p448 [W Reid] MY DEAR BROTHER, - I have read the Lösepenningen of Dr. Waldenström. I had previously read his Latin thesis on the Lutheran symbolical books. There he was all right in combating the common error, that Christ's work changed God's mind, and that God was then but a Judge, and practically that love was in Christ, and only judgment in God, as if the work of Christ procured His love. I have very often insisted on the truth as to this. You have both sides in John 3:14, 16. But he drops out "the Son of MAN must," and holds only that "God give His Son." And thus it is a very wrong production. Still the error that is in it arises from having got hold of the love, and so getting one-sided. The interpretation of the passage is all wrong, but that is not so material; but he confounds purchasing and redemption. If what he says means anything, all sins of all men are put away.

Dr. W. is also careless in his use of scripture. He contradicts himself; for though sins are blotted out the curse abides on sinners continually. Wrath and the curse remain for those who are sinners, yet there was no wrath in God! The justified are taken from under the curse; but they had been under it then it appears, and, in their sins, were under the wrath of God and condemnation. He mixes up all this confusion and contradiction with just refutation of errors. And note, What did Christ suffer and be forsaken of God for? It is all well to say God's love gave Him, and that was the source of all. No doubt. But why did Christ suffer as He did? Why had He the stripes? He is a propitiation, an ἱλασμος, He suffered ἱλάσκεσθαι. God had not to be reconciled, but His righteous holy nature required the sin to be put away. Then he uses "we" and "us" in the mouth of believers, as if it was all the world. His doctrine as to not living under law and experience is dangerous. I resist looking to experience as much as he does; but, in citing the lost sheep and the father of the prodigal, he has dropped the return of the prodigal, so carefully brought out in detail by the Lord to make the difference between conversion and salvation clear. I reject utterly self-examination for peace; but a soul will have to know itself - not merely its sins forgiven, but that "in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good thing."

He resists reconciling God, in which he is right. But he has neglected one side of scripture truth; has quoted scripture without heed, and contradicts himself. It is confusion of redemption and purchase that has made all his doctrine wrong. Christ is an ἀντί λυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων: but that which is the strongest statement is very different from ἀπολύτρωσις. It is a pity that, he could not be set straight, for the point of departure of his mind is just: but he has followed it out hastily, not weighing scripture. He has lost the ἱλασμος side of the work, and this is dangerous. It has not gone to denying that the sins had to be put away, and therefore has thrown all his teaching into confusion. The blood of the goat was presented to God on the mercy-seat, and Christ is entered in not without blood; why if it were not needed to ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτἱας τοῦ λαοῦ? Why was it presented to God? Not surely to change His mind or make Him love (a horrid thought), but needed for His righteousness and holy nature. "It became him … in bringing many sons to glory." So He says to Israel, "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." There is wrath and the curse he admits - why? and what met it so that it should not be executed on us? Hence he always confounds God and the Father, making us all His children. "God so loved the world." It is never said "the Father" loved the world. The Father is a name of relationship with His children, not with the world. Dr. W. admits they are not all saved. The question is not, Did Christ undertake a partial restoration? but, Did He undertake the restoration of all? He died for all, I believe, but that is a very different thing. Here you have purchase and redemption as the same, and their perfect restoration the same as He undertook. All this is confusion and mist. He is wrong even in saying purchase is always spoken of all. In 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23 it is not so; and 2 Peter 2:1 is quite another thought, and so is Matthew 13:44, where the field is clearly bought to have the treasure. There are two other cases in Revelation where it is distinctly not all, and περιποιοῦμαι, where the same is true. I cannot find one passage where it is all. To state that it is so always is not careful.

Boston, U. S., January, 1877.

[53331E]