Replies

"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;

You're cherry picking. The whole statement thatPmarlowe posted says more, i.e.

Clearly the word blood is often used to mean more than the literal red fluid. Thus it is that when Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ, it usually means much more than just the red and white corpuscles—it encompasses His death, the sacrifice for our sins, and all that is involved in the atonement. Trying to make literal every reference to Christ's blood can lead to serious error. The Catholic doctrine known as transubstantiation, for example, teaches that communion wine is miraculously changed into the actual blood of Christ, and that those who partake of the elements in the mass literally fulfill the words of Jesus in John 6:54: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Those who have attacked me seem to be espousing the same kind of mystical view of the blood that led the Catholic Church to embrace transubstantiation. They claim that the blood of Christ was never truly human. They insist on literalizing

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.

The blood means nothing without the death.

I'm sure that Jesus, being a carpenter, bled many times prior to His crucifixion.

None of that prior blood (of Jesus) was effacacious to our salvation.

His blood is a symbol of His death.

We are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus (of His life, not His blood) ... else ... why would He have had to die ?

He could have given many time over as much blood as He gave at the crucifixion ... had he lived.
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.