A TWO DAYS' DEBATE
ON
T H E A T O N E M E N T
BETWEEN
ELDER LEMUEL POTTER
Of Cynthiana, Ind., of the Regular Baptist Church,
AND
ELDER THOMAS W. DICKEY
of Castor, Ill., of the Missionary Baptist Church,
HELD AT THE
LILLY MEETING HOUSE,
IN WAYNE COUNTY, ILL.,
On the 19th and 20th Days of April, 1887.
Stenographed By
MISS LAURA POTTER,
Cynthiana, Ind.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Courier Co., Printers and Binders,
Evansville, Ind.
__________________________________________________________
Entered according to
Act of Congress in the year 1887, by
ELDER LEMUEL POTTER,
In the Office of the
Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C.
__________________________________________________________
PREFACE
The subject of the atonement of Jesus Christ, which is the foundation of the hope of Christians, has been, in this country, a subject of some controversy among the people, and as the parties who are contestants in the following pages felt so great an interest in the investigation of the question, they have concluded to jointly discuss the matter, and thus exchange views, and give their arguments to the reading public.
Each disputant has given what he sincerely and candidly believes to be the teaching of God's Holy Word; so that the reader will find their conscientious convictions of this momentous question in this little work, as far as the disputants could give them, in so small a space. Hoping that this little volume will do no dishonor to the cause of truth, but that it may be the means of comforting and instructing at least some of the dear household of faith, it is now submitted to you for your perusal.
DEBATE ON ATONEMENT.
The time for the discussion to begin having arrived, and a large concourse of people having assembled, the proposition was read by the President-Moderator as follows:
"The scriptures teach that, on the cross, Jesus Christ made a complete atonement for the elect exclusively."
This proposition was affirmed by Mr. Potter, and denied by Mr. Dickey.
Mr. Potter arose and led as follows:
CHAPTER I.
MR. POTTER'S FIRST SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
The importance of the present occasion calls for the candid and prayerful attention of every one here who desires to know the truth. The magnitude of the question to be discussed is of such moment that it is equally interesting to all Christians, from the very fact that the important question to be discussed on this occasion, to wit: The atonement is the basis of the whole Christian structure. Without the atonement there is no salvation for any fallen sinner. The subject of the atonement has engaged the minds of the greatest talent the Church has ever produced; and my personal interest on that subject makes me solicitous to investigate the matter in order that I may attain to the truth. I presume I am talking to a Christian people today, who are as anxious to know the truth as myself, and who will respect the question, as well as the speakers, with all the respect that we are worthy of. I presume that my opponent and his brethren are as eager to know the truth, and will as candidly receive it, when presented in the light of the Scriptures and in the light of reason, as myself and my brethren. In fact, I deem the people here to be as candid and honest in search of the truth as I claim to be. I am to affirm the following proposition:
"The Scriptures teach that, on the cross, Jesus Christ made a complete atonement for the elect only."
Definitions: By the term "Scriptures," I mean the Bible, or the Old and New Testaments. By the phrase, "on the cross," I mean the sufferings of Christ. That when Christ suffered he made the atonement. That when his sufferings were ended on the cross the atonement was then and there completed. When I say, "Jesus Christ," I mean the Son of God, that was born of the Virgin Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea, and who was finally put to death on the cross. By the term "atonement," I mean satisfaction for sin, or expiation of guilt; and by the word "complete," I mean whole, full or perfect. By the term "elect," I mean those whom God, the Father, had chosen before the foundation of the world to eternal salvation. By the term "exclusively," I mean only or none but the elect. Having now defined the terms of my proposition, I will divide it into three parts, as there are three fundamental points in it to be discussed. First, that the atonement was made on the cross. Secondly, that it was made for the elect, and thirdly, that it was not for others. One reason why I divide it into these three points is from the fact that the first and third will be points upon which we will differ in this discussion. My worthy opponent denies that there was any atonement made on the cross, while I affirm that there was. I affirm that that was where the atonement was made; that if it was not made on the cross it was not made at all. To that special point I wish to devote a few arguments in this present speech, and my opponent may remember that I am not, in these arguments, talking about the elect or the non-elect, but the point now is, whether the atonement was made on the cross or not. My first argument is based on the meaning of the word reconcile, as we find it used in the New Testament Scriptures.
Romans v., 10-11: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."
The word atonement occurs in this quotation the only time that it is used in our authorized version of the New Testament Scriptures. This word atonement is translated in some of the English translations reconciliation. I am going to claim that that is what it is. That atonement and reconciliation are the same thing.
You who have marginal Bibles will find that the margin thus explains it, reconciliation. Also, in the revised version of the New Testament, it reads: "But we also rejoice in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."
I do not say that the word should not be translated atonement. I believe that atonement is proper, but it is evident from the fact that it is translated atonement in this case and reconciliation in other cases, that atonement and reconciliation have the same meaning.
Another reason for believing for atonement means reconciliation, is that the word atonement is translated from the same word that reconciled is in the 10th verse. Also, from the same word that reconciliation is translated in Second Corinthians v., 18, 19, 20.
(18.) "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."
(19.) "To-wit: that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
(20.) "Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."
We here have the word reconciliation twice translated from the same word that atonement is in Romans v., 11. Without taking up much time on the definition of the word atonement, or the definition of the word reconciliation, I wish to claim that the expression that says: "By whom we have now received atonement," must mean "by whom we have now received reconciliation."
Thus the apostle's language means about this: "For if, when we were enemies we were reconciled by God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Now, remember that we were reconciled by His death. This reconciliation then was made on the cross, because it was made by his death. He died on the cross. It is hardly necessary for me to argue that the Savior died on the cross. This would not be disputed, even between myself and my opponent. Now, if he died on the cross, and we were reconciled to God by his death, then reconciliation was made on the cross. Hence, the apostle says to his Roman brethren: "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." We have now received the reconciliation that Christ made on the cross. My understanding of this is that when a man is converted to God, and becomes a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, that he receives the benefits of the atonement that was made on the cross. It cannot be gainsaid that Christ did make a reconciliation by his death. I call my opponent's special attention to this word reconciliation. If we were not reconciled to God by the death of Christ, I wish him to show that we were not; and if reconciliation does not mean atonement, in that verse, I wish him to prove that it does not. Unless he does, I shall take it for granted that he has given this point up, and if he gives this point up by passing my arguments by in silence, I shall conclude that the first part of my argument is proven, that is, that the atonement was made on the cross.
I now wish to notice that same word reconciled in another text. Hebrews ii. 17. "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
Reconciliation here is used in the sense of expiation or propitiation. The Revised Version has it propitiation, and the Emphatic Diaglott has it that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest as to things relating to God in order to expiate the sins of the people."
Hence, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people is to make propitiation, or to expiate their sins. To expiate sins means to extinguish guilt, that is the definition of the word expiate. Hence, it is evident from the best authorities we have, that he made an atonement for the sins of the people, as is represented in that verse. Now, as to whether he did it on the cross, we will see. The 18th verse says: "For in that He himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."
From this we learn that it was in His sufferings that He made reconciliation for the sins of His people. If it was in His sufferings, it was on the cross, and by His sufferings He atoned for the sins of His people. I shall expect some notice to be given to this text. I claim that the Apostle here alludes especially to the sufferings of Christ, as it was that that made reconciliation for the sins of His people. Now, if I am not correct in my arguments on the use of the word reconcile and reconciliation, I wish to know it. I will make my second argument upon the first chapter of Hebrews, 3d verse: "Who, being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."
From this text it is evident that He had purged our sins before He ascended to Heaven. If He had purged our sins it was by making atonement for them; making satisfaction for them. We are led to conclude from this text, that He purged our sins by His atonement which graciously covers our sins, and that He did this in His death.
Now, I want it distinctly understood, that I am arguing that He made an atonement for sin upon the cross. I now propose to notice more accurately and definitely the meaning of the word atonement; and one reason why I feel a desire to be very particular in the investigation of this subject, is because so many people seem, through their ministry, to, in a great measure, ignore the atonement made by the suffering Son of God, and perhaps we would all be better able to come to a conclusion definitely, upon the subject of the atonement.
We should first learn precisely the full meaning of the word atonement. Atonement means expiation, satisfaction, or reparation made by giving the equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offense or an injury. Now, this is the definition of the word atonement. If atonement means expiation, or if it means satisfaction or reparation made by giving the equivalent for an injury, and Jesus Christ, if he made an atonement at all, when could He have given an equivalent for an injury for His people if he did not atone by filling the law? When could He have met the demands of that law? When could He have made satisfaction to it for sin, except on the cross? At what particular time did Jesus Christ make an atonement if He did not make it on the cross?
Now, if we agree with our best Lexicographers, that atonement is expiation, satisfaction or reparation made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offense or an injury, I claim that Jesus Christ did that on the cross.
Atonement means, in addition to that, to expiate, or to extinguish guilt by suffering the penalty which is equivalent, or to make satisfaction or reparation for, as to expiate a crime. In order to see what positions have been taken I will here state that I am satisfied that a great many people have found fault with the doctrine of a limited atonement because they said it represented God as being unjust. Almost all the religions claim to believe in a universal atonement, but when we come to examine their position and arguments upon that side, it is very clear they do not believe in a universal atonement; from the very fact that atonement means satisfaction. There is only one document that I know of in this country setting forth the faith of any denomination, that expresses a universal atonement, and that is set forth in the Confession of Faith in the M. E. Church, in which they say, "The sacrifice of Christ once offered is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone."
This is the doctrine set forth in the Confession of Faith, and you will bear in mind this article does not teach us that the suffering of Christ is a partial redemption or a partial satisfaction or a partial propitiation for sins, but a perfect redemption, etc., not for a part of the sins of all the world of mankind, nor of the sins of a part of mankind, but for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual. This is expressive of a universal atonement. Nothing short of it is. But, I refer to this, not so much for the benefit of my opponent, as I do for the people who are here today; only to place in the mind what universal atonement is.
Now, instead of these people believing in universal atonement, as this article teaches, they believe in no atonement at all. Instead of saying that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all the race or even a part of them on the cross, the majority of the ministers today of all the denominations simply state that Christ made salvation possible for all the race. I am here to affirm that he made an atonement, and if he made an atonement for all the race, he made satisfaction for all the sins of all the race. If he made an atonement for a portion of the race, he made satisfaction for their sins, for that is what atonement is satisfaction to the law for sin, and that is what I am here to argue, that Jesus Christ made, when he was on the cross, satisfaction for sin. In order to prove that, I refer to Isaiah liii. 5, which reads: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."
Now we argue from this text that he was wounded for our transgressions. If he was wounded for our transgressions, he must have been suffering for our transgressions, and he made an atonement by his sufferings, or else his sufferings were not a satisfaction for sin, and I wish to impress upon the mind this question: Why did he suffer for sins if his sufferings were not an atonement? If the law demanded punishment for sin, which it evidently did, and Jesus Christ suffered for sins, he certainly met the demands of the law. If he met the demands of the law, he satisfied the law, and if he satisfied the law, he atoned for sin. If he atoned for sin in his suffering, he did this on the cross, and the prophet speaks of his suffering for our transgressions, when he says he was wounded for our transgressions.
That is what he was wounded for; that he was mangled for on the cross, was for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities.
That is what he suffered on the cross for. Nothing but our sins caused him to suffer on the cross. Now the only way for my opponent to escape the position that he made an atonement on the cross, is for him to show us that this suffering on the cross did not satisfy for sin, although he suffered for sin, yet it did not satisfy for sin, for atonement was not made on the cross. I want this distinctly borne in mind that his suffering was for sin, and I would love for this especial text to be borne in mind, and that it was by his stripes we are healed, not by something else, but by his stripes. When did he receive his stripes? In his suffering. That is the only answer that can successfully given to that question. It was by his stripes we were healed. If it were by his stripes we are healed, that healing was made on the cross. I now call attention to I. Peter iii. 18, which reads: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit."
This text informs us that the suffering of Christ was for sins. If He suffered for sin He must have suffered the penalty of the law; if he suffered the penalty of the law, he must have made an atonement. If he did not make an atonement by his suffering, then he did not suffer the penalty of the law; if he did not suffer the penalty of the law, for our sins, it is evident we will be called upon to pay that penalty ourselves. The only way we can hope for escaping God's just and holy law, for our own sins, is that Jesus Christ himself suffered for them in our behalf.
The Apostle Peter says He did. If He suffered, then He made an atonement when He suffered on the cross. So He did suffer then, for sins. What did He suffer for? To satisfy the law. No other answer can be given to that question. I will leave that question for my opponent to answer when he replies. Did Christ suffer for sins in order to meet the demands of the law? I claim that He did. If he admits it, he admits this part of my proposition, that the atonement was made on the cross.
Hence, it occurs to me now, that I have introduced enough Scriptures for this time to prove the fact that the atonement was made on the cross. For that purpose He suffered and made reconciliation for the sins of the people. That was to expiate their guilt. I next quote, in proof of my proposition, Hebrews ix., 26: "For then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."
If there is no difference between His sacrifice and His atonement, it will be borne in mind by all that He was the sacrifice that put away sin. If the sacrifice put away sin and yet did not atone for sin, then atonement is not necessary to the putting away of sin. If the sacrifice put away sin, and an atonement is necessary to the putting away of sin, then when He made a sacrifice of Himself, He made the atonement.
If He made an atonement when He sacrificed Himself for sin, then He made an atonement on the cross. To say that He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and that that sacrifice was made on the cross, and then say that there was no atonement made on the cross, is to argue that there was no atonement necessary to put away sin. I would love to know the object of His making the sacrifice, if it was not to atone for sin. I also would love to know when the atonement was made for sin if it was not made when He made a sacrifice of Himself for sin. If it was not made then, and the sacrifice of Himself put sin away, an atonement is not afterwards made for sin, from the fact that sin was put away before the atonement was made, if the atonement was made after the sacrifice was offered.
The putting away of sin is what the atonement is for. There can be no other use of it, and I have already defined that word, and it is evident and cannot be denied, that this text teaches that the sacrifice did put away sin. Hence, as the sacrifice was made on the cross, so the atonement was made on the cross, and this part of my proposition is sustained beyond any reasonable contradiction. I call the special attention of my worthy opponent to this text, and I wish him to give it a careful examination in his reply to me; and if the sacrifice put away sin and there was no atonement made for sin, let him show that that is true. When sin is put away it does not remain where it was before, and He put it away by the sacrifice of Himself.
I now call attention to one more text, Daniel ix., 24. It reads as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon Thy people and upon Thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy."
This text undoubtedly has allusion to the giving of Christ. The "Most Holy" mentioned in the text is none other than the Son of God. And now, what is He to do when He is anointed? He is to finish the transgression and make an end of sin. If He makes an end of sin it must necessarily be that He atones for sins, and He makes a reconciliation for iniquities, according to this text. We have already shown that reconciliation for sins must be atonement for sins.
Hence the prophet here describes Christ as making atonement for iniquities, and as a result of that atonement He brings in everlasting righteousness. To make an end of sin is equivalent to putting away sins. And He puts away sins by the sacrifice of Himself, as we have already observed. Hence He made an end of sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The only way to make an end of sin is to atone for it by suffering the penalty of the law. This, I think, I have abundantly proven, Jesus Christ did on the cross.
I hope now that my arguments will be noticed and that the reply to this speech will be confined to the part of the proposition that I have now labored to sustain, that the atonement was made on the cross. I will give one more text, Hebrews ix., 27, 28: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation." This text teaches us that Christ was offered. And if He was once offered, He was offered for a purpose, and that purpose was to bear the sins of many. When did He bear the sins? Evidently, when he was offered. He was offered on the cross; then He bore the sins on the cross, as the Apostle Peter has already shown.
If He bore our sins on the cross, and yet did not atone for them, I would love to know during this discussion, for what purpose He bore them. I hope we will have more light on this subject ere this discussion closes. If my opponent will take up my line of arguing and reasoning and show the people that I am mistaken as he undoubtedly thinks I must be, or he would not be here to negative the proposition as he is at this time, I hope he will notice the use of the word reconciliation, that I made in the first argument I presented, that it is used in the sense of atonement, and is translated as reconciliation.
Now these arguments I rely upon. I want it distinctly understood that reconciliation and atonement mean the same thing; and that reconciliation was certainly made on the cross, for the Bible never mentions it as having been made anywhere else.
CHAPTER II.
MR. DICKEY'S FIRST SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am glad to have the opportunity of addressing so large an audience as I see present here today. I think it argues well for our country, to see at this busy season of the year, so many lay aside for the present, the common vocations of life, and come out to the house of God to hear the Scriptures investigated.
I believe in investigating the Scriptures, and I am glad that the people of this section of the country are disposed to give the time and attention necessary to a proper understanding of the important subject of the atonement. Without a proper understanding of this subject we are unable to draw correct conclusions in regard to much of the teachings of inspiration as presented in the Gospel for our information and benefit.
I engage in this discussion, with love for all, without enmity in my heart against any one. My only object being that we may investigate the Scripture, and learn the truth.
If Brother Potter presents the truth as revealed in the Word of God, accept it, and practice it in your lives. But, if he presents error instead of truth, reject it, and refuse to be led by it. I ask only the same consideration for myself. If I am successful in presenting to you the truth, accept and practice it, if not reject it. I will now call your attention to some of the passages and arguments presented by Elder Potter.
In the first place I will remark that we agree in regard to the meaning of the word atonement. Elder Potter defines the word atonement to mean reconciliation. I admit that to be the correct definition of the word. His first quotation, I believe, is from Rom. v. 10: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."
The Elder founds an argument on this passage to prove that the atonement was made on the cross. In criticism of this argument I will call attention to the fact that the Apostle Paul does not say reconciliation was accomplished while, or during the time Jesus Christ died on the cross.
Mark the expression of the language of the Apostle: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son." If reconciliation, or the atonement, was made by Jesus Christ on the cross, enmity existed in the minds of those for whom it was made at that time. There was no enmity in the minds of the unborn millions, who have lived since the death of Christ on the cross. No one of this congregation had enmity in his heart against God at the time Christ died on the cross. We were not in existence then, therefore we could not have had enmity against God. The Apostle represents that it was when he had they to whom he was writing were enemies that they were reconciled to God by the death of His son.
If reconciliation is effected between an individual and God it must be after enmity has existed, and during the existence of the individual, and not before the individual has lived. If the atonement or reconciliation was made on the cross by the death of Jesus Christ, then the millions who had lived before the death of Christ, had all been sent to hell, or they were saved without an atonement or reconciliation being made between them and God, living with Him in heaven unreconciled.
The Elder was unfortunate in the selection of this passage. The Elder turns next to 2 Cor. v., 18: "And all things are of God, Who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."
The Apostle refers to himself and his Corinthian brethren being reconciled to God by Jesus Christ; he also refers to the means by which reconciliation is effected,, Jesus Christ is the means. He says nothing about being reconciled while Jesus was on the cross. But we may learn when reconciliation takes place, and that it is not on the cross, by reading Rom. v., 11: "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." Also read what the Apostle Paul says to his Colossian brethren, Col. i., 21: "And you, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled."
This shows that alienation, enmity and wicked works preceded reconciliation, and that reconciliation was made while the parties that were reconciled were living, conscious, intelligent beings, that they were not reconciled at the time Christ died on the cross. How were they reconciled? Col. i., 22: "In the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreprovable in His sight."
It is through the manifestation of the attributes of the Father, by the incarnation of Jesus Christ in human nature and flesh, his love, mercy, and justice being conspicuously displayed in the death of His Son, that being unfolded in the Gospel, leads men to forsake sin, turn to God, and loyally accept His government, and through Jesus Christ become reconciled unto God. "And hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."
The Apostle declares that God hath given to us (the people of God) the ministry of reconciliation. If reconciliation was made by Jesus Christ when he died on the cross, for the elect, or for the race, as the case might be, then the ministry of reconciliation would have been completed, the work finished in regard to reconciliation, and there would have been no ministry of reconciliation to have given into the hands of His people. This is another rather unfortunate selection to prove his position. The Elder selects again as proof for his argument Heb. ii., 17: "Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
To make is a verb in the infinitive mood, and expresses an action unfinished and incomplete. At the time the Apostle wrote this letter to the Hebrews, about A. D. 64, over thirty years after the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, the Apostle uses this language: "To make reconciliation," the Apostle says, "it behooves Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
In the first place, it was necessary for Him to be made like unto His brethren. In the second place, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest. In the third place, to make reconciliation, Christ is now filling the position of high priest. Heb. vii., 26: "For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens."
The Apostle here refers to the priestship of Jesus Christ in heaven. Heb. vii., 25: "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercessions for them."
Not that he has saved, but that he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercessions for them. He liveth then in heaven to make intercessions for them that come to God by Him, that they may be reconciled unto God.
The Elder again calls our attention to Heb. i., 3: "Who, being the brightness of His glory and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." This quotation I understood to be made to prove that Jesus Christ purged, or cleansed, or purified the sins of the elect on the cross. If the Elder will look, he will find that the pronoun our is not in the Greek text; "having made a purification for sins, is the reading in the Emphatic Diaglott. He will also notice this letter was written to the Hebrews by the Apostle Paul, not to a church; and to emphasize the word sins, would be to say Jesus had purged the sins of the Hebrews, all the wicked people of that nation, and therefore all the Jews would be saved. This would prove too much for the Elder. That which proves too much is as worthless in argument as that which proves nothing.
"Having made a purification for sins," I understand this passage to mean that Jesus Christ cleansed or purged all from original sin; that in consequence of the righteousness, suffering and death of Jesus Christ that no one will be lost for original sin. That individuals are lost for actual sins committed in their own person. The Elder referred to 53d Chapter of Isaiah, as proof that the sufferings of Jesus Christ made an atonement, or reconciliation, for the sins of the elect. If this chapter proves that the sufferings of Jesus Christ made an atonement or reconciliation, it proves too much for the Elder. There is nothing exclusive in the chapter. IF it proves that Jesus Christ by his sufferings made an atonement or reconciliation, it proves he made it for all the race. Isa. liii., 6: "All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
If there is any that has not gone astray, that has not turned to his own way, then the prophet does not say that such an one has his iniquities placed or laid on Christ, but all who have gone astray or turned to their own way, have had their iniquities laid on Jesus, 5th v.: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.
I understand this to have reference to the righteousness, suffering and death of Christ removing the condemnation brought on the race by the sin of our first representative, so that the barrier interposed between God's mercy and the lost sinner is removed and we are again brought in reach of life through Christ. The Elder again refers to I. Peter iii. 18: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit."
This passage, like many others, proves that Christ suffered for sins, that He suffered for the unjust. But if Christ's sufferings for the unjust made an atonement, or reconciliation, then the atonement or reconciliation was universal or broad as the race, for all are represented as being unjust. Rom. iii., 10: "As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one." 19 v. "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God."
There is nothing exclusive in this suffering it was for the unjust, and if it made reconciliation, it made it for all. This passage belongs to that class which referred to the removal of condemnation for original sin. Christ suffered for all, died for all, brought all back in reach of life, and will, by virtue of his righteousness, suffering, death and resurrection, ransom all from the grave, give to all life from the dead, but does this prove that anyone was reconciled on the cross? By no means. We still find enmity existing in the minds of all until they are born of the Spirit of God. John iii., 5, 6. That suffering does not make reconciliation, which Jesus Christ makes in heaven before the mercy seat in the presence of the Majesty on high with His blood. I. John i. 7: "And the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin." Heb. ix., 24: "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Heb. viii., 12: "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
Redemption must be in Christ, must be in process of completion through Christ, before reconciliation, or atonement, can be accomplished, or anyone cleansed by His blood. That suffering does not atone, and present them at the door of the Tabernacle, the goat is to be killed outside the Tabernacle, but the sufferings and death of the goat, which is the type of Christ, did not make an atonement or reconciliation. The blood must be taken into the Tabernacle, from there into the second department, into the holy place and there sprinkled upon the mercy seat to make an atonement, or reconciliation. Lev. xvi., 5-22. That suffering did not make an atonement, or reconciliation, is as clear as the noonday sun it took the blood to make the atonement.
But suffering was necessary to the obtaining of the blood, therefore the suffering of Christ was necessary to the making of an atonement, but the sufferings did not make the atonement. The atonement is made by the meritorious blood of Jesus Christ.
If sufferings could make an atonement, surely the sufferings of the damned in hell should be sufficient to make an atonement. The law surely would be satisfied with the sufferings of its victims, and release its hold, throw open its doors and let its captives go free. The Elder then referred to the faith and teachings of the Methodist and others. He and they may settle their differences. I am here to advocate what I understand the Bible to teach, regardless of the opinion of any one.
The Elder calls our attention to Heb. ix., 26: For then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of Himself."
This refers to the putting away of original sin the removal of the condemnation that interposed between the mercy of God and the lost sinner. Through the meritorious righteousness of Jesus Christ the mercy of God may be extended to the vilest of the vile, and all may come unto Him by repentance and faith, become reconciled, obtain forgiveness, become new creatures in Jesus Christ. Again the Elder calls attention to a passage in Dan. ix., 24: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy Holy City to finish the transgressions, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."
The transgressions and sins of the Jews continued to be perpetuated after the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. If possible, they seemed to be more wicked after his death than before. Therefore, as transgression and sin continued to exist, there is no proof that reconciliation was made for them on the cross. The prophet, by the spirit of inspiration, was enabled to foresee the coming of Jesus Christ, the mighty work He would perform while on earth; that He would be crucified or cut off from among the living; that He would ascend the mediatorial throne, and that at the completion of His work as the mediator, the grand and glorious result would be to finish transgression, put an end to sin, and make complete reconciliation for both soul and body.
The spirit of the believer is reconciled through Jesus Christ at the time that it is born of the spirit of God, but not before. The body never becomes reconciled in life, and therefore must wait until the resurrection, when perfect reconciliation is completed through Jesus Christ. Rom. vii., 14-25: "So then with the mind, I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."
I have noticed, I believe, about all the passages which the Elder called to our attention.
I now wish to commence an argument in opposition to the theory presented by Elder Potter. Our first parents were created by God and given a home in Eden. They were endowed by their Creator with intellectual, physical and moral powers. They possessed the intellect to understand what God taught them to do; they had the physical power to perform that which was required of them, and the moral qualities or inclinations which would have caused them to obey God, uninfluenced by foreign pressure. They had the power to resist that pressure if they had exercised it. God informed them what they should do to remain happy. This information was an expression of the divine will, therefore a law. Gen. ii. 16-17. If a law, there must be a penalty. The penalty was a cutting off from life. Gen. iii, 22-24. The result was death. When our first parents threw off the authority of God and rebelled against Him, they became subject to the penalty of the law. They were condemned to death, Gen. iii., 16- 19. They acted voluntarily. Adam was not deceived, I. Tim. ii. 14. Thus they had no just cause of complaint against God. They had no legal demands upon him. Justice demanded the infliction of the penalty. Mercy alone interposed in behalf of the offender. Christ proposed to undertake the redemption of man from his lost condition.
But our first parents were not only accountable for their action to God, but they were the representatives of the race - they transmitted to their posterity sinful natures. The entire race, except Adam and Eve, are in possession of sinful natures by no fault of their own. Rom. viii., 20: "For the creatures was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected the same in hope."
No one belonging to the race, except Adam and Eve, has ever had it in their power to live free from sin, or keep the law. Would it be right or just to create the many millions who have lived and who may yet live, they to inherit sinful natures through no fault of their own, incapable of complying with the commands or law of God, and then to condemn them to endless punishment for a failure to do what they could not possibly do? And this punishment inflicted without any means being provided by which there is a possibility to escape from the impending doom.
To contend that God will condemn and send to endless punishment, to live with the devil and his angels, one individual for committing sin, when the individual was brought into existence without any desire upon his own part for that existence, given a sinful nature through no fault of his own, given a law which he is incapable of complying with, without providing means for the deliverance of the individual from sin, is most certainly to impeach the character of God and accuse Him of injustice.
I wish to use an illustration that will present the case clearly to the minds of all. Suppose a father having two sons should assign them a task which he knew they could not perform, giving them no means or assistance by which they could accomplish that which he required. Then, for the failure to do that which he required, he calls upon them to give an account. They stand up and say: "What you require of us, it was impossible for us to perform. You gave us no means or assistance by which we could do what you demanded. We plead inability in justification of our failure. We demand clemency at your hands according to justice." The father says: "I knew you could not perform the task but you must suffer the penalty. Though you deserve no clemency at my hands, and justice demands that you be punished to the utmost extent the full penalty, yet I will forgive my eldest son. He shall live with me and inherit my possessions, and be restored to full favor. But you, my youngest son, have failed to do what I commanded you to do. My authority must be maintained. I must defend the dignity of my character."
The father inflicts the most severe cruelty it is possible for him to conceive wounds and maims his boy in such a way as to make him miserable and helpless for life, the wounds ultimately resulting in death. He drives him from home, persecutes him from place to place, and makes him miserable as he can all the days of his life.
What would be the decision of the world in regard to the act of the father? That he was an unjust, cruel tyrant, unworthy the respect and confidence of his fellowmen. Then if God with his infinite wisdom and power has brought multiplied millions of beings into existence and given them a law they cannot obey; if, in consequence of a sin committed by their first representative, they have inherited sinful natures, that disqualifies or renders them incapable of compliance with the law given, and there is no means of assistance afforded them, no Savior provided for them, no Spirit to influence them, and no means of a deliverance from sin ever brought within their reach, would it not be a violation of the principle of justice to send them to a world of wretchedness and misery to be punished to all eternity for not doing a thing it was impossible for them to do? That it is impossible for man in his fallen condition to live free from sin. Read Gal. iii., 21: "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid! for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."
That Adam and Eve in Eden had the power to obey God, I think Elder Potter will admit. That any of the race except our first representatives have ever been in possession of the ability to obey God and keep the law unaided or unassisted by divine grace I do not believe the Elder will affirm. Then, if there is any of the race lost, which the Elder will not deny, and there has been no provisions made by which they may receive assistance, then they are sent to eternal misery and destruction for not keeping a law which they had no power to keep, or are sent there just because God made them or designed them to go there. The Elder will not like to choose either of these dilemmas, for either would represent God as being unjust.
There is but one other conclusion to accept, and that is that God affords help to all, but if they will not avail themselves of the assistance given and are lost, it is their own fault. As the race inherited sinful natures through their first representatives, which brought upon their descendants all the sorrow, trouble, and difficulties of this life, justice demanded as well as mercy, that an interposition of divine favor should be extended to those who have inherited sinful natures through no fault of their own.
Jesus Christ was sent in consequence of God's love to the world, to redeem the world from the condemnation brought on the world by their first representative. He became the second representative of the race. I. Cor. xv., 45, 47. "The first man, Adam, was made a living soul. The last Adam was made a quickening spirit." "The first man is of the earth, earthy, the second man is the Lord from Heaven."
CHAPTER III.
MR. POTTER'S SECOND SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
ARGUMENT THIRD. I argue that the atonement was made on the cross, because the blood of Christ was shed on the cross, and by His blood He redeemed us. Rev. v., 9: "And they sang a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof, for Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."
In this text we are taught that he was slain, and that He redeemed us to God by His blood. If He redeemed us by His blood and that blood was shed on the cross, then our redemption was completed on the cross. If we were redeemed by the blood of Christ, the blood of Christ atoned for sin; and if His blood atoned for sin, then the atonement was made on the cross, for there is where He shed His blood. To redeem us to God by His blood, is the same as to reconcile us to God by His death. Hence, it seems to me very clear, that He made the atonement on the cross. How did He reconcile us to God by His death, if His death was not an atonement for sin? How did He redeem us to God by His blood, if His blood did not atone for sin? Was it not our sins that had separated us from God? If it was our sins that separated us from God, how did He redeem us to God, only by removing our sins? The only way sins could be removed was by the blood of atonement, and if Christ's blood did not atone for sin, then it did not remove it, and if it did not remove it, then His blood did not redeem us to God. But He did redeem us to God by His blood; therefore, His blood atoned for sin, and as His blood was shed on the cross, so it inevitably follows that the atonement was made on the cross.
Gal. 3: 13: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
From this text we clearly see that our redemption price was paid by the Savior on the tree, and that our redemption from the curse of the law was made there, and I argue that if He redeemed us from the curse of the law, it was by meeting the demands of the law for us. The law had just and equitable claims against us for our transgressions, which it held until our transgressions were atoned for. So, as Christ hath redeemed us from the curse, it must have been as the Apostle here says, being made a curse for us. How was He made a curse for us? It was by hanging on the tree. "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." If He redeemed us by being made a curse for us, and if he was made as a curse for us, by hanging on the tree, then our redemption price was paid on the tree, and if so, the atonement was made on the cross. He was made a curse for us. What cursed him but our sins? He sustained that curse for us or in our place, and it must be that if He did, and that was sufficient to redeem us, that He made an atonement for our sins in the transaction. If He did not atone for our sins on the cross, He redeemed us without any atonement; and if my brother claims that He redeemed us from the curse of the law by hanging on the tree, and yet made no atonement on the cross, I ask him to tell us how He did redeem. Did ye redeem without paying any price, or making any satisfaction for sin? This He must have done if He redeemed and yet made no atonement.
I. Pet. 2: 24: "Who His own self bear our sins in His own body on the tree." What did He bear our sins on the tree for, only to atone for them? I rely on such texts as these to prove that the atonement was made on the cross, and if they do not teach that it was, I wish to know it. I ask the careful attention of my brother to the arguments I made on these proof texts. Why did He bear our sins in His body on the tree, if He made no atonement for them on the tree? That is the question I shall expect to hear answered in his reply.
In order to more fully establish this point, I quote Rom. 5: 9: "Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Justified by what? Justified by His blood. Where was his blood shed? On the cross. This text teaches that we are justified by His blood, and my brother will admit, I presume, that His blood was shed on the cross, but he denies that any atonement was made on the cross. How are we justified by His blood, if that blood did not atone for sin? To justify is to absolve, that is, to set free, or release from some obligation, debt or responsibility, or from that which subjects a person to a burden or penalty. It is in this sense, undoubtedly, that we are justified by His blood, and that being true, He evidently made an atonement on the cross.
ARGUMENT FOURTH. I argue that Jesus Christ made an atonement on the cross, from the fact that His atonement on the cross, from the fact that His atonement is illustrated by the various atonements under the law, and He is the central object of them.
Exodus 30: 12, 16: "When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passes them that are numbered, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary; [an half shekel is twenty gerahs]; an half shekel shall be the offering of the Lord. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the Lord. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel when they give an offering unto the Lord to make an atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the atonement money, of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls."
In all the various atonement offerings under the law, the respective victims were without blemish; were the property of the persons on whose account they were to be offered; the crimes they were designed to expiate and atone for, were first solemnly confessed over them, and then as having sin placed on or transferred to them, they were offered up as the sinner's substitute, in consequence of which temporary forgiveness was obtained; for these were only shadows of good things to come, and were offered year by year continually, but could never make the comers thereunto perfect, or take away sin as pertaining to the conscience. "The law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh unto God."
Atonement is a declaration of divine righteousness, and a vindication of Jehovah's justice in condemning and punishing for sins; therefore, the act of Phineas in taking vengeance in behalf of God on daring offenders, is called an atonement for the congregation. Atonement designed as a covering of the guilty soul; thereby their iniquities are covered and their transgressions are forgiven. When the congregation was numbered, it was enjoined on every man to give to the Lord a ransom for his soul; the rich were not to give more than half a shekel, nor the poor less; which was called atonement money, as thereby atonement was made for their souls. In consequence of which price, they were covered from the plague, to which they were liable.
So Jesus gave Himself a ransom for many; His people were bought with a price, not with silver or gold, but with the precious blood of the Son of God, in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins. By the blessed Jesus, the purity of God's law was fully approved and eternally preserved, its righteous claims established and fully confirmed; its tremendous curse was by Him endured, and His people exempted from wrath to come. In Him mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
He is the anti-type of the mercy-seat, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood. The seat of mercy where Deity appeared propitious, was the cover of, and supported by the ark, which contained and preserved the Holy Law, which men had violated, denoting that the glory of God's righteous government must be secured before pardoning mercy could be discovered. To deny the glory and equity of God's law, by which sinners are condemned prior to the coming of Christ, is to undermine the foundation of mercy, and destroy the pillars which support the throne of rich, reigning grace. The blood of atonement, sprinkled annually on the mercy seat by the high priest, was an acknowledgement of the guilt of Israel, and Jehovah's just authority; and likewise of their absolute dependence on His voluntary mercy, richly dispensed and gloriously displayed, consistent with His infinite hatred to sin, and inflexible regard to impartial justice and primitive equity.
The atonement money was the price of the redemption of Israel from the plague, and the blood of Christ, which answers to it, is the price of our redemption. As the payment of the money was to make the atonement, so the shedding of Christ's blood was to make an atonement. Therefore the atonement was made on the cross, for He shed His blood on the cross.
ARGUMENT FIFTH. My fifth argument is, that the atonement of Christ was typified in the passover.
The lamb slain was the Lord's passover, Exodus 12: 11. So we are taught that: "Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us." I. Cor. 5: 7.
Let us notice the similarity of the two for a moment. The animal selected for the passover sacrifice was a lamb. So Christ is repeatedly called a lamb, on account of His innocence, meekness, humility and patience. "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter," Isa. 53: 7. "Behold the lamb of God," John 1: 29. "As of a lamb without blemish and without spot," I. Pet. 1: 19. "Stood as a lamb slain," Rev. 5: 6. It was to be a male of a year old and without blemish. Denoting perfection of kind, not weakly, infirm, nor diseased. So Christ was altogether perfect, without spot He offered Himself to God. Heb. 7: 26.
The lamb was to be separated from the flock. Exodus 12: 5. So Christ was separated and appointed unto this work. Separated to this in the divine designs and purposes of God, as is abundantly taught in all the prophecies, and as is illustriously exhibited in His birth, and during His life, and in the garden, and on the cross. Heb. 7: 26.
The paschal lamb was to be slain. So was Jesus. "Thou wast slain," Rev. 5: 9.
It certainly will not be denied that the paschal lamb was a figure of Christ. If it was, it was a type of the atonement, as the atonement is certainly prefigured in the lamb slain. This being true, then I claim that I have, beyond successful contradiction, sustained the first part of my proposition that is, that the atonement was made on the cross.
ARGUMENT SIXTH. My sixth argument is deduced from the fact that the offering of Christ was for sin, and that the offering sanctified and perfected the people. Heb. 10: 10: "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
Now, bear in mind that this sanctification is through the offering of the body of the Son of God. He offered His body on the cross. Through that offering that was made on the cross, we are sanctified. How does the offering that was made on the cross sanctify us, if that offering was not a sacrifice for sin? How is it a sacrifice for sin, if it does not atone for sin? I hope my brother will pay some respect to this argument, for if he does not, it will be understood as unanswerable.
I especially challenge his answer to the question: "What is the difference between an offering for sin, or a sacrifice for sin, and an atonement for sin?" Was it not understood by the priest and people under the Levitical economy, that the sacrifices and offerings they made, were for the purpose of atoning for their sins? I shall not ask my opponent about that; it matters but little to me what he thinks of a thing that the Scriptures are so pointed on. I shall refer to them, and, when he answers this question, let him show me my mistake.
I will read Leviticus 4: 20: "And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this; and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them."
Here we have an offering and an atonement, both mentioned in the same thing. He dare not tell us that those Jewish offerings did not point to the offering of the body of Christ, but if an offering in the figure was an atonement, how is it that the offering in substance is not an atonement also? I presume we will not hear an answer to that. The very idea of an offering for sin implies an atonement for sin. If the offerings of the Jews made an atonement, then the offering of Christ made an atonement. If the offering of Christ was to make an atonement, then He made an atonement on the cross, for there is where He was offered.
In connection with the Jewish offering the word "atonement" occurs four times in the fourth chapter of Leviticus, and about six times or more in other places, in the Old Testament; and it is generally, it not always connected with offerings and sacrifices. As the Bible is so plain that the Jewish offerings did atone for the people, and that the offering of Christ is the great anti-type of all those types, I argue that the offering of Christ was for the purpose of atoning for sin.
One thing is certain, that the atonement was made on the cross, or else it was made before, or after, or not at all. If Christ's blood atoned for sin, then the atonement was made on the cross, as I have already observed.
ARGUMENT SEVENTH. I argue that an atonement for sin is necessary in order to the forgiveness of sins.
Leviticus 4: 26: "And the priest shall make an atonement for him, as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him." The same expression occurs in the 20th, 31st, and 35th verses of the same chapter. After the atonement, or in consequence of the atonement, forgiveness is extended. This was the case under the former dispensation, among the types, and if they prefigured Christ, which the Apostles teach that they did, then Christ atoned for the people, and thereby secured our forgiveness. This atonement was made with blood under the old covenant. Exodus 30: 10: "And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year, with the blood of the sin-offering of atonements; once in a year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations; it is most holy unto the Lord."
This text proves that it was blood that atoned for sin, and I have shown you that in the old dispensation, the atonement was in order to forgiveness. To atone for sin is to purge from sin, and the Apostle says: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission." Heb. 9: 22. Hence, as there must be an atonement in order to remission, and the shedding of blood is necessary to remission, and it was blood that made the atonement in the figure, what are we left to conclude, only that Christ's blood was shed in order to remission, and that His blood as truly atoned for the sins of the people, as did the blood of the beasts anciently?
Jesus said, when He instituted the Supper: "For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. 26: 28.
Remember, now, this is the language of Jesus Himself, and He is especially speaking of His blood.
He calls it His blood of the New Testament, and He says it is shed for many, for, in order to, the remission of sins. Where was His blood shed? On the cross. What was it shed for? For the remission of sin. Did that blood atone for sin? I ask my brother to say. If he says it did not, I ask: "Why was it shed for the remission of sins?" If he admits that it did atone for sin, then he must admit that the atonement was made on the cross. If the atonement was not made on the cross, the blood of Christ did not atone for sin, for it was shed on the cross. I have already shown that He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." I have also proven that He redeemed us with His blood, and I now prove that His blood was shed in order to remission. The Apostles say: "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." Eph. 1: 7. Col. 1: 14.
I feel confident now, that I have sustained the first part of my proposition, so I will not pass on to the second division of the question I have already remarked, that the doctrine of the atonement is the basis of the whole Christian structure. It is connected with all that is consolatory; in the experience, and powerful in the practice of the believer. Without this doctrine, the light of truth is beclouded, the hope of acceptance doubtful, and the remedy for man's sin and misery, of very questionable efficiency.
I wish to preface my arguments on this part of the proposition, with a few thoughts on the necessity and nature of the atonement. The necessity of the atonement arises from man's sin and its necessary consequences. A holy and righteous law was given to a responsible man, sanctioned by rewards and penalties, given by the most holy and just of all lawgivers, the God of Heaven, the moral governor of the universe.
This law rewarded the obedient and punished the disobedient. Sin is the transgression of this law, and if a man sins, he must suffer the penalty, himself, or another must suffer it for him. God, the law-giver, will not allow sin to go unpunished. The law requires everything that is good, or right, and forbids everything that is wrong.
As the law is the embodiment of all that is perfectly just and equitable, it requires nothing that is unreasonable. If man never violates it, it will never punish him, but if he does, it demands satisfaction. Its claims for satisfaction are perfectly just and right, so that no guilty person has a right to complain at the penalty of the law he has violated.
This law has been violated by our race, and for that violation we are justly condemned. We have been tried by the law, and found guilty of transgression, and for such transgression we stand exposed to the divine penalty. God, the Judge, is not under any obligation to release us, until we suffer the penalty. We have no claim upon Him at all for a remedy for our wrongs, and unless we are able to atone for our sins, we must suffer the penalty, or one that can must atone for us. If no one comes to our relief, we are condemned forever, for we are not able to make satisfaction for our sins. We might be sent to perdition forever for our sins, and our eternity of suffering on our part never could satisfy the law. Then we can easily see the necessity of the atonement. Man is utterly incapable of rendering satisfaction for his sins.
The law will hold its claim until satisfaction is rendered, and no sinner can be saved until the law is satisfied. If man did not stand when he was innocent, how will he serve God, and be accepted of him now that he is guilty and polluted? If obedience to the law could be rendered in the future, that could not be sufficient to remove past guilt, and the curse annexed to it. Neither could our tears and penitence make amends for the violated law.
The demands of the law cannot be relaxed with any degree of honor to the law-giver, for, if the demands of the law be relaxed, the truth would be violated, and the rights of justice would be infringed, the interests of holiness would suffer, and confusion and disorder would be introduced into the administration of God. Under this state of things, what did Deity do? He devised the expedient of the atonement.
Having now seen the necessity of the atonement, I wish next, to notice the nature of the atonement for a few moments. It is very evident that the person atoning must be superior in dignity to those for whom the atonement is made. Such was the great sacrifice that was provided. He possessed all power and honor and glory. He was infinitely higher than the first Adam, even in a state of innocence. Adam was natural; he was spiritual; Jesus Christ was Lord of all, and the Father gave "him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as the Father had given him."
And, as he came into the world to make an atonement, it was necessary that he possess the same nature as the ones for whom he atones. The law was given to man, and violated by man, and the penalty is justly demanded from man; so, in order to redeem, Christ was "made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." "He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb. 2: 17, 18.
He, who atones for the sins of the people, must have a right to dispose of his own life, and freely offer himself to that end. No mere creature has the right to dispose of his life, for God alone is the rightful disposer of the lives of men. Christ had the right to dispose of his life. He says: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10: 17, 18. From this it is very clearly seen that Jesus had the right to dispose of his own life. Therefore, he could say, "I am the good Shepherd. The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." One more qualification is necessary to make one fit to atone for the sins of the people, and that is, he must approve of the law, and acknowledge the justice of its claims. It would ill-become the Redeemer to complain that the law was too rigid in its claims, or that it exacted too much. But the one who atones must be one who honors the law, and who realizes the strict justice of its claims, and is willing to meet all its demands, though they be ever so severe.
It is evident that Christ delighted in the law, and loved to perform its requirements. He did not come to set the law aside, nor to destroy it, but he came to fulfill it, and he says: "Until heaven and earth shall pass, not one jot, or tittle of the law shall pass, until all be fulfilled." Christ came to meet the demands of the law as they were, and not as they might be. He came to redeem men from the claims of the law, by paying all their debt, and not by simply paying a small portion of it, so as to make salvation possible. He, by the atonement, made the salvation of those for whom he atoned absolutely certain.
Another qualification he must have. He must be free from all charges himself, and if he is not, he must require a sacrifice for himself, and his offering would be polluted, and in that case his offering would be of no value. Jesus Christ was spotless; His offering was "as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." I. Pet. 1: 19. He "offered himself without spot to God." Heb. 9: 14.
Possessing all these traits of character, he must, if he atones, answer all the demands of the law, and endure its curse. Such is the nature and necessity of the atonement that upon which the saints are allowed to build their hopes of heaven and immortal glory.
Now, then, I wish to pay some attention and respect to some things Brother Dickey said. In the first place he accepts my definition of reconciliation and atonement. I want that distinctly understood, that he says himself, reconciliation means atonement, and atonement means reconciliation. Well, now, then, what does my opponent say? It says the atonement was made on the cross. What does the text I quoted say? It says, "being reconciled to God by His death." Where did He die? On the cross. Bear in mind, if He died on the cross, reconciliation was made on the cross. Why? Because he died on the cross, and by His death we were reconciled, and hence, if the two words mean the same thing, the atonement was made on the cross.
Brother Dickey then wants to know if you were enemies to God at that time? He says if you were not, then you could not have been reconciled when Christ died. He says you did not live then, you had no malice in your hearts then, you had no existence whatever. I ask, were you sinners then? Tell the people whether we had any sin or not.
He says we did not have any sin then. Then have you no interest in Christ's death, simply because you did not live when He died? Would any be saved that now live without His death? By His death He put away sin, and in the very same manner He benefited you who were enemies. He died for you before you had any existence.
CHAPTER IV.
MR. DICKEY'S SECOND SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I will first notice some of the arguments Brother Potter presented to prove his position. He argues that atonement was made on the cross, because it was made with the blood of Jesus Christ. And that as the blood was shed on the cross, therefore the atonement was made on the cross. This would seem to be a reasonable conclusion, or plausible at least, if we should not examine the Scripture's bearing on this subject. But it is by the light and teaching of inspiration alone, that we shall be able to fathom the depths of this profound subject; therefore, it is not sufficient that an argument may appear to have some plausibility about it, but we must have the plain teaching of the word of God, for it is only by the word of God that we know anything about the atonement, or reconciliation, being in process of completion through Jesus Christ. We never could have reasoned out the atonement. It was conceived in the mind of God, it is unfolded alone in the great scheme of salvation, as presented in God's word. Therefore, to the word of inspiration we must turn for information on this subject.
Before Jesus Christ came to earth, all those who were saved, were saved through Him, just the same as those who have been saved since His coming, have been saved through Him. If it is necessary that men to be saved since the coming of Christ, need to be reconciled to God, it was necessary for men who lived before His coming, if saved, to be reconciled to God. If we need information on this subject now, those who lived before the coming of Christ needed information then. If they needed information and God gave it to them, we certainly may learn from that information now, if it is left on record. The work of Christ in reconciling men to God, or making an atonement, was clearly set forth by type, or in figure for their information.
Can we not learn from the type if they could? Read carefully the 16th chapter of Lev. on the subject of the atonement, and the manner in which it was made. We will now examine the type or figure.
A Tabernacle was built. This Tabernacle was a type or figure of Heaven. A kid of the goats was selected. The goat was a type of Christ. The goat was killed outside the Tabernacle; a figure that Christ was to be crucified here on earth. The blood was taken through the outer court of the Tabernacle into the holy place, and an atonement or reconciliation made with it, by the High Priest sprinkling it upon the mercy seat, in the presence of the Lord, as revealed in the cloud over the mercy seat. This is a type, or figure of Jesus Christ entering Heaven after His death and resurrection, and ascension, and there in the presence of the Majesty on High, offering His blood upon the mercy seat, by which an atonement or reconciliation was to be made for all those who would believe in Him. The type represents the precious blood of Christ as being sprinkled on the mercy seat in Heaven, when it is represented as remaining in the presence of the Father continually, as the blood remained on the mercy seat in the Tabernacle, and that those who believe in Christ, in all ages, are reconciled and cleansed through the meritorious righteousness of His blood.
The question between the Elder and myself is not whether the blood of Jesus Christ is that by which reconciliation is made but it is whether the atonement was made when the blood was shed on the cross, or will be made by the presentation of the meritorious blood of Jesus Christ before the Father in Heaven, when the individual believes in Jesus. The type represents reconciliation, or atonement being made in Heaven. The believer becomes reconciled in mind, or spirit, at the time he believes in Christ. The body at the resurrection.
Reconciliation, then, is not complete, only in process of completion. The work will be carried on by Christ through the ordained instrumentalities chosen by God, until He steps off the mediatorial throne, and delivers up the kingdom to God the Father. He speaks of Christ redeeming us on the cross. I will notice redemption further along in this discussion.
Again the Elder inquires: "If the suffering of Jesus on the cross did not make an atonement, why did he suffer?" Because God did not ordain that an atonement or reconciliation should be made by suffering, but by the precious blood of Christ. Why did not the suffering of the goat make an atonement? Because God ordained that an atonement should be made with the blood, and not by suffering. The blood of the goat could not be obtained without suffering; it must be put to death; it must die.
The blood of Jesus could not be obtained without suffering; He must die; it was necessary for Him to lay down His life for the sins of the world, I. John, ii., 2. But laying down his life did not make an atonement, it was a necessary step in the great work, without which an atonement could not have been made.
The Elder represents that the slaying of the Paschal Lamb made an atonement. Here he is mistaken. There is nothing intimated in the Scriptures about the Paschal Lamb making an atonement. The Paschal Lamb was a type of Christ, and represents a different part of His work, which he performed instead of the atonement.
The Lord instructed Moses how the Paschal Lamb should be slain and eaten, the blood put upon the door-post of the houses in which it was eaten, as a sign to the destroying angel, that he might pass by the first born in Israel and thus preserve the lives of all Israel. God was just in the act of redeeming Israel, all the descendants of Abraham, from Egyptian bondage, Exo. vi., 6, 15, 13. The slaying of the Paschal Lamb and the putting of the blood on the door-post, and the redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage, is a type of Jesus Christ, by his righteousness, death and blood, redeeming the entire race from under the condemnation brought on the world by the sin of our first representative, so that the barrier interposed between the mercy of God, and the lost sinner being thus removed, all are brought in reach of life, and will receive life from the dead through the resurrection of Christ. The Paschal Lamb slain represents Jesus Christ engaged in the work of redemption. The slaying of the Paschal Lamb was to take place on the fourteenth day of the first month of the year (Nisan).
This, as I have said, represents Christ in His work of redeeming the race from under the condemnation brought on them by original sin, the sin of Adam. This was to be observed annually until the coming of Christ. Exo. 12th chapter.
The slaying of the kid of the goats represents Jesus Christ engaged in the work of the atonement, or reconciliation. Delivering the believer from the effects of personal sins, actual transgressions.
The slaying of the goat preparatory to the making of the atonement for those of Israel, who afflicted their souls, took place annually on the tenth day of the seventh month, and was to be observed until Jesus should offer Himself. Lev. xxiii., 26, 29.
The returning of Israel from Egyptian bondage was essential and of necessity must precede the making of an atonement in the Tabernacle by the High Priest. This could not have been done in Egypt. The slaying of the Paschal Lamb, including all ceremonies a type of redemption. The slaying of the goat with all the ceremonies therewith connected to make an atonement for those of Israel who afflicted their souls, a type of the atonement, to be made by Jesus Christ for all those who repent of their sins, and believe on Jesus.
Thus we see the slaying of the Paschal Lamb was not a type of the atonement, or reconciliation, but of redemption. Again, the Elder refers to Rom. v., 10: "For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." By the death of Jesus Christ, there is a manifestation of the attributes of God. Love, justice, mercy, wisdom, truth and power are conspicuously set forth in the death and resurrection of Christ. This is unfolded in the Gospel, and made known to the world through the instrumentalities of divine grace. The sinner being an enemy of God, learning through the Gospel the attributes of the Father, by the death of Jesus Christ, is led by the information, or light obtained, and the influence of the Spirit to lay aside his enmity, and seek God by repentance and faith. Thus, coming to God by repentance and faith, through the meritorious righteousness of the blessed Savior, and the presentation of His blood to the Father, on the mercy seat, reconciliation is brought about, between God and the penitent believing sinner, and being thus reconciled, "he shall be saved by His life."
This passage, instead of proving that reconciliation is made on the cross, proves that it is made when an individual is in existence, after enmity has existed in his mind, and thus overthrows the proposition it is introduced to sustain.
The Elder insists that the offering made by Christ on the cross makes reconciliation or atonement. The offering made by Christ was preparatory to the making of an atonement or reconciliation, but did not make it. The offerings of Israel did not make an atonement. The offering of the goat which typified the body of Christ, did not make an atonement; the blood of the goat was that which made an atonement when presented in the holy place in the Tabernacle, and sprinkled on the mercy seat by the High Priest. So the blood of Christ must be presented in Heaven, in the holy place not made with hands, to make an atonement. The atonement was not made on the cross, but is made in Heaven.
I will now take up the subject of redemption at the place I had reached in my argument, when my time was up. In my first speech, I had stated that Adam, our first representative, had, by disobedience, brought the race under condemnation with all its attendant consequences; that Jesus Christ, our second representative, was sent into the world to remove the condemnation brought on the race by Adam, to the extent that mercy might be extended to all.
The descendants of Adam had no volition or choice in regard to their nature. They did not receive sinful natures by choice, but came into existence with corrupt nature, with condemnation pronounced against them, as the result of sin committed by another. What was the effect of the sentence of condemnation pronounced against the race? The cutting off from life. Gen. iii., 22: "And the Lord God said: Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever." 24th verse: "So He drove out the man and He placed at the east of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life." The sentence of death, Gen. iii., 19: "For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Adam's posterity being sinners by nature, unable to live free from sin, sin being the cause of all the sorrows and troubles of life, as well as the means of bringing on death. Rom. v., 12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." And man possessing now power by which he can escape the impending doom, yet susceptible of suffering intense agony and pain, all this brought on him by the act of another. I ask in the name of suffering humanity, if justice as well as mercy, does not demand that some provisions or means by which deliverance may be attained? From the Scriptures I understand that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit decided that it was in harmony with the perfections of divine nature to make provisions by which man might be delivered from his wretched condition. Titus ii., 11: "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men."
In this text we read that the grace or favor of God bringeth salvation, and that this salvation hath appeared to all men. In the Emphatic Diaglott this passage is translated thus: "For the saving favor of God is manifested for all men." This quotation shows that God is interested in regard to the salvation of all men.
Luke xix., 10: "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." This quotation shows that Jesus was interested in regard to the salvation of all men, for all were lost. Jesus says, speaking in regard to the spirit, John. xvi. 8: "And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." This quotation shows the Spirit is interested in regard to the salvation of the world by it reproving the world.
Thus I understand that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit decided there should be an interposition of divine favor extended to the race of Adam. And for this purpose God sent His Son into the world. John iii., 17: "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." Adam, being our representative, threw us under condemnation. Jesus Christ came to represent the race to redeem us from the condemnation brought on us by Adam. The sin of Adam brought us under the condemnation of the law and shut the door of mercy. The law demanded the execution of its penalty, which was death. Rom. vi. 23: "For the wages of sin is death."
Christ obeyed the commands of the law, and by His righteousness opened the door of mercy. He suffered the penalty of the law, which was death, and gained absolute power over death, that He might give life to the dead. Rev. i., 18: "I am He that liveth and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell and of death."
Christ fulfilled the law, Matt. v., 17, 18; therefore, no one of the race is excluded from Heaven for original sin. John iii., 18: "He that believeth in Him is not condemned."
He will raise the dead and give life to all those whose lives were forfeited by Adam, through the power he gained over death by His resurrection to life. I. Cor. xv., 22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." John v., 28: "Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice." 29th verse: "And shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
We thus learn from the Scriptures that Adam sinned and brought condemnation on the race. That the penalty of law was death; that the penalty of death was executed on Adam and Eve; that the penalty of death has been inflicted on all who have lived, except those who are now living, and that it will be executed on those who are now living and may yet live; that there were no conditions in regard to the penalty; that the penalty was pronounced against all, and no conditions stipulated by which the penalty could be evaded; that the effect of the penalty would have been eternal death, without redemption or deliverance from this condition, there can be no doubt. But Jesus Christ came to redeem us from this condemnation; not to prevent the execution of the law, not to keep the penalty from being inflicted, but to redeem us from the effects of the penalty after its execution or infliction. To give us life after the penalty of the law has been executed. This He came to do without any conditions. There are no stipulated conditions upon which He proposes to redeem man from death. He proposes to redeem the entire race from death unconditionally, according to the good will and pleasure of God, the Father. But this work has only yet been partially accomplished. After the resurrection of Christ, many bodies of the saints, which slept, arose and came out of the graves and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Matt. xxvii., 52, 53. Jesus has fulfilled the law, revealed the truth, performed miracles, died on the cross, rose from the dead, ascended to Heaven, received all power both in Heaven and on earth, (Matt. xxviii., 18), and will accomplish the redemption of the race from under the condemnation brought upon it by Adam. This redemption is not completed, only in process of completion. All have not yet been resurrected from the dead. The law being violated, it demanded the execution of the penalty, without any extension of mercy. If there had been no interposition of divine favor, if there had been no means provided by which mercy could have been extended, if there had been no Saviour given, there could have been no one of the race saved. But in consequence of God's great love, means have been provided through Christ by which all may be saved. John iii., 16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 17th verse: "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."
God, in His love, has devised a scheme of salvation adapted to our condition. What is necessary that those who were condemned in consequence of the sin of Adam should have done for them that they may be saved. First, they must have the barrier interposed by the law between the mercy of God and them removed. In the second place, they must have all enmity removed from their minds or affections, which exist towards God and His government. In the third place, they must be redeemed from death, delivered from its power by being resurrected unto life. I will now attempt to take up these three things, which are essentially necessary to be done for man and discuss them in their proper order.
The law demands absolute obedience and perfect purity and character. The race has a corrupt nature, I. Cor. xv., 50-54. It does not possess perfect purity or character, and therefore cannot render absolute obedience. The law then requires that man must suffer the consequence. Separation from God, certain death, with all the pains and sorrows of life, unmitigated by the least favor of God. These being the demands and requirements of the law, the race are all inevitably lost without help. All are under the law. Rom. iii., 23: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." I. John iii., 4: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth the law, for sin is the transgression of the law."
All being under the law, Jesus Christ came to redeem all. Gal. iv., 4: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law," 5th verse: "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."
The question now arises, what law was man redeemed from under? He was not redeemed from under the moral law, for that is binding on the entire race. The time will never come when it is not the duty, when the obligation does not rest on everyone to love God, to love his fellow man, to be honest, truthful and upright in every respect. He was not redeemed from under the law given for our government in the Gospel dispensation. Men are required to repent, to believe in Jesus, and to perform all the duties of the Christian life. This will always be binding on them in this life. What law then did Jesus Christ come to redeem us from under? A law which was given for the government of pure beings in a sinless state. A law which sinless and pure beings could only keep. The moral law and the requirements of the Gospel were given for the government of man after the introduction of sin. Given for the government of sinners, and man has not been redeemed from under them, neither will he be in this life.
Jesus Christ came into the world in possession of a sinless and pure nature, Heb. i., 4-9. He obeyed the law given to our first parents in Eden, the one they violated, and redeemed the race from under the Adamic law, which excluded them from the mercy of God, in consequence of its violation. When He obeyed this law, He complied with the demands of it, for all that were made under the law, Gal. iv., 5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
When the law was fulfilled by the second representative of the race, the barrier interposed by the law, which excluded the race from mercy, was removed; the door of mercy, which had been closed by the law, was thrown wide open by Jesus Christ, and mercy was freely offered through Him to all the descendants of Adam.
Christ did not only fulfill the Adamic law, but also the moral law, and the requirements of the Gospel so far as they were adapted to His condition of existence. Therefore, through Him mercy may be obtained for actual sins, by all who come in the way appointed.
Acts xx., 21, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. But notwithstanding the Adamic law has released its claim to exclude the race from the mercy of God, Jesus Christ has not yet redeemed the race from death. As it was necessary for Christ to obey the law that mercy might be freely extended to all, it was likewise indispensable that He should suffer the penalty of the law, which was death, and thus gain complete power over death, that He might give life to all. If Jesus Christ had not died, and rose from the dead, there could be no resurrection of the dead. If Jesus Christ did not die for all, then He was not raised from the dead for all. If he was not raised for all, then all cannot be raised from the dead, I. Cor. xv., 12. "Now, if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"
This quotation predicates the hope of the resurrection of the dead upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 13th verse: "But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen." If Christ did not rise, there will be no resurrection of the dead. 20th verse, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept." 21st verse, "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." Adam brought death, Jesus Christ brings life. 22d verse, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The same number that die in Adam, will be made alive in Christ. This could not be if Christ did not die for all. If Christ did not lay down his life for all, He could not take it up for all. If all will be resurrected from the dead, then Christ died for all, Acts xxiv., 15. And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Christ by his righteousness in fulfilling the law, redeemed man from under the condemnation which excluded him from the mercy of God. He, by His sufferings, death and resurrection, has gained the power over death, and will in the future raise the dead.
Thus redemption in the great scheme of salvation is of intrinsic value. We see the necessity of it in the incipiency of the work, and realize that it is indispensable, until the dead are raised. Redemption is only in process of completion.
CHAPTER V.
MR. POTTER'S THIRD SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I wish, before I introduce any further arguments, to notice a few notes I took during my worthy opponent's last speech, or during the two speeches.
In my first speech I introduced a text from the Prophet Daniel, in which the Savior is prophesied of as one who is coming to finish transgressions, and to make an end of sin.
My worthy brother seems to think his sins yet unfinished, that he did not do it. It is not done yet. That seems to be about his explanation of that text. I understand to make an end of sin, in the sense this text teaches, is to satisfy for sin - meet the demands of the law for it settle its claims for sin. The apostle says, somewhere and if the text is questioned I will find it that "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." The end of the law means all the law wants. In that particular, he made an end of sin, finished transgression.
He states that the sufferings of Christ was a preparatory step to the atonement. Now, I want to say this; I want to know what part of it? He did not only suffer for sin to make a preparation to atone for sin, but He suffered for sin itself. I introduced and quoted a text this morning, that set forth the idea very clearly, and in unmistakable terms, that He suffered for sin. If He suffered for sin I want to know if He did not atone for it, if that was not the penalty of the law for sin. I wish to ask it in behalf of my own brethren, I ask it again. Why did He suffer for sin, if that suffering was not the penalty of the law for sin? If it did not atone for sin, by meeting all the demands of the law for it? I hope I will get an answer to that in the next speech. If I am wrong, I desire to be right.
In speaking of the pascal Lamb, he says it did not make an atonement. I refer you to the text in which Christ is said to be our passover: "Christ, our passover is now sacrificed for us." He did not say the Paschal Lamb was an offering for sin, but at the same time it did point to Christ as that passover made for us. He told us that Christ did make an atonement, but did not make it on the cross. Now, I am striving for information. I want to know when He did make it. When did He make it? At what time or place? When was it, except in His death on the cross? I hope we will hear an answer to that question. When did He make it? He tells us that the sinner must be delivered from three things. One is, that he must be delivered from the curse. Another, enmity must be removed from our nature.
I introduced a text that has not been noticed, and I hope some attention will be paid to it, from the fact that I think it is to the point. Gal. 3: 13: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written: "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." What does the word hath mean? What tense is that? "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." Now remember, that whatever the curse of the law is, Christ hath redeemed us from it. Not that it is removed in part, in that the work is begun, but that He hath redeemed us. It is complete. This redemption is.
Brother Dickey then wanted to know from what law he redeemed us. From the curse of the law, Brother Dickey. We are under obligations to keep the moral law, but we have not done it, and for our transgressions of it the curse was placed upon Christ.
Now, this audience will understand me. If Jesus redeemed us from the curse, are we in any further danger of that curse? He tells us redemption has begun, and to prove it, he refers us to Eph. 1: 7, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." Certainly we have redemption. We would not have if there was none, would we? We could not have remission of sins without redemption. What else is forgiveness of sins? As I have already said this morning, we have it now. It is complete.
Now, let me tell what redeem means. To redeem is to buy back that which is forfeited or lost. That is the meaning of redeemed, and Christ has either bought us back, or else He has not. If He has not, He has not redeemed us. It is said: "Ye are bought with a price." Notice, bought with a price, with the precious blood of Christ. Where did Christ shed His blood? On the cross. What did it do? It bought us back. Just as certain as that payment was complete when the blood was shed, just that certain redemption was complete when that blood was shed.
One more remark I want to make: my brother missed the verse I referred him to. I referred him to Rom. 5: 9, and he got hold of the tenth verse. I was almost tempted to correct him at the time, but did not.
"Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." Justified by what? By His blood. By His blood we are justified. Here the Apostle is talking about the death of Christ. He is not talking about anything else. In the preceding verse he says: "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
We cannot be mistaken about that. The death of Christ and justification through His blood is the subject. Where was His blood shed? On the cross. What did He do? He justified us, that is what He did. That is the argument I made this morning, but my brother missed the text I used. I will now proceed with my arguments, but I wish to make one more remark that I overlooked; that is, when I referred to our Methodist brethren this morning, my brother rather chided me for it. I simply referred to their Confession of Faith as setting forth a universal atonement. They may be correct in the belief of a universal atonement. I know they teach it in their Confession of Faith, that the sacrifice of Christ once offered is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual.
This is a universal atonement. Nothing short of it is. If any of you are under the impression that you believe in universal atonement, just think what it is.
Now, while I refer to anybody, I do not intend to be personal, but if Brother Dickey or anyone else wishes to take the matter up, just let them do it.
I do not hold anybody responsible for anyone else's belief.
At a very remote period, according to history, Faustus, the leader of the Pelagians, and Sirmandus, the acknowledged semi-pelagian, advocated the doctrine that Christ died for all the race of men, and while they advocated that doctrine they were opposed by Augustine, Prosper, Fulgentius, and other defenders of the truth. A discussion on the atonement entered the Roman Catholic Church, and it was carried on with no small degree of warmth, the Jesuits espousing one side, and the Jansenists the other. The latter of these said: "Whoever affirms that Jesus Christ made expiation by His sufferings and death for the sins of all mankind is a semi-Pelagian."
I hope now, while I am discussing this proposition, we will see whether there are any semi-pelagians, according to the notion of the Jansenists, in our day. From the Catholics the controversy passed to the Protestants, and Lutheran Arminians advocated the cause of universal atonement, while those who have since the Reformation been known as Calvinists, have contended for a limited atonement. It is evident, however, that Wycliffe and Hus believed in a limited atonement, as well as the ancient Waldenses, from the fact that history teaches us that John Calvin inherited the doctrine of the Waldenses. On the extent of Christ's atonement, the two opinions that have long been agitated among the people are sometimes expressed by the terms definite and indefinite. By the former is meant that Christ died, satisfied divine justice and made atonement for those only, who will be saved. The latter means that Christ died, satisfied divine justice, or made atonement for all mankind without exception, as well as those who will never be saved as those who will be saved.
However, this is not exactly the issue between me and my brother now, for as we have already noticed, he denies that Christ made any atonement on the cross, and, as a matter of course, he will not claim that the atonement was made by the death of Christ for all the race of mankind. I claim that as Christ died, He made atonement, and if my brother can prove that He died for all the race of mankind, it will have been proven to my satisfaction that He made an atonement for all the race of mankind.
Hence, I will take the position at present of a definite atonement, as my side of the present position involves me on that side of the question. Of course, I would not be there, if I did not believe the Bible to teach that sentiment. I regard the death of Christ as the legal satisfaction to the law and justice of God, in behalf of elect sinners. While my brother regards it that Christ died for all the race of mankind, as he will show when he gets up to reply to me, my position may be thus stated:
That the Lord Jesus Christ made atonement to God by His death only for those, or the sins of those to whom, in the sovereign good pleasure of the Almighty, the benefits of His death shall be finally applied. I argue that we have a right to conclude as to what the intention of God was in the atonement, from the use he makes of it. The fact that a thing is, is evidence to my mind that it was designed, especially in the matter of the salvation of lost sinners.
Hence, if a sinner is saved by the death of Christ, I take it for granted that Christ necessarily atoned for the sins of that sinner. On the other hand, if a sinner is not saved from his sins by the atonement of Christ, I take it for granted as a necessary consequence, that the atonement was not made for that man. I argue that point, from the very fact that atonement means satisfaction for sin, or an expiation of guilt.
If Christ satisfied the divine law for the sins of all the race of mankind, I never could see any reason why all the race of mankind should not be saved. Or, in other words, I never could see why any of them should sink down to eternal perdition to reap the just retribution for their sins, if Christ has made satisfaction to the law for the same sins. If I believed in a universal atonement, I would necessarily believe in a universal salvation; if I believed in a universal salvation, I would necessarily believe that there has been a universal atonement. As only a portion of mankind are said to be saved, I conclude that only a portion of the race of mankind were atoned for by the Savior.
If God the Father gave His Son to die for sinners, He must have had some sort of design in the matter, and there can be only three positions taken. God must have designed or intended that His Son should make atonement by His death either for some of the sins of all the race, or for all the sins of some men, or for all the sins of all the race. I know of no person that holds the first of these positions to be true.
Perhaps it would not be amiss for us to notice the religious views of Christendom upon this subject, just for one moment. We have already referred to the 20th Article of the M. E. Church, Confession of Faith, which teaches that the offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. This seems to be the doctrine of the M. E. Church, as set forth in her Article of Faith. Now, bear in mind, this Article does not teach that the offering of Christ is a partial redemption, or a partial satisfaction, or a partial propitiation for sins, but a perfect redemption. Not for a part of the sins of all the world of mankind, nor all the sins of a part of mankind, but for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual.
Then, if atonement means expiation, satisfaction, or reparation, made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offense for an injury, and if expiation means extinction of guilt, then according to this article all the sins of the whole world have been atoned for, and all the guilt of the whole world has been extinguished and a universal salvation of the whole world is the only just and legitimate result. If Christ has atoned for all the race, he has done just what the Methodists have said in their Article, for this word "expiate" means atonement. Atonement means to expiate sin. To expiate sin means to extinguish guilt and nothing else is required to be done, for Christ has atoned for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual.
The doctrine of this Article is the doctrine of a universal atonement. But if we should undertake to find a man who advocates this doctrine, even among our Methodist friends, we would find them few and far between. While almost all the Arminian people of this age find great fault with the doctrine of limited or definite atonement, and claim, at the same time, that they believe in a universal atonement, we find they believe in no atonement at all; and as we have already seen since this discussion commenced, that our worthy brother does not believe that the atonement was made on the cross, I have my serious doubts whether he will believe in any atonement at all, before this debate closes.
Now, i wish to notice that, instead of believing that Jesus Christ made an atonement, the people argue entirely differently now. I heard a good Christian man say once, that he would affirm that "Christ died for all men, so as to make salvation possible for all men." If Christ only died for them in such a manner as to make their salvation possible, He did not atone for their sins, for to atone means to expiate, and expiate means to extinguish guilt.
Such a death of Christ as that for all of the face, would simply be an atonement for none. All who advocate the doctrine that Christ died for all the race must admit that His death and sufferings were not an atonement for all their sins, or else admit that all the race are saved. Another Methodist divine says: "It is evident the sufferings of Christ were not in amount what the law demanded, as the punishment for sin, for this would have consigned His humanity to torments forever." On the principle, then, that Christ died for all, if the validity of the atonement depends upon the amount of his sufferings, all must be unconditionally saved, and there could be no such thing as penitence, faith and pardon, inasmuch as the punishment was changed from the guilty to the innocent.
The penalty due to sin is endless torment in hell; but Christ did not suffer endless torment in hell; therefore, He did not suffer in amount what all the impenitent, or all the world must have suffered.
The sacrifice of Christ was such as God could accept and at the same time be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. But this does not make the salvation of all men a necessary result of the atonement, but merely a possible consequence." Jimeson on the 25 articles, pp. 96-97.
Now, let it be understood that this is the manner in which all those who pretend to believe in a universal atonement view the matter. We claim it to be no atonement at all, and charge on our Arminian brethren that they believe in no atonement at all, instead of a universal atonement.
Mr. Jimeson concedes this point, that if Christ's sufferings were sufficient to meet the demands of the law, then all the race would be unconditionally saved.
It occurs to me that any reasonable person would admit a universal salvation as a necessary consequence of universal atonement, or else admit a definite atonement consequential to a definite salvation, or else admit salvation without any atonement at all. The learned and celebrated Dr. Jenkyns, quoted by Jimeson, says: "The sacrificial offering of Christ is the expedient substituted in the place of the literal infliction of the threatened penalty, so as to supply the moral government just and good grounds for dispensing favors to an offender."
This doctrine seems to be that the sacrifice of Christ is not a perfect satisfaction for sin, but a kind of substitute that gives God an excuse to pardon sinners without infringing on the rights of His moral government.
But the Apostle tells us: "But now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Hebrews 9: 26.
If Christ, by the sacrifice of Himself, put away sin, the Father did not only have an excuse to pardon the sinner, but He had no justifiable excuse not to pardon him.
But let us hear Jimeson again: "God has provided the atonement of Christ as the guard against infliction of unconditional condemnation upon sinners; and in this atonement is found the only means and the only reason by which the moral government of God is supplied with just grounds for dispensing pardon to the truly penitent offender." Page 95.
This does not only teach that the death of Christ gives good excuse to save the penitent, but it was necessary to give God an excuse to condemn the impenitent. We frequently hear that the death of Christ leaves impenitent sinners without any excuse. I have often wondered if the death of Christ was necessary to leave the impenitent sinner without excuse. If the death of Christ was necessary to leave the impenitent sinner without any excuse, then without the death of Christ, impenitent sinners would have an excuse. Oh, what a thought! If a man is guilty and unjust, and Christ does not come into the world to die for him, he is excusable for being guilty. That is the doctrine. If he is excuse-able for being guilty, he is not guilty. That is all there is of that, and if he is not guilty, he does not need the atonement of Christ to save him.
The sinner needs atonement to be made on the ground that he is guilty, and that he has no excuse. God needs no excuse to damn the impenitent, from the very fact that if a man is guilty, he has incurred the just penalty of the righteous and holy law by his guilt, and he never can be saved from the just penalty of that law only by suffering the penalty, or else some one must suffer for him.
But I wish to show what the mission Baptists' doctrine is upon this subject, by giving an idea taught among them. The Missionary Baptists maintain the same doctrine. In speaking of the death of Christ, one of their members said: "His death does not make the salvation of all men sure, but simply makes it possible." Baptist Banner, August 18, 1886.
This is the manner in which all the Arminian world regard the atonement. They say they believe in a universal atonement, when in reality they believe in no atonement at all. Atonement means satisfaction for sin, and if the death of Christ gives perfect satisfaction for sin, and, as they say, if all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, then it does not follow that God must send sinners to eternal perdition for the same sins, after satisfaction has been given. If the death of Christ did make perfect satisfaction for all the sins of all the whole world, both original and actual, there are no sins of men - there are no unbelievers or impenitent sinners there are no sins for which there has not been perfect satisfaction made. If perfect satisfaction has been made by the death of Christ, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, how can the satisfaction be made more perfect by sending the sinner to hell for his sins and punish him forever?
If the sinner must be sent to hell for sin, it must be because justice demands it; if justice does demand it, it must be because the death of Christ did not make satisfaction for sin. If He did not make satisfaction for sin, then He did not atone for sin.
CHAPTER VI.
MR. DICKEY'S THIRD SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I wish to notice the word hath. He quoted, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us," Gal. iii. He argued from this text that our redemption from the law was completed on the cross. This cannot be true, as we had not existed at that time. We could not have been redeemed so long before we existed. Christ hath redeemed us, means that our redemption is in process of completion it is not completed yet. Our redemption will not be complete until the resurrection. In Rom. viii., 22, 23, we read, "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit; even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."
Our redemption then, did not take place on the cross, for we will not be actually redeemed, until our bodies are raised from the dead. Hath redeemed us, then, does not mean, as he thinks it does. How could you and I have been redeemed when we had no being?
but I wish to notice this passage "hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." "In Him." You see the very same "hath" precedes chosen that precedes the word "redeemed" used in the passage of Scripture he mentioned, "hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." Adam was not created, then, nor Eve, nor anybody else, before the foundation of the world. How, then, was it done? Were they literally chosen, or prospectively chosen? From the fact that we were represented, we were chosen for our belief in the truth; "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."
Perhaps I had better get that passage and read it at some other time. I do not think just now where to turn to it. But He hath redeemed us prospectively; we are not yet redeemed from under the curse of the law. If so, why is it that any person dies? The law condemns to death, and we see that every man dies. The brother said that that the curse of the law was the cutting off from life. Thus the penalty of the law is death, and if we are redeemed, we are redeemed from death, and must not die. Why is it that men commit sin? We see that men do continually transgress, consequently there can be but one reasonable conclusion, and that is that Jesus is engaged in the work of redemption and when that is complete, that we shall be relieved from sin; that is, those who believe in Christ. He does not redeem those that do not believe in Him. The entire race is under the curse brought upon them by our first parents. That curse is death, and the redemption will finally bring us from death.
Then he asks: if He did not make an atonement, why was it that He suffered? It was not the suffering; suffering does not always make an atonement. Our race has been continually suffering, yet they have never been able to atone for their sins. Simply suffering cannot establish justice, and remove the penalty of the law, and neither did the sufferings of Jesus remove the penalty of the law, nor redeem us from condemnation, but this work is in process of completion. This suffering, we see, was only a part of the work, although it was necessary to be performed. This atonement is not to be made by the shedding of the blood, but by the blood it is to be made. It is not said that it was made at the time that the blood was shed, because the Scriptures teach us that it was made at a different time.
Then he refers to the Paschal Lamb. It is said that this is a type of Christ.
This type of Christ suffered and died, but its sufferings did not make an atonement. Its sufferings is a type of Christ's sufferings, therefore the sufferings of Christ did not make an atonement. then he says Christ has brought us back from under the law. Well, in a certain sense that is true; it is in process of completion. If we are bought back from under the law, why are we punished if we fail to obey it? This work is in process of completion, to be realized at some future time, but at the present time we have not been released from the penalty of the law; we have not been released from sin and death, or from the house of bondage.
Next we will see what is referred to when he says they are rescued or brought back. The race, he says, is to be delivered from persecution, or the house of bondage, by the death of Christ. The human family is to be rescued from the grave. That is what is referred to. But he says we are justified by His blood. I have not denied that the blood must be shed. I think the Bible teaches it, that by His blood we are saved; but, at the same time, it does not teach that it was done on the cross. He teaches that it was done on the cross. That makes the salvation of the individual depend altogether on the death of Christ - makes it all depend on the death of Christ, that took place 1,800 years ago on the cross. Suppose there was no cross. Then, according to my brother, as Christ died to make an atonement, there would be no atonement without this death. Then if there was no cross at all, if Christ died, the elect will be saved without it as well as with it. This congregation will understand that if there was no cross, there can be no deliverance if it be true that Jesus Christ on the cross made an atonement for the elect. But if it was by His death alone that the atonement was made, whether the work is performed on the cross or not, those for whom He died will be saved, regardless of whether there was any cross or whether there was not.
My brother differs with the Apostle Paul, and the congregation can take their choice between Brother Potter and the Apostle Paul. One says the elect will be saved regardless of the cross, and the other says they will not. I have begun to think my brother has overlooked these things. He says the salvation of the elect depends on an act that was performed on the cross, when the Bible plainly teaches that if that was all they would not have been saved. I. Corinthians xv., 14, "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins." Suppose Jesus Christ died on the cross as he says He did, suppose He made an atonement on the cross as he says He did, yet the Apostle Paul says so plainly there can be no mistake, "IF Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins." Would we still be in our sins if the work of Jesus Christ had been completed on the tree of the cross? Then the apostle goes on to say: "Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished."
It is said of the death of Christ, that He had died, the just for the unjust, etc. In His death He performed one of the greatest steps in the scheme of salvation; but the Apostle Paul declares that, if Christ be not raised from the dead, the work on the cross would have been unavailing to save any individual from sin.
So it is most plain and evident that the atonement was not completed on the cross, and that my brother is wrong and the Bible is right. No mistake about it. I would go on here and read other passages, but that is all that need to be said on that subject, or that part of the subject.
Well then, he says that Christ met the law; fulfilled all the demands of the law against the human family.
Elder Potter: I didn't say against the human family, but against the elect.
Elder Dickey: Very well, that Jesus Christ met the law for the elect and fulfilled every single demand that the law made against men. Well now, if I am wrong with that statement, it was given just as he has made it. But if I am wrong I want you to correct me. I understand then that I have stated it correctly.
Then if Jesus Christ in His sufferings on the cross did pay all the demands, I want to know why it is that the elect die. The penalty of the law was death, and they just continue to die - the elect and everybody else; no one escapes it. My brother's position must be false in that respect. It cannot be true that Jesus Christ has met the law for the sins of the elect, and yet they continue under the law, when they had been redeemed from it on the cross. Yet this is his position, and he has no chance to get out of it. He has the redemption in an act that passed 1,800 years ago.
Therefore, if it was completed, then we ought to have Paul preaching with us today; we ought to have a great deal better preaching than we can do. We should have the apostles with us today, preaching to the children of men, telling them what was necessary for them to do. We should have had much better preaching than we are having, if this doctrine was true. But Paul died, Peter died, and all the rest of them died, so far as we have any knowledge.
Therefore, his position is most evidently incorrect; that Jesus Christ on the cross, 1,800 years ago, relieved man from all his sin. This release has not yet come, but is in process of completion, and if my brother had said that it will be completed with the resurrection of the dead, but not without this important part, then I could have given him my hand on that doctrine. But that is not his position.
Then, in regard to eternal punishment: Suppose that Jesus Christ did meet the demands of the law for the elect. What were the demands? Death. What else? Banishment from God. What else? To be turned into hell. What else? To be burned in the lake of fire and brimstone. Now, if Jesus Christ met the demands of the law for the elect, did He go there to be burned eternally? If not, why is it that He did not suffer the same kind of punishment that they must have suffered? To meet the demands of the law for the transgression of the law, could Jesus Christ have paid the debt if He did not suffer all the penalty when He became the substitute? He suffered as a substitute; that is, He took the place of the elect, or those who were unjust.
If the debt was paid for them, Jesus Christ must have paid it. If He paid it, it released every one from punishment, from the sorrows and difficulties of this life, and Jesus Christ must have suffered all the punishments, which were eternal. But we see the elect are not released from the cares and sorrows of this life. I cannot agree.
We were speaking in regard to Jesus Christ redeeming them from under the law. "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." That passage means this: that our first representative had brought us under the law, by transmitting to us sinful natures. Thus we are not sinners by any fault of our own, or by our own will. We are placed under the law, and we are incapable of complying with the demands of the law, so God, in His justice and infinite wisdom, decided that there should be an interposition of divine mercy. Jesus Christ, becoming our second representative, undertakes to redeem man, and to finally redeem him from the curse that was brought upon the entire race by the transgression of our first representative. Now, did He do it? My brother claims that He did what He came to do, and therefore, that the elect are now redeemed.
We will turn to Romans v., 18, and see what items we can get from that upon the subject: "Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The offense spoken of was Adam's offense. My brother will not deny that. Our first parent committed sin, and he was condemned, and judgment came upon all men to condemnation. They all commit sin, and are all condemned, and the penalty of sin, which is the transgression of the law, is death. No one will dispute that the whole race is condemned in consequence of the transgression of one, that one being Adam.
Let us see what Jesus Christ did. He performed several great steps in the scheme of salvation, which is now in process of completion it is not yet complete "even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men," etc.
The one now mentioned undertakes to rescue the race from the condition in which the first representative's transgression places them. This one is Jesus Christ. He stands as a representative of the race, just the same as Adam was; He is just as much a representative of the race as Adam was. Adam brought us under the condemnation of the law. What does Jesus Christ do? "even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men." What was the "free gift?" It was requital from the sins that had been brought upon men by the sins of our first representatives. this free gift was to be given unconditionally on the part of God; nothing required of men, in order that they be released from under the law; therefore, it is called the free gift, the releasing of all the human family, every man, every woman that lives or has lived on the face of the earth are to be released from condemnation brought upon us by the transgression of our first representatives. It is not yet complete. When will it be? At the time that Jesus Christ brings forth the dead from all their dusty beds and gives them life that life will be eternal; He will give it to all who believe in their Lord, Jesus Christ. While this is true, we believe that Jesus Christ is doing exactly what God sent Him to do what it is His will that He should do. This Jesus is able to do, for all power is given unto Him, both in Heaven and in earth. The will of God is to send Him to redeem those that were under the law, and as He succeeds in redeeming them, that is carrying out the plan of redemption that will ultimately redeem man from the curse that is, all those who believe on Him.
Now, my brother will perhaps reply to this, that the redemption is of the elect, but that the race at large is left out. Now, "all men" does not mean only part of the race, but it means that everybody has a chance to be saved, and the only way I can see for them to be saved, is for them to believe on Jesus Christ, and if it only embraces a part of the human family, they are not all interested in the death of Jesus Christ.
Let us read the text: "Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation," "all men" certainly means all the race "even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." This certainly would include all the race, at least, if the first includes all the race, the last most certainly must also. If the first includes only a part of the race, the last includes only a part of the race. If a part is left out, they did not need any redeeming; consequently, you may take which side you please of the question, you will find that Jesus Christ has accomplished His work for as many as were brought under the law by Adam's transgression.
Now, in confirmation of this we will read the next verse of the same chapter, Romans v., 19: "For, as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous." There is the same "many" to be made righteous as the "many" that were made sinners. Whether it was the entire race or not, just as many are to be made righteous as were made sinners. "Even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men," or "so, by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous." Just as many as were made sinners by Adam, just that many are to be made righteous by Christ. If my brother says that that includes the race, they will all be saved. In connection with this thought, if Jesus Christ redeems men from the curse of the law; if He redeems them from under the law, redeems them from the curse that rests on them; if there is a curse resting upon an individual, it stays there until he pays the penalty of the crime. But the curse does not rest upon him before he commits the crime.
To illustrate this point, we will suppose that an individual commits a crime for which he will be put in the State penitentiary; but some individual, in consequence of the power that was given him by the Governor of the State of Illinois was to perform some act by virtue of which the individual is to be released from prison. Now, whenever this individual is released from prison, he will no longer be condemned by the law. He will stand justified by the law.
Therefore, when an individual is released, he is free; just as free as if he never had been sent to prison. Just so it is with the sinner. If he is redeemed, he stands just as free from the law as he did before he had sinned. He is not condemned any longer by the law, because the law is satisfied. But we find that many were made sinners. I think it was the entire race that was made sinners, but if it was not, those that were not made sinners were free anyhow. If part were made sinners, Jesus Christ made an atonement for that part, and if He made an atonement for only the elect, the elect were all that needed it, for He died for the ungodly.
There is another passage of Scripture I have been thinking of presenting for our consideration: "He that believeth not is condemned already." Jesus Christ says that he that believeth not on Him is condemned. This is the language of the Savior, and He knew hoe to express Himself, to be correctly understood and comprehended. He says: "He that believeth on me is not condemned," then He goes on to tell why we are condemned. He does not say we are condemned because we are descendants of Adam, or because Adam did wrong, but He says: "He that believeth on me is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already." Why? Because he does not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
That is the just cause of condemnation. Every man is commanded to believe on Jesus, and every man that believes on Him shall be saved. "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life."
Now, whoever believeth is condemned not, but they that are condemned are condemned for not believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, as forgiving their sins. We have all committed sin; being sinners, we cannot avoid committing sin. But there is a remedy. We are invited to repent of the sins we have committed, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and receive reconciliation or atonement, at the very instant that we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Enmity is removed from the heart of the individual, for he that believes on the Lord is in a justified state. "He that believeth not on me is condemned already."
Thus the condemnation of the sinner is for the lack of faith, for the lack of obeying the teachings of God's word, which plainly tells us what to do, and it is our duty to do it. He tells us to keep the law. We are under obligations to do so. We are imperfect; we are incapable; we cannot fulfill the demands of the perfect law. But if we are not able to do this, if we believe on Him He will save us, notwithstanding we lack the ability to comply with the demands of the perfect law.
We will notice Genesis xxii., 18, "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." Was the blessing pronounced upon all the nations of the earth? "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." He does not say every individual shall be blessed, but the world of mankind at large; it mentions nations, but not individuals, and says they shall be blessed; blessed as nations. We are all to receive blessing as a nation, and are all to be brought back in reach of life.
I tell you this is no small favor. Although we are to undergo all the sufferings of this life, Jesus Christ places us in a condition which we may partake of the tree of life and come into the joys of eternal life. I say this is no small favor, secured for us by the action of the Lord Jesus Christ.
CHAPTER VII.
MR. POTTER'S FOURTH SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I wish to notice the word has or hath. "Christ hath redeemed us." I want it understood that Christ "hath," which means He "has." My brother introduced the text: "hath chosen us." I believe that, too, my brother, "as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." It is not necessary for a people to exist in order for God to choose them. He knew them from the beginning as well as He does now. He could choose them then just as well as He could choose them now. Hence, it is in the past tense. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." Not from the law, my brother, but from the curse of the law." That is what the text says.
On the sufferings of Christ, I want to know if Christ suffered for sin; what was it for, if it was not to suffer the penalty of the law due to sin; to answer to God for them; to justify us; when He suffered for our sins, what was it for? This is the question I asked him. I do not read of any other suffering only for sin. I would like to know what He suffered for if He did not suffer for sin.
Then he charges me with something I am not guilty of.
Mr. Dickey: I did not aim to do it, if I did.
Mr. Potter: He charges me with saying that the death of Christ saves people, that they are saved by that alone. I did not quote a text that reads that way. I quoted Rom. 5: 9: "Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." Not that we have been saved from wrath through Him. I also quoted another text, the very next verse: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."
I argue from that, that it was the death of His Son that reconciled us to God. We shall be saved, not by His death alone, but by His life. I hope my brother will understand me, and not accuse me of believing that we are saved by the death of Christ. We are saved by His life.
But in regard to the atonement, I believe from this verse that the reconciliation was made by the death of Christ; not by His life. While if reconciliation was made by His death, then we shall be saved by His life. That is my argument.
It was necessary that all this be said on that particular point. Of course, he will not reply to me correctly, unless he understands me correctly.
Then he wants to know if Christ goes to hell to suffer the penalty of the law, for that is a part of the penalty. I told you he did not believe in any atonement at all. If he believes in atonement for sin, he is going to have Christ sent to hell to suffer endless punishment, going to have Him bear all the punishment, for sinners cannot be saved unless all the just penalty be paid. That is his doctrine. That is the very doctrine implied if Christ suffered, he must suffer everything that the law demanded of sinners. There is no atonement in his position.
I think this audience can see that I believe in an atonement. You have heard people object to me and my brethren, because we do not believe in an atonement for everybody. We are away ahead of everybody else, now, for they do not believe in an atonement at all. They do not believe in any at all.
I overlooked one of my notes in my last speech. I want my brother to take it down. What does the apostle mean when he says: "Christ put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." If He put away sin, did He leave it where it was? Remember, He put it away by the sacrifice of Himself not by something else. He removed it put it away.
Then he quoted Rom. 5: 18, 19, but unfortunately it was the wrong text for him. The death of Christ is not mentioned in the whole text. He brought up the death of Christ, as being referred to in the nineteenth verse. What was the apostle talking about? The offense of one man Adam and of all men Adam's posterity, by which condemnation was brought upon all. Even so, by what? The death? No, by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men. This has allusion to the righteousness of Christ, while He lived in the world. Righteousness works of obedience to the law. While He lived in the world, He lived by the law until His death, "the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." This free gift was righteousness. That righteousness is imputed to sinners.
As the sin of Adam was inherited by his family, they all received the curse all of Adam's family, so Christ's righteousness was inherited by all of His (Christ's) family. Let us see if we can illustrate. In I. Cor. 15, we read, "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy, and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly." The earthy is Adam, and all that are earthy are like Adam. "And as is the heavenly," (that is Christ's), "such are they also that are heavenly." Who are like Christ? His. Who are like Adam? His. Each one represents his own family, and that is all there is in it. The offering of Christ is not mentioned in Rom. 5: 18, 19.
I would like to hear about this universal atonement. There is no offering in those two verses at all. Look at that text again, my brother, and study it a little more closely, before you bring it up to prove that Christ died for everybody. It is speaking of His obedience and righteousness.
Notice my arguments in your next. I will now proceed with my arguments.
While the Arminians claim that Christ died for all the race, they deny that He atoned for all the sins of any, so they do not believe in universal atonement.
I do not believe that Christ died for all the race of men, but I do believe that He did atone for all the sin of those for whom He died. And before I pass, I wish to notice Mr. Wesley on this point. In answer to the question: "If Christ died for all the world, why will not all be saved?" Mr. Wesley says: "I answer, because they believe not in the only begotten Son of God. Because God called and they refused to answer; He stretched out His hand and they regarded not; He counseled them, but they would none of His counsels; He reproved them, but they set at naught all His reproofs; they followed lying vanities, and forsook their own mercies; they denied the Lord that bought them; and so brought upon themselves swift destruction, and because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved; therefore, (if you would know wherefore), God gave them up to believe a lie, and to be damned. 'How often,' saith our Lord, ' would I have gathered you together, and ye would not. Ye would not.' Here is the plain reason why all men are not saved. "For God promiseth no man salvation, whether he will or no: but leaveth them to everlasting destruction who will not obey the gospel." Doctrinal Tracts, pages 152-153.
Mr. Wesley here mentions a whole catalogue of sins that do not belong to the whole world, and are neither original nor actual, or Christ did not satisfy for them. They are sins for which men are damned, and the Methodists say: "The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone."
Men are not damned for sins for which there has been perfect satisfaction made. Hence, if men are damned for the sins mentioned by Mr. Wesley, those sins were never atoned for by Jesus Christ.
I simply believe that man is entirely free from the claims of law for all the sins for which Christ made perfect satisfaction.
"Shall not the Judge of the whole earth do right? A God of truth, and without iniquity, just and right is He." Reason, revelation, and providence all concur in attesting this perfection of His nature. The Supreme Being gives to every one his due. This principle cannot be violated in a single instance. He cannot, according to this, either remit sin without satisfaction, or punish sin for which satisfaction has been received. The one is as inconsistent with perfect equity as the other. If the punishment for sin has been borne, the remission of the offense follows, of course. The principles of rectitude suppose this, nay, peremptorily demand it. Justice could not be satisfied without it. Agreeably to this reasoning, it follows that the death of Christ, being a legal satisfaction for sin, all for whom He died, must enjoy the remission of their sins. I have always understood, that if Christ died for sin, He atoned for sin. But it seems to be the case now that men will argue that He died for sin, and yet did not make a perfect satisfaction for the sins for which He died. The Apostle Peter says: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." I. Pet. 3: 18.
This text tells us in so many words, that He suffered for sin. How He suffered for sins, yet did not atone for the sins for which He suffered, is a problem that I am not able to solve. What could have been His object in suffering for those sins and yet not atoning for them is something I have never yet heard any man explain.
To say that Jesus Christ died for every member of the human race, but that He did not suffer for all their sins, does no man any good unless He atoned for their sins. There is no comfort or consolation in the thought that Christ died for my sins, if after His death I am still justly exposed to the divine vengeance of God's holy law for the same sins. In conversation with a Methodist minister, once, on the subject of limited or universal atonement, I asked him if he believed the 20th article of his Confession of Faith. He answered, he did. "Well," said I, "it reads that the sacrifice of Christ once offered, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole race, both original and actual. Do the terms 'the whole world' embrace all the race of Adam?" He said yes. "Well," said I, "how is it that you are not a universalian?"
If Jesus Christ did make a perfect satisfaction for all the sins of all the race of mankind, both original and actual, what else can they be guilty of for which they must be sent to eternal perdition? Does it not cover every one that they can possibly be guilty of? He answered that their position was that in the death of Christ, salvation was offered to the sinner on the condition of faith that if the sinner would believe, he should be saved; but if he refused to believe, he should be damned. I wanted to know if unbelief is sin. He said it was. Well, if Christ atoned for all the sins, both original and actual, did He not atone for the sin of unbelief as well as all other sins?
I now appeal to you today, my friends, if Christ made an atonement for all the sins of all the people, both original and actual, and atonement means satisfaction or expiation of guilt, have not all those sins been satisfied for? If they have been satisfied for, on what ground will any of them be forever lost? What must they suffer in eternal perdition for? It must necessarily be for the very same sins that Jesus Christ atoned for. Our Arminian brethren seem to see this point. Mr. Jimeson, a man we have already quoted, saw this point and denied that Jesus Christ made perfect satisfaction for all the sins of all the people; but it was a kind of substitute, that gave God an excuse that would justify Him in extending pardon to the believer. In that case, the sinner is saved when satisfaction is not rendered at all. In that case justice is set aside. If the sinner is not saved upon the principle of justice and equity, he goes to Heaven guilty, although pardoned.
There is such a thing as a man being pardoned, yet being guilty, but it cannot be in the case of the salvation of sinners, that they must enter Heaven guilty. This doctrine that says that Christ died for all the race of men, and yet did not atone for their sins, but simply gives God an excuse to extend pardon to the penitent, is the doctrine that says sinners are saved in a state of guilt, and that the Lord pardons them and takes them to Heaven. The Gospel represents Jesus Christ as having put away sin; removed it; did not leave it where it was before; and my position is and that is the position and doctrine of the atonement of Christ that when He satisfied for sin, a just law will never call for satisfaction again for the same offense. I want it distinctly understood that I am contending for the atonement, not simply for the sacrifice that makes no satisfaction; not simply for a suffering Saviour who suffers for my sins, yet does not make satisfaction for them, but for the atonement made by the Savior that satisfies for sin; puts it away; meets every demand of the law for it, as this alone is the only hope of salvation of fallen, guilty sinners.
In presenting my arguments to you, to sustain the last part of my proposition, that the atonement was made for the elect exclusively, it will be necessary for me to notice, first, the doctrine of election. I am under no special obligation to confine myself to the word elect, but I feel at liberty to use any word or expression that embraces God's elect, exclusively.
I will state, then, that God purposed, or intended, beforehand to save a people, and I will try to support the statement by Scripture testimony. For proof of the statement I will quote Eph. i. 4, 5: "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will."
It is very evident from this text, that there were some people chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and that, according to that choice, they are in time, blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ. The purpose for which they were chosen, was that they should be holy and without blame before God in love. It is also unmistakably taught here that God had predestinated them to the adoption of children. There were two, at least, embraced in this grand arrangement, for the pronoun us would not have been used, if there had not been at least two. I do not know how many, but I do know that the apostle, in this letter, addressed the saints which were at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus; and I conclude that Paul, and all those to whom he was writing, were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and were predestinated unto the adoption of children.
I presume no one will doubt the Ephesians and Paul being children of God, and if they were, it was because they were predestined to be. Is that true with all the children of God? Were all that ever have been, are now, or ever will be the children of God predestined to be His children? If not, then the Lord's family must be divided, and some of them are His children because He determined beforehand that they should be, and others are His children simply because they determined themselves that they would be.
Certainly no one will pretend to claim that there is such a distinction as that in the family of God. Then, if there is not such a division as that, it must be that all that ever have been, are now, or ever will be, His children, were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and were predestinated unto the adoption of children.
This was true of Paul and the Ephesians, and it must be true of all the others. They are all His children for the same reason; hence, they were all chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and were predestinated unto the adoption of children.
Having made this point, now I intend to try to work to it while I present my arguments. As God did choose His people in Christ before the foundation of the world, and predestinated them unto the adoption of children, it follows as a matter of necessity that all those whom He did predestinate unto the adoption of children, will finally be brought into His family. I presume none will claim that if God predestinated a people to be His children, they will fail to be. Then, if He fore-ordained some to be His, they will be, and if He fore-ordained all the race to be His, they will be, so all that is necessary for us to know whether He predestinated all the race, is to find out, if we can, if all the race will be saved. If some of them are not saved, and others are, and that because God designed they should be, then it must follow that He did not design to save those that will not be saved. If He did not design to save them, then I cannot see the propriety of Christ making an atonement for them. I hope we may hear something on this part of the subject from my brother, that will help us out of trouble, provided we are in an error.
I now claim that all the people that will ever surround the dazzling throne of God, in Heaven, were predestined to that end, and that they are, and will be adopted into the family of God because He determined beforehand that they should be. The reason I claim that, is because it was so with the Apostle Paul and the Ephesian brethren.
Unless my worthy opponent will show us that I am mistaken in this claim, I shall make it my rallying point during the remainder of this debate. If God designed the salvation of all that will be saved, and saves all that He designed to save, then, if all the race are not saved, we are left to only one conclusion: that He did not design to save all the race.
I ask my brother to tell us if he believes that God did design to save any of the race? And if He did design to save some, did He design to save all the race? I wish an answer to that question.
Did God design to save any of the race? Did He design to save all the race? Please answer that. If he tells us that God designed to save the entire race, then I wish to know why they are not all saved. If he tells us that He did not intend to save the entire race, then I ask what could have been His purpose in having Christ to die for them? If we say that God could not justly punish the wicked until Christ died for them, we deny the just claims of the law for sin; and if we say that Christ did die for them, and then they are lost, we say that Christ by His death did not make satisfaction to the just claims of the law for their sins.
But I will pass to another text, Eph. 1: 11: "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will."
These are the same Paul and Ephesians that we have been speaking of. They have obtained an inheritance, and the cause is that they were predestinated according to the purpose of God, who worketh things after the counsel of His own will. His purpose, counsel, will and covenant are all the same thing. He works all things pertaining to the salvation of His people after the counsel of His will. It is evident from this text that He has a purpose, and it is also evident that His purpose had to do in giving the inheritance to the Apostle Paul and his brethren.
I presume that it will not be denied in this discussion that God has a purpose, and all the people were embraced in it that will ever be saved. He purposed to save them, and now, according to that purpose He works. I have my serious doubts of any being saved that God did not purpose to save. If any should be saved that He did not purpose to save, then God does not save them, or else He saves them without purposing to do so. It will not be denied, I presume, by my brother, that all that God purposed to save, He will save. So if He purposed to save the race of men, then the race of men will be saved, and if any of the race of men are not saved, it is very evident that He did not purpose to save them.
I will now proceed to give a few quotations with reference to God's purpose, Eph. 3: 8, 11: "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."
There are two particulars in this passage I wish to call attention to; one is that the church, and not the entire race, was embraced in God's purpose. I understand the church in this text to embrace all the elect of God, and I believe it to be the elect only, and that the purpose that embraced the church is in Christ, and that it is an eternal purpose. The church is embraced in this eternal purpose, so the church was in Christ eternally, not in actual existence, but in covenant, or purpose. The purpose was in Christ, and the church was in the purpose, so the church was in Christ. "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world."
Christ atoned for those that were in Him by this covenant. Or, in other words, He atoned for those embraced in the covenant. He atoned for all that He died for, and I challenge my brother to show from the Bible that He died for any only those who were embraced in the eternal purpose of God. Every one that He died for was embraced in the covenant, no matter under what circumstances His death for them is mentioned in the Scriptures, nor with what language they are described. I want no better evidence that they were embraced in the eternal covenant than to know that He died for them.
But let us give one more text upon this point, II. Tim. 1: 9: "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." We now have the covenant, and the people, and the grace, all in Christ before the world began, and the people saved according to all this grand and perfect scheme.
This covenant did embrace some men, and I hardly think it will suit my opponent to claim that it embraced the entire race of men. I have too much confidence in his fidelity to the Bible, to entertain any fears that he will say there was no such an arrangement as an eternal purpose and that in Christ, and the people in the purpose, and grace given them in Christ, and they saved according to that divine purpose and grace. The Bible is unmistakably clear that there was just such an arrangement. I claim that for this people that Christ died, and those for whom He died He atoned, and those for whom He atoned will all be saved.
I challenge my brother to show any provision for the salvation of any that were not embraced in the covenant of grace. I challenge him to show any provisions for the salvation of any that God did not intend to save; or that He intended to save any that He will not save. I wish now to call attention to Titus 1: 2, 3: "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; but hath in due times manifested His word through preaching, which is committed unto me, according to the commandment of God, our Saviour." Here we have eternal life, promised by Him that cannot lie.
CHAPTER VIII.
MR. DICKEY'S FOURTH SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I find my brother a fine hand at asking questions, but a very poor one in answering. He has been asking questions all day, but has not attempted to answer any questions dodges every one he can possibly get around. I do not blame him for it, though.
I was speaking in my last speech in regard to the resurrection of the dead. That if Christ was not raised from the dead, then is our faith vain; and those that are fallen asleep in Jesus will perish. My brother makes the salvation of the sinner depend simply on the death of Jesus Christ; that whether Jesus had come forth from the grave or not, we would have been saved. My brother teaches it, but then he avoids it gets around it. He is not a great hand at answering arguments anyway, although he can make them. However, I would like for him to tell me. I want him to give an answer this time. If Jesus Christ made an atonement by His death on the cross, by the shedding of His blood, if it was an actual atonement, would it have saved an individual without the resurrection of Jesus Christ? If it requires the resurrection of Jesus Christ to save sinners, then the death of Christ alone cannot save them; there must be a resurrection. Now, if he can take up this point, make it clear and plain and convince this people that we would have been saved without the resurrection of Jesus Christ he will gain his point. But so long as he lets this point stand he never will convince this congregation that he is correct in regard to the atonement being made on the cross; never will convince anyone that simply the death and shedding of the blood of Christ saves anybody. Brother Potter and the Apostle Paul are right contrary, for Paul says if Christ be no raised, we are of all men most miserable, showing most clearly that it took the resurrection of Jesus Christ to save sinners, and that it takes the resurrection of the dead to make atonement complete. In the proposition it says complete atonement. Everything done that was necessary to be done, nothing lacking. I want him to tell me how it is, and also to answer this question, so that the people can see: "If the work was all performed by Jesus Christ on the cross, if it was complete, if there was nothing left to be done, I ask what is the need of a mediator to stand in the presence of God to mediate between God and those that are lost? Please tell us. I would like for him to begin to tell us and show us how it is, and if it was the complete work that was done on the cross. Of all other mistakes among men, that is perhaps the biggest. If this were true, then without the resurrection and without the intercession, without the mediation for those for whom He died, they would have been saved. But the Apostle Paul teaches that it takes more; therefore, the position that there was a complete atonement made on the cross must evidently be wrong.
My brother's position is lost unless he can show that they should have been saved without the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He might talk here for a month without proving that his position is correct, or that my presentation of it is contrary to the Scriptures. He will fail to show that a complete atonement was made on the cross. In regard to its being made for the elect and no one else, he has failed to make a proof. He has not made any proof today. He has said nothing in regard to the chosen. Instead of showing when or where it was made, he has applied it to those for whom it was made. Then he commenced his dodging the texts again, and gets on to election. Sometimes I am afraid my brother is not able to manage them very well, as he has gone back to election; avoiding the very point. Instead of answering me as to whether we are reconciled by the death of Jesus Christ, he is off on election. I showed that we were not in existence at the time Christ died upon the cross; that it was while we were enemies we were to be reconciled, and that we could not have been reconciled on the cross. I hope he will tell us how this is. We were reconciled when we were enemies. If there was an atonement made on the cross it was not made for us, because we were not in existence. If the atonement was made, it could not have been made for the elect or anybody else who live now, for they needed no atonement at that time; they were not enemies, for they had never existed. Therefore, there could be no atonement made for them. There was then no reason why they should be reconciled to God. Therefore, there was no atonement made for them. There was no need of it.
For instance, suppose that Brother Atteberry and I are good friends and treat each other like gentlemen as we do, but I conclude that he has done something very wrong and I refuse to treat him as I did treat him. Well, suppose he could not come to me to get me to become reconciled to him, but suppose he was to send one of his boys. Suppose I am lying very sick and I would die unless I receive help.
Brother Asa was to hear of my sickness; he sends that little boy over with a bottle of medicine; he says: "Dickey, I always wanted to be your friend and do you kindnesses, but you would not receive them at my hand, but now I understand that you are about to die, and I will prove my love to you by sending a medicine that will restore you to life." When that boy would give me the medicine I should have all the confidence that he Brother Asa - had been a friend to me and that I had been an enemy to him without any cause.
Just so in regard to God. We have no complaint to make against God, but enmity exists upon our part. We have no reason why we should not believe that God is our friend. But if God is going to damn us because Adam transmitted to us sinful natures, then I do not think He is much of a friend to us.
But it looks to me like it is on the other side of the question. This would be impeaching the character of God, but the Bible does not teach it, therefore I cannot believe it. But God sent His Son into the world, man's second representative. He was not satisfied with man, so He sent His Son into the world and through Him we are receiving the blessings. He informs us how to act, and rebukes us for doing that which is wrong. God sent His Son in the world to die on the cross, which is a part of the great plan of salvation that is given to us on that condition, and with the promise that those who will believe on Him will be saved.
When we realize that this is true, the death of Christ does have a powerful effect in producing obedience to the commands of high heaven. It is also a means in producing our reconciliation, but we are saved by His life. That is telling what I believe about the atonement. I have an idea that I know about what I believe. Tomorrow I will tell you what I know about the elect. I will tell it so plain that you will nearly all believe it. Maybe there will be half a dozen in the house that will not.
He wants to know what good Christ's death did if it did not make an atonement. Why it is a part of the work. Suppose a man goes out to break his corn patch; he does not plant it; the breaking of the ground was necessary to the crop. But if he does not plant the corn he will not expect a crop.
Just so in the salvation of sinners. The coming and death of Christ was necessary to save sinners, but that alone will save nobody. Nobody would have been saved without Christ's coming, but the coming did not save any one. If Jesus Christ had not performed the various works for the Gospel, the world would not have been saved. Without the performing of miracles by His power bearing testimony of the same, there would have been a great many who would not have believed the Gospel; but they had the evidence right before their eyes, in their presence. Consequently these miracles were important, but did they save anybody? Not a bit of it.
Just so in regard to the death of Jesus Christ. I attach as much importance to it as any one could in the reconciliation of the race, but I say His death considered alone saves no one. I say it will save no one, because the Apostle Paul says, if He had not rose from the dead our faith is vain.
Thus we see His death is only an important step, but it does not put away sin; sin is found in the world yet. We are still in our sin, but when the penalty is paid we will not be, and this can never be done without the resurrection, or if Christ had not rose from the dead. This atonement will be completed then. But those that are fallen asleep in Jesus are to perish; never going to come forth from the dead.
Yet my brother would make this congregation believe that everything was done on the tree of the cross that was necessary to be done. I believe that you can nearly all see that something else is to be done. I believe in the great love of the Savior for all the race and His wish to save them that He will make an atonement for their sins, but I do not believe He did it by one act, nor by all the acts He did. He has not yet accomplished the work He has undertaken; it is yet to be accomplished. There is a great deal yet to do. We see men in sin everywhere. If all is now done that is going to be done, we are going to perish. We will be like those individuals that have fallen asleep in Jesus, we are going to perish.
Without the Son of God on high to atone for our sins and with His blood reconcile those that believe on Him to God, we must perish. No, His blood must be offered at the mercy seat of God. The death of Christ saves no individual that has ever lived on the face of the earth.
Tomorrow I am going to make this clear. My friend has commenced at one end and I have commenced at the other. He has been speaking in regard to Christ dying for all. He says He died for only the elect. I do not know who the elect are. I do not know anything about that, but at the same time I think I know for whom He died.
Romans v., 6, "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." Now, is it only the elect that have been ungodly in this world? According to my brother no one but just the elect has been ungodly. The race has all been good if Jesus Christ did not die for them. That is not in the Bible. He died for the ungodly.
Suppose two men were ungodly. He could not have died for one and not for the other. If the entire race was ungodly He died for all; He could not die for one ungodly man and not die for another, on the cross. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." Christ died for sinners. For whom did he die? Sinners. If nobody were sinners but the elect, Christ did not die for anybody but the elect. The others would be in a blessed condition, for they would be without sin. If the elect were the only ones in the world that Christ died for, consequently the rest would be all right without His death as He died for the ungodly.
But Christ certainly died for us, for we are all dead, and here it says He died for all. He certainly died for all, for they were all dead. The Apostle Paul says in II. Corinthians v., 14, "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead."
"And that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again." Who is it that is alluded to here. If it is only the elect that Christ died for on the tree of the cross, they are the only ones that were dead. Listen here: "And that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again." Whoever has lived upon the face of the earth is unjust, and is commanded to live for Christ, and nobody has ever lived, nobody is on earth who is not under obligation to do so. "For we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, that He, by the grace of God, has tasted death for every man." Every man includes the entire race. All scholars, everybody that has read much, knows that our term man includes the whole race of men.
But Jesus has tasted death separately for every man for each man; that is just what it means, that Jesus Christ tasted death for every man every man that has lived on the face of the earth.
Then He must have died for every man. So my brother will find a hard road to go along. I. Tim. ii., 5, 6, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
Does that mean a part of the race? The Apostle Paul says for all. There, all means every one. He will redeem them back from the grace, from the power of death, and He will give to them life. That is the idea. Then he goes on to say: Wherefore He is able to save them to the uttermost that come to Him."
This intercession is for all people. Why? Because He died for all for the sinner; for the ungodly. Hebrews vii., 25, "Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." This shows that His work is not yet done. He quoted a passage "according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world," etc. I know that the Scriptures speak of choosing. What is in this verse? "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love."
Jesus existed before the foundation of the world. All things were made by Him. Jesus Christ is the one that is chosen, as I will show you. He is the first one represented as being elected. In connection with this, Jesus Christ being the first that is called or elected. He is the first that is chosen.
Another passage of Scripture says God is no respecter of persons; so preparatory to choosing Jesus Christ, God must know of His ability to accomplish that which He has designed to have accomplished. There was no other character like this; if there was, why did He not choose him? Why did He choose Jesus? Because He is no respecter of persons. Jesus was the only person found capable of carrying out the work God had designed, so He was chosen; and just as many as live in the world are chosen in Jesus Christ, because He was the only person that designed exactly as God designed, and was capable of performing the work. All others that Jesus Christ chose, were chosen in Jesus Christ, or else God was a respecter of persons, and the Bible says He is not in many places.
This was prospective choosing. We had no existence; we were only chosen in Christ, prospectively, for the human family was not in existence. God saw that individuals would live, and all that was going to be, and He chose them through His Son because of their likeness. The Apostle says if we have not the spirit of Christ we are not like Christ. But everyone that has lived or may live on the face of the earth was selected in Christ as a representative. Christ was our representative. He being our representative, we were selected prospectively, not really, when it comes to reality. The Apostle says:
II. Thessalonians ii., 13: "Because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."
Thus we have been sanctified by the Spirit before the world was created before there was any existence. This could not have been done only prospectively, not in reality; we were chosen through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. How were we to be chosen? We were called. How were we called?
II. Thessalonians ii. 14: "Whereunto He called you by our Gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."
This is why, the Gospel teaches, that men are saved. God has provided a means by which men may be brought back to the tree of life. He sent His Son into the world to save sinners and to atone for their sins. Prospectively we were chosen, and eventually the work of deliverance will be accomplished. Men will be brought back in a justified state. If they have faith in Jesus Christ, He will lead them to the tree of life.
In this life we are living in conformity with out natures, but trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ. If we trust in Jesus, we are brought back in reach of life, even as Adam stood in reach of life. There is much to be accomplished by Jesus Christ. It takes grace complete to save sinners. If my brother will find complete grace, I will think he understands something about the great plan of salvation in the Gospel, but when he comes up and makes an act that was performed 1,800 years ago, a perfect atonement, he makes the salvation of the human family depend on a dead Savior, instead of a living risen one. If he would make it depend on a living Savior who is able to save them to the uttermost that come to Him, I could begin to shake hands with him; but this way of putting it on one single act performed 1,800 years ago will not do for me. It makes no difference to me what the Methodists believe or anybody else. I think it sufficient to believe the Bible as the Spirit of inspiration has dictated it; and inspiration never dictated it in such a manner as to give the idea that Jesus Christ made a full and complete atonement by one act, it makes no difference what that act was. But Jesus Christ is able to make a complete atonement and He will do it at the proper time and in the right way.
I tell you He is a grand Savior. I would present Him in His death and in His sufferings, but not in them alone. He will finally bring those who believe in Him to live eternally in Heaven, and this will all be done because of His great love to the children of men. Can we do the Saviour justice when we put the atonement on that one act? If suffering would save a man, there is enough of it in the world now to redeem men. But suffering will not reconcile men to God.
Well, now, could a prospective choice affect the nature of those existing in eternity? My brother has said that God chose us back in eternity. Were we God's children before He chose us? If so, there was no use of His choosing us. Suppose they were not His, did choosing them make them His? Certainly not. If they were His, they needed no choosing, so my brother, when he goes into choice, goes to digging pretty deep down.
Choosing us back in eternity did not make us His. Does choosing a thing make it mine? No. But we are chosen in Christ prospectively and from our likeness of Him.
CHAPTER IX.
MR. POTTER'S FIFTH SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am sorry that after I corrected my brother yesterday, when he accused me of believing that the death of Christ alone saves the sinner without His resurrection, ascension, intercession and mediation, when I corrected on that point yesterday, he said he would stand corrected, but he afterwards made the same charge, as though I had not corrected him at all. I told you when I corrected him, that His death reconciled us, and we shall be saved by His life, and for him not to accuse me of looking to a dead Christ for salvation, but to a living Saviour. Now, this is the second time I have corrected him, on the point, and if he makes the charge again, I shall think he does not intend to debate fairly.
I will now remind him that the word salvation is not in the proposition. I am not here to affirm that sinners were saved on the cross, for I believe no such thing, as I had told him before in a letter. I do believe that the atonement was made on the cross, and as a result of that atonement the sinner will be saved. Atonement was necessary to salvation, but atonement is not all that is necessary. All the work of Christ is necessary, but the atonement was made on the cross. I hope I am understood. He admits that reconciliation and atonement mean the same thing. I claim that if they do, then atonement was made on the cross, for it was by His death, and His death took place on the cross.
He complains that I am good at asking questions, and that he would love to hear me answer as well as ask. It is very evident that some of my questions are very much in his way, but I will ask him one or two of the same questions, and if I do not get an answer, I may continue to ask.
What was the object of the sufferings of Christ for sin if it was not to endure the penalty of the law for the sins for which He suffered? I have asked that question before, but for want of an answer, I ask it again.
What is meant by the text I quoted yesterday that says: "He appeared once in the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself"? He has not answered this question yet, and I presume he will not. Yet he thinks I am wrong in my positions, but how am I to get right if he will not set me right?
But he is going to tell us how it is today. Then I suppose he did not tell us yesterday.
I now wish to notice some expressions that he relies upon to prove universal atonement.
When a man undertakes to prove Christ died for the entire race of men, he should be certain that he has, at least, one text that testifies pointedly and positively to that point. The strongest proof in favor of a universal atonement, is such expressions as all men, or every man, or the world, and the whole world, and so forth.
There is not a single text in the whole divine volume that says that Christ died for all the race of Adam. If there had been such a text, it would have sounded in our ears before this, during this debate. But for want of the text, it has not been produced. The expression, every man, does occur in connection with the death of Christ, and from it our universal friends claim that He died for all the race. Why does that text prove universal atonement? Simply because it says every man. Then, if that is a good reason, every man must mean all the race of men. If every man does not mean all the race, then this text does not prove that He died for all the race. But if this text does prove universal atonement, then every man when it occurs in Scripture must mean the race. If it ever means less than the entire race of men in the Bible, it may possibly mean less than the race in the text connected with the death of Christ. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man," Hebrews 2: 9. Does every man here embrace the human race? If it does not, then this is not the text to prove universal atonement by.
Let us first see if the expression itself, when we find it in Scripture will warrant us to say it means all the race of Adam. "The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it," Luke 16: 16. If every man includes the whole human race, then the whole human race pressed into the kingdom of God when John preached, but there were very few comparatively that pressed into it. It is evident that every man, in this text does mean less than the race of Adam. If it does, the other may.
But let us notice the context a moment, and see if we can learn who are really meant for the expression "every man." "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that He, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man. For it became him for whom are all things, by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren. Saying, I will declare my name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in Him. And again, behold, I, and the children which God hath given me." Hebrews 2: 9, 13. How much does that sound like all the race of Adam? "Every man," the "many sons," "they who are sanctified," "my brethren," and "the children which God hath given me," are all the same, are they not? If the every man, in this text, embraces all the race of Adam, so does each of the other expressions. But none of the others do, so there is no universal atonement in the text.
But it is argued that the term world and the whole world, when used in connection with the death of Christ, must mean the race of Adam, entire. If those terms never do mean less than the whole race, when used in Scripture, then, of course, all that is necessary to prove universal atonement, or that Christ died for the entire race, is to find the text that says He died for the world, or for the whole world.
But let us try these expressions, and see if they do always mean the whole human race. If they cannot mean less than the human race, then, it is clear that He died for the whole world. I am not here to deny that, but I do deny that He died for the whole race of Adam. If we should be able to prove that the words world, whole world, &c., do sometimes mean less than all Adam's
race, then it may be that the same terms mean less than the race, when used in connection with the death of Christ. Rev. 5: 13, "And every creature which is in Heaven, and on the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever." The expression of the text is as universal as any I know of in connection with the death of Christ.
If my brother should give one text in connection with the death of Christ, that is so expressive of universalism as this one, it would look more like he had proved his point than any he is likely to introduce. Notice, every creature which is in Heaven, and on the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them. That is certainly a lengthy all. If you have one text on the death of Christ, that will extend farther toward the whole race of men than this one does, I would love for you to produce it. Surely, if the whole race is ever embraced in any expression, in the Bible, in connection with Christ's death, the whole race must be meant here. It says, "Every creature which is in Heaven, and on earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them." That is certainly universal, or else it cannot be proved that Christ died for all the race of Adam, by any text of Scripture.
But now, let us see if this does mean all, or less than all, of the race of Adam. Rev. 6: 15, 16: "And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bond man, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens, and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb."
Now, it does seem that every bond man, and every free man, is very expressive of universalism. Both of these passages are as full of the entire race of men as any we will be likely to find connected with the death of Christ. One of them in the fifth, and the other in the sixth chapter of Revelation, and it can not be understood any other way, than that one of them embraces the saved only, and the other the lost only. Neither of them includes the entire race. As they are so full, and yet mean less than the race, it may be that when the Scriptures speak of Christ dying for the world, the whole world, all men, and every man, less than the race is meant.
There is quite a difference between the expressions all without distinction and all without exception. That Christ died for all without distinction, that is, for all ranks and descriptions of men, I believe; but that He died for all the race without exception, I deny. It should be observed, that universal terms are not to be stretched beyond that with reference to which they are used. They denote all comprehended within a specified whole, but the whole itself may be limited. In this sense the term all may express an endless variety of extensions; it may be all the members of the church, or all the children of a school, or all the citizens of a town, or all the population of a country, or all the inhabitants of the globe. Its meaning must be defined by that which is spoken of, and consistent with other plain declarations of Scripture. That Christ died for all is truly affirmed in Scripture; but for all whom? Is it ever said in Scripture that He died for all the human race? This is the question. Did He die for all the human family, or for all the Father gave Him, for all His own, for all His church?
In speaking of privileges secured for the people of Ireland, if the writer should happen to say that these privileges were secured for all, it would certainly be unfair to infer that they were secured for all the inhabitants of the globe. But we are as fully authorized to make that inference, as we are to infer that Christ died for the whole human family, if, when in speaking of the privileges of the people of God, the writer should say "Christ died for all."
Nothing is more clearly demonstrated than that the phrases, the world, all the world, and the whole world, often occur, in Scripture, in circumstances, where absolute collective universality is perfectly inadmissible. It is true in the following: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed;" Luke 2: 1, where all the world, can mean only the inhabitants of the Roman Empire.
"The world knew Him not." John 1: 10. All the human family cannot be meant in this text, and I presume it will not be claimed, in this debate, as there were certainly some, even then, who did know Christ.
"Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing; behold the whole world is gone after Him." John 12: 29. The whole world in this text cannot be understood to mean all the human race. The number that followed Jesus, and waited on His ministry were denominated the world, in a very restricted sense, for very few comparatively went after Him.
"The whole world lieth in wickedness." I. John 5: 19. This quotation is more extensive than some others, but universality cannot be admitted here; for, at the time the language was used, there must have been several thousand godly persons in the world. At the time to which this language applies, there were with the Lamb on Mount Zion a hundred and forty four thousand, who had not the mark of the beast in their forehead.
Hence, it is distinctly proved that the phrases in question do not prove universalism. If absolute universality is to be understood, when those phrases occur in connection with the death of Christ, it must be on some other ground than the Scripture usage of the language. And if the extent of import attached to the words is to be determined by circumstances connected with the thing spoken of, I candidly submit whether the principles I have already advanced, from the purpose of God, the covenant of grace, and the absolute election of God's people, are not sufficient to warrant a restricted import, while the general observations I have made determine the nature and extent of this limitation.
"Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world." John 1: 29.
This text is quoted to prove universal atonement, and it is claimed that the word world means the whole race of Adam. If it does not, then this text does not prove universal atonement. If this text does mean the entire race, then Christ must take away the sin of the entire race. As He does not take away the sin of all the race, this must be taken in some other sense. The world must be that portion of the race whose sin He absolutely takes away.
In order to evade the force of this argument on this text, I have known men to claim that the sin in the text is the Adamic sin. I should think we might as well restrict the meaning of the world world, as the sin, for the text does not say the sin of Adam any more than it does the sin of the elect. If it does mean the sin of Adam, the world, in this text, must be Adam. Such an interpretation as that would limit the sin to be one sin, and the world to be one man, instead of the entire race. That is more of a restriction than I would wish. If we say it means the race, then Christ is represented as taking away the sin of the race, and then, if He does not take away the sin of the race, the text misrepresents Him. The truth is, the passage, in the use of the world world, simply means those whose sins He takes away, both among the Jews and Gentiles. I simply believe the elect are all that are included.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." John 3: 16, 17.
We have only to ask whether all the human race is absolutely saved by the only begotten Son of God, in order to ascertain the extent of that world that is the object of God's redeeming love, for it must be blasphemy to suppose that the design for which God sent His Son into the world could in the slightest degree be frustrated. We certainly have a right to judge God's designs by what He does, and interpret the Scriptures accordingly. He came to save all that believe, and "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed," on one occasion, and so I conclude that as many of the human race as were ordained to eternal life will ultimately believe; He will save all that believe; then He will save all that were ordained to eternal life. God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son into the world to save those ordained to eternal life.
"We have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." John 4: 42. This text is an expression of certain Samaritans, concerning Christ, who were believers, and, of course, I have no disposition to question its truthfulness. It represents Jesus as the Saviour of the world. If this title be understood to denote only the fullness of merit or sufficiency in the salvation of sinners, it is easily explained, but if we suppose it to mean the actual procurement of salvation, then the final fact comes in to determine that the term "world" shall be taken in a restricted sense, for there can be nothing more derogatory to every just conception of the character of Christ, than to speak of him as being the Saviour of those who are not saved.
"The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 6: 51. In this text, no doubt, the Saviour intended to contrast between those privileges extended to the Jews, anciently, and the privileges He Himself was to be the immediate author of. This, in my opinion, accounts for the universality of the terms used in the text, while, as in the other cases, the fact obliges us to adopt a limited interpretation.
"For the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge that if one died for all, then were all dead. And that He died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again." 2. Corinthians v. 14, 15.
It is enough here to ask whether all, without exception, of the human family, are meant, or all ranks and descriptions of men are meant. Do all the human race, without exception, become reconciled to God? Do all the race live unto Him that died and rose again? What does that text affirm? Not that Christ died for all who were dead, but that all He died for were dead. The burden of this text is that those for whom He died were previously dead. There may be many more dead than those He died for, but those for whom He did die were dead, is the argument of the Apostle. He died for them that they might live to God. As many, as by the result of His death live unto God, He died for. They are the ones included in the term all in this text and not the whole human race.
I wish to remark that the word all is often employed in Scripture in a restricted or distributive sense; for instance, when Paul says: "For all seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's." Phil. ii. 21. The term in this text must be restricted to those selfish persons of whom he complains in the text, and not to the entire race of mankind, yet the term itself is as naked and general as in any case in which it is used in connection with the death of Christ.
The same writer says: "Marriage is honorable in all." Heb. xiii. 4. But the term all must also be restricted, for there are not only many persons enter into marriage dishonorably, but there are a great many of the race who never marry at all.
"Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, unto justification of life." Rom. v., 18.
Here, the actual result is spoken of justification. Are all the race of men, without exception, actually justified? The free gift actually led to justification of life. This justification is as absolutely certain as that the one was righteous. It was absolutely certain that by the offense of one, judgment came upon all he represented, and it is just as certain that by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all that He represented, or else they are not parallels to each other. Adam represented his family, and no more: Christ represented His family and no more. As by the offense of Adam, all his progeny are absolutely brought into condemnation, so by the righteousness of Christ all His family are absolutely justified.
When I closed my last speech, I was talking of eternal life that was promised before the world began.
CHAPTER X.
MR. DICKEY'S FIFTH SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am glad to have the opportunity of again appearing before you, this morning, for the purpose of discussing the question which we have under consideration. The Elder has gotten himself into rather a difficult place. He is inclined to think I am not disposed to answer him, but I find no difficulty in replying to what he says; for I am wanting a fair debate with him.
This audience is aware of the fact that the Elder, during this discussion, has contended that the salvation of the elect depends on the atonement made on the cross by Jesus Christ. He will not deny it now, or at any other time, that he contends that the salvation of the elect, be they many or few, depends on the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross. Well, then, I brought up the passage in I. Corinthians, xv. chapter, where it says: "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, you are yet in your sins," showing that if Christ had not rose from the dead, that the elect would not have been saved; that no one could have been saved. He also showed that the word salvation is not in the proposition; tried to evade the force of the argument that I produced that individuals cannot be saved without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then tells us that the salvation of the elect depends on an act performed on the tree of the cross, which he calls an atonement.
Now, unless my brother fixes that up, I expect in all probability I will still continue to call upon him from time to time, to show how it is possible that the elect could have been saved only by one action, performed on the cross by Jesus Christ, without the resurrection. If the atonement on the cross is all sufficient, then they are saved without the resurrection. I believe that the audience sees the point.
Then there is another word in my brother's proposition he does not seem to see. Sometimes there are words in a proposition that a man wishes were out of it. Perhaps this will now apply to my brother. I defy him, I urge it upon him to find that the word "complete" is used in the Scriptures in connection with the atonement, made by Jesus Christ on the cross. If he cannot find the word "complete" in connection with the atonement, I defy and urge upon him to find its equivalent; and if he fails to find that word or its equivalent, in connection with the atonement made on the cross, he has lost his point, in spite of all the reasoning and sophistry he may present to this congregation. Then I say that I shall urge upon him, speech after speech all day, if I happen to think about it, until he brings up the word "complete" in connection with the atonement made on the cross. He knows as well as I know it, that he cannot find it in the Scriptures in that connection.
In addition to this, there is another word I think he is going to have a hard time to find something in regard to. He tried to evade the force of the argument by saying the word, "salvation" is not in the proposition, but he cannot say this is not in the proposition: that is, "exclusively;" that Jesus Christ made an atonement on the tree of the cross for the elect exclusively. Can he find it in the Scriptures? No, sir; he knows he cannot. He knows there is no such a term as "exclusively" in connection with the atonement made on the cross, if there was one made there. He never can find the word exclusively. He never will find an atonement that excludes anybody, made on the cross, nor anywhere else, until he finds the word "complete" in that connection. He must find a complete atonement that is made exclusively for the elect. If he will just find one individual that is excluded from the benefits of that atonement, that will do.
Then he urges again upon me to answer him on what I think I have answered about a half-dozen times. In regard to what were the sufferings of Jesus Christ for if they did not make an atonement. I will repeat it that the congregation may keep it in mind; because God did not see proper to have an atonement made by sufferings, but by the blood of Jesus Christ. Now, if God had arranged for Jesus Christ to have made an atonement by His sufferings, all right; but if, on the other hand, by His blood, and not by His sufferings, all right. I think the audience can see clearly that it was not to be made by suffering, therefore I do not see fit to argue that it was made by sufferings, and if my brother continues so to argue, I will ask him the reason why the atonement was not made for Israel by the sufferings of the Lamb outside. When he answers that, I will answer the question why the sufferings of Christ did not make an atonement. We know that the Lamb did not make an atonement for Israel by its sufferings, and the reason it did not was because God didn't design atonement should be made in that way. I want you to bear this in mind; perhaps he will continue to ask, and me to answer it, all day.
Then he says that all creatures, both in Heaven and on earth heard I saying: "Blessing and honor and glory be to Him," etc. But I will read the verse: Revelations, v., 13: "And every creature which is in Heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, 'Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.' Here he says "every creature" means every man. How does he know that? Does every creature mean every man or not? Most assuredly. This means that there is to be a time when every man and every creature shall acknowledge the righteousness and sovereignty of God; so the gift of God to us was in the best interest of the entire race. I believe that is its meaning, although men may be lost. When the whole work of Jesus Christ is completed the whole work of Jesus Christ in the scheme of life and salvation, it will be realized that it has all been in the best interest of all the human family who have lived on the face of the earth. Life will be given to all men that will take it.
To illustrate this point, he referred to the favor that was to be bestowed upon Ireland. Would it mean that that favor was extended to all the world? No, the favor bestowed on Ireland belonged to Ireland. But the gift of the Lord was extended to the whole world to the entire race of mankind, not simply to Ireland or England. If a favor was to be bestowed upon Ireland, England or America, it would only interest Ireland, England or America.
He refers again to the time that the Roman Empire was taxed. It is true that the Roman Empire did not extend over all the world, but almost the entire world was recognized as Roman, as the Romans were ruling over nearly the whole world. Perhaps it was not all directly under the control of the Roman Empire, but at the same time the Roman Empire governed the whole world at that time. It could have been said that the Empire takes in all the world. We see the free gift of Jesus was for all men or the entire race.
He was telling us that he had an Emphatic Diaglott along. If he will just turn to that passage, "as many as were ordained to eternal life," in the Emphatic Diaglott, he will find it does not read "ordained to eternal life, but "disposed" to eternal life. He that is disposed to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.' That is all he is required to do. It is the same as if it read: "as many as were disposed to eternal life." Every one that is disposed to come to Christ will be saved. So, according to the Emphatic Diaglott, I am right.
Well, then, in regard to the doctrine of Election and Predestination, it is not in the proposition at all. I have nothing to do with the doctrine of Election or Predestination. I am willing, under proper circumstances and at the proper place, to meet Elder Potter to discuss the subject of Election or any other subject, but at the same time we have not met here today to discuss that subject. If he should see proper to spend his time on the doctrine of Election and Predestination, all right. If he wants to throw away his time on those subjects he may do so. I could have called the Moderators to hold him to the question, but I was not disposed to do it.
He has been off of the subject and onto Election, which is not in the proposition. But at the proper time I will have no hesitancy in meeting with Elder Potter, notwithstanding he is considered to be head and shoulders above anything in his denomination, while I am hardly an average man in my denomination.
Now, we will read here in II. Corinthians, v., 18. If I do not show this congregation so clear that they can see, and my brother Potter so clear, that he can see that, the idea he has presented, is incorrect in regard to the subject of the atonement. He is mistaken, but I hardly expect him to get up here and say, "I am wrong." Brother Potter is a man of intellect; he is a man of sense, and cannot keep from seeing an argument when it is brought before him, and he cannot keep from seeing this. He said that atonement and reconciliation are the same thing. I have admitted that they are; all of the authorities teach that it is true in regard to this matter.
He says Jesus Christ made a complete atonement upon the cross. If it is complete it is lacking nothing. It contains everything that is necessary to the atonement, if such it was intended. Now, was it made there? He says it was. What does inspiration say about it? We are to be governed by what the Bible teaches. That is why we have met here today, not to take what I say, or what Brother Potter says, but just what the Bible says. Does the word of inspiration teach that the atonement was made on the cross?
My brother yesterday consumed most of the time saying that reconciliation was made on the cross.
But when he undertakes to prove to this congregation that that is where it was made, he undertakes to do something he is unable to accomplish, for the Bible gives us a different idea. It is given us so plain we cannot fail to see it. II. Corinthians, v., 18, "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." Somebody has been reconciled. Who is it? The Corinthian brethren addressed in this letter. Here is the word "reconciled," "hath reconciled us unto Himself," "reconciled" is in the past tense; was finished, completed, but I will show you that it is not used in the same sense as "reconciliation" as referred to by the Apostle Paul. Paul says in Romans vii., 25: "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. so then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Even Paul was not reconciled in the body; consequently we would decide that complete reconciliation as referred to in inspiration will not be completed on earth, or the Apostle Paul would have been reconciled. II. Corinthians, v., 17, "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are passed away; behold all things are become new." "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."
What did Brother Potter say we were reconciled by? The atonement, he says. What does Paul say? By Jesus Christ. Which are you going to take? Which are you going to believe, Brother Potter or Paul? Is my brother to be taken in preference to the voice of inspiration to the children of men? The audience will take inspiration; they may be inclined to believe otherwise, but at the same time they are not disposed to do it. I believe he is honest, but at the same time I do think he is in the wrong.
He "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." Now, the apostle goes on to say that God hath reconciled us by Jesus Christ, but hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. He gave it to Paul "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." According to that passage, it certainly was given to men, the ministry of reconciliation. My brother says it was on the tree of the cross. It was then impossible for it to be accomplished; it was given into the hands of Paul and the Corinthians, and it was given into the hands of the elect of all ages.
My brother's ideas are a contradiction of the ideas presented. He can never get out of that. Reconciliation is not yet complete. It is going on, if it means atonement, and atonement means reconciliation. It is as clear as daylight that the ministry of reconciliation was delivered into the hands of the Apostle Paul, and the Corinthian brethren; just as clear as sunshine. If this be true, reconciliation or atonement could not have been made on the cross. Paul goes on to say in the next verse, "That God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." This expresses reconciliation as incomplete; as unfinished; so it could not have been done when Jesus Christ was on the earth, notwithstanding He performed part of the work of the atonement, and came for the purpose of enlightening the nations of the earth, in setting them a proper example.
There were twelve apostles. I believe there were about five hundred thousand congregated, and three thousand were won into obedience on the day of Pentecost, out of the nations on the earth. That is, they were reconciled by Peter to whom the ministry of reconciliation was given. But it was necessary that Christ should be crucified that the work might be fully accomplished, which He was sent to do. But He was not here reconciling the world; that was given to the children of men, and the atonement is in process of completion. The ministry of reconciliation is placed in the hands of the people. It is not completed. This grand work is still going on the work which Jesus came to accomplish in the salvation of the children of men in all ages of the world. "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." The word of reconciliation is committed to us according to the Apostle Paul, 2 Corinthians v., 19.
Therefore, reconciliation is not yet complete, although without Jesus' death it could not be carried on. My brother would exclude the idea of God committing into our hands the ministry of reconciliation, and say that reconciliation was complete, but was exclusively for the elect, and that it was for nobody else, and was made on the cross. He has been trying to get around reconciliation all day. He cannot find it said in the Bible that a complete atonement was made by Jesus Christ on the cross; but it is committed into the hands of the people and is not complete.
Now, in connection with this, I showed you yesterday that three things are to be done for men: Redemption from under the law. This curse was placed on all men by our first parents in the garden of Eden. I showed most clearly that Jesus Christ, by His righteousness, by His death on the cross, begun a work that is not complete, but that will eventually relieve every man that ever lived upon the face of the earth from the curse that was brought upon them by Adam as our first representative. None will be sent to hell because of the transgression of Adam. God will give all a chance to repent; God will not let us be lost because of the action of our first representative. Jesus Christ, as our second representative, has begun the work of releasing the children of men from that curse; this work is in process of completion, because, as I showed you yesterday, if we were redeemed, we would be free from sin. Jesus has placed the tree of life in our reach, but we cannot yet partake of the tree of eternal life. Therefore, there are yet things to be done in this work.
All the children of men are to be free from sin and death. There is a work to be done by which enmity can be removed. But let me say a word here in regard to the word "reconciliation." We know that, as I have said, enmity must exist before it can be removed, or before there can be a reconciliation. Reconciliation is only necessary because of enmity, and there can be no reconciliation until there is enmity. I want to ask a question. Were we, who are here today, enemies of God when Christ died on the tree of the cross? we, who did not exist until eighteen hundred years afterward? No. For the purpose of illustrating this point, he says reconciliation was made on the cross. Mr. Austin is a special friend of mine and I am of his. We have had no difficulty, and I have no idea we ever will have. Suppose some person should come up and say: "Reconciliation has been made between Mr. Austin and Mr. Dickey." Could it be true, when there had been no dispute? Certainly not, but suppose we were to fall out. Reconciliation could not be made when there was no difference existing. Before there was enmity, there need be no reconciliation, but after the enmity exists, then there may be a reconciliation. But my brother has reconciliation made before there was any enmity, just the same as if Mr. Austin and I could be reconciled without falling out. That is what he does. Reconciliation could be made here today between Mr. Austin and myself just as easily as it could have been made for us on the cross. One could be done just as easily as the other. My brother cannot evade the force of this argument.
There being enmity existing in the hearts of the children of men, God designs the work of reconciliation or of atonement. He has given us to understand the teachings of His word. I realize most clearly the sufferings of the Savior on the cross. He is a grand Savior. He supplies us by this with many blessings which we stand in need of, but we can never be free from sin or sorrow until our enmity is removed. And the Apostle Paul says the ministry of reconciliation is given into our hands into the hands of His people. This man, who is truly authorized by God to preach the Gospel, says that the ministry of reconciliation is given to us. We are to present them in His life, in His death and in His resurrection as God has commanded us, and all who will receive the truth shall live eternally, if he will do as God requires him to do.
To live a perfect life is impossible until enmity is removed. I hope that all enmity will be removed. I hope no one here will always hold enmity against God. I hope we may all do as we are commanded. I feel that I am reconciled to the will of God to do all He requires of me to do as an individual. Have I always been this way? No, my friends. Has Brother Potter always been so? No, my friends. No man has ever existed that has always been disposed to be reconciled to the will of God to do all He requires of him.
Therefore, reconciliation was not made by the death of Jesus. We must be reconciled to God that we may do His will and live in Heaven and enjoy eternal life; that we may enjoy that Divine Grace that is provided for those that will believe on Him and meet all the requirements enjoined on us as individuals in life. The ministry of reconciliation is placed in the hands of God's people. They could never be reconciled before they existed. The Bible does not teach it. There is something yet to be done.
CHAPTER XI.
MR. POTTER'S SIXTH SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I was just thinking before Brother Dickey sat down, that if we were to debate here about a week, we should get in earnest. I did not know that he had to have such a long start before he got well into the work. He has made the best speech just now that he has made at all; but I could not see where the proposition came in. He is now just right back where we began yesterday, on the word reconciliation. He says he believes he is reconciled to God. What by, Brother Dickey, was reconciliation made to God? The first text I quoted yesterday said we were reconciled by the death of Christ. I dare him to say he was reconciled by anything else. I want him to notice this. He says he is reconciled; the Scriptures say by the death of Christ. I ask when He did it. On the cross, the Scripture says; was not your reconciliation made then? He cannot see the difference between his reception of it and its being made. He thinks it never was made until he received it. Now, I am going to call his attention back to that text. He did begin at the wrong end yesterday.
In the fifth chapter of Romans, beginning with the ninth verse, the Apostle says: "Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." Notice, "shall be saved," not have been; but we are justified by His blood. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God (Brother Dickey says he is) by the death of His Son." I want him to say whether he was reconciled to God by some other way or in some other place than on the cross and by the death of Christ. He did not receive it then; he received it sometime in the history of his life. Let the Apostle explain that.
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." We have now received the reconciliation. He thinks it was made then. Suppose you go down here to a shop and buy a wagon that was made at Chicago. Do you think it was made for you just when you received it? No, sir; you know that wagon was made at Chicago without consulting you or waiting till you are ready to receive it. Is not that your understanding of it? Just so with the atonement. We have now received the atonement "By whom we have now received the atonement." How did we receive any atonement if there was none? I have already explained all this; but Brother Dickey says reconciliation and atonement mean the same thing. The text says we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; hence, reconciliation was made by the death of His Son and we now receive it. We have now received it. Brother Dickey has not objected to my definition of the word atonement. I told you at the start that atonement meant satisfaction for sin, expiation of guilt, "to expiate a crime." These definitions he admits to be from standard authorities. He does not object to them. If that is what it means, Christ made reconciliation for our wrongs or sins, and that satisfaction was rendered on the cross. The reconciliation was made on the cross, and we receive it now. Let us go to II. Corinthians v. 19: "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." He is giving this reconciliation to His people every day. They had not received it then, but they are receiving it all the time, as God is doing the work in Christ. But my brother thinks because they are not all actually perfect with God, that reconciliation has never been made at all.
Another thought: He got up this morning and said that I had said that the salvation of the people depended on the atonement. I did say it. Now, because I say that, he accuses me of denying its dependence on anything else. I did not say it depended on the atonement exclusive of anything else. That is the very thing he charged me with; but he did that on purpose. I do say that without the atonement nobody could be saved, but I did not say it saved anybody.
I argue it was made on the cross, that, in addition to the atonement, everything else is done necessary to the completion of the salvation of the sinner.
Everything that Christ does for sinners is as necessary to their salvation as the atonement was. I have not said that the atonement exclusively ever saved anybody. About "complete," he wants me to find the word complete or its equivalent.
Then he accuses me of sophistry. I wonder what this is. When I am accused of anything I want to know what it is. I suppose sophistry is to talk right along on the subject in a debate. I do not want to misconstrue anything. I want him to understand just exactly what I believe. I believe nothing I am ashamed to tell. I want truth. That is what I am here for. I would love for the people to accept the truth. I do not love to be charged with sophistry when I have not used it.
He undertook to answer my question; he says he has answered it. Then he missed the question. I did not ask him why there was no atonement made on the cross. That is not the question. Did you understand it that way? No, sir. Well, that is the question he undertook to answer. That is his own question. He asked the question, then got up and answered it himself.
If the sufferings of Christ on the cross for sin was not for the purpose of atoning for sin, what was the suffering for? That is the question. He has not answered it and never will. Talk about answering it half a dozen times, he has not answered it at all. What was the object of all His suffering for sin, as the Bible says He did, if that suffering did not atone for sin? The Bible says He suffered for sin. If He did not atone for sin, then why did He suffer for sin? Now you understand the question, I will leave that part of it.
He says He suffered for as many as were disposed to eternal life, and that the Emphatic Diaglott says, as many as were disposed, therefore the word ordained is wrong. Therefore, as many as were ordained, are those people that were disposed. That is not the first time I have ever heard that. I have heard it every time I have discussed the question of election.
There was a convention of scholars, acknowledged to be the best they were together ten years to revise the New Testament, which work is now commonly known as the Revised Version of the New Testament. They were not all "Old Hardshell Baptists." I do not know whether one of them were or not. They were not holding any interest in election or predestination. Now, if that word "ordained" was wrong, why didn't they change it? They put it, in the Acts of the Apostles, xiii. 48: "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." They dare not change it; their scholarship, their reputation, everything was at stake; they knew it was right. They left it ordained, just as it is in the authorized version, so it must be right, if every one of them said it was right; and while I am in their company I believe I will remain there.
He says he has nothing to do with the doctrine of election; could have appealed to the Moderators to stop me; that is strange. Does the proposition say anything about the elect? Yes. Yet I have no right to talk about it? They could stop me if he was to ask them to? Do you think that is right? My position is to affirm that Christ made an atonement for the elect. Talk about the proposition! I thought last night when he got up and said: "All come back today," that we would hear something. We have heard it.
Then he says I am head and shoulders above our brethren. That is a mistake, my brother. I am not "head and shoulders above my brethren." We have men who are head and shoulders ahead of me.
MR. DICKEY: That is what they say around here. Your own brethren.
MR. POTTER: That it may be. They are not acquainted with all our brethren, around here. We have plenty of men that are ahead of me, so far as that is concerned. More than that, Brother Dickey is an able man; he is a noble man; a gentlemanly man, and a worthy man. His brethren out to be proud of him; his brethren are proud of him, as any of their brethren in this country. I know what he is.
I believe that is all I have noted. I will proceed to notice some more of my arguments. I believe I was talking before I sat down about people being called according to God's purpose. God had a purpose. They that love God are called according to that purpose, and were called according to that purpose.
Will any man dare claim that he loves God, and yet was not called according to His purpose? Why are those that love God called according to His purpose? "For," because, "whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate," to what? "to be conformed to the image of His Son." What for? "That He" the Son "might be the firstborn among many brethren. So, it seems, that God did predestinate some to be made like His Son. They are the ones that love God, and they that love God, are called to do so, according to His purpose. The great and final end to be reached, was, that the Son might be the first born among many brethren. Did God intend that His Son should be the first born among many brethren? He evidently did, and in order to bring that glorious end about, He predestinated all that will ever be made like Him, to that end. According to that purpose, He calls them, as Paul said, "to the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord." I. Corinthians i. 9.
Surely all that God intended to call to love Him, will love Him. And just so surely none will ever love Him, that God does not call. Now, bear in mind, God does not predestinate to call them, and leave the matter with them, and if they would condescend to accept the call, He would conform them to the image of Jesus. Those whom He foreknew, He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. That is what He predestinated.
I have now given six texts of Scripture, all of which are clear and pointed on the subject of God's eternal purpose to save a people, and I claim those people to be the elect of God. They are the people mentioned in my proposition. I hold that this people, exclusive of all others, were embraced in the covenant of grace, and grace was also embraced in the covenant for them. All the conditions of this covenant are fulfilled by Christ, and He merits for them, and makes over to them, by His obedience and death, everlasting righteousness. They are elected from eternity in Him unto life eternal, and His death secures that life to them, so that their salvation is certain, and can never fail; and this proves that there are no conditions of the nature of merit, unto salvation, under the covenant, which are required of the elect. All such conditions are performed by Christ their head and surety. But in order that they may become interested in, and partake of the benefits of this covenant, there are certain qualifications which must be and abound in them, even repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
These, however, are not of the nature of personal merit unto justification, but are the consequences of their election; they are embraced in and are parts of the decree of that election; they are the gifts of God, and will surely be wrought in them by the Holy Spirit of God freely given to them, to that end, through the merits and intercession of Christ, and I will say just here, that all the promises made to Christ, are made to the elect in Him, and are to them "the sure mercies of David;" and being made from eternity, they are fulfilled to them in time, and in due order. The Lord beholds His chosen people with infinite complacency from eternity. He calls them into being on earth, protects and preserves them, and leads them by a way they know not, and brings them into connection with the covenant of grace, in its administration, and in His own time and manner, visits them with His Holy Spirit, and effectually calls and justifies them in Christ, adopts them into His family, and in faithfulness carries on their sanctification, never leaving nor forsaking them until death, after which they are received into Heaven, and are glorified with Christ forever.
This is the great end looked to by God the Father, in the covenant, in which His Son was to be the great Mediator, and in which God chose all the elect, and predestinated them to be conformed to the image of His Son.
To execute all the requirements of this covenant, Jesus Christ came into the world. He came here in the interest of the elect; He suffered for them, God's will embraced them, and He came to do the Father's will, and as I shall show before this debate closes, they were the only ones for whom He did suffer.
In the pursuit of my arguments, I desire that the people understand that when I speak of the death of Christ, or the offering of Christ, or the atonement of Christ, or the sacrifice of Christ, I mean the same thing. If my brother does not, he must tell me what he means. It is enough for me to tell what I mean, and I shall only hold him responsible for what he means, provided he tells what he means. The reason I make this observation, is that, not only my opponent, in this debate, but many others find fault with me for advocating the doctrine of a limited atonement, when, perhaps, if we could get them to take a position and define it, they believe that the Son of God died for the entire race of men, but they do not believe that He made an atonement for any.
That is one of my reasons for desiring this debate. I wish to be understood on the subject of the atonement; and I also wish to understand others. It is not sufficient for a man to say he believes in a universal atonement, when he simply believes that in the death of Christ, He did not make any atonement, but simply made salvation possible for all the race.
Atonement makes the matter of salvation certain, and no man can consistently advocate that Christ made an atonement for a man, and yet simply made his salvation possible. I argue that He did make an atonement for some men when he died for them, and therefore I claim that all that Christ died for will be eternally saved. To prove that point, I wish to call attention to Rom. v., 9, 10, 11: "Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."
I wish to notice this portion of the word of God very closely: "Much more, then, being now justified by His blood." Justified by what? By His blood. When was His blood shed? It was shed in His death. What did this blood do? It justified. Whom did it justify? If it did not justify all for whom it was shed, then there must have been some difference, either in the persons for whom it was shed, or else the blood was not shed for all of them on the same principle. There is no evading the position that the blood justified somebody, and if the people were all alike in every respect, and He shed His blood for them all alike, and for the same reason, then, if it justified one of those for whom it was shed, it must, necessarily, have justified all for whom it was shed. I take the position that it did justify all for whom He shed His blood. I challenge contradiction on the point. So all for whom His blood was shed are justified, and their salvation is a permanently fixed fact, for this text says: "Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we may possibly be saved?" No, sir. We shall be saved from wrath through Him." Salvation from wrath through Him is just as certain as that His blood was shed for us. That blood justified, and it justified all for whom Christ died. Show me a man that He did for, and I will show you a man for whom He shed His blood. Show me a man for whom He shed His blood, and I will show you a man that is justified by that blood. Will any man say that a man that is justified will go to hell to suffer vengeance forever? Just fancy, for a moment, a justified man in hell, being punished! Is it even possible to justly punish a justified man? Such a thing will never take place in any court that acts justly, as to sentence a man to torment, and that man justified at the same time.
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son." Reconciled to God by what? By the death of His Son. By the death of His Son, and not by His life, or intercession, or anything else but His death. Was any one reconciled to God by the death of His Son? The Apostle seems to think so, from this passage. Who were reconciled to God by His death? I answer, all for whom He died. Show me the man for whom He died and I will show you one that was reconciled to God by that death. Now, remember we are on the subject of the death of Christ now. We were reconciled to God by His death. Then what follows? "We shall be saved by His life." All that He died for were reconciled to God by His death, and all that were reconciled to God by His death shall be saved by His life. Therefore, all that Christ died for will be eternally saved. If I have given a wrong interpretation of this text, I wish my brother to say so, and if he does not, I shall take it for granted that he either concedes that point to me or else he cannot represent his own side of the present issue. If I am wrong, I wish to be right, and I wish him to show me my mistake, if I am. I have already in the outset shown you the use and meaning of the word "reconciliation," in the Scriptures that reconciliation means atonement, so that when Christ made reconciliation, He made atonement, and when we receive the atonement, we receive the reconciliation, which means the reconciliation made not when we receive it but when Christ died. "And not only so, but we joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." We have now received the atonement that was made for us on Calvary's cross, and on that account we joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The cause of our justification is, that on the cross He bore our sins; as the Prophet says: "By His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities." Isa. liii. 11.
On what ground shall He justify? For He shall bear their iniquities. If He, bearing the iniquities of one man, brings about the justification of that man, it seems to me that the same thing would bring about the justification of another man. I have always been taught to think that the same cause, operating on the same material under the same circumstances, would produce the same result. So, if one man is justified because Christ bore his iniquities, any other man, or all other man, whose iniquities He bore, are justified, too, for the same reason. Hence, if He bore the sins of all the race of men, all the race of men will be justified; but all the race are not justified, therefore He did not bear the sins of all the race of men, entire.
It occurs to me that so far as my proving that all that Christ died for will be saved, I might as well stop where I am, for I believe I have now established that point beyond successful contradiction. I have only given two texts on that point, and would be glad if my worthy opponent would notice them. If he would show me that I am wrong in claiming that all that Christ died for will be saved, I will then be convinced of one point that he advocates that is, I will be convinced that Christ made no atonement on the cross. I am certain that He did make an atonement on the cross, the salvation of those for whom He atoned is certain, and when I become convinced that His death effected nothing in the final salvation of the sinner, then I will believe different from what I do now. I am here to be convinced if I am wrong, and to convince if I am right.
But let us view the death of Christ from the conditional standpoint for a moment. The Scriptures teach us that the reason God sent His Son into the world to die was on account of His love. "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Again: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Many other passages go to prove that love was the cause of His sending His Son into the world. Now, our conditionalist friends tell us that God has made a wonderful display of His love to fallen sinners, in that He sent His Son to die for them, and make salvation possible for them, or, in other words, put salvation in their reach.
Now, it is evident that the Father knew, before He sent His Son into this world, what would be the result. If He gave His Son to die for me, He knew whether I would be benefited by that death or not, even if I must obey the Gospel in order to be saved. He knew whether I would obey or not, and just so of all others.
Now, it is evident to all our Arminian friends, that a great many of the race of men will not obey the Gospel and be saved. God knew that would be so, yet He sent His Son to die for those fellows, when He knew that death would do them no good. How much love did such a course as that manifest? That would certainly be a wonderful exhibition of love. He loved a sinner so well that He delivered up His only begotten, innocent Son to die for him, when He knew it would not benefit him in the least.
We must either admit that the Father, when He gave His Son to die for the sinner, knew that the sinner would be saved, or else He knew he would not be, or else He did not know whether he would be saved or not until He had tried him.
Upon one of the horns of this trilemma we must ride, and I will give my opponent choice which he will ride. I know it looks like a terrible monster, but you must get on and take hold. Will you say that God knew that the sinner would not be saved before He gave His Son to die for him, and knowing that He gave His Son to die for him? If you do, I want you to tell what for. Will you say that the Father did not know what the result of the death of His Son would be, until He waits for events to take place, and He sees how matters will turn out? Will you say that God sent His Son here on a mission, that He knew before He sent Him would never be accomplished?
CHAPTER XII.
MR. DICKEY'S SIXTH SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
He was asking me to explain when I was reconciled. I was not reconciled on the cross, because I was not in existence at the time of the death on the cross.
ELDER POTTER: By what was you reconciled? not when.
ELDER DICKEY: There was no enmity existing in my mind when Christ died on the cross. There cannot be reconciliation until there is enmity, therefore I was not reconciled then. There was no reconciliation made for me at that time, from the fact that there was no enmity existing then.
The definition of the word shows clearly that reconciliation must follow after enmity exists. Now, I will say where I was reconciled: It was down where the battle-ground of Chicamauga was, that I thought a change was made, when I was about thirteen years old. It was not back on the cross, eighteen hundred years ago, before I came into existence. Therefore, when I became reconciled to God I was reconciled there. Now, reconciliation cannot be made until the time it is received, and no one can make a reconciliation between two parties prior to the existence of the difference.
How in the world could a reconciliation be made between Mr. Austin and myself for a difference that was to take place twelve months afterward? There is no enmity, consequently there can be no reconciliation made until there is something to be reconciled. What is making reconciliation? It is bringing two parties together; putting away an offense that exists between two individuals. There is no offense existing, therefore you cannot make a reconciliation until the offense comes into existence. Reconciliation is made at the very instance, at the very time, that two individuals are brought together.
Then he inquires again into the sufferings of Christ. I have tried to make that clear, and I believe that everybody almost has seen it. The sufferings of Christ was a necessary step towards making an atonement. If He had not died on the tree of the cross, no atonement would have been made. He could not have died without suffering. The suffering was necessary to bring about the death, and the death was necessary to bring about the atonement. It was necessary that the blood of Christ be shed, but the atonement was not made while Christ hung upon the cross; it was not made by the suffering of Jesus Christ, but by the blood that was shed by Jesus Christ. Therefore, the position that it was made by the death of Jesus Christ, that it was by His sufferings, is incorrect. It was not made by His death, but by His blood. If it was made by His blood, it was not made by His death.
His death taking place and the sufferings that transpired were only necessary steps toward accomplishing the work of making the atonement.
In regard to the Testament. He says a number of good fellows revised the New Testament Scriptures, and have given that text all right, as they have made it "ordained" instead of "disposed," to eternal life. "Ordained" is the old word, and he will stick to the old one, but he will not stick to the old one in all the texts. What suits him, he takes, and he will not take the word "disposed," it will not suit. We claim that "disposed" means, just like it does in the old, to be inclined. I have an idea he would not agree to take all the revised. It would not suit him so well on baptism, for he would not prove immersion by it. It has given us the word baptize, and not immerse.
He says the death of Christ made salvation secure for the elect. I understood that is what he said, but he will correct me if it is not right. In his last speech, in reading, I understood him to say that the death of Christ made salvation secure for the elect. Is that true? Does it make salvation secure for the elect? Then he says that the death took place on the cross; then, if this is true, I say that that saves sinners. There is no possible way that I can see, for him to get out of that conclusion, that if the death of Christ secures the salvation of the elect, it saves them.
Then he says the blood of Christ justifies all for whom it was shed. Is that correct? that the death made salvation secure for the elect, and that the blood of Christ justifies all for whom it was shed? If that is so, if Christ had not rose from the dead, atonement would have been made. Salvation was secured for the elect, and no one but them were justified by His death on the cross. All others would be turned into hell. No individual would have been saved without the death of Christ, according to this position; yet he says that the death alone does not save them. My brother is first on one side and then on the other, but he makes it all depend on the cross, as he has the atonement made there.
He says the atonement is made by the blood shed on the tree of the cross, yet the Apostle Paul says if Christ had not risen from the dead, then is our faith in vain, and that we are of all men most miserable. I say the death of Jesus Christ was necessary in the great scheme of salvation, but I do also claim that no one could have been saved if Jesus Christ had not rose from the dead. If salvation was secured simply by the death of Jesus Christ, it was not secured for any who are living now, for they were then not in existence.
He speaks again in regard to Christ dying for all. I read here yesterday a passage of Scripture in regard to Jesus Christ dying for all. I hardly think it necessary for me to go back to this passage again, for I presented it to this congregation yesterday evening, showing that Jesus Christ did die for all, that those who believe in him might be saved. He died for sinners. Who has lived sinners? Everybody. What did he die for? All. What for? That they might live unto Him. Christ died for all men, as I read yesterday. Jesus Christ tasted death for every man; died for all that they might henceforth live unto Him. Paul says He tasted death for every man, and if this be true, He died for all. The argument of my brother is that if Jesus Christ died for all, He saves all; that all that He died for, He will save.
Another thing, if I do not misunderstand him and if I do, he will correct me I understand that he represents that there is no resurrection of all the human family; if he does not, he will correct me in regard to that. He says if there is a resurrection of the entire human family, that Christ died for all; or that all are to be resurrected from the dead that Christ died for. Could He rise for a man that He never died for? This would be impossible, for Him to rise for an individual that He never died for. If He didn't die for an individual, how could He be raised for that individual? If He is not raised for an individual, He cannot restore him to life from the dead; yet all men are to be resurrected. Again, I conclude that my brother does not understand all the word of God.
In regard to the suffering being for the redemption of men, I claim that justice demanded the sufferings. Man was placed here in the world and a law was given for man's government. This law was violated and our sinful natures were inherited. So I say that justice demanded there should be an interposition of divine mercy, which was necessary to the carrying out of the great scheme of salvation for a lost and ruined world as ours was.
We were in possession of sinful natures, but the great scheme of salvation was provided, and Jesus Christ came into the world to relieve men. The enmity existing in the minds of men made it necessary for an atonement to be made. That is the reason an atonement was necessary. How is this atonement to be made? Some person must be properly authorized by God to make it in this life. Individuals have been selected for the purpose of making an atonement for Israel, by which Israel might be reconciled to God. God selected the individuals and had them ordained to the work that they were to perform.
Leviticus, viii., 12: "And He poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head and anointed him to sanctify him." We see by this that Aaron was appointed by God to become High Priest, to make reconciliation for the people of Israel. This reconciliation was to be made by Aaron and no one else. It would have brought instant death upon any who attempted it, for the violation of the law of God.
Hence, I say, in regard to how reconciliation or atonement was to be made for the people, that some one was selected for the purpose of making atonement for the sins of the people. Aaron was selected to be High Priest for Israel, and was to make atonement for all those who would believe in Him. He was the means by which reconciliation might be made for the people.
If you will read Exodus xxix., 7 to 30, you will find a description of the kind of apparel that was to be worn by them, so their very garments were important. They were to have crowns upon their heads, and their garments were to be made of certain materials, and I have thought this was to represent the character of Jesus Christ. They must have on these garments before they could make an atonement, or before they could enter into the holy of holies there to make atonement for the sins of the people. So Jesus Christ must be clothed in His priestly garments when He makes intercession for those that believe on His name. I would like to go on with this point and give some ideas in regard to it, but I have not time. Christ made an atonement for the sins of the world. God selected Him to be our High Priest, and He selected Aaron and his sons to be the High Priests for the people of Israel; He gave directions and even told them the garments they were to wear, and everything pertaining to what He would have them to do, by which atonement could be made for the sins of the people.
Then you will find in Leviticus xvi., 2: "And the Lord saith unto Moses, speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat which is in the ark; that he die not, for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat." Thus we see that Aaron was not permitted at all times to enter into the holy place; not permitted at all times to make an atonement, but he must sanctify himself before entering, according to the commandment.
My brother again asks why atonement is not made by sufferings. I do not know, except that instead of taking the sufferings to make an atonement, it was the will of God that it should be made by blood, and not by suffering. If we were taught that it was to be made by His sufferings and not by His blood I would say it was by His sufferings.
The atonement made here on earth, my brother admits, was a type or figure of the atonement that was to be made by Jesus Christ. This was the way that God was instructing Israel, in bringing them to understand the atonement by which he was to enlighten his people. If Israel could realize how the atonement was to be made by Jesus Christ some fifteen hundred years before, surely we ought to have a correct understanding of it after Christ had come into the world. My brother claims that it was made complete on the tree of the cross, which I deny; yet I think by following the figure, or the type, that we might understand how the atonement was made. Let us read Leviticus xvi., 5: "And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering."
There were certain animals selected; now, why was it that God did not select some other kind from the congregation? I think I can see why it was. The lamb could represent the character of Christ better than some other beast, that He could have taken. Accordingly the lamb was selected, and certain other animals were taken for burnt offerings. The lamb was a clean animal; therefore God selected likewise. Jesus Christ as the one person, as the only one that was capable of making the atonement that He intended to be made for those that would believe on Him. The priest was to take two kids of the goats of the congregation of the children of Israel, and present them to the Lord. Suppose Aaron had not taken the two goats, but had only taken one of them. Would it have been acceptable in the sight of God? Don't you remember some of the people concluded it would be very nice not to do exactly as they had been told in putting incense in, thinking it would do as well? So they took strange fire and set the incense afire with this, contrary to the instructions of God. They died right straight. God takes life for violating a command or requirement. It is a great wrong to fail to do what God requires of us or enjoins upon us.
Aaron was to take two goats, and the sacrifices for the congregation were to be made at the door of the tabernacle. One was to be killed -only one was to be killed the other was to be the atonement for Aaron, when he had entered the tabernacle, provided he had not killed the goat. This was all essential; it must be done as commanded. The atonement was to be made by the death or by the blood of that goat.
Just so it is with the Lord Jesus Christ. His death alone did not make an atonement, but without His death there could have been no atonement made. There could have been no atonement made by the High Priest if he had not killed the lamb, but the killing did not make the atonement, that was made in the tabernacle by the blood which was brought in by the priest.
The goat was killed at the door, and the priest must lay his hands on it and acknowledge the sins of the people. Only one was to be killed; the other was to be let go. Aaron was to take fire and put incense on it inside the veil. The sacrifice was not only to be made outside the veil, but outside the tabernacle. Was this all of men? No, sir. The God of Heaven had given Moses exact instructions as to what should be done in order to this atonement.
Leviticus, xvi., 13, "And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony that He did not." This description is found in Leviticus xvi., 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13. We will begin at the fourteenth verse: "And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times." We see the priest must sprinkle the blood seven times, before he could make an atonement for the sins of the people. God told him just exactly how to make this atonement.
Was it made outside when the lamb was killed? No, sir. It was made by the blood in the tabernacle. Are we to go by this figure? Is it to be taken or not? Yes, sir, and according to the figure the atonement has not yet been made. So when Jesus Christ died on the tree of the cross the blood was spilled, but the atonement was not made, if this was the figure of the work. I think there is no doubt about that figure referring to the atonement about it being a type of that which was to be made by Christ. I believe my brother will agree.
I wish to read the same passage as before, Leviticus xvi., 14, "And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times." I ask now, after the blood has been shed, after the beast has been killed, after the priest has taken the blood into the tabernacle and entered into the holy of holies and sprinkled the blood seven times upon the mercy seat, whether the atonement was made then or not? If you will look carefully, you will find that the atonement was not yet made. The atonement was to be made by the blood of the bullock; this was necessary to be done by Aaron as High Priest, according to the instructions of the God of Heaven. This blood was to be sprinkled on the mercy seat, after the bullock had been killed. When this blood has been shed, been taken in the tabernacle, when the priest had entered into the holy of holies, clothed according to the specifications of the God of Heaven, he represents the character of the Lord Jesus Christ, when He is to make an atonement for those that will believe on Him. But there was something else to be done when he came out of the tabernacle; this was to kill the goat for a sin offering. This was another thing to be done, and he was also to make a sin offering for himself, and he was to sprinkle the blood of the goat for a sin offering on the mercy seat, as was the blood of the bullock.
When the lamb was to be killed for a sacrifice, it represents the character of Christ as Aaron did. Then if Christ is to be a priest, He was to take the blood, to go into the holy of holies and make an atonement with it. The blood of the lamb represents the blood of Christ. The High Priest was to take the blood of the lamb that was slain at the door of the tabernacle, enter into the holy of holies, and make an atonement for the sins of the people. When the lamb was slain there was no atonement made. Now, if this is a figure of the death of Jesus Christ if it is, when Christ died, there was no atonement made, and whoever teaches that it was, is mistaken about it. Were Moses and the writers of the divine Scripture mistaken in regard to it when they wrote? They teach that the atonement was not made when the lamb was slain at the door. Can it then be possible that my brother is right in regard to this matter? If the atonement was made when Christ died, it was made when the lamb was slain. If Brother Potter has got ahead of the Scriptures, I will admit he is a long ways ahead of me. I know, from the teachings of God's word that atonement was not made outside of the tabernacle; neither was atonement made by Jesus on the cross. If one is correct the other must be correct. If atonement was not made when the lamb died, it was not made when Jesus Christ died. My brother must admit that the priest must go into the holy of the holies; he must enter there, taking the blood of the lamb; he must go according to the specified directions, clothed in his priestly robes, showing the character of the Lord Jesus Christ when He ascends to the throne of God, and sits in the presence of the image on high, for the purpose of reconciling those that will believe on Him in all ages of the world. So my brother cannot be correct, provided that Moses knew what he was talking about when he said that atonement was made in the holy of the holies, rather than when the life of the lamb was taken.
CHAPTER XIII.
MR. POTTER'S SEVENTH SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I hope the people will listen and let everybody else listen as much as they can. I wish to remind the people of one or two things that occurred during the last speech of my brother. When he first arose he said that I asked the question when or where was he reconciled to God. That is a mistake. I did not ask that question. I believe he is reconciled to God, and it has been sometime during his life; but I asked the question: By what was he reconciled to God? I asked him if he was reconciled to God by the death of Jesus Christ, as the Scriptures say. He did not answer my question, but goes to one of his own and answers it. It would be a very easy matter to debate, to ask questions and then answer them himself. One side would whip, certain.
Remember, he dare not tell you he was reconciled to God by the death of Jesus Christ, according to the position he has taken. That is the reason he has not answered it. If he can tell you that, let him do so. Could he be consistent if he says there must be enmity, and he was not an enemy when Christ died? If so, he was not reconciled by the death of Christ, and the Apostle Paul says we were reconciled to God by the death of Christ; nothing else to which it is ever ascribed. We receive that reconciliation. Brother Dickey received it sometime during his life. It doesn't matter to me where or when, but I would love for him to tell me whether he was reconciled to God by the death of Christ or not. That is all I wish to say about that.
Another thought: He said yesterday that I began at one end of the question and he at the other. He has passed me now. He is talking about the other end of the question. I did not see him pass. He did not come past where I was. He is arguing the question this morning, whether the atonement was made on the cross or not. Truly, he did begin at the wrong end, sure enough; he is talking on the wrong end of the proposition today.
MR. DICKEY: Wrong end for you, Brother Potter.
MR. POTTER: When I sat down I was talking on the fact that it was the love of God that sent His Son into the world to die for sinners. I referred to and quoted a text stating that fact. But how much love would be manifested for the sinner, for God to send His own son into the world to suffer and die, if He knew, when He sends Him, that the sinner would not be benefited by it? I had commenced to illustrate it by this:
How much charity would the good Christian people of Illinois manifest towards the poor sufferers of the drought-stricken portion of Texas, if they would ship fifty thousand rations down there, and at the same time know that it would never get there, and that it would not benefit those poor sufferers one particle? You, no doubt, would tell me that there could be no charity in such an act. So I tell you, that God manifests no love to a man in giving His son to die for him, when at the same time He knew it would do the man no good. I hold that such doctrine is derogatory to the character of God.
In favor of my proposition, I base an argument on the subject of redemption. Christ is called the Redeemer, in the Scriptures, and the apostles say: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law; being made a curse for us, for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. iii. 13. To redeem is to buy back that which is forfeited, sold, or lost, and there is no law, human or divine, that knows anything about a conditional redemption. Redemption is always absolute. A thing is either redeemed, or it is not redeemed. If it is redeemed, it is because the full price has been paid. This is always the case in the redemption of anything.
Hence, if Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, He has paid the full redemption price. It is enough for us to know that He has redeemed us, to warrant us the belief that He has paid the full price of our redemption. If He has redeemed us from the curse of the law, then He has satisfied the claims of law that were against us. If He has settled all claims and demands against us, then we are not called on to pay them a second time. The same law that once held its claims against us and justly demanded satisfaction at our hands, has taken hold of Jesus, our surety, and has taken its vengeance on Him, and therefore, we are set at liberty from all its claims for they have been settled, and justice now demands the release of the prisoner.
But what is to be the result of this redemption? Sins are going to be remitted, for Paul says, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." Eph. i. 7. As a result of this redemption, sinners are going to be brought into the full enjoyment of all that redemption means. We read in Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9, 19, "And a highway shall be there, and a way, it shall be called the way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those, the wayfaring men, though fools shall not err therein. No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon; it shall not be found there, but the redeemed shall walk there. And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion, with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads, they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away."
Now, you will bear in mind that in this passage, the Lord, by His prophet, speaks of the way of holiness, and He emphatically declares that the redeemed shall walk there that is, they shall walk in the way of holiness. Who shall walk there? The redeemed. Where shall the redeemed walk? In the way of holiness. This text does not say that all the race of men shall walk in the way of holiness, but it does say the redeemed shall walk there, and I believe the text.
I wish my opponent would tell us whether or not he believes the redeemed shall walk in the way of holiness. I am of the opinion that we will not hear him say. If he says the redeemed shall walk in the way of holiness, which this Scripture says they shall, then he has either to be a Universalist, or admit that there are some of the race not redeemed. I say that the text is true. I believe the redeemed will walk in the way of holiness. I challenge my brother to say he does. I do not believe all the race of men will walk in the way of holiness. If he says that he believes the redeemed will walk in the way of holiness, and then says that he does not believe that all the race of man will walk there, he admits special redemption. I want him to say. We have a right to request him to say, and not only request him, but we have a right to expect him to say. I fancy his brethren will be disappointed if he does not say. I shall be considerably disappointed if he does. All he is required to do is to say he believes that the redeemed will walk in the way of holiness, just as the Scripture says they shall, or else say he does not believe it, one or the other. I should think he would say that he believes they will walk there. If he does, then we are getting along very well. I think my position is well sustained now, whether he admits it or not.
There are some difficulties in my way, in believing in a general atonement, and only a partial salvation. I do not believe that all the race of mankind will be saved, and I do not see the consistency in Jesus suffering for the sins of a man, and yet doing the man no good. What good does the death of Christ do the wicked and finally impenitent, even if He does suffer for their sins, which He did, if He died for them. We cannot be mistaken in saying that He suffered for sins, for the Bible positively says He did; so if we deny that He made an atonement on the cross, we must admit that He suffered for sins on the cross, and I maintain that He made an atonement. But here is the difficulty involved in the doctrine, that He suffered for all the race, and then some of them are lost. Take the rich man, for instance: The Saviour gave an account of this man during His ministry, and according to the account, the rich man must have been tormented in hell at the very time Jesus suffered on the cross. Now, let us draw a picture here that all can see. Let us converse with the rich man a moment. Rich man, what are you doing down here? The rich man says: "I am suffering." "For what?" "For my sins that I committed in the world." "Is your suffering just?" "Yes; I was a wicked man in the world, and I am now reaping the just retribution for my sins." "Do you hope to ever be released from this suffering?" "No; I am here forever."
Here we leave him, and turn to the Roman cross and see Jesus on the tree in agony and blood, surrounded by the most infuriated mob that ever surrounded a victim on earth, and ask Him: "Son of man, what are you doing upon the cross?" He answers: "I am suffering." "What for?" "For sins." "Whose sins?" "All the race of men." "Are you suffering for the sins of the whole human race?" "Yes, for the whole race." "Are you suffering for the sins of the rich man in hell?" "Yes, his sins as well as others."
Now, what have we? We have the rich man in hell suffering for his sins, and, at the very same moment, we have Jesus on the cross, suffering for the rich man's sins. Is that the manner in which God deals with His people, and His Son? Now, if I am mistaken in this view of the matter, I wish to be corrected. If Jesus Christ did suffer for the sins of a man that was in hell when He suffered, did not Jesus suffer the same offenses for which the wicked in hell suffered? I do not believe He suffered for any that were in hell when He suffered, for if He did, they ought to come out of there. I do not believe that He suffered for any that will ever be in hell, for if He suffered for them, they should not go there. So you see it is not hard to understand me, that He suffered for none that will be lost.
Those for whom He suffered, He ransomed, and the Bible emphatically says: "And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion," and I simply believe it. That is where I stand. Jesus says: "I came into the world to save sinners." "The son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." He did not merely come to die for them and then send them to torment forever. I wish now to state again that there is not a single text that says in so many words that Jesus Christ died for all the race of men. Had there been such a text, I presume we would have heard it before this in this discussion. There is nothing like it in the whole book.
I now wish to give you a few texts on the death of Christ that I will not locate at present, but if my brother wishes to look at some of them, I will find them for him: "By His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." He said many in this text, and not the whole race. In the same chapter he says: "And he bare the sin of many." Isaiah liii. When the Saviour instituted the supper, He said: "This is my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins." The Apostle says: "For it became Him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings," Heb. ii. 10. In another place in the same letter he says: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and to them that look for Him will He appear again, the second time without sin unto salvation."
I have given you five texts, all bearing on the death of Christ, in which the word many occurs. The word many in these texts seem more to express the matter in a restricted sense than to contrast the number for whom He died with the idea of only a few. Suppose I ask you: "Were all your members out to meeting last Sunday?" and you answer me by saying: "many of them were there," or by saying: "many were there." Would you suppose I would think that they were all there? Suppose, then, you ask the Bible: did Christ die for all the race of men? and you find where it says He died, suffered for many, do you think you would come to the conclusion from such an expression as that, that He died for all the race? I feel like those expressions are clear that, at least in these passages, only a portion of the race is meant. Now, those same many whose sins He bare, He justified.
But sometimes I am told that if God did not give His Son to die for the sinner, He could not be just and send the sinner to hell. If that is so, I would love to know if it would not have been infinitely better for the world of mankind if Christ had not died for any? For if He cannot send the sinner to hell justly without the death of Christ, He could have justly kept him out of hell without His death, and I am certain that if God could not send the sinner to hell justly, He would not send them there at all, so if He could not send the sinner to hell without the death of Christ, it would be better for the sinner if Christ did not die for him, for then he could not be sent to hell. But now, according to that doctrine, that Christ has died for him, if he does not accept Christ, God can justly send him to hell. What good has the death of Christ done, according to that position? He has not saved anybody from hell, if that be true, for none could have gone there if He had not died. But according to that view, how is it now that Christ has died? Why, hell is filled up with millions. That doctrine makes the death of Christ necessary to the damnation of the sinner. It does more; it teaches that sinner that his wickedness and all his abominable acts that he is guilty of in the world do not justify God in punishing him, but now, as guilty as he is, before he be justly punished, Christ must die for him. That very doctrine is licentious in its nature. But instead of it being true, no sinner can be justly saved without the death of Christ. The sinner is guilty, and for his guilt he is justly exposed to the penalty of the law that he has broken, and unless Christ suffers for his sins he cannot be saved. He must suffer for his sins himself if Jesus did not suffer for him. But if Jesus suffered for the sinner, that releases the sinner. That is the reason I argue that all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.
I hope my brother will notice those things, and tell us where our mistake is, if he can, for I am in an error I do wish to get right.
I wish now to offer a few thoughts on the subject of the intercession of Christ, in connection with His death. The intercession of our Saviour has considerable to do in the matter of our salvation. His intercession is often referred to by the apostles, as a matter of great consolation to the saints. I. John ii. 1: "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous."
I presume that the intention of the inspired apostle, in the use of this language was to comfort and console the children of God, who are so sensible of their many weaknesses and sins. It is certainly a great comfort to one who feels his own unworthiness, to have the assurance that he will be heard of the Father, to be assured that there is one pleading his cause that the Father never denies. This consolation is abundantly given to the dear little ones of the Lord's fold, in the divine volume. No doubt many have taken shelter under the blessed thought that "though I am a poor, sinful, imperfect creature at best, Jesus knows all about it, and prays the Father to forgive me."
If a prisoner is brought into court to be tried for some grave offense, he desires an attorney if it was possible for him to have such a one, that could always have the ear of the court. If he could be so favored, he has nothing much to dread. Jesus Christ is such an attorney for His children. There is, however, this difference between them. The lawyer at the bar, in defense of his client, pleads that his client is not guilty, while the Saviour pleads the guilt and unworthiness of His people, but begs mercy for them, on the ground of His atonement for them. Would it, do you think, be much consolation to you to know that Christ interceded for you, if you had no assurance that the Father would hear Him? I presume not. But from the very fact that you confidently believe that the Father hears Him, you are comforted to think that He prays to the Father for you. But are we assured that the Father will hear the Son when He prays to Him? Let us notice that point one moment. This was the confidence that Martha had in the Son when Lazarus died. "Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know that even now, whatsoever thou will ask of God, God will give it thee." John xi. 21, 22. Also verses 41, 42. Jesus says: "Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard me. And I know that Thou hearest me always."
From this expression I am led to believe that the Father always hears Jesus when He prays. In fact, I can see nothing in the intercession of Christ to comfort and encourage the Christian if he does not believe that He is heard of the Father. Then let us set it down, at the start, as a fixed fact, that the Father always hears Him. I presume my brother will not deny that. The intercession of Christ is not infrequently mentioned in connection with His death in the Bible. Isaiah liii. 12: "And He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." In this text we are presented with the thought of His death and intercession both, and I am led to believe that they are connected in the grand scheme of the salvation of sinners. Rom. viii. 34. "Who is He that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."
It is very clear that, in this text, the apostle defies the power of anyone to condemn the people of God. God has justified them, and there are no appeals from His court, and so if He is for us, none can be against us successfully. And the plea the apostle uses for thinking none can condemn, is that Christ died. I wonder how he could with so much confidence base hope upon the death of Christ, if the death of Christ simply made the salvation of the race of men possible. If it simply made salvation possible, it might be, and is most certain to be, that some one will condemn, even if Christ did die. Paul, you need not refer us to the death of Christ as a guarantee that none shall condemn, for that does not suffice now, for men are contending today that men for whom Christ died will ultimately be condemned. But no, Paul would not have it that way. He argues that if Christ died and intercedes for the sinner, "who is it that condemneth?" I argue from this text that Paul taught the doctrine, that if Christ died for the sinner, that sinner will not be condemned.
This reminds me of another text, in Rom. xi., 26, 27, "And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written. There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." Jacob, in this text, is the lot of the Lord's inheritance, and Israel and Jacob are often used interchangeably to mean the same thing.
As the Lord's portion is His people, and Jacob is the lot of His inheritance, so it is often that Jacob is used in the Scriptures when all the Lord's people are intended. It is evidently so in this passage, as the phrase "all Israel" must mean more than one man, and yet the reason the apostle assigns for saying all Israel shall be saved, is because, when the Deliverer comes, He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. How turning ungodliness away from Jacob would affect the salvation of all Israel, I do not know, only that Jacob, in this text, and all Israel are the same. Believing that they are the same then Paul affirms a plain, comprehensive proposition here, that is, "And so all Israel shall be saved." On what evidence do you found your proposition, Paul? Because it is written. What do you mean by saying it is written? I mean the prophets have said it. What have the prophets said that makes you say all Israel shall be saved? They have said that the Deliverer shall come out of Zion, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. They have said more than that; they say, for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins, and I claim Paul upon the strength of all that, all Israel shall be saved.
It seems then, from the apostle's reasoning, that he believed just as I am advocating, that Christ took away sins, and that God's covenant was that He would take away the sins of Jacob. We have already in this debate, referred to the text that says He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. I presume it is the same thing that Paul alludes to here. Upon this the apostle says, "all Israel shall be saved." It cannot be denied that this was his argument, that if Christ took away sin, it would result in the sinner's salvation. It does not sound much like Paul, now, to hear ministers claim that the death of Christ did not make the salvation of all men certain, but simply made it possible. If Christ took away sin by His death, then He made salvation sure; and if He did not make salvation sure, He did not take away sin. But the language of this text is that He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. "For this is my covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins."
I ask the attention of my brother to this text. I wish he would tell us wherein we are wrong. But to return to the subject of the intercession of Christ. "It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." For this reason, the apostle argues that there is none to condemn. I have already shown you that the Father always hears the Son when He prays to Him.
I now wish to make one or two statements that I ask my brother's special attention to. I do not believe that Christ would die for a man, and then not pray for Him. Do you? Please answer that question. I do not believe the Son ever prays for a man, and is denied. Do you? Please answer that also in your next speech. If He prays for all He died for, and yet does not pray for the entire race, it must necessarily follow that He did not die for all the race. I challenge my brother to take a position on this point. If He prays for all the race to be saved, and the Father always hears Him, then all the race will be saved. These are plain, reasonable principles that cannot be denied. If my opponent says He died for all the race, which he does say, then I ask him does He pray for all He died for? If He prays for all He died for, will the Father hear Him? If the Father hears Him, will not all the race be saved?
Now, he must admit that Christ did not die for all the race, or else He does not pray for all He died for, or else the Father does not hear Him. If he admits that the Father hears Him, and that all He died for He prays for, and that He does not pray for all the race, where will it land him? If he admits that the Father hears Him, and that He prays for all He died for, and yet all the race are not saved, where does he land? He must land somewhere, and there is not a man in this country more anxious to see him land than I am. Come in to the landing, my brother, before your vessel sinks. I think, in all probability, that if there was ever a time when it would be proper to sing "Pull for the shore," it would be a good time for me and my brother's friends to sing it to him now. He may come in all right. If he does I would be glad to see how it is done. I honestly confess I do not have the remotest idea how it is to be done, unless he leaves his craft.
The intercession of Christ must be of great importance, from the great stress the apostles lay upon it. Heb. ix. 24, "For Christ has not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us."
If He appears in the presence of God for us, it is certainly in our interest. He is pleading for us, but will that be of any profit to us, if the Father does not hear Him? For whom does He pray? Shall we say that He only prays for the saints? I presume my brother will not claim that He does not pray for sinners. He evidently prays for sinners. And if He does, it is evident that He does not pray for all sinners, or else the Father does not hear Him. In order to find out who it is that He prays for, let us hear Him. John xvii. 9, "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." We do not have to guess much at the truth of the Bible, if we will just read it, for it is very plain.
CHAPTER XIV.
MR. DICKEY'S SEVENTH SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
My brother evidently likes a change once in a while; he takes which ever side suits him best. When he wants to be a little different, he is on the other side. He says in one of his arguments that Christ's death made salvation secure for the elect. This was a positive statement, and he also says that the death of Jesus Christ made an atonement. Then he says in another one of his arguments, that the death of Christ never saved anybody. He got into a kind of a close place, and it was necessary for him to shove around and get out of it. One or the other of those statements is incorrect. I say the death of Christ, although not making reconciliation, it was a means leading to reconciliation.
Paul, in 2 Corinthians, v., 18, says: "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us unto Himself by Jesus Christ and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." I say that reconciliation was made by Jesus Christ, and not by His death.
Then he inquires in regard to who is benefited by the death of Christ. I am satisfied that my brother has commenced at the wrong end of this subject. I am talking of atonement and he is on redemption. Redemption we know should precede atonement, inasmuch as redemption is a means by which reconciliation can be effected. Therefore, my brother is on the wrong end of the subject.
He wants to know what good the death of Christ does if it is not an atonement. Jesus Christ does much towards removing the curse placed upon us; He has placed man in a condition in which he may reach forth and partake of the tree of life. Now, is there no benefit, is there no advantage to be realized by this race in consequence of Jesus Christ rescuing the race from a condition in which they would be damned; cut off from life, and placing them in a condition in which they may take of the tree of life and live forever? I should say there was. My brother can surely see the effect in a means of redemption. I can see as plain as day that there is no redemption or atonement made by Christ on the cross; this was only the means by which it should be made, not the atonement. In the condition we are, atonement is not complete; it will not be until every man is brought forth from the dead; without this, atonement will never be complete.
Every man must be brought forth from the dead; every man must become rid of his wickedness, which he is not, in this world. We are never to be rid of sin in this world; it is not because we do not believe on Jesus; it is not because Jesus Christ did not die for us, but we must realize that we are lost because of our misconduct and crimes we have committed.
In one of his passages in Isaiah, that he referred to, we find the very same "many" that Paul refers to in the fifth chapter of Romans: "Even so by the righteousness of one, many were made righteous." The "many" in Isaiah refers to the "many" Adam made sinners. If Jesus Christ only brought part of the race back to righteousness, those that were left out did not need to be redeemed. They were not sinners, therefore they did not need to be redeemed by Christ. The very same "many" included in the condemnation of Adam, was to be redeemed by Jesus Christ.
Now, I wish to proceed with my argument, atonement. You remember in my last speech that I was speaking in regard to the atonement that was made for Israel here on earth with Aaron as High Priest, and that I said that the atonement was not made by the slaying of the lamb outside of the tabernacle.
Now, I wish to say that God has a better covenant, that which we are now living under; a better covenant than that which they had in the days in which Aaron was High Priest, or minister of the earthly tabernacle. God in His divine mercy sent Jesus Christ to be our great High Priest. He is our great High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle, by the oath of God. Hebrews, vii., 21 to 23, "For those priests were made without an oath, but this with an oath by Him that said unto Him, the Lord sware and will not repent, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec: By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better Testament." Being a priest it was necessary that He make an offering. He was made the offering. He was made a priest by the oath of God; not like priests here on earth. God sent His own Son to be High Priest, and to make an offering. This offering He made when He offered up Himself. Christ offered up Himself and not the lamb. Aaron, the earthly priest, offered up the lamb, by which atonement was to be made, by the shedding of its blood. As you remember the atonement was not to be made by the body of the lamb, that is by its death, even so the body of Jesus Christ did not make an atonement; it was the blood of Jesus Christ that made an atonement. Now, if when the lamb was slain, its body did not make an atonement, the body of Jesus Christ did not make an atonement; if the blood of the lamb made an atonement, then the blood of Jesus Christ makes atonement. My brother has never said anything in regard to atonement being made by the blood of Christ. He cannot deny that it was. It is taught too plainly in the Scriptures. Christ's blood makes atonement.
You remember Aaron was selected from the tribe of Levi, and Jesus Christ was from the tribe of Judah. The priests of the tribe of Levi never had a right to enter into the holy place at all times, nor to select the animal by which the atonement was to be made. But Jesus Christ is minister under a better covenant than that under which Aaron was minister, but the atonements which Aaron made here on earth were a type of the atonement Jesus is to make. Therefore, in regard to where Jesus Christ did make an atonement, He made it after His ascension to glory; after He entered into the holy place. Then He never made it on the cross, for there is no account of His making the atonement there.
Another thought: No one but the priest had any right to make a sacrifice. At the time of the Temple of Solomon at Jerusalem, Jesus Christ was not a priest, to make sacrifices or atonement for the sins of Israel, for the elect, or for anybody else. He had no more right to go there and act as priest than any other man of Israel. You remember, under the old dispensation, every priest had to be of the tribe of Levi. Jesus Christ was of the tribe of Judah, and therefore He could not have been a priest on earth. But Christ was to be priest in the heavenly tabernacle; a better ministry than that which Aaron held. Jesus Christ, as the great High Priest of our salvation, has entered into the heavenly tabernacle, there to make atonement or to make reconciliation for the sins of His people. He was made a priest by the oath of God, not to minister in the earthly tabernacle, but to minister in a greater one not made with hands, but in Heaven. It was not made with hands, this great heavenly tabernacle in which Jesus was to minister. So you see Jesus Christ did not make an atonement on earth. This atonement, which we are all interested in the atonement on which our whole salvation depends was not made on earth, as the one Moses directed to be made in the earthly tabernacle, but it is made in heaven, in the presence of God Himself, in the holy of holies. Now, if this be true, and I have proved it by the Scriptures, then my brother's position falls to the ground. He does not find any atonement at all, made on earth, much less a complete atonement or reconciliation. But Jesus Christ has obtained the heavenly ministry, and is a mediator of a better covenant, and which contained better promises. What was the promise under the Mosaic dispensation? The promise of this covenant was temporary blessings. What was the promise in the better covenant? Eternal life; a home in Heaven. This certainly is a far better, more glorious promise; that we may obtain eternal life with Jesus as our priest. He was not made a priest to minister on earth, according to the earthly atonements. He could not have made an atonement here on earth without being an earthly priest. Here is a declaration of the Apostle Paul, who seems to know what he is talking about: "For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." Heb. viii., 4.
Thus He was not holding any priestly office here on earth; therefore, He had no right to make an atonement. It was not His place.
Every twelve months, on the tenth day of the month, I believe, the earthly priests made an atonement for the sins of the people. Jesus Christ never went there. He would not have been permitted; He had no right to enter in there to make an atonement. No one had a right to go there but the priests. They were the only ones allowed to enter into the tabernacle and they, themselves, had to be justified according to the directions of God.
Moses was directed, in the first place, to anoint Aaron, and the tabernacle was to be purified. Every direction had to be carried out. God would not have answered if they had not been.
This tabernacle or temple was of earth and had to be purified by the sprinkling of blood in the holy of holies, and before the mercy seat. This purification was made by the sprinkling and pouring of blood; this was the atonement. Jesus Christ did not enter into the holy of holies, or the holy place made with hands, but in Heaven, where he is now appearing in the presence of God for us.
Hebrews ix., 24: "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Christ did not enter into the holy places of earth, or the earthly Jerusalem; but He is now in Heaven, making reconciliation for us. Paul said that the holy places on earth are the figures of the true, which are in Heaven. This is plain in the minds of all who are giving attention, but He is in heaven now to appear in the presence of God for us. This would not be necessary if He had made a complete atonement on earth.
But as the atonement is not made without His resurrection and His ascension, I ask you in the name of common sense teachings of the Scriptures, if He made an atonement here on earth, did He not make two? IF there are two, my brother has one more than he has any use for. Christ certainly made but one atonement.
Hebrews ix., 12: "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Aaron, you know, when he was on earth, killed a lamb a the door of the tabernacle, and the children of Israel gathered around the lamb and laid their hands on the head of the lamb. That lamb was bearing the sins of the people, and if, as my brother says, Jesus Christ made an atonement by His suffering, why, there is as much reason that He made it in the Garden of Gethsemane, where His suffering was so great that His sweat became, as it were, great drops of blood. Certainly that was Christ bearing the sins of the world. His suffering then was perhaps more acute, more intense than when He died on the cross, for after He was nailed on the cross there was no complaint. If it had been made by suffering, it might been made then in the Garden of Gethsemane.
But it was not made by sufferings; it was not to be made at the time the life of the animal was taken in the atonements made on earth and according to the specified directions of Heaven. Neither when Christ died on the cross was atonement made, for it is going to be made in Heaven. He came to do it, and He is going to do it; but if He made it on the cross, the figure teaches something that is not true, and we cannot conclude that God would have given us a figure of the atonement if by it we do not understand it. So by the figure, it was necessary to have some kind of an offering made. "Neither by the blood of goats or calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
Thus it was not by the blood of a lamb; it was by the blood of Jesus Christ that He entered into heaven. He has taken His own blood to make an atonement for His people.
"For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
Hence, we find that Jesus Christ did everything that was necessary to prepare Him to make atonement. If He had not come and done this, there would have been no Savior. Without Him in the great scheme of salvation, no one could have been saved; not one individual; if one of the parts He performed had been left out, it would not have been complete. At the time He died on the cross there was no atonement made; but by His dying on the cross, the shedding of His blood, He entered into Heaven according to the directions of God, to stand there in the presence of the Majesty on high; He becomes there a living priest, there to offer by His blood the means by which reconciliation can be made for the sins of the people. He is entered into the holy sanctuary - into the holy place, in the presence of God to make atonement for them that believe on Him.
With this proof, I say my brother's position is incorrect, his whole doctrine is wrong, and he cannot get out of it. If he should agree with the Apostle Paul, he will agree with me. It is all wrong, according to the Apostle Paul, for he says that Jesus went to Heaven for the purpose of completing the great work which God had designed; when he ascended to Heaven, He was to make atonement according to the law. When He was on earth He never entered into the work as High Priest, but He is made priest by the oath of God, to stand in Heaven and perform the services of a High Priest in the holy of holies into the tabernacle not made with hands, and it is there He is to make atonement for the sins of His people. "Wherefore, in all things, it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation."
This, my friends, is to be after He has entered into the holy of holies, and standeth in the presence of Almighty God; there is where He is to make reconciliation, for the Apostle Paul said "to make reconciliation, "Wherefore, in all things, it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation." If reconciliation was already made if it had been made on the tree of the cross I ask why He is going to make it again, unless we have more than one atonement.
I think my brother has gotten himself into a position which I am satisfied he cannot evade with all the dodging it is possible for him to do. He cannot avoid the plain considerations I have given upon this important subject. He may be a fine talker, but he is not able to call your attention to every point in this doctrine and prove his position. He cannot say the atonement was made on the tree of the cross, if it is to be made in Heaven in the presence of God, unless there are two atonements, and therefore, I say his position is incorrect. He says Jesus Christ made an atonement on the cross, that He made a complete atonement, but he cannot find the Scriptures a complete atonement made by Christ. I told him I defied him to find "complete" used in that connection. I told him I would urge it on him speech after speech until he found it. He has failed, and he will continue to fail; if he had a month to go on he would still fail. I am satisfied he cannot convince you that he is right.
There could be no atonement made for us on the tree of the cross; my friends, we had no existence at that time. The offering was made then, but after the death, and sufferings of Christ in death, He rose in the spiritual body and ascended on high, and it was there the atonement was made. We see this from the inspired apostle, that the reconciliation was made by His blood, when He stands in the presence of God in the holy of holies. It is there He makes reconciliation for His people, being made an offering for sin. In I. Corinthians, v., 20, we have an idea expressed: "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."
Now, my friends, if my brother was right, why was it that the Apostle Paul was praying to God that individuals might be reconciled? According to my brother they were already reconciled; no need of any prayer; they were already reconciled. but the Apostle Paul says: "Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." If this is so, they needed prayer, and my brother is mistaken about it. The great Apostle Paul was praying for men to be reconciled to God, but according to a great man, my brother, Elder Potter, reconciliation was already accomplished; and Paul was praying for something he had no right to pray for, something that it was unnecessary to pray for, because they were already reconciled to God. Hebrews, v., 6, "As He saith also in another place, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec." If His work was complete after when He died, why is it necessary that He is to be continually a priest? He is now a great High Priest, unchanging, "Wherefore, He is able to save them to the uttermost that come to God, by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercessions for them."
this is the kind of a Savior, my friends, that I desire to present to mankind one who stands to make intercession for us who are bearing the troubles and difficulties of this life, in consequence of the transgression of our first parents. I say this is the kind of a Savior I wish to serve; a living, risen Savior, not a dead Savior that died on the cross, but did not rise. What are the benefits of a dead Savior? No, my friends, it is a living Savior that I desire to present to the children of men, to persuade men to come to God by Him. I am glad of the expression of the Apostle Paul, that He is able to save all men, and if Paul is right, my brother is wrong. Jesus Christ could not save a man that He did not die for; He could not save a man for whom there was no reconciliation made. He could not possibly save any one for whom there was no reconciliation made, but He is now in God's presence making reconciliation. So you see the Elder is mistaken in regard to the position of atonement being made on the cross. "Wherefore, He is able to save them to the uttermost that come to God through Him," it makes no difference how great a sinner they are. The Apostle Paul says He is able, and therefore He is a Savior able to save all.
CHAPTER XV.
MR. POTTER'S EIGHTH SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am before you now for the last time during this discussion. As my friend seems so utterly disposed to talk about the first part of the proposition today, of course there will be one text of Scripture fulfilled; that is, "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first."
I want to show you something. In the tenth chapter of Hebrews, where we have the suffering of Christ and the suffering of these offerings on Jewish altars, referred to, I wish to notice them. Beginning with the seventh verse, the Apostle says: "Then, said I, lo! I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God. Above, when He said, sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings, and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law. Then said He, lo! I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first that He might establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through" what? - "through the offering." Now notice that we want everybody to notice that this is a reply to his last two speeches "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all."
Through what are we sanctified? Through the offering. Where was the offering made? On the cross the offering through which we are sanctified. The offering of the body of Christ once for all.
"And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sin." Now notice the blood of the sacrifices never can take away sins. It is the sacrifice the apostle speaks of as taking away sin, and not the blood.
"But this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God. From henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. For, by one offering, He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." "Forever," that is a little like complete, Brother Dickey; "perfected them forever that are sanctified." I said in my definition of complete, that complete meant perfect, full, or whole. There it is. How did He perfect forever them that are sanctified? By the offering of His body, you remember; and by this offering He perfected forever them that are sanctified. Who are sanctified? Those fro whom His body was offered are those who are sanctified.
I make two points on this text: one is that all for whom this offering was made, are sanctified and will be saved. Not one of them will ever be lost, that Jesus Christ has by this one offering forever perfected. You missionaries say that Jesus Christ, by the offering of His body, forever perfected them, yet they will go to hell if they are not disposed to accept it. I would like to be excused from believing that.
Now, he says these sacrifices could not take away sin. The Apostle mentions the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which did take away sin. In connection with that, I wish to define atonement. Atonement means expiation of guilt. Now, if guilt is expiated, it is taken away. The apostle said: "He appeared once in the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." He put it away. This text has never been noticed. That is all I wish to say. Remember the Apostle says "by this one offering" by the offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. Having obtained eternal redemption for us, He entered into Heaven for His people, Brother Dickey.
After He obtained it, He entered into Heaven. Where did He obtain it? I say on the cross. I have completely answered that, if he considers those sacrifices a type of the coming of Christ. I wish now to close my arguments and recapitulate some things that have taken place. I was talking about the intercession of Christ. You remember I made this point in my last speech. I argued that Christ would not die for a man and then refuse to pray for him. I argued that if He did pray for a man, the Father always heard Him. If He prays for all the race, the Father must hear Him when He prays for all the race, and all the race will be saved. If He prays for all men, all men must be saved, or else the Father does not hear Him when He prays. We have heard no reply to that. That stands and I presume it will. He does not pray for the world. He says plainly himself that He does not. Did He die for the world, then refuse to pray for the world? What could have been His purpose in dying for the world and then refusing to pray for it?
He does not pray for the world. Did He die for the world and then refuse to pray for the world? What could have been His purpose in dying for the world and then refusing to pray for it? For whom does He pray? For those that the Father hath given Him. We have seen before that "All that the Father giveth Him shall come to Him." He prays for them. He came into the world for their benefit, and they do not include the entire race, or He would pray for them. He says He prays for them that the Father gave Him, but he says He prays not for the world. Then the Father did not give Him the world. Verse 20 of the same chapter: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word." From this it seems that His prayer is limited not to the Apostles, but to them also which shall believe on Him through their word.
His prayer embraces all that will ever believe, and I claim that all that He prays for will believe, and yet He does not pray for the world, for He says: "I pray not for the world." I can hardly think that any man will be so unreasonable as to claim that Christ died for the world, and then refused to pray for it afterwards.
But what does He pray for? Verse 21: "That they may all be one; as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent me." This is His prayer and we cannot be mistaken. He does not only pray for those that are believers, but He prays for those that shall be, but not for the world.
But I am persuaded that when those He prays for are one with Christ and the Father, then the world will believe that God sent His Son into the world. His prayer is certain to be answered, and what He prays for will come to pass, if the Father hears Him. Then it follows that those that the Father gave Him will ultimately be one with the Father and the Son.
Now, I would love to know, if He died for all the race, how it comes that He only prays for some of them? In these arguments I have sustained that part of my proposition that He atoned for the elect exclusively. If I have not, I ask to know why not.
Christ is our priest, and He is not a High Priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. We will read Heb. ix. 11, 12: "But Christ being come a High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
He entered the priesthood upon the merits of His own blood, and that is His plea for all His children. If He made a sacrifice sufficient to take away sins, and, on that account is received into Heaven, and into the priestly office, for the reason that He has obtained eternal redemption for us, His intercession must be so effectual that whatever He asks in behalf of the people will be granted. Let us never represent our Saviour as having died for the sinner, and then ascending to Heaven, and leaving the great matter of our salvation with us, who are too sinful to know enough about ourselves to know our need of salvation, until we are quickened into divine life by the effectual operation of the Spirit of God; and then, even after we have tasted the Lord is gracious, we are so ignorant that we do not know what to pray for as we ought. Let us not think, as some intimate, that Jesus has forgotten a sin-ruined world that He has forgotten the worth of His own shed blood that He has forgotten the office to which He has been admitted with that blood, and the work He did before He could fill the priestly office that is, that He had obtained eternal redemption for us. Let us remember that He is as much concerned for the welfare of His people today as He was when He was here in the world. And that He honors every promise He ever made, and that it is just as true today as it ever then was that His sheep shall never perish. Paul says: "We know not what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered." O! this glorious intercession! How much I need it! How abundantly and freely it is made for all the children of God! Will the people for whom Jesus has obtained eternal redemption ever sink down to eternal perdition? Will He pray for them? What is His priesthood worth to us if, when He has obtained eternal redemption for us, and entered into Heaven with that redemption, He shed His own blood, His intercession will avail nothing? His eyes are ever over the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers, but if the Father does not hear Him, what consolation shall we have in it all?
But the Father does hear Him. This is not denied, and should not be denied by any New Testament believer. Then if the Father does hear Him, what will be the result? He will certainly intercede for those for whom He has obtained eternal redemption. If He does, they will be saved. But all the race are not saved. Then He does not intercede for them, as He said: "I pray not for the world." Then He did not obtain eternal redemption for them.
So He must have made an atonement on the cross for the elect, exclusively. This is my position, and I think I have abundantly, and successfully sustained it. I do not expect the arguments I have made to be answered, and if they ever should be, then I leave these positions and preach something else. I am on the unpopular side, in my views, and I am not here simply because I love to be unpopular, for I desire popularity as much as any man, but I am here for want of an answer to the arguments I have introduced here, in favor of a definite atonement. That is the reason I am here, and I want to tell you my positions are correct I think, and I would rather be alone, and have the truth, than be wrong and have the approbation of all the men of the world.
I now wish to notice a few texts to show you that some of the race of men will be lost. I believe that, as there is a place of happiness for all the redeemed, and that they will certainly and absolutely be brought into the full enjoyment of it, I also believe there is a place of punishment for the wicked and finally impenitent. In describing the holy Jerusalem, the inspired man of God, to-wit, John, when on the Isle of Patmos, in exile, says, Rev. xxi. 25, 26, 27, "And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day; for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."
I have, in another speech, observed that the elect people of God were written in His book before they existed, and now, at the close of revelation, the Holy Spirit says none shall enter into this Heavenly city, but which are written in the book of life. It certainly must be for them exclusively. Rev. xx. 12, 15, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened, and another book was opened, which was the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every man, according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
I have never yet seen an intimation that any would be saved, only those whom God previously intended to save. They were written in the book of life. Without introducing a great multitude of texts, I will give one that tells us when this writing was done, and pass on. Rev. xvii. 8, "The beast that thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition; and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder (whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,) when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." This text positively speaks as though the names were written in the book from the foundation of the world. Now, another text that I quoted did not allow any to enter Heaven, but they whose names were written in the book of life.
Jesus, in giving an account of the last day, says He will say to those on the right, come ye blessed of my Father, and inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. They are evidently the same people, the covenant children of God the elect of God.
Now, I ask my brother to tell us if he thinks any will ever enjoy that kingdom but those for whom it was prepared from the foundation of the world? Will not every one of them finally enjoy it? I would love an answer to that question. I ask then, if the kingdom was prepared for the people from the foundation of the world, and they all get into it, according to that arrangement, did Christ atone for those that the kingdom was not prepared for? If He did, what was His object? He did not predestinate that they should enjoy the saving benefits of His blood, why did He shed it for them? It did them no good if He did, for it made them no happier than they would have been without it, and it surely was not shed for them for the purpose of rendering them more miserable. If that was it there could be no atonement in that.
I am aware of the fact that many view the death of Christ as having made ample provision for the salvation of all the race, and then offering the benefits of that provision to the sinner, on the condition that he accepts Christ. But we are here to talk about atonement, and not about a provision being made. I deny any such provision, and I stand here to say there is no such thing mentioned in the Bible.
I now quote Matt. xxiv. 30, 31, "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in Heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of Heaven to the other." Here we have it that He is coming for the elect. He claims them, and they are among all the kindred of the earth.
I have now given you about all the arguments I intend to introduce, and I claim that I have proved my proposition beyond a doubt.
I now wish to call attention to some of the arguments made during this discussion. Yesterday morning, in the definition of the terms of my proposition there was not a single objection presented to them, and has not been from then till now. I defined the terms of the proposition, and there has not been any other definitions given. I have defined the word atonement, during this discussion, as meaning satisfaction rendered for an offense or an injury done. If there has not been satisfaction made for sin, or for an offense, it has not been atoned for. I have argued during this discussion that Jesus Christ made that satisfaction for sin, for He took it away. He put sin away by the sacrifice of Himself. I have called my brother's attention to this almost every speech during this discussion he has never yet opened his mouth on it. I wonder why. I wonder why. It was the sacrifice that was offered on the cross that put away sin - that made satisfaction for sin that atoned for it or put it out of the way.
He has not said that it is not true. His position denies it. I do not blame him for not noticing it. It comes too squarely against his position. Now, we cannot be mistaken that he appeared once in the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Did not come to put it away by anything else but by the sacrifice. That sacrifice was Himself. I based an argument upon that. I want you to remember that. Now there has been no objection presented to that, and if there is no objection presented to it, then my position must be correct - that on the cross sin was put away.
That is my position: that the atonement was made on the cross. My argument is not new to this audience. My argument is not new to this audience. He said yesterday morning that Christ did make an atonement, but did not make it on the cross. I wanted to know of him when He made it; he has not told us. I am left in the dark. Some of us will go home just as dark as when we left home. I am satisfied that Brother Dickey cannot inform me, or else he does not want to.
There are some who always debate on a credit. If you remember he was going to tell us today. I have met men before now that were always going to do something terrible after awhile. Perhaps he will tell you about it.
If Christ did not make an atonement on the cross, and yet did make it, He must have made it before or since. He said emphatically that Christ did make an atonement.
Another thought: He has charged me all the time of basing the whole salvation of sinners on one special act of Christ, which I have repeatedly denied. I believe this audience understands that from the very fact I have told him so often. He does not want you to understand my position.
He has convinced me by his repetition of that charge that he would rather you would not understand my position. I never said that the death of Christ exclusive of everything else saved sinners. Never have said it. But I did say that the death of Christ did secure salvation for the sinner, but not that it embraced everything necessary for the salvation of the sinner. He has been talking about means, as though he expected I would fight him. The death of Christ secured everything necessary to the salvation of sinners. So that by that death, salvation was placed or made secure for the sinner. That is what I argue. The death of Christ is necessary, the intercession of Christ is necessary, the operation of the Spirit is necessary, mediation is necessary. Everything that He does is necessary to the conversion and salvation of the sinner. I will refer you to a text on which I based that argument, Romans viii. 32. I would love for him to pay some attention to it: "He that spareth not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with him freely give us all things?" "How shall He not freely give us all things?"
Would God deliver up His only Son to die the agonizing death of the cross, to be put to shame, to be despised for the sinner, and then deny anything else necessary for his salvation? That is teaching in opposition to the Bible. I charge it on my brother, and I do not charge it on him alone, because there are so many people guilty I charge it on all you who preach that the death of Christ simply makes a possible salvation for sinners, you do not believe in atonement at all. You object to us because we preach a limited atonement. That is better than you preach you preach no atonement at all.
Atonement makes salvation certain. You preach that it is made possible. He rather chided me for referring to our Methodist brethren. He forgot that I referred to him too. In the Baptist Banner of August 18th, the editor of that paper says: "The death of Christ did not make the salvation of all men certain, but simply made it possible." This was a Missionary Baptist writer, notice that, editor of the Baptist Banner, (a Missionary paper), August 18, 1886. That is their doctrine. that all who believe are atoned for. That the death of Christ did not make salvation certain; there is no atonement in that.
It is evident that Brother Dickey believes in no atonement at all. I will tell you what he said yesterday. He said that sin had to be punished, that was the penalty of the law, and if Christ paid the debt, He must be sent to hell; that if He paid the debt, he would have had to suffer in hell. He asked if Jesus Christ could have paid the debt some other way. He asked that question, if sin sends sinners to hell. I argued that it would, and he comes up and says: "Can Jesus Christ pay it any other way?"
Now, then, the definition of atonement is satisfaction. When I said that Jesus Christ made atonement, I referred to the Methodist Confession of faith to help me out in the definition of that word. That is all. They say, "The sacrifice of Christ once offered is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for sin" that is what atonement is.
CHAPTER XVI.
MR. DICKEY'S EIGHTH SPEECH.
Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are not here to decide this question by what the Methodist discipline says. It is by the word of God we are to try this question. One thing struck me a little amusing during this discussion. A long time ago I attended a debate. It was when I was young. But at that debate we had an Irishman, who came in about half drunk. Of course this was not the place to make sport, but one of the debaters thought he could better present his arguments if they were written, so he wrote his speeches down on a long strip of paper that would reach from ceiling to floor. He commenced unrolling and reading, and the paper reached the floor. The Irishman noticed and got tired of his reading. "Well," said he, "Spake it! Spake it! Faith and be jabers, any mon could rade it." I could have read Brother Potter's speeches, if I had them, just as well as he could.
MR. POTTER: It is a pity you did not have them.
MR. DICKEY: I think I got along very well without them.
Now, in regard to his denying the position he takes in regard to the atonement being made on the tree of the cross, in this last speech he said it was to be offered in the presence of the Being in Heaven. You all remember he has been contending that it was made by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ. Now he says it was offered to the Father in Heaven. This may do for Him, but it will not do for me.
Then he brings up the unpopular side. That does not prove that he is right, because he happens to be on the unpopular side. Some of the Mormons I am not saying this with any disrespect to them might as well try to prove that they are right by saying they are on the unpopular side. They might have as much, or more reason to say they are right, because they have a large majority as to say they are on the unpopular side. The Mormons being on the unpopular side is no reason they are right. That is no reason at all.
Then he is talking about the names being written in the Lamb's book of life; that away back, I do not know how long ago, but perhaps before the earth was created, that God decided He would keep a book of life. Now, every man that has lived on the face of the earth has had his name written in this book. Therefore he has had his name in the book of life; so this argument that has been presented by my brother is not worth very much. We have all lived, consequently we have all had our names written in the book of life. He is trying to shove around and get out of his own statement.
I supposed his first speech would be consumed in regard to the word reconciliation, which he did. Now he is beginning to want out of it. I told him I accepted his definition of the word, but now he would like another; this does not fit his cause. There are other meanings to the word, but we have let it stand that it means atonement. Well, then, in regard to the sacrifice. He says I have not said anything about it. You may judge about that. I have contended that Jesus Christ did make a sacrifice, but did not make an atonement; that it is by His blood that atonement is to be made. He wants me to deny that the sacrifice makes an atonement. I have denied it. I have said it was not so. He wants to claim I have said nothing at all about it. If it is so, why doesn't he prove it? "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" It was not by His flesh you know He came in the flesh but it is by His blood He is to reconcile us. "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood." Surely this is plain; it was by His own blood. "For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh."
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Surely then this reconciliation was made by the blood and not by the sacrifice.
Well, he said I was not going to tell you about when the atonement was made. Maybe I won't, but I believe he is fooled; I think he is a little mistaken in regard to it. I think it is possible that I may tell something about. I claim, as I claimed before, that redemption is not complete. I am satisfied that every person that gives good attention understands that that is what I claimed.
Redemption is not complete, because we are not redeemed from death. The sin of the people remains with them. But the work is begun; we all stand in reach of life, and Jesus will save them to the uttermost that come to Him.
That is what I believe in regard to the atonement made by Jesus Christ; that He entered Heaven as a great High Priest, where He is now making intercession for those that believe on Him. When man has conquered death and sin, his redemption is complete, but not till then. This will never be in this life, although if we repent and believe on Jesus, we will be saved. The Apostle Paul says: "With my mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."
Even Paul was not relieved from sin. My brother says that the atonement was complete on the cross, but I claim that he is now in the holy place in the presence of God, making atonement. His death, His resurrection and sufferings were steps toward making reconciliation; but I claim that complete atonement will not be made on earth, from the fact that Paul, an inspired Apostle, was not wholly reconciled, although he served the law of God with his mind. Our flesh must also be reconciled before atonement can be completely effected.
It never will be complete until the body as well as the soul has become reconciled to God. Therefore, as I told you, there are three things to be done for man before he is redeemed from under the law. Enmity must be removed; he has to be redeemed from death; sin has to be removed. Man must become reconciled in the flesh before he can become reconciled to God. When will this be? When we are going to have a great day of atonement, then it will be. But he says I am not going to say anything about the sacrifice. We will see whether I do or whether I don't. You remember that there was a sacrifice or an offering called an atonement, made on a great special day once every twelve months. Who was that atonement made for? Those that were living. It was not made for those that live here now, but for the Jews and Gentles that were then living.
Now, if this was a type of the great atonement made by Jesus, He must enter into the holy place and make atonement by His blood, and it must be made, too, on a great day, the great day on which reconciliation is going to be made. I intended to reply to him yesterday, when he brought up that text: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thee and thy city to finish transgression, to make an end of sin." I appeal to the audience to know if there has an end to transgression been made. No, sir. Has an end of sin been made? No, sir. Is it going to be made while we are living here upon earth? Are our bodies ever going to be made free from sin while we live on earth? No, sir. Is the time ever to come when transgression is to be made an end of? Yes, sir, the time is coming when this is to be done. When is it going to be? When our bodies shall pass from corruption to incorruption; when Christ shall bring us forth from the dead victors over death. Yes, He will come and raise those that are redeemed by His blood; every one, and shall give them spiritual bodies, instead of these earthly, sinful, corruptible bodies, that we pass through this life in. Perfect reconciliation will then be made, when we are free from sin, for all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
But that time has not come; the great day of atonement has not yet arrived, but when it does, then will Jesus have finished the work of Mediator, and redemption will be complete. He will have finished His work as great High Priest in the presence of God forever. He will have raised the dead, and will sit with all the redeemed in the kingdom of God the Father, that He may be all in all.
I cannot say all I want to on this subject. There is something else. He said I was not going to say anything about this. He asks why are not all saved if the atonement is for all. Jesus says for them to come to Him that they may have life. It is because they will not come to Him. He has said if they ask, He will give eternal life. He has become a Mediator between God and man and is daily interceding for His people, and He hears their prayers, and will give them eternal life and Heaven for an inheritance to those that believe on Him. He does not ask a man that does not desire salvation, to be saved, but He has promised to save every one that asks Him every one that believes on Him. If the children of men come to Him He will save them. We know that Jesus Christ is a sufficiency for every one every where on the face of the earth. No man ever lived in any age of the world who was completely reconciled in the flesh, or in the body. This is not to be until Christ shall come the second time on the great day of atonement.
The great day of atonement was made for Israel on the tenth day of the seventh month, when all Israel was to be brought together and their sins to be atoned for, and this great day was a type of the great day of atonement to come. In proof of the position I have taken, Jesus Christ is a propitiation for our sins, or a propitiation for the sins of the elect, as Brother Potter has construed it that way. I think that is what it means, a propitiation for our sins, those that believe on him in all ages of the world. If you remember he was arguing about the whole world, and wants me to define something that takes in the whole world, and if Jesus Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Jesus Christ has, by His death, by His ascension, by His priestly office, brought all men into a condition in which they might be saved. Will this apply to the whole world? All men were in a lost state, but Jesus has redeemed them, brought them to a state in which they might be saved, brought them out of the state in which our first representative placed us.
Christ was our second representative, the same as Adam was our first, and placed us in reach of life. To become a propitiation for our sins is the same as making an atonement; it is the means by which men can have access to God not only the elect, but it takes in the whole world; it takes in every man or woman that ever lived or may live. They may be justified, all them that believe in Christ. Therefore, the plan of life and salvation is free to all the children of men, every one.
There is a text we wish to give in connection with this to prove and show you that the entire race may be saved. We know no man would be happy if he was forced to go to Heaven against his will.
Therefore, I say every one that will come shall be saved. If we do not want salvation it will not make us happy. Suppose some man should take it into his head that he would like for me to stay in a place where something intoxicating was sold a place where I do not even like to visit. Well, suppose I was made to go there in that kind of a place. I would just about as well be in hell. I would be perfectly miserable. I could not stand it. I would not. Again suppose, my friends, you take a man that stays in the grocery and sells whiskey and engages in all kinds of wickedness that is possible to think of. Suppose you take him just as he is and take him to Heaven by force. It would not make him happy, but just the reverse. He would be miserable.
MR. POTTER: I call upon the Moderators to call Brother Dickey to a point of order. That is new argument. I will have no chance to reply to it. Mr. Chairman, allow me to say there is no rule of honorable controversy that allows a man to introduce new matter in his last speech on the negative. This is a standard rule of controversy, and I think it should be observed. I will say, in the first place, the position Brother Dickey is on, nobody believes. He may, but I do not know of anybody that does. I know I do not, that God would take a man out of his wickedness and force him to heaven.
Then I claim in the first place, I will have no opportunity to reply to that argument. He is trying to make people see that God will take sinners to Heaven that do not want to go there. I do not believe any such stuff. I have said nothing during this discussion with my brother, or in preaching that I know of, that he should get up here when I have no opportunity to reply and talk of something that is not in the proposition or connected with it in any sense whatever. I claim it is all against the rules of honorable controversy.
MR. DICKEY: I did not intend to introduce new argument. I only did this because I wanted to show you if you forced a man in his wickedness to go to Heaven, you will make him miserable. I did not intend to say you believed any such a thing. It was not that you said anything in connection with it. It was simply a comparison.
MR. POTTER: All right, then.
MR. DICKEY: Now, it was simply to illustrate a point. It was nothing in regard to what Brother Potter said. It was only to show the consequence of a man being forced to go where he doesn't want to go. I was saying that if I am associated with a certain class that are very rough and wicked, I would be miserable. I would be out of place. I could not be happy. The same of an individual who is a very wicked man; if he is forced into a place of worship, if he is gotten there by force, he will be just as miserable as I would be in his place. If he was forced to accept the plan laid down in the scheme of salvation, he would be out of his place; he would not be happy. Therefore, it is necessary for us to have our enmity removed. Man cannot be redeemed unless he repents of his own actual transgressions and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ.
There is a passage of Scripture that says that He will save all those that come to Him and those that diligently seek Him.
He is both able and willing to save every man, every woman that will come to Him to receive forgiveness of sins and have the enmity removed from their hearts. Those who come to Him have their hearts purified and changed by the Spirit of God, and are caused to repent and accept the great plan of salvation.
They who have been living in sin and are led to repent, are the ones that are to be reconciled. It is the love of Jesus that causes him to repent of his sins, to go to the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God to live up to His divine will by trying to accomplish something for the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus has made it possible for all men to be saved.
Every individual may receive divine grace and live it out in his walk. I think during this discussion that I have made it plain, evident, how we were placed under the curse of the law by our first representatives, and that Jesus Christ brought us out from under the law and placed us in reach of eternal life; they may reach forth their hands and partake of the tree of life. In addition to this, it is eternal life. I have argued that if Jesus Christ did not die for every man, He could not have been resurrected for every man. I think this congregation can see that. My brother will be compelled to occupy a position that will force him to deny that or else say that the wicked are never resurrected.
But I understand on the contrary that Jesus Christ, by His death, His resurrection, by all of His works, not by one single act, but by all, that He will bring forth from the dead everybody that has ever lived on the face of the earth, not only a part of the human family, but the entire human family. Jesus Christ died for the sins of all men, and He will save every one that will come to Him. Every one that will trust himself in the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ, that will give himself to God, He will change his nature and bring about a perfect reconciliation. He will place him in a condition in which he will be able to reach forth and partake of life eternal. I do not think he will serve God in a manner acceptable when he has his enmity with him. No, he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and come into possession of the Divine nature.
This is the condition in which he can serve God acceptably; he cannot serve Him thus until his nature is changed, but as soon as he is changed he is enabled to serve Him, and is in a proper condition to enter Heaven. He never will be in a proper condition to enter Heaven as long as he is in the state of sinfulness and condemnation brought upon us in consequence of our first representative. He must be brought into a better, more purified, or reconciled state. We have no possession of these great and glorious natures until we are changed.
The great design of God was that Jesus Christ should be a mediator between God and man, and the lost and ruined children of men are changed by the power and Spirit of God, and I claim that they will all be brought forth from the dead. I say I believe they will all be resurrected, and that Jesus Christ bore the sins of all that are disposed to reach forth and partake of the tree of life. He says He will give unto them eternal life; or that those who believe in Christ are to be in possession of eternal life, to live with the glorified forever, singing the song of Moses and the Lamb. I like to present to the children of men the blessings presented to them by their Lord Jesus Christ, who has placed them in a condition in which they may live with God forever in a world where there will be no more sin or sorrow; and the time is coming when we will meet our friends that are passed and gone; who have crossed the river of death, and Jesus Christ our mighty Savior, will redeem all those that believe on Him. I feel that we are under great obligations to God for sending His Son into the world, that we are under great obligations to Jesus Christ for coming into the world, to be our great redeemer in the plan or scheme of salvation, that place us, the children of men of every age, of every nation, of every condition in this life, in a condition in which they may be saved. Every one that has lived on the face of the earth may be taken from this world of sin and sorrow by their Lord Jesus Christ, and given a glorious home in Heaven, there to live in perfect bliss forever, for Jesus Christ was sent to enable the children of mankind to come to Him; He died that they might live.
Hence, my friends, the great Savior came to bear the sins of all, not for any exclusively, for that idea makes God only love part of the race. I cannot see, like those who claim that atonement is complete. If that atonement there was made for sinners, eighteen hundred years ago, they were not reconciled then, who live now, for they had no existence at that period of time. According to the doctrine of my brother, if I was not reconciled before I had an existence, there is no possible chance for my salvation, no possible chance for me to be redeemed, or to even enter Heaven.
I say, when you come to compare the two ideas, that have been presented to this congregation, that the one that is in harmony with the teachings of God's word, excludes nobody from a chance of salvation. Every one who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ not only the elect will be permitted to enter into Heaven. I say the other portion is all wrong. I am sorry to say that any man can deny that the mercy of God is extended to each and every one.
CLOSING REMARKS.
MR. POTTER: I wish to tender my thanks to this entire congregation, ladies and gentlemen, for the good order you have maintained, and for the respect you have shown me as an individual in this debate, during the two days we have been together. Our acquaintance so far, has been very pleasant to me. I wish also to return my thanks to the Brother Moderators who have presided during this discussion. I also return my thanks to my worthy opponent. He has treated me kindly, and there is nothing but kindness existing between us now, so far as I know, at the present. That is all.
MR. DICKEY: I wish likewise, brethren, sisters and friends, to say that I thank you all for the good attention and the respect that you have treated us all with. I knew you would. I knew this people, and I knew you well enough to know that you would treat us well, and I tender to you my thanks, and I wish to say in connection with Brother Potter, that so far as I am concerned, there is no hard feelings between us. I think more of him now than I did when I came here, also his brethren. As regards their doctrine, I do not believe it, but as regards them as a people, I believe they are Christians, but then I suppose they are like us do not always do exactly as they should but then I think they are good Christian people. I respect them. I have no hard feelings towards any of them whatever. I propose now that we have some good song sung, that all the congregation join in singing, and then I would like to give my hand to as many of the friends as can conveniently come and give us their hand. I would ask them to extend it to each other, and we will have a good, old-fashioned hand-shake, and part feeling good. I am feeling so myself.
____________________
Then the good old song "Am I a Soldier of the Cross," - was sung by the congregation, and the brethren and friends took the parting hand, in much good feeling.
THE END.
This page maintained by:
Robert Webb
-
(bwebb9@juno.com)