The Atonement | Progressives & William Lane Craig with Alisa Childers
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Alisa Childers interviews Dr. Craig about key aspects of his new book, "Atonement and the Death of Christ", and asks him to respond to quotes from progressive Christians regarding penal substitution.
Special thanks to Alisa Childers for this interview and video footage.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
You do realize that there are all sorts of CONSERVATIVE theologians like N.T.Wright who have also be trashing the outdated view of penal substitution, don't you. Are you going to polarize HIM as a 'progressive'?? The manner you are handing this complex issue is really sad.
If they thrash penal substitution then they crash.
At 9:51 William Lane Craig says Penal Substitution Atonement is rooted in Isaiah 53.
Here are some verses from that chapter so everyone can see it for themselves :
Isaiah 53 : 4-6
"Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him *punished by God,*
*stricken by him, and afflicted.*
But he was *pierced for our transgressions,*
he was *crushed for our iniquities;*
*the punishment that brought us peace was on him,*
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The prophet Isaiah made it clear *the punishment that brought us peace was on him [Jesus the Messiah]*
The prophet Isaiah made it clear we are to consider him [Jesus the Messiah] *punished by God.*
Isaiah said *God struck him [Jesus the Messiah] and afflicted him.*
Isaiah said Jesus was *pierced for our transgressions.*
Isaiah said Jesus was *crushed for our iniquities.*
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So at the cross God placed on Jesus the punishment that brought us peace.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
✞
Great interview, thank you 😊💕 Blessings from Serbia
Always appreciate how knowledgeable William Lane Craig is. Big Brain Craig wooooooo!!
Dont forget that he is a con-man
@@Cluj69 Not an argument. Go away Beta male!!
WLC = The GOAT! God bless both of them.
pro tip : watch series on flixzone. Been using it for watching all kinds of movies lately.
@Kendall Brayden Yup, I have been using Flixzone} for since november myself :D
Is that expensive?
Sidenote: Penal substitutionary atonement is a reformed doctrine...
@Vince Kinney If I say penal substitutionary atonement I refer to the sacrife of our Lord and Saviour first and foremost. I know very well that the former sacrifices were mere shadows, and you should know this as well. Nothing in my comment is wrong. My point was to contrast arminianism with the orthodox position, not to contrast christianity with judaism.
Furthermore, the sacrifices of animals could never take away sins. Christ is the only sacrifice. Thus, the metaphysical soteriology is very different.
I don't see that at all.
@Vince Kinney
No, that doesn’t follow from what I’ve said. This were only the case if the judaist doctrine of „limited atonment“ were the same as the christian one. I deny this.
First, it is doubted by some important theologians that the jews believed that our sacrifices can „really“ take away sins. It is assumed that jews saw (and still see) their „being-saved“ in the mere fact that they belonged to the chosen people (see NT Wright and others).
Second, there is no relevant similarity between the two. Metaphysically, we hold that Christs sacrifice was and is the only genuine sacrifice. There is no relevant part of the animal-sacrifices considering soteriology. Thus, the blood of bulls and goats is basically meaningless, in a direct soteriology-context. In that sense the sacrifices of the jews were mere shadows to Christ.
This is very similar to written word: Since we hold that the bible is complete in its form as old and new testament that does not mean that somehow we are now „evolved judaists“. No, christianity is a whole other worldview than judaism. Christ fullfilled the law for us in order that we are now free from the law. We don’t hold nor have ever held that the old testament is somehow complete on its own, be it considering soteriology or interpretation.
Similarly, the doctrine of limited atonment is only analogical similar considering christianity vs judaism. It is surely the case that the jews held formally to the concept „sacrifices“. But materially, the two are not at all similar.
Using merely the same form does not mean that we transport the same content.
So, my argument stands. I don’t see that there is a relevant similarity of „limited atonment“ in christianity vs judaism, except formally. Therefore, the „logic“ you invoke stands on a fallacy, namely equivocation.
There were at least 6 Christians on the Best Schools list: Craig, Oderberg, Plantinga, Moreland, MacIntyre, and West.
I listened to one of William P Young’s lecture on RUclips and one of the things he mentions is his past experience with adults during his childhood and he did say somewhat that it is that experience that shaped his thinking. While I do want to be careful not to say that it is his experience that shapes the lens of how he now views scripture, there seems to be a logical reason why his take on atonement is as both of you discussed here. I do find that sometimes the experiences that we go through do shape the lens of how we tend to interpret scripture. To me, it makes me cautious of my own tendancy to read scripture primarily through the lens of experience. Scripture should be primary and whatever experience we go through. Really good interview here.
Excellent episode. I'm reading the brilliant book "The cross of Christ" by John Stott and this episode gave me quite a lot of insight into it. Thank you!
I have some questions...
I can see lots of places where it says Jesus died for our sins but not on where it says Jesus suffered the Wrath of God.
There's a huge difference between saying Christ's death paid the penalty of sin (which is death) and saying He basically suffered Hell for everyone on the Cross.
There's a difference in saying Christ's sacrifice turned away God's Wrath and saying Jesus actually suffered God's Wrath.
Yes God’s wrath is a difficult subject. Romans 5.9 says “how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him”.
God’s wrath is also mentioned in other places, such as Romans 1.18 and 2.5.
But wrath doesn’t mean God getting really angry and losing his temper, and then taking out his anger and frustrations on us. Wrath is more about God’s perfect justice, and the necessity of punishing wrongdoing.
WLC considers both views to be consistent with penal substitution.
What a gracious man he is. God bless him.
Dear Alicia.
Thank you for your ministry and clear message..I once listened to a preacher who I respected Malcolm Smith..he had a lot of good messages about the unconditional love of God. however going to his "teaching conferences" it became confusing..he taught there is no hell and one day maybe the devil will be saved. I found out he is the one that influenced William P Young..there is a lot of good about the unconditional love of God ..much I needed to hear and experience...but not apart from the Cross and the real reasons He came and Suffered. I'm saddened by Malcolm's message bc he also says we don"t need to be born again...and that Jesus isn't returning. when i questioned him using scripture ..he will say he doesnt know and gets irritated by challenges. he says Eve just forgot...lots of secret meanings that only a few know like him is the impression i got. i sent this podcast to him ,....hopefully he or his team will listen
This is the second interview I've seen with Alisa. I've enjoyed both so much I'm subscribing for sure. I've always loved listening to Dr. Craig but I am very excited to listen to her more.
I love dr Craig's short and concise answers and Alisa is a great interviewer.
Thank you for this posted discussion. It was quite enjoyable as it was informative. I'm looking foward to NT Wright to be featured against Bill Craig on Atonement.
A really great interview, was really informative...from both parties involved.
Brilliant questions and answers. Especially enjoyed Craig's incisive examination of the shoddy, muddled musings of the so-called "progressive" thinkers/teachers.
I don't know if I find WLC convincing here. Did Our Lord suffer to save us from sin and death (the wages of sin)? Yes. Would we have suffered more than we currently do, in the absence of the Incarnation and Paschal Mystery? Yes. Did Christ deserve to suffer? No. Did God reveal the gravity of sin in the Paschal Mystery? Yes.
But there's a difference between those four questions, and reformed penal substitutionary theory - and therefore (as WLC knows) a difference between the Biblical data, and RPST which was created to account for the data.
Those four above questions would be answered in the affirmative on the Christus Victor view, or on the Anselmian view (which elsewhere, WLC distinguishes from the reformed penal substitution theory). So, appealing to verses in the Bible that affirm those 4 questions do NOT prove RPST.
TL;DR: RPST might give a description of what IN EFFECT occurred on the cross, but that is far from giving us a solid working theory.
I think with the gem imagery Craig expressed that his idea of penal substitution is part of the full answer, not that it is true and the anselmian view is wrong
Exactly, thankyou
Thank you for this video. If I can make one suggestion as an academic and theologian: the term "progressive Christianity" is problematic. I think I sort of understand what you mean especially as you interact with Rob Bell (who would probably be considered post-modern more than anything) but you also group Wm. Paul Young into the same group as Rohr and Bell. My PhD dissertation is partially on Young so I've done a fair amount of research on him. Young is actually operating under an ancient understanding of Christianity represented by the likes of Origen, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, von Balthasar, and George MacDonald. He also has some T.F. Torrance and, believe it or not, Martin Luther in him. Of course, no one figure agrees with another fully but he has roots deep in Christian history. So, I recommend offering some more helpful theological labels beyond "progressive Christianity". It's just a bit vague. Otherwise, appreciated Dr. Craig's interaction with the topic.
Agree!
People who don't believe in the penal substitutionary atonement are not "unware of their own sinfulness" Alisa Childers, that's such a blanket statement I expected some more nuance from someone like you. It would be like saying "people who hold to the penal substitutionary atonement fail to live out Christ's spirit of forgiveness in their lives".
The strongest argument against the "penal" substitutionary atonement is the fact that from the very first moment of Christ's ministry, he is called "the lamb of God", he is the passover lamb... not the scape goat, the goat that was imbued with the sins of the people are cast out of the temple. He was a sinless, perfect lamb.
By dying he forgave us our sins. In what sense are our sins forgiven if Christ bears the punishment for them?
Also, isn't the punishment for our sins eternal damnation and separation from God? Christ is neither condemned, nor could he possibly be eternally separated from God.
So what did he do? Christ put the law to shame, because by law he was rightly condemned for blasphemy, for the greatest sin, yet he did not sin. And so, since he was our representative, he has been released from this first "covenant" and started a new one, not under the law, of which we are participants through Christ.
I think you have a good point by pointing out that Jesus is portrayed as the passover lamb and not the scape goat. Also he interpreted his death with his disciples at passover and not at Jom Kippur. But I don't agree with you on Jesus and the law. Jesus himself said he's not destroying the law but fulfilling it (Matthew 5,17). Also Paul is writing about it in Romans 7. The Law itself is not wrong, it's just been made wrong by Sin. And Jesus, as the only human without Sin, fulfilled it. As Humans with Sin in our lives we cannot do the same. But we can bind to Jesus and participate at his righteousness (as being in the covenant with God).
The main problem of the presented view IMO is presented right at the start: Craig wants to stand on the shoulder of Augustin, Luther and Calvin. The Problem of these three is, that they have a pretty narrow anthropology and hamartiology (doctrine of sin). Augustin started with it as a defense vs Pelagius and Luther and Calvin made it even more extreme. I'm writing a doctoral thesis about original sin in Baptist theology of the 17th century and also dealt with the view of these three. It's just that sin is portrayed primarily as a moral problem. And so God becomes primarily the judge in the courtroom who in the end is punishing his son instead of us. But sin is way more than that, it's about the distortion of being human in the image of god. It is our combined Sin God is dealing with on the cross and not just or guilt. Humanity is showing what not putting God in the center of life is looking like: killing an innocent in a horrible way and refusing our creator himself. And Jesus is not coming with legions of angels as he could (Matthew 26,53) to show his wrath, but he bears Sin, dies for us and raises to a new life, who can become part of.
N. T. Wright is someone who shows, how this is in "accordance with the scriptures" and part of the huge story God is having with the world. He also commented on Penal Substitution: ruclips.net/video/pkXI33hpe2o/видео.html
Wright smuggles in penal substitution while railing against a characature of it. He will occasionally say "he took the consequence of sin" and quickly run back to other (covenantal) emphasis.
If anything he has it as a smaller facet than craig but tries to hide it so he can whine against his, frankly, strawman versions of it. He always talks about the "people in the pew think" instead of what more reformed theologians say.
Not saying reformed is right. But wright is a strawman machine on this topic.
Such a good take! Thanks
If you buy penal substitution, So now You have to go with the doctrine of imputation of Adam’s sin, imputed righteousness. Not sure the early church fathers bought any of this. Like Clement of Alexandria, Justin martyr…,
Why do you think penal substitution implies the imputation of Adam's sin?
@@ralphbabineau235 Thanks for asking! So, in some Christian beliefs, like in Calvinism, there's this idea that when one believes in penal substitution - where Jesus takes on our sins - it's often tied to other concepts. In Calvinism, penal substitution is connected to the notion of Adam's original sin getting passed down to all of humanity. It's like the idea that we all kind of inherit Adam's sinful nature. And then there's this cool concept of imputed righteousness, where believers receive Christ's goodness through faith.
In my earlier comment, I was pointing out this connection between these ideas in Calvinism. I was trying to show how these beliefs fit together in a certain theological system, but not everyone agrees on these exact teachings. Different Christian groups may interpret these ideas in their own unique ways.
Basically, I wanted to get a conversation going about how specific beliefs, like those in Calvinism, can lead to certain conclusions. It's neat to see how different people understand these spiritual concepts in their own ways!
Common thread with progressives that Alisa points out "a lack of recognition of their own personal sinfulness". I would agree with this. They diminish the cost of sin as well.
by progressives is that meant politically? if so most are atheists so why would a particular religions definition of sin apply to them and not other religions?
It is lovely to hear these deep Christian thinkers discussing the deep things of God.
Listening to the quotes from the 'progressive' Christians reminds me of the term used by the men at FAI: Western pop Christianity!
Does the book have translation into spanish?
Greetings from Brazil
Very interesting talk on penal substitution.
Some areas I would have liked to explore would begin with the conclusion of what God's justice is. You have taken the common position and one apparent in many passages of scripture. Retributive Justice. This was the cultural form of justice of the Temple. It is the dominant penal form of justice in our western culture. It was in Aquinas day and St Augustine's day.
But it is not the only forms of biblical justice God utilized. There are examples of restorative justice in the OT and parables like the Prodical Son and others speak to it as well.
Retributive justice, an eye for an eye being one view is not the only biblical choice. (FYI... Ransome Atonement I understand had the greatest number of biblical passages.I believe Origen's Ransom had more citations than Substitution or Penal Substitution).
I would very much like to see how you address Blessed John Dun Scotus foray which really forms the best counterpoint to Anselm, Aquinas, and indirectly and later, Calvin.
The famous question," Would Christ have come if Adam had not eaten the apple? Or his reasoned argument based upon 1 John 1-15; Ephesians 1-3-4; and Colossians 1:15.19.(1John ( ?)).
Emphasizing those passages he concluded that Christ was the first born of creation but also that he chose us in him before the foundations of the world. Christ's incarnation could never be a reaction to man's sin. An afterthought, or mop up. . Man's will is subordinate to God's. Christ came to reconcile us to our God, not to reconcile God with us.
Interestingly, reading Balthazar he places a footnote if I recall. He researched this seeming conflict with the RC CATECHISM and found that the Church has never declared it heterodox. It sits in tradition almost analogous to a minority opinion and majority legal opinion.
In terms of vicarious liability it is a Civil Law concept in it's inception. Civil Law has the very seperate aim of making a man whole, as opposed to Retributive Justice and Criminal Law where one exacts a punishment to somehow pay for a crime.
Retributive Justice has the benefit of being understandable. It is transaction based. It requires both Mens Rea and Actus Rea( Mens Rea an idea that stems from an Augustine sermon. ) I have a great deal of difficulty believing God would adopt an idea of Justice akin to transactional retributive justice. It is to imperfect a definition for me no less God.
In the end, an eye for an eye was changed by Christ.
In two seperate passages in Matthew, with two distinct fact patterns and objects of Christ's teaching he references Hosea 6:6 and applies it. Jesus says," God prefers mercy , not sacrifice." I recall the day I first read these startling words and did what Jesus instructed.
Wish I could have said more and wrote less.
Christ came to reconcile us to God, not God to us - love that!
The table of the gem is the incarnation. Penal substitution is a part of it. Christ offered himself to the Father. But if one saying that God's wrath was satisfied or that the Father damned the Son then you've gone off the rails. The backlash to that has also gone off the rails.
If you are saying that Jesus didn't have a human soul or that eternal generation and spiration is false you've off the rails.
The bible has already clarified the purpose of Christs death. God gave his live for us.
John 15:13
13 No one has greater love than this-that one lays down his life[a] for his friends.
Excellent!!!
Ivw been in a liberal church for years and its chucked tbe baby out with the bathwater! The Spirit is not present.... So i had yo leave
That book is a *must* read...
Can't believe it, comments are allowed?!?!?!?!?!?
Prolly forgot about it.lol
It has been for some months.
I think Alisa has always allowed comments. She just never responds
What honestly is the Greater Act and Demonstration of Love ??
1. Creating someone and then Dying for them when you know you know for certain that they will still go to Hell and suffer in torturous torments for all of Eternity Future ?
2. Not creating someone whom you know for certain would go to Hell and suffer in torturous torments for all of Eternity Future ?
I say the second one and anyone who was truly honest would agree with me.
Good on him but no one has written about it?
Pierced for our Transgressions, In my place Condemned He stood, Nature of the Atonement., From Heaven He came and Sought Her.. All worth reading
Thank you both for this interview
Great Conversations about the Doctrine of the Subtitutionary Atonement....
Godbless both you....
The doctrine of PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) teaches human sacrifice, and on that basis alone I cannot sign onto it.
My conscience won't let me.
Wow. As soon as I saw the thumbnail I knew this would be a complete mischaracterization of those people. Steven Chalke, WPY and Brian Zahnd especially. If there are any three voices that the church needs to listen and learn from now it's them. To label them 'progressive' is derogatory and unnecessary. They are more conservative than any american evangelical in that they actually conserve the ancient tradition - God is love. There is hope in the end. Everything is restored. The thought, work and journey of the people in the thumbnail literally saved my faith. If anyone reads this please actually engage these people, not just critique about them and excerpts that Alisa has chosen to use as proof text to support her position. It's so clearly a misunderstanding and quite frankly, clumsy handling of these christian thinkers understanding of Atonement. What is made out to be ideas that they have come up with, people like WPY and Brian Zahnd heavily draw on Orthodox understanding of Atonement. There 300 million Orthodox who generally consider PSA a heresy. This is the stream of Christianity that has historically defined what orthodoxy is. PSA is not ancient. It's new. And though there are allusions to substitution in the text, it is still a THEORY. There are many other theories and we should be diligent at consulting what patristics and early church say, the Spirit, the Text and what our experience of God leads us to understand. Ugh. This is just a poor, ignorant understanding of other positions. If anyone wants a better understanding read Brad Jersak a patristic scholar and Orthodox christian.
You’re wrong. PSA is not heresy. It’s biblical. John 11:49-52. The Greek word used there is HUPAR- can be translated in place of. Jesus indeed died in place of sin for humanity. It’s wasn’t a mistake, afterthought but executed, at the Hand of the Father. God loved the world so much that it pleased the father to crush the son. Isaiah 53:10
This is a discussion about whether hatred of wrongdoing, and justice towards it governed by the desire to restore, is loving or it isn't. It certainly isn't about child abuse because Jesus chose to die - he wasn't forced to. J TAK I hope that at some point in your life someone was willing to act negatively towards your wrongdoing as part of their love for you. And I hope that it wasn't accompanied by a host of other poorly motivated actions that have left you confused.
In rejecting a God who is intolerant of wrongdoing you are embracing a tolerant God - a God who is tolerant of wrongdoing. There is a word for tolerance of wrongdoing - corruption. Why do people think that a corrupt God is the answer for a church which currently languishes? It's exactly the opposite - the first world church has allowed a gospel built on holiness, justice, mercy and grace to be turned into sentimental love and tolerance for wrongdoing. Is it any surprise that people then reject the absence of holiness that arises from that? Or that some people no matter how the church behaves seek to find any excuse not to submit to God?
Those who don't have historical problems with the holiness and justice of God are to be blunt indulgent. If they were African they wouldn't be finding a God of justice unattractive. It's the indulgence of those who haven't themselves been victims of real injustice. Imagine for example that you were raped by someone - what would you want God to say when you cried out to him? "Lighten up - that was five years ago". The simple fact is that such a person will never recover from such an event without hating the wrong act with all their being and also being willing to forgive in appropriate contexts - the same elements present in the cross.
They're not saying that there's nothing to glean from these authors, but they are saying their attitude and comments on this subject are misinformed
@@nicholasnoyola3525 but they most definitely aren't misinformed lol have you read them? It's often those that have opinions on authors like these that have actually never read their books or looked into their sources.
@@1991jj I haven't. I'm confident that Alisa is at least familiar with them. But their comments make it plain that they hold views which aren't justified.
I'd be interested in setting WLC's perspective on torah in dialogue with a Jewish perspective. I'm not sure they're quite the same.
You sound sincere, yet so misguided.
PSA makes no sense and it has driven many away from Christianity.
Any thinking person can see how it is inconsistent with Jesus' life and teachings.
Thank you for sharing your views and debating the topic. We just disagree, and do so in peace and in the loving embrace of God. ✌
Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Abraham offered sacrifices(Lambs) to God. Prophets used to offer sacrifices(Lambs) to God. Can humanity be as righteous as God?? But God is expecting His righteousness in you.Again, Can anybody be as RIGHTEOUS as God?? Every person who has a brain would answer " NO!! " . All the previous sacrifices were pointing to the sacrifice that God was going to offer on behalf of humanity. Almighty God became the sacrifice for us. That is why Jesus is called the Holy Lamb of God. He shed his precious Blood as an atonement (payment) for my sins and for your sins. Now i cannot produce Gods righteousness in me which is demanded of me (and i certainly know that i cant compensate the evil i did with some "GOOD WORKS") but Gods righteousness is imputed to me and i am counted righteous. Now the righteousness which God is demanding in me, is imputed to me by God Himself.Just ask with all your heart to the God of Abraham that is Jesus is God incarnate. He will answer you. God bless Humanity
Jesus buying us at a price is ransom theory, not PSA
Also, the idea that people who care about social justice but don't believe in PSA are inconsistent is such a massive strawman it's unbelievable either of you two can talk about it how you do with a straight face.
Of course we don't think God doesn't care about suffering or that God is not just.
First you're not making a distinction between retributive justice, which is what PSA rests on, and restorative justice which is also a key part of the biblical literature and essentially what God does for us when God restores us and sanctifies us.
Secondly, I think that restorative justice is more compatible with God truly caring about all. You guys believe that the most downtrodden, abused, forsaken little four year old kid who tells one lie will suffer in hell for all eternity if she doesn't know about Jesus before her dad murders her. Sorry for the graphic imagery, but this is what y'all preach. How is that compatible with a caring God?
In the restorative justice model, God understands our frail human condition and knows that pain begets more pain. All our sin and anger and hatefulness is a cycle we're trapped in, and Jesus came to set us free. That's why on the way to the cross He said "forgive them, they don't know what they're doing".
11:11 They're talking about Isaiah 53, and I look at my clock, and it's 5:33am. Then I look at my battery life and it's at 53%. Lol
If you do not see that Jesus was punished for YOUR sins, YOUR
violations of God's holy commandments, you have missed the Truth.
Dr. Craig uses the illustration of the innocent business owner who is punished for the crime of an employee. However, this is surely a concession to pragmatic considerations.
Often, if an employee commits a serious crime at the work site, there was some wrongdoing involved on the part of the owner. For example, he may have negligently allowed managers to be negligent themselves in assessing employees for trustworthiness. Perhaps he negligently failed to ensure sufficient circulation and enforcement of proper safety rules. Moreover, it is often difficult to prove the kind of malfeasance by which a business owner might contribute to crimes by his employees. For example, even an owner who is openly disdainful of proper safety protocols may protect himself legally by having his managers and other employees sign documents that purport to prescribe those protocols, though it be an open secret that they are not enforced. Surely it is the combination of these facts-the fact that owners often share culpability with their employees, and the fact that, in individual cases, it is usually not practical to determine whether they do in fact share culpability-that justifies the punishment of apparently innocent owners. After all, ideally, only the guilty should be punished for wrongdoing. Ah, but that is precisely the point, is it not?
Adherents to punitive substitutionary atonement usually say that God needed to reconcile justice and mercy. Here’s a better idea: Let’s say that ‘justice’-i.e., the kind of justice that is contrasted with mercy-is simply the abstraction of justice that applies logically prior to the accounting for extenuating circumstances. Mercy, then, is actually full justice, i.e., justice that takes into account extenuating circumstances. Then there is no apparent conflict to be addressed.
Vicarious liability does not operate that way in my jurisdiction. If an employee commits a crime; it is the employees' problem; however, if the employee in good faith, and in line with his/her training and direction commits a civil wrong (a tort), the firm carries the can; and their insurance pays. The crime is always the individual's. Even some civil matters are directed to the individual in legislation and so VL cannot be argued as Bill has argued it.
Why couldn't God just forgive? Because He is perfectly just but as well though Jesus by His Passion bought all the graces humanity needs and so the Passion was necessary for the purpose of buying graces for us.
God is also infinitely merciful but again by His justice He can only show mercy to the merciful.
So why couldn't God just forgive everyone? Well do we mean just forgive the sincerely repentant, the perfectly repentant, those who are 99% basically unrepentant? Divine justice would or should demand perfect repentance before allowing us into heaven but a perfectly repentant person would want to be punished in hell for eternity! We need the grace of God in order to be made perfectly repentant so that we can enter heaven. "We can never deserve one tiny grace from God" (FRH) so Divine Mercy Himself had to purchase graces for humanity. God is love, "mercy is love in action" (FCP), Jesus is the Divine Mercy. God doesn't force His graces on us, our choice to repent and degree of repentance has to be freely chosen by us ourselves, God in His love for us would not force His graces on us against our will.
Understanding the nature of God goes a long way beyond hold a 'debate' and misquoting, even demeaning the views of your 'opponents'. You oversimplify and politicize the discussion as well as debase everybody else's view but your own. Shame on you!
Great research. I thought the debate was over after Leon Morris "the cross of christ" in the 1970s
Woooooww
People call Penal Substitutionary Atonement 'Divine Child Abuse'....because it is. "If you understand the Trinity then it can't be that"- William Lane Craig. Um...what? You then run into the issue that literally no one understands the Trinity because it was deliberately set up as a paradox. It would have been much more honest of Craig to say 'just as the Trinity is a paradoxical mystery that we trust as a matter of faith, the morality of the idea that God the Father would punish God the Son for human sins is also a paradoxical mystery that we trust as a matter of faith'. He seems to be implying that it can't be child abuse because from a Trinitarian viewpoint there is no child (just one God taking the bullet that he himself fired, as if that makes more sense). What happened to the whole three distinct persons thing? If you are thinking about this as the action of one divine being (not a Father abusing his Son), then it becomes a cosmic protection racket. God is promising that he will protect you from his own wrath if you swear loyalty to him and worship him for eternity. 'You better show me proper respect, or else...' Sounds like a mob boss.
And what was the whole thing about the Anglo law tradition having instances of a blameless third party and that absolves the PSA theory? I don't know the circumstances of the instances he is talking about, but just because at one time or another there was a precedent in a legal tradition for something, is not an effective argument for that thing being just. America's legal tradition for the majority of its history upheld either chattel slavery or Jim Crow laws, does that legal precedent have anything to do with whether those ideas were just?
Alisa and William are obviously smart people who I am sure are nice in their interactions with most others. But this conversation was a toxic dumpster fire. Toxic theology can do that to the best of us. When I was an Evangelical, I was never a PSA advocate (a little book called 'A Community Called Atonement' by Scot McKnight summarized my former views, and I would recommend it to any Evangelical who wants to develop a thoughtful historically informed theology about the meaning of Jesus's death). But I was trapped in my own toxic theology about the GLBT issue and the issue of biblical infallibility, so I know personally how you can be a smart loving person while also speaking toxic nonsense. In my case it was the Bible itself that liberated me from Evangelical theology. I wrestled with it for decades, but I could not domesticate it with my theology of infallibility, and when the view that the Bible is infallible fell apart, I was able to be Born Again as a Progressive Christian. I hope, in whatever way possible, that Alisa, William, and every conservative Protestant can 'wake up' and join the rest of us in the one precious life and planet that we have.
Dr. Craig would disagree with your assessment.
Progressing into heresy!
I'm curious, what makes you say that the Bible isn't infallible?
@@bene614 A lifetime of reading it. Read through the OT in particular, and ask yourself: does this make more sense as the word of the all powerful all loving creator of the universe or the reflections of ancient humans trying to make sense of their story?
@J DV I’m sorry was he the Son or not? I suppose Isaac was a ‘willing participant’ also?
always good to see Christians claiming each other are wrong and none of them being able to show that they are baptized believers in Christ as savior. They fail to show that they get the power from Christ as he promised (Mark 16, John 14, and James 5). They are all frauds.