Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[The Liturgist]

Nah. MacArthur is a Trinitarian. What you're expressing is Catholic umbrage.

No, what our mutual friend @Xeno.of.athens is expressing is the Christology of the majority of Christian churches as affirmed by the Council of Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon, and the Third Council of Constantinople, among others. The beliefs he is expressing, as my dear friends @dzheremi @prodromos @HTacianas @Shaner @ViaCrucis and @MarkRohfrietsch will confirm, are the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Moravians, Old Catholics (who are different from Roman Catholics) and also the majority of Calvinists, Methodists and Congregationalists.

This is not a Roman Catholic matter but an ecumenical matter, since the majority of Christian churches, even the Assyrian Church of the East which venerates Nestorius as a saint, reject Nestorian Christology as a major theological error because it divides the humanity and divinity of Christ.

The consensus of the Chalcedonian churches, which include the vast majority of Protestant denominations and many non-denominational churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East, is that our Lord took on our human nature in the Incarnation in such a way as to remain fully God while also simultaneously existing as fully Man, his humanity and divinity coexisting without change, confusion, separation or division.

Because Nestorianism separates and divides his humanity and divinity, it is unacceptable for the same reason as the Monophysite heresy of Eutyches that the Oriental Orthodox were falsely accused of believing for around 1500 years*, in which the humanity is said to have dissolved into his divinity like a drop of water into the ocean, resulting in a confusion of his humanity and divinity and a change to his person, which caused the Monophysite cult to eventually descend into Tritheism.

*The Oriental Orthodox believe that our Lord in his incarnation is from two natures, human and divine, as opposed to ChalcedonIans who believe his incarnation is in two natures. If this sounds like a nominal difference based mainly on terminology, that’s because it is. The Oriental Orthodox rejected the Chalcedonian formula because of the mistreatment of Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria and because the Tome of Pope Leo of Rome introduced the idea of Christ being in two natures, which differed from the formula introduced by Pope St. Cyril the Great of Alexandria with the support of Pope Celestine of Rome, who worked together to depose Nestorius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople against the opposition and interference of. Patriarch John of Alexandria, who was influenced by the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia which in turn influenced Nestorius, however, Theodore of Mopsuestia never caused a schism or taught his Christology against the wishes of other bishops, and died in the peace of the church, and was widely venerated as a saint; he was also close friends with St. John Chrysostom. However, his ideas were largely unprecedented; before him the only theologian to hint at a proto-Nestorian Christology was Diodore of Tarsus, who is generally regarded as heretical.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I love Mentour ... the Douglas DC-9.

I was only meaning to refer to church engineering. The big picture fails when the small pictures fail, and vice versa. Is "kitchen sink" the place to continue this or is there another one? (Also on dialectology?)

 

[The Liturgist]

There is an older and "official" deposit of teaching, and there is functional and expressly implicit teaching.

Also one can teach ESS without admitting it, or while insisting one isn't.

The C of E in England is dreadfully prone to the whims of politicians.

Although the parishes I mentioned seem to get away with being conservative and traditional, but definitely at the major cathedrals we see Woke influence. However, there was less wokeness at the Royal Peculiars, although I fear that might change following the extremely woke coronation of King Charles III. I really wish he would abdicate in favor of Crown Prince William; his funeral at Westminster Abbey was a beautiful and solidly traditional liturgy with no hint of wokeness whatsoever, and it looks like he is more conservative than his father, by all accounts. Also thus far at least he has not engaged in any affairs.

 

[The Liturgist]

While Protestants have historically believed Mary was the "Mother of God" I do find the language problematic.

Indeed Protestants have, and most Protestants still do, reject Nestorianism, along with the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics and the Early Church Fathers? The Christology of Nestorius was universally rejected even by the one church that venerates him as a saint. He also caused two schisms, one between the Church of the East and everyone else, and another between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians, which was largely the result of meddling by Ibas, a crypto-Nestorian who was present at Chalcedon.

I would be perfectly fine saying Mary is the "Mother of Christ." That would be perfectly fine. But if there is one God known as the Trinity, that makes things more problematic IMO.

The problem is that Mary could not give birth to Jesus Christ without giving birth to God. “He who has seen me has seen the Father”. “I and the father are one.” The three persons of the Trinity are consubstantial, so if you interact with one you interact with the other two by definition. Jesus Christ does not cease to be God when spoken of in isolation.

Also the phrase Christotokos, meaning birth giver of Christ, is per se Nestorian and was explicitly condemned by the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and was rejected by Martin Luther; indeed even John Calvin had to admit that the phrase Mother of God was technically correct.

People object to the phrase because they think it means that Catholics believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to the entire Trinity, but I know of no Roman Catholics who think that, and even the Palmerian Catholics who are a dangerous cult that formed in the aftermath of Vatican II and the abolition of the Traditional Latin Mass, and who are regarded as heretics by the Roman Catholic Church and everyone else, because they worship the Virgin Mary and believe she is present in the Eucharist, do not believe that she gave birth to the Holy Trinity.

 

[Paidiske]

By the way @Paidiske correct me if I’m wrong but no province of the Anglican Church in Australia teaches Eternal Subordination of the Son?

I have not read or been following this thread at all, and at 44 pages I'm not going to catch up, so understand I'm answering this question in isolation from any context in this conversation.

No. The eternal subordination of the Son is not an Anglican teaching at all, and would contradict the Athanasian Creed, to which we do hold. While there might be isolated Anglicans who have made such statements, I would consider them to be "out of bounds" in terms of an Anglican understanding.

 

[Servus]

No, what our mutual friend @Xeno.of.athens is expressing is the Christology of the majority of Christian churches as affirmed by the Council of Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon, and the Third Council of Constantinople, among others. The beliefs he is expressing, as my dear friends @dzheremi @prodromos @HTacianas @Shaner @ViaCrucis and @MarkRohfrietsch will confirm, are the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Moravians, Old Catholics (who are different from Roman Catholics) and also the majority of Calvinists, Methodists and Congregationalists.

This is not a Roman Catholic matter but an ecumenical matter, since the majority of Christian churches, even the Assyrian Church of the East which venerates Nestorius as a saint, reject Nestorian Christology as a major theological error because it divides the humanity and divinity of Christ.

The consensus of the Chalcedonian churches, which include the vast majority of Protestant denominations and many non-denominational churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East, is that our Lord took on our human nature in the Incarnation in such a way as to remain fully God while also simultaneously existing as fully Man, his humanity and divinity coexisting without change, confusion, separation or division.

Because Nestorianism separates and divides his humanity and divinity, it is unacceptable for the same reason as the Monophysite heresy of Eutyches that the Oriental Orthodox were falsely accused of believing for around 1500 years*, in which the humanity is said to have dissolved into his divinity like a drop of water into the ocean, resulting in a confusion of his humanity and divinity and a change to his person, which caused the Monophysite cult to eventually descend into Tritheism.

*The Oriental Orthodox believe that our Lord in his incarnation is from two natures, human and divine, as opposed to ChalcedonIans who believe his incarnation is in two natures. If this sounds like a nominal difference based mainly on terminology, that’s because it is. The Oriental Orthodox rejected the Chalcedonian formula because of the mistreatment of Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria and because the Tome of Pope Leo of Rome introduced the idea of Christ being in two natures, which differed from the formula introduced by Pope St. Cyril the Great of Alexandria with the support of Pope Celestine of Rome, who worked together to depose Nestorius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople against the opposition and interference of. Patriarch John of Alexandria, who was influenced by the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia which in turn influenced Nestorius, however, Theodore of Mopsuestia never caused a schism or taught his Christology against the wishes of other bishops, and died in the peace of the church, and was widely venerated as a saint; he was also close friends with St. John Chrysostom. However, his ideas were largely unprecedented; before him the only theologian to hint at a proto-Nestorian Christology was Diodore of Tarsus, who is generally regarded as heretical.

Out of all of that I'm seeing that MacArthur is being accused of Nestorianism. Which is; the Christian doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as a unified person. Please show a direct statement from MacArthur proving that he believes and teaches that.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have not read or been following this thread at all, and at 44 pages I'm not going to catch up, so understand I'm answering this question in isolation from any context in this conversation.

No. The eternal subordination of the Son is not an Anglican teaching at all, and would contradict the Athanasian Creed, to which we do hold. While there might be isolated Anglicans who have made such statements, I would consider them to be "out of bounds" in terms of an Anglican understanding.

Thank you, that is the clarification I wanted. I actually would encourage you not to read the thread, as it would probably give you a migraine, if you get migraines. In my case, it’s making my sinuses and my other symptoms flare up, so I am going to take a break from it.

By the way when you get the chance to travel around Australia, what provinces do you most enjoy visiting? I am working out my itinerary. Perhaps take some time to think about it. Also the contemporary language version of the LiturgyWorks BCP, which is mainly intended for Continuing Anglicans in the US, who are either very low church or very high church, and one group of them, the Independent Episcopalians, is extremely liberal - they exist because they believe the Episcopal Church discriminates against LGBTQ+ people (so I suppose having gay bishops since 2003, performing gay marriages and so on counts as discrimination), but most of them have in common the 1928 Book of Common Prayer or the Anglican Missal. The Independent Episcopalians use the New Zealand prayer book, and we have also been asked to localize BCP Editio MMXXIII for use by mixed Kiwi and Maori congregations in New Zealand which are dissatisfied with their current prayer book, if the group in question can get permission from their bishop. It is highly modular, so the book has sections which can be present or removed depending on churchmanship and also nationality.

 

[Servus]

Indeed Protestants have, and most Protestants still do, reject Nestorianism, along with the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics and the Early Church Fathers? The Christology of Nestorius was universally rejected even by the one church that venerates him as a saint. He also caused two schisms, one between the Church of the East and everyone else, and another between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians, which was largely the result of meddling by Ibas, a crypto-Nestorian who was present at Chalcedon.



The problem is that Mary could not give birth to Jesus Christ without giving birth to God. “He who has seen me has seen the Father”. “I and the father are one.” The three persons of the Trinity are consubstantial, so if you interact with one you interact with the other two by definition. Jesus Christ does not cease to be God when spoken of in isolation.

Also the phrase Christotokos, meaning birth giver of Christ, is per se Nestorian and was explicitly condemned by the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and was rejected by Martin Luther; indeed even John Calvin had to admit that the phrase Mother of God was technically correct.

People object to the phrase because they think it means that Catholics believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to the entire Trinity, but I know of no Roman Catholics who think that, and even the Palmerian Catholics who are a dangerous cult that formed in the aftermath of Vatican II and the abolition of the Traditional Latin Mass, and who are regarded as heretics by the Roman Catholic Church and everyone else, because they worship the Virgin Mary and believe she is present in the Eucharist, do not believe that she gave birth to the Holy Trinity.

It should be pretty obvious that people are saying Mary did not give birth to the Triune Godhead, which is what comes to mind when they hear/see the title "Mother of God".

 

[Paidiske]

By the way when you get the chance to travel around Australia, what provinces do you most enjoy visiting?

In truth there is a lot of Australia I haven't seen yet. I know Victoria reasonably well and New South Wales, the Capital Territory and Tasmania a bit. Are you asking about places to visit in terms of being a tourist, or in terms of church?

 

[The Liturgist]

Out of all of that I'm seeing that MacArthur is being accused of Nestorianism. Which is; the Christian doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as a unified person. Please show a direct statement from MacArthur proving that he believes and teaches that.

What you are stating is the end state result of the Christological implications of Nestorianism. The actual Nestorian heresy comes into play the moment one uses the term “Christotokos” instead of “Theotokos.” It is specifically the denial that the blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. Nestorian Christology is a byproduct of Nestorianism, because if one denies that Jesus Christ is the mother of God, that means that the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ are separate, as opposed to distinct. In its most severe form, this leads to a belief that the man Jesus and the divine Logos are separate as well, existing in a union of will, which started with Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. However this is an extreme state, just as Monophysitism doesn’t immediately lead to Tritheism, but rather Tritheism, in the case of the Eutychians, became the prevailing doctrine among the Monophysites after about 70-80 years had gone by, during which time John Philoponus was the most prominent Monophysite.

Likewise Nestorianism begins as a denial of the status of Mary as Theotokos, usually motivated by Antidicomarianism , which is the refusal to venerate St. Mary to any extent (its opposite is Collyridianism; most errors come in pairs, so you have Collyridians who worship Mary and then in opposition a sect of Antidicomarians who refuse to venerate her, but both groups left the Church in order to do it). It then progresses to a Christology that separates the humanity of Christ from His divinity, and this ultimately leads, based on historical precedent, to a Christology of two persons in a union of will, but that extreme is not usually called Nestorianism. I have heard it called Mopsuestianism based on Theodore of Mopsuestia who is said to have developed it from the ideas of Diodore of Tarsus.

 

[The Liturgist]

In truth there is a lot of Australia I haven't seen yet. I know Victoria reasonably well and New South Wales, the Capital Territory and Tasmania a bit. Are you asking about places to visit in terms of being a tourist, or in terms of church?

Well, both really. Also have you been to Queensland or Perth?

 

[Servus]

What you are stating is the end state result of the Christological implications of Nestorianism. The actual Nestorian heresy comes into play the moment one uses the term “Christotokos” instead of “Theotokos.” It is specifically the denial that the blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. Nestorian Christology is a byproduct of Nestorianism, because if one denies that Jesus Christ is the mother of God, that means that the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ are separate, as opposed to distinct. In its most severe form, this leads to a belief that the man Jesus and the divine Logos are separate as well, existing in a union of will, which started with Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. However this is an extreme state, just as Monophysitism doesn’t immediately lead to Tritheism, but rather Tritheism, in the case of the Eutychians, became the prevailing doctrine among the Monophysites after about 70-80 years had gone by, during which time John Philoponus was the most prominent Monophysite.

Likewise Nestorianism begins as a denial of the status of Mary as Theotokos, usually motivated by Antidicomarianism , which is the refusal to venerate St. Mary to any extent (its opposite is Collyridianism; most errors come in pairs, so you have Collyridians who worship Mary and then in opposition a sect of Antidicomarians who refuse to venerate her, but both groups left the Church in order to do it). It then progresses to a Christology that separates the humanity of Christ from His divinity, and this ultimately leads, based on historical precedent, to a Christology of two persons in a union of will, but that extreme is not usually called Nestorianism. I have heard it called Mopsuestianism based on Theodore of Mopsuestia who is said to have developed it from the ideas of Diodore of Tarsus.

MacArthur is saying that Mary isn't the mother of the Triune Godhead.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, both really.

In terms of being a tourist, it depends what you like and are interested in. If you'd like to get a good sense of Australia's early history I'd say it's worth the extra effort and expense to get down to Tasmania, and specifically Port Arthur, because to my knowledge there's really no equivalent site anywhere else. If you're interested in culture and the arts, and city life, Sydney and Melbourne are well worth exploring. In terms of natural beauty well... there's no lack of places to explore.

In terms of church... look, you and I probably have quite different sensibilities and I know the Anglican landscape best. I'd be happy and at home most places outside Sydney or Tasmania, the diocese of North West Australia and the diocese of Armidale. I think you'd probably prefer a more high church liturgical style while being more socially conservative, and that's an unusual combination here, but there are particular parishes which would meet it. In general you're more likely to find it in the rural dioceses than in the urban areas.

If I remember rightly your own affiliation is congregationalist, and here the congregationalists have all become part of the Uniting Church, which probably isn't your style at all. I can give more detailed advice if you let me know what you're looking for.

Also have you been to Queensland or Perth?

No. I would like to, one day, but haven't made it to either yet. I might be able to answer specific questions you have from what I know of them.

 

[The Liturgist]

If I remember rightly your own affiliation is congregationalist, and here the congregationalists have all become part of the Uniting Church, which probably isn't your style at all. I can give more detailed advice if you let me know what you're looking for.

I will PM you about that.

 

[The Liturgist]

MacArthur is saying that Mary isn't the mother of the Triune Godhead.

Saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God is not saying that Mary is the mother of the Triune Godhead. It is rather acknowledging, as John Calvin and Martin Luther both acknowledged, that she gave birth to God. The technical term is Theotokos.

The reason is that Jesus Christ is God and simply put, to deny she is the mother of God is to deny the deity of Christ and/or the consubstantiality of the members of the Trinity or the hypostatic or in some cases personal union of the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ.

Thus if he said it is wrong to say Theotokos, and/or Mother of God, he affirmed the doctrinal error of Nestorianism. Now I know one Anglican bishop who is not a Nestorian who accepts the term Theotokos and rejects Mother of God because he fears the potential for confusion, and I can understand that. I can also accept it if someone says that Mary is the Mother of God, the Theotokos and Christotokos, since those statements are not contradictory.

Nestorianism is literally denying the theological accuracy of the statement “The Virgin Mary gave birth to God.” The flawed Christologies that follow are a product of it, and they have followed, in every church that has embraced it. For example, one large Restorationist denomination that denies that St. Mary is the Theotokos has come to believe that Jesus Christ was not God during His incarnation, but was God only before and after it.

In contrast, the supposed danger of the term Mother of God leading to people believing that St. Mary gave birth to the Holy Trinity is minimal; I know of no instances in the history of the Church where someone founded a heresy that taught that. The Collyridians of antiquity did not teach that, and the Palmarian Christian Church also doesn’t teach that, despite worshipping St. Mary in violation of the Nicene Creed, the Second Commandment and the Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Nah. MacArthur is a Trinitarian. What you're expressing is Catholic umbrage.

Truly is isn't.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This may be if he believes in the Eternal Subordination of the Son?

I do not think he does believe that. It seems more that he separates the humanity of the Lord from his divinity so that he is willing to call [Blessed] Mary the mother of Jesus but refuses to call Blessed Mary the mother of God. In so doing he makes an error countered in the Athanasian Creed, and in other ancient faith traditions by other wordings.
From the Athanasian Creed

[We] also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that​

we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.​

Bing (with its new fangled AI) says this

The Oriental Orthodox churches are a group of Eastern Christian traditions that adhere to the faith of the first three Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church: the councils of Nicea I, Constantinople I, and Ephesus. These churches have rejected the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD1. The primary theological difference between Oriental Orthodoxy and other Christian communions is their differing Christology. Oriental Orthodoxy rejects the Chalcedonian Definition and instead adopts the miaphysite formula, which asserts that the human and divine natures of Christ are united2.​

For more information on this topic, you can refer to the following sources:​

• OrthodoxWiki
• Wikipedia

Please note that this response is based on my understanding of the topic and may not cover all aspects. If you have any specific questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!​

Learn more:​

1. orthodoxwiki.org2. en.wikipedia.org3. orthodoxwiki.org4. en.wikipedia.org5. prounione.urbe.it6. ecumenizm.tripod.com7. orthodoxunity.org8. eng.sedmitza.ru9. orthodoxinfo.com10. zeitun-eg.net11. zeitun-eg.net+7 more​

And the Orthodox churches do receive the Chalcedonian formula, so they have the Christology expressed above from the Athanasian Creed, though some wording (in English) may differ a little, the meaning will be the same.

Protestants generally accept the Christology of the Athanasian Creed, but that appears not to be so for many evangelicals. The reasons for the departure appear to be chiefly related to a perception that "mother of God" is an assertion of Blessed Mary's alleged superiority over God, which is not so, nor will any Catholic creed, confession, or catechism teach such.

 

[Servus]

Saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God is not saying that Mary is the mother of the Triune Godhead. It is rather acknowledging, as John Calvin and Martin Luther both acknowledged, that she gave birth to God. The technical term is Theotokos.

The reason is that Jesus Christ is God and simply put, to deny she is the mother of God is to deny the deity of Christ and/or the consubstantiality of the members of the Trinity or the hypostatic or in some cases personal union of the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ.

Thus if he said it is wrong to say Theotokos, and/or Mother of God, he affirmed the doctrinal error of Nestorianism. Now I know one Anglican bishop who is not a Nestorian who accepts the term Theotokos and rejects Mother of God because he fears the potential for confusion, and I can understand that. I can also accept it if someone says that Mary is the Mother of God, the Theotokos and Christotokos, since those statements are not contradictory.

Nestorianism is literally denying the theological accuracy of the statement “The Virgin Mary gave birth to God.” The flawed Christologies that follow are a product of it, and they have followed, in every church that has embraced it. For example, one large Restorationist denomination that denies that St. Mary is the Theotokos has come to believe that Jesus Christ was not God during His incarnation, but was God only before and after it.

In contrast, the supposed danger of the term Mother of God leading to people believing that St. Mary gave birth to the Holy Trinity is minimal; I know of no instances in the history of the Church where someone founded a heresy that taught that. The Collyridians of antiquity did not teach that, and the Palmarian Christian Church also doesn’t teach that, despite worshipping St. Mary in violation of the Nicene Creed, the Second Commandment and the Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Nonetheless MacArthur is saying "Mother of God" gives off the impression that Mary gave birth to the Godhead.

 

[Servus]

Truly is isn't.

You're right. I should have said Marianite umbrage.

 

[Valletta]

MacArthur is saying that Mary isn't the mother of the Triune Godhead.

You seemed to have trouble with prayers honoring the Blessed Mother, the reason is well summed up by St. Methodius of Olympus (circa 311 A.D):

"God paid such honor to the ark, which was the image and type of your sanctity, that no one but the priests could approach it, open or enter to behold it. The veil separated it off, keeping the vestibule as that of a queen. Then what sort of veneration must we, who are the least of creatures, owe to you who are indeed a queen — to you, the living ark of God, the Lawgiver — to you, the heaven that contains Him Whom none can contain?" (Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna )