Paton addressed Jones’ rejection of
New Testament authority in the November 1883 issue of World’s Hope. The
New Testament is the basis for Christian belief, Paton wrote. If one rejects it
or any part of it, then one rejects the very basis for Christianity and of
belief in Christ:
To
reject the New Testament as authority, as some are doing, seems
strangely inconsistent for any one claiming to be Christian. We do not
unchristianize anybody, though we have been accused of doing so, but we wonder how
a man can be a believer in Christ who rejects the only written and authoritative
testimony that the coming of Jesus Christ is fact. How can they who do not accept
of the apostles and Evangelists as inspired teacher, have any real faith that
what they say of Jesus, – of His saying and doings – is true. The very articles
written to discard the authority of John, for instance, will, however quote
John to prove that Jesus said, “Search the scriptures,” &c., thus endorsing
the Old Testament. If the New Testament is not reliable, how do we know
that Jesus endorsed the Old? – or that
Jesus ever existed at all?[1]
We do not know how Jones answered
Paton’s criticism. We do know that he attacked Paton’s Atonement doctrine.
Paton tell us so by means of a brief paragraph found in the January 1884 issue
of World’s Hope:
The
editor of Zion’s Day Star, who ridicules the “middle ground” between the
doctrine of Substitution and the complete rejection of the death of Christ as
the basis of man’s salvation, does not know how solid that ground is, for he
has never stood there. We rejoice in our position. The lengthy quotations he
has given from The World’s Hope
are the only articles in which he has ever expressed the idea of the
Representative fullness of Jesus Christ.[2]
The distinction between Christ as
substitute for humanity and Christ as representative of humanity was an
important one. Barbour, Paton, Adams , and now,
apparently, Jones saw Jesus as man’s representative, leaving men in various
degrees deserving of salvation in their own merit. God was obligated to save if
they followed Christ’s example. Atonement theory based on Christ as substitute
sees man as the recipient of a divine but undeserved gift. The heart of this
issue rests in one’s approach to scripture. Russell remained a literalist. The
others did not, leaving them free to escape plain meaning by spiritualizing.
Paton confessed as much when discussing the cleansing blood of Christ. If he
were to see remission of sin occurring as a result of the shedding of Christ’s
literal blood, his theory would fall, so he found a “spiritual” alternative:
Does
the literal blood of Christ cleanse from all sin? One says, “Away with so much
spiritualizing: we must cling to the literal meaning of the word.” But
we claim that the true Bible literalism requires the comparison of scripture
with scripture, and the application of the rules, “First the natural; afterward
the spiritual;” and “The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.”[3]
Neither of Paton’s citations lends
itself to his exegesis. They do not say what he believes them to say.
But his understanding allowed him to believe as he wished. The same was true of
the others espousing what Russell called “no-ransom theories.” Paton’s reply to
Jones seems weak. His claim is Jones’ understanding is poor solely because Jones
did not see matters as he did. There is no scriptural argument.
Though both Paton and Jones used the
word “representative” to convey their Atonement theories, they did not mean the
same thing. Paton addressed this issue early in 1884:
Some
who regard Jesus as a mere man, and as a saved sinner, (though they do not
think He was an “overt” sinner, or a very bad man) seem to think that The World’s Hope at one time leaned
toward this doctrine. Such an idea has always, in the clear light of the
Word, seemed obnoxious to us. It seems no less so now. They seem to think we
use the word “Representative” in the sense of a sample, – as if when God
saved Jesus (?!) from His personal sins and lost estate (?!) it was simply a
sample of the way He will save others.[4]
Without access to the earliest
issues of Day Star, this is the best statement of Jones’ Atonement
belief we have. [add wt material here]
1 comment:
Post a Comment