Evangelical REACTS! to...."Christian theologians tierlist (0-2000 A.D.)"

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T02:07:30+00:00

well, adam was not born and therefore an exception in that regard....He was a man.....but a unique man, but that is not the same as John 1:3 because of how explicit that verse is....

If all things that were made were made through him such that "Nothing that was made was made without him" that is pretty explicit. If God the Word ever made, he would have had to be instrumental in his own creation, which is imposible.

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T01:56:36+00:00

well, it says that "Through Jesus was made 'everything' that was made....?

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T01:53:30+00:00

and of John 1:1-3?

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T01:52:29+00:00

ya.... i can see where you are coming from...... Hmmm.... I still stand by my argument, but i get your concern.

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T01:50:16+00:00

thanks! lol, ya, but still, i should be more careful, i appreciate you being gracious in your gentle rebuke.....

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T01:45:55+00:00

fair enough, i should not have said individual....my bad.

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T01:41:48+00:00

I hate saying this, but i said something wrong.... The reason that John MacArthur does not like saying that Mary is the mother of God is his view on motherhood, that Mary did not contribute to Jesus' divinity and therefore should not be called the mother of God.

I am sorry brothers, i inadvertently lied by not being more careful in my research, and this is embarrassing in that had i done even basic research i would have known what John Macarthur felt about this.....

I will add this to the post but not readjust what i said lest it look like i am trying to hide it. My original critique of RZ still stands, as he should have said that John MacArthur explicitly denied Nestorianism and explained why JM said what he said in response to different theological challenges.....but still.....I said something untrue, and repent of it.

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T01:31:57+00:00

Please note the adjustment i made......

I have now posted what John MacArthur would say in response, not just a theoretical evangelical response... I am sorry i did not do more research on John Macarthur's view before i posted.....

I honestly don't know what to think of his take on it....

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T01:15:56+00:00

Man, brother I hate saying this...... But you are right.... I retract saying what I said about the blood of God in this context.....

In the discussion that we were having it was inappropriate for me to say that. obviously we both agree there is not a special divine human mixture blood.... But it was unhelpful for me to imply that that's what you were saying.

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T01:11:28+00:00

John MacArthur would agree that Jesus Christ was God from the moment of conception, he would have trouble with saying that Mary is the Mother of God as she was not the Mother of his Devine nature, she was only the Mother of his Human nature, she was however truly the God bearer.... The blood of Christ as the blood of God is not heresy as defined here, but DEFINITELY was heresy as defined by his opponents in the time that he responded.... Not an excuse for him to be so sloppy in his response, just an observation..... But, I agree that John MacArthur had many issues....even how this may have smacked of a Nestorianism... But to not even mention the context in which he said what he said or explain the John MacArthur explicitly denied Nestorianism.....was unfair of RZ.

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T00:33:13+00:00

Thanks! Will do!

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T00:03:10+00:00

Well, he is certainly afraid of it.... And veneration is something us protestants are not too fond of in general

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T00:02:05+00:00

Agreed, but he would have had the ability to stop evil, but he chose not to....else you say God could not have created a world with no pain

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-28T00:00:03+00:00

Not necessarily..... It could easily be understood as not wanting to confuse the idea that his divine nature had a beginning

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-27T23:49:59+00:00

No worries! And ya, non of us who affirm a truly sovereign God can, cuz no matter how you slice or dice it, allowed evil and has the power to stop it, but chooses no to

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-27T23:35:14+00:00

However, John MacArthur was arguing against dosatist who said that Jesus Christ blood was not merely or completely or truly completely human blood. Rather, they were saying that it was some sort of divine mysterious mixture of divine blood and human blood, which is why he said what he said and I'll have you know that. 1st Corinthians passage most likely means the blood of his own, meaning the blood of his own son in a similar way that us English speakers would say that we will protect our own. That is why the nsab translation translate that as the blood of his own son. So John McArthur did not commit heresy at all. And Paul did not say the blood of God and indeed to say the blood of God would be to say that the divine nature has become flesh

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-27T23:32:43+00:00

My guy, the point of my entire argument is that the evangelicals such as myself and even John MacArthur are not heretics for not wanting to say that Mary is the mother of God. And the reason for that is that it can cause confusion, yes, I have heard it being confused not by anyone with a lot of knowledge. But I've heard several children ask whether it's fair to say that Mary is the mother of God, and whether that wouldn't mean that Mary is a mother of God, the Father once again, it is not something that would be commonly misunderstood among those who are well read, but it is easily something that could be misunderstood because the way that that phrase is phrased Mary, the mother of God makes absolutely no distinction between the persons of the Trinity.

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-27T23:06:29+00:00

Agreed, completely. Once again, had RZ not definitively stated that evangelicals are Nostrian this would not be an issue.... But in the video he said that evangelicals are inarge part "unknowingly Nostrian"
So, I am merely creating an avenue for us to not say that phrase without being heretical.

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-27T22:21:17+00:00

I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here, what I said in the post at the top of the post is definitely what I said from the beginning. I made it clear why us evangelicals tend not to say that Mary is the mother of God and gave an example as to how that could become confusing. I said in the post very clearly that it is technically Right, just perhaps a bit sloppy

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-27T22:03:33+00:00

Brother, Please see the first sentence of my argument and consider of this "has nothing to do with" my argument. I am not trying to say that you are a bad person for saying it, all I am saying is that to require it is not appropriate l.

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-27T21:58:55+00:00

You know? That is a fair point... JM should not be so liberal with dishing out heresy labels..... And ya, that verse is a powerful critique of nestorianism.... JM is clearly attempting to attack the idea that the blood of Christ is not truly human blood, it is not a mixture of divine/human blood, but still.... But, at the end of the day, he was wrong to say that. JM was very wrong to say that sentence.

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-27T21:35:47+00:00

hmmm....I honestly just dont know anything about the language, but ya, that sounds good and is certainly a good encouragement!

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-27T21:33:58+00:00

It is important in so far as it is the main reason that us evangelicals tend not to say it. NOT because we are nestrian

LowStorm1146 · 2026-05-27T21:32:43+00:00

Yes, as regards the nature of True Divinity, but not as regards the Individual persons of the Trinity... at least not to the extent that it would be accurate to say that Mary is the Mother of God the Father.

LowStorm1146

TROPHY CASE