After posting my previous message about the rift between Roland Rasmussen (the speaker in the video), and John MacArthur regarding the doctrine of the “blood of Christ,” I searched a bit more, and discovered that Roland Rasmussen is now deceased. He passed away five years ago in September 2016, aged 89. I also found another interesting video, an interview with Roland Rasmussen recorded around 34 years ago in 1987, showing that this feud between them began many years earlier. It is an old movie having low resolution and poor sound quality, but interesting to watch.
After watching the video carefully, it is not difficult to figure out what was the cause of the rift between them. At that time they both had their offices and churches in California, about 12 miles distant from each other; and John MacArthur was running a very successful ministry, and gaining a lot of popularity and support, which threatened his popularity and ministry (and possibly livelihood). He launched his feud with John MacArthur at that time out of rivalry, and in order to protect his own ministry from being taken over by John MacArthur’s. That appears to have been the real motive behind it.
Later on Rasmussen had invited D.A. Waite to come and preach at his church, who appears to have been an even more outspoken critic of John MacArthur’s teachings on various subjects, especially his teachings on the doctrine of the blood of Christ. In the above video D.A. Waite interviews Roland Rasmussen concerning John MacArthur’s teachings on various subjects, notably his views on the blood of Christ.
It is a long video, too long to comment on it in detail. I will briefly mention one or two points. At around 42:00 minutes into the video Rasmussen, in his dialogue with Waite, says the following:
“... and I said to Mr. Mueller, Because John MacArthur has written heresy on the blood. He said, What do you mean, heresy? I said, Well, for example, this one statement by Dr. MacArthur, who said, ‘The human blood of Jesus cannot save.’ And I said, Chris, there are two heresies in that one brief sentence. He said, well what are they? I said, Well, first of all, the blood of Christ was not human blood. I said, It was divine blood; and the proof for that is found in Acts 20:28, where the scripture says the elders ‘feed the church of God which he has purchased with his own blood.’ And he replied and said, well we know that Christ is both human and divine. I said, I am not talking about that. I am talking about what that scripture says. It was the blood of God.”
The answer to that is that God does not have blood, only mortal creatures do:
1 Corinthians 15:
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Heavenly beings do not have blood. That includes God, angels, and resurrected and saved human beings. The word “corruption” in the above verse refers to what is subject to mortality and death, which is what Jesus’ body was subject to, otherwise he could not have been put to death. Jesus as man had blood, not as God. Jesus was man as well as God. This is acknowledged in Scripture, as well as Christian tradition:
Philippians 2:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Romans 5:
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And from the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon we have the following:
“Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before all the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognised in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.”
Jesus also “slept” (Matthew 8:24; Mark 4:38; Luke 8:23). Does that mean that God sleeps? The Bible says that he doesn’t (Psalm 121:4; Isaiah 40:28). The Bible says that Jesus got hungry (Matthew 21:18; Mark 11:12; Luke 4:2), and ate and drank (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34). Does that mean that God gets hungry, and eats and drinks? The Bible says that Jesus was tempted (Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:2; 22:28), whereas it says that God cannot be (James 1:13). Likewise the Bible teaches that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:49-51).
God does not have blood; any more than he gets hungry, eats, drinks, can be tempted, gets tired, or goes to sleep. If his blood was “divine,” then so were his eating and drinking, getting tired, and going to sleep. His “blood” was the natural by-product of his metabolism, his eating and drinking. It was no more “divine” than his hair was divine, or the color of his skin was divine.
Jesus as a man, in his humanity had blood. He also as a man, in his humanity, got hungry, ate and drank, was tempted, got tired, and went to sleep, and was also able to die. So why does it say in Acts 20:28 that God purchased us with “his own blood?” That is because Jesus was both God and man at the same time. Jesus as man had to “shed his blood” before he could re-enter into the throne of God in heaven (John 20:17). There is no blood in heaven.
Rasmussen also goes on to say, after about an hour into the video, that he believes that after the pattern of the Old Testament ritual, Jesus literally took his blood to the temple in heaven, and sprinkled it on the altar in heaven, which is an absurd suggestion. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:49-51); and there is no blood in heaven. Jesus as God and man had blood, which is what is meant by “his blood” in Acts 20:28. That is what made him subject to death, and enabled him to die to save and redeem mankind. The use of the word “blood” in Acts 20:28 is a metaphor for Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross. He then continues:
“I said, Why don’t you find me a text says his blood was human, since you are trying to affirm that? And of course he had no text to prove that.”
The answer is as given above. The above verses demonstrate that: (1) God does not have blood. (2) Jesus as man had blood. God having “blood” in Acts 20:28 is a metaphor for Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross. Then he continues:
“And then I said, Secondly, in that sentence John MacArthur said, The blood of Jesus cannot save. And I said, I believe it can save, and does save.”
It all depends on what you mean by “blood”. If you mean that there is some magic formula in the blood that saves, the answer is no. But if you mean that “blood” is used as a metaphor for his sacrificial death on the cross (which indeed does save), the answer is yes. At around 52:12 minutes into the video the following exchange takes place between the two:
Waite: “… for instance, one of his [MacArthur’s] teachings has to do with the blood, is merely a symbol of his death. What is your reaction to that?”
Rasmussen: “I believe that is absolutely false. I believe the blood is literal, I believe it is physical, I believe it is material, I believe it is divine. It is real blood, it is a real object, it is not a symbol. To make the blood symbolical I believe is total heresy, absolutely false.”
Blood being a symbol, or metaphor for his sacrificial offering, does not mean that it was not real, physical, literal, or material. It means that the redemption came about through his sacrificial death on the cross. There is no magic formula in the blood itself that does the saving. Throughout the Bible, the “shedding of blood” is used as a metaphor for violent death. Here are a few examples:
Genesis 9:
6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Exodus 22:
2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
Numbers 35:
33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
Deuteronomy 19:
10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.
In all of these verses, “blood” is used as a metaphor for causing someone’s death. If someone was murdered by suffocation or poisoning, rather than spilling his blood, that would still be counted as “shedding innocent blood,” because the word “blood” in those verses is used as a metaphor for causing someone’s death. It doesn’t mean that there is something special about the blood itself. All the references to Jesus’ blood in the scriptures, are a symbolic reference to his sacrificial offering and death on the cross which does the saving:
Hebrews 9:
11 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;
12 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.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
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?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 13:
12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
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,
Rasmussen then continues:
“And so we talk like that. After some more conversation he finally asked me if I had anything personally against John MacArthur—getting to my heart motives and attitude toward John MacArthur. I said, Chris, I said I wouldn’t want to stand in John MacArthur’s shoes for all the tea in China, because of what he is teaching on the blood of Jesus Christ.”
I think that he did have something against him personally. He saw him as a rival, who needed to be defeated somehow, and that was his way of doing it. I am no fan of John MacArthur! He has his own erroneous doctrines all over the place. I am only interested in biblical truth and sound gospel doctrine.
No comments:
Post a Comment