[Summary]

Robert Breaker conflates people who are fighting against deniers of the Penal Substitutionary atonement as people who agree with his salvation theology.

Robert Breaker conflates people who have mentioned the blood of Jesus Christ as people who agree with his salvation theology.

Robert Breaker just finds quotes from people who just mention the blood of Jesus Christ, and then says that is historical proof for his salvation theology.

Robert Breaker conflates people who are fighting against John MacArthur's view on the blood just meaning death as people who agree with his salvation theology.

Robert Breaker conflates people who are saying that the blood of Jesus Christ was physically shed upon Heaven's mercy seat as people who agree with his salvation theology.

This is Robert Breaker's salvation theology.

"the Bible says You must trust the blood... but you haven't trusted the blood you're not saved yet" - Robert Breaker, The Blood of Jesus: The Mechanics of Salvation or the Object of our Faith? #bloodofchrist, starting at 18:38

Robert Breaker: Breaker: "he's looking at your heart and he's looking to see when does your heart trust the blood alone for salvation you can come to him begging him please don't send me to hell but it's not until from the heart you're trusting in the blood that you're saved" - Robert Breaker, The Message of the Blood, 45:40

"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

"Your works don't save you. What you say doesn't save you. What you pray doesn't save you. It's whether or not you're believing IN THE BLOOD." - Robert Breaker, What Faith in the Blood Really Means #faithintheblood #faithinjesus #bloodofjesus #bloodofchrist, 28:19

Robert Breaker (cloud church) - EP 03 A Random Piece of Steak Podcast CONFESSION: "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."

So, let's recap.

This is Robert Breaker's salvation theology.

1. Salvation is faith alone

2. The Blood of Jesus Christ is your distinct object of salvation and you must SPECIFICALLY and consciously focus on the Blood of Christ for your salvation.

3. Calling as a condition for salvation, as described in Romans 10:9-16 is a work. If you ask God to save you as a condition for your salvation, that is faith + works.

Robert Breaker tried on May 5th, 2026 to prove that this salvation theology isn't modern. He livestreamed with Robert Potthoff, Faith in the Blood is NOT a Modern Doctrine," where he "quoted" people to show that his salvation theology is not modern.

This is the final article in a series of four articles showing how he took those people out of context.

But, before I go into it.

Let's see what Robert Breaker says on Calvinists, as he quotes 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

[Fact-checking]

Robert Breaker: "The Blood of His Cross by Dr. Al Lacy. This is from 1980... uh, 4 or 88? 88, 1988.

Never in history has the Bible doctrine of the blood of Jesus Christ faced an attack as serious and sinister as it now faces. Dr. Lacy clearly explains what the Bible teaches about the blood of Christ, and he exposes the deadly heresy on the blood of Christ now being taught by Doctors R.B. Thieme and John MacArthur. He fiercely refutes their false teaching, and he brands them as heretics, which they are. And we will look at MacArthur here in a moment, because I got the book.

He says, these words: 'Those of us who believe the book and have our faith in the precious shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ will continue to sing saved by the blood. Praise the Lord, I got under the preaching of an old-fashioned Baptist preacher who preached to me that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation and his precious blood as the only element in existence that could cleanse my sins. Mr. Thieme has tried to take away my salvation by the blood by correcting Romans 3:25, which is what new versions do. Instead of faith in his blood, they say through his blood, comma, by faith. As a shorthand title for the saving work of our Lord, the blood of Christ is therefore a synonym for the spiritual death.'

Mr. Thieme goes on: 'In the Old Testament, blood was literal and the judgment was symbolic, but on the cross, the blood was symbolic.' And he [Lacy] goes through and he talks about how this man named Thieme says the blood of Jesus is symbolic, not literal.

Do you see that? I'm reading page 132: 'Your propitiation comes in only one way, through faith in his blood. No faith in his blood, no propitiation.' That's what this author is saying. 'In Romans 3:25, Jesus is the place of propitiation, and it is clear that He is not in the, the place of our propitiation unless we have faith in His blood.'

I love this quote, you ready?

'It is sheer and absolute folly for anyone to think they can have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and not have faith in His blood for their propitiation.'

That guy's a Breakerite. [Laughs] I was 14 years old when he wrote this book, and I didn't even know the guy."

Robert Breaker October 23, 2024: The Bible says, 'In whom we have redemption through his blood.' If you are trusting in anything else, God's not going to let you off. 'Let Christ come into your life?' You'll go to hell as sure as you're sitting there. 'Let Christ come into your heart?' Which Christ? Which heart? The Bible says, 'In whom we have redemption through His blood.' Now, there are a thousand ways and a thousand plans of salvation that people talk about getting saved, but the Bible says without the shedding of blood there is no remission. There are two ways to get saved: the old-fashioned way and the new-fashioned way. And the new-fashioned way is ineffective. It doesn't get them saved. The new-fashioned way is: 'Share God's love. Let Christ come into your life. Let Christ come into your heart, all that (Christ coming into your heart) modern, philosophical, positivistic nonsense..."

Robert Breaker condemned asking Jesus into your heart as a SURE WAY TO BURN IN HELL.

Yet, Dr. Al Lacy said in his sermon, "When I See The Blood by Dr Al Lacy - Audio Only - From LP"

"Revelation 3:20 Jesus said behold I stand at the door and knock he knocks on the heart's door when you hear the gospel does not the Bible say we must receive him into our heart doesn't Ephesians 3:17 say that he may dwell in your heart Hearts by faith well then he pictures that your heart this isn't the muscle that pumps your blood now he's talking about the middle of your soul the heart of you but for an entrance it has a door and he said I knock at the door now do you know what happens when that old Lost Sinner senses that Jesus is knocking its heart as it at his heart's door and he looks up by faith and calls on him like the Bible says he he must do and when he repents of those old sins and asks Jesus for forgiveness and then invites him into his heart as his savior do you know what Jesus does he takes the blood he's the only one has access to it he takes the blood and he pushes the door too just before he comes in and he puts that blood across on that door and he steps inside and he p PS it shut seals it with the spirit of God and when you go out into eternity and God the Father looks down and he sees your heart and on that door is the blood of Jesus Christ that tells him Jesus is inside and God said when you go out into eternity when I see the blood I will pass over you is Jesus in your heart today not unless you've invited him he's not there."

This explicitly condemns Robert Breaker.

This only shows Robert Breaker selectively quotes anyone who mentions the blood without actually looking at their full theology, which means Robert Breaker selectively quotes people.

Dr. Al Lacy is not a Breakerite. Dr. Al Lacy, according to Robert Breaker, preached a damnable heresy.

Robert Breaker: "But we'll continue. Here's David Cloud, his book of Romans. All right, Mr. Cloud, what do you have to say? Uh, are you a Breakerite, brother? *'Faith in his blood is the way of salvation. The sinner must understand and believe that Christ's blood paid the price for his sin. He must put his faith in that blood. He must believe that Christ died for our sins and that God is satisfied with that payment.

In evangelism, we need to stay with biblical language and biblical concepts. Terms such as receiving Jesus into my heart, which are not found anywhere in scripture, should be avoided. Christ does come into the heart of those who are saved, but we aren't saved by receiving him into the heart. We are saved by putting our trust in his atonement.'* "Do you see that? [holds book up to the camera] I do not understand. Anybody that calls us a blood cult, they're nothing but a cult themselves, because they don't agree with, modern Christianity, we've gone back 2,000 years.This is, this is his book put out in 2020. So, here we have faith in the blood again.""

There are multiple things out of context

1. Why are we quoting people from 2020 to prove whether or not faith in the blood is a modern doctrine... NOTICE THE SWITCH OF HAND.

2. This is once again taking someone out of context.

Allow me to explain who David Cloud is to explain the second.

1. David Cloud does not believe the King James has advanced revelations.

"If Ruckman is right, where was the inspired Word of God prior to 1611? What did the churches do from the time of the apostles until the 17th century? And what did they do before Ruckman came upon the scene to create this doctrine, because it is certain that no one taught it at an earlier date?" - David Cloud, What About Peter Ruckman?

He however does believe it is inspired.

2. David Cloud does believe you have to call upon God (even if he's against the sinner's prayer)

"Biblical evangelism urges sinners to call on Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

"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. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Ro. 10:9-13).

Here salvation is described as confessing the Lord Jesus with the mouth, believing from the heart that God has raised Him from the dead, and calling on Him.

The word "Lord" is mentioned three times in this key passage. To say that a person can receive Christ as Saviour and not as Lord has no biblical support. Jesus is Lord, and every soul will bow to Him as Lord, either in salvation or in judgment.

To believe on Christ savingly after the fashion of this passage (to confess Him, to believe unto righteousness, to call upon Him) requires that the individual understand and believe the gospel that Paul preached in Romans 1-3: man's totally condemned condition before a holy God and his inability to save himself by good works and law keeping (Ro. 1:18 - 3:20) and Christ's work of atonement for man's behalf on the cross (Ro. 3:21-29).

To call on the Lord in the sense of Romans 10:13 is not a "sinner's prayer" in the way that sinner's prayer evangelism has been taught. It is simply a personal receiving of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

A sinner's prayer might be helpful to some people who don't know what to say to the Lord in calling on Him for salvation. My wife was helped by a sinner's prayer when she got saved as a teenager. But a sinner's prayer is not the goal of evangelism. To get the sinner to receive the living Christ is the goal. If a sinner's prayer is used at all, it must be used very carefully and wisely at the right time and with the right person.

And if a sinner's prayer is used, it must be a good sinner's prayer that helps the individual express biblical repentance and faith. Most of the sinner's prayers that we have seen neglect repentance." - David Cloud, The History of How Evangelism Was Corrupted Among Independent Baptists

Also, i want to just say David Cloud selectively quotes Lester Roloff in that article, as Lester Roloff explicitly used the term asking Jesus into your heart, which is against Robert Breaker.

See my compilations on Lester Roloff asking Jesus into your heart online.

"I have nothing against using a sinner's prayer as an aid in evangelism if it is used correctly, but it must be plainly understood that the Bible never says that sinners are saved through a prayer. The apostle Paul taught that salvation is "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21). A repentant sinner who prays a sinner's prayer sincerely to God, putting his trust exclusively upon Jesus Christ for salvation, will be saved. But an unrepentant sinner who prays a sinner's prayer without heart-level faith and with insincere motives will not be saved. A prayer has never saved anyone. The publican in Luke 18 was saved when he prayed, "God, be merciful to me a sinner," but it was not the mere utterance of those words that saved him; it was the fact that he was convicted of his sin before God and he had humbled himself in repentance and faith. If another man, standing nearby, had tried to pray the same prayer without the heartfelt repentance and faith of the publican, he would not have been saved merely through uttering a "sinner's prayer" formula.

I am not opposed to using a sinner's prayer to help people come to Christ. I didn't pray a formal sinner's prayer when I was saved. I simply trusted in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour from my heart and professed Him before men with my mouth. God opened my heart to Christ one night in a motel room in Daytona Beach, Florida, in 1973 and I yielded to Him and cast myself upon His mercy. Some people, though, find a sinner's prayer helpful in formulating their thoughts toward God. The sinner's prayer can be a good tool to assist the sinner in reaching out to God in faith, but it must be plainly recognized that a sinner's prayer alone, apart from repentance and faith, apart from the convicting, saving power of God in that person's life, is empty.

Some might ask, "But doesn't Romans 10:13 say that 'whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved'?" Yes, it does, but that verse cannot be interpreted apart from its context. The context says that sinners are saved by confessing with the mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in the heart that God has raised him from the dead (verse 9), "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (v. 10). We see, then, that salvation is a heart matter. The cry unto God that saves the sinner must come from a repentant, believing heart. Apart from that, a sinner can cry out to God all day long and not be saved. Jesus described people who pray "Lord, Lord" and who even do many wonderful works in His name (which is more than the average Independent Baptist church member does!) but who are not saved (Matt. 7:21-23). James warned that one can believe in God and not be saved (James 2). Prayers alone do not save." - David Cloud, Questions Answered About Repentance

3. David Cloud believes Jesus Christ is your object of faith.

"The term "fornication" in Rev. 17:2 refers to the seducing power of the Romish system in drawing away the affections from Christ, who is the only true and proper object of faith for the heart. "The priest comes between the heart and the blessed Lord; the Bible is concealed; the mind of God is unknown; the people are intoxicated with her exciting falsehoods; and worship they know not what" (Miller's Church History)." - David Cloud, Rome and the Harlot of Revelation 17

"I agree that we do not need a call to unity. It's the wrong goal and I don't believe it works. It can lead to real compromise. But nor do we need to make separation the goal. The splintered factions within Fundamentalism are not a good testimony. The goal must be a person—Jesus. To live by faith our focus must be on the object of faith. We must be ever looking unto Jesus. We must look and live unto Jesus, and that demands, at times, we will have to separate to protect our relationship with Jesus." - David Cloud, The Idolatry of Music

""The term 'fornication,' as here used, means, we have no doubt, the seducing power of the Romish system in drawing away the affections from Christ, who is the only true object of faith for the heart. The priest comes in between the heart and the blessed Lord; the Bible is concealed; the mind of God is unknown; the people are intoxicated with her exciting falsehoods; and worship they know not what" (Miller's Church History). The attraction of apostate Christianity to the people of the world, in spite of the fact that apostate Christendom has constantly discredited itself, is amazing to behold." - David Cloud, How Revelation 17 Pictures the Roman Catholic Church

4. David Cloud hates Dr. Ruckman!

Read the entire What About Peter Ruckman? and apply everything he says about Dr. Ruckman to Robert Breaker.

So, yes a man in 2020 says the blood is important, that man David Cloud doesn't hold to everything Robert Breaker teaches.

5. David Cloud is a Lordship salvationist! See cited article in sources.

6. David Cloud teaches Dispensational salvation is a heresy!

"He believes men were saved by blood plus works in the Old Testament, by faith plus works in the Tribulation, and by works alone in the Millennium. In Millions Disappear: Fact or Fiction? Ruckman says: "If the Lord comes and you remain behind, then start working like a madman to get to heaven, because you're going to have to. ... You must keep the Ten Commandments (all of them, Ecclesiastes 12:13), keep the Golden Rule (1 John 3:10), give your money to the poor, get baptized, take up your cross, hold out to the end of the Tribulation, wait for Jesus Christ to show up at the Battle of Armageddon, and be prepared to die for what you believe. In the Tribulation you cannot be saved by grace alone, like you could before the Rapture."

Romans 4:1-8 plainly states that both Abraham before the law and David under the law were saved by faith without works. This is the only plan of salvation God ever has had and ever will have--salvation by grace alone through faith alone based upon the shed blood of Jesus Christ alone. The Old Testament saints did not know what the New Testament saint knows, but Romans 4 makes it plain that the Old Testament saints were saved by faith without works. Like Abraham, they believed God and it was counted unto them for righteousness.

Those who are saved in the Tribulation will also be saved through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ and through this alone. "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 7:14)" - David Cloud, what about Peter Ruckman?

And why would it even matter to prove your doctrine is not modern to quote a person in 2020?

David Cloud is Don Nesbitt, the Lord's bloodhound contemporary, He's ed Carson's contemporary, he's Robert Breaker's contemporary, and he's my contemporary.

Robert Breaker randomly quotes anyone who mentions the blood of Jesus Christ, and promptly says that person is a "Breakerite"

Why quote a modern day preacher to prove your theology isn't modern?

E. W. Kenyon

Robert Breaker: "So now, I don't even want to go to this one, this was just one I found in my bedroom that I forgot all about was by my, by my bed. [laughs] I was like, 'Well, I forgot that was even there.' And, uh, what does it say here? Mark 15:38 tells us of the death of Jesus and the rendering of the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies where the blood was carried and sprinkled upon the mercy seat. This was the end of the holy of holies on earth. It was the beginning of the new covenant in his blood. He had carried his, this blood of deity into the holy of holies in the new tabernacle not made with hands, in the heavens. It is what he called the one sacrifice for all sins.' This is 1999, but it's E.W. Kenyon, who actually was from way sooner. This Mr. Kenyon lived way before that. So, yeah. I got some more books here, you want to go there? [laughs]"

This quote does not show anything. You can't even extract sola fide alone from it.

It's from The Blood Covenant by Essek William Kenyon.

Page 59 of that book states "This is one of the great words of the New Covenant.

It means wiping out as though it had never been. When an

army is disbanded, it is remitted . . . it stops being.

When God remits our sins, they are wiped out as though they

had never been.

The word "remission" is never used but in connection with

the New Birth.

After we become Christians, then we have our sins forgiven

on the basis of our relationship and the intercession of Christ.

When we come to Him as sinners, and take Christ as Savior,

confess Him as our Lord, then all that we have ever done is wiped

out."

Robert Breaker's methodology time and again has shown to be this: He selectively quotes anyone who mentions the blood, and then uses it as historical proof for his soteriology.

"This is Dennis Corles, all right? He's famous guy for writing of that Revival Fires magazine or something. Put this out in what year? This is 2015. This is 11 years ago. Now, I'm not impressed with the man, I'll be honest. I've met him, I've heard his preaching. But I am impressed with what he wrote in this book.

The chapter is: 'Salvation is by blood, not by water.' And he wrote:

'Salvation has always been by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Eternal life is a gift, not a reward or a wage. All right, I want you to see, I'm not making this up. Come on, camera. Put it on here. I want you to see. Is this where it is? Nope. It's this page over here, right there. Okay? So, here we go. He says:

'Christ applied his blood to the mercy seat in heaven.' What? 'After his resurrection and before his ascent to heaven to apply his blood to the mercy seat...' This is a Baptist, all right? There's people lying about us saying no Baptist has ever believed that Jesus took his blood to the mercy seat in heaven, into the holy place, that that's a made-up doctrine by what, Ellen G. White or something? That that's a Seventh-day Adventist doctrine or something? No. 'If anyone touched a high priest between the brazen altar where the blood was shed and the mercy seat where it was sprinkled to make an atonement, it was defiled. Our high priest applied his own blood. After his ascent and application of his blood to the mercy seat in heaven, he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men.' This is a Baptist, independent Baptist, who believes that Jesus put his blood on the mercy seat in heaven."

There are many things wrong with this.

1. He's from 2015, a contemporary. If a Historian was making a book about 21st century Christians, I would be in the same category as him. Why are we quoting contemporary Christians to prove a 20th century doctrine isn't modern?

2. The first quote should be considered in light of him TEACHING DISPENSATIONAL SALVATION IS NOT BIBLICAL. "Salvation Is Eternal Not Dispensational" You can buy that book for 5.99 at kindle.

3. His testimony of asking God to save him.

4. He explicitly endorses other people asking God to save them.

"I went to the house, called the guy and said, "I won't be in tonight. Matter of fact, I won't be in anymore." He said, "Why?" And I wasn't even saved yet! I said, "I got saved." He said, "From what?" (laughter) I said, "I don't know, got religion." He said, "You?" I said, "Yeah, yeah." And I hung up.

I went in my bedroom, got on my knees, spent all night in prayer. Now, you don't have to pray all night to get saved. But I was confessing my sin, trying to get things right with God, and I wasn't done in the morning. Oh, don't look at me surprised; the only thing holding your halo up is your horns! (laughter) But I was on my face all night, probably asked the Lord to save me 10 times. I'm sure He did it the first time. But there was real Holy Ghost conviction. And what that conviction started out like, it was just like the preacher knew everything about me, and he was zeroing in on me!"

"One Saturday I went by, there was an old beat-up blue Ford car sitting in the front yard. I knocked on the door. Big old burly guy, all muscled up, bald-headed, kind of looked like Mr. Clean. He came to the door, real rough-spoke: "Yeah, what do you want?" I said, "I'm the preacher that comes by and picks your daughter up on Sunday." And I said, "She's been asking me to come by and talk to you, and I promised her I would." I said, "Would you let me come in a few minutes and talk to you?" "Yeah, I guess." Invited me in. I sat down on the couch, started going through the plan of salvation with him. I got about halfway through the plan of salvation, God just broke his heart. Big old muscled-up, burly guy, God just broke his heart; he started sobbing.

I finished showing him how to be saved, we got on our knees, he asked the Lord to save him. I gave him assurance, talked to him about coming (Church) the next day."

Robert Breaker famously uses this story. When he was "unsaved", he asked God to save him day and night. He will then tell you the exact number of prayers that are usually in the thousands (despite that being impossible) and say which prayer saved him?

" i pray that prayer and i prayed that prayer every night from age 13 to age 18 how many prayers would that be you know which one saved me none of them " - Robert Breaker, Giving my Testimony of Salvation.

Dennis Corles finally has the answer.

"I asked the Lord to save me 10 times. I'm sure He did it the first time." - Dennis Corles

The first one.

Robert Breaker quoting someone who he explicitly said is unimpressive, and doing all of that just to take one quote about the blood out of context.

Robert Breaker: "I'm driving through Texarkana, which was coolest thing in the world, because on the right side is Arkansas, on the left side was Texas. And so it just depends on which side of the street you're on, what state you're in. And all of a sudden I see a Baptist bookstore, and so I stop, and I get Baptist New Testament Commentary... If you're a Baptist, this is Baptist commentary, so you would think you'd want to believe what Baptists believe, right? ... You would think, but they call themselves Baptists, but are they? "Romans 3:25... 'whom God has set forth to be a propitiation...' Let's see, I didn't dog-ear these, so I don't know if this is what I wanted out of this one, but it is interesting that it talks about through faith in His blood." "'The high priest on the day of atonement sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat and the atonement was made for the people. The propitiation which Jesus made is sufficient for the whole world, but is only available through faith in His blood.'" "But that's a Breakerite! [Laughs] That's a Breakerite right there. See, Breaker isn't a true Baptist from what I'm hearing, if I believe these people... We just made this up and started a cult, and no one's ever believed this before.

So, only those—I'm reading it—'who accept His sacrifice by placing their faith in Jesus will be justified or declared not guilty, all others will suffer the wrath of God eternally.' So when you put your faith in Jesus, what is the context? It's putting your faith in the blood... So are these men really Baptists, or are they apostates?"

Notice the sleight of hand, he TRIES to say that

1. Believing that the Blood being on the mercy SEAT does not show you are in agreement with Robert Breaker on the views of salvation.

"the Bible says You must trust the blood... but you haven't trusted the blood you're not saved yet" - Robert Breaker, The Blood of Jesus: The Mechanics of Salvation or the Object of our Faith? #bloodofchrist, starting at 18:38

"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

If [insert Christian] says "Jesus's blood was shed on the mercy seat" Is he saying that you have to mentally assent to the blood of Jesus Christ as his distinct object of faith STRICTLY for salvation, or just that he believed that the blood is on the seat?

2. Let's see who wrote Baptist New Testament Commentary.

"Baptist New Testament Commentary Series:

The Baptist New Testament Commentary is a series of verse-by-verse commentaries of the King James Version Bible. This commentary is based entirely on the King James Version Bible, using the Received Text for all renderings. It is the passion project of 12 different authors, an editorial staff, and support staff of HPB Publications."

Who's HPB?

"Hyde Park Baptist Church invites you to meet our Promotional Director for HPB Publishing."

"Contact Hyde Park Baptist Church at (318) 396- 8691 or Bro J.W. Sumrall directly at (318) 450-1831."

Using that phone number, we can find where they're at.

Hyde Park Missionary Baptist Church, 709 Wallace Dean Rd, West Monroe, LA 71291

As, I don't have Baptist New Testament Commentary on hand. Let's go to their church, and see what they teach.

"God's Plan of Salvation"

"If you can answer "yes" to the following four questions, then proceed to the fifth for salvation.

Do you believe in God?

I John 5:20 "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ."

Do you believe that you are a sinner?

Romans 3:10, 23 "As written, There is non righteous, no not one…for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Do you believe that your sins have separated you from God?

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death." This has reference to being separated from God because of sin.

Do you believe the death of Jesus Christ paid your entire sin debt?

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Have you asked God to forgive your sins and through faith, accepted Jesus as your savior?

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Luke 13:3 "I tell you, Nay: but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

Many people can answer "yes" to the first four questions. However, a person will remain "lost" until he or she can answer "yes" to the fifth question.

Just because you believe in God does not mean you are saved. Jesus said to a religious believer in the Bible, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, 'Ye must be born again.'" This religious man believed in God, but he was lost and needed to be saved.

You can also be saved:

If you answered "yes" to the first four questions, then (from the depths of your heart) ask God to forgive your sins, and put your trust in Jesus, and ask Him to save you, and He will!

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13"

Let's check that with Robert Breaker.

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."

So, they're incompatible.

I don't know what they wrote in their Romans 10 commentary, notice Robert Breaker in all of his romans commentaries he quotes G.A. McLaughlin and this, he never goes to Romans 10.

However, I know they wrote that you have to ask God to save you in their God's plan for salvation on their website. Leading me to believe that their published commentaries share the views explicitly on their church website.

Robert Breaker also quotes their 1 and 2 Corinthians Commentary, and uses this to say that they teach his salvation is obtained by focusing on the blood of Jesus Christ as your distinct object of saving faith.

Robert Breaker: "Here's First Corinthians. And these were expensive, I couldn't buy the whole set. I just wanted to get the one, because I wanted to go to First Corinthians 15 and see what it said. Let's go to First Corinthians chapter 15 and see what it says. [Laughs] Boy, this is fun, amen? "Here's First Corinthians 15:1 through 4, and it says:

'His death involved and required the shedding of blood for the sins of the world.'

The scriptures reveal—well, that would be according to the scriptures—and almost all things are by the law purged with blood and without shedding of blood is no remission. John wrote that Christ was the propitiation...

'Without the blood of the innocent lamb being shed, salvation could not be possible.'

I guess that's just according to the scriptures."

Robert Breaker: "Isn't that fascinating? A Baptist commentary, you go to First Corinthians 1 through 4, and he brings up how Christ died, it's by shedding His blood. But yet, you and I are the first people that ever did that, and this is only 15 years ago someone ever preached such a silly thing, no one's ever said that before."

Again, no one claims that Robert Breaker's doctrine was invented 15 years ago. The most favorable view is that it was invented in the 1970s.

This is the last quote of ours, before he randomly quotes song lyrics.

Robert Breaker: "Now, this is what this says:

*'Multitudes in this so-called Christian country are deluded by a Christless religion. A Christianity that never began by being born again, but like Cain's religion, it consists of something of their own.

The altar is there, the profession of seeming to worship, but examining the offering and you find it is not thanksgiving ascending from a heart at rest through faith in the blood of God's Lamb, but the fruit of their own labor.

Or like the Pharisee in Luke, they tell us what they are not, and what they think they are; what they do, and what they do not. It is I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I all the time, not Jesus.'*

And I could read the rest, but this was in the thing I put up today as our walk out in the woods. And that's the problem. Many people today, you ask them, 'Are you saved?'

—'Yes! I love Jesus, I said a prayer, I go to church, I, I, I, I...'

And it's like, why isn't it: 'Yes, because I've put my faith in the blood'?"

That may seem impressive before you consider something.

1. We don't know who wrote it. Robert Breaker could've written it all we know.

2. Robert Breaker is reading into the 1880s Bible with his own bias.

If you read history, see my history of the term bloodless gospel.

You will know Charles Phillips coined the term bloodless gospel as a term for evangelism without murdering someone.

However, Archibald Brown popularized the term as a polemic against Christian Liberals denying the Penal substitutionary atonement.

Why does this matter?

Because Archibald Brown explicitly used the terminology of Cain's religion being bloodless, when he was fighting Christians Liberal WHO WERE NOT TEACHING THE SINNER'S PRAYER, but rather denying the Penal substitutionary atonement.

This is from the sermon, the Way of Cain by Archibald Brown, page 232.

As Robert Breaker is known to quote selectively, I want to make it clear that Archibald Brown is a calvinist.

Before I pass on to the second description of Cain's way, I want every one present to test and try his own heart before the Lord. Have I the religion of Cain or that of Abel? Am I resting on the blood, or is my religion a bloodless one? Have I only the external fashionable religion of the day, or am I among those who, taught of faith rather than reason, approach God through the medium of atonement? These questions may appear to many but of little importance, but the day is fast coming when eternity will depend on the answer we are able to give to them. The polite superficial religion of the world, that acknowledges no sinnership and trusts no blood, will at last be rejected by the Lord as was Cain's sacrifice. My dear brother and fellow young man, if you are resting on anything that you are, or anything you can give, it is only because like Cain you are yet ignorant of your sinfulness and dark as to what God requires, I can but mourn over you and say, "Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain."

So, it's really not remarkable for someone in the 1880s to use the same terminology as Archibald Brown.

In fact, due to the connection of Archibald Brown. We can literally say confidently that person was just saying don't deny the Penal Substitution atonement.

They weren't saying "salvation is obtained by specifically trusting the blood of Jesus Christ as your distinct object of saving faith.

I just want to say, I know this because I did my own historical research on this. Robert Breaker doesn't do historical research.

If he did historical research, he would know that this is insignificant.

And, this is the final part. Robert Breaker randomly quotes hymns about the blood... to prove that a person saying "The blood is great!" shows that person held

1. Salvation is faith alone

2. The Blood of Jesus Christ is your distinct object of salvation and you must SPECIFICALLY focus on the Blood of Christ for your salvation.

3. Calling as a condition for salvation, as described in Romans 10:9-16 is a work

Robert Breaker: "Um I mean, from you got Isaac Watts all the way back in 1707 um singing 'Not all the blood of beasts.' Um um Isaac Watts again, 'Alas, and did my Savior bleed?' You got 'Rock of Ages' 1763. Uh 'There's a fountain filled with blood' 1772 by William Cowper. 'Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness' by Nicholas von Zinzendorf 1739. 'O for a thousand tongues to sing' Charles Wesley. And in that song it says, 'His blood can make the foulest clean.' Yeah. Let's see. Charles Wesley again, he can and and 'Can it be that I should gain uh nothing but the blood?' Uh Robert Lowry in 1876, 'Are you washed in the blood?' Uh 1878, 'The cleansing wave' 1872, 'There's power in the blood' 1899, 'The old rugged cross' 1912. I mean, these these things are they've been they've been singing about it. These old hymns that are based on scripture here have been singing about it, but oh, it's it's new. Yeah. Let me read you a couple of the Um Oh, is ''Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus.' You know that hymn? One line says, 'Oh, how sweet to trust in Jesus, just to trust His cleansing blood.' But this bird over here says, 'Though nowhere the Bible does say trust the All right, then throw out your hymn books out of your church because they say trust the cleansing blood. In the hymn called 'The Solid Rock' we read these words, 'My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness.' What is your hope? Your faith. Amen. >> titled 'My sins are blotted out, I know' contains these lyrics, 'What a wondrous message in God's word, my sins are blotted out, I know. If I trust in His redeeming blood, my sins are blotted out, I know.' But they didn't get that from the Bible. They got that from Robert Pardo off and Robert Breaker, I guess. A German hymn, 'Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness' says, 'Lord, I believe Thy precious blood, which at the mercy seat of God doth forever for sinners plead. For even me, my soul was shed was shed.' And 'Whiter than snow.' The hymn 'Whiter than snow.' 'Lord Jesus, for this I most humbly entreat. I wait, blessed Lord, at Thy crucified feet. By faith for my cleansing I see the blood should flow. Now wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.' So, by faith for my cleansing I see the blood flow. I put my faith in the blood that's flowing for my cleansing, for my salvation."

For the entire four articles, I have shown you every time a person says the blood (save perhaps T.T. Martin) that they do not mean what Robert Breaker says they mean.

Robert Breaker serves no proof that these hymnal writers taught his distinct salvation theology, save that they mentioned the blood.

I plead the blood, does that mean I teach his distinct salvation theology? I will only quote two, as in the words of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.

Let's look to Isaac Watts.

May not the sovereign Lord on high

Dispense his favors as he will;

Choose some to life while others die,

And yet be just and gracious still?

Calvinist.

William Cowper, writer of There's a fountain filled with blood

Robert Breaker teaches that if a person doubts they were saved, they were never really saved.

William Cowper spent the last years of his life doubting he was ever saved, and believed he was damned and on his way to hell.

Robert Breaker: "So why would you doubt if you were born again? Does that make sense? That's the dumbest thing ever: 'Oh, I don't know if I'm saved or not.' It's because you're not, then! That's the only thing it could be. Because you don't doubt if you've been born."

Here is from THE WORKS OF WILLIAM COWPER, the 237th letter.

"My dear Friend,—Within this hour arrived three sets of your new publication,[337] for which we sincerely thank you. We have breakfasted since they came, and consequently, as you may suppose, have neither of us had yet an opportunity to make ourselves acquainted with the contents. I shall be happy (and when I say that, I mean to be understood in the fullest and most emphatical sense of the word) if my frame of mind shall be such as may permit me to study them. But Adam's approach to the tree of life, after he had sinned, was not more effectually prohibited by the flaming sword that turned every way, than mine to its great Antitype has been now almost these thirteen years, a short interval of three or four days, which passed about this time twelvemonth, alone excepted. For what reason it is that I am thus long excluded, if I am ever again to be admitted, is known to God only. I can say but this; that if he is still my Father, this paternal severity has toward me been such as that I have reason to account it unexampled. For though others have suffered desertion, yet few, I believe, for so long a time, and perhaps none a desertion accompanied with such experiences. But they have this belonging to them, that, as they are not fit for recital, being made up merely of infernal ingredients, so neither are they susceptible of it; for I know no language in which they could be expressed. They are as truly things which it is not possible for man to utter as those were which Paul heard and saw in the third heaven. If the ladder of Christian experience reaches, as I suppose it does, to the very presence of God, it has nevertheless its foot in the abyss. And if Paul stood, as no doubt he did, in that experience of his to which I have just alluded, on the topmost round of it, I have been standing, and still stand, on the lowest, in this thirteenth year that has passed since I descended. In such a situation of mind, encompassed by the midnight of absolute despair, and a thousand times filled with unspeakable horror, I first commenced as an author."

So, according to Robert Breaker he was not saved.

Look online, William Cowper believed he was damned.

Robert Breaker also quotes Dr. Ruckman's letter to his father, Robert Ray Breaker II however I have written an entire article on that.

Look there for my commentary.

[Conclusion]

Robert Breaker selectively quotes anyone who mentions the blood of Jesus Christ. Then he uses their quotes on the blood to say they teach his distinct theology, where the blood of Jesus Christ is your distinct object of faith, and to be saved you must have specifically singled out the blood of Jesus Christ.

Robert Breaker's salvation theology has no historical backing. It is a 20th century invention.

Robert Breaker at his best cannot prove it.

Robert Breaker using AI at its best cannot prove that his theology has historical backing.

Robert Breaker just solely relies on reading quotes or song lyrics mentioning the blood of Jesus Christ. He passes that off as an author who automatically agrees with all three points of his salvation theology.

Robert Breaker otherwise relies on quotes from people in defense of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or against John MacArthur's doctrine that the blood solely means death. He passes them off as authors who automatically agree with all three points of his salvation theology.

The point is, anyone who says the blood is, according to Robert Breaker, "a Breakerite."

I plead the blood of Jesus Christ daily, as Dr. Ruckman did (see my self-exorcism article).

Robert Breaker would take me out of context and say that I preached his salvation theology.

There is no historical backing. There is nothing outside of the 20th century to support him. And even the 20th century ones are few and in between, whether they are T.T. Martin or Robert Ray Breaker III's father, Robert Ray Breaker II. Not a whole lot changes on which 20th-century man you want to pick for having invented this modern salvation theology.

He is unable to even go into depth with any of the quotes. He reads and explains how all of those people hold all three points of his soteriology, and then tries to harmonize their other views on salvation (namely calling or them explicitly saying Christ is the object of faith) with his own views, beyond just saying they got it wrong sometimes and right the others. (That is what he says about Dr. Ruckman, and Jack Hyles. See the 52 quotes for his salvation theology article I wrote for Jack Hyles.)

What is the most horrid thing is that he seems to have no regret for being so blatantly disingenuous with his "attempts" to prove his doctrine, whether that is naming fake AI-generated Ambrose quotes after he apologized for doing it the first time, or quoting anyone who made a passing comment on the blood of Jesus Christ and saying they support his salvation views. Robert Breaker's methods fail any and all historical standards.

John 16:13

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”

It is a promise that the Holy Spirit will lead every Christian into ALL TRUTH. Yet Robert Breaker has not been led.

Sources:

Robert Breaker saying you're damned to hell if you ask Jesus into your heart as a condition for salvation

Apostasy: The Falling Away #apostasy #heresy #fallingaway #lastdays #endoftime #rapture #kjvonly

https://youtu.be/IkPP6eGfyEI?t=1129

When I See The Blood by Dr Al Lacy - Audio Only - From LP

https://youtu.be/gqtFnQtOPhc?t=1058

David Cloud does not believe the King James has advanced revelations.

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/ruckman.html

Point 2 of David Cloud

https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/the-history-of-how-evangelism-was-corrupted.php

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/questionsonrepentance.html

3. David Cloud believing Jesus Christ is your object of faith

https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/rome_and_the_harlot_of_revelation.html

https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/the_idolatry_of_music.php

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/how_revelation_17_pictures.html

4. David Cloud hates Dr. Ruckman

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/ruckman.html

Here's it as a PDF!

https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/downloads/What_About__p.php

David Cloud is a Lordship salvationist! See cited article in sources.

https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/a-cloudy-view-of-salvation-david-w-cloud-on-repentance/

Essek William Kenyon - The Blood Covenant

https://www.hopefaithprayer.com/books/TheBloodCovenant-Kenyon.pdf

Dennis Corle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY4IqyPkL_E&t=3035

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY4IqyPkL_E&t=4038

Hyde Park Baptist

https://hpbpublishing.com/

https://hydeparkbaptist.org/

Hyde Park Baptist - God's Plan of Salvation

https://hydeparkbaptist.org/?page_id=102

Isaac Watts calvinism

https://hymnary.org/hymn/PHW/I.117

William Cowper believing himself to be damned

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/47790/47790-h/47790-h.htm

[Robert Breaker's salvation theology]

Robert Breaker, The Message of the Blood

https://youtu.be/At_RNx9qCD0?t=2740

Robert Breaker, Faith in the Blood is Faith in the Atoning Work of Jesus! #faithintheblood #atonement #bloodofjesus

https://youtu.be/vCUCLFVX3CY?t=3220

Robert Breaker, The Blood of Jesus: The Mechanics of Salvation or the Object of our Faith?

https://youtu.be/cDnVW1kvwrY?t=1118

Robert Breaker (the Cloud Church) - Plant the Seed! Sermon 1 2025 Camp meeting in Tennessee #planting #farming #farmer #seed #seeds

(Sep 6, 2025)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVFoTUVf8NM&t=2097

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 - Faith in the Blood is Faith in the Atoning Work of Jesus! #faithintheblood #atonement #bloodofjesus

https://youtu.be/vCUCLFVX3CY?t=2863

Robert Breaker, How to Be Saved, October 9th, 2010

https://youtu.be/wBSivTNU02g?t=615

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 hating 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