Content area
Full Text
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement has been called into question by many, chief among them Immanuel Kant, who denies there can be justice in the innocent dying for the guilty. When Kant's objection is examined, however, the shortcomings of the Enlightenment assumptions on which it stands are exposed. The forgiveness of sins is seen to have a substitutionary character, as does, therefore, the doctrine of justification by faith. So we see that the credal statement "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" necessarily implies a substitutionary atonement, which invites a reconsideration of the way in which substitutionary atonement is generally treated.
Substitutionary views of atonement have faced strong criticism throughout the modern era. Recently even evangelicals, long associated with this position, have found themselves in dispute over it.1 What exactly does it mean that Christ "bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness" (1 Peter 2:24)?2 Or, "For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21)? Does this include at least an element of exchange, or substitution, in which Jesus takes human sin and offers in its place his perfect righteousness by virtue of his death and resurrection? If so, that raises questions about the justice of a righteous man suffering in the place of guilty sinners.3
The widespread rejection of substitutionary atonement in academic theology may be traced in large part to the criticisms made of it by Immanuel Kant. Kant objected to the idea that an innocent third person could suffer the punishment for the sins of guilty persons. His argument proved highly persuasive and remarkably significant. What might at first glance appear to be the elimination of just one possible option among many regarding the nature of atonement has often become one element of a widespread revaluation of theological commitments, as it was for Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of modern theology, who first rejected substitutionary atonement when he was in seminary.4
In this paper I shall make an argument in favor of the view that Christ died as a substitute for sinful human beings. I shall begin by examining Kant's objection...