Видео

“What’s wrong with you people?” RC Sproul

Did you answer the question whether we would be saved if Jesus only bled but didn't die?

This is pure slander against John MacArthur -- taking his words out of context just as any lying spirit would do. You best repent of this sin ...and if your goal is to uncover false teachers, turn on TBN or some other charismatic broadcast. You'll find barrelsful.

You're making a category error. The blood of Christ was the blood of God in accord with the fact that the Word became flesh. This is not the same thing as saying that the blood itself was divine, for blood is simply atoms and electrons, all of which will cease to exist at the second coming of Christ. Similarly, the Lord's supper is not the blood and body of Christ: it is simply bread and wine. It is appropriated in the Spirit as the blood and body of Christ: it is not literally in a corporeal sense the blood and body of Christ. So your error is the same as the errors of the Roman Catholics, who hybridise the flesh and the spirit so that neither is distinct. Similarly, the RCs say Mary was the mother of God because Christ was God. In order to be the mother of God she would have to be the mother of God's 'godness', for you can't separate God from His 'godness'. Mary wasn't the mother of God's godness, therefore she wasn't the mother of God. So you are confusing the category that is corporeality, with the category that is the spiritual appropriation of that corporeality.

This video is heretical! John MacArthur has saved countless lives from sin. HOW DARE YOU DISPARAGE HIM!!!

If Jesus had only shed His blood and had not died and resurrected would that have been sufficient for our salvation?

It is death AND blood, not death OR blood that are instrumental in our salvation. Lord had to die to overcome death so we can be freed from death's grip. Jesus spilled His blood so our sins can be washed away. MacArthur and his philosophical ramblings..... This man has such hubris that he even put his name on the Bible. Calvinistic deceiver.

ruclips.net/video/YzFttg2wXdc/видео.htmlsi=J5ARb_7-l-vF-6n_

Hebrews 9:22 is so clear on this. The blood of bulls, goats nor any human would suffice. Only the pure, perfect, holy blood of Christ finished the work.

John MacArthur is Absolutely correct.

Didn’t MacArthur say that Christ could have drowned and still save us ?

The Lord said, “There would be false teachers in the last days…period!” John is not Biblical He does not teach the Gospel…he’s a heretical teacher, as sadly many people would rather follow a man, the their Lord and SAVIOUR Jesus Christ…period!

Maybe John should be removed! Not to mention he preaches “Bad News, not “Good News,” and John owns “3” houses…how do you explain and excuse all of this…you can’t!

I hate the fact that he says that you take the mark of the beast and still be saved!!! God's word say ANY ONE WHO TAKES THE MARK WILL HAVE THE WRATH OF GOD ON THEM

Thank you for doing this video 😇

The second person of the Trinity is 100% God and 100% man. JM doesn’t disagree with Spurgeon. His body is human, including His blood.

Jesus's blood leaked down onto the mercy seat. His blood is the atonement for our sins. I absolutely believe in the blood

Pastor Dave, has anyone ever literally drank the blood of Christ as in the disciples at the last supper. At the last supper Jesus said, “This is my blood that I have shed for you. Drink it in remembrance of me.” My question for you pastor is were they drinking wine or the literal blood of Christ?

Jesus was fully God and fully man. Did the disciples drink the actual blood of Christ at the last supper? Did Christ have human blood? Interesting…

If a droplet of Jesus' blood splattered onto the forehead.. or chest.. or toenail.. of the oThEr criminal being crucified next to our 100% God aNd 100% man Christ (you know, the one that continued moc.king Him through his last heartbeat and dying breath).. Will that seemingly unrepentant (and therefore unforgiven) human being be enjoying eternity in God's presence.. with those (s)elect few of us who have actually been regenerated.. and have passed through the narrow gate? It's the "shedding" of blood that provided/provides opportunity for propitiation of sin.. to all who believe, aNd receive, a doctrinally correct gospel. This video creates an issue where there is no issue. Philippians 4:8😊

Your presentation on refuting John McArthur was professional. The dress, vocal speed, camera angle all were good. You might try to mirror that look. Would make it easier for some to hear your message.

You might be a provisionist

Act 20:28 Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood. Whose own blood purchased the flock to which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers? Dave Martin says it is the blood of God. Did God purchase Himself with His own blood? Or did God purchase with His own blood "the assembly of the Lord and God?" The blood of Christ purchased the assembly of the Lord which is also the assembly of God to whom the shepherds are overseers. The blood is the Lord Jesus Christ's which purchased, by His propitiatory death, those predestined for salvation by the choice of God the Father. The reference to blood is a metaphor for the death of Christ on the cross. His blood (death) secured the Elect who are the assembly of God, redeemed by the Lamb. The physical blood of Christ does not save anyone. Where did you get a vial of Jesus' blood? Even if the blood of Christ got on the Roman soldier that pierced His side it was just human blood (and water). It has no efficacy. But the "blood" as God uses the term refers to His suffering under the wrath of the Father for an eternity in order to pay for the sins of God's chosen ones. Without the shedding of blood, meaning death, there is no forgiveness of sins. The blood (death) of Christ on the cross was not paying for anyone's sins because Christ's death as a man was not effectual. But, Christ's death on the cross as the God-man, suffering an eternity in a matter of hours to secure the judicial payment for the Elect, is entirely and completely effectual. The death of goats and rams has no efficacy either, no one had one sin removed by animal sacrifice. It was only a typification or metaphor pointing to the Lamb of God who would die (shed His blood) on behalf of His people (the true Israel of God). In order for the sin-payment to be judicially equivalent it had to be done by 1) a sinless person and 2) God. A sinless person could die for one other person taking their place under God's wrath forever. But Christ being God, and sinless, was a like ransom for all given to Him to redeem. Jesus did not remain under God's wrath forever because, being God and eternal, He paid the eternal payment required, suffering an eternity under the Father's wrath so the believer would not have to. All this is signified by the term "the blood of Christ." His human blood is just human blood. His death (shed blood) as the sinless God-man satisfied the judicial wrath of God the Father and allowed God's Elect to enter eternal peace and be adopted as the children of God in the Kingdom of God.

You said time frame ! Does that mean that you study according to 2nd Tim 2:15 ?

Where in Apostle Paul’s writings does he say that anyone in the Body of Christ is born again? Also, Why is the term Grace not found in the four gospels? ANSWER ! Study according to 2nd Tim 2:15 in a King James Bible ( ALL modern so-called bibles absolutely butcher this scripture and omit the word dispensation which is key to having God’s approval ) Read Romans 16:25 then Acts3:21 then think about how completely opposite they are hence God’s Word rightly devided.

Dave, please explain why "Baptists" do not partake of the Lord's Supper every week when the Bible (God's word) Acts 20:7 tells us that the Apostles took it every first day of the week (Sunday.) The Bible tells us that we must be baptized to be saved Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16. The "Baptist church" is not the New Testament church that the Bible speaks of. The "Baptist church came into being in the Netherlands in 1638 by a mortal man named John Smythe. And make no mistake the real New Testament church is the church of Christ. Or does your "screwball theology" tell us something different Dave?

Rev 12:11! Victory by the blood of the Lamb, and the power of their testemony!🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

If you want to go after someone for being a fake teacher, there's PLENTY of options. John macarthur is the LAST person you should go after.

If you listen carefully what Mac Arthur said then you'll understand, the blood doesn't affect anything if he didn't die. If you don't understand shut your mouth don't belittle others.

15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. esv.org/Heb9.15-22

Go back, read and listen carefully what he said about the context. You are 100% right about what you’re saying, but the blood won’t be active if Jesus didn’t die. For example a Will cannot take place when the person who owns the Will don’t die, but of course there is a Will but won’t be activated until you die.

The blood of Christ means His death, not his "bleeding". You need to go back to seminary.

I think what MacArthur is really kind of pointing to is Ephesians chapter 2 says it all is that we are saved by God's grace through faith and not by works lest any man boast it doesn't say we're saved by God's blood the scripture says we are saved by God's grace.... Now ask yourself this did Christ live a sinless life because he was divine or because he was showing us that even in the flesh we could... Because if the blood of the flesh is divine then there would be no surprise that he lived a sinless life being that he was divine from the get-go... But by made of flesh and blood he was held to the same standard we are and still did not sin.. in dying on the cross he shed his blood as a sacrifice the same as their sacrifices in the Old testament he became the sacrificial lamb.. we're sins forgiven in the Old testament by sacrifice because the animal's blood was divine?

The problem here is not understanding a principle of biblical interpretation. The Bible uses literary devices / metaphors, similes, personification, metonymy and synecdoche. When we speak of the crown, we do not always mean an actual crown but it stands for the king or the state. The blood of Christ stands for the death of Christ.

JM is so easily disproved here. We only have to point to the 56 Roman guards that were executed at the flogging of Jesus. Every time the whip splattered blood on them, a guard would have his sins washed away, he'd become a believer and have to be executed. Or we could point to Paul's conversion story of being knocked to the ground, blinded, covered in blood and hearing "Saul, Saul why do you persecute me". Of course we don't see any of that because the literal blood was not magical. Don't turn it into some superstitious gnostic elixir like catholics do. This blinding hatred for Calvinism makes people pick some stupid "gotchas" to crow about. This has to be one of the dumbest ones. Absolutely none of you have had Jesus's literal blood on you at any time. JM's point is that "shedding of blood" is euphemistic for death and that Jesus's death is efficacious for all who believe. JM does not disregard the blood, but he has not venerated it to sainthood and made it an object of worship like catholics. Be like MacArthur, not like the Pope.

Thank you for teaching this😊

It's stated that the flesh & blood doesn't inherit the kingdom of God.

The theological beliefs that you have expressed , white conservative fundamentalist evangelicalism is the bedrock of the Klu Klux Klan wing of the Christianity.

Fuck you! Stop chasing clout by hanging on the coattails of MLK. Preach your OWN stuff. You have a whole Bible for that.

There goes another one. Guess he’s being tortured in hell for eternity.

Keep teaching. Trust Jesus not mankind. Blessing.

I WILL SPEAK AS A BELIVERY YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT YOU ASSESSMENT S ON THE DR KING. JUST AS MOST WHITE EVENGELICALS. FULL OF TRIBALISM. FROM EUROPEAN CULTURE NOT SBLE TO SEE THE LOVI,FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT IN OUR CHRISTIAN WALK. FULL OF HATE. YOU THINK THAT ALL REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHTEOUSNESS I GUESS I DONT KNOW BUT.FOR SURE. YOU NEED TO GO TO YPU PRAY CLOSET AN GET YOUR HEART RIGHT WITH GOD. GOS JUDGING THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW FOR HIS CHRISTIAN S FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE P A RT OF WHAT I JUST MENTION.

the question is... does God literally bleed? I can understand both sides of this debate.. Yes we want to accept the fact that Jersus shed His blood for our sins... but what do we mean by this?.. did any human.. actually go to the cross where Jesus was crucified.. and rub the blood from that cross onto their person?.. NO...!.. so this blood.. though it really happened and WAS shed.. Only symbolically gets applied to us.. No one really knows what happened to THAT cross after Jesus' death.. it is never mentioned.. if we cannot find it.. how can we literally take blood off of it?.. Next the question arises.. was it divine blood or human blood..?.. well.. that depends if one believes a being capable of immortality CAN shed literal blood.. Does God.. cry?.. there are Many postulations one can make regarding the attributes of God.. but can God bleed from a cut?.... we have to be realistic here.. both 100% God and 100% Man hung on that cross.. which part would really bleed?.. and another question... EVEN if it WAS human blood ..it was Jesus' blood who was also divine.. . would this blood not be both.. divine AND human?.. I think that Christ's "human".. blood would be considered technically as divine blood as well... by default.. since Jesus was God AND Man..

Your way off sir and lean on your own misunderstanding... Nice try.

John McArthur is a calvinist preacher! Calvinism is a false gospel that is leading many, many people to separation from God! McArthur teaches many errors, not just about the blood! However, the fact that you are calling him out on this is of great importance for the furtherance of the Kingdom of God. Bless you much!

Pastor how many times did you say Blood in this video 😂😂

Amen❤

Are you saying that GOD in Heaven had blood flowing through His veins? What veins? GOD is SPIRIT!

At one point I struggle to recall a Bible verse I thought was appropriate, and didn't remember it until after the sermon. The verse is PSALM 46:10 -- "Be still, and know that I am God."

Hebrews 9:22.