(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
No comments:
Post a Comment