WHAT DID CHRIST'S SACRIFICE ACCOMPLISH?
ATONEMENT IN EARLY RESTORATIONIST THOUGHT
John Mark Hicks
Harding University Graduate School of Religion
Inagural Lecture at Restoration Theological Research Fellowship
Society of Biblical Literature Conference
Chicago, Illinois
November, 1994
The nineteenth century was a time of tremendous theological change in America. The whole theological culture moved from a Scottish Common Sense realism which largely ignored continental developments to an intense engagement with a new theology arising out of continent. It moved from an inviolable trust in the veracity of Scripture to an internal debate over its infallibility. It moved from a largely Puritan and Reformed theological perspective to a multi-varieted and pluralistic theological landscape. The nineteenth century was a century that began in relative stability and ended in flux.
Atonement theology is a significant illustration of this movement from stability to flux. David Wells has recently drawn attention to the appearance of three major theories of atonement in nineteenth century American Reformed theology.[1] Charles Hodge (1797-1878) of Princeton Seminary represented the conservative Reformed tradition, the Old School, as an advocate of penal substitution. Nathaniel William Taylor (1768-1858) of Yale College represented a moderate Reformed tradition, the New School, as an advocate of the governmental theory of atonement. Horace Bushnell (1802-76) of Hartford, Connecticut represented an emerging liberal Reformed tradition as an advocate of the moral influence theory of atonement. These three theologians, representing larger theological traditions, waged a battle over the nature of the atonement in the early and mid-nineteenth century. It was a discussion rooted in broader theological differences than just the atonement.
The Reformed tradition was not unique in this theological development. The doctrine of atonement was a center piece of discussion among American Methodists as well. Robert Chiles has detailed the transition of American Methodism from penal substitution in Richard Watson (1737-1816), to a governmental theory of atonement in Richard Miley (1813-1895), and finally to a version of the moral influence theory in Robert Knudsen (1873-1953).[2] As the discussion proceeded, what was accomplished in the atonement receded into the background and the application of the atonement took the center stage of discussion.
This is particularly seen in the theology of the great revivalist Charles Finney. "Revival," Wells argues, "had the effect of muffling discussion on the Atonement."[3] When Finney introduced his "New Measures" the questions turned to practical methodology rather than dogmatic theology. Issues of "living piety" rather than theological understanding dominated. As a result, discussion focused on the application of the atonement instead of what the atonement accomplished. The Princetonians, who saw this tendency in the New Schoolers as well as Finney, believed it was a "concession, witting or unwitting, to a culture that was activistic, pragmatic, and impatient" with theological reflection.[4] Finney shared a governmental perspective with the New Schoolers.[5]
The Restoration Movement was not immune to this nineteenth-century theological quarrel over the atonement. Neither was it immune to the pluralistic understandings of the atonement present in American evangelical theology. This paper will demonstrate that the American Restoration Movement reflected the same diversity, and essentially the same pattern of development which was present in the broader stream of American theological tradition. Paralleling the divergence of the Reformed and Wesleyan traditions, the American Restoration Movement had from its inception the presence of varied understandings of the atonement. While Thomas and Alexander Campbell represented a traditional penal substitution theory, Barton W. Stone represented a broad moral influence tradition and Walter Scott represented the governmental tradition. The purpose of this paper is to first understand the differences between restorationists, then to trace the pattern of its theological development in the nineteenth century.
CHRISTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES
Anyone familiar with the writings and controversies of the early Restoration Movement will not be surprised by the amount and depth of diversity within it. Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell, for example, differed on such important topics as the relationship between immersion and communion, whether the Reformers should wear the name "Disciples" or "Christians," the millennium, apocalyptic versus progressive worldviews, on the value and nature of Revivalism, and on whether the Reformation should unite with the Christian Connection among other things.[6] However, Christology was a primary theological dividing point between Stone and Campbell, and it is in this context that their differences on the subject of atonement are stated.
Because of Stone's Christology, Campbell appears generally suspicious of the older Reformer. In 1827, Campbell expressed his concern about the growing sectarian character of the people who had assumed the name "Christian." He feared that "certain opinions, called Arian or Unitarian, or something else, are becoming [their] sectarian badge" and "that some peculiar views of atonement or reconciliation are likely to become characteristic of a people who have claimed the high character and dignified relation of the Church of Christ."[7] Indeed, at the beginning of his letter, Campbell accepted Stone as a brother because Stone had once told him that he "conscientiously and devoutly pray[ed] to the Lord Jesus Christ as though there was no other God in the universe than he."[8] Stone replied that he never said any such thing, and that if this was Campbell's acid test, then he would have to be excluded from the number Campbell calls "brethren."[9] Consequently, Campbell was never entirely comfortable with Stone.[10] For Campbell, the Christological test, whether applied to Stonites or to Calvinists, would be whether they "supremely venerate, and unequivocally worship the King my Lord and Master, and are willing to obey him in all things."[11]
After the union in 1832, Campbell believed that the "Christians" had left their sectarianism and opinions behind and had come to affirm the substance of his Christological test.[12] Stone himself indicated that uniting with the Reformers meant that he would lay aside all the speculations of his former days and speak only in the "words of inspiration."[13] Indeed, in 1844, Campbell believed that his movement had swallowed up the Stonite speculations so that the time of their "Newlightism" was a former day.[14] He had hoped that the Christians and the Reformers had come to share some Christological common ground. For Stone's part, while he had earlier flirted with Arianism, by his death he had rejected all such speculative language and come to rest only, he claimed, in the words of Scripture.[16] Stone acknowledged his debt to Campbell for rejecting speculation and "expressing the faith of the gospel in the words of revelation."[17] In his last decade, his Christological statements are replete with biblical phrases without extended speculation as to their ultimate ontology.[18] Campbell, however, was always sensitive to defend his association with the Stonites while distancing himself from the Unitarian Christian Connection precisely on Christological grounds.[19] In the light of this concern, Campbell now engaged such issues as Trinity and Atonement when in 1830 he had counseled preachers that such topics were too well-known to discuss.[20] What he had assumed in 1830 now, in 1833, had to be defended and proclaimed in the light of the union between the Christians and Reformers as well as Campbell's growing sense of urgency about how some Christological issues were understood. The union between the Christians and the Reformers prompted some, especially Dr. James Fishback, who was sympathetic with the Reformers, to attack Stone's Christology.[21] In this context Campbell went on the defensive to clarify his own Christology.
This Christological tension between Stone and Campbell, however, extended to the nature of the atonement. Campbell was aware from the beginning of Stone's views on the atonement, but believed that he had shelved them at the time of the union. It was a common rumor that Stone had "publickly relinquished [his] former views of the atonement" which Stone emphatically denied.[22] As a result of his encounter with the Reformers Stone had determined to speak about the atonement "only in the language of Scripture, and not to introduce any previous opinion, or speculation [he] may have entertained on the subject."[23] Nevertheless, Stone continued to press his views in the Christian Messenger because he felt many among the Reformers were "partially ignorant of the doctrine of atonement."[24] Indeed, alongside of such perennial topics as baptism, the Holy Spirit, unity and the church, the atonement is the most discussed item in the pages of the Christian Messenger.[25]
In 1833, not long after the union of the Christians and the Reformers, Thomas Campbell was asked to review an 1829 book by Noah Worcester entitled The Atoning Sacrifice: A Display of Love--not of Wrath.[26] The work advocated a moral influence theory of atonement. Stone recommended Worcester's book along with his own 1821 Address to the Churches for those who wish to understand his own view of the atonement.[27] In 1829, immediately after the publication of Worcester's work, Stone had provided some extended extracts from it with an endorsement of its views.[28] While Thomas Campbell found much in the book to approve, he thought it contained some "radical mistakes."[29] What was originally intended by Thomas Campbell as a private communication became, in the hands of Alexander Campbell, a bone of contention between the Stonites and the Reformers as Thomas Campbell and Stone exchanged letters.[30] There is little doubt that Alexander Campbell published his father's strictures on Worcester as an assessment of Stone's understanding of the atonement. He prefaced his father's review with the hope that "it might be of use to some of our readers" even though it was intended only for William Z. Thompson of Kentucky.[31] Campbell would later tell Stone that "our brethren desire argument and evidence on this subject."[32] In 1840-41 Alexander Campbell and Stone would discuss the subject at length in a formal exchange of letters,[33] and it would remain a topic of discussion till Stone's death in 1844.[34]
Shortly after the 1833 exchange between Thomas Campbell and Barton W. Stone, Walter Scott entered the fray. In 1834 Scott published the first of six articles on the death of Christ.[35] He was criticized for inaugurating the series because it was believed that it would exacerbate the tensions within the union. In his third article Scott explained that he could not ignore this cardinal doctrine and believed no one could be an "intelligent proclaimer of the gospel" if they were "ignorant of the death of Christ, in its various relations and uses."[36] Apparently, the criticism grew because in his fourth article he speaks of the "prejudice against even the investigation of this subject" which had developed among the Reformers because it had "proved a bone of constant and virulent contention among all parties."[37] However, Scott's intent was to speak to the broader meaning of the death of Christ and not simply about its atoning efficacy. He felt that the topic had become too narrowed. In the next year (1836), he published his Gospel Restored where he repeated many of his concerns.[38]
Scott advocated a governmental theory of atonement in opposition to a penal theory of substitution.[39] Stone, however, did not let this view of atonement, which contained an attack on the moral influence theory, go by without comment. He published a review entitled "A few friendly remarks on brother Walter Scott's views of atonement, contained in his last book, "The ancient Gospel restored."[40] In brackets, Stone added his purpose to the title, "I have made these remarks in order to turn the attention of the brethren from speculation to the scriptures of truth."[41] It is clear, then, that in the mid-1830s, after the union of the Christians and the Reformers, the discussion of atonement was a vital one. It went to the heart of how to understand the work of God in the gospel. Campbell, Stone and Scott all believed it to be central to the Christian faith, and all proclaimed it as foundational. But they understood the nature of this divine work quite differently. I now turn to the task of understanding their differences as expressed in their exchanges in the mid-1830s.
THE DISCUSSION OF 1833-1836
Campbell on Worcester
The thesis of Worcester's book was to demonstrate that the sacrifice of Christ was a display of love rather than wrath. The sacrifice of Christ consisted wholly in the moral influence of God's love to bring about the repentance of the sinner whom God could then forgive.[42] Campbell responded from the framework of a traditional understanding of penal substitution and he placed two major concerns before the reader. First, the moral influence theory misunderstands the ground of justification or forgiveness. The righteousness of God, or the righteousness of faith is not, as Worcester represents it, the righteousness which God requires for the remission of sins, but the act of God in Jesus Christ through the sacrificial sin-offering. The righteousness by which we stand before God derives from the sacrifice of Christ and not out of the reformed life of the sinner. If saving righteousness is the righteousness of our repentance to which God leads us through the death of Christ, then there is no real need for the sacrifice of Christ because "good men before the coming of Christ, as well as since, possessed this righteousness."[43] They attained righteousness independent of the work of Christ on the cross. Campbell believed that something objective took place at the cross which grants the righteousness of God through faith. The righteousness of God is God's act rather than our compliance. Faith in Christ's blood constitutes our "justifying righteousness" rather than works of repentance.[44]
Second, the moral influence theory does not give sufficient weight to God's justice or holiness. Any attempt to explain the cross of Christ as a "mere example, or a display of love, without regard to justice" subverts the "basis of the divine government" and robs "the gospel of all that glorifies the wisdom and power, the justice and mercy of God in putting away sin and in saving the sinner."[45] The justice of God is magnified through the Son's endurance of the "penal effects of sin"[46] or the law's "penalty in behalf of his people."[47] God must be both just and justifier, and this is accomplished through penal substitution where Christ suffers the punishment due humanity. In Christ, God justly put away sin so that the sinner might be saved. Justice, therefore, must be seen as an operative principle in our salvation. The work of Christ is not only a display of love, but is also a manifestation of God's justice.
Stone on Campbell
Stone was disappointed that Campbell, who had pled for the "reformation on Bible facts alone," now attached "so much importance to his opinion of the sacrifice of Christ."[48] His major disappointment with Campbell was on his insistence that the sacrifice of Christ was a display of wrath as well as love. Stone sees "nothing more than the greatest possible display of [God's] love to the world" in the death of Christ.[49] The cross manifested all of the divine perfections, and "all his perfections harmonized in the plan and work of saving" humanity.[50] This included justice.[51] The bottom line, however, is that love of God is the root and full manifestation of God's perfections. Stone's starting point is the theological axiom "God is love," and the function of the cross is to reveal God's glorious love for sinners. As D. Newell Williams summarizes Stone's theology, "God's justice serves God's grace."[52] Consequently, the cross does not function as a punishment of sin or a sign of wrath, but is God's way of leading sinners to repentance through his loving actions. "The sufferings and death of Jesus, are the highest display of God's infinite love, grace, and goodness to the lost world."[53]
Stone believed that the cross of Christ was a significant "moral influence upon the sinner," but had no moral effect or influence upon God.[54] The purpose of the cross was to lead humanity to repentance; it was not to effect a mighty change in God from wrath to grace.[55] God has acted in Christ to effect a change in us; to lead us to "faith, repentance and obedience." What has God done? "He has given us in his Son an exhibition of himself, his will, his amazing love, grace, mercy and goodness, by which believed the sinner is led to repentance, to mourn and be sorry for his sins, and to turn from them to God with a true heart determined to obey the Lord in all things."[56] When we believe the facts about Jesus, and understand the love of God exhibited in them, then this intellectual belief "produces a moral influence or effect on the mind, to reconcile us to God--to lead us to repentance and consequently to remission of sin."[57]
Stone accepted George Campbell's understanding of Romans 1:16-17 as definitive. The righteousness of God, according to Stone, refers to the "righteousness which God requires."[58] It refers to "God's plan of justification," where the righteousness of God is understood as that righteousness which he requires in "obedience to the law of faith, or the Gospel, which is to believe, to repent, confess the Savior before men, and to be baptized in his name." It is to this "obedience to the faith, [that] justification or pardon is granted."[59] Just as Stone rejects the imputation of guilt to Christ as sin-bearer, so he rejects the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer because it is rooted in the "unscriptural notion of Christ's substitution".[60] Instead, we are "justified by works" when "faith leads us to obedience, to reformation, to baptism and to all the requirements of the gospel." Reconciliation, or atonement, is the effect of the whole gospel plan which leads us to repentance and "becomes effectual through faith and obedience."[61] The work of God in Christ is to influence us to repentance, to lead us to faith. The gospel plan is effectual through our transformation, our faith and obedience, on account of which God pardons us.
Since Christ's sacrifice has no effect on God, but only affects humanity; and since there is no barrier to the forgiveness of sins except the impenitence of the unbeliever, the gospel "plan is that the sinner must repent in order to be forgiven."[62] This has been God's plan in every dispensation since "the beginning of the pardoning of sin." Just as the sacrifices of the Old Testament were intended to lead to repentance, so the sacrifice of Christ has the same purpose. The preaching of the cross of Christ leads sinners to repentance, and therefore it is the "foundation of repentance."[63] God, then, has "one plan under the gospel, and this plan includes all those things already named, as faith, repentance, confession, prayer, baptism, and obedience....All are necessary to salvation, or remission of sins, according to the plan of our God ordained in the gospel."[64]
Stone unequivocally rejects any idea that Christ suffered the spiritual punishment due sinners, or bore their guilt on the tree. There is no imputation of guilt except to the guilty and there is, consequently, no imputation of righteousness except to the righteous. "According to God's government," Stone argues, "the sinner alone shall suffer the punishment due his iniquity--his wickedness shall be on him alone, and not imputed or transferred to the righteous, for the righteousness of the righteous shall be on him alone, and not on the wicked."[65] The point, then, is that sinners are declared just "because they are so indeed."[66] When the sinner "becomes holy, he ceases to be the object of condemnation and wrath."[67] As a result, according to Williams' interpretation of Stone, "no person, who is not just, can be justified before God,"[68] or "that believers are declared just because they are just."[69] When the sinner repents, the sinner has removed the barrier to forgiveness, and has become righteous by compliance with the gospel plan. Since he is righteous, God counts him as righteous. He has been transformed by the love God into a lover of God through faith in Jesus Christ.[70] Stone quickly adds, however, that "the whole work of regeneration and salvation from sin, is the work of" God through the Spirit who "begins, carries on, perfects the whole work. It is a work infinitely beyond the power of man, who can not make one hair white or black--who is unable to change his nature as the Ethiopian his skin, or the Leopard his spots."[71] It is the transformative work of God in the hearts of people. God saves us through the work of sanctification whereby we are made righteous by the Spirit of God as we seek his will.
Stone's theology of atonement is moral rather than penal. He objects to forensic understandings of salvation at every turn.[72] Instead he frames the atonement in relational or personal terms. The curse of the law is interpreted as the "misery arising from the want of love to God and man" rather than as forensic punishment.[73] This curse is removed when the heart is moved to love God. God moves us through the expression of his love in the incarnation, ministry, life and resurrection of Jesus. Stone's theology of atonement is more incarnational than atoning; it is paticipatory rather than substitutionary. Christ suffered for us in that he suffered with us. "He suffered pain, distress, persecution and death--not because, or on account of his sin (for he had none), but for, or because of ours....Hence, as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same--the same flesh and blood, subject to the same afflictions, pain and death. He thus bore the burden of our sin, that he might bear away our sin and sanctify us, and so make an atonement or reconciliation between God and us." In bearing the burden of our iniquity, Christ "not only suffered in body, but also in soul."[74] Jesus Christ bore our griefs and sorrows, according to Isaiah 53, in that "he experienced in himself the griefs and sorrows of our fallen nature...tempted in all points like as we are--and in all our afflictions he was afflicted."[75] The love of God is manifested in the cross, then, not as some kind of answer to justice, but out of a loving desire to reunite God and humanity expressed through an incarnational identification with us.
Ultimately, Stone's theology of atonement was forged in the context of revivalism. As he attempted to call sinners to faith in his early years, he was "embarrassed" by the Calvinistic doctrine of penal substitution.[76] Out of this embarrassment three convictions were clarified: (1) God loves the world and is willing to save everyone to which he has given evidence in Jesus Christ; (2) everyone has the natural and moral ability to respond to the preaching of the gospel for salvation and (3) he wanted to avoid universalism and maintain the urgency of evangelism.[77] Genuine revivalistic preaching meant that God wanted to save everyone who heard and everyone who heard had the ability to respond, and those who did not were lost. Thus, the free and full offer of God's grace to everyone and the necessity of their response was the fundamental premise of Stone's revivalism and the fundamental theological principle of his doctrine of atonement. Stone writes, "I assume the free and full offer of the gospel to all men, to be one of those cardinal points by which I gauge all my other views of truth. I hold no doctrines--and by the grace of God never can hold any--which will be in my view inconsistent with the free and full offer of the gospel to all men; or which will bind my hands, or palsy my tongue, or freeze my heart, when I stand before sinners to tell them of a dying Savior."[78]
Campbell on Stone
Campbell focused his response by addressing the question of how Christ's blood effects the remission of sins. Both he and Stone would confess the fact, but disagree on the theory.[79] Stone objects to the notion that the blood of Christ removed any "legal obstructions" or effected a "forgiving disposition in God." God is willing to forgive every penitent sinner, but his justice would prevent him from forgiving an impenitent sinner. God can clear the guilty but not the "impenitent."[80] Campbell understands that this places the "legal obstruction" in the "disposition of the sinner" rather than in the justice of God. God's act in Christ, then, has nothing to do with sin, but only with the sinner. It does not treat sin through justice. On the contrary, if "nothing on the part of God stands in the way of forgiveness of the penitent sinner, what is the use of the gospel dispensation" or the work of Christ on the cross? "What need [is there] of the gospel--that is, of Christ, and him crucified?"[81] According to Stone, God dealt with sinners, not with sin, but Paul's gospel is that Christ died "for our sins."
God's justice must deal with sin as a category rather than merely with the heart of the sinner. Campbell argues that God's "moral excellencies" and his immutable holiness necessitate some act of God which vindicates his justice in relation to sin. He rejects any "milder evangelic law" which denies the "real divinity, and legal substitution of Jesus Christ."[82] God in Christ "glorified his justice as well as his mercy in the salvation of sinners by the blood of his son." His obedience evidenced "to the whole creation the infinite evil of sin, and also his infinite justice in suffering no instance of disobedience to pass without the infliction of a just recompense of reward."[83] The "milder evangelic law" looks to the sinner to save himself by his own penitence and change of disposition. In such a case, the sinner is "justified by law" rather than "grace."[84] Moral influence is sufficient for a justification by law or works, but it is not sufficient for a justification by grace. It ultimately renders the work of Christ unnecessary since the righteousness which moral influence produces is a fruit present four thousand years before Christ. The moral influence theory reduces the "mediation of Jesus Christ" to the prophetic ministry of John the Baptist.[85]
The problem, as Stone delineated it and Campbell understood it, is how the innocent can suffer for the guilty, or how the punishment due to the sinner can be transferred to the righteous Son of God. Stone wrote that if he believed such a thing, he would become a universalist since the full ransom of every person would have been paid, but his sense of justice could not permit such a substitutionary understanding of the death of Christ.[86] The innocent cannot die for the guilty. Campbell responded that we should not permit universalistic implications or humanistic understandings of justice to alter the plain meaning of the scriptures on this central subject. The scripture must be believed even if there are "objections" which "we cannot answer."[87] For Campbell, the confession of Scripture is that Christ is our propitiation and we are justly acquitted from all guilt "because the just desert or wages of [our] sin, viz. sorrows, sufferings, and death, to the full amount of its demerit, has been inflicted upon, and endured by, [our] surety, the Redeemer."[88] For God to acquit the guilty justly, there must be a surety or a substitute who bears the just and "infinite demerit and evil of sin."[89]
But it is precisely this substitutionary exchange grounded in the demands of God's infinite justice to which Stone objects. If Christ suffered the punishment due to sin, why did he not suffer its full intensity and eternity?[90] Campbell's answer is that the payment for sin is not a matter of quantity, but quality. The "personal dignity of the Son of God" and his status as a "person of infinite worth" in whom the fullness of divinity dwells functions as an "equivalent for all the penal consequences of sin."[91] The infinite demerits of sin demanded an infinite ransom in the person of the infinite God himself, Jesus Christ. To undermine the depth of sin will correspondingly undermine the divinity of Jesus. As the demand of sin's demerit is lowered, so is the estimate of Jesus who purchased the price of that demand. Campbell believes that a low view of atonement corresponds with a low Christology. As a result, the problem is broader than a theory of atonement, but returns to the more fundamental question of who Jesus Christ is.
Scott's Governmental Theory
When Scott began his series on the "Death of Christ" in 1834, he did not directly assault any individual and his intention was broader than the atoning efficacy of the death of Christ. However, as the series progressed, and in the wake of his 1836 Gospel Restored, it is clear that Scott positioned himself between Campbell and Stone. It may have been his intention to mediate between them within the context of the union of Christians and Reformers and, at the same time, provide a wider base of agreement on the meaning of Christ's death. His contribution is two-fold. First, he advocates a governmental theory of God's justice in the atoning death of Christ. Second, and more importantly for his purpose, he provides a holistic perspective on the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. Scott argues that Christ's resurrection is as central an event as his death, and that this has been left out of the discussion of Christ's atoning work.
Scott believed that justice must play a role in a proper understanding of what Christ's death accomplished. Focusing on Romans 3:25-26, Scott maintains that the atonement was at least partially a function of justice. In view of the "propitiatory sacrifice" of Jesus, God has demonstrated his justice. Scott, however, rejects both a penal substitution and a moral influence understanding of this justice. On the one hand, the death of Christ was not an "equivalent" or "precise amount of vengeance" rendered to God for sin.[92] This would be a commercial or mercantile sense of justice. If God fully paid the price of sin, then there is no room for mercy because the debt would have been discharged. On the other hand, the moral influence view has no role for justice at all.
Scott believed the demonstration of God's justice is political or governmental in character. Commercial justice pays an equivalent, but political justice seeks the "common good" for the purpose of the punishment of the criminal, public safety, and respect for law.[93] In Jesus Christ, God "purposed to clothe his law with a sanctity that should make it reverenced, make it obeyed."[94] Sin had dishonored the law of God, and God's justice was undermined. How can God permit sin to reign? God's answer was to "set forth" Jesus Christ "as a propitiatory" example in order "to do honor to the majesty of law and the character of God as the Ruler of the World."[95] God enforced the law in Jesus Christ in order to demonstrate his hatred of sin, and at the same time offer mercy consistent with his public justice. For Scott, God substituted the life of one, Jesus Christ, for the life of the many--God in Christ suffered public justice for sinners.[96] Thus, God as moral governor, "instead of exposing his character for injustice" by ignoring the punishment due to sin, "establishes his character" as a "public functionary": he demonstrates his justice and offers his mercy. Therefore, in the light of what God did in Jesus Christ, God has demonstrated his justice even while he fails to punish the sinner through his mercy.
But Scott's intention was not to give a full account of the atoning efficacy of the death of Christ. In fact, he believed that the subject had often been abused and meaning of his death distorted.[97] Rather, he sought to see the death of Christ in a holistic fashion--to see it in its incarnational context, and especially in the light of the resurrection. The death of Christ was the means by which the moral quality of the Messiah was perfected, and the mortality of the human race was overcome. Through incarnation, ministry and death, God in Christ was perfected through and touched with the "feeling of our infirmities." He overcame the Satanic powers which rule the world.[98] Through the resurrection, God in Christ reversed the mortal effects of the fall.[99] He conquered the powers of death. The death of Christ is the means by which God provides for the grounding of humanity's faith and hope. The event of the resurrection is the fact which we believe that inspires hope. The death of Christ is the means by which the wisdom of God chose to assure us of his love and ground our faith in the future through the resurrection of Jesus.[100] Consequently, Scott sees the incarnation (and death of Christ as part of the incarnational identification) and resurrection as the core redemptive events even though the death of Christ was the exemplary demonstration of God's justice. The propitiatory work of Christ is but one "use" of the "fact" of God's incarnational and life-giving act of God in Christ.[101] The death of Christ must be seen, according to Scott, in its broader relations and not abused in terms of a specific aspect of its intent.
In 1852, Scott published his Death of Christ, Written for the Recovery of the Church from Sects.[102] After delineating the positions of many sects, and arguing against the Calvinistic system, he summarized the biblical position in two statements: (1) "God has attributed the sin of one to all," i.e., the sin of Adam to all his posterity; and (2) "And the sins of all to one," i.e., the sin of all to Christ. "The facts in this basis are," according to Scott, "that man has forfeited his life and blood, and that his redemption is not by truth, law, logic, or moral suasion, but by BLOOD--the BLOOD of the Cross--the BLOOD of the Son of God." This calls for humility on the part of all theologians, and a simple affirmation of the "facts."[103] We are called to preach the facts, to evangelize the world and draw comfort from the gospel. "Theories and hypotheses about Adam's sin and Christ's death...may be game for theologists," but they do not promote unity and evangelism, or ultimately reach "the soul longing for heaven."[104] According to Scott, theology does not serve evangelism; it hinders it.
Stone on Scott
Stone complained that Scott used a "good deal of philosophy in his definition of justice." He introduced scholastic distinctions which obscure the simple faith of Scripture. "Shall we establish a philosophic theory of justice, by which to judge of God and his ways?" Justice, according to Stone, is simply "to do right" for both God and humanity. God cannot "do right" and ask the innocent to suffer for the guilty, and humanity cannot be right with God without doing right.[105] Stone understands that the death of Christ had something to do with the justice of God as Romans 3:25 states, but he is unwilling to speculate on what it is. "God has not revealed" what it is. "Why indulge in such speculation? Is it not sufficient to believe that God, through the mediation of his son, has declared that he can be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus?"[106]
Scott's discussion, however, prompted Stone to explain his understanding of the function of the resurrection in the reconciliation of God and humanity. "It is conceded that Adam and his seed would have been under the power of death, natural death, forever, had not the resurrection interposed." God threatened natural death, and it was executed upon Adam and his posterity. However, the resurrection of Jesus restores natural life to all of humanity.[107] Just as in Adam all died, so in Christ all are raised. Just as we were treated as sinners in Adam and subjected to death, so we are treated righteous in Christ and given life. But "after all are raised from death, then must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, to answer for their own deeds, and not the deeds of Adam."[108] The work of Christ in the resurrection gives humanity the opportunity to stand before God to account for their own works. In other words, "by [Christ's] death and resurrection, the whole world, the just and unjust, are justified and saved from the natural death, brought upon the world by the first Adam." This is Christ's true substitutionary work. But salvation from eternal death is predicated upon the faith and obedience of individual, that is, God justifies those who are moved to be righteous by the love of God displayed in the death of Christ.[109] It is in this context that Stone rejects any division in the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus in our justification."[110] But Stone's soteriology seems to simply restore us to a pre-fall Adamic state where we are justified by our Spirit-prompted holiness rather than by the work of Christ.
Summary of Differences
The discussion of the atonement in the mid-1830s between Restoration leaders mirrors the discussion of the atonement in other segments of American Christianity. The issues are fundamentally the same whether in Reformed, Wesleyan or Restoration circles.[111] At the heart of atonement theology is our view of God, sin and the relationship between the two, as well as who Jesus Christ is.
The relationship between the justice or holiness of God and the love of God was hotly contested in the nineteenth century. Do we see God's justice serving his love, or must God's love submit to or act in accordance with his justice? Campbell held God's love and justice to be equally ultimate so that neither is undermined. God's justice is inviolable, but his love moved him to self-propitiation in Jesus Christ. His theory of atonement, consequently, emphasized the penal. Stone, on the other hand, saw God's justice as serving his love. Love is the fundamental controlling element. Stone's theory of atonement, then, was primarily relational or moral. Like Campbell, Scott saw the justice of God as inherent in a theology of atonement, but unlike Campbell did not think of it in commercial or retributive terms. Nevertheless, justice was a necessary component for atonement.
Parrelling their views of justice, the three Reformers saw God's responsibility to sin differently. Campbell believed that God, due to his holy nature, was determined to punish sin because sin deserved punishment. God's justice was retributive. Stone, however, did not think God was under any kind of internal compulsion to punish sin. Rather, God "punished" sin for its transformative effect, and not for its retributive or deterrent character.[112] Justice is not an inflexible principle, but is relaxed when the transformation of the sinner has taken place. God in Christ suffered for our sins in order to transform us rather than to punish us or punish Christ in our place. Nevertheless, Stone believed that God's justice could not forgive the impenitent sinner. There was something within God that acted as a barrier to God's loving forgiveness for the rebellious sinner. Scott, like Campbell, believed that sin must be punished, but the motive was not retribution but demonstration. It demonstrated God's hatred of sin, and his willingness to punish sinners. God acted out of concern for the moral order of the universe rather than for the punishment of sin as such. It was not as merchant, but as moral governor that God in Christ suffered on the tree.
Growing out of their views of God and his relationship to sin and sinners, the three had different understandings of what the sacrifice of Christ accomplished. Campbell believed that God accomplished the payment of sin's debt and the imputation of Christ's righteousness through the substitutionary work of Christ. God objectively removed the barrier of justice and opened a way for mercy to be applied in Christ. The work of Christ had an objective effect on God's relationship to the sinful world. Stone, however, denied that the work of God had any effect on God. Rather, Christ's work through the incarnation was a display of love whose object was to turn sinners to repentance. The work of Christ's death is the effective turning of sinners to God by the persuasive power of God's love in Christ. The work of atonement is subjective and essentially pneumatological in character. Scott, however, did not buy into either extreme. The work of Christ is not purely subjective. Rather, it was a public, objective demonstration of God's justice which salvaged God's position as moral Governor. His view, like Campbell's, sees the work of Christ as tearing down or removing the barrier of God's justice, though the nature of the barrier is considerably different. More than either Campbell or Stone, Scott saw the work of Christ as fundamentally incarnational in character. It was God's emphathetic identification with us which culminated in Christ's death and the dynamic power of God's work in triumphing over death in the resurrection that was the essence of what Christ accomplished.
The question is ultimately what did the work of Christ accomplish? In the early Restoration Movement there were three distinct answers to that question. For Campbell, it satisfied God's penal justice. For Stone, it displayed God's love so as to effect a subjective change in the unbeliever. For Scott, it demonstrated God's justice as a moral governor. The situation did not change dramatically in the second half of the nineteenth century, though a pattern of development emerged that paralleled the Reformed and Methodist traditions.
LATER DEVELOPMENTS
Reflective of the late eighteenth century, Stone once recalled that in his "memory between 40 and 50 years ago there was no controversy in our country among the sects" on the doctrine of atonement. "All were then orthodox according to the present standard of orthodoxy."[113] That situation had changed by the early nineteenth century. Stone himself published his views as early as 1805 in his work Atonement. By the time of the union between the Reformers and the Christians in 1832, there were three distinct understandings of what Christ accomplished on the cross within the Restoration Movement. This diversity did not dissipate. It remained part of the theology of the Restoration Movement throughout the nineteenth century.
The Emergence of a Pattern
In the mid and late nineteenth century, the three dominant atonement theories were advocated within the Restoration Movement. Jacob Creath wrote a four-part series on the death of Christ for the Millennial Harbinger in 1863.[114] Writing a letter to Campbell, he recalled how he had discussed this subject with him intimately, and how he had been told by Calvinistic Baptists in the 1820s that Campbell was a Unitarian in his view of the atonement, but discovered differently. Creath provides a Campbellian understanding of the Atonement which reflects the orthodox tradition found in the original Protestant Reformers.[115] Campbell himself reiterated these views at the 1860 meeting of the American Christian Missionary Society when he gave an address on the "Divine Philanthropy."[116] In the 1867 Millennial Harbinger H. G. H. defended a penal substitution view of atonement through his defense of the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the ground of justification before God.[117] The penal theory, therefore, was strongly advocated within the Restoration Movement in the mid-nineteenth century.
In the third quarter of the nineteenth century, Robert Milligan and Dr. Hiram Chistopher authored biblical theologies which attempted to understand the flow of redemptive history. While Robert Milligan, in the 1859 Millennial Harbinger, commented on Romans 3:25-26 in the vein of a governmental theory of atonement as he condemned moral influence theories of atonement,[118] in his Scheme of Redemption he offered a fuller understanding of his own view of the atonement as encompassing the idea that "all the demands of Law and Justice have been fully met and fully satisfied by the sin-offering of Christ."[119] Thus, the "chief object of the incarnation and death of Christ was to meet and satisfy the claims of Justice against the sinner."[120] The second object of the atonement is to change the disposition of the sinner. But no change in the sinner's disposition could satisfy the "unyielding and inflexible" justice of God. Those demands had to be met "even more fully and more perfectly than if all the penalties of violated law had been directly inflicted on the offending parties." These demands were "met and satisfied by the sin-offering of Christ."[121]
Dr. Christopher likewise advocated a penal theory of atonement. His 1875 work, The Remedial System, began with the Trinity, moved through the creation, fall and God's redemptive covenants as they consummated in the work of Christ's incarnation and atonement which anticipate the eschaton. At the center of his discussion, reflected throughout the book, is the work of atonement in Christ. His view of atonement is both penal and incarnational. In Anselmian terms, Christopher argues that the incarnation was "not an expedient, but an imperative necessity."[122] The incarnation was necessary because the atonement whose necessity is rooted in God's "inflexible demands of justice"[123] demanded a human character forged by human experience. It was the peccable man, Jesus Christ, who was "made perfect by sufferings which were necessary to place him in full sympathy with man as he found him."[124] While the provision of the atonement arises out of God's love, the nature of the atonement arises out of God's justice. Were the atonement "wholly an arbitrary measure, it can be no justification of God."[125] Justice must be satisfied. Consequently, Christ, as our human substitute, was our sin-offering upon whom God laid our sin and treated him "as though he were the sinner, and suffered accordingly."[126] Thus, in the great exchange, our guilt is imputed to Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us.[127]
It is clear, then, that in the mid-nineteenth century, particularly in the Millennial Harbinger and in two major redemptive-historical textbooks, the penal theory of atonement was alive and well. However, at the same time, the governmental theory was growing in dominance within the Restoration Movement. Indeed, by the late 1860s, it might be argued that the governmental theory was the most prominent in the Restoration Movement. Symbolic of this is that longest essay ever devoted to the atonement in the history of the Restoration Movement was a defense of the governmental theory in contrast to the penal and moral theories. Symbolic of this is the lengthy article in the April 1868 issue of the conservative journal Lard's Quarterly under the pseudonym of "Clement."[128]
The essay is a well-argued and careful exposition of the governmental view of atonement though it never so designates itself. It defends the necessity of a substitutionary punishment of sin to propitiate God, but redefines these key ideas in a governmental fashion. For example, the necessity of the incarnation is grounded in the necessity of one whose "rank and personal worth" is great enough to call attention to God's administration of his government.[129] The concept of substitution present in the essay does not involve a legal imputation of guilt, but simply a "substitution of his person instead of the offenders; and a substitution of his sufferings instead of their punishment."[130] Christ satisfied the "administrative" justice of God, but not the "commercial" (equivalent payment) or the "retributive" (the full demerit of sin) justice.[131] The death of Christ rendered God propitious in the sense that "it opened a just and honorable way for his grace to be exercised" as the moral governor of the universe. God had a "justifiable reason" to be gracious since proper honor had been displayed to his government and the public good.[132] Since God had been justified in the death of Christ, God now accepts our faith and obedience as righteousness.[133]
At the same time, Thomas Munnell emerged as the leading defender of the governmental view through his articles in the Christian-Evangelist over the last two decades of the nineteenth century. Munnell had earlier offered his opinion in two substantial essays.[134] The first was published in an 1868 collection of sermons entitled the Living Pulpit.[135] Another was published in the 1882 Christian Quarterly Review.[136] These two essays constitute an explanation of the "philosophy of Atonement," according to Munnell.[137] In fact, in his numerous articles in the Christian-Evangelist he pointed his readers back to these two previous essays[138] and he regarded the second essay as pushing his earlier understanding toward an "ultimate philosophy" of how justice and mercy are balanced in the work of Christ.[139]
According to Munnell, the cross was not an "arbitrary, but a necessary antecedent to the pardon" of sin.[140] Atonement theology involves a serious doctrine of sin in relation to the necessity of sin's punishment by God's justice. The problem which atonement answered was how humanity might be pardoned and at the same time not "impugn the justice of God."[141] Governmental principles form the sub-structure of how this might be done. Jesus Christ suffered as a "qualitative" (as opposed to quantitative)[142] substitute whom God accepted in our stead. He was our "legal" or governmental representative. But, as the later essay clearly states, he was not punished in our place nor was our guilt imputed to him.[143] He did not suffer the penalty of sin. "The demands of the law were met, in the Prince, in a way that secures the stability of government, which is now enabled to exercise the desired mercy with safety."[144] This excludes any mere moral influence understanding. The death of Christ "in some way justifies God in forgiving sin," so that "by the moral worth" of his sacrifice God is enabled to justly "issue pardon to all who penitently believe."[145] However, because Christ did not suffer the equivalent penalty nor was he punished for the sins of the world, this vicarious understanding should not be understood in a penal or commercial sense. Instead, we should understand that it was a "sympathetic heaven" which agreed to accept the moral worth of Christ's sacrifice as satisfaction for the demands of justice. It is a merciful estimation which preserves good government, and offers grace without full satisfaction or payment for sin.[146]
The influence of the governmental theory during 1860s and 1870s is seen in the Gospel Advocate. David Lipscomb even found some of Munnell's terminology in his 1868 sermon objectionable. "Calvinistic phraseology," according to Lipscomb, was "modernized" by Munnell. "The term legally responsible is repeatedly used by our Brothers and if it has meaning at all, it means that when Jesus was legally bound, the sinner was legally free. The old Calvinistic idea precisely."[147] While denying a moral influence theory,[148] in 1868 Lipscomb objected to substitutionary language. "Now the whole truth is, there is no such idea taught in the Bible as that Jesus died as a substitute for, in stead, in place of, the sinner. The idea had its origin in the speculations of metaphysical system builders, not from the teachings of the Holy Spirit." Since Christ did not suffer the penalty due to sinners, that is, spiritual alienation from God, he "was not in any proper sense a substitute for the sinner."[149] Christ's suffering, however, was to secure the good ends of God's government.[150] He blames a renewal of interest in this terminology on the "tendency of many of our young brethren, claiming a superior education, to substitute the style and phrases of scholastic theology, for the terms and styles of the Bible."[151] Lipscomb thought that had been settled when Stone and Campbell controverted the issue "thirty years ago."[152] Despite, however, the different nuances of Lipscomb and Munnell, the two held a substantially governmental view of the atonement, even though Lipscomb disliked some particular terminology.[153]
During the 1860s and 1870s, however, the moral influence theory had not disappeared from the ranks of the Disciples. Yet, it was often the foil for the penal and governmental thinkers. Moral influence was the theory to be avoided. W. K. Pendleton, for example, believed its error "fatal" since it omits "that which alone makes Christ truly a Redeemer." It is a theory "of the earth, earthy."[154] Nevertheless, its influence grew though it did not dominate during the mid-nineteenth century.
In the 1869 Rees Jones argued in a lengthy Gospel Advocate article that any notion of the "vicarious suffering of Jesus Christ" is a "spurious gospel". Christ did not die as a substitute, nor satisfy justice or reconcile God to humanity. The atonement was entirely directed toward humanity, and not to God.[155] In what Issac Errett called the "sound anti-progressive" Bible Index,[156] an anonymous article was published which advocated a moral influence theory and reduced the death of Christ to an exemplary martyrdom.[157] In the 1885 Christian Quarterly Review, Bailey argued that the function of Christ's death is to enable us to know "that He taught fully and truthfully the terms upon which God will accept us."[158] The major advocate, however, of the moral influence theory in the last quarter of the nineteenth century was J. S. Lamar. He published his views in two major essays, one as an appendix to his 1877 commentary on Luke, and the other as an article in Garrison's 1891 The Old Faith Restated.[159]
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the moral influence grew to a dominant place in the thinking of the Disciples. J. H. Garrison recommended Lamar's appendix, [160] and the The Christian-Evangelist became a forum for debating the merits of the moral influence theory over penal and governmental theories. In the same year Lamar's commentary on Luke was published, 1877, G. L. Harney published an eight article series in The Christian stating the case for the moral influence theory .[161] A. B. Jones followed with several articles defending the moral influence theory in which he dismissed Munnell's discussion in the Living Pulpit.[162] In response, Munnell as well as others engaged the discussion, but it was clear that the governmental theory was losing ground.[163] For example, W. H. Bryan feared that his only hope, "the vicarious life and death" the Savior was being taken from him.[164]
However, it was in the 1895-1896 Christian-Evangelist where the debate between the three theories of atonement was fully engaged. H. M. Brooks[165] published four articles and Peter Vogel[166] thirty-three articles in defense of the moral influence theory of atonement. Vogel, for example, argued that the "chief power to reconcile lies in the death of Christ, because therein his love reached its highest manifestation." This is achieved by Christ's example and the "direct transforming power" of God which dwells within us. However, transformation is something "everyone must do for himself, which Christ himself did, and which he has qualified himself to aide us in doing, and which everyone in his own measure must qualify himself to help his fellow man to do and so be salt in the earth."[167] The power of the atonement is one of transformation where God dwells in us through Christ as "living force" which creates righteousness in us.[168]
Munnell, representing the government theory,[169] and S. C. Pierce from the framework of penal substitution[170] responded to Vogel. Munnell questioned Vogel's process view which believes that each soul must "get well for itself," and argued that it is a view which leads to "pure Unitarianism" and questions the deity of Christ.[171] S. C. Pierce maintained that the substitutionary work of Christ was both passive and active, that is, Christ's death "takes the place of sufferings which otherwise must be borne by others," and his "obedience or perfect keeping of God's law, was substitutionary work, or work done for man."[172] Pierce also recognized that "Unitarianism" was the dominant influence in the discussion of the atonement in recent years.[173]
In the nineteenth century, the general pattern of atonement discussion moved from penal substitution to the governmental theory to the emerging prominence of a moral influence theory. This pattern differs little from the developments within the Reformed and Methodist traditions. It reflects broader cultural and theological influences beyond the discussion of the atonement. However, in the last decade of the nineteenth century and in the first few decades of the twentieth century, the penal substitution theory was renewed in the Gospel Advocate, as it had always had a small presence in the Christian-Evangelist and a more prominent presence in the Christian Standard.[174] The resurgence of the peanl understanding might be traced to the influence of James A. Harding and the Nashville Bible School. This is illustrated by the thought of R. H. Boll who studied in Nashville in the 1890s and taught with Harding at Potter Bible School. Boll maintained, contra an early Lipscomb, that the "principle of substitution" is the fundamental explanation of that doctrine of atonement where the price of eternal death was paid by Jesus Christ. "God does not save sinners by making excuse or allowance for their sins and arbitrarily letting them pass, but by sending his Son to shoulder the debt and assume responsibility of the penalty on our behalf, while strictly accounting for everything."[175] At the turn of the century, the Gospel Advocate, and this was continued in Harding's The Way, saw a renewal of the traditional theory of atonement. Even Lipscomb appears, as far as I can determine, to have had a change of heart. In 1897, Lipscomb approves terminology he had earlier condemned, e.g., the language that Christ died "in the stead" of the sinner.[176] It was a return to the Campbellian perspective and a rejection of Stone's theory of atonement which was more urgent in the wake of modern discussion of the new continental theology.
The Discontinuance of Discussion
This brief survey indicates that the discussion of the atonement did not dissipate with the deaths of Stone and Campbell.[177] Rather, it was an ongoing discussion within the Restoration Movement. In fact, at many times in its history, it was a centerpiece of discussion. For example, in the first five years of the Christian Quarterly Review (April 1882-January 1888), there were six major essays on the doctrine of atonement (two governmental, three moral and one penal substitution).[178]
However, three themes were constant throughout the writings of outsiders to the controversy and some controversialists. First, we should speak only in the language of Scripture and eschew all metaphysical and scholastic terms about the atonement. Second, we should concentrate on proclaiming the facts of the gospel rather than explaining its philosophy. Third, we should resist arguing about theories of atonement since these are unrevealed and tend only to divide the movement. These themes tended to dampen and discourage discussion. They tended to push the understanding of the meaning of the death of Christ into the background while at the same time pushing the human response to the gospel into the foreground. It moved discussion away from what God did to what we must do. It moved the discussion from the accomplishment of redemption to its application.
For example, J. W. McGarvey consistently insisted that the discussion of theories was unprofitable and unnecessary. Such theorizing seeks to understand something God did not reveal, and "the human mind can never be sure what his reasoning on the matter is." Instead, McGarvey counsels, "it is enough for us to know and act upon the human side."[179] He calls us to accept the fact of God's act in Christ, the fact of God's revelation, and he surmises that "if men had accepted this fact without attempting to explain it, we should have been spared much perplexity."[180] When it comes to explaining the atonement, McGarvey admits he is ignorant. No one "knows what the reasoning of God was on this subject, by which he felt compelled, according to His own infinite nature, to refuse to pardon a single sin except through the blood of His Son." God has not revealed this, and we should not speculate about it.[181] Consequently, McGarvey discouraged discussion of the atonement except when it came under attack from the quarters of higher criticism and the continental theology.[182]
Issac Errett is the soul-mate of McGarvey on this topic. While rejecting any mere martyr theology or moral influence atonement,[183] he states that since Scripture "reveals no philosophy of atonement" we cannot demand "consent to any theory."[184] After a brief history of atonement theories, Errett admits that there is some truth in all of them. But "the subject is too vast to be grapsed," and "it is best, in the humble spirit of discipleship to accept what is revealed, without prying too curiously into mysteries which we cannot master."[185]
Others as well decried the attempt to get behind the scriptures and explain the atonement. In the Christian J. T. Miles, for example, called for the simple preaching of the gospel according to Acts 2 without discussing whether "the death of Christ was vicarious or not" or "the philosophy of the plan of salvation."[186] Probably the best illustration of this tendency are several articles by C. W. Sewell in the 1876 Gospel Advocate. There is no theory, according to Sewell, which "is not fraught with mischief."[187] Sewell, however, intended to offer "no opinion beyond the facts declared in the words."[188] "We need no themes, no views," he writes, except what "is said in the Bible," and we need no words which are "not found in the Bible." If we do otherwise then we will introduce foreign ideas and it will produce "division and strife."[189] The bottom line for Sewell is that "since Christ died all who become reconciled to God through him, and obey him to the best of their ability, will be saved."[190]
In the middle of the often heated exchanges on atonement theology, the discussion of theology is rejected. The Restoration Movement moved toward a reduction of theology to a repetition of the words of Scripture; to a proclamation of the facts of Scripture without understanding or probing the depths of what those facts mean. As a result, discussion of the atonement ceased on the part of certain segments of the Restoration Movement. With the cessation of discussion, there is the corresponding introduction of an emphasis on the human side of salvation. With the emphasis on the human side of salvation comes a neglect of the gracious act of God in Christ. When the attention turns from what God has done to what we must do, then what Christ has accomplished becomes merely a human opportunity to comply with God's law. When the discussion of God's work in Christ is neglected, a subtle and unintentional legalism creeps into thinking of believers. Instead of distancing ourselves from a discussion of atonement, we ought to engage the discussion of the atonement in order to clear the cobwebs of a subtle legalism which is a perennial problem for the church of God.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I return to the story of Campbell and Stone. Alexander Campbell initiated the formal exchange between himself and Stone when he commented on the question "What is a Unitarian?" The question arose from among those who surmised that Campbell was too "Trinitarian" and objected to his persistent use of the term "Unitarianism." Apparently, the Stonites, and Stone himself,[191] always felt that they were the objects of these attacks because Stone continued to seek some kind of union between the Reformers and the Christian Connection. While Campbell had a distaste for party names, he did "repudiate" anyone who deny "both the divine nature of my Redeemer, and the necessity of his death as a sin-offering in order to remission."[192] In a fuller statement, at the end of his discussion with Stone in 1841, Campbell rejected any Christianity which does not honor "God the Father of all," does not rely "upon the person, mission and death of the Word incarnate," and was not "inspired, cherished, animated, and inflamed by the Holy Spirit dwelling in" the soul.[193] Campbell feared that in the "definition of certain Bible names" a "modern" sense had been imposed on them which led to the logical implications of what Campbell called "Unitarianism." He saw this tendency in Stone. As a result, he invited Stone to engage him in a discussion of sin and sin-offerings.[194] Stone complied, even though he was a bit hesitant because he feared strife and contention within the union.[195]
The conclusion of the discussion was amicable, but it unearthed the full dimensions of their disagreement. Rice, in his debate with Campbell, noted that this discussion reveals how "fundamentally the two most prominent men in this reform church differ from each other on two of the most important doctrines of the gospel--the character and work of Christ."[196] Nevertheless, despite the differences, Campbell found no reason to repudiate Stone or his theological disciples. Others, however, did. Andrew Broaddus, the leader of the Regular Baptists of Virginia, wrote to commend Campbell for his defense of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, but questioned his continued fellowship with Stone. According to Broaddus, it was unconscionable that the "community of Reformers" would "give this matter the 'go by' in his terms of fellowship, and to fraternize with those whose views are subversive of this foundation."[197] Penal, substitutionary atonement was a fundamental of the Christian faith.[198] Broaddus could not make "common cause" with anyone who held a moral influence theory of atonement, "who allow no more atoning efficacy to the blood of the Son of God, than to that of Peter or Paul,--nay, I might say, that to that of 'bulls and goats' under the legal dispensation."[199] He wanted to know how Campbell could.
Campbell responded that the atonement is the "foundation of the Christian's hope." It is, he writes, the "sub-basis of the remedial system, the corner stone of the Christian superstructure, the grand central idea of the everlasting covenant." Consequently, Broaddus' question "deserves our gravest consideration."[200] On the basis of Ephesians 4, Campbell believed that "we must fraternize with all who practically own one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one hope, one God and Father of all" and "with all such we must maintain the unity of spirit in the bonds of peace."[201] In his 1860 address to the American Christian Missionary Society, he refered to these as the seven hills of the "true Zion of Israel's God." They are the seven "divinely constructed and instituted pillars" which are "alone sufficient, and the all-sufficient foundation--the indestructible basis--of Christ's kingdom on this earth, and of man's spiritual and eternal salvation in the full enjoyment of himself, his Creator, his Redeemer."[202]
Campbell recognized, of course, that "on these subjects there has been an interminable, international, sectarian speculative war in which all parties have incorporated the language of Ashdod." All parties of this war have entered the ranks of the Reformers, but they have entered to the end that there might be full and free discussion as they move to "a more clear and full agreement."[203] Campbell believes that as long as one "practically" admits "but one Lord and one sacrifice for sin," and that "without Christ's blood there is no remission," then he will commune with them despite the fact that their speculations apparently deny what they affirm.[204] Campbell accepts Stone because he sees in Stone a practical faith which affirms the seven ones of Ephesians even though they may disagree about how to understand the fullness of some of those particulars. In the same breath, Campbell invites Broaddus and his "Baptist Christians" to extend the right hand of fellowship to him as he has done to Stone.[205]
Campbell envisions a community of believers who assent to the seven ones of Ephesians 4 where discussion and communion continue "although in many points [the community] may err both in theory and practice." Campbell calls for a theological unity around the seven ones, but for a unity that is ever progressing toward a deeper and fuller understanding of those seven fundamental beliefs. It would be a discussion that recognizes genuine faith in each other but where theology is in process for the community. The community is centered in the same faith as it seeks to understand that faith in the context of community. This is the task of theology--exegetical, historical and theological--within a community. This is where scholars need to serve the church and minister to its faith.
We have been a fellowship with faith, but a faith, at times, without explicit theological content or thought. We have been a fellowship founded on facts, and a faith that rested in those facts without pursing the deeper resources of our faith. We have assumed self-interpreting bare facts. Consequently, we have known what we believed without understanding it; we have had a faith without theology. As a result, we have been content to proclaim the facts of the gospel without probing the mystery of the gospel; to proclaim the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus without understanding the theological principles which frame its meaning. A proclamation of facts without meaning is a proclamation that will fail to not only connect with the contemporary world, but will reinterpret the gospel through the lens of a contemporary grid. When we fail to interpret the gospel--to seek to understand it, to reflect on its theological principles--we will inevitably give the gospel a meaning which it never intended. If there is no conscious effort to understand the meaning of faith, it will be interpreted by default. The default will be drawn from our modern or post-modern grids which will impose a meaning on the gospel from without rather than understanding the gospel from within.
The task of this new fellowship of Restoration scholars is to proceed with the exposition of the faith; to understand the meaning of the gospel for a contemporary world. Our task is not only to affirm the seven ones of Ephesians but to understand them, search out their theological principles and apply them to the contemporary church. By pursuing this task, we, as scholars in the Restoration tradition, may engage in a thorough dialogue for the constructive task of proclaiming the gospel of God to the church, and to the world.
I. Historical Setting.
A. Campbell and Stone Movements.
B. The Union of Campbell and Stone Movements.
1. General Problems.
2. Christological Problems.
3. Atonement Problems.
II. Atonement Views in the Restoration Movement.
A. Stone on Moral Influence.
B. Campbell on Penal Theory.
C. Scott on Governmental Theory.
D. Unity within the Movement Despite Diversity.
III. Development of Atonement Views in Restoration Movement.
A. Movement from Penal to Governmental to Moral.
B. Undermining the Discussion.
1. Language of Theories vs. Language of Scripture.
2. Speculative vs. Facts.
3. Divivise vs. Unity on Scripture.
4. Focus on the human side rather than the divine side.
IV. Biblical Reflections.
A. The Necessity of Thinking about this Subject.
1. Without thinking, we substitute our own ideas of atonement.
2. Thinking about it, we focus on the divine work=grace.
3. Thinking about it, gives us proper perspectives and models.
a. God's holiness.
b. God's sacrifice.
c. God's love and initiative.
d. God's forbearance.
e. God's
B. Threefold Categorization: Dynamic, Subjective and Objective.
1. There is a Spiritual Struggle: Dynamic character.
This contains an incarnational perspective.
2. There is a Transformation of the Sinner: Subjective.
This is the sanctifying process of life with God.
3. There is a Movement in the Life of God: Objective.
This is the justifying moment of God.
C. Function of Resurrection: The Union of the Gospel in One Dynamic Event.
ENDNOTES
[1]
David F. Wells, "The Debate over the Atonement in 19th Century America," Bibliotheca Sacra (April-June 1987), 123-43; (July-September 1987), 243-53; (October-December 1987), 363-76; (January-March 1988), 3-14.[2] Robert Chiles, Theological Transition in American Methodism: 1790-1935 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965), pp. 144-83.
[3] Wells, p. 247.
[4] Ibid., p. 248.
[5] See his Finney's Systematic Theology, edited by J. H. Fairchild (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1976), pp. 194-217. William R. Sutton has argued that the governmental theology of Nathaniel Taylor (a kind of "benevolent Calvinism") provided the theological substructure for the Second Great Awakening. Cf. "Benevolent Calvinism and the Moral Government of God: The Influence of Nathaniel W. Taylor on Revivalism in the Second Great Awakening," Religion and American Culture 2 (Winter 1992), 23-47.
[6] These differences are discussed in various places. See Dean Mills, Union on the King's Highway: The Campbell-Stone Heritage of Unity (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1987), pp. 67-70, 90-98; William Garrett West, Barton Warren Stone: Early American Advocate of Christian Unity (Nashville, TN: The Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1954), pp. 153-175; and George Richard Phillips, "Differences in the Theological and Philosophical Backgrounds of Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone and Resulting Differences of Thrust in their Theological Formulations," (Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1968). Recently, Richard T. Hughes has argued for a major worldview difference between Stone's vision of Christianity and Campbell's along the lines of apocalyptic versus progressivism, "The Apocalyptic Origins of Churches of Christ and the Triumph of Modernism," Religion and American Culture 2 (Summer 1992), 181-214.
[7] Alexander Campbell, "To the Christian Messenger," The Christian Messenger 2 (November 1827), 10. The Christian Messenger is hereafter cited as CM.
[8]Ibid., p. 6.
[9]Barton W. Stone, "Reply," CM 2 (November 1827), 11.
[10]Campbell was not enthusiastic about the union with the "Christians," and, according to West, if it had been up to Campbell's initiative, the union would have never taken place. Cf. West, Stone, p. 139.
[11] Campbell, "To the Christian Messenger," 7. Campbell writes in another place: "I regard no man as a believer in Jesus as the Messiah, who denies that he is a divine person, the only begotten of God; or who refuses to worship and adore him with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength." Cf. "Mr. Broaddus," Millennial Harbinger 4 (January 1833), 9. The Millennial Harbinger is hereafter cited as MH.
[12]Campbell, "Mr. Broaddus," 9: "As far as my acquaintance with all the brethren extends, North, South, East, or West, (whatever their former opinions I know not,) they all accord in rendering the same honor in thought, word, and deed to the Son, as they do to the Father who sent him."
[13]John Augustus Williams, Life of Elder John Smith; with some account of the Rise and Progress of the Current Reformation (Cincinnati, OH: R. W. Carroll and Co., 1870), p. 455. Cf. West, Stone, pp. 147-150.
[14] Campbell, A Debate Between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice (Lexington, KY: A. T. Skillman & Son, 1844), 865. Friends of Stone, including John Rogers and John Allen Gano, resented the implication that Campbell had saved Stone. Campbell published their protest, "Elder B. Stone," MH 15 (September 1844), 414-5.
[16]Stone, "The Editor's remarks on brother H. Cyrus' letter, No. 2," CM 9 (July 1835), 163: "Arius asserted that Jesus Christ was a created intelligence of the highest order, and Athanasius contended he was begotten, not made...and to this [Athanasius, JMH] have I subscribed long ago, as the most probable. See my letters to Doc. Blythe. I acknowledge that much speculation has been used on both sides of the long vexatious question. I, like many others, have indulged in it; but convinced of its inutility, and bad effects in society, have for several years back relinquished these speculations, and have confined myself to the language of scripture in my public teaching." Cf. David Newell Williams, "The Theology of the Great Revival in the West as seen through the Life and Thought of Barton Warren Stone," (Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1979), pp. 115-116. Stone felt "disposed to use scriptural terms, when speaking on this subject, and therefore call Jesus the Son of God, the only begotten, &c. I can see nothing in scripture to justify the idea of the Son of God being created, the idea appears too low." Cf. "Queries," CM 7 (May 1833), 139.
[17]Stone, "Reply to Brother John Curd's Letter," CM 8 (August 1834), 239.
[18]For example, Stone, "Letter IV: To a Presbyterian Preacher," CM 2 (August 1828), 247: "The doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, and not the living God himself--that he existed a distinct intelligent being from the Father in heaven before creation, and by whom God created all things--that this being was sent into the world by the Father, not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him--that he was made flesh and dwelt among us,--that he suffered, died and ascended up where he was before--This doctrine we cannot but believe."
[19] See, for example, "Methodistic Calumny" MH 4 (July 1833), 300-304 and "Letter from Henry Grew," MH 4 (July 1833), 304-309. Cf. West, Stone, pp. 176-188.
[20]Alexander Campbell, "Sermons to Young Preachers--No. 4," Christian Baptist 7 (April 1830), 215.
[21] Stone, "Reply to Brother John Curd's Letter," p. 239: "You wish to understand the Doctor's opposition to us. I cannot do it; unless it is, because of the union between us and the Reformers, (once so called.) This I am satisfied is the true reason; yet I may be mistaken."
[22] Ibid.
[23]Stone, "[Untitled] " CM 10 (July 1836), 103. When he is attacked, Stone complains that he speaks only "in the very language of scripture." Cf. "Remarks of the Editor," CM 9 (June 1835), 140.
[24]Stone, "Reply to Brother John Curd's Letter," p. 239.
[25] This assertion is based on the index of The Christian Messenger prepared by students at Harding University Graduate School of Religion. Their index indicates 139 items about baptism, 56 items on the Holy Spirit, 48 on the church, 46 on unity, and 55 on the atonement. Cf. Index to the Christian Messenger, edited by Barry A. Jones and Charles C. Dorsey (Lincoln, IL: privately published, 1984).
[26]Noah Worcester, The Atoning Sacrifice: A Display of Love--not of Wrath (Cambridge: Hilliard and Brown, 1829).
[27]Stone, "The Conference in Terra Confusa," CM 5 (August 1831), 170. Cf. Stone, An Address to the Christian Churches in Kentucky, Tennessee & Ohio on Several Important Doctrines of Religion, 2nd edition (Lexington, KY: I. T. Cavins & Co., 1821).
[28]Stone, "Dr. Worcester on the Atonement," CM 4 (December 1829), 2-6.
[29] Thomas Campbell, "Worcester on the Atonement," MH 4 (June 1833), 256-62.
[30]Stone, "To Elder Thomas Campbell," CM 7 (July 1833), 204-210; (August 1833), 225-30. Thomas Campbell, "[Letter]," MH 4 (August 1833), 421-25; (September 1833), 439-45; (October 1833), 503-508; (November 1833), 548-53; and (December 1833), 594-98.
[31]Alexander Campbell, "[Bracketed Remarks]," MH 4 (June 1833), 256. Cf. also Thomas Campbell, "To Barton W. Stone," MH 4 (December 1833), 598: "I little thought when I wrote to gratify friend Thompson, that it should prove an occasion for what has taken place between us."
[32]Campbell, "Letter VI.--To. B. W. Stone," MH 12 (March 1841), 118.
[33]The original discussion was published both in the Christian Messenger and in the Millennial Harbinger. I will be citing the exchange from the Millennial Harbinger. Stone's articles, "Atonement," appear in MH 11 (June 1840), 243-46; (July 1840), 289-93; (September 1840), 387-90; (October 1840), 464-70; 12 (January 1841), 12-18; (February 1841), 59-65; (March 1841), 113-18; (April 1841), 156-63; (June 1841), 248-52; (July 1841), 295-300; (August 1841), 369-72; (September 1841), 389-93. Campbell's replies appear in MH 11 (June 1840), 246-50; (July 1840), 294-98; (September 1840), 391-96; (October 1840), 471-73; 12 (January 1841), 18-24; (February 1841), 65-68; (March 1841), 118-22; (April 1841), 163-67; (May 1841), 234-37; (June 1841), 253-58; (July 1841), 300-304; (August 1841), 373; (September 1841), 394-402.
[34]Just months before his death, Stone was planning to publish the 1840-41 exchange between Alexander Campbell and himself with an extended appendix. Campbell wanted to add his own appendix, but Stone died before it could be published. Cf. "Discussion," MH 15 (September 1844), 417.
[35]Walter Scott, "On the Death of Christ," The Evangelist 3 (October 1834), 217-19; (December 1834), 275-78; 4 (March 1835), 49-52; (April 1835), 73-77; (May 1835), 103-106; and (June 1835), 121-23.
[36]Scott, "Death of Christ," 4 (March 1835), 49.
[37]Scott, "Death of Christ," 4 (April 1835), 73.
[38] Scott, The Gospel Restored. A Discourse of the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. Cincinnati: O. H. Donogh, 1836.
[39] Ibid., pp. 79-87.
[40]Stone, "A few friendly remarks..." CM 10 (November 1836), 169-73.
[41]Ibid., 169.
[42]Thomas Campbell, "Worcester," p. 258.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Ibid., p. 261.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid., p. 259.
[48] Stone, "To Elder Thomas Campbell, Senr.," CM 7 (July 1833), 205.
[49] Ibid., p. 207.
[50] Stone, "II. To Elder Thomas Campbell," CM 7 (August 1833), 299-300.
[51] Stone, "Address," p. 110, in Works of Elder B. W. Stone to which is added A Few Discourses and Sermons, ed. by Elder James M. Mathes, 2nd ed (Cincinnati: Moore, Wilstach, Keys & Co., Printers, 1859).
[52]D. Newell Williams, "The Power of Christ's Sacrifice: Barton W. Stone's Doctrine of Atonement," Discipliana 54 (Spring 1994), 27.
[53] Stone, "Queries," CM 7 (May 1833), 140.
[54] Stone, "Reply," CM 10 (July 1836), 110.
[55]Stone, "Reply to Brother John Curds Letter," CM 8 (August 1834), 235-6.
[56] Stone, "Forgiveness. No. 2," CM 8 (February 1834), 53.
[57] Stone, "Elder Thomas Campbell," CM 7 (August 1833), 7.
[58] Stone, "Address," 273.
[59] Ibid., 274.
[60]Stone, "The Conference in Terra Confusa," CM 5 (July 1831), 152; cf. pp. 149-153 and "Address," pp. 127ff.
[61]Stone, "Conference in Terra Confusa," CM 5 (August 1831), 173.
[62] Stone, "Reply," CM 3 (July 1829), 221.
[63]Ibid, pp. 221-22.
[64] Ibid., p. 223. Stone comments on the word "necessary" with these words: "Though this be the Lord's plan of saving and forgiving, as ordained in the gospel, yet we are very far from saying that he will forgive no other. This would be to cut off all the heathen, who have not heard the gospel, from forgiveness, however penitent they might be--this would contradict a matter of fact, recorded of the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius" (p. 223).
[65] Stone, "Reply," CM 10 (July 1836), 108. Cf. Stone's "Address," p. 92.
[66]Stone, Atonement: The Substance of Two Letters Written to a Friend (Lexington, KY: Joseph Charless, 1805), pp. 14-15.
[67]Ibid., 5-6.
[68] Williams, "The Theology of the Great Revival," 102.
[69] Ibid., p. 106.
[70]Cf. Williams, "The Power of Christ's Sacrifice," p. 23. He cites Stone, Atonement, pp. 14-15.
[71]Stone, "Address," 141.
[72]For example, he writes, "The doctrine of justification according to the New Testament has been misunderstood generally by theologians. They have considered it in the forensic sense. Cf. "The Conference in Terra Confusa," CM 5 (August 1831), 171.
[73] Stone, Atonement, pp. 20-24. I am indebted to Williams, "Theology of the Great Revival," 103, for this reference.
[74] Stone, "Address," pp. 107-108.
[75] Stone, "Comment on Isaiah LIII, 6-12," CM 4 (April 1830), 102.
[76] Stone, The Biography of Elder Barton W. Stone, written by himself: with additions and reflections by Elder John Rogers (Cincinnati: published for the author by J. A. & U. P. James, 1847), 56.
[77]Williams details the significance of these two perspectives in his dissertation, "Theology of the Great Revival," pp. 78-95.
[78] Stone, "Charges Exhibited Against Mr. Barnes," CM 5 (September 1831), 202.
[79] Stone, "Elder Thomas Campbell," CM 7 (July 1833), 208: "That the blood of Christ does effect the remission of sins is an undoubted truth. But how, is the question." Thomas Campbell, "To Barton W. Stone," MH 4 (September 1833), 439 responds to the question.
[80] Stone, "Elder Thomas Campbell," CM 7 (July 1833), 208.
[81] Thomas Campbell, "To Barton W. Stone," MH 4 (September 1833), 439.
[82] Ibid., 440.
[83] Ibid., 442.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Ibid., 444.
[86] Stone, "Elder Thomas Campbell," CM 7 (July 1833), 210.
[87] Thomas Campbell, "To Barton W. Stone," MH 4 (October 1833), 505.
[88] Thomas Campbell, "To Barton W. Stone," MH 4 (December 1833), 596.
[89] Thomas Campbell, "To B. W. Stone," MH 4 (November 1833), 548.
[90] Stone, "Elder Thomas Campbell," CM 7 (August 1833), 226.
[91] Thomas Campbell, "To B. W. Stone," MH 4 (November 1833), 549.
[92] Scott, Gospel Restored, p. 80. This material on political justice is also found in "Death of Christ," The Evangelist 4 (May 1835), 103-106.
[93] Ibid., 81.
[94] Ibid., 82.
[95] Ibid.
[96] Ibid., 83.
[97] Scott, "Death of Christ," The Evangelist 3 (October 1834), 217.
[98] Scott, "Death of Christ," The Evangelist 4 (June 1835), 122.
[99] Scott, "Death of Christ," The Evangelist 4 (March 1835), 51-52.
[100] Scott, "Death of Christ," The Evangelist 4 (April 1835), 75-77.
[101] Scott, "Death of Christ," The Evangelist 3 (December 1834), 277-78.
[102] Scott, He Nekrosis, or The Death of Christ, Written for the Recovery of the Church from Sects ( Cincinnati: Walter Scott, Publishers, 1853; reprinted by College Press of Joplin, MO, n.d.).
[103] Ibid., 82.
[104] Ibid., 87.
[105] Stone, "Walter Scott's Views of Atonement," CM 10 (November 1836), 169-70.
[106] Ibid., 173.
[107] Ibid., 172. Cf. Stone, "The First and Second Adam," CM 13 (May 1843), 12-17.
[108] Stone, "Address," 129. Cf. Stone, "Reply," CM 6 (March 1832), 81: "Now it is not the fact that the many, or all mankind are really made morally righteous or holy by the obedience of Christ; therefore we cannot conclude that the man, or all mankind are really made morally sinful by the disobedience of Adam. They were constituted sinners, or treated as such, because they were condemned to die. So shall (it is in the future tense) all men be constituted righteous, or treated as righteous, because they are justified to life, or raised from the dead, and thus delivered from the condemnation brought on them by the first transgression."
[109] Stone, "Queries," CM 7 (May 1833), 139.
[110] Stone, "Reply to Brother John Curd's Letter," CM 8 (August 1834), 238.
[111] Wells provides an extended summation of these issues within the Reformed tradition, "Collison," pp. 364-76.
[112] Williams notes this aspect of Stone's concern for justice, "Power of Christ's Sacrifice," p. 28.
[113] Stone, "Remarks on Achippus' No. 5," CM 5 (July 1831), 161.
[114] Jacob Creath, "Importance of the Death of Christ," MH 34 (February 1863), 58-60; (March 1863), 135-37; (April 1863), 161-63; and (May 1863), 229-32.
[115] Creath, "Importance," MH 34 (February 1863), 58. Campbell placed himself among the views of the traditional Reformers. He writes: "For myself, I acknowledge that my sectarian partialities, as well as my more mature convictions, are all on the side of the general views of the Protestant reformers in those questions which involve the person, office, and work of the Messiah," "Campbell to Broaddus," MH 13 (April 1842), 211. So also H. G. H., "Pardon," p. 461: "It was the great doctrine of the reformation, which our first reformers made their chief study."
[116] Campbell, in Popular Lectures and Addresses (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate reprint of 1861 edition), 562.
[117] H. G. H., "Pardon and Justification," MH 38 (September 1867), 457-62: "And so likewise justification is by the same blood. Because the law pronounced death because of transgression, and as Christ came to keep the law on account of man's inability, he must needs die,--his blood must be shed in order to fulfill that law, and to procure our justification from the breaking of the law...Christ having had the sins of his people imputed to him, that is, laid on him, and having made satisfaction to the justice of God, for them, he was acquitted, discharged and justified (pp. 458-59, 461).
[118] Robert Milligan, "Synoptical Exposition of Scripture. No. v.--Romans III:21-31," MH 30 (April 1859), 188-192. "It is enough for us to know that the blood of Christ has magnified the law of God and made it honorable; that it has removed old governmental difficulties out of the way; that the only remaining hindrances are in the sinner himself..." (p. 190).
[119] Robert Milligan, An Exposition and Defense of the Scheme of Redemption (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1868), 236-37. His views on the atonement are explained in pp. 226-36.
[120] Ibid., 236.
[121] Ibid., 235.
[122] H. Christopher, The Remedial System; or, Man and His Redeemer (Lexington, KY: Transylvania Printing and Publishing Co., 1875), 217.
[123]Ibid., 220
[124] Ibid., 224.
[125]Ibid., 237.
[126] Ibid., 227.
[127] Ibid., 229. See also, p. 232: "Thus, when the sins of the world were laid upon Christ he was treated as though he were the sinner in fact, although he was sinless; and when the sinner accepts Christ as his atonement, God imputes or counts to him,, or invests him with, the righteousness of Christ which becomes his character on account of his acceptance of Christ."
[128]Clement, "The Atonement," Lard's Quarterly 5 (April 1868), 158-193.
[129] Ibid., p. 167.
[130] Ibid., p. 169.
[131] Ibid., pp. 177-9.
[132] Ibid., pp. 186-7.
[133] Ibid., pp. 188-91.
[134] For example, among many, Thomas Munnell, "Atonement," The Christian 17 (16 January 1879), 5; (20 February 1879), 5; "The Atonement," The Christian-Evangelist 19 (22 December 1881), 1; "Necessity of the Atonement," The Christian-Evangelist 32 (5 December 1895), 775; "Philosophy of the Atonement," Christian-Evangelist 32 (12 December 1895), 791; "Atonement-Reconciliation," The Christian-Evangelist 32 (26 December 1895), 822; "Bro. Vogel on Atonement," The Christian-Evangelist 33 (9 April 1896), 237.
[135] Thomas Munnell, "Atonement," in The Living Pulpit of the Christian Church (Cincinnati: R. W. Carroll & Co., Publishers, 1868), pp. 87-101.
[136] Thomas Munnell, "The Atonement," Christian Quarterly Review 1 (April 1882), 1-13.
[137] See the first page of each essay in the previous two footnotes.
[138] For example, Munnell, Atonement," The Christian 17 (16 January 1879), 5; (20 February 1879), 5.
[139] Munnell, "The Atonement," The Christian-Evangelist 19 (22 December 1881), 1
[140] Munnell, Living Pulpit, 87.
[141] Ibid., 95.
[142] Munnell, Christian Quarterly Review, 2.
[143] Ibid., 3.
[144] Munnell, Living Pulpit, 98.
[145] Munnell, Christian Quarterly Review, 8.
[146] Ibid., 10.
[147] David Lipscomb, "Living Pulpit," Gospel Advocate 10 (19 March 1868), 265.
[148] He clearly does so in "The Blood of Christ," in Salvation From Sin, ed. by J. W. Shepherd (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1950), 162. See also David Lipscomb, "The Object of Christ's Death," Gospel Advocate 25 (27 June 1883), 406; (6 July 1883), 423; (18 July 1883), 449.
[149] Ibid., 267.
[150] Lipscomb, "Living Pulpit," Gospel Advocate 10 (5 March 1868), 221; see also "Living Pulpit," Gospel Advocate 10 (27 February 1868), 198-9.
[151] Lipscomb, "Living Pulpit," 267.
[152] Lipscomb, "Living Pulpit," 199.
[153] This was also the view of other writers in the Gospel Advocate. See, for example, the series by C. W. Sewell, "What has the Death of Christ Accomplished for the World?," Gospel Advocate 14 (18 January 1872), 59-61; (25 January 1872), 79-81; (1 February 1872), 110-11; (8 February 1872), 131-3; and (7 March 1872), 234-6, as well as these other articles by Sewell, "Without the Shedding of Blood there is no Remission," Gospel Advocate 18 (23 June 1876), 590; "Orthodoxy of the Atonement," Gospel Advocate 18 (27 July 1876), 704-5; and "Scripture on the Atonement," Gospel Advocate 18 (24 August 1876), 818-9.
[154] W. K. Pendleton, "The Doctrine of the Atonement," The Christian Quarterly 4 (July 1872), 305.
[155] Rees Jones, "A Spurious Gospel," Gospel Advocate 11 (15 July 1869), 649-57.
[156] Issac Errett, "Unsound Doctrine," Christian Standard 9 (13 September 1873), 292.
[157] "How Christ was Made Sin," Bible Index 1 (August 1873), 147-8.
[158] L. Y. Bailey, "The Atonement," Christian Quarterly Review 4 (July 1885), 373.
[159] J. S. Lamar, "Appendix to Chapter XXIV. 44-47: The Atonement," in New Testament Commentary, Vol. II.--Luke (Des Moines, IA: Eugene S. Smith; reprint of 1877 edition), pp. 287-300; and "The Ground of Man's Need of Salvation, or Sin and Its Remedy," in The Old Faith Restated, ed. by J. H. Garrison (St. Louis: Christian Publishing Co., 1891).
[160] J. H. Garrison, "Questions and Answers," The Christian-Evangelist 28 (5 February 1891), 89.
[161] G. L. Harney, "The Atonement of Scripture," The Christian 15 (16 August 1877), 2; (23 August 1877), 2; (6 September 1877), 2-3; (13 September 1877), 2; (20 September 1877), 2; (27 September 1877), 2-3; (4 October 1877), 2-3.
[162] A. B. Jones, "A View of the Atonement," The Christian 16 (26 December 1878), 1; "Editorial Questions about the Atonement," The Christian 17 (2 January 1879), 1; and "Bro. Munnell," The Christian 17 (30 January 1879), 1.
[163] Munnell, "Atonement," The Christian 17 (16 January 1879), 5; (20 February 1879), 5, and J. M. Henry, "The Atonement," The Christian 17 (20 February 1879), 2.
[164] W. H. Bryan, "Death of Christ," The Christian 17 (13 March 1879), 2.
[165] H. M. Brooks, "Atonement," The Christian-Evangelist 32 (19 September 1895), 605; (17 October 1895), 663; and "The Necessity of the Death of Christ," The Christian-Evangelist 33 (9 January 1896), 22-23; (23 January 1896), 54.
[166] Peter Vogel, "Atonement," The Christian-Evangelist 32 (17 October 1895), 662; (24 October 1895), 679; (7 November 1895), 710-11; (14 November 1895), 727; (21 November 1895), 742; (5 December 1895), 774-5; (19 December 1895), 807; (26 December 1895), 807; (26 December 1895), 822; 33 (2 January 1896), 7; (9 January 1896), 22; (23 January 1896), 70; (6 February 1896), 86; (13 February 1896), 102; (20 February 1896), 118; (27 February 1896), 135; (5 March 1896), 151; "Two Atonement Reviewers," The Christian-Evangelist 33 (4 June 1896), 358; "Thomas Munnell's Atonement Review," The Christian-Evangelist 33 (11 June 1896), 374; "Thomas Munnell's Atonement Review II," The Christian Evangelist 33 (25 June 1896), 406-7; "Review of Pierce's 'Christ's Vicarious Death'," The Christian-Evangelist 33 (9 July 1896), 441; "Christ's Death," The Christian-Evangelist 33 (1896), 470, 485, 508, 543, 558, 582, 599, 630, 646, 662, 678, 742.
[167] Vogel, "Atonement," (1896), 166.
[168] Vogel, "Munnell," p. 406.
[169] Munnell, "Bro. Vogel on Atonement," The Christian-Evangelist 33 (9 April 1896), 237, 543, 551.
[170] C. S. Pierce, "Christ's Death Vicarious," The Christian-Evangelist 33 (28 May 1896), 343; "Vogel's Review of 'Christ's Vicarious Death'," The Christian-Evangelist 33 (9 July 1896), 441, 476, 485, 508, 543, 558, 582, 599, 630, 646, 667, 678.
[171] Munnell, " Bro Vogel on Atonement," 237.
[172] Pierce, "Christ's Death Vicarious," 343.
[173] S. C. Pierce, "Why did Christ die? No. 4," Christian Standard 37 (26 July 1902), 1196.
[174] For example, the series by S. C. Pierce, "Why did Christ die? No. 1," Christian Standard 37 (26 July 1902), 1032-3; "No. 2," Christian Standard 37 (2 August 1902), 1065-6; "No. 3," Christian Standard 37 (16 August 1902), 1130-1; and "No. 4," Christian Standard 37 (30 August 1902), 1196-7. Cf. also J. J. S. Perowne, "The Atonement," Christian Standard 23 (8 September 1888), 573.
[175] R. H. Boll, "Why Blood?," Gospel Advocate 55 (23 January 1913), 74. See also "Was Christ our Substitute?," Gospel Advocate 55 (20 February 1913), 170-1.
[176] Lipscomb, "The Blood of Christ," 39 (5 August 1897), 485. For his earlier rejection of this language, see "Living Pulpit," 267.
[177] Contra Bill Love, The Core Gospel: On Restoring the Crux of the Matter (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1992), 121: "Stone left a deposit of discouragement where the study of the atonement is concerned."
[178] The moral view represented by Jones, "Government," 2 (July 1883), 425-35; Bailey, "Atonement," 4 (July 1885), 369-74; R. T. Matthews, "New Testament Idea of Righteousness," 3 (January 1884), 53-65; the governmental view represented by Munnell, "Atonement," 1 (April 1882), 1-13; Lipscomb, "Blood of Christ," 5 (January 1888), 67-90; and the penal view is represented by I. B. Grubbs, "The Doctrine of the Epistle to the Romans," 3 (April 1884), 267-84.
[179] J. W. McGarvey, "Did He Suffer the Penalty?," in Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Co., 1910), p. 326.
[180] Ibid., 332.
[181] McGarvey, Sermons Delivered in Louisville, Kentucky (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Co, 1974; reprint of 1894 edition), 51.
[182] See his articles in Biblical Criticism.
[183] For example, Issac Errett, "The Death of Jesus," Christian Standard 14 (1 March 1879), 68 claims that the work of Christ was more than a moral influence.
[184] Issac Errett, "Unsound Doctrine," 292.
[185] Issac Errett, "The Atonement," Christian Standard 15 (5 April 1879), 108.
[186] J. T. Miles, "The Simplicity of the Gospel," The Christian 15 (16 August 1877), 1.
[187] C. W. Sewell, "Without the Shedding of Blood there is no Remission," Gospel Advocate 18 (23 June 1876), 590.
[188] C. W. Sewell, "Forgiveness &c Again," Gospel Advocate 18 (30 June 1876), 607.
[189] Ibid. 610-11.
[190] Sewell, "Scripture on the Atonement," Gospel Advocate 18 (24 August 1876), 819.
[191]Stone, "Communication," MH 11 (February 1840), 21-22.
[192] Alexander Campbell, "Definitions and Answers to Questions--No. I," MH 11 (February 1840), 82.
[193] Alexander Campbell, "To. B. W. Stone," MH 12 (September 1841), 401.
[194] Alexander Campbell, "Definitions," 83.
[195] Stone, "Atonement," MH 11 (June 1840), 244.
[196] Campbell-Rice Debate, p. 855.
[197] Andrew Broaddus, "A. Broaddus to His Brethren and Friends," MH 13 (April 1842), 148.
[198] It was also one of the five fundamentals of the early Fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century.
[199] Ibid.
[200] Alexander Campbell, "Mr. A. Campbell to Mr. A. Broaddus--No. III," MH 13 (April 1842), 209.
[201] Ibid.
[202] Alexander Campbell, Popular Addresses, 558.
[203] Alexander Campbell, "Campbell to Broaddus," MH 13 (April 1842), 210.
[204] Ibid.
[205] Ibid.