Confusion on just what is PSA

Thanks for this!

 

Even when the recent threads showed the wrath satisfied, some insist that retribution was still necessary.

There is no retribution if there is satisfaction. Satisfaction does not demand retribution, nor does retribution bring satisfaction.



There is no condemnation if there is reconciliation.


Why then are unbelievers condemned?

Not because the need to satisfy some measure of wrath, for that would make the Lake of Fire a place of redemption.

Unbelievers are condemned because THEY never became reconciled to God.

 

So thats why we never sing it! Thanks for explaining it.

 

Like the Prostate test? Oh thanks for reminding me, its checkup time.

 

There is wrath of God to be appeased still, and who gets to handle that, you or the messiah who died in your place?

 

The lost have already been condemned, for all of us are guilty in Adam before Holy God, and God still has to propitiate His stored up wrath towards sins, so How can death of Jesus do that if he did not suffer our punishment?
Jesus being blameless and sinless loows Him to die in my stead, but he still needs to face what I would before judged and condemned for sins to have it completed!

 

What, the work of the cross was not sufficient?

God was not pleased?

You are in some manner obligated to do what Christ could not?

What "wrath of God" is still needing to be appeased?

What Scriptures do you declare as proof?

 

What scriptures do you present to support this view?

What Scriptures state that God had to propitiate His stored up wrath toward sins?

Is God actually then controlled by what is or is not "propitiated?"

Where is the Scriptures that support that Christ had to receive retribution?

 

God wrath is to be seen the book of revelations against sinners, correct?
And in the GWT judgement, correct?

 

Sinners are to receive the wrath of god for their violation of His Holy Law, and jesus on the Cross was the One who bore their sins and thus their judgement/punishment!

 

You are referring to Revelation 16.

 

If I take the truth of your statement, then I must assume that the crucifixion was in some manner deficient.

For does not the Scripture state that:

ALL have sinned?

Everyone has turned away?

There is none righteous?​

So, then the crucifixion must be deficient for God to still have some unresolved issues.

 

There seems to be some confusion over the term 'satisfaction.' We need to understand that the term is understood by different people in different ways.

To state the blindingly obvious, Anselm (1033-1109), who originated 'Satisfaction Theory' in his book Cur Deus Homo? was a Roman Catholic and a sacramentalist. Anselm believed that human sin has outraged God's honour and majesty. Sin is infinitely serious; so a just satisfaction to God would have to be infinite in value. Therefore Christ Jesus came to earth to live a life of sinless perfection and on the cross offered to God the Father an infinite satisfaction for the outrage of sin.

However, Anselm's theory falls short because although it taught that Christ offered satisfaction for God's outraged majesty etc., He did not suffer the punishment of sin. This, Anselm believed, still had to be expiated by the believer through the sacarments or in Purgatory. Luther would have been familiar with Anselm's theory, but it brought him no peace because it did not seem to meet his need to be right with God. When Luther came to his discovery that the 'Righteousness of God' means the righteousness God supplies to sinners, he also realised that Christ on the cross had satisfied God', not only concerning His outraged honour, but also His outraged justice; that Christ had indeed propitiated God's wrath by Himself paying the penalty due to us. This is absolutely clear in Luther's commentary on Galatians, especially in his extended comments on 3:13. But Luther and many of the Reformers who came after him did not stop using the word 'satisfaction' to describe Christ's atoning work, though they meant something quite different to what Anselm had meant.

Here is A.W. Pink explaining why he used the term Satisfaction of Christ rather than 'Atonement.' He is discussing the O.T. sacifices:

"Just as the sins of the offerer were imputed to the victim, so the excellency of the victim was ascribed to the offerer. Fourth, that something more was effected by these offerings than an atonement being made for sins — a satisfaction was offered to God’s holiness and justice. This leads us to call attention to the title for this book, and here we cannot do better than give below a digest from Dr. Hodge’s able comments on this point: — During the latter part of the nineteenth century the word “Atonement” became commonly employed to express that which Christ wrought for the salvation of His people. But before then, the term used since the days of Anselm (1274 [sic. He means 1074]), and habitually employed by all the Reformers, was “Satisfaction.” The older term is much to be preferred, first, because the word “Atonement” is ambiguous . In the Old Testament it is used for an Hebrew word which signifies “to cover by making expiation.” In the New Testament it occurs but once, Romans 5:11, and there it is given as the rendering for a Greek word meaning “reconciliation.” But reconciliation is the effect of the sin-expiating and God-propitiating work of Christ. On the other hand, the word “Satisfaction” is not ambiguous. It always signifies that complete work which Christ did in order to secure the salvation of His people, as that work stands related to the will and nature of God.

Again: the word “Atonement” is too limited in its signification for the purpose assigned to it. It does not express all that Scripture declares Christ did in order to meet the complete demands of God’s law. It properly signifies the expiation of sin, and nothing more. It points to that which Christ rendered to the justice of God, in vicariously bearing the penalty due the sins of His people; but it does not include that vicarious obedience which Christ rendered to the precepts of the law, which obedience is imputed to all of the elect. On the other hand, the term “Satisfaction” naturally includes both of these. “As the demands of the law upon sinful men are both preceptive and penal-the condition of life being ‘do this and live,’ while the penalty denounced upon disobedience is, ‘the soul that sinneth it shall die’ — it follows that any work which shall fully satisfy the demands of the Divine law in behalf of men must include (1) that obedience which the law demands as the condition of life, and (2) that suffering which it demands as the penalty of sin.”

[Taken from CHAPTER - THE ATONEMENT — INTRODUCTION Pink's book, The Satisfaction of Christ, is one of the best expositions of Penal Substitution that I know of]

 

For clarification, the references to Luther were my words, not Pink's.

 

I would not expect to see Anselm or Aquinas supporting Penal Substitution, simply because they were Roman Catholics. Sacramentalism came into the Church very early, but took (perhaps) its biggest leap forward with the Cluniac Revival and the Hildebrandine Reforms of the 11th Century. Christ on the cross was diminished; Christ in the sacraments exalted.

Therefore there will be a tremendous difference in understanding between Anselm, Lombard and Aquinas on the one hand and Luther, Calvin and the Puritans on the other, simply because of their different understanding of Justification. If justification is a legal announcement by God that we are righteous on the grounds of Christ's satisfaction for sins, then He must have taken upon Himself God's curse upon sin and sinners, otherwise we must still be under it.

The reason that I have kept going with the issue of PSA is that it is so closely aligned with Justification. N.T. Wright, for example, who denies PST, also denies the Protestant understanding of justification and salvation by grace alone through faith alone (I cannot claim to have read all Wright voluminous works, but that is my understanding from what I have read). It is IMO inevitable. What Christ has not done for us we must do for ourselves or perish. But, praise God, Christ has done it all!