'Magic' Blood Doctrine...

F

Fresh Air

New member
Elect
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Found another guy - besides Ian Paisley and M. R. Dehaan - who preached what Bro. Hyles preached about Christ's blood literally being applied in Heaven...

Christ has come, and He has offered Himself, and He has taken His own blood into the heavenly sanctuary, and He has laid it upon the heavenly altar. His is the blood that secures our forgiveness, once and for all; He has done this 'once and for ever'. It is the sprinkling of His blood that obtains this forgiveness, and for this good reason, that 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission' (of sins) (Hebrews 9:22)
-David Martyn Lloyd-Jones in the first of eight volumes on Ephesians, chapter entitled "Redemption" discussing Ephesians 1.7

Maybe, just maybe, Bro. Hyles wasn't as far on the theological fringe as some of his enemies would like to think...
 
He is an interesting guy that Lloyd-Jones. Seems there is something to please many in his Ephesians commentary. I am adding him to my short list.

Quote from Wiki

Lloyd-Jones on Charismatic Movement.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones has admirers from many different denominations in the Christian Church today. One much-discussed aspect of his legacy is his relationship to the Charismatic Movement. Respected by leaders of many churches associated with this movement, although not directly associated with them, he did teach the Baptism with the Holy Spirit as a distinct experience rather than conversion and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.[7] Indeed, towards the end of his life he urged his listeners to actively seek an experience of the Holy Spirit. For instance, in his exposition of Ephesians 6:10?13, published in 1976, he says:

    Do you know anything of this fire? If you do not, confess it to God and acknowledge it. Repent, and ask Him to send the Spirit and His love into you until you are melted and moved, until you are filled with his love divine, and know His love to you, and rejoice in it as his child, and look forward to the hope of the coming glory. 'Quench not the Spirit', but rather 'be filled with the Spirit' and 'rejoice in Christ Jesus'.[8]

Part of Lloyd-Jones' stress of the Christian's need of the baptism with the Holy Spirit was due to his belief that this provides an overwhelming assurance of God's love to the Christian, and thereby enables him to boldly witness for Christ to an unbelieving world.[7]

Aside from his insistence that the baptism with the Spirit is a work of Jesus Christ distinct from regeneration, rather than the filling of the Holy Spirit, Lloyd-Jones also opposed cessationism, claiming that the doctrine is not founded upon Scripture. In fact, he requested that Banner of Truth Trust, the publishing company he co-founded, publish his works on the subject only after his death.[7] He claimed that those who took a position such as B.B. Warfield's on cessationism were 'quenching the Spirit.'[7] He continued to proclaim the necessity of the active working of God in the world and the need for him to miraculously demonstrate his power so that Christian preachers (and all those who witness for Christ) might gain a hearing in a contemporary world that is hostile to the true God and to Christianity in general.[6]

    I think it is quite without scriptural warrant to say all these gifts ended with the apostles or the apostolic era. I believe there have been undoubted miracles since then. At the same time most of the claimed miracles by the Pentecostalists and others certainly do not belong to that category and can be explained psychologically or in other ways. I am also of the opinion that most, if not all, of the people claiming to speak in tongues at the present time are certainly under a psychological rather than a spiritual influence. But again I would not dare to say that ?tongues? are impossible at the present time.[9]
 
I've read thousands of pages of Lloyd-Jones. I bet I can find even more to disagree with than Wikipedia can. But that doesn't change the validity of the point of the OP. Several reputable twentieth century Christian leaders have been seen to hold the same position on the blood as Jack Hyles. That point stands.
 
Tom Brennan said:
I've read thousands of pages of Lloyd-Jones. I bet I can find even more to disagree with than Wikipedia can. But that doesn't change the validity of the point of the OP. Several reputable twentieth century Christian leaders have been seen to hold the same position on the blood as Jack Hyles. That point stands.
Click to expand...

Since you have read so much of his work what are the other areas where he is heretical?
 
When I see "magic blood" I think of Shiloh and his insistence that the blood that ran through Jesus' veins was  not human blood like ours. In effect saying He was 100% human except for His blood.
 
subllibrm said:
When I see "magic blood" I think of Shiloh and his insistence that the blood that ran through Jesus' veins was  not human blood like ours. In effect saying He was 100% human except for His blood.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is the same as saying he was not 100% human.

Those who believe in the magic blood theory do not believe Jesus blood was human blood.

Some of them believe His blood was not perishable blood at all, they call it God's blood and eternal blood.

This is just an old heresy that has been recycled and regurgitated.

It might sound good but it is heresy.
 
bgwilkinson said:
Since you have read so much of his work what are the other areas where he is heretical?
Click to expand...

Didn't say heretical. Said disagree. Those two things are not the same. For instance, he has a tendency to try too hard in explaining something. One of his strengths is his ability to walk backward through a phrase, pull in a variety of apparently unrelated things, and show you something wonderful. Sometimes he just tries too hard. He pulls things in that are not just apparently unrelated but actually unrelated. Consequently, he produces applications that at times are stretched to say the least. The baptism of the Spirit you pulled off of wikipedia earlier is one of those. He goes to great lengths actually in the book I already quoted on Ephesians ch1 to assert that the baptism of the Spirit is not the indwelling of the Spirit, that it is a separate and wholly different thing. His motives are good but his method produces the spectacularly bad application in this case of a tendency to go easy on the charismatics. If you were to read my margin notes on his books you would find mixed in with lots and lots of 'amen' and 'good' and 'excellent' a fair of amount of 'disagree' basically for the reasons I have just cited.

...and, of course, his calvinism, while gentle like Spurgeon's, is nonsensical. But he is nonetheless a giant of the faith, and probably along with F. B. Meyer the last of the great English divines.
 
I don't hold to a "magic blood" position, nor do I believe Christ's blood was special in any way. His body was 100% human, including his blood.

However, I also believe Christ sprinkled His own blood on the heavenly mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary. He did it as evidence of His violent, sacrificial death. It was not the blood as much as what the blood represented, His sacrificial death on our behalf.

And I am of the opinion that is in the very center of historic orthodoxy. :)
 
[quote author=Tom Brennan] For instance, he has a tendency to try too hard in explaining something. One of his strengths is his ability to walk backward through a phrase, pull in a variety of apparently unrelated things, and show you something...[/quote]

You ended this with wonderful and called it a strength.

I call it a way to end up with some really, really, really goofy ideas that the text in no way supports.
 
bgwilkinson said:
subllibrm said:
When I see "magic blood" I think of Shiloh and his insistence that the blood that ran through Jesus' veins was  not human blood like ours. In effect saying He was 100% human except for His blood.
Click to expand...
Here is a link for those interested in more info on the magic blood kerfuffle.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm
Click to expand...

From the link (edited for space by me):

World Congress on Fundamentalism

Meeting at Bob Jones University

August 4-8, 1986

Resolution regarding Christ's blood:

The precious Blood is indestructible. It cannot be anything else because of its permanence. The Blood is eternally preserved in Heaven.

This congress . . . Rejects every attempt either to deny the literalness of the Blood or to minimize its efficacy and the necessity of its shedding in Christ's death on the cross. Such denial is a dangerous and devilish deception.

The author of the link notes that the phrase "Rejects every attempt either to deny the literalness of the Blood" opens up the question of whether or not this holds when Jesus tells the disciples that they must drink His blood to have any part of Him in John 6:54-56.
 
subllibrm said:
bgwilkinson said:
subllibrm said:
When I see "magic blood" I think of Shiloh and his insistence that the blood that ran through Jesus' veins was  not human blood like ours. In effect saying He was 100% human except for His blood.
Click to expand...
Here is a link for those interested in more info on the magic blood kerfuffle.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm
Click to expand...

From the link (edited for space by me):

World Congress on Fundamentalism

Meeting at Bob Jones University

August 4-8, 1986

Resolution regarding Christ's blood:

The precious Blood is indestructible. It cannot be anything else because of its permanence. The Blood is eternally preserved in Heaven.

This congress . . . Rejects every attempt either to deny the literalness of the Blood or to minimize its efficacy and the necessity of its shedding in Christ's death on the cross. Such denial is a dangerous and devilish deception.

The author of the link notes that the phrase "Rejects every attempt either to deny the literalness of the Blood" opens up the question of whether or not this holds when Jesus tells the disciples that they must drink His blood to have any part of Him in John 6:54-56.
Click to expand...

Very Catholic.

That makes the heart of every good Catholic sing as they drink the actual and literal blood of God at the Mass.
 
bgwilkinson said:
Very Catholic.

That makes the heart of every good Catholic sing as they drink the actual and literal blood of God at the Mass.
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges. The one says Jesus' blood is still on the Mercy Seat in Heaven. The other said that a man can magically turn fermented grape juice into blood. Not even close...
 
Tom Brennan said:
bgwilkinson said:
Very Catholic.

That makes the heart of every good Catholic sing as they drink the actual and literal blood of God at the Mass.
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges. The one says Jesus' blood is still on the Mercy Seat in Heaven. The other said that a man can magically turn fermented grape juice into blood. Not even close...
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you are wanting to criticize Dr. Hyles you must make it close.  :)
 
Thomas Cassidy said:
I don't hold to a "magic blood" position, nor do I believe Christ's blood was special in any way. His body was 100% human, including his blood.

However, I also believe Christ sprinkled His own blood on the heavenly mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary. He did it as evidence of His violent, sacrificial death. It was not the blood as much as what the blood represented, His sacrificial death on our behalf.

And I am of the opinion that is in the very center of historic orthodoxy. :)
Click to expand...

M.R. DeHaan might have something to do with it.

Christ shed all his blood on God's altar. Its called the "earth".

Deu 12:16  Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water.

The Blood of Christ was poured out onto the very "thing" Adam was taken from. It really is amazing how simple things are. No need to complicate things by adding to what God said.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top