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

John MacArthur - blood of JesusJohn 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.

Jesus Christ’s blood was sprinkled in heaven.

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.]

Literalization and a bowl in heaven?

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 on the Mercy Seat in in heaven.  See below:

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:

Denying Jesus Christ

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.

Old Testament and the blood

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. 

Jesus Christ’s sacrifice

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

source:  http://pastorseansblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/letter-by-john-macarthur.html

———————-

Conclusion

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9470k9b2iVg

Please share:

Deborah (Discerning the World)

Deborah Ellish is the author of the above article. Discerning the World is an internet Christian Ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa. Tom Lessing and Deborah Ellish both own Discerning the World. For more information see the About this Website page below the comments section.

77
Please leave a Reply

avatar
 
nodhihatnopeunhappygigglelaughupup2overt2clapyayyahoohi5friendstrucewaitthinkpopiknowcheckreadbettersorrysobfaintohnoscratchunsuredazedthank
 
 
 
31 Comment authors
Mary MclockeLori LindsleyRobbieKaren ReidMike Evans Recent comment authors
Derek
Guest
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.

Fred Butler
Guest

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?

Fred Butler
Guest

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.

Alan
Guest
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?

Brad
Guest
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.

Livingclean
Guest
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

Elijah
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
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.

Word Publish
Member

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?

Burning Lamp
Guest
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.

Michael
Guest
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.

Burning Lamp
Guest
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
Guest
Michael

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

Valerie
Guest
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.

Burning Lamp
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
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.

1 2 3