The Inherent Flaws in Penal Substitution Atonement

[Chadrho]

The penal substitution theory of atonement assumes that sin must be punished in order to satisfy divine justice. Christ's death, so the argument goes, was an act of Christ willingly submitting to divine punishment (penalized) on the behalf of humanity (substitution) to satisfy the divine justice, which demands sin be punished.

The Flaws:
If this were the case, it would nullify divine forgiveness and grace. There is no possibility for forgiveness when justice has been exacted. Is the prisoner who is put to death forgiven by the system that puts him to death? No, there is no forgiveness or pardon in that case. And, neither is there forgiveness nor pardon if justice has been satisfied by Christ's death. Is grace being extended to humanity because of Christ's sacrifice? No, there is no grace given when justice has been exacted. The very concepts of forgiveness and grace become incoherent under this theory.

Furthermore, there is no substitution if the sinners for whom Christ died are simply considered righteous (imputed righteousness). In that case, the righteous is punished and the guilty go free without being made actually righteous. So, despite the assumption, divine justice is not satisfied but perverted.

If the penal substitution theory of atonement were true, there would be no divine forgiveness, no grace, and no justice. Thankfully, such a theory cannot possibly be true.

 

[Zachariah]

Both Heaven and Earth recieve their losses. We cannot have hot with no cold, nor dry without wet.

 

[ScottA]

The penal substitution theory of atonement assumes that sin must be punished in order to satisfy divine justice. Christ's death, so the argument goes, was an act of Christ willingly submitting to divine punishment (penalized) on the behalf of humanity (substitution) to satisfy the divine justice, which demands sin be punished.

The Flaws:
If this were the case, it would nullify divine forgiveness and grace. There is no possibility for forgiveness when justice has been exacted. Is the prisoner who is put to death forgiven by the system that puts him to death? No, there is no forgiveness or pardon in that case. And, neither is there forgiveness nor pardon if justice has been satisfied by Christ's death. Is grace being extended to humanity because of Christ's sacrifice? No, there is no grace given when justice has been exacted. The very concepts of forgiveness and grace become incoherent under this theory.

Furthermore, there is no substitution if the sinners for whom Christ died are simply considered righteous (imputed righteousness). In that case, the righteous is punished and the guilty go free without being made actually righteous. So, despite the assumption, divine justice is not satisfied but perverted.

If the penal substitution theory of atonement were true, there would be no divine forgiveness, no grace, and no justice. Thankfully, such a theory cannot possibly be true.

Certainly the "penal" part of salvation is only part. Thank God!

Indeed, it is all of the above. Literally.

 

[Chadrho]

How is God's justice satisfied? Divine justice is satisfied when all life flourishes, when all tears are wiped away, when all are healed, joy is abundant and sin, sorrow, evil and death are defeated. We look at the cross and see punishment when we should see victory. We speak of God's wrath against humanity when God's wrath is against sin, evil, and their destructive power of death. We speak of penal and retributive punishment when we should speak of cathartic, remedial punishment. God disciplines those God loves and God loves all, which is revealed in Christ who died for all. He didn't die in our place but on our behalf so that we would follow, taking up our cross and dying with him. If we die with him, we will be raised with him. He is the first fruit of which many will follow until the whole lump is holy.

We are called to die now, but all will die. Christ made death our pathway to freedom and life. We must all give up the false self created in the image of our self-seeking desires and be conformed to his likeness. We are either baptized into his death now by water and self-denial (repentance), or we will be baptized later through the unmitigated, unquenchable fire of his love, which will be a much harsher road to repentance. But all will be salted by fire and become obedient to his will until God is all in all.

Christ's death is our death, for he is humanity and divinity united. So we all must go through death to see life and participate forever in the divine nature. He became like us so that we could become like him.

 

[ChristisGod]

The penal substitution theory of atonement assumes that sin must be punished in order to satisfy divine justice. Christ's death, so the argument goes, was an act of Christ willingly submitting to divine punishment (penalized) on the behalf of humanity (substitution) to satisfy the divine justice, which demands sin be punished.

The Flaws:
If this were the case, it would nullify divine forgiveness and grace. There is no possibility for forgiveness when justice has been exacted. Is the prisoner who is put to death forgiven by the system that puts him to death? No, there is no forgiveness or pardon in that case. And, neither is there forgiveness nor pardon if justice has been satisfied by Christ's death. Is grace being extended to humanity because of Christ's sacrifice? No, there is no grace given when justice has been exacted. The very concepts of forgiveness and grace become incoherent under this theory.

Furthermore, there is no substitution if the sinners for whom Christ died are simply considered righteous (imputed righteousness). In that case, the righteous is punished and the guilty go free without being made actually righteous. So, despite the assumption, divine justice is not satisfied but perverted.

If the penal substitution theory of atonement were true, there would be no divine forgiveness, no grace, and no justice. Thankfully, such a theory cannot possibly be true.

That theory and there are 7 before PSA came into existence during the reformation is the new kid on the block. It is not orthodox and it was not the historical view of the church prior to the reformation period which brought numerous other heretical teachings into the church.

 

[ChristisGod]

How is God's justice satisfied? Divine justice is satisfied when all life flourishes, when all tears are wiped away, when all are healed, joy is abundant and sin, sorrow, evil and death are defeated. We look at the cross and see punishment when we should see victory. We speak of God's wrath against humanity when God's wrath is against sin, evil, and their destructive power of death. We speak of penal and retributive punishment when we should speak of cathartic, remedial punishment. God disciplines those God loves and God loves all, which is revealed in Christ who died for all. He didn't die in our place but on our behalf so that we would follow, taking up our cross and dying with him. If we die with him, we will be raised with him. He is the first fruit of which many will follow until the whole lump is holy.

We are called to die now, but all will die. Christ made death our pathway to freedom and life. We must all give up the false self created in the image of our self-seeking desires and be conformed to his likeness. We are either baptized into his death now by water and self-denial (repentance), or we will be baptized later through the unmitigated, unquenchable fire of his love, which will be a much harsher road to repentance. But all will be salted by fire and become obedient to his will until God is all in all.

Christ's death is our death, for he is humanity and divinity united. So we all must go through death to see life and participate forever in the divine nature. He became like us so that we could become like him.

Researching PSA is what caused me to leave Calvinism. I wrote a thesis paper on it here. I'm considering on expanding it and writing a book.

The Nature of God in the Atonement

https://berean.mccafferty1.site/pg3.html The above is to long to post here it would be 5/6 separate posts. I might break it up in sections below.

berean-apologetics.community.forum

 

[ChristisGod]

There are so many misnomers running around about God. If anyone wants to know what God is like and what He thinks we need to look no further than Jesus and His teachings since He is the Eternal God who became man.

1- Jesus taught us to love our enemies and pray for them
2- Jesus lived among sinners, ate with them and loved them, had compassion on them.
3- Jesus loves sinners, not hates them
4- Jesus on the cross said please forgive them Father for they know not what they do- His enemies who hated Him at the time.
5- Jesus came to seek and save the lost, the sinner
6- Jesus showed us what love looks like, acts like, talks like, lives like and how it treats people.
7- Jesus told us all the law and commandments are wrapped up/fulfilled in loving God with all our being( heart, mind, soul, strength ) and your neighbor as you do yourself.
8- Jesus said if you really love Him you will do what He has commanded
9- Love is described perfectly in 1 Corinthians 13- If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8 Love never fails.
10- Love in action in Galatians 5- But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

I could list another 10 points to this list but this should be plenty to get the point across. The wrath, anger, hatred about God towards is misunderstood by many. Gods wrath always falls upon the reprobate, apostate, those hardened against God, those who are wicked and rebellious that reject Gods provision for their sins by Jesus sacrifice.

conclusion: because God is Love and Jesus is God we can see to perfection that 1 Cor 13 and the fruit of the spirit in Gal 5:22-23 describes Jesus to a tee . His is love incarnate since God is love we see Him in action described in the gospels and where the Bible defines love.


hope this helps !!!

 

[Chadrho]

Researching PSA is what caused me to leave Calvinism. I wrote a thesis paper on it here. I'm considering on expanding it and writing a book.

The Tri-Unity of God in the Atonement and Jesus last words | Berean-Apologetics

View Update Here> There are many misconceptions and views on the atonement. I will try and clear up some of those in this thread espe

berean-apologetics.boards.net

Interesting. I was a Calvinist, as well. Thank you for sharing your work.

 

[ChristisGod]

Interesting. I was a Calvinist, as well. Thank you for sharing your work.

Thanks. How long were you a calvinist ? I became one in 1980 and just left Calvinism officially last year.

 

[Chadrho]

Thanks. How long were you a calvinist ? I became one in 1980 and just left Calvinism officially last year.

I came to faith in 2001, primarily by listening to RC Sproul. Calvinism gave me an understanding of grace that was missing from what I learned as a child. It was also intellectually satisfying in that it was consistent, at least with its own assumptions. But as my dad used to say-Calvinism is like a guitar that is in tune with itself but out of tune with the rest of the band. Lol It has probably been in the last several years that I have slowly rethought that position.

 

[ChristisGod]

I came to faith in 2001, primarily by listening to RC Sproul. Calvinism gave me an understanding of grace that was missing from what I learned as a child. It was also intellectually satisfying in that it was consistent, at least with its own assumptions. But as my dad used to say-Calvinism is like are guitar that is in tune with itself but out of tune with the rest of the band. Lol It has probably been in the last several years that I have slowly rethought that position.

Great analogy from your dad with the guitar, I love it. It is a systematic that stands or falls together on its own precepts with tulip. Boettner said if you can prove one of the points wrong you can prove them all wrong since they stand and fall together as one.

 

[Ghada]

Both Heaven and Earth recieve their losses. We cannot have hot with no cold, nor dry without wet.

The famous last words of the doubleminded.

There can be no hot without cold. We however can be all hot and no cold, or no hot and all cold.

Jesus prefers one or the other.

Having hot and cold is recipe for the lukewarm. It's having both good and evil in the same life.

 

[Ghada]

The penal substitution theory of atonement assumes that sin must be punished in order to satisfy divine justice. Christ's death, so the argument goes, was an act of Christ willingly submitting to divine punishment (penalized) on the behalf of humanity (substitution) to satisfy the divine justice, which demands sin be punished.

This is well done. Jesus paid the price of our sins upon Him:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The Son was made willing by the Father to be sin and esteemed as a sinner to sinful man, but never was He judged as a sinner to the righteous God, that was always pleased by Him.

Jesus Christ submitted willingly without sin, to suffer as a transgressor and blasphemer in the hands of sinful men and false accuser.

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,

He was not stricken by God, but by the rod of unjust men, and so in His own body He bore our unjust marks and cruses and nails. Not just of that of Jews and Romans, but of all men that sinned against God.

He bore the griefs of sinners by suffering our unjust grievances upon Him. And He bore the sorrow of sinners when the Spirit forsook Him for season on the cross.

God did not reckon His Son a sinner and worthy of death on the cross, but only man did. God did not kill His Son on a cross, but only man did.

Jesus never became sin nor a sinner to God, because Jesus never sinned unto death, even with strong temptations of the devil to come down from the cross and revile them that were reviling Him.

The Flaws:
If this were the case, it would nullify divine forgiveness and grace. There is no possibility for forgiveness when justice has been exacted.

True, which is a pardon and stay of execution. If the death price is already paid, then there is no free pardon.

Is the prisoner who is put to death forgiven by the system that puts him to death? No, there is no forgiveness or pardon in that case. And, neither is there forgiveness nor pardon if justice has been satisfied by Christ's death.

Excellent. If the man Christ Jesus paid the price for man sinning, then the price of man sinning has been paid.

Some Christians sinners do teach all men past, present, and future have been forgiven, because they believe the price of their own death for sinning, is already paid.

Until now, I never could understand that. They preach that their own sinning is no more condemned by God, and so their souls do not pay the wage of sinning. But now I see they are mistakenly teaching from a well-known and erroneous Christian tradition of Jesus paying the death wage of sinning on our behalf.

If that were true, then no sinner on earth would have ever been separated from God anymore by their sinning. Which indeed is what some Christians at least preach for themselves by faith alone.

They really believe they no longer pay the death penalty of separation from the Spirit of life. That's why they say Jesus 'did it all' on the cross.

Is grace being extended to humanity because of Christ's sacrifice? No, there is no grace given when justice has been exacted.

True again, else work is no more work.

Furthermore, there is no substitution if the sinners for whom Christ died are simply considered righteous (imputed righteousness).

Halleluiah. This is the basis for all teaching of dead faith alone. Imputed righteousness makes no man righteous without do it. Imputed righteousness is God putting His righteous will into the heart. But, if we do not His will, then we are not justified with God.

What was imputed is unimputed by disobeying God, even as the circumcision of Christ is made uncircumcision by transgression. (Romans 2:25)

In that case, the righteous is punished and the guilty go free without being made actually righteous.

Amen again and again. Only them doing righteousness are made righteous by God.

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

So, despite the assumption, divine justice is not satisfied but perverted.

Divine justice is only satisfied by the death of the sinner, which is the death of the soul apart God.

It would be unjust for God to make the righteous to pay the price of doing unrighteousness. God does not save sinners from their unrighteousness, by condemning the righteous in their righteousness.

God's ends never justify His means. God never does unrighteously in order to produce righteousness. To have put His own righteous Son to death for our sinning, would have been most unrighteous.

God can however pardon execution of the unrighteous, if they repent of their unrighteousness. God can have mercy upon our past unrighteousness. However, no man can do His righteousness, without the Son's faith and walk in the light.

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

That we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

God does not remember the iniquities of them that repent and do righteousness, even as He does not remember the righteousness of them that turn to do iniquity. God judges every man's work for what he is doing.

If the penal substitution theory of atonement were true, there would be no divine forgiveness, no grace, and no justice. Thankfully, such a theory cannot possibly be true.

I totally agree. It only leads to being justified by faith alone unto more ungodliness.

The price that Jesus paid in His own body, was the sins of unjust scourging and crucifixion by men. It was not the just punishment of God upon sinners.

Jesus Christ is not the payment for our sinning. The payment for sinning against God is still death from God.

His death was not a 'substitute' for ours. The only substitute for sinning, is doing good and not doing evil. Jesus is the 2nd Adam, who is the perfect substitute for Adam's bad example of transgression. In Christ Jesus, we substitute His holy living for our own sinful life.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God,

The one thing that makes Jesus life and death without sinning a benefit to man, is the main thing faith alone Christians reject: Being now able to repent of all sinning, and like Jesus go and sin no more unto death.

Thanks very much for you exposure of the doctrine that "Jesus died for my sinning". Jesus only died on the cross, because of man sinning, and God imputes it to all men that have sinned against Him. So that now all men everywhere are commanded to repent and believe from the heart to do the righteousness of His dear Son.

 

[Ghada]

The penal substitution theory of atonement assumes that sin must be punished in order to satisfy divine justice. Christ's death, so the argument goes, was an act of Christ willingly submitting to divine punishment (penalized) on the behalf of humanity (substitution) to satisfy the divine justice, which demands sin be punished.

The Flaws:
If this were the case, it would nullify divine forgiveness and grace. There is no possibility for forgiveness when justice has been exacted. Is the prisoner who is put to death forgiven by the system that puts him to death? No, there is no forgiveness or pardon in that case. And, neither is there forgiveness nor pardon if justice has been satisfied by Christ's death. Is grace being extended to humanity because of Christ's sacrifice? No, there is no grace given when justice has been exacted. The very concepts of forgiveness and grace become incoherent under this theory.

Furthermore, there is no substitution if the sinners for whom Christ died are simply considered righteous (imputed righteousness). In that case, the righteous is punished and the guilty go free without being made actually righteous. So, despite the assumption, divine justice is not satisfied but perverted.

If the penal substitution theory of atonement were true, there would be no divine forgiveness, no grace, and no justice. Thankfully, such a theory cannot possibly be true.

Now that you bring it up accurately. I would say the most glaring flaw of the Christian error of 'penal substitute' of Christ, is God punishing the guiltless, instead of the guilty. And then acquitting the guilty in their unrighteousness.

God's end of producing righteousness is never by means of unjust judgment.

I would say that is one of the most glaring inconsistencies of a righteous Judge of all the earth, that indoctrinated Christians have been trying to 'explain' for so long. This is where the bromide of 'you just have to believe' is most foolish.

It's not possible to believe in the perfect and righteous God and Judge of all the earth, and then believe He could turn around and do injustice upon the righteous, while having mercy upon the wicked.

It's right up there with the Bible revealing Christ is the Maker of all things, and then trying to say all babes in the womb are then made with sin to be children of the devil at birth.

The Father commanded His own Son to willingly submit to the injustices of man upon Himself unto death, and do so with a pure heart and sin not, even on the cross.

That can be easily understood. All that remains is why? So, that the Father could then glorify His own Son in resurrection from the dead, and be the only true God on earth for man to believe in, and ever have hope of repenting of sinning and doing His righteousness at all times unto the end.

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

 

[Chadrho]

Now that you bring it up accurately. I would say the most glaring flaw of the Christian error of 'penal substitute' of Christ, is God punishing the guiltless, instead of the guilty. And then acquitting the guilty in their unrighteousness.

God's end of producing righteousness is never by means of unjust judgment.

I would say that is one of the most glaring inconsistencies of a righteous Judge of all the earth, that indoctrinated Christians have been trying to 'explain' for so long. This is where the bromide of 'you just have to believe' is most foolish.

It's not possible to believe in the perfect and righteous God and Judge of all the earth, and then believe He could turn around and do injustice upon the righteous, while having mercy upon the wicked.

It's right up there with the Bible revealing Christ is the Maker of all things, and then trying to say all babes in the womb are then made with sin to be children of the devil at birth.

The Father commanded His own Son to willingly submit to the injustices of man upon Himself unto death, and do so with a pure heart and sin not, even on the cross.

That can be easily understood. All that remains is why? So, that the Father could then glorify His own Son in resurrection from the dead, and be the only true God on earth for man to believe in, and ever have hope of repenting of sinning and doing His righteousness at all times unto the end.

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

I'm thinking we agree the penal substitution is not much good as a theory. I'm not sure any one of those on the table works alone, but I am a fan of ideas like Christus Victor, recapitulation. Christ became like us so we could become like Christ. A nice, early church chiasm. It is surprising that atonement theories, per se, were not an issue in early church councils. Correct me if that's off, but I'm feeling confident. I think they thought more in terms of the whole incarnation vs. the climatic event.

Just a thought: Perhaps the fact that the doctrine of how the cross actually saved us was underdeveloped in the early church speaks to its historicity. If some person died and rose again, and you know it, then you don't need more explanation. God did it. Of course, that all hinges on it being true that you know it. But so long as it is true, doctrine is superfluous. He died and rose again. Certainly the first to witness the risen Lord did not need explanation because it was true. And the scriptures indicate early sermons and presentations of the gospel didn't give us theory, either. He died and rose again. That was it. That might feel unsatisfying; it kind of does for me because I want to know how it works. Lol. I'm almost suspicious of atonement theories, and yet I still wish there were a great one.

 

[Ghada]

but I am a fan of ideas like Christus Victor, recapitulation. Christ became like us so we could become like Christ. A nice, early church chiasm.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

And when it's Bible, then it's also true.

It is surprising that atonement theories, per se, were not an issue in early church councils. Correct me if that's off, but I'm feeling confident. I think they thought more in terms of the whole incarnation vs. the climatic event.

If you mean God was made flesh, whose flesh died on the cross. I agree.

Just a thought: Perhaps the fact that the doctrine of how the cross actually saved us was underdeveloped in the early church speaks to its historicity.

Well, just to be literal about it, the apostles never said the cross Jesus died on saved nor saves anyone. Nor does His death alone save any soul.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The cross itself didn't even kill Jesus. It's the sinful men, that unjustly sinned and killed Jesus using the Roman cross. As the saying goes, guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns.

The only cross that saves any man, is our own, when we repent of sinning and crucify our own old man and life for Jesus' sake.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

If some person died and rose again, and you know it, then you don't need more explanation. God did it.

True. It's us believing it by faith, who also repent and now know it by personal knowledge of Him by His Spirit.

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

But so long as it is true, doctrine is superfluous.

Not exactly. Doctrine alone does not save anyone; however it does renew and keep the mind right, while being saved and walking in His Spirit.

He died and rose again. Certainly the first to witness the risen Lord did not need explanation because it was true. And the scriptures indicate early sermons and presentations of the gospel didn't give us theory, either. He died and rose again. That was it.

And the gospel message is Repent ye, be converted, believe and walk the truth.

Basically speaking.

That might feel unsatisfying; it kind of does for me because I want to know how it works. Lol. I'm almost suspicious of atonement theories, and yet I still wish there were a great one.

How about the atonement doctrine that results in knowing Him and the power of His resurrection.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

You see my friend, the simplicity of Christ is always first lost, when that first word of His gospel promise by faith is set aside: Repent ye.

With God, that repentance is not only commanded first, in order to believe and obey Him, but it is repenting of all sinning first. The repentance of man's will piecemeal down the road, is not that of God.

Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

 

[Lambano]

The Flaws:
If this were the case, it would nullify divine forgiveness and grace. There is no possibility for forgiveness when justice has been exacted. Is the prisoner who is put to death forgiven by the system that puts him to death? No, there is no forgiveness or pardon in that case. And, neither is there forgiveness nor pardon if justice has been satisfied by Christ's death. Is grace being extended to humanity because of Christ's sacrifice? No, there is no grace given when justice has been exacted. The very concepts of forgiveness and grace become incoherent under this theory.

Furthermore, there is no substitution if the sinners for whom Christ died are simply considered righteous (imputed righteousness). In that case, the righteous is punished and the guilty go free without being made actually righteous. So, despite the assumption, divine justice is not satisfied but perverted.

A long time ago, on a long-deceased forum, I participated in some interesting discussions with a brother who came to Christ from a Buddhist background. Penal Substitution, which is just about a sine qua non to Evangelical Christianity, was incomprehensible and logically incoherent to him. The two key sticking points:

1. God either forgives sins, or He doesn't. If our debts still require payment, then they are NOT forgiven. God is then a hypocrite for telling us to forgive those who trespass against us when He is unwilling to do the same. Or the Unforgiving Servant in Jesus's parable who put the squeeze on his debtor for a year-and-a half's wages when he himself owed twice the national budget of Rome was actually in the right, and in which case I want to know what else Jesus lied to us about.
2. How in the world can punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty be considered "Justice"? How does that make the situation any better?

 

[Lambano]

And from there, we got off into the weeds.

• What IS the meaning of Christ's death?
• In what way can we say with Paul, "The Son of God loved me and gave Himself for me" (Galatians 2:20)?
• What did Jesus mean when He said the Son of Man came to give Himself as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28) Who got paid off, Satan? Why does God deal with terrorists?
• What did Jesus mean when He said His blood was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins? (Matthew 26:28) Like I said in the previous post, God either forgives our sins or He doesn't; what does Jesus's blood have to do with it?
• What did Jesus mean when He said "this is the blood of the (new) covenant" in the same verse; see also 1 Corinthians 11:25. What is the "New Covenant", and what are its terms and conditions? Is this related to Exodus 24:8? (See last bullet.) "Covenant" is "holiness language", that which sets us apart as God's own people. How does that work?
• How does the blood of Jesus "cleanse" us of all sins? (1 John 1:7; see also Hebrews 9:14) "Cleansing" is also ceremonial holiness language.
• How does the blood of Christ "redeem" us? (1 Peter 1:19) The word "lutron" relates to paying a ransom to get someone released from kidnapping or slavery. Slavery to what, "Sin"? If we've been released, why do we still sin, then?
• What is a "hilasteron" in Romans 3:25? Is Paul referring to an appeasing/atoning sacrifice, or making a typological comparison to the lid of the (not yet lost) Ark of Covenant?
• And is what is a "hilasmos" in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10? Is "propitiation" (appeasement) a proper translation? Why and how is God appeased? ("I was really, really mad at those humans, but after seeing them brutally execute my own Son, I feel a lot better now." Yecch.) Or is "atoning sacrifice" better? How did Christ's death atone for us? Atonement is also holiness language.
• If the OT sacrifices are shadows of Christ, which sacrifice applies? The Sin offering? The Passover lamb whose blood identifies God's people and protects them from the Destroyer? The Yom Kippur Atonement sacrifice? Or for that matter, the Scapegoat? The "Blood of the Covenant" Moses sprinkled on the people in Exodus 24:8?

So far, the theologians haven't come up with a comprehensive theory that covers all what the Bible says of Jesus's death.