Sunday, June 16, 2019

Richard Dawkins and the Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement

So... lets simply rephrase Dr. Dawkins' question, shall we?

Suppose someone raped and murdered your wife.  They mutilated her body and then burned your house down, with the body still inside.  Right?  They do some horrible, horrible thing.

And they get caught and convicted.  They are brought before the judge for sentencing, and the judge says "You know, you're going to get out of jail in 50 years anyway, there's no reason to send you to jail at all.  We will just dispense with the punishment and let you go home now."

Would that be justice?  Would you feel like the scales of justice were balanced here?  Would you have any positive feelings toward the judge?  Or would you think that the judge was also, to some degree, guilty of this evil man's crimes?

The wages of sin is death.  Not the reward of sin, not the door prize of sin, not even the partner of sin... the wages of sin.  All sin earns death, and any employer who withholds wages after the work is completed is a criminal.  God is no criminal. God pays His workers.  When you sin, you have earned death and that death must be paid.

The loophole here is that it doesn't have to be your death.  But it does have to be someone with no sin debt to pay.  That is, someone absolutely perfect could if they so chose, step up and pay your debt.  

Because otherwise, your sin earns you an eternal death in the fiery pit of hell.

And who is utterly sinless?  Whose righteousness could cover your wickedness?  Only that of the Son of God.  

The death of Jesus Christ was the accomplishment of JUSTICE.  The death you deserved, He drank down like water.  Now your debt is paid.  

Now you have a decision.  

This is your moment of Truth.