Basic HTML Version
375
he was not. Now Christ offered to God, in behalf of humanity, the requisite repentance, and by
so doing fulfilled the conditions of forgiveness. His work really consisted in the vicarious
confession of sin in behalf of man. The question naturally arises, how the death of Christ is
related to this vicarious repentance and confession. And the answer is that Christ, by His
suffering and death, entered sympathetically into the Father’s condemnation of sin, brought
out the heinousness of sin and condemned sin; and this was viewed by the Father as a perfect
confession of our sins. This condemnation of sin is also calculated to produce in man that
holiness which God demands of sinful humanity. This theory labors under the following
difficulties.
1. It can readily be understood that Christ as man could enter sympathetically into our
afflictions and temptations, and into the feeling of our infirmities; but it is not at all clear how
the incarnation enabled Him to enter into a fellow-feeling with us with respect to our sins. He
was sinless, a total stranger to sin as a corrupting power in His life, and therefore could hardly
identify Himself in a moral sense with sinners.
2. While it may be admitted that, according to Scripture, Christ did sympathize with the sinners
whom He came to save, this sympathy is certainly not represented as being the whole or even
the most important part of His redemptive work. All the emphasis is on the fact that He
vicariously endured the penalties that were due to sinners and met the requirements of the law
in a life of obedience. Yet this theory, while recognizing the retributive justice of God and the
demerit of sin, denies the necessity and possibility of penal substitution, and asserts that the
work of Christ in behalf of sinners consisted, not in His suffering for them, but in the vicarious
confession of their sins.
3. The theory proceeds on erroneous principles, namely, that sin does not necessarily make
men liable to punishment; that the justice and holiness of God did not, as a matter of course,
call for an objective atonement; and that the only necessity for redemptive help followed from
the inability of man to repent in true fashion.
4. Finally, a vicarious confession, such as this theory implies, is really a contradiction in terms.
Confession is something altogether subjective, and to be valid must be personal. It is the
outcome of a personal consciousness of sin, and is also personal in its effects. It is hard to see
how such a vicarious repentance can release others from the obligation to repent. Moreover,
this theory has no Scriptural foundation.