In the previous three articles, we have looked at the theory called "Substitution." Substitution says that Jesus died, was sacrificed, took our punishment for sins upon Himself, became a curse, satisfied the moral order and Divine law, satisfied justice, rendered perfect obedience to the Father, was our justification all in our place. Substitution is a theory developed over the centuries bit by bit until Anselm gave it substance in the eleventh century and it was crystallized into a religious dogma through the influence of John Calvin. Calvinism grew out of the substitution theory, as we have also seen.

    If there is anything, and there is, that we have to do today, any commands of God that we must obey in order to obtain forgiveness of our sins and escape the punishment for our sins, have justification, redemption and propitiation, then Substitution is not true for these are contradictory positions. If Substitution is true, then there is nothing we must do, or can do, to stand justified before God; everything has already been done in our place by our substitute! We cannot hold on to both the gospel and Substitution. With this in mind, let’s notice some observations to sum up.

(1) Jesus did not take our place in physical death. Since Jesus died for all men, how did He physically die in the place of all men? Except for those still alive at His coming, most faithful Christians must physically die, Hebrews 9:27, yet no Christian should physically die if Jesus physically died in our place.

(2) Jesus did not take our place in spiritual death because Jesus did not die spiritually. The idea of Jesus’ spiritual death is a consequence drawn from the substitution theory, but is not an evidence for it and certainly is not taught in the Bible. We took note in The Scheme of Redemption, Volume I, that the statement of Jesus on the cross, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me," has no reference to such a thing as God’s withdrawing His presence from Jesus at that time, or any time. Indeed, Jesus specifically denies any such separation in John 8:28-29, 16:32. These passages show that the Father would be constantly with Jesus while on the cross as He had always been with Jesus.

    Further, no one should be spiritually dead since the cross if Jesus spiritually died in everyone’s place. I should not be held accountable if my substitute has already done that in my place!

(3) Jesus did not physically die to take the place of our spiritual death. Those two do not match up. There is a punishment for sins that’s worse than physical death, Hebrews 10:26f. So, a physical death could not stand in the place of eternal, spiritual death, even though Jesus did die on our behalf so we can escape eternal death. It’s just that His physical death was not a substitute for our spiritual death.

(4) Jesus did not take our place as a sacrifice for sins. How could Jesus have taken our place on the cross as a sacrifice for sins when none of us have ever been scheduled to die on a cross as a sacrifice in the first place?

(5) Jesus did not take our place in suffering for righteousness. There were people of God in Old Testament times, for whom Christ died (was substituted?), who suffered physical pain in the service of God as intense as that of Jesus’. Why did they have to go through that when Jesus was going to do it in their place, seeing that His death was as much "for" the "redemption of transgressions" for them as for us, Hebrews 9:15. See also Hebrews 11:32-38. There have been Christians who have suffered as much or more physical torture than Jesus did. Why have they gone through that when Jesus "took their place" in suffering? James and John were told,

    "Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized," Mark 10:38-39.

    Whatever bitter experience Jesus was about to have, James and John would have the same; the same cup and the same baptism. If Jesus were a substitute in suffering, why would James and John have to experience exactly what Jesus did? See also I Peter 2:20-21, 3:14.

    The difference in regard to Jesus as versus others who suffered was based on who He was, why He came, why He suffered and died and what He accomplished by His assension into heaven..

(6) Jesus did not take our place in punishment for sins, endure our penalty, because the penalty and punishment for sins is eternal death, eternal separation from God, consignment to eternal torment. Jesus experienced none of that. Most of us are at least familiar with the filmstrips of Jule Miller even if we haven’t used them. Miller’s filmstrip #4: God’s Plan For Redeeming Man, says in frame #45, (emphasis is mine):

    "Second, knowing that man could not pay for his own sin, God in love sent his only Son to bear the burden of our sins on the cross. Think of all the sins that have ever been committed brought together in one nauseous mass! The very thought of it staggers our imagination. Enduring the horror of this awful burden the Son of God cried, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Matthew 27:46). Christ was actually tasting the hell we deserve, being separated from God by the burden of man’s sins. This suffering was far more horrible than the mere death of the body."

    This is classic Calvinist substitution and clearly shows just what the theory of substitution claims. All of the sins of all mankind, past, present and future, were transferred to Jesus on the Cross, in one nauseous mass, it is said. Of course, Calvinism limits that to only the elect, "limited atonement." As we have before shown, God did not desert Jesus at His crucifixion, or any other time, nor was the statement "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" made in response to an imputation of man’s sins to Him. But, note especially the statement I put in italics. This supposed separation from God while on the cross is "tasting the hell we deserve." If that’s so, then every sinner alive today must already be tasting hell because the majority of people in the world are separated from God because of sin! But, most of them rock along through life without any recognition of what it means to be separated from God. They are not "tasting" anything. Hell is not just eternal separation from God, it is eternal torment. Jesus was never even close to tasting hell much less having our punishment for sin transferred to Himself.

(7) Jesus did not remove the wrath of God against sin because that still exists and sinners will be punished, II Thessalonians 1:6-9. And, the wrath of God against sin should not exist for anyone in the world, seeing Jesus died for all men. If the death of Jesus on the cross, at that very time, appeased and took away the wrath of God against sin, then the very nature of God was changed; we would expect that God would no longer have any such wrath and, consequently, render no punishment for sins on anyone, which is universal salvation.

(8) The Substitution/Satisfaction theory negates the grace of God in forgiveness. Barton W. Stone said,

    "This scheme destroys the ideas of grace and forgiveness. For if my surety or substitute has fully discharged my debt, having paid the real, proper and full demand for me, can it be grace in my creditor to forgive me? God is proposed as an example to us, how we should forgive one another. Eph. iv:32, ‘forgiving one another, even as God (en Christo) in Christ hath forgiven you.;’ Matt. vi:12 - we are taught to pray, ‘Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.’ Now if God does not forgive us till our debts are paid, and he is our example, then must we do likewise! If my surety fully discharged my debts for me, though I am free from my creditor, yet I am not in debt to my surety, who, for the same reason, can not forgive me; for he must forgive even as God does. On this principle there can be no forgiveness in the universe forever." Works of Elder B.W. Stone, page 121.

    As we have seen, according to the Substitution theory, every sin must be punished without exception; this punishment must either be placed on the sinner or on his substitute. If our punishment has been transferred to Jesus, then we should not be held accountable; our substitute has taken it in our place. The debt was paid before we were born. It was thus paid for all men for all time. Again - universal salvation.

    This negates the grace and mercy of God. On what basis can God be merciful to sinners? God owes the sinner salvation because his debt was paid by his substitute! Nothing can be exacted from the sinner. The "debt" cannot be required of both the substitute and the sinner as well, collecting twice to satisfy law and justice.

(9) Jesus did not take my place in obedience to the Father. We are told that substitution was made possible by the perfect life and perfect obedience of Jesus. That amounts to salvation by perfect works, accomplished at the cross, providing salvation by perfect works in our place. Based on Jesus as our substitute, God thus owes us salvation, grace is necessarily excluded. Again, this is well said by Stone, ibid., page 126,

    "This scheme contradicts the Gospel plan of justification by faith. For it represents the sinner as justified by the surety righteousness of Christ imputed to him. This surety-righteousness was Christ’s active obedience to the precepts of the moral law, and his passive obedience in suffering its penalties in the sinner’s stead. This righteousness of Christ is entirely a law-righteousness; and if a sinner is justified by this righteousness imputed, he is justified by the works of law. It matters not whether he or the surety has fulfilled it, for they are one in law, as before observed. This is not the righteousness of faith; for the law is not of faith. Faith has no part in this justification; the elect sinner being as much justified before he believed as afterward; for the works were finished near eighteen hundred years ago, when Christ died on the cross. Then the satisfaction was really, properly and fully made, and their debts fully discharged. If not, then something else is necessary, and therefore the satisfaction of Christ is not full and complete."

    Wiley and Culbertson, Introduction to Christian Theology, page 229, rightly observe,

    "The Satisfaction theory leads logically also, to antinomianism, or disregard of the law. It holds that Christ’s active obedience is imputed to believers in such a manner, that it is esteemed by God as having been done by them. In a sense, this makes Christ’s obedience superfluous, for if he has done all that the law requires, why should we be under the necessity of being delivered from death? Also, if Christ’s active obedience is substituted for that of the believer, it shuts out the necessity of personal obedience to God. Lastly, this type of satisfaction cannot be called such in truth, for it is merely the performance of all that the law requires by one person in substitution for another."

(10) To extricate themselves from a problem, substitution advocates may present that what Jesus suffered was not the exact same punishment for sins that we might receive in eternal torment; it was just "equivalent" punishment, but not the same in quantity or quality. But, this doctrine of "equivalence" lays God open to a charge of being unjust! Most people who have existed and who will exist are going to be eternally lost, Matthew 7:13-14. Their loss will be a punishment worse than physical death, Hebrews 10:28-31, II Thessalonians 1:6-9. If the death of Jesus on the cross was the substitute for the punishment of man’s sins, then He fell far short of doing that. The punishment for sins is worse than physical death.

    Consider: (1) All of the suffering and punishment for sin was transferred to Jesus on the cross. (2) But what He took was far, far less in quantity and quality than the actual suffering and punishment for sin, a slap on the wrist by comparison. (3) But, if what Jesus endured was sufficient suffering and punishment for sin, those who are condemned should be able to insist on the same suffering and punishment for their sins. No more than what Jesus endured was sufficient punishment for God to accept as a penalty for sin, it satisfied Divine justice, it fully satisfied the claims of the law. Why then will God inflict far worse punishment on sinners than what Jesus endured? Why would it not be unjust of God to inflict eternal punishment on the lost when just a few hours torture and physical death is sufficient payment for their sins? Why does not equivalence work both ways? The punishment of sinners should be equivalent to the suffering of Jesus on the cross.

(11) The Substitution/satisfaction/equivalence theories lead directly to the impossibility of apostasy position of Calvin and his posterity. If Jesus took all of our punishment on Himself, there is no punishment left for us to endure. Seeing He did this for all men, not a single human can be charged with sin, guilt or punishment and not one can ever be lost. Our surety has already paid the price. If it is insisted that one must accept Jesus as their substitute (our "personal savior") in order for it to affect their sins, then that person not only is saved from sin but can never be charged with sin again no matter what he does, Baptist doctrine. His surety has already paid the price in his place before the individual was ever born. Presbyterian author, Loraine Boettner, in his book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, page 155, says,

    "The great Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon said: ‘If Christ has died for you, you can never be lost. God will not punish twice for one thing. If God punished Christ for your sins he will not punish you ... How can God be just if he punished Christ, the substitute, and then man himself afterwards.’"

    The reasoning of Boettner and Spurgeon on this point is very clear. If one cannot scripturally accept the impossibility of apostasy, then he must likewise reject the substitution theory. One follows the other. Albert Barnes said,

    "It would follow, further, that those for whom he died could not themselves be held and regarded as guilty. If there has been a transfer of their guilt, it is no longer their own, and they cannot be responsible. Two persons cannot be held responsible for the same offence. If a debt has been paid by a friend, it cannot be demanded of him who originally contracted it. If one could be substituted in the place of another in a penitentiary, and serve out the term of punishment assigned to the original offender, the offender could not be again imprisoned for the crime. If a man who is ‘drafted’ for military service procures a substitute who is accepted, he cannot be made to serve if the substitute dies of disease or is killed in battle. And so, if Christ was literally made ‘sin’ and a ‘curse;’ if he took literally upon himself the sins of men and paid the penalty of the law; if there was a real transfer of the whole matter to him, then it would follow that those whose place he took could no longer be held to be guilty," The Atonement, pages 298-299.

    These facts were not lost on John Calvin. He could not accept universal salvation, the logical conclusion, so he limited his "universal salvation" to the predestined elect, "limited atonement." Predestination, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the impossibility of apostasy of Calvinism all depend on substitution as their solid foundation. And, substitution is bound together with the imputation of sin to Christ and imputation of His righteousness to the elect. Wiley and Culbertson, Introduction To Christian Theology, page 229, makes this same observation,

    "If Christ bore the sinner’s punishment as a Substitute, then the sinner is unconditionally free from it, for both the sinner and the Substitute cannot be justly punished for the same offence. The theory, therefore, leads necessarily to either universalism on the one hand, or unconditional election on the other."

    Barton W. Stone, wrote three articles disagreeing with Thomas and Alexander Campbell on substitution. Stone had not changed any of his position since leaving the Presbyterian ministry, thirty-three years before. The articles appear in Stone’s paper, the Christian Messenger, 1833, volume 7, numbers 7,8,10. At the beginning of his second article, Stone says,

    "In the close of my first letter, I was remarking on your exposition of Isa. 53,6 and 2 Cor. 5,21. ‘He hath laid on him the iniquity of us all’ - this, in your view, means he laid on him the punishment due to us all. You think by this vicarious punishment we are justified. ‘Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him:’ Rom. 5,9. You add a little to the text, ‘that being justified by faith in his blood.’ - Dear bro: what has faith to do in the justification of which you speak? If A is guilty of murder and is condemned to die; and if B becomes his surety, and bears the punishment due to A - then is not A clear, whether he believes or not that B has died for him? A’s faith produces no effect whatever, in the matter of his justification. But, why talk of justification or forgiveness at all in A’s case? The debt due was fully paid by B the surety of A. Could the law, or executive now say to A, I forgive or justify you freely by my grace? Not freely, might A say; for my surety has paid my due, or debt, fully in my stead - I have nothing to be forgiven."

We must stick with the facts we know are taught in the Bible and leave the matter there, abandoning all human theories All other approaches will lead us into more error.