Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[OldAbramBrown]

Has nothing to do with this thread.

It "sort-of" does (see my 1,016, near the bottom)

 

[ozso]

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

What's do you mean?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... it's one Our Father for every five Hail Mary's ...

Yes this has never made the slightest sense!

My regular prayers to this day are Our Father and Glory Be. The glorifying of Christ is as we bear Him to each other.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

What do you mean?

I mean the same as you've just said, clearly, in your last three paras of 1,020.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

We have not ... be engaging in.

I greatly appreciate your acquainting me with oikonomia.

Please can you clarify your syntax in the second half of your third sentence and also in the paragraph following? I sense there are some points in there. Please give us snappy gobbets so that we can join them together for ourselves?

 

[ozso]

I mean the same as you've just said, clearly, in your last three paras of 1,020.

I'm still puzzled.

 

[Valletta]

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.

I think that the importance of the Blessed Mother and the concept of veneration of Mary would be far easier to pick up from someone reading the Bible who started with no Christian or Biblical knowledge whatsoever than the concept of the Holy Trinity. It's easy for you to say just the opposite because you believe in the Holy Trinity but not in venerating Mary. You can think, "obviously the Trinity is right there in the Bible."
When the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the 73 books of the Bible, never did the Catholic Church intend the Bible to contain all of the Word of God. Instead the Bible was a collection of various writings that the Church decided were God-breathed. Remember that Catholics are not Bible-only. That didn't catch on until a thousand of years or so after the Church chose the books of the Bible, apparently due to the influence of an Arab theologian on two Christians. The Arab taught the Quran as being the sole authority. We can agree to disagree with Scripture-only, but my point is that something does not have to be spelled out in the Bible to be God's Truth. Some things God revealed to us very clearly from the beginning, and other truths are there but not so overtly and over time the Church has defined a number of those truths. I spoke about the Assumption, that is a truth that has been revealed to the Church over time. The pope pointed to the liturgy and early homilies to show the truth of the Assumption.

 

[dzheremi]

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.

It bears being said, for clarification's sake, that Nestorius himself believed this, according to his own writings as present in The Bazaar of Heracleides. The trouble is not that he did not believe in the divinity and the humanity of Christ, but rather that he preached a radical disjunction between the two (cf. the hypostatic union) which was deemed unacceptable by the rest of the Church outside of the Church of Persia (thereafter 'The Nestorian Church', though this is something of an anachronism). The problem with trying to disentangle his wrong Christology from the issue of what it is or is not appropriate to call St. Mary by virtue of her relationship to our Savior is that this is precisely the means by which Nestorius and those of his party sought to assert their preferred Christological vision, as they objected to calling St. Mary "Theotokos" on the grounds that doing so would confuse the Persons of the Holy Trinity and make it seem like she somehow 'gave birth to' Christ's divinity or to all Persons of the Holy Trinity (sound familiar?), which is of course unacceptable and ridiculous. To combat this heresy that would have been but wasn't, they proposed instead that she ought to be referred to as "Christotokos", that is "birth-giver to Christ", which quite naturally caused everyone else who was paying attention to sensibly object to the radical disjunction that this introduces into the Person of Jesus Christ in the name of supposedly keeping the natures unconfused.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... radical disjunction between ...

This de facto disjunction is now virtually blanket de rigueur throughout the western churches - shown by the quashing of gifts just as much by the nominally "charismatic" (I've seen this close up numerous times)

This is because of disbelief in any meaning of Scriptures for ordinary people giving each other belief during this contingent lifespan.

 

[ozso]

It bears being said, for clarification's sake, that Nestorius himself believed this, according to his own writings as present in The Bazaar of Heracleides. The trouble is not that he did not believe in the divinity and the humanity of Christ, but rather that he preached a radical disjunction between the two (cf. the hypostatic union) which was deemed unacceptable by the rest of the Church outside of the Church of Persia (thereafter 'The Nestorian Church', though this is something of an anachronism). The problem with trying to disentangle his wrong Christology from the issue of what it is or is not appropriate to call St. Mary by virtue of her relationship to our Savior is that this is precisely the means by which Nestorius and those of his party sought to assert their preferred Christological vision, as they objected to calling St. Mary "Theotokos" on the grounds that doing so would confuse the Persons of the Holy Trinity and make it seem like she somehow 'gave birth to' Christ's divinity or to all Persons of the Holy Trinity (sound familiar?), which is of course unacceptable and ridiculous. To combat this heresy that would have been but wasn't, they proposed instead that she ought to be referred to as "Christotokos", that is "birth-giver to Christ", which quite naturally caused everyone else who was paying attention to sensibly object to the radical disjunction that this introduces into the Person of Jesus Christ in the name of supposedly keeping the name of the natures unconfused.

In this case it's not a matter of trying to preach a radical disjunction between the divinity and humanity of Christ. But rather only the misconception that could result in saying mother of God as you explained it. And that's augmented by what appears to be the idolization of Mary.

 

[ozso]

This de facto disjunction is now virtually blanket de rigueur throughout the western churches - shown by the quashing of gifts just as much by the nominally "charismatic" (I've seen this close up numerous times)

This is because of disbelief in any meaning of Scriptures for ordinary people giving each other belief during this contingent lifespan.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

To unpack:

I think that the importance of the Blessed Mother and the concept of veneration of Mary would be far easier to pick up from someone reading the Bible who started with no Christian or Biblical knowledge whatsoever than the concept of the Holy Trinity. ... you believe in the Holy Trinity but not in venerating Mary. You can think, "obviously the Trinity is right there in the Bible."

1 - Your main point here is very good. But you like some others use the "official" term "venerate" as if the word doesn't really have two meanings.

i . Appreciate as I appreciated some old pals doing (and some christians even claim to celebrate Calvin LOL)

ii . Or the heavy duty full-on thing that people whom I would avoid did, and which those surrounding JM and OC do, possibly of Irish, Garibaldist, Mexican or Philippino roots, probably taught to their forebears as a political weapon.

Valletta:

When the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the 73 books of the Bible, never did the Catholic Church intend the Bible to contain all of the Word of God. Instead the Bible was a collection of various writings that the Church decided were God-breathed. Remember that Catholics are not Bible-only. That didn't catch on until a thousand of years or so after the Church chose the books of the Bible, apparently due to the influence of an Arab theologian on two Christians. The Arab taught the Quran as being the sole authority. ...

I see you are falling back on a materialist form of expression that is an ineffectual mirror of that slogan "Bible Only" (I explained elsewhere why this means "Bible Minus" i.e no meanings) and doesn't counter it.

Valletta:

I spoke about the Assumption, that is a truth that has been revealed to the Church over time. The pope pointed to the liturgy and early homilies to show the truth of the Assumption.

I think there is enough in Scripture about this already and I've begun to touch on the real meaning of this (which was the real reason why it could be in homilies and liturgies if we wished).

Here's some more. For example a comparison with there not being a known grave of Moses either.

We worship in Spirit and in truth (by honouring the gift we bear to each other), not at a grave of Moses or Mary or Mt Gerizim. Mt Gerizim was but a sign of yearning by its adherents for the real Comforter whom Jesus sent at Ascension (the reason for His coming).

What used to be honest secular semiotics (before fundamentalists and Romans alike insisted it be abolished) held that a major part of being in the image of God is that language is meant to carry - convey - bear - meanings. Our God is meaningful and you and I are meaningful. When allusions (of words) intersect, we have meaning.

Hence in your middle chunk "the CC (i.e Roman) didn't intend the Bible to contain all of the Word of God" needs presenting anew in a light sharply affirming the conveying / bearing - like the ship St Catherine of Siena cradled. Contain might imply that; or it might imply limit in a materialist sense. As soon as meanings become once again taught, the Bible will "bear" to us, as the providentially received text is sufficient for that.

Especially, what the CC intended to omit from Scripture always was presumption over my God as a catholic. I said, there is enough in Holy Scripture.

To try to say the superficial opposite of the opposition, is to stay in the same paradigm.

(The Deuterocanon makes better reading than Left Behind.)

 

[ozso]

I think that the importance of the Blessed Mother and the concept of veneration of Mary would be far easier to pick up from someone reading the Bible who started with no Christian or Biblical knowledge whatsoever than the concept of the Holy Trinity. It's easy for you to say just the opposite because you believe in the Holy Trinity but not in venerating Mary.

Not quite. It's all of the claims made about Mary. If it really appeard to be ordinary veneration and nothing beyond that, that wouldn't be as issue. But it does strongly appear to go way beyond just veneration to the point of Idolatry.

You can think, "obviously the Trinity is right there in the Bible."
When the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the 73 books of the Bible, never did the Catholic Church intend the Bible to contain all of the Word of God. Instead the Bible was a collection of various writings that the Church decided were God-breathed. Remember that Catholics are not Bible-only. That didn't catch on until a thousand of years or so after the Church chose the books of the Bible, apparently due to the influence of an Arab theologian on two Christians. The Arab taught the Quran as being the sole authority. We can agree to disagree with Scripture-only, but my point is that something does not have to be spelled out in the Bible to be God's Truth. Some things God revealed to us very clearly from the beginning, and other truths are there but not so overtly and over time the Church has defined a number of those truths. I spoke about the Assumption, that is a truth that has been revealed to the Church over time. The pope pointed to the liturgy and early homilies to show the truth of the Assumption.

All of Scripture and pseudo-scripture is readily available outside of the asembled black leatherbound tome that says "Holy Bible" on it. One might suppose MacArthur is a Bible only teacher, but I heard him quote St. Clement on the radio last night. And Luther too as I recall. So even though Luther decided on Sola scriptura, that didn't mean he decided that no one should ever refer to his writings or those of other clergy going back the beginning or anything established in a council like the Nicene Creed. However the proviso is that it should conform to what is said and taught in scripture. Nor should the teachings of Christ and His Apostles take a back seat to it.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

This was mainly aimed towards the general crowd that dzheremi is part of and my meaning overlaps with what you were saying and dzheremi was saying.

The Liturgist, dzheremi and others have come out with some background, and this is belated as I can attest from what I saw happen to my companions in catholic and protestant churches alike.

It's now for you and me to help spearhead teaching others the whole of the truth.

 

[ozso]

This was mainly aimed towards the general crowd that dzheremi is part of and my meaning overlaps with what you were saying and dzheremi was saying.

The Liturgist, dzheremi and others have come out with some background, and this is belated as I can attest from what I saw happen to my companions in catholic and protestant churches alike.

It's now for you and me to help spearhead teaching others the whole of the truth.

I didn't understand the wording of the post I replied to with a emoji. Are you saying here that you were being esoteric?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

In this case it's not a matter of trying to preach a radical disjunction between the divinity and humanity of Christ ...

- bearing in mind overall ambiguity in the position of some whom JM blends in with, and placing the most charitable construction on his stances until further notice

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I didn't understand the wording of the post I replied to with a emoji. Are you saying here that you were being esoteric?

I try to be less exotic than the Kansas City Five and their lookalikes in the purportedly "older" denominations, who "burned" lots of my pals !!!

JM and I have lived in hard hat territory.

This style is my very own way of being very blunt.

 

[ozso]

I try to be less exotic than the Kansas City Five and their lookalikes in the purportedly "older" denominations, who "burned" lots of my pals !!!

JM and I have lived in hard hat territory.

This style is my very own way of being very blunt.

I have no idea what the Kansas City Five is. And Google wasn't any help.

I usually don't have any problem with understanding bluntness. But if it's intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest, me and others reading aren't likely to be able to make heads or tails out of it.

 

[ozso]

- bearing in mind overall ambiguity in the position of some whom JM blends in with, and placing the most charitable construction on his stances until further notice

His stance on the hypostatic union is crystal clear. Can you point out an actual heresy that MacArthur teaches? So far I've just seen you post vauge/cryptic criticism.

 

[ozso]

@Ordinary Christian also just to reiterate I am not accusing you of intentionally using a logical fallacy in your argument in an attempt to score points, I am merely pointing out that arguments from silence are technically a form of logical falllacy.

I'm ruminating on that. So let me ask you this. I take it that you don't subscribe to seventh day sabbitarianism being mandatory for Christians. So how would you argue against it, without bringing up the fact that it's not taught in the NT? Or in any early church writings since sabbtarians claim the early church observed it?