The Atonement-No. 8 by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 24, 1874

The Atonement.—No. 8.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

As an atonement is designed to repair the honor of the law which has been dishonored by rebellion, and to vindicate the authority of government which has been trampled down, it is necessary to inquire what will meet these objects so as at once to honor the government and open a way of salvation for the condemned; or, What are the demands of the law?

The first claim or requirement of the law is obedience. Where this is not rendered, the next demand is that the penalty be enforced or inflicted. But the universal infliction of the penalty upon man would result in universal destruction or death, for, “All have sinned,” and, “The wages of sin is death.” Therefore all are condemned, and deserve to die. Herein is found the necessity of atonement.

It has been noticed in our investigation of the principles of government that, to pardon the offender, and still to honor the demands of the law, it is necessary that a voluntary substitute should bear the penalty in his behalf. Then to ascertain how an atonement is to be made we must ascertain what is the penalty of the law, or, what the substitute must suffer to vindicate the honor of the violated law.

The idea of substitution requires that the penalty and nothing less than the penalty be inflicted. It cannot be reconciled with justice nor with Scripture that which is so often advanced, that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, to which the sinner was subject. If the law be just, if its penalty is but the demand of justice, then justice is robbed of its due if the penalty be not inflicted. Many systems of theology have had that error incorporated into them to avoid other apparent difficulties; but it is evidence of defects in the systems that demand a conclusion at variance with reason, with justice, and with Scripture.

Dr. Barnes says: “It will be impossible for a substitute to endure the same sufferings which the sinner himself will endure in the future world for his sin. There are sufferings caused by sin which belong only to the consciousness of guilt, and these sufferings cannot be transferred to another. The sin itself cannot be transferred; and as it is impossible to detach the suffering from the consciousness of guilt, it follows that a substitute cannot endure the same kind of sufferings which the sinner would himself endure. Remorse of conscience, for example—one of the keenest sources of suffering to the guilty, and which will be a most fearful part of the penalty of the law in the future world—cannot be transferred.”—Atonement, p. 228.

And again: Remorse of conscience is manifestly a part of the penalty of the law; that is, it is a portion of what the law inflicts as expressing the sense which the law-giver entertains of the value of the law and of the evil of its violation.”—Id., p. 235.

Remorse of conscience is no part of the penalty of the law. That view, which is indeed the corner-stone of Universalism, is as contrary to reason as to Scripture, and grows out of the error before noticed of making no distinction between the penalty of the law and mere consequences. “The penalty is a judicial infliction, prescribed by the statute, administered by authority, and its infliction must be subsequent to the judgment. Consequences are various according to circumstances, and not according to desert, and may flow immediately out of the action without any relation to the penalty. The wicked all suffer more or less remorse in this present state, but the Bible informs us that they are reserved “unto the day of Judgment to be punished.” 2 Pet. 2:9.

There are two kinds of sorrow for sin: a “godly sorrow,” and a “sorrow of the world.” 2 Cor. 7:10. The first is that of the penitent, sorrowing that he has violated a holy law and grieved a holy God. The other is that of the worldling, sorry that he is detected in crime, or in danger of punishment. No one doubts that the sorrow of the God-fearing penitent is deepest; that his remorse is the keenest. Yet the nearer he is to God, the finer his sensibilities, and the deeper his hatred of sin, the stronger will be his remorse for his sin. Therefore, if this be part of the penalty of the law, it is evident that this part is inflicted more severely on the penitent than on the impenitent and incorrigible.

Again, Paul speaks of those whose conscience is seared with a hot iron. 1 Tim. 4:2. That is, they run to such lengths in sin that their sensibilities are blunted, and they feel little or no remorse of conscience. Now, both reason and revelation teach us that the punishment must be proportioned to the guilt; but if remorse of conscience be a penalty, it is executed by inverse proportion; that is, the punishment decreases according to the increase of crime.

But we are led to inquire, Where did Dr. Barnes (or any other person) learn that remorse of conscience is a part of the penalty of the law? As it is the duty and sole prerogative of the governor to reveal his law, so he alone can define the penalty. This he has done in his word; “The wages of sin is death.” Any effort to evade this plain truth, or to make it anything but a plain truth, involves difficulties and contradictions. For it will not obviate the difficulty to spiritualize the term death, so as to make it embrace remorse of conscience; for if that be included in death, whatever will remove the remorse will remove so much of the penalty, or of death, and bring a proportionate degree of life. But sin does this, as the apostle shows; therefore, according to that theory, sin removes a portion of its own penalty; which is absurd.

Dr. Barnes asserts that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, but something substituted for the penalty. There is no cause for such a declaration, except it be found in his theory.

In the teachings of the Bible there is no uncertainty in this matter. They plainly inform us that “the wages of sin is death,” and that “Christ died for our sins.” Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:3. As sin is the transgression of the law, death, the wages of sin, is its penalty; and as Christ died for our sin, the penalty was laid upon him for our sake. Now that “Christ died” is not only plainly declared in the Scriptures, but it is a fundamental truth in the gospel system; for it is easy to show that, if Christ did not die, there can be no atonement and no redemption. It appears evident, then, that those who assert that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, do not so assert because the fact is not revealed in the Bible; but as before intimated, because of certain difficulties supposed to lie in the way of that fact. These difficulties are concerning the nature of the penalty, death.

It is assumed that death, the penalty of transgression, is three-fold in its nature, consisting of temporal, spiritual, and eternal death. If this assumption were true, we must at once give up the atonement as a thing impossible. Yet it has been advanced by men of eminence, and incorporated into works recognized as standard. Let us examine it.

1. The death of man is temporal only by reason of a resurrection. But the resurrection belongs to the work of Christ, and as his work was not necessary or a subject of promise till after the transgression, it cannot have any place in the announcement of the penalty. When death was threatened to Adam, he was not told that he should die temporally, spiritually, and eternally; nor that he should die a first or second death; nor the death that never dies; but that he should surely die. It was death—simply death. Had not a promise been given afterward, of “the seed” to bruise the serpent’s head, it would necessarily have been eternal death. But Christ, introducing a resurrection for Adam and his race, causes it to be temporal. But since this time, this death, temporal, has not been the penalty for personal transgression. This is evident from two reasons: (1.) Infants die who never have transgressed; and (2.) In the Judgment, we stand to answer for our deeds, and the second death is inflicted for personal sin. But on those who are holy, “the second death hath no power;” the penalty does not reach them. So it appears that the death we now die is occasioned by Adam’s transgression, and is rendered temporal by the second Adam, and comes indiscriminately upon all classes and ages, thus precluding the idea that it is now a penalty, except as connected with that first transgression, in which we are involved only by representation.

2. Spiritual death cannot be a penalty at all. A penalty is an infliction to meet the ends of justice. But spiritual death is a state of sin, or absence of holiness; and to say that God inflicts unholiness upon man is not only absurd, but monstrous. That is confounding the crime with its punishment. God does not make man wicked or sinful as an infliction; but man makes himself wicked by his own actions, and God punishes him with death for his wickedness.

Again, there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Now if the penalty upon Adam included spiritual death, the resurrection through the second Adam would be to spiritual life, or holiness; and if all were restored to spiritual life through Christ, there would be none to fall under the second death; for it falls not on the “blessed and holy.”

3. The wages of sin is death; and as the death of Adam became temporal by reason of a resurrection, so we may say, that the infliction for personal sins, the second death, is eternal, because no resurrection will succeed it. Thus, it appears plain, that from the beginning, death was the penalty of the law of God, circumstances determining the duration of it. This view, which is in strict harmony with the Bible, really removes all difficulty in regard to Christ’s having suffered the penalty due to sin.

J. H. WAGGONER.