civic
Well-known member
Get these behind me the false god of PSA
PSA in the early Christian church
- Thread starter Dizerner
- Start date
Foster
New member
PSA, let’s look at its origin. If the Apostles taught PSA they did a really poor job since none of their successors talked about it before the Reformation. Anselm of Canterbury (11th century) laid the framework.
We see a very real development of penal substitutionary atonement theory in John Calvin. Calvin took Anselm’s groundwork and expanded in an even more legalistic way. He applied his understanding of criminal law to the equation.
We see a very real development of penal substitutionary atonement theory in John Calvin. Calvin took Anselm’s groundwork and expanded in an even more legalistic way. He applied his understanding of criminal law to the equation.
Dizerner
Well-known member
This is two errors.
The first as the original post proves is many people did directly teach PSA before Anselm, and it's a lie propagated on the internet that Anselm or Calvin were somehow the first. Please take time to actually read the post before you just spam on it.
The second fallacy is, whether anyone believes what the Apostles wrote is not connected to how well they wrote it, that's a non sequitur. According to you Isaiah "did a really poor job" because none of the Jews expected or accepted Jesus.
civic
Well-known member
They never taught it or hinted at PSA. Jesus never did either. It’s nothing but a fallacious argument with the doctrine known as PSA.
At best it’s an argument from silence
Dizerner
Well-known member
See you at the Judgment Seat (if you actually do accept Christ suffered for your sins, otherwise very sadly, not).
I'm not looking just to be right, I'm honestly actually too scared thinking about it, there won't be any sass on that day anywhere.
civic
Well-known member
It’s nowhere in the Bible where the Father gives to the Son His wrath, anger, retribution, vengeance, retaliation, justice etc …..,
A phantom doctrine invented by the traditions of men apart from Gods word , the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Sons own testimony and teachings on His atonement.
Next fallacy
hope this helps !!!
Foster
New member
I didn't say a thing about Isaiah. A post on an internet forum does not prove anything. I have the right to share my span just like you share yours.
The point is the Apostles did not teach PSA.
Affinity
Member
The real danger in talking of Jesus satisfying God’s wrath is that we separate the actions of the Trinity in the cross. It appears to portray loving Jesus saving us from an angry God who metes out his punishment upon the innocent.
I think we should see in the open arms of Jesus a welcome by a loving Father, who no longer counts our sin against us—it is from our sin and its consequences that Jesus saves us, rather than from a hateful God.
I think we should see in the open arms of Jesus a welcome by a loving Father, who no longer counts our sin against us—it is from our sin and its consequences that Jesus saves us, rather than from a hateful God.
Johann
Well-known member
Correct you are-we all have a right to voice our opinions, and welcome to the forum @Foster
Let's see--your assertion that Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) was invented by Anselm of Canterbury or Calvin is historically, exegetically, and theologically false.
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), the Greek New Testament, and the earliest Apostolic Fathers all testify to penal substitution - centuries before Anselm (11th c.) or Calvin (16th c.).
1. Scriptural Witness (Hebrew and Greek)
Old Testament (Hebrew)
Isaiah 53:5
וְהוּא מְחֹלָל מִפְּשָׁעֵנוּ מְדֻכָּא מֵעֲוֹנֹתֵינוּ
"But he was pierced [מְחֹלָל mecholal, Pual participle] for our transgressions, crushed [מְדֻכָּא medukka, Pual participle] for our iniquities."
Passive forms show that the Servant suffers not for His own guilt, but for others.
Isaiah 53:6
וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ
"And YHWH has laid on him [הִפְגִּיעַ hipgiaʿ, Hiphil perfect] the iniquity of us all."
The causative verb explicitly states that YHWH caused our sins to meet upon Him.
Leviticus 17:11
כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר
"For the blood makes atonement [יְכַפֵּר yekhapper, Piel imperfect] by the life."
Blood sacrifice is necessary for atonement; life is given for life.
New Testament (Greek)
1 Peter 2:24
ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον
"Who himself bore [ἀνήνεγκεν anenēnken, aorist active] our sins in His body on the tree."
Christ bore sins judicially, not merely symbolically.
Romans 3:25
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι
"Whom God publicly displayed [προέθετο proetheto, aorist middle] as a propitiation [ἱλαστήριον hilastērion] through faith in His blood."
Propitiation necessarily involves the turning away of divine wrath through sacrifice.
2 Corinthians 5:21
τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν
"For he made [ἐποίησεν epoiēsen, aorist active] him to be sin for us, who knew no sin."
Christ was judicially treated as sin or a sin-offering (cf. LXX usage in Leviticus).
2. Early Apostolic and Patristic Witness (Pre-Augustinian)
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) — Letter to the Ephesians 18.1
"By His suffering He might purify the water."
Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) — Dialogue with Trypho 94
"He endured suffering and punishment for the human race... He became a curse for us."
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD) — Against Heresies 5.1.1
"He took upon Himself the burden of the sins of all men, and for them suffered punishment."
These quotations show clear understanding of Christ’s suffering in substitutionary and penal terms, centuries before Anselm or Calvin.
@Dizerner
Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is not a medieval invention but is deeply rooted in:
the Hebrew sacrificial system and prophetic writings,
the apostolic teaching of the New Testament,
and the earliest Christian tradition immediately following the apostles.
The verbs מְחֹלָל (mecholal), מְדֻכָּא (medukka), הִפְגִּיעַ (hipgiaʿ), יְכַפֵּר (yekhapper), ἀνήνεγκεν (anenēnken), προέθετο (proetheto), and ἐποίησεν (epoiēsen) demonstrate a clear pattern:
God's Servant bears sin, is punished for it, and through His death atones for His people.
Thus, PSA is thoroughly Biblical, apostolic, and ancient - not a product of the Reformation.
Shalom to you and family.
Not here to argue or impose upon you to believe what I believe Scripture is actually saying--too many "voices" in the garden.
Johann.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Ugh, you did not follow the logic of anything I said and accused me something I never even mentioned.
Firstly, I never say "you cannot post here," that was NOT my criticism.
Your reading comprehension is terrible and you did not follow the logic of anything I said.
The point is the Apostles DID teach PSA and all of your arguments are faulty and illogical.
Dizerner
Well-known member
YES IT IS and I've shown it a thousand times so stop lying.
Christ suffered the curse of the Law which is the wrath of God.
Proven a thousand times over here and all there is empty assertions over and over with no substance.
Foster
New member
@Johann
Thanks for the warm welcome and no problem as you are definitely entitled to you opinion.
1. Don’t Break Up the Trinity
One common mistake is to speak as if the cross momentarily divided the Trinity. We sing rich hymns with lines like “the Father turned his face away” and mistakenly gain the impression that, on the cross, God unleashed his judgment on Jesus in such a way that ontologically separated the Father from the Son. This suggests a split in the being of the eternal, unchangeable, perfect life of Father, Son, and Spirit.
Thanks for the warm welcome and no problem as you are definitely entitled to you opinion.
1. Don’t Break Up the Trinity
One common mistake is to speak as if the cross momentarily divided the Trinity. We sing rich hymns with lines like “the Father turned his face away” and mistakenly gain the impression that, on the cross, God unleashed his judgment on Jesus in such a way that ontologically separated the Father from the Son. This suggests a split in the being of the eternal, unchangeable, perfect life of Father, Son, and Spirit.
Glad to hear it. Now go bug someone else.
Dizerner
Well-known member
No, it is NOT a danger to see that sin makes God angry and wrathful, and that our sin put Jesus on the Cross to die in our place.
You are gravely, gravely mistaken.
The wrath of God is against all ungodliness, it is not "karma" that punishes our sins.
If God were permissive love that doesn't care about sin, he wouldn't even bother to have Jesus tortured and die for sins.
That does not compute.
The CORE of the Gospel is being betrayed by a lot of Christians these days, showing their walk has no fear of God.
Dizerner
Well-known member
No, you arrogantly posted nonsense in MY thread and I will be free to address it.
If you or the moderators don't like that freedom, then ban me.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Also for the one thousandth time there is no ontological separation, the logic does not demand it.
It's a relation separation.
God exists IN HELL sinners are not "separated" from God.
OK Gentlemen, lets tone this down a bit ok. No one is getting banned. Let's just treat each other with respect.
Johann
Well-known member
Before anyone gets the wrong impression that there is only PSA (the Propitiation view) and nothing else, there does exist the Expiation view of the Atonement that is definitely supported by the Greek OT and the Greek NT. I don't know about the Hebrew DSS as my Hebrew is non-existent. Here is a study I did a while ago on the Atonement and whether it was an Expiation (the acts and offerings for atoning for sins/guilts/trespasses) or a Propitiation (the appeasing of a deity) :
Is Christ the Propitiation or the Expiation concerning the sins of the whole world?
Same verses, different translations of the Greek word ἱλασμός (hilasmos):
1 John 2:2 (KJV) "And He is the Propitiation concerning our sins, and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the sins of all the world."
1 John 2:2 (RSV) "And He is the Expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
What exactly is the correct translation of the Greek word ἱλασμός (hilasmos) from the Greek Koine NT? Is it propitiation (appeasing of a deity) or is it an expiation (the acts and offerings for atoning for sins/guilts/trespasses)? The issue at stake here is whether or not God is wrathful/angry at us and must be appeased in order to change his disposition toward us.
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament calls the Hebrew equivalent of ἱλασμός as “make an atonement, make a reconciliation, purge.” In Philo and other Greek Jewish literature it means “atonement” or “sin offering.” Both cases fall on the side of Expiation, not the appeasing of a deity.
In fact propitiation, is derived from Classic Greek writings such as Plutarch, who used it to mean “conciliate” or “a means of appeasing”. This occurred about 500 years before Christ, too long ago to justify such a translation!
Also, if we look at the uses of hilasmos (ἱλασμός) in the KJV OT nowhere does ἱλασμός translate to propitiation. These are: Ezekiel 44:27 (“sin offering”), Leviticus 25:9 (“atonement”), Numbers 5:8 (“guilt offering”), Amos 8:14 (“guilt or trespass offering”), Daniel 9:9 (“forgiveness”). The use of hilasmos on the LXX also supports understanding it as atonement and sacrifice for sins, something which changes us and brings about forgiveness, not something which changes God’s disposition toward us.
Many lexicons and linguistic dictionaries by Protestants assume hilasmos means propitiation, but this is reading their doctrine into a Greek word rather than stating what the word meant in first century Koine Greek.
Historically, why was Propitiation so readily accepted by the Christian masses? That's because that idea was born within a forensic legalistic culture foreign to the Biblical authors, and is something which is read into the text. The Biblical atonement is not a legal act, but a cosmic and ontological one which purifies from sin and reunites humanity with God. There is no legal dilemma if not all are saved yet Christ died for all. God was not punishing Christ on the cross and the punishment of hell is a self-imposed punishment of separation from God by those who do not wish to know Him. God’s judgment is simply the sinner affirming his choice to reject Divine Love.
Propitiation is not consistent with the statements of Romans 5:8 and 1 John 4:9-10 in that God was already well-disposed towards us and for that reason reconciled us to Himself through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. An atonement for cleansing and forgiving sins fits 1 John 1:10-2:2 which is focused on cleansing from sin and ongoing purification through Christ’s Blood, not any questions of legal standing and certainly not a need to earn God’s favor as if there were ever a time He did not look at us favorably.
First John 4:10 says, “In this is Love, not that we loved God, but He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos) for our sins.” Again, hilasmos here means atoning sacrifice or expiation. It was out of God’s love that God died for us, and it was we who needed to be changed, our wills and dispositions needed to be renewed. There is no hint in the whole context that God was angry at us and punished His Son in our place.
The Cross is the place where atonement was made to reconcile humanity which had turned away from God to the God Who never turned away from us. The atonement justifies, cleanses, redeems, and ransoms. Through the atonement God substitutes for us as He takes death on Himself, death is destroyed, and all will be raised at the Last Day (Judgment Day).
Because God is already favorably disposed towards those for whom Christ died, since His favor is why He provided the atonement in the first place, the interpretation of the word hilasmos as propitiation can be rejected. Christ died as a sacrifice of atonement, to purify us and the creation. He did not die to appease God or bear wrath.
In the final analysis, the penal substitute theory presents God as a Legalistic Judge who demands repayment of debt in order to show mercy. This is not forgiveness nor mercy but retribution.
Conclusion: Propitiation, the appeasing of an irate Deity by offering Him a sacrifice which bears the weight of His wrath may be acceptable in Islam or paganism but it has no place in Christianity.
Last edited:
