Miscellaneous
Writings Vol. Two
Christian
Holiness.
CHAPTER II.
HOLINESS ROOTED
IN A TRUE ATONEMENT.
THE questions that are now to occupy us I prefer to take
in their real sequence rather than as presented by Dr. Steele. The doctrine of
atonement is fundamental to that of holiness, as he evidently admits. We begin,
then, with atonement. And here we have a right to complain that, instead of
taking the "Plymouth view," as given by a "Plymouth" writer, he takes a
representative from the large group of supposed "sympathizers," for all whose
statements we are held responsible. How would Dr. S. treat us if we were to
take our views of Wesleyan Methodism, not from Wesley or Fletcher or any
acknowledged authorities, but, let us say, from Oberlin Presbyterianism instead
? Yet this last is in very evident "sympathy" with it. Why should our author,
after ten years' study, prefer to take his own views from Dr. Bishop rather
than from Mr. Darby, the head of the school? It is plain what would suggest
itself to most; but we would rather leave the question for himself to answer.
Why will he not accept our own statements of doctrines with which he charges
us? Surely it is not a righteous course.
Moreover, what Dr. S. charges
upon us as "Plymouth" doctrine is no more that than it is of all the many who
hold a true satisfaction for sin,- a true substitutionary work in the cross of
Christ. As elsewhere also, he often charges us with what we do not hold at all.
He quite expects to have his word taken for proof, if there be no other. Yet he
is not consistent. On p. 40 he says,- "Theologians who state the doctrine of
the atonement with proper safeguards, are careful to limit its vicarious
efficacy to the passive obedience of the Son of God, His sufferings and death.
His active obedience constitutes no part of His substitutional work. The germ
of antinomianism is found in the inclusion of the latter in the atonement!" Now
it is notorious that the "Plymouth" doctrine is completely cleared by this, and
no germ of antinomianism can be found in it! For the people in question, it is
well known, hold precisely that the Lord's sufferings and death were vicarious,
but not His life, and they do not include the latter in atonement!
But
they are not allowed to escape so easily. On p. 121, the charge is quite a
different one. Here he says,- "The basis of the doctrine of imputed holiness is
that theory of the atonement which represents that Christ ,Jesus, the sinless
Son of God, in whom He was well pleased, was literally identified with sin so
as to be 'wholly chargeable therewith, that we might be identified and wholly
charged with righteousness.' This quotation is from Dr. Geo. S. Bishop, who
proceeds to say, 'The atonement which we preach is one of absolute exchange,
that Christ took our place literally - that God regarded and treated Christ as
the sinner, and that He regards and treats the believing sinner as Christ. From
the moment we believe, God looks upon us as if we were Christ. . . . We then
are saved, straight through eternity, by what the Son of God has done in our
place. . . . Other considerations have nothing to do with it. It matters
nothing what we have been, what we are, or what we shall be. From the moment we
believe on Christ, we are forever, in God's sight, AS Christ. Of course, it is
involved in this that men are saved, not by preparing first,- that is, by
repenting and praying, and reading the Bible, and then trusting Christ; nor the
converse of this - by trusting Christ first, and then preparing something -
repentance, reformation, good works,- which God will accept; but that sinners
are saved, irrespective of what thcy are - how they feel - what they have done
- what they hope to do - by trusting on Christ only; that the instant Christ is
seen and rested on, the soul's eternity, by God's free promise, and regardless
of all character and works, is fixed.' (pp. 121, 122.)
Now, as I have
said, Dr. Steele has not the least right to demand that I should defend all
this, any more than he, as a representative of Wesleyan Methodism, could be
forced to defend all that Dr. Mahan or Mr. Finney might say for Christian
perfection." Nor do I at all maintain that Dr. Bishop has guarded his words
from abuse, as they might easily he guarded. Dr. Steele, on the other hand,
has, after his usual manner, told us nothing as to whence he has derived this
passage, or we might have found the necessary guarding in close proximity to
what he has quoted. Again, I say, I am not concerned to defend it. Dr. Bishop
would very likely refuse for himself with perfect justice to be held as
representing the views of Plymouth Brethren in the matter. For the sake of
truth, however, and to meet fairly all issues, I am not going to shelter myself
from Dr. Steele's attack thus, but to state freely for myself how much I hold
of this, and why I hold it. I prefer, however, to let Dr. S. state his
objections, as he does at length, and to examine them one by one, as he states
them. We shall thus have all before us whereon to found a judgment.
"1. Repentance is not necessary to saving faith." This I have, in fact,
already answered. There is no true faith without repentance, no true repentance
apart from faith. God has, in His perfect wisdom, provided for this. It would
indeed be impardonable to represent God as if He were careless about
repentance; and I am sure that Dr. Bishop would earnestly disclaim the thought.
But nevertheless, what atones for sin, expiates it, purges sin from the soul,
is not at all repentance, - nay, not even faith, but the precious blood of
Christ. And the essence of repentance itself is that real rejection of the
filthy rags of our own righteousness, no less than of our sins. Thus the eye of
the convicted sinner is to be fixed, not upon his own repentance, as if that
were any thing, but wholly and altogether upon Christ. And this is what is
absolutely necessary to make repentance itself real and availing. Dr. S. will
thus see that I contend folly for the necessity of repentance, and I can only
trust that here, as often, his own heart is sounder than his creed.
Fix
a sinner's eye upon his repentance, as if that were to be a makeweight in the
scale of his acceptance, yon will find, if he be real, that he will never he
free from the torturing doubt, "Have I sufficiently repented ?" On the other
hand, let him flee from all the vain refuges of his own performances to Christ
as Saviour, here is the best evidence of a satisfactory repentance. Christ, not
repentance, is the Saviour, not a half not a whole one. What does not wash away
my sin can never save; and a blessed thing it is to be enabled to torn a poor
convicted one away from self in every shape - repentance, faith, or any thing
else, to the blood of Jesus.
"It is not thy tears of repentance, or prayers,
But the blood that atones for the soul
On Him, then, who shed it, thon
mayest at once
Thy weight of iniquities roll.''
Does not Dr. S. believe this? In spite of his words, I most
believe it of him. Otherwise what becomes of that initial justification which
the "seraphic Fletcher" preached, but to which he was not indeed, any more than
our author, always true,-" by faith without works"? Good works, as the fruit of
saving faith, and proof of its genuineness, have no place in this scheme of
salvation, and are distinctly repudiated ; and well they may be, since by the
first act of faith, as a bare intellectual, impenitent apprehension that God
punished His Son for our past, present, and future sins, 'the soul's eternal
salvation, regardless of character and conduct, is FIXED.' 'What we shall be
matters nothing, since we have a through ticket for heaven. St. James is an
impertinence in this scheme of salvation, and his epistle may well be called
'straw!"
Here is, indeed, the most serious objection to Mr. Bishop's
language, while I am sure he would refuse the interpretation which I must say
is here quite naturally put upon it. But the truth is, that He who fixes the
salvation of the soul, fixes in this way no less its moral condition also: "We
are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
before ordained that we should walk in them." (Eph. ii.) Blessed it is to know
that a poor lost sinner coming to a living Saviour finds a salvation secured
for him which is internal as well as external, from the power of sin as well as
from guilt and from wrath. Will Dr. Steele say this is unworthy of Him? or that
it is impossible to Him? And if it be possible, is it not most worthy? would he
not be delighted to find it true? Dr. S. can put his hand upon no writings of
"Plymouth Brethren," that I am aware of, that consider the epistle of James as
a "strawy" epistle, or depreciate good works as the fruit and test of saving
faith. They are surely both, but that does not for a moment make the works to
be saving. Nor does it imply that we are to rest upon the works. "Lord, when
saw we Thee a hungered and fed Thee ?" is a distinct repudiation of good works
in this respect on the part of the righteous, exceedingly significant for Dr.
Steele, since we know he accepts the "sheep" here as Christians in the day of
judgment. Peace is through the work and word of Christ, and will never be found
in any other way; while, if "sin shall not have dominion over you, because ye
are not under the law, but under grace," we are right to press this as fully
against laxity on the one side as on legality on the other.
Again, we
do not account that saving faith is "a bare, intellectual, impenitent (!)
apprehension" at all. And I boldly challenge Dr. S. to prove we do, not by
fragmentary quotations from nameless writers, but by honest proof from accepted
leaders among us. Yet again and again he asserts something similar to this. We
all believe that a fruitless faith is no faith, and the best proof that Dr. S.
has NOT found faith to be defined as a mere intellectual assent in our writings
is that he has notproducedit. The writings are easily to be found. They are in
honest black and white, and know not how to prevaricate or deal falsely in the
matter. The charge on Dr. Steele's part is a rash and unworthy charge, and
nothing else.
We go on to his third objection:-
3. That God regarded
and treated Christ as a sinner, in other words, that He actually punished His
Son because He was guilty of our sins." This language, again, I repudiate with
all my heart. God did not "regard" His Son as a sinner. He regarded and treated
Him as the Substitute for sinners. Nor was Christ "guilty of our sins," or
punished because "guilty" of them. "Guilt "- at least in the sense in which we
ordinarily use the word,- is not transferable, but penalty may be. "The
chastisement of our sins was upon Him," says the prophet ; "God hath laid upon
Him the iniqnity of us all." We alone were the guilty ones; the punishment was
of our sins, but it was punishment. What avails it to quote Martin Luther
against us, or an ex-presidentof the Y.M.C.A.? Dr. Steele's title-page says,
"The Theology of the Plymouth Brethren Examined and Refuted." Luther, we had
thought, at least, dated some centuries before. Some Calvinistic text-books use
very much the language Dr. S. condemns. With what fairness could this be called
the theology of Plymouth Brethren if even some of these may have used it? And
this their accuser never undertakes to prove!
But his own theology is
much more erroneous :- "We indignantly repudiate the monstrous idea that Jesus
on the cross was a sinner overwhelmed with the bolts of the of Father's
personal wrath. What we do affirm is that His suffering and death were in no
sense a punishment, but a substitute for punishmeat, answering the same end,
the conservation of God's moral government and the vindication of His holy
character while He pardons penitent believers." (p. 124.)
This is what
is called the "governmental theory" of atonement. It is indeed a theory,
nothing else ; and a theory against which Scripture is decisive. The one text
which Dr. Steele cites and seeks to explain- 2 Cor. v. 21: "He was made sin for
us who knew no sin,"- is not only not the one argument, but not even the most
conclusive one.
Yet, even here, if he would look a little below the
surface, he might see that, granting the word "sin" to stand in this place for
"sin-offering" (which the analogy of the Hebrew may be held to justify), there
must yet be a reason for so significant a fact as that the same word stands for
both these very diferent things. Why should this be, but because that which is
made sin becomes thus the sin-ofering.
And if we look at the type in
the Old Testament, what means this, that in the highest grade of it we see the
beast so offered carried without the camp and burnt upon the ground without an
altar? It is the thing, as the apostle in Heb. xiii. remarks, that makes the
blood of the victim able to penetrate into the sanctuary,- that is, really to
sanctify the offerer. "Without the camp" was the place outside of all that was
owned of God ; and without an altar, shows that that which sanctifieth the gift
is absent; the victim is in the awful place of sin upon which a pure God cannot
look. This, at the cross, the darkness shows,- the withdrawal of light, and
"God is light ;" while the Lord's voice out of it interprets for us,-" My God,
My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ?"
Beside, however the word in 2 Cor.
v. 21 may by itself be capable of the rendering "a sin-offering," yet if we
look but a little further we shall see clearly why the Revisers did not so put
it here. It is that "sin "is contrasted with "righteousness," as well as
connected with the same word, "sin," following: "He was made sin for us, who
knew no sin; that we might be made God's righteousness in Him."
Thus
Dr. Steele has by no means justified the proposed rendering, nor if he had, has
he got rid of the idea that is plainly to be found in the passage before us.
"Common sense exegesis" is here at fault, as it often is, for what it means
often is but a superficial, off-hand view, without the need of true
spirituality or careful study of the Word ; and such, I grieve to say, is often
the character of Dr. Steele's interpretations. But apart from this passage,
what does Dr. Steele think of the passage in the prophecy already adduced,-
"The chastisement of our peace was upon Him "? or of this: "The Lord hath laid
upon Him the iniquity of us all "? Or of this from Gal. iii. io: "Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us "? Or this
from Peter (1 Pet. ii. 24): "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on
the tree "? Was not the curse on sin the punishment of sin? And this special
curse,- so unaccountable in itself - that "he that hangeth upon a tree is
accursed of God ": how can we view it, save as typically designed to mark out
this one "death of the cross," which for those who realized the glory of the
Sufferer would seem to be impossible to bear this character?
But Dr.
Steele openly rejects the teaching of Scripture. His fourth objection is,-
4. We have insuperable philosophical and ethical difficulties in the way of
receiving the statement that the guilt of the race was transferred to Christ.
Character is personal, and cannot be transferred. Sin is not an entity, a
substance which can be separated from the sinner and transferred to another and
be made an attribute of his character by such a transfer. Sin is the act or
state of a sinner, as thought is the act or state of a thinker. Neither can
have an essential existence separate from their personal subject, any more than
any attribute can exist separate from its substance." (p. 126.)
Much of
this is mere misconception. The guilt of the race was not transferred to
Christ. Could it have been, all men would be necessarily saved. Nor was guilt
transferred, but penalty, as I have before said. Sins were laid upon Him, borne
by Him,- transferred to Him therefore: so the Word (and we have quoted it)
directly says. But they were laid upon, borne by Him, as a burden,- i.e., in
their penalty. Sin was not made an "attribute of His character ;" who ever
supposed it but Dr. Steele?
Thus his fifth objection we may for the
most part pass over as already answered, and we shall leave Dr. Bishop to
defend himself as to what is replied to him. Our author contends, however, that
"while it is true that Jesus is our substitute, He is our substitute truly and
strictly only in suffering, not in punishment. Sin cannot be punished and
pardoned also. This would be a moral contradiction. . . . Sin was not punished
on the cross. Calvary was the scene of wondrous mercy and love, not of wrath
and penalty." (pp. 128, 129.) Yet Scripture says, none the less, "The
chastisement of our peace was upon Him." Delitzsch says of the word emphasized,
"We have rendered 'musar' 'punishment,' and there was no other word in the
language for this idea. . . . David, when he prayed that God might not punish
him in His anger and hot displeasure (Ps. Vi. 2), could not find a more
suitable expression for punishment, regarded as the execution of judgment."
(Isaiah, vol. ii., p. 318.) Think of any one saying of the dread cross of our
Redeemer, "Calvary was not the scene of wrath and penalty "!
But "sin
cannot be punished and pardoned also: this would be a moral contradiction." Not
in the least! If the person who sinned were punished, this would be : but he to
whom the due of sin is remitted is pardoned, though the due of his sin has been
paid. For He who paid is He who remits.
If it were otherwise, and the due
were not paid, there might be pardon, there could not be justification.
Justification is only possible in one of two ways: either by the proving of
innocence, which on our part is impossible, or by the proof that the punishment
of sin has been borne. This is our case: we are "justified through Christ's
blood." (Rom. v. 9.) Justification and pardon are in the same way opposed to
one another, as are punishment and pardon: contrasted, indeed, in thought, but
not contradictory in fact, in God's wonderful plan of salvation. All this, on
Dr. Steele's part, is ignorance of plain Scripture. His closing sentence we
shall have to look at further on. I only say that the "imputed holiness" with
which he there charges us, we repudiate as much as he does.
One last
objection remains
6. A limited atonement is the inevitable outcome of the
doctrine that sin was punished on the cross. Whose sin?
If it be answered,
That of the whole human race, then universalism emerges, for God cannot in
justice punish sin twice. It must be, then, that the sins of the elect only
were punished. Hence, at the bottom, this system rests on the tenet of a
particular, in distinction from a universal, atonement." (p. 130.)
And
the writer goes on to inveigh against the "Jesuitical cunning" of those he is
attacking in not confessing their Calvinistic tendencies, closing with a report
of a conversation with Mr. Darby, in which he answers a question upon election,
in the frankest and most outspoken way possible!
But the truth is, the
Plymouth Brethren in general do not believe in "limited atonement " in the
sense in which this is usually understood. They accept Christ's being a
propitiation for the whole world, in the ordinary acceptation of "world;" and
in ten years of study our author should have discovered this. Nay, in another
place he does give us some inkling of the truth. "They make a distinction," he
says, "between the death of Christ for all, and the blood of Christ shed only
for those who are through faith sprinkled and cleansed thereby. By this means
God saves believers, and presents an 'aspect of mercy' toward all mankind." (p.
59.)
Dr. S. will allow me to put this in my own way, without meaning to
pledge all my brethren to acceptance of it. I do not believe in what he calls
"the old and exploded commercial theory - so much suffering by Christ equals so
much suffering by the sinners saved by Christ." (p. 59.) I believe that Christ
paid the penalty of sin, not an "equivalent" penalty merely, as even those who
believe in a true "satisfaction" are mostly content to say. No, it was the
PENALTY ITSELF upon men - death and judgment, the full wrath of God. True, He
could not be holden of it. The Holy One of God could not remain under that
which for the glory of God He had taken. He was "heard for His piety," "raised
from the dead by the glory of the Father." But though necessarily and in
righteousness delivered from it, He went into it, bore sin in its dread
penalty, vindicated God's holiness as against it by submitting to its real due,
glorified Him fully so.
The value of this obedience unto death is
infinite. It is not a quantum of suffering - so much for so much sin; but God
glorifies in a true Substitute drinking actually the sinner's cup; not Himself
one, but a substitute.
For whom then a substitute? For the world as such?
No: that would be universalism. For the elect as such, a definite number of
people marked by this election? Again, no : that would be a strictly limited
atonement, which would give no basis for a universal offer of salvation, and
would not allow of Christ a "propitiation for the sins of the whole world."
These are the two alternatives of Dr. Steele: is there no other possible? There
is, and it completely answers all demands. It is here: "Upon the seed of
Abraham He taketh hold. Wherefore it behoved Him in all things to be made like
unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in
things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."
(Heb. ii. i6, ii.)
It is for His people, for the seed of Abraham, for
believers, the atonement is made,- a satisfaction available for all the world
upon condition of faith; actually such for all believers. It is an atonement
unlimited in value and availability for all men ; limited only by the unbelief
that slights or rejects it. This must be to Arminians at least a very
intelligible thought. It answers, as I have said, all demands, and removes all
difficulties.
Thus only when one believes does he cross from the place
of condemnation into that of acceptance with God, and find sin really removed.
"My faith" is NOT "a waking up to the fact that I have always been saved" (p.
35), as Dr. S. represents it for me, but a faith by means of which I am
actually justified; although that which is the ground of justification is the
blood of Christ simply and solely. And it was not God's laying the sins of
believers upon Him that did or could remove mine UNTIL I was a believer. I
grant this is opposed to the "commercial view " of atonement - so much
suffering for so much sin, which Dr. Steele would insist on my defending. This
would require just a definite number of foreseen and exactly appreciated sins
to be laid on Christ,- mine, and no other's - in order to my salvation; and
then it might be justly argued, I was justified before I was born. Scripture
refuses this, and I refuse it. Yet as a believer I can say that my sins were
really laid upon Him, and that He put them away from me by the sacrifice of
Himself.
Upon a subject so central and fundamental as atonement I
desire to be very plain, and I trust Dr. S. will find these statements free
from the Jesuitical cunning which he so freely imputes. Is this the love that
thinketh no evil? Is it not unworthy of himself?
Chapter Three - Justification and Acceptance with Christ.
Home | Links | Literature