John MacArthur (from another thread)

[ntchristian]

I saw the thread about MacArthur and the blood of Christ and wanted to comment on it but could not there. I thought it was important enough to post the following here:

I believe this is the danger that happens when the atonement is separated from the incarnation and the resurrection, compartmentalizing all three, focusing exclusively on the atonement as procuring salvation, instead of taking them all as a unified whole in the necessary way of salvation. Salvation is provided by the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, not just the atonement.

This is a result of Western thinking -- isolating and focusing exclusively on the atonement as the means of salvation -- and it leads to such silliness as the attack on MacArthur.

 

[AustinC]

I saw the thread about MacArthur and the blood of Christ and wanted to comment on it but could not there. I thought it was important enough to post the following here:

I believe this is the danger that happens when the atonement is separated from the incarnation and the resurrection, compartmentalizing all three, focusing exclusively on the atonement as procuring salvation, instead of taking them all as a unified whole in the necessary way of salvation. Salvation is provided by the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, not just the atonement.

This is a result of Western thinking -- isolating and focusing exclusively on the atonement as the means of salvation -- and it leads to such silliness as the attack on MacArthur.

ntchristian, I will make the argument that salvation is procured by God's covenant with man.
The Abrahamic Covenant secured the Promised One would come to Redeem.
The New Covenant gives those written in the will their Inheritance.

In the establishing of a Covenant, something is sacrificed and a promise is then made.
With Abraham, God swore by himself that if he broke covenant with Abraham then God would be sawn in two, like the animals that had been sacrificed. With Jesus, God swore that each person who was written in the Covenant would receive their Inheritance as children of God (Hebrews 9). The sacrifice that secured the New Covenant was Jesus death on the cross.
The Abrahamic Covenant secured that Jesus would come. Jesus death secured the New Covenant that all who are given to Jesus by God (John 10) are children of God and thus receive an Inheritance.

 

[ntchristian]

ntchristian, I will make the argument that salvation is procured by God's covenant with man.
The Abrahamic Covenant secured the Promised One would come to Redeem.
The New Covenant gives those written in the will their Inheritance.

In the establishing of a Covenant, something is sacrificed and a promise is then made.
With Abraham, God swore by himself that if he broke covenant with Abraham then God would be sawn in two, like the animals that had been sacrificed. With Jesus, God swore that each person who was written in the Covenant would receive their Inheritance as children of God (Hebrews 9). The sacrifice that secured the New Covenant was Jesus death on the cross.
The Abrahamic Covenant secured that Jesus would come. Jesus death secured the New Covenant that all who are given to Jesus by God (John 10) are children of God and thus receive an Inheritance.

That's a thoughtful post, and I appreciate what you wrote. How does it relate to the other MacArthur thread?

 

[canadyjd]

I saw the thread about MacArthur and the blood of Christ and wanted to comment on it but could not there. I thought it was important enough to post the following here:

I believe this is the danger that happens when the atonement is separated from the incarnation and the resurrection, compartmentalizing all three, focusing exclusively on the atonement as procuring salvation, instead of taking them all as a unified whole in the necessary way of salvation. Salvation is provided by the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, not just the atonement.

This is a result of Western thinking -- isolating and focusing exclusively on the atonement as the means of salvation -- and it leads to such silliness as the attack on MacArthur.

I don’t think you rightly understand “western” teaching on the atonement.

Only Jesus, the incarnate God, could offer the atoning sacrifice. His resurrection in the power of God, transformed His human body into His glorified body and proved to all His work was finished.

Peace to you

 

[ntchristian]

I don’t think you rightly understand “western” teaching on the atonement.

Only Jesus, the incarnate God, could offer the atoning sacrifice. His resurrection in the power of God, transformed His human body into His glorified body and proved to all His work was finished.

Peace to you

On the contrary, I understand it perfectly. That's why I reject all the Western theories as incompatible with scripture and the early church.

And peace also to you.

 

[canadyjd]

On the contrary, I understand it perfectly. That's why I reject all the Western theories as incompatible with scripture and the early church.

And peace also to you.

Pick one and let’s discuss it.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

That's a thoughtful post, and I appreciate what you wrote. How does it relate to the other MacArthur thread?

MacArthur, I believe, was alluding to something similar. He was pointing out that the sacrificial death of Christ as the perfect Lamb bought our redemption and atonement. Certainly in death, the life blood ceased and the fulfillment of the New Covenant was complete. There was no magic in the human blood that Jesus spilled. There was a fulfillment of the atonement and covenant requirement in Jesus death. It seems that such nuance was lost on one person in that other thread who wanted the blood to be magical.