John MacArthur – The Blood of Jesus is just Liquid!

MacArthur truly believes the Blood of Jesus Christ has no significance what-so-ever except, that it is just liquid.  

Romans 1:21   “For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

THIS IS JOHN MACARTHUR’S BIBLE BEING EXPOSED FOR DENYING THE BLOOD OF JESUS…

THIS IS JOHN MACARTHUR TRYING TO COVER UP HIS DENIAL, BUT DENIES ALL OVER AGAIN…

 

JOHN MACARTHUR’S STUDY BIBLE – Copyright owned by Roman Catholics, Bible based onVatican version…

 

———————–

Original article:   Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ  by John MacArthur that was published here was removed by DTW due to a BIG miss-understanding of what the article really meant.  Comments on this article remain below. 

———————–

See Related Posts on this Topic

• Cindy Jacobs - Two Truly False Prophecies for Zimbabwe and Africa
• John MacArthur I pray this is NOT true!
• Ungodly Christian Pastors in our Churches?
• Calvinism a Heretical Doctrine - That's What the Bible Says!

Posted by: Deborah (Discerning the World) | On this date: May 16th, 2010 | Tags: antiChrist, Apostasy, Apostolic, bible, Christ, Christian, church, contemplative, DiscerntheWorld, End Times, error, Faith, False Prophet, False Teaching, God, heresy, Holy Spirit, Jesus, man of Lawlessness, Manifestation, meditation, Pastor, prophetic, Reformation, Religion, Revival, South Africa, Spirituality, Theology, truth, Youth - Categories: Apostasy, Falling Away from Christian Faith, Augustine (354-430), Roman Catholic Philosopher, Biblical Fundamentals, Blasphemy, Blasphemous, Blood of Jesus Christ, Blood Covering, Washing away Sin, Calvinism, Calvinist, Reformed Theology, Crucifixion, Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Dominion Theology, Kingdom Now Theology, Reconstructionism, Ecumenism, Interfaith, Religious Unity, Emerging Church Movement (ECM), New Evangelical, Postmodernism, Evangelism, Evangelical Christian, God, Divinity, Godliness, Godhood, Jesus Christ Word of God made Flesh, John Calvin (1509–1564), Geneva Catechism, John MacArthur, Predestination, Election, Chosen by God, Fore-ordained, Reprobate (Without Hope Of Salvation), Repentance of Sin, Repentance of Sin, Forgiveness, Atonement, Salvation, Roman Catholicism, Catholic, Rome, Vatican II, The New Evangelization, Nostra Aetate, Pope, TULIP, 5 Points of Calvinism, Total Hereditary Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, The Master's Academy International (TMAI), The Physical Resurrection and Bodily Return of Christ, The Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement, The Verbal Inerrancy of Scripture, The Virgin Birth, Word of God as Final Authority |

28 comments to John MacArthur – The Blood of Jesus is just Liquid!

• _observer

  16 May, 2010 at 2:59 am

  JMcA wrote: “I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ’s eternal sonship while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply.”

  Deb,

  Doesn’t he actually state exactly opposite of what you accuse him of? He says that his belief used to be that the title “the Son of God” was closely linked to his earthly existence and applied to Christ only after his incarnation, i.e. becoming a human being in addition to already being God (to JMcA divinity of Christ was not in jeopardy in this view).

  But he revised his position now believes the title “the Son of God” applies to Christ even before incarnation (eternally), i.e he actually affirms the eternal sonship of Jesus, which wasn’t the case before – he used to hold the minority view (sonship being the product of the incarnation), but still acknowledged Jesus Chist’s divinity and oneness with the father even before incarnation although he used to think the term “Son” was not necessarily accurate with reference to Christ before His incernation (yes this the logic behind this view – go figure…).

  This is what I understood from the article, but it’s already late here and I don’t know if my brain isn’t playing trics on me ;-) and btw I’m not a JMcA fan

  
• Derek

  16 May, 2010 at 5:29 am

  John MacArthur never ceases to amaze me with his pride and arrogance. I marked him as a false teacher long ago(Doctrine of Election/Lordship Salvation). Paul Washer and John MacArthur are nothing but heretics that appeal to proud minds.

  I am so blessed to have found your site- it is so refreshing to see there are others with eyes to see and ears to hear.

  In Jesus name,

  Derek from BC, Canada.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  16 May, 2010 at 8:36 am

  _observer

  I read this quite a few times and what MacArthur does is he agrees and then disagrees and then agrees and then disagrees with the final conclusion being, he says, “I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of “incarnational sonship.” The heading also states that, “Is it true that John MacArthur has reversed his position on the eternal Sonship of Christ? Yes. Here’s a statement from John about his views on that issue.” BUT then tries to make his decision seem ‘not as bad as it sounds’ but saying. “I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ’s eternal sonship while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply.” But he did pry very deeply and now does not know what he believes.

  If it’s a mystery then how can he come to such a rigid conclusion at the beginning of the document and further down. He is playing games in this article. Re-read it.

  So the logic as you said behind his view is still that the term ‘Son’ was not who Jesus was before he was incarnated. And this is a big problem, because who was He then? Also his thinking on why the Holy Spirit is not a Son as well…if Jesus was. When you start to have thoughts like this, you will end up in a very bad place

  Help me if I am not reading this properly… lol

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  16 May, 2010 at 9:59 am

  There is no heirarchy. They are all ONE, but 3 different persons. I don’t know why MacArthur is trying to break it down.

  
• _observer

  17 May, 2010 at 12:43 am

  Deb,

  I haven’t read much from John MacArthur, so perhaps I’m missing some nuances of his theology – I only know that he’s a Calvinist, a view that is unbiblical in my understanding (not supported by the scriptures and one that eradicates genuine God-given human free will making thus God responsible for the fall of the humanity and the existence of evil in the world).

  I re-read the article and judging only by this one text by MacArthur I can only tell you what I think his stance concerning the “Sonship of Jesus Christ” is (I’m not absolutely sure if I get what he means ;-) ).

  1. I think, a part of the confusion in this article is that MacArthur implicitly refers to a theological dispute (an age-long discussion about who Jesus was and who wasn’t, and what was the nature of His relationship with the Father prior to the incarnation) without explaining the terminology that is used among biblical scholars and theologians (and I’m not a theologian myself, I just try to understand what is being said). He uses two terms: “incarnational sonship” and “eternal sonship” and these two are not the same, they are in fact in opposition to each other in theology:

  a. “incarnational sonship” view – Jesus Christ became “the Son” ONLY at his incarnation – this is the moment He was “begotten”; the term “the Son” refers ONLY to His earthly existence. In this view, Jesus is still God, same essence as Yahweh, one with the Father and EQUAL to Him, but the “sonship” terminology is not applied to Jesus prior to His incarnation – in the logic behind this view, it would mean that Jesus would have been actually LOWER than the Father if he had been “son” from the beginning, prior to the incarnation, so the sonship terminology in both the NT and OT pertaining to Jesus is explained away as referring only to His coming in a human body. But, as you said, Deb, if Jesus hadn’t been “the Son” in eternity, before He became a human, then who He had been? This view has no alternative explanation – it just ends with a question mark. This is the minority view among theologians and MacArthur subscribed (past tense) to this view, but no longer does – because of internal incoherence and evidence from the biblical text to the opposite, e.g., that “son” IS NOT someone lower than “father” in the Bible, and for other reasons, MacArthur now changed camps to join the majority view, which is explained in (b) below:

  (btw, the title of MacArthur’s text “Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ,” I think, means that MacArthur “examines again” the issue, he rethinks the issue and presents his conclusions – the title doesn’t necessarily state the result of this “reexamination,” in favor or against, the body of the text does, i.e., he doesn’t deny “eternal sonship” in the title, nor in the article, from what I can see)

  b. “eternal sonship” view – Jesus Christ is “the Son in eternity,” and ever has been, is one with the Father, is the same essence as Yahweh, He is EQUAL with the Father and the term “the Son” should be applied to Jesus ALSO before His incarnation, period… MacArthur says that he NOW holds THIS view. So it would appear he changed to the more coherent and biblically backed-up understanding (in this case, at least, don’t know about his other views).

  2. MacArthur describes his “journey” towards the view “eternal sonship” in theology, that’s why he first explains his former view “incarnational sonship” and the reasons for holding it, and then shows why he changed his theological stance. This “journey” may also be a confusing element in the text in the way MacArthur wrote it.

  3. this quote by MacArthur: “I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ’s eternal sonship while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply.” may simply mean that MacArthur states that he doesn’t fully understand exactly how it works that Jesus is “the eternal Son” (how it works “technically, so to speak”) or how it is that God is one and yet in three persons, but since it is how God presented Himself to us and this is what the Bible clearly teaches – all three are one, and yet three., etc… – MacArthur affirms all of these things.

  Anyway, Deb, I have no idea if MacArthur “encoded” some of his errors in this article – maybe he says one thing, and means something different. But I can’t discern that from this particular text. It may be that he actually, in this case, corrected one element of his theology – concerning “eternal sonship” of Jesus. As I understand this article, it may be so.

  I’m sorry I can’t help you more on this, but I have no extensive knowledge on MacArthur’s teaching, and my brain is already starting to turn into a pretzel when trying to understand and unpack these things. ;-)

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  17 May, 2010 at 1:12 am

  _Observer

  I seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee *says the blind man* Oh gosh, me thinks I made a mistake. Never the less the Blood of Jesus and Predestination still stands strong. I’ll just update this article.

  I’m going on a small holiday for 3 days – no laptop allowed – so I’ll sort this one out now.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  17 May, 2010 at 2:25 am

  _Observer

  Thank you.

  
• Burning Lamp

  17 May, 2010 at 2:40 am

  Deb, have a time of refreshing – you deserve it. I am going to be gone for a couple of weeks doing evangelism in a 3rd sorld country, presenting the full and complete uncompromised Gospel message.

  I look forward to coming back to see what has transpired here while I am away from my computer.

  Grace and peace to all!

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  17 May, 2010 at 3:11 am

  BL

  Jesus will keep you safe Burning Lamp. See you soon!

  
• Fred Butler

  24 May, 2010 at 6:15 pm

  Amazing…
  I attend Grace Church and have worked with John now nearly 17 years.

  On the blood issue, if one cannot walk away from what John stated on that video and not be clear as to what he believes on the blood, you have an agenda against the man. I have already commented on the error of his detractors on this in the comments under the “John Macarthur I pray this is NOT true!” post.

  As to the study Bible, which free copies were recently delivered to 10,000 pastors in Uganda (http://www.gracebiblecs.org/ibc/ibc-video), The NKJV is not based upon the Vaticanus or the Sinaticus. It is the same TR text type used to basically translate the KJV, which didn’t use the TR exclusively anyways. So the video maker is mistaken about that claim.

  I am taking it that this website is maybe friendly with KJV- onlyism?

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  24 May, 2010 at 7:05 pm

  Fred

  ….if one cannot walk away from what John stated on that video and not be clear as to what he believes on the blood, you have an agenda against the man.

  Ohhhhh is that how it works. If someone attacked Jesus Christ’ Divinity and someone points it out then we have a vendedda against the person? Wow. Oh well. You just keep thinking that ok… one day you will wake up

  I am taking it that this website is maybe friendly with KJV- onlyism?

  No Fred.

  
• Fred Butler

  25 May, 2010 at 5:54 pm

  Ohhhhh is that how it works. If someone attacked Jesus Christ’ Divinity and someone points it out then we have a vendedda against the person? Wow. Oh well. You just keep thinking that ok… one day you will wake up

  But John never attacked the divinity of Jesus Christ. He once held to incarnational sonship, which has to do with the use of messianic titles. Ironically, when John became more sharpened in his understanding of the doctrines of grace maybe 15 years ago, that dreaded Calvinism you despise, he revisited his thinking on the matter and adopted the Reformed view of eternal sonship.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  26 May, 2010 at 10:22 am

  Fred

  Ohhhhh is that how it works. If someone attacked Jesus Christ’ Divinity and someone points it out then we have a vendedda against the person? Wow. Oh well. You just keep thinking that ok… one day you will wake up

  But John never attacked the divinity of Jesus Christ. He once held to incarnational sonship, which has to do with the use of messianic titles. Ironically, when John became more sharpened in his understanding of the doctrines of grace maybe 15 years ago, that dreaded Calvinism you despise, he revisited his thinking on the matter and adopted the Reformed view of eternal sonship.

  Fred the Chosen

  Come now, work with me here. We are taking about John MacArthur denying that the Blood of Jesus has no relevance what so ever and that it’s just liquid.

  Deborah the Reprobate saved by Grace

  
• Alan

  29 May, 2010 at 9:14 am

  John MacArthur says something quite wrong on one of the videos (apart from his silly semantic nonsense about the blood of Jesus not being special), where he says that Jesus died of asphyxiation. My father was a medical Doctor and he told me that when the spear was thrust in Jesus’ side and theout came blod and water, it was actually a sign that his heart had burst, so Jesus literally died of a broken heart. This is also shown in that the others had to have their legs broken to hasten death, while the Bible tells us that Jesus was already dead and so His bones weren’t broken. The soldier speared Jesus to make sure and the blood and water was taken as proof of death.
  So John MacArthur is not being careful in his research at all is he?

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  1 June, 2010 at 3:00 pm

  Alan

  Absolutely! The asphyxiation thing is a joke really. It’s MacArthurs way of trying to justify his denial by coming up with stupid reasons as to why. And now…how many people believe John MacArthur’s tale? Apparently thousands.

  
• Burning Lamp

  1 June, 2010 at 4:09 pm

  Jesus was not at the mercy of any human infliction to cause His dying. He chose the moment of His death and He voluntarily gave up His life. This would be indicated by John 19:30

  So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. NKJV

  He voluntarily suffered and He voluntarily gave up His life. He was in control because He had to declare the work complete and only then could He submit to death. The words “He gave” indicate that He determined the moment of His death.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  1 June, 2010 at 4:53 pm

  BL

  Jesus was not at the mercy of any human infliction to cause His dying. He chose the moment of His death and He voluntarily gave up His life. This would be indicated by John 19:30

  So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. NKJV

  He voluntarily suffered and He voluntarily gave up His life. He was in control because He had to declare the work complete and only then could He submit to death. The words “He gave” indicate that He determined the moment of His death.

  Again, this shows us that MacArthur views Jesus as a mere man on the cross with no control who suffocated to death – this is why Jesus’ blood means nothing.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  1 June, 2010 at 4:57 pm

  It’s quite shocking really. The more you analyse such a simple remark by John MacArthur about the ‘Blood of Jesus being liquid only’ the more vile his remark becomes when you break it down and compare it to WHO JESUS IS.

  
• Brad

  6 June, 2010 at 5:47 am

  Look people. I don’t know what Bible you read. Really I don’t. But in about the thirty translations I have here it’s not the blood of Jesus that saves you. The blood is not magical. That was the point. It’s grace that saves, NOT BLOOD. That’s all J.M is saying. People make the blood out to be some magical thing that “WOULD FORCE GOD TO ACCEPT ME!” … Or something. What would it mean if HE was only dying to shed his blood? IF that were the case when he was scourged HE BLED he saved us then!

  It wasn’t the blood it was the death and resurrection that was the SIGN to the people that THEY WERE ATONED and were welcome to come home like the prodigal son story.

  IF IT WERE the blood with some mystical value, aren’t we lucky that that magic blood could be made.>>> Because when you break it down that belief says the BLOOD HAD POWER OVER GOD and forced his hand on acceptance. It would deny grace.

  The fact is people make BIBLICAL KNOWLEDGE and the BLOOD IDOLS that aren’t fit for any church to experience. If half of the people above have even read their bibles I’d be shocked. Some of the thoughts are so, ummm PUT GOD IN A BOX, oriented that I wonder if they even believe in an all powerful God that is SUPREME! THAT IS KING. In their posts it sounds more like GOD is santa Claus than KING and LORD and OWNER OF ALL.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  6 June, 2010 at 11:37 am

  Brad

  If you go here: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2010/03/13/john-macarthur-i-pray-this-is-not-true/ you will find an entire conversation on this matter that explains the problem VERY cleary. Your comment is completely out of line … So please go read all the comments under the article I mentioned and then go read your bible.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  6 June, 2010 at 11:54 am

  Brad

  Here is one of the comments I placed that answers what you are trying to say – I was speaking to a guy called Fred.

  —————
  Deborah (Discerning the World)
  May 11th, 2010 at 11:13 am

  I think the confusion comes in where WOF love to “plead the Blood of Jesus’ over oneself and others and everything for that matter, turning the blood of Jesus into a magic ritual of sorts. This is based on OT covenant where the blood of the animal would be sprinkled on doorsteps as a covering, offering spiritual protection, etc. However, this was a temporary covenant. This blood needed to be repeated daily and yearly.) This is law. We don’t do this. If we do this, we admonish Jesus’ sacrifice and his shed blood on the cross for us once and for all. If we do this blood covering we also shun the Holy Spirit. So yes, this is totally wrong.

  However in the context of salvation, Jesus’ Blood is precious and symbolises LIFE!

  In the NT God would later send His only Son providing a new covenant, or New Testament through Jesus Christ. Jesus would die in the place of all sinners. His sacrifice fulfilled completely what the Old Testament covenant meant to. His blood would remove the sins of the world for all who put their faith in Him. This sacrifice would never have to be repeated; it is an eternal covenant. And we have the Holy Spirit who then comes to abide in us, who leads us, comforts us, and convicts us of sin. The Holy Spirit in us, makes us want too obey God and live a life that is pleasing to Him.

  1 Peter 1:18-19, “For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. He paid for you with the precious lifeblood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God.”

  The death and life of Jesus Christ is absolutely the most precious thing God has offered us.

  John the Baptist called Jesus the John 1:29 “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world”

  The Lamb of course, referenced the unblemished animal sacrifice of the OT. There are many references to sacrificial offerings in the Old Testament.

  It is the blood of Jesus that cleans our conscience from sin and it’s influence upon us. When we receive the blood of Jesus we receive a new conscience, we become a new person, that desires to serve and obey God, a conscience that enjoys obeying God:

  Hebrews 9:13-14 “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

  Rev 1:5-6 “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father–to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

  The holy blood that was in Jesus was poured out for you and me to make atonement for our sins so that we could have a new relationship with God. God calls this new relationship “The New Covenant”. It is the blood of Jesus that seals this new covenant that God made with people:

  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.’

  Spiritually feeding on Jesus body and drinking His blood will fill you with His very life, because the life is in the blood. Food gives us nourishment, strength, and satisfaction. Jesus is our spiritual source of nourishment, strength, and satisfaction. (I am NOT speaking about Catholic Eucharist mass here and their perverted way of looking at communion)

  John 6:53-57 53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54″Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 “For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.”

  Jesus taught His disciples to remember His sacrifice for them. And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.

  Luke 22:19-20 19 “Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, 20 “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

  Mat 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

  Blood covering washes away our sin and is a COVERING that presents us holy and unblamable and spotless in God’s sight. In order for us to come before God, into His presence, you can ONLY come to the Father THROUGH Jesus Christ His Son. Once you accept Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross to save us and repent of your sin, His Blood covers you that you can appear spotless before God. If it was not for Jesus’ Blood you would not be able to stand before God! Jesus brings you into God’s presence and says, ‘Father, here is Fred Brad” :) – That’s an example, I have no idea what Jesus says, so don’t even try pull me apart on that one -

  Colossians 1:20-22 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

  Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

  1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

  Revelation 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,

  Washing of water = Washed by the Blood of Jesus

  Ephesians 5:26-27 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

  I can go on… but I hope you understand the difference between the OT and NT Blood covering and that Jesus’s blood does not symbolise His death, but LIFE – His Blood is PRECIOUS!

  Oh and another thing. If Jesus’s Blood means nothing, then Jesus’ physical resurrection means nothing too as it was just ’spiritual’ – which is heresy. Jesus rose bodily, EVERYTHING ABOUT JESUS IS DIVINE before, inbetween and after. Hmmm – now that’s a shocker eh? One has to be soooooooooooo careful how you speak about Jesus Christ, just the slightest adding to Jesus, or taking away from Him changes the gospel and who Jesus is completely.

  Why could John MacArthur not explain this in his study bible? Instead Jesus’ blood is just liquid. No, spiritually it is LIFE GIVING and PRECIOUS BEYOND PRECIOUS – His blood is what covers us – a once off covering when you accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour and reborn. This however does not however give you lisence to stop repenting for sin when you stumble in the future, as the Holy Spirit convicts one when they do sin and you ask Jesus for forgiveness.

  ——————

  
• novstan

  1 August, 2010 at 7:28 am

  Derek wrote:

  John MacArthur never ceases to amaze me with his pride and arrogance. I marked him as a false teacher long ago(Doctrine of Election/Lordship Salvation). Paul Washer and John MacArthur are nothing but heretics that appeal to proud minds.
  I am so blessed to have found your site- it is so refreshing to see there are others with eyes to see and ears to hear.
  In Jesus name,
  Derek from BC, Canada.

  you like to follow men. thats why you feel the way you feel. and then you say you are blessed because you find this blog. you r do blind!!!

  
• novstan

  1 August, 2010 at 7:44 am

  Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

  Alan
  Absolutely! The asphyxiation thing is a joke really. It’s MacArthurs way of trying to justify his denial by coming up with stupid reasons as to why. And now…how many people believe John MacArthur’s tale? Apparently thousands.

  excuse me. u need to be a little carefull. the asphyxiation thing as you call it is true for victims of cruxifiction. research it yourself.I dont mind that u post all this articles here but just be xtra carefull whith what u say, remember that u r still a human

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  1 August, 2010 at 11:50 am

  Novstan

  Oh hello??? We are not taking about that. We are talking about John MacArthur’s notion that Jesus’ blood is just liquid. Get your context straight.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  1 August, 2010 at 11:53 am

  Novstan

  Oh boy, you sure know how to twist a persons words. Derek feels happy to know there are others out there who have the eyes to see and ears to hear about what is going on in this world.

  
• Livingclean

  19 August, 2010 at 6:54 am

  All of you can only wish you were able to ex-posit God’ truth like Dr. Macarthur does day in and day out.
  Many of you are like “babes,” still on the milk, unable to distinguish between good and evil.
  Hebrews 5:13-14

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  20 August, 2010 at 3:16 pm

  Livingclean

  Oh sorry none of us will never reach the top of the imaginary pedestal you put John Mac Arthur on – by the way, that’s called idol worship.

  
• Elijah

  4 September, 2010 at 10:40 pm

  Hot topic.

  Jeez. I think he goes to far in trying to provide a distinction between blood and death. We have a substitute because Jesus died. This involved the blood of Yeshua. But when you say it wasn’t the blood it was the death… it’s all part of the same event.

  clearly we are saved by the Jesus’ death. the bible is not specific about which constituent parts of that death merit which benefits. The point is that He did die, the shedding of blood was necessary. I don’t think it’s necessary to be specific. Sometimes its better to be ignorant.

  

48 queries. 0.852 seconds.