Of course penal substitution is the most immoral doctrine that the Christian Faith has ever promulgated. The idea that God will not “forgive us” until Christ is tortured to death on a cross is perhaps the ugliest doctrine one can imagine. The idea that the scapegoat receives the punishment due to the collective is as repugnant as the notion that God is so bound by legal constraints that he has to torture someone to death in order to “forgive” us. And it’s not really forgiveness: it’s simply a different form of retribution.
Desire is not the same word as require. To assume that his requirements reflect his desires is like saying "I need that slice of cake" but do I need it, or want it? God wants mercy, but he requires blood as mercy is in short supply, as is told to us consistently throughout the WHOLE of the bible. If people showed mercy, no sin would be committed, and therefore no blood would be required. Alas, we are not merciful beings as he is.
I was shocked to hear Boyd say Satan is the one demanding justice. He is trying to escape justice by attempting to annihilate the Jews. He knows that when the Jewish nation turn to Christ, he will be heading for the wrath of God
This is an absolutely wonderful conversation - Kind, Honest, Clear and full of Depth. My view is maturing and being challenged with each minute that passes.
It takes special people to debate one another . Especially on hot button topics . That's why I don't debate much if ever We must learn to be and act like me
I can’t remember Boyd ever being disrespectful in a debate. I haven’t seen as much of Craig, but from what I’ve seen, I doubt he would go there as well.
To Greg at 35:00. We are not just a bride who has been kidnapped against her will, like the bride in Ezekiel 16 we have left our bridegroom and pursued other lovers, despising His grace. He states that briefly in 26:30, but frames it as kidnapping rather than abandonment and despising Him
Kidnapped in the sense that it is the “trauma” of the kidnapping that informs our dysfunctional behavior, that is, our sinful behavior. God brings healing to this in the form of love. This may include more “punitive” means. But, even these punitive means are for the sake of “reconciliation” versus simple “retribution”.
It is a kidnapping in the sense that you are seduced by your desires, and instead of dominating your desires, your desires dominate you, you end up as a slave, and to be free you need the redemptive work of Yahweh ... you can't get free on your own, even is that we want... we need Him, there's no other way. If we could be free by our own, we wouldn't need a savior, the redemptive work of Jesus would be in vain. But God as man dominated the flesh, and suffered the consequences of our failure.
WLC has a great point at 52:47 that coincides with the scripture “but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”” Jeremiah 9 : 24 An essential aspect of knowing who God is, involves understanding that He is not only loving but also just and righteous. All these attributes are displayed in the cross by Jesus taking the punishment we deserved 🙌
Love isn't just one among many attributes of God but it's who God is, it includes justice as justice is itself loving. Without love in our nature what sense if justice could we have? Loving Justice is the difference between the wrath of God and the wrath of man that workth not the rightousness of God. It is because I love or at least on some level acknowlage that I should love them that I feel the need to be just twords them.
@@christophersnedeker2065 I agree God is love 100% (1 John 4:8). I didn't mean to imply that love is merely an attribute of His and not important but my point was that many times people only focus on a one-sided or false definition of God's love that doesn't involve justice or righteousness in it, so I think we're on the same page with that if I understand you correctly.
I believe God does not need His “pound of flesh” and can freely forgive because He’s the only one Whom is righteous. Like David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” and Nathan responds, the LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.” For us to demand the condemnation of another for their wrong against us is to condemn ourselves because at some point we have done the same. all have sinned and all short of the glory of God. God encourages us to forgive freely. We are called to be like Him. no punishment or exaction is necessary.
For us to do it is wrong. I think we’d all agree. The Bible teaches against it as well. But for God to do it is not wrong, He is perfect, He is also all just. If he forsakes justice for love, God is not all just
There are four types of atonements: 1. Ransom to Deity 2. Ransom to Devil 3. Ransom to Death 4. Ransom doesn't mean payment but actually Rescue. There are many atonement theories/models some these are: Satisfaction theory- a ransom to Deity theory. It teaches that we have infinitely offended God's honor and Jesus is the only sacrifice that can satisfy the payment of that Honor. (The early church shows ideas of these theories like punishment and payment of a debt but nothing less than satisfying God's infinite offended honor is satisfaction theory.) Penal Substitutionary Atonement- a ransom to Deity theory. It is a modified version of the satisfaction theory which is still evolving. It teaches that the Father pours out his Wrath on the Son for our sin. It teaches that Jesus took our penalty for sin. It teaches that Jesus became a literal sin on the cross. (The early church fathers use ideas of penal substitutionary atonement such as punishment or payment of debt just like the satisfaction theory. But again ideas are not the theory itself. This theory has a robust defense which they pull from scripture. It requires massive amounts of study to convince someone otherwise. But anything less than the Father pouring out wrath on his Son is not penal substitutionary atonement.) Moral influence theory- a ransom to anyone but the Devil theory. It teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ were to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection. This theory is often combined with other theories. (The early church does express ideas of the moral influence theory but that's not all it expresses. Therefore the theory is not complete in of itself explaining scripture or the early church.) Ransom theory- a ransom to the Deity, Devil or Death theory. It teaches that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip. In some views paid to God the Father, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin. Other views even include the ransom being paid to death. (The early church did show some ideas for this theory. This theory is one of the oldest theories of Christianity. In the Bible, we are told Jesus is a ransom but not to whom. Anything less then Bible saying that the Ransom was paid to the devil is not this theory.) Christus Victor theory/restored icon model- a ransom doesn't mean payment but rescue theory. It is a modified understanding of the ransom theory, it teaches that Christ's death defeated the power of the evil, which had held humankind in their power which are sin, death, and the devil. The Christus Victor Theory teaches that the idea of ransom should not be the same as Satisfaction or Penal substitutionary atonement view it which is a legal transaction by the payment of penalty to satisfy the demands of Gods justice but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity in which is rooted in the incarnation and Jesus entering human misery and wickedness and redeemed it. (This early church shows some ideas for this theory. People do question some of the early church's use of punishment and debt. This theory is one of the oldest theories of Christianity.) The Governmental Theory- a ransom to Deity theory. It teaches God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually, God does not exact strict justice. This [governmental atonement] view teaches that Christ by His death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. And What His death did was to demonstrate what their sins deserved at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men. (The early church may seem to teach ideas of this theory. However as for the theory itself I do not see it in the early church after examining the ideas which are in the early church.) Recapitulation theory-a ransom doesn't mean payment but rescue theory. It teaches that the atonement of Christ reverses the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. They teach that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. (The first person to teach this theory was Irenaeus after him this theory is basically lost even though some of the ideas are seen in the early church later on.)
Have really liked this channel but ultimately gave it the Sub for getting Dr. Greg Boyd on the show !!! Great debate can’t wait for the next one on Greg’s book this time.
It is painfully obvious that William Lane Craig is more devoted to the idea that God is perfect: in justice, love, mercy, etc. While, on the other hand, Greg Boyd is more committed to the idea of God as only perfectly loving. Appreciated the conversation, but it seems obvious that if we are going to assert the utter perfection of God; His justice cannot be, in any sense, neglected for the sake of His love.
I’m not sure why you think there is such an easy distinction to make there. Greg seems to be objecting because he feels the need for recompense is in itself. But the idea it’s just because he wants to minimize God’s justice is uncharitable.
Boyd is very committed to an “either/or” theory of the atonement. It impacts his reasoning again and again. His “reframing” tends to result in just acknowledging that there is a fuller and more robust view of the atonement but then going on to create an artificial either/or “frame” which has him rejecting essential elements of the atonement.
This view seems to go hand and hand with several other incorrect views.. if I'm not mistaken listening to this guy... these folks seem to be Non-Trinitarian, not understand God's justice or Law, are Open Theists, seem to completely disregard majority of OT... but I'm not even half way through this... Sorry to say.. I hope you are as frustrated watching this as I am.. and reading these comments I had no idea there were so many into this...
CV is only true because of PSA . How can you read Isaiah 53 or 2 Corinthians or the psalms without PSA Psalm 88 Your wrath lies heavy upon me, and you overwhelm me with all your waves. Selah Your wrath has swept over me; Your terrors have destroyed me. The psalms are not about David they all about Jesus. The first two psalms tell you that psalms are about the messiah And connosental text of 2 Samuel 23 says David was appointed by God to write psalms about the messiah .
@@Lurkingdolphinwhere do you get that every Psalm is about the Messiah? Some Psalms are and they are quoted in the New Testament. Psalm 88 is not quoted in the New Testament. So I would be careful in assuming Psalm 88 is Messianic. I am not saying it MUST be quoted in the New Testament in order to be Messianic, but being quoted in the New Testament gives us much greater confidence in it being Messianic. If it isn’t quoted in the New Testament, then the burden of proof that it is Messianic is much greater. As for Isaiah 53, what parts are penal substitution? I’ve actually heard some use Isaiah 53 as an argument AGAINST PSA. Isaiah 53 is definitely Messianic and is quoted a few times in the New Testament and is clearly about the sufferings of Jesus. As for 2 Corinthians, I am not sure what you are referring to that gets one to accept PSA. Can you give some examples? While I (and just about every Christian, including supporters of PSA) accept Christus Victor as being true, most Christians do not believe Christus Victor is the ONLY valid theory of atonement, as the atonement is multifaceted. Many of the different theories work quite well together. I do not see Christus Victor as a counterargument to PSA as it is much older than PSA and its truth does not make PSA impossible to be true. I just think there are better/more accurate models out there than PSA. I also think accepting PSA causes a lot more problems than it solves and makes one to have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to defend it that aren’t necessary. I see PSA as completely unnecessary to understanding Christ’s atoning work.
I found it telling when William Lane Craig admitted that the early Church, right up to Anselm, didn't have a clear elaboration of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. He interprets this as a failing but perhaps the reason for this is that it doesn't cohere well with other Christian beliefs nor is easily supported by scripture.
He didn’t say such a thing at all, just read his book ‘Atonement and the Death of Christ’ in which he showed the earliest church fathers did affirm, among other facets, penal substitution. Since the early church was preoccupied with the person of Christ and the Trinity, the Atonement never received a full exploration by them. But it is biblical and present in the early church fathers.
Who created satan? GOD!!! What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!! Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!! Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM. What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!! Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!! PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!! Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory. No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith. So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome. THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
I wondered if that were the case, as well. I wanted to be very careful not to assume as much. (See my separate post from today.) as for me, I have had to admit that many of my own objections were psychological concerns, many of which were actually spiritual issues, many of which were acts of mental rebellion.
@@jasensargent6176 On the contrary, the Bible is very much against using "emotions." *For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.* _Romans 8:6-7_ If you interpret the Bible off of emotions, you are living by the flesh not the spirit. *When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.* _John 16:13_ Jesus tells us not that the Holy Spirit guides to emotional satisfaction, but to _truth._ A conclusion is of the spirit if it is true, _not_ if it makes you emotionally satisfied.
@@sivad1025 How does your conclusion of Romans 8:6-7 follow? Where does it say emotions are fleshly? And just because Jesus did not say something explicitly doesn’t mean he wouldn’t agree with it. Jesus never says explicitly not to listen to Lil Pump, but we know that we shouldn’t be doing so.
@@jasensargent6176 All good points. My original comment was poorly reasoned. I do not mean to say that emotions are always "fleshy" as you put it. But when they're of the flesh and not the spirit, that's when they're bad. That's all I'm saying. It's a hard line to balance since scripture teaches that the moral code is written on your heart, confirming that your conscience can guide you. But on the contrary, I think that it's clear that the truth is often unpleasant. In John 15, Jesus says those who are not of the world are hated by the world. He explains that the greatest love is not a feeling, but an act of sacrifice. In Matthew 10:34-39, Jesus says he didn't come to bring peace, but instead, he came with a message for his followers to take up their own cross. All that to say, when I read the Bible, I see Jesus affirm that living of the spirit is living according to truth which brings discomfort. The idea of paying for your sins and deserving crucifixion is not comfortable. But it's true that the Bible teaches it, so I can't reject that conclusion based upon emotion. When your emotions guide you to self-comfort and away from the truth, I personally think your emotions should be discarded. But then again, this is all just my interpretation so you're free to disagree.
The RESTORED ICON is the central facet of atonement I have found in the last 2 1/2 years of study from scripture and ancient Jewish and Christian insights, not penal substitution.
I love Greg Boyd’s heart but it seems like he is leaning towards felt preferences. The law courtroom view might sound unappealing but what if it is simply true?
@Philip AlumboPerhaps. But by the same token, are scientists, lovers of the laws of nature, legalists? ... there is a difference between acknowledging and loving. I love gravity when I play soccer, I hate it when I fall. Nevertheless I must acknowledge this law exists and my life must accommodate it, otherwise I might actually die. What if there is such a law of sin and redemption, which we must acknowledge lest we perish?
@@iworship6951 f there is such a law of sin and redemption, which we must acknowledge lest we perish? that is a good summary of Boyd's view. Sin leads to death.
Greg’s point on the car crash articulates the idea of the organic nature of sin and judgment perfectly. I think the legal framework represents how we have made sense of the way we think God acts wrt sin. It’s kind of us working out the mechanics of this system. Very transactional. You could write code to this....
I wonder if what we’ve always called the Wrath of God is what Greg calls the organic consequence of the car crash and what God is really rescuing us from…? 🤔 I.e. the unavoidable harsh reality of this fallen world which God in his love steps into to rescue us
Notice at the end that Dr. Boyd said, “I think that the most important fact in anyone‘s life is your mental conception of God,“ not, “I think that the most important fact in anyone’s life is that your your mental conception of God aligns with His actual nature and actions.” I found that to be very interesting and perhaps telling. As I was listening to Dr. Boyd and Dr. Craig discuss this issue, I was so captivated by all of their particular points. However, I was also curious how many of Dr. Boyd’s biblical and philosophical objections to Dr. Craig’s view were also psychological objections. Only the Holy Spirit knows. As for me, I have had to admit that many of my own objections are really psychological concerns, many of which are really spiritual issues, many of which are really acts of mental rebellion.
Exactly. Progressives reinterpret the Bible through Jesus, but they interpret Jesus through themselves. So really, they interpret thr whole Bible through themselves and ignore the literal text.
@@jasensargent6176 Yes, I agree. But the Bible also says that you should live by the Spirit, not the flesh. And that the Spirit guides you to truth. Progressives judge by the flesh. They say, "I don't like this passage so it must be fake or mean something different." That's the first sin in the Bible. Adam and Eve sinned because their hearts told them they could be like God if they ate the fruit. Eve thought the fruit was good because it would make her wise. Surprise, God was right. If the Bible says, "Jesus died for those who believe in him" (paraphrasing) and progressives say, "I feel like God wouldn't punish his Son for my sins, and I feel like God will let everyone into heaven," how are they better than Adam and Eve? They are saying God's words in the Bible are wrong and that the "fruit" of univeral forgiveness is good so it must be true. Something isn't true simply because it sounds good and you want it. You want a lot of things God said was bad (like the fruit Adam and Eve ate)
@@sivad1025 I don’t think it’s a progressive thing, the denial of the penal substitutionary model (PSA). It wasn’t the only view held throughout Christendom. The atonement has been a challenging doctrine throughout the centuries. Most who deny PSA, don’t reject such phrases “Jesus died for you.” They just reject certain interpretations of it. They also believe some things to be metaphorical in the New Testament. Metaphors to explain deeper truths. Like putting on the new man. It’s not like I open my closet to put on a new man. But a spiritual thing.
@@jasensargent6176 I agree that it's not intrinsically progressive. My original comment was about progressives because I saw many progressives in the comment section rejecting substitutionary atonement. Sorry if my comment seemed directed towards you personally. I was defending my criticism of the progressive belief structure That said, why do you reject substitutionary atonement if you don't reject scripture?
Greg is simply reading his own idea of love and personal reasoning onto what God's love must mean. Isaiah 53 is pretty clearly carrying the theme of the Word of God, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of Sin. (Hebrews 9:22, Leviticus 17:11) To characterize God as Love as the primary characteristic is the problem. God is also Holy. God is Good. Exodus 34:6-7 when God shares just who He is in terms of how we should think He says: 6 The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.
No…Boyd is biblical and logical. He is just not as articulate as Craig. He is correct that the “blood/sacrifice” theme is an accommodation of existing practices. In regards to love, sorry to disappoint the “justice” crowd, but love “is the greatest.” Justice must be preserved, but ONLY preserved through love i.e. justice administered through love is godly. Justice administered through any other means to include punitive measures will always be a lesser form of justice at best. At worst this lesser form of “justice” is immoral or as DBH describes retributive justice: “repugnant “.
@@garciacentral No, it is not the accommodation of existing blood sacrifice. This is clearly taught in both testaments. Your definition of ignoring the punitive is completely foreign to the Word of God. Read the Exodus, Read the Prophets, read the book of Hebrews, read Revelation. Love is not whatever we want to redefine it as. Jesus himself defines the greatest love as sacrifice John 15:13 after he has told them he will be lifted up for the sake of the sins of the people as Isaiah 53 predicts. Justice does not stand opposed to love, Jesus demonstrates his love by laying down his life and becoming a sacrifice. Romans 5:8-9 says: but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. In Biblical theology there is wrath, there is punitive justice awaiting unrepentant sin as I mentioned in the first post, that is the Love of Jesus to take that all away. It has nothing to do with liking justice over love, it has to do with Bible comprehension; where you see they are married in God's amazing work on the Cross.
Yes. God’s wrath is a qualifying expression of his love. Without it, his “ love” is just sentiment. His justifiable wrath makes his mercy and forgiveness all the more amazing. I think it is an offence to modern sensibilities that makes Boyd and others carve out a safe and sanitised version of God.
This was a really good debate in many ways. I have some issues with some details with PSA, but also some issues with some details in Christus victor. So I had some aha-moments. But most of all, how courteous and respectful both were to each other. No name calling nor straw men. A very pleasant debate/discussion
The problem with Greg’s “Jesus pushing someone out of the way of the bus” illustration is that there’s no guilt involved there. It again removes the kingly justice images which the entire scriptures are replete with.
What about pushing someone out of the way of the bus after he was told not to go in the road and there were signs telling him not to go and he went anyway out of rebellion and pride? I don't necessarily agree entirely with Greg's view by the way.
I’m late responding but I’ll just add that this ‘bus’ example has been discussed previously by two completely different pastors on an Unbelievable show. One who did believe in traditional penal substitutionary atonement theology pointed out that he thought it was a terrible illustration and would never use it. Hard to say how frequently it’s been used but it seems to have been used by various evangelicals to explain the gospel.
Really enjoyed this. Clearly two very gifted believers in their fields. For me, very simply, if God was 'just' our friend, Greg's position would suffice. But he isn't 'just' our friend. He is also our God and King. We would do well to remember that for every time a person walked past or spoke with Jesus as any other normal person, equally in scripture there are occurrences where God appears before people - and their immediate reaction is to hit the ground - face first
Who created satan? GOD!!! What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!! Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!! Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM. What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!! Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!! PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!! Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory. No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith. So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome. THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
@@jameymassengale5665 .... I really think you need to read Galatians 5:22... You seem to have a lots of anger towards somebody you've never met... Rewrite your message in a polite, friendly tone... So I can read it not thinking you're a hypocrite 😁👍
He is our God and King?....Sorry that is creepy!!!....Have you truly processed based on your belief that you will spend an ETERNITY groveling...worshipping...and SERVING your master....Why does that appeal to you?....Your reward is to join God in heaven and SERVE HIM FOR ETERNITY!!!....Yikes!!!
Jesus explains: the Son of Man has been given the authority to forgive. Why? *for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.* _Matthew 26:28_ His blood is the new Covenant poured to forgive many. Because Jesus makes the sacrifice, he is the one with the authority to forgive those who accept.
@@sivad1025 So you're saying the reason he was able to forgive him was that he was going to die for his sins in the future? Seems more likely to me that the Orthodox are correct and God can simply forgive.
@@AJ-me1dg Not because Jesus would die for his sins; because Jesus already died for his sins. John 1 tells us all things were made through Jesus which would include time. Thus, Jesus is not bound by time. If he forgives once, he forgives for all eternity since he exists in all eternity as alluded to in Revelations 1. Philosophically, it's a bit dense. But if you judge the principles, it's all straightforward. God is perfectly just and perfectly forgiving. The sacrifice allowed God to be the Just and Justifier, satisfying both of those absolute qualities. *It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.* _Romans 3:26_ The paralytic in Mark 2:5 is forgiven because Jesus sees his faith. Thus, Jesus' _eternal_ sacrifice is offered.
One translation puts it this way: For sin pays its wage - death; but God's free gift is eternal life in union with Christ Jesus our Lord. So the verse can be seen as a consequence. The question to ask is if the death that results from sin is “organic” (Boyd) or “inflicted” (Craig). One wouldn’t say that a wage is “inflicted” upon someone, but it is a consequence, which is in harmony with James who says that when sin has conceived, it brings forth death, which certainly looks to be a consequence, doesn’t it? The thing is we are bound to interpret things according to the paradigm we hold. As human beings, we cannot avoid that. So it’s important to get our paradigm right, which is a complex problem involving profound psychological issues.
I agree. This old understanding comes from an ancient understanding of God. Eventually the cord will be cut, and the old wine and old wineskin will fade away, and the glorious freedom of the sons of God will become manifest and actualized.
What do you mean by this? Greg Boyd often ENGAGES the scriptures more than your average Christian leader or academic. Quite refreshing for those of us seeking to learn and grow in faith.
@@kelvyquayo You must have smart cats. All Christians (and all Christian leaders) value certain verses and passages and themes more than others within the scriptures. IMO, Greg does this..less than others. Certainly less than I do. Considering alternatives, who according to you is smarter than your cats? Which leader or teacher is 'above average' in this department?
At one time, mankind was in right standing with God. Then mankind rebelled against God. At that point, mankind lost that "right standing" with God...because of sin. As a result, Mankind was spiritually separated from God (i.e spiritually dead) and became defiled. Any hope of reconciliation with God would need to address sin. And also, cleanse or purify the sinner from the defilement caused by sin. This is why the Atonement was crucial. The Word Atonement (at-one-ment) simply means: To make something right; To reconcile. God wanted to reconcile the world to himself. Under the old covenant, Moses received instructions from the Lord to perform certain sacrifices for atonement e.g sacrifices for sin offering, guilt offering and there was another instruction for the day of atonement. All involving the blood of either bulls or goats e.t.c which were without blemish. God had no desire for the blood of bulls and goats. All of these sacrifices were all for-shadowing Christ. The idea was that if they performed these rites religiously, they would recognize when it was being fulfilled in Christ on the cross. Let us consider the day of atonement. (Refer to Leviticus 16 and 17). The priest was to present 2 goats (without blemish) for sin offering before the Lord. And then lots were cast; one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scape goat. The goat on which the lot for the Lord fell was offered as a sin offering and the other was the scape goat which was to be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement upon it and then it was sent into the wilderness. The scapegoat bore all the iniquites of those in the assembly...and it was led away to the wilderness. It was an illustration of their "sins being taken away". The goat offered as a sin offering for the people was slaughtered and its blood was sprinkled on (and in front of) the mercy seat. And with this the priest made atonement for all the assembly of Israel. What was the idea behind the sin offering? To offer something in your stead to atone for the sins. You see, when a person sins...a debt is owed which must be paid in other to make things right (i.e be reconciled). All analogies fall short in explaining the totality of the atonement but... Imagine Mr A gave Mr B a phone to look after. Shortly after receiving it, Mr B misused the phone and the phone was damaged beyond repair. In other for Mr B to "make things right", he would need to offer Mr A a new phone and adequately compensate for what was damaged. A similar instruction is found in Numbers 5:6-7... “Speak to the children of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit in unfaithfulness against the Lord , and that person is guilty, then he shall confess the sin which he has committed. He shall make restitution for his trespass in full, plus one-fifth of it, and give it to the one he has wronged" Numbers 5:6-7 (also see Leviticus 5:14-16). This idea of restitution is found through out the old testament. From the perspective of the law, a life was required for a life, an eye was required for an eye. And a tooth for a tooth. This requirement of the law had to be fulfilled. When mankind sinned against God, he defiled himself (i.e damaged the God given purity). Life was lost. The consequence would be eternal condemnation on the day of judgement. For mankind to be reconciled with God, it must be on the basis of "a sin offering". And one that is sufficient to reconcile mankind with God; a life of perfect purity. A life sufficient to atone for all of mankind would be life that is eternal. The life of a flesh is in its blood. And it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement. This is why Christs blood was shed. It was NOT about God punishing Christ. From the old testament perspective, the blood of bulls and goats cleansed the flesh from defilement (Heb 9:13). But it was not sufficient to make those who offered it perfect in conscience; as it could not take away sins. In those sacrifices, there was a reminder of sins year by year. It was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things (i.e the spirit) themselves with better sacrifices than these. We see other for-shadowings of Christ with Moses. He, more than once, wanted to be an atonement for the sins of the Israelites in the wilderness. But he was not "without blemish" as he himself needed atonement for his own sins. There was no sin offering man could offer that would have been sufficient for His reconciliation with God. So God himself provided the "sacrificial lamb". This was first hinted by Abraham, when he was to sacrifice Isaac. Christ is the lamb that takes away the sins of the world. And since those He was atoning for were flesh and blood, it was necessary for Him to become like us to make propitiation for sins. For this reason, Christ was manifested in the flesh. Christ, being a propitiation for sins, provided a means by which man could be reconciled to God. It is by virtue of Christ's blood shed on the cross that there can be forgiveness of sins.
Think of the tomb as the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant. Dead Jesus was placed there. His blood covered the area of the tomb where He lay. The blood on the mercy seat, of the O.T. sacrifices, was pointing to this! This happened shortly after the veil in the temple was torn, allowing the ark of the covenant to be accessed. (This is not my original idea, but I don't remember who I got it from. It was from a RUclips video, though! I'm sorry that I don't remember whose video.)
Both of these guys on this subject are too technical . Just say : There’s POWER in the Blood . By HIS BLOODY stripes are healed or disease , sin , and demons . In Jesus Name
N.T. Wright says, "John 3:16 doesn't say "for God so hated the world that he killed his own son; rather, it says God so LOVED the world that he GAVE his own son...". Wright is clear, however, that he does believe in penal substitution. Luke 2:14: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” God's inclination towards humanity, both before and after Christ's crucifixion, was and is good will, not wrath. The book of Hebrews is an excellent resource for understanding the Atonement through Christ, which is really about restoration of all creation, not just sinful humanity. What Jesus did on the cross is for us and for our salvation, but also makes all of creation subject to him, the Last Adam.
God wants to mass produce sons of God with His life and nature (Rom. 8:29) according to His original plan for man to be in His image and according to His likeness with dominion of His whole creation (Gen. 1:26,27). Romans 4:13, as I think you say, is good at showing the result of Justification is that the justified be heirs of the world.
@@jackwilmoresongs Yes, God intends to restore all of creation, whole and complete, all focused and ruled over by His Christ. We who are faithful and endure to the end will reign with Him.
@@darlameeks That is ruled over by Christ with His overcoming saints who co-rule with Him. This will be for a thousand years to Christ and a remnant of believers. The saved but not ready to reign believers will miss that reward but be matured during that millennial period. Then all the saints will be matured by the time of the new heaven and new earth in the eternal age.
Death was not a legal consequence in Gen 3. The legal consequences are listed in Gen 3:14-19. Death was added in verses 22 and 23, not as a penalty but as YHWH trying to protect Man from making his consequences permanent. Bill Craig is a very bright fellow, but in this instance he's wrong.
@@itisnow Yes, exactly. Had we lived forever, sin and its evil consequences would never end. We have to die in order to make sin finite. I like that word of yours!
@@itisnow well, hell comes later - when the judgment comes. the earthly penalty for sin is death, but the eternal penalty is hell. even the righteous die, right? everyone dies - but not everyone dies permanently.
Is the law of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” the ultimate description of God’s character? If this is the case, why did Jesus teach that its not what we should practice, and should love our enemies and forgive our brother if he sins against us 70 times 7? If God’s holiness requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners, how did Jesus manage to hang out with sinners without a sacrifice, since he is as fully divine and as holy as God the Father? If Jesus’ death allows God the Father to accept us, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Jesus reconciles the Father than it is to say Jesus reconciles humanity? Yet the New Testament claims the latter and never the former (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:18-20). How are we to understand one member of the Trinity (the Father) being wrathful towards another member of the Trinity (the Son), when they are, along with the Holy Spirit, one and the same God (shown especially when Jesus said "whatever the father does the Son also does:). If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone? Think about it. If you owe me a hundred dollars and I hold you to it unless someone pays me the owed sum, did I really forgive your debt? This concept breaks down even further when God is the one both demanding that the debt be paid, and also the one paying it for you. Its a logically incoherent concept. It makes more sense to me that Jesus was a sacrifice of atonement, not to appease the Fathers wrath (because Jesus would have also shared the same wrath) - but to bring to fulfillment the words of God. Hebrews 9:22 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission If there was no sacrifice, God would have been a liar. So he did it to demonstrate his rightiousness. Romans 3:21-26 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. To me, this doesnt sound like penal substitution - although it can be easily confused to be that. In reality, it sounds like God already forgave us but fulfilled the law that required punishment in order for us to be free. If it were true penal substitution, Jesus would have been sent to hell for eternity.
Your questions are very multi-faceted. I thought I was reading a summary in your last paragraph, which was a relief, but then you added another objection in your last sentence! So this will be hard to all respond to, but to take your last paragraph; Yes you can phrase it that God sent his son to fulfil the law in his death, in order that God could legally forgive us. You seem to have nailed it here. You also quote Hebrews and explain the legal ramifications of holy forgiveness. Is this your reasoning, or are you quoting something I've said to then offer a rebuttal? Sorry to be confused. In reply your last point: Jesus is not like other men. If we, according to Jesus, are worth more than many sparrows, then Jesus is worth infinitely more than us. His sacrifice was sufficient, thus he pronounced "it is finished". Regarding who is reconciling whom, it was Jesus who saved us, but God sent Jesus (that famous John 3:16 verse), and God is doing all the reconciling, including the father; "All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men’s trespasses against them." Honestly, this Gospel is painted all over the new testament, and the only way to not see it is through unbelief. Are you asking these questions as a Christian or a skeptic? Sorry again to be confused. Regarding the Levitical laws and Jesus' commands to forgive one another 77 times, the Levitical law (quoted by Jesus) was God's justice system in the promised land. It provided and ensured balanced retribution - eg. you can't take two of a person's eyes who takes only one of yours. And all this was overseen by the preisthood, so it wasn't about interpersonal matters, or how one loved one's brother. Israel at that time was in God's holy presence, and the punishments were an extension of God's righteous dealings with man (ie the wages of sin is death). It was a picture of the greater Kingdom still to come. Still, I don't think the 'eye for an eye' system was intended for interpersonal matters. The teachers of the law were probably using the Levitical laws as an excuse to be vindictive and petty. But "if someone strikes you on the cheek" -this was an act of disrespect/ contempt. Jesus says don't go to the courts for this. Show that you seek validation from God and not from man, by showing them the other cheek. Interesting parallel of Matthew 18:21 ("forgive your brother seventy seven times") with Lamech in Genesis 4:24 ("I'll be avenged seventy seven times"). Jesus seemed to be putting the prideful attitude of Lamech to bed. So I think the Lamech attitude was one shared by the teachers of the law, who were seeking vengeance against those who did them wrong. Leviticus punishments were from God, not from man. It's not for man to assume such importance or pride of place. Jesus follows his "seventy seven times" with a parable about a person who is forgiven, who then goes on in unforgiveness. So to simplify (thinking out loud here at midnight) 1)Go has a right to judge us severely for sin. Our sin is against him, and he is worthy of obedience, gratitude and worship. The wages of sin is death (he gave us life, after all). 2) Despite this, God shows great mercy to us and does not take us all out already. God achieved this mercy by becoming a man and purchasing us as his people/ bride, and bearing our punishment (Isaiah 53, also your Rom 3:25 quote) 3) In light of God's manifold mercies to us, we have no excuse for unforgiveness toward one another. Man has greater accountability to God than to other men, so man should not be unforgiving if they want forgiveness from Mighty God.
I have to embrace all that the Scriptures say. I have to try to resist the human tendency to use one part of God's word to put down another part, but embrace all utterances in faith. I like your reference to Romans 3:21-26. Let me ask you: When Isaiah 53:4 says the Suffering Servant was "smitten of God" do you feel this only means God allowed Him to be mistreated by His fellow men? When it says "Jehovah was pleased to crush Him, to afflict Him with grief" (v.10) do you feel this only means God sovereignly ALLOWED Christ to suffer at man's hands? I believe it was that and much more, because "Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." (v.6). In real time it was the Son's mighty petition to the Father to forgive them for they did not know what they were doing. I believe the only way this could be done RIGHTEOUSLY is for God to judged that iniquity in Christ. The typology would not have the pascal lamb boiled but ROASTED (Exodus 8:11,12), ie. not simply a human martyrdom but roasted in divine judgment that the Son's mighty eternal petition that the sinner be forgiven. Only if they accept the Son of God and His substitutionary work WITH Him in His resurrection state. But I would hasten to add humbly that probably for eternity its mysteriousness will be in some degree unfathomable to us who have eternal life.
An eye for an eye is a limitation on retribution. The law did not allow the taking of a life for an insult. There was to be no acts like that of Lamech in Israel: Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.
interesting how WLC basically admits that PSA is a "trick" played by God, on God, to convince God that God is both loving and just. How on earth this theory ever appealed to anyone is beyond my comprehension.
Because the PSA talked about by Boyd is not what proponents of PSA mean. God wrath against sin is not out of anger or frustration or meanness it is out of his holiness. Just as a doctor attacks cancer cells, so God attacks sin.
@@scotthix2926 The doctor analogy is a terrible one. Doctors attack diseases in order to heal people and reduce suffering. However, retributive punishments do not really attack sin since they don't aim to heal sinners from their sin and thereby get rid of sin, but retributive punishments instead aim at making the sinner suffer so that justice can apparently be satisfied. So you see, doctors aim at healing, retributive punishers (like God in your view) aim at suffering, which doesn't seem very holy to me because aiming merely to inflict suffering does nothing to remove sin from existence.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Isaiah 53:10-11
Doing a study on these two ideas and I found this interview helpful in many ways. Dr Craig said that without penal substitution there is no absolution of sin on the Christus Victor view but I disagree. Our baptism is our burial with Christ, our sins are now cut off from us because the wages of sin is death and we died to sin at our baptism when we were buried with Christ. We are raised to a new life and one that is empowered by the spirit. While we strive to live as Christ lived we may sin but Christ is interceding for us to the Father, His body was the sacrifice, we identify with it at every communion and we are given forgiveness through repentance and faith in the works and promises of Christ and His covenant with us.
This was one of the most interesting WLC debates I have seen. I have been following WLC since my conversion, and I have gone through his second and third iterations of defenders multiple times. I am deeply steeped in Craig’s sytemaatization of theology as it were. I find that I ultimately agree with Craig, of course, because a one hour debate couldn’t possibly be enough to sway me. But I found Boyd’s position to be absolutely fascinating and certainly worth additional study and consideration. Thank you both for your well thought out, respectful, and interesting discussion of some of the basic issues related to the retributive justice understanding of the atonement and the consequentialist understanding of the atonement! Wow!
So looking forward to this. Although hugely differing in personality and modes of thinking, here are two delightful Christian gentlemen who model robust but respectful debate. Thanks Unbelievable for setting this up.
Who created satan? GOD!!! What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!! Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!! Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM. What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!! Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!! PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!! Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory. No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith. So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome. THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
@@BipolarDistortion agreed! my favorite thing about unbelievable is most of the time you have differing theological views , but with two people who disagree agreeably in love and respect.
Who created satan? GOD!!! What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!! Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!! Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM. What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!! Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!! PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!! Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory. No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith. So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome. THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Since Jesus fulfilled the Law, then He is not subject to any of its penalties. We, on the other hand, have grossly and severely broken the Law and are condemned by it. Thus, we need someone to intervene on our behalf. Since Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, those who are IN CHRIST are also free from the penalty of eternal condemnation. I sometimes think of it this way. "Sin" is an archery term meaning missing the mark, missing the bull's eye of the target as in an archery session. Jesus doesn't miss the mark. He hits the bull's eye. The rest of us don't. None of us does. Only He does. That bull's eye can represent eternity with God. If we are in Christ through our faith in Him and our submission to Him as our Lord, and we have that relationship with Him, then we are also hitting the bull's eye with Him. It's like being in Christ means being on His arrow that hits the target perfectly. We are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
"He is innocent in the eyes of the law as if he had never committed the crime" (WLC). vs. Exodus 23:7, "I will not declare right the wicked."; WLC vs. Exodus 20:7, "Yahweh will not declare innocent whoever takes up his name as nothing."; WLC vs. Exodus 34:7, "And making to be innocent, he will not make to be innocent." But he will forgive. Forgiveness does not mean making the forgiven innocent.
The problem with trying to add “organic” (Boyd’s word) plus “inflicted” (Craig’s word) is that if it’s organic, it cannot be inflicted. Either sin results in death on its own, as a natural consequence, or death is an imposed consequence. These are contrary to one another. Craig used the phrase that Christ took the suffering that would have been inflicted upon us. This is clearly not in harmony with the concept of death being an organic consequence.
Great talk ! Thanks for sharing. I believe the very foundation of the controversy lies in whether one believes God forgives by demanding death, or not. If one relies on concrete Jesus' testimonies, it is possible to see that he (who testifies of the Father) forgives without demanding death (ex. Luke 5 : 20). This must question one's theoretical understanding of the sacrifical system in the Old Testament, if one believes that killing the animals means : God opens the door to forgiveness. In light of Jesus' concrete testimony (for Scriptures testify of him, cf. John 5 : 39) it is possible to question the Penal Substitution theory, and revisit the nature of sacrifice in relationship to divine forgivness.
Consider the Law of Moses and the nature of how it was established. Galatians 3:19 explains that the Law was established by Angels, even though Exodus 20 shows that it was "Elohim" who established the Law... :O Elohim simply refers to the Administration of the Most High God, this includes the Angels of Heaven. Understanding the truth that to Father, all the Angels are heard, regardless of stance. So the Law was established by 100% of the Angels (Elohim), not only the 2/3 of those who remained with Father. This is how I see. I don't say anyone must agree.
We only have forgiveness through Christ shedding his blood without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin or why did he even have to go to the cross because sin must be punished God does not wink at sin.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin if you don’t believe that you’re not a saved Christian he he was bruised and punished for our iniquities by his stripes we are healed. I know the modern idea is oh they’re more understanding and nicer than God that he wouldn’t punish Jesus that’s not necessary well then why did he go to the cross I feel like it’s an unnecessary argument because it says Jesus is the sacrifice for our sins
@@TrustMe55 Jesus never taught that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness". For example, he gave forgiveness to the paralyzed man without shedding any drop of blood (Luke 5). And this, he did it for everyone who came to him for such endeavor.
I have benefitted so much from both these men. Have books from both of them on my shelf, and have consumed many hours of their lectures. To hear them debate this thrills my soul. I am delighted that they were not as far apart as they/we thought they would be. IMO, Boyd is closer to the truth on this topic. Perhaps the most revealing moment comes around 45:40 where when Craig then responds he has to in essence say that penal substitutionary atonement may well be fiction (46:48). God adopted legal fiction? That's problematic.
It’s written all over so clearly. Jesus drank the cup full of Gods wrath that was meant for us. And he was the perfect SACRIFICE (look up the definition of sacrifice I mean seriously) and by his wounds we were healed. Isaiah 53 explains how Christ took our spot on the cross perfectly. How he took our inequities and suffered and paid the price for them.
Regarding hatred of sin, that’s another key point to consider. From Boyd’s perspective, God hates sin because it kills those whom God loves. From Craig’s point of view, God’s hatred of sin involves God’s being righteous and sin being an unrighteousness thing. In the former paradigm, the atonement is a way to destroy sin (which is the problem that needs to be solved) and in the latter, the atonement becomes a way by which God can forgive while remaining righteous.
Would love to see NT Wright thrown into this debate. It’s important to view the atonement in light of the biblical narrative and Israel’s history, and both WLC and Boyd could have been challenged further in this area. Regardless it was a good discussion!
I would have liked this as well. They did dip into the Old Testament Levitical/sacrificial a little bit, but didn’t really focus on it. So much of the interpretive lens of what atonement and forgiveness means, if one is trying to be ‘biblical’, requires not just an examination of the sacrificial system, but also of the dialectical between those texts and how the New Testament writers engage those texts. This is a mammoth undertaking. NT Wright does something like this via his usual meta-narrative methods in The Day the Revolution Began, which I found intriguing but it’s not really the exhaustive discussion the conversation merits (IMO).
Putting the truth of this matter aside for the moment: many have emotional and psychological triggers with the whole idea of retributive punishment. Particularly those with abusive parents or caretakers. For such people, it’s often difficult to divorce the idea of retributive punishment from abuse. Putting the claim that God’s punishment is retributive alongside the claim that God is perfectly loving, is near-impossible. The notion that God is perfectly just and loving, and is not a God of rage and abuse, is of little or no comfort. Even the reality that such believers have no need for worry because they are saved from the wrath of God through Jesus death brings little or no relief. For such dear followers of Jesus, this view makes the world become one of terror. I think it’s really important to keep that in mind in our discussions about this central doctrine of Christianity.
Agreed. I think this is what keeps Greg from finding his point of rest here. To be clear, I agree with Greg that the Christus Victor model should be the primary view, and I agree that the reality of it is complex enough for us to require multiple facets through which to view it(thus giving purpose to the penal substitution view). That being said, even though he grants that he agrees with the wording Mr. Craig uses in many cases, he then goes against it by saying that he sees no need for it. I think what you've described is why that's happening. He knows, in truth, that the penal substitution view is necessary, at the least as a component, but then once acknowledged, he wants to forget all about it. There are those of us whose consciences have been so wounded that we should reject forgiveness though we trust it is offered in good faith. We cannot abide by the notion of our guilt merely being forgiven for we have done terrible things and punishment MUST happen. For those of us who can't help but to think like this, the facet of redemption that penal substitution occupies is vitally necessary, for our ears are, perhaps forever, weak to the voice of the Accuser. Knowing that the debt has been paid gives us the ground to stand upon with which to tell him that he speaks without any justification. Greg doesn't like the penal substitution view because it makes God seem like one of the heathen lesser deities, but, just as Greg himself teaches, God bore our ugliness although he is only beauty, so that He might reach us in our filth. The penal substitution. View is necessary because some of us can't handle seeing God otherwise, just as the ancient Jews would have been even worse at recieving Jesus than the people of His time of earth were. Too pure to bear without being prepared for it. Perhaps whichever view you hold as primary is a matter of spiritual maturity, depending on the individual in a case-by-case basis.
I think thats why considering the whole picture of Atonement presented in the bible is important. The context and culture will always play a role in how we understand the language. In a middle-eastern cultures the language of taking our shame maybe better recieved. For someone whos never had a running with the law..... Jesus taking our punishement may be harder to get at first. Maybe reconciling you to your heavenly father. At the same time the bible does not present Gods Justice in a carebears and rainbows way. Gods holiness is AWESOME and frightening at times. There is genuine Dread at the exposure of our wickedness. Yet God does forgive and extends his Love to those who are willing to recieve. My issue with punishement is it being eternal torment. Which I dont see supported in the bible as much as ceasing to exist. LIFE ETERNAL WITH GOD. Or reject his life and be dead eternally?
Let me suggest at least a possible understanding - The reality of sin is death, but also the injustice of sin upon the innocent. If morality is a "real" concept (ie, not just a mental construct or cultural restriction, then it would have to be accounted for, sort of like balancing out a chemistry equation.) In that case, everything would have to end up in a final balance. Now we don't typically think of sin/morality in this way. We think of it as a sort of fiction in either our minds or the mind of God. But, what if it is "real" and the equation has to balance out just like some physical law? (In a sense we often do this in court when we give dollar settlements to reconcile for pain and suffering. Of course, it doesn't do this, but this is the legal theory. In legal terms we try to make the innocent party "whole") We might compare this to the Buddist concept of Karma. In Buddism, every action must be accounted for in the universe like a physics problem that requires a balance of energy. If we take this approach, forgiveness is simply not enough. There must be an accounting in the world for sin. Now, this is just a rough set of thoughts, but to me, it seems like some line of understanding like this might answer both sides of this debate. Thoughts?
@@justinshadrach829, the eternal suffering thing to me for a while too because I had trouble fathoming why God would do such a thing. I always took it as annihilation, but then I reread the gospel and came across what Jesus says about it when he said, "...where their worm will not die." Perhaps God made us in such a fashion that we can't be utterly annihilated or we shouldn't be. God can do as He pleases, but He plays by the rules He sets down for Himself. Maybe a part of creation and making us in His image was that we're eternal, in one way or another. We tend to think this already because we tend to take our desire not to die as our inherent yearning for that which we were made for, eternity. I think Gid, through Jesus Christ, has forgiven us so that His divine judgment need not fall upon us and instead He sees His Son. I think that we will judge ourselves though. Jesus talks about our measure being measured to us and Paul speaks multiple times on the importance of a clean conscience, as well as that "their worm will not die" line. Apparently that notion of worm is the part of a man that says to himself that he is a dog, unworthy, and disgusting. I think that when we see God truly, we will instantly be confronted with our own failings and in that moment we will judge ourselves to a degree that will actually affect our being, and then, looking out at those results, Jesus will separate sheep from goats. That's why I think the penal substitution is so important. For people who judge themselves constantly, they ought to remember that God's judgement has already been rendered, they've been forgiven, and that they shouldn't keep on judging themselves because to do so is to belittle the work done on the cross.
William Lane Craig mentioned Isaiah 53, but I wish he went into detail on that chapter. Here are some fantastic verses from that chapter showing Penal Substitution Atonement is biblical : 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 and afflicted him.* Isaiah said Jesus was *pierced for our transgressions.* Isaiah said Jesus was *crushed for our iniquities.* --------------------------------------------------------- So where in history did this take place? Where is history was Jesus stricken and afflicted? Where in history was Jesus pierced and crushed? Where in history was Jesus wounded? At the cross is where God placed the punishment on Jesus that brought us peace. ✞
And the laying on of the hands of the sinner upon the head of the slain beast speaks of identification. It was slain in PLACE of the one laying his hands upon its head (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:1,4,15,24, 29,33; 8:14,18,22; 16:21; Exo. 29:10,15,19). It surely speaks of substitution.
Isaiah 53 is about Israel, my guy. That's who the "Servant" person is in Deutero-Isaiah's works (it starts at around Isaiah 40 I believe). While obviously not a literal curtain of PSA it can still be used as a symbolic paradigm in support of that, like how some Catholics use the perpetual virginity of Zion in Isaiah 66 as a symbolic paradigm in support of a certain Marian doctrine.
@@nicholocadongonan1074 In Isaiah the servant of God takes on more than one meaning, sometimes the prophet Isaiah, sometimes the Gentile king Cyrus. Isa. 53 speaks of Christ the Servant not in the Old Testament sense but in the coming new covenant. It makes no sense to say Isa 53 is about Israel. Zion was "beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth" (Psa. 48:2) and "the beautiful land" (Dan. 11:41). But the Suffering Servant "has no form nor majesty that we should look upon Him." (Isa 53:2b). Christ was "wounded for our transgressions" (v.5). Israel cannot do this for HER OWN transgressions as a national suffering Servant. If the Servant is Israel what would it mean for Yahweh to "cause the iniquity of US ALL to fall upon" Israel itself (v.6)? Nor could Israel offer Israel herself as an "offering for sin"( v.10) on her own behalf. Israel was afflicted with grief but was by no means innocent nor could it be said of her - "Nor was their any deceit found in His mouth" (v.9). Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 reveals Christ.
@@jackwilmoresongs Israel as a singular person, a Servant of God, is the main theme of Deutero-Isaiah's poetry. Again, I advise you to read Isaiah 40-55: these are works of one person, or one group of persons, during the Exile and their theology focused on Israel's international role in a world of alien peoples and alien gods. Basically, Israel (or Zion, those terms seem to be used interchangeably) has failed in drawing the nations to her God and thus, due to transgressions, they suffer from piercings. But not to worry, she will reclaim her place, because her God's commission still stands. Furthermore: check out Isaiah 41:8, along with Isaiah 52, the beginning of ch. 53's Servant Song wherein the main character is Zion. As I said, this still works as a theological paradigm for Christ's substitutionary atonement. It need not be literal to function.
@@nicholocadongonan1074 I will enjoy reading chapters 40 - 55 as you recommend. Do not think it will be the first time I carefully did so. I am usually opened to reading again. While much of what you wrote is certainly not wrong I am convinced specifically 52:13 - 53:12 reveals the Messiah. But let me say also that for the Christian the New Testament is the oracles of God. The NT are the oracles of God the way Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah or Jeremiah are the oracles of God. The New Testament is not a purely man-made, faulty, error prone commentary on the Hebrew Bible, but the oracles of God. And the New Testament in several places say that the Isaiah 53 utterances are about Jesus Christ. That alone settles the matter for me. But to be fair I will now go and enjoy the larger portion of Isaiah you recommend. This may take a half hour.
My question for PSA theorists is, if all sin was punished on the cross, then how is sin forgiven? A debt that is paid for is the antithesis of forgiven. Can God not freely forgive?
@J DV Christ’s sacrifice was for all sins. Past too. People were saved by faith in Christ looking forward to God’s saving work. We look back. His work on the cross paid for it all. The ones that do not believe die in their sins but not from their sins.. but they have rejected forgiveness..
There are far too many unacknowledged preconceptions that are underlying this discussion which is why this can't seem to find agreement: 1. What is sin? Is it a unique substance or is it a deprivation of a good? 2. Does God interact with his creation violently or non-violently? Meaning, does he destroy that which he occupies or does he bring to new life that which he occupies? 3. Most importantly, what is God? Is God's existence and essence one in the same (an analogical conception) or is he the highest possible "being" (a univocal conception) who is on the same ontological plane of what "being" is in the realm of the cosmos. Put another way, is his relationship to us a matter of his divine will or a matter of him as subsistent being itself (ipsum esse subsistens)? All this to say, Christians can all agree wholeheartedly on the substitutionary motif as one of the dimensions on how to understand the atonement, however the language of it primarily needing to be understood in a courtroom motif too easily leads logically to a misconception of the character and nature of God towards Christ and towards us; the necessary logical path leads to claims of God of being wrathful towards his creation until his own willful justice is satisfied with Christ's death and resurrection. This about-face then necessarily implies a change in the posture of God then towards his creation and we mistakenly violate one of the attributes of God by doing this (his immutability). I submit that the analogical conception of God does not commit this error whereas the univocal conception has a more difficult time with it. Another fundamental problem with the penal lens to the atonement, particularly under a univocal conception, is that it necessarily follows that he has attained something (satisfaction of his willful justice) which he previously lacked to redeem his creation which violates the attribute of God lacking anything. Instead, we're properly left with the wrath of God being conceptually better understood by saying what it is not rather than what it specifically is. In this case, his wrath has less to do with any changes in him as an act of his divine will or in his disposition towards his creation. Like all heresies, it is taking a truth about God and extrapolating it too far in an attempt to grasp at God and control him by our understanding.
Mercy is when God turns and PASSES OVER our sins as He did with the Israelites during the PassOVER. He is the PassOVER Lamb. Remission or forgiveness. Remission of the penalty. Letting sins go AS THOUGH THEY NEVER WERE COMMITTED. When the punishment of sin is SET ASIDE. God allows sins to go unpunished because of what Christ did. To disregard to abandon to let go. To turn or look away. To show favor. To pardon. 🔴 Mercy and Forgiveness is not when God’s wrath is satisfied it’s when God FORGIVES and TURNS AWAY from His wrath: PSALM 78:38 38 But he, being full of compassion, FORGAVE THEIR INIQUITY, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time 👉TURNED👈 HE HIS ANGER AWAY, and did not stir up all his wrath. To forgive. To cover. To take away wrath and TURN from anger: PSALM 85:2-3 2 THOU HAST FORGIVEN THE INIQUITY OF THY PEOPLE, THOU HAST COVERED ALL THEIR SIN. Selah. 3 Thou hast TAKEN AWAY ALL THY WRATH: THOU HAST 👉TURNED👈 THYSELF FROM THE FIERCENESS OF THINE ANGER. To pardon, to pass by, to retain no anger: MICAH 7:18 18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and 👉PASSETH BY👈 THE TRANSGRESSION of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, BECAUSE HE DELIGHTETH IN MERCY.
Luke 1 I’m sure there’s many “points of the cross.” 1) I would say reconciliation to divine favour. To reconcile man back to God. That’s exactly what Atonement is. 2) Took the law out of the way. It says He nailed the ORDINANCES (law) to the cross. He didn't blot out our sins He blotted out the LAW so now there is no law that condemns us when we sin. He doesn’t “blot out” sins, He FORGIVES sins. COLOSSIANS 2:14 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ORDINANCES that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; ROMANS 8:2 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the LAW OF SIN and death. This didn’t make me free from sin it made me free from the LAW of sin that told me I was sinning and condemned me. ROMANS 4:15 15 Because the law worketh wrath: FOR WHERE NO LAW IS, THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION. *You can’t transgress something that doesn’t exist.* ROMANS 5:13 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHEN THERE IS NO LAW. ROMANS 8:3 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, CONDEMNED SIN in the flesh: The LAW was nailed to the cross and taken out of the way so we are no longer under the law. *Sin was not taken out of the way.* Sin is still there but it doesn’t have dominion over us because there’s no law to point it out and condemn us. ROMANS 6:14 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: FOR YE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, but under grace. We’re not free from sinning because anyone who says they are without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him. We’re free from sin in that we’re free from any CONDEMNATION IT BRINGS: ROMANS 6:18 18 Being then made FREE FROM SIN, ye became the servants of righteousness. He’s purged our CONCIENCES not our sins: HEBREWS 9:14 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, PURGE YOUR CONSCIENCE from dead works to serve the living God? This is why there’s no condemnation for those who are IN Christ Jesus. He’s purged our conscience which tells us we’re condemned if we sin: ROMANS 8:1 1 There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION to them which are IN Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. BEFORE we’re in Christ we ARE condemned. It’s only AFTER we believe and are placed IN Christ that we have no condemnation because no one can lay charge against God’s elect. Before we’re born again anyone could lay charge against us and condemn us. You’re only elect IN Christ because if you’re elect outside of Christ before you believe then you are still condemned and God can lay charge against you. No one can lay charge against God’s elect not simply because they’re God’s elect but the reason no charge can be laid is that they are IN CHRIST. It’s all about Him! JOHN 3:18 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Before we believe we’re condemned already. Only once we believe on Him is our condemnation removed. There’s only no condemnation when you’re IN Christ not when you’re outside of Christ. Outside of Christ you stand condemned with no hope without God. EPHESIANS 2:12,13 12 THAT AT THAT TIME YE WERE WITHOUT CHRIST, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, HAVING NO HOPE, and without God in the world: 13 BUT NOW IN CHRIST Jesus ye who sometimes were far off ARE MADE NIGH BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
Luke 1 3) HEBREWS 9:11-15 11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but BY HIS OWN BLOOD he entered in once into the holy place, HAVING 👉OBTAINED ETERNAL REDEMPTION👈 FOR US. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might RECEIVE THE PROMISE OF ETERNAL INHERITANCE. 🔴 Animal sacrifices FORGAVE sin but DID NOT CLEAR SIN AND WASH IT AWAY: LEVITICUS 4:20 20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and IT SHALL BE FORGIVEN THEM. 🔴 Sins were FORGIVEN but not CLEARED: EXODUS 34:7 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will BY 👉NO MEANS CLEAR THE GUILTY;👈 visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Sins were FORGIVEN but not taken away. There was still a remembrance of them: HEBREWS 10:1-25 1 For THE LAW having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, CAN NEVER WITH those SACRIFICES which they offered year by year continually MAKE the comers thereunto PERFECT. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a REMEMBRANCE again made of sins every year. 4 FOR IT IS 👉NOT POSSIBLE👈 THAT THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND OF GOATS SHOULD TAKE AWAY SINS. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered BY THE LAW; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. 10 By the which will WE ARE SANCTIFIED THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, WHICH CAN 👉NEVER👈 TAKE AWAY SINS: 12 But this man, after he had offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by ONE OFFERING he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 THIS IS THE COVENANT that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now WHERE 👉REMISSION👈 OF THESE IS, THERE IS NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN. 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, HIS FLESH; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 LET US DRAW NEAR WITH A TRUE HEART IN FULL ASSURANCE OF FAITH, HAVING OUR HEARTS SPRINKLED FROM AN EVIL CONSCIENCE, AND OUR BODIES WASHED WITH PURE WATER. 23 Let us hold fast the PROFESSION OF OUR FAITH without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) 24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. The blood of the NEW Covenant was now actually able to REMOVE SINS through forgiveness IN Christ: MATTHEW 26:26-30 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, which is shed for many FOR THE 👉REMISSION👈 OF SINS We are imputed righteous THROUGH Christ. We don’t receive the imputed righteousness OF Christ but rather are made righteous THROUGH Him. We don’t receive HIS righteousness we are simply made righteous THROUGH Him. Not removal of the sin itself but removal of the DEBT of sin. Removal of the PENALTY. Faith and repentance are for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 1 What was the design or purpose of the atonement? To obtain redemption. To pay our ransom. To purchase us. For the REMISSION of sins not for the forgiveness of sins. Remission means the cancellation of a debt, charge, or penalty. Canceled the debt by paying the penalty of death so now there is no more penalty for us.
Sadly, Boyd thinks you can be living a homosexual lifestyle and be christian. He even made a video apologizing to the LGBTQetc on behalf of the Christian church, as if he is speaking on behalf of all Christians. A little self righteous, wouldn't you say? As someone saved out of the homosexual lifestyle, in 1985, and almost died from AIDS in the early 90's, I can personally attest to the selfishness of that life and addictions that fuel it. I beleive living that lifestyle goes against everything the Lord Jesus came to die for. The notion that people are 'born' gay is irrelevant. Jesus said that to enter the Kingdom of God, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN!!! What is so hard to beleive!
Friend, We are born again when we place our faith in Jesus Christ. Being born again does not mean that God makes us sinlessly perfect after we have faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in Jesus Christ is the only necessary condition for salvation. It has absolutely nothing to do with our lifestyle after we have faith in Jesus. We are not saved by repenting of our sins, keeping the Law, and being a good person. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ apart from the works of the law. This is crystal clear from the Bible And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Romans 4:5 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. Galatians 2:21 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Romans 3:28 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” Galatians 3:11 And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith- Philippians 3:9 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Romans 10:4 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. Galatians 2:16 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Romans 4:2-3 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Galatians 3:2-3 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. Galatians 5:4 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Acts 16:29-31 When we put our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, repenting sins is good for our sanctification, but does not justify us. If this were the case, then God would require that we all be sinless perfectionists, and we would all be doomed because we all continue sinning after we are born again. [8] If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10] If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10 KJV
Yeah that's most definitely wrong. It leads to death and you probably know that better than any outside of that death cult. He's got a few ideas right about God's power and love, but then he projects the worldly ideas onto that.
If you are on your phone in the middle of the road, you are about to be hit by a bus. You are at risk of being hit by a bus. Are you legally required to be hit by the bus? Must the driver swerve to hit any distracted jaywalkers? I cannot understand this law part at all. Doesn't Paul say the purpose of the law was to make us aware of sin? How then is the law more fundamental? I imagine a man before a judge for stealing a car. PSA is, the judge wants to forgive you, but is required to send SOMEBODY to jail. What if the judge says, I will allow you to choose jail OR to come live in my house. I grew up in your neighborhood, I know how to deal with temptation and trauma, I overcame it, live with me and overcome with me. I even know what it's like to feel separated from me, and what it is like to die.I have walked in your shoes
Exactly. PSA is a legal term coined and shoehorned into the bible after 1500 years of Church theology. That's why it's complicated to harmonize it when you put the magnifying glass in.
The example greg Boyd forgot to give about the speeding example, was if a speeder ran a stop sign and killed an innocent party. This has to be accounted for as well.
I admit I have been thoroughly confused about this since last fall when Brad Jersak (who has similar views to Boyd) taught at my church. I was taught penal substitution since I was a teenager (30 years ago) so the teaching is deeply ingrained in me. I’m having a real hard time grasping what the truth is here. I don’t feel that this conversation helped me though because neither of them really went deep into the Bible and made a defense for their positions. They went way too deep in a conversation about western law and legalese. If I was completely ignorant on this topic, I would of thrown my hands up in the air halfway through the debate and shut it off due to how confusing and quite frankly muddled both positions came across to me. It just felt like they were too focused on peripheral issues and not enough focus on the central issues.
Yes I agree. Both brothers seem to overlook the complexities of the covenant itself of which forgiveness is just one part. Also I missed the discussion of what forgiveness of sins/debt in itself really means. For example in court: can you still call it forgiveness of debt if someone else still ends up paying for the debt?
Who created satan? GOD!!! What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!! Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!! Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM. What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!! Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!! PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!! Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory. No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith. So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome. THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Jaime it’s not forgiveness if the there is a punishment. Let’s for example say that you stole $100 from me but you have a change of heart and return the money asking for forgiveness. But I say that I’m very sorry I can’t forgive you until you are punished for the crime of stealing. Once you’ve paid the punishment what good is my forgiveness? If Jesus paid the price for sin what do we need God’s forgiveness anymore?
@@Silentbrother-34673 no it isn't and that's why I believe in Christus Victor (like most of the orthodox church) . "see the Lamb of God that TAKES away the sin". Much like foreshadowing the of Lamb in the old testament (little lamb that TAKES away the sin and is sent into the wildereness) Christ isn't punished by God but He gave His blood to make a new covenant with God with Whom He is one. In this covenant forgiveness is just one part... As the church stands in Christ we also are part of this new covenant.
@@jameymassengale5665 lucifer the angel was created by God NOT satan. Lucifer himself decided to become satan (the accuser) . And no, Jesus did not give His life to Satan as a ransom. He payed the ransom demanded by the covenant. In the old days covenants demanded a blood sacrifice as to symbolize what would happen to either party if they would break the covenant... And by the new covenant we are set free
God has to collect a debt yes, but Greg fails to see that in the PSA model God PROVIDES the debt payment so there is a central relational forgiving aspect. Greg is simply out of his depth when it comes to understanding PSA
So does God provide the funding via giving Christ and then extract payment out of Christ’s sufferings to pay back his offended justice? Do Christ’s sufferings provide God with the capital to offer grace and forgiveness?
@@mattb7069 God provides the death penalty that is necessary for sin by sending his Son as a substitute to die on behalf of his people. As a result God is able to give a legal pardon for sin. God is consistent and will not suspend justice as justice is his nature. Someone must pay the penalty, either the wrong doer or a substitute.
@@davidclark5618 I think you are not answering the question as I have phrased it. Is Christ’s death paying Gods justice back and providing God the judicial capital he needs to extend grace and forgiveness? Pardons don’t require substitution. No one else takes the penalty of someone else for a pardon to go forward.
@@mattb7069 Because as you phrased it is a straw man. You may disagree with it and that's fine but how I articulated it and how Dr. Craig articulated it is what the NT teaches. And there is nothing internally incoherent about it, so you're gonna have to argue against the NT.
@@davidclark5618 to be clear I do think we can view the atonement through the lens of pardon and I do hold to substitution. But Craig is wrong that pardons require payment in the form of substitutionary punishment. So maybe you can answer this: What is God getting paid? And how does that payment act on God or bring about a change in God?
Debates like this one unfortunately imply that there must be a winner and a loser. But far better is that both of these guys are winners - the faith they each have is saving. Personally speaking, I lean more toward one than the other because the legal facet of the discussion seems to me quite biblical, and therefore resonates with me a lot. But applying the arguments of Greg and Bill to a healthy meditation on Romans 14 helped me keep what I hope is Christ’s attitude toward both positions. “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.” I think both of these guys are following “after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” And I think that at the name of Jesus, the knees of them both shall bow.
My question to Greg is: why, then, did Jesus die? Why would he do that? Or does Greg denies Christ’s voluntary death on the cross? Why did He offer Himself to die that horrible way? Why? Why?
I think I get what Greg Boyd is trying to get at. It’s the arbitrary nature of how PSA is often described. Like it’s a necessary metaphysical trade off that God himself is bound to as opposed to a deliberate choice or method between God the Father and Christ, on behalf of humanity.
Isaiah said that WE esteemed Him stricken and smitten of God, the implication obviously being that He wasn’t, but that He was wounded by and for our sins to create an eternal covenant of peace and perfect forgiveness.
The way Craig talks about makes it seem like God isn't where the buck actually stops. A judge in a court of law has to uphold the law he can't wing it, but isn't God God? He makes it sound like God is saying "hey I'm just following orders, I have to do it this way"
Who created satan? GOD!!! What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!! Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!! Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM. What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!! Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!! PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!! Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory. No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith. So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome. THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
I think it comes down to whether or not "justice" is an essential attribute of God. If it is, it seems to me that God can't, in fact, do it any other way. This is not said to limit God, or to be viewed as an imperfection, but is rather a *consequence* of God's perfection.
@Throw Awayy This is an area I need to do more research in (hence me watching this video), but I wonder if that's what Paul's comments in Romans 3 were about.
Boyd: You can view Jesus as running in front of the bus to push us out of the way, in that sense he is our substitution... PSA: Yes! And it was God the Father who was driving the bus because....um....he is so holy...you know and he is legally obligated to drive the punishment bus, yeah...I mean he wouldn't be a holy God if he didn't see...yep, so it all makes sense....um... If WLC is concerned about caricatures of PSA, his main concern should be the way it is preached by 99% percent of its adherents (especially conservative reformed types). You can't complain about caricatures of cosmic child abuse, when they are completely justified given the way PSA is usually presented. Also, what is the deal with his nonsense about Anglo law precedent for blameless third parties and somehow that justifies PSA? Just because there is some legal precedent for something dosen't have anything at all to do with the issue of its justice. Some Anglo law precedents: chattel slavery, women can't vote, stealing indigenous peoples land etc. Some might counter that Anglo law has improved since those things...but every precedent of blameless third party he mentioned was in the early 1800's and Anglo law was a dumpster fire back then. God doesn't demand punishment and sacrifice, we do!
WLC is such a calm, formidable, masterful debater. Greg Boyd did a great job representing Christus Victor, and his conclusion, to me, is more convincing. WLC may have the rational upper hand, but Greg Boyd’s arguments resonate at a deeper level. Great Discussion!
In so many arguments to believe something differently than at any other point in history it comes down to one key thing. We all agree God is love but so many seem to neglect that God is also holy, and His holiness may be the attribute that is emphasized more than any other in the Bible.
William Lane Craig seems to be totally bound up in a LEGAL conundrum, as if God was forced to solve a legal problem. I just don't buy that. Like Greg Boyd, I find it a real obstacle to the PS theory that God is unable to forgive sins without the need for legal punishment. To me the analogy of human justice to apply to God is a poor justification of the theory. God's willingness to take the consequence of our sin is in order to fully identify with us and to work deliverance from sin from WITHIN our suffering.
@Justifyd Jim The only people who were under the law were Jews. Gentiles were never under any religious laws. And Jesus died for the world. It was for healing, not legal imperatives that Jesus died for us. Sin is not a legal issue, but an issue of it's effects on the wellbeing of man. God is not bound by laws, but a much higher imperative. Love!
@@77goanywhere God is a law unto Himself...He can't/doesn't violate His own being. He is both love and the law at the same time. This is God's so called dilemma... How can a being be perfectly loving and perfectly just? If he's perfectly just...he must punish ALL wrong doing... And if he's perfectly loving...he must forgive ALL sin. Now....while some thought that such a being was a contradiction and therfore impossible (and was even the reason for their atheism). God countered this contradiction by the cross....the place where perfect love meets perfect justice. While we all highlight our own take on the varying issues it raises.... I believe it holds still very many more mysteries. Not least the reason why the risen Christ has scars on His resurrected body.
@Justifyd Jim "God sought a just way round his law..." Really? God has to "find a way"? The law is not an end in itself that must be appeased like some superior God to God. Love is the ENTIRETY of God. There is nothing BUT love in God. Law serves love, love does not serve law. That is why Jesus could forgive sinners without a word of repentance from them. Forgiveness always comes FIRST in God. Love is the healing, restoring force, and requires no reference to law. The cross was God's giving of Themselves to the full experience of the sickness of sin, so that the light of God entering our darkness would defeat it.
@@77goanywhere I know WLC is stuck in the legal paradigm. God's Ten commands were for our Good so we can maintain a good relationship with God and People. The Devil used God's law to bring us to form of condemnation. God's law was always about Love which works in good relationships.. Law without a Loving relationship is Hypocrisy.
Book backgrounds are obviously the thing......It seems to me that the essence of the atonement is Jesus taking the pubishment for sin and all the debate is simply because we don't like the idea of a God who punishes!
@@tylerpedersen9836 Well put. I don't know why God's wrath is seen as so offensive, except in a society that favors criminals over their victims. Have people turned a blind eye to the victims of sin? Leaving victims unavenged might feel loving to victimizers, but not so to victims. When victimized as Christian, we are called to forgive, pray for, and love our victimizers, yet simultaneously trust in God's reassuring promise: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. In Psalm 94 and Revelation 6:9-11, victims bare their hearts to their loving God with His reassurance of justice. Human forgiveness lets go of bitterness but leaves justice to God. The spontaneous divine forgiveness view, which erases vengeance from the equation, seems unloving to victims inasmuch as it is unjust. Because sin involves victims, God cannot exhibit true love without true justice. The cross portrays God's justice-infused love beautifully, exemplifying the ultimate victim and His forgiveness of all victimizers, including his own, whose rightful punishment He bore that all might be saved who believe on Him. In this way, at the cross, where love and justice meet, God truly loves both victimizers and victims alike, leaving no victims unavenged, and no victimizers unforgiven who draw near to Him in faith. At least, that's how I make sense of it in my little mind. I just don't see how genuine love can be unjust. God bless!
It's interesting how Greg Boyd brings up the White Witch in the chronicles of Narnia being the one who asks for Edmund's punishment. After Aslan dies for Edmund, the battle between good and evil still commences, and when Aslan comes back to life, he kills the White Witch with ease - Aslan could totally have killed the white witch at any point in the story, he didn't have to die. But, Aslan does die. Aslan chooses to follow through with justice, dying for Edmund, before he defeats the white witch. He completely submits to justice, because it is right. I think God, like Aslan, has the power to destroy evil at any point, without a punishment for sin. But God's very nature demands that justice is carried out, with punishment, in order for his forgiveness to be fair. Forgiveness is certainly a different thing than justice, and God provides both in Jesus' death, otherwise God's nature is unjust. I'm not sure why Greg Boyd doesn't see that this combination is what makes Jesus' death so victorious - if we only thought about God as forgiving, he doesn't seem quite as marvellous or incredible as a God who forgives and takes away the punishment we deserve for our sin. Because, forgiveness or not, we deserve just punishment - and Jesus' death actually takes what we deserve upon himself. The wage of our sin is not merely a bill that's been written off, it's a bill that has been paid.
I love it, especially how much I am benefiting tremendously from 2 theologians debating. We the listeners are blessed. I must say, I totally agree with both of them in many ways although they are in the polar opposite. I admire both of them. At Least all of three of them have one thing in common and that's their backdrop.
“The source of justice is not Satan, it’s God himself; it’s God’s holiness and perfect righteousness which are the source of His divine justice” 55:17 Boom.
Craig made a claim on what those sacrifices meant, Boyd, made a separate claim. Jesus said “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” The message that God requires blood sacrifice is not there.
@@davidrobinson5180 Full disclosure I'm arguing Boyd's case, but I don't know where I stand. I think he would argue that the sacrifice of blood is symbolic of life being taken when sins happen. ie a consequence of sin, vs God demands that this sacrifice be made to appease Himself. I'm reading that all from the speeding car analogy.
@@Roescoe Yeah...maybe he'd say that. To me, Boyd has to do so much explaining for every verse and won't let the texts speak for themselves. I take that as a sign he's uncomfortable with scripture. On the other hand, I want to sing what Scripture says in Revelation "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.” I see no other way.
@@davidrobinson5180 I love that verse in Revelation. I think these verses don't say explicitly that God's wrath is satisfied by Jesus' death. That to me says the penal substitutionary atonement theory places meaning that isn't in the text. The Orthodox actually take the view that Boyd has, Jesus' death being victory over death and His descent into Hades declaring that fact.
Who created satan? GOD!!! What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!! Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!! Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!! Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM. What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!! Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!! PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!! Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory. No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith. So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome. THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Jamey Massengale sounds like you read “Christ: The Crisis in the Life of God’, by Jack Miles? The most challenging book I’ve read. Praise Jesus, Son of God.
Oh my goodness, I think we make it all about sin and nothing else. Thank you a good debate please remember God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself - yes I agree that it has all been judicial and yet we are not under law but under grace. Perhaps we need to go back to our union with Trinity in the garden - Oh my Lord, it’s not an intellectual debate and never will be! We miss so much of the Authentic gospel. Thank you for your grace with each other though! Bless you all
"Why does he keep using legal language, just talk about love" guys "puzzled" Cause the Bible Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. NT is full of legal language. Penal doesn't mean violence
Legal relationships are death, Knowing relationships are life, I made no deal when I gave myself to God, He just accepted me and married me to His Son/ aka the Truth, Greg is correct., Also Jesus suffers my sins and still loves me and forgives me.
@@MrGunningpeter you just used legal language with marriage. Marriage as a relationship and not primarily legal is a complete modern overlay. Of course you made no deal. Why would legal language imply YOU did anything?
@@MrGunningpeter no. You have a modern emotional reading of the text that has to ignore a lot of explicit legal language in the NT. It's a covenant friend!
Todd Cote perhaps a hybrid of sorts. I believe ALL will have opportunity to choose Life or Death, whether in this life or the next, but I believe there will be those who choose death, so not ALL will be restored. I believe God through Jesus is reconciling the cosmos to Himself, but not everything in the cosmos wants to be reconciled and that God will honor that. With only two choices of Life or Death and restoration being eternal life, non restoration would result in eternal death.
@@wadegray2069 You believe all will have a chance to choose either in this life or the next.... Who's the "all"? All mankind of all time, all mankind since the resurrection of Christ, something else? How does your option of being "able" to choose life in the next life, square with scripture like John 3:18-20; 3:36 and Acts 17:30 and Hebrews 9:27 Heb 9:27 - And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, Where does scripture teach about another chance after death?
Seems like a strict adherence to a legal framework was one of the main warnings given by Jesus to the Pharisees. I'm not sure that Craig wants to make that a component of his main argument.
No Jesus constantly affirmed good deeds and striving to do good deeds, but his main gripe with the pharisees was that they were hypocrites & people who in order to keep their tradition “Nullified the word of God” (Mark 7:13)
If our very eternal salvation depends upon getting this, why would it be so unclear. Greg’s perspective rings more true to me. Assuming ancient tribal sacrifice rituals are a part of how a Divine Source relates to his creation seems like a mistake to me.
One of the main considerations we need to focus on is whether the death of Christ expuates our sin or propitiates our sin. If God needs to be propitiated in order to free us from our sin guilt then I must reject it, but if Jesus' sacrifice expiates our sin then I can accept that. The purpose of Christ's sacrifice then becomes our healing and Jesus is our doctor, healing us of our sin by breaking its hold over us. In this way we are ransomed but neither by paying off God or the Devil. For me the central atonement motif is Christus Victor and all others are to be built around this. I think N.T. Wright argues this.
kevinrombouts It is not about what is acceptable to us, Kevin. The true Gospel, that Jesus was punished for the sins of His people on the Cross, that they may go free, is an offence to the natural man.
The PSA theory has only been around since the reformation with Jc and ml expanding upon Anselm satisfaction theory around 1100AD. Also the Christians around Jesus’s time worked on different of laws rather than code law or common law we understand to that we tend to bring to scripture. Christus victor is one of the oldest atonement theory dating back to the 300’s ad.
@SavedbyGrace-js8iz Romans 5:18-19 King James Version 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. SO, YES, I DO!
Denying the legal aspects of atonement is like saying the sun revolves around the Earth because God loves us but denying the physics of how that works. Or saying I'm married to a woman because I love her without ever getting legally married as an expressed fulfillment of that love.
PSA (Penal Substitution Atonement) totally ignores the many Scriptural problems that refute its claims: 1. Punishing an innocent third party is against God’s own law and cannot be genuine justice. Two wrongs never make the first wrong to be right. Violence, torture, and retribution upon a third party cannot satisfy a just God who has prohibited this practice. Prov. 17:15, Ex. 23:7, Deut. 27:25. 2. God forgave people in the Old Testament (2 Chron. 7:14). Forgiveness is often past tense. Ps. 78:38, 85:2, 32:5, 99:8, Micah 7:18 3. Even while on the cross Jesus did not think he was making a payment when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34). 4. Old Testament sin sacrifices were only for unintentional sins (minor crimes) not intentional (capital) sins. Numbers 15:22-31, Leviticus 4:1-2, Hebrews 9:7 5. The Bible never taught that a human sacrifice was needed to pay for sin. The belief of needing to literally pay God for sin was not part of biblical Judaism. Peter even rebuked Jesus for saying he was going to die (Mat. 16:21-23), and when he did die, they were not celebrating that their sins had now been paid for. Read Peter’s thinking just a few weeks after the crucifixion in Acts 2 and 3:26, notice the absence of a payment idea. 6. Mercy is the setting aside of justice. Yahweh is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth” Ex. 34:6. “…Mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13). If God demands absolute, infinite justice, then God cannot have mercy nor forgive, contrary to what He Himself has stated. When mercy is given by God, judgment and justice are set aside. No payment is demanded in such cases. An “infinite justice” God is a misrepresentation of the God of the Bible. 7. God had to tell the Old Testament people many times to stop their offerings - they were treating offerings as if they were indulgences. That stinks to God. Ps. 40:6, 51:16, Jer. 6:20, Is. 1:11-18, 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6-8, Amos 5:22. (The God of the Bible is relational, and men’s offerings were supposed to be a token of this relationship, not a payment to get on God’s good side.) 8. If blood as a substance is required to be shed for atonement, why was flour also acceptable? Lev. 5:11-12, 14:21 Furthermore, a complete payment cancels forgiveness. (You cannot forgive a debt that has already been paid, and you do not pay a debt that has been forgiven! Forgiveness is granted because a debt has NOT been paid. It is like grace vs. works in Romans 11:6, which could read, “And if by payment, then is it no more of forgiveness: otherwise payment is no more payment. But if it be of forgiveness, then is it no more payment: otherwise forgiveness is no more forgiveness.”) What we see in the Bible is the Hebrew view of atonement which is based on reconciliation.
You said a mouthful, and all of it based on well informed, solid reasoning. It was truly a pleasure to read your comment. I will not soon forget it. Most kind regards.
@Justifyd Jim “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Heb. 9:22 ESV The word translated “forgiveness” is the Greek word “aphesis”, which literally means “to release, or to let go”. Therefore, the shedding of blood was intended to let go, to release. Forgiveness is a byproduct of having released, or stopped, the sinning. Furthermore, the words “of sins” is not in the Greek text. It is added by the translators without telling you that they are adding to the Bible. That is deceptive, but it can be granted that “of sins” is what the writer MAY have intended. Another option is that this verse is about the release of the old covenant in order to establish the New Covenant. This passage is in a greater context about the old Mosaic covenant established based on the blood of animals, versus the New Covenant established by the blood of Christ. The old covenant used animal blood, a common thing, and people did not give it a high regard. But the New Covenant is a blood covenant/blood oath with human blood that is far superior. The context, beginning from at least verse 9, is about the purification that accepting the blood Covenant of Christ brings about in a person’s life, versus the little effect that the previous covenant had. Once the context has been established, it makes sense that verse 22-23 is saying that without the shedding of Christ’s blood there is no purification, no release, from the prior covenant in order to establish a second superior covenant. Or it can be taken to mean that without Christ’s superior blood Covenant there is no serious release of sin, as animal-based covenants did not have a strong binding effect on the participants. Sadly, much of the understanding of blood covenants is totally absent in our cultures today, but these were well established in the Middle East culture of the first Century. This is a large part of the confusion on these topics. Regardless of how the text is applied, if it is done in context it is not about making a blood payment to literally pay for sin, but is either to release one covenant for another, or as a superior means of letting go of sinning.
At 46:54, Craig loses me. I’m not sure what 21st century British law has to do with 1st century Israel. Craig is a brilliant thinker. I’m assuming I’m missing something.
It's just that he's desperate to defend an absurd and incoherent notion (vicarious punishment; punishing an innocent third party to satisfy the demands of retributive justice, WHAT?). It is bad.
Lots of defense lawyers with guilty clients are brilliant thinkers, and that is how I see WLC. He is a smart guy but he is trying to get a toxic understanding of God 'off the hook'. You are not missing anything, his Anglo law stuff was nonsense and beside the point..
I believe his point is simply that the idea is not foreign to us. It was well known to the ancient world and is still used today. looking at it from a secular context, is a good counterexample to the claim that punishment inherently expresses an attitude of censure or condemnation toward the person punished. Craig makes this point in his shorter book on the Atonement, which simply call "The Atonement"you can find it on page 59 if you are interested.
Scott Kay, thanks! I think if he had made clear the point that “it was well known to the ancient world” and was still being used today, that would I’ve been helpful. For me, the critical question is would someone like Paul be thinking in these categories.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but isn’t forgiveness an act of justice? If I’m in debt to someone and they forgive it, any just punishment is now removed. It‘s true that forgiveness itself doesn’t result in a transformed life, but that’s the purpose of the arrival of the Holy Spirit (via the “washing of regeneration” the Bible speaks of).
I agree, forgiveness in itself is an act of justice. In other words, it is lawful to forgive. Nevertheless, it is not easy (both to forgive and to be forgiven) and that's why humans generally feel the need to counterbalance that difficulty with something that has to do with punishment. In that case, it is only then that they think it is lawful to forgive.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
They all agreed in one thing: we all need a library in our home just in front of a webcam
You mean in their home offices? Yeah, so surprising that academics would have books in their home office. I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.
Ego
LOL, thanks for the real nice laugh. That made my day! ROTFLMAO!
My favorite comment of the month
Brilliant, I can't unsee that now. Although I would put my hand up to have a bookshelf too to be honest.
Looking forward to this one
Ditto
@@MikeWinger You both should def read Crucifixion of the Warrior God
@@MikeWinger would be great to hear a debate review if you’re up for it!
I ketch some of you vids. Love you content man.
Of course penal substitution is the most immoral doctrine that the Christian Faith has ever promulgated. The idea that God will not “forgive us” until Christ is tortured to death on a cross is perhaps the ugliest doctrine one can imagine. The idea that the scapegoat receives the punishment due to the collective is as repugnant as the notion that God is so bound by legal constraints that he has to torture someone to death in order to “forgive” us. And it’s not really forgiveness: it’s simply a different form of retribution.
Hosea 6:6: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." (NIV)
Amen
Read that verse in context, not just to prooftext.
Desire is not the same word as require. To assume that his requirements reflect his desires is like saying "I need that slice of cake" but do I need it, or want it? God wants mercy, but he requires blood as mercy is in short supply, as is told to us consistently throughout the WHOLE of the bible. If people showed mercy, no sin would be committed, and therefore no blood would be required. Alas, we are not merciful beings as he is.
@@dereklaing2929 where does God require blood sacrifice?
@@mohamudabdi1185 ever since Able.
Love Unbelievable?....Discussions like this are necessary for learning...Great discussion between Craig & Boyd....
I was shocked to hear Boyd say Satan is the one demanding justice. He is trying to escape justice by attempting to annihilate the Jews. He knows that when the Jewish nation turn to Christ, he will be heading for the wrath of God
Absolutely and they have much more charity for one another than most comments. Bless you bro.
This is an absolutely wonderful conversation - Kind, Honest, Clear and full of Depth.
My view is maturing and being challenged with each minute that passes.
Finally a civil debate where both individuals are respectful.
It takes special people to debate one another . Especially on hot button topics . That's why I don't debate much if ever We must learn to be and act like me
I can’t remember Boyd ever being disrespectful in a debate. I haven’t seen as much of Craig, but from what I’ve seen, I doubt he would go there as well.
To Greg at 35:00. We are not just a bride who has been kidnapped against her will, like the bride in Ezekiel 16 we have left our bridegroom and pursued other lovers, despising His grace. He states that briefly in 26:30, but frames it as kidnapping rather than abandonment and despising Him
Kidnapped in the sense that it is the “trauma” of the kidnapping that informs our dysfunctional behavior, that is, our sinful behavior. God brings healing to this in the form of love. This may include more “punitive” means. But, even these punitive means are for the sake of “reconciliation” versus simple “retribution”.
It is a kidnapping in the sense that you are seduced by your desires, and instead of dominating your desires, your desires dominate you, you end up as a slave, and to be free you need the redemptive work of Yahweh ... you can't get free on your own, even is that we want... we need Him, there's no other way.
If we could be free by our own, we wouldn't need a savior, the redemptive work of Jesus would be in vain. But God as man dominated the flesh, and suffered the consequences of our failure.
I really love both Craig and Boyd. So, when this popped up I had to watch. Totally delivered. Great talk.
WLC has a great point at 52:47 that coincides with the scripture “but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.””
Jeremiah 9 : 24
An essential aspect of knowing who God is, involves understanding that He is not only loving but also just and righteous. All these attributes are displayed in the cross by Jesus taking the punishment we deserved 🙌
Love isn't just one among many attributes of God but it's who God is, it includes justice as justice is itself loving. Without love in our nature what sense if justice could we have? Loving Justice is the difference between the wrath of God and the wrath of man that workth not the rightousness of God. It is because I love or at least on some level acknowlage that I should love them that I feel the need to be just twords them.
@@christophersnedeker2065 I agree God is love 100% (1 John 4:8). I didn't mean to imply that love is merely an attribute of His and not important but my point was that many times people only focus on a one-sided or false definition of God's love that doesn't involve justice or righteousness in it, so I think we're on the same page with that if I understand you correctly.
I like what Dr Craig mentioned about the legal forgiveness makes us a new creature whereas us forgiving a brother doesn’t. Very interesting so far
I believe God does not need His “pound of flesh” and can freely forgive because He’s the only one Whom is righteous. Like David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” and Nathan responds, the LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.” For us to demand the condemnation of another for their wrong against us is to condemn ourselves because at some point we have done the same. all have sinned and all short of the glory of God. God encourages us to forgive freely. We are called to be like Him. no punishment or exaction is necessary.
For us to do it is wrong. I think we’d all agree. The Bible teaches against it as well. But for God to do it is not wrong, He is perfect, He is also all just. If he forsakes justice for love, God is not all just
@@buckpatrick6285 what is the definition of forgiveness but the forsaking of justice for love?
There are four types of atonements:
1. Ransom to Deity
2. Ransom to Devil
3. Ransom to Death
4. Ransom doesn't mean payment but actually Rescue.
There are many atonement theories/models some these are:
Satisfaction theory- a ransom to Deity theory. It teaches that we have infinitely offended God's honor and Jesus is the only sacrifice that can satisfy the payment of that Honor. (The early church shows ideas of these theories like punishment and payment of a debt but nothing less than satisfying God's infinite offended honor is satisfaction theory.)
Penal Substitutionary Atonement- a ransom to Deity theory. It is a modified version of the satisfaction theory which is still evolving. It teaches that the Father pours out his Wrath on the Son for our sin. It teaches that Jesus took our penalty for sin. It teaches that Jesus became a literal sin on the cross. (The early church fathers use ideas of penal substitutionary atonement such as punishment or payment of debt just like the satisfaction theory. But again ideas are not the theory itself. This theory has a robust defense which they pull from scripture. It requires massive amounts of study to convince someone otherwise. But anything less than the Father pouring out wrath on his Son is not penal substitutionary atonement.)
Moral influence theory- a ransom to anyone but the Devil theory. It teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ were to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection. This theory is often combined with other theories. (The early church does express ideas of the moral influence theory but that's not all it expresses. Therefore the theory is not complete in of itself explaining scripture or the early church.)
Ransom theory- a ransom to the Deity, Devil or Death theory. It teaches that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip. In some views paid to God the Father, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin. Other views even include the ransom being paid to death.
(The early church did show some ideas for this theory. This theory is one of the oldest theories of Christianity. In the Bible, we are told Jesus is a ransom but not to whom. Anything less then Bible saying that the Ransom was paid to the devil is not this theory.)
Christus Victor theory/restored icon model- a ransom doesn't mean payment but rescue theory. It is a modified understanding of the ransom theory, it teaches that Christ's death defeated the power of the evil, which had held humankind in their power which are sin, death, and the devil. The Christus Victor Theory teaches that the idea of ransom should not be the same as Satisfaction or Penal substitutionary atonement view it which is a legal transaction by the payment of penalty to satisfy the demands of Gods justice but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity in which is rooted in the incarnation and Jesus entering human misery and wickedness and redeemed it. (This early church shows some ideas for this theory. People do question some of the early church's use of punishment and debt. This theory is one of the oldest theories of Christianity.)
The Governmental Theory- a ransom to Deity theory. It teaches God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually, God does not exact strict justice. This [governmental atonement] view teaches that Christ by His death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. And What His death did was to demonstrate what their sins deserved at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men.
(The early church may seem to teach ideas of this theory. However as for the theory itself I do not see it in the early church after examining the ideas which are in the early church.)
Recapitulation theory-a ransom doesn't mean payment but rescue theory. It teaches that the atonement of Christ reverses the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. They teach that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. (The first person to teach this theory was Irenaeus after him this theory is basically lost even though some of the ideas are seen in the early church later on.)
Pure man made ideas none is scriptural
Thanks this is helpful
@@toyosioyejobi309 so nothing happened on the cross?
Thank you for this!
Ransomed from the Law
Have really liked this channel but ultimately gave it the Sub for getting Dr. Greg Boyd on the show !!! Great debate can’t wait for the next one on Greg’s book this time.
The Church is a hospital not a court of law. Christ fulfilled the law. If PSA is true then God killed His Son to appease Himself. That’s ridiculous.
It is painfully obvious that William Lane Craig is more devoted to the idea that God is perfect: in justice, love, mercy, etc. While, on the other hand, Greg Boyd is more committed to the idea of God as only perfectly loving. Appreciated the conversation, but it seems obvious that if we are going to assert the utter perfection of God; His justice cannot be, in any sense, neglected for the sake of His love.
I’m not sure why you think there is such an easy distinction to make there. Greg seems to be objecting because he feels the need for recompense is in itself. But the idea it’s just because he wants to minimize God’s justice is uncharitable.
Boyd is very committed to an “either/or” theory of the atonement. It impacts his reasoning again and again. His “reframing” tends to result in just acknowledging that there is a fuller and more robust view of the atonement but then going on to create an artificial either/or “frame” which has him rejecting essential elements of the atonement.
He also seems to think questions are arguments.
@@MikeWinger Did you just reply to your own comment? Bold move...
C B yes. Yes I did. Sometimes I talk to myself.
This view seems to go hand and hand with several other incorrect views.. if I'm not mistaken listening to this guy... these folks seem to be Non-Trinitarian, not understand God's justice or Law, are Open Theists, seem to completely disregard majority of OT... but I'm not even half way through this...
Sorry to say.. I hope you are as frustrated watching this as I am.. and reading these comments I had no idea there were so many into this...
kelvyquayo Who said Boyd is non Trinitarian?
Gotta get the bookshelves in the background and flex!
I would never be able to debate those guys. Don’t have enough books in beautiful shelves...
Perhaps...or none of these dudes has a wall that isn't floor to ceiling books! :)
@@Jimabiding You're probably right 😂 Given their academic backgrounds and clarity of thought, I wouldn't be surprised!
We have one book and one author, He is in heaven seated on the throne of grace, always contending for you, clearing your shame, because He loves you.
@@graceoverreligion2509 hallelujah!
41:30 "In Christus victor, the enemy is always the powers, and that's what enables us not to make enemies of other human beings."
CV vs PSA changed my faith- a few years ago, THANKS DR BOYD. You are doing very important kingdom work
CV is only true because of PSA . How can you read Isaiah 53 or 2 Corinthians or the psalms without PSA
Psalm 88
Your wrath lies heavy upon me, and you overwhelm me with all your waves. Selah
Your wrath has swept over me; Your terrors have destroyed me.
The psalms are not about David they all about Jesus. The first two psalms tell you that psalms are about the messiah
And connosental text of 2 Samuel 23 says David was appointed by God to write psalms about the messiah .
@@Lurkingdolphinwhere do you get that every Psalm is about the Messiah? Some Psalms are and they are quoted in the New Testament. Psalm 88 is not quoted in the New Testament. So I would be careful in assuming Psalm 88 is Messianic. I am not saying it MUST be quoted in the New Testament in order to be Messianic, but being quoted in the New Testament gives us much greater confidence in it being Messianic. If it isn’t quoted in the New Testament, then the burden of proof that it is Messianic is much greater.
As for Isaiah 53, what parts are penal substitution? I’ve actually heard some use Isaiah 53 as an argument AGAINST PSA. Isaiah 53 is definitely Messianic and is quoted a few times in the New Testament and is clearly about the sufferings of Jesus.
As for 2 Corinthians, I am not sure what you are referring to that gets one to accept PSA. Can you give some examples?
While I (and just about every Christian, including supporters of PSA) accept Christus Victor as being true, most Christians do not believe Christus Victor is the ONLY valid theory of atonement, as the atonement is multifaceted. Many of the different theories work quite well together. I do not see Christus Victor as a counterargument to PSA as it is much older than PSA and its truth does not make PSA impossible to be true. I just think there are better/more accurate models out there than PSA. I also think accepting PSA causes a lot more problems than it solves and makes one to have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to defend it that aren’t necessary. I see PSA as completely unnecessary to understanding Christ’s atoning work.
I found it telling when William Lane Craig admitted that the early Church, right up to Anselm, didn't have a clear elaboration of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. He interprets this as a failing but perhaps the reason for this is that it doesn't cohere well with other Christian beliefs nor is easily supported by scripture.
He didn’t say such a thing at all, just read his book ‘Atonement and the Death of Christ’ in which he showed the earliest church fathers did affirm, among other facets, penal substitution. Since the early church was preoccupied with the person of Christ and the Trinity, the Atonement never received a full exploration by them. But it is biblical and present in the early church fathers.
Hiddetje van der Waal exactly
@@hiddetjevanderwaal2827 38:14
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
@@jameymassengale5665 could you please stop copying and pasting the same thing all over the place?
Greg has an "emotional" problem with the atonement, not an intellectual or Biblical one.
Emotions are definitely important to this topic. As long as they are sound emotions, For God gave us emotions.
I wondered if that were the case, as well. I wanted to be very careful not to assume as much. (See my separate post from today.) as for me, I have had to admit that many of my own objections were psychological concerns, many of which were actually spiritual issues, many of which were acts of mental rebellion.
@@jasensargent6176 On the contrary, the Bible is very much against using "emotions."
*For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.* _Romans 8:6-7_
If you interpret the Bible off of emotions, you are living by the flesh not the spirit.
*When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.* _John 16:13_
Jesus tells us not that the Holy Spirit guides to emotional satisfaction, but to _truth._
A conclusion is of the spirit if it is true, _not_ if it makes you emotionally satisfied.
@@sivad1025 How does your conclusion of Romans 8:6-7 follow? Where does it say emotions are fleshly?
And just because Jesus did not say something explicitly doesn’t mean he wouldn’t agree with it. Jesus never says explicitly not to listen to Lil Pump, but we know that we shouldn’t be doing so.
@@jasensargent6176 All good points. My original comment was poorly reasoned.
I do not mean to say that emotions are always "fleshy" as you put it. But when they're of the flesh and not the spirit, that's when they're bad. That's all I'm saying.
It's a hard line to balance since scripture teaches that the moral code is written on your heart, confirming that your conscience can guide you.
But on the contrary, I think that it's clear that the truth is often unpleasant. In John 15, Jesus says those who are not of the world are hated by the world. He explains that the greatest love is not a feeling, but an act of sacrifice. In Matthew 10:34-39, Jesus says he didn't come to bring peace, but instead, he came with a message for his followers to take up their own cross.
All that to say, when I read the Bible, I see Jesus affirm that living of the spirit is living according to truth which brings discomfort. The idea of paying for your sins and deserving crucifixion is not comfortable. But it's true that the Bible teaches it, so I can't reject that conclusion based upon emotion. When your emotions guide you to self-comfort and away from the truth, I personally think your emotions should be discarded. But then again, this is all just my interpretation so you're free to disagree.
The RESTORED ICON is the central facet of atonement I have found in the last 2 1/2 years of study from scripture and ancient Jewish and Christian insights, not penal substitution.
I love Greg Boyd’s heart but it seems like he is leaning towards felt preferences. The law courtroom view might sound unappealing but what if it is simply true?
@Philip AlumboPerhaps. But by the same token, are scientists, lovers of the laws of nature, legalists? ... there is a difference between acknowledging and loving. I love gravity when I play soccer, I hate it when I fall. Nevertheless I must acknowledge this law exists and my life must accommodate it, otherwise I might actually die. What if there is such a law of sin and redemption, which we must acknowledge lest we perish?
@@iworship6951 nailed it! Yes!
@@iworship6951 f there is such a law of sin and redemption, which we must acknowledge lest we perish? that is a good summary of Boyd's view. Sin leads to death.
Greg’s point on the car crash articulates the idea of the organic nature of sin and judgment perfectly. I think the legal framework represents how we have made sense of the way we think God acts wrt sin. It’s kind of us working out the mechanics of this system. Very transactional. You could write code to this....
Greg’s response is at 21:15
I wonder if what we’ve always called the Wrath of God is what Greg calls the organic consequence of the car crash and what God is really rescuing us from…? 🤔 I.e. the unavoidable harsh reality of this fallen world which God in his love steps into to rescue us
Notice at the end that Dr. Boyd said, “I think that the most important fact in anyone‘s life is your mental conception of God,“ not, “I think that the most important fact in anyone’s life is that your your mental conception of God aligns with His actual nature and actions.” I found that to be very interesting and perhaps telling. As I was listening to Dr. Boyd and Dr. Craig discuss this issue, I was so captivated by all of their particular points. However, I was also curious how many of Dr. Boyd’s biblical and philosophical objections to Dr. Craig’s view were also psychological objections. Only the Holy Spirit knows.
As for me, I have had to admit that many of my own objections are really psychological concerns, many of which are really spiritual issues, many of which are really acts of mental rebellion.
Exactly. Progressives reinterpret the Bible through Jesus, but they interpret Jesus through themselves. So really, they interpret thr whole Bible through themselves and ignore the literal text.
@@sivad1025 Gods actual nature is revealed to us. We are made in his image. Read Matthew 5:38-48
@@jasensargent6176 Yes, I agree. But the Bible also says that you should live by the Spirit, not the flesh. And that the Spirit guides you to truth.
Progressives judge by the flesh. They say, "I don't like this passage so it must be fake or mean something different."
That's the first sin in the Bible. Adam and Eve sinned because their hearts told them they could be like God if they ate the fruit. Eve thought the fruit was good because it would make her wise. Surprise, God was right.
If the Bible says, "Jesus died for those who believe in him" (paraphrasing) and progressives say, "I feel like God wouldn't punish his Son for my sins, and I feel like God will let everyone into heaven," how are they better than Adam and Eve? They are saying God's words in the Bible are wrong and that the "fruit" of univeral forgiveness is good so it must be true.
Something isn't true simply because it sounds good and you want it. You want a lot of things God said was bad (like the fruit Adam and Eve ate)
@@sivad1025 I don’t think it’s a progressive thing, the denial of the penal substitutionary model (PSA). It wasn’t the only view held throughout Christendom. The atonement has been a challenging doctrine throughout the centuries. Most who deny PSA, don’t reject such phrases “Jesus died for you.” They just reject certain interpretations of it. They also believe some things to be metaphorical in the New Testament. Metaphors to explain deeper truths. Like putting on the new man. It’s not like I open my closet to put on a new man. But a spiritual thing.
@@jasensargent6176 I agree that it's not intrinsically progressive. My original comment was about progressives because I saw many progressives in the comment section rejecting substitutionary atonement.
Sorry if my comment seemed directed towards you personally. I was defending my criticism of the progressive belief structure
That said, why do you reject substitutionary atonement if you don't reject scripture?
Greg is simply reading his own idea of love and personal reasoning onto what God's love must mean. Isaiah 53 is pretty clearly carrying the theme of the Word of God, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of Sin. (Hebrews 9:22, Leviticus 17:11) To characterize God as Love as the primary characteristic is the problem. God is also Holy. God is Good. Exodus 34:6-7 when God shares just who He is in terms of how we should think He says: 6 The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.
Psalm 40 6
Isaiah 1, Isaiah 66 1 4, Hosea 6 6.
No…Boyd is biblical and logical. He is just not as articulate as Craig. He is correct that the “blood/sacrifice” theme is an accommodation of existing practices. In regards to love, sorry to disappoint the “justice” crowd, but love “is the greatest.” Justice must be preserved, but ONLY preserved through love i.e. justice administered through love is godly. Justice administered through any other means to include punitive measures will always be a lesser form of justice at best. At worst this lesser form of “justice” is immoral or as DBH describes retributive justice: “repugnant “.
@@garciacentral No, it is not the accommodation of existing blood sacrifice. This is clearly taught in both testaments. Your definition of ignoring the punitive is completely foreign to the Word of God. Read the Exodus, Read the Prophets, read the book of Hebrews, read Revelation. Love is not whatever we want to redefine it as. Jesus himself defines the greatest love as sacrifice John 15:13 after he has told them he will be lifted up for the sake of the sins of the people as Isaiah 53 predicts. Justice does not stand opposed to love, Jesus demonstrates his love by laying down his life and becoming a sacrifice. Romans 5:8-9 says: but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
In Biblical theology there is wrath, there is punitive justice awaiting unrepentant sin as I mentioned in the first post, that is the Love of Jesus to take that all away. It has nothing to do with liking justice over love, it has to do with Bible comprehension; where you see they are married in God's amazing work on the Cross.
Yes. God’s wrath is a qualifying expression of his love. Without it, his “ love” is just sentiment. His justifiable wrath makes his mercy and forgiveness all the more amazing. I think it is an offence to modern sensibilities that makes Boyd and others carve out a safe and sanitised version of God.
I’m excited for this one.
We need Rene Gerard in on this discussion....
Why don't you debate Dr. James White on this topic?
This was a really good debate in many ways.
I have some issues with some details with PSA, but also some issues with some details in Christus victor. So I had some aha-moments.
But most of all, how courteous and respectful both were to each other.
No name calling nor straw men.
A very pleasant debate/discussion
He was bruised for our iniquities
However not a bone of him was broken!
The problem with Greg’s “Jesus pushing someone out of the way of the bus” illustration is that there’s no guilt involved there. It again removes the kingly justice images which the entire scriptures are replete with.
What about pushing someone out of the way of the bus after he was told not to go in the road and there were signs telling him not to go and he went anyway out of rebellion and pride? I don't necessarily agree entirely with Greg's view by the way.
I’m late responding but I’ll just add that this ‘bus’ example has been discussed previously by two completely different pastors on an Unbelievable show. One who did believe in traditional penal substitutionary atonement theology pointed out that he thought it was a terrible illustration and would never use it. Hard to say how frequently it’s been used but it seems to have been used by various evangelicals to explain the gospel.
@@Telorchid what i find is PSA advocates push their view of justice on the text. That justice has to be retributive. Eisegesis more than exegesis
Really enjoyed this. Clearly two very gifted believers in their fields. For me, very simply, if God was 'just' our friend, Greg's position would suffice. But he isn't 'just' our friend. He is also our God and King. We would do well to remember that for every time a person walked past or spoke with Jesus as any other normal person, equally in scripture there are occurrences where God appears before people - and their immediate reaction is to hit the ground - face first
Great point. You know who still hit the ground face first, muslims all around the world just like Jesus did numerous times.
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
@@jameymassengale5665 Satan a creation God killed God, well in that case Satan would be God since he killed God right. Lots of words but no substance
@@jameymassengale5665 .... I really think you need to read Galatians 5:22... You seem to have a lots of anger towards somebody you've never met...
Rewrite your message in a polite, friendly tone... So I can read it not thinking you're a hypocrite 😁👍
He is our God and King?....Sorry that is creepy!!!....Have you truly processed based on your belief that you will spend an ETERNITY groveling...worshipping...and SERVING your master....Why does that appeal to you?....Your reward is to join God in heaven and SERVE HIM FOR ETERNITY!!!....Yikes!!!
Remember when Jesus healed the paralytic and said, "Your sins are forgiven"? By William Lane Craig's logic, how could that have happened?
Jesus explains: the Son of Man has been given the authority to forgive.
Why?
*for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.* _Matthew 26:28_
His blood is the new Covenant poured to forgive many. Because Jesus makes the sacrifice, he is the one with the authority to forgive those who accept.
@@sivad1025 So you're saying the reason he was able to forgive him was that he was going to die for his sins in the future? Seems more likely to me that the Orthodox are correct and God can simply forgive.
@@AJ-me1dg Not because Jesus would die for his sins; because Jesus already died for his sins. John 1 tells us all things were made through Jesus which would include time. Thus, Jesus is not bound by time. If he forgives once, he forgives for all eternity since he exists in all eternity as alluded to in Revelations 1.
Philosophically, it's a bit dense. But if you judge the principles, it's all straightforward. God is perfectly just and perfectly forgiving. The sacrifice allowed God to be the Just and Justifier, satisfying both of those absolute qualities.
*It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.* _Romans 3:26_
The paralytic in Mark 2:5 is forgiven because Jesus sees his faith. Thus, Jesus' _eternal_ sacrifice is offered.
@@sivad1025 Hey, thanks for the well thought out reply. I definitely see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree.
@@AJ-me1dg Thank you for being respectful as well! Prayers that our journeys lead us both to the truth
Man, I really enjoyed this discussion!
Excited about the Systematic Philosophical Theology work!
A wage is not a consequence: death is the wage of sin, not its organic consequence.
One translation puts it this way: For sin pays its wage - death; but God's free gift is eternal life in union with Christ Jesus our Lord. So the verse can be seen as a consequence.
The question to ask is if the death that results from sin is “organic” (Boyd) or “inflicted” (Craig).
One wouldn’t say that a wage is “inflicted” upon someone, but it is a consequence, which is in harmony with James who says that when sin has conceived, it brings forth death, which certainly looks to be a consequence, doesn’t it?
The thing is we are bound to interpret things according to the paradigm we hold. As human beings, we cannot avoid that. So it’s important to get our paradigm right, which is a complex problem involving profound psychological issues.
@@ewallt right it is the consequence of being cut of from life who is God.
Thank you, Bill, for another great debate.
“My playsure.”
Hahahahah
is a big problem, Greg ignores so much about the scriptures.
Elaborate?
I agree. This old understanding comes from an ancient understanding of God.
Eventually the cord will be cut, and the old wine and old wineskin will fade away, and the glorious freedom of the sons of God will become manifest and actualized.
What do you mean by this?
Greg Boyd often ENGAGES the scriptures more than your average Christian leader or academic. Quite refreshing for those of us seeking to learn and grow in faith.
@@keithdoten347 My CATS engage scripture more than the average Christian leader or academic.
@@kelvyquayo You must have smart cats. All Christians (and all Christian leaders) value certain verses and passages and themes more than others within the scriptures. IMO, Greg does this..less than others. Certainly less than I do. Considering alternatives, who according to you is smarter than your cats? Which leader or teacher is 'above average' in this department?
At one time, mankind was in right standing with God. Then mankind rebelled against God.
At that point, mankind lost that "right standing" with God...because of sin. As a result, Mankind was spiritually separated from God (i.e spiritually dead) and became defiled.
Any hope of reconciliation with God would need to address sin. And also, cleanse or purify the sinner from the defilement caused by sin.
This is why the Atonement was crucial.
The Word Atonement (at-one-ment) simply means: To make something right; To reconcile.
God wanted to reconcile the world to himself.
Under the old covenant, Moses received instructions from the Lord to perform certain sacrifices for atonement e.g sacrifices for sin offering, guilt offering and there was another instruction for the day of atonement. All involving the blood of either bulls or goats e.t.c which were without blemish.
God had no desire for the blood of bulls and goats. All of these sacrifices were all for-shadowing Christ. The idea was that if they performed these rites religiously, they would recognize when it was being fulfilled in Christ on the cross.
Let us consider the day of atonement. (Refer to Leviticus 16 and 17). The priest was to present 2 goats (without blemish) for sin offering before the Lord. And then lots were cast; one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scape goat. The goat on which the lot for the Lord fell was offered as a sin offering and the other was the scape goat which was to be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement upon it and then it was sent into the wilderness.
The scapegoat bore all the iniquites of those in the assembly...and it was led away to the wilderness. It was an illustration of their "sins being taken away".
The goat offered as a sin offering for the people was slaughtered and its blood was sprinkled on (and in front of) the mercy seat. And with this the priest made atonement for all the assembly of Israel.
What was the idea behind the sin offering?
To offer something in your stead to atone for the sins. You see, when a person sins...a debt is owed which must be paid in other to make things right (i.e be reconciled).
All analogies fall short in explaining the totality of the atonement but...
Imagine Mr A gave Mr B a phone to look after. Shortly after receiving it, Mr B misused the phone and the phone was damaged beyond repair. In other for Mr B to "make things right", he would need to offer Mr A a new phone and adequately compensate for what was damaged.
A similar instruction is found in Numbers 5:6-7...
“Speak to the children of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit in unfaithfulness against the Lord , and that person is guilty, then he shall confess the sin which he has committed. He shall make restitution for his trespass in full, plus one-fifth of it, and give it to the one he has wronged" Numbers 5:6-7 (also see Leviticus 5:14-16).
This idea of restitution is found through out the old testament. From the perspective of the law, a life was required for a life, an eye was required for an eye. And a tooth for a tooth.
This requirement of the law had to be fulfilled.
When mankind sinned against God, he defiled himself (i.e damaged the God given purity). Life was lost. The consequence would be eternal condemnation on the day of judgement. For mankind to be reconciled with God, it must be on the basis of "a sin offering". And one that is sufficient to reconcile mankind with God; a life of perfect purity.
A life sufficient to atone for all of mankind would be life that is eternal.
The life of a flesh is in its blood. And it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement. This is why Christs blood was shed. It was NOT about God punishing Christ.
From the old testament perspective, the blood of bulls and goats cleansed the flesh from defilement (Heb 9:13). But it was not sufficient to make those who offered it perfect in conscience; as it could not take away sins. In those sacrifices, there was a reminder of sins year by year.
It was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things (i.e the spirit) themselves with better sacrifices than these.
We see other for-shadowings of Christ with Moses. He, more than once, wanted to be an atonement for the sins of the Israelites in the wilderness. But he was not "without blemish" as he himself needed atonement for his own sins.
There was no sin offering man could offer that would have been sufficient for His reconciliation with God. So God himself provided the "sacrificial lamb". This was first hinted by Abraham, when he was to sacrifice Isaac.
Christ is the lamb that takes away the sins of the world. And since those He was atoning for were flesh and blood, it was necessary for Him to become like us to make propitiation for sins. For this reason, Christ was manifested in the flesh.
Christ, being a propitiation for sins, provided a means by which man could be reconciled to God. It is by virtue of Christ's blood shed on the cross that there can be forgiveness of sins.
Think of the tomb as the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant. Dead Jesus was placed there. His blood covered the area of the tomb where He lay. The blood on the mercy seat, of the O.T. sacrifices, was pointing to this!
This happened shortly after the veil in the temple was torn, allowing the ark of the covenant to be accessed.
(This is not my original idea, but I don't remember who I got it from. It was from a RUclips video, though! I'm sorry that I don't remember whose video.)
Both of these guys on this subject are too technical . Just say : There’s POWER in the Blood . By HIS BLOODY stripes are healed or disease , sin , and demons . In Jesus Name
N.T. Wright says, "John 3:16 doesn't say "for God so hated the world that he killed his own son; rather, it says God so LOVED the world that he GAVE his own son...". Wright is clear, however, that he does believe in penal substitution. Luke 2:14: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” God's inclination towards humanity, both before and after Christ's crucifixion, was and is good will, not wrath.
The book of Hebrews is an excellent resource for understanding the Atonement through Christ, which is really about restoration of all creation, not just sinful humanity. What Jesus did on the cross is for us and for our salvation, but also makes all of creation subject to him, the Last Adam.
God wants to mass produce sons of God with His life and nature (Rom. 8:29) according to His original plan for man to be in His image and according to His likeness with dominion of His whole creation (Gen. 1:26,27). Romans 4:13, as I think you say, is good at showing the result of Justification is that the justified be heirs of the world.
@@jackwilmoresongs Yes, God intends to restore all of creation, whole and complete, all focused and ruled over by His Christ. We who are faithful and endure to the end will reign with Him.
@@darlameeks That is ruled over by Christ with His overcoming saints who co-rule with Him. This will be for a thousand years to Christ and a remnant of believers. The saved but not ready to reign believers will miss that reward but be matured during that millennial period. Then all the saints will be matured by the time of the new heaven and new earth in the eternal age.
Death was not a legal consequence in Gen 3. The legal consequences are listed in Gen 3:14-19. Death was added in verses 22 and 23, not as a penalty but as YHWH trying to protect Man from making his consequences permanent. Bill Craig is a very bright fellow, but in this instance he's wrong.
What do you think on the atonement?
@@JustinHerchel, that's irrelevant to my comment. We can argue that when it's relevant, ok?
@@plumblinetalks7614 okay pal
@@itisnow Yes, exactly. Had we lived forever, sin and its evil consequences would never end. We have to die in order to make sin finite. I like that word of yours!
@@itisnow well, hell comes later - when the judgment comes. the earthly penalty for sin is death, but the eternal penalty is hell. even the righteous die, right? everyone dies - but not everyone dies permanently.
Is the law of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” the ultimate description of God’s character? If this is the case, why did Jesus teach that its not what we should practice, and should love our enemies and forgive our brother if he sins against us 70 times 7?
If God’s holiness requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners, how did Jesus manage to hang out with sinners without a sacrifice, since he is as fully divine and as holy as God the Father?
If Jesus’ death allows God the Father to accept us, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Jesus reconciles the Father than it is to say Jesus reconciles humanity? Yet the New Testament claims the latter and never the former (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:18-20).
How are we to understand one member of the Trinity (the Father) being wrathful towards another member of the Trinity (the Son), when they are, along with the Holy Spirit, one and the same God (shown especially when Jesus said "whatever the father does the Son also does:).
If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone? Think about it. If you owe me a hundred dollars and I hold you to it unless someone pays me the owed sum, did I really forgive your debt? This concept breaks down even further when God is the one both demanding that the debt be paid, and also the one paying it for you. Its a logically incoherent concept.
It makes more sense to me that Jesus was a sacrifice of atonement, not to appease the Fathers wrath (because Jesus would have also shared the same wrath) - but to bring to fulfillment the words of God.
Hebrews 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission
If there was no sacrifice, God would have been a liar. So he did it to demonstrate his rightiousness.
Romans 3:21-26
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
To me, this doesnt sound like penal substitution - although it can be easily confused to be that. In reality, it sounds like God already forgave us but fulfilled the law that required punishment in order for us to be free. If it were true penal substitution, Jesus would have been sent to hell for eternity.
Your questions are very multi-faceted. I thought I was reading a summary in your last paragraph, which was a relief, but then you added another objection in your last sentence! So this will be hard to all respond to, but to take your last paragraph;
Yes you can phrase it that God sent his son to fulfil the law in his death, in order that God could legally forgive us. You seem to have nailed it here. You also quote Hebrews and explain the legal ramifications of holy forgiveness. Is this your reasoning, or are you quoting something I've said to then offer a rebuttal? Sorry to be confused.
In reply your last point: Jesus is not like other men. If we, according to Jesus, are worth more than many sparrows, then Jesus is worth infinitely more than us. His sacrifice was sufficient, thus he pronounced "it is finished".
Regarding who is reconciling whom, it was Jesus who saved us, but God sent Jesus (that famous John 3:16 verse), and God is doing all the reconciling, including the father; "All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men’s trespasses against them." Honestly, this Gospel is painted all over the new testament, and the only way to not see it is through unbelief. Are you asking these questions as a Christian or a skeptic? Sorry again to be confused.
Regarding the Levitical laws and Jesus' commands to forgive one another 77 times, the Levitical law (quoted by Jesus) was God's justice system in the promised land. It provided and ensured balanced retribution - eg. you can't take two of a person's eyes who takes only one of yours. And all this was overseen by the preisthood, so it wasn't about interpersonal matters, or how one loved one's brother. Israel at that time was in God's holy presence, and the punishments were an extension of God's righteous dealings with man (ie the wages of sin is death). It was a picture of the greater Kingdom still to come. Still, I don't think the 'eye for an eye' system was intended for interpersonal matters. The teachers of the law were probably using the Levitical laws as an excuse to be vindictive and petty. But "if someone strikes you on the cheek" -this was an act of disrespect/ contempt. Jesus says don't go to the courts for this. Show that you seek validation from God and not from man, by showing them the other cheek.
Interesting parallel of Matthew 18:21 ("forgive your brother seventy seven times") with Lamech in Genesis 4:24 ("I'll be avenged seventy seven times"). Jesus seemed to be putting the prideful attitude of Lamech to bed. So I think the Lamech attitude was one shared by the teachers of the law, who were seeking vengeance against those who did them wrong. Leviticus punishments were from God, not from man. It's not for man to assume such importance or pride of place. Jesus follows his "seventy seven times" with a parable about a person who is forgiven, who then goes on in unforgiveness.
So to simplify (thinking out loud here at midnight)
1)Go has a right to judge us severely for sin. Our sin is against him, and he is worthy of obedience, gratitude and worship. The wages of sin is death (he gave us life, after all).
2) Despite this, God shows great mercy to us and does not take us all out already. God achieved this mercy by becoming a man and purchasing us as his people/ bride, and bearing our punishment (Isaiah 53, also your Rom 3:25 quote)
3) In light of God's manifold mercies to us, we have no excuse for unforgiveness toward one another. Man has greater accountability to God than to other men, so man should not be unforgiving if they want forgiveness from Mighty God.
I have to embrace all that the Scriptures say. I have to try to resist the human tendency to use one part of God's word to put down another part, but embrace all utterances in faith. I like your reference to Romans 3:21-26. Let me ask you: When Isaiah 53:4 says the Suffering Servant was "smitten of God" do you feel this only means God allowed Him to be mistreated by His fellow men? When it says "Jehovah was pleased to crush Him, to afflict Him with grief" (v.10) do you feel this only means God sovereignly ALLOWED Christ to suffer at man's hands? I believe it was that and much more, because "Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." (v.6). In real time it was the Son's mighty petition to the Father to forgive them for they did not know what they were doing. I believe the only way this could be done RIGHTEOUSLY is for God to judged that iniquity in Christ. The typology would not have the pascal lamb boiled but ROASTED (Exodus 8:11,12), ie. not simply a human martyrdom but roasted in divine judgment that the Son's mighty eternal petition that the sinner be forgiven. Only if they accept the Son of God and His substitutionary work WITH Him in His resurrection state. But I would hasten to add humbly that probably for eternity its mysteriousness will be in some degree unfathomable to us who have eternal life.
An eye for an eye is a limitation on retribution. The law did not allow the taking of a life for an insult. There was to be no acts like that of Lamech in Israel:
Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for striking me.
If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold,
then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.
(Genesis 4:23-24 [ESV2011])
@@martinploughboy988 you've misunderstood my point here. Lamech's attitude is an attitude of the world that Jesus condemned.
@@robmurray2310 My point is that Lamech acted in an unjust manner, a way that the law of Israel forbade.
interesting how WLC basically admits that PSA is a "trick" played by God, on God, to convince God that God is both loving and just. How on earth this theory ever appealed to anyone is beyond my comprehension.
Because the PSA talked about by Boyd is not what proponents of PSA mean. God wrath against sin is not out of anger or frustration or meanness it is out of his holiness. Just as a doctor attacks cancer cells, so God attacks sin.
@@scotthix2926 The doctor analogy is a terrible one. Doctors attack diseases in order to heal people and reduce suffering. However, retributive punishments do not really attack sin since they don't aim to heal sinners from their sin and thereby get rid of sin, but retributive punishments instead aim at making the sinner suffer so that justice can apparently be satisfied. So you see, doctors aim at healing, retributive punishers (like God in your view) aim at suffering, which doesn't seem very holy to me because aiming merely to inflict suffering does nothing to remove sin from existence.
@@thetasteofwater918 where do you get retributive punishment? This is the part of PSA, you are confused about
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:10-11
Doing a study on these two ideas and I found this interview helpful in many ways. Dr Craig said that without penal substitution there is no absolution of sin on the Christus Victor view but I disagree. Our baptism is our burial with Christ, our sins are now cut off from us because the wages of sin is death and we died to sin at our baptism when we were buried with Christ. We are raised to a new life and one that is empowered by the spirit. While we strive to live as Christ lived we may sin but Christ is interceding for us to the Father, His body was the sacrifice, we identify with it at every communion and we are given forgiveness through repentance and faith in the works and promises of Christ and His covenant with us.
This was one of the most interesting WLC debates I have seen. I have been following WLC since my conversion, and I have gone through his second and third iterations of defenders multiple times. I am deeply steeped in Craig’s sytemaatization of theology as it were. I find that I ultimately agree with Craig, of course, because a one hour debate couldn’t possibly be enough to sway me. But I found Boyd’s position to be absolutely fascinating and certainly worth additional study and consideration. Thank you both for your well thought out, respectful, and interesting discussion of some of the basic issues related to the retributive justice understanding of the atonement and the consequentialist understanding of the atonement! Wow!
So looking forward to this. Although hugely differing in personality and modes of thinking, here are two delightful Christian gentlemen who model robust but respectful debate. Thanks Unbelievable for setting this up.
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Dude, chill with the copy paste
@@BipolarDistortion agreed! my favorite thing about unbelievable is most of the time you have differing theological views , but with two people who disagree agreeably in love and respect.
Did not Jesus say that he would fulfill the law. And is not the penalty of law a part of the law?
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Since Jesus fulfilled the Law, then He is not subject to any of its penalties. We, on the other hand, have grossly and severely broken the Law and are condemned by it. Thus, we need someone to intervene on our behalf. Since Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, those who are IN CHRIST are also free from the penalty of eternal condemnation.
I sometimes think of it this way. "Sin" is an archery term meaning missing the mark, missing the bull's eye of the target as in an archery session. Jesus doesn't miss the mark. He hits the bull's eye. The rest of us don't. None of us does. Only He does. That bull's eye can represent eternity with God.
If we are in Christ through our faith in Him and our submission to Him as our Lord, and we have that relationship with Him, then we are also hitting the bull's eye with Him. It's like being in Christ means being on His arrow that hits the target perfectly. We are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
"He is innocent in the eyes of the law as if he had never committed the crime" (WLC). vs. Exodus 23:7, "I will not declare right the wicked."; WLC vs. Exodus 20:7, "Yahweh will not declare innocent whoever takes up his name as nothing."; WLC vs. Exodus 34:7, "And making to be innocent, he will not make to be innocent." But he will forgive. Forgiveness does not mean making the forgiven innocent.
The problem with trying to add “organic” (Boyd’s word) plus “inflicted” (Craig’s word) is that if it’s organic, it cannot be inflicted. Either sin results in death on its own, as a natural consequence, or death is an imposed consequence. These are contrary to one another.
Craig used the phrase that Christ took the suffering that would have been inflicted upon us. This is clearly not in harmony with the concept of death being an organic consequence.
What a great to discussion between two great minds. Thanks for this.
Great talk ! Thanks for sharing. I believe the very foundation of the controversy lies in whether one believes God forgives by demanding death, or not. If one relies on concrete Jesus' testimonies, it is possible to see that he (who testifies of the Father) forgives without demanding death (ex. Luke 5 : 20). This must question one's theoretical understanding of the sacrifical system in the Old Testament, if one believes that killing the animals means : God opens the door to forgiveness. In light of Jesus' concrete testimony (for Scriptures testify of him, cf. John 5 : 39) it is possible to question the Penal Substitution theory, and revisit the nature of sacrifice in relationship to divine forgivness.
Consider the Law of Moses and the nature of how it was established. Galatians 3:19 explains that the Law was established by Angels, even though Exodus 20 shows that it was "Elohim" who established the Law... :O
Elohim simply refers to the Administration of the Most High God, this includes the Angels of Heaven. Understanding the truth that to Father, all the Angels are heard, regardless of stance. So the Law was established by 100% of the Angels (Elohim), not only the 2/3 of those who remained with Father.
This is how I see. I don't say anyone must agree.
We only have forgiveness through Christ shedding his blood without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin or why did he even have to go to the cross because sin must be punished God does not wink at sin.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin if you don’t believe that you’re not a saved Christian he he was bruised and punished for our iniquities by his stripes we are healed. I know the modern idea is oh they’re more understanding and nicer than God that he wouldn’t punish Jesus that’s not necessary well then why did he go to the cross I feel like it’s an unnecessary argument because it says Jesus is the sacrifice for our sins
@@TrustMe55 Jesus never taught that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness". For example, he gave forgiveness to the paralyzed man without shedding any drop of blood (Luke 5). And this, he did it for everyone who came to him for such endeavor.
I have benefitted so much from both these men. Have books from both of them on my shelf, and have consumed many hours of their lectures. To hear them debate this thrills my soul.
I am delighted that they were not as far apart as they/we thought they would be.
IMO, Boyd is closer to the truth on this topic. Perhaps the most revealing moment comes around 45:40 where when Craig then responds he has to in essence say that penal substitutionary atonement may well be fiction (46:48). God adopted legal fiction? That's problematic.
It’s written all over so clearly. Jesus drank the cup full of Gods wrath that was meant for us. And he was the perfect SACRIFICE (look up the definition of sacrifice I mean seriously) and by his wounds we were healed. Isaiah 53 explains how Christ took our spot on the cross perfectly. How he took our inequities and suffered and paid the price for them.
Regarding hatred of sin, that’s another key point to consider. From Boyd’s perspective, God hates sin because it kills those whom God loves. From Craig’s point of view, God’s hatred of sin involves God’s being righteous and sin being an unrighteousness thing. In the former paradigm, the atonement is a way to destroy sin (which is the problem that needs to be solved) and in the latter, the atonement becomes a way by which God can forgive while remaining righteous.
So in WLC God is reconciling Himself to us and in non psa theory. We must be reconciled to God
Would love to see NT Wright thrown into this debate. It’s important to view the atonement in light of the biblical narrative and Israel’s history, and both WLC and Boyd could have been challenged further in this area. Regardless it was a good discussion!
N T Wright just tells stories & draws his conclusions from them.
I would have liked this as well. They did dip into the Old Testament Levitical/sacrificial a little bit, but didn’t really focus on it. So much of the interpretive lens of what atonement and forgiveness means, if one is trying to be ‘biblical’, requires not just an examination of the sacrificial system, but also of the dialectical between those texts and how the New Testament writers engage those texts. This is a mammoth undertaking. NT Wright does something like this via his usual meta-narrative methods in The Day the Revolution Began, which I found intriguing but it’s not really the exhaustive discussion the conversation merits (IMO).
David Bentley Hart would make an interesting voice here IMO
Putting the truth of this matter aside for the moment: many have emotional and psychological triggers with the whole idea of retributive punishment. Particularly those with abusive parents or caretakers. For such people, it’s often difficult to divorce the idea of retributive punishment from abuse. Putting the claim that God’s punishment is retributive alongside the claim that God is perfectly loving, is near-impossible. The notion that God is perfectly just and loving, and is not a God of rage and abuse, is of little or no comfort. Even the reality that such believers have no need for worry because they are saved from the wrath of God through Jesus death brings little or no relief. For such dear followers of Jesus, this view makes the world become one of terror. I think it’s really important to keep that in mind in our discussions about this central doctrine of Christianity.
Agreed. I think this is what keeps Greg from finding his point of rest here. To be clear, I agree with Greg that the Christus Victor model should be the primary view, and I agree that the reality of it is complex enough for us to require multiple facets through which to view it(thus giving purpose to the penal substitution view). That being said, even though he grants that he agrees with the wording Mr. Craig uses in many cases, he then goes against it by saying that he sees no need for it. I think what you've described is why that's happening. He knows, in truth, that the penal substitution view is necessary, at the least as a component, but then once acknowledged, he wants to forget all about it.
There are those of us whose consciences have been so wounded that we should reject forgiveness though we trust it is offered in good faith. We cannot abide by the notion of our guilt merely being forgiven for we have done terrible things and punishment MUST happen. For those of us who can't help but to think like this, the facet of redemption that penal substitution occupies is vitally necessary, for our ears are, perhaps forever, weak to the voice of the Accuser. Knowing that the debt has been paid gives us the ground to stand upon with which to tell him that he speaks without any justification. Greg doesn't like the penal substitution view because it makes God seem like one of the heathen lesser deities, but, just as Greg himself teaches, God bore our ugliness although he is only beauty, so that He might reach us in our filth. The penal substitution. View is necessary because some of us can't handle seeing God otherwise, just as the ancient Jews would have been even worse at recieving Jesus than the people of His time of earth were. Too pure to bear without being prepared for it. Perhaps whichever view you hold as primary is a matter of spiritual maturity, depending on the individual in a case-by-case basis.
So you're advocating compassion? Sounds Christ-like. I'm down
I think thats why considering the whole picture of Atonement presented in the bible is important. The context and culture will always play a role in how we understand the language. In a middle-eastern cultures the language of taking our shame maybe better recieved. For someone whos never had a running with the law..... Jesus taking our punishement may be harder to get at first. Maybe reconciling you to your heavenly father. At the same time the bible does not present Gods Justice in a carebears and rainbows way. Gods holiness is AWESOME and frightening at times. There is genuine Dread at the exposure of our wickedness. Yet God does forgive and extends his Love to those who are willing to recieve. My issue with punishement is it being eternal torment. Which I dont see supported in the bible as much as ceasing to exist. LIFE ETERNAL WITH GOD. Or reject his life and be dead eternally?
Let me suggest at least a possible understanding - The reality of sin is death, but also the injustice of sin upon the innocent. If morality is a "real" concept (ie, not just a mental construct or cultural restriction, then it would have to be accounted for, sort of like balancing out a chemistry equation.) In that case, everything would have to end up in a final balance. Now we don't typically think of sin/morality in this way. We think of it as a sort of fiction in either our minds or the mind of God. But, what if it is "real" and the equation has to balance out just like some physical law? (In a sense we often do this in court when we give dollar settlements to reconcile for pain and suffering. Of course, it doesn't do this, but this is the legal theory. In legal terms we try to make the innocent party "whole") We might compare this to the Buddist concept of Karma. In Buddism, every action must be accounted for in the universe like a physics problem that requires a balance of energy. If we take this approach, forgiveness is simply not enough. There must be an accounting in the world for sin. Now, this is just a rough set of thoughts, but to me, it seems like some line of understanding like this might answer both sides of this debate. Thoughts?
@@justinshadrach829, the eternal suffering thing to me for a while too because I had trouble fathoming why God would do such a thing. I always took it as annihilation, but then I reread the gospel and came across what Jesus says about it when he said, "...where their worm will not die." Perhaps God made us in such a fashion that we can't be utterly annihilated or we shouldn't be. God can do as He pleases, but He plays by the rules He sets down for Himself. Maybe a part of creation and making us in His image was that we're eternal, in one way or another. We tend to think this already because we tend to take our desire not to die as our inherent yearning for that which we were made for, eternity. I think Gid, through Jesus Christ, has forgiven us so that His divine judgment need not fall upon us and instead He sees His Son. I think that we will judge ourselves though. Jesus talks about our measure being measured to us and Paul speaks multiple times on the importance of a clean conscience, as well as that "their worm will not die" line. Apparently that notion of worm is the part of a man that says to himself that he is a dog, unworthy, and disgusting. I think that when we see God truly, we will instantly be confronted with our own failings and in that moment we will judge ourselves to a degree that will actually affect our being, and then, looking out at those results, Jesus will separate sheep from goats. That's why I think the penal substitution is so important. For people who judge themselves constantly, they ought to remember that God's judgement has already been rendered, they've been forgiven, and that they shouldn't keep on judging themselves because to do so is to belittle the work done on the cross.
William Lane Craig mentioned Isaiah 53, but I wish he went into detail on that chapter.
Here are some fantastic verses from that chapter showing Penal Substitution Atonement is biblical :
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 and afflicted him.*
Isaiah said Jesus was *pierced for our transgressions.*
Isaiah said Jesus was *crushed for our iniquities.*
---------------------------------------------------------
So where in history did this take place?
Where is history was Jesus stricken and afflicted?
Where in history was Jesus pierced and crushed?
Where in history was Jesus wounded?
At the cross is where God placed the punishment on Jesus that brought us peace.
✞
And the laying on of the hands of the sinner upon the head of the slain beast speaks of identification. It was slain in PLACE of the one laying his hands upon its head (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:1,4,15,24, 29,33; 8:14,18,22; 16:21; Exo. 29:10,15,19). It surely speaks of substitution.
Isaiah 53 is about Israel, my guy. That's who the "Servant" person is in Deutero-Isaiah's works (it starts at around Isaiah 40 I believe). While obviously not a literal curtain of PSA it can still be used as a symbolic paradigm in support of that, like how some Catholics use the perpetual virginity of Zion in Isaiah 66 as a symbolic paradigm in support of a certain Marian doctrine.
@@nicholocadongonan1074 In Isaiah the servant of God takes on more than one meaning, sometimes the prophet Isaiah, sometimes the Gentile king Cyrus. Isa. 53 speaks of Christ the Servant not in the Old Testament sense but in the coming new covenant. It makes no sense to say Isa 53 is about Israel. Zion was "beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth" (Psa. 48:2) and "the beautiful land" (Dan. 11:41). But the Suffering Servant "has no form nor majesty that we should look upon Him." (Isa 53:2b). Christ was "wounded for our transgressions" (v.5). Israel cannot do this for HER OWN transgressions as a national suffering Servant. If the Servant is Israel what would it mean for Yahweh to "cause the iniquity of US ALL to fall upon" Israel itself (v.6)? Nor could Israel offer Israel herself as an "offering for sin"( v.10) on her own behalf. Israel was afflicted with grief but was by no means innocent nor could it be said of her - "Nor was their any deceit found in His mouth" (v.9). Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 reveals Christ.
@@jackwilmoresongs Israel as a singular person, a Servant of God, is the main theme of Deutero-Isaiah's poetry. Again, I advise you to read Isaiah 40-55: these are works of one person, or one group of persons, during the Exile and their theology focused on Israel's international role in a world of alien peoples and alien gods. Basically, Israel (or Zion, those terms seem to be used interchangeably) has failed in drawing the nations to her God and thus, due to transgressions, they suffer from piercings. But not to worry, she will reclaim her place, because her God's commission still stands.
Furthermore: check out Isaiah 41:8, along with Isaiah 52, the beginning of ch. 53's Servant Song wherein the main character is Zion.
As I said, this still works as a theological paradigm for Christ's substitutionary atonement. It need not be literal to function.
@@nicholocadongonan1074 I will enjoy reading chapters 40 - 55 as you recommend. Do not think it will be the first time I carefully did so. I am usually opened to reading again. While much of what you wrote is certainly not wrong I am convinced specifically 52:13 - 53:12 reveals the Messiah. But let me say also that for the Christian the New Testament is the oracles of God. The NT are the oracles of God the way Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah or Jeremiah are the oracles of God. The New Testament is not a purely man-made, faulty, error prone commentary on the Hebrew Bible, but the oracles of God. And the New Testament in several places say that the Isaiah 53 utterances are about Jesus Christ. That alone settles the matter for me. But to be fair I will now go and enjoy the larger portion of Isaiah you recommend. This may take a half hour.
This debate seems like it might be William Lane Craig graciously sharing the gospel with Greg Boyd.
My question for PSA theorists is, if all sin was punished on the cross, then how is sin forgiven? A debt that is paid for is the antithesis of forgiven. Can God not freely forgive?
@@mole215 Problem with that is that He did. Many times in the old testament and Jesus did before his death.
@J DV Christ’s sacrifice was for all sins. Past too. People were saved by faith in Christ looking forward to God’s saving work. We look back. His work on the cross paid for it all. The ones that do not believe die in their sins but not from their sins.. but they have rejected forgiveness..
@@mole215 how does it satisfy justice to punish the innocent?
There are far too many unacknowledged preconceptions that are underlying this discussion which is why this can't seem to find agreement:
1. What is sin? Is it a unique substance or is it a deprivation of a good?
2. Does God interact with his creation violently or non-violently? Meaning, does he destroy that which he occupies or does he bring to new life that which he occupies?
3. Most importantly, what is God? Is God's existence and essence one in the same (an analogical conception) or is he the highest possible "being" (a univocal conception) who is on the same ontological plane of what "being" is in the realm of the cosmos. Put another way, is his relationship to us a matter of his divine will or a matter of him as subsistent being itself (ipsum esse subsistens)?
All this to say, Christians can all agree wholeheartedly on the substitutionary motif as one of the dimensions on how to understand the atonement, however the language of it primarily needing to be understood in a courtroom motif too easily leads logically to a misconception of the character and nature of God towards Christ and towards us; the necessary logical path leads to claims of God of being wrathful towards his creation until his own willful justice is satisfied with Christ's death and resurrection. This about-face then necessarily implies a change in the posture of God then towards his creation and we mistakenly violate one of the attributes of God by doing this (his immutability). I submit that the analogical conception of God does not commit this error whereas the univocal conception has a more difficult time with it. Another fundamental problem with the penal lens to the atonement, particularly under a univocal conception, is that it necessarily follows that he has attained something (satisfaction of his willful justice) which he previously lacked to redeem his creation which violates the attribute of God lacking anything.
Instead, we're properly left with the wrath of God being conceptually better understood by saying what it is not rather than what it specifically is. In this case, his wrath has less to do with any changes in him as an act of his divine will or in his disposition towards his creation. Like all heresies, it is taking a truth about God and extrapolating it too far in an attempt to grasp at God and control him by our understanding.
Well said.
I agree. Well said indeed. Your point about heresy being an exaggeration of an important theological truth is important and valuable.
Mercy is when God turns and PASSES OVER our sins as He did with the Israelites during the PassOVER.
He is the PassOVER Lamb.
Remission or forgiveness.
Remission of the penalty.
Letting sins go AS THOUGH THEY NEVER WERE COMMITTED.
When the punishment of sin is SET ASIDE.
God allows sins to go unpunished because of what Christ did.
To disregard to abandon to let go.
To turn or look away.
To show favor.
To pardon.
🔴 Mercy and Forgiveness is not when God’s wrath is satisfied it’s when God FORGIVES and TURNS AWAY from His wrath:
PSALM 78:38
38 But he, being full of compassion, FORGAVE THEIR INIQUITY, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time 👉TURNED👈 HE HIS ANGER AWAY, and did not stir up all his wrath.
To forgive. To cover. To take away wrath and TURN from anger:
PSALM 85:2-3
2 THOU HAST FORGIVEN THE INIQUITY OF THY PEOPLE, THOU HAST COVERED ALL THEIR SIN. Selah.
3 Thou hast TAKEN AWAY ALL THY WRATH: THOU HAST 👉TURNED👈 THYSELF FROM THE FIERCENESS OF THINE ANGER.
To pardon, to pass by, to retain no anger:
MICAH 7:18
18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and 👉PASSETH BY👈 THE TRANSGRESSION of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, BECAUSE HE DELIGHTETH IN MERCY.
Whats the point of the cross then?
Luke 1 I’m sure there’s many “points of the cross.”
1) I would say reconciliation to divine favour.
To reconcile man back to God.
That’s exactly what Atonement is.
2) Took the law out of the way.
It says He nailed the ORDINANCES (law) to the cross.
He didn't blot out our sins He blotted out the LAW so now there is no law that condemns us when we sin.
He doesn’t “blot out” sins, He FORGIVES sins.
COLOSSIANS 2:14
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ORDINANCES that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to
his cross;
ROMANS 8:2
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the LAW OF SIN and death.
This didn’t make me free from sin it made me free from the LAW of sin that told me I was sinning and condemned me.
ROMANS 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: FOR WHERE NO LAW IS, THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION.
*You can’t transgress something that doesn’t exist.*
ROMANS 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHEN THERE IS NO LAW.
ROMANS 8:3
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, CONDEMNED SIN in the flesh:
The LAW was nailed to the cross and taken out of the way so we are no longer under the law.
*Sin was not taken out of the way.*
Sin is still there but it doesn’t have dominion over us because there’s no law to point it out and condemn us.
ROMANS 6:14
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: FOR YE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, but under grace.
We’re not free from sinning because anyone who says they are without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him.
We’re free from sin in that we’re free from any CONDEMNATION IT BRINGS:
ROMANS 6:18
18 Being then made FREE FROM SIN, ye became the servants of righteousness.
He’s purged our CONCIENCES not our sins:
HEBREWS 9:14
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, PURGE YOUR CONSCIENCE from dead works to serve the living God?
This is why there’s no condemnation for those who are IN Christ Jesus.
He’s purged our conscience which tells us we’re condemned if we sin:
ROMANS 8:1
1 There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION to them which are IN Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
BEFORE we’re in Christ we ARE condemned.
It’s only AFTER we believe and are placed IN Christ that we have no condemnation because no one can lay charge against God’s elect.
Before we’re born again anyone could lay charge against us and condemn us.
You’re only elect IN Christ because if you’re elect outside of Christ before you believe then you are still condemned and God can lay charge against you.
No one can lay charge against God’s elect not simply because they’re God’s elect but the reason no charge can be laid is that they are IN CHRIST.
It’s all about Him!
JOHN 3:18
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Before we believe we’re condemned already.
Only once we believe on Him is our condemnation removed.
There’s only no condemnation when you’re IN Christ not when you’re outside of Christ.
Outside of Christ you stand condemned with no hope without God.
EPHESIANS 2:12,13
12 THAT AT THAT TIME YE WERE WITHOUT CHRIST, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, HAVING NO HOPE, and without God in the world:
13 BUT NOW IN CHRIST Jesus ye who sometimes were far off ARE MADE NIGH BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
Luke 1 3) HEBREWS 9:11-15
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but BY HIS OWN BLOOD he entered in once into the holy place, HAVING 👉OBTAINED ETERNAL REDEMPTION👈 FOR US.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might RECEIVE THE PROMISE OF ETERNAL INHERITANCE.
🔴 Animal sacrifices FORGAVE sin but DID NOT CLEAR SIN AND WASH IT AWAY:
LEVITICUS 4:20
20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and IT SHALL BE FORGIVEN THEM.
🔴 Sins were FORGIVEN but not CLEARED:
EXODUS 34:7
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will BY 👉NO MEANS CLEAR THE GUILTY;👈 visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Sins were FORGIVEN but not taken away.
There was still a remembrance of them:
HEBREWS 10:1-25
1 For THE LAW having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, CAN NEVER WITH those SACRIFICES which they offered year by year continually MAKE the comers thereunto PERFECT.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a REMEMBRANCE again made of sins every year.
4 FOR IT IS 👉NOT POSSIBLE👈 THAT THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND OF GOATS SHOULD TAKE AWAY SINS.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered BY THE LAW;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.
10 By the which will WE ARE SANCTIFIED THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, WHICH CAN 👉NEVER👈 TAKE AWAY SINS:
12 But this man, after he had offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by ONE OFFERING he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 THIS IS THE COVENANT that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now WHERE 👉REMISSION👈 OF THESE IS, THERE IS NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, HIS FLESH;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 LET US DRAW NEAR WITH A TRUE HEART IN FULL ASSURANCE OF FAITH, HAVING OUR HEARTS SPRINKLED FROM AN EVIL CONSCIENCE, AND OUR BODIES WASHED WITH PURE WATER.
23 Let us hold fast the PROFESSION OF OUR FAITH without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
The blood of the NEW Covenant was now actually able to REMOVE SINS through forgiveness IN Christ:
MATTHEW 26:26-30
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, which is shed for many FOR THE 👉REMISSION👈 OF SINS
We are imputed righteous THROUGH Christ.
We don’t receive the imputed righteousness OF Christ but rather are made righteous THROUGH Him.
We don’t receive HIS righteousness we are simply made righteous THROUGH Him.
Not removal of the sin itself but removal of the DEBT of sin.
Removal of the PENALTY.
Faith and repentance are for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 1 What was the design or purpose of the atonement?
To obtain redemption.
To pay our ransom.
To purchase us.
For the REMISSION of sins not for the forgiveness of sins.
Remission means the cancellation of a debt, charge, or penalty.
Canceled the debt by paying the penalty of death so now there is no more penalty for us.
@@apilkey I am now confused. Do you agree with penal substitution or deny it?
Sadly, Boyd thinks you can be living a homosexual lifestyle and be christian. He even made a video apologizing to the LGBTQetc on behalf of the Christian church, as if he is speaking on behalf of all Christians. A little self righteous, wouldn't you say? As someone saved out of the homosexual lifestyle, in 1985, and almost died from AIDS in the early 90's, I can personally attest to the selfishness of that life and addictions that fuel it. I beleive living that lifestyle goes against everything the Lord Jesus came to die for. The notion that people are 'born' gay is irrelevant. Jesus said that to enter the Kingdom of God, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN!!! What is so hard to beleive!
Friend, We are born again when we place our faith in Jesus Christ. Being born again does not mean that God makes us sinlessly perfect after we have faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in Jesus Christ is the only necessary condition for salvation. It has absolutely nothing to do with our lifestyle after we have faith in Jesus. We are not saved by repenting of our sins, keeping the Law, and being a good person. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ apart from the works of the law. This is crystal clear from the Bible
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Romans 4:5
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 2:21
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 3:28
Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Galatians 3:11
And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-
Philippians 3:9
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans 10:4
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 2:16
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:20
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Romans 4:2-3
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Galatians 3:2-3
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Galatians 5:4
Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 16:29-31
When we put our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, repenting sins is good for our sanctification, but does not justify us. If this were the case, then God would require that we all be sinless perfectionists, and we would all be doomed because we all continue sinning after we are born again.
[8] If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10] If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10 KJV
Yeah that's most definitely wrong. It leads to death and you probably know that better than any outside of that death cult. He's got a few ideas right about God's power and love, but then he projects the worldly ideas onto that.
If you are on your phone in the middle of the road, you are about to be hit by a bus. You are at risk of being hit by a bus. Are you legally required to be hit by the bus? Must the driver swerve to hit any distracted jaywalkers?
I cannot understand this law part at all. Doesn't Paul say the purpose of the law was to make us aware of sin? How then is the law more fundamental?
I imagine a man before a judge for stealing a car. PSA is, the judge wants to forgive you, but is required to send SOMEBODY to jail. What if the judge says, I will allow you to choose jail OR to come live in my house. I grew up in your neighborhood, I know how to deal with temptation and trauma, I overcame it, live with me and overcome with me. I even know what it's like to feel separated from me, and what it is like to die.I have walked in your shoes
Exactly. PSA is a legal term coined and shoehorned into the bible after 1500 years of Church theology. That's why it's complicated to harmonize it when you put the magnifying glass in.
The example greg Boyd forgot to give about the speeding example, was if a speeder ran a stop sign and killed an innocent party. This has to be accounted for as well.
I admit I have been thoroughly confused about this since last fall when Brad Jersak (who has similar views to Boyd) taught at my church. I was taught penal substitution since I was a teenager (30 years ago) so the teaching is deeply ingrained in me. I’m having a real hard time grasping what the truth is here.
I don’t feel that this conversation helped me though because neither of them really went deep into the Bible and made a defense for their positions. They went way too deep in a conversation about western law and legalese.
If I was completely ignorant on this topic, I would of thrown my hands up in the air halfway through the debate and shut it off due to how confusing and quite frankly muddled both positions came across to me. It just felt like they were too focused on peripheral issues and not enough focus on the central issues.
Yes I agree. Both brothers seem to overlook the complexities of the covenant itself of which forgiveness is just one part. Also I missed the discussion of what forgiveness of sins/debt in itself really means. For example in court: can you still call it forgiveness of debt if someone else still ends up paying for the debt?
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Jaime it’s not forgiveness if the there is a punishment. Let’s for example say that you stole $100 from me but you have a change of heart and return the money asking for forgiveness. But I say that I’m very sorry I can’t forgive you until you are punished for the crime of stealing. Once you’ve paid the punishment what good is my forgiveness? If Jesus paid the price for sin what do we need God’s forgiveness anymore?
@@Silentbrother-34673 no it isn't and that's why I believe in Christus Victor (like most of the orthodox church) . "see the Lamb of God that TAKES away the sin". Much like foreshadowing the of Lamb in the old testament (little lamb that TAKES away the sin and is sent into the wildereness) Christ isn't punished by God but He gave His blood to make a new covenant with God with Whom He is one. In this covenant forgiveness is just one part... As the church stands in Christ we also are part of this new covenant.
@@jameymassengale5665 lucifer the angel was created by God NOT satan. Lucifer himself decided to become satan (the accuser) . And no, Jesus did not give His life to Satan as a ransom. He payed the ransom demanded by the covenant. In the old days covenants demanded a blood sacrifice as to symbolize what would happen to either party if they would break the covenant... And by the new covenant we are set free
God has to collect a debt yes, but Greg fails to see that in the PSA model God PROVIDES the debt payment so there is a central relational forgiving aspect. Greg is simply out of his depth when it comes to understanding PSA
So does God provide the funding via giving Christ and then extract payment out of Christ’s sufferings to pay back his offended justice? Do Christ’s sufferings provide God with the capital to offer grace and forgiveness?
@@mattb7069 God provides the death penalty that is necessary for sin by sending his Son as a substitute to die on behalf of his people. As a result God is able to give a legal pardon for sin. God is consistent and will not suspend justice as justice is his nature. Someone must pay the penalty, either the wrong doer or a substitute.
@@davidclark5618 I think you are not answering the question as I have phrased it. Is Christ’s death paying Gods justice back and providing God the judicial capital he needs to extend grace and forgiveness? Pardons don’t require substitution. No one else takes the penalty of someone else for a pardon to go forward.
@@mattb7069 Because as you phrased it is a straw man. You may disagree with it and that's fine but how I articulated it and how Dr. Craig articulated it is what the NT teaches. And there is nothing internally incoherent about it, so you're gonna have to argue against the NT.
@@davidclark5618 to be clear I do think we can view the atonement through the lens of pardon and I do hold to substitution. But Craig is wrong that pardons require payment in the form of substitutionary punishment. So maybe you can answer this: What is God getting paid? And how does that payment act on God or bring about a change in God?
This debate brought me even closer to the Christus Victor view.
The beautiful thing is that Christus Victor isn't the sole truthful aspect of the atonement like some erroneously try to circumvent.
@@justineffler3172 yup
Debates like this one unfortunately imply that there must be a winner and a loser. But far better is that both of these guys are winners - the faith they each have is saving. Personally speaking, I lean more toward one than the other because the legal facet of the discussion seems to me quite biblical, and therefore resonates with me a lot. But applying the arguments of Greg and Bill to a healthy meditation on Romans 14 helped me keep what I hope is Christ’s attitude toward both positions. “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.” I think both of these guys are following “after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” And I think that at the name of Jesus, the knees of them both shall bow.
My question to Greg is: why, then, did Jesus die? Why would he do that? Or does Greg denies Christ’s voluntary death on the cross? Why did He offer Himself to die that horrible way? Why? Why?
That was freaking brilliant!!!
Great job Craig
what about it
PSA breaks the Trinity. Thus, it's not a valid theory to understand Jesus' sacrifice.
I think I get what Greg Boyd is trying to get at. It’s the arbitrary nature of how PSA is often described. Like it’s a necessary metaphysical trade off that God himself is bound to as opposed to a deliberate choice or method between God the Father and Christ, on behalf of humanity.
Isaiah said that WE esteemed Him stricken and smitten of God, the implication obviously being that He wasn’t, but that He was wounded by and for our sins to create an eternal covenant of peace and perfect forgiveness.
The way Craig talks about makes it seem like God isn't where the buck actually stops. A judge in a court of law has to uphold the law he can't wing it, but isn't God God? He makes it sound like God is saying "hey I'm just following orders, I have to do it this way"
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
I think it comes down to whether or not "justice" is an essential attribute of God. If it is, it seems to me that God can't, in fact, do it any other way. This is not said to limit God, or to be viewed as an imperfection, but is rather a *consequence* of God's perfection.
@Throw Awayy This is an area I need to do more research in (hence me watching this video), but I wonder if that's what Paul's comments in Romans 3 were about.
Dr.Craig is awesome!
Boyd: You can view Jesus as running in front of the bus to push us out of the way, in that sense he is our substitution...
PSA: Yes! And it was God the Father who was driving the bus because....um....he is so holy...you know and he is legally obligated to drive the punishment bus, yeah...I mean he wouldn't be a holy God if he didn't see...yep, so it all makes sense....um...
If WLC is concerned about caricatures of PSA, his main concern should be the way it is preached by 99% percent of its adherents (especially conservative reformed types). You can't complain about caricatures of cosmic child abuse, when they are completely justified given the way PSA is usually presented.
Also, what is the deal with his nonsense about Anglo law precedent for blameless third parties and somehow that justifies PSA? Just because there is some legal precedent for something dosen't have anything at all to do with the issue of its justice. Some Anglo law precedents: chattel slavery, women can't vote, stealing indigenous peoples land etc. Some might counter that Anglo law has improved since those things...but every precedent of blameless third party he mentioned was in the early 1800's and Anglo law was a dumpster fire back then.
God doesn't demand punishment and sacrifice, we do!
Read the Old Testament whether God demands punishment or not.
갈라디아파수꾼 Who wrote the Old Testament?...wait for it....humans did
C B question begging
@@CB-fb5mi yes...they wrote as GOD inspired them!
M S I understand you believe that, Greg does also although probably in a different way, but I don’t.
WLC is such a calm, formidable, masterful debater. Greg Boyd did a great job representing Christus Victor, and his conclusion, to me, is more convincing. WLC may have the rational upper hand, but Greg Boyd’s arguments resonate at a deeper level. Great Discussion!
In so many arguments to believe something differently than at any other point in history it comes down to one key thing. We all agree God is love but so many seem to neglect that God is also holy, and His holiness may be the attribute that is emphasized more than any other in the Bible.
William Lane Craig seems to be totally bound up in a LEGAL conundrum, as if God was forced to solve a legal problem. I just don't buy that. Like Greg Boyd, I find it a real obstacle to the PS theory that God is unable to forgive sins without the need for legal punishment. To me the analogy of human justice to apply to God is a poor justification of the theory. God's willingness to take the consequence of our sin is in order to fully identify with us and to work deliverance from sin from WITHIN our suffering.
@Justifyd Jim The only people who were under the law were Jews. Gentiles were never under any religious laws. And Jesus died for the world. It was for healing, not legal imperatives that Jesus died for us. Sin is not a legal issue, but an issue of it's effects on the wellbeing of man. God is not bound by laws, but a much higher imperative. Love!
@@77goanywhere God is a law unto Himself...He can't/doesn't violate His own being. He is both love and the law at the same time. This is God's so called dilemma... How can a being be perfectly loving and perfectly just?
If he's perfectly just...he must punish ALL wrong doing... And if he's perfectly loving...he must forgive ALL sin.
Now....while some thought that such a being was a contradiction and therfore impossible (and was even the reason for their atheism). God countered this contradiction by the cross....the place where perfect love meets perfect justice.
While we all highlight our own take on the varying issues it raises.... I believe it holds still very many more mysteries. Not least the reason why the risen Christ has scars on His resurrected body.
@Justifyd Jim If you read the entire passage, it was not about the atonement, but about the unwillingness of Israel to learn from the Assyrian exile.
@Justifyd Jim "God sought a just way round his law..." Really? God has to "find a way"? The law is not an end in itself that must be appeased like some superior God to God. Love is the ENTIRETY of God. There is nothing BUT love in God. Law serves love, love does not serve law. That is why Jesus could forgive sinners without a word of repentance from them. Forgiveness always comes FIRST in God. Love is the healing, restoring force, and requires no reference to law. The cross was God's giving of Themselves to the full experience of the sickness of sin, so that the light of God entering our darkness would defeat it.
@@77goanywhere I know WLC is stuck in the legal paradigm. God's Ten commands were for our Good so we can maintain a good relationship with God and People. The Devil used God's law to bring us to form of condemnation. God's law was always about Love which works in good relationships.. Law without a Loving relationship is Hypocrisy.
Book backgrounds are obviously the thing......It seems to me that the essence of the atonement is Jesus taking the pubishment for sin and all the debate is simply because we don't like the idea of a God who punishes!
Exactly right. The wrath of God is an especially offensive attribute these days
@@tylerpedersen9836 Well put. I don't know why God's wrath is seen as so offensive, except in a society that favors criminals over their victims. Have people turned a blind eye to the victims of sin? Leaving victims unavenged might feel loving to victimizers, but not so to victims. When victimized as Christian, we are called to forgive, pray for, and love our victimizers, yet simultaneously trust in God's reassuring promise: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. In Psalm 94 and Revelation 6:9-11, victims bare their hearts to their loving God with His reassurance of justice. Human forgiveness lets go of bitterness but leaves justice to God.
The spontaneous divine forgiveness view, which erases vengeance from the equation, seems unloving to victims inasmuch as it is unjust. Because sin involves victims, God cannot exhibit true love without true justice. The cross portrays God's justice-infused love beautifully, exemplifying the ultimate victim and His forgiveness of all victimizers, including his own, whose rightful punishment He bore that all might be saved who believe on Him. In this way, at the cross, where love and justice meet, God truly loves both victimizers and victims alike, leaving no victims unavenged, and no victimizers unforgiven who draw near to Him in faith. At least, that's how I make sense of it in my little mind. I just don't see how genuine love can be unjust. God bless!
It's interesting how Greg Boyd brings up the White Witch in the chronicles of Narnia being the one who asks for Edmund's punishment.
After Aslan dies for Edmund, the battle between good and evil still commences, and when Aslan comes back to life, he kills the White Witch with ease - Aslan could totally have killed the white witch at any point in the story, he didn't have to die. But, Aslan does die. Aslan chooses to follow through with justice, dying for Edmund, before he defeats the white witch. He completely submits to justice, because it is right.
I think God, like Aslan, has the power to destroy evil at any point, without a punishment for sin. But God's very nature demands that justice is carried out, with punishment, in order for his forgiveness to be fair. Forgiveness is certainly a different thing than justice, and God provides both in Jesus' death, otherwise God's nature is unjust.
I'm not sure why Greg Boyd doesn't see that this combination is what makes Jesus' death so victorious - if we only thought about God as forgiving, he doesn't seem quite as marvellous or incredible as a God who forgives and takes away the punishment we deserve for our sin. Because, forgiveness or not, we deserve just punishment - and Jesus' death actually takes what we deserve upon himself. The wage of our sin is not merely a bill that's been written off, it's a bill that has been paid.
I love it, especially how much I am benefiting tremendously from 2 theologians debating. We the listeners are blessed. I must say, I totally agree with both of them in many ways although they are in the polar opposite. I admire both of them. At Least all of three of them have one thing in common and that's their backdrop.
How can Greg, it seems, completely ignore the verse that says, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins"?
“The source of justice is not Satan, it’s God himself; it’s God’s holiness and perfect righteousness which are the source of His divine justice”
55:17 Boom.
From 41:42-45:11, Craig establishes that he has won in this debate. The only thing holding Greg Boyd back at this point is unbelief.
Craig made a claim on what those sacrifices meant, Boyd, made a separate claim. Jesus said “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” The message that God requires blood sacrifice is not there.
@@Roescoe What do you do with Leviticus and Hebrews?
@@davidrobinson5180 Full disclosure I'm arguing Boyd's case, but I don't know where I stand. I think he would argue that the sacrifice of blood is symbolic of life being taken when sins happen. ie a consequence of sin, vs God demands that this sacrifice be made to appease Himself. I'm reading that all from the speeding car analogy.
@@Roescoe Yeah...maybe he'd say that. To me, Boyd has to do so much explaining for every verse and won't let the texts speak for themselves. I take that as a sign he's uncomfortable with scripture.
On the other hand, I want to sing what Scripture says in Revelation "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.” I see no other way.
@@davidrobinson5180 I love that verse in Revelation.
I think these verses don't say explicitly that God's wrath is satisfied by Jesus' death. That to me says the penal substitutionary atonement theory places meaning that isn't in the text. The Orthodox actually take the view that Boyd has, Jesus' death being victory over death and His descent into Hades declaring that fact.
Restorative Justice is superior to Retributive Justice.
Human reasoning. False dilemma
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Back to Orthodoxy Upon what have you based your assessment, if not upon your human reasoning?
Jamey Massengale sounds like you read “Christ: The Crisis in the Life of God’, by Jack Miles? The most challenging book I’ve read.
Praise Jesus, Son of God.
Excellent example of civility where two brethren disagree
Oh my goodness, I think we make it all about sin and nothing else. Thank you a good debate please remember God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself - yes I agree that it has all been judicial and yet we are not under law but under grace. Perhaps we need to go back to our union with Trinity in the garden - Oh my Lord, it’s not an intellectual debate and never will be! We miss so much of the Authentic gospel. Thank you for your grace with each other though! Bless you all
"Why does he keep using legal language, just talk about love" guys "puzzled"
Cause the Bible
Col 2:14
by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
NT is full of legal language. Penal doesn't mean violence
Legal relationships are death, Knowing relationships are life, I made no deal when I gave myself to God, He just accepted me and married me to His Son/ aka the Truth, Greg is correct., Also Jesus suffers my sins and still loves me and forgives me.
@@MrGunningpeter you just used legal language with marriage. Marriage as a relationship and not primarily legal is a complete modern overlay.
Of course you made no deal. Why would legal language imply YOU did anything?
@@watchinginthelight Marriage as in the bride of Christ as in knowing Him ( what God joins together) not legal
@@MrGunningpeter no. You have a modern emotional reading of the text that has to ignore a lot of explicit legal language in the NT.
It's a covenant friend!
@@watchinginthelight What part of what I wrote do you not agree with?
Jesus forgave without those he was forgiving even asking or acknowledging their sin
So...you're a universalist?
Todd Cote perhaps a hybrid of sorts. I believe ALL will have opportunity to choose Life or Death, whether in this life or the next, but I believe there will be those who choose death, so not ALL will be restored. I believe God through Jesus is reconciling the cosmos to Himself, but not everything in the cosmos wants to be reconciled and that God will honor that. With only two choices of Life or Death and restoration being eternal life, non restoration would result in eternal death.
@@wadegray2069
You believe all will have a chance to choose either in this life or the next....
Who's the "all"? All mankind of all time, all mankind since the resurrection of Christ, something else?
How does your option of being "able" to choose life in the next life, square with scripture like John 3:18-20; 3:36 and Acts 17:30 and Hebrews 9:27
Heb 9:27 - And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,
Where does scripture teach about another chance after death?
He did no such thing.
Derek Laing oh but He did :-)
Seems like a strict adherence to a legal framework was one of the main warnings given by Jesus to the Pharisees. I'm not sure that Craig wants to make that a component of his main argument.
B-B-BUT GOD'S LOVE
No Jesus constantly affirmed good deeds and striving to do good deeds, but his main gripe with the pharisees was that they were hypocrites & people who in order to keep their tradition “Nullified the word of God” (Mark 7:13)
That is exactly why MOSES is our accuser in John 5:45.
By legal framework are you referring to the Law that God gave to Moses?
If our very eternal salvation depends upon getting this, why would it be so unclear. Greg’s perspective rings more true to me. Assuming ancient tribal sacrifice rituals are a part of how a Divine Source relates to his creation seems like a mistake to me.
One of the main considerations we need to focus on is whether the death of Christ expuates our sin or propitiates our sin. If God needs to be propitiated in order to free us from our sin guilt then I must reject it, but if Jesus' sacrifice expiates our sin then I can accept that. The purpose of Christ's sacrifice then becomes our healing and Jesus is our doctor, healing us of our sin by breaking its hold over us. In this way we are ransomed but neither by paying off God or the Devil. For me the central atonement motif is Christus Victor and all others are to be built around this. I think N.T. Wright argues this.
kevinrombouts
It is not about what is acceptable to us, Kevin. The true Gospel, that Jesus was punished for the sins of His people on the Cross, that they may go free, is an offence to the natural man.
No, He took the death/punishment that WE deserve on our behalf, hallelujah.
The PSA theory has only been around since the reformation with Jc and ml expanding upon Anselm satisfaction theory around 1100AD. Also the Christians around Jesus’s time worked on different of laws rather than code law or common law we understand to that we tend to bring to scripture.
Christus victor is one of the oldest atonement theory dating back to the 300’s ad.
Do you believe that Jesus died for all men?
@SavedbyGrace-js8iz Romans 5:18-19
King James Version
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
SO, YES, I DO!
@@MyRoBeRtBaKeRSounds like an atonement of reversal. Jesus came to undo the mess Adam caused.
@chaddonal4331 But you're different, then Adam, how?
Denying the legal aspects of atonement is like saying the sun revolves around the Earth because God loves us but denying the physics of how that works.
Or saying I'm married to a woman because I love her without ever getting legally married as an expressed fulfillment of that love.
PSA (Penal Substitution Atonement) totally ignores the many Scriptural problems that refute its claims:
1. Punishing an innocent third party is against God’s own law and cannot be genuine justice. Two wrongs never make the first wrong to be right. Violence, torture, and retribution upon a third party cannot satisfy a just God who has prohibited this practice. Prov. 17:15, Ex. 23:7, Deut. 27:25.
2. God forgave people in the Old Testament (2 Chron. 7:14). Forgiveness is often past tense. Ps. 78:38, 85:2, 32:5, 99:8, Micah 7:18
3. Even while on the cross Jesus did not think he was making a payment when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34).
4. Old Testament sin sacrifices were only for unintentional sins (minor crimes) not intentional (capital) sins. Numbers 15:22-31, Leviticus 4:1-2, Hebrews 9:7
5. The Bible never taught that a human sacrifice was needed to pay for sin. The belief of needing to literally pay God for sin was not part of biblical Judaism. Peter even rebuked Jesus for saying he was going to die (Mat. 16:21-23), and when he did die, they were not celebrating that their sins had now been paid for. Read Peter’s thinking just a few weeks after the crucifixion in Acts 2 and 3:26, notice the absence of a payment idea.
6. Mercy is the setting aside of justice. Yahweh is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth” Ex. 34:6. “…Mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13). If God demands absolute, infinite justice, then God cannot have mercy nor forgive, contrary to what He Himself has stated. When mercy is given by God, judgment and justice are set aside. No payment is demanded in such cases. An “infinite justice” God is a misrepresentation of the God of the Bible.
7. God had to tell the Old Testament people many times to stop their offerings - they were treating offerings as if they were indulgences. That stinks to God. Ps. 40:6, 51:16, Jer. 6:20, Is. 1:11-18, 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6-8, Amos 5:22. (The God of the Bible is relational, and men’s offerings were supposed to be a token of this relationship, not a payment to get on God’s good side.)
8. If blood as a substance is required to be shed for atonement, why was flour also acceptable? Lev. 5:11-12, 14:21
Furthermore, a complete payment cancels forgiveness. (You cannot forgive a debt that has already been paid, and you do not pay a debt that has been forgiven! Forgiveness is granted because a debt has NOT been paid. It is like grace vs. works in Romans 11:6, which could read, “And if by payment, then is it no more of forgiveness: otherwise payment is no more payment. But if it be of forgiveness, then is it no more payment: otherwise forgiveness is no more forgiveness.”)
What we see in the Bible is the Hebrew view of atonement which is based on reconciliation.
You said a mouthful, and all of it based on well informed, solid reasoning. It was truly a pleasure to read your comment. I will not soon forget it.
Most kind regards.
@Justifyd Jim “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Heb. 9:22 ESV
The word translated “forgiveness” is the Greek word “aphesis”, which literally means “to release, or to let go”. Therefore, the shedding of blood was intended to let go, to release. Forgiveness is a byproduct of having released, or stopped, the sinning.
Furthermore, the words “of sins” is not in the Greek text. It is added by the translators without telling you that they are adding to the Bible. That is deceptive, but it can be granted that “of sins” is what the writer MAY have intended. Another option is that this verse is about the release of the old covenant in order to establish the New Covenant.
This passage is in a greater context about the old Mosaic covenant established based on the blood of animals, versus the New Covenant established by the blood of Christ. The old covenant used animal blood, a common thing, and people did not give it a high regard. But the New Covenant is a blood covenant/blood oath with human blood that is far superior. The context, beginning from at least verse 9, is about the purification that accepting the blood Covenant of Christ brings about in a person’s life, versus the little effect that the previous covenant had.
Once the context has been established, it makes sense that verse 22-23 is saying that without the shedding of Christ’s blood there is no purification, no release, from the prior covenant in order to establish a second superior covenant. Or it can be taken to mean that without Christ’s superior blood Covenant there is no serious release of sin, as animal-based covenants did not have a strong binding effect on the participants.
Sadly, much of the understanding of blood covenants is totally absent in our cultures today, but these were well established in the Middle East culture of the first Century. This is a large part of the confusion on these topics. Regardless of how the text is applied, if it is done in context it is not about making a blood payment to literally pay for sin, but is either to release one covenant for another, or as a superior means of letting go of sinning.
At 46:54, Craig loses me. I’m not sure what 21st century British law has to do with 1st century Israel. Craig is a brilliant thinker. I’m assuming I’m missing something.
It's just that he's desperate to defend an absurd and incoherent notion (vicarious punishment; punishing an innocent third party to satisfy the demands of retributive justice, WHAT?). It is bad.
Mickey Esoum, do you like the way Greg puts it together?
Lots of defense lawyers with guilty clients are brilliant thinkers, and that is how I see WLC. He is a smart guy but he is trying to get a toxic understanding of God 'off the hook'. You are not missing anything, his Anglo law stuff was nonsense and beside the point..
I believe his point is simply that the idea is not foreign to us. It was well known to the ancient world and is still used today. looking at it from a secular context, is a good counterexample to the claim that punishment inherently expresses an attitude of censure or condemnation toward the person punished. Craig makes this point in his shorter book on the Atonement, which simply call "The Atonement"you can find it on page 59 if you are interested.
Scott Kay, thanks! I think if he had made clear the point that “it was well known to the ancient world” and was still being used today, that would I’ve been helpful. For me, the critical question is would someone like Paul be thinking in these categories.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but isn’t forgiveness an act of justice? If I’m in debt to someone and they forgive it, any just punishment is now removed. It‘s true that forgiveness itself doesn’t result in a transformed life, but that’s the purpose of the arrival of the Holy Spirit (via the “washing of regeneration” the Bible speaks of).
I agree, forgiveness in itself is an act of justice. In other words, it is lawful to forgive. Nevertheless, it is not easy (both to forgive and to be forgiven) and that's why humans generally feel the need to counterbalance that difficulty with something that has to do with punishment. In that case, it is only then that they think it is lawful to forgive.