Scripture teaches from beginning to end that Christ would become the Victor by first becoming the Substitute. God said this as early as Genesis 3:15. There are no “two views” of the atonement in this sense, only one view, because any view that denies either would not be the biblical atonement. The two aspects do not conflict with each other, unless men make them conflict with each other because they harbor prejudice against one of them. For Christ to become the Victor without first becoming the Substitute was the thing urged upon Christ by Peter and the carnal followers in the time of Christ, to which Christ responded, “Get behind me Satan! For you mind the things of men, and not the things of God.”

To neglect either one would be blasphemy. Did Christ become a Substitute, then end up the Loser because of it? Or did Christ never become a Substitute, but only a Winner? The first would mean that Christ never succeeded, and the second would mean that Christ never redeemed anyone. Once the doctrine has been stated adequately, someone who rejects either aspect of this atonement should be subject to excommunication. This issue is no less significant than justification by faith. In fact, it comes prior to justification by faith, because the “faith” would have no proper object to believe unless the doctrine is settled. Both aspects of the atonement condemn those who claim to believe what the gospel says about Jesus, but in fact do not believe.

The Son of God never needed to become a Victor. He had been God in eternity and possessed absolute power with the Father. He did not need to prove anything or ascend anywhere. But the Father so loved the world that he sent his Son, so that by the Son’s suffering and conquest he could put a MAN up there with him! Now there is a man, in the person of the God-man Messiah, at the right hand of God as our representative and guarantee. As Paul wrote, “There is one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus.” The one who teaches the Victor view of the atonement, does he believe that he — the Christian — has authority over all things that are under the throne of God? Does he believe that he has authority over demons, cancer, amputated limbs, viruses, etc. in the name of Jesus? Does he believe that the Christian wields authority over both the spiritual and material world, dominating things like poverty, infertile soil, hostile animals, and all such things? I have exercised authority over some of these things myself, and I have come across reports about others who have exercised authority over the other items. But if the person does not believe this, then he does not believe that Christ is the Victor, because the Victor that he claims to believe is a MAN. A God-man indeed, but a God-MAN. Jesus — a man — has total power in all three realms, and we have been authorized to use his name. Unless a person follows through with this exalted view of the atonement and takes charge over sickness and demons, and all things that oppose the program of God and inflict suffering over humanity, he does not believe in Christ the Victor. It is only another instance of false piety and religious posturing.

The same can be said about someone who teaches the Substitute view of the atonement. Does he believe that the blood of Christ destroyed the consciousness of sin? Most Evangelicals insist that Christians should maintain a constant consciousness of sin. This is supposed to exhibit humility and repentance. But according to the letter to the Hebrews, this would make the blood of Christ no better than the blood of bulls and goats. Thus most Christians believe that Jesus is no better than a cow, or they do not believe he is their substitute. In addition, the same biblical texts that refer to Christ’s bearing of our sins are used interchangeably by Scripture itself to refer to Christ’s bearing of our sicknesses, and even the mere anticipation of this substitution produced tangible and miraculous effects in this life, as we see in Matthew 8. Does the person who teaches the Substitute view also acknowledge that we can be free from demons and diseases in this life by faith? Does he teach this, so that as he speaks demons cry out and flee, and those who listen are healed in their bodies? Are people saved from crippling depression and suicidal thoughts by what he teaches? Does he teach that Christ has endured the consequences of sin, so that we are saved from tragedies, accidents, plagues and wars, and all the things listed in texts like Deuteronomy 28 and Psalm 91? If not, then he does not believe in Christ the Substitute. It is also another instance of false piety and religious posturing. His doctrine is weaker than those who lived under Deuteronomy 28 and Psalm 91, those who merely anticipated the atonement.

It is laughable that some theologians have written hundreds of pages to argue for either view, or even for one view against the other, as if they have made some novel discovery that would revolutionize theology. Pathetic. And then none of them believes any of it. They do not receive the benefits of what little slice of the atonement that they carve out for everybody. If we combine both views of the atonement – which in fact cannot be combined, since there is only one atonement, and one view of the atonement, or no atonement at all – what power would be unleashed in the world! Church people have no power, because regardless of what they think about the atonement, they do not in fact believe in Jesus, neither what he suffered nor what he achieved. If we are so fond of flaunting our religious views, then let us at least believe them. Our studies on the atonement must lead us to receive the actual effects of what Christ has done, instead of to merely satisfy intellectual lust and religious pride, or to gather ammunition for debate.