Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Full Court
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!!!!

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.

82 posted on 05/24/2006 1:09:44 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: P-Marlowe

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.


84 posted on 05/24/2006 1:14:06 PM PDT by Full Court (¶Let no man deceive you by any means)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

To: P-Marlowe

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........


90 posted on 05/24/2006 1:21:42 PM PDT by Full Court (¶Let no man deceive you by any means)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

To: P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; AlbionGirl; Alex Murphy; suzyjaruki; HarleyD; George W. Bush; xzins; ...
"It was His death that was efficacious..not His blood." (Emphasis ours throughout article. The three dots were placed there by MacArthur's and does not represent something that we have left out.) "Nothing in His human blood saves." Not only has MacArthur not repudiated his 1976 statement, but he repeats something very similar to it, in his August 29, 1986 letter, when he said, "The blood of Christ is precious - but as precious as it is, His physical blood could not save."

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;

95 posted on 05/24/2006 1:29:26 PM PDT by Full Court (¶Let no man deceive you by any means)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | 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