Topics IFB Pastors Avoid in Their Preaching

abcaines said:
Which is interesting to me since I remember more than a couple IFB preachers decrying denominations that eliminate the blood from their proclamation of the Gospel.
Click to expand...
I was not clear, that is exactly why they did not like MacArthur. As I remember it MacArther preached it was the substitutional death of Jesus that paid for our sin and he minimized the importance of the shed blood. As I recall he taught that the method was not significant, outside of fulfilling prophecy, but the necessity was his death.

Many within the IFB camp felt he was taking the significance from the blood of Christ which they believe to be essential (Hebrews 9, 1 John 1. 1 Peter 1).

​

 
sword said:
I was not clear, that is exactly why they did not like MacArthur. As I remember it MacArther preached it was the substitutional death of Jesus that paid for our sin and he minimized the importance of the shed blood. As I recall he taught that the method was not significant, outside of fulfilling prophecy, but the necessity was his death.

Many within the IFB camp felt he was taking the significance from the blood of Christ which they believe to be essential (Hebrews 9, 1 John 1. 1 Peter 1).

​

Click to expand...
IF that's what Johnny Mac taught. We know how misrepresenting a pastor's position is a sport especially when you have issues of your own...

I can't imagine how someone, especially someone who teaches expositionally, gets around Hebrews 9 in that regard.
 
abcaines said:
IF that's what Johnny Mac taught. We know how misrepresenting a pastor's position is a sport especially when you have issues of your own...

I can't imagine how someone, especially someone who teaches expositionally, gets around Hebrews 9 in that regard.
Click to expand...
I don't really know what he taught or believed, but I do know many in the IFB community believed these were his views on the lack of necessity of the blood and often quoted his sermons in that regard. Some on this forum would make fun of the IFB position and they called it "Magic Blood Theory".
 
Pertinent and explicitly direct explanation of the (“magic”) blood of Christ and its meaning per MacArthur….

Link
 
abcaines said:
Ok... that was random.

I guess point proven.
Click to expand...
I Thes 5:22 is abused by many Christians in the name of fighting “worldliness”, like prohibiting drinking IBC root beer because somebody might see you drinking one and mistake it for real beer, thereby ruining your testimony 🙄. I’d say that verse is one of the most abused in IFB circles for purposes of separation, second maybe only to “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing”.
 
sword said:
I don't really know what he taught or believed,
Click to expand...

Well, here. Educate yourself.

sword said:
Some on this forum would make fun of the IFB position and they called it "Magic Blood Theory".
Click to expand...

And by "some," we mean me. I coined "Magic Blood," and I stand behind it. Fundy haemololatry that says MacArthur "denies the blood" themselves deny that Jesus was fully human. They say his blood was not ordinary human tissue, but a divine substance with magical properties.
 
"Shed blood" is the manner of death that Christ must die. He had to be killed, that is, offered, as a substitute. It would be an equal and opposite error of "Magic Blood" to say that the mere death of Christ was atoning.

If Christ had stumbled and fallen down a cliff and died, that would not have been an atoning death, though some blood may have leaked.

Neither would it have been an atoning death if He had gotten sick and died, or grown old and died (if that were possible).

He had to die as a sinner, and that death inflicted as a sentence, for His death to have been effecacious.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Pertinent and explicitly direct explanation of the (“magic”) blood of Christ and its meaning per MacArthur….

Link
Click to expand...
Now let me add at this particular point, I do not believe for one moment that Jesus Christ could have died any other way than the way He died. I’ve heard people say, “Well He could have been beaten to death. He could have been stoned.” Not on your life, He had to be lifted up. That’s exactly what He predicted who happen. He had to be put upon a cross, because it said that way back on the Old Testament, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” There was no other way then that Jesus would be crucified. And He had to pour out His blood. He had to have those great wounds where blood was shed because He was the fulfillment of all Old Testament sacrificial imagery. There was no other way that He could have died than the way in which He died. I have never said anything to the contrary, never would. But at the same time it was not the fluid that saved us; it was the death of Christ.​
​
Certainly those that scourged Christ had blood splatter on them. Did it cleanse them?
 
Ransom said:
Well, here. Educate yourself.



And by "some," we mean me. I coined "Magic Blood," and I stand behind it. Fundy haemololatry that says MacArthur "denies the blood" themselves deny that Jesus was fully human. They say his blood was not ordinary human tissue, but a divine substance with magical properties.
Click to expand...
I thought it was you or maybe FSSL but I was not sure, that's why I left it vague.

Those original discussions seem like a long time ago but I remembered the term instantly.
 
Ransom said:
And by "some," we mean me. I coined "Magic Blood," and I stand behind it. Fundy haemololatry that says MacArthur "denies the blood" themselves deny that Jesus was fully human. They say his blood was not ordinary human tissue, but a divine substance with magical properties.
Click to expand...
They especially love quoting the following:

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.

They use this proof text to say that Jesus's blood was God's blood which though it may be, it is still human blood because Jesus was both Truly Human and Truly Divine.

"Dr. Dino" (Kent Hovind) teamed up with Ron Wyatt and his supposed "Archeological Discovery" of the Ark of the Covenant somewhere at the base of Mt Calvary and that the blood of Jesus somehow went through some sort of crack in the ground and ended up on the mercy seat of the ark. They also did an "Analysis" of this blood and discovered that whoever shed this blood had only 26 chromosomes!

Cringeworthy to say the least and very much heretical denying the foundational truth of the hypostatic union of Christ! But so goes the looney faction of the IFBx crowd!

Yes, Jesus's substitutionary atonement was a blood atonement but the blood was always a "Token" giving evidence that a death had taken place! I believe this was John MacArthur's original point for which they went ballistic!
 
ALAYMAN said:
Pertinent and explicitly direct explanation of the (“magic”) blood of Christ and its meaning per MacArthur….

Link
Click to expand...
That broke a few rusty gears loose. In fact, I may have heard excerpts from this conversation when it first came out because having recently emerged from IFB circles and hearing the criticism of the man, whose college I had just attended, I was settling the matter for myself. I had enough sound teaching from my IFB days to reject as John MacArthur did any mystical connotation of the blood. I knew the fact that it was shed is what the atonement is predicated on. I understood it had had to be shed in the manner in which it was and that its shedding is the basis of redemption.


Now, when I left IFBdom, I was involved with a very solid branch of it. I wasn't caught up in the kooky side of it although I had been exposed to it. I think the divisions were beginning to form; from one church, you'd still find both mindsets: the camp that opposed the "lordship" teaching and the camp that stuck with the simple teaching of Scripture. In fact, I think the fact that I was largely unaware of this division up until the time I left for The Masters College is testimony that I was under sensible teaching; that the pastors I was under were not about taking sides, they were concerned with sound biblical teaching.
 
Ekklesian said:
….​
​
Certainly those that scourged Christ had blood splatter on them. Did it cleanse them?
Click to expand...

Why is this question directed at me? I never advocated the magic blood theory then or now.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
They also did an "Analysis" of this blood and discovered that whoever shed this blood had only 26 chromosomes!
Click to expand...

People say stuff like this, and they don't realize what they are saying. A true human being has 46 chromosomes. To say Jesus had only half the usual number (I assume you meant 23 rather than 26) is to say he was less than fully human.

(And why would Kent Hovind take issue with the Father supplying the incarnate Son with 23 ex nihilo chromosomes, anyway? His whole "ministry" defends the creation ex nihilo of the entire universe in a few days. A few extra DNA molecules wouldn't trip him up, you'd think.)

Biblical soteriology requires a Saviour that is both fully human and fully divine. The "King of the Jews," the son of David who sits in perpetuity on his throne, is both God and man. God, because a mere human could not be without sin, nor be capable of a sinless life. Man, because only a true descendant of Adam could be a priest to his race.

To say that Jesus only had 23 chromosomes, or that the blood in his veins was divine rather than human, is a Christological heresy. In defending the work of Christ, they deny his person.
 
Understanding the physical blood of Christ in His unglorified existence in earth is all well and good, but the notion that spawns the Divine Blood nonsense needs to be abandoned as well, and that is the notion that the Virgin Birth was necessary for His sinlessness.
 
Ekklesian said:
It wasn't directed at you. :rolleyes:

The question was posed in support of the quote from the article you cited.
Click to expand...
Well, next time when you want to address something generally try not addressing persons specifically. It’s kinda odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top