non-natural one, and violates linguistic usage. It holds that Paul and John misunderstood or misrepresented the words of our Lord. We prefer the frank acknowledgement by Pfleiderer that Jesus, as well as Paul and John taught substitution but that neither one of them was correct. Colestock, on Substitution as a Stage in Theological Thought, similarly holds that the idea of substitution must be abandoned. We grant that the idea of substitution needs to be supplemented by the idea of sharing and so relieved of its external and mechanical implications but that to abandon the conception itself is to abandon faith in the evangelist and in Jesus himself.
Dr. W. N. Clarke, in his Christian Theology, rejects the doctrine of retribution for sin and denies the possibility of penal suffering for another. A proper view of penalty, and of Christ?s vital connection with humanity, would make these rejected ideas not only credible but also inevitable. Dr. Alvah Hovey reviews Dr. Clarke?s Theology, Am. Journ. Theology, Jan. 1899:205 ? ?If we do not import into the endurance of penalty some degree of sinful feeling or volition, there is no ground for denying that a holy being may bear it in place of a sinner. For nothing but wrongdoing, or approval of wrongdoing, is impossible to a holy being. Indeed, for one to bear for another the just penalty of his sin, provided that other may thereby be saved from it and made a friend of God, is perhaps the highest conceivable function of love or goodwill.? Penney, Studies, 126, 127 shows that ?substitution means simply that man is dependent for his acceptance with God upon something which Christ has done for him, and which he could never have done and never needs to do for himself. The forfeiting of his free life has freed our forfeited lives. This substitution can be preached and it binds men to Christ by making them forever dependent on him. The condemnation of our sins in Christ upon his cross is the barb on the hook. Without it your bait will be taken, but you will not catch men; you will not annihilate pride, and make Christ the Alpha and Omega in man?s redemption.? On the Scripture proofs, see Crawford, Atonement. 1:1-193: Dale, Atonement, 65-256; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, iv. 2:243- 342; Smeaton, Our Lord?s and the Apostles? Doctrine of Atonement.
An examination of the passages referred to shows that, while the forms in which the atoning work of Christ is described are in part derived from moral, commercial and legal relations, the prevailing language is that of sacrifice. A correct view of the atonement must therefore be grounded upon a proper interpretation of the institution of sacrifice, especially as found in the Mosaic system.
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?