Does it not give you pause to wonder why it is that the Catholics are praising you for posting this thread?
Perhaps if you read exactly what it was that MacArthur said instead of relying on those who attack him because they disagree with his soteriology. MacArthur is one of the best Bible teachers of the 20th Century. I suspect he will go down as one of the best of the 21st Century. When you see accusations against him for being heretical and you see the rabid Catholics jumping on the bandwagon, perhaps it is time to take pause and actually read what it is that MacArthur wrote rather than what other say he wrote.
He has made himself clear in post number 52. Why don't you address that post and let everyone know where he is being heretical there. That is his actual teaching on the subject.
That was my first thought, too, P-M, but I feared saying it. Thanks for doing so.
Bynum prefers:
The Bible Reveals:
1. That the precious Blood is incorruptible. It cannot be anything else because of its intrinsic purity. I Peter 1:18,19: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold...But with the precious blood of Christ.."
2. That the precious blood is indestructible. It cannot be anything else because of its permanence. The Blood is eternally preserved in Heaven. Hebrews 12:24: "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."
3. That the precious Blood is invaluable. It cannot be anything else because of its parentage. It is the Blood of God incarnate. Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood..." Acts 20:28: "...the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
4. That the precious Blood is indispensable. It cannot be anything else because of its power. No sinner can be saved without washing in the Blood of the Lamb. Revelations 7:14: "..these are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
MaArthur says:
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.
The scripture says:
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another [psalm], Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
What the scriptures seem to say is that "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood" and it was the Father who raised up Jesus from the dead so that His flesh, which includes His blood, would not experience corruption. Therefore the intrinsic worth of the blood of Jesus is in His life and death. The emphasis is on the life, not the blood, which is the symbol of life and in its shedding, death. Looks like Bynum, in his extreme literal translation, is overly sentimental to the point of idolatry.
I noticed that Dangus replied on this thread. Is that bad?
I don't find that he made him self clear. I also don't find that he rejected any of his previous written and spoken statements.
In fact, I was appalled that he made it some kind of personal argument and accused those who disagreed with his teaching of having something personal against him!!!!