'CHAPTER
VI.
DOCTRINE
OF A TRINITY SUBVERSIVE OF THE ATONEMENT
It will no
doubt appear to many to be irreverent to speak thus of the doctrine of a
trinity. But we think they must view the subject in a different light if they
will calmly and candidly examine the arguments which we shall present.
We know
that we write with the deepest feelings of reverence for the Scriptures, and
with the highest regard for every Scripture doctrine and Scripture fact. But
reverence for the Scriptures does not necessarily embrace reverence for men’s
opinions of the Scriptures.
It is not
our purpose to present any argument on the doctrine of the trinity, further
than it has a bearing on the subject under consideration, namely, on the
Atonement. And we are willing, confidently willing to leave the decision of the
question with all who will carefully read our remarks, with an effort to divest
themselves of prejudice, if they unfortunately possess it.
The
inconsistencies of Trinitarians, which must be pointed out to free the
Scripture doctrine of the Atonement from reproaches under which it has too long
lain, are the necessary outgrowth of their system of theology. No matter how
able are the writers to whom we shall refer, they could never free themselves
from inconsistencies without correcting their theology.
Many
theologians really think that the Atonement, in respect to its dignity and
efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But we fail to see any
connection between the two. To the contrary, the advocates of that doctrine
really fall into the difficulty which they seem anxious to avoid. Their
difficulty consists in this: They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent
to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to
the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case.
They who
have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly
believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity,
as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of
the sacrifice made for our redemption.
- 115 - J.
H. Waggoner
And here
is shown how remarkably the widest extremes meet in theology. The highest
Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians meet and are perfectly united on the death
of Christ—the faith of both amounts to Socinianism. Unitarians believe that
Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely human; that his death was
that of a human body only. Trinitarians hold that the term “Christ” comprehends
two distinct and separate natures: one that was merely human; the other, the
second person in the trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but
could not possibly suffer, or die; that the Christ that died was only the human
nature in which the divinity had dwelt.
Both
classes have a human offering, and nothing more.
No matter how exalted the pre-existent Son
was; no matter how glorious, how powerful, or even eternal; if the manhood only
died, the sacrifice was only human.
And so far
as the vicarious death of Christ is concerned, this is Socinianism.
Thus the
remark is just, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, resting
it solely on a human offering as a basis. A few quotations will show the
correctness of this assertion.
“As God,
he obeyed all the requirements of the law, and made it honorable in the
justification of sinners; as man, he bore its curse on the tree, and endured
its penalty.” —Manual of Atonement, page25.
“The
sufferings of Christ were endured in his human nature. Though possessing a
divine nature, yet int hat he could not suffer and die. His sufferings were
endured in his human nature.” Id., page
88.
“It is no
part of the doctrine of the Atonement that the divine nature, in the person of
the Saviour, suffered.”—Barnes on Atonement, page 224.
“It was
meet that the mediator should be man, that he might be capable of suffering
death; for, as God, he could not die.”—Buck’s Theol. Dict., Art. Mediator.
“Trinitarians
do not hold to the sufferings or death of divinity.”—Mattison on the Trinity,
page 39.
The
Atonement - 116
“His
mediation between God and man is chiefly in his human nature, in which alone he
was capable of suffering and dying.”—Scott on 1 Tim. 2:5.
“I know
not any scripture, fairly interpreted, that states the divine nature of our
Lord to be begotten of God, or to be the Son of God.”– Clarke on Heb. 1:8.
“Is it to
be wondered that the human body in which this fullness of the Godhead dwelt,
and in which the punishment due to our sins was borne upon the tree, should be
exalted above all human and all created things?”– Id. on Phil. 2:9.
Dr. Clarke
says the apostle John doubtless directed his first letter against the heretics
then abounding. Of them he says:—
“The
Gnostics even denied that Christ suffered; the AEon, or Divine Being that dwelt
in the man Christ Jesus, according to them, left him when he was taken by the
Jews.” &c.– Note on 1 John 1:8.
So far as
that particular heresy of the Gnostics is concerned, it has become wide-spread
and almost all-prevailing in the denominations of the present day. Indeed, we
cannot see but Dr. Clarke himself was tinctured with it, according to the
quotations given above. We trust that we have shown to the full conviction of
every one who “trembles at the word” of the Lord, that the Son of God, who was
in the beginning, by whom the worlds were made, suffered death for us; the
oft-repeated declarations of theological writers that a mere human body died
are, by the Scriptures, proved untrue.
These writers take the doctrine of a trinity for their basis, and assume that
Christ is the second person in the trinity, and could not die.
Again,
they assume that death is not a cessation of life; and between the two
unscriptural assumptions they involve themselves in numerous difficulties, and
load the doctrine of the Atonement with unreasonable contradictions. We would
not needlessly place ourselves in opposition to the religious feelings of any
class, but in order to clear the doctrine of the Atonement from the
consequences
- 117 - J.
H. Waggoner
of these
assumptions, we are compelled to notice some of the prominent arguments
presented in favor of the doctrine of a trinity. In the “Manual of Atonement,”
1 John 5:20 is quoted as containing most conclusive evidence of a trinity and
of the Supreme Deity of Christ. It is there claimed that he is called “the true
God and eternal life.” The whole verse reads thus: “And we know that the Son of
God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is
true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the
true God and eternal life.” A person must be strongly wedded to a theory who
can read this verse and not see the distinction therein contained between the
true God and the Son of God. “We are in him that is true.” How? “In his Son
Jesus Christ.” The distinction between Christ and the true God is most clearly
shown by the Saviour’s own words in John 17:3: “That they might know thee, the
only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Much stress is laid on
Isa. 9:6, as proving a trinity, which we have before quoted, as referring to
our High Priest who shed his blood for us. The advocates of that theory will
say that it refers to a trinity because Christ is called the everlasting
Father. But for this reason, with others, we affirm that it can have no
reference to a trinity. Is Christ the Father in the trinity? If so, how is he
the Son? or if he is both Father and Son, how can there be a trinity? for a
trinity is three persons.
To
recognize a trinity, the distinction between the Father and Son must be
preserved. Christ is called “the second person in the trinity;” but if this
text proves a trinity, or refers to it at all, it proves that he is not the
second, but the first. And if he is the first, who is the second? It is very
plain that this text has no reference to such a doctrine. In seeking an
explanation of this text, we must bear in mind the work of Christ as brought to
view in this and parallel passages.
These
words refer to the “child born,” the “son given,” who, as we have seen, bears
the title of God subordinate to his Father. And if an apostle could call
himself the father of those whom he had begotten in the gospel
(1 Cor.
4:15;
1Co
4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye
not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the
gospel.
1 Tim.
1:2;
1Ti
1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from
God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Titus 1:4
Tit
1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and
peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.)
, how
appropriately is this title applied to the Prince of Peace, who is, in a
peculiar sense,
The
Atonement - 118
the
everlasting Father of all to whom he gives everlasting life.
(To be
continued)
(Excerpt
from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:
THE
ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE
(1884)
BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER
No comments:
Post a Comment