Mostly Peaceful said:

---

User name checks out.

---

Ideas get attacked without mercy. Especially one as egregious as PSA. It has lead to the creation of angry, heartless Christians who share a worldview more similar to the indian caste system than the love of Christ. Mea Culpa for anything taken personally. I am mostly peaceful I promise.

Great post. Just a point of clarification (not that it will make you think I'm any less wrong) - I'm not saying God punished Jesus, and I don't believe the definition I gave says that either. I believe God came in the flesh and willingly gave His life as payment for my sin.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

User name checks out.

---

Ideas get attacked without mercy. Especially one as egregious as PSA. It has lead to the creation of angry, heartless Christians who share a worldview more similar to the indian caste system than the love of Christ. Mea Culpa for anything taken personally. I am mostly peaceful I promise.

---

No offense taken, brother. I genuinely love these discussions. I happen to see PSA as a shining example of Christ's overwhelming love for us. But I know, I know, that's only because I don't believe in the real PSA.

Payment to whom?

Seems like you're just swapping the word penalty for punishment?

Zobel said:

---

Payment to whom?

Seems like you're just swapping the word penalty for punishment?

---

I'm fine with using the word punishment in the sense that Jesus took my punishment. He took the wrath of God that was due to me on the cross.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Payment to whom?

Seems like you're just swapping the word penalty for punishment?

---

I'm fine with using the word punishment in the sense that Jesus took my punishment. He took the wrath of God that was due to me on the cross.

---

Disagree. God's wrath did not kill Jesus.

The notion that God has wrath that needs to be satisfied by punishment is simply not part of the image we get of God... either in the witness of scripture or in the early church.

God is holy, just, loving... not a wrathful God, and certainly not a God who would punish an innocent person. In fact He explicitly commands that this is wrong. What God condemns in the flesh of Christ is sin, not Jesus. It's about actually condemning sin itself, not about redirecting punishment. God's wrath is on sin, and on satan - not on Christ. Christ bears the curse of the law, which is exile and death... not divine punishment. God's wrath is revealed against unrighteousness. Christ is the only righteous one.

You're setting up that Christ suffers instead of you, when that isn't the case. I mean, manifestly it is untrue that Christ dies so you do not. That's not true. You are still going to die one way. Manifestly it is not true that Christ suffers so you do not - that is not true, that's nowhere in the scriptures. In fact we are told that we will have trials, we will suffer, and that suffering actually fills up what is lacking in the suffering of Christ. Instead we die with Christ, we suffer with Christ, we offer our lives as living sacrifices with Christ. We don't escape suffering and death, but instead the suffering and death that we all experience in life is meaningful and actually life-giving. We participate in His death, His suffering, and we participate in it so that we can die to sin, rise with Him, do His works with Him, and be faithful in Him.

Again, the chief image of the cross is Passover. God's wrath wasn't poured out on the Egyptians for the sins of Israel - it was on the Egyptians for the sin of Egypt, and through that ransom (the suffering of Egypt) Israel was freed from sin. The debt is canceled in suffering, not paid, and it certainly isn't about punishment in lieu of.

St Ambrose commentary on 1 Cor 15:3 says "The Son loses nothing when he bestows upon all, just as he also loses nothing when the Father receives the kingdom, nor does the Father suffer loss when he gives what is his own to the Son." St Athanasius says the cross was His trophy over death, that on the cross creation was made to confess that in His suffering He was revealed to be the Son of God and Savior. He says "Christ on the Cross was God, while all creation was His slave, and was witnessing by its fear to its Master's presence. Thus, then, God the Word showed Himself to men by His works." He says the Cross is the victory over death, that in it death is destroyed. The cross wasn't a moment of a kind of petty wrath poured out by God, but a triumph of victory, the true revelation of God to creation.


The idea that the Father punishes the Son unjustly raises a lot of theological issues. Punishing the innocent challenges the righteousness of the Father and violates His own commandments. It also risks violating the coherence of the Trinity by suggesting that the will of the Father and the Son are opposed. We also teach that the Father, Son, and Spirit always act in unison for the salvation of the world.

Christ's voluntary death was an act of salvation wrought by the Godhead, in love, to defeat sin and death and save humanity from slavery. It was utterly pleasing and righteous. The Son can never be unrighteous in the Father's eyes, and never be unpleasing.

Another great post Zobel. I'd have to say I agree with pretty much all of it, except for the idea that I'm saying God punished an innocent person.

Dare I offer an analogy from hollywood, but I was watching Coach Carter the other day, and there's a scene where one of the players who previously walked out on the team wants back on. Coach Carter says in order to get back on the team he has to do something like 2,000 push-ups and 1,000 suicides in a couple days - an impossible task. Knowing the task is impossible to do on his own, his teammates willingly complete it for him. They take his punishment, and in doing so, the penalty due is wiped out, the wrath of Coach Carter is satisfied, and the offender is back on the team. Coach Carter didn't punish the innocent teammates, he allowed a sacrificial act to get the offender back in good standing.

Flame away.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Another great post Zobel. I'd have to say I agree with pretty much all of it, except for the idea that I'm saying God punished an innocent person.

Dare I offer an analogy from hollywood, but I was watching Coach Carter the other day, and there's a scene where one of the players who previously walked out on the team wants back on. Coach Carter says in order to get back on the team he has to do something like 2,000 push-ups and 1,000 suicides in a couple days - an impossible task. Knowing the task is impossible to do on his own, his teammates willingly complete it for him. They take his punishment, and in doing so, the penalty due is wiped out, the wrath of Coach Carter is satisfied, and the offender is back on the team. Coach Carter didn't punish the innocent teammates, he allowed a sacrificial act to get the offender back in good standing.

Flame away.

---

For me, the problem is how this view characterizes God's character,

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Another great post Zobel. I'd have to say I agree with pretty much all of it, except for the idea that I'm saying God punished an innocent person.

Dare I offer an analogy from hollywood, but I was watching Coach Carter the other day, and there's a scene where one of the players who previously walked out on the team wants back on. Coach Carter says in order to get back on the team he has to do something like 2,000 push-ups and 1,000 suicides in a couple days - an impossible task. Knowing the task is impossible to do on his own, his teammates willingly complete it for him. They take his punishment, and in doing so, the penalty due is wiped out, the wrath of Coach Carter is satisfied, and the offender is back on the team. Coach Carter didn't punish the innocent teammates, he allowed a sacrificial act to get the offender back in good standing.

Flame away.

---

It's more like the player ignored the coach's guidance and started doing drugs. Over time he weakened and isolated himself.

The coach was moved by compassion and sent his son to live with the player and ultimately enter the drughouse to confront and defeat the dealer who had ensnared the player.

The coach's son liberated the player and then invites him to live in communion with him and his father. The player can now turn his life around, accompanied by the coach's son every step of the way.

Guys, I'm not comparing Coach Carter to God or the players to Jesus. I'm trying to better articulate my view that an innocent person stepping in for an offender doesn't equate to the innocent person being punished. Alas, I have failed once again. What's new?

Great stuff.

Zobel said:

---

And if only one player does it in place of the other? Isnt that innocent player being punished instead?

Going back to the atonement theory you put forward:

Quote:

---

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.

---

What penalty of God? Isn't that punishment? Why does God require a penalty to forgive sins? Isn't He plenteous in mercy and long suffering and compassionate? Isn't He the God who removes sins as far as east is from the west? Who pardons iniquity and passes over the transgression, who does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in loving devotion? Who casts out all our sins into the depths of the sea? Who blots out our transgressions for His own sake, and does will not remember sins? Who forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin? Who does not deal with us according to our sins or repay us according to our iniquities? Who has compassion and freely pardons the wicked man who forsakes his unrighteousness? Who has mercy that never fails? To whom belongs compassion and forgiveness even to those who rebel? Who could stand but with Him there is forgiveness.

What part of this image of wrath and punishment is coherent in any way with the God of the OT, with the perfect image of Him revealed to us in Christ Jesus?

---

Propitiation


Usage: The term "hilasmos" refers to the act of appeasing or satisfying the wrath of a deity, specifically through a sacrificial offering. In the New Testament, it is used to describe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which satisfies the righteous demands of God's justice and turns away His wrath from sinners. It emphasizes the reconciliation between God and humanity through Christ's sacrificial death.

Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of propitiation was common in religious practices, where offerings were made to appease the gods and avert their wrath. In the Jewish context, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) involved sacrifices to atone for the sins of the people. The New Testament writers, particularly John, use "hilasmos" to convey the idea that Jesus is the ultimate and final atoning sacrifice, fulfilling and surpassing the Old Testament sacrificial system.


for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith (Rom. 3:23-25).

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17).

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:10).

Common mistake. That word is not used outside of the LXX or NT in Greek until centuries later and then by pagans. (Excepting Philo of Alexandria who is a Jew and uses it in the same sense as forgiveness). Consider how it is used in Psalm 130:4 in the Greek "But with you there is forgiveness (hilasmos), that you may be feared."

We should look to the use in the Greek OT, and there we see it associated with… forgiveness and cleansing of sin. Which is perfectly coherent with Jewish authors, looking at the day of atonement. Again, there is NO punishment in the day of atonement. One goat (without sin) is sacrificed and its blood is used to cleanse. The other goat (with sin) is sent into the wilderness. No punishment. No wrath.

Should also be noted that "atone" and "atonement" are words literally made up in English to translate kippur. "Making atonement" doesn't mean "averting wrath" and can't, because the priest makes atonement for inanimate objects. We know now what early English translators didn't - it means to cover, wipe, or purge. Which is what happens in the day of atonement ritual, the blood is used to wipe, cover, and purge the residual effect of sin. The way you're using it here becomes a circular definition.

We should also note that the use of hilasmos was a made up word to translate kippur from Hebrew into Greek. So comparing that word choice to other uses is just as futile. You have to look at it in context!

And rendering someone propitious just means making them favorable toward you. It does not require that they have some impending wrath toward you. You can do a kindness for someone and render them propitious toward you from a completely neutral or positive place. That's what sacrifices do - please God.

We shouldn't base our understanding of our God on the way the pagans interacted with their demonic deities. Is our God a demon who hates mankind that He needs to be appeased? Don't you see the problem with that comparison?

Zobel said:

---

Is our God a demon who hates mankind that He needs to be appeased? Don't you see the problem with that comparison?

---

I certainly would, but once again, that's not what I said. The information I posted said hilasmos refers to the way Christ's death satisfied the righteous demands of God's justice and turned His wrath away from sinners. Maybe that's wrong. Seems to be a widely held interpretation, but I'm not going to discount what you've said.

It seems we can agree that Christ's death, at least in part, served to forgive us of our sins. I'll take that. Always appreciate your contributions to this board.

The problem is there is not a single case in the scriptures of "hilasmos" or its variants satisfying the wrath of a deity. So this sentence

Quote:

---

The term "hilasmos" refers to the act of appeasing or satisfying the wrath of a deity, specifically through a sacrificial offering.

---

Is false as far as the scriptures go. It is simply not true.

And if that is not true, then this:

Quote:

---

In the New Testament, it is used to describe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which satisfies the righteous demands of God's justice and turns away His wrath from sinners.

---

Is similarly unsupported. It has nothing to do with the "righteous demands of God's justice" (why is God ruled by demands?) or anything to do in the scriptures with wrath.

And that's why when they want to justify it, they turn to a pagan background! They even note that in the Jewish context it simply means a sacrifice which atones (which is a circular reference). So... in the end, the appeal to "wrath" is an appeal to pagan culture and religious practices, an appeal to humans interacting with demons.

Quote:

---

It seems we can agree that Christ's death, at least in part, served to forgive us of our sins.

---

I mean, forgiveness of sins was always available to people. People were forgiven of sins all the time, the scriptures say God forgives sins when a person repents. So I think we need to understand there is something else going on here. And no small part of what is going on is a cosmic atonement, a once-for-all atonement: the final defeat and eradication of sin from the whole world. This is why God has made the nations clean, allowing them to come to Him and be filled by the Spirit!

Curious to get your thoughts on these quotes:

Eusebius - "In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own"

"And the Lamb of God . . . was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us"

Athanasius - "Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all"

"For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression"

"For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all"

John Chrysostom - "For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He hath both well achieved mighty things, and besides, hath suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong"

"Men ought to have been punished, but God did not do so. They ought to have perished, but he gave his son in their stead so although we ought to have been punished and perish instead Christ was punished and perished on our behalf "

Therefore Christ took another curse upon himself in order to relieve us from the curse. It was like an innocent man who decided to die in place of another who was sentenced to death, and thereby rescued him from punishment"

"And that thou mayest learn what a thing it is, consider this which I say. If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?"

Epistle to Diognetus - "He took upon himself our sins; he gave his own son as a ransom for usthe holy for the lawless, the good for the evil, the righteous for the unrighteous, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal"

Clement of Rome - "In love the Master received us; because of the love he had towards us, our Lord Jesus Christ gave his blood for us in accord with the will of God: his flesh for the sake of our flesh, his life for our lives"

Jerome - "For that which we owed to us according to our crimes bear it, so He suffered for us, having made peace [with God] through the blood of His cross"

Augustine - "For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt. . . . Now, as men were lying under this wrath by reason of their original sin . . . there was need for a mediator, that is for a reconciler, who by the offering of one sacrifice, of which all the sacrifices of the law and the prophets were types, should take away this wrath"

"The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment"

"But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment."

Cyril of Alexandria - "He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law"

"The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the cross that awaited us, and was our due, through our condemnation by the Law…He took upon Himself the Cross that was our due, passing on Himself the condemnation of the Law"

"For God's anger did not cease with Adam's fall, but He was also provoked by those who after him dishonoured the Creator's decree; and the denunciation of the Law against transgressors was extended continuously over all. We were, then, accursed and condemned, by the sentence of God, through Adam's transgression, and through breach of the Law laid down after him; but the Savior wiped out the hand- writing against us, by nailing the title to His Cross, which very clearly pointed to the death upon the Cross which He underwent for the salvation of men, who lay under condemnation. For our sake He paid the penalty for our sins. For though He was One that suffered, yet was He far above any creature, as God, and more precious than the life of all"

Question...why are we ignoring instances of God's wrath being poured out on the wicked? He wiped the face of the earth with a flood saving only Noah and his family. He wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah saving Lot and his family and even striking his wife down because she looked back.

He punished the Israelites in the wilderness and never let them into the Promised Land until that generation was dead. He brought empires to subjugate and take captive His people because they turned from Him. He let entire tribes of His people be wiped from the face of the earth leaving only a remnant.

He metes out justice and grace. Even in His wrath He provides for His people. The two are not mutually exclusive. His grace is shown to be so great because His wrath is just and is also great.

ETA: On individual levels he punished David for his straying. He punished many kings for their evil ways. He poured His wrath on the prophets of Baal at the request of Elijah. His wrath was poured out on Pharoah and his family and all the families of Egypt.

Scripture is clear that we serve a loving God who is full of mercy and grace and patience. But He is also just and jealous and vengeful and wrathful. Just because he turns from His wrath or slacks His anger does not mean they are not there. That is part of standing in awe and fear of the Lord. The unfathomable makes Himself known to the insignificant and mortal.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Question...why are we ignoring instances of God's wrath being poured out on the wicked? He wiped the face of the earth with a flood saving only Noah and his family. He wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah saving Lot and his family and even striking his wife down because she looked back.

He punished the Israelites in the wilderness and never let them into the Promised Land until that generation was dead. He brought empires to subjugate and take captive His people because they turned from Him. He let entire tribes of His people be wiped from the face of the earth leaving only a remnant.

He metes out justice and grace. Even in His wrath He provides for His people. The two are not mutually exclusive. His grace is shown to be so great because His wrath is just and is also great.

---

Nobody is ignoring it. We are under a new covenant. Except for the money changers at the temple and religious people, who did Jesus ever unleash His wrath on?

And Jesus is the revelation of God.

Have you noticed that when God showed His wrath in the OT it was always about temporal death? And no mention of eternal conscious torment?

God is perfectly just.

And one other thing. The fruits of the Spirit are peace, joy, love, patience, kindness, gentleness, meekness, goodness, and self control. Wrath is not listed.

And the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity which would show the character of God.

We are promised He is coming with the sword. This is the testimony of Scripture about the end times.

ETA: we are also told of eternal wailing/weeping and gnashing of teeth. Jesus Himself talked about it being eternal punishment and eternal fire.

ETA2: Jesus also tells us there will be those who cry out at the end Lord, Lord!! And He will say begone I never knew you.

ETA3: But God says vengeance is Mine. The fruit of the Spirit is produced in humans and is how we are shown to be of God. We are known in how we love one another. I wouldn't be so bold as to say those are the only attributes we can attribute to God though.

Anyway, all I am saying is just because we live under God's tremendous grace and mercy, it does not mean that His justice is not being stored up. He has also shown and Scripture tells us He will not be mocked and His justice will not be withheld permanently.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Anyway, all I am saying is just because we live under God's tremendous grace and mercy, it does not mean that His justice is not being stored up. He has also shown and Scripture tells us He will not be mocked and His justice will not be withheld permanently.

---

I agree with you that God is perfectly just.

Jesus Christ certainly suffered on our behalf, certainly received the sins of mankind on Himself, and certainly suffered the penalty or curse of sin under the Torah - which is exile and death. As St Athanasius says, He was not liable for this but chose to endure it voluntarily. Satan had no claim on Him but He chose to die, He laid down His life voluntarily.

And He was certainly punished - He suffered the insults, the scourge, the scorn, the cross, the abandonment, the rejection, and ultimately a horrifying death - and He had done no wrong or violence. He did that for our benefit.

He took on the curse of the Torah to relieve us from the curse. He offered Himself as a ransom for us, in His suffering, not as a ransom paid to Satan (as St Gregory says, "to whom was this ransom offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage!") or to the Father (again St Gregory, "if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?") but as an offering for our benefit. Ransom not from a kidnapper but from slavery. Who owned the contract on us? Not Satan, but death. And so by suffering death, He annihilated death - as St John Chrysostom says, "Hades took a body, and met God face to face!" Christ trampled down death by death, and so freed us from death.

The Father absolutely took pleasure in His Son. Their wills were perfectly aligned, it was good for Him to do this, and the Father did will His Son to be sacrificed, and took pleasure in that; the Son took pleasure to ascend to the cross to suffer death and to raise the dead, to free humans from bondage to sin and death. God was pleased that He was lashed, and bruised, and pierced for our transgressions because by that humanity was saved, not because it pleased the Father to punish sin or punish the Son. And this glorified both the Son and the Father!

And yes - He gave His blood for us, His life for us.

Now I ask you. Where in any of that does it say that the Father's wrath was poured out on the Son? Or that the Father was obliged to punish, and so punished an innocent man? Where does it say that the Father punished the Son, or turned away from Him, or forsook Him?

The issue is not the question of whether Christ suffered for us and for our sins because He obviously did. The objection is in penal substitution, as taught by Calvin, which is a heresy. The distinction is between Christ dying for our benefit or on our behalf, versus instead of us.

Christ dies on our behalf as Man, became Incarnate to do that, and the benefit of His love flows through us through our human nature, united to His, and as we participate in them and and through Him, we derive the benefit.

In the "instead of" model He is punished so we are not. God sees our wrath on Jesus and punishes Him instead of us. Instead of freeing us from slavery and death, it puts Him as saving us from the Father.

The question is about penal - how is the benefit given to us? By some judicial loophole? Now we're the same as we were before but God has exhausted His anger by pouring it out on His own innocent Son? Or now we are truly changed, united to Christ through participation in His death, through participation in His life, and so ultimately united to the divine in His Incarnation, and so receive eternal life?

Also - CHRIST IS RISEN!

Zobel said:

---

Also - CHRIST IS RISEN!

---

And now for some inside baseball.

ALITHOS ANESTI!

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Now I ask you. Where in any of that does it say that the Father's wrath was poured out on the Son? Or that the Father was obliged to punish, and so punished an innocent man? Where does it say that the Father punished the Son, or turned away from Him, or forsook Him?

---

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I don't believe God punished an innocent man. I don't believe He turned His back on Jesus. These are objections to PSA that distort what the majority those who hold to PSA actually believe. I'm not denying there are fringe elements to whom your objections would be valid, that is always the case.

The quotes I listed above describe what I'd say, along with myself, the vast majority of PSA proponents believe; that God gave Himself in the person of His son to suffer in my place the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

---

With all due respect, have you read what Calvin wrote about it? Or what many Reformed/Calvinist theologians and prominent pastors have said?

And what I think is important here is that is not penal substitutionary atonement. You oughta not say you believe PSA, because it's pretty clear you don't.

Defintionally PSA is about God preserving His righteousness and justice, which demands He punish sin, by punishing Christ instead of sinners, propitiating the Father. In this model at least in part the function of the cross is to act on God.

That is PSA, it is not substitutionary atonement. It is specifically around the forensic and legal model of the cross, but goes deeper to say that the cross is about God's wrath against sin.

The specific teaching of PSA is a theological novelty that was never taught until the Reformation. It is a modification of Anselm's satisfaction theory, where rather than the debt to justice being satisfied by death, it is the punishment of sin that satisfies. The punishment of the sin on Jesus is what enables forgiveness of the sinner. The specific thing is that without punishment of sin from God there is no forgiveness, the whole retributive aspect of God's justice, and hinges on legal satisfaction.

It also implies limited atonement, forensic imputation, and the Father turning away from Christ or being damned on the cross.

I will say that your formula is not wrong, but I think it is incomplete.

Psalm 75:8
For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup with foaming wine, well mixed, and he pours out from it, and all the wicked of the earth shall drain it down to the dregs.

Jeremiah 25:15-16
Thus the Lord, the God of Israel, said to me: "Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them."

Matthew 26:36-42
Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, "Sit here, while I go over there and pray." And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me." And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, "So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."

2 Corinthians 5:20-21
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Now I ask you. Where in any of that does it say that the Father's wrath was poured out on the Son? Or that the Father was obliged to punish, and so punished an innocent man? Where does it say that the Father punished the Son, or turned away from Him, or forsook Him?

---

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I don't believe God punished an innocent man. I don't believe He turned His back on Jesus. These are objections to PSA that distort what the majority those who hold to PSA actually believe. I'm not denying there are fringe elements to whom your objections would be valid, that is always the case.

The quotes I listed above describe what I'd say, along with myself, the vast majority of PSA proponents believe; that God gave Himself in the person of His son to suffer in my place the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

---

Have you read the source material for the quotes?

I'm reading Athanasius' On the Incarnation with my priest right now, and I recognize the quote you offered but in context I think you'd struggle mightily to say that's his argument. It's an easy read btw, so I suggest it as a starting point to examine this support for that as a theory.

Quote:

---

our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin

---

this a semiticism. the word for "sin" and "sin offering" are the same in Hebrew. A sin offering is just called "a sin". Jesus became a sin offering for us.

Look, at the end of the day. Who is informing you of this atonement theology? Who is actually guiding your answers here? Like I said earlier, this is a church authority question at its core.

Atonement theology is neither fully simple nor able to read outside of greater context. Zobel's over here going, here is the stance of the Orthodox church, as revealed to the Apostles and passed down to through the church fathers.

Youre basically going, nah I don't like that. I'd like to pick and choose a bit of calvinism, a dash of church fathers, etc. Without ever really fully understanding the church positions of the first 1000 years, the next 500 years, and then the late to the scene protestant 500 years.

And no protestant fully understands just how many other interpretations there are out there in protestantism. Its all, 'well yeah this is just the obvious plain reading - those guys over there are nuts'

We're at the point in church history where we've got baptist turned nondenominationalist, spouting a softened reformed theology without a hint of irony or understanding the history and bloodshed.

Where did your beliefs come from? What underpins your intuition? What allows you to pick and chose? This is literally the process by which God saves humanity and you think some light reading and self discovery is going to uncover the full truth?

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Now I ask you. Where in any of that does it say that the Father's wrath was poured out on the Son? Or that the Father was obliged to punish, and so punished an innocent man? Where does it say that the Father punished the Son, or turned away from Him, or forsook Him?

---

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I don't believe God punished an innocent man. I don't believe He turned His back on Jesus. These are objections to PSA that distort what the majority those who hold to PSA actually believe. I'm not denying there are fringe elements to whom your objections would be valid, that is always the case.

The quotes I listed above describe what I'd say, along with myself, the vast majority of PSA proponents believe; that God gave Himself in the person of His son to suffer in my place the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

---

With all due respect, have you read what Calvin wrote about it? Or what many Reformed/Calvinist theologians and prominent pastors have said?

---

I've seen very little on what Calvin wrote about it, but nothing that would portray PSA as you have. If he does (not doubting you at all), it wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with him. I have listened to/read what many reformed as well as non-reformed pastors and theologians have said about PSA and their teaching is in line with what I've expressed. I've taken several theology courses at Liberty and the view you hold wasn't expressed there either.

Quote:

---

And what I think is important here is that is not penal substitutionary atonement. You oughta not say you believe PSA, because it's pretty clear you don't.

Defintionally PSA is about God preserving His righteousness and justice, which demands He punish sin, by punishing Christ instead of sinners, propitiating the Father. In this model at least in part the function of the cross is to act on God.

That is PSA, it is not substitutionary atonement. It is specifically around the forensic and legal model of the cross, but goes deeper to say that the cross is about God's wrath against sin.

The specific teaching of PSA is a theological novelty that was never taught until the Reformation. It is a modification of Anselm's satisfaction theory, where rather than the debt to justice being satisfied by death, it is the punishment of sin that satisfies. The punishment of the sin on Jesus is what enables forgiveness of the sinner. The specific thing is that without punishment of sin from God there is no forgiveness, the whole retributive aspect of God's justice, and hinges on legal satisfaction.

I will say that your formula is not wrong, but I think it is incomplete.

---

Do you have any links or references to sources that describe your view of PSA that don't come from those who object to it? And what would you say is the view of those from the quotes I posted? Is there a name for it?