Defending John Macarthur
 

For crying out loud! As a Pentecostal, I certainly take issue with what I consider to be MacArthur's misrepresentations of our movement. But when he is misrepresented, I will defend him. And I want to go on record as saying I agree completely with his explanation of the significance of "the blood of Christ".



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvRv7iShIZ4

Re: Defending John Macarthur
 

Isn't it silly that he would have to defend himself in this manner?

Re: Defending John Macarthur
 

How does some heretic's squabbles with other heretics impact any of us?

Re: Defending John Macarthur
 

I thought this was going to be about his response to Charlottesville, which I thought was on point.
link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm3U39lnPO0

Re: Defending John Macarthur
 

I think you are mistaken here. I have been accused and attacked by other Apostolics because I don't believe that the blood is literally applied in baptism. I've also been ostracized for saying that when we sing "Power in the Blood", we are not referring to liquid that came out of Jesus.

Re: Defending John Macarthur
 

What are these verses speaking of?

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:"

"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."

Re: Defending John Macarthur
 

The video explains all of that well.

Re: Defending John Macarthur
 

I, too, agree perfectly with what MacArthur said about the blood.

Re: Defending John Macarthur
 

If I understand Macarthur right, he claims that the act of Christ dying is what saves, not the actual blood of Christ.

"You have to stop short of saying that we are saved by the blood of Jesus, in the sense that there is some efficacy in the fluid that poured out of His body."

Blood isn't literal, just a symbol...

Jesus didn't die from bleeding, He died from asphyxiation...

Am I hearing this right?

I can't agree.

Now, I don't believe there are vials of blood in heaven being poured out constantly on the Mercy Seat. I do believe it was the literal blood of Jesus, poured out at Calvary, and sprinkled on the Mercy Seat once and for all (Heb 9&12) which saves us.

It wasn't the simple act of killing a lamb which saved the Israelites during the Passover. It was the blood. God said "when I see the blood, I will pass over you." He didn't say "when I see you killed a lamb." It was the literal fluid they applied to the doorposts.

And it's the literal blood of Christ which saves us.

"without the shedding of blood is no remission."

Re: Defending John Macarthur
 

You are not quite getting what he is saying, I believe. Yes, it is literally his blood that judicially cleanses our record and provided payment on our behalf, but it would not have been effective if Jesus had bled and lived. He had to die. Furthermore, there is nothing special about the liquid that poured from his veins. It contains no power to save us. God, however, accepted it as an offering because he who shed it was sinless and stood in our place.

To say "there is power in the blood" is not to say that the liquid that Christ shed contained some sort of force. The "power" that the blood (death) has is the fact that it satisfied the demands of God justice. The blood "will never lose its power" in that God will never require another offering or for someone else to die in our place. Christ died for God and God was satisfied with Christ.