Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[ozso]

Holy crap this thread really exploded. What are we talking about? Not going to read 50+ pages of replies give me the gist of it.

It's called going in circles.

 

[ozso]

If you care about Patristics you should study the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and also St. Athanasius (On The Incarnation) which would clear all of this up.

Patristics as in the apostolic fathers and their direct disciples. That's what's meant by the original church.

 

[ozso]

Since you are clearly not a type of Protestant who has any use for tradition preserved outside of the pages of the Bible as you know it

I'm not on trial here. This is a broad issue that has nothing to do with any one of us personally.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm not on trial here. This is a broad issue that has nothing to do with any one of us personally.

What part of having to answer questions about the arguments you are making is some sort of attack on you personally? As I said the last time you attempted this sort of dodge, the only reason I even have to use the word "you" (which I have tried to make clear in several replies means "the general you", in the sense of "anyone who argues like this", not "you, individual poster", since I don't know you from Adam) is that you are the one who has dismissed quotes from the fathers in this very thread that are against what you are preaching instead as being or not being part of original Christianity, which you have claimed in certain replies to be guided by your readings of the fathers. Other people (most other people) read the fathers and don't come away with the idea that it's "worshipping" St. Mary to call her Theotokos because that's what she is, or to offer praises to her on that account, or to ask for her intercession, the same as we praise any other saint for what God has worked within them, and the same as we ask for their intercessions, as we know that the saints are alive in Christ and have already gone where we wish to go. So don't tell me "I'm not on trial here" as though I'm trying to make this about you as a person because I'm trying to see how it is that your arguments are supposed fit together, because it's really not clear how they do. I follow our teacher St. Dioscorus who famously said before his accusers at Chalcedon that his concern is for the faith and not for any one man. Indeed you are not the issue here; the incoherence of your arguments, however, is.

 

[ozso]

What part of having to answer questions about the arguments you are making is some sort of attack on you personally? As I said the last time you attempted this sort of dodge, the only reason I even have to use the word "you" (which I have tried to make clear in several replies means "the general you", in the sense of "anyone who argues like this", not "you, individual poster", since I don't know you from Adam) is that you are the one who has dismissed quotes from the fathers in this very thread that are against what you are preaching instead as being or not being part of original Christianity, which you have claimed in certain replies to be guided by your readings of the fathers. Other people (most other people) read the fathers and don't come away with the idea that it's "worshipping" St. Mary to call her Theotokos because that's what she is, or to offer praises to her on that account, or to ask for her intercession, the same as we praise any other saint for what God has worked within them, and the same as we ask for their intercessions, as we know that the saints are alive in Christ and have already gone where we wish to go. So don't tell me "I'm not on trial here" as though I'm trying to make this about you as a person because I'm trying to see how it is that your arguments are supposed fit together, because it's really not clear how they do. I follow our teacher St. Dioscorus who famously said before his accusers at Chalcedon that his concern is for the faith and not for any one man. Indeed you are not the issue here; the incoherence of your arguments, however, is.

I'm planning on getting back to what's contained in posts that has to do with the topic. But in the meantime I wanted to curtail what looks like personal criticisms where I end up explaining myself and defending myself, instead of the position I'm maintaining. Also as this topic goes a lot deeper than just "theotokos" which is simply Greek for "mother of God", let's discuss the whole iceberg rather than just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[dzheremi]

You may take them however you wish. I maintain that they are not personal attacks, but rather the quickest and easiest way to get to the question, which is entirely fitting.

Which would you rather have to read and then address?

"Why would one argue that they know what is and isn't a feature of early Christianity based on their reading of the fathers, and yet also argue that the fathers are wrong or may be dismissed when they say things that one doesn't agree with?"

or

"You said earlier that you base your understanding of early Christianity on the fathers, yet you seem to have problems with a lot of what they say. What gives?"

NB: neither are about you as a person beyond recognizing that they're about arguments that you happen to be making (i.e., they're not saying "You can't make that argument/I'm not going to listen to that argument coming from you", as though the arguments under discussion would be perfectly fine coming from someone else), but one is a lot more direct and easy to parse than the other. We're not talking about hypotheticals in this thread, after all; we're responding to what one another have actually written (one would hope), or at the very least the logical implications of what is actually being written. In other words, it's still about the argument(s), and not about the poster, even if the post in question contains many instances of "you", because that's how direct questions work in the English language.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Holy crap this thread really exploded. What are we talking about? Not going to read 50+ pages of replies give me the gist of it.

Most of it is Protestant objections to Catholicism answered by Catholics and Lutherans and the Orthodox, and then the same objections brought up all over again, and answered again, and the same exact things brought up again by someone new to the thread. Rinse and repeat over and over and over again.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Also as this topic goes a lot deeper than just "theotokos" which is simply Greek for "mother of God", let's discuss the whole iceberg rather than just the tip of the iceberg.

So you feel the need to go full bore anti-Catholic? The scope of this thread wasn't enough? And have Catholics and Lutherans and the Orthodox and all manner of Traditional Christians have to explain it all to you?

 

[ozso]

So you feel the need to go full bore anti-Catholic?

Disagreeing with a particular doctrine doesn't make someone anti-Catholic, much less full bore anti-Catholic. Unless it's being said that all of Catholicism is contained within that one particular doctrine.

The scope of this thread wasn't enough? And have Catholics and Lutherans and the Orthodox and all manner of Traditional Christians have to explain it all to you?

At this point I'm just posting replies to what's being directed at me. And too much of it is "you you you" rather than addressing the topic. Some folks need to remind themselves of what "don't shoot the messenger" means.

 

[ozso]

You may take them however you wish. I maintain that they are not personal attacks, but rather the quickest and easiest way to get to the question, which is entirely fitting.

Which would you rather have to read and then address?

"Why would one argue that they know what is and isn't a feature of early Christianity based on their reading of the fathers, and yet also argue that the fathers are wrong or may be dismissed when they say things that one doesn't agree with?"

or

"You said earlier that you base your understanding of early Christianity on the fathers, yet you seem to have problems with a lot of what they say. What gives?"

Doctrine that existed in the original church is found in the writings of the apostles, the apostolic fathers and the direct disciples of the apostolic fathers. Anything written by them saying we need to pray to Mary, Mary is our intercessor, Mary is the Queen of Heaven, Mary was an immaculate conception, Mary went up into heaven the same as Jesus did etc, will be addressed.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Disagreeing with a particular doctrine doesn't make someone anti-Catholic, much less full bore anti-Catholic. Unless it's being said that all of Catholicism is contained within that one particular doctrine.

At this point I'm just posting replies to what's being directed at me. And too much of it is "you you you" rather than addressing the topic. Some folks need to remind themselves of what "don't shoot the messenger" means.

You said you wanted to address the ‘whole iceberg’. I interpreted that to mean your objection to Mary as the mother of God just wasn’t enough for you and that you were itching to bring in all of your other objections. If you mean otherwise just say so.

 

[ozso]

You said you wanted to address the ‘whole iceberg’. I interpreted that to mean your objection to Mary as the mother of God just wasn’t enough for you and that you were itching to bring in all of your other objections. If you mean otherwise just say so.

People kept focusing on the mother of God aspect as is that's all there was to MacArthur's complaint. The whole iceberg is the doctrine that says we need to pray to Mary, Mary is our intercessor, Mary is the Queen of Heaven, Mary was an immaculate conception, Mary went up into heaven the same as Jesus did etc (although of course the disagreement regarding those views aren't those of MacArthur alone). And since it's unlikely MacArthur will post to this thread to address those matters, it took the position of addressing them instead. This was supposed to be a debate where I take a position and others challenge that position. Instead people got all emotional and personal. This will probably be the last time I try debating this topic, because it's clear to me that too many people can't handle it and it ends up being a messy situation of hurt feelings and misdirected anger.

 

[dzheremi]

"People kept focusing on" St. Mary being the mother of God because that explains why we call her Theotokos, why we invoke her name in our prayers as the greatest of all saints, why she is such a strong intercessor for believers, and so on. It explains all of this stuff (I'm not going to touch RC-specific beliefs like the Immaculate Conception, since because I don't share them, I can't very well explain or defend how they may fit in with the beliefs that RCism shares with Orthodoxy; Catholics can explain their own unique beliefs just fine, I'm sure).

If St. Mary wasn't the mother of God, none of this other stuff that you and McArthur are criticizing would be happening.

 

[chevyontheriver]

duplicate

 

[chevyontheriver]

People kept focusing on the mother of God aspect as is that's all there was to MacArthur's complaint.

The original post was about whether MacArthur was a heretic based on his denial of Mary as the mother of God. We are supposed to try to stay within the scope of the OP. Doesn’t always happen but that is the goal.

The whole iceberg is the doctrine that says we need to pray to Mary, Mary is our intercessor, Mary is the Queen of Heaven, Mary was an immaculate conception, Mary went up into heaven the same as Jesus did etc

Depending on what you mean by ‘etc’ that goes beyond or goes way beyond the OP. I am quite sure MacArthur objects to all of the doctrines touching Mary and everything else in an expansive ‘etc’ to boot.

(although of course the disagreement regarding those views aren't those of MacArthur alone). And since it's unlikely MacArthur will post to this thread to address those matters, it took the position of addressing them instead.

As a self-appointed spokesman for MacArthur, could you answer whether he would prefer to be a Nestorian or a Catholic? He has used classic Nestorian language. One wonders whether he is a Nestorian despite the occasional denials of some of his supporters. For the record I have said that I don't know if MacArthur is a real Nestorian or not. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... But IF MacArthur wants to deny he is a Nestorian then fine. It looks like maybe he would prefer Nestorianism to Catholicism. What do you say?

This was supposed to be a debate where I take a position and others challenge that position. Instead people got all emotional and personal. This will probably be the last time I try debating this topic, because it's clear to me that too many people can't handle it and it ends up being a messy situation of hurt feelings and misdirected anger.

This was supposed to be an answer to the OP question. I think you came late to the resulting discussion. In about a thousand posts now, no, 1150, it has been hashed and rehashed several times. The thing I have noticed you have added is that when Catholics say we don’t worship Mary you say ‘Oh yes you do’ as if to tell us to our faces that we are liars. AND that you feel the need to go beyond the OP question about Mary as mother of God and what to make of MacArhur’s denial of that.

 

[ozso]

The original post was about whether MacArthur was a heretic based on his denial of Mary as the mother of God. We are supposed to try to stay within the scope of the OP. Doesn’t always happen but that is the goal.

Depending on what you mean by ‘etc’ that goes beyond or goes way beyond the OP. I am quite sure MacArthur objects to all of the doctrines touching Mary and everything else in an expansive ‘etc’ to boot.

I was going by what was in the link provided in the OP.

As a self-appointed spokesman for MacArthur,

No. I was taking the same kind of position, but it's not one that's unique to MacArthur.

could you answer whether he would prefer to be a Nestorian or a Catholic? He has used classic Nestorian language. One wonders whether he is a Nestorian despite the occasional denials of some of his supporters. For the record I have said that I don't know if MacArthur is a real Nestorian or not. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... But IF MacArthur wants to deny he is a Nestorian then fine. It looks like maybe he would prefer Nestorianism to Catholicism. What do you say?

"Nestorian" seems to be a very Catholic accusation, and I can't address it from that perspective.

This was supposed to be an answer to the OP question. I think you came late to the resulting discussion.

I was explaining why it's viewed as a problem. My first post was #49

In about a thousand posts now, no, 1150, it has been hashed and rehashed several times. The thing I have noticed you have added is that when Catholics say we don’t worship Mary you say ‘Oh yes you do’ as if to tell us to our faces that we are liars. AND that you feel the need to go beyond the OP question about Mary as mother of God and what to make of MacArhur’s denial of that.

Obviously some folks can't tolerate having a doctrine challenged. Or they can't argue it well enough so they get all upset.

 

[chevyontheriver]

"Nestorian" seems to be a very Catholic accusation, and I can't address it from that perspective.

Tell that to the Orthodox who posted here. Or the Lutherans who posted here. It is a very Traditional Christian thing to wonder about MacArthur. Not at all just a Catholic thing. That you STILL see it as a Catholic thing makes me think you have missed those other posts which say pretty much the exact same thing but were not written by Catholics.

 

[dzheremi]

It's obvious what we're dealing with here. Someone has their own idea of what is acceptable as 'evidence' for the true (or original, or whatever) beliefs of Christianity, and because they themselves dissent from those beliefs and want patristic or scriptural justification for doing so (God knows why), this thread goes on and on because it was never about listening to what anyone else has to say or learning anything about why someone might have a different view, it was just about saying "I don't like this, I don't believe this, therefore it's Roman Catholic non-scriptural hooey", regardless of who they're actually talking to, or the given basis for what other people say and do.

This thread absolutely should be locked, as it no chance of going anywhere so long as this is what we're dealing with. The traditional stance of Christianity -- across literally all forms except for the Nestorian (hmm) -- has been ably defended by all of its children, so let's go do something else. Recall what our common father St. Anthony, the father of monks, said to the youth who came to him supposedly looking for guidance but were unwilling to even try anything he suggested: If you can't do this, and you can't do that, then what can I do for you? What you need is prayers. (And so may the prayers and intercessions of the holy Theotokos St. Mary be with us all.)

 

[chevyontheriver]

It's obvious what we're dealing with here. Someone has their own idea of what is acceptable as 'evidence' for the true (or original, or whatever) beliefs of Christianity, and because they themselves dissent from those beliefs and want patristic or scriptural justification for doing so (God knows why), this thread goes on and on because it was never about listening to what anyone else has to say or learning anything about why someone might have a different view, it was just about saying "I don't like this, I don't believe this, therefore it's Roman Catholic non-scriptural hooey", regardless of who they're actually talking to, or the given basis for what other people say and do.

This thread absolutely should be locked, as it no chance of going anywhere so long as this is what we're dealing with. The traditional stance of Christianity -- across literally all forms except for the Nestorian (hmm) -- has been ably defended by all of its children, so let's go do something else. Recall what our common father St. Anthony, the father of monks, said to the youth who came to him supposedly looking for guidance but were unwilling to even try anything he suggested: If you can't do this, and you can't do that, then what can I do for you? What you need is prayers. (And so may the prayers and intercessions of the holy Theotokos St. Mary be with us all.)

Pretty much everything that can be said has already been said in the first hundred posts of a thread.

 

[ozso]

Tell that to the Orthodox who posted here. Or the Lutherans who posted here. It is a very Traditional Christian thing to wonder about MacArthur. Not at all just a Catholic thing. That you STILL see it as a Catholic thing makes me think you have missed those other posts which say pretty much the exact same thing but were not written by Catholics.

The difference between Catholics, Orthodox and some Lutherans regarding Mariology, is like the difference between Germany, Austria and Bavaria when it comes to Oktoberfest.