Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/21/2006 2:04:34 PM PDT by Full Court
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Alex Murphy

As you requested ping.


2 posted on 05/21/2006 2:06:35 PM PDT by Full Court (¶Let no man deceive you by any means)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Full Court

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?


3 posted on 05/21/2006 2:45:02 PM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Full Court

*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.


6 posted on 05/21/2006 4:02:18 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Full Court
I didn't read the whole thing, but from what I read I think he's trying to get people to recognize that it took Christ's Death to redeem us. That only when 'it is finished' was proclaimed could our redemption be had, and that focusing on the Blood of Christ is somehow some type of compartmentalization that might have the tendency to lead to 'idolatry.'

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.

10 posted on 05/21/2006 4:38:04 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Full Court

God bless John MacArthur!


21 posted on 05/21/2006 7:26:31 PM PDT by buckeyesrule
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Full Court

Where is the Barf Alert - John is one of the greatest Bible teachers in the history of the Church in the US...certainly in the top 100 of all time. The idiocy demonstrated above reveals the limitations of the author, not the short-comings of John's teaching.


33 posted on 05/21/2006 9:51:06 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Full Court

Am not a great fan of McArthur's at all.

But THE BLOOD--THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF THE LAMB IS WITHOUT PEER IN ALL CREATION.

The bloodline from Adam to Christ is clear. The Scripture is clear that without the shedding of blood, there's no remission of sins.

I've always been wary and avoidant of folks who are skittish and minimizing about THE BLOOD--THE PRECIOUS BLOOD.

God chose the means, import, value to emphasize re Salvation. I choose to love what God loves and hate what God hates.

Praise God for Christ--once and for all.

Thanks for the post.


41 posted on 05/22/2006 8:49:51 AM PDT by Quix ( PREPARE . . . PRAY . . . PLACE your trust, hope, faith and life in God's hands moment by moment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Full Court; Dr. Eckleburg; AlbionGirl; Alex Murphy; suzyjaruki; HarleyD; George W. Bush; ...

I Believe in the Precious Blood


By John MacArthur
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 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.

Dear Beloved Friend,
The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is holy and precious. The shedding of His blood in death was the price of atonement for our sins. As He literally poured out His blood in a sacrificial act, He sealed forever the New Covenant and purchased our redemption.
    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.
    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. Still, I expected the public controversy to die away. My teaching is certainly no secret, and I knew that those who listen regularly to our radio broadcast would know I am a not teaching heresy.
    Nevertheless, for nearly three years a small core of zealots have kept the issue swirling around every ministry I'm involved with. One man has literally made a career of going to any church in the country that will pay his way and giving a series of messages on the error of "MacArthurism." Recently, a couple of key radio stations dropped "Grace to You," not because of anything we taught on the broadcast, but because they did not want to continue to deal with the controversy being generated by rumormongers.
    Over the past couple of years we have received thousands of letters from all over the country, ranging from those supporting our biblical view, to those who are confused, to some who blindly echo the accusation that we are trampling underfoot the blood of Christ. For the sake of all of them, and so that you can better understand what I have taught about the blood of Christ, let's look at three truths that I and all other genuine believers affirm about the blood of Jesus Christ.

1. Jesus' Blood Is the Basis of Redemption


    Peter wrote, "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [like] silver and gold . . .but with the precious blood of Christ" (1 Pet. 1:18-19, KJV). Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ nearly three times as often as it mentions the cross, and five times more often than it refers to the death of Christ. The word blood, therefore, is the chief term the New Testament uses to refer to the atonement.
    Peter wrote that election is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:2). The "sprinkling of the blood" was what sealed the New Covenant (cf. Heb. 9:1-18). "Without shedding of blood is no remission" (v. 22). If Christ had not literally shed His blood in sacrifice for our sins, we could not have been saved.
    This is one reason crucifixion was the means God ordained by which Christ should die: it was the most vivid, visible display of life being poured out as the price for sins.
    Bloodshed was likewise God's design for nearly all Old Testament sacrifices. They were bled to death rather than clubbed, strangled, suffocated, or burnt. God designed that sacrificial death was to occur with blood loss, because "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11).

2. Jesus Shed His Literal Blood When He Died


    The literal blood of Christ was violently shed at the crucifixion. Those who deny this truth or try to spiritualize the death of Christ are guilty of corrupting the gospel message. Jesus Christ bled and died in the fullest literal sense, and when He rose from the dead, he was literally resurrected. To deny the absolute reality of those truths is to nullify them (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14-17).
    The meaning of the crucifixion, however, is not fully expressed in the bleeding alone. There was nothing supernatural in Jesus' blood that sanctified those it touched. Those who flogged Him might have been spattered with blood. Yet that literal application of Jesus' blood did nothing to purge their sins.
    Had our Lord bled without dying, redemption would not have been accomplished. If the atonement had been stopped before the full wages of sin had been satisfied, Jesus' bloodshed would have been to no avail.
    It is important to note also that though Christ shed His blood, Scripture does not say He bled to death; it teaches rather that He voluntarily yielded up His spirit (John 10:18). Yet even that physical death could not have bought redemption apart from His spiritual death, whereby He was separated from the Father (cf. Mat. 27:46).

3. Not Every Reference to Jesus' Blood Is Literal


    Clearly, though Christ shed His literal blood, many references to the blood are not intended to be taken in the literal sense. A strictly literal interpretation cannot, for example, explain such passages as John 6:53-54: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
    It would be equally hard to explain how physical blood is meant in Matthew 27:25 ("His blood be on us, and on our children"); Acts 5:28 ("[You] intend to bring this man's blood upon us"); 18:6 ("Your blood be upon your own heads"); 20:26 ("I am innocent of the blood of all men"); and 1 Corinthians 10:16 ("The cup of blessing . . .is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?," KJV).
    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 every New Testament reference to Jesus' blood. They teach that the physical blood of Christ was somehow preserved after the crucifixion and carried to heaven, where it is now literally applied to the soul of each Christian at salvation.
    We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus' literal blood. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. 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.
    In the same way, when Paul said he gloried in the cross (Gal. 6:14), he did not mean the literal wooden beams; he was speaking of all the elements of redeeming truth. Just as the cross is an expression that includes all of Christ's atoning work, so is the blood. It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out.
    That is not heresy; it is basic biblical truth.
    If you've been troubled by these issues and you'd like to study them more in depth, please write to us. We'll send you free of charge a cassette tape containing virtually everything I've ever said about the blood of Christ. We've compiled this tape from nearly twenty years of messages given at Grace Community Church. We also have some written material that explains our position, which we will send you again at no charge.
    I hope you'll be like the noble Bereans and study God's Word for yourself to see if these things are true. Please don't be influenced by careless charges of heresy.
    Also, please pray for me. These attacks have been relentless, and I confess that at times it is discouraging. Yet I know one cannot be on the front lines without constant battles, and it is a privilege to suffer wrong for the Lord's sake (cf. 1 Pet. 4:19).
    Thank you for your prayers and support. Please pray that God will protect us as we seek to minister His truth with boldness.
Yours in His Service,


John MacArthur
Pastor-Teacher

52 posted on 05/24/2006 10:04:59 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Full Court
..John MacArthur is one of the finest theologians in the world.

There should be no question concerning his position on historic Christian doctrine.

I guess this is the ecclesiastical version of a "hit piece"...

383 posted on 05/25/2006 8:26:52 PM PDT by WalterSkinner ( ..when there is any conflict between God and Caesar -- guess who loses?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Full Court

An enormous amount of faith and doctrine is available by studying the Blood of Christ.

John MacArthur's comments are indeed true in many aspects and for the believer in fellowship with Christ, may offer food for further understanding the Word of God by the work of the Holy Spirit.

The article's author quickly criticizes the person of MacArthur without comprehending the Scriptural references which he seeks to argue from a rationalistic perspective.

It's a bit ironic that the same critic who would seek to use Scripture to argue the point, fails to allow the Holy Spirit to furthur his grasp of doctrine regarding the Blood of Christ and its significance throughout Scripture in the very fashion John MacArthur attempts to illustrate.

Funny thing about faith. One either has it or they don't.

In the late 70s to mid eighties, there were quite a few doctrines touching upon the Blood of Christ, which also echoed the notes mentioned in this article.

Billy Graham, MacArthur, Thieme, and a number of DTS alumni shared that perspective that was very well reasoned and divinely guided.

I've noticed some Calvary Chapel ministries recently have lapsed into the reformed legalistic perspective that the blood is more materially significant than the life of Christ that was being sacrificed.


441 posted on 05/26/2006 12:47:38 PM PDT by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson