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

[Neostarwcc]

Hey CF family,

A while back, I made a thread asking if John MacArthur was guilty of heresy based on some things he had previously said about Mary and Christ’s nature. That thread ended up getting a TON of replies. In fact I was surprised on how viral the thread got and it was one of my biggest threads ever. It ended up being eventually closed by my request after it got pretty heated between people. Im hoping by reopening this topic several years later we can discuss this in a less heated way than we did last time.


Here’s the original thread for context:

Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

I don't know if you're all familiar with John Mcarthur but he is a reformed theologian that is the leader of the mega church Grace Community church. This might be news to some of you and many of you probably know this already but John Mcarthur may be guilty of heresy by denying that Mary is the...

www.christianforums.com

Well, I want to revisit what kicked it all off: MacArthur stating that Mary is not the mother of God, only the mother of Jesus’s human nature. And I want to talk about this again—not out of disrespect, but out of genuine theological concern.

Here’s the problem:​

Saying “Mary is not the mother of God” might sound like a way to avoid Catholic excesses, but it dangerously flirts with Nestorianism—the heresy that splits Jesus into two persons: one divine, one human.


The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) declared that Mary is Theotokos—God-bearer—not because she’s divine, but because Jesus is one person with two natures, fully God and fully man. Rejecting that title isn’t just unwise—it risks denying the unity of Christ’s person.

And this is what deeply bothers me:​

MacArthur is widely respected in Reformed circles (myself included), and most people just assume he’s untouchable. But even solid men can misspeak, or worse, double down on poor theology out of reaction to Rome.


I'm not here to stir division—I’m here because I care about Christology, not Marian doctrine. If Jesus is not one unified person, the gospel falls apart.


So I’m asking again—not to attack MacArthur, but to challenge us all:

• 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?

Would love your thoughts, especially if you’re well-versed in Christological debates or church history.

You can find an audio clip of his statement here but forgive me I don't remember where in the audio clip he says it and my original post doesn't mention.:

Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: An Overview

Tonight, as was made clear this morning, we are going to be looking at the subject of the idolatry of worshipping Mary. And I want to say a few things before I say a few things by way of introduc

www.gty.org

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Hey CF family,

A while back, I made a thread asking if John MacArthur was guilty of heresy based on some things he had previously said about Mary and Christ’s nature. That thread ended up getting a TON of replies. In fact I was surprised on how viral the thread got and it was one of my biggest threads ever. It ended up being eventually closed by my request after it got pretty heated between people. Im hoping by reopening this topic several years later we can discuss this in a less heated way than we did last time.


Here’s the original thread for context:

Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

I don't know if you're all familiar with John Mcarthur but he is a reformed theologian that is the leader of the mega church Grace Community church. This might be news to some of you and many of you probably know this already but John Mcarthur may be guilty of heresy by denying that Mary is the...

www.christianforums.com

Well, I want to revisit what kicked it all off: MacArthur stating that Mary is not the mother of God, only the mother of Jesus’s human nature. And I want to talk about this again—not out of disrespect, but out of genuine theological concern.

Here’s the problem:​

Saying “Mary is not the mother of God” might sound like a way to avoid Catholic excesses, but it dangerously flirts with Nestorianism—the heresy that splits Jesus into two persons: one divine, one human.


The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) declared that Mary is Theotokos—God-bearer—not because she’s divine, but because Jesus is one person with two natures, fully God and fully man. Rejecting that title isn’t just unwise—it risks denying the unity of Christ’s person.

And this is what deeply bothers me:​

MacArthur is widely respected in Reformed circles (myself included), and most people just assume he’s untouchable. But even solid men can misspeak, or worse, double down on poor theology out of reaction to Rome.


I'm not here to stir division—I’m here because I care about Christology, not Marian doctrine. If Jesus is not one unified person, the gospel falls apart.


So I’m asking again—not to attack MacArthur, but to challenge us all:

• 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?

Would love your thoughts, especially if you’re well-versed in Christological debates or church history.

For one thing, I'm not a fan of John MacArthur at all. I disagree with his Calvinist and dispensationalist beliefs. But, I agree with him on this. This is not nearly as complicated as you think it is.

Jesus was already God before He was born as a human being.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made....14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Mary did not give birth to God, she gave birth to the Word who was already God and "became flesh". She only gave birth to His humanity. To say that she was the mother of God implies that He was not already God before she gave birth to Him, which obviously makes no sense.

 

[Neostarwcc]

For one thing, I'm not a fan of John MacArthur at all. I disagree with his Calvinist and dispensationalist beliefs. But, I agree with him on this. This is not nearly as complicated as you think it is.

Jesus was already God before He was born as a human being.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made....14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Mary did not give birth to God, she gave birth to the Word who was already God and "became flesh". She only gave birth to His humanity. To say that she was the mother of God implies that He was not already God before she gave birth to Him, which obviously makes no sense.

Naturally he was already God beforehand that's the basics of the Christian faith. But when he was born into the world he was both fully that God and fully human. Mary carried, and bore a baby that was both fully God and fully human. This is basic Christianity and MacArthur should know this as not just a Christian but a top tier theologian for so long. I think its outrageous that just because MacArthur wanted to avoid Rome like it was the plague he risked being guilty of heresy to just to make a controversial point that got him so much whiplash from not just Catholics and other Christians but also us Presbyterians and other members of the reformed community.

Some of us even went so far as to unsubscribe from him altogether and label him as a false teaching heretic. I don't think he's a false teaching heretic I just think like what happened to Steven Lawson as Godly of a man he was, he needs to repent and think about that statement that he made a little bit harder. But, I don't know. Guess he can do whatever he wants. As long as he doesn't make another major mistake like that again. If he does maybe he'll lose all of his followers.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Naturally he was already God beforehand that's the basics of the Christian faith. But when he was born into the world he was both fully that God and fully human. Mary carried, and bore a baby that was both fully God and fully human.

That doesn't make her the mother of God, though.

This is basic Christianity and MacArthur should know this as not just a Christian but a top tier theologian for so long. I think its outrageous that just because MacArthur wanted to avoid Rome like it was the plague he risked being guilty of heresy to just to make a controversial point that got him so much whiplash from not just Catholics and other Christians but also us Presbyterians and other members of the reformed community.

What heresy is he guilty of? Did he claim that Jesus is not fully God and fully human?

Some of us even went so far as to unsubscribe from him altogether and label him as a false teaching heretic.

Well, in my mind, he is definitely a false teacher for other reasons, but I wouldn't call any Christian a heretic.

I don't think he's a false teaching heretic I just think like what happened to Steven Lawson as Godly of a man he was, he needs to repent and think about that statement that he made a little bit harder. But, I don't know. Guess he can do whatever he wants. As long as he doesn't make another major mistake like that again. If he does maybe he'll lose all of his followers.

What major mistake? I might be missing something here.

 

[Neostarwcc]

That doesn't make her the mother of God, though.


What heresy is he guilty of? Did he claim that Jesus is not fully God and fully human?


Well, in my mind, he is definitely a false teacher for other reasons, but I wouldn't call any Christian a heretic.


What major mistake? I might be missing something here.

I said in the OP. "Nestorianism—the heresy that splits Jesus into two persons: one divine, one human."

When MacArthur said that Mary was not the mother of God he was flirting a little close to Nestorianism there because he was splitting Jesus into two persons one divine and one human. Jesus is one person that is fully God and fully human and its commonly known and accepted by Christianity that Mary is the mother of God its not just Catholics that give her that title because she bore God in her womb. If I'm still not making sense I apologize. Its mostly Catholics and reformed people that are on fire about this statement of his that he made a few years ago. Catholics are like "How dare he talk about Mary that way!" and the Reformed are like "Did he seriously just get that close to committing heresy? He's such a sound and biblical theologian!"

So... yeah... its a hot topic and thats why my old thread blew up so much and had to be closed.

 

[PloverWing]

I did a little googling of John MacArthur just now. I wasn't able to find an article or sermon by him in which he specifically rejects the title "Mother of God" and gives his reasons for it, so if you're able to find an article/sermon where he talks specifically about this, that would help me understand his thinking.

I did find these two items: a sermon excerpt in which he addresses the relationship between Jesus and Mary (

) and an article in which he describes his changing views on the Incarnation (Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ). What I see in these two items is this:

1) MacArthur emphatically rejects the practice of addressing prayers to Mary. He seems to be motivated by wanting to protect monotheism, which is indeed important to protect. But he doesn't seem to have made a solid effort to understand Catholic spirituality or theology.

2) He says he does believe in the deity of Christ, according to the second article cited above.

I suspect he's not interested in the two-natures-one-person debate that led the church to the Chalcedonian Definition. And he seems to be very interested in rejecting Catholicism. As he talks about Mary, I hear very little of the early church in his words, and very much of post-Reformation feelings.

My advice is this: Remember that he's just an ordinary human being, who has the gift of preaching lively sermons. Like all preachers and theologians, he says some good things and some erroneous things. I wouldn't reject him as a heretic, since he's probably trying to follow Jesus as best as he can. But I also wouldn't "follow" him as an authority figure. Enjoy his sermons, setting aside the bits that are incorrect, and always evaluate theological writings and speeches critically.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I said in the OP. "Nestorianism—the heresy that splits Jesus into two persons: one divine, one human."

When MacArthur said that Mary was not the mother of God he was flirting a little close to Nestorianism there because he was splitting Jesus into two persons one divine and one human. Jesus is one person that is fully God and fully human and its commonly known and accepted by Christianity that Mary is the mother of God its not just Catholics that give her that title because she bore God in her womb. If I'm still not making sense I apologize. Its mostly Catholics and reformed people that are on fire about this statement of his that he made a few years ago. Catholics are like "How dare he talk about Mary that way!" and the Reformed are like "Did he seriously just get that close to committing heresy? He's such a sound and biblical theologian!"

So... yeah... its a hot topic and thats why my old thread blew up so much and had to be closed.

Looks like you're just making assumptions about what he was doing. Has he ever actually said that Jesus is two persons rather than one person who is fully God and fully man?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hey CF family,

A while back, I made a thread asking if John MacArthur was guilty of heresy based on some things he had previously said about Mary and Christ’s nature. That thread ended up getting a TON of replies. In fact I was surprised on how viral the thread got and it was one of my biggest threads ever. It ended up being eventually closed by my request after it got pretty heated between people. Im hoping by reopening this topic several years later we can discuss this in a less heated way than we did last time.


Here’s the original thread for context:

Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

I don't know if you're all familiar with John Mcarthur but he is a reformed theologian that is the leader of the mega church Grace Community church. This might be news to some of you and many of you probably know this already but John Mcarthur may be guilty of heresy by denying that Mary is the...

www.christianforums.com

Well, I want to revisit what kicked it all off: MacArthur stating that Mary is not the mother of God, only the mother of Jesus’s human nature. And I want to talk about this again—not out of disrespect, but out of genuine theological concern.

Here’s the problem:​

Saying “Mary is not the mother of God” might sound like a way to avoid Catholic excesses, but it dangerously flirts with Nestorianism—the heresy that splits Jesus into two persons: one divine, one human.


The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) declared that Mary is Theotokos—God-bearer—not because she’s divine, but because Jesus is one person with two natures, fully God and fully man. Rejecting that title isn’t just unwise—it risks denying the unity of Christ’s person.

And this is what deeply bothers me:​

MacArthur is widely respected in Reformed circles (myself included), and most people just assume he’s untouchable. But even solid men can misspeak, or worse, double down on poor theology out of reaction to Rome.


I'm not here to stir division—I’m here because I care about Christology, not Marian doctrine. If Jesus is not one unified person, the gospel falls apart.


So I’m asking again—not to attack MacArthur, but to challenge us all:

• 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?

Would love your thoughts, especially if you’re well-versed in Christological debates or church history.

Let's start with some scripture:

Psalm 90:2
"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."

Isaiah 43:10
"Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me."
John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Revelation 1:8
"'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'"

Mary, though the mother of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, came " after" the existence God. It frankly would not be possible as He is Alpha and Omega. This is precisely why we do not say " Mary is the mother of God", though He is God in the flesh, on earth He was made lower than the angels:

Hebrews 2:9
"But we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

Remember the primary verse that describes Jesus Christ of Nazareth "emptying" Himself:

Philippians 2:5-8
"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Jesus Christ of Nazareth moved from His divine pre-existence to taking on human form and ultimately enduring the ultimate humiliation of death on a cross for humanity.

In conclusion here is not that fact that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God in the Flesh, it is elevating His mother to divine status as giving birth to God Himself.

Blessings

 

[Neostarwcc]

I did a little googling of John MacArthur just now. I wasn't able to find an article or sermon by him in which he specifically rejects the title "Mother of God" and gives his reasons for it, so if you're able to find an article/sermon where he talks specifically about this, that would help me understand his thinking.

I did find these two items: a sermon excerpt in which he addresses the relationship between Jesus and Mary (

) and an article in which he describes his changing views on the Incarnation (Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ). What I see in these two items is this:

1) MacArthur emphatically rejects the practice of addressing prayers to Mary. He seems to be motivated by wanting to protect monotheism, which is indeed important to protect. But he doesn't seem to have made a solid effort to understand Catholic spirituality or theology.

2) He says he does believe in the deity of Christ, according to the second article cited above.

I suspect he's not interested in the two-natures-one-person debate that led the church to the Chalcedonian Definition. And he seems to be very interested in rejecting Catholicism. As he talks about Mary, I hear very little of the early church in his words, and very much of post-Reformation feelings.

My advice is this: Remember that he's just an ordinary human being, who has the gift of preaching lively sermons. Like all preachers and theologians, he says some good things and some erroneous things. I wouldn't reject him as a heretic, since he's probably trying to follow Jesus as best as he can. But I also wouldn't "follow" him as an authority figure. Enjoy his sermons, setting aside the bits that are incorrect, and always evaluate theological writings and speeches critically.

Sorry I can give the audio to the orginial statement from my original thread but in my original thread I didn't state exactly where in the audio clip he says it and I've long forgotten it was a few years ago. here's the audio clip anyway.

Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: An Overview

Tonight, as was made clear this morning, we are going to be looking at the subject of the idolatry of worshipping Mary. And I want to say a few things before I say a few things by way of introduc

www.gty.org

I'll put it in the OP too thanks for pointing that out i forgot to put it in there.

 

[jas3]

Can a rejection of Theotokos be biblically or historically justified?

No. Even the Assyrian Church of the East, which came out of the Nestorian controversy, doesn't reject the title per se (e.g. see this video).

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

It's dangerous. MacArthur's exact words were, "she gave birth to Jesus in his humanity." That is at best Nestorianism, but possibly even a more basic error that Nestorius himself condemned, called Apollinarianism. Apollinarianism says that Jesus was essentially God the Son piloting a flesh suit. We can't know for sure which category he'd fall into because the distinction is made on a more detailed level than he goes into in his sermon.

This is basic Christianity and MacArthur should know this as not just a Christian but a top tier theologian for so long.

True, but many traditions, including MacArthur's, have neglected the basics of things like Christology for so long that they feel the need to re-litigate the ancient controversies from their thoroughly modern perspective, which in MacArthur's case prioritizes reactionary deprecation of the Mother of God in the pursuit of deprecating Rome.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Hey CF family,

A while back, I made a thread asking if John MacArthur was guilty of heresy based on some things he had previously said about Mary and Christ’s nature. That thread ended up getting a TON of replies. In fact I was surprised on how viral the thread got and it was one of my biggest threads ever. It ended up being eventually closed by my request after it got pretty heated between people. Im hoping by reopening this topic several years later we can discuss this in a less heated way than we did last time.


Here’s the original thread for context:

Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

I don't know if you're all familiar with John Mcarthur but he is a reformed theologian that is the leader of the mega church Grace Community church. This might be news to some of you and many of you probably know this already but John Mcarthur may be guilty of heresy by denying that Mary is the...

www.christianforums.com

Well, I want to revisit what kicked it all off: MacArthur stating that Mary is not the mother of God, only the mother of Jesus’s human nature. And I want to talk about this again—not out of disrespect, but out of genuine theological concern.

Here’s the problem:​

Saying “Mary is not the mother of God” might sound like a way to avoid Catholic excesses, but it dangerously flirts with Nestorianism—the heresy that splits Jesus into two persons: one divine, one human.


The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) declared that Mary is Theotokos—God-bearer—not because she’s divine, but because Jesus is one person with two natures, fully God and fully man. Rejecting that title isn’t just unwise—it risks denying the unity of Christ’s person.

And this is what deeply bothers me:​

MacArthur is widely respected in Reformed circles (myself included), and most people just assume he’s untouchable. But even solid men can misspeak, or worse, double down on poor theology out of reaction to Rome.


I'm not here to stir division—I’m here because I care about Christology, not Marian doctrine. If Jesus is not one unified person, the gospel falls apart.


So I’m asking again—not to attack MacArthur, but to challenge us all:

• 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?

Would love your thoughts, especially if you’re well-versed in Christological debates or church history.

You can find an audio clip of his statement here but forgive me I don't remember where in the audio clip he says it and my original post doesn't mention.:

Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: An Overview

Tonight, as was made clear this morning, we are going to be looking at the subject of the idolatry of worshipping Mary. And I want to say a few things before I say a few things by way of introduc

www.gty.org

Purely based on the Biblical account I find the title and use of 'theotokos' / God-bearer unnecessary and confusing, and therefore I completely avoid such terminology.

It's no coincidence this declaration happened at that time (Council of Ephesus (431 AD)). It's a century after the first Nicene Creed and by that time Mariology is developing rapidly - her status/veneration is changing.

No Jewish believer in the 1st century would ever use this kind of terminology. Miryam was the mother of Yeshua and because He is described as and called 'theos' in Greek one might see why in times of rapidly developing Mariology 'theotokos' became a thing. The term seems to be used for the first time by Origin in the 3rd century - and even Origin believed in the subordination of Yeshua to God the Father.

Miryam is the mother of the Son of GOD, not the mother of YHWH.

 

[PloverWing]

Sorry I can give the audio to the orginial statement from my original thread but in my original thread I didn't state exactly where in the audio clip he says it and I've long forgotten it was a few years ago. here's the audio clip anyway.

Thanks. Fortunately, that web page includes a transcript, so I was able to skim through it and find the relevant passage. It's this:

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.

Based on this, it looks like MacArthur hasn't studied the history of the term Theotokos at all. Orthodox and Catholic Christians have never used this term to mean that Mary is the creator of the Uncreated God. They use the word to mean that Mary gave birth to Jesus who is both God and man.

I don't think MacArthur is Nestorian. I'm not convinced he has studied the church's early Christological debates enough to form an opinion on Apollinarian vs Chalcedonian vs Nestorian Christology.

I can tell that MacArthur is strongly anti-Catholic. His bias in this sermon is so strong that I distrust anything further he has to say about the Catholic faith. If you want to learn about Catholic attitudes towards Mary, read some Catholic sources and decide for yourself. But MacArthur is untrustworthy here.

He's probably fine when he's talking about his own Reformed-conservative-Baptist faith. But based on what you've shown me, I wouldn't trust him when he starts describing any other varieties of Christianity, including that taught by the ancient church fathers.

 

[The Liturgist]

Saying “Mary is not the mother of God” might sound like a way to avoid Catholic excesses, but it dangerously flirts with Nestorianism—

Actually, saying that is Nestorianism per se. Unfortunately not everyone understands the erroneous implications of this statement, motivated as it is by antidicomarianism.

 

[Radagast]

Mary is, in fact, not the mother of the Triune God.

They use the word to mean that Mary gave birth to Jesus who is both God and man.

Then why not just say "Mary is the mother of Christ"?

The whole point of this thread seems to be to read the ambiguous sentence "Mary is the mother of God" charitably, but to read its negation uncharitably. I find that offensive.

 

[Radagast]

Can a rejection of Theotokos be biblically or historically justified?

Macarthur is not rejeccting the idea of the Theotokos. To the best of my knowledge, he has never discussed that term.

 

[jas3]

Then why not just say "Mary is the mother of Christ"?

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.

The whole point of this thread seems to be to read the ambiguous sentence "Mary is the mother of God" charitably, but to read its negation uncharitably. I find that offensive.

In this context, the negation is coming from someone who presents himself as an authority figure and who should know better, so it's not uncharitable to point out his errors.

 

[Radagast]

Because using that term to the exclusion of "Mother of God" implies that, like Nestorius, one believes that Christ is not God.

John MacArthur very obviously believes that Christ is God. It is scandalous to suggest otherwise.

I'm not one of John MacArthur's followers, but this whole thread is obviously an anti-Protestant hatefest.

 

[jas3]

John MacArthur very obviously believes that Christ is God. It is scandalous to suggest otherwise.

Then maybe he shouldn't make statements from the pulpit that suggest he doesn't.

I'm not one of John MacArthur's followers, but this whole thread is obviously an anti-Protestant hatefest.

Traditional Protestants accept the Christology of the first four to six ecumenical councils, at least. They also condemn MacArthur, using much stronger language than is allowed on this forum.

 

[PloverWing]

this whole thread is obviously an anti-Protestant hatefest.

I don't think so. Rather, it's a warning that in our enthusiasm to reform things that we think need reforming, Protestants shouldn't forget the doctrinal nuances that were so carefully worked out in the first few centuries of the church. As we choose words to express our ideas, we need to remember the precise definitions the church has given to the theological terms we use.

It's very possible to be a Protestant theologian and be careful in one's vocabulary and well-informed about the theological developments of the early church. I've read quite a few Protestant theologians who fit this description.