The Atonement-Part II by John Harvey Waggoner

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 6, 1863

The Atonement—Part II.

By John Harvey Waggoner

(Continued.)

JUSTIFICATION, FAITH AND OBEDIENCE.

THERE is a peculiar expression in Isa. li, 6. The Lord says: "My salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished." That this refers to his attributes or personal character would appear improbable, even in the absence of any testimony on the subject; for the idea of the abolition of his attributes or of his personal righteousness is too absurd to ever receive a notice. But if it refers to his law which is the foundation of his righteous government, the expression is reasonable and also necessary as a revelation. And there is proof that it has this application. In Psa. cxix, 172, it is said, "All thy commandments are righteousness." Now as the character of the divine Lawgiver is best revealed to us through the revelation of his will, and as his attributes must of necessity show forth in his government, the stability of his character is determined or shown by the stability of his law; for it would be of little account to declare in words that he was unchangeable, while he showed in action that he was not. Again this application is confirmed by the connection; "Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law." Verse 7. I have quoted the scriptures showing that God's law of Ten Commandments is a rule of holiness, of justification, condition of life, perfect, the whole duty of man, &c., which identify it as the same law referred to in Isa. li, 6, 7, and Psa. cxix, 172, which is the embodiment of righteousness. Hence, they who say that God's law of Ten Commandments is abolished, directly contradict this scripture, and are vainly contending with God. This view may be strengthened by an examination of the Saviour's words in Matt. v, 17-20; but I only invite investigation of that text, and pass to the apostle's argument on justification.

Some have found a difficulty with this view in considering Paul's words in Rom. iii, 21. "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets." There are but three senses, as I conceive, in which this phrase, "the righteousness of God," may be used. It must refer primarily to his own attributes; secondly, to the revelation of his will, which is the unfolding of his attributes; and thirdly, to the righteousness of his saints, whose characters are made conformable to his will. In this latter sense it is used in 2 Cor. v, 21. "That we might be made the righteousness of God in him." And the righteousness of God, without the works of the law, manifested through the faith of Christ, can simply have respect to Jesus Christ's removing our sin, and thus placing us before the throne of justice as free, as sinless, as though we had never broken the law. But the law being the measure of holiness, of perfection, the rule of judgment, is of course a witness of the righteousness so effected; for as condemnation is by law, so must justification be according to law, or else justice will be disregarded. So there can be no determination of character, either good or bad, without the law. But this text says the law is a witness of the righteousness of God; and this only confirms the view I have taken, that it is a revelation of the divine perfections. No language could more clearly show it.

It is necessary here to notice the fact that there is a wide distinction in the Scriptures between justification and salvation. If we only had regard to original justice, there could be no difference; i. e., if man had never sinned he would have been justified, and of course saved, by his obedience. But this original or personal justice no one now possesses. Hence, while the principles cannot change, and the rule of justification is ever the same, the senses are entirely different from what they would be if man had never sinned. Here is where many err. They suppose, or seem to suppose, that if the law ceases to be the means of justification, it ceases also to be the rule. They do not judge of the law by its nature or original object, but by the position of its transgressor. The law as a rule of right will form a perfect character, but cannot reform an imperfect one. The rule of the mechanic will determine or point out a right angle on the end of a board he is framing; and if the board is square—if the angle is right, it is justified or proved right by the rule. But if the angle is not right, the rule will point out the inaccuracy, but will not make it right. That must be effected by another tool. But if the saw is the means of making the proper angle on the board, does the saw therefore become the rule of determining angles or measurements? By no means. And there is precisely this difference between the law and the gospel. "By the law is the knowledge of sin;" but the gospel is the remedy. The law points out the errors of character, the gospel reforms them. The law being the only rule of right, "the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. ii, 13. This is but plain justice; for no one can suppose that the man who did the law—who obeyed God in all his life, would be condemned. But Paul also says that there are no doers of the law—that all have sinned; and from this he draws the very evident conclusion, "therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified." Rom. iii, 20. So we are justified now "freely by his grace;" entirely by faith; works do not enter into our justification. And why not? Because, as the apostle shows, this justification by faith has respect to "the remission of sins that are past." Rom. iii, 25. Over these our future acts of obedience can have no influence or control.

It has been thence inferred that the sinner justified is under no further obligation to keep that law by which he cannot be justified. But I am slow to believe that they who teach thus, realize how destructive is that view of every principle of right and justice; how it dishonors the gospel of Christ; how it tends to pervert a holy gospel of love to a mere system of license. Of all the abuse the gospel has ever received at the hands of its professed friends, this is the deepest. It is contrary to scripture, and to all just reasoning. Ask the advocate of that theory, if the law of his State will justify the thief in stealing, or the murderer in killing. He will answer, No; the law condemns such actions. Ask him how the criminal can escape the due desert of his crimes, and he will reply, Only by the governor's pardon. Ask again, if the law condemns the transgressor, and he can be justified only by pardon, does that pardon release him from obedience to the law, so that he may thereafter disregard its claims? Will he affirm this? Will he tell you that that pardon thereafter becomes the rule of life to such a man? And if the pardoned one should again be committed for crime, will the jury try him, and the judge condemn him, by the governor's pardon, or by the statute of the State? Could we get any to take the same unreasonable position in regard to the law of the State that many take in regard to the law of God? Not one. If angels ever weep at the blind folly of mortals, it seems to me that such teachings furnish an occasion. To see men of talent, of learning, of apparent piety, strip the plan of salvation of every principle of justice, pervert it to a system of license, draw conclusions directly contrary to reason and common sense, and argue on the divine government as they would be ashamed to argue in respect to the government of the State;—surely this is enough to fill the heavens with astonishment.

Some have doubted whether these acknowledged principles of right and justice, which are incorporated in human governments, will be exacted in the divine government; whether the gospel does not supersede them to some extent. To this I would answer in the words of scripture: "Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?" God himself has planted this regard for justice in our hearts, and shall not he regard it? There is truly a vast difference between God and us in this respect, but it is all in favor of strict justice on his part. His justice is infinite. There is no reason, there is not one passage of scripture, to lead us to suppose that God will ever commute justice in any degree, nor for any reason whatever. The following facts show that we are warranted in claiming for God's law what we claim for human laws in case of pardon:

Solomon refers the judgment to the commandments of God. Eccl. xii, 13, 14.

Paul says, that though Christ is constituted judge, he will judge by the law. Rom. ii, 12-16. Also that the knowledge of sin is now by the law; that is, that the law is now the rule of action, though man cannot be justified by it, for reasons given. Rom. iii, 9-23.

And let it be distinctly noted that a moral duty, whether it be called law or gospel, cannot justify a sinner. That law which points out sin, which is therefore the rule of right, will not justify. This is the teaching of Rom. iii, 20, 21. It is singular indeed, that those who teach the abrogation of the original law, and its insufficiency to justify, and who hold that all that is binding in the law is incorporated in the gospel, really teach justification by law—by the same system that points out sin, which Paul calls "the law." This is contrary to reason, and to the apostle's words in Rom. iii, 20. The truth is evidently this: the gospel upholds the law, and enforces it upon the conscience, and incorporates it into the life of the believer. But it does not abrogate law, nor release the believer from obedience to it; nor does it incorporate law into itself so as to have a blending of the two in one. The difference between the law and the gospel is as distinct now as it was in the day when the gospel was preached to the sinners in the wilderness. Heb. iv, 1. The law is moral; sin is immorality: the gospel is the remedy. Medicine may restore health, but health is not medicine. This matter may be tested by the following plain statement. The blood of Christ, the blood of the covenant, is that whereby we have remission of sin. See Heb. ix, 22; Rom. iii, 25. And this is freely and exclusively by faith or grace. Hence, baptism may be a gospel condition of justification, because it is not any part of original obligation or moral duty. If it was moral duty it could not be performed for remission of sin, simply because as such it would be required on its own account. So the commandment which says "Thou shalt not steal," cannot be incorporated into the same system and take part in the work of remission, being itself a moral duty. How reasonable is the conditional plan which says, "Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sin." And how absurd it would be to read, Thou shalt not kill, for the remission of sin; or Honour thy father and mother for the remission of sin. It appears absurd, as I have stated, whether these be called law or gospel, to claim justification or remission through them. But they who teach the abrogation of the law, and the incorporation of these commandments into the gospel, are responsible for this absurdity. It belongs to their system.

In speaking of justification by faith, or of the exercise of grace through the blood of Christ for the remission of sins past, the apostle clearly divides between faith and works, and excludes works entirely. It is faith only—works not at all. But when he speaks of the future life of the justified he speaks in a different manner. Then he teaches to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phil. ii, 12. This is evangelical truth as well as the other; but it is an order which could not be given or obeyed relative to justification for past offenses, of which he is speaking in Rom. iii; for no one could work out a justification for a past offense. There is, then, this distinction to be regarded: the gospel is a remedy for sin; obedience is a preventive of sin.

Now I cannot believe that God regards future sin with

any more favor than he does past sin. And if he does not, it would be reasonable to expect that his plan of salvation contemplated prevention as well as cure; and so we find it. Jesus saves from sin; puts away sin by the sacrifice of himself; says to the justified one, Go, sin no more; he is not a minister of sin, but of righteousness; therefore we shall not continue in sin that grace may abound. Both, I say, are in the gospel plan. Thus, man is under condemnation for sin; he also has a carnal mind, which is enmity against God, and not subject to the law of God; Rom. viii, 7; by position, a sinner—in disposition, sinful. It would not be sufficient to forgive past transgression and leave the sinful disposition, as we should become involved again in sin and condemnation. Nor would it be sufficient to remove the sinful disposition and leave the burden of past sin upon us, for that would condemn us in the judgment. Therefore Christ becomes a Saviour to us in both respects. He freely forgives our past sin, so that we stand free and justified; and he takes away the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, and not subject to his law, and makes us at peace with God—subject to his law; he writes it in our hearts so that we may delight in it. Then “the righteousness of the law” is “fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh,” the carnal mind, “but after the Spirit.” Rom. viii, 4.

They who object to this as tending to salvation by works, cannot have looked deeply into the divine word. If Jesus takes away the sinful disposition, renews us or gives us a new heart, and brings us in subjection to the law of God, all our obedience to that law is by virtue of that change of heart effected by him; therefore, while he grants to us all the virtue of his blood for the remission of past sin, he is entitled to all the glory of our obedience in the future. So it is all of grace, and we have nothing to boast of in any respect, nor anything to claim on our own account, for all that we do is by strength imparted by him. Here we have a system which is all grace, and no license to sin; a gospel worthy of heaven—imparting mercy freely, and maintaining law and justice strictly. Here we see that without him we can do nothing; though we shall work out our salvation with fear and trembling, it is God that workseth in us to will and to do of his good pleasure. We are justified by faith, yet so that we must add to our faith virtue; patiently continue in well-doing; keep the commandments of God; fulfill the righteousness of the law, &c.

Some have been troubled to harmonize Paul with James on justification; but I apprehend the difficulty grows out of a disregard of the distinction I have noticed. “Paul in Rom. iii, is treating on justification by faith for past offenses only; while James is speaking of the obedience of faith. “By faith Abraham obeyed.” Paul also speaks of faith which works by love. Gal. v, 6. But neither Paul nor James says that works will procure the remission of past offenses, or that faith will save without works. There is no difference in this respect in their teachings.

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Rom. iii, 31. And as we do not make void the law through faith, so we do not supersede faith by obedience to the law; for that is through faith. The blood of Christ is our only refuge. His death opens to us the way of life. What that death is we have already noticed; its object we have now seen; its nature and relation we now consider. J. H. W.

(To be Continued.)