#34-Formalization

➘ #34 Source Article

Bayesian Comparisons

Scapegoat Normalization Problem

$1.\ \forall x\ (Scapegoating(x) \rightarrow Unjust(x))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: For every case $x$ , if $x$ is scapegoating, then $x$ is unjust.

$2.\ Penal_Substitution \equiv Scapegoating\ canonized\ as\ Divine_Justice\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Penal substitution is defined as scapegoating raised to the level of divine justice.

$3.\ Penal_Substitution \rightarrow Unjust(Divine_Justice)\quad (1,2)\ Modus\ Ponens$
Annotation: Therefore, penal substitution entails that divine justice itself is unjust.

Transferred Desert Problem

$4.\ \forall a\ (Desert(a) \rightarrow Agency(a) \wedge Intent(a) \wedge Causal_Role(a))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Desert arises only from an agent’s action, intent, and causal role.

$5.\ \forall a,b\ \neg Transfer(Desert(a),b)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Desert cannot be transferred from one person to another.

$6.\ Penal_Substitution \rightarrow Transfer(Desert(Humanity),Christ)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Penal substitution requires transferring humanity’s desert to Christ.

$7.\ \therefore Penal_Substitution \rightarrow Incoherent(Desert)\quad (4-6)$
Annotation: Therefore, penal substitution renders the very concept of desert incoherent.

Futility of Voluntariness

$8.\ \forall a\ (Punishment(a) \rightarrow Guilty(a))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Punishment is justified only when directed at the guilty.

$9.\ \forall a\ (Voluntary(a) \nrightarrow Guilty(a))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Voluntariness does not generate guilt or desert.

$10.\ Penal_Substitution \rightarrow (Punish(Christ) \wedge Voluntary(Christ))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Penal substitution entails punishing Christ even though he is only voluntary, not guilty.

$11.\ \therefore Penal_Substitution \rightarrow Punishment\ without\ Guilt\quad (8-10)$
Annotation: Therefore, penal substitution collapses punishment into mere sacrifice, emptying it of justice.

Bayesian Implausibility

$12.\ LowPrior(Penal_Substitution)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Penal substitution starts with a low prior probability because it contradicts universal justice norms.

$13.\ Evidence(E)\ does\ not\ strongly\ favor\ Penal_Substitution\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: The total available evidence does not dramatically raise its probability.

$14.\ \therefore Posterior(Penal_Substitution|E)\ remains\ Low\quad (12,13)$
Annotation: Therefore, the posterior probability of penal substitution remains low.

Civil vs. Criminal Confusion

$15.\ \forall x\ (Civil_Liability(x) \rightarrow Transferable(x))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Civil liabilities (like debts) may sometimes be transferred.

$16.\ \forall x\ (Criminal_Liability(x) \rightarrow \neg Transferable(x))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Criminal liabilities cannot be transferred.

$17.\ Penal_Substitution \equiv Criminal_Liability\ defended\ by\ Civil_Analogy\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Penal substitution appeals to civil law analogies to defend a criminal law claim.

$18.\ \therefore Penal_Substitution \rightarrow Category_Mistake\quad (15-17)$
Annotation: Therefore, penal substitution equivocates legal categories.

Biblical Contradictions

$19.\ Ezekiel: \forall a\ (Sin(a) \rightarrow Responsibility(a))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Ezekiel affirms that each sinner bears their own responsibility.

$20.\ Exodus: \exists a,b\ (Sin(a) \rightarrow Punish(b))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Exodus affirms that descendants can be punished for another’s sin.

$21.\ \neg Consistent({Ezekiel,Exodus})\quad (19,20)$
Annotation: The biblical data are inconsistent regarding whether guilt is personal or transferable.

$22.\ \therefore Epistemic_Unstable(PSA)\quad (21)$
Annotation: Therefore, the biblical foundation for penal substitution is epistemically unstable.

Historical Genealogy

$23.\ NecessaryDoctrine(Penal_Substitution) \rightarrow Early \wedge Consistent \wedge Universal$
Annotation: If penal substitution were divinely necessary, it should be early, consistent, and universal.

$24.\ \neg (Early \wedge Consistent \wedge Universal)(Penal_Substitution)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Historically, penal substitution emerged late and competed with alternatives.

$25.\ \therefore \neg NecessaryDoctrine(Penal_Substitution)\quad (23,24)$
Annotation: Therefore, penal substitution is not a necessary divine doctrine.

Cross-Cultural Justice Contrast

$26.\ \forall T\ (JusticeTradition(T) \rightarrow \neg Transferable(Criminal_Guilt))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: All stable cross-cultural justice traditions reject the transferability of criminal guilt.

$27.\ Penal_Substitution \rightarrow Transferable(Criminal_Guilt)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Penal substitution requires that criminal guilt can be transferred.

$28.\ \therefore Penal_Substitution \rightarrow Contradictory(Global_Justice_Tradition)\quad (26,27)$
Annotation: Therefore, penal substitution contradicts cross-cultural justice convergence.

Final Conclusion

$29.\ (3 \wedge 7 \wedge 11 \wedge 14 \wedge 18 \wedge 22 \wedge 25 \wedge 28) \rightarrow Incoherent(Penal_Substitution)$
Annotation: Taking all strands together—scapegoat normalization, incoherent desert transfer, voluntariness confusion, Bayesian weakness, civil-criminal mistake, biblical contradictions, genealogical contingency, and cross-cultural refutation—penal substitution is incoherent as a model of divine justice.

A Fitch-Style Proof.

$1.\ \forall x\ (Scapegoating(x)\ \rightarrow\ Unjust(x))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Any instance $x$ of scapegoating entails $Unjust(x)$ ; this encodes the paper’s claim that scapegoating systematically punishes innocents.

$2.\ Penal_Substitution\ \rightarrow\ Scapegoating(Divine_Justice)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: If $Penal_Substitution$ holds, then divine justice operates by scapegoating, i.e., shifting guilt from the guilty to the innocent.

$3.\ Scapegoating(Divine_Justice)\ \rightarrow\ Unjust(Divine_Justice)\quad \text{from\ 1,}\ \forall\text{-}Elim$

Annotation: By instantiating $x = Divine_Justice$ in line $1$ , scapegoating within divine justice implies $Unjust(Divine_Justice)$ .

$4.\ Penal_Substitution\ \rightarrow\ Unjust(Divine_Justice)\quad \text{from 2,3,\ Hypo\ Syllogism}$
Annotation: From lines $2$ and $3$ , penal substitution commits divine justice to an $Unjust$ procedure.

$5.\ \forall a\ (Desert(a)\ \rightarrow\ Agency(a)\ \wedge\ Intent(a)\ \wedge\ Causal_Role(a))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Desert supervenes on the offender’s $Agency$ , $Intent$ , and $Causal_Role$ .

$6.\ \forall a,b\ \neg Transfer(Desert(a),b)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: For any agents $a$ and $b$ , desert is nontransferable; there is no operator $Transfer(\cdot,\cdot)$ that preserves the normativity of $Desert$ .

$7.\ Penal_Substitution\ \rightarrow\ Transfer(Desert(Humanity),Christ)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Penal substitution requires moving $Desert$ from $Humanity$ to $Christ$ .

$8.\ Transfer(Desert(Humanity),Christ)\ \rightarrow\ Incoherent(Desert)\quad \text{from 5,6}$
Annotation: If $Desert$ is anchored by $Agency$ , $Intent$ , and $Causal_Role$ (line $5$ ) and cannot be transferred (line $6$ ), then asserting transfer generates $Incoherent(Desert)$ .

$9.\ Penal_Substitution\ \rightarrow\ Incoherent(Desert)\quad \text{from 7,8,\ Hypo\ Syllogism}$
Annotation: Therefore penal substitution collapses the intelligibility of $Desert$ .

$10.\ \forall a\ (Punishment(a)\ \rightarrow\ Guilty(a))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Punishment must track $Guilty$ agents.

$11.\ \forall a\ (Voluntary(a)\ \nrightarrow\ Guilty(a))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Mere $Voluntary$ acceptance of harm does not entail $Guilty$ .

$12.\ Penal_Substitution\ \rightarrow\ (Punishment(Christ)\ \wedge\ Voluntary(Christ))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Penal substitution posits that $Christ$ is punished and that this is $Voluntary$ .

$13.\ (Punishment(Christ)\ \wedge\ Voluntary(Christ))\ \rightarrow\ (Punishment(Christ)\ \wedge\ \neg Guilty(Christ))\quad \text{from 10,11}$
Annotation: Since punishment requires guilt and voluntariness does not generate guilt, punishing a merely voluntary innocent yields punishment without guilt.

$14.\ Penal_Substitution\ \rightarrow\ Punishment_Without_Guilt\quad \text{from 12,13}$
Annotation: Hence penal substitution effects punishment without guilt, collapsing punishment into sacrifice.

$15.\ LowPrior(Penal_Substitution)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: As an a priori matter, vicarious criminal punishment conflicts with entrenched justice constraints, so the $Prior$ on $Penal_Substitution$ is low.

$16.\ Evidence(E)\ \wedge\ \neg StrongFavor(E,Penal_Substitution)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Let $E$ summarize scriptural ambiguity, doctrinal plurality, and legal practice; $E$ does not massively favor $Penal_Substitution$ .

$17.\ (LowPrior(H)\ \wedge\ \neg StrongFavor(E,H))\ \rightarrow\ LowPosterior(H|E)\quad \text{Bayes\ Rule}$
Annotation: With low prior and no overwhelming Bayes factor from $E$ , the posterior stays low.

$18.\ LowPosterior(Penal_Substitution|E)\quad \text{from 15,16,17}$
Annotation: Therefore the posterior for penal substitution remains low given $E$ .

$19.\ \forall x\ (Civil_Liability(x)\ \rightarrow\ Transferable(x))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Certain civil liabilities (e.g., debts) may be $Transferable$ .

$20.\ \forall x\ (Criminal_Liability(x)\ \rightarrow\ \neg Transferable(x))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Criminal liability, being culpability-based, is nontransferable.

$21.\ Penal_Substitution\ \rightarrow\ (Criminal_Liability\ defended\ by\ Civil_Analogy)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Defenses of penal substitution trade on civil analogies to justify criminal substitution.

$22.\ (Criminal_Liability\ defended\ by\ Civil_Analogy)\ \rightarrow\ Category_Mistake\quad \text{from 19,20}$
Annotation: Importing transferability from civil to criminal contexts yields a category error.

$23.\ Penal_Substitution\ \rightarrow\ Category_Mistake\quad \text{from 21,22}$
Annotation: Hence penal substitution equivocates between civil and criminal categories.

$24.\ Ezekiel:\ \forall a\ (Sin(a)\ \rightarrow\ Responsibility(a))\quad \text{Biblical\ Premise}$
Annotation: Ezekiel centralizes personal responsibility for sin.

$25.\ Exodus:\ \exists a,b\ (Sin(a)\ \rightarrow\ Punish(b))\quad \text{Biblical\ Premise}$
Annotation: Exodus describes intergenerational punishment under covenantal frames.

$26.\ \neg Consistent({24,25})\quad \text{from 24,25}$
Annotation: Lines $24$ and $25$ jointly assert incompatible allocation rules for punishment relative to sin.

$27.\ \neg Stable_Scriptural_Foundation(Penal_Substitution)\quad \text{from 26}$
Annotation: The inconsistency undermines a stable scriptural basis for penal substitution.

$28.\ NecessaryDoctrine(Penal_Substitution)\ \rightarrow\ (Early\ \wedge\ Consistent\ \wedge\ Universal)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: A divinely necessary doctrine would appear early, consistently, and universally.

$29.\ \neg(Early\ \wedge\ Consistent\ \wedge\ Universal)(Penal_Substitution)\quad \text{Historical\ Premise}$
Annotation: Historically, penal substitution is late, contested, and non-universal.

$30.\ \neg NecessaryDoctrine(Penal_Substitution)\quad \text{from 28,29,\ Modus\ Tollens}$
Annotation: Therefore penal substitution lacks the marks of divine necessity.

$31.\ \forall T\ (JusticeTradition(T)\ \rightarrow\ \neg Transferable(Criminal_Guilt))\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Cross-cultural justice converges on nontransferability of criminal guilt.

$32.\ Penal_Substitution\ \rightarrow\ Transferable(Criminal_Guilt)\quad \text{Premise}$
Annotation: Penal substitution requires that criminal guilt can be transferred.

$33.\ Penal_Substitution\ \rightarrow\ \exists T\ (JusticeTradition(T)\ \wedge\ Contradiction\ with\ T)$ $\text{from 31,32}$
Annotation: Thus penal substitution stands in tension with entrenched justice traditions.

$34.\ (4\ \wedge\ 9\ \wedge\ 14\ \wedge\ 18\ \wedge\ 23\ \wedge\ 27\ \wedge\ 30\ \wedge\ 33)\ \rightarrow\ Incoherent(Penal_Substitution)$ $\text{Conj.\ Intro.\ then\ Impl.}$
Annotation: Aggregating the eight independent defects—scapegoat injustice ( $4$ ), incoherent desert ( $9$ ), punishment without guilt ( $14$ ), Bayesian weakness ( $18$ ), category mistake ( $23$ ), scriptural instability ( $27$ ), genealogical contingency ( $30$ ), and cross-cultural contradiction ( $33$ )—entails $Incoherent(Penal_Substitution)$ .

$35.\ Incoherent(Penal_Substitution)\quad \text{from }34,\ \wedge\text{-Elim}\ \text{and Modus Ponens}$

Annotation: Therefore, penal substitution is incoherent as a model of divine justice, in the precise sense shown by the combined derivation above.

◉ A plain English walkthrough of the Master Proof above.

Start with scapegoating:
If something counts as scapegoating, then it is unjust. Penal substitution is defined as treating divine justice itself as scapegoating. Therefore, if penal substitution is true, divine justice becomes unjust.

Transferred desert:
Desert (what someone deserves) arises from an individual’s agency, intent, and causal role. This is personal and cannot be transferred to another person. But penal substitution requires transferring humanity’s desert to Christ. That collapses the very meaning of desert, making it incoherent.

Voluntariness does not create guilt:
Punishment only makes sense if applied to the guilty. Voluntary suffering does not generate guilt. Penal substitution says Christ is punished voluntarily, but since voluntariness cannot create guilt, it results in punishment without guilt—which is not real punishment at all, but simply sacrifice mislabeled.

Bayesian prior implausibility:
Across cultures, legal systems reject vicarious criminal punishment. That gives penal substitution a very low prior probability. The available evidence (ambiguous scripture, divided theology, and history) does not strongly boost it. Therefore, the posterior probability of penal substitution remains low.

Civil vs. criminal confusion:
In civil law, liability (like debt) can sometimes be transferred. But in criminal law, guilt and punishment cannot be transferred. Defenders of penal substitution use civil analogies to defend a criminal principle. That’s a category mistake.

Biblical contradictions:
Some texts (e.g., Ezekiel) say each person bears their own guilt. Others (e.g., Exodus) describe guilt passing on to descendants. These contradict one another. That makes scripture an unstable basis for a substitutionary model of justice.

Historical contingency:
If penal substitution were a necessary divine truth, it should have appeared early, universally, and consistently. Historically, it did not. It arose late, within particular contexts, and competed with alternative atonement models. This shows it’s contingent, not necessary.

Cross-cultural convergence:
Across cultures and traditions, criminal guilt is consistently tied to the actual offender, not transferred. Penal substitution directly contradicts this strong global pattern.

Final synthesis:
Taken together—scapegoat injustice, incoherent desert, voluntariness confusion, Bayesian weakness, civil-criminal mistake, biblical instability, historical contingency, and cross-cultural contradiction—penal substitution is incoherent as a model of divine justice.

◉ Narrative Summary

The argument against penal substitution begins by examining its structural core: scapegoating. Scapegoating, wherever it appears, is unjust because it punishes an innocent while leaving the guilty unaccountable. Penal substitution canonizes this very mechanism, making divine justice itself dependent on an unjust practice. From here the proof turns to the concept of desert. Desert arises from the agency, intent, and causal role of the wrongdoer. These properties cannot be transferred to another without dissolving the very meaning of desert. Yet penal substitution presupposes precisely such a transfer, thereby rendering the notion incoherent.

The proof then addresses voluntariness. Punishment is justified only when it tracks guilt, but voluntariness does not generate guilt. To punish a willing innocent is to mistake sacrifice for punishment, collapsing the categories and leaving justice without coherence. When the framework is evaluated probabilistically, the doctrine fares no better. Because virtually every legal tradition rejects vicarious criminal punishment, penal substitution begins with a low prior probability. The available evidence—ambiguous scripture, divided theology, and historical development—fails to raise this probability significantly.

Another strand of the argument focuses on legal categories. Civil liability can, in limited cases, be transferred; criminal liability cannot. Defenses of penal substitution that appeal to civil analogies therefore commit a category mistake. At the textual level, scripture itself provides contradictory instructions: Ezekiel insists each person bears responsibility for their own sin, while Exodus envisions intergenerational punishment. Such contradictions undermine the stability of biblical foundations for the doctrine. Historically, penal substitution is not original, universal, or consistent across Christian thought but emerges late and contextually, suggesting contingency rather than divine necessity.

Finally, the cross-cultural record reinforces the implausibility of penal substitution. Legal traditions across the globe converge on the principle that criminal guilt is nontransferable. Penal substitution contradicts this wide convergence, standing as an anomaly in the history of justice. Taken together, these strands converge on a unified conclusion: penal substitution is incoherent as a model of divine justice, simultaneously unjust, conceptually defective, probabilistically weak, legally confused, textually unstable, historically contingent, and globally out of step with entrenched norms of accountability.

Ryan, your response attempts to bridge the gap between ancient text and modern rationality, but it relies on several logical…

What I was attempting to show was that much of what “Christianity” [a vague term] teaches lacks critical thinking in…

[Biblical faith, as presented in the New Testament, is primarily concerned with conviction in divine authority, rather than rational belief…

Yes, I see that now. All is fine. I think it held the comment as “pending” since it had several…

Hi Phil: I wrote a series of two posts regarding Biblical scholarship and errors in response to the commentor from…

(Continued from Previous Post) As a final aside, I want to provide you with a list of resources and invite…

Ryan: I read your posts and tried to provide some responses above. I wanted to respectfully address your appeal to…

Ryan, your most recent reply basically tries to force a false choice: either I “presuppose the Bible” (and therefore must…

[If the question is whether a “personal God” is actually present, communicative, and relationship-seeking, you don’t get to begin by granting the…

Oh, okay, thanks. I remember many of the considerations pieces on the old Sufficient Reasons site but haven’t yet read…