Irresponsible Shepherds

Ezekiel prophesied against Israel's leaders, but this indictment can just as easily apply to leaders representing the Church today. When God's design for shepherd leadership is dishonored, the flock becomes starved. Irresponsible shepherds greedily milk the well-fed sheep for their own gain (Isaiah 56:11). They don't care for the hurting or seek the lost, but rule with an iron fist. When the shepherds don't identify and kill wolves, the flock is left vulnerable. Without a guiding shepherd, the sheep are scattered and become food for the wolves.

Leaders of God's people will be held more severely accountable to God due to their important influence (James 3:1, Hebrews 13:17). Their responsibility is serious because false teaching can lead many sheep astray. We don't like God's strictness, but we need it (Jeremiah 52:10). He requires a return on His investment in the shepherds who are to tend His sheep (cf. John 21:15-17, Matthew 25:14-30). Sometimes, He will cause these wolves in sheep's clothing to fall so that they stop fleecing and even devouring the flock (Acts 20:29-30).

Thank God He remains our True Shepherd when His representatives fail. He promises to save His chosen sheep from their own rulers; to seek, find, bring back, care for, and feed His lost sheep before giving them rest. He will comfort the hurting (Psalm 147:3) and strengthen those who have been made ill by these irresponsible shepherds. God will destroy the leaders who have misused their power to get so selfishly comfortable that they forgot God and others (cf. Deuteronomy 32:15, Jeremiah 5:28). They will be fed with God's harsher judgment instead for their abuse.

Not only do these shepherds partake of their wealth, but they leave nothing leftover of the flock's provision. They clothe themselves with fleece robes made from the flock's wool. They corrupt biblical truth for their own gain while their sheep lose what little they have applying the same false teaching.

God promises to judge between the sheep who make themselves fat by lording it over others and the sheep who are made skinny by having their rights trampled. These shepherds are full of themselves and push their sheep away into danger instead of protecting them. Through Jesus, the True and Good Shepherd (John 10:1-5, 11), God's flock is sacrificially rescued from being a prey to the deceits of false shepherds and their true leader Satan. Unlike a hireling (John 10:11-16), the Good Shepherd puts the well-being of His sheep over His own. Jesus, the second David, came to feed and care for God's flock. He showed that those who thought they saw were actually blind and He made those who were literally blind see.

God makes a promise to give His sheep peace so they may freely sleep in the woods where they will be showered with blessings (cf. Psalm 23). Not only will they be safe from the irresponsible shepherds, but also from the beasts outside of the fold. They will feed on His truth and have their souls satisfied (John 6:35). Others will no longer believe that the sheeps' suffering means they've been forsaken by God, but the sheep'll genuinely live out their beliefs so that others will have nothing evil to say against them (Titus 2:7-8, 1 Peter 2:12, Philippians 1:27-30, 2:14-16).

We are lambs among wolves (Luke 10:3). Instead of fleecing us, our shepherds should be: truthfully feeding us, selflessly protecting us, humbly leading us, and prayerfully caring for our needs while lovingly disciplining offenders.

Why Deconstruction Does Not Lead to Loss of Salvation

This post was inspired as I was lamenting the influence of contemplative spirituality in churches. I intended to share some thoughts about it on Instagram, but my thoughts kept building and I refused to be restriced by a character limit this time.

It hurts to see churches falling prey to false teachings such as those of Christian mysticism. Through the practices of "spiritual formation", Living Spiritual Teacher Richard Foster and Dallas Willard infiltrated evangelical Christianity with disciplines they claim were lost by the Church. In actuality, practices such as lectio divina are rooted in Catholic monasticism and can be adapted by other faiths, including the New Age movement. Seeking extrabiblical and ecumenical wisdom through unbiblical disciplines such as centering prayer (2 Corinthians 3:18, Titus 3:5; Deuteronomy 29:29, 2 Peter 1:3-8, 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Joshua 1:8, 1 Corinthians 14:15, Philippians 4:6, John 16:23-24; John 14:6, Hosea 4:6, Psalm 19:7-14) bears similarity to first century Gnosticism. This pursuit was reborn in the postliberal theology of the Emergent Church - now repackaged as Progressive Christianity. Richard Foster has been endorsed by Eugene Peterson, author of The Message, and is a fellow Living Spiritual Teacher with Richard Rohr, whom Rob Bell has endorsed. Rohr is a major influence in Progressive Christianity.

Progressive Christianity

I would argue that Progressive Christianity is perhaps the biggest threat to the salvation of souls right now - though I am concerned about the other threats as well. Atheism is not the most significant threat to the Church. An atheist will elevate his intellectual argumentation over a Christian's testimony, but when God transforms a person, He transforms their understanding. In a wonderful display of God choosing foolish things to shame the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27), atheism has not and will not kill God. Also, other religions and cults do not threaten the Church as severely. Christianity is unlike all other faiths, which are works-based, for only Christ could live the perfect life we can't. If we believe we need to do any one thing to earn our way into Heaven, then we must live flawlessly (Galatians 5:1-3). It doesn't take long before we clearly see that we cannot. What most threatens the Great Commission of the Church is the wolves found inside. As in warfare, infiltration tactics are more effective than frontal assault.

False teachings inside the Church abound in various forms, such as the Word of Faith movement, the New Apostolic Reformation, or even Unitarianism. When weighing all these "wolves", we can separate their false beliefs into two groups: those that misunderstand or misrepresent parts of what the Bible teaches and those that directly oppose the historic tenets of the Christian faith. Progressive Christianity is revealing itself to have the latter.

I can't help but wonder: if Christianity is meant to keep progressing, how do we know when we've progressed enough? What are we progressing to? Rather than seeking something new that constantly changes, we need to get back to the basic orthodox doctrines of early Christianity. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, the Church has changed societies with the good news of Jesus Christ. When the Bride mingled with the world, however, the results were often disastrous.

Deconstruction

This leads me to the deconstruction movement. Some will say it is a healthy evaluation of your beliefs in order to shed the bad ones and preserve the good. However, that comes with examining yourself and testing everything against God's Word - not the other way around (2 Corinthians 13:5, Acts 17:11, 1 John 4:1). There's no need to borrow from Jacques Derrida's philosophy of fluidity in textual meaning, which he translated into "deconstruction" from Martin Heidegger's concept of "destruktion". Don't let anybody convince you that "there have been Deconstructions throughout history that have lead [sic] to healthy faith" and that even Christ Jesus Himself deconstructed. Whatever happened to discernment? Unfortunately, deconstruction often results in just that - destruction and the deserting of Christianity altogether. One may sincerely seek objective biblical truth, but as Alisa Childers has written, "[T]he way the word is most often used in the deconstruction movement has little to do with objective truth, and everything to do with tearing down whatever doctrine someone believes is morally wrong." So, the evaluation of the morality of these doctrines is not based on any objective or biblical standards. Instead of simply accepting what God says in His Word, this process allows deconstructionists to subjectively deem what is good or bad based on their individual sense of justice. 

I wish this movement was just a fad; it certainly seems like one. Those who "deconstruct" feel an urge to publicly denounce the faith they once professed to hold after having their views shaped by cultural values. We've seen this from musicians such as Michael Gungor, Marty Sampson, Jon Steingard, Audrey Assad, Kevin Max and Phanatik to megachurch pastors such as Dave Gass and Joshua Harris to others such as Abraham Piper and Paul Maxwell. One common denominator in the announcements I've read is that they weren't satisfied with the answers they received to their questions, but that doesn't mean there aren't any or that they're false. Just as in contemplative spirituality, feelings are elevated over truth. Any inconsistencies that are found are due to misinterpretations. The only thing worse than apostatizing from Christianity is apostatizing from a misrepresentation of Christianity. They claim to now be truly free; "very much alive", "so happy now, so at peace", and "so full of joy for the first time", even as they fight back tears. Running from God feels like freedom in the beginning, but it always ends in misery - whether in this life or the next.

The Falling Away

There have been various views throughout Church history concerning the great apostasy, or "falling away", described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. Although the public denouncements seem like a trend, this passage does appear to be perfectly describing the deconstruction movement today. This movement overlaps with the "exvangelical" movement of former professing evangelicals who become atheists, agnostics, or followers of other faiths. If they do remain followers of Christ, they follow a Christ of their own making - usually the Christ of Progressive Christianity. Don't be deceived. The Universal - or cosmic - Christ of Richard Rohr is not the biblical Christ.

The end times apostasy will be the largest falling away in the Church's history from God and the true faith (1 Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 3:12, Luke 8:13, Acts 5:37, Revelation 13:14, 1 John 2:22). It will be so bad that the Lord Jesus asked if He will really find faith on the earth when He comes (Luke 18:8). The word "apostasia" means a revolt. It is used in the sense of a rebellion of a king's subjects or a defection of soldiers. Although the defector is normally considered a traitor by his original side, I like to employ the term for the act of turning away from the god of this world and joining the army of God (2 Corinthians 4:4, Galatians 4:8-9). Those who deconstruct give up their purported allegiance to Christ. Whether deconstruction is the "great apostasy" or not, it is nonetheless an apostasy. 

Eternal Security

A common reaction to the public renouncements of faith is that the renouncers were never saved in the first place. While I'm hesitant to judge anyone's salvation before their time has expired and they no longer have a chance to return to the Lord, I also believe God is sovereign in salvation; His grace is effectual and His calling irrevocable (John 6:37, Romans 11:29). The Contemporary English Version words it this way: "God doesn't take back the gifts he has given or disown the people he has chosen." Not only is God's calling irrevocable, but it is for His purpose and pleasure (Romans 8:28, Philippians 2:13, Ephesians 1:5, 11-12; cf. Proverbs 16:9, 19:21).

As John wrote in 1 John 2:19, there is a distinction between those who appear outwardly to be Christians and those of the invisible Church who are truly united to Christ through the free gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8, 1 Peter 1:5, 2 Peter 1:1, Philippians 1:29, Acts 3:16, Hebrews 12:2; cf. 1 Corinthians 3:6-7). The Word of God describes Him establishing different things, including faith (Psalm 103:19, 112:8, Proverbs 16:9, 19:21, Deuteronomy 28:9, 1 Chronicles 29:18, 2 Chronicles 9:8; 2 Corinthians 1:21, Romans 16:25, 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 2 Thessalonians 3:3, 1 Peter 5:10, 2 Peter 1:3, Ephesians 3:16-19, Colossians 2:6-7, Jude 1:3, Hebrews 13:9). Therefore, biblically, those who "lose" their salvation really didn't have it in the first place. Those who seem to "fall away" without turning back to the Lord later were deceived, thus not of the elect (Matthew 24:24, John 10:28-29). In fact, just as faith is a gift from God, so is the desire to serve Him, for no one naturally seeks Him (Philippians 2:13, Romans 1:16-20, 3:10-18, 7:18, Psalm 5:9, 14:2-3, 37:4, Isaiah 59:7-8, John 6:44).

Faith and Works

There is confusion about the role of works in regards to salvation. What sets Christianity apart from man-made religions that use works in attempts to reach a god or gods is that the one true God reached us through the work of Jesus (Luke 19:10). We are justified by faith alone in His perfect works in life and on the cross (Romans 1:16-17; cf. Habakkuk 2:4). Due to our sinful nature, we cannot measure up to God's perfect holiness even with our best works (Isaiah 64:6). If our works cannot earn us our salvation - since Jesus had to earn it for us - neither can our works keep our salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). Our works are not done out of duty as a requirement for salvation, but out of gratitude in response to the salvation we have received. As Kevin DeYoung wrote in The Ten Commandments: What They Mean, Why They Matter, and Why We Should Obey Them, "salvation is not the reward for obedience; salvation is the reason for obedience" (2018, p. 25). In other words, we are saved for good works and not by them (2 Timothy 1:9, 3:17, Titus 1:16, 2:13-14, 3:8, 14, Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 6:20-23, 7:4-6, 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17, Colossians 1:10, Hebrews 13:20-21, 2 Corinthians 9:8). One purpose of our good deeds is for others to give glory to God (Matthew 5:16). Another is that King Jesus is coming back and we have work to do before His kingdom comes (Matthew 6:33).

Just as God didn't choose Israel based on anything inherent in them (Deuteronomy 7:7), God chose us before we were able to choose Him (John 15:16, Ephesians 1:4). God saved Israel out of Egypt before He gave them the Mosaic Law. They did not behave in order to be saved, but were saved first and then told how to behave. Although the Israelites were required to keep the Law, the Law itself didn't give them salvation, but showed their need for it (Hebrews 10:4, 10, 18, Romans 3:19-22, 2 Corinthians 3:6). This order of salvation is the same with Jesus. If "a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16; cf. Romans 3:27-4:8), then why would he be justified by any other works? In fact, those under the works of the law are under the curse (Galatians 3:10-14, cf. Romans 6:14). A gospel of works other than the finished work of Christ is a backwards gospel (John 19:30; cf. Acts 4:12). God's new covenant with us through Jesus is not based on our ability to obey, but on His perfect obedience to the Law of God in our place (Philippians 3:3, 7-12). His sacrifice was sufficient to pay the penalty for our sin. That is what saves us. 

Our salvation does not depend on us, but on God, who is the author of it through Jesus (Hebrews 2:10, 12:2) and whose grace saves us and keeps us (Titus 3:5, Romans 11:5-6, 2 Corinthians 12:9, 1 Corinthians 15:10). We don't have to prove ourselves to be accepted; none of us can earn to be chosen (Romans 9:11, 16). By taking away one's salvation, God would break His promise (John 3:16, 1 John 5:13, Hebrews 8:12, 2 Corinthians 1:20). The question we should be asking is not whether one can lose their salvation, but whether one who does not bear fruit has really been made new (John 3:3, 15:8, 2 Corinthians 3:18, 5:17). The biblical Greek word for "repentance" is "metanoia" and means a change of mind. When God transforms a soul, He changes its fundamental core.

Hebrews 10:26-27

A popular passage used in the argument for loss of salvation is Hebrews 10:26-27. Rather than warning about losing one's salvation, which is assured as being secure elsewhere (John 6:47, Romans 8:31-39, 1 Peter 1:3-5, Hebrews 10:22), this passage warns about false converts. They appear to be saved among God's adopted family, but lack true saving faith like Judas. These verses come directly after Paul's encouragement to hold fast to our hope, since the One who promised it is faithful, and to stir up good works (Hebrews 10:23-24). Those whom God elects won't sin habitually (1 John 1:10, 3:8-9, 2 Peter 1:10). Of course, no one is able to be perfectly sinless as God is (Leviticus 19:2, 1 Peter 1:13-17, 1 John 1:8) - otherwise we wouldn't need Christ - but the Christian will seek to reflect God's holy nature to others (Philippians 3:12-14). In Leviticus 19, God lays out how the Israelites could live holy. We live in obedience to the truth with love (1 Peter 1:22). It is Christ's sanctification and cleansing through His blood, not our works, that makes us "without spot, wrinkle, or blemish" (Ephesians 5:25-27, 2 Peter 3:14, cf. Revelation 7:14, 19:8). 

Hebrews 10:26 only mentions those who receive the knowledge of the truth and not those who receive new hearts (Ezekiel 11:19, 2 Corinthians 5:17). There is a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge. The Christian's life is the ultimate example of actions speaking louder than words. This passage is about one who professes faith and yet ultimately chooses willful sinning and worldly things over Christ (Matthew 13:20-22). It does not say the Christian's salvation no longer remains, but that Christ's sacrifice for sins no longer remains, since the apostate rejects it. I'm sure Arminians and Calvinists can both agree that Christ's sacrifice does not apply to those who spurn it. There is no atonement, even in the Law, for intentional and unrepented sin.

Matthew 12:43-45

Another passage used to support the idea of losing salvation is Matthew 12:43-45. Rather than being about salvation, this passage is about "this wicked generation" that denies salvation by grace through faith and attempts to be clean from wickedness through its own effort. In the context of the latter half of Matthew 12, Jesus is explaining how He could not be casting out demons by Beelzebub - a claim that unpardonably blasphemes the Spirit of God. He then compares the "brood of vipers" to bad trees being known by their bad fruits before some of them ask for a sign after His miracles were just attributed to Satan! The point is that we are all empty without the Spirit and our own efforts at being righteous never work and only get worse. We are evil to the core and remain open to demonic influence without the regeneration of the Spirit.

The Crux of the Matter

This issue boils down to the character of God. Is God able to preserve His elect and not break His promise of eternal life (Psalm 145:20, Romans 10:9-13, 1 John 5:13; John 3:16, Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Timothy 1:12)? Will Jesus forsake His chosen sheep (John 14:16-18, Matthew 28:20, Hebrews 13:5)? Jesus Himself said that He would not lose "all [the Father] has given Me" (John 6:39) because "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father" (John 6:65-66) and "no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand" (John 10:26-30). Our faith is granted to us just as Pilate's power was granted to him (John 19:11), but faith can also be denied just as Pharaoh's hardened heart was kept hardened (Romans 9:17-18). Salvation is by His power and not ours (Psalm 145:20, Titus 3:5, Jude 24-25). If it were up to us sinners, none of us would be able to keep our salvation! We are born dead in sin and unable to meet His perfect standard of holiness, so God makes us alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-7; cf. Romans 6:9-14, 1 Peter 1:3-5). It is not prideful to take Him at His Word. He will complete what He began in His sheep and not fail (Philippians 1:6, Hebrews 12:2). If the Father chose you in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), then He won't let anything thwart His plan. God converts whom He chooses, continues to work in those He converts, and completes what He commences. 

This doesn't mean that those who are saved do nothing, but rather that they work out what God works in them. When God tells us through His Word to "work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12-13), He is talking about completing the salvation we have already received by the process of sanctification with reverent fear as in 2 Corinthians 7:15 (cf. Psalm 2:11, Ecclesiastes 12:13). Paul explains this process in the next chapter of Philippians as the act of pressing toward the goal (3:12-14). Peter expresses the same idea when he writes about adding to the faith we've obtained with diligence to make our call and election sure (2 Peter 1:1, 5-7, 10-11; cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5, 1 John 3:19).

If you are truly saved and God desires that all would be saved (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9; cf. Luke 15:5-6, 32), then do you think God would allow you to lose your salvation? In addition, if you are truly saved, would you take your salvation lightly? If a Christian can lose salvation, it follows that God destroys His new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), revokes His redemption with the blood of Christ and His guarantee with the seal of the Holy Spirit for His glory (1 Peter 1:18-19, Romans 3:23-26; Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:20, 2 Corinthians 1:22, 5:5), and reneges on His Word of justification and glorification and His promise of eternal life (Romans 5:1-5, 8:30; John 3:16). If a Christian can lose salvation, then God is a liar (Titus 1:2). Thus, deconstruction doesn't lead to loss of salvation because the Christian will return to the Lord or because he never knew the Lord in the first place (Matthew 7:21-23). God's will is sovereign over man's will.

Shoulda Been Me

Progressive Christianity's influence is what caused me to release "Shoulda Been Me". A major contributing factor to the public renouncements of faith by deconstructionists is the image of an angry God who requires His holy wrath against sin to be appeased. This idea of God as a moral monster is so vehemently opposed that it no longer matters that God lovingly came down to us as a man in order to take His own punishment in our place (Micah 7:18, Philippians 2:5-11, John 1:1, 10-14). This repudiation of the truth of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) is the most serious and severe departure from biblical faith in our day.

A misunderstanding of God's love coupled with a mischaracterization of His wrath sounds like something the Antichrist will capitalize on. God's love is not a passive indifference to sin and a fuzzy feeling, but an action of salvation (1 John 4:9-10). God's wrath is not an uncontrollable tantrum and egotistical, but a holy response to evil (Habakkuk 1:13). Our sin incurs our holy God's just wrath and is not merely a hindrance to a prosperous and healthy life. God removes His wrath from those who fear Him and understand their need for the righteousness of Jesus to give them peace with Him (Psalm 85:3, 9-10). Today, God's forgiveness is preached without the means to its end: the righteous wrath of God which Jesus took on our behalf. 

It should've been us paying for our sins, but we needed a perfect substitute in our place (Leviticus 4:27-28, 17:11, Hebrews 9:22, 1 Peter 1:18-19). God's Word lays out the world's redemptive history which culminated in the perfect life, sacrificial death, and glorious resurrection of Jesus (Ephesians 1:9-10, 3:11). Israel's sacrificial system pointed to a perfect substitute whose death would redeem people from the penalty of sin and bring them back to God because of His fulfillment of the Law (Ephesians 1:7). When we are made new in Christ, our identities change from being objects of God's wrath to His adopted children (2 Corinthians 5:17, Ephesians 2:1-3, Romans 9:22-26, 2 Timothy 2:2-20-22). The children of wrath become the children of God when they trust that Christ bore God's wrath against sin for them to whom it was due (John 3:36, Romans 2:5-6, 5:9). Christ had to suffer the judgment we deserve in order for us to be reconciled to God - there was no other way (Luke 22:42-44). Christianity doesn't make sense without Christ's full payment on our behalf, just as the physical resurrection of Jesus doesn't make sense without a literal death of the first humans. In preaching forgiveness without God's wrath against sin, the good news loses the reason that makes it good in the first place. Unfortunately, as we see with fallen pastors, this misinterpretation of God's love leads one's personal love to grow cold (Matthew 24:10-12).

Conclusion

A lack of biblical literacy and discernment have been damaging to the Great Commission of making disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). Praise God that He has chosen to save a group of people from all nations and nobody is able to prevail against it (Revelation 7:9, Matthew 16:18)! As people embrace "moralistic therapeutic deism" or being "spiritual" more and more, it is reassuring to know that God has preserved a remnant for Him throughout each generation. However, this doesn't negate our responsibility to know and share the truth of the gospel. 

We are quick to condemn or "cancel" pastors and churches accused of sexual abuse. We have even gone so far as attempting to erase their existence as in damnatio memoriae. Yet, we continue to allow the abuse of the Word while failing to realize the latter is used as a means to the former. Please don't get me wrong; clergy abuse is a serious problem and not just in Catholicism. It's just a shame that we don't care about what a preacher says as much as what they do when what we believe affects how we live (Titus 1:1, 16). If we want to solve the problem of abuse in our churches, we must start by addressing false theology being used to justify the abuse. Of course, sexual abuse by clergy is an extreme example, but the point is that false theology can result in false doctrine and unbiblical practices. 

God's Word commands us to be discerning (1 John 4:1, Hebrews 5:14, Philippians 1:9-10, John 7:24, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Matthew 10:16, 1 Corinthians 12:10, Colossians 1:28, 2:8, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Proverbs 2:1-5). We are given directives to defend the faith and to keep the gospel pure (Jude 1:3, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2, 15-19, 25, 3:16-17, 4:2-5, Galatians 5:9). Are you lining everything you read or hear up with Scripture as the noble Bereans did (Acts 17:11)? Do you know who it is your pastor is quoting?

"Shoulda Been Me" Lyrics

[Intro: K tda G]

Shoulda been me...
It shoulda been me...
It shoulda been me!

[Verse 1: D.I.D.A.C.T.I.C.]
It's why we can't pay the price, why I told you the remedy (2 Chronicles 36:16)
Why we have to be made alive with new identities (Ephesians 2:1-10, 1 Peter 1:3-6)
It's the reason Lucifer fell, it's the reason for Hell (Luke 12:4-5)
Why God forsook Christ at the site He hung and yelled
It's why cross means angry, why He'll separate wheat from chaff (Matthew 3:12)
It's why mouths will wail, eyes will weep, and why teeth will gnash (Matthew 8:10-12, 13:41-43, 49-50, 22:11-14, 24:48-51, 25:29-30, Luke 13:28; Psalm 112:9-10; cf. John 15:6)
Why one goat took the wrath and the other was sent away (Leviticus 16)
Why God gave the ram to Abraham, someone must pay (Genesis 22:1-18)
That someone was Jesus, the Lamb, and He is returning
And from Moses to the Prophets, all the Script's concern Him (Luke 24:27, 44-48, John 5:39-40, Acts 8:35; Colossians 3:16)
He's the Mercy Seat, but God is above it in the cloud (Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:5; 2:17; 1 John 2:2,

4:10)

So you could still fall and be sprawled, deceased on the ground (Leviticus 16:1-2, 2 Samuel 6:7)
God is sovereign, He allows what He is pleased to allow (Lamentations 3:38-39, Psalm 115:3, 135:6, Proverbs 21:1, Isaiah 46:10, Jeremiah 18:1-6, Ezekiel 17:24, Romans 9:22-23, 11:33-36; cf. Psalm 25:12; Judges 9:22-23, 1 Kings 12:15, Isaiah 19:14, 1 Samuel 16:14, 18:9-10, 1 Kings 22:22, 2 Chronicles 18:22)
If Christ took the people's wrath, He was appeasing the crowds
There's no point in God's mercy if His fury's not aroused (2 Kings 23:26, James 2:13, Deuteronomy 7:3-4, 31:17, 1 Samuel 11:6, Isaiah 60:10, Exodus 15:6-7, Ezekiel 5:13, 16:42, 21:17; Nahum 1:2-6, Habakkuk 3:2)
It's what makes the good news so good (Psalm 30:5, Revelation 21:4, 8; Ephesians 2:3, John 3:18, Romans 5:10), no evil around! (Psalm 16:5, 116:12-13, 1 Cor 10:16, Revelation 3:21, 21:27; Romans 12:9)

[Chorus: K tda G]
It shoulda been me... up on that cross
It shoulda been me, I was so wrong and lost
It shoulda been me... to pay the cost
But it couldn't be, because I can't be perfect, I'm flawed
It shoulda been me... up on that cross
It shoulda been me, I was so wrong and lost
It shoulda been me... to pay the cost
But it wasn't me, so I'm giving all glory to God! (Acts 12:20-23, Habakkuk 2:14)

[Verse 2: D.I.D.A.C.T.I.C.]
"God is love", but He is also Judge, so He must subdue (Isaiah 24:21-23, 25:5, Deuteronomy 9:3, Judges 4:23, 1 Samuel 7:13, 1 Chronicles 17:10, 22:18, Nehemiah 9:24, Psalm 18:47, 47:3, 81:13-15, 144:2; cf. Proverbs 29:26, Amos 5:24; Judges 11:27; Exodus 34:6-7)
That's why God alone passed through the carcasses cut in two (Genesis 15:7-21, Jeremiah 34:18, Hebrews 6:13-18; cf. Romans 3:21-26; 4:5-8, 15, 5:3-5, Proverbs 17:15, Psalm 89:14; John 3:16)
We owe debts we cannot pay, He paid what He didn't owe (Colossians 2:14, Romans 6:23)
Didn't owe it to us to save us, coulda said, "No"
Coulda left us like Korah, Uzzah, or Ananias (Numbers 16:32, 2 Samuel 6:1-11, Acts 5:1-11; cf. Leviticus 10:1-2, Genesis 38:7, 10)
Woulda been perfectly just (Deuteronomy 32:4, 1 John 1:5), still He sent the Messiah
Who is God in the flesh and so they were one in their goal (Zechariah 12:10, Micah 5:2, John 1:1, 14, 10:30, 14:7-9, 17:21, 1 Timothy 3:16)
And it is not that the Lord's wrath needs somewhere to go
Simply, it's that His wrath was expressed in the act itself (2 Corinthians 5:19, Matthew 27:45, 51, 54)
And without it, we change the way that we react to Hell
Because when you take out the wrath, then you take out the weight
Like bodybuilders who order take out all day
God has wrath against sin and Christ became sin in our place (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 15:3)
So, Christ took wrath on the cross when it was finished that day! (John 19:30, Genesis 15:6, Galatians 3:7, 13, 15-16, 29, 4:5, cf. Titus 2:14, 1 Peter 1:18-19)
Out of love and not as an involuntary victim (John 10:17-18, 15:13, Philippians 2:5-8, Psalm 40:6-8)
God is too holy to not be angry at sin! (Habakkuk 1:13, Proverbs 8:13, Psalm 5:4-7, 7:9-12, 88:7, Job 21:17, Romans 1:18, 2:5-8; Revelation 4:8; Isaiah 9:17, 10:25, Lamentations 3:34-36)

[Chorus: K tda G]
It shoulda been me... up on that cross
It shoulda been me, I was so wrong and lost
It shoulda been me... to pay the cost
But it couldn't be, because I can't be perfect, I'm flawed
It shoulda been me... up on that cross
It shoulda been me, I was so wrong and lost
It shoulda been me... to pay the cost
But it wasn't me, so I'm giving all glory to God! (Acts 12:20-23, Habakkuk 2:14)

[Verse 3: D.I.D.A.C.T.I.C.]
God was pleased to crush Him, so His law would be satisfied (Isaiah 53:10, Psalm 41:9-13)
His deliberate plan was fulfilled in Christ's sacrifice (Acts 2:23-24, John 10:17)
He was crushed for sin (Isaiah 53:5-6, 8, 12; Romans 6:10, Hebrews 9:26-28, 10:10, 1 Peter 2:24; Genesis 3:15), not by it, to set God's wrath aside
'Cause on the third day, from the grave, He had to rise!
God wasn't satisfied that He was crushed because of the hordes (Acts 2:23-24)
Jesus was agonized, sweating blood, 'cause the cup was the Lord's! (Matthew 26:39, 42, 44; Mark 10:37-38, 14:36, Luke 12:50, 22:42, John 18:10-11; Jeremiah 25:15-16, Revelation 14:9-10, 16:19; Exodus 32:11)
God made blood sacrifice central (Hebrews 9:22; Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 10:4, 11:28, 13:11-12; Luke 22:20; Colossians 1:20, Revelation 5:9) when Abel killed his lambs (Genesis 4:1-5; Numbers 18:17)
If Christ wasn't smitten by Him (Isaiah 53:4), the Law still condemns! (John 3:18, Romans 8:1-2)
Did He come to shut His own law down or to fulfill it? (Matthew 5:17-18)
Jesus took the cup reserved for those on whom He'd spill it! (Psalm 75:8)
The Lord's jealous and He is furious and vengeance is His (Nahum 1:2-6; Psalm 18:47, 76:7; Romans 12:19; Revelation 6:9-11; Zephaniah 2:3; Judges 2:11-14, 20, 3:8, 10:7, Deuteronomy 7:3-4, 31:17, Psalm 106:40-42, Joshua 23:14-16, 24:19-20; 1 Samuel 11:6; Numbers 31:1-3; Hosea 1:4-5, 14:4; cf. Joel 2:13)
Do not take lightly the many mentions of it (Genesis 38:6-10, Revelation 6:16, 19:11-15, Exodus 22:21-24, Psalm 2:4-6, 11-12, 5:4-7, 7:9-12, 11:6, 21:9, 12, 38:1, 69:24, 75:8, 78:31-32, 38-39, 49, 88:7, 16, 90:7-12, 95:11, 102:10, 110:5; Joshua 7:1; Jeremiah 7:20, 21:5, 25:15, 33:5; Isaiah 9:19, 13:9,13, 30:27-30, 35:4, 48:9, 51:17, 20, 22, 54:7-9, 59:17-18, 63:3-4; Ezekiel 5:13, 22:20, 25:14; Hosea 9:7, 13:11; Micah 5:15; 2 Kings 23:26; Leviticus 10:6, 2 Samuel 6:1-11, cf. Numbers 4:15, Numbers 16, Acts 5:1-11; Revelation 11:18; cf. James 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, 5:9, 2 Thessalonians 1:7b-10a, 2 Chronicles 36:16, Luke 19:27, 21:22-23, Zechariah 11:1, Lamentations 3; Hebrews 3:11, 10:26-27; Romans 1:18ff, 5:9, 9:13, 22-23; Matthew 3:7; Zephaniah 1:18)
What's the flood if not His wrath against the sin of the world? (Genesis 6:5-7, Psalm 88:7, 16-17)
And it's heading to destruction as it spins and it whirls (Revelation 21:1, 2 Peter 3:3-7, 10-18, Isaiah 65:17, 66:15-16, 22-24; Malachi 3:1-3, 4:1; cf. Hebrews 12:26, Deuteronomy 29:22-28)
Like His jealousy, His wrath is unlike any human's (Deuteronomy 5:8-10, Exodus 34:14; Deuteronomy 1:26-46, 32:35; Joshua 7:1, 24:19-20, Psalm 2:1-6, 37:8, 50:21, 94:1, Zephaniah 1:14-15; Exodus 20:4-6; 1 Timothy 2:8, Romans 12:19, Leviticus 19:18, Proverbs 20:22, James 1:19-20, Ephesians 4:26, 31-32, 1 Samuel 24:12, Hebrews 10:30, 1 Thessalonians 4:6, Matthew 5:38-48; Nehemiah 13:18; Colossians 3:5-10)
Because we are flawed and not God, that needs refuting! (Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 18:30, Matthew 5:48; 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:10-11, 2:15)

[Chorus: K tda G]
It shoulda been me... up on that cross
It shoulda been me, I was so wrong and lost
It shoulda been me... to pay the cost
But it couldn't be, because I can't be perfect, I'm flawed
It shoulda been me... up on that cross
It shoulda been me, I was so wrong and lost
It shoulda been me... to pay the cost
But it wasn't me, so I'm giving all glory to God! (Acts 12:20-23, Habakkuk 2:14)

[Chorus: K tda G]

It shoulda been me... up on that cross
It shoulda been me, I was so wrong and lost
It shoulda been me... to pay the cost
But it couldn't be, because I can't be perfect, I'm flawed
It shoulda been me... up on that cross
It shoulda been me, I was so wrong and lost
It shoulda been me... to pay the cost
But it wasn't me, so I'm giving all glory to God! (Acts 12:20-23, Habakkuk 2:14)

[Outro: Phil Siebenmorgen]

Romans 5, verse 6 and verse 8 - it says:

"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly."

And then verse 8:

"but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Jesus left Heaven and came forward - and He lived His perfect life - and He went forward in our place and offered Himself up as a sacrifice to be condemned; to suffer and die on the cross. It shoulda been us! Shoulda been you, shoulda been me, but it was Him. It was Him.

Behind the Song: Why I Wrote "Shoulda Been Me"

Introduction

            If you have been following my Instagram page, you will know that my next single will be a collabo with K tda G entitled "Shoulda Been Me". The song idea was inspired by a sermon I heard at my current home church on the first Sunday after I moved out of 'Sauga. The content of the song was inspired by the teachings of popular Canadian megachurch "teaching pastor" Bruxy Cavey (rhymes with "cagey", not "savvy") on the atonement of Christ. In June 2021, my former Baptist denomination - Canadian Baptists of Ontario and Quebec (CBOQ) - held its annual meeting and Cavey was the keynote speaker.

            One of the shifts happening in Christendom has evolved out of the "emerging church". It changes, among other things, the historical understanding in the Church of the atonement of Jesus. The biblical wrath of God is being thrown out for love without righteous anger toward sin. Taking a page out of the atheist's book, this movement fears that the wrath of God makes Him look like a moral monster. This attempt to save the reputation or honour of God from His own justice and holiness amounts to an attempt to save ourselves from His righteous laws. Ironically, He saves us from them via the very holy justice that is being denied.

            In the 2012 HuffPost article "Progressive Christianity Isn't Progressive Politics", Rev. Roger Wolsey defined Progressive Christianity as "a post-liberal movement that seeks to reform the faith via the insights of post-modernism and a reclaiming of the truth beyond the verifiable historicity and factuality of the passages in the Bible by affirming the truths within the stories that may not have actually happened." Yes, you read that correctly: Progressive Christianity reforms the faith by affirming the truths of what may not actually be true. Doubting that what God has said is true is the first step in a slippery slope (Genesis 3:1-5).

            The views expressed by Cavey on the atonement are shared by progressive thought. Cavey has called Tony Campolo his hero in the past. In "Shoulda Been Me" and this explanatory article, my aim is to deal with just those teachings which relate to the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus. It is clear from Scripture that God has wrath against sin. If Christ became sin in our place, then it naturally follows that God had wrath against Christ. Only through Christ turning away the wrath of God are we able to go from being children of wrath to children of God (Ephesians 1:5, 2:3). Those who reject that Christ took away the wrath of God that was due them store it up for Judgment Day (Romans 2:5-6).

Fresno Pacific University Biblical Seminary

Claim #1: Jesus took the wrath of the people, not the wrath of God

            In a now-deleted video of Cavey teaching students at Fresno Pacific University Biblical Seminary*, he stated his intention to convert them away from penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) and told them not to preach it. He went on to state that "the only wrath that is expressed at the cross is the wrath of us against Christ, not the wrath of the Father upon Christ." This logically leads to Jesus having to appease humans, but He did not need mercy from His created beings - Christ propitiated God. We are not delivered from the wrath of the world, but the condemnation of a holy God (Romans 8:1).

            The sacrifice of Christ for the world was a deliberate plan before the foundation of the world (Zechariah 13:7, Daniel 9:20-27, Matthew 25:34, Acts 2:23-24, 1 Peter 1:20, Ephesians 1:3-7, Revelation 13:8, Jeremiah 33:8, Isaiah 11:10, Romans 16:25b, Micah 5:21). Jesus suffered and died at the hands of the people and they were held responsible for it, but it was all done by the design of God. This is the unfathomable divine mystery of the sovereignty of God working with the responsibility of man (1 Timothy 5:21, 2 Timothy 2:10, 2 Peter 1:10, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 11:33-36, Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:8; cf. John 17:24, 1 Peter 1:2, 2:9, Romans 8:29-30, 9:11, 11:5, Ephesians 1:5, 11, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, Mark 13:20).

            In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus agonized and even sweat blood over drinking the cup of the Lord (Matthew 26:38-39, 42, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42-44). The eternal God the Son who knew neither death nor sin was about to experience death Himself as punishment for the sin of humanity. He prayed to the Father that He would remove the "cup", because it is given by the Father (John 18:10-11). It is not a cup of wrath that belongs to the people who murdered Jesus (indirectly including us). In Scripture, this cup is used by God as a metaphor for His "poured wrath" on sinners and their portion of judgment (Psalm 11:6, 75:8, Isaiah 51:17, 22, Jeremiah 25:15-16, 27-29, 49:12, Ezekiel 23:31-34, Habakkuk 2:16, Revelation 14:9-10, 16:19, 21:8). Yes, God pours His wrath out on the wicked, but Jesus stepped in as a mediator to take the wrath of God against wickedness upon Himself in our stead. This is how God also justifies the wicked (Romans 4:5-8)!

            Since Jesus drank the cup of wrath reserved for us, we are able to drink the cup of salvation! The cup that Jesus told James and John they would drink is not the cup of the full punishment and anger of God toward sin that He prays about, but a different cup of sharing the suffering of Christ (Mark 10:35-40, Luke 12:50, Acts 12:1-3, Revelation 1:9, Colossians 1:24, Romans 5:3, 8:17; cf. Philippians 3:10, Isaiah 4:2-4, Zechariah 13:7-9, Daniel 11:33-35, Malachi 3:3-4). The difference is that the martyred disciples did not suffer for our redemption as Jesus did. The agony of Jesus in the garden was not just in anticipation of physical suffering, but in anticipation of the divine punishment against sin. In bearing the sin of humanity, Jesus was about to be deserted by His Father, whom He had been in communion with since eternity past (Matthew 27:46, John 17:25). It should not have taken what happened in 2020 for us to know what the Lord God said in Genesis 2:18: "It is not good that man should be alone". As the image-bearers of God (Genesis 1:27), we get a taste of the loneliness caused by a lack of community, but imagine the isolation of God the Son who had always been complete in relation with God the Father (John 5:26)! Thus, Jesus was feeling crushed in Gethsemane with a "cup" that is not shared by His disciples (Mark 14:34). [As an aside, it is fitting that the Messiah, or Anointed One, was in Gethsemane, "place of the oil press", crushed thrice like olive pulp pressed for lighting and anointing oil, medicine, and cleansing soap (John 8:12, Luke 4:18, Isaiah 53:5, 1 John 1:7; cf. Psalm 45:7-8, Luke 2:11).] The justice of God necessitates the cup of wrath, but the good news is that He is also love (1 John 4:7-16) and gives the cup of blessing to sinners or their portion of salvation: the Lord Himself (Psalm 16:5, 116:12-13, Matthew 26:27-29, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 10:16).

Claim #2: "Propitiation" means "mercy seat"

            Cavey changes "propitiation" in Scripture (Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 9:5, 1 John 2:2, 4:10) to "mercy seat" due to the Greek word "hilasterion" also being used in the LXX for the mercy seat (Leviticus 16:14); although, the word used in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is actually "hilasmos". Furthermore, the Hebrew "kapporeth" means "propitiatory", so the Greeks used a word meaning the same thing. Either way, the covering of the ark was sprinkled with atoning blood of an expiatory animal to appease the wrath of God on sin. Also, the latter half of Romans 3:25 states that the propitiation was "to demonstrate His righteousness". The Hebrew word "kaphar" used in Exodus 32:30 by Moses for going to God to make atonement means "cover" and "propitiate" or "pacify"; the same idea of sins being covered is present in Romans 4:7-8, which is a reference to Psalm 32:1-2. Furthermore, God remained sovereign above the mercy seat and was still just in taking back any life that approached it (Leviticus 16:2, 13, 2 Samuel 6:7; cf. Psalm 69:26, 90:15, 115:3, 135:6, Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18, Lamentations 3:38).

            Semantics aside, we must ask what Jesus gives mercy from if not the just wrath of God (Exodus 33:19, Habakkuk 3:2, 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, Matthew 3:7, Romans 5:9, Proverbs 28:13, Hebrews 4:16, Luke 1:72, Psalm 78:38-39, Lamentations 3:22-33). Mercy implies an offense was committed deserving of punishment. Mercy only makes sense because there has to be justice. As R.C. Sproul once wrote in Chosen by God: "Let us assume that all men are guilty of sin in the sight of God. From that mass of guilty humanity, God sovereignly decides to give mercy to some of them. What do the rest get? They get justice. The saved get mercy and the unsaved get justice. Nobody gets injustice" (p. 26).

Claim #3: Wrath would be a flaw in God

            Cavey also stated that God "wrathing" would make Him flawed. Comparing God to humans, he said wrath would be a problem in His character that needs to be changed. Rather, His holy anger is always justified and He is perfectly unchanging (Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, Psalm 102:27, Lamentations 3:22, Hebrews 1:12, 13:8, John 8:58, 2 Corinthians 1:19). We speak of His vengeance, which implies retributive punishment (Deuteronomy 32:35-36, 43, Romans 12:19, Revelation 6:9-11, Hebrews 10:30-31, Psalm 9:11-12, 17-20, Jeremiah 20:11-13), but we are commanded not to avenge ourselves. We speak of His jealousy, which is unlike human jealousy, because He is not jealous of us, but for our good (Nahum 1:2). The same is true about His anger versus ours (Colossians 3:5-10, Ecclesiastes 7:9). It is not a flaw in God to express wrath, because He does not express it as an imperfect being. His wrath and mercy are not like human fickle emotions. His perfect holiness warrants His righteous indignation against all things unholy and expressing His disapproval of sin through "venting" His wrath does not change Him - it is part of His character. The many verses and passages that appear in the Bible about the vengeance and wrath of God against sin and sinners are not to be taken lightly (Genesis 38:6-10, Revelation 6:16, 11:18, 19:11-15, Exodus 22:21-24, Psalm 2:4-6, 11-12, 5:4-6, 7:11-12, 11:6, 21:9, 12, 38:1, 69:24, 75:8, 78:31-32, 38-39, 49, 88:7, 16, 90:7-12, 95:11, 102:10, 110:5, Joshua 7:1, Jeremiah 7:20, 21:5, 25:15, 33:5, Isaiah 9:19, 13:9, 13, 30:27-30, 35:4, 48:9, 51:17, 20, 22, 54:7-9, 59:17-18, 63:3-4, Ezekiel 5:13, 22:20, 25:14, Hosea 9:7, 13:11, Micah 5:15, 2 Kings 23:26, Leviticus 10:6, 2 Samuel 6:1-11, Numbers 4:15, 16:1-50, Acts 5:1-11, James 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, 5:9, 2 Thessalonians 1:7b-10a, 2 Chronicles 36:16, Luke 19:27, 21:22-23, Zechariah 11:1, Lamentations 3, Hebrews 3:11, 10:26-27, Romans 1:18ff, 5:9, 9:13, 22-23, Matthew 3:7, Zephaniah 1:18). After all, it is not the sin that goes to eternal damnation, but the sinner.

Claim #4: Jesus was crushed by sin, not by God

            The fury of God against evil must be satisfied (Exodus 15:6-7, Ezekiel 5:13, 16:42, 21:17, Nahum 1:2-6). This is precisely why God was pleased to crush Jesus: the righteous requirements of His Law were forever fulfilled by His perfect Son (Isaiah 53:10; cf. Psalm 41:9-13)! The wicked can now turn from their destructive way and choose life (Ezekiel 18:23, 32, 33:11, Deuteronony 30:19, 1 Timothy 2:3-4)! Jesus accomplished our reconciliation with God! It brings Him joy just as it brings us joy to know what Jesus did to save us. It is not about God being masochistically delighted in watching His Son suffer. Moreover, Jesus was crushed by God for sin, not by sin for God, and not for His own sin as the people "esteemed", but for our sin (Isaiah 53:4-6, 8, 12, Hebrews 9:26-28). The stress in Isaiah 53:4 is not on "we", as Cavey says, but on "Him" in contrast to “our” and "us" in the following verses. As mentioned earlier, it would not appease God if Jesus took the wrath of the people. God is the one who is offended by sin.

            A common misunderstanding of Progressive Christianity, one shared by atheists, is that Jesus was sacrificed as a victim in an act of "divine/cosmic child abuse". The modern scapegoat theory of atonement also makes Christ a victim. Scripture is clear that the Son gave His life willingly (as agonizing as the choice was to an eternal being) out of love (John 10:17-18, 15:13, Psalm 40:6-8). Since the Son is God in human form, He and the Father were united in their mission (Isaiah 7:14, Zechariah 12:10, Micah 5:2, Matthew 1:18-23, John 1:1, 14, 10:30, 14:7-9, 17:21, Philippians 2:5-8, 1 Timothy 3:16). In fact, all three Persons of the Trinity were involved in the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2:24, Galatians 1:1, John 2:19, 10:18, 11:25, 1 Peter 3:18, Romans 1:4, 8:11; cf. Revelation 1:18). God did not reluctantly allow Christ to be punished because He "wanted to punish men" - as C. S. Lewis described in the fourth chapter of Mere Christianity (1 Timothy 2:3-4, Ezekiel 18:23). Latin Church Father Hilary of Poitiers made this point in his Homily on Psalm 53:

For next there follows: I will sacrifice unto Thee freely. The sacrifices of the Law, which consisted of whole burnt-offerings and oblations of goats and of bulls, did not involve an expression of free will, because the sentence of a curse was pronounced on all who broke the Law. Whoever failed to sacrifice laid himself open to the curse. And it was always necessary to go through the whole sacrificial action because the addition of a curse to the commandment forbad any trifling with the obligation of offering. It was from this curse that our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed us, when, as the Apostle says: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made curse for us, for it is written: cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree [Gal. 3:13]. Thus He offered Himself to the death of the accursed that He might break the curse of the Law, offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father, in order that by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed. (Vlach, Michael J. "Penal Substitution in Church History", The Journal of the Master's Seminary, vol. 20, no. 2, 2009, p. 206-207)

            Thus, while it is true that God killed Jesus via humans, it is also true that the eternal God sacrificed Himself as a mortal human so that humans also could become immortal (2 Peter 1:3-4; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17, 8:9). This was prophesied in the Law. God showed Abraham that He Himself would be his substitute when He alone walked through the animal carcasses in His covenant ceremony with Abraham (Genesis 15:7-21; cf. Exodus 13:21, 19:18, 20:18, Hebrews 6:13). The one who failed to hold his end up would be butchered like the animal halves, but God passed through for Abraham as well, taking his inevitable failure to be faithful upon Himself while upholding His end of protection and provision (Genesis 16; cf. Galatians 4:21-31). God paid the penalty through the blood of Jesus which also provides victorious resurrection to those who accept His payment in their stead (Matthew 26:27-28, Acts 2:38, Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 9:22, 26, Romans 4:25, 5:1, 21, 6:23, 2 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 15:57)! This is the love of God; self-sacrifice to save us from the holy and just consequence of our sin (cf. John 15:13). We are saved by God from God for God (cf. Isaiah 59:16, Revelation 19:1).

            Another type of the Messiah - perhaps the clearest picture of God saving us from Himself - is the bronze serpent (Numbers 21:4-9; cf. John 3:14-18, 6:40, 12:32). Augustine wrote this about the serpent lifted up in the wilderness:

What means the uplifted serpent but the death of Christ, by that mode of expressing a sign, whereby the thing which is effected is signified by that which effects it? Now death came by the serpent, which persuaded man to commit the sin, by which he deserved to die. The Lord, however, trans-ferred to His own flesh not sin (in carnem suam non peccatum transtulit), as the poison of the serpent, but He did transfer to it death (sed tamen transtulit mortem), that the penalty without the fault (poena sine culpa) might transpire in (ut esset in) the likeness of sinful flesh, whence, in the sinful flesh, both the fault might be removed and the penalty (et culpa sol-ueretur et poena). As, therefore, it then came to pass that whoever looked at the raised serpent was both healed of the poison and freed from death, so also now, whosoever is conformed to the likeness of the death of Christ by faith in Him and His baptism, is freed both from sin by justification, and from death by resurrection.(Augustine, De Peccatorum Meritis, i. 61; NPNF1, 5:39; CSEL, 60:62; as cited in Williams, Garry J. "Penal substitutionary atonement in the Church Fathers", Evangelical Quarterly, vol. 83, no. 3, 2011, pp. 212-213)

            The people to whom God sent serpents were not worthy to receive His mercy. It would not be mercy if they were (Deuteronomy 7:7-8). Mercy is by definition undeserved. You need wrath to have mercy, just as you need evil to have good or darkness to have light. What we deserve is the wrath of God and eternal separation from Him, but it is His worth and merit that save us, not ours (Revelation 5). His love is for the unlovely worthless sinner who is His enemy (Romans 3:10-12, 5:10) and that love from the one of ultimate worth is what makes us valuable. God does not save us primarily for our sake. Above all, the atonement is for His glory. Just like the angels, God made us primarily to glorify Him - His will and His purposes are what give our lives meaning (Isaiah 26:8, 43:7, 25, 48:9, Psalm 23:3, 50:15, 66:1-3, 71:8, 86:9; cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 10:31, John 15:8, Romans 1:20-21, 14:8, 15:7-13, Ecclesiastes 12:13, Revelation 15:4). After all, He is what is best for us in the universe (Psalm 16:2, 11, John 17:3-5, Ephesians 1:3).

Woodland Hills

Claim #1: Blood sacrifice is not necesssary, but commanded because we wanted it

            In 2017, Bruxy Cavey took part in a Q&A at the church of open theist Greg Boyd, where he claimed that God did not make blood central to His sacrificial system, but instead accommodated the people with blood because "all ancient religions" were doing it. He stated, "God Himself can forgive, but He enters into our need to see blood." However, it was God who spilled the first blood of an animal to cover Adam and Eve after they used vegetation and it was God who required the first blood sacrifice from Abel (Genesis 3:21, 4:1-5). If God merely wanted to accommodate man, why will He be pleased to re-institute animal sacrifices during the millenial kingdom (Ezekiel 43:18-46:24, Zechariah 14:16, Jeremiah 33:15-18, Isaiah 56:6-8)? Blood sacrifice is necessary because God created life to be in the blood and life atones for life (Leviticus 17:10-16; cf. Genesis 9:5, Colossians 1:20, Revelation 5:9, 1 John 1:7). It is not just any bloody sacrifice that forgives, but the perfection of the sacrifice (Romans 8:3, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 1:18-19). Still, the animal sacrifices never actually removed human sin (Hebrews 10:1-4). They were object lessons and will be in the end as well (Romans 3:20). Only the perfect God-man can atone for our sin. So, His blood was spilled for more than just our peace of mind - it was for peace with God (Colossians 1:20). As was touched on in the first claim, the blood sacrifice of Christ was not dependant on humans. It was decided by God before He created anything.

Claim #2: Satan requires blood, not God

            In addition, the death of Christ in our place was required by God. It is not the enemy who requires justice, but the Judge. Claiming God acquiesced to the demand of Satan for blood is like claiming Jesus paid our ransom to Satan (cf. Matthew 10:28). In the Q&A at Woodland Hills, Boyd mocked our blood-demanding God saying, “Gotta get my blood!” before he took his theology from The Chronicles of Narnia and said, "The one who demands blood is Satan" - with no correction from Cavey. That is twisting Scripture. What would Satan need blood for? Even the example Boyd gave has: 1) the Witch (Satan) admitting the "Deep Magic" (Law) of the Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea (God) will be appeased, and 2) the exchange of the righteous Aslan for the unrighteous "traitors". The one who is offended by sin is God, not Satan. The one who demanded the "ransom" in exchange for our freedom from sin is God (Mark 10:45). It was God who demanded the blood of the lambs to save the Israelites from His wrath (Exodus 12:13, 21-27, Genesis 9:5; cf. Romans 5:8, 1 Corinthians 5:7). So, Lucifer neither demands blood nor inflicts wrath. He too will receive the wrath of God in the form of the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:10).

Claim #3: God shut down the Law

            In essence, this view Cavey and Boyd share states that the Law was made to please the people who need to see blood instead of being pleasing to God (Genesis 8:21, Leviticus 1:9, 13, 2:2, 23:18, Ephesians 5:2; cf. Ezekiel 6:13, Hebrews 10:4, Mark 1:11). God then "shut it down" through Jesus who shed His blood for this impersonal law to God simply to free us from blood sacrifice that we desire (Hebrews 9:22, cf. Galatians 3:24-25, Romans 7:7, 12, 22, 25, Psalm 1:2). Cavey wrongly exegeted Hebrews 9:22 to insinuate the Law is no longer valid. However, the progressive revelation of God is not like the abrogation of a fickle deity. The Law was appointed by God Himself as an expression of His holy justice and is not somehow "a law above God" that He submits to in order to "put (it) to bed" (Psalm 78:5). Furthermore, the context of Hebrews 9:11-28 reveals that the system of blood sacrifice is an essential earthly expression of the heavenly reality of the true final cleansing blood sacrifice of Christ (cf. Hebrews 8:1-6, 10:1-14, 13:11-12, John 5:39, Romans 3:21-26, 1 John 1:7). The continuous animal sacrifices could never make an end to sins, but the God-man Jesus could in His hypostatic union by both bearing human sin as a human and being sinless as God (Daniel 9:24, Galatians 1:3-5, Hebrews 2:17, Philippians 2:5-11).

            Jesus did not "shut down" the Law of God, but fulfilled its legal demands (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:44-45, Romans 10:4)! His teaching does not contradict the Law with a new interpretation, but reveals its true interpretation (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-39, 43-44). Otherwise, how can it be said that Christ fulfilled the Law? Neither did He purposely break the Law by healing on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-14). Hebrews 10:5-12 explains how Jesus "does away with the first in order to establish the second". It is only by His perfect obedience to the will of God that the need for offerings is taken away. In this way, He does not shut down the Law, but completes it. The penalty for sin - death - is not removed by abolishing the penal system, but by fulfilling it. His sacrifice fulfilled the ceremonial law and His life fulfilled the civil and moral laws (Ephesians 2:14-16). It is because of the Law that His death means anything. His obedience to the point of death is what gives us sanctification (Philippians 2:5-11).

            Still, His death as the perfect sacrifice does not just fulfill the Law; it satisfies the wrath of God. If the penalty for sin is just physical death, then even atheists would pay it (Genesis 2:16-17, 3:19, Romans 6:23). They do not, because our death is the consequence of our sin, whereas His death was the propitiatory payment for our sin. John 3:16, the Gospel in a nutshell, states that whoever believes in the Son of God will not perish but have everlasting life. The word “perish” here cannot just mean to “suffer physical death”, for even believers will die. Instead, the most famous Bible verse contrasts eternal spiritual life with eternal spiritual death. This eternal death is separation from the glory of God (2 Thessalonians 1:9) in fiery torment (Revelation 14:10) that is unquenchable (Mark 9:43) and irreversible (Luke 16:26). It is not simply going out of existence, as I once used to believe. Since the death of Christ is our propitiation, if He did not bear the full punishment of sin that was laid upon Him - which includes the wrath of God against it – in order to satisfy the justice of God, then He did not fulfill the Law on our behalf. Furthermore, if Christ did not fulfill the Law of God for us and instead "shut it down", then we remain condemned under the Law (Romans 1:18, 8:1-2, John 3:17-18, 36, 1 John 5:11-12)!

            When we throw away the Old Testament like we do the wrath of God, we miss the full picture of the atonement. More than that, we become in danger of promoting the heresy of Marcionism. Marcion of Sinope was a figure in early Christianity who taught the gnostic idea that the Hebrew God of the Old Testament is a malevolent demiurge opposed to the benevolent Supreme Being of the Gospel. He flat-out rejected the Old Testament and that is not far from the current trend to neglect the Hebrew Scriptures. His opinions about a God of wrath and justice being opposed to a God of goodness caused him to edit the Gospel of Luke and the epistles of Paul. The view that the gospel negates the Law of God has influenced other prominent pastors, such as Andy Stanley. Also, like Cavey, Stanley does not even believe the Old Testament is about Jesus (Luke 24:27; cf. Matthew 22:39, James 1:27, Leviticus 19:34, 23:22).

            In 2018, when Stanley called his church to "unhitch" from the Old Testament, he stated, "Jesus' new covenant [...] does not need propping up by the Jewish scriptures." The truth is that there would be no resurrection without the foundation of the Jewish Scriptures! As a matter of fact, after Jesus was resurrected, He clearly told his disciples that His life was a fulfillment of the Scriptures (Luke 24:27, 44-48). Ignoring the Old Testament because it supposedly causes many people to lose their faith is just another seeker-sensitive tactic hurting the Church. It is misunderstanding that breeds false conversion and whatever we believe to be external evidence does not trump the Old Testament. It is not the Old Testament "that makes faith in Jesus unnecessarily resistible", but our naturally unregenerate hearts (1 Corinthians 1:18-25, 2:14, Romans 1:18, 3:10-12, 8:7). Stanley went as far as to declare, "In the new covenant [...] sin doesn't make God angry." This is demonstrably false. His righteous anger against sin is not absent in the new covenant (Acts 5:1-11), just as His grace is not absent in the old (Genesis 16, Joshua 2, 6:17, 21-25, Ruth 2:10-12, 4:11-13, 17-22, Jonah 3:5-10, Deuteronomy 7:6-10). Those who dispose of the Law of God fail to grasp that the current grace of God through Jesus Christ does not equate to Him throwing His Law or wrath away. Our inability to meet the demands of the Law is why we need grace in the first place! We are only under grace because Jesus fulfilled the Law. Still, Jesus commanded obedience to the moral law (Matthew 22:37-40; cf. 1 John 2:4-6, 5:3, Romans 6:1-2). In the same sermon series, Stanley also called the Old Testament "the fabulous story of God the Founder playing by the rules of the kingdoms of this world to establish a kingdom not of this world." This is similar to Cavey stating that God accommodated the blood sacrifices of ancient religions.

Why Did Jesus Die? Sermon Series and Podcast

Claim #1: God can just forgive

            In the deleted videos by Fresno Pacific University (FPU), Cavey shared a common sentiment among Progressive Christians. He said, "How does God forgive? He just forgives [...] Jesus died on the cross as God's choice to reveal His love for us." In 2012, Cavey preached a sermon series entitled Why Did Jesus Die? and supplemented it with "Drive Home" podcast episodes. In the podcast to the first sermon in the series, "To Show Us God's Love", Cavey shared this idea of the forgiveness of God this way:

(I)s it also not possible that when Jesus took away our sin, there was just no more wrath for that sin? I mean, God says, “I'm going to punish you for your sin”, but now your sin is taken away and you are infused with Christ's righteousness and God says, “Okay, I'm not going to punish you for sin that has already been taken away from you.” So, He doesn't have to try and balance His own internal metaphysical books. Can't God just say, “Alright, I'm not going to punish you”? [...] If a judge believes someone is guilty and then finds out actually no, they're not guilty, they're innocent, then the judge says, “Oh, well, then there's no sentence for you”, He doesn't have to then say, “But I had a sentence stored up to give somebody. Where am I gonna put it?” There's just no sentence anymore. (20:22)

            In just forgiving, God would deny His attribute of justice by justifying the wicked. Besides, why should He forgive us at all for sin that does not bother Him? We are not saved from death and sin on a whim with reckless love, but according to the characteristics and plan of God. God seems to have just forgiven people in the Old Testament, because they trusted in the future Messiah - the payment had not come yet (Romans 3:25). God does say He is not going to punish us, but that is only because Jesus was punished for us - that is, in our place. The problem with the human judge illustration is that we are only made innocent because Jesus paid the sentence, hence the Great Exchange of our guiltiness for the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Romans 3:23-24, 4:5-8, 23-25, 1 Peter 3:18, Galatians 3:13; cf. Psalm 32:2). 

            Cavey stated we are "infused" with the righteousness of Christ, but His righteousness is not actually poured into us. Neither is it "imparted" to us, because we do not receive just a share of it, but all of it is attributed to us vicariously. "Imputed righteousness" means that we are declared justified and reckoned righteous through Jesus in our place. What these terms certainly do not mean is that we are just not guilty anymore. An offense was still committed against His holiness (Habakkuk 1:13) and the guilt remains for those not covered by Christ. We are still responsible for our sin. As Jesus was not actually infused with our sin when it was imputed to Him, we do not actually become sinless with His imputed righteousness. We do not actually become righteous; it is the righteousness of Christ that covers us by the power of the Spirit. We only receive forgiveness because Christ received the punishment for our guilt. The Judge does not find out we are innocent, but makes us innocent.

            We are commanded to just forgive, not because God just forgives, but on the basis of His forgiveness, which came with a price that we cannot pay (Colossians 2:14). Similarly, His propitiation is the basis of us loving as God loves (1 John 4:9-11). As sinners, we do not have the right to exact vengeance on other sinners (Romans 12:17-19). That task belongs to our holy God and our task is to forgive others as He has forgiven us (Colossians 3:13, Ephesians 4:32; cf. Matthew 6:14). In other words, Jesus absorbed the justice owed to us, so we do not pay others back what they deserve (Romans 6:23; cf. Luke 15:11-14, Matthew 5:38-39). Instead, we are able to give our lives in martyrdom, because Christ bore the brunt of sin for us through His agonizing sacrifice.

            God is also perfectly just and did not have to show mercy by saving us (Deuteronomy 32:4, 1 John 1:5). He chose to out of His perfect love. That makes me want to praise Him, not criticize Him for judging the guilty as if I am entitled to His grace! Let us not forget that we are in an Age of Grace that will come to an end (2 Peter 3:9). He did not owe us anything. We could have all been left to die in our sin like Korah, Uzzah, or Ananias. God would have remained just, for we would have received the justice we were warned about (Genesis 2:16-17, Numbers 16:32, 1 Chronicles 13:10, Acts 5:5; cf. Genesis 38:7, 10, Leviticus 10:1-2). Yet God is also perfect love and offers mercy from His righteous fury toward sin and evil through His sent Messiah (Micah 7:18, 1 John 4:10). It is no wonder He tells us to be humble (Colossians 3:12, 1 Peter 5:6, James 1:21, 4:6, Matthew 23:12, Zephaniah 2:3, Micah 6:8, Proverbs 22:4)!

Claim #2: God needs to put His wrath somewhere

Our wrath is removed through the death of Christ, but not because God had to pour out wrath on Jesus, but because Jesus became our sin, took away our sin, so there's just no more wrath left over for us. There's no need for it to go anywhere. (21:15)

            Another misconception about the wrath of God, due to the image of it being "poured" (Nahum 1:6, Jeremiah 7:20, 42:18, 2 Chronicles 12:7; cf. Romans 5:3-5, 2 Timothy 4:6-8), is that it is a physical entity that must be put somewhere as if God has no control over it. However, if I pour myself into my work or pour out my soul, nothing actually transfers to another location. If I am pouring out my love on my wife and kids, what am I doing? I am expressing my emotion in actions. In a similar way, the image of heaping coals of fire on the head of an enemy is figurative and not literal (Proverbs 25:21-22, Romans 12:20). Just as the curse of the Fall expressed the anger of God toward sin (Genesis 3:14-19) and the flood expressed the anger of God toward the sinful world (Genesis 6:5-7) - and was its first judgment (Luke 12:49-50, 2 Peter 3:5-10, Isaiah 66:15-16, Malachi 4:1, Revelation 6:15-17, 11:18, 19:15, 21:1) - the cross was an expression of His wrath as well (Matthew 27:45, 51, 54). When Jesus took away our sin, He took away the wrath of God for that sin (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, John 3:36). God "poured out" His wrath on Jesus via Jesus becoming our sin to take away our sin. Through this act of His wrath and grace, He remains just as He justifies the sinner (Romans 3:25-26). He both punishes and pardons like the king to the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-35). This penal substitution was foreshadowed in His Law by the propitiation and expiation of the two goats on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16; cf. Romans 5:9, Hebrews 9:15, 28, 10:1-39, Isaiah 53:4-12). There are many other "shadows and types" of Christ and His atonement in Scripture, such as Isaac and the ram offered in his place (Genesis 22:1-18, John 3:16, 19:16-18).

Claim #3: The wrathful love of God goes beyond Scripture

"...when we look at the cross, we look at the cross with almost a confused view. Is the cross a picture of God loving us through Jesus? Or is it a picture of God wrathing against Jesus and then we call that love? And I would say that that latter view goes beyond scripture." (23:28)

            PSA is crucial to our understanding of God. If the "wrathing" God is a different god altogether, then PSA cannot just be one possible atonement theory of the same gospel. Either God is both loving and wrathful or PSA is false, for it defines His character. Both claims cannot be true. Additionally, I wonder how Cavey is able to appeal to Scripture in stating PSA "goes beyond Scripture" while also believing that the "whole concept of the authority of Scripture is [...] made up" and that "inerrancy gets in the way" of evangelism. If God and Jesus have authority, then so does their Word (Psalm 18:30, Matthew 4:1-11, 1 Corinthians 14:37-38, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21; cf. Luke 11:47-52). Otherwise, which Jesus has authority if not the one we learn about through His own Word?

            In writing this discourse behind "Shoulda Been Me", it is my hope that those who struggle with the concept of the wrath of God would see that His wrath is not diametrically opposed to His love (Exodus 34:6-7, Joel 2:13, 28-32, Hosea 14:4, Romans 11:22). We imagine wrath being too strong of an emotion for God since we are desensitized to evil, but if we were perfectly holy, we would despise sin, too. This wrath is unlike that of pagan war deities whose anger resembled the unholy humans who created them. The wrath of God is instead turned against God in the place of unholy humans just as it was in the covenant with Abraham. Only the true God is furious at sin, because He takes His holiness and justice seriously (Jeremiah 32:30-32, 2 Kings 23:26; cf. Malachi 1:2). As the perfectly holy Ruler of the Universe, He is just too holy to not be angry at sin (Habakkuk 1:13, Romans 2:5-8, Psalm 76:7). It is because He loves us that He has a holy hatred of sin and abhors the evil that destroys us (Romans 12:9, Proverbs 8:13, Ecclesiastes 8:12-13, Isaiah 8:13, Psalm 5:4-7, 7:9-12, Lamentations 3:34-36). He must punish it as it corrupts His created order that He made to be "very good" (Genesis 1:31). A.W. Tozer, in the chapter "The Wrath of God: What Is It?" of the posthumous book Man: The Dwelling Place of God, wrote:

Since God's first concern for His universe is its moral health, that is, its holiness, whatever is contrary to this is necessarily under His eternal displeasure. Wherever the holiness of God confronts unholiness there is conflict. This conflict arises from the irreconcilable natures of holiness and sin. God's attitude and action in the conflict are His anger. To preserve His creation God must destroy whatever would destroy it. When He arises to put down destruction and save the world from irreparable moral collapse He is said to be angry. Every wrathful judgment of God in the history of the world has been a holy act of preservation. [emphasis mine]

The holiness of God, the wrath of God and the health of the creation are inseparably united. Not only is it right for God to display anger against sin, but I find it impossible to understand how He could do otherwise.

God's wrath is His utter intolerance of whatever degrades and destroys.

            A God who is love must subdue evil (Isaiah 24:21-23, 25:5, Proverbs 29:26, Deuteronomy 9:3, Judges 4:23, 1 Samuel 7:13, 1 Chronicles 17:10, 22:18, Nehemiah 9:24, Psalm 18:47, 47:3, 81:13-15, 144:2). Failing to punish evil would be an unloving act. This is why it is loving for Christians to be accountable to each other so that we are ready to meet Christ (Matthew 18:15, Galatians 6:1). A god who is apathetic toward evil would not be good or loving. Still, the love of God goes further and not only subdues evil, but turns it to good (Genesis 50:20, 1 Corinthians 15:49, Joshua 7:10-26, 22:20, Hosea 2:15, cf. Isaiah 65:10)! Atheists argue that God does not exist because evil does, yet they also argue that He cannot exist because the times He subdued evil during the Old Testament would not make Him good. The “problem of evil” requires its own discourse, but I believe it is also brought up due to a misunderstanding of the wrathful love of God. One overlooked point, as mentioned above, is that God does not just dish out His wrath on sinners, but He took His own wrath upon Himself in the form of Jesus in the place of sinners, as He promised in the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15:7-21). A god who only loves without being just is not loving, but sappy and morally weak. We focus on the one side of God at the expense of the other when both go hand-in-hand (Jeremiah 9:24, Psalm 89:14, 30-37, Isaiah 54:7-10, 60:10, Habakkuk 3:2). He is not either righteous and wrathful or gracious and loving, but both. He is both stern and merciful, rebuking with love as a good earthly father (Revelation 3:19), but unlike imperfect earthly fathers, God is love and an all-consuming fire against wickedness (Deuteronomy 4:24, 9:3). 

            Psalm 89:14 states, "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne", but also "mercy and truth go before Your face". Justifying the wicked is "an abomination to Yahweh" (Proverbs 17:15) and yet He justifies us (Romans 4:5-8). The justification of sinners includes the removal of the wrath of God against sin, as touched on in the last claim (Romans 5:9-10). Without a penal substitute who was condemned for the guilty, God contradicts Himself; He would justify the wicked without justly punishing their wickedness. This is how God would deny His attribute of justice in just forgiving. Either Jesus takes away the wrath of God against sinners or justification is incomplete. Not only did Christ die for His own people, but He died for His enemies, which is unlike human love which might die for someone “good” (Romans 5:7-8, Colossians 1:21-22). The love of God rescues the perishing even when none deserve it. 

            PSA is consistent with His holiness. It is not just His love that wins, but His holy love (Psalm 9:17). His judgments are part of Him winning (Exodus 15:1). His holy infinite justice demands sin has an infinite penalty and His infinite love mercifully paid for that sin. His attributes of love, wrath, mercy, and justice all meet at the cross and align with His holiness. John MacArthur wrote this about the holiness of God: "Of all the attributes of God, holiness is the one that most uniquely describes Him and in reality is a summation of all His other attributes. The word holiness refers to His separateness, His otherness, the fact that He is unlike any other being. It indicates His complete and infinite perfection. Holiness is the attribute of God that binds all the others together."

            I write all that to preface that God was "wrathing" against Jesus because of His love. It is a false dichotomy to state God can either love us through Christ or be wrathful against Him. It does not make sense to say that Jesus took away the wrath of God against sin without actually taking on said wrath against sin. I will return to this point below. Neither is it logical to say that the wrath of God is removed "not because God was pouring out His wrath on His Son", but because "we were pouring out our wrath on His Son." How does our wrath on Christ remove the wrath of God? Those who do not believe in the Son remain under the eternal wrath of God, but those who believe the Son took said wrath away from them are under the inseparable love of God (John 3:36, Romans 8:38-39)! Again, God could have left us under His just wrath, but He chose to provide a way to save us – by taking His own wrath in our place. If that is not wondrous love, then I do not know what love is (1 John 4:9-10, Romans 5:8; cf. Lamentations 3:22-23).

Claim #4: PSA was invented during the Protestant Reformation

            In the second "Drive Home" podcast, "To Save Us From Sin", Cavey asserted:

"...let's not rally around a theory that is scripturally nebulous that the Church didn't even hold onto until the Protestant Reformation in any way. That was a completely novel way of thinking." (4:27)

            The reformers did not invent this "theory" of atonement, but expounded what early Christians believed. Michael J. Vlach compiled many examples of PSA thought by early Christians in his article "Penal Substitution in Church History" (The Journal of the Master's Seminary, vol. 20, no. 2, 2009). Perhaps the clearest example is that of Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339), "the most important church historian of his time and a religious advisor to the emperor Constantine" (Vlach, 206), who wrote:

And the Lamb of God ... was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe [emphasis mine], but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us. (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 10.1, trans. W. J. Ferrar, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/eusebius_de_12_book10.html (accessed June 29, 2009); as cited in Vlach, 2009)

            Another example is Clement of Rome (d. 96). The First Epistle of Clement (c. 95) is possibly the earliest Christian writing after the New Testament still in existence, if not the Didache. In it, he wrote, "Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls." (Clement, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 49, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 10 vols. (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1994) 1:18; as cited in Vlach, 2009) Here, we already see the belief in substitution according to the plan of God. In dying for us, the sinless Jesus took our "wages of sin" (Romans 6:23) so we "will not perish" (John 3:16). That is PSA. Why else would Jesus give His blood, body, and soul for us if ours were not owed?

            Vlach also documents other Apostolic and Early Church Fathers who taught the doctrine of the death of Jesus as a punishment and curse for the sin of humanity: Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), Eusebius of Emesa (c. 300-360), Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300-368), Athanasius (c. 300-373), Basil the Great (330-379), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330-390), Ambrose of Milan (339-397), John Chrysostom (c. 350-407), Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444), Severus of Antioch (d. c. 512), and Oecumenius (c. 990). It is worth including here the quotes by Athanasius, who was "probably the most important Christian theologian before Augustine" (Vlach, 207). In De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, he wrote:

Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire. 

[...] 

The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. (Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, trans. and ed., A Religious of C.S.M.V., Intr. by C. S. Lewis (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996) 34-35; as cited in Vlach, 2009)

            Athanasius also wrote the following in Four Discourses Against the Arians: "Formerly, the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffering in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all." (Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, NPNF² 4:341; as cited in Vlach, 2009) Another clear example is Cyril of Alexandria. In De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate iii, he wrote:

The Only-begotten was made man, bore a body by nature at enmity with death, and became flesh, so that, enduring the death which was hanging over us as the result of our sin, he might abolish sin; and further, that he might put an end to the accusations of Satan, inasmuch as we have paid in Christ himself the penalties for the charges of sin against us: ‘For he bore our sins, and was wounded because of us’, according to the voice of the prophet. Or are we not healed by his wounds? (Cyril, De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate iii, 100–102, in J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca, vol. 68 (Paris, 1857-) 293, 296; as cited in Vlach, 2009)

            Other writings include the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70 - 135; not to be confused with the pseudepigraphical and Islamist Gospel of Barnabas) and the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (second century; one of the earliest examples of Christian apologetics). More examples can be found in the book Pierced for Our Transgressions by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Ambrose of Milan, in his De fuga saeculi ("Flight From the World"), wrote about Jesus satisfying judgment seven centuries before the satisfaction theory articulated by Anselm and 11 before the Reformation. He wrote, "He became for us a curse [...] He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgment, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death." Thus, not only was PSA not invented during the Reformation, but neither was it invented specifically by John Calvin as Martin Luther also affirmed it in his Large Catechism by writing, "Christ suffered, died, and was buried that he might make satisfaction for me and pay for what I owed, not with silver and gold, but with his own precious blood." (Book of Concord, ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959) 414; as cited in Vlach, 2009)

            What was termed "the penal substitution of Christ" is a concept taught in Scripture. The early Church taught it, along with other facets of the atonement, such as the cosmic victory of Christ, His example, and His ransom (though that one was extrapolated too far). Contrary to what people like Bruxy Cavey, Greg Boyd, Brian Zahnd, or Steve Chalke say, the Early Church did not even write of a "theory of atonement", but about aspects of the atonement. It is not a contradiction to hold onto these facets and PSA, just as it is not to affirm God is both loving and wrathful.

            Also, we must take into account that the Bible was largely inaccessible for a millennium from the fifth century to the 15th. The first English Bible completed by John Wycliffe in 1384 and the English New Testament by William Tyndale in 1526 came after the satisfaction theory in the 11th century, which Thomas Aquinas also argued in favour of (Jeffery, et al., 185). With the Bible widely available again, the Reformers were able to rediscover and express the penal and substitutive aspects of the redemptive plan of God. As we saw in the Abrahamic covenant, even Abraham - who was justified by faith before circumcision or the Law (Genesis 12:1-3, 15:6; cf. 3:15, Galatians 3:6, 8) - understood the need for a penal substitute. After all, the whole sacrificial system was based around payment for the sins of the Hebrews. That is directly from Scripture and not beyond it. It is a fact of both the atonement and the gospel. It is not from the lawyer Calvin, but from the Law of God. Luther and Calvin did not change "debt" to "penalty" as we have seen the penal concept written about during the Early Church. The idea of God being angry at sin and having to be placated through justice was not added by Luther and Calvin. The elements of PSA have been present in the Church since Paul (2 Thessalonians 1:9, Romans 6:23). Cavey rejecting them in favour of a new theory today is the truly "completely novel way of thinking".

Claim #5: PSA Saves

"...for many people, it is assumed that Penal Substitutionary Atonement just simply is the gospel and we need to challenge that and say, no, that turns faith into a work. It says once you've got this particular doctrine figured out, then you can be saved by it, and I would say this goes way beyond scripture and, at some point, becomes contradictory to it." (4:48)

            It is a straw man argument that we are saved by figuring out PSA. We apply PSA to the gospel while Cavey promotes his own understanding of the atonement as the gospel truth. It is not belief in PSA or his theory that saves, but Jesus. However, PSA is the way that Jesus saves us. If you are saved from drowning, it is not just the lifeguard who saves you, but his swimming. Similarly, we are not saved by figuring out the doctrine of election, but we are elected in our salvation (John 6:44, 15:16, Mark 13:20, Ephesians 1:4-6). Cavey added that believing in PSA “turns faith into a work”, but it is worth noting here that Jesus called the act of believing "the work of God" [emphasis mine] (John 6:26-29; cf. Romans 4:5). It is argued that Eusebius of Caesarea was an Arian, thus a heretic, so PSA could not have saved him, but PSA is not a salvation issue - it is an issue about salvation. Nevertheless, a substitute who fulfilled the Law in order to redeem us from the penalty of sin so that we may be reconciled to God is the heart of the gospel. The Law demands payment for sin and Jesus paid it for us – that is penal substitution and that is the gospel (Galatians 3:13, Romans 6:23, 8:3-4, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Isaiah 53:5-6, 1 Peter 2:24, 3:18; cf. Hebrews 9:28).

            What we believe about God and His plan of salvation affects how we live and may even result in us editing the Bible as Marcion did. By taking out the wrath of God, we are left with the ugly news of a god who is indifferent to sin and injustice. This removes the weight of our sin and inflates our own standard of goodness, in turn making the cross meaningless and making us lose the gravity and seriousness of Hell. It's a slippery slope to Progressive Christianity. The fear of God is tied with hating evil and without it, we lose understanding (Proverbs 1:7, 2:5, 8:13, 22:4, Psalm 36:1-4; cf. Psalm 103:11-13, 119:120, 130:3-4, Luke 12:4-5, Ecclesiastes 12:13). For disbelievers, fearing God involves the judgment they do not want to accept (Luke 12:5, Hebrews 10:31, John 3:18). For the elect, the fear of God is a healthy reverence of God in thanks for all He has done (Hebrews 12:28-29). We do not fear a moral monster, but a loving Father who chastises us for our good as we receive wisdom (Deuteronomy 10:12, 20-21). The biblical fear of God involves respecting His authority as we do with loving parents who discipline and punish us out of their concern for our good (Hebrews 12:3-13, Romans 8:38-39). As we live to obey and please our parents, our relationships are strengthened (Proverbs 10:1, 13:1, 15:20, 17:21, 25, 23:24). The difference is that God is eternally holy and thus will punish the sin He hates forever. The Law was given to show us just how serious our sin is and had to be strict, for the perfect holiness of God has absolutely zero tolerance for sin (Habakkuk 1:13a). Let us not ignore His undeserved grace because we are caught up on God judging our sin (Lamentations 3:39). Justin Martyr, whom some consider "the greatest apologist of the second century" (Vlach, 205), expressed this point well when he wrote, "If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?" (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 95, ANF 1:247; as cited in Vlach, 2009)

            The bad news of us being punished due to our sin is what makes the good news of a pardon for our sin so good! What is the "good news" that the sent Messiah would preach anyway (Isaiah 40:9, 61:1, Luke 4:16-21, 43; cf. Joel 2:32, Romans 10:9-13, Malachi 3:1)? Is it not salvation from God for our sin; that is, pardoning mercy and grace (Isaiah 52:7, Exodus 34:6-9, Micah 7:18, Jeremiah 50:20, John 8:31-36; cf. Lamentations 3:42)? God became a man to live the sinless life we could not live in order to reverse the curse of death we received after our disobedience separated us from God (Genesis 2:16-17, Isaiah 59:2, Galatians 3:13, Romans 5:19). The perfect life of the God-man, Jesus the Christ, fulfilled the Law, pleasing the Father, and thus His death atoned for sin and He was risen in defeat of death (Matthew 5:17). Those who turn from their sin and accept His death in their place will also rise from death and be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:18-21, Romans 5:10-11). The payment via Double Imputation is the very thing that reconciles us (1 Peter 3:18)! The essence of the good news is that Jesus loved us enough to suffer excruciating pain while taking the just punishment of God for sin in our place (Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 2:24). This is the definition of "penal substitution". As J.I. Packer wrote in In My Place Condemned He Stood, "a gospel without propitiation at its heart is another gospel than that which Paul preached." The resurrection of Jesus is the affirmation of His complete payment (John 19:30; cf. Acts 17:30-31) - we are only justified because God was satisfied (Romans 4:23-25). The good news is the solution to the bad news of our sin being judged by the holy wrath of God (Ephesians 2:3). God will not allow any evil in the end (Revelation 3:21, 21:4, 8, 27, 1 Corinthians 10:16, 15:25)! How great beyond measure is His mercy then! Praise Him that He chose to save any of us at all and that His wrath is temporary and His love is eternal to those who desire it (Isaiah 54:7-9, 57:16, Psalm 30:5, 89:30-37, 103:8-9, Micah 7:18)! Without the wrath of God toward all the sin that was laid on Jesus, we must wonder why God bothered to provide an escape from it at all.

The Theories of Atonement

#1: New Covenant

            On an episode of The Remnant Radio in 2019, Cavey explained the atonement theory he adheres to; what he calls the "new covenant atonement". It focuses on the "three things Jesus says about His own death": He is the ransom that pays for our freedom from sin (Mark 10:45), He must be lifted up like the bronze serpent so we could be "healed from the penalty of sin" (John 3:14-16), and His blood merely acts like ink that "cuts a new covenant" for relating to God and each other (Luke 22:20). I would argue that Cavey adds his own words to the third thing. He then claimed "none of [these] have to do with penal substitutionary atonement", even as he mentioned the penalty of sin for the second thing Jesus says.

            One characteristic of the progressive movement is the pitting of the "red letter" words of Jesus against the rest of God-breathed Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). Jesus is not in conflict against Jehovah, as Cavey and Boyd teach. In his quest to find "clues in the Old Testament [...] to help round out the picture" and let "the Bible speak for itself", Cavey missed three points: 1) the offered body of Jesus is the substitute for our freedom from the penalty of sin, 2) the bronze serpent was a representation of the sin that led to the people being punished with death, and 3) God was the substitute of Abraham through the cut animals whose blood warned of the penalty of death in the self-maledictory oath (cf. Jeremiah 34:18-19). So, this proposed theory does have to do with PSA. What it does not answer, though, is how Jesus put the old covenant "to rest".

#2: Christus Victor

            Gustaf Aulén (1879-1977) promoted the dramatic theory - popularly known as Christus Victor (1 John 3:8b) - in his 1930 book Den kristna försoningstanken ("The Christian Idea of the Atonement"). He reinterpreted the ransom theory, named it the classic theory, and retroactively applied his interpretation to the understanding of the Early Church. Similarly to the above theory advanced by Cavey, it does not answer how the death of Christ defeated the hostile powers of evil. Christus Victor is about the results of the cross, whereas PSA is about how those results were achieved. In fact, Colossians 2:13-15, a passage used in support of Christus Victor, mentions the triumph of Christ by the cross through the cancellation of a bond against us. After all, Christ defeated Satan by reversing the curse caused by his deception. Hebrews 2:14-15, another supporting passage of the death of Christ breaking the power of death, cuts short of verse 17, which states His death was to make propitiation for sin. Both parts are factual; Jesus won our redemption by defeating Satan when He paid for our sins, which we were indebted to pay (cf. Luke 2:38, Galatians 4:4-5). The problem with a strictly Christus Victor understanding is that it makes the Law one of the evil things that needed to be defeated, rather than fulfilled (Romans 7:12). Jesus is victorious over the root cause of evil, our sinful nature, and not just hostile powers, for we still sin, but are healed from the penalty of sin.

#3: Ransom

            The ransom theory (Matthew 20:26-28, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20) is a subset of Christus Victor (Vlach, 201). Originating predominantly in the works of Origen and Gregory of Nyssa (Vlach, 201), it too points out a true aspect of the atonement, but is still not the full picture. Jesus used the metaphor of a ransom to describe His life being given for us, but that is where the metaphor ends. This theory became problematic once Christians read too much into it and ascribed the ransom to Satan. If anything, it would be to God, for God demands life for life as in His sacrificial system (Ephesians 5:1-2). Making Satan the demander of life gives him power he does not have. Not only does it also make God a debtor, but a trickster, because Satan did not know death could not hold Jesus (Acts 2:24). The only debt that is owed is ours to God for the satisfaction of justice (Mark 10:45, Exodus 21:28-30, 30:12, Proverbs 6:35; cf. Psalm 51:3, 49:7-8). This theory "fell out of favor during the time of Anselm and Abelard around the twelfth century", but "recently, Gustaf Aulen (d. 1977) has defended this view of the atonement." (Vlach, 202) Aulén has misinterpreted Church history, for Origen and other Early Church Fathers he claims only promoted the ransom theory also promoted penal and substitutionary elements.

#4: Satisfaction

            The satisfaction - or commercial or scholastic (Aulén) - theory was promoted by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) in his Cur Deus Homo? ("Why Was God a Man?") as an answer to the belief that a debt was owed to Satan. In this theory, it is the offended honour of God that is satisfied - as if to a fuedal overlord (Vlach, 202) - instead of His justice via the penal demands of His Law. Jesus did more than was required of Him when He died in perfect obedience to God. By owing our debt of honour to God, Christ takes away our punishment. However, this does not answer why His death brought God honour if it was not as punishment for sin. Also, this theory denies that we are unable to honour God in our natural state, hence the need of a new nature through Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17, John 3:32).

#5: Moral Influence & Moral Example

            Two similar theories, moral influence and moral example (John 13:14-15, 15:13) - or idealistic (Aulén) - also describe corresponding truths of the atonement, but do not get to the core purpose. These constitute an alternative to the satisfaction theory. Peter Abelard (1079-1142), who most famously taught the moral influence theory, wanted to focus on God being loving, rather than offended. Its influence can be felt in progressive thought. Instead of the sinner accepting the sacrificial death of Jesus in order to escape the judgment of God, the sinner is changed by the demonstration of the love of God in the death of Jesus. His death is not a debt owed to Satan or debt of honour owed to God, but the love of God shown to humans. The moral example theory was developed by Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) in his 1578 treatise De Jesu Christo servatore. Rather than being a punishment for sinners, the death of Jesus is the perfect example of selfless obedience to God. In short, we are influenced to love God in return for His love through Christ or we are influenced to obey God as Christ did. Whether the atonement was a demonstration of the love of God or the obedience of Christ, these two theories do not answer how those dead in sin are able to accept and mimic these things on their own (Ephesians 2:1, 4-5). They also do not address our need to have our sins paid for and forgiven by the justice of God (Galatians 1:4, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 Peter 3:18). What happens to those who do not love or obey in return and why?

#6: Governmental

            The governmental theory, also known as moral government or rectoral, states that the death of Christ was a punishment for sin, but not specifically the punishment we deserve. This view was promoted in Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfaction Christi adversus F. Socinum ("A defence of the Catholic faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Faustus Socinus") by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). According to Grotius, the death of Christ was a payment made as a token to uphold moral governance of the universe and set aside the requirement of the Law in order to deter against future sins (Vlach, 202-203). Like the moral influence and moral example theories, this one is meant to motivate humans to react - not by the obedience of Christ or the love of God, but by His hatred of sin. While that should motivate us to seek to please God, it is problematic if He did not impute our punishment on Christ (Isaiah 53:5) and instead made punishment unnecessary, for then how did the sinless life of Christ pay for us? We are still left without a sacrifice or payment for our sin. This, too, denies our inability to turn to God on our own (John 6:44). 

#7: Recapitulation

            One of the lesser known atonement theories is the recapitulation theory. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202) emphasized salvation imparting physical incorruptibility over spiritual redemption. To Irenaeus, salvation occurs due to Christ reversing the failure of Adam to act, rather than His judicial payment for sin. This theory states that the atonement was to "sum up" (Ephesians 1:10) human life and reverse the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. As the New/Last/Final Adam, Jesus undid our disobedience by accomplishing what the first Adam failed to do (Romans 5:19, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45). Since the failure of Adam was transferred to us, so is the accomplishment of Christ - even retroactively to Adam. As love is the consummation, or fulfillment, of the Law (Romans 13:9), Christ is the "head" of all things. Through His completion (John 19:30), we can become morally perfect and even achieve theosis (deification or divinization), since He sanctified life by living it. Put another way, Christ restored our prelapsarian state of being in the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). This is the most false theory. Just as the satisfaction, moral influence, moral example, and governmental theories do, this denies our radically corrupt sinful nature and does not answer why we still disobey.

#8: Penal Substitution

            I have attempted to summarize the main atonement theories and problems with each for the sake of brevity. PSA - also known as the forensic or vicarious theory - answers what the others cannot and is fundamental to an understanding of every other valid theory. They limit the full extent of the atonement and are incomplete without the penal aspect of redemption - a term that connotes payment or "buying out" for freedom (Romans 3:24, Galatians 3:13, 4:5, Colossians 1:14). The PSA understanding is that "sin is primarily a violation of God’s law" and "Christ’s death pays the penalty for sins that God’s holiness requires." (Vlach, 203)

            These are not all competing atonement theories. It is possible to have a "kaleidoscopic" understanding of the atonement with the models that complement each other (such as Christus Victor and PSA), but only PSA gets to the root of our redemption and not just the fruit. Yes, Jesus brought a new covenant (Luke 22:20, Matthew 5:17, Jeremiah 31:31-34), but it is the culmination of the previous covenants (Hebrews 9:15, Deuteronomy 29:4, 30:6, Ezekiel 36:26-27). The Adamic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants especially foreshadow a penal substitute (Genesis 2:16-17, 3:15-19, 22:15-18, 2 Samuel 7:12-13; cf. Luke 1:32-33). Yes, the resurrection of Christ showed His victory over the power of Satan, but that is only because His perfect life fulfilled the Law of God. Yes, His life was a "ransom" that bought our freedom, but that freedom is from the curse of the Law we sinners cannot fulfill and not just from our sins themselves. Yes, the atonement satisfied the honour of God (Psalm 86:11; cf. 1 Peter 3:15), but it did so through satisfying His Law (Isaiah 53:10, Psalm 41:12). Yes, His life is our perfect example and His death shows us the love of God, but that is only because His life and death are the ultimate payment for sin according to the Law of God. Yes, Jesus was punished for sin, but He was specifically punished in our place for our sin. Yes, Christ was risen because He did what Adam did not, but also because the curse of death does not apply to His perfect life - it still applies to us until our glorification (Romans 8:28-30). Our incorruptibility is effected by His payment and not just His obedience. 

            So, we are not just saved from the power and presence (and love) of sin, but most importantly the punishment for sin. The system of sacrificial sinless offerings was pointing to our pardon via the final sinless penal substitute (Leviticus 4, 5:14-19, Isaiah 53:4-6, 8, 10-12, Jeremiah 33:8, 1 Corinthians 1:4-9, Hebrews 2:9, 10:4-18, Psalm 40:6-8, 1 John 4:10, Daniel 9:24-27, Genesis 22:6-8, 14). If the ultimate purpose of the Messiah is to save us from the curse of the Fall, then the main focus of the atonement must deal with removing that curse (Genesis 2:16-17, Deuteronomy 21:23, Hosea 13:14, John 3:16, Galatians 3:10-13, 1 Corinthians 15:55-57, Ezekiel 18:20). If it does not, then it does not fully atone for sin. As Augustine wonderfully wrote in Reply to Faustus the Manichaean:

If we read, ‘Cursed of God is every one that hangeth on a tree,’ [Gal. 3:13; cf. Deut 21:23] the addition of the words ‘of God’ creates no difficulty. For had not God hated sin and our death, He would not have sent His Son to bear and to abolish it. And there is nothing strange in God’s cursing what He hates. For His readiness to give us the immortality which will be had at the coming of Christ, is in proportion to the compassion with which He hated our death when it hung on the cross at the death of Christ. And if Moses curses every one that hangeth on a tree, it is certainly not because he did not foresee that righteous men would be crucified, but rather because He foresaw that heretics would deny the death of the Lord to be real, and would try to disprove the application of this curse to Christ, in order that they might disprove the reality of His death. For if Christ’s death was not real, nothing cursed hung on the cross when He was crucified, for the crucifixion cannot have been real. Moses cries from the distant past to these heretics: Your evasion in denying the reality of the death of Christ is useless. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; not this one or that, but absolutely every one. What! the Son of God? Yes, assuredly. This is the very thing you object to, and that you are so anxious to evade. You will not allow that He was cursed for us, because you will not allow that He died for us. Exemption from Adam’s curse implies exemption from his death. But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment. [emphasis mine] And these words ‘every one’ are intended to check the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of the curse to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would lead to the denial of the true death of Christ. (Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 6, NPNF¹ 4:209; as cited in Vlach, 2009)

            Death is the curse, so of course Jesus was made a curse by dying for us. To reiterate, the curse is an expression of the wrath of God against sin. The curse that Jesus became is not just a disease or human cursing, but the curse God pronounced on the world (Genesis 3:14-20). As the Suffering Servant, the sacrifice of Jesus makes sinners justified - implying freedom from guilt of penalty (Romans 5:8-9, 18-19, Hebrews 9:28; cf. Mark 15:27-28, Luke 22:37, 1 Peter 2:24). We are to turn from our sin, not just because it will make us better people, but because it will bring us into the eternal holy presence of God!

A Personal Salvation

            Moreover, only PSA makes the atonement personal. Jesus died on my behalf - not just for my benefit, but in my place - taking the punishment I deserve, so that I may be justified by faith in His work. It is not merely about a cosmic victory or about freedom from sin or about satisfying the honour of God or about loving God and being obedient or about being deterred from sinning. It is about you. It is about me. It is about us individually. It is about the punishment each one of us needs to be saved from for our rebellion and to His glory. God did not need reconciliation, we did (Ephesians 2:1-10). Ambrose of Milan, in Of the Christian Faith, put it nicely:

Let us bethink ourselves of the profitableness of right belief. It is profitable to me to know that for my sake Christ bore my infirmities, submitted to the affections of my body, that for me, that is to say, for every man, He was made sin, and a curse, that for me and in me was He humbled and made subject, that for me He is the Lamb, the Vine, the Rock, the Servant, the Son of an handmaid, knowing not the day of judgment, for my sake ignorant of the day and the hour. (Ambrose, Of the Christian Faith 9, NPNF² 10:236; as cited in Vlach, 2009)

            An atonement without atoning for the penalty of sin diminishes the sufferings of the Saviour, for what does He save us from? It also diminishes the joy and peace we receive via His sufferings and the glory He receives. PSA gives me the most reason to boast in the cross (Galatians 6:14, 1:8). There is no better news!

Recap

            To recapitulate (pun always intended), Jesus took the wrath of God against sin and not our wrath against Him. The blood payment of Christ was planned by God before creation. In Gethsemane, Jesus prayed that God would "take away" or "let pass this cup from [Him]" because it is given by God. He did not pray simply about a cup of suffering His disciples would share, but about His unique mission as Saviour from sin. Even if Christ being our propitiation is translated to Christ being our mercy seat, the Father still required blood on the Ark of the Covenant to appease His wrath. By receiving mercy, it is presumed we deserve punishment. It is not a flaw in the unchanging holy God for Him to express wrath against sin. Jesus was crushed by the punishment of God against sin and not just by sin itself - pleasing God because it both fulfilled His Law and made a way for sinners to be saved. Jesus was not an unwilling victim, but willingly offered Himself in submission to the will of His Father, being one with Him. God demonstrated His willingness to be a penal substitute to Abraham when He took his end of the covenant upon Himself. God also demonstrated His desire to save sinners from His justice against sin when He told Abraham to make the fiery bronze serpent. God would have remained holy and just without it, for we are not worthy to receive grace, but He showed His mercy as well all for His glory.

            God made blood central to His sacrificial system not to accommodate our need for blood, but because blood contains life. Since the Law belongs to God, the blood of Christ was required by God and not Satan. Christ did not shut down the Law of God, but fulfilled it. The Old Testament is not invalidated by the atonement, but is the foundation for it. Fulfillment of the Law includes satisfying the wrath of God against sin - otherwise, we remain condemned! Removing the Old Testament Law affects our full understanding of the atonement and can lead to Marcionism. Excluding the fulfillment of the Law from our message does not help us make the good news irresistible to people who naturally resist the truth.

            The gospel message is also not helped by stating God can just forgive. The reason God will not just forgive is because His justice demands penalty for sin and He will not deny His other attributes, such as His holiness, by justifying the wicked. Our guilt does not just disappear along with His wrath, but it is covered by the imputed righteousness of Christ. We are commanded to just forgive, because Jesus paid the penalty for us to be able to do so. Though He would have remained perfectly just leaving us under the curse of the fall, God provided an escape from His just wrath by taking on the payment of the Law that we owed. God "pouring out His wrath on Jesus" is simply an expression relating to the metaphorical cups of wrath that God poured on the wicked. PSA defines the character of God, so it cannot just be one possible option of atonement for the same gospel. His love and wrath complement each other, as all of His attributes do. God would be unloving if He was not irate at evil sin. He would also contradict Himself by justifying wicked sinners and justification would be incomplete. The love of God is holy and His holiness binds all of His other attributes together. His love is not mutually exclusive to His wrath and is actually accentuated by it. Penal substitution is scriptural and not an invention of the Protestant Reformation. Early Church Fathers taught the atonement with elements of penal substitution. The Reformers rediscovered these elements via the restored access to the Word of God. Understanding how the atonement works does not save us, but it still works to save us. Our lives for God are affected when we remove the wrath of God against the sin placed on Jesus – not against Jesus Himself. Without the wrath of God, we also miss the full impact of the good news against the bad news. Simply put, the good news of God is our pardon as if we were wrongfully convicted (though we were not) for the willful sentencing of the truly wrongfully convicted.

            PSA is the best explanation for the gospel and answers what the other theories fail to, including the new "new covenant atonement". Most of the theories complement each other and do not contradict, but they also do not present a complete picture of the atonement. The Messiah was sent to reverse the curse of the Fall and was prefigured by the penal sacrificial system. As the curse in our place, Jesus paid the penalty to reconcile us to God and not just to make us live better lives. Lastly, only PSA aligns with the multifaceted personal nature of our triune God and gives Him the most glory.

Wrath for Sinners, but Not for the Sin-Substitute

            On the episode of The Remnant Radio mentioned above, Cavey reframed his position by saying he does accept penal substitution can be right given its prevalence in Church history and does not deny the parts of the phrase itself, he just rejects the wrath portion. This relates back to the first claim above, which he made at FPU. Now, instead of openly telling Christians he wants to convert them away from PSA, his approach is not anti-PSA, but to "purify [...] our shared belief" in PSA and "make it more biblical". In light of the biblical content above, there is no way to get around the fact that the wrath of God is intertwined with His justice. According to Cavey, His wrath is satisfied, but not against Jesus. It is a "true problem", but it just "dissipates". Since "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19), then His "spiritual spatial location" was not "above the cross pouring out wrath on Christ". This presupposes that God is unable to multitask, for how was He reconciling the world to Himself through Christ in that moment if He was not also laying the full punishment of sin on Christ? I am also unsure how Cavey gets around Christ being forsaken at the cross by God, let alone the omnipresence of God. Additionally, if His wrath can simply disappear, how is that a problem? The problem then is the fluidity of His nature.

            During the interview, Cavey admitted there is a cup of wrath, but his Anabaptist pacifism does not allow him to make the connection to the cup of Gethsemane. Those who find it hard to imagine the Father punishing the Son must keep in mind that the Son is God in flesh, so the atonement is actually an act of self-sacrifice. Without going on a tangent unpacking Christian pacifism and just war theory, I will just mention that Cavey is right in believing we sinners should not be violent, but once again applies human expectations to our perfect God. Only He is justified in judging evil (Isaiah 64:6, Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 51:5, 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5, John 3:19, Romans 3:9-18, 8:7; cf. John 8:34, 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:14, Romans 1:18, Proverbs 14:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:15). Since Jesus is God, the pre-incarnate Christ was involved in the violent judgments through His chosen people before the Age of Grace (Numbers 21:3, 31:1-7, 32:20-21, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Joshua 5:13-15, 6:20-21, 8:1-8, 10:29-32, 11:7-20; cf. Psalm 144:1, Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, 8, Titus 2:11). As with His jealousy, vengefulness, and wrath, His declarations of war are based on His perfect righteousness (Revelation 19:11). There will come a day when He returns to make war with evil for good (Revelation 19:13-15).

            The point is that if the Last Judgment includes the wrath of God which will be "poured" on unbelievers (Revelation 6:16-17, 11:18, 14:10, 16:19, 19:15) and if Jesus alleviated His wrath by taking this punishment we deserve, then the logical implication is that Jesus took the "poured" wrath for us (1 Thessalonians 5:9). After all, Christians will be evaluated on how they lived and not judged as unbelievers, because Jesus was judged in their place (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 2:5-6, 8:1, 14:10-12, Revelation 20:7-15, Matthew 25:31-46). The wrath of God is tied to punishment, as in Romans 13:4 about lawful authorities. I just do not know how much clearer it can be. If our penalty includes the cup of wrath against sin, why would not that of our Substitute? If Jesus only absorbed our sin and not the wrath we deserve, then Double Imputation and the atonement are incomplete (John 19:28, 1 Thessalonians 5:9). Cavey argues that Scripture does not clearly state God poured out His wrath on Christ, but it also does not clearly state the Godhead is a Trinity; both concepts can be clearly inferred, though (Romans 5:8-11)!

            Cavey concluded that the cup of Gethsemane is the same cup metaphor Jesus used with His disciples. He rightly stated we do not believe that "His disciples will also drink the cup of God's wrath and then together they will all atone for our sins." Nobody is arguing for that, though. The disagreement concerns the reverse: Jesus was not going to drink just the cup of physical suffering. As already discussed under the first claim, the cup Jesus prayed about in Gethsemane was of the full punishment against sin, which the disciples would not and could not drink. If they could, why do we need Jesus?

Final Thoughts

            During the final plenary session at CBOQ Assembly 2021, Cavey made the points that pretending to agree is false unity and avoiding the issue is weak unity. Well, I will not pretend to agree and I cannot avoid the issue. To have true unity, you must have stances to be united on. Christians must be united in the essentials (1 Corinthians 1:10, Jude 3, John 17:20-23). This way, the gospel is guarded (1 Timothy 4:16, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:15, 24-26, 4:2-5). Disunity is caused by false teaching (Romans 16:17, Titus 3:10). Being perfectly united includes agreement in mind and thought by what we say (1 Corinthians 1:10, Romans 15:5-7). In Romans 12:16, some translations use the phrase "live in harmony" for the Greek word "phronountes", which refers to being of the same mind (cf. Philippians 2:2, 3:19). Since it is agreed that atonement is at the centre of our faith, our faith depends on a proper understanding of it. Yes, we must love those who disagree with us, but the truth still matters in a post-truth world. Theological correctness does not need to be thrown out in order to have church unity, despite what teachers like Bruxy Cavey or Andy Stanley teach. Cavey has a great influence on many minds. This is why teachers will receive greater judgment (James 3:1). Since it is also agreed that a different gospel is grounds for division (Galatians 1:6-9) and since a gospel without propitiation via the fulfillment of the Law is a different gospel (Galatians 3:13, Romans 6:23, 8:3-4, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Isaiah 53:5-6, 1 Peter 2:24, 3:18), a rebuke is very necessary (2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 2:15). The gospel is founded on a penalty to be paid for sin through a substitute and anything else is an attack on that centrality (Psalm 11:3). That is what brings us (re)union with God. To this point, Augustine wrote the following in the Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love:

Now, as men were lying under this wrath by reason of their original sin [...] there was need for a Mediator, that is, for a reconciler, who, by the offering of one sacrifice, of which all the sacrifices of the law and the prophets were types, should take away this wrath. [...] Now when God is said to be angry, we do not attribute to Him such a disturbed feeling as exists in the mind of an angry man; but we call His just displeasure against sin by the name "anger," a word transferred by analogy from human emotions. But our being reconciled to God through a Mediator, and receiving the Holy Spirit, so that we who were enemies are made sons [Romans 8:14]: this is the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Conclusion

            Cavey has claimed to speak on behalf of conservative Christians, but he does not speak for me. His words fall in line with liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. He has intentionally sowed seeds of division by telling his students to challenge the doctrine of penal substitution clearly taught in the Bible. He has been clear about his disregard for PSA. So clear, in fact, that his concerning teaching videos at FPU have been removed and he was ousted in 2018 from lecturing there, along with Greg Boyd and Brian Zahnd.

            To be clear, though Bruxy attacks a misrepresentation of PSA, I do not believe he is intentionally deceiving or lying to those who listen to him. Nevertheless, deception is deception and we are all susceptible to it. In my 11 years walking with God and growing as a follower of Jesus, I have had strongly-held positions change. May those who read this examine the Scriptures for themselves to see if PSA is true (Acts 17:11). It is good to dig deep into theology and learn to discern what is true and what is half-true. Defending the faith is for our perseverance and not just for correcting falsehood (Acts 20:29-31). It should go without saying that guarding the gospel means attacking false teaching, not false teachers. I do want to thank Bruxy Cavey for igniting a passion in me for understanding the atonement and the historical development of the different theories. While this is an "in-house debate" about how Jesus saves us, I know Bruxy and I remain united on the glorious fact of Christ being risen from the dead for us!

            The new covenant theory of atonement emphasizes the "red letters" over the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26-27). This Cafeteria Christianity, where we pick and choose acceptable parts of Scripture, only brings confusion and ambiguity (John 1:45, 5:39-40, 46, 17:17, 1 Peter 1:10-12, 2 Peter 1:21, Luke 24:27, Acts 10:43). This makes guarding the gospel a matter of urgent action. On top of that, Cavey separates Jesus, "the authoritative, inerrant, infallible Word of God", from the Word of God itself, dangerously downplaying Scripture. All that we know about Jesus is revealed in His own Word. Which other Jesus is there to follow?

            The teachings of Cavey also include significant issues with the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, the immutability of God, the incarnation of Christ, and homosexuality, but these are beyond the scope of "Shoulda Been Me" and this entry. For a timeline of him expressing these concerning teachings, please visit this blog post of Pastor Jacob Reaume. I am deeply indebted to Pastor Reaume for all the work he does for the gospel. His 2018 article "Yes, Bruxy Cavey Is a False Teacher" was the spark that resulted in "Shoulda Been Me". For even more details about these teachings, I direct you to the writings of Eric Schneider here. In addition, Michael Remus tackled the influence of Boyd on Cavey in his article here. Lastly, I highly recommend the documentary American Gospel: Christ Crucified, which also helped with the content for this article, for a biblical dismantling of "progressive" theology.

            Finally, if you are still reading this and have not yet accepted Jesus as God in the flesh and the Saviour of Mankind, please do not delay any longer. As John Piper once said, “flee from the wrath of God to the love of God through the door of Jesus Christ”. Tomorrow is not promised and could be too late (2 Corinthians 6:2, James 4:14-15, Luke 12:19-20, Hebrews 3:7-8a).

*Update:

06/29/2022 - The referenced clips in the first section of Bruxy teaching at FPUBS have been re-uploaded in this video.