Many points that I could address, but only have time for these below: 1) God would continue to still be love even if He did not save because God is love (1 Jn 4:8). Him being loving is not based off of what He does or does not do, because He is love itself. God IS Love. He is the standard by which anyone, any thought, or any action is "loving". 2) God allowed sin to enter into the world so then we can know Him as gracious (Eph. 1:6). We would not know God as gracious if there was no sin, in the same way we would not know the splendor of the stars in the sky if there was no black backdrop of the night. The only way for God to show Himself as gracious is to allow sin into the world. 3) God is Just. This part of His many immutable attributes (including love, etc.). He is just, meaning He punishes all evil. Evil is punished either by the person (Psalm 5) in Hell or punished upon Christ through double imputation (2 Cor. 5:21). It pleases God to punish evil, just as we are satisfied in seeing evil punished. The evil (sin) was placed on Christ and it "pleased" God to crush Jesus (Is 53:10). By crushing Jesus on the cross, it quenched the desire of God to punish the sin of those who are His children (see in full, Isaiah 53). Jesus, in fact, did die to quench the wrath of God the Father because the wages of sin is what? Death (Romans 6:23). In other words, the debt of sin is only satisfied by death, and who is the debt owed to? God. Therefore, the debt of sin of His children was quenched by the death of God the Son, Jesus. If you notice, the above points deal with attributes of God. A good resource I would commend to you regarding His attributes from a biblical perspective (besides the Bible), is Attributes of God by A.W. Pink.
You have directly challenged the primary message of this video as stated in the video title, stating that the death of Jesus was not to save us from the wrath of God. By taking the contrary position, you now must deal with the implication that God had the option to be merciful to Jesus but chose not to because this was simply his preference. So the question I pose to you is: Was the death of Jesus actually necessary or was it unnecessary? Could God simply have given him mercy and chosen to forgive rather than to punish by death? Wouldn't an act of mercy to Jesus be more consistent to God's nature rather than vengeance? Why is God so incapable of showing mercy? The wages of sin are death, but why does God prefer to deliver death rather than forgiveness? I suspect you will double down on your position, and I must point out that this position portrays God's character as tyrannical and merciless (because he delivers death simply because it is his preference to do so). As for me, I do not respect a merciless tyrant whose preference is to be the deliverer of death, which is why I reject this characterization of God and the theology behind it. If God does not deliver death by preference and it is in fact necessary, explain why death is necessary and not a preference.
John 3:34-36 [34]For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. [35]The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. [36]He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Interesting answer! Since it is stated that 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) and that Jesus' death makes salvation possible, there must be a good reason for suffering to still exist-otherwise, it would be contradictory. So, what is the reason?
“Absolutely impressed by the depth and maturity you bring to your content, especially considering you’re just 20 years old. It’s refreshing to see someone so young delve deeply into theology with such intelligence and insight. I recently watched your video where you mentioned that if you’re chosen by God, and you’re watching, you’re likely in your 20s. I may be 46, but I completely understand what you’re conveying, and I also feel that sense of being chosen by God. Your understanding of spiritual matters is profound, and it’s clear you’re guided by the Holy Spirit in your reflections. Keep sharing this wisdom; it’s a gift to those seeking to deepen their faith and understanding. Looking forward to more of your thoughtful and inspiring content!”😊❤
Jesus died and suffered because of our sins. He rose again to show us he is the sonf God who came as the form of a sheep to be sacrificed for our salvation. That is why we need to eat his flesh and blood. You cant be saved by word alone.
There were many remarkable thoughts in there. I loved the idea that all glory is to God because it's His fight against the devil and that the death of the lawmaker abolished the law. I have but one concern. I think your post would benefit much if it's backed with some supporting details, preferably actual verses from scriptures. Because without them, anyone can discard it as mere fanfiction.
Interesting take. It is the first time I have heard one reject substitutionary penal atonement, but at the same time assert a different forensic explanation for the necessity of the Crucifixion, albeit in as a matter or transactional law rather than litigation. While you say nothing to disagree with as such, it still seems to me that, according to your explanation, God is still playing word games with himself. It is first necessary to clarify what we mean by "salvation" before we can intelligently discuss soteriology. I submit that asserting that salvation is restorative doesn't go far enough; the purpose of salvation was not merely to return Man to his prelapsarian state, but rather bring Man into the glory to which God wished to share - it is teleological. St. Paul writes that God predestined us to be son by adoption as Jesus is the Son of the Father by essence (see. Eph 1:5). St. Peter explains that greatness of this promise (adoptive sonship) is that it means that we become partakers of the divine nature - ineffably sharing in the inner life of the Trinity despite such a thing being impossible since we are not God in essence (such as in the case of Jesus, being the Son by being the Only-begotten). All of this is made possible because of the Incarnation- by joining his Divine ousia to our human ousia in a single hypostasis, Jesus makes it possible for each human hypostasis to join his human ousia to the divine ousia by joining ourselves to Him. As St. Athanasius wrote, "God became man so that man might become god." Likewise, St. Gregory the Theologian explains, "That which is not assumed is not healed; that which is united to God, that will be saved. If half of Adam fell, also half will be taken up and saved. But if all, all of his nature will be united, and all of it will be saved." While Adam was created for immortality, he was not created immortal. Indeed, since God, and only God, is Life itself nothing created can be by nature immortal and any immortality exists only because the creature subsists in God. Death, therefore, was a consequence of the Fall, but was not punishment for the sin of Adam; rather, the ancestral sin alienated Man from God, and this alienation resulted in the natural process of death adhering in Man because the supernatural Life of God was no longer in him. Therefore, Christ had to die because in order to deify Man, he had to assume the totality of human nature, including death. But this is where the foolishness of God is above the wisdom of men. Throughout the Gospels, we see how men utterly fail to comprehend the all-holiness of God. Time and again, the Pharisees are scandalized by Jesus' contact with the ritually unclean because, seeing with human eyes, they believe that such contact causes that which was clean to become tainted (which is why such people cannot be allowed into the Temple or have contact with people who have been ritually purified preparation for religious duties such as observing the Sabbath). The truth, however, is the very opposite. Touching a leper, or a prostitute, or a woman with the flow of blood, or a publican, or a gentile cannot sully Jesus; the fact that He is God means He is All-holy, which means that no evil can abide His presence - it is the evil that purified by contact with Him, not that He is corrupted by it. The leper is cured by His touch, He does not contract leprosy by it. Jesus is Baptized in the Jordan not because he needs to be cleansed, but rather because His Baptism purifies the Jordan itself so that the waters can cleanse others of sin as it cleanses them of dirt. In like manner, the reason why Jesus dies is *to kill death itself.* Truly assuming human nature means subjecting Himself to death as men are subject to death. Remember that He does this so that He can elevate Man into adoptive sonship, not simply to forgive an offense against Himself or to declare man to be not guilty of sin (neither of which necessitates the Incarnation). But because Jesus is and was always God in His essence, subjecting His person to death means that Life itself extinguishes death rather than the other way around. Indeed, the necessity of Jesus' death has nothing to do with quenching the wrath of God, and everything to do with God's love for man - a love so infinite that He seeks to bring man into His household, not as servants, or courtiers, or friends, or viziers, but as co-heirs to His Kingdom.
Personally I also think that the whole "quenching the wrath of God" reformed Protestants usually bring up is actually terrible. Why? Because the way it was explained by Sproul or MacArthur, it brings a break within the Father and the Son that separates the Trinity into separate Gods rather than God saving man as a Trinity in perfect union in between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This might shock you, but Catholics (and apostolic Christians in general) have a better explanation why Jesus had to die on the cross than Calvinists.
"God cannot take back his word. God is his word."
Many points that I could address, but only have time for these below:
1) God would continue to still be love even if He did not save because God is love (1 Jn 4:8). Him being loving is not based off of what He does or does not do, because He is love itself. God IS Love. He is the standard by which anyone, any thought, or any action is "loving".
2) God allowed sin to enter into the world so then we can know Him as gracious (Eph. 1:6). We would not know God as gracious if there was no sin, in the same way we would not know the splendor of the stars in the sky if there was no black backdrop of the night. The only way for God to show Himself as gracious is to allow sin into the world.
3) God is Just. This part of His many immutable attributes (including love, etc.). He is just, meaning He punishes all evil. Evil is punished either by the person (Psalm 5) in Hell or punished upon Christ through double imputation (2 Cor. 5:21). It pleases God to punish evil, just as we are satisfied in seeing evil punished. The evil (sin) was placed on Christ and it "pleased" God to crush Jesus (Is 53:10). By crushing Jesus on the cross, it quenched the desire of God to punish the sin of those who are His children (see in full, Isaiah 53). Jesus, in fact, did die to quench the wrath of God the Father because the wages of sin is what? Death (Romans 6:23). In other words, the debt of sin is only satisfied by death, and who is the debt owed to? God. Therefore, the debt of sin of His children was quenched by the death of God the Son, Jesus.
If you notice, the above points deal with attributes of God. A good resource I would commend to you regarding His attributes from a biblical perspective (besides the Bible), is Attributes of God by A.W. Pink.
You have directly challenged the primary message of this video as stated in the video title, stating that the death of Jesus was not to save us from the wrath of God.
By taking the contrary position, you now must deal with the implication that God had the option to be merciful to Jesus but chose not to because this was simply his preference.
So the question I pose to you is: Was the death of Jesus actually necessary or was it unnecessary? Could God simply have given him mercy and chosen to forgive rather than to punish by death? Wouldn't an act of mercy to Jesus be more consistent to God's nature rather than vengeance? Why is God so incapable of showing mercy? The wages of sin are death, but why does God prefer to deliver death rather than forgiveness?
I suspect you will double down on your position, and I must point out that this position portrays God's character as tyrannical and merciless (because he delivers death simply because it is his preference to do so). As for me, I do not respect a merciless tyrant whose preference is to be the deliverer of death, which is why I reject this characterization of God and the theology behind it.
If God does not deliver death by preference and it is in fact necessary, explain why death is necessary and not a preference.
Jesus loves you 📖☦️🇺🇸✌🏻👸🏻
John 3:34-36
[34]For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
[35]The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
[36]He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
If Jesus had to die for us to be saved, why does God still allow suffering and hardship in the world if He is good and almighty?
Because it’s still the time for that
Interesting answer! Since it is stated that 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) and that Jesus' death makes salvation possible, there must be a good reason for suffering to still exist-otherwise, it would be contradictory. So, what is the reason?
@DannyCuyto there is suffering because of the fall.
And there will still be suffering till it’s time…
New viewer. Good videos #praiseGod
“Absolutely impressed by the depth and maturity you bring to your content, especially considering you’re just 20 years old. It’s refreshing to see someone so young delve deeply into theology with such intelligence and insight. I recently watched your video where you mentioned that if you’re chosen by God, and you’re watching, you’re likely in your 20s. I may be 46, but I completely understand what you’re conveying, and I also feel that sense of being chosen by God. Your understanding of spiritual matters is profound, and it’s clear you’re guided by the Holy Spirit in your reflections. Keep sharing this wisdom; it’s a gift to those seeking to deepen their faith and understanding. Looking forward to more of your thoughtful and inspiring content!”😊❤
Beautiful explanation.
Dona nobis pacem
Wait where did she say she is 20?
I think she is around 28. Because she said her grandma told her something 20 years ago when she was 8 😉
Jesus died and suffered because of our sins. He rose again to show us he is the sonf God who came as the form of a sheep to be sacrificed for our salvation. That is why we need to eat his flesh and blood. You cant be saved by word alone.
thank u!!!!!!
There were many remarkable thoughts in there. I loved the idea that all glory is to God because it's His fight against the devil and that the death of the lawmaker abolished the law. I have but one concern. I think your post would benefit much if it's backed with some supporting details, preferably actual verses from scriptures. Because without them, anyone can discard it as mere fanfiction.
Interesting take. It is the first time I have heard one reject substitutionary penal atonement, but at the same time assert a different forensic explanation for the necessity of the Crucifixion, albeit in as a matter or transactional law rather than litigation.
While you say nothing to disagree with as such, it still seems to me that, according to your explanation, God is still playing word games with himself.
It is first necessary to clarify what we mean by "salvation" before we can intelligently discuss soteriology. I submit that asserting that salvation is restorative doesn't go far enough; the purpose of salvation was not merely to return Man to his prelapsarian state, but rather bring Man into the glory to which God wished to share - it is teleological. St. Paul writes that God predestined us to be son by adoption as Jesus is the Son of the Father by essence (see. Eph 1:5). St. Peter explains that greatness of this promise (adoptive sonship) is that it means that we become partakers of the divine nature - ineffably sharing in the inner life of the Trinity despite such a thing being impossible since we are not God in essence (such as in the case of Jesus, being the Son by being the Only-begotten). All of this is made possible because of the Incarnation- by joining his Divine ousia to our human ousia in a single hypostasis, Jesus makes it possible for each human hypostasis to join his human ousia to the divine ousia by joining ourselves to Him. As St. Athanasius wrote, "God became man so that man might become god." Likewise, St. Gregory the Theologian explains, "That which is not assumed is not healed; that which is united to God, that will be saved. If half of Adam fell, also half will be taken up and saved. But if all, all of his nature will be united, and all of it will be saved."
While Adam was created for immortality, he was not created immortal. Indeed, since God, and only God, is Life itself nothing created can be by nature immortal and any immortality exists only because the creature subsists in God. Death, therefore, was a consequence of the Fall, but was not punishment for the sin of Adam; rather, the ancestral sin alienated Man from God, and this alienation resulted in the natural process of death adhering in Man because the supernatural Life of God was no longer in him. Therefore, Christ had to die because in order to deify Man, he had to assume the totality of human nature, including death. But this is where the foolishness of God is above the wisdom of men.
Throughout the Gospels, we see how men utterly fail to comprehend the all-holiness of God. Time and again, the Pharisees are scandalized by Jesus' contact with the ritually unclean because, seeing with human eyes, they believe that such contact causes that which was clean to become tainted (which is why such people cannot be allowed into the Temple or have contact with people who have been ritually purified preparation for religious duties such as observing the Sabbath). The truth, however, is the very opposite. Touching a leper, or a prostitute, or a woman with the flow of blood, or a publican, or a gentile cannot sully Jesus; the fact that He is God means He is All-holy, which means that no evil can abide His presence - it is the evil that purified by contact with Him, not that He is corrupted by it. The leper is cured by His touch, He does not contract leprosy by it. Jesus is Baptized in the Jordan not because he needs to be cleansed, but rather because His Baptism purifies the Jordan itself so that the waters can cleanse others of sin as it cleanses them of dirt.
In like manner, the reason why Jesus dies is *to kill death itself.* Truly assuming human nature means subjecting Himself to death as men are subject to death. Remember that He does this so that He can elevate Man into adoptive sonship, not simply to forgive an offense against Himself or to declare man to be not guilty of sin (neither of which necessitates the Incarnation). But because Jesus is and was always God in His essence, subjecting His person to death means that Life itself extinguishes death rather than the other way around. Indeed, the necessity of Jesus' death has nothing to do with quenching the wrath of God, and everything to do with God's love for man - a love so infinite that He seeks to bring man into His household, not as servants, or courtiers, or friends, or viziers, but as co-heirs to His Kingdom.
Personally I also think that the whole "quenching the wrath of God" reformed Protestants usually bring up is actually terrible. Why? Because the way it was explained by Sproul or MacArthur, it brings a break within the Father and the Son that separates the Trinity into separate Gods rather than God saving man as a Trinity in perfect union in between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
This might shock you, but Catholics (and apostolic Christians in general) have a better explanation why Jesus had to die on the cross than Calvinists.
interesting points you made
Hmmms