The Past ane Future Bearings of the Atonement
adoption. This Spirit so operates in his heart that he is renewed in the image of God and lays aside the enmity to God that once filled his heart. Thus the work of the law is fulfilled in his life. Peter expresses the relationship between the two when he says: "Who His own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sin, might live unto righteousness." 1 Peter 2:24.
The Past and Future Bearings of the Atonement Bearing of the atonement on the past.
THE word "atonement" in its historic, as distinguished from its etymological, sense is apt to create the impression that the redemptive work of Christ bears on the past only; that it consists exclusively in making amends for sins previously committed. In that respect the word "satisfaction" is a better word, since it does not necessarily have that one-sided connotation. Strictly speaking, atonement is always retrospective and aims at recompensing for the wrongs of the past. And this is an important part of the objective work of Jesus Christ. "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah laid on Him the iniquity of us all," Isa. 53:5, 6. He gave His life a ransom for many. His blood is "the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins," Matt. 26:28. He
"redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us," Gal. 3:13. In Him "we have our redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace," Eph. 1:7.
The idea that it bears on the past only; The Arminian view.
It is sometimes represented as if this were the whole of the work of Christ. This is done particularly by those who base the atoning work of Christ exclusively on His bitter sufferings and on His shameful death on the cross. Anselm forms an exception, however, since he connects the idea of merit, though in a rather artificial way, with the notion of a satisfaction to the honor of God. In his view Christ gave satisfaction for the guilt of sin by his sufferings and death, but also merited eternal life for the sinner. The position of the Arminians is different, however, for they recognize the distinction between the passive and active obedience of Christ, and maintain that the latter has no saving significance, since Christ owed it to God for Himself.
His passive obedience, on the other hand, His sufferings and death, while not an exact equivalent of the punishment due to the sinner, was yet so acceptable to God that it moved Him to give full pardon to the sinner. In that sense it can be said that He atoned for the sins of the past, but He did not by his active obedience merit life for anyone.
His righteousness is not the basis of our acceptance with God, is not the ground of our adoption, and does not make us heirs of everlasting life. It is only our faith, including a life of evangelical obedience, that is accounted to us for righteousness. To that extent man must work out his own salvation. In this scheme there is no prospective aspect of the atonement as such.
The view of Piscator; View of Wesleyan Arminians.
A similar position was taken by a Reformed theologian, Piscator, of whose doctrine Buchanan says: "… while it ascribed the remission of sins to the passive obedience, or the sufferings and death of Christ, it excluded the imputation of His active obedience, or righteousness, as the believer's title to eternal life; and thus left a door open for the introduction of his own personal obedience, as the ground of his future hope, after he had obtained the remission of his past sins."
The Doctrine of Justification, p. 175. From some of the peculiar tenets of the Wesleyan or Evangelical Arminians, it might seem to
follow that they would agree to the proposition that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers, but as a matter of fact they deny that this is taught anywhere in the Bible. They fully agree with the older Arminians that the atoning work of Christ is limited to his passive obedience, and that in virtue of this the sinner receives the forgiveness of sins, but is not adopted as a child of God nor made an heir of eternal life. In distinction from these views Reformed theologians hold that the atonement of Jesus Christ also has a prospective aspect. It not only has the effect of restoring man to his original state, the state of freedom from guilt, but also that of making him acceptable to God and an heir of life eternal.
Denial of the bearing of the atonement on past sins by various theories.
But while it is necessary to stress this point, it is equally essential to emphasize the fact that the atonement of Christ has not only a prospective but also a retrospective bearing. It takes account of past sins, and is the basis of their forgiveness. There are theories of the atonement which simply ignore past sins and proceed on the assumption that they require no atonement. According to these the atonement is not retrospective, but only prospective. This is a virtual denial of the whole idea of atonement. An atonement that is not retrospective, is no atonement in the proper sense of the word. This is true of both the Moral Influence and the Example Theory, according to which God simply lets bygones be bygones and is interested only in weaning men from sin for the future. It is equally true of the Mystical Theory with its representation of Christ as a new leaven in humanity, by which the human race is gradually purged from sin. Like the previous theories it leaves the generations before the incarnation entirely out of account and has no bearing on the past sins of those who have come under the purifying influence of Christ. The same must be said even of the Governmental Theory with its quasi-objective reference, for according to it the sufferings of Christ, while a punishment for past sins, did not in any way atone for sin. They constituted merely a penal example inflicted on Christ, in
order to deter others from sinning. They did not bear on the removal of past sins, but only on the prevention of future sins. In all these cases we have a so-called atonement which is exclusively prospective.
Every one of these theories, with the single exception of the Grotian or Governmental Theory, shifts the emphasis from the death to the life of Christ. It is by His life rather than by His death that He exercises a saving influence on the life of sinful men. He reveals God as a loving Father who, without requiring any satisfaction for past transgressions, is quite ready and even anxious to pardon His erring children, to receive them in favor, and to press them to His bosom, if they but come to Him with penitent hearts. He calls them back from their sinful ways, urges upon them a life of love to God and to their fellow-men, and gives them the spirit of true obedience as the way to everlasting life. He enters sympathetically into all their sufferings and struggles, helps them to bear their burdens, and points to the door of hope in the Kingdom of God. Misunderstood and rejected by His contemporaries, His devotion to the ideal finally resulted in His crucifixion, an "innocent victim of maladjustment." His death only serves to reinforce the lessons of His life. Brunner correctly calls attention to the fact that in the subjective theories of the atonement guilt is not taken seriously. Says he: "If the Cross merely denotes the removal of a religious error, namely that God is not (should be, 'is') an angry Judge, then guilt is not taken seriously. If guilt is taken seriously, then there is no help save in a real happening, which really
'cleanses' us from actual guilt." The Mediator, p. 471.
The penal vicarious doctrine not one-sided; The elements stressed in other theories not of the essence of the atonement.
The penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement is often accused of one-sidedness, though as a matter of fact it is less one-sided than the other theories are. It is sometimes said that it limits the atoning work of Christ entirely to His sufferings and death, but this accusation, if it is not a wilful perversion of the truth, must be due to lack of information. The Reformers corrected the Anselmian view of satisfaction on this point, as on several other points, and their view
does full justice to the atoning significance of the life of Jesus. In fact, it does not neglect the redemptive significance of the various elements stressed in the other theories. We may even go farther than that by saying that these elements are seen in their proper perspective only in connection with the Penal Substitutionary
Doctrine. But then they are seen, not as elements which are essential to the atonement as such, and really enter into the constitution of it, but only as some of its concommitants or subordinate results. Martin makes some strong but true remarks on these theories. Says he:
"There is no measure of truth in them, even though they should be put forth as partial answers to the question which they profess to solve. They have no right to stand as even a portion of the truth concerning the doctrine of the intrinsic nature and immediate object and design of the Atonement. There is not even an element of truth in them that will co-ordinate with that doctrine as maintained by the whole Catholic Church of God.… And in the third place: regarded as secondary and subordinate results of the Atonement,—not entering into its intrinsic nature and explanatory of its immediate design, but as mere secondary and subordinate results,—even in this light, the contents of these theories are not truth and fact, but merely unrealized and unrealizable ideas, mere conceptions which the theories themselves can never embody as realities. And in this sense also, as in every other, there is no measure of truth in them. They never can be translated into truth and fact; they never can emerge from the dreamland, from the region of the ideal and of mere conception; till they are acknowledged as, not of the essence and constituting idea of the atonement, but only as the secondary and subordinate outcome thereof." The Atonement, p. 68 f.
The bearing of the elements stressed by other theories.
Christ is held up as an example in Scripture indeed, but is not represented as saving men by His example; in fact, He is never set forth as an example for unbelievers, but only as an example of those who are already reconciled to God through Christ. Others cannot possibly follow in His steps, not even at a remote distance. Christ
undoubtedly exercises profound moral influence on men, but this mere moral influence has no saving efficacy. It may be a real spiritual influence, but again only in the lives of those who are already implanted in Him by faith. The work of the indwelling Christ becomes a part, not of the atonement—which is presupposed—but of the application of the work of redemption. The sufferings and death of Christ are undoubtedly a manifestation of the fact that sin is highly displeasing to God; but the mere spectacle of His punishing sin in Christ will not save the sinner. It will not even awaken repentance in his heart, unless the sight of it is re-inforced by the thought that the Savior is suffering in his stead and dies as his substitute, and both are savingly applied by the Holy Spirit. In view of all this we maintain that the theories in question represent elements which are true and effective only if the penal substitutionary atonement is presupposed. And even then they cannot be regarded as integral parts of the atonement, but only as some of its fruits.
The atonement includes both passive and active obedience.
The atonement in Christ includes both His passive and active obedience. While we make this distinction, we feel that the two cannot be separated in fact, and therefore should not be separated in thought. There is a constant interpenetration of them at every point in the Savior's life. It was a part of His passive obedience that He who was the supreme lawgiver lived in subjection to the law. And it was also a part of his active obedience that He subjected Himself voluntarily to sufferings and death, John 10:18. The two simply form complementary parts of His mediatorial obedience.
The passive obedience of Christ.
He entered into the penal relationship in which the sinner by nature stands to the law, in order to pay the penalty of sin in His sufferings and death, and to discharge the debt of all His people. His sufferings did not come upon Him accidentally, nor as the result of purely
natural circumstances. They were judicially laid upon Him as our substitute, and were therefore real penal sufferings. The redemptive value of these sufferings results from the following facts: They were borne by a divine Person who, only in virtue of His divinity, could bear the penalty to the end and thus obtain freedom from it. In view of the infinite value of Him as the Son of God His sufferings satisfied the justice of God essentially and intensively. Moreover, they were strictly moral sufferings, because He took them upon Himself voluntarily, and was perfectly innocent and holy in bearing them.
Scripture proof for the passive obedience of Christ is found in such passages as Isa. 53:6; Rom. 4:25; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2, and many others which have already been mentioned in previous chapters. In this connection it should be borne in mind that even the passive obedience of Christ was not limited to His final sufferings and death. His entire life was a life of vicarious suffering. For this reason, if for no others, the objection is untenable that the penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement places the entire weight of His atoning work on His sacrificial death.
The active obedience of Christ.
But in addition to this there is also the active obedience of Christ. He also entered into the federal relationship to the law in which Adam originally stood. He undertook to observe the law in its federal aspect as the condition of the covenant of works, in order to merit eternal life for the sinner. The active obedience of Christ was absolutely essential, for without it His human nature would have fallen short of the just demands of God, and He would not have been able to atone for others. Moreover, if He had merely suffered the penalty imposed on man, he would have left those for whom He paid the price in the exact position in which Adam stood before the fall. And every individual would have been confronted with the task of meriting eternal life for himself. If man cannot receive it on the ground of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, he will have to make his own righteousness count in that direction. And it would be possible for one whose sins are already pardoned to fall once more under the
condemning power of the law and to miss the goal. It is exactly the active obedience of Christ that lends finality to the work of atonement. He does not permit the final condition of those for whom
He shed His blood to be contingent on an uncertain obedience, but makes this absolutely certain. He does no half work, but saves to the uttermost. There is abundant biblical proof for the active obedience of Christ. Jesus tells His disciples that they must have a righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, which was their own, Matt. 5:20. And Paul refers to it in several places. He says that Christ placed Himself under the law,
"that He might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons," Gal. 4:5. He even speaks of Christ as "the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth,"
Rom. 10:4. In another passage he gives us the comforting assurance that God made Him who knew no sin "to be sin in our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him," 2 Cor. 5:21. And, finally, he contrasts his own righteousness with the righteousness of God, when he says: "And be found in Him (Christ), not having a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith," Phil. 3:9. By His active obedience Christ merited our adoption into the very family of God, and made us heirs of eternal life, the free gift of God in Him, Rom. 6:23.
Arminian arguments against the active obedience.
This is one of the most important points on which we differ from the Arminians. They deny what we affirm, namely, that the active obedience of Christ or His active righteousness is imputed to believers as if it were their own, and becomes the basis of their acceptance with God and of their future bliss. "For this notion," says
Watson, "that the righteousness of Christ is so imputed as to be accounted our own, there is no warrant in the Word of God."
Theological Institutes II, p. 428. He speaks of this as the view of Calvinists and Antinomians. In his arguments against the Antinomians on page 328 he also presents his arguments against this
view, which are briefly stated as follows: (1) The Bible ascribes no such significance to the active righteousness of Christ, but simply represents it as rendering Him a fit sacrifice for sin. (2) This doctrine really makes the sufferings of Christ superfluous. If He did all that the law requires of us, there was no more need of suffering in our stead. Either one of the two is sufficient. (3) It involves a fiction opposed to the ends of moral government, and shuts out the obligation of personal obedience to the law of God. (4) It is not satisfaction in the proper sense, but merely the performance of all that the law requires by one person substituted for another.
Answer to the arguments.
Now it is true that, according to Scripture, the active obedience of Christ rendered His sacrifice acceptable, but this is not the only significance ascribed to it. This clearly appears from the passages which were already quoted. He became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The second argument contains an evident fallacy. The presupposition is that, because the first Adam had to do one of two things, either obey the law or bear the punishment for its transgression, this also applies to the second or last Adam. But this is not correct, since the entrance of sin into the world changed the situation entirely. After the penalty of sin is borne, the task of securing eternal life by positive obedience to the law still remains. The Arminians themselves feel this, for they teach that Christ's passive obedience does not yet secure eternal life for the sinner. The sinner can only obtain this by keeping the law of evangelical obedience. His faith is accounted to him for righteousness. This proves that something more than the sufferings of Christ is necessary unto salvation. God lets down the bars somewhat, but the sinner must obey the new law, in order to be saved. In their attempt to show that this is not salvation by works, the Arminians often argue in a way which represents a virtual acceptance of the Calvinistic position. The third argument maintains that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the sinner involves a legal fiction opposed to the ends of moral government, and