Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I read the transcript of his sermon and his objections are chiefly to the titles ascribed to Blessed Mary - which he interprets as rendering worship to Mary as equal in authority, power, and glory to God. The titles are in fact Christological and direct attention to Jesus Christ as God.
These are all true. Let me offer this as explanation of the titles I mentioned - they are extracted, by the way, from a greeting I give in IRC channels when some good friends of Anabaptist, Catholic, and Orthodox background enter a channel. They are titles that we all agree are applicable to Jesus Christ through Blessed Mary as the one through whom God entered this world in the incarnation.
I didn't realize that was so detailed. I just went straight to the audio.
What I see is extreme exaltation of Mary. The idea that the theology of Christ needs to be delivered by going on and on so much about Mary, doesn't really make much sense to me. If everything written about Mary was put together in one place, how large would that collection be? Would it require an entire library building to hold it all? If all the statues of Mary were put together in a line, how long would it be? Would it equal the circumference of the earth?
Try harder; it does make sense, it is most fitting that it is couched in these terms because of the tendency of humanity to leap from "Jesus was just a man, or just a creature, whom God sacrificed for sins as a propitiation" which is the family of heresies that included Arianism, to "Jesus is God and only God, a materialisation of the one true God whose human body was sacrificed for sins as a propitiation" which is the family of heresies that includes the Christological heresy that John MacArthur utters in these words: " 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."
Christology can be explained perfectly well without there being volumes praising Mary. As far as Jesus' humanity goes, how is that demonstrated in portraying his mother as being a miraculous human in being an immaculate conception etc? What's demonstrated in Christ's humanity throughout the Gospel was his lowly status by worldly standards. The Gospel describes Mary as being so ordinary and unimportant she couldn't get a room in an inn, so Jesus had to be born in a stable.
If one can say, with honesty and truth, that this is one's faith "God was never born." then One's Christology is in error, deeply so.
Volumes of prayers and exaltations to Mary are not needed to say that 'God was born of a virgin woman named Mary'. I just said it in only nine words. Yet there are thousands of words about Mary in Catholic literature and liturgy.
Since this conversation thread is about John MacArthur's Christology it is not appropriate to make it about your perceptions on Catholic devotional books, even if John MacArthur did so in his sermon. The topic is not devotional books, but a specific heresy expressed by John Macarthur; specifically, his claim that God was never born.
You write "The argument on your end is that what MacArthur considers to be excessive idolizing of Mary is a Christological heresy." and it is very confusing; are you claiming that that what MacArthur considers to be excessive idolizing of Mary is a Christological heresy or is it more the case that you mean that John MacArthur's rejection of Catholic praises regarding Mary as the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ leads him to state that "God was never born", thus John MacArthur proclaims a heresy as part of his theological rationale for rejecting Catholic praises?
No because that's just small part of what all he said. It seems you and others want to eschew most of what he said to focus on one small part of the overall picture. Whereas I'm taking the whole ball of wax into consideration.
I understand that his statement means the Godhead was never born. And perhaps take that further and say that God the Son existed before he became incarnate though being born of a virgin named Mary. It's a bit of a quandary because of course he didn't become God when he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. He was in existence from the beginning and everything was made by him and through him, which means he created Mary his own mother. But at the same time when he was in Mary's womb he was God, meaning Mary gave birth to God, meaning she is the mother of God. It's a complex issue. I think on the part of Catholicism, it's really a matter of wanting to exalt Mary as much as possible because of the establishment of the cult of Mary*.
There can be too much prayer, praise and adoration directed towards someone or something other than God. And it seems that's what's going on with Mary.
Reportedly he now consorts with those of the kind whom he previously criticised (those who claim "giftedness" for their wrecking fellowship for Christians with less power than them).
Try "restorationist" and "new apostolic" in search engines of your choice. This was a fashionable variant on the Toronto so called "blessing".
As I've only got up to post 1,040, my reply is that the OT Prophets already pointed out that material adherence to the Law was less important than their spiritual meaning.
1 - Please don't presume to speak for "Roman Catholics" by lumping them together.
An easy win by JM about silly imbalance is not a bad win. I agree some people of his kind package this as part of their iconoclasm. We are supposed to be icons of the Holy Trinity ourselves and that is where your line of enquiry should follow.
