Welcome to hastingsrashdall.org.uk

The writing and correspondence of Hastings Rashdall: 1905 - 1915

HastingsRashdall.org.uk

Paper:

The Doctrine of the Cross for The New Age

Previously unpublished, these extracts are taken from a manuscript in box 5 of the Pusey House archives. Their significance lies in Rashdall's treatment of St Paul's use of Isaiah chapter 53.

Extracts:

The subject of this Conference is “The Doctrine of the Cross for the New Age”. There is no subject in the ???? of theology which more emphatically calls for free and candid consideration than this question - what do we and what should we Christians of the 20thC mean by the doctrine of the Atonement?

Fuller extracts may be downloaded here - in .pdf format

The first question which naturally arises is “What did our Lord Himself teach about the forgiveness of sins?” In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican and in the parable of the Prodigal Son and in fact in all his teaching on the subject He taught that sin is forgiven by God, or to put it technically, that justification is obtained, on the one only condition of sincere repentance. There is not a hint or suggestion of the idea that, for that generation or for others the forgiveness was dependent in any way upon His own future death.

Back to "Explore the writings of Rashdall - 1905 to 1915"

I long tried to think that we could explain St Paul himself without attributing to him any theory of substitution, vicarious sacrifice, vicarious punishment. But I am afraid it is impossible. There is no resisting the plain meaning such a passage as “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal iii 13), “God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom viii 3), “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf” (2 Cor v 21). The argument of the Epistle to the Romans is missed if we do not suppose that St Paul means that, whether by divine decree or some metaphysical necessity, it was ordained that sin must be expiated by death and that this judgement was satisfied by the death of Christ, the sinless one, and that in this way it was made possible for God to remit the past sins of man and through His resurrection to restore the forfeited Immortality to the whole fallen race, or rather to as many of them as identified themselves by faith with Him who actually had paid the penalty.

The writing and correspondence of Hastings Rashdall: 1905 - 1915			HastingsRashdall.org.uk
Paper: The Doctrine of the Cross for The New Age Previously unpublished, these extracts are taken from a manuscript in box 5 of the Pusey House archives. Their significance lies in Rashdall's treatment of St Paul's use of Isaiah chapter 53.
Extracts:
	The subject of this Conference is “The Doctrine of the Cross for the New Age”. There is no subject in the ???? of theology which more emphatically calls for free and candid consideration than this question - what do we and what should we Christians of the 20thC mean by the doctrine of the Atonement?		Fuller extracts may be downloaded here - in .pdf format
		The first question which naturally arises is “What did our Lord Himself teach about the forgiveness of sins?” In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican and in the parable of the Prodigal Son and in fact in all his teaching on the subject He taught that sin is forgiven by God, or to put it technically, that justification is obtained, on the one only condition of sincere repentance. There is not a hint or suggestion of the idea that, for that generation or for others the forgiveness was dependent in any way upon His own future death.
Back to "Explore the writings of Rashdall - 1905 to 1915"		I long tried to think that we could explain St Paul himself without attributing to him any theory of substitution, vicarious sacrifice, vicarious punishment. But I am afraid it is impossible. There is no resisting the plain meaning such a passage as “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal iii 13), “God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom viii 3), “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf” (2 Cor v 21). The argument of the Epistle to the Romans is missed if we do not suppose that St Paul means that, whether by divine decree or some metaphysical necessity, it was ordained that sin must be expiated by death and that this judgement was satisfied by the death of Christ, the sinless one, and that in this way it was made possible for God to remit the past sins of man and through His resurrection to restore the forfeited Immortality to the whole fallen race, or rather to as many of them as identified themselves by faith with Him who actually had paid the penalty.