Useful religious or Biblical blogs in alphabetical order. This list was started by Kent Brandenburg at his blog What Is Truth?

Bible Bulletin Board This is mainly a huge pile of John MacArthur material, easily attained, along with people much like him. Here is what is wrong with him. He isn’t a Biblical separatist either personally or ecclesiasticlly. He’s a Calvinist. He’s universal church. He often will not make the correct, strong application of Scripture, especially on cultural issues. However, he consistently has worked hard on coming to a correct interpretation of Scripture. He essentially gets a bad rap on the blood, even though he doesn’t represent a Scriptural position with his metonym for death.  He is getting stronger in personal and ecclesiastical separation as he gets older–we should rejoice in that.

Blog and Mablog Doug Wilson writes here. He is Mr. Classical Education. Mr. Idaho of Cultural Issues (Courting, Fidelity, Education, Husband/Wife). Mr. Satire. He even supports the KJV with some great arguments. He’s an interesting writer. His organization there, Canon Press, puts out a lot of good material. Use the good, discard the bad. Something like that. The bad would be the ecclesiology, the eschatology, some of the soteriology, among a few other doctrines and issues.

Christian Classics Ethereal Library You can download from here to read several classics without leaving your leather swivel office chair.  You may even nod off and drool as well. A huge library at your finger tips. What can you say?

Clement of Rome Did you know that this first century contemporary of the Apostle John was local only in his ecclesiology? Check it out yourself.

Corporal Punishment of Children This is the one click resource for obedience to Proverbs 23:13-14.

Current Christian This is the new blog from former chief moderator at Sharper Iron, Greg Linscott. He is not one normally to assume the worst. Pastor Linscott supports the KJV, uses God-honoring music, preaches expositionally, and represents a true Gospel. He doesn’t stand the same on the church and on many separation issues. However, this new blog is a useful resource on keeping up with what is going on, well, currently in the world regarding those who call themselves Christians, hence, Current Christian.

Dissidens on Remonstrans Here is a guy that is more disliked by Jason Janz and Sharper Iron than Kent Brandenburg is. He has many good things to say on the subject of worship, worship music, and culture in general, written in a very interesting way. He is very well read, which means that you will probably learn something. You will probably see several theological differences, but we are probably very similar on the nature of God and what salvation is.

Don Johnson Don is a pastor of a Baptist church on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. He is not the same as us on the nature of the church, on preservation of Scripture, and on certain cultural standards. However, we have a very similar militancy and view of the world that makes it enjoyable to read him. He also preaches expositionally, which you will see when you read his blog. Don treats separatists with civility.

FBC Radio The music here is of an unusually high standard for listening and downloading.

Fidelis This site will keep you updated on first amendment, freedom of religion news and issues.

Fire and Ice OK, I like reading the Puritans even though they’d kill me if they were alive. No, I don’t like the Massachusetts Bay Colony. I’m more of a Providence, Rhode Island fan. I like the Virginia Baptists even better. Why the Puritans? They are so thorough and so reverent. They write great stuff on salvation and sanctification, minus the Calvinism. So there.

Free Religious Books Online Thought the word “free’ might get your attention.

Jason Janz Is Da Man This is a site called Sharper Iron, but it is actually the self-proclaimed privately owned business of Jason Janz, who speaks for a theological subculture called the “young fundamentalists.” Sharper Iron truly will have some good articles and is a good place to get the scoop on some important issues, religious news in general, and especially news applying to the fundamentalist Christian movement in America. If you interact here, you will meet some nice people, but be prepared for some obnoxious arrogance and Christianized feminism.

Precept Austin Evangelicals of a different mind-set operate this site, but you get a great deal of good material to get ready for a study or sermon here.

Pyromaniacs Let’s be honest, this is the Phil Johnson site. And Phil Johnson gets his chops from being the editor of most of John MacArthur’s books. You won’t need to ask him. Just nod appreciatively. Can’t help checking out what this branch of “evangelicalism” is saying. They sure are an inconsistent group, for a whole lot of reasons. They are a worldly group that goes after worldliness. They say they love Spurgeon, but Spurgeon would absolutely cuff them around if he were alive. That makes them Spurgeon wannabees. They will go on and on with dialogue with leftists and Charismatics, but if you are to the right of them, don’t plan on a conversation; just get prepared for ridicule.

The Reformed Reader We’re not Calvinists, but minus that, here is a site with some very good historical material, writings, confessions, creeds, and more. I have to admit that I like to read John Owen, Stephen Charnock, Richard Baxter, among others. You’ll notice here online Baptist history material and even local church ecclesiology from some.

Religious Affections Because of our view of God, Scott Aniol and I see things closely on the matter of worship. I guess that means I’m much like Mike Harding on this too. They both may want to change their position now that I have made this statement. If they could only give a hearing to the Scriptural and historical view of the preservation of Scripture.

Way of Life Literature–A wealth of information from an Independent, Fundamental, Baptist perspective. David Cloud authors the majority of information presented here. He also has a very extensive American and international church directory.

World Magazine Blog Often politically correct, but they are worth checking out now and then to get what news is of interest to people called Christians.

  1. October 20, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    Dear moderators, if you have time, can you please explain John MacArthur’s “metonym for death”? Or can you direct me to someplace that can explain it.

    Thank you.

  2. October 20, 2007 at 5:17 pm


    If I said, “I read Shakespeare,” Shakespeare is a metonym. I obviously didn’t read the person Shakespeare, but what he wrote. MacArthur says that “He shed His blood” means that He died. It must be a bloody death, but it is His death that saves us. I believe Scripture teaches differently.

  3. Michael Marshall
    October 21, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    I get it. That’ what I was taught about him, and what I got from reading his website. I too disagree with him. According to the Gospel as defined by Paul in I Corinthians 15, Christ had to die for our sins according to the scriptures, and according to the scriptures the only thing that will satisfy the Law is the shedding of blood, and the only thing that could satisfy the Law Eternally was Holy and Righteous blood. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission, and what needs remission is our sin. The death alone could not save us. The blood had to be applied to the Mercy Seat in Heaven.

  4. October 21, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    Bro. Michael,

    I believe MacArthur has been slandered by some in reporting that he denied the blood of Jesus Christ, that he believes that Jesus didn’t bleed. That accusation is false. MacArthur believes the blood was necessary for a sacrificial death, to bring a sacrificial nature to the death. However, I believe He falls short of Scriptural teaching with his metonym teaching. He does not deny death and shed blood, just that he does not properly separate the two. He also believes the blood was merely human blood. I believe that we have a basis to believe that through the hypostatic union that Jesus blood was both human and Divine (Acts 20:28).

  5. October 21, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    I was taught by Pastor Burleigh (my first Pastor) that MacArthur denied that the blood was essential for salvation, not that the Lord did not bleed. That is was the death not the blood that saves, and that I cannot agree with. The whole Gospel had to be fulfilled. If he did not die, He could not resurrect. If His blood offering was not Holy, he would not resurrect, and there would still be no atonement for the soul(Leviticus 17:11).

    Hypostatic Union. I would agree with the concept, I just don’t like the term. If I have my history right, it came from an ecumenical committee around 450 AD. I’m just not into that. It’s a separation thing. 🙂 (hey, the smiley face is not to feminine is it?)

  6. October 21, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    So what word do you use for hypostatic union? And smiles are loving and love is good. Smiley faces are especially appropriate online to help us with our tone, you know, to let people know we aren’t screaming at them. Regarding MacArthur, I’ve read about everything myself that he has written on this issue and he believes the blood was necessary for salvation. Some have falsely reported that he doesn’t and that material was widely disseminated.

  7. January 9, 2008 at 10:30 am

    Just for information. We have plenty of reasons for not fellowshiping with John MacArthur. We don’t have to make up reasons in order to separate from him. However, he doesn’t “deny the blood.” When I hear people say that, I figure that they haven’t actually read what he wrote, but read what someone else said about him. He believes the blood is necessary for our justification and that Christ bled a lot, sacrificially. I don’t believe that he is correct on the blood, but he doesn’t deny the blood ala R. B. Thieme. On the other hand, MacArthur is writing actual exegetical material, unlike anyone from the Hyles camp. And MacArthur is actually preaching the gospel, unlike the Hyles camp. I also like his methods of evangelism about 20 times better than Hyles. He would also practice church discipline and defend the qualifications of the pastor. MacArthur doesn’t preach from the KJV and doesn’t believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture, but he at least preaches from the Bible (93-98%) that he does have. If the Hyles guys loved the KJV like they say they do, they ought at least to study it and preach it. I judge love for Scripture by more than belief in the preservation of Scripture. What I wrote above about MacArthur are the reasons why we don’t fellowship with him, so I won’t repeat those. By the way, I actually contend with and confront the MacArthur people and they know I’m not with them and why I’m not. I use Scripture to do it. As a result, I’m not liked by them.

  8. Christopher
    August 18, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    Kent,”However, he doesn’t “deny the blood.” I am not sure what you mean. Yes he believes in the blood of Christ, but he believes the blood has no saving power. MacArthur is a “believing un-believer”. This is a false Gospel. Who cares if he “…is writing actual exegetical material” and “.. he at least preaches from the Bible (93-98%) that he does have”

    Curtis Hutson did a front page article in the Sword here is an archive link

    Also David Cloud has exposed his teaching in depth.

    2. MacArthur Denies The Reality Of The Blood Of Christ

    3.MacArthur says the blood of Christ “could not save” and “it was not the
    FLUID that saved us, it was the DEATH of Christ.”

    4.In the May 1976 issue of the Grace to You Family paper that is distributed
    to his church, MacArthur published an article titled “Not His Bleeding,
    but His Dying.” In this, MacArthur plainly stated that it is not the blood
    of Christ that saves.

    5.Ten years later, in a letter to Tim Weidlich, Paul Clark, Kevin Jolliff of
    Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC, April 4, 1986, MacArthur made the
    following statement of his position:

    6.”Obviously, it was not the blood of Jesus that saves or He could have bled for us without dying. It was His death for sin that saves. When Romans 3:25 speaks of ‘faith in His blood’ everyone understands that to be a reference to His death — not the blood running through His body. In Romans 5:9, being ‘justified by His blood’ also refers to His death, as verse 10 makes clear in saying ‘we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.’ In fact, the careful explanation of salvation in Romans 6 omits any reference to His blood at all. The point is that the shedding of blood was just the visible indication of His death, His life being poured out. … I admit that because of some traditional hymns there is an emotional attachment to the blood — but that should not pose a problem when one is dealing with theological or textual specificity. I can sing hymns about the blood and rejoice with them — but I understand that reference to be a metonym for His death.”

    7.MacArthur was still preaching this in the 1990s. When I attended one of his conferences in British Columbia in that decade, I purchased a copy of his commentary on Hebrews to check out his teaching on the blood for myself. In this commentary, MacArthur repeatedly says the blood is merely “symbolic” of death.

    8. This is the false position taken by Robert Bratcher, editor of the Today’s English Version. In that perverted translation the word “death” is almost always substituted for the word “blood” when the Scriptures are referring to Christ’s atonement.


    • Joshua
      August 18, 2010 at 8:53 pm


      Pastor Brandenburg used to think that JMac was being misrepresented on his position on the blood of Christ, but in the two links below you’ll see he no longer thinks that.

      To quote Kent from the first link:

      I recently listened to this audio (below on an embedded youtube clip) in which Phil Johnson throws John MacArthur the ultimate softball in order to clear up the false assumptions made about his doctrinal stance on the blood of Christ. I have often defended MacArthur in the past on this issue. I read the original criticism of him by Bob Jones University in their former Faith for the Family. I knew what he said in his Hebrews commentary. I always hoped for the best. Love does hope all things.

      The attack on MacArthur, that he says is untrue on this audio, is that he denies the blood of Christ. Is that true? Does MacArthur deny the blood? Well, it depends on what you mean by “deny the blood.” He doesn’t deny that Jesus bled when He died. He doesn’t reject that Jesus bled a whole lot. In other words, MacArthur doesn’t take the R. B. Thieme position that Jesus barely shed any blood on the cross.

      However, when I listened to this audio clip, I had a sick feeling in my stomach. Here was the perfect opportunity for John MacArthur to clear up his blood position and I think that is exactly what he did. As much as any time I’ve heard him, he communicates his position. You can tell it bothers him that he has been attacked on this. I want you to listen before you read what I write below the clip. You make your own evaluation. Then read what I wrote. You will be welcome to comment and even defend MacArthur if you think that what he says is defensible.

      John MacArthur is a very careful expositor. There’s a lot you can learn if you read his commentaries. He’s a great example for diligence in the study of scripture. And then he takes this type of position, among several others, that belie the scriptural evidence.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: