Basic HTML Version
366
obedience merited for us the forgiveness of sins, but refuse to grant that He also merited for us
positive acceptance with God, the adoption of children, and everlasting life.
B. OBJECTIONS TO THE SATISFACTION OR PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY
DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT.
There are many circles in which this doctrine of the atonement is not popular. There always has
been opposition to it, and in our day the opposition is particularly strong. The main objections
are the following:
1. SUCH AN ATONEMENT WAS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY.
Some hold that such an atonement
was entirely unnecessary, either because sin is not guilt and therefore does not call for an
atonement, or because there can be no obstacle to the free forgiveness of sin in God, who is
our heavenly Father and is essentially a God of love. If a man can, and often does, forgive the
penitent without demanding and receiving satisfaction, God, our perfect exemplar, surely can
and will do this. This is the common objection of all those who advocate a purely subjective
theory of the atonement. It may be answered, however, that the Bible certainly teaches us to
regard sin as guilt; and because it is guilt, it makes man subject to the wrath of God and renders
him liable to divine punishment. Moreover, the idea of a universal Fatherhood of God, in virtue
of which He loves all men with a redemptive love, is entirely foreign to Scripture. And if God is a
Father, He is also a Judge; if He is a God of love, He is also a God of justice and holiness. There is
no one attribute in God which dominates and determines the expression of all the other divine
perfections. And, finally, it should not be forgotten that what man can do as a private
individual, he is not always able to do when acting in the capacity of a judge.
2. SUCH AN ATONEMENT WOULD DEROGATE FROM THE CHARACTER OF GOD.
Closely
connected with the preceding objection is that which holds that such an atonement would
derogate from the character of God: from His justice, because He punishes the innocent for the
guilty; from His love, because He acts as a stern, severe, and relentless being, who demands
blood to appease His wrath; and from His pardoning grace, since He demands payment before
He can or will forgive. But Christ voluntarily took the place of sinners, so that this substitution
involved no injustice on the part of God. If God had been actuated by strict justice only, and not
by compassionate love and mercy as well, He would have left the sinner to perish in His sin.
Moreover, it is entirely incorrect to say that, according to the satisfaction doctrine of the
atonement, the love and the pardoning grace of God could not flow forth until satisfaction was
rendered, because God Himself provided the ransom, and by giving His Son already gave
evidence of His infinite love and pardoning grace. His love precedes even the repentance of
sinners and calls this into action.