42 Theses Contra Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) Theory

1. PSA theory asserts that sin incurs a “penalty."
   
2. This penalty is based upon God’s decision concerning sin.
3. God’s decision in this matter is free and in accordance with God’s will, as there is no force which compels God to choose or act in one way or the other.
4. God has determined that the penalty incurred from sin terminates in the death of the sinner.
5. God has determined that this penalty cannot be mitigated unless satisfactory payment is rendered.
6. God has determined the terms of the penalty;
7. It is also God to whom satisfaction must be rendered.
8. All humanity has sinned and incurred the penalty of death.
9. Satisfaction for this sin can only be accomplished by full satisfaction of the penalty—the death of every sinner.
10. God has determined that satisfaction of penalty must be rendered by those to whom it applies.
11. Christ has experienced death, and mysteriously unites the universal sin of humanity within a singular death.
12. And God has accepted Christ’s death in the place of multitudes of sinners, counting his singular death efficacious for remitting the universal penalty due for innumerable sinners.
13. As already stated, no necessity determines the free and willful decisions of God.
14. If God decrees one thing, God is perfectly free to recall said decree, for God is not bound by any force located outside the divine nature and will.
15. God has determined that the penalty for sin is death;
16. However, it logically follows God is similarly free to decree that the penalty for sin is absolved, without the need for satisfaction to be made.
17. Therefore, if God demands satisfaction for sin, it is because this is part of God’s good and perfect will, not the result of any external necessity.
18. PSA theory asserts that Christ has come to humanity precisely to provide satisfaction for sin.
19. Moreover, it is claimed that this has been determined from all of eternity.
20. If the satisfaction of the penalty for sin is the impetus for Christ’s death, then Christ’s will and that of the Godhead are opposed.
21. This is necessary, for in the Cross Christ reveals a desire and will to remove the penalty which exists according to humanity’s sin.
22. Apart from the cross, however, the Godhead expresses a desire to maintain the power of penalty over humanity.
23. Again, this is a necessary conclusion because God’s decision to withhold the remission of penalty without satisfaction is based upon God’s choice, not upon any necessity.
24. Therefore, Christ exhibits a will in the cross that is not consonant with the divine will apart from the cross.
25. Naturally, then, it is concluded that Christ does that in the cross which God was not willing to do apart from it.
26. As God was not willing to remit sin without satisfaction apart from the cross even though no necessity prevented God from doing such;
27. It must be concluded that Christ, in the cross, compels God to do that which God does not desire to do.
28. This is so because, as shown, God was not willing to remit the penalty of sin without satisfaction outside of the cross.
29. Moreover, Christ changes God’s mind toward humanity in the cross.
30. This is necessary for apart from the cross, God was not willing to do that which Christ accomplishes in the cross, even though no necessity prevented such action.
31. Such contradiction of wills creates a division in the Godhead;
32. For, in the cross, God in Christ accomplishes that which is naturally against the will of God outside of the cross.
33. Furthermore, even if Christ’s will and that of the Godhead are seen to be united in the cross, it must be concluded that God is masochistic and sadistic.
34. God is sadistic in that God desires the death of Christ to satisfy the penalty for human sin;
35. Which penalty could have been absolved without the necessity of the cross.
36. Therefore, it must be said that for God to desire the satisfaction of the penalty of sin is to also desire the death of the Son.
37. Furthermore, God must be concluded to be masochistic.
38. As shown, the union of will of Christ and the Godhead in the cross reveals that God desires the satisfaction of the penalty of sin and the death of the Son.
39. However, the Son is one in divinity with the Godhead.
40. Therefore, for Christ and the Godhead to desire the death of the Son is for the Son himself to desire his own death.
41. In this way, the Godhead itself desires non-existence;
42. Which conclusion is absurd.