Simply explained, Caleb ,easy to Remember, You mentioned Beauty, I have always included in my own devotions "O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness" and One thing have i desired that will I SEEK after that I may dwell on the house of the Lord all the days of my life to behold the beauty of the Lord.
I've read Zahnd's book and he excludes most of the Bible that talks about the Justice of God, the atonement law from the Torah, and what the apostles have to say.
I think one of the main reasons that I started doubting (and ultimately abandoned) my belief in PSA were reasons: 1) PSA was not a theory of atonement which was discussed in the early church and 2) PSA doesn’t fit into the overall shape of salvation believed by the early church and maintained by the ancient churches (EO, RC, OO). 1) I was very surprised to learn that PSA wasn’t discussed in the early church during my initial research. Often, defenders of PSA will point to language of substitution and argue that this is evidence that early Christians believed in PSA. Yet there is a big difference between PSA, which argues that the debt of sin which we incurred and its punishment were inflicted upon Jesus by the Father in order to fulfill the debt, and substitutionary atonement which only states that Christ has recapitulated humanity in some fashion (more on this later). One can believe substitutionary atonement and deny PSA; I believe they are mutually exclusive. 2) PSA does not fit into the shape of salvation believed by the early church and present day ancient churches. Scholars have stated that the most prominent atonement theories of the early church were substitutionary theory, recapitulation theory, and ransom theory. As opposed to the relationship between substitutionary theory and PSA, I don’t believe these theories are mutually exclusive and can even fit together. The important thing to remember when discussing atonement theories is that these are illustrations which help us understand something that is beyond our understanding. We can be sure of the truth of the atonement and it’s general idea without understanding fully. As a stated, I don’t believe PSA fits into any of these theories of atonement and without dragging out the “child abuse” slogans, I agree that the God of PSA is very different from the God of the Bible. Additionally, I don’t believe that PSA even fits into the Ancient Israelite understanding of sacrifice. God was never appeased by the killing of animals as if paying a debt. Likewise, the sins of Israel were never inflicted as punishment on that animal who was sacrificed, rather it was placed upon the one that was driven away. Because PSA doesn’t have foundations in neither Judaism nor pre-Reformation Christianity, my support for the theory gave way. Lastly, it has been my research into the theology of the ancient faith which has introduced me into a system of soteriology which has no use for a theory like PSA. Substitutionary atonement is absolutely true because Christ had to recapitulate all of humanity in his incarnation so that what Christ had by nature we have by adoption. As Irenaeus expressed in his works, Christ became the new head for humanity, replacing Adam, and bringing life to man as the divine economy had always intended to do. There is so much more one could say but the general idea is that there is not punishment or wrath that needed to be inflicted upon Jesus; what Jesus had to do was enter even into the lowest part of man in order to fully redeem his creation: which is death which he conquered by death. Sin is the disordering man chooses which leads him away from God and inevitably leads to death. Death is natural apart from God who is life. The wages of sin is death, which Christ destroyed by his own death and resurrection. A good book which will spell all this out is Reclaiming the Atonement by Father Patrick Henry Reardon. Link below: www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Atonement-1-Incarnate-Word/dp/1936270498/ref=sr_1_1?crid=ZYL5Q7Q5XA3G&dchild=1&keywords=reclaiming+the+atonement&qid=1598850661&sprefix=Reclaiming+the+at%2Caps%2C286&sr=8-1
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll try to get around it to at some point! I plan on doing a "what did the Church fathers believe about atonement" video in a couple weeks, and then a series about the apostolic fathers in general (since I'm way more familiar with pre-nicene fathers than post) in a month or two, Lord willing. If you end up watching those videos let me know what you think! I actually think there is good evidence the fathers held multiple views of the atonement, and PSA was one of them. But maybe my presentation won't convince you and that's ok, I'd like to hear your response either way.
I'm glad you found it helpful! I try to post a book review video every Tuesday and a Theology video every Saturday, but with work starting up again I might miss one every now and then.
It's not about historical crimes that may or may not be a result of penal substitution's influence on people. It's about the ethics of the thing itself and the question of how the wrath against sin, which presumably comes about due to justice, can be satisfied by the injustice of punishing the innocent. It springs from the idea that justice and mercy are inherently opposed, that one must exist at the expense of the other. But as the psalm says justice and mercy have met and kissed. Christ reconciled the things that where previously dichotomies, devinity and humanity, rightful king of Israel and a crucified commoner, Jew and gentile, mercy and justice, or perhaps it is more true to say he showed they where never opposed to begin with, only fallen man in his ignorance thought them so.
QUESTION, are there any more objections to penal substitution that you think I should add to my list?? Hope this video was helpful!
Simply explained, Caleb ,easy to Remember, You mentioned Beauty, I have always
included in my own devotions "O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness"
and One thing have i desired that will I SEEK after that I may dwell on the house of
the Lord all the days of my life to behold the beauty of the Lord.
This was really helpful! Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
Good!
I've read Zahnd's book and he excludes most of the Bible that talks about the Justice of God, the atonement law from the Torah, and what the apostles have to say.
Interesting. I like studying about these theory. God Bless you
I think one of the main reasons that I started doubting (and ultimately abandoned) my belief in PSA were reasons: 1) PSA was not a theory of atonement which was discussed in the early church and 2) PSA doesn’t fit into the overall shape of salvation believed by the early church and maintained by the ancient churches (EO, RC, OO).
1) I was very surprised to learn that PSA wasn’t discussed in the early church during my initial research. Often, defenders of PSA will point to language of substitution and argue that this is evidence that early Christians believed in PSA. Yet there is a big difference between PSA, which argues that the debt of sin which we incurred and its punishment were inflicted upon Jesus by the Father in order to fulfill the debt, and substitutionary atonement which only states that Christ has recapitulated humanity in some fashion (more on this later). One can believe substitutionary atonement and deny PSA; I believe they are mutually exclusive.
2) PSA does not fit into the shape of salvation believed by the early church and present day ancient churches. Scholars have stated that the most prominent atonement theories of the early church were substitutionary theory, recapitulation theory, and ransom theory. As opposed to the relationship between substitutionary theory and PSA, I don’t believe these theories are mutually exclusive and can even fit together. The important thing to remember when discussing atonement theories is that these are illustrations which help us understand something that is beyond our understanding. We can be sure of the truth of the atonement and it’s general idea without understanding fully. As a stated, I don’t believe PSA fits into any of these theories of atonement and without dragging out the “child abuse” slogans, I agree that the God of PSA is very different from the God of the Bible. Additionally, I don’t believe that PSA even fits into the Ancient Israelite understanding of sacrifice. God was never appeased by the killing of animals as if paying a debt. Likewise, the sins of Israel were never inflicted as punishment on that animal who was sacrificed, rather it was placed upon the one that was driven away. Because PSA doesn’t have foundations in neither Judaism nor pre-Reformation Christianity, my support for the theory gave way.
Lastly, it has been my research into the theology of the ancient faith which has introduced me into a system of soteriology which has no use for a theory like PSA. Substitutionary atonement is absolutely true because Christ had to recapitulate all of humanity in his incarnation so that what Christ had by nature we have by adoption. As Irenaeus expressed in his works, Christ became the new head for humanity, replacing Adam, and bringing life to man as the divine economy had always intended to do. There is so much more one could say but the general idea is that there is not punishment or wrath that needed to be inflicted upon Jesus; what Jesus had to do was enter even into the lowest part of man in order to fully redeem his creation: which is death which he conquered by death. Sin is the disordering man chooses which leads him away from God and inevitably leads to death. Death is natural apart from God who is life. The wages of sin is death, which Christ destroyed by his own death and resurrection.
A good book which will spell all this out is Reclaiming the Atonement by Father Patrick Henry Reardon. Link below:
www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Atonement-1-Incarnate-Word/dp/1936270498/ref=sr_1_1?crid=ZYL5Q7Q5XA3G&dchild=1&keywords=reclaiming+the+atonement&qid=1598850661&sprefix=Reclaiming+the+at%2Caps%2C286&sr=8-1
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll try to get around it to at some point! I plan on doing a "what did the Church fathers believe about atonement" video in a couple weeks, and then a series about the apostolic fathers in general (since I'm way more familiar with pre-nicene fathers than post) in a month or two, Lord willing. If you end up watching those videos let me know what you think! I actually think there is good evidence the fathers held multiple views of the atonement, and PSA was one of them. But maybe my presentation won't convince you and that's ok, I'd like to hear your response either way.
Wow, extremely informative. When will you be posting the next video?
I'm glad you found it helpful! I try to post a book review video every Tuesday and a Theology video every Saturday, but with work starting up again I might miss one every now and then.
@@CalebSmith3 Awesome - please keep posting, these are great
Super interesting and really strong manned the arguments I feel.
wow, what a great video!
Great video. Through. Your PSA God , still, at the end of the day, needs his pond if flesh, I guess.
looking forward to your response. i had never been exposed to these arguments 👍
It's not about historical crimes that may or may not be a result of penal substitution's influence on people.
It's about the ethics of the thing itself and the question of how the wrath against sin, which presumably comes about due to justice, can be satisfied by the injustice of punishing the innocent. It springs from the idea that justice and mercy are inherently opposed, that one must exist at the expense of the other. But as the psalm says justice and mercy have met and kissed.
Christ reconciled the things that where previously dichotomies, devinity and humanity, rightful king of Israel and a crucified commoner, Jew and gentile, mercy and justice, or perhaps it is more true to say he showed they where never opposed to begin with, only fallen man in his ignorance thought them so.
What is a good book or source for understanding better Yom Kippur or Passover?
It isn’t that God let men unjustly punish Jesus, it’s that God punished Jesus using evil men?
God punishes himself, rather
@@marcusanthony488 so you don’t believe in the Trinity then I see
@@fredarroyo7429 of course. That's my point.