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
Eric
Guest
Eric

I agree with John McArthur on this…..

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

BINGO! We do not believe in a Protestant form of transubstantiation where invisible, red human blood preserved in Heaven is mysteriously applied to repentant sinners at profession of faith nor at baptism. We are indeed cleansed “by” or “on account of” the blood of Christ! Amen a thousand times! But what is it that does the LITERAL cleansing of the soul and conscience? Paul tells us in a couple of places…….

Titus 3:5…He saved us by WASHING of REGENERATION and renewing of the HOLY GHOST…”

I Corinthians 6:11…..But you were WASHED, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the LORD Jesus Christ and BY THE SPIRIT of our God”.

We are washed/regenerated by the Holy Spirit because Christ bought us that gift at Calvary. So it is in that sense, you are “washed in the blood”.

Karen
Guest
Karen

Alan wrote:

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?

Some time ago I prayed that God would reveal to me the significance of blood and water pouring out of the wound in Jesus’ side, and as I read your explanation, I literally felt goosebumps all over my body (some people call it “Holy Ghost” tingles).

Wow, to think that Jesus died of a broken heart, and that right before He died, He also said, “Father, forgive them…” What a SAVIOR we have! Thank you for this insight!!!

Another thing I noted as I listened to John’s bizarre video was, Jesus said He gave up His life of His own accord–that NO MAN took His life, so He COULDN’T have asphyxiated.

AND, He shouted out, “It is finished!” right BEFORE He died–He couldn’t have shouted out anything if He’d asphyxiated.

AND, He shouted out that it was finished BEFORE He died. He didn’t say it was finished AFTER He rose from the dead, which is FURTHER proof that His perfect atonement was accomplished by shedding His blood. At any rate, thank you for clarifying the meaning of the blood and water pouring forth from the wound in His side.

Mike Evans
Guest
Mike Evans

Here is a link to a video revealing that MacArthur is still maintaining his Anti-Christ stance on the redeeming and precious Blood of the Lord Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjYywMfpM0g

I think it is interesting that in the midst of all his persuasive, biblical-sounding rhetoric,the spirit behind his teaching reveals itself in the concise and satanic statement:
“..we are not saved by His blood”.

It reminded me of key statements made by other ministers of Satan who masquerade as ministers of righteousness which are sufficient for any discerning believer to flee their ministries (egs.Kenneth Copeland,in describing the heretical fantasy of Christ suffering at the hands of demons in Hell, calls Him “a wormy little spirit” and states “the cross wasn’t enough”; Kenneth Hagin,who stole this blasphemy from John G. Lake ,wrote “we are as much an incarnation of God on the earth as Christ was”.). I agree with Deborah that these obvious and outlandish heresies by MacArthur are but a symptom of the false gospel (Calvinism) which he follows ,with its false Christ and ‘Spirit’. I would tend to think that people who can still follow him and others like him (such as Hagin and Copeland, who MacArthur exposes while ironically being of the same spirit that they are of) after hearing teaching such as this are consumed by their delusion and are -like their ‘guru’- past the point of no return.

I have been stupefied to share things with friends still caught up in charismania (such as Copeland’s embracing of the Vatican and his belief that an evil spirit caused the division of the Reformation) to find that they do not bat an eyelid at such obvious warning signs. Maybe it indicates that they really “love the darkness and hate the light” despite their profession of being born again. I guess it is not called a “strong delusion” for nothing.

Here is a link to another excellent video on the hypocrisy of MacArthur and his heretical connections. The man who put this together has really done his research:

Karen Reid
Guest
Karen Reid

Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

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

I want to tell something awesome I learned about the blood of Christ. We know from the Shroud of Turin that Jesus had the rare “AB” blood. I then went to a blood donor site, and found that people with AB blood are “universal donors”–they can give the gift of life to EVERYONE! Isn’t that a profound discovery???!!!! Hallelujah!

Karen Reid
Guest
Karen Reid

I most certainly AM NOT Catholic, and have you researched the Shroud of Turin??? EXPLAIN how the image was MADE in the NEGATIVE! It’s the image of when Christ was raised from the dead– you HEROD, STILL trying to deny His Resurrection!

Even modern SCIENTISTS do not know how the image was made! What a SINFUL, wicked uinbelieving heart and mind you have! They have ALSO 3-D’d the Shroud; explain THAT! Don’t even RESPOND to me; I am blocking you. You are of your father, the DEVIL.

Karen Reid
Guest
Karen Reid

I am SO VERY thankful YOU will not be in heaven with us! You’ll be FRYING IN HELL with your brother, John MacArthur and your FATHER, the devil!

Tom (Discerning the World)
Admin
Member

Stranger than fiction? You bet. The Turin shroud? AB blood type? Really?

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto FABLES (FICTION). (2 Tim 4:4)

Robbie
Guest
Robbie

The Shroud of Turin is another lie of Roman Catholicism. Bible Christians have always known it was a forgery, because God gave the Bible to save them from the fraud and superstition of those who use religion to deceive men and fill their coffers. Shroud believers take a close-up of the face, open the image’s eyes, and create a Jesus consistent with Catholic icons and paintings.
Bible Proofs that It Is a Lie (that is if you read it) – Jesus of Nazareth was not buried in a single cloth wrapping his body and head. He was buried with a linen cloth wound around his body and a napkin covering his head (John 20:5-7). These were two separate cloths, and the napkin for his head was folded and laid separately after His resurrection. It is impossible to have a single cloth with an imprint of His body and face. The forgers were skilled, but ignorant of the Bible. The Shroud is an obvious lie by this fact in the Scriptures.

Robbie
Guest
Robbie

Let God be true…. and every man a liar.
This happens when we deviate from scripture and get caught up in new age literature.

Lori Lindsley
Guest
Lori Lindsley

Dr. MacArthur teaches things about the Blood of Christ which are not revealed in the Bible.

I know where Dr. MacArthur learned his false doctrines regarding the Blood of Jesus. Back in the fall of 1961 a friend and I went to hear Colonel R. B. Thieme, Jr. Thieme was teaching on the Blood of Christ. My friend and I sat four rows behind John MacArthur. MacArthur took notes throughout Thieme’s lecture. Here is what Colonel Thieme taught John MacArthur about the Blood of Christ that night:

Thieme denied that the Blood of Christ at Calvary is to be taken literally with regard to our salvation.

Thieme denied that Christ literally presented His Blood to the Father in Heaven (cf. The False Teaching of R. B. Thieme, Jr. by Rev. Robert G. Walter).

The teachings of Colonel Thieme can be studied by obtaining his book The Blood of Christ (R. B. Thieme, Jr., Houston, Texas: Berachah Publications, 1974). I am an eyewitness to the fact that John MacArthur learned these doctrines from Colonel Thieme back in 1961. Now MacArthur has spread these false teachings throughout the churches everywhere, and these twisted doctrines are now enshrined in The MacArthur Study Bible. Today many so-called fundamentalists have learned Thieme’s putrid doctrines from MacArthur. This has done great harm to the cause of Christ and gospel preaching in general. I believe that it is part of the end-time apostasy”

See article: https://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/08-18-02AM_TheBloodOfChristPI.html

Mike Evans
Guest
Mike Evans

This web-page with testimonies of people who have come out from under the influence of MacArthur and his church is interesting (and unsurprising to me). I have come to the sad but sobering conclusion that MOST of what passes for Christianity in the world is cultic.
https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?14,76955

Mary Mclocke
Guest

When John MacArthur can explain away 1 John 5:7-9 as far as the Blood of Christ “not being the literal fluid”, THEN I MAY believe him. Until then, I find this video (#1) as heretical as when he said that one can TAKE the Mark of the Beast and still be saved when the Bible ITSELF is crystal clear that it is the opposite. Also when he can explain that Romans 13 tells us that the police are to take care of EVIL doers on this earth, and not those who are assembled to protect the lives of the unborn. Ignoring his Calvinism altogether, I’d like answers to these three issues that are BIBLICAL and that come directly from John MacArthur. Keep in mind, I DO NOT expect to see that day come at all on this earth. PRAY for MacArthur. He not only went to Seminary, he RUNS one, and we “little folk” more fully understand God’s HOLY and WITHOUT error word better than he does, in my opinion. God bless anyone reading this. Again, please pray for Pastor MacArthur. He is leading his flock into heresies, and they are eating it up. I watch Todd Friel (Wretched.org) IDOLIZE the man, and that worries me as well.