Andy Stanley: Throw Away The Bible!

[HammondCheese]

I've read what MacArthur wrote on the subject....

His book "Charismatic Choas" is very good.

He, along with all men, save Tarheel, are flawed.

That was a quote from voicecrying, but I agree.  That was a great book, and none of us know it all.  Apologetics is vital and the primary reason I'm on here.  Here is one of his scathing rebukes of the Charismatic Movement...  Good stuff!

https://youtu.be/aHzir19Kk7c

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

https://youtu.be/vcmUAcIqZxk

Here's a link that explains his position more fully:

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-44/the-blood-of-christ

The video is mixing up the meaning of blood between MacArthur's use of the term versus the meaning in Bible verses.

It is actually MacArthur himself who is mixing up the two in the vid... He's pretty clear of his position on the matter.  But I will read what you sent.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

He attributes atonement only to the death of Christ, not the shedding of His precious blood.  Meaning that he could have died through suffocation, drowning, etc.

Ah. In other words, the fictional version, not the truthful version.

MacArthur's position is that a) Christ had to die a bloody death as the price of atonement, in order to fulfill Scripture; and b) it is the fact of this bloody death, not some property of the blood itself, that saves.

And he is quite correct. "The blood of Christ" is a figure of speech, representing the kind of death he had to die. The literal tissue was not efficacious. It was Christ's perfect obedience in willingly going to the cross to die that appeased his Father's wrath against sinners.

 

[HammondCheese]

MacArthur's position is that a) Christ had to die a bloody death as the price of atonement, in order to fulfill Scripture; and b) it is the fact of this bloody death, not some property of the blood itself, that saves.

And how did you ascertain his position as such?  Certainly not from this video.  He has never held ANY position requiring a "bloody death" as contrived by YOU in both a) and b).. 

And I am not formulating a conclusive assessment based solely on this clip...  I have listened to him address this issue countless times.  He goes as far as believing, as I previously said, that Jesus could have been killed any other way WITHOUT shedding His blood to fulfill Scripture, such as drowning, suffocation,

And he is quite correct. "The blood of Christ" is a figure of speech, representing the kind of death he had to die. The literal tissue was not efficacious. It was Christ's perfect obedience in willingly going to the cross to die that appeased his Father's wrath against sinners.

No, he is quite wrong...  As are you.  "The blood of Christ" is no more a figure of speech than "the shedding of blood" is a euphemism.  You fail to understand the doctrine of Atonement ...

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 maketh an atonement for the soul.

Hebrews 9:11-12 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;  Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own BLOOD he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Hebrews 9:22 - And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
.
.
.
.
***And The Bible is not one big metaphor... Especially when it comes to things like The blood of Christ.  It is quite literal throughout the Old and New TESTAMENTS (pun intended), and it is rarely even mentioned in the same breath as the word "death" -- although it was imperative that "Christ DIED for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" (i.e., Gal 3:13, Deut 21:22-23) that The Gospel might be fulfilled.***

A few samples of references to Christ's literal blood:

1 John 1:7 - But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Hebrews 9:14 - How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Romans 5:9 - Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

1 John 1:7-9 - But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Revelation 12:11 - And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Acts 20:28 - Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Revelation 1:5 - And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Hebrews 10:19 - Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Romans 3:24-25 - Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Ephesians 1:7 - In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

1 Peter 1:18-19 - Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers;

Revelation 7:14 - And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Hebrews 13:12 - Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Colossians 1:20 - And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.

Revelation 5:9 - And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

And how did you ascertain his position as such?  Certainly not from this video.  He has never held ANY position requiring a "bloody death" as contrived by YOU in both a) and b)..

You're right. I didn't get it from your YouTube video containing hysterical all-caps denunciations like "HERETIC" and "FALSE PROPHET" that reek of sensationalism and emotional manipulation more than serious discourse. YouTube is an aggregator of ignorance, and anyone who gives it the same weight as a primary source is an easily-swayed fool, right up there with those gullible idiots who believe the earth is flat or men didn't walk on the moon.

I got my information from a primary source: MacArthur's own words.

On my point A, above: "If Christ had not literally shed His blood in sacrifice for our sins, we could not have been saved. . . . Bloodshed was likewise God's design for nearly all Old Testament sacrifices. They were bled to death rather than clubbed, strangled, suffocated, or burnt. God designed that sacrificial death was to occur with blood loss, because 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' (Lev. 17:11)."

And on point B: "When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death. . . . Just as the cross is an expression that includes all of Christ's atoning work, so is the blood. It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out."

He goes as far as believing, as I previously said, that Jesus could have been killed any other way WITHOUT shedding His blood to fulfill Scripture, such as drowning, suffocation,

According to Macarthur's own words, above, he believes the exact opposite of this.

That letter, "I Believe in the Precious Blood," has been around since 1988. If, in over 30 years, you didn't manage to find it, it doesn't inspire great confidence in your research skills, your discernment, or, frankly, your integrity. I certainly have no further use for you.

A few samples of references to Christ's literal blood:

Literally none of which were literal.

 

[T-Bone]

Uh Oh...looks like we are going to get into the "magic" blood debate again.  Or to be more far the "Divine" blood arguments. We been down this road before.

 

[TonyHutsonComedian]

Well MacArthur is outspoken about his hatred for CCM and Hellsong in particular. He's also highly critical of the false teachings and music of Bethel. He also never had kind words for Paul Crouch so while he may be controversial in IFB circles, some IFB's (like Tony Hutson) revere him for being against charismatics and the false teachings of the seeker sensitive megachurches.

 

[HammondCheese]

You're right. I didn't get it from your YouTube video containing hysterical all-caps denunciations like "HERETIC" and "FALSE PROPHET" that reek of sensationalism and emotional manipulation more than serious discourse. YouTube is an aggregator of ignorance, and anyone who gives it the same weight as a primary source is an easily-swayed fool, right up there with those gullible idiots who believe the earth is flat or men didn't walk on the moon.

Wow...  You just wasted a lot of brainpower typing this rant about this YouTuber's methods and the perils of YouTube rather than address the words of MacArthur.  Stay on point...

"When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), 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."

You have proven my hypothesis to be true.  You fail to understand the doctrine of Atonement...  And have yet to address it OR the verses I provided regarding it...  Just like you failed to address ANY statements of MacArthur in the vid clip I shared.  I'm seeing a pattern with you, Ransom...

Was MacArthur using a "figure of speech" for "blood" when he said "sacrificial death"?  Or "death" when he said "pouring it out"?  See, you take MacArthur literally, but not God as you indicated below regarding the scores of times God chose throughout His Word to use "blood" instead of the word "death".

And by the way, did high priests carry blood or death into the holy of holies?  And what about Jesus, our High Priest?  His death or His blood?  And don't digress with some empty rhetoric like, "It wasn't the bleeding of Christ that saves us...  It was His death."  I have yet to meet a Bible-believer who believes Jesus only had to bleed and not to die also.

He goes as far as believing, as I previously said, that Jesus could have been killed any other way WITHOUT shedding His blood to fulfill Scripture, such as drowning, suffocation, bludgeoning, etc.

According to Macarthur's own words, above, he believes the exact opposite of this.

According to MacArthur's own words in the vid I posted that you ignored outside of ranting on the edits and the dangers of YouTube, he believes the exact opposite of what you SAY he believes.  He specifically says that 'yes, he could have died from bludgeoning if God had permitted.'  But God didn't...  Why?  Because He would not have died according to the scriptures!

That letter, "I Believe in the Precious Blood," has been around since 1988. If, in over 30 years, you didn't manage to find it, it doesn't inspire great confidence in your research skills, your discernment, or, frankly, your integrity. I certainly have no further use for you.

Yeah, I found it OVER 30 YEARS AGO.  As well as having listened to his preaching for the 30 years since then, so I'll guarantee I know exactly where he stands in 2019. 

If I were you, I would focus more on your research skills, your discernment, and, quite frankly, your integrity when it comes to God's Word.  I have no further use for you either.

A few samples of references to Christ's literal blood:

Literally none of which were literal.

There's that Ransom Pattern we all love...  Totally dismissive of others' rebuttals AND of Scripture. And I'm sure you literally read literally ZERO of those verses.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

Wow...  You just wasted a lot of brainpower typing this rant about this YouTuber's methods and the perils of YouTube rather than address the words of MacArthur.  Stay on point...

I did address the words of MacArthur. Your panties are only in a wad because I didn't address your tawdry scandal video.

"When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), 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."

You have proven my hypothesis to be true.  You fail to understand the doctrine of Atonement...

You have proven my hypothesis to be true. You are useless, because you fail to understand quotations. That was a direct quotation from John MacArthur's open letter, "I Believe in the Precious Blood," as published at the above link. You're not arguing with my understanding of the doctrine of atonement. You're arguing with MacArthur's--or, to be more precise, your fantasy version of MacArthur's doctrine of atonement, which is basically the opposite of his actual one.

Was MacArthur using a "figure of speech" for "blood" when he said "sacrificial death"?

No, because "blood" is the figure of speech, and "sacrificial death" is the literal thing it stands for.

Do you understand how figurative language works, or do you just get it completely backward like your understanding of "literal"?

Or "death" when he said "pouring it out"?

Now that is a proper use of figurative language. "Death" is the literal thing and "pouring it out" is the metaphor. Jesus' blood was not literally poured out--no one tipped him over like a pitcher and emptied him. Literally, he bled to death.

See, you take MacArthur literally, but not God

I read both MacArthur and God literally when intended, and figuratively when intended.

For example, in "I Believe in the Precious Blood, MacArthur writes that "My teaching is certainly no secret, and I knew that those who listen regularly to our radio broadcast would know I am not teaching heresy." That is a literal statement.

On the other hand, when he writes in the same letter, just before the above, "I expected the public controversy to die away," he is speaking figuratively. Controversy is not alive; therefore, it cannot die. "Die away" is a figure of speech: it means "cease gradually."

Similarly, when I read in the Bible that "one of the soldiers pierced [Jesus'] side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water" (John 19:34), that is a literal use of the word "blood." It literally means actual blood came out of his body. By contrast, when Jesus says of the cup at the Last Supper, "this is my blood of the covenant" (Matt. 26:28), that is not literal, because he did not bleed into the cup and offer it to his disciples to drink.

as you indicated below regarding the scores of times God chose throughout His Word to use "blood" instead of the word "death".

Repeating a metaphor dozens of times doesn't make it literal. It makes it a recurring metaphor.

And by the way, did high priests carry blood or death into the holy of holies?

Indeed they did carry literal blood into the Holy of Holies. Of course, the fact that sometimes there is literal blood in the Bible doesn't mean all uses of the word "blood" are likewise literal.

Moreover, the sacrificial blood of the Levitical system was itself but a figure--a symbol of the sacrificial death of Christ yet to come. "Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near" (Hebrews 10:1). Like a shadow, a symbol is not a thing in itself; it's a pointer to the actual thing. The temple sacrifices were designed to point to the real sacrifice of Christ.

And what about Jesus, our High Priest?  His death or His blood?  And don't digress with some empty rhetoric like, "It wasn't the bleeding of Christ that saves us...  It was His death."  I have yet to meet a Bible-believer who believes Jesus only had to bleed and not to die also.

Since I am not arguing that Jesus only had to bleed and not die, and neither is MacArthur, I agree not to digress to your straw man.

According to MacArthur's own words in the vid I posted that you ignored outside of ranting on the edits and the dangers of YouTube, he believes the exact opposite of what you SAY he believes.

I didn't say MacArthur believes that. MacArthur said he believed it.

He specifically says that 'yes, he could have died from bludgeoning if God had permitted.'

And? Key words being "could have . . . if God permitted" If God had permitted sacrifices by bludgeoning, then yes, theoretically, Christ's death by bludgeoning would have been acceptable--even necessary. However, God decreed that sin was remitted by bloodshed, and therefore, it was necessary for Jesus to die by bloodshed.

You have a problem with this? MacArthur's point isn't difficult for anyone capable of understanding hypotheticals.

But God didn't...  Why?  Because He would not have died according to the scriptures!

Exactly. If bludgeoning was "according to the scriptures," then Jesus would have died "according to the scriptures"  by bludgeoning. See how that works?

It wasn't, so he didn't. Simple as that.

If I were you, I would focus more on your research skills,

I see. So when I find an open letter that is:

• written by John MacArthur himself;
• intended to give his side of the very controversy with which we are concerned; and
• published on the Web site of the executive director of MacArthur's ministry,

somehow it's my research skills that are lacking because I believe the very definition of a primary source settles the matter, rather than  some edited-together psycho-fundy YouTube ranting.

There's that Ransom Pattern we all love...  Totally dismissive of others' rebuttals AND of Scripture.

Of course, I am not dismissive of Scripture, although I am dismissive of your incompetent handling of it.

You claimed, for example, that Rev. 1:5 was a "reference to Christ's literal blood":

Revelation 1:5 - And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Did Christ literally take a bucket of his blood and use it to scrub sins off our body? Did the saints in Rev. 7:14 literally bleach their clothing white in a tub of Jesus' blood?

No?

Do you, in fact, know what "literal" actually means?

I stand by my previous diagnosis. You are useless. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Ransom]

So I wonder: Did the Westminster divines and the Particular Baptists who penned the London Baptist Confession of Faith (the Westminster Confession and the LBCF are basically identical on this point) fail to understand the doctrine of atonement? Even though many of their Scripture proofs on this point mention the blood, they seem to have left the word out of the paragraph.

The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto Him. (LBCF VIII.5)

Did Charles Spurgeon?

In a few words, "the blood of sprinkling" represents the pains, the sufferings, the humiliation, and the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, which he endured on the behalf of guilty man. When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus. We believe in the literal fact of his shedding his blood; but when we speak of his cross and blood we mean those sufferings and that death of our Lord Jesus Christ by which he magnified the law of God; we mean what Isaiah intended when he said, "He shall make his soul an offering for sin;" we mean all the griefs which Jesus vicariously endured on our behalf at Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha, and specially his yielding up his life upon the tree of scorn and doom. "The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." "Without shedding of blood there is no remission;" and the shedding of blood intended is the death of Jesus, the Son of God. (Charles Spurgeon, "The Blood of Sprinkling", Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit vol. 32)

After all, I am in full agreement with the above excerpt. And if I fail to understand the doctrine of atonement, then so must Spurgeon.

I think a more relevant question right now is, does MoonCheese understand the doctrine of atonement? Seems doubtful, given that he hasn't tried to articulate one yet, only critique John MacArthur's (very ineptly).

 

[HammondCheese]

Your level of cognitive dissonance is astounding...

For one, you conveniently interpret terminology in God's Word as figurative when it is literal and then defend your misinterpretation by proposing a literal interpretation to an 'obviously' figurative one.  For example...

REV 1:5: "...and washed us from our sins in his own blood..."

Did Christ literally take a bucket of his blood and use it to scrub sins off our body? Did the saints in Rev. 7:14 literally bleach their clothing white in a tub of Jesus' blood?

This is one of MacArthur's tactics...  Like when he mocked the idea of Jesus pouring out His literal blood from the mercy seat in Heaven every time a sinner gets saved.  What the WHAT?  A total disconnect...

Secondly, you misinterpret just about everything I say, or simply take them out of context with your sly usage of Tapatalk quotes.  For example... (*** = MY words)

***He specifically says that 'yes, he could have died from bludgeoning if God had permitted.'

And? Key words being "could have . . . if God permitted" If God had permitted sacrifices by bludgeoning, then yes, theoretically, Christ's death by bludgeoning would have been acceptable--even necessary. However, God decreed that sin was remitted by bloodshed, and therefore, it was necessary for Jesus to die by bloodshed.

You have a problem with this? MacArthur's point isn't difficult for anyone capable of understanding hypotheticals.

***But God didn't...  Why?  Because He would not have died according to the scriptures!

Exactly. If bludgeoning was "according to the scriptures," then Jesus would have died "according to the scriptures"  by bludgeoning. See how that works?

It wasn't, so he didn't. Simple as that.

You snipped the first half of my comment, rattled on stating the obvious, and then came to the same conclusion that I did in the first place.  I was not questioning God's Sovereignty... I was making the point that He will never contradict Himself.

But MacArthur leaves that out.  He implies that Jesus could have died by any means if God permitted WITHOUT having to change the entirety of Scripture and not just the Messianic prophecies.  The blood of Christ is a primary theme from Genesis to Revelation.

I'm sure you'll argue that MacArthur was, in fact, implying that.  But he is making a hypothesis that, with a few tweaks on the requirement of Jesus being lifted up, hung on a tree, and bleeding in His death, ALL other Scripture would remain in tact...  Showing his ultimate failure to understand the significance of the Blood of Christ.

***If I were you, I would focus more on your research skills

I see. So when I find an open letter that is:

• written by John MacArthur himself;
• intended to give his side of the very controversy with which we are concerned; and
• published on the Web site of the executive director of MacArthur's ministry,

somehow it's my research skills that are lacking because I believe the very definition of a primary source settles the matter, rather than  some edited-together psycho-fundy YouTube ranting.

***There's that Ransom Pattern we all love...  Totally dismissive of others' rebuttals AND of Scripture.

First off, I was primarily referring to your lack of research in Scripture, not just MacArthur's position...  But there you go snipping again.

Unlike you, I have listened to MacArthur's teaching for over 30 years and still do almost daily.  So I read this open letter in 1988 when it was released.  I didn't have to "research" it on the Internet like you.  But good for you.  I'm impressed.

That being said, I know exactly where he stands in 2019...  Not 1988.  Someone else on here told me they wanted to go find something on one of MacArthur's positions that that he verbalized himself, so I just grabbed the first version of that panel discussion where he addressed it - not realizing it was an edited version by what you call a ranting, sensationalist, fundy...  And you simply COULD NOT get past that!  I posted it for what HE said, not the YouTuber.  Yet another total disconnect on your part.

Repeating a metaphor dozens of times doesn't make it literal. It makes it a recurring metaphor.

SMH...

And repeating the blood of Christ is a metaphor dozens of times makes you an idiot.

I would discuss your misunderstanding of Atonement, the Levitical system, priesthood, and passages like Hebrews 9 with you, but my brain can't take it.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

Your level of cognitive dissonance is astounding...

Your level of biblical, theological, and linguistic ignorance is scandalous for a so-called Christian.

For one, you conveniently interpret terminology in God's Word as figurative when it is literal and then defend your misinterpretation by proposing a literal interpretation to an 'obviously' figurative one.  For example...

REV 1:5: "...and washed us from our sins in his own blood..."

Did Christ literally take a bucket of his blood and use it to scrub sins off our body? Did the saints in Rev. 7:14 literally bleach their clothing white in a tub of Jesus' blood?

This is one of MacArthur's tactics...  Like when he mocked the idea of Jesus pouring out His literal blood from the mercy seat in Heaven every time a sinner gets saved.  What the WHAT?  A total disconnect...

Hey, look, everyone, MoonCheese thinks "washed . . . in his blood" is literal language.

I said the fool didn't know the meaning of "literal." The last thing I expected was for him to prove it and show his work.

I rest my case.. There's a reason Paul warns us against disputing over words, and it turns out it's you.

 

[HammondCheese]

Your level of biblical, theological, and linguistic ignorance is scandalous for a so-called Christian.

Not at all shocking that, as most shallow and unlearned people exposed to militant fundamentalism do, you would quickly resort to questioning my Salvation to attempt claiming victory in a debate that you lost. [emoji849]

***For one, you conveniently interpret terminology in God's Word as figurative when it is literal and then defend your misinterpretation by proposing a literal interpretation to an 'obviously' figurative one.  For example...

***REV 1:5: "...and washed us from our sins in his own blood..."

Hey, look, everyone, MoonCheese thinks "washed . . . in his blood" is literal language.

I said the fool didn't know the meaning of "literal." The last thing I expected was for him to prove it and show his work.

How do you even type while wearing a straitjacket?  It's exhausting having to spell things out for a simpleton like yourself.  If you actually read and comprehend what I say, it would help you a lot.

I pointed out that YOU, like MacArthur, associate "'obviously' figurative" language (direct quote from my statement above) to "defend your misinterpretation" of a literal usage.  Let me break it down on your level... 

Position held by you and MacArthur:

1.  The word 'blood' in Revelation 1:5 is figurative.
2.  The word 'washed' is figurative.
3.  Grammatically, these two words are not mutually exclusive.
4.  Therefore, these two words are required to be interpreted literally (L) OR figuratively (F).  L+L=GOOD, F+F=GOOD, L+F=BAD, F+L=BAD
5.  To interpret the word 'blood' literally would require you to interpret the word 'washed' literally.
6.  To drive this point home, make up an absurd scenario for your detractors such as, "So if the word 'blood' is literal, does that mean Jesus actually throws you in a bathtub and scrubs you down with a crimson loofah."
7.  Get a lobotomy.

My position:

1.  The word 'blood' in Revelation 1:5 is literal
2.  The word 'washing' is figurative
3.  Grammatically, the two words ARE mutually exclusive.
4.  Therefore, neither of these two words require the other to be taken literally or figuratively.
5.  To interpret the word 'blood' literally does not require you to interpret the word 'washed' literally.
6.  Laugh at Ransom.
7.  Mic drop...


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[TonyHutsonComedian]

Well MacArthur is outspoken about his hatred for CCM and Hellsong in particular. He's also highly critical of the false teachings and music of Bethel. He also never had kind words for Paul Crouch so while he may be controversial in IFB circles, some IFB's (like Tony Hutson) revere him for being against charismatics and the false teachings of the seeker sensitive megachurches.

 

[Tim]

Uh Oh...looks like we are going to get into the "magic" blood debate again.  Or to be more far the "Divine" blood arguments. We been down this road before.

One of my personal favorite subjects that brings back memories of Shiloh and Mrs. Brown and flat out crazy fighting on the old forums. Yep ... the blood disappeared from earth after Jesus died and then appeared in a basin in heaven. The tree Jesus died on, the path he walked and the cloths that wrapped his body were void of any blood .... all in heaven to be applied to a heavenly mercy seat to cover each and every one of our sins. The Old Testament sacrifices were a image of what would actually appear in heaven .....

 

[Ransom]

Yep ... the blood disappeared from earth after Jesus died and then appeared in a basin in heaven. The tree Jesus died on, the path he walked and the cloths that wrapped his body were void of any blood ....

I think the New Testament uses "the cross" to symbolize Jesus' atoning death about as much as "the blood." I wonder why it is the magic-blooders never try to tell us that Jesus' cross was carried into heaven.

You'll notice also that they never try to claim that when Jesus tells his followers they need to drink his blood in John 6:53ff, that's never literal blood. That would be too Catholic!

 

[Izdaari]

That Hillsong is less than awesome may be one of the few things Johnny Mac and I agree on.

 

[TonyHutsonComedian]

So not only has Dr. Hutson said good things about MacArthur, Paul "Dave" Chappell has also.

 

[TonyHutsonComedian]

Todd Friel having some fun with a "Worldly Christian" who worships under false teacher Andy Stanley.

 

[TonyHutsonComedian]

Another video of Bro. Todd emasculating a seeker sensitive follower of false teacher Andy Stanley.