The GOSPEL TRUTH

THE

ATONEMENT IN CHRIST

 By

JOHN MILEY, D.D.

 

CHAPTER I:

INTRODUCTION.

1. Scope of the Subject.

2. Broader Scope in Calvinism.

3. Narrower Scope in Arminianism.

4. No Fact of Soteriology Neglected.

5. Treatment under Offices of Christ.

6. Distinction of Fact and Doctrine.

7. Question of Fact the more Vital.

8. Specially a Question of Revelation.

9. The Doctrine must Interpret Scripture.

10. Its Scientific Relation to Theology.

11. Definition of Atonement.

 

 THE

ATONEMENT IN CHRIST

 

CHAPTER I:

INTRODUCTION.

 

THE preliminary statement of a few facts and principles will be helpful in the more formal discussion of atonement.

1. Scope of the Subject.

The atonement may be treated in a broader or in a more restricted sense. In the former sense it may include the whole of soteriology, while in the latter it may be treated specially as the ground of justification, or the forgiveness of sin. In each case the comprehension is logically determined by cardinal doctrines of the system in connection with which the subject is treated.

2. Broader Scope in Calvinism.

The present discussion, so far as concerned with the doctrinal relations of the atonement, will not be limited to its connection with the Calvinian and Arminian systems. Yet their prominence in the circle of evangelical doctrines, and in the maintenance of a real and necessary atonement in the mediation of Christ, will justify a chief attention to its scientific relations to them. It will, therefore, be thus early to indicate the comprehension of the question in these two systems respectively.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism assert the forgiveness of sin in justification. But the former cannot consistently maintain the same sense of forgiveness as the latter; while it includes much more in justification, and accounts for the same on its own distinctive grounds. In Calvinism the active obedience of Christ supplements his passive obedience in the atonement. His penal suffering is a substitute for the merited punishment of the elect, and in full satisfaction of the penalty of justice against them. Such a substitution must discharge the subjects of its grace from all personal amenability to penal retribution. But the divine law also requires personal righteousness; and to supply this lack in the elect there is accounted to them the personal righteousness of Christ. Thus, according to this doctrine, two vicarious elements--a substituted punishment and a substituted obedience--unite in the sufficiency of the atonement. The two must combine in such a justification of the elect as the divine law imperatively requires. This is the radical idea in the Reformed soteriology. The nature of the atonement is determined accordingly. It follows that in this scheme the history of the doctrine of atonement is largely a history of the doctrine of justification. But the justification is not the same as that in Arminianism.

In such a scheme both the active and passive obedience of Christ must go to the account of the elect. Any principle which would admit the latter would equally admit the former. And both are for the elect by compact between the Father and the Son. Any failure in such result would, therefore, be a failure in the very covenant of redemption. A sovereign bestowment of the saving benefits of such an atonement is an integral part of the redemptive economy. In such facts we have the logical reason for so full an inclusion of soteriology in the question of atonement.

3. Narrower Scope in Arminianism.

According to the Arminian soteriology we are justified in the forgiveness of sin. This is not the same as a discharge after merited punishment. And the personal holiness of Christ, while necessary to his redemptive mediation, is not accounted to us as an element in our justification. The atonement in his blood is the true and necessary ground of forgiveness. Yet it is not such a ground that the forgiveness must accrue to the redeemed. Justification or forgiveness is conditioned on a true faith in Christ. The required faith may be exercised, but is subject to no necessitating power of grace. Hence the atonement is only a provisory ground, not an intrinsically causal ground, of forgiveness and salvation.

This is the view of atonement in the Arminian system. Such it must be in scientific consistency, however it may be historically. No system receives completeness at once; but such is the historic as well as the consistent doctrine in Wesleyan Arminianism. This position is verified, not so much by Methodistic literature directly on the doctrine of atonement--of which there is very little--as by that on intimately related cardinal truths; most of all by the common faith of Methodism and the uniform utterance of its many pulpits. In such faith and utterance there has ever been given forth, and without hesitation, the universality of the atonement in a real sufficiency for all, notwithstanding many perish; the true conditionality of salvation; the common gracious ability to believe in Christ and be saved. The atonement in accord with such facts is provisory, not absolute or directly saving. Hence the logical reason for its treatment in the Arminian system in its more special and restricted relation to the forgiveness of sin. While it is the ground of all the benefits of grace in a completed salvation, such benefits, as really conditional, properly form a distinct part of the soteriology of the Gospel.

4. No Fact of Soteriology Neglected.

Nor does such restriction imply a neglect or slight estimation of any fact in the economy of redemption. The benefits of redemptive grace in an actual salvation, while traced to the atonement as their only source, are treated separately from the nature of the atonement itself. As conditional to us, and conditional in the truest sense of synergism as against monergism, any proper method must assign them a distinct place of treatment.

5. Treatment under Offices of Christ.

The atonement has often been treated under the three offices of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. This is legitimate in a theory which makes it comprehensive of soteriology. It is, therefore, proper for Calvinism, and has been common with this system. It would answer for the Socinian atonement, and for any particular phase of it, provided there were held in connection with it such a Christology as would render a proper account of these offices. For on this theory the functions of the prophetic and kingly offices of Christ enter into his redemptive mediation as really as the functions of his priestly office. But such a method is not in accordance with the Arminian scheme. In this, as in any true view, the prophetic office of Christ fulfilled no function in his specific atoning work. And his kingly office, so far as related to the atonement, has its proper function in the dispensation of its benefits. The Atonement in itself appertains to the priestly office of Christ, and could be treated under it alone with higher propriety of method than under the three offices.

6. Distinction of Fact and Doctrine.

We should distinguish between the fact and the doctrine of atonement. Are the vicarious sufferings of Christ the ground of forgiveness and salvation? In what sense are they such a ground? These are distinct questions, and open to distinct answers. The first concerns the fact of an atonement in the sacrifice of Christ; the second concerns its nature or doctrine. Nor does an affirmative answer to the first question determine the answer to the second. Were this so, all who hold the fact of an atonement would agree in the doctrine. But such is not the case. Different schemes of theology--and of an evangelical theology--while in the fullest accord on the fact, are widely divergent respecting the theory.

7. Question of Fact the more Vital.

Both questions are important, but that concerning the fact is the more vital. This gives us the reality of an atonement in Christ. That atonement we may accept in faith, and receive the benefit of its grace before we attain to its philosophy. So accepted, it has the most salutary influence upon the religious life. To this both the experience of individual Christians and the history of the Church bear witness. And the fact of an atonement has a deeper religious significance than any theory of its nature.

Yet the question of theory is far from being an indifferent or merely speculative one. The atonement is most fundamental in Christianity. Hence the theory of it must hold a commanding position in any system of Christian doctrine, and largely draw into itself the interest of the system. This is apparent upon a reference to the three great systems, which may be designated as the Arminian, the Calvinian, and the Socinian. As are other cardinal doctrines of each, so is its doctrine of atonement, or, conversely, as its doctrine of atonement, so are its other doctrines.

In all profounder study the mind, by an inevitable tendency, searches for a philosophy of things. There is the same tendency in the deeper study of Christian truth. Thus, beyond the fact of an atonement, we search for a doctrine. We seek to understand its nature; what are its elements of atoning value; how it is the ground of divine forgiveness. We attempt its rationale. It must have a philosophy; and one clear to the divine mind, whatever obscurity it may have to the human. Its clear apprehension would be helpful to faith in many minds.

8. Specially a Question of Revelation.

The question respecting the fact of an atonement must be taken to the Scriptures for the only correct and authoritative answer. Nor is the answer so found in any ambiguity or doubt. It is decisively given in the many sacred facts and utterances which set forth the mediation of Christ, especially in his sufferings and death, as the true and only ground of forgiveness and salvation. These facts and utterances are so numerous and concurrent, so direct and explicit, as to settle the question respecting the reality of an atonement in the most affirmative sense.

9. The Doctrine must Interpret Scripture.

A doctrine of atonement, having its only sufficient ground in the Scriptures, must, in a strict and full sense, be scriptural. There can be no true scheme which does not fairly interpret the Scriptures. To construct a theory, and then to press all interpretation into conformity with it, would be as grievous a violation of scientific method in theology as in the case of a student of nature who should first formulate a law and then bend all relative facts into agreement with it. As the scientist should first study the facts, and then generalize them into such a law as they may warrant, and which, in turn, will properly interpret them; so a true doctrine of atonement, must be a construction in the light of Scripture facts and utterances, and such as will fairly interpret them.

10. Its Scientific Relation to Theology.

That a doctrine of atonement must fairly interpret the facts and terms of Scripture in which it is expressed, we hold to be an imperative law. There is also a law of the highest authority in logical method. It is the law of scientific accordance in intimately related doctrinal truths. It has its application to all scientific systems, and to the science of theology equally as to any other. In any and every system truth must accord with truth. In systematic theology doctrine must accord with doctrine. Under this law a doctrine of atonement must be in scientific accord with cardinal doctrines vitally related to it.

This law, while imperative, neither leads us away from the authority of Scripture nor lands us in a sphere of mere speculation. All Christian doctrine, to be true, must be scriptural. Doctrines in a system, to be true, must be both accordant and scriptural. If discordant or contradictory, some one or more must be both unscriptural and false. Hence this law of a scientific accordance in vitally related truths is consistent with the profoundest deference to the authority of revelation in all questions of Christian doctrine.

This law may render valuable service in the construction and interpretation of Christian doctrine. As we may interpret Scripture by Scripture, so may we interpret doctrine by doctrine. Only, the interpreting doctrine must itself be certainly scriptural. As such, no Christian doctrine can be out of accord with it. In any distinction of standard or determining doctrines, preference should be given to the more fundamental; especially to such as are most certainly scriptural. Accepting such a law in the interpretation of atonement, or in the determination of its nature, we are still rendering the fullest obedience to the authority of the Scriptures in Christian doctrine.

In the line of these facts and principles this law may be of special service in testing different theories of atonement as they belong to different systems of theology. We shall the better understand the legitimacy and service of this application if we hold in clear view the two leading facts previously noted, that in any system of Christian theology the several doctrines, as constituting a system, must be in scientific agreement, and, as Christian, must be scriptural. Hence, as leading doctrines of the system are true or false, so is the doctrine of atonement which is in accord with them. For illustration we may refer to the three leading systems previously named.

If other peculiar and leading doctrines of the Socinian theology be true and scriptural, so is its atonement of Moral Influence. If its Christology and anthropology be true and scriptural, this atonement is in full harmony with the system; and, further, is the only one which it needs or will admit. Clearly, it cannot admit either the Satisfaction or the Governmental theory. Both are out of harmony with its more fundamental and determining doctrines, and hence are excluded by the law of a necessary accordance of such truths when brought into scientific relation. The Socinian scheme, by the nature of its anthropology and Christology, denies the need of such an atonement, and has no Christ equal to the making of one. But if on the leading doctrines of Christianity the truth is with the Calvinian or the Arminian system, then the Socinian atonement is false. It is so out of harmony with such doctrines that it cannot be true while they are true.

If other cardinal doctrines of Calvinism are true, its doctrine of atonement is true. It is an integral part of the system, and in full harmony with every other part of it. The doctrines of divine sovereignty and decrees, of unconditional election to salvation, of the effectual calling and final perseverance of the elect, and that their salvation is monergistically wrought as it is sovereignly decreed, require an atonement which in its very nature is and must be effectual in the salvation of all for whom it is made. Such an atonement the system has in the absolute substitution of Christ, both in precept and penalty, in behalf of the elect. He fulfills the righteousness which the law requires of them, and suffers the punishment which their sins deserve. By the nature of the substitution both must go to their account. Such a theory of atonement is in scientific accord with the whole system. And the truth of the system would carry with it the truth of the theory. It can admit no other theory. Nor can such an atonement be true if the system be false.

If the cardinal doctrines of the Arminian system, such as differentiate it from Calvinism, be true, then the atonement of Satisfaction, in the Calvinistic sense of it, cannot be true. If, as before noted, the atonement is really for all, and in the same sense sufficient for all, then it must be only provisiory, and its saving benefits really conditional. And no other truths are more deeply wrought into Arminianism, whether original or Wesleyan; none have a more uniform, constant, unqualified Methodistic utterance. They are such facts of atonement, or facts in such logical relation to it, that they require a doctrine in scientific agreement with them.

Such a doctrine is the special aim of this discussion not without regard to consistency in the system, but specially because these facts are scriptural and the doctrine agreeing with them scriptural and true. Certain it is, that the law of a necessary accordance in cardinal truths wrought into the same system, must bar the admission of the Calvinistic doctrine of Satisfaction into the Arminian system. For such an atonement is necessarily saving, and must, therefore, bring with it unconditional election, effectual calling, final perseverance, monergism. A doctrine inseparably linked with such tenets never can be wrought into scientific accordance with the cardinal and distinctive doctrines of Arminianism. Nor can it be true while they are true.

11. Definition of Atonement.

A true doctrine of atonement can be fully given only in its formal exposition. Yet we give thus early a definition, with a few explanatory notes, that, so far as practicable by such means, we may place in view the doctrine which this discussion shall maintain.

The vicarious sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin as a conditional substitute for penalty, fulfilling, on the forgiveness of sin, the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in moral government.

The sufferings of Christ are vicarious, not as incidental, to a philanthropic or reformatory mission, but as endured for sinners, under divine judicial condemnation, that they might be forgiven and saved.

They are a substitute for penalty, not as the punishment of sin judicially inflicted upon Christ, but in such a rectoral relation to justice and law as renders them a true and sufficient ground of forgiveness.

They are a conditional substitute for penalty, as a provisory measure of government, rendering forgiveness, on proper conditions, consistent with the obligations of justice in moral administration. Subjects of the atonement are none the less guilty simply on that account, as they would be under an atonement by penal substitution, wherein Christ suffered the judicial punishment of sin in satisfaction of an absolute retributive justice. Under a provisory substitution, the gracious franchise is in a privilege of forgiveness, to be realized only on its proper conditions.

Thus the substitution of Christ in suffering fulfils the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in their relation to the ends of moral government. Justice has an imperative obligation respecting these ends; and penalty, as the means of justice, a necessary office for their attainment. But penalty, as an element of law, is the means of good government, not only in its imminence or execution, but also through the moral ideas which it expresses. Hence its infliction in punishment is not an absolute necessity to the ends of its office. The rectoral service of its execution may be substituted, and in every instance of forgiveness is substituted, by the sufferings of Christ. The interest of moral government is thereby equally conserved.

The ends of justice thus concerned involve the profoundest interest. They include the honor and authority of God as ruler in the moral realm; the most sacred rights and the highest welfare of moral beings; the utmost attainable restraint of sin and promotion of righteousness. Divine justice must regard these ends. In their neglect it would cease to be justice. It must protect them through the means of penalty, except on the ground of such provisory substitute as will render forgiveness consistent with that protection. Such a substitute is found only in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. As fully answering for these ends, his sufferings are an atonement for sin, fulfilling, on forgiveness, the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in moral government.

 Return to Atonement by Miley Table of Contents