When people get sick in the hospital they wonder if God has forsaken them! When Jesus was on the cross he cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me!" Jesus is quoting and taking us to Psalm 22 and when we read the entire Psalm we learn that God has not forsaken Jesus. God is with Jesus and God is not pouring out his wrath on God - that is - Jesus who is truly God and truly man in one person. Jesus is being murdered by sinful creatures and Jesus is going through this death to identify with us but he will raise from the dead and is this way conquer death, sin, and the devil. Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8 Jesus Christ is VICTORIOUS by raising from the dead but in loving us he had to die first. Jesus who is truly man and truly God without separation, division, mixture, or confusion cannot suffer wrath and damnation from God. Malachi 3:6 There is only one God and Jesus is one person of the Holy Trinity! Penal substitution atonement is pure Nestorian heresy and never taught in the Bible or until the eleventh century. In summary, PSA says God poured out his wrath on God to please God who is one. Thinking Atheists have a hey day with this atonement heresy and it keeps them from being Christians. The Orthodox Church has the correct Biblical doctrine of the atonement. Christ is risen! Truly he has risen! "Christus Victor" which has been taught since the Apostles and the Bible.
In every instance where the NT references Is. 53, it does so in a non-substitutionary manner. Mat. 8:17 quotes Is. 53:4, but in a way that denies substitution: “That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”” The meaning is not that Jesus healed by making himself sick and literally bearing by transferring the diseases to himself, but rather that he was compassionately burdened by human suffering and he did something about it. Matthew also considers this prophecy fulfilled before Jesus went to the cross, not as a consequence of the cross! It was not fulfilled by the death of Jesus, but by his life. In 1 Cor. 15:3 we read, “…Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” This is likely Is. 53:5. In the phrase “died for our sins” it is the Greek word “hyper,” indicating causation, not replacement or substitution, indicating that Isaiah 53:5 was not about substitution, but a prophecy regarding the cause as to why Jesus died - because of our sin, not in place of our sin, and certainly not as a payment for our sin. Is. 53:4 A careful reader of the second phrase of verse 4 will see that "we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God" is saying that the people "esteemed" or reasoned that God was punishing the victim. A proper contextual reading of this verse together with verse 5 shows that it was not God punishing, rather, the victim was enduring the pain and suffering due to the wrongs of others toward him. The suffering was not caused by God or for God, not an act of divine justice, but of human injustice! To make matters worse, the verse is often misread as if it says, "we saw him stricken BY God." This is a serious misuse of the text! Is. 53:5 expands on verse 4. The first word is "but," intended as a contrast. Verse 4 is saying, "we thought this…" and verse 5 corrects the error with, "but the truth is this…" Sadly, so many teachers read this word as if it says "and." Their mind processes it as, "…stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 "AND" he was pierced for our transgressions…" These teachers WANT the passage to be about God punishing Jesus as a payment for sin, so their minds are reading what they expect the passage to say instead of what it actually says! Both the Hebrew and the LXX (Septuagint) state that, “he was pierced BECAUSE OF [Greek “dia”] our transgressions, he was crushed BECAUSE OF [Greek “dia”] our iniquities.” Is. 53:6 shows the cause of this injustice is due to the people straying. The LORD “has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The words translated “has laid on” is a most unusual choice of words chosen to project the PSA view. In Hebrew “has laid on” is “hip̄·gî·a”, which actually means “to fall, to meet, or to encounter.” The Greek word is "paradidōmi", meaning, "to hand over, to give or deliver over." The meaning is simply that God had the culmination of the error of the people fall on, or meet at, or delivered to, the point where they were willing to murder this innocent servant, exactly as stated in Acts 2:23. The same Hebrew word, H6293 is used in verse 12, but most translations have this word as “intercession.” Apparently, the only place where translators conveniently use “has laid on” for H6293 is this one case in Isaiah 53:6, which should raise serious suspicions. Is. 53:10 is never mentioned in the New Testament, which is quite incredible if it is about Jesus making an offering! In fact, the word "offering" is not in either the Masoretic or LXX texts, as it is assumed and supplied by the translators! Furthermore, there are multiple translation options that leave the author’s intent very vague, especially when the Hebrew Masoretic text is compared to the Greek LXX text. From the book entitled “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.
One of the issues I would pick up on is that Jesus said He laid down His life for the sheep. He had the power to lay it down and the power to take it up again. John 10:14 to 18. His death on the cross was voluntary God did not force Jesus to die on the cross but God accepted Christ's death as a substitution
Here is a partial list of Penal Substitutionary Atonement problems: 5. Basic logic tells us that a complete payment cancels forgiveness. You cannot forgive a debt that has already been paid, and you do not need to pay a debt that has been forgiven. Forgiveness is granted because a debt has NOT been paid, not after the payment has been made! 6. Forgiveness that can be bought or sold is not true forgiveness. If you think that you or a third party can purchase genuine forgiveness, you do not understand forgiveness! 7. We humans are able to forgive others when they sin against us. To claim that God cannot do a good thing that we can do is to make us more moral than God. 8. PSA’s "infinite justice” claim has God incapable of truly forgiving us without first getting a proxy payment by murder and blood. How can that be genuine forgiveness? 9. If someone says, “I forgive you,” you assume it is done right then, not secretly projecting it into a nebulous future when a payment will eventually be made by someone else. Secretly projecting the act of forgiving into the distant future would be considered deceptive. God is not a deceiver for forgiving people before Christ died. 10. God said many times that He would forgive, and He forgave (past tense), long before Jesus was born. Many texts could be listed. The following are just a few of these: “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin.” 2 Chronicles 7:14 “I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.” Psalm 32:5 “You forgave the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin.” Psalm 85:2 “LORD our God, you answered them; you were to Israel a forgiving God, though you punished their misdeeds.” Psalm 99:8 NIV “Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love.” Micah 7:18 “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7 11. Jesus did not seem to think that he was going to make a payment to God for the sins of humanity. Even while on the cross He did not speak as if he was making a payment when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34). Jesus did not say, “Father, wait until I am finished paying for their sins, then you can forgive them.” 12. Every example of forgiveness we have from Jesus shows forgiveness in the normal human sense, not in some unheard-of future forgiveness, transfer, imputation, payment, or third-party justice. “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors...for if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses...” Matthew 6:12, 14-15 “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” Mark 11:25 (See also Matthew 9:2-8, 18:21-35, Luke 5:20, 6:37, 7:47-48, 11:4, 15:11-32.) 13. A literal payment requires a literal transfer and a literal recipient of that payment. How can a death (an action, not a substance) be a literal payment? Who collected this payment? 14. If God has been paid in full for our sins, then why does He still demand that we stop sinning and live right, and even have wrath and threaten judgment for disobedience? If Jesus paid it all, God got what He wanted. 15. Would not a payment for sin be a type of indulgence payment, a bribe to ignore sin and to issue a pardon? A blood sacrifice as a payment to a god is a pagan idea, which is why God ordered the Old Testament people many times to stop their sacrifices - they began treating sacrifices as if they were indulgences, and that stinks to God. Ps. 40:6, 51:16, Jer. 6:20, Is. 1:11-18, 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6-8, Amos 5:22. (The God of the Bible is relational, and sacrifices were supposed to be a token of this relationship, not a payment to get Him to change.) For more on this topic, see the book “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.
All people are sinners and therefore we cannot be reconciled with God who is absolutely holy and righteous , unless our sin is removed. And scripture is clear that without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness ". Hebrews 9 v 22b , and Praise the Lord that the Father punished Jesus in our place so that we could be forgiven as many verses teach , for example: " Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand ". Isaiah 53 v 10
@@stevenmcglade8564 Both of those passages are good examples of translators tampering with the text to get it to say what they want. When JWs do this, we rightly rant and rail against them, but PSA translators do the same. Is. 53:10 is never mentioned in the New Testament, which is quite incredible if it is about Jesus making an offering! In fact, the word "offering" is not in either the Masoretic or LXX texts, as it is assumed and supplied by the translators! Furthermore, there are multiple translation options that leave the author’s intent very vague, especially when the Hebrew Masoretic text is compared to the Greek LXX text. Hebrews 9:22 “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” The words “of sins” are not in the Greek text! Also, the word “forgiveness” is the Greek word “aphesis” which means “to let go, to release.” “Aphesis” is only forgiveness in a derivative, secondary sense, as a metaphor. In Chapters 8-9 the author is explaining to a Jewish audience that there is now a new and better covenant. The problem a Jew would have is that they can’t just flippantly abandon the Mosaic covenant for a new one; something and someone must authorize the setting aside of the old to be superseded by the new. This scenario is the context. Verse 1 of chapter 9 starts with, “Now even the first [covenant] had regulations…” Now there has been a change because Christ, God’s anointed, is introduced in verse 11: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest…,” he entered the holiest place with his own blood, not animal blood (verse 12). “For this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant…” (verse 15). The summary of verses 1-24 is that Moses inaugurated the first covenant on earth with animal blood and an earthly tabernacle, while Christ inaugurated this new superseding covenant with his own blood. Verse 22 indicates the legal principle with two claims: 1. "under the law almost everything [but not everything] is purified [set apart, dedicated] with blood," and 2. "without the shedding of blood there is no" release (aphesis) of the prior covenant for inaugurating a second. Once the entire context is understood, at least in the big picture, it becomes clear that verse 22 has nothing at all to do with forgiveness of sin, but rather that there was no release of the former covenant without first shedding blood. God forgave people throughout the Old Testament. Many passages state this. PSA is a serious misunderstanding of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
Here's the basic problem: Steve Chalke's gospel is aimed at a very certain kind of person: It's aimed at a non-Christian, who has basically led a fairly good life. not killed anyone, not abused any one. Who is likely to be offended at being told they are a sinner who needs to repent or that God is angry with them. It's particularly aimed at non-christians who perhaps struggle with false guilt. say victims of abuse who blame themselves for it etc. What it does is aim to put an arm around people and say "There there...God doesn't think you're bad. God isn't angry at you.". The problem is of course, that form of Gospel has nothing to say to someone who actually HAS murdered someone, or abused someone. It's no good telling that person, "don't worry, God isn't really angry at you.". No. For them, you need a gospel which says "Yes..God is absolutely furious with you, he can't bear to look at your horrible horrible sin....AND YET...he can forgive you...you are not beyond redemption.". Except...that it's the same gospel for all of us. There is only one gospel. There isn't a two tier gospel for "nice" non Christians and "nasty" non-Christians. So if there is going to be a gospel that brings hope to the worst of non-christians, it's going to be a gospel which offends or upsets the best of non-christians.
This is so true its like Steve sees God as loving rather than jealous when really he is jealous because he is loving. His view is detracting from the glory of Jesus' sacrifice and i think thats a biblically grounded criticism rather than just my/our self asserted argument.
Wow….just no. Creating caricatures perhaps 🤔 Let’s begin with, “God is not angry,” shall we. His emotions are not contingent on our behavior. He’s God, for God’s sake.
I think the more life you live, the more you realize that the abusers are usually also victims themselves if studied with enough intuition. Most child abusers were abused themselves for example.
Bless your heart, but why emotionalize, brother? Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient unto death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
A notable difference between Steve and Andrews points of view seems to me that Steve quotes sayings from people and other theologians to back his view and understanding of the Bible, whereas Andrew mostly just quotes the Bible. I prefer the latter.
@@mclkr9174 do you know how the masses recognized Peter was a disciple of Jesus after Jesus was captured by the Romans? Right before Peter denied Jesus they identified him by they way he spoke. You don’t speak like a Christian. It seems to me you have a long way to go. If you can’t even control your fingers from cursing....
@@garciacentral do you think the translations are at fault? Please show which ones and why. You know you can always go back to the original Greek and Hebrew.
sorry to be offtopic but does anyone know a trick to log back into an Instagram account..? I was stupid forgot the password. I would appreciate any tricks you can give me
These FACE to FACE debates bring out more of the SUBTLE DETAILS in these two men's beliefs - both the differences AND the similarities (eg. at 10:32 they turn out having the SAME view regarding Jesus' use of Psalm 22.) This format seems to be more INFORMATIVE than seeing two people debate FAR OFF from each other. I'm really grateful for this Justin Brierley! I still prefer Andrew Wilson though. Steve Chalke goes way too far, in my view... "HE was pierce for OUR transgressions. HE was crushed for OUR iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace, WAS UPON HIM" (Isaiah 53:5).
I agree, nicely stated. I do like the formal debates, (these I call conversations) but they usually run into sometime of miscommunication based on their world view or a misunderstanding of what the other believes in.
The problem is that the word interpreted (not translated) as punishment by some English versions is wrong, the Hebrew word Musar #4148 in Isa 53:5 says Correction, Chastisement, Discipline to which God teaches as distinct from His punishment involving wrath. That is why it is said in Proverbs 3:12 and Hebrews 12:4-11 those whom God receives as ligit children are chastised/disciplined and scourged. Sense Jesus' suffering upon the tree saved us from Wrath as our ransom, then clearly punishment and discipline are two different actions from God for two different reasons. PSA stands just not as Wrathful PSA but Disciplinary PSA or as I have coined it Equivalent Disciplinary Substitionary Atonement. Because Propitiation did occur through what affliction Father caused His Son according to Isa 53:5;10kjv Jesus being God's justification by how He treated His ligit Son while righteous yet in the likeness of sinful flesh, to act towards those whom by faith are baptized in Christ being imputed His righteousness are treated if they stumble into sin,instead of remaining under wrathful suffering. we suffer as Christ by partaking in His Body(1 corinthians 12:13kjv) but only many until His return will partake in His Cup and Baptism of death( Matthew 20:22-23kjv)being Chastized and Scourged even unto death(matthew 16:24) in order to learn what obedience is picking up our own poles to partake in God's Holiness. Jesus being in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh yet not the embodiment of wickedness(Ezekiel 33:11), being made a curse for us by condemning sin in the flesh(not Jesus) while dieing on a tree/pole yet not accursed(1 Cor 12:3kjv) to free us from the curse of the Law in order to be corrected with discipline and scourging as Christ our source and example so we are not condemned with the world(1 Cor 11:32) Although Gods Son being born in the fullness of Him, being perfect in nature and spirit without blemish, volunteered to suffer for our sins through corrective chastening and scourging unto death to learn obedience(Isa 53:5 Hebrews 5:8-9 Phillip 2:7-8) being made spiritually mature and the pioneer of our salvation for the elects sake as God's Equivalent Disciplinary Substitution(TRUE PSA) to be our sin and guilt atonement as our ransom in order to Propitiate and Justify Father to correct the Elect through such suffering instead of leaving us under His wrath. Putting on Christ by being baptized in Him while partaking in His Body and Cup takes on a more deeper revelation understood within scripture once one connects the dots of His suffering not only as a remembrance of how and why He died for our sake but what it means for us in lifestyle while following Him. Such connection is marred when one disassociates through Wrathful Penal substitution atonement, what Christ went through from what and why we also partake in while in Him. Sense one is taught through Wrathful PSA that what Jesus goes through as our substitute(the just for the unjust) is not what we will go through as our source and example set. they miss the whole purpose of His suffering correction By Father for our sins(not just for His own Righteousness by evil men) and why we are corrected while in Him partaking in His suffering(not just suffering for Righteousness by evil mankind) but also suffering correction to know obedience as a grant(philip 1:29; Acts 14:22) instead of remaining under wrath even if we do sin. Too often teachers of Wrathful PSA had made synonymous Gods punishment with His discipline within the English translations when in reality God makes a distinction between the two in scripture because of what His Son was predeterminedly sent to face for our sins as righteous otherwise there would be no justification for us to be disciplined while being imputed Jesus' righteousness yet still stumble nor teach of such distinctions. Even a severe discipline is not an punishment from GOD sense punishment is taught as coming from Wrath not Gods Mercy and Love. The teaching in Hebrews 12:4-11 Should open ones mind to reflect Jesus' suffering as our source and example and what we go through until His return while in Him following after Him.
That is not in texts before the 10th century Masoretic text. That is the problem most Bible translations are based on a 10th century AD text that has 6000 variations from the earlier texts. In the Masoretic text another issue you come to if you read Isaiah 53 in context also with the neighboring chapters the Jews are right that it is about Israel not the Messiah. The Jews did this on purpose and then added language that would be against the whole Torah if applied to the Messiah.
@@DApostate If you're referring to Isaiah here, this is largely not true, because we have a Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah and it mostly aligns with the Masoretic. There are slight differences, but not any that have bearing on this debate.
Feel so sad when I see Steve Chalke explaining how he has left the gospel behind for another another gospel, on several of these videos. He was a really good evangelist once. I do pray for him now and again that he might return to the truth of the gospel once again.
Penal substitution is another gospel. The Son does not save us from the Father by presenting innocent blood for Him to shed. That's morally offensive, contrary to Scripture (cf. Prov 6:17), philosophically ridiculous, heretically divides the godhead, nowhere found in the writings of the church fathers, and violates the character of God revealed in Christ. We are saved from slavery to sin and death, not from a violent pagan deity who needs blood to be appeased.
Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice, for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are grossly unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient-unto-death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
Yes amen , all people are sinners and therefore we cannot be reconciled with God who is absolutely holy and righteous , unless our sin is removed. And scripture is clear that without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness ". Hebrews 9 v 22b , and Praise the Lord that the Father punished Jesus in our place so that we could be forgiven as many verses teach , for example: " Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand " Isaiah 53 v 1
Try reading Is. 53:10 in the Septuagint and notice how radically that verse got edited in the Masoretic text. Then remember that the Septuagint version was literally the one used and quoted by both Jesus and the Apostle Paul.
He twisted the scripture at the end, it’s actually “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”, NOT “do good.” Sometimes what is right is very harsh, but it’s still better than letting evil have its way. We neither know how evil we are nor how good we can become, but that is revealed thru and in Christ, not in our reasoned ideas.
The point was that Jesus offered Himself willingly. His death became a sacrifice (Sacrum Facere: to make sacred). This is not the same as punishment. His death took place on Passover. The Passover lambs were to protect people from wrath. The Angel of Death did not kill the lambs but saw them as a sign to pass over that person to demonstrate God's mercy and protection. They were not a substitute for the people. Afterwards the lambs were eaten as a meal bringing the believer together with God as the Eucharist now does.
I'm at 10:00. Jesus wasn't crying out because He thought the Father had forsaken Him, they are eternally triune, Jesus was teaching those around Him, pointing out that He was fulfilling Psalm 22.
When Steve says the blood of someone else immediately he is for showing that he has a misunderstanding of who God is because the blood that was required was a blood from himself
He was referring to the Father here, not the Godhead. I guess you could say it does have a problem in that it implies the mainstream penal substitution view is that only the Father is wrathful towards mankind; not the Son and the Spirit.
@@martinfell9165But sin hurts and forgiveness hurts. Sin hurts oneself and the other , forgiveness liberates oneself and the other by absorbing the pain. This is at least one way to look at the cross.
Yes, definitely. Isaiah 53 - and see also Acts 8, part of which applies that passage to Jesus - shows that the NT Church believed that He died in our place. And what Sacrifice did Christ the High Priest offer, but the Sacrifice of Himself ? If He is the Paschal Lamb, “standing as though it had been slain”, “slain from before the foundation of the world”, “that takes away the sin of the world”, how did He not suffer in our place ? Penal substitution shows God being punished for the sin of man. It is the ultimate expression of the solidarity between the innocent & the guilty, on account of which the innocent members of a family or community suffered with the guilty. The Death of Christ shows how fully Christ, Who is God and man, identified Himself with sinners, so as to “lay down His Life for His sheep”. Penal substitution shows the extent of God’s Grace, because gods do not die for sinners - except in Christianity. The substitutionary Death of Christ perfectly reconciles God’s Righteous Wrath against His People, and His unreserved, gracious, ever-faithful covenantal Love for them. Christ is both “made sin for us” & is also “the Righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5.21; 1 Cor. 1.30)
Jesus let Himself be punished by UNJUST suffering and death as to show how FAR to the extreme God is willing to go to show His LOVE. Otherwise God, and Jesus, the exact reflection of who unchangeable God is (Hebrews 1:3), HAD only one solution: to smack them and destroy them all on the spot, Jews and Romans alike, since they dared to commit such injustice to Him. As perfect obedient Son of God Jesus is willing to suffer for OUR sake. It was not His will to suffer for God's sake/pleasure/will or whatever.
"if only men knew what is eternity, he will do all in his power to change" - "Among adults there are few saved because of the sins of the flesh, with exception of those who die in childhood most men will be damned" - a ringing of truth in today's society with its liberal take on sex, abortion, adultery, etc....
"So then, let us not attribute to God’s actions and His dealings with us any idea of requital. Rather, we should speak of fatherly provision, a wise dispensation, a perfect will which is concerned with our good, and complete love. If it is a case of love, then it is not one of requital; and if it is a case of requital, then it is not one of love. Love, when it operates, is not concerned with the requiting of former things by means of its own good deeds or correction; rather, it looks to what is most advantageous in the future: it examines what is to come, and not things that are past." "I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. For what is so bitter and vehement as the punishment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is sharper than any torment that can be. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God." -- St Isaac of Nineveh
Images of debt payment and criminal punishment are not the same. Even so, debt forgiveness means the debt is forgiven, not paid by someone else or paid by the creditor to himself, whatever that could mean.
God was on the cross in Jesus. How can we with our finite minds understand how God the sinless Son carried our sin, suffered the consequences of our sin, died our death, both physical and spiritual, and rose again from the dead in triumph over sin, death and the devil through the power of God the Holy Spirit. Last November I had an overwhelming experience of God's redeeming love which completely obliterated a deep-seated anger directed towards those in the church who condemned members of the LGBT community, of which I identified as a gay man. With the experience I had last November the gospel message suddenly became personal. Jesus Christ took all my sin, suffered on my behalf, died my death, and was raised again from the dead in triumph through the same power of the Holy Spirit who indwells anyone whose life is surrendered into his hands, forgiven, cleansed, healed, and restored as an adopted child of our Heavenly Father. The verse I was given when coming into membership of a Baptist church about 20 years ago has come to fruition - Romans 8:15. I have been given a spirit of sonship whereby I can call him Abba. At the age of 76, I know my Daddy in heaven who is holy and righteous, and who loves me something like the father in the parable of the prodigal son. The first time I realised this was last November,. My identity is in Christ alone. All other identities are of no importance to me, in comparison.
People seem to either forget or not know that Jesus is God, So really God came down and died on the cross for us. This changes things a bit once you understand this truth.
I wish Steve would explain exactly how it is that he’s not doing exactly what Andrew is suggesting here! He denies it and calls it unfair but offers no clarity whatsoever!
Horrible idea,'punished in our place'' how would that work and how is it justice? in any logic IF you have done something wrong (not even going into the ridiculousness of being guilty of what A & E are supposed to have done) YOU pay for it /make it right not someone else ,even a god.
@@frankwhelan1715 You're right about that: it's not "justice"! Not in our puny human sense, anyway. It's unmerited "grace" and pure "mercy". Jesus transfers his perfection to us sinners; and in exchange HE took our sins upon Himself. So the sins are paid for in-full ...by HIM. Accordingly, God judges us as "not guilty" because Jesus has already paid the price. Jesus was truly innocent but was declared "guilty" for all of our sins - and paid for them through the passion and crucifixion. Thus, He won our victory over both death and hell. It's often colloquially termed, "God's great exchange" - because God (Jesus) exchanged his pure white robe for our scarlet robes. We get to wear His white robe when we meet our judgment. He wore our scarlet robes and served our sentences.
@@RockHudrock 'He won our victory '' who did he win it off,is he not the boss top man ,nobody above him,? he could play it any way he wants, do you think there'd be humans going to him complaining,oh this heaven is not as good because you didn't have a bloody death for us on the cross. nonsense!
Steve has thought through this issue much more deeply then the traditional evangelical. I agree with him. Jesus himself said that "God prefers mercy over sacrifice!" quoting the old testament. This is the crucial mistake evangelicals have made. God is not into punishing anyone, but that they should grow in love and understanding. Upon death we are asked to look at our lives and with God's help we will review every second from conception to death. He will give us omniscient knowledge of all the effects our behavior has had on the world of humans and animals. In that review we will actually experience the pain we have inflicted on others as well as the joy and happiness we spread. The whole idea is to learn from our mistakes in a most direct way. There will be zero argument as to your actions and who you are, but it is not done with punishment but rather love and understand. Jesus himself taught over and over and over again that it is in your actions that you will be judged. Asking his disciples many times if they loved him....then you will DO what I have asked you to do...LOVE, FORGIVE, GIVE...as they did to the least of these they did for me. It is so obvious and it is not about magical words of obedience, but of actions based on true understanding of His teachings.
Steve Chalke comes off as just wanting to monopolize the conversation. I found this discussion much more congenial, genuine and helpful: (search for) "Did God punish Jesus on the cross? William Lane Craig vs Greg Boyd on Penal Substitution Atonement"
I appreciated Steve fleshing out the concept of wrath as described in Romans 1. I didn't appreciate that he didn't allow Andrew to seemingly flesh out direct punishments God has dealt out in human history and assumed Andrew was condemning the perspective he was focusing on.
Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice, for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are grossly unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient-unto-death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
“Because i felt” “Because i feel” doesn’t stand as firm ground when it comes to hermeneutics. A non penal substitutional view is a watered down liberal view that takes away the seriousness of Christs death.
Hermeneutics is all about how the reader feels. Person A reads the bible doesn't like they what they read so they make up something that makes them feel better about what they read
Penal substitution didn't exist in the church for the first 1500 years. Saying a non PSA view is a "watered down version" is just self-inflated egotistic nonsense. In all the preachings of the Gospel done by the disciples in Acts, there is no preaching of PSA at all. My biggest beef with PSA is that it denies forgiveness as a key character of God. God needs to maneuver around some of his other qualities in order to gain a capital to effect forgiveness. He can't just forgive. Scriptually, this is just plain nonsense.
@@bakayaroo44 Your use of "forgiveness" there betrays a misunderstanding of what it means when God forgives. It is not emotional or psychological at its heart, although they are involved. It is legal, even justice, at its heart. He cannot forgive legally until his justice has been satisfied. Because of his love, he sent his Son to satisfy that justice so that he can legally forgive us of our sins. In a sense, therefore, sins can never ever ever be forgiven, but repentant believing sinners can because of the penal substitutionary atonement if his Son.
@@tiqvahone No, it doesn't betray my misunderstanding. It just shows that I disagree with your idea of forgiveness. I don't buy that God cannot legally forgive until "justice" has been served. That kind of forensic understanding of forgiveness is birthed out of the Reformers and is absent from the 1st century framework. You are reading Reformed theology into the biblical text. Also the term "justice" is badly mangled in PSA understanding. God freely forgiving is not an injustice, that is how God is, that is perfect justice. Even one of the favourite PSA passage completely obliterates PSA. " they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed" (Romans 3:24-26 NRSV). See, justification is a GIFT, which is given freely, not through a substitutionary sacrifice, and again he PASSED OVER our sins, not gained a necessary capital to forgive it. It's free forgiveness. It is exactly the kind of forgiveness Jesus taught in the parable of the two debt owners, and shown in the father of the prodigal son as well. PSA barely explains Pauline understanding of the Gospel (on close examination it's actually a very bad reading of Paul, as Douglas Campbell has shown in The Deliverance of God and Pauline Dogmatics), and has absolutely no answer to Christ's straightforward teachings and actions of forgiveness.
@@bakayaroo44 Before I answer your point more fully, I'd like to know/understand what your view is on why Jesus had to suffer and die such a death then?
We have major doctrinal differences in the Church today because we have people and some Pastors that are not born again.Listen to their beliefs about the nature of God.God is love,but he also has a vengeful side to his nature.The trouble with some of the Church today is a lack of fear of God,maybe that's connected with the falling away of some of the Church before the man of lawlessness is revealed.Christians thinking that they can fall back into doing evil and being taught ,God will not hold it against you God is Love.Paul warned the Gentile believers;For if God spared not the natural branches,take heed lest he also spare not you.BEHOLD THEREFORE THE GOODNESSS AND SEVERITY OF GOD:ON THEM WHICH FELL SEVERITY;BUT TOWARD YOU GOODNESS,IF YOU CONTINUE IN HIS GOODNESS:OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE CUT OFF.When was the last time you heard a sermon on the SEVERITY OF GOD IN THE CHURCH TODAY? WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD ANYONE PREACH WITH SUCH POWER AND AUTHORITY THAT IT PUT SO MUCH OF THE FEAR OF GOD IN YOU THAT IT GOT YOU BACK ON TRACK,LIVING A HOLY GODLY LIFE?
Probably the most foolproof way to see if someone is regenerated is if they have conviction of sin (John 16:8) and the most clear way to see if there is conviction of ones sin and depravity is their understanding of God's wrath, justice, and judgement. For example you can see unregenerate man squeal at Rom. 3:9-20 verse a Christian with their mouth closed before God recognizing that God must punish sin and his wrath must be satisfied.
David Clark I suppose then that another foolproof way to see if someone is regenerated is if they understand that God is motivated by Love and if they understand Grace. I mean I suppose there must be more than one foolproof way of determining this? But who are we to go about trying to determine such things as they involve other people?
John tells us that whoever is born of God doesnt sin. Their theology is irrelevant. If believing in the correct theology is what gets us to heaven, then infants, retarded people, the unborn, the uneducated, and the comatose would all be doomed for hell. Jesus did say "be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect". The question isnt if a person has the same opinion as you. But if they live in light of the indwelling of Christ.
All these people on here calling it “Steve Chalkes gospel” lol. The Ransom Theory and/or Christus Victor was the fundamental Christian understanding of the atonement for the first thousand years. Penal substitution is just a rehash of the Catholic Satisfaction Model, which began with Anselm in the 11th century. Luther just made it softer and called it “Penal Substitution”. It’s not Chalkes gospel. And the whole “cosmic child abuse”.. yeah, that actually came from C.S Lewis, not Chalkes smh
Does 1 Cor. 13 then accurately describe the God of love? 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs. 6Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. 7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8Love never fails
I may be wrong but I believe that Heavenly Father wants to heal the wound in Steve's heart that has long been hidden from sight but not from Abba. God the Holy Spirit is about to minister to Steve in the mighty name of Yeshua haMashiach through a cleansing of all traces of the wound from the temple that is his body.
I would like to highly reccomend John Stott's book " The Cross of Christ" to teach people the truth of this matter. There are 5 main issues with Steve Chalke's view that Jesus did not die on the cross to "satiate God's anger". 1) He has no way to reconcile Jesus death on the cross with his world view. In his view, the way he describes it, Jesus died a horrific and pointless death. It served no purpose. Jesus is under God's curse for no reason, became a curse for us for no reason, was an atonement sacrifice for no reason (all from the theology in the bible). He was lacerated for no reason, had nails driven through him for no reason, and suffocated for no reason (all the reality of crucifixion). 2) Chalke has no way of reconciling us to God in his world view. God just has to forgive us. But there is a problem here. God is perfectly just, perfectly righteous. How can he "just forgive sin", to do so God would have to not only accept the existence of evil, but validate it's place. Evil suddenly becomes ok. This universalist is found nowhere in scripture and is opposed by Jesus himself. For he states that He alone is the way the truth and the light, and that there will be many who say "Lord Lord" and He will say "I never knew you". 3) He appears to have a horrifically poor view of doctrine because he doesn't actually understand it. The analogy of the bus driver, to put it bluntly, is crap! This is neither what the apostles taught or affirmed. Far from correcting good doctrine he appears to be swapping one misunderstanding for another. The Son willingly died and took the punishment we deserve so that we could be reconciled to the Father. 4) Chalke appears to be under the impression that because something is one way, it cannot be another. Because God is love, He cannot be angry at evil, He must just have angst, making God sound more like a petulant teenager in the process. There are many things in the bible that are both one way and another. God is just and merciful. He cannot be just unless He punishes our sin. He cannot be merciful to us unless he suspends justice. Are we going to argue that God is only subject to part of His nature at one time and hope that He is in a good mood on judgemet day? Or shall we ignore the bits we don't want to think about and make God out to be less than He really is? 5) This is the one I find most ridiculous, a man supposedly learned in the word of God is allowing himself to be taught by people in pubs rather than correcting their misunderstandings. This stuff may sound ridiculous, it always has, was it not written that the cross is a stumbling block for Jews and foolishness to Greeks? The point is that it is not, ans we need to teach people why, not let them teach us about things which they do not understand.
@@euanthompson God doesn't have to punish sin. He chooses to out of His own sovereign freedom. To reduce the gospel to God satisfying His wrath distorts His character and the Scripture
What I don't get that I was hoping Steve would explain in this debate, is that if Jesus did not die as a substitute for us, why did he have to die? Why?
The practice of taking the life of an animal (blood shed) rather than the life of the human, taught the Seriousness of God’s view of sin, judgment and righteousness. The wages of sin is death. There is no exception when sin is at issue. God is holy and just. The Old covenant sacrificial system was merciful and tactile (people felt and identified with the animal they sacrificed in their place) but it didnt take away the guilt of the sin, it covered it.... over and over again, year after year. Justification and a right standing with God is a free gift granted by faith in the work of Jesus ... where God is both just and justifier of those who believe. God so loved .., that he gave his Son, and his Son willingly laid down his life for the joy that waited beyond the grave. Jesus’ death is merely tragic and trivial if it wasnt necessary to take away sin. I think Chalke underestimates both the seriousness of sin and the necessity of the death (blood) of Christ. It’s at the cross and in the resurrection that death is defeated, sin is forgiven, and God’s love fully revealed once and forever.
"Andrew I'm going to give you the last word here." Andrew gets into the second sentence and Steve cuts him off and finishes, we still don't get to hear what Andrew was going to say. interrupted
While I like these programs, I found this one most unsatisfying as they seemed to be trying so hard to be. Nice to each other that it was hard to work out exactly where they stood and why.
Steve, while he may be a theological liberal, is pointing out a perspective that was more in line with the teachings of the early church, the mennonites, the greek orthodox church, and the Methodist church. In a sense that Christ did have to die for the sins of the world but not because his people were in danger of being tossed into the lake of fire. Rather, it was to point out 3 things. 1. To show that the just man would inevitably be hated by the world. 2. To show how to overcome sin. Which is to be obedient to God to the point of death. 3. To pay a ransom to satan who was holding humanity in bondage (something that people in the Roman empire would've understood living in a slave society). Greater than the cross though was the resurrection. Paul tells us that Jesus' resurrection was the first fruits of what was to come. So Jesus in his time on earth showed us how to live, how to love, how to pray. But also how to die and how to overcome sin and death. Saints therefore are to mimic the life of Christ in every way, from birth to death to our resurrection from the dead. What is hell then? A place where people send themselves by continuing to sin rather than following the ways of the Lord. Hell is about the here and now but it's also about eternity. Jesus told us that whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved but whoever doesnt believe is condemned already. They are already condemned. And they will continue in this way after the resurrection because they've grown to love their sin and wish to wallow in it. Pop evangelicals are really no different than Catholics in the way they think. Their frame of reference is medieval rather than classical.
BUT his potential mischaracterization of God under such a view is far less egregious than if we were to believe otherwise. If I'm going to error on understandung the nature of God I'd prefer it be that I over estimate his love, forgiveness, mercy, grace, than to undermine it. Im personally agnostic on this issue. Frankly, I'm comfortable not completely understanding how the atonement works. I highly doubt either view has it 100% correct. And yet I can sympathize with portions of each argument. I'm quite thankful this is not a salvation/gospel issue.
Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice, for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are grossly unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient-unto-death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
God is not just just he is justice. "We must hold God in holy fear/ reverence and awe. Our God is a destroying fire". God cannot be united with impurity and sin. Isn't it His nature to burn up what is dirty like a fire burns by its nature?
No wrath of God poured out on Jesus. No remission of sins through His blood. We would all be condemned and without hope. And Jesus would have died in vain
@@1988TheHitman The cup was the crucifiction. Symbolic of the cup he was to drink from. Also of the cup at passover I think, which represented His blood poured out as a drink offering
Bungalo Bill Either justice will be paid by the actual sinner who transgresses God’s will or it will be paid in full by another who stands in the sinner’s place. Jesus Christ alone can stand in a sinner’s place and receive the punishment that the sinner deserves; if we do not trust Him to satisfy God’s justice for us, then we will have to endure the full brunt of the Father’s wrath ourselves (John 3:36; 14:6).
@@1988TheHitman Yes but if we are punished instead of Christ then we are being punished for our actual sin. We are guilty of and punished forever (Hell) Why the price had to be paid by one who was not guilty before we can be declared not guilty through his sacrifice. In Christ is to be viewed as innocent Why Jesus suffering was temporary. Because he was suffering but was without sin
What is wrong with these people? It is Jesus to whom all authority is given. It is He who will judge in righteousness. If on that day you died in your sins, you will not only be eternally condemned for what you wrought, you will continue in your sins eternally. God does not regenerate the hell bound and give them a "heart of flesh." They live with their hatred of God and Christ and goodness and life and live and light FOREVER!
To Steve Chalke, please read the following that's taken from: JOB 2: 9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.” 10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. SHALL WE RECEIVE GOOD FROM GOD, AND SHALL WE NOT RECEIVE EVIL?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips. 1 PETER 1:18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST, LIKE THAT OF A LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH OR SPOT. 20 HE WAS FOREKNOWN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you And you say you're a Pastor?
The host cutting off the guests mid sentence, multiple times, appears disrespectful of the guests trying to make their statements, but also disrespectful of viewers trying to listen to them.
My view: first of all Jesus and God are one within the trinity. Separate persons yes but one as in they have the same character and plan. The father God implemented the plan of salvation and The Son carried out the fathers plan willingly! It was also in Jesus will for this to be done! He wasn’t forced or punished by the father. Second, I do believe in penal atonement, but not in the sense that most people are describing it. Jesus did take our place. The wages of our sins and transgressions is death! What did Jesus do? He died in our place! I don’t like using the phrase he was punished in our place. It was he died in our place. God will not allow sin to live on. Our sin was put on Jesus and he died in our place. The gruesome crucifixtion was carried out by sinful man. The shedding of blood is a representation of death.
The reason there is so much confusion and division in the church ultimately comes down to our failure to have a universal orthodox response to the theory of evolution which in mainstream science is seen as proven fact & both the Catholic and Protestant seminaries embrace it as truth!! This is our whole problem since the implications challenge our previously simplistic theology of original sin leading to physical death (not just spiritual death). Evangelicals are divided over this as some demand a literal 6 day creation a few thousand years ago whilst others go more with mainstream science and say Genesis creation account is largely allegorical (and various beliefs somewhere in between). Just as we allow Christians to hold different views on creation we are then by implication allowing different views or emphasis on the atonement of Christ, with some seeing it more to shame us for our sin than to actually pay for it as such. The truth is whatever view we take, Christ has ultimately exposed sinful human nature for how corrupt and vile it is and offered us a way of escape into a way of love and forgiveness. As long as our lives change to please God there is the same end result.
I think is worst to have a 30min video of a topic (20min of agreement and 7min of actual disagreement) than not having it at all; left me wanting to hear the actual desagrement that they were getting at just in the end there.
Jesus isn't a substitute, instead, he's the actual article to whom death points to and is the final definition. We die because the principle of his death was enacted and needed because Adam had forsaken the one whom his life and existence depended. The penalty for rejecting God was and is death. It's not about the subjected intellectual argument, but the actual objective nature of life and death. All these concepts preceded the acts of sin and Adam's sin. The argument then becomes like a chicken and egg one. The title substitute is one of those umbrella terms that people can use, but it can lead to carelessness in study, because it can excuse explanation. Jesus Christ saved before the world existed: Ephesians 1 :4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 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 immortal Titus 1 :2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; 1 Peter 1 :20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
I so agree as Jesus was one of us, and died for us to show us that faith works, and he did remove the curse of death for the faithful. It is the law of faith. Jesus was never a substitute but he represented mankind.
Jesus was a representative of mankind, a kinsman redeemer of everyone, and his death proved faith can resurrect us when we die. Jesus therefore removed the curse of death, and he was not punished but he was forgiven by his Father, and is now in heaven as the first fruit of resurrection.
God gets angry , but it’s not an abusive anger. Fathers get angry at the kids they love. Why ? Out care and protection, to train them to hate evil and so on. In Hebrew anger is anger ( i’m Hebrew speaker as main language) What happened to Uzia when david tried to bring the ark, what happened to sons of Eli , king Saul , sons of Israel in desert including Moses. This is something that liberal Christianity needs to get, that God is full of love and full of holiness. Let’s not confuse his long suffering ( which means patient with his anger ) with hippie love
Father's Heart What a wholly inadequate argument. While a father may get angry or want to train their child in righteousness, at no time if my son were to reject me would I want to send him to eternal torment. This is not an adequate analogy.
My friend, God doesn’t send people to hell, people choose to go there. God through Jesus offering to every man to choose life eternal. But wages of sin is death. I train my children to walk right before God , but if they choose not to, I would be very sad about it, but it’s their choice. There are sheep and goats, there are those that build house on the rock or sand.
Father's Heart Again, not good logic. Who would willingly “choose” to go to hell? Makes no sense. The hell you speak of is largely a construct of western Christianity, a combination of Greek and Nordic mythology, sprinkled with a little of Dante’s inferno. No one in their right mind would choose hell.
I believe most people Lie about the scriptures. Steve is not alone. Most people lie about their knowledge of God's mind, lie about what heaven is like, and about what hell is like. It seems that faith is directed towards the unknown, and not the known. In that case, how can the assertion of the knowledge of God's mind be the right answer? I am not a Christian, and for multiple reasons. First, I was not baptized into the faith, nor were my parents overly religious and it was kind of peripheral to me. However and most importantly, as I got older, it became clear to me that Christianity is not merely the religion of Europe, it is the culture and foundation of Europe. And it is by virtue of my being a part of the Western world, that I am a "cultural Christian". I'm okay with that. As a West African black Yorùbá man, I could not be a Christian. Culturally - yes, but by blood - it is impossible!!! By the way, I hope you just don't dismiss my view here, because I'm not alone in this thinking. As a black West African, neither the Bible, nor the Koran, nor other non black African scriptures affirm me as the epitomy of human beings. Think of Shem and Ham, or sections of the Hadith that truly equates being black to being animals. The latter view is not necessarily a non Christian view either. Hence, the unique view of both Christianity and Islam of black people as lower animals that are not just worthy of being enslaved, but are commanded to be enslaved (again reference Shem and Ham). I am actually not upset about the core of these two religions' views about black people. We, black Africans, are the villains that are viewed as the opposition to the goodness that the Bible confers onto the beautifully lighter Europeans or that there Hadith imbues on the lighter Arabs.. It makes sense to me that the different religions favor their own peoples. Some may try to say Christianity is not European. However, I beg to differ. The entire character of the Western world is shaped by Christianity. Clearly, neither you, nor I can say the West is shaped by Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Odù Ifá of my Yorùbá people of West Africa. Black people voluntarily and involuntarily being converted into Christianity and/or Islam is the ultimate suicide of the African soul. As the situation currently stands, the African soul being lost is the ultimate vision of Christianity and Islam fulfilled. At best, Africa remains on bended knees with arms stretched out towards the East and West. Unfortunately, the unfalsifiable God concept of Christianity and Islam is the seal that keeps black Africa as the bottom in the eyes of the West and East. The real call for the black soul, is not to reject Christianity and Islam for the sake of Europeans and Arabs, but to vehemently reject them for the sake of the reclamation of black African souls. I do think Steve is playing into the hands of skeptics (logical thinking) and non believers. He is breaking down the walls of the unfalsifiable delusions. Although I think he is moving the conversation towards truth, his questioning further breaks down the foundation of the faith. This could be helpful in releasing the African souls from hundreds of years of bondage, and the loss of our own souls and personhood.
Akindele Bankole There’s only one truth and its for everyone. Phillip converts an African in Acts 8. Ethiopia has been Christian for almost 1700 years now. I know Ethiopia is East African not West African, but if you have an Ethiopian Orthodox Church in your area you should go visit. They practice traditional, historical Christianity
@@qazattack4 Thank you for your response. I actually agree with you that there is only one truth to the claims of creation. I also believe that the truth is universal and understandable to all at the same level and would transcend cultures, classes, and races. The fact that most of the religious concepts we have to date are mostly devisive and retributive suggest to me that we are not near that universal truth yet.
Akindele Bankole I never thought about it that way. But I think that if you say there’s only one truth, that’s naturally divisive. Those who believe the truth vs those who don’t. Do you think that there could a religion that could solve that problem?
@@qazattack4 That is a good question. Although I think if there was a one stop religious shop, it would be obvious to everyone equally. If there is such a cohesive universal message for all human beings, I can't imagine it in any specific language, to a specific people, at a specific time, for merely one or a few specific reason(s), and to satisfy a desiring or wanting God. However, I can see individuals or even a people interpreting what they believe the universal message is, using their own stories, environment, language, traditions etc..., to shape the religious text.
Akindele Bankole I disagree that everyone would accept the truth if they heard it. In Christianity we believe that people are fallen and corrupt but still made in the image of God. Which means that people are both drawn towards the truth/God and at the same time are drawn towards evil and lies. Also I think Christianity has proven itself to be a religion for all nations and all cultures. I just looked up the numbers and here’s the number of Christians on each continent in 2010: North/South America: 804m Europe: 566m Sub Saharan Africa: 516m Asia/Pacific: 285m North Africa/Middle East: 13m Christians are everywhere and make up almost 1/3 of the global population.
I would actually like to see Justin do a series on what HE personally believes.... I thought he might be more in line with Andrews beliefs but then I see him endorsing bruxy cavey's book......
Hello Steve Chuck...read your Bible.. John 10:17-18 " For this reason the Father loves me, because I LAY DOWN MY LIFE that I MAY PICK IT UP AGAIN." Read it!!!! Believe it! Those who change God's words end up in hell! You think you can correct God the Father. You are DEAD wrong. I pray for your soul.
I wrote a book that presents a new model and middle ground perspective between the Penal view and Christus Victor. I call it Perfectus Liberatio. In short the wrath of God is not directed AT Christ, but operates THROUGH Christ. God’s wrath is his moral perfection being revealed against all that is contrary to moral perfection. Christ is the sinless Lamb. Thus God can transfer all sin upon his sinless Lamb and condemn it as being in the wrong-in the sinless perfection of the Son. For sin was unable to accuse, condemn or to lay a charge against the Son for any wrongdoing. Like trying to stick the barbs of Velcro onto a smooth mirror, sin cannot attach itself to the Son- for the Son offers no “hooks” for sin to grab hold of. Therefore because sin cannot justify its presence in the Son, the Father’s wrath is able to condemn sin as being “in the wrong” IN THE SINLESS perfection of the Son. Like pouring a vile of deadly bacteria into a bucket of pure bleach, the bacteria does NOT infect the bleach. Rather the bleach destroys the bacteria. In the cross the sinfulness of sin is undone by the sin-less nature of the Son. The wrath of God is the basis by which sin is condemned THROUGH the Som. But the Son is NOT being condemned (Rom. 8:3). There is more to say. Feel free to buy my short, 100 page book that begins with a parable story to prepare you for the later commentary on the atonement. Go to Amazon and type either my name or “The Fall and Redemption of Shadowmere.” Peace
Stilgar74 thanks for the reply and for being willing to check out my book. My aim was to write a book that did justice to the Christus Victor view but also gave a strong basis for God’s wrath condemning sin (but not interpreting that as inflicting punishment on his Son to pay off his offended justice). Would love to know your thoughts after you read it. Shalom.
Isn't interesting? Chalke often comes up with human perspectives and influences while Wilson is very concerned about the biblical dimensions.. W. doesn't want to actualize some timeless or eternal things, attributes or godly behaviour... He has no inner compulsory for being modern
Sin's judgement is death. Death is verified by blood shed. The actual physical abuse and pain of Christ was carried out by men who were showing their true nature and heart toward God, proving their fallen nature and in the grips of 'the god of this world'. So while the physical suffering of Christ was intense, it was not the physical suffering that contributed to redemption; it was Christ entering into death, and death having no actual claim or right on the Perfect One, He passed on through death and on to resurrection on behalf of all those who accept this substitutionary death.
So if Christ just needed to die, why didn't he die of old age, or a suddent death for example? Why did he need to be tortured and be crucified, dying in one of the most inhumane ways possible? Why was he so scared in the garden before the crucifiction? Why did he claim "Why have you forsaken me" on the cross if he wasn't being punished?
There is an answer to this problem! There are two basic underlying assumptions which determine how we interpret scripture. We can assume God "created" his law and imposed it upon us along with imposed penalties for violation, or, we can imagine Gods law is his "character" and all life is designed to exist within harmony with his character of love, deviation from natural design law results in death. The church has traditionally assumed Gods law is like mans law (God "created it) therefore the Plan of Salvation has been interpreted to fit into this scenario. The fact Catholicism altered the 10 Commandments is proof the church believes God created his law, indeed it would be ridiculous to think to alter Gods law if it was believed to be his character. Another evidence is the natural conclusion some have come to in thinking Gods law is against us, against Christ, legalism, faulty and abolished, this picture opposes the concept that Gods law is his character, and that Jesus, who was "sinless according to the law", is the exact representation of God. The church believes God is law-less (he exists outside of his law) at the same time as believing Jesus was law-full (his character was in perfect harmony with the law), which suggests God and Jesus are "not one". Ps 119 tells us Gods law is eternal, perfect, holy, perfect, pure, true and faultless, it equates Gods law with his character! The belief that God punishes Jesus in our place assumes "God is lawless" therefore can be unforgiving, revengeful, vindictive and punitive. But if we interpret scripture through the lens of a God who is sinless according to his own law, exactly as Jesus was, then we will not come to the conclusion that Jesus came to pay a death debt held against us, but rather we will see that Jesus came to "heal and save", by healing the human condition back to lawfulness. "God is love" and "God is life" therefore "love is life", we are lawless, we do not love as we ought therefore we must be healed in order for sin to go into remission and our characters brought back into harmony with a law-full God. Paul in Romans 1 tells us 3 times what “God’s wrath" is, it is God "letting us go"! God never punishes humans, instead he "gives us up", "abandons us", "forsakes us", "turns his back on us" and "gives us over" to our own sinful desires. This is the greatest act of love, it is giving us absolute freedom to either accept healing or reject it. As God "forsook Jesus" so he forsakes all of us. As the human Jesus overcome sin until he was "made perfect", thus going from death to life, so we also, if we have accepted the remedy (a loving heart and mind) and are being healed through his spirit, we will have his love in us therefore his life in us. I declare God innocent of a lawless character. And it begs the question, which God will we bow down to, the lawless God who behaves like Satan, or the lawful God who is like Christ? The time of Elijah is upon us.
God is Love. God is not lawless. God hates sin. God must punish Satan and humans because of sin and lawlessness. God made a way of escape Himself for humanity from eternal punishment through the cross of Christ Jesus, by faith in Christ Jesus and what He accomplished for us....because He so loves us It's wonderful to think and imagine God never getting angry with us or being jealous for us to love Him and not this world because it has been marked for destruction by fire because of our sin. It would be lovely to think about a God who tenderly and lovingly heals people and raises the dead but doesn't cast people into hell. We might not like to think about a God Who once drowned all humanity and creatures, save but a few on the ark....because of their sin. A God Who chose and loved a nation for Christ in time to be born through, but destroyed other nations and people's because of their sin....and also destroyed members of His own chosen people, because of their sin. Jesus is a loving Saviour Who upon His return will give order to separate the wheat from the chaff, the goats from the sheep. Our God who created Hell for the devil and His angels (they didn't get a second chance when they rebelled against God) but enlarged Hell to also contain those from humanity who because of their unbelief in Christ will be cast in there too. A God Who declares that we live then die and then comes our judgement. Who at the great white throne will open the book of life to see who's name from all humanity is written in it and if it's there we will inherit eternal life, but if it's not then we will suffer eternal punishment. Our God is love, our God is Holy, Our God is merciful, forgiving and kind for this reason 'we have sinned and sin is not of God, He hates it and it makes Him angry' He is not like us and is far wiser than us in regards to the righteousness and justice that His throne is founded upon....and cannot be moved. The love of God is seen in Christ Jesus paying for our sin because no one else could pay the cost except God. The wrath of God is seen in His final dealing with sin and all the evil and death that has flowed from it....and we are not without it. Though through Adams sin in the garden all humanity experiences the consequential punishment of that sin which is death to all his descendants, we thank God daily that through the sacrificial obedience of Jesus Christ we can enjoy the incredible and most graciously loving gift of Life eternal by placing our hope and trust in Him🙏🏾
@@MerrillllirreM You have interpreted scripture through the assumption that God wrote/created his law and imposed it upon us, along with penalties for violation, you have rejected the concept that Gods law is his character therefore he will never harm us. There are two ways to interpret scripture, one where God is the judge who condemns and punishes lawbreakers…this interpretation assumes God created his law therefore lives outside of it (he can break, alter and abolish his law) and the other is where God is the Great Physician who diagnoses and heals us…this interpretation assumes Gods law is his character (hence not one jot or iota can vanish from the law). You use the courtroom God to interpret scripture, I use the Hospital God …both Gods are not one because they oppose each other. The claim in Psalms 119 is that Gods law is equal to God…the law and God are one and the same. If Gods law is Gods character then he cannot break it without becoming a sinner and dying like us. ‘God is love’ and ‘God is life’ therefore Gods law is love and life, when we sin we are out of harmony with love and life, therefore die, God is no longer in us, his law is no longer in us. Without Gods ‘law of love’ living in us we are lawless therefore do not have God nor life. Hence we need healing in order to be saved, Jesus came to ‘heal and save’, we are healed when we have a ‘change of heart’, when we ‘turn from sin’, when Gods law is ‘written on our heart and mind’ (new covenant), that is when we move from death to life. Jesus came to ‘heal’, he did not come to ‘pay’ off our sin with a live innocent human sacrifice blood, he did not come to appease the wrath of God, that is pagan thinking. He did not come to change Gods heart and mind, he came to change our hearts and minds…he did this by revealing the truth about Gods character (God is not lawless) so that we could love and trust him rather than hide in fear…this is why he kept asking, ‘Who do you say I am?’, he needed us to see God through him. If God created his law he is lawless and as you suggest he can behave lawlessly, but I suggest he cannot act outside of his law, he cannot deny himself. You have described a God who is love…except when he burns his enemies in hell, a God who is not lawless…except when he breaks his law by refusing to forgive and love his enemies, a God who hates sin…but is willing to sin (murder, lie) in his response to sin. You assume man is immortal (eternal punishment) even tho scripture says ‘man is mortal’ and ‘God alone is immortal’. In your assumption that God must punish his enemies you deny the concept that sin alone punishes and destroys man, indeed, if sin punishes and kills sinners why would God need to bring them back to life in order to re-punish or re-kill them. Paul in Romans 1 tells us exactly what the "wrath of God’ is and he is in agreement with the entire bible…the ‘wrath of Gods happens when God ‘let’s go’, gives up on them’, ‘turns his back’, ‘gives them over to their own desires’ or ‘abandons them’…God does not lift a finger or think even one thought to harm a single human, not even Satan himself, all he does is stop providing artificial respiration. Jesus was sinless according to the law but you suggest that when he returns he will revoke the forgiveness he once bestowed upon his enemies, he will no longer love and forgive them…this Jesus will become lawless like us…you assume God can change and deny himself. You assume Jesus "paid" for our sin by becoming a live innocent human sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and thus change Gods mind from doing us harm. You assume that when God ‘declares’ us innocent it solves the problem of sin…it doesn’t, a declaration of innocence from God is not a ‘change of heart". ‘We must be born again" to inherit eternal life. If judges in our legal system forgave criminals and set them free the problem of crime would not be solved, but if a healer changed hearts and minds then sin would go into remission. I understand you have merely presented the church’s traditional understanding of the plan of salvation but I’m merely suggesting that it’s a mix of paganism and Christianity, so subtle that it is accepted as if it is completely truth. The Pharisees worshipped a God who killed his enemies hence they had no problem killing Jesus, they did not recognise a God who looked like Jesus. When Paul was converted he went away to re-read scripture under a new light, the light of Jesus which revealed the true character of God. Hence Paul went from worshipping an angry punitive God who led him to kill Christian’s, to worshipping a God like Jesus, giving his life for his enemies. Peter, before he was converted to the God who was revealed in Jesus, cut off the soldier ear, but after he was converted to a law-full God like Jesus, he instead gave his own life as a living sacrifice to his enemies. It makes a difference which God we worship and serve because we become like that which we worship and serve. When Jesus read to Old Testament did he see an unforgiving God who burnt his enemies in pain, suffering, agony and torment throughout all eternity or did he see an innocent God? If Jesus saw a lawless God then Jesus was a liar for representing him as a law-full God and claiming they were ‘one’. I think all Christians, rather than instantly defending their church and tradition, should question the lawless God they worship and serve for he may not be the one and only true God, he may be an imposter, a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Penal substitution doesn't sound too good when presented like this but I'm not clear what the alternative interpretation is...why did Jesus have to die on the cross anyway? To pay the price for our sins to whom? To Himself?
A Christus Victor plus recapitulation model, with some ransom view elements, is the ancient consensus. Christ assumed everything we are by nature so that we may become everything He is by grace. He submitted to our cursed condition and the injustice of the sinful world, entering death itself for our sake, so that we would be raised up with Him. Man is no longer enslaved to death after we were cut off from God, the source of Life. The cross of Christ is the Tree of Life in God's new creation. Death has lost its sting. Eastern iconography of the resurrection depicts Christ, having burst open the gates of Sheol, lifting Adam and Eve up out of the grave.
@@ElasticGiraffe But if he just need to die to share our nature, then why didn't he die of old age, or of suddent death for example? Why did he need to be tortured and be crucified, dying in one of the most inhumane ways possiblem? Why wad he so scared in the garden before the crucifiction? Why did he claim "Why have you forsaken me" on the cross if he wasn't being punished?
@@whitehorse3724 Jesus did not die of natural causes or by accident because He submitted to death voluntarily, and moreover the violent, fallen world could not tolerate God in the flesh. He had to offer Himself willingly to the Father. He had to die a humiliating death and be numbered among the transgressors. He had to be raised up both as an offering to God and to meet the prince of the power of the air in his own domain. He died with His arms extended to embrace the world that put Him to death. He was afraid in the garden of Gethsemane because He was about to suffer a terrible betrayal, not only by Judas turning Him over to the authorities but also by His closest disciple Peter publicly disowning Him, a well as a brutal flogging and torturous death. He was so anxious that He sweat beads of blood. From the cross, Jesus prayed Psalm 22, which begins with a cry of dereliction, but read on. The tone changes at v. 24: "For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him." David was not forsaken by God, and neither was Christ. The godhead was not divided, and the natures of Christ were not separated.
@@ElasticGiraffe But why did God forsaken him? Jesus said that he could bring an army of angels to rescue him, but he didn't. So why didn't he just die a peaceful death instead of one of the most horrible ways of dying, if we only needed him to resurrect? Also many Christians in the past died terrible deaths, but they sang hymns of joy while they were dying, so it wouldn't make sense that Jesus was so afraid to the point of sweating blood if it was just the fear of suffering death. You said that he "had to die a humiliating death and be numbered among the transgressors" but why if he didn't need to be punished?
Hey let's get 2 people in a room who we'd like to hear discuss something interesting and just have them and the host all talk at once for most for most of the video :D
Is there a difference between eternal torture and annihilation, both assume God harms humans. Perhaps the truth is, God is innocent and sin is guilty, sin alone kills us! Hence we need saving, not from God, but from the sin that is killing us.
Ainsley Stevenson And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28, ESV)
@@TheApologeticDog The very next words: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." Fear he, fear not. Hm. Next Scripture says "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." And in Isaiah 45 "Not I Yehovah? And no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I God, and none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall say, in Yehovah have I righteousness and strength: to him shall come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In Yehovah shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." This prophecies of the final judgement when all shall confess Christ. Again "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven."
@@ainsleystevenson9198 I do feel it reveals Gods true nature/character. Seeing and finding out that The One True God IS LOVE and that he has and never was planning on tutoring people and demons for ever and ever till eternity, but it rather shows another side of Gods true character we have not been taught. Now you ask Why. Well dont you want to get know your best friend a little better? And for a lot of people out there searching for truth, eternal hell is a deciding line on whether they choose to follow God or not. And don't know or have't heard that God and the bible don't teach about eternal torment. That this teaching is a Greek doctrine that entered into Christianity by false prophets manipulating Bible teachings. God is love. God isn't torture
Mr Chalke seems to talk about putting bible at the center, then uses a story to explain what led to him changing his view. To be clear, I am not a christian
Surprised by Steve's position on substitutions, thought he was a lot more liberal than this. I think we are all liable to self reflective interpretation of Scripture without first plain hearing the writer. With regards to sin Steves view is such a rich person's view of the world. My sin has its own consequences, this is fine for rich western free agents but tell that to a sex trafficked woman that the sin in her life is have these consequences. This is simply inconsistent. Sin surely deprives the whole world now of blessing but it truly robs God of eternal glory. Why share the Gospel if its just about now, what our future hope if not the death of all sin and eternal glory to God.
A sex trafficked women who is forced against her will is not guilty for the sin she is forced to perform. God knows why we do things and if we do them due to our own desires then they are sins no matter how we try to justify them. If however they are forced upon us then God will know this also..
He is distinguishing between G-d punishing people and the consequences of sin manifesting out of humanity and nature. He is not distinguishing between a person suffering for his or her own sin and third parties suffering because of pathological behavior. I think you missed his point unless you think G-d is up in heaven throwing lightening bolts. Also think he is arguing what he thinks the Bible teaches which i think is fair. You can disagree but it is a matter of opinion.
Can you explain what his position actually is on subtitiution? All I'm getting from this is he doesn't believe in penal substitution and he doesn't believe in god's punishment. I can't get a clear idea about what he *does* believe.
@@claytonweaver2684 yes. The case doesn't have to be applied only to Penal substitution. I have more theological reasons against Penal substitution then biblical.
Unfortunately, Steve's position here wasn't explained or clarified, and moreover, he told stories almost as an authority on why a theological position had to be wrong. To argue from story instead of scripture leaves one on shaky ground.
I’m EO so my dog in this fight is from a third angle, but it is annoying to waste time defending against the blatant assumption made by the “defender” that he is comfortable with “the whole Word of God” and the other is not. The great downfall of modern evangelicalism: it’s hubris.
@bakayaroo44 Steve Chalke's view of "forgiveness" betrays a misunderstanding of what it means when God forgives. It is not emotional or psychological at its heart, although they are involved. It is not an anger (wrath) management issue. It is legal, even justice, at its heart. He cannot forgive legally until his justice has been satisfied. Because of his love, he sent his Son to satisfy that justice so that he can legally forgive us of our sins. In a sense, therefore, sins can never ever ever be forgiven, but repentant believing sinners can because of the penal substitutionary atonement if his Son. I am 18 mins in and none of them has still mentioned this core issue: God's legal/justice, of which his wrath and punishment are a result. PS. Now finished the video and not a single mention of the root issue which is God's justice. They mentioned judgement (from around 20 mins) and punishment but both those are secondary to God justice based on his law.
Gods justice makes things whole. It heals, sometimes through the destruction of our flesh. It’s nothing to do with a legal issue...we as people perceive things that way if we are under the law in our conscience. He forgives because He loves us. Love doesn’t impute evil. He has never reckoned to us our trespasses to begin with. We were only enemies in our mind. That’s why we have the ministry of reconciliation.
Chalke’s version of “a” god is an idol! He has made “God” in his own version to make him feel good about himself and his own sin. He uses these emotional situations to draw out his false understanding of “what/who” God is!!
Bless your heart, but why emotionalize, brother? Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice, for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are grossly unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient-unto-death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
Vengeance is mine I will repay says the Lord. Old and New testament. Therefore love your enemies. But that's in the Bible oops sorry I brought it up. I'd like to know what he thinks about God's justice.
The way you talk is cruel and sarcastic and lacks humility and love. Are you really interested in listening to what your brother Steve has to say (and then disagreeing in love and even trying to persuade him to your view), or do you not think you are brothers at all? Ephesians 4:1-6 is a great passage to pray on here.
I'm sorry that my sarcastic comment distracted from the issue at hand even though God is sometimes sarcastic in the Bible. I will remove the seven offensive words and post my comment again, because I really am trying to convince from the Bible. And based on my recollection of the video from a year ago when I watched it, no I really don't believe we are brothers. We Believe something completely different about who God is and about who Jesus is. Could I ask you, did Jesus obey Ephesians 4 when he interacted with the Pharisees? Was he cruel and unloving and lacked humility when he pointed out their errors in very strong terms? Calling them names, saying they were leading people astray from God? The difference I have strikes at the very heart of the Gospel, the very nature of who God is. so would you be willing to interact? Do you think god is vengeful? Does he have wrath towards sin? Can the guilty go unpunished - is that Justice?
Vengeance is mine I will repay says the Lord. Old and New testament. Therefore love your enemies. that's in the Bible. I'd like to know what he thinks about God's justice.
It’s so refreshing to hear Steve talk the way he does about all of these debate topics. As a Christian for over thirty years it confuses me why people so often want to keep what to me are distorted views of God. Steve has been so clear that’s it all boils down to interpretation. When Andrew says he believes the bible is the word of God and that Steve is pulling away from that or writing his own version he fails to realise that he is doing the same thing. We all bring interpretation to the text. People like Steve who are fighting against certain views God are doing so because they love God and don’t wish to see him misrepresented. Neither did Jesus which is why He had more to say to the religious leaders in regards to challenging their beliefs than he did to the general public. I haven’t seen many positive comments towards Steve on any of these debates but I want to thank him for being brave enough to challenge the status quo. He certainly is an encouragement to me.
How can I maintain my faith in the Atonement, and the New Testament, when archaeology has proven there was no Exodus, or rather, it didn't happen as the Bible records it. Moses was based upon a Pharoaoh who believed in monotheism. I am struggling to believe in Jesus, pray for me. My belief in penal substitution tied all the theological points together so beautifully. 1.) God hates sin because it is an assault against HIM - His holiness, revealed in His law. 2.) ALL things come FROM God, and all things WILL RETURN to God. HOLINESS. GOD is WHOLLY devoted to Himself because He is ALSO WHOLLY. Holy (devoted to Himself) because He is WHOLLY (whole, needing only Himself to BE ALIVE. Free of inner conflict, and cosmic sickness, which we call sin). ALL comes from God and ALL will return to God. SIN Sin is cosmic sickness. God is light, sin is darkness. GOD is love for God, but sin is hatred of God, idolatry. The righteous return to God, being HOLY (wholly devoted to God), even as GOD is wholly devoted to Himself. SINNERS return to God (but since Light cannot look on darkness, and God cannot look on iniquity. Sin cannot stand in His Presence), sin and sinners return to GOD in PUNISHMENT, eternal suffering. I really admired and worshiped Jesus for the price I believed) He paid on that cross! Jesus, Almighty God, and ALSO man: the HIGHEST God, the lowest worm of a man on the cross) Jesus actually being declared our sin by God. Meaning, God loved us so much that, in His eternal Being (past, present, and future) there was 3 hours when Jesus (God the Son, part of the Triune God) had the blight of sin upon Himself because God so love us! Experiencing God's wrath even as sinners experience God's wrath. Didn't just die, but actual had His life's blood - the life of the flesh - spilled from His veins to satisfy God's penalty for sin (to vindicate God's HOLY nature, ie, all returns to God, and sin does so in punishment because sin is totally opposite God's Nature.) WOW! Such a God is to be awesomely worshiped and admired for doing this, and yet... Now I am being told Jesus simply... died after 6 short hours of normal pain and suffering, albeit at its physical worst. Minus the mental and spiritual unspeakable anguish I had always believed He experienced on the cross? Well, that just waters down Jesus's atoning sacrifice for me. He thus suffered only 6 hours of pain on a cross? There are martyrs who experienced dying agony that makes the short 6 hours of Jesus's pain pale by comparison. I am disillusioned, hanging on to believing in Jesus by a string. I NEED Jesus. That's what's keeping me from deconverting, and my terror ever since I renounced Him for making me an unsexy bumbling physically repulsive human being, laughed at by the in-crowd's good-looking girls. When I got so angry for not loving me enough to allow me to be an attractive male for I renounced Him, against the Spirit's plea not to do so, AND NOW HE WON'T TAKE ME BACK! Painful to discover Jesus's love for me did not endure to the end. Because even after that fatal time I renounced Him, a short time afterwards I began to renounce Him again BUT THAT TIME I stopped, and thought about what I was doing, and STOPPED, so as not to renounce him. GOD knows I didn't 100% totally renounce Him, and yet, He is too hard-up now to forgive me? And these preachers saying when someone commits the unpardonable sin, they are so hardened they no longer care one iota about God. I CARE! Yet, Jesus had abandoned me.
Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice, for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are grossly unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient-unto-death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
If God has to punish Jesus before he can love us, then God is not love, as it is claimed. If it is then said that you have to accept Jesus as your personal saviour, or you will spend eternity in hell, it seems to suggest that you come to love God through fear, even though it is patently obvious that fear is never the path to love. Penal substitution is a pernicious doctrine that makes atheism the more humane option. When you’re dead, you’re dead. No frying in hell forever giving God his jollies, not to mention what it reveals about the unacknowledged anger of those who espouse this tragic theology.
@@deniss2623 Your previous conclusion. Dear Santa, Define “good,” so I can claim my reward. Oh, dear! Must have forgotten that God isn’t Santa. Merry Christmas 🎄
I think Steve Chalke has weak views of Jesus' divinity and of original sin. That is why he doesn't need or like the theories of satisfaction & penal substitution. We need all the theories of the atonement-it is fine to say we prefer one more than another but we shouldn't reject the ones we don't like especially when they are biblically based.
Not a lot of Bible being thrown out there. Sounds like to people giving their opinions. Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what either of these 2 feel, or what their opinions are .... only thing that matters is what the Bible actually says. I would have liked their opinions backed up by scripture
Penal substitution is in the Bible BUT it was never NEEDED by God FOR HIS OWN SAKE. "The Law is NOT for the righteous but for the wicked, ungodly, rebels etc....". 1st Timothy. WHO is The Righetous One? God. His Son. Jesus was THE lamb of God. Innocent and Just, yet sacrificed for the guilty according the Law - which is NOT for the righetous... God did not give the Law to Israel for His sake!! The perfect God's Law and all its sacrifices that represent the last Lamb (of God)- were NOT there to satisfy angry God's justice but to show His ultimate love for the WORLD.
We are responsible for our sins - just as we are responsible for the things we do on this earth - we do not have a license to sin because of Christ death - being Christians we are called to live a life of Christ and only do things that He will approve of and do not do anything that He will never accept......Sr. Lucia "more souls go to hell because of the sins of the flesh than for any other reason " - "If only men knew what is eternity they will do all in their power to amend their life" - misinterpreting the bible can be a danger to your soul -
His death was the establishment of the new covenant. The distribution of His life, His Spirit, covers us, and purifies us, allowing us entry through the veil that is His earthly life, which is an expression of God's true nature and desire toward man. To forgive sins, to heal the broken, so gather the lost. The cross is also evidence of God's love in that He did nothing against those who would kill Him, but forgave them for their ignorance. This is also for us. Death's power is destroyed by the establishment of the new covenant. The law of sin and death is broken, because now there is a new covenant. Sinless man dies, where the law says, those who sin must die. This made the old law fully obsolete. First it did not make men perfect, but instead led to not knowing God or not believing in Him. Second, it is unjust. So a new covenant has become necessary, and has been established by the death of the sinless Christ. " In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do these things because they have not known the Father or Me." "in regard to sin, because they do not believe in Me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see Me; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world has been condemned." Prince of the world is condemned for injustice, and incompetence. Death, the power of Sin, Sin being the ruler of mankind has been condemned.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
When people get sick in the hospital they wonder if God has forsaken them!
When Jesus was on the cross he cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me!"
Jesus is quoting and taking us to Psalm 22 and when we read the entire Psalm we learn that God has not forsaken Jesus. God is with Jesus and God is not pouring out his wrath on God - that is - Jesus who is truly God and truly man in one person.
Jesus is being murdered by sinful creatures and Jesus is going through this death to identify with us but he will raise from the dead and is this way conquer death, sin, and the devil.
Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8
Jesus Christ is VICTORIOUS by raising from the dead but in loving us he had to die first.
Jesus who is truly man and truly God without separation, division, mixture, or confusion cannot suffer wrath and damnation from God.
Malachi 3:6
There is only one God and Jesus is one person of the Holy Trinity!
Penal substitution atonement is pure Nestorian heresy and never taught in the Bible or until the eleventh century.
In summary, PSA says God poured out his wrath on God to please God who is one.
Thinking Atheists have a hey day with this atonement heresy and it keeps them from being Christians.
The Orthodox Church has the correct Biblical doctrine of the atonement. Christ is risen!
Truly he has risen!
"Christus Victor" which has been taught since the Apostles and the Bible.
In every instance where the NT references Is. 53, it does so in a non-substitutionary manner. Mat. 8:17 quotes Is. 53:4, but in a way that denies substitution: “That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”” The meaning is not that Jesus healed by making himself sick and literally bearing by transferring the diseases to himself, but rather that he was compassionately burdened by human suffering and he did something about it. Matthew also considers this prophecy fulfilled before Jesus went to the cross, not as a consequence of the cross! It was not fulfilled by the death of Jesus, but by his life.
In 1 Cor. 15:3 we read, “…Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” This is likely Is. 53:5. In the phrase “died for our sins” it is the Greek word “hyper,” indicating causation, not replacement or substitution, indicating that Isaiah 53:5 was not about substitution, but a prophecy regarding the cause as to why Jesus died - because of our sin, not in place of our sin, and certainly not as a payment for our sin.
Is. 53:4 A careful reader of the second phrase of verse 4 will see that "we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God" is saying that the people "esteemed" or reasoned that God was punishing the victim. A proper contextual reading of this verse together with verse 5 shows that it was not God punishing, rather, the victim was enduring the pain and suffering due to the wrongs of others toward him. The suffering was not caused by God or for God, not an act of divine justice, but of human injustice! To make matters worse, the verse is often misread as if it says, "we saw him stricken BY God." This is a serious misuse of the text!
Is. 53:5 expands on verse 4. The first word is "but," intended as a contrast. Verse 4 is saying, "we thought this…" and verse 5 corrects the error with, "but the truth is this…" Sadly, so many teachers read this word as if it says "and." Their mind processes it as, "…stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 "AND" he was pierced for our transgressions…" These teachers WANT the passage to be about God punishing Jesus as a payment for sin, so their minds are reading what they expect the passage to say instead of what it actually says! Both the Hebrew and the LXX (Septuagint) state that, “he was pierced BECAUSE OF [Greek “dia”] our transgressions, he was crushed BECAUSE OF [Greek “dia”] our iniquities.”
Is. 53:6 shows the cause of this injustice is due to the people straying. The LORD “has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The words translated “has laid on” is a most unusual choice of words chosen to project the PSA view. In Hebrew “has laid on” is “hip̄·gî·a”, which actually means “to fall, to meet, or to encounter.” The Greek word is "paradidōmi", meaning, "to hand over, to give or deliver over." The meaning is simply that God had the culmination of the error of the people fall on, or meet at, or delivered to, the point where they were willing to murder this innocent servant, exactly as stated in Acts 2:23. The same Hebrew word, H6293 is used in verse 12, but most translations have this word as “intercession.” Apparently, the only place where translators conveniently use “has laid on” for H6293 is this one case in Isaiah 53:6, which should raise serious suspicions.
Is. 53:10 is never mentioned in the New Testament, which is quite incredible if it is about Jesus making an offering! In fact, the word "offering" is not in either the Masoretic or LXX texts, as it is assumed and supplied by the translators! Furthermore, there are multiple translation options that leave the author’s intent very vague, especially when the Hebrew Masoretic text is compared to the Greek LXX text.
From the book entitled “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.
One of the issues I would pick up on is that Jesus said He laid down His life for the sheep. He had the power to lay it down and the power to take it up again. John 10:14 to 18. His death on the cross was voluntary God did not force Jesus to die on the cross but God accepted Christ's death as a substitution
Jesus was God so theres that.
Love these discussions, in a world where few Christians seek to sort our there own theology these topics are refreshing and needed.
Here is a partial list of Penal Substitutionary Atonement problems:
5. Basic logic tells us that a complete payment cancels forgiveness. You cannot forgive a debt that has already been paid, and you do not need to pay a debt that has been forgiven. Forgiveness is granted because a debt has NOT been paid, not after the payment has been made!
6. Forgiveness that can be bought or sold is not true forgiveness. If you think that you or a third party can purchase genuine forgiveness, you do not understand forgiveness!
7. We humans are able to forgive others when they sin against us. To claim that God cannot do a good thing that we can do is to make us more moral than God.
8. PSA’s "infinite justice” claim has God incapable of truly forgiving us without first getting a proxy payment by murder and blood. How can that be genuine forgiveness?
9. If someone says, “I forgive you,” you assume it is done right then, not secretly projecting it into a nebulous future when a payment will eventually be made by someone else. Secretly projecting the act of forgiving into the distant future would be considered deceptive. God is not a deceiver for forgiving people before Christ died.
10. God said many times that He would forgive, and He forgave (past tense), long before Jesus was born. Many texts could be listed. The following are just a few of these: “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin.” 2 Chronicles 7:14 “I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.” Psalm 32:5 “You forgave the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin.” Psalm 85:2 “LORD our God, you answered them; you were to Israel a forgiving God, though you punished their misdeeds.” Psalm 99:8 NIV “Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love.” Micah 7:18 “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7
11. Jesus did not seem to think that he was going to make a payment to God for the sins of humanity. Even while on the cross He did not speak as if he was making a payment when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34). Jesus did not say, “Father, wait until I am finished paying for their sins, then you can forgive them.”
12. Every example of forgiveness we have from Jesus shows forgiveness in the normal human sense, not in some unheard-of future forgiveness, transfer, imputation, payment, or third-party justice. “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors...for if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses...” Matthew 6:12, 14-15 “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” Mark 11:25 (See also Matthew 9:2-8, 18:21-35, Luke 5:20, 6:37, 7:47-48, 11:4, 15:11-32.) 13. A literal payment requires a literal transfer and a literal recipient of that payment. How can a death (an action, not a substance) be a literal payment? Who collected this payment? 14. If God has been paid in full for our sins, then why does He still demand that we stop sinning and live right, and even have wrath and threaten judgment for disobedience? If Jesus paid it all, God got what He wanted. 15. Would not a payment for sin be a type of indulgence payment, a bribe to ignore sin and to issue a pardon? A blood sacrifice as a payment to a god is a pagan idea, which is why God ordered the Old Testament people many times to stop their sacrifices - they began treating sacrifices as if they were indulgences, and that stinks to God. Ps. 40:6, 51:16, Jer. 6:20, Is. 1:11-18, 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6-8, Amos 5:22. (The God of the Bible is relational, and sacrifices were supposed to be a token of this relationship, not a payment to get Him to change.)
For more on this topic, see the book “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.
All people are sinners and therefore we cannot be reconciled with God who is absolutely holy and righteous , unless our sin is removed. And scripture is clear that without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness ". Hebrews 9 v 22b , and Praise the Lord that the Father punished Jesus in our place so that we could be forgiven as many verses teach , for example:
" Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand ".
Isaiah 53 v 10
@@stevenmcglade8564 Both of those passages are good examples of translators tampering with the text to get it to say what they want. When JWs do this, we rightly rant and rail against them, but PSA translators do the same.
Is. 53:10 is never mentioned in the New Testament, which is quite incredible if it is about Jesus making an offering! In fact, the word "offering" is not in either the Masoretic or LXX texts, as it is assumed and supplied by the translators! Furthermore, there are multiple translation options that leave the author’s intent very vague, especially when the Hebrew Masoretic text is compared to the Greek LXX text.
Hebrews 9:22 “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
The words “of sins” are not in the Greek text! Also, the word “forgiveness” is the Greek word “aphesis” which means “to let go, to release.” “Aphesis” is only forgiveness in a derivative, secondary sense, as a metaphor.
In Chapters 8-9 the author is explaining to a Jewish audience that there is now a new and better covenant. The problem a Jew would have is that they can’t just flippantly abandon the Mosaic covenant for a new one; something and someone must authorize the setting aside of the old to be superseded by the new. This scenario is the context.
Verse 1 of chapter 9 starts with, “Now even the first [covenant] had regulations…” Now there has been a change because Christ, God’s anointed, is introduced in verse 11: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest…,” he entered the holiest place with his own blood, not animal blood (verse 12). “For this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant…” (verse 15).
The summary of verses 1-24 is that Moses inaugurated the first covenant on earth with animal blood and an earthly tabernacle, while Christ inaugurated this new superseding covenant with his own blood.
Verse 22 indicates the legal principle with two claims: 1. "under the law almost everything [but not everything] is purified [set apart, dedicated] with blood," and 2. "without the shedding of blood there is no" release (aphesis) of the prior covenant for inaugurating a second. Once the entire context is understood, at least in the big picture, it becomes clear that verse 22 has nothing at all to do with forgiveness of sin, but rather that there was no release of the former covenant without first shedding blood.
God forgave people throughout the Old Testament. Many passages state this. PSA is a serious misunderstanding of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
Here's the basic problem: Steve Chalke's gospel is aimed at a very certain kind of person:
It's aimed at a non-Christian, who has basically led a fairly good life. not killed anyone, not abused any one. Who is likely to be offended at being told they are a sinner who needs to repent or that God is angry with them.
It's particularly aimed at non-christians who perhaps struggle with false guilt. say victims of abuse who blame themselves for it etc.
What it does is aim to put an arm around people and say "There there...God doesn't think you're bad. God isn't angry at you.".
The problem is of course, that form of Gospel has nothing to say to someone who actually HAS murdered someone, or abused someone. It's no good telling that person, "don't worry, God isn't really angry at you.". No. For them, you need a gospel which says "Yes..God is absolutely furious with you, he can't bear to look at your horrible horrible sin....AND YET...he can forgive you...you are not beyond redemption.".
Except...that it's the same gospel for all of us. There is only one gospel. There isn't a two tier gospel for "nice" non Christians and "nasty" non-Christians. So if there is going to be a gospel that brings hope to the worst of non-christians, it's going to be a gospel which offends or upsets the best of non-christians.
This is so true its like Steve sees God as loving rather than jealous when really he is jealous because he is loving. His view is detracting from the glory of Jesus' sacrifice and i think thats a biblically grounded criticism rather than just my/our self asserted argument.
Wow….just no. Creating caricatures perhaps 🤔
Let’s begin with, “God is not angry,” shall we. His emotions are not contingent on our behavior. He’s God, for God’s sake.
This is so brillant!
I think the more life you live, the more you realize that the abusers are usually also victims themselves if studied with enough intuition. Most child abusers were abused themselves for example.
It almost brings tears of joy to my eyes to know there are still British Christians like Justin and Andrew these days.
@Matt no u
Bless your heart, but why emotionalize, brother?
Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient unto death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
Do you not see Steve on your screen or is he not a "British Christian" in your eyes?
Psalm 22 also affirms "God will NOT turn His face away from him [Messiah] but will listen to his cry for help"
Exactly. The christus victor view of the cross is way more biblical
The cross would have been a failure or just a punishment if it weren`t for the Resurrection. YHWH ha Elohim would NOT have raised a false Messenger.
A notable difference between Steve and Andrews points of view seems to me that Steve quotes sayings from people and other theologians to back his view and understanding of the Bible, whereas Andrew mostly just quotes the Bible. I prefer the latter.
because you're a dumbass prot who doesnt understand Christianity
@@mclkr9174 do you know how the masses recognized Peter was a disciple of Jesus after Jesus was captured by the Romans? Right before Peter denied Jesus they identified him by they way he spoke. You don’t speak like a Christian. It seems to me you have a long way to go. If you can’t even control your fingers from cursing....
You prefer “how the original has been translated and dogmatic edited”. FIFY
@@garciacentral do you think the translations are at fault? Please show which ones and why. You know you can always go back to the original Greek and Hebrew.
sorry to be offtopic but does anyone know a trick to log back into an Instagram account..?
I was stupid forgot the password. I would appreciate any tricks you can give me
These FACE to FACE debates bring out more of the SUBTLE DETAILS in these two men's beliefs - both the differences AND the similarities (eg. at 10:32 they turn out having the SAME view regarding Jesus' use of Psalm 22.) This format seems to be more INFORMATIVE than seeing two people debate FAR OFF from each other. I'm really grateful for this Justin Brierley! I still prefer Andrew Wilson though. Steve Chalke goes way too far, in my view... "HE was pierce for OUR transgressions. HE was crushed for OUR iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace, WAS UPON HIM" (Isaiah 53:5).
I agree, nicely stated. I do like the formal debates, (these I call conversations) but they usually run into sometime of miscommunication based on their world view or a misunderstanding of what the other believes in.
The problem is that the word interpreted (not translated) as punishment by some English versions is wrong, the Hebrew word Musar #4148 in Isa 53:5 says Correction, Chastisement, Discipline to which God teaches as distinct from His punishment involving wrath.
That is why it is said in Proverbs 3:12 and Hebrews 12:4-11 those whom God receives as ligit children are chastised/disciplined and scourged. Sense Jesus' suffering upon the tree saved us from Wrath as our ransom, then clearly punishment and discipline are two different actions from God for two different reasons.
PSA stands just not as Wrathful PSA but Disciplinary PSA or as I have coined it Equivalent Disciplinary Substitionary Atonement. Because Propitiation did occur through what affliction Father caused His Son according to Isa 53:5;10kjv
Jesus being God's justification by how He treated His ligit Son while righteous yet in the likeness of sinful flesh, to act towards those whom by faith are baptized in Christ being imputed His righteousness are treated if they stumble into sin,instead of remaining under wrathful suffering. we suffer as Christ by partaking in His Body(1 corinthians 12:13kjv) but only many until His return will partake in His Cup and Baptism of death( Matthew 20:22-23kjv)being Chastized and Scourged even unto death(matthew 16:24) in order to learn what obedience is picking up our own poles to partake in God's Holiness.
Jesus being in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh yet not the embodiment of wickedness(Ezekiel 33:11), being made a curse for us by condemning sin in the flesh(not Jesus) while dieing on a tree/pole yet not accursed(1 Cor 12:3kjv) to free us from the curse of the Law in order to be corrected with discipline and scourging as Christ our source and example so we are not condemned with the world(1 Cor 11:32)
Although Gods Son being born in the fullness of Him, being perfect in nature and spirit without blemish, volunteered to suffer for our sins through corrective chastening and scourging unto death to learn obedience(Isa 53:5 Hebrews 5:8-9 Phillip 2:7-8) being made spiritually mature and the pioneer of our salvation for the elects sake as God's Equivalent Disciplinary Substitution(TRUE PSA) to be our sin and guilt atonement as our ransom in order to Propitiate and Justify Father to correct the Elect through such suffering instead of leaving us under His wrath.
Putting on Christ by being baptized in Him while partaking in His Body and Cup takes on a more deeper revelation understood within scripture once one connects the dots of His suffering not only as a remembrance of how and why He died for our sake but what it means for us in lifestyle while following Him. Such connection is marred when one disassociates through Wrathful Penal substitution atonement, what Christ went through from what and why we also partake in while in Him.
Sense one is taught through Wrathful PSA that what Jesus goes through as our substitute(the just for the unjust) is not what we will go through as our source and example set.
they miss the whole purpose of His suffering correction By Father for our sins(not just for His own Righteousness by evil men) and why we are corrected while in Him partaking in His suffering(not just suffering for Righteousness by evil mankind) but also suffering correction to know obedience as a grant(philip 1:29; Acts 14:22) instead of remaining under wrath even if we do sin.
Too often teachers of Wrathful PSA had made synonymous Gods punishment with His discipline within the English translations when in reality God makes a distinction between the two in scripture because of what His Son was predeterminedly sent to face for our sins as righteous otherwise there would be no justification for us to be disciplined while being imputed Jesus' righteousness yet still stumble nor teach of such distinctions. Even a severe discipline is not an punishment from GOD sense punishment is taught as coming from Wrath not Gods Mercy and Love.
The teaching in
Hebrews 12:4-11
Should open ones mind to reflect Jesus' suffering as our source and example and what we go through until His return while in Him following after Him.
That is not in texts before the 10th century Masoretic text. That is the problem most Bible translations are based on a 10th century AD text that has 6000 variations from the earlier texts. In the Masoretic text another issue you come to if you read Isaiah 53 in context also with the neighboring chapters the Jews are right that it is about Israel not the Messiah. The Jews did this on purpose and then added language that would be against the whole Torah if applied to the Messiah.
@@DApostate
If you're referring to Isaiah here, this is largely not true, because we have a Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah and it mostly aligns with the Masoretic.
There are slight differences, but not any that have bearing on this debate.
I would say 50% of all church songs won't be sung in Chalkes church due to the content.
There is a Season for Pruning.
In our church we don't sing about 90% of church songs because of their content!
Feel so sad when I see Steve Chalke explaining how he has left the gospel behind for another another gospel, on several of these videos. He was a really good evangelist once. I do pray for him now and again that he might return to the truth of the gospel once again.
Penal substitution is another gospel. The Son does not save us from the Father by presenting innocent blood for Him to shed. That's morally offensive, contrary to Scripture (cf. Prov 6:17), philosophically ridiculous, heretically divides the godhead, nowhere found in the writings of the church fathers, and violates the character of God revealed in Christ.
We are saved from slavery to sin and death, not from a violent pagan deity who needs blood to be appeased.
@@ElasticGiraffe How are we saved from sin and slavery by Jesus death?
Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice, for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are grossly unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient-unto-death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
There is no more false gospel than Penal substitution!
Yes amen , all people are sinners and therefore we cannot be reconciled with God who is absolutely holy and righteous , unless our sin is removed. And scripture is clear that without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness ". Hebrews 9 v 22b , and Praise the Lord that the Father punished Jesus in our place so that we could be forgiven as many verses teach , for example: " Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand " Isaiah 53 v 1
Try reading Is. 53:10 in the Septuagint and notice how radically that verse got edited in the Masoretic text. Then remember that the Septuagint version was literally the one used and quoted by both Jesus and the Apostle Paul.
Showing lack of understanding of the trinity
He twisted the scripture at the end, it’s actually “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”, NOT “do good.” Sometimes what is right is very harsh, but it’s still better than letting evil have its way. We neither know how evil we are nor how good we can become, but that is revealed thru and in Christ, not in our reasoned ideas.
The point was that Jesus offered Himself willingly. His death became a sacrifice (Sacrum Facere: to make sacred). This is not the same as punishment. His death took place on Passover. The Passover lambs were to protect people from wrath. The Angel of Death did not kill the lambs but saw them as a sign to pass over that person to demonstrate God's mercy and protection. They were not a substitute for the people. Afterwards the lambs were eaten as a meal bringing the believer together with God as the Eucharist now does.
I'm at 10:00. Jesus wasn't crying out because He thought the Father had forsaken Him, they are eternally triune, Jesus was teaching those around Him, pointing out that He was fulfilling Psalm 22.
Steve ALWAYS brings in an emotional story to prove his point.
When Steve says the blood of someone else immediately he is for showing that he has a misunderstanding of who God is because the blood that was required was a blood from himself
He was referring to the Father here, not the Godhead.
I guess you could say it does have a problem in that it implies the mainstream penal substitution view is that only the Father is wrathful towards mankind; not the Son and the Spirit.
An overlooked point in this discussion: Forgiveness hurts. In that sense God was forgiving us and taking the punishment we deserved at the same time.
Sin isn't a crime it doesn't need punishing. Forgiveness is a free gift requiring nothing , if God had to punish someone then it's not forgiveness
@@martinfell9165But sin hurts and forgiveness hurts. Sin hurts oneself and the other , forgiveness liberates oneself and the other by absorbing the pain. This is at least one way to look at the cross.
Yes, definitely. Isaiah 53 - and see also Acts 8, part of which applies that passage to Jesus - shows that the NT Church believed that He died in our place. And what Sacrifice did Christ the High Priest offer, but the Sacrifice of Himself ? If He is the Paschal Lamb, “standing as though it had been slain”, “slain from before the foundation of the world”, “that takes away the sin of the world”, how did He not suffer in our place ?
Penal substitution shows God being punished for the sin of man. It is the ultimate expression of the solidarity between the innocent & the guilty, on account of which the innocent members of a family or community suffered with the guilty. The Death of Christ shows how fully Christ, Who is God and man, identified Himself with sinners, so as to “lay down His Life for His sheep”. Penal substitution shows the extent of God’s Grace, because gods do not die for sinners - except in Christianity.
The substitutionary Death of Christ perfectly reconciles God’s Righteous Wrath against His People, and His unreserved, gracious, ever-faithful covenantal Love for them. Christ is both “made sin for us” & is also “the Righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5.21; 1 Cor. 1.30)
Jesus let Himself be punished by UNJUST suffering and death as to show how FAR to the extreme God is willing to go to show His LOVE. Otherwise God, and Jesus, the exact reflection of who unchangeable God is (Hebrews 1:3), HAD only one solution: to smack them and destroy them all on the spot, Jews and Romans alike, since they dared to commit such injustice to Him. As perfect obedient Son of God Jesus is willing to suffer for OUR sake. It was not His will to suffer for God's sake/pleasure/will or whatever.
2 years later, I have warmed to Steve’s viewpoint. I am actually unsure how that happened.
By ignoring the clear meaning of scripture?
What is Steve's viewpoint?
He never actually explains his atonement theory here; he just says what he disagrees with.
These conversations are fantastic. I want to hear a solid debate on hell and eternal conscious torment like this.
"if only men knew what is eternity, he will do all in his power to change" - "Among adults there are few saved because of the sins of the flesh, with exception of those who die in childhood most men will be damned" - a ringing of truth in today's society with its liberal take on sex, abortion, adultery, etc....
"So then, let us not attribute to God’s actions and His dealings with us any idea of requital. Rather, we should speak of fatherly provision, a wise dispensation, a perfect will which is concerned with our good, and complete love. If it is a case of love, then it is not one of requital; and if it is a case of requital, then it is not one of love. Love, when it operates, is not concerned with the requiting of former things by means of its own good deeds or correction; rather, it looks to what is most advantageous in the future: it examines what is to come, and not things that are past." "I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. For what is so bitter and vehement as the punishment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is sharper than any torment that can be. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God." -- St Isaac of Nineveh
Man’s wisdom: “God wouldn’t send His Son to pay for our sins.”
God’s wisdom: “It is finished.”
God punished himself!
Images of debt payment and criminal punishment are not the same. Even so, debt forgiveness means the debt is forgiven, not paid by someone else or paid by the creditor to himself, whatever that could mean.
So, ancient Christians interpreted “it is finished” as in “Jesus fulfilled the law” no one sees that as “God’s wrath on his Son” .
God was on the cross in Jesus. How can we with our finite minds understand how God the sinless Son carried our sin, suffered the consequences of our sin, died our death, both physical and spiritual, and rose again from the dead in triumph over sin, death and the devil through the power of God the Holy Spirit. Last November I had an overwhelming experience of God's redeeming love which completely obliterated a deep-seated anger directed towards those in the church who condemned members of the LGBT community, of which I identified as a gay man. With the experience I had last November the gospel message suddenly became personal. Jesus Christ took all my sin, suffered on my behalf, died my death, and was raised again from the dead in triumph through the same power of the Holy Spirit who indwells anyone whose life is surrendered into his hands, forgiven, cleansed, healed, and restored as an adopted child of our Heavenly Father. The verse I was given when coming into membership of a Baptist church about 20 years ago has come to fruition - Romans 8:15. I have been given a spirit of sonship whereby I can call him Abba. At the age of 76, I know my Daddy in heaven who is holy and righteous, and who loves me something like the father in the parable of the prodigal son. The first time I realised this was last November,. My identity is in Christ alone. All other identities are of no importance to me, in comparison.
People seem to either forget or not know that Jesus is God, So really God came down and died on the cross for us. This changes things a bit once you understand this truth.
I wish Steve would explain exactly how it is that he’s not doing exactly what Andrew is suggesting here! He denies it and calls it unfair but offers no clarity whatsoever!
If Christ didn’t pay for our sins (was not punished in our place), then we remain dead - we remain under the Law.
Horrible idea,'punished in our place'' how would that work and how is it justice?
in any logic IF you have done something wrong
(not even going into the ridiculousness of being guilty of what A & E are supposed to have done)
YOU pay for it /make it right not someone else ,even a god.
@@frankwhelan1715 You're right about that: it's not "justice"! Not in our puny human sense, anyway. It's unmerited "grace" and pure "mercy". Jesus transfers his perfection to us sinners; and in exchange HE took our sins upon Himself. So the sins are paid for in-full ...by HIM. Accordingly, God judges us as "not guilty" because Jesus has already paid the price. Jesus was truly innocent but was declared "guilty" for all of our sins - and paid for them through the passion and crucifixion. Thus, He won our victory over both death and hell. It's often colloquially termed, "God's great exchange" - because God (Jesus) exchanged his pure white robe for our scarlet robes. We get to wear His white robe when we meet our judgment. He wore our scarlet robes and served our sentences.
@@RockHudrock 'He won our victory ''
who did he win it off,is he not the boss
top man ,nobody above him,?
he could play it any way he wants,
do you think there'd be humans
going to him complaining,oh this
heaven is not as good because you
didn't have a bloody death for us on the cross.
nonsense!
frank whelan Google “the Trinity”
frank whelan He did not defeat God (the Father), he defeated sin, Satan and death.
Steve has thought through this issue much more deeply then the traditional evangelical. I agree with him. Jesus himself said that "God prefers mercy over sacrifice!" quoting the old testament. This is the crucial mistake evangelicals have made. God is not into punishing anyone, but that they should grow in love and understanding. Upon death we are asked to look at our lives and with God's help we will review every second from conception to death. He will give us omniscient knowledge of all the effects our behavior has had on the world of humans and animals. In that review we will actually experience the pain we have inflicted on others as well as the joy and happiness we spread. The whole idea is to learn from our mistakes in a most direct way. There will be zero argument as to your actions and who you are, but it is not done with punishment but rather love and understand. Jesus himself taught over and over and over again that it is in your actions that you will be judged. Asking his disciples many times if they loved him....then you will DO what I have asked you to do...LOVE, FORGIVE, GIVE...as they did to the least of these they did for me. It is so obvious and it is not about magical words of obedience, but of actions based on true understanding of His teachings.
Steve Chalke comes off as just wanting to monopolize the conversation. I found this discussion much more congenial, genuine and helpful: (search for) "Did God punish Jesus on the cross? William Lane Craig vs Greg Boyd on Penal Substitution Atonement"
I appreciated Steve fleshing out the concept of wrath as described in Romans 1. I didn't appreciate that he didn't allow Andrew to seemingly flesh out direct punishments God has dealt out in human history and assumed Andrew was condemning the perspective he was focusing on.
Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice, for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are grossly unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient-unto-death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
Please be a good moderator: dont interrupt and dont allow one
guest to interrupt the other.
I don't know what religion Steve Chalke follow but surely he is not christian.
The correct meaning of " Eli,Eli, lama sabachthani" is "for this I was kept!". So he new that his death on the cross was his destiny and excepted it!
“Because i felt” “Because i feel” doesn’t stand as firm ground when it comes to hermeneutics. A non penal substitutional view is a watered down liberal view that takes away the seriousness of Christs death.
Hermeneutics is all about how the reader feels. Person A reads the bible doesn't like they what they read so they make up something that makes them feel better about what they read
Penal substitution didn't exist in the church for the first 1500 years. Saying a non PSA view is a "watered down version" is just self-inflated egotistic nonsense. In all the preachings of the Gospel done by the disciples in Acts, there is no preaching of PSA at all. My biggest beef with PSA is that it denies forgiveness as a key character of God. God needs to maneuver around some of his other qualities in order to gain a capital to effect forgiveness. He can't just forgive. Scriptually, this is just plain nonsense.
@@bakayaroo44 Your use of "forgiveness" there betrays a misunderstanding of what it means when God forgives. It is not emotional or psychological at its heart, although they are involved. It is legal, even justice, at its heart. He cannot forgive legally until his justice has been satisfied. Because of his love, he sent his Son to satisfy that justice so that he can legally forgive us of our sins. In a sense, therefore, sins can never ever ever be forgiven, but repentant believing sinners can because of the penal substitutionary atonement if his Son.
@@tiqvahone No, it doesn't betray my misunderstanding. It just shows that I disagree with your idea of forgiveness. I don't buy that God cannot legally forgive until "justice" has been served. That kind of forensic understanding of forgiveness is birthed out of the Reformers and is absent from the 1st century framework. You are reading Reformed theology into the biblical text. Also the term "justice" is badly mangled in PSA understanding. God freely forgiving is not an injustice, that is how God is, that is perfect justice. Even one of the favourite PSA passage completely obliterates PSA. " they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed" (Romans 3:24-26 NRSV). See, justification is a GIFT, which is given freely, not through a substitutionary sacrifice, and again he PASSED OVER our sins, not gained a necessary capital to forgive it. It's free forgiveness. It is exactly the kind of forgiveness Jesus taught in the parable of the two debt owners, and shown in the father of the prodigal son as well. PSA barely explains Pauline understanding of the Gospel (on close examination it's actually a very bad reading of Paul, as Douglas Campbell has shown in The Deliverance of God and Pauline Dogmatics), and has absolutely no answer to Christ's straightforward teachings and actions of forgiveness.
@@bakayaroo44 Before I answer your point more fully, I'd like to know/understand what your view is on why Jesus had to suffer and die such a death then?
We have major doctrinal differences in the Church today because we have people and some Pastors that are not born again.Listen to their beliefs about the nature of God.God is love,but he also has a vengeful side to his nature.The trouble with some of the Church today is a lack of fear of God,maybe that's connected with the falling away of some of the Church before the man of lawlessness is revealed.Christians thinking that they can fall back into doing evil and being taught ,God will not hold it against you God is Love.Paul warned the Gentile believers;For if God spared not the natural branches,take heed lest he also spare not you.BEHOLD THEREFORE THE GOODNESSS AND SEVERITY OF GOD:ON THEM WHICH FELL SEVERITY;BUT TOWARD YOU GOODNESS,IF YOU CONTINUE IN HIS GOODNESS:OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE CUT OFF.When was the last time you heard a sermon on the SEVERITY OF GOD IN THE CHURCH TODAY? WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD ANYONE PREACH WITH SUCH POWER AND AUTHORITY THAT IT PUT SO MUCH OF THE FEAR OF GOD IN YOU THAT IT GOT YOU BACK ON TRACK,LIVING A HOLY GODLY LIFE?
Probably the most foolproof way to see if someone is regenerated is if they have conviction of sin (John 16:8) and the most clear way to see if there is conviction of ones sin and depravity is their understanding of God's wrath, justice, and judgement. For example you can see unregenerate man squeal at Rom. 3:9-20 verse a Christian with their mouth closed before God recognizing that God must punish sin and his wrath must be satisfied.
David Clark I suppose then that another foolproof way to see if someone is regenerated is if they understand that God is motivated by Love and if they understand Grace. I mean I suppose there must be more than one foolproof way of determining this? But who are we to go about trying to determine such things as they involve other people?
John tells us that whoever is born of God doesnt sin. Their theology is irrelevant. If believing in the correct theology is what gets us to heaven, then infants, retarded people, the unborn, the uneducated, and the comatose would all be doomed for hell.
Jesus did say "be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect". The question isnt if a person has the same opinion as you. But if they live in light of the indwelling of Christ.
All these people on here calling it “Steve Chalkes gospel” lol. The Ransom Theory and/or Christus Victor was the fundamental Christian understanding of the atonement for the first thousand years. Penal substitution is just a rehash of the Catholic Satisfaction Model, which began with Anselm in the 11th century. Luther just made it softer and called it “Penal Substitution”. It’s not Chalkes gospel. And the whole “cosmic child abuse”.. yeah, that actually came from C.S Lewis, not Chalkes smh
I can't find any reference to this by Lewis, and Chalke says in this very interview he got that phrase from a random lady in a pub, not from CS Lewis.
Does 1 Cor. 13 then accurately describe the God of love? 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs. 6Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. 7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8Love never fails
I love every single word that Steve says ❤, but he needs to not interrupt Andrew so much.
I may be wrong but I believe that Heavenly Father wants to heal the wound in Steve's heart that has long been hidden from sight but not from Abba. God the Holy Spirit is about to minister to Steve in the mighty name of Yeshua haMashiach through a cleansing of all traces of the wound from the temple that is his body.
I would like to highly reccomend John Stott's book " The Cross of Christ" to teach people the truth of this matter.
There are 5 main issues with Steve Chalke's view that Jesus did not die on the cross to "satiate God's anger".
1) He has no way to reconcile Jesus death on the cross with his world view. In his view, the way he describes it, Jesus died a horrific and pointless death. It served no purpose. Jesus is under God's curse for no reason, became a curse for us for no reason, was an atonement sacrifice for no reason (all from the theology in the bible). He was lacerated for no reason, had nails driven through him for no reason, and suffocated for no reason (all the reality of crucifixion).
2) Chalke has no way of reconciling us to God in his world view. God just has to forgive us. But there is a problem here. God is perfectly just, perfectly righteous. How can he "just forgive sin", to do so God would have to not only accept the existence of evil, but validate it's place. Evil suddenly becomes ok. This universalist is found nowhere in scripture and is opposed by Jesus himself. For he states that He alone is the way the truth and the light, and that there will be many who say "Lord Lord" and He will say "I never knew you".
3) He appears to have a horrifically poor view of doctrine because he doesn't actually understand it. The analogy of the bus driver, to put it bluntly, is crap! This is neither what the apostles taught or affirmed. Far from correcting good doctrine he appears to be swapping one misunderstanding for another.
The Son willingly died and took the punishment we deserve so that we could be reconciled to the Father.
4) Chalke appears to be under the impression that because something is one way, it cannot be another. Because God is love, He cannot be angry at evil, He must just have angst, making God sound more like a petulant teenager in the process. There are many things in the bible that are both one way and another. God is just and merciful. He cannot be just unless He punishes our sin. He cannot be merciful to us unless he suspends justice. Are we going to argue that God is only subject to part of His nature at one time and hope that He is in a good mood on judgemet day? Or shall we ignore the bits we don't want to think about and make God out to be less than He really is?
5) This is the one I find most ridiculous, a man supposedly learned in the word of God is allowing himself to be taught by people in pubs rather than correcting their misunderstandings. This stuff may sound ridiculous, it always has, was it not written that the cross is a stumbling block for Jews and foolishness to Greeks? The point is that it is not, ans we need to teach people why, not let them teach us about things which they do not understand.
I disagree
@@bobpolo2964 may I ask why?
@@euanthompson God doesn't have to punish sin. He chooses to out of His own sovereign freedom. To reduce the gospel to God satisfying His wrath distorts His character and the Scripture
@@bobpolo2964 shall we say then that God is apathetic to evil?
@@euanthompson No
What I don't get that I was hoping Steve would explain in this debate, is that if Jesus did not die as a substitute for us, why did he have to die? Why?
The practice of taking the life of an animal (blood shed) rather than the life of the human, taught the Seriousness of God’s view of sin, judgment and righteousness. The wages of sin is death. There is no exception when sin is at issue. God is holy and just. The Old covenant sacrificial system was merciful and tactile (people felt and identified with the animal they sacrificed in their place) but it didnt take away the guilt of the sin, it covered it.... over and over again, year after year. Justification and a right standing with God is a free gift granted by faith in the work of Jesus ... where God is both just and justifier of those who believe. God so loved .., that he gave his Son, and his Son willingly laid down his life for the joy that waited beyond the grave. Jesus’ death is merely tragic and trivial if it wasnt necessary to take away sin. I think Chalke underestimates both the seriousness of sin and the necessity of the death (blood) of Christ. It’s at the cross and in the resurrection that death is defeated, sin is forgiven, and God’s love fully revealed once and forever.
I think for this debate the guess was not the appropriate one to represent penal substitution.
"Andrew I'm going to give you the last word here." Andrew gets into the second sentence and Steve cuts him off and finishes, we still don't get to hear what Andrew was going to say.
interrupted
That is how people who know they are not right but don’t want a dissenting opinion to be heard act!
While I like these programs, I found this one most unsatisfying as they seemed to be trying so hard to be. Nice to each other that it was hard to work out exactly where they stood and why.
Steve, while he may be a theological liberal, is pointing out a perspective that was more in line with the teachings of the early church, the mennonites, the greek orthodox church, and the Methodist church. In a sense that Christ did have to die for the sins of the world but not because his people were in danger of being tossed into the lake of fire. Rather, it was to point out 3 things.
1. To show that the just man would inevitably be hated by the world.
2. To show how to overcome sin. Which is to be obedient to God to the point of death.
3. To pay a ransom to satan who was holding humanity in bondage (something that people in the Roman empire would've understood living in a slave society).
Greater than the cross though was the resurrection. Paul tells us that Jesus' resurrection was the first fruits of what was to come. So Jesus in his time on earth showed us how to live, how to love, how to pray. But also how to die and how to overcome sin and death. Saints therefore are to mimic the life of Christ in every way, from birth to death to our resurrection from the dead.
What is hell then? A place where people send themselves by continuing to sin rather than following the ways of the Lord. Hell is about the here and now but it's also about eternity. Jesus told us that whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved but whoever doesnt believe is condemned already. They are already condemned. And they will continue in this way after the resurrection because they've grown to love their sin and wish to wallow in it.
Pop evangelicals are really no different than Catholics in the way they think. Their frame of reference is medieval rather than classical.
If you adopt Steve’s view you’re taking a HUGE risk. There’s a very small possibility his interpretation is correct
BUT his potential mischaracterization of God under such a view is far less egregious than if we were to believe otherwise. If I'm going to error on understandung the nature of God I'd prefer it be that I over estimate his love, forgiveness, mercy, grace, than to undermine it. Im personally agnostic on this issue. Frankly, I'm comfortable not completely understanding how the atonement works. I highly doubt either view has it 100% correct. And yet I can sympathize with portions of each argument. I'm quite thankful this is not a salvation/gospel issue.
@@jdm11060 totally agree
Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice, for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are grossly unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient-unto-death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
God is not just just he is justice. "We must hold God in holy fear/ reverence and awe. Our God is a destroying fire". God cannot be united with impurity and sin. Isn't it His nature to burn up what is dirty like a fire burns by its nature?
No wrath of God poured out on Jesus. No remission of sins through His blood.
We would all be condemned and without hope. And Jesus would have died in vain
Not true bible doesn't even say in one place the wrath of God was poured out on christ. Nor was it a punishment.
Josh Andreapolous, So what was in the cup that Jesus prayed about in Gethsemane? He wasn’t sweating great drops of blood for nothing.
@@1988TheHitman The cup was the crucifiction. Symbolic of the cup he was to drink from. Also of the cup at passover I think, which represented His blood poured out as a drink offering
Bungalo Bill
Either justice will be paid by the actual sinner who transgresses God’s will or it will be paid in full by another who stands in the sinner’s place. Jesus Christ alone can stand in a sinner’s place and receive the punishment that the sinner deserves; if we do not trust Him to satisfy God’s justice for us, then we will have to endure the full brunt of the Father’s wrath ourselves (John 3:36; 14:6).
@@1988TheHitman Yes but if we are punished instead of Christ then we are being punished for our actual sin. We are guilty of and punished forever (Hell)
Why the price had to be paid by one who was not guilty before we can be declared not guilty through his sacrifice. In Christ is to be viewed as innocent
Why Jesus suffering was temporary. Because he was suffering but was without sin
What is wrong with these people? It is Jesus to whom all authority is given. It is He who will judge in righteousness. If on that day you died in your sins, you will not only be eternally condemned for what you wrought, you will continue in your sins eternally. God does not regenerate the hell bound and give them a "heart of flesh." They live with their hatred of God and Christ and goodness and life and live and light FOREVER!
To Steve Chalke, please read the following that's taken from:
JOB 2: 9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.” 10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. SHALL WE RECEIVE GOOD FROM GOD, AND SHALL WE NOT RECEIVE EVIL?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
1 PETER 1:18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST, LIKE THAT OF A LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH OR SPOT. 20 HE WAS FOREKNOWN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
And you say you're a Pastor?
The host cutting off the guests mid sentence, multiple times, appears disrespectful of the guests trying to make their statements, but also disrespectful of viewers trying to listen to them.
The problem in most Protestant debates: “No I’m the one taking the Bible seriously!”
And Catholics dont take the Bible seriously enough
"Whoever drops the most decontextualized Bible verses wins!" - Evangelical Protestant peanut gallery
My view: first of all Jesus and God are one within the trinity. Separate persons yes but one as in they have the same character and plan. The father God implemented the plan of salvation and The Son carried out the fathers plan willingly! It was also in Jesus will for this to be done! He wasn’t forced or punished by the father. Second, I do believe in penal atonement, but not in the sense that most people are describing it. Jesus did take our place. The wages of our sins and transgressions is death! What did Jesus do? He died in our place! I don’t like using the phrase he was punished in our place. It was he died in our place. God will not allow sin to live on. Our sin was put on Jesus and he died in our place. The gruesome crucifixtion was carried out by sinful man. The shedding of blood is a representation of death.
The reason there is so much confusion and division in the church ultimately comes down to our failure to have a universal orthodox response to the theory of evolution which in mainstream science is seen as proven fact & both the Catholic and Protestant seminaries embrace it as truth!! This is our whole problem since the implications challenge our previously simplistic theology of original sin leading to physical death (not just spiritual death). Evangelicals are divided over this as some demand a literal 6 day creation a few thousand years ago whilst others go more with mainstream science and say Genesis creation account is largely allegorical (and various beliefs somewhere in between). Just as we allow Christians to hold different views on creation we are then by implication allowing different views or emphasis on the atonement of Christ, with some seeing it more to shame us for our sin than to actually pay for it as such. The truth is whatever view we take, Christ has ultimately exposed sinful human nature for how corrupt and vile it is and offered us a way of escape into a way of love and forgiveness. As long as our lives change to please God there is the same end result.
I think is worst to have a 30min video of a topic (20min of agreement and 7min of actual disagreement) than not having it at all; left me wanting to hear the actual desagrement that they were getting at just in the end there.
Jesus isn't a substitute, instead, he's the actual article to whom death points to and is the final definition. We die because the principle of his death was enacted and needed because Adam had forsaken the one whom his life and existence depended. The penalty for rejecting God was and is death. It's not about the subjected intellectual argument, but the actual objective nature of life and death. All these concepts preceded the acts of sin and Adam's sin. The argument then becomes like a chicken and egg one.
The title substitute is one of those umbrella terms that people can use, but it can lead to carelessness in study, because it can excuse explanation.
Jesus Christ saved before the world existed:
Ephesians 1
:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
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 immortal
Titus 1
:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
1 Peter 1
:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
I so agree as Jesus was one of us, and died for us to show us that faith works, and he did remove the curse of death for the faithful. It is the law of faith. Jesus was never a substitute but he represented mankind.
Jesus was a representative of mankind, a kinsman redeemer of everyone, and his death proved faith can resurrect us when we die. Jesus therefore removed the curse of death, and he was not punished but he was forgiven by his Father, and is now in heaven as the first fruit of resurrection.
God gets angry , but it’s not an abusive anger.
Fathers get angry at the kids they love. Why ? Out care and protection, to train them to hate evil and so on.
In Hebrew anger is anger ( i’m Hebrew speaker as main language)
What happened to Uzia when david tried to bring the ark, what happened to sons of Eli , king Saul , sons of Israel in desert including Moses.
This is something that liberal Christianity needs to get, that God is full of love and full of holiness.
Let’s not confuse his long suffering ( which means patient with his anger ) with hippie love
Father's Heart What a wholly inadequate argument. While a father may get angry or want to train their child in righteousness, at no time if my son were to reject me would I want to send him to eternal torment. This is not an adequate analogy.
My friend, God doesn’t send people to hell, people choose to go there. God through Jesus offering to every man to choose life eternal. But wages of sin is death.
I train my children to walk right before God , but if they choose not to, I would be very sad about it, but it’s their choice.
There are sheep and goats, there are those that build house on the rock or sand.
Father's Heart Again, not good logic. Who would willingly “choose” to go to hell? Makes no sense. The hell you speak of is largely a construct of western Christianity, a combination of Greek and Nordic mythology, sprinkled with a little of Dante’s inferno. No one in their right mind would choose hell.
I’m Jew , it’s speaks of eternal punishment and eternal blessing after death in Old Testament.
R u a Christian? Is bible a truth for u?
I believe most people Lie about the scriptures. Steve is not alone. Most people lie about their knowledge of God's mind, lie about what heaven is like, and about what hell is like.
It seems that faith is directed towards the unknown, and not the known. In that case, how can the assertion of the knowledge of God's mind be the right answer?
I am not a Christian, and for multiple reasons. First, I was not baptized into the faith, nor were my parents overly religious and it was kind of peripheral to me. However and most importantly, as I got older, it became clear to me that Christianity is not merely the religion of Europe, it is the culture and foundation of Europe. And it is by virtue of my being a part of the Western world, that I am a "cultural Christian". I'm okay with that. As a West African black Yorùbá man, I could not be a Christian. Culturally - yes, but by blood - it is impossible!!!
By the way, I hope you just don't dismiss my view here, because I'm not alone in this thinking. As a black West African, neither the Bible, nor the Koran, nor other non black African scriptures affirm me as the epitomy of human beings. Think of Shem and Ham, or sections of the Hadith that truly equates being black to being animals. The latter view is not necessarily a non Christian view either. Hence, the unique view of both Christianity and Islam of black people as lower animals that are not just worthy of being enslaved, but are commanded to be enslaved (again reference Shem and Ham).
I am actually not upset about the core of these two religions' views about black people. We, black Africans, are the villains that are viewed as the opposition to the goodness that the Bible confers onto the beautifully lighter Europeans or that there Hadith imbues on the lighter Arabs.. It makes sense to me that the different religions favor their own peoples. Some may try to say Christianity is not European. However, I beg to differ. The entire character of the Western world is shaped by Christianity. Clearly, neither you, nor I can say the West is shaped by Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Odù Ifá of my Yorùbá people of West Africa. Black people voluntarily and involuntarily being converted into Christianity and/or Islam is the ultimate suicide of the African soul. As the situation currently stands, the African soul being lost is the ultimate vision of Christianity and Islam fulfilled. At best, Africa remains on bended knees with arms stretched out towards the East and West. Unfortunately, the unfalsifiable God concept of Christianity and Islam is the seal that keeps black Africa as the bottom in the eyes of the West and East.
The real call for the black soul, is not to reject Christianity and Islam for the sake of Europeans and Arabs, but to vehemently reject them for the sake of the reclamation of black African souls.
I do think Steve is playing into the hands of skeptics (logical thinking) and non believers. He is breaking down the walls of the unfalsifiable delusions. Although I think he is moving the conversation towards truth, his questioning further breaks down the foundation of the faith. This could be helpful in releasing the African souls from hundreds of years of bondage, and the loss of our own souls and personhood.
Akindele Bankole There’s only one truth and its for everyone. Phillip converts an African in Acts 8. Ethiopia has been Christian for almost 1700 years now. I know Ethiopia is East African not West African, but if you have an Ethiopian Orthodox Church in your area you should go visit. They practice traditional, historical Christianity
@@qazattack4 Thank you for your response. I actually agree with you that there is only one truth to the claims of creation. I also believe that the truth is universal and understandable to all at the same level and would transcend cultures, classes, and races. The fact that most of the religious concepts we have to date are mostly devisive and retributive suggest to me that we are not near that universal truth yet.
Akindele Bankole I never thought about it that way. But I think that if you say there’s only one truth, that’s naturally divisive. Those who believe the truth vs those who don’t. Do you think that there could a religion that could solve that problem?
@@qazattack4 That is a good question. Although I think if there was a one stop religious shop, it would be obvious to everyone equally.
If there is such a cohesive universal message for all human beings, I can't imagine it in any specific language, to a specific people, at a specific time, for merely one or a few specific reason(s), and to satisfy a desiring or wanting God.
However, I can see individuals or even a people interpreting what they believe the universal message is, using their own stories, environment, language, traditions etc..., to shape the religious text.
Akindele Bankole I disagree that everyone would accept the truth if they heard it. In Christianity we believe that people are fallen and corrupt but still made in the image of God. Which means that people are both drawn towards the truth/God and at the same time are drawn towards evil and lies.
Also I think Christianity has proven itself to be a religion for all nations and all cultures. I just looked up the numbers and here’s the number of Christians on each continent in 2010:
North/South America: 804m
Europe: 566m
Sub Saharan Africa: 516m
Asia/Pacific: 285m
North Africa/Middle East: 13m
Christians are everywhere and make up almost 1/3 of the global population.
I would actually like to see Justin do a series on what HE personally believes.... I thought he might be more in line with Andrews beliefs but then I see him endorsing bruxy cavey's book......
Hello Steve Chuck...read your Bible.. John 10:17-18 " For this reason the Father loves me, because I LAY DOWN MY LIFE that I MAY PICK IT UP AGAIN." Read it!!!! Believe it! Those who change God's words end up in hell! You think you can correct God the Father. You are DEAD wrong. I pray for your soul.
I wrote a book that presents a new model and middle ground perspective between the Penal view and Christus Victor. I call it Perfectus Liberatio. In short the wrath of God is not directed AT Christ, but operates THROUGH Christ. God’s wrath is his moral perfection being revealed against all that is contrary to moral perfection. Christ is the sinless Lamb. Thus God can transfer all sin upon his sinless Lamb and condemn it as being in the wrong-in the sinless perfection of the Son. For sin was unable to accuse, condemn or to lay a charge against the Son for any wrongdoing. Like trying to stick the barbs of Velcro onto a smooth mirror, sin cannot attach itself to the Son- for the Son offers no “hooks” for sin to grab hold of. Therefore because sin cannot justify its presence in the Son, the Father’s wrath is able to condemn sin as being “in the wrong” IN THE SINLESS perfection of the Son.
Like pouring a vile of deadly bacteria into a bucket of pure bleach, the bacteria does NOT infect the bleach. Rather the bleach destroys the bacteria. In the cross the sinfulness of sin is undone by the sin-less nature of the Son. The wrath of God is the basis by which sin is condemned THROUGH the Som. But the Son is NOT being condemned (Rom. 8:3).
There is more to say. Feel free to buy my short, 100 page book that begins with a parable story to prepare you for the later commentary on the atonement. Go to Amazon and type either my name or “The Fall and Redemption of Shadowmere.”
Peace
Agree.. I think there's a harmony to be found in the middle that both Greg Boyd and NT Wright speak of and promote. Will check your book out..
Stilgar74 thanks for the reply and for being willing to check out my book. My aim was to write a book that did justice to the Christus Victor view but also gave a strong basis for God’s wrath condemning sin (but not interpreting that as inflicting punishment on his Son to pay off his offended justice). Would love to know your thoughts after you read it. Shalom.
TY
I do not understand why God would punish Jesus more than other humans that are a lot less loyal to God's word.
The Bible argues that the punishment must fit the crime; therefore there can be no eternal punishment for finite earthly transgressions
Isn't interesting? Chalke often comes up with human perspectives and influences while Wilson is very concerned about the biblical dimensions.. W. doesn't want to actualize some timeless or eternal things, attributes or godly behaviour... He has no inner compulsory for being modern
Sin's judgement is death. Death is verified by blood shed. The actual physical abuse and pain of Christ was carried out by men who were showing their true nature and heart toward God, proving their fallen nature and in the grips of 'the god of this world'. So while the physical suffering of Christ was intense, it was not the physical suffering that contributed to redemption; it was Christ entering into death, and death having no actual claim or right on the Perfect One, He passed on through death and on to resurrection on behalf of all those who accept this substitutionary death.
Omg thank you! Finally someone who understands lol. You couldn’t have said it any better.
So if Christ just needed to die, why didn't he die of old age, or a suddent death for example? Why did he need to be tortured and be crucified, dying in one of the most inhumane ways possible? Why was he so scared in the garden before the crucifiction? Why did he claim "Why have you forsaken me" on the cross if he wasn't being punished?
God said to Adam and Eve
If you sin you will surely die.
And beauty was that it was not another created being who took Adam's place BUT GOD HIMSELF.
There is an answer to this problem!
There are two basic underlying assumptions which determine how we interpret scripture. We can assume God "created" his law and imposed it upon us along with imposed penalties for violation, or, we can imagine Gods law is his "character" and all life is designed to exist within harmony with his character of love, deviation from natural design law results in death.
The church has traditionally assumed Gods law is like mans law (God "created it) therefore the Plan of Salvation has been interpreted to fit into this scenario. The fact Catholicism altered the 10 Commandments is proof the church believes God created his law, indeed it would be ridiculous to think to alter Gods law if it was believed to be his character. Another evidence is the natural conclusion some have come to in thinking Gods law is against us, against Christ, legalism, faulty and abolished, this picture opposes the concept that Gods law is his character, and that Jesus, who was "sinless according to the law", is the exact representation of God. The church believes God is law-less (he exists outside of his law) at the same time as believing Jesus was law-full (his character was in perfect harmony with the law), which suggests God and Jesus are "not one".
Ps 119 tells us Gods law is eternal, perfect, holy, perfect, pure, true and faultless, it equates Gods law with his character!
The belief that God punishes Jesus in our place assumes "God is lawless" therefore can be unforgiving, revengeful, vindictive and punitive.
But if we interpret scripture through the lens of a God who is sinless according to his own law, exactly as Jesus was, then we will not come to the conclusion that Jesus came to pay a death debt held against us, but rather we will see that Jesus came to "heal and save", by healing the human condition back to lawfulness. "God is love" and "God is life" therefore "love is life", we are lawless, we do not love as we ought therefore we must be healed in order for sin to go into remission and our characters brought back into harmony with a law-full God.
Paul in Romans 1 tells us 3 times what “God’s wrath" is, it is God "letting us go"! God never punishes humans, instead he "gives us up", "abandons us", "forsakes us", "turns his back on us" and "gives us over" to our own sinful desires. This is the greatest act of love, it is giving us absolute freedom to either accept healing or reject it. As God "forsook Jesus" so he forsakes all of us. As the human Jesus overcome sin until he was "made perfect", thus going from death to life, so we also, if we have accepted the remedy (a loving heart and mind) and are being healed through his spirit, we will have his love in us therefore his life in us.
I declare God innocent of a lawless character. And it begs the question, which God will we bow down to, the lawless God who behaves like Satan, or the lawful God who is like Christ? The time of Elijah is upon us.
Ainsley Stevenson beautifully expressed! I agree.
Wow, thanks for putting all that together, Ainsley!
Amen, 1 John also bears witness that love is life and we know God if we love, and along with John 17:3 shows us that age lasting life is knowing God!
God is Love.
God is not lawless.
God hates sin.
God must punish Satan and humans because of sin and lawlessness.
God made a way of escape Himself for humanity from eternal punishment through the cross of Christ Jesus, by faith in Christ Jesus and what He accomplished for us....because He so loves us
It's wonderful to think and imagine God never getting angry with us or being jealous for us to love Him and not this world because it has been marked for destruction by fire because of our sin.
It would be lovely to think about a God who tenderly and lovingly heals people and raises the dead but doesn't cast people into hell.
We might not like to think about a God Who once drowned all humanity and creatures, save but a few on the ark....because of their sin.
A God Who chose and loved a nation for Christ in time to be born through, but destroyed other nations and people's because of their sin....and also destroyed members of His own chosen people, because of their sin.
Jesus is a loving Saviour Who upon His return will give order to separate the wheat from the chaff, the goats from the sheep. Our God who created Hell for the devil and His angels (they didn't get a second chance when they rebelled against God) but enlarged Hell to also contain those from humanity who because of their unbelief in Christ will be cast in there too.
A God Who declares that we live then die and then comes our judgement. Who at the great white throne will open the book of life to see who's name from all humanity is written in it and if it's there we will inherit eternal life, but if it's not then we will suffer eternal punishment.
Our God is love, our God is Holy, Our God is merciful, forgiving and kind for this reason 'we have sinned and sin is not of God, He hates it and it makes Him angry'
He is not like us and is far wiser than us in regards to the righteousness and justice that His throne is founded upon....and cannot be moved.
The love of God is seen in Christ Jesus paying for our sin because no one else could pay the cost except God.
The wrath of God is seen in His final dealing with sin and all the evil and death that has flowed from it....and we are not without it.
Though through Adams sin in the garden all humanity experiences the consequential punishment of that sin which is death to all his descendants, we thank God daily that through the sacrificial obedience of Jesus Christ we can enjoy the incredible and most graciously loving gift of Life eternal by placing our hope and trust in Him🙏🏾
@@MerrillllirreM You have interpreted scripture through the assumption that God wrote/created his law and imposed it upon us, along with penalties for violation, you have rejected the concept that Gods law is his character therefore he will never harm us. There are two ways to interpret scripture, one where God is the judge who condemns and punishes lawbreakers…this interpretation assumes God created his law therefore lives outside of it (he can break, alter and abolish his law) and the other is where God is the Great Physician who diagnoses and heals us…this interpretation assumes Gods law is his character (hence not one jot or iota can vanish from the law). You use the courtroom God to interpret scripture, I use the Hospital God …both Gods are not one because they oppose each other.
The claim in Psalms 119 is that Gods law is equal to God…the law and God are one and the same. If Gods law is Gods character then he cannot break it without becoming a sinner and dying like us. ‘God is love’ and ‘God is life’ therefore Gods law is love and life, when we sin we are out of harmony with love and life, therefore die, God is no longer in us, his law is no longer in us. Without Gods ‘law of love’ living in us we are lawless therefore do not have God nor life. Hence we need healing in order to be saved, Jesus came to ‘heal and save’, we are healed when we have a ‘change of heart’, when we ‘turn from sin’, when Gods law is ‘written on our heart and mind’ (new covenant), that is when we move from death to life. Jesus came to ‘heal’, he did not come to ‘pay’ off our sin with a live innocent human sacrifice blood, he did not come to appease the wrath of God, that is pagan thinking. He did not come to change Gods heart and mind, he came to change our hearts and minds…he did this by revealing the truth about Gods character (God is not lawless) so that we could love and trust him rather than hide in fear…this is why he kept asking, ‘Who do you say I am?’, he needed us to see God through him.
If God created his law he is lawless and as you suggest he can behave lawlessly, but I suggest he cannot act outside of his law, he cannot deny himself.
You have described a God who is love…except when he burns his enemies in hell, a God who is not lawless…except when he breaks his law by refusing to forgive and love his enemies, a God who hates sin…but is willing to sin (murder, lie) in his response to sin.
You assume man is immortal (eternal punishment) even tho scripture says ‘man is mortal’ and ‘God alone is immortal’.
In your assumption that God must punish his enemies you deny the concept that sin alone punishes and destroys man, indeed, if sin punishes and kills sinners why would God need to bring them back to life in order to re-punish or re-kill them.
Paul in Romans 1 tells us exactly what the "wrath of God’ is and he is in agreement with the entire bible…the ‘wrath of Gods happens when God ‘let’s go’, gives up on them’, ‘turns his back’, ‘gives them over to their own desires’ or ‘abandons them’…God does not lift a finger or think even one thought to harm a single human, not even Satan himself, all he does is stop providing artificial respiration.
Jesus was sinless according to the law but you suggest that when he returns he will revoke the forgiveness he once bestowed upon his enemies, he will no longer love and forgive them…this Jesus will become lawless like us…you assume God can change and deny himself.
You assume Jesus "paid" for our sin by becoming a live innocent human sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and thus change Gods mind from doing us harm. You assume that when God ‘declares’ us innocent it solves the problem of sin…it doesn’t, a declaration of innocence from God is not a ‘change of heart". ‘We must be born again" to inherit eternal life. If judges in our legal system forgave criminals and set them free the problem of crime would not be solved, but if a healer changed hearts and minds then sin would go into remission.
I understand you have merely presented the church’s traditional understanding of the plan of salvation but I’m merely suggesting that it’s a mix of paganism and Christianity, so subtle that it is accepted as if it is completely truth.
The Pharisees worshipped a God who killed his enemies hence they had no problem killing Jesus, they did not recognise a God who looked like Jesus. When Paul was converted he went away to re-read scripture under a new light, the light of Jesus which revealed the true character of God. Hence Paul went from worshipping an angry punitive God who led him to kill Christian’s, to worshipping a God like Jesus, giving his life for his enemies. Peter, before he was converted to the God who was revealed in Jesus, cut off the soldier ear, but after he was converted to a law-full God like Jesus, he instead gave his own life as a living sacrifice to his enemies. It makes a difference which God we worship and serve because we become like that which we worship and serve.
When Jesus read to Old Testament did he see an unforgiving God who burnt his enemies in pain, suffering, agony and torment throughout all eternity or did he see an innocent God? If Jesus saw a lawless God then Jesus was a liar for representing him as a law-full God and claiming they were ‘one’.
I think all Christians, rather than instantly defending their church and tradition, should question the lawless God they worship and serve for he may not be the one and only true God, he may be an imposter, a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Penal substitution doesn't sound too good when presented like this but I'm not clear what the alternative interpretation is...why did Jesus have to die on the cross anyway? To pay the price for our sins to whom? To Himself?
Look up the Christus Victor view, the moral influence view, or Rene Gierard's view. All are viable alternatives.
A Christus Victor plus recapitulation model, with some ransom view elements, is the ancient consensus. Christ assumed everything we are by nature so that we may become everything He is by grace. He submitted to our cursed condition and the injustice of the sinful world, entering death itself for our sake, so that we would be raised up with Him. Man is no longer enslaved to death after we were cut off from God, the source of Life. The cross of Christ is the Tree of Life in God's new creation. Death has lost its sting. Eastern iconography of the resurrection depicts Christ, having burst open the gates of Sheol, lifting Adam and Eve up out of the grave.
@@ElasticGiraffe But if he just need to die to share our nature, then why didn't he die of old age, or of suddent death for example? Why did he need to be tortured and be crucified, dying in one of the most inhumane ways possiblem? Why wad he so scared in the garden before the crucifiction? Why did he claim "Why have you forsaken me" on the cross if he wasn't being punished?
@@whitehorse3724 Jesus did not die of natural causes or by accident because He submitted to death voluntarily, and moreover the violent, fallen world could not tolerate God in the flesh. He had to offer Himself willingly to the Father. He had to die a humiliating death and be numbered among the transgressors. He had to be raised up both as an offering to God and to meet the prince of the power of the air in his own domain. He died with His arms extended to embrace the world that put Him to death. He was afraid in the garden of Gethsemane because He was about to suffer a terrible betrayal, not only by Judas turning Him over to the authorities but also by His closest disciple Peter publicly disowning Him, a well as a brutal flogging and torturous death. He was so anxious that He sweat beads of blood. From the cross, Jesus prayed Psalm 22, which begins with a cry of dereliction, but read on. The tone changes at v. 24: "For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him." David was not forsaken by God, and neither was Christ. The godhead was not divided, and the natures of Christ were not separated.
@@ElasticGiraffe But why did God forsaken him? Jesus said that he could bring an army of angels to rescue him, but he didn't. So why didn't he just die a peaceful death instead of one of the most horrible ways of dying, if we only needed him to resurrect? Also many Christians in the past died terrible deaths, but they sang hymns of joy while they were dying, so it wouldn't make sense that Jesus was so afraid to the point of sweating blood if it was just the fear of suffering death. You said that he "had to die a humiliating death and be numbered among the transgressors" but why if he didn't need to be punished?
The wages of sin are death Jesus didn't pay for our sins he collected our wages ..... end of.
Hey let's get 2 people in a room who we'd like to hear discuss something interesting and just have them and the host all talk at once for most for most of the video :D
Thanks again for awesome debates.
Could you do one on annihilation vs eternal torture
Is there a difference between eternal torture and annihilation, both assume God harms humans. Perhaps the truth is, God is innocent and sin is guilty, sin alone kills us! Hence we need saving, not from God, but from the sin that is killing us.
Ainsley Stevenson And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28, ESV)
@@TheApologeticDog
The very next words:
"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows."
Fear he, fear not. Hm.
Next Scripture says
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven."
And in Isaiah 45
"Not I Yehovah? And no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; none beside me.
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I God, and none else.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Surely, shall say, in Yehovah have I righteousness and strength: to him shall come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
In Yehovah shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory."
This prophecies of the final judgement when all shall confess Christ.
Again
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven."
@@ainsleystevenson9198 I do feel it reveals Gods true nature/character. Seeing and finding out that The One True God IS LOVE and that he has and never was planning on tutoring people and demons for ever and ever till eternity, but it rather shows another side of Gods true character we have not been taught.
Now you ask Why. Well dont you want to get know your best friend a little better?
And for a lot of people out there searching for truth, eternal hell is a deciding line on whether they choose to follow God or not. And don't know or have't heard that God and the bible don't teach about eternal torment. That this teaching is a Greek doctrine that entered into Christianity by false prophets manipulating Bible teachings.
God is love. God isn't torture
Or a three-way discussion: endless conscious torment vs. annihilationism vs. universal reconciliation.
It's almost impossible to get through the shows containing these two men. There's an asinine amount of interruptions.
Mr Chalke seems to talk about putting bible at the center, then uses a story to explain what led to him changing his view. To be clear, I am not a christian
Surprised by Steve's position on substitutions, thought he was a lot more liberal than this. I think we are all liable to self reflective interpretation of Scripture without first plain hearing the writer.
With regards to sin Steves view is such a rich person's view of the world. My sin has its own consequences, this is fine for rich western free agents but tell that to a sex trafficked woman that the sin in her life is have these consequences. This is simply inconsistent. Sin surely deprives the whole world now of blessing but it truly robs God of eternal glory. Why share the Gospel if its just about now, what our future hope if not the death of all sin and eternal glory to God.
A sex trafficked women who is forced against her will is not guilty for the sin she is forced to perform. God knows why we do things and if we do them due to our own desires then they are sins no matter how we try to justify them. If however they are forced upon us then God will know this also..
He is distinguishing between G-d punishing people and the consequences of sin manifesting out of humanity and nature. He is not distinguishing between a person suffering for his or her own sin and third parties suffering because of pathological behavior. I think you missed his point unless you think G-d is up in heaven throwing lightening bolts. Also think he is arguing what he thinks the Bible teaches which i think is fair. You can disagree but it is a matter of opinion.
Can you explain what his position actually is on subtitiution?
All I'm getting from this is he doesn't believe in penal substitution and he doesn't believe in god's punishment.
I can't get a clear idea about what he *does* believe.
Thank goodness he puts God above himself. Please.....
I don't hold a lot of Steve's beliefs (the guy with glasses), but I do reject Penal substitution.
have you read Isaiah 53?
@@claytonweaver2684 yes. The case doesn't have to be applied only to Penal substitution.
I have more theological reasons against Penal substitution then biblical.
Unfortunately, Steve's position here wasn't explained or clarified, and moreover, he told stories almost as an authority on why a theological position had to be wrong. To argue from story instead of scripture leaves one on shaky ground.
Jesus was sinless for us in our place
I’m EO so my dog in this fight is from a third angle, but it is annoying to waste time defending against the blatant assumption made by the “defender” that he is comfortable with “the whole Word of God” and the other is not. The great downfall of modern evangelicalism: it’s hubris.
Propitiation is being given mercy, as a reconciling judgement. Without judgement there can be not mercy.
It's about the interpretation of the word wrath
we owe the death penalty for transgression of Gods Instruction "Law" death not just physical death
but that of the soul as well
@bakayaroo44 Steve Chalke's view of "forgiveness" betrays a misunderstanding of what it means when God forgives. It is not emotional or psychological at its heart, although they are involved. It is not an anger (wrath) management issue. It is legal, even justice, at its heart. He cannot forgive legally until his justice has been satisfied. Because of his love, he sent his Son to satisfy that justice so that he can legally forgive us of our sins. In a sense, therefore, sins can never ever ever be forgiven, but repentant believing sinners can because of the penal substitutionary atonement if his Son. I am 18 mins in and none of them has still mentioned this core issue: God's legal/justice, of which his wrath and punishment are a result. PS. Now finished the video and not a single mention of the root issue which is God's justice. They mentioned judgement (from around 20 mins) and punishment but both those are secondary to God justice based on his law.
Gods justice makes things whole. It heals, sometimes through the destruction of our flesh.
It’s nothing to do with a legal issue...we as people perceive things that way if we are under the law in our conscience.
He forgives because He loves us. Love doesn’t impute evil. He has never reckoned to us our trespasses to begin with. We were only enemies in our mind. That’s why we have the ministry of reconciliation.
Chalke’s version of “a” god is an idol! He has made “God” in his own version to make him feel good about himself and his own sin. He uses these emotional situations to draw out his false understanding of “what/who” God is!!
Bless your heart, but why emotionalize, brother?
Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice, for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are grossly unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient-unto-death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
Vengeance is mine I will repay says the Lord. Old and New testament. Therefore love your enemies. But that's in the Bible oops sorry I brought it up. I'd like to know what he thinks about God's justice.
The way you talk is cruel and sarcastic and lacks humility and love. Are you really interested in listening to what your brother Steve has to say (and then disagreeing in love and even trying to persuade him to your view), or do you not think you are brothers at all? Ephesians 4:1-6 is a great passage to pray on here.
I'm sorry that my sarcastic comment distracted from the issue at hand even though God is sometimes sarcastic in the Bible. I will remove the seven offensive words and post my comment again, because I really am trying to convince from the Bible.
And based on my recollection of the video from a year ago when I watched it, no I really don't believe we are brothers. We Believe something completely different about who God is and about who Jesus is.
Could I ask you, did Jesus obey Ephesians 4 when he interacted with the Pharisees? Was he cruel and unloving and lacked humility when he pointed out their errors in very strong terms? Calling them names, saying they were leading people astray from God?
The difference I have strikes at the very heart of the Gospel, the very nature of who God is.
so would you be willing to interact? Do you think god is vengeful? Does he have wrath towards sin? Can the guilty go unpunished - is that Justice?
Vengeance is mine I will repay says the Lord. Old and New testament. Therefore love your enemies. that's in the Bible. I'd like to know what he thinks about God's justice.
It’s so refreshing to hear Steve talk the way he does about all of these debate topics. As a Christian for over thirty years it confuses me why people so often want to keep what to me are distorted views of God. Steve has been so clear that’s it all boils down to interpretation. When Andrew says he believes the bible is the word of God and that Steve is pulling away from that or writing his own version he fails to realise that he is doing the same thing. We all bring interpretation to the text. People like Steve who are fighting against certain views God are doing so because they love God and don’t wish to see him misrepresented. Neither did Jesus which is why He had more to say to the religious leaders in regards to challenging their beliefs than he did to the general public. I haven’t seen many positive comments towards Steve on any of these debates but I want to thank him for being brave enough to challenge the status quo. He certainly is an encouragement to me.
How can I maintain my faith in the Atonement, and the New Testament, when archaeology has proven there was no Exodus, or rather, it didn't happen as the Bible records it. Moses was based upon a Pharoaoh who believed in monotheism. I am struggling to believe in Jesus, pray for me.
My belief in penal substitution tied all the theological points together so beautifully.
1.) God hates sin because it is an assault against HIM - His holiness, revealed in His law.
2.) ALL things come FROM God, and all things WILL RETURN to God.
HOLINESS.
GOD is WHOLLY devoted to Himself because He is ALSO WHOLLY. Holy (devoted to Himself) because He is WHOLLY (whole, needing only Himself to BE ALIVE. Free of inner conflict, and cosmic sickness, which we call sin). ALL comes from God and ALL will return to God.
SIN
Sin is cosmic sickness. God is light, sin is darkness. GOD is love for God, but sin is hatred of God, idolatry.
The righteous return to God, being HOLY (wholly devoted to God), even as GOD is wholly devoted to Himself.
SINNERS return to God (but since Light cannot look on darkness, and God cannot look on iniquity. Sin cannot stand in His Presence), sin and sinners return to GOD in PUNISHMENT, eternal suffering.
I really admired and worshiped Jesus for the price I believed) He paid on that cross!
Jesus, Almighty God, and ALSO man: the HIGHEST God, the lowest worm of a man on the cross)
Jesus actually being declared our sin by God. Meaning, God loved us so much that, in His eternal Being (past, present, and future) there was 3 hours when Jesus (God the Son, part of the Triune God) had the blight of sin upon Himself because God so love us!
Experiencing God's wrath even as sinners experience God's wrath.
Didn't just die, but actual had His life's blood - the life of the flesh - spilled from His veins to satisfy God's penalty for sin (to vindicate God's HOLY nature, ie, all returns to God, and sin does so in punishment because sin is totally opposite God's Nature.)
WOW! Such a God is to be awesomely worshiped and admired for doing this, and yet...
Now I am being told Jesus simply... died after 6 short hours of normal pain and suffering, albeit at its physical worst.
Minus the mental and spiritual unspeakable anguish I had always believed He experienced on the cross?
Well, that just waters down Jesus's atoning sacrifice for me. He thus suffered only 6 hours of pain on a cross? There are martyrs who experienced dying agony that makes the short 6 hours of Jesus's pain pale by comparison.
I am disillusioned, hanging on to believing in Jesus by a string. I NEED Jesus. That's what's keeping me from deconverting, and my terror ever since I renounced Him for making me an unsexy bumbling physically repulsive human being, laughed at by the in-crowd's good-looking girls. When I got so angry for not loving me enough to allow me to be an attractive male for I renounced Him, against the Spirit's plea not to do so, AND NOW HE WON'T TAKE ME BACK!
Painful to discover Jesus's love for me did not endure to the end. Because even after that fatal time I renounced Him, a short time afterwards I began to renounce Him again BUT THAT TIME I stopped, and thought about what I was doing, and STOPPED, so as not to renounce him.
GOD knows I didn't 100% totally renounce Him, and yet, He is too hard-up now to forgive me?
And these preachers saying when someone commits the unpardonable sin, they are so hardened they no longer care one iota about God. I CARE! Yet, Jesus had abandoned me.
Penal Substitution is a volcano-god interpretation and the most brilliant of Bible Scholars have been taking notice, for quite some time now. There are other interpretational options that the laity at large are grossly unaware of. Basically, God allowed His Son to "lay down" His own life, rather than "punish". The Father made a sacrifice that the obedient-unto-death Son was willing to make, though He struggled in prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane.
If God has to punish Jesus before he can love us, then God is not love, as it is claimed. If it is then said that you have to accept Jesus as your personal saviour, or you will spend eternity in hell, it seems to suggest that you come to love God through fear, even though it is patently obvious that fear is never the path to love. Penal substitution is a pernicious doctrine that makes atheism the more humane option. When you’re dead, you’re dead. No frying in hell forever giving God his jollies, not to mention what it reveals about the unacknowledged anger of those who espouse this tragic theology.
Well said. Penal substitution is another example of mans perversion, not Gods.
Norma Odenthal
I can only conclude, Norma, that you mistakenly think of yourself as a good person.
@@deniss2623
I can only conclude that you are mistaken.
@@normaodenthal8009
Mistaken about what?
@@deniss2623
Your previous conclusion.
Dear Santa,
Define “good,” so I can claim my reward. Oh, dear! Must have forgotten that God isn’t Santa.
Merry Christmas 🎄
I think Steve Chalke has weak views of Jesus' divinity and of original sin. That is why he doesn't need or like the theories of satisfaction & penal substitution. We need all the theories of the atonement-it is fine to say we prefer one more than another but we shouldn't reject the ones we don't like especially when they are biblically based.
Not a lot of Bible being thrown out there. Sounds like to people giving their opinions. Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what either of these 2 feel, or what their opinions are .... only thing that matters is what the Bible actually says. I would have liked their opinions backed up by scripture
Penal substitution is in the Bible BUT it was never NEEDED by God FOR HIS OWN SAKE. "The Law is NOT for the righteous but for the wicked, ungodly, rebels etc....". 1st Timothy. WHO is The Righetous One? God. His Son. Jesus was THE lamb of God. Innocent and Just, yet sacrificed for the guilty according the Law - which is NOT for the righetous... God did not give the Law to Israel for His sake!! The perfect God's Law and all its sacrifices that represent the last Lamb (of God)- were NOT there to satisfy angry God's justice but to show His ultimate love for the WORLD.
Jesus took the punishment upset the authorized people who hated him for speaking out
Jesus was and is God Steve!!!!
"God cannot look upon sin" comes from Habbakkuk 1:13, go read it again, it says God does look upon sin.
We are responsible for our sins - just as we are responsible for the things we do on this earth - we do not have a license to sin because of Christ death - being Christians we are called to live a life of Christ and only do things that He will approve of and do not do anything that He will never accept......Sr. Lucia "more souls go to hell because of the sins of the flesh than for any other reason " - "If only men knew what is eternity they will do all in their power to amend their life" - misinterpreting the bible can be a danger to your soul -
All judgements formed on the appearance of words, appearances can be deceptive🤔
His death was the establishment of the new covenant. The distribution of His life, His Spirit, covers us, and purifies us, allowing us entry through the veil that is His earthly life, which is an expression of God's true nature and desire toward man.
To forgive sins, to heal the broken, so gather the lost.
The cross is also evidence of God's love in that He did nothing against those who would kill Him, but forgave them for their ignorance. This is also for us.
Death's power is destroyed by the establishment of the new covenant. The law of sin and death is broken, because now there is a new covenant.
Sinless man dies, where the law says, those who sin must die. This made the old law fully obsolete. First it did not make men perfect, but instead led to not knowing God or not believing in Him. Second, it is unjust. So a new covenant has become necessary, and has been established by the death of the sinless Christ.
" In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do these things because they have not known the Father or Me."
"in regard to sin, because they do not believe in Me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see Me; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world has been condemned."
Prince of the world is condemned for injustice, and incompetence. Death, the power of Sin, Sin being the ruler of mankind has been condemned.