With appropriate nuance, sure. But it rarely is expressed with that kind of nuance. And what makes PSA different from the earlier Thomasistic atonement is that it forwards God's wrath as what is beng satisfied, rather than justice. Which is where the placating a volcano god charge comes from. So while it isn't entirely an issue and can be a part of an overall understanding of the gospel, setting it as the principal atonement theory flattens it especially because it's often paired with a theory about imputed sin from Adam and imputed righteousness from Jesus.
You’re right that much of the popular presentation of PSA lacks nuance, and that’s where the distortions creep in. When wrath is framed as if God were a capricious deity who simply demands blood to cool His temper, it devolves into the “volcano god” caricature you mentioned. I fully agree that this is a profound misrepresentation and that PSA cannot stand alone as the entirety of atonement theology.
But I would also suggest that God’s wrath and God’s justice cannot be separated, at least biblically. Wrath, in Scripture, is not a volatile passion or arbitrary anger—it is God’s settled, holy opposition to sin because of His unwavering love for what is good. In that sense, wrath is simply justice viewed relationally and experientially. So when PSA speaks of wrath being “satisfied,” it’s not saying God needed to be appeased like a pagan deity; it’s saying that the full weight of sin’s consequence—the rightful judgment that sin deserves—was borne and exhausted in Christ.
In that way, PSA is not about placating God so that He will love us, but about God Himself taking responsibility to deal with the very real problem of evil so that love can triumph without compromising truth.
Now, you’re right that when PSA is made the principal or exclusive lens for the cross, it tends to flatten the richness of biblical atonement. The gospel isn’t reducible to a legal transaction; it also includes Christ as Victor over the powers, Christ as healer of our corrupted humanity, and Christ as the One who draws us into union with God. In the best theology, PSA sits within a wider tapestry—it addresses the forensic/moral dimension, while Christus Victor addresses the cosmic dimension, and participatory models emphasize union and transformation.
On the Thomistic point, yes—Aquinas emphasizes the restoration of divine honor and order rather than wrath as such, but even Thomas acknowledges God’s hatred of sin as a necessary consequence of His goodness. The Reformation-era articulation brought wrath into sharper focus because it saw more clearly the personal dimension of lawbreaking before a holy God. Yet, even then, in its best form, the Reformers did not pit wrath against love; they saw the cross as the very outpouring of divine love through wrath against sin.
Where I think we would both agree is that PSA must not be presented as a standalone abstraction. If it’s divorced from the larger biblical narrative—of God’s covenant love, His restorative purposes, and the ultimate goal of communion—it becomes legalistic and even grotesque. But when placed in context, it highlights one crucial aspect of the gospel: that sin is not ignored or excused, but decisively dealt with by God Himself at infinite cost to Himself.
So I would say PSA, rightly nuanced, complements other atonement motifs without replacing them. It ensures the moral seriousness of sin and the reality of justice are not lost, while still affirming that the ultimate aim is reconciliation and union, not merely legal satisfaction.
