Basic HTML Version
372
adoptionist doctrine, with its belief that the man Christ was adopted to be the Messianic Son of
God on account of His obedience; of the Scotist doctrine of an arbitrary will in God; and of the
emphasis of some of the early Church Fathers on the saving efficacy of the example of Christ.
Consequently it is open to all the objections that militate against these views.
2. It is entirely un-Scriptural in its conception of Christ as a mere man of exceptional qualities; in
its view of sin, in which the character of sin as guilt, so strongly emphasized by the Word of
God, is entirely ignored; in its one-sided emphasis on the redemptive significance of the life of
Christ; and in its representation of the death of Christ as a martyr’s death, while failing to
account for the unmartyrlike anguish of Christ on the cross.
3. It fails to account for the salvation of those who lived before the incarnation and of infants. If
the life and sufferings of Christ merely save men by their exemplary character, the question
naturally arises, how they who lived prior to the coming of Christ, and they who die in infancy
can derive any benefit from them. Yet there is clear Scriptural evidence for the fact that the
work of Christ was also retrospective in its efficacy, and that little children also share in the
benefits of His atoning death.
4. Moreover, while it is perfectly true that Christ is also represented as an example in Scripture,
He is nowhere represented as an example after which unbelieving sinners must pattern, and
which will save them if they do; and yet this is the necessary assumption of the theory under
consideration. The example of Christ is one which only His people can follow, and to which even
they can make but a slight approach. He is our Redeemer before He can be our example.
E. THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY.
The governmental theory was intended to be a mean between the doctrine of the atonement,
as taught by the Reformers, and the Socinian view. It denies that the justice of God necessarily
demands that all the requirements of the law be met. The law is merely the product of God’s
will, and He can alter or even abrogate it, just as He pleases. While in strict justice the sinner
deserved eternal death, that sentence is not strictly executed, for believers are set free. For
them the penalty is set aside, and that without strict satisfaction. Christ did indeed render a
certain satisfaction, but this was only a nominal equivalent of the penalty due to man;
something which God was pleased to accept as such. If the question is asked, why God did not
remit the penalty outright, as He might have done, the answer is that He had to reveal in some
way the inviolable nature of the law and His holy displeasure against sin, in order that He, the
moral Ruler of the universe, might be able to maintain His moral government. This theory, first
advocated by Grotius, was adopted by Wardlaw and several New England theologians, and is