When They Say There's No Atonement

Well, actually this thread started about liberal Fosdick. Bratcher is also a liberal, but MacArthur, whatever his faults (and I am definitely not a MacArthur fan) is still conservative.

Let's be straight about what a theological liberal is. He is not someone who thinks pants on women are okay. He is someone who, by opposing the deity of Jesus Christ, has declared himself an enemy of true Christianity. We are to separate from such men: don't read or promote their books, don't invite them to sit on the platform in our meetings, don't call them a brother in Christ, don't even greet them according to the Word of God.

"9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 9-11).

 

Just to be fair to MacArthur, though I am not his apologist and I hope this does not become a MacArthur thread, the whole brouhaha was over one statement he made in the early 1970's that Bob Jones, Jr., quoted and commented on in the April 1986 issue of Faith for the Family.

MacArthur claimed his statement was taken out of context. Here is his defense: http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-9-1.htm

 

Just a sidenote, by youngest son asked me today what would happen if a mosquito had bitten Jesus.. would the mosquito have been holy, having Jesus Blood inside?

 

Whoa, what did you do with that one? :laugh:

 

It depends...if the mosquito was Catholic, the blood would change to wine...

If it were Baptist, make it Welch's...

 

This reminds me of a question which circulated in the Bible college I attended: Was the shed blood of Jesus circumcision atoning?

And by the way I think what would have been a better way to express the philosophical point of view of neo-orthodoxy concerning the blood of Christ is to ask the question why does liberalism want to remove the efficacy of the blood of Christ in the Scripture?

The antichrist religion of Neo-orthodoxy doesn't so much want to "remove" the blood of Christ from the Scripture just deny it's power to wash away sin by calling it a relic of the teaching of the past.

Talk the talk but you dont have to walk the walk.

Revelation 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

As for a "slaughterhouse" religion:

Isaiah 53:&
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

HankD

 

Opening Post (OP):
//Why is the "blood" removed from some
of the modern versions of the Bible?//

Which version, which blood?

Using e-Sword texts and search engine:

In the KJV1611 Edition I find 378 verses containing 'blood'
451 times.

In the KJV1769 Edition (with Strong's Numbers)
I find 375 verses containing 'blood' 447 times.

The KJV has removed 4 occurances of 'blood'
from 3 verses. Is the KJV1769 Edition a Modern Version?

 

I told him that it probably wouldn't be holy for long.. Jesus would have probably swatted it!!!

 

Thus proving once again the vast superiority of Jesus over Buddha, who wouldn't have swatted it! :laugh:

 

Over thirty years have passed by since Harry E. Fosdick passed into a Christless eternity. His legacy will be forgotten, but the Word of God shall stand forevermore!

 

Not from all modern English translations. The NKJV (New Testament first published 1979) has:

in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.​

Young's Literal Translation (which, dated 1898, is "modern" compared to the AV) has:

in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of the sins,​

It is not always a case of old equals good and modern equals bad.

Going back to the main issue of this thread, Fosdick's idea of "slaughterhouse religion" sounds very similar to the idea put forward in recent years by the British writer, Steve Chalke, who described penal substitution (the teaching that Jesus Christ died in my place for my sins) as "cosmic child abuse".