What do you think of Dr. Curtis Hutson?

I don't believe MacArthur "denies the blood of Christ." I do believe he tends to deminish the place of the literal blood in the atonement, perhaps deliberately, or it may just be semantics.

If what Larry said is true of MacArthur, I.E., "The blood is important because the life of the flesh is in the blood. When the blood was shed, it was a sacrifical, violent death that paid the price for sin" - then I would have to disagree. The blood of Christ is much, much more than merely "important" as a symbol of His violent death. If Christ had died on the cross, but His blood had not been shed (literally) there would have been no atonement. It is the blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat which completes the atonement. Without the sprinkling of Christ's blood on the Mercy Seat, as we see in Hebrews 9:12, there would have been no atonement. We then see a warning in the next chapter that we only enter the Holy of Holies by the literal blood of Christ, and that we must be very careful we never demean the blood (10:29), and count it as common, ordinary blood.

To put it another way, had Christ died on the cross, but not bled, there would have been no redemption, and, conversely, had he shed His blood, but not died, we could not have been redeemed. Think of it this way, the purchase price of the atonement was the blood. But while the testator still lived, that which He purchased was His alone, but after He died, we became heirs to all that was His, including the atonement He purchased by His own blood, then left to us, His heirs, according to His last will and (New) Testament. That is why, when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we have both the bread, signifying the broken body (broken in death, not fractured), and the cup which is the New Testament in His blood. If the blood is not co-equal with His death in the atonement, then we have an oddity in our celebration of the Lord's supper. The bread is the symbol of the death of Christ, and the cup is the symbol of the symbol! I don't think so! The cup is the symbol of His shed blood, just as the bread is the symbol of His broken body. They are both necessary for the atonement, and to lift one over the other is to tamper with the atonement and possibly bring the curse of Hebrews 10:29 into our lives and our churches. No thanks.

Oh, and, by the way, the "MacArthur denies the blood issue did not originate with the Sword of the Lord or Curtis Hutson, but at BJU with Bob Jones, Jr.

 

Thomas Cassidy claimed:

We then see a warning in the next chapter that we only enter the Holy of Holies by the literal blood of Christ,

Enter the literal Holy of Holies, you mean?

 

All I want to know is to all those people who are slandering and degrading two great men, and heroes of the faith, what have you done for the cause of Christ like these two men have.
For those who call it "easy believesm" I agree with Dios, how hard can it be?
For those who say we are after numbers, you are exactly right. The whole purpose is to see, or at least try, everybody saved. That is God's desire, "...he is willing that all will come to repentence..." so yes we are after numbers, all is a pretty big number when it comes to souls. BTW, God is after numbers too, he wrote a book called NUMBERS.
Did you ever stop to think why he told us at least how many people got saved at the day of Pentacost? 3000! God was counting, and so wasn't man.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ken:
All I want to know is to all those people who are slandering and degrading two great men, and heroes of the faith, what have you done for the cause of Christ like these two men have.
For those who call it "easy believesm" I agree with Dios, how hard can it be?
For those who say we are after numbers, you are exactly right. The whole purpose is to see, or at least try, everybody saved. That is God's desire, "...he is willing that all will come to repentence..." so yes we are after numbers, all is a pretty big number when it comes to souls. BTW, God is after numbers too, he wrote a book called NUMBERS.
Did you ever stop to think why he told us at least how many people got saved at the day of Pentacost? 3000! God was counting, and so wasn't man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This issue requires another thread on Lordship Salvation. Didn't we go there already?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ken:
All I want to know is to all those people who are slandering and degrading two great men, and heroes of the faith, what have you done for the cause of Christ like these two men have...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I have not claimed to have done anything for the cause of Christ. Second, Bendecido asked what we thought. If someone doesn't want to know they shouldn't ask. Instead of complaining about what others think, why not just answer his question and tell us what you think of Curtis Hutson? Third, it is not slander if we are telling the truth about what we think. Now, you and I may disagree about "easy-believism", but I think we would both agree that Misters Rice and Hutson thought it was very easy to be saved, such as simply assenting to Jesus being Lord, or repeating a sinner's prayer. Is this not what they believed? Have we misrepresented it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ken:
...Did you ever stop to think why he told us at least how many people got saved at the day of Pentacost? 3000! God was counting, and so wasn't man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting to compare the evangelists that report to the Sword of the Lord (they did when I read it, I assume they still do) and see that usually about 25% of their converts follow the Lord in baptism and church membership, while on the day of Pentecost all those that gladly received the word were baptized and were added to the church.

[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Thomas,

Only a couple of points in response.

I am not denying, nor is MacArthur, that literal blood was shed or that it was necessary. It most certainly was. The question is, “Does the liquid, the corpuscles, contain any merit?” The answer is no. The blood of Christ was just like the blood of man (Heb 2:14). To assert that Christ’s blood was somehow different than human blood as some have done is to deny the full humanity of Christ.

Interesting you mention Heb 9:12 as proof apparently that the literal blood of Christ is in heaven on the mercy seat. However, when you look at Heb 9:12 two things should become apparent. 1) dia with the genitive idou haimotos is best understood as by means of, not carrying with. 2) The text plainly says that when he entered heaven, redemption had already been obtained. Our redemption was not obtained by sprinkling blood on the mercy seat; it was obtained by paying the price for sin which was death. Likewise 10:19 is probably a dative of means and refers to whole process of atonement as the payment for sin. Heb 10:29 also refers to the whole process of atonement. It is not demeaning the blood to call it ordinary human blood; it is denying the doctrine of the full humanity of Christ to suggest otherwise.

To turn your second paragraph slightly, if Christ had only shed his blood but not died, then there would be no atonement for sin. The purchase price of atonement was not blood per se; it was a violent sacrificial death (Rom 6:23; others too numerous to mention). Notice how blood and death are parallel in Rom 5:9-10 and Col 1:20-22, MacArthur has plainly said the blood was absolutely necessary and indispensable for the atonement. In the Lord’s Supper you have two symbols for the same thing – the sacrificial death of Christ.

One last note – the controversy between Bob Jones and MacArthur was settled according to MacArthur (Q&A session at Toledo Reformed Theological Conference 1996 or 7). BJ did acknowledge that MacArthur’s position was not unorthodox on this matter.

 

Hebrews 10:29 "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

"Unholy" = κοινον Common or ordinary, as opposed to holy or special. To call the blood of Christ "common or ordinary" is to be worthy of "sorer punishment" than those of OT times who despised Moses' law. QED

And I said it "started" with BJU, not that it continued. I am well aware that subsequently BJU/MacArthur buried the hatchet.

 

Thomas Cassidy said:

Hebrews 10:29 "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

Perhaps Dr. Cassidy could explain how this "proof" text shows that it's talking about Christ's literal blood coursing through his veins, and not using "the blood of the covenant" as a metonymy representing the whole atonement package.

 

The blood type of a child comes from the Father, I would say that makes the blood of Christ very different.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by comforter:
The blood type of a child comes from the Father, I would say that makes the blood of Christ very different.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a combination of bad medicine and bad theology .

Bad medicine: Each of us has two ABO blood type alleles, because we each inherit one blood type allele from our biological mother and one from our biological father. A description of the pair of alleles in our DNA is called the genotype. Blood Types Tutorial

Bad Theology: Hebrews 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

To hold the position you hold is to deny the truth of Heb 2:14. It is to deny the basic truths of genetics and biology as God created them. It is to deny the full humanity of Christ and to render his atoning sacrifice useless for the human race.

 

rjvaugn stated,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is interesting to compare the evangelists that report to the Sword of the Lord (they did when I read it, I assume they still do) and see that usually about 25% of their converts follow the Lord in baptism and church membership, while on the day of Pentecost all those that gladly received the word were baptized and were added to the church. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point!

 

Kiffin and rjvaughn,
The day of Pentacost tells only of 3000 men being saved, this number is not including women and children!
So your so-called facts does not make an interesting point.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ken:
Kiffin and rjvaughn,
The day of Pentacost tells only of 3000 men being saved, this number is not including women and children!
So your so-called facts does not make an interesting point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


What version are you reading?? And who said anything about men only?? Which of the "facts" are you denying??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Acts 2:41: So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is that in Acts, those who were saved were baptized (implies all of them, not just 25% or so); And it gives the number at 3000 souls, not 3000 men plus women and children.

[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

So, Ken, what's your point? Pastor Larry sufficiently points out that it doesn't say men, but souls - 3000 people. But what if it were 3000 men? The text indicates that these 3000 that gladly received the word were baptized; and this is unlike many evangelists who report some number gladly receiving the word and only about 20?%-25% of them being baptized. These are facts, not so-called, and I certainly have no idea at what you are getting. Perhaps Kiffin or I might respond more intelligently if you explain what you mean.