DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OLD & NEW SCHOOL BAPTISTS 4/6

The next item in which an essential difference of sentiment exists between the Old and New School Baptists is to be considered as the Atonement.

The prominent place upon which this doctrine holds in the New Testament is second to that of no other embraced in the Christian faith. It is identified with every provision of grace and strikingly illustrative of the perfection of God. In it is illustrated that inflexibility of his justice and truth. The discrimination and power of His love and mercy towards the chosen and predestinated heirs of its saving benefits. In its absence or perversion, election, redemption, and regeneration would be spoiled of their charms. None can be sound on other points of the doctrine of Christ who holds erroneous views upon this. New School Baptists upon this all-important subject their theories and are multiform, incoherent, and confused. Yet none of them agree with the scriptural doctrine held by all Old School Baptists. Of the many points of difference, we will give the following.

1. Some of the New School hold with John Wesley and his diluted followers, that the atonement was made alike for all mankind, that its object was to bring the human family into a solvable state. But in reality saving none that it secures to all a chance to save themselves, but has no power to save any. That millions from whom it was made are now in hell. That the salvation of sinners depends on their own will and works, and not on the redemption or atonement made by Jesus Christ. We could present many passages from the Presses and pulpits of the new School to show that they have carried this matter as far as John Wesley or any other Arminian ever did. But it will be soon enough to prove our assertion. When those whom we implicate deny what we say, This theory on the subject of the old school Baptist, denying all its parts and in contradiction of it, hold that the atonement and redemption made by our Lord Jesus Christ was for the elect of God, and for them exclusively, that it brings none into a salvable state But it redeems and reconciles to God all for whom Jesus died. So that no one for whom Christ died can possibly fail to be saved, any more than Christ can fail to be the Son of God.

Although the extravagant views above alluded to are not informed, contended for by all New School Baptists, all of them are justly responsible for such sentiments, for holding in their connection and fellowship those whom they know to hold and preach them.

2. Others of the same fraternity contend that the atonement was not made for sinners at all but for sin. And by virtue of it all mankind are saved from the consequences of sin. That no sinner shall henceforth be sent to hell for being a sinner, sin being put away by the sacrifice of Christ. That the only ground of condemnation is the rejection of the gospel. They affirmed that Jesus, having died for sin, has removed it from the human family and now requires all sinners to believe that he has done so on pain of eternal damnation.

This theory is too ridiculously absurd to require a serious reputation. For if the atonement was not made for sinners but for sin, then sin is reconciled to God, and instead of its making any holy, it would make God unholy by removing the opposition of his nature from sin. The word atonement means reconciliation or perfect agreement. But all who know the Lord are fully satisfied that sin is as opposite or irreconcilable to God or to holiness, as though Christ had never died upon the cross. Instead of reconciling sin to God or God to sin, the mediatorial work of Christ and coming into our world was to save his people from their sins, that they might be holy and without blame before him in love. Old School Baptists also reject the abominable heresy of gospel damnation. Christ came into the world and lived and died to save his people. But he came not to condemn the world, for the world was already condemned and that for sin. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is not death also, but eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Again, if sinners were to believe what this class of errorists would have them believe on pain of damnation, they would believe a lie. For the doctrine is the very opposite of truth. The gospel of the Son of God cannot be believed by an unregenerated Sinner, for faith is not the cause but the effect of regeneration. Christ is exalted to be a Prince and a savior, to give repentance to Israel and the remission of sins. Consequently, as many as were ordained to eternal life. Believe, the faith of God's elect is the faith which was once delivered to the Saints, not a faith originated in the heart of man as a preliminary of salvation. Of this faith, Christ is the author and the finisher. It is a fruit of the Spirit and a gift of God.

3. Another portion of the New School family professed to hold that Christ made no atonement at all while here on earth. That the object of his incarnation was to procure materials out of which he might be able to make atonement after his ascension to heaven. That having made an offering for sin, he took with him the blood of atonement, or necessary for atonement, and is now ready and willing, desirous and anxious to make atonement for any who will favor him with a call. And that the object of preaching is to persuade sinners to call on him to make an atonement for them. And consequently, it is impossible for either God or man to know until the consummation of all things, how many will be benefited by the atonement. This new-fangled notion was invented but recently and is among the things which, with our new school neighbours, have come "newly up" for. It certainly never came down.

This, together with the previously mentioned heresies is rejected by the Old school Baptists as contradictory to the whole tenor of divine revelation on the subject. We might here give the most positive scripture testimony to prove that these views are false and blasphemous. But our object in these articles is rather to show wherein we differ from them than to prove that we are right and that they are wrong. And we find it necessary to limit the extent of our article. We passed to notice,

4. Another outrage upon the doctrine of atonement from the same quarter, namely, that the death of Christ was only designed to show how much God hated sin, that the penalties of the law and eternal damnation had been provided for this purpose And that the great object or grand reason sinners were condemned to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire was to exemplify God's abhorrence of sin. But finding the exemplification would cost so much, that it would require the interminable misery of so many, the Lord concluded to show His hatred of sin by the crucifixion of His Son upon the cross, and thereby superseded the necessity of sending sinners to hell. And having adopted this expedient, he was issued a general proclamation to the sons of Adam, in which he has given them their choice of salvation or damnation, of heaven or hell, and allowed them the terms of their natural lives to make up their minds in. And if they concluded to be saved, they were to signify the same by complying with some supposed term. But if they would not agree to be saved, they were left at liberty to go to hell. This doctrine with all its absurdity and extravagance, finds many advocates among the New School Baptists but is rejected, of course, with all who hold it by the Church of God.

5. Others of the New Order of Baptists, hold at the Atonement of Christ was as necessary to procure the damnation of the finally impenitent as the salvation of those who are finally saved. These deny boldly that God could or had any right injustice to consign sinners to endless punishment for their sins without first giving them a chance to be saved. But that by the atonement of such a chance or opportunity was afforded as left sinners without excuse, and thereby secured to God the right and justice, to punish them for their sins.

6. A still greater portion of the New School Baptists clinging to the Fullerite heresy. That the design and effect of the atonement was special and particular but that the nature of it was unlimited or universal, that it required as great a sacrifice, as much suffering and blood to atone for one sinner as for the whole human family, and that an atonement could not be made for those whom God designed should be savingly benefited by it without making it sufficiently large to meet the full demands of law and justice for the sins of all mankind. The doctrine is taught by Fuller and received by his followers is substantially this: That the atonement was necessarily as much for the damned As for the saved. And that there is nothing but the willful rejection of its application to them that prevents their being equally benefited by it. And although it is written, "no man can come to me except the Father which has sent me draw him." It is also written, "You will not come to me that you might have life." It is therefore inferred that the cannot in the one case is only the will, not in the other, and that the only the deficiency or power of power to come to Christ and share in the atonement and be saved is in the will. That if sinners could overcome their own wills, they would first find abundant access to God and to heaven, an eternal life through the blood of Christ. This ingenious perversion of the scriptures affords the Arminians all the room they can desire to set aside the sovereignty of God in the special salvation of His chosen people and to hinge the whole upon the will and works of men. Volumes have been written in support of this Fullerite system of refined Arminianism and volumes and refutation of the heresy. Still, the lovers of heresy will cling to the falsehood rather than truth, because they love darkness rather than light. It is scarcely necessary to say that this heresy is rejected by the Old school Baptists, and not only the heresy but also the heretics who contend for it.

Hereafter, if opportunity serve, we may, as we have frequently done before, proving by the unerring testimony of the Scriptures of Truth, that all the versions of the doctrine of the Atonement by their New school Baptists are unfounded, and in truth derogatory to the character and perfection of God and a vile perversion of the gospel. And for a fair statement of the doctrine as held by the Old S
chool Baptists we refer the reader to the chapters on this subject now being published in this paper by Brother Trot, in which we fully concur.

In our next, we propose to exhibit some difference between the two kinds of Baptists and the subject of predestination.

Elder Gilbert Beebe
New Vernon, New York.
March 1st, 1848.