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:
All good. You did mention the Moral Influence Theory above.
As I said....every theory has some aspect of salvation in it.
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?
I'm in agreement, just want to say that Jesus had to defeat death to ransom persons back from satan.
A big refutation of the Ransom Theory is that God had to pay satan.
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:
People deny PSA because it shows the wrath of God instead of His love for man.
They like the Satisfaction Theory better because it also "satisfies" God but He is not shown to be wrathful.
Jesus can pay for us, without really paying.
That's the argument, logically, from the anti-PSA crowd.
That would be wrong.
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.
What happened in the Garden is great.
Man was supposed to worship God, and instead he obeyed satan and, in effect, worshipped satan.
God was the creator --- this was a great affront to God.
Such a grievous sin required a large payment.
Man...the cause of this grievous sin against God,,,,was not big enough to pay God back.
It took a divine being to do this...a perfect being.
This is clearly stated in scripture.
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.
Sins have a consequence in our earthly life.
They also have a consequence in our spiritual life, or maybe I should say the forfeiture of heaven.
But as to punishment...it's important to note that God gives us a choice...so when we choose to go on our own...
we are refusing the very creator and so we are punishing ourselves - since we had a choice.
People are in hell because they chose to be there.
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.
OK...But the cross is ALSO all these things and not at the exclusion of any other item on your list.
Very nice list, BTW.
I used to teach kids that we pin our sins on the cross.
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.
What do you mean by WRATH ON HIS SON?
Are you speaking about when Jesus felt abandoned by God Father on the cross?
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.
Agreed. This was necessary in all the theories.
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.
Great post D!!
You've considered everything and there's a lot of detail.
Kuddos to you!
Could you just explain, as briefly as you wish,
WHY you like the PS theory more than the Satisfaction Theory of Anselm?
Thanks. Just interested...there will be no debate.
