tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post3096088004675985043..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: The Story of the Blood Issue (from my Perspective)Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-85716034655482051032013-03-01T17:21:31.588-08:002013-03-01T17:21:31.588-08:00D4, I don't think so, not when he says that th...D4, I don't think so, not when he says that the blood is a metonym for death...as I believe he stated in his book "The Murder of Jesus." I don't have access to that book, but I distinctly remember hearing and reading about that. I would hope that he would retract his teaching and agree with the Bible.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-58446944914101754532013-03-01T05:29:27.134-08:002013-03-01T05:29:27.134-08:00Bill,
Not really, if he sees a bloody death, whi...Bill, <br /><br />Not really, if he sees a bloody death, which he has stated he does.<br /><br />He doesn't think Jesus could have been strangled or had a heart attack for our sins. d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91016911142471385992013-02-28T23:11:38.698-08:002013-02-28T23:11:38.698-08:00I think I stated this elsewhere, but to be clear, ...I think I stated this elsewhere, but to be clear, I don't think MacArthur is right and I don't think blood-shedding is a mere metonym for death.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90820155464879709902013-02-28T17:40:17.060-08:002013-02-28T17:40:17.060-08:00D4, MacArthur reads death where the Bible says blo...D4, MacArthur reads death where the Bible says blood. Do you not see a problem with that?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-37507138640446353002013-02-28T13:46:38.958-08:002013-02-28T13:46:38.958-08:00Bill, thanks for the technical correction. But th...Bill, thanks for the technical correction. But the close relation still prevents the rendering blood unnecessary. Else they would not use that related item to refer to it. It was a part of it. d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-43984455094767440842013-02-28T12:16:28.946-08:002013-02-28T12:16:28.946-08:00Anyone,
There are people that are angry because w...Anyone,<br /><br />There are people that are angry because we devote any criticism to MacArthur. He should just be accepted. He's conservative after all. He's written so many books. Why don't we devote more time to others that are worse? Why don't we find some liberal to go after? Because MacArthur has more influence on conservatives. That's why. I'm thankful for all the good MacArthur does, but these kind of views do get picked up. Where did Detroit get this view? They didn't get it from church history. It's not in there. It looks like they got it from MacArthur. They argue it differently and say less controversial statements, but where did Roland McCune, which seems like a very decent, conservative Christian man, get this view. Theological professors often put too much emphasis on historical theology, but in this, there is an absence of it.<br /><br />For those who get angry, the big time MacArthur supporters. Take a step back. Think about it. Think on your own. Consider this. Don't defend at all costs.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-23503616713833720442013-02-28T12:04:47.350-08:002013-02-28T12:04:47.350-08:00Lance,
I agree with your assessment. MacArthur w...Lance,<br /><br />I agree with your assessment. MacArthur would have to say that the "blood of the covenant" is the "violent death of the covenant." I'm only asking right now, as are you, and I have been asking for awhile, what kind of damage does MacArthur's view do. Larry asked about it, and I said, I don't know, because it seems, with an agreement with what Billy is writing above, that it does actual damage. Hebrews 10:29 seems to be saying that the blood itself is a holy thing, a unique thing, that would make it different than human blood. The blood itself. The molecules? The fluid? Those are strawmen. The blood is what we're saying, because the Bible doesn't talk about molecules. Is that life that is in the blood, found merely in the pouring out of the blood, or is there life itself in the blood? And when we say "life," do we mean divine life, when it comes to Christ, like eternal life, a quality of life that is different than physical life. I would say "yes."<br /><br />Is someone who calls the blood merely a metonym counting it as an unholy thing? I'm sure MacArthur would say he doesn't think that the blood is an unholy thing, but in his statements and actions he seems to be making it an unholy thing.<br /><br />Billy,<br /><br />Good breakdown. I'll be interested in hearing D4's answer to what you wrote. It reads very convincing.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-2296412196288456212013-02-28T11:42:37.447-08:002013-02-28T11:42:37.447-08:00This text deserves some serious exegesis - "O...This text deserves some serious exegesis - "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace" (Hebrews 10:29)? The words "counted the blood . . . an unholy thing" especially deserve some careful consideration.Lance Ketchumhttp://www.disciplemakerministries.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-76011191029101750422013-02-28T11:39:38.150-08:002013-02-28T11:39:38.150-08:00D4,
A metonymy is a word that stands in a close re...D4,<br />A metonymy is a word that stands in a close relation to something, but unlike a synecdoche it is not part of what it represents. Ex. a police officer's badge represents authority but is not an actual part of this authority. A synecdoche can be a word that is part of something that represents the whole entity for which it is a part. Ex. he bought a set of wheels. Wheels is a syn. for the car.<br />What MacArthur did by saying that the blood is a metonym for death is eliminate the blood as an essential element in the atonement. In essence, the blood isn't the main thing, rather it was his violent death that deserves the attention.<br />Frankly, if we leave the blood issue to any of the two figures of speech then the effect is elevating the symbol over the substance. For instance, a wedding ring may represent the marriage of the wearer, but the ring is of lesser value as the marriage it represents. One can say that the blood is symbolic of atonement, but is of lesser value as the atonement it represents - and that isn't so. I guess, in my mind, the blood isn't incidental, it isn't merely symbolical, it is essential.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-51295481401567292172013-02-28T11:34:00.577-08:002013-02-28T11:34:00.577-08:00Billy,
Thanks.Billy,<br /><br />Thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-70585072203237592792013-02-28T11:33:45.817-08:002013-02-28T11:33:45.817-08:00D4,
I'v thought a lot about metonym, and bein...D4,<br /><br />I'v thought a lot about metonym, and being a poet as you are, you've probably thought about it. The illustration I use is "reading Shakespeare." You don't in fact read William Shakespeare, but what he wrote, so "Shakespeare" is a metonym for "the writings of Shakespeare." I don't believe that "blood" is merely a metonym, because the blood does in fact do something that the death doesn't do. Both are needed separately. He couldn't just die and he couldn't just bleed. I know of nobody that says that if He merely bled, we would be saved, or as Bauder put it, injected us with some of His blood. That is a strawman, because no one on planet earth in the history of mankind believes that. On the other hand, MacArthur says the blood itself does nothing. That is not a strawman, because he says that. He says the death does everything and that "blood" means "violent death." Do you get that?<br /><br />No one has been saying that in the history of Christian theology. Shouldn't that be suspect, D4, when no one else has said it, and then men have been saying something different too? The verses indicate the blood does do something.<br /><br />I'm not sure what Thomas believes on this from his comments. I'm going to assume he agrees with me, but I'm not sure.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83186618235214595952013-02-28T11:27:52.458-08:002013-02-28T11:27:52.458-08:00George,
I'm glad you are reading here, and I ...George,<br /><br />I'm glad you are reading here, and I think it will be helpful. I appreciate that you have read through your Bible 75 times. I hope that you are open to some change, because if you read the Bible and never change, then you are missing the point, wouldn't you say? With that being said, the doctrine of the blood of Christ precedes the King James Version of the Bible. There was a Bible for centuries before the KJV, so the doctrine is not in fact dependent on the KJV. The problem of John MacArthur on the blood is not caused by his not using the KJV. He knows the KJV. He often quotes the KJV. I'm pretty sure that he grew up with the KJV, so probably heard preaching from the KJV from his dad and grandfather. I do think the presentation of the blood of Christ is affected by modern versions, but not enough to cause someone to come to the wrong view. The only verse that comes to mind is Revelation 1:5, I believe, where the critical text says "loosed" and the TR says "washed." I'm not saying that isn't important, but I think the translation issue doesn't affect this one that much. And certainly before the KJV there were people who had the right view of the blood.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-53923080880291964822013-02-28T11:19:50.314-08:002013-02-28T11:19:50.314-08:00Kent,
After reading my bible from Genesis to Reve...Kent,<br /><br />After reading my bible from Genesis to Revelation over 75 times (been a born-again Christian since 1980), I have never changed my position that the BLOOD of Christ CLEANSETH us from ALL sin, therefore since the "blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin", and all of Jewish history is repleat with BLOOD spilt all over the place in the temple, where would any Christian get the idea that blood, especailly the blood of Christ did not signify something very important when it was SHED?? MacArthur's failure had to do with not BELIEVING that ole King James Bible, but rather instead followed "cunningly devised fables".<br /><br />That was also the problem with the Jew and why he missed the whole point of the law (Romans 2-7 cf Galatians 3, etc) which created the necessity of the SACRIFICE and the shedding of BLOOD!<br /><br />You will NEVER fail to understand "sound doctrine" if you just believe what is written in the Holy King James Bible (2 Peter 1:4-10).The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-32147704678276237252013-02-28T10:01:40.572-08:002013-02-28T10:01:40.572-08:00A metonymy does not take away from [the blood] as ...A metonymy does not take away from [the blood] as being an essential element. A metonym is not like a metaphor in which an "other thing" represents the "actual thing". Rather a metonym is a "part of the whole thing" that represents the "whole thing". In this case, seeing the blood as metonymy actually affirms it is an essential element of the atonement. Just as a crown is so distinctive a part of a monarchy one frequently refers to the latter by the former, so the blood is a conspicuous part of the atoning death of Christ it should be proper to refer to it by that conspicuous part. d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-44081998634427748112013-02-28T07:58:47.427-08:002013-02-28T07:58:47.427-08:00I think interpreting the blood of Jesus as a figur...I think interpreting the blood of Jesus as a figurative expression (metonymy or synecdoche) takes away from it as being an essential element in the atonement (a grammatical reduction). I think that the nature of Christ's blood is mysterious because it is a part of his theanthropic person, which itself is the great mystery of Godliness. Very interesting set of articles on the blood and on other "stupid" things.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-22054248132406508572013-02-27T15:25:15.143-08:002013-02-27T15:25:15.143-08:00Thanks Thomas. I appreciate the retraction and cla...Thanks Thomas. I appreciate the retraction and clarification. I do think there is more to think about and discuss even in the statements made. I'm preaching on Luke 19 tonight with Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and how He knew exactly where the donkey and its foal were, about the man, what he would say, how the disciples should answer. Jesus knew all that. Did He know it as man or as God? There was an inseparable union between the human and the Divine. It is called a hypostatic union. Jesus as God knew it, but did Jesus as man know it? Yes. The Son of Man, the man, will come in the clouds, in fulfillment of Daniel 7.<br /><br />The Bible defines our view of Jesus, His two natures, their union. Creeds should reflect Scripture. When they do, they are correct, but creeds do not contain every nuance and elaboration of the distinct natures and their union, as God's Word does.<br /><br />I'm glad to be corrected where I should be and glad not to be where I shouldn't. Thank you.<br /><br />We read the children's book, Thomas the Train, to our children, when they were very young, and I remember the words, Beep, Beep Thomas. I say, Beep, Beep Thomas.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-77206809058790995442013-02-27T13:51:48.744-08:002013-02-27T13:51:48.744-08:00Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
You are correct that the...Dear Pastor Brandenburg,<br /><br />You are correct that the two natures of Christ are not separate in a Nestorian sense, a sense in which there are two Persons. In the sense in which you mean distinct, but not separate, you are correct. Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for thinking that you meant "separate" in a different sense, when you meant separate in the sense of two Persons. I rejoice that we both confess:<br /><br />one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without conversion, without severance, and without division; the distinction of the natures being in no wise abolished by their union, but the peculiarity of each nature being maintained, and both concurring in one person and hupostasis. We confess not a Son divided and sundered into two persons, but one and the same Son, and Only-begotten, and God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, even as the prophets had before proclaimed concerning him, and he himself hath taught us.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-79324205414830377822013-02-27T12:43:05.820-08:002013-02-27T12:43:05.820-08:00Thoughtful, inductive, and solid arguments that do...Thoughtful, inductive, and solid arguments that do not add to God's Word or take from God's Word.Lance Ketchumhttp://www.disciplemakerministries.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-88851065215767981122013-02-27T07:40:22.027-08:002013-02-27T07:40:22.027-08:00By the way, I just googled Nestorianism and "...By the way, I just googled Nestorianism and "two separate natures" and got 30,500 and lots of interesting quotes. Read what Laurie Guy (who is a guy, a man) in his book <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=CqJ8A2CSb9EC&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=Nestorius+%22two+separate+natures%22&source=bl&ots=dD6brAzh4l&sig=ZrL2cNvQhYAQQGDHy_218W6lAzw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wycuUd6MLciy0AH114B4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Nestorius%20%22two%20separate%20natures%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">here</a> Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86305222044778437072013-02-27T07:11:38.651-08:002013-02-27T07:11:38.651-08:00Thomas,
I asked the question because you assert t...Thomas,<br /><br />I asked the question because you assert that I was contradicting the Chaledonian formula in my post when I said "two separate natures." I didn't say "two natures" purposefully. I said "two separate natures," which is a contradiction of the LBC. The LBC says "distinct natures were inseparably joined." Inseparably. Not separate. And you asserted that what I wrote was wrong, which agreed with the LBC, so I asked if you disagreed with the LBC, since you were disagreeing with me. You didn't answer that in your short comment. Until then, am I to assume that you disagree with the LBC on "distinct natures inseparably joined"? Because I'm stating only what the LBC states and you said it was wrong. I guess I thought you understood that, so that I wouldn't have to repeat it.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-9800684943020727152013-02-27T06:34:37.621-08:002013-02-27T06:34:37.621-08:00Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
I was actually thinking ...Dear Pastor Brandenburg,<br /><br />I was actually thinking of the first commenter on this thread.<br /><br />Since the LBC quotes from the Chalcedonian formula, it would be highly questionable to affirm that the two are affirming a different sort of Christology.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-38128648531817724952013-02-26T22:37:37.421-08:002013-02-26T22:37:37.421-08:00Hi Thomas,
Who were you talking to? I'm talk...Hi Thomas,<br /><br />Who were you talking to? I'm talking about "assault"---you used that term, like someone is being "assaulted." Who was assaulted?<br /><br />My understanding of the correct view of the hypostatic union is the same as found in the London Baptist Confession of Faith, being that His "distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ."<br /><br />Hence, when I said Nestorians believed in two separate natures, that in fact contradicts the LBC statement on the hypostatic union, which says they "were inseparably joined together," and later "without...composition." So you actually believe that the two natures are separate (complete independence of natures) in contradiction to the London Baptist Confession? I didn't know Scripture taught that his two natures were separate. Perhaps I'm missing something.<br /><br />And I don't in fact believe MacArthur is Nestorian, but that these kinds of so-called heresies should not be thrown around, like they are by folks, like they have about us in addition to others.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-84849716049253185672013-02-26T21:50:07.575-08:002013-02-26T21:50:07.575-08:00By the way, I don't call Mary "mother of ...By the way, I don't call Mary "mother of God." While there is a technical sense in which the phrase is not heretical, I believe that its use today lends itself to Mariolatry, although originally it was a Christological term about the union of the two natures in Christ's Person rather than a term about worshipping Mary. The modern Catholic doctrine of Mary did not develop in its fulness until far after the end of the ancient church period.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-11679208314222790202013-02-26T21:46:49.899-08:002013-02-26T21:46:49.899-08:00Just a few points of clarity.
"Nestorianism ...Just a few points of clarity.<br /><br />"Nestorianism says Jesus had two separate natures while he was on earth[.]"<br /><br />Nestorianism teaches that Christ is two separate Persons. Scripture, and Chalcedon, teach that Christ has two separate natures, both while He was on earth, and right now, and forever into the future.<br /><br />Also, let's be sure that we are assaulting people fairly. I highly doubt, for example, that Bauder, and I doubt that MacArthur, would disagree with a quote such as that of Watson above. It is simply the communicatio idiomatum.<br /><br />This statement will probably sound controversial, but think about it before you go after me for it and say I am a heretic. Christ's blood is only Divine in the sense that Mary is the mother of God. In the sense that she is not the mother of God, in that same sense His blood is not Divine. That is, Mary is the mother of one who is God, but she is the mother of the human nature only. Christ's blood is the blood of one who is God, but it pertains only to His human nature. That does not deny that His blood-shedding on the cross and death have infinite value because of the union of the two natures.<br /><br />I used the "mother of God" example because we Baptists have a gut reaction to Divinizing everything in Christ in the phrase "blood of God," but have an equally strong gut reaction the other way in the phrase "mother of God"--and because that phrase is in Chalcedon.<br /><br />Obviously I am totally against the worship of Mary and all such Papistical idolatry by the whore of Babylon.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90202795379249633712013-02-26T20:32:27.818-08:002013-02-26T20:32:27.818-08:00Kent,
Personally, I think before Bauder and Hard...Kent, <br /><br />Personally, I think before Bauder and Harding load up the FBFI Express for their Apology Tour, they better be cocksure J-Mac isn't preaching a novel view of the blood, one that contradicts this, for instance: [T]he blood was his as Man, yet so close is the union between the divine and human nature, that it is here called the blood of God, for it was the blood of him who is God, and his being so, put such dignity and worth into it as made it both a valuable ransom of us from all evil, and a valuable purchase for us of all good, nay a purchase of us to Christ, to be to him a peculiar people." <br /><br />Or this: <br /><br />"Hence it is said (Acts xx. 28) that 'God purchased the Church with his own blood.' What, with the blood of the Divine nature? No; that were a thing impossible. God hath neither parts nor passions, and cannot suffer. With the blood of a man, then, distinct from God? No; for then it could not be called God's own blood. Therefore it must be interpreted the blood of one who was God as well as man; who being God, and becoming man, and purchasing the Church with that blood which He assumed as an essential part of the human nature, may justly be said to have purchased the Church with his own blood. Hence to signify the two Natures in one Person, He is called 'Immanuel—God with us.' One name expresses both. ('As, therefore, the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.') <br /><br />"He who makes substitution for another must have somewhat of his own to offer, which belongs not to the other parties. The Incarnate Word, therefore, had his Deity for man, and his Humanity for God. The Divine nature possessed by Him was truly and absolutely God. The flesh and blood which He assumed were as truly the flesh and blood of the co-equal Son of God, as our flesh and blood is that of the sons of men. The blood wherewith the Church was purchased was the blood of the Son of God, and that by personal union. If the High Priest of our profession had offered any other sacrifice for us than Himself, or the manhood thus personally united to Him, his offering could not have been satisfactory. Why? Because in all other things the Father and the Holy Ghost had an equal right with the Son Himself. He could not have offered any thing to them, which did not as truly belong to them as to Himself. But the seed of Abraham— the fruit of the Virgin's womb, which the Son assumed into the Godhead, became his own by the incommunicable property of a personal union."<br /><br /><br />TJPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com