The Historical Occasion for the Atonement
of forgiveness. So the central element in the work of Christ really consisted in a vicarious confession of sins on behalf of man. This naturally leads to the question how the sufferings and death of Christ are related to this vicarious confession. And the answer is that by His sufferings and death Christ entered sympathetically into the Father's condemnation of sin, revealed the heinousness of sin, and thus condemned sin. They stamped His confession as a genuine confession, involving a true conception of sin. Hence His confession was accepted by the Father as a perfect confession of our sins.
Moreover, this condemnation of sin in the cross of Christ is calculated to produce in man that holiness which is demanded by God.
No modern theory of the atonement.
We might consider the views of other, more recent, writers on the atonement, but do not deem it necessary for our purpose.
Fundamentally, the conceptions of the atonement found in such writers as Bushnell, Ritschl, Moberly, Denney, Stevens, Rauschenbusch, Smith, Harnack, Gladden, Shailer Mathews, and others, can all be arranged under the old categories. They do not really add a new type to the already existing theories, but merely give new and sometimes suggestive representations of those discussed in the preceding. Dr. Warfield is entirely correct when he says that there is really no such thing as a modern theory of the atonement.
The Historical Occasion For the Atonement IT is generally admitted that the historical occasion for the atonement lies in the entrance of the disturbing factor of sin into the
world, and in the resulting separation between man and his God.
Without it an atonement would not only have been unnecessary but also impossible. Every theory of the atonement, from the Ransom-toSatan down to the Example Theory or the most liberal construction of the Moral Influence Theory, proceeds on the assumption of a baneful separation between man and God.
Conception of sin determines view of atonement.
This does not mean, however, that every one of the theories advocated presupposes the same conception of sin. The Anselmian theory of the atonement could not have been constructed on the basis of the Pelagian view of sin, nor the Abelardian theory on the basis of the Augustinian doctrine of sin. Just as a doctor's diagnosis of a disease determines what medicines he will prescribe to check and counteract its ravages, so a theologian's conception of sin will have a determining influence on his view of the redemptive work of God in Christ. At the present time there is a general departure from the Augustinian view of sin. The prevalent conception of it is fundamentally either Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. Moxon judges that the statement that "we are all Semi-Pelagians today" is not very far from the truth, "since it is in close harmony with the tendencies of modern thought." The Doctrine of Sin, P. 13. As a matter of fact, however, some have gone way beyond Semi-Pelagianism and outstripped even Pelagius himself in their volatilization of the concept of sin. And this is one of the reasons why the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement finds so little favor in modern theology.
Naturally, we cannot discuss the doctrine of sin in all its details in this brief treatise on the atonement. The most that can be attempted here is a concise statement of the salient points of the Scriptural teachings on sin, particularly in so far as they bear on the construction of the doctrine of the atoning work of Jesus Christ. It is certain that, whatever auxiliary service science may render in the study of the subject, the Bible only can give us absolutely reliable
information respecting the origin of sin in the human race, the universality of sin, its real nature, and its terrible consequences.
Several points deserve special emphasis.
Sin has a voluntary origin; Denial of voluntary origin of sin.
Sin has a voluntary origin in the human race, and can only be regarded as a wilful departure from God. This must be maintained in opposition to all those systems of thought, from the ancient dualism of the Greeks down to the modern evolutionary theory, which represent it as a necessary evil. In ancient philosophical dualism the principle of evil is represented as eternal. Leibnitz views sin as something that is unavoidable, since it is the inevitable result of the necessary limitation of finite beings. Hegel looks upon it as something that is not absolutely evil but relatively good, and as marking a necessary step in man's transition from a state of innocence to a state of virtue. Without sin man could not have developed into a moral being. This is entirely in line with the theory of evolution, which also makes sin a necessary step in the cosmic process, an imperfection which man is bound to outgrow in course of time. Tennant indeed seeks to combine this view with the idea that sin has a voluntary origin, but his attempt cannot be called successful, since he does not explain how the theory of evolution can allow for any such thing as a free will in man. Moxon is also of the opinion that in a modern theory of sin the idea that sin is the result of man's unfettered choice must be made to harmonize with the evolutionary view of man, and seeks to do this in some such way as was indicated by Tennant. It would seem, however, that Harnack had every reason to think, as he did, that these two opposing points of view cannot be reconciled.
Scriptural view of the voluntary origin of sin.
If sin is a necessary evil and therefore has no moral quality, and may even be a step in the right direction, a "quest for God," as J. R.
Campbell once called it, it is hard to see how it would necessarily call
for atonement. The Bible gives us an entirely different view of sin, representing it as wilful disobedience, as a voluntary departure from God, and therefore as ethical evil. Adam was tested by the probationary command and failed to stand the test. By eating of the forbidden fruit he clearly showed that he was not minded to subject his will to the will of God. He disobeyed and fell, and was held directly responsible for his fall. As a result of his disobedience human nature was corrupted and man became a slave of sin. But even in the resulting slavery he sins, not under compulsion, but voluntarily and is held responsible for his sinful actions. The Bible testifies to this on every page in recording the punishments meted out to sinners, so that it may be regarded as superfluous to refer to particular passages.
These teachings of Scripture are confirmed by the testimony of conscience as it passes a judgment of condemnation on the evil works of man. And this testimony of conscience is universal. It found philosophical expression in Kant's view of the categorical imperative.
This philosopher recognized a radical (root) evil in man and maintained its moral character, but found himself unable to give a rational explanation of its origin. If he had been willing to accept it, he might have found the solution of the problem in the Word of God.
Loss of the sense of sin.
Sin is not merely something negative, an imperfection in human life, but a positive transgression of the law of God which renders man liable to punishment. Sin is first of all guilt, and only secondarily pollution. It is a sad fact, and a fact to which both orthodox and liberal scholars testify, that people have to an alarming degree lost the sense of sin. Some Modernists, however, hasten to assure us that the loss is not without its compensations. While people have ceased to think about sin in the abstract, they have learned to fix their minds very definitely on sins in the concrete; while they have lost the sense of sin (sin as a unit, original sin), they have gained the sense of sins
(sinful deeds, actual sins). But these sins, as they see it, are merely individual aberrations, which should be dealt with separately by the alienist, the psychologist, or the sociologist, as the case may be. The
fact that sin is a unity, a dominating power in human life, is largely ignored by ever increasing numbers. They are willing to admit that man frequently, and in some cases habitually, sins, but fail to see that he is in a sinful state. This means that they do not believe in original sin, but only in actual sins which result from the deliberate choice of the individual will. Hence they deny that sin can ever be dealt with as a unity and always harp on the cure of individual and concrete sins. They are like the doctor who fights the symptoms of a disease and forgets all about the underlying cause, the disease itself.
If their view is correct, and there is no solidarity of sin, it is hard to see how the Scriptural doctrine of the atonement can ever be maintained.
Social interpretation of sin.
But the denial goes even farther than that and repudiates the historical conception of sin as a transgression of the moral law. The Church has always insisted on defining sin with reference to God and His law, but modern theology stresses the necessity of interpreting it socially. The idea of man's relation to whatever kind of a God there may be is indeed sometimes introduced, but usually as an afterthought. Sin is sensuality, or selfishness, or failure to live up to the law of one's being or up to one's social obligations, or simply abnormal action, and so on,—and as such is, of course, also sin against God, the immanent God, our higher self, or "the stream of tendency by which all things strive to fulfil the law of their being."
The nature of sin as guilt is generally soft-pedaled or denied. Modern writers most confidently assure us that there is and can be no such thing as original guilt. The idea expressed in the New England
Primer, "In Adam's fall We sinned all,"
is regarded as pure fiction. Men cannot be held responsible for the sin of the first man, but only for their own personal transgressions.
Many even deny that man is responsible for his own personal sins, since these are the result of his inherited animalism or of the evil environment in which he lives. Some maintain, however, that he is guilty in so far as he disregards the moral sense at its present stage of development and does not make his life subservient to the ethical and social ends of the Kingdom of God. But even so they do not always admit that man's actual sins are transgressions of the moral law and therefore render him liable to the positive legal penalty of the law. Some of them do not recognize the moral law as an absolute standard, and deny that sin is dereliction or the neglect of some duty which one is legally bound to perform. Sin is not guilt in the sense of liability to punishment. And if this is true, then a substitutionary atonement is naturally out of the question, for inherent guiltiness or misbehavior cannot be transferred from one person to another.
Scripture view of sin as liability to punishment.
In opposition to modern theology it should be maintained that sin is guilt in the specific sense of the word, as liability to legal punishment. It can be removed only by bearing the penalty which the law has affixed to sin. This is clearly the doctrine of Scripture.
Jehovah spoke to man, when He placed him in the garden of Eden:
"Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen. 2:17.
Sin is regarded as guilt, exposing man to a legal penalty. Man sinned and death entered the world of humanity: "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned," Rom. 5:12. This does not mean that death came as the natural result of sin, but in virtue of the righteous judgment of God, cf. verses 16, 18. And when Paul says in Rom. 6:23,
"The wages of sin is death," he does not mean that sin naturally kills man, but that it brings him under a sentence of death. This is perfectly clear from the connection. John says, "Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness," 1 John 3:4, which
clearly shows that he contemplates sin in its relation to the law.
Moreover, it should be borne in mind that Scripture often uses the word "sin" by metonymy for actual guilt or liability to punishment.
Thus the prophet Jeremiah, after taking the people to task for their sins and predicting that Jehovah will deliver His people, says, "In those days and at that time, saith Jehovah, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found." Does this mean that the people will then be sinless Of course not; it simply means that their sins will not be reckoned to them any more, as the Lord Himself says, "for I will pardon them whom I leave as a remnant," Jer. 50:20. Other passages may be referred to in which the Lord speaks of not imputing sin. The poet sings in the 32nd psalm, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom
Jehovah imputeth not iniquity," Ps. 32:1, 2. And Paul says that "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses," 2 Cor. 5:19.
Sin brings man under condemnation; Punishment not merely the natural result of sin.
Sin brings man under a sentence of condemnation. After what was said in the preceding it would hardly seem necessary to stress this point, were it not that some are so eager to divest the doctrine of sin of all forensic or legal elements that they deny the existence of any punishment of sin, except the consequences that naturally result from sinful actions. This view is held by New England Universalists and Unitarians, such as J. F. Clarke, Thayer, and Williamson, and also by some recent Modernists. They insist that there is an organic connection between sin and the evil results that naturally follow from it. Justice is simply the operation of the divine law by which sin becomes its own punishment. Washington Gladden says: "The penalty of sin, as the new theology teaches, consists in the natural consequences of sin.… In the first place the man who indulges in this selfish disposition (sin is regarded as selfishness, L. B.), will find it strengthening its hold upon him; that is a law of mind, and it works
itself out in his experience … There are also social consequences, of vast importance, on which I cannot dwell.… It is generally assumed that pain or suffering of some kind is the penalty of sin. It often brings sufferings as its consequence, but that is not always true, and it is by no means the worst consequence of sin.… There is, indeed, one natural consequence of sin, of which most of us have some knowledge. That is remorse, the rankling memory of the wrong committed … And if this is the penalty of sin you will see, of course, that it cannot be borne by anyone in your stead." Present Day
Theology, pp. 79–81. If this theory is correct, sin can never be removed by forgiveness, but only by an ethical process. Past sins, of course, remain what they are, and the penalty of sin can only be removed by removing sin itself. Its advocates fly in the face of many passages of Scripture, when they deny that God is ever angry with man, and does not visit judicial punishment upon him, 2 Kings 17:18;
Ps. 2:12; Micah 5:15. Can the transformation of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt be regarded as the natural consequence of her sin; the destruction of the cities of the plain as the natural result of the wickedness of their inhabitants, or the ruin visited upon the company of Korah as the natural outcome of their insurrection? Was it to be expected in view of their respective sins that Gehazi should become leprous, Herod should be eaten by worms, and Elymas, the sorcerer, should be struck with physical blindness? And do not the following passages clearly teach that God brings direct punishments upon the wicked? Ps. 11:6; 75:8; 78:49; 89:32; Prov. 21:12; 24:20;
Isa. 1:24, 28; Matt. 3:10; 24:51. Moreover, according to this theory many who are innocent are punished along with the wicked, though they have committed no sin from which the punishment naturally results; and the respectable sinner, who feels remorse for his sin, receives greater punishment than the hardened criminal, who has no pangs of conscience.
There can be no doubt about it that, according to Scripture, sin brings man under a sentence of condemnation, makes him the object of God's wrath, and renders him liable to judicial punishment. It is, of course, true that there are evil consequences of sin, which can be