The Complete History of the "Bloodless Gospel" (1901-1918): From Northfield to Bishop Henry Clay Morrison (Part 2)
Bloodless Gospel was historically never used against the sinner's prayer.
1901. This from a Northfield Conference Addresses from 1901, continuing Brown's usage of bloodless gospel as a polemic against a spiritualizer. Let me read this full passage, page 345:
"Once again, in this new statement, what have we new to say about atonement? Nothing new; by our whole new sense of God, we shall say to men, not only that atonement is necessary because they are sinners, but because God is what He is. I remember hearing Dr. Weston say that what God said, 'Adam, where art thou?' that was not the inquiry of a policeman; it was the wail of a father over a wandering child. I have never forgotten it. I have sinned, and I never can find my way back to His heart but through atonement, the mystery of atonement. But I am increasingly laying the emphasis on the other side. A child of God lost; he must be brought back; the door must be opened, and He has opened it. Oh, get the emphasis in the right place. It is the old Gospel. A bloodless gospel is no gospel for ruined men and women; the Gospel of the cross and blood is the Gospel of the grace of God. Oh, for the glory of it to so enwrap us that we cannot speak without emphasizing these sides and these facts of the great message! Things new and old; they are all new things, fresh as the morning, sweet as the summer time, because their oneness is rooted in God."
1905. The next use of bloodless gospel was by The British Evangelist, continuing Brown's usage of it. A Christian newspaper, this article is talking about Christ in Genesis 3:15, page 15, 3:
"It is quite clear that to obtain these coats of skins animals had to be slain, and their blood shed. It is quite clear that to obtain these coats of skins, animals had to be slain, and their blood shed, and in the plucking of fig leaves for garments, no pain was involved, and that is precisely why it would not do. If man is to be redeemed, it must cost something. Suffering and blood are necessary. A bloodless gospel is a powerless gospel, and leaves men just where it finds them. But it is as well to recognize that the redemption that is in Christ Jesus is wholly of grace, and is independent of the attitude of men. A man told it, thus we read:"
1906. This from a book about how to best win souls. It uses Brown's definition for bloodless gospel, page 16:
"Ever since Adam there have been but two ways of salvation—man's way and God's way, Cain's and Abel's, the false and the true. The wrong way is bloodless, the right way is bloody; the former exalts man as having some sins but more merit; the latter confesses to a state of guilt, and exalts God, who alone is abundantly able to save. The bloodless Gospel of to-day points to Jesus as he walks, as our moral Exemplar, but not as 'the Lamb of God.'"
See, this is a spiritualizer. Not an actual person who preaches belief plus confessing.
"Humanitarianism has honey-combed all denominations, because it rules out those doctrines which displease the carnal heart. But the denial of Christ's deity and its substitutionary atonement compels deluded sinners to rush into God's presence without a sacrifice, a mediator, or a wedding garment."
Let's read the passages about Romans 10:9 confession from that book. The same book that talked about the bloodless gospel and God's way and Cain's way. 83:
"9. 'I don't feel' is the most common type of the plump variety, and comes nearer requiring argument than any other. 'It is all your fault that you don't feel. When you do Christ's duties, you will partake of his dainties, as the Prodigal felt enough after he had confessed his sin. You say you don't feel enough; how much is that? Salvation is grace, not feeling. Would it be fair for God to require feeling, which you can't make yourself have? But he commands all men everywhere to repent, which is something they can do. Faith is one thing, feeling quite another, and either may exist without the other. Beware of the snare of the devil, which requires feeling before faith. It is of the devils who have feeling and no faith, or the lost soul, like Dives. Read John 3:8. 'The wind bloweth where it listeth, and so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.' Romans 10:9, 'If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart, thou shalt be saved.' Test this right now."
That's what the book says. Funny, that's something, right?
1908. Henry Wilson's, one of God's best. This comes from a biography of Henry Wilson, an Anglican minister, written by his daughter, continuing the usage of bloodless gospel as a polemic against allegorical liberals. Pages 170 to 171:
"And summing up the leading elements of his ministry, it should be said that he preached the old Gospel in its simplicity and power, and was always loyal to the Evangelical faith in the Cross of Calvary. He had no hankering for a Polychrome Bible, a bloodless Gospel, or a New Theology. It was, however, as a Christian teacher that he was specially used in his public ministry. His cultivated mind, his wide information, his accurate scholarship, and his clear and concise thought and expression, gave his messages of Christ in His fulness, great freshness and force, and we have all recognized the increasing value and power of his addresses at our conventions during the last few years."
Wesleyan Christian Advocate, volume 72, this page 18 from Henry Clay Morrison, who we'll see more of after this. He taught that sinners are saved through believing and praying, by the way.
"It is contact with that blood that makes men fearless. It is this blood contact that transforms men. A bloodless gospel is a powerless gospel. Take the blood away, and Christ is as weak and powerless as another man. Your modern, advanced-thought gospel, which makes nothing of the blood, does nothing in the way of saving men."
Just talking about denying the substitutionary penal atonement.
1909. Friends' Witness to Scriptural Truth, another Christian newspaper, once again continuing Brown's usage as a polemic against, i.e., Christianity that views Christ as a great guy, great figure, but not as an actual God. Page 147:
"How many are around us who did run well, but have been swept off their feet because they refuse to adhere to the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints? They have been caught by some human production, a bloodless Gospel, and have lost the sense of sin."
1912. There are two usages this year, one from The Herald of Gospel Liberty, and Messenger and Visitor, which are both from the same article, and Arno Clemens Gaebelein of supporting Scofield fame. Both use Brown's definition for bloodless gospel.
From Gaebelein's commentary on Acts, we find this much to know on page 293:
"'And how God's way of salvation is rejected in these days is frightful. Salvation by character, a bloodless gospel, is a present-day substitute. Thus a certain preacher taught some months ago in a popular monthly, 'Salvation is not an instantaneous act, whereby the sinner is assured of deliverance from hell, enjoyment of heaven, but a lifelong process.' Such a statement sweeps the entire Gospel away."
Gaebelein does not teach that the mouth is needed in Romans 10:9 to 10, such as Spurgeon taught. I'm saying Spurgeon because, yeah, I know he's a Calvinist hero. He was buddies with the guy who coined the term, and he taught that confession was aided. He just says the confession in Romans 10:9 is just a byproduct of faith. I, I'll put in the description what he said. I'm not going to read it, but you can read it.
The Gospel Liberty says this on page 587, and Messenger and Visitor says this on page 6, concerning graded lessons. The Herald of Gospel Liberty says:
"The Journal and Messenger has not been able to enter into full sympathy with the plea for what are recognized as graded lessons for the Sunday school."
Messenger and Visitor says:
"The Journal and Messenger has not been able to enter into full sympathy with the plea for what are recognized as graded lessons for the Sunday school."
The article was about higher criticism and, you know, scholars.
"Moses at Sinai led Israel to accept a tribal deity," this is them quoting someone, "according to long-established customs of the tribes in that region. In the battle of Beth-horon, when the Lord cast down great hailstones upon the Canaanites and discomfited their hosts, it was simply a hail-storm of unusual severity that broke upon the armies. The identical thing happened to the Austrians at Solferino. The Book of Ruth is simply a biblical idyl, and the temptation of Jesus was only such a trial as is not uncommon in human experience. The crucifixion of Christ was a heroic sacrifice."
Both, so as you know, they're talking about scholars and, you know, allegorical people. So, what you know is they're not actually talking about people who teach the two conditions of Romans 10:9, such as Dr. Ruckman taught, and Spurgeon, though. Both of the articles then say, the only relief, albeit I know Spurgeon was Calvinist, I'm not endorsing that, both of their articles then say:
"The only relief for Presbyterians, at least, is to turn off the current of 'higher criticism' that is running our Sabbath-school machinery. As it is, we are merely an agency for the dissemination of false doctrine, so far as the intermediate lessons are concerned. The evil is coming in sincerity. These errors have been condemned indefinitely as they came into our seminaries; now they are boldly in the publications of our own board. Sin is minimized in all the grades; it is the bloodless gospel of a mere ethical preaching, mainly a self-improvement, and reducing the grace that saves the lost to a mere term for that which is lovely and beautiful, and for moral action."
They define what bloodless gospel is, and it's not what Robert Breaker says it to be.
1913. Gaebelein continues to use the Brown's definition this year, as we see from Gaebelein's book, God's Masterpiece, page 46:
"'He hath accepted us in the Beloved.' It is 'in Him' we have redemption; and in Him we have obtained an inheritance.' Apart from Christ there is no blessing, no redemption, no glory. Rejecting Christ and the price He paid for our redemption, His blood, means eternal death, eternal darkness, eternal wrath. It is a solemn fact that apostate Christendom, a Christless Christianity and bloodless Gospel, rejecting God's Son, God's only Gospel, is rushing on towards the judgment of a holy and righteous God."
1914. From a Christian newspaper, Railway Signal, which was a Christian newspaper for railway workers, uses Brown's definition for a metaphorical liberal:
"The Bloodless Gospel. Ever since Adam there have been two ways—man's way and God's..."
Copies the one book about how to best win souls with its usage of it, so I'll stop reading. So, I was only read what the new parts say:
"...who alone is abundantly able to save, and Christ our Passover was sacrificed. The veil of the Temple was rent to signify that men had access to God only through His flesh; and later the Temple with its offerings was abolished, so as to shut up the Jews as well as others entirely to salvation through the blood of that same Jesus whom they had crucified. Jews to-day acknowledge that they have no sacrifice and no basis for salvation, which is the real, though unrecognized, standing of all those who reject the deity and the atonement of Christ."
Now, if you noticed, it may sound like Robert Breaker's view, but nowhere in it specifically do they say you have to mentally assent to the blood of Christ for salvation.
1916. This is from Faithful Stewardship and Other Sermons by Arthur Henry Stanton, 1916. Continues Brown's definition of bloodless gospel, and we find his usage in two sermons. Stanton is a Anglo-Catholic priest.
Lady Day, page 121:
"It is true concerning the Church, I know, my brethren. There are some who take a gloomy view, and think the faith is dying, that the old evangelical religion is at a discount, that men will not believe in the Word of God, and that the Sacraments will be despised, and false Christs and false professors will arise, that there is a new, a Christless, bloodless Christianity, which can never save, that a soul needs a Saviour."
Again, that's what bloodless gospel is, it's not the two conditions. Could really be inside, he's a Catholic priest saying this, him using bloodless gospel, even though if it's not about the two conditions, it's still a Catholic priest saying this, an Anglo-Catholic priest saying this.
He thought thereon, and wept, page 138:
"The fashionable religion of the present day is a sort of Buddhism; you need not believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ, or you may think that the New Testament is just as unreliable as the Old! Do you ever assent to these things? Are you going to belong to the fashionable religion of the twentieth century, which believes in a bloodless Gospel? Rubbish! It is fashionable, I know! Or perhaps you may believe in table-turning, or spiritualism, or some other nonsense! Take care! Don't you ever deny your Master for the sake of those who stand by in Pilate's Hall!"
Which means up to 1916 there has not been a single Robert Breaker view for bloodless gospel.
1917. Autobiography of Bishop Henry Clay Morrison, Methodist evangelist, continues Brown's usage of bloodless gospel. Let's read from page 236 first:
"May the Holy Spirit help you to repent as you read these lines, and change your thought from the doubting 'If Thou be Christ' to the cry of the saved sufferer: 'Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom!'"
Page 14:
"The old-time camp meeting was in vogue. The tents were pitched in a hollow square, with the tabernacle, or preaching place, in the center; rude seats for the auditors, and plenty of clean wheat straw at the altar where the penitents knelt; a rustic platform for a pulpit, and a huge ox-horn hung up in a convenient place to call the people to worship. This was the outfit. Thus equipped, the 'sons of thunder' did. Such preaching as is seldom heard at this later and more scientific period. Such preaching was never more needed than now. Under such appeals the audiences were mightily moved, and multitudes cried for mercy and were saved."
Then page 248 uses bloodless gospel in a beautiful speech he wrote about the blood of Christ:
"Jesus said, 'If I be lifted up, if I bleed, I will draw all men unto me.' The blood is the magnetic power of the gospel. The mob mocked Him until He died, then returned smiting upon their breasts. This blood at Pentecost extorted the cry: 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' And three thousand were saved in a day. There was no substitute for the blood over the Hebrew door, and there is none for it in the pulpit to-day. Is it the center and source of saving power? The pulpit is weak or strong in proportion to its nearness to the blood. A bloodless gospel is an emasculated gospel. God save the pulpit from the lullabies that soothe and keep men asleep in their sins! Better to have them awake swearing than not to awake them at all. Its efficacy is absolute. It saves the worst and saves to the uttermost."
He taught that the blood is accessed through faith and crying out to God. He, however, did teach that if you have enough sins, God will no longer save you. I believe that is a heresy.
The second usage of bloodless gospel this year is from a newspaper, The Watchman, from a pro-war article. Does not use Brown's definition, rather means literal bloodshed, i.e., killing other people in a war.
"Go hand in hand. To my mind, religion and patriotism go hand in hand," said Mr. Davison in his discourse. "Those who are loyal to their country, in a very true sense, are loyal to their church. I rejoice that St. John's Episcopal Church has a Red Cross auxiliary, that she has given more than seventy of her men to the cause of liberty and country, that an American flag waves over the lawn of the church in their honor. These facts are significant. They tell of our loyalty to home and country, and in no less degree they symbolize loyalty to Jesus Christ and the church, which is His body. The Spirit of God is leading us through all ages of human history, working out His great divine purposes for man. Pacifist wishes for peace at any price, even if righteousness and justice must be sacrificed. He loves life more than liberty; he has made comfort his ideal, rather than holiness. He goes up and down the streets of our cities saying that the Christian religion has failed. Because he says so does not prove that this is true. Christianity has not failed, but the lifeless, bloodless gospel of pacifism has failed. More than ever, as a result of this war, the Gospel of the humble Nazarene is uplifted before the world as the only and the only hope of the nations of the earth."
1918. Christian Advocate, volume 79, issues 1 to 26, page 561, again, another Christian newspaper that uses Brown's definition. Records the eighth day of the general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in Atlanta, Georgia, Friday, May 10th, 1918. Guess who says this: Henry Clay Morrison. He's back! Let's see what our boy who's leaning to heresy, being too past for forgiveness if you sin too much, says:
"Now, I hold no one responsible for what I say. My message is this: There are two distinct gospels to-day before the Church. One is the gospel of blood; the other is a bloodless gospel. Its advocates tell us about the spotless life, the perfect character, and the beautiful teachings of the Nazarene."
Keep reading, it's about spiritual, allegorical Christianity, not teaching two conditions of Romans 10:9. Henry Clay Morrison, the man who is speaking this, himself taught that there were two conditions,
"but nothing of the blood. That bloodless gospel is a gospel that questions divine inspiration to a great extent,"
Keep reading, see, notice he defines what bloodless gospel is, it's not what Robert Breaker says.
"it denies the virgin birth and calls in question the deity of Jesus Christ. That gospel that questions divine inspiration to a great extent, it denies the virgin birth and calls in question the deity of Jesus Christ. That gospel leads to Unitarianism, Universalism, spiritualism, and on until I know not where they tell us that is the new theology. It is 'new thought,' and it is 'up to date.' So far from its being new thought, it is as old as the devil himself, and it is one of the wiles of the devil transforming himself into an angel of intellectual light."
Now, I do a brief interlude. He talks about allegorical and questioning divine inspiration. Now, what would be the 21st equivalent, what would be the 21st century equivalent to a liberal allegorizing the blood of Christ, spiritualizing, saying it's metaphorical?
What did Christian Liberals do?
Say Christ was a great moral guide but not God, deny the blood atonement but say it was a moral example, deny the virgin birth.
What's an equivalent?
Saying mouth, which is emphasized in 2 Timothy 2:22 + Matthew 12:34, Romans 10:8 to 14 (Watch Believe On vs Believe in), is not an actual mouth, but an automatic heart response.
That is liberalizing the word of God.
A person who denies Romans 10 and says it's internal and it's from the heart. Romans 10:9, "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." That person (Robert Breaker) who teaches mental assent, who says the calling is from the heart because,
“Romans 10:14, 10:17 proves the call is internal.”
2 Timothy 2:22 “…call upon the Lord OUT of a pure heart”
Matthew 12:34 “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
Matthew 15:19 “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:”
and this is a genuine view, the Bible mentions having faith in Romans 10:14 and 17, and we know faith is internal, that's their argument, watch my previous video. The other argument is this: 2 Timothy 2:22, "Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." The Bible says that they call on the Lord out of a pure heart. They say, "Well, it's from a pure heart, that means Romans 10:13 call is internal." They forget that Christ said, Matthew 12:34, "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Matthew 15:19, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." Christ specifically used the terminology of something coming out of your heart being a physical action or a physical spoken word. Paul also uses the term, Paul also use the term out of the heart. In layman's terms, the man was alluding to what Christ said in the Synoptic Gospels. Dr. Ruckman, Matthew was written around 64 to 66 AD, and 1 Timothy was written around 62 AD and 65 AD, and 2 Timothy was written around somewhere 68 AD. The Apostle Paul directly alluded to Matthew, whether through the Holy Spirit or being inspired by the Holy Spirit after reading it is beyond me, but know in some way, some form, the Holy Spirit is alluding to Matthew. If he is alluding to Matthew, it is very much a physical thing spoken. If he is alluding to Matthew or the Synoptic Gospels, it is very much a physical thing spoken. Says later in the speech:
"Brethren, it is blood all the way from Abel's offering to the throne of God. Follow the the bloodless gospel, and you go you know not where. Follow the gospel of blood, and you go you know exactly where. The physical life of every man is in his blood; the spiritual life of every man is in the blood of Jesus Christ. Keep under the blood, there is safety under the blood. Keep the Church under the blood, and she is safe for time and eternity. With kindly feelings only toward every living man who walks this earth, I bid you an affectionate farewell."
Robert Breaker loves to take people out of context.
Now, review what our boy Clay wrote:
"May the Holy Spirit, as you read these lines, and change your thought from the doubting 'If Thou be Christ' to the cry of the saved sufferer: 'Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom!'"
There's more 1900s, but Part 2 ends here. God bless.
Sources: Northfield Echoes: Northfield Conference Addresses for ..., Volume 8
Front Cover
Northfield bookstore, 1901
https://books.google.com/books?id=n0ZQAQAAMAAJ&pg=345#v=onepage&q&f=false
Tact in soul winning
By William Henry Young · 1906
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tact_in_soul_winning/UQqYGKfnctYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tact_in_soul_winning/UQqYGKfnctYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA17&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tact_in_soul_winning/UQqYGKfnctYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA83&printsec=frontcover
The British Evangelist
Issues 451-474
1905
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_British_Evangelist/jJAgNutliUUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless%20gospel%22&pg=RA1-PA15&printsec=frontcover
Henry Wilson
One of God's Best
By Madèle Wilson, Albert B. Simpson · 1908
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Henry_Wilson/CXZBAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless%20gospel%22&pg=PA170&printsec=frontcover
Wesleyan Christian Advocate
Volume 72
1908
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Wesleyan_Christian_Advocate/2R5haiVDoXQC?hl=en&gbpv=0
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Wesleyan_Christian_Advocate/2R5haiVDoXQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless%20gospel%22&pg=RA6-PA18&printsec=frontcover
Friends Witness to Scriptural Truth
Volume 2 1909
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Friends_Witness_to_Scriptural_Truth/IG5KEgeSAIAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless%20gospel%22&pg=PA147&printsec=frontcover
The Acts of the Apostles
An Exposition
By Arno Clemens Gaebelein · 1912
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Acts_of_the_Apostles/97NAAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless%20gospel%22&pg=PA293&printsec=frontcover
Romans
Arno Clemens Gaebelein 1913
http://swartzentrover.com/cotor/E-Books/christ/Gaebelein/AnnotatedNT/The%20Annotated%20Bible%20-%20New%20Testament.pdf
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gab/romans-10.html
Unable to find scanned Romans commentary, however the repros are genuine text from it.
Herald of Gospel Liberty
Volume 104, Issues 1-26
1912
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Herald_of_Gospel_Liberty/hs8pAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless%20gospel%22&pg=RA18-PA11&printsec=frontcover
Messenger and Visitor
Volume 81
1912
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Messenger_and_Visitor/OL7V6hz4e6wC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless%20gospel%22&pg=RA15-PA6&printsec=frontcover
God's Masterpiece
An Analytical Exposition of Ephesians I-III
By Arno Clemens Gaebelein · 1913
https://books.google.com/books?id=m1ZIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false
Railway Signal
Or, Lights Along the Line · Volume 32
1914
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Railway_Signal/Jy42AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless%20gospel%22&pg=PA117&printsec=frontcover
Faithful Stewardship and Other Sermons
By Arthur Henry Stanton (A Catholic) · 1916
https://books.google.com/books?id=kv9AAQAAMAAJ&vq=bloodless&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=kv9AAQAAMAAJ&vq=bloodless&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false
Autobiography of Bishop Henry Clay Morrison
By Henry Clay Morrison · 1917
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Autobiography_of_Bishop_Henry_Clay_Morri/0rMEAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA236&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Autobiography_of_Bishop_Henry_Clay_Morri/0rMEAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA14&printsec=frontcover
Background
Christian Advocate, Volume 79, Issues 1-26
1918
https://books.google.com/books?id=NoFNd-DZL50C&pg=PA560#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=NoFNd-DZL50C&pg=PA561#v=onepage&q&f=false
#BloodlessGospel #Theology #Atonement #Romans109 #BibleStudy #history #documentary #documentary #doc #history #churchhistory
