My full defense of PSA

[praise_yeshua]

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a Reformation invention that finds no support throughout the first millennium of the church. It has also been criticized as a distortion of Scripture, nowhere clearly taught in the Old or New Testaments. It has been blasted as a barbaric distortion of God’s character that places Him in the category of pagan gods such as Molech, depicting Him as a “monster God” It shows God as some sort of violent, pagan deity. Is it incompatible with the loving God of the Bible as revealed through Jesus Christ

Death itself carries a sense of wrath. The value of His death for us is far more than any thought of God punishing the humbled servant for pleasure. PSA is overstated and down right nonsense at times.

 

[civic]

Death itself carries a sense of wrath. The value of His death for us is far more than any thought of God punishing the humbled servant for pleasure. PSA is overstated and down right nonsense at times.

It’s twisted and actually mocks Gods Good name and character

 

[Whosoever]

 

[civic]

he nailed it as I have been saying for a while- tulip goes hand in hand with PSA. it was invented to support tulip. he has done his historical homework in reformation thought and doctrine.

 

[atpollard]

The problem that I have with PSA is why can't God forgive without his "pound of flesh"?
Why does God hold his children to a higher standard than He is capable of?

 

[atpollard]

he nailed it as I have been saying for a while- tulip goes hand in hand with PSA. it was invented to support tulip. he has done his historical homework in reformation thought and doctrine.

ummm ...

• PSA predates the Reformation [but gained popularity during the Reformation].
• T.U.L.I.P. [the acronym] originated in the 1930's
• The 5 points of the "Doctrines of Grace" [the thoughts behind the acronym] originate at the Synod of Dort as a response to the 5 points of the Remonstrances (Arminianism).

... therefore, the claim that "PSA was invented to support TULIP" is a nonsensical temporal paradox claiming that PRE-REFORMATION theologians modified the Ransom Theory of Atonement to support an acronym that would not be invented for another half a millennium to represent a doctrine that would not be written for another couple hundred years.

PSA came first, then the Doctrines of Grace (at Dort) and much later the clever acronym "T.U.L.I.P.".

 

[civic]

ummm ...

• PSA predates the Reformation [but gained popularity during the Reformation].
• T.U.L.I.P. [the acronym] originated in the 1930's
• The 5 points of the "Doctrines of Grace" [the thoughts behind the acronym] originate at the Synod of Dort as a response to the 5 points of the Remonstrances (Arminianism).

... therefore, the claim that "PSA was invented to support TULIP" is a nonsensical temporal paradox claiming that PRE-REFORMATION theologians modified the Ransom Theory of Atonement to support an acronym that would not be invented for another half a millennium to represent a doctrine that would not be written for another couple hundred years.

PSA came first, then the Doctrines of Grace (at Dort) and much later the clever acronym "T.U.L.I.P.".

show me from a reliable sourse where PSA came before Dort. Thanks !

AA Hodge is the one who formed the doctrine that is now called PSA. That was in the 1800's in his systematic theology.

 

[atpollard]

show me from a reliable sourse where PSA came before Dort. Thanks !

AA Hodge is the one who formed the doctrine that is now called PSA. That was in the 1800's in his systematic theology.

I will let you confirm the details, but here is Anslem (c. 1033-1109) and Martin Luther (1483-1546).

"Anselm investigated the purpose of the incarnation and the death of Christ in his book Cur Deus Homo (“Why the God-Man”). The problem as stated by Boso, Anselm’s interlocutor, is that “sinful man owes God a debt for sin which he cannot repay, and at the same time that he cannot be saved without repaying it” (Anselm, “Why God Became Man,” in A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, p. 146). Anselm argued that God’s honor must necessarily have sufficient satisfaction if he is to show both justice and mercy. The Son of God took full humanity and lived in perfect righteousness under the law of God to honor his Father’s holiness, and paid the debt of death he did not owe as a punishment for sins he did not commit. Anselm viewed it as “rational necessity,” that man’s redemption and restoration “can be accomplished only through the remission of sins, which a man can gain only through the Man who is himself God and who reconciles sinful men to God through his death.” Our just debt to God as creatures and our moral debt to God as sinners would be impossible to fulfill apart from the way established by infinite wisdom: “Thus it was necessary for God to take manhood into the unity of his person, so that he who in his own nature ought to pay and could not should be in a person who could [whose life] was so sublime, so precious, that it can suffice to pay what is owing for the sins of the whole world, and infinitely more” (176). When contemplating this with Boso, Anselm draws the discussion to a succinct conclusion: “To whom would it be more fitting for him to assign the fruit and recompense of his death than to those for whose salvation … he made himself man, and to whom … by dying he gave an example of dying for the sake of justice? For they will be his imitators in vain if they do not share in his merit.” (180)."​

​

Luther certainly believed in the subjective effects of the atonement but based this solidly on a rich understanding of the objective Godward impact of the death of Christ. In a sermon on Easter Sunday, Luther pointed to Christ’s sacrifice in terms of ransom, satisfaction, propitiation, and implied substitution. His hearers needed to consider “the greatness and terror of the wrath of God against sin in that it could be appeased and a ransom effected in no other way than through the one sacrifice of the Son of God. Only his death and the shedding of his blood could make satisfaction. And we must consider also that we by our sinfulness had incurred that wrath of God and therefore were responsible for the offering of the Son of God upon the cross and the shedding of his blood.” He emphasized its substitutionary aspect when he reminded the congregation to be aware “why God spared not his own Son but offered him a sacrifice upon the cross, delivered him to death; namely, that his wrath might be lifted from us once more” (Martin Luther, Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, 4.1:190, 191).​

Now the Reformation Theologians certainly embraced it and wrote on the subject. They just did not invent the concept after the Synod of Dort (1618–1619).

[Personally, I think theologians followed the wrong branch of historic thought ... payment of a debt to God by God that demands innocent blood shed for guilty is contra-scriptural to God's justice in the Law - which Paul says is GOOD - so I think Christus Victor is the more correct path of thought to follow. Christ did what He did to accomplish what he accomplished - redemption of a people and victory over death, sin and hell. Forgiveness is an act of love, not a monetary transaction in blood.]

 

[civic]

I will let you confirm the details, but here is Anslem (c. 1033-1109) and Martin Luther (1483-1546).

"Anselm investigated the purpose of the incarnation and the death of Christ in his book Cur Deus Homo (“Why the God-Man”). The problem as stated by Boso, Anselm’s interlocutor, is that “sinful man owes God a debt for sin which he cannot repay, and at the same time that he cannot be saved without repaying it” (Anselm, “Why God Became Man,” in A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, p. 146). Anselm argued that God’s honor must necessarily have sufficient satisfaction if he is to show both justice and mercy. The Son of God took full humanity and lived in perfect righteousness under the law of God to honor his Father’s holiness, and paid the debt of death he did not owe as a punishment for sins he did not commit. Anselm viewed it as “rational necessity,” that man’s redemption and restoration “can be accomplished only through the remission of sins, which a man can gain only through the Man who is himself God and who reconciles sinful men to God through his death.” Our just debt to God as creatures and our moral debt to God as sinners would be impossible to fulfill apart from the way established by infinite wisdom: “Thus it was necessary for God to take manhood into the unity of his person, so that he who in his own nature ought to pay and could not should be in a person who could [whose life] was so sublime, so precious, that it can suffice to pay what is owing for the sins of the whole world, and infinitely more” (176). When contemplating this with Boso, Anselm draws the discussion to a succinct conclusion: “To whom would it be more fitting for him to assign the fruit and recompense of his death than to those for whose salvation … he made himself man, and to whom … by dying he gave an example of dying for the sake of justice? For they will be his imitators in vain if they do not share in his merit.” (180)."​

​

Luther certainly believed in the subjective effects of the atonement but based this solidly on a rich understanding of the objective Godward impact of the death of Christ. In a sermon on Easter Sunday, Luther pointed to Christ’s sacrifice in terms of ransom, satisfaction, propitiation, and implied substitution. His hearers needed to consider “the greatness and terror of the wrath of God against sin in that it could be appeased and a ransom effected in no other way than through the one sacrifice of the Son of God. Only his death and the shedding of his blood could make satisfaction. And we must consider also that we by our sinfulness had incurred that wrath of God and therefore were responsible for the offering of the Son of God upon the cross and the shedding of his blood.” He emphasized its substitutionary aspect when he reminded the congregation to be aware “why God spared not his own Son but offered him a sacrifice upon the cross, delivered him to death; namely, that his wrath might be lifted from us once more” (Martin Luther, Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, 4.1:190, 191).​

Now the Reformation Theologians certainly embraced it and wrote on the subject. They just did not invent the concept after the Synod of Dort (1618–1619).

[Personally, I think theologians followed the wrong branch of historic thought ... payment of a debt to God by God that demands innocent blood shed for guilty is contra-scriptural to God's justice in the Law - which Paul says is GOOD - so I think Christus Victor is the more correct path of thought to follow. Christ did what He did to accomplish what he accomplished - redemption of a people and victory over death, sin and hell. Forgiveness is an act of love, not a monetary transaction in blood.]

anselm was not penal but substitution. I agree with the substitution theory not penal.

 

[civic]

see here

Anselm of Canterbury proposed a substitutionary atonement model, albeit not a fully developed theory. According to Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, sin is not doing God’s will, which then “steals” His honor. As humans we are thus in debt to God and we owe him back the honor we stole by sinning. This honor must be appeased. For Anselm, “because God is infinite, any wound to his honor caused by the sins of Man must also be infinite, and the only way infinite satisfaction for these sins can be granted on behalf of man is by the voluntary death of Jesus, who is both God and Man.”

“If God is not paid the honor due Him, He is dishonored, having His honor taken from him. God’s honor is stolen by through sin. However, as long as he does not repay what he has stolen, he remains guilty. But it is not enough for him merely to repay what has been stolen; rather, because of the wrong which has been inflicted, he ought to repay more than he has stolen. For example, if someone who injures another’s health restores it, his doing so is insufficient payment unless he also gives some compensation for the painful wrong that was inflicted. Similarly, he who violates another’s honor does not sufficiently repay this honor unless, in proportion to the injury caused by the dishonoring, he makes some restitution which is acceptable to the one whom he dishonored. We must also note that when someone repays what he has stolen, he ought to return that which could not be exacted from him had he not stolen what belonged to another. Accordingly, then, everyone who sins is obliged to repay to God the honor which he has stolen. This [repayment of stolen honor] constitutes the satisfaction which every sinner is obliged to make to God… To forgive sin in this manner is identical with not punishing it. Now, in the absence of satisfaction, to order sin rightly is only to punish it; therefore, if sin is not punished, something disordered is forgiven… Therefore, it is not fitting that God should forgive sin that goes thus unpunished.” (Cur Deus Homo Chapter 11-12).

Punishment is a key concept to Anselm, but why? Anselm is often criticized for deriving his doctrine of salvation from Germanic tribal law. Anselm’s idea of satisfaction draws from the idea that in Germanic clans, atonement for grievances must be made. Within their framework it is possible for one person to stand in for another. So, in his mind, Anselm sees the need for someone to be punished for sin and that makes up his framework of Christ’s death. It’s important to note that in Anselm, there isn’t the concept that the Father punished Christ, it wasn’t the suffering of the divine wrath, but that God was satisfied by Christ’s punishment. The Father doesn’t punish Christ, and Christ bears no punishment. So we see in the 11th century a substitutionary atonement but not penal substitutionary atonement.

Just to point out, that’s over 1,000 years after Christ before we see the roots of PSA.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory - A Sad Substitute

I was on involved in an online dialogue about atonement and redemption when the theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) came up. The Orthodox

liveorthodoxy.com

 

[atpollard]

To argue that:

Anselm of Canterbury proposed a substitutionary atonement model,

and

Punishment is a key concept to Anselm,

... but that is NOT "Penal Substitution" is splinting a hair finer than I can comprehend.

I agree that it is a flawed idea, I just think it is a flawed idea that predates the Protestant Reformation. [so we can blame them for the schism of the 1500's, and for using fiery rhetoric, and for the C&A debate, but not for inventing PSA.]

(Thank God I am a Baptist, so we don't come along until the late 1600's ... when regular people start to read what Jesus and the Apostles said for ourselves and decided to DO what THEY said - baptize believers, appoint elders over the local Church, obey the teaching of Jesus over the teaching of men, etc...)

 

[praise_yeshua]

To argue that:

and

... but that is NOT "Penal Substitution" is splinting a hair finer than I can comprehend.

I agree that it is a flawed idea, I just think it is a flawed idea that predates the Protestant Reformation. [so we can blame them for the schism of the 1500's, and for using fiery rhetoric, and for the C&A debate, but not for inventing PSA.]

(Thank God I am a Baptist, so we don't come along until the late 1600's ... when regular people start to read what Jesus and the Apostles said for ourselves and decided to DO what THEY said - baptize believers, appoint elders over the local Church, obey the teaching of Jesus over the teaching of men, etc...)

Penal requires retribution upon the substitute. This isn't complicated.

 

[praise_yeshua]

To argue that:

and

... but that is NOT "Penal Substitution" is splinting a hair finer than I can comprehend.

I agree that it is a flawed idea, I just think it is a flawed idea that predates the Protestant Reformation. [so we can blame them for the schism of the 1500's, and for using fiery rhetoric, and for the C&A debate, but not for inventing PSA.]

(Thank God I am a Baptist, so we don't come along until the late 1600's ... when regular people start to read what Jesus and the Apostles said for ourselves and decided to DO what THEY said - baptize believers, appoint elders over the local Church, obey the teaching of Jesus over the teaching of men, etc...)

I'd love to destroy the value you find in "Baptist". BTW. Anabaptist don't own believers baptism.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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.

"PSA" is "Just theology" not Scripture. Some of it is probably accurate, and some of it is probably error. Unimportant.

Eph 2:8,9 essentially tells us what we need to know:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Simple as that - "Theology" not required.

 

[Dizerner]

Eph 2:8,9 essentially tells us what we need to know:

Guess you don't need the rest of the Bible then.

 

[Dizerner]

"PSA" is "Just theology" not Scripture. Some of it is probably accurate, and some of it is probably error. Unimportant.

That's as thoughtless as saying:

"The Trinity" is "Just theology" not Scripture. Some of it is probably accurate, and some of it is probably error. Unimportant.

If we use a "term" to describe something the Bible "tells" us, that does not make it "unimportant."

 

[Bob Carabbio]

That's as thoughtless as saying:

"The Trinity" is "Just theology" not Scripture. Some of it is probably accurate, and some of it is probably error. Unimportant.

If we use a "term" to describe something the Bible "tells" us, that does not make it "unimportant."

Correctrion: If we use a term to describe something that we THINK that the Bible tells, then it may or may not mean anything at all.

 

[Dizerner]

Correctrion: If we use a term to describe something that we THINK that the Bible tells, then it may or may not mean anything at all.

Maybe words don't mean anything at all.

Ever think of that?

Maybe thinking that you THINK may not mean anything at all?

The possibilities are endless...


But the Bible teaches that Jesus suffered for us the punishment of our sins.

That's not one man's interpretation, that is the voice of the Holy Spirit through Scripture.

 

[atpollard]

But the Bible teaches that Jesus suffered for us the punishment of our sins.

Could you point me to where the Bible teaches that Jesus was “punished” for our sins?
When I do a word search for “punishment” it seems to be reserved for the wicked.
(I do not wish to miss something that is clearly taught in the Bible.)

 

[Dizerner]

Could you point me to where the Bible teaches that Jesus was “punished” for our sins?
When I do a word search for “punishment” it seems to be reserved for the wicked.
(I do not wish to miss something that is clearly taught in the Bible.)

Could you point me to where God says child molestation is a sin?
When I do a word search for "molestation" it seems to be... not there at all, actually.
(I do not wish to miss if molestation is a sin, please show me where molestation is mentioned in the Bible.)
...
Oh you can't always use the exact phrase, you have to deduce truths from Scripture?

Okay. I hope maybe you see that was meant to be a parody of a really dumb way of asking what Scripture teaches.
Anyone that uses the "exact phrase only fallacy" is already deceived and doesn't understand they bring presuppositions to Scripture.
Words do not self-define. Spiritual and metaphysical truths are not somehow bound up in letters.
Once you can see how absolutely ignorantly your question was phrased, you can realize that truths can be deduced and revealed.


So in a short summary assuming your question has any real sincerity to it:

1. Scripture tells us Jesus suffers for sin in a substitutionary way.

Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, he who knew no sin because sin for us, God condemned sin in the flesh in his Son's likeness of it., the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all and made his soul an offering for sin since it pleased the Lord to crush him to justify the many, he became a ransom for many to save them from their sins through tasting death on behalf of them all.

I've elaborated on these verses both here and many other places on this forum.

2. The Law of God is ALWAYS upheld, never set aside, bypassed or ignored, so your sin CANNOT be swept under the rug by God.

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 till all is fulfilled. Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne. The law brings wrath. The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul. Like the laws of the Medes and Persians, nothing can cancel it or set it aside, except its real and actual fulfillment.


But I am skeptical that your inquiry here is altogether honest because of the abundance of Scripture and argument that I've already written that you just completely ignored as unworthy of interacting with and probably even reading, just to ask a really ignorant and inherently fallacious question. I do not deal with dishonest interlocutors, as all they do is waste your time and provoke you, but I gave an honest answer here that will be enough to answer you and point you to an abundance of answers already present.

I urge you to consider that if you set aside the true meaning of Christ's atonement, you spit and trample on the holy law of God that condemns all sinners as worthy of his wrath, you minimize the evilness of your own sin by declaring Christ does not need to suffer for it, you in effect, establish your own system of righteousness whereby God does not have to actually gives your sin what it deserves, and you make a mockery of the meaning of the death of Christ turning it into an unnecessary display of self-destructiveness that serves no actual purpose towards reconciliation, and you literally have no real Biblical Gospel left, just a permissive deity and secular humanism.

If you completely double down on denying the real meaning of Christ's atonement you will end up in eternal hellfire as Scripture says there is only ONE sacrifice for sins for all time. Christ did just not just suffer unrelated physical harm, he became the curse of the law, as it clearly and literally tells us, which law promises wrath to the sinner, and the real death that is spiritual judgment from God.


Regards and peace in Christ.