There are preachers out there who attack the blood of Christ.
Now the most famous preacher out there who attacks this 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.
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 '86, "obviously
was not the blood of Jesus that saves."
That's not obvious, the Bible said over and over again the blood of Jesus saved.
He says, "Obviously 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 that, and let me tell you something else.
It's the resurrection.
Amen.
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 onto our account.
Then he had to die on the cross, his blood, he said, 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, all of the above. And this kind of man-made logic, we need to beware 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's said,
"In whom we have propitiation through faith in his blood, the forgiveness of sin." Everybody
knew that, well, it doesn't really mean anything. 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, architectural
hymns. I can sing hymns about the blood and rejoice in them, but I understand the reference
to be a metonym for a death. I love these fancy words and this terminology. "Wow, you're
so smart, John MacArthur. You're going to split hell wide open because you only have
proficiation 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 and say, "Why do you name the name of this creature 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 Phidelis, Hermogenes, Philetus, Hymenes. He named the names of the false prophets of
his day and he warned people about them so that 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 what? "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."
No, you may not. "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 it
not the things of the Spirit of God, "For they are foolishness, and neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned." An unsafe person can't understand the Bible.
Any safe person is not confused by Revelation 1.5, period, and its story. But Mr. ESV, NIB,
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,
not MacArthur. Now, read for me Brother Garrett. There has the non-inspired version, the NIB,
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.
"From Jesus Christ, who is the 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, he'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 dead, just
the dead. We'll 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 death, 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's a false prophet. And you say, why talk about it? 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 listening to Grace
to You broadcast by John MacArthur." And I said, "Whoa, 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's..."
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 a heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifyeth 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 cause he
is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the
transgressions that were in 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 lived. Whereupon neither 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 24. 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 than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy place
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 that he 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 a second 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 makest all things according to the
pattern, shew 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. You know, 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 you know, 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 into
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 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 pictures 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 believes 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 12.4.
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? Or 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
four 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 death, 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? Just figure it out. The blood doesn't matter. All you're doing
is proving what we already knew about you that you're not saved. Come up with such garbage. To
to come up with such nonsense.