Robert Breaker's Salvation Theology Is a Modern Doctrine, Part 3: His Earliest Evidence Is 1912
Allow me to summarize Robert Breaker's theology.
To be saved, one must specifically trust in the blood of Jesus Christ as one's distinct object of saving faith, and one must single out the blood itself, the physical shed blood, as one's object of faith.
Robert Breaker, November 6, 2025
“Is to confess with their mouth that the Lord is Jesus or Jesus is Lord. Wouldn’t that be Israel? So what I read Romans 10, I see Jews asking Paul, ‘Hey, what about Israel?’ And he says, ‘Well, if a guy is a Jew and he has confessed that Jesus is his Lord, that Jesus is his Messiah, and if he believes that God hath raised him from the dead, well then he can be saved.’ So if he believes in who and what, then he’ll be saved. I don’t think he’s telling you you have to do both and that you have to say with the mouth or you’re not saved. If he’s saying you have to believe from your heart in something and say it with your mouth at the same time, then that would be a faith plus works gospel. And that would nullify what Jesus did because it’s not just what he did, it’s what you say, which would be a work.”
"you see the confession isn't what saves you it's the belief in the heart so if you're not saved and you want to be saved and you don't want to go to hell why don't you just bow your head and close your eyes and just go to the Lord and tell him that what you've heard from the scripture today is true because the Bible says it is now why don't you say I accept what you've done for me I'd rely upon that finished work I trust your blood to save my soul see the prayer isn't what saves you it's whether or not your faith is in the shed blood of Jesus Christ if your faith is not in that blood then you're not saved if your faith is in that blood then you're on your way to heaven" - Robert Breaker, How to Be Saved, October 9th, 2010, starting at 10:15
"verse 5 much more than being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him verse 11 and not only so but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement salvation is receiving the atonement of Christ by faith yes amen it's not oh God now please save me now because I want to be safe sincerity is not what saves us you could be very sincere when you pray that but if you haven't TRUSTED IN THE BLOOD are you receiving salvation are you just begging for it and uh I call that the Beggars gospel I could sit here and say Ray please give me ten thousand dollars does he give it to me because I asked him for it" - Robert Breaker, Livestream With Brandon Bernardi July 2023, starting at 52:34
This is fact checking Robert Breaker's livestream "Faith in the Blood is NOT a Modern Doctrine!"
You do not have to read Parts 1 and 2 to really understand this article. Robert Breaker reads quotes and says they support him.
Before we go into it, allow me to show you Robert Breaker's views on calvinists.
"and they say a lot of the churches in Europe are Calvinists you never you never been in the calvinist church let me rephrase that you've never been in a worse place than when you go to a calvinist church" - Robert Breaker, Upcoming livestream Jan 17 2023, starting at 17:30
"well it's interesting maybe because calvinist can never tell you how to get saved well if you're one of the elect you already are so why am i wasting my time telling you and it's like it's not a waste of time to tell" - Robert Breaker, Interview with Spencer Smith, starting at 1:08:50
Robert Breaker: "Do you think Calvinists are saved?" I'll let you go first.
Dr. Robert Potthoff: I don't. I don't think at all. I don't think it's even possible. They believe in the false gospel.
Robert Breaker: Well, I think it would have been possible, and maybe even today, that you could be a Calvinist and could be saved, but just messed up. You got saved and you fell into it. But,
Dr. Robert Potthoff: If you fell, if you did it in that order, yes. Then then it would be possible.
Robert Breaker: If you're a full-fledged Calvinist that that is like, just eating, breathing Calvin, you would be so messed up that you wouldn't know if you're saved.
Dr. Robert Potthoff: Yeah. Now, a lot of your Calvinists don't know they're Calvinists today.
Robert Breaker: Yeah. But a true Calvinist can never know if they're saved because they run around saying, "I just hope, fingers crossed, I'm one of the elect."
Dr. Robert Potthoff: Yeah.
Robert Breaker: But with that stated, Calvin did write books on faith in the blood. So it is possible that you get the right gospel from Calvin, but he also at the same time said the wrong gospel, which is Lordship Salvation.
Dr. Robert Potthoff: Right.
Robert Breaker: So it's just like there's good churches and bad churches, and there's some saved people in the bad churches just like there's some lost people in the good churches. So to me, I think there are some that are Calvinists that might be saved. I'm not going to say who is and who isn't, but if you're a full-fledged Calvinist, there's a good chance you don't know you're saved, which is a good hint.
Dr. Robert Potthoff: Yeah. If you got saved first... if you got saved first, I think is then then you're saved. There's no way around it.
Robert Breaker: You're just messed up.
Dr. Robert Potthoff: Right. But if you come through Calvinistic doctrine first, it's probably a lot harder to get saved, honestly, because you've um you've got to unlearn things before you can uh before you can actually believe the gospel. And it, it doesn't It's not just Calvinism, any type of um... any type of um replacement theology, or any type of false doctrine that's out there. If you get that first, then you're going to have to earn unlearn things in order to be able to believe the gospel. Now if you believe the gospel first and then fall into it, that's a whole different ballgame there. That's a saved person that became a Calvinist. That's not a that's not a a Calvinist that got saved, basically.
Robert Breaker: Exactly. And for a lot of people that don't know what Calvinism teaches, it's the TULIP. And it's basically Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Preservation of the Saints. This is a man-made doctrine where he's going through the Bible and he's not rightly dividing, so there's no dispensations in Calvinism. So he's taking the kingdom message of Jesus and trying to mix it with Paul, while he's mixing it with the Law, while he's mixing it with the Millennial Kingdom preaching and doctrine. What a mess you get into! So you'll say it right: Jesus died on the cross and His sacrifice and faith in His blood is the way we're saved. But then you turn around and you say, "But you have to endure to the end to be saved." How do you just tell me you get saved like this, but then you've got to do this to be saved? They don't work." - Robert Breaker, starting at 53:54
The Heart of the Gospel, 1907
Robert Breaker: “Then we come over here to The Heart of the Gospel by this guy. And he literally says that the heart of the gospel is the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the interpretation of that sacrifice is the foremost problem of theology. This guy, I don’t have a date for when he wrote this, but it would be early… Oh, 1907. He says: ‘There is perhaps no doctrine of scripture regarding which Christian teachers of today are more at sea than the doctrine of the atonement.’”
“The heart of the Gospel is the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ; and the interpretation of that sacrifice is the foremost problem of theology.” - The Heart of the Gospel: A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of the Atonement by James M. Campbell, Page 9.
“There is perhaps no doctrine of Scripture regarding which Christian teachers of to-day are more at sea than the doctrine of the Atonement.” - The Heart of the Gospel: A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of the Atonement by James M. Campbell, Preface.
Robert Breaker takes the book out of context.
“Protestants while repudiating transubstantiation often fall into the same crass literalism by attributing salvation to the physical blood of Christ which was shed from His veins upon the cross. By this sensuous view of a spiritual truth the teaching of Scripture has been made repellent. We are indeed saved by the blood of Christ, not, however, in some outward magical way, but in something of the same sense in which a country is saved by the blood of its patriots. Blood is the symbol of life. It is because ‘the life is in the blood’ that it maketh atonement. The blood of Christ is the life of Christ; the blood shed is His life given in sacrifice. To say that the world is saved by the blood of Christ is another way of saying that it is saved by the sacrifice of Himself, by the pouring out of His life unto death.” - The Heart of the Gospel: A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of the Atonement by James M. Campbell, Page 21.
Campbell says the blood is symbolic, not literal, which Robert Breaker considers a heresy.
He also denies the substitutionary penal atonement.
“Christ did not placate or appease the Sovereign’s wrath; He revealed the Father’s love. The object of His sacrifice was not to win God to man, but to win man to God.” - The Heart of the Gospel: A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of the Atonement by James M. Campbell, Page 66.
This is the worst offender. If he read the book, he'd see that the person puts confession as a condition for salvation.
“When the guilty heart of man is smitten by the cross, and penitence flows forth in confession, the soul is instantly sealed with the sweet assurance of divine forgiveness. ‘Repent that your sins may be blotted out’ (Acts iii. 19), is the gospel exhortation. ‘If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John i. 9), is the gospel promise.” - The Heart of the Gospel: A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of the Atonement by James M. Campbell, Page 71.
“He that accepts and confesses Christ has the Holy Spirit. Through the newly opened door of faith the Spirit enters into him, making his soul radiant with the glory of His presence.” - The Heart of the Gospel: A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of the Atonement by James M. Campbell, Page 201.
Robert Breaker says, when talking about another person, that the views held by Campbell are that spiritual devils ARE BEHIND IT. Yet, if he read the book, he would realize Campbell held those beliefs!
Robert Breaker: Okay, well, let me show you something interesting. I was with Laura in Crestview. We were asked to come over and visit a family and see their new baby. And I found Mary Baker Patterson Glover Eddy's book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures." And the copy they had there was so nasty, and it smelled mildew and everything, I went ahead and just went online and bought me a copy. Because I opened that copy there, and I noticed that this woman wrote about atonement. This is what she wrote about the atonement. This is her words. I don't think this woman was saved. But this is her words, and she wrote these words, are you ready for this? And this is where I say I think it's a demon behind these people. Because you hear them saying the same things that people that we know had a demon are saying:
"The spiritual essence of blood is sacrifice. The efficacy of Jesus' spiritual offering is infinitely greater than can be expressed by our sense of human blood. The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon the accursed tree than when it was flowing in his veins as he went daily about his Father's business. His true flesh and blood were his life, and they truly eat his flesh and drink his blood who partake of that divine life."
So Jesus' blood did not forgive us our sins, and it's just a spiritual symbolic blood, not the literal blood of Jesus. And that sounds just like MacArthur. And MacArthur said it's not the blood, it's just the death. And MacArthur said death, burial, resurrection all the time.
Campbell taught that it was symbolic and not physical! And he denied the substitutionary penal atonement!
Robert Breaker does not do actual historical research; he just quotes people who talk about the blood and then pretends that they teach his entire salvation theology.
T. T. Martin, This Is God’s Plan with Man, 1912
“Now, Paul's instruction to the Romans concerning believing on Christ Romans 3:25 … Believe on Christ is to believe on the blood.”
This is the full context.
"Notice Paul's instruction to the Romans concerning believing on Christ: "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness."—Rom. 4:5. Consider the simple but vital teaching of this passage: He justifieth the ungodly. How? "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood ... to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus" (Rom. 3:25, 26); "being now justified by his blood."—Rom. 5:9. And He justifies us from all sin, "Our Saviour Jesus Christ who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity" (Titus 2:13, 14); redeems us from the curse
T. T. Martin is an incredibly obscure evangelist; we have four sermons by him that are even findable online. His favorite sermon to preach, "Going to Hell in Droves," isn't even online or, as far as I know, archived.
I want to really emphasize, however, the absurdity of quoting him.
T.T. Martin used the Revised Version instead of the King James Bible.
"Concerning the objection to the Bible's teaching of eternal punishment in Hell, a mistranslation has misled many, and before the correct translation, as given by the Revised Version, all objections fall to the ground. The old version of Rev. 22:11 reads, "He that is unjust [Pg 27]let him be unjust still"; but the Revised Version gives what the Greek says, "He that is unrighteous let him do unrighteousness still!" And that inevitably means eternal punishment. It is God's last sentence on the sinner. The objector may say that it is horrible to let men sin beyond the grave, in Hell. Not one particle more horrible is it than to let them sin in this life and continue in sin in this life. A reflection for the unsaved reader: what will your moral character be one thousand years after you die, with no holy Spirit, no Bible, no Christians, no churches, to restrain you?"
He literally says the Revised Version is the correct translation, and it translates the Greek better.
He literally denies the King James Bible.
Robert Breaker is a King James Bible-only Fundamentalist; why are we quoting him?
"The prayer of the publican in the old version, "God be merciful to me the sinner," Luke 18:13, has misled many. If that was really the prayer of the publican, how could the Saviour have said, "This man went down to his house justified"? The margin of the Revised Version gives what the Greek says, "Be thou propitiated." It is the same Greek word that in Heb. 2:17 is translated, "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." President Strong of Rochester Theological Seminary gives the exact meaning of it when he renders it, "Be thou propitiated to me the sinner by the sacrifice whose smoke was then ascending in the presence of the publican while he prayed." And Jesus shows what the publican said when He added, "This man went down to his house justified.""
He literally says the King James Bible was mistranslated above.
"But when the redeemed man's works shall be burned, though he himself shall be saved (1 Cor. 3:15), he shall suffer loss (1 Cor. 3:15), and the loss shall be irreparable, eternal, and so great that no human being in this age can fully realize it. Here the old translation, the King James' version, has misled us. The oft-quoted sentence, "What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" is a mistranslation. The Revised Version translates it correctly: "What shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world and forfeit his life, or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?"—Matt. 16:26. By noticing verse 25, and verse 27 the reader can see what the Saviour meant: "whosoever would save his life shall lose it," not his soul, but his life, "and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it," his life not his soul; "whosoever shall lose his life for my sake,"—men do lose their lives for His sake, but no one loses his soul for the Saviour's sake. Following immediately He says, verse 26, "For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world and forfeit his life? or what shall a man give in exchange "
He denies the King James Bible 1611!
"A widely misunderstood passage of Scripture bearing on the subject of rewards is 1 Cor. 9:24-27: "Know ye not that they that run in a race run all, but only one receiveth the prize? So run that ye may obtain. And every contestant in the games is temperate in all things. They, indeed, do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air; but I buffet my body and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, after having preached to others, I myself should be disapproved."—The 1911 Bible. The Authorized Version reads "a castaway"; the Revised Version reads "rejected."
"The Revised Version (the more exact translation) makes it much stronger,—"hath passed out of death into life." What life, if not eternal life? Before this plain, positive statement of God's word, the mere promise of eternal life theory cannot stand."
This is from his other sermons.
"Concerning the objection to the Bible’s teaching of eternal punishment in Hell, a mistranslation has misled many, and before the correct translation, as given by the Revised Version, all objections fall to the ground. The old version of Revelation 22:11 reads, “He that is unjust let him be unjust still”; but the Revised Version gives what the Greek says, “He that is unrighteous let him do unrighteousness still.” And that inevitably means eternal punishment. It is God’s last sentence on the sinner. The objector may say that it is horrible to let men sin beyond the grave, in Hell. Not one particle more horrible is it than to let them sin in this life and continue in sin in this life. A reflection for the unsaved reader: what will your moral character be one thousand years after you die, with no Holy Spirit, no Bible, no Christians, no churches, to restrain you?" - Thomas Theodore Martin, Degrees of Punishment in Hell
1. Salvation by faith alone
"Here, then, we have what repentance is,—a conviction of sin, such a realization of the fact that one has sinned and is justly condemned that it produces such sorrow as leads to an entire change of mind and purpose to turn from sin and turn to God. God then provided the easiest way for them, "every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it [the brazen serpent] shall live."—Num. 21:8. The Saviour says, "Even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."—John 3:15." - T.T. Martin
That contradicts Robert Breaker.
“you ask a lot of people what does repentance mean and they say it means quit sinning oh really well then isn't that a work if i have to quit sinning before i can come get saved then that's a works plus faith gospel and that's a problem” - Robert Breaker, What Are You Adding To Salvation?, starting at 30:22
I just want to have a closing remark on T.T. Martin.
Let's say T.T. Martin did in fact believe in Robert Breaker's theology.
If Robert Breaker's best evidence is that an obscure evangelist in the 20th century taught his soteriology, what is his opponents' greatest evidence?
(This isn't even counting that his father, who taught him the doctrine, was also in the 20th century. This means that the earliest instances we can find, even being charitable to Robert Breaker, are still in the 20th century.)
If you check the first article, Clement of Rome wrote that the blood of Jesus Christ was shed for the ability to repent and pray for salvation.
"These things, beloved, we write unto you, not merely to admonish you of your duty, but also to remind ourselves. For we are struggling on the same arena, and the same conflict is assigned to both of us. Wherefore let us give up vain and fruitless cares, and approach to the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling. Let us attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us. Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved. Jonah proclaimed destruction to the Ninevites; Jonah iii, but they, repenting of their sins, propitiated God by prayer, and obtained salvation, although they were aliens [to the covenant] of God." - 1 Clement Chapter 7, before 99 AD.
Diodore of Tarsus in the 4th century wrote “Necessarily he set forth ‘those who call upon him.’ For God does not give grace without discernment, extending it even to those who are unwilling to offer so much to the Benefactor as at least to ask and pray with him. And lest anyone say that many fail to call upon the Lord Jesus out of ignorance rather than unbelief and ingratitude, he shows through what follows that God took away even the excuse of their ignorance, sending evangelists and heralds who urge and invite them to ask for the gift. Therefore he added what follows.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 10:11-13, 4th century.
Robert Ray Breaker III credits his father, Robert Ray Breaker II, for telling him about the blood. Look at the description in the source.
Even if T.T. Martin really did teach Robert Breaker's soteriology, and I'm not confident enough to say he did, it changes nothing outside of another person in the 20th century having thought of it. This isn't a whole lot different from assuming his father came up with it.
And that person, in the best-case scenario, is a man who said that the King James Bible was mistranslated and who led people astray. We're still swapping a 20th-century man for another 20th-century man. (and Robert Breaker's father taught that the King James Bible was perfect, T.T. Martin didn't).
Even in the best case scenario, he fails.
McLaughlin, Commentary on Romans, 1926
“Through faith in his blood, the offering means nothing to us except as our faith for salvation rests upon it. Good works will never do it. The soul that trusts in that sacrifice, by that act of trust, acknowledges that it has sinned, that it deserved eternal death, and that it despaired of salvation by its own merits of works, and hence puts its sole trust for eternal life on the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ. It is faith in the shed blood of Jesus and not imitating his spotless example that saves him. That saves us.”
Robert Breaker changes the wording a little bit.
“Through faith in his blood.” The offering means nothing to us except as our faith for salvation rests upon it. Good works will never do it. The soul that trusts in that sacrifice, by that act of trust acknowledges that it has sinned, that it deserved eternal death and that it despaired of salvation by its own merits of works, and hence puts its whole trust for eternal life on the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ. It is faith in the shed blood of Jesus and not imitating His spotless example that saves us. By the blood we mean in a figure, not the literal blood of Christ, but His sacrificial death. It is the figure called in rhetoric, a metaphor." - G.A McLaughlin, Romans Commentary Page 56
“puts its whole trust” and “that saves us” are the original words.
So, Robert Breaker didn't read anything past the "that saves us" part, as he says it's not the literal blood and says it's only the death. Robert Breaker says this is heresy.
What is more confusing is that Robert Breaker in the video (58:33) puts the book on the screen, and he has lighted the entire section, including that it is the figure called in rhetoric, a metaphor.
Breaker was aware of this section, yet he uses G.A. McLaughlin as proof for his soteriology, despite G.A. McLaughlin teaching what Robert Breaker directly defined as the opposite of preaching "faith in the blood."
Robert Breaker: So Jesus' blood did not forgive us our sins, and it's just a spiritual symbolic blood, not the literal blood of Jesus. And that sounds just like MacArthur. And MacArthur said it's not the blood, it's just the death. And MacArthur said death, burial, resurrection all the time.
Robert Potthoff: Look Look at the name Look at the name of his book.
Robert Breaker: "Ashamed of the Gospel." He goes through here, and he gives some interesting stuff, but he will never tell you it's the blood. So I'm going to go through this: "Christians today tend to forget that modernism was not first of all a theological agenda, but a methodological one. Early modernists were not trying to hit at the core of biblical faith, they were simply trying to make Christianity more palatable to a cynical world."
So he goes through here, and he tries to tell, "Well, the gospel is this, and and people aren't preaching the gospel, they've turned away from the gospel." And yet that's the very thing that he's guilty of doing! And he mentions the Downgrade controversy. If he studied Spurgeon in the Downgrade controversy, he would have known that Spurgeon preached over and over faith in the blood, faith in the blood, faith in the blood. So why won't this man, why won't this man MacArthur preach faith in the blood?
Robert Breaker directly defines the view that the blood means the death as not preaching the blood, so why is G.A. McLaughlin being quoted here?
"Verse 10: “For with the heart.” Here we have another of the many explanations that Paul makes which are prefaced by the word “for.” The reason that such a course as that mentioned in verse 10 brings salvation is because it is heart belief that brings salvation. It is not head or intellectual belief. “Unto righteousness.” True belief brings the righteousness of justification from sin, that God has arranged to give to those who trust him for it. It is the acceptance by God of the righteousness of Christ in place of our lack of righteousness. It is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. It meant that our sins are forgiven and our guilt removed. “Confession is made unto salvation.” Paul makes it as much a condition of salvation to confess with the mouth as to believe with the heart. We believe no man ever had a real experience of salvation who wanted to keep still about it." - G.A McLaughlin, Romans Commentary, Pages 189-190.
Robert Breaker is quoting a person who says the blood is figurative, and not physical. He does not read the line past what G.A. McLaughlin says about the blood.
G.A McLaughlin puts confession as a condition for salvation.
Robert Breaker does not read that.
Robert Breaker's reading of G.A McLaughlin is so absurd, I will give you his full commentary on him.
"The offering means nothing to us except as our faith for salvation rests upon it. Good works will never do it. The soul that trusts in that sacrifice, by that act of trust acknowledges that it has sinned, that it deserved eternal death, and that it despaired of salvation by its own merits of works, and hence puts its sole trust for eternal life on the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ. It is faith in the shed blood of Jesus, and not imitating his spotless example that saves him. That saves us. Why would he talk about imitating his spotless example? Because that's what Unitarians believe, that Jesus's sacrifice is an example of how they should live a sacrificial life, but they don't trust in the sacrifice for salvation. But that is one of the most strongest things, from 1926.”
“This book is Studies in Romans by Wesley Soper. D. Wesley Soper lived 1876 to 1961. So, when he wrote this, I don’t know. Here’s what he says, ‘When whenever the plan of salvation is mentioned, there are always two definite definitive things to be found. One is that Christ is the propitiation or the author or our place taker in the salvation, and it is our faith given us freely of him that seals it to our hearts. The 25th verse exemplifies this truth, for it is God or it is Christ whom God has set forth to be a propitiation, and it is through faith in his blood that it actually becomes our experience. What becomes our experience? Salvation. You don’t experience salvation until you put your faith in the blood. Amen.’ 19 Oh, no. For sometime between 1900 and 1961 when he wrote [clears throat] this. I found some other good stuff.”
I cannot understate how obscure Wesley Soper is. I literally cannot find anything about him, nevertheless “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”
What I could find is a UK Ebay listing, and in it is a photo of a page.
What page specifically?
"48 STUDIES IN ROMANS
[the simple heart-faith] on him that justifieth the un-
godly." Yes, it is only the "ungodly" whom Christ saves,
since it is only them that He came to save. He calms our
souls by the statement that, "I came not to bring the
righteous but sinners to repentance," and "I came to seek
and to save that which was lost" (Read Matthew 9:13,
18:11; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32, 19:10). Then, this one
here spoken of who realizes that he is lost, that he is with-
out a single hope of glory, that he is under an eternal
condemnation, but that simply, though steadfastly "be-
lieveth on him [God] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith
is counted for righteousness." The word here translated
"counted" is translated in Philemon 18 as "put to the
account of." It simply means that God gets out His
great account book and opposite to the believer's name
in the credit column writes, "righteousness put to the
account of John Jones." This righteousness is accurately
described in verse 25 of the preceding chapter: "the re-
mission of sins that are past [This is both individual and
collective, compare with Acts 17:30], through the for-
bearance of God."
From this fifth verse on through the 22nd verse of
this chapter is the divine exposition of the illustration
given in the first three verses. Therefore, since Abra-
ham's faithful reception of God's free righteousness with-
out works is that to which we are pointed for our instruc-
tion, to fully understand the application in verses 23 to
25 we must consider the conditions of Abraham's faith.
It is readily to be perceived that the object of our faith is
the same as the object of Abraham's faith. He found it
THE DIVINE ILLUSTRATION AND APPLICATION 49
necessary to believe that Sarah's dead womb should be
raised to life; we are pointed to Christ's resurrection
from the dead as the object of our faith. Over in Romans
10:9 we learn that "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart THAT
GOD HATH RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, thou
shalt be saved." Then, as Abraham's faith in a resur-
rection brought God's eternal grace-righteousness to him,
our faith for the same righteousness must be put also in
a resurrection, even that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Nearly every church member assents mentally to the fact
that Christ broke the bonds of death and the grave,
hence, this faith must be one of the heart; it must be a
trusting upon the fact of Christ's resurrection as the fin-
ished proof of God's reception of His payment of our
debt of death.
That one who "worketh not, but believeth on him that
justifieth the ungodly," and whose faith is by God
counted for righteousness finds an eternal, abiding bless-
edness, understood only by its possessors. "Even as
David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto
whom God imputeth righteousness without works, say-
ing, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and
whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the
Lord will not impute sin." In these Spirit-inspired words
from the thirty-second Psalm is found a great truth. The
word "blessed," as is generally understood, can be also
translated "happy." Hence, the praise-awakening dec-
laration which should arouse a burning hunger for the full
will of God, "Happy is the man to whom the Lord will"
Did you see THAT? "we are pointed to Christ's resurrection
from the dead as the object of our faith."
Robert Breaker's modus operandi (a method of procedure) is quoting anyone who says faith in the blood, and then using that to say it proves his theology.
"So, this is a book here by a guy named James Jones Jr. I don’t know anything about him, but this fellow that that wrote the foreword lived from 1941 to 2024. So, this this guy, whenever he lived, I don’t know. But in the foreword it says the blood is literal, exceptional, effectual, and essential, and will never lose its power. And I just want to say the blood is literal. This is important to where we’re going to this. That blood is literal."
I cannot find anything about James Jones Jr. or his book. Robert Breaker barely flashes it on the screen and takes it off as soon as he puts it up to the camera.
What I could see said "the blood," yet Robert Breaker only reads the foreword of it. Considering Robert Breaker's behavior for the past three articles, we can safely assume he most definitely couldn't find anything more to help him.
I want to repeat this: he JUST READ THE FOREWORD. That is his proof? Robert Breaker himself says he doesn't know anything about him.
We don't know what James Jones Jr. taught on salvation. Robert Breaker himself doesn't know.
This is an entire book named after the blood, and Robert Breaker only reads a small piece of the foreword.
And what does the small sliver of the foreword say?
The blood is literal, exceptional, effectual, and essential, and it will never lose its power.
What does that prove for Robert Breaker? How does that say James Jones Jr. taught his soteriology? How?
There is nothing in what Robert Breaker read to glean anything. The entire book is named something (again, it wasn't readable) about the blood, yet Robert Breaker, on a book named after the blood, chooses only to read the foreword.
And that is his historical evidence for his salvation beliefs?
Robert Breaker just reads quotes that say "blood" and then uses that as evidence for his salvation theology, which has the blood as its distinct object of faith and which teaches that you aren't saved unless you explicitly, consciously trust the physical, literal blood of Jesus Christ for salvation.
“Dr. W. R. Cruise wrote this book, ‘The Power of the Blood of the of Christ.’ And it’s got some cool stuff in it. That Jesus took upon himself the nature not of angels, but the nature of flesh, that he might through his vicarious and substitutionary death deliver us. Make your way to Christ. Appropriate that precious blood that will now surely set you free. Defer no longer. [Breaker's comment: He didn’t just say the death, he preached the blood because the blood is the method of the way he died] The precious blood of Christ has an opening power. Through the Old Testament sinful man could not have access to God apart from a blood sacri- sacrifice. There was no other way of approach. God was a consuming fire apart from the offering of blood. Amen."
“The precious blood of Christ has an opening power. Through the Old Testament sinful man could not have access to God apart from a blood sacrifice. There was no other way of approach. God was a consuming fire apart from the offering of blood.”
I googled him and found "The Power of the Blood of Christ by Dr. W. R. Crews" on ebay, I googled his name, William Crews, and promptly found a sermon of his.
Here's what his sermon said.
"Matthew 24. And verse, I guess it's verse 24. There shall arise false prophets and arise false Christ and false prophets and will show great, note this, great signs and wonders, insomuch that if it were possible they should deceive the very elect. Who are the elect? Well, the Jews have been the elect, but they're not the elect now. The Gentiles are the elect. Those that are chosen out of every nation, kindred, tribe, and tongue are the elect. We say, well, we don't believe in election. Yes, we do. Read your Baptist faith and message. Read the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. Read the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. Read the London Confession of Faith of 1689. Or ADA. Read the London Confession of 1629. And you'll follow who the elect are. But most of all, read the Bible. Ephesians 1. According as He has chosen us in Him. When? Before the foundation of the world. Somebody said God had a vote, the devil had a vote, and you had a vote. You didn't have a vote. Because before the foundation of the world, you were too young to vote. You hadn't been born."
We're quoting a predestination calvinist.
This is from his ministry's website.
"Statement of Mission
Our mission is to promote “Knowing Christ” experientially, dynamically, intimately and extensively, and to make Him known through the various avenues of media such as radio, television, the Internet, the pulpit, and the printing press.
Statement of Vision
Dr. Crews shares the vision of a famous preacher of the 18th century who said, “The world is my parish”. In pursuit of the spirit and goal of this vision, he is constantly, aggressively, and prayerfully going forward attempting to obey the commission the Lord has given him to take the Gospel message to every part of the globe. The Bible tells us “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” (Proverbs 29:18)
Statement of Position
1. We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God and is the complete and final revelation of His will to man.
2. We believe there is one eternal and true God who has revealed Himself in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. We believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious atoning death, and His bodily resurrection.
4. We believe that the whole human race is fallen in Adam and that all people are depraved and in a desperate condition and are unable to recover themselves from this plight by their own efforts, works, or strength of will.
5. We believe Jesus Christ is the exclusive way of salvation and that only through His blood and righteousness can anyone have eternal life and reach heaven.
6. We believe in the electing grace of God, and that acceptance by God is solely by His free and sovereign grace apart from human works.
7. We believe that all persons must be born anew – by the Spirit of God in connection with repentance, faith and receiving Christ as both Lord and Savior.
8. We believe in the Biblical eternal security of all those who are in Christ.
9. We believe in the personal, literal, and visible Second Coming of Christ at the end of the age.
10. We believe in the bodily resurrection of the just and unjust, the everlasting blessedness of the saved in heaven, and the everlasting punishment of the lost in hell."
Even if he has the blood of Jesus Christ as his object of salvation, which I am unable to verify as I don't have his book and Robert Breaker is known for selectively quoting (see Jr.), he's a Calvinist! That blood would only be for the elect.
"And then we continue, 'The Bloodline.' This is a great one, because if you can see the front there, it's the blood in the Old Testament, and then it's the blood on the cross that was then taken up to the mercy seat in heaven. Wow. And what does it say in 'The Bloodline'? Well, let's look.
'Christ died for all men, yet only those who trust him know the cleansing power of his blood. At the same time, our salvation includes more than the death of Christ. It includes his resurrection and ascension. We must look at these also if we are to have a full, scriptural view of the plan of redemption. The functioning of Jesus as our great High Priest is directly associated with the fact that he passed through the heavens to take his place at the throne of grace, to give aid to the saints by his ministry of intercession. He now appears in the presence of God on our behalf. We see the precious blood of Christ still at work. It now makes it possible for those who have been washed in it to come boldly and freely into the presence of a holy God, praise God.'
So he has the blood of Jesus on the mercy seat in heaven as the High Priest taking it there." - Robert Breaker
This is the Bloodline by Dr. C.R. Ennis/Dr. Charles Ray Ennis.
"here's what Romans 10 910 is telling us ladies and gentlemen the heart I mean the the heart is the faculty that we trust here the mouth is the organ that we confess it you hear what I said it's the Heart The Faculty that we trust him with it's the mouth which is the organ that we confess it so the world can see it the world will never see God saving your heart or bringing circumcision in you or my heart it's done with our hands but they hear it when the organ of the mouth confesses wonder why he said if thou sh confess with thy mouth and believe in thy heart that God has raised him from the dead Thou shalt be say because it takes that this is the falculty that God uses to trust him and then this is the mouth to let others know that we're not ashamed of him in this life" - Dr. Charles Ennis - Understanding Romans 10:9-10 - part 2, 50:12
So, again. Robert Breaker is taking someone who doesn't support him, and exclusively reading one comment they say about the bhlood and then using it to say that they also believed in his soteriology.
"'The Blood of His Cross' by Henry whatever. This one's got some interesting stuff in it. Let's see here:
'When it comes to the preaching of the blood, many seem to evade the matter of the blood. Many seem to, you know, omit it.
Faith appropriates the life-giving power of the blood in our lives. When the children of Israel left Egypt, faith in the substitute lamb, hearing God's word about the blood and obeying it.'
He says they believed in the blood of the lamb on the Passover, the doorpost.
'The congregation that has had the proper portion of the blood of Christ preached to it will be a liberated congregation,' because it's through faith in his blood. Here, this page: faith in the blood, faith in the blood, faith in the blood, the next page:
'The triumphal note in the world's changing Reformation was faith in his blood.'
I skipped over the Reformation because the Reformation, they preached faith in the blood.
'An attack on the blood is also an attack on the Holy Spirit.' Wow, I thought that was interesting." - Robert Breaker
The book is named Henry W. Frost, not whatever. You can know this, due to him showing the cover on screen. He doesn't even care for the people, he's quoting.
This is from Henry W. Frost's 1924 Outline Bible studies.
110 OUTLINE BIBLE STUDIES
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
THE NEW BIRTH
Historically and experimentally speaking, the process
of salvation, from the divine standpoint, is first, redemp-
tion, and then, as a result, justification. Its process, from
the human standpoint, is first, the revelation of the Word
concerning Christ to the spirit, and then, the personal ac-
ceptance by faith of God's testimony concerning Christ,
being born from above through the Holy Spirit, and be-
coming a son of God. As the redemption and justification
are perfect and lasting, the sonship is secure for time and
eternity.
I. A necessity:
1. Christ so declared—John 3:3-6.
2. Paul so affirmed—Rom. 8:5-11.
II. The process:
1. Of God—John 1:13; 1 Pet. 1:3.
2. By Christ—1 John 5:1.
3. Through the Spirit—John 3:5, 6.
III. The means:
1. The resurrection of Christ—1 Pet. 1:3.
2. The Word—Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23.
3. Faith—1 John 5:1.
IV. The portrayal:
1. A new creation—2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph.
2:10.
2. Newness of life—Rom. 6:4.
3. A new spirit—Rom. 7:6.
4. Partaking of the divine nature—2 Pet. 1:4.
5. The washing of regeneration—Titus 3:5.
6. A daily renewing of the inward man—2 Cor.
4:16.
7. A spiritual resurrection—Rom. 6:4-6; Eph. 2:1,
5; Col. 2:12; 3:1.
SALVATION 111
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
V. The result:
1. Delight in God's law—Rom. 7:22; 1 Pet. 2:2.
2. Knowledge of God—Col. 3:10.
3. Turning away from sin—1 John 3:9; 5:18.
4. Rightness of life—Eph. 4:24; 1 John 5:19.
5. Likeness to God—Col. 3:10.
6. Likeness to Christ—Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:17, 18.
7. Victory over the world—1 John 5:4, 5.
So, as you see, he very much teaches that salvation isn't by specifically believing in the blood of Jesus Christ specifically as your saving object of faith.
Sources:
Robert Breaker, Faith in the Blood is NOT a Modern Doctrine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9aW7tvsaNI
Robert Breaker, How to Be Saved, October 9th, 2010
https://youtu.be/wBSivTNU02g?t=615
This is where Robert Breaker said the calling is a work quote.
Robert Breaker (cloud church) - EP 03 A Random Piece of Steak Podcast CONFESSION
This has since been deleted :(
https://www.youtube.com/live/2OPYaKyWWKA?t=3907
Robert Breaker, Livestream With Brandon Bernardi July 2023, starting at 52:34
https://www.youtube.com/live/uyrsf8jaPqg?si=1WRPMjNLJETBqb27&t=3154
The Heart of the Gospel
https://archive.org/stream/heartofgospelpop0000camp
T.T. Martin
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25974
T.T. Martin saying the King James Bible is mistranslated
https://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/martin.t.t.sermon.degrees.html
Robert Breaker - What Are You Adding To Salvation?
https://youtu.be/ok_k5V3O_Jg?t=1822
RRobert Breaker - My Testimony of Salvation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrWM_uhw3Cg&t=171s
Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans by George McLaughlin
https://archive.org/details/bwb_P9-DIO-857
Vintage Studies In Romans D. Wesley Soper Hardcover Book
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/356361008826
William Crews - Identifying Some Signs of the Last Days
https://youtu.be/-AzzTZt2Nh4?si=UK--VEIgLdQDcLhx&t=1451
Crews Ministry
https://www.theawakeninghour.org/ministry
Dr. Charles Ennis - Understanding Romans 10:9-10 - part 2
https://youtu.be/JIjbx8lmSck?si=hTMrvvF9-ctyEhdR&t=3012
Henry Weston Frost - Outline Bible Studies
https://www.brethrenarchive.org/people/henry-weston-frost/pamphlets/outline-bible-studies/
Sources on Robert Breaker's hatred for calvinism
Robert Breaker, Upcoming livestream Jan 17 2023
https://www.youtube.com/live/ykFpTNrPl5A?si=SykdyNP3INWatwmX&t=1050
Robert Breaker - Interview with Spencer Smith
https://www.youtube.com/live/fGEcjzN7XrQ?si=R-QCUG1Rjfhoi19v&t=4130
Robert Breaker, Livestream with Robert Potthoff 3/24/2026
https://www.youtube.com/live/GBO6WzcMwhE?si=r5_y1zj1dbU4mwS4&t=3274
