A reply to some lies being perpetrated by fundamentalist zealots
Comment: I am posting this today because just today on a Fundamentalist forum, a "fundamentalist zealot" is attacking John MacArthur
What's All the Controversy About John MacArthur and the Blood of Christ?
No excerpts ... read the whole thing!
I wonder, why has Bob Jones never retracted this charge: "MacArthur's position is heresy."
Ugh. As much as I appreciate some of the things BJU and others have stood for, I have to wonder what is going on when they apparently confuse fighting over falsehoods with good doctrine.
ReplyDeleteI posted a comment earlier to this blog, but I guess censorship is always the best tool when you're not interested in the facts.
ReplyDeleteI don't recollect censoring any comments. Frankly it doesn't bother me if anyone disagrees with me. I'm firm in my own position. So post away.
ReplyDeleteI can't repeat the last post exactly, but the gist of it is this: I agree with the critics of John MacArthur. I've been hearing the controversy surrounding JM since the 1980's when I was in Bible College. JM has a penchant for seeking to find interpretations in Scripture which only he can discern. To cite only one example, I heard him on the radio some years ago in a message on the star of Bethlehem in which he interpreted this "star" as something "else", the details of which I've now forgotten, but his interpretation was so bizarre and strange that I couldn't help but conclude that his critics were correct. He isn't satisfied with the plain meaning of the text, but he seeks to find new meanings which only he can discern.
ReplyDeleteOn the Blood of Christ issue, where verses clearly state that sins are only forgiven by the blood of Christ, he says, well it says blood, but it's really talking about the death. So he reinterprets the plain meaning of the text to fit his own preconceived ideas.
I feel no need whatsoever to re-cite these verses as they are so plentiful, but I will select one as an example: Leviticus 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 makes an atonement for the soul." If this were the only verse in the Bible, it would surely be sufficient. It doesn't say that the death of the sacrifice makes an atonement, no it says the Blood makes the atonement.
One more to seal the deal: Exodus 12:13 (in the context of the Passover): "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."
God didn't say, when I see the dead animal, I will pass over you; no, he said, when I see the BLOOD, I will pass over you.
So JM's reinterpretation of Scripture is not only wrong, but dangerous and misguided. I do not trust MacArthur's judgment or discernment. If God said it is the blood which makes an atonement for the soul, that's good enough for me. I guess it's not good enough for John MacArthur.