-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John MacArthur - We are Not Saved by The Blood Of Jesus Christ!
- Thread starter SavedByGrace
- Start date
- Status
unprofitable
Active Member
Bro SBG,
I do not hear John MacArthur teaching what you are saying at all.
It is the proper application of the blood that is in question.
It is easy to see that MacArthur associates the blood of Christ with his sacrifice on Calvary but not an application apart from his death. His death AND resurrection validated the new covenant. Heb 9:16 says, "For where a testament/covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death (by shedding of blood) of the testator." The blood cannot be separated from any of the doctrines of salvation. The blood cannot be separated from the life, nor the death, nor the Lord's supper, nor the covenant, nor the body. We could go on and on.
The scriptures warns us to be slow to anger. It sometimes keeps our ears from rightly hearing what others are truly saying.
I do not hear John MacArthur teaching what you are saying at all.
It is the proper application of the blood that is in question.
It is easy to see that MacArthur associates the blood of Christ with his sacrifice on Calvary but not an application apart from his death. His death AND resurrection validated the new covenant. Heb 9:16 says, "For where a testament/covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death (by shedding of blood) of the testator." The blood cannot be separated from any of the doctrines of salvation. The blood cannot be separated from the life, nor the death, nor the Lord's supper, nor the covenant, nor the body. We could go on and on.
The scriptures warns us to be slow to anger. It sometimes keeps our ears from rightly hearing what others are truly saying.
That's not what MacArthur is saying. MacArthur is saying that Christ's mere bleeding isn't what saves, and that's true. It's why we're pointed to the Cross, and not His circumcision.
You did something stupid and are not humble enough to see your error.
So, you can't tell me how much Blood Jesus had to shed to atone for our sins?
Why didn't His circumcisn atone for our sins?
The killing of the lamb was the requirement for atonement and for the death angel to pass over and not kill, in Egypt. The marking of the blood was done to show that the lamb had been slain and that Israel had obeyed.
Jesus death is the death of the Lamb of God. Jesus blood is the evidence of fulfilling the sacrifice and meeting God's requirement of substitutionary death for our sins. It was that sacrificial death which atoned for us and his blood confirmed the atonement.
Hebrews 9:11-28
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Jesus had to die. Upon dying, his blood represented the substitute of our sins for Jesus righteousness.
sbw, I am sorry you cannot grasp this important truth.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Leviticus 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul"
can you understand what this means?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
like point out the heresy of John MacArthur?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
JM says, "do you think that He (Jesus) had to bleed, no, not to save us"??? This is HERESY, as it is AGAINST what the Bible says! Now you show from the Bible, where this is taught, when it is very clear that Jesus Christ had to shed His Blood for the Atonement. This is just one FASLE comment in this video. He also MISREPRESENTS Romans 3:23, to make it apply to the Death of Jesus Christ, when he says, "if Jesus had just bled, nobody would be saved, the wages of sin is not bleeding, the wages of sin is death". This is for US SINNERS and has NOTHING to do with the Death of Jesus Christ, or the FACT that He had to have SHED BLOOD to make Atonement. If you think that JM is right, then I suggest that you read your Bible again!
5 point Gillinist
Active Member
So all the animal had to do was bleed? Or did it need to be killed? If your answer is the latter you are correct. What MacArthur is saying is that simply bleeding, like from a cut, or circumcision didn't make atonement in either case - it was the blood poured out from the taking of the life of the animal, which found its ultimate fulfillment in Christ.
At this point, enough people have explained MacArthur's statement to you that you are now simply being willfully ignorant for the sake of labeling someone you don't like a heretic.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
read # 29 what JM says
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
yet another person who does not understand the DIFFERENCE between a "heretic" and "heresy"!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Hebrews 9:12, "He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of His own BLOOD, thus securing an eternal redemption"
verse 22, "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with BLOOD, and without the shedding of BLOOD there is no forgiveness of sins"
13:12, "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own BLOOD"
Matthew 26:28, "For this is my BLOOD of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"
Levicitus 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the BLOOD, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the BLOOD that makes atonement by the life"
Revelation 5:9, "And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your BLOOD you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation"
1 John 1:7, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin"
Exodus 30:10, "Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year. With the BLOOD of the sin offering of atonement he shall make atonement for it once in the year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the Lord.”
Exodus 12, 7, 13, "And they shall take of the BLOOD, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it...And the BLOOD shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I SEE the BLOOD, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt
etc, etc
When God saw the BLOOD on the door-posts, He passed over and did not destroy those in that house. This is a TYPE of Jesus Christ, where it is His BLOOD shed on the cross, that SAVES and COVERS the sins of those who repent and believe. No one has any Biblical right to assume that the shed Blood of Jesus Christ is not important, or that IT does not cleanse us from our sins. This Bible is very clear that, statements like those by JM, "do you think that He (Jesus) had to bleed, no, not to save us", are UNBIBLICAL, as it CONTRADICTS what the Bible is clear in its Teachings.
verse 22, "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with BLOOD, and without the shedding of BLOOD there is no forgiveness of sins"
13:12, "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own BLOOD"
Matthew 26:28, "For this is my BLOOD of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"
Levicitus 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the BLOOD, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the BLOOD that makes atonement by the life"
Revelation 5:9, "And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your BLOOD you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation"
1 John 1:7, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin"
Exodus 30:10, "Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year. With the BLOOD of the sin offering of atonement he shall make atonement for it once in the year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the Lord.”
Exodus 12, 7, 13, "And they shall take of the BLOOD, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it...And the BLOOD shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I SEE the BLOOD, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt
etc, etc
When God saw the BLOOD on the door-posts, He passed over and did not destroy those in that house. This is a TYPE of Jesus Christ, where it is His BLOOD shed on the cross, that SAVES and COVERS the sins of those who repent and believe. No one has any Biblical right to assume that the shed Blood of Jesus Christ is not important, or that IT does not cleanse us from our sins. This Bible is very clear that, statements like those by JM, "do you think that He (Jesus) had to bleed, no, not to save us", are UNBIBLICAL, as it CONTRADICTS what the Bible is clear in its Teachings.
5 point Gillinist
Active Member
yet another person who does not understand the DIFFERENCE between a "heretic" and "heresy"!
Yet another person who does not understand the DEFINITION of a heretic!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Yet another person who does not understand the DEFINITION of a heretic!
dude, I have NEVER called MacArthur a HERETIC! I said what he teaches on the BLOOD of Jesus Christ shed on the Cross, is HERESY. IF you can show where I called him a HERETIC, then please do!
Can you disprove what I have shown from the Bible, and the language used by JM, that I am wrong?
5 point Gillinist
Active Member
dude, Reynolds told you that one who teaches heresy is by definition a heretic.
Essential Meaning of heretic
: someone who believes or teaches something that goes against accepted or official beliefs
The church regards them as heretics
this was also pulled from Merriam webster
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
I know! BUT, I used "heresy", which is somthing that is UNBIBLICAL! Stop trying to make something that is not there, and aviod the FACT that what MacArthur says in this clip is UNBIBLICAL!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
this statement alone that JM makes, is RANK HERESY!
"do you think that He (Jesus) had to bleed, no, not to save us"
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Uh oh...here we go...
unprofitable
Active Member
Bro SBG,
Matt 26:28 says the blood is the blood of the new covenant. Heb 9:16 says that in order for the new covenant to be in effect that there had to be the death of Christ the testator. If Christ had cut his finger, that would NOT have secured the new covenant. There was a PARTICULAR way/circumstance in which the blood had to be applied. The blood sacrifice accomplishes that according to the will of HIM who makes the blood holy. AustinC has already pointed out the particular way in which the blood of the lamb of the passover had to be applied. Because your willingly cast his blood out into the world, rather in the prescribed manner for his people you defile the sacrifice.
I have not seen anyone denying the holiness of the blood of Christ. What is being denied is how you say MacArthur applies the blood.
Matt 26:28 says the blood is the blood of the new covenant. Heb 9:16 says that in order for the new covenant to be in effect that there had to be the death of Christ the testator. If Christ had cut his finger, that would NOT have secured the new covenant. There was a PARTICULAR way/circumstance in which the blood had to be applied. The blood sacrifice accomplishes that according to the will of HIM who makes the blood holy. AustinC has already pointed out the particular way in which the blood of the lamb of the passover had to be applied. Because your willingly cast his blood out into the world, rather in the prescribed manner for his people you defile the sacrifice.
I have not seen anyone denying the holiness of the blood of Christ. What is being denied is how you say MacArthur applies the blood.
- Status