1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

John MacArthur's stance on the Blood of Christ

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Goldie, Aug 12, 2008.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. Goldie

    Goldie New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I'm basically new here, I wasn't sure where to post this topic, so if it's in the incorrect place, please move it. :type:

    This is an offshoot from the following thread under "Welcome to Baptist Board", found here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1273085#post1273085
    and the following link that was posted there: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm

    The Word of God commands us to test all things, and besides that, we should know that a man is judged and condemned by his very own words. He looks like a sheep, even behaves like a sheep, but his doctrine on the Blood of Christ, his stance on Lordship Salvation, as well as the fact that he's a New Evangelical spell W-O-L-F.

    It is clear that not only does MacArthur talk out of both sides of his mouth, but he also talks in circles, and it is clear that his belief is in contrast to Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

    Statements taken from MacArthur's own books, which, to date he hasn't recanted/repented:

    (1) MacArthur's commentary on the Book of Hebrews, published in 1983 by Moody Press: (bold and red emphasis are mine).

    - (John MacArthur, Hebrews, pp. 236- 238).

    This book, to my knowledge, by the way is still being published by Moody Press and being sold by MacArthur's ministry to unsuspecting Christians.

    A biblical refutation of MacArthur's heresy:
    Blood is not just symbolic for death when referring to Christ's Atonement. God's law demands death and the shedding of blood for remission of sin in Leviticus 17:11, Ezekiel 18:4, Romans 6:23 and Hebrews 9:22.

    MacArthur is a New Evangelical and what makes his teaching extremely dangerious is because it's so subtle - he teaches a lot of truth, but he mixes it with untruth (leaven) - and scripture tells us that it takes just a little leaven to leaven the entire loaf. It's like the proverbial frog in a pot of water.

    Christians need to wakel up and start smelling the coffee, the Bible clearly hold a doctrine of end-time apostasy whereby God will hand people over to an even greater delusion because they don't have a love for the truth.

    I find it rather ironic that the article that can be found here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm that attempts to justify MacArthur, actually condemns him, because he (MacArthur) clearly states: "It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out." Now compare this statement to Scripture:

    Ephesians 2:13 - But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

    and

    Hebrews 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?

    He accuses Bob Jones university of a smear campaign against him, but what testimony do his words give to others? To my mind, John MacArthur is a typical Christian apostate who tries to cover up his heresies by accusing others of wrongdoing, instead of examining his own beliefs according to the Word of God.
     
    #1 Goldie, Aug 12, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2008
  2. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,493
    Likes Received:
    1,240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm no fan of MacArthur but I can understand his thinking here.

    MacArthur a New Evangelical? Aaccckk... cough.... hack..... sullies the name of New Evangelicals :laugh:

    I think that the distinction he made between symbol and function wasn't really worth making.
    No real purpose in it.

    Then again, he's not a man of few words.

    Rob
     
    #2 Deacon, Aug 12, 2008
  3. Goldie

    Goldie New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    To my mind it's not his thinking that counts - it's what Scripture says that matters at the end of the day.

    That was funny! You mean he's worse than them? Burp........ cough..... hack........ I think I just burst a blood vessel........ :) Ouch.
     
    #3 Goldie, Aug 12, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2008
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the blood, MacArthur is dead right. For proof, just read what the Bible says: "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). How much more explicit can it be? That is the historic doctrine of the church that must be upheld. Consider Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' There again it is clear that it is the life that brings atonement. The blood works because it takes the life.

    As far as being a new-evangelical, MacArthur has tended in that direction for a lot of years, but that is a pretty broad spectrum. As with the word "fundamentalist," very few people used the term "new evangelical" properly.
     
    #4 Pastor Larry, Aug 12, 2008
  5. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    As someone who is not a fan of MacArthur's soteriology...I have no problem with his view on Christ's blood. The Bible is chock full of symbolism. If Christ's blood was what saved, He didn't need to die...only volunteer to give His blood at the local Red Cross :)

    His scouraging would have been enough to atone for man's sin if you hold to the literal view the blood (and not His death) saved. Every roman soldier who was splattered with His blood would have been saved.
     
    #5 webdog, Aug 12, 2008
  6. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Leave the man alone. :sleeping_2:




    There are real wolves out there. Go after them.
     
    #6 Amy.G, Aug 12, 2008
  7. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yeah...Rick Warren :laugh:
     
    #7 webdog, Aug 12, 2008
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We should never get into the habit of denying the questioning of anyones theology to include JM, Billy Sunday or whomever. When we do that men get placed on pedestals. Much like Rick Warren.
     
    #8 Revmitchell, Aug 12, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2008
  9. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    28
    Amen. :thumbs:
     
    #9 ReformedBaptist, Aug 12, 2008
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would not suggest that at all. It has been thoroughly questioned and found to be entirely biblical.
     
    #10 Pastor Larry, Aug 12, 2008
  11. blackbird

    blackbird Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    4
    The word from the Word says that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin"

    So it is the shedding of His blood

    The word from the Word says that "He gave His life a ransom for many"

    So it is the giving of His life

    Which one is it??

    Both!!

    I believe that MacArthor is trying to demonstrate that the physical blood that Jesus shed on Calvary in the physical sense on Earth---was accepted by God in the spiritual sense in Heaven on Heaven's altar---IMO--while Jesus was shedding His blood---and while He was giving His life---on the cross---it was at that point---perhaps in the darkness of the hour---that Heaven (the unseen world) invaded Earth(the seen world)---and at the very same moment that Jesus was shedding His blood and giving His life----on Earth---it was being done in Heaven---making it literally and not just symbolic.

    To our OP---Goldie---what is YOUR stance on the blood of Jesus Christ??

    Just wondering!!!----study to show thyself approved of God
     
    #11 blackbird, Aug 12, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2008
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    I agree. It was suggested that we leave him alone.
     
    #12 Revmitchell, Aug 12, 2008
  13. mparkerfd20

    mparkerfd20 Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.


    Man I tell you John MacArthur is a blessed man on these boards!
     
    #13 mparkerfd20, Aug 12, 2008
  14. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    So is Lou :)
     
    #14 webdog, Aug 12, 2008
  15. mparkerfd20

    mparkerfd20 Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Puhlease. Who's attacking Lou on these boards? Lou's attacked JM unmercilously.
     
    #15 mparkerfd20, Aug 12, 2008
  16. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    If you don't see, you have selective vision. Try any of canadyjd's posts for starters.

    Lou has attacked JM's position. Only a JM apologist would see this as attacking the individual.
     
    #16 webdog, Aug 12, 2008
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    It is certainly not attacking the person to question their theology and methods. Interesting you say this. How do you think this idea applies to RW?
     
    #17 Revmitchell, Aug 12, 2008
  18. John Ellwood Taylor

    John Ellwood Taylor New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    #18 John Ellwood Taylor, Aug 12, 2008
  19. mparkerfd20

    mparkerfd20 Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess now I'm lumped into the JM apologist crowd?
     
    #19 mparkerfd20, Aug 12, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2008
  20. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    28
    Welcome brother. :laugh:
     
    #20 ReformedBaptist, Aug 12, 2008
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...