Appeasement of a Monster God?

Fitzpatrick

Active member
PSA is the chief and controlling theory for the atonement that's taught in the Bible. And it fits the central biblical teaching of salvation.

The case for PSA has been taught by the Church since it's earliest days, My belief is it comes directly from a careful, thoughtful study of Scripture, which from beginning to end points toward the sacrificial death of Jesus.

It is defined by J. I. Packer as the conviction that the atonement involves “the innocent taking the place of the guilty, in the name and for the sake of the guilty, under the axe of God’s judicial retribution." It's the doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering which we deserved as the punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment.

The Bible speaks with a clear and united witness about PSA. Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed. The Servant was pierced for our transgressions. He died, as Caiaphas prophesied, in the place of the people. He was set forth as a propitiation for our sins. He became a curse for us, bearing our sins in his body on the tree, drinking for us the cup of God’s wrath, giving his life as a ransom for many.
 
Monster God Is right.. if it’s true that God’s wrath must be appeased by sacrificing his own Son, then don’t we have to conclude that pagans who have throughout history sacrificed their children to appease the gods’ wrath had the right intuition, even if they expressed it in the wrong way? I mean we should be imitators of God right?
 
The cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. . . . If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies. . . the idea that God was an angry deity, requiring a sacrifice to propitiate his wrath was surely more like an ancient pagan god than the Father of Jesus Christ. TGC
 
Last edited:
Hopefully this thread will demonstrate that penal substitution is taught in Scripture. This cannot be denied. It integrates with other biblical themes such as the justice of God, the love of God, the truthfulness of God.
 
PSA is the chief and controlling theory for the atonement that's taught in the Bible. And it fits the central biblical teaching of salvation.

The case for PSA has been taught by the Church since it's earliest days, My belief is it comes directly from a careful, thoughtful study of Scripture, which from beginning to end points toward the sacrificial death of Jesus.

It is defined by J. I. Packer as the conviction that the atonement involves “the innocent taking the place of the guilty, in the name and for the sake of the guilty, under the axe of God’s judicial retribution." It's the doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering which we deserved as the punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment.

The Bible speaks with a clear and united witness about PSA. Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed. The Servant was pierced for our transgressions. He died, as Caiaphas prophesied, in the place of the people. He was set forth as a propitiation for our sins. He became a curse for us, bearing our sins in his body on the tree, drinking for us the cup of God’s wrath, giving his life as a ransom for many.
Nice try its actually taught by the reformers not in the bible. Its from a single text in Isaiah 53 that the entire doctrine was developed. And there is not a single verse in all the bible stating the Son experienced Gods wrath which means anger, vengeance, retribution. In fact it states just the opposite in that it is the Son who dishes out the wrath of God upon all unbelievers. He gives Gods wrath, not receives Gods wrath.I have several threads in the PSA section here that refute the doctrine of PSA and gives the church history behind the doctrine. It was developed to support TULIP.

hope this helps !!!
 
Monster God Is right.. if it’s true that God’s wrath must be appeased by sacrificing his own Son, then don’t we have to conclude that pagans who have throughout history sacrificed their children to appease the gods’ wrath had the right intuition, even if they expressed it in the wrong way? I mean we should be imitators of God right?
ditto
 
Before we dismiss such an important biblical concept as PSA, let's look at it's theological framework.


Imagine a jigsaw puzzle. Confronted with a large pile of pieces, you idly push them around, looking at each in turn. You pick one up, and as you look at it a friend comes alongside and tells you it has no place in the puzzle—it must have found its way into the box by mistake. You do not need that piece, he says. Throw it away!

You would be reluctant to follow such a suggestion immediately. What if your friend were wrong? You would not want to discard a piece you will need later. How would you respond? Surely the best approach would be to assemble the rest of the puzzle as far as you can. If there were no space for the piece in question, or if it became clear that the picture on it does not fit with everything else, then your friend’s suspicions would be confirmed—the piece is superfluous and should be set aside. There would be no point in trying to force it in somewhere. It would only ruin everything else.

But if there were a gap of just the right shape, and the picture on your piece matched well with everything else, then it would have found a home. Indeed it must be included, otherwise the puzzle will always be incomplete, the gap will be a blemish, and if the piece is particularly central, the rest of the picture may not even make sense at all.

If we are to determine whether penal substitution has a place within Christian theology which I think it does, we must first sketch its basic contours.
Let's look at the following definition: The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. This summary can be expanded to give some sense of how the doctrine connects with other important biblical themes.

God the Father gave his Son to save rebellious, God-hating people, knowing that he would be despised and rejected by those he had made, that he would be a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. He spared sinful people from condemnation, death and punishment, but he did not spare his own beloved Son, with whom he was well pleased.

God the Son gave himself, willingly undertaking the task appointed for him by his Father. He veiled his glory in a human body, experienced every temptation we face without succumbing to any, and lived a perfect human life. Yet he took our sin and guilt upon himself and died a cursed death, suffering in his human nature the infinite torment of the wrath and fury of his Father. After three days he was vindicated in his resurrection before being exalted to his heavenly throne. From there he rules his kingdom, awaiting the day of his glorious appearing when every eye shall see him, every knee bow before him, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

God the Holy Spirit, having been sent by the Father and the Son, now works in our hearts through the proclamation of the gospel to convict us of sin, righteousness and judgment, to draw us to Christ in repentance and faith, and so to unite us to Christ that we may share in every blessing he has won for us.

God the Holy Trinity thus turned aside his own righteous wrath against sinful humanity; endured and exhausted the curse of the law that stood against us; cleansed us of our sin and clothed us in Christ’s righteousness; ransomed us from our slavery to sin, the world and the devil by paying our debt, cancelling the devil’s power of accusation against us, and liberating us to live new lives empowered by the Spirit; triumphed over all evil powers by punishing evil in the person of the Son; and reconciled us with himself by removing the barrier of sin and enmity between us; in order that we may stand blameless and forgiven in his glorious presence, credited with the perfect righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, as adopted children of God, gazing upon his face for all eternity.

God vindicated his truthfulness by remaining faithful to his promise that sin will be punished; he manifested his justice by punishing sin and acquitting the righteous; he glorified his name by exalting his Son and placing all things under his feet; and he demonstrated his love by dying for sinners and reconciling to himself those who were once his enemies
 
Hopefully this thread will demonstrate that penal substitution is taught in Scripture. This cannot be denied. It integrates with other biblical themes such as the justice of God, the love of God, the truthfulness of God.
Do you believe in the trinity and if so how would you explain that our loving Father abandon His only Son on the cross when they planned this all along. The Father loves His Son and was not ever angry with Him. Wrath is Gods anger. I have a hard time with a trinitarian believer who thinks that way about God.
 
Nice try its actually taught by the reformers not in the bible. Its from a single text in Isaiah 53 that the entire doctrine was developed. And there is not a single verse in all the bible stating the Son experienced Gods wrath which means anger, vengeance, retribution. In fact it states just the opposite in that it is the Son who dishes out the wrath of God upon all unbelievers. He gives Gods wrath, not receives Gods wrath.I have several threads in the PSA section here that refute the doctrine of PSA and gives the church history behind the doctrine. It was developed to support TULIP.

hope this helps !!!
Nice try its actually taught by the reformers not in the bible. Its from a single text in Isaiah 53 that the entire doctrine was developed. And there is not a single verse in all the bible stating the Son experienced Gods wrath which means anger, vengeance, retribution. In fact it states just the opposite in that it is the Son who dishes out the wrath of God upon all unbelievers. He gives Gods wrath, not receives Gods wrath.I have several threads in the PSA section here that refute the doctrine of PSA and gives the church history behind the doctrine. It was developed to support TULIP.

hope this helps !!!
Actually it is taught in the Bible, Jesus himself clearly teaches penal substitution in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” We have an allusion here to Isaiah 53. Jesus as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 is also the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.
 
Actually it is taught in the Bible, Jesus himself clearly teaches penal substitution in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” We have an allusion here to Isaiah 53. Jesus as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 is also the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.
I missed where that said Jesus suffered the Fathers anger.
 
Do you believe in the trinity and if so how would you explain that our loving Father abandon His only Son on the cross when they planned this all along. The Father loves His Son and was not ever angry with Him. Wrath is Gods anger. I have a hard time with a trinitarian believer who thinks that way about God.
Hi Annabelle and welcome to the Forum. I've heard your argument used when trying to undermine penal substitution But I’m not convinced that Christ bearing the wrath of God implies a Trinitarian fissure.

On the cross, Jesus entered into the experience of forsakenness on our behalf. God turned his back on Jesus and cut him off from all blessing, from all keeping, from all grace, and from all peace.” This sounds to me more like withholding “the favorable presence of grace” than a Trinity-busting Father-Son brouhaha.
 
Do you believe in the trinity and if so how would you explain that our loving Father abandon His only Son on the cross when they planned this all along. The Father loves His Son and was not ever angry with Him. Wrath is Gods anger. I have a hard time with a trinitarian believer who thinks that way about God.
Exactly !

It contradicts the Tri-Unity of God.
 
Hi Annabelle and welcome to the Forum. I've heard your argument used when trying to undermine penal substitution But I’m not convinced that Christ bearing the wrath of God implies a Trinitarian fissure.

On the cross, Jesus entered into the experience of forsakenness on our behalf. God turned his back on Jesus and cut him off from all blessing, from all keeping, from all grace, and from all peace.” This sounds to me more like withholding “the favorable presence of grace” than a Trinity-busting Father-Son brouhaha.
If there is any separation, abandonment, forsaking , turning away, turning His back on the Son for even a millisecond etc..... then its a division in the Tri-Unity of the Godhead. God is love within His own Being which is why Scripture emphatically declares in 1 John 4 twice that God is love.

Read love described in 1 Cor 13- That alone should clue you in that PSA is false.
 
I missed where that said Jesus suffered the Fathers anger.
Please allow me to reiterate Jesus was executed on a cross. He was counted as among the worst offenders. His death was real, and it was really terrible. He was an object of wrath. But not just of Roman and Jewish wrath; in fact, not mainly of Roman and Jewish wrath . Jesus was primarily the object of his Father’s wrath — the most just, righteous, and terrible wrath there is. And he became that object willingly, even when his every human impulse longed for escape. It’s the very reason he came.
 
If there is any separation, abandonment, forsaking , turning away, turning His back on the Son for even a millisecond etc..... then its a division in the Tri-Unity of the Godhead. God is love within His own Being which is why Scripture emphatically declares in 1 John 4 twice that God is love.

Read love described in 1 Cor 13- That alone should clue you in that PSA is false.
Actually love describes the reason why Christ suffered God's Wrath on the cross.

Then there's this:

In the book of Habakkuk 1:13, the prophet says to God, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil” This means that God must have closed His eyes or turn His back when Jesus took our sins upon Himself.

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”. 2 Corinthians 5:21

He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned — every one — to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:5–6
 
Exactly !

It contradicts the Tri-Unity of God.
Not according to the Bible.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Isaiah 53:10–11
 
Not according to the Bible.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Isaiah 53:10–11
Find any NT writer who affirms the above from Isaiah 53. If that is true and essential Jesus and the Apostles would have affirmed it since the NT quotes Is 53 over a dozen times yet left that mysteriously out of their teaching on the atonement.
 
Not according to the Bible.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Isaiah 53:10–11
I have done my homework on this topic extensively and have left no rock unturned. :)

Wrath from God is not required for the forgiveness of sins, that is a misnomer.

Exodus 34:6

Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in faithfulness and truth;

Isaiah 48:9
For the sake of My name I will delay My wrath; for the sake of My praise I will restrain it, so that you will not be cut off.

Psalm 78:38
And yet He was compassionate; He forgave their iniquity and did not destroy them. He often restrained His anger and did not unleash His full wrath.

Psalm 85:1-3
You, Lord, showed favor to your land;
you restored the fortunes of Jacob.
2 You forgave the iniquity of your people
and covered all their sins.
3 You set aside all your wrath
and turned from your fierce anger.

The wrath of God (Isaiah 53)

Within the study of the doctrine on PSA, the central O.T. passage it comes from is found in Isaiah 53. Let us look at how the N.T. quotes Isaiah 53 and see how the N.T. writers viewed the passages and used them in the N.T. and what language from Isaiah 53 they applied to Jesus in the N.T. regarding suffering.

In doing so, a few things stand out. There is no penal aspect/ language Isaiah used that is carried over in the N.T. but that of substitution. Isaiah 53:4- WE (not God) considered Him punished by God. The following NT passages quote Isaiah 53: Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 15:27-32; John 12:37-41; Luke 22:35-38; Acts 8:26-35; Romans 10:11-21; and 1 Peter 2:19-25. Not one of them uses any penal language where PSA gets its doctrine from in Isaiah 53 in the New Testament.

1-Matthew 8:17 Carried our diseases (Isaiah 53:4)

2-Mark 15:28 Numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

3-Luke 22:37 Numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

4-John 12:38 Who has believed our report? (Isaiah 53:1)

5-Acts 8:32 A lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7)

6-Romans 10:16 Who has believed our report? (Isaiah 53:1)

7-1Peter 2:22 He committed no sin (Isaiah 53:9)

8-1Peter 2:24 By his stripes you were healed (Isaiah 53:5)

Wrath- strongs 3709 ὀργή is defined in the Greek lexicon as anger, retribution, vengeance, and indignation. God is not against Himself angrily displaying wrath from the Father to the Son. God is love. In love, He sent His Son. The wrath bearing Son is a new concept not found in Scripture nor the early church fathers (ECFs). God is not against Himself. No one in the Trinity is in opposition, no conflict, no dissension, no strife, no disunity, no dysfunction. As if God were somehow like a sinful human family. There is nothing broken in Our Blessed Trinity.

Jesus bearing God’s wrath and being despised and forsaken by the Father and Him turning His back on the Son is not found in the pages of Scripture. That doctrine was developed in the dark ages during the Reformation and called Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement or (PSA)

Calvin's comments on Galatians 3:13,
"He could not cease to be the object of his Father’s love, and yet he endured his wrath. For how could he reconcile the Father to us, if he had incurred his hatred and displeasure? We conclude, that he “did always those things that pleased” (John 8:29) his Father. Again, how would he have freed us from the wrath of God, if he had not transferred it from us to himself? Thus, “he was wounded for our transgressions,” (Isaiah 53:5,) and had to deal with God as an angry judge."

The following scriptures affirm that Jesus' relationship with the Father on the cross was still there and not broken.

Psalm 22:24
For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help
.

Luke 23:46
Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

John 16:32
"A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me."

Hebrews 5:7
During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Jesus' promise to the thief on the cross that today you will be with Me in Paradise reaffirms Jesus went to be with the Father and not suffer in hell as some teach.

Jesus bearing God's “cup of wrath” and being despised and forsaken by the Father and Him turning His back on the Son is not found in Scripture.

In Matthew 26:39, Jesus says, "If it be your will, let this cup pass from me." Jesus tells us precisely what the cup was. It was the cup of his suffering, which meant that He would die an agonizing death as a martyr. In the passage below, Jesus told His disciples that they would also drink of the same "cup":

Matthew 20:17-

Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, 18 “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19 and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

1Thessalonians 5:9-For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

As we see above it was not the cup of wrath Jesus was speaking about but it was the suffering He was going to have to endure for our sins. God has not appointed us to wrath and the cup means the suffering of Jesus and that the disciples would also suffer death as martyrs. In fact, many scriptures testify that believers too will suffer persecution for being a follower of Jesus. Suffering persecution is a promise for a believer who follows Jesus, it is something we should expect to happen in our life.

2 Timothy 3:12- Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.

John 15:20
Remember the word that I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well.

Matthew 5:10 - Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

2 Corinthians 4:9- persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed.


conclusion: the scriptures are not in favor and are in fact against the false doctrine known as PSA developed by the Reformers. :) It was the very last of 7 theories on the atonement which was invented in the 16th century to support TULIP.

hope this helps !!!
 
PSA is the chief and controlling theory for the atonement that's taught in the Bible. And it fits the central biblical teaching of salvation.

The case for PSA has been taught by the Church since it's earliest days, My belief is it comes directly from a careful, thoughtful study of Scripture, which from beginning to end points toward the sacrificial death of Jesus.

It is defined by J. I. Packer as the conviction that the atonement involves “the innocent taking the place of the guilty, in the name and for the sake of the guilty, under the axe of God’s judicial retribution." It's the doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering which we deserved as the punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment.

The Bible speaks with a clear and united witness about PSA. Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed. The Servant was pierced for our transgressions. He died, as Caiaphas prophesied, in the place of the people. He was set forth as a propitiation for our sins. He became a curse for us, bearing our sins in his body on the tree, drinking for us the cup of God’s wrath, giving his life as a ransom for many.
No PSA was not taught by the church since it earliest days and is a development of the reformation

#1 The Moral Influence Theory

One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).

Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings are incapable of change themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignly through the Holy Spirit.

This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.


#2 The Ransom Theory

The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominate view), or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.

The Ransom view could be summarized like this:

“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.”
1

Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way they are drastically different.


#3 Christus Victor

Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone, but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.

Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.”
2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.

#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)

In the 12th century Anselm of of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God, and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin, and to satisfy the justice of God.

This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).


#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of inputed righteousness is postulated.

This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.


#6 The Governmental Theory

The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models, but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death.

#7 The Scapegoat Theory

The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty.

James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not.”


Conclusions

Each theory presented here is dense and complex, but I hope you can learn from the overall focus of each. I personally believe that we need to move beyond some of these theories and progress into a more robust theory of the atonement. But thankfully, at the end of the day we aren’t saved by theories. We’re saved by Jesus! How that happens may be fun to discuss and theorized about, but only in sight of the fact that it’s the who that matters far more!

What do you think of all these theories? Does a certain one appeal to you more than the rest? Let me know in a comment!

 
Back
Top Bottom