I was reading the biography of A. Graham Maxwell when I came over this issue. It was said that charges have been made that Maxwell taught the moral influence theory of the atonement although Maxwell denied it. So I went to see what this was all about and here is what I found....

The moral influence view of the atonement teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. As the Roman Empire split in the fourth century AD along a geographic and linguistic divide (the Latin West and Greek East), so too Christianity eventually divided between the western Catholic Church and the eastern Orthodox Church. Eastern Orthodox Christianity flourished in the Byzantine Empire and a great many theologians composed extensive theological works on Christian doctrine. Byzantine theologians emphasized strongly the importance of moral transformation, and the moral influence view of the atonement can be found universally throughout their writings.

The moral influence doctrine of atonement is typically taught within a paradigm of salvation which focuses on positive moral change as the core of Christianity. God is depicted as concerned with whether a person's inner character is good or evil (where 'good' refers primarily to unselfish love toward others). In this system, God works to bring positive moral change within the hearts of individuals and to transform societies to become more loving. He acted to bring such change through the teachings of the Old Testament Law, the Jewish Prophets, and the teaching and example of Jesus. The inspiring power of Jesus' martyrdom and subsequent resurrection are also often cited as catalysts for moral change. Many holding a moral influence view also believe that the Holy Spirit works to help people toward moral change. In the moral influence view, it is generally believed that God will judge the souls of the dead in the afterlife based on their moral character, attested to by their conduct (a belief that many Evangelical Protestants reject). Most advocates of the view strongly endorse the concept of Free Will, insisting that humans are responsible for their actions and capable of change. However, some advocates (e.g. Augustine) have held the view that humans are incapable of moral change themselves and require God to radically alter their psychology through the Holy Spirit working in them. The moral influence model of atonement is usually associated with a minimal doctrine of Original Sin or complete denial thereof, although not always (again Augustine is a notable exception).

Advocates of the moral influence over the centuries have ranged from those who fully affirm the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the fully divine nature of Jesus Christ, to those who claim that Jesus was fully human and not deity. The moral influence model stands somewhat separate from such questions about the divine nature of Christ. It tends to emphasize the following aspects of Christ' work:

Teacher and Prophet - a majority of the Gospel accounts focus on Jesus' teachings. These teachings focus largely on individual and social morality, and encourage love.

Example - many New Testament passages speak of imitating Christ and following his example. The Gospel accounts provide a rich body of material from which early Christians drew examples.

Founder and Leader - the Church movement has a large role in the moral influence view, as its purpose is to continue to morally transform individuals and societies.

Martyr - Jesus' crucifixion is viewed as a martyrdom, in which he was killed as a consequence of his activity to bring moral transformation.

However the moral influence view can be combined with some of the other views of atonement.

During the Reformation in Western Christianity, the majority of the Reformers strongly rejected the moral influence view of the atonement in favor of penal substitution. The moral influence view has historically come into conflict with a penal substitutionary view of atonement, as the two systems propose radically different criteria of salvation and judgment. The moral influence paradigm focuses on the moral change of people, leading to a positive final judgment for which the criteria focuses on inner moral character. By contrast, a penal substitutionary paradigm denies the saving value of human moral change. It focuses on faith in Christ and on his death on our behalf, leading to a positive final judgment based on what Christ has done for us and our trust in that - not on any positive moral qualities that we ourselves possess.

As a result of these conflicts, a strong division has remained since the Reformation between liberal Protestants (who typically adopt a moral influence view) and conservative Protestants (who typically adopt a penal substitutionary view). Debate between these positions has a tendency to focus on the following main issues:

Advocates of the moral influence view point to:

The large volume of teaching in the Gospels focused on morality.

The large quantity of moral exhortation in the New Testament letters.

The 30+ New Testament passages referring to final judgment that all appear to depict a final judgment according to moral conduct.

The numerous passages throughout the New Testament which encourage moral change and provide the goal of passing God's final judgment as the incentive.

The various passages in the New Testament letters which speak of the effect of Jesus' life and death on us in terms of moral change.

Those opposed to the moral influence view have typically pointed to the following biblical themes:

Paul's statements that salvation is by 'faith'.
Paul's teaching against 'works of the law'.
Passages speaking of the effects of Christ's death, often using language from the Jewish sacrificial system.

Defences of penal substitution have typically focused on these passages and argued that they teach salvation by faith not works.

What is everyones thoughts....

Moral Influence - - Christ really did not have to die. But He did to give us a good example, and to show us what God was really like.

Penal Substitution - - The LAW demands death for sin, so somebody had to die. Christ took our place. The innocent punished for the guilty, so the guilty can go free. (Would you like to live next to an untransformed pardoned pedophile? - I think not.)

I was a student of Graham Maxwell. He did not teach moral influence. He did not teach penal substitution.

The funny thing is, there is a moral influence from Christ, but the writers of the 'Moral Influence doctrines' are way off.

After the Penal substitution, or Christ Imputing His righteousness for us, Christs Moral influences are imparted to us. So I believe this is the same issue we are going through today on the level of Law/Works.

Jesus died to pay our sin debt of death. He thereby earned the right to pardon and to save penitent sinners. His life and death satisfied the just and loving demands of law and justice. It also motivates believers to love, serve, and obey Jesus. He disproved Satan's accusations and verified the truth. The Great Controversy will be forever settled when Jesus demonstrates the truth through the 144,000 during the Great Time of Trouble.

So you agree with the idea of Penal Substitution?

I'm not sure I know everything about the Penal Substitution view. I do believe Jesus' life and death was necessary to satisfy law and justice and to pardon and save penitent sinners.

That the thing that keeps coming into my mind is WHY? What was it about Jesus' death that makes it possible to us to be saved? Is it just a legal settlement that has been provided? Graham Maxwell was mentioned in the OP; his current replacement has a very legal, "forensic" model of salvation. Quite the opposite of Maxwell, who had a trust(faith)/healing model of salvation. The root words translated save or salvation, point to a healing, rescue.

Wiki; Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment.

"In the Garden of Gethsemane Christ suffered in man’s stead, and the human nature of the Son of God staggered under the terrible horror of the guilt of sin, until from His pale and quivering lips was forced the agonizing cry, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”.... Human nature would then and there have died under the horror of the sense of sin, had not an angel from heaven strengthened Him to bear the agony.... Christ was suffering the death that was pronounced upon the transgressors of God’s law." {AG 168.2}

The main group of people who differ with our view of Penal Substitution (which we call atonement) are the Catholics.

Jesus died our second death for us in Gethsemane.

"As Christ felt His unity with the Father broken up, He feared that in His human nature He would be unable to endure the coming conflict with the powers of darkness. In the wilderness of temptation the destiny of the human race had been at stake. Christ was then conqueror. Now the tempter had come for the last fearful struggle. For this he had been preparing during the three years of Christ’s ministry. Everything was at stake with him. If he failed here, his hope of mastery was lost; the kingdoms of the world would finally become Christ’s; he himself would be overthrown and cast out. But if Christ could be overcome, the earth would become Satan’s kingdom, and the human race would be forever in his power. With the issues of the conflict before Him, Christ’s soul was filled with dread of separation from God. Satan told Him that if He became the surety for a sinful world, the separation would be eternal. He would be identified with Satan’s kingdom, and would nevermore be one with God. {DA 686.5}

"It was the anguish of separation from His Father’s favor that made Christ’s sufferings so acute. As the agony of soul came upon Him, “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44). His terrible anguish, caused by the thought that in this hour of need God had forsaken Him, portrays the anguish that the sinner will feel when, too late, he realizes that God’s Spirit is withdrawn from him.—MS 134, 1905. {2MCP 464.4}

"In yielding up His precious life, Christ was not upheld by triumphant joy. His heart was rent with anguish and oppressed with gloom. But it was not the fear or the pain of death that caused His suffering. It was the crushing weight of the sin of the world, a sense of separation from His Father’s love. This was what broke the Saviour’s heart, and brought His death so soon. {SJ 145.1}
Christ felt the woe that sinners will feel when they awake to realize the burden of their guilt, to know that they have forever separated themselves from the joy and peace of Heaven. {SJ 145.2}
Angels beheld with amazement the agony of despair borne by the Son of God. His anguish of mind was so intense that the pain of the cross was hardly felt. {SJ 145.3}

"Had his suffering consisted in bodily pain alone, then his death was no more painful than that of some of the martyrs; but bodily pain was only a small part of the agony of the beloved Son of God as he hung upon the cross. The sins of the world were upon him, and also the sense of his Father’s wrath against the sinner, as he suffered the penalty of the law. It was these that crushed his divine soul. It was the hiding of his Father’s face, a feeling that his own dear Father had forsaken him as he drank the cup which the sinner so richly merited, that brought despair to his soul. The separation that sin makes between God and man was fully realized and keenly felt by the innocent, suffering Man of Calvary. He was oppressed by the powers of darkness, and had not one ray of light to brighten the future. His mental agony on this account was so great that man can have but a faint conception of it. {BEcho January 1, 1887, par. 9}

"Let the converting power of God be experienced in the heart of the individual [church] members, and then we shall see the deep moving of the Spirit of God. Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus. He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed, but that human nature might be restored, rebeautified, reconstructed from its ruins, and made fit for the presence of God. (3SM 154)

Amen.