Is John mcarthur guilty of Heresy? #2 Revised Edition.

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2025

dowthut said:
One huge problem in a certain denomination is that they hold up Mary to be more than human, which was not and is not.

I’m aware of no Christian denominations (including Roman Catholicism) which regard the Blessed Virgin Mary as anything other than entirely human, for according to the Nicene Creed, it was from her that Christ our True God took on our human nature, becoming fully man while remaining fully God, without change, confusion, separation or division between his humanity and his divinity.

Because of this, the Council of Ephesus correctly decreed that Nestorius was in error attempting to suppress the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Church of Constantinople as Theotokos (birth-giver of Ood), because that is literally what she did, because God, for our sakes, became born of a woman in the person of the Son and Word.

While some individual laity in the Roman Catholic Church might hold to errant views concerning the Theotokos, their overall position regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary is basically compatible with that held by the persecuted Eastern Orthoodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.

Of course John MacArthur doesn’t regard us as Christian apparently, since while Dr. Hank Haanegraaf was fighting stage IV cancer (which he recovered from, thanks be to God), MacArthur accused him of apostasy for joining our ancient church. But this had more to do with our not believing in sola fide (and thus being accused of works righteousness) than our Mariology.

Indeed, Thomas Cranmer, Martin Luther, John Wesley and even John Calvin acknowledged that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin and the mother of God, and Martin Luther furthermore prayed a version of the Hail Mary prayer, as my Lutheran friend @MarkRohfrietsch reminds us.

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2025

jas3 said:
Because using that term to the exclusion of "Mother of God" implies that, like Nestorius, one believes that Christ is not God. This would include the bizarre view that is found worryingly often online that God the Son is "one third" or "part" of God.

There was recently someone who made a post like that on CF. The idea that each person of the Trinity represents a third of God is a complete misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is the case where those basic diagrams come in handy, the ones which say of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that each is God, while not being the other. But then I prefer not to use diagrams at all, since the church fathers generally avoided them (aside from decorative use of the trefoil in a Western RIte Orthodox context). Indeed I seem to recall some early church fathers didn’t even wish to count the three persons of the Holy Trinity but simply to say “Father, Son and Holy Ghost”, but others did count them (this point was in a complex lecture by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, and the point he was making was complex, but i want to try to find that, but essentially he was trying to stress, if memory serves, the importance of not regarding God as being divided into parts or being a compound entity).

linux.poet · Jun 14, 2025

As someone who comes from the same tradition as John MacArthur, he is giving our tradition a bad name by giving out these easily misinterpreted statements that are confusing people. When someone is interpreting the Scriptures, it is their responsibility to do so clearly so they cannot be misunderstood.

We believe that Mary was a sinful human being like everyone else, and that Mary gave birth to other children after the birth of Jesus. However, we also believe that Christ was fully God and fully man. We believe that the sin nature of mankind comes from the male half of the reproductive process, and therefore Mary's moral status was not relevant - the important part was that she was a virgin when Christ was conceived. Christ did not have the sin nature that all of the rest of us have, being fully God and fully man. Christ had the broken flesh, but not the overriding inclination to sin that comes with it for all of us that was passed down from Adam.

Hopefully that clears some of this up.

linux.poet · Jun 14, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Of course John MacArthur doesn’t regard us as Christian apparently, since while Dr. Hank Haanegraaf was fighting stage IV cancer (which he recovered from, thanks be to God), MacArthur accused him of apostasy for joining our ancient church. But this had more to do with our not believing in sola fide (and thus being accused of works righteousness) than our Mariology.

I should clarify that I think that the Orthodox are Christians, since they acknowledge Christ as Lord and believe he was raised from the dead. Not to mention the fact that they believe in the Nicene Creed which is a good summary of correct Christian theology.

MacArthur is just a human who claims that people with eating disorders and people with trauma are sinning and that is what is causing their mental health issues. That is what his biblical counseling program is. It's a violation of the book of Job, and it's just ghoulish. Thankfully, better trauma classes have been developed by others in our tradition that are more thoughtful and more consistent with Scripture and proper science. His huge flaw is that he thinks Scripture overrides other forms of knowledge, and it's getting him into a world of trouble. People need to respect areas of expertise - to do otherwise is pride, foolishness, and arrogance.

ViaCrucis · Jun 14, 2025

dowthut said:
One huge problem in a certain denomination is that they hold up Mary to be more than human, which was not and is not. She was chosen and that's all. She would tell you herself not to raise her up above anyone else!

No denomination or Christian tradition holds up Mary to be more than human.

-CryptoLutheran

Hentenza · Jun 14, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
No denomination or Christian tradition holds up Mary to be more than human.

-CryptoLutheran

Maybe the high exultation and veneration, including prayers to Mary, by some Christian traditions confuses some into thinking that Mary is held to be more than just a human.

ViaCrucis · Jun 14, 2025

Hentenza said:
Maybe the high exultation and veneration, including prayers to Mary, by some Christian traditions confuses some into thinking that Mary is held to be more than just a human.

Sure. Confusion abounds without being informed on a topic. I'm a Lutheran today, but when I was growing up I thought Lutherans were "basically just Catholics" and knew nothing about Lutherans or Lutheranism and the "basically just Catholics" (without knowing anything about Catholicism either except when I heard by cultural osmosis whether true or false) thing was all I had until I looked into it.

To be sure, I believe there is room for a critical analysis of Roman Catholic Marian teaching and practice. But it should be based on actual Roman Catholic teaching and practice, rather than purely imagined. Roman Catholics don't regard Mary as more than human, even if I think that some Roman Catholic Marian views are, at the very least, questionable.

I believe that recognizing that Mary is Theotokos and mother of God is an essential aspect of good Christian Christology, affirming the indivisible unity of Christ's Person as the God-Man; and so denying and rejecting this is not really about Mary at all, it's about Jesus. If Jesus, God Incarnate, is not truly conceived and born of Mary, His mother, then that is a mountain of theological problems that ultimately undermines everything from the Incarnation to Salvation itself. As such, it's not just a "Marian" issue; it's a Gospel issue. So when I confess and call Mary Theotokos/mother of God, I do so because that is essential to the truth of the Gospel. God became flesh, was born of Mary, and His name is Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

Gregory Thompson · Jun 14, 2025

Neostarwcc said:
Can a rejection of Theotokos be biblically or historically justified?

Is MacArthur’s view just poor wording… or is it genuinely dangerous?

Why do so many Reformed Christians seem willing to overlook it?

1) No because Jesus is God. Jesus has always been God so saying he wasn't God at any time contradicts God's nature.

2) Interpreting intent is dangerous and not really possible.

3) Restrictive theology is part of the mindset, if a theology is "guilty by association" it is rejected. Especially if the theology is catholic in nature.

Hentenza · Jun 14, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
Sure. Confusion abounds without being informed on a topic. I'm a Lutheran today, but when I was growing up I thought Lutherans were "basically just Catholics" and knew nothing about Lutherans or Lutheranism and the "basically just Catholics" (without knowing anything about Catholicism either except when I heard by cultural osmosis whether true or false) thing was all I had until I looked into it.

To be sure, I believe there is room for a critical analysis of Roman Catholic Marian teaching and practice. But it should be based on actual Roman Catholic teaching and practice, rather than purely imagined. Roman Catholics don't regard Mary as more than human, even if I think that some Roman Catholic Marian views are, at the very least, questionable.

I believe that recognizing that Mary is Theotokos and mother of God is an essential aspect of good Christian Christology, affirming the indivisible unity of Christ's Person as the God-Man; and so denying and rejecting this is not really about Mary at all, it's about Jesus. If Jesus, God Incarnate, is not truly conceived and born of Mary, His mother, then that is a mountain of theological problems that ultimately undermines everything from the Incarnation to Salvation itself. As such, it's not just a "Marian" issue; it's a Gospel issue. So when I confess and call Mary Theotokos/mother of God, I do so because that is essential to the truth of the Gospel. God became flesh, was born of Mary, and His name is Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

I mostly agree with you. My primary issue with the many hypotheses of the nature of the birth of Jesus is the human attempt at explaining God’s ways in human terms. Some traditions stubbornly believe that they and they alone have the truth of Jesus’s birth as they apparently have figured out the ways and mechanisms of an Infinite God. All I know is that Jesus incarnate is both fully human and fully God. The exact mechanism is God’s purview.

ViaCrucis · Jun 14, 2025

Hentenza said:
I mostly agree with you. My primary issue with the many hypotheses of the nature of the birth of Jesus is the human attempt at explaining God’s ways in human terms. Some traditions stubbornly believe that they and they alone have the truth of Jesus’s birth as they apparently have figured out the ways and mechanisms of an Infinite God. All I know is that Jesus incarnate is both fully human and fully God. The exact mechanism is God’s purview.

The more I've studied Christology, the more I've realized that most of what is confessed positively historically in Christianity is the result of rejecting other ideas because of major problems with those other ideas. If we look, for example, at the confession put forward at Chalcedon it may look, at first glance, like it is trying to define "mechanically" how Jesus is God and man; but I think a closer look, especially placed in historical context, shows that it's far less about rigorously defining the Incarnation as it is rigorously rejecting certain ideas. The language is apophatic rather than cataphatic. The chief concern at Chalcedon was the views being put forward by Eutyches, whose radical anti-Nestorianism led him to saying that the union of Divine and humanity in Jesus was so great that, effectively, there is nothing human in Jesus left at all--effectively in Eutychian Christology Jesus was no longer one of us, a human being; but had a different kind of humanity, one that was like "a drop of vinegar in the ocean" (something Eutyches himself said). So Chalcedon was chiefly interested in rejecting Eutychianism, and so the point of the language was to affirm Jesus as really human, just like you and me (but without sin); so Jesus is of the same Essence as the Father (because He is God the Son) but Jesus is also of the same Essence as you and me, because He is fully and completely and really human.

It becomes far less about trying to narrowly define God, or narrowly squeeze Jesus and the mechanics of the Incarnation into a very small box; and it is much more about drawing lines in the sand where we cannot cross. We will never understand and know the deep Mystery of the Incarnation, or how the Incarnation "works"; that's not for us--but the meaning of the Incarnation, and what we say about it, cannot in some way actually reject it.

Jesus is God and man. He is God because He is the Word and Son of the Father. He is man because He's actually one of us, He did not merely appear as a man, but was (and is) a man. He had a human body, a human soul, a human mind, a human will, He had human emotions, He had human thoughts, He was one of us. And that isn't just some matter that high-falutin' smarty-pants philosophers and seminarian-trained theologians get to argue over while having a pint at a fancy restaurant or spilling ink on parchment; it's the sort of stuff that matters deep into the heart of Christian confession. Jesus is one of us, God became one of us, and it is His taking upon Himself what we are, that He saves us. That is Gospel stuff, this is blue-collar Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

Hentenza · Jun 14, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
The more I've studied Christology, the more I've realized that most of what is confessed positively historically in Christianity is the result of rejecting other ideas because of major problems with those other ideas. If we look, for example, at the confession put forward at Chalcedon it may look, at first glance, like it is trying to define "mechanically" how Jesus is God and man; but I think a closer look, especially placed in historical context, shows that it's far less about rigorously defining the Incarnation as it is rigorously rejecting certain ideas. The language is apophatic rather than cataphatic. The chief concern at Chalcedon was the views being put forward by Eutyches, whose radical anti-Nestorianism led him to saying that the union of Divine and humanity in Jesus was so great that, effectively, there is nothing human in Jesus left at all--effectively in Eutychian Christology Jesus was no longer one of us, a human being; but had a different kind of humanity, one that was like "a drop of vinegar in the ocean" (something Eutyches himself said). So Chalcedon was chiefly interested in rejecting Eutychianism, and so the point of the language was to affirm Jesus as really human, just like you and me (but without sin); so Jesus is of the same Essence as the Father (because He is God the Son) but Jesus is also of the same Essence as you and me, because He is fully and completely and really human.

It becomes far less about trying to narrowly define God, or narrowly squeeze Jesus and the mechanics of the Incarnation into a very small box; and it is much more about drawing lines in the sand where we cannot cross. We will never understand and know the deep Mystery of the Incarnation, or how the Incarnation "works"; that's not for us--but the meaning of the Incarnation, and what we say about it, cannot in some way actually reject it.

Jesus is God and man. He is God because He is the Word and Son of the Father. He is man because He's actually one of us, He did not merely appear as a man, but was (and is) a man. He had a human body, a human soul, a human mind, a human will, He had human emotions, He had human thoughts, He was one of us. And that isn't just some matter that high-falutin' smarty-pants philosophers and seminarian-trained theologians get to argue over while having a pint at a fancy restaurant or spilling ink on parchment; it's the sort of stuff that matters deep into the heart of Christian confession. Jesus is one of us, God became one of us, and it is His taking upon Himself what we are, that He saves us. That is Gospel stuff, this is blue-collar Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

Totally sensible post and one that I can agree with. The problem with this website, and one of the reasons among many of why I left over 10 years ago, was the unyielding and insistent cathartic explanations for the mystery of the incarnation and other mysteries. We need to realize and understand our knowledge limitations and act more Christ like towards our brethren.

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2025

linux.poet said:
I should clarify that I think that the Orthodox are Christians, since they acknowledge Christ as Lord and believe he was raised from the dead. Not to mention the fact that they believe in the Nicene Creed which is a good summary of correct Christian theology.

I appreciate you!

We regard you as Christian as well. Additionally St. John Maximovitch reminds Orthodox Christians to trust in the infinite love of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ to save others like yourself who seek His salvation. We try to focus on our own sins.

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
The more I've studied Christology, the more I've realized that most of what is confessed positively historically in Christianity is the result of rejecting other ideas because of major problems with those other ideas. If we look, for example, at the confession put forward at Chalcedon it may look, at first glance, like it is trying to define "mechanically" how Jesus is God and man; but I think a closer look, especially placed in historical context, shows that it's far less about rigorously defining the Incarnation as it is rigorously rejecting certain ideas. The language is apophatic rather than cataphatic. The chief concern at Chalcedon was the views being put forward by Eutyches, whose radical anti-Nestorianism led him to saying that the union of Divine and humanity in Jesus was so great that, effectively, there is nothing human in Jesus left at all--effectively in Eutychian Christology Jesus was no longer one of us, a human being; but had a different kind of humanity, one that was like "a drop of vinegar in the ocean" (something Eutyches himself said). So Chalcedon was chiefly interested in rejecting Eutychianism, and so the point of the language was to affirm Jesus as really human, just like you and me (but without sin); so Jesus is of the same Essence as the Father (because He is God the Son) but Jesus is also of the same Essence as you and me, because He is fully and completely and really human.

It becomes far less about trying to narrowly define God, or narrowly squeeze Jesus and the mechanics of the Incarnation into a very small box; and it is much more about drawing lines in the sand where we cannot cross. We will never understand and know the deep Mystery of the Incarnation, or how the Incarnation "works"; that's not for us--but the meaning of the Incarnation, and what we say about it, cannot in some way actually reject it.

Jesus is God and man. He is God because He is the Word and Son of the Father. He is man because He's actually one of us, He did not merely appear as a man, but was (and is) a man. He had a human body, a human soul, a human mind, a human will, He had human emotions, He had human thoughts, He was one of us. And that isn't just some matter that high-falutin' smarty-pants philosophers and seminarian-trained theologians get to argue over while having a pint at a fancy restaurant or spilling ink on parchment; it's the sort of stuff that matters deep into the heart of Christian confession. Jesus is one of us, God became one of us, and it is His taking upon Himself what we are, that He saves us. That is Gospel stuff, this is blue-collar Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

Interestingly the Oriental Orthodox also reject Eutyches, despite rejecting the Council of Chalcedon because of the extent to which the Tome of Leo departed from the language St. Cyril had used, and also the unfair treatment of Pope St. Dioscorus of Alexandria.

I myself am a proponent of EO-OO reconciliation, which has to a large extent already happened, although there are those who are opposed to it who would like to undo that, who are scandalized by the ecumenical agreements between, for instance, the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, which are OO and EO respectively. It’s mostly EOs and OOs who don’t live in a country that has members of the other church and thus have no experience with them who tend to dislike them. Orthodox Christians from Syria and Lebanon, whether Antiochian or Syriac, tend to just get along; likewise in Egypt, whether they are Coptic, Alexandrian Greek or members of the autonomous Church of Sinai.

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2025

Hentenza said:
Totally sensible post and one that I can agree with. The problem with this website, and one of the reasons among many of why I left over 10 years ago, was the unyielding and insistent cathartic explanations for the mystery of the incarnation and other mysteries. We need to realize and understand our knowledge limitations and act more Christ like towards our brethren.

Amen to that.

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
No denomination or Christian tradition holds up Mary to be more than human.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed. In the fourth century St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, in the Panarion, his encyclopedia of ancient heresies, of which I can provide translations to those interested, contrasts two groups that had equal and opposite errors of Mariology: the Collyridians worshipped her, and believed she was a divine being, and offered the Eucharistic sacrifice to her, and the Antidicomarians refused to venerate her, believing she was unworthy of veneration. Both views were equally offensive to St. Epiphanios.

At present we see both errors outside the church: we see neo-Collyridianism among the Palmarians, a sect that preys upon disaffected traditional Roman Catholics in Spain, whose founder literally rewrote the Bible, and who taught that Mary is physically present in the Eucharist as well as Christ our True God, which is obviously heretical. And we see neo-antidicomarianism among the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who falsely accuse Roman Catholics of idolatry and other grave offenses, and who deny the deity of Christ our True God.

dowthut · Jun 14, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
The more I've studied Christology, the more I've realized that most of what is confessed positively historically in Christianity is the result of rejecting other ideas because of major problems with those other ideas. If we look, for example, at the confession put forward at Chalcedon it may look, at first glance, like it is trying to define "mechanically" how Jesus is God and man; but I think a closer look, especially placed in historical context, shows that it's far less about rigorously defining the Incarnation as it is rigorously rejecting certain ideas. The language is apophatic rather than cataphatic. The chief concern at Chalcedon was the views being put forward by Eutyches, whose radical anti-Nestorianism led him to saying that the union of Divine and humanity in Jesus was so great that, effectively, there is nothing human in Jesus left at all--effectively in Eutychian Christology Jesus was no longer one of us, a human being; but had a different kind of humanity, one that was like "a drop of vinegar in the ocean" (something Eutyches himself said). So Chalcedon was chiefly interested in rejecting Eutychianism, and so the point of the language was to affirm Jesus as really human, just like you and me (but without sin); so Jesus is of the same Essence as the Father (because He is God the Son) but Jesus is also of the same Essence as you and me, because He is fully and completely and really human.

It becomes far less about trying to narrowly define God, or narrowly squeeze Jesus and the mechanics of the Incarnation into a very small box; and it is much more about drawing lines in the sand where we cannot cross. We will never understand and know the deep Mystery of the Incarnation, or how the Incarnation "works"; that's not for us--but the meaning of the Incarnation, and what we say about it, cannot in some way actually reject it.

Jesus is God and man. He is God because He is the Word and Son of the Father. He is man because He's actually one of us, He did not merely appear as a man, but was (and is) a man. He had a human body, a human soul, a human mind, a human will, He had human emotions, He had human thoughts, He was one of us. And that isn't just some matter that high-falutin' smarty-pants philosophers and seminarian-trained theologians get to argue over while having a pint at a fancy restaurant or spilling ink on parchment; it's the sort of stuff that matters deep into the heart of Christian confession. Jesus is one of us, God became one of us, and it is His taking upon Himself what we are, that He saves us. That is Gospel stuff, this is blue-collar Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

What we don't know and won't know until Heaven is that we don't in what form Jesus existed before His visit to earth and in what form He is today. He came to earth as a human but that does not tell us what He was before coming and then after He ascended to Heaven.

ViaCrucis · Jun 14, 2025

dowthut said:
What we don't know and won't know until Heaven is that we don't in what form Jesus existed before His visit to earth and in what form He is today. He came to earth as a human but that does not tell us what He was before coming and then after He ascended to Heaven.

We have answers to both of those questions though, pretty clear ones at that.

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

1 Timothy 2:15 - "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus."

He has always been God, continues to be God, and will always be God.
In the Incarnation He became man, and He continues to be man.

He is the Incarnate God-Man.

-CryptoLutheran

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
We have answers to both of those questions though, pretty clear ones at that.

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

1 Timothy 2:15 - "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus."

He has always been God, continues to be God, and will always be God.
In the Incarnation He became man, and He continues to be man.

He is the Incarnate God-Man.

-CryptoLutheran

@ViaCrucis is entirely correct.

It should also be noted that in His resurrection, Christ our True God was raised incorruptible, and is the first fruits of the Resurrection - when we are resurrected it will be with the incorruptibility Christ now has.

The Orthodox can attest from our unique perspective that this incorruption is already evident, for we have many holy ones whose bodies God has not suffered to see corruption.

Xeno.of.athens · Jun 15, 2025

Neostarwcc said:
Im hoping by reopening this topic several years later we can discuss this in a less heated way than we did last time.

Good luck

Xeno.of.athens · Jun 15, 2025

Neostarwcc said:
MacArthur is widely respected in Reformed circles (myself included)

Why?

Let me explain why I am asking that.

John Macarthur preaches against "free salvation" and in favour of "Lordship salvation", he preaches against Mysticism, against Catholicism, against Eastern Orthodoxy, against infant baptism, against Arminianism, he produces lots of controversial books on topics that will stir up all kinds of ill feeling, and he knows it. He sees his work as defending the truth, defending the gospel, but by doing these things he implies that nearly everyone but himself is wrong and nearly everybody but those who fully agree with him are in some degree compromising the gospel. He's not alone in feeling that he is right, many people operate on that premise, that is to say, on the premise that "I am right and any who oppose are muddle headed or dishonest, or ignorant or something that disables them spiritually". So, why is that popular? Seems like it ought to be a warning sign pointing to an incipient cult of personality under formation. He has a bunch of bible versions with his study notes in them and all called "The Macarthur Study Bible" and a set of commentaries and a single volume commentary all bearing his name in the title. His church is independent so he is answerable to no external denominational supervisors, has no external confession or creed, or other standard by which his views are to be weighed, he sees his only judge as God and his only standard as the bible (rightly interpreted, according to his way of seeing things). And these last mentioned things also point to a cult of personality.

So, when we get to the question "is Mary the mother of God?" he gives his own independent answer ignoring the creeds and overlooking the implications that he is in fact advocating a form of words that implies Nestorianism. Because if Blessed Mary is the mother of Christ and not also the mother of God then it is implied that either Christ (in human flesh) is not God or that Mary mothered only the flesh and not the whole person of Christ. This is an ancient heresy that the council of Chalcedon laid to rest with the formula show below:

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men 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 soul and body; consubstantial 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, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; 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 and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God 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."

Thus, in his way of expressing his views on Blessed Mary the mother of Jesus he is technically in heresy and hence may in fact be a heretic if he maintains his form of words even after being admonished to reconsider them and find an orthodox and Christian way of expressing his theological perspective.

Is John mcarthur guilty of Heresy? #2 Revised Edition.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Barshai

Barshai

Confessional Lutheran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Confessional Lutheran

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Confessional Lutheran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Member

Confessional Lutheran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

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

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

Similar threads