Can Vicarious Redemption be Defended?

Liberal Christianity embraces a series of denials: Christ is not divine, mankind is not inherently sinful, the Scriptures are not authoritative and unchanging, heaven and hell are not literal, morality and theology are not absolute, and social mores do not flow from Scripture, but are an ever-changing product of our evolutionary enlightenment.  This is an admission of disappointment with the traditional biblical narrative, dogma, and doctrines and  accordingly throwing in the towel.  There is nothing to debate with a view that disowns all controversy.


Let us instead look at how traditional Christians argue for Vicarious Redemption, also known as the Christian Doctrine of Atonement or Salvation.  Weakness in their apologetics exposes the reason for the disappointment of liberal Christians.

Main issues against Vicarious Redemption are: How can entire generations be guilty of a crime that an ancestor committed?  How can the omniscient God burden future generations with a sin that they did not commit and are incapable of atoning for?  How can one suffer to atone for the sins of another?  In particular, how can the murder of Jesus atone for the sins of other humans?

Main defense for Vicarious Redemption goes as follows:

The Christian doctrine of the Atonement is not one according to which we make Christ into a scapegoat for our sins. It is, rather, one according to which Christ adopts a burden on our behalf that we cannot conceivably bear ourselves, but which Christ can and does bear. This isn’t something we do to Christ, but something that Christ does for us. We aren’t asking Christ to do something that we should be doing ourselves. Christ, out of love, is doing for us what, otherwise, would not be done at all, because we couldn’t possibly do it.

Does it really offer a defense?

Atonement is for Original Sin.  Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin and the Biblical God, in his infinite Wisdom, curses Adam and Eve and all their future lineage with the consequences of death and eternal damnation for this sin.  Now, Biblical God burdens all future humanity with this sin knowing fully well, as the omniscient being, that they are incapable of atoning for it.  

Biblical God alone knows why (this is often the Christian escape route that we are incapable of understanding Biblical God's infinite wisdom) future generations have to bear the consequences of someone else's actions.  It is sufficient to say that no modern court of justice would burden one human with the guilt of another's wrongful actions.  That would be inhuman and will be deemed great injustice.  The injustice of future generations having to bear consequences of Original Sin is palpable and needs no more discussion.

Finally, Biblical God decides to accept the death of his own Son, sent to earth as a human, to atone for the sin that he first conferred upon humanity.  Again, it is sufficient to say that no modern court of justice would free a criminal because someone else volunteer's to take the wrath of retributive justice.  Again, the injustice is palpable.

Now, original sin is the most egregious of all sins.  Worse than violations of ten commandments.  Worse than murder.  The more egregious the crime, the less acceptable should such vicarious redemption be.  How can the bearers of original sin be absolved by the sacrifice of an innocent sin-free human ?  What kind of a God would accept such a sacrifice?  These are daunting problems for a critical thinking Christian.

Defense proceeds as follows: 

The doctrine of the Atonement isn’t about responsibility for our actions so much as it is about responsibility for our salvation. It’s the wages of sin that Christ bears on our behalf: guilt, shame, denial, indifference, despair, resentment.  The wages of sin are precisely those things which stand in the way of taking that step into true intimacy. Salvation is about removing those impediments, so that the doors of heaven—the doors that close on our own hearts—are cast open.

The argument having failed for the current life, has now moved to after-life.  That would not be so bad if the personal accountability and responsibility for actions in this life had a bearing in the after-life.  But the idea of salvation kills such a possibility by simply suggesting that believing in Jesus absolves you of your sins and grants you a place in heaven in afterlife.  Even if you are a rapist, a murderer, an original sinner.

One can never imagine what would happen if a court absolved a rapist or murderer because he repents and accepts Jesus.  Would Christians accept such justice?

Offering fallen character of humanity as a defense for human bad behavior and allowing them salvation with a final act of believing in Jesus cannot create a moral this-world, leave alone a moral other-world.

Whether Jesus is son of God or not, whether he can offer salvation or not, the mere thought of forgiveness of past deeds and giving salvation stands in violation of  retributive justice without which human courts of law cannot function.

No doubt liberal Christians have shunned the dogma of Nicene creed.  No doubt Europe has been moving away from Christianity and rediscovering pre-Christian traditions.