Article November 22, 1913 Issue

A recent critic is much perturbed over the Christian Science...

Frederick Dixon—Ashford, England

Kentish Express

A recent critic is much perturbed over the Christian Science attitude toward the atonement, but he apparently has not grasped the fact that there is no orthodox doctrine of the atonement left, for the very simple reason that there are so many antagonistic ones held by orthodox teachers. The viceprincipal of the Theological College at Lichfield, to give only one example, described, not very long ago, what he called four different modern views, as a prelude to adding a fifth one on his own account. He said that these modern difficulties in accepting the doctrine were one of the most healthful signs of the times, since it was as impossible to believe that "God could be appeased, or [as we say] propitiated, by the death of an innocent victim," as it was to believe Him to be a jealous and angry tyrant, whose wrath must be satiated with blood and death, and who was a party to an immoral bargain.

The vice-principal draws his views of the atonement, as the critic does, from the Bible. When he is challenged as to his views, he defends them by a process of exegesis. The critic professes to draw his views from the Bible, and he will have to explain them and how he arrives at them by a process of exegesis also. Yet this is the very thing he vociferates so lustily against Mrs. Eddy for doing, declaring that there is no need to explain the Bible. If there is no need to explain the Bible, how is the world to know whether the critic's view or the vice-principal's view or the views of the other four exponents are the correct reading of the Bible? And if the vice-principal, the critic, and the other four gentlemen are to be allowed to explain their views, why is Mrs. Eddy to be forbidden to explain hers? As, however, the critic has referred to the Christian Science teaching with respect to the atonement, I am sure you will permit me to say something on the subject.

There is no doubt at all as to the meaning of the word atonement. It is simply to make or set at one, though it has, of course, attained a later theological and incorrect significance. The true meaning of the word is obviously its meaning at the time it was used. For instance, the Elizabethan meaning of the word let was to hinder. Hamlet's expression, "By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!" means simply, I'll kill the man who stops me. Consequently Paul's words, "Only he who now letteth will let," mean, He who now hinders will hinder, though the word itself has since come to mean permit. The word atonement has gone through a similar phase. The Greek text from which it was translated means to make at one, and it was in this sense that Wyclif used it in the earliest of our complete translations of the Bible.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

A recent critic is much perturbed over the Christian Science...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access