Second Roadblock
The second roadblock is a much shorter section of the booklet and doesn’t require much interaction. Troyer says, “A second roadblock to accepting the substitutionary atonement theory is the law of the leavening process of sin.” He explains that “direct contact with sin equals contamination by sin” and therefore “if sin is ascribed to Jesus, then He is not qualified to bear away our sins.” Essentially, he is saying that, if it is true that Jesus took our sin on Himself on the cross, then He also became contaminated by sin on the cross and therefore could not be a spotless sacrifice. The author argues this from Haggai where the Bible describes priests who were made unclean when they touched a dead body. This is thought to apply to Jesus on the cross.
But this doesn’t stand when we look at Jesus’ life. He is not a mere human; He is God-in-flesh. When He touches a dead body, He does not become defiled. The dead body comes back to life (cf. the son of the widow of Nain, Jairus’ daughter). The same is true of his interaction with lepers. Contact with leprosy caused uncleanness according to the OT law. But when Jesus touched lepers, they became clean. He was not defiled by contact.
In addition, this roadblock has limited bearing on our understanding of the atonement, since the Bible doesn’t speak of the cross in these terms.
Third Roadblock
The third roadblock is only one paragraph in the booklet, but, unlike the previous one, it will require a bit more space to deal with. The author says that “If Jesus paid the penalty for sin, then our sins are already paid for in full.” The main objection seems to be that, if Christ experienced the specific judgment for specific sins, this would mean that all the sins of all people would be forgiven, whether or not they believe in Christ. “This would include every unrepentant sinner, every mass murderer, and the most perverted among men who die having scorned the mercies of God.”
It is accurate to say that PSA adherents believe that Jesus paid for all the sins of those who believe in Him. Those who are justified by faith have all of their sins—past, present, and future—covered by the blood of Christ. But this is only experienced by those who believe in Christ; those outside of Him remain condemned. Troyer’s primary contention is with the idea that unrepentant sinners would go unpunished because Jesus has already paid for their sins. I agree that this is heresy.
It is unfounded to reject PSA on the grounds that it logically leads to a form of universal salvation.
How then should we understand the extent of the atonement? Two things need to be said. First, we need to realize that this problem is not unique to PSA. Any atonement view needs to explain why some people are saved and others are not. Troyer’s view is that Jesus remits our sins without experiencing the wrath of God. If His atoning work is sufficient to free men from sin, why would that atoning work be limited to only those who believe? If Christ’s work deals with the problem(s) that separate us from God according to Troyer’s framework, why would Christ’s work be any more limited than if He atoned God’s wrath against particular sins? Any system must delineate between those whose sins are atoned and those whose sins are not atoned. This is not determined by the nature of Christ’s sacrifice but is instead determined by whether or not individuals believe in Christ, as the Bible consistently teaches.
Second (and along the same lines), we need to recognize that the Bible consistently makes faith the condition for salvation, not the extent of the atonement. The Bible gives no indication that there are those who cannot be saved because Christ did not atone for their sins. Salvation is available to all who will believe. PSA advocates accept this qualification, and I think Troyer would as well.
To understand this we need to wade into a discussion on the extent of the atonement. (This section is somewhat technical, so some readers may wish to skip ahead to the next roadblock.) Troyer asks the question, “Would God revert to wrath upon sinners on the same sins that Jesus was already punished for?” He has a legitimate point. If Jesus already suffered the wrath of God against the sins of a particular person, can God judge them again for those same sins? No, God cannot judge the same sins twice and maintain His justice. So, how do we handle this?
There are at least two ways to reconcile this within a PSA framework. How one understands the extent of the payment hinges on how one understands its nature. Let me explain.
Some PSA adherents understand the nature of the atonement as an infinite payment. If it is infinite, it is not limited to a select group of people. The penalty for sin is infinite since sin is an offense against an infinite God. Since an infinite offense requires an infinite atonement, the punishment Christ endures is infinite whether it includes some people or everyone. As William Lane Craig says, “The gravity of the offense against God is taken to be infinite in its proportion, and so the punishment that Christ endured would be similar whether it included everybody or just a portion of humanity because of the infinite offense rendered to God by sin.” Since the penalty is taken as an infinite punishment (not specific punishment for specific sins), it is “unlimited” in scope.
Other PSA adherents understand the nature of the payment as meaning that Christ died to atone specifically for the sins of those who believe in Him. As Troyer points out, this follows logically if we believe that Jesus endured a specific penalty corresponding to the specific sins of specific people. And PSA adherents generally maintain that Jesus died for the sins of those who believe, not necessarily for the sins of all people. Because this “limits” the atonement to those who believe, this idea is sometimes called “limited atonement.”
Some might think that limited atonement implies that not all men can be saved. But limited atonement has an ultimacy to it which places it outside of the constraints of time. It is possible to say to any person in truth and sincerity, “if you believe in Jesus Christ, you will be saved,” knowing that if that person believes in Christ, his belief was foreknown by God and his sins atoned for by Christ. Foreknowledge is all that is necessary for God to lay that person’s sins—even future, uncommitted sins—on Christ.
In either case, we need to be clear that PSA does not accept the notion that Christ removed the judgment from those who reject Him and go to hell. His work is sufficient for all, but it is only applied to those who believe. Since Troyer’s contention is based on a misunderstanding of this concept, his third roadblock misses the mark. There is no real problem here within a biblically consistent understanding of PSA.
Fourth Roadblock
The fourth and final roadblock Troyer presents is that he thinks substitutionary atonement misrepresents the sufferings of Christ. As I understand it, he assumes that substitutionary atonement sees all the sufferings of Christ as bound up in His atoning work, that if Christ suffered “for us” then believers don’t need to suffer.
It seems Troyer conflates Christ’s suffering as a part of His atoning work and our suffering as Christians. Accordingly, he thinks that PSA adherents believe that if Christ suffered for us, we shouldn’t have to suffer. He concludes that, since PSA adherents say Jesus suffered in our place, they dismiss the possibility of all Christian suffering. This is not what PSA holds. Troyer misses the biblical distinction between Christ’s sufferings for our sins and our suffering as faithful followers in a sinful world.
Troyer continues by critiquing the gospel song, “Jesus Signed My Pardon.” Now, I’m no great fan of the song, but I think his concerns are ill-founded. He says, “Jesus suffered so we don’t have to? God forbid! Yet we sing that catchy phrase—“took my place on Calvary now I don’t have to go.” He seems to think that, if we believe Jesus died on Calvary in our place, then we will think we are freed from all suffering. But that’s clearly not what this song is about. This phrase speaks of Christ’s atoning work, which only He can complete because He is the only perfect man. Troyer overlays Christ’s work to save us from God’s eternal wrath directly onto our Christian experience, thinking that if PSA means we are saved from eternal wrath by Christ’s sufferings then it necessarily implies that we are saved from temporal sufferings as well.
In contrast, he says, “Christ offers faithful followers the very cup from which He drank.” In a different context, I would agree wholeheartedly. We are to follow Christ in His sufferings. As He joyfully endured the cross and despised the shame, so believers should suffer joyfully, following His example. But our suffering as believers is distinct from Christ’s suffering on the cross. It’s interesting that Peter in his second epistle teaches believers about suffering by pointing them to Christ’s suffering on the cross, but not in a way that equates our suffering with His atonement. Our suffering as believers is patterned after Christ’s suffering as our Savior.
But Troyer is not talking about what it means to live as a Christian. He is describing Christ’s atonement, which is the basis of salvation for any and all who will be saved. He would benefit from a richer understanding, one that recognizes the vicarious nature of Christ sufferings (that He suffered as a human just like us) and calls Christians to follow His example of suffering in obedience to the Father while realizing that Christ is the unique Son of God and the only one who can atone for our sins.
Conclusion/Transition
Of the four roadblocks, the first one hits on the primary issue between penal substitutionary atonement and those who disagree with it. There are real differences regarding the nature of Christ’s work, especially whether or not Christ endured the wrath of God against sin. The other roadblocks seem to me to be based on misunderstandings of PSA.