Do you A# imply that his was a doctrinal mistake, and B# that he should be let off for his virtues? I suspect that the godly Sabellius would have defied lock-down, but should his doctrinal mistake not have been challenged?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
John MacArthur - Jesus Did Not Have to Shed His Blood to Save Us!
- Thread starter SolaScriptura
- Start date
Do you A# imply that his was a doctrinal mistake, and B# that he should be let off for his virtues? I suspect that the godly Sabellius would have defied lock-down, but should his doctrinal mistake not have been challenged?journeymanisnothing
Member
Hello Vinny37.
"Shedding blood" means Jesus "gave everything He had"....."His entire life was spent" ....."poured out His love", "His life"....."His blood", "showing all His mercy."
Better questions are , "What's Jesus being charged with?" "Is it true?"
When you can answer that you'll discover they should have worshipped Him.journeymanisnothing
MemberJesus said,
A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?.....For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. Mal.1:1,11I will state to those who believe Jesus's blood was not needed for salvation that it's not for man to choose how to forgive sin.
God's chose how man would be reconciled to Himself.
Col 1
20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.journeymanisnothing
Member
100% right Randy.
Theologians say God chose to sin against His own Son .
100 right. God says man chose to sin against His
Yep,
bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. 2Pet.2:11
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened nothis mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isa.53:7
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Mt.5:48 (All KJV)
For claiming that someone is engaging in “man worship”? No. Please let moderators do the moderating.
That wasn’t God-fearing or courage or “a token of faith.” That was defiance and rebellion against God’s commands in Scripture. But, that’s all I’m going to say about that.
The courts ruled in his favor .
John MacArthur and Grace Community Church win $800,000 settlement from California and L.A. County
“We argued all along that the state of California can't treat churches any different than the secular businesses that are getting the most favorable treatment.”–Charles LiMandri, Special Counsel, Thomas More Society Pastor John MacArthur and Grace Community Church won their legal battle with the...
www.standingforfreedom.com
That said .I could then by that logic so sing karaoke in a bar that was open but worship in church ?
The law is the law and plenty of bars didn't close in those leftist states they made accomodations for them .
But not for a church .Here is my take on the topic that it seems people sometimes forget.
It isn't Christ's blood or His Death that cleanses us from sin. It is His Resurrection and His Intercession on our behalf to the Father that cleases us of our sin because the Father only accepts Christ's Blood as atonement for sin. Not our blood.
So I believe the focus should be on His Life, not on His Death. In fact, He lives at this very moment.
Hey, I'm not stopping you - you are Free
and needed. I just think that a few personal insults can be taken on Christian chins in the interests of freedom of speech. At a guess maybe millions of singers worship scores of songwriters, whether man or woman worship. It's idolisation and common enough. It is however an accusation that should be evidence based, and I'd be more tempted to ask the poster to evidence their particular claim. Please keep on moderating.
If you do not wish to answer my questions, not a problem.journeymanisnothing
Member
I thought the question was whether Jesus needed to shed His blood for fhe forgivness of sins. As far as that goes the answer is no,
the LORD hate.....hands that shed innocent blood, Pro.6:16-17 KJV
Jesus only needed to forgive them for shedding His blood. They sinned against Him.
I’ve just noted that we’ve both been confused because you didn’t check who my QQQ were to (viz Carry_Your_Name) – see #41 - and I didn’t check who my AAA were from (viz you). Egg on faces? I wished Carry_Your_Name to say whether he meant 1# that MacArthur WAS wrong here but should be let off because of being a good godly guy, or 2# like me that MacArthur was right here and so didn’t need letting off a false hook of accusation. I was unsure. And I can add again that I’m no MacArthur fan.journeymanisnothing
Member
Thanks for clarifying as I misundresttod you. I used to listen to MacArthur when I attended a reformed congregation, but I no longer follow their teachings.
The reformers interpreted the NT in a way that made it appear as though the Father punished the Son "in place of the ungodly."
In other words, "journeyman committed sin, but Jesus is being punished "for it."
This is heresy.
The truth is, "journeyman committed sin...and Jesus is being hurt by it.
They didn't know the One they hanged gave them life to begin with,
And he said unto them,Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. Jn.8:23 KJV
Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.....
In other words, Pilate was unaware that our King gave him his power to begin with, but apparently Pilate didn't what the OT said,
.....therefore he that delivered m Jn.19:10-11 KJV
The religious leaders, scholars, should have recognized Jesus as the King. They didn't because they misunderstood the ourpose of the law. The law was given by God to show men their wickedness and need of His mercy,
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deu.24:16 KJV
So journeyman better repent, or journeyman is going to die. The reformers took NT passages like,
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Gal.3:13 KJV
Yet the law means,
And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: for he that is hanged is accursed of God Deu.21.22-23 KJV
No one is cursed by God for being hanged, but all are cursed by God for committing sin against Him.
Which is exactly what happened to Jesus. Paul actually means our dear Lord was slandered,
our beloved brother Paul.....in all his epistles, speaking...of these things...which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2Pet.3:15-16
Please clarify your understanding of this Reformed teaching, and what your own personal belief.
Grace and peace to you.
I don't wish to get deeply into your particulars here, since a tangent conversation to the OP, but I readily agree that Reformationism can skewer the biblical picture of PSA and overload the valid punishment picture, a legal image excluding other pictures, and picture Christians more as sinners than as saints. Pictures were given to certain audiences, but PSA does show that as rebels (by sinfulness) we deserve to die. And indeed we need to die. In a simple way, substitution says that in some way that's happened big time by the cross. That must be married to not mere courtroom forgiveness, but with spiritual transformation by the spirit, and the cross seen as a battle ground where messiah fought and defeated death for us. There is more to heaven and earth than Reformationism.journeymanisnothing
Member
The reformers rightfully believed God requires the lives of all sinners and that if "atonement" isn't made those sinners are lost forever. Are we agreed so far?journeymanisnothing
Member
If you understood me correctly you wouldn't have said that. I'm showing you how the blood of Christ in His mercy is 100 % necessary for sinners to be saved. What isn't only not necessary for anyones salvation is the way His blood was spilled... by conspiracy to commit and in fact commit murder. We need to beg His forgiveness. but I readily agree that Reformationism can skewer the biblical picture of PSA and overload the valid punishment picture, a legal image excluding other pictures, and picture Christians more as sinners than as saints. Pictures were given to certain audiences, but PSA does show that as rebels (by sinfulness) we deserve to die. And indeed we need to die.
Not all sinners.
Just His elect.
Limited atonement.
I do not want to derail the thread, perhaps i will start a thread in the theology section to debate this.
Grace and peace to you.
Indeed further misunderstanding. I had thought your interaction with me mainly based on misunderstanding of addressee, and I for my part in #56 had simply wished to address that. My main contribution had already been given, in #39, which I am prepared to defend.
Your #42 was somewhat ambiguous, if one accepts that blood is metonymy for death—as has MacArthur. Your pairing of blood with linked concepts, could have been taken as agreement. Your #43 was betwixt & between, not siding either way. I had not read you other posts other than those referencing me. Your #52 mentions blood, but again did not discount it as metonymy: each sentiment could be written with [death] instead of [blood] as still carry the crux of the matter, eg shedding meaning not merely cutting an innocent but killing an innocent human being (CEV’s murder): innocent animals could be cut if defence, or killed for food, but surely excluded from the writer’s meaning (Pr.6:17). Your #54 has material I thought non-germane to the OP, such as whether Jesus became a curse or whether Jesus was cursed (Gal.3:13 KJV vs CJB); whether [to show men] or [to show people] (should we exclude women and children?); definition of [repent]; definition of [die]; definition of [law]; canonicity (your ref. of 2 Pt.3:16); etc, tangential to the OP, viz of blood & death as being semi-separate and essential factors, yet the essentiality of one denied by MacArthur who merely subsumed blood under the pivotal factor of death. That was your post which did not mention blood and to which I replied to in #56.
OK. You stand with the OP; I stand against the OP. As to where Carry_Your_Name stands I remain unclear. What’s your guess?