# Is Substitionary atonement unjust



## tellville (Nov 3, 2007)

What would you say to those who think an innocent man paying the price for someone else's crimes is unjust? For example, if I were to kill somebody, and my best friend were to offer to go to jail for me, which would then let me off scott free, how is that justice?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 3, 2007)

Only if your friend's substitution would serve a greater good and his compensatory service was of greater value than the crime committed as well as guaranteeing your inability to commit the same crime ever again.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Nov 3, 2007)

I think your friend would also have to be the wronged party in order for the metaphor to be applicable.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Nov 3, 2007)

tellville said:


> What would you say to those who think an innocent man paying the price for someone else's crimes is unjust? For example, if I were to kill somebody, and my best friend were to offer to go to jail for me, which would then let me off scott free, how is that justice?




I would say it is the difference between looking at substitutionary atonement from a man centered view as opposed to a God centered view. It is imperative that the latter is done to keep from accusing God of injustice.

I would also add that an understanding of the parallel between the first and Last Adam (Romans 5) is of utmost importance. We get off scott free because Jesus Christ was our representative. We were in him at Calvary. So, it's only in Christ that we receive justification. This is something your best friend could not offer on your behalf.


----------



## tellville (Nov 3, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > What would you say to those who think an innocent man paying the price for someone else's crimes is unjust? For example, if I were to kill somebody, and my best friend were to offer to go to jail for me, which would then let me off scott free, how is that justice?
> ...



So you would argue along federal headship lines?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 3, 2007)

tellville said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> > tellville said:
> ...



short answer, yes. Is it unjust that I am an American citizen simply because of some decisions some white guys made 270 (?) years ago? I realize the analogy breaks down, but you get the point. There is a better defense out there, though.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Nov 3, 2007)

tellville said:


> So you would argue along federal headship lines?



It's one of the essential keys of justification, and until one comes to a proper understanding of federal headship I think their view of justification will remain sketchy at best.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 3, 2007)

I actually like St Anselm's take. Consider the human predicament. Only the God-man could represent both God and man.


----------



## tellville (Nov 3, 2007)

So would you guys then say there is no answer to this question that would be acceptable unless you assumed the Biblical world view?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 3, 2007)

tellville said:


> So would you guys then say there is no answer to this question that would be acceptable unless you assumed the Biblical world view?



Yes, but the effectiveness of that statement depends with whom you speak. If you are talking to a confessing Christian who has aberrant theology, you would first need to prove to him that he has a defective worldview (for all he knows, he has a biblical worldview). I would probably start wtih a discussion of sin. That usually mitigates any human effort at redemption.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Nov 3, 2007)

tellville said:


> So would you guys then say there is no answer to this question that would be acceptable unless you assumed the Biblical world view?




I would agree with that, brother. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit. The Spirit of God must open the heart to understand, believe and receive justification by faith alone. If that doesn't happen then not only can one not be justified by faith in Christ alone, but one cannot even understand it.


----------



## christiana (Nov 3, 2007)

It isnt justice. It is mercy, thankfully, that He paid for my sin!


----------



## Barnpreacher (Nov 3, 2007)

christiana said:


> It isnt justice. It is mercy, thankfully, that He paid for my sin!



Or as I heard Joseph Pipa Jr. once say, "It's being taken out of God's courtroom and placed into God's family room."

I love that quote! I love that thought!


----------



## tellville (Nov 3, 2007)

Could one say that because God is the actual law-giver then that puts him the special place of being able to transfer sin to himself?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 3, 2007)

tellville said:


> Could one say that because God is the actual law-giver then that puts him the special place of being able to transfer sin to himself?



Yes, provided that you make clear that God is just in doing so. Normally, that goes without saying (God, being the standard of goodness and justice, etc). This is why I really like St Anselm: God is paying the debt, not to Satan, but to His own justice. Of course, Anselm, being a feudal character, had his problems, too.


----------



## Herald (Nov 4, 2007)

The substitution is not unjust. That would be an act of grace and mercy. But would it really? If the substitution caused the friend not to be able to support his family, it would be nothing more than a skewed view of grace. This is one of those times when a human analogy cannot hope to capture the gravity of what God did for His elect in Christ.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 4, 2007)

Justice is getting what you deserve. Getting your 'just deserts.'

Getting off "Scot free," when you don't deserve Scott-freedness, is not 'justice,' it's mercy.

So, were we treated justly? No. And, thank God.

Justice administers deserved punishment. The deserved punishment for sin is death.

Was this not administered?

It was, at Calvary.

So, there was no total disregard of a punishment for sin.

What's the problem?

It seems to be that Jesus took the penalty for our sin. He stood in for us. Took our place. He himself didn't deserve the penalty, we did.

What's wrong with that?

1) The idea of substitution was not foreign to the Ancient Near East mindset. We may have a problem, but it wasn't always this way. The Greek Pharmakos, comes to mind. (I just cite this to show that the idea of an "innocent" substitute for the people wasn't _obviously_ wrong to the mind of man.)

2) It is 'illegal.' Perhaps within our legal code it is, but not in God's. Legality is determined from _within_ a legal code. God's legal code allows for the idea of substitution, if done legally (according to his stipulations). Take Amsterdam's drug culture. Since it is legal there to ingest heroin, we wouldn't call what they're doing _illegal_, per se. It may be immoral, but we wouldn't call it illegal. So, since sin is a _crime_ (it's more sophisticated than that, but crime sufficies for our purposes) in God's legal jurisdiction, against his law code, then the substitution was what took place within that law code, and hence was not 'illegal.'

3) It is 'immoral.' How so? Obviously to call something X immoral, one needs a framework of morality which allows one to call X immoral. 

i) Take Utilitarianism, for instance. Seems like greater happiness resulted. Some Utilitarians even allow that it would be acceptable to rape a child if that's what a terrorist requested to avoid him detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of Time Square. 

ii) Take Ethical Egoism, for instance. Surely if Christ chose to do this, and it was in his best interest, then it was not immoral. (Now, I think Egoism has serious problems, but all I need to do is present the *possibility* of the atonement being motivated out of self-interest, and the Egoist must accept the argument. In fact, Egoists have a knack for revision. They could easily make the atonement motivated by self-interest. And, if Ethical Egoism is motivated by Psychological Egoism - which many Egoists claim it is - then it is a *fact* that Jesus sacrificed himself out of self-interest.) 

iii) What about ethical anti-realistism, for instance. Obviously they can't complain about the immorality of the atonement, because _nothing_ is really immoral. I bring these three up just to show that the person making the claim that it is immoral needs to offer a theory where that claim is intelligible. We've seen that on three non-Christian views, substitutionary atonement wouldn't be immoral. 

iv) Take a fourth view - Christian morality. On this view it is hardly immoral since God chose to do it and he cannot chose to do an immoral act.

4) It's not fair. That's right, it's not; for us. If we were treated fairly, we'd be in trouble. What's the problem, then? Usually we call foul when two supposed equals are matched up. If one has an advantage, then it's not fair. But if someone volunteers to do something that isn't what he deserves, we don't call that unfair. It might be unfair if a poor kid gets drafted to go to war when a rich kid should have gone in his place. But, if that poor kid *volunteers* to go in the place of the rich kid, we wouldn't call that unfair.

So, what is the problem? We've already noted that though we were not treated justly, Christ was in our place. We then asked what the problem with this view was. We can see that though we may have intuitions to the contrary, when we try to spell out what the problem is, we have problems specifying exactly what's supposed to be wrong here.

Those are just some thoughts....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 4, 2007)

Already thanked you Paul but wanted to commend a very thorough response.

I taught on Hebrews this morning and noted that God could have been called merciful if He simply overlooked our sins but could not be called just unless He punished sin. Justice simply demands that the offended party's wrath at being violated is propitiated. God's wrath is propitiated by the sacrifice of His Son to the satisfaction of His justice.

Incidentally, if people find this _foolish_ then is this really a surprise? Is that not the normal response of the Gospel to the fallen mind? In fact, doesn't Rome itself call the idea a legal fiction that Christ fully represent us in propitiating the wrath of God for all our sin and to have God declare us righteous on the basis of our union with the Son?


----------



## christiana (Nov 4, 2007)

We contend for the faith based on scripture because it is God's Word to us.

2Cor 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Isaiah 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord,
My soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness!

None of us would prefer the justice we deserve in accounting for our sin but would be humbled by His mercy in having Christ atone for the sin of His chosen ones!


----------

