Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[The Liturgist]

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.

A view which is both wrong and unbelievably offensive to Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, members of the Assyrian Church of the East, and Roman Catholics.

Indeed it seems JM is literally following in the footsteps of Nestorius, who introduced the erroneous term “Christotokos” because he decided on his own, without consulting the people of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, that they venerated St. Mary excessively. Naturally this was extremely unpopular among Constantinopolitans, who had been venerating the Theotokos for decades, for example, under St. John Chrysostom. Fortunately, JM controls just one church, whereas Nestorius abused his position and wielded power he did not have through violent repression against bishops and laity in the Patriarchate of Constantinople who disagreed with him.

And as @dzheremi pointed out, Nestorius endorsed the Chalcedonian Christology in his Bazaar of Heraclides, but he was still anathema according to both Ephesus and Chalcedon because of the heretical effect of his denial of the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to God.

 

[The Liturgist]

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?

I debate with them frequently without resorting to logical fallacies, and when they use fallacious arguments, I call them out on it. And their arguments concerning both Scripture and Patristics are frequently based on factual errors or rest upon logical fallacies. Aside from their incorrect view on the Sabbath, one issue they consistently bring up is their opposition to the idea that St. Mary is the Theotokos. Thus I have frequently and vehemently debated with them in opposition to their neo-Nestorian denial of the fact St. Mary is the Mother of God, which they deny due to the severe opposition to Roman Catholicism which animates the writings of Ellen G White and Adventist theology, and also debate with them other Christological errors in addition to Nestorianism.

However, surprisingly, JM seems to be much more iconoclastic than the SDAs. Iconoclasm and Nestorianism are the two primary errors I see Nicene Christians making, with Sabbatarianism being unusual.

 

[Aaron112]

The false gospel he preaches and lives is not necessarily even related to any of his 'Catholic' ideas. His own words (that you've heard on and off for 50 years?!) convict him in his errors and lack of truth...

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.

 

[ozso]

I debate with them frequently without resorting to logical fallacies, and when they use fallacious arguments, I call them out on it. And their arguments concerning both Scripture and Patristics are frequently based on factual errors or rest upon logical fallacies. Aside from their incorrect view on the Sabbath, one issue they consistently bring up is their opposition to the idea that St. Mary is the Theotokos. Thus I have frequently and vehemently debated with them in opposition to their neo-Nestorian denial of the fact St. Mary is the Mother of God, which they deny due to the severe opposition to Roman Catholicism which animates the writings of Ellen G White and Adventist theology, and also debate with them other Christological errors in addition to Nestorianism.

I can see when the free grace folks bring up that Paul never said anything about repentance to the the jailer in Acts 16:31, considering all the times repentance is called for, as an argument from silence. But so far I don't agree that pointing out a complete lack of scriptural evidence for a doctrine telling Christians what they are supposedly supposed to do as an error in logic. There's also the the fallacy fallacy. Which is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, then its conclusion must be false.

However, surprisingly, JM seems to be much more iconoclastic than the SDAs. Iconoclasm and Nestorianism are the two primary errors I see Nicene Christians making, with Sabbatarianism being unusual.

So Catholicism and Orthodoxy isn't Iconoclastic? From my perspective they're the epitome of iconoclasm. And as often as Nestorianism keeps being brought up MacArthur's statements regarding the Hypostatic Union rule that out. Outside of a roundabout way involving a particular title given to Mary in the 4th century.

 

[ozso]

A view which is both wrong and unbelievably offensive to Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, members of the Assyrian Church of the East, and Roman Catholics.

Now that's what I've been looking for, direct refutation to something MacArthur said in the audio segment posted in the OP. But could you carry that further and explain how the rosary bead prayer sequence actually goes?

Indeed it seems JM is literally following in the footsteps of Nestorius, who introduced the erroneous term “Christotokos” because he decided on his own, without consulting the people of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, that they venerated St. Mary excessively. Naturally this was extremely unpopular among Constantinopolitans, who had been venerating the Theotokos for decades, for example, under St. John Chrysostom. Fortunately, JM controls just one church, whereas Nestorius abused his position and wielded power he did not have through violent repression against bishops and laity in the Patriarchate of Constantinople who disagreed with him.

And as @dzheremi pointed out, Nestorius endorsed the Chalcedonian Christology in his Bazaar of Heraclides, but he was still anathema according to both Ephesus and Chalcedon because of the heretical effect of his denial of the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to God.

It sounds like anyone who doesn't go along with the way the RCC and EOC venerate Mary, is a Nestorian heretic by default.

 

[ozso]

The false gospel he preaches and lives is not necessarily even related to any of his 'Catholic' ideas.

And what's the false gospel that he preaches?

His own words (that you've heard on and off for 50 years?!) convict him in his errors and lack of truth...

Which are? Personally I don't agree with his hyper-calvinism. But what's your beef specifically?

 

[Aaron112]

And what's the false gospel that he preaches?

Several times already noted , even for over a decade , mainly on the internet exposes by faithful believers, and even by some unbelievers.
Not worth it here to repeat it all, whoever wants to see can see, whoever wants to hear can hear.
If someone does not want to believe it, they won't no matter what evidence is presented. So just let them look it up if they are seeking the truth, and let them alone if they are /have/ rejected the truth.

 

[Aaron112]

But what's your beef specifically?

Once it is seen, as it was years ago, there was no further desire at all to look further into it, nor even to broadcast it any more than necessary to protect some who have not yet fallen for it, God Willing.

 

[ozso]

Several times already noted , even for over a decade , mainly on the internet exposes by faithful believers, and even by some unbelievers.
Not worth it here to repeat it all, whoever wants to see can see, whoever wants to hear can hear.
If someone does not want to believe it, they won't no matter what evidence is presented. So just let them look it up if they are seeking the truth, and let them alone if they are /have/ rejected the truth.

I'll take that as you don't have an answer to give, and therefore you're just making open-ended accusations.

Once it is seen, as it was years ago, there was no further desire at all to look further into it, nor even to broadcast it any more than necessary to protect some who have not yet fallen for it, God Willing.

Once again, no answer to a simple question. Just obscure judgemental vitriol.

 

[Aaron112]

I'll take that as you don't have an answer to give, and therefore you're just making open-ended accusations.

If you do not care to see the truth, that's on you. You do not even be required to seek the truth that apparently you have missed for over 50 years according to your earlier posts.

Anyone who looks to find, anyone who seeks the truth, and keeps seeking the truth, will find it.
So that's on you, directly , if you want to find the truth.

 

[Aaron112]

Once again, no answer to a simple question.

Answered already. Many times. Let those who can see, see.

 

[Aaron112]

And what's the false gospel that he preaches?

Take your pick > (from startpage.com search of "false gospel" )
(he is just one of many)
Beware These Seven Counterfeit Gospels | Open the Bible

Beware These Seven Counterfeit Gospels | Open the Bible​

Nov 9, 2017 ... Seven Counterfeit Gospels · 1. The Good-People Gospel · 2. The Self-Esteem Gospel · 3. The Expressive-Individualism Gospel · 4. The Optional-Jesus ...
https://us-browse.startpage.com/av/...83166&ekdata=d876e79ef2a5a6fffdf0e38ab5a88b7d
3 False Gospels Thriving in America - Christ and Culture

3 False Gospels Thriving in America - Christ and Culture​

Jan 4, 2021 ... 3 False Gospels Thriving in America · Prosperity Gospel. The prosperity gospel teaches that Jesus is a means to health, wealth and prosperity as ...
https://us-browse.startpage.com/av/...83166&ekdata=f7c9f73905bb779286a40aafe88994cc
5 False Gospels within the Evangelical Church

5 False Gospels within the Evangelical Church - Christianity​

Aug 11, 2022 ... 5 False Gospels within the Evangelical Church · False Gospel 1: The Gospel of Permissive Grace · False Gospel 2: The Gospel of Social Justice.
https://us-browse.startpage.com/av/...83166&ekdata=b1104bdedc9dc68edddf708bc9dc7248
Is salvation by grace plus works a false gospel? | GotQuestions.org

Is salvation by grace plus works a false gospel? | GotQuestions.org​

Jan 4, 2022 ... According to Galatians 1, those who teach the false gospel of grace-plus-works are “anathema”; that is, they are condemned by God. Other New ...
https://us-browse.startpage.com/av/...83166&ekdata=7b24d8a8e755781a9698fd8416c3c5d1
6 False Gospels in the Bible Belt — Justin Deeter

6 False Gospels in the Bible Belt - Justin Deeter​

Jan 13, 2014 ... 6 False Gospels in the Bible Belt · 1. "My Baptism Saves Me" · 2. "I go to church and I'm a good person" · 3. "God wants me to be happy, healthy, ...
https://us-browse.startpage.com/av/...83166&ekdata=6a9d41a2db3317c0a928bb947a603a96
How I Distinguish Between the Gospel and False Gospels

How I Distinguish Between the Gospel and False Gospels​

Feb 26, 2008 ... This is not a biblical presupposition. It threatens to undermine the gospel because it pushes people away from believing that God can plan and ...
https://us-browse.startpage.com/av/...83166&ekdata=0f5adb98c409bac983d87676274a69f4
Which Counterfeit Gospels are Most Prevalent Today?

Which Counterfeit Gospels are Most Prevalent Today?​

Jan 20, 2011 ... Therapeutic Gospel: Sin robs us of our sense of fullness. · Formalist Gospel: Sin is failing to keep church rules and regulations. · Moralist ...

 

[Aaron112]

Once again, no answer to a simple question. Just ... judgemental

It looks complicated to some, It is not obscure, except to the blind or willfully deceived....
without right judgment, there is no righteousness and no light in a church nor in a person.

 

[dzheremi]

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.

My point in posting that isn't to say that you (or Nestorius, for that matter) are trying to preach anything wrong, but rather to point out two things:

(1) Believing 100% in the divinity and humanity of Jesus does not mean that a person cannot be preaching Nestorianism, since Nestorius' Christology does not deny that Christ is both human and divine.

(2) Because the objection that is at the root of your rejection (or McArthur's, or that of whoever may argue in this way) of "Theotokos" is literally the exact same as Nestorius' (as you admit above with "as you've explained it" -- keep in mind, I was explaining what the objection of Nestorius was rooted in), it strikes those who know the history and reasoning behind this conflict as being an affirmation of or at least a retread of Nestorius' thought. Because it is literally the thought he had, as expressed by him and those of his party (e.g., Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas and others).

In other words, it's not some kind of unfair or baseless slander to say that it is Nestorian. Rather, it is Nestorian according to Nestorius, and those who follow him. I think I already posted it in this thread (quite a while ago), but there is video evidence from today of the Assyrians (the surviving inheritors of this defective Christology) declaring on Lebanese national TV that they believe Nestorius was making a good and true point regarding why we ought not call Mary "Theotokos". They may not want to be called Nestorians, either (and with some reason, since their particular church long predated the elevation or even the birth of Nestorius, and Nestorius was never their patriarch; he was patriarch of Constantinople), but they're still called that because they still look at what Nestorius said and why and say "Yeah, we believe that's a good point. We agree with him."

So long as you agree with Nestorius on this point, and you do (again, according to what you've written in the post that I am now replying to, not according to something I'm somehow 'reading into' your post; I didn't make "as you've explained it" appear in the reply above with my mind or something), it will be entirely fair and accurate to call you Nestorian, at least insofar as concerns the reasoning that you affirm in your rejection of "Theotokos" (which, again, is how Nestorius et al. chose to express their preferred Christology). If you don't like it, or you feel it is unfair or inaccurate, you and all who agree with Nestorius are free to get a new line of reasoning that is not literally the exact same as his from 1,592 years ago.

(The trouble, of course, is that there has literally never been any other reason given publicly and adopted by any segment of Christianity for rejecting "Theotokos" that was not rooted in Nestorian objections, because if you don't buy Nestorius' central objection as being a valid reason, then there is nothing wrong with "Theotokos." In other words, it is only reasonable to do this if people would believe that St. Mary gave birth to Jesus' divinity or to the whole Trinity by using the term "Theotokos", but nobody does, or ever has. That's why I referred to it in my post as a "heresy that would have been but wasn't." In contrast to Eutychianism, Nestorianism, Sabellianism, etc. that had and in some cases still have actual proponents, "Mary-Gave-Birth-to-the-Whole-Trinity"-ism has never existed -- including in Nestorius' time, when he was saying it would.)

 

[ozso]

My point in posting that isn't to say that you (or Nestorius, for that matter) are trying to preach anything wrong, but rather to point out two things:

(1) Believing 100% in the divinity and humanity of Jesus does not mean that a person cannot be preaching Nestorianism, since Nestorius' Christology does not deny that Christ is both human and divine.

You specified that a radical disjunction between the divinity and humanity of Christ exists in Nestorianism. MacArthur teaches the Hypostic Union which doesn't contain a radical disjunction between the divinity and humanity of Christ.

(2) Because the objection that is at the root of your rejection (or McArthur's, or that of whoever may argue in this way) of "Theotokos" is literally the exact same as Nestorius' (as you admit above with "as you've explained it" -- keep in mind, I was explaining what the objection of Nestorius was rooted in), it strikes those who know the history and reasoning behind this conflict as being an affirmation of or at least a retread of Nestorius' thought. Because it is literally the thought he had, as expressed by him and those of his party (e.g., Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas and others).

I'm okay with the term "mother of God / theotokos". I just stated why it's considered to be problematic. I figured before hearing about Nestorianism, the RCC / EOC would consider it heresy.

In other words, it's not some kind of unfair or baseless slander to say that it is Nestorian. Rather, it is Nestorian according to Nestorius, and those who follow him. I think I already posted it in this thread (quite a while ago), but there is video evidence from today of the Assyrians (the surviving inheritors of this defective Christology) declaring on Lebanese national TV that they believe Nestorius was making a good and true point regarding why we ought not call Mary "Theotokos". They may not want to be called Nestorians, either (and with some reason, since their particular church long predated the elevation or even the birth of Nestorius, and Nestorius was never their patriarch; he was patriarch of Constantinople), but they're still called that because they still look at what Nestorius said and why and say "Yeah, we believe that's a good point. We agree with him."

So long as you agree with Nestorius on this point, and you do (again, according to what you've written in the post that I am now replying to, not according to something I'm somehow 'reading into' your post; I didn't make "as you've explained it" appear in the reply above with my mind or something), it will be entirely fair and accurate to call you Nestorian, at least insofar as concerns the reasoning that you affirm in your rejection of "Theotokos" (which, again, is how Nestorius et al. chose to express their preferred Christology). If you don't like it, or you feel it is unfair or inaccurate, you and all who agree with Nestorius are free to get a new line of reasoning that is not literally the exact same as his from 1,592 years ago.

(The trouble, of course, is that there has literally never been any other reason given publicly and adopted by any segment of Christianity for rejecting "Theotokos" that was not rooted in Nestorian objections, because if you don't buy Nestorius' central objection as being a valid reason, then there is nothing wrong with "Theotokos." In other words, it is only reasonable to do this if people would believe that St. Mary gave birth to Jesus' divinity or to the whole Trinity by using the term "Theotokos", but nobody does, or ever has. That's why I referred to it in my post as a "heresy that would have been but wasn't." In contrast to Eutychianism, Nestorianism, Sabellianism, etc. that had and in some cases still have actual proponents, "Mary-Gave-Birth-to-the-Whole-Trinity"-ism has never existed -- including in Nestorius' time, when he was saying it would.)

 

[ozso]

It looks complicated to some, It is not obscure, except to the blind or willfully deceived....
without right judgment, there is no righteousness and no light in a church nor in a person.

It's obscure because you're not defining what your complaint is. All you've posted so far amounts to "MacArthur bad" as far as I can see. Are you one of those folks who uses the crypictcal mystical method of explaining things?

 

[Aaron112]

It's obscure because you're not defining what your complaint is. .....

This is not a thread to expose the specific many or few false gospel teachers/teachings.
Only to note them and people including you can verify when you want to,
or find another thread, on this forum or other, as multiple sites were already referenced showing false gospels,
but no one can force you to look into any false gospel you believed or did not believe.

Since this is not the thread for it,
this is the last post/reply to you. One should have been enough, no more , no number is enough, so it is finished.

 

[ozso]

This is not a thread to expose the specific many or few false gospel teachers/teachings.
Only to note them and people including you can verify when you want to,
or find another thread, on this forum or other, as multiple sites were already referenced showing false gospels,
but no one can force you to look into any false gospel you believed or did not believe.

You made a bunch of blanket accusations that contained no substance, and you're avoiding or refusing to add any substance. Which suggested to me that your accusations are baseless. It seems you don't like MacArthur, but you can't or won't say why exactly.

 

[dzheremi]

You specified that a radical disjunction between the divinity and humanity of Christ exists in Nestorianism. MacArthur teaches the Hypostic Union which doesn't contain a radical disjunction between the divinity and humanity of Christ.

Okay. Again, my point is that if you (the general "you"; a person) say, as Nestorius said, that we ought to shy away from or use some alternative to "Theotokos" to refer to St. Mary because "Theotokos" would somehow imply or make people believe that she 'gave birth' to the whole Trinity, or was the source or origination of the divinity of Christ, then you are agreeing with Nestorius by virtue of agreeing with his reasoning for objecting to "Theotokos". The radical disjunction between the natures of which Christ is 'composed', for lack of a more elegant way to say it (forgive me; I obviously do not deal in Chalcedonian Christology, so I am sometimes at loss of how to phrase things when talking to a Chalcedonian), is what our common fathers found wrong in Nestorius' proposed solution to the non-existent problem that he thought "Theotokos" either created or reinforced (it is hard for me to tell based on what little is available in English to read from him if he thought this was actually going on already, or if he meant it as a way to preempt the emergence of a heresy that never actually came to be), but that doesn't mean that therefore everyone who agrees with Nestorius' reasoning for objecting to "Theotokos" will necessarily follow his solution. There are apparently many more people out there who are not literal members of the Persian/Nestorian/Assyrian Church of the East (who number only perhaps 500,000 in the entire world today, with some offshoots that do not bring that number up very much) who nevertheless agree with Nestorius on this particular point. Perhaps there ought to be some other name for them, then (I don't really care, honestly; my concern is with Orthodoxy, not how to label this vs. that type of heretic, though such distinctions can be helpful), but even there were or is, the point remains that they can be called Nestorian insofar as they agree with the Nestorians' viewpoint on this issue.

TL, DR: Nestorianism is in one respect about what (not) to call St. Mary, because that's what Nestorius chose to focus on in order to wage his fight against Orthodoxy, so it is naturally also about Christology, because the title "Theotokos" is a Christological title. That does not mean that all who disagree with "Theotokos" thereby follow Nestorius' Christology, but it does mean that insofar as they explicitly agree with and parrot Nestorius' reasoning for rejecting "Theotokos", they can still be called Nestorians. They're literally looking at what Nestorius said and saying "Yeah, that's true; we agree with that." And that's what modern people (regardless of the church that they're actually in) are doing when they say "Don't say Theotokos, because she didn't give birth to God the Father or to the Holy Spirit."

I'm okay with the term "mother of God / theotokos". I just stated why it's considered to be problematic.

Yes, but the reason that you're giving for it being problematic is an ancient Nestorian talking-point. Whether it comes from this McArthur guy or someone else, that's what it is. That's why I tried to make the point in my other post that there's really never been any other (successful) reason given for objecting to "Theotokos", so whether they recognize it or not, the people who parrot Nestorius' reasoning in our own time are supporting Nestorianism. Whether they mean to or not, that is the substance of what they are doing, because that's the substance of their argument.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I was away for a day or two so I have neglected answers to my posts and some questions asked of me. My apologies, I shall, God willing, attempt to answer over the next few days.

For the time being I want to be specific about what John MacArthur said in the link from the first post. Here is one paragraph which contains the explicit Christological error that was cited by myself and others - John MacArthur said

Now if that is not worship, I don’t know what worship is. There is no other definition for that; none whatsoever. Rob Zins writes, “The snowball of Mary in superiority will roll down the slope of Catholic fantasy until she becomes, in their minds, immaculately conceived, sinless, assumed into heaven, and finally redemptress and co-redeemer with Jesus Christ.” And that is exactly right. In fact, Roman Catholics refer to her as Theotokos, God-bearer. They say she gave birth to God and thus is to be elevated and adored. She gave birth to God. That is a terrible misconception. She gave birth to Jesus in his humanity. She did not give birth to God. God was never born.​

​

I wonder how John MacArthur responds to a critique that points to this portion of the Nicene Creed

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,​

the Only Begotten Son of God,​

begotten of his Father before all worlds,​

God of God, Light of Light,​

very God of very God,​

begotten, not made,​

being of one substance with the Father;​

by whom all things were made;​

who for us men and for our salvation​

came down from heaven,​

and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,​

and was made man;​

asking how his stated view, shown above, can be reconciled with it?

And, for those who accept the Formula of Chalcedon which says:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.​