@@troymatthews3374 straw man noun noun: strawman 1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach" God bless:)
Yes. Yes. Yes. I think too often we forget it was God on the cross. Everything Jesus did while on earth was revealing the full nature and character of who God is.
@@samspangler9530 …or…what happened on the cross was the Roman Empire and the religious system working together to condemn God to death on a cross. While they did this God remained true to His nature…non violent….unconditionally loving and radically forgiving. God didn’t require the cross in order to forgive, the cross was what God endured as He forgave.
@@57andstillkicking I would like to hear how you understand this part of the verse ( some translations say “the names written in the book of life since the foundation of the earth”) I have no doubt that God shed his blood on the cross in the body of Jesus. I believe this happened in a specific time in history as recorded in the Gospels. I believe Gods death was crucial for him to enter death and have victory over death but not to enable him to be able to forgive. His nature is unchanging he is forgiving and loving. Jesus displayed this through this whole life and while being killed. He remained true to his non violent, radically forgiving, unconditional loving nature.
@@272attwell I think the sacrifice was made in the heart of God before He created man. He already and always had a way to bring man back to Himself. God’s loving and forgiving nature are what held Him to the cross, opening His welcoming heart to the world.
Two Christian gentlemen discuss a theological theory in an intelligent, polite and thoughtful way. Great example of how we can explore one another's opinions on important issues without getting upset about it.
I grew up in a Christian home, went to Christian schools my whole life, I have a degree in Biblical Studies, and yet watching this I feel like I have only just heard the Gospel. What Brian Zahnd is saying about God is breaking my heart in the most awesome way.
He may use words that make it sound nice but it lacks power. What he is preaching takes away a vast amount of the importance and the seriousness of what Jesus' sacrifice was all about. It seems more of a way to condone living a worldly lifestyle. Dr. Brown spoke nearly all of his debate from scripture but Brian spoke nearly the whole time with his more poetic self interpreted words.
@@hunterelilindstrom3093 what sins or worldly lifestyle were he condoning? I missed that part. And why should the person who reads the most scripture indicate anything other than they read more scripture? I've seen the Westborough baptist church read a lot of scripture too! So What? What if a person can't read? What if they dont have the intellectual facilities to understand what they read? There's this very Americanized obsession that has a tendency to idolize the bible. Our bible brings us TO Christ, it is not the gem of our salvation; its a brilliant and wonderful tool to get us there. You dont even need to believe in biblical inerrancy to be saved. That's never been a part of the deal. An honest love and trust in Christ is our goal, not a prefect understanding of the bible.
@@jdm11060 jdm11060 jdm11060 As I heard him say, maybe I misinterpreted him, he stated that God doesnt judge sin because that would mean God is a "pagan deity god" out for blood to right everyone's wrongs making it sound like God only operates in wrath which scripture clearly indicates is not true. But if God doesnt judge us and there is no punishment for sin, then why dont we sin all the time, no judgement sounds nice! This has hints of once saved always saved to me but maybe I misinterpreted him. As for scripture being used in the debate, it is quite literally the biggest trump card anyone can use. Seeing how scripture is the only thing we can pull sound doctrine from, we must live according to the word and not deviate from it. We dont idolize the bible, we recognize that it is a divinely inspired document that should be highly esteemed, Yeshua/Jesus is the manifestation of the word in the flesh as John tells us in John 1. You have to use the bible in this debate as it is the baseline of truth. I'd rather hear straight scripture rather than hear some man made doctrine simply because man made things aremt divine. As the your last comment, I never said we need to perfectly understand the bible God knows we simply lack the ability too. I never said the bible was our salvation but it plays a HUGE part in it and shouldn't be taken lightly. I'm curious, which side do you believe is right. The man made doctrine or scripture? Mathew 15:9 In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
@@vivianeborkholder2268Maybe because Brown was condescending and rude on top of admittedly mis informed because he never even bothered to study why the concept of hell is even interpreted in the Bible
I happily and without reservation left the Christianity with a monster god for years and years. I came back to the Christianity where Jesus is the exact representation of God.
Brian spent 15 minutes answering the last two back to back questions and never quotes a scripture. (1:11:55-1126:05) He has done this throughout the debate. When he has quoted scripture it always supports what Dr. Brown has said. That is because the scripture is so crystal clear, at least for this debate topic that a simple person can understand its truth and theme. I was so biblically illiterate when I got saved that I got confused while reading the Gospels because I kept thinking I was reading a book that I didn’t know I read, meaning I didn’t know that the four Gospels were the same story narrated by four eyewitnesses. I just read it from front to back. With that said when Brian brought up the idea that Luther introduced the wrath of God etc. I immediately knew he was wrong because like so many others if not all Gods blood bought saints can agree with us that The Holy Spirit revealed not only The traditional view that Dr. Brown is explaining but so much more. I cried reading God’s word as my heart began to respond to it. I realized that Christ not only died in my place on the cross but that if he were on earth he would be mingling with the undesirable sinners of our day, like me so I thought at the time. I used to disagree in my mind with Paul, thinking no, I’m Chief sinner. I was able to see the condition of my heart by the law and the Old Testament. And the Grace of God in Christ healed my wounded heart (conviction). He even took the guilt, which I struggled with for many years, because it feels like death when I sin knowingly because I have The Holy Spirit living inside me now. Hoe could I do such a thing, I say to myself. But I repent. I have too, some say “ you don’t have repent every time!” I do. The wages of sin is death. I know my salvation cannot be taken from me now but as Paul says “ work out your salvation with fear and trembling “ I’m being sanctified. I will receive a new body when I’m resurrected into God’s kingdom. I will finally be ridden with this cursed body of sin. It will weigh me down no more. Hallelujah!!!! Brian avoids the straight question about who is saved and who goes to Hell and what Hell is. This is dangerous because I believe we are in certainty the beginning of the end times. Never before are so many turning to a different Gospel. People are leaving the churches and persons are becoming pastors who are full blown atheists. Christians are no longer putting up with sound doctrine. And people like Brian I fear is not sowing seed that is from the full grit of Gods word and will not take root. If it does it will be a tare GOD IS JUST, PERIOD
@brent holladay Very, very, very good post, Brent! I enjoyed it, and appreciate that it gives such glory to God. One day, you, I and Paul shall argue as to who was really the chief of sinners. ;-) It's my position that we're all going to be a bit shocked. Did you happen to catch the "debate" posted before this one with, IIRC, Michael Sullivan? If you really want your head twisted... Meanwhile, we all need to keep doing what you're doing. Sometimes spreading the truth of God's word is all we can do. If there's more we can do, we need to do it. I agree that time is short. Watching it all unfold is somewhat reassuring, however. I never thought I'd live to see this day. Know what I mean? "2Ti_3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." Again, great post. May God bless you and yours, Brent.
Thank you, Brian, for using all of scripture, as it points to the Word. I appreciate your scholarship and your obvious love of the Bible. I tried hard to see Dr. Brown's point of view, but, to me, Brian was the one declaring the preeminence of Christ.
You lost me there. Using all of scripture? In this entire debate, Brian quoted less than 1/10 of what Dr. Brown did from the bible. Brian's points of discussion were equally as confusing as they were redundant since it refused to acknowledge of the full context of the Word. What's funny to me is that a lot of his points ARE true. They are biblical. But I'd put it like this: if Brian's argument were like a donut, then Dr. Brown held the donut hole.
All Brian does with mischaracterize and misrepresent exactly what PSA is isn't it Christ who said no one takes my life I'll wait lay it down willingly is there not judgment on sin where does that judgment go is it a abusive father or killing his son no it was God the Father and God the son before the foundation of the world already knew that
@@jaredwhughesjust because you quote the bible doesn't mean you're right. I can point to Any number of "Christian cults, and even the devil" that can and do quote the bible
"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thes 2:11-12
I thought both presented strongly and substantively. This is a good debate and should be used in any effort to talk about the cross and what it accomplishes. Both men discussed civilly and modeled good Christian behavior. Thanks for posting!
@@oneagleswings8456 Hey Friend, this discussion is just a modern version of what's been debated for millennia. Study the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of God and you'll see a similar view to Zahnd's. Jesus never prescribed that we have a perfect doctrine of God. He did prescribe that we love one another. Zahnd and Brown do this and we need to commend them for it. Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree Chris. While I lean towards PSA, I believe it’s not essential doctrine. It seems like they agree on the result of Christ crucified and his resurrection. I disagree with Zahnd, but from this and other things I’ve read he seems to genuinely be trying to point people to Jesus.
As a 3x deployed veteran, I find Dr. Browns thoughtless dismissal of the question at 1:20:50 the most disturbing part of this video. "Christians" have, at least in the US, lead the way in the retributive justice category. To me, that fact alone undermines the underlying theology of the loudest supporters of the US military.
What this really comes down to is rejection of the True Christ of God. Paraphrasing Zahnd from memory, "A Hindu who was a potential member of our church was offended by the real Christ, soooooo..." Well, got news for ya, Christ Jesus doesn't bend to our liking. We are to bend to His. What to do when a Hindu, a Muslim and an atheist all walk in on the same day? "C'mon, baby, let's do the twist..."
You shouldn't argue against a paraphrase. Zahnd argues that God is a God of love and Brown argues that God for some reason could not cure sin on his own but had to kill his son. Browns position, a modern church position (Zahnd argues what James, Paul and others believed) is that God demands pain and suffering. It's fascinating that so many modern Christians want to hold on to a relatively post-modern interpretation simply because that's how they were raised.
Regarding Mr. Browns point of view. Absurd! I also find him to be disrespectful arrogant and condescending. Another know it all ironically who in truth presents an argument infested w/ falsehoods. I was flabbergasted in his response to Mr. Zahnd’s first question. Admittingly Brown states he basically hasn’t ever bothered to investigate how the concept of hell even ever came in to existence. Not remarkable though as this is very common amongst Hellr’s. Otherwise the likelihood they would even be a Hell’r would dramatically decrease. God forbid (jest) they should do some research about such a trivial matter (major jest)! The early church never proclaimed such a poppycock absurdity. And that was never a thought for approximately the first 500 years by the way. God never conveyed the “farce” of ECT to the Jews in the Tanakh either. It saddens and sickens me that Jesus is getting such a bad egregious rap. This erroneous false doctrine has kept more people (or as many) from coming to Jesus over the millennia as have come. And how many people have come because of the intimidation of this scare tactic. It’s no different than the Black Jack dealer who has an ace showing and asks the players, “insurance”? And you’re thinking, yeah I’d better. I certainly don’t want to run the risk. What kind of screwy way is that to come in to a relationship!
@JustSaying1957 If you side with Zahnd, you minimize the power of the cross. The problem you Mr Zahnd, and other new testament Christians have is a lack of education from the source of your faith. The faith started in the Hebrew scriptures, start from there and you will understand what the fear of the Lord means, you will understand what Gods wrath means. Apart from starting from the Tanakh, what you get a a watered down gospel - the gospel Zahnd is feeding you. Zahnd doesn't even understand that the prodigal son had no inheritance left, the consequence of his 'sin'. He was reinstated, but had nothing other than what he would work for. Oh and by the way a balanced truthful presentation of the gospel eg from John 3:16 -18 doesn't lead to anything other than a loving response to a message of hope. God is love, he is also Sovereign over the universe, he is the righteous judge.
Brian absolutely killed this. I'm thankful to people like him who are challenging the modern heresies of the church and helping me to break out of religion and encounter a more loving Christlike God.
@@oneagleswings8456 that's heartbreaking that you can't see that this is a heart issue of humans, not a knock on who God is, you poor thing bless your heart.
This debate wasn't even close. Brian Zahnds argument (if you can call it that) was basically "I don't think this is the way a loving God would act." On the other hand Dr. Brown basically just read Scripture after Scripture to prove his points. Brown destroyed him. It was no contest.
This silly doctrine is what happens when people forget that God is both Kind and Severe. Both Merciful and Just. Abraham offered his son, while his son trusted him, in faith knowing God would raise him from the dead which was a shadow of what Father God and Jesus did. The shedding of blood is required for the repayment of sin. Its not God killing his son... It's a father offering his son in faith (with the permission of his son) as a sacrafice for attonment for the sin of others. It shows the incredible ugliness of sin,but the incredible beauty and power of love conquering all through sacrifice. It is not pagan. God set it up. It's symbolostic. Metaphorical. It's freaking amazing. Life is in the blood.
I don't think we should stray from the language of "killing". God is the sole authority over life so there's nothing wrong with him killing people. Murder isn't wrong because it's killing, but because the individual is killing in the place of God. That said, the real problem with this characterization is that the Son (who is also omniscient btw) GAVE HIMSELF. Father and Son were in agreement. To use the language of "Father killing the Son" is an a reductionism fallacy that tunnel-visions one's perception of what actually happened. It's an emotional argument with no logical weight behind it.
@@Iffmeister you are correct, it was his father's will that he give his life and he was in perfect unity with that will. Jesus, as a man actually prayed for another way in the garden (probobly because he was stressed out about it from a flesh sense) but he said "not my will, but your will father". Jesus's faith in the father's will pleased the father. They had a unified perfect relationship and Jesus was in complete agreement with the father. It was not done forceful issue as im sure you would agree Bless you!
God is Amazing in his vast ability to love us although he is also a God of wrath and justice (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). We have all wronged him by breaking his laws and Justly deserve his wrath. And yet he is merciful through the payment of Jesus on the cross to give us a way back to him. (If we recieve it) And we show him love in return by our gratitude and obedience. God is Good! Amazing Grace! Amazing love! Awesome job Dr. Brown. I hope someday to have the kindness towards others to the extent you do. (With God's help)
Also the scapegoat imagery is explained in Christ. Jews understood it one way, but it is really simple. The people are forgiven when the animal is killed. But not only that, it was losing something valuable because of your sin. They did not see the animal being punished, rather a price to pay. Thus, Christ must die so we can RECEiVE forgiveness. We can receive not so that God can dispense forgiveness. Someone had to die, but not just anyone, He has to be sinless, and no one can be that but the Son Himself. Thus we understand, that the only way for man to receive forgiveness, is to see that God himself should give up His only begotten Son. Give up to whom? The world, sinners, and die and God not doing anything about it, when these sinners are worthy of death. Why did God turn away justice at the cross? Why did He not smite those people? Because He wants to bring them back to Him. And if Jesus doea and says nothing unless the Father tells Him to, then Him saying, Forgive them Father, reflects the heart of God. Compassion trumps vengeance. Love covers a multitude of sins.
So much of Zahnd's message has breathed new life into my soul. And it was so nice for Mike bickle to make it clear that Zahnd is a friend of the church even though they disagree theologically.
@@PaDutchRunner well, yeah, obviously all Evangelical leaders have seriously flawed ideologies, but I appreciate that Zahnd is trying to influence people away from fundamentalism and forms of Christianity that celebrate bigotry.
@@andrewm3997 There’s a much better route though - how do you feel about reformed covenant theology? And there is another important question that here to the heart of the issue: do you believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God (plenary verbal inspiration)?
On the left, a man who forces the text to fit his reasoning. On the right, a man who forces his reasoning to fit the text. Thanks for being on the right side, Dr. Brown.
Although I do not think that Brian did a very good job in this debate, it is closer to the historical position of the church throughout the ages. Dr. Brown ascribes to a novel doctrine that began with John Calvin. Believe me, Christianity did not start with the reformation.
Randal Deese thank you!! Had to go through a lot of argument to find one that understand what Brian said. I agree that he could have did this better but what he says is still good
Randal, Brian didn't do super well in this debate on appearance. You'll note that Brown argued emotions rather than logic. Throughout his only argument is "I think scriptures say this.." while ignoring the underlying truth. That is modern Evangelicals in a nutshell though. And you are right about the historicity. Even that offends modern Christians. Zahnd is arguing what was believed by the early church and Brown says essentially that he knows better.
@@stevelovesgod From the cradle, the early church fathers spoke the SAME ancient Greek language the New Testament was written in. Their opinion on "what the scriptures actually state" is obviously very valuable. I'd say to be trusted more than the Western church's Latin fathers (like Augustine and Calvin and Luther) who did NOT speak Greek and had to rely on the Latin Vulgate.
From the word Go, Zhand is arguing a straw man. Nobody says God killed Jesus! Rather that God in the Trinity offered Jesus to take sin, WHICH MUST BE DESTROYED, God judges sin, to eradicate it. It's us who decide whether or not to attach ourselves to sin and go down with it. Hebrews 10.
"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush Him; He has put him to grief; when His soul makes an offering for guilt, He shall see His offspring; He shall prolong His days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in His hand" ~ Isaiah 53:10
@@IndianaJoe0321 yes by offering Him over into the hands of sinful men. That is a sovereignty deal. "You don't take my life, I give it." It's not the Father literally killing the Son. It's the Son and the father's plan for the Son to give his life. Zhand presents it as the Father pulling the trigger. No, the Father crushes him by giving him over, and the people are accountable because of their willingness to kill the Son.
“They (the educated class) may be highly intelligent in the arts of farming, manufacture, engineering and finance, and even in physics, chemistry or medicine. But this intelligence does not automatically flow over to the fields of history, archaeology, linguistics, theology, philosophy and mythology which are what one needs to know in order to make any sense out such archaic literature as the books of the Bible.” ~Allan Watts Personally, I have battled, fought, suffered and travailed over the scriptures for most of my adult life. Of course to no avail. What this rocky road has taught me is “Love never fails” (sorry, no if’s, and’s, or but’s allowed). Brian Zahnd may not have used as many Bible references as Dr. Brown (one of the comments displayed), but whose message best resonates to a longing human heart and the universal need for safety and freedom? Whose message best reflects the ABBA (that includes the feminine) nature of God - and its irresistible draw? I would suggest for all to consider the viewpoints of the oldest, most archaic biblical writings, slowly but surely moving towards the climatic revelation of Agape Love - the ministry (life, death and resurrection) of Jesus the Christ. Pretty tough to see God being the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus comes to declare the apex, the profundity of perfect Love. Yep, Love wins! I know, “BUT!”… Isn’t that the way it inevitable goes - ha! Possibly, rather than the Bible being a “flat”, every word, line, paragraph carrying equal status set of books - let us consider scripture as an inspired story of humanity’s evolutionary understanding of Love (thus God) - climaxed in Jesus and the Cross. That might get us all out of dotting “i’s” and crossing “t’s”, getting out of our heads, relinquishing human pride, fragile egos and the inevitable need to be right. There is no fear in love, -perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love (1 JOHN 4:18). It’s imperative to always be mindful of mystery - the mystery of life, love, truth, faith and Light.
My assessment of the closing statements-- Dr. Brown: The most important thing about Christianity is Jesus' death. Pastor Brian: The most important thing about Christianity is that Jesus is LORD.
I don’t think he would forgiving us freely implies he forgives everyone but no you have to be lucky enough to be born into a Christian country to be forgiven if you were born in the Amazon rainforest and never seen a white person before your pretty much screwed
@@jdoe7674 He does. Notice how the first believers were told to just take the abuse and endure, forgiving and showing agape. God's love is known all over the world. But yahweh is not Jesus nor the Father.
@@graceoverreligion2509 exactly fam Yahweh and yeshuas name are not known everywhere so it wouldn’t be fair and just for him to say u must confess my name in this life to escape eternal torture sure there is no verse that states there’s salvation after death just like there is no verse that says there is not salvation after death or there is no verse that says God is a trinity none of that is clearly stated in the Bible but it’s all a possibility and we would be arrogant to claim to know 100% either way God is mysterious and doesn’t want us to know everything right away but when i tell you he told me that he isn’t going to cast off anyone forever you have no choice but to be skeptical I know but I have no choice but to believe it with all my heart and soul and just ask that you consider it an option and realize God isn’t terrifying he loves us he made us in his image we’re all his children and yeah some stray away but he won’t stop until he finds his one lost sheep ❤️
I feel bad for Dr. Brown for having wasted his life defending one view. It's like he's never heard of Origen, Gregory_of_Nyssa, and many others who are pillars to the continuing of spreading the good news of Jesus after the apostles. Brian nails it when he says it would be good to study church history. Brown's position is the cause of many atheist who reject deities who require sacrifices. God never required sacrifices. Hebrews says the law demanded sacrifices. God did not. So, what Brown has done is taken soundbites of passages and ignoring the letters/books as a whole. Zahnd has taken a step back from his evangelical experience including PSA, and saw that throughout church history there are other ways to look at the cross and what seems to be unanimously agreed upon especially in the 1st few centuries is Christus Victor.
Great post Timothy! What is also interesting is that so many "Christians" in these comments agree with brown, not because it's a good argument but because they were raised with it. They would rather believe a lie they were raised with than the word and the church throughout history. They believe that Brown and Calvin understands the Jesus more than the Apostles.
@@cbadcavern6068 what's really interesting but perhaps not coincidental, is the amount of hate the people supporting Brown are spewing. It's not about Jesus, it's about defending what they grew up with and what feels good to them. They are not challenged as Jesus says they will be, they are simply finding ways to justify they already believe. That is most modern Christianity. And in juxtaposition the Christianity of Zahnd, what these posters are saying is "modern" is actually the Christianity espoused throughout early church works. I'm sure Brown means well, but you can see the problem when he claims "offense" at the term"monster God". Brown is defending literal concentration camps of never ending torture, where people are repeatedly burnt to death and raped. That is exactly what Brown defends. When Zahnd points this out and calls it by the term any functioning person would use Brown gets offended. It's like a follower of Stalin saying "they aren't gulags they are summer camps! That's offensive!". You are welcome to be offended Mr. Brown, but you can't be expected to be taken seriously.
J.W. Hanson (1800's) has some great books on Universalism. One explains all the mistranslations and misinterpretations that lead folks to believe that hell is a reality. Another book goes through all the positive verses that teach universalism .. verses that our hell goggles keep us from embracing truly. Must reads - check Amazon
I love Gregory of Nyssa and Origen, but they are not the Bible. They got a lot of things right, but some things wrong. I have a problem when we esteem church history too highly and never regard Scripture in arguments. Brian didn't really quote Scripture a whole lot, but the primary view of Dr. Brown was based upon Scripture itself and Jewish culture. He explained that he had a problem with the Early Church on Jewish culture and that they've fallen away from it. I don't think they're anti-Semitic, but it seems to be a problem with most of church history, so it kind of makes sense.
Dr Brown: “The Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins.” (1:00:30) Jesus didn’t preach that his death provided salvation, though true that may be. That wasn’t the Gospel that Jesus taught. Jesus actually kept his upcoming death on the down-low for the most part. The “good news” (Gospel) that Jesus proclaimed was that the Kingdom of God had finally arrived.
@@tpw7250 Correct. The Good News of God’s Kingdom is what salvation is all about. Salvation isn’t about a ticket to heaven when we die, it’s about a way of life (as taught by Jesus) that we can enter into now, and continues when we are present with the Lord after death and upon resurrection.
@@fathersonfootballfun I agree with you, and from what I know of Dr. Brown, he would seem to as well. The reference to 1 Cor 15, supports the quote from Dr. Brown that you seem to disagree with yet, I don't think its either or. Jesus did die for our sins and did bring access to the kingdom. I'm a bit confused by your objection, while agreeing with your emphasis on the kingdom coming in and through Jesus.
Luke 24: 44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48And ye are witnesses of these things. 49And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Righteousness = justice Justice = something put to rights Grace in itself empowers and compels one to live righteously. At the heart of that, justice is fulfilled and injustice is put to right. Not too long ago, I heard someone define righteousness as “seeing the Goodness of God”. It is when we behold the goodness of the One who is Righteousness itself where we are made the Righteousness of God, and how we begin to live just lives. ☝️This is the lens we must see the atonement through.
Wow the complete difference between the two is insane to me. On one hand we have an argument based on "this is what people believe, that feels yucky doesn't it? My feelings tell me that's not what God is like." On the other hand we have dr. Brown actually quoting scripture. Thank you for your love of God and of the Bible and your ability to teach, Dr. Brown!!
Thank you Dr. Brown for always adhering to scripture. God is perfectly loving and perfectly just! Simple as that! It’s so simple I think sometimes it’s hard to grasp. I think if you don’t see your sin and sin as the horrible offense it is, then you are more prone to want to reject Gods just aspect and only want him to be loving. Systemic sin comes from us, sin infects everything it touches. Thank you Jesus for your divine justice and divine love. Please try to see yourself clearly, your sin clearly and God clearly.
Another problem is Christians who perpetuate the lie & heresy of Marcionism -- without bothering to read & study the Bible. There is a lot of grace in the Old Testament, and a lot of judgment in the New Testament. Same God in both Testaments. And Jesus is not all -- as one commenter already called Him -- "lovey-dovey."
@@IndianaJoe0321 I've read through a free replies here and no where did I see anyone argue that there are distant God's. No one argued that Jesus does not have some judgement. Your entire point is some sort of argument against something no one said.
@@hellohelloing9066: the OP had written, "... then you are more prone to want to reject God's just aspect and only want him [sic] to be loving." This clearly hints at the teachings of Marcion -- to which many modern Christians unknowingly adhere: two gods -- one angry, mean god of the Old Testament ... and one good, loving god of the New Testament.
@@IndianaJoe0321 Yeah no one says God doesnt judge or has vengeance or gives up His right to judge or have vegeance, we are saying God also has the right to set aside His wrath and still be just , and no one beside opinion can claim this is not true. So arguing that God has the right to judge or has vengeance is arguing against another argument not the argument made here.
@@IndianaJoe0321 It's not Marcionism. Zahnd does not pit the OT god against the NT God, but rather says that both the OT & the NT words about God should bow at the feet of the Living Word of God. Neither the OT nor the NT are the infallible Word of God, but Jesus is the infallible Word of God.
Years ago I had a habitual sin that plagued me. I prayed and prayed and prayed until I couldn't pray any more. I fasted and fasted find and time again both food and water for days until pain ensued. Nothing worked.... Until I realized that the doctrine of penal substitution kept me in slavery to sin. When I realized that Jesus died, not as a substitute, but as our identity so that we could say with Paul, "I HAVE BEEN crucified with Christ...." When I realized that Jesus died not as a substitute, but so that I could identify with Him, then I became free. Jesus said that when you know the truth, you shall be FREE. Jesus did not take the full wrath of God against sin. What is the full wrath of God against sin? Must Christians concur : the full wrath of God against sin is ETERNITY In hell. Jesus did not spend eternity in hell. Therefore He did NOT take God's full wrath. Jesus died so that you could quote Gal 2:20 and be FREE from sin NOT to pay a debt.
short debate recap:-Dr Brown: the Bible is true & says x about PSA , Brian Zahnd: While the bible is true, my feelings are more true and God can't be a big meanie, plus some people from church history also agree with me
It is sad to see how much of our human angst and folly we want/need to assign to the actions of God in order to satisfy our human sense of justice. The speaker in defense of the penal substitution theory appears to have an overdeveloped sense of vengence.
Oh contraire. It is the modern mentality that wishes to deny the absolute justice of God. The modern mentality wishes to believe that God is a lawless, unprincipled God who simply overlooks human sin and evil without any consequence whatsoever. Penal Substitutionary Atonement has nothing to do with human angst -- it is about God's justice and human evil.
Dr. Brown's explanation is a masterpiece! And I humbly add this ... Jesus' great victory over spiritual death was also won in the hours AFTER the cross. Please follow. Jesus' crucifixion was Satan's act to get Jesus to curse God and mankind, which He didn't. He glorified God by His Grace and forgiveness for his executioners. After the cross, Jesus was thrust under a colossal tidal wave of sin - the entire mass of ugly, furious, formation of sin - like a giant tornado - from mankind's history and future. Here He paid the price of sin because He endured something He did not deserve. He was the perfect and innocent lamb. Total victory for God. Total defeat and humiliation of Satan. Jesus completed His mission by sprinkling His precious and innocently shed blood on the Mercy Seat, which sealed the transaction for all eternity.
The cross was no more child sacrifice than Capt. Miller in Saving Private Ryan. I'm shocked at the level to which "progressive" believers throw around these terms out of context!
He is not progresive and if you have a learning heart and you are not set in your ways I will ask you to follow up with him and and his ministry and clear up things for yourself. Christians have been too sit back for far so long. Okay this is what a learner does. Take the information you got from there and learn in that line to prove it for yourself. Do not get spoon feed. Wait which of the past revival do you well know and which one does your denomination still hold on to. Find out about church history and also ibwill advise that you check out God's Generals by Robert L
You can also check out these by Pastor Troy J Edward. At Vindicating God ministries And even if you are not able to afford them at the price, get in touch with Him "The Wrath" "How" "The Permisive Sense" " Is The Future Set In Stone? "Untying God's "NOTs!" "Does God send Sickeness" "Does God work with Demons"
zahnd is not progressive in the sense that he would openly condone cheating on your wife. he's not that bad. but progressive in the sense that his conclusions, namely his theory on atonement, are not always rooted in scripture. can you find things to support his monster god? sure. proof-texting at its finest. but even atheists do that. but if, in humility, you approach scripture and truly desire to discover the god of the bible you will not come out looking like zahnd. what's interesting is that not everyone who is commenting here against zahnd is a calvinist/cessationist. some are. but many of us are just as charismatic as dr. brown. but at the end of the day we don't settle on theology that feels good or sounds good. we base our doctrines on scripture. @@euniceakrong8054
I found Pastor Zahnds presentation quite compelling. Dr. Brown who I greatly respect engaged in numerous classical fallacies which actually undermined his credibility. To claim to stand on scripture alone but then appeal to personal offense is emotional manipulation. It signals the audience that feelings are of greater authority than propositions and thereby attempted to impeach Zahnd instead of simply present his case. His machine gun style scripture quoting was evasive and mostly irrelevant. When the topic of the debate is Penal atonement that means every scripture quoted needs to prove it was a penalty payment to satisfy Gods hatred of humans which is exactly what PSA asserts. Instead Dr. Brown rattled off every passage relevant to the cross as if more words equals more evidence. Many folks clearly fell for it. Furthermore to dismiss church history out of ignorance on the subject but quote rabbinical history instead is a huge admission of weakness. The thing I find so amazing is the almost uncontainable desire of Christians to damn Pastor Zahnd to hell for his view. As the scripture says, the tongue is a world of evil and is itself set on fire by hell. You know that those in church history who invented this doctrine burned people at the stake who spoke like Zahnd. In fact Augustine and Calvin went to their grave unrepentant murderers of Christians they deemed heretics. But they wrote theology books that Dr. Browns views are built on.
Dear Mr. Deckard, I want to express my thanks to you for offering the clearest and most coherent review of this debate. I shall now reapportion the time I would have spent penning a similar review.
Your comment makes it clear that you listened to the debate. The content in your comment is utter none sense though. Every scripture used by Dr. Brown firmly and simply backed up every point he was making. zhand on the other hand just talked about the way he wants God to be instead of who God really is.
@@hunterelilindstrom3093 Hunter, you are confused or did not understand the multiple logical fallacies of Brown. They did not all back up what he was saying, he would quote random scriptures about the cross (yes random) and then follow up with emotional appeals and really poor arguments. Zahnd focused on the actual argument at hand. Logical fallacies are compelling to people not versed in rhetoric.
Yet the LORD was pleased to crush him severely. When you make him a guilt offering, he will see his seed, he will prolong his days, and by his hand, the LORD’s pleasure will be accomplished. Isaiah 53:10
Great points by both speakers, love the discussion. If your interested in more about Brian Zahnd check out Brad Jersak. He has some really good teaching on church history and the hear to God.
Church history is corrupted and not valid. Fairytales told woth some truth inside. But can't be proven. Examples: church history/traditions say Peter was the 1st pope and doed upside down in Rome. Bhr about 7 years ago, peter's bones together with his wife and family wer e foynd in Israel. Proving church history was wrong and lies to benefit the Catholic church. Do research. If the so called history would've been true, It would've been put in th e Bible. Follow The Bible, not men or man's teachings on what they assume. Trust The Word! Peace
@Sue Blue All the content in your citations can be accounted within a Christus Victor framework. Understanding of the texts all depend on your presuppositions. That's why this debate was useful, if for no other reasons than to understand what each camp means when the use the words, sin, forgiveness, mercy, justice, wrath, etc..
@Sue Blue I shouldn't be, but I'm always stunned by the rampant intellectual insecurity of other Christians who feel the need to respond so sarcastically to information they disagree with. Would you resoond to me like that face to face? Would Jesus be proud of the way you responded? If I were wrong, would that be an effective way of changing my mind? Your response was borderline incoherent, which leads me to believe you dont even know Christus Victor is a theory of atonement. Its not even a theory I strictly hold to, either. There is no need to be so ridiculous just because you're comfortable being an irrational woman hiding behind a keyboard. Practice that walk with Christ in all your relationships, and yes, that even includes strangers online.
@Sue Blue thank you for making it clear which side of the mob that crucified jesus you would have been standing. Time for a sobering look in the mirror, Sue. May God bless you.
Doctor Brown keeps bringing up the Leviticus sacrificial system as a direct word from God... as Zahnd tells us the later prophets said otherwise... what would Brown think of Jeremiah 7:22, God directly saying to Isreal through Jeremiah - "For I did not speak with your fathers, Nor did I command them in the day of My bringing them out of the land of Egypt, Concerning the matters of burnt-offering and sacrifice -"
I would say you need to put in its proper context. God did not give the Law when he brought them out of Egypt. Isreal refused to obey, so the Law was given later at Sinai because of their disobedience up until then.
There are a few things such as this that are questionable yet go as truths from Dr. Brown here. Even the link to a student's paper in the description is a mess. The paper makes a number of errors, is written in a bias and non-academic way, and misquotes source material. Further, the quotes used to prove historicity of PST are directly referring to random theory.
GD is talking before getting to mount Sinai. Sacrifice started after, also Jeremiah in these verses is talking about Israelite in idolatry! And because of this sin many of us are still outcasts.(scattered). And most Rabinic Rabbis are still lying to us and saying just do more to good deeds than bad, and because we have Jewish souls we'll be saved. Lies! No sacrifice no remition if sins. That's why now, Rabbis want to build the new temple, to start the sacrifices again. Peace.
Zahnd would not have smeared the lamb’s blood above the door had he lived during the last plague because that would have been “penal substitutionary atonement.” So do you think God’s judgment would come or would it have passed over? “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Nope, Zahnd’s son would have suffered the same fate as pharaoh’s son.
Thank you for sharing. This is so good! May Holy Spirit continue to give us great wisdom, revelation and knowledge as we lean into the heart of what Jesus would have us know.
It always fascinates me that those that come up with these odd ideas about the truth of Jesus, God, The Bible, etc. never seem to back up their point of view with scripture. Notice that Brian Zahnd never quotes scripture. Doctor Brown quotes scripture every 5 to 10 seconds :)
If you can't defend your position, like Zahnd, you just rattle on hoping no one notices you didn't really answer the question. ;-) You gently touch on it as you go all up and down and round and round but never really answer it. Read half the Bible, if necessary, to fill the time, and then toss the Bible on the table like it's nothing. I knew what was coming the minute Dr. Brown tried to nail that jello to the wall. You gotta get it squished 'tween your toes, which Bro. Brown managed.
1:21:31 Brian Zahnd is absolutely wrong. God doesn't just forgive because He forgives. Exodus 34:6-7 makes this clear: _And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 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._ God says He forgives iniquity, transgression and sin, and that will *by no means* clear the guilty. How does this happen? It's a contradiction UNLESS the sin God has forgiven has been atoned! If God could just "forgive" then He would not have sent His Son to die on the cross. The Son _had_ to bear the sins of the world so we could be cleansed from our sins.
I am Splitting with Dr. Brown on this one. Who was the Sacrificed paid to? So Sin needed to Punished. So God Punished Himself as a Man on Earth? WHO DOES THE SACRIFICED HAVE TO PAID TO??? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE If that was the case. God could have just Forgiven Sin without sacrificing himself. Dr. Brown's idea makes sense if Jesus wasn't God but only God's son. But that betrays the Trinity. Jesus is God. This is like watching my son break out a window and me responding by whipping myself with a Belt? It isn't necessary and doesn't make sense. When I can just Forgive my son for breaking the window.
you and your son are too different to compare to the father and son of the trinity. the father and son were both in on the crucifixion arrangement. it's not like the father was super pissed off about sin and jesus wasn't. it's not like the father was swinging an axe and poor jesus decided to get in the way. no. the father and son both eternally hate sin. upon the cross the son suffered in his humanity (his body, his mind, his emotions, etc.) this gets a little more sketchy because scripture does not say--but did the father suffer in "losing" his son to a nasty plague called sin? i think so. theologians try to protect the trinity but the triune god did not protect himself. he hung naked on a pagan symbol of torture because of the greatness of his love. so jesus offered the sacrifice to his father in heaven but he (jesus) was in some real sense (because he is part of the triune god) placated as well. he did away with the thing that was separating him from his beloved creation. jesus is the victor. he gets to be the hero of his own story. not jesus the man. not jesus the divine. but jesus the divine man. god does things in accordance with his own nature. you say that he could have just forgiven. but i suspect that that oversimplification of dealing with sin is contrary to god's nature. i think you identify the mystery of the cross with all of your questions. i understand you're asking them rhetorically but it's just as well--god punished himself? yes. that's the whole point of immanuel. immanu = with us el = god. it was prophesied that the coming messiah wouldn't just be a man but that he would somehow be divine as well. he could not entrust the job to anyone else. what would be the point of punishing a mere human? how does bob's death atone (in any substantial way) for joe's life? you said, "Dr. Brown's idea makes sense if Jesus wasn't God but only God's son" but how is he any kind of mediator if he is not both man and god? the divine part of jesus did not need to be punished. but it's the only way to accomplish the goal. and technically the human part of jesus didn't require any punishment either. did an innocent lamb deserve to be sacrificed. well, no. but when the offerer brings that lamb the lamb becomes a whole other thing. jesus didn't have to die. that is true. but if he chose not to then humanity would have been lost. so if god wanted the conclusion to be that humanity could be reconciled to him then jesus DID in fact have to die.
After listening to this debate, it saddened me to hear Dr browns comment on the early Church, we must realise the church as been here for 2500 years not 500 years dose he realise it was the early church who put the books of the bible into the book we have now called the bible. I once heard a minister say we don't need jesus to be here now because we have the written word but I would say give me the living word who is jesus christ every time .
Pastor Brian, this is for you. But first of all I thank you Dr. Brown for all your good works and for lettlling me use your platform to congratulate Pastor Brian. We are all saved from satan by the message of the cross and the knowledge of God's justice. But I believe Pastor Brian is doing a very godd job, bringing us to the knowledge of God's Love. Pastor Brian is also trying to teach us about the character of God. That the God of the old is the same as the God of the new. Because Jesus and God are one. I believe Pstor Brian was also trying to get us to the point where we will understand the OT in the light of the NT. With which comes the principle of accommodation. Because of the nature of the people near ancient East, their culture ,language and their background before know Yaweh. The I Am that I Am Further more, about the judgement of God, pastor Brian was trying to share with us how we can interprate the bible with the bible. When we do, all the difficult passages such as killing or God using the services of demons and satan passages will complements each other. They do not complecate things at all. Yes God judges sin but How? You know Dr. Brown, I love you and your work with the scriptures are wonderful. You have served your generation well. Thank you. We will contenue to appreciate you here and long after you are gone. But I think the character of God is consistent with what who God said He is in the light of What Pastor Brian was sharing. When we get to understand what pastor was saying you will see that people will not only feel saved by the blood to escape satan but we all will be able to Love the Lord Our God With all our HEART... SOUL... STREANGHT. The Love of God is Beautiful Thing. It is Deep. If you will allow me I can also share a few bookS and resourses with you here. Thank you. My email is akrong37@gmail.com. I put this here because I love and respect you and will welcome any coments and or advise that you habe for me. You can also contact my pastor. Pastor Troy J Edwards at Vindicating God Ministries.
This man is the most misinformed person (pastor?) I have EVER heard. This is the epitome of taking Scripture out of context. God blessed Dr Brown with patience and courtesy. I am also offended by he’s terminology.
Then, Cindy, you didn't hear the debate posted before this one! Want your head really twisted? It's Brown and Michael Sullivan, IIRC the second Michael's last name. You think this is bad? The other one believes we're already in paradise!
@@cindyryan5169 Funny thing, Cindy, I was just listening to Chuck Missler on Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." YES, these people have plenty of ears tuned in to their "philosophies" of Jesus. A Jesus of their own making. They don't like the Bible or the way God does things, so they change it to fit their purpose (or, like in this vid, so others (the Hindu woman)) will embrace a false Christianity and feel all cozy at his church. Can't have that dollar walking out the door, now can we? Did you notice his tossing of the Bible? Looked like it was a vile thing to him at one point. There's money to be made in Christianity. That's just a fact. People will not endure sound doctrine and will fall prey with itching ears and going after a false Christianity which satisfies their emotions and/or flesh. Those of us who are Bible believing are going to be pushed against the wall. We're probably outnumbered already. Oh, well. We're in the hands of Jesus and the Father. God bless you, sister!
I can’t believe this debate is even taking place because they don’t agree on the standard of truth. Dr. Brown believes the Bible, Zahnd has admitted he doesn’t in the same way. It’s evident when he describes what he believes about Old Testament wrath passages. He dodged Brown’s question regarding OT wrath issues. Case and point @1:11:55
The Lord's Day of Vengeance Isa 63:1 Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Isa 63:2 Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? Isa 63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. Isa 63:4 For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. Isa 63:5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. Isa 63:6 And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth.
And what line does Jesus leave out when He quotes from Isaiah in the synagogue? It seems that you have a good desire to ensure that we respect the entirety of the biblical witness. But quoting Isaiah like that seems like you are diminishing the revelation of Jesus by overriding Him with one of His own prophets. Jesus is the pinnacle, ultimate, final, definitive revelation of the character of God. Isaiah complements, supports, and points to Jesus. Everything else is in orbit around the Son, including the rest of the Scriptures. For example, see Hebrews 1:1-3.
@@carolewilson4862 hi Carole. I was referencing Jesus in the synagogue (see Luke 4) where he is reading and teaching from Isaiah 61 ("the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me..."), But significantly He leaves out the line about "vengeance". This lines up with with many other passages describing Christ as coming not to condemn, but to free, show mercy, seek the lost, heal, come in Grace and truth, and much more. I believe that Isaiah is inspired Scripture, but reading it through the lens of Jesus as revealed most clearly in the Gospels leads us away from a modernist/literalist understanding of a God who is deeply, thoroughly, and eternally vengeful and wrathful. My point was, it appeared that you were quoting Isaiah to show that God is in fact worthy of dread. However, Jesus is the pinnacle revelation of God (see: Hebrews 1:1-3, Colossians 1, John 1, John 14, 2 Cor 4, and many more). And Jesus never changes (Hebrews 13). So Isaiah is still inspired Scripture, but I don't think it's a good idea to quote Isaiah over top of Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus revealed a deeply compassionate, co-suffering, loving God, who forgives His enemies even as they crucify Him ("forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"). He holds children in His arms and blesses then, instead of commanding that they be skewered by soldiers in order to cleanse the land. He warns of "hell"/Hades (in Greek, literally, "the valley of hinnom") to try to drive people away from it. Jesus is the final revelation of God, our theology should reflect that. Every other book in the Bible ought to be in orbit around the Christ of the Gospels.
@@youngpilgrim5 Sorry, Christopher. I should have been more exact. All Scripture will be fulfilled, Christopher. Do you believe this? “Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.” Do you believe this? And do you believe the Book of Revelation? Indeed, Christ Jesus now offers grace to all who believe, but there is a close to the age of grace and that time has God returning His focus to Israel where we can see many prophecies being fulfilled, including the Isaiah passage that disturbed you. To leave this off today is to give half the truth. Christ Jesus' focus was not on it the first time He came, but it will be His focus at His second coming. God will deal with His enemies. That is a fact borne out from cover to cover of the Bible. Best, Carole
@@carolewilson4862 hi Carole. Yes, I certainly believe it! How does God deal with His enemies? He gives them over to the consequences of their stubborn sinfullness (Romans 1) then He shows them mercy (Romans 11:32) because He desires all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). He has reconciled all creation to Himself in Christ (Colossians 1:19-20), over and abundantly undoing the curse of Adam's fall for all people (Romans 5:18-19) and God is all powerful and able to accomplish all He desires (Mark 14:36). Yes, judgment and hell are real, but that's not the end of the story. Once sin is punished, Jesus will accomplish His desire, and all people will be willingly reconciled as they surrender in love and worship (Romans 14:11; John 12:32; Titus 2:11) once they have had sin crushed out of them in hell and their hearts rehabilitated, just like how Christians experience in this life (Matthew 21:44). N other words, they will eventually be cleansed of the insanity of sin by the Good Shepherd who never stops seeking for His one lost sheep (Luke 15), and He never changes! (Hebrews 13:8). The passages you quote are metaphorical/figurative. The passages I'm quoting are literal descriptions in plain speak. I agree your passages are true, but interpretation is often shaped by our church traditions, rather then letting the clearest revelation of God-Jesus Christ-be the final interpreter. Blessings from Canada, Carole. PS. If you're curious about this view, I didn't invent it. I discovered it as a way of understanding the Scriptures that goes all the way to the early Church, including some of the Church Fathers who discerned which books would be included in our Bible, and who gave us the language of "the Trinity" or Jesus as "fully God, fully man". They called this belief "Apokatastasis" which is a Greek word from Acts 3:21, meaning "the restoration of all things." Today in English it is often called "ultimate restoration" or "ultimate reconcilation". Some Bible believing preachers that explain it include Robin Parry, Brad Jersak, and Brian Zahnd.
Corinthians 5:21 New King James Version (NKJV) 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to become sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. And since the wages of sin is DEATH...the righteous lamb of God, DIED as part of the PROVIDENCE AND WILL OF THE FATHER WHO IS HOLY AND HAS NO OTHER choice to be JUST, and TO JUDGE SIN JUSTLY!!! DEBATE OVER!!! On a side note; I have NO DOUBT that Dr Brown is a Jew because he has patience like Job when dealing with these delusional, gospel twisting ingrates.
Job wasn't a Jew though, dear brother! And though we disagree with what we can only call blasphemy, we should still do so with gentleness and respect. Let the word speak! It's clear that no view of atonement makes sense without penal substitution.
@@RagingBlast2Fan that's not clear at all. I for one can see the reason and argument from both perspectives. And with all do respect, to throw around the name "ingrate" about anyone on that stage only goes to show your intellectual insecurity and the lack of fruit in your walk with Jesus. Have more compassion, if not respect, for your brothers in Christ, even when they disagree with you. I suspect no one fully grasps the accurate, prefect picture of the atonement (which includes you), so perhaps it's best to modestly disagree instead of berate.
@@jdm11060 I was just going to say that you sound very confused, so thanks for saying that. See, I've been through the hoops of trying to speak sincerely to Unitarians and Jehovas witnesses in particular. Initially they will sound open minded and they will appeal to your brotherly instincts to hear them out and have some amicable fellowship. They start by making it seem as if you stand on the same ground, but little by little every central Christian belief is brought into question. The added benefit is that you're never really sure of what they believe, as they unload their agenda little by little in a very abstract way. They reinforce their strategy by making it seem as if established theology across swathes of Christians is in doubt, and they will quote mine the bible for just what they need to get themselves going. Most of the time the person talking to them is utterly perplexed for trying to answer their objections. It doesn't matter who's right, all that matters is who is better prepared. Whereas the average Christian isn't equipped to rebut heresy, the first step and main focus of heresy is to concoct a whole system of theology to attack mainline Christian doctrine and replaces it with the ad hoc interpretations of its founder. There are a few core verses that the whole project is precipitated upon. In fact, the whole movement is based around that unique disagreement with accepted Christian doctrine. For example, Unitarians will make a point of concentrating the material they use for edifying their followers on the non deity of Christ, among other subjects, as ludicrous as that might sound. "But you see, it's all the more wonderful that he wasn't God, but that he was adopted by God." So, the followers of these groups are uniquely qualified in presenting the heresy in an articulate, polite and persuasive way. One thing they don't have is the truth. But unfortunately for the truth it's all too easy to think really hard, and really deeply to come up with a false idea that sounds persuasive. This is the art of sophistry that cults have perfected their followers in. And should you have an answer for this one point another library full of confusion is awaiting you, since the person you're speaking with was never really interested in the truth value of his prior statements, only the effect they would have upon the other person in legitimizing their illegitimate views. So, reacquaint me, what was this about?
Pastor Brian Zahnd asserted that “Penal substitutionary atonement theory was first developed by John Calvin…the early church Fathers and the early Christians taught nothing like penal substitutionary atonement theory…was unknown to the church fathers…it is a product of modernity…” His assertions are easily demonstrated to be false, since all the pertinent elements of penal substitutionary atonement are all used WAY before Calvin. Below are a few samples (most of these explications are mainly made in regards to Isaiah 53, Galatians 3:10-14, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and 1 Peter 2:21-25.) Cyril of Alexandria (378 - 444 AD) - For our sake He paid the penalty for our sins…For we are justified, now that Christ has paid the penalty for us; for by His stripes we are healed, according to the Scripture Cyril of Alexandria - Howbeit, after that Christ had given Himself unto the Father for our salvation as a Spotless Victim, and was now on the point of paying the penalties that He suffered on our behalf, we were ransomed from the accusations of sin. Cyril of Alexandria - He endured the cross for our sake that by death He might destroy death, and was condemned for our sakes that He might deliver all men from condemnation for sin, Cyril of Alexandria -He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law. For He became a curse for us, according to the Scripture: For cursed is everyone, it is said, that hangeth on a tree…The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the cross that awaited us, and was our due, through our condemnation by the Law…He took upon Himself the Cross that was our due, passing on Himself the condemnation of the Law…the Sinless having suffered condemnation for the sin of all Athanasius (296 - 373 AD) - He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself bore our weaknesses. Athanasius - Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all. Alexander of Alexandria (250 - 326 AD) -For Christ, by dying, has discharged the debt of death to which man was obnoxious…The Judge was judged…For our Lord was made man; He was condemned that He might impart compassion; Augustine (354 - 430 AD) -Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment…And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment… Augustine - the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death-that is, the penalty of sin-without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Augustine -Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment. Augustine - He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt. Eusebius of Caesarea (263 -339 AD) - In this he shews that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on Himself. And therefore He will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on His own. Eusebius of Caesarea - he alone having suffered the punishments due for our impieties, Eusebius of Caesarea -This He suffered being made a curse for us: and making himself sin for our sakes.” And then “He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,” and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, Eusebius of Caesarea - So it is said: “And the Lord hath laid on him our iniquities, and he bears our sins.” ..And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonor, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. John Chrysostom (349 - 407 AD) - And what has He done? Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you…has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong…Him that knew no sin, he says, Him that was righteousness itself, He made sin, that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. For cursed is he that hangs on a tree. (Galatians 3:13) John Chrysostom- To wit, we all were under sin and punishment. He Himself, through suffering punishment, did away with both the sin and the punishment, and He was punished on the Cross. Gregory the Great (540 AD - 604 AD) - being without offence took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal. Gregory the Great - for the sake of sinners He condemns Him Who is without sin; that all the might rise up to the height of righteousness, in proportion as He Who is above all underwent the penalties of our unrighteousness. Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215 AD) - If need be, I will willingly undergo your penalty of death, as the Lord did for us. I will give my own life in payment for yours. Macarius of Jerusalem (? - 335 A.D.) But he himself came as the Savior of all, and in our name bore, in his own flesh, the punishment owed by us. Arnobius (255 - 330 AD) - Christianity unveils the secret, presenting the Son of God, made man, a voluntary sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. If it be a mystery, still we do not wonder at the idea when we see one man paying the debts of another, and so ransoming the debtor. Christianity states this as God’s plan for the ransom of sinners. Severus of Antioch (465 - 538 AD) - therefore he made all the debts of our race to which we were liable his own: for we are accursed, and we came under, the penalty of the curse…And he himself underwent the accursed death that was for our sake, and thence blessed the whole human race… Theodoret (393 - 457 AD) - Those who saw Him nailed to the cross presumed that He was being punished for countless misdeeds and was paying the penalty for personal faults…But the Holy Spirit teaches through the prophet that He was wounded for our iniquities and weakened for our sins. He makes this clearer in what follows: Chastisement for our peace was inflicted on Him and by His bruises we were healed. We were enemies of God, in that we had offended Him, so chastisement and retribution were due from us. We did not, however, settle the debt. Our Savior settled it Himself…He showed that though He was Himself innocent and free of all blame He paid our debt and deemed us worthy of freedom, Pope Leo I (390 - 461 AD) - On the Passion, Sermon XVI Hence it is that the Lord Jesus Christ, our Head, representing all the members of His body in Himself, and speaking for those whom He was redeeming in the punishment of the cross,
Penal Substitution as a systematic system definitely did not exist until the 16th century. All the church fathers you just quoted either held to the ransom theory, Recapitulation, or Christus Victor. Those theories have been around since the 2nd century unlike PSA. PSA has many facets and just finding a facet or two in an earlier church fathers does not make your point at all.
@@cherryswirlchale9511 People can compare what you have to say and compare them to all the specific references that I have provided and decide for themselves.
What if these are both right? I don't see these as being in opposition except when people pose it in such a way. I think Christus Victus and PSA are not mutually exclusive concepts. This seems weird to me. Maybe as Zahnd is presenting it, but I see NT Wright affirming substitutionary atonement while favoring CV as the controlling lens.
The reason that they're mutually exclusive is bc of nestorianism. Under psa, God separates Himself from God the Son, Jesus endures wrath from God. CV teaches that Jesus' purpose had nothing to do w divine justice, but conquering death via wrath from satan. It goes a lot more in depth but I think it comes down to this: who killed God? God or someone else?
If you watch the documentary film, American Gospel: Christ Crucified, it does talk about both being true but the foundation is penal substitutionary Atonement. Yes Christ had victory over death AND he paid for our sins by being under the wrath of God.
I've listened to this debate three times over the last few years and each time I can't help nodding my head in agreement with Dr. Brown and yet applauding Zahnd in my heart. Both these men are correct, so I wish you people would stop calling Zahnd a heretic and a non-Christian. He actually possesses a deeper understanding than Brown regarding the Spirit of the Word as opposed to the letter. If you can read behind the lines a bit, you will see that Jesus was the embodiment and culmination of the nation of Israel. Jesus had become the "firstborn son" in place of Israel (Ex 4 22 Ps 89 27) and in crucifying Christ, God crucified Israel, along with its Mosaic law, in order to bring about a better covenant built on better promises.
While you may find the "pagan monster god" language offensive to you and many others dr.brown, you also have to realize and respect the fact that a lot of people have had horrible experiences in church that have caused them to see it this way, even if you disagree. Demonizing other views only serves your debate points and does nothing to bring unity and peace to those who disagree...
I think that penal substituition is absolutamente wrong but calling God a monster for killing Jesus is too much. We dont have to emontionalize or demonize it to show it is wrong. We can just appeal to the logic. BZ theory is wrong too.
23:03 what a way to mock our God... Who is a just God (Isaiah 45:21, Deuteronomy 32:4, psalm 99:1-5) And who is a God of love because "God is love"(1 John 4:16)
Brian Zahnd says at 1:34:24 that the ultimate act of Atonement was Jesus reconciling Himself to the world. Then he says at 1:34:40 that the Gospel isn't about any Atonement Theory, but about Jesus Birth, Life, Resurrection & that He is Lord. It appears Brian only sees Jesus fulfilling the spring feasts of Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits & Shavaot, but he willfully ignores the fall feasts Jesus will fulfill at His 2nd Coming of Trumpets, ATONEMENT & Tabernacles. There's that word Atonement & it'll happen whether or not Brian accepts it.
1:21:17 Dr Brown states that it has never entered his mind that he might seek retributive justice based on his penal substitutionary atonement. Yet this follows a very example of such rejoicing foreseen if the earth was to swallow up ISIS despite them crying out to God before being so swallowed up. The problem with being a part of any system honoring such punitive justice is that it often blinds us to kaleidoscopes of compassion which we see in Jesus’ own words, “forgive them for they *know not what they do*.” We are told not to rejoice in the downfall of the wicked, but to love our personal enemies and do good to them precisely because we don’t understand them like God does. (Does ISIS count as our enemies?) God, knowing all, understands the context surrounding our decisions in ways we can’t possibly see. The Alzheimer’s that affects cognitive functioning and therefore behavior; the neurotoxin that affects cognitive function and therefore behavior; the trauma that affects cognitive function and therefore behavior. It is out of this empathy and compassion that Jesus tells us to love our enemies in Luke 6:35-36, that Paul states compassion & kindness is what leads to repentance in Romans 2:4, and is echoed in the final words of the crucified God. We forget that we are personally ISIS to someone, bound up within our own contexts where we make choices that we actually *know not what we do*. The toddler who hits because he knows not what to do with a legitimate problem or pain. The alcoholic destroying their family because they know not how to cope with their pain. The disabled who can never understand enough to believe the way we believe. Every monstrous act has a context and a choice, yet we *know not what we do*. Not fully. Not truly. In that place, there we we are met with compassion while we “yet sin”. It’s how marriage counseling restores a marriage, how therapy heals generational trauma, how rehabilitation helps the addict. It’s why we are told to go into prisons. “Punishment” may indeed be effective for many things, but only love restores. Reaching into our context with compassion to help us learn something new. When punishment is our greatest justice and we lack the empathy and compassion of seeing the context of actions, we inevitably rejoice somewhere against some enemy in what we personally deem as justice on earth. Rejoicing in the suffering or the annihilation of our enemy. Not looking for the good we could do for them, how they might be restored in faith and in far more.
All forgiveness costs someone, just not necessarily the one who benefits. For example, if a bank forgives your loan, someone pays the price, in that case it would be the bank.
@@scottfranklin9670 E.x.a.c.t.l.y. This is exactly what Jesus meant by "turn the other cheek". God's grace was being slapped by humanity by our disobedience starting with Adam, but then turning the other cheek by dying for us on the cross instead of slapping us back. This is true grace and true forgiveness, demonstrating the justice and mercy of God. We created a debt before God, and He paid it Himself for everyone who receives Jesus. Pretty simple to me, and this Gospel doesn't require mutilating Scripture.
@@scottfranklin9670 if the bank" paid the price' that wouldnt be forgiveness. So Jesus pays the price, and because Jesus is God there is no seperation , God pays the price, but when God pours out His wrath, there is seperation , so God doesnt pour out His wrath on Himself. Be consistent. Is there seperation or not ?? Does the Bank withdraw the amount of the loan from its reserve, and then deposit the amount of the Loan back to its reserve and then says " I paid the price" ? Does God expel His wrath and then pours it on Himself and say I paid your price???
@@fredarroyo7429 Sounds like you don't believe the concept of the Trinity, but correct me if I'm wrong. Let's stay with the simple illustration of the "bank paying the price." If I'm the debtor owing the bank a million $, but they absolve my debt, HOW is that not FORGIVENESS? Regardless of where payment came from, a million $ was owed and needed to be paid. If the bank absorbed the debt, yes, it is forgiveness from the debtor's perspective.
I would challenge the viewers to read the two volume "Crucifixion of the Warrior God" by Greg Boyd because it addresses all of these issues in great detail, includes countless references by theologians on all sides, and includes lots of historical context not to mention countless Biblical citations.
No need to read other people's thoughts, we have The Bible and The Holy Spirit who can teach us better. That's one of the big problems! Reading other books to explain rather than asking God. Read the Bible more and more will help understand. Secular books are insights of the writter. Be careful what you read. Rather feed your spirit with The Word.
@@elichai7777 We have a Romanized version of the Bible. I appreciate what the early fathers thought since they spoke the Greek the New Testament was written in.
@@elichai7777 I wish I had your degree of confidence in my own ability to unlock the truth behind the thousands of great questions that have been asked for two thousand years. So much of what you've been taught about your own theology has come from other minds, not your own or the enlightenment of the spirit. Reading, studying, praying, and debating others Christians and their ideas is how iron sharpens iron. I don't agree with Greg Boyd on everything, of course, but his contributions are tremendously helpful.
The cross is God letting people know He loves them, and they should come and be reconcilled to Him. To change our minds which was once in enmity towards God. Rmember, it was Adam who hid himself, not God. LOVE IS ENOUGH. now be reconcilled to God, and receive healing. Rrmember the New Covenant and what it is. The law covenant is obsolite to those who are in Christ.
Every verse Sir Brown quotes can be understood to support the other side. You need to define those words individually to establish the meaning of said phrases.
What Brian Zahn fails to understand is the holiness of God. When Jesus was on the cross, since Jesus was God in the flesh, it was literally God Himself paying the price for our sin. It affirmed the love and justice of God
I am glad I didn't have a horse in this race. That said, the concept of "God's wrath" was repeated numerous times, nearly every time emphasized as a satisfying (punitive) punishment. That same person quoted Paul in Romans numerous times yet omitted Paul's own definition of God's wrath in Romans 1. Not to be disrespectful but it felt a bit like he was kicking against the goad, all the while confusing the listening audience about the true nature of God's wrath and even more importantly, the true nature of His character: Love.
I really enjoyed listening to this debate - thanks for posting it! I think one of the issues that kept Michael and Brian talking past each other a bit is that they have exceedingly different concepts of what "justice" means - retributive or punitive justice vs. restorative or redeeming justice. One is "eye-for-an-eye" justice, the other is justice that rebukes Peter for cutting an ear off, then makes whole what we've destroyed. Some food for thought... if a debt is forgiven, that doesn't mean it has been paid by someone else; that means it's been erased or cancelled (see Col. 2:13-14) - if our debt has been paid, it has NOT been forgiven. When a crime is pardoned, that doesn't mean someone else has taken the sentence, it means your record has been wiped clean! I'm not aware of a single passage of scripture that says Jesus "paid a debt" for us. We are "bought with a price," yes, but the price a Father pays for His Son's Bride is nothing like the sort of payment Dr. Brown describes here. Much of the biblical foundation for Dr. Brown's position was based on the Levitical sacrificial law, but having studied that pretty extensively, those sacrifices were not about dying in someone else's place either; the Israelites thought of sin much the same way we think of bacteria, that infects and makes unclean everything it touches - the purpose of the sin offering was to provide ritual cleansing, to purify a place or person of their uncleanliness. The only ritual animal that is said to "bear the sins of the people" was the scapegoat described in Lev. 16 (which Dr. Brown briefly mentions), but Jesus isn't called the "Goat of God" anywhere that I know of, and the scapegoat is, ironically, the only ritual animal in Leviticus that IS NOT KILLED - it is led to the edge of the camp and set free. Cheers!
Could you help me understand something, you said that sacrificing lambs was a ritual, whereas Jesus’s death what Brian describes, surely those are not the same thing so doesn’t that invalidate your point about him not being a goat. Why would Jesus be referred as a lamb if they had different roles
@@bto6859 Right - if Jesus is a "sin offering," according to Leviticus, He cleanses/purifies us of what makes us unclean (which is why John the Baptist says "behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world").
@@ThePettiestOfficer_Juan117 "Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for HE WILL FREELY PARDON." - Isaiah 55:7 Could it be that His ways are higher and better than our ways?
The biblical problem in simply saying that forgiveness/pardon is just forgiveness, is that it misses that forgiveness itself is costly. Forgiveness is a kind of suffering where the one wronged substitutes their suffering for the just punishment due to the offender. Notice that in Colossians 2:13 its not simply a matter of costless pardon. It is true that in a cancelation of debt there is no payment made to the creditor, but there is the costly acceptance of the loss in value by the creditor on account of the cancelation. God pays. There is a positive way of describing this cost of cancelation, namely, our moral debt was nailed to the cross. This picture shows that Jesus suffering by those nails was the cost of that pardon. The positive side of this coin of cancelation is described in other places as ransom. The shepherd spends his time and leaves the 99 to search for the one. In all of these cases there are two sides to the coin forgiveness and cost to the one forgiving. Forgiveness itself is a substitutionary act of the one God, in Christ, suffering death for the many. The fact that God offers his son is a divine self-participatory act by the Father, and is supposed to highlight how costly this was for the Father and the Son together, because of the Father's priceless love for the Son. Its not at all about the delinquency of the Father. This would be to read the cross like an Arian, ignoring the fact that God was in Christ reconciling himself to the world. The cross was an expression in history of the costly act of divine forgiveness which God chose to make from the foundation of the world. Everything about substitutionary atonement requires the incarnation because it is God and not a mere creature who is our savior. This is at the heart of What Athanasius proclaims in On the Incarnation. To the extent that the eastern Church does not speak in substitutionary terms is partly on account of a lost richness and a modern over reaction against the West. Representation is present in the seed of the woman who was to crush the serpent's head in Gen:3:15. Substitution of a sinless one is present in the sin sacrifice of the unblemished lamb as well as in that pivotal covenant moment when Yahweh walks between the sacrificial animals, putting himself on the line even unto death. And then finally in literal fulfillment of this promise, Jesus dies for his people as their suffering servant. All of this is Representational and highly substitutionary in nature. Jesus takes the place of Barabbas. Some notion of penal substitution is present in the biblical teaching of pardon and forgiveness itself.
You are presupposing God cant set aside His wrath and be righteous at the same time. Prove this to me in the context of the bible alone beyond opinion.
@@fredarroyo7429 John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world: but that the world through him might be saved. 3:18 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. "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" ~Jesus
micu radu You’re not upsetting me or I should just trust some random person from the internet. What is your real name if you claim to be a professor? What papers have you written? Do you have any peer review papers? Who have you worked with? Which school are you teaching at? I can sum up what I saw in this debate, and I agree with most of the comments here. BZ’s version of God is heretic. Does not use the verses in context. Brown on the hand supported his theology and his side with what is written in the scriptures, within its context.
Nah but I think they actually needed more time to dialogue rather than present back and forth. They were talking past each other at times. BZ doesn't deny substitution and Brown spent a lot of time reaffirming substitution for example. Another example, a big part of BZ's point is to reject the "wrath onto Jesus" piece (which is the "penal" part of penal substitution), and Brown seemed to tread carefully on the point of whether or not God forgives only after wrath is satisfied by the death of Jesus. The discussion really didn't hit the core on that topic, either.
Dr. Brown is so patronizing (to me). So much of his arguments seems to come down to 'I'm right, you're wrong, therefore because you see it that way you are rude and dividing'. Kinda like people that call others sheep when they disagree. I also think he doesn't fully understand Zahnd's position - so I'm not convinced he's intentionally using logical fallacies to rebut Zahnd. Lastly I think someone shouldn't use 'Dr.' unless it has to do with what they are talking about. There's a false authority there.
Hmmm🤔 I agree with what you are saying but about the title doctor part. I ask if you can educate me more. I hope it is not because you are not happy with him. Okay I also have variouse information to share if you love to learn a lityle bit more like Pastor Brian and go BEYOUND our normal Christian lifestyle where we only sit, wait and receive and do not love to sturdy and understand the CHARACTER of God. To know if God,s character is Consistent with Who God said He Is. Pastor Brian, this is for you. But first of all I thank you Dr. Brown for all your good works and for lettlling me use your platform to congratulate Pastor Brian. We are all saved from satan by the message of the cross and the knowledge of God's justice. But I believe Pastor Brian is doing a very godd job, bringing us to the knowledge of God's Love. Pastor Brian is also trying to teach us about the character of God. That the God of the old is the same as the God of the new. Because Jesus and God are one. I believe Pstor Brian was also trying to get us to the point where we will understand the OT in the light of the NT. With which comes the principle of accommodation. Because of the nature of the people near ancient East, their culture ,language and their background before know Yaweh. The I Am that I Am Further more, about the judgement of God, pastor Brian was trying to share with us how we can interprate the bible with the bible. When we do, all the difficult passages such as killing or God using the services of demons and satan passages will complements each other. They do not complecate things at all. Yes God judges sin but How? You know Dr. Brown, I love you and your work with the scriptures are wonderful. You have served your generation well. Thank you. We will contenue to appreciate you here and long after you are gone. But I think the character of God is consistent with what who God said He is in the light of What Pastor Brian was sharing. When we get to understand what pastor was saying you will see that people will not only feel saved by the blood to escape satan but we all will be able to Love the Lord Our God With all our HEART... SOUL... STREANGHT. The Love of God is Beautiful Thing. It is Deep. If you will allow me I can also share a few bookS and resourses with you here. Thank you. My email is akrong37@gmail.com. I put this here because I love and respect you and will welcome any coments and or advise that you habe for me. You can also contact my pastor. Pastor Troy J Edwards at Vindicating God Ministries. Anothe one that I haven't shared with anyone on this platform is this book. Schizophrenic God by .Steve C. Shank. In the situation where you are not able to afford any of this books at the market price please contact Pastor Troy J Edwards. He is a wonderful man of God and will make sure you get it if only you will read it. He likes folks who are hungry for the word of God.
Rejecting the Gospel that Jesus is coming back to destroy everyone who doesn't know God. 53:10 - 53:40 Yep, Pastor Zahnd and I agree that this is not good news to anyone, but the "elect". I know Dr Brown has supposedly debunked Calvinism, but this retort is dripping with aspects of it.
Ps Brian didn't make an argument from scripture, its more of an opinion based on a critique of Penal Substitution using caricatures of the position to show how terrible it supposedly is
I think dr. brown gets engry because as usual when a theologian is loosing an argument they tend to try to make the opponent looks bad by saying things such as this is dangerous, you need to rethink your theology in my opinion dr. brown was owned
Who else thinks that Dr. Brown was actually saying God is a monster though not in so many words? He did actually prove that God uses and will use positive violence. I think this was his argument yet he asked to just accept God as He is. I think Pastor Brian argued that God is not a monster and as such we should disregard the whole idea of penal substitution. At times I feel like if Christians was just more objective and honest, we all would come to the same conclusion on God being monstrous yet us being left with no other choice but to worship Him.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Well done Dr. Brown!
Mike Winger What is a straw man?
@@troymatthews3374
straw man
noun
noun: strawman
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
God bless:)
AMEN!
Do I need Facts in Order to believe something?
Hah! I knew I was rooting for the right side. lol
Yes. Yes. Yes. I think too often we forget it was God on the cross. Everything Jesus did while on earth was revealing the full nature and character of who God is.
@@samspangler9530 …or…what happened on the cross was the Roman Empire and the religious system working together to condemn God to death on a cross. While they did this God remained true to His nature…non violent….unconditionally loving and radically forgiving. God didn’t require the cross in order to forgive, the cross was what God endured as He forgave.
@@57andstillkicking ..and yet in the gospels we see Jesus going around forgiving all sorts of people’s sins…without shedding any blood.
@@272attwell
The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 13:8.
@@57andstillkicking I would like to hear how you understand this part of the verse ( some translations say “the names written in the book of life since the foundation of the earth”) I have no doubt that God shed his blood on the cross in the body of Jesus. I believe this happened in a specific time in history as recorded in the Gospels. I believe Gods death was crucial for him to enter death and have victory over death but not to enable him to be able to forgive. His nature is unchanging he is forgiving and loving. Jesus displayed this through this whole life and while being killed. He remained true to his non violent, radically forgiving, unconditional loving nature.
@@272attwell
I think the sacrifice was made in the heart of God before He created man. He already and always had a way to bring man back to Himself. God’s loving and forgiving nature are what held Him to the cross, opening His welcoming heart to the world.
Two Christian gentlemen discuss a theological theory in an intelligent, polite and thoughtful way. Great example of how we can explore one another's opinions on important issues without getting upset about it.
Thank you Pastor Brian
I grew up in a Christian home, went to Christian schools my whole life, I have a degree in Biblical Studies, and yet watching this I feel like I have only just heard the Gospel. What Brian Zahnd is saying about God is breaking my heart in the most awesome way.
He may use words that make it sound nice but it lacks power. What he is preaching takes away a vast amount of the importance and the seriousness of what Jesus' sacrifice was all about. It seems more of a way to condone living a worldly lifestyle. Dr. Brown spoke nearly all of his debate from scripture but Brian spoke nearly the whole time with his more poetic self interpreted words.
@@hunterelilindstrom3093 what sins or worldly lifestyle were he condoning? I missed that part. And why should the person who reads the most scripture indicate anything other than they read more scripture? I've seen the Westborough baptist church read a lot of scripture too! So What? What if a person can't read? What if they dont have the intellectual facilities to understand what they read? There's this very Americanized obsession that has a tendency to idolize the bible. Our bible brings us TO Christ, it is not the gem of our salvation; its a brilliant and wonderful tool to get us there. You dont even need to believe in biblical inerrancy to be saved. That's never been a part of the deal. An honest love and trust in Christ is our goal, not a prefect understanding of the bible.
@@jdm11060 jdm11060 jdm11060 As I heard him say, maybe I misinterpreted him, he stated that God doesnt judge sin because that would mean God is a "pagan deity god" out for blood to right everyone's wrongs making it sound like God only operates in wrath which scripture clearly indicates is not true. But if God doesnt judge us and there is no punishment for sin, then why dont we sin all the time, no judgement sounds nice! This has hints of once saved always saved to me but maybe I misinterpreted him.
As for scripture being used in the debate, it is quite literally the biggest trump card anyone can use. Seeing how scripture is the only thing we can pull sound doctrine from, we must live according to the word and not deviate from it. We dont idolize the bible, we recognize that it is a divinely inspired document that should be highly esteemed, Yeshua/Jesus is the manifestation of the word in the flesh as John tells us in John 1. You have to use the bible in this debate as it is the baseline of truth. I'd rather hear straight scripture rather than hear some man made doctrine simply because man made things aremt divine.
As the your last comment, I never said we need to perfectly understand the bible God knows we simply lack the ability too. I never said the bible was our salvation but it plays a HUGE part in it and shouldn't be taken lightly.
I'm curious, which side do you believe is right. The man made doctrine or scripture?
Mathew 15:9
In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
@@hunterelilindstrom3093 You're making a foundational mistake common to most western evangelicals. The "Bible" is not the Word of God. Jesus is.
@@Jordan-hz1wr hey Jordan, awesome to hear from you. I totally agree that Jesus is the word. Didn't think I said he wasn't.
Great debate!
Who holds the final truth?
you didnt review this on your channel - tsk tsk!
:D
While I disagree with Dr Brown on PSA, I do appreciate him. He did well in this debate.
Brian Zahnd absolutely amazing ❤
Lol you must be watching a different debate than me
@@vivianeborkholder2268Maybe because Brown was condescending and rude on top of admittedly mis informed because he never even bothered to study why the concept of hell is even interpreted in the Bible
@@vivianeborkholder2268I found him a bit rude as well.
Dr Broen was 100%!on point. Truly courageous of him to call Zahnd out.
@@PaDutchRunner Courageous? How is taking the majority view ever courageous??
I happily and without reservation left the Christianity with a monster god for years and years. I came back to the Christianity where Jesus is the exact representation of God.
Brian spent 15 minutes answering the last two back to back questions and never quotes a scripture. (1:11:55-1126:05) He has done this throughout the debate. When he has quoted scripture it always supports what Dr. Brown has said. That is because the scripture is so crystal clear, at least for this debate topic that a simple person can understand its truth and theme. I was so biblically illiterate when I got saved that I got confused while reading the Gospels because I kept thinking I was reading a book that I didn’t know I read, meaning I didn’t know that the four Gospels were the same story narrated by four eyewitnesses. I just read it from front to back. With that said when Brian brought up the idea that Luther introduced the wrath of God etc. I immediately knew he was wrong because like so many others if not all Gods blood bought saints can agree with us that The Holy Spirit revealed not only The traditional view that Dr. Brown is explaining but so much more. I cried reading God’s word as my heart began to respond to it. I realized that Christ not only died in my place on the cross but that if he were on earth he would be mingling with the undesirable sinners of our day, like me so I thought at the time. I used to disagree in my mind with Paul, thinking no, I’m Chief sinner. I was able to see the condition of my heart by the law and the Old Testament. And the Grace of God in Christ healed my wounded heart (conviction). He even took the guilt, which I struggled with for many years, because it feels like death when I sin knowingly because I have The Holy Spirit living inside me now. Hoe could I do such a thing, I say to myself. But I repent. I have too, some say “ you don’t have repent every time!” I do. The wages of sin is death. I know my salvation cannot be taken from me now but as Paul says “ work out your salvation with fear and trembling “ I’m being sanctified. I will receive a new body when I’m resurrected into God’s kingdom. I will finally be ridden with this cursed body of sin. It will weigh me down no more. Hallelujah!!!! Brian avoids the straight question about who is saved and who goes to Hell and what Hell is. This is dangerous because I believe we are in certainty the beginning of the end times. Never before are so many turning to a different Gospel. People are leaving the churches and persons are becoming pastors who are full blown atheists. Christians are no longer putting up with sound doctrine. And people like Brian I fear is not sowing seed that is from the full grit of Gods word and will not take root. If it does it will be a tare
GOD IS JUST, PERIOD
@brent holladay Very, very, very good post, Brent! I enjoyed it, and appreciate that it gives such glory to God. One day, you, I and Paul shall argue as to who was really the chief of sinners. ;-) It's my position that we're all going to be a bit shocked.
Did you happen to catch the "debate" posted before this one with, IIRC, Michael Sullivan? If you really want your head twisted...
Meanwhile, we all need to keep doing what you're doing. Sometimes spreading the truth of God's word is all we can do. If there's more we can do, we need to do it. I agree that time is short. Watching it all unfold is somewhat reassuring, however. I never thought I'd live to see this day. Know what I mean?
"2Ti_3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."
Again, great post. May God bless you and yours, Brent.
I too noted it. He doesn't quote scripture
He does, he even starts off by quoting John 1:14. You are so eager to criticize that you don't even listen.
@@jonesjones5663 For real
Thank you, Brian, for using all of scripture, as it points to the Word. I appreciate your scholarship and your obvious love of the Bible. I tried hard to see Dr. Brown's point of view, but, to me, Brian was the one declaring the preeminence of Christ.
You lost me there. Using all of scripture? In this entire debate, Brian quoted less than 1/10 of what Dr. Brown did from the bible. Brian's points of discussion were equally as confusing as they were redundant since it refused to acknowledge of the full context of the Word. What's funny to me is that a lot of his points ARE true. They are biblical. But I'd put it like this: if Brian's argument were like a donut, then Dr. Brown held the donut hole.
All Brian does with mischaracterize and misrepresent exactly what PSA is isn't it Christ who said no one takes my life I'll wait lay it down willingly is there not judgment on sin where does that judgment go is it a abusive father or killing his son no it was God the Father and God the son before the foundation of the world already knew that
@@jaredwhughesjust because you quote the bible doesn't mean you're right. I can point to
Any number of "Christian cults, and even the devil" that can and do quote the bible
"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thes 2:11-12
I thought both presented strongly and substantively. This is a good debate and should be used in any effort to talk about the cross and what it accomplishes. Both men discussed civilly and modeled good Christian behavior. Thanks for posting!
Chris you gotta still realize no matter how civil. The claims made by Zahnd are absolutely blasphemous he is calling the true God a monster
@@oneagleswings8456 Hey Friend, this discussion is just a modern version of what's been debated for millennia. Study the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of God and you'll see a similar view to Zahnd's. Jesus never prescribed that we have a perfect doctrine of God. He did prescribe that we love one another. Zahnd and Brown do this and we need to commend them for it. Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree Chris. While I lean towards PSA, I believe it’s not essential doctrine. It seems like they agree on the result of Christ crucified and his resurrection. I disagree with Zahnd, but from this and other things I’ve read he seems to genuinely be trying to point people to Jesus.
I’m gonna respectfully disagree with you here
@@oneagleswings8456That’s because you’re just ignorant. Not meant to be an insult.
Thanks for the debate to both of you. Sinners in the hands of a loving God book is so very good!
Awful book. Blasphemous even.
@@PaDutchRunner it was so very edifying for me. :)
@@NickWattsOregon That is not good news for your soul, my friend.
@@PaDutchRunner my soul is whole and at peace. :)
@@NickWattsOregon Our hearts are inherently dishonest due to our sinful natures.
Thank you! I've been waiting for this to be re-uploaded.
Amen !,,,the Reconciliation of ALL....as in Adam all die so in Christ all shall live. 1 Corinthians 15.18
The Good News !
As a 3x deployed veteran, I find Dr. Browns thoughtless dismissal of the question at 1:20:50 the most disturbing part of this video. "Christians" have, at least in the US, lead the way in the retributive justice category. To me, that fact alone undermines the underlying theology of the loudest supporters of the US military.
Didn't expect Dr. Brown's opening statement. Fantastic!
What this really comes down to is rejection of the True Christ of God. Paraphrasing Zahnd from memory, "A Hindu who was a potential member of our church was offended by the real Christ, soooooo..." Well, got news for ya, Christ Jesus doesn't bend to our liking. We are to bend to His. What to do when a Hindu, a Muslim and an atheist all walk in on the same day? "C'mon, baby, let's do the twist..."
Carole Wilson very good
Amen. This Brian better check his theology.
You shouldn't argue against a paraphrase. Zahnd argues that God is a God of love and Brown argues that God for some reason could not cure sin on his own but had to kill his son. Browns position, a modern church position (Zahnd argues what James, Paul and others believed) is that God demands pain and suffering. It's fascinating that so many modern Christians want to hold on to a relatively post-modern interpretation simply because that's how they were raised.
The wrath of God is offensive for those who believe in the Gospel of Grace which Jesus preached
Brian Zahnd has it right!
I assume your go to translation is "The Passion" translation.
Regarding Mr. Browns point of view. Absurd! I also find him to be disrespectful arrogant and condescending. Another know it all ironically who in truth presents an argument infested w/ falsehoods. I was flabbergasted in his response to Mr. Zahnd’s first question. Admittingly Brown states he basically hasn’t ever bothered to investigate how the concept of hell even ever came in to existence. Not remarkable though as this is very common amongst Hellr’s. Otherwise the likelihood they would even be a Hell’r would dramatically decrease. God forbid (jest) they should do some research about such a trivial matter (major jest)! The early church never proclaimed such a poppycock absurdity. And that was never a thought for approximately the first 500 years by the way. God never conveyed the “farce” of ECT to the Jews in the Tanakh either. It saddens and sickens me that Jesus is getting such a bad egregious rap. This erroneous false doctrine has kept more people (or as many) from coming to Jesus over the millennia as have come. And how many people have come because of the intimidation of this scare tactic. It’s no different than the Black Jack dealer who has an ace showing and asks the players, “insurance”? And you’re thinking, yeah I’d better. I certainly don’t want to run the risk. What kind of screwy way is that to come in to a relationship!
@JustSaying1957 If you side with Zahnd, you minimize the power of the cross. The problem you Mr Zahnd, and other new testament Christians have is a lack of education from the source of your faith. The faith started in the Hebrew scriptures, start from there and you will understand what the fear of the Lord means, you will understand what Gods wrath means.
Apart from starting from the Tanakh, what you get a a watered down gospel - the gospel Zahnd is feeding you.
Zahnd doesn't even understand that the prodigal son had no inheritance left, the consequence of his 'sin'. He was reinstated, but had nothing other than what he would work for.
Oh and by the way a balanced truthful presentation of the gospel eg from John 3:16 -18 doesn't lead to anything other than a loving response to a message of hope.
God is love, he is also Sovereign over the universe, he is the righteous judge.
Last week I was discussing this debate with an acquaintance of mine. Such great timing! Thank you, Dr. Brown!
Brian absolutely killed this. I'm thankful to people like him who are challenging the modern heresies of the church and helping me to break out of religion and encounter a more loving Christlike God.
Stephen that's heartbreaking to hear. God can't deny his justice he doesn't change. We must be washed before coming into his presence
@@oneagleswings8456 that's heartbreaking that you can't see that this is a heart issue of humans, not a knock on who God is, you poor thing bless your heart.
@@salparedo it is a knock on the True God of scripture. He's literally calling him a monster
@@oneagleswings8456No. YOU’RE calling him a monster
This debate wasn't even close. Brian Zahnds argument (if you can call it that) was basically "I don't think this is the way a loving God would act." On the other hand Dr. Brown basically just read Scripture after Scripture to prove his points. Brown destroyed him. It was no contest.
This silly doctrine is what happens when people forget that God is both Kind and Severe. Both Merciful and Just.
Abraham offered his son, while his son trusted him, in faith knowing God would raise him from the dead which was a shadow of what Father God and Jesus did. The shedding of blood is required for the repayment of sin.
Its not God killing his son... It's a father offering his son in faith (with the permission of his son) as a sacrafice for attonment for the sin of others.
It shows the incredible ugliness of sin,but the incredible beauty and power of love conquering all through sacrifice. It is not pagan. God set it up. It's symbolostic. Metaphorical. It's freaking amazing.
Life is in the blood.
I don't think we should stray from the language of "killing". God is the sole authority over life so there's nothing wrong with him killing people. Murder isn't wrong because it's killing, but because the individual is killing in the place of God.
That said, the real problem with this characterization is that the Son (who is also omniscient btw) GAVE HIMSELF. Father and Son were in agreement. To use the language of "Father killing the Son" is an a reductionism fallacy that tunnel-visions one's perception of what actually happened. It's an emotional argument with no logical weight behind it.
God is a consuming fire they forget about this.
Jesus willingly gave himself. The father didn't force him, Jesus did it willingly.
@@Iffmeister you are correct, it was his father's will that he give his life and he was in perfect unity with that will.
Jesus, as a man actually prayed for another way in the garden (probobly because he was stressed out about it from a flesh sense) but he said "not my will, but your will father". Jesus's faith in the father's will pleased the father.
They had a unified perfect relationship and Jesus was in complete agreement with the father. It was not done forceful issue as im sure you would agree
Bless you!
@@worshipwarrior12 dude that's just right! I'm sad for Brian Zahnd. He has completely missed the gospel by forgetting the holiness of God.
It begins at 9:07
Goodness thank you lol
Thank you Dr. Brown!
God is Amazing in his vast ability to love us although he is also a God of wrath and justice (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). We have all wronged him by breaking his laws and Justly deserve his wrath. And yet he is merciful through the payment of Jesus on the cross to give us a way back to him. (If we recieve it) And we show him love in return by our gratitude and obedience. God is Good! Amazing Grace! Amazing love!
Awesome job Dr. Brown. I hope someday to have the kindness towards others to the extent you do. (With God's help)
GOD IS WAR AND HE OVES IT SO,,,ALL THE CAUSULTIES BE DAMNED
bigfigism is English your first language? That comment is not a complete thought.
Also the scapegoat imagery is explained in Christ. Jews understood it one way, but it is really simple.
The people are forgiven when the animal is killed. But not only that, it was losing something valuable because of your sin.
They did not see the animal being punished, rather a price to pay.
Thus, Christ must die so we can RECEiVE forgiveness. We can receive not so that God can dispense forgiveness.
Someone had to die, but not just anyone, He has to be sinless, and no one can be that but the Son Himself.
Thus we understand, that the only way for man to receive forgiveness, is to see that God himself should give up His only begotten Son. Give up to whom? The world, sinners, and die and God not doing anything about it, when these sinners are worthy of death.
Why did God turn away justice at the cross? Why did He not smite those people? Because He wants to bring them back to Him.
And if Jesus doea and says nothing unless the Father tells Him to, then Him saying, Forgive them Father, reflects the heart of God.
Compassion trumps vengeance. Love covers a multitude of sins.
So much of Zahnd's message has breathed new life into my soul. And it was so nice for Mike bickle to make it clear that Zahnd is a friend of the church even though they disagree theologically.
Zahnd and Bickle are both bad news.
@@PaDutchRunner well, yeah, obviously all Evangelical leaders have seriously flawed ideologies, but I appreciate that Zahnd is trying to influence people away from fundamentalism and forms of Christianity that celebrate bigotry.
@@andrewm3997 There’s a much better route though - how do you feel about reformed covenant theology?
And there is another important question that here to the heart of the issue: do you believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God (plenary verbal inspiration)?
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Amen! Amen!
On the left, a man who forces the text to fit his reasoning. On the right, a man who forces his reasoning to fit the text. Thanks for being on the right side, Dr. Brown.
Although I do not think that Brian did a very good job in this debate, it is closer to the historical position of the church throughout the ages. Dr. Brown ascribes to a novel doctrine that began with John Calvin. Believe me, Christianity did not start with the reformation.
Randal Deese thank you!! Had to go through a lot of argument to find one that understand what Brian said. I agree that he could have did this better but what he says is still good
Randal, Brian didn't do super well in this debate on appearance. You'll note that Brown argued emotions rather than logic. Throughout his only argument is "I think scriptures say this.." while ignoring the underlying truth. That is modern Evangelicals in a nutshell though.
And you are right about the historicity. Even that offends modern Christians. Zahnd is arguing what was believed by the early church and Brown says essentially that he knows better.
Jones Jones
The early church is not the authority...., it's what the actual scriptures states is true
@@stevelovesgod From the cradle, the early church fathers spoke the SAME ancient Greek language the New Testament was written in. Their opinion on "what the scriptures actually state" is obviously very valuable. I'd say to be trusted more than the Western church's Latin fathers (like Augustine and Calvin and Luther) who did NOT speak Greek and had to rely on the Latin Vulgate.
C Badcavern
The point is to get your views directly from scriptures. What's unclear on that.
Not traditions, scriptures
From the word Go, Zhand is arguing a straw man. Nobody says God killed Jesus! Rather that God in the Trinity offered Jesus to take sin, WHICH MUST BE DESTROYED, God judges sin, to eradicate it. It's us who decide whether or not to attach ourselves to sin and go down with it. Hebrews 10.
"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush Him; He has put him to grief; when His soul makes an offering for guilt, He shall see His offspring; He shall prolong His days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in His hand"
~ Isaiah 53:10
@@IndianaJoe0321 yes by offering Him over into the hands of sinful men. That is a sovereignty deal. "You don't take my life, I give it." It's not the Father literally killing the Son. It's the Son and the father's plan for the Son to give his life. Zhand presents it as the Father pulling the trigger. No, the Father crushes him by giving him over, and the people are accountable because of their willingness to kill the Son.
Charles Horning www.desiringgod.org/articles/who-killed-jesus
@@CharlesHorning So God gives His son over to murderers...how is this much different than pulling the trigger Himself?
@@mr.e1220 He gave his Son over to murders so that the murderers may have life, and that they may be forgiven by his infinite grace
“They (the educated class) may be highly intelligent in the arts of farming, manufacture, engineering and finance, and even in physics, chemistry or medicine. But this intelligence does not automatically flow over to the fields of history, archaeology, linguistics, theology, philosophy and mythology which are what one needs to know in order to make any sense out such archaic literature as the books of the Bible.”
~Allan Watts
Personally, I have battled, fought, suffered and travailed over the scriptures for most of my adult life. Of course to no avail. What this rocky road has taught me is “Love never fails” (sorry, no if’s, and’s, or but’s allowed). Brian Zahnd may not have used as many Bible references as Dr. Brown (one of the comments displayed), but whose message best resonates to a longing human heart and the universal need for safety and freedom? Whose message best reflects the ABBA (that includes the feminine) nature of God - and its irresistible draw?
I would suggest for all to consider the viewpoints of the oldest, most archaic biblical writings, slowly but surely moving towards the climatic revelation of Agape Love - the ministry (life, death and resurrection) of Jesus the Christ. Pretty tough to see God being the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus comes to declare the apex, the profundity of perfect Love. Yep, Love wins! I know, “BUT!”… Isn’t that the way it inevitable goes - ha!
Possibly, rather than the Bible being a “flat”, every word, line, paragraph carrying equal status set of books - let us consider scripture as an inspired story of humanity’s evolutionary understanding of Love (thus God) - climaxed in Jesus and the Cross. That might get us all out of dotting “i’s” and crossing “t’s”, getting out of our heads, relinquishing human pride, fragile egos and the inevitable need to be right. There is no fear in love, -perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love (1 JOHN 4:18).
It’s imperative to always be mindful of mystery - the mystery of life, love, truth, faith and Light.
My assessment of the closing statements--
Dr. Brown: The most important thing about Christianity is Jesus' death.
Pastor Brian: The most important thing about Christianity is that Jesus is LORD.
God forgives us freely. I think Dr Brown agrees.
I don’t think he would forgiving us freely implies he forgives everyone but no you have to be lucky enough to be born into a Christian country to be forgiven if you were born in the Amazon rainforest and never seen a white person before your pretty much screwed
@@jdoe7674 He does. Notice how the first believers were told to just take the abuse and endure, forgiving and showing agape.
God's love is known all over the world.
But yahweh is not Jesus nor the Father.
@@graceoverreligion2509 exactly fam Yahweh and yeshuas name are not known everywhere so it wouldn’t be fair and just for him to say u must confess my name in this life to escape eternal torture sure there is no verse that states there’s salvation after death just like there is no verse that says there is not salvation after death or there is no verse that says God is a trinity none of that is clearly stated in the Bible but it’s all a possibility and we would be arrogant to claim to know 100% either way God is mysterious and doesn’t want us to know everything right away but when i tell you he told me that he isn’t going to cast off anyone forever you have no choice but to be skeptical I know but I have no choice but to believe it with all my heart and soul and just ask that you consider it an option and realize God isn’t terrifying he loves us he made us in his image we’re all his children and yeah some stray away but he won’t stop until he finds his one lost sheep ❤️
I feel bad for Dr. Brown for having wasted his life defending one view. It's like he's never heard of Origen, Gregory_of_Nyssa, and many others who are pillars to the continuing of spreading the good news of Jesus after the apostles. Brian nails it when he says it would be good to study church history. Brown's position is the cause of many atheist who reject deities who require sacrifices. God never required sacrifices. Hebrews says the law demanded sacrifices. God did not. So, what Brown has done is taken soundbites of passages and ignoring the letters/books as a whole. Zahnd has taken a step back from his evangelical experience including PSA, and saw that throughout church history there are other ways to look at the cross and what seems to be unanimously agreed upon especially in the 1st few centuries is Christus Victor.
Great post Timothy! What is also interesting is that so many "Christians" in these comments agree with brown, not because it's a good argument but because they were raised with it. They would rather believe a lie they were raised with than the word and the church throughout history. They believe that Brown and Calvin understands the Jesus more than the Apostles.
@@jonesjones5663 Totally agree! this is a mob in here
@@cbadcavern6068 what's really interesting but perhaps not coincidental, is the amount of hate the people supporting Brown are spewing. It's not about Jesus, it's about defending what they grew up with and what feels good to them. They are not challenged as Jesus says they will be, they are simply finding ways to justify they already believe. That is most modern Christianity.
And in juxtaposition the Christianity of Zahnd, what these posters are saying is "modern" is actually the Christianity espoused throughout early church works. I'm sure Brown means well, but you can see the problem when he claims "offense" at the term"monster God". Brown is defending literal concentration camps of never ending torture, where people are repeatedly burnt to death and raped. That is exactly what Brown defends. When Zahnd points this out and calls it by the term any functioning person would use Brown gets offended. It's like a follower of Stalin saying "they aren't gulags they are summer camps! That's offensive!".
You are welcome to be offended Mr. Brown, but you can't be expected to be taken seriously.
J.W. Hanson (1800's) has some great books on Universalism. One explains all the mistranslations and misinterpretations that lead folks to believe that hell is a reality. Another book goes through all the positive verses that teach universalism .. verses that our hell goggles keep us from embracing truly. Must reads - check Amazon
I love Gregory of Nyssa and Origen, but they are not the Bible. They got a lot of things right, but some things wrong. I have a problem when we esteem church history too highly and never regard Scripture in arguments. Brian didn't really quote Scripture a whole lot, but the primary view of Dr. Brown was based upon Scripture itself and Jewish culture. He explained that he had a problem with the Early Church on Jewish culture and that they've fallen away from it. I don't think they're anti-Semitic, but it seems to be a problem with most of church history, so it kind of makes sense.
Dr Brown: “The Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins.” (1:00:30)
Jesus didn’t preach that his death provided salvation, though true that may be. That wasn’t the Gospel that Jesus taught. Jesus actually kept his upcoming death on the down-low for the most part. The “good news” (Gospel) that Jesus proclaimed was that the Kingdom of God had finally arrived.
1 Cor 15:1-4
@@tpw7250 Correct. The Good News of God’s Kingdom is what salvation is all about. Salvation isn’t about a ticket to heaven when we die, it’s about a way of life (as taught by Jesus) that we can enter into now, and continues when we are present with the Lord after death and upon resurrection.
@@fathersonfootballfun I agree with you, and from what I know of Dr. Brown, he would seem to as well. The reference to 1 Cor 15, supports the quote from Dr. Brown that you seem to disagree with yet, I don't think its either or. Jesus did die for our sins and did bring access to the kingdom. I'm a bit confused by your objection, while agreeing with your emphasis on the kingdom coming in and through Jesus.
Amen to this!
Luke 24: 44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48And ye are witnesses of these things. 49And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Righteousness = justice
Justice = something put to rights
Grace in itself empowers and compels one to live righteously.
At the heart of that, justice is fulfilled and injustice is put to right.
Not too long ago, I heard someone define righteousness as “seeing the Goodness of God”.
It is when we behold the goodness of the One who is Righteousness itself where we are made the Righteousness of God, and how we begin to live just lives.
☝️This is the lens we must see the atonement through.
Wow the complete difference between the two is insane to me. On one hand we have an argument based on "this is what people believe, that feels yucky doesn't it? My feelings tell me that's not what God is like." On the other hand we have dr. Brown actually quoting scripture. Thank you for your love of God and of the Bible and your ability to teach, Dr. Brown!!
Thank you Dr. Brown for always adhering to scripture. God is perfectly loving and perfectly just! Simple as that! It’s so simple I think sometimes it’s hard to grasp.
I think if you don’t see your sin and sin as the horrible offense it is, then you are more prone to want to reject Gods just aspect and only want him to be loving. Systemic sin comes from us, sin infects everything it touches.
Thank you Jesus for your divine justice and divine love. Please try to see yourself clearly, your sin clearly and God clearly.
Another problem is Christians who perpetuate the lie & heresy of Marcionism -- without bothering to read & study the Bible. There is a lot of grace in the Old Testament, and a lot of judgment in the New Testament.
Same God in both Testaments.
And Jesus is not all -- as one commenter already called Him -- "lovey-dovey."
@@IndianaJoe0321 I've read through a free replies here and no where did I see anyone argue that there are distant God's. No one argued that Jesus does not have some judgement. Your entire point is some sort of argument against something no one said.
@@hellohelloing9066: the OP had written, "... then you are more prone to want to reject God's just aspect and only want him [sic] to be loving."
This clearly hints at the teachings of Marcion -- to which many modern Christians unknowingly adhere: two gods -- one angry, mean god of the Old Testament ... and one good, loving god of the New Testament.
@@IndianaJoe0321 Yeah no one says God doesnt judge or has vengeance or gives up His right to judge or have vegeance, we are saying God also has the right to set aside His wrath and still be just , and no one beside opinion can claim this is not true. So arguing that God has the right to judge or has vengeance is arguing against another argument not the argument made here.
@@IndianaJoe0321 It's not Marcionism. Zahnd does not pit the OT god against the NT God, but rather says that both the OT & the NT words about God should bow at the feet of the Living Word of God. Neither the OT nor the NT are the infallible Word of God, but Jesus is the infallible Word of God.
Years ago I had a habitual sin that plagued me. I prayed and prayed and prayed until I couldn't pray any more. I fasted and fasted find and time again both food and water for days until pain ensued.
Nothing worked.... Until I realized that the doctrine of penal substitution kept me in slavery to sin.
When I realized that Jesus died, not as a substitute, but as our identity so that we could say with Paul, "I HAVE BEEN crucified with Christ...."
When I realized that Jesus died not as a substitute, but so that I could identify with Him, then I became free. Jesus said that when you know the truth, you shall be FREE.
Jesus did not take the full wrath of God against sin.
What is the full wrath of God against sin? Must Christians concur : the full wrath of God against sin is ETERNITY In hell.
Jesus did not spend eternity in hell. Therefore He did NOT take God's full wrath.
Jesus died so that you could quote Gal 2:20 and be FREE from sin NOT to pay a debt.
Disregarding the law of Moses isn't ok.
Substitution is simply scripture. Read again Leviticus n numbers.
short debate recap:-Dr Brown: the Bible is true & says x about PSA , Brian Zahnd: While the bible is true, my feelings are more true and God can't be a big meanie, plus some people from church history also agree with me
Accurate recap. It’s no surprise to me Zahnd has such a massive church. Also, I learned a lot about him when he responded to Mike Winger’s criticism.
@@ThePettiestOfficer_Juan117 do you have a link to see his response to Winger's criticism?
It is sad to see how much of our human angst and folly we want/need to assign to the actions of God in order to satisfy our human sense of justice. The speaker in defense of the penal substitution theory appears to have an overdeveloped sense of vengence.
Oh contraire. It is the modern mentality that wishes to deny the absolute justice of God. The modern mentality wishes to believe that God is a lawless, unprincipled God who simply overlooks human sin and evil without any consequence whatsoever. Penal Substitutionary Atonement has nothing to do with human angst -- it is about God's justice and human evil.
Dr. Brown's explanation is a masterpiece! And I humbly add this ...
Jesus' great victory over spiritual death was also won in the hours AFTER the cross. Please follow. Jesus' crucifixion was Satan's act to get Jesus to curse God and mankind, which He didn't. He glorified God by His Grace and forgiveness for his executioners. After the cross, Jesus was thrust under a colossal tidal wave of sin - the entire mass of ugly, furious, formation of sin - like a giant tornado - from mankind's history and future. Here He paid the price of sin because He endured something He did not deserve. He was the perfect and innocent lamb. Total victory for God. Total defeat and humiliation of Satan. Jesus completed His mission by sprinkling His precious and innocently shed blood on the Mercy Seat, which sealed the transaction for all eternity.
The cross was no more child sacrifice than Capt. Miller in Saving Private Ryan. I'm shocked at the level to which "progressive" believers throw around these terms out of context!
He is not progresive and if you have a learning heart and you are not set in your ways I will ask you to follow up with him and and his ministry and clear up things for yourself.
Christians have been too sit back for far so long.
Okay this is what a learner does. Take the information you got from there and learn in that line to prove it for yourself. Do not get spoon feed.
Wait which of the past revival do you well know and which one does your denomination still hold on to. Find out about church history and also ibwill advise that you check out God's Generals by Robert L
You can also check out these
by Pastor Troy J Edward. At Vindicating God ministries
And even if you are not able to afford them at the price, get in touch with Him
"The Wrath"
"How"
"The Permisive Sense"
" Is The Future Set In Stone?
"Untying God's "NOTs!"
"Does God send Sickeness"
"Does God work with Demons"
zahnd is not progressive in the sense that he would openly condone cheating on your wife. he's not that bad. but progressive in the sense that his conclusions, namely his theory on atonement, are not always rooted in scripture. can you find things to support his monster god? sure. proof-texting at its finest. but even atheists do that. but if, in humility, you approach scripture and truly desire to discover the god of the bible you will not come out looking like zahnd. what's interesting is that not everyone who is commenting here against zahnd is a calvinist/cessationist. some are. but many of us are just as charismatic as dr. brown. but at the end of the day we don't settle on theology that feels good or sounds good. we base our doctrines on scripture. @@euniceakrong8054
I found Pastor Zahnds presentation quite compelling. Dr. Brown who I greatly respect engaged in numerous classical fallacies which actually undermined his credibility. To claim to stand on scripture alone but then appeal to personal offense is emotional manipulation. It signals the audience that feelings are of greater authority than propositions and thereby attempted to impeach Zahnd instead of simply present his case. His machine gun style scripture quoting was evasive and mostly irrelevant. When the topic of the debate is Penal atonement that means every scripture quoted needs to prove it was a penalty payment to satisfy Gods hatred of humans which is exactly what PSA asserts. Instead Dr. Brown rattled off every passage relevant to the cross as if more words equals more evidence. Many folks clearly fell for it. Furthermore to dismiss church history out of ignorance on the subject but quote rabbinical history instead is a huge admission of weakness.
The thing I find so amazing is the almost uncontainable desire of Christians to damn Pastor Zahnd to hell for his view. As the scripture says, the tongue is a world of evil and is itself set on fire by hell. You know that those in church history who invented this doctrine burned people at the stake who spoke like Zahnd. In fact Augustine and Calvin went to their grave unrepentant murderers of Christians they deemed heretics. But they wrote theology books that Dr. Browns views are built on.
Awesome.
Dear Mr. Deckard,
I want to express my thanks to you for offering the clearest and most coherent review of this debate. I shall now reapportion the time I would have spent penning a similar review.
Your comment makes it clear that you listened to the debate. The content in your comment is utter none sense though. Every scripture used by Dr. Brown firmly and simply backed up every point he was making. zhand on the other hand just talked about the way he wants God to be instead of who God really is.
@@hunterelilindstrom3093 Hunter, you are confused or did not understand the multiple logical fallacies of Brown. They did not all back up what he was saying, he would quote random scriptures about the cross (yes random) and then follow up with emotional appeals and really poor arguments. Zahnd focused on the actual argument at hand. Logical fallacies are compelling to people not versed in rhetoric.
@@hellohelloing9066 Rhetoric is about persuasion, not truth.
14:51 - "I don't understand this." The truest statement made by Pastor Zahnd.
Yet the LORD was pleased to crush him severely. When you make him a guilt offering, he will see his seed, he will prolong his days, and by his hand, the LORD’s pleasure will be accomplished.
Isaiah 53:10
Great points by both speakers, love the discussion. If your interested in more about Brian Zahnd check out Brad Jersak. He has some really good teaching on church history and the hear to God.
Church history is corrupted and not valid. Fairytales told woth some truth inside. But can't be proven. Examples: church history/traditions say Peter was the 1st pope and doed upside down in Rome. Bhr about 7 years ago, peter's bones together with his wife and family wer e foynd in Israel. Proving church history was wrong and lies to benefit the Catholic church. Do research. If the so called history would've been true, It would've been put in th e Bible. Follow The Bible, not men or man's teachings on what they assume. Trust The Word! Peace
This is the first positive comment I've seen about Pastor Brian. Love Jersak would also recommend Richard Rohr
@Sue Blue All the content in your citations can be accounted within a Christus Victor framework. Understanding of the texts all depend on your presuppositions. That's why this debate was useful, if for no other reasons than to understand what each camp means when the use the words, sin, forgiveness, mercy, justice, wrath, etc..
@Sue Blue I shouldn't be, but I'm always stunned by the rampant intellectual insecurity of other Christians who feel the need to respond so sarcastically to information they disagree with. Would you resoond to me like that face to face? Would Jesus be proud of the way you responded? If I were wrong, would that be an effective way of changing my mind? Your response was borderline incoherent, which leads me to believe you dont even know Christus Victor is a theory of atonement. Its not even a theory I strictly hold to, either. There is no need to be so ridiculous just because you're comfortable being an irrational woman hiding behind a keyboard. Practice that walk with Christ in all your relationships, and yes, that even includes strangers online.
@Sue Blue thank you for making it clear which side of the mob that crucified jesus you would have been standing. Time for a sobering look in the mirror, Sue. May God bless you.
Doctor Brown keeps bringing up the Leviticus sacrificial system as a direct word from God... as Zahnd tells us the later prophets said otherwise... what would Brown think of Jeremiah 7:22, God directly saying to Isreal through Jeremiah - "For I did not speak with your fathers, Nor did I command them in the day of My bringing them out of the land of Egypt, Concerning the matters of burnt-offering and sacrifice -"
I would say you need to put in its proper context. God did not give the Law when he brought them out of Egypt. Isreal refused to obey, so the Law was given later at Sinai because of their disobedience up until then.
There are a few things such as this that are questionable yet go as truths from Dr. Brown here. Even the link to a student's paper in the description is a mess. The paper makes a number of errors, is written in a bias and non-academic way, and misquotes source material. Further, the quotes used to prove historicity of PST are directly referring to random theory.
GD is talking before getting to mount Sinai. Sacrifice started after, also Jeremiah in these verses is talking about Israelite in idolatry! And because of this sin many of us are still outcasts.(scattered). And most Rabinic Rabbis are still lying to us and saying just do more to good deeds than bad, and because we have Jewish souls we'll be saved. Lies! No sacrifice no remition if sins. That's why now, Rabbis want to build the new temple, to start the sacrifices again. Peace.
Beautiful. Just wonder why its cut right before I could see whether they actually hugged at the end.
Zahnd would not have smeared the lamb’s blood above the door had he lived during the last plague because that would have been “penal substitutionary atonement.” So do you think God’s judgment would come or would it have passed over? “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Nope, Zahnd’s son would have suffered the same fate as pharaoh’s son.
Dr. Micheal Brown 🏆🥇🏅🎖️💪
I LOVE MY JESUS!!! THANK YOU FOR DYING ON THE CROSS FOR ME♥️😭
Thank you for sharing. This is so good! May Holy Spirit continue to give us great wisdom, revelation and knowledge as we lean into the heart of what Jesus would have us know.
It boils down to true and complete justice. That’s all- not wrath not vengeance. Justice pure.
This is my first time here. It’s now 2/8/20. Interesting debate. Dr. Brown I agree with you. ❤️🙏🙋🏼♀️💝
Scripture disagrees with Dr brown
It always fascinates me that those that come up with these odd ideas about the truth of Jesus, God, The Bible, etc. never seem to back up their point of view with scripture. Notice that Brian Zahnd never quotes scripture. Doctor Brown quotes scripture every 5 to 10 seconds :)
Rock and Roll yes I noticed that he would refer to a scripture but then his commentary had nothing to do with it
Rock and Roll 😂😂😂
If you can't defend your position, like Zahnd, you just rattle on hoping no one notices you didn't really answer the question. ;-) You gently touch on it as you go all up and down and round and round but never really answer it. Read half the Bible, if necessary, to fill the time, and then toss the Bible on the table like it's nothing. I knew what was coming the minute Dr. Brown tried to nail that jello to the wall. You gotta get it squished 'tween your toes, which Bro. Brown managed.
Rock and Roll I noticed that too. In others as well.
The Mocking Of The Cross Is A Classic Atheist's Attack On Christ....
1:21:31 Brian Zahnd is absolutely wrong. God doesn't just forgive because He forgives. Exodus 34:6-7 makes this clear:
_And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 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._
God says He forgives iniquity, transgression and sin, and that will *by no means* clear the guilty. How does this happen? It's a contradiction UNLESS the sin God has forgiven has been atoned! If God could just "forgive" then He would not have sent His Son to die on the cross. The Son _had_ to bear the sins of the world so we could be cleansed from our sins.
Has anyone sees clips of this in American Gospel: Christ Crucified
Yep
Yes, it’s excellent!
I am Splitting with Dr. Brown on this one.
Who was the Sacrificed paid to?
So Sin needed to Punished. So God Punished Himself as a Man on Earth?
WHO DOES THE SACRIFICED HAVE TO PAID TO???
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
If that was the case. God could have just Forgiven Sin without sacrificing himself.
Dr. Brown's idea makes sense if Jesus wasn't God but only God's son.
But that betrays the Trinity. Jesus is God.
This is like watching my son break out a window and me responding by whipping myself with a Belt? It isn't necessary and doesn't make sense. When I can just Forgive my son for breaking the window.
you and your son are too different to compare to the father and son of the trinity. the father and son were both in on the crucifixion arrangement. it's not like the father was super pissed off about sin and jesus wasn't. it's not like the father was swinging an axe and poor jesus decided to get in the way. no. the father and son both eternally hate sin. upon the cross the son suffered in his humanity (his body, his mind, his emotions, etc.) this gets a little more sketchy because scripture does not say--but did the father suffer in "losing" his son to a nasty plague called sin? i think so. theologians try to protect the trinity but the triune god did not protect himself. he hung naked on a pagan symbol of torture because of the greatness of his love. so jesus offered the sacrifice to his father in heaven but he (jesus) was in some real sense (because he is part of the triune god) placated as well. he did away with the thing that was separating him from his beloved creation. jesus is the victor. he gets to be the hero of his own story. not jesus the man. not jesus the divine. but jesus the divine man.
god does things in accordance with his own nature. you say that he could have just forgiven. but i suspect that that oversimplification of dealing with sin is contrary to god's nature. i think you identify the mystery of the cross with all of your questions. i understand you're asking them rhetorically but it's just as well--god punished himself? yes. that's the whole point of immanuel. immanu = with us el = god. it was prophesied that the coming messiah wouldn't just be a man but that he would somehow be divine as well. he could not entrust the job to anyone else. what would be the point of punishing a mere human? how does bob's death atone (in any substantial way) for joe's life? you said, "Dr. Brown's idea makes sense if Jesus wasn't God but only God's son" but how is he any kind of mediator if he is not both man and god? the divine part of jesus did not need to be punished. but it's the only way to accomplish the goal. and technically the human part of jesus didn't require any punishment either. did an innocent lamb deserve to be sacrificed. well, no. but when the offerer brings that lamb the lamb becomes a whole other thing. jesus didn't have to die. that is true. but if he chose not to then humanity would have been lost. so if god wanted the conclusion to be that humanity could be reconciled to him then jesus DID in fact have to die.
After listening to this debate, it saddened me to hear Dr browns comment on the early Church, we must realise the church as been here for 2500 years not 500 years dose he realise it was the early church who put the books of the bible into the book we have now called the bible. I once heard a minister say we don't need jesus to be here now because we have the written word but I would say give me the living word who is jesus christ every time .
this is a weird comment.
Pastor Brian, this is for you. But first of all I thank you Dr. Brown for all your good works and for lettlling me use your platform to congratulate Pastor Brian.
We are all saved from satan by the message of the cross and the knowledge of God's justice.
But I believe Pastor Brian is doing a very godd job, bringing us to the knowledge of God's Love.
Pastor Brian is also trying to teach us about the character of God.
That the God of the old is the same as the God of the new. Because Jesus and God are one.
I believe Pstor Brian was also trying to get us to the point where we will understand the OT in the light of the NT. With which comes the principle of accommodation. Because of the nature of the people near ancient East, their culture ,language and their background before know Yaweh. The I Am that I Am
Further more, about the judgement of God, pastor Brian was trying to share with us how we can interprate the bible with the bible. When we do, all the difficult passages such as killing or God using the services of demons and satan passages will complements each other. They do not complecate things at all. Yes God judges sin but How? You know Dr. Brown, I love you and your work with the scriptures are wonderful. You have served your generation well. Thank you. We will contenue to appreciate you here and long after you are gone. But I think the character of God is consistent with what who God said He is in the light of What Pastor Brian was sharing.
When we get to understand what pastor was saying you will see that people will not only feel saved by the blood to escape satan but we all will be able to Love the Lord Our God With all our HEART... SOUL... STREANGHT.
The Love of God is Beautiful Thing. It is Deep.
If you will allow me I can also share a few bookS and resourses with you here.
Thank you.
My email is akrong37@gmail.com. I put this here because I love and respect you and will welcome any coments and or advise that you habe for me.
You can also contact my pastor. Pastor Troy J Edwards at Vindicating God Ministries.
This man is the most misinformed person (pastor?) I have EVER heard. This is the epitome of taking Scripture out of context. God blessed Dr Brown with patience and courtesy. I am also offended by he’s terminology.
Then, Cindy, you didn't hear the debate posted before this one! Want your head really twisted? It's Brown and Michael Sullivan, IIRC the second Michael's last name. You think this is bad? The other one believes we're already in paradise!
Carole Wilson do these self proclaimed pastors actually have followers?
@@cindyryan5169 Funny thing, Cindy, I was just listening to Chuck Missler on Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
YES, these people have plenty of ears tuned in to their "philosophies" of Jesus. A Jesus of their own making. They don't like the Bible or the way God does things, so they change it to fit their purpose (or, like in this vid, so others (the Hindu woman)) will embrace a false Christianity and feel all cozy at his church. Can't have that dollar walking out the door, now can we?
Did you notice his tossing of the Bible? Looked like it was a vile thing to him at one point.
There's money to be made in Christianity. That's just a fact. People will not endure sound doctrine and will fall prey with itching ears and going after a false Christianity which satisfies their emotions and/or flesh. Those of us who are Bible believing are going to be pushed against the wall. We're probably outnumbered already. Oh, well. We're in the hands of Jesus and the Father.
God bless you, sister!
Carole Wilson very well said, I agree with every word. God Bless you, I am proud to call you Sister!
@@cindyryan5169 Same here, Sister Cindy. If I don't meet you in this world, I'll see you at home!
God bless them both. I know I wouldn’t want to debate Dr. Brown!!
Just Say Yes Brother, Yes~!
Because he is loud and patronizing in his tone ?
I can’t believe this debate is even taking place because they don’t agree on the standard of truth. Dr. Brown believes the Bible, Zahnd has admitted he doesn’t in the same way. It’s evident when he describes what he believes about Old Testament wrath passages. He dodged Brown’s question regarding OT wrath issues. Case and point @1:11:55
The Lord's Day of Vengeance
Isa 63:1 Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.
Isa 63:2 Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?
Isa 63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
Isa 63:4 For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come.
Isa 63:5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.
Isa 63:6 And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth.
And what line does Jesus leave out when He quotes from Isaiah in the synagogue?
It seems that you have a good desire to ensure that we respect the entirety of the biblical witness. But quoting Isaiah like that seems like you are diminishing the revelation of Jesus by overriding Him with one of His own prophets. Jesus is the pinnacle, ultimate, final, definitive revelation of the character of God. Isaiah complements, supports, and points to Jesus. Everything else is in orbit around the Son, including the rest of the Scriptures. For example, see Hebrews 1:1-3.
@@youngpilgrim5 Hi, Christopher. Since this was posted 2 years ago, will you please jog my memory? I don't remember the details.
@@carolewilson4862 hi Carole. I was referencing Jesus in the synagogue (see Luke 4) where he is reading and teaching from Isaiah 61 ("the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me..."), But significantly He leaves out the line about "vengeance". This lines up with with many other passages describing Christ as coming not to condemn, but to free, show mercy, seek the lost, heal, come in Grace and truth, and much more. I believe that Isaiah is inspired Scripture, but reading it through the lens of Jesus as revealed most clearly in the Gospels leads us away from a modernist/literalist understanding of a God who is deeply, thoroughly, and eternally vengeful and wrathful.
My point was, it appeared that you were quoting Isaiah to show that God is in fact worthy of dread. However, Jesus is the pinnacle revelation of God (see: Hebrews 1:1-3, Colossians 1, John 1, John 14, 2 Cor 4, and many more). And Jesus never changes (Hebrews 13). So Isaiah is still inspired Scripture, but I don't think it's a good idea to quote Isaiah over top of Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus revealed a deeply compassionate, co-suffering, loving God, who forgives His enemies even as they crucify Him ("forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"). He holds children in His arms and blesses then, instead of commanding that they be skewered by soldiers in order to cleanse the land. He warns of "hell"/Hades (in Greek, literally, "the valley of hinnom") to try to drive people away from it. Jesus is the final revelation of God, our theology should reflect that. Every other book in the Bible ought to be in orbit around the Christ of the Gospels.
@@youngpilgrim5 Sorry, Christopher. I should have been more exact.
All Scripture will be fulfilled, Christopher. Do you believe this?
“Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.” Do you believe this?
And do you believe the Book of Revelation?
Indeed, Christ Jesus now offers grace to all who believe, but there is a close to the age of grace and that time has God returning His focus to Israel where we can see many prophecies being fulfilled, including the Isaiah passage that disturbed you. To leave this off today is to give half the truth. Christ Jesus' focus was not on it the first time He came, but it will be His focus at His second coming.
God will deal with His enemies. That is a fact borne out from cover to cover of the Bible.
Best,
Carole
@@carolewilson4862 hi Carole. Yes, I certainly believe it!
How does God deal with His enemies? He gives them over to the consequences of their stubborn sinfullness (Romans 1) then He shows them mercy (Romans 11:32) because He desires all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). He has reconciled all creation to Himself in Christ (Colossians 1:19-20), over and abundantly undoing the curse of Adam's fall for all people (Romans 5:18-19) and God is all powerful and able to accomplish all He desires (Mark 14:36).
Yes, judgment and hell are real, but that's not the end of the story. Once sin is punished, Jesus will accomplish His desire, and all people will be willingly reconciled as they surrender in love and worship (Romans 14:11; John 12:32; Titus 2:11) once they have had sin crushed out of them in hell and their hearts rehabilitated, just like how Christians experience in this life (Matthew 21:44). N other words, they will eventually be cleansed of the insanity of sin by the Good Shepherd who never stops seeking for His one lost sheep (Luke 15), and He never changes! (Hebrews 13:8).
The passages you quote are metaphorical/figurative. The passages I'm quoting are literal descriptions in plain speak. I agree your passages are true, but interpretation is often shaped by our church traditions, rather then letting the clearest revelation of God-Jesus Christ-be the final interpreter.
Blessings from Canada, Carole.
PS. If you're curious about this view, I didn't invent it. I discovered it as a way of understanding the Scriptures that goes all the way to the early Church, including some of the Church Fathers who discerned which books would be included in our Bible, and who gave us the language of "the Trinity" or Jesus as "fully God, fully man". They called this belief "Apokatastasis" which is a Greek word from Acts 3:21, meaning "the restoration of all things." Today in English it is often called "ultimate restoration" or "ultimate reconcilation". Some Bible believing preachers that explain it include Robin Parry, Brad Jersak, and Brian Zahnd.
Corinthians 5:21 New King James Version (NKJV)
21 For He made Him who knew no sin to become sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
And since the wages of sin is DEATH...the righteous lamb of God, DIED as part of the PROVIDENCE AND WILL OF THE FATHER WHO IS HOLY AND HAS NO OTHER choice to be JUST, and TO JUDGE SIN JUSTLY!!!
DEBATE OVER!!!
On a side note; I have NO DOUBT that Dr Brown is a Jew because he has patience like Job when dealing with these delusional, gospel twisting ingrates.
Job wasn't a Jew though, dear brother! And though we disagree with what we can only call blasphemy, we should still do so with gentleness and respect. Let the word speak! It's clear that no view of atonement makes sense without penal substitution.
@@RagingBlast2Fan that's not clear at all. I for one can see the reason and argument from both perspectives. And with all do respect, to throw around the name "ingrate" about anyone on that stage only goes to show your intellectual insecurity and the lack of fruit in your walk with Jesus. Have more compassion, if not respect, for your brothers in Christ, even when they disagree with you. I suspect no one fully grasps the accurate, prefect picture of the atonement (which includes you), so perhaps it's best to modestly disagree instead of berate.
@@RagingBlast2Fan it may not have been clear, but that the last half of my comemt was directed at the OP, not you.
@@jdm11060 I was just going to say that you sound very confused, so thanks for saying that.
See, I've been through the hoops of trying to speak sincerely to Unitarians and Jehovas witnesses in particular. Initially they will sound open minded and they will appeal to your brotherly instincts to hear them out and have some amicable fellowship. They start by making it seem as if you stand on the same ground, but little by little every central Christian belief is brought into question. The added benefit is that you're never really sure of what they believe, as they unload their agenda little by little in a very abstract way. They reinforce their strategy by making it seem as if established theology across swathes of Christians is in doubt, and they will quote mine the bible for just what they need to get themselves going. Most of the time the person talking to them is utterly perplexed for trying to answer their objections. It doesn't matter who's right, all that matters is who is better prepared. Whereas the average Christian isn't equipped to rebut heresy, the first step and main focus of heresy is to concoct a whole system of theology to attack mainline Christian doctrine and replaces it with the ad hoc interpretations of its founder. There are a few core verses that the whole project is precipitated upon. In fact, the whole movement is based around that unique disagreement with accepted Christian doctrine. For example, Unitarians will make a point of concentrating the material they use for edifying their followers on the non deity of Christ, among other subjects, as ludicrous as that might sound. "But you see, it's all the more wonderful that he wasn't God, but that he was adopted by God." So, the followers of these groups are uniquely qualified in presenting the heresy in an articulate, polite and persuasive way. One thing they don't have is the truth. But unfortunately for the truth it's all too easy to think really hard, and really deeply to come up with a false idea that sounds persuasive. This is the art of sophistry that cults have perfected their followers in. And should you have an answer for this one point another library full of confusion is awaiting you, since the person you're speaking with was never really interested in the truth value of his prior statements, only the effect they would have upon the other person in legitimizing their illegitimate views.
So, reacquaint me, what was this about?
Pastor Brian Zahnd asserted that “Penal substitutionary atonement theory was first developed by John Calvin…the early church Fathers and the early Christians taught nothing like penal substitutionary atonement theory…was unknown to the church fathers…it is a product of modernity…” His assertions are easily demonstrated to be false, since all the pertinent elements of penal substitutionary atonement are all used WAY before Calvin. Below are a few samples (most of these explications are mainly made in regards to Isaiah 53, Galatians 3:10-14, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and 1 Peter 2:21-25.)
Cyril of Alexandria (378 - 444 AD) - For our sake He paid the penalty for our sins…For we are justified, now that Christ has paid the penalty for us; for by His stripes we are healed, according to the Scripture
Cyril of Alexandria - Howbeit, after that Christ had given Himself unto the Father for our salvation as a Spotless Victim, and was now on the point of paying the penalties that He suffered on our behalf, we were ransomed from the accusations of sin.
Cyril of Alexandria - He endured the cross for our sake that by death He might destroy death, and was condemned for our sakes that He might deliver all men from condemnation for sin,
Cyril of Alexandria -He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law. For He became a curse for us, according to the Scripture: For cursed is everyone, it is said, that hangeth on a tree…The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the cross that awaited us, and was our due, through our condemnation by the Law…He took upon Himself the Cross that was our due, passing on Himself the condemnation of the Law…the Sinless having suffered condemnation for the sin of all
Athanasius (296 - 373 AD) - He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself bore our weaknesses.
Athanasius - Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all.
Alexander of Alexandria (250 - 326 AD) -For Christ, by dying, has discharged the debt of death to which man was obnoxious…The Judge was judged…For our Lord was made man; He was condemned that He might impart compassion;
Augustine (354 - 430 AD) -Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment…And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment…
Augustine - the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death-that is, the penalty of sin-without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings.
Augustine -Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.
Augustine - He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt.
Eusebius of Caesarea (263 -339 AD) - In this he shews that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on Himself. And therefore He will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on His own.
Eusebius of Caesarea - he alone having suffered the punishments due for our impieties,
Eusebius of Caesarea -This He suffered being made a curse for us: and making himself sin for our sakes.” And then “He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,” and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins,
Eusebius of Caesarea - So it is said: “And the Lord hath laid on him our iniquities, and he bears our sins.” ..And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonor, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us.
John Chrysostom (349 - 407 AD) - And what has He done? Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you…has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong…Him that knew no sin, he says, Him that was righteousness itself, He made sin, that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. For cursed is he that hangs on a tree. (Galatians 3:13)
John Chrysostom- To wit, we all were under sin and punishment. He Himself, through suffering punishment, did away with both the sin and the punishment, and He was punished on the Cross.
Gregory the Great (540 AD - 604 AD) - being without offence took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal.
Gregory the Great - for the sake of sinners He condemns Him Who is without sin; that all the might rise up to the height of righteousness, in proportion as He Who is above all underwent the penalties of our unrighteousness.
Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215 AD) - If need be, I will willingly undergo your penalty of death, as the Lord did for us. I will give my own life in payment for yours.
Macarius of Jerusalem (? - 335 A.D.) But he himself came as the Savior of all, and in our name bore, in his own flesh, the punishment owed by us.
Arnobius (255 - 330 AD) - Christianity unveils the secret, presenting the Son of God, made man, a voluntary sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. If it be a mystery, still we do not wonder at the idea when we see one man paying the debts of another, and so ransoming the debtor. Christianity states this as God’s plan for the ransom of sinners.
Severus of Antioch (465 - 538 AD) - therefore he made all the debts of our race to which we were liable his own: for we are accursed, and we came under, the penalty of the curse…And he himself underwent the accursed death that was for our sake, and thence blessed the whole human race…
Theodoret (393 - 457 AD) - Those who saw Him nailed to the cross presumed that He was being punished for countless misdeeds and was paying the penalty for personal faults…But the Holy Spirit teaches through the prophet that He was wounded for our iniquities and weakened for our sins. He makes this clearer in what follows: Chastisement for our peace was inflicted on Him and by His bruises we were healed. We were enemies of God, in that we had offended Him, so chastisement and retribution were due from us. We did not, however, settle the debt. Our Savior settled it Himself…He showed that though He was Himself innocent and free of all blame He paid our debt and deemed us worthy of freedom,
Pope Leo I (390 - 461 AD) - On the Passion, Sermon XVI Hence it is that the Lord Jesus Christ, our Head, representing all the members of His body in Himself, and speaking for those whom He was redeeming in the punishment of the cross,
Penal Substitution as a systematic system definitely did not exist until the 16th century. All the church fathers you just quoted either held to the ransom theory, Recapitulation, or Christus Victor. Those theories have been around since the 2nd century unlike PSA. PSA has many facets and just finding a facet or two in an earlier church fathers does not make your point at all.
@@cherryswirlchale9511 People can compare what you have to say and compare them to all the specific references that I have provided and decide for themselves.
What if these are both right? I don't see these as being in opposition except when people pose it in such a way. I think Christus Victus and PSA are not mutually exclusive concepts. This seems weird to me. Maybe as Zahnd is presenting it, but I see NT Wright affirming substitutionary atonement while favoring CV as the controlling lens.
The reason that they're mutually exclusive is bc of nestorianism. Under psa, God separates Himself from God the Son, Jesus endures wrath from God. CV teaches that Jesus' purpose had nothing to do w divine justice, but conquering death via wrath from satan. It goes a lot more in depth but I think it comes down to this: who killed God? God or someone else?
If you watch the documentary film, American Gospel: Christ Crucified, it does talk about both being true but the foundation is penal substitutionary Atonement. Yes Christ had victory over death AND he paid for our sins by being under the wrath of God.
They are NOT brothers.
Definitely not
This is the difference between a man who gets his theology from the word of God (Dr. Brown) and a man who doesn’t.
Both dont get their theology from the word of God
I've listened to this debate three times over the last few years and each time I can't help nodding my head in agreement with Dr. Brown and yet applauding Zahnd in my heart. Both these men are correct, so I wish you people would stop calling Zahnd a heretic and a non-Christian. He actually possesses a deeper understanding than Brown regarding the Spirit of the Word as opposed to the letter.
If you can read behind the lines a bit, you will see that Jesus was the embodiment and culmination of the nation of Israel. Jesus had become the "firstborn son" in place of Israel (Ex 4 22 Ps 89 27) and in crucifying Christ, God crucified Israel, along with its Mosaic law, in order to bring about a better covenant built on better promises.
While you may find the "pagan monster god" language offensive to you and many others dr.brown, you also have to realize and respect the fact that a lot of people have had horrible experiences in church that have caused them to see it this way, even if you disagree. Demonizing other views only serves your debate points and does nothing to bring unity and peace to those who disagree...
Excellent debate Dr. Brown. You're right. I found the whole "Monster God" and the analogies given extremely offensive, if not blasphemous.
I get mad too when people say things that go against things i believe and hold dear.
I think that penal substituition is absolutamente wrong but calling God a monster for killing Jesus is too much. We dont have to emontionalize or demonize it to show it is wrong. We can just appeal to the logic. BZ theory is wrong too.
23:03 what a way to mock our God...
Who is a just God (Isaiah 45:21, Deuteronomy 32:4, psalm 99:1-5)
And who is a God of love because "God is love"(1 John 4:16)
Brian Zahnd says at 1:34:24 that the ultimate act of Atonement was Jesus reconciling Himself to the world. Then he says at 1:34:40 that the Gospel isn't about any Atonement Theory, but about Jesus Birth, Life, Resurrection & that He is Lord. It appears Brian only sees Jesus fulfilling the spring feasts of Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits & Shavaot, but he willfully ignores the fall feasts Jesus will fulfill at His 2nd Coming of Trumpets, ATONEMENT & Tabernacles. There's that word Atonement & it'll happen whether or not Brian accepts it.
Yes, Jesus was the ultimate act of atonement. You are suggesting Jesus death was insufficient?!
1:21:17 Dr Brown states that it has never entered his mind that he might seek retributive justice based on his penal substitutionary atonement. Yet this follows a very example of such rejoicing foreseen if the earth was to swallow up ISIS despite them crying out to God before being so swallowed up. The problem with being a part of any system honoring such punitive justice is that it often blinds us to kaleidoscopes of compassion which we see in Jesus’ own words, “forgive them for they *know not what they do*.” We are told not to rejoice in the downfall of the wicked, but to love our personal enemies and do good to them precisely because we don’t understand them like God does. (Does ISIS count as our enemies?)
God, knowing all, understands the context surrounding our decisions in ways we can’t possibly see. The Alzheimer’s that affects cognitive functioning and therefore behavior; the neurotoxin that affects cognitive function and therefore behavior; the trauma that affects cognitive function and therefore behavior. It is out of this empathy and compassion that Jesus tells us to love our enemies in Luke 6:35-36, that Paul states compassion & kindness is what leads to repentance in Romans 2:4, and is echoed in the final words of the crucified God. We forget that we are personally ISIS to someone, bound up within our own contexts where we make choices that we actually *know not what we do*. The toddler who hits because he knows not what to do with a legitimate problem or pain. The alcoholic destroying their family because they know not how to cope with their pain. The disabled who can never understand enough to believe the way we believe. Every monstrous act has a context and a choice, yet we *know not what we do*. Not fully. Not truly. In that place, there we we are met with compassion while we “yet sin”.
It’s how marriage counseling restores a marriage, how therapy heals generational trauma, how rehabilitation helps the addict.
It’s why we are told to go into prisons.
“Punishment” may indeed be effective for many things, but only love restores. Reaching into our context with compassion to help us learn something new. When punishment is our greatest justice and we lack the empathy and compassion of seeing the context of actions, we inevitably rejoice somewhere against some enemy in what we personally deem as justice on earth. Rejoicing in the suffering or the annihilation of our enemy. Not looking for the good we could do for them, how they might be restored in faith and in far more.
Pretty tough to forgive if you demand payment first.
All forgiveness costs someone, just not necessarily the one who benefits. For example, if a bank forgives your loan, someone pays the price, in that case it would be the bank.
@@scottfranklin9670 E.x.a.c.t.l.y.
This is exactly what Jesus meant by "turn the other cheek". God's grace was being slapped by humanity by our disobedience starting with Adam, but then turning the other cheek by dying for us on the cross instead of slapping us back. This is true grace and true forgiveness, demonstrating the justice and mercy of God.
We created a debt before God, and He paid it Himself for everyone who receives Jesus. Pretty simple to me, and this Gospel doesn't require mutilating Scripture.
@@scottfranklin9670 if the bank" paid the price' that wouldnt be forgiveness. So Jesus pays the price, and because Jesus is God there is no seperation , God pays the price, but when God pours out His wrath, there is seperation , so God doesnt pour out His wrath on Himself. Be consistent. Is there seperation or not ?? Does the Bank withdraw the amount of the loan from its reserve, and then deposit the amount of the Loan back to its reserve and then says " I paid the price" ? Does God expel His wrath and then pours it on Himself and say I paid your price???
Pretty easy to forgive when you make the payment yourself.
@@fredarroyo7429 Sounds like you don't believe the concept of the Trinity, but correct me if I'm wrong. Let's stay with the simple illustration of the "bank paying the price." If I'm the debtor owing the bank a million $, but they absolve my debt, HOW is that not FORGIVENESS? Regardless of where payment came from, a million $ was owed and needed to be paid. If the bank absorbed the debt, yes, it is forgiveness from the debtor's perspective.
I would challenge the viewers to read the two volume "Crucifixion of the Warrior God" by Greg Boyd because it addresses all of these issues in great detail, includes countless references by theologians on all sides, and includes lots of historical context not to mention countless Biblical citations.
No need to read other people's thoughts, we have The Bible and The Holy Spirit who can teach us better. That's one of the big problems! Reading other books to explain rather than asking God. Read the Bible more and more will help understand. Secular books are insights of the writter. Be careful what you read. Rather feed your spirit with The Word.
@@elichai7777 We have a Romanized version of the Bible. I appreciate what the early fathers thought since they spoke the Greek the New Testament was written in.
@@elichai7777 I wish I had your degree of confidence in my own ability to unlock the truth behind the thousands of great questions that have been asked for two thousand years. So much of what you've been taught about your own theology has come from other minds, not your own or the enlightenment of the spirit. Reading, studying, praying, and debating others Christians and their ideas is how iron sharpens iron. I don't agree with Greg Boyd on everything, of course, but his contributions are tremendously helpful.
Don’t read anything by Greg Boyd
@@cbadcavern6068 Which early father are you talking about?
The cross is God letting people know He loves them, and they should come and be reconcilled to Him. To change our minds which was once in enmity towards God.
Rmember, it was Adam who hid himself, not God.
LOVE IS ENOUGH. now be reconcilled to God, and receive healing.
Rrmember the New Covenant and what it is. The law covenant is obsolite to those who are in Christ.
Every verse Sir Brown quotes can be understood to support the other side.
You need to define those words individually to establish the meaning of said phrases.
What Brian Zahn fails to understand is the holiness of God.
When Jesus was on the cross, since Jesus was God in the flesh, it was literally God Himself paying the price for our sin. It affirmed the love and justice of God
I am glad I didn't have a horse in this race. That said, the concept of "God's wrath" was repeated numerous times, nearly every time emphasized as a satisfying (punitive) punishment. That same person quoted Paul in Romans numerous times yet omitted Paul's own definition of God's wrath in Romans 1. Not to be disrespectful but it felt a bit like he was kicking against the goad, all the while confusing the listening audience about the true nature of God's wrath and even more importantly, the true nature of His character: Love.
The cross is a display of love like the open door of noah's ark.
But the bible says God shut the door on the ark.
@@davidb5857 that happened yes.
And there will be a time, @@davidb5857 , when Jesus will return and nobody will have an opportunity to repent -- the door will be shut.
I really enjoyed listening to this debate - thanks for posting it!
I think one of the issues that kept Michael and Brian talking past each other a bit is that they have exceedingly different concepts of what "justice" means - retributive or punitive justice vs. restorative or redeeming justice. One is "eye-for-an-eye" justice, the other is justice that rebukes Peter for cutting an ear off, then makes whole what we've destroyed.
Some food for thought... if a debt is forgiven, that doesn't mean it has been paid by someone else; that means it's been erased or cancelled (see Col. 2:13-14) - if our debt has been paid, it has NOT been forgiven. When a crime is pardoned, that doesn't mean someone else has taken the sentence, it means your record has been wiped clean! I'm not aware of a single passage of scripture that says Jesus "paid a debt" for us. We are "bought with a price," yes, but the price a Father pays for His Son's Bride is nothing like the sort of payment Dr. Brown describes here.
Much of the biblical foundation for Dr. Brown's position was based on the Levitical sacrificial law, but having studied that pretty extensively, those sacrifices were not about dying in someone else's place either; the Israelites thought of sin much the same way we think of bacteria, that infects and makes unclean everything it touches - the purpose of the sin offering was to provide ritual cleansing, to purify a place or person of their uncleanliness. The only ritual animal that is said to "bear the sins of the people" was the scapegoat described in Lev. 16 (which Dr. Brown briefly mentions), but Jesus isn't called the "Goat of God" anywhere that I know of, and the scapegoat is, ironically, the only ritual animal in Leviticus that IS NOT KILLED - it is led to the edge of the camp and set free.
Cheers!
Could you help me understand something, you said that sacrificing lambs was a ritual, whereas Jesus’s death what Brian describes, surely those are not the same thing so doesn’t that invalidate your point about him not being a goat. Why would Jesus be referred as a lamb if they had different roles
@@bto6859 Right - if Jesus is a "sin offering," according to Leviticus, He cleanses/purifies us of what makes us unclean (which is why John the Baptist says "behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world").
Nonsense. A pardon means justice was incomplete. That’s why it is called a pardon. If God pardons sin like Allah, He’s not just.
@@ThePettiestOfficer_Juan117 "Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for HE WILL FREELY PARDON." - Isaiah 55:7
Could it be that His ways are higher and better than our ways?
The biblical problem in simply saying that forgiveness/pardon is just forgiveness, is that it misses that forgiveness itself is costly. Forgiveness is a kind of suffering where the one wronged substitutes their suffering for the just punishment due to the offender.
Notice that in Colossians 2:13 its not simply a matter of costless pardon. It is true that in a cancelation of debt there is no payment made to the creditor, but there is the costly acceptance of the loss in value by the creditor on account of the cancelation. God pays. There is a positive way of describing this cost of cancelation, namely, our moral debt was nailed to the cross. This picture shows that Jesus suffering by those nails was the cost of that pardon. The positive side of this coin of cancelation is described in other places as ransom. The shepherd spends his time and leaves the 99 to search for the one. In all of these cases there are two sides to the coin forgiveness and cost to the one forgiving.
Forgiveness itself is a substitutionary act of the one God, in Christ, suffering death for the many. The fact that God offers his son is a divine self-participatory act by the Father, and is supposed to highlight how costly this was for the Father and the Son together, because of the Father's priceless love for the Son. Its not at all about the delinquency of the Father. This would be to read the cross like an Arian, ignoring the fact that God was in Christ reconciling himself to the world.
The cross was an expression in history of the costly act of divine forgiveness which God chose to make from the foundation of the world. Everything about substitutionary atonement requires the incarnation because it is God and not a mere creature who is our savior. This is at the heart of What Athanasius proclaims in On the Incarnation. To the extent that the eastern Church does not speak in substitutionary terms is partly on account of a lost richness and a modern over reaction against the West.
Representation is present in the seed of the woman who was to crush the serpent's head in Gen:3:15. Substitution of a sinless one is present in the sin sacrifice of the unblemished lamb as well as in that pivotal covenant moment when Yahweh walks between the sacrificial animals, putting himself on the line even unto death. And then finally in literal fulfillment of this promise, Jesus dies for his people as their suffering servant. All of this is Representational and highly substitutionary in nature. Jesus takes the place of Barabbas.
Some notion of penal substitution is present in the biblical teaching of pardon and forgiveness itself.
Thank you, Dr. Brown. Well done, and very comforting.
PSA is classical? Someone tell the early church that...
Brian if Jesus is not your substitute then who is???? And If Christ isn't you are still in your sins, and the wrath of God remains on you John 3:36!
You are presupposing God cant set aside His wrath and be righteous at the same time. Prove this to me in the context of the bible alone beyond opinion.
@@fredarroyo7429 John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world: but that the world through him might be saved.
3:18 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.
"He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" ~Jesus
Brian Zahnd is brilliant, compelling, ORTHODOX.
Brilliant? Compelling? Orthodox? Are you serious?
@@sionesione956 I am dead serious.
micu radu
You’re not upsetting me or I should just trust some random person from the internet. What is your real name if you claim to be a professor? What papers have you written? Do you have any peer review papers? Who have you worked with? Which school are you teaching at?
I can sum up what I saw in this debate, and I agree with most of the comments here. BZ’s version of God is heretic. Does not use the verses in context. Brown on the hand supported his theology and his side with what is written in the scriptures, within its context.
Dr Michael L Brown won this debate. Thank you Dr!
LMAO. Ha, ha, ha, ha.
Not so sure about that... well done on both sides
Yes agreed, not sure he won, he (Dr Brown) still doesn't understand the spirit of the scriptures, Brian does
@@colintavui7149 That is how it seems to me also
Nah but I think they actually needed more time to dialogue rather than present back and forth. They were talking past each other at times. BZ doesn't deny substitution and Brown spent a lot of time reaffirming substitution for example. Another example, a big part of BZ's point is to reject the "wrath onto Jesus" piece (which is the "penal" part of penal substitution), and Brown seemed to tread carefully on the point of whether or not God forgives only after wrath is satisfied by the death of Jesus. The discussion really didn't hit the core on that topic, either.
William Lane Craig recent book on the Atonement traces Substitution atonement before the advent of Calvin. He even quotes Martin Luther on it:
Who cares what that heretic luther says
Dr. Brown is so patronizing (to me). So much of his arguments seems to come down to 'I'm right, you're wrong, therefore because you see it that way you are rude and dividing'. Kinda like people that call others sheep when they disagree. I also think he doesn't fully understand Zahnd's position - so I'm not convinced he's intentionally using logical fallacies to rebut Zahnd. Lastly I think someone shouldn't use 'Dr.' unless it has to do with what they are talking about. There's a false authority there.
Hmmm🤔 I agree with what you are saying but about the title doctor part. I ask if you can educate me more. I hope it is not because you are not happy with him.
Okay I also have variouse information to share if you love to learn a lityle bit more like Pastor Brian and go BEYOUND our normal Christian lifestyle where we only sit, wait and receive and do not love to sturdy and understand the CHARACTER of God. To know if God,s character is Consistent with Who God said He Is.
Pastor Brian, this is for you. But first of all I thank you Dr. Brown for all your good works and for lettlling me use your platform to congratulate Pastor Brian.
We are all saved from satan by the message of the cross and the knowledge of God's justice.
But I believe Pastor Brian is doing a very godd job, bringing us to the knowledge of God's Love.
Pastor Brian is also trying to teach us about the character of God.
That the God of the old is the same as the God of the new. Because Jesus and God are one.
I believe Pstor Brian was also trying to get us to the point where we will understand the OT in the light of the NT. With which comes the principle of accommodation. Because of the nature of the people near ancient East, their culture ,language and their background before know Yaweh. The I Am that I Am
Further more, about the judgement of God, pastor Brian was trying to share with us how we can interprate the bible with the bible. When we do, all the difficult passages such as killing or God using the services of demons and satan passages will complements each other. They do not complecate things at all. Yes God judges sin but How? You know Dr. Brown, I love you and your work with the scriptures are wonderful. You have served your generation well. Thank you. We will contenue to appreciate you here and long after you are gone. But I think the character of God is consistent with what who God said He is in the light of What Pastor Brian was sharing.
When we get to understand what pastor was saying you will see that people will not only feel saved by the blood to escape satan but we all will be able to Love the Lord Our God With all our HEART... SOUL... STREANGHT.
The Love of God is Beautiful Thing. It is Deep.
If you will allow me I can also share a few bookS and resourses with you here.
Thank you.
My email is akrong37@gmail.com. I put this here because I love and respect you and will welcome any coments and or advise that you habe for me.
You can also contact my pastor. Pastor Troy J Edwards at Vindicating God Ministries.
Anothe one that I haven't shared with anyone on this platform is this book. Schizophrenic God by .Steve C. Shank. In the situation where you are not able to afford any of this books at the market price please contact Pastor Troy J Edwards. He is a wonderful man of God and will make sure you get it if only you will read it. He likes folks who are hungry for the word of God.
Praise God for Dr Brown!
Comparing the cross to child sacrifice is ludicrous. Was Christ not a grown man who willingly drank the cup of wrath?
I guess he says that because it was the Son of God, so it was the Child of God. Thats what im guessing either way i wouldnt use that
Rejecting the Gospel that Jesus is coming back to destroy everyone who doesn't know God. 53:10 - 53:40 Yep, Pastor Zahnd and I agree that this is not good news to anyone, but the "elect". I know Dr Brown has supposedly debunked Calvinism, but this retort is dripping with aspects of it.
Well done Mr Brown.
Ps Brian didn't make an argument from scripture, its more of an opinion based on a critique of Penal Substitution using caricatures of the position to show how terrible it supposedly is
I think dr. brown gets engry because as usual when a theologian is loosing an argument they tend to try to make the opponent looks bad by saying things such as this is dangerous, you need to rethink your theology in my opinion dr. brown was owned
Who else thinks that Dr. Brown was actually saying God is a monster though not in so many words? He did actually prove that God uses and will use positive violence. I think this was his argument yet he asked to just accept God as He is.
I think Pastor Brian argued that God is not a monster and as such we should disregard the whole idea of penal substitution.
At times I feel like if Christians was just more objective and honest, we all would come to the same conclusion on God being monstrous yet us being left with no other choice but to worship Him.