Posted on 05/21/2006 2:04:31 PM PDT by Full Court
As you requested ping.
Just read the first couple lines, as that is all I need to read. MacArthur, like many other pastors on the radio, may say things that someone chooses to pick apart/dissect. If they choose to do that, that is their business. But, I also think that is a very bad plan. In general, he knows what he's talking about, and somebody will always find something wrong. To my thinking, this follows the same logic by which many choose to criticize others. It is essentially over a couple talking points, that have nothing to do with the whole picture. And yet this line of faulty thinking, gives many their arsenal to destroy. And, how Christlike is that?
Much appreciate the ping. Will read and respond to it later.
Are the connected websites from which this article is posted indicative of fundamental baptist belief?
*sigh* I was actually going to avoid your threads, but I have to agree with you on this one, so I'll say so! How on Earth could anyone claiming scholarliness state that blood symbolizes death to the ancients? Quite the opposite; its association with life is key even to understanding the death cults, who sacrificed human life to obtain blood with which to scatter on their fields in vain hopes of restoring life to it?
Blood was life to the ancients! It was the substance which carried life within a person! LOSS of blood was death!
The basic symbolism ... and it is so much more than mere symbolism! ... is that Christ shed his immortal blood/life, so that we could receive his blood/life, and thus have a share in his immortality through his gift! Christianity is not a death cult! Rather, Christ willingly surrendered his life so that we may share in it, but since his life is infinite, he did not remain dead, but rose on the third day.
Reminds me of something Thoreau said:
There are those who would find fault with the morning red = if they ever got up early enough.
I don't wish to be too harsh in response to you, for Full Court has established a pattern of posting criticisms of teachings which are very uncharitable towards their teachers. But I would say that the false teaching here is very grave, and indicative of an attitude which is distressingly dismissive of the bible. I would not, from this issue, assert that McArthur is a hell-bound apostate, but I would say that there is a false teaching here which is very dangerous.
If I may explain why my response to this post is so different than the one to the post slamming Billy Graham:
Graham was not affirmatively pressing heresy. When pressed about an issue which was inherently very divisive, he professed a very charitable ignorance. It may not have been doctrinally correct, but it was an answer born of a charitable reflex. It was not something Graham was trying to impress on others, just a personal declination to fighting a fight he didn't see as worth it. In response, the article all but labeled Graham a pagan anti-Christ.
This article, at least towards the start, takes more of an issue with what McArthur has preached, rather than who he is. And, unless the article has fundamentally misrepresented McArthur's behavior, it is McArthur, not some interviewer, who has pushed the issue. Thus, in contrast to Graham, who simply refused to make a dogmatic issue a grounds for an ideological war within the Church, McArthur appears to be making a conflict.
I think he can't see the trees for the the forest though. The Jews (and perhaps all people, at the time) thought blood to be precious in a way that is almost indescribable. Blood held life, life held blood. It wasn't only valued, it was loved.
If you saw The Passion of the Christ you'll remember that scene when Our Lord's Blessed Mother is frantically trying to collect his spilled blood. To let his blood trickle away was unthinkable. I know that it's just a movie, but I think it's based on how the Jews of that time viewed blood, to say nothing of the Blood of Our Lord.
At least that's my thinking, Full Court. I do want to say though that I don't know how any priest, pastor or preacher can elaborate on the Faith day in and day out, and not at some point venture off into what many would consider heresy, without any intent to do so. I would hate to have to come under that kind of scrutiny in my own life.
I have a copy of MacArthur's Hebrews commentary and have read it in context, pages 236-7, and do not deduce from it any heretical teaching, but rather, covenantal teaching. The title of the chapter where this is found is "Necessity of Messiah's Death," then the subtitles "A Testament Demands Death" and "Forgiveness Demands Blood."
IMO, after researching one of the original sources quoted in this article, I come away thinking the author of the posted article is on a heresy hunt and looks for heresy in all the wrong places.
For reference for any interested (and this is even in the RSV, but the point still seems clear to me!)
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Hebrews 9:11-14
Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh... Hebrews 10:19-20
So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Hebrews 13:12
John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Revelations 1: 4-6
I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Revelations 7:14
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. Acts 20:28
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace which he lavished upon us. Ephesians 1:7-8
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. Ephesians 2:13
They are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins... Romans 3:24-25
But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. Romans 5:8-9
For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Colossians 1: 19-20
You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
1 Peter 1:18-19
I don't know the answer to that.
I did find a couple of links there that I wouldn't agree with personally.
E.L. Bynum is a well respected pastor. He isn't the only person to expose this false teaching of Macarthur's, he is just the one I found first.
Pie pelicane, Iesu Domine,
me immundum munda tuo sanguine.
Aw, come on. We don't have to be in lock step to discuss something.
Full Court, how do you define heresy?
He is well respected in some circles, but not all. Certainly not in independent baptist circles where they still believe that Scripture is inerrant.
Amen!
Or, in an idiom that comes out of the heart of America, not Aquinas' words, but in a similar vein:
What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
For my pardon, this I see,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
For my cleansing this my plea,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
This is all my hope and peace,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
St. Thomas understood this one truth better than many, I warrant....
Kelly Willard! I still have that 45 -one of my favorites!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.