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?
*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.
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.
God bless John MacArthur!
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.
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.
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.
John MacArthur
Pastor-Teacher
There should be no question concerning his position on historic Christian doctrine.
I guess this is the ecclesiastical version of a "hit piece"...
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.