I am aware of would be the annunciation itself (which is worked into various hymns, depending on where you're looking), which is of course actually in the Bible.

So we do actually have definitive proof that the early Christians asked for the intercession of St. Mary in particular, and addressed her as Theotokos long before this begin to be unwisely considered a point of controversy following the whispers into the ears of Nestorius centuries later.

I'm still waiting for a scripture verse or quote from an early church father that says God wants us to pray to people who are in the afterlife up in heaven.

 

[Servus]

We've shown you, Moses and Elijah (in the afterlife) conversed with Jesus in the presence of Peter, James, and John. Jesus asserted that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive contrary to the teaching of the Sadducees and his reasoning is that God is the God of the living. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after teaching Martha that those who die and believe shall live and those who believe shall never die; this in the context of Lazarus' death. So, if those do not count nothing will. It does not matter if Judas Maccabeus prayed for the dead, or is Samuel returned from the dead the prophecy, nor does it matter if an angel and a prophet spoke to the living. None of that will be sufficient for the kind of scepticism present in your posts . So, as I wrote in another post, I'll take your reply as, "that doesn't prove a thing", and ask the Lord to bless and keep you always in the faith and in his grace, as we part company on good terms.

I'm still waiting for a scripture verse or quote from an early church father that says God wants us to pray to people who are in the afterlife.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Westminster Confession of Faith

Thank you. I have read that. An actual unadulterated copy even. I’ll go with the councils though.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks for the measurement. What I said, did not deny that he, being wholly man, was not wholly God. But God the Son, had no beginning with Mary. THAT is heretical. And that is all that I, and, I think, John McA were getting at, which I think you very well know, but want to find fault.

What you are ‘getting at’ is something no Catholic or Orthodox or Traditional Protestant would EVER even think of as a possibility. Simply the Eternal Son of the Father became a human in real time, with a real human mother who birthed a human yet divine person. Not aeons ago but about 2029 years ago give or take a handful. It is craziness to object to this on the basis of a non-existent theoretical heresy that has zero current proponents and may have never had more than a dozen actual proponents ever.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What you are ‘getting at’ is something no Catholic or Orthodox or Traditional Protestant would EVER even think of as a possibility. Simply the Eternal Son of the Father became a human in real time, with a real human mother who birthed a human yet divine person. Not aeons ago but about 2029 years ago give or take a handful. It is craziness to object to this on the basis of a non-existent theoretical heresy that has zero current proponents and may have never had more than a dozen actual proponents ever.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What you are ‘getting at’ is something no Catholic or Orthodox or Traditional Protestant would EVER even think of as a possibility. Simply the Eternal Son of the Father became a human in real time, with a real human mother who birthed a human yet divine person. Not aeons ago but about 2029 years ago give or take a handful. It is craziness to object to this on the basis of a non-existent theoretical heresy that has zero current proponents and may have never had more than a dozen actual proponents ever.

SMH

 

[The Liturgist]

By religiosity, as I expect you knew, I meant the excessive attendance to periferal activity at best tangential to the Gospel and the Norms of Orthodoxy. Admittedly, I may be wrong, but I have not taken Orthodoxy to promote undue honor and veneration to Mary.

Now if one wants to admit into the whole of the meaning of the term, 'Orthodoxy', those who have from long, long ago promoted undue honor and veneration to Mary, then ok. But I don't consider Catholicism nor Easter Orthodox in their several flavors to represent Orthodoxy.

And of course, it is a matter of opinion, practice and habit what one considers "undue" and "excessive", and I suppose that is what I've been saying all along —my opinion is that what I objected to is that it is excessive, and undue. I don't trust the trappings of Religiosity.

@dzheremi is Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox, for reasons which were at the time quite justifiable, did reject the Council of Chalcedon. Now this is in the distant past, and there has been considerable ecumenical rapprochement, in particular between the Syriac Orthodox (OO) and Antiochian Orthodox (EO) and between the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the much smaller Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and All Africa, and also between the Copts and the Church of Sinai which is an autonomous church under the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, in charge of St. Catharine’s Monastery, which has a fantastic library from which the Codex Sinaiticus was stolen, as well as some of the oldest and most beautiful icons, and the celebrated Burning Bush from Exodus, which by its very existence was a typographic prophecy of the Theotokos. And of course the Coptic Orthodox Church has the oldest monasteries in the world, in the form of the Monasteries of St. Paul the Hermit and St. Anthony the Great. The Australian convert Fr. Lazarus el Antony currently lives as an anchorite in the hills above St. Anthony’s and celebrates the Divine Liturgy nightly in St. Anthony’s Cave. Also, the Armenian Orthodox Church enjoys very good relations with most of the Eastern Orthodox churches, except perhaps some of the Greek Orthodox and a few other EO churches which are extremely opposed to ecumenical reconciliation and continue to believe the erroneous myth that the Oriental Orthodox are monophysites (in fact, the Monophysite cult founded by Eutyches degenerated into Tritheism and later became extinct, so the true heirs of the Monophysites at present are the Mormons; Eutyches was anathematized by the Oriental Orthodox for heresy, and the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox is more correctly called Miaphysite, although I myself prefer to call it Cyrillian, for it follows precisely the terminology used by St. Cyril of Alexandria in opposition to Nestorianism).

Now, there are some Ethiopian Orthodox monasteries which are not keen on ecumenical reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox, because they continue to suspect the Chalcedonians of crypto-Nestorianism. The Oriental Orthodox are greatly opposed to Nestorianism, and this thread is basically about whether or not Rev. MacArthur is a Nestorian.

By the way, conventionally, the definition of a heretic is someone who propagates false teachings which contradict the Nicene Creed, or which involve altering the contents of Scripture, or violating the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. The first three ecumenical councils, of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus, are agreed upon by not only the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, but also the Lutherans and Anglicans, thus accounting for the four largest Christian denominations, and a considerable majority of all Christians worldwide. Of course, most of the above also agree with Chalcedon, which the Oriental Orthodox reject, but what wound up happening with Chalcedon is the influence of the Theopaschite party during the early years of Justinian’s reign had the effect of neutralizing and negating the attempts of crypto-Nestorians like Ibas to push a Nestorianizing interpretation of Chalcedon, and in particular, the introduction of the hymn Ho Monogenes, originally written by the great Oriental Orthodox theologian St. Severus of Antioch, into the Eastern Orthodox divine liturgy, ultimately had an effect that I would argue promoted equivalence between Oriental Orthodox and Chalcedonian Christology, so that the differences can be reduced to semantics. And likewise, starting with Mar Babai the Great, the Church of the East began to move away from Nestorianism, so that at present while they still venerate Nestorius, they agree with the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians that the humanity and divinity of Christ exist without change, confusion, separation, or division, the latter two points being particularly important, because at its core, Nestorianism is an error that separates and divides the divinity and humanity of our Lord, so that the principle of communicatio idiomatum breaks down.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm still waiting for a scripture verse or quote from an early church father that says God wants us to pray to people who are in the afterlife.

As soon as I get feeling better I have, as I mentioned in the other thread, resolved to provide you with the resources I have on this, because I am very impressed with your pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy in that thread, and I believe we can have a mutually edifying discussion, and I was in error to discount the possibility previously, for which I do beg your forgiveness.

 

[Servus]

As soon as I get feeling better I have, as I mentioned in the other thread, resolved to provide you with the resources I have on this, because I am very impressed with your pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy in that thread, and I believe we can have a mutually edifying discussion, and I was in error to discount the possibility previously, for which I do beg your forgiveness.

I'm just asking for a single quote from someone like Ignatius or Clement or Polycarp from whomever knows of one. Not a whole huge essay. I've already gotten enough of those. And no hard feelings at all. I consider disagreements and spats with my brothers and sisters in Christ to be just that, passing family spats. I love you all very much.