Newman Nahas writes:
For many Christians, Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is the definitive answer. This doctrine holds that “God inflicted upon Christ the suffering that we deserved as the punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment” (Craig, The Atonement, p. 53). The appeal of PSA often rests on a commendable desire to uphold the gravity of sin and the absolute holiness of God. But by framing this gravity in legal and retributive terms, the doctrine misunderstands the nature of both God’s justice and sin’s remedy—which is transformation, not retribution. I have written a companion essay that explores what an alternative perspective might look like. But, here, my focus is addressing why PSA fails.
This isn’t a short read. Nahas engages deeply with the issues and history of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement idea and with the classic Christian understanding of the Cross. I recommend setting aside some time to appreciate this post.
