The Fundamentals
68
b. Substitution Immoral.
The second argument by means of which the advocates of “the moral-influence theory” seek to refute the doctrine of a substitutionary atonement is equally unfortunate with the first, in that, like the first, it criticizes words rather than the thoughts which they are employed to express. The doctrine of a sub stitutionary atonement, it is said, is immoral. Let us inquire what this immoral doctrine is. The doctrine, it is answered, that our guilt was transferred to Christ and that He was pun ished for our sins. Here again let us “strive not about words.” Let us admit that the theologian might well express himself in other terms, which would create no prejudice against his meaning. But, if he amends his statement, let him retain every part of his meaning. Let him say that Christ suffered in order that guilty man might escape from sufferings richly deserved. Is this teaching immoral ? Then the constitution of the human race, ordained by God, is immoral, for, since its ties are those of sympathy and love, human beings are constantly suffering that others may escape sufferings richly deserved. Then sym pathy is immoral, for this is what it does. Then love is im moral, for this is what it does. Then the best persons are the most immoral, for they do this oftener than others. The objector does not maintain that the doctrine of a sub stitutionary atonement has equally produced immorality where- ever it has been proclaimed. He does not venture to test this charge by an appeal to history. The appeal would be fatal. For nineteen hundred years the only great moral advances of the human race have been brought about by the preaching of a substitutionary atonement. “A tree is known by its fruits. It is impossible that a doctrine essentially immoral should be the cause of morality among men, MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY NOT ADEQUATE Let us turn now to “the moral-influence theory” and con sider why it ought not to be accepted.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker