Posted on 05/21/2006 2:04:31 PM PDT by Full Court
I don't find that they are. For example, JM supports musicians in his church, or has music groups play at the college that he wouldn't agree with doctrinally, yet he would enjoy fellowship with them.
From post 52:
My first response was to write many of those men privately, believing their attack on me grew from a misunderstanding. None of them had spoken to me personally before attacking me in print. Only a handful have yet replied to my letters.
You still have not responded. Point out any heretical statement in post 52.
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;
His calim is that he was attacked personally, which is not true. His teaching on the blood of Jesus Christ was attacked.
2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
Now this is true, FC, but have we sprinkled it on our doorposts, do we dabble it behind our ears, or God forbid, do we drink it in Communion?
You'd do that?
Indeed, if all he needed to do was bleed, his circumcision would have fit the bill. (But that is what some RCs have said.)
Well, since the catholics are trying to get me banned over the Opus Dei Awarenss thread, and now the Calvinist don't like me, I guess my days are numbered.
Those of you familiar with my teaching know that I have always believed and affirmed those things. For the past two or three years, however, I have been under attack by a small but vocal group of men who are eager to discredit my ministry. They have charged me with denying the blood of Christ and have called me a heretic in several nationally distributed publications.
Well he has been called a heretic on this thread. Apparently none of his accusers ever sat down with him and discussed the problem before going public and calling him a heretic. That is, IMO, a personal attack.
Now unless you can actually prove that he is a heretic, then I think you need to apologize for your comments.
Now go to post 52 and show me a heretical statement.
Or apologize.
I have responded. I don't find that he has rejected his prior teachings that it was not the blood of Jesus.
Did he reject his false teaching on that and I missed it?
I know he has recanted on some other mistakes he has made........
"What I am saying is that when we present a shallow gospel, we don’t prevent the elect from getting saved; we make people think they’re saved who aren’t. That’s the issue. Do you see the distinction?"
Is he saying there will be people at the judgment seat saying, "Gee, I thought I was saved?"
On the wall in my house is a list of rules for a good marriage. One of the rules states that, "in an argument, the one who does most of the talking is usually the one in the wrong".
Christ's death was a perfect sacrifice to pay the penalty for sin and pave the way for salvation from the second death. If it takes you several thousand words to explain what you believe the blood of Christ did, then who are you seeking worship for, yourself or the Lord? Being a Christian is not supposed to be this complicated.
Your days are numbered, but not by me and I'm sure not by anyone other than the Catholic posters. I think of you still as a friend, but I fear you love attention and controversy more than you do your Christian brethren.
So, Full Court, was the blood shed at his circumcision also carried by angels into heaven?
Are we washed in that blood?
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.
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;
Point out the heresy in post 52. That is his position. In his own words. Not taken out of context.
There isn't anything heretical in there is there? Perhaps that is because he was quoted out of context by your fundamentalist buddies or because they were looking for heresy where there was none.
Perhaps he did not recant because he had nothing to recant. Perhaps it is because he really believes what he said in post 52.
Now, yes or no:
Is there anything heretical in MacArthur's position in post 52?
Yes or no?
If yes, please point it out. If not, please apologize.
Clearly the word blood is often used to mean more than the literal red fluid. Thus it is that when Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ, it usually means much more than just the red and white corpuscles—it encompasses His death, the sacrifice for our sins, and all that is involved in the atonement. Trying to make literal every reference to Christ's blood can lead to serious error. The Catholic doctrine known as transubstantiation, for example, teaches that communion wine is miraculously changed into the actual blood of Christ, and that those who partake of the elements in the mass literally fulfill the words of Jesus in John 6:54: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Those who have attacked me seem to be espousing the same kind of mystical view of the blood that led the Catholic Church to embrace transubstantiation. They claim that the blood of Christ was never truly human. They insist on literalizing
I enjoy discussing subjects of depth, because purity in the church is something that is very important to me.
I would hope that I would find some mature believers that would want to discuss the same, rather than become enemies and plan attacks.
Certain people have done that to me (attack and not discuss issues) almost since I arrived, when I posted something that went against their love of rock music.
I don't find that you try and sanction them for their unloving behavior.
Yet you assign motive to me that certainly are not correct, and place some illusive kind of love above the search for truth.
What's the point in posting articles and discussing issues if we all have to be in lock step with one another to enjoy the process?
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.