The Debate Between Barton Stone And Alexander Campbell On Our Substitutionary Death Issue

The non-vicarious atonement theory was first invented at least 180 years ago. In disputing with Alexander Campbell on the Substitutionary Death Of Christ question in the pages of the Millennial Harbinger, Barton Stone wrote “Where, brother Campbell, shall we find the term substitute with application to Christ?” (Oct 1840). In the same issue Stone formulated this argument for his position – “If the debt of suffering be fully paid by the substitute, where is grace seen in the pardon of the debtor!” I believe I have seen this same unsound argument presented (just in different words) in our brotherhood’s recent disagreements on this issue. Among other things, this argument ignores the fact that God himself (the Son) is who paid our sin debt. Right there is the grace!

Our brother Stone later stunningly said “… all the blood of the universe, the blood of Christ not excepted, could not take away our sin … On what grounds was this pardon granted? Not on the ground of sacrifice, but according to the greatness of thy mercy …” (Apr 1841). I think this is the logical conclusion of the recent non-Substitutionary Death teaching by Maurice Barnett, Gene Frost and their adherents. To the contrary, I agree with what Alexander Campbell said in refutation of Stone’s remarks, for example Campbel replied – “no repentance nor amendment of life, without shedding of blood, could obtain remission.” (May 1841). I am sure Campbell got that from Heb 9:22b which says “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Aren’t Stone and his present-day followers saying it is possible to have remission of sins without the shedding of Jesus’ blood?, that the ground of pardon is not actually His blood? Heb 9:22 forever refutes any non-substitutionary brethren’s idea that God forgives us on the basis of His mercy alone, that is, “not on the ground of sacrifice.”

We see Stone’s idea contradicted by many other passages, one of which is Rom 3:23-26. Jesus’ redemption of mankind with His blood in the first century declared God righteous for having forgiven all the Old Testament saints of their sin (when they repented) in the preceding centuries (verse 25). Only because of Jesus’ death, God is able to remain just even while He justifies the believer (verse 26). In our vernacular, Jesus took our spanking for us.

Stone had written earlier “The death of Christ influences the sinner alone, but produced no direct effect on God” (Feb 1841). But Isaiah 53:10-11 without question falsifies Mr. Stone’s statement by showing the death (bruising) of Christ “satisfied” God. The death of Christ most certainly did have an effect on God; it satisfied His justice. That death is the very thing that provides the grounds for God to extend mercy/grace to those who trust and obey (Mark 16:16). Acts 20:28b directs elders to “feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Doesn’t that contradict this non-substitution view that God doesn’t need any such payment to forgive?

Isn’t it strange that the man who probably did more to oppose Calvinism than any preacher since John Calvin lived, Alexander Campbell, would be considered a Calvinist by many of our brethren today? Me thinks many modern-day Substitutionary Death opponents agree with Barton Stone’s “pardon granted not on the ground of sacrifice” position, but are not willing to openly admit it. Because they know our brethren as a general rule would then see their position for what it really is, instead of their bogus claim that they are holding the line against Calvinism as they want the issue framed.

These quotes from an article titled “10 Problems with the Penal Substitution View of the Atonement” (https://reknew.org/2015/12/10-problems-with-the-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/ ) show the seriousness of this non “penal” position:

· Does God really need to appease his wrath with a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us?

· If God’s holiness requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners …

· If Jesus’ death allows God the Father to accept us …

· If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone?

· If the main thing Jesus came to do was to appease the Father’s wrath by being slain by him for our sin …

· To raise a more controversial question, if it’s true that God’s wrath must be appeased by sacrificing his own Son …

· The Penal Substitution view makes it seem like the real issue in need of resolution is a legal matter in the heavenly realms between God’s holy wrath and our sin.

I’m guessing some of our brethren who assert what the Bible teaches about the Vicarious Atonement is Calvinism agree with Barton Stone and the above “Problems With The … Substitution View” quotes, and some don’t. Of course, they must not really think it is Calvinism or they would for sure be willing to debate the issue. I am hoping this article revealing the genesis of the non-vicarious death view will open up some eyes to the seriousness of the false teaching regularly going on.

hear Bible Crossfire Sundays at 8:00 pm central on SiriusXM national radio Family Talk 131 & 62 local stations across America or at www.BibleDebates.info