This moot court session summarily refutes claims #8-11 in the composite model of penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA).
Claim #8, the claim that God could have dealt with sin in any manner that pleased him, is actually true.
Claim #9, that God cannot forgive a sin without first punishing the sinner, supposes that God can be robbed and that God is strictly just, both of which notions are false.
Claim #10, that the atoning sacrifice must die by crucifixion so that the atonement can be as painful as possible, is non-sequitur and warps the Gospel narratives into torture porn.
Claim #11, that the only commodity valuable enough to recompense God for his offended honor is the shed blood of a God-man, is wrong for two reasons. First, it assumes that human sin harms God, when in fact human sin harms human beings. Second, such Church Fathers as Clement of Alexandria tell us that the Bible merely uses the idea of divine wrath to scare readers into behaving rightly.
Run time: 23:34; Posted: 3/8/15