Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

Jipsah · Jul 7, 2023

Maria Billingsley said:
2) The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary 1950 by Pope Pius XII stating that "the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
3) The doctrine sanctioned in 1954 by Pope Pius XII officially declaring Mary to be "Queen of Heaven ".

None of these doctrines are scriptural sound. This is why John MacArthur rebukes her title.

The title "Queen of Heaven" is questionable, but "Mother of God" is not if we believe that our Lord Christ is God Incarnate.

The Liturgist · Jul 7, 2023

hedrick said:
I use the term heretical to refer to violations of widely accepted standards. Otherwise it becomes simply a way to say that I disagree with something. Since Protestants don't consider those standards to be inerrant, that’s not necessarily the same thing as being wrong. However discussing possible errors in Chalcedon or Nicea would not be possible in this forum, nor in my opinion would MacArthur be likely to intend to hold heretical beliefs.

Discussing errors in Chalcedon would on the contrary be entirely acceptable virtually anywhere on ChristianForums, considering we have an entire Congregational forum, Voice In the Desert, for use by Oriental Orthodox members who reject Chalcedon, although Oriental Orthodox theology is not monophysite as is often incorrectly asserted, and rather represents a purist reception of the formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was the pre-eminent theologian in response to Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus.

Now regarding the Council of Nicaea, and of Constantinople in 381, you are of course quite right concerning those given that the major portion of the CF.com Statement of Faith consists of the Nicene Creed. This I myself enthusiastically support given that Nicaea forms an acceptable baseline that virtually everyone from Adventists to Anglicans, Baptists to Old Believers, can agree with, with the only groups unable to agree with Nicaea being groups widely regarded as heterodox and/or cults, such as the Unitarian Universalists, the J/Ws, the Mormons, Christian Science and so on.

I am also of the firm opinion that even though Nestorianism represents a deeply flawed Christology, it is compatible with the Nicene Creed. No one ever accused Nestorius or Theodore of Mopsuestia of being Arians.

Servus · Jul 7, 2023

Jipsah said:
Then asking anyone at all to pray for you is equally as pointless. But I'm willing to bet you've asked people to pray for you in the past.

Many see a difference between people on earth and spirits in heaven. If I start talking to my deceased grandmother, is she actually listening to me?

There's lots of scripture about praying to God and numerous examples of people praying to God. But I don't recall there being anything about praying to the spirits of people or asking them to pray for you or anyone doing so.

dzheremi · Jul 7, 2023

Ordinary Christian said:
From my protestant experience the focus is solely on how Mary herself is regarded.

Yes, that's why I and others in this thread have made the point that Theotokos is a Christological title. It is not about something that St. Mary possesses of herself by virtue of being St. Mary. It only makes sense in relation to the One Whom she bore, who is indeed God.

Ordinary Christian said:
Really in my experience it's "Queen of Heaven" that gets challenged more than "Mother of God".

Yet the question in this thread is being asked because of McArthur's apparent objection to "Mother of God", not "Queen of Heaven", because to reject the former really is heretical, given what doing so says about the Christology of the one who articulates this stance.

Ordinary Christian said:
But both together seem to suggest that Mary is regarded as some sort of goddess to the average protestant.

Again, Protestantism itself wouldn't even exist as its own unique Christian tradition until over a millennia after Nestorius and Ephesus.

Not to mention that no less a figure within the history of Protestantism than Martin Luther affirmed very clearly that St. Mary is the mother of God. I would hope that this would cause Protestants who think of it as a "Roman Catholic thing" to want to look into the historical circumstances by which this title was adopted by the Church, but maybe that's overly optimistic.

Ordinary Christian said:
Most don't know about Nestorius and Chalcedonian etc.

That's to their detriment. Perhaps if more of them did, we wouldn't have threads like this one because they would know already why it is necessary to affirm St. Mary as Theotokos.

Ordinary Christian said:
They just see statues of Mary everywhere and people praying to them. So many Catholic Churches being named after Mary. Mary seems quite dominant in Catholicism.

How does Roman Catholicism having statues or naming churches after people as part of its veneration of saints mean that St. Mary is dominant in Catholicism? I don't belong to a tradition that developed using statues in worship, but I'm pretty sure that all churches that have maintained an idea of the veneration of saints name churches after them, and also that all churches that have done so likewise recognize that St. Mary is the greatest of all saints, again in recognition of her unique relation to our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

hedrick · Jul 8, 2023

The Liturgist said:
I am also of the firm opinion that even though Nestorianism represents a deeply flawed Christology, it is compatible with the Nicene Creed. No one ever accused Nestorius or Theodore of Mopsuestia of being Arians.

The standards of this site aren't limited to Nicea. They include a statement that Jesus is God. Nestorius (according to the usual understanding -- as I'm sure you know there are questions about whether the historical Nestorius was Nestorian) seems to have seen Christ as having two hypostases, or at least close to that. So from a metaphysical point of view there was at least in some sense a distinct human person.

I agree that this is consistent with a literal reading of Nicea (though I'm not so sure its authors would agree). However saying "Jesus is God" probably asserts the usual interpretation of Chalcedon, that there is no distinct human person, but rather than the Logos uses his human nature to live a human life, but there is no distinct human person. Jesus is simply the Logos, though perhaps emphasizing his human life. I believe that the notional Nestorius of Nestorianism would say that a distinct human being Jesus existed, who is closely united to God but has a distinct existence. I think it is probably a violation of CF rules to say that a human person Jesus existed (except in the sense that you can refer to the Logos as a human person), whereas it is not a violation of Nicea.

This is potentially relevant because Reformed have often been accused of Nestorianism. I don't think MacArthur actually is, but he has made a variety of odd statements, and not just on this issue. But to the extent that someone wants to defend a Nestorian reading of MacArthur, I think it's a violation of CF rules.

concretecamper · Jul 8, 2023

Jipsah said:
The title "Queen of Heaven" is questionable

Mary is Queen of Heaven by virtue of her Son's Kingship. As with everything Marian, it is all about Jesus.

hedrick · Jul 8, 2023

dzheremi said:
Not to mention that no less a figure within the history of Protestantism than Martin Luther affirmed very clearly that St. Mary is the mother of God. I would hope that this would cause Protestants who think of it as a "Roman Catholic thing" to want to look into the historical circumstances by which this title was adopted by the Church, but maybe that's overly optimistic.

I think that's precisely the issue. I think historically the attack on Nestorius was actually motivated by the impression that he was denigrating Mary. It was not uncommon for theologians to find theological ways to attack people that they had political or other problems with. Hence the official accusation was Christological. It may also have been based on a hostile reading of his Christology. Scholars are still arguing whether the accusations were fair.

Yes, I'm aware that Luther was devoted to Mary. It's not a big surprise that Luther didn't instantly see all the implications that his approach would eventually produce.

The Liturgist · Jul 8, 2023

hedrick said:
I think that's precisely the issue. I think historically the attack on Nestorius was actually motivated by the impression that he was denigrating Mary. It was not uncommon for theologians to find theological ways to attack people that they had political or other problems with. Hence the official accusation was Christological. It may also have been based on a hostile reading of his Christology. Scholars are still arguing whether the accusations were fair.

Nestorius himself made statements which espoused a Nestorian Christology, and furthermore was influenced by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus, who went quite a bit further, with DIodore (if I recall correctly) going so far as to say that the human Jesus was a person united to the person of the Word through a union of will (which is interesting because this hyper-Nestorian model thus requires Monothelitism, a heresy frequently falsely attributed to the Oriental Orthodox).

Also, after Nestorius was deposed, many theologians from Antioch who agreed with his Christology migrated to Nisibis and the Persian Empire, where they exerted enormous influence on the Church of the East. We see this reflected in some of the more disagreeably unpleasant hymns of Mar Narsai, who the Church of the East regards as the Flute of the Spirit (a title the Syriac Orthodox bestow on his more talented contemporary St. Jacob of Sarugh, with both churches agreeing that St. Ephrem the Syrian is the Harp of the Spirit).

Now it is true that later in life after the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon, Nestorius declared that it was precisely the Christology he was trying to advocate, but this strikes me as either an attempt on his part to come back into the fold, perhaps emboldened by the success of known crypto-Nestorian operatives such as the sinister Ibas at the council in securing the removal of St. Dioscorus as Patriarch of Alexandria, and there is a certain sense in which after the bishops who would form the Oriental Orthodox church left Chalcedon, there was a brief period of anti-Cyrillian triumphalism, but fortunately this tendency towards a Nestorian reading of Chalcedon was later corrected by the ascendance of the Theopaschite movement within what is now the Eastern Orthodox Church (as well as the Western Church, as we see Theopaschitism in both mainstream Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, and also in Anglo Catholicism), versus the competing interpretation known as Apthartodocetism, which had been embraced by Justinian later in life (earlier, he had been an avowed Theopaschite, to the extent of importing the hymn Ho Monogenes originally written by St. Severus of Antiodh into the Byzantine liturgy, where it remains to this day).

The Liturgist · Jul 8, 2023

hedrick said:
Yes, I'm aware that Luther was devoted to Mary. It's not a big surprise that Luther didn't instantly see all the implications that his approach would eventually produce.

I have to confess I don’t see any negative ramifications of Luther’s Marian devotion, and I don’t think @ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch or other Lutherans of Evangelical Catholic churchmanship would see any either. Martin Luther was very much a Catholic in his theology, which is not to say he was Roman Catholic, but rather that he was extremely high church. For example, recall his retention of the crucifix, and his insistence that Lutherans had not abandoned the mass (which some reformed churches would have claimed) but rather continued to celebrate it with utmost reverence, and his insistence on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

And indeed in Northern Germany and Sweden there are even Lutheran monasteries, although sadly Lutheran monasticism did not blossom on the scale of Anglican monasticism (which sadly has become endangered).

The Liturgist · Jul 8, 2023

concretecamper said:
Mary is Queen of Heaven by virtue of her Son's Kingship. As with everything Marian, it is all about Jesus.

I myself don’t have any problems with this title, even though it is not normally used in the Eastern church. But there is the Akathist to the Theotokos, Joy of All Who Sorrow, and several other Akathists and Canons dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. There is also the Akathist Canon used during Lent, which is interesting from a liturgical perspective, because most Akathists are written in the older form of the Kontakion, which was largely replaced elsewhere in the liturgy by the Canon, a more complex poetic form consisting of as many as nine odes, each of which is based on one of nine Biblical Canticles, concluding with the Song of the Three Children and the first two of the Evangelical Canticles from Luke (excluding the Nunc Dimitis). My friend Fr. John Whiteford has a nice collection of Akathists here: Akathists and Canons

This format is also used by the Byzantine Rite Catholics, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church. Actually one of the best sites for EO and Byzantine Catholic liturgical resources is that of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Metropolitan Cantor Institute: Metropolitan Cantor Institute

ViaCrucis · Jul 8, 2023

Ordinary Christian said:
Perhaps more as to whether saying Mary is blessed exalts her above others.

“3 Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Matthew 5:3-11

It's not a competition.

That Mary is blessed doesn't negate that others are blessed. That others are blessed doesn't negate that Mary is blessed.

Scripture calls Mary blessed.
Scripture says blessed are the poor and poor in spirit.

All of that is true.

It's not a competition.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Jul 8, 2023

Ordinary Christian said:
From my protestant experience the focus is solely on how Mary herself is regarded. Really in my experience it's "Queen of Heaven" that gets challenged more than "Mother of God". But both together seem to suggest that Mary is regarded as some sort of goddess to the average protestant. Most don't know about Nestorius and Chalcedonian etc. They just see statues of Mary everywhere and people praying to them. So many Catholic Churches being named after Mary. Mary seems quite dominant in Catholicism.

Which demonstrates that what many Protestants are dealing with is their own phobia of Rome. There are degrees of this phobia that we see in parts of the Protestant and post-Protestant (a term I'm using to describe various modern sects such as the Jehovahs's Witnesses and other non-orthodox groups which are not Protestant but which only exist because Protestantism exists) world.

The problem with this is that it is a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" situation. It is a way of engagement that says, "That looks Roman Catholic" and simply because it "looks Roman Catholic" it must be bad, or is viewed as coming with every other thing that either Roman Catholics believe/do or else is wrongly attributed to Roman Catholics (such as the false claim that Roman Catholics view Mary as divine).

So, for example, making the sign of the cross is often viewed as a "Roman Catholic" practice by many modern Protestants, and that alone makes them look at the practice with suspicion. Even though the practice of making the sign of the cross is one of the most ancient Christian devotional practices and is nearly universal. There are differences in the way Christians make the sign of the cross, but the practice itself is a nearly universal and deeply ancient devotional practice.

The truth is that a lot of Protestantism has, largely, followed the trajectory of the Reformed tradition. I'm not saying that to speak pejoratively, but simply rather to simply describe the history and make observation. A major component of the Reformed tradition is what they call the Regulative Principle--in essence, the Reformed tradition has maintained that what is not in Scripture is not allowed. This is why, for example, the Reformed tradition has a tradition of avoiding liturgical vestments for clergy, it's why things like making the sign of the cross is uncommon or totally absent in churches influenced by the Reformed tradition, it's why there is a lack of icons and sacred images etc. This isn't followed to the same degree or in the exact same way in Reformed churches or in Reformed-influenced churches, obviously; the Puritans outlawed Christmas for example, but few Reformed Protestants take issue with Christmas.

This is markedly different than how the Lutheran tradition approaches things; we instead speak of the Norma Normans and Norma Normata. We have the Norming Norm aka the Unruled Rule of Scripture, the Norma Primaris or Norma Decisionis, the norm and rule which rules over all other things; and we have the Normed Norm, the Ruled Rule, the customs, practices, traditions, confessions (etc) which are secondary, ruled over by Scripture. Which means, for example, just because Scripture doesn't mandate something doesn't mean it's wrong, if it is good and beneficial--even though Scripture doesn't mandate it--then there's no reason to do away with it. That's why Lutherans retained Confirmation, not as a Sacrament, but as a "Churchly Rite" because it served a good and beneficial purpose within the Church. It's why we didn't get rid of icons and images, it's why we didn't do away with vestments and paraments. It's why Protestants more familiar with the Reformed side of Protestantism will say that Lutherans/Lutheranism looks "very Roman Catholic"--because we didn't feel any reason to change what didn't need to be changed.

Put another way, it's been said that Luther opened the cabinet and only took out what he thought shouldn't be in there, Calvin opened the cabinet and took everything out and only put back what he thought should be in there.

A casualty of this has been that very good things, like the basic Christian belief that Mary is the mother of God is now viewed with suspicion rather than simply accepted for what it says and means.

It means there are normal Christian things which don't seem normal for many Protestants, because somewhere along the way somebody either didn't understand it, or else was too worried about "looking Catholic" and so it got ousted.

Sometimes this doesn't result in a huge problem, but sometimes it is a huge problem. And this is an example of where it's a huge problem. Because many Christians today are now basically trying to re-invent the wheel, or engaging in debates and arguments which were already had and addressed and even SOLVED fifteen hundred years ago.

Imagine having to constantly have the same argument and debate again and again over something like the Trinity because anytime someone said "Jesus is God" we had to have this whole messy debate that yes Jesus is God, but no Jesus isn't God the Father because someone, another Arius, is all "Nuh uh! Jesus isn't the Father! Let me try and fix this by making up my own theology about how Jesus is a secondary God etc etc" When we all have a shared understanding of elementary doctrines of the faith, like the Trinity, these problems don't arise. And that means we can actually get around to more important things, like preaching the Gospel, and loving our neighbor. But when we're constantly having to define and redefine and redefine and redefine and redefine everything, then we're wasting time. Not because defending the faith is a waste of time, but having to rehash every single minutia of theology every ten minutes ultimately takes away from what the Church should be doing: Being the vehicle through which Jesus Christ encounters the world and loves the world and saves the world.

-CryptoLutheran

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 8, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
Which demonstrates that what many Protestants are dealing with is their own phobia of Rome. There are degrees of this phobia that we see in parts of the Protestant and post-Protestant (a term I'm using to describe various modern sects such as the Jehovahs's Witnesses and other non-orthodox groups which are not Protestant but which only exist because Protestantism exists) world.

The problem with this is that it is a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" situation. It is a way of engagement that says, "That looks Roman Catholic" and simply because it "looks Roman Catholic" it must be bad, or is viewed as coming with every other thing that either Roman Catholics believe/do or else is wrongly attributed to Roman Catholics (such as the false claim that Roman Catholics view Mary as divine).

So, for example, making the sign of the cross is often viewed as a "Roman Catholic" practice by many modern Protestants, and that alone makes them look at the practice with suspicion. Even though the practice of making the sign of the cross is one of the most ancient Christian devotional practices and is nearly universal. There are differences in the way Christians make the sign of the cross, but the practice itself is a nearly universal and deeply ancient devotional practice.

The truth is that a lot of Protestantism has, largely, followed the trajectory of the Reformed tradition. I'm not saying that to speak pejoratively, but simply rather to simply describe the history and make observation. A major component of the Reformed tradition is what they call the Regulative Principle--in essence, the Reformed tradition has maintained that what is not in Scripture is not allowed. This is why, for example, the Reformed tradition has a tradition of avoiding liturgical vestments for clergy, it's why things like making the sign of the cross is uncommon or totally absent in churches influenced by the Reformed tradition, it's why there is a lack of icons and sacred images etc. This isn't followed to the same degree or in the exact same way in Reformed churches or in Reformed-influenced churches, obviously; the Puritans outlawed Christmas for example, but few Reformed Protestants take issue with Christmas.

This is markedly different than how the Lutheran tradition approaches things; we instead speak of the Norma Normans and Norma Normata. We have the Norming Norm aka the Unruled Rule of Scripture, the Norma Primaris or Norma Decisionis, the norm and rule which rules over all other things; and we have the Normed Norm, the Ruled Rule, the customs, practices, traditions, confessions (etc) which are secondary, ruled over by Scripture. Which means, for example, just because Scripture doesn't mandate something doesn't mean it's wrong, if it is good and beneficial--even though Scripture doesn't mandate it--then there's no reason to do away with it. That's why Lutherans retained Confirmation, not as a Sacrament, but as a "Churchly Rite" because it served a good and beneficial purpose within the Church. It's why we didn't get rid of icons and images, it's why we didn't do away with vestments and paraments. It's why Protestants more familiar with the Reformed side of Protestantism will say that Lutherans/Lutheranism looks "very Roman Catholic"--because we didn't feel any reason to change what didn't need to be changed.

Put another way, it's been said that Luther opened the cabinet and only took out what he thought shouldn't be in there, Calvin opened the cabinet and took everything out and only put back what he thought should be in there.

A casualty of this has been that very good things, like the basic Christian belief that Mary is the mother of God is now viewed with suspicion rather than simply accepted for what it says and means.

It means there are normal Christian things which don't seem normal for many Protestants, because somewhere along the way somebody either didn't understand it, or else was too worried about "looking Catholic" and so it got ousted.

Sometimes this doesn't result in a huge problem, but sometimes it is a huge problem. And this is an example of where it's a huge problem. Because many Christians today are now basically trying to re-invent the wheel, or engaging in debates and arguments which were already had and addressed and even SOLVED fifteen hundred years ago.

Imagine having to constantly have the same argument and debate again and again over something like the Trinity because anytime someone said "Jesus is God" we had to have this whole messy debate that yes Jesus is God, but no Jesus isn't God the Father because someone, another Arius, is all "Nuh uh! Jesus isn't the Father! Let me try and fix this by making up my own theology about how Jesus is a secondary God etc etc" When we all have a shared understanding of elementary doctrines of the faith, like the Trinity, these problems don't arise. And that means we can actually get around to more important things, like preaching the Gospel, and loving our neighbor. But when we're constantly having to define and redefine and redefine and redefine and redefine everything, then we're wasting time. Not because defending the faith is a waste of time, but having to rehash every single minutia of theology every ten minutes ultimately takes away from what the Church should be doing: Being the vehicle through which Jesus Christ encounters the world and loves the world and saves the world.

-CryptoLutheran

Quite a long post for the matter under discussion in it

I think it amounts to saying

Calvinist/Reformed churches tend to have little ornamentation and few rituals because they want bible verses to explicitly demand the use of the ornaments and rituals or else they refuse to have or do them
Lutherans (and some others too, like high church Anglicans) take a different view and retain both ornaments and rituals because they are edifying and useful without being harmful and anti-biblical.

Catholics feel more comfortable with Lutheran and Anglican Protestantism because they allow for human flourishing as a factor in Christian worship. This is more comfortable for us because the Reformed traditions are inclined to bareness as far as venue is concerned, and in worship to forms that have no rites or at most two; these worship forms leave one wondering if worship means listening to a lecture/sermon and some singing with some prayers. And this style of worship is, in my opinion, what leads the reformed and more recent independent free-church denominations and their members to think of any prayer as worship, thus prayer to Mary is, in their thinking, worship that belongs to God alone.

Servus · Jul 8, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
Quite a long post for the matter under discussion in it

I think it amounts to saying

Calvinist/Reformed churches tend to have little ornamentation and few rituals because they want bible verses to explicitly demand the use of the ornaments and rituals or else they refuse to have or do them

Lutherans (and some others too, like high church Anglicans) take a different view and retain both ornaments and rituals because they are edifying and useful without being harmful and anti-biblical.

Catholics feel more comfortable with Lutheran and Anglican Protestantism because they allow for human flourishing as a factor in Christian worship. This is more comfortable for us because the Reformed traditions are inclined to bareness as far as venue is concerned, and in worship to forms that have no rites or at most two; these worship forms leave one wondering if worship means listening to a lecture/sermon and some singing with some prayers. And this style of worship is, in my opinion, what leads the reformed and more recent independent free-church denominations and their members to think of any prayer as worship, thus prayer to Mary is, in their thinking, worship that belongs to God alone.

The model is simply biblical. Prayer is only directed to God, because God is the only one anyone ever prayed to in the bible. The church service is based on what the new testament says the apostles and disciples did. And as far as I know the apostolic and early church fathers did the same. It's just a matter of staying with the original format.

The Liturgist · Jul 8, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
Calvinist/Reformed churches tend to have little ornamentation and few rituals because they want bible verses to explicitly demand the use of the ornaments and rituals or else they refuse to have or do them

That depends on the Calvinist or Reformed church in question. There is actually a High Church movement among the various Reformed churches. In Presbyterianism and the Reformed churches in the US, it is known as Scoto-Catholicism or Mercersburg Theology. In Congregationalism we see it in the exquisite liturgics of the King’s Weigh House in London while that church was led by Rev. John Hunter, and certain other Congregational churches, and we also see it reflected in the architecture of certain Congregational churches like the Neo-Byzantine architecture of Old South Church in Boston. And we see Scoto-Catholicism and Mercersburg Theology reflected in the Gothic architecture of many Presbyterian, Reformed and Congregational churches of the 19th century.

It must be stressed that this was all controversial, but the mainstream of the PCUSA and the Reformed Church in America and the Congregational Christian Church was headed in that direction, as @hedrick can attest. I believe this high church movement is probably responsible for the rise of the Fundamentalist movement within Calvinism, which was most successful among the Baptists, although even among the Baptists one can find elaborate Gothic churches in various American cities.

I myself was only ever associated with the high church or liturgical movement in Congregationalism, and I shy away from Fundamentalism, and in the case of John MacArthur I think an argument could be made that theologically, he is in fact a fundamentalist. Not that this is inherently bad; some fundamentalists have done a very good job in areas such as moral theology. One could argue that Dr. Albert Mohler, who I regard as the foremost Western moral theologian at present, is a fundamentalist. However I myself am not content with four bare walls and a sermon.

Also in the specific case of MacArthur, his church if I recall makes extensive use of praise and worship music, which I regard as theologically defective.

The Liturgist · Jul 8, 2023

Ordinary Christian said:
The model is simply biblical. Prayer is only directed to God, because God is the only one anyone ever prayed to in the bible. The church service is based on what the new testament says the apostles and disciples did. And as far as I know the apostolic and early church fathers did the same. It's just a matter of staying with the original format.

The problem with the “regulative principle” which is what you are describing is that the New Testament actually does not go into very much detail at all concerning the worship of the early church, and furthermore, we know from first century documents such as the Didache, which were nearly included in the New Testament canon (indeed another first century book of church order, the Didascalia, is regarded as deuterocanonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox) that there was much more to the worship of the early church than what is mentioned in the canonical New Testament, although it is true that the New Testament is like a kernel from which everything else emerges.

Regarding seeking the intercession of the saints, this happens in 2 Maccabees, which is an inspired Biblical text, and furthermore prayer is not equivalent to worship. The Greek word translated as worship, latria, literally means service, implying a sacrificial service, and this sacrificial worship comes in the form of Baptism and the Eucharist and Doxological prayers and hymns, which constitute a rational and bloodless sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and which are offered to God alone, together with those Christians who have gone before us and now comprise the Church Triumphant.

FenderTL5 · Jul 8, 2023

The Liturgist said:
...Dr. Albert Mohler, who I regard as the foremost Western moral theologian at present, is a fundamentalist..

ASIDE (way over to the side), It's been a long time ago, but for about three years i was in the same Sunday School class as Dr Mohler. At the time he was the editor of The Christian Index. The SS teacher knew that if he'd ask the right question, Al would end up 'teaching the class' for him.

His wife, Mary was my daughter's SS teacher. Yeah, I'd agree he's a fundamentalist.

Servus · Jul 8, 2023

The Liturgist said:
The problem with the “regulative principle” which is what you are describing is that the New Testament actually does not go into very much detail at all concerning the worship of the early church, and furthermore, we know from first century documents such as the Didache, which were nearly included in the New Testament canon (indeed another first century book of church order, the Didascalia, is regarded as deuterocanonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox) that there was much more to the worship of the early church than what is mentioned in the canonical New Testament, although it is true that the New Testament is like a kernel from which everything else emerges.

I watched a few different masses recently. There was reading from scripture, a sermon, singing, praying and communion. The style is different, but in essence it's pretty much the same.

The Liturgist said:
Regarding seeking the intercession of the saints, this happens in 2 Maccabees, which is an inspired Biblical text, and furthermore prayer is not equivalent to worship. The Greek word translated as worship, latria, literally means service, implying a sacrificial service, and this sacrificial worship comes in the form of Baptism and the Eucharist and Doxological prayers and hymns, which constitute a rational and bloodless sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and which are offered to God alone, together with those Christians who have gone before us and now comprise the Church Triumphant.

2 Maccabees has a verse or two about "a dream a sort of vision" that took place. There's not a single instance in all of scripture where anyone of God prayed to anyone other than God. 2 Maccabees doesn't really have that and neither does Psalm 103:20.

If others want to make up praying to other entities, that's fine for them, but I consider it a superfluous distraction. I prefer to pray directly to my Lord God. He suffered a lot to tear apart the veil between man and God.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 8, 2023

The Liturgist said:
That depends on the Calvinist or Reformed church in question.

Without doubt it does, yet for very many it does not. And for general free-church style Calvinism bare buildings without any ornaments and without rituals except baptism and the Lord's Supper is the norm and worship services are some hymns, some prayers, and a sermon; for such churches prayer IS worship and is close to exhaustive of the meaning of the word worship.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 8, 2023

Ordinary Christian said:
The model is simply biblical. Prayer is only directed to God, because God is the only one anyone ever prayed to in the bible.

Maybe that is so in a 66 book bible, but I doubt it; it is not so in a 73 book bible.

Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

Blood Drinker

Traditional Liturgical Christian

<><

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Senior Veteran

I stand with Candice.

Senior Veteran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

<><

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

<><

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Similar threads