There are preachers out there who attack the blood of Christ.
Now the most famous preacher out there who attacks the doctrine of the blood of Christ
is John MacArthur.
Now he's a famous preacher in Southern California in Santa Clarita and this famous Baptist
preacher denies and attacks the blood of Jesus Christ.
Listen to some quotes from this guy and let me tell you something, he is an unsaved
devil.
I mean this should prove it to you right now but listen to this.
In May 1976 in his Grace to You newsletter in 1976 he wrote an article called not just
bleeding but his dying.
He's basically saying it's not the blood that saves you it's just the death of Christ
not the blood.
Listen to what he said in 1986 when someone confronted him on it 10 years later he dug
in deeper and still maintained that the blood of Jesus doesn't save.
Here's what he said, obviously, this is a direct quote that he wrote in 1986, obviously
it was not the blood of Jesus that saves.
What?
That's not obvious.
The Bible said over and over again the blood of Jesus saves.
He says obviously it was not the blood of Jesus that saves or he could have bled
for us without dying.
Now what kind of a moronic logic is that to say well you know if it's the blood
that saves then he doesn't have to die.
Now that is ridiculous because guess what it's both, it is the blood and the death and let
me tell you something else, it's the resurrection.
Guess what else it is?
It's his virgin birth, his sinless life, his righteousness that is imputed unto us.
See he had to live a perfect life on this earth for 33 years in order to fulfill
the law, in order to fulfill the Old Testament and to live a righteous life so that one
day when we would get saved his righteousness would be imputed unto our account.
Then he had to die on the cross.
His blood had to be shed and the Bible was clear in the Old Testament sacrifices.
They were not supposed to strangle it.
They had to shed the blood.
It was critical.
It wasn't just the dead, it was the blood and it wasn't just the dead, it was the burial
and it wasn't just the burial, it was the resurrection and it's not just the resurrection,
it's the second coming.
You can't just sit there and single in on one thing and say it was just the dead,
not the blood, just the dead, not the resurrection.
No, it's all of the above and this kind of man-made logic we need to be aware of
these false prophets who tell us, obviously it's not the blood that saved.
Yes, it is the blood that saved John MacArthur.
He said this, 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.
So every person, I guess, who's ever lived, who picked up Romans 3.25 when it said,
in whom we have propitiation through faith in his blood, the forgiveness of sin.
Everybody knew that, well, it doesn't really mean blood there,
it just means the fact that he died, that's all it means.
Here's what he continued to say, in Romans 5.9 being justified by his blood also refers
to his death, as verse 10 makes clear in saying, we're reconciled to God by the death
of his son. Oh, nobody's denying the fact that he died, John MacArthur,
you're the one who's denying the blood. We confess both.
He says this, in fact, the careful explanation of salvation in Romans 6
omits any reference to his blood at all. Well, thank you for finding one chapter in the
Bible that doesn't mention the blood. What about all the hundreds of chapters that do
mention the blood? This is what he said, the point is that the shedding of blood was
just a visible indication of his death, his life being poured out. I admit that because
of some traditional hymns, there's an emotional attachment to the blood.
But that should not pose a problem when one is dealing with theological or textual
philosophicity. I can sing hymns about the blood and rejoice in them,
but I understand that the reference to be a metonym for a death.
I love these fancy words and this terminology, why are you so smart, John MacArthur? You're
going to split hell wide open because you only have propitiation when you have
faith in his blood. Faith in his blood, John MacArthur, false prophet.
He goes on to attack the word of God by saying that in Revelation 1-5,
turn to Revelation 1-5. You say, why do you name the name of this preacher
to expose him for the liar that he is? Because the Bible teaches us to expose false
teachers. I know the little limp-wristed liberal down the street is not going to do it,
but the apostle Paul preached against Fidelis, Hermogenes, Philetus, Hymenaeus. He named the
names of the false prophets of his day and warned people about them so they would not be
deceived by their lies. Now in Revelation 1-5, the Bible is really clear about the importance
and the significance of the blood. He says in Revelation chapter 1 verse 5,
let me get there myself, and from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness and the first begotten
of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth unto him that loved us and washed us from
our sins in his own blood. Isn't that a powerful statement? That he has washed us from our sins
in his own blood. Here's what John MacArthur says to that. I may add a note on Revelation
1-5, a passage which is confusing in the King James Version. Now is anybody confused by what
we just read? It's confusing because you're not saved, John MacArthur, because the Bible
says the natural man received them not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness unto him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.
An unsaved person can't understand the Bible. Any saved person is not confused by
Revelation 1-5 period, end of story. But Mr. ESV, NIV, SUV toting MacArthur is confused by it.
He says it's confusing in the King James Version. The word washed is not correct.
The Greek word is delivered. No, delivered is English, John MacArthur.
Okay, that's not a Greek word. Now read from me, read from me. Brother Garrett there has the
non-inspired version, the NIV, the most popular Bible in America today, this new perversion from
1980. Go ahead and read that for us, Brother Garrett in Revelation 1-5. Nice and loud.
And from Jesus Christ who is a faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead,
and the ruler of the kings of the earth, to him who loves us and has freed us from our
sins by his blood. So there we go. It's freed us from our sins by his blood. Now here's the thing,
MacArthur wants us to believe that every time it says blood we should just substitute day.
Just the day. Well notice, there it says we're freed by his blood in the NIV. Okay,
so basically we're freed by his death. But see in the King James Version it says we're
washed by the blood. You don't get washed by the dead, you get washed by the blood. So
you see how these versions, not only does the NIV take out references to the blood wholesale,
like in Colossians 1-14, but it also changes the parts that it does leave in about the blood,
it changes them to weaken the significance of the blood, and to change the meaning of
scriptures about the blood. And I can go on and on exposing John MacArthur's other heresies
of teaching works salvation, lords of salvation, Calvinism, and all that other doctrine,
but just the fact that he attacks the blood of Jesus Christ should show you, hey we need to
stay away from this guy, this guy is a false prophet. And you say, why talk about him?
I was in an independent fundamental Baptist church recently, and it was a great church,
and a guy walked up to me in that church and said, Pastor Anderson, there was something
about your sermon that was a little bit confusing to me. Now first of all, that right
away told me, you know, something's wrong here because when I preach people aren't confused.
Now people might not like the sermon, or they might not agree with it,
but nobody ever walks out of my sermons confused. They know what I'm saying. And he comes up to me
and he's a little bit confused, and he says, because here's the thing, I was, I was, you
know, I was listening to Grace to You broadcast by John MacArthur, and I said, well wait a minute.
I said, you're confused because you listened to John MacArthur. I said, I don't have to answer
for what he, and I said, that guy is a lying, heretic, blood-denying, hyper-Calvinist,
work-salvation, ESV-preaching liar. I said, that's why you're confused, period. My sermon's not
confusing at all. He's preaching lies, end of story, you need to quit listening to that guy,
and that's all there is to it. Now look at Hebrews chapter 9. I'm going to show you the
significance of the blood this morning. It's not just the fact that Jesus died. It's not just
talking about the blood being just a cute way of referring to the fact that he died,
but the blood itself has significance today, and I want to show you that significance
in the book of Hebrews chapter 9. It says in verse 13, for if the blood of bulls and of goats
and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh,
how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal spirit offered himself
without spot to God purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. For this
mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions
that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal
inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the
testator. For a testament is a force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength
at all while the testator live. Whereupon either the first testament was dedicated without blood,
for when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law,
he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled
both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God
hath enjoined unto you. Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the
vessels of the ministry, and almost all things are by the law purged with blood,
and without shedding of blood is no remission. Now keep reading. Read very carefully here,
verse 23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens
should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices for
these, for Christ has not entered into the holy places made with hands,
which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of
God for us. Nor yet the deep should offer himself often, as the high priest entered
into the holy place every year with blood of others, for then must he often have suffered
since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Now we're not going to read chapter 8 for the
sake of time, but in chapter 8 of Hebrews, the Bible clearly explains that when Moses
built the tabernacle in the Old Testament, he was shown an image of the true tabernacle
in heaven, and he was told, See that thou make all things according to the pattern showed thee
in the mouth. You'll also find that in Exodus. God showed him the tabernacle. God showed him.
In Sacramento recently, this group had built some kind of a reconstruction of the tabernacle.
They read in the Bible, and they followed all the designs, and they basically wanted to
build a model of what the tabernacle looked like for educational purposes. But truly, could
they really make it exactly look like what was in the Old Testament without really seeing it?
You know, you can read about it, and you can get the specs on it, but here's the thing. When
Moses made it, he literally saw the pattern. The Bible says that the true tabernacle was never
on this earth or made with hands. The Bible says that there's a tabernacle in heaven,
and that the tabernacle on this earth was patterned after the tabernacle in heaven.
We saw it in chapter 8 and 9. He also says that the altar and the holy place and the most
holy place also exist in heaven, and that the one on earth was just a figure of the true.
It's just a picture of the real one. And the Bible says that when Jesus Christ died on the
cross for our sins, he did not enter into the holy places made with hands, which are the
figures of the true, but in the heaven itself. And then he says, wait a minute,
the high priest on this earth, he goes into the holy place every year with what?
With blood of others. He takes the blood of the lamb into the holy place once a year,
he sprinkles the blood on the mercy seat to make an atonement for the souls of men.
But he said, you know what, it's not possible for the blood of bulls and of
goats to take away sins in chapter 10. You really have to read 8, 9, and 10 to get the
whole picture. But in chapter 10, he said that the blood of bulls and goats can never take
away sins. He said it just pictured the blood of Christ because according to Hebrews 9,
crystal clear, Jesus Christ literally, are you listening to me? Literally took his blood that
he shed on the cross and he entered into the holy place in heaven, not the one on this earth,
the man-made, he went into the tabernacle not made with hands, into heaven itself,
he sprinkled the blood one time for all. And that is what made an atonement for all the
sins of mankind for all time that whosoever believeth in him might receive the remission
of sins. One time, look, he literally entered into heaven. He didn't say that the one in heaven
is figurative. He said the one on the earth is figurative. The one in heaven is real,
literal. It exists and Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, entered into heaven in order to
sprinkle that blood on that altar. Just as the high priest did on this earth, he did it in heaven.
If the blood has no significance, then why did Jesus take the time to haul it all the way
into heaven and sprinkle it on that altar? And the Bible says in chapter 12, boy I love the
book of Hebrews, the Bible says in Hebrews chapter 12, let's go there actually and read it
just so that I don't misquote it, go to Hebrews 12 24. The Bible reads,
And to Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that what?
Now is that past, present, or tense? Present tense or future tense right there?
Present tense, it's speaking better things. It didn't say it spoke, it didn't say it will
speak, it says it's speaking, present tense. And this is written decades later.
It's speaking better things than that of Abel. Now Abel's blood, if you remember in Genesis
chapter 4, cried out from the earth, and God heard the cries of the blood of Abel crying out
from the earth. The Bible says the blood of Jesus Christ sprinkled on the mercy seat in heaven,
speaking better things than that of Abel. So, did it just disappear into the ground?
Did it just spill out of his body, fall to the earth, didn't matter, it just was just
the dead, he died okay, he's dead, the blood doesn't matter. No, that blood still exists
today. That blood today, the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, was carried by Jesus in his role
as the high priest of our salvation into the holy place in heaven, into the mercy seat,
and sprinkled seven times upon the altar. And that blood is still there, and the blood
speaketh, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
and we are truly saved by the blood today. The blood is what saves.
And so those who would downplay the blood of Christ are attacking the word of God,
they're attacking the doctrines of the Bible and the gospel of our salvation. What's the reason
for it? What would motivate someone to read all these scriptures and then to just come up
with it? I don't know, are you just trying to be some cute new doctrine? Oh, I just figured
out the blood doesn't matter. All you're doing is proving what we already knew about you,
that you're not saved to come up with such garbage, to come up with such nonsense.