John MacArthur's stance on the Blood of Christ

If you can't see the difference between attacking the individual and the position...you have defined yourself.

 

The exact same way. I would never say JM is a wolf in sheeps clothing. His soteriology stinks, though.

I have seen many a thread attacking RW, though. Never his theology, only him and his methods.

 

I’m asking, not telling here, but this makes me think of Christ’ blood going into the Earth in which we live; God (The Word) made flesh (came into the world), the miraculous truth that He was in the world, and the world was made by Him. It seems to me to be a bit more than symbolic that the blood of Christ went into His created world (He being made of the dust of the Earth, which is inclusive to: the blood of His body literally spilling into that ground) and in that He defeated death for us who would believe and His body was resurrected; meaning He provided the way in which we are also lifted up in His Spirit that truly came into the world as flesh and blood.

Question: If God truly became flesh (which He did!) did His blood not become part of the Earth as a necessary sacrifice and vehicle for us (creatures of the Earth) in order for us to rise spiritually and resurrect bodily in Him? And is this necessary “vehicle” not being observed in Him going into the bowels of the Earth and leading captivity captive as He defeated death, and was resurrected, both physically and spiritually?

Another question: Was His blood raised out of the Earth as, or when His body was, or does it continue to be the vehicle that allows us to be with Him?

So IOW’s literally, not simply symbolically, His blood in the Earth (in a leavening sense) is/was needed to lift us up in the Body of Christ (this Body being put into while also being made of the Earth) in not only a spiritual sense but also a physical sense, a vehicle (for the resurrection of our bodies, spirit/souls out of the Earth through “His” flesh, and blood?) Yes or no?

As per JM’s doctrine: To be discounting of the blood here is not considered done despite the “Spirit of grace” and is not doing violence to this Holy thing of grace, the blood, (possibly to support his LS position?) and in that he is not discounting the promise of Christ’ blood to be “Holy” and as given in a covering only of “grace”? Hebrews 10:29? (Heb 10:29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Asking here: Should we really only be looking at the Christ’ blood symbolically as per this teaching and what is the motivation for it???

 

We should on this issue. It has been very well looked at and it is what the Bible teaches.

 

I have not seen attacks on him personally. But methods are just as important as theology and should always be open for discussion.

 

While I agree it has been beat around debate on reasonable issues should never be shut down. Not even for those we support.

 

True to a point, but it is hard to see how this is a reasonable issue. I don't see how any reasonable person can look at MacArthur's position on the blood and determine that he is anything other than orthodox. There's really nothing to debate here. For those who are hearing about it for the first time from one the "National Enquirer" type of publications, it certainly can sound ominous, but when one takes the time to look at what MacArthur believes and has said, one should immediately be clear that he is orthodox.

 

I could use a good cup of coffee...

 

I see that he is also. For those who see nothing to debate can avoid the thread. Rather than suggest it should never take place. If no one responds then no debate can take place.

 

I agree whole-heartedly with JM in this respect. :thumbs:

 

I agree with what JM wrote as well. There is nothing magical about Christ's blood. Shedding blood was the result of his death and therefore is a powerful symbol of what Christ did on the cross to pay for the penalty of sins. His blood is precious because of what He did, and because of the suffering that caused this shedding of blood.

 

I think what John MacArthur was saying has been widely misunderstood and misinterpreted by critics. I used to be caught up in believing that his so-called "position on the Blood" was heresy until I figured out what he was trying to explain that many miss.

He was trying to explain that there is no physical properties in the physical blood itself that would cleanse sins (such that Jesus could have shed it without dying), but that His blood was shed in His death and subsequent resurrection whereby a sinner is saved. In other words, if one somehow obtained a vial of His physical blood, one could not simply drink it or rub it on his face to cleanse his sins. He was also arguing against trans-substantiation. He was in no way arguing that only Jesus' death was important and not the blood, in that Jesus could have drowned or been strangled to atone for sin.

It was necessary for Christ to shed His blood in death as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins; however, His physical blood was not a magic fluid that could be applied physically to atone sins. It is faith in the death (including shedding of blood) and resurrection of Jesus Christ that is the channel through which sins are atoned.

 

I would think Hebews 9:11-28 would be a key passage in this discussion. Whether you view the blood in a symbolic manner as JM prescribes, or in a literally, I do not think that either view could be drawn as heretical.

If it matters, I hold to a more literal view of the blood. That said, while I may not be in the same place as JM, I am certainly in the same ballpark. This is not necessarily something I would be divisive over.

 

The same doctrine that my former pastor in the Philippines, who also happens to be the president of the Bible College I went to, used to justify his apoplectic attitude toward JM, and which drove me to investigate further, and listen, and listen, and listen, to what the man preached, and which opened the doors to Calvinism for me, and eventually led me fully to the Doctrine of Grace as believed among Primitive Baptists.

If it was the literal blood that washed away our sins rather than its having been shed which led to death, then Christ entered heaven bearing His own physical blood in a physical cup.

Yet the book of Hebrews does not say that.

It says "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. "

By the authority, weight, power, of the shed blood and everything it symbolized.

The same authority, weight, and power we plead when we plead for mercy, and protection.

There is no physical blood in heaven that will sit there for all eternity.

JM was not being heretical at all.