This view seems to satisfy a great many well-meaning people.
Without giving the matter any further thought, they dismiss it with
this easy solution. Surely, did they stop to consider and examine this
theory, they would see it has no foundation.

Christ's atonement alone, and in itself, never saved a soul. It
removed the obstacles that were in the way of our salvation, opened
the way back to our Father's house, purchased forgiveness and
salvation for us. But all this profits the sinner nothing, so long as
he is not brought into that way; so long as the salvation is not
applied to him personally. Neither can we speak of salvation being
applied to an unrenewed, sinful nature. We cannot even conceive of
forgiveness for an unregenerate being. This would, indeed, be to take
away the guilt of sin, while its power remained. It would be to save
the sinner in and with his sin.

The position is utterly groundless. It is even contrary to
reason. It assumes that a being who has in his heart, as a very part
of his nature, the roots and germs of sin, can, with that heart
unchanged, enter into the kingdom of God. It makes God look upon sin
with allowance. It does violence to the holiness of His nature. It
makes heaven the abode of the unclean.

No, no. It will not do. When men try to avoid what seem to them
difficult and unwelcome doctrines of God's Word, they run into far
greater difficulties and contradictions. That child is conceived and
born in sin. It is a child of wrath, _dead in trespasses and in
sins_. Its nature must be cleansed and renewed. Otherwise, if it
can be saved as it is, there are unregenerate souls in heaven!