George Butler on the Nature of Christ
by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)
Sangju Campus
conjoint lecturer of
29 November 2009
It is the year 1885, to be exact, 12 July 1885 when Butler wrote the preface to his book that includes our information for his view of the nature of Christ (George Butler, Facts for the Times: A Collection of Valuable Historical Extracts on a Great Variety of Subjects of Special Interest to the Bible Student, from Eminent Authors, Ancient and Modern [Battle Creek, Michigan: Review and Herald] 1885).
In a Spectrum vol. 20/4 (1989): 62-64 article of H. Ward Hill in 1989 he commented on the book of George Knight dealing with 1888, Angry Saints (1989).
Hill categorized the Adventists at that time into two groups: Traditional Fundamentalists and Evangelical Liberals (62).
He explained that the Traditional Fundamentalists are those who are blamed by the Evangelical Liberals to cling to a "Babylonish" salvation by works. The Traditional Fundamentalists blamed the Evangelical Liberals that they are misunderstanding the nature of Christ and that they want to teach that Christ confirm Christians in their sins.
George Butler is seen as opposing Waggoner and Jones at the 1888
What we will present here, is the 1885 view of
1. Christ possessed a soul that could die.
"If Christ, the divine Son of God, died both soul and body, how can any mortal man claim that he possesses a soul that cannot die?"
2. Christ was divine, otherwise it was only a human atonement.
"But if a divine being did not die, then we have only a human atonement".
3. Luther, Clarke and the Methodist Discipline is then cited by Butler positive to strengthen the idea that Christ was fully human, had two natures, human and divine, who is truly God and man and that He came in that body to follow the will of God and finally, that the two natures were joined together never to be separated again.
4. Christ died not only for original sin but also for the actual sins of men.
5. Christ died by crucifixion and
6.
7.
8.
End item