In the last post I asked, “What is Penal Substitutionary Atonement?”
I summarized Thomas Schreiner’s position in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views as fairly as possible.
Now I’m going to offer my own review of the biblical materials.
Just How Biblical Is Penal Substitution?
Advocates like Schreiner say their view is the most biblical version because it reads the Bible most plainly.
But is this really the case?
The penal substitution view, in review, claims that
1) human sinfulness
2) before a holy God,
3) requires a sacrifice to pay the penalty of sin.
Certainly human sinfulness finds broad support in the Bible. As does the holiness of God. And the fact that Israel offered sacrifices and Jesus’ death is viewed as a sacrifice is undeniable.
So in broad strokes the penal substitution view seems to be biblical.
But while quoting chapter and verse for the broad strokes of the theory, penal substitution makes unbiblical assumptions about the details.
And usually the “logic” or “theology” of penal substitution does most of the heavy lifting rather than close attention to the biblical text.
False Assumption and True Biblical Positions
1) Holiness
False Assumption: Holiness requires a penalty for sin.
When penal substitution advocates talk about the holiness of God, say in Isaiah 6, sin certainly becomes an issue for Isaiah in the presence of God.
But while there is often a penalty for sin. This isn’t always the case.
True: God’s holiness requires our cleansing of sin.
To be truly biblical, we must look at what the Bible really says about Isaiah’s situation. Isaiah doesn’t cry out, “I am a sinner in need of punishment!”
He says, “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips” (Is. 6: 5).
And the solution isn’t to transfer his sin to another who is punished. Rather the solution is to purify Isaiah with a burning coal (which takes away his guilt and accomplishes atonement, v. 6-7).
Similarly, 1 John 1:7 tells us that Jesus’ blood “cleanses us from all sin.”
And we are told that the entire point of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), the linchpin of many substitutionary atonement theories, is specifically for cleansing. Here is the summary statement for the Day of Atonement: “For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you to cleanse you, so that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord” (Lev. 16:30).
The Bible clearing makes links between holiness and being clean, not between holiness and punishment.
2) Wrath
False: God’s Wrath is Connected to being a Judge
Penal substitution advocates link God’s wrath to his holiness and justice (attributes of God). They look to the logic of God’s attributes as all working together such that justice and holiness lead to God’s personal wrath against sin.
This sounds all well and good…and logical. But it doesn’t fit the pattern of biblical revelation.
True: God’s Wrath is Connected to a Covenant Relationship
Especially in the prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, God’s wrath is revealed toward Israel because God had entered into a covenant relationship with Israel and Israel had forsaken it for other gods.
God’s wrath is that of a jealous lover who see his beloved throwing her life away, destroying herself foolishly.
God’s wrath isn’t a judicial reaction.
God’s wrath is a marriage reaction of “How could you do this?”
God’s wrath must be connected to God’s love primarily, rather than God’s holiness or justice. When God’s covenant love encounters the sin of unfaithfulness, wrath is the result.
Now God’s wrath is a big topic, and there are certainly passages in Numbers and Deuteronomy where God seems to want to destroy (punish) Israel for sin.
For more on wrath check out But What About God’s Wrath?: The Compelling Love Story of Divine Anger.
3) Wrath and Sacrifice
False: God’s Wrath is Appeased through Sacrifice (the death of something).
Penal substitution advocates claim that God’s holy and just wrath is appeased through the just punishment of the one who deserves it, or the substitution of another, and that sacrifices in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament are this substitution upon which divine wrath falls.
(How it is that justice is served by punishing one besides the person committing the crimes is how to square with justice, but that is another matter.)
True: The Sacrificial System was NOT set up to extinguish wrath or fulfill justice.
There are some, a few, biblical texts that seem to suggest (very metaphorically) that God is satisfied or appease by sacrifices.
But NO WHERE in the book of Leviticus, which explains the entire sacrificial system, are we told that God wrath is appeases or satisfied through sacrifice.
The word “wrath” doesn’t even appear in the book!
So if we are to be biblical in the details, not just in theory, we need to understand what the sacrifices are doing according to the biblical book that speaks most about sacrifices (rather than letting a couple verses elsewhere determine the means for us…because that is bad Bible study).
Does this mean that sin and justice aren’t important? No. Of course not. Just that the sacrifices didn’t deal with justice in the way that penal substitution advocates think.
See this for more on sacrifice and atonement.
4) Sacrifices and Substitution of Sin
False: Sacrifices receive the transfer of a person’s sin
Penal substitution advocates claim that the sacrificial animal in Leviticus receives the sins of the one making the sacrifices, becoming a substitute and receiving the penalty of death. They point how the one offering the sacrifice lays a hand on the animal (Lev. 1:4; 3:2; 3:13; 4:4; and many other texts).
The assumption is that “laying on a hand” is a type of transfer of sin so that the animal can be a substitute.
The Bible, however, never says this. It is an inference.
But is it a good inference? No, it isn’t.
True: Only the Scapegoat on the Day of Atonement Receives the Sins of the People
Is there a place that we are told—explicitly—that someone’s sins are transferred onto the sacrificial animal?
Yes.
In Leviticus 16, in the description of the Day of Atonement.
I’ll quote it in full.
20 “When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. 21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:20-22)
Notices two things.
1) Two hands are placed on the goat as the priest confesses the sins of the people over it.
All the other verses speak only of one hand on the animal, and they never explicitly say that sins are confessed over the animal.
2) The goat is not sacrificed! It doesn’t die! It isn’t killed! All the sins of Israel are “carried away” by the goat that doesn’t die.
So, the only place in Leviticus that tells us explicitly that sins are confessed, transferred, or substituted onto a sacrifice, is also the time when that animal doesn’t die.
Do it is hard to understand the assumptions that sacrifices are necessarily a substitute for sin, and receive the penalty of death, when the one text that makes the link between a animal and sin ends with the animal not being killed.
5) Blood is Given as the Substitute of Death
False: Blood represents the death of one substituted for the death of another.
Penal substitution advocates claim that blood represents death. And death is the penalty paid for sin.
The two go to texts to understand the significance of blood are Hebrews 9:22b and Leviticus 17:11.
These say that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22) and that “the life of a creature is in the blood, and I [God] have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar” (Lev. 17:11).
But again, these texts outside their context is trading on dangerous assumptions, distorting the details of the Bible.
True: Sacrificial Blood is Given as a Gift of Life
What does the full verse of Hebrew 9:22 says?
“The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22).
So cleansing is the purpose of blood and the process through which forgiveness occurs (which we already looked at above).
And what about Leviticus 17:11? Well, that verse claims that it is the LIFE that is in the blood.
And maybe it is the “life” of the sacrifice that counteracts, rather than compensates for, the death caused by sin?
Maybe it is the “life” of the sacrifice that suspends the reign of death, rather than substituting one death for another death.
Indeed, when the “life” of the sacrifice is coupled with the idea that sacrifices are for cleansing, it makes sense that the “blood” is something like a ritual-spiritual detergent that cleans what is stained by sin and death.
See this for more on the Blood.
Primary Problematic Assumption
The primary problematic assumption is that penal substitution advocates see the main problem in the Bible as one of individual sin needing forgiveness.
But when you step back and look at the entire story of the Bible we find that our sin problem is not the main problem.
And because we have lost the presence and purposes of God, we have become enslaved to the perverted powers and principalities.
So, while we certainly do need forgiveness of sin, we also are captives to sin and need redemption from sin.
Which, thankfully, the Bible speaks abundantly about.
TOMORROW, I’ll write about another view of the atonement called the Christus Victor view (here is a sneak peak).
—
If you want to know all my thoughts on the sacrifice of Jesus, especially the parts we are likely to forget, check out The Forgotten Sacrifice of Jesus.
Otherwise, so you don’t miss the next post because of social media’s crazy algorithms, sign up for my newsletter.
If you need spiritual direction on this issue, please contact Cyd Holsclaw
7 replies on “Critiquing Penal Substitutionary Atonement”
Excellent! Simple and accurate. One of the few things I have read recently that makes sense with our world today.
Great critique of PSA! I think your focus on cleansing from sin is central to understanding the atonement. Thank you for this piece.
https://faithalone.net/topical-articles/articles/false-doctrines/rejection-of-penal-substitutionary-atonement.html
Think about what your promoting for a second.
God the Father does not teach that of whom He declares a legitimate child being written in the book of life(the book He has written Exodus 32:32) is reserved for His Wrath. for to die under Divine Wrath one is declared by God a enemy as a unforgivable sinner! Such a person to die in sin under such reserved Wrath/orge is not only enslaved to sin but also is spiritually dead(separated from God) thus remains spiritually dead partaking in the Second Death(everlasting separation from God) in the lake of fire. which is the 2nd death where God’s Wrath remains forever upon those not written in the book of life thus will never be quenched as there is no ending to such punishment.
So your promoting hopefully in ignorance of the whole of scripture that the eternal Son declared as YHVH in both testaments was never a legitimate Son wether pre-incarnate nor incarnate. Severing the union that the scriptures reveal of the Godhead.
PSA also further subverts the purpose of the supernatural and unblemished conception of Yeshua by rendering Yeshua a abomination in ones place to Father. who in being sent to fulfill the offerings and sacrifices came to offer himself upward to Father. Of which God would reject Yeshua as a offerer and offering to bring about redemption.
If God required an blemished person as the offering to redeem and atone, then there was no point in Yeshua being born.
PSA grossly subverts the Impassible and imputable nature and character of The Godhead.
I have many other points, but this should be sufficient for the Holy Spirit, to utilize as a instrument of conviction, if you belonging to Father, to with Godly Sorrow come to confession and repentance.
I think you can add that the method of sacrificing the animal was not punitive or wrathful. It was rather human and relatively painless to the animal. Penal substitution would beating the animal or suffocating or strangling it.
In Eden, we left spiritual dependence, but we still need His Spirit. So God shares His Spirit with believers. In this spiritual relationship: We take the role of Christ’s body, and Jesus takes the role of Head toward God. We bring sin into this relationship. But He filters it out, because the Head knows better. How? Whatever Jesus bears outside of His control is God’s responsibility. The Head of us doesn’t intend to do those sins of His body. Therefore, He would not offer to God those sins. Therefore, God doesn’t count those sins. (It’s not sin- unless it’s against God.)
Then what happens to the sin? It falls into His death outlet. Even beyond the death outlet and into the spiritual realm, God doesn’t ultimately have to count sin, because He owns all. This means that neither the body nor the responsible Head would suffer the spiritual realm’s curse for those sins as God is happy without frustration. However, in the physical realm, He must die.
That’s what we’re zooming into here. He dies under the physical curse. Sin is intertwined with the physical curse (for our hope.) The physical curse is what we all experience through life, especially at the end. Spiritually blind people, or even animals manipulate this curse. (But not too much since it’s pinned by the spiritual realm.) I mean, we can punish the wrong person, or else save lives with air bags. This physical realm then, give us time to repent, and gives Jesus a chance to die- so to speak. If we die in our own sins, we’d have to go to hell, that is, the spiritual curse. I hope that’s clear.
Now, I’ll use different aspects to show the same thing: Thorns were part of Adam’s curse. Christ’s Head took thorns, although He was nailed by the body’s limbs. Ok, this next one is interesting: The hand is put over the Head of the sin offering. We are His hands, you remember, our sins are laid on His Head. From that point, two things happen. The goat representing sin, is taken out. The other is offered to God. So we see, what I call filtration. He is not offering our sins to God, but filtering them out. So our sins end, nailed at the cross; while He goes on to offers HimSelf to God Spiritually. You know the story, He gives up His Spirit to God after death to distribute to those who assent to His invitation.
I have something maybe more interesting now. 2 Cor 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin over us,” (the Greek word here is hyper, meaning over… like Head.) Then it say, ” who knew no sin;” (obviously, the perfect One to Mediate.) Then it says, “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” We are God’s righteousness in this world, His hands, His body. God works through us. This verse shows Him being our spiritual Head, meaning He is our way of sinning, that sounds strange. But it’s so interesting, that He is the filter through which we must do all of our sins. Again, we’re His hands to do good, He’s our Head to choose bad- but He doesn’t. He doesn’t offer our shared sins to God, for God to count. (That would be a bad Head.)
We’re stuck in two important ways. 1. God doesn’t consider us family without the family Spirit. And not being family, He refuses to like anything we do. And at the same time 2. we do things that He doesn’t like, which do not encourage Him to bring us into His family. These two reasons play off each other, rendering us helpless.
Anything that God’s people steal, He can give them for free. It’s unexplainable Grace. And if they give it back, He’ll reward them. But the only way to join His family and receive such a benefit is to go through the gate of forgiveness. Now, forgiving would be the same as giving. But for-given means that you’re given something that you already stole. Basically, He turns what you stole, into a donation. (Besides, He knew that you’d do it.) Of course, He has more for anyone than they could steal, but some reject Him anyway. Giving those sins afore, by bearing them in His flesh- that’s actually forgiveness.
It’s God’s honor to give, as well as forgive, to the helpless. Forgiveness makes him valuable to us. And it’s valuable for Him to get us. He cut off from HimSelf, what that you stole. When He FOR-Gave He didn’t cut off His glory, He revealed it by having more. He glorified His Unique Eternal Spring which we receive. No one pays God to turn the cheek; He wants to be exemplary. It’s our job to be undeserving. Let us then, do the same, and cut off those sins for reward.
Throughout the Bible we see God taking away sins, but never paying them off. It only makes sense philosophically. God would never pay off sins, since He hates them. The Bible agrees to our philosophical instincts that sins must be removed. And this is fulfilled by sins being disposed of with Christ’s body. (Rom 6:10.) However, besides this removal, some suggest that a payment also needs to be made, like a debt needs satisfied. This is a theory called Penal Substitution. It is wrong because God loves us and hates sins. PS accidentally says God hates us enough to accept our sins. But God would never accept sins, as we know well. If God does remove His wrath before the sin, isn’t that equal to removing God? We should remove a theory that removes God. But one may excuse that disabling part of God, is not disabling God in full, as if to divide God. But we know better than to fall into such deception.
This satisfaction theory should be no more than a lens, as some admit. But people use it as a real thing, as part of the gospel itself. As if real wrath came down, rather than it was only like wrath came down. It’s not helpful to go through your life believing in a Santa. The idea was nice and helpful, but not substantial. And that’s how it is with satisfaction lenses. People are taking it too literally.
The Bible tells us that God is appeased, or propitiated. The sin is covered, or filtered- so that God’s wrath is prevented. Yet, PS seems to imply that regardless of the atonement, God’s full wrath is felt. This is because PS doesn’t believe in appeasing God, but rather in God’s wrath being invoked and exhausted.
If we bear our sins, we’d go to hell. But if Jesus bears them, He can remove them without hell since unlike us, He has no intention. Jesus left God with our sins, for the hope of returning again. It was worthwhile, but sin and hell is never worthwhile. Sin is what God holds against us, but Jesus carried them away, and God has no reason to hold those things against Him.
PS says that before God removes from us those memories which He has against us. He must first pay a debt. PS is injected prior to forgiveness. It pretends to be necessary with agitprop about God’s justice and mercy being at odds. And people go off the offramp of PS by not believing that grace could be free. PS justifies its merit system saying, it’s God that pays, so it’s not really a merit system which it is. God’s completeness needs no merit, not that sin could be merited. Satisfaction is indeed about merit, thus it cancels itself out as no more than a lens which has difficulty not dividing God.
PS is random, since anything could be injected; but this particular injection is a huge distraction, because it implies the greatest doing the worst to His Own, which defines evil, and saying evil of God is called blasphemy. Anything worse in the English language than: God damns His Son? Its magnitude is covered over with scripture verses, and that’s something good about it. Since PS seems so bad, people really have to rely on verses about ablation of sins. Like, the Lamb is rewarded for carrying away sins from God. That’s the reality of it. But PS converts God’s peace into wrath. Although PS is not in verses, it is good for people to read verses even if they’re just trying to uphold a theory which naturally must cancel itself out. If PS does some good, why do I expose PS? Because if the error of PS gets people to study out the truth, then how much more will people study out the truth, when it’s rid. Keeping people in this confusion may encourage them, but not as much as if truth made sense. Are you afraid they’ll surpass you? But it will bring you more benefits later. The help that PS provides is something, but less than what could be without it. You must trust that truth exists and like it, and not tape off the way with PS. MGAT attempts to purify PSAT but it leaves in the heart, which is Anselm’s theory.
Must retribution always be used in every court case? That’s what PS implies. But that’s obviously not true. Retribution is only a tool of justice that may go unused. Rather than sin being a disorder to justice; I prefer to think of sin as being a contradiction to logic. I prefer this because logic is more elementary than justice. Here I see what none can deny, that contradictions must be removed.
Christ was made our prosecutor to advocate for us. All other offences look to Him. A judge would not agree with some guy charging me five dollars, when during that same trial I refused to charge the ten dollars owed me.
When would God accept sins? Luther said that He wouldn’t, unless the PS was paid. However, I think God still wouldn’t accept sin. As logic precedes the courtroom, so will God not be bribed by PS. I dare say that even if sins were removed, God would still not accept them- if that were possible. For it seems an eternal truth, that sins must be removed, despite any penalty.
PS flips what we know naturally and Biblically, namely that God removes sins to accept us. Rather they add, He also accepts sin by removing us. But if you ask them, they’ll play with words like this: They’ll say we’re not removed, Jesus is. If you question that, they’ll say, it was for us. They could ping pong between these two, but sometimes they hit another direction, saying it was only the sin being removed, not us or Jesus. At this moment, they are agreeing to Biblical ablation, and thus have to some degree left penal substitution. This is good. You might then press this point, so they can better see their mistake… Us, or sin?
What’s sin? Mostly, what God holds against you. 2. rebellion 3. confusion 4. effects
PS not only mixes the removal of sin or wrath. We also saw it mixes the person and sin, with hate and acceptance. But there’s a third mix: the physical and spiritual curse. Jesus took on the physical part only to suffer to death under the physical curse. Unlike us, He didn’t need the spiritual curse (referred to previously.) The spiritual curse isn’t manipulated by men blind to God. It’s the second death. It’s for those who lack intentions, unlike Christ Whose Spirit is distributed to us. Which curse did Jesus suffer when forsaken of God’s Spirit? The Trinity was not divided, but His physical body departed with sin. (Apparently, sin can’t walk away from God by itself.) From Isaiah 53, we infer that God was satisfied with this work of ablation.
Jesus is not filtering God’s wrath for us, but our sins away from God. For which is better? To offend us, or God? Yet, neither are offended because wrath is prevented. Jesus is our spiritual Head, the spiritual Head decides which of our works should be offered to God. Would He offer anything bad from us to God? Of course not. He’s not going to say, look at all this junk, and spank me. That’s what PS says, not what we should say. Jesus appeases God, and doesn’t invoke wrath, for PS. Jesus did not intend our sins. Intending sin, is the equivalent of spiritually offering it to God. The Spirit is concerned with intention. That’s the job of the Head. God is happy for Christ’s good intentions despite the accidents which Christ did not mean to do. God is too real to include accidents. We make mistakes, and people wrongly blame others for what we couldn’t help. But God is right, and honest about the mistakes of Christ. He takes our sins, as His own body’s mistakes. We do things that He certainly would not mean to do, and might sooner throw HimSelf in eternal torment than to do those things.
Sins are no longer counted against us. But PS tends to say, they are also counted against Him. But why add that? God’s honest. They think that He pretends His Son to be guilty. If the high spirits play pretend, how can we not believe them? Maybe God emptied His perfection into some middle form for us to see instead of Him. (We’ll come back to this.)
I’d rather forgiveness be real and PS pretend. His Son was no doubt guilty physically as blind men manipulated God’s curse. We see how bad sin is, killing God’s Son that through this greatest sin, all may find pardon. So it is no spiritual death, sins are ablated only by His limited part. There’s no spiritual curse, mixed in. So PS again is wrong when it mixes the spiritual and physical realms. (As I referred to previously.)
You don’t punish the Lamb! Abraham wasn’t going to make His Son suffer, nor did God get pleasure from any animal suffering as a victim. He was appeased by sin removal, and pleased by Christ’s obedience. The putting away of a body, represented sins being separated from us in God’s mind above. It pleased the Lord to slay His sacrifice Jesus (His physical Son) for the sins of the world. He was not substituting for our punishment, but only ablating sins. (Sola Ablation doesn’t negate hundreds of great atonement aspects. I use Sola to oppose the merit system of PS. (As the reformers specific use of Sola Grace, did not negate the rest of God’s attributes.)
We see a fourth mix. PS not only mixes the removal of sin or wrath. We also saw it mixes the person and sin, with hate and acceptance. And it mixes the spiritual and physical. Fourthly, they mix a small term. When the Bible says hurt, they say punish. The Bible may say God hurt him, but doesn’t say God punished, or penalized Him. This is how they reason: Punish has a vague connotation of hurt. And secondly, if He’s punished to any degree, this could mean a penal merit system tool, such as retributive justice. Can we justify this leap? I can’t find justification in the Hebrew, to say that hurt is specifically punishment, much less part of a merit system. Actually, the best passage for a penal system may be Rom 3:23. The context says that death is from man, but life is from God. In order to make this distinction it uses the word “earn.” Other similar places just say death results in sin- without the “earn” metaphor. But here, Paul is showing us that God gives something better than we earn. This is actually problematic for PS, in that they’re trying to say that death is from God, while the Bible says the ground was cursed for your sake. Besides, when we normally use the word earn, we don’t often have a PS in mind. And what is more, is that if this is a penalty it’s physical death not a spiritual PS curse. Yes, the law is spiritual but it’s not its curse in this world. Such shadows and confusion is what PS relies on, for evidence. What we’ve seen in this verse, you can do to any verse they use. Simply prove that PS is never the best explanation for any passage in the Bible. Ignore the unreasonable.
God’s unique. He doesn’t need anything to balance Him. So PS says He balances HimSelf. It’s like people can’t imagine God being unbalanced, so they use PS for a crutch. But that’s God’s glory to embrace. This glory of God to hang upon nothing should be felt and not avoided by PS, which tries to shadow it. God needs anything in return. PS is one last attempt to pay God back. It’s kinda like using sunglasses, because forgiveness is too good to be true. It converts God’s analogue signal into digital. It gives Him a machine heart. People want to be able to grasp without faith that God can fly. He’s just lifting HimSelf, they reason. PS gives people a little more slack to sin. There’s nothing like God, but PS tries to blend Him in with other things.
We understand now that PS mixes hate and love, for us and sin. They also confuse hurt with punishment. They also mix the spiritual and physical domain. Next we’ll look at a fifth confusion concerning the nature of the payment.
So here’s your options if you want to hold PS excess:
1. Replace the Bible with PS, or
2. replace PS as a placeholder with the Bible, or thirdly,
3. keep both separate by simply adding.
A fifth confusion is whether a fulfilled decree makes sins forgivable, and/or God forgiving. Can God now tolerate sins. Are they ok now? No, they must be removed. So, you need to cancel either God or PS. They say it’s as if sins are better, not that sins are better. But that means nothing, because sins aren’t better. On the other side of the ping pong table, God won’t remove sins without a receipt of prior payment attached. But who says God’s forgiveness isn’t free? Hard PS doesn’t need a reason to say that; like, excess is just another attribute of God. But soft PS answers with something I call the middle decree. They may call it, the PS decree. This middle decree was supposedly created by God for our lack. It’s used to separate God from the errors of PS. It gives PS its own separate apartment far enough away from the Bible to not contradict it. This decree charges Jesus with first party guilt. It also frees us through accepting Jesus’ payment as a guiltless third party. In order to not blame God, we can simply blame the PS decree. Good thing we have PS! Without PS, we’d have nothing to blame for the mistakes that PS imposes upon God.
Because the very origin of a “middle decree” was due to the problems of the other two alternatives, soft PS has conveniently narrowed us from the original two, leaving one other option. (So much for the ping pong game.) Instead of sin being ok, they are just forgivable. And while God freely forgives, the decree has provided what it deemed necessary: a PS. And so, while hard PS sits there all stubborn about God being a PS God. Soft PS, says He’s not really that bad, He only uses a dumbed down PS accessory for our sakes. Of course, this dumbed down accessory actually only puts the physical curse on Christ’s body. The middle decree pretends to be the law which supposedly requires Jesus to be a PS. But the law warns us of coming wrath and hardly for honor restoration.
It’s no fault to donate to a thief to prevent Him from stealing. (Especially, if you’ll own the thief and all He stole.) People live by grace. PS says grace needs to be paid without ex nihilo. The best way to look at PS in general is with it cancelling itself out. PS is a non-validated random interpretation. If you trusted God for the answers you don’t have, you wouldn’t think evil PS about Him. Objectively, PS isn’t in the Bible. Subjectively it’s not helpful, but a distraction, a middle man, a toll to the gospel which people think they need to pay because they’re not used to God’s uniqueness. PS adds that the hurt Jesus felt in His flesh while ablating was also a “retribution.” (The damned do installments instead.) PS necessitates this retribution, as if it were God. I think the abandonment felt at Calvary was only for the ablation of sins, and there’s no PS retribution. But if only ablation, then what will fill the hole PS makes? Grace, embrace it.