Satisfaction vs Penal Substitution

[Tree of Life]

The satisfaction theory of the atonement says that sin creates a debt with God which needs to be repaid in order for mankind to be reconciled to God. By way of analogy, if your friend defrauds you of $500 then a breach in relationship is created. Reconciliation can only happen if the debt is repaid by the offender or if the offended completely forgives the debt. So then, in this view, we must offer something of value to God in order to pay our debt for sin and be reconciled to him. In the OT, this offering was symbolized in temple sacrifices. But these only prefigured the real offering. Now, in Christ, God has given us an offering of infinite value in order to present to him to pay all our debt for sin and be fully reconciled.

The satisfaction theory has several things going for it:

1. It recognizes that sin creates a breach in relationship with God.
2. It recognizes that we need to be reconciled to God.
3. It provides some explanation to the OT phenomenon of sacrifice. We sense that the idea of offering something of value to God fits with the concept of sacrifice as we encounter it in the OT.
4. It recognizes the infinite worth of Christ.
5. It attempts to explain how Christ's offering could reconcile us to God.

But it also has some major problems:

1. It does not explain why death is a necessary part of sacrifice. It makes some sense that we need to offer something of value to God in order to be reconciled to him, but what does this offering have anything to do with death? The way that OT sacrifices were offered to God is that they were killed. Conceivably, offering an animal to God could've taken a different form than the animal being killed. This view doesn't explain why the death is necessary.
   
   
2. It does not explain why Jesus' death was necessary. In this view, Jesus could've lived a perfect life, pleasing to the Father and at the end of his life he could've been assumed into heaven just like Enoch or Elijah. Yet the Bible teaches that Jesus' death was necessary for our salvation. The Bible teaches that we are justified by Jesus' blood (a synecdoche of his death). The satisfaction theory does not explain why this is so.
   
   
3. It does not explain why sin results in death. Jesus died to save sinners from death and hell, but why should sin result in death and hell? This view does not have an explanation.
   
   
4. It does not fit with the covenant framework of the Bible. God's relationship with man is a covenant. And in the OT when a covenant was made (Genesis 15, Genesis 17), blood was shed. Animals were killed and cut in half and the parties to the covenant walked between the carcasses. This view does not explain the relevance of this central biblical idea.
   
   
5. It does not explain the language of Scripture that talks about sinners being cursed and about Jesus being cursed.

What the satisfaction view is really missing is the biblical concept of the wrath and curse of God. Happily, there is another, more developed view.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) teaches that sin creates a breach in relationship with God because God is holy and God hates sin. God, in his holiness and justice, will curse and punish sin. The wages of sin is death. Death does not result from sin as a natural consequence apart from the curse of God. Sinners die because God curses them. God refuses, ultimately, to support sinners on his land and so he cuts them down. What's needed in order to reconcile sinners to God is not simply offering something of value. What's needed is atonement. In his mercy, God has provided a means for sinners to make atonement for their sins. The OT sacrifices were atoning sacrifices. Animals stood in representation of sinners and symbolically bore the wrath of God for their sins in their place. But they only prefigured the ultimate sin-bearer. Christ truly bore the guilt of our sins and the wrath of God for sins so that all of God's wrath has been poured onto Jesus and none remains for those who are in Christ.

PSA is the most robust view of the atonement. It agree with satisfaction in all the important points but also avoids all its blindspots by appropriately recognizing the wrath of God for sins. It also includes Christus Victor - another popular model of atonement. Jesus does indeed defeat Satan, sin, and death for his people. But he defeats them by assuming the guilt of sinners and absorbing the wrath of God. Sinners, being no longer guilty, are not liable to the devil's accusations. Sinners, being no longer under God's curse, are not subject to death in an eternal way.

So what's holding you back? Why don't you accept penal substitutionary atonement?

 

[Doug Melven]

It does not explain why death is a necessary part of sacrifice. It makes some sense that we need to offer something of value to God in order to be reconciled to him, but what does this offering have anything to do with death? The way that OT sacrifices were offered to God is that they were killed. Conceivably, offering an animal to God could've taken a different form than the animal being killed. This view doesn't explain why the death is necessary.

God said that the day Adam ate forbidden fruit he would die. Sin itself is a killer. Sin itself wants to rule over us.
Sin can only be conquered by death.

It does not explain why Jesus' death was necessary. In this view, Jesus could've lived a perfect life, pleasing to the Father and at the end of his life he could've been assumed into heaven just like Enoch or Elijah. Yet the Bible teaches that Jesus' death was necessary for our salvation. The Bible teaches that we are justified by Jesus' blood (a synecdoche of his death). The satisfaction theory does not explain why this is so.

Because God's wrath needed to be satisfied.
Dying of old age would never have happened with Jesus. He never sinned, so He never would have died.
If He had been shot with an arrow, and died that way that would not have satisfied God's wrath. Isaiah 53:11

It does not explain why sin results in death. Jesus died to save sinners from death and hell, but why should sin result in death and hell? This view does not have an explanation.

Because God is holy. God hates sin and will not allow it in His Presence.

With that said I do prefer PSA to the satisfaction theory as it does explain more. Especially concerning your 4th point.

 

[thecolorsblend]

So what's holding you back? Why don't you accept penal substitutionary atonement?

Mostly the fact that it's heretical. Otherwise it's a dandy system.

 

[BenFTW]

This could be further expressed in showing that Jesus is the final sacrifice for sin and our eternal High Priest (in the order of Melchizedek), having an eternal priesthood (so that He is able to save us completely). He paid the penalty, that is death, and has reconciled us to God.

 

[Micah888]

So what's holding you back? Why don't you accept penal substitutionary atonement?

What's wrong with Penal Substitution and Satisfaction Atonement?

1. It was necessary for Christ to become the PROPITIATION (satisfactory sacrifice) for our sins.

2. It was also necessary for Christ to be made A CURSE for us, and to become SIN for us in order to pay the penalty for our sins.

3. It was also necessary for the LAMB OF GOD (our substitute) to take away the sin of the world.

4. It was also necessary for THE BLOOD OF CHRIST to make atonement for our sins.

It seems like when theologians get involved, then Bible truth becomes contentious.

 

[thecolorsblend]

So what's holding you back? Why don't you accept penal substitutionary atonement?

To give a more comprehensive answer, the New Testament makes it clear that God forgives our sins. Right there that calls PSA into question.

Under a PSA rubric, God isn't forgiving my sins at all. Somebody Else is simply taking my punishment for me. That's not forgiveness; it's debt-consolidation.

Satisfaction Theory allows for forgiveness. Our Lord made a perfect sacrifice which was pleasing to God. Joining my will to His sacrifice allows my sins to be forgiven. And this is true forgiveness. God is being gracious in the purest sense of the word by forgiving my sins.

More broadly, I fail to see the justice in forcing punishment for sins I committed onto somebody else. It doesn't scan. I don't especially want to be punished for my sins and Our Lord being punished for them seems like a mockery of God's perfect justice.

Satisfaction Theory allows for Our Lord to die for my sins in a sacrificial way as opposed to a penal way. It preserves God's perfect justice while nevertheless making clear that I am a sinner who has sinned.

Beyond all that, I don't see where in Our Lord's Passion the wrath of God is poured out onto Him. He clearly experiences the wrath of men. That much is clear. But God didn't try Our Lord; Israel did. God didn't allow Him to be crucified; Pilate did. God didn't nail Him to the cross; Roman soldiers did. The wrath of men which Our Lord experienced is so clear as to be self-evident in sacred scripture. The wrath of God which Our Lord is alleged by some to have experienced is, shall we say, less clear in sacred scripture.

Bottom line? If somebody (me or Our Lord) is punished for my sins, I don't understand how it's at all accurate to say that my sins have been forgiven. Because they haven't been forgiven. They have/will be punished. Whether I take the punishment for them or whether Our Lord has, the transaction is not "forgiveness".

PSA is heretical.

 

[Micah888]

If somebody (me or Our Lord) is punished for my sins, I don't understand how it's at all accurate to say that my sins have been forgiven.

While the full penalty was paid at the Cross, forgiveness is only for those who obey the Gospel -- who repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47)

Did you note that repentance comes first, then remission (forgiveness) of sins? No repentance, no saving faith, no salvation, no forgiveness of sins.

Therefore Peter declared (Acts 3:19): Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

 

[Philip_B]

I'll be honest, Penal Substitutionary atonement does not do it for me for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the callus and unattractive picture of God it paints, and secondly because in my experience most of the people I have met expounding it have been very judgemental, in a way that does not seem to reflect the mind of Christ I find in scripture.

I kind of don't mind the satisfaction theory in the kind of way that was expressed by Anslem in his book Cur Deus Homo which certainly discusses to idea of reconciliation, not simply in terms of the Cross, but also in terms of the Incarnation.

And I get in a way the Easter approach of Christus Victor, where having loved us so much that he had to be part of us, and carried all of divinity in our humanity, he then took on death and defeated it, that he might carry our humanity into glory. So we might say that Death is swallowed up in Victory.

And I get that none of these approaches is entirely without some biblical support and that none of these approaches seems to be sufficient unto itself.

Jesus loves me, this I know

 

[Tree of Life]

Mostly the fact that it's heretical. Otherwise it's a dandy system.

Do you also consider the Bible to be heretical? What about PSA is heretical?

 

[Tree of Life]

What's wrong with Penal Substitution and Satisfaction Atonement?

1. It was necessary for Christ to become the PROPITIATION (satisfactory sacrifice) for our sins.

2. It was also necessary for Christ to be made A CURSE for us, and to become SIN for us in order to pay the penalty for our sins.

3. It was also necessary for the LAMB OF GOD (our substitute) to take away the sin of the world.

4. It was also necessary for THE BLOOD OF CHRIST to make atonement for our sins.

All of this describes PSA.

It seems like when theologians get involved, then Bible truth becomes contentious.

But you're here to clear it up for us?

 

[Tree of Life]

To give a more comprehensive answer, the New Testament makes it clear that God forgives our sins. Right there that calls PSA into question.

Under a PSA rubric, God isn't forgiving my sins at all. Somebody Else is simply taking my punishment for me. That's not forgiveness; it's debt-consolidation.

Satisfaction Theory allows for forgiveness. Our Lord made a perfect sacrifice which was pleasing to God. Joining my will to His sacrifice allows my sins to be forgiven. And this is true forgiveness. God is being gracious in the purest sense of the word by forgiving my sins.

Under PSA the sinner is forgiven because Jesus takes his punishment. So the sinner does not face the punishment himself. Justice is still satisfied, but it is not the sinner who suffers to satisfy justice.

You say: "Joining my will to His sacrifice allows my sins to be forgiven. And this is true forgiveness." How does Jesus offering something to the father allow for you to be forgiven? In your view, nothing should be required for you to be forgiven, not even Jesus' offering of himself.

More broadly, I fail to see the justice in forcing punishment for sins I committed onto somebody else. It doesn't scan. I don't especially want to be punished for my sins and Our Lord being punished for them seems like a mockery of God's perfect justice.

Jesus suffers as our federal head. Do you also think it is unjust that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to us?

Satisfaction Theory allows for Our Lord to die for my sins in a sacrificial way as opposed to a penal way. It preserves God's perfect justice while nevertheless making clear that I am a sinner who has sinned.

How does the death of Jesus offer something to God in a sacrificial way without Jesus suffering God's wrath in our place?

Beyond all that, I don't see where in Our Lord's Passion the wrath of God is poured out onto Him. He clearly experiences the wrath of men. That much is clear. But God didn't try Our Lord; Israel did. God didn't allow Him to be crucified; Pilate did. God didn't nail Him to the cross; Roman soldiers did. The wrath of men which Our Lord experienced is so clear as to be self-evident in sacred scripture. The wrath of God which Our Lord is alleged by some to have experienced is, shall we say, less clear in sacred scripture.

The Scriptures say that Jesus' suffering was an expression of God's wrath.

Isaiah 53:6 - All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53:10 - Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief;

Isaiah 53:12b - yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Galatians 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

Bottom line? If somebody (me or Our Lord) is punished for my sins, I don't understand how it's at all accurate to say that my sins have been forgiven. Because they haven't been forgiven. They have/will be punished. Whether I take the punishment for them or whether Our Lord has, the transaction is not "forgiveness".

Jesus experiences wrath. You experience forgiveness. You're forgiven in the sense that you do not suffer for your sins.

PSA is heretical.

If PSA is heretical, then the Bible is heretical because the Bible teaches PSA.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Jesus experiences wrath. You experience forgiveness. You're forgiven in the sense that you do not suffer for your sins.

By definition, that’s not forgiveness. If a creditor tells you that he will forgive your debt as long as you pay the full amount due, you’d laugh at him.

PSA doesn’t offer forgiveness; it offers debt relief. Satisfaction Theory, however, does offer actual forgiveness.

 

[Tree of Life]

PSA doesn’t offer forgiveness; it offers debt relief. Satisfaction Theory, however, does offer actual forgiveness.

You still have not explained this. How does satisfaction theory offer actual forgiveness whereas PSA does not?

 

[Tree of Life]

By definition, that’s not forgiveness. If a creditor tells you that he will forgive your debt as long as you pay the full amount due, you’d laugh at him.

It's more like the creditor telling you that you don't have to pay the full amount because someone else paid it for you. Your forgiveness was purchased by another.

 

[Noxot]

I only accept any water/symbol/letter/image/bread that I can see through the spirit which is the reality that the symbol points out because I don't want to dress myself in the symbol of the new man but rather to enter more and more into the actual life that I was made to see and experience.

so one does not see God by the mere water of the word and therefore if they only have water they will stumble into a pit. to have the water without the fire is to have cold snow and ice.

Jer 13:15-17 (YLT)
Hear, and give ear--be not haughty, For Jehovah hath spoken. Give ye to Jehovah your God honour, Before He doth cause darkness, And before your feet stumble on dark mountains, And ye have waited for light, And He hath made it for death-shade, And hath appointed it for thick darkness. And if ye do not hear it, In secret places doth my soul weep, because of pride, Yea, it weepeth sore, And the tear cometh down mine eyes, For the flock of Jehovah hath been taken captive.


so the proper order is born from above by water and the spirit least if only by water there is weeping.

Gen 1:2 (YLT)
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

then and only then does the light of the understanding come.

Gen 1:3 (YLT)
and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.

Isa 9:2 (YLT)
The people who are walking in darkness Have seen a great light, Dwellers in a land of death-shade, Light hath shone upon them.

Isa 58:8-11 (YLT)
Then broken up as the dawn is thy light, And thy health in haste springeth up, Gone before thee hath thy righteousness, The honour of Jehovah doth gather thee. Then thou callest, and Jehovah answereth, Thou criest, and He saith, `Behold Me.' If thou turn aside from thy midst the yoke, The sending forth of the finger, And the speaking of vanity, And dost bring out to the hungry thy soul, And the afflicted soul dost satisfy, Then risen in the darkness hath thy light, And thy thick darkness is as noon. And Jehovah doth lead thee continually, And hath satisfied in drought thy soul, And thy bones He armeth, And thou hast been as a watered garden, And as an outlet of waters, whose waters lie not.

 

[1213]

The satisfaction theory of the atonement says that sin creates a debt with God which needs to be repaid in order for mankind to be reconciled to God. ...
So what's holding you back? Why don't you accept penal substitutionary atonement?

I just want to remind that Jesus had right to forgive sins before his death. That is one reason why people wanted to kill him.


The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

On basis of that, sacrifice was not necessary, or needed in the common sense.

 

[Tree of Life]

I only accept any water/symbol/letter/image/bread that I can see through the spirit which is the reality that the symbol points out because I don't want to dress myself in the symbol of the new man but rather to enter more and more into the actual life that I was made to see and experience.

so one does not see God by the mere water of the word and therefore if they only have water they will stumble into a pit. to have the water without the fire is to have cold snow and ice.

Jer 13:15-17 (YLT)
Hear, and give ear--be not haughty, For Jehovah hath spoken. Give ye to Jehovah your God honour, Before He doth cause darkness, And before your feet stumble on dark mountains, And ye have waited for light, And He hath made it for death-shade, And hath appointed it for thick darkness. And if ye do not hear it, In secret places doth my soul weep, because of pride, Yea, it weepeth sore, And the tear cometh down mine eyes, For the flock of Jehovah hath been taken captive.


so the proper order is born from above by water and the spirit least if only by water there is weeping.

Gen 1:2 (YLT)
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

then and only then does the light of the understanding come.

Gen 1:3 (YLT)
and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.

Isa 9:2 (YLT)
The people who are walking in darkness Have seen a great light, Dwellers in a land of death-shade, Light hath shone upon them.

Isa 58:8-11 (YLT)
Then broken up as the dawn is thy light, And thy health in haste springeth up, Gone before thee hath thy righteousness, The honour of Jehovah doth gather thee. Then thou callest, and Jehovah answereth, Thou criest, and He saith, `Behold Me.' If thou turn aside from thy midst the yoke, The sending forth of the finger, And the speaking of vanity, And dost bring out to the hungry thy soul, And the afflicted soul dost satisfy, Then risen in the darkness hath thy light, And thy thick darkness is as noon. And Jehovah doth lead thee continually, And hath satisfied in drought thy soul, And thy bones He armeth, And thou hast been as a watered garden, And as an outlet of waters, whose waters lie not.

lol wut?

 

[Tree of Life]

I just want to remind that Jesus had right to forgive sins before his death. That is one reason why people wanted to kill him.


The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

On basis of that, sacrifice was not necessary, or needed in the common sense.

So you think that Jesus' declarations of forgiveness in the gospels have no necessary relationship with his coming death which is the climax of the gospels?

 

[FenderTL5]

I'll be honest, Penal Substitutionary atonement does not do it for me for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the callus and unattractive picture of God it paints..

..the Easter approach of Christus Victor, where having loved us so much that he had to be part of us, and carried all of divinity in our humanity, he then took on death and defeated it, that he might carry our humanity into glory. So we might saw that Death is swallowed up in Victory.

And I get that none of these approaches is entirely without some Biblical Support and that none of these approaches seems to be sufficient unto itself.

Jesus loves me, this I know

Agree with the parts quoted.
There were many, many, steps on my path from evangelical to Orthodoxy, recognizing the challenges to penal substitution and discovering the ancient view of Christus Victor being one of them.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's more like the creditor telling you that you don't have to pay the full amount because someone else paid it for you. Your forgiveness was purchased by another.

And that’s not debt forgiveness; it’s debt payment. Paid for by a surrogate, yes, but still paid for; not forgiven.