How would you answer some of the arguments against the doctrine of the penal substitution view of Christ's atonement? I have heard some of these arguments before and I would like to know how you would answer them.
There is one argument that claims that a person cannot be punished for another person's sins and the people who make this claim try to support it from verses such as Deuteronomy 24:16. This verse says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
Another argument I have heard goes like this:
The penalty of sin is spending an eternity in hell. If Christ paid the penalty of sin, then He would have spent an eternity in hell. Christ did not spend an eternity in hell. He did not go to hell in the first place. Therefore, He did not pay the penalty of sin.
There is one argument that claims that a person cannot be punished for another person's sins and the people who make this claim try to support it from verses such as Deuteronomy 24:16. This verse says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
Another argument I have heard goes like this:
The penalty of sin is spending an eternity in hell. If Christ paid the penalty of sin, then He would have spent an eternity in hell. Christ did not spend an eternity in hell. He did not go to hell in the first place. Therefore, He did not pay the penalty of sin.
Last edited: