Posted on 05/21/2006 2:04:31 PM PDT by Full Court
Yet post 14 for instance reveals her position.
FWIW you did not request that a full thread be posted, you only requested that full court point you to "something that expounds on the heresy of MacArthur." A link on that thread would have been sufficient. She was not asked to post a thread, but it appears that she gleefully did so.
I would request that she respond to MacArthur's succinct response to this attack on his ministry.
In post 52, where is the heresy?
True, but I was hoping that a full thread would come of it. Wisely, Full Court opened a new thread rather than allow her John Rice homage thread to be sidetracked further. You and I, for example, have posted threads for similar reasons on many an occasion. Why find fault with her for having done the same?
A link on that thread would have been sufficient.
Possibly, but it would have been insufficient for my purposes. I, for one, am glad we have a thread to hash out the issue and still remain "on topic", aren't you?
She was not asked to post a thread, but it appears that she gleefully did so.
I wouldn't go ascribing hidden motives or emotions to her actions. I would urge others to avoid doing so, as well.
I would request that she respond to MacArthur's succinct response to this attack on his ministry.
I would - and do - encourage her to read it and consider it as well. Whether she responds to you or not is quite another matter.
I would not deign to say that they are "hidden". She posted the thread and appears to believe all the propaganda contained in it. She posted additional information and apparently stands behind her allegation that MacArthur is a rank heretic on the issue of the meaning of the Blood of Christ.
Obviously what MacArthur teaches on this subject (really teaches) is not protestant heresy. It could be considered heretical from a Catholic standpoint, but certainly not from any mainstream protestant denomination that I am aware of.
Again, I "gleefully" await her response to post 52.
Thanks.
Here is my position on it.
MacArthur has several positions I disagree with. One of them is his "Lordship salvation" theory. Another is one he has already repented for, regarding the Sonship of Jesus Christ. So I can give him a pass on that one.
I personally disagree with his study bible, as I am KJVO.
I believe he is wrong to hint around at "separation" but not really practice it.
I believe the more a person knows about what someone teaches and preaches, the safer you are, because people are then free to compare what anyone teaches to what God says in Scripture.
MacArthur has published quite a lot regarding his theory that "it wasn't the blood" it was "the death."
So it's not "propaganda" to discuss what JM has put out for public consumption.
I feel like all here are adults and can search the Scriptures to see whether or not it is so.
www.justbible.com
If anyone comes to the conclusion that JM is right, so be it.
If someone comes to the conclusion that he is wrong about the Blood of Jesus, so be it also.
Either way, if it encourages anyone to look at what God has to say, I count it a blessing and I hope you all do.
Acts 17:10
¶And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
That's an interesting comment, and I have never seen evidence of that.
The KJVO independent baptist church of which I was a member for several years carried and still does carry his radio program. The pastor there says he is one of his favorites.
In Southern Baptist circles, he seems to be just as popular, if their Lifeway book stores are any indication.
Also, there is a quite a large seqment of calvinist and reformed theology present within the SBC. (Less so in the KJVO IFB movement.)
Question
I know that you take a Biblical view of salvation by faith alone.
John Macarthur: Yes, by grace through faith--not by faith alone. By grace through faith.
Question (continued)
Ok, but I’m a little confused as far as the implications of that Lordship to the non-Christian at the point of salvation. How much of it can they really comprehend in terms of the Lordship issue? And then along with that, are you saying through your series on the Lordship that the call to salvation is synonymous with the call to discipleship?
Answer
I am saying that explicitly, that a call to salvation is indeed a call to discipleship. I am saying that it is obvious that a person coming to faith in Jesus Christ will not fully understand the implications of his Lordship. They will not fully understand the reality of their sin, but there must be a call to that. In other words, when you call a sinner to repentance and you call a sinner to submit to Christ, they don’t fully understand the implications of that. But, they will understand as much as they can understand.
Now, let me say something that is very, very important for you to understand. I do not believe that an incomplete presentation of the gospel--in other words, if you just present the gospel that Jesus died for your sin and rose again and graciously offers you forgiveness by faith in his name; if that’s all you presented, and you didn’t talk about Lordship, and you didn’t talk about being a disciple, and you didn’t talk about repentance, and you didn’t talk about turning from sin-even an incomplete presentation of the gospel-now listen-could not prevent someone from being saved whom God was saving. Got that? Because if you didn’t talk about sin, they’d be feeling the conviction. And if you didn’t talk about submission, they’d be coming to that submission.
What I am saying is that when we present a shallow gospel, we don’t prevent the elect from getting saved; we make people think they’re saved who aren’t. That’s the issue. Do you see the distinction? That’s the issue. And so what we have-just imagine this now!-what we have then are a lot of people who think they’re Christians. And we have a lot of churches that are run by congregational rule, which means that a lot of churches are being run by what? Non-Christians! That’s a frightening reality. I’m quite sure there are Christian organizations being operated by non-Christians.
So, I don’t want to say that… You know, somebody said to me, “Well, I didn’t know all about Lordship when I was saved. Am I not saved?” No. The issue is, “Do you understand that Jesus is Lord and is it your heart’s desire to love Him and serve Him?” And if the answer is yes, then you understand it. So, that’s the point you have to understand.
Now, Jesus called men to follow Him in discipleship. He called them to obey Him. We’ve shown all of that and we’ll even go into more detail when the book comes out.
I believe that when you present the gospel-now listen carefully to this-you can make it as difficult as possible! That’s what Jesus did. He made it as difficult as possible. Why? Because salvation is a work of God, not based on the cleverness of the one giving the gospel, but based on the power of God. So, if a person is being saved by God, then you want them to fully understand their salvation. And if God isn’t doing it, you want to make sure that they’re not coming in on some illusion.
Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" by:
Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986
And he's right. It was His death which accomplished the task. He did not simply "bleed" for our sins, he DIED for our sins. If it is merely the blood which is sufficient, then his death was unnecessary. He could have achieved the same thing by opening up a vein and catching a pint every couple of weeks until there was sufficient shedding of blood to accomplish the task.
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV)
Why don't you take a stab at responding to it. It is in post 52.
Where is the heresy in post 52?
It's certainly not a personal attack, but just an in-depth look at what he has taught.
Bynum prefers:
The Bible Reveals:
1. That the precious Blood is incorruptible. It cannot be anything else because of its intrinsic purity. I Peter 1:18,19: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold...But with the precious blood of Christ.."
2. That the precious blood is indestructible. It cannot be anything else because of its permanence. The Blood is eternally preserved in Heaven. Hebrews 12:24: "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."
3. That the precious Blood is invaluable. It cannot be anything else because of its parentage. It is the Blood of God incarnate. Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood..." Acts 20:28: "...the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
4. That the precious Blood is indispensable. It cannot be anything else because of its power. No sinner can be saved without washing in the Blood of the Lamb. Revelations 7:14: "..these are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
MaArthur says:
They claim that the blood of Christ was never truly human. They insist on literalizing every New Testament reference to Jesus' blood. They teach that the physical blood of Christ was somehow preserved after the crucifixion and carried to heaven, where it is now literally applied to the soul of each Christian at salvation.
We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus' literal blood. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death.
The scripture says:
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another [psalm], Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
What the scriptures seem to say is that "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood" and it was the Father who raised up Jesus from the dead so that His flesh, which includes His blood, would not experience corruption. Therefore the intrinsic worth of the blood of Jesus is in His life and death. The emphasis is on the life, not the blood, which is the symbol of life and in its shedding, death. Looks like Bynum, in his extreme literal translation, is overly sentimental to the point of idolatry.
For our discussion........
You have to understand that "point" in order to accomplish what????
I noticed that Dangus replied on this thread. Is that bad?
I don't find that he made him self clear. I also don't find that he rejected any of his previous written and spoken statements.
In fact, I was appalled that he made it some kind of personal argument and accused those who disagreed with his teaching of having something personal against him!!!!
I don't believe that anyone has claimed that, do you?
On to the subject at hand, I do think the shedding of His Blood is quite a bit different than the fetid business of hawing his foreskin. For God's sake, I feel like hurling just writing that sentence!
"Take this cup, and drink of it, for this is my Blood." The shedding of Christ's Blood, that is, the Blood itself is very significant, in and of itself, though I do agree that it was His Death that was redemptive.
1) I'm not sure how this author can make the claim that John MacArthur is both a "hyper-Calvinist" and is "ecumenical" at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.
2) As far as Lordship Salvation, John MacArthur published some things on this topic a number of years ago for which he got re-soundly bashed. He has since retracted this view. However, retractions these days are not as easy as when Augustine retracted his works. This material flies out on the Internet and you'll spend the next 20 years saying you were wrong.
3) The reason John MacArthur was kicked off the BBN wasn't because of his views on Lordship Salvation, hyper-Calvinism, and the blood of Christ. The reason John MacArthur was kicked off the BBN was because he talked about election. There was an article on this some time back here but here is another link John MacArthur Gets Booted Off the Bible Broadcasting Network for Preaching the the Biblical Doctrine of Election Aug 23, 2004
While I will agree with you that the more you know what someone teaches and preaches the safer you are. However, it would be beneficial for this author to get his facts straight. His material is based upon out of date information and innuendos. Unfortunately, going to this author's webpage, I can't find his theological views on election of the saints. It would be nice to know. I know Spurgeon's and MacArthur's views.
Regarding the Position of the World Congress of Fundamentalists on the Blood of Christ
Whereas the physical body of Christ in the Holy Scriptures means the real, literal body of God the Son incarnate; so also in the Holy Scriptures when the Blood of Christ is mentioned, it is the real, literal Blood which was poured out from that same body and which accomplished our redemption.
The Bible reveals the mysteries of our redemption. In that revelation a divine principle is revealed, illustrated, and enforced. That principle is"...Without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22).
Sin can only be atoned for and cleansed from the heart of the sinner by the precious Blood of God's appointed Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Christ must die once for all, *but His death must be by literal blood-shedding*;
and the Blood shed becomes the all-sufficient merit by which sin's guilt-power, and ultimately its very present, are destroyed.
The Holy Scriptures nowhere separate the voluntary death of Christ from the sacrificial shedding of His sinless Blood, but rather links them inextricably in one inseparable act.
The Bible Reveals:
1. That the precious Blood is incorruptible.
It cannot be anything else because of its intrinsic purity. I Peter 1:18,19: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold...But with the precious blood of Christ.."
2. That the precious blood is indestructible. It cannot be anything else because of its permanence. The Blood is eternally preserved in Heaven.
Hebrews 12:24: "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."
3. That the precious Blood is invaluable. It cannot be anything else because of its parentage. It is the Blood of God incarnate.
Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood..." Acts 20:28: "...the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
4. That the precious Blood is indispensable. It cannot be anything else because of its power.
No sinner can be saved without washing in the Blood of the Lamb.
Revelations 7:14: "..these are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Therefore, this Congress:
1. Reaffirms its adherence to the Scriptural teaching on this subject;
2. Rejects every attempt either to deny the literalness of the Blood or to minimize its efficacy and the necessity of its shedding in Christ's death on the cross. Such denial is a dangerous and devilish deception;
3. Calls upon Fundamentalist preachers and God's saints everywhere to proclaim anew the saving efficacy of the shed Blood of Christ in His death on the cross,
and to alert the Church in regard to all heretical teaching on this vital truth, ever remembering that we overcome the devil himself by the Blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 12:11: "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.