What Is Atonement Doctrine? (John Oswalt)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 дек 2013
- my.seedbed.com/product/how-je...
Study the doctrine of atonement with your church! ^^^ Discover:
-- Sermon outlines
--Small group guides
--Videos for teaching
While “Jesus saves” remains the central claim of Christianity, the ensuing question-How?-demands attention. How exactly does a brutal and shameful crucifixion bring salvation? Why does the Bible call it good news, and why should we? Get the study from our store here:
my.seedbed.com/product/how-je...
//ABOUT SEEDBED
Seedbed's mission is to gather, connect, and resource the people of God to sow for a great awakening. // Find out more and join the awakening journey! seedbed.com
seedbed.com
What is atonement in biblical perspective? Dr. John Oswalt, Old Testament scholar, shares with us.
// MORE STUDIES FROM JOHN OSWALT
-- Study the Book of Isaiah: Part 1 with John Oswalt: my.seedbed.com/product/the-bo...
-- Study the Book of Isaiah: Part 2 with John Oswalt: my.seedbed.com/product/the-bo...
-- Study the Book of Isaiah: Part 3 with John Oswalt: my.seedbed.com/product/the-bo...
What is atonement doctrine? How exactly does a brutal and shameful crucifixion bring salvation? Why does the Bible call it good news, and why should we? Get the book study on atonement from our store here! >>> my.seedbed.com/product/how-jesus-saves-atonement-for-ordinary-people/
God bless you pastor
Very refreshing to hear the idea of Atonement being properly articulated. So much false doctrine in the church today. But this guy gets it right. Atonement is to be at ONEMENT with God. Thank You for this video.
I have read your argument for Christus Victor and it's the best I have heard to date. It has only recently come to my attention that there are different views on the atonement, PSA being the one I am familiar with. My heart is to find the truth, and I will go wherever the truth leads me regardless of popular opinion. What material would you suggest as a start that best supports your position?
Baggytrousers If you are not familiar with Eastern Theology vs Western Theology a good introduction is Richard Becks book, "The Slavery of Death". It explains the contrast between the Augustinian view of sin and redemption vs the Death/Resurrection matrix found in Eastern Orthodoxy. I actually started reading on these subjects about five years ago after a Reformed Presbyterian Seminary student gave me a book on Eastern Orthodoxy. That book changed my direction and I am no longer a Protestant today. I will find you some links to good teaching also. Thanks for your comments.
I thought John Oswalt actually believes in PSA?
@@elijahwong6464 PSA will die and go down in history in the same way that Arianism was defeated by Orthodoxy.
Here’s a basic summary of what I see in the Bible…
The OC sacrifices (plural) provided a temporal means of allowing the circumcised covenant members to go near to God. The one and only NC sacrifice of Christ (singular) provides an ongoing means of allowing anyone (including non-Jews) to go near to God to have their heart circumcised through repentance and faith in Christ.
Very interesting! I noticed reference was made to both known and unknown sins that were atoned for. Does the Bible actually mention anything that makes that distinction, between known and unknown sins?
The word Atonement for ourselves and for our lives is used in Exodus 30:16 as well as Numbers 31:50 and more commonly known in the Book of Leviticus where it says in several places the Blood is used to Atone for unintentional sin , my question is in the two verses I shared what does Atonement mean there?
Isa59;2 therefore (AT-ONE-MENT) is required, and so God our savior took the responsiblity for this to be realised rom 8;32,33
AMAZING 👍
Blood covenants were known and understood in the Middle East, in contrast to today in the West. Blood Sacrifices were memorial events to reaffirm a commitment to a covenant. They were not payments to appease an angry God. In fact, flour was also allowed as a sin sacrifice (Leviticus 5:11-12). The sin offerings were often combined with other offerings like food and drink that were pleasing to God. What we see is not God getting paid, but a bigger version of what was a social practice of reconciliation involving a meal and everyone enjoying the benefits and blessings that came from having a healthy relationship with God. The entire event was involved, not simply a procedure to appease an angry God.
To read more about this, look for the book entitled “Atonement and Reconciliation.”
Hilasterion: mercy seat?
An understanding of cleansing the common and profane in order to be in YHWH’s presence. Mercy seat and even other objects in the holy place. We are so other compared to YHWH. Sin commission and omission.
Appeasing the anger of God “propitiation”. Is not what it means? “ expiation” as a covering to cleanse is the meaning.
So the choice to use the word “Propitiation”
Has a 500 year old theology built in as an eye for and eye, proposition. Not forgiveness. Is this a fair access meant?
For us and for our salvation?
If God uses torture to save, what does that say to victims of violence, and what does it say about God?
That Jesus died for our sins is so ingrained in Christianity it seems almost absurd to question it. It’s in our creed: “For our sake, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” It’s in our prayers: “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world.” It’s in our hymns: “Who did once upon a cross, Alleluia! Suffer to redeem our loss, Alleluia!”
But the concept of atonement-that God and humanity have been reconciled through Jesus-hasn’t always focused so exclusively on Jesus’ death as a sacrifice and payment for sin. Like most teachings, it has evolved over the past 20 centuries of Christian thought, and today is being critiqued by some as problematic, not only for what it says about God but also for what it may mean for victims of violence.
Although theologians have been studying atonement for centuries, Mel Gibson’s hugely successful movie The Passion of the Christ reignited the debate and prompted more than a few everyday Catholics to wonder what kind of deity would require such tremendous suffering on the part of God’s own child-and what kind of Christian would revel in the guilt that inevitably flows from a teaching that emphasizes our personal responsibility for Jesus’ death. Gibson’s choice to do a movie about Jesus’ suffering and death (as opposed to his life, his teachings, or his resurrection) illustrates a strand of Christianity-actually more evangelical than Catholic-that sees Jesus’ death as the be-all, end-all salvific event.
That’s precisely why Matthew Lanier chose not to see Gibson’s movie. The San Francisco computer engineer had heard enough about Jesus’ death during his 20 years of Catholic education and didn’t see the value in witnessing the bloodletting on the big screen. “Concentrating on Jesus’ death does nothing for me. The way Jesus died does not give my life meaning,” he says. “The movie seemed to glorify the death and suffering of Jesus and to suggest that his death, more than any other thing he did, mattered most.”
That’s not what Lanier and his wife are passing on to their preschool daughter. “Instead we’re teaching her that Jesus’ life is a font of examples on how we should live our lives. One of those examples is that he chose to give his life for a cause in which he believed, but that is not the primary example. There are many more that get ignored in the rush to celebrate his death.”
Washed in the blood
Filmmaker Gibson clearly favors what’s often called “substitution,” “satisfaction,” or “ransom” atonement theology, which says Jesus’ blood is payment to God for human sin. In this theory, since the penalty for sin is death, Jesus pays humanity’s debt, restoring us to God’s favor and winning for us eternal life. Some argue this portrays the Christian God as disturbingly similar to gods who demanded human sacrifice to appease their anger. It raises the question: What kind of God requires such horrific suffering and torture in a plan for divine justice?
Not any kind of God most people want to believe in, nor one that sounds like Jesus’ God of love, says Jesuit Father Kenneth Overberg, professor of theology at St. Xavier University and author of Into the Abyss of Suffering (St. Anthony Messenger Press). “If we sift through the layers to try to understand Jesus’ sense of God, it’s simply not a vindictive, punishing, angry, cruel God,” he says.
Jesus did die a horrible death, most likely because his preaching and teaching upset the powers-that-be of his day. “But I certainly wouldn’t say that was God's plan,” says Overberg. “The important part isn’t that Jesus died, it’s that he lived. I suggest we focus on Jesus’ life, not his death. Jesus came to live, not to die. He had to die because he was human. But I’m convinced he didn’t have to die the way he did.”
Rethinking Jesus’ death radically changes our image of God the Father from punishing and wrathful to one with whom most parents can identify, Overberg says. “Then we have a God who suffers with us, as any good parent does.”
Although the meaning of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection has been the subject of debate pretty much since he was taken down from the cross, modern theologians-including Catholic giants such as German Jesuit Karl Rahner and French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin-have focused on the problems of what traditional atonement theology means for our image of God. More recently, however, feminist theologians have raised the issue of how it affects those who believe in it, especially female victims of domestic violence.
“I’m convinced that the atonement is the greatest Christian heresy,” says Rita Nakashima Brock, a United Methodist minister and co-author of Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us (Beacon). “It basically says that God uses torture and murder to save the world. It sanctifies violence as divine.”
Brock, who formerly taught at Harvard Divinity School and is now director of Faith Voices for the Common Good in Oakland, California, claims that the early Christian church focused more on Christ’s resurrection than on his suffering and death. For example, crucifixes were rare until the 13th century, and the early church considered the Eucharist a communion feast with the risen Lord, she says.
The ascendance of atonement theology in the 11th and 12th centuries coincides with the Crusades, with the church using atonement to justify Christians committing violence in the name of God, says Brock. “But that’s a medieval view of Christ, not a view from early Christianity.”
“Atonement turns Christianity into a source for blessing human violence,” says the Rev. Rebecca Parker, Brock’s co-author and president of Starr King School for Ministry at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. “It takes a historical act of state torture and says that that was in fact a gift that pleased God.”
Offer it up
Even more dangerous, some say, is how atonement theology holds up Jesus’ acceptance of violence as the ultimate loving act. For victims of abuse-especially those whose abusers tell them God sanctions their mistreatment-Jesus’ acceptance of his death could be interpreted to mean that love should be willing to bear any amount of pain.
It’s a message Parker had internalized herself until a woman who came to her for pastoral counseling admitted she had been a victim of domestic violence. A priest had told her that bearing her beatings, as Christ bore the cross, would bring her closer to Jesus. This woman had learned from her religion that suffering was ennobling and that self-sacrifice was a higher spiritual calling.
Parker was horrified. “I told her that God didn’t want her to suffer, that God wanted her to have life,” she recalls. “A good Christian has to say no to violence.”
Although few today would use Christ’s death to encourage women to return to situations of domestic violence, atonement theology still subtly sanctifies violence and sends a dangerous message to those who are abused, especially in families, some feminist theologians argue.
“What’s really confusing about this theology is that it’s a transaction between father and son-an intimate relationship,” says Parker. “The parent wills the suffering and death of the child, and the child’s virtue is to accept the abuse.”
With Jesus as our role model, we learn to accept suffering, to offer it up, to find some greater meaning in it. “Jesus is the model victim who remains silent in the face of abuse,” Parker says. “That’s part of what’s very wrong with atonement.”
Elizabeth Schaefer always suspected that this approach to atonement was created to make people feel guilty for their sins. That’s the effect it had on her, anyway. Sexually abused by her brother as a young teenager, Schaefer (not her real name) for years felt responsible for the abuse. Although she has forgiven her brother, she still blames herself for not speaking up and perhaps preventing her younger sister from the same fate. “I should have told my parents; maybe I could have saved her from that experience,” she says.
Constant reminders at church that Jesus died for her salvation only exacerbated that guilt. “If something happens, it seems like somebody’s got to be crucified, and most of the time I’ll just take the blame,” says this successful consulting firm vice president.
Eventually she realized that traditional interpretations of the atonement were contributing to her unhealthy attitude toward violence, suffering, and guilt. After being date-raped in her 30s, she finally put the blame where it belonged: on the perpetrator. And she decided she no longer believed in a God who willed suffering on Jesus.
“I think it was Jesus’ choice; he wasn’t a victim,” she says. “Do we have to keep focusing on this? It just seems to skip the whole resurrection, which I think is the main thing.”
What the Bible says
Those who defend traditional atonement theology see the language of ransom and sacrifice as clearly grounded in the Christian tradition and scripture. “Was the death of Jesus simply the result of social and political forces, or perhaps simply bad luck? The Bible hardly thinks so,” says Father Robert Barron, professor of systematic theology at Chicago’s Mundelein Seminary.
The synoptic gospels contain plenty of atonement talk, as do several Pauline letters. In Matthew 20:28 Jesus himself says that he came to “give his life as a ransom for many.” In Romans 8:32 Paul says God “did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us,” and in his first letter to the Corinthians, he states plainly that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (15:3). And many of the New Testament writers also adopted from Isaiah the image of the “suffering servant.”
Barron also cites Jesus’ own words at the Last Supper, which are repeated in the Mass: “This is my body, which will be given up for you.... This is the cup of my blood. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.”
But it’s interesting to note that the Gospel of John doesn’t include these words over bread and wine, nor does this gospel include much clear atonement language. Critics say atonement has been read into passages in John-including the famous John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”
But, if read carefully, often biblical texts don’t really say what many assume they do, Brock points out. “That text is not about Jesus’ death but about his incarnation.”
Even other references in the epistles to atonement through Jesus’ death or blood “should not be understood to give the idea a sacrificial connotation,” says Father Joseph A. Fitzmyer in The Catholic Encyclopedia (HarperSanFrancisco). He notes that mistranslations of Jesus as the “atoning sacrifice” (in 1 John 2:2, for example) should really refer to “expiation for our sins,” which implies reconciliation, not necessarily sacrifice.
Still, the Catechism of the Catholic Church takes the traditional view, setting Jesus’ death firmly in God’s plan. “Jesus’ violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God’s plan,” the Catechism says.
It goes on to say that “Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.” And it’s clear it is his death that is atoning, not his whole life: “Christ’s death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through the ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,’ and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the ‘blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’ ”
Diamonds in the muck
Those excerpts from the Catechism echo St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) who so stressed atonement theology that he is credited with “writing it in capital letters,” as Overberg puts it. In his Cur Deus Homo (“Why God Became Man”) Anselm proclaims that human sin has “infinitely offended” God and that God requires an “infinite satisfaction” in order to restore divine honor.
French theologian Peter Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm’s, insisted that Jesus’ death on the cross was not payment but rather an act of love, yet Anselm’s view prevailed. Thus Anselm has become the target of much blame by atonement critics.
Without overstating Anselm’s theories, Barron rises to defend him, noting that he, like his medieval contemporaries, saw God as utterly perfect, never needing anything from creation nor experiencing passing emotions. Anselm’s atonement theology “does not mean that God has fallen into an emotional snit or that he is a raging dysfunctional father demanding to be placated, or that he needs to see blood before his rage will die down,” Barron explains. “All of that would have struck Anselm as pagan and idolatrous, utterly irreconcilable with a proper understanding of the transcendence of God.”
Instead, a gracious God, seeing the mess into which human beings have fallen, sets things right. “And that can happen only through the sheer generous grace of a God who breaks into the dysfunction and heals it from within,” Barron says.
Anselm compared human beings to diamonds that have fallen into the muck. “God must come in person to the very bottom of the muck in order to lift out those diamonds and clean them off,” Barron says. “And this is precisely what happens in the cross and resurrection of Jesus. What ‘satisfies’ the Father is not so much the suffering of the Son as his obedience, his willingness to go into godforsakenness out of love for the human race.”
But Anselm wasn’t the one to completely canonize atonement theology. That accomplishment belongs to the Protestant Reformers, says Jesuit Father Thomas Rausch, professor of theology at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and author of Who Is Jesus? (Liturgical Press).
“They develop the doctrine of ‘penal substitution,’ that Jesus took our place and paid the price of our sins in his own flesh,” he says. “This is still dominant in evangelical theology, and though Catholics occasionally talk this way, the church has never formally made Anselm’s theology its own. It remains theology, not doctrine. To this day, Catholic theology places more emphasis on incarnation, while Protestant theology places more on the redemption.”
Atonement critics don’t deny that this theology has been part of the church’s history, scripture, liturgy, creeds, and catechisms. They just insist that it is just one of several ways the church has tried to understand Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Widespread Catholic belief that it is the only interpretation is the result of absolutizing one metaphor, that of Jesus’ blood washing us clean of our sin.
“It’s one theology of many,” says Rausch. “The question of how Jesus becomes our salvation is a great mystery. I think his whole life, death, and resurrection are salvific, not simply his death. To focus only on his death is to narrow it down to one single moment.”
Barron agrees there’s some room for discussion. “In faith, [Catholics] are obliged to believe that Jesus’ sacrificial death and bodily resurrection saved us from our sins, but as to the precise ‘mechanism’ of this process, we are free to speculate in different ways,” he says.
Throughout history the Eastern church has downplayed atonement in favor of an emphasis on the incarnation, while early Western Christian leaders emphasized redemption as a transaction, curiously sometimes paid to the devil rather than to God.
At times “satisfaction” language has been taken to an extreme never intended by Anselm, prompting even Augustine to respond in his De Trinitate (“On the Trinity”): “Is it necessary to think that being God, the Father was angry with us, saw his Son die for us and thus abated his anger against us?” Augustine wrote. “Unless he had already been ‘appeased,’ would the Father have given over his only Son for us?”
The meaning of suffering
But if God didn’t will Jesus’ suffering and crucifixion, does his death still have meaning? Critics of atonement theology answer strongly in the affirmative. “I wouldn’t deny that Jesus suffered or that there was sacrificial value in his suffering. I just don’t think it was demanded by God as part of his reconciliation to humanity,” says Rausch. “When we suffer, we in some way enter into that mystery. We share in the Paschal Mystery of life, death, and everlasting life.”
Feminist theologians who critique atonement theology disagree, arguing that joining our suffering to that of Jesus’ is dangerous because it could have the effect of legitimizing or even romanticizing suffering. At the very least, it could in some cases be seen as downplaying the importance of alleviating suffering, leading people to think, “God must have a reason for this,” rather than, “I need to do something to change this.”
It is human nature, however, to try to ascribe meaning to suffering, and people can’t help but ask “Why?” when something horrible happens. Father Overberg asked it when his nephew died in a car accident 10 years ago. “Why did my nephew die? Because a guy driving on the wrong side of the road crashed into him. There’s no real answer to that question,” he says. “And I’m convinced we’re asking the wrong question. The real question is ‘How do we respond to what’s happening?’ ”
And here’s where the example of Jesus’ life is extremely helpful. Overberg sees two responses modeled by Jesus, who continues to trust God in the face of suffering. First, Jesus laments, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” Lament doesn’t try to explain away suffering but admits it is a mystery. Second, Jesus shows us how to take action.
This approach suggests that what Christians should emulate isn’t Jesus’ suffering, but Jesus’ risk-taking to change the world. That’s not the same as accepting suffering for the sake of suffering. “People who take those risks do so not to suffer but to change things,” says Brock.
Theology graduate student Nicole Sotelo of Harvard always had a problem with atonement theology because it let Jesus do all the saving. “I understand the cross and the death of Jesus to be the result of his living a life of trying to bring salvation to earth,” she says. “If Jesus’ acts were salvific, then we too are called to help relieve the suffering in others’ lives and in our own lives.”
That’s also the part of the gospel message that has stayed with Timothy Grivois, a fourth-grade teacher in Berwyn, Illinois. If Jesus’ death is the logical end to a life spent speaking truth to power, then Jesus saves us not only from sin, but from our complacency as well.
“His life reveals God to us, and his death reveals that life with God requires us to take some real risks, even to the point of losing our life,” Grivois says. “The cross reminds us that to follow Jesus is to follow a human being willing to risk everything, even to be nailed to a chunk of wood and left to die.”
You didn't mention God's wrath at all. That's what propitiation is all about, satisfying God. Does Asbury not teach penal substitutionary atonement?
Your response is classic. You fall back on the idea of PROPITIAION. The problem with your use of this word is that you misunderstand what it means. You are using this word in a pagan sense. It was the pagan understanding of their deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. The Biblical understanding of this word is quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments-the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.) So you are classically misunderstanding the word Propitiation. You see how misunderstanding a word can lead you into false doctrine?
The problem with Penal Substitutionary Atonement is that there is no forgiveness of sins in this redemptive theory. According to PSA there is only a transfer of guilt. God takes your sins and puts them on Christ. This allows God to forgive you. But there is no basis for forgiveness based on a transference of guilt. If I pay off one credit card with another credit card the debt has not been paid. The early church had no theories like this. So what was Christ’s death for, if not to satisfy God’s justice? The purpose of Christ’s atonement was to defeat death and forgive us of our sins. It was the presenting of Christ’s blood, His humanity, to the Father to restore the unity that we had broken. It was a sweet-smelling aroma, a sacrifice acceptable to God. In the early church substitution was simple and straight forward. Nothing more. God does not have to beat Jesus up on the cross so that God can stop being mad at you. God is totally free to forgive and show mercy based on Christ as our substitute. The word Penal was added by the Protestant Reformers. .
Penal Substitution also creates other problems. If Christ died for, and is our solution to, our sins against God the Father, then what about our sins against Christ? He’s just as God as the Father is. What about our sins against the Holy Spirit? With penal substitution, God is pitted against God, either dividing God (and thus destroying the Trinity) or saying that Christ isn’t fully God.
If God’s justice demands that He punish sin, then there is a higher force than God-necessity-which determines what God can and cannot do. if I do “A” then God must do “B.” If I sin, God must punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise. Thus God’s actions are bound and controlled by some- thing outside of Himself, i.e. Human actions. This becomes even more confusing if we add in the Calvinistic notion that God foreordained my sinful actions in the first place, thus forcing Him to respond to them. Furthermore, it is often argued by the Reformed that God is sovereign and doesn’t have to save anyone if He chooses not to. On the other hand, He does have to punish sin. So God has to punish sin, but He doesn’t have to save sinners. It’s very interesting that justice (or at least what the Reformed see as justice) becomes the defining characteristic of God rather than love. Justice forces God to respond to our actions, but love does not.
The Old Testament sacrificial system was not a picture of penal substitution. God was not pouring out His wrath on the animals in place of the Israelite's. He didn’t vent His righteous judgment on the animals, sending them to hell in place of the Israelite's. On the contrary, they were killed honorably and as painlessly as possible. Their life (i.e. their blood) was offered to God as a sweet smelling aroma. The resulting meat was good and holy-not just worthless carrion fit for dogs and vultures. Such is also the case with Christ’s sacrifice: it is a holy offering of blood to the Father, not a means whereby god can vent His wrath.
A quick perusal of the psalms and prophets will reveal that the word “justice” is usually coupled with “mercy.” Justice really means to show kindness and deliverance to the oppressed, and to right the wrongs done to them. True justice is destroying our oppressors-sin, death, and Satan-not punishing us for the sins to which we are in bondage.
We are commanded to forgive as God forgave us. If my brother offends me, should I demand justice and vent my wrath on someone else? Should I beat myself up? No, obviously we are to simply let it go and graciously accept the offense.
Contra penal substitution, the Bible tells us that one person can- not be punished for another. each one shall die for his own sins:In those days they shall say no more:“The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”But every one shall die for his own iniquity. (Jer 31:29-30) Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut 24:16) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:20)
Penal substitution makes death a punishment rather than a result God said,“In the day you eat the fruit, you will surely die” (Gen 2:17). He did not say “I will kill you” but rather “you will die.” To walk away from God (i.e. to sin) is by definition, death. death is the realm of “Not God.” likewise, if I pull the plug on my own life support system, the result is death. No one else is killing me. If I jump off the roof, after being warned by my mother not to, and I end up breaking my leg, does that mean that my mother broke my leg? No, that was simply the result of my own choice. Christ gave Himself up to death. If death is an active punishment from God, then Christ was punished by His Father (per penal substitution). But if death is the result of sin, then it is an outside enemy, and not God’s own wrath.
There are many more problems with PSA. But one thing is for sure. When the early church talked about Christ our substitute, they were not thinking in the framework of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
+Randy Churchill
So, you're saying that every lexicon, dictionary, and concordance is wrong in its definition of hilasterion? They say that it means propitiation/satisfaction/appeasement along with possibly mercy seat. Are they pagan?
There is a transfer of guilt. Have you never read 2 Corinthians 5:21? "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God." By treating Jesus as if He had lived my life, God has made it possible for me to receive Jesus' righteousness, thus being welcomed into His holy presence. 1 Peter 2:24 also says, "He Himself bore our sins on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed."
You do not have a proper understanding of the atonement if you think "If Christ died for our sins against God the Father, then what about our sins against Christ?" is a valid argument. Jesus paid for all sins of all time according to 1 Peter 3:18.
You also do not have a proper understanding of God's justice. Justice is not hanging over God's head telling Him He must punish sin. Justice is part of who God is, the same as His goodness. Everything God does must be good. Does that mean goodness is a force higher than God? Of course not. God is good, and He will always do good. God is just, and He will always do justice. God is free to do whatever is in His nature, and justice is in His nature.
The reason God can command us to forgive everyone who sins against us is simple. If someone sins against me once, I might want to demand justice. However, if I consider the fact that I've sinned against God a quadrillion times and am still forgiven, then how can I hold a grudge against someone else.
You still haven't answered this simple observation. The cup Jesus is dreading to drink in Matthew 26 is either the cross or God's wrath. It doesn't make any sense to say Jesus was dreading being martyred on the cross, because His followers went to just as bad if not worse deaths with joy in their hearts. Therefore, the cup Jesus is referring to is God's wrath, which is the way "cup" is used throughout the Scriptures. Please, respond to this point.
Part of the problem your having is that you are pouring your western ideas into your understanding of the Bible. One of the reasons you don't understand this video is because it is talking about the Eastern view of Atonement. Christianity came from the East not the west. Western traditions have poured all kinds of false and new ideas into what Christ came to do on the cross.
There is no scripture that teaches that Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath. This is one of those false ideas that you have had drilled into your brain all your life. It is nowhere taught in the Bible. No one in the church for over a thousand years believed that Jesus was being punished by God on the cross.This idea was not part of the belief of Christianity. It was the Western Church that started this idea that Jesus was being punished to satisfy the wrath of God.
The early church believed that Christ was our substitute. They did not see it as a Penal Substitution. Penal Substitution was invented by the Protestant Reformers. The Reformers also invented the doctrine of Adams Federal Headship. They invented the doctrine of Forensic Justification. These were completely new doctrines that no one had ever believed in early church history.
The early church in contrast believed that Christ took on a Mortal Nature in the incarnation and subjected himself to the power of death. Christ did this to defeat the power of Satan who held the power of death over men. Heb 2:14-15 "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death-that is, the devil- and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death"
The reason the early church believed this is because they did not see sin as the major problem. They believed that death was the captivity that all men had been brought under by Adams first sin. Since all men had been brought into captivity to death, sin was produced from that captivity. The fear of death is what causes sin to spring up in our lives. The early church did not believe that Adam gave us a sinful nature. They believed that Adam gave us a Mortal Nature. The curse of death is now part of all of creation because of Adams sin. The principalities and powers now work in men through the slavery of death to bring forth violence and sin upon the earth. The early church saw the work of Christ on the cross as God delivering us from the bondage that Satan had brought us under. They did not see the cross as God punishing the Son for our sins. God did not have to be satisfied. Satisfaction is a Pagan idea. It is not taught in the Bible.
So yes as you stated in your response. Christ did take on our sins. But he did not take on our sins so that God could be satisfied. The early church believed that Satan, Death, and Sin are all very closely associated and they do not separate them as in the western churches. So in the early church the defeat of death is equivalent to the defeat of sin and Satan.
You use the term "Christ died for our sins against the Father". I don't know anywhere in the Bible that such an idea is taught. Can you please show a verse that plainly teaches this? Your idea of justice is a human construct. God is free to show mercy over against judgement. He is not bound by necessity.
+Randy Churchill
You do realize that the Eastern "Church" is no church at all, right? There's a reason the East and the Western churches split, and they were more than just political differences and disagreements about when to celebrate Easter.
1. I have not had Jesus drinking the cup of God's wrath drilled into my head my whole life. I came to understand that around the age of 20. 2. Answer the question then: What was in the cup that made Jesus so distressed if it wasn't God's wrath? What was it? You can't dodge this question forever. You will be held responsible for what you believe.
In other comments with you I've already cited church fathers' quotations showing penal substitutionary atonement has been around since the 2nd century, but apparently my education is not good enough for you. Should we just stop this conversation now if you're not even going to consider changing your mind regarding your misunderstanding that penal substitutionary atonement originated in the 1500's?
You have it all backwards. The Scriptures say, "The wages of sin is death," not "The wages of death is sin." Sin is the problem, not death. You cannot read Romans 3:10-18 and tell me with all honesty that Paul thinks the problem with humans is death, not sin. Galatians 3 says the Law is our schoolmaster that leads us to faith and repentance. Does the Law teach us that we will die? No. The Law teaches us that we are sinners. That is the problem we must be made aware of. Death is humanity's problem because humanity sins, but in order to solve death's problem, you have to fix the sin that brought death to humanity.
2 Corinthians 5:19 says, "in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself." The word reconcile means to end hostilities. There must be hostilities between the two parties if reconciliation is necessary. Therefore, Jesus took the hostility of God by becoming sin in the eyes of the Father, and He did this so people can receive His righteousness according to 2 Corinthians 5:21. You must take the entirety of Scripture into account with this topic.
Don't forget to answer the question of what was in the cup that caused Jesus so much distress.
Where is Jesus ? He said he was coming soon. All of his disciples also believed that he was coming back soon. They were all deceived like us.
Atonement is not acquired by giving your money to Televangelists.
"Propitiation” in Greek "hilasmos," means “mercy seat,” which shows Jesus as a propitiator, not a propitiation. Jesus is whom we look to as our means of obtaining God’s mercy when we turn from sin and obey Him, as we read in the very next verse, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” 1 John 2:3. God extends mercy and forgiveness to all who turn from sin and follow his commandments, and obedience is best demonstrated by and through Jesus, God’s Son. 1 John 4:10 says that God "loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation," so God was acting in love, not anger.
The only biblical example of the word "hilaskomai" being applied in real life is in Luke 18:13, "But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful [hilaskomai] to me, a sinner!’" We can see that the functional use of the word involves requesting mercy, not trying to appease God directly. He is acknowledging his sin and begging for mercy. He does not pay God or make an offering to appease God as if God is some pagan deity who needs to be appeased. Also, having a third party pay does not involve the sinner repenting and stopping the sin. It ignores the real sin problem.
For more on this topic, see the book “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.
Your thoughs on this subject is dull in light of the everlasting gospel i wish we can talk
Personally, I am aghast and agog that 2000 years of theologians pondering the scriptural teaching about the death of Jesus that they still refer to it as an "atonement" and still speak of "the value of the merit" of it. Nowhere is the death of Christ said to be an atonement and there is no discussion of any "meritt" that it bestows on anyone. Never. It speaks of the death as a "propitiation" and tells us that the righteousness of God is the forgiveness of sins.
An atonement is made by a sinner as an expression of remorse and an appeal for forgiveness. Jesus did not die to express his remorse or to ask for forgiveness for his sins.
A propitiation is made by a judge who is inclined to forgiveness of the sins of an innocent or repentant person, to be vindicated for their "failure" to execute vengeance. It was God the Judge of All who made propitiation by offering the suffering of his own son to demonstrate to the public that he did not negligently or flippantly forgive sinners who had harmed others because he too was a victim of their treachery.
That justification is forgiveness, not vicariously earned merit is easy to show:
[Luk 24:47 NLT] (47) It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of his name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: 'There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.'
[Luk 1:77 NLT] (77) You will tell his people how to find salvation through forgiveness of their sins.
[Act 2:38 NLT] (38) Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[Act 26:18 NLT] (18) to open their eyes, so they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God. Then they will receive forgiveness for their sins and be given a place among God's people, who are set apart by faith in me.'
[Jas 5:20 NLT] (20) you can be sure that whoever brings the sinner back will save that person from death and bring about the forgiveness of many sins.
So "Limited Atonement" needs to go back to the drawing board and start all over.
Also, the elect were the remnant of Israel that Jesus was sent to gather - the lost sheep - as told of Ezekiel 37 and Isiah 10:21 and elsewhere:
[Isa 10:21-22 NLT] (21) A remnant will return; yes, the remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God. (22) But though the people of Israel are as numerous as the sand of the seashore, only a remnant of them will return. The LORD has rightly decided to destroy his people.
[Jer 44:14 NLT] (14) Of that remnant who fled to Egypt, hoping someday to return to Judah, there will be no survivors. Even though they long to return home, only a handful will do so."
These elect were the firstfruits that followed the Lambkin wherever he went on the shores of Galilee, etc. aka the 144,000. The great crowd are as innumerable as the stars of the heaven and the sand of the sea.
Doesnt 1 John 2 say “he is the propitiation for our sins”
@@Duane422 Yes, propitiation, not atonement. Sins are forgiven freely by God.
@@WoundedEgo Oh I see, I misread what you had said. Sorry. Why would he need propitiation then?
@@Duane422 According to Paul, the purpose of the propitiation was to justify God for his "failure," due to his mercy, to punish the wicked. A judge must do right:
[Genesis 18:25 NASB20] (25) "Far be it from You to do such a thing, to kill the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are [treated] alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"
As the Judge of All, God was expected to act justly, which means to reward the righteous and to punish the wicked. But God wanted to act mercifully. So he provided his Son as a propitiation so that he could demonstrate his commitment to justice as well as to mercy:
[Romans 3:23-26 NASB20] (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, (25) whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. [This was] to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God's [merciful] restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; (26) for the demonstration, [that is,] of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Hence:
[1 John 1:9 NASB20] (9) If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Romans 3:25-26 says that God displayed Jesus to the public. It was to silence any objection to his being merciful, so that despite forgoing the punishment of the wicked (we are told he "winked at" their sins), he could be vindicated for his mercy. As Westerners, it is easy for us to think of "payment" for sins, but that's not the scriptural idea. Sins are forgiven freely, not paid for. There is no transfer of merit involved, only mercy. There is no substitutionary punishment, which the scriptures say are not part of God's justice. And in his death he ratified the New Covenant, which provided for forgiveness:
[Jeremiah 31:29-34 NASB20] (29) "In those days they will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, But [it is] the children's teeth [that] have become blunt.' (30) "But everyone will die for his own wrongdoing; each person who eats the sour grapes, his [own] teeth will become blunt. (31) "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, (32) not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. (33) "For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD: "I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (34) "They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember."
After thousands of years, Christianity conceives of the role of Christ as that of a human sacrifice in the most primitive, unscriptural way.
@@WoundedEgo I think everything you said is quite correct. But I don’t think “Christianity” conceives of it in a primitive way. What you’re saying is very scriptural. The question remains for me though why the punishing of Jesus would satisfy God’s justice or “justice” itself?
The Reformed conception of the Atonement is that in Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father poured out all of His wrath for the sins of the elect, on Christ the Son. In Christ’s Passion and death, Christ bore the punishment of the Father’s wrath that the elect deserved for their sins. In the Reformed conception, this is what it means to bear the curse, to bear the Father’s wrath for sin. In Reformed thought, at Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father transferred all the sins (past, present, and future) of all the elect onto His Son. Then God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect being concentrated in the Son. (R.C. Sproul says that here.) In doing so, God the Father punished Christ for all the sins of the elect of all time. Because the sins of the elect are now paid for, through Christ’s having already been punished for them, the elect can never be punished for any sin they might ever commit, because every sin they might ever commit has already been punished. For that reason Reformed theology is required to maintain that Christ died only for the elect. Otherwise, if Christ died for everyone, this would entail universal salvation, since it would entail that all the sins of all people, have already been punished, and therefore cannot be punished again.
The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. In His human will He offered to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son. The Passion is Christ’s greatest act of love, the greatest revelation of the heart of God, and the glory of Christ.1 So when Christ was on the cross, God the Father was not pouring out His wrath on His Son; in Christ’s act of self-sacrifice in loving obedience to the Father, Christ was most lovable in the eyes of the Father. Rather, in Christ’s Passion we humans poured out our enmity with God on Christ, by what we did to Him in His body and soul. And He freely chose to let us do all this to Him. Deeper still, even our present sins contributed to His suffering, because He, in solidarity with us, grieved over all the sins of the world, not just the sins of the elect. Hence, St. Francis of Assisi said, “Nor did demons crucify Him; it is you who have crucified Him and crucify Him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.”2 The Passion is a revelation of the love of God, not the wrath of God.
One problem with the Reformed conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.
A second problem with the Reformed conception is the following dilemma. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word. God could hate the Son only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true. But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ’s Passion. And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. that Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine Son but hated the human Jesus. Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son cannot be at odds. If Christ loves men, then so does the Father. Or, if the Father has wrath for men, then so does Christ. And, if the Father has wrath for the Son, then the Son must have no less wrath for Himself.
St. Thomas Aquinas says: Christ as God delivered Himself up to death by the same will and action as that by which the Father delivered Him up; but as man He gave Himself up by a will inspired of the Father. Consequently there is no contrariety in the Father delivering Him up and in Christ delivering Himself up.
There St. Thomas explains that there is no contrariety between the Father and the Son during Christ’s Passion, no loss of love from the Father to the Son or the Son to the Father. The Father wholly and entirely loved His Son during the entire Passion. By one and the same divine will and action, the Father allowed the Son to be crucified and the Son allowed Himself to be crucified.5
One question, from the Reformed point of view, is: How then were our sins paid for, if Christ was not punished by the Father? Christ made atonement for the sins of all men by offering to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him. Hence through the cross Christ merited grace for the salvation of all men. Those who refuse His grace do not do so because Christ did not die for them or did not win sufficient grace for them on the cross, but because of their own free choice.
A second question, from the Reformed point of view, is this: St. Paul tells us, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”6 How should we understand the curse, if God the Father is not pouring out His wrath on His Son? St. Augustine explains clearly in his reply to Faustus, that what it means that Christ was cursed is that Christ suffered death.7 Christ took our sin in the sense that He willingly bore its consequence, namely, death, because death is the consequence of sin and its curse. Death is not natural. But Christ took the likeness of sinful man in that He subjected Himself to death, even death on a cross for our sake.
A third question, from the Reformed point of view, is this: How then should we understand Isaiah 53? What does it mean that:
Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. .. And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand. Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53;4-6, 10-11)
This means that Christ carried in His body the sufferings that sin has brought into the world, and that Christ suffered in His soul over all the sins of the world, and their offense against God. He bore our iniquities not in the sense that God punished Him for what we did, but in the sense that He grieved over them all, in solidarity with us. That is what it means that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death), by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands
(@ 5:47 you say, "In terms of your covenant requirements you [God] have to kill them [those who sin].") Not all sins required a death sentence. If a sin required a death sentence, the person was put to death immediately upon conviction. So, who was standing before the High Priest on the Day of Atonement that was guilty of a sin that required death? No one.
Why is Jesus called the "sacrificial lamb"? They used goats on the Day of Atonement, not lambs. Lambs and goats are different species--you could call Jesus the "sacrificial elephant" and it would have as much relevance to the Day of Atonement. If Jesus died to "atone" for our sins, why didn't He die on Yom Kippur, instead of Pesach?
It seems more likely that Jesus died so that He could resurrect which justifies our hope of life after death; and, His blood is a sign for the end times, that those who are under its protection will be saved from the destroying avenger. That's why He died on Pesach. Your systematic penal system of debt repayment leaves no room for the grace of God, please stop preaching it.
+david mike ok... Jesus as the Lamb of God => Exodus, ask yourself why was it necessary to kill a lamb, the defeat of evil+victory motif is certainly there, you can pretty much isolate the PSA motif so long as you think Israel (and therefore us) was not evil itself, which is a bold claim... once you get that, it's hard to get by the fact that the Lamb AND ITS DEATH was a provision to "deflect" in some sense God's judgment on evil... our evil
The Day of Atonement, the very sentence of rebellion was death (Gen 3) or alienation from the source of Life, God (the tree of life) so i don't see the need to extensively defend that position, it's obvious. Now, well in Hebrews 10 it's hard to avoid the writer effort to present Jesus as a better sacrifice, the day of Atonement kind of sacrifice... which is meant to blot out sin, the flow argument goes this way, old sacrifice -> repetitive -> not effective Jesus' sacrifice -> once and for all -> perfects those who come to Him
@@lalainaramarivelo The reason that the blood of Jesus is "effectual" is not because it was super valuable blood in some way so that it could make a better payment, but because it was costly to God and it ratified the New Covenant, which promised free forgiveness.
The whole "limited atonement" is necessary only to avoid the "double payment problem." It's misguided. Christ's death was not "effectual" in "making payment for sin." It was only effectual in ratifying the New Covenant. Sins are always freely forgiven, in mercy, not justice, and never paid for:
[Isaiah 55:1-7 NET] (1) "Hey, all who are thirsty, come to the water! You who have no money, come! Buy and eat! Come! Buy wine and milk without money and without cost! (2) Why pay money for something that will not nourish you? Why spend your hard-earned money on something that will not satisfy? Listen carefully to me and eat what is nourishing! Enjoy fine food! (3) Pay attention and come to me! Listen, so you can live! Then I will make an unconditional covenantal promise to you, just like the reliable covenantal promises I made to David. (4) Look, I made him a witness to nations, a ruler and commander of nations." (5) Look, you will summon nations you did not previously know; nations that did not previously know you will run to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he bestows honor on you. (6) Seek the LORD while he makes himself available; call to him while he is nearby! (7) The wicked need to abandon their lifestyle and sinful people their plans. They should return to the LORD, and he will show mercy to them, and to their God, for he will freely forgive them.
@@WoundedEgo Gal. 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Col. 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us (us= Israelis), which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Jesus redeemed Israel from the law that was added because of their transgressions. The atoning of transgressions is obedience. Jesus was the only pure Israelite when he was on the cross. He had all of Israel personified in one person at the time. At that moment, the New Covenant came into force.
Hebr. Hebr. 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
In a way, this is how the "two covenants" are now in place for Israel. A new covenant for those who believe in Jesus and those in Israel who recognize the old covenant. The end will come when all of Israel recognizes the New Covenant.
The curses given through Moses for breaking the covenant have followed Israel until our time (Holocaust).
Rom. 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
@@lalainaramarivelo The "better sacrifice" was not a human blood sacrifice per se, as if God was hungry for blood. That was never the case. The purpose of the shedding of the blood was to ratify the New Covenant, which provided for sins freely, without the Temple activities of the Torah:
[Hebrews 10:14-17 NASB20] (14) For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (15) And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, (16) "THIS IS THE COVENANT WHICH I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, DECLARES THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEARTS, AND WRITE THEM ON THEIR MIND," [He then says,] (17) "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL NO LONGER REMEMBER."
@@suaptoest By destroying the Temple, God effectively "disappeared" the Sinai covenant altogether:
[Hebrews 8:13 NASB20] (13) When He said, "A new [covenant,]" He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.
If Jesus died for the sins of the world does it include the crimes of the world? Where is the accountability and Justice in that silly doctrine? You can get away with anything so long as their is atonement. In the bible it reads: sin, but it never mentions atonement for crimes.
Sin is crime, a breaking of the law of God. Atonement pays for and covers up our sins, reuniting us with God Eternally.
This guy is full of crap. It is not to cover up but the opposite...to be transparent and ask for forgiveness and work towards righting wrongs, which takes effort (aka blood, sweat, and tears...not just words or prayers but action)