Here's the second problem you list with real hours approach, substitution and participation.

Next clip.

I think that this is the most fundamental and hence most consequential mistake in the book.

And he gives no argument for the incompatibility of substitution

and participation. We can agree that Jesus is not construed as a substitute in an exclusionary sense,

a sense that excludes us, but without thereby abandoning substitutionary atonement.

As I explain in my book, Atonement and the Death of Christ, Christ is our substitutional representative.

He is both our substitute and our representative so that Christ functions as our proxy before God.

And that combines these motifs of substitution and participation.

So I do think that what's happening here is telling, and I think it's a reason why this book

will not move the needle for people that are already, you know, have thought theologically,

philosophically, through penal substitution and have landed on that.

The only way to completely undermine that concept, you'd need to go beyond

the biblical text. You really would need to discuss the various ways substitution and satisfaction and

so forth have been understood within tradition and then demonstrate why those are insufficient

deal with a variety of other points.

It would need to be a much larger book and it would need to be probably several books.

Impossible to do, of course.

But that's why I think that in some ways this book is kind of two books in one.

And I think Dr. Craig's response here is probably representative of how many theologians in his

camp would respond. So explain participation and substitution, if you would please, Bill. And why do you

think that Rillerra holds that substitution and participation are incompatible? In substitution, one person takes the place of another.

...