Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

B. OBJECTIONS TO THE SATISFACTION OR PENAL
SUBSTITUTIONARY DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT.
There are many circles in which this doctrine of the atonement is not popular. There
always has been opposition to it, and in our day the opposition is particularly strong.
The main objections are the following:
1. SUCH AN ATONEMENT WAS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY. Some hold that such an
atonement was entirely unnecessary, either because sin is not guilt and therefore does
not call for an atonement, or because there can be no obstacle to the free forgiveness of
sin in God, who is our heavenly Father and is essentially a God of love. If a man can,
and often does, forgive the penitent without demanding and receiving satisfaction, God,
our perfect exemplar, surely can and will do this. This is the common objection of all
those who advocate a purely subjective theory of the atonement. It may be answered,
however, that the Bible certainly teaches us to regard sin as guilt; and because it is guilt,
it makes man subject to the wrath of God and renders him liable to divine punishment.
Moreover, the idea of a universal Fatherhood of God, in virtue of which He loves all
men with a redemptive love, is entirely foreign to Scripture. And if God is a Father, He
is also a Judge; if He is a God of love, He is also a God of justice and holiness. There is
no one attribute in God which dominates and determines the expression of all the other
divine perfections. And, finally, it should not be forgotten that what man can do as a
private individual, he is not always able to do when acting in the capacity of a judge.
2. SUCH AN ATONEMENT WOULD DEROGATE FROM THE CHARACTER OF GOD. Closely
connected with the preceding objection is that which holds that such an atonement
would derogate from the character of God: from His justice, because He punishes the
innocent for the guilty; from His love, because He acts as a stern, severe, and relentless
being, who demands blood to appease His wrath; and from His pardoning grace, since
He demands payment before He can or will forgive. But Christ voluntarily took the place
of sinners, so that this substitution involved no injustice on the part of God. If God had
been actuated by strict justice only, and not by compassionate love and mercy as well,
He would have left the sinner to perish in His sin. Moreover, it is entirely incorrect to
say that, according to the satisfaction doctrine of the atonement, the love and the
pardoning grace of God could not flow forth until satisfaction was rendered, because
God Himself provided the ransom, and by giving His Son already gave evidence of His
infinite love and pardoning grace. His love precedes even the repentance of sinners and
calls this into action.
421