Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
ABSTRACT OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST.
"The theory of the atonement is, that in the sufferings and death of Christ, he incurred the penalty of the sins of those whose substitute he was, so that he made a real satisfaction to the justice of God for the law which they had broken.
"On this account, God now pardons all their sins, and being fully reconciled to them, his electing love flows out freely towards them.
"The doctrine as thus taught involves the following points:
I. That the sufferings and death of Christ were a real atonement.
II. That in making it Christ became the substitute of those whom he came to save.
III. That as such he bore the penalty of their transgressions.
IV. That in so doing he made ample satisfaction to the demands of the law, and to the justice of God.
V. That thus an actual reconciliation has been made between them and God.
"Each of these will need explanation and amplification, as well as proof, that its precise meaning may be clearly ascertained.
"I. The first point to be proved
is that the death of Christ was a real atonement.
"By this is meant that the death of Christ was not merely a moral example, as say the Socinians;
"that it was not a mere exhibition of God's determination to maintain his government for the benefit of his creatures, according to the governmental hypothesis;
"that it has not only a manifestation of God's abhorrence of sin by which man could be led to penitence, as held by the New Theology;
"that it was not merely an arrangement set forth in the universe as the means of lowering the demands of the law, as say the Arminians;
"but that it was a sacrifice for sin, the great antitype of the Mosaic sacrifices, by which, guilt and condemnation is taken away from those for whom he made it, and they are made at-one with God.
"The proof that this was the nature of Christ's act, is:
1. That this is the generally received notion of sacrifice in all nations.
2. That the earliest record of sacrifice, in the history of Cain and Abel, points to the idea that God had appointed a mode of expiation for guilt.
"The sacrifice of Abel was in one sense no better than that of Cain.
Each was a gift; but that of Abel was a sacrifice of blood, in testimony of acknowledged guilt; that of Cain merely a thank offering.
"The Lord had respect to the offering of Abel, and when Cain was angry, the Lord remonstrated with him, and said:
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door." Gen. 4:7.
"This account establishes the fact that the idea of sacrifice, which thus has prevailed among all men, originated in early instruction by God, beginning from the time of our first parents.
3. When we come, however, to look at the sacrifices of the Mosaic economy, we find still the same idea taught, and even more fully;
"since the type was now confined to the nation through which the antitype was to appear.
"That economy shows that the blood of animals was constantly offered to God; that this was done by his command as making reconciliation and atonement;
"that in these offerings was always involved the idea of sin committed by the people, or the individual, or the priests, or a ceremonial defilement of the nature of sin, which made essential the cleansing of the altar itself or the persons officiating;
"that, in the act of sacrifice, the hand of the individual, or of the elders, or of the priests was laid upon the head of the animal for the confession of sin upon it, that it might be made a proper sacrifice;
"that the animal was then slain or sent away; and that, as the result of all these arrangements, the forgiveness of sin followed.
"This latter idea may appear too strongly put, but it is owing to our overlooking the fact that the sins thus atoned for were not all the sins of the Israelites, but only the sins which took place in their civil relations as individuals, or as a nation to God.
"The forgiveness of them involved, therefore, only the temporal blessings thus associated.
"As they were typical of Christ and of a heavenly Canaan, so those who looked through the type to the antitype received full pardon for all sins, because of the offering that God was to make, and in which they trusted.
"In either case, however, there was actual remission of sins.
"For the national or individual sins, for which God had appointed this method of pardon, there was actual remission because of the sacrifice, and, in those who looked forward to Christ, and for whom, therefore, his sacrifice was made, there was also actual remission of the sins thus laid upon him.
"Another caution is also suggested here. We speak of the sacrifices of old as the means God appointed for the pardon of sin.
"And in like manner we speak of God's method of salvation being by the death of Christ.
"But, in either case, we do not mean by the expression that the means of salvation alone was in the sacrifice, but salvation itself.
"The law of sacrifice was the method of God for the remission of sin, but the sacrifice itself secured the actual remission:
"so, the death of Christ may be contemplated as God's method of saving sinners so long as we are speaking of it as the arrangement or scheme devised by God to accomplish a certain work;
"but, as itself a sacrifice, the death of Christ secured salvation, and not the mere means of salvation.
con't
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST.
"The theory of the atonement is, that in the sufferings and death of Christ, he incurred the penalty of the sins of those whose substitute he was, so that he made a real satisfaction to the justice of God for the law which they had broken.
"On this account, God now pardons all their sins, and being fully reconciled to them, his electing love flows out freely towards them.
"The doctrine as thus taught involves the following points:
I. That the sufferings and death of Christ were a real atonement.
II. That in making it Christ became the substitute of those whom he came to save.
III. That as such he bore the penalty of their transgressions.
IV. That in so doing he made ample satisfaction to the demands of the law, and to the justice of God.
V. That thus an actual reconciliation has been made between them and God.
"Each of these will need explanation and amplification, as well as proof, that its precise meaning may be clearly ascertained.
"I. The first point to be proved
is that the death of Christ was a real atonement.
"By this is meant that the death of Christ was not merely a moral example, as say the Socinians;
"that it was not a mere exhibition of God's determination to maintain his government for the benefit of his creatures, according to the governmental hypothesis;
"that it has not only a manifestation of God's abhorrence of sin by which man could be led to penitence, as held by the New Theology;
"that it was not merely an arrangement set forth in the universe as the means of lowering the demands of the law, as say the Arminians;
"but that it was a sacrifice for sin, the great antitype of the Mosaic sacrifices, by which, guilt and condemnation is taken away from those for whom he made it, and they are made at-one with God.
"The proof that this was the nature of Christ's act, is:
1. That this is the generally received notion of sacrifice in all nations.
2. That the earliest record of sacrifice, in the history of Cain and Abel, points to the idea that God had appointed a mode of expiation for guilt.
"The sacrifice of Abel was in one sense no better than that of Cain.
Each was a gift; but that of Abel was a sacrifice of blood, in testimony of acknowledged guilt; that of Cain merely a thank offering.
"The Lord had respect to the offering of Abel, and when Cain was angry, the Lord remonstrated with him, and said:
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door." Gen. 4:7.
"This account establishes the fact that the idea of sacrifice, which thus has prevailed among all men, originated in early instruction by God, beginning from the time of our first parents.
3. When we come, however, to look at the sacrifices of the Mosaic economy, we find still the same idea taught, and even more fully;
"since the type was now confined to the nation through which the antitype was to appear.
"That economy shows that the blood of animals was constantly offered to God; that this was done by his command as making reconciliation and atonement;
"that in these offerings was always involved the idea of sin committed by the people, or the individual, or the priests, or a ceremonial defilement of the nature of sin, which made essential the cleansing of the altar itself or the persons officiating;
"that, in the act of sacrifice, the hand of the individual, or of the elders, or of the priests was laid upon the head of the animal for the confession of sin upon it, that it might be made a proper sacrifice;
"that the animal was then slain or sent away; and that, as the result of all these arrangements, the forgiveness of sin followed.
"This latter idea may appear too strongly put, but it is owing to our overlooking the fact that the sins thus atoned for were not all the sins of the Israelites, but only the sins which took place in their civil relations as individuals, or as a nation to God.
"The forgiveness of them involved, therefore, only the temporal blessings thus associated.
"As they were typical of Christ and of a heavenly Canaan, so those who looked through the type to the antitype received full pardon for all sins, because of the offering that God was to make, and in which they trusted.
"In either case, however, there was actual remission of sins.
"For the national or individual sins, for which God had appointed this method of pardon, there was actual remission because of the sacrifice, and, in those who looked forward to Christ, and for whom, therefore, his sacrifice was made, there was also actual remission of the sins thus laid upon him.
"Another caution is also suggested here. We speak of the sacrifices of old as the means God appointed for the pardon of sin.
"And in like manner we speak of God's method of salvation being by the death of Christ.
"But, in either case, we do not mean by the expression that the means of salvation alone was in the sacrifice, but salvation itself.
"The law of sacrifice was the method of God for the remission of sin, but the sacrifice itself secured the actual remission:
"so, the death of Christ may be contemplated as God's method of saving sinners so long as we are speaking of it as the arrangement or scheme devised by God to accomplish a certain work;
"but, as itself a sacrifice, the death of Christ secured salvation, and not the mere means of salvation.
con't