1. Could Other Means than the Atonement Have Been Devised for Man's Salvation: The question, could any other plan have been devised for the redemption of man than the Atonement as made by the Christ, was discussed, in part, in a previous lesson when considering the question of possible redemption by the sovereign act of God.[A] It is a question that has been often asked, and oftener in our own day perhaps than at any previous time, since our age is pre-eminently critical, and questions the rationality of the Atonement as set forth in the scriptures and also as taught by the Catholic and the Protestant churches. Shedd propounds the question in this form:
[Footnote A: See Lesson XVI.]
"Does the necessity of expiation in order to pardon arise from the nature of the case, or from an arbitrary arrangement? Could the Deity have dispensed with any or all satisfaction of Justice, or is Justice of such an absolute and necessary character, that it would be impossible to save the guilty without an antecedent satisfaction of this attribute [Justice] as it would be for God to lie?"[A]
[Footnote A: "History of Christian Doctrine," Shedd—Vol. II, p. 223.]
Answering these questions from the point of view developed in this treatise, it would be necessary to say (1) that the necessity of expiation in order to pardon does arise from the nature of the case and not from arbitrary arrangement; (2) that the Deity could not dispense with any or all satisfaction to Justice since Justice as an attribute of God is of such an absolute and necessary character that it would be as impossible to save the guilty without an antecedent[A] satisfaction as it would be for God to lie. The attribute of Justice is as necessary to maintain in Deity as the attribute Truth.
[Footnote A: Or pre-determined satisfaction, that ultimately must be realized in fact. I make this qualification of "antecedent" satisfaction in the interest of the great truth that the effects of the Atonement were realized by the ancient saints previous to the coming of Christ to earth and hence previous to his actually making the Atonement; but that was because the Atonement for man's sins, the satisfaction to Justice, had been pre-determined upon, and this fact gave virtue to their faith, repentance and obedience to ordinances of the Gospel. (See Seventy's Year Book II, Lesson XX. "Antiquity of the Gospel.")]
2. (a). The Evidence of Scripture: Considered from the standpoint of scriptural evidence, there can be no doubt of the absolute necessity of the Atonement as it was wrought out in the suffering and death of the Christ. The two disciples overtaken on their way to Emmaus by the unrecognized, risen Savior, gave him an account of the crucifixion and the reported resurrection of Jesus. They also voiced their own great disappointment in the seeming anti-climax of the events which had resulted in the crucifixion by saying: "But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel;" but it was now three days since the crucifixion, and consequently their hopes were disappointed. Then said the Christ unto them:
"O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?"[A]
[Footnote A: Luke xxiv:13-27.]
The same evening Jesus appeared to a company of his disciples and gave the most palpable demonstration of his resurrection, and said to them: