PSA – Penal Substitutionary Atonement

My page asking “what will happen in hell?” has a long section about PSA that begins with subsections about two meanings of atonement & definitions (basic & expanded) of PSA & evidence-based reality checks & trusting the wisdom of God & my appropriate humility & combining perspectives & the biblical penalty [of death] & my terms [basic PSA, biblical PSA, semi-biblical PSA] & an unbiblical influence & many versions of PSA & harsh criticisms of PSA & my motivations.

Then I say "now I'll continue explaining why I'm confident that PSA (in its best versions) is biblical and is compatible with Universal Restoration" and these explanations have been moved into this page.

also:  There are summaries for the full-length sections in this page.

the divine-and-human Jesus

We should carefully study the Bible so we can learn what it teaches about the life-death-resurrection of Jesus, and also His pre-life existence & actions because it's important to understand that...

Jesus is God:  Jesus Christ is part of the tri-une God, the three distinct persons – Father, Son, HolySpirit – who somehow (in a way we cannot fully understand) exist as one unified being who is God.  But even though Jesus is God, many criticisms of PSA describe Jesus as if He was just a human during His life on earth, was not also fully divine.

planning by God:  A long time before God's incarnation in a human body, They (Father-Son-HolySpirit) decided to achieve salvation for humans,* because...  God hates sin and decided that (in order to achieve justice) sin deserved a penalty of death and, after humans began to sin, They actualized this penalty by removing Their death-preventing supernatural power (symbolized by "the tree of life") so humans would die, so we wouldn't live forever in a sinful state (in eternal misery) and our death was a merciful penalty;   God also loves people so part of His plan was to eventually end our death and give us continuing life.  We can imagine a meeting between the persons of God (F,S,H) when They decided that human salvation would be achieved by God paying our penalty of death.  How would this happen?  By miraculously causing one divine person, The Son, to be born as a human we would call Yeshua (now aka Jesus in English) because He would bring yeshuah (meaning salvation in Hebrew) through his life-and-death, plus His resurrection to show us that He/They had defeated death and could give life.

unanimous agreement:  God is one unified being, and all three persons (F-S-H) enthusiastically agreed “yes, this is a very good plan.”  When deciding “WWGD to produce atonement?” – i.e. What Will God Do – it was “WWFD=WWSD=WWHD = WWGD?” because all persons in the triune God agreed.     {why can we refer to God as “They” or “He”?}

Jesus was a willing volunteer:  Whenever we're thinking about PSA, we should remember that The Son said “yes” and volunteered for His mission, even though He knew it would be difficult and painful.  Yeshua "emptied Himself" (in some ways but not others) during His life on earth;  the night before His crucifixion, Jesus (who fully felt human emotions) prayed "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me;  yet not My will, but Yours be done,” so He obediently followed the plan that He had helped co-design before His incarnation.   /   a summary:  Due to God's great love for us, They (Father, Son, HolySpirit) all wanted to pay our death penalty, to give us salvation-and-life;  during His life on earth, the Son (Jesus) was not a helpless victim;  He was a willing volunteer, wanting to do His part in actualizing the plan that They (F-S-H) had designed.  We can see this plan when we study...

atoning sacrificial deaths in the OT and NT

Let's look at the reality (as described in the Bible) of what God has done in the past, while asking “is PSA true?  is PSA the plan-for-salvation that was designed by God, and is being used by God?”  When we carefully study the Bible, we find that...

In the NT, God's new-and-better substitutionary system is connected symbolically with OT substitutionary deaths that symbolize His merciful generosity in paying our sin-penalty for us:

    • God commanded Abraham's test of faith when his son Isaac was saved from death because God provided a ram to be a substitute sacrifice so "The Lord Will Provide" was the name given to that mountain by Abraham; 
    • God commanded The Passover (when a lamb died, so Hebrew children would not die) that is symbolically connected with the time of year when “the Lord did provide” by giving His life for us, as first described by Jesus during The Last Supper — "then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed" and Jesus said "this [a cup with "fruit of the vine"] is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" in the God-commanded tradition of Holy Communion — with John the Baptist previously saying "behold, the Lamb of God [Jesus] who takes away the sin of the world!" and later Paul reminding us that "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed";
    • God commanded Israelites to do the regular actions (daily, weekly, monthly, seasonally, yearly) of His OT sacrificial system – saying in Exodus 29:36 "every day you shall offer a bull [i.e. "you shall kill the bull"] as a sin offering for atonement" and in Leviticus 16:15,27,34 the priest "shall kill the goat ["whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place"] of the sin offering... that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins" on Israel's annual Day of Atonement.  Later these sin-atoning sacrifices continued in the First Temple and Second Temple.  In all biblical descriptions of the sacrificial system designed by God, there is never any mention of suffering, instead the focus is always on death, because God's penalty for sin is death.  Later,...
    • God actualized a divine plan for salvation – that They (F-S-H) had decided was best – by using God's own sacrificial death (during the incarnation of The Son in divine-and-human Yeshua) as the foundation of Their plan for Penal Substitutionary Atonement, with God paying our penalty of death, followed by His victorious death-defeating resurrection to show us that He has conquered death, so He can give life.   /   The sacrificial death of Jesus (in NT) is symbolically connected with earlier sacrificial deaths (in OT):  "the life of a creature is in the blood, and... it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life" (Leviticus 17:11) and (Hebrews 9:22)* "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" but Christians don't do blood-shedding animal sacrifices, so how can we be forgiven and saved?  Jesus tells us (Matthew 26:28) "this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" in the divine self-sacrifice that was the final biblical sacrifice because it successfully achieved the goals of God:  "the blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7) and (Ephesians 1:7) "we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" because "you were redeemed... with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect" (1 Peter 1:18-19) so "having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him" (Romans 5:9) and God will achieve His ultimate goal (Colossians 1:20), "through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross."     {* the first part of Hebrews 9:22 is discussed later}

MORE — You can learn about the strong biblical evidence for PSA from me, and from other Christians:

    If you like videos – they're an effective way to multi-task, to learn by listening while you're doing easy things like preparing food, cleaning up, working out, doing yardwork – here are three excellent educational videos:  Sacrifice and Atonement (6:50) from BibleProject* {tips:  instead of just listening, also watch the graphics!  probably you can use increased speed, 1.5x to 2.0x;  it's short so you can learn from it again & again, at higher speeds and eventually without graphics;  the repeating can help you understand-and-remember its deep ideas} and two longer videos (so higher speeds are useful, and usually you can just listen):  Atonement (49:57) by Tim Mackie (co-founder of BibleProject) is especially useful for understanding the culture of ancient Israel;  Where The Old Testament [and New Testament] Teaches Penal Substitution (1:19:43) by Mike Winger, is a comprehensive clearly-explained overview of biblical evidence, especially from the OT but also showing its connections with the NT.
    And a web-page (by Michael Lawrence) shows how God's actions form The Love Story of Penal Substitutionary Atonement and why we should respond to God's plan for salvation (using PSA) with gratefully loving appreciation, not unlovingly-harsh criticisms.    {more about The Love Story of PSA}  {also: more web-resources}

scientific reality-checking theology:  We can use Reality Checks (the logical foundation of science) when we're trying to determine what is true.  In comparisons of “how the world would be if God was using biblical PSA” 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” symbolically in the OT (with animals for partial atonements) and actually in the NT (with Jesus for full atonement).  Therefore 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 uses logic and drama.  Each of these can affect our feeling & thinking, hopefully to make both better.  Some parts of the Bible describe principles about God (re: who He is, and the what-how-why of His actions) or for people (re: how we should think & feel, what we should do, and why) that mainly affect our minds, but also our hearts.  Most of the Bible is stories (about the history of God & people) that affect our thinking-and-feeling, our ideas-and-emotions, our minds-and-hearts.  Because we can learn from experience – whether it's first-hand (happening for us) or second-hand (happening for others) – we can learn principles from stories that affect our minds and hearts.     { learning from experience is a useful definition for education }

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-salvation will help us more fully trust God, and believe that what He has done (and is doing, and will do) is best.  We will understand how "the story of PSA is the story of the passionate expression of God’s love... is the greatest love story ever told," so we can like PSA and love God.

a different response:  Why do some Christians think that liking PSA less will lead to loving God more?  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 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” by thinking about three stages of history (two in the past, one in the present & future) so we can understand how God's use of retributive actions (in the past) allows Him to use restorative actions (in the present & future) that are done “on His terms, consistent with what He has decided” to achieve His goals.  God's restorative actions will be extremely beneficial – either for some people (if He will do EM or FA) or hopefully for all people (if He will do UR) – so PSA gives us reasons to praise God and fully love Him.

The Best Possible Ending for God's Love Story would be Universal Restoration (UR) because it's a happy ending for everyone.  Is this restorative Ending consistent with God's earlier use of a retributive Penalty and retributive PSA?  Yes, as explained below.

Divine Actions – first Retributive and then Restorative

PSA is compatible with UR.  To see why, let's look at God's actions in three stages of biblical history:  1) Two Problems (in Genesis 3);   2) The Solution-Process (PSA during history, from Genesis 4 through The Crucifixion-and-Resurrection);   3) The Solution-Results (after Stage 2, during Life and Afterlife).

Here is a summary of the overall process:  According to biblical PSA, God's actions were actively retributive in Stage 1 (by actively removing His "tree of life" so we would not live forever, but this action mercifully prevented people from living forever in sinful Eternal Misery) and were actively retributive in Stage 2 (by actively orchestrating the death of Jesus, but God applied the penalty to Himself, not us, with PSA), and Stage 2 produced Atonement that is sufficient for His actions to be lovingly restorative in Stage 3 (now during Life for all believers, and later in Afterlife for all people if God will produce Universal Restoration).     {active retribution in Stage 2 – did God kill Jesus?  No and Yes}

And here are some details of the process:

Stage 1 – Two Problems:  After the first human sins in Genesis 3, God (F-S-H) actualized Their judicial retributive penalty of human death – by removing Their "tree of life" so we would die – but death prevented infinite misery so the divine penalty also was an act of divine mercy.

Stage 2 – The Solution-Process:  God hates sin and loves people.  Due to God's hatred of sin, They (in Stage 1) punished sinful people with a retributive Death Penalty.  Due to God's love for people, They (in Stage 2) actualized a plan to solve the related problems of sin and death in a way that is consistent with Their justice.  Instead of saying “sin isn't very bad, and I'll just forgive you,” They wanted to teach us that “sin IS very bad, is worthy of death, but We love you so much that We are willing to pay your death penalty for you.”  God punished us with a Retributive Penalty (of horrible-yet-merciful death) in Stage 1, after God (F-S-H) already had decided that God would pay the Retributive Penalty in Stage 2, using PSA.

Crucifixion-plus-Resurrection:  An essential connection between Stages 2 & 3 is the fact that God's Plan of Salvation – designed by God (Father-Son-HolySpirit) – included a sacrificial Crucifixion AND a victorious Resurrection;  first God (as the Son incarnated in Jesus) died for us;  then He rose from the dead, to show us that He has conquered death for us.  Both actions – in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus – are necessary parts of God's plan to lovingly solve our most important problem, by changing our situation from sin-and-death to salvation-and-life.

Stage 3 – The Solution-Results: 

    Crucifixion-plus-Resurrection:  The beneficial results begin immediately during the life of a believer, because (as Paul tells us in Romans 6:1-14) there is a connection between the death-of-Jesus (in His crucifixion) and our death-to-sin that is the death of our old life, along with a connection between the re-birth of Jesus (in His resurrection) and our re-birth to a new life.  Paul explains, using the symbolism of baptism, that "we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life."  This is a way to describe the process of becoming a born-again Christian:  a person's old sinful nature must die (analogous to the death of Christ) so they can be transformed by God (as in the resurrection of Christ) to "walk in newness of life."
    Restoration for Believers:  This death-and-rebirth is the beginning of a transformative process – guided & empowered by HolySpirit working inside people – that eventually will cause us to become sanctified, to become fully restored internally (in our personal feeling & thinking) and externally (in our interpersonal relationships with God & with people).   /   the bottom line:  God – who is sovereign so He does things the way He wants, “on His own terms” – decided to use PSA (in Stage 2) so He could save-and-sanctify us (in Stage 3) in a way that is consistent with His concept of justice that is righteousness.
    Retribution for Unbelievers?  What is the scope of salvation?  FA and EM propose that God will cause restorative justification-and-sanctification only for people who are saved in Life;  all others will get retribution in Afterlife, with death if FA, infinite misery if EM.  UR agrees that God will do restoration for believers, beginning with Christians (during Life) and continuing (during Afterlife) with everyone, including the majority who were not saved in Life but will become believers in Afterlife, because God also wants to save them.

Stages 1-2-3  (first Retributive and then Restorative)

By examining “the big picture” when all three stages are combined, we see the compatibility of biblical PSA and Universal Restoration.  Why?

    Because the process of “how God justifies people” (in Stage 2) doesn't place any limits on the process of “how God sanctifies people” (in Stage 3);  God can be retributive in Stages 1 & 2, and then restorative in Stage 3.  Even though God's judicial penalty of death (in Stage 1) was actively-retributive, and His own payment of His penalty (in Stage 2) was actively-retributive, His process of sanctification (in Stage 3) can be actively-restorative for some people (with FA) or all people (with UR).  A biblical PSA with a retributive biblical penalty of death (not the infinite suffering of EM) is compatible either with FA-Hell that is only retributive (is done to people, resulting in their death) or – if God saves people from death during Afterlife – with UR-Hell that is restorative (is done for people, resulting in their restoration).*  And either way, divine restoration during Stage 3 (done in UR-Hell for the benefit of people, to improve them) is compatible with divine retribution during Stage 1 (with people suffering the retributive penalty of death) and Stage 2 (with God suffering the retributive penalty of death).
    In Romans 5:18 we see all three stages: "just as one trespass [the sin of Adam that initiated #1] resulted in [due to God's judicial penalty in #1] condemnation for all people [with the death penalty continuing thru #2 and the early part of #3], so also one righteous act [the self-sacrificing death of Jesus, to finish #2] resulted in justification [being justified, being declared righteous by God,* #2] and life [during #3, continuing transformation that ultimately will end in eternal life with joy] for all people."   {* justified = righteousified, considered righteous by God}
    a summary:  Instead of criticizing God because He was retributive in Stages 1 (by not letting us live forever with sin, which actually is merciful) and 2 (but God applied the penalty to Himself, not us), we should be grateful that Stage 2 led to Stage 3 when He restores people, either some (if EM or FA) or all (if UR).

* UR-Hell could be only-restorative, or retributive-and-restorative.  Either way could be consistent with the biblical principle that “what we sow (in Life), we will reap (in Life + Afterlife)” IF the suffering caused by a person in Life (what they sowed) is connected with the sorrowful suffering they will feel in Afterlife (what they will reap).  If this occurs, would we call it retributive action by God, or just an intrinsic cause-effect relationship?  Maybe suffering in UR-Hell is just a byproduct of the process that will educate-and-correct people. (i.e. it would not be suffering that is inflicted by God “just to cause painful suffering” because “that's what they earned by their sinning”)   But either way – with or without divine retribution – is compatible with UR, if restoration-of-people is The Final Result.    {more about "degrees of suffering" in UR-Hell}

does pro-UR cause anti-PSA? – [[ iou - here are ideas to use in developing this:  correlation isn't causation;   B & C correlated because both have from source, if B & C correlated, maybe A causes B and A causes C, eg if wanting "love-God with no wrath, zero retribution at any time of history" motivates-stimulates both pro-UR and anti-PSA;  

Was the crucifixion necessary?  (why couldn't God just forgive us?)

Was it necessary? NO (probably)    Was it wanted by God? YES (certainly)

I think that God probably didn't need to use PSA – instead He could have “just forgiven us” – but God certainly wanted to use PSA.  Some critics correctly claim that “God didn't kill Jesus, people killed Jesus” with deicide that illustrates our profound sinfulness.  But... God wanted us to kill Jesus, and allowed it.  The plan of God (F-S-H) required the death of Jesus, so God (including the Son) wanted Jesus to die for us, to actualize PSA, so They (F-S-H) allowed humans to kill Jesus.  In fact, several times Jesus told His disciples that He would be killed;  He knew this would happen, and it's what He wanted to happen.  {did God kill Jesus? no and yes}

Sometimes critics of PSA lack appropriate humility when they claim (using harsh rhetoric) that it's unworthy of God to want a sacrifice, even though it's God choosing to sacrifice Himself for us!  To determine whether this bold claim is justifiable, we should ask...

Was PSA chosen by God, and actualized by God?  The clear biblical answer is YES.  If we use logical Reality Checks when examining biblical history in the OT & NT it seems impossible for a logical Bible-believer to avoid concluding that “yes, God chose to use PSA, and did use PSA.” {it seems logically unavoidable if it's basic PSA claiming only P, S, A}   If not, why would God command many sacrifices in the OT (with sacrificial symbolism that was concretely actualized by physical sacrifices of many animals, during many years) and then connect this with The Sacrifice-of-Self by God in the NT, with Christ telling His disciples (during The Last Supper, the annual Passover Meal, in Matthew 26:28) "this [the first Communion Cup] is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many [with His death on the cross] for forgiveness of sins.  And later (Ephesians 1:7) Paul tells us that "in Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace."  After we conclude that “God used PSA” we should humbly think “because God chose this plan, it's a good plan.”  We should 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.

This humble faith-response can be supplemented by two kinds of theological explanations. 

A) We can humbly say “yes, God could have just forgiven us, but He decided that instead He would use PSA for a purpose, to achieve His goals,” and a key goal was 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.

B) And we can humbly try to understand WHY God chose to actualize His wise justice in His world by using PSA.  Theopedia says that during the crucifixion there was "a full payment for sins, which satisfied... the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard."  God wanted to forgive us, AND do this in a way that is consistent with "His own holy standard."  We can ask whether God would achieve His best justice — i.e. justice that is most consistent with His own attributes (of being just & loving,...) and His own principles (for the characteristics of justice-with-loving and for actions to achieve it,...) — by using PSA, or by not using PSA.  Of course, we should ask with appropriate humility – acknowledging the limitations of our understanding – and accept what we have learned about God and His reasons.   /   When we do this, many prominent theologians (in the past & present) have concluded that God could have just forgiven without using PSA, but most {according to Caleb Smith, 1:08-1:46, and William Land Craig agrees} think the biblical evidence strongly supports a logical conclusion that...  • God wanted to achieve His best justice, and  • God's best method for achieving His best justice was PSA,  • therefore God had to choose PSA.  Although I think this is possible, I say “probably He was free to not use PSA, but He freely chose to use it” because the burden of proving that "God had to choose PSA" is so high.  With extreme confidence (far “beyond a reasonable doubt”) I claim, based on a logical evaluation of biblical evidence, that God certainly did use PSA.  With less confidence, I claim that God could have not-used PSA, and I think even less confidence is warranted in claims that (due to His own standards) God must have used PSA.

God was free to “just forgive” but instead He decided to use PSA by sacrificing Himself for us (in the crucifixion of divine-and-human Jesus) because doing this is consistent with His own internal standards, AND it shows us the badness of sin and the goodness of His love for us.  Therefore instead of questioning the wisdom of His decision, we should respond with faith by thinking “the Bible teaches PSA, so I believe it” and “God used PSA, so I praise Him for it.”

atonement is reconciliation & purification:   • The word atonement was cleverly constructed (in English) by removing hyphens from at-one-ment, because the result of atonement is being at-one with God, in unified harmony with God, reconciled with God.    • In the Old Testament the purpose of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) was to purify people, to cleanse them from the impurity of their sins;  this meaning continues in the New Testament, because "the fundamental meaning of atonement is that Christ's death in some way purifies or cleanses us of our sins, and the result of this will be reconciliation to God," explains William Lane Craig, who describes the two meanings.

purification and reconciliation:  Is a holy-and-righteous God willing to reconcile with us (despite our unrighteous sinning) because He has paid our penalty for sinning, so He considers us to be already-purified even though we currently are still sinfully unrighteously impure?

Above I explain why PSA is compatible with the best possible ending, if God will produce Eternal Joy for all people.

Below I describe an attempt to make PSA compatible with the almost-worst ending,* if God will cause Eternal Misery for most people.     {* It's "almost worst" because it could be worse if God causes Eternal Misery for ALL people instead of MOST people.}

an “immense wrath of God” (distorting PSA) is

caused by a belief in the infinite suffering of EM

The OT gives us three kinds of strong evidence against Eternal Misery:  A) After the first sin, God removes His "tree of life" so sinners won't live forever with sinful Eternal Misery;  later in Revelation, God gives immortality that is conditional – IF saved, then immortal – which is consistent with UR or FA, but not with EM.   B) In the OT we see major penalties (of death) and rescues (from death) as with FA or UR, not infinite suffering as with EM.   C) God commands an OT Sacrificial System using death (not suffering) that, along with the NT Sacrificial System using death (in the divine self-sacrificing death of God), leads us to logically conclude “PSA is true.”

Let's examine the PSA-Substitution in the evidences of C.  If God will use FA, an FA Experience (finite suffering with death) will be similar to The Crucifixion Experience of Jesus (finite suffering with death), so He did experience the Sin-Penalty that we would experience in FA-Hell;  due to this close matching of experiences, there is a satisfactory PSA-Substitution.  This hell-death will be experienced by some people (if FA) but no people (if UR), because the crucifixion-death of Jesus will save some people (if FA) but all people (if UR).   /   By contrast, The Crucifixion Experience (finite suffering with death) and an EM Experience (infinite suffering without death) are very different, so a PSA-Substitution would be unsatisfactory.  Defenders of EM try to fix the two mis-matches in two ways:

    • they redefine the main penalty that was paid by Jesus during His Crucifixion, so instead of being regular death (ceasing to be alive) it's a separation from God (as when Jesus asked "why have You forsaken me?") and they invent a way to claim – as in the examples below* – that this separation caused psychological suffering that was infinite suffering, when The Son “experienced the wrath of The Father” for us.
    • they redefine death so instead of being regular death (ceasing to be alive) it's a separation, so people would have death if they are separated from God in EM-Hell.

With these two unbiblical changes – that are forced by trying to defend unbiblical EM – The Crucifixion Experience (that actually was finite suffering with death but now is claimed to be infinite suffering with death) and an EM Experience (that actually would be infinite suffering without death but now is claimed to be infinite suffering with death) match, to produce a satisfactory Substitution for PSA, because this was the goal of making the two changes.  But in doing this, they have produced a distorted version of PSA, a semi-biblical PSA where The Penalty has been changed from death to infinite suffering, contrary to the three EM-opposing evidences in the OT (in The Fall, penalties & rescues, OT Sacrificial System) outlined above with details earlier, and other biblical reasons to reject EM.   /   They also distort the meaning of death, which now occurs because God decided to remove His death-preventing "tree of life" after human sin, so sinners could not "live forever."  But defenders of EM (often called Eternal Conscious Torment) claim that EM is death even though there is conscious experience in a physical body.  This defining of physically-conscious experience as “death” is a very strange meaning for death.

* Here are three examples (two from Calvinists, then one from a non-Calvinist) of how semi-biblical PSA is formed when biblical PSA is distorted by a belief in Eternal Misery.

    • Tim Keller claims that "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."    {in these quotations, italics are added by me}
    • Greg Koukl says "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."
    • William Lane Craig also thinks "the suffering that the damned in hell will experience [i.e. "the whole infinite suffering of every person" in hell] was compressed into that brief period of time, so that its intensity [caused by "Christ experiencing this forsakenness from God the Father"] made up for the shortness of its duration."
    more:  details about Keller & Koukl including why Jesus saying "forsaken" finds its meaning in the second part of Psalm 22  –  understanding the wrath of God

When we carefully study the Bible we can recognize the distortion of PSA-plus-EM, and distinguish between two distinctly different versions of PSA:  biblical PSA (claiming the penalty is death) should be accepted;  but semi-biblical PSA (claiming the penalty is infinite suffering) should be rejected, or should be converted into biblical PSA.    {but some critics of PSA don't want to convert PSA-with-EM, instead they want to use it as a reason to criticize biblical PSA.}

plus an excerpt from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards:  "It is everlasting wrath.  It would be dreadful to suffer ​this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment;  but you must suffer it to all eternity.  There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery.  When you look forward, you shall see a long forever, a boundless duration, before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your souls;  and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all;  you will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance;  and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains.  So that your punishment will indeed be infinite."

penalty versus punishment (and suffering)

This is a subtle way for PSA to be distorted by EM.  Theopedia's definition of PSA says "Christ... bore the punishment [for sin]" but "instead I would say ‘paid the penalty’ because I think that if penal means penalty-paying, the PSA is more biblically accurate."  Why?  Because the biblical penalty for sin is death (as in FA or UR), not infinite suffering (as in EM), but saying "the punishment that we deserve... was a full payment for sins" implies that suffering (caused by punishment) is the "full payment" of our sin-penalty, thus implying the EM that I think is unbiblical.

As explained earlier (briefly & in detail), belief in EM often produces an over-emphasis on suffering (caused by divine punishing) in descriptions of PSA.  For example, William Lane Craig (who defends EM and describes the Crucifixion Experience as "infinite suffering") says "on the cross, He bore the suffering, or the penalty, that we deserved as the punishment for our sin, thereby freeing us from liability to punishment so we could be pardoned and reconciled to God."  He implies that three terms (the suffering, the penalty, the punishment) have meanings that are identical (as in "the suffering, or the penalty,") or at least are very similar, thus implying that our penalty is suffering (as with infinite suffering) instead of death.  This is one way for EM-believing to distort PSA-defining.

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...

Wrath:

What does “the wrath of God” mean?

Is wrath a useful concept in our defining-of-PSA?

These two questions are very important – they're in the middle of our current battleground – when we're evaluating & discussing PSA.

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, and He would achieve this goal with UR or FA, but not with EM.  All people (both Christians & non-Christians) should want this righteous sin-eliminating justice but producing it requires judicial actions by God – because "God is the only all-powerful entity, so if the cosmos will ever have total justice, this must be produced by Him" – and His judicial actions will be motivated by His intense hating of sin, by His wrath.  We don't want a “gentle bunny” God who will do little to produce justice.

I reject a defining of God's wrath (in semi-biblical PSA) as Jesus "experiencing the full wrath of the Father" who "poured out His wrath on His son [to cause]... an infinite misery, as God the Father unleashes his fury upon His sinless Son."  These descriptions of wrath occur because biblical PSA has been distorted by the unbiblical belief that God's penalty for sin is infinite suffering (not death) due to his infinite anger, so – in order to pay our penalty – on the cross Jesus had to experience the infinite suffering of Eternal Misery.  This view of wrath has been adopted by some proponents of PSA, and by some critics of PSA who use it to ridicule PSA.

Unfortunately, common connotations of “wrath” can lead us to imagine God's “furious wrath” instead of His intense-yet-controlled opposition to sin.  Confusion occurs when we don't understand the similarities & differences between familiar human wrath and unfamiliar divine wrath as it's described in the Bible.

a personal summary:  I affirm “the sin-opposing calm wrath” of biblical PSA, and reject “the Son-punishing furious wrath” of semi-biblical PSA.

propitiation & expiation:  These also (in addition to wrath) are important words, and there is controversy about their meanings, and how they are used in the OT & NT and in PSA.

[[ i.o.u. – Eventually I'll develop this section.  For now, I'll just quote Theopedia. ]]

They begin by quoting Charles Ryrie, 1999: "Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering" as in "satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ."  Later they say "Propitiation versus Expiation:  Propitiation literally means to make favorable and specifically includes the idea of dealing with God’s wrath against sinners.  Expiation literally means to make pious and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.  The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means;  but the word 'expiation' has no reference to quenching God’s righteous anger.  The difference is that the object of expiation is sin, not God.  One propitiates a person, and one expiates a problem.  Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation.  By expiating (removing the problem of) sin, God was made propitious (favorable) to us."  Their page ends with brief comments about translation, and a commentary (about Romans 3:25) from the ESV Study Bible that provides many ideas to think about.

Recently – after doing most of my writing about PSA, at least for awhile – I read their page (plus a couple of others) and now I realize why some critics of PSA are bothered by claims for propitiation in the context of PSA.  For now I'll just be in learning mode, due to the complexity of the ideas and their interactions, will humbly think “regarding the why-and-how of God's plan for salvation, it's good and is worthy of praise.”    { i.o.u. – After I've thought more about these ideas, I'll write more about them. }

How should we define PSA?

A basic PSA claims only that, in His crucifixion, Christ was our Substitute and He paid our Penalty to achieve Atonement.

The two main claims of PSA are that Atonement was achieved by Substitution, and it was Penal.  Many critics of PSA accept the Substitution (because they use logical Reality Checks based on biblical history) but challenge the Penal, especially disliking the emphasis on divine wrath that occurs in some descriptions of PSA.  Thus, there is disagreement about the meaning of P in PSA.

Some proponents of PSA define penal as “punishment with suffering” instead of penalty-paying, due to a distorting of PSA that is caused by a believing in EM.  Due to their belief in Eternal Misery and/or for other reasons, some proponents of PSA want to emphasize “the wrath of God” in their version of PSA that they want everyone to define as The Official PSA.  This wrath can be viewed in many ways, spanning a wide range of beliefs, with a calm opposition to sin (and a resolute determination to eliminate it) at one end of the spectrum, and an enraged “unleashing of fury” at the other extreme.  I'm near the "calm opposition" end.  But some Christians are closer to the “enraged fury” end, and they oppose any defining-of-PSA that doesn't emphasize the wrath of God, as in their criticism of BibleProject because BP "does not sufficiently emphasize God's wrath toward sin," does not "explain the cross as a propitiation, that is, a sacrifice that turned away the wrath of God against sinful humanity," because they insist that "turning away the wrath of God" must be an essential component when we're defining PSA.

Some opponents of PSA adopt a similar definition, for different reasons.  They define a “PSA” – claiming it's “The Official PSA” that we should think is the only existing version, or at least is the only PSA we should acknowledge – as PSA that emphasizes the wrath of God, and describes wrath as “enraged fury.”  They use their version of Official PSA – in which God “pours out His wrath” by “unleashing His fury” – to ridicule PSA, trying to "shame us out of good theology" by portraying PSA as God emotionally “venting his anger” in out-of-control rage.

Fortunately, some proponents & critics don't move to these extremes.  Some proponents of PSA focus on basic PSA – just the P & S & A without claiming “wrath” and other extra details – or they are careful to define what they do (and don't) mean by the wrath of God.  And some critics of PSA are careful in describing what they do (and don't) affirm, what they do (and don't) oppose;  this approach – trying to improve precision-and-accuracy by evaluating “components of PSA” instead of “generic PSA” as a whole – can be useful for improving the quality of our evaluations & discussions.  For example, a criticism can be clarified by making it more precise, by saying “this version of PSA is less-biblical than if it was defined & described in a better way, because...” and explaining why it's better.  Hopefully this kind of evaluating-and-discussing will become more common, and I have...

Reasons for Hope

[[ iou – maybe this section will continue being developed in 2024. ]]

Yes, there are reasons to think our discussions might become more productive.  Although the clips video (of Mike Winger) seems to indicate a huge “theological distance” between pro-PSA and anti-PSA, there are reasons to hope for partial reconciliation if we carefully examine the many agreements – about 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.

Theopedia's article on PSA includes "wrath" in its expanded definition but never mentions wrath later. {although maybe this is just an oversight, is not intentional}   /   For example, they say "this Reformed view [of Calvin,...] says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him.  The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law:  The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution."  There is no implication here, or in other parts of their page, that the penalty is infinite suffering instead of death (they simply say "Christ died for man" to correctly describe the biblical penalty), or that wrath was involved in the process of Substitutionary Atonement.  So even though the Reformers believed EM (and thought it was the divine penalty for sin) their EM-belief is not an essential part of their PSA-definition. (at least it isn't, in the way Theopedia describes it)   But...

a reason for less-hope is that even though BibleProject explains & defends biblical PSA (in their video and in a sermon by co-founder Tim Mackie), some Christians think BP doesn't emphasize "wrath" enough.  A mostly-positive review of GotQuestions.org likes BP's videos – and agrees with BP's mission "to show how the Bible is a unified story that leads to Jesus" – but says BP "has received some criticism regarding their portrayal of the atonement;  some believe they do not sufficiently emphasize God’s wrath toward sin."  And writing for The Gospel Coalition (they're Calvinist Reformed) of Australia, Richard Sweatman says "what is lacking here [in their video] is any explanation of the cross as a propitiation, that is, a sacrifice that turned away the wrath of God against sinful humanity."  Due to these kinds of beliefs & attitudes, the best we can hope for is a "partial reconciliation," and even this is made more difficult by their insistence that "turning away the wrath of God" is an essential component of PSA.

Mike Winger (near the end of his “clips video” in a Q&A of 2:20, from 1:01:57 to 1:04:07) affirms a concept of judicial wrath (that isn't emotional wrath) with a penalty of death (so it's biblical) but in his talking-about-PSA he never uses the concept of God "pouring out His wrath on Jesus" because Mike doesn't like its emotional impact when he is communicating the concepts & claims of PSA.    {details of what he said}  {Mike's video about PSA in Romans clarifies his views about wrath}

[[ iou -- later, I'll revise these illustrative concrete examples: ]]

[[ why I was hopeful about Bruxy Cavey:  during a video interview, he says – as you can see in my brief paraphrasing here, and with more detail in his talking plus my commenting – that he accepts biblical PSA (with a penalty of death) and would be willing to say “I accept PSA, but think we should purify it by removing unbiblical elements from how it's described” although he “feels no need” to do this, so he doesn't.  Uh, why not?  He claims that he wants to be a peacemaker, and this would be a way to reduce tensions between Christians (as in his interactions with Paul Carter) and make some peace, but he doesn't want to? I don't understand.  /  There had been signs that he might serve as a “bridge” between moderate anti-PSA and moderate pro-PSA, to lessen the infuence of both extremes.   e.g. There was extensive dialogue between Bruxy Cavey (who challenges some aspects of some PSA-definitions, and is Anabaptist) and Paul Carter (who supports most aspects of PSA, and is Reformed, i.e. Calvinist);  it's called "Seeking Clarity With Bruxy Cavey" and #2 is On The Atonement.  But... ]]   [[ this won't happen because...  In late-November 2021, he was accused of sexual misconduct.  Within a few months an independent investigation confirmed this, and he ackowledged it, so he has been officially stripped of power by his church & denomination.  Unofficially the respect for him has decreased by a lot, so he probably won't be a significant influence in helping critics of PSA become more biblically-logical and reasonable.  Sigh.  /  was it adultery or pastoral abuse?  should his ideas be canceled? ]]

[[ Greg Boyd accepts some aspects of PSA during a dual-interview (of him & WLCraig) by Justin Brierley on "Unbelievable";  and he is criticized, in another video, for "giving up too much ground" so... peacemakers get caught in a crossfire from people on both sides of "where they are" with criticism from anti-PSA and also pro-PSA. ]]

[[ iou -- ideas to maybe develop -- earlier I describe genuinely-noble motives (of wanting to help people love God more fully) of people who criticize PSA -- plus a recognition that there are tough questions;  I think some claims – e.g. for divine wrath, or why-and-how PSA "works" – go beyond basic PSA and biblical PSA and they should be carefully examined, maybe questioned and sometimes rejected. ]]   [[ iou – re: "tough questions" for PSA, later I'll compare Substitutionary Atonement (it's SA, is PSA without P) versus Penal Substitutionary Atonement, re: similarities & differences -- and I'll check to see whether "wrath of God" is included (plus how it's described & emphasized) in versions of PSA, currently and in the doctrines & beliefs (formal & informal) of Luther and Calvin, plus later with Hodge in 1871. ]]

Harsh Criticisms of PSA

Above I describe "reasons to think our discussions might become more productive."  Below you'll see reasons for thinking our current discussions are much less productive than they could be, and should be.

This is a Part 2 that supplements my overview in Part 1.

In his insightful “clips video” {58:09, 15:11 for plus Q-and-A} 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."  Mike also explains biblically-logical arguments against their main criticisms, and wonders why this Bible-based logic doesn't lead to a changing of their views, or at least a moderating of their harsh rhetoric.

A changing of views, and moderating of rhetoric, could help harsh critics achieve one of their main goals.  Earlier I describe how "our fuller understanding of salvation [including biblical 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" and why "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 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."  I think we have biblically-justifiable reasons (as explained below) to accept some versions of PSA, to accept basic PSA and biblical PSA.

In his video, Mike shows short clips from videos where critics – Greg Boyd, Brian Zahnd, Steve Chalke, Bruxy Cavey, Kay Fairchild – harshly criticize PSA, and then he explains why the criticisms either are misrepresenting PSA, or are not biblically justifiable.

Here are their main criticisms, plus – using what I've learned from Winger & others, plus my own thinking – 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, were approved by God (to emphasize this, each of my OT facts about sacrifices begins with "God commanded...");  and no humans were sacrificed (so vulgar comparisons of PSA with pagans “appeasing a volcano god by human sacrifice” are just wrong)* except for the death of Jesus Christ while He lived among us in human form.  And this noble self-sacrifice – with God sacrificing Himself for us, not demanding a sacrifice from us – was done for a purpose, for our benefit, because His crucifixion-and-resurrection was the central part of God's plan to achieve a worthy goal, to solve our most important problem by converting our sin-and-death into salvation-and-life.   /   * Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac?  The Bible doesn't explain why, but probably God wanted to immediately show them – by the event's happy ending, with Isaac being dramatically saved by God – that He DID NOT WANT human sacrifices (unlike other religions in the area), and to eventually show their ancestors the truth of Abraham's prophetic response to the event's ending (he gratefully proclaimed "The Lord Will Provide") and The Lord Did Provide with the self-sacrificing death of God, done for the loving purpose of saving many people (if EM or FA) or all people (if UR).   /   two beliefs:  before God commanded the human sacrifice, he knew it wouldn't happen;  and (Hebrews 11:19) "Abraham reasoned that if Isaac died, God was able to bring him back to life again" in order to fulfill God's promise that the entire world would be blessed through the descendants of Isaac.

• PSA is disgusting (it's the criticism) but...  this is due to modern people misunderstanding the ancient culture of Israel.  This is explained (especially beginning at 33:55 and continuing thru 41:51 & then 44:23) in an excellent sermon about atonement by Tim Mackie who says "it's the blood that symbolizes life, that covers for your life [it produces atonement], it's a life covering for another life; ... right here is where modern westerners, we just shut down;  this is so foreign to us, to our concept of the world, and justice, that we have this revulsion with what's happening here;  and sadly we become the opposite of the open-minded tolerant people that we say we want to become as a society;  we close our minds to this ancient culture and its symbolism, and we make up a story about it," a story – that underestimates the quality of ancient thinking, insulting their culture and God's decision to work thru them – about an ancient pagan religion that was invented by ignorant pre-modern people who are trying to appease their god's anger.  But this isn't the biblical story that God is telling us in the OT, and then in the NT.

• PSA is not necessary (it's the criticism) and...  maybe this is correct.

Was it necessary for God?  NO, probably.    Was it wanted by God?  YES, certainly.

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, as explained earlier.  God wanted to use PSA 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.

Regarding necessity, we can ask whether God was “free” to just forgive, without using PSA.  Of course, Judeo-Christian theists (including Christians) should say “yes” because God is The Divine Decision-Maker;  He sovereignly decides EVERYTHING about justice, based on His own internal principles of justice, not any external principles of justice. 

But some critics mock the concept of God freely making decisions based on His own principles.  Brian Zahnd does this by claiming that if God decided “yes, I will use PSA” He wouldn't be freely deciding this in order to be consistent with His own internal principles, instead He would be externally controlled.  Brian claims that IF God used PSA (but Brian denies this "if") instead of “just forgiving,” the PSA would have happened because God was not strong enough to resist the external pressure of a "tough goddess" named "Lady Justice" who demanded retributive justice, who had to be "paid off" before God was free to forgive.  Sigh.  This disrespectful mocking-of-God (bordering on blasphemy?) ignores the fact that God sovereignly makes decisions about what He will do, based on His own internal attributes & His own goals.  As explained by Mike {45:58-47:54 of the video, preceded in 34:30-45:58 by related criticisms & responses}, instead of God being "subservient to some external concept of justice, some pagan god named ‘justice’ who He has to pay off in order to get permission to forgive," instead (Mike says) "the question is whether God internally, because of his own good nature, does He demand justice?  It's not external to him, it's internal to him."  Brian "pretends it's external to God in order to attack the doctrine, but if it's internal to God (as scripture proclaims) that God is holy and righteous, and He is the judge of all the earth and He will do right, then all of a sudden his whole complaint falls apart. ... It's not a substantive objection to the doctrine, it's just twisting truth."

a summary:  God wanted to use PSA because it's consistent with His own internal standards, AND because He wanted to show us the badness of sin and the goodness of His love, so... instead of arrogantly questioning the wisdom of His decision, we should humbly respond with faith by thinking “the Bible teaches PSA, so I believe it” and “God used PSA, so I praise Him for it.”

• 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.”  We should 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 by forgiving us and saving us.  The wonderful bottom-line reality is that... God has graciously forgiven our sins.

• PSA is retributive (it's the criticism) but...  as explained above, "even though God's judicial penalty of death (in Stage 1) was retributive, and His own payment of His penalty (in Stage 2) was retributive, His process of sanctification (in Stage 3) is restorative" for believers during Life (as proposed by UR, FA, EM) and maybe (as proposed by UR) for everyone during Afterlife.  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 retribution by God, but it leads to restoration by God, either for some people (with EM, FA) or (with UR) for all people.  The killing of Jesus also was retribution by humans;  God orchestrated the crucifixion – by planning it before Jesus was born, then motivating it (in the thinking-and-feeling of humans) with actions during His life – that was actualized by humans who caused it to happen, when God's mental plan (for PSA) was converted into physical reality by actions of the Jewish religious system and Roman government.    {did God kill Jesus?  No and Yes}

• PSA is angrily vicious (it's the criticism) but... although critics ridicule their own distortion of PSA in which The Crucifixion was caused by an out-of-control Father "venting his anger" with "rage-aholic" emotion, this isn't the way PSA is reported in the Bible, or is described by its main proponents.  It's a misrepresentation, is a strawman distortion of biblical PSA.*  The Bible does teach us that God hates sin – because it disrespects God, and it harms persons & relationships – so He will eliminate sin to achieve His goal of producing justice that is righteousness.  This hating of sin – that in the Bible occasionally is actualized with retributive actions against sinners – is the holy wrath of God.  But 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 (and does, and will do) with PSA.  First, imagine a judge demanding a fine that he knows the defendant cannot pay, but the judge then pays the fine himself.  Second, imagine that a judge sentences a criminal to a punishment of lashing with a whip, to be done immediately, but then the judge takes off his robe and drapes himself across the criminal's back and says “do the lashing.” {but this analogy, like all analogies we creatively imagine, is only partially accurate;  instead of a painful lashing, in biblical reality our penalty-for-sin is death (as in Genesis 3 and The Crucifixion) instead of misery (as with lashing), so in biblical reality The Judge lived among us and said “do the death.”}

• PSA is Cosmic Child Abuse (it's the criticism) but...  this accusation is just wrong, in many ways.  First, it implies that The Father was abusing The Son who was a helpless victim, but in claiming this the critics of PSA ignore (or distort) The Trinity, because before His incarnation as a human The Son (being part of the triune God, F-S-H) helped to design The Crucifixion of PSA, saying “yes, let's do it, and I will do my part” so He was a willing volunteer;  Jesus was not a victim, instead He wanted to die for us, and He freely decided to do it.   Second, 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.   Third, "abuse" implies an out-of-control “venting of rage” that with humans can lead to abuse (physical and/or mental) when a parent uses harsh discipline on their child, and it's done for the parent's benefit (to achieve some kind of sinfully-twisted emotional benefit for themself) instead of being done for the child's benefit (to help them improve, so they will become a better person in their future) with child-benefiting productive discipline that is motivated by the parent's love for their child, that is done wisely and well.  {but although this analogy can be useful for thinking about connections between rage & abuse & motivations, and to understand the rhetorical reasons for a critic's use of this emotionally-charged accusation, the analogy is not useful for thinking about PSA because “discipline of The Son” isn't a part of biblical PSA.}   Fourth, this claim is disrespectful by “saying bad things about the character of God,” although this depends on whether the claim is likely to be correct.  For example, I feel free to criticize the character of a hypothetical EM-causing God because I'm extremely confident that this God doesn't exist in reality, so I'm only criticizing the false idea of EM, as explained here.  So when harsh critics of PSA claim that “PSA proposes cosmic child abuse” do they avoid being disrespectful because they are extremely confident that the PSA-using God doesn't exist?  Or does the lack of biblically-logical justification for their claim (in my opinion) make their claim disrespectful?  Although there will be disagreement about this, I think they should be less confident, and therefore more cautious, because (for many reasons) the actions of God (F-S-H) were not Cosmic Child Abuse, in Their planning-and-doing of biblical 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.

God does allow our death, but... does God kill us?  No and Yes.

God allowed the death of Jesus, but... did God kill him?  No and Yes.

do people die because God kills us?  (no and yes)

No, usually there is no active killing (no direct killing) of the kind that would occur if God “zaps people” with a lightning bolt.

Yes, always there is an indirect causing-of-death that occurs because God actively removed His protecting-of-humans – by removing the death-preventing power in His life-sustaining "tree of life" – so, without God's supernatural protection, so Adam and Eve (and now us) began a natural process of gradually dying, described (in Genesis 2:17) as “dying you will die.”  Although this causing-of-death is not active (it's indirect, with no zapping) it's due to God's action when He removed His protection;  therefore, death is God's penalty for sin.

God's causing-of-death is “No and Yes” because it's analogous to a weak swimmer in the middle of the ocean, near a rescue boat whose captain decides to move away, thus letting the swimmer drown with a natural death.  By his actions, did the captain kill the swimmer?  No (there was not an active killing) and Yes (because there was an opportunity to rescue but a conscious decision to not-rescue).    {a reminder: God's death penalty was a severe penalty AND it was merciful because death prevents a person from living forever in sinful misery, death prevents the infinite misery of Eternal Misery.}

active killing:  The Bible does report rare active killings, as with Sodom-and-Gomorrah (in OT), Ananias & Sapphira (in NT), and others.  Of course these active killings are compatible with FA's claim that God will kill unsaved sinners in Afterlife.  But they're also compatible with UR, because God was killing people during Life;  but UR & FA agree that everyone, including unsaved people, will be resurrected into Afterlife, when God can educate-and-correct them (with UR) instead of killing them (with FA).

did Jesus die because God killed Him?  (no and yes)

No, Jesus was not actively killed by God, although The Crucifixion was intended by God (F-S-H), was planned by God, was orchestrated by God so humans would actively kill Jesus, and then was allowed by God.    {no, Jesus was not actually "forsaken" in Psalm 22 or on the cross}

Yes, because with His sovereign control of history, God actively orchestrated the events that led to humans killing Jesus, and God actively removed His protecting-of-Jesus, thereby allowing humans to actively kill Him with their direct actions.

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.

[[ I.O.U. – I'll continue developing this section during 2024. ]] 

[[ understanding "love story of biblical PSA" should motivate us to "say yes" to His plan-for-salvation (using PSA) with grateful appreciation, and help others respond to it.]] 

Most of these resources are the videos that I've been learning from, plus a few web-pages.  The length of each video is shown in brackets;  e.g. "Sacrifice & Atonement" has a length of 6.8 minutes.  Earlier (at the end of my section about atoning sacrifices in the OT and NT) I share some tips for using videos.

BibleProject - Sacrifice & Atonement {6.8}  /  Tim Mackie - Atonement {50.0} - Call to Sacrifice {23.4}.

Mike Winger – (series of 6 videos, 78.3 minutes average);  clips video (critics) {73.3} (my section) - OT(+NT) {84.3} - Isaiah 53 {75.4} - Romans {77.3} - history {73.3} - objections {86.3}  /  yt-channel (home - about).

Caleb Smith – series (series of 9 videos, 12.9 minutes average;  playlist-page) / yt-channel (home - about)

William Lane Craig – youtube search-page - lectures at Harding, first {zz} & second {zzz} & interview -- interview of Craig & Boyd {61.6} by JB on Unbelievable? – Answering Objections re: meaning of atonement, we should accept multi-model, his EM-influenced PSA, more.

N.T. Wright – do you believe PSA? {9.9} - Christus Victor vs PSA {4.0} - The Cross {57.8} - playlist (with 14), playlist (with 30).

Brad Jersak - Unwrathing God {28.5} – interview of Brad by Bruxy Cavey {77.1} with discussions of atonement {zz-zz} and hell {zz-zz}.

Bruxy Cavey – interview {61.8} by Joshua Lewis (transcript [with my comments] of a section where he affirms biblical PSA, but says he isn't motivated to be a peacemaker by trying to persuade proponents-of-PSA to “purify their PSA” by removing unbiblical elements.

Bruxy Cavey & Paul Carter – as I'm beginning to describe above they did a series of 3 conversations (#2 is about atonement) followed by co-interviews at Wycliffe College and on Unbelievable? web-page with their second interview, and the statement by Gospel Coalition of Canada, and responses to it --

Greg Boyd – interview of Boyd & Craig {61.6} on Unbelievable?

[[ re: hope for improving -- video with , plus a and now his influence will probably decrease if the "charges against him" have validity]] -- video of -- and maybe more ]]

why not just forgive? wrath (overview) - re: God's "internal justice" + wrath, Answering 4 Common Objections to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (by Stephen Wellum) explains why harsh criticisms of PSA are unbiblical and are semi-logical instead of fully-logical.

Theopedia describes its Calvinistic theology in their about-page, saying "all of Theopedia's content... conforms to... the Calvinistic doctrines of grace."  And their Statement of Faith includes "eternal torment."

[[ iou – what's below is

God's penal substitutionary atonement:  A logical evaluation of biblical evidence (in OT & NT) strongly supports a basic PSA claiming only that Christ was our Substitute and He paid our Penalty (for sins) to achieve Atonement.  /

But "extra details" can be added to basic PSA, to make it more biblical (e.g. by claiming the sin-penalty is death, as in CI = FA or UR) or less biblical (e.g. by claiming the sin-penalty is infinite suffering due to the infinite wrath of God against sin and sinners).

logical evaluation of biblical history evidence [ot nt] shows God did use psa / biblical reports-observations closely match “how the world would be IF God was using basic PSA” and this logic leads me to conclude “God used PSA”

But a basic PSA that is biblical PSA (because the penalty is death) can be distorted by a belief in Eternal Misery (claiming the penalty is infinite suffering).

wrath of God, infinite suffering on cross, poured out,

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.

MANY VERSIONS of PSA -- basic PSA + various kinds of extra details, can evaluate each vrsn

But... can recognize that these "extra details" (motivated by attempts to defend EM and to define PSA so it's compatible with EM) so we can reject these claims, but affirm basic PSA and biblical PSA. /

combining perspectives -- cruc/psa and resur/cv

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.

PROBLEM SOLVING -- also: [[use summary in ur#psa123]] 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). ///// PSA is compatible with UR, because... the original penalty of Death was Retributive, then PSA was Retributive [but applied only on God by God] AND Restorative {for people who are saved during Life, i.e. for Christians}, then in Afterlife it could be only-Retributive {with EM or FA} or Retributive-and-Restorative {with UR} or only-Restorative {with UR} -- we should think about 3 Steps {the problem in Genesis 3;  God's problem-solving process of crucifixion-and-resurrection of Jesus;  the problem-solving results for us in Life & Afterlife} in the process of human sin and divine salvation, of death and life. ]]