Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[The Liturgist]

The very idea that things that are outside of scripture in the sense of not being explicitly mentioned there in the exact words that would satisfy whatever type of Protestantism you belong to are thereby "invented" and can be summarily dismissed or rejected does your position a real disservice, as the same would have to be said regarding many things that I'm sure you accept, and many things you have mentioned in your arguments in this thread. For instance, you mention in post #976 that you never heard the term Theotokos in all your years of attending "Bible School", which is itself a phenomenon that is of course found nowhere in the scriptures, as the first theological school (itself not really equivalent to Protestant "Bible School", but probably as close as we can get to that in the ancient world, in that it provided a place with some structure around which people would learn the scriptures and their interpretation from recognized teachers) cannot be found with certainty in the written record until the mid-to-late second century, though tradition dating from long ago (mentioned in, e.g., St. Jerome and elsewhere) points to its founding by apostle and evangelist of Egypt St. Mark himself (this is the Coptic Orthodox Church's belief, and we have lists of deans of the theological school which fill in who presided over it before 190 to back that up, though they are written later, based upon the tradition that has been present in Egypt since at least the second century).

Does such a comparatively 'late' date mean that "Bible School" as a concept is inherently suspect and to be rejected? If so, why did you go there?

I am surprised that Bible Schools apparently do not mention universally mention, at least in passing, the ecumenical councils and the Nestorian controversy, if not provide mandatory courses on Christian history, since every seminary I am aware of, even Pepperdine which is run by the fundamentalist branch of the Stone-Campbell movement, the Church of Christ, whose congregations are radically anti-Catholic and follow an approach commonly called Nuda Scriptura. I believe the history of the Church is essential to understanding dogmatic theology and correct Scriptural interpretation.

 

[ozso]

The very idea that things that are outside of scripture in the sense of not being explicitly mentioned there in the exact words that would satisfy whatever type of Protestantism you belong to are thereby "invented" and can be summarily dismissed or rejected does your position a real disservice, as the same would have to be said regarding many things that I'm sure you accept, and many things you have mentioned in your arguments in this thread. For instance, you mention in post #976 that you never heard the term Theotokos in all your years of attending "Bible School", which is itself a phenomenon that is of course found nowhere in the scriptures, as the first theological school (itself not really equivalent to Protestant "Bible School", but probably as close as we can get to that in the ancient world, in that it provided a place with some structure around which people would learn the scriptures and their interpretation from recognized teachers) cannot be found with certainty in the written record until the mid-to-late second century, though tradition dating from long ago (mentioned in, e.g., St. Jerome and elsewhere) points to its founding by apostle and evangelist of Egypt St. Mark himself (this is the Coptic Orthodox Church's belief, and we have lists of deans of the theological school which fill in who presided over it before 190 to back that up, though they are written later, based upon the tradition that has been present in Egypt since at least the second century).

Does such a comparatively 'late' date mean that "Bible School" as a concept is inherently suspect and to be rejected? If so, why did you go there?

Well let's see, Paul and several others were teachers. A teacher teaching someone pretty much the definition of school. And Paul taught scripture so that's pretty much bible school. But let's get to what what I'm actually talking about, which is doctrine. The when is a factor of who. Who taught it? Did any of the apostles teach it? No? Okay then did the apostolic fathers teach it? No? Okay, did at least the early church fathers who followed them teach it? If a doctrine wasn't taught by anyone until the fourth century, that of course rules out Jesus, the apostles, the apostolic fathers and the early church fathers as having taught it. Now when it comes to stuff I hear about Mary, it's not that those things aren't explicitly taught by the apostles in the New Testament, it's that they are not taught in any way whatsoever. Now my pointing that out was called an argument from silence. But I think the scriptures should be searched when it comes to what is being taught. And there's scriptural precedence for that:

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

 

[The Liturgist]

There are many titles related to Blessed Mary that are Christological, almost all of them are in fact Christological. For example ...
Blessed Mary,

the Most Holy Mother of God,​

Queen of Heaven,​

Seat of Wisdom,​

Ark of Salvation,​

Mother of Mercy,​

Mother of Love,​

Mother of the Faithful,​

Queen of Peace,​

Joy of All Who Sorrow,​

Help of Christians.​

Take a few moments to reflect on each and see if you understand how they are Christological.

Well, here is my take on it:

1. Since she gave birth to God and was assumed bodily into Heaven on her death,
2. In Heaven, she is like the Queen Mother
3. The Logos, whose name means Word, Reason, Logic, the foundations of Logic, sat on her lap.
4. She contained our Savior inside her, just as the Ark of the Covenant contained the tablets of the law among other things,
5. In Orthodoxy the most common icon of her, with Jesus in her lap, is called “The mercy seat” and Christ is merciful and the Theotokos gave birth to Him.
6. God is love and she is the mother of God,
7. The Body of Christ is the Church according to St. Paul, whose members are the faithful, and she gave birth to Christ our God. Additionally she acts as a mother figure for Christians such as the former Australian atheist turned Coptic Orthodox monk Fr. Lazarus el Antony.
8. Jesus Christ is King of Peace and the Blessed Virgin Mary is his Mother,
9. Her Son triumphed over Death, the supreme sorrow, and she comforts us by virtue of being His Mother.
10. The Theotokos helps us in our faith by interceding for us, reminding us of the Holy Spirit and his power in our lives, and most importantly pointing us to Christ our True God.

 

[ozso]

I am surprised that Bible Schools apparently do not mention universally mention, at least in passing, the ecumenical councils and the Nestorian controversy, if not provide mandatory courses on Christian history, since every seminary I am aware of, even Pepperdine which is run by the fundamentalist branch of the Stone-Campbell movement, the Church of Christ, whose congregations are radically anti-Catholic and follow an approach commonly called Nuda Scriptura. I believe the history of the Church is essential to understanding dogmatic theology and correct Scriptural interpretation.

That would be Christian history. I mostly received expository teaching from scripture. Although history did play a part in that to explain things written in scripture that required a summary of the history and culture in which they were written. Like "the reason why Paul said that was because back then...". This was all taught to me in church by pastors who had teaching credentials. My former pastor was a dean of a Calvary Chapel Bible College for instance. My current pastor was a professor, but I don't recall what his credentials are. And I haven't attended a bible school taught by him. Also what I said is that I don't recall hearing the term "Theotokos". That doesn't mean that I didn't. It just means it wasn't prominent in what I was being taught. Now perhaps you have a photographic memory and clearly recall every detail of what you were taught, but my memory is simply average.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well let's see, Paul and several others were teachers. A teacher teaching someone pretty much the definition of school. And Paul taught scripture so that's pretty much bible school. But let's get to what what I'm actually talking about, which is doctrine. The when is a factor of who. Who taught it? Did any of the apostles teach it? No? Okay then did the apostolic fathers teach it? No? Okay, did at least the early church fathers who followed them teach it? If a doctrine wasn't taught by anyone until the fourth century, that of course rules out Jesus, the apostles, the apostolic fathers and the early church fathers as having taught it. Now when it comes to stuff I hear about Mary, it's not that those things aren't explicitly taught by the apostles in the New Testament, it's that they are not taught in any way whatsoever. Now my pointing that out was called an argument from silence. But I think the scriptures should be searched when it comes to what is being taught. And there's scriptural precedence for that:

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

Yes the Scriptures should be searched, and they confirm Mary is Mother of God, since Jesus Christ is God and she gave birth to Him.

Also logic must be used when searching the Scriptures as the Bereans did, or else one will misinterpret them, especially since Christ is Logic. It does Him a disservice to read the primary inspired revelation of Him without applying logic. Thus, we have to avoid fallacies such as an argument from silence, the fallacy of composition, the appeal to ignorance or to false authority, et cetera.

 

[ozso]

Forgive me, but firstly, members on Christianity know me for my detailed responses, and secondly, for striving for accuracy in discussions.

For me personally there's such a thing as information overload; the state of being overwhelmed by the amount of data presented for one's attention or processing. That's a big problem for me since I have severe ADHD, learning disability and cognitive impairments. Which is why I spent most of my childhood in a segregated "EH"classroom for "educationally handicapped" kids. We joked that "EH" stood for empty head. I think most of us probably had high functioning autism. Not meaning to tell a sob story. But pointing out that some people have limits as to how much they can absorb in a post.

You suggested Theotokos was a Catholic term and while it is true insofar as the Orthodox possess Catholicity as well as doctrinal and liturgical Orthodoxy, the implication was the term was of Roman Catholic origin and I for one, having a great devotion to the Alexandrian and Coptic Christians in general and particular those* such as St. Cyril the Great could not accept such an error.

Unless St. Cyril the Great was born after the Great Schism of 1054, didn't he belong to the Universal (Catholic) Church?

*Also for the benefit of @dzheremi some other Coptic and Alexandrian fathers I admire are St. Anthony the Great, his biographer St. Athanasius, the mysterious St. Paul the Hermit, St. Pishoy, St. Serapion of Thmuis, St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Peter of Alexandria, St. Dioscorus, St. Moses the Black, St. Pachomius, the other Desert Fathers like Abba Sisoes and the many holy martyrs, especially St. Mina and the child martyr St. Abanoub. One really sees an example of true Christian living in these glorious heroes of the faith, whose lives reflect the infinite brilliance of the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity.

I wish I was a church history and theological know-it-all, but alas I'm just a basic average ordinary Christian.

 

[ozso]

Yes the Scriptures should be searched, and they confirm Mary is Mother of God, since Jesus Christ is God and she gave birth to Him.

That's just the tip of the iceberg of all that's taught about Mary by the RCC and EOC.

Also logic must be used when searching the Scriptures as the Bereans did, or else one will misinterpret them, especially since Christ is Logic. It does Him a disservice to read the primary inspired revelation of Him without applying logic. Thus, we have to avoid fallacies such as an argument from silence, the fallacy of composition, the appeal to ignorance or to false authority, et cetera.

Well people over the years have described me as being a "critical thinker". Now an argument from silence is described as "drawing a conclusion based on the silence of the opponent, when the opponent is refusing to give evidence for any reason". Does that really equate to pointing out when doctrinal and or theological claims are not backed up by scripture? I'm going to be a bit brusk here and say that arguments I have over the whole Mariology ball of wax, greatly remind me of arguments I have with SDA members and Sabbatarians in general over obligatory and mandatory Christian observance of the Seventh Day Sabbath. I'm supposed to eschew the fact that it isn't taught in the New Testament. I'm supposed to eschew the fact that the church fathers never taught it. And I'm supposed to accept the
eisegetical interpretation of proof texts that don't necessarily say what's being claimed, or don't really say it at all, and or are taken out of context. I have to put aside all of that because it ruins the doctrine. I need instead to go by what Ellen White and Doug Batchelor etc and SDA church doctrine says.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... referring to St. Mary as Queen of Heaven is a Roman Catholic practice ...

And not widespread either, according to my limited observation.

 

[dzheremi]

Well let's see, Paul and several others were teachers. A teacher teaching someone pretty much the definition of school. And Paul taught scripture so that's pretty much bible school. But let's get to what what I'm actually talking about, which is doctrine. The when is a factor of who. Who taught it? Did any of the apostles teach it? No? Okay then did the apostolic fathers teach it? No? Okay, did at least the early ch,urch fathers who followed them teach it? If a doctrine wasn't taught by anyone until the fourth century, that of course rules out Jesus, the apostles, the apostolic fathers and the early church fathers as having taught it. Now when it comes to stuff I hear about Mary, it's not that those things aren't explicitly taught by the apostles in the New Testament, it's that they are not taught in any way whatsoever. Now my pointing that out was called an argument from silence. But I think the scriptures should be searched when it comes to what is being taught. And there's scriptural precedence for that:

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

I'm sorry, but if the reasoning is "this concept is not found using this specific term in the scriptures, therefore it is suspect as a concept and as a term", which seems to me (and I don't think just to me) to be the reasoning by your reticence to accept "Theotokos" as a theologically orthodox and entirely unproblematic title to give to St. Mary to express her unique relation to our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ (as it is to the rest of Christianity outside of the Nestorians, Ephesus I to Luther and beyond bearing witness), then my point about "Bible School" still stands. You don't find "Bible School" in the scriptures, and yet you go there and do not think it the least bit odd that you do. I find that odd, or to be more blunt about it, incredibly hypocritical and fatally damaging to any point that you might think you're making by pointing out that such-and-such is "invented outside of the scriptures." Physician, heal thyself.

The one who cannot follow his own rules ought not to trot them out as though they are somehow more sound or 'Biblical' than what is established in the holy Orthodox Church of God across all times and places for everyone as part of holding everyone (from Pope/Patriarch on down) accountable to the same faith. You either share it or you don't, but if you don't, it's not wrong to point that out -- hence this thread, in which Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike have come together to defend the theological and Christological soundness of "Theotokos" and other basics of the faith, including even the fact (not just idea, but fact) that Jesus Christ is God, even though we do not find that exact sentence or phrase ("Jesus Christ is God") anywhere in the scriptures, either, so that too apparently fails your "not in the scriptures" test.

TL; DR summary: You seemingly can't even follow the hermeneutic that you have attempted to establish as though it somehow convicts others of believing and practicing 'non-scriptural' things, so maybe calm down on the "trying to use the Bible as a cudgel against those who first wrote, canonized, interpreted and preached it" idiosyncratic crusade-of-one. Learning is better than maintaining a constant stream of uninformed pseudo-Biblical objections. Nobody is saying you have to personally accept "Theotokos", but rather that by not doing so (just like by arguing that Christ is somehow not God; Lord have mercy!), you are putting yourself out of step with 2,000 years of consistent Christian witness in a big, obvious way. That's a risk to yourself, not the rebuke to the rest of Christianity that you seem to think it is.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... but rather that by not doing so (just like by arguing that Christ is somehow not God; Lord have mercy!) ...

suggested correction offered: by urging others be censured for doing so

 

[dzheremi]

suggested correction offered: by urging others be censured for doing so

I'm not sure (I definitely could've missed something), but I don't recall the poster in question urging that. Can you point me to a post where that is urged?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The deeper sense of "argument from silence" is when absence of evidence (which would explain why some people aren't citing it) (in this case merely of literal phrase) is taken as evidence of absence (in this case of substantive referent).

Logic, semiotics and hermeutics (on all subjects) used to be open to honest secular agnostics until some sects told them these were out of bounds in all matters for the entire public.

I will say that at my secular schools in RE lessons, what has been explained here about Jesus could be explained in a few minutes or less. This happened to coincide with what seemed implied by what miscelllaneous clergy I came across. (My local RC church didn't teach / catechise anybod)

I think that coming from "catholics" most of the prayers and statements quoted are over the top. I happen to have avoided people that used them (if there were any where I was). I never batted a eyelid when I read this from JM in his books.

I hope no "catholics" sought to impose those prayers as "obligatory and mandatory Christian observance" the way the Sabbatarians do, though nothing would surprise me. Rest assured however that unlike the Sabbatarians you've described here, they wouldn't be backed up by many. I agree with you and JM, semi-christian religion is hard hat territory. I hope you will be able to evade Sabbatarians from now on (ask for Holy Spirit help in this).

Those segments are my reply.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm supposed to eschew the fact that the church fathers never taught it.

The Church Fathers did teach that St. Mary is Theotokos. The Council of Ephesus falls right in the middle of what is commonly regarded as the Patristic era.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... I don't recall the poster in question urging that. Can you point me to a post where that is urged?

My suggestion wasn't well worded. The poster was not to personally accept something but your phrase was "by not accepting" and I thought that confusing and was trying to find something different but overshot.

 

[dzheremi]

Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying, @OldAbramBrown. I'm not a great judge of my own posting, of course, but I don't know if "by not accepting" is not clear or should be changed or what. I mean to say that those who do not accept what is held in common by the rest of Christianity put themselves 'outside the circle', so to speak, in a way that is glaringly obvious to others who do hold to the historic norms of belief and practice. I don't mean that others must accept anything that they don't want to (I find that you can't really argue, let alone force, anyone into anything), but rather that there are consequences to everything we do or do not accept, and those consequences can include a limit to how recognizably sound and orthodox your belief is to others.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well people over the years have described me as being a "critical thinker". Now an argument from silence is described as "drawing a conclusion based on the silence of the opponent, when the opponent is refusing to give evidence for any reason". Does that really equate to pointing out when doctrinal and or theological claims are not backed up by scripture?

On this point you are mistaken concerning what an Argument from Silence is. To quote the excellent Wikipedia article on the subject, “To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.” And the Southern Baptist Seminary has a very good article about the use of this fallacy in the realm of hermeneutics: The Argument from Silence

Your scriptural argument thus far has rested on the same logical fallacy those of non-Trinitarians who argue that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is false because the word Trinity isn’t found in Scripture.

And now you are likening my argument to debates with people of a single denomination, when I am representing the consensus opinion of Protestants, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and accusing me of being a “know-it-all” in addition to having previously demanded OldAbramsBrown write “in plain English” because he dared to use a concise sentence featuring the word colloquial. These remarks are examples of the Ad Hominem fallacy, in that you seem to be trying to discredit us based on our use of long posts or sophisticated language and by likening us to those who advocate for a particular denomination.

 

[ozso]

I'm sorry, but if the reasoning is "this concept is not found using this specific term in the scriptures, therefore it is suspect as a concept and as a term", which seems to me (and I don't think just to me) to be the reasoning by your reticence to accept "Theotokos" as a theologically orthodox and entirely unproblematic title to give to St. Mary to express her unique relation to our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ (as it is to the rest of Christianity outside of the Nestorians, Ephesus I to Luther and beyond bearing witness), then my point about "Bible School" still stands. You don't find "Bible School" in the scriptures, and yet you go there and do not think it the least bit odd that you do. I find that odd, or to be more blunt about it, incredibly hypocritical and fatally damaging to any point that you might think you're making by pointing out that such-and-such is "invented outside of the scriptures." Physician, heal thyself.

That's not what I said. Do you read into scripture the way you read into my posts what isn't there? I only said said that Theotokos was a foreign term to me. I had no idea what it meant until I looked it up. That's all. You're harping on "Mother of God" as if that was the main or only issue but it's just a fragment of the whole issue. The New Testament does not teach that Mary was an immaculate conception, or a perpetual virgin or that she ascended to heaven the same as Christ etc etc and most of all the NT does not teach us in any way whatsoever they we are supposed to pray to Mary. All of that was created outside of the NT and after the early church fathers were long dead.

The one who cannot follow his own rules ought not to trot them out as though they are somehow more sound or 'Biblical' than what is established in the holy Orthodox Church of God across all times and places for everyone as part of holding everyone (from Pope/Patriarch on down) accountable to the same faith. You either share it or you don't, but if you don't, it's not wrong to point that out -- hence this thread, in which Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike have come together to defend the theological and Christological soundness of "Theotokos" and other basics of the faith, including even the fact (not just idea, but fact) that Jesus Christ is God, even though we do not find that exact sentence or phrase ("Jesus Christ is God") anywhere in the scriptures, either, so that too apparently fails your "not in the scriptures" test.

They're not my rules. They're what you're calling my rules and it's weak argument. Mainly again because my arguments regarding the lengthy Maiology ball of wax is not summed up in or limited to my not having been familiar with the term "Theotokos" and your assertion that I don't understand, accept and believe in the Hypostatic Union because I wasn't familiar with the term "Theotokos" is quite frankly absurd. It seems like you're more into ad hominem mode rather than debate the issue mode.

TL; DR summary: You seemingly can't even follow the hermeneutic that you have attempted to establish as though it somehow convicts others of believing and practicing 'non-scriptural' things, so maybe calm down on the "trying to use the Bible as a cudgel against those who first wrote, canonized, interpreted and preached it" idiosyncratic crusade-of-one. Learning is better than maintaining a constant stream of uninformed pseudo-Biblical objections. Nobody is saying you have to personally accept "Theotokos", but rather that by not doing so (just like by arguing that Christ is somehow not God; Lord have mercy!), you are putting yourself out of step with 2,000 years of consistent Christian witness in a big, obvious way. That's a risk to yourself, not the rebuke to the rest of Christianity that you seem to think it is.

Pretty much everything you said is incorrect and seems obviously purposely defamatory. You've managed to get me to defend myself instead of the position I'm maintaining, which is really bad form on your part.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The Church Fathers did teach that St. Mary is Theotokos. The Council of Ephesus falls right in the middle of what is commonly regarded as the Patristic era.

To help you both:

"Patristic Era" in the usage of some = longer than the early Fathers whom some just call the "Fathers" (say up to 200 AD).

Doctrine: the apostles taught Jesus is God. It was known He was Mary's son, until propaganda that he wasn't, became dominant, thereby confusing believers about Him. As descriptive mnemonic it didn't in itself imply "devotions" of any particular kind: it should have simply helped people address Jesus soundly in their own chosen devotions to Him (and we probably have few remnants of those as contrasted with public liturgies).

The fact that this led to the Immaculate Conception idea is due to cross contamination with a materialistic doctrine of baptism. Mary being brought up in an extra strongly believing household, could be free enough of sin to bear Him. Perhaps she was extra much so.

So fallacies about Mary are largely or wholly fallacies about sacraments.

 

[The Liturgist]

They're not my rules. They're what you're calling my rules and it's weak argument. Mainly again because my arguments regarding the lengthy Maiology ball of wax is not summed up in or limited to my not having been familiar with the term "Theotokos" and your assertion that I don't understand, accept and believe in the Hypostatic Union because I wasn't familiar with the term "Theotokos" is quite frankly absurd. It seems like you're more into ad hominem mode rather than debate the issue mode.

I am extremely opposed to ad hominem arguments so I suggest we all take a breather from this debate and love one another as fellow Christians.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

That's not what I said. Do you read into scripture the way you read into my posts what isn't there? I only said said that Theotokos was a foreign term to me. I had no idea what it meant until I looked it up. That's all. You're harping on "Mother of God" as if that was the main or only issue but it's just a fragment of the whole issue. The New Testament does not teach that Mary was an immaculate conception, or a perpetual virgin or that she ascended to heaven the same as Christ etc etc and most of all the NT does not teach us in any way whatsoever they we are supposed to pray to Mary. All of that was created outside of the NT and after the early church fathers were long dead.

They're not my rules. They're what you're calling my rules and it's weak argument. Mainly again because my arguments regarding the lengthy Maiology ball of wax is not summed up in or limited to my not having been familiar with the term "Theotokos" and your assertion that I don't understand, accept and believe in the Hypostatic Union because I wasn't familiar with the term "Theotokos" is quite frankly absurd. It seems like you're more into ad hominem mode rather than debate the issue mode.

Pretty much everything you said is incorrect and seems obviously purposely defamatory. You've managed to get me to defend myself instead of the position I'm maintaining, which is really bad form on your part.

Good on you. I'm glad you have defended yourself which does indeed fill out your position. (And I didn't exactly take amiss any of your replies to me either, but had hoped for a specific question from you on them.)

It was only after I diagnosed myself with SpLDs at age 42 that I remembered I was supposed to have a support plan at age 10 which however didn't happen. I struggled through various studies. I've found that with age knowledge in any subject is cumulative. In religion I have not been instructed formally but have been exposed to a great variety of denominations and fellowships.

When I'm reading I use a combination of skim reading and my own invented version of speed reading then decide whether to parse something more slowly. I often shut one eye when reading. I can't write scholarly pieces, I only drop key words which anyone would be free to look into. (That's just me.) Expand the panels in post 992 for my replies there (technology bungle).