Satisfaction vs Penal Substitution

[Tree of Life]

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

How is your view significantly different than this?

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

PSA and Christus Victor are compatible. In fact, Christus Victor does not make any sense outside of a larger PSA framework.

 

[thecolorsblend]

How is your view significantly different than this?

The Satisfaction Theory says that Our Lord made a perfect sacrifice which was pleasing to God. By this, amends can be made for our sins and forgiveness can be had. Perhaps one way to put it is that Satisfaction Theory says that God’s wrath is assuaged by Our Lord’s sacrifice while PSA holds that His wrath is consummated by being poured out on Our Lord.

 

[Tree of Life]

The Satisfaction Theory says that Our Lord made a perfect sacrifice which was pleasing to God. By this, amends can be made for our sins and forgiveness can be had. Perhaps one way to put it is that Satisfaction Theory says that God’s wrath is assuaged by Our Lord’s sacrifice while PSA holds that His wrath is consummated by being poured out on Our Lord.

Your view suffers from the same "weaknesses" that you see in my view. You're just using different words. If Jesus "makes amends" for our sins then that means that he pays a debt. The definition of "making amends" is to compensate for injury or loss. So you have the same problem. We're forgiven because Jesus, by his sacrifice, compensated for our sin.

The difference between my view and yours is that yours is unclear. How does the sacrifice of Jesus compensate for my sin? Your view doesn't really answer the question. Mine does. PSA says that Jesus' compensates by standing in my place in judgment.

 

[dqhall]

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

It is difficult for God to right the wrongs of those who continually abuse others? Shall God require repentance from people who seek forgiveness? That is the forgiveness for propitiation of sin principle.

A law student ended up with $300,000 in student loan debt and poverty level income. How will penal substitutionary atonement help her pay the debt acquired due to sins of ignorance?
How This Lawyer Ended Up With $350,000 In Debt And Near Poverty-Level Income

 

[bling]

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?

They are both very wrong.
If the debt was paid in full than there is no need for forgiveness and if the debt is fully forgiven than there is no "payment" needed.
Just as with our own children we as parent have the responsibility to not only forgive the rebellious disobedient child, but if at all possible we need to see to fair/just Loving discipline which will improve the relationship beyond what it was even prior to the disobedience.

 

[Knee V]

All "theories" of the atonement, even those presented in Scripture, are instances of using examples from human experience to describe something that is outside of and beyond human experience, and which are thus truly inexplicable and indescribable.

All "atonement theories" are wrong, but, as analogies, capture a certain element of truth. The problem that we have run into is that many have forgotten this fact, and have turned these analogies into absolute descriptions of reality. And even worse, many have taken one analogy, turned it into an absolute description of reality, and made it the lens through which they see everything. (I have been in that boat before, and I understand the difficulty with seeing things any other way.)

We were not literally kidnapped by Satan or by Death, and thus Christ's death and resurrection are not a literal "ransom". But it makes for a good analogy.

God did not literally lose us, and someone did not literally find us and place us into a lost and found, and Christ did not literally pay them to get us back ("redeem"). But it makes for a good analogy.

We did not literally commit a crime and then receive a sentence in a literal courtroom, and Christ did not literally offer to take the punishment instead. But that makes for a good analogy.

And many others.

The reality is that we cannot truly comprehend or describe what salvation fundamentally is. We can only frame it in terms that that we already understand, and that is what we see both in Scripture and in the historical Christian dialogue. We know that Christ saves us, but we cannot fathom how or why that works. We can enter into it and experience it, and the more we do that the more we will come to know (the way we know a person, not a fact) what that is, even if we do not understand it.

 

[sdowney717]

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 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

You mention a 'callus and unattractive picture of God it paints'

How then do you feel about scripture like this in v23, ?

Exodus 4:21-25 New King James Version (NKJV)
21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn.

23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”

24 And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the Lord met him and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’ feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!”

The whole world lies guilty before God of it's sins, and the world's sins are not forgiven or none of those of the world would go to hell. God only forgives the sins of His people, all the rest experience wrath that results in a judgement of hell, all people Jesus said would be salted with fire, Christians survive the process, their salvation intact yet their works may be burnt up.

Numbers 11:1
[ The People Complain ] Now when the people complained, it displeased the Lord; for the Lord heard it,and His anger was aroused. So the fire of the Lord burned among them, and consumed some in the outskirts of the camp.
Numbers 11:10
Then Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, everyone at the door of his tent; and the anger of the Lord was greatly aroused; Moses also was displeased.

 

[Micah888]

We were not literally kidnapped by Satan or by Death, and thus Christ's death and resurrection are not a literal "ransom". But it makes for a good analogy.

And yet Scripture uses the word "ransom". To say that all of this is analogy is to miss the spiritual reality of what is presented.

Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Tim 2:6)

Strong's Concordance
antilutron: a ransom
Original Word: ἀντίλυτρον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: antilutron
Phonetic Spelling: (an-til'-oo-tron)
Short Definition: a ransom
Definition: a ransom.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 487: ἀντίλυτρον

ἀντίλυτρον, ἀντιλυτρου, τό, what is given in exchange for another as the price of his redemption, ransom: 1 Timothy 2:6. (An uncertain translator in Psalm 48:9 (); the Orphica lith. 587; (cf.Winer's Grammar, 25).)

 

[Knee V]

I understand that Scripture uses the word "ransom"; it is an analogy in Scripture, too. It is useful, but it's an analogy nonetheless.

 

[Tree of Life]

I understand that Scripture uses the word "ransom"; it is an analogy in Scripture, too. It is useful, but it's an analogy nonetheless.

You say that sin is not a literal commission of a crime which deserves a literal punishment. If sin is not literally breaking God's law and literally deserving of his literal wrath then I have no idea what sin is.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Your view suffers from the same "weaknesses" that you see in my view. You're just using different words. If Jesus "makes amends" for our sins then that means that he pays a debt. The definition of "making amends" is to compensate for injury or loss. So you have the same problem. We're forgiven because Jesus, by his sacrifice, compensated for our sin.

The difference between my view and yours is that yours is unclear. How does the sacrifice of Jesus compensate for my sin? Your view doesn't really answer the question. Mine does. PSA says that Jesus' compensates by standing in my place in judgment.

Our Lord offered a sacrifice which pleased God as per Satisfaction Theory. From this proceeds forgiveness.

PSA understands Our Lord’s crucifixion as being God’s wrath against sin being poured upon Him. This is not forgiveness, by definition. The debt has been paid; nothing has been forgiven in PSA. Indeed, nothing can be forgiven if Christ is assumed to be considered guilty of our sins by God the Father.

These may seem like small differences but they’re not.

Satisfaction Theory is directed upward by Our Lord to please God, whereby sins are forgiven. PSA is directed downward by God as punishment for sin, whereby nothing is forgiven but all debts are paid.

 

[Knee V]

...then I have no idea what sin is.

That is my point, and that is why every atonement theory is an analogy. "Crime and punishment" has been a useful analogy for many people.

 

[Tree of Life]

That is my point, and that is why every atonement theory is an analogy. "Crime and punishment" has been a useful analogy for many people.

So you're saying that there's not an actual God who has an actual law that is actually broken when people sin?

 

[Knee V]

To try to rephrase the point being made by @thecolorsblend :

Forgiveness means that the person doing the forgiving has come to terms with the fact that he isn't getting anything back as payment and no longer requires a payment. If he still requires a payment, just from somebody else, then it is not forgiveness. It is only forgiveness if the forgiver receives no payment from anyone.

 

[Knee V]

So you're saying that there's not an actual God who has an actual law that is actually broken when people sin?

I have been a Calvinist, and I get that what I am saying makes no sense from your perspective, and it is easy to reduce non-Calvinist points ad absurdum; I have done that myself many times. But no, I am not saying that there is no God. I am only saying that we cannot comprehend Him, and that all instances of using human language with respect to things that we cannot see and comprehend fall short.

 

[Knee V]

Even God's law is for our benefit. It is not something equal to or above God to which God is bound.

 

[Philip_B]

You mention a 'callus and unattractive picture of God it paints'

How then do you feel about scripture like this in v23, ?
...

23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”​

...

There are times in reading the Old Testament where God is described very much as the Tribal God, and Israel is God's Tribe. There is nothing soft, or gentle about this image of God. There are also times in the Old Testament where God is painted as the universal sovereign. No image we paint of God is all encompassing or sufficient.

Psalm 137:8-9
O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!​

Proverbs 8:22-31
The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth— when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world’s first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command,when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master worker; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the human race.​

The Old Testament is not monochrome, and it does not paint a monochrome picture of God. Of course there have been passages here that seem to suggest that violence against children is OK, which I would want to assure you is not the message of the Gospel, or of the Bible. Michael W Smith in authoring the lyrics of 'Our God is an awesome God' whilst it is a lot of joy to sing with such a great tune, is really only a half step away in the image of God that is presented.

Reverence and Awe are part of the abiding marks of our approach to God. Sometimes this is called the fear of the Lord, but I sense the danger of that expression is that we paint a picture of a scary God and in a sense paint God as a Monster.

So I guess about verse 23, I read it in context, and I see it as not the whole picture. If it was the whole picture it would be very sad.

Job 38:1-7
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind: ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.

‘Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?​

 

[thecolorsblend]

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.

Not sure how that relates to my post. A fuller comment to give context to those passages would've been most helpful.

If you're attempting to post proof texts, can you show me the part that says God judged Our Lord to be literally guilty of mankind's sins and poured His wrath upon Him accordingly? Thanks!

 

[sdowney717]

There are times in reading the Old Testament where God is described very much as the Tribal God, and Israel is God's Tribe. There is nothing soft, or gentle about this image of God. There are also times in the Old Testament where God is painted as the universal sovereign. No image we paint of God is all encompassing or sufficient.

Psalm 137:8-9
O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!​

Proverbs 8:22-31
The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth— when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world’s first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command,when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master worker; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the human race.​

The Old Testament is not monochrome, and it does not paint a monochrome picture of God. Of course there have been passages here that seem to suggest that violence against children is OK, which I would want to assure you is not the message of the Gospel, or of the Bible. Michael W Smith in authoring the lyrics of 'Our God is an awesome God' whilst it is a lot of joy to sing with such a great tune, is really only a half step away in the image of God that is presented.

Reverence and Awe are part of the abiding marks of our approach to God. Sometimes this is called the fear of the Lord, but I sense the danger of that expression is that we paint a picture of a scary God and in a sense paint God as a Monster.

So I guess about verse 23, I read it in context, and I see it as not the whole picture. If it was the whole picture it would be very sad.

Job 38:1-7
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind: ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.

‘Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?​

The OT god is the one true God, and Christ also. Israel in the wilderness tempted Christ and they that did perished. Christ was the Rock that followed and led the tribes.
They did not know His name as Christ, but we should!

1 Corinthians 10 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
10 And I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,

2 and all to Moses were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea;

3 and all the same spiritual food did eat,

4 and all the same spiritual drink did drink, for they were drinking of a spiritual rock following them, and the rock was the Christ;

5 but in the most of them God was not well pleased, for they were strewn in the wilderness,

6 and those things became types of us, for our not passionately desiring evil things, as also these did desire.

7 Neither become ye idolaters, as certain of them, as it hath been written, `The people sat down to eat and to drink, and stood up to play;'

8 neither may we commit whoredom, as certain of them did commit whoredom, and there fell in one day twenty-three thousand;

9 neither may we tempt the Christ, as also certain of them did tempt, and by the serpents did perish;

10 neither murmur ye, as also some of them did murmur, and did perish by the destroyer.

11 And all these things as types did happen to those persons, and they were written for our admonition, to whom the end of the ages did come,

12 so that he who is thinking to stand -- let him observe, lest he fall.

13 No temptation hath taken you -- except human; and God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able, but He will make, with the temptation, also the outlet, for your being able to bear [it].

14 Wherefore, my beloved, flee from the idolatry;