The Great Doctrines of the Bible - Rev. William Evans (summer reading list .TXT) 📗

it fails to see the justice as well as the need or possibility of one man, and He so innocent, suffering for the sins of the whole race—past, present and future. Every man must bear the penalty of his own sin, so we are told; from that there is no escape, unless, and it is fervently hoped and confidently expected, that God, whose wondrous love surpasses all human conception, should, as He doubtless will, overlook the eternal consequences of man’s sin because of the great love wherewith He loves the race. The love of God is the hope of the race’s redemption.

What shall the Christian church say to these things, and what shall be her reply? To the Word of God must the church resort for her weapons in this warfare. If the so called modern mind and its doctrinal views agree with the Scriptures, then the Christian church may allow herself to be influenced by the spirit of the age. But if the modern mind and the Scriptures do not agree in their results, then the church of Christ must part company with the modern mind. Here are some of the modern theories of the atonement:

1. THE ACCIDENT THEORY.

Briefly stated, this is the theory: The Cross was something unforeseen in the life of Christ. Calvary was not in the plan of God for His Son. Christ’s death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as the death of any other martyr was unforeseen and unexpected.

To this we reply: Jesus was conscious all the time of His forthcoming death. He foretold it again and again. He was always conscious of the plots against His life. This truth is corroborated by the following scriptures: Matt. 16-21; Mark 9:30-32; Matt. 20:17-19; Luke 18:31-34; Matt, 20:28; 26:2, 6, 24, 39-42; Luke 22:19, 20. Further, in John 10:17, 18 we have words which distinctly contradict this false theory: “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”

In addition to this we may make mention of the many, many references and prophecies of the Old Testament to the fact of Christ’s death. Then there is Christ’s own testimony to the fact of His death being predicted and foretold by the prophets (Luke 24:26, 27, 44). See also Isa. 53; Psa. 22; 69.

2. THE MARTYR THEORY.

It is as follows: Christ’s death was similar in kind to that of John Huss, or Polycarp, or any other noble man who has given up his life as a sacrifice for a principle and for truth.

To this we reply: Then Christ should have so declared Himself. Paul should have said so. That word was used for other Christian deaths, why not for Christ’s? Then there is no mystery about the atonement, and the wonder is that Paul should have said anything about the mystery. Further, if Christ died as a martyr He might, at least, have had the same comforting presence of God afforded other martyrs in the hour of their death. Why should He be God-forsaken in that crucial hour? Is it right that God should make the holiest man in all the ages the greatest sufferer, if that man were but a martyr? When you recall the shrinking of Gethsemane, could you really—and we say it reverently—call Jesus as brave a man facing death as many another martyr has been? Why should Christ’s soul be filled with anguish (Luke 22:39-46), while Paul the Apostle was exultant with joy (Phil. 1:23)? Stephen died a martyr’s death, but Paul never preached forgiveness through the death of Stephen. Such a view of Christ’s death may beget martyrs, but it can never save sinners.

3. THE MORAL EXAMPLE THEORY.

Christ’s death has an influence upon mankind for moral improvement. The example of His suffering ought to soften human hearts, and help a man to reform, repent, and better his condition. So God grants pardon and forgiveness on simple repentance and reformation. In the same way a drunkard might call a man his saviour by whose influence he was induced to become sober and industrious. But did the sight of His suffering move the Jews to repentance? Does it move men today? Such a view of Christ’s death does not deal with the question with which it is always connected, viz., the question of sin.

4. THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY.

This means that the benevolence of God requires that He should make an example of suffering in Christ in order to exhibit to man that sin is displeasing in His sight. God’s government of the world necessitates that He show His wrath against sin.

True, but we reply: Why do we need an incarnation for the manifestation of that purpose? Why not make a guilty, and not an absolutely innocent and guileless man such an example of God’s displeasure upon sin? Were there not men enough in existence? Why create a new being for such a purpose?

5. THE LOVE OF GOD THEOEY.

He died to show men how much God loved them. Men ever after would know the feeling of the heart of God toward them.

True, the death of Christ did show the great love of God for fallen man. But men did not need such a sacrifice to know that God loved them. They knew that before Christ came. The Old Testament is full of the love of God. Read Psalm 103. The Scriptures which speak of God’s love as being manifested in the gift of His Son, tell us also of another reason why He gave His Son: “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16); “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

We believe that Christ’s Cross reveals the love of God, and that throughout all these ages men have been bowed in penitence as they have caught a vision of the One who hung thereon. But if you were to question the multitudes that have believed in God because of the Cross, you would find that what moved them to repentance was not merely, if at all, certainly not primarily, that the Cross revealed the love of God in a supreme way, but the fact that there at that Cross God had dealt with the great and awful fact of sin, that the Cross had forever removed it.

“I examine all these views, beautiful as some of them are, appealing to the pride of man, but which leave out all thought of vicarious atonement, and say, ‘But what shall be done with my sin? Who shall put it away? Where is its sacrifice? If without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, where is the shed blood?’ These views are neat, measurable, occasionally pathetic, and frequently beautiful, but they do not include the agony of the whole occasion and situation. They are aspect theories, partial conceptions. They do not take in the whole temple from its foundation to its roof. No man must set up his judgment against that of another man in a dogmatic way, but he may, yea, he must, allow his heart to speak through his judgment; and in view of this liberty, I venture to say that all these theories of the atonement are as nothing, most certainly shallow and incomplete to me … . As I speak now, at this very moment, I feel that the Christ on the Cross is doing something for me, that His death is my life, His atonement my pardon, His crucifixion the satisfaction for my sin, that from Calvary, that place of a skull, my flowers of peace and joy blossom forth, and that in the Cross of Christ I glory.”—_Joseph Parker._

IV. THE NECESSITY OF CHRIST’S DEATH.

The necessity of the atonement lay in a twofold fact: The holiness of God, and the sinfulness of man. The doctrine of the atonement is a related subject, and it cannot be properly understood unless it is viewed as such. It is related to certain conditions existing between God and man—a condition and relation which has been affected by sin. It is necessary, therefore, to know this relation and how it has been affected by sin. This relation between God and man is a personal one. No other construction can legitimately be put upon the passages setting forth this relationship. “Thou has searched me, and known me.” “I am continually with Thee.” It is, moreover, an ethical relationship, and that which is ethical is at the same time personal and universal, that is to say, that God’s dealings with mankind are expressed in a moral constitution of universal and eternal validity. These relationships are disordered by sin. No matter how sin came to be here we are morally conscious, by the testimony of a bad conscience, that we are guilty, and that our sin is not merely a matter of personal guilt but a violation of a universal moral law.

1. THE HOLINESS OF GOD.

We should carefully note the emphasis laid upon the doctrine of God’s holiness in the Old Testament (see under Attributes of God, p. 37). The Levitical law, the laws of clean and unclean, the tabernacle and the temple with its outer court, its holy and most holy place, the priestly order and the high priest, the bounds set around Mt. Sinai, things and persons that might not be touched without causing defilement, sacred times and seasons, these, and much more, speak in unmistakable terms of the holiness of God. We are thus taught that if sinful man is to approach unto God, it must be through the blood of atonement. The holiness of God demands that before the sinner can approach unto and have communion with Him, some means of propitiation must be provided. This means of approach is set forth in the shed blood.

2. THE SIN OF MAN.

Light and erroneous views of the atonement come from light and erroneous views of sin. If sin is regarded as merely an offence against man, a weakness of human nature, a mere disease, rather than as rebellion, transgression, and enmity against God, and therefore something condemning and punishable, we shall not, of course, see any necessity for the atonement. We must see sin as the Bible depicts it, as something which brings wrath, condemnation, and eternal ruin in its train. We must see it as guilt that needs expiation. We must see sin as God sees it before we can denounce it as God denounces it. We confess sin today in such light and easy terms that it has almost lost its terror.

In view of these two thoughts, the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man, the question naturally arises: How is the mercy of God to be manifested so that His holiness will not be compromised by His assuming a merciful attitude towards sinful men in the granting of forgiveness, pardon, justification? The answer is: The only way in which this can be done is by means of the atonement.

3. THE FULFILLMENT OF THE SCRIPTURES.

We may add this third thought to the two already mentioned. There is a sense in which the atonement was necessary in order to the fulfillment of the predictions of the Old Testament—predictions inseparable from the person and work of the Messiah. If Jesus Christ were the true Messiah, then these predictions regarding His sufferings and death must be fulfilled in Him (Luke 24:25-27, 44; Isa. 53; Psa. 22; 69).

V. THE EXTENT OF CHRIST’S DEATH.

Was the death of Jesus Christ for all mankind—for every human being in