Is Penal Substitutionary Atonement Cosmic Child Abuse?

        Liberal theologians object to penal substitution on the grounds that no just legal system would ever try an innocent victim in the place of criminals. It is claimed that this doctrine portrays God as some vengeful and bloodthirsty tyrant who wants to punish His Son for crimes that He never even committed. In other words, one philosophical objection to the penal substitutionary theory of atonement is that it undermines God's love and righteousness. 

        First and foremost, it needs to be understood that Jesus Christ, being God in the flesh, took the punishment of sin upon Himself. The Godhead paid off an infinite debt of sin on our behalf so that we did not have to suffer eternal condemnation. Our problem is that we have sinned against God, who is holy. He enabled a means of redemption through the shed blood of His Son Jesus Christ. It is precisely because of His love and mercy that Jesus came to die for our sins.

        Jesus, knowingly and willingly, took on human flesh to make atonement for our sins (John 10:17-18). He died to make reparation for our sins and to bring glory to God. The members of the Trinity worked together as one to bring about our redemption. So, the claim that penal substitution is cosmic child abuse is a false analogy by its very nature. Our forgiveness came at a great expense: the death of Christ in human flesh. He was raised bodily from the grave, which assures us that we can have a righteous standing in the sight of God (Romans 5:18-19).

        If God does not punish the ungodly, then He cannot simply be regarded as morally right and fair. He would be compromising His holiness if He left evil to its own device. Sin results in judgment, and there is no reason for God not to do so (Ezekiel 18). If God has love for the ungodly, then it follows that there must also be a way for Him to satisfy His justice. There has to be legitimate grounds on which God can forgive us. The penal substitutionary theory of atonement enables God to be just and make sinners just at the same time.

        If people want to be treated fairly by God, then that would mean He show us no graciousness and mercy at all for our sins. That would entail us spending an eternity in hell. Penal substitutionary atonement cannot reasonably be deemed morally repugnant when properly understood. If we are to be saved from the sentence of eternal condemnation in hell, then it is a logical necessity. The fact that an innocent man had to be killed for our sakes should stir our consciences. If penal substitutionary theory is morally objectionable, then so is the gospel itself.

        Love is not a weakness in God's character. He has the power either to judge or forgive our sin. He has the power to use a tragedy for a greater purpose. Jesus Christ, being sinless, was qualified in every way to bear the punishment and guilt of sin that we deserve. He did that on our behalf. Substitutes for rapists and murderers in our justice system are not authorized because we already know that such convicts will most likely continue in their folly. This concept goes beyond how human legal systems work. When we are in heaven, sin will be completely and permanently erased.