Look,
I am expecting a letter in the mail in a couple of days. I'll share it with you as soon as it comes.
I am expecting a letter in the mail in a couple of days. I'll share it with you as soon as it comes.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Want to hear some good preaching?
- Thread starter look
- Start date
- Status
Look,
I received the letter I was expecting and it contained what I was suspecting (hey, I rhymed!). According to his letter, John denies that he is guilty of “denying the blood”. He affirms that the New Covenant was ratified by Christ’s blood; that the blood of Christ is precious; and that Christ shed His blood in dying for our sin. (The GTY doctrine is consistent on this subject). His teaching on the blood simply is that the literal blood of Christ has no magical or mystical saving power. It is not some supernaturally preserved form of the actual blood of Christ that washes believers of their sin. The blood is applied to the believer in a symbolic sense, by faith, in the same way that we “see” Christ by faith, and we are now seated with Him in the heavenlies – not in a literal sense. From what I can see, the teaching in question is a polemic against transmutation, nothing more; he is saying that the communion wine does not change into the actual, physical blood of Christ and that the sprinkling with blood under the New Covenant is symbolic. I would expect Roman Catholics to take exception to this; why would a Baptist have a problem with it?
His letter explains that he has never denied that “without the shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb 9:22). He is saying that the “the shedding of blood” in Scripture is an expression that means much more than just bleeding. It refers to His violent, sacrificial death. His death, not simply His bleeding was required in order for Him to become the perfect sacrifice, and without His death, our redemption could not have been purchased by His blood. The shedding of His blood was the visible manifestation of His life being poured out in sacrifice and Scripture consistently uses the term “shedding of blood” as a metonym for atoning death. The blood of Christ is precious – but as precious as it is, His physical blood alone could not save. Only when it was poured out in sacrificial death could the penalty of sin be paid; thus, if Christ had bled but not died, salvation would not have been purchased. In that sense, it is not His blood but His death that saves us.
He continues, talking of the Old Testament covenant. Bloodshed was God’s design for all Old Testament sacrifices. They (the animal offerings) were bled to death rather than clubbed or burnt. God designed that sacrificial death was to occur with blood loss as a vivid manifestation of life (“the life of the flesh is in the blood”
being poured out. Nevertheless, those who were too poor to bring animals for sacrifices were allowed to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour instead (Lev 5:11). Their sins were covered just as surely as the sins of those who could afford to offer a lamb, a goat, a turtledove, or a pigeon (Lev 5:6-7). That is because the sacrifice was symbolic.
He denies “trying to do away with the blood”, as some tried to claim. He is simply trying to do away with the confusion created by imputing magical properties to the literal blood. Scripture does not say that our Lord bled to death; it teaches that He voluntarily yielded up His spirit. No man could take His life from Him. He could have shed all His blood, and He would not have died from that. Nothing and nobody could have killed Him if He had not willingly given up His spirit (John 10:18).
He affirms that this is not a denial of the blood; it is an affirmation of what Scripture teaches. This teaching is consistent with Reformation teaching as I understand it. He makes no mention of “recanting heresy” as you have heard (thus, implying an admission of guilt) and I can see no reason for him to do so. Do you perceive error in his position?
I received the letter I was expecting and it contained what I was suspecting (hey, I rhymed!). According to his letter, John denies that he is guilty of “denying the blood”. He affirms that the New Covenant was ratified by Christ’s blood; that the blood of Christ is precious; and that Christ shed His blood in dying for our sin. (The GTY doctrine is consistent on this subject). His teaching on the blood simply is that the literal blood of Christ has no magical or mystical saving power. It is not some supernaturally preserved form of the actual blood of Christ that washes believers of their sin. The blood is applied to the believer in a symbolic sense, by faith, in the same way that we “see” Christ by faith, and we are now seated with Him in the heavenlies – not in a literal sense. From what I can see, the teaching in question is a polemic against transmutation, nothing more; he is saying that the communion wine does not change into the actual, physical blood of Christ and that the sprinkling with blood under the New Covenant is symbolic. I would expect Roman Catholics to take exception to this; why would a Baptist have a problem with it?
His letter explains that he has never denied that “without the shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb 9:22). He is saying that the “the shedding of blood” in Scripture is an expression that means much more than just bleeding. It refers to His violent, sacrificial death. His death, not simply His bleeding was required in order for Him to become the perfect sacrifice, and without His death, our redemption could not have been purchased by His blood. The shedding of His blood was the visible manifestation of His life being poured out in sacrifice and Scripture consistently uses the term “shedding of blood” as a metonym for atoning death. The blood of Christ is precious – but as precious as it is, His physical blood alone could not save. Only when it was poured out in sacrificial death could the penalty of sin be paid; thus, if Christ had bled but not died, salvation would not have been purchased. In that sense, it is not His blood but His death that saves us.
He continues, talking of the Old Testament covenant. Bloodshed was God’s design for all Old Testament sacrifices. They (the animal offerings) were bled to death rather than clubbed or burnt. God designed that sacrificial death was to occur with blood loss as a vivid manifestation of life (“the life of the flesh is in the blood”
being poured out. Nevertheless, those who were too poor to bring animals for sacrifices were allowed to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour instead (Lev 5:11). Their sins were covered just as surely as the sins of those who could afford to offer a lamb, a goat, a turtledove, or a pigeon (Lev 5:6-7). That is because the sacrifice was symbolic.He denies “trying to do away with the blood”, as some tried to claim. He is simply trying to do away with the confusion created by imputing magical properties to the literal blood. Scripture does not say that our Lord bled to death; it teaches that He voluntarily yielded up His spirit. No man could take His life from Him. He could have shed all His blood, and He would not have died from that. Nothing and nobody could have killed Him if He had not willingly given up His spirit (John 10:18).
He affirms that this is not a denial of the blood; it is an affirmation of what Scripture teaches. This teaching is consistent with Reformation teaching as I understand it. He makes no mention of “recanting heresy” as you have heard (thus, implying an admission of guilt) and I can see no reason for him to do so. Do you perceive error in his position?
Upvote
0
Ken
Well-Known Member
look, you say
"Even the Baptists consider John MacArthur a heretic! Please do your own studing of God's Word, without any outside influence. Just you and God. He will show you the Truth, I promise you!!!
I know this is radical, but if only you would get together with God, shut yourself in with Him, you will know the truth and the truth will make (not set) you free! We serve a radical God!!!"
yet you also advocate listening to sermons from a preacher` with whom you agree doctrinally....???? if what you say above is true, then why do you listen to this other preacher? why ask others to? why not have all of us just study God's word on our own?
on the other hand, those with whom you disagree could likewise ask you to do do exactly as you have asked in regard to your being wrong doctrinally, and that if you would "only just get together with God", then he will show you the truth, which in this case would quite possibly be that tongues are not for today.... however I feel quite sure that you would say that you have done just this and God has told you that you were correct in your theology, and I suspect that non-tongues speaking advocates will say exactly the same thing, that their time of study alone with God has verified that they are correct in thinking that tongues are not for today, or something like that....
so of what use is it to ask others to do what you ask, for the sole purpose of coming into agreement with you, other than perhaps the implicit claim that if people do not come to agree with you theologically, then it must be the case that they did not and do not "really" seek God......??
blessings
"Even the Baptists consider John MacArthur a heretic! Please do your own studing of God's Word, without any outside influence. Just you and God. He will show you the Truth, I promise you!!!
I know this is radical, but if only you would get together with God, shut yourself in with Him, you will know the truth and the truth will make (not set) you free! We serve a radical God!!!"
yet you also advocate listening to sermons from a preacher` with whom you agree doctrinally....???? if what you say above is true, then why do you listen to this other preacher? why ask others to? why not have all of us just study God's word on our own?
on the other hand, those with whom you disagree could likewise ask you to do do exactly as you have asked in regard to your being wrong doctrinally, and that if you would "only just get together with God", then he will show you the truth, which in this case would quite possibly be that tongues are not for today.... however I feel quite sure that you would say that you have done just this and God has told you that you were correct in your theology, and I suspect that non-tongues speaking advocates will say exactly the same thing, that their time of study alone with God has verified that they are correct in thinking that tongues are not for today, or something like that....
so of what use is it to ask others to do what you ask, for the sole purpose of coming into agreement with you, other than perhaps the implicit claim that if people do not come to agree with you theologically, then it must be the case that they did not and do not "really" seek God......??
blessings
Upvote
0
- Mar 15, 2003
- 814
- 9
- 69
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Take it anyway you want to...I'm not going to help you "interpret" what I said.
Blessings...
Blessings...
Upvote
0
- Mar 15, 2003
- 814
- 9
- 69
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
Arc
Lover of the Truth
- Jun 29, 2003
- 294
- 10
- 52
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
FWIW, I like listening to John MacArthur but don't agree with him on every issue. It's easy to get bogged down on secondary issues and sometimes I wish John wouldn't be so dogmatic about some things he preaches. But that's were discernment comes in. 
Upvote
0
Ken
Well-Known Member
ok look, then I take it that you are retracting your statements about MacArthur, and that you are retracting your statement concerning listening to other preachers, even the one you earlier recommended, and that since I got together with God, He showed me the truth, that you were not speaking the truth.....
thanks
and blessings......
thanks
and blessings......
Upvote
0
- Mar 15, 2003
- 814
- 9
- 69
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
You can "take" it anyway you want, but since I haven't said anything else regarding the subject, you need to watch that you don't "put" words in my mouth...
Ken, I have a point-blank question for you... How does one "get together with God" for Him to "show" the truth? Are there any tests to show that it was indeed God that "showed" you the "truth"? Just asking...
Ken, I have a point-blank question for you... How does one "get together with God" for Him to "show" the truth? Are there any tests to show that it was indeed God that "showed" you the "truth"? Just asking...
Upvote
0
Ken
Well-Known Member
Oh so I can't take it anyway I want to now? Anyways... since I was directly addressing your earlier points, there is/was little danger of putting words into your mouth, this was especially true when you seemed to not care to further clarify your position, and you invited me to practice a little deconstructionism with the text of your post.....
As far as your newest question goes, I would be glad to try and answer it, but I was hoping you would do me the courtesy of answering my questions first. That only seems fair ehh?
blessings
Anyways... since I was directly addressing your earlier points, there is/was little danger of putting words into your mouth, this was especially true when you seemed to not care to further clarify your position, and you invited me to practice a little deconstructionism with the text of your post..... As far as your newest question goes, I would be glad to try and answer it, but I was hoping you would do me the courtesy of answering my questions first. That only seems fair ehh?
blessings
Upvote
0
- Mar 15, 2003
- 814
- 9
- 69
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Take it anyway you want to. Again, I'm not going to help you "interpret" what I said...Perhaps this is the same reason there are so many abominations, er, I mean denominations today...all you have to do is take everything at face value, just as if you were reading the sports page...Who ever heard of spiritualizing a game between the Gators and the Hurricanes? I'm sure God would appreciate the effort to take Him for His Word every once in awhile...
Upvote
0
- Mar 15, 2003
- 814
- 9
- 69
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
