Sin, Punishment, Pardon.

(Excerpt)

We will now proceed, as briefly as possible, to examine some of the well-known and well-accepted claims and requirements of government.

I. SIN OUGHT TO BE PUNISHED

Penalty gives force to the law, and without it, law is a nullity. And no matter what consequences may result from the violation of law, the criminal is not punished till the penalty is inflicted. We might find many cases in our courts where the accused has suffered consequences more severe than the punishment which the law inflicts; but the judge cannot regard these—his office is to see that the penalty prescribed by the law be inflicted. He who violates the law risks the penalty and the intermediate consequences. In behalf of the affirmation that the transgression of the law ought to be punished, the following reasons are offered:— 1. It injures the subjects of the Government. One great object of government is the good of its subjects. The imprisonment of the thief, the robber, and the murderer, answers a double purpose, punishing the crimes, and preventing their further praying upon our property and our lives. The same law that restrains the evil-doer,

The Atonement - 26

secures the rights of the well-doer. Hence, every violation of the law of a Government is an invasion of the rights of the subjects thereof. Its tendency will be more clearly seen if we imagine for a moment that the law be disregarded by not one only, but by many, or by all. Then all rights, all safeguards, would be trampled down, and the objects of government entirely defeated. This, of course, is the tendency of every transgression. 2. It brings contempt upon the Government. In case of war we have seen thousands offer their lives as a sacrifice to uphold the Government and maintain its honor. If it cannot secure respect, it cannot maintain its authority. And if authority be despised, no rights and privileges are safe. All the evils noticed in the preceding paragraph are involved in this. 3. It insults and abuses the Creator and Governor. So blinding is the influence of sin that men despise the authority of God, and insult him daily, without any apparent compunction. All violations of law are insults to, and abuse of, authority. Every individual has rights in his own sphere, and there is no right more sacred than that of the Supreme authority to claim the respect and reverence of the subjects. And if the Governor be not respected, his Government cannot be; and if that be not respected, of course the rights of the subjects under it will not be. Consider again, if this example were followed by all—by all the intelligences of the universe; if all the men on earth and all the angels in Heaven should unite in abusing and insulting the God of Heaven, his Government would be turned into one vast field of anarchy, and individual rights would no longer be recognized. No one could consent that God should suffer such a state of things to continue without making an effort to reclaim the Government, and to maintain and vindicate right laws. Of course all must agree that sin ought to be punished.

II. CAN THE SINNER BE CLEARED?

This question is of the greatest importance, and no one should pass it lightly. All would say at once that the sinner can be cleared; but of necessity something must be involved in securing his

- 27 - J. H. Waggoner

acquittal. It must appear to all that he cannot possibly be cleared unless one of the following things takes place:— 1. The law be suffered to be trampled upon with impunity. This, of course, should not be permitted, for reasons given above; and we may say, will not be permitted, if the executive has a proper sense of right and justice to himself and to his subjects, and requisite power to enforce his authority. But the divine attributes must be a sufficient guarantee to guard this point. 2. The law be abolished. But this would be an acknowledgment of weakness or error on the part of the Government rather than evidence of wrong on the part of the transgressor. Or if the law were not acknowledged to be wrong, nor the Government in error, the case would be equally bad, presenting the pitiable spectacle of a Government abolishing a good law to accommodate a bad subject—one of rebellious tendencies. This would not be restraining sin; it would be rather favoring or licensing sin, and justifying the sinner in his evil course. And it would have a tendency to bring in all the evils of anarchy and ruin that we have considered as the unavoidable results of destroying governmental authority. To suppose that God would act thus is a libel on the wisdom and justice of the King of Heaven which we would not dare to utter. These suppositions are inadmissible. 3. The Governor pardon. This is a prerogative that may, under proper restrictions and conditions, be safely exercised. Therefore we must accept this as the only alternative; as the only means whereby the sinner may escape from the punishment of his crimes. By examining the foregoing points, it will be perceived that the acts of abolishing the law, and pardoning the transgressor, cannot in any case be united. One would be a nullity if both were attempted. This will be better appreciated when we consider the conditions under which pardon may be granted, and how the Government (which must ever be the first and chief concern) will be affected thereby.

(((MY (study giver, not author of above or below excerpt) interjection here--  So many Christians claim to have this pardon offered by God through Jesus Christ His Son and the sacrifice He made to gain that pardon for them.  They acknowledge they are sinners but FALL short in this area quite often. They'll seek forgiveness for any stealing, cheating, lying, they'll lament their lack of God fearing, their vain talking of Him their not worshiping Him but others (self, people, things). They'll even ask for forgiveness for not honoring God on the Sabbath and this is where so incredibly many people fall short.  They have a vague notion of the Sabbath and what it is supposed to be. They ask for and most likely receive forgiveness for breaking the Sabbath in their ignorance, yet we all know that ignorance only lasts as long as there is no opportunity for someone to know the truth. In fact- we here in the U.S.A. have heard it said more than once… Ignorance is NO excuse for breaking the law.  How can that be? If you don't know a law exists how can you be accused of breaking it? You can be accused because you have an obligation to become familiar with the laws in your country. You have an obligation to seek out a source of knowledge that tells you what the laws around you are.  Most people grow up being taught the laws as a matter of course. Parents pass the knowledge down to their children, schools teach the laws in various ways. By the time you're of an age of accountability to the law you are expected to have learned that law. A young child stealing a toy from a store will often be taught a valuable lesson when it's discovered. They will be taught that stealing is wrong and most likely suffer a very light parental punishment. From that point on as they grow older, the punishments for stealing will become much more severe all the way until they are about thirteen or so ( I could be wrong ) when a child of that age steals they could conceivably be sent to a juvenile detention home for punishment. All the laws we are expected to keep are taught to us and there is little use our going before a judge and saying I wasn't taught stealing apples was wrong, I was taught stealing oranges was wrong.  With the acknowledgement of a law existing that can be broken, comes the responsibility to know the details of the law.  If you think that's too much, that we can't be expected to know every single law of our land, it's most likely true because there are laws that we may never have to know because they are convoluted and made in such a way they have little to do with our lives (corporate law for a non-corporate involved person).  We know God's law- the moral ten laws given to us in stone, written by His finger, reiterated by God in the Flesh, Jesus Christ, are binding today- we know this because that's what sin is- breaking God's law. We have no sin without a law telling us we have broken it. Now we have an obligation to make sure we are following those laws not just assuming we are. The man who prides himself in not cheating on his wife, may very well be doing so because he is lusting after many woman he watches on television, or elsewhere. He might think nothing of fantasizing about those women even when he's with his wife, as long as he isn't really touching them he believes he's following the law of not committing adultery.  He's wrong as we well know, and how to we know this? Our Savior revealed the law more fully to us, the heart of that law when He told us to look on a woman to lust after her is adultery too. The clarity of the law, the heart of the law is important so if we stop short and don't study the heart of each law given then we are responsible for not studying, we are responsible for our own ignorance by choosing to remain so. Yes, many people claim Christ's forgiveness and then continue to not even recognize they are still breaking the very laws they are asking forgiveness for breaking.  If a criminal stole a car and was punished for it, then released and immediately stole another car… would they be allowed to be kept free of punishment for that? No. So why do Christians believe after they are pardoned for their sins that they can continue on in those sins without punishment? We have to acknowledge all the laws we are accountable for, not just the laws we find easy to abide by.   Okay, ending my interjection and most likely saying stuff the author of the excerpt will say in His own way.))))

The Atonement - 28

III. PARDON SUPPOSES OR RECOGNIZES,

1. The guilt of the condemned. This is evident. To pardon an innocent man would be preposterous. Human Governments sometimes professedly do this, as when it is ascertained that a man, who is in prison for a term of years, is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted, the Governor issues a pardon as a means of his release. But it is a misnomer, and really an insult to the innocent man. The law should make provision for release from unjust confinement without subjecting a man to the disgrace of receiving a pardon when he had committed no crime. 2. The power of government. This is equally evident. To pardon is to remit a penalty which might be inflicted. It would be a mere farce to offer a pardon to those whom the Government had no power to punish. 3. The justice of the law transgressed. This is nearly parallel with the first proposition, and like it, evident; for to pronounce a man guilty is to say that he has done wrong. And if a violation of law be wrong, the law violated must be right. An unjust law is, in a moral view, a nullity. When a law is found to be unconstitutional, or a nullity, the prisoner under it is not really pardoned; he should be released from false imprisonment; and such release is of justice, not of mercy. But pardon is of favor. Thus it is clear that the justice of the law is acknowledged in the article of pardon. Now as pardon supposes the guilt of the prisoner, the power of the Government, and the justice of the law, in all these it may be made to honor the Government and vindicate its integrity. But there are other principles involved. The act of pardon recognizes the claims of law, by recognizing its justice. Thus far it honors the Government. But the question still remains, Are those claims satisfied as well as acknowledged? According to a plain truth before noticed, the sinner ought to be punished; justice imperatively demands it. How then can pardon be granted, and strict justice be administered? In this case there will arise two conflicting interests; one of sympathy for the accused, leaning toward mercy; the other; strenuous for the integrity of the Government, leaning toward 

- 29 - J. H. Waggoner

justice. How can these principles be reconciled? Can both parties be satisfied? Here is a difficulty; and this will lead us to notice the conditions or restrictions under which pardon may be granted with safety. For an indiscriminate, unconditional pardon is dangerous to the Government. Closely examining this subject we find…  (to be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT-AN EXAMINATION OF A REMEDIAL SYSTEM IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE AND REVELATION.  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER