Basic HTML Version
374
At the same time it differs from the moral influence theory in that it conceives of the change
wrought in man, not primarily as an ethical change in the conscious life of man, but as a deeper
change in the subconscious life which is brought about in a mystical way. The basic principle of
this theory is that, in the incarnation, the divine life entered into the life of humanity, in order
to lift it to the plane of the divine. Christ possessed human nature with its inborn corruption
and predisposition to moral evil; but through the influence of the Holy Spirit He was kept from
manifesting this corruption in actual sin, gradually purified human nature, and in His death
completely extirpated this original depravity and reunited that nature to God. He entered the
life of mankind as a transforming leaven, and the resulting transformation constitutes His
redemption. This is in effect, though with differences of detail, the theory of Schleiermacher,
Edward Irving, Menken, and Stier. Even Kohlbruegge seemed inclined to accept it in a measure.
It is burdened, however, with the following difficulties:
1. It takes no account of the guilt of man. According to Scripture the guilt of man must be
removed, in order that he may be purified of his pollution; but the mystical theory, disregarding
the guilt of sin, concerns itself only with the expulsion of the pollution of sin. It knows of no
justification, and conceives of salvation as consisting in subjective sanctification.
2. It rests upon false principles, where it finds in the natural order of the universe an exhaustive
expression of the will and nature of God, regards sin exclusively as a power of moral evil in the
world, which involves no guilt and deserves no punishment, and looks upon punishment as a
mere reaction of the law of the universe against the transgressor, and not at all as a revelation
of the personal wrath of God against sin.
3. It contradicts Scripture where it makes Christ share in the pollution of sin and hereditary
depravity, and deduces the necessity of His death from the sinfulness of His own nature (not all
do this). By doing this, it makes it impossible to regard Him as the sinless Saviour who, just
because of His sinlessness, could take the place of sinners and pay the penalty for them.
4. It has no answer to the question, how those who lived before the incarnation can share in
the redemption of Jesus Christ. If Christ in some realistic way drove out the pollution of sin
during the time of His sojourn on earth, and now continues to drive it out; and if the salvation
of man depends on this subjective process, how then could the Old Testament saints share in
this salvation?
G. THE THEORY OF VICARIOUS REPENTANCE.
This theory of McLeod Cambell is also called the theory of sympathy and identification. It
proceeds on the gratuitous assumption that a perfect repentance would have availed as a
sufficient atonement for sin, if man had only been capable of an adequate repentance, which