[P-Marlowe]

MacArthur has published quite a lot regarding his theory that "it wasn't the blood" it was "the death."

And he's right. It was His death which accomplished the task. He did not simply "bleed" for our sins, he DIED for our sins. If it is merely the blood which is sufficient, then his death was unnecessary. He could have achieved the same thing by opening up a vein and catching a pint every couple of weeks until there was sufficient shedding of blood to accomplish the task.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV)

[Full Court]

If it is merely the blood which is sufficient, then his death was unnecessary.

I don't believe that anyone has claimed that, do you?

[Gamecock]

And he's right. It was His death which accomplished the task. He did not simply "bleed" for our sins, he DIED for our sins. If it is merely the blood which is sufficient, then his death was unnecessary.

Indeed, if all he needed to do was bleed, his circumcision would have fit the bill. (But that is what some RCs have said.)

[fortheDeclaration]

MacArthur has published quite a lot regarding his theory that "it wasn't the blood" it was "the death." And he's right. It was His death which accomplished the task. He did not simply "bleed" for our sins, he DIED for our sins. If it is merely the blood which is sufficient, then his death was unnecessary. He could have achieved the same thing by opening up a vein and catching a pint every couple of weeks until there was sufficient shedding of blood to accomplish the task.

No, he is not right.

The blood had to be applied to the mercy seat (Heb.9).

Christ did not have any blood when He came back, but flesh and bones (Lk.24:39).

R.B. Thieme taught this same heresy.

He stated in his work on the 'Blood of Christ' that the blood of Christ was not unusual, yet the blood was unusual, it was God's blood (Acts.20:28) and thus, able to be used on the heavenly mercy seat.

The source of this heresy is the modern text, as pointed out by Cloud in his Way of Life Encylopedia.

[fortheDeclaration]

Christ did both, bled and died for our sins.

The Blood was for our justification. The death for our reconcilation. (Rom.5:9-10)