Pardoned, Not Condoned.

CHAPTER III.

JUSTIFICATION AND OBEDIENCE

(Excerpt continued…)

The relation of justification and obedience is precisely the relation of faith and works. The Scriptures make this subject very plain, yet scarcely any doctrine seems to be more misapprehended. The difficulty arises from a widely prevailing and growing desire to put off the law of God, or to plead exemption from its obligation. As law is the foundation of every Government, the divine Government not excepted, we shall have to notice further the nature of our obligation to the law in order to elucidate its relation to justification by faith.

There is a peculiar expression in Isa. 51:6. 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 Ps. 119:172, 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. We 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, etc., which identify it as the same law referred to in Isa. 51:6, 7, and Ps. 119:172, 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

- 75 - J. H. Waggoner

God.

Isa 51:6  Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. 

Isa 51:7  Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. 

Psa 119:172  My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness. 

This view may be strengthened by an examination of the Saviour’s words in Matt. 5:17-20; but we only invite investigation of that text, and pass to the apostle’s argument on justification.

Mat 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 

Mat 5:18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 

Mat 5:19  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 

Mat 5:20  For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 

What is the import of the apostle’s declaration in Rom. 3:28? It reads:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Does it mean that we now form our characters in Christian life without

works, or without obedience to the law? So many seem to think; but we cannot.

1. That view is highly unreasonable. We cannot form any character by mere feeling or belief. It is only by actions, by deeds, or by works, that any character can be formed.

2. It is contrary to the whole scope and tenor of the Scriptures, as we shall try to show. The idea of the text is presented also in verse 21 of the same chapter, which we have considered in another place. It reads: “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.” There is no difficulty at all if it is borne in mind that the subject is that of justification to a sinner condemned.

Now it is a truth so evident that no argument is needed in its favor, that a criminal cannot be justified by the law which he has broken. Surely there is nothing so strange in this that any need to be troubled to comprehend its force or bearing. It is only by losing sight of the relations brought to view in this chapter, and of the principles which must characterize the actions of a just Government in dealing with transgressors, that difficulties are found. We are indeed “justified freely by his grace, ”but on a basis which enables God to be just while he is a justifier of the believer. This must never be forgotten if we would honor his justice and his Government. Pardon must have respect to the broken law. And as there can be no condemnation without law, for “sin is not imputed when there is no law, or else justice will be disregarded. There can be no determination of character, either good or bad, without the law. By the law is the knowledge of sin. This is one direction in which the law imparts knowledge, but not the only one. The law is a witness of the righteousness of God. The apostle says that we are made the righteousness of God in Christ. 2 Cor. 5:21.

2Co 5:21  For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 

This means that our

The Atonement - 76

characters are conformed to his revealed will. And the righteousness of God manifested in us, through the faith of Jesus Christ without the works of the law, is just this, that Christ removes our sin and places us before the throne of justice as free, as sinless as though we had never broken the law. The law being the measure of holiness, of perfection, and the only rule of judgment, is of course a witness of the righteousness so effected. This cannot be denied. The expression, “The doers of the law shall be justified,” is sufficient proof that the law contains all that is necessary to justify the obedient; and the law witnesses to the righteousness of God which is effected through faith in Christ in the characters of the faithful, because it enforces and demands that righteousness. We can readily understand why a sinner, a carnally-minded man, restive under just restraint, whose heart is enmity against God, should desire the abolition of such a law. But we cannot understand why a man who professes to love God and to be loyal to his Government should desire its abolition; nor can believe that the God of justice, who will bring every work into judgment, will consent to its abolition. He has said: “My righteousness shall not be abolished,” and we respect his word and bow to the rule of his righteous judgment. Eccl. 12:13, 14; Rom. 2:12, 16.

Ecc 12:13  Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 

Ecc 12:14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. 

Rom 2:12  For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law

Rom 2:16  In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. 

Many stumble over the gospel plan because they make no difference between justification and salvation.

If we had regard only to original justice, there could be no difference; that is, if a 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 means 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 from a partial view of 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,

- 77 - J. H. Waggoner

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.2:13. 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. 3:20.

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. 3:25.

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 it cannot be that they who teach thus realize how destructive is that view to 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. Askthe 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 true 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

The Atonement - 78

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 would seem 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. This error is not altogether confined to those who are called Antinomians. All those who teach that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, that his death did not meet the full demands of justice, but was substituted for its demands, really subvert the law by denying that the gospel has honored its claims.

We think that in many cases they are unconscious of the demoralizing tendency of their position. This, however, will be considered more fully when we come to the subject of the vicarious death of Christ.

Had man never sinned, he would have been justified on the ground of obedience—by works.

Without sin he could not have been condemned.

This shows that justification is in works, provided that the works are perfect.

To deny this is equivalent to affirming that man would have been condemned—not justified—if he had continued in perfect obedience. And this is what we have before said, that justification is in the law, but man lost it by transgression of the law. It is obedience only that forms a right character. “He that doeth righteousness is righteous.” 1 John 3:7.

Faith in the blood of Jesus removes guilt, and presents us before the throne as righteous by imputation; but faith, without works, does not build up character. That is to say, that we are justified from past sins by faith without works, but we cannot maintain that justification through future life by faith without works. In this respect, “faith without works is dead.” James 2:20. And so Paul instructs the brethren: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Phil. 2:12.

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

No Resurrection From the Second Death.

(The Atonement Continued…)

Before leaving the subject of the penalty for transgression we will compare with the announcement of the penalty to Adam, the explanation of it by the Lawgiver himself.

When man was created and placed on probation, the Lord said to him that if he disobeyed the divine requirement or prohibition he should “surely die.” To this all future declarations conformed. Indeed, if there is unity of design in the Scriptures they all must conform to this. Accordingly they say, as already quoted: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Eze_18:4   “The wages of sin is death.” Romans 6:23 Said the Lord to Israel: “I have set before you life and death.” Duet. 30:19  The penalty for violation of the divine law is nothing less than “the death penalty.” God is the author of life, and man is his creature. “All souls are mine,” said the Creator; “as the soul of the  father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Eze. 18:4.

The right both to order and to dispose of life rests with him alone. There is no surer method of settling the meaning of a penalty than to notice how the proper authority pronounces or executes the sentence upon a transgressor. Adam sinned; he was arraigned, and confessed his guilt. He could not hide it from his Maker. The Judge in this case was the author and giver of the law; it was he who first announced the penalty of death. The sentence or the punishment must be conformable to the penalty. Therefore the sentence will be an authoritative comment on, or explanation of, the penalty. The sentence was pronounced in these words: “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed is the ground for they sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” According to this sentence, when the Lord told the man he should surely die, he meant that he should be returned to his original element, the dust of the

- 71 - J. H. Waggoner

ground, out of which he was taken when he was made a man, a living soul. That is what we call literal, personal, or physical death. Nothing else could be implied, for the record speaks of nothing else as pertaining either to the penalty or the sentence. And who shall amend the word of the Lord, or question his decision, in a matter of his own law and of the life and death of his creatures?

On the subject of punishment we will examine but one text, as our limits do not admit of any extended argument on the point. This text is Mat. 25:46;

Mat 25:46  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 

and we notice this because it is supposed to conflict in direct terms with the view of the penalty given above. And this being one of the strongest, if not the very strongest, on which an objection is based, an exposition of this will show that the objection itself has no force. The text reads: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” The Revised Version says eternal punishment and eternal life. This is strictly according to the original, and no one will object to the rendering. The whole objection is based upon a misapprehension of the term punishment. Many seem to think they have fully sustained the objection when once they have proved that the punishment of the wicked is as eternal as the life of the righteous. Thus Moses Stuart said: “If the Scriptures have not asserted the endless punishment of the wicked, neither have they asserted the endless happiness of the righteous, nor the endless glory and existence of the Godhead.” We admit this, and then our argument has lost nothing, and the objection has gained nothing.

The question is not one of the duration of punishment, but of the nature of it. Of this we say:—

1. The word punishment is not a specific term. Men may be punished by fine, by imprisonment, or by death. The term includes all these, and it may refer to many other things, but it specifies neither of them.

2. This being so, there is only an implied, not a direct, antithesis between the words punishment and life. When we say a man will be punished, we do not thereby declare what shall be done with or to him. But if we say of two men that one shall be punished and the

The Atonement - 72

other shall be suffered to live, the unavoidable conclusion would be that the first would be punished with death, or not suffered to live.

3. If death be punishment, then eternal death, from which there will be no resurrection, is eternal punishment. And this is the destiny of the wicked. “The wages of sin is death.”

As there will be a resurrection of the unjust, and their punishment is after that, they will suffer a second death, after which there is no more resurrection. The second death is therefore an eternal death.

4. Eternal life and eternal death are complete contrasts. There would be no strong contrast between eternal death and a brief life, or between eternal life and a brief state of death.

And there would be no contrast at all between eternal life and eternal imprisonment.

The penalty or punishment being death, there is this complete contrast between eternal life and the eternal punishment. But it would not exist if the punishment were anything but death.

5. Paul, in 2 Thess. 1:9, has given a decisive comment on this text. He uses both the terms used by the Saviour, with another term which is specific and therefore explanatory. Of the disobedient he says: “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” The Revised Version reads thus: “Who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”

Death and destruction are equivalents. Many times the Scriptures say of the wicked that they shall be destroyed. That destruction will be fore ever. They shall die, and never again awake. What a doom! And it may be averted by obedience to God through faith in his Son. But he who dies that death receives the just due of his own works. “The wages of sin is death.” It is not the Lord’s pleasure that any should be destroyed. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” Ezk 33:11 The force of the apostle’s words in 2 Thess. 1:9 is sometimes lost by assuming that it means banished from the presence of the Lord,

- 73 - J. H. Waggoner

and from the glory of his power. But that could not be, for in the whole universe no one can get beyond his presence and power. See Ps. 139:7-12.

Psa 139:7  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 

Psa 139:8  If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. 

Psa 139:9  If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 

Psa 139:10  Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. 

Psa 139:11  If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. 

Psa 139:12  Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. 

The destruction of the wicked is by fire; and in Rev. 20:9, we learn that when the hosts of Satan compass the camp of the saints and the beloved city, “fire came down from God out of Heaven and devoured them.” And thus will the word be literally fulfilled; from the presence of the Lord, from the glory of his power, even from Heaven shall the fire of destruction fall upon the ungodly. 2 Thess 1:9 “This is the second death.” It is their dying a second time. Truly an “everlasting punishment.” Much as we deplore the utter loss of so many of our race, as lovers of order and Government we acquiesce in the decisions of infinite justice. And we rejoice that justice has decreed the utter destruction of the incorrigibly rebellious, rather than that the universe of God should be the scene of eternal blasphemies and misery.

Let creation be cleansed from sin, and all be love and peace. We repeat a declaration before made, that circumstances make the death of the sinner an eternal death. The term die, or the penalty death, as stated to Adam, does not necessarily carry with it any idea of time or duration. To die is to lose life; death is the absence of life. We know of no one thing which more clearly shows the nature of the penalty of the law than the revealed truth that “Christ died for our sins.”

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

You Believe In A Liar.

For just a moment, because for it to be more than a moment it may be too much for some to bear… contemplate the fact of your deceased loved one is NOT in heaven but in a place of eternal torment.

Did you imagine it? Did you want to stop imagining it? Did your mind automatically discard the very idea of your loved one suffering now that they are no longer here on our sin-inflicted, disease ridden, sickness and accident filled world?  We tend to believe people suffer enough in life here on earth and we long to believe the people who die have passed on to a better place. Even the most wicked, sin-embracing, sin-loving, God hating, God discarding person somehow seems to make it to a better place according to those who have affection for that person.

Why have I brought this up? Why did I want you to imagine your beloved absent friend, loved one, family member in torment?  Because there is a very good chance, in fact more of a chance that they'll eventually enter that supposed eternal torment than they'll enter heaven. 

FEW there be that find it. (Matthew 7:14)

I know, I know! You want me to shut up, but I can't. Rest assured, I DON'T believe your loved ones are in eternal torment right now. I believe (Biblically based) that they are unconscious, sleeping if you will- suspended in time protected and reserved by God until Jesus returns.

FEW there be that find it. (Matthew 7:14)

See, right there we are told the odds of a person aren't very good for obtaining eternal peace in heaven and yet ask the majority of people where their dead loved one(s) is(are) right now and they'll tell you - in heaven.

Why do they tell you that? Because to believe they are not in heaven means believing they are in eternal torment, or simply non-existent, or lost in some cycle of rebirth no one is ever conscious of in reality- in either an animal or another person. 

It's factual that most will say their dead loved one is alive in heaven. This unproven supposition (even Scripturally) gives a sense of extremely false and deceptive hope to people, as a way of coping with the loss they feel making it somehow better. This belief soothes the sorrow stricken person with a measure of peace, sometimes just enough to keep a person from ruining their own lives with grief. Better to believe in fantasy than reality. Better not to ask ourselves if our loved one truly is one of the few among the many. Much better to not believe there even exists a heavenly lottery where most lose and only a few win. As long as we hold fast to our delusions we have hope for ourselves, truthfully isn't that why we hold onto the falsehood and refuse to delve into deep Bible study over it?

The Biblical truth is our first death (for there are claimed to be two of them for some in the Bible), our first death is a simple passing into a death sleep while our breath and our unconscious essence of who we are returns to God to await the day of resurrection- some to life, and some to the second death.

Yes, that's scriptural, I did NOT make it up on my own.

And why do we have such trouble with believing our first death is a sleep with unconscious awareness?  Because we do NOT want to believe we actually cease to live in full awareness after death claims us. We want to believe death here and now means not only an end to the suffering we do here and now, but a reward of joy and peace, and painlessness is now ours. We want to be rewarded for our life of suffering. We want our loved ones rewarded, especially those whose deaths are horrific. They, or we, go through something so incomprehensible awful that our solace is the joy they must now have, and the joy we have to look forward to.

Don't get me wrong, those who are God's will have that joy to look forward to, that great reward we can't even fully imagine, an eternal life with our God, with our Savior.

I'm just hoping one single person who reads this may see their way through the deception that began in the Garden of Eden with the serpent saying to Eve- "You surely won't die…"

If most people truly believe they live immediately after death- they 'aren't surely dying', are they? They've just jumped into another- much better way of living. 

Lies from the father of lies.

May God help us find truth in God's word and live by the truth so we are not caught up in Satan's lies. And if you think believing in this lie is harmless because in every other way you are living for Christ… remember… many are going to think they are living for Christ only to find out they've been deceived. No lie of Satan's is harmless and to be easily dismissed as being inconsequential.

Eve believed Satan's lies and they were far from harmless.

God help us all!

Click on the following link if you want to know Biblically what death is…

https://sites.google.com/site/whostosaywereright2/Home/what-is-death

(Excerpt Continued…)

There are two kinds of sorrow for sin: a “godly sorrow,” and a “sorrow of the world.” 2 Cor. 7:10.

2Co 7:10  For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 

The first is that of the penitent, sorrowing that he has violated a holy law and grieved a holy God. The other is that of the worldling, sorry that he is detected in crime, or in danger of punishment. No one doubts that the sorrow of the God-fearing penitent is deepest; that his remorse is the keenest. Yet the nearer he is to God, the finer his sensibilities, and the deeper his hatred of sin, the stronger will be his remorse for his sin. Therefore, if this be part of the penalty of the law, it is evident that this part is inflicted more severely on the penitent than on the impenitent and incorrigible.

Again, Paul speaks of those whose conscience is seared with a hot iron. 1 Tim. 4:2.

1Ti 4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron

That is, they run to such lengths in sin that their sensibilities are blunted, and they feel little or no remorse of conscience.

Now, both reason and revelation teach us that the punishment must be proportioned to the guilt; but if remorse of conscience be a penalty, it is executed by inverse proportion; that is, the punishment decreases according to the increase of crime. But we are led to inquire, Where did Dr. Barnes (or any other person) learn that remorse of conscience is a part of the penalty of the law? Does the Bible say so?

It does not; there is nothing in the Bible which gives the least sanction to such an idea. Why, then, do men say so? Where did they get authority for such a declaration? As it is the duty and sole prerogative of the governor to reveal his law, so he alone can define the penalty. This He has done in his word: “The wages of sin is death.” Any effort to evade this plain truth, or to make it anything but a plain truth, involves difficulties and contradictions. For it will not obviate the difficulty to spiritualize the term death, so as to make it embrace remorse of conscience; for if that be included in death, whatever will remove the remorse will remove so much of the penalty, or of death, and bring a proportionate degree of life. But sin does this, as the apostle shows; therefore, according to that theory, sin removes a portion of its own penalty, which is absurd. Dr. Barnes asserts that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, but something substituted for the penalty. There is no cause for such

The Atonement - 66

a declaration, except it be found, as before said, in the  necessities of a theory. In the teachings of the Bible there is no uncertainty in this matter. They plainly inform us that “the wages of sin is death;” and that “Christ died for our sins.” Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:3.

Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 

1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures

As sin is the transgression of the law, death, the wages of sin, is its penalty; and as Christ died for our sin, the penalty was laid upon him for our sake.

 Now that “Christ died” is not only plainly declared in the Scriptures, but it is a fundamental truth in the gospel system; for it is easy to show that, if Christ did not die, there can be no atonement and no redemption.

It appears evident, then, that those who assert that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, do not so assert because the fact is not revealed in the Bible, but, as before intimated, because of certain difficulties supposed to lie in the way of that fact. These difficulties are concerning the nature of the penalty, death. It is assumed that death, the penalty of transgression, is three-fold in its nature, consisting of temporal, spiritual, and eternal death. If this assumption were true, we should at once give up the Atonement as a thing impossible. Yet it has been advanced by men of eminence, and incorporated into works recognized as standard. Let us examine it.

1. The death of man is temporal only by reason of a resurrection. But the resurrection belongs to the work of Christ, and as his work was not necessary or a subject of promise till after the transgression, it cannot have any place in the announcement of the penalty. When death was threatened to Adam, it was not said that he should die temporally, spiritually, and eternally; nor that he should die a first or second death; nor the death that never dies; but that he should surely die. It was death—simply death. Had not a promise been given afterward, of “the seed” to bruise the serpent’s head, it would necessarily have been eternal death. But Christ, introducing a resurrection for Adam and his race, causes it to be temporal. But since this time, this death, temporal, has not been the penalty for personal transgression. This is evident for two reasons: (1) Infants die who never have transgressed; and (2) In the Judgment we stand to answer for our deeds, and the second death is inflicted for

- 67 - J. H. Waggoner

personal sin. But on those who are holy, “the second death hath no power;” the penalty does not reach them.

So it appears the death we now die is occasioned by Adam’s transgression, and is rendered temporal by the second Adam, and comes indiscriminately upon all classes and ages, thus precluding the idea that it is now a penalty, except as connected with that first transgression, in which we are involved only by representation.

2. Spiritual death cannot be a penalty at all. A penalty is an infliction to meet the ends of justice. But spiritual death is a state of sin, or absence of holiness; and to say that God inflicts unholiness upon man is not only absurd, but monstrous. That is confounding the crime with its punishment. God does not make man wicked or sinful as an infliction; but man makes himself wicked by his own actions, and God punishes him with death for his wickedness. Again, there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Now if the penalty upon Adam included spiritual death, the resurrection through the second Adam would be to spiritual life, or holiness; and if all were restored to spiritual life through Christ, there would be none to fall under the second death, for it falls not on the “blessed and holy.” The text above quoted, 1Cor.15:22, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” has been “spiritualized” so much that it has been fairly conceded to the Universalists by many who call themselves orthodox. But it does not at all favor Universalism unless it is perverted, and made to conflict with other scriptures. Jesus says, all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and come forth; they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation. The text in question (1 Cor. 15:22) says no more than this, that all that have died shall have a resurrection; but if some are unjust, and have a resurrection to damnation, that affords no help to Universalism. But if death here means spiritual death (as we say it does not), then the Universalists must have the truth; for to be made alive from spiritual death is to be made spiritually alive, which is none other than a state of holiness. This conflicts with the words of

The Atonement - 68

Christ just quoted, of a resurrection to damnation. Death is simply the absence of life; all die and go into the grave, and all are raised again from the grave, without respect to their character or condition. There will be a resurrection of the just and of the unjust; one class to eternal life, the other to the second death. The death of Adam became temporal by reason of a resurrection, so we may say that the infliction for personal sins, the second death, is eternal, because no resurrection will succeed it.

Thus, it appears plain that from the beginning death was the penalty of the law of God, circumstances determining the duration of it. This view, which is in strict harmony with the Bible, really removes all difficulty in regard to Christ having suffered the penalty due to sin.

But still another difficulty is presented to us by giving an extraordinary definition to death; it is said to mean eternal misery. But on examination of this, the difficulty will be entirely on the side of those who present it. If, however, the definition is correct, there is an insurmountable difficulty, involving the whole doctrine of the atonement, and making it utterly impossible for God to be just, and also the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.

First, then, if the signification of death is “eternal misery,” Christ never died at all; and then all the scriptures that say he died are untrue; and thus the atonement would be proved impossible, and further consideration of it would be useless. But admitting the Scripture testimony, that the wages of sin is death, and that Christ died for sin, and we have the scriptural view of the term death, utterly forbidding such an unnatural and forced construction of a plain declaration.

Secondly. If the correct definition of death is eternal misery, the relative terms, first and second, as applied to death before and after the resurrection, are used absurdly. For how can there be a first and second eternal misery?

Sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and death passed upon all men. But the very fact that man may be resurrected, released from death, as the Scriptures teach, clearly proves that the Scripture use of the term death is entirely different from the “theological use,” as given above.

- 69 - J. H. Waggoner

And, thirdly, If death means eternal misery, then that is the penalty of the law; but Christ did not suffer it, and the redeemed will not suffer it, so it follows that justice is never vindicated by the infliction of the penalty, either upon them or a substitute; and thus justice is suspended, not satisfied; and Christ’s death (if it could with any reason be called so) is not truly vicarious.

As before considered, justice demands the infliction of the penalty of a just law; and as God is unchangeable and infinitely just, the penalty will surely be inflicted upon the transgressor or his substitute. But the above view makes it impossible. According to that, mercy does not harmonize with justice, but supersedes it, and God’s justice is not manifest in justifying the believer. The sum of the matter is this: that if the penalty be eternal misery, then all that have sinned must suffer it, and be eternally miserable, or else the demands of the law are never honored. But the first would result in universal damnation, and the other would degrade the Government of God, and contradict both reason and the Scriptures. This definition of death has been adopted of necessity to conform to the popular idea of the inherent immortality of man; yet it involves a contradiction in those who hold it. For it is claimed that the wicked are immortal and cannot cease to exist, and therefore the death threatened in the Scriptures is something besides cessation of existence, namely, misery.

But immortality signifies exemption from death; and if the Scriptural meaning of death is misery, and the wicked are immortal, or exempt from death, they are, of course, exempt from misery! The advocates of this theory do not mean to be Universalists, but their position necessarily leads to that result. It was well said by that great Christian philosopher, John Locke, that “it seems a strange way of understanding law, which requires the plainest and most direct terms, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery.” Life and death are opposites; the first is promised to the justified, the second is threatened and inflicted upon the unjust. But life and misery are not opposites; misery is a condition of life. In everything but “theology” such a perversion of language would not be tolerated, as to make eternal misery and death, or even misery and death, synonymous. Were I to report that a man was dead because I

The Atonement - 70

knew him to be suffering in much misery, it would be looked upon as trifling—solemn mockery. With a cessation of life every condition of life must cease.

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

Our Work Is To Let God Work.

Php 2:12  Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING. 

Php 2:13  FOR IT IS GOD WHICH WORKETH IN YOU BOTH TO WILL AND TO DO OF HIS GOOD PLEASURE. 

Work out our own salvation-God works in us.

Working out our own salvation is realizing and allowing God to work in us. If God is working in us, we are NOT working ourselves beyond the work of allowing God access to our lives. We have the ability to open or shut the door to God and this door is a constant in our lives. Deciding who is in control of us is a reality that people do not want to think about too much. As soon as a person makes the declaration that they are in charge of their own life they slam shut the door to God, keeping Him out. What they do NOT realize is a door shut to God automatically means a door open to Satan. To believe there is such a neutral existence as self being in complete control is ludicrous but it is something more and more people choose to believe. Our lives are constantly influenced on a spiritual, unseen level. Some of the most spiritually hardened, self-promoting, stubborn minded atheists have given up their atheistic stand when confronted with the sheer fact of the absurdity of believing a big bang brought a human being into existence in all its extreme complexity. Some of the most complex machinery that exists could never have thrown itself together, yet for some baffling reason people believe we were somehow put together over millions of years - originating from primordial ooze. The absurdity is undeniable and yet dare I say, millions of people belief this ooze origin over created origin.

If you've ever done something in your life you regret- that regret alone reveals the lack of control you really have over your own life. We're not stupid people, for the most part. We realize as we are involved in the regretted act what we are doing. Aside from pure emotional temporary insanity, we are fully conscious of our wrong doing as it is occurring. As we shove aside regret and embrace our actions, the regret doesn't disappear into nothingness, it gets buried- layer by layer until we choose to call the wrong - right. We make excuses and force ourselves to believe those excuses, we take a stand for our actions and hold tight to them.  How many people have done this only to ultimately come face to face with their guilt? There would be no guilt whatsoever if the things you've done were not regretted, and if regretted- known to be a chosen wrong course of action, and if a known chosen action then the decision to hurt our own selves by taking on self-destructive regrettable behavior is NOT given to comprehension. Yet we do it ALL the time! Big things, little things, a million regrets- living a lie of having no regrets…this is what we do without reason. 

The reason is… our lives are being influenced constantly on a spiritual level.

Is our door open to God or to Satan?

Are we choosing to let God work in us, or Satan?

To work out our own salvation is to choose God- constantly. It is recognizing having to make that choice all the time. It is looking to God for answers, not to ourselves. To choose God is to ask HIM for the strength to LIVE for HIM, it is asking CHRIST to live in us, it is asking HIM to WORK IN US. Choosing God is the giving up of a SELF-CENTER- SELFISH existence.  Choosing God is giving up the part of us that lives solely concerned with ourselves - whether it is pride in ourselves, hate in ourselves, love in ourselves, yes…. Love in ourselves.  We've taken the whole love yourself to a perverted level where it means choosing to focus on our own feelings and desiring a life focused on ourselves feeling good in one way or another. 

We marvel that some people can choose others over themselves, and God alone knows where that comes from- a God fearing way or a self-centered way.

We need to choose GOD over SELF. When our feelings are hurt we need to ask ourselves if GOD'S feelings were hurt. When others hurt us- it truly is because they are going through their own damaged experience that causes them to be hurtful and hateful. Or maybe it's a damaged brain that prevents them from even realizing they are being hurtful and hateful and causing us emotional pain. If God's feelings are hurt by their actions His reaction would be much as Jesus' were when He ministered upon earth in the flesh. Sadness for the pain inflictor not Himself- He was strong in the Father's love. We take our hurt and make it personal, Jesus and the Father take their hurt and make it sorrowful and even angry sorrow for those causing it because they refuse a life of love preferring their hateful, painful temporary existence over life eternal.

When we are hurt emotionally, when that feeling of emotional turmoil rolls through us and rises up to cloud all our thoughts so they consume us with the hurt, by the grace of God we need to pray for the one hurting us. We need to seek God and pray for that person deeply, not superficially. We need to take the awful feeling we are experiencing and use it to strengthen our relationship with God, not alienate us from Him. 

God before all, even self.

If we are loving God with all our heart and soul as we are commanded to, we are NOT nurturing self-love.  Let's find our worth IN GOD and no other. If we find our worth in ourselves we will fail ourselves, it is inevitable. If we find our worth in any other human being chances are good they'll fall short in supplying all we need for our worth. GOD will never fail us, God cannot fail us. God's promise is for the FUTURE life without all the issues and angst, all the failures, and faults, all the horrors and nightmares. What we endure now is but for a moment in the light of eternity. Please, Lord, let us be all about YOU and not at all about OURSELVES.

All through Jesus Christ our LORD and SAVIOR now and forever!!!!!!!

All Are Guilty.

SIN AND ITS PENALTY  (Excerpt)

Our present relation to the law is easily ascertained. Though we rest under a perpetual and everlasting obligation to obey the law of the Most High, we have not fulfilled our obligation. On this point the Scriptures are very explicit. Rom. 3:9-23 contains sufficient evidence. Jews and Gentiles are on a level—all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The law stops every mouth, and proves all guilty, and subject to the judgment of God.

What is the penalty for sin? We have before said that Government is a system of laws maintained. This is a simple definition that all can understand; and that it is truthful is evident from this, that a Government cannot exist without law, and if the law is not maintained the result is anarchy and the subversion of Government. It is for this reason that a law without a penalty is a nullity. All the force and sanction of law is its penalty, and, whenever the law is violated, justice requires the infliction of the penalty.

Therefore, if we understand the penalty of the law—the nature of the infliction to be visited upon the sinner or violator of God’s law—we shall of course understand what justice demands for our redemption. It has been fully considered that justice can only be satisfied by the infliction of the penalty, either upon the offender or upon a voluntary substitute. The idea so often advanced, that Christ did not suffer the same penalty to which the sinner was subject, cannot be reconciled either with justice or with the Scriptures.

If the law itself be strictly just, the penalty of the law, neither more nor less, will answer the demands of justice. Many systems of theology have had this error incorporated into them to avoid other apparent difficulties; sometimes because the distinction between the penalty and mere consequence is overlooked, and sometimes because errors in the systems have made it necessary to resort to this, or some other expedient, as a means of relief. That a conclusion is demanded and insisted upon which is so

The Atonement - 64

greatly at variance with reason, with justice, and with the Scriptures, is strong evidence of defects in the systems which require it. Dr. Barnes was an able writer, whose memory we respect. Were it not that his theology made the conclusion necessary, we should be much surprised to read the following paragraph from him:— “It will be impossible for a substitute to endure the same sufferings which the sinner himself will endure in the future world for his sin. There are sufferings caused by sin which belong only to the consciousness of guilt, and these sufferings cannot be transferred to another. The sin itself cannot be transferred; and, as it is impossible to detach the suffering from the consciousness of guilt, it follows that a substitute cannot endure the same kind of sufferings which the sinner would himself endure. Remorse of conscience, for example—one of the keenest sources of suffering to the guilty, and which will be a most fearful part of the penalty of the law in the future world—cannot be transferred.”—Atonement, p. 228. And again he said:— “Remorse of conscience is manifestly a part of the penalty of the law; that is, it is a portion of what the law inflicts as expressing the sense which the lawgiver entertains of the value of the law and of the evil of its violation.”—Id., p. 235. We are fully convinced of the correctness of the positions taken in remarks on the reasonableness of the Atonement, though the above paragraphs from Dr. Barnes squarely conflicts with them. We unhesitatingly aver that remorse of conscience is no part of the penalty of the law. That view, which is indeed the corner-stone of Universalism, is as contrary to reason as to Scripture, and grows out of the error before noticed, of making no distinction between the penalty of the law and mere consequences. The penalty is a judicial infliction, prescribed by the statute, administered by authority, and its infliction must be subsequent to the Judgment. Consequences are various according to circumstances, and not according to desert, and may flow immediately out of the action without any relation to the penalty or to the Judgment. The wicked all suffer more or less remorse in this present state, but the Bible informs us that they are reserved “unto the day of Judgment to be punished.” 2 Pet. 2:9.

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

The Entire Moral Law Not Void- But Established By Faith In Christ.

Excerpt Continued….

If  it be yet claimed that the law of God is abolished, we would say, there can be but two reasons urged why it should be abolished.

1. Because it was faulty in itself, and not worthy of being perpetuated. But this is a grave reflection on the wisdom of the Lawgiver; for if that law were not perfect, then he gave only a faulty law, not worthy of the respect of his creatures. This is, in effect, the position which some take. But we wonder they are not shocked at their own irreverence. And this reason also contradicts all the scriptures which have been quoted which speak of the law as holy, just, good, perfect,

- 59 - J. H. Waggoner

spiritual, and containing the whole duty of man.

2. It may be urged that the circumstances of the transgressors made it necessary. On this we refer to the remarks before, made on the conditions of pardon. It is certainly not consistent with good government, with justice, to abolish a perfect, holy law because rebellious men have violated it. Nor can even that necessity be urged, since a system of pardon has been instituted which is sufficient to fully meet the wants of the transgressor. But in harmony with every principle of justice and right, it avails only for those who penitently turn away from their transgressions.

As this law is holy, just, good, and perfect, it must be so in all its parts. No one part of a holy law can be impure, or, of a perfect law be imperfect. But the man of sin, the papal power, despite its professions, has sought to corrupt and pervert or change the holy covenant. Dan. 7:25, To establish the worship of images, it has decided that the second commandment is ceremonial, and therefore not proper to be associated with moral laws. To introduce a festival day, the Roman Sun-day, it has decided that the fourth commandment is ceremonial, so far as it relates to the observance of a particular day, notwithstanding God blessed and sanctified the particular day on which he rested, to wit: the seventh day.

3 None can deny that the Sabbath was instituted or made at creation; for then God rested on the seventh day. This day was not, therefore, a Jewish Sabbath, as it is so much claimed, but the Sabbath (rest) of the Lord, as the Bible always represents it to be. Space will not here admit of an argument on this point of the law, but we will notice two prominent objections urged against it, namely, that its observance was not required from the date of its institution; and that it is not moral as the other parts of the decalogue. 

The Atonement - 60

((FOOTNOTE INTERJECTION HERE)) 3. Alexander Campbell, in his debate with Bishop Purcell, charges upon the Catholic Church, that it has made a change in the ten commandments, which, he says, are “a synopsis of all religion and morality.” This declaration, warranted by the Scriptures, places those who teach the abolition of the ten commandments, or any one of them, in a very unenviable position. ((END FOOTNOTE))

In regard to the first, the Saviour says it “was made for man;” and we well know in what period of man’s history it was made. The following remarks seem decisive on this point:— “The Hebrew verb kadash, here rendered sanctified, and in the fourth commandment rendered hallowed, is defined by Gesenius, ‘to pronounce holy, to sanctify; to institute an holy thing, to appoint.’ It is repeatedly used in the Old Testament for a public appointment or proclamation. Thus when the cities of refuge were set apart in Israel, it is written: ‘They appointed [margin, Heb. sanctified] Kadesh in Galilee in Mount Naphtali, and Shechem in Mount Ephraim,’ etc. This sanctification or appointment of the cities of refuge, was by a public announcement to Israel that these cities were set apart for that purpose. This verb is also used for the appointment of a public fast, and for the gathering of a solemn assembly. Thus it is written: ‘Sanctify [i. e., appoint] ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God.’ ‘Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, sanctify [i. e., appoint] a fast, call a solemn assembly.’ ‘And Jehu said, Proclaim [margin, Heb. sanctify] a solemn assembly for Baal.’ Josh. 20:7; Joel 1:14; 2:15; 2 Kings 10:20, 21; Zeph. 1:7, margin. This appointment for Baal was so public that all the worshipers of Baal in all Israel were gathered together. These fasts and solemn assemblies were sanctified or set apart by a public appointment or proclamation of the fact. When, therefore, God set apart the seventh day to a holy use, it was necessary he should state that fact to those who had the days of the week to use. Without such announcement, the day could not be set apart from the others. “But the most striking illustration of the meaning of this word may be found in the record of the sanctification of Mount Sinai. Ex. 19:12, 23. When God was about to speak the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel, he sent Moses down from the top of Mount Sinai to restrain the people from touching the mount. ‘And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai; for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount and sanctify it.’ Turning back to the verse where God gave this charge to Moses, we read: ‘And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about,

- 61 - J. H. Waggoner

saying, Take heed to yourselves that ye go not up into the mount or touch the border of it.’ Hence, to sanctify the mount was to command the people not to touch even the border of it, for God was about to descend in majesty upon it. In other words, to sanctify or set apart to a holy use Mount Sinai, was to tell the people that God would have them treat the mountain as sacred to himself; and thus also to sanctify the rest-day of the Lord was to tell Adam that he should treat the day as holy to the Lord.

“The declaration, ‘God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,’ is not indeed a commandment for the observance of that day; but it is the record that such a precept was given to Adam. For how could the Creator ‘set apart to a holy use’ the day of his rest, when those who were to use the day know nothing of his will in the case?

Let those answer who are able.”—J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath, pp. 16-18.

In regard to the morality of this commandment, we may compare it with any of the others, assured that it will be sustained by any argument that will prove their morality. Take the eighth for example. No one can be proved guilty by merely proving that he took and used a certain piece of property; beyond this it must be proved that the property was another’s, to which he had no right. Thus this commandment rests upon the right of property; and if this were not recognized, it would be a nullity. But surely no one can prove a clearer right, or put forth a more positive claim to any property, than has the Lord to the seventh day. Many times in his immutable word has he told us it is his; that he has hallowed it; and he warns us against desecrating it, or appropriating it to our own use. If it be an immorality to take without license what our neighbor claims as his, how much more so to take against God’s positive prohibition what he claims as his own. A little reflection or examination will be sufficient to convince every one that the position here taken in reference to the maintenance and perpetuity of the law of God is in strict harmony with the immutable principles of justice and good government. While every argument presented in favor of its abolition, is contrary to those principles, and subversive of government. No one who has

The Atonement - 62

regard for the honor of God and for the integrity of his Government, should hesitate for a moment to decide where the truth lies on this important subject.

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER