Just read the first couple lines, as that is all I need to read. MacArthur, like many other pastors on the radio, may say things that someone chooses to pick apart/dissect. If they choose to do that, that is their business. But, I also think that is a very bad plan. In general, he knows what he's talking about, and somebody will always find something wrong. To my thinking, this follows the same logic by which many choose to criticize others. It is essentially over a couple talking points, that have nothing to do with the whole picture. And yet this line of faulty thinking, gives many their arsenal to destroy. And, how Christlike is that?
Reminds me of something Thoreau said:
There are those who would find fault with the morning red = if they ever got up early enough.
I don't wish to be too harsh in response to you, for Full Court has established a pattern of posting criticisms of teachings which are very uncharitable towards their teachers. But I would say that the false teaching here is very grave, and indicative of an attitude which is distressingly dismissive of the bible. I would not, from this issue, assert that McArthur is a hell-bound apostate, but I would say that there is a false teaching here which is very dangerous.
If I may explain why my response to this post is so different than the one to the post slamming Billy Graham:
Graham was not affirmatively pressing heresy. When pressed about an issue which was inherently very divisive, he professed a very charitable ignorance. It may not have been doctrinally correct, but it was an answer born of a charitable reflex. It was not something Graham was trying to impress on others, just a personal declination to fighting a fight he didn't see as worth it. In response, the article all but labeled Graham a pagan anti-Christ.
This article, at least towards the start, takes more of an issue with what McArthur has preached, rather than who he is. And, unless the article has fundamentally misrepresented McArthur's behavior, it is McArthur, not some interviewer, who has pushed the issue. Thus, in contrast to Graham, who simply refused to make a dogmatic issue a grounds for an ideological war within the Church, McArthur appears to be making a conflict.
The blood of Jesus Christ is just a talking point?