The purpose of this website is to provide free sermon manuscripts and sermon videos to pastors and missionaries throughout the world, especially the Third World, where there are few if any theological seminaries or Bible schools.

These sermon manuscripts and videos now go out to about 1,500,000 computers in over 221 countries every year at www.sermonsfortheworld.com. Hundreds of others watch the videos on YouTube, but they soon leave YouTube and come to our website. YouTube feeds people to our website. The sermon manuscripts are given in 46 languages to about 120,000 computers each month. The sermon manuscripts are not copyrighted, so preachers can use them without our permission. Please click here to learn how you can make a monthly donation to help us in this great work of preaching the Gospel to the whole world.

Whenever you write to Dr. Hymers always tell him what country you live in, or he cannot answer you. Dr. Hymers’ e-mail is rlhymersjr@sbcglobal.net.

At the midweek prayer meeting of our church, every week, we pray for John MacArthur by name. The members of our church can attest to it. Week after week, month after month, decade after decade, in our midweek service, I ask our people to pray for John MacArthur to change his position on the Blood of Christ.

Is it possible for a man in his sixties to change his opinion on so vital a subject as this? Yes, it is possible - because, you see,

"With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible" (Mark 10:27).

Not only is it important for God to change the position of Dr. MacArthur, but there are also a large number of evangelical preachers and leaders who are in these days opening themselves to the false ideas of R. B. Thieme concerning the Blood. These preachers may not even know where this false doctrine originated - but it has trickled down into their thinking like poison seeping through the drinking water of a well. I fear that many will be poisoned to death as they drink of it. I was, for instance, startled to read these words in an otherwise outstanding book,

When the Bible speaks of the blood of Jesus, it refers to his death. No salvation would be accomplished by the mere bleeding of Jesus (John Piper, The Passion of Jesus Christ, Crossway Books, 2004, p. 26).

I thought so highly of this little book that I gave out several hundred copies of it at Easter time. But I had to tell our people that the author's words about the Blood sadly seem to have their source, probably indirectly, in the teaching of R. B. Thieme. These are not the words of orthodoxy, nor of Biblical Protestant or Baptist thought. These are the words of heterodoxy and error. They are at best confusing words, and, at worst, could lead to deep heresy. And this downgrading of the Blood of Christ has permeated the thinking of many evangelical churches. It has come from R. B. Thieme, through John MacArthur, and into the mainstream of the evangelical faith and message. This is a high tragedy. Untold millions will die the second death, in flames of torment for all eternity, because this error has been left unchecked. It is a key evangelical error today - not a side issue.

"For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul"
    (Leviticus 17:11).

It is not my purpose in this message to attack Dr. MacArthur personally. As I said, I believe him to be a reliable Bible commentator on most subjects, other than the Blood of Christ. But when Dr. MacArthur comes to this particular subject, I am convinced that he "wrests" the Scriptures, warps and twists them, to make them fit the doctrines on the Blood that he learned from R. B. Thieme. II Peter 3:16 speaks of those who "wrest" the Scriptures. The Greek word translated "wrest" means "to twist" or "to warp." Satan has twisted and warped the doctrine of the Blood of Christ through R. B. Thieme. Dr. MacArthur has become, I fear, his disciple on this matter.

The following words are taken from Dr. MacArthur's sermon "The Precious Blood." A tape recording of this sermon can be purchased by phoning (800)55GRACE. You can obtain the tape from Dr. MacArthur by phoning that number. Listen to it and you will hear him say the following things about the Blood of Christ.

1. "There are people today who are teaching that the blood that flowed in the veins of Jesus Christ and poured out in his death on the cross was not human blood."

2. "The second thing they say is that this blood of God that flowed in the veins of Jesus was eternal and incorruptible. Since it was the blood of God, they must therefore believe that it is eternal."

3. "The third thing they say…is that it is preserved in heaven."

4. "[They believe] that it is still being poured out on some heavenly mercy seat. That there is in heaven some kind of mercy seat as there was in the Old Testament tabernacle and temple and that blood is still being poured out."

5. "[They believe] that because of this, when the Bible speaks of the blood of Christ, it is never speaking symbolically. It is never speaking symbolically. The actual fluid is meant in each case and does have saving properties, saving capabilities."

In this message, I will show that Dr. MacArthur uses false logic, rather than pure Scripture, to back up these statements. I have in my study room a book titled, A Concise Introduction to Logic, sixth edition (Patrick J. Hurley, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997). This is a college textbook. It was recently given to me by a college student in our church. I was thankful for this gift because I had lost my personal copy. I knew for years that Dr. MacArthur used false and twisted logic as the basis of his beliefs about Christ's Blood, so I was glad to have this textbook on logic so I could carefully point out Dr. MacArthur's logical errors. The author of that book on logic says,

[Logical] fallacies can be committed in many ways, but usually they involve either a mistake in reasoning or the creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good… [logical] fallacies are often backed by some motive on the part of the arguer to deceive the reader or listener. The arguer may not have sufficient evidence to support a certain conclusion and as a result may attempt to win its acceptance by resorting to a verbal trick. Sometimes the trick fools even the arguer. The arguer may delude himself into thinking that he is presenting genuine evidence when in fact he is not (Hurley, ibid., pages 117, 119).

Let us examine several ways Dr. MacArthur attempts to win acceptance of his views on the Blood of Christ by "resorting to a verbal trick. Sometimes the trick fools even the arguer."

I. First, Dr. MacArthur uses the "straw man" false argument.

The textbook on logic says,

The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent's real argument has been demolished (Hurley, ibid., p. 129).

Dr. MacArthur uses this device many times in defending Thieme's view of the Blood. For instance, Dr. MacArthur says,

There are people today who are teaching that the blood that flowed in the veins of Jesus Christ and poured out in his death on the cross was not human blood (Dr. John MacArthur, "The Precious Blood," ibid.).

He then attacks this position by saying that it was human blood.

But this is a classical example of the "verbal trick" of the straw man. He says that we don't believe that the Blood of Jesus was human blood. Then he says we are wrong because it was human Blood. But, hold it a minute! Which of us said it wasn't human Blood? Who says that? MacArthur says,

There are people today who are teaching that the blood that flowed in the veins of Jesus Christ and poured out in his death on the cross was not human blood (Dr. John MacArthur, "The Precious Blood").

Who are these people? I don't know any. Do you? Everyone I know of teaches that Jesus is the God-man. Jesus was both human and divine. His Blood, therefore, was both human and divine Blood. That's the position of every credible fundamentalist on earth today. Dr. MacArthur ought to know that.

He has distorted and twisted our position to win his argument.

The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it (Hurley, ibid.).

Later in the same sermon tape, Dr. MacArthur bears down hard with his twisted "straw man" argument. He says,

And if Jesus did not have human blood, then was he human? And if he was without human blood, I submit to you that he could not have been human, and if he was not human, then he was not the God-man, and if he was not the God-man, you have destroyed the atonement (Dr. John MacArthur, "The Precious Blood").

That sounds great! He has won the argument! But he only seemed to win because he resorted to a "verbal trick" called the "straw man" argument. First, he misrepresented our position,  and  then  he  knocked  down  the  misrepresented  position.  A  pretty  neat  "verbal  trick."

Sometimes the trick fools even the arguer. The arguer may delude himself into thinking he is presenting genuine evidence when in fact he is not (Hurley, ibid.).

Since no credible fundamentalist on earth today believes that Jesus' Blood was only divine (rather than divine-human) Dr. MacArthur has really proved nothing.

II. Second, Dr. MacArthur uses the fallacious "false cause" argument.

The textbook on logic says,

The false cause occurs whenever the link between premise and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably doesn't exist (Hurley, ibid., p. 144).

Dr. MacArthur said,

The second thing they say is that this blood of God that flowed in the veins of Jesus was eternal and incorruptible. Since it was the blood of God, they must therefore believe that it is eternal (MacArthur, tape, ibid.).

This is actually a combination of the "straw man" and "false cause" errors in logic.

First Dr. MacArthur twists our position by saying that we think Christ's blood was only divine. Then he draws a "false cause" argument, "They must therefore believe that it is eternal."

No, no! We do not think it was solely divine Blood. We say that it, like all of Christ, was both divine and human. It was the Blood of God and the blood of man because Jesus is the God-man. Therefore that is not the reason we think the Blood is eternal! We think it is eternal because the Bible says so! The Bible says,

"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth [present active indicative] us from all sin" (I John 1:7).

You can't be cleansed from sin by something that doesn't exist! We believe that the Blood of Christ exists because the Bible says so!

"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth [present active indicative] us from all sin" (I John 1:7).

Present and active! The Blood of Christ is present! The Blood of Christ is active! The Blood of Christ is therefore eternal! It is present and active - therefore it exists today!

"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth [present active indicative] us from all sin" (I John 1:7).

"The present tense indicates progressive action at the present time" (Dr. Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, Broadman Press, 1950, p. 11). Thus, the present tense of the word "cleanseth" shows that the Blood exists "at the present time."

III. Third, Dr. MacArthur uses another "straw man" false argument.

He says,

[They believe] that because of this, when the Bible speaks of the blood of Christ, it is never speaking symbolically. The actual fluid is meant in each case and does have saving properties, saving capabilities… There's nothing in the fluid that can cure sin. I mean, if there was, the people who beat him and got blood spattered on them would have had their sins washed away. The soldiers that drove the nails through his hands and got blood on their hands would have had their sins washed away. That's bizarre! (MacArthur, tape, ibid.).

That sounds great! It sounds like he won the argument! But remember what the textbook on logic said,

The arguer may not have sufficient evidence to support a certain conclusion and as a result may attempt to win its acceptance by resorting to a verbal trick. Sometimes the trick fools even the arguer (Hurley, ibid., p. 119).

First, Dr. MacArthur misrepresents what we believe. He says that fundamentalists like us "never" think the Bible speaks symbolically of the Blood.

Of course that isn't true. Every thoughtful fundamentalist knows, for instance, that John 6:53-57 is figurative. Dr. MacArthur knows full well that we believe there are a few passages like John 6:53-57 which speak of the Blood figuratively. He deliberately misrepresents our position to set up his "straw man" argument, by "resorting to a verbal trick." He says fundamentalists believe

When the Bible speaks of the blood of Christ, it is never speaking symbolically (MacArthur, tape, ibid.).

He adds the word "never." This sets up the "straw man" for him to knock down, which he can easily do by pointing to John 6:53-57, as he often does. His argument would have merit if fundamentalists actually believed that the Bible "never" speaks symbolically of the Blood. But since no credible fundamentalist believes that, the use of the word "never" is quite devilishly clever. It sets up the straw man. As the college textbook on logic said,

The arguer may not have sufficient evidence to support a certain conclusion and as a result may attempt to win its acceptance by resorting to a verbal trick. Sometimes the trick fools even the arguer (Hurley, ibid., p. 119).

The logic textbook goes on to say,

The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent's real argument has been demolished (Hurley, ibid., p. 129).

"Sometimes the trick fools even the arguer" (Hurley, ibid., p. 119). Dr. MacArthur may even have fooled himself. But he hasn't fooled me. You see, I was present when Dr. MacArthur learned these ideas on the Blood from R. B. Thieme, Jr. forty-three years ago.

And so, having set up the "straw man" that fundamentalists "never" admit that the Blood can be taken figuratively, Dr. MacArthur then attacks the "straw man" by saying,

There's nothing in the fluid that can cure sin. I mean, if there was, the people who beat him and got blood spattered on them would have had their sins washed away (MacArthur, tape, ibid.).

That is the conclusion of his "straw man" false logic. No credible fundamentalist on earth thinks that the Blood "spattered" on those unbelieving soldiers washed their sins away! The argument is a hoax. The textbook on logic says,

The arguer may not have sufficient evidence to support a certain conclusion and as a result may attempt to win its acceptance by resorting to a verbal trick. Sometimes the trick fools even the arguer (Hurley, ibid., pp. 117, 119).

The fact that the Blood "spattered" on those unbelieving soldiers did not wash away their sins simply does not prove the opening statement that

There's nothing in the fluid that can cure sin.

The conclusion does not prove the premise of his argument. It only shows that Dr. MacArthur has "[resorted] to a verbal trick." He himself may have been fooled by his own argument. I think he has been.

The Bible plainly teaches that the "fluid" can cure sin - but only by faith - and those unbelieving soldiers had no faith! The Bible makes that point very clear when it says,

"Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" (Romans 3:24-25).

Without "faith in his blood" no amount of "spattering" would have done those soldiers the slightest bit of good. Dr. MacArthur has not proved his major premise that "There's nothing in the fluid that can cure sin" by his preposterous use of this "straw man" minor premise. His entire argument is overthrown by the simple words of I John 1:7,

"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth [present active indicative] us from all sin" (I John 1:7).

The Blood is present and active! The Blood of Christ is present! The Blood of Christ is active! Therefore, the Blood of Christ is eternal! It is present and active to cleanse sin today. That is Scriptural, and that is the basis of pure logic and pure Scripture to prove a clear point.

"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin"
     (I John 1:7).

Enough of this twisted logic - used to prove R. B. Thieme's ideas on the Blood. Let us not entangle ourselves further in the Devil's logic, which he plied twice on Eve in the Garden. Satan led the whole human race in Adam to destruction and depravity by the use of twisted logic (cf. Genesis 3:4; Genesis 3:5).

The Devil's logic can help no one find salvation in Christ. Therefore, let us throw aside this "wresting," this "twisting" of Scripture. Let us go to the heart of the matter instead. You are a sinner. Christ died on the Cross to pay the penalty for your sin. The Blood of Christ was spilled to wash your sins away. It did not "run into the ground around the cross and perish." It is present and active today.

"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth [present active indicative] us from all sin" (I John 1:7)

because it is ever present Blood, and because it is ever active Blood. That is why "the blood of sprinkling" is listed by the Word of God as one of the things that exists right now in Mount Sion, the city of the Living God in Heaven (Hebrews 12:24). Every sinner who comes to Christ, enthroned in glory at the right hand of the Father, has full access to that "present active" Blood, as we are so clearly told in I John 1:7. Claim that as a promise in the Word of God. Come to Christ, O sinner, and thy sin, even thine, will be washed clean and made

"white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14).

As surely as the saints of the Tribulation - you will be cleansed "white in the blood of the Lamb" by His present and active Blood - if you will come to Jesus and trust Him fully tonight.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE MATERIAL ON DR. MACARTHUR AND THE BLOOD

Scripture Read Before the Sermon by Dr. Kreighton L. Chan: I John 1:5-7.
Solo Sung Before the Sermon by Mr. Benjamin Kincaid Griffith:

"Jesus, Thy Blood and Righteousness"
   (by Count Nicholas von Zinzendorf, 1700-1760;
      translated by John Wesley, 1703-1791).