John MacArthur .. Denies the blood

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

This has been on my mind for quite some time. Let me first say I find MacArthur to be a great teacher.

But, my pastor has repeated this from the pulput more than once over the last 2-3 years. So where is this comming from what is it's basis when I asked him a while ago he could not point me to any thing other than he heard an interview on TV......

Any one have any insights as to the history of this claim and resourses to straighten this out? :help:

In Him,

Bill

[WarEagle]

What does your pastor mean by "denies the blood"?

[BBAS 64]

What does your pastor mean by "denies the blood"?

Good Day, WarEagle

That the shedding of blood is needed for the remissions of sins.

In Him,

Bill

[McWilliams]

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood is no remission.

This is scripture and John MacArthur in no way would deny the truth of scripture. This pastor who says John MacArthur denied this truth needs to declare his source for such a statement and to make the needed corrections for such error. John MacArthur is a very sound scriptural teacher that can be depended upon to teach the truth!

[WarEagle]

Good Day, WarEagle

That the shedding of blood is needed for the remissions of sins.

In Him,

Bill

I think your pastor might be mistaken. I have about a hundred of Johnny Mac's sermons on my ipod and have heard him affirm that it is by Christ's blood that we're saved.

To deny it would be very much out of character with what MacArthur teaches.

I'd be curious to know where your pastor heard this.

[Willo]

John MacArthur answers the question about him 'denying the blood': http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/80-44

[R.J.S]

Your question stems from the wrong end of the stick :)http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/blood.htm

[PrincetonGuy]

There has been for some time a disagreement among Bible scholars over the question of whether the death of Christ or the blood of Christ atones for sin. This argument flared up in 1966 when the American Bible Society published the first edition of Good News for Modern Man in which the Greek word for blood was translated in some instances as “death” rather than “blood” in order to further their theological position that it was the death of Christ rather than His blood that atones for sin.

John MacArthur preaches and teaches the position of the American Bible Society, that is, that the death of Christ rather than His blood atones for sin. Notice these words from his website,

There are others who say that there's something magical in the blood, something in the blood itself that washes sin away, when the Scripture teaches it was the death of Christ that atoned for sin and He shed His literal blood in sacrificial evidence of the pouring out of His life for sin, but there was nothing magic about that blood itself that could wash sin. And so this heresy has begun to develop, strangely enough.

There's a third part and this is the beautiful part of it as it's summed up at the end of verse 2, "And the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. The cap on this has to be the blood of Christ. God chooses, the Spirit sets apart by faith and the blood of Christ cleanses us from...what?...from all sin. The blood of Christ is what does that final expiating work of cleansing us. Christ's blood shed for us on Calvary divinely applied to our sin cleanses us and we are what God wanted us to be, immediately we're strangers in this world. (The emphasis in underlined type is my own).
(http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/80-44 (http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/80-44))

According to John MacArthur, the death of Christ atoned for sin; the blood merely served as “evidence” of the outpouring of His life and cleanses the believer from sin subsequent to the atonement. And, according to John MacArthur’s theology, the cleansing from sin is realized theologically but not practically. Needless to say, these teachings of John MacArthur have ruffled more than a few feathers.

[daveleau]

Isn't the blood and death synonymous with the blood being the thing we typically associate with His death? Is it splitting hairs to fall into such a debate as the one spoken of above between the ABS and their counterpart? If His blood was sufficient, would not the beating he took from the Romans have been enough? He didn't die without the letting of blood, and nowhere else do we hear anything about Jesus spilling blood except for after His arrest. So, the two are intertwined, and I see no reason to argue the point between one of the two being the atoning aspect.

In Him,
Dave

[BBAS 64]

Thank you all for your input!!

In Him,

Bill

[Sweet Pea]

Another John MacArthur's sermons source...

John MacArthur's sermons (http://www.biblebb.com/mac-a-g.htm)

[BigNorsk]

You can read the whole history at http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm

Here's an answer from John MacArthur about the controversy http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-9-1.htm

People also use the fact that MacArthur has talked about the word "washed" in Rev 1:5 in the King James Bible. This is not a matter of him picking and chosing beliefs. It's a textual question. So of course you have people that are say King James Only that use that verse to attack both other translations and people. Here's a NET footnote on it:


20 tc The reading "set free" (λύσαντι, lusanti) has better MS support (Ì18 א A C 1611 2050 2329 2351 Ïa sy) than its rival, λούσαντι (lousanti, "washed"; found in P 1006 1841 1854 2053 2062 ÏK lat bo). Internally, it seems that the reading "washed" could have arisen in at least one of three ways: (1) as an error of hearing (both "released" and "washed" are pronounced similarly in Greek); (2) an error of sight (both "released" and "washed" look very similar — a difference of only one letter — which could have resulted in a simple error during the copying of a MS); (3) through scribal inability to appreciate that the Hebrew preposition ב can be used with a noun to indicate the price paid for something. Since the author of Revelation is influenced significantly by a Semitic form of Greek (e.g., Rev_13:10), and since the Hebrew preposition "in" (ב) can indicate the price paid for something, and is often translated with the preposition "in" (ἐν, en) in the Septuagint (LXX), the author may have tried to communicate by the use of ἐν the idea of a price paid for something. That is, John was trying to say that Christ delivered us at the price of his own blood. This whole process, however, may have been lost on a later scribe, who being unfamiliar with Hebrew, found the expression "delivered in his blood" too difficult, and noticing the obvious similarities between λύσαντι and λούσαντι, assumed an error and then proceeded to change the text to "washed in his blood" — a thought more tolerable in his mind. Both readings, of course, are true to scripture; the current question is what the author wrote in this verse.


Marv

[PrincetonGuy]

You can read the whole history at http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm


Near the end of this article linked to we find in John MacArthur’s “I Believe in the Precious Blood” the following words,

“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.
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….”

It is statements precisely like these have gotten John MacArthur into so much trouble. Whether he is theologically correct or not, such statements, in my view, are irresponsible when the targeted audience is made up mostly of lay persons. Such statements are much more appropriately made in theological papers with a targeted audience of students of theology. By making such statements, John MacArthur has seriously damaged his ministry, his reputation, and his effectiveness as both a pastor and a teacher and stirred up a needless controversy that has seriously damaged the world’s view of the Christian message.

[Vambram]

It don't matter to me if most of the audience is lay persons or not. I am fully confident that the majority of Baptists and the majority of Christians from other denominations are easily intelligent enough to understand that John McArthur is indeed theologically correct on this issue. In my opinion, its only because of rumors and misrepresentations and misquoting by others whom appear to want to discredit McArthur that the average lay person hearing discussions on this topic can be misled and deceived.

[DeaconDean]

Never mind.