The moral influence theory (moral example theory) of the atonement, attributed to Abelard and Schleiermacher, basically states that the life and death of Jesus served primarily as an example for how we should love others. It was not that we deserved a penalty and Jesus paid it, but that His incredible love was manifested in His incarnation and crucifixion, prompting us to progressively earn salvation as we follow His example.
In this video, we will examine the Moral Influence theory. In short, here is my evaluation of it:
Evaluation of the moral influence theory:
True claim: The death of Jesus did serve as an example.
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5-8)
False claim: The only effect of the death of Jesus is His example
If the primary purpose of Jesus’ death was to be an example, then salvation would come about by works as we contemplate the work of Jesus and attempt to live out His example in our lives.
False claim: Jesus was not our substitute
As we will see in later videos about penal substitution, He was indeed our substitute.
Really good one!