possessing the guilty nature. In his own person he redeems this nature by bearing its penalty. Propitiation must precede reconciliation. The Moral Influence theory recognizes the necessity of a subjective change in man but makes no provision of at objective agency to secure it.?
(d) It contradicts the plain teachings of Scripture that the atonement is necessary but simply to reveal God?s love, but to satisfy his justice that Christ?s sufferings are propitiatory and penal. The human conscience needs to be propitiated by Christ?s sacrifice before it can feel the moral influence of his sufferings.
That the atonement is primarily an offering to God and not to the sinner appears in <490502>Ephesians 5:2 ? ?gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God?; <580914>Hebrews 9:14 ? ?offered himself without blemish unto God.? Only by propitiating holiness can conscience, the reflection of God?s holiness, be propitiated. Mere love and sympathy are maudlin and powerless to move unless there is a background of righteousness. Spear: ?An appeal to man without anything back of it to emphasize and enforce the appeal, will never touch the heart. The mere appearance of an atonement has no moral influence.? Crawford Atonement, 358-367 ? ?Instead of delivering us from penalty, in order to deliver us from sin, this theory makes Christ to deliver us from sin, in order that he may deliver us from penalty. But this reverses the order of Scripture. And Dr. Bushnell concedes, the end, that the moral view of the atonement is morally powerless and that the objective view he condemns is, after all, indispensable to the salvation of sinners.?
Some men are quite ready to forgive those whom they have offended. The Ritschlian school sees no guilt to be atoned for and no propitiation to be necessary. Only man needs to be reconciled. Ritschlians are quite ready to forgive God. The only atonement is atonement made by repentance to the human conscience. Shedd says well: ?All that is requisite in order to satisfaction and peace of conscience in the sinful soul is also requisite in order to the satisfaction of God himself.? Walter Besant: ?It is not enough to be forgiven, one has also to forgive one?s self.? The converse proposition is yet truer. It is not enough to forgive one?s self, one has also to be forgiven. Indeed, one cannot rightly forgive one?s self, unless one has been first forgiven; <430326>John 3:26 ? ?if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.? A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 201 ? ?As the high priest, under the old dispensation, carried the blood into the Holy of Holies, so does the Spirit, in the new dispensation, take the blood of Christ into the inner sanctuary of our spirit
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?