@@PL9050 They also just are averse to the idea of honoring her by accepting that title. It is a testament to their irrationality that they care more about what vibe a title gives them than its accuracy.
@@igorlopes7589 no one is going to hell for not saying Mary is the mother of God. Maybe for explicitly rejecting it, but not for just not saying it. Marian heresies however do imperil people's souls. It's similar to the intercessionary prayer thing. If you dig into the official theology of it it's like ok, I guess, maybe, but a bunch of laypeople aren't grasping the theological nuance and are praying to dead people in place of God.
I'd say the counter-heresies are greater then equal because they are the truth (or at the very least closer to the truth) than heresies, which are falsehoods
Reformed Baptist minister here. I just touched on this subject in my sermon Sunday. As a matter of fact I frequently refer to Mary as the mother of God and make it a point to reiterate the fact that Jesus is God
@@Karriebear78Saying that Mary is the “mother of God” is not as much a statement about Mary as it is about Jesus. If we believe that Jesus is the eternal Logos who took on flesh, then Jesus was fully God ever since He was conceived. Jesus didn’t “become” God, nor did He “achieve” divinity, and God the Father didn’t “adopt” Jesus to be His Son. Jesus was always fully God to begin with, even as a fetus. That’s why we believe the Father “begot” Him in His incarnation. Therefore if Jesus was fully God at all points of His incarnation, even as a fetus, then Mary DID bear God in the flesh. Therefore “mother of God” or “God-bearer” is indeed an adequate title for Mary.
@@Karriebear78 Christ has two natures in perfect union with one another. He is fully God and fully man. He is one person with two natures that simultaneously exist in perfect harmony. Therefore because he is one person you cannot separate the two perfect natures from one another. Mary gave birth to Christ in our physical world, even though he is eternal. Therefore if Christ is fully God and fully man and Mary birthed Christ into our world, she birthed God into our physical world for the purpose of God sacrificing himself for us. It’s very complicated and gets fairly philosophical, but it’s definitely correct to refer to her as the mother of God.
As the Nestorian churches spread across the Middle East well before the founding of Islam, it would be more accurate to say that it was Islam that was influenced by Nestorianism.
The "angel" that mohammed saw in that cave was satan disguised as an angel to trick him into thinking he saw a divine figure. satan knew that the world would always hate him, so why not at least create a religion that diminishes Jesus' God-hood and points people away from him being dying on the cross for our sins.
Not really, it emerged out of Arabic religion and likely Ebionites, Jewish Christians from all the way back in the 1st century who believed Jesus was important but not God, like Muslims do today. Nestorians I don't think really influenced them that much besides like some Arab scholars translating stuff or smth
True, but it might be said that the modern day version of this herecy, as we see in MacArthur and others, could be a combination of Christianity and Islam, eventhough originally it was nestorianism that influenced Islam.
@zacdredge3859 this is because Muhammad got the concept of the trinity out of old sethian gnostic books he had access to. The sethian gnostic view of God was "invisible spirit, the Barbalo (Mary), christ" this was the sethian view of God some how Allah in the Quran says this is what Christians think of God. Very strange.
Nestorianism is not a mixture of Christianity and Islam but one of the progenitors of Islam, those progenitors also including Arabic polytheism, Christian Ebionites and Jewish Exilarch influence.
Nestorius believed that Jesus had two natures and was two persons in one body. The Son of God has always been God, but took on the nature of man which limited Him, He could not be everywhere at once after his incarnation. Nestorius’ heresy was that he believed that Jesus’ two Natures, God and Man made Jesus two distinct persons with two natures, not two natures and One person Christ.
Baptist and someone who likes MacArthur here. I still think those quotes of MacArthur are taken out of context. You mentioned he was trying to avoid monophysitism (and much more than that he was addressing some weird IFB ideas about the blood), and about the theotokos he is addressing the use of the term to avoid Mariolatry (just like John Calvin did). I admit, those quotes taken all by themselves sound Nestorian and probably could have been said better. Redeemed Zoomer, if you had a big enough platform or knew some other way to reach out to him and ask him to clarify his statements, I am sure that he would. He was humble enough to do that with his view on Eternal Sonship. Back in the 80s he said that the title "Son" is something Jesus took on in the incarnation (though Jesus has always been eternally God), but in 2001 he corrected himself and said he was wrong and the title "Son" has been true of the 2nd Person from eternity past. Is MacArthur Nestorian today? Absolutely not. His book (Biblical Doctrine - 2017) affirms both the "Blood of God" and that Mary is "The Mother of God". There is also an entire section in the book on heretical Christological views which explicitly condemns Nestorianism. MacArthur is obviously not teaching Nestorianism today. With the tens of thousands of sermons he has preached over the decades, if you pointed out those 2 quotes to him today, I am sure he would clarify what he was saying. To end on a positive note. I love all your videos and that you care about the truth. I love your focus on being intellectual, theological, and historically rooted. One of my favorite verses on the communication of attributes besides Acts 20:28 is Rev. 1:17-18 where Jesus said He is the "first and the last" and "the living one", this is obviously true because He is the eternal living God. And then He says "I died"! How could God die? The only way that makes sense is the Chalcedonian definition. Jesus Christ (God) died for our sins and "behold I am alive forevermore"!
Agreed 100% I don't read or listen to MacArthur, but quote hunting is not what we as believers should do. We should look towards the countless sermons and printed materials to get a sense of their teaching.
Agreed. RZ's video here feels pretty targeted and doesn't have the same spirit of uniting the church that he likes to promote in his other videos. I do think the video is accurate but it's also very unfair.
For the algorithm. Glad to hear MacArthur has undergone that development in his Christology. I don't follow him, but I like him in a lot of ways and was grieved to hear what appeared to be heresy from him.
The Lutheran church recites the Apostle’s Creed in every service, substituting in the Nicene Creed on occasion. The Nicene Creed is longer than the Apostle’s Creed.
@BasiliscBaz That's just outright slander. Where do Protestants not respect Mary and say that she isn't Jesus' Mother? We greatly respect her, after all, God chose her to be Jesus' Mother, that's an immense honor. We just don't pray to her for intercession, because we already have Jesus for that.
@@SockieTheSockPuppet Why do protestants parrot the same takes that have been debunked and aren't Biblical, Intercession is required of us as Christians. We are meant to pray for one another, why does that change for Saints in Heaven? Answer: It doesn't and Saints continue praying for Christians in Heaven, Including Mary.
My old liberal pastor did this, but also denied the resurrection, saying that Jesus was entirely separate from Christ, and that Christ replaced Jesus after the resurrection, meaning nobody conquered death. He also had all the various wokeisms we all know and ""love."" Needless to say, I'm glad to be out of there.
I was raised in a Mainline Prot denomination in which there was no requirement to believe that Jesus was God nor that the Bible was God's true word. Salvation was hardly a topic I ever require preached on. You walked forward to join the church, not to declare that you trusted Christ to get you to HEAVEN.
There is one Christ, and we are to submit to His authority, not the whims of random medieval Swiss lawyers or oathbreaking monks, or even worse, the whims of random pastors today. They have no authority, never did to do what they have done.
actually the monk who taught Muhammad about Christianity was Nestorian (not Arian as St. John Damascene who writes about it calls him). And muhammad orignially claimed to be Christ at the second coming, because the title was a messianic aramaic title.
@@michaelg4919 Arabia was generally a place in which a lot of weird sects and Christian heretical groups were present in the 6th and 7th centuries. These people were the first "Christians" that Muhammad got into contact with. Many weird stories from gnostic apocryphal gospels like Mary giving birth under a palm tree or Jesus giving life to clay birds made it into the Quran.
As a Baptist, yes Mary IS the Mother of God. That was never a problem for baptist teology in history. When did John MacArthur became the representation of all Baptists? Would be a lot more usefull to talk about our creeds and confessions instead of popular heretic preachers.
I agree that Macarthur doesn represent many Baptists at all, as most Baptists arent even calvinist. However i disagree that the term "mother of God" has ever been commonly used by Baptists. Baptists agree with the concept that God incarnate came thru a virgins womb into the world, "mother of God" affirms much more than that in Catholic teaching
@@caman171 actually, It does not imply anything other then the divinity of Jesus. Its not talking about the father or the Holy Spirit, but the fullness of God in the incarnation of Christ.
@@enzogabrielcaldas2796 sorry but you are wrong. The "Mother of God" (notice its always capitalized) encompasses not only the divinity of Jesus, but also the sinlessness of Mary and the immaculate conception. Coming from someone who went to catholic school, I can assure you of this. That is also why "virgin" in the Nicene creed is capitalized
Evangelicals need to stop calling themselves Protestant. At this point, they’re hijacking and ruining our label for no reason. They have zero connection to the Reformation. Let them come up with their own name for their new age beliefs, lol. If there’s an electric guitar on stage and “communion” involves eating a cracker once per month, it’s not a “church,” period. And it’s certainly not in any meaningful way “Protestant.”
Thank you for this thorough explanation of something we Protestants need to be reminded of. The first time I taught the Chalcedonian Creed, calling Mary the Theotokos, someone said "That's Catholic." I said it sure is- small "c" catholic, as the Church mentioned in the Apostle's Creed! Keep up your valuable work of teaching Orthodoxy, Zoomer!
@MarkStein-b5b Hello, Mark. It could be that there are different versions of the Apostles' Creed. The one I grew up reciting states "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints...." Catholic was small "c", meaning not Roman Catholic, but universal.
Here's how you can easily disprove Nestorianism using the Bible. In John 20:28 Thomas says to Jesus "My Lord and My God". Now was Thomas talking to a person or a nature/essence? It makes no sense to say someone talks to a nature, we talk person to person, and the verse calls that specific person God. And logically, if that is the same person Mary gave brith to, Mary is the mother of God.
He is anti-Catholic because he believes that Roman Catholicism defends many heresies, but he himself puts himself in the same situation. As RZ said, If it were the old lady from my Church saying this, I would understand (but I would correct her). But MacArthur should know better.
@@JoWilliams-ud4eu equal opposite reaction , under his eyes , I am Catholic- I can have a friendly discussion with Lutheran- Pentecostal, and Anglican. The ones that don’t have good arguments are team MacArthur and KJB only Protestants. Do you guys think Luther or Calvin would let Johny Mac preach at their churches, or the other way around/ would Johny Mac let the reformers preach. Johny Mac is a liar plane and simple- a lying heretic.
We have a problem where so many of my fellow protestants are so scared to say Mary is the Mother of God not because they disagree with the meaning but because they disagree with the supposed connotations that mary is somehow the creator of God or something. But we cant be ambiguous with the essentials of the faith. If you believe, it confess it with your mouth.
An easy response to them is just “Your mother gave birth to you, but she didn’t create your eternal soul. Mary gave birth to Jesus, but she didn’t create His divine essence. Your mom is not the CREATOR of your soul, but she IS the mother of it. Mary did not CREATE the Son’s divine essence, but she IS His mother.”
So my question is that, is Mary the mother of Divinity? Or is there any biblical basis to call Mary the mother of God. These details are unexccessary distractions which I believe come from the devil order to divide us Christians. Not wanting to call Mary the mother of God does not necessarily mean that one supports Nestorianism. Can you give any explicit instance when MacArthur taught Nestorianism?
I confess with my mouth (and keyboard) that God is uncreated, has been, and shall always be, in His triune nature for all time, before Mary was conceived herself. God has no parents for he is uncreated & eternal in His entirety, including, of course God the Son, you can call this heresy if you want, but disagreement with it is blasphemy.
Two quick verses debunking Nestorianism if anyone doesn't think it's heretical: "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." - Acts 20:28 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" - Colossians 2:9
Great video! I was incidentally thinking about Nestorianism this morning and boom here comes your video. Thanks for taking a deep dive into this heresy.
@@WisperWeasel Awsome! Maybe the Lutheran Church can establish Churches in Iraq. Assyrian people are resilient, still survives to this day! May Assyria rise again.
Nestorianism is heresy that’s a given. But I think it’s just something people fall into because they’re allergic to any doctrine that sounds too “Catholic” to them
@@danshakuimoplop a modern evangelical into the Temple of Solomon and they would denounce it as demonic paganism. Evangelicals deny the necessity of sacrifice in adoration. Heresy is the end result.
Hey, Baptist here. I agree that Jesus' human and divine aspects should not be seperated, but to say that Mary is the mother of God does not properly seperate the persons of the Holy Trinity. Yes Jesus is God, but only the Son was born in human form, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. I think that because of this you cannot call Mary the mother of God, rather the mother of Christ, who is a person of the Godhead, therfore clarifying her role in Gods plan, and ensuring that it is clear God, the Holy Trinity, exists independantly of all humans. This may be splitting hairs a bit, but I feel that Catholics do venerate Mary as well others to the point of idol worship and I think this phrase plays no small role in that heresy.
When traditional protestants(the leading figures of the Baptist denomination from the past centuries) claim Mary is the mother of God, they are not claiming she is the mother of the father or of the spirit, rather that Jesus isn't "partially God" and actually fully God. Your view seems to show partialism, that is Jesus is 1/3 God, the father is 1/3 God and the holy spirit is 1/3 God. I understand this gets confusing, but that is not the doctrine of the trinity from the reformation, from the early church and from the scriptures.
As a former Baptist now mainliner, it is shockingly stupid how allergic they are to creeds, confessions, orthodoxy, on the one hand, and arrogantly opinionated about worldliness and ethics on the other hand. Being uneducated in history, science and literature as well as philosophy and biology has not served the baptist churches at all.
You assume to much brother. I agree that the Baptist church needs to be more rational and theological but you far over generalize, there is a very few amount of baptists who are heretics. And our modern Cristian’s obsess to much over rationality and such, don’t get me wrong I love philosophy, theology, and physics, and I know a great deal on each of those topics but one thing that the mainlines could learn from baptists is to not sacrifice there rationality for spirituality but to instead have plenty of both,or to be enraptured by pride of there knowledge and instead let all that knowledge sink to there hearts, although heretics are extremely dangerous for salvation I would argue that the liberalism maintained in the main line Protestant churches are far just as if not more dangerous because it threatens where the Cristian will put there faith and doesn’t only endanger orthodox doctrine but practical living as well.
A deacon of my hometown SBA congregation(RIP), had a rule of thumb, if the church has 1st "denomination" of X city as the title it will be led by a seminary trained pastor, plus the deacons, elders, Sunday school teachers will most likely have a BA or Masters degree in a secular field. In smaller towns it will still work as far as Bible believing churches are concerned. As an Urbanite in Houston I can tell you 1st Presbyterian is ECO so not RZ's more liberal PCUSA, but not the more conservative PCA. Just an example that even in a large city it can work out if one is unsure, but obliviously the First and Second Baptist are mega churches here hahahaha but church websites, social media, etc can give you the vibe of a church from a far..
@@officialvernonbrose First baptist church of Dallas had a beautiful and historic building. They outgrew it and started using a different, more mega-church ish building nearby. Just recently the beautiful building burnt down. As a Baptist who believes in restoring tradition I find that very poetic.
@RedeemedReformedRenewed I was more or less speaking on a theological framework and how first Y church of X city is a safe bet. Baptists tend to have the raw numbers, wish they would just build larger gothic styled cathedrals. If a mega church looked like it belonged on set in the next Batman movie it would fill seats more effectively than this basketball stadium meets theater thing they are doing.
I prefer the orthodox take in this issue. Holy Theotokos, that being, the title of god-bearer is far more accurate description than mother of God while adding an extra layer of separation from more mundane births. There's also the linguistic connotation that to make holy also means to make separate.
Seems like a low view of motherhood is the hangup, tbh. Holy Mary is the Mother of God. God was 1.) In her womb 2.) Birthed by her 3.) Suckled her breasts 4.) Had His head held up by her 5.) Raised by her. She's God's Mother.
It's not different, it's just more linguistically accurate in most languages to use Theotokos because it's known what you mean by it precisely. To use mother of god is less accurate even if same thing is meant because its a broader term in language.
Orthodox call Our Lady the Blessed Marry the mother of God.Ask any Orthodox they may use a different name but they would tell you she is the mother of God.
I try my best to give Johnny Mac leeway, but if we're calling the balls and strikes we have to be honest that he's not afraid to twist things to fit a narrative. MacArthur will literally misrepresent scripture to bash Catholics, and that is indefensible. This is the man who claimed that Jesus disowned Mary at the foot of the cross. That's a shockingly stupid take, or a blatant lie intended to bash Catholicism by discrediting the mother of Christ. I hope that he's just a poor scholar, otherwise he is a bad actor bearing false witness from the pulpit, and scripture has some pretty harsh warnings about that.
Mary is the mother of Jesus in his human nature. Since Jesus is one person with both divine and human natures, Mary is called "Mother of God" because the person she gave birth to is God the Son, not just a human being. She didn’t create his divine nature, but she gave birth to the person who is both God and man.
And this is more than enough to close the discussion. This is a stupid discussion that leads to heresy on both sides because you’re trying to go deeper than it is.
Yup. People knee jerk in the opposite direction because the normal human definition for "Mother of" (or "Father of") implies the mother or father caused the child to be what they are (simply human). In the case of Mary, even though she is His mother, she did not cause Him to be God. He was always God and always will be God.
Id say praying to dead people, kissing statues, and walking on ur knees up "holy stairs" is heresy. Not to mention the billions spent on gold, silver and marble on elaborate churches on the backs of the poor thinking they are gaining favor w God by giving their money to build them.
Seeing as the JMaccabees broke away from the Southern Orthodox Independent Baptist Fellowship over not affirming the King James Bible as the only Bible (and yes, according to St. Ruckman of Pensacola, the corrector of the scriptures themselves), our Synod of Stripmall would be more than willing to take in Redeemed Zoomer, so long as he consents to the aesthetic of fluorescent lighting and lack of gay-affirming banners he swears don't matter to denominational integrity and orthodoxy.
I’m a LCMS Lutheran Christian that’s been watching your vids for over a year now. I don’t agree with all of your takes, but that probably is more so because of our doctrinal differences as evangelical vs. reformed theology. I see all the crap you get in the comments, and I’ve got to say, despite our differences, I encourage you to not give up. It is important for people to know the truth, and that the Truth is Jesus our God. If these church personalities are hindering His majesty and Glory, they need to be called out. And if people are more quick to rush in to defend the man rather than listen, than they are not for Jesus Christ, but for the world. Thank you for your courage, and you have my prayers. God bless you and keep you. May His holy angel be with you, that the evil foe may have no power over you.
People who follow someone like John MacArthur are not just going to hear someone say "thats heresy!" And immediately change their minds; very few people know how to access the writings of the fathers to read the formal rejections of heresy for themselves. YOU may not need 18 minutes. Good. This video isn't for you. Consider that there are people convinced of nestorianism who do need to be convinced. This video is for them.
Thanks for sharing. Just to clarify, Calvin was cautious in the way he uses the term Theotokos. He preferred to use the term "Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is God" to avoid veneration or exaltation of Mary beyond what the scripture teaches.
Reading some of these comments is very concerning. With how some people are responding, it makes me think that from some Protestant point of views, there is no point of having heresies defined. As a Catholic, I’m glad that RZ is calling this out cause this is a huge problem.
Protestantism is an umbrella term. It refers to the different traditions that agree with the 5 soles. Some Protestants value the history and tradition of the church and others do not. Whenever I see someone comparing Protestantism with Catholicism, it gives me a warning, because the person is comparing a specific tradition "Roman Catholicism" with a category of different traditions.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 there are multiple traditions within Catholicism, in terms of both Scholasticism and practice of worship. Just because the differences aren’t as huge as the ones in Protestantism doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
There’s a fine tradition in Christian theology, *derived from the Chalcedonian Creed itself* of distinguishing between the Persons of the Trinity, as well as between the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ the Son, without confusion, separation, or division. We *distinguish* between the natures of the Son while affirming the unity of those two natures in one Person-fully God and fully man. This is why many hesitate to call Mary the mother of God, because she isn’t the mother of God the Spirit or of God the Father, and even her claim as mother of God the Son is limited to the distinction between his human nature and divine nature. That is why the Creed itself affirms that she is “the mother of God, according to the manhood”.
@@justhair17yeah, my point wasn’t to defend MacArthur. I’m not a particular fan of his in any way. My goal was more to reinforce what RZ was saying but to clarify what the Chalcedonian Creed says for anyone still struggling with the phrase “mother of God” thanks to Catholic abuses of the doctrine. The Creed spells out the proper trinitarian theology that many folks might fear is under attack by using “Jesus” and “God” interchangeably.
A lot of issues like this stem from language. We often to refer to God the Father as “God,” while also using the same word (God) to refer to both the Godhead and the divine nature of Jesus. It is accurate to describe all of these as God, but it is semantically confusing.
"with his own blood. Paul believed so strongly in the unity of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ that he could speak of Christ’s death as shedding the blood of God-who has no body (John 4:24; cf. Luke 24:39) and hence no blood." - McArthur Study Bible
I’m probably gonna wait a bit to watch this cus I definitely have some feelings about MacArthur I want to kinda have in check when watching this. But will be interesting to check out when I can.
Macarthur doesn't teach Nestorianism I don't know where you got that crazy idea from. I believe the blood comment was in the context of the Blood Controversy between him and Bob Jones Jr. Also I don't think it's incidental that you pulled a quote from so long ago. His theology has developed since his early years of ministry in part as a result of his friendship with RC Sproul. Within Macarthur's systematic theology he speaks against the error of Nestorianism so I don't think it is accurate to accuse him of it based on such little "evidence" cherry picked from over 50 years of ministry.
You went from grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone for salvation to Grace through works as is the beliefs of the Orthodox church. Orthodoxy is apostate. I’m a convert out of Eastern Orthodoxy. Why do you think your works will save you?
@@MatthewFloorProtestant theology might look appealing on the surface, but it's foundational beliefs of sola scriptura and accordance with the faith of the apostles is untenable. As you came from EO, you should know that faith and works are not isolated, but work together.
A fruit tree is considered alive when it bears fruit. However the fruit isn't what made the tree alive.. FYI, being EO is what saves you according to classical EO. Therefore not even faith and works are sufficient in themselves...
@@ianmontez4201 a church can’t save you. Rom. 3:28-30, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.” Rom. 4:5, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,” Rom. 5:1, “therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Rom. 9:30, “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith.“ Rom. 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Rom. 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Gal. 2:16, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.” Gal. 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” Gal. 3:5-6, “Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6 Even so, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Gal. 3:24, “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.” Eph. 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9 Not by works, lest any man should boast.” Phil. 3:9, “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.” Again, works/Law is contrasted with faith repeatedly; and we are told that we are not justified by works in any way. Therefore, we are made right with God by faith - not by faith and our works, hence, faith alone
Thanks for your diligence in trying to explain this very complex issue.. I have never thought of myself as Nestorian but I have to say that I would never refer to Mary as the mother of God(am non-reformed protestant) Nestorius does say some semi heretical things but you have increased my sympathy for nestorius. Thanks
Pro Tip: Do you want to find out if your pastor and/or elders are Nestorian? Check the church hymnal and see it contains Charles Wesley’s well known hymn “And Can It Be?” Then see if they changed the chorus from “Amazing love! How can it be, That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” to something like "Amazing love! How can it be, That Thou, my Lord, shouldst die for me?” There is nothing inherently wrong with the different words UNLESS they are doing it because they disagree with Charles Wesley’s theology in the hymn. ✝
God experienced death, but His divine nature did not die. Additionally, in my opinion, the issue with the term "Mother of God" lies more in the word "mother" than the term "God." As a failure of language, at first glance, this seems to imply that Mary precedes God, and that at one time God did not exist. This is because humans do not exist before they are born, but God does. In fact, because flesh is created, there was a time when Jesus' human nature did not exist, hence "The Word became Flesh." It's easy to see where Nestorius is coming from, but to use the logical end of his line to condemn him is good, then could the same not be applied to the title "Mother of God?" The title can lead to idolatry, which most would agree is worse than just getting something wrong about the nature of Jesus.
Theotokos (which JMac takes issue with in these quotes) means God-bearer. That term does not imply preceding God. But it doesn't matter either way. John 3:16 calls Jesus begotten. That also implies he had a beginning, but he didn't. He was begotten of the father (a term exclusively reserved for father's contribution to reproduction), borne of Mary (a term reserved for the mother's contribution), conceived of the Holy Spirit. Begotten, not made. Son, with no beginning. Mary is his mother, not his predecessor.
That is a major heresy. Jesus was begotten specifically to be incarnated into a human body. The universe was created only for Him. God does not deal with time and Jesus has always had a human nature.
@@rothgang I am. But I'm also pointing out that JMac has taken issue with even clearer terms than "mother of God". That term is completely true, yet it's easy to distinguish why someone would be cautious about where it could lead. Theotokos, on the other hand, doesn't have this problem, and JMac still has a problem with that one too. It's definitely cause for concern, and he should certainly clarify explicitly if he's going to make these messages continue to be available to the public.
If baptist churches would do the bare minimum of reading the creeds then this wouldn't happen. I spent 20 years in a baptist/nondenom church and didn't know creeds and confessions even existed
@@sweynforkbeardtraindude Every cult and false denomination claims to be just using the scriptures. Your mindset is incredibly lazy and slothful and I hope you repent of it. Go find the spiritual solid food and put away your infantile spiritual milk. Prepare yourself to give a reasoned defense, and stop being lazy.
Mark 3:33-35 KJV [33] And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? [34] And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! [35] For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
@@gabrielcupsa5669 Isaiah 53:4-6: “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by whose wounds we are healed.” 1 Peter 2:24: “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” Romans 5:19: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Jesus didn't die for those who go to hell. To make such a claim is to say that the Blood of Christ was shed in vain. His blood bought those who were slaves to sin into freedom in Christ, the Great High Priest. All of Scripture is for those who have the gift of faith, the fruit of God's Spirit in them. The audience over and over again is for salvation of God's elect and for damnation of the reprobate. Who is "our" that Peter is speaking to? It is the Church. Paul said to the Roman church that by His wounds we are healed? Who is healed? The elect! Who imputes that righteousnes? God, the Holy Spirit. Who determined it? God the Father did before the foundation of the world. According to Biblical Christian theology, God the Father did indeed lay the sins of the elect upon Jesus Christ, as described in Scripture. This concept is often referred to as the “imputation” of sin. Romans 3:25: “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood, to purify rigorously those who are for him and to allow ONLY them to be his people who are REALLY HIS.” 2 Corinthians 5:21: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us (the elect and not those who perish eternally), so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” In this act of substitutionary atonement, Jesus, who was sinless and perfectly righteous, took upon Himself the guilt and penalty of the elect’s sins. This was made possible through His death on the cross, where He bore the wrath of God against sin, satisfying the divine justice and righteousness. Isaiah 53:6: “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Jesus is the Good Shepherd who laid His life down for HIS SHEEP, not the goats, not for Esau, not for Cain, NOT for Haman, NOT for Pharoah, NOT for Judas, NOT for the Antichrist, etc... 1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our(Peter is speaking to the Church) sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; for by his wounds you (the Church, not the reprobate) have been healed.” Through Jesus’ sacrifice, God the Father imputed the sins of the elect to Christ, and Christ imputed His righteousness to believers. This means that believers are no longer held accountable for their own sins, as they have been transferred to Christ, and they are now clothed in His righteousness. Romans 4:7-8: “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.” That is God the Father laying the sins of His elect that He fore-loved before creation. In summary, God the Father laid the sins of His Church of all nations, ethnicities and races upon Jesus Christ, who bore the penalty and guilt of those sins on the cross, providing redemption and forgiveness for believers through faith in Him. God's elect was bought with a price with the Righteous, Holy and Effectual Blood of God, the Son. John 3:16
Redeemed Zoomer is low-key doing Catholic apologetics. Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for our Nestorian evangelical brothers and sisters that they may return to the true apostolic deposit of the Faith.
Catholic apologetics? Yes. Roman Catholic apologetics? Node. All the reformers agreed with Chalcedon and Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican churches subscribe to it. We, however, do not fall into the other errors affirmed by other Marian doctrines, especially that of the immaculate conception.
I was like "MacArthur....mmm..MacArthur... that sounds familiar...." There's one of his study Bible's in the back of my 4th period class at my school. We're Dutch Reformed, so I assume it's maybe a Bible teacher's right?
Yes, Nestorianism is a heresy. YOU CANNOT BE A TRUE CHRISTIAN IF YOUDO NOT BELIEVE THAT MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD. JESUS IS GOD, MARY IS THE MOTHER OF JESUS, HENCE, MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD. TO DENY THIS BASIC FACT MEANS THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND HENCE YOU ARE NOT A TRUE CHRISITAN. THE BASIC TENET OF CHRISTIANITY IS THE BELIEVE IN THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST
For reference, here is the transcript from the Acts 20 sermon series, where he exposits verse 28: Well, that’s enough motive for me, but the Holy Spirit probably knew I needed even more, and added this at the end of verse 28, “Which He hath purchased with His own blood.” What is that saying? That’s saying that that flock of God is so precious, that He paid the supreme price. And if it’s that precious to Him, it ought to be that precious to me. Right? I mean if God would go to the extent of doing that, I want to make sure I take care of it. God Himself, in the form of the Son, shed His blood for the purpose of the Church. “God paid the highest price, the precious blood of Jesus Christ,” Peter says. Could I dare treat this church, which he bought with his own blood in any less of a sense than would be commensurate with the price He paid? Could I treat the church as nothing? Could I use the church? Could I manipulate the church? Can I take advantage of the church? Could I starve the church? Could I fail to teach the whole counsel of the church when this is what He wants and this is what price He paid to gain the church? And gave it to my care, and I should be unfaithful? It’s a precious flock. You’re a precious commodity. You cost a precious price; I better treat you as precious as you are. (From the sermon "A Charge to New Testament Church Leaders, Part 1" May 19, 1974)
There is a big problem among Protestantism such that they will subscribe to many heretical teachings in an effort to not “sound Catholic”. This issue with Nestorianism is exhibit A.
Having a single point of contention is perhaps human and thus disregarding all sound literature for one mishap in doctrinal understanding is perhaps not the most wise thing to do.
That’s right! He restored the true Church after that fiend Chancellor Constantine mixed Christianity with the Dark side and created the w*ore of Oklahoma!
What's the issue? Pope Leo said the same thing: "that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries." By that exact same token, one can say "One of them descends from heaven, the other is born from the Virgin's womb". This is precisely why Cyril's synod in Alexandria utterly rejected Chalcedon, because in the Tome they heard echoes of the same faulty Nestorian logic.
No reason to find another religion, the Bible says "He who hath the Son hath life". I found that life at the cross and was reconciled to God the Father by Faith.
@@owusuphilipable The God of the Israelites. The God of the Bible. The only God who truly exists. The phrase "Mary, mother of God" exists because in the early Church some people were saying that Jesus was not God. They denied Jesus' divine nature. Therefore, ONLY saying "Mary, mother of Jesus" was acceptable. But the others, who affirmed Jesus' divine nature, defended the phrase "Mary, mother of God". And that's about it,
@@JosephStork Tell me why the scripture is wrong, it is not me it is the scripture you have an issue with. Mary is a sinner saved by grace, and she had other children as mentioned in the Word of God.
@@jjreddog571 No, I directly have a problem with you & your errored & flawed view of scripture. You read your false theology into the Bible, I get my theology from the Bible. Jesus' "brother's & sister's" are his cousins. There was no word in aramaic for cousin at the time. Also, you're by you suggesting Mary was concieved with original sin, that means Jesus was born from a sinfull womb & woman. You're making the Mother of God seem permiscuous. Also, you twist words like your father satan
@@JosephStork You need a real Bible and a gifted teacher who is full of the Holy Spirit who can get you on the right track. The Catholic church has put Mary in a position she never intended to be. Jesus Christ is her savior and if she was sinless then why did she die? Washed in the blood of the Lamb and not a son of Satan. Don`t you know no-one can call Jesus the Christ except that Father in heaven reveals' it to him.
10:39 I have to say I'm glad people like you are making content like this but I have to ask why it would be wrong to say that the blood of Christ is divine blood if Jesus is divine and His blood is the blood of God. BTW I'm Orthodox so that's the lens that I'm looking at this through.
What he meant by saying that Jesus' Blood isn't divine is that It doesn't have a Divine Nature. But it is divine insofar you take divine to mean "of God", instead of "of God's Nature"
In the person of Jesus is the spirit of the infinite, uncreated and eternal, God indwelling the finite envelope of a created man. According to Leviticus 17:11-14 'the life of the body is in its blood' so therefore Jesus is uniquely able to absolve human sin through the power of His blood, which, is not of infinite quantity but is of limitless power. Thus He is our 'kinsman redeemer' in the Old Testament sense and, mercifully, He only requires our faith in his sacrifice in exchange for our personal redemption. Hallelujah!
0:00 Introduction 1:03 What is Nestorianism? 3:38 What is the Chalcedonian view? Why is Nestorianism heretical? 7:20 Why does this matter? 10:51 John MacArthur as a Nestorian 15:43 History of Nestorians and Nestorianism 17:20 Final remarks
I'm evangelical, but I never was a fan of John MacArthur. I haven't seen too many of his sermons, but the ones I've seen made me angry because he was clearly strawmanning those he disagreed with. It's very hard for me to listen to someone if they can't fairly present the arguments of those they disagree with before presenting their counter-arguments. That is one of the reasons I like this channel. I'm not a Calvinist or Reformed, but I want to hear the honest arguments from those I may disagree with. I want to learn about Calvinism and be able to articulate their arguments fairly. I've even learned some things I agree with and other things that have made me think. I still disagree with Calvinism but it helps me improve my perspective. I respect RZ because he does try his best to fairly represent those he disagrees with. Is he perfect? No. Has he made mistakes? Yes. However, he always corrects himself when he realizes it.
You know it's serious when the video is longer than 10 minutes AND has no gameplay
Don't we all prefer this?
@@RDbodybuildingreardelt Not the minecrafters lol
Right like where is my mine craft gameplay? 🥺😢
What’s a gameplay?
Wow!
Thank you Lord for this dude!!
There's a difference between being created & being born. God wasn't created (he has always existed), but WAS born of the Virgin Mary.
@@PL9050 They also just are averse to the idea of honoring her by accepting that title. It is a testament to their irrationality that they care more about what vibe a title gives them than its accuracy.
Amen
@@PL9050 when i hear people say those phrases it always has and is often used in a way to justify praying to mary
@@3boyzbutler389 praying to Mary to ask for her intercession is justified so what’s your point?
@@igorlopes7589 no one is going to hell for not saying Mary is the mother of God. Maybe for explicitly rejecting it, but not for just not saying it. Marian heresies however do imperil people's souls. It's similar to the intercessionary prayer thing. If you dig into the official theology of it it's like ok, I guess, maybe, but a bunch of laypeople aren't grasping the theological nuance and are praying to dead people in place of God.
As a Baptist I would like to refute you. MacArthur is the Baptist Pope. According to his authority established on Peter’s seat, he is infallible
No but actually you’re right
Lol
John the Baptist's Seat, actually.
I love this thread😂😂😂
Don't forget the Blessed Pope St Charles Spurgeon
"For every heresy there is an equal and opposite counter-heresy." GREAT QUOTE
That is pretty funny coming from a Calvinist though.
I'd say the counter-heresies are greater then equal because they are the truth (or at the very least closer to the truth) than heresies, which are falsehoods
Yes I love it because it breaks though deception
Reformed Baptist minister here. I just touched on this subject in my sermon Sunday. As a matter of fact I frequently refer to Mary as the mother of God and make it a point to reiterate the fact that Jesus is God
Doing God's work!
Not important, your minister title is good for trash if you worship “words” rather than truth
How does God have a mother? She brought our Messiah to the world but she is not His mother
@@Karriebear78Saying that Mary is the “mother of God” is not as much a statement about Mary as it is about Jesus.
If we believe that Jesus is the eternal Logos who took on flesh, then Jesus was fully God ever since He was conceived. Jesus didn’t “become” God, nor did He “achieve” divinity, and God the Father didn’t “adopt” Jesus to be His Son. Jesus was always fully God to begin with, even as a fetus. That’s why we believe the Father “begot” Him in His incarnation.
Therefore if Jesus was fully God at all points of His incarnation, even as a fetus, then Mary DID bear God in the flesh. Therefore “mother of God” or “God-bearer” is indeed an adequate title for Mary.
@@Karriebear78 Christ has two natures in perfect union with one another. He is fully God and fully man. He is one person with two natures that simultaneously exist in perfect harmony. Therefore because he is one person you cannot separate the two perfect natures from one another. Mary gave birth to Christ in our physical world, even though he is eternal. Therefore if Christ is fully God and fully man and Mary birthed Christ into our world, she birthed God into our physical world for the purpose of God sacrificing himself for us. It’s very complicated and gets fairly philosophical, but it’s definitely correct to refer to her as the mother of God.
As the Nestorian churches spread across the Middle East well before the founding of Islam, it would be more accurate to say that it was Islam that was influenced by Nestorianism.
The "angel" that mohammed saw in that cave was satan disguised as an angel to trick him into thinking he saw a divine figure.
satan knew that the world would always hate him, so why not at least create a religion that diminishes Jesus' God-hood and points people away from him being dying on the cross for our sins.
Not really, it emerged out of Arabic religion and likely Ebionites, Jewish Christians from all the way back in the 1st century who believed Jesus was important but not God, like Muslims do today. Nestorians I don't think really influenced them that much besides like some Arab scholars translating stuff or smth
Then why did Mohammad have the misguided notion of Mary being part of the Trinity which is antithetical to Nestorian teaching?
True, but it might be said that the modern day version of this herecy, as we see in MacArthur and others, could be a combination of Christianity and Islam, eventhough originally it was nestorianism that influenced Islam.
@zacdredge3859 this is because Muhammad got the concept of the trinity out of old sethian gnostic books he had access to. The sethian gnostic view of God was "invisible spirit, the Barbalo (Mary), christ" this was the sethian view of God some how Allah in the Quran says this is what Christians think of God. Very strange.
Nestorianism is not a mixture of Christianity and Islam but one of the progenitors of Islam, those progenitors also including Arabic polytheism, Christian Ebionites and Jewish Exilarch influence.
Nestorius believed that Jesus had two natures and was two persons in one body.
The Son of God has always been God, but took on the nature of man which limited Him, He could not be everywhere at once after his incarnation. Nestorius’ heresy was that he believed that Jesus’ two Natures, God and Man made Jesus two distinct persons with two natures, not two natures and One person Christ.
Baptist and someone who likes MacArthur here.
I still think those quotes of MacArthur are taken out of context. You mentioned he was trying to avoid monophysitism (and much more than that he was addressing some weird IFB ideas about the blood), and about the theotokos he is addressing the use of the term to avoid Mariolatry (just like John Calvin did). I admit, those quotes taken all by themselves sound Nestorian and probably could have been said better.
Redeemed Zoomer, if you had a big enough platform or knew some other way to reach out to him and ask him to clarify his statements, I am sure that he would. He was humble enough to do that with his view on Eternal Sonship. Back in the 80s he said that the title "Son" is something Jesus took on in the incarnation (though Jesus has always been eternally God), but in 2001 he corrected himself and said he was wrong and the title "Son" has been true of the 2nd Person from eternity past.
Is MacArthur Nestorian today? Absolutely not. His book (Biblical Doctrine - 2017) affirms both the "Blood of God" and that Mary is "The Mother of God". There is also an entire section in the book on heretical Christological views which explicitly condemns Nestorianism. MacArthur is obviously not teaching Nestorianism today. With the tens of thousands of sermons he has preached over the decades, if you pointed out those 2 quotes to him today, I am sure he would clarify what he was saying.
To end on a positive note. I love all your videos and that you care about the truth. I love your focus on being intellectual, theological, and historically rooted. One of my favorite verses on the communication of attributes besides Acts 20:28 is Rev. 1:17-18 where Jesus said He is the "first and the last" and "the living one", this is obviously true because He is the eternal living God. And then He says "I died"! How could God die? The only way that makes sense is the Chalcedonian definition. Jesus Christ (God) died for our sins and "behold I am alive forevermore"!
Agreed 100% I don't read or listen to MacArthur, but quote hunting is not what we as believers should do. We should look towards the countless sermons and printed materials to get a sense of their teaching.
Facts I’m a student at Masters Seminary, I can assure you that MacArthur does not affirm Nestorianism lol.
RZ need's to see this, if your reading this, like it so he does.
Agreed. RZ's video here feels pretty targeted and doesn't have the same spirit of uniting the church that he likes to promote in his other videos. I do think the video is accurate but it's also very unfair.
For the algorithm. Glad to hear MacArthur has undergone that development in his Christology. I don't follow him, but I like him in a lot of ways and was grieved to hear what appeared to be heresy from him.
All churches should recite the Nicene creed as a mandatory step every single service/gathering.
It remains almost unfathomable to me that there are some churches which don't!
I am orthodox and appreciate RZ for this video and I appreciate you for affirming the creed. Not nearly enough churches recite it.
Amen
@@Audentior_Ito Because it would raise too many questions for those that don't
The Lutheran church recites the Apostle’s Creed in every service, substituting in the Nicene Creed on occasion. The Nicene Creed is longer than the Apostle’s Creed.
When you're so scared of sounding Catholic by calling Mary the Mother of God that you inadvertently adopt the Muslim view of Mary.
You mean the Satanist view of Mary.
Not true, if yes Apostles are the first muslims. Lol how stupid you sound
Did Luke write - oh how is that the Mother of My God come to me?
But still is sad that muslims respect Mary more (even that they belive Jesus was just prophet) then many protestants (and they belive Jesus is God)
@BasiliscBaz That's just outright slander. Where do Protestants not respect Mary and say that she isn't Jesus' Mother? We greatly respect her, after all, God chose her to be Jesus' Mother, that's an immense honor. We just don't pray to her for intercession, because we already have Jesus for that.
@@SockieTheSockPuppet Why do protestants parrot the same takes that have been debunked and aren't Biblical, Intercession is required of us as Christians. We are meant to pray for one another, why does that change for Saints in Heaven? Answer: It doesn't and Saints continue praying for Christians in Heaven, Including Mary.
My old liberal pastor did this, but also denied the resurrection, saying that Jesus was entirely separate from Christ, and that Christ replaced Jesus after the resurrection, meaning nobody conquered death. He also had all the various wokeisms we all know and ""love."" Needless to say, I'm glad to be out of there.
Holy cow, what heresey do we call that?
@@yosiyyahu.bar.stephen Replacionism? IDK
@@yosiyyahu.bar.stephenRetardanism,
Holy heresy, Batman!
@yosiyyahu.bar.stephen That’s adoptionism, Patrick!
But seriously, how is a pastor of all people an adoptionist?
As a classical Protestant who was raised evangelical, it’s insane how deceived we were.
I was raised in a Mainline Prot denomination in which there was no requirement to believe that Jesus was God nor that the Bible was God's true word. Salvation was hardly a topic I ever require preached on. You walked forward to join the church, not to declare that you trusted Christ to get you to HEAVEN.
@@lufknuht5960 Then your “mainline Protestant” church denied their own denomination’s confessions.
same here used to be oneness Pentecostal now Reformed Anglican. The way to hold scripture up in high regard is by good Tradition and Reason.
@@lufknuht5960I bet they never denied cash, checks or credit cards
There is one Christ, and we are to submit to His authority, not the whims of random medieval Swiss lawyers or oathbreaking monks, or even worse, the whims of random pastors today. They have no authority, never did to do what they have done.
I think saying that Mary did not give birth to God comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what birth and motherhood are.
Exactly. Mary is the mother of God; she's just not God herself. But even she'd agree, she gave birth to God and was (and is) His mother.
Im imagining John MacArthur moving out to Northern Iraq to join the Assyrian Christians, & living like a desert nomad
😂😂😂
Nah, he'd call them heretics for not believing in the 5 Solas lol
That would be based tho
Funny thing is that assyrians more easely accept the title theotokos than John marcarthur
babai thegreat correct ed nestorian in 7th century for Assyrian
Saying nestorianism is a mix of Islam and christianity is absolutely inaccurate as Nestorianism existed hundred years before Islam
I've actually seen Muslim apologists claiming that Nestorians were Muslims lmao
actually the monk who taught Muhammad about Christianity was Nestorian (not Arian as St. John Damascene who writes about it calls him). And muhammad orignially claimed to be Christ at the second coming, because the title was a messianic aramaic title.
Yes
@@michaelg4919
Arabia was generally a place in which a lot of weird sects and Christian heretical groups were present in the 6th and 7th centuries.
These people were the first "Christians" that Muhammad got into contact with.
Many weird stories from gnostic apocryphal gospels like Mary giving birth under a palm tree or Jesus giving life to clay birds made it into the Quran.
He means doctrinally, not in the literal development of the belief system.
As a Baptist, yes Mary IS the Mother of God. That was never a problem for baptist teology in history.
When did John MacArthur became the representation of all Baptists? Would be a lot more usefull to talk about our creeds and confessions instead of popular heretic preachers.
I agree that Macarthur doesn represent many Baptists at all, as most Baptists arent even calvinist. However i disagree that the term "mother of God" has ever been commonly used by Baptists. Baptists agree with the concept that God incarnate came thru a virgins womb into the world, "mother of God" affirms much more than that in Catholic teaching
@@caman171 actually, It does not imply anything other then the divinity of Jesus. Its not talking about the father or the Holy Spirit, but the fullness of God in the incarnation of Christ.
@@enzogabrielcaldas2796 sorry but you are wrong. The "Mother of God" (notice its always capitalized) encompasses not only the divinity of Jesus, but also the sinlessness of Mary and the immaculate conception. Coming from someone who went to catholic school, I can assure you of this. That is also why "virgin" in the Nicene creed is capitalized
@@enzogabrielcaldas2796 It didn't when it was canonized, but it sure does now.
The problem is that Evangelicals are allergic to anything that has to do with Mary or Church tradition.
Can you blame us?? 😅
@@AlexCPauwels85 Yes.
@@AlexCPauwels85 Yes I can, brother. As Christians we should revere Mary and hold her in high esteem.
@@AlexCPauwels85 I’m not Catholic btw
Evangelicals need to stop calling themselves Protestant. At this point, they’re hijacking and ruining our label for no reason. They have zero connection to the Reformation. Let them come up with their own name for their new age beliefs, lol. If there’s an electric guitar on stage and “communion” involves eating a cracker once per month, it’s not a “church,” period. And it’s certainly not in any meaningful way “Protestant.”
Jesus Christ is a divine person who is truly God and truly man. So yes we can say God was born, God bled, God died & Mary is the mother of God.
No lies 😂
The way you wrote this I would agree....but at the end I would add "God-Man" I gave you a little thumbs-up....
Actually quite helpful personally thank you
Thank you for this thorough explanation of something we Protestants need to be reminded of. The first time I taught the Chalcedonian Creed, calling Mary the Theotokos, someone said "That's Catholic." I said it sure is- small "c" catholic, as the Church mentioned in the Apostle's Creed! Keep up your valuable work of teaching Orthodoxy, Zoomer!
@MarkStein-b5b Hello, Mark. It could be that there are different versions of the Apostles' Creed. The one I grew up reciting states "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints...." Catholic was small "c", meaning not Roman Catholic, but universal.
I nearly mistook John MacArthur's name for famed WWII General, Douglas MacArthur
They are decent cousin and both super famous while having wild moments make you question their belief system
@@KOCChristian XD "Nuke em"-Douglas MacArthur, probably
@@NguyenZanderaw c'monnnn
@@ingenieriaavanzada3391 you're fired
@@NguyenZander you know what, old buddy old pal
Here's how you can easily disprove Nestorianism using the Bible. In John 20:28 Thomas says to Jesus "My Lord and My God". Now was Thomas talking to a person or a nature/essence? It makes no sense to say someone talks to a nature, we talk person to person, and the verse calls that specific person God. And logically, if that is the same person Mary gave brith to, Mary is the mother of God.
Perhaps Thomas understood that Jesus was also God....viz a vie trinity?
I haven’t heard too many of McArthurs teachings but I’d guess he’s more being anti catholic than Nestorian
An equal and opposite reactionary heresy.
@@JoWilliams-ud4eu did you just call the orthodox church a herasy?
He is anti-Catholic because he believes that Roman Catholicism defends many heresies, but he himself puts himself in the same situation. As RZ said, If it were the old lady from my Church saying this, I would understand (but I would correct her). But MacArthur should know better.
@@JoWilliams-ud4eu equal opposite reaction , under his eyes ,
I am Catholic- I can have a friendly discussion with Lutheran- Pentecostal, and Anglican.
The ones that don’t have good arguments are team MacArthur and KJB only Protestants.
Do you guys think Luther or Calvin would let Johny Mac preach at their churches, or the other way around/ would Johny Mac let the reformers preach.
Johny Mac is a liar plane and simple- a lying heretic.
Then in being Anti-Catholic he's being Nestorian.
We have a problem where so many of my fellow protestants are so scared to say Mary is the Mother of God not because they disagree with the meaning but because they disagree with the supposed connotations that mary is somehow the creator of God or something. But we cant be ambiguous with the essentials of the faith. If you believe, it confess it with your mouth.
Yeah, most Nestorians in the US are just reactionary heretics, they think it's too Roman Catholic.
An easy response to them is just “Your mother gave birth to you, but she didn’t create your eternal soul. Mary gave birth to Jesus, but she didn’t create His divine essence. Your mom is not the CREATOR of your soul, but she IS the mother of it. Mary did not CREATE the Son’s divine essence, but she IS His mother.”
So my question is that, is Mary the mother of Divinity? Or is there any biblical basis to call Mary the mother of God. These details are unexccessary distractions which I believe come from the devil order to divide us Christians. Not wanting to call Mary the mother of God does not necessarily mean that one supports Nestorianism. Can you give any explicit instance when MacArthur taught Nestorianism?
@@somemedic8482 saying the blood of Jesus was not the blood of God even though the bible says it is.
I confess with my mouth (and keyboard) that God is uncreated, has been, and shall always be, in His triune nature for all time, before Mary was conceived herself. God has no parents for he is uncreated & eternal in His entirety, including, of course God the Son, you can call this heresy if you want, but disagreement with it is blasphemy.
Two quick verses debunking Nestorianism if anyone doesn't think it's heretical:
"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." - Acts 20:28
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" - Colossians 2:9
Acts 20:28 is pure gold in this debate. The second verse will require some clarification.
Great video! I was incidentally thinking about Nestorianism this morning and boom here comes your video. Thanks for taking a deep dive into this heresy.
As a protestant Assyrian…this’ll be fun
Interesting!
Which Protestant tradition though?
@@EcclesiaInvicta Lutheran, though attending a baptist congregation until I can find a church in my area :)
@@WisperWeasel Awsome! Maybe the Lutheran Church can establish Churches in Iraq.
Assyrian people are resilient, still survives to this day! May Assyria rise again.
Nestorianism is heresy that’s a given. But I think it’s just something people fall into because they’re allergic to any doctrine that sounds too “Catholic” to them
Imagine if they went to an Assyrian Church of the East only to be horrified because the CoE is still too "Catholic"
@@danshakuimoplop a modern evangelical into the Temple of Solomon and they would denounce it as demonic paganism.
Evangelicals deny the necessity of sacrifice in adoration. Heresy is the end result.
@@carsonianthegreat4672That was pre Jesus, moot point.
No, very much not moot point sir. Everything about the old system was meant to be a shadow of the new system. @@BrianRich1689
@@BrianRich1689 Carson's second point still stands
W for fighting Nestorianism in 2024, I see it far too often
Zoomer denouncing heterodox celebrity pastors?
And 3 minutes after upload?
splendid.
heretical*
Nothing he states is Nestorian, no more than the Chalcedonian Creed, which also makes the distinction. @@NguyenZander
@@BrianRich1689 HE states he's Nestorian, didya watch the video?
@@NguyenZander I legit have his Theology book Doctrine for life, and have poured through his Christology. It's not Nestorian by a long shot.
@@BrianRich1689 It's Nestorianism, mate.
Hey, Baptist here. I agree that Jesus' human and divine aspects should not be seperated, but to say that Mary is the mother of God does not properly seperate the persons of the Holy Trinity. Yes Jesus is God, but only the Son was born in human form, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. I think that because of this you cannot call Mary the mother of God, rather the mother of Christ, who is a person of the Godhead, therfore clarifying her role in Gods plan, and ensuring that it is clear God, the Holy Trinity, exists independantly of all humans. This may be splitting hairs a bit, but I feel that Catholics do venerate Mary as well others to the point of idol worship and I think this phrase plays no small role in that heresy.
When traditional protestants(the leading figures of the Baptist denomination from the past centuries) claim Mary is the mother of God, they are not claiming she is the mother of the father or of the spirit, rather that Jesus isn't "partially God" and actually fully God. Your view seems to show partialism, that is Jesus is 1/3 God, the father is 1/3 God and the holy spirit is 1/3 God. I understand this gets confusing, but that is not the doctrine of the trinity from the reformation, from the early church and from the scriptures.
Jesus is not 1/3 of God. Fullness of divine essence is fully present in all three persons. "I and the Father are one"
We love the ceiling fan!
As a former Baptist now mainliner, it is shockingly stupid how allergic they are to creeds, confessions, orthodoxy, on the one hand, and arrogantly opinionated about worldliness and ethics on the other hand. Being uneducated in history, science and literature as well as philosophy and biology has not served the baptist churches at all.
you can be a Baptist mainliner, RZ has admitted that the American Baptist Churches USA is mainline
You assume to much brother. I agree that the Baptist church needs to be more rational and theological but you far over generalize, there is a very few amount of baptists who are heretics. And our modern Cristian’s obsess to much over rationality and such, don’t get me wrong I love philosophy, theology, and physics, and I know a great deal on each of those topics but one thing that the mainlines could learn from baptists is to not sacrifice there rationality for spirituality but to instead have plenty of both,or to be enraptured by pride of there knowledge and instead let all that knowledge sink to there hearts, although heretics are extremely dangerous for salvation I would argue that the liberalism maintained in the main line Protestant churches are far just as if not more dangerous because it threatens where the Cristian will put there faith and doesn’t only endanger orthodox doctrine but practical living as well.
A deacon of my hometown SBA congregation(RIP), had a rule of thumb, if the church has 1st "denomination" of X city as the title it will be led by a seminary trained pastor, plus the deacons, elders, Sunday school teachers will most likely have a BA or Masters degree in a secular field. In smaller towns it will still work as far as Bible believing churches are concerned. As an Urbanite in Houston I can tell you 1st Presbyterian is ECO so not RZ's more liberal PCUSA, but not the more conservative PCA. Just an example that even in a large city it can work out if one is unsure, but obliviously the First and Second Baptist are mega churches here hahahaha but church websites, social media, etc can give you the vibe of a church from a far..
@@officialvernonbrose First baptist church of Dallas had a beautiful and historic building. They outgrew it and started using a different, more mega-church ish building nearby. Just recently the beautiful building burnt down. As a Baptist who believes in restoring tradition I find that very poetic.
@RedeemedReformedRenewed I was more or less speaking on a theological framework and how first Y church of X city is a safe bet. Baptists tend to have the raw numbers, wish they would just build larger gothic styled cathedrals. If a mega church looked like it belonged on set in the next Batman movie it would fill seats more effectively than this basketball stadium meets theater thing they are doing.
If I can say "God died for me", can I also say without hesitation "God died for you"?
Yes, God died for all of us
@@ChandlerTC 5 pointer Calvinists can't
@roneldell5137 any Augustinian philosophy can't, they are all anti-Christ
@@roneldell5137 bingo
If you believe in limited atonement, no
One of the clearest texts to refute Nestorianism is John 20:26-28 in which Jesus is referred to as God by Thomas who could only see Jesus’ humanity.
I prefer the orthodox take in this issue. Holy Theotokos, that being, the title of god-bearer is far more accurate description than mother of God while adding an extra layer of separation from more mundane births.
There's also the linguistic connotation that to make holy also means to make separate.
Seems like a low view of motherhood is the hangup, tbh.
Holy Mary is the Mother of God.
God was 1.) In her womb 2.) Birthed by her 3.) Suckled her breasts 4.) Had His head held up by her 5.) Raised by her.
She's God's Mother.
It's not different, it's just more linguistically accurate in most languages to use Theotokos because it's known what you mean by it precisely.
To use mother of god is less accurate even if same thing is meant because its a broader term in language.
@MarkStein-b5btheotokos = God bearer
Orthodox call Our Lady the Blessed Marry the mother of God.Ask any Orthodox they may use a different name but they would tell you she is the mother of God.
Very nice video, quite informative on the ‘why is it important’ question. Thank you
I think we just need to remember sometimes people make mistakes, we won't get everything right in this life. Good vid tho
I try my best to give Johnny Mac leeway, but if we're calling the balls and strikes we have to be honest that he's not afraid to twist things to fit a narrative. MacArthur will literally misrepresent scripture to bash Catholics, and that is indefensible. This is the man who claimed that Jesus disowned Mary at the foot of the cross. That's a shockingly stupid take, or a blatant lie intended to bash Catholicism by discrediting the mother of Christ. I hope that he's just a poor scholar, otherwise he is a bad actor bearing false witness from the pulpit, and scripture has some pretty harsh warnings about that.
Mary is the mother of Jesus in his human nature. Since Jesus is one person with both divine and human natures, Mary is called "Mother of God" because the person she gave birth to is God the Son, not just a human being. She didn’t create his divine nature, but she gave birth to the person who is both God and man.
And this is more than enough to close the discussion. This is a stupid discussion that leads to heresy on both sides because you’re trying to go deeper than it is.
JMac is in line with the Chalcedonian Creed. RZ just wants beef with a Baptist.
@@dline6634 Thanks for understanding my comment.
Bingo
Yup. People knee jerk in the opposite direction because the normal human definition for "Mother of" (or "Father of") implies the mother or father caused the child to be what they are (simply human). In the case of Mary, even though she is His mother, she did not cause Him to be God. He was always God and always will be God.
Redeemed Zoomer: "Catholics don't teach heresy but John MacArthur does."
Got it.
literally unironically yes
Catholic Zoomer any day now
People like you would probably choose to be a JW instead of a Catholic if they were forced to choose, simply to spite the Church.
Catholic Zoomer any day now
Id say praying to dead people, kissing statues, and walking on ur knees up "holy stairs" is heresy. Not to mention the billions spent on gold, silver and marble on elaborate churches on the backs of the poor thinking they are gaining favor w God by giving their money to build them.
Every magisterial reformer would have excommunicated MacArthur
This is public dissent. You will be excommunicated from the One Holy Baptist Apostolic Church for your slander against Pope John MacArthur I.
We must all unsubscribe
Seeing as the JMaccabees broke away from the Southern Orthodox Independent Baptist Fellowship over not affirming the King James Bible as the only Bible (and yes, according to St. Ruckman of Pensacola, the corrector of the scriptures themselves), our Synod of Stripmall would be more than willing to take in Redeemed Zoomer, so long as he consents to the aesthetic of fluorescent lighting and lack of gay-affirming banners he swears don't matter to denominational integrity and orthodoxy.
🤣
I’m a LCMS Lutheran Christian that’s been watching your vids for over a year now. I don’t agree with all of your takes, but that probably is more so because of our doctrinal differences as evangelical vs. reformed theology.
I see all the crap you get in the comments, and I’ve got to say, despite our differences, I encourage you to not give up. It is important for people to know the truth, and that the Truth is Jesus our God. If these church personalities are hindering His majesty and Glory, they need to be called out. And if people are more quick to rush in to defend the man rather than listen, than they are not for Jesus Christ, but for the world. Thank you for your courage, and you have my prayers. God bless you and keep you. May His holy angel be with you, that the evil foe may have no power over you.
You didn’t need 18 minutes to say yes
You haven’t even seen the video
@@tomp6470 He has talked about this so many times lol
You didn’t need that check mark either 😂
@@memesouls8653 my verification badge was predestined
People who follow someone like John MacArthur are not just going to hear someone say "thats heresy!" And immediately change their minds; very few people know how to access the writings of the fathers to read the formal rejections of heresy for themselves. YOU may not need 18 minutes. Good. This video isn't for you. Consider that there are people convinced of nestorianism who do need to be convinced. This video is for them.
Thanks for sharing. Just to clarify, Calvin was cautious in the way he uses the term Theotokos. He preferred to use the term "Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is God" to avoid veneration or exaltation of Mary beyond what the scripture teaches.
this sounds way better
Reading some of these comments is very concerning. With how some people are responding, it makes me think that from some Protestant point of views, there is no point of having heresies defined. As a Catholic, I’m glad that RZ is calling this out cause this is a huge problem.
So the Chalcedonian Creed is Nestorian?
Protestantism is an umbrella term. It refers to the different traditions that agree with the 5 soles. Some Protestants value the history and tradition of the church and others do not. Whenever I see someone comparing Protestantism with Catholicism, it gives me a warning, because the person is comparing a specific tradition "Roman Catholicism" with a category of different traditions.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 there are multiple traditions within Catholicism, in terms of both Scholasticism and practice of worship. Just because the differences aren’t as huge as the ones in Protestantism doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
"The Lord of the universe died for you. That is an amazing mystery, but that is the gospel." Beautiful.
glad you made this video. we must hold leaders accountable to God's Word even if sometimes the truth can be hard to nuance exactly.
Zoomer woke up and chose violence
There’s a fine tradition in Christian theology, *derived from the Chalcedonian Creed itself* of distinguishing between the Persons of the Trinity, as well as between the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ the Son, without confusion, separation, or division. We *distinguish* between the natures of the Son while affirming the unity of those two natures in one Person-fully God and fully man. This is why many hesitate to call Mary the mother of God, because she isn’t the mother of God the Spirit or of God the Father, and even her claim as mother of God the Son is limited to the distinction between his human nature and divine nature. That is why the Creed itself affirms that she is “the mother of God, according to the manhood”.
Thats not what Macarthur said. He explicitly said Mary cannot be called Mother of God, which goes against both Ephesus and Chalcedon
@@justhair17yeah, my point wasn’t to defend MacArthur. I’m not a particular fan of his in any way. My goal was more to reinforce what RZ was saying but to clarify what the Chalcedonian Creed says for anyone still struggling with the phrase “mother of God” thanks to Catholic abuses of the doctrine. The Creed spells out the proper trinitarian theology that many folks might fear is under attack by using “Jesus” and “God” interchangeably.
this is finna go down as a certified banger video
You should do a video on William Laine Craig’s Monotheletism next!
That wasn’t brought up at the councils, that was a secondary point that can still be argued today given the chalcedonian model
You should really do a series of videos, one for each Ecumenical Council. At least on the first few. 1-5 maybe
“I’m just a minecraft youtuber don’t listen to me”
MacArthur is basically “Got Questions?”
@@ravenvane2227 I'm not sure which is more insulted, there.
Actually, I just checked and Got Questions does not stand with Nestorianism.
@@torterra70 and...?
@@torterra70 That’s unexpected. They’re a carbon copy of each other on pretty much every other issue.
@@barelyprotestant5365 nothing just stating an fact given the videos about Nestorianism. God Bless!
A lot of issues like this stem from language. We often to refer to God the Father as “God,” while also using the same word (God) to refer to both the Godhead and the divine nature of Jesus. It is accurate to describe all of these as God, but it is semantically confusing.
"with his own blood. Paul believed so strongly in the unity of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ that he could speak of Christ’s death as shedding the blood of God-who has no body (John 4:24; cf. Luke 24:39) and hence no blood."
- McArthur Study Bible
I’m probably gonna wait a bit to watch this cus I definitely have some feelings about MacArthur I want to kinda have in check when watching this. But will be interesting to check out when I can.
this guy would have been such a good inquisitor ~700 years ago 🤣
Macarthur doesn't teach Nestorianism I don't know where you got that crazy idea from. I believe the blood comment was in the context of the Blood Controversy between him and Bob Jones Jr. Also I don't think it's incidental that you pulled a quote from so long ago. His theology has developed since his early years of ministry in part as a result of his friendship with RC Sproul. Within Macarthur's systematic theology he speaks against the error of Nestorianism so I don't think it is accurate to accuse him of it based on such little "evidence" cherry picked from over 50 years of ministry.
Would this be a legal case for libel then?
did he correct his statements?
These comments are like 10 year old
In 1987, when he made one of these statements, he was 47 or 48 years old. I don't think his theology has changed much since then.
@@CallMeFil Defo not. Macarthur did say things which have heavy nestorian connotations. And its not defamation if its based on true facts
"Where's Nicene? That's my creed. Always drama in my feed." 🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
As an Orthodox convert my jaw is literally on the floor this is a great video, I'm almost halfway through. I'm gonna share this. Good job RZ
You went from grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone for salvation to Grace through works as is the beliefs of the Orthodox church. Orthodoxy is apostate. I’m a convert out of Eastern Orthodoxy. Why do you think your works will save you?
@@MatthewFloorProtestant theology might look appealing on the surface, but it's foundational beliefs of sola scriptura and accordance with the faith of the apostles is untenable. As you came from EO, you should know that faith and works are not isolated, but work together.
A fruit tree is considered alive when it bears fruit. However the fruit isn't what made the tree alive..
FYI, being EO is what saves you according to classical EO. Therefore not even faith and works are sufficient in themselves...
@@ianmontez4201 a church can’t save you.
Rom. 3:28-30, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.”
Rom. 4:5, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,”
Rom. 5:1, “therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Rom. 9:30, “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith.“
Rom. 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”
Rom. 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”
Gal. 2:16, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”
Gal. 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
Gal. 3:5-6, “Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6 Even so, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
Gal. 3:24, “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.”
Eph. 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9 Not by works, lest any man should boast.”
Phil. 3:9, “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.”
Again, works/Law is contrasted with faith repeatedly; and we are told that we are not justified by works in any way. Therefore, we are made right with God by faith - not by faith and our works, hence, faith alone
Thanks for your diligence in trying to explain this very complex issue.. I have never thought of myself as Nestorian but I have to say that I would never refer to Mary as the mother of God(am non-reformed protestant) Nestorius does say some semi heretical things but you have increased my sympathy for nestorius.
Thanks
Pro Tip: Do you want to find out if your pastor and/or elders are Nestorian? Check the church hymnal and see it contains Charles Wesley’s well known hymn “And Can It Be?” Then see if they changed the chorus from “Amazing love! How can it be, That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” to something like "Amazing love! How can it be, That Thou, my Lord, shouldst die for me?” There is nothing inherently wrong with the different words UNLESS they are doing it because they disagree with Charles Wesley’s theology in the hymn. ✝
God experienced death, but His divine nature did not die. Additionally, in my opinion, the issue with the term "Mother of God" lies more in the word "mother" than the term "God." As a failure of language, at first glance, this seems to imply that Mary precedes God, and that at one time God did not exist. This is because humans do not exist before they are born, but God does. In fact, because flesh is created, there was a time when Jesus' human nature did not exist, hence "The Word became Flesh." It's easy to see where Nestorius is coming from, but to use the logical end of his line to condemn him is good, then could the same not be applied to the title "Mother of God?" The title can lead to idolatry, which most would agree is worse than just getting something wrong about the nature of Jesus.
Theotokos (which JMac takes issue with in these quotes) means God-bearer. That term does not imply preceding God.
But it doesn't matter either way. John 3:16 calls Jesus begotten. That also implies he had a beginning, but he didn't. He was begotten of the father (a term exclusively reserved for father's contribution to reproduction), borne of Mary (a term reserved for the mother's contribution), conceived of the Holy Spirit.
Begotten, not made. Son, with no beginning. Mary is his mother, not his predecessor.
That is a major heresy. Jesus was begotten specifically to be incarnated into a human body. The universe was created only for Him. God does not deal with time and Jesus has always had a human nature.
@@loganpeck5084 You're kind of saying the same thing as me.
@@fij715 which statement is written in the gospel, "the word was always flesh," or "the word became flesh"?
@@rothgang I am. But I'm also pointing out that JMac has taken issue with even clearer terms than "mother of God". That term is completely true, yet it's easy to distinguish why someone would be cautious about where it could lead.
Theotokos, on the other hand, doesn't have this problem, and JMac still has a problem with that one too. It's definitely cause for concern, and he should certainly clarify explicitly if he's going to make these messages continue to be available to the public.
If baptist churches would do the bare minimum of reading the creeds then this wouldn't happen. I spent 20 years in a baptist/nondenom church and didn't know creeds and confessions even existed
How about just reading the Scriptures!
@@sweynforkbeardtraindude Every cult and false denomination claims to be just using the scriptures. Your mindset is incredibly lazy and slothful and I hope you repent of it. Go find the spiritual solid food and put away your infantile spiritual milk. Prepare yourself to give a reasoned defense, and stop being lazy.
@@sweynforkbeardtraindude I don't get it. What's the contradiction in reading the Scriptures AND reading creeds and confessions?
MacArthur really got under my skin when he said there’s no such thing as OCD. And I live with OCD.
I like it when you spit facts so hard they accuse you of being Catholic. 😂
In Korea, there is so many Nestorian protestants who deny Theotokos…They say virgin Mary was just mother of Jesus’ body
So many orthodox Christians suddenly are nowhere near as orthodox as they thought. It's ok. This is why we are saved by grace through faith.
*Formed faith
Mark 3:33-35 KJV
[33] And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? [34] And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! [35] For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
God the Father laid the sins of His elect upon Jesus, who was the Son of God and Son of man.
In which verse in the bible is written: God the Father laid the sin of His ELECT upon Jesus?????
@@gabrielcupsa5669 Isaiah 53:4-6: “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by whose wounds we are healed.”
1 Peter 2:24: “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.”
Romans 5:19: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Jesus didn't die for those who go to hell. To make such a claim is to say that the Blood of Christ was shed in vain. His blood bought those who were slaves to sin into freedom in Christ, the Great High Priest. All of Scripture is for those who have the gift of faith, the fruit of God's Spirit in them. The audience over and over again is for salvation of God's elect and for damnation of the reprobate. Who is "our" that Peter is speaking to? It is the Church. Paul said to the Roman church that by His wounds we are healed? Who is healed? The elect! Who imputes that righteousnes? God, the Holy Spirit. Who determined it? God the Father did before the foundation of the world. According to Biblical Christian theology, God the Father did indeed lay the sins of the elect upon Jesus Christ, as described in Scripture. This concept is often referred to as the “imputation” of sin.
Romans 3:25: “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood, to purify rigorously those who are for him and to allow ONLY them to be his people who are REALLY HIS.”
2 Corinthians 5:21: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us (the elect and not those who perish eternally), so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
In this act of substitutionary atonement, Jesus, who was sinless and perfectly righteous, took upon Himself the guilt and penalty of the elect’s sins. This was made possible through His death on the cross, where He bore the wrath of God against sin, satisfying the divine justice and righteousness.
Isaiah 53:6: “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Jesus is the Good Shepherd who laid His life down for HIS SHEEP, not the goats, not for Esau, not for Cain, NOT for Haman, NOT for Pharoah, NOT for Judas, NOT for the Antichrist, etc...
1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our(Peter is speaking to the Church) sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; for by his wounds you (the Church, not the reprobate) have been healed.”
Through Jesus’ sacrifice, God the Father imputed the sins of the elect to Christ, and Christ imputed His righteousness to believers. This means that believers are no longer held accountable for their own sins, as they have been transferred to Christ, and they are now clothed in His righteousness.
Romans 4:7-8: “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.” That is God the Father laying the sins of His elect that He fore-loved before creation.
In summary, God the Father laid the sins of His Church of all nations, ethnicities and races upon Jesus Christ, who bore the penalty and guilt of those sins on the cross, providing redemption and forgiveness for believers through faith in Him. God's elect was bought with a price with the Righteous, Holy and Effectual Blood of God, the Son. John 3:16
Redeemed Zoomer is low-key doing Catholic apologetics.
Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for our Nestorian evangelical brothers and sisters that they may return to the true apostolic deposit of the Faith.
Catholic apologetics? Yes. Roman Catholic apologetics? Node.
All the reformers agreed with Chalcedon and Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican churches subscribe to it. We, however, do not fall into the other errors affirmed by other Marian doctrines, especially that of the immaculate conception.
@@pedroguimaraes6094what the heck is roman catholic?
One of your best vids
Except he's wrong. Chalcedonian Creed says exactly what JMac is, and JMac legit has a theology book that has a orthodox Christology.
"I did like MacArthur's sermons in high school..."
Shots fired lol
The way you read my mind is insane. Was thinking about this just an hour ago lol.
my favourite protestant. This guy is honest, and unafraid nor ashamed. I pray you become orthodox.
I was like "MacArthur....mmm..MacArthur... that sounds familiar...." There's one of his study Bible's in the back of my 4th period class at my school. We're Dutch Reformed, so I assume it's maybe a Bible teacher's right?
This is great! Would you consider making similar deep dives into other heresies and why they so importantly matter?
Justin Peters is recording his response right about now
Yes, Nestorianism is a heresy. YOU CANNOT BE A TRUE CHRISTIAN IF YOUDO NOT BELIEVE THAT MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD.
JESUS IS GOD, MARY IS THE MOTHER OF JESUS, HENCE, MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD.
TO DENY THIS BASIC FACT MEANS THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND HENCE YOU ARE NOT A TRUE CHRISITAN. THE BASIC TENET OF CHRISTIANITY IS THE BELIEVE IN THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST
Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate may be a better term for expression. As Anglican, we accept Mary as Theotokos (Mother of God).
Fake 😂 Mary is mother of which God?
@owusuphilipable Mother of God Incarnate (the second person of the Trinity) as Jesus is fully God and Man.
For reference, here is the transcript from the Acts 20 sermon series, where he exposits verse 28:
Well, that’s enough motive for me, but the Holy Spirit probably knew I needed even more, and added this at the end of verse 28, “Which He hath purchased with His own blood.” What is that saying? That’s saying that that flock of God is so precious, that He paid the supreme price. And if it’s that precious to Him, it ought to be that precious to me. Right? I mean if God would go to the extent of doing that, I want to make sure I take care of it.
God Himself, in the form of the Son, shed His blood for the purpose of the Church. “God paid the highest price, the precious blood of Jesus Christ,” Peter says. Could I dare treat this church, which he bought with his own blood in any less of a sense than would be commensurate with the price He paid? Could I treat the church as nothing? Could I use the church? Could I manipulate the church? Can I take advantage of the church? Could I starve the church?
Could I fail to teach the whole counsel of the church when this is what He wants and this is what price He paid to gain the church? And gave it to my care, and I should be unfaithful? It’s a precious flock. You’re a precious commodity. You cost a precious price; I better treat you as precious as you are.
(From the sermon "A Charge to New Testament Church Leaders, Part 1" May 19, 1974)
There is a big problem among Protestantism such that they will subscribe to many heretical teachings in an effort to not “sound Catholic”. This issue with Nestorianism is exhibit A.
Excellent work! Love your work sir!
Returning my John MacArthur study Bible immediately
Having a single point of contention is perhaps human and thus disregarding all sound literature for one mishap in doctrinal understanding is perhaps not the most wise thing to do.
@@learningagain4094 I know brother, all jokes. Don’t actually own a John MacArthur study Bible. God bless!
Awesome video RZ!
As a Catholic I'm happy that this needs to be called out.
If we could just read the Bible, that would be great.
Literally reading his book right now haha
"For every heresy, there is an equal and opposite counter-heresy."
Ah, so the filioque being inserted into the creed to combat Arianism then.
How dare you oppose the Pope of MacArthurianism Heretic! He founded MacArthauranity!
That’s right! He restored the true Church after that fiend Chancellor Constantine mixed Christianity with the Dark side and created the w*ore of Oklahoma!
What's the issue? Pope Leo said the same thing: "that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries." By that exact same token, one can say "One of them descends from heaven, the other is born from the Virgin's womb". This is precisely why Cyril's synod in Alexandria utterly rejected Chalcedon, because in the Tome they heard echoes of the same faulty Nestorian logic.
Stuff like these are reasons why I couldn't help but become Catholic.
Or Orthodox
Catholics 😂, Mary mother of God really, which God?
No reason to find another religion, the Bible says "He who hath the Son hath life".
I found that life at the cross and was reconciled to God the Father by Faith.
@@owusuphilipable is Jesus equal with the Father in His nature?
@@owusuphilipable The God of the Israelites. The God of the Bible. The only God who truly exists.
The phrase "Mary, mother of God" exists because in the early Church some people were saying that Jesus was not God. They denied Jesus' divine nature. Therefore, ONLY saying "Mary, mother of Jesus" was acceptable. But the others, who affirmed Jesus' divine nature, defended the phrase "Mary, mother of God". And that's about it,
I have a piece of furniture we call The Nestorian Loveseat because it presents as a unity, but it actually divides up into two separate persons.
I listened quite a while before I gave up on you. I didn't hear any proof that MacArthur was Nestorian.
Because he's legit not. Not any more than the Chalcedonian Creed. JMac has a theology book, and his Christology is solid.
He did give proof. Maybe not enough to convince you, but certainly enough that someone should be careful when reading his theology.
@@BrianRich1689 The calcedonian creed refers to Mary as the Theotokos.
@@gilgameschvonuruk4982 The Chalcedonian Creed says that Mary is the mother of God "According to the manhood". Which is exactly what JMac teaches.
@@kolab5620 when the Chalcedonian Creed says "according to His manhood" that would be considered Nestorian too if we apply the same criteria.
As a Roman Catholic you taught me something I didn't realize, thank you, may our Triune God bless you!
Mary was also a sinner who needed salvation and had other sons and daughters.
@jjreddog571 wrong
@@JosephStork Tell me why the scripture is wrong, it is not me it is the scripture you have an issue with. Mary is a sinner saved by grace, and she had other children as mentioned in the Word of God.
@@jjreddog571 No, I directly have a problem with you & your errored & flawed view of scripture. You read your false theology into the Bible, I get my theology from the Bible. Jesus' "brother's & sister's" are his cousins. There was no word in aramaic for cousin at the time. Also, you're by you suggesting Mary was concieved with original sin, that means Jesus was born from a sinfull womb & woman. You're making the Mother of God seem permiscuous. Also, you twist words like your father satan
@@JosephStork You need a real Bible and a gifted teacher who is full of the Holy Spirit who can get you on the right track. The Catholic church has put Mary in a position she never intended to be. Jesus Christ is her savior and if she was sinless then why did she die? Washed in the blood of the Lamb and not a son of Satan. Don`t you know no-one can call Jesus the Christ except that Father in heaven reveals' it to him.
10:39 I have to say I'm glad people like you are making content like this but I have to ask why it would be wrong to say that the blood of Christ is divine blood if Jesus is divine and His blood is the blood of God. BTW I'm Orthodox so that's the lens that I'm looking at this through.
What he meant by saying that Jesus' Blood isn't divine is that It doesn't have a Divine Nature. But it is divine insofar you take divine to mean "of God", instead of "of God's Nature"
Think it’s because you’re combining Jesus’s natures
In the person of Jesus is the spirit of the infinite, uncreated and eternal, God indwelling the finite envelope of a created man. According to Leviticus 17:11-14 'the life of the body is in its blood' so therefore Jesus is uniquely able to absolve human sin through the power of His blood, which, is not of infinite quantity but is of limitless power. Thus He is our 'kinsman redeemer' in the Old Testament sense and, mercifully, He only requires our faith in his sacrifice in exchange for our personal redemption. Hallelujah!
0:00 Introduction
1:03 What is Nestorianism?
3:38 What is the Chalcedonian view? Why is Nestorianism heretical?
7:20 Why does this matter?
10:51 John MacArthur as a Nestorian
15:43 History of Nestorians and Nestorianism
17:20 Final remarks
I'm evangelical, but I never was a fan of John MacArthur. I haven't seen too many of his sermons, but the ones I've seen made me angry because he was clearly strawmanning those he disagreed with. It's very hard for me to listen to someone if they can't fairly present the arguments of those they disagree with before presenting their counter-arguments. That is one of the reasons I like this channel. I'm not a Calvinist or Reformed, but I want to hear the honest arguments from those I may disagree with. I want to learn about Calvinism and be able to articulate their arguments fairly. I've even learned some things I agree with and other things that have made me think. I still disagree with Calvinism but it helps me improve my perspective. I respect RZ because he does try his best to fairly represent those he disagrees with. Is he perfect? No. Has he made mistakes? Yes. However, he always corrects himself when he realizes it.