Should We Reject Scriptural Truth In Order To Help Fight False Doctrine?
I am afraid the real reason so many reject the scriptural teaching that the death of Christ was Substitutionary is because they mistakenly think doing so will help in our disagreements with Calvinists. One article stated believing in the substitutionary death of Christ “leads us directly into other errors.” For example, Jarrod Jacobs wrote “if God accounts/imputes man’s sin to Christ, is He also imputing / accounting Christ’s righteousness to us? If not, why not?” (Facebook 2-11-14). First, this “consequence” does not follow because Isaiah 53:6c says “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” but there is no verse saying Christ’s righteousness was laid on us – duh. But if there were such a verse, I would believe it. Would you? I am not so sure some gospel preachers would. Second, I think Jarrod’s statement might betray the real reason some Christians have rejected this vital Bible truth about Christ’s death; they are afraid believing the truth on this will start a “slippery slope” toward Calvinism. When will we ever learn? – We should never accept or reject a particular doctrine based upon such perceived consequences. We should always evaluate any teaching based upon “what do the scriptures say?” That is the only honest way of discovering Biblical truth.
The Bible’s teaching about the Vicarious death of Christ, that our sins (i.e., punishment) are transferred to Jesus, also reminds some of the false Calvinistic idea of Inherited Original Sin (Adam’s sin is transferred to us), but the fact is – they are not the same. And the most important difference between the two is the Bible teaches the former (Isaiah 53:6c), but not the latter.
No gospel preacher I know of accepts Martin Luther’s statement “All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth.” That is not what Isaiah 53:6c is saying. Jesus was the most completely innocent lamb that ever lived (I Peter 1:19b). It is impossible for the guilt of sin to be transferred; that would be rewriting history; a lie – and it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18a). But it is possible for one person to suffer the penalty for another’s transgression. And that is exactly how verse 5 explains Isaiah 53:6c. Context should rule here, but many evidently only care about context when it suites their purposes.
It is never right to reject a doctrine simply because some false church believes it. That is a most ungodly reason. For example, should we reject what the scriptures teach on the virgin birth of Christ (Isaiah 7:14), the deity of Christ (John 1:1), and the resurrection of Christ (I Corinthians 15:4) just because John Calvin and many denominations also accept those truths? If not, then why should we reject Isaiah 53:6c just because John Calvin might have agreed with it? To the contrary, we should be honest enough to accept whatever the Biblical texts actually say on this (and any other) topic, and let the chips fall where they may.
I don’t plan on giving up any of the great Christological truths even if some are:
· pre-existence of Christ
· virgin birth of Christ
· deity of Christ
· humanity of Christ
· vicarious atonement of Christ
· resurrection of Christ
I refuse to give up any scriptural Truth simply because some brethren might label me a Calvinist if I believe it. And I certainly hope you will have the courage not to be intimidated by such scare tactics.
In conclusion, many of the proof texts for the vicarious atonement say the same thing in essence
· Isaiah 53:6c the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all
· II Corinthians 5:21a for he hath made him to be sin for us
· Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us …
Taking all of that into account, our iniquities were laid upon Jesus. That’s equivalent to Jesus was “made to be sin” and Jesus being “made a curse” in our place. All three are talking about Jesus taking the “fall” / responsibility / consequences / punishment / penalty for our sin. Our sins were laid on Him is the same as saying Jesus had to be punished in a measure like a sinner so we wouldn’t have to be. I think Dan King said it best regarding this subject – “Whenever one has to spend an inordinate amount of time and considerable genius attempting to explain why a group of passages do not mean what they say and say what they mean – you would think that they might have a clue that they are off on the wrong track!”
My whole series of articles on the Substitutionary Death Of Christ (as published in “MOTT”) can be read here: http://www.bibledebates.info/Articles/SubstitutionaryDeathMOTT/indexArticlesMOTT.htm
And my debate with Bob Myhan on the topic can be heard here: http://www.bibledebates.info/DebatesAudio/SubstitutionaryDeath-MyhanDonahueDebate20141211/index.htm
hear Bible Crossfire Sundays at 8:00 pm central on SiriusXM national radio Family Talk 131 & 62 local stations across America or at www.BibleDebates.info