Theology - The Fallacy of the Substitutionary Atonement

I realize that it is difficult to examine the question of the substitutionary atonement in a detached and logical manner. Many of us were told for years, perhaps even from birth, that this doctrine is the centerpiece of Christianity—indeed, a doctrine without which none of us can be saved. One the one side stands Paul and his doctrine of the substitutionary atonement and on the other the despicable doctrine of salvation by works, the lair of atheists and witches. It is an emotional issue. But Jesus did not come to bring us emotional dogma. He came to bring us the truth. I want to examine three problems with this doctrine that make it untenable for me.

I have argued elsewhere for a view of hermeneutics that I call Value Interpretation and a method of theology that I call Forest Theology. I will not reargue those points here. Suffice it to say that any biblical literalist will immediately find fault with my hermeneutical and theological method. For, as Luther threw James out of the Bible because he didn’t like what he had to say against Paul, so I am throwing out Paul. I can do this, I believe, because every interpreter of the Bible "cooks the books" as it were. I am just being honest about it, as Luther was. Briefly, consider the Bible not a literal record of some mystical Truth (because it isn’t; it is full of logical contradictions), but rather as a record of the way people have followed God throughout history, so that we can learn from their successes and failures and (this is the important part) construct our own view of God, our own Christianity. The Bible is a toolbox for building religions; it does not express one solitary religion.

The Logical Fallacy

Paul’s doctrine of the substitutionary atonement teaches that Jesus died "in our place" or "as a substitute for us". His vocabulary comes from two places: legal jargon and business jargon. Paul sometimes says that Jesus took upon himself the punishment that we deserved. Elsewhere he argues that Jesus paid our debt. The idea is that we as humans have some kind of judgment against us by God, but that Jesus steps in as a substitute and sets things right with God. Thus the name, substitutionary atonement.

Paul argues that this punishment that we have coming is death, or eternal separation from God, and that it is deserved because of our sin. Some sects argue that the sin came from Adam failing God’s test in the Garden of Eden while others argue that it comes from our own personal daily disobedience to God. It does not matter for our discussion which view you hold. Why is the punishment for sin death? If we hold a traditional view of God as the Creator of the universe, that means there can be nothing binding God. God exists outside and beyond the universe. He is not subject to its laws, just as a painter is not subject to the laws of the world drawn on her canvas. God is categorically different from this universe. In other words, if God is to be the Creator, he must be absolutely free. If anything binds God, then that thing must be more powerful than God and thus be itself God. This is where Paul makes his error.

God is the only one who could have made the punishment for sin death, since God is the ultimate ground of being. There is nothing beyond him or above him. Furthermore, Paul states that God desires every human to be with him eternally. Now we have a problem. For according to Paul God has made a punishment that defeats the purpose of his entire creation. God has made three contradictory decisions. He has decided he wants all people with him. He has decided to give people free will. He has decided that the penalty of sin is death, that is, separation from him. Given his omniscience, that is, his knowledge that free will would lead to sin, it is contradictory to his own purpose for God to make the punishment for that sin be eternal separation.

Some at this point will attempt to clear the logical contradiction by appealing to God’s justice. God can’t let sin go unpunished, preachers will say. Well, sure he can. He’s God. He is bound by nothing. He can do absolutely anything he wants. The only reason the punishment for sin is death is because God chose for it to be so. Another way to attempt to clear the fallacy is to argue that the perfect cannot abide sin. If God cannot abide sin, then God is not the absolute ground of being. The words must or cannot cannot appear in connection with God. He is absolutely free. In other words, if there is anything that God must do or cannot do then he is not God. God is perfectly capable of abiding with sin, since he does it every day.

This flaw can be resolved by removing from the argument the assertion that the penalty for sin is eternal separation from God.

The Procedural Fallacy

In addition to the logical flaw in Paul’s argument, there are several problems with the procedure for applying the substitutionary atonement. First, Jesus claims that he will die for the sins of the world, but Paul changes this so that Jesus only dies for the sins of those who accept the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement. Jesus wants people to follow him; Paul wants people to believe this doctrine. One involves action; the other involves accepting a premise as true. Thus, the procedure for salvation is different for Paul than for Jesus. What is odd about this outcome is that it weakens the work of Christ. Did he really die for the sins of the world if his death must be applied by accepting a belief system? I don’t recall Jesus advocating the acceptance of any such belief system. Jesus does not require the acceptance of a doctrine from the thief on the cross. In fact, he calls those who promote doctrines "snakes and vipers".

Second, most formulations of the substitutionary atonement have an escape clause, often called the ignorance clause. This states that one cannot be judged on what one is not aware. This is a kludge of the worst kind. It violates the very principle that requires the substitutionary atonement in the first place. Everyone on earth must decide to accept this doctrine or be separated from God. Except children. Oh, and the mentally challenged. Oh, and all those who never heard the gospel. In fact, one can argue that the best kind of missions would be to never tell anyone the message of Paul’s gospel, so that they can be ignorant and be saved. Everyone in the world could be saved if we shut down every church and told every believer to be quiet. What kind of "perfect plan" is that? The ignorance clause only shows that Paul’s doctrine is fundamentally flawed, requiring patch after patch, like a pair of worn out jeans.

The Practical Fallacy

The final set of problems with Paul’s doctrine of the atonement are practical in nature. First, most Christians will admit that even after accepting the doctrine of the substituionary atonement as true (and thus having their sins forgiven) believers continue to sin. How are these sins accounted for? If they are forgiven by the acceptance of the doctrine (much like a life insurance policy) then there seems to be no penalty for continuing to sin after salvation. In fact, many sects argue for this very point, that after you say the magic words of the prayer of salvation, no subsequent sin can invalidate the contract you have signed with God. This is an odd outcome of Pauline doctrine, one that he wrestles with in Romans 7 without providing any satisfactory answer. The Roman Catholic tradition recrucifies Christ at every mass, providing remission of post-salvation sins through the sacrament of communion. Other sects just pretend that Christians don’t sin after salvation; that they have been perfectly sanctified. None of these solutions fully addresses the problem of a once-for-all salvation that is neither once nor for all.

Second, many sects offer the substitutionary atonement as a free gift from God, when in reality it is never free. The conversation often begins after an excited new Christian has said the magic words of some board-approved prayer. Then he is informed that he has to come to church every Sunday, and probably Wednesday. And he cannot drink or smoke or swear. And he can no longer associate with unsaved friends except to convert them. Or watch R-rated movies. Or listen to “secular” music. And he has to agree with the church’s statement of faith, which probably contains another twenty or so doctrines he must assent to. And he must be pro-life. And he must tithe 10% of his gross income. And mixed marriages are wrong. And he should vote Republican. On and on, etc. after etc. this "free gift" has literally dozens of strings attached to it. Violate any of them, and one will be accused of "pursuing the flesh" and kicked out, handed over to Satan for the "salvation of his soul." This is the ultimate bait and switch.

Bonus Fallacy: Eternal Space-Time

Paul of course could not have known what we know today about the structure of the universe, and in particular what Einstein discovered about space-time. I am thinking in particular of his assertions in general relativity that gravity acts by the curving of space-time. To make this formulation Einstein declared time to be a dimension just like space. This means, of course, that time does not move at all. We sense the movement of time because of the construction of our minds, but all time exists right now just as all space exists right now. Thus, when God created the universe he created all four dimensions in their full extent. This is hard to visualize, since we have trouble seeing four dimensions, but the equations of general relativity bear this truth out. Thus, not only did God have foreknowledge that all people would sin, but since he is outside the universe he could actually witness this fact for all time at the moment of creation. To think that God was somehow caught unaware of this problem and decided to send Jesus to fix it, something like patching up a wound, is to think of God as a man and not the true creator of the universe.

Final Words

I know this has been long but I also know that my arguments will be considered by many to be shocking. After all, every Christian believes in the substitutionary atonement. Well, not really. In fact, Christians have interpreted Christ’s death in many different ways throughout the centuries. Many of us have merely been immersed in a teaching, told over and over again that it is the gospel truth. That to deny it, is to deny heaven. Every scripture has been twisted to fit with this particular interpretation of Christ’s death. For example, at the last supper Jesus says, “This is my body, broken for you.” We interpret this in the light of our preexisting theology of the substitutionary atonement. We read “for you” as “as a substitute for your sins”. But if you look closely, it does not need to be interpreted that way. The word “for” just means “for”. We supply the interpretation. We have also been taught to associate certain Old Testament texts with the substitutionary atonement as if there is no other way to see them, but they can all be interpreted in different ways. And they were for many thousands of years. There are literally thousands of ways to be a Christian, and not all of them require you to assent to Paul’s doctrine of the substitutionary atonement. We need to set our minds free to see what millions of Christians before us have seen: that Paul added to the message of Jesus to promote his own agenda.

One final note. I have noticed in many churches that Paul and his letters have become almost idols to many people. All our theology comes from Paul. Some hermeneutics texts state that doctrine must come from epistles, not narratives, and guess who wrote most of the epistles? Paul never knew Jesus. He never walked with him. His theology differs greatly from what Jesus teaches us. Jesus speaks continually of action and Paul is always speaking about doctrine. His churches end up abandoning him, especially in Asia, and the only reason we get much of our theology from him is that some bishop at the early councils got his books approved and other books rejected. Thankfully, I believe in a bible that serves me in my search to be close to God, not a book that I have to serve. I can keep the things Paul says that fit with my view of God and toss out things that don’t. If your religion doesn’t give you this freedom, you should try it. God is far better than James or John or Paul.