Wanted Dead And Alive - Part 2 (Romans

[@carolbezuidenhout1677]

Jack Hibbs is one out of a thousand. You can all trust him to be Biblicly sound!

[@lorrainesaviano855]

ABSOLUTELY ❤

[@lorrainesaviano855]

AMEN ❤

[@rplata4242]

Wow Lord give us hearts to pray for our young generation. To be saved and love the Lord our God very early in their lives. !

[@guyhim4097]

This man was sent to me in a devine way at just the right time . God has anointed this man to speak to me through him as a vessel. God is good. All the time and works in the most mysterious of way's. I love Jesus. He's amazing.

[@lorrainesaviano855]

BUT, please Pray for me to Be BLESSED and Be Born Again 🙏🙏

[@outdoorsforachange]

Who do you think put that desire in you to be saved? He has already found you!

[@lorrainesaviano855]

I Heard ....We Are All Brothers and Sister's 🙏🙏

[@mattfoster6667]

Has to be in my top favorite messages I have ever heard, praise His name the name above all names our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus 🙏 💙 👑 glory and victory in Him. Thank you God the Father for giving us Your Holy Spirit because of Jesus. Amen

[@Bigrammer1]

LOVE YOU PASTOR JACK.....🙏 YOU ARE SUCH A GREAT TEACHER....👍🏻

[@carolturner5466]

This is such a great message! I love Pastor Jack, and have listened daily to something taught by him almost every single day since I came across him. Only way I have made it through these past 10-1/2 years! Pastor Jack, you are such a blessing! Praying every day for you for strength and endurance to help us all finish The Race in full stride! Thank you SO MUCH for all you do! It is a great sacrifice of love to us all. Cannot wait to see you get your rewards in Heaven. Anxious to meet you!. God bless you greatly, and your family, and the church we are proud to call our Home Church, CalvaryCCH! (Psalm 20:4)❤️🙏🎺

[@ritathomson9764]

Thanks you 😇🇬🇧❤️🇮🇱

[@outdoorsforachange]

God is good!

[@gisellewofford8821]

Amen! God bless you and your family!❤️🙏

[@lindagarris7861]

My 1 yro sweet granddaughter pulled the dogs ears and laughed. I couldn't believe she took great joy in hurting her doggie. We don't have to teach a child to sin- it comes naturally.

[@IsaiahEli]

Jesus is coming back!! Amen. God is merciful. He always forgives. Never be ashamed to take your failures to him. He is for you, not against you! God is with you in the storm. He knows your troubles, he hears you! He is for you, on your side, always! It may feel silent at times, but he’s holding you close! May the Lord return soon! We are drawing closer. He is coming! Believe and trust in the Lord, you will be saved. Period. May the Lord bless you all! Hang in there family. Stay strong. It is not easy following the Lord. We are scoffed at. We give up our earthly dreams, our fleshly desires. What the enemy offers is short lived, but heaven is forever! Life may seem or be unfair, but God is with you! Always remember that. Things may get better or worse for you, but a kingdom awaits you! Finish the race! Repent daily and carry your cross. This world is fading fast. Your troubles are temporary! New channel here, I’d appreciate any kind of support. Don’t give up! God loves you so much! So do I. The Lord bless you!

[@lorrainesaviano855]

❤❤❤❤❤❤ AMEN

[@lorrainesaviano855]

Fill me with the Holy Spirit LORD JESUS CHRIST I Pray ❤

[@MrPenguin098]

And they stand and give a thunderous clap and in a church. They will weep and gnash their teeth as God judges them for their wickedness.

[@vilma3502]

Who will stand and weep?

[@jasonchilds894]

@@vilma3502 He's talking about the church in NYC that hosted the drag queen strip show.

[@The_Lord_has_it]

@@jasonchilds894 and all the ones who take scripture out of context with a smug intent persecuting Christians.

[@lorivannote8665]

Amen. Illinois

[@carolbassant2490]

AMEN, :) PASTOR HIBBS, am greeting you from the caribbean islands 🇹🇹🇮🇱🇹🇹🇮🇱🇹🇹🇮🇱, love your messages, am playing on my loud speaker 🔈,

[@lorrainesaviano855]

Amen ❤

[@lorrainesaviano855]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@pamelaoneill7941]

Why would you quote John Macarthur? Same man that says you can take the mark and still be saved, same man that preaches Lordship Salvation, same Nan that says Jesus's death has more efficacy than the shed blood of Jesus. I love the teaching until you quoted John Macarthur and then I couldn't continue.

[@watchmomtitus2137]

Yes! Agree.

[@bixbyhomesKW]

Jesus Himself said, “Any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven ” (Matthew 12:31, emphasis added). The one unpardonable sin was the sin of those who had seen His miracles with their own eyes; they knew He was the true Messiah; they were part of the generation to whom He was personally sent. And yet they attributed His powers to Satan. That was unforgivable because it was such a hard-hearted, willful expression of utter rejection from fully enlightened hearts, who punctuated their rejection with an extreme blasphemy. Those Pharisees had stood in the presence of the living embodiment of all truth; they heard His words and saw His works. All the mysteries of Christ had been unveiled before their very eyes. And yet they spurned Him. There was nothing else that could be shown to them to enlighten them further. They were not deceived; they knew full well what they were doing. That’s why their sin was unpardonable

[@bixbyhomesKW]

Does John MacArthur "deny the blood of Christ?" The accusation has become one of those dripping-faucet urban legends that will not die, like the infamous Madalyn Murray O'Hair FCC-Petition Hoax and the Procter & Gamble Satanism Myth. Nearly every month, I hear from someone who has heard the allegation for the first time and wants to know if it is true that John MacArthur denies the saving efficacy of Christ's blood. No, it is not true, and it never has been. The allegations are ridiculous-perhaps originally based on a thoughtless misunderstanding, but now clearly fueled by a deceitful malevolence. The controversy was originally ignited by a supposed "news" item written by Bob Jones, Jr. in the April 1986 issue of Faith For The Family (a Bob Jones University-sponsored magazine). Jones quoted some remarks MacArthur had originally made in a live Q&A session at Grace Community Church sometime in the early 1970s. MacArthur's comments had been transcribed and published in the May 1976 issue of the Grace Church newsletter "Grace Today." The Jones article cited the comments without any documentation, and without noting that they were from a ten-year-old source. In the BJU article, Jones quoted MacArthur as saying, "It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying." Jones then cited Hebrews 9:22 ("without shedding of blood is no remission") and intoned, "MacArthur's position is heresy." On June 13, 1986, MacArthur wrote to Bob Jones III, complaining that the magazine had taken snippets of his remarks out of context and deliberately made them seem sinister. MacArthur assured the magazine's editors that he absolutely affirms the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for atonement and explained that the point he was trying to make in the quoted excerpt was merely that the saving efficacy of Christ's blood is not because of some property in the blood itself, but rather because Christ had poured it out in death as a substitute for sinners. Indeed, in the very same source Dr. Jones, Jr. had selectively quoted from, MacArthur had written, Peter calls His blood "precious" and I agree . . . but Peter's reference there is to the sacrificial nature of His death. . . . The phrase "Christ died for our sin" (Romans 5:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3) expresses the truth that death was the penalty, not blood. . . I Peter 2:24 is not saying we are saved by his wounds. . . . If we say that it is the blood that saves . . . what are we saying? His actual blood, physically, saves us? Or perhaps we are stuck with the Roman Catholic Church "perpetual offering" view that some hold. This view says that Christ perpetually sacrifices Himself. He took His blood into heaven and keeps offering it. Hebrews 10:12-14 forbids such a view. Clearly it was His death . . . once for all. His shed blood was part of the violence of it, and speaks of it as sacrifice, but we are saved by His substitutionary death for us, not by the chemicals in His blood. Plainly, MacArthur was not denying that Christ literally shed His blood. He was not denying that the literal shedding of blood was a necessary aspect of the atonement. His only point was that the efficacy of Christ's blood lies not in some property of the blood itself, but rather in the fact that Christ shed it in death, and such a death was the price of atonement for our sin. Moreover, if the blood of Christ is in any sense "eternally preserved" in heaven, it would be in the glorified body of the risen Lord, not in a bowl or a vial where it is perpetually offered or literally applied to sinners in some way. After an exchange of correspondence in which MacArthur thoroughly and carefully explained his original remarks, Jones wrote on October 16, 1986, saying, "I believe the position [MacArthur] has taken in this matter is a heretical position, and all the correspondence in the world is not going to affect my convictions on that point." Nonetheless, BJU officials soon began trying to downplay the controversy. They were clearly embarrassed by some of the squalid half-truths that were beginning to circulate among fundamentalists. They also now had a file of correspondence from MacArthur clarifying his position, making it clear that he was orthodox. Even Jones, Jr. declined to give any rational or biblical reasons for continuing to regard MacArthur's view as "heresy." But he was obstinately committed to his original verdict, and by his own admission, "all the correspondence in the world [was] not going to affect" his thoughts or public statements on the matter. Instead, BJU as an institution attempted a quiet retreat from the fray. But as Procter & Gamble will testify, once rumors like this get into the fundamentalist rumor mill, they sometimes circulate and spawn more and more fanciful rumors for years, no matter how much the truth is broadcast. In this instance, the rumors became inbred and increasingly sinister. Various fundamentalist scandal-sheets passed the tale around for several more years, keeping it alive and reviving it with a new twist every time it nearly died. Finally, five years after the original correspondence with Jones, Jr., Bob Jones III wrote MacArthur (July 3, 1991) and assured MacArthur that BJU had tried to let the matter drop. He clearly did not regard MacArthur's position as heresy: Once you published in your own paper an article stating that the blood was "efficacious and meritorious" we have never said another word about it. The issue was resolved at that point; and it has been our joy to tell people who continue to be concerned that they can be at ease, and refer them to your own published statements as evidence. But, as author Roy Branson Jr. (who investigated this controversy thoroughly) notes: There is a problem here. First, There is absolutely nothing in the article to which Dr. Jones III refers that is a whit different from what MacArthur has always said, and what he has written numerous times in his books and publications. If that article satisfied BJU, why were they ever dissatisfied at all? Second, the article to which Dr. Jones III referred was in MacArthur's "Grace to You" newsletter, Summer of 1988. However the attacks on MacArthur continue to this day in 1992! We do not know that BJU continues the attacks, but those who picked up on the original BJU attack continue. Why? The third question naturally follows the first two: If the Joneses believe "The issue was resolved at that point," why have they not given the same broad distribution to that clarification as they did to the original accusation? After all, the attacks began with the BJU publication. [Dear Abner, I Love You, Joab (Bristol, TN: Landmark, 1992), 107.] Nonetheless, it is surely significant that even the president of the institution that first published the accusation finally admitted that there is no substance to the endlessly-circulating charges of heresy. The truth is, as Branson correctly pointed out, there never was any real substance to the allegations. Look again at the point MacArthur was attempting to make in the first place: When Scripture speaks of Christ's "blood," the expression is normally a reference to His sacrificial atoning death, not the actual red and white corpuscles. And the vivid language in our hymns about the cleansing ability and "wonder-working power" of the blood and "a fountain filled with blood" is not meant to be taken literally. There is no magical or mystical cleansing property in the red fluid, and there is no container of blood in heaven that is somehow literally applied to sinners. Such language is meant to speak of Christ's sacrificial atonement-just as when Paul spoke of "the preaching of the cross" he had in mind the death of Christ, not the literal wooden instrument on which the Savior died. We're not to think a piece of wood is the point of our preaching. What happened on that cross is what is efficacious for our salvation, not some magical power in the wood itself. Similarly with the blood of Christ: it is the violent pouring out of blood in Christ's sacrificial death that saves us, not some supernatural property of the fluid itself-just what MacArthur said in the first place. The obvious truth of all that has escaped a few militant fundamentalists who have no clear concept of the biblical notion of blood atonement, but who revel in labeling anyone who is not part of their group a heretic. They continue to insist that MacArthur is actually denying the efficacy of Christ's blood. To buttress their point, several of Macarthur's detractors insist that Christ's blood was never human blood at all, but the very blood of God, endued with divine power. That view is disturbingly similar to the ancient Docetic heresy, which denied that Jesus' body was truly or fully human. Some of MacArthur's more militant critics have allowed their superstition on this matter to get the best of them. During the World Congress on Fundamentalism, which met on the BJU Campus, August 4-8, 1986, they passed a resolution declaring that Christ's actual blood is eternally preserved in heaven, where it is by some mystical means literally applied to each believer. According to the World Congress, such a rigidly literal view of Christ's blood is now to be considered a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and they will break fellowship with anyone who denies it: The precious Blood is indestructible. It cannot be anything else because of its permanence. The Blood is eternally preserved in Heaven.

[@threek2d434]

Definitely not to be ugly or mean-spirited but none of us were there when Adam fell either to witness it and we have to go by what the Bible says just like in creation God created almost 6000 years ago. If it was longer than that then God created things in the wrong order or Moses wrote it down on what day it was created because you certainly can’t have trees and plants before you have a sun. Yes I answered through Adam which means there could’ve been no death before Adam sinned

[@FollowerSt]

Thanks for all you're doing your dedication to Jesus and the word

[@FrankPCarpi]

If you had a potted tree which was put in a dark closet for three days even, would it die? No. And for that matter, on Day One God said "Let there be light" and it was so. So there's no lapse in light no matter how you put it.

[@Mrs.C-6721]

Plus, He didn't create the Sun till day 4...Wow! What an awesome God!!

[@threek2d434]

@@FrankPCarpi Actually, God did say let there be light, however< That "light" was not the sun and moon, They were created later. After God said let there be light, He created the firmament. When Sun and Moon were created after grass and plants, He placed them in the Firmament. Plants grow Mostly from sunlight, not just light.

[@threek2d434]

@@Mrs.C-6721 Incredible!!

[@yachingeconesto7808]

What about flat earth?, its in the bible