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
Troy Brooks
Guest

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
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
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.

Tom (Discerning the World)
Admin
Member

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
Guest
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
Guest
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:

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

Sharon
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
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

Tom (Discerning the World)
Admin
Member

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
Guest
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.

Kay
Guest
Kay
bethraham
Guest

Congratulations Deborah for your earnest contention for the faith in standing up for the BLOOD OF JESUS!

Check out this video by Derek Prince at [url removed – see comment as to why]
In my 30 years as a Christian this video is the best I have seen on this topic. it is POWERFUL!

Blessings to you in the precious name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Tom (Discerning the World)
Admin
Member

Deborah wrote,

Dear Bethraham

Derek Prince is a false teacher. I watched this video you posted and at 47:08 of the video Derek Prince said, “What we have been doing every time so far is dipping the hissop in the basin and sprinkling it over us” This is deceptive, Jesus is the one who sprinkles His blood over us, we don’t do it ourselves. When we get saved we get saved once and Jesus blood is sprinkled over us once, not 7 times. Derek Prince is a Word of Faith teacher, who spoke in tonuges and claimed many healings when he came to Africa to preach.

Amen to this, Deborah. So many Christians are caught up in Derek Prince’s teachings without knowing how dangerous he is. I really wish they would start following Jesus in stead of men and women who are misleading them down Primrose Path. Shocking!

bethraham
Guest

Dear Deborah and Tom
I am sorry to see your rejection of Derek Prince teachings. Deborah, I observe you say he ‘is a Word of Faith teacher, who spoke in tongues …..” From my understanding of the WOF movement and what I have heard him say on several other messages I have listened to; I would suggest Derek Prince would not be in agreement (nor am I) with what the WOF teaching is based on and what it’s most prominent proponents are all about. Is it the speaking in tongues, per se, that is an offense to you?

To Tom; are you able to give some examples of heretical teachings from Derek Prince, apart from the ‘deceptive’ claim made above by Deborah? (Deborah, I will respond to that one separately in the next week or so after I have reviewed the video again and checked all the references).

To both Deborah and Tom: Can you please kindly advise some contemporary (or recently deceased) Christian teachers whom you would consider to be O.K. to listen to?

Cheers, Bethraham

Tom (Discerning the World)
Admin
Member

bethraham,

Derek Prince believed in the unscriptural doctrine of generational curses. In this video he tells how the Holy Spirit showed him that a family who attended one of his sermons were cursed.

I can assure you the Holy Spirit does not work like that. He will never show anyone that someone else is cursed. That’s not his work. His work is – as Jesus said in John 16:8-11 – to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. Generational curses that supposedly come upon generations with ancestors who were involved in the occult and demonology, cannot send anyone to hell. Derek Prince made no effort whatsoever to find out whether the family members whom he said the Holy Spirit told him were cursed, were saved. Had he done so and found out, through their testimony, that they were all saved, he would have known that they were not cursed. How do I know? Well, God Himself says so.

(2 Corinthians 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Please tell me, how can generational curses reach and affect anyone who is in Christ? Do you want to tell me generational curses are more powerful than Jesus Christ? If not even death itself has no more power over God’s children (1 Corinthians 15:54-56), what kind of power do generational curses have over them?

Note carefully, he said that he could not have prayed for the teenage daughter’s healing until the curse was revoked. Jesus must be a very weak God for Him to be prevented from healing someone by the devil and demonic curses.

This is from the Berean Call by Dave Hunt,

Question: What is your opinion of “generational sins” as supported by Bill Gothard? This teaching is splitting our church. Can you help?

• TBC Staff

Oct 1 2003
Question: What is your opinion of “generational sins” as supported by Bill Gothard? This teaching is splitting our church. Can you help?

Answer : A number of popular authors and speakers, such as Neil Anderson and others involved in “deliverance” ministries, promote various forms of this teaching. Part of the so-called “deliverance” process involves probing the past to find “connections” and “delivering” the person from alleged occult involvements among his or her ancestors.

Simple logic says that probing into the past to uncover “lost memories” of former traumas, as in psychotherapy or the Christian brand known as “inner healing,” is a vain pursuit for two reasons: 1) one can never be sure of the accuracy of such memories, due to a lack of objective verification; and 2) if one “lost memory” could have such a heavy influence upon the person’s thinking, emotions and conduct, who can say that there may not be other “memories” of equal or greater importance that likewise need to be recovered and “worked through” endlessly? Moreover, this practice clearly violates the biblical injunction, “forgetting those things which are behind” (Ph 3:13), and inhibits pressing “toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (v. 14).

So it is with generational curses. If these actually exist, then we face the hopeless task of digging them all out. How far back does one attempt to go? Surely there are hidden sins in the ancestry of everyone. My father was from England and my mother, though Canadian, had similar ancestry. Who knows what involvement with Druids lies hidden in my genealogy! My father’s mother was from Norway, so the worship of Nordic demons must also permeate my background. I could never uncover it all. And to pronounce a generic “deliverance” over that which is unknown seems both bizarre and phony.

Furthermore, the violation of Scripture is just as clear here as in inner healing. To search for occult influences in the past as though they had some power over which one needed to be delivered is the same violation of “forgetting those things which are behind.” In addition, all of the above deny the basic fact that the Christian’s sins were laid upon Christ and paid for by Him; he has been born again by faith in Christ, “old things are passed away…all things are become new” (2 Cor 5:17). Let us therefore “go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works….” (Heb:6:1).

bethraham
Guest

Dear Tom / Deborah,
I have spent 1 1/2 hours today typing on a reply to your last posts…. then just before I was about to Post it …. I lost the lot through internet shutdown… Rather than write it all again, I need to ask you first, are your views based on a ‘Cessationist’ or ‘Continualist’ understanding of the scriptures?

You can see my article about this topic at http://www.bethraham.com/Strange-Fire-or-Perfect-Life/

Cheers
Bethraham

bethraham
Guest

In Christianity, cessationism is the doctrine that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing ceased with the original twelve apostles. This is generally opposed to continuationism, which teaches that the Holy Spirit may bestow the spiritual gifts on persons other than the original twelve apostles at any time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism

You look like cessationist to me

Cheers
Bethraham

Tom (Discerning the World)
Admin
Member

bethraham,

Hi, do you believe that the tongues the disciples spoke in at Pentecost were unknown tongues – tongues never heard before in human language?

bethraham
Guest

Tom
Thank you for your (leading) question. I have heard that one before as well as the line of debate that follows it…..

Deborah previously wrote, “Ok, we are not cessasionist.”

With polite and kind respect; Before we could embark on any meaningful discussion you would need to acknowledge that your understanding of scriptures is based on a Cessationist view.

Cheers
Bethraham

Tom (Discerning the World)
Admin
Member

bethraham

This is not about cessationism or continualism at all. It’s about discerning the spirits to see whether they come from God or not. (1 John 4:1). Of course God still heals today but He never makes a great spiel of it in the so-called healing minsitries of so many false teachers of our time. Yes, of course He heals but you don’t need to go to these so-called healing ministries. You can go directly to Jesus and ask Him to heal you. However, His will must always be done. As for speaking in tongues; why do we need someone to speak in tongues to edify the church? Isn’t the preaching of God’s Word in your own language sufficient to edify you? Have you read my other post on the phenomenon of speaking in tongues?