In their efforts to refute Calvinism, some are willing to deny that Jesus died vicariously, or in our stead, as the word indicates. In running away from Calvinism, it is not necessary to reject the substitutional death that the Bible, in Isaiah 53 (and other places), so clearly says Jesus suffered on our behalf. But this is what some Christians are doing.
The quotes that immediately follow are taken from separate articles written by two different Christians. I’m not naming the source for either, for it is not the who but the what that I wish to concentrate on. The first quote says:
In the sense of the substitution theory [this is what he calls the vicarious death of Jesus—AT], if Jesus, when He died on the cross, removed God’s wrath against sin, satisfied divine justice, paid all our debt in our place, took our punishment for sin upon himself, became guilty with our guilt, was cursed in our stead, then Jesus has already done it all in our place. How can we be charged with anything if Jesus has already done it all? If Jesus has already taken my punishment upon himself, then I do not have to worry because my punishment was removed 2000 years ago! I cannot be held accountable for what I have done because my substitute has already taken that on himself and removed any responsibility from me!
The second quote reads exactly like the first, with the exception of the final sentence, which says, “The only conclusion that can be reached from the substitution position is universal salvation….or Calvinist limited atonement!” (Italics are in the original—AT.) This second brother went on to say the following in the very next paragraph:
Some will insist that they do not believe in either universal salvation or limited atonement but believe in substitution anyway. But, they don’t realize what they are saying. The Bible teaches that we must do something to have our sins removed, Mark 16:15, 16, Acts 2:38. We are righteous even as He is righteous if we do righteousness, 1 John 3:7, and are acceptable with God if we work righteousness, Acts 10:34, 35. We can escape the punishment of hell but must obey God to do so, Matthew 25:32-46. We must obey God in order to enter Heaven, Matthew 7:21-27. The very fact that we must do all these things in order to have our sins removed, be righteous and escape punishment for sin demonstrates that the substitution theory is human error and not truth. Some will say they believe in the necessity of human obedience and substitution as well. Again, they don’t know what they are saying. Human obedience and the substitution theory are contradictions. This is why Calvinism virtually removes any such human effort from the process. Limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the impossibility of apostasy of Calvinism are the direct results of the substitution theory. Baptist doctrine demonstrates the same things; God provides the faith and grace, once saved you can’t be lost and the number is limited to those to whom God gives the grace. And why not, if Jesus has already done everything in our place? What is there for us to do?
I wanted to include these quotes to let the reader know that I’m not constructing straw men here. It isn’t difficult to see that these two brothers reject the vicarious death of Jesus. That is, although they know He died in order to pay the price for our redemption, they nevertheless make it absolutely clear that they reject, as gross error, the idea that Jesus died in our stead. And they do so, once again, to refute that ol’ Calvinism bugaboo. Calvinism certainly needs to be rejected; but in doing so, one must not reject what the Bible teaches on this or any other subject.
Rejecting The Either-Or Argument
I reject the premise that if one believes in the vicarious death of Jesus, one must either accept universalism or Calvinism, for such an “either-or” assumption is simply not a valid scriptural point. The Bible teaches neither of these, and I reject them both. Furthermore, I will trust what the Bible actually says rather than what these brethren are trying to tell me it says. As I’ve already indicated, I will argue, from Isaiah 53 and other passages, that Jesus did, in fact, die in our stead. And although both these aforementioned brothers castigate those who hold “the substitution theory” for coming under the influence of human reasoning and denominational think-sos, I believe it is their own thinking that reflects such enslavement. For example, in Galatians 3:13, Paul wrote, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’).” Then, in 1 Peter 2:24, we are told that Jesus “bore our sins in His own body on the tree [i.e., the cross].” Do not these passages, when coupled with Isaiah 53, convey the idea that Jesus suffered and died in our stead? Why, then, must I, in order to be thought sound in the faith, believe that Jesus didn’t die in my place?
Truth is, I don’t, and the convoluted logic and attempted exegeses of these two brothers changes nothing. Man seems to always get into trouble with the human analogies he tries to appropriate to God. God is not a man. Therefore, the limitations of our human analogies cannot apply across the board to Him. When we try to make them do so, we are engaged in what the Bible calls idolatry.
I am not a universalist; nor am I a Calvinist. I am, instead, a Christian who believes what God has said in His word about who and what He is, whether I can fully understand it or not. This is true even when I can’t seem to find a human analogy that completely applies to Him. One must be very careful about such things, for God and His thoughts are infinite and, therefore, so far above us and how we think (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9) that it is just impossible for us to know everything about Him. Yes, there is plenty to know about God, but there is still plenty more that we simply do not, and cannot, know (cf. Romans 11:33 and compare it with Job 26:14).
Partly Right, But Still Very Wrong
What do I mean by the above subtitle? Simply this: Yes, Jesus was the perfect-Lamb-without-blemish sacrifice offered up for us on the cross of Calvary, as the Scriptures clearly teach. Consequently, while it is perfectly acceptable for one to preach and teach that Jesus paid the price for our sins because He was the perfectly sinless blood sacrifice for our sins, serving as the means to our redemption, it is, nevertheless, important to understand that this imagery does not fully exhaust God’s description of this sacrifice.
For instance, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul said, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Now, the critics of the idea that Jesus died vicariously or in our place have called “nonsense” the idea that this passage, along with others, is teaching that Jesus actually took upon Himself our sins, paying in full the price for our pardon by being “the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Thus, I find it disturbing that some Christians have taken to calling “nonsense” anything taught in God’s word that they happen to disagree with, whether it is this issue or some other, like the controversy over the days of Creation, or the brouhaha that manifested itself a decade or so ago over the deity-humanity of Jesus.
For example, the idea that God actually created the Universe in something approaching 144 hours is considered by some among us to be silly or ridiculous, as it contradicts the “Science” of our day. Likewise, the idea that Jesus could have been 100% God and 100% man while here on this earth was clearly thought by some among us to be absolute “nonsense.” But these ideas aren’t silly or nonsensical at all. In fact, they represent accurately the six-day creation taught in the Scriptures and the fully God-fully man Jesus described in the New Testament. Consequently, I don’t like it one bit when I hear Christians calling nonsense, silly, or ridiculous things I can clearly read about in the Bible.
But if there were anything inherent in the vicarious death concept I believe to be taught in the Bible that demanded universalism or Calvinism, as some are wrongly claiming, then I would, no doubt, have some interest in the semantical gymnastics they engage in to “prove” that it can’t be true. But when one of these argues that a particular interpretation of a pertinent passage that appears to teach that Jesus died vicariously can’t be interpreted that way because it has already been demonstrated that the doctrine isn’t true, when he has, in fact, done no such thing, just makes me shake my head in disbelief that a brother in Christ would stoop to making such a statement—a statement that, ironically, is to be taken, ipse dixit, as an argument for precisely why the doctrine isn’t true.
Asking A Difficult Question
Those who take the position that Jesus did not die vicariously are known to ask this supposed hard question: “To whom do you think the ransom price for our sins was paid?” If you say to God, which they wrongly think is the incorrect answer, they make reference to Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, in the 11th century, was the first one to introduce the idea that the ransom or satisfaction was paid by Christ not to Satan, but to God. Then, we are quickly informed, the Reformers compounded Anselm’s error by adding to it the idea that Jesus actually took the place of sinners in the sight of God and, as their substitute, suffered the punishment that was due them, including the sufferings of Hell. Upon Him, it is claimed these Reformers taught, fell all the punishment of all the sins of all the men for whom He died. Consequently, it was further argued that these Reformers believed that, because of Jesus’ sacrifice, penal justice could have no further claim. As a result, the so-called Substitution Theory was cross connected with the five points of Calvin, standing on the two legs of the imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of His righteousness to us.
To this I simply say, “So what!” What Anselm thought, or what the Reformers believed, is not really all that important to me, and I don’t mean anything overtly disrespectful when I say this. What I believe about Jesus’ vicarious death is based on what I can read in the Bible, not the philosophies and think-sos of men, be they Augustine, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or even Thomas and Alexander Campbell. But what I can read in the Bible is very important to me, and I can read in the Bible much about Jesus’ vicarious death.
“But That’s Not Even In The Bible,” They Argue
Someone retorts: “But vicarious isn’t even in the Bible. Why then are you trying to defend it?” But the fact that the actual word isn’t used in the Scriptures doesn’t mean the concept or idea is not taught there. For instance, where is the term “triune nature” found in the Bible? It isn’t, but this does not mean that the idea isn’t taught within its pages, and most Bible students acknowledge this. But to charge me, or anyone else, with bowing down to the dictates of the First Council of Nicaea because I believe in the triune nature of God is simply uncalled for. Why, then, should brethren who accuse me of believing and teaching something that is false because the word I’m using to identify it isn’t found in the Bible expect my opinion of them to remain unquestioned when they resort to such tactics?
If I didn’t have any other teaching but Isaiah 53, I would still believe Jesus was the divinely ordained sin-bearer. I would still believe that the iniquity of us all was, in fact, laid upon Him by the Father. I would still believe that He was wounded for our transgressions because God loved us that much. And finally, I would still believe that Jesus bore the sins of us all because God ordained it. However, when one adds to this the many passages that teach this very same idea, then I think I have every reason to believe in the vicarious death of Jesus, namely, that He died in my stead, paying the price that was owed for my sins, and not mine only, but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
This brings us full circle to this idea of Jesus being the “propitiation for our sins,” and how it is in this truth that we are so confident of our salvation—not just now, but in the future, as well. Consequently, we’ll have more to say about this in the next post in this series.