Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[JohnD70X7]

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

Mary is not the Mother of God. Mary is the mother of the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1 / John 1:14 / Philippians 2:6-8) but Mary is the mother only of his humanity not his deity.

God has no mother. God always existed and has no beginning or end.

If this is what the OP is accusing Doctor MacArthur of, then the OP owes him an apology!

 

[dzheremi]

Mary is not the Mother of God. Mary is the mother of the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1 / John 1:14 / Philippians 2:6-8) but Mary is the mother only of his humanity not his deity.

God has no mother. God always existed and has no beginning or end.

If this is what the OP is accusing Doctor MacArthur of, then the OP owes him an apology!

Do you believe in the union of the divine and the human in the person of Jesus Christ?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Mary is not the Mother of God. Mary is the mother of the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1 / John 1:14 / Philippians 2:6-8) but Mary is the mother only of his humanity not his deity.

God has no mother. God always existed and has no beginning or end.

If Jesus is God (John 1:1, John 1:18, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2Pet 1:2),
and if Mary is Jesus' mother
Then Mary is the mother of God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you believe in the union of the divine and the human in the person of Jesus Christ?

If Jesus is God (John 1:1, John 1:18, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2Pet 1:2),
and if Mary is Jesus' mother
Then Mary is the mother of God.

Criticizing the implications, while ignoring the other implications, all for the sake of one's dogma, seems to me. I've been accused of that, and maybe for good reason, but that is what I see going on here.

Also, it is a bit naïve, in my opinion, or worse, to make equations concerning the hypostatic union, and concerning the Trinity, and the person and existence of God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Criticizing the implications, while ignoring the other implications, all for the sake of one's dogma, seems to me. I've been accused of that, and maybe for good reason, but that is what I see going on here.

Also, it is a bit naïve, in my opinion, or worse, to make equations concerning the hypostatic union, and concerning the Trinity, and the person and existence of God.

The above post looks irrelevant.

The proposition is:
If Jesus is God (John 1:1, John 1:18, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2Pet 1:2), and if Mary is Jesus' mother, Then Mary is the mother of God.

 

[dzheremi]

Criticizing the implications, while ignoring the other implications, all for the sake of one's dogma, seems to me. I've been accused of that, and maybe for good reason, but that is what I see going on here.

Also, it is a bit naïve, in my opinion, or worse, to make equations concerning the hypostatic union, and concerning the Trinity, and the person and existence of God.

A simple yes or no would suffice.

 

[JohnD70X7]

Do you believe in the union of the divine and the human in the person of Jesus Christ?

The scripture says Jesus of Nazareth is both God (John 1:1) and man (John 1:14).

That's good enough for me. But I would also add that if an exaggerated interpretation of both is a union of both, then how would it be possible for Jesus in death to be three days and three nights in the tomb (physically) and in Sheol then ascend to heaven Spiritually during those three days?

Luke 23:43 (KJV)
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Ephesians 4:8–10 (KJV)
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

2 Corinthians 5:8 (KJV)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

 

[JohnD70X7]

If Jesus is God (John 1:1, John 1:18, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2Pet 1:2),
and if Mary is Jesus' mother
Then Mary is the mother of God.

Jesus is God incarnate.
Jesus preexisted the incarnation.
Mary is not the mother of that preexistence.

 

[dzheremi]

if an exaggerated interpretation of both is a union of both, then how would it be possible for Jesus in death to be three days and three nights in the tomb (physically) and in Sheol then ascend to heaven Spiritually during those three days?

What does that mean, "if an exaggerated interpretation of both is a union of both"? I'm not sure what that entails, but I think the last thing that traditional Orthodox Christology can be called is 'exaggerated', seeing as how it purposely avoids the extremes of Nestorianism (no true union, but a 'connection'; cf. the letters of St. Cyril contra Nestorius) on the one hand and Eutychianism (no true union, but an 'absorption'; cf. Pope Timothy II Letter to the City of Constantinople) on the other.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jesus is God incarnate.
Jesus preexisted the incarnation.
Mary is not the mother of that preexistence.

The Word pre-existed the incarnation, Jesus is the incarnation so proposition #2 in your post is incorrect.

If Jesus is God (and he is) and if Mary is Jesus' mother (and she is) then Mary is the mother of God.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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).

I guess you're right, but it's a bit complicated for me.

 

[dzheremi]

I guess you're right, but it's a bit complicated for me.

Sure, but it doesn't have to be.

Do you believe that all human beings are guilty of the sin of our first parents by virtue of descending from them (in quo omnes peccaverunt)? If so, then the 'anthropological' view of sin probably fits your belief better than the alternative.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the sin of our first parents introduced sin and death into the world, such that we all have to live with the effects of sin upon our world (e.g., pain, decay, mortality, etc.), but are not personally guilty of what they did (we are guilty of what we do, εφ ω παντες ημαρτον) , then this alternative view probably fits your belief better than the anthropological view.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Sure, but it doesn't have to be.

Do you believe that all human beings are guilty of the sin of our first parents by virtue of descending from them (in quo omnes peccaverunt)? If so, then the 'anthropological' view of sin probably fits your belief better than the alternative.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the sin of our first parents introduced sin and death into the world, such that we all have to live with the effects of sin upon our world (e.g., pain, decay, mortality, etc.), but are not personally guilty of what they did (we are guilty of what we do, εφ ω παντες ημαρτον) , then this alternative view probably fits your belief better than the anthropological view.

I would probably tend toward the latter view rather than the former.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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).

Seems to me that the Latin reads thus: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into this world, and through sin, death; so also death was transferred to all men, to all who have sinned."

 

[dzheremi]

Seems to me that the Latin reads thus: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into this world, and through sin, death; so also death was transferred to all men, to all who have sinned."

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Wouldn't "TO all who have sinned" be "cui omnibus peccaverunt", since "cui" is the dative masculine singular, while "quo" is the ablative? See the tables here for the explanation.

The Latin reads "propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt." The relevant clause here is "in quo omnes peccaverunt", which is "in whom all have sinned" (I think more literally it is "in which", but we don't use "which" in this type of construction in English, so "in whom" is grammatically correct; the same problem remains even if we use "which" in English, though, because either way it is referring to Adam).

In looking for an explanation for the discrepancy between the Greek and the Latin, Google directed me to this thread. Granted, it is just a thread on Stack Exchange, which means it has roughly the same evidentiary value as any thread on any random messageboard on which anyone can post anything (zilch, same as here), but maybe it will provide some sort of clue or starting point for someone whose specialty is in the Greek and Latin manuscript traditions. I'll openly admit that I'm not that person, and I would happy to be wrong on this one; I just haven't found evidence yet that I am despite first looking into this issue years ago when I was trying to look at the RCC a bit more critically (when I was still a member).

 

[ViaCrucis]

Mary is not the Mother of God. Mary is the mother of the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1 / John 1:14 / Philippians 2:6-8) but Mary is the mother only of his humanity not his deity.

God has no mother. God always existed and has no beginning or end.

If this is what the OP is accusing Doctor MacArthur of, then the OP owes him an apology!

True or false: God became the child of a mother when He became human.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JohnD70X7]

True or false: God became the child of a mother when He became human.

-CryptoLutheran

In addition to his deity (morphe theos huparchon) God the Word took upon himself the additional nature of humanity.
That additional nature gestated in the womb of the virgin maiden Miryam bat Eli.

God has no mother.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In addition to his deity (morphe theos huparchon) God the Word took upon himself the additional nature of humanity.
That additional nature gestated in the womb of the virgin maiden Miryam bat Eli.

God has no mother.

So the Word united Himself with human nature, but He Himself didn't gestate in the womb of Mary, just His human nature?

Would you, then, agree with the following statement: The Word was united to a man, so that there are two: one Divine who has always existed, co-existing with one who is human. So that we could say that there are, in a sense, two sons: there's the Son of God, the Logos and there is the human son of Mary. Would you agree with that general statement?

And while I am probably giving away my cards here, I should be transparent that yes, this is a trap question. Even still, I want you to be honest, do you agree with the above?

And to those reading who think they know what I'm trying to get at here, yes you're correct.

-CryptoLugheran

 

[Mark Quayle]

So the Word united Himself with human nature, but He Himself didn't gestate in the womb of Mary, just His human nature?

Would you, then, agree with the following statement: The Word was united to a man, so that there are two: one Divine who has always existed, co-existing with one who is human. So that we could say that there are, in a sense, two sons: there's the Son of God, the Logos and there is the human son of Mary. Would you agree with that general statement?

And while I am probably giving away my cards here, I should be transparent that yes, this is a trap question. Even still, I want you to be honest, do you agree with the above?

And to those reading who think they know what I'm trying to get at here, yes you're correct.

-CryptoLugheran

Notice how you depend on arrangements of human words. You show with this very trap, that you know better than to attribute substance to them, yet, in the end, that is what you are doing in this whole argument!

Your argument screams, "heresy", if someone who you very well know does believe Mary was a virgin, and had a baby boy named Jesus, who was not only her son, but the very Son of God, possessing of two natures, —if that person, I say, claims that Mary was not God's mother. You very well know it is only words to make a point. And that is all you are doing to oppose him, using words to make a point. You don't hear us scream against your heresy —we only protest that the notion is silly that MacArthur meant Jesus is not God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Notice how you depend on arrangements of human words. You show with this very trap, that you know better than to attribute substance to them, yet, in the end, that is what you are doing in this whole argument!

Your argument screams, "heresy", if someone who you very well know does believe Mary was a virgin, and had a baby boy named Jesus, who was not only her son, but the very Son of God, possessing of two natures, —if that person, I say, claims that Mary was not God's mother. You very well know it is only words to make a point. And that is all you are doing to oppose him, using words to make a point. You don't hear us scream against your heresy —we only protest that the notion is silly that MacArthur meant Jesus is not God.

The arrangement of words is how we communicate ideas.

The simple fact of the matter is that any explanation given in which Mary is not the mother of God but only the "mother of the humanity" is going to be Nestorianism. That's what it is.

Drawing that inevitable conclusion out is how to correct someone from having wrong ideas about Jesus.

And saying that Mary can't be the mother of God because she only gave birth to "the humanity" is a wrong idea about Jesus. It divides Christ. There's no way to get around that.

That is why Theotokos is such an important term.

The only arguments that have been presented and are every presented are either heretical or blatantly fallacious.

Here are the kinds of fallacious arguments:

1) Genetic fallacy, Catholics call Mary the mother of God and they "worship Mary".
2) Slippery slope fallacy, if you start calling Mary the mother of God then what's to stop you from saying queen of heaven, mediatrix, et al.
3) Straw man fallacy, calling Mary the mother of God is wrong because she isn't the originator of the Divine nature.

-CryptoLutheran