John MacArthur believes both the death of Christ and the blood of Christ, however the problem is what he wrote his
own commentary on Hebrews. He used the word, "symbol."
Why the symbol?
David Cloud answered on the word, "symbolic." He wrote:
"Blood is NOT merely symbolic for death when we are speaking of Christ's Atonement. God's law demands death AND the shedding of blood for remission of sin (Lev. 17:11; Eze. 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Heb. 9:22). The Old Testament sacrifices depicted how the Lord Jesus Christ would pay the price for sin. The blood of the O.T. sacrifices did not merely depict Christ's death; it depicted Christ's BLOOD. His death alone could not save us; His blood was required. In Romans 5:9-10 we see the two together. Verse 9 says we are justified "by his blood," and verse 10 says we are reconciled "by his death." "
Ask God. He set it up!
He demanded His Son die and that death, burial and resurrection is the precious Gospel I preach.
Let me ask you:
Are you implying that Jesus actually went to Golgotha after His crucifixion and actually scooped up some blood and sand from the roadside and actually ascended and took a cup or two (how much blood is needed?) to heaven and actually sprinkled it on an actual mercy seat there or my sin would not have actually been covered by His death?
(IF you believe this, then we shall start another thread and discuss it.)
My salvation was from "a lamb slain before the foundation of the world".
A "done deal" in God's eyes.
"For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all time!"
John MacArthur believes both the death of Christ and the blood of Christ, however the problem is what he wrote his
own commentary on Hebrews. He used the word, "symbol."
Why the symbol? </font>[/QUOTE]Askjo, Take the time to read more of what the man teaches.
Cloud takes a limited set of MacArthur's words then proceeds to put words into his mouth... this practice is otherwise known as lying.
It is perfectly legitimate to say that the blood is symbolic of Christ's death without diminishing the value of either whatsoever. Once again, the issue becomes whether one thinks His physical blood had some kind of mystical qualities and is in some literal way applied to us or our sins. When the soldiers scourged Jesus they surely got some of His blood on them- did this blood save them?
Do you think there is some reservoir of His blood in the spiritual realm that is somehow applied to us or our sin?
Do you think His blood would have been sufficient without Him dying to save us?
The symbolism is an absolute necessity to connect His sacrificial death with the OT system of sacrifice.
The "blood" necessarily connects with Christ death, not simply His bleeding.
that only tells me that the two have the same referent.
talk about a prooftext!
;)
remember Peter's words to Ananias n Sapphira? unless u argue fr that passage that God n the HOly Spirit r two discrete entities, that Peter was trying to CONTRAST the two ...
:confused: