To the Forum:
syn's post on 10-09-2007 09:02 John MacArthur, Jr of “Grace to You” ministries view:
Macarthur:
The literal blood of Christ was violently shed at his crucifixion.
Truthtesty:
True
MacArthur:
Those who deny this truth or try to spiritualize the death of Christ are guilty of corrupting the gospel message.
Truthtesty:
False. Macarthur has shown no proof that spiritualizing the death of Christ are guilty of corrupting the gospel.
MacArthur:
Jesus Christ bled and died in the fullest literal sense, and when He rose from the dead, he was literally resurrected.
Truthtesty:
True.
MacArthur:
To deny the absolute reality of those truths is to nullify them
Truthtesty:
No no no Which truths? because MacArthur has inclused a "false truth" as I have pointed out.
MacArthur:... Clearly the word blood is often used to mean more than the literal red fluid.
Truthtesty:
True (But notice it doesn't mean less than the literal shed blood)
MacArthur:
Thus it is that when Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ, it usually means 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 ...
Truthtesty:
True but only to a point. Chafer says the blood of Christ as infinite meaning including the literal shed blood.
MacArthur:
We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus' literal blood.
Truthtesty:
False conclusion. Macarthur has not proven that.
MacArthur
Nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers.
Truthtesty:
False. There is indication.
Dr. Chafer [Vol. 5, Page 266] (Summarizing) Types (a) two birds, the second of which is dipped in the blood of the first bird and released, all of this a type of Christ rising and ascending into heaven and taking His blood with Him; (b) the high priest on the Day of Atonement going into the symbolic holy of holys. The priest sprinkles the blood to the mercy seat. In both types the blood is either carried either into the sky by the bird or into the typical earthly sanctuary by the high priest.
Macarthur:
When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (I Peter 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven.
Truthtesty:
Macarthur has no proof.
Dr. Hymers:
And joining this chorus of cult leaders is Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, who said that she alone was unveiling some "hidden" truth about the atonement. She also said:
The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious (effective) to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon "the accursed tree" than it was when it was flowing in his veins (Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health, 1910, p. 330).
Now we come to the teachings of a peculiar old man named Colonel R. B. Thieme, Jr., the person I saw teaching John MacArthur his strange doctrines about the Blood in 1961. Just like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and the Christian Scientists, Colonel Thieme believes that he has discovered a new doctrine that no one knew, that was "buried in ignorance" for centuries. He says of Christians,
Since childhood they have heard the blood mentioned in hushed, reverent tones; they have vigorously sung the hymns about the "wonder working power in the blood." Still, the subject of the blood of Christ is almost totally buried in ignorance…There is an old dogma which says that Christ carried His blood with Him to heaven in a bowl. Without ever knowing its source, evangelical Christianity clings to that specious [flimsy, illusory, false] idea from the Dark Ages by perpetuating a form of mysticism around the physical blood of our Lord. We have seen in some detail that His mortal body fluids have absolutely nothing whatever to do with salvation (Colonel R. B. Thieme, Jr., The Blood of Christ, Houston: Bible Ministries, 1989, pp. 5, 31).
I saw John MacArthur taking notes as Colonel Thieme taught these doctrines, in the fall of 1961. I rejected Thieme's doctrines, but MacArthur seems to have swallowed them whole - as the following quotation from Dr. MacArthur shows. MacArthur begins his argument against the literal Blood of Christ by saying that belief in real Blood is "the same kind of mystical view" held by the Catholic Church. Thus, like the Christian Scientists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and Colonel Thieme, Dr. MacArthur tars and feathers belief in the literal Blood by saying it's an old dogma, and implying that he, himself, has superior "new" light on the subject. As we have seen, this is a typical tactic of the cultists I have mentioned. Then Dr. MacArthur goes on to say:
We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus' literal blood. Christ' literal blood is not preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood, it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven…It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins… (John MacArthur, letter received on September 8, 2002, entire letter posted on this web site as the end of my sermon, "My Answer to Dr. MacArthur's Letter on the Blood").
Now compare the words of Colonel Thieme and John MacArthur. It sounds almost like Dr. MacArthur copied them from the Colonel!
(1) Debunking "old dogma"
Thieme: Evangelical Christianity clings to an idea from the Dark Ages.
MacArthur: Fundamentalists hold the mystical view of the Catholic Church.
(2) Debunking a "bowl of blood"
Thieme: "There is an old dogma that Christ carried
His blood to heaven in a bowl."
MacArthur: "[Scripture] is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven."
(3) Debunking "salvation by the Blood"
Thieme: "His mortal body fluids have absolutely nothing whatever
to do with salvation."
MacArthur: "It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins."
Strangely, I must defend the pre-Reformation Catholics against these attacks on their belief that the Blood is in Heaven (cf. Hebrews 12:24). They were more Scriptural on that point than the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christian Scientists, the Mormons, Colonel Thieme, or John MacArthur! They were also right about the eternal Sonship of Christ (which Dr. MacArthur has only discovered quite recently). Yes, the old Catholics were right about some very important things. They were right about Christ's eternal Sonship, and His Blood being in Heaven! It's a shame that those Catholics had a better understanding of the Blood than Thieme or MacArthur!
A bowl of Blood? Why not? There are seven golden bowls in Heaven according to Revelation 15:7. Since "eye hath not seen" all that is in Heaven (I Corinthians 2:9), there may very well be a golden bowl there containing the Blood of Christ! Since Revelation 15:7 tells us that there are seven golden bowls in Heaven, why couldn't there be an eighth one? How do Thieme and MacArthur know there isn't such a bowl in Heaven? Just how do they know this? They are extremely dogmatic in their rejection of this bowl - but what is their dogmatism based on? It seems to me that their shrill cry against even the possibility of such a bowl is really based on philosophical rationalism. It seems to me that they are pandering to the materialists and rationalists in their audiences. Since the Bible says nothing one way or the other, no one can Scripturally deny the possibility of such a bowl.
How about Thieme's "mortal body fluids" and MacArthur's "actual liquid"? I say that these two men have a Docetic view of the Blood, drawn from the roots of Gnosticism in the first century. Their Docetic view of the Blood prejudices them against "mortal body fluids" and "actual liquid." And their Gnosticism on the Blood places them squarely in the same position as the Christian Scientists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons on this important issue of the Blood of Christ.
I don't know about you, but I would not be comfortable taking the same position as the Christian Scientists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons! The religion of Colonel Thieme and John MacArthur is cold and bloodless. Mary Baker Eddy described their beliefs perfectly:
The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon "the accursed tree" than when it was flowing in his veins (Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, 1910, p. 330).
I don't believe you, Mrs. Eddy! I don't believe you, Judge Rutherford! I don't believe you, Brigham Young! I don't believe you, Colonel Thieme! And I don't believe John MacArthur either! Away with false doctrine on the Blood! Spit it out of your mouth - lest He spit you out of His mouth on the Last Day! You do not need phantom blood! You need real Blood!
Don't let Christian Science, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Mormons, or Colonel Thieme, or John MacArthur take the true Blood, remembered in the cup, away from you at the Lord's Supper! When you drink from the cup, remember that it points to the real Blood of Sprinkling in Heaven (cf. Hebrews 12:24). Every time you take the Lord's Supper, the two elements, reminding us of two realities in Heaven, should make you doubt those
cultists, and Colonel Thieme, and Dr. MacArthur.
You need real Blood to wash away real sin, so you can go to a real Heaven!
Macarthur:
It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death ... It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out. That is not heresy; .
Truthtesty:
False. It is the actual liquid that was shed because God said it was necessary to be shed (Divine will said the blood to be efficacious). Marthur concludes falsely. We are saved by Christ's sacrificial death, but also with the shed efficacious literal blood.
Macarthur: it's basic biblical truth
Truthtesty: Only in satanic cult circles. The only way you can attack the efficacy of the literal shed blood of Christ is if you have the satanic intent of attacking it. There is no verse in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic that says the literal shed blood is not efficacious.
Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science cult: The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious [effective, powerful] to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon "the accursed tree" than when it was flowing in his veins.
Who said that? Was it John MacArthur? Was it his teacher, Colonel Thieme? No! No! It was Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science cult! (cf. Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, 1910, p. 330). Mrs. Eddy was a neo-gnostic who believed that "Jesus, as material manhood, was not Christ" (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 84).
[
www.rlhymersjr.com]
Truthtesty