[Comments below]
Pendleton:
1) There are others who deny the necessity of atonement chiefly, it may be, through misapprehension. They suppose the necessity refers to the origination of love in the divine bosom. They properly deny that the atonement or anything else was necessary to excite the love of God. That love was in his heart from eternity, and the atonement results from it. There would have been no atonement without it. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” The mission of his Son was the effect of antecedent love. God loved us, and therefore sent his Son to be the ‘propitiation for our sins. But while the atonement was not necessary in the sense of originating the love of God to man, it was, for other reasons, indispensable to human salvation. We find a reason in the claims of the divine law. This law, with its penalty annexed to its violation, is “holy, and just, and good.” If so, holiness, justice, and goodness require an observance: of its precepts, and, in case of disobedience, the infliction of its penalty. Hence the necessity of an atonement clearly appears. The law having been transgressed restrained the exercise of mercy in man’s salvation, and called for the execution of its penalty. In order to the salvation of sinners, all expiatory measure must be introduced into the divine Government, to meet the claims of the law by preserving its honor, and vindicating its penal sanctions. The atonement of Christ was the measure divinely devised and introduced. It rendered satisfaction to the law, and removed the restraints which it had placed on the exercise of mercy. Now mercy triumphs in all its beauty, justice shines forth in all its majesty, and holiness appears in all Its glory.
In treating of the necessity of Christ’s atonement, it is generally deemed sufficient to refer to it as a transaction worthy of God, designed to satisfy the demands of his law. When this is done, the interests of truth are not likely to suffer. At times, however, it is well to go more thoroughly into the matter of necessity, and trace it from the penal claims of the law to the ill desert of sin, and thence to the nature of God. For if it be asked, why the divine law, when transgressed, needs satisfaction? the question finds its answer in the nature of sin, and in the nature of God. There is intrinsic demerit in sin which renders it deserving of punishment. To present the matter concretely rather than abstractly, I say that a sinner, because he is a sinner, deserves punishment. He is a rebel against the government of God, and justice requires that he shall pay the penalty of rebellion. Law and justice require that the transgressor shall be punished, on account of the ill-desert of sin that is to say, on account of his personal blameworthiness. The philosophy of punishment is susceptible of no other explanation. There is something in the nature of sin which calls for penal infliction on the sinner, and from the nature of sin the necessity of atonement may be traced to the nature of God. It can be traced no farther. All reasoning on the subject is destined to culminate at this point, and here to exhibit its supreme strength. For if we ask why the law of God is what it is, the answer is, because the nature of God is what it is. If we ask why sin is such an evil as to deserve punishment, the answer is, because it is antagonistic to the nature of God. Here, therefore,–in the divine nature,–is the field on which is to be decided the contest for or against the necessity of atonement; The Bible teaches that there is some thing in the nature of God, to which sin is so offensive, so infinitely hateful, as to excite his wrath. It may be said, too, that sin is the only thing which has ever excited the wrath of God. That moral quality of the divine nature which causes hatred of sin, excites wrath against sin, and therefore makes necessary an atonement, in order to the pardon of sin. If sin originates wrath in the divine bosom, it is morally certain that that wrath can never be turned away, unless some atoning provision is made for the forgiveness of the sin which originates it. What do the Scriptures say in regard to the wrath of God? Listen: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” “The wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.” Here are several passages of Scripture which speak of wrath,. nor can it be doubted what wrath is meant. It is expressly termed “the wrath of God.” We are not to suppose that wrath in God is something similar to exasperated passion in man. It is not. God’s wrath is a holy and just indignation against sin. We are not left to conjecture whether this wrath exists; for it is revealed from heaven. It comes on the children of disobedience–abides on unbelievers–and believers are saved from it through Jesus Christ. Wrath against sin and love for sinners are perfectly compatible. The feelings of every good man may be appealed to in proof of this fact, and the fact itself receives its highest exemplification in God. He so loved sinners, and so hated their sins, as to send his Son from heaven “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” that he might gratify the impulses of his love in saving sinners. In the cross God shows himself to the universe as the sinner’s friend, and the uncompromising eternal enemy of sin.
Some think that it detracts from the perfection of the divine character to speak of the wrath of God. Their view of wrath is that it is a resentful, vindictive passion. Such a passion is, they think, and properly too, unworthy of. God. But there is a vast difference between vindictive and vindicative; and while the wrath of God is not vindictive, it is vindicative of his justice, his law, his government. This is seen in the agony of Gethsemane, and in the tragedy of Calvary.
Read the rest of this entry »