John MacArthur: Pro or Con on the "blood of Christ"?

[By Grace]

[edited by staff]

It is no secret that he has been a lightning rod of contention on this site, and I will state clearly that I believe that his words may have been misinterpreted, but I will remain open to original source proof of what one believes.

Therefore, I begin with the question, who has the words of Dr. Mac Arthur in written (non-edited) form or an original URL where he says anything against the blood of Jesus Christ?

Indeed, this is a high hurdle to begin with, but due to the many good accomplishments of this man, and his stature in the Evangelical community, if there be any legitimate criticism to come on a forum like this we owe it to him to be exact and responsible in what we say.

 

[jasonc]

[edited by staff]

It is no secret that he has been a lightning rod of contention on this site, and I will state clearly that I believe that his words may have been misinterpreted, but I will remain open to original source proof of what one believes.

Therefore, I begin with the question, who has the words of Dr. Mac Arthur in written (non-edited) form or an original URL where he says anything against the blood of Jesus Christ?

Indeed, this is a high hurdle to begin with, but due to the many good accomplishments of this man, and his stature in the Evangelical community, if there be any legitimate criticism to come on a forum like this we owe it to him to be exact and responsible in what we say.

Link?

 

[Brother Mike]

[edited by staff]

It is no secret that he has been a lightning rod of contention on this site, and I will state clearly that I believe that his words may have been misinterpreted, but I will remain open to original source proof of what one believes.

Therefore, I begin with the question, who has the words of Dr. Mac Arthur in written (non-edited) form or an original URL where he says anything against the blood of Jesus Christ?

Indeed, this is a high hurdle to begin with, but due to the many good accomplishments of this man, and his stature in the Evangelical community, if there be any legitimate criticism to come on a forum like this we owe it to him to be exact and responsible in what we say.

edited for rudeness reba

His point was simply that the fluid itself that came out of the man Jesus, is not what is applied to anyone who gets saved today. He was talking about the actual blood fluid in the body of Jesus.
Nobody that has gotten saved, has the blood that came from the body of Jesus put on them. We don't turn red, we don't get bloody smears on us, that blood is gone long time ago.

The importance of the blood was tied to the bulls and goats, the slaughter house in the temple of God where the blood flowed for peoples sins. It was the death of Jesus, and the blood that poured out of him as a sacrifice is what saved us. Not the actual fluid that came from the actual body of Jesus. The importance was His death, and the blood shed, not the blood with dna still in it as in being around today.

That was Dr. Mac Author's point. It's clear in His statements. He was trying to get folks focused on the importance of what Jesus did, not the actual fluid that came out of his body at the time.

Now if anyone has been saved by that 2,000 year old fluid and has actually seen the real blood that came from his body, I sure would like to hear about it. Otherwise, they need to zip it.

It was the sacrifice and blood he shed, not the real blood that gushed out of his body.
Mike.

 

[By Grace]

Link?

No link was required, bro.
I made that statement as sort of a challenge to another unnamed poster who does not like Dr. MacArthur. Should the poster respond, then you will know the link. If you want to do some digging, I suggest that you do a web search on "Dr. MacArthur & blood of Christ".

If you do that, and choose to respond I request that you please include the URL for all of your source material