ICE is the purest political expression of evangelical Christian theology - refuted

I found a modified version of this on Reddit and responded to it there. Note: The OP (u/ThirstySkeptic) has deleted that post and is no longer available. 

The original article can be found here. I am refuting the original version.  

To refute the article "ICE is the purest political expression of evangelical Christian theology," one must address its core premise: that a specific theological view (penal substitutionary atonement) inherently produces a specific political outcome (harsh anti-immigration policies).

Here is a breakdown of the arguments against the article's theological, historical, and political claims.

The "Straw Man" of Evangelical Theology

The original article claims "debt" theology turns God into a capitalist banker.

This confuses metaphor with mechanism. The biblical concept of "redemption" (Greek: apolutrosis) literally means "buying back" a slave to set them free. It is not about God collecting a fee; it is about God paying a cost to liberate a captive.

Orthodox theology distinguishes between Expiation (removing the stain of sin) and Propitiation (satisfying the demand of justice). The "blood payment" is not a transaction for God's ego; it is the mechanism of Expiation—cleaning the moral universe of the rot of sin. To argue that God should "just forgive" without dealing with the cost of sin is to argue for a God who is indifferent to justice.

A "Banker God" would demand we pay. The Gospel message is that God pays the debt Himself. This is the opposite of the article's claim that theology demands we extract payment from others.

Historical Inaccuracies Regarding the Early Church

The article seems to rely on a modern sociological theory (likely René Girard’s "Scapegoat Mechanism") to claim early Christians didn't care about the afterlife, only about stopping social violence. This is a modern imposition on ancient texts. The early church was intensely apocalyptic. They did not view Jesus merely as a social protester who stopped a mob; they viewed Him as the Judge of the Living and the Dead (Acts 10:42).

The martyrs (like Polycarp or Ignatius) went willingly to their deaths not because they were "escaping the mob" metaphorically, but because they believed in a literal Bodily Resurrection. They feared God more than the mob (Matthew 10:28). To erase the early church's focus on the afterlife is to erase the very hope that allowed them to endure persecution.

False Dichotomy Between Law and Love

The article assumes that if you support the State enforcing laws (ICE), you must personally hate immigrants. This ignores the classic Protestant distinction between the Role of the State and the Role of the Church.

The State (Romans 13): Is ordained to maintain order, punish wrongdoers, and secure borders (Acts 17:26 speaks of God appointing boundaries for nations). A Christian can support the State's mandate to maintain the Rule of Law because anarchy hurts the vulnerable most.

The Church (Matthew 25): Is ordained to show mercy, feed the hungry, and welcome the stranger.

A Christian can consistently believe the State has a duty to manage borders (laws) while the Church has a duty to care for those who cross them (love). These are not contradictory; they are distinct spheres of authority.

The Evangelical Immigration Table and World Relief  are evangelical organizations and thus hold to "blood atonement" theology, yet are the largest providers of refugee resettlement in the US. If the article’s thesis were true, these organizations shouldn't exist.

The Logical Leap (Non Sequitur)

Just because specific politicians claim to be evangelical, their policies are not automatically "pure expressions" of theology.  Political conservatism in the US is often driven by classical liberalism (rule of law, national sovereignty, limited resources)—secular political philosophies.

The "No True Scotsman" Reversal: The author commits a "Genetic Fallacy," assuming that the origin of a political policy must be a specific theological doctrine. In reality, many evangelicals support border enforcement for pragmatic reasons (national security, economic stability), not theological ones. To claim their politics is solely "worship of a violent God" is psychological projection, not analysis.

Summary

The article conflates soteriology (how one is saved) with political policy (how a nation governs). It attacks a caricature of Christian doctrine ("God the Banker") rather than engaging with the robust theological reasons why Christians have historically viewed the cross as a necessary act of justice and mercy combined.