Basic HTML Version
354
flowed from the divine decree, on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us
our Merciful Father determined.”[Inst. II, 12.1.] The atonement was necessary, therefore,
because God sovereignly determined to forgive sin on no other condition. This position
naturally served to exalt the sovereign free will of God in making provision for the redemption
of man. Some later theologians, such as Beza, Zanchius, and Twisse, shared this opinion, but
according to Voetius the first of these changed his opinion in later life.
3. THAT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
In the early Church Irenaeus already taught the
absolute necessity of the atonement, and this was stressed by Anselm in the Middle Ages in his
Cur Deus Homo? Reformed theology in general rightly shows a decided preference for this
view. Whatever may be true of Beza in later life, it is certain that such scholars as Voetius,
Mastricht, Turretin, à Marck, and Owen, all maintain the absolute necessity of the atonement
and ground it particularly in the justice of God, that moral perfection by which He necessarily
maintains His holiness over against sin and the sinner and inflicts due punishment on
transgressors. They regard it as the only way in which God could pardon sin and at the same
time satisfy His justice. This is also the position of our Confessional Standards.[Heidelberg
Catechism, Q. 40; and Canons of Dort II, Art. 1.] This view is undoubtedly the most satisfying,
and would seem to be most in harmony with the teachings of Scripture. The denial of it really
involves a denial of the punitive justice of God as one of the inherent perfections of the divine
Being, though the Reformers, of course, did not mean to deny this at all.
C. PROOFS FOR THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
The proofs for the necessity of the atonement are mostly of an inferential character, but are
nevertheless of considerable importance.
1. It would seem to be the clear teaching of Scripture that God, in virtue of His divine
righteousness and holiness, cannot simply overlook defiance to His infinite majesty, but must
needs visit sin with punishment. We are told repeatedly that He will by no means clear the
guilty, Ex. 34:7; Num. 14:18; Nah. 1:3. He hates sin with a divine hatred; His whole being reacts
against it, Ps. 5:4-6; Nah. 1:2; Rom. 1:18. Paul argues in Rom. 3:25,26, that it was necessary that
Christ should be offered as an atoning sacrifice for sin, in order that God might be just while
justifying the sinner. The important thing was that the justice of God should be maintained. This
clearly points to the fact that the necessity of the atonement follows from the divine nature.
2. This leads right on to the second argument. The majesty and absolute immutability of the
divine law as inherent in the very nature of God made it necessary for Him to demand
satisfaction of the sinner. The transgression of the law inevitably carries with it a penalty. It is
inviolable exactly because it is grounded in the very nature of God and is not, as Socinus would