Blood Indoctrinators Attack Those Whom They Cannot Appropriate

The author has made an effort to gain the reactions of Fundamentalists across the country when they are presented with the Blood Doctrine, so that the quality of this book may be improved and unforseen arguments answered. For this purpose, about 25 churches or ministries were selected and a copy of a version of this book sent to them. Many never gave a reply (apparently they believed that this book was already too good for them to challenge it), but there were some surprises from those who did.

There is a well-known Fundamentalist preacher in the Sonoran Desert, whom we shall call Bill (the author promised not to use that preacher's name in this book). Pastor Bill has a well-respected Bible college. The head of that Bible college, whom we shall call Pat, published a paper in a theological journal in 1988, an article that Professor Pat intentionally kept from the general public. In it, he stated many of the same points made in this book, so much so that it looked like the author could have copied him.

Professor Pat did such a good job that Ian Paisley thought it fitting to denounce him in a sermon made public by Sword of the LORD. Professor Pat and the author arrived at nearly identical conclusions independently; in fact, neither knew of the other when they wrote their arguments. The author had already spent over three years writing this book, and had distributed several versions of it, when he learned of Professor Pat's work.

Even though the author's findings corroborated Professor Pat's findings, Pastor Bill feels that the author is not prestigious or educated enough to counter effectively the Blood Doctrine. He feels that the author should gain a greater stature among Fundamentalists before presenting the facts in this book. Therefore, Pastor Bill has asked the author not to associate this book with Pastor Bill's ministry. For that reason, Professor Pat is not credited with compiling the Roman Catholic teachings that are cited by the author in this version. After all, Professor Pat didn't author the articles he compiled, and information cannot be copyrighted.

There are other Fundamentalists, preachers and laity, who have either agreed with the author's message or expressed ignorance of the Blood Doctrine. Most never knew of the Blood Doctrine's existence. If the Blood Doctrine is so important, why are so many Fundamentalists ignorant of the Doctrine? One missionary even defended Pastor Rod Bell of Tabernacle Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, against the author by saying that he had never heard Pastor Bell make the claims made by the Blood Indoctrinators. The author, who held the job of recording Dr. Bell's sermons for a year, cannot produce any physical evidence for Dr. Bell's position on this matter. Well, Dr. Bell? Would you care to publish your opinion? It was during a pot luck attended by your Bible college that a preacher did such a poor job of presenting the Blood Doctrine that it began the author on the path to producing this book. It was the head dean of your Bible college who defended that young preacher when the author began asking questions about the sermon. You were probably the first person that the author heard say, "Science has proven that men get their blood from their father, but their body from their mother."

If the Blood Doctrine is so important, why is so little said about it? The author has tried very hard to find printed statements saying that Christ had God's blood and that He took it to Heaven. He has tried to show that Blood Indoctrinators believe that sin poisoned the blood of man, making it deathly, but Christ gives us new life by giving us new blood. Yet, there are only three or four preachers who have actually published such things, and that was years ago.

The author was 20 years old before he first heard the Blood Doctrine, even though he spent much of his life in Fundamentalist churches and schools. Furthermore, the author's mother, who taught in the same churches and schools, never had heard of the belief, either. Indeed, the class valedictorian of one of those schools first heard of the Doctrine from the author. If John MacArthur had not made Fundamentalists angry, the author still might not know what many Fundamentalists believe about blood. For a few years the outraged Fundamentalists published those beliefs, and then the furor died down. The author cannot find any newly-printed material on the Blood Doctrine.

The author looked through volumes one and two of SALVATION Crystal Clear, which are published by a Blood Indoctrinator. They are generally good books, and they show Dr. Hutson's sincere dedication to his theme. Yet, he only mentions his Blood Doctrine in one sermon, "The Main Message of the Bible," which is in Book II, beginning on page 41. If the beliefs of the Blood Doctrine are essential to Salvation, why aren't they mentioned more often? There is a "cutesy" slogan that asks, "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" The author asks, "If you were arrested for believing the Blood Doctrine, could your sermons and publications convict you?" On the other hand, if this issue is not worth greater mention, why has the author been banned from church for his beliefs about Christ's blood?

The Blood Indoctrinators try to make themselves look authoritative by misrepresenting respected preachers of the past. The case of D. L. Moody has already been mentioned. Another example of this is Sword of the LORD's use of the late Oliver B. Greene. They printed one of his sermons in the October 28, 1988 issue, in which he makes a strong attack against those who attempt to gain Salvation by any other means than faith in Christ's work on the cross. He repeatedly said that such people were thieves who would steal the very blood of Jesus Christ. He was right; neither baptism nor sincerity nor anything other than faith in Christ's blood-drenched sacrifice on the cross in our place can give us Salvation. What Sword of the LORD did not print, however, were other expositions by Dr. Greene that contradict the assertions the Blood Indoctrinators make for Christ's blood.

One point made by the Blood Indoctrinators is that Christ took His blood into Heaven after His Resurrection. They say that between the time that Christ arose from the grave and the time that He ascended into Heaven with His blood, He must not be touched, for that would defile Him as High Priest. Yet, Dr. Greene's comments on John 20 explain

Certainly He did not say it [Touch me not] because it would have been sinful or wrong for Mary to touch His risen body, for only a short time later He allowed the other women who had been at the tomb to touch Him: "And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him" (Matt. 28:9). It was only a week after He said to Mary, "Touch me not" that He said to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing" (John 20:27). So certainly it would not have been wrong for Mary to touch Him.

According to Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, the Greek word here translated "touch" means "to fasten one's self to, to cling to, hang on by, lay hold on, or grasp," and that is what Jesus could not allow Mary to do at that point.⁽²²⁾

 Despite Dr. Greene's comments, Sword of the LORD reported Dr. Greene's article, "Religious Thieves--The Dirtiest Gang This Side of Hell," in which he makes statements such as

Religious thieves are the dirtiest thieves on earth because they are trying to steal from God's only Son that which He bought with His own precious blood.⁽²³⁾

In this way, the Blood Indoctrinators do more than attempt to improve their image by associating themselves with famous names from the past. In the context of the other sermons that Sword of the LORD was printing at the time, Dr. Greene's sermon seemed to attack those who do not fully accept the Blood Doctrine. The Blood Indoctrinators mince no words in their denouncement of those who don't believe that Christ had divine blood or that He took it into Heaven. It does not seem quite right that they would include Dr. Greene when he wrote such comments as he did in John 20. However, his sermon fits in with the overall use of vindictive language that issues from the Blood Indoctrinators.

Doctor Hyles said,

...I am disgusted with the way the blood of Jesus is being treated &ldots; I believe that the blood of Jesus Christ which was shed 2,000 years ago on Calvary is at this very moment and will be eternally on the mercy seat in Heaven in the presence of our God and our Saviour.

These enemies I feel are very dangerous to fundamentalism in our day...⁽²⁴⁾

Doctor Ian Paisley was even more assertive in his attacks on those who do not hold his peculiar beliefs:

Into the pulpit of the churches there has come a new breed of men who sail under the flag of evangelicalism and some of whom even dare to hoist the flag of fundamentalism ...

The plain teaching of the Word of God is totally opposed to their so-called scholarly substantiated message...

 [this new breed of preachers] abrogate themselves the power, in the name of self-professing scholarship, to reject the plain teaching of the holy Word of God. What their "scholarly" minds cannot conceive, their "scholarly" arrogance rejects.⁽²⁵⁾

Another method used by the Blood Indoctrinators that is similar to the two already stated is to ignore respected preachers who did not say anything that supported the Blood Doctrine, but said things that definitely could hurt it. Arthur Pink is one such preacher whose writings on the sacrifice and blood of Christ are being ignored. Mr. Pink had a view of Christ's command to Mary that was contrary to the opinion of the Blood Indoctrinators...

...in His "Touch me not" to Mary, the Lord was giving plain intimation that the Christian would know Him only in spirit, as the One with the Father on high; hence His "for I am not yet ascended"!⁽²⁶⁾

...his opinion of Christ's blood defied the Blood Indoctrinators' claims that Christ had divine blood...

In the words "He also Himself likewise took part of the same" we have an affirmation concerning the reality of the Saviour's humanity. It is not merely that the Lord of glory appeared on earth in human form, but that He actually became "flesh and blood," subject to every human frailty so far as these are freed from sin...²⁷⁾

...he disproved the Blood Indoctrinators' claim that Christ took His blood to Heaven...

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves": it was by means of these that Aaron entered the holy of holies on the day of atonement (Lev. 16:14, 15)...It was by virtue of the blood of these animals that Aaron entered so as to be accepted with God. The reference here is not directly to what the high priest brought with him into the holiest--or the "incense" too had been mentioned--but to the title which the sacrifices gave him to approach unto the Holy One of Israel...²⁸⁾

...and he asserted that Christ obtained our redemption before He entered into Heaven...

"Having obtained eternal redemption," and this before He entered Heaven... ²⁹⁾

Finally, the Blood Indoctrinators try to make those who oppose them look bad by associating them with bad company. It goes beyond the attacks received by the author that his beliefs are, "humanistic and Satanic." The ploy of the Blood Indoctrinators is to avoid mentioning anything favorable that their dissenters have said about Christ's blood. The Blood Indoctrinators also attack by retelling the words of some ignorant, zealous person who is not a representative of all those opposed to the Blood Doctrine. The author has heard many times the story of the young man at a Christian college who said that the blood of Christ has no more to do with his salvation than does the blood of a bantam rooster, as though that were typical of the beliefs of those who reject the Blood Doctrine. The author has never read nor heard any of John MacArthur's sermons, but the Blood Indoctrinators keep trying to associate him with Dr. MacArthur, anyway.

All of this shows several things:

1) The idea that Christ had divine blood that He took to Heaven was alien to the religious ideals that Fundamentalism was formed to emulate, but not to pseudo-Christian cults.

2) Those Fundamentalists espousing the Blood Doctrine are guilty of shoddy, hasty research, or outright distortion, which they are willing to represent as authoritative and universally-accepted.

3) The Blood Doctrine is not, nor ever has been, uniformly accepted by godly men. In fact, it has been regularly rejected by godly men. Now, a handful of men say that they are teaching the plain truth of the Bible, as accepted by all godly men. Those who make that claim are Curtis Hutson, Ian Paisley and Jack Hyles, who were strongly influenced by the late M. R. DeHaan.

4) The Blood Indoctrinators continue propagating their beliefs, despite any facts that might prove them wrong. For this reason they will slander those who oppose them and will not listen to, nor answer, arguments made against their beliefs.

5) The Blood Doctrine is mostly an assumed doctrine. It is assumed that everyone in a Fundamentalist church knows all about it and believes it, so there are almost never any sermons or teachings made on it.

These facts only become more obvious as other facts are revealed in this book.

Many Fundamentalists have a unique way of thinking and reading, one that defies logic; some are proud of this, claiming that their faith must exceed all reason. Some claim that it will keep them from becoming Liberal, although such a goal actually would be achieved only by respecting God's Law. A great Fundamentalist preacher is a man who is granted an honorary doctorate, and then denounces scholars as people who vainly trust in man's knowledge to find the truth.

One group that Dr. Cramp did not mention, but that bore interesting similarities to these people, was called Abecedarians (abecedarian means that it relates to the alphabet). Another name for them was Zwickau Prophets. They were fanatics. It is not good to generalize a group of sober individuals based on the traits of fanatics, but there was a striking belief held by this group. They preached that learning is a hinderance to living a spiritual life, and said that it is desirable not to learn even the characters of the alphabet. Originally, they were followers of Luther (1521). After they were driven from Zwickau for sedition, they merged with the Anabaptists. Their more moderated form has influenced some sects of modern Methodists.⁽³⁰⁾ The man who can deny that people like them exist in Fundamentalism is either ignorant or lying. The Abecedarian beliefs provide a very convenient explanation for some of the Blood Doctrine.

The reader may believe that these statements are cruel. Surely, no one can be so brutish, so ignorant and obstinate as the author has portrayed the Blood Indoctrinators. If the reader feels that way, it is because he has not had much experience with these people. The author spent many years with them, sometimes without any contact from anyone else. One reason the author quotes so much from the Blood Indoctrinators is to show that they really are that unreasonable. This book probably will not change their minds; nothing short of a direct revelation from God will change their minds. Some of them know they are wrong, but preach their lies because they feel that it supports some higher truth. Others admit that they don't want reason or knowledge to change what they have accepted by faith. Some are just incapable of much rational thought.

At the beginning of this section, there was a quote from Dr. Hyles in which he said that he was preaching what all Fundamentalists believe. That is certainly untrue. Dwight L. Moody, Oliver B. Greene and Arthur Pink all denied the claims of Jack Hyles, Ian Paisley and Curtis Hutson. Brother Hyles must now know that his statement was untrue, because a year after Bro. Hyles made his comment, Sword of the LORD published Dr. Paisley's article attacking Professor Pat for writing his article on blood.

How can these men consider themselves to be honest when they say and do these things? Pastor Burt Singletary of Manzano Baptist Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has a way; sidetrack everyone onto a different issue. He gave his ultimate dismissal of this book by stating, "You've said nothing new. All you did in your book was quote people." Of course, his point is meaningless; the goal of this book is in researching the issue, not in creating stories from the author's imagination. Furthermore, Pastor Singletary was able to give his criticism without actually reading this book; he relied on someone else's evaluation. Naturally, he could not disprove arguments that he had not seen or heard, so he attacked an issue that he created. His method of rebuttal, though, is common among Blood Indoctrinators; they defend their beliefs by making comments that neither defend their Doctrine nor rebut the author's charges. They are uniformly interested in substituting insults for relevant defense.

_______________________________________________