Basic HTML Version
371
2. While it is undoubtedly true that the cross of Christ was the supreme manifestation of the
love of God, it can be regarded as such only from the point of view of the penal substitutionary
doctrine of the atonement, according to which the sufferings and death of Christ were
absolutely necessary for the salvation of sinners. But according to the moral influence theory
they merely served the purpose of making an impression on man, which God might have done
in many other ways; and therefore were not necessary. And if they were not necessary, they
were indeed a cruel manifestation of God’s love, — a contradiction in terms. The sufferings and
death of Christ were a manifestation of God’s love only, if it was the only way to save sinners.
3. This theory robs the atonement of its objective character, and thereby ceases to be a real
theory of the atonement. It is at most only a one-sided theory of reconciliation. In fact, it is not
even that, for subjective reconciliation is only possible on the basis of an objective
reconciliation. It really confounds God’s method of saving man with man’s experience of being
saved, by making the atonement itself to consist in its effects in the life of the believer, in union
with Christ.
4. Finally, this theory fails on its own principle. It is undoubtedly true that necessary suffering,
that is, suffering for some saving purpose which could not be realized in any other way, is apt to
make a deep impression. But the effect of a voluntary suffering, which is entirely unnecessary
and uncalled for, is quite different. As a matter of fact, it is disapproved by the Christian
conscience.
D. THE EXAMPLE THEORY.
This theory was advocated by the Socinians in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the
doctrine of the Reformers, that Christ vicariously atoned for the sin of mankind. Its fundamental
principle is, that there is no retributive justice in God which requires absolutely and inexorably
that sin be punished. His justice does not prevent Him from pardoning whom He will without
demanding any satisfaction. The death of Christ did not atone for sin, neither did it move God
to pardon sin. Christ saves men by revealing to them the way of faith and obedience as the way
of eternal life, by giving them an example of true obedience both in His life and in His death,
and by inspiring them to lead a similar life. This view really establishes no direct connection
between the death of Christ and the salvation of sinners. Yet it holds that the death of Christ
may be said to expiate the sins of man in view of the fact that Christ, as a reward for His
obedience unto death, received power to bestow eternal life on believers. This theory is
objectionable for various reasons.
1. It is really a revival and concoction of several ancient heresies: of Pelagianism, with its denial
of human depravity and its assertion of the natural ability of man to save himself; of the