REPLY by J. H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 10, 1869

REPLY.

By J. H. Waggoner

1. The Scriptures teach that “The wages of sin is death;” and, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Looking forward to the ultimate result—to the hopeless and irrecoverable loss of life to the wicked, we say they suffer eternal death; and because it is suffered subsequent to a resurrection, it is called the second death. But neither of these terms are used in the declaration of the penalty, nor are they necessary. It is death, whether the subject remains dead a single hour, or to all eternity. On this subject the objection, by no means new, has always appeared to me as of no force or consequence.

2. The opponents of the truth on the atonement seem always to lose sight of the relation of facts and principles, and array themselves against each other on opposite extremes. One class affirms that the atonement is a doctrine of mercy only, and not to be advocated or explained on grounds of justice. On this side we find Dr. Barnes, and other writers. Others make the death of Christ a matter of justice alone, so that pardon is inadmissible and reformation unnecessary. All reasoning is of little consequence unless we keep the Scripture facts in view. We notice the following points taught in the word of God:

(1) Christ’s death is set forth in the Scriptures as the means of dispensing mercy to those condemned to death on account of their sins. This, all will admit. But it will readily appear, that if mercy were the only object in view, that could be granted without his death; as it is quite possible to forgive one man without condemning another in his place. And, indeed, if mercy were the only principle regarded in the transaction, the infliction of the penalty upon a substitute would not be admissible.

(2) His death is set forth as the means of dispensing mercy consistently with justice; that is, “that God might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” Rom. iii, 26. Now we have in his death a coincidence of two principles which, in the sinner’s case, would forever stand in conflict without such means. This is clear evidence that his death meets the demand of the law in the sinner’s behalf; and how else does it enable God to be just in the justification of him who has violated the rule of justice? This view is reasonable, and the Scriptures teach it. “He was bruised for our iniquities;” he “died for our sins.” Why should he die for our sins? Because “the wages [or penalty] of sin is death,” and the law holds us under condemnation until justice is satisfied. If any one is disposed to dispute this, let him give an exposition of Rom. iii, 23–26, on any other view.

(3) Man must accept the offering made to the law and to justice, and fulfill the conditions annexed, in order to be saved thereby. This I need not attempt to prove; it will be admitted at once. But if any question should be raised on the ground that justice must be satisfied without this, according to our second point, we reply that the objector loses sight of one great object of the atonement, to wit, the renovation of man’s nature, and the reformation of his life. If “remission of sins that are past” were the only object to be gained by the gospel, the objection might have some force; but with another great and indispensable object in view the objection is really groundless.

We think the Scriptures plainly show that the above three points are all intimately connected with the death of Christ; or, his death was necessary to dispense mercy, to vindicate and satisfy justice, and to secure a reformation of character. And if so, the objections now under consideration are not against “Testimony No. 17,” but against the Bible. And as the objector professes to believe the Bible, we leave it here for the present, inviting him to do one of the following things: 1. Deny that the above three objects are all secured by the death of Christ, or, 2. Admit that his objections are based on a limited view of the atonement, or, 3. Show that his objections are valid, the above three points being admitted as true. We shall be pleased to notice this matter further, if desired, when he complies with this request.

J. H. WAGGONER.