Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[ozso]

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from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.”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.

That the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible seems to be the only and therefore default argument for most of what the RCC and EOC teaches about Mary not being in the Bible. But while the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible the concept clearly is. A person can say they don't approve of the term "Trinity" and prefer the term "Triune Godhead" or whatever instead, but that doesn't mean they reject the theology that's called the "Trinity". Is it in any way logical to assume that because a certain term for a concept isn't accepted, that means the concept itself is being rejected? Because that makes no sense whatsoever to me.

I've listened to non-trinitarians and their argument is not summed up in or limited to "the word Trinity isn't in the Bible". That's just the starting point, not the whole argument against it. Not by a longshot.

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.

No not your argument, but rather the argument that you're maintaining, which pretty much the same as others who maintain that argument. There's no logical or practical reason to write in a manner that's hard to follow. Now take someone like Brian Cox for example. He's a genius physicist but he converses with others regarding his field of expertise is a very plain english ordinary way. He could I'm sure expound in a way that would sound like gobbledygook to most, but I think he logically deduced it was better to be as easy to understand and be as concise as possible. Likewise any hugely knowledgeable Christian apologist I know of, speaks in a way that's easy for the common man to understand. As for the Mariology arguments reminding me of Sabbitarian arguments, that applies to just about everyone who I get into arguments about Mariology with. Now you can keep insisting that my pointing out the lack of scriptural citation for a doctrine should not be used because it's a logical fallacy, but I'm not buying into that for a minute.

 

[ozso]

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.)

The position exists without me. And there's lots of times when I play devil's advocate: a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments. A person should never have to defend themselves personally or explain themselves. They should only have to defend and explain the position they're maintaining.

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).

People not saying things in an ordinary way, is a severe pet peeve of mine that I sometimes let get the better of me. I just don't see what purpose it serves or accomplishes in any way. All it usually only results in is getting the person they're talking to to skip reading most of what they have to say and or misunderstand them. But I will not bring it up again.

 

[dzheremi]

That's not what I said.

What I was responding to was this, from your post #974 about the deficiencies in one of The Liturgist's replies to you:

"All of that didn't really address the fact that all of the tiles [sic] for Mary outside of "mother of my Lord" and "Mary the mother of Jesus" were invented outside of Scripture"

I took this for what it seems to mean via a plain reading -- namely, that the fact that all of the titles for Mary outside of "Mother of my Lord" and "Mary the mother of Jesus" were invented outside of Scripture must mean something negative with regard to their validity or doctrinal soundness (or however you'd put it). If that is not what was meant to be infered, then I really have no idea why you would write something like this, or what it is actually supposed to mean instead of that.

Since I've apparently misinterpreted your position in some grievous way, can you please explain what you meant in the above quote, so that I and others can try to understand you as you intend to be understood?

Do you read into scripture the way you read into my posts what isn't there?

This is an irrelevant swipe at me, but just so that it's out there, I don't read the scriptures in a private, idiosyncratic way. When I read them outside of praying with them (e.g., from the Psalms or the readings from the Gospels in the Agpeya), I will generally read them and meditate upon them while consulting the fathers as to their meaning, since there is truly no thought that I can (or perhaps I should say should) have that is outside of the guiding lights of our fathers and mothers in the faith, whether we're talking about an ancient father accepted by all like HH St. Cyril, the Pillar of Faith, or a modern figure such as Tamav Irini, the abbess of Abu Seifein convent whose life story and many miracles and recorded speeches serve as a kind of informal example of one whose entire life was bathed in the word, in both its written and more importantly Its Incarnate form.

Of course this does not mean that I am therefore free from the possibility or reality of error (I am but a limited and fallible man, just as everyone is), but the point is that your question doesn't really apply when it comes to inquiring how the the Orthodox read the Bible, because any personal sense I may have regarding what scripture does or does not mean is to be measured against and ultimately shaped by what the Fathers tell us. Orthodox take seriously the question of the Ethiopian eunuch ("How can I understand if no one will teach me?"), as most everyone does, and so we avail ourselves very frequently of what they have left us, and continue to leave us. (In the sense that the "age of the fathers" is not a distinct period in the past, as there are fathers and mothers in every age.)

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 think you may be confusing two different issues here. One is the contention that the titles given to St. Mary are "invented outside of scripture" and that this means something (bad), as already mentioned. The other is the contention that there is nowhere in scripture where "God" is used in place of "Jesus" (as in post #904), which also apparently means something. Of course, in reality, these are two different iterations of the same "that's not written in the Bible in the specific words I want it to be" complaint, which is why I stated what I believe to be your reasoning in the opening of my reply to you (the one you are replying to now). Again, if you want to clarify what you meant in that statement, if I've somehow misunderstood or mischaracterized your reasoning, I am all ears. I know it may be hard to believe when you feel yourself personally attacked, but I do not actually want to misinterpret or misrepresent you. I want to understand how it is that what you're saying can be understood in an acceptable manner by the other Christians here, because that's obviously not where we're at right now, and that's a bad thing. All Christians should be of one mind on the basics of the faith. That's the point of adhering to the Nicene Creed, for instance, which serves as the statement of faith of this very omni-denominational/omni-communal website.

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.

With respect, I think it may seem purposely defamatory to you because it's obviously directed to you in particular, but the reason why that is is that no one else seems to be making the particular arguments that you are making right now. If they were, I'd be directing the same or similar questions and statements towards them, depending on what they write.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... the lack of scriptural citation for a doctrine should not be used ...

Jesus who believed Scripture meanings, did say He was the Son of Man mentioned in the OT. I'm not defending the attitude of any poster (I merely help myself to facts based on my best version of honest logic and background knowledge), I'm offering simply that and not to "refute" anybody.

I pointed out that the Mary wrangle is really a sacrament wrangle. The western church had its sacraments in a twist after about AD 200. This also ties in with my post 770. Jesus sending the Comforter at Ascension wasn't an add-on, it was the main deal all along. He did so because He was wholly God and wholly man. This is why the time now is, we can worship in Spirit and truth.

The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. I hope you will evade the Sabbatarians!

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... A person should never have to defend themselves personally or explain themselves. They should only have to defend and explain the position they're maintaining ...

To clarify; when you said you were explaining yourself you were also actually completing the explanation of your position.

Any post is addressed to members and non members. And why would you not be entitled to point out what you would like to have further detail on?

 

[ozso]

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.

Fine with me because I don't like feeling like I'm bashing Catholicism and Orthodoxy which I'm largely fond of overall.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

What I was ... what they write.

When I was picking you up, what I really meant was that you weren't eliciting OC's position.

 

[ozso]

What I was responding to was this, from your post #974 about the deficiencies in one of The Liturgist's replies to you:

"All of that didn't really address the fact that all of the tiles [sic] for Mary outside of "mother of my Lord" and "Mary the mother of Jesus" were invented outside of Scripture"

I took this for what it seems to mean via a plain reading -- namely, that the fact that all of the titles for Mary outside of "Mother of my Lord" and "Mary the mother of Jesus" were invented outside of Scripture must mean something negative with regard to their validity or doctrinal soundness (or however you'd put it). If that is not what was meant to be infered, then I really have no idea why you would write something like this, or what it is actually supposed to mean instead of that.

Since I've apparently misinterpreted your position in some grievous way, can you please explain what you meant in the above quote, so that I and others can try to understand you as you intend to be understood?

Not being accepting of non-scriptural titles for Mary, does not equate to denying that Jesus is God.

This is an irrelevant swipe at me, but just so that it's out there, I don't read the scriptures in a private, idiosyncratic way. When I read them outside of praying with them (e.g., from the Psalms or the readings from the Gospels in the Agpeya), I will generally read them and meditate upon them while consulting the fathers as to their meaning, since there is truly no thought that I can (or perhaps I should say should) have that is outside of the guiding lights of our fathers and mothers in the faith, whether we're talking about an ancient father accepted by all like HH St. Cyril, the Pillar of Faith, or a modern figure such as Tamav Irini, the abbess of Abu Seifein convent whose life story and many miracles and recorded speeches serve as a kind of informal example of one whose entire life was bathed in the word, in both its written and more importantly Its Incarnate form.

Of course this does not mean that I am therefore free from the possibility or reality of error (I am but a limited and fallible man, just as everyone is), but the point is that your question doesn't really apply when it comes to inquiring how the the Orthodox read the Bible, because any personal sense I may have regarding what scripture does or does not mean is to be measured against and ultimately shaped by what the Fathers tell us. Orthodox take seriously the question of the Ethiopian eunuch ("How can I understand if no one will teach me?"), as most everyone does, and so we avail ourselves very frequently of what they have left us, and continue to leave us. (In the sense that the "age of the fathers" is not a distinct period in the past, as there are fathers and mothers in every age.)

I just didn't like having something read into my post that isn't there.

I think you may be confusing two different issues here. One is the contention that the titles given to St. Mary are "invented outside of scripture" and that this means something (bad), as already mentioned.

It's the if you don't accept those titles for Mary, you're saying Jesus somehow isn't God assertion I object to.

The other is the contention that there is nowhere in scripture where "God" is used in place of "Jesus" (as in post #904), which also apparently means something.

It means when people hear/read "God" they'll probably think Godhead or the Father, before they think Jesus.

Of course, in reality, these are two different iterations of the same "that's not written in the Bible in the specific words I want it to be" complaint,

No the complaint is it isn't written anywhere in the bible in any way whatsoever. What you posted above is a false quote attributed to me. So if you want to be accurate, instead of posting "that's not written in the Bible in the specific words I want it to be" post my actual quote of "it isn't written anywhere in the Bible in any way whatsoever".

which is why I stated what I believe to be your reasoning in the opening of my reply to you (the one you are replying to now). Again, if you want to clarify what you meant in that statement, if I've somehow misunderstood or mischaracterized your reasoning, I am all ears. I know it may be hard to believe when you feel yourself personally attacked, but I do not actually want to misinterpret or misrepresent you. I want to understand how it is that what you're saying can be understood in an acceptable manner by the other Christians here, because that's obviously not where we're at right now, and that's a bad thing. All Christians should be of one mind on the basics of the faith. That's the point of adhering to the Nicene Creed, for instance, which serves as the statement of faith of this very omni-denominational/omni-communal website.

Try not to jump to conclusions.

With respect, I think it may seem purposely defamatory to you because it's obviously directed to you in particular, but the reason why that is is that no one else seems to be making the particular arguments that you are making right now. If they were, I'd be directing the same or similar questions and statements towards them, depending on what they write.

The less "you" and "your" there is in a debate the better.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not being accepting of non-scriptural titles for Mary, does not equate to denying that Jesus is God.

I just didn't like having something read into my post that isn't there.

It's the if you don't accept those titles for Mary, you're saying Jesus somehow isn't God assertion I object to.

It means when people hear/read "God" they'll probably think Godhead or the Father, before they think Jesus.

No the complaint is it isn't written anywhere in the bible in any way whatsoever. What you posted above is a false quote attributed to me. So if you want to be accurate, instead of posting "that's not written in the Bible in the specific words I want it to be" post my actual quote of "it isn't written anywhere in the Bible in any way whatsoever".

Try not to jump to conclusions.



The less "you" and "your" there is in a debate the better.

I thought we were going to leave this issue alone collectively?

 

[ozso]

I thought we were going to leave this issue alone collectively?

Like I said if you want to leave it alone that's fine by me. You know this is going to start right back up in another thread. Or there's already one in progress.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I thought we were going to leave this issue alone collectively?

You thought. OC has begun to largely defend his point better, especially against exaggeration from elsewhere. I'm here to help everybody, including non participants, including non-member readers.

 

[ozso]

You thought. OC has begun to largely defend his point better, especially against exaggeration from elsewhere. I'm here to help everybody, including non participants, including non-member readers.

Actually I'm arguing MacArthur's position with the goal of sparking convincing arguments against it. Apparently that resulted in getting others hot under the collar to where they needed to step away and cool off.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Not being accepting of non-scriptural titles for Mary, does not equate to denying that Jesus is God.

I just didn't like having something read into my post that isn't there.

It's the if you don't accept those titles for Mary, you're saying Jesus somehow isn't God assertion I object to.

It means when people hear/read "God" they'll probably think Godhead or the Father, before they think Jesus.

No the complaint is it isn't written anywhere in the bible in any way whatsoever. What you posted above is a false quote attributed to me. So if you want to be accurate, instead of posting "that's not written in the Bible in the specific words I want it to be" post my actual quote of "it isn't written anywhere in the Bible in any way whatsoever".

It is very good that you have stood up for your language. BTW Jesus did say He was "Son of Man", an Old Testament phrase that meant God become man. As we are egalitarians (and realists concerning human biology), that means Mary. You can be one of the people that explains this. At least this shows directly that it is about Him.

A point not made yet is that heresy or error (if present) don't always imply personal guilt (word in thread title).

We established errors aren't always heresies, and we also seem to get the impression JM, despite being very big, is at bottom an average protestant, and also we hope that he tries hard to not go for ESS just because nearly everybody else (including the Romans) has done so - a thing which then leads to vetoing of gifts.

I have long been confused by the fact that too few other leaders wanted to combat the bad trends JM had earlier spoken against: were they afraid that those were the only things they could employ to "attract"? They undermined JM and us all because they were the ones that were vetoing gifts in an underhand manner while asserting their own "new apostleship".

Gifts = to do with bearing Christ to one another (the meaning behind the issue).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

p.s background information, as information, is appreciated.

Please realise that shorter paragraphs will help you as a writer distinguish your own different purposes in making different remarks. (The spin off is that it helps a reader to do so as well.)

 

[The Liturgist]

It is very good that you have stood up for your language. BTW Jesus did say He was "Son of Man", an Old Testament phrase that meant God become man. As we are egalitarians (and realists concerning human biology), that means Mary. You can be one of the people that explains this. At least this shows directly that it is about Him.

We have not established that errors are not heresies, rather I merely conceded that for of pastoral care reasons of oikonomia I refer to low-level Nestorianism as a major Christological error and not as a heresy. If John MacArthur is teaching people that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not the Mother of God, he is not only committing a serious Christological error but teaching one, which is much worse.

The denial that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to God is completely pointless, a point which has been made, and your post has basically brought to an end the brief tranquility that existed herein, since I don’t think members like @dzheremi, @MarkRohfrietsch, @Xeno.of.athens and other members who believe in the Patristic tradition of the Early Church are going to allow the idea that St. Mary is Theotokos being acceptable without presenting a counter-argument.

Also, there has been an error made in recent posts that somehow not using the term Theotokos when referring to St. Mary does not constitute Nestorianism provided one does not engage in the implied Christological heresy, but this is directly contrary to the teaching of both the Council of Ephesus, universally recognized as the Third Ecumenical Synod, and the Council of Chalcedon, which is recognized as the Fourth Ecumenical Synod by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and most Protestants, even Protestants who reject the Seventh Ecumenical Synod against Iconoclasm, which is another serious error that John MacArthur seems likely to be engaging in.

By the way @Xeno.of.athens were my answers to the Christological content of the RC titles for Our Most Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary correct?

As far as heresy goes, after seeing some of his work his opinions on Mary are the least of his problems.

Did you enumerate those in another post? I went through the first page of the thread.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

It is in line with the materialistic mindset of Rome (exhibited in relation to sacraments * ) that because it was rumoured that Mary's remains had vanished (as a plausible extra-biblical fact), she was said to be still around for us in a far bigger way than when one talks to one's parents or friends after they've passed away.

{ * I have very distinct views on "communion" which I have probably expressed somewhere, which I expect Luther would agree with though I've not read him up on it }

The Grail idea presumably was based on nothing more unusual than an empty casket. (Cup = container = bearer.)

If I was ever with people that were "praying to" a saint / blessed / venerable / hoped for venerable, that they would pray to Jesus for us, my main worry was whether they would actually overhear us. I grouped Mary with those. (This is just me; my Roman church didn't instruct.)

As daughter of a very believing household I think her position was similar to John the Baptist's (who was Spirit filled before birth). The Baptist's parents were near the age of Mary's parents.

What some newly hyped "dogmas" were purportedly claimed to show us, boil down - as livable Holy Spirit teaching - to things christians knew all along (if they knew).

 

[ozso]

It is very good that you have stood up for your language. BTW Jesus did say He was "Son of Man", an Old Testament phrase that meant God become man. As we are egalitarians (and realists concerning human biology), that means Mary. You can be one of the people that explains this. At least this shows directly that it is about Him.

A point not made yet is that heresy or error (if present) don't always imply personal guilt (word in thread title).

We established errors aren't always heresies, and we also seem to get the impression JM, despite being very big, is at bottom an average protestant, and also we hope that he tries hard to not go for ESS just because nearly everybody else (including the Romans) has done so - a thing which then leads to vetoing of gifts.

I have long been confused by the fact that too few other leaders wanted to combat the bad trends JM had earlier spoken against: were they afraid that those were the only things they could employ to "attract"? They undermined JM and us all because they were the ones that were vetoing gifts in an underhand manner while asserting their own "new apostleship".

Gifts = to do with bearing Christ to one another (the meaning behind the issue).

I really don't see any point in harping over MacArthur, because the position he's holding isn't held by him alone. It existed before he was born. And it will exist after he dies. The only thing that really sets him somewhat apart is that he has a large audience. But I'm sure there's an unknown pastor of a tiny home church who's delivering the same view.

The heresy claim is that of Nestorianism. And that's not being determined by what's said about Jesus, but rather by what's said about Mary. The way it seems to work is, if someone firmly believes that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, but doesn't believe in the Theotokos, then he's a Nestorian.

In my honest opinion that isn't really done to protect a proper belief in Christ, but rather to protect the Veneration of the Theotokos.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

As far as heresy goes, after seeing some of his work his opinions on Mary are the least of his problems.

This is in fact very interesting and I was having difficulty in saying this. And it's down to others every bit as much as him as sole individual - especially those who let him down.

I long suspected that the wars inside protestantism have destroyed christian belief (and secular knowledge) altogether and wish they would grasp some things not to go to war with each other and the world about.

The core error of nearly all of them is to regard Scripture (and any language on any subject) as without meaning.

This is difficult for me to articulate because I mix widely and everybody is dear to my heart. Many of those I actually met (who don't understand the doctrines of their organisations) have something in them that I treasure (e.g the gift that their elders sabotage).

Maybe some thread participants hold some truths personally. It's no use trying to relate to people that don't.

JM, like the Roman leaders, inevitably finds himself in a position analogous to a politician.

JM is of course calvinist (which has almost identical to Roman stances) like almost all other protestants, so he blends in. I note Calvin hasn't been listed by thread participants alongside Luther and many other past luminaries whom we may appreciate for this or that.

Error is error with or without degrees of guilt according to their own consciences.

Christ bearing is about God bearing: otherwise how would Jesus have sent the Comforter to us at Ascension? What this about is not a check list: it is about whether my friends can give me and each other belief during this contingent lifespan.

It's easy to get superstitious about others' superstitions. Are JM's audiences wholesomely warned (possible and to be hoped), or do they enjoy being smug? He would surely leave them free to think.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I really don't see any point in harping over MacArthur, because the position he's holding isn't held by him alone. It existed before he was born. And it will exist after he dies. The only thing that really sets him somewhat apart is that he has a large audience. But I'm sure there's an unknown pastor of a tiny home church who's delivering the same view. 1

The heresy claim is that of Nestorianism. And that's not being determined by what's said about Jesus, but rather by what's said about Mary. The way it seems to work 2 is, if someone firmly believes that Jesus 100% God and 100% man, but doesn't believe in the Theotokos, then he's a Nestorian.

In my honest opinion that isn't really done to protect a proper belief in Christ, but rather to protect the Veneration of the Theotokos.

1 . Absolutely.

2 . From "seems" and "not really" I understand you are portraying the prevalent deviation.

Some thread participants have "pious hopes" for Romans. I knew (a long time ago) some Romans who appeared from their way of living to be free of these errors. In fact several of them, sadly, fell into bondage after that.

I took background information as just that. You helped me when you explained your position in more than one-liners.

In terms of dialectic, a discussion rings true when we sense the effects on the quality of belief reflected in lives. Otherwise, words do nothing against other words.

I thought thread participants offering background information would appreciate this.

(As an aside for some - only some - the sense of "veneration" really is very muted, it may mean just appreciate.)

Augustine was right to oppose the Donatists on baptism, but not on ordination (a power trip issue).

 

[ozso]

We have not established that errors are not heresies, rather I merely conceded that for of pastoral care reasons of oikonomia I refer to low-level Nestorianism as a major Christological error and not as a heresy. If John MacArthur is teaching people that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not the Mother of God, he is not only committing a serious Christological error but teaching one, which is much worse.

The denial that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to God is completely pointless, a point which has been made, and your post has basically brought to an end the brief tranquility that existed herein, since I don’t think members like @dzheremi, @MarkRohfrietsch, @Xeno.of.athens and other members who believe in the Patristic tradition of the Early Church are going to allow the idea that St. Mary is Theotokos being acceptable without presenting a counter-argument.

Also, there has been an error made in recent posts that somehow not using the term Theotokos when referring to St. Mary does not constitute Nestorianism provided one does not engage in the implied Christological heresy, but this is directly contrary to the teaching of both the Council of Ephesus, universally recognized as the Third Ecumenical Synod, and the Council of Chalcedon, which is recognized as the Fourth Ecumenical Synod by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and most Protestants, even Protestants who reject the Seventh Ecumenical Synod against Iconoclasm, which is another serious error that John MacArthur seems likely to be engaging in.

By the way @Xeno.of.athens were my answers to the Christological content of the RC titles for Our Most Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary correct?



Did you enumerate those in another post? I went through the first page of the thread.

This has already been covered. I don't know how familiar you are with MacArthur, but I've been listening to him off and on for half a century. And I know that MacArthur teaches that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. So the question of whether or not MacArthur is a Nestorian, resisides completely in what he says about Mary. And what he says is (I know this because I actually listened to what he had to say about it) is that Mary isn't the mother of God as in the Triune Godhead. When he says God wasn't born, he means God the Godhead. Or put another way Jesus being God did not come from Mary.

Now that might seem like a stupid thing to say and of course Jesus being God didn't come from Mary and we have never said that.

But in MacArthur's view Mary is idolized to such a huge degree, that is what's being said.

Now where does MacArthur (and others) get such an idea? The idea comes from Catholic literature about Mary. Especially in written down prayers to Mary and what's said to and about Mary in them. Which in his opinion are the kinds of praises and proclamations that should only be made to God.

One of the things he points out is in the rosery prayer, it's one Our Father for every five Hail Mary's. So his view is that worshiping Mary takes precedent over worshiping God.