Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig.

Today, the Doctrine of Christ, Part 22.

For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonable faith.org.

Today we want to turn to a new section in our study of the atonement on the satisfaction of divine justice.

We have dealt with the central element of any Christian doctrine of the atonement, which is

penal substitution. And we've seen that the objections to penal substitution, which are based on either the definition of punishment or the justification of punishment, are insufficiently nuanced and fail to show either any conceptual incoherence in the doctrine of penal substitution or any injustice in God's

punishing Christ in our place.

So before we move on then to the question of the satisfaction of divine justice, let me

ask if there's any final question or discussion on the subject of penal substitution. All right.

Now a second element that any biblically adequate atonement theory must include is the notion

of propitiation.

In our first section, we've in effect been dealing with the question of expiation, how our

sin is paid for.

But now we turn to propitiation, which is the appeasement of God's just wrath against sin.

Now, the source of God's wrath is his retributive justice. And so the appeasement

of wrath is a matter of the satisfaction of divine justice. And we've seen that the satisfaction

of divine justice takes place, not St. Anne Sumpthroat

through compensation, but rather that it takes place through penal substitution.

Now it might be objected to this that penal substitution could not possibly meet the demands of divine retributive justice.

And the objection here is not that penal substitution would be unjust or immoral. We've

already dealt with that question, but rather that it would simply be ineffectual. Punishing another person for my

crimes would do nothing to remove my guilt, according to this objection. So how can penal

...