Did Christ Die for Sinners? by I. H. Evans

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 28, 1907

Did Christ Die for Sinners?

By I. H. Evans

I. H. EVANS

SHOCKING as it may seem, the press of the country is continually publishing so-called “scientific evidence” of the non-efficacy of the blood of Christ as an atonement for sin. Stripped of his divinity, the Jesus whom we love and in whom we believe to the saving of our souls, becomes only a historical personage like other great men of modern and ancient times.

The historical fact of Christ’s earthly existence is not denied by these so-called “higher critics,” because this fact is beyond dispute. What our scientific teachers would have us believe is that this man Jesus, while he lived on earth in Palestine at the time and places as recorded in the Scriptures, was only a man with high ideals, like Socrates and Plato and Seneca, and other idealists far in advance of their generation. They deny that Christ had any element of divinity in him other than that which is possessed by geniuses in other days. Especially do our scientific theologians object to the blood atonement for sin.

The Literary Digest under date of January 5 quotes from Dr. Lepsius the following as the tendency of modern scientific theology concerning the divinity of Christ:—

“According to the average advanced theologian, Christianity has for nearly two thousand years forgotten what the Master originally taught and purposed. Neither Paul nor John nor the synoptics, neither Augustine nor Luther nor Calvin ever understood who Jesus was and what he wanted. The entire Christian church from the beginning of the apostolic age to the present generation, has been one of great misunderstanding and blunder. The real nature of Jesus and his message has only been discovered now at the beginning of the twentieth century, and to the leaders of the new school belongs the honor of having made this rediscovery. They have given to the world a ‘new Jesus,’ and with this new Jesus a new religion, which is destined to inaugurate the ‘Christian’ era in the history of the development of religions. The genuine Jesus of history can not be interpreted, it seems, from the New Testament writings, but must be dug out by critical processes from what Paul and the evangelists say, this process consisting chiefly in eliminating what the New Testament writers themselves added to the original Christianity of Christ, this addition being chiefly a perversion of the original purposes and teachings of the Founder. Nobody has done more in this direction than the apostle of the Gentiles. The whole blood-atonement theory in particular is represented as an element unknown to the original proclamation of Christ; and the entire Christology of John’s Gospel becomes, not the record of the actual teachings of the Lord, but the philosophy and the theology of a later generation of Christian thinkers. Even the synoptics are not throughout to be regarded as reliable sources for the sayings and the doings of Jesus. They all had special purposes in view which colored materially the picture they give of Jesus and his work.”

The Digest then proceeds to substantiate the correctness of the doctor’s summary of the tendencies of modern teachings, by quoting the following proposition, which was stated by Professor Weisel at the great Giesien Conference, attended by over three hundred professors and pastors:—

“The church’s doctrine concerning sin, especially the doctrine of the fall of Adam into sin and of an original state of innocence, can, in the light of newer discoveries of scientific theology, no longer be maintained.”

The same article quoting from Dr. Rade says:—

“Our opponent has nothing with which to meet the results of modern scientific and theological research except the authority of the Scriptures. This authority would be of prime value if the old doctrine of inspiration were true; but with its fall the authority of the Scriptures as such, has also fallen.”

According to this theory, what have we left? What have we to hope for? Only self. Man must be his own savior. He must work out his own ideals with help from none. For him there is no Saviour, no sacrifice for sin, no atonement in the blood of Christ. Man, only man, by his own will and power is to lift himself into the plane of deity and become a self-made god. Some believe this ideal state can be reached by proper dieting and care of the body. Others advocate seclusion and deep meditation, while others impose penance such as fastings, physical pain, and all manner of self-imposed physical sufferings. Yet all such agree that there is no need of a Saviour.

We may truly thank God that this “scientific theology” has not permeated the rank and file of those who read these lines. Indeed we do ask for nothing with which to meet these false doctrines but the “Word of God.” To this people this written Word is still of “prime value” and the doctrine of Scriptural inspiration is still believed by those who accept the third angel’s message. We believe in Jesus Christ as the only Saviour for sinners, and in his blood as an atonement for sin. We glory in the cross of Christ and expect to receive atonement for our sins through the “spilled blood” and eternal life as the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.