What's the big deal with IFB and the blood of Christ?

[briceman]

(07-02-2012 02:36 PM)greg Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 12:19 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  IFB pastor rants about John MacArthur's position on the blood. Watch the video and post your response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmutVTVyu...ure=relmfu

I'm 100% against MacArthur's position on the blood, but I can't watch Anderson!

Good brief article to read. It clarifies my position.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/what-s...atonement/

[Darren]

As was stated on the other thread, M.R. DeHaan is largely responsible for bringing this topic up in the 20th century. But Bob Jones Jr. is the one largely responsible for making it an issue in Fundyism. In the late '80s he published a twisted quote from MacArthur in a newsletter and forwarded his info to the SOTL (BJU and SOTL were a lot closer 25 years ago), and Hutson (not Tony, but his dad Curtis) put his own spin on it and put it on the front page. It became an instant sensation and gave Fundys ammo with which to criticize MacArthur. BJIII personally apologized a few years after, and much later BJU itself quietly issued an apologetic press release. Here is Phil Johnson's summary of the incident and its repercussions. I believe the article was actually written in 2000, before BJU's press release.

[Bob M]

(07-02-2012 04:13 PM)Darren Wrote:  As was stated on the other thread, M.R. DeHaan is largely responsible for bringing this topic up in the 20th century. But Bob Jones Jr. is the one largely responsible for making it an issue in Fundyism. In the late '80s he published a twisted quote from MacArthur in a newsletter and forwarded his info to the SOTL (BJU and SOTL were a lot closer 25 years ago), and Hutson (not Tony, but his dad Curtis) put his own spin on it and put it on the front page. It became an instant sensation and gave Fundys ammo with which to criticize MacArthur. BJIII personally apologized a few years after, and much later BJU itself quietly issued an apologetic press release. Here is Phil Johnson's summary of the incident and its repercussions. I believe the article was actually written in 2000, before BJU's press release.

I remember 1988 and Prairie Baptist Church in Scotts, MI. The Pastor said that John MacArthur was probably not saved and that he was a heretic for his view on the blood. He then lambasted all radio preachers and said we should not listen to any of them.

[greg]

(07-02-2012 04:13 PM)Darren Wrote:  As was stated on the other thread, M.R. DeHaan is largely responsible for bringing this topic up in the 20th century. But Bob Jones Jr. is the one largely responsible for making it an issue in Fundyism. In the late '80s he published a twisted quote from MacArthur in a newsletter and forwarded his info to the SOTL (BJU and SOTL were a lot closer 25 years ago), and Hutson (not Tony, but his dad Curtis) put his own spin on it and put it on the front page. It became an instant sensation and gave Fundys ammo with which to criticize MacArthur. BJIII personally apologized a few years after, and much later BJU itself quietly issued an apologetic press release. Here is Phil Johnson's summary of the incident and its repercussions. I believe the article was actually written in 2000, before BJU's press release.

No one would have to twist MacArthur's words for me to have problems with them, he does a great job with that all by himself.

[steve95054]

Being somewhat sarcastic here, but...

All denominations/people who don't believe in the "Real Presence" (loosely defined here as: the communion wine is actually the blood of Christ in some way or another, and not just "symbolically" [in the modern sense] so) are "weak on the Blood". After all, Jesus said, "Except ye...drink my blood..."

So if you're not really eating His Body and drinking His Blood, then are you really partaking of the Sacrifice?

If you're just eating bread and drinking grape juice/wine, then I think it's safe to say you're "weak on the blood" because you have no Blood to speak of. Or if you do, it's some far off, far away Blood that really has nothing to do with you.

[greg]

(07-02-2012 06:27 PM)steve95054 Wrote:  Being somewhat sarcastic here, but...

All denominations/people who don't believe in the "Real Presence" (loosely defined here as: the communion wine is actually the blood of Christ in some way or another, and not just "symbolically" [in the modern sense] so) are "weak on the Blood". After all, Jesus said, "Except ye...drink my blood..."

So if you're not really eating His Body and drinking His Blood, then are you really partaking of the Sacrifice?

If you're just eating bread and drinking grape juice/wine, then I think it's safe to say you're "weak on the blood" because you have no Blood to speak of. Or if you do, it's some far off, far away Blood that really has nothing to do with you.

Do this in "remembrance" of me. It's very clear, I'm always amazed how folks get so confused over it, just read it, I take that back, how do folks get so confused over it? They listen to men.

[Ricardo]

Greg,

Christians and Jews of the first century understood perfectly well what sacrifices and blood were all about.

The blood of lambs or of doves was sprayed seven times around the altar and was applied to your right earlobe, right thumb and right toe. Would God ever forgive you if an IED took off your right thumb and couldn't smear blood on your non-existent right thumb?

In Deuteronomy, this was the real thing. Fresh, warm, un-coagulated blood.

So in the cases of animal sacrifices, when did God actually confer forgiveness? When the first drop of blood touched you, the last? when the animal died?

Considering none of us have been actually touched by any blood of Jesus, then ALL OF US have to necessarily see it as symbolic, I would have to agree that making an issue about the blood of Christ is unnecessary.

Anyone who says he was "washed in the blood" is lying. Unless you work at a slaughterhouse.

[greg]

(07-02-2012 07:44 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  Greg,

Christians and Jews of the first century understood perfectly well what sacrifices and blood were all about.

The blood of lambs or of doves was sprayed seven times around the altar and was applied to your right earlobe, right thumb and right toe. Would God ever forgive you if an IED took off your right thumb and couldn't smear blood on your non-existent right thumb?

In Deuteronomy, this was the real thing. Fresh, warm, un-coagulated blood.

So in the cases of animal sacrifices, when did God actually confer forgiveness? When the first drop of blood touched you, the last? when the animal died?

Considering none of us have been actually touched by any blood of Jesus, then ALL OF US have to necessarily see it as symbolic, I would have to agree that making an issue about the blood of Christ is unnecessary.

Anyone who says he was "washed in the blood" is lying. Unless you work at a slaughterhouse.

"He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God."

I would warn anyone making light of the blood of Jesus and His Cross, to be very careful. I'm not saying you were, but I am seeing some semi-careless statements about the blood.

That blood is precious, Holy, and sinless, and it is through the blood that our sins are made white as snow.

[steve95054]

(07-02-2012 07:44 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  Christians and Jews of the first century understood perfectly well what sacrifices and blood were all about.

And every one of them, without exception, confirmed that the Eucharist is the Blood of Christ, not just "symbolically", but truly.

In fact, this was so well understood that the pagans accused them of cannibalism. (Yes, I'm well aware that this charge is still around, even in our own Forum...there is currently an active thread about it in the Non-Believer Safe-space.)

Quote:Considering none of us have been actually touched by any blood of Jesus

None of you. Don't lump me in there!

Quote:Anyone who says he was "washed in the blood" is lying. Unless you work at a slaughterhouse.

Or unless you're Orthodox.

[Ricardo]

(07-03-2012 12:57 PM)steve95054 Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 07:44 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  Anyone who says he was "washed in the blood" is lying. Unless you work at a slaughterhouse.

Or unless you're Orthodox.

Tell me about it?

Type A? Type B? (Type Alpha and Omega?) High or low in white cells? What anticoagulants?

I'm not trying to make fun of anyone. I'm seriously trying to figure out how a literal interpretation of the Blood of Christ works, as opposed to a symbolic interpretation.