Your ShelfYour Projects

The Atonement—Part II

4%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 10, 1863

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 22, No. 24.

Read the full edition

The Atonement—Part II.

By James White

THE DOCTRINE OF A TRINITY DEGRADES THE ATONEMENT.

(Continued.) THe great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, seems to be this: They make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity. The declaration, that the divine Son of God could not die, is as far from the teachings of the Bible as darkness is from light. And I would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the two natures are we indebted for redemption? The answer must, of course, be, to that one which died or shed his blood for us; for "we have redemption through his blood." Then it is evident, that if only the human nature died, our redeemer is only human, and that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he could neither suffer nor die. Surely I said right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism.
But we are not the only ones who see this difficulty in the trinitarian views of the atoning sacrifice. Their own expressions betray a sense of the weakness of their position, and of the necessity of something more than a human offering for the redemption of man. Dr. Barnes, as quoted, says that "the divine nature in the person of Christ" could not suffer, nor die; yet, in speaking of the nature of the atonement, he says:
"If it be a part of the doctrine of the atonement, and essential to that doctrine, that the Redeemer was divine, that he was 'God manifest in the flesh,' that there was in a proper sense an incarnation of Deity, then it is clear that such an incarnation, and the sufferings of such an one on a cross, were events adapted to make an impression on the universe at large, deeper by far than would be done by the sufferings of the guilty themselves." "All must feel that it was appropriate that the Eternal Father should command the sun to withdraw his beams, and the earth to tremble, and the rocks to rend—to spread a universal pall over the world—when the Son expired on the cross." "He had descended from Heaven, and had taken upon himself the form of a servant. He had subjected himself voluntarily to poverty, shame and contempt; he had been bound, and scourged, and publicly rejected; he had submitted to a mock trial and to an unjust condemnation; he had borne his own cross to the place of crucifixion, and had voluntarily given himself up to be put to death in a form that involved the keenest torture that man could inflict." Pp. 255–6–7.If it were true that the divine nature—that which "descended from heaven"—could not suffer and die, such remarks as the above are only calculated to mislead; and to my mind they betray a consciousness, on the part of the writer, that if the sacrifice was only human, as he had elsewhere said, the offering lacked in dignity, and the atonement in efficacy.
The Manual of Atonement, as quoted, says he could only die as man; that in his divine nature he could neither suffer nor die; and yet uses the following words:
"It was sin that drew Christ from the skies, and influenced him to lead a life of suffering in this world. It was sin that wounded his sacred head—that agonized his soul in the garden—that led him to Calvary—that nailed him to the cross, and drew out his heart's blood as a sin-atoning sacrifice." P. 138.
Who would not suppose from the above that the very Christ that came "from the skies," died on the cross? Why is this language used? Evidently to make an impression of the enormity of the sin, and the value of the sacrifice, which could not be made by the death of a human being. That object might be accomplished without any contradiction, by allowing what the Scriptures plainly teach of the death of the Son of God.
Dr. Scott, who says his death was only in his human nature, further says:
"I am he that liveth;' the ever-living, self-existent God, to whom as mediator it was given to have life in himself, and to be the life of men; and who had also been obedient to death for sinners; but behold he was alive as the first fruits of the resurrection, to die no more."—Note on Rev. i, 18.
"This same person, who created and upholds all worlds, as the high priest of his people, purged away the guilt of their sins, by himself, and the sacrifice of his death upon the cross."—Note on Heb. i, 3.
If it was given to the "self-existent God" to have life in himself, by whom was it given? Here is a plain declaration that "the ever-living, self-existent God" died for sinners; which I cannot believe, and Dr. Scott did not believe; for he contradicts it elsewhere. The self-existent God could not purge away our sin "by himself," but the Son of God could "by himself," (as Paul says, Heb. i,) and the self-existent God could by his Son; for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
Dr. Clarke, in his Commentary, says:
"Considering him (Paul) as writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, then we have from the plain, grammatical meaning of the words which he has used, the fullest demonstration (for the Spirit of God cannot lie,) that He who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification, and in whose blood we have redemption, was GOD over all."—Clarke on Col. i.
"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." If this be said of the Son of God, i. e., of Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ must be God; and indeed the design of the Apostle is to prove this."—Id. on Heb. i, 8.
Dr. Clarke thinks it was the human, not "the divine nature of our Lord" that died; hence, that human nature, according to his note on Col. i, is GOD over all. Again: he says that the divine nature was not the "Son of God," but Heb. i, 8 speaks of the Son; on which he says it "must be God;" and that "the design of the Apostle is to prove this." Now, if the "divine nature" was God, as he affirms, and if "the Son" or the "human nature" was also God, as he says in this note, and these natures are so distinct that what is affirmed of one may not be affirmed of the other, the conclusion is unavoidable that, in the person of our Lord, there was a Divine God and a human God. Nothing can be more absurd or ridiculous than "theology" and "divinity" are rendered by the learned doctors.
Dr. John Harris, in his first volume on Theological Science—the Pre-Adamitic Earth—says:
"For ἐν ἀρχῇ—in the beginning—even then He already ἦν—was. The assertion of his pre-existence is included alike in ἀρχῇ and in ἦν. For when every created thing had yet to be, He already was. He comprehends every being in himself." P. 31.
Of Christ as the Logos, the "Divine Revealer," he says:
"Now, the being who sustains this relation must, in every respect, be co-equal with God." P. 33.
And speaking of his manifestation he uses the following language:
"His disciples subsequently declared, that the life had been manifested, and that they had seen it; that that which was from the beginning they had handled and seen, even the Word of Life." P. 34.
Now, when the disciples also declare that that Word which they saw and handled, was put to death on the cross, and rose from the dead, we cannot avoid the conclusion that that which was from the beginning, which was before all things, actually died for man. Of course we cannot believe what men say about his being co-equal with God in every respect, and that the Divine Son of God could not suffer nor die. These are mere human words. But that the Word, or Logos, was the Son of God, that he was before all things, that he was made flesh, that he was seen and handled of men, that he was put to death, that he was raised from the dead; these are the words of inspiration. "What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord." So long as such inconsistencies and contradictions, as those here pointed out, are put forth by the professed advocates of truth, so long must the truth suffer the painful consequences.
(To be Continued.)