John MacArthur - Jesus Did Not Have to Shed His Blood to Save Us!

[SolaScriptura]

This is a blatant HERESY, and is AGAINST what the Bible VERY CLEARLY Teaches!

"How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God" - Hebrews 9:14

"Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" - Hebrews 9:22

"In him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" - Ephesians 1:7

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" - Ephesians 2:13

"And through Him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross" - Colossians 1:20

"And from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His blood" - Revelation 1:5

There can be NO DOUBT, that the ACTUAL Blood that Jesus Christ Shed on the Cross, ALONE cleanses us from our sins!

There is NO justification from the Bible with what MacArthur, argues, that it is only the Death of Jesus Christ that saves sinners!

He is ADDING to what the Bible Teaches! and is FALSE!

 

[Charlie24]

This is a blatant HERESY, and is AGAINST what the Bible VERY CLEARLY Teaches!

"How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God" - Hebrews 9:14

"Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" - Hebrews 9:22

"In him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" - Ephesians 1:7

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" - Ephesians 2:13

"And through Him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross" - Colossians 1:20

"And from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His blood" - Revelation 1:5

There can be NO DOUBT, that the ACTUAL Blood that Jesus Christ Shed on the Cross, ALONE cleanses us from our sins!

There is NO justification from the Bible with what MacArthur, argues, that it is only the Death of Jesus Christ that saves sinners!

He is ADDING to what the Bible Teaches! and is FALSE!

I agree that what MacArthur says here is straight-out heresy, he's denying the Blood.

In God's original plan it appears Christ did not need to shed His Blood. Let me explain.

The Father sent Christ only to the Jews for a reason. They were to accept Him as their Messiah and evangelize the world to Christ. That was their calling of God.

If the Jews had accepted Christ there would have been no Church Age as we know it today, no shedding of His Blood on the Cross. He would have set up His Kingdom on this earth and Israel would have fulfilled their calling of God to evangelize the world.

When Christ cried out, "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand," (Matt. 4:17) He was offering Israel the Kingdom on this earth. But they rejected Him.

The Church was God's second choice to evangelize the world, we have to remember that!

So that raises the question, did God intentionally send Christ at a time when He knew Christ would be rejected, forcing the need for His shed Blood? What would the Romans have done if this had happened?

Through His foreknowledge of Israel's spiritual condition at any given time throughout history before the Roman destruction of Israel, it appears The Father did just that.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Lev_17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

1Co_10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Rev_7:14 I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I agree that what MacArthur says here is straight-out heresy, he's denying the Blood.

In God's original plan it appears Christ did not need to shed His Blood. Let me explain.

The Father sent Christ only to the Jews for a reason. They were to accept Him as their Messiah and evangelize the world to Christ. That was their calling of God.

If the Jews had accepted Christ there would have been no Church Age as we know it today, no shedding of His Blood on the Cross. He would have set up His Kingdom on this earth and Israel would have fulfilled their calling of God to evangelize the world.

When Christ cried out, "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand," (Matt. 4:17) He was offering Israel the Kingdom on this earth. But they rejected Him.

The Church was God's second choice to evangelize the world, we have to remember that!

So that raises the question, did God intentionally send Christ at a time when He knew Christ would be rejected, forcing the need for His shed Blood? What would the Romans have done if this had happened?

Through His foreknowledge of Israel's spiritual condition at any given time throughout history before the Roman destruction of Israel, it appears The Father did just that.

much of what you say here is speculation

 

[Charlie24]

much of what you say here is speculation

God chose Israel above all the nations on earth to reveal Himself. He gave only Israel His law to prepare them for the Messiah who was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.

If you can't see that Israel was chosen by God to bring salvation to the Gentile world through their Messiah, then you have closed you eyes and ears to the Word of God.

 

[SolaScriptura]

God chose Israel above all the nations on earth to reveal Himself. He gave only Israel His law to prepare them for the Messiah who was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.

If you can't see that Israel was chosen by God to bring salvation to the Gentile world through their Messiah, then you have closed you eyes and ears to the Word of God.

The salvation of the Gentiles was always in the Eternal Plans of the TriUne God. It is not an after thought!

Read Romans chapters 9 to 11

The Jewish People who were the chosen, are no longer so. The Church of Jesus Christ is!

 

[Charlie24]

The salvation of the Gentiles was always in the Eternal Plans of the TriUne God. It is not an after thought!

Read Romans chapters 9 to 11

The Jewish People who were the chosen, are no longer so. The Church of Jesus Christ is!

We're talking about how God chose to bring salvation to the Gentiles.

He did not choose any Gentile nation to reveal Himself, or His salvation.

He revealed everything through His chosen people of Israel.

Paul has told us that God has not cast away Israel.

Isaiah 14:1-3
For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,

 

[Knotical]

Did you all even watch the whole video? He is making the distinction between simply bleeding and actually being put to death as a payment for sin. In the Old Testament, the atoning sacrifice was not that they cut an animal and spilled some of its blood to fulfill the sacrifice, they slaughtered the animal and spilled all of its blood for it to be an acceptable sacrifice. Therefore, Jesus had to die, not just bleed, for salvation to be accomplished.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Did you all even watch the whole video? He is making the distinction between simply bleeding and actually being put to death as a payment for sin. In the Old Testament, the atoning sacrifice was not that they cut an animal and spilled some of its blood to fulfill the sacrifice, they slaughtered the animal and spilled all of its blood for it to be an acceptable sacrifice. Therefore, Jesus had to die, not just bleed, for salvation to be accomplished.

"people must understand that it is not the bleeding of Jesus, it is not the blood of Jesus", this is what JM says if you went to about 35 seconds onwards.

This is UTTER NONSENSE! This Bible verses that I have quoted, and others, are very clear that the BLOOD shed on the Cross, cleanses our sins. This part of the Death of Jesus Christ, the actual "cleansing" of sins, required the shedding of Jesus' Blood!

JM is trying to get clever with his really stupid comments!

 

[electedbyhim]

So did Christs blood save us or His death?

 

[SolaScriptura]

So did Christs blood save us or His death?

BOTH you cannot separate them

Jesus had to shed His Blood to cleanse sinners from their sins

This was done by His Death on the Cross

 

[Knotical]

"people must understand that it is not the bleeding of Jesus, it is not the blood of Jesus", this is what JM says if you went to about 35 seconds onwards.

This is UTTER NONSENSE! This Bible verses that I have quoted, and others, are very clear that the BLOOD shed on the Cross, cleanses our sins. This part of the Death of Jesus Christ, the actual "cleansing" of sins, required the shedding of Jesus' Blood!

JM is trying to get clever with his really stupid comments!

No, he is clarifying his earlier statements in light of people twisting his words, which seems to still be happening.

 

[electedbyhim]

No, he is clarifying his earlier statements in light of people twisting his words, which seems to still be happening.

Yes and that happend in 1987 I believe.

People love to find fault.

I found nothing in that video as heretical.

As someone who has read Macarthurs books, and listemed to his sermons, I have never heard the man teach what everybody is claimin he said.

A simple internet search will refute the claims people have about him.

All men are fallible, me or anyone else in this thread and beyond.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[SolaScriptura]

No, he is clarifying his earlier statements in light of people twisting his words, which seems to still be happening.

What JM says is totally unbiblical

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yes and that happend in 1987 I believe.

People love to find fault.

I found nothing in that video as heretical.

As someone who has read Macarthurs books, and listemed to his sermons, I have never heard the man teach what everybody is claimin he said.

A simple internet search will refute the claims people have about him.

All men are fallible, me or anyone else in this thread and beyond.

Grace and peace to you.

Really?

JM was asked if it was sinful for a Christian to bake a cake for homosexuals, he said no

He then calls out Alistair Begg on whether it was wrong to attend a "trans wedding"!

Sheer hypocricy!

Some are blinded to the serious errors of these teachers so try justify their nonsense!

 

[electedbyhim]

Really?

JM was asked if it was sinful for a Christian to bake a cake for homosexuals, he said no

He then calls out Alistair Begg on whether it was wrong to attend a "trans wedding"!

Sheer hypocricy!

Some are blinded to the serious errors of these teachers so try justify their nonsense!

We have been down this path.

God has used Macarthur in mighty ways for over 50 years.

I am certain you have many flaws in your theology, no?

 

[Knotical]

What JM says is totally unbiblical

There are plenty of things to fault him about in his teachings, including the claim that he is reformed in his theology and yet not hold to paedo-baptism, but the video in question is pretty straightforward as to the distinction he is making.

 

[SolaScriptura]

We have been down this path.

God has used Macarthur in mighty ways for over 50 years.

I am certain you have many flaws in your theology, no?

Nothing as serious as what JM comes out with!

 

[SolaScriptura]

There are plenty of things to fault him about in his teachings, including the claim that he is reformed in his theology and yet not hold to paedo-baptism, but the video in question is pretty straightforward as to the distinction he is making.

It is very obvious that you can't grasp the seriousness of what JM is saying and that it is clearly heretical

 

[Knotical]

It is very obvious that you can't grasp the seriousness of what JM is saying and that it is clearly heretical

It is more likely that you are reading into it just like other people who continually criticize him. As I stated, and have others, he is not perfect in his theology, however, if you want this video to live rent-free in your mind that is up to you.