Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[FenderTL5]

Trying to think of any reason to object to what MacArthur obviously meant..

What he meant was to poke his finger in the eye of our Catholic brothers and sisters. In doing so, he espoused an ancient heretical position that pre-dates a "Roman Catholic" Church.
I'm wondering; did you actually read/listen to the content linked in the OP?

For anyone listening to the audio, I also wonder if McArthur intentionally mispronounced "Theotokos" for spite or is he is genuinely that ignorant of the subject matter.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Perhaps. I'm just trying to fathom all the consternation going on here. Trying to think of any reason to object to what MacArthur obviously meant, besides RCC etc dogma that God the Son was begotten of Mary.

The "consternation" arises from seeing a heresy from the 5th century revived for for no good reason. Blessed Mary is the mother of God. That is the teaching of Christ and his Church. Those who balk at speaking well of Blessed Mary by referring to her as the mother of God, and Blessed Mary bears that description not for her sake or in praise of her, but in recognition of her Son, Jesus, who is God incarnate, are acting in error as they attempt to combat fantoms of the imagination to protect a "doctrine" that is simply Nestorianism. John MacArthur is well read enough and experienced enough to understand that his words are Nestorian in content; if he himself is not Nestorian in belief then he can say so and explain why he balks at the right and proper expression "mother of God" applied to Blessed Mary as the mother of our Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Look, I've answered your inquiries already.
Word gymnastics to preserve a belief system that is not true (namely that God has a mother) in keeping with Catholic traditions frankly bores me.
No matter how you try to categorize or spin it, God the Word preexisted all of creation and therefore has no mother.

The Word who preexisted all of creation is Jesus Christ, and He certainly does have a mother. Her name is Mary, the Bible tells you this.

Is hating Rome so important that it is worth denying the word of God? That's madness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That is precisely what is meant by the term Theotokos.
She gave birth to God the Word; Theotokos.

Since quotes of the Gospel of John didn't start getting quoted by ECFs until early 2nd century, is it possible the Theotokos doctrine got developed before the trinity?

Though I still think the issue is with the current version of the English language being too specific.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It's not a loaded question; it's a very simple question: is St. Mary the mother of God or not, in your theology?

There are many things in Roman Catholic theology in particular that I disagree with, but they don't really affect how I see saints and other Biblical figures. For instance, I don't hesitate to venerate St. Peter as the prince of the apostles just because the RCC has developed an entire ecclesiology around claims they make to continuity with him that I disagree with. I don't understand what prevents you or anyone from making such distinctions, so as to not 'throw out the baby with the bath water', as the saying goes.



That's certainly part of it for Orthodox believers (though my particular Orthodox Church does not phrase things that way, preferring instead to highlight the efficacy of her intercessions, and to ask God through said intercessions to forgive us our sins). Just the same, I'm not sure that you can say that retroactively, because I know that each church's form of Marian prayer developed over time to be the way it is now. So I don't that it's true that word itself necessarily would carry all that, because not all churches have that exact form of prayer to begin with, and the way that that particular prayer developed would be unique to the Eastern Orthodox, as far as I know. (I've never seen that wording in any English translations of Syriac or Armenian prayers I've looked at either, though it could be there in some that I haven't seen, or some different, perhaps more Chalcedonian-influenced translations.)



Does this preclude you from affirming that she is the mother of God? If so, why?

In the current version of English, and this is the problem, it is important to be specific. Maybe not so in the original greek.

So it would be more appropriate to say that

1) Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2) Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
3) Mary did not give birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Saying it the other way doesn't make sense, since the word Theotokos carries theological baggage as explained in my earlier post.

 

[JohnD70X7]

Your posts are a modern revival Nestorianism. Nestorianism is a heresy rejected by the Church in the fifth century AD. Why your posts revive it is not interesting to me. It is a heresy and as such is properly condemned. Wikipedia says, "Nestorius and his teachings were eventually condemned as heretical at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and again at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. His teachings were considered as heretical not only in Chalcedonian Christianity, but even more in Oriental Orthodoxy.[6]"

No my posts are right out of the Bible.

 

[JohnD70X7]

The point being driven to is that God the Word became the man Jesus who was gestated in the womb of Mary making her the mother of God.

This is a false premise in that God being in a human being does not make that human being the father or mother of God. If so, everyone the Holy Spirit indwells would be God's father or mother.

Read the Bible and use your head to reason common sense.

God has no mother.

Jesus is God incarnate but Mary is the mother of only the human part of Jesus.

Sheesh!!!

 

[FenderTL5]

The point being driven to is that God the Word became the man Jesus who was gestated in the womb of Mary making her the mother of God.

This is a false premise in that God being in a human being does not make that human being the father or mother of God. If so, everyone the Holy Spirit indwells would be God's father or mother.

Read the Bible and use your head to reason common sense.

God has no mother.

Jesus is God incarnate but Mary is the mother of only the human part of Jesus.

Sheesh!!!

Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy taught Mary only gave birth to Jesus’ human nature. The founder of the heresy, Nestorius, did not even want Mary to be called “Mother of God” but instead wanted her to be called “Mother of Christ.” In essence, the heresy maintained Jesus was really two separate persons, and only the human Jesus was in Mary’s womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not God incarnate while in the womb.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm beginning to understand the actions of Saint Nicholas.
Lord have mercy.

 

[dzheremi]

In the current version of English, and this is the problem, it is important to be specific. Maybe not so in the original greek.

Frankly, I don't think this objection has anything to do with the English language in any stage. Nestorius' objections, which your own partially mirror, were not rooted in anything about the English language, or a lack of specificity in the term "Theotokos", which was explained to him and those of his party at great length.

So it would be more appropriate to say that

1) Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2) Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
3) Mary did not give birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Saying it the other way doesn't make sense, since the word Theotokos carries theological baggage as explained in my earlier post.

But no one who uses the term Theotokos is using it in any other way to begin with. That's what makes this objection so strange. It would be one thing if it were common for Christians to use it to refer to the Holy Trinity, but that's not how it is used, either historically or presently. Theotokos is a Christological title -- it refers specifically to Christ. When Nestorius infamously said that he would not worship a God who was once a baby, he clearly was not referring to the Father or the Holy Spirit -- hence, the title "Theotokos" was defended at Ephesus (and before, and after) with reference to St. Mary's relationship to Christ, since that's what the term itself references.

All of this "But she didn't give birth to the Trinity/to God the Father/to the divine nature" is so clearly a rehash of Nestorian talking points, here is a group of Nestorians (referred to neutrally as "Assyrians" in the documentary itself, though its contents make it clear their orientation on this particular question) saying those exact same things, as part of the Lebanese TV documentary "Sects of Lebanon":

"Saint Mary was the mother of Christ's humanity and not his diety." (1:27) See also the further comment from Bishop Narsli De Baz about objecting to "Theotokos" so as to not make St. Mary the mother of the Holy Trinity.

Sound familiar? There's your position, coming from the mouths of literal Nestorians. Anyone who is arguing this way in this thread or anywhere is embracing Nestorian heresy. There's no way around it. There's never been any other grounds to object to "Theotokos".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No my posts are right out of the Bible.

Not so. The claim is, to be blunt, nonsense.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sheesh!!!

Agreed, the claims of those advocating Nestorian teaching are absolutely absurd and ought not be entertained except to be rebutted.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But no one who uses the term Theotokos is using it in any other way to begin with.

Not true.

Sound familiar? There's your position, coming from the mouths of literal Nestorians. Anyone who is arguing this way in this thread or anywhere is embracing Nestorian heresy. There's no way around it. There's never been any other grounds to object to "Theotokos".

Sounds like a bunch of guilty by association logic and railroading the term Theotokos by threatening heresy.

Jesus most certainly was God when born, God before being born, God after dying, God after being resurrected.

The main doctrinal issue being addressed here is the tendency of some people to treat Mary as more than a Mother and assigning some mystical role that is not supported by scripture.

By stating Jesus always was God and always will be and was born of a human mother, Mary. This also addresses a common issue. It's not about birds nesting wicked eggs or whatever, it's about not elevating Mary beyond what scripture says she is.

The term Theotokos does not mean what it says. Much like the bronze snake in the wilderness that cured Hebrews of poison, and later had to be melted down because it was being used in worship of some wicked god, so is this term. It has taken on another life, and cannot be used.

 

[dzheremi]

Not true.

View attachment 333579

First of all, this is quite clearly a prayer to God (that is, if you believe that Jesus Christ is God): "Through the intercessions of the Theotokos, Savior, save us."

Second of all, this is not even addressing what I was responding to in your earlier post. You had written the following:

"So it would be more appropriate to say that

1) Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2) Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
3) Mary did not give birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Saying it the other way doesn't make sense"

To which I replied that this is already the way in which it is used, since no one uses the term Theotokos to say anything other than that Mary is the birth-giver to Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. It has never been used to say that St. Mary gave birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit. That idea in fact comes from the Nestorians' misunderstanding of what it could mean (even though, again, it was explained to Nestorius at the time what it means, and has been explained a million times since then), which they still insist on using to substantiate their objection to the term to this very day, as you yourself could see in the video I posted where their bishop in Lebanon, Narsli De Baz, says exactly that.

Sounds like a bunch of guilty by association logic and railroading the term Theotokos by threatening heresy.

I'm not "threatening" or "railroading" anything. I'm showing how the objections of those in this thread who argue against Theotokos on supposedly solid theological grounds are actually just retreads of arguments that Nestorius and those of his camp have been making since the fifth century. They were wrong then coming from him, and they're wrong now coming from posters in this thread. If that's "guilt by association" to you, then maybe you should stop associating yourself with the arguments put forth by ancient and modern heretics.

The main doctrinal issue being addressed here is the tendency of some people to treat Mary as more than a Mother and assigning some mystical role that is not supported by scripture.

How is calling her "mother of God" treating her as more than a mother? Invoking her name in intercessory prayer is not going to cut it, since the same is done with every saint in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, without making them into something more than people. Asking someone to intercede for you doesn't somehow make them into more than people, unless you believe that James 5:16 is teaching us to make one another into super-beings by the dastardly act of (gasp!) telling us to pray for one another, which is something so normal I'm willing to bet that every single Protestant has done it. You only back off concerning the saints because to many Protestants (thankfully not anywhere near all), the saints are 'dead', but as has been explained at length, this idea is very much not in keeping with any form of traditional Christianity, and is thoroughly against the scriptures (eg. Matthew 22:32, or the presence of Moses at the Transfiguration in Matthew 17).

By stating Jesus always was God and always will be and was born of a human mother, Mary. This also addresses a common issue. It's not about birds nesting wicked eggs or whatever, it's about not elevating Mary beyond what scripture says she is.

Again, how does "Theotokos" do this? Remember, the title Theotokos literally means "birth-giver to God" (translated in most English translations and of course many others as "Mother of God"), so if you believe that the child Jesus who she gave birth to is in fact God, then you logically must believe that she is (the) Theotokos. It is a statement of fact for those who believe that Jesus is God, which is why it is so immediately suspect when people (Nestorius, you, McArthur, whoever) decide that there are suddenly problems with it, based on their belief that it means something other than what it means.

The term Theotokos does not mean what it says.

You must very highly of yourself to write a sentence like this. What on God's green earth makes you think that you get to decide that words mean something other than what they've meant in the context of Christian worship since at least 250 AD? Words that are not English words, were clearly not "invented" by the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church (remember, the earliest textual evidence we have of a hymn that addresses St. Mary as Theotokos comes from a Coptic/Egyptian Nativity liturgy; there were not distinctly Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches in Egypt until many centuries after this), and do not literally indicate anything other than that she is the mother of God?

I'm sorry, but this is madness. If this is how arguments work now, then what's to stop me from saying that something I don't like doesn't mean what it says it means? Maybe I decide "Christian Seeker" doesn't mean "someone who is seeking a path for themselves within the confines of Christianity", but instead "someone who is seeking to destroy Christianity and replace it with whatever scraps of Christianity that they themselves personally accept." Would that be at all reasonable? No, right?

Please be reasonable. If we cannot argue from a common understanding of what words literally mean, then we cannot continue on to discuss what they mean in their various contexts (e.g., why do Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics or Oriental Orthodox or whoever have the forms of intercessory prayers that they do?), and a conversation like this ceases to have any real point, because no assertion, no matter how well-supported, can be allowed to stand if all it takes to counter it is "This word doesn't mean what it says." Yes it does. That's why we have a specific word for it in the first place. That is indeed the function of words, period.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

First of all, this is quite clearly a prayer to God (that is, if you believe that Jesus Christ is God): "Through the intercessions of the Theotokos, Savior, save us."

Second of all, this is not even addressing what I was responding to in your earlier post. You had written the following:

"So it would be more appropriate to say that

1) Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2) Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
3) Mary did not give birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Saying it the other way doesn't make sense"

To which I replied that this is already the way in which it is used, since no one uses the term Theotokos to say anything other that Mary is the birth-giver to Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. It has never been used to say that St. Mary gave birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit. That idea in fact comes from the Nestorians' misunderstanding of what it could mean (even though, again, it was explained to Nestorius at the time what it means, and has been explained a million times since then), which they still insist on using to substantiate their objection to the term to this very day, as you yourself could see in the video I posted where their bishop in Lebanon, Narsli De Baz, says exactly that.


I'm not "threatening" or "railroading" anything. I'm showing how the objections of those in this thread who argue against Theotokos on supposedly solid theological grounds are actually just retreads of arguments that Nestorius and those of his camp have been making since the fifth century. They were wrong then coming from him, and they're wrong now coming from posters in this thread. If that's "guilt by association" to you, then maybe you should stop associating yourself with the arguments put forth by ancient and modern heretics.



How is calling her "mother of God" treating her as more than a mother? Invoking her name in intercessory prayer is not going to cut it, since the same is done with every saint in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, without making them into something more than people. Asking someone to intercede for you doesn't somehow make them into more than people, unless you believe that James 5:16 is teaching us to make one another into super-beings by the dastardly act of (gasp!) telling us to pray for one another, which is something so normal I'm willing to bet that every single Protestant has done it. You only back off concerning the saints because to many Protestants (thankfully not anywhere near all), the saints are 'dead', but as has been explained at length, this idea is very much not in keeping with any form of traditional Christianity, and is thoroughly against the scriptures (eg. Matthew 22:32, or the presence of Moses at the Transfiguration in Matthew 17).



Again, how does "Theotokos" do this? Remember, the title Theotokos literally means "birth-giver to God" (translated in most English translations and of course many others as "Mother of God"), so if you believe that the child Jesus who she gave birth to is in fact God, then you logically must believe that she is (the) Theotokos. It is a statement of fact for those who believe that Jesus is God, which is why it is so immediately suspect when people (Nestorius, you, McArthur, whoever) decide that there are suddenly problems with it, based on their belief that it means something other than what it means.



You must very highly of yourself to write a sentence like this. What on God's green earth makes you think that you get to decide that words mean something other than what they've meant in the context of Christian worship since at least 250 AD? Words that are not English words, were clearly not "invented" by the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church (remember, the earliest textual evidence we have of a hymn that addresses St. Mary as Theotokos comes from a Coptic/Egyptian Nativity liturgy; there were not distinctly Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches in Egypt until many centuries after this), and do not literally indicate anything other than that she is the mother of God?

I'm sorry, but this is madness. If this is how arguments work now, then what's to stop me from saying that something I don't like doesn't mean what it says it means? Maybe I decide "Christian Seeker" doesn't mean "someone who is seeking a path for themselves within the confines of Christianity", but instead "someone who is seeking to destroy Christianity and replace it with whatever scraps of Christianity that they themselves personally accept." Would that be at all reasonable? No, right?

Please be reasonable. If we cannot argue from a common understanding of what words literally mean, then we cannot continue on to discuss what they mean in their various contexts (e.g., why do Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics or Oriental Orthodox or whoever have the forms of intercessory prayers that they do?), and a conversation like this ceases to have any real point, because no assertion, no matter how well-supported, can be allowed to stand if all it takes to counter it is "This word doesn't mean what it says." Yes it does. That's why we have a specific word for it in the first place. That is indeed the function of words, period.

Word usage changes the meaning of words, the rest of what was said in the above post makes no sense.

Would suggest a term that means birth giver to God, the son. Mary did not give birth to all of God, trinity matters .. and this idea confuses it.

In terms of Mary not giving birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit, this is addressing how some people exalt a Mary making her resemble some Goddess. The nestorian side discussion is just a red herring about the real issue that you are not addressing.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

Nobody but nobody says Mary is the creator of God from all eternity. Some of us say that God the eternal Son became man in Mary’s womb. Others reject that.

 

[dzheremi]

Word usage changes the meaning of words, the rest of what was said in the above post makes no sense.

If you don't want to address it, just say so. I'm fairly certain it does make sense, and that anyone who reads it without an anti-Theotokos axe to grind can come to the same conclusion.

Would suggest a term that means birth giver to God, the son. Mary did not give birth to all of God, trinity matters .. and this idea confuses it.

Wait a minute...do you think that the Holy Trinity is a like a math problem, wherein the Father is 1/3 God, Jesus is 1/3 God, and the Holy Spirit is 1/3 God, such that St. Mary only gave birth to "part" of God? The phrase "all of God" here is suggesting that you have much more fundamental problems understanding the basics of Trinitarian theology than can be addressed in a discussion like this one, which is about a finer point concerning the Incarnation in particular (which is certainly itself part of the basics of Trinitarian theology, but I assume it would be fair to say presumes a baseline understanding of what the Holy Trinity 'is', in the sense of 'what Christians believe about the Holy Trinity').

In terms of Mary not giving birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit, this is addressing how some people exalt a Mary making her resemble some Goddess.

How is it doing that? I ask because everyone who embraces the title Theotokos in reference to St. Mary would say the same. Here, I'll write it here myself, as it is something I am completely comfortable writing and believing as a Coptic Orthodox believer: St. Mary, the Theotokos, did not give birth to the Father or to the Holy Spirit. She gave birth to Christ Jesus, and because of this, in conformity with our belief that Jesus is God, we call her Theotokos.

Is there anything in what I have just written that suggests that St. Mary is some kind of goddess to us? Because it is nothing more or less than what we affirm by calling her Theotokos.

The nestorian side discussion is just a red herring about the real issue that you are not addressing.

How is it a side discussion or a red herring when the anti-Theotokos posters and the Nestorians use the same arguments 1,592 years apart from one another? (Nestorius having been condemned at Ephesus in 431 for objecting exactly as people here are doing.)

The point is as I've written already that this set of objections has been the only historical objection of note to the term in the entire history of Christianity. Their form -- that is to say, the form that the Church rebuked at Ephesus -- originated with Nestorius (though he himself was influenced by those around him in his formative years, such as Diodore of Tarsus), and are carried on in our day by his followers in the Church of the East, which is why that particular church is often called Nestorian (somewhat pejoratively, as it was pointed out in the "Sects of Lebanon" video that at the time of Nestorius' presiding as bishop of Constantinople, the actual bishop of the Church of the East was Dadisho). It is clear that they embrace his objections to the term, though I guess they have many modern neo-Nestorians in the western churches who might make them feel a bit less lonely, should any of them stumble upon threads such as this one.

 

[FenderTL5]

The nestorian side discussion is just a red herring about the real issue that you are not addressing.

The nestorian (heretical) part of this discussion is literally central, the point, the reason the thread exists. It's part of the title, it's in the OP. It's what has continually been bandied about.
What you are refusing to aknowledge is that the Nestorian argument is not new. It's not specific to protestants. It was condemened as heretical a long time ago, yet there are some who bring it back around to be refuted again.
This is the discussion, it's not the sidebar.
Your insistance on changing the meaning of words is a sidebar. i.e. Theotokos means the same thing whether you believe in intercessory prayer, specifically the intercession of the saints, or not. You could possibly reject intercession altogether and Mary is still Theotokos. The concepts are not necessarily linked.

 

[FenderTL5]

Since quotes of the Gospel of John didn't start getting quoted by ECFs until early 2nd century, is it possible the Theotokos doctrine got developed before the trinity?

Since the Gospel of John wasn't written until the mid-late 1st century, and the internet wasn't quite as fast then as it is now; it not being quoted until the early 2nd century would not seem too unusual.
The concept that God being One, yet at the same time being collective was present even within Judiasm before Christ. So, I wouldn't think so but that's not an argument I'd go to the mat over without doing more research.

Though I still think the issue is with the current version of the English language being too specific.

English being too specific is not an argument that's presented very often. It's usually the other way around.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The nestorian (heretical) part of this discussion is literally central, the point, the reason the thread exists. It's part of the title, it's in the OP. It's what has continually been bandied about.
What you are refusing to aknowledge is that the Nestorian argument is not new. It's not specific to protestants. It was condemened as heretical a long time ago, yet there are some who bring it back around to be refuted again.
This is the discussion, it's not the sidebar.
Your insistance on changing the meaning of words is a sidebar, Theotokos means the same thing whether you believe in intercessory prayer, specifically the intercession of the saints, or not. You could possibly reject intercession altogether and Mary is still Theotokos. The concepts are not necessarily linked.

Literally the first "Protestants", Lutherans, have been doing that for five hundred years. We affirm that Mary is the mother of God (always have, always will), but we don't practice intercession of the saints.

We actually have quite a high view of Mary, at least comparatively with "Protestantism" more broadly. Our Confessions call her semper virginis. Dr. Luther himself chose to be ambiguous on a few things, for example when it came to Mary's Assumption and/or Dormition, Luther chose to say that we know Mary is in heaven, but we don't know how she got there. Luther was ambivalent about Mary as "queen of heaven", warning against its excessive use. Essentially Luther's, and to a great degree Lutheran, views on Mary are a mixture of high veneration and careful examination: that all Marian honors should be Christocentric rather than Mariacentric, that the emphasis must always be on Mary as the passive recipient of grace rather than her as an active agent.

Mary's honor is in her being "the highly favored" of God, the handmaiden of God who hears God's word, receives God's promises, and trusts in them through faith. She is called blessed among women because she has become mother of God, for the blessed and Divine fruit of her womb makes her blessed. She is therefore an example to all of us, and a mother to be loved for she has given birth to our Salvation. She is honored for she has honored her Son, she is blessed for her Son is blessed, she is holy because her Son is holy. She is great because her Son is great. She is therefore blessed among women, highly favored, the handmaiden of God, the blessed mother of God, the holy Theotokos.

And literally everything I just said in that last paragraph is biblical. Scripture itself even has Elizabeth calling her "mother of my Lord". That's Theotokos by another name.

-CryptoLutheran