Is John MacArthur a Nestorian?

[MarrowMan]

Agreed! I was trying to make that distinction. I'm sorry I was unclear.



I'm sorry, I will try to be more precise. None is holy outside of God. Psalm 14. Romans 3.

That is part of the problem in my mind. Do you know that

Baptist's use the 1689 to prove that people can be saved eternally without knowing the gospel?


Sorry brother, I struggle with pulling up exactly what your referencing. Could you quote the scriptures you have in mind?


As far as his will, totally agree brother! There are nuances here that I think we're struggling to pin down.

Ephesians 2 and Romans 8, for starters.

My friend, you want Scripture references yet fail to address fatal flaws in your own interpretations of Scripture. I am not confident in your ability to see the necessary points in what I reference above.

 

[RamistThomist]

But what is essential for His nature to be divine is the question.

True, the divine nature must be holy, but that is only one set of predicates.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Ephesians 2 and Romans 8, for starters.

My friend, you want Scripture references yet fail to address fatal flaws in your own interpretations of Scripture. I am not confident in your ability to see the necessary points in what I reference above.

Brother, if you ask me for scriptures I will strive to provide them.

Brother, I am a bit confused. What is Eph 2 and Rom 8 are you referencing. Particularly Eph 2.

 

[alexanderjames]

Baptist's use the 1689 to prove that people can be saved eternally without knowing the gospel?

What was this question in reference to?

 

[MarrowMan]

Brother, if you ask me for scriptures I will strive to provide them.

Brother, I am a bit confused. What is Eph 2 and Rom 8 are you referencing. Particularly Eph 2.

Ephesians and Romans

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Ephesians and Romans

I'm asking for quotations brother.

 

[MarrowMan]

I'm asking for quotations brother.

I don't see any need to give you quotations. I've given you two chapters to consider, one of which contains the very word under discussion.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

What was this question in reference to?

Chapter 10 paragraph 3, which is what has recently made me decide I am no longer LBC 1689, the issue is too big.

That reminds me @Jeri Tanner Sister, do I need to make some sort of statement to the staff as to why I am no longer 1689?

 

[paranymph]

Chapter 10 paragraph 3, which is what has recently made me decide I am no longer LBC 1689, the issue is too big.

That reminds me @Jeri Tanner Sister, do I need to make some sort of statement to the staff as to why I am no longer 1689?

We're veering away from Christology, but the common thread (no pun intended) is that there's a historical way the Church has used words and ideas, and it is good for us to learn what they mean. It's like jumping into the middle of a conversation a group is having about "coke," and you are shocked that people are doing drugs when they're actually talking about a soft drink. The church has been talking for centuries about persons, natures, and wills of Christ and we have to figure out what they mean (based on Scripture), if we are to join in the conversation.

As to 10.3, a similar question – Have you explored what the Confession means by that, and why they would include such a paragraph? Have you studied expositions of the WCF/LBCF? Even Spurgeon edited 10.3 according to his own understanding. This is the point of Confessions, to at least make us stop and pause what someone's trying to say before rejecting something altogether.

 

[VictorBravo]

Chapter 10 paragraph 3, which is what has recently made me decide I am no longer LBC 1689, the issue is too big.

That reminds me @Jeri Tanner Sister, do I need to make some sort of statement to the staff as to why I am no longer 1689?

You understand the WCF has the same language, right?

 

[Ben_Leevey]

You understand the WCF has the same language, right?

I thought it probable. But I did not know it for a fact.

 

[MyCrows]

I thought it probable. But I did not know it for a fact.

Is it the language of the Confession that you find offensive, or the way in which men twist it?

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Is it the language of the Confession that you find offensive, or the way in which men twist it?

First to clarify brother, not so much offensive, as unbiblical.

And it would be both. The confession only goes a certain distance. The Primative Baptists take it the rest of the way to it's logical conclusion.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

@Ben_Leevey I understand you're new to confessionally Reformed circles (even though you grew up in broadly Calvinistic circles). It's important that you emphasize learning and listening rather than proclaiming and teaching. In this thread alone, you've identified with ancient heresy and condemned the Reformed confessions. I frankly don't think that you've taken the time to understand either. Reel it in, and be a disciple; there will be a time for proclaiming from the housetops later.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

@Ben_Leevey I understand you're new to confessionally Reformed circles (even though you grew up in broadly Calvinistic circles). It's important that you emphasize learning and listening rather than proclaiming and teaching. In this thread alone, you've identified with ancient heresy and condemned the Reformed confessions. I frankly don't think that you've taken the time to understand either. Reel it in, and be a disciple; there will be a time for proclaiming from the housetops later.

I've been in these circles since age six.

I'm glad to learn if you have any scriptures to point me to brother! It depends on the nuances of Nestorianism as to whether I identify.

 

[py3ak]

No Catholic thinks that Mary gave birth to God in His divinity. No RC or EO thinks thank Mary is the mother of God the Father and Holy Spirit or that she is existed before the triune God.

[This is a sidebar to the main thread, just adding some documentation about a side topic.]

I don't know that I would say "no RC" in the light of what I saw posted this morning:


In Mexico, I heard prayers addressed to Mary out of an episcopally approved service book that identified her as "mother of the patriarchs, wife of the Holy Spirit."

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I'm glad to learn if you have any scriptures to point me to brother!

Leviticus 19:32 KJV
Exodus 20:12 KJV
Job 32:4 KJV
1 Timothy 3:6 KJV
1 Peter 5:5 KJV

 

[erickinho1bra]

[This is a sidebar to the main thread, just adding some documentation about a side topic.]

I don't know that I would say "no RC" in the light of what I saw posted this morning:
View attachment 11513

In Mexico, I heard prayers addressed to Mary out of an episcopally approved service book that identified her as "mother of the patriarchs, wife of the Holy Spirit."

That's fair. My words were too broad. But I'd venture to say my statements are still true about most EOs and RCs. Certainly their councils and creeds do not assert anything so blasphemous about Mary and her relationship to the other members of the Trinity.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

It depends on the nuances of Nestorianism as to whether I identify.

I hope you understand how extremely dangerous this comment is.

Essentially it boils down to "it depends on the nuances of heresy as to whether I identify as a heretic".

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Leviticus 19:32 KJV
Exodus 20:12 KJV
Job 32:4 KJV
1 Timothy 3:6 KJV
1 Peter 5:5 KJV

Have I come across as disrespectful brother? I apologize if I have!

I hope you understand how extremely dangerous this comment is.

Essentially it boils down to "it depends on the nuances of heresy as to whether I identify as a heretic".

If the heresy is biblical, it is no longer heresy. I have not had anyone tell me tell me whether what I have been putting forth qualifies as Nestorianism. All I know is I believed it from what I had seen in the scriptures, then I read about Nestorianism here and it more some similarity, I'm not yet sure how much.

 

[paranymph]

If the heresy is biblical, it is no longer heresy.

Does it give you any pause to say such things?

Here is the question-- do the Scriptures teach that Jesus, Son of God incarnate, is one person or two? Does he have one nature or two?

 

[Knight]

Have I come across as disrespectful brother? I apologize if I have!


If the heresy is biblical, it is no longer heresy. I have not had anyone tell me tell me whether what I have been putting forth qualifies as Nestorianism. All I know is I believed it from what I had seen in the scriptures, then I read about Nestorianism here and it more some similarity, I'm not yet sure how much.

What similarity are you talking about?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

If the heresy is biblical, it is no longer heresy.

But heresy is not, by definition, biblical, and so it remains heresy regardless of how you feel about it, and Nestorianism is, in fact, heresy (and not biblical).

If you find yourself identifying with the Nestorian heresy, that's a huge problem.

 

[RamistThomist]

It depends on the nuances of Nestorianism as to whether I identify.

How familiar are you with the Cyrillene debates, as well as Nestorius's own writings? You have to know that in order to answer the questions on nuances.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Does it give you any pause to say such things?

Here is the question-- do the Scriptures teach that Jesus, Son of God incarnate, is one person or two? Does he have one nature or two?

One unified nature, truly God and truly man.

What similarity are you talking about?

Primarily Jesus' laying aside His divine power, when he came to earth. Not His nature, That is unbiblical.

But heresy is not, by definition, biblical, and so it remains heresy regardless of how you feel about it, and Nestorianism is, in fact, heresy (and not biblical).

If you find yourself identifying with the Nestorian heresy, that's a huge problem.

And again brother, I don't know if I do.

How familiar are you with the Cyrillene debates, as well as Nestorius's own writings? You have to know that in order to answer the questions on nuances.

And that's kind of what I'm hoping to figure out. Does what I see in the scriptures align with Nestorians. I've read a little of Nestorius, and have almost no quibble. But I don't know about Nestorians.

 

[Knight]

Primarily Jesus' laying aside His divine power, when he came to earth. Not His nature, That is unbiblical.

In post 71, you admitted that you can't define what you even mean by this. But since you say there is a similarity to Nestorianism here, please quote what you have in mind.

And that's kind of what I'm hoping to figure out. Does what I see in the scriptures align with Nestorians. I've read a little of Nestorius, and have almost no quibble. But I don't know about Nestorians.

What have you read by Nestorius?

 

[paranymph]

One unified nature, truly God and truly man.

This is called the heresy of Eutychianism. It goes against the Scriptural teaching that Jesus has two natures that are not mixed together. Are you certain this is what you believe?

 

[Ben_Leevey]

In post 71, you admitted that you can't define what you even mean by this. But since you say there is a similarity to Nestorianism here, please quote what you have in mind.

Quote scriptures, or something from the chat brother?

 

[Pomopu]

Ben is trying to re-think Christianity from square one

 

[Ben_Leevey]

In post 71, you admitted that you can't define what you even mean by this. But since you say there is a similarity to Nestorianism here, please quote what you have in mind.



What have you read by Nestorius?

Not any single work, but rather quotes in articles dealing with Him. Not much.

Ben is trying to re-think Christianity from square one

Actually, I have believed this since I was saved. I just am not 100% sure if it's Nestorianism. I kinda think not, but I'm not sure.