My full defense of PSA

Dizerner

Well-known member
I posted much of this before but it's all over in different places and hard to find, so here is my summary of defense for PSA.


ALL other theories of atonement, and I do mean ALL, can only have meaning if derived from the ideas of sin and its punishment. WHY are we even in this mess? Why does God have to FIX anything at all? What is it God is even fixing? Without a thorough understanding of what sin and its punishment entails. you are lost in the water, you are floundering. The ONLY reason that makes any sense for God to become a man and die, to save the world, forgive sins, defeat death, defeat the devil, be a good influence, establish his government, and ransom everyone back, is this:

The punishment of sin creates all the problems, and sin must be fully judged for God to redeem.

Jesus judges sin on the Cross, and "payment" language permeates all of Scripture.

God became a man and died for one reason: to suffer the punishment sin deserves.


Here's the deal:

God can defeat the devil and death without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?

Makes no sense.

God can influence people and display his government without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?

Makes no sense.

God can ransom people back and prove himself innocent, without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?

Makes no sense.



Ever heard the saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"

Or how about, "A shortcut seldom is?"


We know, even if the lunch comes to us free, someone, somewhere paid for it.

And it is interesting just how much Scripture uses "payment" language in both the OT and the NT, this is very significant.


But what is essentially being said by denying PSA is:

Jesus can pay for us, without really paying.

That's the argument, logically, from the anti-PSA crowd.

It's not about God being angry, we already know there are instances of this.

It's not about God punishing God, or breaking up the Trinity, or suffering an eternity of wrath, we know all things are possible for God, it's a relational not ontological break, an infinite being can suffer in finite time what a finite being can suffer infinitely, God can experience himself negatively, none of those are real problems.

It's about the holiness of God demanding punishment for sin. And yet if all we emphasize is "God is all love" language, we deny a very vital, essential, and integral part of God, his justice. God is not just love. Else there would be no punishment, no judgment, no hell, no wrath anywhere at all, no diseases, viruses, pain, suffering, torture, abuse, neglect, unfairness, loneliness, sadness, unhappiness, violence, evil.


God is not just love.

If God were JUST love—think of it—God would allow anybody to do anything.

God would not have enemies, if he were JUST love.

God would send Satan flowers every morning and make him a fresh cup of coffee, if God were JUST love.

God would never rebuke or warn or threaten anyone, if God were JUST love.

There would be nothing painful or confusing or offensive or hard, if God were JUST love.

If God were JUST love, there would be no need to punish sin.... ever.


Now there are those who try to change the word punishment with a watered down version they just call "consequences." But this is just a semantic game removing the moral guilt element inherent in committing an evil action. If I trip walking down some stairs, that's a consequence of my actions, but there is no morally wrong aspect to what I did, there is no guilt. If we just redefine "if you do something evil and have something bad happen to you as a result of what you deserve" with the term "consequence," all we did was put a new word to the same meaning as "punishment." What is being attempted here, is removing moral guilt from sinful actions, and a removal of God's rightful acting role as Judge and dispenser of justice, as if "karma" takes over the job from God.


So what we see here, is that people who deny PSA, are denying an essential attribute of God:

God's hatred for sin, God's necessary judgment on sin.
So they "rewrite" the Cross to be about anything BUT judging sin.

The Cross is about God being willing to show he will suffer.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God being a super nice fella' who is willing to get beat up and killed.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God showing he's in charge and governs the world.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God beating up the devil and giving him a big black eye.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God defeating death and giving creation a brand new chance.
But not judgment on sin!

The Cross is about Jesus being a great example to us, and inspiring us to die like him.
But not judgment... on our sins.


See how that tricky "swapparoo" happens in this shell game, where we sneak out one of God's essential attributes? Anti-PSA advocates, like those who deny the Trinity, like to claim there is no verse to support God has to judge sin with wrath on his Son. But, like the Trinity, there are clear and obvious deductions we cannot escape from, and God expects us to make deductions in the Bible.

There is no verse that says God skips over justice. There is no verse that says God will leave sin unpunished. And yet they try to take verses that express God's forgiveness won through the Cross and through Jesus' suffering, and neuter and rip out the actual sacrificial element of Christ that is made to suffer for the sins of the world, as if God can just skip over his own holiness!

Anti-PSA is a spiritual "free lunch."

The Law doesn't bring wrath under this scenario, because Jesus never really has to pay for our sins. But the whole reason Jesus said he came, the cup of redemption in his blood for the forgiveness, the basis of the ransom, was the true actual substitution in our place. "The Law brings wrath," but it's not true, if we all sinned against the Law, yet there was no wrath against our sins, it all just magically disappears without honoring God's holiness.

That's striking at the very CORE of the Gospel, the DEEPEST and MOST CENTRAL reason Christ came to die, to die in our place, to suffer what we should have gotten.

Not less—God's integrity uses equal weights and measures.


There's a great advertisement for sugar I once saw, it is short and gets your attention:

"Sugar. There is no substitute."

Now we all know they are always trying to find a substitute for sugar, because everyone has a sweet tooth. But there is a substance and authenticity that an artificial substitute just never has to the original. What we are being offered here, is a spiritual "artificial substitute" for the punishment of our sins. Jesus does not have to really fulfill the Law's punishment, he doesn't really have to pay, he just has to physically die the first death, and never the second.


All other theories of the atonement derive from Jesus paying the penalty for sin.

Jesus paying a ransom, Jesus conquering death, Jesus conquering the devil, Jesus being a a good moral influence, Jesus conquering sin, Jesus redeeming the suffering and imperfections of creation.

All these bad things that need redeeming all came from the creation's rebellion, all these things came from the original sins, all these things are curses and judgments that came as a consequence of what each of our sin deserves—

There is no "problem" Jesus "solves" that is not in some way connected to "sin"!! The atonement of Jesus Christ is not just a good example, a legal loophole, fighting the bad guys, or doing a good deed for humanity. The atonement of Jesus Christ and all the good things that come from it are based in one thing, the Law bringing wrath.

Jesus is judged with the consequences of what sinning against a holy God deserves on our behalf.

Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, it pleased the Lord to bruise him, his soul became a guilt offering.

He takes the bullet, he takes the fall, he takes the exact punishment we deserve.

That's the Gospel.
 
I posted much of this before but it's all over in different places and hard to find, so here is my summary of defense for PSA.

ALL other theories of atonement, and I do mean ALL, can only have meaning if derived from the ideas of sin and its punishment. WHY are we even in this mess? Why does God have to FIX anything at all? What is it God is even fixing? Without a thorough understanding of what sin and its punishment entails. you are lost in the water, you are floundering. The ONLY reason that makes any sense for God to become a man and die, to save the world, forgive sins, defeat death, defeat the devil, be a good influence, establish his government, and ransom everyone back, is this:

The punishment of sin creates all the problems, and sin must be fully judged for God to redeem.

Jesus judges sin on the Cross, and "payment" language permeates all of Scripture.

God became a man and died for one reason: to suffer the punishment sin deserves.

Here's the deal:

God can defeat the devil and death without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?

Makes no sense.

God can influence people and display his government without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?

Makes no sense.

God can ransom people back and prove himself innocent, without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?

Makes no sense.


Ever heard the saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"

Or how about, "A shortcut seldom is?"

We know, even if the lunch comes to us free, someone, somewhere paid for it.

And it is interesting just how much Scripture uses "payment" language in both the OT and the NT, this is very significant.

But what is essentially being said by denying PSA is:

Jesus can pay for us, without really paying.

That's the argument, logically, from the anti-PSA crowd.

It's not about God being angry, we already know there are instances of this.

It's not about God punishing God, or breaking up the Trinity, or suffering an eternity of wrath, we know all things are possible for God, it's a relational not ontological break, an infinite being can suffer in finite time what a finite being can suffer infinitely, God can experience himself negatively, none of those are real problems.

It's about the holiness of God demanding punishment for sin. And yet if all we emphasize is "God is all love" language, we deny a very vital, essential, and integral part of God, his justice. God is not just love. Else there would be no punishment, no judgment, no hell, no wrath anywhere at all, no diseases, viruses, pain, suffering, torture, abuse, neglect, unfairness, loneliness, sadness, unhappiness, violence, evil.

God is not just love.

If God were JUST love—think of it—God would allow anybody to do anything.

God would not have enemies, if he were JUST love.

God would send Satan flowers every morning and make him a fresh cup of coffee, if God were JUST love.

God would never rebuke or warn or threaten anyone, if God were JUST love.

There would be nothing painful or confusing or offensive or hard, if God were JUST love.

If God were JUST love, there would be no need to punish sin.... ever.

Now there are those who try to change the word punishment with a watered down version they just call "consequences." But this is just a semantic game removing the moral guilt element inherent in committing an evil action. If I trip walking down some stairs, that's a consequence of my actions, but there is no morally wrong aspect to what I did, there is no guilt. If we just redefine "if you do something evil and have something bad happen to you as a result of what you deserve" with the term "consequence," all we did was put a new word to the same meaning as "punishment." What is being attempted here, is removing moral guilt from sinful actions, and a removal of God's rightful acting role as Judge and dispenser of justice, as if "karma" takes over the job from God.

So what we see here, is that people who deny PSA, are denying an essential attribute of God:

God's hatred for sin, God's necessary judgment on sin.
So they "rewrite" the Cross to be about anything BUT judging sin.

The Cross is about God being willing to show he will suffer.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God being a super nice fella' who is willing to get beat up and killed.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God showing he's in charge and governs the world.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God beating up the devil and giving him a big black eye.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God defeating death and giving creation a brand new chance.
But not judgment on sin!

The Cross is about Jesus being a great example to us, and inspiring us to die like him.
But not judgment... on our sins.

See how that tricky "swapparoo" happens in this shell game, where we sneak out one of God's essential attributes? Anti-PSA advocates, like those who deny the Trinity, like to claim there is no verse to support God has to judge sin with wrath on his Son. But, like the Trinity, there are clear and obvious deductions we cannot escape from, and God expects us to make deductions in the Bible.

There is no verse that says God skips over justice. There is no verse that says God will leave sin unpunished. And yet they try to take verses that express God's forgiveness won through the Cross and through Jesus' suffering, and neuter and rip out the actual sacrificial element of Christ that is made to suffer for the sins of the world, as if God can just skip over his own holiness!

Anti-PSA is a spiritual "free lunch."

The Law doesn't bring wrath under this scenario, because Jesus never really has to pay for our sins. But the whole reason Jesus said he came, the cup of redemption in his blood for the forgiveness, the basis of the ransom, was the true actual substitution in our place. "The Law brings wrath," but it's not true, if we all sinned against the Law, yet there was no wrath against our sins, it all just magically disappears without honoring God's holiness.

That's striking at the very CORE of the Gospel, the DEEPEST and MOST CENTRAL reason Christ came to die, to die in our place, to suffer what we should have gotten.

Not less—God's integrity uses equal weights and measures.

There's a great advertisement for sugar I once saw, it is short and gets your attention:

"Sugar. There is no substitute."

Now we all know they are always trying to find a substitute for sugar, because everyone has a sweet tooth. But there is a substance and authenticity that an artificial substitute just never has to the original. What we are being offered here, is a spiritual "artificial substitute" for the punishment of our sins. Jesus does not have to really fulfill the Law's punishment, he doesn't really have to pay, he just has to physically die the first death, and never the second.

All other theories of the atonement derive from Jesus paying the penalty for sin.

Jesus paying a ransom, Jesus conquering death, Jesus conquering the devil, Jesus being a a good moral influence, Jesus conquering sin, Jesus redeeming the suffering and imperfections of creation.

All these bad things that need redeeming all came from the creation's rebellion, all these things came from the original sins, all these things are curses and judgments that came as a consequence of what each of our sin deserves—

There is no "problem" Jesus "solves" that is not in some way connected to "sin"!! The atonement of Jesus Christ is not just a good example, a legal loophole, fighting the bad guys, or doing a good deed for humanity. The atonement of Jesus Christ and all the good things that come from it are based in one thing, the Law bringing wrath.

Jesus is judged with the consequences of what sinning against a holy God deserves on our behalf.

Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, it pleased the Lord to bruise him, his soul became a guilt offering.

He takes the bullet, he takes the fall, he takes the exact punishment we deserve.

That's the Gospel.

I do believe in PSA to an extent. But God's love is greater than His wrath as was all along, which is the reason for the atonement. I don't believe God is merely pursuing an eye for an eye. I would call this Soft PSA.
 
I do believe in PSA to an extent. But God's love is greater than His wrath as was all along, which is the reason for the atonement. I don't believe God is merely pursuing an eye for an eye. I would call this Soft PSA.

Brother, please realize that by calling PSA soft, you are calling your sin "not that bad."

You are calling what Jesus went through "not that bad."

You are calling God's holiness, "not that great."

I encourage you to see the compromise and idolatry in your heart, and really move on to submit to the Word and Spirit.

You don't deserve a "soft" hell for your sin.

Jesus didn't pay a "soft" price for you.

Amazing grace.
 
Brother, please realize that by calling PSA soft, you are calling your sin "not that bad."

You are calling what Jesus went through "not that bad."

You are calling God's holiness, "not that great."

I encourage you to see the compromise and idolatry in your heart, and really move on to submit to the Word and Spirit.

You don't deserve a "soft" hell for your sin.

Jesus didn't pay a "soft" price for you.

Amazing grace.

I wouldn't say that anyone who ends up in hell would say that.
 
I posted much of this before but it's all over in different places and hard to find, so here is my summary of defense for PSA.


ALL other theories of atonement, and I do mean ALL, can only have meaning if derived from the ideas of sin and its punishment. WHY are we even in this mess? Why does God have to FIX anything at all? What is it God is even fixing? Without a thorough understanding of what sin and its punishment entails. you are lost in the water, you are floundering. The ONLY reason that makes any sense for God to become a man and die, to save the world, forgive sins, defeat death, defeat the devil, be a good influence, establish his government, and ransom everyone back, is this:

The punishment of sin creates all the problems, and sin must be fully judged for God to redeem.

Jesus judges sin on the Cross, and "payment" language permeates all of Scripture.

God became a man and died for one reason: to suffer the punishment sin deserves.


Here's the deal:

God can defeat the devil and death without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?

Makes no sense.

God can influence people and display his government without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?

Makes no sense.

God can ransom people back and prove himself innocent, without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way?

Makes no sense.


Ever heard the saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"

Or how about, "A shortcut seldom is?"


We know, even if the lunch comes to us free, someone, somewhere paid for it.

And it is interesting just how much Scripture uses "payment" language in both the OT and the NT, this is very significant.


But what is essentially being said by denying PSA is:

Jesus can pay for us, without really paying.

That's the argument, logically, from the anti-PSA crowd.

It's not about God being angry, we already know there are instances of this.

It's not about God punishing God, or breaking up the Trinity, or suffering an eternity of wrath, we know all things are possible for God, it's a relational not ontological break, an infinite being can suffer in finite time what a finite being can suffer infinitely, God can experience himself negatively, none of those are real problems.

It's about the holiness of God demanding punishment for sin. And yet if all we emphasize is "God is all love" language, we deny a very vital, essential, and integral part of God, his justice. God is not just love. Else there would be no punishment, no judgment, no hell, no wrath anywhere at all, no diseases, viruses, pain, suffering, torture, abuse, neglect, unfairness, loneliness, sadness, unhappiness, violence, evil.


God is not just love.

If God were JUST love—think of it—God would allow anybody to do anything.

God would not have enemies, if he were JUST love.

God would send Satan flowers every morning and make him a fresh cup of coffee, if God were JUST love.

God would never rebuke or warn or threaten anyone, if God were JUST love.

There would be nothing painful or confusing or offensive or hard, if God were JUST love.

If God were JUST love, there would be no need to punish sin.... ever.


Now there are those who try to change the word punishment with a watered down version they just call "consequences." But this is just a semantic game removing the moral guilt element inherent in committing an evil action. If I trip walking down some stairs, that's a consequence of my actions, but there is no morally wrong aspect to what I did, there is no guilt. If we just redefine "if you do something evil and have something bad happen to you as a result of what you deserve" with the term "consequence," all we did was put a new word to the same meaning as "punishment." What is being attempted here, is removing moral guilt from sinful actions, and a removal of God's rightful acting role as Judge and dispenser of justice, as if "karma" takes over the job from God.


So what we see here, is that people who deny PSA, are denying an essential attribute of God:

God's hatred for sin, God's necessary judgment on sin.
So they "rewrite" the Cross to be about anything BUT judging sin.

The Cross is about God being willing to show he will suffer.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God being a super nice fella' who is willing to get beat up and killed.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God showing he's in charge and governs the world.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God beating up the devil and giving him a big black eye.
But not judgment on sin.

The Cross is about God defeating death and giving creation a brand new chance.
But not judgment on sin!

The Cross is about Jesus being a great example to us, and inspiring us to die like him.
But not judgment... on our sins.


See how that tricky "swapparoo" happens in this shell game, where we sneak out one of God's essential attributes? Anti-PSA advocates, like those who deny the Trinity, like to claim there is no verse to support God has to judge sin with wrath on his Son. But, like the Trinity, there are clear and obvious deductions we cannot escape from, and God expects us to make deductions in the Bible.

There is no verse that says God skips over justice. There is no verse that says God will leave sin unpunished. And yet they try to take verses that express God's forgiveness won through the Cross and through Jesus' suffering, and neuter and rip out the actual sacrificial element of Christ that is made to suffer for the sins of the world, as if God can just skip over his own holiness!

Anti-PSA is a spiritual "free lunch."

The Law doesn't bring wrath under this scenario, because Jesus never really has to pay for our sins. But the whole reason Jesus said he came, the cup of redemption in his blood for the forgiveness, the basis of the ransom, was the true actual substitution in our place. "The Law brings wrath," but it's not true, if we all sinned against the Law, yet there was no wrath against our sins, it all just magically disappears without honoring God's holiness.

That's striking at the very CORE of the Gospel, the DEEPEST and MOST CENTRAL reason Christ came to die, to die in our place, to suffer what we should have gotten.

Not less—God's integrity uses equal weights and measures.


There's a great advertisement for sugar I once saw, it is short and gets your attention:

"Sugar. There is no substitute."

Now we all know they are always trying to find a substitute for sugar, because everyone has a sweet tooth. But there is a substance and authenticity that an artificial substitute just never has to the original. What we are being offered here, is a spiritual "artificial substitute" for the punishment of our sins. Jesus does not have to really fulfill the Law's punishment, he doesn't really have to pay, he just has to physically die the first death, and never the second.


All other theories of the atonement derive from Jesus paying the penalty for sin.

Jesus paying a ransom, Jesus conquering death, Jesus conquering the devil, Jesus being a a good moral influence, Jesus conquering sin, Jesus redeeming the suffering and imperfections of creation.

All these bad things that need redeeming all came from the creation's rebellion, all these things came from the original sins, all these things are curses and judgments that came as a consequence of what each of our sin deserves—

There is no "problem" Jesus "solves" that is not in some way connected to "sin"!! The atonement of Jesus Christ is not just a good example, a legal loophole, fighting the bad guys, or doing a good deed for humanity. The atonement of Jesus Christ and all the good things that come from it are based in one thing, the Law bringing wrath.

Jesus is judged with the consequences of what sinning against a holy God deserves on our behalf.

Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, it pleased the Lord to bruise him, his soul became a guilt offering.

He takes the bullet, he takes the fall, he takes the exact punishment we deserve.

That's the Gospel.
Not so much. You are definitely the merchant of heresy. The only PSA I want to see and hear about will be about my prostate.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Shalom.
 
Only in your mind
Shalom

Jesus wasn't getting his back scratched on the Cross, it was a holy God paying for your sin.

Reject that, and it's over, for real.

Jesus suffering hell is a myth nowhere found in the pages of scripture.

Some people say hell itself is a myth, you know that, and they have all their little verses.

But you know you deserve hell you said, you just don't believe God is holy enough to uphold that.

So I would take it a bit more respectfully and seriously, what Christ has done.
 
Jesus wasn't getting his back scratched on the Cross, it was a holy God paying for your sin.

Reject that, and it's over, for real.



Some people say hell itself is a myth, you know that, and they have all their little verses.

But you know you deserve hell you said, you just don't believe God is holy enough to uphold that.

So I would take it a bit more respectfully and seriously, what Christ has done.
Your a myth and that is something I will not reject. Your ham sandwich 🥪 and pager is ready for you.
Shalom
 
"payment" language permeates all of Scripture.
This statement is false.
Payment language is notably ABSENT from 90% of more of time that the biblical revelation covers.
But our brother @Dizermer is not only making a huge miscalculation. He is ignoring the qualitative aspect of this ABSCENCE,
Payment language is ABSENT from key passages in which the forgiveness of sin is addressed directly.
Payment language is ABSENT from the teachings of Jesus and the stories of the gospels.

There is No payment language in the Book of Jonah, in King David’s Psalm 51, in Ezekiel 18, Isaiah 6, all of them eloquent and direct accounts of the process of mercy and forgiveness.
In regard to Jesus teachings, there is no payment language in the Lords Prayer, in the conditions set by Jesus to expect mercy from God, in the stories of the Prodigal Son, the King who forgave he debt of his servant, the tax collector vs the Pharisee, the repented thief, the adulterous woman, the woman who anointed his feet. No payment language in any of the stories in which Jesus forgives sins or heals while saying “Your faith has saved you”. No payment language in the conversation with Nicodemus on salvation. No payment language in the conversation of Jesus with his disciples after his resurrection. No payment language in the speeches of Peter after a Pentecost or in the speech of Paul in the Areopagus or before governor Felix.

Payment language is confined to certain parts of the apostolic letters and ABSENT in the vast majority of sacred texts.
Perhaps what @Dizerner meant is that payment language permeates the books and sermons of pastors and theologians that he has read and heard. That’s a different claim.

So I kindly ask our brother @Dizerner to acknowledge this and retract his statement, as it has profound implications in the meaning, scope and relevance of he concept of penal substitutionary atonement.
 
Last edited:
God is not just love.
Brother @Dizerner is introducing here a strawman argument. Who in this Forum or among modern religions thinks that God is just love?
What I will always argue is that God’s justice and punishment are an expression of his love. They derive from his love.
Any attribute of God related to the salvation of men stems from his love. His love is a primary (John 3:16)

Punishment, then, is an instrument of his love.

When we punish our children, we do it out of love: we do it to help them to understand, learn and change.
Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be zealous and repent” (Revelation 3:19).

Even in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, Abraham takes the time to make the rich understand why he is being punished. There is no hatred, no sadism. Abraham is so successful in making the rich understand, that he proves this understanding by thinking in a way to warn his relatives.
In the story of Jonah, the big punishment inflicted to Jonah is key for his spiritual awakening.
Saul in the road to Damascus is left blind so that he can repent, obey, and see. The experience of darkness was crucial for the experience of enlightment.

Our brother @Dizerner is right in saying that God hates sin… but sin is not punished. Men are punished, and men are of infinite value to God.
If our teenager son comes late at night drunk, and we punish him, we are not punishing drunkness. We are punishing our beloved son.
The difference is crucial.
 
This statement is false.

No it is not false.

Stop lying about Scripture when you don't even believe in it or respect it as truly inspired.

Who in this Forum or among modern religions thinks that God is just love?

There are plenty of people who think that.

Besides the point it is making is not dependent on anyone believing it.


This is very low level interaction.

There needs to be more integrity here.
 
It's about the holiness of God demanding punishment for sin.
It’s about the love of God designing punishment for sin.
God is just because He is love, not the other way around.
Holiness, both in God and in those humans abiding in God, is a state in which all thoughts, words and actions are the result of love.

Anti-PSA advocates, like those who deny the Trinity, like to claim there is no verse to support God has to judge sin with wrath on his Son. But, like the Trinity, there are clear and obvious deductions we cannot escape from, and God expects us to make deductions in the Bible.
God expect us to make deductions using the brains He endowed us with. Deduction is a cognitive process and must consider observations made inside and outside the Bible. Remember: we are talking about our salvation in real life, and Jesus method of teaching the truth supports and encourages deduction based on events of real life.
In real life, why do we punish our kids? What do we expect from them as a result of the punishment? What is the purpose of prisons and fines? Do we punish one man for the crime of another man?
There is no verse that says God skips over justice. There is no verse that says God will leave sin unpunished.
You’re absolutely right.
And making an innocent pay with his blood for the sin of another man would be CONTRARY to justice.
This is not Pancho Frijoles capricious thinking, but a solid biblical and rational concept. Please read Ezekiel 18.
 
Last edited:
No it is not false.

Stop lying about Scripture when you don't even believe in it or respect it as truly inspired.
Present your arguments on how I am lying about the abscence of a “payment language” across most of the sacred text, particularly in key passages that deal with the forgiveness from God.
I’m all ears.
If you are unable to present arguments, please retract your statement for the sake of integrity
There are plenty of people who think that.
If there are plenty of people, you will have no problem in naming at least three or four churches or religious movements with a lot of followers that consider that God is just love. Perhaps two. Perhaps one. Take your time. Would one week be enough?
If unable to name them, please retract your statement for the sake of integrity.
This is very low level interaction.
There needs to be more integrity here.
Please point out how the “payment language permeates all Scripture” or retract your statement, for the sake of integrity.
 
Amazing grace.
Amazing grace or amazing trade?
What you are presenting is a trade, a commercial transaction… which is powerful as metaphor but preposterous if taken literally.

Grace is a free lunch. Nobody paid for it because it was never for sale.
We are expected to eat the lunch.
This is what Jesus meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. We have to embed his life in our life so that we live as He lived.
Ancient people thought that we acquired the attributes of the animal (or person, in cannnibalism) that we were eating.

Well, Jesus offered his life (what he taught, what he exemplified) as a gift for us. If we feed from his teachings and example we will exhibit Christ attributes and have eternal life.
So powerful…! No penal substitutionary atonement. No trade. Just amazing grace.
 

The Bible often uses the concepts of ransom, redemption, and debt as metaphors to describe God's saving work. Below is a list of key verses that connect these themes to monetary payment or debt:

Old Testament

  1. Exodus 21:30
    "If a ransom is demanded of him, he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded."
    • Legal provision for paying a ransom to redeem a life.
  2. Exodus 30:12-16
    "When you take a census of the Israelites to register them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is registered."
    • The "atonement money" represents a ransom for each person.
  3. Leviticus 25:47-49
    "If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner... they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves."
    • Redemption from servitude involves a price being paid.
  4. Psalm 49:7-8
    "No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them— the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough."
    • Human inability to redeem others through material means.
  5. Job 33:24
    "Spare him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom for him."
    • Uses the idea of a ransom as deliverance from death.
  6. Isaiah 43:1-3
    "Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine... I give Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in exchange for you."
    • God describes redeeming His people at great cost.

New Testament

Parables and Stories about Debt

  1. Matthew 18:23-35 (Parable of the Unforgiving Servant)
    "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him."
    • Illustrates forgiveness of a massive debt (symbolic of sin), connecting forgiveness to the cancellation of owed payment.
  2. Luke 7:41-43 (Parable of the Two Debtors)
    "Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both."
    • Highlights forgiveness of debt as a metaphor for grace.

Ransom and Redemption through Christ

  1. Matthew 20:28 / Mark 10:45
    "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
    • Jesus’ life is described as a ransom payment for humanity.
  2. Romans 3:24-25
    "They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented him as an atoning sacrifice through faith in his blood."
  • Redemption involves Jesus’ blood as the payment.
  1. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20
    "You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honor God with your bodies."
  • Believers are described as being "bought" by God.
  1. 1 Corinthians 7:23
    "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings."
  • Reiterates that Christians are purchased by God and thus owe allegiance to Him.
  1. Galatians 3:13
    "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
  • Redemption is accomplished through Christ’s sacrificial death.
  1. Ephesians 1:7
    "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace."
  • Redemption is connected to Christ’s blood as the payment.
  1. Titus 2:14
    "Who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own."
  • Christ's self-giving is the means of redemption.
  1. 1 Timothy 2:5-6
    "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people."
  • Explicit mention of Jesus as a ransom.
  1. 1 Peter 1:18-19
    "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed... but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect."
  • Contrasts material payment with Christ’s sacrificial blood.
  1. Acts 20:28
    "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."
  • Directly states that God purchased the church with Christ’s blood.

Revelation and Final Redemption

  1. Revelation 5:9
    "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation."
  • Depicts Jesus’ death as a purchase of people for God.
  1. Revelation 14:3-4
    "They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb."
  • Refers to the redeemed as those "purchased" by Christ.

Key Themes:

  • Debt Forgiveness in Parables: Jesus uses debt cancellation to illustrate forgiveness, likening sin to an unpayable debt that only God can erase.
  • Redemption as Purchase: Multiple passages describe believers as being "bought" or "purchased," not with money, but with the blood of Christ.
  • Ransom for Many: Jesus’ death is consistently framed as a ransom or payment for humanity's sin and separation from God.
 

The Bible often uses the concepts of ransom, redemption, and debt as metaphors to describe God's saving work. Below is a list of key verses that connect these themes to monetary payment or debt:

The concept of someone else paying for my debt is not just ABSENT, but ALIEN to most Scripture covering 90% of the 2000 years of writing of the Bible. So I thank you for the opportunity to belie the doctrine of PSA through the Bible.

  1. Exodus 21:30
    "If a ransom is demanded of him, he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded."
    • Legal provision for paying a ransom to redeem a life.
Here it is the sinner who has to pay for his own crime. No substitutionary atonement.
  1. Exodus 30:12-16
    "When you take a census of the Israelites to register them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is registered."
    • The "atonement money" represents a ransom for each person.
Paid by the person in question. No penal substitutionary atonement at all.
  1. Leviticus 25:47-49
    "If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner... they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves."
    • Redemption from servitude involves a price being paid.
Nothing to do with sin nor substitutionary atonement. But thanks for the verse, because it takes us to the symbol of redemption present in he New Testament, that we will explore in another post under the question Did Jesus pay Satan?
  1. Psalm 49:7-8
    "No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them— the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough."
    • Human inability to redeem others through material means.
Establishes substitutionary atonement as ALIEN to God’s thinking.
  1. Job 33:24
    "Spare him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom for him."
    • Uses the idea of a ransom as deliverance from death.
In this poem, it is by speaking to God good things about the sinner, and not by being punished on behalf of the sinner, that one of the thousand of angels of God could perhaps help the sinner. No PSA language here. The poem in Easy-to-Read translation:

But maybe one of God’s thousands of angels is watching over them,
to speak for them and tell about the good things they have done.
Maybe the angel will be kind and say to God,
‘Save this one from the place of death!
I have found a way to pay for his life.’

  1. Isaiah 43:1-3
    "Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine... I give Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in exchange for you."
    • God describes redeeming His people at great cost.
Yes, this highly poetic passage uses payment language… but not PSA language at all!
God is not enduring the punishment that Israel deserved for their sins. Egypt is not volunteering for anything. God is not paying anyone else for a right over Israel. Israel didn’t owe any debt to anyone in this passage.

“Jacob, the Lord created you. Israel, he made you, and now he says, “Don’t be afraid. I saved you. I named you. You are mine. When you have troubles, I am with you. When you cross rivers, you will not be hurt. When you walk through fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not hurt you. That’s because I, the Lord, am your God. I, the Holy One of Israel, am your Savior. I gave Egypt to pay for you. I gave Ethiopia and Seba to make you mine. You are precious to me, and I have given you a special place of honor. I love you. That’s why I am willing to trade others, to give up whole nations, to save your life.”

New Testament

Parables and Stories about Debt

  1. Matthew 18:23-35 (Parable of the Unforgiving Servant)
    "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him."
    • Illustrates forgiveness of a massive debt (symbolic of sin), connecting forgiveness to the cancellation of owed payment.
The parable establistes substitutionary payment of a debt as ALÍEN to God’s thinking. The king forgives his servant for free.
  1. Luke 7:41-43 (Parable of the Two Debtors)
    "Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both."
    • Highlights forgiveness of debt as a metaphor for grace.
Same thing. Again, Substitutionary payment is ALIEN to God’s thinking. God mercy is presented as a free gift.
  1. Matthew 20:28 / Mark 10:45
    "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
    • Jesus’ life is described as a ransom payment for humanity.
This passage DOES use payment substititutionary language and belongs to the 10% of revelation that uses it. It is a valid text for @Dizerner to bring, as the rest of the verses in the NT that we will be analyzing in the post Did Jesus pay Satan?
 
Last edited:
Jesus judges sin on the Cross, and "payment" language permeates all of Scripture.
God became a man and died for one reason: to suffer the punishment sin deserves.
The “payment language” our brother @Dizerner is refering to is the substitutionary payment in which God suffers the punishment sin deserves.
Well, such language is ABSENT and ALIEN to the Tanakh and to the parables of Jesus and all his direct references on why to expect God’s mercy. The Tanakh and Jesus parables cover easily 90% of the time the Bible was revealed.
We Will examine the NT use of the metaphor of redemption and its implications. Certainly Our Heavenly Father did not change overnight the terms of his salvation, nor converted overnight a gift into a purchase. We will expose PSA as a superstitious misinterpretation of a well known allegory.

For the time being, I respectfully ask @Dizerner to retract his statement “Payment language permeates all of Scripture”
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom