The Orthodox Doctrine, as to the Nature of the Atonement, Proved from What the Scriptures Teach as to Its Absolute Necessity in Order to the Salvation of Sinners
The orthodox doctrine of the nature of the Atonement is further certainly established by the teaching of Scripture as to the sense in which the expiation of sin by Christ was an absolutely essential prerequisite in order to the salvation of sinful men, and therefore NECESSARY to that end. It is earnestly maintained by all Calvinists that since all men are sinners, whose natural claims as mere creatures upon their Creator are justly forfeited, salvation must spring up, if at all, out of grace as a product of the sovereign will of God. If, therefore, salvation be a matter of grace and sovereignty, it cannot be a matter of necessity in any sense of the word whatsoever. But on the hypothesis that it is the purpose of God to save guilty men, the question must arise, In what sense, and on what grounds, was the atoning work of Christ necessary to that end?
This question has been much discussed among theologians, and different answers have been given by different classes of them, in correspondence with the fundamental principles of their respective systems. The Socinians hold that the work of Christ, as a whole, was one of doubtless many plans subject to God’s selection, by which he could soften the hearts of men and bring them to repentance. The advocates of the Governmental Theory hold that his sufferings and death were in order to make a moral impression on the subjects of God’s moral government genera Uy, so that the honour of the law may be upheld, and its subjects duly impressed with the evil of sin and the certainty of its punishment, notwithstanding the special instance of impunity allowed in the case of sinners among mankind. Dr. Twisse and others held it to be necessary simply because God had determined that he would forgive sin on no other condition. Thomas Aquinas* held that it was impossible that the punishment of sin could be re mitted absolutely — that is, inflicted neither upon the sinner nor upon his substitute — lfjmtice be taken into the account. Yet he maintained that because of God’s absolute sovereignty, it would not have been unjust in God, if he had so willed it, to ignore the claims of justice, and to remit sin by simple prerogative, without any satisfaction at all. The great body of the Church, on the other hand, have uniformly held that it is essential to the very nature of justice (a) that it should be voluntary, that is, spontaneous and free in the divine nature, but (b) that its exercise should not be optional. Hence the Church doctrine has always been, that if the sinner is to be forgiven, an adequate satisfaction to divine justice, in the real expiation of the sin, is absolutely necessary to that end.
It is obvious that this questi pn is identical with one discussed under a former head, viz., What is the reason *Shedd’s Hist. Poet. pp. 305-307.
why God punishes sin? Is that reason to be found in tho bare fact of his own will; or in the moral state of the individual sinner; or in the moral impression it is desirable to make on the general community subject to the divine government; or does it lie in the immutable nature of God himself? It is evident that, if it depends upon the bare will of God, the necessity for its provision is purely contingent upon his will. If the reason for it results from the obduracy of sinners otherwise irremediable, or in the exigencies of the divine government, or in conditions of the public mind of the subjects of that government in general, then the necessity alleged is still contingent on the will of God, because these grounds or occasions for the Atonement might, of course, one and all, be removed by the gracious power of the Holy Ghost acting directly upon the hearts of his creatures, and inducing whatever moral state he desired, if he had so willed. But, on the other hand, if the necessity in question results from the immutable demands of the divine nature, it is obviously absolute in order to the forgiveness of the sinner, and contingent neither upon the divine will nor upon the moral condition of the creature. Hence, conversely, if the necessity for the Atonement be absolute, it follows that it must have its ground in the divine nature, and not in the exigencies of government or the condition of the creatures. The argument in both directions is conclusive, alike when it proceeds from the nature of the Atonement to its necessity, and when it proceeds from its necessity to its nature. I have in a previous chapter proved the necessity of the Atonement, and consequently its nature, from the holiness of the divine nature, and from the immutability of the
NECESSITY OF THE ATON> ,,1KNT. 237
divine law. At present, I pro/ose to present those biblical statements which directly establish the fact that the necessity for the Atonement of Christ to the end of the remission of sins is absolute, and which, by immediate and unavoidable inference, establish the conclusion that the ground of that necessity must lie in the divine nature, and neither in the obduracy of the sinner nor in the exigencies of the divine government.
The fact that the necessity for the Atonement, in order to the salvation of sinners, is absolute, is to be certainly inferred from the following scriptural data.
1. It may be inferred from the amazing greatness of the sacrifice. The Scriptures constantly speak of the sacrifice of the Son by the Father as an unparalleled wonder. All else that God will or can do is as nothing in comparison with the gift of Christ. If God “spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” Rom. viii. 32. This sacrifice would be most painfully irrelevant if it were anything short of absolutely necessary in relation to the end designed to be attained — that is, unless it be indeed the only possible means to the salvation of sinful men. God surely would not have made his Son a wanton sacrifice to a point of bare will. Christ certainly would not have been sacrificed if divine wisdom could have devised, or if divine power could have executed, any other process capable of effecting the end designed — that is, the redemption of men from the curse of that law.
2. The same truth is asserted in effect in Gal. ii. 21: “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” In the original there is no article before the word VG//OC (law). The affirmation of the text i», that if righteousness by law (dta vooi*), by any law whatsoever, were possible for man, then Christ is dead in vain. So great a sacrifice as this is misplaced, is to all intents In vain, thrown away, made without adequate purpose, if any other means could have attained the end.
3. Again, in Gal. iii. 21, it is said: “If a law had been given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” God can give no law whose requirements fall short ot absolute perfection, otherwise he would deny himself. There can be no change or compromise of righteousness. But in the case of man this all-perfect law can only domaiid and condemn. It is not the function of law to empower, nor to remit, nor to give life, nor to atone. Verily Christ would never have been sacrificed if righteousness could have been by law.
4. God expressly measures his love to his people by his gift of his Son to die for them. “God so LOVED THE WORLD that he gave his only-begotten Son.” John
iii. 16. “God COMMENDETH HIS LOVE TOWARD US,
in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom. v. 8. “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” 1 John iv. 9. This is an amazing truth, and it is true just because the sacrifice of Christ was necessary to secure the salvation of those God loved; and hence the greatness of his love to us is measured by the greatness of his sacrifice for us. But if the sacrifice was not necessary in the strict sense of that term, then there must have been some one or more alternatives at God’s disposal, and hence the sacrifice of Christ, the alternative chosen, could be in no true sense a measure of his love for his people, but only of his own unwillingness to adopt any other one of the possible alternatives.
5. Paul declares, Rom. iii. 25, 26, “That Christ was set forth to be a propitiation (ttcurrijpeov, expiation) through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past.” That is, the expiatory work of Christ is set forth as the vindication of the righteousness or essential holiness of God, in respect to the fact that he had remitted sins in time past. And he proceeds “to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” It is absolutely necessary that God should be just. This he eternally is. But that he should be just while he justifies the unjust, it was necessary that Christ should be offered a piacular sacrifice for sin. Therefore the sacrifice of Christ, considered as a means to the justification of sinners, was an absolute necessity. And therefore it follows, as shown above, that the ground of that necessity must lie in the divine nature — which is the one only absolute ground of necessity in the universe. And if the ground for the necessity for the Atonement is in the constitution of the divine nature, it follows that the Atonement, as to its nature, is a satisfaction by vicarious penal sufferings of the demands of the divine nature.