Poll on who believes PSA ?

[civic]

How many here believe the doctrine from the Reformation called Penal Substitution Atonement theory ?

These 10 points are why I reject it as unbiblical. There are more than these 10 reasons.

If asked what Jesus came to do and how he did it, most contemporary Western Christians would automatically say something like, “Jesus took the punishment from God that I deserved.” This is what’s usually called the “Penal Substitution” view of the atonement, for it emphasizes that Jesus was punished by God in our place. His sacrifice appeased the Father’s wrath towards us and thus allows us to be saved.

This view has been the dominant view in western Christianity since the Reformation period, and it captures a profoundly important biblical truth. Jesus did certainly die as our substitute. And the cross certainly expresses God’s judgment on sin. But I have a number of unsettling questions about the idea that God had to vent his wrath on Jesus in order to forgive us. Here’s a few of them:

1. Does God really need to appease his wrath with a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us? If so, does this mean that the law of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is the ultimate description of God’s character? And if this is true, what are we to make of Jesus’ teaching that this law is surpassed by the law of love? Not only this, but what are we to make of all the instances in the Bible where God forgives people without demanding a sacrifice (e.g. the prodigal son)?
2. If God’s holiness requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners, how did Jesus manage to hang out with sinners without a sacrifice, since he is as fully divine and as holy as God the Father?
3. If Jesus’ death allows God the Father to accept us, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Jesus reconciles God to us than it is to say Jesus reconciles us to God? Yet the New Testament claims the latter and never the former (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:18-20). In fact, if God loves sinners and yet can’t accept sinners without a sacrifice, wouldn’t it be even more accurate to say that God reconciles God to himself than to say he reconciles us to God? But this is clearly an odd and unbiblical way of speaking.
4. How are we to understand one member of the Trinity (the Father) being wrathful towards another member of the Trinity (the Son), when they are, along with the Holy Spirit, one and the same God? Can God be truly angry with God? Can God actually punish God?
5. If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone? Think about it. If you owe me a hundred dollars and I hold you to it unless someone pays me the owed sum, did I really forgive your debt? It seems not, especially since the very concept of forgiveness is about releasing a debt — not collecting it from someone else.
6. Are sin and guilt the sorts of things that can be literally transferred from one party to another? Related to this, how are we to conceive of the Father being angry towards Jesus and justly punishing him when he of course knew Jesus never did anything wrong?
7. If the just punishment for sin is eternal hell (as most Christians have traditionally believed), how does Jesus’ several hours of suffering and his short time in the grave pay for it?
8. If the main thing Jesus came to do was to appease the Father’s wrath by being slain by him for our sin, couldn’t this have been accomplished just as easily when (say) Jesus was a one-year-old boy as when he was a thirty-three year old man? Were Jesus’ life, teachings, healing and deliverance ministry merely a prelude to the one really important thing he did – namely, die? It doesn’t seem to me that the Gospels divide up and prioritize the various aspects of Jesus’ life in this way. (I maintain that everything Jesus did was about one thing – overcoming evil with love. Hence, every aspect of Jesus was centered on atonement — that is, reconciling us to God and freeing us from the devil’s oppression.)
9. To raise a more controversial question, if it’s true that God’s wrath must be appeased by sacrificing his own Son, then don’t we have to conclude that pagans who have throughout history sacrificed their children to appease the gods’ wrath had the right intuition, even if they expressed it in the wrong way?
10. What is the intrinsic connection between what Jesus did on the cross and how we actually live? The Penal Substitution view makes it seem like the real issue in need of resolution is a legal matter in the heavenly realms between God’s holy wrath and our sin. Christ’s death changes how God sees us, but this theory says nothing about how Christ’s death changes us. This is particularly concerning to me because every study done on the subject has demonstrated that for the majority of Americans who believe in Jesus, their belief makes little or no impact on their life. I wonder if the dominance of this legal-transaction view of the atonement might be partly responsible for this tragic state of affairs.

To me, these are all serious problems with the Penal Substitution view of the atonement. I do not deny that Jesus died as our substitute or even that it was God’s will to “crush and bruise” him (Isa 53:10). But we don’t need to imagine that the Father vented his wrath against sin on Jesus to make sense of these facts. One can (and I think should) rather see this as the Father offering up his Son to the principalities and powers to be bruised and crushed in our place, for this unsurpassable expression of self-sacrificial love is what was needed to destroy the devil and his works and to thus set humans free, reconciling them to the Father.reknew.org

hope this helps !!!

 

[Frank Russell]

Consider this .. All of history is Father God looking at His son Adam dying in the garden .. we hear echoes of this through prophetic utterance such as when David said "my son, my son, if only I could have died instead of you" to the one who rebelled.

Because the Adam that all of humanity exists within is in a state of death, another Adam is required for people to exist within, this final Adam is Jesus. People still within the dead Adam will have "corrupted data" and anything translated over to the "new creation" will result in an existence that is not compatible with the new way of being.

There's a substitution there, there's sin, but our manner of seeing things is too human centric. The problem with human centric theology is that our lenses are glopped with sin - so the idea "may God be true and every man a liar" (also in scripture) seems to sum up all theology.

 

[5solas]

PSA is the proper view.

 

[WCF]

PSA is the proper view.

There is another view I’m not aware of one 5solas. Sarcasm

 

[Dizerner]

Did you even read your own post, honestly?

If Jesus didn't come to suffer what our sins deserved, you have created another Gospel, you have denied Scripture.

He nailed our sins to that Cross!

 

[mikesw]

How many here believe the doctrine from the Reformation called Penal Substitution Atonement theory ?

There 10 points are why I reject it as unbiblical. There are more than these 10 reasons.

If asked what Jesus came to do and how he did it, most contemporary Western Christians would automatically say something like, “Jesus took the punishment from God that I deserved.” This is what’s usually called the “Penal Substitution” view of the atonement, for it emphasizes that Jesus was punished by God in our place. His sacrifice appeased the Father’s wrath towards us and thus allows us to be saved.

This view has been the dominant view in western Christianity since the Reformation period, and it captures a profoundly important biblical truth. Jesus did certainly die as our substitute. And the cross certainly expresses God’s judgment on sin. But I have a number of unsettling questions about the idea that God had to vent his wrath on Jesus in order to forgive us. Here’s a few of them:

1. Does God really need to appease his wrath with a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us? If so, does this mean that the law of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is the ultimate description of God’s character? And if this is true, what are we to make of Jesus’ teaching that this law is surpassed by the law of love? Not only this, but what are we to make of all the instances in the Bible where God forgives people without demanding a sacrifice (e.g. the prodigal son)?
2. If God’s holiness requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners, how did Jesus manage to hang out with sinners without a sacrifice, since he is as fully divine and as holy as God the Father?
3. If Jesus’ death allows God the Father to accept us, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Jesus reconciles God to us than it is to say Jesus reconciles us to God? Yet the New Testament claims the latter and never the former (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:18-20). In fact, if God loves sinners and yet can’t accept sinners without a sacrifice, wouldn’t it be even more accurate to say that God reconciles God to himself than to say he reconciles us to God? But this is clearly an odd and unbiblical way of speaking.
4. How are we to understand one member of the Trinity (the Father) being wrathful towards another member of the Trinity (the Son), when they are, along with the Holy Spirit, one and the same God? Can God be truly angry with God? Can God actually punish God?
5. If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone? Think about it. If you owe me a hundred dollars and I hold you to it unless someone pays me the owed sum, did I really forgive your debt? It seems not, especially since the very concept of forgiveness is about releasing a debt — not collecting it from someone else.
6. Are sin and guilt the sorts of things that can be literally transferred from one party to another? Related to this, how are we to conceive of the Father being angry towards Jesus and justly punishing him when he of course knew Jesus never did anything wrong?
7. If the just punishment for sin is eternal hell (as most Christians have traditionally believed), how does Jesus’ several hours of suffering and his short time in the grave pay for it?
8. If the main thing Jesus came to do was to appease the Father’s wrath by being slain by him for our sin, couldn’t this have been accomplished just as easily when (say) Jesus was a one-year-old boy as when he was a thirty-three year old man? Were Jesus’ life, teachings, healing and deliverance ministry merely a prelude to the one really important thing he did – namely, die? It doesn’t seem to me that the Gospels divide up and prioritize the various aspects of Jesus’ life in this way. (I maintain that everything Jesus did was about one thing – overcoming evil with love. Hence, every aspect of Jesus was centered on atonement — that is, reconciling us to God and freeing us from the devil’s oppression.)
9. To raise a more controversial question, if it’s true that God’s wrath must be appeased by sacrificing his own Son, then don’t we have to conclude that pagans who have throughout history sacrificed their children to appease the gods’ wrath had the right intuition, even if they expressed it in the wrong way?
10. What is the intrinsic connection between what Jesus did on the cross and how we actually live? The Penal Substitution view makes it seem like the real issue in need of resolution is a legal matter in the heavenly realms between God’s holy wrath and our sin. Christ’s death changes how God sees us, but this theory says nothing about how Christ’s death changes us. This is particularly concerning to me because every study done on the subject has demonstrated that for the majority of Americans who believe in Jesus, their belief makes little or no impact on their life. I wonder if the dominance of this legal-transaction view of the atonement might be partly responsible for this tragic state of affairs.

To me, these are all serious problems with the Penal Substitution view of the atonement. I do not deny that Jesus died as our substitute or even that it was God’s will to “crush and bruise” him (Isa 53:10). But we don’t need to imagine that the Father vented his wrath against sin on Jesus to make sense of these facts. One can (and I think should) rather see this as the Father offering up his Son to the principalities and powers to be bruised and crushed in our place, for this unsurpassable expression of self-sacrificial love is what was needed to destroy the devil and his works and to thus set humans free, reconciling them to the Father.reknew.org

hope this helps !!!

These all appear in the OP as option #1. I've not tried to sort out theology options to explain the way Christ's death covers our sins. Or I have not sorted the ideas into theological options.

 

[Dizerner]

These all appear in the OP as option #1. I've not tried to sort out theology options to explain the way Christ's death covers our sins. Or I have not sorted the ideas into theological options.

Do you think Christ suffered what your sins deserve on your behalf?

You don't need technical terms here.

 

[civic]

Did you even read your own post, honestly?

If Jesus didn't come to suffer what our sins deserved, you have created another Gospel, you have denied Scripture.

He nailed our sins to that Cross!

suffering is not the same as wrath from Father to Son. Of course Jesus suffered for our sins by the hands of wicked men.

 

[Dizerner]

suffering is not the same as wrath from Father to Son. Of course Jesus suffered for our sins by the hands of wicked men.

And what suffering does your sins deserve?

 

[civic]

And what suffering does your sins deserve?

Hell for all eternity and yours ?

 

[Dizerner]

Hell for all eternity and yours ?

The same.

And an infinite being can experience in finite time, what a finite being can experience infinitely.

That's how Jesus can take our hell for us.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

And what suffering does your sins deserve?

I deserve the kind and extent of suffering that God thinks I need to not commit those sins again.
Punishment is an expression of God's justice and love for the sinner. "Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline" (Rev 3:19)

God punishes the sinner as a father punishes his son.

So, for those who think "God is Love, BUT God also is just" I want to remind them that there is no such "BUT".
God's attributes are not in opposition. It is not that God is loving despite being just, or just despite being loving.

Mercy is not in opposition of justice. It is fully compatible with justice.
By the same token, punishment is not in opposition to love. It is fully compatible with love.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Hell for all eternity and yours ?

I deserve the kind and extent of suffering that God thinks I need to not commit those sins again.

 

[Dizerner]

So, for those who think "God is Love, BUT God also is just" I want to remind them that there is no such "BUT".
God's attributes are not in opposition. It is not that God is loving despite being just, or just despite being loving.

If one loves a criminal, and one loves justices, one does not always love carrying out justice.

Them's just the breaks.

If one does not love justice, then no crime will need to be punished—it just follows.

So what we see is, if God were actually someone who loved justice and mercy, he needs a just way to show mercy.

And the only solution for that left would be a way to punish the crime while sparing the criminal.

Thus we have the picture of Jesus on the Cross bearing the sins of the world.

I explain here how denial of PSA denies the essential attribute of God's justice and hatred for sin:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/my-full-defense-of-psa.2280/unread

Mercy is not in opposition of justice. It is fully compatible with justice.

To let the criminal go free does necessarily violate justice, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

A judge who rewards a serial rapist instead of punishing him, cannot be said to love justice, cannot be a just judge.

By the same token, punishment is not in opposition to love. It is fully compatible with love.

It is a loving thing to punish evil things.

Because love cannot love sin, it does not rejoice in wrongs done.

 

[Dizerner]

Good explanation the seriousness of sin in regards to PSA.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

And an infinite being can experience in finite time, what a finite being can experience infinitely.

1. There is no biblical support for the idea that God experienced death (let alone afterlife suffering, guilt, shame, horror, etc.)
2. Whatever we think of Jesus' nature, his death and suffering were part of his human experience... just as hunger, bleeding, etc.
3. The statement is also a logical fallacy, since a finite being cannot have an infinite experience of any kind.

The argument has been refuted.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

If one loves a criminal, and one loves justices, one does not always love carrying out justice.

Them's just the breaks.

If one does not love justice, then no crime will need to be punished—it just follows.

So what we see is, if God were actually someone who loved justice and mercy, he needs a just way to show mercy.
And the only solution for that left would be a way to punish the crime while sparing the criminal.

Punishing a crime is not possible. God punishes the criminal. It is the criminal the focus of God.
Same thing with rewards. God does not reward holiness.. God rewards holy men.

Punishing an innocent for the crime committed by the guilty is far from being a solution: it is injust, and to boot, no merciful.
That’s why Jesus never taught that God forgave us by punishing an innocent.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

To let the criminal go free does necessarily violate justice, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

That’s not true.
First, Justice includes the possibility of the victim to drop the charges.
When the King forgave his servant, in the parable presented by Jesus, was the king violating the Law?

Second, forgiveness is conditional to a genuine repentance that includes fruits of repentance. So, if the murderer is set free, it is because there is evidence that he will not keep murdering. God does not get tricked by the wicked. The wicked trick themselves.

Third, nobody is claming that mercy implies erasing consequences, altering reality or making time run backwards. Our choices matter. Otherwise we would not learn anything from the process. What I destroyed by my stupidity is gone. Hell exists and is painful. Sin hurts.

 

[Dizerner]

When the King forgave his servant, in the parable presented by Jesus, was the king violating the Law?

He would have to be, right? He could CHANGE his laws, but otherwise he is VIOLATING them. Only possibilities.

Now the Bible (which you claim is inspired but factually false which makes no sense), says God's Law never changes.

Second, forgiveness is conditional to a genuine repentance that includes fruits of repentance. So, if the murderer is set free, it is because there is evidence that he will not keep murdering. God does not get tricked by the wicked. The wicked trick themselves.

You do not see a judge letting a murderer or rapist go on the promise of good behavior—they have to PAY for their crimes.

If you do not enact a law against the evilness of a crime, you are being PERMISSIVE and ENABLING towards evil.

It is also DEVALUING and DISRESPECTFUL towards moral purity and holiness.

Third, nobody is claming that mercy implies erasing consequences, altering reality or making time run backwards. Our choices matter. Otherwise we would not learn anything from the process. What I destroyed by my stupidity is gone. Hell exists and is painful. Sin hurts.

Hell does exist, friend, and you should take it far more seriously than you currently are. In fact, the Holy Spirit sent me back to this forum just to witness to you. You may have noticed I was previously here and recently came back. There is a reason I left and will most likely leave again. Now, God must have wanted to speak something to you to help you understand the truth, and you are resisting him for a false demonic version of a "god" that pleases your selfish nature. It may make you feel pious and self-righteous, but you are a sinner, and morally filthy to God.

I would—do so much to convince you of your imminent danger, and the reckless and thoughtless waste of life your pride is producing. My heart weeps that such a sensitive soul would not humble itself before its Maker, and that I will never see you again in the heavenly realms of the afterlife because you have rejected the One and Only Way to the Father. I don't get paid for the prayers and time invested in you and these lost souls on this forum, I am not doing it just to feel good about myself and put other people down. I actually deeply care for your souls.

I know I have to respect free will made in the image of God. I know some people just hate God for who he is, and refuse to accept him.

But it still breaks my heart, and I always hold out the shred of hope that a sinner will come to his senses, as I have by the mercy of God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

He could CHANGE his laws, but otherwise he is VIOLATING them. Only possibilities.

The king of the parable was not violating any law. Did Jesus spoke of the King as if he were a law violator?
Let me know what you think.

God's Law never changes.

That’s true.. and Mercy does not need any change in the law. Justice allows mercy to operate. Have you forgiven anyone in your life? I know you have. Did you violate the law by showing mercy?

You do not see a judge letting a murderer or rapist go on the promise of good behavior—they have to PAY for their crimes.

I didn’t say “promise”. I said “evidence”.
Who in this Forum believes that God can’t tell the difference between genuine and fake repentance?

If you do not enact a law against the evilness of a crime, you are being PERMISSIVE and ENABLING towards evil.

I agree. God won’t let that happen. He’s wise enough.
If were wise enough to know when to punish our kids, He will know infinitey better.

It is also DEVALUING and DISRESPECTFUL towards moral purity and holiness.

I agree. I believe in justice and punishment.

Hell does exist, friend,

I agree

and you should take it far more seriously than you currently are.

I take it very seriously. Hell is painful, Sin hurts. “ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” Hebrews 10:31

In fact, the Holy Spirit sent me back to this forum just to witness to you. You may have noticed I was previously here and recently came back. There is a reason I left and will most likely leave again. Now, God must have wanted to speak something to you to help you understand the truth, and you are resisting him for a false demonic version of a "god" that pleases your selfish nature. It may make you feel pious and self-righteous, but you are a sinner, and morally filthy to God.

Dizerner: You are a temple of the Holy Spirit. God has turned you as white as snow, and given you a new heart.

I would—do so much to convince you of your imminent danger,

Thanks for your honesty. Let me share with you what I think about you: You are not in danger, Dizerner. You are safe in the arms of Jesus.

and the reckless and thoughtless waste of life your pride is producing.

Your life has not been wasted, Dizerner and your humbleness before God is evident. Praise be to Him, The Giver.

My heart weeps that such a sensitive soul would not humble itself before its Maker, and that I will never see you again in the heavenly realms of the afterlife because you have rejected the One and Only Way to the Father.

To be honesto My heart does not weep for you: I am sure you are and will be in paradise, enjoying the love and peace of God and the company of his Christ. Whatever debates we have had or may have in the future, it does not alter the peace and joy of knowing I will meet you in paradise, if not before in Mexico City

I don't get paid for the prayers and time invested in you and these lost souls on this forum, I am not doing it just to feel good about myself and put other people down. I actually deeply care for your souls.

You care about our souls because you love us… and I thank you sincerely for that love.

I know I have to respect free will made in the image of God. I know some people just hate God for who he is, and refuse to accept him.
But it still breaks my heart, and I always hold out the shred of hope that a sinner will come to his senses, as I have by the mercy of God.

That hope your talking about comes from the Holy Spirit, that whispers to your heart that nobody is lost enough for God.
I appreciate your words and truly value your broken heart.
Please accept my apologies for the harsh, arrogant or stupid things Ive said that could have hurt you.