1). INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement, was NOT an invention of Paul, the principle is enshrined in the life and teaching of Jesus Himself:
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. … [15] as the Father knows Me, and I know the Father. I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP. [16] But I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock, one shepherd. [17] This is why the Father loves Me, because I AM LAYING DOWN MY LIFE so I may take it up again. [18] No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down on My own. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to take it up again. I have received this command from My Father.” (John 10:11, 15-18)
“For this is My blood that establishes the covenant; IT IS SHED FOR MANY for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)
Paul’s teaching is firmly rooted in Jesus’s own:
“For while we were still helpless, at the appointed moment, Christ DIED FOR THE UNGODLY. [7] For rarely will someone die for a just person — though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die. [8] But God proves His own love for us in that WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS, CHRIST DIED FOR US! [9] Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath. [10] For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His life! … [18] So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone.” (Romans 5:6-10,18)
2). NO-ONE CAN DIE FOR THE SINS OF ANOTHER
Before a Muslim raises the red herring diversion into personal accountability, that is NO obstacle to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. In short, I am held to account, but the fact is Christ took my account (of guilt) upon Himself and wiped it clean, so when my account is judged it’s on the basis that my guilt was borne by Him and the penalty of death for sins paid by Him. So, when a Muslims appeal to:
“Look, every life belongs to Me. The life of the father is like the life of the son — both belong to Me. The person who sins is the one who will die” (Ezekiel 18:4)
“The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won’t suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him.” (Ezekiel 18:20)
they are confusing and conflating different doctrines. The principle of personal accountability is not in focus here, what is being showcased is that the principle of substitutionary sacrifice can assuage the wrath of God and satisfy the demands of divine justice.
“AI Overview
The Bible verse stating “no one can die for the sins of another” primarily refers to individual accountability under the law, where one person’s guilt cannot be legally or spiritually transferred to another human. The key verses often cited are Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20, and Jeremiah 31:30, which establish that “the soul who sins is the one who will die”
Reconciling this legal principle with the Christian doctrine of Jesus dying for sins involves several theological perspectives:
Sinless Divine Nature vs. Sinful Human: The Torah states that no sinner can die for another’s sins because the substitute would need to die for their own sins. Christians believe Jesus was sinless, making his sacrifice unique and not violating the law of personal responsibility, as he had no sin of his own to die for.
Voluntary Substitution: Some interpretations argue that while no one can be forced to bear the penalty of another, a sinless individual can voluntarily sacrifice themselves as a substitute to atone for others.
Atonement and Sacrifice: The Old Testament allowed for animal sacrifices, which were sinless substitutes that foreshadowed the atonement, indicating that the death of a sinless entity can cover the sins of the guilty.
Different Types of Death: Some theologians distinguish between spiritual death (separation from God due to personal sin) and physical death, arguing that Ezekiel 18 refers to each person dying spiritually for their own sin, while Jesus’s physical death was a substitutional offering that allowed for atonement.
Contextual Distinctions:
Ezekiel 18:20 and Deuteronomy 24:16 were written to establish individual responsibility in contrast to the belief that children inherited the guilt or curse of their fathers’ sins. 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:8 address the redemptive purpose of Jesus’s death, which Christians believe satisfies the requirement for a perfect sacrifice. Ultimately, the reconciliation is often that while human law (Old Testament) dictates personal responsibility for sin, the divine, sinless nature of Jesus allowed him to act as an exception, serving as a mediator who voluntarily paid the penalty for humanity” [AI]
3). VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND THE IMPUTATION OF SINS
[From REASONABLE FAITH Q&A: #650 September 29, 2019]
□ “Question: Dr. Craig, In your work on the atonement, you noted that vicarious liability is a useful analog in modern criminal justice systems to what occurred when our sin was imputed to Jesus. If this is approximately what occurred and if it is true that the imputation of our sin did not remove our sin then it seems as if the sin was replicated and then doubled. This would pose a problem because it would make two parties liable to punishment.
Is it possible to understand that our sin was replicated so that it could be punished in Jesus and forgiven where it existed in us? I think we would need to explain how the doubling of sin would not simultaneously double the liability to punishment as, if we are to use the analogy, we may well face the objection that replication of sin does nothing to help but, rather, it makes the problem more severe.
Bill United States
■ Dr Craig’s Answer: When I first began to correspond with Prof. Eric Descheemaeker of the University of Edinburgh School of Law about legal questions pertinent to the doctrine of the atonement, he shared with me that although it was easy to think of examples in the law where a wrongdoer’s guilt is replicated in an innocent person, he could not think of any examples in which a wrongdoer’s guilt is transferred to an innocent person (and thereby removed from the wrongdoer). It was at that moment that the light came on for me! It hit me forcefully that the classic doctrine of the imputation of sins is not about the transfer of guilt from one party to another but precisely about the replication of guilt of one party in another.
This fact is most clearly seen in the doctrine of Original Sin, according to which Adam’s sin is imputed to us his progeny. The replication of Adam’s guilt in me obviously does nothing whatsoever to remove Adam’s guilt from him. Adam remains sinful and in need of God’s forgiveness and moral cleansing.
Similarly, according to the Protestant Reformers’ doctrine of the atonement, my guilt is replicated in Christ, not transferred from me to him. Otherwise, we would believe in salvation by imputation, not by penal substitution. No one to my knowledge has defended a doctrine of the atonement according to which the expiation of sins comes via imputation; such is not in any case the Reformers’ doctrine. Sin and guilt are expiated via punishment, namely, Christ’s bearing the punishment which is the just desert of my sins.
So the analogy between vicarious liability in the law and the imputation of sins is very tight. Indeed, these seem to be practically the same notion described in legal terms on the one hand and in theological terms on the other. What that implies is that if there is a problem for the doctrine of the atonement arising from vicarious liability, then it arises from the theological notion of the imputation of our sins to Christ. The problem lies in the doctrine itself, not in the legal analogy to it.
So the serious problem that your question raises, I think, is whether Christ’s being substitutionally punished in my place can really satisfy the demands of divine justice. On this question I refer you to my article “Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory?” Philosophia Christi 21/1 (2019): 155-168. There I make two points in response: (1) With respect to vicarious liability in the law, there are cases in which the punishment of only the vicariously liable party satisfies the state’s demand for justice. The wrongdoer himself goes unpunished while the demands of justice are met by the superior party to whom his guilt is imputed. The case of the atonement seems very apt in this respect because Christ’s suffering and death is traditionally thought to be of infinite value in virtue of his divinity and so swamps all human sin infinitely. (2) Contemporary atonement theorists have appealed to what they call inclusionary, as opposed to exclusionary, views of Christ’s atonement. The idea here is that Christ is not merely some third party, a sort of whipping boy punished instead of us; rather we are somehow united with Christ, so that his punishment is our punishment. I try to make sense of this view by taking Christ to serve as a proxy for us before God. Thus, I am punished by proxy.
On the basis of Christ’s satisfying the demands of divine justice, God can then turn to us and offer us a full pardon for our sins, which we are free to accept or reject. The guilt of him who freely accepts God’s pardon is expunged, and he becomes, as it were, a new man in Christ; whereas the foolish man who rejects God’s pardon remains under the sentence of death and so must bear his just deserts.”
4). DISCUSSION
This is why the question of Jesus being fully divine and fully human matters. As WLC notes:
“Christ’s suffering and death is traditionally thought to be of infinite value in virtue of his divinity and so swamps all human sin infinitely.”
If there is one reality we need to grasp it is simply this. The ONLY way Jesus atoning death can pay for the infinite offence of sins to an infinite and holy God, is for that sacrifice to be that of infinite value once and for all. No finite mortal life can satisfy the demands of God’s perfect justice. As the writer of Hebrews noted:
“He entered the most holy place ONCE FOR ALL all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, having obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION” (Hebrews 9:12).
□ Question: What alone can atone for the infinite offence of sin to an infinite holy God?
“AI Overview
Based on Christian theology, only the infinite atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ can atone for the infinite offense of sin against an infinitely holy God. Finite human beings are incapable of making such a payment.
The problem: Infinite offense
The infinite worth of God. The severity of an offense is based on the honor of the one offended. Since sin is a rebellion against God—a being of infinite holiness, glory, and worth—it is an infinite offense that demands an infinite penalty.
Humanity’s finite nature. Human beings are finite and fallen. Their efforts, including religious duties or good deeds, are insufficient to bridge the infinite gap created by sin. An eternity in hell, as the penalty for sin, is an infinite payment, but it would be spent by a finite being and is seen by some traditions as mere vengeance, not a corrective solution.
The solution: The infinite God-man
Christian theology asserts that only a sacrifice of infinite worth could satisfy the demands of justice for this infinite offense.
The God-man. Jesus Christ, as both fully God and fully man, is the only being capable of making an infinite payment.
As God, his divine nature gives his sacrifice infinite value, allowing him to absorb the infinite wrath of God against sin.
As man, he can stand as a representative substitute for humanity, identifying with those he came to save.
The one-time, perfect sacrifice. The Old Testament system of animal sacrifices could only temporarily cover sins. Christ’s death on the cross was a “once for all” event, a perfect sacrifice that satisfied God’s justice forever. The resurrection serves as proof that this payment was accepted.
A full and complete payment. On the cross, Jesus cried out, “It is finished,” which in the original language meant “Paid in full,” signaling that the debt for sin had been completely satisfied.
How atonement is applied
For this atonement to be effective for an individual, Christian teaching holds that it must be accepted through faith and repentance.
Repentance involves a sincere effort to turn away from wrongdoing.
Faith is the belief in Christ’s power to forgive and transform.Forgiveness is offered by God’s mercy as a gift, not something earned by human works.
For believers, this understanding brings humility, gratitude, and freedom from guilt” [AI]
For more, see Posts:
□ WHY THE MEDIATOR MUST BE GOD 21 September 2025
www.facebook.com/share/p/1D6dmAtxNd/
□ THE DOCTRINE OF SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT 13 January 2024
www.facebook.com/share/p/NwRYe7tanYYB5imV/?mibextid=oFDknk
Sent from Outlook for Android<aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement, was NOT an invention of Paul, the principle is enshrined in the life and teaching of Jesus Himself:
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. … [15] as the Father knows Me, and I know the Father. I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP. [16] But I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock, one shepherd. [17] This is why the Father loves Me, because I AM LAYING DOWN MY LIFE so I may take it up again. [18] No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down on My own. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to take it up again. I have received this command from My Father.” (John 10:11, 15-18)
“For this is My blood that establishes the covenant; IT IS SHED FOR MANY for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)
Paul’s teaching is firmly rooted in Jesus’s own:
“For while we were still helpless, at the appointed moment, Christ DIED FOR THE UNGODLY. [7] For rarely will someone die for a just person — though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die. [8] But God proves His own love for us in that WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS, CHRIST DIED FOR US! [9] Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath. [10] For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His life! … [18] So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone.” (Romans 5:6-10,18)
2). NO-ONE CAN DIE FOR THE SINS OF ANOTHER
Before a Muslim raises the red herring diversion into personal accountability, that is NO obstacle to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. In short, I am held to account, but the fact is Christ took my account (of guilt) upon Himself and wiped it clean, so when my account is judged it’s on the basis that my guilt was borne by Him and the penalty of death for sins paid by Him. So, when a Muslims appeal to:
“Look, every life belongs to Me. The life of the father is like the life of the son — both belong to Me. The person who sins is the one who will die” (Ezekiel 18:4)
“The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won’t suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him.” (Ezekiel 18:20)
they are confusing and conflating different doctrines. The principle of personal accountability is not in focus here, what is being showcased is that the principle of substitutionary sacrifice can assuage the wrath of God and satisfy the demands of divine justice.
“AI Overview
The Bible verse stating “no one can die for the sins of another” primarily refers to individual accountability under the law, where one person’s guilt cannot be legally or spiritually transferred to another human. The key verses often cited are Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20, and Jeremiah 31:30, which establish that “the soul who sins is the one who will die”
Reconciling this legal principle with the Christian doctrine of Jesus dying for sins involves several theological perspectives:
Sinless Divine Nature vs. Sinful Human: The Torah states that no sinner can die for another’s sins because the substitute would need to die for their own sins. Christians believe Jesus was sinless, making his sacrifice unique and not violating the law of personal responsibility, as he had no sin of his own to die for.
Voluntary Substitution: Some interpretations argue that while no one can be forced to bear the penalty of another, a sinless individual can voluntarily sacrifice themselves as a substitute to atone for others.
Atonement and Sacrifice: The Old Testament allowed for animal sacrifices, which were sinless substitutes that foreshadowed the atonement, indicating that the death of a sinless entity can cover the sins of the guilty.
Different Types of Death: Some theologians distinguish between spiritual death (separation from God due to personal sin) and physical death, arguing that Ezekiel 18 refers to each person dying spiritually for their own sin, while Jesus’s physical death was a substitutional offering that allowed for atonement.
Contextual Distinctions:
Ezekiel 18:20 and Deuteronomy 24:16 were written to establish individual responsibility in contrast to the belief that children inherited the guilt or curse of their fathers’ sins. 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:8 address the redemptive purpose of Jesus’s death, which Christians believe satisfies the requirement for a perfect sacrifice. Ultimately, the reconciliation is often that while human law (Old Testament) dictates personal responsibility for sin, the divine, sinless nature of Jesus allowed him to act as an exception, serving as a mediator who voluntarily paid the penalty for humanity” [AI]
3). VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND THE IMPUTATION OF SINS
[From REASONABLE FAITH Q&A: #650 September 29, 2019]
□ “Question: Dr. Craig, In your work on the atonement, you noted that vicarious liability is a useful analog in modern criminal justice systems to what occurred when our sin was imputed to Jesus. If this is approximately what occurred and if it is true that the imputation of our sin did not remove our sin then it seems as if the sin was replicated and then doubled. This would pose a problem because it would make two parties liable to punishment.
Is it possible to understand that our sin was replicated so that it could be punished in Jesus and forgiven where it existed in us? I think we would need to explain how the doubling of sin would not simultaneously double the liability to punishment as, if we are to use the analogy, we may well face the objection that replication of sin does nothing to help but, rather, it makes the problem more severe.
Bill United States
■ Dr Craig’s Answer: When I first began to correspond with Prof. Eric Descheemaeker of the University of Edinburgh School of Law about legal questions pertinent to the doctrine of the atonement, he shared with me that although it was easy to think of examples in the law where a wrongdoer’s guilt is replicated in an innocent person, he could not think of any examples in which a wrongdoer’s guilt is transferred to an innocent person (and thereby removed from the wrongdoer). It was at that moment that the light came on for me! It hit me forcefully that the classic doctrine of the imputation of sins is not about the transfer of guilt from one party to another but precisely about the replication of guilt of one party in another.
This fact is most clearly seen in the doctrine of Original Sin, according to which Adam’s sin is imputed to us his progeny. The replication of Adam’s guilt in me obviously does nothing whatsoever to remove Adam’s guilt from him. Adam remains sinful and in need of God’s forgiveness and moral cleansing.
Similarly, according to the Protestant Reformers’ doctrine of the atonement, my guilt is replicated in Christ, not transferred from me to him. Otherwise, we would believe in salvation by imputation, not by penal substitution. No one to my knowledge has defended a doctrine of the atonement according to which the expiation of sins comes via imputation; such is not in any case the Reformers’ doctrine. Sin and guilt are expiated via punishment, namely, Christ’s bearing the punishment which is the just desert of my sins.
So the analogy between vicarious liability in the law and the imputation of sins is very tight. Indeed, these seem to be practically the same notion described in legal terms on the one hand and in theological terms on the other. What that implies is that if there is a problem for the doctrine of the atonement arising from vicarious liability, then it arises from the theological notion of the imputation of our sins to Christ. The problem lies in the doctrine itself, not in the legal analogy to it.
So the serious problem that your question raises, I think, is whether Christ’s being substitutionally punished in my place can really satisfy the demands of divine justice. On this question I refer you to my article “Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory?” Philosophia Christi 21/1 (2019): 155-168. There I make two points in response: (1) With respect to vicarious liability in the law, there are cases in which the punishment of only the vicariously liable party satisfies the state’s demand for justice. The wrongdoer himself goes unpunished while the demands of justice are met by the superior party to whom his guilt is imputed. The case of the atonement seems very apt in this respect because Christ’s suffering and death is traditionally thought to be of infinite value in virtue of his divinity and so swamps all human sin infinitely. (2) Contemporary atonement theorists have appealed to what they call inclusionary, as opposed to exclusionary, views of Christ’s atonement. The idea here is that Christ is not merely some third party, a sort of whipping boy punished instead of us; rather we are somehow united with Christ, so that his punishment is our punishment. I try to make sense of this view by taking Christ to serve as a proxy for us before God. Thus, I am punished by proxy.
On the basis of Christ’s satisfying the demands of divine justice, God can then turn to us and offer us a full pardon for our sins, which we are free to accept or reject. The guilt of him who freely accepts God’s pardon is expunged, and he becomes, as it were, a new man in Christ; whereas the foolish man who rejects God’s pardon remains under the sentence of death and so must bear his just deserts.”
4). DISCUSSION
This is why the question of Jesus being fully divine and fully human matters. As WLC notes:
“Christ’s suffering and death is traditionally thought to be of infinite value in virtue of his divinity and so swamps all human sin infinitely.”
If there is one reality we need to grasp it is simply this. The ONLY way Jesus atoning death can pay for the infinite offence of sins to an infinite and holy God, is for that sacrifice to be that of infinite value once and for all. No finite mortal life can satisfy the demands of God’s perfect justice. As the writer of Hebrews noted:
“He entered the most holy place ONCE FOR ALL all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, having obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION” (Hebrews 9:12).
□ Question: What alone can atone for the infinite offence of sin to an infinite holy God?
“AI Overview
Based on Christian theology, only the infinite atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ can atone for the infinite offense of sin against an infinitely holy God. Finite human beings are incapable of making such a payment.
The problem: Infinite offense
The infinite worth of God. The severity of an offense is based on the honor of the one offended. Since sin is a rebellion against God—a being of infinite holiness, glory, and worth—it is an infinite offense that demands an infinite penalty.
Humanity’s finite nature. Human beings are finite and fallen. Their efforts, including religious duties or good deeds, are insufficient to bridge the infinite gap created by sin. An eternity in hell, as the penalty for sin, is an infinite payment, but it would be spent by a finite being and is seen by some traditions as mere vengeance, not a corrective solution.
The solution: The infinite God-man
Christian theology asserts that only a sacrifice of infinite worth could satisfy the demands of justice for this infinite offense.
The God-man. Jesus Christ, as both fully God and fully man, is the only being capable of making an infinite payment.
As God, his divine nature gives his sacrifice infinite value, allowing him to absorb the infinite wrath of God against sin.
As man, he can stand as a representative substitute for humanity, identifying with those he came to save.
The one-time, perfect sacrifice. The Old Testament system of animal sacrifices could only temporarily cover sins. Christ’s death on the cross was a “once for all” event, a perfect sacrifice that satisfied God’s justice forever. The resurrection serves as proof that this payment was accepted.
A full and complete payment. On the cross, Jesus cried out, “It is finished,” which in the original language meant “Paid in full,” signaling that the debt for sin had been completely satisfied.
How atonement is applied
For this atonement to be effective for an individual, Christian teaching holds that it must be accepted through faith and repentance.
Repentance involves a sincere effort to turn away from wrongdoing.
Faith is the belief in Christ’s power to forgive and transform.Forgiveness is offered by God’s mercy as a gift, not something earned by human works.
For believers, this understanding brings humility, gratitude, and freedom from guilt” [AI]
For more, see Posts:
□ WHY THE MEDIATOR MUST BE GOD 21 September 2025
www.facebook.com/share/p/1D6dmAtxNd/
□ THE DOCTRINE OF SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT 13 January 2024
www.facebook.com/share/p/NwRYe7tanYYB5imV/?mibextid=oFDknk
Sent from Outlook for Android<aka.ms/AAb9ysg>