Peeps around the World

Blog Stats

wordpress stat

20 Most Recent Comments Scrolling

Christian Top 1000
SA Topsites ::

John MacArthur – Blood of Jesus Liquid / Never applied in Heaven

7DTW AuthorIcon75 John MacArthur   Blood of Jesus Liquid / Never applied in Heaven

John MacArthur2 John MacArthur   Blood of Jesus Liquid / Never applied in HeavenJohn MacArthur declares that the blood of Jesus was just liquid and was never applied in heaven.

Apparently this is all a big mis-understanding.  Apparently John MacArthur was deliberately taken out of context and has had to deal with the consequences ever since.  Why John MacArthur’s recent study bible says the blood of Jesus is liquid (on important verses) is another question…

He claims that some of his more militant critics have allowed their superstition on this matter to get the best of them. During the World Congress on Fundamentalism, which met on the BJU Campus (Bob Jones University), August 4-8, 1986, they passed a resolution declaring that Christ’s actual blood is eternally preserved in heaven, where it is by some mystical means literally applied to each believer.  According to the World Congress, such a rigidly literal view of Christ’s blood is now to be considered a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and they will break fellowship with anyone who denies it.  [DTW note - Well I would too, because it's hundred percent true.  But the understanding of the blood of Jesus in heaven has been a biblical doctrine long since standing long before the  World Congress on Fundamentalism supposedly laid claim to it.  You see, after Jesus rose from the grave, not even Mary could touch him as he had to remain a spotless lamb, He had not yet ascended to Heaven.

John 20:17  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

When He when to heaven he entered into the holy of holies, sprinkled His precious blood upon the mercy seat before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin question, and delivered us from the curse of the law. This is clearly taught in the New testament.

Hebrews 9:12  Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

In the Old Testament they had to make a sin offering on an ongoing basis, but Jesus came to make 1 sacrifice for us,  1 offering, and His blood was sprinkled ONCE in the temple on the mercy seat in heaven.

Hebrews 9:24-26   24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And it's not mystical, it's 100% spiritual.]

John MacArthur says that these people insist on literalizing every New Testament reference to Jesus’ blood. They teach that the physical blood of Christ was somehow preserved after the crucifixion and carried to heaven, where it is now literally applied to the soul of each Christian at salvation. [DTW, clearly John MacArthur is preaching a false gospel.]

John MacArthur says we are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus’ literal blood. He says nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. When Scripture says we’re redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we’re saved by Christ’s sacrificial death.  [DTW:  If you read the scriptures you will know there is no bowl of blood in heaven.    Jesus blood however WAS sprinkled in heaven.

Hebrews 12:24-25
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

There is a warning in verse 25 that says, “see that ye refuse not him that speaketh” implying that Jesus and the blood are identical, if you deny the blood of Jesus, you deny Jesus Christ.

In the below verse the bible shows us that when we get saved, Jesus’ blood that is sprinkled in heaven sprinkles our hearts from an evil conscience.

Hebrews 10:20-22
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

According to John MacArthur he says since this day, they have opted to hound him with unrelenting accusations, innuendo, and false accusations. These misguided brethren are so blindly determined to tie John MacArthur to the heretics’ stake that they haven’t noticed how their own rhetoric has carried them into serious heresy instead, denying the full humanity of Christ’s body, and opening the door to a Romanesque literalism regarding the application of Christ’s blood to sinners.  [DTW note:  uh no, it's clear John MacArthur is misguided and by denying the blood of Jesus, he denies Jesus Christ.]

John MacArthur says:

“It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out.” 

The bible says:

Hebrews 10:19  “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,”  (Ephesians 2:13)

Romans 3:25   “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”

Who are we going to believe, John MacArthur or the bible?  The bible of course.

You see, in the Old Testament, when the plagues were upon Egypt, God instructed Moses to warn the Israelites to apply the blood of a slain lamb to the door posts of their homes.  If they didn’t obey God, then the firstborn of that individual family would die.  

Exodus 12:13  “And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I s ee 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.”

Do you see that?  God says, “…. and when I see the blood” … “I will pass over you”

If the people instead just sacrificed the lamb and stopped short of applying the blood blood to the doorposts of their homes, then their first born would have died!  The blood had to be applied.

This is what John MacArthur teaches, he stops short of applying the blood.

The same for the tabernacle, the Highpriest was required to apply the slain lamb’s blood to the mercy seat, in the holy of holies.  

Leviticus 16:15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

If the Highpriest sacrificed the lamb; but stopped short of applying the blood to the mercy seat, then the people’s sin were not atoned for. It is clear that the blood had to be applied to the mercy seat. 

John MacArthur says, “It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out.”

John MacArthur however teaches that it’s not Jesus’ blood being applied to the mercy seat in heaven that cleanses us, washes away our sins (because he does not believe Jesus blood was sprinkled in heaven) – he says instead that it’s the sacrifice itself that cleanses you, he stops short of applying the blood.  John MacArthur doesn’t believe that the blood of Jesus is holy, it’s just liquid, nothing more.  The bible condemns those who trample underfoot the blood covenant.

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?”

The blood of Jesus is not liquid, the bible says that the blood of Jesus washes away our sins forever.

1 Peter 1:18-19   “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;”

——————-

Here’s a letter John MacArthur wrote to his constituents in 1988 in response to those who were trying to discredit him over this issue:

I Believe in the Precious Blood
By John MacArthur

He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 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.
Hebrews 10:28-29

Dear Beloved Friend,

The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is holy and precious. The shedding of His blood in death was the price of atonement for our sins. As He literally poured out His blood in a sacrificial act, He sealed forever the New Covenant and purchased our redemption.

Those of you familiar with my teaching know that I have always believed and affirmed those things. For the past two or three years, however, I have been under attack by a small but vocal group of men who are eager to discredit my ministry. They have charged me with denying the blood of Christ and have called me a heretic in several nationally distributed publications.

My first response was to write many of those men privately, believing their attack on me grew from a misunderstanding. None of them had spoken to me personally before attacking me in print. Only a handful have yet replied to my letters. Still, I expected the public controversy to die away. My teaching is certainly no secret, and I knew that those who listen regularly to our radio broadcast would know I am a not teaching heresy.

Nevertheless, for nearly three years a small core of zealots have kept the issue swirling around every ministry I’m involved with. One man has literally made a career of going to any church in the country that will pay his way and giving a series of messages on the error of “MacArthurism.” Recently, a couple of key radio stations dropped “Grace to You,” not because of anything we taught on the broadcast, but because they did not want to continue to deal with the controversy being generated by rumormongers.

Over the past couple of years we have received thousands of letters from all over the country, ranging from those supporting our biblical view, to those who are confused, to some who blindly echo the accusation that we are trampling underfoot the blood of Christ. For the sake of all of them, and so that you can better understand what I have taught about the blood of Christ, let’s look at three truths that I and all other genuine believers affirm about the blood of Jesus Christ.

1. Jesus’ Blood Is the Basis of Redemption

Peter wrote, “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [like] silver and gold . . .but with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18-19, KJV). Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ nearly three times as often as it mentions the cross, and five times more often than it refers to the death of Christ. The word blood, therefore, is the chief term the New Testament uses to refer to the atonement.

Peter wrote that election is “unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:2). The “sprinkling of the blood” was what sealed the New Covenant (cf. Heb. 9:1-18). “Without shedding of blood is no remission” (v. 22). If Christ had not literally shed His blood in sacrifice for our sins, we could not have been saved.

This is one reason crucifixion was the means God ordained by which Christ should die: it was the most vivid, visible display of life being poured out as the price for sins.

Bloodshed was likewise God’s design for nearly all Old Testament sacrifices. They were bled to death rather than clubbed, strangled, suffocated, or burnt. God designed that sacrificial death was to occur with blood loss, because “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11).

2. Jesus Shed His Literal Blood When He Died

The literal blood of Christ was violently shed at the crucifixion. Those who deny this truth or try to spiritualize the death of Christ are guilty of corrupting the gospel message. Jesus Christ bled and died in the fullest literal sense, and when He rose from the dead, he was literally resurrected. To deny the absolute reality of those truths is to nullify them (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14-17).

The meaning of the crucifixion, however, is not fully expressed in the bleeding alone. There was nothing supernatural in Jesus’ blood that sanctified those it touched. Those who flogged Him might have been spattered with blood. Yet that literal application of Jesus’ blood did nothing to purge their sins.

Had our Lord bled without dying, redemption would not have been accomplished. If the atonement had been stopped before the full wages of sin had been satisfied, Jesus’ bloodshed would have been to no avail.

It is important to note also that though Christ shed His blood, Scripture does not say He bled to death; it teaches rather that He voluntarily yielded up His spirit (John 10:18). Yet even that physical death could not have bought redemption apart from His spiritual death, whereby He was separated from the Father (cf. Mat. 27:46).

3. Not Every Reference to Jesus’ Blood Is Literal

Clearly, though Christ shed His literal blood, many references to the blood are not intended to be taken in the literal sense. A strictly literal interpretation cannot, for example, explain such passages as John 6:53-54: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

It would be equally hard to explain how physical blood is meant in Matthew 27:25 (“His blood be on us, and on our children”); Acts 5:28 (“[You] intend to bring this man’s blood upon us”); 18:6 (“Your blood be upon your own heads”); 20:26 (“I am innocent of the blood of all men”); and 1 Corinthians 10:16 (“The cup of blessing . . .is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?,” KJV).

Clearly the word blood is often used to mean more than the literal red fluid. Thus it is that when Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ, it usually means much more than just the red and white corpuscles—it encompasses His death, the sacrifice for our sins, and all that is involved in the atonement.

Trying to make literal every reference to Christ’s blood can lead to serious error. The Catholic doctrine known as transubstantiation, for example, teaches that communion wine is miraculously changed into the actual blood of Christ, and that those who partake of the elements in the mass literally fulfill the words of Jesus in John 6:54: “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Those who have attacked me seem to be espousing the same kind of mystical view of the blood that led the Catholic Church to embrace transubstantiation. They claim that the blood of Christ was never truly human. They insist on literalizing every New Testament reference to Jesus’ blood. They teach that the physical blood of Christ was somehow preserved after the crucifixion and carried to heaven, where it is now literally applied to the soul of each Christian at salvation.  [Emphasis added]

We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus’ literal blood. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. When Scripture says we’re redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we’re saved by Christ’s sacrificial death. [Emphasis added]

In the same way, when Paul said he gloried in the cross (Gal. 6:14), he did not mean the literal wooden beams; he was speaking of all the elements of redeeming truth. Just as the cross is an expression that includes all of Christ’s atoning work, so is the blood. It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out.  [Emphasis added]

That is not heresy; it is basic biblical truth.

If you’ve been troubled by these issues and you’d like to study them more in depth, please write to us. We’ll send you free of charge a cassette tape containing virtually everything I’ve ever said about the blood of Christ. We’ve compiled this tape from nearly twenty years of messages given at Grace Community Church. We also have some written material that explains our position, which we will send you again at no charge.

I hope you’ll be like the noble Bereans and study God’s Word for yourself to see if these things are true. Please don’t be influenced by careless charges of heresy.

Also, please pray for me. These attacks have been relentless, and I confess that at times it is discouraging. Yet I know one cannot be on the front lines without constant battles, and it is a privilege to suffer wrong for the Lord’s sake (cf. 1 Pet. 4:19).

Thank you for your prayers and support. Please pray that God will protect us as we seek to minister His truth with boldness.
Yours in His Service,

John MacArthur Pastor-Teacher

———————-

But the question remains, why does John MacArthur’s recent study bible say the blood of Jesus is liquid on IMPORTANT VERSES that should be spiritualised.

John MacArthur is a Calvinist, who preaches the doctrine of demons; Calvinism.  He believes in Predestination, that Jesus only died for the Elect and not the whole world.  The fact that John MacArthur denies the blood of Jesus Christ is just a symptom of the doctrine of Calvinism.

See all articles on John MacArthur here

———————-

pixel John MacArthur   Blood of Jesus Liquid / Never applied in Heaven

48 comments to John MacArthur – Blood of Jesus Liquid / Never applied in Heaven

  • Derek

    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.

  • 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 (REMOVED), 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)

    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.

  • 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)

    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

    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)

    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.

  • Brad

    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)

    Brad

    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 – in the Old Testament the blood was sprinkled in the holy of Holies for the people by the high priest once a year. It was for the cleansing and forgiveness of sins only. This is law. We don’t do this. Jesus replaced the lamb in the OT. 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.

    ——————

  • Livingclean

    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)

    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

    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.

  • Burning Lamp

    What about the commentary in the JMA Study Bible as outlined in the video above? Didn’t Debs confirm this with her own copy or am I thinking of something else?

    Aside from the blood issue, my main problem w/JMA is that he is Calvinist/Reformed and runs with that crowd. That is a fact.

  • Michael

    The precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is not meant to go under any “chemical” analysis…it borders on blasphemy and it’s absurb to even go down this road…it does symbolise an uniqueness just as Jesus was unique in that He was both physical and divine…both God and man…it had physical attributes as well as divine.
    His critics are quoting John Macarthur totally out of the context he implied. John was simply implying that it was blood that did not have any magical ingredient…as some of the mystics such as Benny Hinn once claimed. Many years ago I heard Benny Hinn preach on the blood of Jesus saying it was God’s blood and this is heretical.Any spirit that denies that Jesus did not come in the flesh is not of God for the Son of God became flesh and dwelt among us.
    I think man’s sinful tendancy to split hairs in matters he cannot understand lead to these contaversies.
    John Mac arthur preaches a true gospel and many have been truly saved by his clear preaching…unlike the false preachers in the WOF families.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Michael

    I agree totally.

  • Elmarie A

    Burning Lamp wrote:

    Certainly one wants to be fair to JMA, but this does need to be clarified. Surely his Study Bible was proofed and approved by JMA himself?

    I agree to being fair on this issue. The JMA Study Bible I trust could be used with safety and if I had a need for it to help me I would not hesitate to buy it. It is probably one of the more safer Study Bibles out there seeing that Joyce Meyer and others has their own Study Bibles as well and that we know cannot be trusted?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    The JMA letter was written in 1988. 22 years ago. The bible study was reselased a few years ago and mentioned Jesus blood as being liquid. We want to know why.

  • Burning Lamp

    Debs, it seems that JMA’s study Bible speaks for him in more ways than one. The Calvinist bent will permeate every page in one way or another. He most certainly won’t deny being Calvinist although he may try to protest that he is not a 5 Pointer but rather a “moderate” Calvinist. No such thing. Nada. It is like being preggers – either you are or you ain’t.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    BL

    You are right. There is no such thing as a moderate Calvinist. I tried to make excuses for them and it won’t work. I was told tonight that to speak badly about Calvinists is more detrimental to the church than false doctrine itself. Well… I can thank Jesus this person said this to me because they just nailed the coffin shut on how detrimental Calvinism is to the church and I will never again make excuses for this false doctrine.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    So what’s the moral of the story? I have said this many many times before. Stop relying on men to teach us the Word of God. We should be relying on the Holy Spirit. In fact we actually insult Jesus by insisting on relying on men to help us when He has given us His Spirit.

  • Michael

    Deb’s I could not agree with you more…erroneous doctrines of man create confusion and controversies and this is not the work of the Holy Spirit who always creates light on issues of contention.
    That is why I am not a follower of any man or his/her particular interpretation.I simply read and study the bible and ask the Holy Spirit to protect from false interpretation.
    That is why preachers and evangelists must stick to the simple clear preaching of the cross…the need of rebirth…the identification that all man-kind are hopelessly lost sinners and can only break this curse and bondage by accepting all that Calvary represents. When I got saved I began to see sin in my life and hated it for what it does and realised that this is a battle which I could never overcome without His daily help.
    When preachers come up with doctrine that waters down all that the Lord Jesus Christ is and offers easy fixes is a form of enticement and trickery. The Lord Jesus Christ never promised that the road will be easy and demanded absolute willingness to cast ones burdens upon Him.
    To get back to the question of JMA is he a Calvinist? Calvin believed in predestination. I certainly do not believe in this. Is predestination a misunderstood concept.If predestination means that God choose selected individuals to be saved then this is would make Christs mission without meaning but if predestination means that God knew into the future and past who would come to Him for regeneration then I believe this… in the concept of choice and freewill.It is God’s deepest desire that all mankind should NOT perish and that was why He Himself demonstated His true love for us by taking on the flesh and subject His own to the humiliation and suffering at Calvary so that we can CHOOSE life.
    Deb’s can you contact JMA and challenge him on the issue of predestination and how he interprets this.
    As I said I do not follow doctrines of man but I often enjoy JMA on the radio while travelling in my work and find inspiration from it…Grace to you. I need to know if what he says is spiritually sound as I find him very accurate in accordance with scripture.
    With all these other charlatans on air and God’s TV there is very little else.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Michael

    I am going to type a nice point by point email and send it to JMA. Especially on the predestination thing cos that I am afraid is a biggie no matter how we look at JMA. Thanks for your comment Michael, as always, much appreciated.

    Today we had no electricity. In fact we still have no electricity. I did a lot of reading today. I am currently sitting in the dark with my laptop and my 3G modem. I have 46% battery power left. I will comprise this letter tomorrow – if we have power that is. Grrrrrr.

  • Burning Lamp

    Debs, it really isn’t necessary to write JMA as he has many statements online. And you are likely to get a duplicit statement walking both sides of the fence.
    Example:

    I love the doctrines of grace and don’t shy away from the label “Calvinist.” I believe in the sovereignty of God. I’m convinced Scripture teaches that God is completely sovereign not only in salvation (effectually calling and granting faith to those whom He chooses); but also in every detail of the outworking of Providence. “Why I am A Calvinist” by JMA http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/10194

    The Five Points of Calvinism
    Defined, Defended and Documented
    Afterward by John MacArthur

    I am thankful for this timely revision of wonderful classic that has already been an immense blessing to countless thousands. Notwithstanding its success over the years, the only question that ultimately matters about the “five points of Calvinism” is whether these doctrines are biblical. This book has demonstrated (conclusively, in my judgment) that the “five points” are nothing more or less than what the Bible teaches. The doctrines of grace and divine sovereignty are the very lifeblood of the full and free salvation promised in the gospel.

    Today Calvinism is being subjected to constant attack. Several recent, popular, published critiques have tried to discredit John Calvin the man, or they have unfairly blamed Calvinism for the dubious politics of the Reformation era. But the doctrines of Calvinistic soteriology must stand or fall by the test of Scripture, period.

    Scripture speaks with absolute, unmistakable clarity on these vital issues: (1) Sinners are utterly helpless to redeem themselves or to contribute anything meritorious toward their own salvation (Rom 8:7-8). (2) God is sovereign in the exercise of His saving Will (Eph 1:4-5). (3) Christ died as a substitute who bore the full weight of God’s wrath on behalf of His people, and his atoning work is efficacious for their salvation (Isa. 53:5). (4) God’s saving purpose cannot be thwarted (John 6:37), meaning none of Christ’s true sheep will ever be lost (John 10:27-29). That is because (5) God assures the perseverance of His elect (Jude 24; Phil 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5).

    Those are the five points of Calvinism. I believe them not because of their historical pedigree, but because that is what Scripture teaches.

    John F. MacArthur Jr.
    http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/MacArthur_5pts.html

    How about it? Does this settle the issue? That does not mean that Arminianism is biblical either as it swings too far in the other direction. The truth is usually found in the middle of two extremes.

  • Michael

    The definitions of predestination can simply be found on …en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination by googling the word.
    Quite enlightening

  • Valerie

    Deborah,

    I hope you have your power back. I sent you an email on The Truth Project and Roger Oakland.

    You don’t have to open the attachment, it is the same as the body, but I wasn’t sure the links would copy into the email.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Valerie

    I got power back a few min ago. It’s being going on and off the whole day. I will go check my email out a bit later, just gotta approve dem comments. Thanks.

  • Burning Lamp

    Valerie, did you mean something Roger Oakland said about the Truth Project?

    This program is so popular in the churches these days.

  • LBW

    Last, but by no means least,
    No mention of the shed blood of our Lord Jesus only His ‘death’.
    Mr McArthur must consequently reject the teaching of the apostle to the gentiles – remember and
    remember
    you (Gentiles) were …excluded from the commonwealth of Israel..
    strangers to the covenants of promise
    HAVING NO HOPE..
    without God
    IN the world
    But now IN Christ Jesus…..became near IN the blood of Messiah (Eph 2:11-13)

  • Valerie

    Deborah,No my comments about Roger were seperate…sorry for the confusion. I noticed BL had the same concerns about a revival that Roger Oakland is expecting. I just don’t see Scripture saying that there will be such a thing, only apostasy and the way of Truth coming into disrepute.

  • Burning Lamp

    Val,we will just have to wait for part 2 of Roger’s commentary. It was just strange to hear Roger use the word “revival” – yes, God is still working through His remnant, but that does not a revival make.

  • John Calvin, Driscoll, Washer, MacArthur, Giglio are not Christians since they are all Calvinists. Don’t be deceived. To be saved you will need to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated instead of assuming pridefully you were irresistibly selected and not preteritioned.

  • donna

    Troy Brooks wrote:

    John Calvin, Driscoll, Washer, MacArthur, Giglio are not Christians since they are all Calvinists. Don’t be deceived. To be saved you will need to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated instead of assuming pridefully you were irresistibly selected and not preteritioned.

    Absolutely….repentance and the remission of sins is what leads to life eternal.
    The Word of God teaches that it is God Himself Who leads us to repentance through HIS GOODNESS. Genuine repentance is not something that is motivated by anything in the human heart since it is desperately wicked according to Jeremiah.
    God’s Spirit is the originator of repentance, He leads and guides us and teaches us about sin, righteousness and judgement. No man can genuinely repent unless it is by the leading of the Spirit of God, for no man cometh to the Father but by me said Jesus…and He sent His Spirit to lead men to the Cross.

  • donna

    I know little of John McArther and Paul Washer so the previous comment has nothing to do with either of them, just a comment about regeneration.

  • Johann Meiring

    Ten years back I would have steered clear of this debate. I know a little more now which can be dangerous, but would like to comment something about John MacArtur that`s most disturbing. His teachings just becomes more heretic by the day. I could`nt believe my ears where a discussion was taking place where it was stated that Jesus only died for certain people and not for all people. He then asks what are people doing in hell then. So by implication God created some to go to heaven and obviously the rest are destined to go to hell. How do I convey a Gospel (good message) like this one.

  • Isaiah

    John MacArthur is without question a false teacher. If you listen carefully, he is actually promoting what the scriptures say is adultery.

    In an interview on May 16, 2012, MacArthur said, “there are two [reasons for divorce] that are clear in the scriptures. One is adultery, that is, sexual sin in the marriage… The other one is when an unbeliever departs… (11:50TL)

    He went on to say, “that woman upon the departure of an unbeliever from that union is free to remarry” (20:50TL)

    Reference: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/radio.aspx?ID={2E337DED-D850-4BB4-9487-D396EE991D5A}

    First, MacArthur is promoting a gender-neutral translation of the Holy Bible. When the scriptures read “woman”, MacArthur assumes the author really meant “man or woman”. And when the scriptures read “Wife”, he assumes the author really meant “Wife or Husband”. The point is, the scriptures are not gender-neutral. There are some laws that apply specifically to men; while others apply specifically to women. Like it or not, there are differences between men and women.

    Second, MacArthur is teaching a false doctrine called the “Pauline Exception”. The Pauline Exception is an unOrthodox teaching, whose origins can be traced to the liberal Theological Seminaries of the mid-Twentieth Century. How quickly people forget that prior to 1968, a person could not obtain a divorce without physical evidence that adultery had been committed.

    Now that I’ve told you about the false doctrine which distorts his teaching, let see what the Apostle Paul actually wrote about divorce:

    1 Corinthians 7:10-11
    10 “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.”

    Romans 7:2-3
    2 “For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

    To understand what the Apostle Paul wrote, we must first understand what God spoke through the Prophets. The Prophet Moses taught that women become defiled when they have sexual relations with men (see Leviticus 21:14). As such, God intended that women should mate for life. The only exception to this law is when the husband dies and the woman becomes a widow. In which case, the widow is free to remarry a close relative of her husband. This is called the Law of the Kinsman Redeemer (see Ruth 2:20, Ruth 3:9-12, Matthew 22:24, Mark 12:19-24, Luke 20:28).

    Now, here is what Jesus said:

    Matthew 5:31-32
    31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

    Matthew 19:9
    I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    Mark 10:11
    He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

    Luke 16:18
    18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

    In summary, the Word of God teaches that a righteous man should only marry a virgin (see Leviticus 21:13-14). If a man marries a woman and finds she is not a virgin, then he is required to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). If a man marries a woman and she is unfaithful (has sexual relations with another man), he must divorce her (Deuteronomy 24:1-5). If a woman divorces her husband, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Likewise, if a man divorces his wife, she must remain unmarried. If a man marries a divorce woman, they both have committed adultery (Matthew 5:31-32). Likewise, if a man has sexual relations with a divorced woman, both have committed adultery. The marriage is fraudulent in the eyes of God. The man is guilty of adultery every time he engages in sexual relations with a married/divorced woman. There is no “blanket forgiveness” for sins. You must repent, that is, turn away from your sins. Then, and only then may you ask God to forgive you for the sins you previously committed.

    If the words of the Prophets, the Messiah, and the Apostles are not sufficient; then I would urge you to also consider the writings of the Church Fathers (Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen) and nearly 1,600 years of Christian tradition. Traditions, which have been slowly eroded by the passing of time and the evil intentions of men like John MacArthur.

  • Amoriah

    Isaiah wrote, “Traditions, which have been slowly eroded by the passing of time and the evil intentions of men like John MacArthur.”

    It appears to me that Isaiah has fallen into the same trap as the Pharisees. Jesus opposed them and their teachings for many reasons, but the most atrocious was their reliance and strict adherance to the “traditions of the Elders” rather than the untainted word of God given personally to Moses and the Hebrew people. It is also evident that Isaiah’s discernment of good and evil is slightly akilter.

    Really Isaiah, you should clean your own house before condemning that of another brother in Christ.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    MacArthur Denies the Redemptive Power of Jesus’ Literal Physical Blood

    The April 1986 edition of Faith for the Family quotes MacArthur as saying in a 1976 article entitled, “Not His Bleeding But His Dying”:

    “It was His death that was efficacious . . . not His blood . . . Christ did not bleed to death. The shedding of blood had nothing to do with bleeding . . . it simply means death . . . Nothing in His human blood saves . . . It is not His blood that I love . . . it is Him. It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying.”

    Mr. MacArthur is a heretic who states:

    “It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out.” -Dr. John MacArthur
    SOURCE: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm

    In MacArthur’s Revised and Updated “Study Bible,” he avoids Exodus 12:13 like the Bubonic Plague… “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” (KJB). MacArthur doesn’t comment directly concerning this verse. It baffles me as to why any professed Gospel preacher would make light of the literal blood of Jesus Christ. MacArthur has nothing good to say about Jesus’ physical blood, because he doesn’t think it has any value in and of itself. What good is a “Study Bible” that ignores the most important doctrine in the entire Bible? 1st Peter 1:18,19 tells us just how important the blood of Jesus is: “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”

    MacArthur’s Deceitful, Confusing and Misleading Philosophies on the Blood of Christ Deceitfully, in MacArthur’s Revised and Updated Study Bible, he comments concerning 1st Peter 1:18, 19 on page 1941:

    “The price paid to a holy God was the shed blood of His own Son.”

    SOURCE: The Revised and Updated edition of The MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson publishers, page 1941

    Yet, to show you how deceitful MacArthur is, take a look at his comments concerning Hebrews 9:22 (i.e., “without shedding of blood there is no remission”) on page 1912 of his Revised and Updated Study Bible:

    “Shedding of blood” refers to death.”

    SOURCE: The Revised and Updated edition of The MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson publishers, page 1912

    Wow! What a deceiver! If God meant “death,” then He would have said “death” Mr. MacArthur; BUT He didn’t, He said “shedding of blood.”

    Christ’s virgin birth, sinless life, death, burial and bodily resurrection all led up to the application of His precious blood to the mercy seat in Heaven. MacArthur denies this vehemently. Take at look at what MacArthur comments on page 1910 of his Revised and Updated Study Bible concerning Hebrews 9:12 (i.e., “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us”):

    “A better translation would be “through His own blood.” … Nothing is said which would indicate that Christ carried His actual physical blood with Him into the heavenly sanctuary.”
    SOURCE: The Revised and Updated edition of The MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson publishers, page 1910

    On the contrary, the KJB states, “Moreover he [Moses] sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry … For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:21,24). If you’ll take the time to carefully read the entire chapter of Hebrews 9, you’ll find the word “blood” mentioned 12 times. You’ll also learn that the Old Testament tabernacle was a “figure” of the true Tabernacle in Heaven. Just as the Old Testament high priest was required to bring the lamb’s literal physical shed BLOOD into the holy place and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, so did Jesus Christ enter into the heavenly holy place with His own blood and sprinkle it on the Mercy Seat. MacArthur is very wrong!

    Hebrews 9:12 in the KJB states, “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” MacArthur claims that the phrase “by his own blood” should have been translated “through his own blood”; however, then this means that we would also need to change the phrase “by the blood of goats and calves” to “through the blood of goats and calves.” So then why did God require the blood of animals UPON THE MERCY SEAT in the Old Testament? Leviticus 17:11 reads, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

    Perhaps Mr. MacArthur needs some better reading glasses.

    Here are MacArthur’s comments for Leviticus 17:11, i.e., the phrase “the life of the flesh is in the blood”:

    “…the shedding of blood represents the shedding of life, i.e., death … NT references to the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ are references to His death.”
    SOURCE: The Revised and Updated edition of The MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson publishers, page 178

    There is NO such teaching in the Scriptures! John MacArthur has fabricated his own corrupt way of thinking. Hebrews 9:6-7 states: “Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second [i.e., the holy of holies] went the high priest alone once every year, NOT WITHOUT BLOOD, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people.” How can Mr. MacArthur be so naive and unbiblical as to claim that Jesus’ literal physical blood didn’t need to be applied to the Mercy Seat in Heaven, in consideration of such overwhelming Scriptural evidence?

    MacArthur really gets confusing in his commentary of Hebrews 9:7 on page 1910, the phrase “not without blood”:

    “…the shedding of blood in and of itself is an insufficient sacrifice. Christ had not only to shed His blood, but to die … Without His death, his blood had no saving value.”
    SOURCE: The Revised and Updated edition of The MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson publishers, page 1910

    While it is true that Jesus’ death was absolutely essential to His work of redemption, MacArthur attempts to use this fact in this Scripture as a means of completely disregarding the efficacy (power) of the literal physical blood of Jesus. Hebrews 9:7 isn’t talking about the “death” of the sacrificed animal; it is talking about the “blood” of the sacrificed animal. The truth is that Jesus’ virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death, burial and bodily resurrection were all EQUALLY as important as the blood sacrifice itself; but all those things led up to the blood being applied to the Mercy Seat in the heavenly Holy Place. To deny this is to deny the entire Old Testament, all the types, all the blood sacrifices, and the FACT that God would have killed any highpriest who dared enter into the holy of holies WITHOUT BLOOD.

    John MacArthur’s entire “Study Bible” maliciously, but subtly, attacks the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Again 1st Peter 1:18,19 states: “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ…” Now how can Jesus’ blood be PRECIOUS if it is only representative of His death? MacArthur continually badmouths the literal blood of Jesus Christ, while simultaneously claiming that he views it as precious of something else it represents. That makes no sense at all.

    The blood of Jesus is “precious” to the genuine born-again believer because it is LITERAL, having literal redemptive power to wash our sins away just as 1st John 1:7 proclaims! To no surprise, on page 1964 of MacArthur’s Revised and Updated “Study Bible,” in his comments concerning 1st John 1:7, he doesn’t even address the blood of Jesus. How could any preacher completely avoid such a precious Scripture which teaches that Jesus’ blood washes our sins away?

    Now I can understand how LIQUID BLOOD can wash one’s sins away, but how does DEATH do so? God says that Jesus’ blood cleanses and washes our sins away (1st John 1:7). We read in Revelation 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.” How does someone like MacArthur just keep explaining all these Scriptures away? What a false prophet! MacArthur is of the Devil. How does a saint wash his robe with death? It makes no sense Mr. MacArthur. Ah, but if you believe the Word of God, i.e., that Jesus’ literal blood washes our sins away, then Revelation 7:14 makes perfect sense.

  • The word “blood” has been replaced with “life” in some instances of the new Afrikaans Bible translations.

    This is what an former freemason says about everyone who disowns the blood of Christ

    It is necessary now to ascertain whether masonry is a true religion or a false religion. In an article entitled, “HOW TO RECOGNIZE A FALSE RELIGION” (Faith for the Family Nov/Dec 1974), a prominent Christian leader wrote: “All false religions, have some things in common. Here are three simple tests by which any religion should be judged; FIRST: What is its attitude toward the Bible? SECOND: Any religious teaching should be tested by this question; What is its attitude toward Jesus Christ? THIRD: In judging a religious system, we should ask, What is its attitude toward the blood of Jesus Christ!” According to these three tests, masonry is a false religion manifesting a satanic attitude toward the Bible, the Deity of Jesus Christ, and the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. In order to establish this charge, keep in mind the Word our Lord Jesus Christ who said, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”

    Please consider now the testimony of Masonic authorities which reveal Masonry’s satanic attitude toward the Bible, the Deity of Jesus Christ and the vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind by the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross.

    Joseph Ford Newton, a famous authority and writer, in an article entitled “The Bible and Masonry”, wrote “The bible, so rich in symbolism, is itself a symbol… thus, by the very honor which masonry pays the Bible, it teaches us to revere every book of faith in which men find help for today and hope for tomorrow, joining hands with the man of Islam as he takes his oath on the Koran, with the Hindu as he makes covenant with God upon the book that he loves best.” [This quote is also found in "Masonic Edition, The Holy Bible: The Great Light In Masonry", A.J. Holman Company, Philadelphia, 1924, Introduction]

    Albert Pike, in “Morals & Dogma”, wrote (Pg.718) “Masonry propagates no creed except it’s own most simple sublime one; that universal religion, taught by nature and reason.”

    One who is truly born-again can see from the above statement that masonry totally rejects the doctrine of an infallible, God-breathed, inerrant Bible.

    According to the Second Test, masonry is a false religion because it totally rejects the crucial doctrine of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. J.D. Buck, M.D., another Masonic writer of importance, in his book Symbolism of Mystic Masonry wrote (Pg.57) “In the early Church as in the secret doctrine, there was not one Christ for the world but a potential Christ in every man. Theologians first made a fetish of the impersonal, Omnipresent divinity; and then tore the Christos from the hearts of all humanity in order to Deify Jesus; that they might have a God-Man particularly their own.”

    One would have to look far and wide in the writings of false teachers to find statements more blasphemous than this about the person of Jesus Christ, my Lord.

    According to the Third Test, masonry is a false religion because masonry dogmatically rejects the doctrine of salvation from the penalty of sin by faith in the vicarious atonement of Christ’s shed blood on the cross. Thomas Milton Steward, another Masonic author, in his book Symbolic Teaching on Masonry and Its Message, to support his doctrine, quoted favorably an apostate Episcopal minister who wrote (Pg.177), “Did Jesus count Himself, conceive of Himself as a proprietary sacrifice and of His work as an expiation? The only answer possible is, clearly, He did not… He does not call Himself the world’s priest, or the world’s victim.”

    Salvation by Faith in the vicarious atonement are not “ignorant perversions of the original doctrines” as masonry teaches, but they are vital ingredients of the Glorious Gospel of Christ, which is the power of God unto Salvation to everyone who believes.

    THEREFORE, masonry fails all three tests. It manifests a satanic attitude toward the Bible, the Deity of Christ, and the vicarious atonement. (Emphasis added)

    Read the article here.

  • Carolyn

    Debs, you said: “How does someone like MacArthur just keep explaining all these Scriptures away? What a false prophet! MacArthur is of the Devil. How does a saint wash his robe with death? It makes no sense Mr. MacArthur. Ah, but if you believe the Word of God, i.e., that Jesus’ literal blood washes our sins away, then Revelation 7:14 makes perfect sense.”,/i>

    How does any cult explain away Scripture? By following cleverly invented lies spoken in hypocrisy. By exalting a “Master of Divinity” above the plain teaching Scripture. By adding to and subtracting from the God’s own revealed truth. By restating and redefining. By prideful arrogance of exalting man’s wisdom above the knowledge of God. And what are we to do? Just keep speaking the truth. Hope some will listen. You have done a great job of unmasking the wolf.

    Thomas, good article on how a freemason disowns the blood. Excellent! “Salvation by Faith in the vicarious atonement are not “ignorant perversions of the original doctrines” as masonry teaches, but they are vital ingredients of the Glorious Gospel of Christ, which is the power of God unto Salvation to everyone who believes.:

    Like I said above, “cleverly invented lies”……….creating a powerless gospel.

  • Leon Petersen

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    MacArthur Denies the Redemptive Power of Jesus’ Literal Physical Blood

    The April 1986 edition of Faith for the Family quotes MacArthur as saying in a 1976 article entitled, “Not His Bleeding But His Dying”:

    “It was His death that was efficacious . . . not His blood . . . Christ did not bleed to death. The shedding of blood had nothing to do with bleeding . . . it simply means death . . . Nothing in His human blood saves . . . It is not His blood that I love . . . it is Him. It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying.”

    Mr. MacArthur is a heretic who states:

    “It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out.” -Dr. John MacArthur
    SOURCE: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm

    In MacArthur’s Revised and Updated “Study Bible,” he avoids Exodus 12:13 like the Bubonic Plague… “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” (KJB). MacArthur doesn’t comment directly concerning this verse. It baffles me as to why any professed Gospel preacher would make light of the literal blood of Jesus Christ. MacArthur has nothing good to say about Jesus’ physical blood, because he doesn’t think it has any value in and of itself. What good is a “Study Bible” that ignores the most important doctrine in the entire Bible? 1st Peter 1:18,19 tells us just how important the blood of Jesus is: “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”

    MacArthur’s Deceitful, Confusing and Misleading Philosophies on the Blood of Christ Deceitfully, in MacArthur’s Revised and Updated Study Bible, he comments concerning 1st Peter 1:18, 19 on page 1941:

    “The price paid to a holy God was the shed blood of His own Son.”

    SOURCE: The Revised and Updated edition of The MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson publishers, page 1941

    Yet, to show you how deceitful MacArthur is, take a look at his comments concerning Hebrews 9:22 (i.e., “without shedding of blood there is no remission”) on page 1912 of his Revised and Updated Study Bible:

    “Shedding of blood” refers to death.”

    SOURCE: The Revised and Updated edition of The MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson publishers, page 1912

    Wow! What a deceiver! If God meant “death,” then He would have said “death” Mr. MacArthur; BUT He didn’t, He said “shedding of blood.”

    Christ’s virgin birth, sinless life, death, burial and bodily resurrection all led up to the application of His precious blood to the mercy seat in Heaven. MacArthur denies this vehemently. Take at look at what MacArthur comments on page 1910 of his Revised and Updated Study Bible concerning Hebrews 9:12 (i.e., “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us”):

    “A better translation would be “through His own blood.” … Nothing is said which would indicate that Christ carried His actual physical blood with Him into the heavenly sanctuary.”
    SOURCE: The Revised and Updated edition of The MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson publishers, page 1910

    On the contrary, the KJB states, “Moreover he [Moses] sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry … For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:21,24). If you’ll take the time to carefully read the entire chapter of Hebrews 9, you’ll find the word “blood” mentioned 12 times. You’ll also learn that the Old Testament tabernacle was a “figure” of the true Tabernacle in Heaven. Just as the Old Testament high priest was required to bring the lamb’s literal physical shed BLOOD into the holy place and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, so did Jesus Christ enter into the heavenly holy place with His own blood and sprinkle it on the Mercy Seat. MacArthur is very wrong!

    Hebrews 9:12 in the KJB states, “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” MacArthur claims that the phrase “by his own blood” should have been translated “through his own blood”; however, then this means that we would also need to change the phrase “by the blood of goats and calves” to “through the blood of goats and calves.” So then why did God require the blood of animals UPON THE MERCY SEAT in the Old Testament? Leviticus 17:11 reads, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

    Perhaps Mr. MacArthur needs some better reading glasses.

    Here are MacArthur’s comments for Leviticus 17:11, i.e., the phrase “the life of the flesh is in the blood”:

    “…the shedding of blood represents the shedding of life, i.e., death … NT references to the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ are references to His death.”
    SOURCE: The Revised and Updated edition of The MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson publishers, page 178

    There is NO such teaching in the Scriptures! John MacArthur has fabricated his own corrupt way of thinking. Hebrews 9:6-7 states: “Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second [i.e., the holy of holies] went the high priest alone once every year, NOT WITHOUT BLOOD, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people.” How can Mr. MacArthur be so naive and unbiblical as to claim that Jesus’ literal physical blood didn’t need to be applied to the Mercy Seat in Heaven, in consideration of such overwhelming Scriptural evidence?

    MacArthur really gets confusing in his commentary of Hebrews 9:7 on page 1910, the phrase “not without blood”:

    “…the shedding of blood in and of itself is an insufficient sacrifice. Christ had not only to shed His blood, but to die … Without His death, his blood had no saving value.”
    SOURCE: The Revised and Updated edition of The MacArthur Study Bible, Thomas Nelson publishers, page 1910

    While it is true that Jesus’ death was absolutely essential to His work of redemption, MacArthur attempts to use this fact in this Scripture as a means of completely disregarding the efficacy (power) of the literal physical blood of Jesus. Hebrews 9:7 isn’t talking about the “death” of the sacrificed animal; it is talking about the “blood” of the sacrificed animal. The truth is that Jesus’ virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death, burial and bodily resurrection were all EQUALLY as important as the blood sacrifice itself; but all those things led up to the blood being applied to the Mercy Seat in the heavenly Holy Place. To deny this is to deny the entire Old Testament, all the types, all the blood sacrifices, and the FACT that God would have killed any highpriest who dared enter into the holy of holies WITHOUT BLOOD.

    John MacArthur’s entire “Study Bible” maliciously, but subtly, attacks the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Again 1st Peter 1:18,19 states: “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ…” Now how can Jesus’ blood be PRECIOUS if it is only representative of His death? MacArthur continually badmouths the literal blood of Jesus Christ, while simultaneously claiming that he views it as precious of something else it represents. That makes no sense at all.

    The blood of Jesus is “precious” to the genuine born-again believer because it is LITERAL, having literal redemptive power to wash our sins away just as 1st John 1:7 proclaims! To no surprise, on page 1964 of MacArthur’s Revised and Updated “Study Bible,” in his comments concerning 1st John 1:7, he doesn’t even address the blood of Jesus. How could any preacher completely avoid such a precious Scripture which teaches that Jesus’ blood washes our sins away?

    Now I can understand how LIQUID BLOOD can wash one’s sins away, but how does DEATH do so? God says that Jesus’ blood cleanses and washes our sins away (1st John 1:7). We read in Revelation 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.” How does someone like MacArthur just keep explaining all these Scriptures away? What a false prophet! MacArthur is of the Devil. How does a saint wash his robe with death? It makes no sense Mr. MacArthur. Ah, but if you believe the Word of God, i.e., that Jesus’ literal blood washes our sins away, then Revelation 7:14 makes perfect sense.

    Regarding the last part of your argument, Deborah…
    Assuming the literal nature of the blood referred to in Revelation 7:14, how does something literal wash away something like sin, which is not tangibly something literal, or physical? Hows does something Red make something White? You give literal meaning to the blood in this text, while ignoring the literal impossibility of the rest…not?
    At which point did you physically wash your robe in the Blood? Or does this happen sometime in the future?
    The more reasonable interpretation is that the beautifully worded phrase conveys to us “a Heavenly Truth”, in earthly language. The foundation for the earthly language which we all understand, is as a result of years and years of O.T observance of specific instructions by God to the Jewish people, with detailed and extensive reasoning to explain the nature of the importance of these things.
    Levitical Priests were required to be obedient in everything, with attention to detail.

    In Heb9:15 Paul actually does use the word for “death” in this entire context:
    Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
    the word used is Strongs G2288 thanatos.

    JMA’s argument and Scripture are mutually consistent.
    To label it as being “..of the Devil..” is a bit of a stretch.
    1Co 13:12 “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. ”

    All that Hebrews Chapter 9 conveys to me is Christ’s Perfect Sacrifice, made once and for all, which is BETTER and more perfect than the Levitical sacrifices, which were a mere foreshadow of the Perfect.
    On this I am sure we agree fully. JMA included.
    I don’t think one has to fall into a camp that believes literal blood washes away sin, ( to be “saintly”), or one which believes in a metaphorical/figurative/celestial/heavenly meaning of the Blood in this context ( to be “Devilish”).
    I refer again to 1Co 13:12

    It takes a great deal of courage to do what you do on this blog, which I totally respect you for.

    Much Love

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    >> Assuming the literal nature of the blood referred to in Revelation 7:14, how does something literal wash away something like sin, which is not tangibly something literal, or physical? Hows does something Red make something White? You give literal meaning to the blood in this text, while ignoring the literal impossibility of the rest…not?
    At which point did you physically wash your robe in the Blood? Or does this happen sometime in the future?

    Oh boy… of all the comments on this blog, this must be the most ridiculous I’ve ever had. Are you seriously telling me that you do not understand how this all SPIRITUALLY takes place when you are saved? Actually you don’t understand, because you are a Calvinist.

  • Sharon

    Here is an old hymn about the Blood of Jesus. No, his blood was not “just liquid” What a terrible thing to say. His blood is precious. Jesus is our High Priest and he poured out his blood upon the mercy seat in heaven. He is not applying it to the soul of each person, it is on the mercy seat as a full atonement for our sins. I would never sit and listen to anyone blaspheme the Lord in such a frivolous manner. The more he tries to defend himself the more he proves that he is a reprobate and false teacher.

    Thank you Lord Jesus for pouring out your precious blood for someone as undeserving as me. I love you from the depths of my soul!

    I can remember this song from my childhood.

    Are You Washed in the Blood?

    Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing power?
    Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
    Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?
    Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
    Refrain

    Are you washed in the blood,
    In the soul cleansing blood of the Lamb?
    Are your garments spotless? Are they white as snow?
    Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

    Are you walking daily by the Savior’s side?
    Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
    Do you rest each moment in the Crucified?
    Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

    Refrain

    When the Bridegroom cometh will your robes be white?
    Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
    Will your soul be ready for the mansions bright,
    And be washed in the blood of the Lamb?

    Refrain

    Lay aside the garments that are stained with sin,
    And be washed in the blood of the Lamb;
    There’s a fountain flowing for the soul unclean,
    O be washed in the blood of the Lamb!

    Refrain

  • Sharon

    Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

    Oh if people would just understand the atonement! The blood of Jesus washes our sin away at the very moment of salvation. When God looks at a saved person He sees Jesus not our sin. Jesus is our Great High Priest and he poured out His blood upon the mercy seat in heaven. God has cast our sins as far as the east is from the west. East and west never meet.
    Why do some of Gods kids not take him at his word? Do I fully comprehend how red blood washes away my sin? No, I don’t understand all of it, but I believe it.
    `

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Leon

    >> Assuming the literal nature of the blood referred to in Revelation 7:14, how does something literal wash away something like sin, which is not tangibly something literal, or physical? Hows does something Red make something White? You give literal meaning to the blood in this text, while ignoring the literal impossibility of the rest…not?
    At which point did you physically wash your robe in the Blood? Or does this happen sometime in the future?

    Oh boy… of all the comments on this blog, this must be the most ridiculous I’ve ever had. Are you seriously telling me that you do not understand how this all SPIRITUALLY takes place when you are saved? Actually you don’t understand, because you are a Calvinist.

  • Leon Petersen

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    How does someone like MacArthur just keep explaining all these Scriptures away? What a false prophet! MacArthur is of the Devil. How does a saint wash his robe with death? It makes no sense Mr. MacArthur. Ah, but if you believe the Word of God, i.e., that Jesus’ literal blood washes our sins away, then Revelation 7:14 makes perfect sense.

    This is what YOU wrote above, Deborah.

    Then I replied:

    Leon Petersen wrote:

    Regarding the last part of your argument, Deborah…
    Assuming the literal nature of the blood referred to in Revelation 7:14, how does something literal wash away something like sin, which is not tangibly something literal, or physical? Hows does something Red make something White? You give literal meaning to the blood in this text, while ignoring the literal impossibility of the rest…not?

    You completely misunderstand what is written (or do you?), then go on, with a mis-representation of what was being said, to use as a false premise for your repeated attempts to
    1. Label me a Calvinist
    2. Ridicule me, as if it was I making the mistake of not interpreting the Verse in question Spiritually, and not, in fact, YOU.

    While I do not subscribe to the vitriolic outbursts of Jacob Prasch, I do therefore agree with him, in that you are deceitful and libellous when corrected or challenged, and you are unable to respond by way of sound argument, or Scriptural exegesis, or both.

    Your attempts to discredit are by no means subtle to anyone with a smidgen of intelligence.
    I challenge anyone to read my post and make a deduction such as the one that you have.
    I seriously question your motives.

    Peace

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    >> Regarding the last part of your argument, Deborah…
    >>Assuming the literal nature of the blood referred to in Revelation 7:14, how does something literal wash away something like sin, which is not tangibly something literal, or physical? Hows does something Red make something White? You give literal meaning to the blood in this text, while ignoring the literal impossibility of the rest…not?

    I never said that Rev 7:44 is literal, I said, if one believe that Jesus’ literal blood washes away your sins, then you will naturally believe in the spiritual application thereof, that his blood washes away your sins and makes you white as snow. There is a literal application of the Jesus blood in heaven that is applied to us.

    Yes Leon, Jesus blood is literal blood, it’s real blood is it not? He shed REAL blood Leon, but yet it still washes away our sins, the application thereof is literal and spiritual. Atonement has a literal and spiritual meaning all at the same time, and I am sorry if you don’t understand this.

    ———
    Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
    Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
    Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

    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,
    Hebrews 9:13-14 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
    Hebrews 10:21-22 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

    ———–
    The blood of Jesus Christ does not equate to DEATH, it equates to LIFE, Jesus gives us Eternal life! His blood is PRECIOUS!
    ———–

    The LITERAL Blood of Jesus Had to be Applied to the Mercy Seat in Heaven

    “The blood was to be sprinkled, remember, on the mercy seat right after the death of the substitutionary animal of sacrifice, Now Christ is, of course, our substitute. He was slain for us upon the Cross, and entered into death for us, and when He arose, He immediately went to heaven, entered into the holy of holies in heaven, sprinkled His precious blood upon the mercy seat before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin questions, and delivered us from the curse of the law. This is clearly taught in the New testament. Hebrews 9:12 is very definite on this:

    “But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

    The Bible also makes plain when He accomplished this. On the morning of the resurrection He meets Mary at the tomb. As soon as Mary recognized Him, she prostrated herself upon Him, and would have kissed His feet, but with shocking suddenness, Jesus emphatically says to her: “Touch me not”; and then He proceeds immediately to give the reason why Mary is not permitted to touch Him at all.

    “For I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17)

    Literally the Lord Jesus Christ said, “Touch me not; for I now am about to ascend unto my Father.” We can understand this action when we remember the the high priest after he had offered the sacrifice, was to enter the holy of holies, before he did anything else, with the precious blood. No one was allowed to approach him. Everyone was shut out until this was completely done. And here in the record of the meeting with Mary we have the fulfillment of this type. Here Mary meets her great High Priest, just arisen from the tomb, but before He had entered the holy of holies with the reconciling blood. And so He says to her, “TOUCH ME NOT.”

    SOURCE: The TABERNACLE, by M.R. DeHaan, M.D., ISBN 0-310-23491-3, page 129
    ——–

    You can agree with whoever you want to :) you don’t have to prove anything to me Leon, I am not the one you have to answer to in the end, but Jesus Christ, the one who’s blood you deny.

    Now go away to your Calvinist websites ok? You’ve declared this website to be false of the highest order, already. That is your last comment.

  • Leon Petersen

    No one can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ’s blood.

    Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (Romans 3:25)

    I really don’t think John MacArthur is saved. You only need to listen carefully to his testimony to know that he’s not saved.

    PHIL: So you’re saying . . . are you saying it would be difficult for you to put your finger on when your conversion took place?

    JOHN: Yeah. I’ve never been able to do that. And it doesn’t bother me. I think I’m one of those kids . . . I was one of those kids that never rebelled and always believed. And so when God did His saving work in my heart, it was not discernable to me. I went away to high school and for all I knew, I loved Christ, I was part of the ministry of the church. I went away to college and I wanted to serve the Lord and honor the Lord. I was certainly immature. But at some point along the line, I really do believe there was a transformation in my heart, but I think it may have been to some degree imperceptible to me because I didn’t ever have a rebellious time, I didn’t ever revolt against, you know, the gospel or not believe. And I guess that’s . . . in some ways that’s a grace act on God’s part. So that all that wonderful training found some level of fertile soil in my heart and none of it was wasted.

    – See more at: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/07/09/the-calvinistic-moral-high-ground/#more-13649

  • Hans

    Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Another bible translation states:Lev 17:11 for the soul 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 maketh atonement for the soul. Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. I leave it unto everyone to consider these scriptures.

  • [...] thing I mentioned once before.  That John Mac Arthur DENIES the precious blood of Jesus Christ.  John MacArthur – The Blood of Jesus is just Liquid! [REVISITED] John Mac Arthur also believes in Lordship Salvation (Lordship Salvation – Putting the Cart [...]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>