John MacArthur - We are Not Saved by The Blood Of Jesus Christ!

correct the shedding of blood, the death.

 

see #80

 

[/ quote] If someone dies because of something you did and I said their blood is on your hands yet they didn't shed a drop of blood actual blood, what does that mean?

 

yeah, I see your post number 80 and the million other times you pointed to that statement. What he is talking about. It's not that Jesus had to be cut and just shed a couple of drops of blood to save us. No, he had to die a violent and brutal death to save us. That is biblical.

 

so you now saying that what the Bible says about Jesus' shedding His blood on the cross, is it is not literal? Are you now denying that Jesus shed any blood on the cross? your reasoning here is moot!

 

[/ Quote] Where on Earth did I say he didn't shed any blood? Literally, I did not say that. I thought you understood language.

 

PLEASE stop trying to defend JM, when it is very clear that he says that Jesus did not have to bleed to save us! It is very clear in what he says, and yet you and others continue to defend his comments. The majority of Christians commenting on this video, disagree with what MacArthur says!

 

then WHY use that silly example?

 

Colossians 1:20

"and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross"

 

That is your pharisaical, legalistic view of scripture. You are wrong, again.

Johnny Mac is pointing to the truth that any reference in scripture to the shed blood of Christ is a reference of His death, not to His bleeding.

1 Corinthians 11:26, in reference to the Lord’s supper says “for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes”.

Paul doesn’t say we proclaim the Lord’s “bleeding”, we proclaim His death.

The Apostle Paul clearly understood the meaning of the sacrifice of Jesus and the Lord’s supper to memorialize it. Being an expert on the OT Law and sacrifices, Paul would have emphasized the “bleeding” if he thought it important. He did not, because the “bleeding” s always a reference to His death.

That is the truth of scripture, minus your hatred of all things Johnny Mac.

peace to you

 

Probably the majority of Christians who already hate JM in the first place.

 

You didn't even understand my example yet call it silly? Oh brother.

 

There is no sense in getting teary-eyed and mystical about blood. We sing hymns about “There is power in the blood,” and so forth, and we don’t want to get preoccupied with blood. The only importance that the blood of Jesus has is that it shows he died. There is no saving in that blood itself. We cannot say that the very blood of Jesus—His physical blood—is what atones for sin. It is His death that atones for sin. His blood shed was an act of death. So, we do not want to become preoccupied about fantasizing about some mystical blood that is floating around somewhere. It is by the sacrificial offer of Himself—it is by His death—that we are redeemed. Blood shed is only the picture of His death. . . . So, when Jesus died and shed his blood this is no big thing. This is nothing for Israel to get all bent out of shape about.

WE ARE SAVED BY THE SHEDDING OF CHRIST'S BLOOD AND DEATH: BUT JOHN MACARTHUR SAYS OTHERWISE - LLOYD STREETER

 

Ah, I myself have great respect for JM, and have known about his comments on the Blood of Jesus Christ for over 20 years. It is only when I saw this 2018 clip, that it all came back to me. I watch JM quite a lot, and for the record say that I have never considered him to be a "heretic", though I do believe that on this issue, he is teaching "heresy" (unbiblical).

 

Sin demands that someone die and so someone has to die for us or we die in our own sin. Sin demands the payment of blood, so someone must shed blood. So the death of Christ was caused by the seriousness of sin.

John F. MacArthur Jr., John MacArthur Sermon Archive (Panorama City, CA: Grace to You, 2014).

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

 

because it makes zero sense for this present discussion, which is about the actual Blood that Jesus shed on the cross!

 

I just provided proof you take him grossly out of context and project on him something he does not teach.

 

so only the blood that was all that was necessary for savlation, is that your position. Cut Christ, get blood, nothing else. Is that your position?

 

all this shows, that either JM is confused, or does not know what he is on about, like some on here! I again refer you to that clip that you don't like, "Do you think that He (Jesus) had to bleed, no, not to save us". Now address this

 

man, do you like to argue for the sake of it, or cannot understand the English language? which is it? JM is CLEAR, Jesus Christ did not have to bleed to save us. WHAT does this mean, if not what is plainly says?