John MacArthur

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Askjo, Jul 23, 2003.

  1. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    John MacArthur, a Calvinist, believes that Jesus' death saved us, not His physical blood. Is that wrong doctrine?
     
  2. Bugman

    Bugman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    John MacArthur beleives that the spilling of Christ's blood was nesscary, but that there was nothing in and of itself special in Christ's blood. There is ntohing wrong with his belief.

    http://www.gty.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm

    Bryan
    SDG
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    MacArthur's is the orthodox position (remember, the wages of sin is _______ -- you fill in the blank and you will the see the answer to your question). He does not deny the necessity of bloodshed.

    However, this is a discussion that belongs elsewhere, so I will move it there for it to continue.
     
  4. All about Grace

    All about Grace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    John MacArthur & the blood issue .... where is that yawn icon when you need it ???
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Although the word “blood” is sometimes used as a synonym for “death” in the Bible there are Scriptures which (at very least on the surface) equate the physical blood of Christ with soteriology:

    Hebrews 9
    12:Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered 13: For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
    14: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

    Hebrews 13
    11: For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
    12: Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

    Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

    1 Peter 1
    18: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
    19: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

    Colossians 1
    20: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

    1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

    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 7
    14: And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

    Revelation 19
    11: And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
    12: His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
    13: And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
     
  6. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those who wish to destroy this man have built a straw man on the blood issue. I don't agree with 100% of what he teaches, but I thankful that God has chosen him to be a useful tool in His hands.

    His ministry has affected me greatly. There are plenty of heresies going around. I wish that those with nothing better to do would attack them.
     
  7. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting controversy between website above and other website below is to see the difference.

    John MacArthur wrote on Hebrew commentary so you will look at the website here:
    Hebrew Commentary by John MacArthur
     
  8. Bugman

    Bugman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh boy David Cloud's site.

    I would much rather trust a site of a guy (Phil Johnson who wrote the site I posted) who knows him very well, and listen to what MacArthur himself said when he personally addressed the issue in his letter. Anyone can take quotes and blow them out of context, but when MacArthur personally addressed the issue in the letter I find myself in complete agreement with him.

    Bryan
    SDG
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does this fella Cloud ever think anyone else is right or has he appointed himself as the sole determiner of Christian truth?

    Cloud is arguing over semantics and nuances. But having read some of his stuff in the past few years, I am not surprised. :rolleyes:
     
  10. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you read or study John's commentary?
     
  11. Wisdom Seeker

    Wisdom Seeker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    5,702
    Likes Received:
    0
    There can be no mistake about MacArthur's position that the Blood itself does not save us, that the Blood is SYMBOLIC of death.

    "The purpose of the blood was to SYMBOLIZE sacrifice for sin, which brought cleansing from sin. Therefore, without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

    "Again, however, we need to keep in mind that the blood was a SYMBOL. If Christ's own physical blood, in itself, does not cleanse from sin, how much less did the physical blood of animals. It is not surprising, then, that the Old Covenant allowed a SYMBOL for a SYMBOL. ... This exception is clear proof that the old cleansing was SYMBOLIC. Just as the animal blood SYMBOLIZED Christ's true atoning blood, so the ephah of flour SYMBOLIZED and represented the animal blood. This nonblood offering for sin was acceptable because the old sacrifice was entirely SYMBOLIC anyway.

    "Yet this was the only exception. And even the exception represented a blood sacrifice. The basic SYMBOL could not be changed because what it SYMBOLIZED could not be changed. ... Since the penalty for sin is death, nothing but death, SYMBOLIZED by shedding of blood, can atone for sin. ... the only way we can participate in the New Covenant, is through the atoning DEATH of Jesus Christ, made effective for us when we trust in Him as saving Lord" (John MacArthur,Hebrews, pp. 236- 238).


    * My answer to your question is "No"
     
  12. Bugman

    Bugman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read what Mr. Cloud posted of it on his site, which was not very much. I have looked into this whole issue before and it comes down to this; are you going to look at what some people are saying about what MacArthur believes by posting tidbits of things he has said before or are you going to take MacArthur at his word, listen to what he has said to clairfiy this issue, and then judge by that if his view is biblical or not.

    http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-7-7.htm has more of MacArthur clairifying his belief on Christ's blood.

    Anyways, I'm not here to uphold john MacArthur's orthodoxy. Thats his job, I can just give you the sites where he's done it, and it's up to you to believe if it'sorthodox or not.

    Bryan
    SDG
     
  13. Wisdom Seeker

    Wisdom Seeker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    5,702
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since I quoted the man himself and then answered the question in the opening post. I will guess you weren't referring to me.
     
  14. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    I don't agree with everything that John says, but I like that there is never any question where he stands on any given issue, wish more would follow this example.
    Concerning Cloud...there are far better resources out there then Way of Misrepresentation and Half Truths. I suggest you look elsewhere.
     
  15. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I appreciate the level of scholarship AND common sense that MacArthur brings to the table. I use his commentaries (and recommend them) and his study Bible.

    I wouldn't cross the street to spit on Cloud, et al.

    I've studied the issue of the "blood" and found MacArthur has a different emphasis, but completely orthodox.
     
  16. John Wells

    John Wells
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only person, the very only person that David Cloud does not take issue with . . . is David Cloud! :eek:

    John MacArthur, IMHO is the best among living, active theologians today! I'm sure plenty will disagree with that because of the subjectiveness of the claim, but I'll not be swayed. David Jeremiah and John Piper are right up there, but Mac's got the top spot! ;)

    [ July 24, 2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: John Wells ]
     
  17. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two cents worth...

    When we talk about the blood of Jesus, we are really talking about the work that was done on our behalf...not just His death on the cross, but the WHOLE work of redemption that God wrought through Jesus Christ.

    When I was first saved, I was very confused about this terminology. I didn't know if "the blood of Jesus" had been applied to my heart, because I was taking this "ChurchSpeak" to be a literal event. It was not for quite a while that I finally discovered that this was not something else that had to take place.

    The main thing is that Christ took our place on the cross that we deserved, took the wrath of God that we earned, died the death that we were to die, but He rose again on the third day to provide a way of redemption and reconciliation between us and God. That His blood was spilled is important, but it was His taking our sins upon Himself, and His death and resurrection that wrought the work.

    I personally respect John MacArthur. He is a devout student of the Bible, and I trust him. In fact, I use the MacArthur Study Bible 75% of the time (it is well worth the price- buy a hardback for study).

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     

Share This Page

Loading...