In the other place ....

[MoreCoffee]

@MoreCoffee My hope would be that you'd leave all that hateful "Anti-Catholicism"/"Anti-Protestantism" over there and not try to import it here. Some of us left that site expressly to get away from that. Thanks.


.Gotta love that dot, my brother.

Considering the use of the English language in your posts with respect to the Catholic Church I cannot help but chuckle at your expressed hope.

PS: let's not make an issue out of the other place, it provided a useful conversation thread regarding what John MacArthur teaches and broadcasts through web sites, videos, and sound recordings.

 

[Albion]

But you though, do you think John MacArthur's statement "God was never born" is theologically erroneous?

Frankly, it is possible to manipulate almost anything that is said about God if the reader focuses on one and only one possible interpretation of the words used. When we who come upon such a conversation involving someone else and then draw our conclusions without being able to get at what the speaker was actually referring to, we're making a mistake.

 

[Castle Church]

But you though, do you think John MacArthur's statement "God was never born" is theologically erroneous?

Broadly I am not really a fan of MacArthur or Reformed theology. That said, I am not sure really what he means, I tend to think that he does not intend to stray into heresy, but I don't know him or his positions well enough to really say.

While it is not a term I use frequently, I also don't really have an issue with the idea of the title of "God bearer" for Mary. Jesus is God, 100% man and 100% God. I think what MacArthur is getting at is that since God always is and always was, she could give birth to the flesh of Jesus but not give birth to God, since he always existed. It is clumsy and could lead one into heresy easily....but I don't think that he means it in a heretical manner.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Broadly I am not really a fan of MacArthur or Reformed theology. That said, I am not sure really what he means, I tend to think that he does not intend to stray into heresy, but I don't know him or his positions well enough to really say.

While it is not a term I use frequently, I also don't really have an issue with the idea of the title of "God bearer" for Mary. Jesus is God, 100% man and 100% God. I think what MacArthur is getting at is that since God always is and always was, she could give birth to the flesh of Jesus but not give birth to God, since he always existed. It is clumsy and could lead one into heresy easily....but I don't think that he means it in a heretical manner.

I agree that he may not intend to teach a heresy in Christology. His sermon is mainly a set of "horror quotes" (horror from his perspective) which he takes to be offensively elevating to Blessed Mary, and in his horror he is not unique because many people that I have met, usually people who are not Catholics, have expressed surprise or shock when they've read one of the 19th century or earlier devotional books about Blessed Mary, and I say for myself that I do not entirely enjoy those books because of their flowery adjective laden language. They do not offend me but they are kind of overly effusive in their language. But that is, I believe, a product of the times. Today we pair down adjectives in our prose and effusive praises seem almost like sarcastic mockery.

But to give context to the statement I posted before, John MacArthur's sermon lists a large number of quotes with his own reactions very briefly interspaced among the quotes and then he says

Now if that is not worship, I don’t know what worship is. There is no other definition for that; none whatsoever. Rob Zins writes, “The snowball of Mary in superiority will roll down the slope of Catholic fantasy until she becomes, in their minds, immaculately conceived, sinless, assumed into heaven, and finally redemptress and co-redeemer with Jesus Christ.” And that is exactly right. 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. ​

So, Mr MacArthur rejects "Theotokos" and "God-bearer" just as strongly as he rejects "mother of God" because in his sermon he has constructed a litany of quotes about which he expresses outrage because they offend his idea of how one ought to speak of Mary as a creature, a human being, who he does not desire to elevate beyond what he takes to be the explicit statement of holy scripture.

Nevertheless he is teaching that "She gave birth to Jesus in his humanity. She did not give birth to God. God was never born." and that is the teaching that the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were called to deliberate upon and which they denounced as heresy. Chalcedon's formula states:

Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.6​

 

[Lanman87]

I agree that he may not intend to teach a heresy in Christology. His sermon is mainly a set of "horror quotes" (horror from his perspective) which he takes to be offensively elevating to Blessed Mary, and in his horror he is not unique because many people that I have met, usually people who are not Catholics, have expressed surprise or shock when they've read one of the 19th century or earlier devotional books about Blessed Mary, and I say for myself that I do not entirely enjoy those books because of their flowery adjective laden language. They do not offend me but they are kind of overly effusive in their language. But that is, I believe, a product of the times. Today we pair down adjectives in our prose and effusive praises seem almost like sarcastic mockery.

But to give context to the statement I posted before, John MacArthur's sermon lists a large number of quotes with his own reactions very briefly interspaced among the quotes and then he says

Now if that is not worship, I don’t know what worship is. There is no other definition for that; none whatsoever. Rob Zins writes, “The snowball of Mary in superiority will roll down the slope of Catholic fantasy until she becomes, in their minds, immaculately conceived, sinless, assumed into heaven, and finally redemptress and co-redeemer with Jesus Christ.” And that is exactly right. 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. ​

So, Mr MacArthur rejects "Theotokos" and "God-bearer" just as strongly as he rejects "mother of God" because in his sermon he has constructed a litany of quotes about which he expresses outrage because they offend his idea of how one ought to speak of Mary as a creature, a human being, who he does not desire to elevate beyond what he takes to be the explicit statement of holy scripture.

Nevertheless he is teaching that "She gave birth to Jesus in his humanity. She did not give birth to God. God was never born." and that is the teaching that the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were called to deliberate upon and which they denounced as heresy. Chalcedon's formula states:

Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.6​

From the Grace Community Church Doctrinal Statement (the Church that John MacArthur is the Lead Pastor). Do you see any heresy in this statement of belief?

God the Son. We teach that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, possesses all the divine excellencies, and in these He is coequal, consubstantial, and coeternal with the Father (John 10:30; 14:9).


We teach that God the Father created according to His own will, through His Son, Jesus Christ, by whom all things continue in existence and in operation (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2).


We teach that in the incarnation the eternal Son, the second Person of the Trinity, without altering His divine nature or surrendering any of the divine attributes, made Himself of no reputation by taking on a full human nature consubstantial with our own, yet without sin (Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26).


We teach that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35) and thus born of a woman (Galatians 4:4-5), so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the divine and the human, were joined together in one person, without confusion, change, division, or separation. He is therefore very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.


We teach that in His incarnation, Christ fully possessed His divine nature, attributes, and prerogatives (Colossians 2:9; cf. Luke 5:18-26; John 16:30; 20:28). However, in the state of His humiliation, He did not always fully express the glories of His majesty, concealing them behind the veil of His genuine humanity (Matthew 17:2; Mark 13:32; Philippians 2:5-8). According to His human nature, He acts in submission to the Father (John 4:34; 5:19, 30; 6:38) by the power of Holy Spirit (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:28; Luke 4:1, 14), while, according to His divine nature, He acts by His authority and power as the eternal Son (John 1:14; cf. 2:11; 10:37–38; 14:10–11).

 

[MoreCoffee]

From the Grace Community Church Doctrinal Statement (the Church that John MacArthur is the Lead Pastor). Do you see any heresy in this statement of belief?

God the Son. We teach that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, possesses all the divine excellencies, and in these He is coequal, consubstantial, and coeternal with the Father (John 10:30; 14:9).


We teach that God the Father created according to His own will, through His Son, Jesus Christ, by whom all things continue in existence and in operation (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2).


We teach that in the incarnation the eternal Son, the second Person of the Trinity, without altering His divine nature or surrendering any of the divine attributes, made Himself of no reputation by taking on a full human nature consubstantial with our own, yet without sin (Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26).


We teach that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35) and thus born of a woman (Galatians 4:4-5), so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the divine and the human, were joined together in one person, without confusion, change, division, or separation. He is therefore very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.


We teach that in His incarnation, Christ fully possessed His divine nature, attributes, and prerogatives (Colossians 2:9; cf. Luke 5:18-26; John 16:30; 20:28). However, in the state of His humiliation, He did not always fully express the glories of His majesty, concealing them behind the veil of His genuine humanity (Matthew 17:2; Mark 13:32; Philippians 2:5-8). According to His human nature, He acts in submission to the Father (John 4:34; 5:19, 30; 6:38) by the power of Holy Spirit (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:28; Luke 4:1, 14), while, according to His divine nature, He acts by His authority and power as the eternal Son (John 1:14; cf. 2:11; 10:37–38; 14:10–11).

It is hard to tell if there is any error in the teaching that is given at that church from such a brief doctrinal statement. The sermons preached tell more about specific doctrines, albeit sermons are inherently pastoral rather than formally doctrinal.

 

[Albion]

Broadly I am not really a fan of MacArthur or Reformed theology. That said, I am not sure really what he means, I tend to think that he does not intend to stray into heresy, but I don't know him or his positions well enough to really say.

While it is not a term I use frequently, I also don't really have an issue with the idea of the title of "God bearer" for Mary. Jesus is God, 100% man and 100% God. I think what MacArthur is getting at is that since God always is and always was, she could give birth to the flesh of Jesus but not give birth to God, since he always existed. It is clumsy and could lead one into heresy easily....but I don't think that he means it in a heretical manner.

When I read it, that is what I guessed he meant.

Otherwise, the statement would be shockingly heretical and MacArthur would be widely known as some kind of cultist or fringe type to be avoided (which I do not think is the reputation he carries, whether or not we agree with all of his sermons, etc.).

 

[Lanman87]

It is hard to tell if there is any error in the teaching that is given at that church from such a brief doctrinal statement. The sermons preached tell more about specific doctrines, albeit sermons are inherent pastoral rather than formally doctrinal.

It just seems to me that this topic is trying to make John MacArthur out as teaching something he doesn't teach. There are other places on his website where hypostatic union and the councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus are explained. The doctrinal statement is fully Trinitarian and basically quotes Chalcedon's formula which you provided.

For More on his teachings on the Trinity see here or the incarnation see here and about how God Became a Man here

Here is a quote from the last link "Undoubtedly, therefore, the Holy Spirit acted with significant purpose in devoting an early passage from the Gospel of Matthew, at the front of the New Testament, to establish right away the humanity and deity of our Lord. His incarnation, properly understood, is foundational to Christianity. There could have been no genuine work of redemption apart from the fact of God becoming man and, by being both completely God and completely man, reconciling people to Himself through His substitutionary death and physical resurrection. If Jesus had not been both human and divine, there would be no gospel."


To find out if Pastor MacArthur is a heretic then someone needs to show that he believes that either Christ was not fully man or not fully God, or that Christ was two different "persons" in one body, or that Christ only had a divine "nature". Those are the heresies that the two councils addressed.

I believe Pastor MacArthur is speaking of the eternal nature of God that is without beginning or end. From that standpoint, God was never born. I believe he is using the term "born" to mean created or came into existence. Unless you believe that God the son didn't exist before the incarnation then you would have to affirm that statement.

Christ was born as a human baby to the virgin Mary. At the same time Christ has eternally existed and was never "born" into existence.

I'm not a huge fan of John MacArthur. I find him brash and a bit abrasive. However, I think this is someone trying to find fault with him based on one quote from one sermon that doesn't take his full teaching on the subject into account.

 

[Castle Church]

Otherwise, the statement would be shockingly heretical and MacArthur would be widely known as some kind of cultist or fringe type to be avoided (which I do not think is the reputation he carries, whether or not we agree with all of his sermons, etc.).

Agree, while I don't agree with all of his theology or his points of view, I definitely don't think he is a heretic - that is strong language to accuse him with and should not be thrown around lightly.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Agree, while I don't agree with all of his theology or his points of view, I definitely don't think he is a heretic - that is strong language to accuse him with and should not be thrown around lightly.

The statement that was highlighted in one of my posts (#24) is heretical, but what he really means and if he really intends to teach that God was never born and that Blessed Mary gave birth only to the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ I cannot say with certainty.

Technically it would be hard for John MacArthur to be a heretic because he has his own independent church and who would he be contradicting in his church if he really does mean that the Lord Jesus Christ has two quite separate aspects/natures one of which was born the other not being born. And if those outside of his church say his view is heretical they are not saying anything too controversial because the statement that I highlighted is heretical, objectively speaking.

 

[Castle Church]

Technically it would be hard for John MacArthur to be a heretic because he has his own independent church and who would he be contradicting in his church if he really does mean that the Lord Jesus Christ has two quite separate aspects/natures one of which was born the other not being born. And if those outside of his church say his view is heretical they are not saying anything too controversial because the statement that I highlighted is heretical, objectively speaking.

Even Protestantism as a whole will declare someone heretical if they teach things that are against the Creeds, even if they are not a creedal church. The truth is that a LOT of Protestantism has an issue using the term Theotokos or God Bearer, often it is a reactionary response to how they see Mary being treated in the RCC.

I don't agree with the way these pastors teach it, but usually it is taught in a way that still aligns with the Creeds and isn't heretical. The issue is usually not what is being taught, but rather how it can be easily misconstrued, especially when isolated - as I think is pretty clear to how this teaching from MacArthur is being seem.

MacArthur is a solid orthodox Reformed pastor, even if I don't agree with his teachings, and he just is not seen as heretical other than the way this teaching is being used or seen.

 

[Albion]

The statement that was highlighted in one of my posts (#24) is heretical, but what he really means and if he really intends to teach that God was never born and that Blessed Mary gave birth only to the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ I cannot say with certainty.

Technically it would be hard for John MacArthur to be a heretic because he has his own independent church and who would he be contradicting in his church if he really does mean that the Lord Jesus Christ has two quite separate aspects/natures one of which was born the other not being born. And if those outside of his church say his view is heretical they are not saying anything too controversial because the statement that I highlighted is heretical, objectively speaking.

However, there's no good reason to cling like that to the remnants of your claim against MacArthur. Not when the rest of us instantly understood the intended meaning, not when MacArthur isn't generally known to be a proponent of what you attributed to him, and certainly not when there is almost no way to explain the mystery of the Trinity without a skeptic finding something or other about it to fault.

 

[Ammi]

"In the other place." At first, I thought you were talking about hell! It's not that bad a forum. Lol
As far as MacArthur is concerned, he seems like a good bible teacher...except when it comes to spiritual gifts. There may be 10 thousand people faking the gift of tongues or speaking demonic utterances, but I have the gift of tongues, which, by the way, I mentioned on my first day at the other forum.
I was instantly confronted by 2 doorkeepers that I guess were some kind of church bouncers who insisted that I renounce my statement that I had tongues. Which I wouldn't do. My computer screen was then flooded by spam and my virus alarm went off as I was pushed off of the site. I tried to get back on later but was unsuccessful. Oh well.
I am on the road...to my home...in the New Jerusalem...and no one's gonna stop me. Yeah!