Calvinists and other Protestants believe at the Cross God turned His back on His Son, because He cannot look at sin, since they believe Christ in a literal sense, "became sin."
I ask, wouldn't follow that God rejected Jesus' sacrifice? since
1) Jesus is a sacrifice for sin
2) God cannot look at sin
3) Sacrifices are placed in the presence (before the face) of God
Wouldn't it logically follow God turned His back on the Sacrifice of Christ, since He could not look at His Son?
Furthermore, Jesus did not pay the punishment for sin, since the punishment for sin is eternal damnation! I have already addressed the "paid in full" argument of John 19:30 previously, showing "tetelestai" does not mean "paid in full" as fundies claim, since John 19:28 uses the same exact word.
There are certain things a person can pay in place of another person. One is, if you steal something, and loss the money, though morally you should make restitution with interested, the person offended probably will not be too offended if someone else paid the money in your name. However, not all crimes can someone else act in your place, such as murder, the only way justice can be served is if the murderer to go to jail or be executed for his crime, a substitute will not suffice, but rather, having a person die in place of the murder is a massive miscarriage of justice! However, this seems to be the view of the penal substitution view of the atonement as promoted by many fundamentalist Protestants and Calvinists. We are even told in Deuteronomy this is wrong
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death
for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.--Deuteronomy 24:16
This is talking about the death penalty, there are times in the bible though that children die as a consequence of their fathers sin, such as King David and his son with Bathsheba that was conceived when David had sex with another man's wife. However, the baby did not receive the death penalty, but rather David was being punished and the child was a casualty, and the baby was certainly not dying in the place of his father David. Notice this was done, despite David being told that "the Lord and His part has forgiven you" and despite the fact David says "blessed is the man that God does not impute sin" in the Psalms, and despite the fact David in Psalm 103 says God forgives sins as far as "east is from west," this shows that YES, God forgives sin, but temporal punishment will still occur after that forgiveness occurs! But, to get back on track, if the Scripture says each must die for their own sins, how can you suppose Christ can die in place of you as if He committed the capital crime you committed, if such a substitution is a violation of God's own law, and violates Justice! Christ did die FOR us, but not in our place as if He commited our sins! He died so that God would look down and see a reason to forgive the sins of mankind, having a reason to hold back His justified anger! This is what is meant by St John in 1 John 2:1 when it says Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the World!
There is no concept of God "turning His back on His Son" in the Bible, which a thing makes no sense as I showed in the beginning of this article. And as I mentioned in an older post, it would logically mean the Trinity was either fractured at that time, which in turn would mean temporary polytheism were true (with the Father and Spirit being one God, and the Son another God, because of a separation caused by JEsus being imputed with sin) or temporary Arian was true (ie. Jesus stopped being God on the Cross, but makes no sense!), or Jesus was split into two at the Cross (ie Jesus split into two persons, one for his divinity and one for His humanity, with His humanity being separated from God alone, this of course would mean the incarnation--"The Word made Flesh" John 1:14 was no longer true and was undone at the Cross). Any one of these possiblities is blasphemous and heretics to any Trinitarian.
Futhermore, if Jesus paid for the world's hell punishment on the Cross, then it would suggest hell is not REALLY eternal, but a temporary thing that can be paid off in 1-3 days time. However, Calvinists respond to this by saying that Hell is eternal, and though Christ's suffering was finite, it was of infinite value, therefore hell was paid off in a day's time. Ofcourse, Calvinists do not REALLY believe this, otherwise they would not limit the atonement to the elect alone. Futhermore, they assume that because they say His death was of infinite value that that therefore merits a peros with a Get-out-of-hell free card! Somehow, to them value and punishment are the same thing. Also, how can they believe Christ's death was of ANY value if they believe God "turned His back on His Son" and "could not look upon Him"? Such statement would imply their the opposite!
They also, suppose it was necessary for God to "pour His wrath out on His Son," as if God were so vengeful, blood thirsty, and vindictive that He could not forgive sins without releasing His anger and fury first! Such an attribute is of a childish person. God is capable of forgiveness without revenge, if He had to have His justice be satisfied through dumping out wrath, then its NOT REALLY forgiveness! And because "justice had to be carried out" and "wrath poured out" then its NOT REALLY mercy either! How can you release you anger out on someone, then say that "mercy"? It is true, that in the Calvinist model, that God is merciful to the sinner, but that is only as a consequence that justice was executed and God's wrath was poured out! How the mercy was achieved in Calvinism is MOST UNmericiful! This shows that this view of the atonement implies a sort of Pelagianism, that Christ made to be imputed with sin, be punished for sins in our place, so as to merit eternal life FOR us! And Calvinists have the nerve to accuse others of a "works based gospel"?!
In reality, there is hardly anything mercy, just, logical or holy about the Penal Substitution theory of the atonement of Christ.