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.
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.
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........
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;