Posted on 05/21/2006 2:04:31 PM PDT by Full Court
That's JM's false claim. The articles clearly shows that the person writing it has a problem with the doctrine he is teaching.
Then begin by answering PMarlowe. By attacking John MacArthur, you have attacked me.
Now you have called him a liar.
MacArthur has published quite a lot regarding his theory that "it wasn't the blood" it was "the death."
So it's not "propaganda" to discuss what JM has put out for public consumption.
I quite agree with this approach. The problem I have with E.L. Bynum's articles in this thread, however, is that Bynumy doesn't even come close to doing this. I went through all the articles you've posted at the top of this thread, and documented all the citations that Bynum gives to back up his charges against MacArthur. What I found was most troubling:
Almost all of the citations given to support the charge that "MacArthur's position on the Blood of Christ is a great heresy" - come from only one actual MacArthur work, an article titled "Not His Bleeding, but His Dying" that is said to have been written in 1976. In four article written by Bynum, only one gives a reference to the work this article was published in - the "Grace To You Family paper". The charge of heresy was first published in the Bob Jones University publication "Faith For the Family", April 1986 edition.
Let me summarize this for emphasis:
the article was written in a 1976 church newsletter. No critique was made or published until ten years later.
One other significant John MacArthur source is named by Bynum, specifically the 1983 edition of MacArthur's Commentary on the Book of Hebrews, which Bynum claims to have purchased in the 1990s (meaning AFAIK it never came up in the 1986 Bob Jones article, despite being published three years earlier). Only three pages are cited from this 400+ page work, all for use of the word "symbol" in connection with the word "blood", but none, in and of themselves, containing any heretical statements. Instead, MacArthur's language is alleged to be like another writer, and that writer's work is castigated.
Once again, let me summarize Bynum's position for clarity:
No complaint is made against MacArthur's 1983 Hebrews Commentary except for three adjoining pages, wherein it is found offensive solely for resembling another writer's work. No actual heresy charge is laid against MacArthur's Hebrews commentary.
The only other MacArthur writings actually cited are three personal letters written in 1986, in response to the Bob Jones University article, to try and correct the misunderstandings made of his 1976 article. Bynum will hear none of it, in part because the 1986 letters disagree with his understanding of the 1976 article, in part because Bynum doesn't agree with MacArthur's definition of various OT types and symbols.
The last charge made against MacArthur is his speaking at or attending multiple leadership conferences, often naming Billy Graham's connection with each as the chief offensive element. These include conferences connected with the Moody Bible Institute, the National Religious Broadcasters association, Wheaton College, and Jerry Falwell's "Super Conference VIII". At no point does Bynum provide details about what MacArthur said or did at any of these - his attendance is all that matters.
So let's bring it back to your statement at the top of this post:
"I believe the more a person knows about what someone teaches and preaches, the safer you are"
John MacArthur has been in a public ministry since at least 1976. That's thirty years of ministry. MacArthur has written at least 75 different publications in those thirty years, and that doesn't count the volumes of content his daily radio program features. Out of all that content, at least a decade's worth prior to 1986, someone waited ten years to claim MacArthur is a heretic, and their best ammo is a couple of sentences out of a ten-year-old, narrowly-circulated magazine?
Did you know that John MacArthur once attended Bob Jones University? Dollars to donuts, MacArthur did something in '85 or '86 - possibly his becoming president of competing Master's College in 1985 - that torqued off Bob Jones University, and someone on the faculty kept one of MacArthur's old church bulletins in a desk drawer "just in case" their old student needed to be taught a lesson.
I believe the comments about the blood of Jesus, by JM present a serious error.
This is from his letter which supposedly straightens things out."When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death."I don't believe he is correct.
The blood means nothing without the death.
I'm sure that Jesus, being a carpenter, bled many times prior to His crucifixion.
None of that prior blood (of Jesus) was effacacious to our salvation.
His blood is a symbol of His death.
We are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus (of His life, not His blood) ... else ... why would He have had to die ?
He could have given many time over as much blood as He gave at the crucifixion ... had he lived.John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Thank you.
"Rejects every attempt either to deny the literalness of the Blood or to minimize its efficacy and the necessity of its shedding in Christ's death on the cross. Such denial is a dangerous and devilish deception;"
Isaiah writes that His soul (life) was made an offering for sin, not His blood. "The Life of the flesh is in the blood", the blood being the symbol of life.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Well you might ask your new friend Dangus about that.
"When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death."
I don't believe he is correct. In fact, I believe he is TOTALLY wrong.
Revelation 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
And none of the pastors you accuse of "looking for heresies" where there wasn't any quoted JM out of context.
And being a fundamentalist isn't a bad thing.
And while I am thinking about it, part of JM's problems are caused by the fact that he uses a different bible to preach from than the KJV.
If one compares what the KJV says about the blood of Jesus with what the NASB says, it can lead one to different conclusions.
Colossians 1:14 King James Version (KJV)
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. [No blood in the NASB in this verse!!]
King James Version (KJV)
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,(NASB) and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood-- Revelation 1:4-6 (in Context)
King James Version (KJV)
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Hebrews 12:3-5 (in Context) Hebrews 12
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
[ A Father's Discipline ] You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; Hebrews 12:3-5 (in Context)
King James Version (KJV) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Hebrews 10:28-30 (in Context) Hebrews 10 (Whole Chapter)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
King James Version (KJV)
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Hebrews 9:21-23 (in Context) Hebrews 9
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
And according to the Law, one may almost say, [huh? almost say?] all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Hebrews 9:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Hebrews 9:19-21 (in Context) Hebrews 9
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
saying, " THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU."
But wasn't Christ, as the Pascal Lamb, the final Sacrifice which began with Abel's sacrifice? And wasn't the blood both of Abel's sacrifice and Christ's significant as that which atoned for sin? St. Paul refers to the Blood of Christ a lot. Do I have all of that wrong?
I don't think this gentleman is a heretic from what I've read here, just someone who wants to be sure we remember that 'it is finished' is the starting point of our redemption and salvation. I so hesitate in accusing anyone of heresy, because to some, I'm a heretic.
From what I know of this man he has spent his life in service to God, without scandal. Full Court, to take what he said so many years ago and by that imply that he is some sort of enemy of God's true teaching is way too facile, and way too lacking in perspective and charity.
Excuse me, do you have some kind of a personal axe to grind against me? If you do, please take it private.
Since when is it your job to moderate this forum or attack other posters for what they post, whether it was by request of someone else or not?
Who are you to tell people what is sufficient?
I didn't post a link on that thread because it wasn't about that.
But since when does permission have to go by you as to what gets posted?
Sorry but Bynum clearly makes it personal. He calls MacArthur a hypercalvinist, which he clearly is not. He also accuses him of being some kind of eccumenist as if attempting to bring various denominations together for fellowship is the root of all evil. Bynum is off topic as much if not more than he is on topic. Clearly Bynum has it in for MacArthur for more than his rather orthodox (from a protestant point of view) opinion on the blood of Christ. FWIW Bynum's view is much closer to Catholicism than protestantism and that is why it appears you have found common ground with your Roman buddies on this thread.
You are now calling John MacArthur a liar. He may be a lot of things, but I can say one thing, I may disagree with his theology, but I have never questioned MacArthur's veracity. If Bynum calls MacArthur is a hypercalvinist, then it is Bynum's credibility that is in issue.
BTW have you ever been wrong before?
No, he uses the NKJV as well. FYI I am NKJV myself.
No one in the article that exposed JM said or taught that, despite his claims. Note that he gives zero examples.
I was asked to define what I disagreed with in JM's letter in post #52 and I did so.
I will repeat it here.
"When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death."
He's wrong.
I had overlooked this, so pardon the delay:
I wouldn't commend someone to the teachings of a man of great works, just on the basis of his works. If Graham were promoting heresy, I would concur with criticism of him.
But what was quoted of Graham was not the promotion of heresy, but the exaggeration of a spontaneous response into the thrust of his ministry. That's what I thought was unfair. Furthermore, the man correcting Graham also made very grave errors.
Contrariwise, this man is teaching this nonsense in a very academic manner.
>> There was no difference in his conduct, either personally or professionally. And yet there were attempts, to make it so. <<
I do find it appropriate the an evangelist would keep his rebukes private.
Attack, schmack. I don't even know you.
All I did was post what people think about what JM has published and written publicly on the Blood of Jesus.
Proof: I'm Catholic, and I'm agreeing with you, therefore you're wrong. QED.
P.S.- Do these guys not have Hebrews 9:11-22 in their Bibles, or what?
By their fruits we shall know them. I find it quite disingenuous of you to now be attacking PMarlowe, when all he has done is post JM's full response and ask you to respond to it. Calling in the moderator when you pretend you want intelligent debate with mature Christians.
I don't believe that is the case. It probably had more to do with the advances of the internet.
I do know that the Sword of the Lord newspaper published objections to several of his theories, long before people had the internet and were able to get news out faster.
Did you know that John MacArthur once attended Bob Jones University? Dollars to donuts, MacArthur did something in '85 or '86 - possibly his becoming president of competing Master's College in 1985 - that torqued off Bob Jones University, and someone on the faculty kept one of MacArthur's old church bulletins in a desk drawer "just in case" their old student needed to be taught a lesson.
yes, I knew that, he attended there for two years.
And Master's does not compete with BJU.
BJU is a fundamentalist independent baptist, non calvinistic, conservative in music and dress school on the east coast.
Master's is a more ecumenical school, calvinistic, contemporary dress and music type school.
They certainly would not attract the same crowd.
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.