this is the most thorough harmonization of patristic, contemporary, and biblical concepts I have ever seen. I repeatedly experienced joy as each point was explained.
Forget about theories of the Atonement. Here is truth. Jesus died to be the ransom for our sins. But who did he pay the ransom? Some say God, but that makes no sense. If God needed there to be a penalty for sin, he then becoming that sacrifice to appease himself is an absurd theory. Jesus paid Satan. Romans 6:16 states "unto whom you yield yourself a servant to obey, his servant you are." If you do the deeds of Satan, you fall under his rule and jurisdiction. Jesus died to pay Satan to release us from his jurisdiction if we would convert unto Christ and live a holy life thereafter. "He whom the Son sets free, he is completely free." John 8:31-36 Acts 2:38 Romans 6:1-23 Matthew 18:1-10 1 John 5:16-17 Numbers 15:28-31 Hebrews 10:26-27 Mark 16:16 John 3:3-5
@@Daniel12.4Ministry This view of the atonement is far too simplistic, and makes Satan almost like an antigod figure, creating an image of God that seems to deny his omnipotence. The Bible also has many many other passages that talk about debts needing to be paid, Christ as a model, creation being reversed, etc.
This is an excellent, honest, and very well researched analysis of the multiple theories of the atonement. I’m confused by Christians’ reluctance to acknowledge that the atonement simply can’t be wedged into a single paradigm.
@@melodysledgister2468 Maybe. To me, PSA is the weakest of the varied theories. The fact that it wasn’t even a fully developed theory (Calvin and Luther identified it, but Charles Hodge was the first to espouse PSA as we know it today) until after the reformation shows that it is relatively novel. Not that new theories can’t be true, but in this arena, the fact that the fathers weren’t keen on it speaks volumes. Augustine’s substitutionary theory and Anselm’s satisfaction theory are much more digestible than PSA, but also have their own shortcomings. One has to engage in wild, unbridled speculation in order to solely subscribe to any of the multiple theories. It’s odd that we (humans, especially westerners) have an unquenchable desire to rationalize everything. There’s a great benefit to rationalization in fields such as biology or engineering. But to attempt to rationalize Christian theology is a fools errand. Christians would be much better served by living the faith, as opposed to dissecting and cataloging it. I don’t want to hear what people think about this or that theory of the faith - I want to hear about their prayer life, their fasting, their almsgiving, their love of God and their neighbors. Who really cares if we understand the minutia of what is a self described mystery?
@@cassidyanderson3722The last part of your comment nails it. That's where I am. Knowing a lot is good but I'm also now interested in living out the faith not just head knowledge.
@@diyside @cassidyandeeson3722 - Romans 5, 6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. - Romans 16, 24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. 25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, *according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:* 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. - Colossians 1, 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 *If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: 25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is* *Christ in you, the hope of glory:* 28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: 29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.
As I was listening to this teaching it clicked, the truth that our nature will be restored to Adam’s before the fall!! It was a wonderful moment when I got it it was life to my soul!!! …….What a great truth! Thank you for explaining it to me…my heart became full of life! It was life to me as my heart became full of joy!!!😊 thank you soooo! much!!
I live and work in a land where traditional Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity dominate. I appreciate your passion to dig into the Fathers as well as the Scriptures in order to learn and in order to be a blessing to others. Thank you and God bless you and yours.
I was studying the headship of Adam and Christ when I first came upon this video. This made so many things come together for me. Thank you for your work, Dr. Ortlund!
This was so good! At one time I was trying to settle on one Atonement motif but I realized that there’s no biblical basis for that. I love how you showed the agreement between the church fathers you quoted when some people would pit them against each other. On The Incarnation by Athanasius is one of my favorite books and probably the first church father I read. I’m so glad you talked about the Transfiguration. I couldn’t agree more that this event was a revelation of Who Christ actually is. I learned and understood this through studying Eastern Orthodoxy. Speaking of Orthodoxy, I like how they emphasize the healing aspect of the Atonement. There’s even a Medical Substitutionary Atonement motif. Anyways, this video is one I will definitely view again. Thank you!
Anselmian models operate on the premise that Christ's suffering and death rendered God propitious. However, early models for the Work of Christ operated on the belief that because God was already well disposed towards man, Christ came to heal, redeem, reconcile, restore & save us from death.
Agree 1000%. Atonement the actual word can also be interpreted as reconciliation.Not just to justice for an injustice of the offended party. Christ was the down payment (first fruits) for that promise to do so. Christ cross paved the way for us to be redeemed and pick up our own cross and die to sin.
I am curious; if you think that is correct, what about the texts of Scripture that mentions propitiation, like 1 Jh 2:2? You say that God was already well disposed toward man, I agree in the sense that God sent Jesus to die for us. He loves us while we are yet sinners. But the Bible also says that "one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” implying we are under God´s wrath until covered by Jesus. At least I think it imples that.
@thomasfryxelius5526 hilasmos is more properly understood as the mercy seat and place of Covenant... not something which rendered God propitious, but rather demonstrates He was already desiring mercy.
I really appreciated the chapter in your book, Theological Retrieval, on this topic. So often we pit certain theories against each other when they don't have to be.
I found this very helpful and wow the atonement is so varied but it is so helpful to see how each part fits together as a whole with the centre as substitution.
@@melodysledgister2468 Jesus died for us not instead of us as we all bear our own burden. The atonement is indirect through the new covenant, as those who walk in the Spirit have no condemnation, those who sin are under the law of sin and death.
By substitution you seem to think propitiation, but Jesus did not die to remove the curse of death when he died, but after judgement to remove the curse of death when we die. It is all in Hebrews 9.
@@melodysledgister2468 I believe this is the balanced Biblical view and I believe the view of William Lane Craig who has done a masterly work on atonement theory.
@@simonskinner1450 I take it from your replies that you are EO holding to a recapitulation view of the atonement with Christ as the second Adam. If we were to narrow things down to a sentence what is the single most important aspect of Christ's death for you?
I'm currently reading through On the Incarnation, and just yesterday I came across an article you had written on Athanasius regarding the atonement. Perfect timing!
Timing on this was impeccable! I was having a long discussion TODAY on this, and your video showed up in the middle of it. You touched on just about every point brought up on our discussion, and more. VERY helpful as we think through the topic. MUCH appreciated.
Really liked your presentation. You mentioned God's wrath and Anselm's theory of satisfaction of the honour of God. If God is impassible which He is, then what does God's wrath mean? Does God literally take offence on Himself when we sin? These questions are relevant for penal substitutionary atonement theory?
Thank you for the comprehensive presentation of a wholistic view of salvation- all that Christ is and what He has done in us who have beloved and follow Him
So grateful for your ministry. Watching this video for second or third time now. This video alone is better than many of the books on atonement I’ve read.
Man, 29:28 is a thought that lifts weight off of my shoulders, and I wish the church could share this posture toward theology. We would greatly benefit from it. Also, hello Gavin, it has been MANY years since we crossed paths, I enjoy your videos!
"To believe in a vicarious sacrifice, is to think to take refuge with the Son from the righteousness of the Father; to take refuge with his work instead of with the Son himself; to take refuge with a theory of that work instead of the work itself; to shelter behind a false quirk of law instead of nestling in the eternal heart of the unchangeable and righteous Father, who is merciful in that he renders to every man according to his work, and compels their obedience, nor admits judicial quibble or subterfuge." - George MacDonald
Thank you for this tutorial. I did not realise that Iranaeus wrote so clearly on the atonement as an objective motif. Some give the impression that objective substitution atonement did not appear until Anselm began to approach it in the 11th century.
This showed up in the sidebar in the last video of six that Mike Winger did on PSA. it's quite complementary to that. What I liked about this is the time spent on Recapitulation. Much of that resonated with me because of the theology that I have come to hold and developed on my own from just reading the Scriptures. You might called it 2nd Adam Theology I guess. A lot of other stuff Gavin brought up is thought-provoking and worth spending the time to ponder more. Good video.
This is wonderful. You should reach out to Dr. Jordan Cooper again and see if he'd be interested in dialoging on theosis/atonement in a Protestant framework. You're articulating many of the ideas presented in his more recent book on union with Christ. Could be very useful.
This was very helpful! I have often seen these ideas pitted against each other. It is great to hear how church father’s had a more comprehensive view of the atonement! I also appreciate you’re reference to universalism. I have heard recapitulation quotations made by church fathers used to support universalism. Is there room in your schedule to talk more in depth about how the early church thought about this?
Great Video.Gavin! As a Pentecostal I grew up under Penal Substitution. Which I think is clear from Scripture. Also i see Christus Victor. Or Christ going to hades and conquering deathbed has ti do specifically with the ressurection. Not how he saved us from our sins through Attonment , but how he conquered death.
PSA sets up a trading relationship within the god-head, and this makes it problematic IMO. It also reduces 'forgiveness' to a transaction earned by another...not real forgiveness. A loan is a good example. If a loan is forgiven by the lender, it is no longer due from anyone. If a loan is paid by other than the borrower, the borrower is not 'forgiven' but the loan has been retired by the payment of another.
Thank you for a very good integrative summary. Perhaps one of your most important points was that Christ was doing many things and solving many different problems by the atonement, and so there must be multiple facets to the atonement. No single proposed "mechanism" catches all that Christ was doing. There must be parallel simultaneously valid mechanisms. Separately, thank you for quoting Aquinas's comments on the Transfiguration, which helped me see this event in a new light (pun intended).
Enjoyed your presentation. Though some theories regarding the meaning of Christ and his work seem positively wrong, it does seem to be the case that it has multiple dimensions and effects. Consequently, errors regarding Christ include imputing wrong meaning, but also asserting that only one meaning is exclusively present. These are easy mistakes to make, and I'm pleased to see and hear how you express a kind of harmony or complementarity among these facets/dimensions.
Hey Dr Ortlund, Swedish brother here. Just recently found your channel and I must say I immensely enjoy the content you provide. Soon cracked them all videos! Surely you’re on a great path for arming the soldiers of Christ! Apart from the apparent arminian/reformed discussion, is there anything in particular in WLC’s work of the Atonement (his book) that you don’t agree with? Bringing this up as WLC’s favors the Anselmian view as do you. Thx! 🙏
I fully agree - back around 2014 I discovered union with Christ in 1 Corinthians 15 and ever since it has fundamentally changed how I think about the atonement. I think recapitulation is the patristic way of expressing this. I wrote an essay that touched on this my first year in seminary at MBTS. Though the English term “recapitulation” doesn’t appear in English bibles, the Greek equivalent Ανακεφαλαιοω does appear describing the work of Christ in Ephesians 1:10.
"The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. ... Theories about Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works." -C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity', Chapter 4.
Hebrews 4: 15,16.... Christ was tempted in all points yet sinned not...the fear( in the garden ) , pain and despair of the crucifixion was the ultimate temptation ( if you are the king of Israel then come down from the cross)....enduring the ultimate pain and humiliation he endured becoming qualified to be a truly totally compassionate and enabled high priest able to save to the uttermost...his sacrifice was truly multifaceted beyond what we'll ever understand fully in this life it seems
Yooo, what’s up Gavin ! Love all ur videos man, if I could give 1 critique. I’m 23 and my vocab is still not as legendary as ur sometimes, if u can where possible, perhaps, use simpler language. Other than that man, Ur videos are so detailed and awesome! love them.
Gavin, thank you for this channel. What a blessing to learn so much. Have you read Lamb of the Free (Andrew Rillera) regarding the Atonement? Would be interested in your thoughts. 🙏 Maybe a good subject for a video. 😁
WOW!!! What an amazing video! Thank you So much Dr Ortlund. I would LOVE to see you in conversation with John Behr…anything I can do to make that more likely to happen? Get a petition going with thousands of signatures?:) Seeing you guys discuss On Apostolic Preaching, or On the Incarnation…or anything for that matter…would be a REAL treat. Please give it some thought (humble plea).
This makes me think about Acts 2:24, where Peter preaches "God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." You (and the patristics!) take that "not possible" very, very seriously. I've never heard that perspective before.
I’ve had this cued up to watch for quite a while now, and I finally got to view it. Good job! I’d say you’ve nailed it! I too have believed that there are multiple expressions of the atonement in the NT that need to be reconciled, but I never could quite pull them all together as you have.
I can definitely see the significance of seeing a well rounded view of the atonement of Christ. I do think people sometimes end up putting things against each other when that may not be the way these things are. Just another facet of the fuller picture. I can see why some cannot do this simply because it requires potentially questioning some people's favorite teachers that affirm their worldview. It is good to be sure what we hold is the truth, because like Paul says im Romans 12:2 "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." We want to be able continue to grow into a better understanding of what we hold to be true.
I really appreciate this video! One clarification I would like… At 31:40, you quote St. Athanasius speaking about Christ’s death settling our debt for us. You say that this refers to a debt we owe to God. But Athanasius says here that Christ’s death settled our account with Death. Does he imply or say elsewhere that Christ paid a debt we owed to God?
Yes, I noticed this too. Athanasius seems to hold Ramsom theory and Recapitulation theory of atonement combined. Athanasius multiple times states that the ransom is paid to death (not to God like the much later Penal Substitution theory). This was an excellent presentation minus this one glaring oversight.
Doing a research paper on this exact topic at Talbot right now, and a couple points were brought out here that I hadn't seen, so thank you! The "theories" are mostly mutually compatible, not mutually exclusive. Great book on this is Adam J. Johnson's "Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed" where he makes this very case. Also in Jeremy Treat's "The Atonement."
Among the sea of comments, a question - Dr Scott Hahn discussed Aquina’s Vicarious Satisfaction in contrast to Penal Substitutionary Attonement as though at odds with one another (youtube in Pints with Aquinas). I saw no contradiction, a division that doesnt exist. But I just don’t understand it - would you explain this difference and why at odds please?
Appreciated the video. Do you have any recommended resources on theosis? As a Protestant, I'm sometimes frustrated by conversations about soteriology that elevate justification (and certain views of the atonement) as if it was the telos of our salvation. That's why I'm curious to learn more about theosis, including the history of the doctrine, disagreement among various traditions, biblical support, etc.
I can help as a devout student of the Holy Bible seeking one truth and ecumenism. I have a series of Ytube videos that might interest you and others like you seeking truth called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' my background is Protestant but most myths are from the Reformation.
Thanks for this! 1) wonderful work, and I really appreciate your zeroing in on "substitution." Has me thinking about Vos's discussion of Christ's vicarious work (thinking specifically of vicarious repentance in His baptism by John, in Biblical Theology). 2) Have you read Thomas Weinandy's "Does God Suffer," or is it on your radar. I'm think especially of his chapter on the Incarnation, "The Impassible Suffers." It was deep and deeply moving. I'm Reformed Baptist, but even though he's Roman Catholic, his work on Theology proper and Christology is spectacular. I suspect you'd enjoy it. I really appreciate your (small e!) ecumenism.
Gavin, I have been dissecting the council of Trent. Going through it with a fine toothed comb. As a prologue to my study, I read The 99 Thesis. Now I am at session 20, & I am reading the Augsburg confession. Do you hold to Augsburg & do you think its understanding of Justification & Free Will is correct or that it’s view on the hot topics is reflective of the “Protestant” view today?
I really hate it when people act as though Penal Substitution is the only model of the Atonement and all other views are the equivalent of endorsing Arianism, Modalism, or Partialism as legitimate views of the Trinity.
The problem is is that PSA, especially being a very lately defined theory (mid 1800s), is considered to be the only theory of the atonement that actually fits with the reformed view of Christianity. Part of the reason that people are so adamant about it is because the other theories of the atonement that you mentioned aren't as consistent with the reformed view as a lot of Calvinists would like. PSA has some merit to it however it's pretty obvious at this point that reformationism needs reform ironically LOL.
I'm still here, and waiting for a video on Maximus the Confessor and Ephrem the Syrian. Would love to see someone from a more Reform background cover Maximus the Confessor as he is one of my favorite early church fathers.
Thank you for your effort to show that we, as Christians, do not need to be divided over "theological" differences. I really appreciate your tag, "Truth Unites". Part of my falling away from institutionalized faith is the historical division of the church that so defines us. I would really appreciate a caring response to a continuing problem I have with classical christianity (yes, I too am divisive). It seems your entire presentation is dependent on interpreting Adam and Eve's disobedience as the Fall of Man, the undoing of God's good plan. But wasn't the fall really a necessary step forward as we progressed toward God's declared intention of "let us make man in our image", as, after the incident, God declares, "man has now become like one of us, knowing good from evil"? I see no reference in the Bible to an ideal of holy innocence if we had passed a test of perfect obedience, or any biblical reference to the idea that God intended his image-bearing creatures to remain in some childlike state of innocence Such a state, of course, would not see God setting forth any manner of atonement, or the future, higher state of humanity made possible by the necessary joining in the incarnation of the Creator to the creature. I really would appreciate an answer and not condemnation. Thank you again for your devotion.
I agree that all of the atonement theories are right and are seen in scripture - and though I think Penal Substitutionary Atonement has been misinterpreted or misapplied by Calvinism, it seems to have more scriptural support than the others.
There are big issues when we take terms that were understood differently in Greek and Latin. Latin is legalistic, so when we say that Christ "covered" our sins in Latin, it uses language that would describe paying or covering a legal debt. In Greek and Hebrew, it has connotations of him "covering" us like the Passover Lamb covered the people so that death could pass over, so in Eastern Christianity what Jesus did is seen more as mechanistic. He took our place in death to cover the dead with immortality so that they could pass back to life. Likewise the terms like Justification and righteousness have legalistic Latin meanings. in legal settings, when your are justified, you have become "square" (right) with the law or the court. If you are square with the law, or justified, your are "righteous', straight, square, but in Greek the connotations are "geometric" or organic. When you justify a building, you make it straight. A justified person is straightened out, and justification is a process of walking upright, (righteously) and walking a straight path. Since a "righteous" person is someone who is actively standing straight up and walking the straight path, justification is inseparable from behavior, or righteous living. I am not going to say which is correct, but I think it can be seen how different models developed out of linguistic context. We can say that Jesus took our place as a guilty person on the cross, or we can say that he took on a human body which could not be contained by death and therefore created a path for all flesh from death to life. In Orthodoxy, also in contrast to Roman Catholicism, death is a biological consequence of the fallen cosmos, not God's punishment. And sin is "forgiven" immediately upon repentance, but forgiveness does not remove the biological consequences of sin. Absolution for sins is not freeing us from the legal consequences of sins, it is dissolution of the bonds we have made with our sins that weigh us down. Confession is a witness of forgiveness of the repentant person and a grace that dissolves our affinity for our sins so that we might not return to them.
I've been studying this issue for a long time and here I will briefly summarise what I believe is the biblical theory of atonement: It comes down to penal substitution, christus victor and recapitulation combined together. The first part is that in order to satisfy justice and God's wrath someone had to take our penalty. Jesus does this by bearing our sins and entering into death (in hades) for us. The second part is that by rising from death He is free from sin and death. By being joined to Christ we are released from death and sin. This bears the fruit of imputed and infused righteousness for the believer. The legal aspect means we are counted as if we had lived Christ's life and this is the door to the ontological aspect (now we can experience union with God). The third part is that since Christ was God in the flesh He had no corruption in Him (as the New Adam) and through His resurrection life (divine) the image of God in us is restored so that we can have union with God (in the final analysis the corruption of our nature will be destroyed completely).
I priase God for having lifted up a Baptist Minister.....finally we have someone in u Brother Gavin , a protestant, that brings such powerful & deep teachings using church fathers & church history....THANK YOU for obeying God in this ur mission ... Always remember who u r .....a sinner ....that can do NOTHING to save himself but thru Christ.... Yes i also realized how profoundly important the Incarnation is....NOW ..because of this Incarnation ...we will see YHWH thru resurected glorified body of Jésus forever ...Father Son Holy Spirit ...the Holy Triune God .... I agree 100% ...at His transfiguration Jesus showed WHO HE IS .....REALLY ...under His human flesh .....and temporary earthly appearance
Really enjoyed this video. It's fantastic that you're getting into so many of the other views of the atonement, Christus Victor is my personal favorite. In the spirit of this channel, truth unites, I'm convinced at this point that the only way to actually have the unity amongst the church that so many want is with and through christ, that is proper christology. A lot of people hold a lot of very contradictory views and I believe that it's only by and through Christ that we shall indeed have One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.
The quote of Athanasius at 31:16 also contains within it the heart of Ransom Theory, when he says, "Surrendering His own temple *_to death_* in place of all, to settle man's account *_with death_* and free him from the primal transgression." Here we have the idea that man is, "sold into bondage to sin", and needs to be bought back, and since the "wages of sin is death", so "we see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." And then this in turn reveals Christus Victor, for "He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." For "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil." And so, "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
What do you think about a connection between Irenaeus’ recapitulation and a view of Christ’s obedience (Hebrews 10:9), as another way of stating the reformed view of the active obedience of Christ? Namely, that Christ recapitulates Adam, but while Adam was disobedient to the creation covenant (the standards of God’s character and will), Christ was obedient.
Many years ago I had a strange dream. There was a cathedral with a floor that looked like a chessboard. People sat on chairs on the chessboard facing a pastor who was explaining how to know God. I was sitting on one of the squares and turned my head toward the back. There was God... waiting for anybody to take notice. I tried to alert people next to me but I was shushed. The pastor continued with his instruction totally unaware that God was looking straight at him.
Enjoy your presentations. They are always filled with a lot of well researched information. Your brief summery about the Transfiguration was interesting. Gave me some Bible passages to look up. Besides this though, I have a question: Did Athanasius and Irenaeus view recapitulation as applicable to the entire human race; or did they view it as applicable to only believers (i.e the elect)? The reason I ask, is if the most common opinion on recapitulation is that it applied to all of humanity; I could see where people would come to the conclusion of universal salvation from that. Obviously though the concept of universal salvation is as different "theological term" than "universal atonement". (Thus the difference between "arminianism" and "calvinism".) The other couple of "monkey wrenches" that get thrown in here though are: 1. Lucifer fell before Adam did. = Created entities had already transgressed into sin prior to consequence coming to pass in the material world. 2. The redemption plan is stated as having been accomplished from the "foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8) Which necessitates that obviously the Godhead's decision to provide a redemption plan in the first place, was not an "afterthought" based on Adam's sin. Thus creating a redemption plan was based in God's omniscience that the fall was inevitable. Because God had made a creation that was not an extension of His own Divinity; He knew what He'd created was inherently corruptible. As the "knowledge of good and evil" does not make non-Divine entities God. (As Adam and Eve found that one out "the hard way"!) Thus "recapitulation" can not mean "to restore unto humanity as Adam had originally been". We know this because we don't continue in endless cycles of sin and redemption for all of eternity. One of the major accomplishments of the atonement was the ability (upon the final resurrection and recreation of the cosmos) to no longer be corruptible. The atonement didn't just "restore what was"; it created anew a state of existence that did not exist before. God knew in His omniscience that given the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the fall was going to happen. We see this in that Lucifer fell before Adam did and to any knowledge we've been given in Scripture; the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not given to Lucifer. (Although, even if he was capable of "eating" it; I'm not sure it applied to him because he wasn't human.) So though I think the theory of recapitulation provides a particular angle on the atonement that's not necessarily heretical; what's meant by it's perimeters (if not already provided in history) needs further definition
This is a good account of the subject. As much of the opposition to "juridical" language (actually opposition to Scriptural language) comes from certain Eastern Orthodox apologists, I like to point them to The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church of 1830 (under Patriarch Philaret) which speaks of Jesus' "voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death." A 20th century Congregationalist theologian, P. T. Forsyth, in his book The Work of Christ, spoke of Christ's death as a confession of God's holiness, made by the representative of the whole human race. Where I think Calvinism detracts from the glory of the atonement is when Calvinists allege that God, before they came into existence, determined that specific individuals would be excluded from the number of those for whom Christ would die. Rather, with Charles Wesley (and in agreement with Scripture), I affirm "for ALL, for ALL my Saviour died".
@Christos Kyrios Yes. I am aware that Calvin was influenced by some of the later errors of St Augustine of Hippo, arising in his polemic against Pelagius, which influenced other theologians including Thomas Aquinas. Pelikan's books are a good survey of doctrinal development. I have volumes 1 and 3. There was resistance in the universal Church to Augustine's double predestination doctrine, but unhappily many held to it. Happily, the Christian is not committed to following the speculative ideas of individuals, and is free to refute them from Holy Scripture.
In what way of His glory reduced by doing what He set out to do? Are you confusing the quality of the atonement with its scope? Sufficient to save all, efficient to save the elect.
@@Phill0old The Scriptures teach that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and that God calls all people to repent and believe the Gospel. Calvinist theology teaches that God decreed before creation that certain individuals would not be able to repent and believe, because God wishes to damn them. The atonement is sufficient to save all because God by it makes salvation possible for all. Calvinist theology denies the Scriptural truth of God providing opportunity of salvation for all. Christ succeeded in making salvation available to all, requiring them to choose whether or not to accept it.
@@anselman3156 So in your opinion those for whom Christ fully atoned, those he ransomed, those he died for will go to hell. I find that not possible to Square with scripture. God calls everyone to do what is right, to be perfect and holy. Are you perfect and holy? No. Are you capable of being that? No. Yet you will insist that God never commands what we can't do? God commands you to live by faith and never sin. How are you doing on that? Even as a Christian you cannot do it. Yet you insist that God commanding it means you can do it. According to you it was both possible and desired by God that those who crucified Christ not crucify Christ. Mmmm do you want to re-think that? It was desired but not possible then you have no real argument. If it was possible but not desired you don't have an argument. I say that God commands right at all times but chooses whom He will have mercy on. The Bible states that quite clearly.
@@Phill0old Scripture says that the Lord Jesus is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2.2, and that He gave Himself a ransom for all 1 Timothy 2.6. For this and your other questions, I suggest you read the whole of 1 John. Those who choose to obey Christ by repentance receive the ability to live without sin. The Lord Jesus commands what He makes possible, that is, to "go and sin no more". St John writes to us "that ye sin not" 1 John 2.1. You are failing to look to Jesus if you sin, and if you sin you are of the devil. God enables us to live without sin, through the victory over sin of Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God dwelling in us. No Christian can make an excuse for sinning, when God commands (and enables us) not to. Go and sin no more.
TLDR: The atonement is a complex and multifaceted concept that involves various theories and motifs, including theosis, recapitulation, substitution, and divine wrath, all of which contribute to the understanding of Christ's death and its impact on humanity. 1. 📺 Different atonement theories, including ransom, penal substitution, and Christus Victor, can be used together to avoid revisionist accounts and emphasize the importance of the cross and resurrection in bringing us back to God. 2. 📚 Christ's atonement theories emphasize recapitulation, the salvific nature of the incarnation, theosis, and participation in God. 3. 📚 The speaker discusses the necessity of the incarnation for salvation, Irenaeus' view of recapitulation and atonement, and Anselm's emphasis on satisfaction in Christ's death, all of which are complementary and have a logical relationship. 4. 🤔 Anselm and Athanasius both emphasize recapitulation in their atonement theories, with Athanasius using metaphors to explain the renewal of mankind and warning against being overly reductive in thinking about the atonement. 5. 🤔 The atonement has multiple purposes including union and reconciliation between God and humans, forgiveness, resurrection, and the defeat of Satan, with Athanasius emphasizing both recapitulation and satisfaction themes in his works. 6. 🤔 The transfiguration of Christ reveals his divine nature and connects to Old Testament theophanies, leading to multiple interpretations of atonement theories and the need to address various theological issues. 7. 🤔 Christ's atonement theory involves restorative and propitiating substitution, with his life representing restoration and his death representing propitiation, emphasizing the importance of understanding the full narrative arc of Jesus' work and the profound truth of the atonement. 8. 📚 The speaker discusses the implications of the atonement and encourages viewers to engage with the content and subscribe for future videos on related topics. By Eightify for Safari
2 Timothy 1, 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
Hello, brother in Christ. I have a question and comment. Isn't divine wrath God letting people go their own way (slaves of their desires) because of their idolatry (Rom. 1), not satisfaction? Where can I find (explicit) passages in Scriptue which equates wrath with the satisfaction of God?
@@charlesheck6812 What, precisely, do you think is heretical about penal substitutionary atonement? And if the theory does have heretical implications, why does nobody seem to have seen them until the rise of liberal/progressive theology in the last couple of centuries?
31:00 Multiple needs. I've noticed that there is a different issue being addressed in Irenaeus and Anselm. The Gnostics that Irenaeus was opposing denied that Jesus was Man so Irenaeus needed to show that God had really become Man. Anselm was after the heresy of Arius so Anselm needed to show that the Man was really God.
I never knew that people argued over these. I always figured that all of these were simultaneously true. I’ve always thought that the penal substitution part was the main one, though, as it’s so plain in the Bible
I have to make a vital correction here. At around 31:20 when Dr. Ortlund reads the atonement quote from St. Athanasius, St. A wrote specifically that it was to "settle man's account with death." Emphasis: *with death*. Not with God, as Dr. Ortlund wrongly interpolates just a few moments later at 32:18. The account, the debt, was with Death. Many Protestant doctrines err when applying it to God. If Dr. Ortlund wants to perpetuate that doctrine, so be it, but please do not assign it to St. Athanasius. As seen in the parable of the Prodigal Son, God does not require a payment of debt to forgive. He forgives freely to all who repent. The same applies to us and God. While we are eternally indebted to God, He does not require payment to forgive. He only requires repentance and, from there, obedience. And so, Christ came to settle the debt with Death, and did so by defeating Death (which could only occur through becoming incarnate). Therefore, the proper atonement is Christus Victor, not Penal Substitution.
I agree. I think the key difference is how we answer this question: What was God’s response to being invoked by our sin? Which, I agree with you that wasn’t God demanding a payment from us to satisfy His wrath. It satisfied His reconciliation, through repentance and faith.
So what do you make of Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, Galatians 3:13 & 4:5, 1 Corinthians 6:20 & 7:23, 1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 2:4 & 2:14, 1 Peter 1:18, 2 Peter 2:21, and Revelation 5:7, 5:9, 14:3-4, all of which point to the ransom model of atonement?
@@Berean_with_a_BTh It all depends on how your theology is defining the ransom model. If the theology is Penal Substitutionary Atonement, that becomes problematic given that PSA (which defines the ransom as being paid to God the Father) didn't even emerge as a theology until the 16th Century. But the theological ransom model seen since the earliest Church history is, more simply, the reference to Christ's sacrifice as a holy and pure lamb Who took on the Death that we deserved. That Christ -- who is Life, not Death -- submitted Himself to Death so as to defeat Death, and in that victory bestowed Life back on to humanity for those that follow Him. PSA is very legal and juridical. Prior to the 16th Century, however, ransom wasn't a legal paradigm; it was simply language for Christ becoming Incarnate so as to experience the Death we all were subject to in order to conquer it and, consequently, free us from it.
Have you read William Lane Craig's book on the atonement? He makes a point to distinguish between what he calls atonement in the narrow sense and atonement in the broad sense. Atonement in the broad sense is at-one-ment, or reconciliation. But atonement in the narrow sense is specifically focused on what happened at the cross. Craig argues that PSA is the central facet of atonement in the narrow sense that unites the various motifs found in the Scriptures and the Fathers.
What do you think of the critiques of PSA from Oliver Crisp? Someone who does not caricature PSA at all, thinks it lacks sufficient biblical warrant to be the primary model of a constructive account of the atonement, and yet has some strong objections to multiple formulations of the doctrine. I find his critiques and proposed alternatives in Approaching the Atonement and Participation and Atonement quite strong/maybe persuasive. If you haven't read those books, totally okay! Just wanted to know if you had any thoughts.
As an Orthodox Christian, I really enjoyed the video. We would agree that all that Christ did for us cannot be summarized by any single "theory", and we would also agree that there are substitutionary dimensions to the Atonement. Where we would disagree is in the idea that God is constrained by some principle of justice or honor and cannot forgive without payment. Do you think that last sentence is a caricature of the penal substitution view? I couldn't imagine an advocate of PS describing God as "constrained".
The word "constrained" he used is bad choice. What he really means is that God acts on His will without violating His attributes. God shows love without violating his justice and wrath. An example is, God punished (wrath) David for his adultery but at the same time, God showed his justice to Uriah and Judah. However, God didn't kill David because he was merciful.
@@thanevakarian9762 From my own understanding I believe that Jesus was the final Yom Kippur - as on that day, all the Israelites were cleansed from their sins, ...until their next transgression. Jesus fulfilled the Law making him an acceptable sacrifice. But because his perfection was based on obedience (unlike the typical bull and goat oblations), his sacrifice allowed God to abrogate the Law which held us all condemned. So that, where there is no law, there is no sin. We are under the law of faith now, and not that of works - Jesus' death purified those that believe in him for the last and final time, and ended the Law.
The concept of atonement is immensely fascinating to me, and very frustrating. I like the idea of separating atonement into the categories of mechanism and results, as this helps a bit. I am profoundly grateful for the results, but kinda wish I had a mechanism to understand. Recapitulation is a result, is it not? How does Jesus' death and resurrection join (or re-join) humanity to divinity? If Jesus had physical children we could talk about some sort of genetic purification, but we seem to have only symbolism, or of course the influence of the Holy Spirit (but that's apart from death & resurrection). And why did God wait thousands of years after the fall to send the remedy, and why is it taking thousands of years for the remedy to come to completion? And what of all the casualties that occur and have occurred in the meantime? Sorry, perhaps I should watch the whole video before I comment (I'm at 22:49).
The joining of humanity to divinity occurred at the Incarnation. We participate in that union by being incorporated into Christ's body through baptism - baptism being a participation in his death (see Romans 6:3-4). Having thus been made a member of the body of Christ, his resurrection becomes our resurrection, and his ascension, our ascension. Of course, for him this has already occurred while for us, it occurs after we die and are born into new life.
this is the most thorough harmonization of patristic, contemporary, and biblical concepts I have ever seen. I repeatedly experienced joy as each point was explained.
Forget about theories of the Atonement. Here is truth.
Jesus died to be the ransom for our sins. But who did he pay the ransom? Some say God, but that makes no sense. If God needed there to be a penalty for sin, he then becoming that sacrifice to appease himself is an absurd theory. Jesus paid Satan. Romans 6:16 states "unto whom you yield yourself a servant to obey, his servant you are." If you do the deeds of Satan, you fall under his rule and jurisdiction. Jesus died to pay Satan to release us from his jurisdiction if we would convert unto Christ and live a holy life thereafter. "He whom the Son sets free, he is completely free."
John 8:31-36
Acts 2:38
Romans 6:1-23
Matthew 18:1-10
1 John 5:16-17
Numbers 15:28-31
Hebrews 10:26-27
Mark 16:16
John 3:3-5
@@Daniel12.4Ministry This view of the atonement is far too simplistic, and makes Satan almost like an antigod figure, creating an image of God that seems to deny his omnipotence. The Bible also has many many other passages that talk about debts needing to be paid, Christ as a model, creation being reversed, etc.
@@Daniel12.4Ministry
Read Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, he explained exactly why your theory doesn’t make sense.
@@Daniel12.4Ministryif you're going to act like an authority like you're correcting somebody then get your own channel
@@justanotherbaptistjew5659 smoke & mirrors
As an Armenian Orthodox priest I do appreciate the various viewpoints and the emphasis of compatibility of atonement theology from patristic tradition
“Emphasizing what is central; incorporating all that is true.”
This is why we love your channel, Gavin!
This is an excellent, honest, and very well researched analysis of the multiple theories of the atonement. I’m confused by Christians’ reluctance to acknowledge that the atonement simply can’t be wedged into a single paradigm.
True, but PSA fits in there.
@@melodysledgister2468 Maybe. To me, PSA is the weakest of the varied theories. The fact that it wasn’t even a fully developed theory (Calvin and Luther identified it, but Charles Hodge was the first to espouse PSA as we know it today) until after the reformation shows that it is relatively novel. Not that new theories can’t be true, but in this arena, the fact that the fathers weren’t keen on it speaks volumes. Augustine’s substitutionary theory and Anselm’s satisfaction theory are much more digestible than PSA, but also have their own shortcomings. One has to engage in wild, unbridled speculation in order to solely subscribe to any of the multiple theories. It’s odd that we (humans, especially westerners) have an unquenchable desire to rationalize everything. There’s a great benefit to rationalization in fields such as biology or engineering. But to attempt to rationalize Christian theology is a fools errand. Christians would be much better served by living the faith, as opposed to dissecting and cataloging it. I don’t want to hear what people think about this or that theory of the faith - I want to hear about their prayer life, their fasting, their almsgiving, their love of God and their neighbors. Who really cares if we understand the minutia of what is a self described mystery?
@@cassidyanderson3722The last part of your comment nails it. That's where I am. Knowing a lot is good but I'm also now interested in living out the faith not just head knowledge.
@@diyside @cassidyandeeson3722 - Romans 5, 6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. - Romans 16, 24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. 25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, *according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:* 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. - Colossians 1, 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 *If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: 25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is*
*Christ in you, the hope of glory:*
28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: 29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.
@@melodysledgister2468
Problem
PSA flys in the face of scripture and divides the godhead.
As I was listening to this teaching it clicked, the truth that our nature will be restored to Adam’s before the fall!! It was a wonderful moment when I got it it was life to my soul!!! …….What a great truth! Thank you for explaining it to me…my heart became full of life! It was life to me as my heart became full of joy!!!😊 thank you soooo! much!!
I live and work in a land where traditional Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity dominate. I appreciate your passion to dig into the Fathers as well as the Scriptures in order to learn and in order to be a blessing to others. Thank you and God bless you and yours.
Christus Victor IS the coolest ^sounding^ one.
It's also the correct one.
I was studying the headship of Adam and Christ when I first came upon this video. This made so many things come together for me. Thank you for your work, Dr. Ortlund!
This was so good! At one time I was trying to settle on one Atonement motif but I realized that there’s no biblical basis for that. I love how you showed the agreement between the church fathers you quoted when some people would pit them against each other. On The Incarnation by Athanasius is one of my favorite books and probably the first church father I read. I’m so glad you talked about the Transfiguration. I couldn’t agree more that this event was a revelation of Who Christ actually is. I learned and understood this through studying Eastern Orthodoxy. Speaking of Orthodoxy, I like how they emphasize the healing aspect of the Atonement. There’s even a Medical Substitutionary Atonement motif. Anyways, this video is one I will definitely view again. Thank you!
Anselmian models operate on the premise that Christ's suffering and death rendered God propitious. However, early models for the Work of Christ operated on the belief that because God was already well disposed towards man, Christ came to heal, redeem, reconcile, restore & save us from death.
Agree 1000%. Atonement the actual word can also be interpreted as reconciliation.Not just to justice for an injustice of the offended party. Christ was the down payment (first fruits) for that promise to do so. Christ cross paved the way for us to be redeemed and pick up our own cross and die to sin.
I am curious; if you think that is correct, what about the texts of Scripture that mentions propitiation, like 1 Jh 2:2?
You say that God was already well disposed toward man, I agree in the sense that God sent Jesus to die for us. He loves us while we are yet sinners. But the Bible also says that
"one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” implying we are under God´s wrath until covered by Jesus. At least I think it imples that.
@thomasfryxelius5526 hilasmos is more properly understood as the mercy seat and place of Covenant... not something which rendered God propitious, but rather demonstrates He was already desiring mercy.
@@IdolKiller Thank you for the response!
I really appreciated the chapter in your book, Theological Retrieval, on this topic. So often we pit certain theories against each other when they don't have to be.
I am so grateful for your willingness to process through things without pointing fingers.
You're long videos are always so much fun
I found this very helpful and wow the atonement is so varied but it is so helpful to see how each part fits together as a whole with the centre as substitution.
Substitution (PSA) is the linchpin, though. Take that away and the rest falls apart.
@@melodysledgister2468 Jesus died for us not instead of us as we all bear our own burden. The atonement is indirect through the new covenant, as those who walk in the Spirit have no condemnation, those who sin are under the law of sin and death.
By substitution you seem to think propitiation, but Jesus did not die to remove the curse of death when he died, but after judgement to remove the curse of death when we die. It is all in Hebrews 9.
@@melodysledgister2468 I believe this is the balanced Biblical view and I believe the view of William Lane Craig who has done a masterly work on atonement theory.
@@simonskinner1450 I take it from your replies that you are EO holding to a recapitulation view of the atonement with Christ as the second Adam. If we were to narrow things down to a sentence what is the single most important aspect of Christ's death for you?
I'm currently reading through On the Incarnation, and just yesterday I came across an article you had written on Athanasius regarding the atonement. Perfect timing!
Timing on this was impeccable! I was having a long discussion TODAY on this, and your video showed up in the middle of it. You touched on just about every point brought up on our discussion, and more. VERY helpful as we think through the topic. MUCH appreciated.
Very cool Harry!
Really liked your presentation. You mentioned God's wrath and Anselm's theory of satisfaction of the honour of God. If God is impassible which He is, then what does God's wrath mean? Does God literally take offence on Himself when we sin? These questions are relevant for penal substitutionary atonement theory?
Thank you for the comprehensive presentation of a wholistic view of salvation- all that Christ is and what He has done in us who have beloved and follow Him
So grateful for your ministry. Watching this video for second or third time now. This video alone is better than many of the books on atonement I’ve read.
Thank you. This has been my view as well. You are unfailingly thorough and helpful.
Man, 29:28 is a thought that lifts weight off of my shoulders, and I wish the church could share this posture toward theology. We would greatly benefit from it.
Also, hello Gavin, it has been MANY years since we crossed paths, I enjoy your videos!
great to hear from you Cale, hope you are well!
Proof Of The Apostolic Teaching by Irenaus is indeed an excellent work - a favorite of mine as well.
"To believe in a vicarious sacrifice, is to think to take refuge with the Son from the righteousness of the Father; to take refuge with his work instead of with the Son himself; to take refuge with a theory of that work instead of the work itself; to shelter behind a false quirk of law instead of nestling in the eternal heart of the unchangeable and righteous Father, who is merciful in that he renders to every man according to his work, and compels their obedience, nor admits judicial quibble or subterfuge."
- George MacDonald
So very helpful! Thanks for serving us with this Gavin!
Thank you, Gavin. I can't stand reductive explanations of the atonement. You explicated how the different streams in the church can fit.
Thank you for this tutorial. I did not realise that Iranaeus wrote so clearly on the atonement as an objective motif. Some give the impression that objective substitution atonement did not appear until Anselm began to approach it in the 11th century.
Was just talking to people on Twitter about atonement. Excited for the video.
This showed up in the sidebar in the last video of six that Mike Winger did on PSA. it's quite complementary to that. What I liked about this is the time spent on Recapitulation. Much of that resonated with me because of the theology that I have come to hold and developed on my own from just reading the Scriptures. You might called it 2nd Adam Theology I guess. A lot of other stuff Gavin brought up is thought-provoking and worth spending the time to ponder more. Good video.
This subject can be so vague and confusing. Thanks for boiling it down!
Really glad that you're talking about this subject.
Gavin, amazing job presenting this. Thank you for your thoughtful presentations. It's a great blessing to listen to your podcasts.
This is wonderful. You should reach out to Dr. Jordan Cooper again and see if he'd be interested in dialoging on theosis/atonement in a Protestant framework.
You're articulating many of the ideas presented in his more recent book on union with Christ. Could be very useful.
Appreciate the depth and nuances of the analysis of the theories of the atonement.
Incredibly helpful and well researched. Thank you!
This was very helpful! I have often seen these ideas pitted against each other. It is great to hear how church father’s had a more comprehensive view of the atonement!
I also appreciate you’re reference to universalism. I have heard recapitulation quotations made by church fathers used to support universalism. Is there room in your schedule to talk more in depth about how the early church thought about this?
Great Video.Gavin!
As a Pentecostal I grew up under Penal Substitution. Which I think is clear from Scripture.
Also i see Christus Victor. Or Christ going to hades and conquering deathbed has ti do specifically with the ressurection.
Not how he saved us from our sins through Attonment , but how he conquered death.
PSA sets up a trading relationship within the god-head, and this makes it problematic IMO. It also reduces 'forgiveness' to a transaction earned by another...not real forgiveness. A loan is a good example. If a loan is forgiven by the lender, it is no longer due from anyone. If a loan is paid by other than the borrower, the borrower is not 'forgiven' but the loan has been retired by the payment of another.
Thank you for a very good integrative summary. Perhaps one of your most important points was that Christ was doing many things and solving many different problems by the atonement, and so there must be multiple facets to the atonement. No single proposed "mechanism" catches all that Christ was doing. There must be parallel simultaneously valid mechanisms. Separately, thank you for quoting Aquinas's comments on the Transfiguration, which helped me see this event in a new light (pun intended).
Returned to this video today to mull it over again. I’m grateful you made this. I feel like my categories for the atonement are being expanded.
Also, bought the book. Eager to read it.
Making my heart sing, brother. "Prolepsis" and "organic continuity" were just 🍒 on top!
Great work my brother!! Love the spirit in which you deliver your messages.
An incredibly helpful synthesis, for me at least. Thank you.
Excellent commentary. Thank you.
Enjoyed your presentation. Though some theories regarding the meaning of Christ and his work seem positively wrong, it does seem to be the case that it has multiple dimensions and effects. Consequently, errors regarding Christ include imputing wrong meaning, but also asserting that only one meaning is exclusively present. These are easy mistakes to make, and I'm pleased to see and hear how you express a kind of harmony or complementarity among these facets/dimensions.
wonderful synthesis of theories.
Hey Dr Ortlund, Swedish brother here. Just recently found your channel and I must say I immensely enjoy the content you provide. Soon cracked them all videos! Surely you’re on a great path for arming the soldiers of Christ!
Apart from the apparent arminian/reformed discussion, is there anything in particular in WLC’s work of the Atonement (his book) that you don’t agree with? Bringing this up as WLC’s favors the Anselmian view as do you. Thx! 🙏
thanks, glad to be connected! I did an interview with WLC on the atonement that might be of interest!
@@TruthUnites Wow, must have missed that. Will look it up! Thx, take care.
I fully agree - back around 2014 I discovered union with Christ in 1 Corinthians 15 and ever since it has fundamentally changed how I think about the atonement. I think recapitulation is the patristic way of expressing this. I wrote an essay that touched on this my first year in seminary at MBTS. Though the English term “recapitulation” doesn’t appear in English bibles, the Greek equivalent Ανακεφαλαιοω does appear describing the work of Christ in Ephesians 1:10.
thanks for teaching us about this!
"The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. ... Theories about Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works." -C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity', Chapter 4.
Great video, really helpful
Hebrews 4: 15,16.... Christ was tempted in all points yet sinned not...the fear( in the garden ) , pain and despair of the crucifixion was the ultimate temptation ( if you are the king of Israel then come down from the cross)....enduring the ultimate pain and humiliation he endured becoming qualified to be a truly totally compassionate and enabled high priest able to save to the uttermost...his sacrifice was truly multifaceted beyond what we'll ever understand fully in this life it seems
Yooo, what’s up Gavin ! Love all ur videos man, if I could give 1 critique. I’m 23 and my vocab is still not as legendary as ur sometimes, if u can where possible, perhaps, use simpler language. Other than that man, Ur videos are so detailed and awesome! love them.
Thank you! Love this topic, so interesting.
Gavin, thank you for this channel. What a blessing to learn so much.
Have you read Lamb of the Free (Andrew Rillera) regarding the Atonement? Would be interested in your thoughts. 🙏
Maybe a good subject for a video. 😁
WOW!!! What an amazing video! Thank you So much Dr Ortlund. I would LOVE to see you in conversation with John Behr…anything I can do to make that more likely to happen? Get a petition going with thousands of signatures?:) Seeing you guys discuss On Apostolic Preaching, or On the Incarnation…or anything for that matter…would be a REAL treat. Please give it some thought (humble plea).
glad you enjoyed Arash. I have benefitted from Behr's scholarship.
This makes me think about Acts 2:24, where Peter preaches "God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it."
You (and the patristics!) take that "not possible" very, very seriously. I've never heard that perspective before.
Very interesting dig into the topic of the many theories.
Thank you for this video!
I’ve had this cued up to watch for quite a while now, and I finally got to view it. Good job! I’d say you’ve nailed it! I too have believed that there are multiple expressions of the atonement in the NT that need to be reconciled, but I never could quite pull them all together as you have.
I can definitely see the significance of seeing a well rounded view of the atonement of Christ. I do think people sometimes end up putting things against each other when that may not be the way these things are. Just another facet of the fuller picture. I can see why some cannot do this simply because it requires potentially questioning some people's favorite teachers that affirm their worldview. It is good to be sure what we hold is the truth, because like Paul says im Romans 12:2 "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." We want to be able continue to grow into a better understanding of what we hold to be true.
Been waiting for the next vid 👀😂
I really appreciate this video! One clarification I would like… At 31:40, you quote St. Athanasius speaking about Christ’s death settling our debt for us. You say that this refers to a debt we owe to God. But Athanasius says here that Christ’s death settled our account with Death. Does he imply or say elsewhere that Christ paid a debt we owed to God?
Yes, I noticed this too. Athanasius seems to hold Ramsom theory and Recapitulation theory of atonement combined. Athanasius multiple times states that the ransom is paid to death (not to God like the much later Penal Substitution theory). This was an excellent presentation minus this one glaring oversight.
Doing a research paper on this exact topic at Talbot right now, and a couple points were brought out here that I hadn't seen, so thank you! The "theories" are mostly mutually compatible, not mutually exclusive. Great book on this is Adam J. Johnson's "Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed" where he makes this very case. Also in Jeremy Treat's "The Atonement."
Among the sea of comments, a question - Dr Scott Hahn discussed Aquina’s Vicarious Satisfaction in contrast to Penal Substitutionary Attonement as though at odds with one another (youtube in Pints with Aquinas). I saw no contradiction, a division that doesnt exist. But I just don’t understand it - would you explain this difference and why at odds please?
Appreciated the video. Do you have any recommended resources on theosis? As a Protestant, I'm sometimes frustrated by conversations about soteriology that elevate justification (and certain views of the atonement) as if it was the telos of our salvation. That's why I'm curious to learn more about theosis, including the history of the doctrine, disagreement among various traditions, biblical support, etc.
hey Brian, Carl Mosser has written some helpful stuff on this. Let me know if you cannot find it. Hope that helps.
@@TruthUnites Thanks!
I can help as a devout student of the Holy Bible seeking one truth and ecumenism. I have a series of Ytube videos that might interest you and others like you seeking truth called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' my background is Protestant but most myths are from the Reformation.
Life in the Trinity by Don Fairbairn
Thanks for this! 1) wonderful work, and I really appreciate your zeroing in on "substitution." Has me thinking about Vos's discussion of Christ's vicarious work (thinking specifically of vicarious repentance in His baptism by John, in Biblical Theology). 2) Have you read Thomas Weinandy's "Does God Suffer," or is it on your radar. I'm think especially of his chapter on the Incarnation, "The Impassible Suffers." It was deep and deeply moving. I'm Reformed Baptist, but even though he's Roman Catholic, his work on Theology proper and Christology is spectacular. I suspect you'd enjoy it. I really appreciate your (small e!) ecumenism.
Gavin, I have been dissecting the council of Trent. Going through it with a fine toothed comb. As a prologue to my study, I read The 99 Thesis. Now I am at session 20, & I am reading the Augsburg confession. Do you hold to Augsburg & do you think its understanding of Justification & Free Will is correct or that it’s view on the hot topics is reflective of the “Protestant” view today?
I really hate it when people act as though Penal Substitution is the only model of the Atonement and all other views are the equivalent of endorsing Arianism, Modalism, or Partialism as legitimate views of the Trinity.
Lol what
Affirming the other views is fine, but either not giving PSA the head spot or denying it altogether is very, very problematic.
Yet in the same way they hate those who hate PSA, you hate those who hate those who hate PSA. you're no different.
The problem is is that PSA, especially being a very lately defined theory (mid 1800s), is considered to be the only theory of the atonement that actually fits with the reformed view of Christianity. Part of the reason that people are so adamant about it is because the other theories of the atonement that you mentioned aren't as consistent with the reformed view as a lot of Calvinists would like. PSA has some merit to it however it's pretty obvious at this point that reformationism needs reform ironically LOL.
@Silverhailo21 This very podcast quotes multiple early church fathers who support PSA.
I'm still here, and waiting for a video on Maximus the Confessor and Ephrem the Syrian. Would love to see someone from a more Reform background cover Maximus the Confessor as he is one of my favorite early church fathers.
Me too! I don't know him.
Thank you for your effort to show that we, as Christians, do not need to be divided over "theological" differences. I really appreciate your tag, "Truth Unites". Part of my falling away from institutionalized faith is the historical division of the church that so defines us. I would really appreciate a caring response to a continuing problem I have with classical christianity (yes, I too am divisive). It seems your entire presentation is dependent on interpreting Adam and Eve's disobedience as the Fall of Man, the undoing of God's good plan. But wasn't the fall really a necessary step forward as we progressed toward God's declared intention of "let us make man in our image", as, after the incident, God declares, "man has now become like one of us, knowing good from evil"? I see no reference in the Bible to an ideal of holy innocence if we had passed a test of perfect obedience, or any biblical reference to the idea that God intended his image-bearing creatures to remain in some childlike state of innocence Such a state, of course, would not see God setting forth any manner of atonement, or the future, higher state of humanity made possible by the necessary joining in the incarnation of the Creator to the creature. I really would appreciate an answer and not condemnation. Thank you again for your devotion.
I agree that all of the atonement theories are right and are seen in scripture - and though I think Penal Substitutionary Atonement has been misinterpreted or misapplied by Calvinism, it seems to have more scriptural support than the others.
YES to all of them! Praised be The LORD Jesus Christ!
There are big issues when we take terms that were understood differently in Greek and Latin. Latin is legalistic, so when we say that Christ "covered" our sins in Latin, it uses language that would describe paying or covering a legal debt. In Greek and Hebrew, it has connotations of him "covering" us like the Passover Lamb covered the people so that death could pass over, so in Eastern Christianity what Jesus did is seen more as mechanistic. He took our place in death to cover the dead with immortality so that they could pass back to life. Likewise the terms like Justification and righteousness have legalistic Latin meanings. in legal settings, when your are justified, you have become "square" (right) with the law or the court. If you are square with the law, or justified, your are "righteous', straight, square, but in Greek the connotations are "geometric" or organic. When you justify a building, you make it straight. A justified person is straightened out, and justification is a process of walking upright, (righteously) and walking a straight path. Since a "righteous" person is someone who is actively standing straight up and walking the straight path, justification is inseparable from behavior, or righteous living. I am not going to say which is correct, but I think it can be seen how different models developed out of linguistic context.
We can say that Jesus took our place as a guilty person on the cross, or we can say that he took on a human body which could not be contained by death and therefore created a path for all flesh from death to life. In Orthodoxy, also in contrast to Roman Catholicism, death is a biological consequence of the fallen cosmos, not God's punishment. And sin is "forgiven" immediately upon repentance, but forgiveness does not remove the biological consequences of sin. Absolution for sins is not freeing us from the legal consequences of sins, it is dissolution of the bonds we have made with our sins that weigh us down. Confession is a witness of forgiveness of the repentant person and a grace that dissolves our affinity for our sins so that we might not return to them.
Becoming God, not by nature, but by his energy. That’s why the essence/energy distinction is so important.
I've been studying this issue for a long time and here I will briefly summarise what I believe is the biblical theory of atonement:
It comes down to penal substitution, christus victor and recapitulation combined together. The first part is that in order to satisfy justice and God's wrath someone had to take our penalty. Jesus does this by bearing our sins and entering into death (in hades) for us. The second part is that by rising from death He is free from sin and death. By being joined to Christ we are released from death and sin. This bears the fruit of imputed and infused righteousness for the believer. The legal aspect means we are counted as if we had lived Christ's life and this is the door to the ontological aspect (now we can experience union with God). The third part is that since Christ was God in the flesh He had no corruption in Him (as the New Adam) and through His resurrection life (divine) the image of God in us is restored so that we can have union with God (in the final analysis the corruption of our nature will be destroyed completely).
I priase God for having lifted up a Baptist Minister.....finally we have someone in u Brother Gavin , a protestant, that brings such powerful & deep teachings using church fathers & church history....THANK YOU for obeying God in this ur mission ...
Always remember who u r .....a sinner ....that can do NOTHING to save himself but thru Christ....
Yes i also realized how profoundly important the Incarnation is....NOW ..because of this Incarnation ...we will see YHWH thru resurected glorified body of Jésus forever ...Father Son Holy Spirit ...the Holy Triune God ....
I agree 100% ...at His transfiguration Jesus showed WHO HE IS .....REALLY ...under His human flesh .....and temporary earthly appearance
Amazing stuff here.
Really enjoyed this video. It's fantastic that you're getting into so many of the other views of the atonement, Christus Victor is my personal favorite.
In the spirit of this channel, truth unites, I'm convinced at this point that the only way to actually have the unity amongst the church that so many want is with and through christ, that is proper christology. A lot of people hold a lot of very contradictory views and I believe that it's only by and through Christ that we shall indeed have One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.
The quote of Athanasius at 31:16 also contains within it the heart of Ransom Theory, when he says, "Surrendering His own temple *_to death_* in place of all, to settle man's account *_with death_* and free him from the primal transgression."
Here we have the idea that man is, "sold into bondage to sin", and needs to be bought back, and since the "wages of sin is death", so "we see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." And then this in turn reveals Christus Victor, for "He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." For "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil." And so, "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
What do you think about a connection between Irenaeus’ recapitulation and a view of Christ’s obedience (Hebrews 10:9), as another way of stating the reformed view of the active obedience of Christ? Namely, that Christ recapitulates Adam, but while Adam was disobedient to the creation covenant (the standards of God’s character and will), Christ was obedient.
Have you ever spoke with Anthony Rogers? He defends the PSA view of the atonement
@Nathaniel J. Franco he won’t respond. Perry’s video was really devastating.
Many years ago I had a strange dream. There was a cathedral with a floor that looked like a chessboard. People sat on chairs on the chessboard facing a pastor who was explaining how to know God. I was sitting on one of the squares and turned my head toward the back. There was God... waiting for anybody to take notice. I tried to alert people next to me but I was shushed. The pastor continued with his instruction totally unaware that God was looking straight at him.
Enjoy your presentations. They are always filled with a lot of well researched information. Your brief summery about the Transfiguration was interesting. Gave me some Bible passages to look up.
Besides this though, I have a question:
Did Athanasius and Irenaeus view recapitulation as applicable to the entire human race; or did they view it as applicable to only believers (i.e the elect)?
The reason I ask, is if the most common opinion on recapitulation is that it applied to all of humanity; I could see where people would come to the conclusion of universal salvation from that. Obviously though the concept of universal salvation is as different "theological term" than "universal atonement". (Thus the difference between "arminianism" and "calvinism".)
The other couple of "monkey wrenches" that get thrown in here though are:
1. Lucifer fell before Adam did. = Created entities had already transgressed into sin prior to consequence coming to pass in the material world.
2. The redemption plan is stated as having been accomplished from the "foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8) Which necessitates that obviously the Godhead's decision to provide a redemption plan in the first place, was not an "afterthought" based on Adam's sin.
Thus creating a redemption plan was based in God's omniscience that the fall was inevitable. Because God had made a creation that was not an extension of His own Divinity; He knew what He'd created was inherently corruptible. As the "knowledge of good and evil" does not make non-Divine entities God. (As Adam and Eve found that one out "the hard way"!)
Thus "recapitulation" can not mean "to restore unto humanity as Adam had originally been". We know this because we don't continue in endless cycles of sin and redemption for all of eternity. One of the major accomplishments of the atonement was the ability (upon the final resurrection and recreation of the cosmos) to no longer be corruptible. The atonement didn't just "restore what was"; it created anew a state of existence that did not exist before.
God knew in His omniscience that given the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the fall was going to happen. We see this in that Lucifer fell before Adam did and to any knowledge we've been given in Scripture; the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not given to Lucifer. (Although, even if he was capable of "eating" it; I'm not sure it applied to him because he wasn't human.)
So though I think the theory of recapitulation provides a particular angle on the atonement that's not necessarily heretical; what's meant by it's perimeters (if not already provided in history) needs further definition
Excellent! I bought your book and look forward to reading and digging deeper into the amazing atonement of Jesus Christ
Oh please, share more about Narnia, haha! #ForNarniaAndForAslan
This is a good account of the subject. As much of the opposition to "juridical" language (actually opposition to Scriptural language) comes from certain Eastern Orthodox apologists, I like to point them to The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church of 1830 (under Patriarch Philaret) which speaks of Jesus' "voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death." A 20th century Congregationalist theologian, P. T. Forsyth, in his book The Work of Christ, spoke of Christ's death as a confession of God's holiness, made by the representative of the whole human race. Where I think Calvinism detracts from the glory of the atonement is when Calvinists allege that God, before they came into existence, determined that specific individuals would be excluded from the number of those for whom Christ would die. Rather, with Charles Wesley (and in agreement with Scripture), I affirm "for ALL, for ALL my Saviour died".
@Christos Kyrios Yes. I am aware that Calvin was influenced by some of the later errors of St Augustine of Hippo, arising in his polemic against Pelagius, which influenced other theologians including Thomas Aquinas. Pelikan's books are a good survey of doctrinal development. I have volumes 1 and 3. There was resistance in the universal Church to Augustine's double predestination doctrine, but unhappily many held to it. Happily, the Christian is not committed to following the speculative ideas of individuals, and is free to refute them from Holy Scripture.
In what way of His glory reduced by doing what He set out to do? Are you confusing the quality of the atonement with its scope? Sufficient to save all, efficient to save the elect.
@@Phill0old The Scriptures teach that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and that God calls all people to repent and believe the Gospel. Calvinist theology teaches that God decreed before creation that certain individuals would not be able to repent and believe, because God wishes to damn them. The atonement is sufficient to save all because God by it makes salvation possible for all. Calvinist theology denies the Scriptural truth of God providing opportunity of salvation for all. Christ succeeded in making salvation available to all, requiring them to choose whether or not to accept it.
@@anselman3156 So in your opinion those for whom Christ fully atoned, those he ransomed, those he died for will go to hell. I find that not possible to Square with scripture.
God calls everyone to do what is right, to be perfect and holy.
Are you perfect and holy? No.
Are you capable of being that? No.
Yet you will insist that God never commands what we can't do?
God commands you to live by faith and never sin. How are you doing on that? Even as a Christian you cannot do it. Yet you insist that God commanding it means you can do it.
According to you it was both possible and desired by God that those who crucified Christ not crucify Christ. Mmmm do you want to re-think that?
It was desired but not possible then you have no real argument.
If it was possible but not desired you don't have an argument.
I say that God commands right at all times but chooses whom He will have mercy on. The Bible states that quite clearly.
@@Phill0old Scripture says that the Lord Jesus is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2.2, and that He gave Himself a ransom for all 1 Timothy 2.6. For this and your other questions, I suggest you read the whole of 1 John. Those who choose to obey Christ by repentance receive the ability to live without sin. The Lord Jesus commands what He makes possible, that is, to "go and sin no more". St John writes to us "that ye sin not" 1 John 2.1. You are failing to look to Jesus if you sin, and if you sin you are of the devil. God enables us to live without sin, through the victory over sin of Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God dwelling in us. No Christian can make an excuse for sinning, when God commands (and enables us) not to. Go and sin no more.
TLDR: The atonement is a complex and multifaceted concept that involves various theories and motifs, including theosis, recapitulation, substitution, and divine wrath, all of which contribute to the understanding of Christ's death and its impact on humanity.
1. 📺 Different atonement theories, including ransom, penal substitution, and Christus Victor, can be used together to avoid revisionist accounts and emphasize the importance of the cross and resurrection in bringing us back to God.
2. 📚 Christ's atonement theories emphasize recapitulation, the salvific nature of the incarnation, theosis, and participation in God.
3. 📚 The speaker discusses the necessity of the incarnation for salvation, Irenaeus' view of recapitulation and atonement, and Anselm's emphasis on satisfaction in Christ's death, all of which are complementary and have a logical relationship.
4. 🤔 Anselm and Athanasius both emphasize recapitulation in their atonement theories, with Athanasius using metaphors to explain the renewal of mankind and warning against being overly reductive in thinking about the atonement.
5. 🤔 The atonement has multiple purposes including union and reconciliation between God and humans, forgiveness, resurrection, and the defeat of Satan, with Athanasius emphasizing both recapitulation and satisfaction themes in his works.
6. 🤔 The transfiguration of Christ reveals his divine nature and connects to Old Testament theophanies, leading to multiple interpretations of atonement theories and the need to address various theological issues.
7. 🤔 Christ's atonement theory involves restorative and propitiating substitution, with his life representing restoration and his death representing propitiation, emphasizing the importance of understanding the full narrative arc of Jesus' work and the profound truth of the atonement.
8. 📚 The speaker discusses the implications of the atonement and encourages viewers to engage with the content and subscribe for future videos on related topics.
By Eightify for Safari
Recapitulation ☦️
2 Timothy 1, 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
Hello, brother in Christ. I have a question and comment.
Isn't divine wrath God letting people go their own way (slaves of their desires) because of their idolatry (Rom. 1), not satisfaction? Where can I find (explicit) passages in Scriptue which equates wrath with the satisfaction of God?
My opinion before watching: there is at least some truth to all classical atonement theories
Indeed. I don't see any reason why they can't all be true at the same time.
@@stephengray1344 Except that the idea of a member of the Godhead being punished by Another has profoundly heretical implications.
@@charlesheck6812 What, precisely, do you think is heretical about penal substitutionary atonement? And if the theory does have heretical implications, why does nobody seem to have seen them until the rise of liberal/progressive theology in the last couple of centuries?
There have been so many Atonement theories, and I hope there are many more to be seen! That's probably the only doctrine I would say that about.
Will there ever be an audio format of Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals?
31:00 Multiple needs. I've noticed that there is a different issue being addressed in Irenaeus and Anselm. The Gnostics that Irenaeus was opposing denied that Jesus was Man so Irenaeus needed to show that God had really become Man. Anselm was after the heresy of Arius so Anselm needed to show that the Man was really God.
I never knew that people argued over these. I always figured that all of these were simultaneously true. I’ve always thought that the penal substitution part was the main one, though, as it’s so plain in the Bible
I have to make a vital correction here. At around 31:20 when Dr. Ortlund reads the atonement quote from St. Athanasius, St. A wrote specifically that it was to "settle man's account with death." Emphasis: *with death*. Not with God, as Dr. Ortlund wrongly interpolates just a few moments later at 32:18. The account, the debt, was with Death. Many Protestant doctrines err when applying it to God. If Dr. Ortlund wants to perpetuate that doctrine, so be it, but please do not assign it to St. Athanasius.
As seen in the parable of the Prodigal Son, God does not require a payment of debt to forgive. He forgives freely to all who repent. The same applies to us and God. While we are eternally indebted to God, He does not require payment to forgive. He only requires repentance and, from there, obedience. And so, Christ came to settle the debt with Death, and did so by defeating Death (which could only occur through becoming incarnate). Therefore, the proper atonement is Christus Victor, not Penal Substitution.
I agree. I think the key difference is how we answer this question: What was God’s response to being invoked by our sin? Which, I agree with you that wasn’t God demanding a payment from us to satisfy His wrath. It satisfied His reconciliation, through repentance and faith.
So what do you make of Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, Galatians 3:13 & 4:5, 1 Corinthians 6:20 & 7:23, 1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 2:4 & 2:14, 1 Peter 1:18, 2 Peter 2:21, and Revelation 5:7, 5:9, 14:3-4, all of which point to the ransom model of atonement?
@@Berean_with_a_BTh It all depends on how your theology is defining the ransom model. If the theology is Penal Substitutionary Atonement, that becomes problematic given that PSA (which defines the ransom as being paid to God the Father) didn't even emerge as a theology until the 16th Century. But the theological ransom model seen since the earliest Church history is, more simply, the reference to Christ's sacrifice as a holy and pure lamb Who took on the Death that we deserved. That Christ -- who is Life, not Death -- submitted Himself to Death so as to defeat Death, and in that victory bestowed Life back on to humanity for those that follow Him. PSA is very legal and juridical. Prior to the 16th Century, however, ransom wasn't a legal paradigm; it was simply language for Christ becoming Incarnate so as to experience the Death we all were subject to in order to conquer it and, consequently, free us from it.
Have you read William Lane Craig's book on the atonement? He makes a point to distinguish between what he calls atonement in the narrow sense and atonement in the broad sense. Atonement in the broad sense is at-one-ment, or reconciliation. But atonement in the narrow sense is specifically focused on what happened at the cross. Craig argues that PSA is the central facet of atonement in the narrow sense that unites the various motifs found in the Scriptures and the Fathers.
yes, it's a great book, I interviewed him about it on my channel
@@TruthUnites What about Ps 40/Heb 10 in regards of PSA?
What do you think of the critiques of PSA from Oliver Crisp? Someone who does not caricature PSA at all, thinks it lacks sufficient biblical warrant to be the primary model of a constructive account of the atonement, and yet has some strong objections to multiple formulations of the doctrine. I find his critiques and proposed alternatives in Approaching the Atonement and Participation and Atonement quite strong/maybe persuasive. If you haven't read those books, totally okay! Just wanted to know if you had any thoughts.
As an Orthodox Christian, I really enjoyed the video. We would agree that all that Christ did for us cannot be summarized by any single "theory", and we would also agree that there are substitutionary dimensions to the Atonement. Where we would disagree is in the idea that God is constrained by some principle of justice or honor and cannot forgive without payment. Do you think that last sentence is a caricature of the penal substitution view? I couldn't imagine an advocate of PS describing God as "constrained".
The word "constrained" he used is bad choice. What he really means is that God acts on His will without violating His attributes. God shows love without violating his justice and wrath. An example is, God punished (wrath) David for his adultery but at the same time, God showed his justice to Uriah and Judah. However, God didn't kill David because he was merciful.
Although I don't agree with any of the theories presented, I felt that you did an outstanding exposition on the issue.
Which one do you think is correct? Just curious because I’ve been looking into this myself.
@@thanevakarian9762 From my own understanding I believe that Jesus was the final Yom Kippur - as on that day, all the Israelites were cleansed from their sins, ...until their next transgression.
Jesus fulfilled the Law making him an acceptable sacrifice. But because his perfection was based on obedience (unlike the typical bull and goat oblations), his sacrifice allowed God to abrogate the Law which held us all condemned. So that, where there is no law, there is no sin.
We are under the law of faith now, and not that of works - Jesus' death purified those that believe in him for the last and final time, and ended the Law.
The concept of atonement is immensely fascinating to me, and very frustrating. I like the idea of separating atonement into the categories of mechanism and results, as this helps a bit. I am profoundly grateful for the results, but kinda wish I had a mechanism to understand. Recapitulation is a result, is it not? How does Jesus' death and resurrection join (or re-join) humanity to divinity? If Jesus had physical children we could talk about some sort of genetic purification, but we seem to have only symbolism, or of course the influence of the Holy Spirit (but that's apart from death & resurrection). And why did God wait thousands of years after the fall to send the remedy, and why is it taking thousands of years for the remedy to come to completion? And what of all the casualties that occur and have occurred in the meantime? Sorry, perhaps I should watch the whole video before I comment (I'm at 22:49).
The joining of humanity to divinity occurred at the Incarnation. We participate in that union by being incorporated into Christ's body through baptism - baptism being a participation in his death (see Romans 6:3-4). Having thus been made a member of the body of Christ, his resurrection becomes our resurrection, and his ascension, our ascension. Of course, for him this has already occurred while for us, it occurs after we die and are born into new life.