Brother Gregory A number of years ago, when I was pastoring here, we had Dr. MacArthur scheduled for a prophetic conference, and I remember sitting in my office, when I got a call from him, and he said, Brother Gregory, I was just talking to my elders the other night, and they said that I needed to cut back a little bit on my schedule, could I ask if I could please be excused from coming for this round-robin prophetic conference. That's the closest I ever got to having you come here, John.

I have had the opportunity to get to know Dr. MacArthur personally on several occasions when I visited Southern California. He is a member of the I.F.C.A., not by convenience but by conviction. He is one of our brothers. He is one of our family. He has had a very high exposure in terms of his radio ministry, his tape ministry, and his writing ministry. I would hate personally to have everybody picking apart everything I said, but then again I'd be in a lot more trouble than anyone might say you are, John, across the country. But because he is one of our number, one of our family, and because there have been part of our family who have had certain questions about certain things that Dr. MacArthur has written or said. We have opted for the proper way of dealing with that kind of situation. You see we are seeking for a oneness. We re seeking for solutions, not for winning of one side over another, for understanding. So we've invited him here today in order that you might be able to receive individual and personal answers.

I trust today that as we listen that we ll listen with ears that are eager to hear rather than to block out. And I pray that the Holy Spirit of God this is my prayer that the Holy Spirit of God will enable us to come to a clear understanding. Now I don't ask you all to agree, heaven knows this many independents together, we d never agree on a lot of things. Someone said that if you get three of them together you got five opinions. But we are asking to understand so that we might really be able to say I know what he believes or I know what I believe and then we can make decisions and make them in a proper, godly way.

Dr. MacArthur is serving in the Grace Community Church in California. This is the site of the convention next year according to the action of the committee in November, as we have been told. If there is going to be any change it is going to be because we understand, not because we have reacted.

So I have asked Dr. MacArthur to come we as a committee have asked him to come and he has graciously agreed to come. He is not on trial, he is here as our brother. So John, come and share with us. I told him that he has to come across the auditorium to get up this way.

John MacArthur (Long Applause) I think I'm glad to be here. I'll know for sure in a little while. The last time I stood like this before a rather large and erudite group of I.F.C.A. people was at my ordination. I was ordained into the I.F.C.A. having graduated at Talbot Seminary and that was a very imposing ordination process, and the ordination process that we now use at our church is a child of the I.F.C.A. process and I trust equally as thorough. I even to this day remember some of the questions like: Name and date all of the postexilic, preexilic, and exilic Minor Prophets, which I've had tremendous occasion to use in my radio ministry through the years. (Audience Laughter) I keep it fresh for no other reason the devotional value of such information. (Audience Laughter)

But I was ready on that day, perhaps more ready than I am today. I am very glad to be here and I just want you to know it s a joy to share in fellowship with you. My father was, for a number of years, very involved with the I.F.C.A.. I have maintained my interest and my passion for the things that you hold true, and I do count myself as your brother in Christ, and in terms of where we stand doctrinally, and I want to do anything I can to clarify the things that I believe the Bible teaches.

I am not going to stand here and say there are no errors in my theology. The problem is I don't know where they are. If I knew where they were I'd change them and so would you. You'd change yours. But none of us is claiming infallibility. Over the years of teaching the word of God, without a lot of presuppositions, I tend to conclude whatever I believe the exegetical process yields and that's why I've arrived where I have. Unfortunately, everything I say is spread all over the place. It's a very serious responsibility. Somebody said to me one time, We're going to record your message. It's not that we want to hear it again, we want to hold it against you when you're wrong. There's a sense in which that kind of overexposure does leave some question so I certainly would want to clarify anything I possibly could. And I would want you to help me to better understand the Word of God. I have no personal agenda. I want to understand the God's Word in all its truth, and I think till the day I die I trust I'll be a learner and open to whatever input can give me a better understanding. So thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Before we begin I'd like to ask Dr. Gregory to lead us in prayer.

John MacArthur Well let me address question of the blood of Christ in a direct way, because this is such an important issue, such a potentially volatile issue. First of all let me say, the blood of Christ is precious, and I would not equivocate on that it is precious blood. I believe that blood, the blood of Christ, the term blood is the chief New Testament term to describe the atonement. I think it is a comprehensive term and I think that when it is indicated in the New Testament, it is indicated as a term encompassing the atoning work.

I do not believe that the New Testament teaches that the blood of Christ, in the epistles when it's used, simply refers to the fluid in the body of Christ.

I believe that it embraces the atoning work.For we have been redeemed by the shedding of His blood that encompasses all of the atonement.It is interesting to note that though Jesus shed His blood at the cross He didn't bleed to death.It's very clear that He yielded up His life at least three hours before His heart was pierced His side was pierced, and when He died and there rushed forth blood it indicates that He had not bled to death.There was plenty of blood still there, apparently to have sustained His life.He died, not because He bled to death, but because He yielded up His spirit.

Now what are people teaching about the blood?

There are some teaching today that it was not human, but it was it blood of God And typically they use one obscure interpretation of one verse, Acts 20:28, which talks about the church, which has been purchased with His blood. They make the antecedent of His God . That is an arbitrary use of the Greek. The antecedent of the blood could equally be Christ in that context. But even more importantly there is no reference in the New Testament to the blood, as the blood of God ever. Every mention of the blood connected with a personality is connected with Christ. It is always the blood of Christ, the blood of His cross. Never does it say the blood of God. That is a rather new interpretation, by the way, of Acts 20:28, that I have never been able to find in any commentary.

Secondly, some are teaching today that it was eternal and incorruptible.

Others are teaching that this eternal, incorruptible blood of God, following this line of thought, is now preserved forever in heaven.

That particular viewpoint, basically, they draw from Hebrews nine [9:11] when Christ appeared as high priest of good things to come: He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood. They would translate the preposition there with his own blood which again is an arbitrary translation. A better translation is through as noted in the New American Standard. He entered into the holy place through his own blood and not with his own blood. But again there are those who choose to identify it as with and say Jesus' blood somehow was collected, given back to Him, and transported by Him into heaven.

Furthermore, this new view of the blood, that is becoming quite popular, says that it is still being poured out on the heavenly mercy seat even today. That when a person is saved there is some kind of a pouring out and regathering of that blood. I've had that conversation with a number of people who have taken issue with what I have said. They use Hebrews 12:24 the sprinkled blood. That statement regarding the sprinkled blood to indicate that it is constantly being sprinkled in heaven as an ongoing, incessant offering for sin.

Then they say further that the blood is never a symbol for death in the New Testament It always is the fluid.

In fact, there was a group of Baptists that met sometime back and they voted on that in their statement, that whenever the blood of Christ is mentioned in the New Testament it is always referring to the fluid and blood is never a symbol for death. Unfortunately they again turn to Hebrews chapter nine to try to proof-text that, verses 13 and 14, where it just says, the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself and so forth without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God". So they say it's the actual fluid that somehow cleanses you. One person said to me, I don't know how, and I don't know where, and I don't know what it involves, but somehow the real fluid is poured out on my sins.

Furthermore, this view has also held, that [there] was in the body of Christ, a blood form, that was not derived from Mary.

Have you heard that? And since Jesus had no human father . . . I remember DeHaan used to teach, that the blood of the father comes into the son or the child and the blood of the mother never does, and thus the sin nature was never passed on to Jesus because he had no earthly father. My brother-in-law is the head of anesthesiology for one of the largest hospitals in Los Angeles, Cedar Sinai, and he says that is medically not true. The blood of the mother does pass through the fetus. It has been tracked because they can tag blood cells. They know that as a fact.

Now where does all of this come from? Let me give you a little bit of history. This all comes basically from a man named J. A. Bingle (sp.) who lived from 1687 to 1752. And what we are having today is an echo of a Bingleian heresy that the church rejected in the eighteenth century, that held this very mystical view of the blood of Christ.

First of all let me just briefly answer these things and I think we can put the whole issue to rest.

1. Number one, they say it was not human blood. Not human blood.

You cannot base that on Acts 20:28, that is a completely arbitrary statement, because it says "the church of God which He purchased," that therefore the He must modify God and therefore the blood is the blood of God. As I said before, there is no biblical reference to the blood of God at all.That is an arbitrary choice of antecedents in that passage.

Furthermore we know that Jesus produced His own blood like every other human being produces his own blood. The blood of a mother that passes through the fetus in the womb is minimal. The blood of any human being is produced by that human being and any medical doctor can give you the background. The largest single portion of whole blood is comprised of erythrocytes (or red blood cells) derived from the liver and later the bone marrow. A smaller portion is made of white cells manufactured in lymphoid tissue also in the bone marrow. The red cells as you know sustain life and the white cells fight infection. More portions of blood; platelets, clotting factors, and immunoglobulins, and albumins, and those kind of things are also produced in the liver, the lymph system, and the bone marrow. The point is this: Every human being, every fetus, produces; generates its own blood system. Every embryo. Jesus had blood that developed in him just like it developed in any other human being.

I want to say at this point I reject the Apollinarian error. I reject the view of Apollinaris who said, that Jesus Christ was the combination of God [and] man only in the sense, that God entered a human body and nothing more. I believe that Jesus was fully man, not only in body but in personality, and in nature. He was man, one hundred percent fully man and in order to be fully man, which you remember the councils affirmed that He was back as early as 381. He had to be all that a man is. Not some kind of human, some bloodless human with some infused divine substance. There are so many problems with that particular viewpoint, not the least of which is: Where was this blood of God before Jesus? Where was it floating around? Because if it was the blood of God we're going to have to answer that question and then we're going to have to answer the question: how can a spirit have blood? Jesus said a spirit has not . . . what? . . . flesh and bones.

The parallel as I said is between perishable things and precious blood. Nothing says it was imperishable or eternal. What the atonement accomplished was eternal. These people who say that His blood was eternal might have to also deal with the fact that what about the rest of his bodily fluids? And what about His fingernails and His -- you don't even want to get into that kind of fantasy. The Bible says nothing about that absolutely nothing.

3. Thirdly they say, it was preserved in heaven.

I pointed out that, He entered into heaven through His blood, not with His blood. Furthermore they say that, it is being poured out on a heavenly mercy seat, the sprinkled blood being continually poured out. I just warn you against this error. I'll tell you why. That is nothing but Roman Catholic/Anglo-Catholic theology of the perpetual offering of the blood of Christ. That is not a Protestant viewpoint. That is heresy. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is not repeatable. It cannot be repeated. You can't have some mystical dumping of blood going on incessantly in heaven without somehow convoluting the statement, the clear statement that, He has by one offering perfected forever them that are sanctified. There is no repeatable characteristic in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Then for people to say blood is not a symbol for the atonement.

It is a symbol for the atonement. It has to be. It is not the fluid that can save or Jesus could have bled into a chalice, taken the thing to heaven and poured that out, if it was in the fluid. His atoning work demanded that He die. Now let me add at this particular point, I do not believe for one moment that Jesus Christ could have died any other way than the way He died. I've heard people say, Well, He could have been beaten to death, He could have been stoned not on your life. He had to be lifted up, that's exactly what He predicted would happen. He had to be put up on a cross because it said that way back in the Old Testament, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. There was no other way, than that Jesus would be crucified and He had to pour out His blood. He had to have those great wounds where blood was shed because He was the fulfillment of all Old Testament sacrificial imagery. There was no other way that He could have died then the way in which He died. I have never said anything to the contrary, never would. But at the same time, it was not the fluid that saved us, it was the death of Christ. You see Roman Catholic theology teaches that you take a cup of wine, the priests somehow transubstantiates that into blood. You drink that blood and it ministers saving grace. We reject that heresy. It is not the fluid. That, by the way, that strange view is elaborated by a man names Hicks (sp.), in a book written in 1930 called The Fullness of Sacrifice. It's another Anglo-Catholic book. We want to be very careful that we're not delving into some of these things.

Now blood does refer to death. Check Kittle. It says in there "blood stands for death". That's a quote. Alan Stibbs (sp.) has written the most significant journal article, on haima which is the Greek word for blood, that I've ever read and he says that, blood is the symbol of sacrificial death. So wherever you see the blood of Christ it embodies the whole atoning work. I can give you a list as long as your arm of Scriptures that indicate that.

Now all of this I'm just trying to point out to you indicates to me that those people who are saying Jesus had the blood of God are on the one hand denying His full humanity. Secondly, they're confusing the issue of God as a spiritual being. Those who say that the blood is eternal and incorruptible and that it goes on existing forever and ever have taken that right out of the air, because the Bible does not teach that and what about the rest of that sinless Christ. What is the rest of the residue of His humanness doing? Is it still floating around somewhere? That it is preserved in heaven is strictly a choice of theology based upon the implication of a selected translation of a preposition. And that it is still being poured out on the heavenly mercy seat again twists and perverts the single character of sacrifice.

Finally to say that blood is not a symbol for atonement is to confuse things. Blood is a symbol for death, to be sure, you can go all the way back to Genesis. When it talks about it in Genesis it says, Whoever sheds mans blood by man shall his blood be shed what does that mean? If you make somebody bleed, they get to make you bleed? That means if you kill someone. Blood has always been the symbol of death. It is just a graphic way to describe death and in reference to Christ the fullness of His atoning death.

I just want to affirm to you that I believe Jesus Christ was fully man and that He had the body of a man and He had the nature of humanity. And as the councils have said throughout the history of the church they were not mixed and they were not confused. Fully man, fully God. And because He was fully man: He had the blood that every man has because it was produced in Him, and I believe that when He died on the cross, He died as a sacrifice and the only way that He ever could have died crucified and I believe that in being crucified He shed his literal blood and He was a literal sacrifice for the sins of the world, but that the atoning work needed more than bleeding it required death. And so whenever you talk about the blood you must embrace the whole sacrificial death of Christ. Otherwise He could have covered our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane and avoided the cross all together.

Board Member: Ok, are there any questions from the panel? I have just one other question there were several questions, but you pretty well covered that in the answering.

John MacArthur: I tried to. (audience laughter)

Board Member: This question, had quoted you and you cleared up much of what was said, but here is a question that was added to this: How are you different in this issue than Bob Theme?

I'm not sure that that matters. I'm not sure what he believes about that. The only issue would be whether it's Biblical. I certainly am very different than Bob Theme in a lot things almost everything I can think of. So I certainly don't want to identify at that point. You know there may be times in the past when I've said something that left something unclear, but you know the man who doesn't offend with his tongue is the perfect man and there may be things that would make someone assume something like that. Somebody asked me, and in fact I get asked all the time, do I ever listen to my own tapes, and my answer is, only when I want to find out what I believe. Because I teach constantly you know and I have for all these years and I forget what I believe about something, but I don't think I hold the same view as Bob Theme, I'll leave it at that. I'm not sure what his view is.

Board Member: There's a question, Mr. Parson.

Mr. Parson: You mentioned the death comprises the atoning the blood relates to death to the atoning work as in Leviticus 17:11. My question is: Does death only comprise the whole redemptive, atoning work and my thought is along this line the blood points to life, a life poured out. Pointing always to the perfect Lamb of God. Blood presents the blood presented because the blood shed isn't enough, the blood is presented, and the blood is the life received, and the blood is precious, it is life possessed. In other words the Lord Jesus Christ went as the Lamb of God. He is the perfect priest, the perfect sacrifice. He perfectly satisfies God. My question, I guess, is when death is spoken of in your tapes or that which - you sent us a master tape. You may not have, but it came as the official tape. In there it is said -nothing is said of this other - that death would be the beginning and end of blood - blood equals death by metonymy, period, done. That's my question: Is it finished in your mind, then, in other words, would I represent you properly if I said Blood equals death period A big one (period)?

John MacArthur: I'm not sure how to answer that, believe it or not, even though you clarified it a couple of times. What I am saying is that the atonement for our sins necessitated a death. It necessitated the death that Jesus died in the very way that He died and in no other way. What I am simply saying is that while blood does not equal death totally because the blood- shedding of Christ and the sacrificial element of that was a part of the death of Christ, yet as the New Testament writer refers to blood he is equating it with the whole atoning work which embraces the blood and the death.

A parallel to that would be the blood of His cross. Now there is no blood in the cross. You also have it talking about that we've been saved by the cross of Christ. Now what does that mean? The wood didn't save us. The wood didn't bleed for us. But whether you're talking about the death of Christ, the blood of Christ, the cross of Christ, you are simply using terms which embrace in one graphic way or another the whole atoning work of Christ. That is the only way that I can explain it. I don't know . . . .

Brother Gregory Just a point that may help. If I was left with listening to the tape that was sent, and we played that for the regional men. It would have been very difficult for us to go beyond - from the tape - beyond Blood equals death period. I think all these others - I'm not saying you don't say them - you just did not say them, and I think that may trigger a great deal of reaction.

John MacArthur: Sure, I understand that, and that's the difficulty you know in being taped, and that's why Martin Lloyd Jones in his book on preachers and preaching said those infernal tapes because you can t say everything about every theological issue every time you bring it up, so what happens is you get a point here and there, but you just don't cover the full thing. I hope that clarifies what I believe. I'm not necessarily asking you to believe it. I'm not mandating that, but I think it's consistent with Scripture. That's where I stand.

Alright, we will move on to the next category of dispensationalism; here s the first question. If view of some statements that seem to cast doubt on your position of being a dispensationalist, please clarify what your true position is. Are you mixing Reformed covenant views with dispensationalism? Elaborate your views by reviewing the number and characteristics of dispensations.

John MacArthur: And we re back to the preexilic kings Well, I just want you to know that I am historical dispensationalist, pretribulational, premillenialist. I believe that from the Scripture - please note - from the Scripture, not the notes at the bottom of the page, emerges a dispensational hermeneutic. I believe that dispensationalism is a hermeneutic. But, I don't believe it's a presuppositional hermeneutic; I believe it is a hermeneutic that rises out of an understanding of the text. So, I am a historic dispensationalist. I have never wavered on that - I have never moved from that position. What do you mean by that? What I mean primarily by that, is that you must distinguish in the way in which God rules in this world or the economy by which He mediates His rule in this world at different points in time.

Obviously, there was a point in time in which God mediated His rule through an innocent man.I have no problem with that at all. God walked and talked directly with Adam and Adam did what God told him to do without any interruption or hindrance whatsoever. God mediated His rule on the earth through man who had become king of the earth. When man fell, God had to mediate His rule in a different way. God then began to mediate His rule in theworld through a fallen man and He had to use the revelation of Himself, whichHe did, first of all, to the patriarchs; which He did, by then giving the law. I believe that God's mediated rule on the earth is much more sophisticated after the law. There were obviously times and seasons which God overlooked: pre-law, as there are times and seasons which He was gracious with: pre-grace, if you want to make that distinction.

So, I see a difference before the fall, after the fall - before the law, after the law before the cross, after the cross - before Christ comes and after He comes and then the eternal state. Now, I don't know how many of those there are - I haven't counted them all up. I'm not sure I want to dot all the i's and cross all the t's on human government and conscience and all that, but I do know that once man fell, God had to mediate His role on the earth through His Spirit, and His Spirit worked through conscience, and His spirit worked through the patriarchs, and then His Spirit worked through the prophets and the priests, and His Spirit, of course, brought the law and God mediated in that way. Then, of course once we come to the new covenant, God mediates His rule on the earth by the Spirit of God indwelling the church. The day will come when the church is raptured out and God will mediate His will on the earth in a direct way as He pours out judgment on the earth, takes the earth back, and then mediates His rule in the millennial kingdom for a thousand years, with Christ reigning on the throne until the eternal state, in which everything falls into the blending of God's sovereignty in the final form of our existence.

So, I would be a very historic dispensationalist. People ask me all the time, Are you Reformed? The Reformed people don't know what to do with me because they hear things that sound thrilling to them and then somewhere down the page they get confused again because I don't buy the whole ball of wax. To be honest with you, all I'm doing is going in my church every week and preaching the next passage. That's all I've done for 20 years and so I just try to understand what it says. Somebody will say, Oh, that sounds Reformed! Somebody will say, Oh, that s really dispensational. I'm just trying to be biblical. I really am. I'm not trying to build a system or advocate a system; I really do believe in a biblical theology, more than that, an exegetical theology.

I'm just trying to hammer that thing through and refine myself and I know that maybe there are times when it's contradictory. I spoke one Sunday night on why the antichrist will be a Jew, and somebody came to me and said, You're wrong. He'll be a Gentile. So I studied all week and the next Sunday night I preached on why the antichrist will be a Gentile. (Audience Laughter) So, I don't know. For all I know, he might come from Pennsylvania - I don't know. (Loud Audience Laughter) I put my pants on just like you, go down to my little study, get out my books and do the best I can and have at it. I'm not trying to develop some sort of secret hidden agenda; I'm just trying to understand the Word of God. But, I do believe, and the major dispensational issue for today is - I believe with all my heart and soul that you cannot come up with a covenant view of theology and maintain any kind of coherent hermeneutics.

If you come up with covenant theology which assumes then that the church is the new Israel and all the promised blessings to Israel are now fulfilled in the church, if you come up with that view you have violated the basic premise of biblical interpretation, because what you have said is this: All of the curses of the Old Testament that were on Israel were fulfilled literally. Is that not true? Nobody argues that. It's a question I ask every covenant theologian, amillennialist, I ever meet and we have a discussion.

You tell me: were the curses promised to Israel for their sin fulfilled literally? They all say the same, Yes! Then answer this: the promises given by the prophets in the same breath, you're telling me, are all going to be fulfilled figuratively? That is an impossible hermeneutic! That is a divided hermeneutic! You can t have it both ways. They are either all literal or they re all figurative, but not one or the other. So, I believe that you literally confound the Scripture. Since I also believe in a literal, historical, grammatical, contextual, rule of interpretation, I'm stuck with a literal interpretation, so I have to have a literal Israel, in a literal kingdom, with a literal Christ, reigning in a literal Jerusalem, for a literal thousand years. (Audience Amens!) The best part is I'm going to be there (Audience Laughter) and so are you and we ll all get along perfectly (Audience Laughter). I tell my church this, you know, I say, Look. Some of you people are very difficult to work with, but if you think you're going to give me ulcers or get me upset or make my life miserable, you're wrong, because I know something and what I know is someday you're going to be perfect, and I'm not going to lose my sanity trying to get you where you're going to get anyway. (Audience Laughter)

Board Member: O.K., this is the final question on dispensationalism; it has to do with your book The Gospel According to Jesus. The question states, that it [your book] is heavily footnoted with Reformed theologians, as well as including two prefaces by a Reformed man. Could you find no one from the dispensational, premill, pretrib position, to write support for your views?

Doesn't that seem right? I mean, if Martin Luther got everything else wrong and he got one thing right and that was the heart of it, and he just about did get everything else wrong, by the way. But, he got the part right about the just shall live by faith. He got the part of salvation by grace through faith plus and minus nothing right and that is the backbone of Reformed theology, has maintained that strength and that's why I quote those people because through the centuries, they have been the most articulate proponents of the doctrines of salvation. They stand in good stead and I think - as far as I know - isn't James Boyce dispensational? From my viewpoint, he was a premillennial dispensationalist with Reformed soteriology and was

The other reason we chose those two forewords: because they were really positive and we thought it might sort of get the people in the book and not think that I was coming off the wall with some new view (as many have thought.) I tried to mainstream myself a little bit in that way.

Board Membe: On the two natures and this writer asked for a yes or no answer only. [Audience Laughter] Is Romans 7 dealing with the struggles of the believer or a non- believer?

John MacArthur: Believer. [Audience Laughter].

Board Member:All right, then this question: there is a rather lengthy quote here from your commentary on Ephesians. The quote is as follows: Biblical terminology then does not say that the Christian has two different natures; he has but one nature: the new nature in Christ. The old self dies and the new self lives. They do not coexist. There's not a remaining old nature, but the remaining garment of sinful flesh that causes Christians to sin. The Christian is a single, new person, a totally new creation not a spiritual schizophrenic. In light of this statement, which you have published, how can you be in full agreement and heartily sign the I.F.C.A. doctrinal statement, which says we believe that every saved person possesses two natures, with provision made for victory of the new nature over the old nature through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and that all claims to the eradication of the old nature in this life are unscriptural? Would you say that your writings on Ephesians along this line of thinking are confusing, if not contrary to the I.F.C.A. position on the two natures?

John MacArthur: No, the reason I can sign the doctrinal statement is because I know what you mean by that. When you say the believer has two natures - I know what you mean to say by that. The only difference that I make is that those are not biblical terms and that's the only issue. I believe in the struggle of Romans, chapter 7, as the normal struggle for every believer. But, I chose to use biblical terminology. Again, it rises out of a study of Romans 6 and 7. Any of you who would want to know the answer to where I stand on this, I have a little book called Freedom From Sin on Romans 6 and 7.

I can sign the doctrinal statement, let me say it that way, because I believe the intent of everything that is said there; I simply would not use the term two natures. I ll give you an exegetical reason: those are not used in the Bible. I ll give you a theological reason. You got an epistemological problem or a problem in terminology.

If I say, that I have an old nature, O.K.? What do I mean by that? I'm what? - not saved. If I say when I got saved I got a new nature - how have I just described salvation? What is it? Addition. It isn t addition. It is what? It's transformation. That is why I don't like the idea, you know old deal that you ve got two dogs, a black dog and a white dog, who wins? The one you say sick em to - you know, that kind of theology. I don't like to think of my salvation as: here I am, this wretched, corrupt person and now somewhere in the midst of my wretched, corrupt nature, God stuck a new nature. That doesn t transform me; that is inconsistent with Galatians 2:20, I am crucified with Christ. What is crucifixion an emblem of? Death. I died. What died? My old ego. Nevertheless, I live, a new [ego].

I am a new creation in Christ, but that new creation is incarcerated in unredeemed flesh. That's why, in Romans 8, he s crying out saying, We wait for the redemption of our, what? of our body, and by body he doesn t just mean the physical body all of the bodily appetites that are in your mind and your emotions and your will all unredeemed humanness, in which is incarcerated the new creation and there is the conflict. The new creation which is a transformed inner person that's why Paul says in Romans 7, In the inner man, I delight in the law of God, right? but, I have this principle in me of sin.

I see that, but I just don't like to call it two natures because it makes salvation look like addition rather than transformation and it forces people to deal with terms they can t find in the Bible. So, when I teach my people, I try to always use biblical terms. In Romans 8, what would it say it would have to read like this, We wait for the elimination of our old nature. It doesn t say that. We wait for the transformation of our body to match the transformation of that inner part of us. Now, I don't want to get too technical in splitting that all up because it gets real deep and it's way beyond me. The new birth is still a mystery, but I just like to use biblical terms.

So, I don't have any problems signing that because what the statement intends to say is that you have a principle of new life, a principle of sin, at war with each other in the believer. It's just what you call them and I would rather use biblical terms as I try to, carefully going through Romans 6 and 7, than to just simply call them two natures. That's O.K. and Renny Showers (sp.) has a good little book in which he redefines natures in such a way that I can accept that. But, I'd rather stick with the biblical terminology. I think he calls nature a predisposition and that's fine. I don't have any problem with that, but I'd rather talk about sin that is in me where? that is in my flesh, my unredeemed humanness. Just use Paul's terms, then when people go back to the Bible and they read it, they say, Oh yeah, I remember that. That fits what I heard. So, it's just terminology.

Board Member: Any question from the panel on the two natures?

Harold Freeman: John, are you familiar with Buswell s [James O. Buswell, Jr.] definition of nature?

John MacArthur: I'm not sure . . . James Buswell?

Harold Freeman: Yes, he calls nature a complex of attributes.

John MacArthur:Yes, that's good.

Harold Freeman: If you use nature in that way, you would be right at home with the word nature, because now, just a word that is Biblical, you're not uncomfortable with Trinity ?

John MacArthur: Right.

Harold Freeman: You use that, but that's not Biblical, but it's Biblical truth. So, with regard to the nature, if a nature is truly a complex of attributes, we have the attributes of humanness.

John MacArthur: I have no problem with that.

Harold Freeman: That's struggling with Romans 7, right?