Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[ozso]

Lots of people say that, but since no Roman Catholics, Lutherans or High Church Anglicans or Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or Moravians or Calvinists actually believe that, nor are there any cults which teach that, It is a pointless objection. And even if a cult emerged which did believe it, there is an easy solution which is to preferentially use the term Theotokos, or Birth giver to God, in the original Greek, which is what is done in the Greek Orthodox liturgy.

Our liturgy refers to St. Mary as “Our glorious lady Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary.”. Because the phrase is in ancient Koine Greek, and not a vernacular language, it makes it clear it is a technical term and the use of that phrase eliminates even the remote possibility of an extraordinarily daft member of the church misinterpreting it as meaning that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the Holy Trinity.

I'm talking about the mental image people get in their heads when they read/hear "God". Probably because there's nowhere in scripture I can think of where "God" is used in place of "Jesus". In scripture "God" is either referring to the Godhead or the Father. So that's what usually pops into heads when "God" is heard or read.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think it's simply because in scripture "God" usually is refers to the Godhead or the Father.

That is not true is it? Jesus is God refers to Jesus. Mary is the mother of Jesus and hence the mother of God also refers to Jesus. It is not a reference to the Father and not a reference to the Holy Spirit nor is it a reference to the Blessed Trinity. Yet it is a reference to Jesus who is God.

 

[GDL]

Semi glitch: from "Anything can" is my reply.

Appreciate the input and the mention of a common road.

I was teaching (for many years) in part according to the norms, but in part not. I simply took listeners through the Text and cleared up what it said in context and quite often not per any published English translation listeners carried. My question for myself and them was always, what does He mean. At times we redeemed many hours just chasing a word through Scripture to see how He uses it so we could understand Him. For the most part I was trying to assist others to become thinkers and would tell them I never wanted to hear them say, 'well my pastor-teacher says."

I reached a point where my sense was that all these things we're doing are not really accomplishing what is to be accomplished. As I read the Text I come away with the understanding that we should be an amazing new race of people with His Spirit, His thinking, etc. I won't elaborate here. I had to move on from it.

Recently, in one of those intense prayer sessions I think many of us have, I was hit with the reality of how there is virtually not one thing in this world that will ultimately note be changed and of course will be better in ways we can hardly begin to contemplate. I can't write the entire phrase that sums it all up for me now, but it goes like this, 'it's all _______."

We corporately have a long way to go IMO. I try to remain open to how we're failing.

 

[ozso]

That is not true is it?

You've said that to me more than once, and it sounds like you're calling me a liar. How about saying "that is not correct" instead?

Jesus is God refers to Jesus. Mary is the mother of Jesus and hence the mother of God also refers to Jesus. It is not a reference to the Father and not a reference to the Holy Spirit nor is it a reference to the Blessed Trinity. Yet it is a reference to Jesus who is God.

I've tried to explain it as best as I can. Jesus is God, yes. But there's nowhere in scripture where "God" is used in place of "Jesus".

 

[dzheremi]

Lots of people say that, but since no Roman Catholics, Lutherans or High Church Anglicans or Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or Moravians or Calvinists actually believe that, nor are there any cults which teach that, It is a pointless objection. And even if a cult emerged which did believe it, there is an easy solution which is to preferentially use the term Theotokos, or Birth giver to God, in the original Greek, which is what is done in the Greek Orthodox liturgy.

Coptic Orthodox liturgies, as well. "Theotokos" is one of the terms we borrowed unchanged into Coptic, even though there is a Coptic phrase that is roughly equivalent (ethmav emefnouti, lit. 'mother of God'), which you can sometimes hear in our hymns. This is why we refer to her in some hymns as "ti-Theotokos Ethowab" (the Holy Theotokos), and in others "Ethmav Emefnouti" (which is more literally "Mother of God" -- nouti is "God", mav is "mother", and the other bits are determiners of sorts that tell us that it is a genitive phrase, i.e. mother of God). For us, these are equivalent terms, even though one is obviously more theologically precise than the other (which is probably why it was borrowed despite the Coptic phrase being an option).

We also of course have the option of referring to her as the mother of Christ, when there is reason to specify that, but note that when that is done, it is while affirming that she is Theotokos (not as some sort of option to avoid affirming that; God forbid), as in the hymn "Rashi Ne" (Rejoice, O Theotokos), as it reads "Rashi ne O ti-Theotokos Maria ethmav en-Iisous pe-Khristos", meaning "Rejoice, O Theotokos, the mother of Jesus Christ." For us, as for all Orthodox Christians, her relationship to our Lord is not something that is affirmed over or against her being the Theotokos -- it is in fact the entire reason why we call her that!

So, as usual, anyone who wants things presented in an easy to categorize fashion (wherein we either call her this or that, and the two options are obviously opposed to each other) is going to be disappointed and/or stymied by what we actually do. And you know what, good.

 

[dzheremi]

But there's nowhere in scripture where "God" is used in place of "Jesus".

Why would it have to be? Just because you've claimed it?

Are the scriptures freeing to us who strive to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, or are they to be a dull, colorless checklist of things that either are or not present in them, acting as an albatross around all of our necks as soon as someone who does not know how to understand them decides because of that deficiency to use them like a grocery list in the Supermarket of Supposed 'Scriptural' Beliefs?

 

[sunlover1]

What does that have to do with all the Catholic literature and dogma he's quoting? And can it really be heresy to refer to Mary the same way that scripture does? Is there anyone else in scripture that applies to? Does that even apply to Jesus?

I looked through your post history and you have often just said "Jesus". Why isn't Jesus the one always being given honorary titles every time he's spoken of? Why isn't it always at least "Lord Jesus"? Do you see how there's far more of an emphasis on giving Mary honorary titles every time she's spoken of, rather than Jesus?

He is Spirit, we must "worship" Him in Spirit and in truth.
Scripture makes it all very clear, concerning this.
Spritiual things are spiritually discerned.
But He will, if asked, open our eyes to understand what's written.

While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him.
Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

 

[All Becomes New]

I can't quite understand your worries about evangelising.

It's very simple, actually. There's no need to use offensive talk if we don't have to. For example, in Islam, one of the greatest sins a person can commit is to say a man is God. So while I would never say we should dumb down that Christ is God, I think saying a human femal who is the mother of God would be especially problematic for them. The vague language of "What God is Mary the mother of?" makes it especially offensive to a Muslim when we could very well say "Mary the mother of our Lord." The same would go for practicing Jews. They have enough difficulty with the Trinity (as do Muslims) so there's no need to say a human is the mother of the uncreated creator, which is how it comes across to these other religions.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You've said that to me more than once, and it sounds like you're calling me a liar.

It is a question, and it is about a statement, it is not about the author of the statement.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I've tried to explain it as best as I can. Jesus is God, yes. But there's nowhere in scripture where "God" is used in place of "Jesus".

How about John 1:1, John 1:18 in some very ancient manuscripts and some English Translations; and there are a number of passages where Jesus is called God, or great God, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, Romans 9:5

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's very simple, actually. There's no need to use offensive talk if we don't have to. For example, in Islam, one of the greatest sins a person can commit is to say a man is God. So while I would never say we should dumb down that Christ is God, I think saying a human femal who is the mother of God would be especially problematic for them. The vague language of "What God is Mary the mother of?" makes it especially offensive to a Muslim when we could very well say "Mary the mother of our Lord." The same would go for practicing Jews. They have enough difficulty with the Trinity (as do Muslims) so there's no need to say a human is the mother of the uncreated creator, which is how it comes across to these other religions.

I have asked Muslim taxi drivers about this matter - in a taxi one can have interesting conversations because of the period of time where you and the driver are confined in a small space - and the replies have been it isn't offensive because it is coming from a Christian and it is what Christians believe. It might be different if it came from a fellow Muslim.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm talking about the mental image people get in their heads when they read/hear "God".

Disturbingly a lot of Christians including, at one time, myself, form a Zeus-like image of a physically massive and powerful older man with a flowing white beard, inspired by various popular media and even some theologically problematic iconography, such as the visually stunning but theologically suboptimal ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (on the other hand, the Last Judgement painted on the east wall in lieu of reredos, is quite stunning and theologically very good).

The mental image they should get is that of Jesus Christ, because the Gospel of John makes it clear that no one has seen the Father at any time, but rather our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ makes Him visible. “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” This corresponds with other texts that indicate that no one has seen the Father at any time. Furthermore, the Father has never appeared visually except possibly in a vision of the Holy Prophet St. Isaiah, but that could also have been the Son (the majority opinion in the Orthodox Church is that the Father cannot be depicted visually in icons), but has only ever been heard. Conversely, the Holy Ghost has only ever been seen, and lacks a fixed form. Scripture indicates that both God the Father and God the Holy Ghost lack a physical, material form like that acquired by John the Son in His incarnation. So all Theophanies in the Old Testament where there is a physicality or human appearance to the presence of God, for example, when God walks through the Garden of Eden, or talks face to face with Moses, or stands in the fiery furnace with the three youths, ensuring their safety, it is our Lord, since only God the Son has a face, and stands and walks, as these are human attributes.

God the Holy Spirit on the other hand is almost certainly responsible for the Burning Bush encountered by the Holy Prophet Moses, and the column of smoke and pillar of fire that guided the Israelites through the desert is God the Holy Ghost. And in those cases where the voice of God is heard but a human form is absent, it could well be God the Father.


Probably because there's nowhere in scripture I can think of where "God" is used in place of "Jesus".
[/QUOTE]

John 1:1 for starters.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have asked Muslim taxi drivers about this matter - in a taxi one can have interesting conversations because of the period of time where you and the driver are confined in a small space - and the replies have been it isn't offensive because it is coming from a Christian and it is what Christians believe. It might be different if it came from a fellow Muslim.

Also I propose that when our theology offends Muslims, we know we are on the right track. In 2014 they murdered all the men of Sinjar, Iraq and sold the women and young boys into slavery, including sexual slavery, because the village was populated by Yazidis, a Kurdish ethno-religious group the Muslims falsely accuse of devil worship. But given that Allah in the Quran comes across as diabolical, their god is clearly our devil, or rather a demon (indeed the Septuagint version of Psalm 96 v 5, which is numbered Psalm 95 v. 5 in the Septuagint Psalter, confirms this; it reads “The gods of the gentiles are demons.” And the encounters of Muhammad with “Jibreel” have been scrutinized by many Christians who believe he was deceived and probably possessed by a demon Impersonating St. Gabriel the Archangel. Which demons are known for doing, by the way.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Also I propose that when our theology offends Muslims, we know we are on the right track. In 2014 they murdered all the men of Sinjar, Iraq and sold the women and young boys into slavery, including sexual slavery, because the village was populated by Yazidis, a Kurdish ethno-religious group the Muslims falsely accuse of devil worship. But given that Allah in the Quran comes across as diabolical, their god is clearly our devil, or rather a demon (indeed the Septuagint version of Psalm 96 v 5, which is numbered Psalm 95 v. 5 in the Septuagint Psalter, confirms this; it reads “The gods of the gentiles are demons.” And the encounters of Muhammad with “Jibreel” have been scrutinized by many Christians who believe he was deceived and probably possessed by a demon Impersonating St. Gabriel the Archangel. Which demons are known for doing, by the way.

I agree that for those who "In 2014 they murdered all the men of Sinjar, Iraq and sold the women and young boys into slavery, including sexual slavery, because the village was populated by Yazidis, a Kurdish ethno-religious group the Muslims falsely accuse of devil worship" the kind of god that they serve is demonic at best.

 

[dzheremi]

It's very simple, actually. There's no need to use offensive talk if we don't have to. For example, in Islam, one of the greatest sins a person can commit is to say a man is God. So while I would never say we should dumb down that Christ is God, I think saying a human femal who is the mother of God would be especially problematic for them. The vague language of "What God is Mary the mother of?" makes it especially offensive to a Muslim when we could very well say "Mary the mother of our Lord." The same would go for practicing Jews. They have enough difficulty with the Trinity (as do Muslims) so there's no need to say a human is the mother of the uncreated creator, which is how it comes across to these other religions.

The earliest Christian apology written in the Arabic language (c. 750 AD, which predates the translation of the scriptures into that language) is known by the customary title On the Triune Nature of God (في تثليث الله الواحد). It's a rather short text (I don't have the book at hand right now, but I'm pretty sure the entirety of it reproduced in a paragraph or two in Hoyland's invaluable compendium of early Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and other responses to Islam Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, Darwin Press, 1997), but in it we see what is the earliest approach by Christians to the claims of the new Muslim elite and their complaints against our religion: address them by refutation, rather than accommodation. In other words, there's a lot of "We do not say that _____ (what the Qur'an/Muslim boilerplate says we say), but instead that ______ (what we actually believe and proclaim)", and not really any "We'll avoid using this term because you don't like it/don't understand it, so it might a stumbling block to you." There are early writers with different approaches than either of these, such as the great Syriac Orthodox writer of the 9th century Abu Ra'ita al Takriti, who sought to defend all Christians and hence Christianity against the claims of Muslims in his native Mesopotamia by emphasizing what was held in common across all mainstream sects of our religion at that time, as it was very early on that Muslims began peddling the idea that Islam must be the true religion, because look at how much more united the Muslims supposedly are than the Christians, who cannot seem to even agree on what they believe (al Takriti absolutely destroys this idea in his letters on the subject). But in general you don't really see the shaping of Christian religious terminology or concepts according to what Muslims will accept or be able to understand. In fact, I think a case could be made that with time, as Christians became more and more familiar with (and literate in -- i.e., learning the Arabic language) the content of the Qur'an and Islamic theological claims in themselves, they only became that much more strident in their willingness to confront Islam's sacred cows and presuppositions. I don't think something like bar Salibi's "Response to the Arabs" would've necessarily been possible before his time (12th century), since it relies on a certain knowledge of the Islamic texts as they were known at the time that earlier Christians would not have had (both due to cultural and political prohibitions, and due to the fact that the Qur'anic text was actually not fixed during the time of, e.g., John of Damascus and other earlier Christians who had grown up alongside the first few generations of Muslims after their expansion out of Arabia proper).

Just a few things to hopefully think about when considering different approaches to Islam from a Christian perspective.

 

[ozso]

John 1:1 for starters.

Jesus is called "the Word" in John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word [Jesus] was with God, and the Word [Jesus] was God"

 

[ozso]

How about John 1:1, John 1:18 in some very ancient manuscripts and some English Translations; and there are a number of passages where Jesus is called God, or great God, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, Romans 9:5

Jesus is named "the Word" in John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word [Jesus] was with God, and the Word [Jesus] was God".

In John 1:18 Jesus is named "the Son". "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son [Jesus], who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." John 1:18

In 2 Peter 1:1 Jesus is named "Jesus Christ". "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:" 2 Peter 1:1

In Titus 2:13 Jesus is named "Jesus Christ". "while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," Titus 2:13

In Romans 9:5 Jesus is named "Messiah". "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah [Jesus], who is God over all, forever praised! Amen!" Romans 9:5

All of those passages describe Jesus as God, but they don't use the name "God" in place of the name "Jesus". Rather Jesus is named "Jesus Christ", "the Word" and "the Messiah".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jesus is named

This discussion isn't about names; it is about Jesus being God.

 

[Aaron112]

All of those passages describe Jesus as God

All of eternity, All of creation, All of Scripture
in perfect total harmony and perfection with no dispute
confirms this.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In John 1:18 Jesus is named "the Son". "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son [Jesus], who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." John 1:18

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
John 1:18 ESV

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 1:18 NASB

No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known.
John 1:18 NRSV-CE

John 1:18 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο