Share this comment
Thanks for the post. I am blessed and encouraged by your work.
How should we look at statements like those from John MacArthur that seem to espouse a Nestorian distinction between the natures of Christ:
“She gave birth to Jesus in his humanity. She did not give birth to God. God was never born.”
gty.org/library/sermons… (quote about 14 para…
Thanks for the post. I am blessed and encouraged by your work.
How should we look at statements like those from John MacArthur that seem to espouse a Nestorian distinction between the natures of Christ:
“She gave birth to Jesus in his humanity. She did not give birth to God. God was never born.”
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-314/exposing-the-idolatry-of-mary-worship-an-overview (quote about 14 paragraphs in)
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-10/the-foundations-of-the-virgin-birth (included for context)
I certainly agree with the point he is making in the sermon about (likely) idolatrous practices elevating Mary that are rampant in Roman Catholicism. But I am questioning the distinctions he is making as it seems to be the same break between the natures of Christ that Nestorius did. Is this a case of theological error based in lack of grounding, heresy, or am I just reading into it too much?
For the record: I greatly appreciate JM but can also disagree with him.
Glad to hear it, Michael!
“She gave birth to Jesus in his humanity. She did not give birth to God. God was never born.”
This quote by itself is incorrect. But I highly doubt that JMAC regularly speaks like Nestorius does. It could be Roman Catholic polemics, and JMAC simply spoke inappropriately.
JMAC has done a lot of good work over the years, and so I'd hesitate to see this one instance of incorrect theology to be indicative of his overall Christology.
That said, I'd probably have to look at specific sermons on Christ's natures to really be able to make a judgement.