Resuming the subject of the atonement, as promised last week, I now ask in what way did the death of Christ enable God to be just, and the justifier of him who believes? The most common answer is that he suffered the penalty that was due for the sins of men, and thus men were set free. But is this true as a matter of fact? What was the penalty for sin? According to the Scriptures it was eternal punishment and internal remorse. Did Jesus suffer this? It is absolutely certain that he did not. His suffering did not include the element of remorse in any degree; neither was it eternal in duration. Furthermore, if he did suffer the penalty [325] due for the sins of all men, then no man can be subject to that penalty in his own person, and universal release from punishment is the consequence. But if, to escape this unscriptural conclusion, we say with the Calvinist that Jesus suffered the penalty for the elect alone, and that consequently all of them will be saved, we are involved in a contradiction of the Scripture doctrine that he tasted death for every man. And in either case the doctrine is proved false by the fact that in so far as the punishment of sin consists in remorse of conscience, the daily experience of all is that we actually suffer this, and that therefore Jesus did not take it away.

      This line of reasoning can not be broken; and, seeing this, many thoughtful Calvinists have modified the doctrine by putting it in this form that while Christ did not suffer the exact penalty that was due for sin, his sufferings and his person were such that God could, and did, accept them as an equivalent for the penalty due to sin. To this there are two objections that are each fatal: first, there is not a hint of such an idea to be found in the Scripture; and, second, it involves equally with the theory in its baldest form the consequence that all men must escape punishment. For, if Christ suffered the equivalent of the penalty the sinners escaped from, it is not less necessary than if he suffered the exact penalty. No such explanation can satisfy; and I venture the assertion that no explanation that will satisfy can be given. I say this for the reason that without some utterance from God which he has not vouchsafed, the human mind can never be sure what his reasoning on the matter is. And it is not necessary that we should. The question has reference to the divine side of the problem of salvation, and not to the human side. It is enough for us to know and act upon the human side. [326]

      Recurring now to the thought advanced last week, that it is extremely difficult to forgive a crime without encouraging the commission of crime, and that God could not be perfectly just to his other creatures if, in pardoning a single sinner, he should weaken the moral restraints felt by others, I think we shall be able to obtain a view of the atonement which should be thoroughly satisfying to our minds. I was once in conversation with a brother on this subject who said, "The father of the returning prodigal forgave his son without subjecting him or anybody else to suffering in order that he might do it; and why could not God do the same?" I answered, "You forget that when the father of the prodigal did this he stirred up strife in his own family. His elder son resented it, and with a considerable show of reason." So might it have been in God's government; or, if none of his creatures had complained of the unconditional pardon of sinful men, they certainly might have felt that it was no very serious matter to sin against God.

      If, now, the death of Jesus as a propitiation for sin, enables God to justify the believer without encouraging sin in him or in any other accountable being, the problem is solved. By reasoning a priori I should not be able to say that it did; but by reasoning from the actual results I can. I can see as a fact of human experience that men who believe that Jesus died for our sins, are so far from being encouraged to continue in sin, that this is the one effective persuasive that turns them away from sin. In forgiving the believer on this ground God causes him to hate sin, and he causes all who witness the fact to feel less inclined to sin. Explain this fact, or leave it unexplained, it is unquestionably a fact of human experience; and we may safely say that it is a fact of angelic experience also; for do not the angels in heaven glorify God [327] on this very account, saying, "Worthy art thou to take the book and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon the earth." Such a song they could not sing if they experienced in consequence of the forgiveness of sinful men any weakening of the moral restraints which held them to the service of God. This consideration vindicates the wisdom and justice of extending mercy to penitent believers in Christ; and this is all that we need to know--all, perhaps, that we shall ever know of God's thoughts on this profound subject.

[SEBC 325-328]