The Atonement by J. H. W.

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 8, 1871

The Atonement.

By J. H. W.

Some time since, a question was asked, and answered in the Review, relative to the justice of God in destroying the wicked after Christ has died for all. In the answer I endeavored to point out the difference between paying a debt and ransoming a soul by saving it from sin. The following remarks I copy from the “Christian System,” by Alexander Campbell. I think them very clear on this point:—

“The redemption then which is in Christ Jesus is a moral and not a commercial consideration. If sin were only a debt and not a crime, it might be forgiven without atonement. Nay, if sin were a debt, and sacrifice a payment of that debt, there could be no forgiveness at all with God. For if the Redeemer or Ransomer of man has paid the debt, justice, and not mercy or forgiveness, commands the release, not the pardon of the debtor. Some there are, however, who, from inattention to the sacred style and the meaning of biblical terms, have actually represented the death of Christ, rather as the payment of an immense debt than as an expiation of sin, or a purification from guilt; and have thus made the pardon of sin wholly unintelligible, or rather, indeed, impossible. Every one feels that when a third person assumes a debt, and pays it, the principal must be discharged and cannot be forgiven. But when sin is viewed in the light of crime, and atonement offered by a third person, then it is a question of grace whether the pardon or acquittal of the sinner shall be granted by him against whom the crime is committed; because, even after an atonement or propitiation is made, the transgressor is yet as deserving of punishment as before. There is room, then, for both justice and mercy; for the display of indignation against sin, and the forgiveness of the sinner.”

Mr. Campbell mentions the names of eminent men who erred on this subject; and we need not be surprised that some, who are now seeking for light on present truth, should become perplexed. Indeed, Mr. Campbell himself leaves room for a misunderstanding of his point by following the usual error of making the atonement identical with the sacrifice. When it is understood that the sacrifice is an offering to divine justice, preparatory to making an atonement, and makes the forgiveness of sin possible, consistently with eternal justice, there is really no difficulty remaining. J. H. W.