Calvinist's belief VS TEV

Why should I accept that one has to do with the other?

 

I think your trying to link MacArthur with the Good News Bible (Also called TEV), with little evidence.

MacArthur has never claimed that the blood refrence should be removed from the Bible, he's well versed in greek and if you have read his bible studies you would know that he is nearly obsessive abotu going back to the greek to get the original words, the original meaning. If it says blood then it should read blood in english, and there is no evidence that he would disagree with that. Now what is ment by blood, being somewhat symbolic or not in some cases is a different matter which you brough up on another post.

If you are proposing that MacArthur somehow liked the way the Good News Bible translated the greek I would like to see some evidence. I would liek to see some evidence of what he thinks of the translation period. He doesn't even mention it when asked about best translations to use ( http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-translation.htm )

And what's this somehow got to do with Calvinism? Simply becasue John MacArthur is a Calvinist and there has been controversy about his belief in the blood that somehow all Calvinists endorse the Good News Bible? It might suprise you but the Good News Bible was one of the quickest Bibles to be approved by the Catholic Church for use, they aren't Calvinist so by your logic non-Calvinists have issues with the blood of Christ as well.

Bryan
SDG

 

o really? replaced from what previous document?

is it ever advisable to be UNBIBLICALLY preoccupied w any aspect of doctrine? if u think so, u might agree.

 

okay with me!

 

This is part of a 20+ year old false accusation against MacArthur that David Cloud recently tried to revive.

MacArthur answered the charge to the apparent satisfaction of the original accusers about 20 years ago. He goes into a deeper explaination but effectively he says that Jesus' blood was not some kind of magic potion that is literally administered to someone or their sins nor would it have saved someone that it splattered on.

Just another case of Cloud taking cheap shots at someone... maybe he is a little jealous?

 

Cloud specializes in cheap shots.

 

I think they should use whatever was used in the original tests. If someone could list a few verses, I could look them up to see what's in the original greek/hebrew.

 

When you read the TEV you must realize who it was translated for. If I remember right it was translated for those with a sixth grade reading level who are not church attenders nor believers. Which means that other words were used in place of words ending in -tion, such as salvation. If you wil ask many regular church attenders in the church you attend you might be surprised at what people will say when you ask them basic doctrinal questions.

Not too long ago I attended what would be classified as a fundamental Bible believeing church. The Sunday School teacher asked the people, "What is a Christian." Al kinds of answers were given. Most of them talked about the works of a Christian but not what a Christian is. Not one person said a Christian is one who has a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. The average age in the class was about 40.

Youmay be as shocked to hear about this as I was to see. But start by asking that same question to people you know and see if they can tell you what a Christian is. You might be as surprised as I was.

 

I'm still trying to work this all together in my head...

You are trying to link MacArthur to the TEV somehow, yet you have no evidence of it. Infact the evidence shows that MacArthur perfers the literal translation and wants his Greek translated correctly. Unless you have any evidence to persent that directly ties MacArthur to the TEV your not going to get anywhere.

You have already started another thread on MacArthur and the blood of Christ in which we've went over why his views are not heritical, and are infact orthodox.

And whats up with you linking this to his Calvinistic viewpoint as well? Perhaps it's becasue he's a dispensationalist that he has the view on Christ blood that he has, or maybe it's becasue he spends over 30 hours a week studying the Bible...

Bryan
SDG

 

not really, it's just good KJB1611 (NOT KJBO!) theology: "haue not tyed our selues to an vniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words."

geddit?

 

Calvin's theology has nothign to do with this. The shedding of blood is meritorious only because of the death (Lev 17:11 -- it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement). The Scriptures plainly declare that the wage of sin is death, not blood. References to the blood of Christ are references to the death of Christ because it is his death that saved us.

 

Hi Askjo;
I would say John Mac Authur most likly didn't intend for it to sound just like it did. He knows that it's the Blood that cleanses and is ultimatly saves us for without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.
Lev 14:25 And he shall kill the lamb of the trespass offering, and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
The Blood of the greatest Lamb of all Jesus Christ, cleanses us from all unrighteousness. We are saved by the Blood which is His favor, not by death, because it's the blood that cleans us up to make us presentable to Him.If we are wash in His blood we have His grace
May God Bless You.
Mike

 

The sources you quote are certainly worth noting.

That said, Bynum's article is by and large a case of making a mountain out of a mole hill. A word to the wise... when someone uses as many ellipsis as Bynum used while criticizing someone, find out what the ellipsis stand for.

One question, if Jesus had not died would His shedding of blood have been sufficient to save the lost? MacArthur is absolutely right in his assertion. The shedding of blood is symbolism for His death.

I would challenge you and Cloud to read "The Murder of Jesus". He does not take Christ blood nor His suffering nor His death lightly at all.

If read in context, MacArthur's argument is effectively that the blood Jesus shed was not a magic potion nor is it applied to our sin by some ceremonial rite (ie. transubstantiation). "The Blood" is demonstrative of Christ's sacrificial death. Again in "TMoJ", MacArthur details how Christ died was exactly as it needed to be in order to fulfill prophecy and the picture of OT sacrifice.

Skimming the article (I read what I could stomach), it appears that Hymer's is babbling on in ignorance. He takes a separate issue, the Lord's Supper, and associates it to this particular, narrow subject... without ever citing anything written by MacArthur about the Lord's Supper. I hope I am right and that he is just ignorant... otherwise he must be intentionally deceptive.

BTW, Hymers is wrong. He is creating a false dichotomy when he separates the blood from the death. The blood and the death are inseparable and not divided with respect to atonement. The blood Christ shed in dying fulfills the OT requirements- But only as consummated by His death and resurrection can it save by cleansing us of our sins.

I doubt it but that is speculation on my part. However, the charges you recite against this godly man are baseless at best and devious at worst.

 

Maybe this will help Askjo if he/she is still around.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-9-1.htm