I was originally going to send this to this persons email, but his website doesn’t give any way to contact him, so this is just an open post for him to respond to in case he ever sees it.
Feel free to respond whether you agree or disagree.
Hello Mr. Stewart,
This is a letter that I’m going to post on my blog https://1personofdifference.wordpress.com
I Post this in response to your article “It’s the Blood of Jesus!” on your blog page:
I and my wife have been going to your website for quite some time as we are researchers and concerned by the heresies and apostasy going on in God’s church today. One major heresy and apostasy is hyper focusing on something that is not crucial to salvation and making something to be more than it is to be divisive and cause confusion in the church. I would strongly urge you to rethink your stance on this and to repent and also to apologize to John Macarthur for the deplorable way that you have accused him of not being a Christian brother. This letter is in hopes of edification not of pointing fingers. Paul tells us what we are supposed to do when a brother is wrong and I do so humbly and with love.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Seventh Day Adventist’s being severely incorrect in a lot of things and being cultish in nature, I think you are way off and on the fringe of participating in heretical acts.
If you have had any change in your beliefs but have yet to change your website I would welcome any comments to my blog post.
This is not to attack you; you did enough attacking in your comments about John Macarthur. We are called to be discerners, rightly dividing the word of truth by brother Paul in 2 Timothy.
There is a specific misunderstanding in your desire to promote the blood of Jesus over Jesus himself.
What is my argument that what you are saying is heresy? The argument that I have laid forth and answered in these pages is that you are in essence saying that Jesus’ birth, earthly testimony, torture, death, burial, resurrection into heaven is not enough to save us, that he had to perform a final work. This after jumping all over the Seventh Day Adventists for the heresy of requiring works to enter into heaven in their pushing of the “Work of investigative judgment”.
You are attempting to get us to believe that Christ’s work on the cross was not enough he had to perform a “work” of his one, before he could atone for our sins. This idea of yours doesn’t seem the slightest bit heretical too you? When Jesus said, “It is Finished” he was talking about the need for the Old Testament and its need for animal sacrifice as a temporary atonement each time an Israelite sinned. He was also saying there would be a new Passover and it would bring the Holy Spirit into our lives. We would no longer need a physical sprinkling of a lambs blood over our doors to protect us from the Spirit of Death. We have the forever lamb’s blood in our hearts which as Paul tells us is the living temple, sanctified and held holy by the spirit who is the physical/spiritual embodiment of Jesus our High Priest.
Why do we not see in the word of God that our redemption wasn’t finished until he ceremoniously dripped his blood on the mercy seat. That is part of what was finished on the Cross, Old Testament rabbinical and priestly ceremony.
Hebrews 9:12 – Hebrews 10:19-42 – do indeed point to Christ’s blood, but to just simply see the blood as the be-all/end-all and to say there was more than the cross, is not only incorrect but heretical.
First, we know that the sacrificial lamb had to be without blemish. Christ was without blemish, both before and after his physical death.
By the time Jesus was talking to Mary, he had been buried in Joseph’s tomb, and the stone had been rolled away and he was gone… When the women came to care for his body (T)he Angel of the Lord said to them … “Who have you come for? He is raised from the dead.”
By the time Mary had come to seek him, Jesus had gone to the gates of hell in a representative fashion of our fallen state (The sins of the world were placed on him and God turned from him as God could have no sin, or know no sin. Since Jesus is part of the triune Godhead, Jesus had to literally be not only physically separated from the Holy Father but spiritually separated from the Father as well.) I personally think that is what scared him so much in the garden was the knowledge of that spiritual separation more than the physical death.
While I respect Dr. DeHaan and listened to the DeHaan clan on the radio for years, I think Dr. DeHaan was incorrect in several aspects in the piece you quoted from his book, “The Tabernacle.”
I don’t believe that what he was telling her was that he wasn’t consecrated yet. He was consecrated by the very fact that he was Jesus Christ. I believe he was cognizant as a man that Mary was a human, and she would probably have her hopes up that he would remain with them in his sanctified body so they could worship him on earth. Remember also that she was a Jew and the Jews of the day had the thought that the Messiah would bring God’s kingdom to earth and defeat the Roman tyranny. I think the reason he said don’t touch me was because he didn’t want her heart to be broken when he left. Even the men who were his disciples, who should have known better after following him everywhere for three years, had a hard time believing that he had returned from the dead. In fact this brings my point to bear that you and Dr. DeHaan are wrong in your ideas about why the Christ told Mary not to touch him. If you remember, at the time that he met the disciples in the upper room, he talked with Thomas, and because of Thomas’s doubts he told him to touch his hands and feel his wounds so that he would believe wholeheartedly. This would tell us that what you and Dr. DeHaan believe is wrong.
Remember he wasn’t just some guy walking around the outskirts of the city with bloody holes in his hands and feet, he was God as well as man. The very fact that he was the atonement for our sins through his death, burial and resurrection, means that he was consecrated to begin with because as we know from the Old Testament history the lamb had to be spotless. But there the comparison ends because he was not only spotless from birth but perfect and Holy. I believe that you are incorrect in your interpretation of scripture as to what our Lord Jesus meant when he said, “It is finished”.
Jesus was referring to the Old Testament covenant. What do I mean by that?
1. Jesus himself is now the Holy of Holies and the Mercy seat.
2. The Tabernacle is no longer necessary, as Paul tells us in Corinthians, and Jesus tells the Disciples before the day of Pentecost. The instant of our salvation, the Holy Spirit enters our body and our body becomes a living temple that we are required to treat with reverence and dignity.
3. As Jesus breathed his last breath on the Cross, darkness came over the whole earth. The Veil that covered the entrance of the Holy of Holies was ripped in two. This is significant in its timing following’ Jesus cry of “It is Finished!” He physically and spiritually became the lamb that was slain, without blemish, totally replacing the need for Old Testament restitution or atonement. No longer were our sins just covered over, but totally removed. As we read in the word, “totally blotted out from The Book of Life.”
4. As with most Old Testament history, the Passover was merely a foreshadowing of Jesus’ work on the Cross. The act of spreading the Lamb’s blood for the passing over of the spirit of death, was to be done by the head of each household. Yes the blood of a lamb was the Icon that the spirit of death was looking for, but the actual application of the blood was applied by human hands. Jesus as the son of man and the Son of God was the true personification of the lamb’s blood preventing the Spirit of Death from taking us to eternal spiritual damnation and death.
5. Where did Christ’s blood come from? It came from the Roman Centurions beating him, whipping him with a cat of 9 tails, and putting the Crown of Thorns on his head, then nailing his hands and feet to the Cross, then finally from the spear thrust into his side, blood and water flowed, mingled down.
Your hyper-fixation on Christ’s blood, and trying to say that he wasn’t sanctified before going up into heaven, and that Christ’s work wasn’t done on the cross simply because he hadn’t sprinkled the blood on the Mercy Seat yet is a damnable heresy and you are hoisted on your own Petard that you falsely accuse our Brother John Macarthur of.
He was already sanctified and holy before he came to earth so there was no need not to be touched, and as we already said he was touched by Thomas. There is no Biblical evidence that he had already ascended then re-descended before speaking with the Apostles, so the mere fact that Thomas touched him physically, totally destroys your argument.
Your assertions are not only wrong, but heretical because you are calling Jesus’ death on the cross an incomplete and insufficient work.
What Macarthur is saying is correct, while Christ’s blood is certainly a part of the sacrifice for our sins, it is not alone in its importance to our salvation. Jesus’ physical blood as it flowed through his veins was no different than yours or mine. It was needed to remain inside the body to sustain life, like water and food and nutrients. It is the penultimate culmination of Jesus sacrifice for us, but it is neither the only part nor the most important part. When you add the blood however to everything else however, it becomes the blood of the Lamb of God that washes away, not just covers our sins.
When John Macarthur states that his physical blood is merely a manifestation you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ignorantly or intentionally missing what Macarthur is saying.
The blood of a mere mortal would not atone for anyone’s sins. It is a factor among many factors.
1. Jesus is son of man and Son of God, a full part of the Holy Trinity.
2. Jesus had to make a way for an end-all/be-all for our sins.
3. Jesus was born a perfect birth through the spirit as foretold in Isaiah and other Old Testament proclamations
4. Jesus’ earthly life had two purposes, to wake the sleeping and point the way to eternal salvation in heaven and to glorify the Father.
5. Jesus taught that through him and his death, burial, and resurrection was the only path to salvation through faith. Isaiah tells us that the lamb came that he might be slaughtered and lifted up.
6. Christ was betrayed and through that betrayal, and the sins of the world, became totally separate from God for a short time so that the Holy Father, could bring to bear the full brunt of his judgment against his son for the guilt of the world.
7. He was prosecuted and persecuted and had a crown of thorns put on his head, beaten so bad he needed help walking, and then his hands and feet were nailed to a cross and then the cross was raised to cause torture and a slow death by suffocation.
8. He descended into hell, was raised again and seen by a large witness of people, and then was taken up into heaven where he sits on the throne next to God the Father.
In the following paragraph, Dr. DeHaan is completely wrong when he asserts that this is a comparison between the Old Testament priest and Christ as our new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, “we remember that the high priest after he had offered the sacrifice, was to enter the holy of holies, before he did anything else, with the precious blood. No one was allowed to approach him. Everyone was shut out until this was completely done.”
When Christ died on the cross it was truly finished. To say that he had to go to heaven and sprinkle his blood on the Mercy Seat is heresy because it’s adding works to Christ’s gift of his death on the Cross at Calvary. Jesus was and is perfect, the son of man and the Son of God, nothing else was required. He is the mercy seat. He is the Holy of Holies and he resides in our hearts which is the new temple. Indeed, Christ’s blood was shed on the Mercy Seat, but it was done as he was dying on the Cross.
You mix metaphors with reality. You say that he had to go to heaven to sprinkle his blood on the Mercy Seat. Well if you are relating him as the high priest, then that is an incorrect and heretical assumption and adding to the word something that is never spoken. If Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit is going to come down and fill us, and Paul tells us that the temple is now in our bodies, why would Jesus have to go to Heaven to the Mercy Seat when the Mercy Seat was in the temple in the Holy of Holies in the first place?
If God the Father sent his Son to die here on earth because he had to be a human with spiritual perfection, and all the Old Testament points to this like a lighthouse in the fog, why would his work on the Cross not complete our salvation and he had to go to Heaven?
By making this Heretical assumption, you are literally removing the holy deity of Christ, and his work on the Cross, and personifying a single part of the case of salvation.
We are not called to judge men or their salvation, we are called to seek out their fruits and judge their fruits. I see no fruit of heresy or lack of salvation on the part of John Macarthur. I may not 100% buy the 5 points of Calvinism but I would certainly not deny him as a brother in Christ, nor call him a heretic.
Jesus on the Cross said it was finished and it was! To add anything to that or take anything away from that is strongly warned about in Revelations 22.