Atonement Theories

civic

civic

Active Member
Stephen D Morrison

The nature of the Atonement has been a study for me over the last few years. After having my world turned upside by Dr. C. Baxter Kruger in his book, Jesus and the Undoing of Adam, I have not been able to shake this fascination with rediscovering the cross of Jesus Christ. Today I wanted to share seven of the major theories for the Atonement. These theories attempt to explain the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross. Why did Jesus die? What does this death mean for the world today? These theories are historically the most dominant, and I hope you enjoy learning some of them today! @Joe @TomL

#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 changing 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 dominant 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 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 the 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 imputed 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 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 the 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!

Recommended reading​

The following books are some of the best studies on the atonement I know and recommend for further reading:

Atonement, Justice, and Peace by Darrin W. Snyder Belousek (the best argument against penal substitution I’ve read)

The Crucifixion by Fleming Rutledge (excellent study on the cross for today’s world)

Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulén (a classic study of traditional atonement models)

Atonement: Person and Work of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance (great study by the renowned 20th-century theologian)

The Nature of the Atonement by John McLeod Campbell (difficult reading, but historically an important text)

On the Incarnation by Athanasius (don’t let the title fool you: this is a profound text for the atonement in the early church)

Curs Deus Homo: Why God Became Man by Anselm (classic for the “satisfaction” atonement theory)

Against Heresies by Ireneaus (a great example of the atonement in the early church)

Things Hidden Since the Foundations of the World by Rene Girard (for the scapegoat theory)

The Crucified God by Jürgen Moltmann (one of the best modern works on the atonement)

Church Dogmatics IV/1 by Karl Barth (another modern classic on the atonement, famous for Barth’s notion of the “Judge judged in our place”)

The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (a decent collection of essays to give you a feel for various atonement theories)

Notes:
  1. Robin Collins, Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory 1995 ↩
  2. Christus Victor P. 20 ↩
 
civic said:
Stephen D Morrison

The nature of the Atonement has been a study for me over the last few years. After having my world turned upside by Dr. C. Baxter Kruger in his book, Jesus and the Undoing of Adam, I have not been able to shake this fascination with rediscovering the cross of Jesus Christ. Today I wanted to share seven of the major theories for the Atonement. These theories attempt to explain the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross. Why did Jesus die? What does this death mean for the world today? These theories are historically the most dominant, and I hope you enjoy learning some of them today! @Joe @TomL

#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 changing 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 dominant 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 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 the 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 imputed 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 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 the 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!

Recommended reading​

The following books are some of the best studies on the atonement I know and recommend for further reading:

Atonement, Justice, and Peace by Darrin W. Snyder Belousek (the best argument against penal substitution I’ve read)

The Crucifixion by Fleming Rutledge (excellent study on the cross for today’s world)

Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulén (a classic study of traditional atonement models)

Atonement: Person and Work of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance (great study by the renowned 20th-century theologian)

The Nature of the Atonement by John McLeod Campbell (difficult reading, but historically an important text)

On the Incarnation by Athanasius (don’t let the title fool you: this is a profound text for the atonement in the early church)

Curs Deus Homo: Why God Became Man by Anselm (classic for the “satisfaction” atonement theory)

Against Heresies by Ireneaus (a great example of the atonement in the early church)

Things Hidden Since the Foundations of the World by Rene Girard (for the scapegoat theory)

The Crucified God by Jürgen Moltmann (one of the best modern works on the atonement)

Church Dogmatics IV/1 by Karl Barth (another modern classic on the atonement, famous for Barth’s notion of the “Judge judged in our place”)

The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (a decent collection of essays to give you a feel for various atonement theories)

Notes:
  1. Robin Collins, Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory 1995 ↩
  2. Christus Victor P. 20 ↩
Click to expand...
An additional important early theory



RECAPITULATION THEORY

The recapitulation theory, advanced by Irenaeus (A.D. 130–200?), taught that Christ went through all the phases of Adam’s life and experience, including the experience of sin. In this way, Christ was able to succeed wherein Adam failed.
The element of truth is that Christ is known as the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), however, Christ had no personal encounter with sin whatsoever (1 John 3:5; John 8:46). The theory is incomplete in that it neglects the atonement; it is the death of Christ that saves, not His life. ?

Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 319–320.

Recapitulation theory. This point of view championed by Irenaeus is based on the idea that Christ in His life and death recapitulates all phases of human life including being made sin in His death on the cross. In so doing, He does properly what Adam failed to do. Irenaeus also regarded the suffering of Christ on the cross as satisfying the divine justice of God, but considered this only one phase of the total picture. See notes at Rom 5:19

Bibliotheca Sacra: A Quarterly Published by Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1955–1995).
 
civic said:
These theories attempt to explain the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross.
Click to expand...
Of course it's all "Man's theology". What we know BIBLICALLY is that the "Sin offering in the OLD testament only temporarily "Covered (hid) SIN", but DID NOT Eliminate it. BLOOD was required, but livestock blood can't CLEANSE from SIN. SAlvation HAS ALWAYS been by FAITH. In the Old testament it was FAITH in what God WOULD DO, and they were hels in the place of the dead temporarily. The NEW TESTAMENT (the Gospel) is that what God PROMISED, HE HAS DONE, and absent from the flesh is present with the Lord. (2 Cor 5:6-8)

Hebrews goes through how Jesus SIN OFFERING (Isa 53:10) was BETTER, because is ELIMINATED the SIN completely. "Salvation" is a DEATH - We were crucified WITH Jesus, and it's HIS life that we now live.

"Theories about the ATONEMENT" are all well and good, but essentially worthless in practical terms. Romans 8:28,and particularly 8:29 are indicative of God's PURPOSE in us.

If pressed, I'd have to go knee-jerk with "Penal Substitutuion", but I wouldn't bother to are the point. I'm IN JESUS, and Jesus is IN ME, and that covers it (1 John 4:13).
 
Bob Carabbio said:
Of course it's all "Man's theology". What we know BIBLICALLY is that the "Sin offering in the OLD testament only temporarily "Covered (hid) SIN", but DID NOT Eliminate it. BLOOD was required, but livestock blood can't CLEANSE from SIN. SAlvation HAS ALWAYS been by FAITH. In the Old testament it was FAITH in what God WOULD DO, and they were hels in the place of the dead temporarily. The NEW TESTAMENT (the Gospel) is that what God PROMISED, HE HAS DONE, and absent from the flesh is present with the Lord. (2 Cor 5:6-8)

Hebrews goes through how Jesus SIN OFFERING (Isa 53:10) was BETTER, because is ELIMINATED the SIN completely. "Salvation" is a DEATH - We were crucified WITH Jesus, and it's HIS life that we now live.

"Theories about the ATONEMENT" are all well and good, but essentially worthless in practical terms. Romans 8:28,and particularly 8:29 are indicative of God's PURPOSE in us.

If pressed, I'd have to go knee-jerk with "Penal Substitutuion", but I wouldn't bother to are the point. I'm IN JESUS, and Jesus is IN ME, and that covers it (1 John 4:13).
Click to expand...
So God was punishing Christ, taking out retribution against sin, which He was now taking vengeance against?

No matter how someone defines smaller aspects of PSA, one thing that cannot be separated from it is the concept of vicarious punishment. The idea is that Jesus was punished by God in our place. Something the proponents of PSA all agree on is that mankind deserved punishment, so God sent His Son in the flesh to die the death mankind deserved in their place. The respected Dr. William Lane Craig put it thusly: "Penal substitution in a theological context may be defined as the doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering that we deserved as punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment."[32] On the PSA system God actively punished Jesus to spare mankind the punishment for sin. The holy, righteous, and perfect judge chose to punish the innocent and guiltless incarnate Son to satiate His own justice and wrath against guilty, unrighteous sinners. Through PSA the law demands a punishment, and the punishment must be inflicted - regardless of the victim being guilty or innocent. This is evident since God is willing to punish an innocent, in place of the guilty, and call it justice.[33] This doctrine goes far beyond the fundamental concept of a vicarious punishment, which already has many questionable ramifications regarding the character of God. PSA also teaches God forsook Jesus and condemned Him on the cross. That God the Father damned God the Son. John Piper put it this way: “We cannot begin to fathom all that this would mean between the Father and the Son. To be forsaken by God is the cry of the damned, and he was damned for us. So he used these words because there was a real forsakenness.”[34] On this view, Jesus was not only punished in the place of sinners but was damned and forsaken by God. How God the Father can forsake God the Son while on the cross appears to be a great mystery in PSA. One argument that is made to bridge this gap is to appeal to the nature of the Son. In his book The Murder of Jesus, John MacArthur described it as: “Christ died in our place and in our stead - and He received the very same outpouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ's sufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion - dreadful as they were - were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him.”[35] MacArthur continues by stating we cannot “begin to fathom” what it would take to pay for our sins. That even our worst nightmares of hell were “realized” in Christ at that moment on the cross as God “abandoned” Him. He then claims that, even though God abandoned Him, the Father’s love was never interrupted.[36] MacArthur says, “Though there was surely no interruption in the Father's love for Him as a Son, God nonetheless turned away from Him and forsook Him as our substitute.” According to MacArthur, God remained loving His Son, despite Him actively forsaking Him.

John Calvin wrote: “Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.”[41] In Calvin’s view, it was important Jesus did not just descend into death, or the place of the dead, but rather that Christ experienced all the tortuous agony of a physical and spiritual death as punishment from God in mankind’s place. It was this punishment where Christ “bore all our infirmities” in our place.[42] According to Calvin, Jesus suffered the punishment of physical and spiritual death, and He paid off all moral debt in full as man’s “sponsor” through His death.



Hess, William. Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? (pp. 38-41). Kindle Edition.
 
TomL said:
So God was punishing Christ, taking out retribution against sin, which He was now taking vengeance against?

No matter how someone defines smaller aspects of PSA, one thing that cannot be separated from it is the concept of vicarious punishment. The idea is that Jesus was punished by God in our place. Something the proponents of PSA all agree on is that mankind deserved punishment, so God sent His Son in the flesh to die the death mankind deserved in their place. The respected Dr. William Lane Craig put it thusly: "Penal substitution in a theological context may be defined as the doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering that we deserved as punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment."[32] On the PSA system God actively punished Jesus to spare mankind the punishment for sin. The holy, righteous, and perfect judge chose to punish the innocent and guiltless incarnate Son to satiate His own justice and wrath against guilty, unrighteous sinners. Through PSA the law demands a punishment, and the punishment must be inflicted - regardless of the victim being guilty or innocent. This is evident since God is willing to punish an innocent, in place of the guilty, and call it justice.[33] This doctrine goes far beyond the fundamental concept of a vicarious punishment, which already has many questionable ramifications regarding the character of God. PSA also teaches God forsook Jesus and condemned Him on the cross. That God the Father damned God the Son. John Piper put it this way: “We cannot begin to fathom all that this would mean between the Father and the Son. To be forsaken by God is the cry of the damned, and he was damned for us. So he used these words because there was a real forsakenness.”[34] On this view, Jesus was not only punished in the place of sinners but was damned and forsaken by God. How God the Father can forsake God the Son while on the cross appears to be a great mystery in PSA. One argument that is made to bridge this gap is to appeal to the nature of the Son. In his book The Murder of Jesus, John MacArthur described it as: “Christ died in our place and in our stead - and He received the very same outpouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ's sufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion - dreadful as they were - were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him.”[35] MacArthur continues by stating we cannot “begin to fathom” what it would take to pay for our sins. That even our worst nightmares of hell were “realized” in Christ at that moment on the cross as God “abandoned” Him. He then claims that, even though God abandoned Him, the Father’s love was never interrupted.[36] MacArthur says, “Though there was surely no interruption in the Father's love for Him as a Son, God nonetheless turned away from Him and forsook Him as our substitute.” According to MacArthur, God remained loving His Son, despite Him actively forsaking Him.

John Calvin wrote: “Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.”[41] In Calvin’s view, it was important Jesus did not just descend into death, or the place of the dead, but rather that Christ experienced all the tortuous agony of a physical and spiritual death as punishment from God in mankind’s place. It was this punishment where Christ “bore all our infirmities” in our place.[42] According to Calvin, Jesus suffered the punishment of physical and spiritual death, and He paid off all moral debt in full as man’s “sponsor” through His death.



Hess, William. Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? (pp. 38-41). Kindle Edition.
Click to expand...
"PSA" is nothing but one popular version of man's Theology, and essentially worthless where absolute truth is concerned. There's NO SENSE in trying to fully understand Jesus SIN OFFERING, and the true extent, and exact details of WHY BLOOD IS REQUIRED.

Bottom line: FAITH in Jesus SIN OFFERING is the source of Salvation and cleansing from SIN. That's quite enough for me. I'll ask for the details later - when I KNOW even as I am known.
 
Bob Carabbio said:
"PSA" is nothing but one popular version of man's Theology, and essentially worthless where absolute truth is concerned. There's NO SENSE in trying to fully understand Jesus SIN OFFERING, and the true extent, and exact details of WHY BLOOD IS REQUIRED.

Bottom line: FAITH in Jesus SIN OFFERING is the source of Salvation and cleansing from SIN. That's quite enough for me. I'll ask for the details later - when I KNOW even as I am known.
Click to expand...
Well, now you note PSA is not written down in scripture as absolute truth.
 
Bob Carabbio said:
"PSA" is nothing but one popular version of man's Theology, and essentially worthless where absolute truth is concerned. There's NO SENSE in trying to fully understand Jesus SIN OFFERING, and the true extent, and exact details of WHY BLOOD IS REQUIRED.

Bottom line: FAITH in Jesus SIN OFFERING is the source of Salvation and cleansing from SIN. That's quite enough for me. I'll ask for the details later - when I KNOW even as I am known.
Click to expand...
There is no sense in trying to fully understand the sacrificial offerings of animals in the Old Covenant either. It is sufficient that God so declares it.
 
Bob Carabbio said:
BINGO!!! Why does BLOOD cleanse SIN??? I'll ask later when I KNOW even as I am known.
Click to expand...
PSA's requirement that God could not forgive and took out wrath upon Christ as the guilty party I find problematic.

The 17 Claims of the Appeasement School (Atonement School), also called Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

1. Adam as mankind's federal head transmits the guilt of his sin to all mankind. (Augustine)*
2. Because of Original Sin mankind is now totally depraved. (Augustine)*
3. Even Infants, innocent of personal sin, are guilty of Original Sin. (Augustine)*
4. The sin of Adam infinitely offends God because the gravity of the offense depends on the worth of the one offended. (Anselm)
5. All sin is to be understood as a debt we owe God for the crime of having dishonored him. (Anselm)6. Even Infants owe this debt. (Anslem)
7. In the Old Testament era, God insists that this debt be paid by shedding an innocent animal's blood. (Appeasement school)
8. God could have redeemed man by the simple act of wiling it... (Anselm)
9. ...but God cannot forgive sin without first punishing the sinner. (Anselm)
10. Not only must the redemption mirror the fall, but it must also be as painful as possible since the fall was easy. (Anselm)
11. Only the death of God-man is worthy to serve as a recompense to God for his offended honor. (Anselm)
12. Christ becomes incarnate so his humanity can suffer as a substitute for us. (Anselm)
13. God pours out His wrath on Christ pretending that Christ is we, the ones who actually deserve punishment (Appeasement School)
14. On the cross, Christ becomes literal sin and a literal curse. (Appeasement School)
15. God's eyes are too holy to look upon sin, so the Father turns his back on Christ, abandoning him. (Appeasement School)
16. Christ dies on the cross as an unblemished sacrifice and thereby removes the need for further sacrifice by appeasing God's wrath once and for all. (Appeasement School)
17. Thus Christ's death ransoms us from the wrath of God. (Anselm)
 
TomL said:
PSA's requirement that God could not forgive and took out wrath upon Christ as the guilty party I find problematic.

The 17 Claims of the Appeasement School (Atonement School), also called Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

1. Adam as mankind's federal head transmits the guilt of his sin to all mankind. (Augustine)*
2. Because of Original Sin mankind is now totally depraved. (Augustine)*
3. Even Infants, innocent of personal sin, are guilty of Original Sin. (Augustine)*
4. The sin of Adam infinitely offends God because the gravity of the offense depends on the worth of the one offended. (Anselm)
5. All sin is to be understood as a debt we owe God for the crime of having dishonored him. (Anselm)6. Even Infants owe this debt. (Anslem)
7. In the Old Testament era, God insists that this debt be paid by shedding an innocent animal's blood. (Appeasement school)
8. God could have redeemed man by the simple act of wiling it... (Anselm)
9. ...but God cannot forgive sin without first punishing the sinner. (Anselm)
10. Not only must the redemption mirror the fall, but it must also be as painful as possible since the fall was easy. (Anselm)
11. Only the death of God-man is worthy to serve as a recompense to God for his offended honor. (Anselm)
12. Christ becomes incarnate so his humanity can suffer as a substitute for us. (Anselm)
13. God pours out His wrath on Christ pretending that Christ is we, the ones who actually deserve punishment (Appeasement School)
14. On the cross, Christ becomes literal sin and a literal curse. (Appeasement School)
15. God's eyes are too holy to look upon sin, so the Father turns his back on Christ, abandoning him. (Appeasement School)
16. Christ dies on the cross as an unblemished sacrifice and thereby removes the need for further sacrifice by appeasing God's wrath once and for all. (Appeasement School)
17. Thus Christ's death ransoms us from the wrath of God. (Anselm)
Click to expand...
All nothing but "Theology", which is like noses. Everybody's got one.

I find it easier to simply be a non-systematic eclectic, since it really doesn't matter.
 
God does have to punish sin, for Scripture says:

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— YHWH detests them both. (Prov. 17)

And also:

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away,
one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law until all is finished/fulfilled/completed. (Matt. 5)

And Paul tells us what the Law brings:

because the law brings about wrath (Rom. 4)

So putting these together we have Jesus on the Cross saying:

He said, "It is finished/fulfilled/completed!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. (John 19)

Now we know what was finished is the Law of God, for Paul tells us quite plainly:

having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us;
and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the Cross. (Col. 2)

And what was this certificate of debt but the very condemnation of the Law against sin?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Rom. 1)

But in accordance with your hard and impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath
in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, (Rom. 2)

But he will pour out his fury and wrath on those who are self-seeking,
who refuse to obey the truth and instead obey wickedness. (Rom. 2)

The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just,
and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Matt. 13)

So instead of us bearing the punishment we deserve, God sent his Son Jesus to be our substitute in our place:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God (1 Pet. 3)

Him who knew not sin, in our behalf he made to be our sin,
that we might become God's righteousness in him. (2 Cor. 5)

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.
And YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isa. 53)

Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for our sin (Isa. 53)

Yet he was pierced for transgressions that were ours, was crushed for iniquities that were ours,
The punishment for our well-being was upon him, and by his scourging there is healing for us. (Isa. 53)

There is only one Atonement and one Gospel in Scripture:

The atonement where Christ fulfills the Holy Law of God and takes our place on the Cross.

Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.
 
Last edited:
Dizerner said:
God does have to punish sin, for Scripture says:

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— YHWH detests them both. (Prov. 17)

And also:

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away,
one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law until all is finished/fulfilled/completed. (Matt. 5)

And Paul tells us what the Law brings:

because the law brings about wrath (Rom. 4)

So putting these together we have Jesus on the Cross saying:

He said, "It is finished/fulfilled/completed!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. (John 19)

Now we know what was finished is the Law of God, for Paul tells us quite plainly:

having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us;
and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the Cross. (Col. 2)

And what was this certificate of debt but the very condemnation of the Law against sin?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Rom. 1)

But in accordance with your hard and impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath
in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, (Rom. 2)

But he will pour out his fury and wrath on those who are self-seeking,
who refuse to obey the truth and instead obey wickedness. (Rom. 2)

The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just,
and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Matt. 13)

So instead of us bearing the punishment we deserve, God sent his Son Jesus to be our substitute in our place:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God (1 Pet. 3)

Him who knew not sin, in our behalf he made to be our sin,
that we might become God's righteousness in him. (2 Cor. 5)

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.
And YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isa. 53)

Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for our sin (Isa. 53)

Yet he was pierced for transgressions that were ours, was crushed for iniquities that were ours,
The punishment for our well-being was upon him, and by his scourging there is healing for us. (Isa. 53)

There is only one Atonement and one Gospel in Scripture:

The atonement where Christ fulfills the Holy Law of God and takes our place on the Cross.

Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.
Click to expand...
Yet PSA is not the gospel and you are equivocating and cherry picking verses to form a man made atonement theory.
 
civic said:
Yet PSA is not the gospel and you are equivocating and cherry picking verses to form a man made atonement theory.
Click to expand...
The idea that the Father was taking his wrath out and getting retribution by punishing Christ as per PSA is very difficult and, in my view, an unbiblical theology.
 

Similar threads

3
The impossible
Replies
2
Views
103
360watt
3
civic
7 Theories of the Atonement
Replies
12
Views
742
Obadiah
Obadiah
jeremiah1five
Atonement
2
Replies
23
Views
332
jeremiah1five
jeremiah1five
Dizerner
My full defense of PSA
8 9 10
Replies
196
Views
3K
Eternally-Grateful
E
Fitzpatrick
Appeasement of a Monster God?
10 11 12
Replies
221
Views
3K
Joe
Joe
Back
Top Bottom