Do I think Bible-believing Christians should accept Penal Substitutionary Atonement? YES and No. We should say “YES” for some versions, but “No” (or “Partially Yes”) for other versions.
I think we (as Bible-believing Christians) should say YES for a basic PSA — claiming only that during crucifixion, Christ was our Substitute and He paid our Penalty (for sins) to achieve Atonement, to reconcile us with God — because these claims (about S,P,A) are clearly taught in the Bible. [[ iou – Maybe I'll also describe this as Vicarious Substitution (instead of Penal Substitution) because the P is the focus of most PSA-criticisms. ]]
But I think we should say “No” (or “partially Yes”) for versions-of-PSA that add to this basic PSA and distort it.
For example, a moderate distortion occurs when Theopedia (describing Calvinistic theology) says "penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners; God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve." By supplementing a basic PSA (it's PenaltyPaying SA) the writers of Theopedia convert it into Punishing SA by claiming that Christ "bore the punishment" instead of “paid the penalty.” { in the Bible, the ultimate penalty for sin is death }
But extreme distortions also occur. We see this in some descriptions of PSA, including these three (with italics added) from highly respected Christians: • "What Jesus felt on the cross was far worse and deeper than all of our deserved hells put together [because He] experienced the full wrath of the Father" so • "the biggest suffering on the cross was... when the Father poured out His wrath on His son [to cause]... a dark, terrible, incalculable agony, an infinite misery, as God the Father unleashes his fury upon His sinless Son as if guilty of an immeasurable evil." Wow. {these claims are by Calvinists} / And there is more, with claims (made by many Calvinists & non-Calvinists) that the suffering of Jesus was infinite. {maybe due to His "incalculable agony... as God the Father unleashed his fury"?} In this way, • "the suffering that the damned in hell will experience [it's an "infinite suffering"] was compressed into that brief period of time [a few hours of crucifixion], so that its intensity [in the suffering of Christ] made up for the shortness of its duration."
How should we define PSA?
This is a very important question, because Christians should be willing to use a logical process of analysis-and-evaluation so they can say “partially Yes” for distorted PSA, and “totally Yes” for basic PSA. But harsh critics of PSA don't want to make distinctions, so they can claim that Distorted PSA is The PSA. Why? Because they want to criticize a weak strawman version (it's a Distorted PSA that they claim is The PSA) and then argue that we should “totally No” for all versions, even for a basic PSA whose existence they don't want to acknowledge. {
the logic of theological adjustments:
In claims about PSA, logical relationships between the sin-Penalty and the Substitution-experience can lead to theological adjustments.
Some proponents of PSA think crucifixion of the Son involved "the full wrath of the Father" who "unleashed his fury... pouring out His wrath" to cause "infinite suffering." Why? What is their motivation for these dramatic descriptions? One main reason (along with a second reason) is because there is a logical connection between the P and S of PSA. In the Bible we find extremely strong evidence that when we sin, the biblical Penalty (decreed in Genesis 3:22 and observed throughout the Bible) is death, so – to achieve satisfactory Substitution – Jesus must experience death, which He obviously did. But if a person believes the sin-Penalty is Eternal Misery, then Jesus – for satisfactory Substitution – must experience infinite suffering, which is not obvious, so imaginative speculations are required (these are contrary to our experiences of temporary finite pain, and have very little support from biblical records), leading to claims about "the full wrath of the Father" with “unleashed fury” for the purpose of causing "infinite suffering" to achieve the Penalty-Substitution of PSA. These two beliefs about the biblical Penalty for sin — believing that the Penalty either is death (strongly supported) or (weakly supported) is infinite suffering — affect claims about the crucifixion experience that can produce a satisfactory Substitution. If the Penalty is death, describing the Substitution-experience doesn't require any theological adjustment, just the simple observation that Jesus died. But if the Penalty is infinite suffering, major theological adjustment is necessary, requiring imaginative speculations about the Substitution-experience.
Due to a desire for logical consistency, major theological adjustments occur when a person is committed to a doctrine of Eternal Misery (EM) but they recognize that an EM-Hell would produce unsatisfactory substitution for Penal Substitutionary Atonement, with two mis-matches between His Crucifixion Experience (finite suffering with death) and an Eternal Misery Experience (infinite suffering without death). Therefore in an effort to “fix the two mis-matchings” they redefine death (so it's a separation from God during EM) and they claim to increase the seemingly-finite suffering of crucifixion by an infinite amount (due to "its intensity") so it matches the infinite suffering of EM.
We also can ask “why would God want to cause infinite suffering for most of the people He created?” and their logical answer is “because He is infinitely angry with sinners” so with “infinite wrath” He wants to make them endure the infinite suffering of Eternal Misery, with permanent torments in EM-Hell. Then to match the infinite suffering of an Eternal Misery Experience – so there will be satisfactory Substitution for PSA – they are logically forced to propose infinite suffering (motivated by the infinite wrath of God) during His Crucifixion Experience. It all fits together logically, but it doesn't fit biblically because...
In the Bible we see very strong evidence for Conditional Immortality — thus for Final Annihilation or Universal Restoration, and against Eternal Misery* — with a sin-penalty of death, not infinite suffering. The evidence becomes extremely strong when we also recognize that throughout the Bible we see the penalty of death (as with FA or UR), not long-term suffering (as with EM), first in God's most severe penalty (by removing His "tree of life," thus allowing death) and then with penalties of death in The Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, and The Law; we also see death in His rescues (of Isaac with Abraham, and The Passover); and His OT sacrificial system (with deaths of animals) and His NT sacrificial system (with the death of Jesus) to pay our sin-penalty of death; and death-submitting crucifixion is paired with death-defeating resurrection. / * The section with "strong evidence... against Eternal Misery" concludes by explaining how this is related to PSA and how there are connections between PSA and CV.
EM claims the sin-penalty is infinite suffering, and this unbiblical belief causes wrath-exaggerating distortions of PSA. More important, EM forces theological adjustments that lead to a distorting of God's wrath. Yes, God does feel wrath because He hates the sin that disrespects Him and harms people. God therefore tells us, throughout the Bible, that He wants to eliminate sin, and He will eliminate sin. He would achieve this goal with FA (by eliminating sinners) or UR (by eliminating sin-inside-sinners) but He would fail with EM that produces eternally lasting sin by causing sinners (and their sinning) to remain alive forever, to endure infinite suffering. The result of FA or UR is tough on sin (by eliminating it) but is loving for people (with the blessed relief of FA, or the blessed salvation of UR); by contrast, both results would be reversed with EM that is weak on sin (letting it exist forever) but is unloving for people (tormenting them forever).
analyzing-and-evaluating PSA
My defending of basic PSA depends on using analysis-and-evaluation. During this logical process, we acknowledge the existence of many PSA-versions, not just one that is The PSA; with analysis we try to understand the parts of each version, especially in the claims that are being made; we compare the different versions, so we can understand their similarities & differences; then we logically evaluate each version of PSA (using everything we know from the whole Bible) based on what the version actually claims.
Unfortunately, this logical process is ignored by some critics of PSA. Instead they declare “ is PSA” and they fill the blank with a version that includes extra details (going beyond basic PSA) like “the infinite wrath of God.” They may have logical Bible-based reasons for rejecting a version-with-extras, but then instead of saying “I reject this version of PSA” they say “I reject PSA.” Instead they could – if they were willing – choose to distinguish between the different parts of each PSA-version, so instead of saying “I totally reject PSA” they could say “I reject these extra claims in this version of PSA, but I accept the main claims of basic PSA.” If they are willing to use this logic, their evaluations of PSA will become more precise-and-accurate, more biblical, and more edifying for other Christians.
the disputed history of PSA: A common claim is that PSA didn't exist in the early church, that it was "invented" by John Calvin in the 1500s. But this claim is disputed by scholars. Some of their work is summarized (in a page & video) by Ben Hammond, who says "----" [[ iou – I'll continue writing this late tonight, February 26, using some of these rough-draft ideas: ]]
[[ PSA and Calvinism: Although much distortion occurs when people are committed to EM, another factor is Calvinism with its extreme emphasis on divine wrath, which leads to extreme wrath-exaggerating versions of PSA. This raises two related questions: Should we accept the claim that PSA was "invented" by John Calvin? And if PSA actually was invented by Calvin (so it's his concept, is his doctrine), then should his wrath-emphasizing version be defined as The PSA?
[[ This question should be carefully considered, instead of just assuming "yes" ]]
[[ but if PSA was invented by Calvin (as claimed by its critics in an effort to discredit PSA) then should his version be defined as The PSA? no, because 1) the claim isn't historically accurate (citing Ben Hammond, plus #psahistory for details), and 2) it's in the Bible (link to #RealityCheck) and Bible is the authority for defining biblical PSA, i.e. the versions that are closest to matching Bible, are the PSA-versions we should be evaluating -- I'll highly recommend the sermon of TimMackie ]]
a valuable educational resource: I recommend the “clips video” made by Mike Winger, who explains how inaccurate “strawman misrepresentations” (in anti-PSA video clips) make evaluations less logical & less biblical, but make a rhetorical strategy of “persuasion by shaming” more effective. This is one end of a spectrum. The other extreme occurs when proponents of PSA distort “the wrath of God” in their supplementing of basic PSA. Unfortunately, both extremes can hinder people from fully appreciating The Love Story of PSA that they should be able to see in basic PSA.
the divine Volunteer
Jesus was not a reluctant victim. He was a willing volunteer who wanted to be crucified. Why? Because He loves us, and with divine grace He wants to save us. Let's consider two decisions made by Jesus, at two times. / First during a meeting (try to imagine this) of the tri-une God (Father, Son, HolySpirit) when They were planning The Incarnation. Yes, before the life-death-resurrection of The Son, God (F,S,H) planned PSA – with all agreeing “yes, We will do it” – so Jesus was a volunteer (not a victim) who wanted to die for us, so God (in the divine-and-human person of Jesus) could pay our sin-penalty for us, so we could be reconciled with God, to produce atonement. / Second, consider the historically unique “hybrid characteristics” of divine-and-human Jesus. During the earthly incarnation of Jesus when He lived among us, the Son was fully divine so He could live sinlessly (although ordinary humans cannot) by constantly obeying the Father, being perfectly guided by the Holy Spirit. { notice that The Incarnation-of-God required active cooperation among all members of the triune God } But Jesus also was fully human, and He knew that the suffering would be intense before-and-during His crucifixion. Of course He did not desire the pain, and His anticipation led to an if-then prayer, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." Being fully human, Jesus didn't want to suffer. But being fully divine, a more important motivation was wanting to obey His Father – to do "as You will" – so Jesus let people kill Him. / At both times, first as a divine co-planner and then as a divine human, Jesus was a willing volunteer. He knew what would happen — there was no deceptive “bait and switch” with Father first promising Son that incarnation would be easy and enjoyable, but later (after His birth on earth) saying “gotcha” because “surprise! your life will end with dreadfully painful crucifixion” — and (at both times) Jesus graciously said “yes, I will do My part in helping Us pay their penalty.” The Son wanted to save us, so He wanted to be crucified. He wanted to fulfill the plan-with-PSA that He (along with Father and HolySpirit) had agreed to, long before He was born into our world. { two descriptions of the if-then prayer, A B }
Unfortunately, viewing Jesus as a victim (instead of a volunteer) can lead to misunderstanding and confusion. And claiming that “Jesus was a victim” is one way to misrepresent PSA, by claiming that with PSA an out-of-control Father would wrathfully “vent His anger on His son” and do "cosmic child abuse" by unfairly killing His innocent son who was a reluctant victim. These inaccurate representations can hinder us from fully appreciating The Love Story of PSA-and-CV and fully loving God. / PSA is an action-of-love because God (in the divine-and-human person of Jesus) graciously paid our sin-penalty for us.
Despite my negative feelings about harsh critics of PSA, I'm hoping for productive changes because I think "a major motivation for criticisms of PSA is a genuine desire to help others improve their thinking-and-feeling about God." This noble desire – wanting to help others fully love God in their thinking & feeling – is a worthy motive. But when we logically evaluate the biblical evidence it seems that God really did use PSA (as it's described in basic PSA & biblical PSA) so it's wise to align our thinking with this reality. In my criticisms of their criticisms, my goal is to help critics see how they can more effectively achieve one of their own goals – to help others fully love God – if they align their thinking-about-PSA with biblical descriptions-of-PSA.
This introduction (above) was written recently, in February 2024. Below is what I wrote earlier, mainly in late 2021. { I've done some rearranging – from its original sequence – and you'll find repeats of a few central ideas until (iou) it's been revised to reduce the duplications. }
combining perspectives: PSA explains a lot, but not all. Other models of atonement also offer useful insights. The other models are compatible with PSA – they are complementary (not competitive), are compatible (not mutually exclusive) – so an either-or choice isn't necessary. We can accept several models (or aspects-of-models), with PSA being supplemented by (not replaced by) non-PSA models, including Christus Victor and maybe others. If we do this combining well, the different perspectives will give us a more thorough understanding of the many kinds of benefits (for God and for people) produced by divine atonement.
I think biblical Penal-Paying Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is an essential part of atonement, but so is Christus Victor (CV). Instead of a competition (so we must choose PSA or CV) we should see cooperation (with PSA and CV) with both helping us understand atonement more deeply, and love God more fully. of atonement, and our love for God. Each perspective helps us understand the mutually supportive aspects of divine love in His crucifixion (for understanding this PSA is especially useful, but also CV) and His resurrection (for this CV is especially useful, but also PSA). Both models help us understand the depth of God's love in what They (F,S,H) have done for us, giving us more reasons to praise God. PSA-and-CV provide differing insights into Crucifixion-and-Resurrection, so we can more gratefully appreciate The Love Story of PSA and The Love Story of CV. When we believe both, so it's The Love Story of PSA-and-CV, we can humbly say “thank you” and accept all of God's graciously loving gifts for us. {more about models} { mutually supportive relationships between crucifixion-and-resurrection & PSA-and-CV }
evidence-based Reality Checks: When you want to find truth, you can use a “thinking tool” that is the logical foundation of science; in a scientific Reality Check you compare “the way you think the world is” (according to your theory about reality) with “the way the world really is” (in your observations of reality). In biblical theology, our historical observations of reality come from biblical reports (in the OT and NT) about “the way the world really was” in the culture of ancient Israel. These biblical observations closely match “how the world would be IF God was using basic PSA” and this strong logical support (from scientific Reality Checks) leads me to confidently conclude that “God used PSA” so this theory-about-reality should be included in our Christian beliefs.
the biblical penalty: My views about Atonement (and Hell & more) are based on the solid biblical foundation of Conditional Immortality. The Bible clearly teaches us (in OT deaths, and the NT's crucifixion-and-resurrection)* that when humans began sinning, God's judicial penalty was death (this penalty is severe because it temporarily removed our capability for God-enabled immortality, but also is merciful because it prevents the infinite suffering of sinful Eternal Misery), and that God paid our death penalty for us when (during His human incarnation as Jesus Christ) God died for us. This divine paying of our biblical penalty is the biblical Penalty-Paying Substitutionary Atonement (biblical PSA) that is an essential part of God's plan to save us from death and give us life. / But if you mistakenly think the biblical penalty-for-sin is Eternal Misery, you will think Jesus paid our penalty by His infinite suffering on the cross, and your PSA will be distorted by your EM.
* the OT deaths that God allowed or prevented or commanded (by removing "the tree of life" to allow death and then with Abraham & Isaac, The Passover, and God's sacrificial system) are symbolically connected with the NT self-sacrificing by God in His crucifixion-and-resurrection (they're the focal point of biblical history) where we see God first paying our penalty of death (as servant-Jesus), and then (as victor-Jesus) defeating death; together these paired events (with death-substituting followed by death-defeating) show us His hating of sin and His loving of people, in God's wonderfully gracious plan of salvation. {this biblical evidence is beautifully logical in Conditional Immortality with a sin-penalty of death, but not in Eternal Misery with a sin-penalty of infinite suffering.}
my terms: I'm inventing three terms for use in this page, to distinguish between different versions of PSA:
basic PSA claims only – without adding “extra details” – that, in His crucifixion, Christ was our Substitute and He paid our Penalty (for sins) to achieve Atonement;
biblical PSA is basic PSA (it's biblical) plus defining the sin-penalty as death (this also is biblical);
semi-biblical PSA is basic PSA (it's biblical) but with a sin-penalty of infinite suffering (that isn't biblical); this semi-PSA has been creatively invented by people, due to...
an unbiblical influence: Unfortunately, PSA that is biblical (with God paying our biblical penalty of death) can be distorted so much that it becomes semi-biblical when basic PSA is influenced by a belief in Eternal Misery (which claims the penalty is infinite suffering). The result – it's an impure “hybrid theory” that combines basic PSA with unbiblical EM – is semi-biblical PSA because it proposes biblical Substitution (as in basic PSA) but an unbiblical Penalty (of infinite suffering, with unbiblical Eternal Misery). Because belief in EM is unfortunately common, a semi-biblical combination of PSA-plus-EM also is unfortunately common. But many proponents of PSA don't modify it by explicitly blending EM into it; or they modify it some but not a lot, so we see EM-influence that varies, ranging from none thru moderate to extreme. {unbiblical distortions also can occur with people who believe biblical FA or UR, but are more common & more extreme with unbiblical EM.}
EM and wrath: A major motivation for inventing a hybrid of PSA-plus-EM is a futile attempt to fix the two mis-matches between Crucifixion Reality (finite suffering with death) and EM Speculation (infinite suffering without death) that prevent a satisfactory Substitution for PSA if the sin-Penalty is EM. One way to “fix the mis-matching” redefines & exaggerates “the wrath of God” (as in these examples) and over-emphasizes it, because when we ask “why would God cause infinite suffering?” a logical answer is “because He is infinitely angry with sinners” so with “infinite divine wrath” He wants to make them permanently endure the painful infinite suffering of sinful Eternal Misery. This leads to a claim that The Son, during a few hours on the cross, had infinite suffering (caused by infinite wrath from The Father) so He could pay our penalty of Eternal Misery. This influence-by-EM has undesirable implications for the character of God, and it can hinder people from fully appreciating The Love Story of PSA in the basic PSA and biblical PSA that I'm defending. / How does Theopedia's claim that Jesus "bore our punishment" (instead of “paid our penalty”) imply a penalty of Eternal Misery?
many versions of PSA: Using my terms for three versions of PSA, I think... the best versions — basic PSA (claiming only basic P & S & A) and biblical PSA (with a biblical Penalty of death) — should be accepted; but semi-biblical PSA (with an unbiblical Penalty of infinite suffering, because it assumes unbiblical EM) should be rejected, or – in a much better action – it should be converted into biblical PSA. In addition to a difference in penalty (is it death or infinite suffering?), versions of PSA can differ in the mechanism (of why God used PSA, and how it “works” to save us), and whether wrath (and its propitiation) is mentioned and, if “yes”, how it's described and how much it's emphasized.
a strategy for evaluating PSA: Your evaluations will be more precise-and-accurate when instead of evaluating a “generic PSA” you ask “what is being claimed in this version of PSA?” Then instead of evaluating “generic PSA as a whole” you can evaluate “components of PSA” or “aspects of PSA” and say “I affirm but question and reject ” (with components in each blank) so all views – proposed by others & by you – are defined more precisely-and-accurately. In order to affirm that “I think God used PSA” you don't have to accept all versions of PSA, or any particular “PSA” in all of the ways it's defined by another person. I don't agree with all aspects of “historical PSA” in all of the ways it was described by Anselm, Luther, or Calvin – yes, we can liberate ourselves from the restrictive shackles of history, and freely go where the Bible leads us – or with all aspects of the “PSA” in some denominations, or some sermons, videos, or web-pages. You also can make decisions about different components of PSA, about claims being made, and descriptions. You can make a decision about the P & S of basic PSA by simply asking “in the crucifixion of Jesus, was there Penalty-Paying and Substitution?” or IOW, “did Jesus experience our Penalty, and (as our Substitute) did he ‘pay the Penalty’ for us?” If you answer “yes” and “yes”, you can say “I think this basic PSA is one part of our Atonement.” After we've agreed about basic PSA, you can question some details if you think this is justifiable.
some details: I think the most important detail is whether The Penalty (if it's clearly defined, but often it isn't) is death or infinite suffering, and thus whether it's biblical PSA or is semi-biblical PSA that should be modified by removing the distorting influence of EM. But the loudest critics of PSA seem to be especially bothered by EM-influenced descriptions of wrath (and its propitiation); they also challenge a claim that PSA was necessary. (but what does necessary mean in the context of decisions made by a sovereign God who is independent from any external forces?) These concerns affect the way they evaluate other components of PSA – including the biblically supported core-claims of basic PSA – and the ways they express their views, so we see...
harsh criticisms of PSA: Unfortunately, perceptions of PSA have been distorted by harsh anti-PSA rhetoric that (as explained by Mike Winger) tries to "shame us out of good theology" by misrepresenting PSA (how?*). They "ignore the core teaching and focus on making a ridiculous and monstrous fake version of penal substitution which is designed to be so disgusting that you will reject it," using dramatically provocative language that stimulates disgusting emotions about PSA. I don't like this approach, because their harsh criticism of PSA – and thus their criticism of God, who used PSA – disrespects God, and hinders productive communication among people. Along with me, Winger also wonders why the harsh critics are not acknowledging (or maybe not understanding) the strength of biblically-logical arguments against their main criticisms. Later I link to his “clips video” and summarize the anti-PSA claims, and show why – although I agree with some aspects of what the critics are saying – I think their main criticisms either are strawman-distortions or are not biblically justifiable. {of course, maybe I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of their criticisms, but it's what I think, is how I feel.}
One part of "how I feel" is hope for productive change, because I think "a major motivation for harsh criticisms of PSA is a genuine desire to help others improve their thinking-and-feeling about God. This noble desire – wanting to help others fully love God in their thinking & feeling – is a worthy motive. But when we logically evaluate the biblical evidence it seems that God really did use PSA (as it's described in basic PSA & biblical PSA) and it's wise to align our thinking with this reality. In my criticisms of their criticisms, my goal is to help critics see how they can more effectively achieve one of their own goals – to help others fully love God – if they align their thinking-about-PSA with biblical descriptions-of-PSA.
biblical support for pro-PSA: Basic biblical PSA is biblically supported, and this is evidence against many anti-PSA claims. Many common claims – made against generic “popular PSA” so they are not made with logical precision & accuracy – are logically wrong in implying that their criticisms challenge biblically-supported basic PSA or biblical PSA. And for “extra details” where their criticisms do have biblical support, the critics' lack of logical precision makes their claims less effective (due to “boy who cried wolf” feelings) in reducing popular support for the biblically-questionable details of popular PSA and the popular using of these details.
* PSA is misrepresented when a critic claims “ is PSA” and fills the blank with a version that includes non-essential details (disliked by the critic) so they can claim to criticize “The PSA” even though they are criticizing only their personally-constructed version of PSA that includes these extra details in order to make The PSA seem (in the words of Winger) “ridiculous, monstrous, disgusting.” This misrepresentation puts some strawman distortion into their arguments,* making their logic less precise-and-accurate, but (as Winger points out) often making their strategy of rhetorical “persuasion by shaming” very effective. This is unfortunate, but so is the actual using of “monstrously disgusting versions” sometimes (as in these examples) by some proposers of PSA.
* examples of strawman-distortions: A critic can claim that... PSA is like a pagan ritual to satisfy a bloodthirsty god (it's the claim) even though instead of a sacrifice made by people to appease a god, PSA is a sacrifice by God to benefit people; the wrath of God is out-of-control rage (it's the claim) even though divine wrath actually is God's calmly-intense hating of sin, due to His loving of people, with His wrath motivating His goal of ultimately eliminating sin; PSA is retributive (it's the claim) and this is true, but God's use of retributive actions in the past – with a penalty of death in Genesis 3, then the death of Jesus (for PSA with retributive action by God against Himself, not against us) – is part of His plan to use restorative action in the present-and-future for Christians now (if EM, FA, UR) and for all others later (if UR); Jesus was a helpless victim (it's the claim) even though in reality He was a willing volunteer who wanted to actualize the plan-for-salvation that He – in the tri-une God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) – previously had decided (before His temporary incarnation as a divine-and-human person) was best, so it's what He wanted; PSA was not necessary (it's the criticism) and even though I agree that God probably didn't need to use PSA, He certainly wanted to use it, to show us that “human sin is very bad and is worthy of death, but We love you so much that We are willing to pay your death penalty for you,” to show us that PSA is a central part of God's Love Story. {more about these distortions & others}
my motivations:
Due to these harsh criticisms of PSA – and the theological importance of PSA – I've been motivated to include this long section (about PSA) in my page (about Hell), because...
• I want to find biblical truth, to get a correct understanding of what the Bible teaches, and I think it clearly teaches basic PSA and also a biblical PSA that is firmly grounded on biblical Conditional Immortality (instead of unbiblical Eternal Misery) with a penalty of death (instead of EM's infinite suffering).
• Sometimes I want to persuade others, especially for important claims that I think are probably true because they seem highly plausible. In fact, my main purpose in writing these pages is to show you that (almost certainly) God will not cause Eternal Misery, and probably He will produce Universal Restoration, so you can truly love God with your whole heart & mind, so you can “say YES to God” because you love Him, not because you fear His causing of Eternal Misery if you say NO.*
• I want to help others minimize the damage that can occur when some Christians attack their fellow Christians. Let's compare two kinds of damage.
proposing anti-EM: One kind of damage occurs when pro-EM Christians attack Christians who challenge EM. Although these attacks can inflict damage (personal & professional), I think that for anti-EM the ratio of benefit/cost is high because our claims about “what will happen in hell” are extremely important, AND claims for anti-EM have extremely strong biblical support.
proposing anti-PSA: By contrast, for anti-PSA the ratio of benefit/cost is much lower because the challenges are much less important than for anti-EM,* AND most of the common claims for anti-PSA don't have strong biblical support. Due to this low benefit/cost ratio and frequent lack of biblical support, I'm encouraging Christians to think more carefully if they are making anti-PSA claims. I'm hoping they will avoid claims that are not biblically justifiable, and are not edifying for the church, and – when they “poke the bear” even though there is a low benefit/cost for being provocative – are not beneficial for themselves, personally & professionally.
* I think some versions of PSA – as in claiming “the Father's infinite wrath was poured out on Jesus” – do produce thoughts & feelings about God that are distorted and negative. But these are much less damaging, for Christians & non-Christians, compared with a claim that God will cause permanent misery for most of the people He created, with the infinite suffering of Eternal Misery. For most people, EM (not PSA) is the ugly elephant in the mind. By contrast, PSA is basically beautiful, even though it can become ugly when it's burdened with details that are tacked-on due to belief in EM, so... we should criticize EM and the distortions it produces in PSA.
• And I want others to appreciate (in the way I do) how PSA is a central part of God's Grand Story that everyone should hope will have The Best Possible Ending so it's A Love Story for Everyone.
* Attempts to persuade and counter-persuade come from many people, not just me. Unfortunately, some UR-defenders are PSA-opposers. They criticize some versions of PSA – including semi-biblical versions of PSA – but instead of saying “I support biblical PSA, but oppose some aspects of a semi-biblical PSA that is influenced by EM” they define semi-biblical PSA (or another version they dislike) as The PSA, and say “I oppose PSA.” This can cause problems, because if pro-UR (biblically supported) becomes closely associated with anti-PSA (not biblically supported, because it opposes biblically supported PSA), opponents-of-UR can claim a “slippery slope” if accepting UR is associated with rejecting biblical doctrines like PSA. Or they can claim that since anti-PSA is unbiblical, both views – anti-PSA and (with guilt by association) also pro-UR – are unbiblical, are being accepted only because people psychologically “want them to be true” even though both are logically unbiblical. These anti-UR arguments can be rhetorically powerful, so I want to persuade people (especially those who are defending UR) that PSA – in its best versions – is biblical and is compatible with UR, so (because it's biblical) PSA should not be opposed by any Bible-believers, and (because it's compatible) PSA doesn't have to be opposed by UR-proposers. {yes, I want to defend UR, and one defense is by affirming PSA, to show that charges of “slippery slope” or “psychological motives” are not justified for me, and there is not a necessary causal connection between being pro-UR and being anti-PSA.} {also, affirming PSA allows one more anti-EM argument – among many others – because penalty-paying substitution doesn't work properly with EM, but it does work with FA or UR and the logic of crucifixion-plus-resurrection doesn't work with EM}
my goals: This page asks “what will happen in hell?” and my goals are to show why the Bible tells us “God won't cause Eternal Misery” so — when you're bothered (as you should be) by the concept of God causing infinite suffering — instead you can fully trust Him and fully love Him and “say YES to God” in your mind & heart (in your thinking & feeling) during your everyday living-by-faith. If God produces The Best Possible Ending with Universal Restoration, this would be a very loving action, so we can praise Him for The Love Story of Universal Restoration. If He will do UR. IF. But He already has done PSA. And we can praise Him for The Love Story of Penal Substitutionary Atonement because PSA is very loving; it's God's method of reconciling us with Him, and that's good. In my thinking-and-feeling, more liking of PSA leads to more loving of God. But some critics of PSA seem to think that if people like PSA less, they will love God more. I strongly disagree with the critics, and this is my main motivation for writing these sections, to explain why I disagree, why instead we should be praising God for PSA. {more about my motivations}
trusting the wisdom of God: Although I'm confident that God used basic PSA, questions get more complex & difficult when we ask questions about the details of why God used PSA, and how it works, and how it should be described. Although biblically-logical explanations do exist and they seem plausible, for me the simple bottom-line explanation is that God is in control, so God just decides why-and-how to use PSA, knows it will work properly, and (in the past, present, future) He causes it to work properly. When we consider everything God has done for us – with salvation and in other ways – our simple bottom-line response should be to trust God, to trust that He has done what is best, and will continue doing what is best. We should humbly appreciate...
the love story of PSA: God wants us to know that His plan for salvation (by using PSA) was loving & good, so we will know-and-feel (in our minds-and-hearts) how much God loves us. By using PSA, God shows us that sin is very bad, and He is very loving. When we appreciate how God's salvation-using-PSA shows His love for us, it's easier for us to fully love Him and fully trust Him, believing that what He has done (and is doing, and will do) is best, so we can like PSA and love God. {but harsh critics of PSA think disliking PSA will lead to loving God.}
The Judge paid our penalty: Before the life-death-resurrection of Jesus, the tri-une God (Father, Son, HolySpirit) planned PSA – with all agreeing “yes, We will do it” – so Jesus was a volunteer (not a victim) who wanted to die for us, so God would pay our sin-penalty for us, so we could be reconciled with God. Later, Jesus – The Son – will be The Judge (John 5:22), and two “judging analogies” are useful for understanding what God did (and does, and will do) with PSA. First, imagine a judge demanding a fine that he knows you cannot pay, but the judge then pays your fine. Second, imagine the judge sentencing you to a punishment of lashing with a whip, but then the judge takes off his robe and drapes himself across your back and says “do the lashing.” {but one part of this analogy is incorrect, because in biblical reality instead of suffering (as with lashing) our penalty-for-sin is death (as in Genesis 3 and The Crucifixion) so in reality The Judge lived among us and said “do the death” so we won't die, so we can live with Eternal Joy.}
my appropriate humility: I've studied PSA a lot (learning from experts, plus my own thinking) but much less than some others.* This “in between” level of understanding gives me reasons for an appropriate confidence that is not too little, not too much. Although I'm confident that the Bible teaches basic PSA, and most other evangelical Christians agree with this view, some disagree. And when we examine the details of PSA, we see a wider variety of disagreements among Christians who love God and have studied carefully. With humility, I recognize the diversity of views among fellow Christians, and I don't claim to have The Answers. But with confidence that is "not too little" I'm willing to make the claims you see below about perspectives, penalties, influence, versions, and criticisms, plus my motivations for writing about PSA. {* the "many others" include experts making web-resources for PSA}
Now I'll continue explaining why I'm confident that PSA – in its best versions with basic PSA – is biblical and is compatible with Universal Restoration.
But these explanations have been moved into another page in order to prevent this section-about-PSA from becoming even longer than it now is. Below is a “detailed table of contents” for that page, with summaries and links.* You can use it to get a big-picture overview of the ideas, and click links for full-length sections, because... While I was trying to summarize, I often was thinking about the difficulty of writing adequate summaries, due to the complexity of ideas about PSA, and of the evidence-and-logic used in arguments to defend & criticize PSA. My summaries don't adequately describe these complexities. Therefore I encourage you to click links for the full sections that are more thorough. (although certainly not complete)
* italicized links keep you inside this page; un-italicized links go to the other page.
the divine-and-human Jesus — Jesus is God, is part of the tri-une God, with three distinct persons (Father, Son, HolySpirit, each being fully God) existing as one unified being who is God, and... PSA was planned by God (F-S-H) so Jesus (before-and-during His incarnation as a human, because in each time period He was fully God, was fully agreeing with Father & HolySpirit) wanted to do PSA. Jesus was a willing volunteer-for-PSA, not a victim. / Due to God's great love for us, They (F,S,H) all wanted to pay our death penalty, to give us salvation-and-life; during His life on earth, Jesus (the Son) was not a helpless victim; He was a willing volunteer, wanting to do His part in actualizing the plan that God (F-S-H) had designed. We can see this plan when we study...
atoning sacrificial deaths in the OT and NT — When we carefully study the Bible, we find that... God's new-and-better NT substitutionary plan is connected symbolically with OT substitutionary deaths that symbolize His merciful generosity in paying our sin-penalty for us. When we examine this evidence while asking “is PSA true? is PSA the plan-for-salvation that was designed by God, and is being used by God?” we can do...
scientific reality-checking theology — When we use Reality Checks (the logical foundation of science) and compare “how the world would be if God used biblical PSA in the OT & NT” with historical observations of “how the world really was, as recorded in the OT & NT,” there is a close match. I think this logical support should lead Bible-believing Christians to confidently conclude that “God used PSA” so our worldviews – our views of the world, used for living in the world – should include PSA along with other perspectives on the atonement.
dramatic story-telling theology — God wants to affect our thinking & feeling, to make both better; He does this in many ways, including...
The Love Story of PSA: God wants us to understand that His plan for salvation (by using PSA) was loving & good, so we will know-and-feel (in our minds-and-hearts) how much God loves us. Our fuller understanding of divine salvation-using-PSA will help us more fully trust God, and believe that what He has done (and is doing, and will do) is best, so we can like PSA and love God.
But... some Christians think that liking PSA less will lead to loving God more. Why? I think a major motivation for harsh criticisms of PSA is a noble desire to help others fully love God in their thinking-and-feeling. This is a worthy motive. But if (as indicated by a logical evaluation of biblical evidence) God really did use PSA, it's wise to align our thinking with this reality. It's easier to do this when we're seeing a “big picture” overview that shows us how...
God's use of PSA is consistent with The Best Possible Ending for God's Love Story – a Universal Restoration that's a happy ending for everyone – because...
Divine PSA-Actions were first Retributive and then Restorative during three stages of human history, and God's use of retributive action in the past – with a penalty of death in Genesis 3, then the death of Jesus (for PSA) – is consistent with God's use of restorative action in the present-and-future for Christians now (if EM, FA, UR) and for all others later (if UR).
Was the crucifixion necessary? — I think that God didn't need to use PSA (instead He could “just forgive us”) but God wanted to use PSA, to show us the badness of sin and the goodness of God. Our wise response is to enthusiastically praise God because He loved us so much that He was willing to live with us and die for us, with a noble self-sacrifice that actualized His problem-solving plan to replace sin-and-death with salvation-and-life.
Above I explain why PSA is compatible with the best possible ending, if God will produce Eternal Joy for all people.
Below I describe a futile attempt to make PSA compatible with a horrible ending, if God will cause Eternal Misery for most people.
Is an “immense wrath of God” (distorting PSA)
caused by belief in the infinite suffering of EM ?
The Crucifixion Experience (finite suffering with death) and an Eternal Misery Experience (infinite suffering without death) are very different, so with EM a PSA-Substitution is unsatisfactory. Defenders of EM try to fix the two mis-matches by redefining The Crucifixion Experience so its main focus is suffering that they claim was infinite suffering) and redefining death so EM Experience (often called Eternal Conscious Torment) becomes (infinite suffering with death). But these changes are not biblically justifiable.
Here are examples of PSA being distorted by EM: "what Jesus felt on the cross was far worse and deeper than all of our deserved hells put together" because He "experienced the full wrath of the Father" so "the biggest suffering on the cross was... when the Father poured out His wrath on His son [to cause]... a dark, terrible, incalculable agony, an infinite misery, as God the Father unleashes his fury upon His sinless Son as if guilty of an immeasurable evil." Wow. {the quotations with detail about more detail}
penalty versus punishment — A subtle EM-distorting of PSA occurs when penal is defined as punishment (implying that the penalty is a punishment that causes suffering) instead of penalty-paying (with the biblical penalty of death). / parallels between OT & NT: Were animals being “punished” in OT sacrifices? No. Instead the main focus was their death. Was Jesus being “punished” in His NT sacrifice? No.
S and P: Although one important harsh criticism – asking “why couldn't God just forgive us, instead of using PSA?” – challenges the S of PSA, more often the P causes questions & challenges, especially when it's described in terms of “God's wrath” so we should ask...
What is the wrath of God in the context of PSA?
I affirm a defining of God's wrath (in biblical PSA) as the intense way that God hates sin because sin disrespects God and harms people. Therefore God wants to eliminate sin, to produce righteousness that is justice. God would achieve this goal with UR or FA, but not with EM.
I reject a defining of God's wrath (in semi-biblical PSA that is distorted by EM) as Jesus "experiencing the full wrath of the Father" who "poured out His wrath on His son [to cause]... an infinite misery." This view of wrath has been adopted by some proponents of PSA (who use it to defend EM) and by some critics of PSA (who use it to ridicule PSA). {God is allowing our death, but is not actively killing us, but occasionally God did actively kill people in the OT & NT, and these killing-actions are compatible with either FA or UR}
propitiation & expiation — There also (in addition to “wrath debates”) is controversy about the meanings of these important words – in the original Hebrew & Greek, and in their English translations – and how the words are used in the OT & NT and in PSA.
How should we define PSA? Here are two extremes: Due to their belief in Eternal Misery and/or for other reasons, some proponents of PSA want to emphasize “the wrath of God” – defined as an enraged “unleashing of fury” rather than a calm opposition to sin (and a resolute determination to eliminate it) – in their version of PSA that they want everyone to define as The Official PSA. Some opponents of PSA adopt a similar definition, for different reasons, so they can portray PSA as God emotionally “venting his anger” in out-of-control rage. Instead of these extremes, we should acknowledge that many versions of PSA exist, and then instead of defending (or criticizing) a “generic PSA” as a whole, we can aim for improved logical precision.
Despite the abuses-of-logic that often occur when PSA is discussed, I think there are...
Reasons for Hope — Maybe our discussions can become more productive if we carefully examine the many agreements – about basic Substitutionary Atonement (SA), plus much of a basic PSA and biblical PSA – and try to understand why some claims – about some aspects of S, and (especially) some aspects of P – produce disagreement. And if we approach the issues with lovingly Christian attitudes & actions, with communication that is more cooperatively respectful, and rhetoric that is less aggressively combative. / some observations: When we look at defenders of PSA and (especially) critics of PSA, there are reasons for optimism, but also for pessimism due to...
There are reasons for hoping our discussions might become more productive. But sometimes that isn't happening now. {this Part 2 supplements Part 1.}
In his insightful “clips video” {58:10, plus Q-and-A for 15:10} Mike Winger explains how critics of PSA are "trying to shame us out of good theology by misrepresenting Penal Substitutionary Atonement" when they "ignore the core teaching [of PSA] and focus on making a ridiculous and monstrous fake version of penal substitution which is designed to be so disgusting that you will reject it." {critics could pursue a worthy goal in better ways}
In this video, Mike shows short video-clips where critics harshly criticize PSA, and he explains why the criticisms are misrepresenting PSA, and/or are not biblically justifiable. Here are their main criticisms, plus – using what I've learned from Winger & others – my counter-arguments:
• PSA is pagan (it's the criticism) but... instead of being invented by pagan humans, all biblical sacrifices were commanded by God; no humans were ever sacrificed, except for Jesus, and this action – with God graciously sacrificing Himself for us, not demanding a sacrifice from us – was done for a specific purpose, to produce PSA for our benefit. {when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac – but then didn't let him do it – one purpose was to show Abraham that God did NOT want human sacrifices offered to Him.}
• PSA is disgusting (it's the criticism) but... this is due to modern people misunderstanding (and underestimating) the ancient culture of Israel, as explained by Tim Mackie.
• PSA is not necessary (it's the criticism) and... maybe this is correct. I think that probably God didn't need to use PSA – instead He could have “just forgiven us” – but certainly God wanted to use PSA. God wanted to use PSA because it's consistent with His own internal standards for justice, and because He wanted to teach us that “human sin is very bad and is worthy of death, but We love you so much that We are willing to pay your death penalty for you,” to show us that PSA is a central part of God's Love Story.
• PSA is unforgiving (it's the criticism) but... although critics ask “why can't God just forgive us?” and claim that God doesn't actually forgive us if He used PSA – that because Christ received our penalty, the penalty wasn't authentically forgiven – instead we should examine the facts (in OT & NT) and conclude “God decided to use PSA” and then humbly think “because God chose this plan, it's a good plan.” Instead of criticizing God's plan, we should gratefully accept His gracious forgiving of our sins.
• PSA is retributive (it's the criticism) but... PSA is an essential part of God's plan for graciously giving salvation that is restorative, either for some or for all. Yes, there was past retribution by God, but it leads to future restoration by God, either for some people (with EM, FA) or (with UR) for all people. {did God kill Jesus? No and Yes}
• PSA is angrily vicious (it's the criticism) but... although critics ridicule their own strawman-distortion of PSA in which The Crucifixion was caused by an out-of-control Father “venting his anger,” this isn't the way PSA is reported in the Bible, or is described by its main proponents; biblically, divine wrath isn't out-of-control rage, and God's motives for designing-and-doing PSA include both His hating of sin and His loving of people.
• PSA is unfair (it's the criticism) but... a claim that “it isn't fair to punish an innocent person” ignores the fact that Jesus is part of the tri-une God who together planned His death in PSA, so He was a willing volunteer. Jesus also will be The Judge (John 5:22), and two “judging analogies” are useful for understanding what God did with PSA.
• PSA is Cosmic Child Abuse (it's the criticism) but... this accusation is wrong in many ways: • it implies that The Son was a helpless victim, but in reality He was a willing volunteer; • saying "child" implies a young person, but Jesus was an adult when He (as a human) chose to die for us, after He already had chosen (before His human incarnation) to die for us; • calling it "abuse" implies an out-of-control “venting of rage” but this isn't how God does His thoughts & actions; • this claim is disrespectful by “saying bad things about the character of God” if He used PSA, and almost certainly (we can conclude by using scientific-historical logical Reality Checks) He did use PSA.
a summary: A conclusion that is strongly supported by a logical evaluation of biblical evidence in the OT & NT is that... harsh criticisms of biblical PSA are not justified.
Educational Web-Resources for PSA
You can learn about PSA from me, and also from other Christians who know more than I do, and are highly skilled at teaching what they know so you also can know it.
The experts include BibleProject & Tim Mackie, Mike Winger, Caleb Smith, William Lane Craig, N.T. Wright, Brad Jersak, Bruxy Cavey (+ Paul Carter), Greg Boyd.