JMac Bordering on Nestorianism

I’ve been accused before of picking on John MacArthur, taking his quotes out of context, and misrepresenting him when it comes to his soteriology. Particularly with regard to my article criticizing Lordship Salvation. I provide citations for all of my quotes of him, and even give links when possible so that the reader can read or listen and judge for his or herself.

When I came across this, however, I couldn’t help but comment upon it. I know that it is a long-standing controversy that MacArthur has been involved in as to what his views on the blood of Christ are, and the role of the actual blood of our Lord in our redemption. I’m not addressing anything new and won’t pretend like I am. However, when I was scrolling through social media and saw someone post these particular pictures with these comments I felt compelled to comment, since this is yet another example of a man who is supposed to be a minister of the Gospel using quite obviously unorthodox language. And not only so, but he is unashamedly calling every confessionl Reformed believer a heretic for affirming that Christ’s blood is the blood of God.

MacArthur sounds as though he is bordering on Nestorianism [the belief that Jesus is two persons, rather than one] here. It is true that God, considered *as God* does not have blood. He is free of body, parts, and passions. But when speaking of the incarnate Christ we recognize that what is proper of one nature may appropriately be attributed to the other in view of the unity of Christ’s person. This is known in theological terms as the “communication of attributes” (communicatio idiomatum) and is explicitly referred to in the Reformed creeds. The Belgic Confession of faith affirms the unity of the person of Christ explicitly, and therefore states that **Jesus Christ** according to his divine nature is the eternally begotten son of the Father:

We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only begotten Son of God, begotten from eternity, not made nor created (for then he should be a creature), but co-essential and co-eternal with the Father, the express image of his person, and the brightness of his glory, equal unto him in all things. — BCF Article 10

-

We believe that by this conception, the person of the Son is inseparably united and connected with the human nature; so that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in one single person: yet, that each nature retains its own distinct properties — Article 19

The Westminster Confession of Faith 8.7 also explicitly makes mention of this:

Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes, in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.

We find several examples of this in Scripture.

Jesus, while speaking to Nicodemus here on earth, refers to himself as the “son of man” who is simultaneously in heaven as well as on earth:

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Paul the Apostle expressly says that God purchased the Church with his own blood, which MacArthur says is “heretical”:

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.

John the disciple expressly states that God laid down his life for us:

1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Jesus says that He is the “first and the last [a divine title]…who was dead…”:

Revelation 1:17–18 (17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: (18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

MacArthur subscribes to the a-historical modernist view of the providential preservation of Scripture, and I’m sure that his new Legacy Standard Bible butchers and omits at least three of these four texts. Nevertheless the word of God stands sure, and the Reformed orthodox have always appealed to these and like scriptures in support of this important doctrine. Also see Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6 which speak of God being born.

Also regarding his comments on the blood of Christ, it isn’t that the blood of our Lord was “magical” or “divine” in the sense of having some kind of supernatural qualities. He was made in all things like unto his brethren, sin excepted (Hebrews 2:16–17). The point rather is that, according to God’s prescription and design, the life of the flesh is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) and therefore blood must be shed for remission to occur (Hebrews 9:22). So when Paul says that we have remission of sins through Christ’s blood, he really does mean the BLOOD of Christ (Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 1:7). Christ’s sheeding of his blood is obviously connected to the giving of his life, since the life of the flesh is in the blood.