Penal substitutionary atonement is the idea that when Jesus
went to the cross he carried on His back all of humanity's sins - past, present, and future. He did this, so the theory goes, to endure the wrath and punishment from God the Father that we ourselves deserved. So Jesus served as our substitute and He paid the debt that we could never pay.
In Jesus, our account is finally settled with God.
Sound familiar? It's pretty common, but PSA is far from uncontroversial and is widely debated.
Some embrace it unreservedly, some deny it vehemently, and others simply include it as one way among many to understand what happened on the cross.
I am just starting to look into it for myself, but I already find myself leaning away from PSA.
(And not just because Calvinists seem to embrace it wholeheartedly!)
The strongest philosophical argument against PSA I have heard so far - an argument that made me stop and want to dive in to the Scriptures - was this:
If Jesus "pays the price" for our sins on the cross and takes our punishment on Himself, then it is not accurate to speak of the Father "forgiving" any sins.
The Father transfers the debt to His Son.
Forgiveness is not on the table. There should be no talk of pardon for sins.
You see how that's a problem, right?
I don’t really see that as a problem, or as a lack of forgiveness. God satisfies his own justice by paying the debt himself. That’s why Paul says he can be both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom. 3:25-26) I think the common critique of PSA as “divine child abuse” is shallow because a) Jesus wasn’t a child, b) Jesus laid his own life down and all the members of the Trinity worked in concert to accomplish salvation, c) the Father and Spirit had to have been grieved as well by the death of the incarnate Son.
ReplyDeleteEven in our own experience, forgiveness always involves suffering. As Tim Keller put it, “Forgiveness is a form of voluntary suffering. In forgiving, rather than retaliating, you make a choice to bear the cost.” I see PSA as a way of explaining how God did that for us. He upheld his justice while creating a rock-solid foundation for sinners to know they are forgiven.
I agree that "divine child abuse" is hyperbolic and inaccurate as per a) and b). When it comes to c) though, what I see of PSA is the Father portrayed as "turning away from the Son", unable to look upon the sin and/or disgusted by the sin and pouring out his wrath upon the Son.
ReplyDeleteI know that those verses in Romans are some that I need to dig deeper into as I am examining this topic. Just on the surface, though, it is interesting that the word translated in 3:26 as "just" and "justifier" is most often translated in the NT as "righteous" - and IS translated in the first half of that verse as "righteous". That sort of thing now makes me suspicious of a translator's agenda - which is something I am becoming more and more aware of. "Every translation is an interpretation."
As far as the Keller quote goes, it sounds good on first hearing, but I don't see how forgiveness ADDS to suffering in most interactions. It simply makes it permanent. In most cases in our day to day experiences, when someone sins against us, the damage is already done. The suffering is already inflicted on me whether I eventually forgive or not. If I choose to retaliate, it doesn't somehow alleviate my suffering - unless it's a case of someone owing me money and I am able to force repayment.
It seems to me that what you are describing - "God ... paying the debt himself" - does not require the Father extracting payment from the Son anymore than my former renter who still owes me $5,000 needs me to take that money instead from my own son's bank account, even if my son willingly gives me the money.
Admittedly, my thoughts are only half-formulated on this topic, but one of my issues with PSA is that as often presented, it drives a wedge into the Trinity. Is Jesus not God? If so, is PSA not an elaborate form of self-flagellation? How is God's justice satisfied by Him taking out punishment upon Himself?
Is it not better to see the cross as proving a) the problem is with humanity and b) we can do our worst to God and He will still keep His arms open to us, offering pardon - as we trust in His righteousness and goodness and not our own?