The GOSPEL TRUTH THE
ATONEMENT IN CHRIST
By
JOHN MILEY, D.D.
CHAPTER XI:
OBJECTIONS TO THE ATONEMENT.
I. AN IRRATIONAL SCHEME.1. A Pretentious Assumption.2. Analogies of Providence.
II. A VIOLATION OF JUSTICE.
1. No Infringement of Rights.2. Analogy of Vicarious Suffering.
3. Atonement Clear of Injustice.
4. Vantage-ground Against Moral Theory.
III. A RELEASEMENT FROM DUTY.
1. Fatal, if Valid.2. Nugatory on a True Doctrine.
IV. AN ASPERSION OF DIVINE GOODNESS.
1. Reason of Law and Penalty.2. No Aspersion of Goodness.
3. Divine Love Magnified.
CHAPTER XI: OBJECTIONS TO THE ATONEMENT.
WE must not omit all notice of the stock objections to the atonement. Yet they have little relevancy as against the doctrine which we maintain, and, therefore, require no elaborate refutation.
I. AN IRRATIONAL SCHEME.
Opponents of fundamental Christian truth are great on the rational, and especially on the irrational. A glance of their marvelous philosophic acumen detects the disconformity of a doctrine to reason. This is conclusive against it. Thus the atonement is summarily dismissed as an irrational scheme.
1. A Pretentious Assumption.
Such an objection little becomes the limitations of human reason. In our own resources we but feebly grasp the principles and requirements of divine moral government, and, therefore, cannot pronounce against either a necessity for the atonement, or the wisdom of its measures, or the beneficence of its results. Human reason, all unequal to its devisement, is all incompetent to a conclusive judgment against it. And while with us the government of a provincial municipality is still a perplexing problem, we do but arrogantly pronounce against the wisdom of the atonement in the infinitely broader sphere of divine moral government. The more certainly is this true since the deliverances of the highest reason accord to the economy of redemption in Christ an infinite excellence and wisdom.
2. Analogies of Providence.
If the scheme of atonement is in analogy to the general course of providence, the fact wholly voids this objection, except on the broad ground that the general course of providence is irrational. But such an assumption would bar all title to a respectful hearing on the part of any one professing faith in Christianity, or even in God.
The vicarious principle is the most common law of human society in every form of its constitution. And it is no arbitrary appointment, but springs inevitably from the providential relations of human life. In the family, in society, in the commonwealth, one serves another, suffers for another. One takes upon himself labor and suffering on account of the sin of another, averts evil from him, and brings him good. Here is the vicarious principle. Human life is full of it.
Such is the mediation of Christ in vicarious suffering. Nor is the principle really changed in the fact that his sufferings meet a special exigency of moral government in order to the forgiveness and salvation of sinners. Any objection respecting the justice of the case will be met elsewhere, and really is not pertinent here, because this exigency of moral government is met in the mediation of Christ by vicarious suffering, not by substituted punishment. Only the latter element could carry the atonement out of such analogy to very many vicarious facts of human life, as to deny it the vindication of that analogy. And neither revelation, nor the general course of providence, nor reason itself, pronounces the scheme of vicarious atonement irrational.
II. A VIOLATION OF JUSTICE.
No objection has been urged either more violently or persistently against the atonement than this. A few words, however, will answer for all the defense required of us.
1. No Infringement of Rights.
Injustice comes with the refusal of dues, with the deprivation of lawful possessions or inalienable rights, with wrongful injury or unmerited punishment, not otherwise. Such facts are a violation of justice, because a violation of rights. Without this there can be no injustice. On this ground we have an easy answer to the objection of injustice in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. Others may answer for their own doctrine.
2. Analogy of Vicarious Suffering.
Men often endure toil and suffering, and jeopard life itself, in behalf of others. They do this electively, cheerfully, not of coercion. Do they suffer any violation of rights thereby? Is any injustice done them? Does their own reason or the common moral judgment so pronounce? Surely not. Indeed, both approve such vicarious sacrifice, and reprehend its refusal on proper exigency.
3. Atonement Clear of Injustice.
That the vicarious sufferings of Christ meet a special requirement of moral government in order to our forgiveness and salvation introduces no element of injustice. Nor did Christ, in all his relations to the will of the Father respecting the deepest sufferings which he endured, ever evince any sense of injury or wrong. Nor was there any wrong to him: for, while he so suffered in obedience to the will of the Father, it was none the less his own election in the purest freedom. And it is no punishment of one for the sin of another. All injustice, therefore, is excluded.
4. Vantage-ground Against Moral Theory.
This is a common objection with those who maintain the Moral theory of atonement. We claim a position of the highest advantage against them. They admit the sufferings and death of Christ as consequent upon his redemptive mission, and as for men in this sense. They admit the severity of his sufferings and the shameful manner of his death. But, on their scheme, his extreme suffering is only incidental to his saving work, while on ours it is the necessary ground of forgiveness and salvation. Therefore, our doctrine will vindicate such a divine economy, while theirs will not.
The real problem is in such suffering of the innocent in behalf of the guilty. "State this fact as indeterminately as you please; rigidly adhere to the coldest and most undefining forms of language; allow only that the innocent suffered for the advantage of the guilty; what possible abatement of the charge of injustice do you supply? The difficulty, if any--the mystery, the awful mystery--remains in full proportion behind the flimsy cloud. That mystery is the innocent, the virtuous, the perfect One, has borne tremendous agony. This is the point of startling wonder, whatever the result: of wonder to be diminished only by the exigency, the mighty good accruing, not otherwise to be attained." The profound exigency is the vindicatory fact. Intense vicarious suffering, arising in a specially providential economy, and without a sufficient reason in attainable good, is of impossible defense. Such is the case with the Moral view. But the doctrine of a real atonement in Christ, with the necessity of his redemptive sufferings as the means of salvation, and the infinite good attained, gives us the clearest and fullest theodicy.
III. A RELEASEMENT FROM DUTY.
This objection, if intelligently and honestly made, must have in view some particular doctrine of atonement. Otherwise it has neither pertinence nor force, whatever weight logical validity would give it.
1. Fatal, if Valid.
No doctrine of atonement could stand against such an objection if grounded in truth. But duty has no surer ground, and no more imperative behest respecting all that constitutes the highest moral and religious worth, than in the atonement itself. Hence any doctrine really open to such an objection must be in error. Nor will the history of doctrines permit the assertion that no one has been so open. Antinomianism itself has a place in that history. And any commercial theory, or doctrine of atonement by absolute substitution in precept and penalty, is open to this objection, however its advocates disclaim the implication.
A punishment so endured for us, and a righteousness so wrought on our account, cannot again be required of us under any claim of justice or sanction of law. But the doctrine which we maintain is not answerable in such a case.
2. Nugatory on a True Doctrine.
On a true doctrine the atonement in Christ is simply the ground of forgiveness, not the merited punishment of sin. Hence we are guilty all the same, though now with the privilege of forgiveness and salvation. And for such a result through redemptive grace there is required a true repentance for sin and a true faith in Christ; and, as the condition of his continued favor, a true obedience to his will. A measure of forgiveness in behalf of rebels would surely be no discharge from the obligation and requirement of future loyalty, and especially when the continuance of the restored franchisements is conditioned on fidelity in future loyalty. Such are the facts respecting the atonement. And in all its truth and lesson it makes duty specially imperative and responsible, and presses its claim with a weight of obligation and a power of motive peculiar to itself. It is, therefore, wholly and forever clear of this objection.
IV. AN ASPERSION OF DIVINE GOODNESS.
This, also, must have in view some special doctrine of atonement. Otherwise, it is so manifestly groundless that it can hardly be a mere fallacy, and must be a sophistry; not a mere error in its logic, but an intentional error.
1. Reason of Law and Penalty.
Whence comes law? And wherefore penalty? Is their origin in the cruelty of rulers? Is revengefulness the moving impulse of legislators and ministers of law? Is vindictiveness the inspiration of punishment? Is implacableness the sole restraint of the pardoning power? No man can think so. The public good requires both law and penalty. Here is their source. This fact does not give us the highest principles of divine moral government, yet has enough analogy for illustration. Rulers in human government, if by personal qualities well fitted for their office, cherish infinitely higher sentiments than the present objection would imply in application to them. With rulers of the highest and best qualities clemency would often release the criminal when the public good constrains his punishment. And they should have the honor of a wise and beneficent administration rather than suffer the reproach of vindictiveness.
2. No Aspersion of Goodness.
Now if the punitive ministries of justice imply no vindictiveness, but evince the wisdom and beneficence of government, how does the refusal of pardon so imply? Then how would the requirement of such provision as would render forgiveness consistent with the ends of government show any implacability? And then how does the atonement, as necessary to the consistency of forgiveness with the infinite interest of moral government, impeach the clemency of the divine Ruler, or asperse his goodness? When this is shown, other questions may be asked. Until then they are not necessary.
3. Divine Love Magnified.
The atonement has its original in the divine love. Nor has it any other possible source. The human mind is powerless for the original conception of such a scheme. Nor could it have birth in the mind of angel or archangel, but in God only. And with him its primary impulse must arise in his love. It could not arise in any perfection of knowledge, or power, or justice, or holiness. There must be a profound sympathy with human woe. An infinite compassion must yearn over the miseries of sin. Love only can answer to such requirement. "God is love." Herein is the primary impulse of human redemption, and the ever active force in all its infinite sacrifices. To this one source the Scriptures ever trace it.
And the divine love, so moving to an atonement for sin, must meet the sacrifices which it requires. These are infinitely great. A plan of human redemption must be adjusted to the profoundest interests of the moral universe. The infinite exigency reaches into heaven for the Son of the Father's love. He must be the atoning sacrifice. He must be delivered up to humiliation and death. The divine love answers to the infinite exigency. And while the cross stands as the symbol of the atonement, and it is written "God so loved the world," that atonement casts no aspersion upon his clemency, but infinitely magnifies his love.
Return to Atonement by Miley Table of Contents