I've been saying it for years, that modern FUNDAMENTALISTS, EVANGELICALS, and so-called CHRISTIANS, are GUILTY of ommitting the blood of Jesus Christ in their gospel message, either ignorantly or willfully. By saying this, I've gotten a lot of angry letters, emails, phone calls, etc. They all tell me things like, "Well, you don't have to know about the blood to be saved!" or "You don't have to know anything to get saved. Just come to God the best way you know how!" But is that so? Of course not. A person must first HEAR the gospel before he can believe it, and before he believes it, he must UNDERSTAND it! That's just sound Bible doctrine.
I was reading through a commentary by J. Vernon McGee the other day, and read the following. I believe it's very important for us today, for there are many today who claim to be Christians, yet they leave out the blood of Jesus Christ for salvation. I quote from page 20 of his commentary on the book of 1 Peter:
" 'And sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...' There is often a silence about the blood of Christ, even in fundamental circles. As long as the blood of our Lord coursed through His veins, it had no saving value for us; but when that precious blood was shed, Christ Jesus gave His life. The life of the flesh is in the blood. He shed that blood that you and I might have life.
Remember that Peter is writing to Jews who had been brought up in Judaism. They were the Diaspora, believing Jews living in Asia minor. They knew the Old Testament, and they understood that the high priest on the Day of Atonement took blood with him when he went into the Holy of Holies, and that he sprinkled the blood seven times on the mercy seat. Now the Lord Jesus Christ has taken His own blood to the throne of God (the throne at which we are judged as guilty sinners), and He sprinkled His blood there. He gave His life and paid the penalty for us. Now that throne of judgment is the throne of grace where you and I can come and receive salvation.
My friend, the gospel has not been preached until the meaning of the blood of Christ has been explained. It may offend you aesthetically--the offense of the cross is that He shed His blood. Of course it is not pretty, but your sin and my sin are not pretty either. Our ugly sin is what made it necessary for Christ to die for us.
This reminds me of a story about a terrible accident which occurred at a railroad crossing. Several people were killed when the train hit a car. There was a court trial, and the watchman who had been at the crossing at the time of the accident was questioned.
'Where were you at the time of the accident?'
'I was at the crossing.'
'Did you have a lantern?'
'Yes.'
'Did you wave that lantern to warn them of the danger?'
'I certainly did.'
The court thought that was enough evidence. When the watchman walked out of the court he was heard to mumble to himself, 'I'm sure glad they didn't ask me about the light in the lantern because the light had gone out.'
My friend, there can be a lot of lanterns waved in the circles of fundamentalism and evangelicalism and conservatism. However, unless there is the message of the blood of Jesus Christ and the sprinkling of the blood which cleanses us from all sin, there is no light in the lantern."
Remember that Peter is writing to Jews who had been brought up in Judaism. They were the Diaspora, believing Jews living in Asia minor. They knew the Old Testament, and they understood that the high priest on the Day of Atonement took blood with him when he went into the Holy of Holies, and that he sprinkled the blood seven times on the mercy seat. Now the Lord Jesus Christ has taken His own blood to the throne of God (the throne at which we are judged as guilty sinners), and He sprinkled His blood there. He gave His life and paid the penalty for us. Now that throne of judgment is the throne of grace where you and I can come and receive salvation.
My friend, the gospel has not been preached until the meaning of the blood of Christ has been explained. It may offend you aesthetically--the offense of the cross is that He shed His blood. Of course it is not pretty, but your sin and my sin are not pretty either. Our ugly sin is what made it necessary for Christ to die for us.
This reminds me of a story about a terrible accident which occurred at a railroad crossing. Several people were killed when the train hit a car. There was a court trial, and the watchman who had been at the crossing at the time of the accident was questioned.
'Where were you at the time of the accident?'
'I was at the crossing.'
'Did you have a lantern?'
'Yes.'
'Did you wave that lantern to warn them of the danger?'
'I certainly did.'
The court thought that was enough evidence. When the watchman walked out of the court he was heard to mumble to himself, 'I'm sure glad they didn't ask me about the light in the lantern because the light had gone out.'
My friend, there can be a lot of lanterns waved in the circles of fundamentalism and evangelicalism and conservatism. However, unless there is the message of the blood of Jesus Christ and the sprinkling of the blood which cleanses us from all sin, there is no light in the lantern."
One old preacher once said, "You can't preach the Gospel without preaching the BLOOD, and you can't preach the BLOOD without preaching the Gospel!" What on earth, then are modern so-called Christians preaching?
Oh yeah, that's right. They are preaching a "BLOODLESS GOSPEL" which is "another gospel," of which the apostle Paul warns us about in Galatians chapter one. What is their gospel? It goes something like:
Just ask God to save you
Ask or invite Jesus into your heart
Make your committment to Christ
Call on the Lord through prayer alone and ask him to come into your heart
Repeat this prayer after me
Simply Recite the Sinner's Prayer
But, all of these modern gospels have one thing in common -- THEY ALL LEAVE OUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, and FAITH ALONE IN IT FOR SALVATION!
Further, they can all be done in the MIND, without any faith whatsoever from the HEART.
So HOW ON EARTH, can so called Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Christians preach THESE rather than simply pointing sinners to Christ crucified and salvation by faith alone in his precious shed blood? It's insanity!
I'll close with this. I'm constantly working to get people the truth about the Spanish Bible, and which one is the best. Through my studies, I'm convinced it's the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible. But I'm also amazed at how many FUNDAMENTALISTS and EVANGELICALS disagree, choosing instead other versions. One of those is the modern GOMEZ Spanish Bible. And, I found a new book by one Emmanuel Rodriguez defending that version and Mr. Gomez who produced it. In that book I read about the tesimony of Mr. Gomez, and that book gives the following information about his "salvation" experience. I quote from pages 22-23:
Gomez speaking: "My religion never taught me that God was willing to save a wretch like me. They never told me that if I would PUT MY FAITH IN THE BLOOD THAT CHRIST SHED FOR ME ON THE CROSS [emphasis mine], that, not only would He save me from an eternity in hell, but He would change my life. ...but something happened to me today. I ASKED JESUS TO SAVE ME. [emphasis mine] And he did. He changed my life."
This is very interesting and is typical of what we see in modern Fundamentalists circles today. Some might talk about the blood and say that to be saved a person MUST put their faith in it. But then later they will give another conflicting idea for their plan of salvation, that of ASKING for God to save them. But where's the faith in the blood if you are asking? For asking God to save you, apart from trusting him and his blood atonement to do so is another gospel.
Is Mr. Gomez even saved according to this testimony? He tells us an American Missionary from Colorado told him the right way to be saved: By FAITH IN THE BLOOD, but then on the next page, he confesses that he rather "ASKED JESUS TO SAVE HIM." So which is it? Did he trust the blood, or did he only ask?
I'm not calling into question Mr. Gomez' salvation. He could very well be saved, and I hope he is. But why does he give two conflicting statements in his testimony in that book? Thank God he "mentioned" the blood and wasn't "silent" like many modern Fundamentalists. However, why did he say he "asked" for salvation, rather than "trusted" the blood like instructed?
Gomez speaking: "My religion never taught me that God was willing to save a wretch like me. They never told me that if I would PUT MY FAITH IN THE BLOOD THAT CHRIST SHED FOR ME ON THE CROSS [emphasis mine], that, not only would He save me from an eternity in hell, but He would change my life. ...but something happened to me today. I ASKED JESUS TO SAVE ME. [emphasis mine] And he did. He changed my life."
This is very interesting and is typical of what we see in modern Fundamentalists circles today. Some might talk about the blood and say that to be saved a person MUST put their faith in it. But then later they will give another conflicting idea for their plan of salvation, that of ASKING for God to save them. But where's the faith in the blood if you are asking? For asking God to save you, apart from trusting him and his blood atonement to do so is another gospel.
Is Mr. Gomez even saved according to this testimony? He tells us an American Missionary from Colorado told him the right way to be saved: By FAITH IN THE BLOOD, but then on the next page, he confesses that he rather "ASKED JESUS TO SAVE HIM." So which is it? Did he trust the blood, or did he only ask?
I'm not calling into question Mr. Gomez' salvation. He could very well be saved, and I hope he is. But why does he give two conflicting statements in his testimony in that book? Thank God he "mentioned" the blood and wasn't "silent" like many modern Fundamentalists. However, why did he say he "asked" for salvation, rather than "trusted" the blood like instructed?
This is an important point. For there are countless millions of people today who call themselves Fundamentalists or Evangelicals who rather than preach the Blood, pressure people to "repeat a prayer" or "call vocally upon God asking for salvation" without stressing a Sinner's need to trust the blood atonement. They are like Mr. McGee said, watchman with no LIGHT in their lanterns.
I'll close with one more example. I was preaching in Guatemala once with a man who had a big church and bus ministry. I preached on "THE BLOOD of Jesus Christ." Afterwards, the Pastor got up and apologized publically for not having preached the blood before, and he promised from then on to preach the blood alone for salvation. Yet, he'd been in the ministry for decades and claimed he had won thousands to Jesus Christ. What then was he preaching? It was a "BLOODLESS GOSPEL." But he was only doing what he'd been instructed to do in his own Bible College when he went "soul winning." What was that? A quick 1,2, 3 repeat after me method of quickly pressuring a sinner to REPEAT a prayer, without any signs of REPENTANCE from the heart. And absolutely no mention of the blood atonement, nor one's need to trust it alone for salvation. Who was this man? I'd rather not give his name, needless to say, he uses the Gomez Spanish Bible now. Could there be a pattern here?
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the Gomez Bible is now printed by Chick Tracts. You know, the ones with the cartoons in them. And, have you ever read the back page of a Chick Tract? They instruct you to "ASK" Jesus into your heart. Where's the FAITH IN THE BLOOD like the evangelist from Colorado instructed Mr. Gomez to follow? They might mention the blood, but they don't instruct Sinners to trust or rely solely in the shed blood by faith alone. They try to get sinners to ask or beg for salvation apart from resting only in the finished work of Christ.
I'm a BIBLE BELIEVER, and I'm quickly getting as far away as I can from modern apostate FUNNY-MENT-AL-ISTS who claim to be standing for the faith, when they preaching another plan of salvation. I don't want to be connected to anyone who OMITS the blood of Jesus Christ. And that's exactly what they are doing.
If you are a Fundamentalist, an Evangelical, or a Christian, make sure you don't go along with them in the error of their ways in ommitting the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. Preach the blood with all your might! Make sure there is LIGHT in your latern!
All this ties in to why we left our old home church. It was over this very issue. If you desire a real eye-opening read, then please go to:
http://www.rrb3.com/Left/reasons_left_church.htm
This is a very important topic. That of salvation. For there very well could be countless millions of people within the Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and even Independent Baptist movements which are lost, trusting a BLOODLESS GOSPEL rather than the true BLOODSTAINED GOSPEL of Jesus Christ. It is for them that I keep my lantern lit! Wouldn't you do the same?
Note: Part of the reason for me posting this blog, is because I've recently been personally attacked by Mr. Emanuel Rodriguez, in his following article:
In this article, Mr. Rodriguez states that for "dishonest practices" I was "kicked" out of my old home church. I know of no dishonesty on my part, nor of any dishonest practices. All I know is that I of my own accord left that church over this very issue, an issue in which they used to be in complete agreement with me. (Click on the link above about why we left our own home church to read the letter of my old Pastor to my father, where he too once claimed to be against "Ask Jesus Into Your Heart.") It appears the doctrine of SALVATION and the SPANISH BIBLE are quickly being melded together, and in order to find the right Spanish Bible, you need to make sure the people who try to steer you in the direction of thier own version(s) have the RIGHT GOSPEL of salvation to begin with! For this is a very, very important issue.)
No comments:
Post a Comment