dermdoc said:
https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/
#3 for me!lobopride said:
#5 for the W
You are welcome. It is interesting.88Warrior said:dermdoc said:
https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/
Thanks for sharing. Interesting read.
lobopride said:
#5 for the W
dermdoc said:#3 for me!lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Quote:
We venerate thine immaculate icon, O good One, and ask forgiveness of our transgressions, O Christ our God; for of thine own good will thou wast pleased to ascend the cross in the flesh, that thou mightest deliver those whom thou hast fashioned from bondage to the enemy. Wherefore, we cry aloud unto thee with thanksgiving: Thou hast filled all things with joy, O our Saviour, for thou didst come to save the world.
dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Mostly Peaceful said:dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.
Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.
1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.
I don't believe God killed Jesus, nor have I ever heard a proponent of PSA describe it that way. I'm as responsible for the death of Jesus as anyone.dermdoc said:Mostly Peaceful said:dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.
Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.
1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Agree. I disagree that God did the killing due to His wrath. Not compatible with God's character in my opinion. And not confirmed by Scripture. There is no Scripture that says God killed Jesus.
And the early church certainly did not teach that. It was unknown until the Reformation.
Satan and evil men killed Jesus in my opinion. Not God.
This link says it better than me.Mostly Peaceful said:I don't believe God killed Jesus, nor have I ever heard a proponent of PSA describe it that way. I'm as responsible for the death of Jesus as anyone.dermdoc said:Mostly Peaceful said:dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.
Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.
1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Agree. I disagree that God did the killing due to His wrath. Not compatible with God's character in my opinion. And not confirmed by Scripture. There is no Scripture that says God killed Jesus.
And the early church certainly did not teach that. It was unknown until the Reformation.
Satan and evil men killed Jesus in my opinion. Not God.
I take damned to mean sent to hell. If that is what Piper meant here I would wholeheartedly disagree, but it's hard to tell without any context and the link to the blog post this guy refers to is broken. I did find a different post where he says essentially the same thing, "he was damned for us" and the context there is that Jesus took the wrath of God on our behalf. That I do agree with and see clearly supported by Scripture.dermdoc said:This link says it better than me.Mostly Peaceful said:I don't believe God killed Jesus, nor have I ever heard a proponent of PSA describe it that way. I'm as responsible for the death of Jesus as anyone.dermdoc said:Mostly Peaceful said:dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.
Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.
1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Agree. I disagree that God did the killing due to His wrath. Not compatible with God's character in my opinion. And not confirmed by Scripture. There is no Scripture that says God killed Jesus.
And the early church certainly did not teach that. It was unknown until the Reformation.
Satan and evil men killed Jesus in my opinion. Not God.
https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-piper-says-jesus-was-damned-in-our.html
I agree!BusterAg said:
Thanks for sharing this. So much depth behind each of these. Multiple life-times worth of work spent by very Godly men exploring each of these, but this page is so accessible. Very neat source.
1) I don't find that these are all mutually exclusive. It is probable, in my opinion, that the truth is likely some mix of most if not all of these.
2) The entire subject is so full of paradox that the full truth is likely inconceivable to mortal, temporal man.
3) Getting the "model" of atonement "right" is not really all that important, in my opinion. There are clear facts about atonement that are easy to understand and irrefutable (from a theological perspective anyways). The critical aspects are that man was lost to sin without the sacrifice of Jesus, and through Jesus' sacrifice, man is saved. The "how stuff works" explanation of why is not nearly as important as the fact that it does work.
4) I would add that I am hesitant to limit God's power to saying that Jesus' sacrifice was the only way that God was capable in bringing salvation to man. When Jesus heals the paralytic man, he tells the man that his sins are forgiven. When Jesus sends out the apostles, he gives the apostles the authority to forgive sins in his name. I find it dangerous to believe that the only reason that Jesus was able to say these things is due to his pending death. It puts a limit on God's power, which I am uncomfortable doing. Arguments like "this is the only way that the story of atonement makes sense" has the effect of putting God in a box in order to make him conceivable to our limited, rational mind. I fully believe that Jesus had the power to forgive sins while he walked on the earth. He tells us this directly.
However it works, thank you Jesus and thank you God for providing us with salvation that works!
I agree with the view of this link.Mostly Peaceful said:I take damned to mean sent to hell. If that is what Piper meant here I would wholeheartedly disagree, but it's hard to tell without any context and the link to the blog post this guy refers to is broken. I did find a different post where he says essentially the same thing, "he was damned for us" and the context there is that Jesus took the wrath of God on our behalf. That I do agree with and see clearly supported by Scripture.dermdoc said:This link says it better than me.Mostly Peaceful said:I don't believe God killed Jesus, nor have I ever heard a proponent of PSA describe it that way. I'm as responsible for the death of Jesus as anyone.dermdoc said:Mostly Peaceful said:dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.
Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.
1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Agree. I disagree that God did the killing due to His wrath. Not compatible with God's character in my opinion. And not confirmed by Scripture. There is no Scripture that says God killed Jesus.
And the early church certainly did not teach that. It was unknown until the Reformation.
Satan and evil men killed Jesus in my opinion. Not God.
https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-piper-says-jesus-was-damned-in-our.html
dermdoc said:#3 for me!lobopride said:
#5 for the W
I don't think I agree with that. God is bound only by Himself, but part of His nature is perfect justice. We see Him bind Himself with the various covenants of scripture. Once He makes a covenant, He is bound by His own perfect justice to fulfill it.Zobel said:
God is not bound by necessity or justice.
then His justice is truly God. I think you run into the limit of cataphatic theology here.Quote:
He is bound by His own perfect justice to fulfill it.
yeah i don't follow this at all. God's love for mankind is neither increased or decreased by mankind's response to that love. it may be revealed when people hate him, but in no way does it change. And this last sentence seems extremely suspect.Quote:
God's love is maximized by people hating Him, and that hatred also introduces all the evil and suffering in the world. Therefore, God's love directly leads to misery for many of those He loves at least temporarily.
Lord of Spirits did a great takedown of PSA in the midst of explaining the early church position. Thesis: Saying you believe Jesus died on behalf of our sins doesn't equate to the full definition of PSA. PSA belief requires that the Father turned his back on Christ on the cross when Christ took on the sins of the world. This is, of course, hogwash and destroys the trinity as well as misunderstands the power of Christ over death as death has no claim on Christ. It also misinterprets Psalm 22 ("My God, My God why have you forsaken me" Is the start of Psalm 22 beginning the reign of the Messiah. Not that the Father has turned his back on Christ.)Mostly Peaceful said:dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.
Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.
1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.
It's not that the love is increased or decreased by the reaction. The act itself of loving someone who hates you is fundamentally different than loving someone who loves you. In all the verses in the Gospels referencing this, people who love those who hate them are specifically called children of the most High. So those who do this are most like God Himself. We can also break it down a bit. Love reciprocated is love rewarded. It is certainly possible to love someone for selfish reasons such as the desire to be loved in return. However, loving someone who hates you gets you nothing in return, and is a less selfish love. So loving those who hate you is a qualitatively more selfless act than loving those who love you.Quote:
yeah i don't follow this at all. God's love for mankind is neither increased or decreased by mankind's response to that love. it may be revealed when people hate him, but in no way does it change. And this last sentence seems extremely suspect.
So what would my position be if I believe things like He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, and that it was the will of the Lord to crush Him as it says in Isaiah 53? Or He made Him to be sin who knew no sin in, He bore our sins on the tree, He became a curse for us, and that He was sent by God to be the propitiation for our sins.one MEEN Ag said:Lord of Spirits did a great takedown of PSA in the midst of explaining the early church position. Thesis: Saying you believe Jesus died on behalf of our sins doesn't equate to the full definition of PSA. PSA belief requires that the Father turned his back on Christ on the cross when Christ took on the sins of the world. This is, of course, hogwash and destroys the trinity as well as misunderstands the power of Christ over death as death has no claim on Christ. It also misinterprets Psalm 22 ("My God, My God why have you forsaken me" Is the start of Psalm 22 beginning the reign of the Messiah. Not that the Father has turned his back on Christ.)Mostly Peaceful said:dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.
Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.
1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/every_stick_of_wood_in_the_old_testament/
Remember the goats on the day of Atonement. Both are perfect. On one goat the sins of Israel are placed on it and it is cast out of the camp. It is taking the sins back to the Azazel (satan) by being cast out of the camp. The other goat is killed (no ritualization of the killing itself, the goat is offered as a sacrifice) and its blood is sprinkled throughout the holiest of holies to cleanse it of sins.
Did the goat become sinful by taking on the sins or was it just the vehicle to return sin to its originator? The Azezel goat is still blameless, but it is carrying the sins of Israel. Christ is the same. He did not become sinful but carried the sins to its original creator as he gave up his human body and went to Hades.
Jesus's physical flesh was pierced for transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. God became man and suffered the most tortuous of deaths. He gave up his spirit, and in old testament speak everything that dies on a tree shall be cursed. I'll do you one more, he was sent out of the city to die, he was exiled. Also curses of the old testament. Jesus is both goats of the Day of Atonement.Mostly Peaceful said:So what would my position be if I believe things like He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, and that it was the will of the Lord to crush Him as it says in Isaiah 53? Or He made Him to be sin who knew no sin in, He bore our sins on the tree, He became a curse for us, and that He was sent by God to be the propitiation for our sins.one MEEN Ag said:Lord of Spirits did a great takedown of PSA in the midst of explaining the early church position. Thesis: Saying you believe Jesus died on behalf of our sins doesn't equate to the full definition of PSA. PSA belief requires that the Father turned his back on Christ on the cross when Christ took on the sins of the world. This is, of course, hogwash and destroys the trinity as well as misunderstands the power of Christ over death as death has no claim on Christ. It also misinterprets Psalm 22 ("My God, My God why have you forsaken me" Is the start of Psalm 22 beginning the reign of the Messiah. Not that the Father has turned his back on Christ.)Mostly Peaceful said:dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.
Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.
1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/every_stick_of_wood_in_the_old_testament/
Remember the goats on the day of Atonement. Both are perfect. On one goat the sins of Israel are placed on it and it is cast out of the camp. It is taking the sins back to the Azazel (satan) by being cast out of the camp. The other goat is killed (no ritualization of the killing itself, the goat is offered as a sacrifice) and its blood is sprinkled throughout the holiest of holies to cleanse it of sins.
Did the goat become sinful by taking on the sins or was it just the vehicle to return sin to its originator? The Azezel goat is still blameless, but it is carrying the sins of Israel. Christ is the same. He did not become sinful but carried the sins to its original creator as he gave up his human body and went to Hades.
The way I have understood PSA is that Jesus paid the penalty for my sins by dying in my place. If that isn't PSA, which theory of atonement would it be?
As I stated earlier in the thread, my theory of atonement isn't limited to PSA. I'm a believer in CV as well. I do agree, however, that I don't have a full view of Christ, the cross, and all that entailed. Working on that daily.one MEEN Ag said:Jesus's physical flesh was pierced for transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. God became man and suffered the most tortuous of deaths. He gave up his spirit, and in old testament speak everything that dies on a tree shall be cursed. I'll do you one more, he was sent out of the city to die, he was exiled. Also curses of the old testament. Jesus is both goats of the Day of Atonement.Mostly Peaceful said:So what would my position be if I believe things like He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, and that it was the will of the Lord to crush Him as it says in Isaiah 53? Or He made Him to be sin who knew no sin in, He bore our sins on the tree, He became a curse for us, and that He was sent by God to be the propitiation for our sins.one MEEN Ag said:Lord of Spirits did a great takedown of PSA in the midst of explaining the early church position. Thesis: Saying you believe Jesus died on behalf of our sins doesn't equate to the full definition of PSA. PSA belief requires that the Father turned his back on Christ on the cross when Christ took on the sins of the world. This is, of course, hogwash and destroys the trinity as well as misunderstands the power of Christ over death as death has no claim on Christ. It also misinterprets Psalm 22 ("My God, My God why have you forsaken me" Is the start of Psalm 22 beginning the reign of the Messiah. Not that the Father has turned his back on Christ.)Mostly Peaceful said:dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.
Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.
1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/every_stick_of_wood_in_the_old_testament/
Remember the goats on the day of Atonement. Both are perfect. On one goat the sins of Israel are placed on it and it is cast out of the camp. It is taking the sins back to the Azazel (satan) by being cast out of the camp. The other goat is killed (no ritualization of the killing itself, the goat is offered as a sacrifice) and its blood is sprinkled throughout the holiest of holies to cleanse it of sins.
Did the goat become sinful by taking on the sins or was it just the vehicle to return sin to its originator? The Azezel goat is still blameless, but it is carrying the sins of Israel. Christ is the same. He did not become sinful but carried the sins to its original creator as he gave up his human body and went to Hades.
The way I have understood PSA is that Jesus paid the penalty for my sins by dying in my place. If that isn't PSA, which theory of atonement would it be?
But these physical tolls do not surmount to A) God the father turning his back on the son. That would destroy the trinity and the single nature of God. That Jesus, when bearing these sins and returning them to their originator (satan) that he became sinful. That can't be. Jesus's life on this earth is Him showed that death has no claim on Him, thats why unclean places become clean in His presence. That he can heal and forgive sins. The stain of sin does not rub off on Christ like it does to us, he cleans everything he touches with His presence. Christ died a humiliating, excruciating death to redeem every last part of mankind's fallen nature to sin. During Christ's passion the soldiers who killed Christ, the jews who demanded he die, and the disciples who abandoned Christ are all forgiven of their sins of participation if they choose to repent.
I would say you just have a less than full view of Christ, the cross, and how Jesus fulfilled the role of bearing our sins. Its protestant centric, but that is not PSA as it was coming hot off the press by John Calvin. PSA requires God turning his back on the son, destroying the trinity and giving Christ over to Satan even though Satan had no claim on Him, and then the Father restoring Him.
This is why the orthodox church says Christ broke down the gates of Hades. Hades did not take Christ as a captive as satan can for anyone else who has sinned.
The point I am trying to make is that Penal Substitionary Atonement is basically a 'Trademarked' term that describes original Calvinist thought. What I am describing is what Calvin describes. His original definition demands what I have said it demands.Mostly Peaceful said:As I stated earlier in the thread, my theory of atonement isn't limited to PSA. I'm a believer in CV as well. I do agree, however, that I don't have a full view of Christ, the cross, and all that entailed. Working on that daily.one MEEN Ag said:Jesus's physical flesh was pierced for transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. God became man and suffered the most tortuous of deaths. He gave up his spirit, and in old testament speak everything that dies on a tree shall be cursed. I'll do you one more, he was sent out of the city to die, he was exiled. Also curses of the old testament. Jesus is both goats of the Day of Atonement.Mostly Peaceful said:So what would my position be if I believe things like He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, and that it was the will of the Lord to crush Him as it says in Isaiah 53? Or He made Him to be sin who knew no sin in, He bore our sins on the tree, He became a curse for us, and that He was sent by God to be the propitiation for our sins.one MEEN Ag said:Lord of Spirits did a great takedown of PSA in the midst of explaining the early church position. Thesis: Saying you believe Jesus died on behalf of our sins doesn't equate to the full definition of PSA. PSA belief requires that the Father turned his back on Christ on the cross when Christ took on the sins of the world. This is, of course, hogwash and destroys the trinity as well as misunderstands the power of Christ over death as death has no claim on Christ. It also misinterprets Psalm 22 ("My God, My God why have you forsaken me" Is the start of Psalm 22 beginning the reign of the Messiah. Not that the Father has turned his back on Christ.)Mostly Peaceful said:dermdoc said:lobopride said:
#5 for the W
Honest confession
How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?
And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?
Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.
Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.
1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/every_stick_of_wood_in_the_old_testament/
Remember the goats on the day of Atonement. Both are perfect. On one goat the sins of Israel are placed on it and it is cast out of the camp. It is taking the sins back to the Azazel (satan) by being cast out of the camp. The other goat is killed (no ritualization of the killing itself, the goat is offered as a sacrifice) and its blood is sprinkled throughout the holiest of holies to cleanse it of sins.
Did the goat become sinful by taking on the sins or was it just the vehicle to return sin to its originator? The Azezel goat is still blameless, but it is carrying the sins of Israel. Christ is the same. He did not become sinful but carried the sins to its original creator as he gave up his human body and went to Hades.
The way I have understood PSA is that Jesus paid the penalty for my sins by dying in my place. If that isn't PSA, which theory of atonement would it be?
But these physical tolls do not surmount to A) God the father turning his back on the son. That would destroy the trinity and the single nature of God. That Jesus, when bearing these sins and returning them to their originator (satan) that he became sinful. That can't be. Jesus's life on this earth is Him showed that death has no claim on Him, thats why unclean places become clean in His presence. That he can heal and forgive sins. The stain of sin does not rub off on Christ like it does to us, he cleans everything he touches with His presence. Christ died a humiliating, excruciating death to redeem every last part of mankind's fallen nature to sin. During Christ's passion the soldiers who killed Christ, the jews who demanded he die, and the disciples who abandoned Christ are all forgiven of their sins of participation if they choose to repent.
I would say you just have a less than full view of Christ, the cross, and how Jesus fulfilled the role of bearing our sins. Its protestant centric, but that is not PSA as it was coming hot off the press by John Calvin. PSA requires God turning his back on the son, destroying the trinity and giving Christ over to Satan even though Satan had no claim on Him, and then the Father restoring Him.
This is why the orthodox church says Christ broke down the gates of Hades. Hades did not take Christ as a captive as satan can for anyone else who has sinned.
Where I disagree is that PSA requires God turning His back on Jesus. I only see things like this from those who object to PSA. Here it is straight from one of my theology textbooks: The view of atonement that holds that Christ in his death bore the just penalty of God for our sins, and did so as a substitute for us.
It is God's holiness that required a payment for sin, and His love provided that payment. Through that act, the powers of sin, death and satan were defeated.
