Piercing The Darkness

Advanced search

>Appeals court allows stem cell funding for now
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Iran to free female American for holiday clemency
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Fears of a second recession ease, at least for now
<div class="hnews hentry item">
High winds mean Colo. fire evacuees can't return
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Apple publishes guidelines for app approval
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Study: Flamboyant male dancing attracts women best
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Suspect caught in theft of Seattle patrol car
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Britney Spears denies bodyguard harassment claims
<div class="hnews hentry item">
US beats Russia, 89-79, moves into semis at worlds
<div class="hnews hentry item">

[facedown]

He plainly contradicts the bible. Unbelievable! 

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/john_macarthur_exposed.htm

MacArthur states that, "It was not Jesus' physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood. If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with Jesus." I have never heard of anyone teaching that Jesus only needed to bleed a little to save us, and not to die. Numerous passages of Scripture tell us that Christ died for our sins. This is found in I Cor. 15:3, as well as many other places. If anyone denied this, I would object very strenuously to their denial, but my question is, why does it have to be His "death" or His ''blood"? It is both His "death" and His "blood" that are important according to the Bible.

How can MacArthur truthfully make the following statement? "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. " (Emphasis ours.) Many passages of Scripture reveal that he is dead wrong in his approach.

He says that Christ's blood does NOT cleanse us from sin!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I ask myself, does this poor confused man not own a bible besides his study bible which should probably be called confusion bible?

Does the truth not matter anymore? How can such a heretic at the same time be hailed by so many and get away with his heresies? I don't get it.

1Jn 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.

I guess MacArthur isn't familiar with 1. John 1:7.
Somebody who knows him please show him this verse. 

[DennisS]

MacArthur is not alone in teaching this...

“Christ was killed for us. His death has washed out our sins & disabled death itself. That is what has to be believed.” - C.S. Lewis

From what you quoted by MacArthur, can you comprehend the illustration that OT animal sacrifices were not just bled (short of actual death), for the purposes of atonement?  It wasn't the bleeding of the sacrifice, but the death.  And this is the same with Jesus.

I hope you will continue reading this post, and consider things more carefully.  It is correct to look at 1John 1:7, along with other texts on salvation.

Consider this:  If Jesus ever lost some blood because of someone scratching him, or a boyhood friend throwing a rock at him, or any number of skinned knees, etc - would these drops of blood save us?

John 1:7, in referring to the blood of Jesus, is pointing to the physical - to the liquid blood and to cleansing, which was, and is, generally done with a liquid (referring to cleaning something).  But the verse is also assuming and pointing to the death of Jesus.  Speaking of his blood is a reference to his death on the cross.  It is a euphemism, another way to refer to Christ's death upon the cross.  This is not at all to downplay the importance of the blood that was shed.

Did you refer to the scripture that MacArthur pointed to in the quote?

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

Is the blood important?  Absolutely!  But how much blood?  Would a little be the required sacrifice?  Would any amount of blood short of the death be sufficient?

Now, how about reading what you quoted one more time.  As MacArthur said, "It is both His "death" and His "blood" that are important according to the Bible."  To stop at saying the the blood (by itself) saves us, is to say the death of Jesus was unnecessary.  1John 1:7 has the common understanding that Jesus died.  To say that the death of Jesus cleanses us from sin is also true, but it doesn't (metaphorically) work as well as speaking of a liquid that "cleanses".  Would you rather be cleansed, or saved?  Aren't they ultimately the same result?

Isn't 1 Cor. 15:3-4 also true - that Jesus died for our sins (with no mention of blood)?  The importance of the blood is "lifted up" in communion, as found earlier in 1 Cor...

In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:25-26).

Yet do you see that 1 Cor. 15:26 points us to a major reason for communion as the proclamation of "the Lord's death until he comes"?

Perhaps you will take the time to study Hebrews 9 & 10, and report whether it is the blood, the death, or both that are mentioned as saving the people?

[facedown]

I don't care what CS Lewis said about anything. Why do christians always quote Lewis who many christians say was an occultist? Why does his opinion matter?

Anyway, I think the article on the Jesus is savior site sums it up nicely:

MacArthur states that, "It was not Jesus' physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood. If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with Jesus." I have never heard of anyone teaching that Jesus only needed to bleed a little to save us, and not to die. Numerous passages of Scripture tell us that Christ died for our sins. This is found in I Cor. 15:3, as well as many other places. If anyone denied this, I would object very strenuously to their denial, but my question is, why does it have to be His "death" or His ''blood"? It is both His "death" and His "blood" that are important according to the Bible.

MacArthur simply cannot contradict the bible which clearly states that His blood cleanses us! Heck, if the blood wasn't important then the bible wouldn't talk about it so much. Jesus even had to apply His blood in heaven. Was this also metaphorical? Did Jesus also get killed in heaven cause it's not the blood but the dying? 

[DennisS]

It appears that you do not read closely, nor carefully - that your mind is closed, that you are self-righteous and unwilling to consider wise counsel.  You could easily be a newspaper reporter, coming up with (or copying down) the most sensational things for a headline/subject.  Rather than asking you to look back at the whole thing, to consider the whole counsel of Scripture... I will ask you to answer just one of the several questions I posed.  Please consider the question carefully, and please actually respond directly.

Would any amount of blood, short of the death (of Jesus), be sufficient (for your salvation)?

[facedown]

Earth to Dennis, did you not read what I quoted?

MacArthur states that, "It was not Jesus' physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood. If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with Jesus." I have never heard of anyone teaching that Jesus only needed to bleed a little to save us, and not to die. Numerous passages of Scripture tell us that Christ died for our sins. This is found in I Cor. 15:3, as well as many other places. If anyone denied this, I would object very strenuously to their denial, but my question is, why does it have to be His "death" or His ''blood"? It is both His "death" and His "blood" that are important according to the Bible.

Bible says: Death + blood = important
Mac says: Only death important, blood unimportant 

[DennisS]

Earth to Dennis, did you not read what I quoted?

MacArthur states that, "It was not Jesus' physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood. If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with Jesus." I have never heard of anyone teaching that Jesus only needed to bleed a little to save us, and not to die. Numerous passages of Scripture tell us that Christ died for our sins. This is found in I Cor. 15:3, as well as many other places. If anyone denied this, I would object very strenuously to their denial, but my question is, why does it have to be His "death" or His ''blood"? It is both His "death" and His "blood" that are important according to the Bible.

Bible says: Death + blood = important
Mac says: Only death important, blood unimportant 

Try reading the final sentence of what you just quoted from MacArthur (in bold print).  Or is this a mis-communication in that the final bold sentence isn't from MacArthur?  It's in the same paragraph that starts out, "MacArthur states that...", and there is no reference to anyone else now doing the communicating.  So, is it MacArthur who says that both the death and blood are important, or have you failed to make it clear that this is the statement of someone else?

Now, how about what you believe.  I asked you a single direct question so that we could possibly have a decent starting point on the discussion.  Will you please answer:

Would any amount of blood, short of the death (of Jesus), be sufficient (for your salvation)?

[facedown]

Try reading the final sentence of what you just quoted from MacArthur (in bold print).  Or is this a mis-communication in that the final bold sentence isn't from MacArthur?  It's in the same paragraph that starts out, "MacArthur states that...", and there is no reference to anyone else now doing the communicating.  So, is it MacArthur who says that both the death and blood are important, or have you failed to make it clear that this is the statement of someone else?

Noooh! This verse is not from Mac. It is from David Stewart from Jesus is Savior. He also has "" in the text so you can actually see pretty good what's a quote from Mac and what are Stewart's comments.

Would any amount of blood, short of the death (of Jesus), be sufficient (for your salvation)?

I don't think so. But as I already stated before this does NOT give us the permission to say the blood is not important which it is! Why is this so hard to comprehend?

[DennisS]

The whole thing is basically an old hoax.  Try checking your sources before posting sensational type things like this.

from:  http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm

December 2000

Does John MacArthur "deny the blood of Christ?" The accusation has become one of those dripping-faucet urban legends that will not die, like the infamous Madalyn Murray O'Hair FCC-Petition Hoax and the Procter & Gamble Satanism Myth. Nearly every month, I hear from someone who has heard the allegation for the first time and wants to know if it is true that John MacArthur denies the saving efficacy of Christ's blood.

No, it is not true, and it never has been. The allegations are ridiculous—perhaps originally based on a thoughtless misunderstanding, but now clearly fueled by a deceitful malevolence.

The controversy was originally ignited by a supposed "news" item written by Bob Jones, Jr. in the April 1986 issue of Faith For The Family (a Bob Jones University-sponsored magazine). Jones quoted some remarks MacArthur had originally made in a live Q&A session at Grace Community Church sometime in the early 1970s. MacArthur's comments had been transcribed and published in the May 1976 issue of the Grace Church newsletter "Grace Today." The Jones article cited the comments without any documentation, and without noting that they were from a ten-year-old source.

In the BJU article, Jones quoted MacArthur as saying, "It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying." Jones then cited Hebrews 9:22 ("without shedding of blood is no remission") and intoned, "MacArthur's position is heresy."

On June 13, 1986, MacArthur wrote to Bob Jones III, complaining that the magazine had taken snippets of his remarks out of context and deliberately made them seem sinister. MacArthur assured the magazine's editors that he absolutely affirms the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for atonement and explained that the point he was trying to make in the quoted excerpt was merely that the saving efficacy of Christ's blood is not because of some property in the blood itself, but rather because Christ had poured it out in death as a substitute for sinners.

....not one of MacArthur's fundamentalist critics has ever written a dispassionate analysis of his position showing why they believe MacArthur's view is "heresy" from a doctrinal or biblical perspective. The one fundamentalist who dealt with the controversy in a book had the integrity to examine both sides carefully, then declared MacArthur right and his critics wrong [Branson].

MacArthur's view on the blood of Christ is identical to that of Charles Spurgeon....

Despite his detractors' claims, MacArthur clearly affirms—and has always affirmed—the necessity and full efficacy of Christ's blood atonement.

[facedown]

The only thing that matters is did MacArhur say this?
Why should somebody lie about it and make it up? Makes no sense to me.
If Mac said this here then he denies scripture, plain and simple!

"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. "

[DennisS]

If you read the link, you will see that Bob Jones, Jr. took something from 1970's, and rather than quote it directly and in context, he would quote a portion, and then put in "...." and quote something else in the long article of MacArther from a decade earlier.  He got it to say whatever he wanted (in 1986), but wouldn't listen to whatever MacArthur said or wrote in response.  His son, Bob Jones III later apologized for his father and the university, saying that what MacArthur had written was not heretical, nor had it ever been - that it was entirely orthodox.  And yet, since this appeared in print, there were so many who grabbed onto it and continued to spread it.

So, apparently you have time to read something fantastical with a headline grabber, and you will expect others to read your links and watch the videos you post, but you don't have time to read a link that contradicts or corrects what you posted?  This is a forum board - the expectation is that there is two-way communication - not one-way news reports of outdated and wrong information.

If you had bothered to read the article that I linked you would know that MacArthur did not say it, and that what he did say was taken out of context and twisted for another purpose.

[facedown]

All I care about is wether Mac said this here or not. Unfortunately this quote is nowhere on the page you linked to.
Are you saying this quote here is 100% fictional and made up by an enemy of Mac?

"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. "

[Derek]

Are you saying this quote here is 100% fictional and made up by an enemy of Mac?

Basically, yeah.  MacArthur's comment was taken out of context by Bob Jones, Jr. and made to appear to mean something different.  So in that sense, yes, it was 100% fictional.

Plainly, MacArthur was not denying that Christ literally shed His blood. He was not denying that the literal shedding of blood was a necessary aspect of the atonement. His only point was that the efficacy of Christ's blood lies not in some property of the blood itself, but rather in the fact that Christ shed it in death, and such a death was the price of atonement for our sin.

Read the article, Face.  There's a letter from John MacArthur explaining his position on the blood of Christ in fine detail.

[facedown]

I don't understand how a christian could simply lie and make up false quotes, but in this case it's of course a despicable act.

[Today]

• Does Will Smith abuse his... by David [Today at 01:50:49 PM]
• Burn a quran day by dean.allen.jones [Today at 09:04:29 AM]
• Dear Grandpa by roadrunner [September 08, 2010, 11:26:10 AM]
• Beck's real agenda by David [September 06, 2010, 11:13:59 PM]
• Hawking says God was not ... by David [September 04, 2010, 11:50:36 PM]
• Calvinism is unbiblical by DanielH [September 04, 2010, 10:07:21 PM]
• Is the christian right be... by facedown [September 04, 2010, 07:18:24 PM]
• VMA 2009 ritual analysis by facedown [September 04, 2010, 07:08:46 PM]
• Good videos about NLP and... by facedown [September 03, 2010, 05:22:51 PM]
• Are the biblical books in... by facedown [September 02, 2010, 06:02:52 PM]
• Need your prayers by facedown [September 02, 2010, 05:37:14 PM]
• Your brain on Christianit... by David [September 01, 2010, 11:32:28 AM]
• Pastor says armed militia... by David [August 30, 2010, 04:40:08 PM]
• The Gospel According to G... by David [August 30, 2010, 10:56:48 AM]
• U.S. Navy swastika build... by David [August 29, 2010, 10:50:33 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 89
• Latest: catmancurtis

Stats

• Total Posts: 11469
• Total Topics: 1007
• Online Today: 13
• Online Ever: 111
• (August 25, 2009, 01:43:41 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 1
• Guests: 4
• Total: 5
• DennisS