The vicarious satisfaction of Christ is repudiated by all who deny the condemning wrath of God (iustitia Dei vindicativa); for if God had not been angry at man’s sin, there would have been no need for the atoning death of our Savior. (Cf. the antichristian views of the Unitarians, Modernists, Ritschl, Harnack, etc.) The objections of all rationalists to the Gospel fact of redemption (“God could forgive sin without the death of Christ by a mere fiat of His sovereign will”; “It is an unworthy conception of God to regard Him as so angry over sin that Christ had to die for sinful man”; “Christ died merely to reveal God’s love to man”; “It would be an act of injustice for God to punish the sinless Savior for sinful man”; “The idea of God’s reconciliation through Christ’s vicarious atonement is unethical or too juridical”) are all refuted by passages of Scripture which affirm the very truths that are denied by these objectors on rationalistic grounds. Is. 53, 4—6; 2 Cor. 5, 18—21. Among the errors by which Christ’s vicarious atonement is rejected, either in its entirety or in part, we enumerate the following: —
a. The error of acceptilation (acceptilatio). Christ’s vicarious satisfaction was not sufficient in itself, but was accepted as such by God’s sovereign volition (per liberam gratuitam acceptationem; Duns Scotus, Calvin, Arminians). Cp. Heb. 9, 11—14; 1 John 1, 7; Acts 20, 28; 2 Cor. 5, 18—21.
b. The error of work-righteousness as taught in varying forms and degrees by Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians, synergists. Modernists, etc. — If man can either in whole or in part secure reconciliation by his good works, it would not have been necessary for the Son of God to become man and suffer and die in his stead. Cp. Gal. 3, 10—13; Rom. 8, 3. 4; etc. Quenstedt: "Filius Dei non venisset nec humanam naturam assumpsisset, si homo in statu integritatis perstitisset.”
c. The error of denying the active obedience of Christ (Anselm, Parsimonius, modern theologians). If Christ had not fulfilled the Law in our stead, we ourselves would have to fulfil it and thus earn salvation, at least in part. Cp. Gal. 4, 4. 5; Rom. 5,18.
d. The error that Christ by His suffering and death paid the ransom-price to Satan (Origen). According to Scripture, Christ indeed has given Himself an offering and a sacrifice, but to God, to satisfy the claims of His perfect justice (iustitia Dei legislatoria et vindicativa). Cp. Eph. 5, 2; 2 Cor. 5, 18—21.
e. The error that Christ made satisfaction only for the sins of the elect (Calvinists). Cp. 2 Cor. 5, 18—21; 1 John 2, 2; 1 Tim. 2, 6.
f. The errors implied in the various theories regarding Christ's death which rationalists substitute for the Scriptural doctrine of the vicarious atonement. 1) The Accident Theory. Christ’s death was an accident as unforeseen and unexpected as the death of any other martyr (Modernists). Cp. Matt. 16, 21; Mark 9, 30—32; John 10, 17.18, etc. 2) The Martyr Theory. Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth as any other martyr (Modernists). Cp. 1 Tim. 2, 6; 1 John 2, 2. 3) The Moral-example Theory (moral-influence theory, moral-power view of atonement). Christ’s death has an influence upon mankind for moral improvement. The example of His suffering softens human hearts and helps man to reform, repent, and better his condition (transformation of character, Horace Bushnell). Cp. Rom. 5, 12—18; 1 John 1, 7. 4) The Governmental Theory. God made an example of suffering in Christ in order to exhibit to man that sin is displeasing in His sight; or: God’s government of the world makes it necessary for Him to show His wrath against sin (Hugo Grotius; New England Theology). 5) The Declaratory Theory. Christ died to show men how much God loves them (Ritschl). While the death of Christ indeed exhibits the great love of God for fallen man, the purpose of His death was primarily to redeem lost mankind, John 3, 16; 1 John 4,10. 6) The Guaranty Theory. Reconciliation is based, not on Christ’s expiation for sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and conquer their sinfulness (Schleiennaeher, Kirn, Hofmann).
All these man-made theories of the atonement deny Christ’s vicarious satisfaction and are based on the same leading thought: salvation by works, or salvation through personal sanctification.
g. The error of restitution (άποκατάσταοις). Christ died also for the fallen angels, so that they, too, will be restored to holiness and perfection in the consummation of all things. Cp. Matt. 25, 41. 46.
h. The error involved in the papistic Mass, which purports to be the “unbloody repetition of the sacrifice of Christ, necessary for propitiation.” We reject the Mass as a blasphemous denial of the efficacy of Christ’s one complete and perfect redemption, Heb. 7, 26.27; 9, 12; 10, 14; John 19, 30.