Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[Mark Quayle]

We don't much know why Rev Macarthur, in person, takes the various lines he does on various matters mostly centred around rationing Holy Spirit belief. It perhaps appeared to start partly with aversion to excesses of the Kansas City / Toronto kind (themselves rationing of truth, and dominant), and finding that he hasn't resources to help people affected by those (such as me), falls back on such rationing, in a tradition of other dominating preachers.

As Mark points out, exculpation across the board doesn't suit his range of teachings as a whole; while as you point out it's not reassuring when so many alongside him water down the Gospel likewise. Half a Holy Spirit = eternal subordination of the Son = we are the most wretched of creatures. The real remedy to bad Holy Spirit teaching is not more bad Holy Spirit teaching or deficient Holy Spirit teaching.

The meanings in Mariology coincide with those in distinct Pneumatology and in Christology as I think we are realising. The weak Holy Spirit teachings and dominant style of Rev Macarthur existed before his day; but he has acquired one of the foremost positions in those camps, which is why he appears in a thread title..

With this, I agree: "...but he has acquired one of the foremost positions in those camps, which is why he appears in a thread title."(and btw, by agreeing with the sentence, I don't mean, by "those camps", that McA is weak on Pneumatology). If MacArthur was not in such a position his name would not have appeared in the thread title.

 

[dzheremi]

rationing Holy Spirit belief. It perhaps appeared to start partly with aversion to excesses of the Kansas City / Toronto kind (themselves rationing of truth, and dominant), and finding that he hasn't resources to help people affected by those (such as me), falls back on such rationing, in a tradition of other dominating preachers.

What does it mean to "ration Holy Spirit belief"? That's not a phrase I've encountered before.

The meanings in Mariology coincide with those in distinct Pneumatology and in Christology as I think we are realising. The weak Holy Spirit teachings and dominant style of Rev Macarthur existed before his day; but he has acquired one of the foremost positions in those camps, which is why he appears in a thread title..

Interesting. I wonder why he would be allowed such a high position if he is weak in his teaching on the Holy Spirit (whatever it should be, according to the standards of his particular church)? I don't know how it works out for Protestants, but in the Orthodox world of which I am a part, those elevated to the priesthood are generally selected from among the people by the people themselves, and vetted by the process of becoming a priest itself (which in the Coptic tradition involves a literal 40 days in the desert in a monastic setting, where they are trained how to celebrate the liturgy and other rites which a priest will be expected to head), and even then it has happened -- albeit rarely -- that priests have had to be disciplined, up to and including being forcibly laicized, for various serious violations of the faith.

Is it the more defuse idea of 'authority' in whatever tradition McArthur comes from that would prevent a similar reaction to whatever errors he may be spreading? I'm just curious because I don't know anything about him outside of this thread and having heard his name as some type of Christian apologist or something, and I clearly don't know anything about whatever tradition he comes from. Nevertheless, it seems very odd that someone who is apparently publicly quite difficult to pin down would be allowed to preach. That seems like a recipe for trouble.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What does it mean to "ration Holy Spirit belief"? That's not a phrase I've encountered before.



Interesting. I wonder why he would be allowed such a high position if he is weak in his teaching on the Holy Spirit (whatever it should be, according to the standards of his particular church)? I don't know how it works out for Protestants, but in the Orthodox world of which I am a part, those elevated to the priesthood are generally selected from among the people by the people themselves, and vetted by the process of becoming a priest itself (which in the Coptic tradition involves a literal 40 days in the desert in a monastic setting, where they are trained how to celebrate the liturgy and other rites which a priest will be expected to head), and even then it has happened -- albeit rarely -- that priests have had to be disciplined, up to and including being forcibly laicized, for various serious violations of the faith.

Is it the more defuse idea of 'authority' in whatever tradition McArthur comes from that would prevent a similar reaction to whatever errors he may be spreading? I'm just curious because I don't know anything about him outside of this thread and having heard his name as some type of Christian apologist or something, and I clearly don't know anything about whatever tradition he comes from. Nevertheless, it seems very odd that someone who is apparently publicly quite difficult to pin down would be allowed to preach. That seems like a recipe for trouble.

He spends a lot of time ‘debating’ Catholics. I’d never of heard of him otherwise. And I’ve never bothered to listen to one of those debates.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

(and btw, by agreeing with the sentence, I don't mean, by "those camps", that McA is weak on Pneumatology)

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Experiencing forum technical hitches. Am meaning to reply to all three of you.

Mark (post 364) I think this thread has turned the corner and is getting interesting.

He spends a lot of time ‘debating’ Catholics. I’d never of heard of him otherwise. And I’ve never bothered to listen to one of those debates.

Him picking supposedly easy targets (on too selective grounds) explains why there was such a lot of mariology earlier in the thread!

 

[OldAbramBrown]

What does it mean to "ration Holy Spirit belief"? That's not a phrase I've encountered before. 2

Interesting. I wonder why he would be allowed such a high position if he is weak in his teaching on the Holy Spirit (whatever it should be, according to the standards of his particular church)? 1

Is it the more defuse idea of 'authority' in whatever tradition McArthur comes from that would prevent a similar reaction to whatever errors he may be spreading? I'm just curious because I don't know anything about him outside of this thread and having heard his name as some type of Christian apologist or something, and I clearly don't know anything about whatever tradition he comes from. Nevertheless, it seems very odd that someone who is apparently publicly quite difficult to pin down would be allowed to preach. That seems like a recipe for trouble. 1

1 - Yes. Diffuse as you put it. But confusion on Holy Spirit goes back centuries among a major part of the population that are in all protestant traditions and is present in much of the RCC members too. Having sampled a wide variety of churches and read their books, I am now getting away from the all-or-nothing thinking of most of those elements.

2 - Your sentiment in 354 and 356, "Lord have mercy" is mine entirely. I have explained in 359 and 360, and similar posts in this and other threads. I'm an alluder (allusive). I still hold personally to what's in your 351 BTW.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

ref my 360, I meant Prov ch 31: 10-31 Apologies!

Further to dzheremi's question 2 my response 16 to:

Absolute power over others tends to produce absolute corruption.

I was thinking about how people portray God. Some portray God as good, just completely good and loving and utterly compassionate; so he does not rule over others, he does not overrule their freedoms, he warns of what will come of a bad choice but he does not cause the bad choice nor cause the...

www.christianforums.com

overlaps with this.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

See also

The Indwelling-Gift of the Holy Spirit

The Gift of the Holy Spirit also referred to as the baptism with/in/by the Holy Spirit, was understood as an event after water baptism throughout Church History up to the Reformation. It was considered the time the Holy Spirit indwells a believer. During the Reformation, a novel view emerged...

www.christianforums.com

and my 8 , 86, 91, 92, 94

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Citation? Link?

60% of Evangelical "Christians" in the United States would believe that he is a heretic because he preaches that we are saved only through the finished work and shed blood of Christ on the Cross, and that we are saved by God's grace through Christ alone.

This is because the vast majority of Evangelical churches do not preach the Gospel, and are preaching Post-Modernist theology that makes Jesus just a supporter of loving morality, and that everyone will end up being saved eventually, because God is so loving He would never allow people to spend eternity in Hell. These churches treat the Bible as mainly allegory instead of God's living Word. There now has been an agreement between Evangelical churches and the Roman Catholic church to work in unity with each other. The millions who were burned at the stake because they stood for God's Word in the Reformation are now ignored and conveniently forgotten.

So yes. The majority of Evangelical churches do believe that John MacArthur is a heretic, along with most modern Charismatics who believe the same because he won't acknowledge that prophecy and tongues are for today -and yet, we find that in the majority of Charismatic churches, the Gospel is missing, and those who try to introduce the Gospel are accused of having a demon and are ejected.

When the Rapture happens, over 60% of professing Christians in Evangelical and Charismatic churches will be left behind, because only those who have based their faith and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross and who have been cleansed of all unrighteousness through His blood will be taken to meet the Lord in the air.

 

[Mark Quayle]

60% of Evangelical "Christians" in the United States would believe that he is a heretic because he preaches that we are saved only through the finished work and shed blood of Christ on the Cross, and that we are saved by God's grace through Christ alone.

This is because the vast majority of Evangelical churches do not preach the Gospel, and are preaching Post-Modernist theology that makes Jesus just a supporter of loving morality, and that everyone will end up being saved eventually, because God is so loving He would never allow people to spend eternity in Hell. These churches treat the Bible as mainly allegory instead of God's living Word. There now has been an agreement between Evangelical churches and the Roman Catholic church to work in unity with each other. The millions who were burned at the stake because they stood for God's Word in the Reformation are now ignored and conveniently forgotten.

So yes. The majority of Evangelical churches do believe that John MacArthur is a heretic, along with most modern Charismatics who believe the same because he won't acknowledge that prophecy and tongues are for today -and yet, we find that in the majority of Charismatic churches, the Gospel is missing, and those who try to introduce the Gospel are accused of having a demon and are ejected.

When the Rapture happens, over 60% of professing Christians in Evangelical and Charismatic churches will be left behind, because only those who have based their faith and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross and who have been cleansed of all unrighteousness through His blood will be taken to meet the Lord in the air.

I hear ya!

 

[Neostarwcc]

60% of Evangelical "Christians" in the United States would believe that he is a heretic because he preaches that we are saved only through the finished work and shed blood of Christ on the Cross, and that we are saved by God's grace through Christ alone.

This is because the vast majority of Evangelical churches do not preach the Gospel, and are preaching Post-Modernist theology that makes Jesus just a supporter of loving morality, and that everyone will end up being saved eventually, because God is so loving He would never allow people to spend eternity in Hell. These churches treat the Bible as mainly allegory instead of God's living Word. There now has been an agreement between Evangelical churches and the Roman Catholic church to work in unity with each other. The millions who were burned at the stake because they stood for God's Word in the Reformation are now ignored and conveniently forgotten.

So yes. The majority of Evangelical churches do believe that John MacArthur is a heretic, along with most modern Charismatics who believe the same because he won't acknowledge that prophecy and tongues are for today -and yet, we find that in the majority of Charismatic churches, the Gospel is missing, and those who try to introduce the Gospel are accused of having a demon and are ejected.

When the Rapture happens, over 60% of professing Christians in Evangelical and Charismatic churches will be left behind, because only those who have based their faith and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross and who have been cleansed of all unrighteousness through His blood will be taken to meet the Lord in the air.

I wasn't saying he was a heretic because he's an Evangelical Calvinist. Im an evangelical Calvinist and would agree with much that Mcarthur teaches. I was saying he was a heretic because he teaches Neostorianism and denies the immaculate conception of Jesus in his efforts to be as anti Catholic as possible. Jesus was born fully man and fully God and Mary was a virgin when the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in her womb. She wasnt sinless which is up to much debate but she did give birth to God in the flesh.

THAT would make him a heretic and need to repent. There's nothing wrong with the Evangelicals and when i say Evangelical i mean the TRUE Evangelicals. Not the ones that think Jesus can save them by saying a magical prayer once and never think about Jesus ever again or bear any fruit.

But anyway, people were teaching Neostorianism in the apostles day too so it's nothing new.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I wasn't saying he was a heretic because he's an Evangelical Calvinist. Im an evangelical Calvinist and would agree with much that Mcarthur teaches. I was saying he was a heretic because he teaches Neostorianism and denies the immaculate conception of Jesus in his efforts to be as anti Catholic as possible. Jesus was born fully man and fully God and Mary was a virgin when the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in her womb. She wasnt sinless which is up to much debate but she did give birth to God in the flesh.

THAT would make him a heretic and need to repent. There's nothing wrong with the Evangelicals and when i say Evangelical i mean the TRUE Evangelicals. Not the ones that think Jesus can save them by saying a magical prayer once and never think about Jesus ever again or bear any fruit.

But anyway, people were teaching Nestorianism in the apostles day too so it's nothing new.

I simply don't get that from what he said. He obviously said something that could be taken that way, but I'm sure he believes Mary was a virgin and that she is Jesus' mother, and that Christ is indeed God.

Besides this one instance, do you have some other reason to believe he teaches Nestorianism and denies the immaculate conception of Jesus? Actually, I see nothing he said there to even hint at denial of the immaculate conception of Jesus.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I simply don't get that from what he said. He obviously said something that could be taken that way, but I'm sure he believes Mary was a virgin and that she is Jesus' mother, and that Christ is indeed God.

Besides this one instance, do you have some other reason to believe he teaches Nestorianism and denies the immaculate conception of Jesus? Actually, I see nothing he said there to even hint at denial of the immaculate conception of Jesus.

Oh maybe. I'm tired and only half read what he said. I only slept like 4 hours last night. I'll read it more in the morning when I'm fresh.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the immaculate conception of Jesus

I have never seen the phrase "immaculate conception of Jesus"; in Catholic teaching it is the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it means that by a miracle of God's grace through Jesus Christ and in anticipation of Mary's role as mother of Jesus she was born without the stain of original sin. The Lord, Jesus Christ is without sin and is God, his conception was by the Holy Spirit and I think that means that he was unquestionably born without sin.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I have never seen the phrase "immaculate conception of Jesus"; in Catholic teaching it is the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it means that by a miracle of God's grace through Jesus Christ and in anticipation of Mary's role as mother of Jesus she was born without the stain of original sin. The Lord, Jesus Christ is without sin and is God, his conception was by the Holy Spirit and I think that means that he was unquestionably born without sin.

Well the thing is, you can't say the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary because Mary wasn't sinless. Adam was after all her father like Adam is the father of the whole world and because of that the whole world was born in sin. Jesus on the other hand was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not Adam. Hence his conception was immaculate because Jesus was the only sinless person to ever exist.

 

[dzheremi]

That's not how that works, Neostarwcc. Just because applying that term to Jesus would make more sense to you than applying it to St. Mary doesn't mean that it is actually applied to Jesus by the people who teach it. "The immaculate conception" is a RC doctrine concerning the conception of St. Mary by her parents, St. Joachim and St. Anna, not about Jesus.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well the thing is, you can't say the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary because Mary wasn't sinless.

I can say it and I do say it, and I also say that Blessed Mary did not sin. Why do you think it's impossible for a person to be without sin? Enoch was taken to heaven because he pleased God, and it is impossible to please God in sin and without faith, as the scriptures say. God called Job perfect. So, there is scriptural precedent for a person to be perfect and to please God which is true of Blessed Mary.

Returning to the Thread's topic; it is both right and accurate to refer to Blessed Mary as the mother of God.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I can say it and I do say it, and I also say that Blessed Mary did not sin. Why do you think it's impossible for a person to be without sin? Enoch was taken to heaven because he pleased God, and it is impossible to please God in sin and without faith, as the scriptures say. God called Job perfect. So, there is scriptural precedent for a person to be perfect and to please God which is true of Blessed Mary.

Returning to the Thread's topic; it is both right and accurate to refer to Blessed Mary as the mother of God.

Anyone can manipulate the different verses of the Bible to make it say what they want it to say. The Scripture says that in Adam all sin, and that includes Enoch, Job, and Mary. The only absolutely sinless person was Jesus Christ who was fathered by the Holy Spirit and therefore did not come through Adam's sinful line.

 

[dzheremi]

Anyone can manipulate the different verses of the Bible to make it say what they want it to say. The Scripture says that in Adam all sin, and that includes Enoch, Job, and Mary. The only absolutely sinless person was Jesus Christ who was fathered by the Holy Spirit and therefore did not come through Adam's sinful line.

This 'anthropological' view of sin (i.e., that it is something that is essentially 'inherited' by virtue of being human) is based on a mistranslation of the relevant clause of Romans 5:12 into Latin as "in quo omnes peccaverunt", meaning "in whom (Adam), all have sinned", whereas the Greek reads "εφ ω παντες ημαρτον", which is something more like "because all sinned." This distinction is critical, because in the Latin, when Adam sinned, you sinned (i.e., you are 'guilty' of Adam's sin for anthropological reasons, because you descend from him), whereas in the Greek, it is understood that death spreads to all men because all sin, not because any person other than Adam himself is guilty of the sin of Adam.

I don't see how this affects the holy Theotokos either way, though, since I'm pretty sure everyone recognizes that her womb was purified and made a fit place for the birth-giving to God for which she will forever be called blessed. The specifics of this tend to vary by confession (NB: the Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, yet do maintain that she was sinless), but I don't know anyone who disagrees with the preconditions (i.e., that she be pure in order to carry and birth the Lord) or the outcome (i.e., that she truly gave birth to God the Logos).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Anyone can manipulate the different verses of the Bible to make it say what they want it to say. The Scripture says that in Adam all sin, and that includes Enoch, Job, and Mary.

It is quite true that one can manipulate a passage, as your post did with the quote about all sinning in Adam.