The Christadelphian September 1914, Islip Collyer

“A Review of the Past”

Dear brother Faithful,—At one time the brethren were severely criticised because in their view of the Atonement they “denied the doctrine of Christ’s substitution.” The idea of substitution is so completely out of harmony with both scripture and reason that it is difficult to understand anyone being perturbed because a more reasonable explanation of the great sacrifice had been enunciated. There was a time, however, when this was a point in the indictment of our position, and when it was no uncommon occurrence for a preacher to “explain” the sacrifice of Christ by the use of an illustration so crude and foolish that one would have expected it to serve as a refutation plain enough to carry conviction even to the one who used it. The preacher would suppose the case of a guilty man condemned to death, and of an innocent man rushing up at the last moment offering to take his place, and die as a substitute.

Brethren have often pointed out that such an idea as this violates every principle of justice and equity that we have learned from the Bible. Not only so, such a view of the sacrifice of Christ is inconsistent even with itself. If he had died as a substitute for death-deserving sinners, surely he would not have been raised again. If the debt of sinners had been completely discharged, surely they would be no longer subject to death. In point of fact, however, Christ was raised from the dead before the law of decomposition could take effect on his body, while those for whom he died remain subject to death, and all the other evils of mortality. Some of his immediate disciples followed him to martyrdom.

Dr. Thomas referred scornfully to the “nonsense written and spoken about original sin.” He ridiculed the “papistical conceit” of making infants the subject of a justifying ceremony to cleanse them from original sin. He brought to light the truth regarding the law of mortality and defiled human nature, “so much the worse for six thousand years of sin wear.” And by expounding these truths he laid the foundation for a complete understanding of the Bible doctrine of atonement. It is a fact that the principal attempts to find a new explanation of the sacrifice of Christ have either consciously or unconsciously turned back to the old “papistical conceits” regarding original sin, and the old stupid doctrine of substitution.

When the “free life” theory was first introduced, it was not fully understood on account of the recognition that Christ was “bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.” To one properly instructed in scriptural truths, this seemed like an admission of all that we claim; for “Adamic condemnation” is a matter of physical inheritance. This admission, however, was quickly followed by the claim that Christ was not under the racial condemnation at all. Well might brethren be surprised. It was admitted that “Christ came in the flesh”; it was admitted that he was made in all points like his brethren; admitted that he was tempted in all points as we are; and yet it was claimed that he was not under Adamic condemnation. A little inquiry showed where the new thought was drifting. It was back to the old idea that we are all held personally guilty of Adam’s sin. That from birth we have such a weight of sin imputed to us that no perfection of personal righteousness could commend a man to God; that if Christ had been under the same racial condemnation as we are he would have been held guilty of the sin of Adam, and the Father “might have pitied, but could not have saved Him.”1 It is the idea that our lives are personally forfeited through the imputation of a sin committed six thousand years ago. This, in itself, is a sufficiently startling step “back to Babylon,” but worse follows. Christ was represented as having been born with a “free life,” in order that his life should be sacrificed and “forfeited” lives be restored. On what principle, unless it was substitution? How can we apply any of the scriptural explanations that throw light upon the Atonement? It was to “declare the righteousness of God.” How could it be a declaration of the righteousness of God to slay one who was in no way related to death in order that men doubly condemned should escape? It was to “condemn sin in the flesh.” On what principle, if the inherited evil was not in the flesh, but in an imputation of guilt from which Christ was exempt? It was that through death He might destroy that which hath the power of death, that is “the devil.” How can we understand this?

Twenty years after the “free life” controversy another new idea was introduced. The prime mover would doubtless have been horrified at the bare suggestion that he was drifting back to “papistical conceits,” or that there was any affinity between his mature thoughts and the heresy which he had helped to resist twenty years earlier. But there is a subtle poison in polemical atmosphere which plays strange tricks with human reason. The new idea was put forward that the condemnation of Adam was to a violent death by slaying; and that this condemnation, although rarely carried into effect, was transmitted to the entire race. Again, the idea of personal imputation and forfeited life. Then we had reference to “the death incurred by Adam and inflicted on Christ.” What was this but substitution again under another form? Even this, however, was not the most serious issue of the new thought. It was argued that circumcision was a ceremony designed to effect an atonement for the sin imputed to infants. Quite definitely it was urged that there could be no hope while under Adamic condemnation, and therefore the words “thou didst make me to hope when I was upon my mother’s breast,” implied that in infancy there had been a justification for “Adamic sin” in the act of circumcision. This was certainly rather ingenious if one could forget the immediate context of the passage of scripture.

It was further suggested that Adam’s offence was committed on his first full day of life—the eighth day from the Creation—and then, the assumption being later treated as an established conclusion, circumcision on the eighth day from birth was exhibited as the justifying ceremony to ward off the wrath due to sin in the flesh.

By such easy stages, and with such ingenuity was this idea developed, that probably none of those who followed the teaching perceived where it was leading them. Indeed, the violent death theory was so generally regarded as a side issue on the controversy that few of the brethren realised what ghastly results the ingenious new thought had produced. It was another case of “back to Babylon.” Infants regarded as deserving a violent death on the eighth day from birth because of the sin of Adam. The old “papistical conceit” of making infants the subjects of ceremony to cleanse them from original sin. To sum up the situation in a sentence, a brother of many years’ experience in the truth had begun to teach that there was such a thing as justification without faith. No amount of ingenuity in explaining away difficulties could escape from this dilemma. If circumcision is regarded as in any sense a justifying ordinance in its effect on the individual, it is certainly a belief in justification without faith. It would have needed only a comparatively small extension of fleshly reasoning to lead back to infant baptism. Do not our children need protection as much as the boys of ancient Israel? Is not the idea of divine wrath and sentence to violent death as terrible now as ever?

From the present vantage-point of time, we may review the old controversies in a calm and judicial spirit, and perhaps see truth in stronger light as the result of those dismal errors. It is sad to contemplate them, nevertheless. The enemy has been given so much cause to laugh and to blaspheme. It is certainly desirable that we shall not fail to extract any good that may possibly come from the evil.

There is one lesson we ought to learn without fail. If we ever feel inclined to revive any theory of the past, or if we think that we have found a new element of truth with the honours of discovery all our own (!); let us examine it very thoroughly, and ascertain exactly where it is leading us before we proclaim to others. Controversy is often harmful even to those who fight on the right side. It is a hideous evil for those who stand for the defence of error. We need not feel surprised at any folly or any desperate madness uttered by men who have begun the defence of an untenable theory. The struggle of a difficult defence prevents the mind from reasoning clearly. A man cannot build thoughtfully and well while the battle is raging about him, and the foundations of his citadel are shaking beneath him. If his fighting instinct is stronger than his love of truth, as it proves to be in the vast majority of cases, he simply fights blindly on, hurriedly throwing up battlements that provoke the laughter of disinterested observers, and draw the tears of friends. When the battle is over, with its pitiable roll of killed and wounded, men who fought on opposite sides may sometimes examine the ruined defences and arrive at an agreement as to where the mistakes were made. It is well if those who had no experience of the fight can learn that lesson.

We may well make a very earnest appeal to brethren in all parts of the world to examine their ground very thoroughly before they venture to launch a new theory affecting first principles. There is plenty of opportunity for presenting old truths in new ways to provide work for the most active of minds. There is, perhaps, still more scope for the development of the positive virtues and pointing the way for the practical application of principle to daily life. I do not think that the truths “revealed to babes” were so complex and difficult that we need still to be discussing what are the first principles of the Oracles of God.

By all means examine the old controversies if you are interested in them, but see that you have fully mastered them before you begin to express opinions of a kind likely to rekindle the old fires.

My conviction is that although a clearer understanding of some points may have been gained through painful controversy, our general conclusion must be that our predecessors wrought so well that our work is merely to build on the foundations they laid.

I. C.

1 You will perhaps recognize that this is from Edward Turney’s work.