p. 29 | Strictures on the “Sufferings of Christ.”

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 9, 1872

Strictures on the “Sufferings of Christ.”

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

“The Christian Record, a local organ of the Campbellite system published in Bedford, Ind., makes some very positive comments on the little tract published at the REVIEW office, entitled “Sufferings of Christ,” written by Sr. White. As the current teachings of Campbellism are based on antinomianism, or no-law-ism, of course the editor of the Record must object to the following paragraph which he quotes:

“Christ consented to die in man’s stead, that he, by a life of obedience, might escape the penalty of the law of God. His death did not slay the law, lessen its holy claims, nor detract from its sacred dignity. The death of Christ proclaimed the justice of his Father’s law in punishing the transgressor, in that he consented to suffer the penalty of the law himself, in order to save fallen man from its curse.”

It is utterly impossible to take any other view of the facts of Scripture, and of Paul’s declaration in Rom. 3:25, 26, of the vindication of God’s justice in the death of Christ, than that taken above; unless, indeed, justice be entirely ignored, as it is in all antinomian teachings. Every principle of government confirms this view; all the types demand it. “The wages of sin is death.” This is and always was, a fact. See Gen. 2:17. When a person had sinned, he was to bring his offering and confess his sins on its head. This signified a transfer of sin to the sacrifice. That this was so, and that it typified the same fact in the gospel is proved by Isa. 53:6: “And the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” And by Lev. 1:4: “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” And many other passages of like import. The wages of sin being death, the life of the sinner is forfeited to the broken law; but the sin being laid upon the sacrifice, its life was taken as a substitute. On no other consideration could it be accepted; on no other consideration could God be just and yet justify the sinner; for justice demands that the claims of the law be satisfied. And if this is not vicarious death, we would like to know what vicarious means. Let us now hear the comment of the editor of the Record:

“Now this is old ‘blue stocking Calvinism’ newly varnished up. But its absurdity is seen on its very face. If Christ suffered in the room and stead of the sinner, and satisfied all the claims of divine justice, then is the sinner free. Justice can have no further claims against him. Then Universalism is established. And again, if Jesus took the ‘rebel’s place and suffered in his stead,’ then there is no such thing as forgiveness, for the simple reason that a debt that is paid is not forgiven.”

In an advertisement in the Record, its editor, the writer of the foregoing remarks, is represented as the “Professor of Biblical Literature,” in a little college in Bedford. We may judge of the erudition and depth of Biblical knowledge of this “Professor,” by this fact that he makes no distinction between debt and crime. He would settle moral questions on a money basis! Now a greater than the editor of the Record has considered this point, and made a more consistent decision. Alexander Campbell, in the “Christian System,” remarks:

“The redemption, then, which is in Christ Jesus, is a moral, and not a commercial consideration. If sin were only debt and not a crime, it might be forgiven without atonement. . . 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.”

But how could God show his “indignation against sin” in the death of his Son, if that Son did not stand in the sinner’s stead? Or, how could God be just in setting forth Jesus as our sacrifice, if his death did not meet the demand of justice? Will Eld. Mathes of the Record show?

That he is obnoxious to the strictures of Mr. Campbell, is shown in his expression: “If Christ suffered in the room and stead of the sinner, and satisfied all the claims of divine justice, then is the sinner free,” and “a debt that is paid is not forgiven.” Thus he argues that if it was a satisfaction to justice, then it was the payment of a debt. It makes not a particle of difference whether he satisfied “all the claims of divine justice,” or only a part, so far as the principle is concerned. But the claims of divine justice were satisfied by Christ, or they were not. If not, then they remain to be satisfied by man in his own behalf; or, otherwise, they will never be satisfied. Which position does this “Professor of Biblical Literature” take on the question? If Christ did not satisfy divine justice, why did he die at all? If man satisfies divine justice for himself, how can he have a Saviour, or what need have we of a Saviour? Evidently, man cannot satisfy divine justice and yet be saved. Hence his need of an atonement. But if neither Christ nor man satisfies divine justice, then it certainly is never satisfied. How, then, can God be just in justifying the believer? Will “Professor” Mathes tell us?

Paul says God is just in justifying the believer in Jesus, showing that justice was satisfied by his sacrifice; not the payment of a debt, but the expiation of crime, so that it may be just to justify all, who, through him, are so reconciled to God that they henceforth do not serve sin; Rom. 5:1; 6:6; whose souls are purified in obeying the truth. 1 Pet. 1:22. The difficulty of this “Professor” arises from his “inattention to the sacred style, and the meaning of biblical terms,” as Mr. Campbell well says of such errorists as he.

Nor is there any Calvinism in this. That assertion grows out of his blindness in regard to moral principles, not discovering the difference between debt and crimes, and his ignorance as to what the atonement is. We make no guess about this; and may make further remarks upon this point, if he ever tries to reconcile his theory with facts above referred to, or to screen himself from the odium cast upon his present position by the founder of his sect, Alexander Campbell. Mr. Campbell taught some errors, but he was too well versed in the principles of justice, as laid down by the Scriptures, to run into such heresy as Mr. Mathes advocates on this subject.

We think the tract entitled “Sufferings of Christ” is very Scriptural and just in its teachings; and shall think none the less of it that it is opposed by those who advocate systems subversive of every just principle upon which the gospel is based. J. H. WAGGONER.