It’s not the differences that are ripping at the seams of Christian unity it’s how those differences are managed. The debate over penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) has been a masterclass in speaking past one another, and the repercussions aren’t merely theological; they’re relational.
1. The Two Camps and Their Core Convictions
On the one hand, pro-PSA voices usually Reformed Protestants and evangelicals regard the doctrine as a key, occasionally central, articulation of the gospel. For them, Christ’s death is the divine offering of self that remits justice, absorbs God’s wrath, and bestows righteousness. On the opposite hand, anti-PSA Christians ranging from mainline Protestants to Eastern Orthodox believers spurn the formulation as unbiblical, historically new, or spiritually disastrous. Their criticisms tend to turn on PSA’s account of God and its perceived effects on human relationships.
2. The Straw Man Problem
All too commonly, critics tear down a caricature instead of the actual thing. The notorious “divine child abuse” description portrays PSA as Father brutally punishing Son, but urbane defenders say this overlooks the Trinitarian unity in the heart of the doctrine. As one thread of history demonstrates, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,” i.e., the cross is God’s self-sacrifice, not an act of cosmic evil.
3. Consequences vs. Truth
Most anti-PSA claims are about the downstream consequences of the doctrine shame-based preaching, punishing church culture instead of its truth content. But as the adage has it, abusus non tollit usum abuse doesn’t extinguish proper use. Just because some utilize PSA in a destructive way doesn’t determine if it’s biblically faithful.
4. The Best Case for PSA
It is at its most powerful when PSA incorporates biblical concepts justice, wrath, guilt, debt, punishment, and exchange into one vision of salvation. The “blessed exchange” Martin Luther rejoiced in nails it: Christ receives what is ours (sin, curse, death) and delivers what is his (life, righteousness, sonship). As J. I. Packer contended, forgiveness always involves a price, and in the cross, God pays that price himself.
5. The Strongest Critiques
Even reasonable critics observe that PSA preaching has the tendency to lean more towards anger than love, distorting God’s character. Others object to equating PSA with the gospel and thereby cutting out believers who believe other atonement models. Historically, PSA’s specific formulation arose with Luther and Calvin, so it is a Reformation-era development rather than the unique teaching of the early church.
6. A Wider Historical Lens
The patristic and medieval consensus relied upon a combination of Christus Victor, healing through incarnation, and theosis. Thinkers such as Irenaeus highlighted Christ’s recapitulation of Adam’s narrative, while Anselm’s satisfaction theory paved the way for subsequent PSA. Abelard’s moral influence perspective, Calvin’s substitutionary exactness, and Rauschenbusch’s social gospel each revised the cross through distinct emphases. This variety indicates that PSA is but a thread in a far more colorful tapestry.
7. Bridging the Divide
Some theologians appreciate the blending of models. A Christus Victor–PSA synthesis recognizes the cross as both Satan’s defeat and the substitutionary undergoing of sin’s penalty. This reinterpretation sidesteps the Father’s portraying as being wrathful against the Son without losing the justice-mercy relationship. It’s a reminder that atonement language in the Bible is diverse, and one does not use up the mystery with one metaphor.
8. How to Debate Better
Theological discussion flourishes when the interlocutors steel man each other’s arguments putting forward the opposing argument in its best possible form before criticizing it. That involves avoiding the temptation to make rhetorical points and trying instead for clarity, fairness, and respect for one another. Like any family discussion, tone is as important as content.
Theology is, by definition, a continuing discussion of how to most effectively speak the gospel. There will be disagreement; disdain is not required. When Christians argue PSA or any doctrine they are not merely dissecting ideas; they are speaking to and of fellow followers who adore the same Lord. The aim is not to abolish differences but to guarantee that even in disagreement, understanding trumping suspicion runs deeper.
