On the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement

\I. We come now to our second division, in which the necessity of the atonement is located wholly in the obduracy of the sinful race which needs this wonderful display of love and sacrifice to melt it into contrition and obedient faith. It is commonly called

THE MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY,

though moral influence is incidental to all theories. But here it is the principal thing, the sole need and aim of the atonement. Man, not God, is to be propitiated; the work of Christ has no Godward aspect. If men would repent under other moral influences, the atonement were unnecessary. Christ is only a Saviour, not the Saviour. He is only one, the most prominent, of many moral benefactors, the efficacy of whose self sacrifice for others is the same in kind. He stands at the head of the noble army of martyrs who by their unselfish labors and contagious example of heroic self-immolation have turned many from sin unto righteousness. If this does not discrown our Divine Lord Jesus it certainly detracts from His honor as the unique Saviour. He cannot be put into a class without dimming His glory. He must stand alone.

This is our first objection. Our second is this, that if Christ saves only by the moral influence of His atoning death, He can save none who have no knowledge of Him — the countless millions who have never heard of Him in pagan lands, half the human race dying in infancy and the myriads of millions who lived and died before Christ came in the flesh. An atonement whose sole efficacy is moral influence can have no retrospective virtue. It must be known in order to be effectual. The sun must shine upon the ice in order to melt it. The only way to adjust this theory of the atonement to the whole race is to extend probation beyond death. This brings us to an inference for which I find no sufficient Scriptural support. With me this is an insuperable objection to the moral influence philosophy of the atonement. It weakens the motive to immediate repentance. But we cannot further dwell on this point.

Our next difficulty with this theory of salvation through moral influence is that it offers no satisfactory explanation of all those Scriptures which speak of the remission of sins that are past, that is, before Christ's incarnation; those which declare that there is no salvation except through Him; those which represent His death as a substitute, and those which present it as a propitiatory sacrifice. All of these texts teach that the atonement has a Godward efficacy. For these reasons, however popular and pleasing this view may be, I must reject it.

Our last objection is that this theory always tends to a soft theology, a hazy view of sin and a vague and nebulous statement of its consequences in the life to come.

[To be continued.]