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

[electedbyHim]

Nothing as serious as what JM comes out with!

O.k.

You are free to believe whatever you want.

This horse has been beaten to death.

I am curious to what Pastor. teacher or theologians you listed to or sit under.

Pretty certain I can find some "heresy".

I am told I am a heretic because I believe in the Doctrines of Grace and hold to most of the Reformed teachings.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Free]

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 don't think you understood what he said. It's evident in his opening words what he is speaking about, which is that without death the mere shedding of blood won't save anyone. There is no heresy there.

At least try and understand what he is saying rather than what seems to be heresy hunting, which is more likely to make you misunderstand for the sake of finding heresy. Misrepresenting people is not a good thing to be doing.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I don't think you understood what he said. It's evident in his opening words what he is speaking about, which is that without death the mere shedding of blood won't save anyone. There is no heresy there.

At least try and understand what he is saying rather than what seems to be heresy hunting, which is more likely to make you misunderstand for the sake of finding heresy. Misrepresenting people is not a good thing to be doing.

I understand perfectly!

listen to JMs own words, and then check with the Scriptures I have posted

"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 WRONG!

 

[Free]

I understand perfectly!

listen to JMs own words, and then check with the Scriptures I have posted

"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 WRONG!

It seems as though you're not actually listening to what he is saying, which seems to be because you're trying to find fault with him. As such, you end up taking his comments out of context. Note what he opens with: "We are not saved by his bleeding, because it wouldn't have done any good if he just bled." That is the basis of his claim. Notice he goes on to argue to the OT sacrificial system, that Jesus fulfills with his substitutionary atonement as the final lamb.

I watched the whole thing and it is abundantly clear that there is no heresy in what he is saying. You have at least three people stating that you are misunderstanding him, so maybe you should take into consideration what others are telling you.

 

[Hopeful 2]

So did Christs blood save us or His death?

Yes !

 

[SolaScriptura]

It seems as though you're not actually listening to what he is saying, which seems to be because you're trying to find fault with him. As such, you end up taking his comments out of context. Note what he opens with: "We are not saved by his bleeding, because it wouldn't have done any good if he just bled." That is the basis of his claim. Notice he goes on to argue to the OT sacrificial system, that Jesus fulfills with his substitutionary atonement as the final lamb.

I watched the whole thing and it is abundantly clear that there is no heresy in what he is saying. You have at least three people stating that you are misunderstanding him, so maybe you should take into consideration what others are telling you.

This is what is known as man worship!

 

[Free]

This is what is known as man worship!

Any further such comments and you will be removed from this discussion.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Any further such comments and you will be removed from this discussion.

don't like the truth?

Interesting, that just because you are a "mod", you can use threats when FACTS are presented!

 

[electedbyHim]

don't like the truth?

Interesting, that just because you are a "mod", you can use threats when FACTS are presented!

There are no facts as others have stated.

Your not listening to what Pastor said.

 

[SolaScriptura]

There are no facts as others have stated.

Your not listening to what Pastor said.

and you just cannot admit that on this issue, JM is WRONG! as he is on the issue about baking a cake for homos!

Have you EVER heard any theologian or pastor say what JM does about the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ?

I have been a saved believer for over 42 years, and not ONCE have I hear this!

I have posted from the Bible JM is WRONG, and you and some others like him more than the FACTS!

 

[electedbyHim]

and you just cannot admit that on this issue, JM is WRONG! as he is on the issue about baking a cake for homos!

Have you EVER heard any theologian or pastor say what JM does about the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ?

I have been a saved believer for over 42 years, and not ONCE have I hear this!

I have posted from the Bible JM is WRONG, and you and some others like him more than the FACTS!

Just not hearing what you are from the video.

Perhaps your 42 years gives you greater wisdom and spirituality.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Just not hearing what you are from the video.

Perhaps your 42 years gives you greater wisdom and spirituality.

Grace and peace to you.

I see why you support JM, as you both are from the "reformed" camp!

If this was said by a Pentecostal preacher, things will be different!

 

[electedbyHim]

I see why you support JM, as you both are from the "reformed" camp!

If this was said by a Pentecostal preacher, things will be different!

Not true.

I do not support full reformed theology.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Not true.

I do not support full reformed theology.

best wishes

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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!

Don't act like a heresy hunter yelling at the top of your lungs on your moral high horse, man, cut him some slacks. We're all sinners in need of salvation, we all make mistakes, no one is perfect. He's a God fearing man of courage, during the shutdown period in 2020 he defied the official order and opened his church, that's a token of faith.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Don't act like a heresy hunter yelling at the top of your lungs on your moral high horse, man, cut him some slacks. We're all sinners in need of salvation, we all make mistakes, no one is perfect. He's a God fearing man of courage, during the shutdown period in 2020 he defied the official order and opened his church, that's a token of faith.

Hersey means UNBIBLICAL in my mind!

And what JM is saying here is UNBIBLIICAL.

Don't get involved when you don't understand the FACTS!!!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hersey means UNBIBLICAL in my mind!

And what JM is saying here is UNBIBLIICAL.

Don't get involved when you don't understand the FACTS!!!

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matt. 6:14-15)

 

[SolaScriptura]

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matt. 6:14-15)

Forgive who?

 

[Vinny37]

...

As a pentecostal I’m not a big MacArthur fan, in that he’s strangely stamped on true fire to stamp out strange fire, but here he’s spot on (no pun intended). Here he’s not adding to, merely understanding what the Bible teaches. The term blood is metonymy for death (Lv.17:11; Rm.5:9-10), so when Scripture speaks of being saved by his blood, it’s a more pictorial way of saying by his death, and it carries a general reminder of the OT sacrificial system, and exodian blood on the lintels (from deceased lambs), etc. A useful but not literal metonymy.

Jesus spoke of the eucharist wine as [representing] his blood. I wonder who would assert that his apostles drank literal blood, even before it came from his body? And it began to come from his body probably when he was whipped, and certainly when he was flogged. I wonder who would assert that we were saved by his blood before he was crucified? If he made atonement by bleeding before the cross, why bother being crucified? I wonder who would assert that under Sinai Yahweh could have commanded that the atonement animals be simply bled without killing them? The focus of atonement is in the death, usually represented by blood. MacArthur simply saw that fact.

Though generally speaking, blood representing life, was the tangible element of the sacrifice ritual and showed the high price of sin, according to Leviticus even flour could make the cut for the covenant restoration offering (5:11-3), atonement. Heb.9:22 was thus not an absolute literalism though absolutely true.

 

[Vinny37]

Any further such comments and you will be removed from this discussion.

A little hard perhaps?