A two days' debate on the atonement

Front matter

k ^ ibb

V

Ill

Chapter I

MR. POTTER S FIRST SPEECH.

Brethren, .Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : ^HE importance of the present occasion calls for V^J the candid and prayerful attention of every one here who desires to know the truth. The magnitude of the question to be discussed is of such moment that it is equally interesting to all Christians, from the very fact that the important question to be discussed, on this occasion, to-wit : The atonement is the basis of the' whole Christian structure. Without the atonement there is no salvation for any fallen sinner. The subject of the atonement has engaged the minds of the greatest talent the Church has ever produced ; and my personal interest on that subject makes me solicitous to investigate the matter in order that I may attain to the truth. I presume I am talking to a Christian people to-day, who are as anxious to know the truth as myself, and who will respect the question, as well as the speakers, with all that respect that we are worthy of. I presume that my opponent and his brethren are as eager to know the truth, and will as candidly receive it, when presented in the light of the Scriptures and in the light of reason, as myself and my brethren. In fact, I deem the people here to be as candid and honest in search of the truth as I claim to be. I am to affirm the following proposition :

The Scriptures teach that, on the cross, Jesus Christ made a complete atonement for the elect only. Definitions: By the term " Scriptures,''' I mean the Bible, or the Old and New Testaments. By the phrase, " on the cross," I mean the sufferings of Christ. That when Christ suffered he made the atonement. That when his sufferings were ended on the cross the atonement was then and there completed. When I say " Jesus Christ," I mean the Son of God, that was born of the Virgin Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea, and who was finally put to death on the cross. By the term " atonement," I mean satisfaction for sin, or expiation of guilt ; and by the word "complete," I mean whole, full or perfect. By the term " elect," I mean those whom God, the Father, had chosen before the foundation of the world to eternal salvation. By the term "exclusively," I mean only or none but the elect. Having now defined the terms of my proposition, I will divide it in three parts, as there are three fundamental points in it to be discussed. First, that the atonement was made on the cross. Secondly, that it was made for the elect, and thirdly, that it was not for others. One reason why I divide it into these three points is from the fact that the first and third will be points upon which we will differ in this discussion. My worthy opponent denies that there was any atonement made on the cross, while I affirm that there was. I affirm that that was where the atonement was made; that if it was not made on the cross it was not made at all. To that special point I wish to devote a few arguments in the present speech, and my opponent may remember that I am not, in these arguments, talking about the elect or the non-elect, but the point now is, whether the atonement was made on the cross or not. My first argument is based on the meaning of the word reconcile, as we find it used in the New Testament Scriptures.

Romans v., 10-11 : " For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son ; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

The word atonement occurs in this quotation the only time that it is used in our authorized version of the New Testament Scriptures. This word atonement is translated in some of the English translations, reconciliation. I am going to claim that that is what it is. That atonement and reconciliation are the same thing.

You who have marginal Bibles will [find that the margin thus explains it, reconciliation. Also, in the revised version of the New Testament, it reads: " But we also rejoice in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

I do not say that the word should not be translated atonement. I believe that atonement is proper, but it is evident from the fact that it is translated atonement in this case and reconciliation in other cases, that atonement and reconciliation have the same meaning.

Another reason for believing that atonement means reconciliation, is that the word atonement is translated from the same word that reconciled is in the 10th verse. Also, from the same word that reconciliation is translated in Second Corinthians v., 18, 19, 20.

(18.) "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. "

(19.) " To-wit: that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. "

(20.) " Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us ; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

We here have the word reconciliation twice translated from the same word that atonement is in Romans v, 11. Without taking up much time on the definition of the word atonement, or the defininitiori of the word reconciliation, I wish to claim that the expression that says: "By whom we have now received atonement/' must mean " by whom we have now received reconciliation."

Thus the apostle's language means about this: "For if, when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Now, remember that we were reconciled by His death. This reconciliation then was made on the cross, because it was made by his death. He died on the cross. It is hardly necessary for me to argue that the Savior died on the cross. This would not be disputed, even between myself and ray opponent. Now, if he died on the cross, and we were reconciled to God by his death, then reconciliation was made on the cross. Hence, the apostle says to his Roman brethren : "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." We have now received the reconciliation that Christ made on the cross. My understanding of this is that when a man is converted to God, and becomes a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, that he receives the benefits of the atonement that was made on the cross. It cannot be gain said that Christ did make a reconciliation by his death. I call my opponent's special attention to this word reconciliation. If we were not reconciled to God by the death of Christ, I wish him to show that we wire not; and if reconciliation does not mean atonement, in that verse, I wish him to prove that it does not. Unless he does, I shall take it for granted that he has given this point up, and if he gives this point up by passing my arguments by in silence, I shall conclude that the first part of my argument is proven — that is, that the atonement was made on the cross.

I now wish to notice that same word reconciled in another text. Hebrews ii., 17.

" Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. "

Reconciliation here is used in the sense of expiation or propitiation. The Revised Version has its propitiation, and the Emphatic Diaglott has it that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest as to things relating to God in order to expiate the sins of the people. "

Hence, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people is to make propitiation, or to expiate their sins. To expiate sins means to extinguish guilt, that is the definition of the word expiate. Hence, it is evident from the best authorities we have, that he made an atonement for the sins of the people, as is represented in that verse. Now, as to whether he did it on the cross, we will see. The 18th verse says: "For in that He himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted. "

From this we learn that it was in His sufferings that He made reconciliation for the sins of His people. If it was in His sufferings, it was on the cross, and by His sufferings He atoned for the sins of His people. I shall expect some notice to be given to this text. I claim that the Apostle here alludes especially to the sufferings of Christ, as it was that that made reconciliation for the sins of His people. Now, if I am not correct in my arguments on the use of the word reconcile and reconciliation, I wish to know it. I will make my second argument upon the first chapter of Hebrews, 3d verse: "Who, being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

From this text it is evident that He had purged our sins before He ascended to Heaven. If He had purged our sins it was by making atonement for them ; making satisfaction for them. We are led to conclude from this text, that He purged our sins by His atonement which graciously covers our sins, and that He did this in His death.

Now, I want it distinctly understood, that I am arguing that He made an atonement for sin upon the cross. I now propose to notice more accurately and definitely the meaning of the word atonement ; and one reason why I feel a desire to be very particular in the investigation of this subject, is because so many people seem, through their ministry, to, in a great measure, ignore tbe atonement made by the suffering Son of God, and perhaps we would all be better able to come to a conclusion definitely, upon the subject of the atonement.

We should first learn precisely the full meaning of the word atonement. Atonement means expiation, satisfaction, or reparation made by giving the equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offense or an injury.

Now, this is the definition of the word atonement. If atonement means expiation, or if it means satisfaction or reparation made by giving the equivalent for an injury, and Jesus Christ, if he made an atonement at all, when could He have given an equivalent for an injury for His people if he did not atone by filling the law ? When could He have met the demands of that law ? When could He have made satisfaction to it for sin, except on the cross ? At what particular time did Jesus Christ make an atonement if He did not make it on the cross ?

Now, if we agree with our best Lexicographers, that atonement is expiation, satisfaction or reparation made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offense or an injury, I claim that Jesus Christ did that on the cross.

Atonement means, in addition to that, to expiate, or to extinguish guilt by suffering the penalty which is equivalent, or to make satisfaction or reparation for, as to expiate a crime. In order to see what positions have been taken I will here state that I am satisfied that a great many people have found fault with the doctrine of a limited atonement because they said it represented God as being unjust. Almost all the religions claim to believe in a univerral atonement, but when we come to examine their position and arguments upon that side, it is very clear they do not believe in a universal atonement;

from the very fact that atonement means satisfaction. There is only one document that I know of in this country setting forth the faith of any denomination, that expresses a universal atonement, and that is set forth in the Confession of Faith in the M. E. Church, in which they say, "The sacrifice of Christ once offered is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone."

This is the doctrine set forth in the Confession of Faith, and you will bear in mind this article does not teach us that the suffering of Christ is a partial redemption or a partial satisfaction or a partial propitiation for sins, but a perfect redemption, etc., not for a part of the sins of all the world .of mankind, nor of the sins of a part of mankind, but for all the* sins of the whole world, both orignal and actual. This is expressive of a universal atonement. Nothing short of it is. But, Irefer to this, not so much for the benefit of my opponent, as I do for the people who are here to-day ; only to place in the mind what universal atonement is.

Now, instead of these people believing in universal atonement, as this article teaches, they believe in no atonement at all. Instead of saying that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all the race or even a part of them on the cross, the majority of the ministers to day of all the denominations simply state that Christ made salvation possible for all the race. 1 am here to affirm that he made an atonement, and if he made an atonement for all the race, he made satisfaction for all the sins of all the race. If he made an atonement for a portion of the race, he made satisfaction for their sins, for that is what atonement is — satisfaction to the law for sin, and that is what I am here to argue, that Jesus Christ made, when he was on the cross, satisfaction for sin. In order to prove that, I refer to Isaiah, liii., 5, which reads : " But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed."

Now we argue from this text that he was wounded for our transgressions. If he was wounded for our transgressions, he must have been suffering for our transgressions, and he made an atonement by his sufferings, or else his sufferings were not a satisfaction for sin, and I wish to impress upon the mind this question : Why did he suffer for sins if his sufferings were not an atonement ? If the law demanded punishment for sin, which it evidently did, and Jesus Christ suffered for sins, he certainly met the demands of the law. If he met the demands of the law he satified the law, and if he satisfied the law, he atoned for sin. If he atoned for sin in his suffering, he did this on the cross, and the prophet speaks of his suffering for our transgressions, when he says he was wounded for our transgressions.

That is what he was wounded for ; that he was mangled for on the cross, was for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquites.

That is what he suffered on the cross for. Nothing but our sins caused him to suffer on the cross. Now the only way for my opponent to escape the position that he made an atonement on the cross, is for him to show us that this suffering on the cross did not satisfy for sin, alchough he suffered for sin, yet it did not satisfy for sin, for atonement was not made on the cross. I want this distinctly borne in mind that his suffering was for sin, and I would love for this especial text to be borne in mind, and that it was by his stripes we are healed, not by something else, but by his stripes. When did he receive his stripes ? in his suffering. That is the only answer that can be successfully given to that question. It was by his stripes we were healed. If it were by his stripes we are healed, that healing was made on the cross. I now call attention to 1 Peter, iii., 18, which reads: " For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. "

This text informs us that the suffering of Christ was for sins. If He suffered for sin He must have suffered the penalty of the law; if He suffered the penalty of the law, he must have made an atonement. If he did not make an atonement by his suffering, then he did not suffer the penalty of the law ; if He did not suffer the penalty of the law, for our sins, it is evident we will be called upon to pay that penalty ourselves. The only way we can hope for escaping God's just and holy law, for our own sins, is that Jesus Christ himself suffered for them in our behalf.

The Apostle Peter says He did. If He suffered,, then He made an atonement when He suffered on the cross. So He did. suffer then, for sins. What did He suffer for ? To satisfy the law. No other answer can be given to that question. I will leave that question for my opponent to answer when he replies. Did Christ suffer for sins in order to meet the demand of the law ? I claim that He did. If he admits it, he admits this part of my proposition, that the atonement was made on the cross.

Hence, it occurs to me now, that I have introduced enough Scriptures for this time to prove the fact that the atonement was made on the cross. For that purpose he suffered and made reconciliation for the sins of the people. That was to expiate their guilt. I next quote, in proof of my proposition. Hebrews ix, 26 : '" For then must He often havesuffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the en I of the world hath He appeared toput away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

If there is no difference between His sacrifice and His atonement, it will be borne in mind by all that He was the sacrifice that put away sin. If the sacrifice put away sin and yet did not atone for sin, then atonement is not necessary to the putting away of sin. If the sacrifice put away sin, and an atonement is necessary to the putting away of sin, then when He made a sacrifice of Himself, He made an atonement.

If He made an atonement when He sacrificed Himself for sin, then He made an atonement on the cross. To say that He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and that that sacrifice was made on the cross, and then say that there was no atonement made on the cross, is to argue that there was no atonement necessary to put away sin. I would love to know the object of His making the sacrifice, if it was not to atone for sin. I also would love to know when the atonement was made for sin if it was not made when He made a sacrifice of Himself for sin. If it was not made then, and the sacrifice of Himself put sin away, an atonement is not afterwards made for sin, from the fact that sin was put away before the atonement was made, if the atonement was made after the sacrifice was offered.

The putting away of sin is what the atonement is for. There can be no other use of it, and I have already defined that word, and it is evident and cannot be denied, that this text teaches that the sacrifice did put away sin. Hence, as the sacrifice was made on the^cross, so the atonemenMvas*made on the cross, and this part of my proposition is sustained beyond any reasonable contradiction. I call the special attention of my worthy opponent to this text, and I wish him to give it a careful examination in his reply to me ; and if the sacrifice put away sin and there was no atonement made for sin, let him show that that is true.

When sin is put away it does not remain where it was before, and He put it away by the sacrifice of Himself. I now call" attention to one more text, Daniel ix., 24. It reads as follows: " Seventy weeks are determined upon Thy people and upon Thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy."

This text undoubtedly has allusion to the giving of Christ. The " Most Holy " mentioned in the text is none other than the Son of God. And now, what is He to do when He is annointed ? He is to finish the transgression and make an end of sin. If He makes an end of sin it must necessarily be that He atones for sins, and He makes a reconciliation for iniquities, according to this text. We have already shown that reconciliation for sins must be atonement for sins.

Hence the prophet here describes Christ as making atonement for iniquities, and as a result of that atonement He brings in everlasting righteousness. To make an end of sin is equivalent to putting away sins. And He puts away sins by the sacrifice of Himself, as we have already observed. Hence He made an end of sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The only way to make an end of sin is to atone for it by suffering the penalty of the law. This. I think, I have abundantly proven. Jesus Christ did on the cross.

I hope now that my arguments will be noticed and that the reply to this speech will be confined to the part of the proposition that I have now labored to sustain, that the atonement was made on the cross. I will give one more text, Hebrews ix., 27, 28 ■ " And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

II So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation. "

This text teaches us that Christ was offered. And if He was once offered, He was offered for a purpose, and that purpose was to bear the sins of many. When did He bear the sins ? Evidently, when He offered. He was offered on the cross, then He bore the sins on the cross, as the Apostle Peter has already shown.

If He bore our sins on the cross, and yet did not atone for them, I would love to know during this discussion, for what purpose He bore them. I hope we will have more light on this subject ere this discussion closes. If my opponent will take up my line of arguing and reasoning and show the people that I am mistaken — as he undoubtedly thinks I must be, or he would not be here to negative the proposition as he is at this time, I hope he will notice the use of the word reconciliation, that I made in the first argument I presented, that it is used in the sense of atonement, and is translated as reconciliation.

Now these arguments I rely upon. I want it distinctly understood that reconciliation and atonement mean the same thing ; and that reconciliation was certainly made on the cross, for the Bible never mentions it as having been made anywhere else.

[Tijvie Out.]

Chapter II

MR. DICKEY S FIRST SPEECH.

I am glad to have the opportunity of addressing so large an audience as I see present here to-day. I think it argues well for our country, to see at this busy season of the year, so many lay aside for the present, the common vocations of life, and come out to the house of God to hear the Scriptures investigated.

I believe in investigating the Scriptures, and I am glad that the people of this section" of the country are disposed to give the time and attention necessary to a proper understanding of the important subject of the atonement. Without a proper understanding of this subject we are unable to draw correct conclusions in regard to much of the teachings of inspiration as presented in the Gospel for our information and benefit.

I engage in this discussion, with love for all, without enmity in my heart against any one. My only object being that we may investigate the Scripture, and learn the truth.

If Brother Potter presents the truth as revealed in the Word of God, accept it, and practice it in your lives. But, if he presents error instead of truth, reject it, and refuse to be led by it. I ask only the same consideration for myself. If I am successful in presenting to you the truth, accept and practice it, if not reject it. I will now call your attention to some of the passages and arguments presented by Elder Potter.

In the first place I will remark that we agree in regard to the meaning of the word atonement. Elder Potter defines the word atonement to mean reconciliation. I admit that to be the correct definition of the word. His first quotation, I believe, is from Rom. v., 10: " For if, when we-were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son ; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

The Elder founds an argument on this passage to prove that the atonement was made on the cross. In criticism of this argument I will call attention to the fact that the Apostle Paul does not say reconciliation was accomplished while, or during the time Jesus Christ died on the cross.

Mark the expression of the language of the Apostle : " For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son." If reconciliation, or the atonement, was made by Jesus Christ on the cross, enmity existed in the minds of those for whom it was made at that time. There was no enmity in the minds of the unborn millions, who have lived since the death of Christ on the cross. No one of this congregation had enmity in his heart against God at the time Christ died on the cross. We were not in existence then, therefore we could not have had enmity against God. The Apostle represents that it was when he and they to whom he was writing were enemies that they were reconciled to God by -the death of His Son.

If reconciliation* is effected between an individual and God it must be after enmity has existed, and during the existence of the individual, and not before the individual has lived. If the atonement or reconciliation was made on the cross by the death of Jesus Christ, then the millions who had lived before the death of Christ, had all been sent to hell, or they were saved without an atonement or reconcilia tion being made between them and God, living with Him in heaven unreconciled.

The Elder was unfortunate in the selection of this passage. The Elder turns next to 2 Cor. v., 18 : "And all things are of God, Who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."

The Apostle refers to himself and his Corinthian brethren being reconciled to God by Jesus Christ ; he also refers to the means by which reconciliation is effected, Jesus Christ is the means. He says nothing about being reconciled while Jesus was on the cross. But we may learn when reconciliation takes place, and that it is not on the cross, by reading Rom. v., 11 : " And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement" Also read what the Apostle Paul says to his Colossian brethren, Col. i., 21 : " And you, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled"

This shows that alienation, enmity and wicked works preceded reconcilation, arid that reconciliation was made while the parties that were reconciled were living, conscious, intelligent beings, that they were not reconciled at the time Christ died on the cross. How were they reconciled ? Col. i., 22 : u In the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in His sight."