Back in the 1980’s, when this issue first came out, I wrote Dr. MacArthur to ask him about his position. I received a well-written and kind letter with is explanation, as he has shared repeatedly over the years. He also included a cassette tape with the sermon on it. He never, not once, denied the blood of Christ. The last time this surfaced, I shared a copied of JMac’s letter to me on social media. Yet, did not convince a single critic! Like Evangelist John McCormick once stated, “Some folk’s mind is like cement…Thoroughly mixed and well set.”
It is important to recognize that for the IFB, the wackier the teaching to claim to believe, the more the evidence of faith... because for them faith is a work. They take 1 sentence or 1 word, disregard the context, and say 'I believe it' and if you don't you are a wolf.
My earliest memory in the church is singing Are You Washed In The Blood. We sing Nothing But The Blood, It Will Never Loose It’s Power etc etc - and never once did I think it was the actual physical fluid of the blood of Christ. I always assumed that was just a Roman Catholic thing but I see it’s also an IFB thing as well. Always learn something from your videos Doc. Thank you! Blessings
This video is very well done, Brother Burris. It’s crazy that McNeese can be a preacher for all these years and not correctly get the hypostatic union of Christ’s natures (100% God and 100% Man, no mixing the natures). The early church considered a man to be a heretic to mark and avoid if he got that wrong. Thanks for posting.
I respect that you encourage us to go view the whole of what McNeese said. I don’t need to. There is little McNeese said that can be found in scripture. Here is one thing I’ve discovered about false teaching, “there is a lot of emotional inflection, a lot of conjecture (without calling it such), and a lot of talking. But there are few Bible verses. The ones that get used get taken out of context.”
I can vouch for it my old pastor preached authoritatively that Jesus' blood was all taken up to heaven and placed on the mercy seat. He referenced the Ron Wyatt stuff too. Again, they claim the KJV Bible as their one authoritative standard but then they'll push whatever teaching they want and eisegete it into the text. And then demonize a man who honestly exposits the scripture verse by verse. Ok, off my soap box. Keep up the good work brother.
M.R. Dehann in a book called, "The Chemistry of the Blood" is where this teaching originated from. I disagree with MacArthur and the creator of this video-but disagree with those who also teach Christ had to gather his blood to take up to heaven and sprinkle the mercy seat in heaven. I would say this is a bit docetic...too far for me to go. I became a Fundamental Baptist in 1990 when all this was raging.
And in the most egregious cases they'll actually bash a rendering from a different translation simply because they aren't able to fit their eisegesis into it.
@@curtthegamer934 Correct if you are writing about IFB's. Cool thing was when I became IFB is when I also discovered Lordship Salvation through MacArthur. Did not know I was supposed to hate him. When going to a IFB Bible College-one Sunday I decided to go visit his church.Besides the experience-wanted to ask about botth issues (Blood and Lordship Salvation). He was not there so talked to some of the elders-they squared me away with a couple books and four tapes where he answers the blood of Christ and Lordship Salvation.
The more I think on this, the more I again am confronted with the reality of a group more concerned with theatrics and working up the emotions and response of the crowd than serious dedication to doctrinal theology. The theatrics and crowd revving are essential to them because there is a serious deficiency in doctrine. It is a culture of "close your Bibles and listen to me". 1 minute of reading the text and 45 minutes of what you see in the video. I am not condemning anyone's heart or motives, yet I find this a serious deficiency in much preaching and the overall mindset of evoking an emotional response to a performance rather than a dedication to faithful exposition.
Thank you Pastor, I don’t agree with many things Pastor John McArthur teaches. But I have to say this is crystal clear, McArthur didn’t say anything outside within Orthodoxy here. There is a lot to learn and reflect from this. Everyone have a blessed day.
I used to preach in a style like Mcneese. The whole time the Holy Spirit was convincing me to be myself, don’t perform, be honest with your tone and mannerisms. I’m thankful for the sanctifying life changing Grace of God.
I agree with you on His death,but is not the blood of Christ different then any other. It took the perfect blood of the perfect Lamb to die for our sins. It was His death that saved but it was the blood that made Him the perfect sacrifice
He was a man with human blood. The blood is part of the flesh. He lived a perfect, sinless life. But that perfection isn't contained in his blood, it's contained in His entire nature and being. His blood sacrifice was perfect, not because of some special property in his blood that distinguished it from other men. His blood sacrifice was perfect because of his sinless nature. But He was still God robed in HUMAN flesh. God is a spirit, without blood. That's the whole reason he became a man, so that he could become a bloody sacrifice for sin
Soul Purified Now in Christ's Blood ! Realize you are a sinner being sorry. Sin is lying, evil thoughts, lust,etc. Therefore, do not trust in your own works to go to heaven because you realize, being a sinner, you cannot offer the perfect blood sacrifice that God requires to pay for sin. Instead, believe, meaning fully trust, that in Christ's love for you, on the cross, His one perfect blood sacrifice, when Christ bled, suffered and died, in your place, paid for your sins in full, past, present and future ! Believe that Jesus rose from the dead ! Believe Jesus is God Almighty, God the Son, alive for evermore ! And believe that the sinless blood of Jesus Christ is what cleanses you from all sin, which purifies your soul ! Then the Lord Jesus will forgive you,save you from hell and give you eternal life ! And you will be sealed with the Holy Spirit who will dwell within you forever! And thank Jesus ! Rom.3:25,5:8,9,10:9, Is.53:5,6, II Cor.5:21, Ephes.1:7,13,4:30, Heb.10:14,38,39, I John 1:7, 5:7,13,20
WOW. About 45 minutes in this became a real brain bender. I was gobsmacked! What does McNeese do with John 19:30 where Jesus said, “It is finished”? What does “finished” mean?
Oh the rich irony if one were to apply the use of the supposed law of first mention for blood in Gen. 4:10. Clearly the literal blood of Abel, slain by Cain and soaked into the earth did not somehow form itself post-mortem in such a way that it itself "crieth" out to God. We should rather understand that the actual blood of Abel spilled upon his murder is used as the literary device to graphically impress upon the hearer the ongoing guilt of Cain for the horror of his murdering his brother, not for having spilled his blood. This literary use is being missed and as a result has men claiming the role of pastor/teacher falling into Christological heresy. Heresy which has been known and rebuked going as far back as 325AD. I agree with your questions for the seminaries at the end and echo the concern, what are they teaching? If the guy in the video you showed is representative, it looks like they are teaching preachers to model Rick Flair or Michael Buffer rather than how to preach the text, to know their theology and church history, or to understand hermeneutics.
EW Bullinger said the same thing as MacArthur and addressed this matter long ago before 1900: "In the New Testament, the expression "the blood of Christ" is the figure Metalepsis; because first the "blood" is put (by Synecdoche) for blood-shedding: i.e., the death of Christ, as distinct from His life; and then His death is put for the perfect satisfaction made by it, for all the merits of the atonement effected by it: i.e., it means not merely the actual blood corpuscles, neither does it mean His death as an act, but the merits of the atonement effected by it and associated with it. Hosea 14:2 (3).-"So will we render the calves of our lips." Here, "calves" are put by Metonymy (of Subject) for sacrifices, and then, by another Metonymy, these sacrifices are put for the confession and praises rendered. See under Metonymy, pages 574 and 575. Romans 3:25.-"Through faith in his blood": i.e., through faith in the merits of the atonement accomplished by it. Romans 5:9.-"Being now justified by his blood": i.e., his atonement. Ephesians 1:7.-"Redemption through his blood": i.e., through the merits of His atoning death. Ephesians 2:13.-"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ": i.e., by His death, not by His life: yet not by His death alone, but by the atonement made in His obedient act in dying for His people. 1 John 1:7.-"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." Here, when it is a question of "walking in the light," the saved sinner is reminded of that which put him there and which alone can keep him there. Whereas, in chapter 2:1 where it is a question of sin ("If any man sin"), the sinful child is reminded, not of the blood, but of the Father, with whom Christ, the righteous One, is the Advocate, to show that relationship has not been broken.... We lose nothing of the facts, but gain immensely as to their meaning, when we understand that, by Metalepsis, "blood" is put for death, and "death" for the atonement made by it and all its infinite merits. In like manner "the Cross" is put first for the crucifixion as an act, or for Him who was crucified thereon: and then this is put for the resulting merits of His atonements procured thereby. 1 Corinthians 1:17-18.-"The preaching of the cross." Paul did not preach the cross, nor did he speak merely of the crucifixion (2:2), but of all the blessed results, not only of that death, but of the resurrection also. Galatians 6:14.-"God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ": i.e., not the wooden instrument of death, nor the act of crucifixion; but he gloried in all that this meant for him, all the precious merits of Christ’s atonement and the blessings resulting from it. Colossians 1:20.-"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross." Here, again, "cross" is put for His death, and His death is put for all its meritorious results. It is by forcing the word "cross" into a literal meaning in such passages as the above that the Church of Rome has appeared to have a Scriptural sanction for its reverence for and adoration of "the cross." The reader may easily see where the word "cross" is used literally and historically and where it is used figuratively. If the latter be substituted for the former, not only shall we introduce much error, but we shall lose much of precious Scriptural truth and teaching." (EW Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pg. 610-1) www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/bullinger/m/metalepsis-or-double-metonymy.html
I will say this about the video. I don't think it is heresy one way or the other. I think heresy should be left for people who deny the deity of christ or preach works salvation.
John MacArthur doesn’t de y that at all. Watch the video. Do you really believe that Jesus is still bleeding in Heaven? That’s what MacArthur was refuting.
@@pastorburrisyou removed my biblical comment. According to Hebrews 9 the Lord went to heaven and sprinkled His "worthless human blood" according to John MacArthur, ON THE MERCY SEAT, AFTER His appearance to Mary and telling her not to touch Him for He had not yet ascended to the Father, but He told her to tell the disciples He was ascending to His Father, and whaddaya know, when He appeared to the disciples, He TOLD THOMAS TO TOUCH HIM! I was 17 when the Lord revealed this truth to me as I read about His encounter with Mary after His Resurrection, and His appearance to the disciples, and Hebrews 9. He TRULY DOES conceal things from the wise and learned and reveal thdm to babes. Now, when did He cry out "It is finished!" -- AFTER His death? Nope. BEFORE He died, for His blood had atoned for every. single. sin. You are actually agreeing with apostate Mary Baker Eddy concerning the blood of Christ!!!
Thank you, this is so important, I wish christians could come into an understanding of what scriptures teaches, this confirmed to me some error extant in the church and the catholic theology in one fell swope.
I would be inclined to ask McNeese to show me in scripture where this is found. WOW! Can he even truly be saved teaching this severe heresy? What about his congregation? Is he leading them to Heaven or Hell?
Thank you for this faithful teaching. I have always liked John Macarthur and find him to be one of the most Biblically accurate preachers. I have lately discovered Jonathan Burris and find him solid as well. God bless both John Macarthur and Jonathan Burris.
Just like the Sermon "The napkin is still folded" it makes for some good "Amens" but just isn't biblical. My kid hearing this video from the other room "DAD is that squidward preaching" hahahahah Honestly it's not too far off from spongbob. The theology is about the same.
Pastor Burris what are your views on eternal functional subordination? Since you mentioned that and it's a doctor's I've been wrestling with for a while. I feel like I can see it in Scripture and it makes sense to me but I've heard a lot about it being heresy or near heresy for various reasons and I don't want to fall into heresy, rather I want to lean on the wisdom of the Word and the men of God that have come before us and contemporary ones like yourself.
I don’t think it is heresy and it isn’t something to divide over. It also isn’t something to focus on. It is something for theologians to sit around and discuss to sound smart. I readily admit that there was functional subordination in the incarnation. That is indisputable. I do not believe that this functional subordination is eternal. It was functional so as to fulfill the decree for Christ to come and suffer and raise and to fulfill all righteousness. But, as Jesus prays in John 17, he prays for that glory that he had before and that those that are his will see that glory. I agree with Calvin that for the Son to be God Himself, there cannot be an eternal subordination - even at a functional level. I don’t think the high priestly prayer in John 17 or the glory seen in Revelation demonstrates that. I don’t think the authority with which Christ speaks as YHWH after his resurrection is functionally subordinate. I also do not think we see functional subordination in Genesis 1 in the Creation. Again, this is a noble discussion but it should be confined to speculative conversations. This is more philosophical than it is scriptural since there is no clear scriptural revelation on this subject. I hope that makes some sense.
As the IVP Bible Background Commentary states, "Blood serves as the mechanism for ritual cleansing in Israel-a concept not shared by its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. The blood represented the life or life force of the animal, so the animal had to be killed for the blood to have efficacy." (This note appears at Leviticus 1.5.)
You have to be a pretty dim bulb to focus on His bleeding, rather than His Death. I’m quite certain He cut himself and bled in His 33 years on earth- and that was NOT THE THING. I’m astounded at the ignorance and sheer jealousy of people regarding Johnny Mac. They need to focus on real problems and true heretics, and boy, there are plenty of them out there!!! I’d VEHEMENTLY argue that some of his critics are just that!!!!
The whole Bible points to the blood. It is part of the picture, not the whole picture but a very important part. His blood was sinless unlike Adam’s which got tainted with sin and resulted in his physical death. So if Jesus blood is not tainted with sin what does that mean for him? And if he did not have a biological earthly father to give him dna explain to me how his blood is the exact same as yours and mine? Where is your scripture that says Jesus blood was not special and takes no part in saving us?
What!? An IFB acting catholic? I’m shocked…. Not. I have often said that IFB ideas run so close to the Catholic Church they are mini Catholic church’s.
I'm not and frankly-don't think they are going by Catholicism. M.R. DeHann wrote a book titled, "The Chemistry Of the Blood" is where they got this from. I used to be IFB and was one when this was all the rage. I disagree with MacAr4thur...but this was also a step in the wrong direction and could not go there. When reading about Christ sharing in being flesh and blood. 14 So then, as the children share in flesh and blood, He likewise took part in these, so that through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver those who through fear of death were throughout their lives subject to bondage. 16 For surely He does not help the angels, but He helps the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things it was necessary for Him to be made like His brothers, so that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in the things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself suffered while being tempted, He is able to help those who are being tempted. Modern English Version. Thinline Edition. Lake Mary, FL: Passio, 2014. Print.
Great video Pastor. Leave it to the arminians to rear this nonsensical issue up from the dead. I do not see how this is an issue. If Christ would have died without bleeding, we would still be saved. The Lord predetermined that His Son had to die more specifically crucified.. it's that simple.
I love the fact that you're calling out major IFB preachers and pastors for being false, not to be argumentative, but to be truthful and to expose the truth amidst the wacky hermeneutics of those who have refused to engage in scholarly exegesis. It flies in the face of the idea that the "man of God" cannot be contradicted because he is a preacher/pastor. Men are still fallible and people are realizing that more and more.
Also, I'd be curious your opinion of M.R. DeHaan's book, "The Chemistry of the Blood." It appears to go into that same vein, that is, making too much of literal blood and not enough of the sacrifice that the blood symbolized. EDIT: After further research, it seems that DeHaan's book originated this heresy? Hmmmm.....
I don’t necessarily agree with his statements, but people also have mostly only heard a short clip without the entire context. The longer version of the video explains what he was saying and how he was addressing secular psychology and medication for every problem.
They will also spend one hour defending Arminianism but won't spend an hour defending Calvinism. But I agree with Pastor John on the issue I was quite a heretic if I believed what he believed. But I believe the scripture is clear. 10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
When one "pleads the blood" of Christ is he not just using a metonymy and simply pleading to Christ also? Speaking of the fact we have access to God by the veil of his body and by the blood?...i mean i dont know what SOME may mean when they plead the blood but thats what i always figured it meant
Metonymy. Jesus did not need to bleed, otherwise cutting him open would suffice. Galatians 3:13 reminds us that he became a curse for us. He had to die on the cross (literally, the tree) because everyone hanged on a tree was cursed of God. The Jews charged him with blasphemy. They had to have him killed in a particular way. Blood=death. And it is Jesus' death which saves us, therefore we are saved by blood. Again, metonymy. Jesus spoke of the unleavened bread as his body and the fruit of the vine as his blood - metonymy.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; You're not the answer. Study the word of God, and preach the word. Do you really want to help people? Study study study & go to your church & preach Gods word don't talk about why one man is right & another is wrong regardless. Preach Jesus. To many "preachers" thrive on division. The focus shouldn't be on man.
@pastorburris I don't know you. Therefore, i certainly have no reason to talk "about" you. I did, however, comment on your video. I have no reason to believe that you are trying to do anything other than what you believe to be helping folks &I give respect to you for that. Indeed, we are to be aware of wolves in sheep's clothing. Some of us differ on opinions when the proper time and place to deal with some issues might be. I'll not go into all that. I do make the apology to you that you felt I was talking about you. 🙏
It wouldn’t be entirely unexplainable how God took up the blood of Jesus. In Psalm 18 God the Father came down under the cover of darkness and “rode upon a cherub and did fly”. Why did the Father come down under the cover of darkness when Christ was on the cross?
I have a simple comment where is all your Bible verses that back up that this was no special blood?? That’s right, there are none. But Jesus did say that he had to enter in through his own blood speaking of that heavenly tabernacle. 🤷🏻♂️
Define what you mean by “special blood”. Jesus was wholly human and wholly God. His blood was human blood. Jesus’ blood is significant because of the nature of his person and not by reason of its chemical composition.
Well as you said his blood was sinless he perfected what Adam failed. Adam’s blood was cursed with death as is ours Jesus blood simply is not. And Jesus had no biological earthly father so there again his blood is different. Do you not believe that in heaven everything is eternal? But yet you have failed to proved any Bible for your argument still.
Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Why is this so confusing? Yes, Jesus, had to bleed and die because that is what God chose all the way back at the garden to redeem man. Blood. It always has been the blood and always shall be. MacArthur is certainly wrong here He’s giving far too many what if scenarios instead of just taking the word of God at face value. True Bible believers believe in a full gospel. Complete gospel. The birth life, death, burial, resurrection, and yes, the blood of Jesus Christ was all necessary. Not one element is more important than the other. MacArthur just basically made Jesus out to be like any other man. He’s nothing short of completely wrong. And yes, I am independent fundamental Baptist preacher and will not apologize. And I am not recovering from it either.
You couldn’t be more wrong about both the Hypostatic Union of Christ and the nature of the atonement. MacArthur didn’t diminish the significance of the blood. Try watching the full video. Try reading the article I posted last week. Try listening to MacArthur’s message on the precious blood of Christ. Try listening to the podcast where MacArthur and Austin Duncan go through the entire decades long history of the issue. Your anger is showing.
@@pastorburris I’m actually not angry at all. Can’t tell tone of voice in typing. You’re wrongful judgment and jumping to conclusions is showing. I don’t need to necessarily watch the full video to see he is denying the significance of the blood of Jesus Christ.
He may have other videos and sermons that talk about the blood of Christ, but that just proves he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth, considering the content of the video you posted from him here
Not at all. It means he was dealing with a specific issue. Your previous comment demonstrates your lack of intellectual honesty and also a lack of integrity. What are the odds I can find a three minute clip of your preaching and take you out of context on something and present you as teaching heresy? Do you agree with McNeese that Jesus is still bleeding fresh blood from his wounds from the throne in heaven?
Death is the consequence of sin, not punishment from an angry God. God is not the bloodthirsty Baal whose wrath must be satisfied by the blood of innocents. Adam suffered the consequence of his sin by being cast out from the Presence of God - God is eternal life, and there is no death in Him. Without eternal life, men eventually die. The Last Adam is unlike the First, as He is the Presence of God within the body of a man, not a body within God's Presence. Adam lived so long as He was IN the Presence of God; Jesus lives because He IS the Presence of God. The shed blood of Christ caused His mortal body's death, because life is in the blood. Jesus is the propitiation (substitute) for sin suffered by sinful mankind - because He is without sin, the spotless, sinless Lamb of God, the firstborn of the Redeemed human race that can now be righteously placed back into the Presence of God (where mankind was before the fall), through the implantation, into the Believer, of the Father's own Holy Spirit (distributed through His Son - 1Cor 12:7; John 14:23; Eph 2:18; 2Cor 13:5). The Father and Son share the same Holy Spirit, which is the Presence of God (John 4:24 - God is a Spirit) The confusion is that they don't share a third person, they share one Spirit, and that Holy Spirit is God (2Cor 3:17). The Son inherited eternal life from His Father’s Spirit (“life in Himself”) at conception; while we have inherited death at conception from our father, Adam. Jesus is the substitutionary Sacrifice that God is well pleased in, and does offer to mankind, as the only way back into His Presence and eternal life; He was not an object of appeasement for an angry God. His death was the victory over sin. The “Wrath of God” wasn't placed upon Christ at the Cross. God's Wrath is the second death, the loss of eternal life through unbelief in the offer of eternal life, which is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Acts 17:31 KJV Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
You’re talking about Neo-Calvinism, the TULIP is not the gospel or what Calvinism really is. It is much more robust than that. I recommend reading more confessions of faith of other denominations like the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Lutheran and Anglican Catechisms, or Methodist articles of faith, even classical Pentecostal doctrine that still fall in Orthodoxy and not that third wave neopentecostal movement garbage. I am not a Calvinist but I still consider them my brothers in Christ, They preach the same gospel taught by Arminians, and provisionists, and any other denomination that still believes in the essentials of Christianity and is still within Orthodoxy. We are all more united than you think. Now, McArthur is the worst person to go to, and learn about Calvinism or the doctrine of grace. But I still consider him a brother in Christ. And it saddens me that some Christians preach the TULIP like it’s the gospel, it is not, that is wrong. There are other Baptists and Presbyterian denominations that represent Calvinist Reformed Theology better.
@@Jonathanhdz16 if TULIP does not sum up calvinism, that what are you basing your statement on? i do agree that what you call "neo-calvinism" is different than calvinists of the past, but am confused as to what youre saying about TULIP
@@Jonathanhdz16 I read my Bible and don't go by confessions of faith and I have never read Calvin, yet I still get called a Calvinist. Are you able to explain what Calvinism is vs what Neo-Calvinism is?
You must be absolutely ignorant of the book of Hebrews, Leviticus, Ex 12. I've heard him say the blood of Christ was Human! That's Blasphemy! Acts 20:28. You get your blood from you FATHER NOT your mother!
Blood type is determined by both parents. Jesus’ blood was human blood. It wasn’t divine blood. It did not have magical DNA. Watch the video. You are espousing heresy. Jesus is truly man and truly God. He is not part man and part God. He did not have 50% “God DNA”. I used Hebrews in my defense in the video. You should really watch it again. Repent of this error.
Ok, ok, let’s think for a moment, is there anywhere in the Bible that says McNeese is wrong? I’m no bible expert. Why can’t we just believe that Christ died for us and let it be? 100 different folks will read the Bible, and you’ll get 100 different ideas about the very same 3 line verse whatever it may be. How bout let’s live and let live. I say it’s blue you say purple, at the end of the day, does it really matter? Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins!!! Let it be. Stop acting like children. Step aside. Remember what he did say, control your tongue, it’s YOUR worst enemy. God Bless Everyone!! Amen
Doctrine matters. Yes, I present scripture in the video that refutes his heresy. We are to mark and avoid false teachers, and McNeese is teaching false doctrine in that message.
Leviticus 17:11 KJV - For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Matthew 26:28 KJV - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mark 14:24 KJV - And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Acts 20:28 KJV - Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Romans 3:25 KJV - Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Romans 5:9 KJV - Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Ephesians 1:7 KJV - In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Ephesians 2:13 KJV - But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Colossians 1:14 KJV - In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Colossians 1:20 KJV - And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Hebrews 9:12 KJV - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Hebrews 9:14 KJV - 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? Hebrews 9:22 KJV - And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Hebrews 10:19 KJV - Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 1Pet.1:18“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;” 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot 1 John 1:7 KJV - But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John 5:8 KJV - And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Revelation 1:5 KJV - 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, Revelation 5:9 KJV - And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; Revelation 7:14 KJV - And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Revelation 12:11 KJV - And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. The Bible says what it says, and It doesn't matter who believes it. Period.
The Bible contains many figures of speech. One such figure of speech is metonymy. To miss this point is to miss what the Bible says when it "says what it says."
Am going to have to disagree with brother MacArthur on this one. When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper-he spoke about how the bread will represent his body broken on our behalf. Strangely, he also spoke of the fruit of the vine representing his blood shed for many for the remission of sins. Christ saw fit to include his shed blood as to how he died. Since Christ is the one who put these together-if he really did not shed his blood to save people-than can’t we say his body broken did not save anyone either? Use all the hermeneutical tricks that you want in order to get to your interpretation of the blood of Christ-they do not defeat what is plainly taught in the scriptures. Yes, I intended for this to be derogatory. Why? This is too important to just lay down on. I have no problem affirming that when the blood of Christ is spoken of could represent more than just his shed blood in his death. To state Jesus did not die by bleeding is a gross insult to that which Christ did...borderline perversion. 27 Then He took the cup, and after He gave thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” 1
If you believe that Christ taught the fruit of the vine represents His blood and that Christ had to literally shed His blood on the cross, then you're in agreement with John MacArthur. He does not deny the blood as necessary for salvation. Christ had to shed his blood as our sacrifice and die in order to make atonement available, that's what John MacArthur teaches.
If David said the body of Christ is the Holy One (which is God) and Peter also agreed that his body that was in a grave was the Holy One in Acts 2: 27. Would they not both be heretics and false prophets?
@pastorburris I have been reading the Bible and sitting under great preaching by Independent Baptist preachers for over 25 years . I have never heard it preached that Jesus is still seated on the mercy seat, bleeding for man's sin. I have read through the Bible many, many times. I've never seen it. Jesus died and bleed once. It is a shame that you are lumping IFB into the same narrow-minded thinking that you are
Did you even watch this video? That’s exactly what popular IFB pastor Jonathan McNeese says in this video. Why are you angry at me for telling the truth about his false teaching???
Back in the 1980’s, when this issue first came out, I wrote Dr. MacArthur to ask him about his position. I received a well-written and kind letter with is explanation, as he has shared repeatedly over the years. He also included a cassette tape with the sermon on it. He never, not once, denied the blood of Christ.
The last time this surfaced, I shared a copied of JMac’s letter to me on social media. Yet, did not convince a single critic! Like Evangelist John McCormick once stated, “Some folk’s mind is like cement…Thoroughly mixed and well set.”
It is important to recognize that for the IFB, the wackier the teaching to claim to believe, the more the evidence of faith... because for them faith is a work. They take 1 sentence or 1 word, disregard the context, and say 'I believe it' and if you don't you are a wolf.
My earliest memory in the church is singing Are You Washed In The Blood. We sing Nothing But The Blood, It Will Never Loose It’s Power etc etc - and never once did I think it was the actual physical fluid of the blood of Christ. I always assumed that was just a Roman Catholic thing but I see it’s also an IFB thing as well. Always learn something from your videos Doc. Thank you! Blessings
Same
I was at this service. Im sure my face told on me the entire time.
This video is very well done, Brother Burris. It’s crazy that McNeese can be a preacher for all these years and not correctly get the hypostatic union of Christ’s natures (100% God and 100% Man, no mixing the natures). The early church considered a man to be a heretic to mark and avoid if he got that wrong. Thanks for posting.
I respect that you encourage us to go view the whole of what McNeese said. I don’t need to. There is little McNeese said that can be found in scripture.
Here is one thing I’ve discovered about false teaching, “there is a lot of emotional inflection, a lot of conjecture (without calling it such), and a lot of talking. But there are few Bible verses. The ones that get used get taken out of context.”
I can vouch for it my old pastor preached authoritatively that Jesus' blood was all taken up to heaven and placed on the mercy seat. He referenced the Ron Wyatt stuff too. Again, they claim the KJV Bible as their one authoritative standard but then they'll push whatever teaching they want and eisegete it into the text. And then demonize a man who honestly exposits the scripture verse by verse. Ok, off my soap box. Keep up the good work brother.
M.R. Dehann in a book called, "The Chemistry of the Blood" is where this teaching originated from. I disagree with MacArthur and the creator of this video-but disagree with those who also teach Christ had to gather his blood to take up to heaven and sprinkle the mercy seat in heaven. I would say this is a bit docetic...too far for me to go. I became a Fundamental Baptist in 1990 when all this was raging.
And in the most egregious cases they'll actually bash a rendering from a different translation simply because they aren't able to fit their eisegesis into it.
@@curtthegamer934 Correct if you are writing about IFB's. Cool thing was when I became IFB is when I also discovered Lordship Salvation through MacArthur. Did not know I was supposed to hate him. When going to a IFB Bible College-one Sunday I decided to go visit his church.Besides the experience-wanted to ask about botth issues (Blood and Lordship Salvation).
He was not there so talked to some of the elders-they squared me away with a couple books and four tapes where he answers the blood of Christ and Lordship Salvation.
@@curtthegamer934 🎯
Cult
The more I think on this, the more I again am confronted with the reality of a group more concerned with theatrics and working up the emotions and response of the crowd than serious dedication to doctrinal theology. The theatrics and crowd revving are essential to them because there is a serious deficiency in doctrine. It is a culture of "close your Bibles and listen to me". 1 minute of reading the text and 45 minutes of what you see in the video. I am not condemning anyone's heart or motives, yet I find this a serious deficiency in much preaching and the overall mindset of evoking an emotional response to a performance rather than a dedication to faithful exposition.
Thank you Pastor, I don’t agree with many things Pastor John McArthur teaches. But I have to say this is crystal clear, McArthur didn’t say anything outside within Orthodoxy here. There is a lot to learn and reflect from this. Everyone have a blessed day.
MacArthurs theology is spot on as usual. Best expository preacher of this generation.
I used to preach in a style like Mcneese. The whole time the Holy Spirit was convincing me to be myself, don’t perform, be honest with your tone and mannerisms. I’m thankful for the sanctifying life changing Grace of God.
If ifb preachers couldn't perform there would be no ifb preachers. Hey man! Is everybody ok???
I agree with you on His death,but is not the blood of Christ different then any other. It took the perfect blood of the perfect Lamb to die for our sins. It was His death that saved but it was the blood that made Him the perfect sacrifice
He was a man with human blood. The blood is part of the flesh. He lived a perfect, sinless life. But that perfection isn't contained in his blood, it's contained in His entire nature and being. His blood sacrifice was perfect, not because of some special property in his blood that distinguished it from other men. His blood sacrifice was perfect because of his sinless nature. But He was still God robed in HUMAN flesh. God is a spirit, without blood. That's the whole reason he became a man, so that he could become a bloody sacrifice for sin
Soul Purified Now in Christ's Blood ! Realize you are a sinner being sorry. Sin is lying, evil thoughts, lust,etc. Therefore, do not trust in your own works to go to heaven because you realize, being a sinner, you cannot offer the perfect blood sacrifice that God requires to pay for sin. Instead, believe, meaning fully trust, that in Christ's love for you, on the cross, His one perfect blood sacrifice, when Christ bled, suffered and died, in your place, paid for your sins in full, past, present and future ! Believe that Jesus rose from the dead ! Believe Jesus is God Almighty, God the Son, alive for evermore ! And believe that the sinless blood of Jesus Christ is what cleanses you from all sin, which purifies your soul ! Then the Lord Jesus will forgive you,save you from hell and give you eternal life ! And you will be sealed with the Holy Spirit who will dwell within you forever! And thank Jesus ! Rom.3:25,5:8,9,10:9, Is.53:5,6, II Cor.5:21, Ephes.1:7,13,4:30, Heb.10:14,38,39, I John 1:7, 5:7,13,20
WOW. About 45 minutes in this became a real brain bender. I was gobsmacked! What does McNeese do with John 19:30 where Jesus said, “It is finished”? What does “finished” mean?
Oh the rich irony if one were to apply the use of the supposed law of first mention for blood in Gen. 4:10. Clearly the literal blood of Abel, slain by Cain and soaked into the earth did not somehow form itself post-mortem in such a way that it itself "crieth" out to God. We should rather understand that the actual blood of Abel spilled upon his murder is used as the literary device to graphically impress upon the hearer the ongoing guilt of Cain for the horror of his murdering his brother, not for having spilled his blood. This literary use is being missed and as a result has men claiming the role of pastor/teacher falling into Christological heresy. Heresy which has been known and rebuked going as far back as 325AD. I agree with your questions for the seminaries at the end and echo the concern, what are they teaching? If the guy in the video you showed is representative, it looks like they are teaching preachers to model Rick Flair or Michael Buffer rather than how to preach the text, to know their theology and church history, or to understand hermeneutics.
EW Bullinger said the same thing as MacArthur and addressed this matter long ago before 1900:
"In the New Testament, the expression "the blood of Christ" is the figure Metalepsis; because first the "blood" is put (by Synecdoche) for blood-shedding: i.e., the death of Christ, as distinct from His life; and then His death is put for the perfect satisfaction made by it, for all the merits of the atonement effected by it: i.e., it means not merely the actual blood corpuscles, neither does it mean His death as an act, but the merits of the atonement effected by it and associated with it.
Hosea 14:2 (3).-"So will we render the calves of our lips." Here, "calves" are put by Metonymy (of Subject) for sacrifices, and then, by another Metonymy, these sacrifices are put for the confession and praises rendered. See under Metonymy, pages 574 and 575.
Romans 3:25.-"Through faith in his blood": i.e., through faith in the merits of the atonement accomplished by it.
Romans 5:9.-"Being now justified by his blood": i.e., his atonement.
Ephesians 1:7.-"Redemption through his blood": i.e., through the merits of His atoning death.
Ephesians 2:13.-"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ": i.e., by His death, not by His life: yet not by His death alone, but by the atonement made in His obedient act in dying for His people.
1 John 1:7.-"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." Here, when it is a question of "walking in the light," the saved sinner is reminded of that which put him there and which alone can keep him there. Whereas, in chapter 2:1 where it is a question of sin ("If any man sin"), the sinful child is reminded, not of the blood, but of the Father, with whom Christ, the righteous One, is the Advocate, to show that relationship has not been broken....
We lose nothing of the facts, but gain immensely as to their meaning, when we understand that, by Metalepsis, "blood" is put for death, and "death" for the atonement made by it and all its infinite merits.
In like manner "the Cross" is put first for the crucifixion as an act, or for Him who was crucified thereon: and then this is put for the resulting merits of His atonements procured thereby.
1 Corinthians 1:17-18.-"The preaching of the cross." Paul did not preach the cross, nor did he speak merely of the crucifixion (2:2), but of all the blessed results, not only of that death, but of the resurrection also.
Galatians 6:14.-"God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ": i.e., not the wooden instrument of death, nor the act of crucifixion; but he gloried in all that this meant for him, all the precious merits of Christ’s atonement and the blessings resulting from it.
Colossians 1:20.-"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross." Here, again, "cross" is put for His death, and His death is put for all its meritorious results.
It is by forcing the word "cross" into a literal meaning in such passages as the above that the Church of Rome has appeared to have a Scriptural sanction for its reverence for and adoration of "the cross."
The reader may easily see where the word "cross" is used literally and historically and where it is used figuratively. If the latter be substituted for the former, not only shall we introduce much error, but we shall lose much of precious Scriptural truth and teaching." (EW Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pg. 610-1) www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/bullinger/m/metalepsis-or-double-metonymy.html
I will say this about the video. I don't think it is heresy one way or the other. I think heresy should be left for people who deny the deity of christ or preach works salvation.
So you're the arbiter 😅😅😅
McNeese triggers me because he is the literal embodiment of your stock IFB preacher with the way he sounds.
That voice is something else isn’t it? 😅
Without the shedding of blood , there is no redemption for sin. The precious blood of the lamb.
Behold , The Lamb of God. IT IS WRITTEN.
John MacArthur doesn’t de y that at all. Watch the video. Do you really believe that Jesus is still bleeding in Heaven? That’s what MacArthur was refuting.
@@pastorburrisyou removed my biblical comment. According to Hebrews 9 the Lord went to heaven and sprinkled His "worthless human blood" according to John MacArthur, ON THE MERCY SEAT, AFTER His appearance to Mary and telling her not to touch Him for He had not yet ascended to the Father, but He told her to tell the disciples He was ascending to His Father, and whaddaya know, when He appeared to the disciples, He TOLD THOMAS TO TOUCH HIM! I was 17 when the Lord revealed this truth to me as I read about His encounter with Mary after His Resurrection, and His appearance to the disciples, and Hebrews 9. He TRULY DOES conceal things from the wise and learned and reveal thdm to babes.
Now, when did He cry out "It is finished!" -- AFTER His death? Nope. BEFORE He died, for His blood had atoned for every. single. sin. You are actually agreeing with apostate Mary Baker Eddy concerning the blood of Christ!!!
God bless you brother,they need to get over themselves and start reaching the lost
Thank you, this is so important, I wish christians could come into an understanding of what scriptures teaches, this confirmed to me some error extant in the church and the catholic theology in one fell swope.
I would be inclined to ask McNeese to show me in scripture where this is found. WOW! Can he even truly be saved teaching this severe heresy? What about his congregation? Is he leading them to Heaven or Hell?
Thank you for this faithful teaching. I have always liked John Macarthur and find him to be one of the most Biblically accurate preachers. I have lately discovered Jonathan Burris and find him solid as well. God bless both John Macarthur and Jonathan Burris.
MacArthur is definitely correct.
Just like the Sermon "The napkin is still folded" it makes for some good "Amens" but just isn't biblical.
My kid hearing this video from the other room "DAD is that squidward preaching" hahahahah Honestly it's not too far off from spongbob. The theology is about the same.
Thank you for exposing this heresy.
Pastor Burris what are your views on eternal functional subordination? Since you mentioned that and it's a doctor's I've been wrestling with for a while. I feel like I can see it in Scripture and it makes sense to me but I've heard a lot about it being heresy or near heresy for various reasons and I don't want to fall into heresy, rather I want to lean on the wisdom of the Word and the men of God that have come before us and contemporary ones like yourself.
I don’t think it is heresy and it isn’t something to divide over. It also isn’t something to focus on. It is something for theologians to sit around and discuss to sound smart. I readily admit that there was functional subordination in the incarnation. That is indisputable. I do not believe that this functional subordination is eternal. It was functional so as to fulfill the decree for Christ to come and suffer and raise and to fulfill all righteousness. But, as Jesus prays in John 17, he prays for that glory that he had before and that those that are his will see that glory. I agree with Calvin that for the Son to be God Himself, there cannot be an eternal subordination - even at a functional level. I don’t think the high priestly prayer in John 17 or the glory seen in Revelation demonstrates that. I don’t think the authority with which Christ speaks as YHWH after his resurrection is functionally subordinate. I also do not think we see functional subordination in Genesis 1 in the Creation.
Again, this is a noble discussion but it should be confined to speculative conversations. This is more philosophical than it is scriptural since there is no clear scriptural revelation on this subject. I hope that makes some sense.
Wow! Thank you for posting this. I have actually never heard something like this taught in person, but wow. This is pure fantasy and even heresy.
As the IVP Bible Background Commentary states, "Blood serves as the mechanism for ritual cleansing in Israel-a concept not shared by its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. The blood represented the life or life force of the animal, so the animal had to be killed for the blood to have efficacy." (This note appears at Leviticus 1.5.)
My shoulders are sore just watching McNeese. He belongs in WWF, not the pulpit.
Good stuff mr. burris.
You have to be a pretty dim bulb to focus on His bleeding, rather than His Death. I’m quite certain He cut himself and bled in His 33 years on earth- and that was NOT THE THING. I’m astounded at the ignorance and sheer jealousy of people regarding Johnny Mac. They need to focus on real problems and true heretics, and boy, there are plenty of them out there!!! I’d VEHEMENTLY argue that some of his critics are just that!!!!
Dim bulb. Sums up the ifb cult.
The whole Bible points to the blood. It is part of the picture, not the whole picture but a very important part. His blood was sinless unlike Adam’s which got tainted with sin and resulted in his physical death. So if Jesus blood is not tainted with sin what does that mean for him? And if he did not have a biological earthly father to give him dna explain to me how his blood is the exact same as yours and mine? Where is your scripture that says Jesus blood was not special and takes no part in saving us?
What!? An IFB acting catholic? I’m shocked…. Not. I have often said that IFB ideas run so close to the Catholic Church they are mini Catholic church’s.
I'm not and frankly-don't think they are going by Catholicism. M.R. DeHann wrote a book titled, "The Chemistry Of the Blood" is where they got this from. I used to be IFB and was one when this was all the rage. I disagree with MacAr4thur...but this was also a step in the wrong direction and could not go there. When reading about Christ sharing in being flesh and blood.
14 So then, as the children share in flesh and blood, He likewise took part in these, so that through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and deliver those who through fear of death were throughout their lives subject to bondage.
16 For surely He does not help the angels, but He helps the seed of Abraham.
17 Therefore, in all things it was necessary for Him to be made like His brothers, so that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in the things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.
18 For since He Himself suffered while being tempted, He is able to help those who are being tempted.
Modern English Version. Thinline Edition. Lake Mary, FL: Passio, 2014. Print.
AMEN,,, TRUTH
Great video Pastor. Leave it to the arminians to rear this nonsensical issue up from the dead. I do not see how this is an issue. If Christ would have died without bleeding, we would still be saved. The Lord predetermined that His Son had to die more specifically crucified.. it's that simple.
1 John 5:8 KJV
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Love that verse. Out of curiosity, would you mind elaborating on what you feel that verse offers to this conversation?
I love the fact that you're calling out major IFB preachers and pastors for being false, not to be argumentative, but to be truthful and to expose the truth amidst the wacky hermeneutics of those who have refused to engage in scholarly exegesis. It flies in the face of the idea that the "man of God" cannot be contradicted because he is a preacher/pastor. Men are still fallible and people are realizing that more and more.
Also, I'd be curious your opinion of M.R. DeHaan's book, "The Chemistry of the Blood." It appears to go into that same vein, that is, making too much of literal blood and not enough of the sacrifice that the blood symbolized.
EDIT: After further research, it seems that DeHaan's book originated this heresy? Hmmmm.....
I agree with you but explain what does it mean when it says the incorruptible blood of Christ. That will settle it.
What is your opinion on MacArthurs comments regarding PTSD, and counseling?
I don’t necessarily agree with his statements, but people also have mostly only heard a short clip without the entire context. The longer version of the video explains what he was saying and how he was addressing secular psychology and medication for every problem.
Love your eyes express!!
They will also spend one hour defending Arminianism but won't spend an hour defending Calvinism. But I agree with Pastor John on the issue I was quite a heretic if I believed what he believed. But I believe the scripture is clear. 10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
When one "pleads the blood" of Christ is he not just using a metonymy and simply pleading to Christ also? Speaking of the fact we have access to God by the veil of his body and by the blood?...i mean i dont know what SOME may mean when they plead the blood but thats what i always figured it meant
Metonymy would have been a better word than euphemism.
Yes! That’s it!
That's a very useful term to know when discussing how baptism saves, too.
MacArthur correct as usual. Ifb wrong as usual.
Excellent
God purchased God's Church with God's blood. It's irrefutable. Acts 20:28.
Correct. And blood means death. Which was thoroughly explained in the video.
But not only his blood. Else, his circumcision would have satisfied the wrath of God.
Metonymy. Jesus did not need to bleed, otherwise cutting him open would suffice. Galatians 3:13 reminds us that he became a curse for us. He had to die on the cross (literally, the tree) because everyone hanged on a tree was cursed of God. The Jews charged him with blasphemy. They had to have him killed in a particular way. Blood=death. And it is Jesus' death which saves us, therefore we are saved by blood. Again, metonymy. Jesus spoke of the unleavened bread as his body and the fruit of the vine as his blood - metonymy.
*Jesus walking along the road one day, steps in a thorn* "guys, you're all forgiven. That's it. It is finished." *Shrugs His shoulders." 😂
Ok…can you expound Col 1:14 and Rev 12 :11…..
It is Naturalism
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
You're not the answer. Study the word of God, and preach the word. Do you really want to help people? Study study study & go to your church & preach Gods word don't talk about why one man is right & another is wrong regardless. Preach Jesus. To many "preachers" thrive on division. The focus shouldn't be on man.
Aren’t you dividing now by talking about me? Are we not told to mark and avoid false teachers?
@pastorburris I don't know you. Therefore, i certainly have no reason to talk "about" you. I did, however, comment on your video.
I have no reason to believe that you are trying to do anything other than what you believe to be helping folks &I give respect to you for that.
Indeed, we are to be aware of wolves in sheep's clothing. Some of us differ on opinions when the proper time and place to deal with some issues might be. I'll not go into all that.
I do make the apology to you that you felt I was talking about you. 🙏
It wouldn’t be entirely unexplainable how God took up the blood of Jesus. In Psalm 18 God the Father came down under the cover of darkness and “rode upon a cherub and did fly”. Why did the Father come down under the cover of darkness when Christ was on the cross?
I have a simple comment where is all your Bible verses that back up that this was no special blood?? That’s right, there are none. But Jesus did say that he had to enter in through his own blood speaking of that heavenly tabernacle. 🤷🏻♂️
Define what you mean by “special blood”. Jesus was wholly human and wholly God. His blood was human blood. Jesus’ blood is significant because of the nature of his person and not by reason of its chemical composition.
Well as you said his blood was sinless he perfected what Adam failed. Adam’s blood was cursed with death as is ours Jesus blood simply is not. And Jesus had no biological earthly father so there again his blood is different. Do you not believe that in heaven everything is eternal? But yet you have failed to proved any Bible for your argument still.
I think your name fits you well. Overopinionated
Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Why is this so confusing? Yes, Jesus, had to bleed and die because that is what God chose all the way back at the garden to redeem man. Blood. It always has been the blood and always shall be. MacArthur is certainly wrong here
He’s giving far too many what if scenarios instead of just taking the word of God at face value.
True Bible believers believe in a full gospel. Complete gospel. The birth life, death, burial, resurrection, and yes, the blood of Jesus Christ was all necessary. Not one element is more important than the other.
MacArthur just basically made Jesus out to be like any other man. He’s nothing short of completely wrong.
And yes, I am independent fundamental Baptist preacher and will not apologize. And I am not recovering from it either.
You couldn’t be more wrong about both the Hypostatic Union of Christ and the nature of the atonement. MacArthur didn’t diminish the significance of the blood. Try watching the full video. Try reading the article I posted last week. Try listening to MacArthur’s message on the precious blood of Christ. Try listening to the podcast where MacArthur and Austin Duncan go through the entire decades long history of the issue.
Your anger is showing.
@@pastorburris I’m actually not angry at all. Can’t tell tone of voice in typing.
You’re wrongful judgment and jumping to conclusions is showing. I don’t need to necessarily watch the full video to see he is denying the significance of the blood of Jesus Christ.
He may have other videos and sermons that talk about the blood of Christ, but that just proves he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth, considering the content of the video you posted from him here
Proverbs 18:13 He who responds with a word before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.
Not at all. It means he was dealing with a specific issue. Your previous comment demonstrates your lack of intellectual honesty and also a lack of integrity. What are the odds I can find a three minute clip of your preaching and take you out of context on something and present you as teaching heresy?
Do you agree with McNeese that Jesus is still bleeding fresh blood from his wounds from the throne in heaven?
Death is the consequence of sin, not punishment from an angry God. God is not the bloodthirsty Baal whose wrath must be satisfied by the blood of innocents. Adam suffered the consequence of his sin by being cast out from the Presence of God - God is eternal life, and there is no death in Him. Without eternal life, men eventually die. The Last Adam is unlike the First, as He is the Presence of God within the body of a man, not a body within God's Presence.
Adam lived so long as He was IN the Presence of God; Jesus lives because He IS the Presence of God.
The shed blood of Christ caused His mortal body's death, because life is in the blood. Jesus is the propitiation (substitute) for sin suffered by sinful mankind - because He is without sin, the spotless, sinless Lamb of God, the firstborn of the Redeemed human race that can now be righteously placed back into the Presence of God (where mankind was before the fall), through the implantation, into the Believer, of the Father's own Holy Spirit (distributed through His Son - 1Cor 12:7; John 14:23; Eph 2:18; 2Cor 13:5).
The Father and Son share the same Holy Spirit, which is the Presence of God (John 4:24 - God is a Spirit)
The confusion is that they don't share a third person, they share one Spirit, and that Holy Spirit is God (2Cor 3:17). The Son inherited eternal life from His Father’s Spirit (“life in Himself”) at conception; while we have inherited death at conception from our father, Adam.
Jesus is the substitutionary Sacrifice that God is well pleased in, and does offer to mankind, as the only way back into His Presence and eternal life; He was not an object of appeasement for an angry God. His death was the victory over sin. The “Wrath of God” wasn't placed upon Christ at the Cross. God's Wrath is the second death, the loss of eternal life through unbelief in the offer of eternal life, which is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Acts 17:31 KJV
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Jmac isn't a nicene creed Christian 😅😅😅
I'm more concerned about his calvanist teachings, which has crept into so many churches.
They are sneaky .
You’re talking about Neo-Calvinism, the TULIP is not the gospel or what Calvinism really is. It is much more robust than that. I recommend reading more confessions of faith of other denominations like the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Lutheran and Anglican Catechisms, or Methodist articles of faith, even classical Pentecostal doctrine that still fall in Orthodoxy and not that third wave neopentecostal movement garbage. I am not a Calvinist but I still consider them my brothers in Christ, They preach the same gospel taught by Arminians, and provisionists, and any other denomination that still believes in the essentials of Christianity and is still within Orthodoxy. We are all more united than you think.
Now, McArthur is the worst person to go to, and learn about Calvinism or the doctrine of grace. But I still consider him a brother in Christ. And it saddens me that some Christians preach the TULIP like it’s the gospel, it is not, that is wrong. There are other Baptists and Presbyterian denominations that represent Calvinist Reformed Theology better.
@@Jonathanhdz16 if TULIP does not sum up calvinism, that what are you basing your statement on? i do agree that what you call "neo-calvinism" is different than calvinists of the past, but am confused as to what youre saying about TULIP
@@Jonathanhdz16or just read the Bible🤷♂️
Can you be more specific? John Macarthur backs up everything he says with scripture.
@@Jonathanhdz16 I read my Bible and don't go by confessions of faith and I have never read Calvin, yet I still get called a Calvinist. Are you able to explain what Calvinism is vs what Neo-Calvinism is?
You must be absolutely ignorant of the book of Hebrews, Leviticus, Ex 12. I've heard him say the blood of Christ was Human! That's Blasphemy! Acts 20:28. You get your blood from you FATHER NOT your mother!
Blood type is determined by both parents. Jesus’ blood was human blood. It wasn’t divine blood. It did not have magical DNA. Watch the video. You are espousing heresy. Jesus is truly man and truly God. He is not part man and part God. He did not have 50% “God DNA”. I used Hebrews in my defense in the video. You should really watch it again. Repent of this error.
Ok, ok, let’s think for a moment, is there anywhere in the Bible that says McNeese is wrong? I’m no bible expert. Why can’t we just believe that Christ died for us and let it be? 100 different folks will read the Bible, and you’ll get 100 different ideas about the very same 3 line verse whatever it may be.
How bout let’s live and let live. I say it’s blue you say purple, at the end of the day, does it really matter?
Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins!!!
Let it be. Stop acting like children. Step aside. Remember what he did say, control your tongue, it’s YOUR worst enemy.
God Bless Everyone!! Amen
Doctrine matters. Yes, I present scripture in the video that refutes his heresy. We are to mark and avoid false teachers, and McNeese is teaching false doctrine in that message.
Leviticus 17:11 KJV - For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Matthew 26:28 KJV - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mark 14:24 KJV - And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Acts 20:28 KJV - Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Romans 3:25 KJV - Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 5:9 KJV - Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Ephesians 1:7 KJV - In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Ephesians 2:13 KJV - But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Colossians 1:14 KJV - In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Colossians 1:20 KJV - And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Hebrews 9:12 KJV - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Hebrews 9:14 KJV - 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?
Hebrews 9:22 KJV - And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 10:19 KJV - Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
1Pet.1:18“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;”
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot
1 John 1:7 KJV - But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1 John 5:8 KJV - And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Revelation 1:5 KJV - 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,
Revelation 5:9 KJV - And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Revelation 7:14 KJV - And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 12:11 KJV - And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
The Bible says what it says, and It doesn't matter who believes it. Period.
The Bible contains many figures of speech. One such figure of speech is metonymy. To miss this point is to miss what the Bible says when it "says what it says."
So, Jesus didn’t have to die? He just had to prick his finger, push out a drop of blood, and we could have been saved? If only God had known …
First John 1:7 a figure of speech????...hmmmm@@MAMoreno
@toddstevens9667 because I put up scripture I'm saying he didn't have to die?...are you arguing with ME or the Bible?
@@markewheeler4052Nope. I love those verses. Just ignore me. I plead temporary insanity 🤪
Am going to have to disagree with brother MacArthur on this one.
When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper-he spoke about how the bread will represent his body broken on our behalf. Strangely, he also spoke of the fruit of the vine representing his blood shed for many for the remission of sins. Christ saw fit to include his shed blood as to how he died. Since Christ is the one who put these together-if he really did not shed his blood to save people-than can’t we say his body broken did not save anyone either?
Use all the hermeneutical tricks that you want in order to get to your interpretation of the blood of Christ-they do not defeat what is plainly taught in the scriptures. Yes, I intended for this to be derogatory. Why? This is too important to just lay down on. I have no problem affirming that when the blood of Christ is spoken of could represent more than just his shed blood in his death. To state Jesus did not die by bleeding is a gross insult to that which Christ did...borderline perversion.
27 Then He took the cup, and after He gave thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you.
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” 1
If you believe that Christ taught the fruit of the vine represents His blood and that Christ had to literally shed His blood on the cross, then you're in agreement with John MacArthur. He does not deny the blood as necessary for salvation. Christ had to shed his blood as our sacrifice and die in order to make atonement available, that's what John MacArthur teaches.
They both preach from the word of God, just different parts
There is no scripture to support any of the three heresies McNeese spurts.
The DNA of God isn’t supernatural? Hmm interesting. The body of Christ is God. Acts 2:27 refers to his body as the Holy One.
God is a Spirit, not a body. He doesn't have physical blood. Jesus had human blood because he was God in human flesh.
If God doesn’t have a body then David was a false prophet because he called the body of Christ the Holy One.
Also, if the Word is God and the word is made flesh, is not that flesh God? Or did the Word quit being God all of a sudden?
Jesus's body was human. God is Spirit. Jesus has 2 nature's human and divine.
If David said the body of Christ is the Holy One (which is God) and Peter also agreed that his body that was in a grave was the Holy One in Acts 2: 27. Would they not both be heretics and false prophets?
Shame on you 😮
For what? Shame on me for rebuking the heresy that Jesus is sitting on the throne bleeding fresh blood from his hands and side for 2,000 years?
@pastorburris I have been reading the Bible and sitting under great preaching by Independent Baptist preachers for over 25 years . I have never heard it preached that Jesus is still seated on the mercy seat, bleeding for man's sin. I have read through the Bible many, many times. I've never seen it. Jesus died and bleed once. It is a shame that you are lumping IFB into the same narrow-minded thinking that you are
Did you even watch this video? That’s exactly what popular IFB pastor Jonathan McNeese says in this video. Why are you angry at me for telling the truth about his false teaching???