The souls in Hell are the souls that God created and chose as instruments of his desire for justice. He accepted them. He just accepted them for a different purpose. Romans 9 and all. Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
@@somexp12 excuse me? God created people predestinated for suffering, pain, punishment, condenation and eternal fire in hell only with the purpose to fulfill his desire for justice? Are you hearing the words coming out of your mouth? Do you indeed believe in that God? Tell me you're kidding, please!
4:10 - "Its love that turns the suffering into sacrifice, it's love that turns the pain into Passion" - that one walloped me hard. Love transforms all things! God is love - praise God!
@@SilverRaysBeauty44 Sacrifice doesn't require substitution. Were the Bread Offerings in the Levitical Law Substituting itself for us? Were the grain offerings substituting themselves for us for our sins. Sacrifice is not Substitutional in essence, its propitiatory. It appeases God's Justice, not let him vent out his wrath. One maintains God as a fully Good God. The other portrays God as some Wrathful Imp, keeping score and waiting for his day to let his vengeance out upon you. This is not the Biblical notion of Sacrifice, nor the Biblical notion of God's Wrath.
Had all of these thoughts going through my Lutheran confirmation classes and talking to Reformed tradition pastors. Beyond joyful that there is something beyond PSA and to be Catholic
Had 14 years of Lutheran schooling. First time I’m hearing this and it is so enlightening. So happy to be in RCIA currently and can’t wait to join the Church this Easter!
How do you possibly translate these verses without penal substitutionary atonement “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” Isaiah 53:4-5 “But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.” Isaiah 53:10-12
Just believe the scriptures, Catholics are wrong, Protestant Calvinist, there all false, the calling of grace comes to all man and we repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and we receive the Holy Spirit Then we must obey the Lord Jesus to the very end because Christ blood only covers us if we are walking in the light NOT SINNING! “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” I John 1:7 “eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Romans 2:7-10 “Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” Colossians 1:28 “Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;” II Peter 3:14 “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.” I John 4:17 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Hebrews 10:26-31 “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” James 5:19-20 “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.” I Peter 4:17-19 “Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,” I Peter 4:1
I'm a former Reformed Presbyterian in the process of examining Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and PSA has been something I've been wrestling with for some time now. This was very timely. Have even more to think about now!
@@SneakyEmu I'm all for substitutionary atonement, it's absolutely biblical and necessary. The issue Catholics and Orthodox take is with Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Which teaches that the Father poured out His wrath on the Son. That Christ died as our substitute, taking on suffering,death and the curse of the law, in our place, isn't debated.
@@SneakyEmu I've definitely found church Fathers who speak of the atonement as Christ being punished in our place. Take John Chrysostom for example, who said: "It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment." -John Chrysostom What I'm seeing is that Orthodox focus too much on Christus Victor and, due to their dislike of anything western, they rarely ever talk about substitutionary atonement. Reformed go too far with Penal substitutionary atonement and very little emphasis on Christus Victor and reject the Harrowing of Hades. Lutherans generally strike a good balance of both Substitutionary Atonement and Christus Victor. Which is one reason why I'm leaning that route.
@@SneakyEmu If you have two sons, one misbehaves so you beat his brother. Does that sound like a loving father? Christ did not suffer the wrath of God in his crucifixion, that would not be love.
I’m a former Calvinist that is being confirmed this Sunday- I would very much like to understand this distinction, but it really sounds like he’s saying the same thing twice but with different words.
Exactly my thoughts. What’s the controversy here? I see the creation of a division where there is none really. Sorry, for now I’ll just stick with confessional protestantism…
@@carsonhornsby5177 the difference is if you look at it how prots see it, it will explain their view of once saved always saved because the wrath of God has already been poured out once and for all. On the other hand, us Catholics, we are told to imitate Christ. We sacrifice ourselves out of love. We are saved ONLY if we remain in Him. Thus, once saved always saved is false.
Thank you! I could not continue with Calvinist or Protestant over all after I started reading scripture. Much of my past was a mere identity. Being able to see Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary has shown my that I have a soul. I am not JUST my identity. It was Christ’s love that I felt while being pulled towards him, not guilt. Jesus didn’t command us you make of neighbors feel guilty he told us to lay our lives down out of love. The kind of love that he showed us. I may not be perfect doctrinally but thank you Dr Hahn for explaining it better.
Where are you seeing devotion to Mary in scripture? The only references to Mary in the New Testament are her role as the mother of Christ. The Apostles don’t mention her in their instructions to the church.
@ScottJackson420 the Ark of of Covenant was related to the law which is fulfilled in Christ. There is no mention of there being a “new” Ark or new tablets of the law in heaven. I’m not sure what purpose this would serve. There isn’t a new covenant version of every detail in the old covenant. As Hebrews explains Christ fulfills all of the OT types and shadows.
@@sentjojo not sure how you have an omnipotent Creator who is outside of time and at the same time have creatures that are free in an absolute sense. If God is the boss how could things not be predetermined? As far as Calvin’s view of God’s love…”Jesus Christ reaches out his arms to call and allure all men both great and small, and to win them to Him.” Calvin, Sermon #28, Deut. 4.36-38
Reading Calvin on adoption makes it evident that Calvin had a higher view of God's love than the vast majority of professing Christians, especially those of Rome.
@@hettinga359 "not sure how" exactly because you are not the omnipotent one. You don't have to understand every aspect of God. In fact you can't. God is not limited in what he can and can't do just because we think there's a logical limitation on him. Free will is a revealed truth from God, to deny it is to make a liar of scripture.
I’ll admit I don’t fully understand vicarious satisfaction as described by Dr Hahn, but it sounds like it fails to explain why Christs death was required, whereas penal substitution describes it as the perfect being slain as an infinite sacrifice that covers all sins just as OT sacrifices did. An offering is required for all sins, and a perfect sacrifice is the only thing that can do this once and for all. Also seems like a strawman to say that it’s Trinitary schizophrenia, because the trinity is united in understanding of the purpose of the incarnation - it’s not the father coercing the son into becoming the embodiment of evil, it’s the son willingly bearing the sin of the world. Would love to hear clarification if anyone can provide it
As an old believer who's primarily just read the Bible repeatedly over many decades, it seems to me that people just want to argue over matters instead of focusing on walking the walk. I agree that the OT sacrificial system gives us the example of what was needed, and no one took the Savior's life; He willingly gave it. He's God, and thus, God did what was necessary to redeem His creation. Do we believe Him, accept it, and live a life of thankfulness and obedience, or do we argue about how it all works when we don't really understand an infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator? Shalom!
Since Christ removes our sins, there's no need for them to be paid. The Bible already tells how why Christ's death is required, and how contradictions are removed. PS says adds to the Bible for no reason.
I like the analogy of the pained creator wishing desperately to fix their creation over a legal analogy It's less about anger & replacement of the broken & more love for which is broken & a desire to fix it, no matter the cost
Penal substitution never sat well with me, but at least now I can articulate why a little better. It sounds like God winning the salvation of man by a technicality, and that event therefore set a new legal precedent in which the elect are forever saved. It characterizes wrath as that which satisfies the debt of sin. On the other hand, I appreciate that, contrary to what Catholicism's reputation for penance suggests, it doesn't say that the sin is satisfied by the enactment of a justified wrath, but that it is overcome by an act of love that endures and survives sin's ultimate end. Consequently, Catholics, in following their Lord, do penance as an act of love rather than as a fulfillment of a sense of justice. Such acts prior to Christ's death would have been in vain, but as Christ bears the burden of sin, these acts reflect His love in our person at the final judgement, and we have a well-founded hope that His love overcomes our sins just He did in His Resurrection.
Just believe the scriptures, Catholics are wrong, Protestant Calvinist, there all false, the calling of grace comes to all man and we repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and we receive the Holy Spirit Then we must obey the Lord Jesus to the very end because Christ blood only covers us if we are walking in the light NOT SINNING! “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” I John 1:7 “eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Romans 2:7-10 “Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” Colossians 1:28 “Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;” II Peter 3:14 “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.” I John 4:17 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Hebrews 10:26-31 “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” James 5:19-20 “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.” I Peter 4:17-19 “Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,” I Peter 4:1
When I first came to Christ sincerely, I didn't realize I was learning from Calvinism. I was just doing what I knew to do at the time. to watch sermons and try to learn. I was ignorant and didn't know better. I actually didn't know anything about it. After a few weeks I realized it was a denomination. It hurt me and and a close family member. I can't completely blame the denomination , I really have to blame my self because I didn't realize how different protestant views could be , so that was my fault. Looking back , I see that my heart was not in a place of peace at all. I can't say every Calvinist feels the way I did, but that was my experience. Even my approach about Jesus lacked love. It was a lesson for me that I was able to learn from. Calvinism is just something I really don't align with. I love Calvinists, their my neighbor, but the Calvinistic view just doesn't sit right with me.
Just believe the scriptures, Catholics are wrong, Protestant Calvinist, there all false, the calling of grace comes to all man and we repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and we receive the Holy Spirit Then we must obey the Lord Jesus to the very end because Christ blood only covers us if we are walking in the light NOT SINNING! “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” I John 1:7 “eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Romans 2:7-10 “Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” Colossians 1:28 “Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;” II Peter 3:14 “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.” I John 4:17 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Hebrews 10:26-31 “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” James 5:19-20 “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.” I Peter 4:17-19 “Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,” I Peter 4:1
@@countryboyred It depends on “why” you are rejecting Calvinism. Are you rejecting it so that you can embrace unbiblical doctrines regarding God, man and salvation?
@@PaDutchRunner why are you following man that lived in the 1500s to tell you about scripture? I thought Protestants hated “man made traditions”? Furthermore, who told you Calvinism was biblical?
I've heard this argument against Christianity so many times. Protestant theology has tainted the Christian name, especially in America, and it is the saddest thing to see people abandon Christ because of a poor representation.
Asked about Calvinism / Reformed Theology and that guy comes straight out with "Luther". So the whole explanation is misrepresenting. Luther is not Calvin. Even on this they differ
@@Dilley_G45That's because Luther and Calvin both are the author's of PSA. That a systematic system of atonement from the 16th century would dominate protestantism is so sad. I am very happy to see that Christus Victor and the Recapitulation theory are slowly becoming more prominent within protestantism.
I’m Catholic. I sing in church choirs. I complain about songs borrowed from Protestant hymnody that are about Jesus suffering the wrath of his sadistic bloodthirsty Father. The Catholic music director doesn’t see anything wrong with them. My fellow choristers don’t see anything wrong with them. I suspect the priest won’t either. Usually I just sing the blasted things anyway, treating them as gross oversimplifications of the truth, but maybe I shouldn’t.
Yeah I love contemporary Christian but certain songs sound like Jesus is their girlfriend or some protestant theology that makes me wince but as long as you understand that they don't have the fullness of truth they are trying hard to worship the lord. As far as singing in church that's on another level. I would just say a prayer and ask the lord to grant forgiveness
Try to get your church to switch to the missalette called "the source and summit". The music director at our church did a lot of research to find one without protestant hymns mixed in...
Just believe the scriptures, Catholics are wrong, Protestant Calvinist, there all false, the calling of grace comes to all man and we repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and we receive the Holy Spirit Then we must obey the Lord Jesus to the very end because Christ blood only covers us if we are walking in the light NOT SINNING! “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” I John 1:7 “eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Romans 2:7-10 “Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” Colossians 1:28 “Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;” II Peter 3:14 “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.” I John 4:17 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Hebrews 10:26-31 “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” James 5:19-20 “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.” I Peter 4:17-19 “Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,” I Peter 4:1
"But Yahweh was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief;" "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." The Father crushed the Son on in our place according to the Scriptures.
Not a Catholic, but the LXX renders that passage "And the Lord desired to purify/cleanse him from his wound". When Paul quotes Isaiah in Romans, and when Isaiah 53 is quoted in Matthew they're both from the LXX. The vast majority of OT quotations in the NT are from the Greek, and the early church primarily used the Greek. It's strange to me that we protestants insist on using OT translation that are based on the Masoretic text.
Notice there is a complete lack of scripture in Scott Hahn’s reply. Here is some scripture concerning the atonement to chew on. “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed…. “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt.” (Isaiah 53:4-5, 10) “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” 2 Corinthians 5:21. (Notice Scott mentioned this verse and Isaiah 53, but did not explain them. He just said they seem to show penal substitution… that’s because they do) “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 John 2:2 (propitiation - hilasmos in Greek - means an atoning sacrifice, or appeasing offering. It’s a direct reference back to the Old Testament atoning sacrifices. That is what Jesus was. The reason the temple sacrifices have been put to an end is because Jesus is the final sacrifice for our sins. He has finally once and for all appeased Gods wrath.) “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”” Mark 15:34 “And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”” Mark 14:36 What is the CUP that Jesus is dreading? See.. Jeremiah 25:15-16, Lamentations 4:21, Habakkuk 2:16
Amen, Brother John!!!! These foolish men are unwitting servants of the Devil. I can't see it any other way. The Devil LOVES to hide behind an appearance of benevolence.
this was the 1st explanation of RCC atonement theory I've heard. I've looked into the "process" & "rules" but not the "how". I've never been more convinced that the Roman faith is far from Christianity. How do catholics (in the universal way, not the Roman way) accept that Roman Catholics are saved? This is a crazy explanation. For Matt there to say it's reasonable? If this is true, can we really love God enough to be saved?
Thank you! For someone who is so boldly claiming that the protestant view is ridiculous, he sure didn't bother using any scripture to bolster his point.
I now believe as a Catholic, former Protestant, that we (Sinners) can't worship God. We come alongside JESUS worshiping and loving the father , offering himself completely. It is through and with HIM we worship God, offering ourselves with him. The Holy Mass, Christ really and Truly Present, The Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.
Christ's sacrifice was "once for all" time. That's the word of God - Hebrews chapter 10. Why reject that and say you need the sacrifice of the Mass again and again? - see Hebrews chapter 10. The reformed Protestant understanding of the Lord's Supper ("Eucharist") is Christ present with His people. Not carnally, but spiritually, giving life, as He Himself declares in John 6. Why would you turn to Rome? I can see only three options - It's either: 1. plain ignorance - deliberate or misunderstood, 2. wilful love of idolatry 3. cowardice I hope in your case it is the ignorance of misunderstanding, and in which case I plead with you to seek from the authority of the word of God how He would have us to worship Him in Spirit and truth (John 4), and follow the Lamb accordingly.
@@doctor1alex poor you, subverting the catholic teaching - the Church teaches that the SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS becomes present and is offered by the whole community of the believers in the Eucharist, meaning that we receive the grace of being avble to unite ourselves with Christ in his sacrificial act - however, you, protestants, thinking you venerate God by lying and slandering, pretend that catholics clam to offer a new sacrifice each time the Mass is celebrated - that is just the opposite of the doctrine of the faith... notice that it is precisely because the sacrifice of the cross was accomplished once and for all that it is offered to the Church so that believers can present it to God as the reason for forgiveness and grace throughout time...
@@lawrence1318 The Church is the body of Christ. You cannot separate the body from the head. This is clearly stated in scripture. “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ” - read 1 Corinthians 12: 12-26 - You cannot have one without the other.
@@MariaGarcia-el6ph The church is only the church if its members are born again. The church isn't the church before it is the church. So your idea is circular and cultish.
As a lifelong Anglican I have wrestled with this a lot. I have found it really difficult to fully put together in my head the astonishing kove I am told about plus the massive wrath and desire to kill as atonement. I still don’t know enough to understand how the Bible doesn’t point to substitutionary atonement but thankyou for helping me along my way.
This is simple: Jeremiah 19:5 has God saying, "The people built the high places to sacrifice their children to idols. Something I did NOT command, nor did I speak it, nor did it enter my mind." This CLEARLY says God does NOT cause EVERYTHING
I’m becoming part of the Catholic Church in April. And this doctrine has been the hardest for me to understand because I had that old Protestant view for the longest time
@@ThejaTseikhaHey, it's actually beautifully simple: God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction fulfilled on the cross. PSA flips it the other way. Pax
@@mrtee3988 I am struggling to comprehend it. I understand it as a marital covenant more than a judicial substitution... but I am still having a hard time :)
If you put aside God's attributes and only think of love - you'll get it. Frankly, I don't believe this at all - as a parent, you do hard things for your children out of love for them - God is a God of justice and the 'non PSA ' side seems to conveniently forget that. I am convinced that people are very comfortable in their sin nature find PSA incorrect.
So we should forget about Isaiah 53:10? “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.”
I have a friend who told me once "If God killed his own Son, what do you think He's going to do to us?" I knew his thinking was mixed up, but I didn't know how to answer it at the time. I think this helps! Still trying to wrap my mind around it though
Jesus willingly let himself be killed to show the fullness of Love God has for us; There is no big Ledger in the sky, there is only a God of love beyond imagination who is hoping we become as loving as He is, but is willing to let us turn away from Love and permanently turn away from His presence and go to hell.
I think this Scripture sums it up pretty well. Acts 2:23 [23] this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
I've always thought about that. God does sacrifice His people but only in their best interest, it was totally worth while for Jesus. Wrath is only for unbelievers, Biblically. Since the sins were removed by Christ's body, no one has to pay their consequences. Since Christ was forsaken, there's no need for PSA, if it was real.
Calvin is clear on the point: Inst. 2.16.11 And certainly no abyss can be imagined more dreadful than to feel that you are abandoned and forsaken of God, and not heard when you invoke him, just as if he had conspired your destruction. To such a degree was Christ dejected, that in the depth of his agony he was forced to exclaim, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The view taken by some, that he here expressed the opinion of others rather than his own conviction, is most improbable; for it is evident that the expression was wrung from the anguish of his inmost soul. We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God.
Another big problem with PSA is that there is no forgiveness. What I mean is, if the Father demands a payment in order to be appeased, and the Son steps in & pays it for us, then the Father didn't forgive the debt owed to him. He was paid (by the Son). This also causes a split in the Trinity. But, the biggest issue I have with PSA is that the whole theory is based on retribution, something Christ rejected.
Colossians 2:13-14 (ESV): And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
If someone crashes into your car and you choose to forgive them, you consequently wear the cost. Similarly, in PSA the entire Trinity wears the cost - the Father sacrificially gives His Son, Jesus dies, the Holy Spirit is sent and He's poured into our hearts.
Exactly. So so true, I came to the same realization. Jesus tells us we must be like our Father in heaven, we must forgive and turn the other cheek. But under PSA the Father didnt do this, He got paid off by Christ. PSA turns God into Shylock from the The Merchant of Venice who has to have his pound of flesh, ultimately accepting it from someone who didnt even owe it. The sacrifice Christ offered was total obedience, fulfilling the law and succeeding where Adam failed in disobedience. Thats why Christ is referred to as the New Adam. We cant offer God anything from the world that is His to begin with, the only thing we can offer is obedience because its the one thing we own because He gave us free will.
John Owen addresses this and it’s quite simple to grasp. The gift literally IS Christ who made the payment. The mercy is found in the giving of Christ. He did not have to do this. Meanwhile, Christ Jesus actually did make the payment of sin in full. Justice and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive in the atonement.
Love this! Penal substitution did so much damage to my understanding of God the Father. I saw Him mostly as angry and vengeful and Jesus as mercy and love. It’s a cancerous teaching.
It helps not to think of these things in the context of our low emotional states. Dont imagine. Be still and let The Word enter rather then applying words to concepts.
At the end of the video he re-emphasizes the point of penal substitution promoting the idea of God punishing the innocent and releasing the guilty. I think he misses the point of God the Father being the giving one in penal substitution, demonstrating His great love for us. I think there is much more to the atonement than the legal aspect, but to me, the video made a caricature of penal substitution, at least in respect of omitting the Father's love in it.
@@Iffmeister Yes, I took all the words from the thesaurus I could to make PS sound as good as I could, but it comes out with the same idea. Unless you purposely hide it, PS is naturally ugly.
What's so awesome about this is that through Jesus, our relationship with God is COMPLETELY repaired! And actually so (not just forensically), even from our end as human persons!
It is only repaired if you accept it and live it. I am a Christian and a Catholic, and I am not compassionate I rarely give to the poor, I talk behind peoples backs, swear and curse at others regularly. I have started to turn back a little bit again, but I am so far far from where I should be. I am not a model follower of Christ yet I truly believe he is God. I have a good feeling that I will suffer greatly in purgatory or(hopefully not) hell. I am lazy.!please pray for me.
I will pray for you Den man. I suffer from the sín of despair often, but do your best to love God and be obedient to him. Remember the graves given in the sacraments and try to clean up your life to prevent you from falling to any and all vices. Aim for heaven, and even if you and I have to suffer in purgatory before hand, then that’s still merciful. All better than the fires of hell.
@@den8863The Bible seems to indicate we cannot accept salvation apart from God predestining us, and He will give the Spirit to those who are His. So we must trust in Christs work on the cross, and rely on Him, and pray to strengthen us
I love you Jesus! Without you we would never know the fulness of God’s love. Jesus you are the key to the universe for “all things have been created through you” So I’m waiting on you Jesus. You give me strength. As a single mother things aren’t isn’t easy on me. I’m overwhelmed at times because both of my children are autistic. I’m desperately struggling trying to support them and myself because like so many others. I lost my job as a social worker at Forsyth hospital because I declined the vaccine. I declined because of my pre existing health condition lupus and heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption. I wish I could go back to the hospital but the mandate is still in place for hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. I’m waitressing and I’m so thankful to be working again, but I’m not making nearly enough to make ends meet. But God continues to help me. I get harassed and called names for simply asking for prayers, but prayers are all we need to get by, and when you’re a real christian people will always crucify you. Thankfully, God gives me strength to keep going. Even as I face homelessness almost every month with two children. I have faith God will provide. He HAS THIS FAR. Please pray for me and my children.
As I read Luther’s catechisms, he never once uses language of Jesus bearing God’s wrath, and focuses his attention to bring rescued from sin, death, and Satan. He does say Jesus bore our punishment and guilt, but I never understood it to mean God’s punishment. And in the Lutheran confessions, I don’t see that language being used either, so it’s interesting to hear him say these things about Luther.
So in Dr. Hahn's view, I still am not sure why Christ had to die? In other words, if he didn't take the judgment of God that we deserved (i.e. death for our sins as the just judgment of God) but rather only paid the debt we owed (to love God with all of our heart), then why did he have to die at all? Couldn't his life of love have done that? I'm not arguing with Dr. Hahn, but sincerely just trying to understand what he is saying. Thanks!
I read the book he recommended and put simply Christ didn’t have to die or undergo any suffering at all for that matter in order to make satisfaction but he does it out of love.
@@leonardu6094It was never a substitution, he died FOR us not instead of us, and on the Cross Jesus took power over death. Atonement is part of baptism, it is the promise of pardon of past sins for those who are sanctified in his covenant, based on our promise not to sin. He is the Judge of those baptised. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' and my latest video #29 is about atonement.
@@simonskinner1450 Isaiah 53:5 _But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed_ If someone is crushed for *YOUR* iniquities, i think it's clear he took your punishment.
@@leonardu6094 After the Cross nothing changed directly for us, Jesus was raised for purpose of propitiation as high priest, indirectly able to atone for our past sins. The high priest can reconcile us with God, Jesus took power over death when raised, and sin is judicial condemnation, meaning Jesus can forgive past sins so that those who declare themselves dead to sin can enter the church of God. My latest Ytube video #29 shows atonement in Romans 5:1-11, entering the church gives access to grace. Now what everyone misses in Isaiah 53 is the outcome of his death for us, which is "by his knowledge zealous shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquitues". He shall bear only the iniquities of many not everyone, because he will be asked by God the Father only to bear the iniquities of those he baptises for their profession of faith, and only those he knows shall he make intercession for. All this is covered in my Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity', I hope you check it out.
@@PastorClevelandbecause it was created by men. Ultimate reconciliationism is the one TRUE WAY to spend ones short time on this planet. God loves ALL but God only protects those who accept His son into their life. A life without Jesus is a life living in hell.
@@daMillenialTruckerwow. I used to be a Protestant Calvinist my man. All of it is unbiblical and false doctrine. Faith alone is not found anywhere in scripture except James chapter 2 look it up. I find it funny how non Catholics always say that we are not saved when the reality is that everything Protestants teach as far as doctrine is literally not in the Bible. Your so lost man. I feel very sad for you. You persecute the true church of Christ and don’t even know it. Your like Saul. I highly doubt with how you just throw out something so fallacious like that, that you know nothing about actual church history, or the history of the Protestant reformation, or the history of mattin Luther and his atrocity’s l. The truth is your version of Christianity is not Christianity at all. You have been greatly deceived to where you don’t even know your deceived and believe that your false version of the gospel is the truth! I can literally answer any objections that you have about the Catholic Church. Especially since you just throw out statements without any facts to back them up. That’s what all Protestants do. Where as I can cite my sources and their all proven by history. I encourage you to look into church history but do it from an unbiased view point. Your world will come crashing down. It’s really stupid for you to just throw out things you have learned from other Protestants that are literally just not true. You guys do it all the time. The reason the doctrines of God are hard to understand is because you have to have the Holy Spirit to be able to understand them. Not saying you don’t. But the doctrines of the Protestant church’s are literally not of God. Your severely misinformed and wrong love you though
@@PastorClevelandbecause Protestant church is an unbiblical fallacy created by an evil wicked man named Martin Luther. It’s super simple. Just look up the history of the man? That’s your faith hero? Would you like me to tell you the evil things he did and cite my sources? Also faith alone doctrine is unbiblical. Only where’s you find faith and alone is James chapter 2 verse 24 you see a man is saved by WORKS and NOT by faith alone. Take a look into church history and the reformations and the history of the church from an unbiased view point and your results will be shocking
Many like to brag about God's love only. The point is without umderstanding His justice, you will never know how much His love really is. And one thing people need to know is not God punishing His Son, but His Son willingly take up the cross for His lover. That is two very different things. Salvation is disigned by the triune God not just the Father.
One of the best things I ever heard said about this was "The Blood wasn't spilled FOR God, it was spilled FROM God." Shattered the schizophrenic, rage filled Father image completely for me.
So if going to the cross was all about love and not the satisfying of our debt through taking on our sin, then why did God turn away from Jesus and Jesus ask God why he forsook him on the cross?
Jesus was quoting psalm 22, to show that the prophesy it spoke of was being fulfilled and Jews of the time would have known exactly what he was speaking of. Jesus is God incarnate and God cannot be separated from Himself or then God would cease to be the trinity.
@@berserkerbard Yes, Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, but why would Jesus accuse God of turning away from him if he really didn't? I get he was quoting prophecy but the prophecy prophesied that God would turn his face from Jesus on the cross.
@@leonardu6094 how does my answer not answer the question? Unless you’re looking for a specific answer that I can’t give? Read my above comment again, it does answer the question.
@@berserkerbard All you did was tell us Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy (nobody disputes that) but you didn't actually answer as to what the point of that prophesy is; if jesus going to the cross was all about love and not him acting as a substitute for us.
The language of vicarious satisfaction seems to be the most scripturally accurate, but penal substitution wins in the well developed analogy department: someone steping in to pay for your sin on your behalf, paying on the debt and taking the punishment before the judge. There's an strong appealing narrative with penal substitution that isn't so obvious with vicarious satisfaction.
“Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of Yahweh been revealed? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should desire Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. ¶Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our peace fell upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. ¶He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living, That for the transgression of my people, striking was due to Him? So His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. ¶But Yahweh was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If You would place His soul as a guilt offering, He will see His seed, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of Yahweh will succeed in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will divide for Him a portion with the many, And He will divide the spoil with the strong; Because He poured out His soul to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.” Isaiah 53:1-12 LSB bible.com/bible/3345/isa.53.4.LSB
There is a catholic type of penal substitutionary atonement. Aquinas mentions this in his commentary on Gal.3:13, also Eric Ybarra has a few great articles on this topic.
@@tjs.5044 The main difference is that for some protestants, penal substitution essentially means that Christ was imputed with our sins and counted as guilty before the Father in our place. As a result, the Father punished the Son for all the sins imputed to him. This means that the Father really counted Jesus a murderer and adulterer. Consequently, Christ was punished by paying for our sins through eternal damnation - hell. There are various problems with this. First, it is blasphemous to impute sins to Christ. Christ is perfect and sinless. Second, the legal punishment for sin is not only death but eternal damnation. This means that Christ was condemned to hell/suffered hell on our behalf. The Bible nowhere teaches that and it's blasphemous. Third, it can lend itself towards to heresy of Nestorianism, where it separates Christ into two persons - the divine person did not undergo punishment but the human person did. This last point is not explicitly made, but it can logically lead to it. In contrast, in the Catholic view, Christ as the incarnate God is our representative before the Father. We say that Christ made a vicarious sacrificial offering for our sins and atoned for them on the cross. Here, Christ is offering his unblemished and sinless body as a pleasing sacrifice and gift to the Father on our behalf. The Father, out of his love for the Son, accepts his sacrifice. This sacrifice has infinite merits because Christ is the God-man. And Christ as our eternal mediator achieves reconciliation between God and man. None of this entails Christ being imputed with sin and therefore punished in hell for those sins. So in short, the views can overlap and are similar, with the exception of imputation of sin to Christ and him paying the penalty of sin, which is eternal damnation.
@@Mkvine But the aforementioned Catholic scholar, Eric Ybarra, actually argues that our sins are imputed to Christ. What you described is vicarious atonement, not penal substitution.
@@tjs.5044 Yes, we believe in vicarious satisfaction, not penal substitution. I’ve talked to Erick before and I’ve asked him if he could provide an official statement (Council of Trent for example) that says our sins were imputed to Christ. He has not been able to do so. From talking to him, he does not hold to penal substitution in the Protestant sense, but I haven’t gotten further clarification on what exactly he means.
My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me?- Matthew 27:46. I guess that means nothing you, Dr. Scott Hahn. The fact that this man is called Doctor while completely misunderstanding the Word of God makes me glad that all of my spiritual knowledge is a gift from God. How can you study so much and know so little?
Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. 1 Samuel 3:14 God said “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” That's Limited atonement.
If not penal substitution - what did Jesus mean in Gethsemane, "If possible, take this cup from me". Jesus was about to drink the full cup of God's wrath.
Regarding penal substitution, isn't the just punishment for our sins eternal damnation? So then, for penal substitution to be true and result in Christ taking on this punishment in our stead, wouldn't Christ then have to be eternally damned?
@matthewodonnell6495 I don't disagree, but I'm saying for someone who holds to penal substitution, wouldn't this be irrelevant? If the point is not that "he paid for our punishment in full" but that he "received our just punishment", then wouldn't that "just punishment" be eternal damnation?
@@pjelpers I wouldn’t say it’s irrelevant because it’s about satisfying Gods wrath. So when Gods perfect, innocent Son is crushed for our sin, then if our sin penalty is transferred to Him and His atonement to us than it a mysterious way God is satisfied. I see your point I’ve asked myself that as well, but I think it’s about the value of Christs person. You could say If our sin is an eternal offense than we need an eternally valuable sacrifice.
In his argument Dr. Hahn claims Isaiah 53 is misunderstood and Paul is problematic.........NO THANK YOU! Colossians 2:8 "See to it that there is no one who takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition, in accordance with the elementary principles of the world, rather than in accordance with Christ."
I never heard it in this form of the penal substitution, but I must say some scriptures and how it’s interpreted may mislead us to believe in a sense that God is punishing Jesus instead of us, but that could be further from the truth from what I understand now.
I’ve listened to this several times, and I fail to grasp the problem with PSA that Dr Hahn is articulating here. The doctrine of PSA as taught by Vos and others is logically sound - to borrow from Scott’s terminology, it “squares the circle.” Progressive revelation makes an obvious effort to prepare us theologically leading up to the incarnation so that we can appreciate fullness of the salvation that Christ wins for us in the gospel - beginning with Gen 3:15, Gen 15:17, the near-sacrifice of Isaac, through the mosaic cult and the scapegoat etc. - clearly we are being taught that the nature of the atonement is PSA.
Great explanation of his point of view, although nearly void of scriptural explanation. Both penal substitution and vicarious satisfaction are harmonious and scriptural, if you believe scripture that is.
1. As the prisoner Henry 'Papillon' Charriere was delivered from the penal colony of French Guiana, so was Scott Hahn delivered from the zero sum penal substitution of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross as an equal exchange for the sins of men, based upon the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. 2. Charriere discovered a new life of freedom for himself in South America after his release from captivity. 3. Scott Hahn discovered that because it originated in a Person who was both divine and human, Christ's death on the cross was of infinite value, infinitely greater than the finite number of mankind's sins, and that it produced a superabundance of grace involving a justification by grace, faith and agape (divine love of God and neighbor), which was intended by God as a reflection of and a participation in the interior relations of the Holy Trinity. 4. "So faith, hope, love (agape) remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love." [1 Corinthians 13:13]
”And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.“ Colossians 2:13-14
"i preached this until i became a father and realized that doesn't work" ... that is an emotional response not a logical one. *morpheus meme* what if i told you vicarious satisfaction... was achieved through penal substitution atonement?
1:56 , I can understand where calvinists are coming from but it’s build from an inherent flaw. Jesus and God aren’t human. We are using human laws and fairness to classify how a all powerful God would handle the unrighteousness of people.
I grew up Protestant, and I thought penal substitution was what ALL Christians believed cause this was taught to me as the literal gospel. It always seemed very cruel, and I had a lot of issues believing God was loving at all. I became an Atheist for a time because of many things, but among them the idea that the God I was taught to believe in seemed despicable to me. I think it's very important for Catholics to address this issue cause this Calvinist heresy causes so many trust issues. Even converting, I still felt like God was wrathful and it led to a lot of scrupulosity. If anyone is interested in a more in depth break down, the channel Shameless Popery Podcast does a very good video on this. I honestly cried while I was watching it cause I was so relieved to be rid of this demonic idea, and to finally understand the love of God has within the persons of the trinity.
How is this not relief from a legal debt??? “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” Colossians 2:13-14
Genuine question here: if the debt Christ had to pay was only to love God and neighbor perfectly, why did He have to die? Would not His perfect life accomplish the atonement without the need to die?
Yes, he is already loved and righteous in the Father's eyes, but obedience unto death is a great manifestation of obedience and a great example of the power of love, that God wants to express to us. The fruit of a great love is the action, Jesus die for us. John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friend"
I was an evangelical Protestant for 17 years and near the end of it, I became convinced that the Penal Substitution theory is a monstrous idea. The soteriology of George MacDonald (whom C.S. Lewis called his master) was the one thing that saved me from atheism/despair then. Even now, as a Catholic, I still hold to his view in essence (with, of course, the caution that the Council of Trent itself has called it a mystery). But, with all due respect, what Scott Hahn given us here is a mere word salad. He has completely failed to convince me that Vicarious Sacrifice differs from the Penal Substitution model in any essential way. If someone disagree, please enlighten me in what way those two differ in any concrete and logical way. I am happy to learn.
@@Bigchickens Christ and the Apostles read the Septuagint / Greek version of the Scriptures. You should check it out. Isa. 53:10 reads significantly different: “The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound, and if You give an offering for sin, Your soul shall see a long-lived seed.”
“In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own” (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2). Eusebius of Caesarea "In his mercy he took upon himself our sins; he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners!" Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2-5 many more early fathers could be cited.
William lane Craig has videos on penal substitution...he points out the MANY aspects of the atonement...and many of the theories of the atonement...i think everyone would benefit by knowing these variants.... scripture says the is safety in a multitude of counselors....i have benefitted by acquainting myself with this info...👍💕
The fact that Calvin being part of Law just made it more apparent that he is attributing to God what an all powerful human would do. More so an all powerful Calvin
I'm Catholic. This is the first time I've ever heard of penal substitution, and this kind of concept shocked me. Our community always believes that Jesus's sacrifice at the cross is the purest and most perfect form and expression of love for God . It is the hardest to emulate, but we as Christians are called to try. Let God's will be done on us. To conceive Christ's act as a substitution degrades the very sacrifice and passion of Christ. It is very sad.
I like the notion that Christ is capable of loving God infinitely beyond our capabilities and does so in our stead and that is the unpayable debt we owe. That said, what about Romans 6:23? Is our sin (which the wages of are death) simply tantamount to not loving God?
Couple of things wrong with this video: 1. Penal substitution isn’t just a Calvinist thing and also has been believed early in church history 2. ”Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 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 53:4-6, 10 ( seems pretty much sums up the argument he made for “ schizophrenic Trinity” and penal substitution) 3. He made the assumption that is has to only be love. Why can’t it be both love and justice ?? 4. He made arguments I’ve heard liberal progressives make on the nature of the atonement. Not tryna to start a war. Just pointing out serious flaws in the video. I have great love and respect for Catholics. God bless.
It is because of Justice and Love, there isn't a dichotomy here really. It is at the cross where Justice and Love come together. Where the deepest longing of man's heart is satisfied. He became sin who knew no sin so that we may become the righteousness of God. Do consider this: That divine joy does not obliterate the divine sorrow. In our world, joy and sorrow exclude each other. Here below, joy means the absence of sorrow and sorrow the absence of joy. But such distinctions do not exit in God. Jesus, the Son of God, is the man of sorrows, but also the man of complete joy. We catch a glimpse of this when we realize that in the midst of his greatest suffering Jesus is never seprated from his Father. His union with God is never broken even when he "feels" abandoned by God. The joy of God belongs to his sonship, and this joy of Jesus and his Father is offered to me. " -Henri Nouwen The Return of the Prodigal son. Think especially of the Prodigal son in the pig sty. What made him get up from the pig sty and turn his face towards home? Yes, deprivation made him get back from the pig sty but it is chesed (loving kindness) love of the Father that made him turn his face towards home. The Justice is taken care of on the son, Isaiah 53 explains what a father does out of Justice and Mercy and Love.
@@michaelbanda9993 Just replying to your point no. 3 on the comment above. I don't see a dichotomy that Scott is speaking only of God's love and not His justice. It is not an either/or argument, it is a both/and point.
Problem with PSA is with the hypostatic union of Jesus in Trinity. With the doctrine of penal substitution,it is held that God the Father ruptured His relationship with God the Son on the cross in order to punish Jesus. But this element of the doctrine is contrary to the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Doesn’t make sense that a just God punishes Jesus who is without sin.
Penal substitutionary atonement does not hold that the relationship of the Trinity is ever severed or ruptured. No reformer ever says this. The assumption made by some is that if the Father is pouring out wrath on the Son, then there must be a severing of relationship. But no where does the text of scripture say that the Son and the Father are severed. God is able to pour out divine Justice on the Son. The Son is able to become our sin and yet their Godhead is not disturbed. God never ceases to be God.
@@kevinmc62 2 Cor. 5:21 - "God made him who had no sin (innocent) to be sin for us (not innocent), so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Isaiah 53:6 - "The Lord has laid on him (innocent Jesus) the iniquity of us all." Kevin, you would be right if on the cross Jesus was looked at by God as an innocent individual. But, graciously the Lord laid the sins of his people ON CHRIST so that Christ would bear our guilt on our behalf. This is why Jesus is our scapegoat (Lev. 16:8-22). He is our sacrificial offering, so that "by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Heb. 10:14)
@@PastorCleveland Catholicism’s interpretation makes much more logical sense and even the Protestant New Testament scholar N.T. Wright concurs: The little word genōmetha in 2 Corinthians 5:21b-“that we might become God’s righteousness in him”-does not sit comfortably with the normal interpretation, according to which God’s righteousness is “imputed” or “reckoned” to believers. If that was what Paul meant, with the overtones of “extraneous righteousness” that normally come with that theory, the one thing he ought not to have said is that we “become” that righteousness. Surely that leans far too much toward a Roman Catholic notion of infused righteousness? Corinthians 5:21 as positive evidence for God making us actually righteous, it remains the case that 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not support the teaching that we, as justified Christians, have only our legal standing changed before God. 2 Corinthians 5:21. We can still believe that when God justifies us, he makes us intrinsically righteous by his grace. In the words of Paul, he makes us a “new creation,” with the old passing away and the new having come (2 Cor. 5:17).
@@kevinmc62 Well, let me first point out that your quotation from Wright does not in any way deal with the first part of 2 Cor. 5:21 and the discussion of Christ becoming sin on our behalf. Also, N.T. Wright is by no means a trustworthy protestant voice when it comes to the issue of the atonement. He is at odds with most protestant New Testament scholars on this issue. (See: "New Perspective On Paul"). Finally, "Catholicism's interpretation makes much more logical sense" is not an argument and does not deal with the texts of scripture provided. Kevin, you tell me, in your own words ... What do 2 Cor. 5:21 and Isaiah 53:6 mean? How do you interpret the language of the Lord laying on Jesus our iniquities and making Jesus sin on our behalf?
Can you explain the "love" that Dr. Hahn was talking about. It is a tough concept, unlike the love that most of us know. It has got to be something so much more than what we commonly understand. Thank you.
Hahn doesn't tackle the verses he brings up that are Penal Substitution's proof texts. The bible doesn't pain a simplistic view of the cross. Satisfaction, substitution, victory - are all aspects of the cross. To call one false/inferior simply because it is terrifying is unfortunate.
Your sins are atoned without Penal Substitution. We should not add punishment payment to Christ's sacrifice. He was forsaken not as punishment but to remove sin. I think your talking about an outer camp of PS where Christ pays as a sinner- and thus cannot pay. Therefore, we might as well pay like you said. Arguing against those 5 unreasonable camps, seems like less bang for your buck. They are not the back bone. Spend your time on people like Dr Craig, or one of the 3 moderate camps of PS. Nominals are also a waste. The best thing we may be able to do with moderate PenSubs is just to prove that this addition is not in the Bible.
Theosis and Christus Victor are more reliable models than Penal Substitution. Sure! I believe that Jesus died for us. Our redemption from sin thru Christ is real because GOD LOVES US. But to believe that Jesus died in place of us is something else. I refuse to believe that God The Father is a schizophrenic who demands blood for our sins. "I demand mercy not sacrifice." By the way, our affliction as a result of sin is not God's punishment but rather self-inflicted. If you lived a promiscuous life and get STD, God didn't punish you. You did it to yourself. th-cam.com/video/gB3yKu2sXJo/w-d-xo.html
@@marshallballantine-jones3819 If God is purely about punishment, how can He be loving and merciful? Your sins are forgived It's like you read the Bible, got through the Old Testament, then stopped. Classic protestantism, always judaising
@@InhabitantOfOddworldThose two things aren’t contradictory. Acts 2:23 [23] this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. Romans 3:24-26 [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
If the purpose of the cross is to show God's perfect love, then why did Christ need to die? Not a loaded question, I would genuinely like to hear a good answer
My thoughts are that he didn’t need to die. But because man was in such a deprived state we killed him. I’d imagine if Jesus were to incarnate now we would probably kill him as well. Christs love came into exisistence and the love was able to shine through 2000 years. But others would give answers about the need for sacrifice in the OT law. But even then the foundations of sacrifice I believe stemmed from love. Originally people loved god so much they gave gifts. Eventually that love dried out and sacrifices were given in obligation instead of love.
Why can't he see any love in penal substitution? Now i don't think the penal view is the complete picture, and parts of the way its formulated may be flawed. But there is definitely a legal aspect straight from scripture, and denying that seems absurd to me, and that's not only Isaiah 53, but the many judgements God deals out through scripture. But I want to point out that Calvin said the Father was never angry with the Son whom He loved for even a moment. Mr. Hahn doesn't give that picture. For me, there is love, there is payment for penalty, there is washing and cleansing, there is defeating the enemy, there is tasting death and the curse on our behalf, there is demonstration of God's love,there is purchase of our lives, and more. You don't need to have atonement theories that narrow our focus when you have atonement facts. Take all facts about the atonement that scripture teaches, and don't omit a single one!
I see his point, but I wish he would have spoken more on the love of God that is displayed in Christ on the cross in light of our sinfulness and why that needed to be taken care of. Would love to hear more Catholic perspective in that regard
Christus Victor / Ransom Theory? The question is who is the ransom paid to and what is the mechanism of victory? The book of Romans suggests that justification is the mechanism of victory, that Christ defeated sin by averting the rightful wrath of the Father, purifying us and wiping our slate clean by taking our due.
Brilliant presentation. My impasse to Catholicism is Papal succession. It rests squarely on Peter’s Confession and the interpretation of Jesus words. I don’t see Peter as a Vicor of Christ. A lot of theology read into the concept without scriptural support. The Rock Jesus was referring to was the actual Rock near Pan’sGrotto. Jesus was declaring war to the unseen powers of darkness. Transfiguration was on Mt Hermon. The place where the Watchers descended Gen 6. That whole area of Bashan was Evil Central. Dr Micheal Heiser Unseen Realm and Reversing Hermon.
sorry, but you have much more than that - you have the witness of the first 150 years after Jesus - beginning with the Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (around the year 90); in it, Clement acted with authority in order disciple the church of Corinth - you must also read Ireneaus in the Adversus haereses, III, 3 (around 170), saying that all the churches must follow the teaching of the church of Rome - you can also read the letter of Ireneaus to the pope Victor in the question of the quatordecimanos - Pope Victor was willing to excommunicate the churches of the province of Asia due to the fact they celebrated Easter according to the Jewish calendar - Ireneaus advised hm not to do that because the matter did not justify such radical measure - you have also Tertulian (210) criticisng the bishop of Rome because he pretends to be the master of all the churches, etc etc
Catholic here former Protestant, not really hearing much of a difference between Penal Substitutionary Atonement vs Vicarious Satisfaction. I don't know about Luther but the Calvinist perspective of law is for the perfection of the individual not just juridical.
We might question the notion of the Father pouring out His wrath on the Son. But can we question the Son taking away the Father's wrath? I think those are two separate things. I think the one is debatable biblically, but the other is not. I hope that is maintained in the catholic view.
Yes, while I would not use the language of the Father pouring out His wrath on Jesus, I would say that the Son unquestionably takes away the Father's wrath
When Calvinists, Evangelicals and other Protestants who believe in the “penal substitution theory of atonement” finally realize how unjust, how immoral, how illogical it is, they are faced with three choices: either become an atheist or become a Catholic at best, or become cruel bigots at worst. If they choose to believe that God is too loving for penal substitution to be true, then they will gravitate to a theology which emphasizes both forgiveness and justice (vicarious satisfaction, i.e., the “ransom theory”) over a fictional courtroom drama that supposedly happens in eternity (penal substitution of Calvinists and Evangelicals). Those who choose to believe that God will punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, no matter how willing the innocent victim is to be punished for the sins of the guilty, they either will accept such a cruel and unjust “god” and become cruel and unjust themselves, or they become practical atheists, i.e., knowing full well that God exists but denying his existence to “punish” God for his perceived “cruelty and injustice”. Few atheists really believe in God's non-existence, if any at all, many only claiming that they see no evidence that God exists just to “hurt” God by their denials, which seems to be the case when they vehemently deny God's existence but not that of leprechauns or mermaids, or even the existence of Thor. But those who chose to be cruel and unjust because they believe that God is “rightly” cruel and unjust are the worst people of all, for in truth they are worshipping a false god more akin to Baal (who demands the death of the innocent) than to Adonai.
The souls in Hell are NOT the souls that God REJECTED. But the souls in Hell are the ones who REJECTED God.
The souls in Hell are the souls that God created and chose as instruments of his desire for justice. He accepted them. He just accepted them for a different purpose. Romans 9 and all. Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
@@somexp12 God predestined no one to Damnation.
@@somexp12 excuse me? God created people predestinated for suffering, pain, punishment, condenation and eternal fire in hell only with the purpose to fulfill his desire for justice? Are you hearing the words coming out of your mouth? Do you indeed believe in that God? Tell me you're kidding, please!
@drummera7418 Well thank GOD you made the right decision! I guess you're just smarter than all of those people in Hell. Good for you!
@@drummera7418Was Romans 9 wrong?
4:10 - "Its love that turns the suffering into sacrifice, it's love that turns the pain into Passion" - that one walloped me hard. Love transforms all things! God is love - praise God!
@@edel5780 And that claim is dead wrong. It's the fact that Jesus substitutes himself in place of us which makes it a sacrifice.
@@SilverRaysBeauty44 Sacrifice doesn't require substitution. Were the Bread Offerings in the Levitical Law Substituting itself for us? Were the grain offerings substituting themselves for us for our sins. Sacrifice is not Substitutional in essence, its propitiatory. It appeases God's Justice, not let him vent out his wrath. One maintains God as a fully Good God. The other portrays God as some Wrathful Imp, keeping score and waiting for his day to let his vengeance out upon you. This is not the Biblical notion of Sacrifice, nor the Biblical notion of God's Wrath.
Had all of these thoughts going through my Lutheran confirmation classes and talking to Reformed tradition pastors. Beyond joyful that there is something beyond PSA and to be Catholic
Had 14 years of Lutheran schooling. First time I’m hearing this and it is so enlightening. So happy to be in RCIA currently and can’t wait to join the Church this Easter!
That’s too bad
@@florida8953
You are, yes
How do you possibly translate these verses without penal substitutionary atonement
“Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.”
Isaiah 53:4-5
“But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.”
Isaiah 53:10-12
As an Anglican this really resonates with me.
Just believe the scriptures, Catholics are wrong, Protestant Calvinist, there all false, the calling of grace comes to all man and we repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and we receive the Holy Spirit Then we must obey the Lord Jesus to the very end because Christ blood only covers us if we are walking in the light NOT SINNING!
“But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
I John 1:7
“eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
Romans 2:7-10
“Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.”
Colossians 1:28
“Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;”
II Peter 3:14
“Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.”
I John 4:17
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Hebrews 10:26-31
“Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.”
James 5:19-20
“For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.”
I Peter 4:17-19
“Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,”
I Peter 4:1
are you born again?
@@johnalexis8284 yes
@@johnalexis8284 If you're a christian, then you're born again.
Praise be to Jesus Christ for Dr. Hahn’s explanation.
I'm a former Reformed Presbyterian in the process of examining Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and PSA has been something I've been wrestling with for some time now. This was very timely. Have even more to think about now!
I'm currently reformed Presbyterian. I just don't see the issue here, I don't see why this explanation needs to exclude Substitutionary attornment.
@@SneakyEmu I'm all for substitutionary atonement, it's absolutely biblical and necessary. The issue Catholics and Orthodox take is with Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Which teaches that the Father poured out His wrath on the Son. That Christ died as our substitute, taking on suffering,death and the curse of the law, in our place, isn't debated.
@@SneakyEmu I've definitely found church Fathers who speak of the atonement as Christ being punished in our place. Take John Chrysostom for example, who said: "It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment." -John Chrysostom
What I'm seeing is that Orthodox focus too much on Christus Victor and, due to their dislike of anything western, they rarely ever talk about substitutionary atonement. Reformed go too far with Penal substitutionary atonement and very little emphasis on Christus Victor and reject the Harrowing of Hades. Lutherans generally strike a good balance of both Substitutionary Atonement and Christus Victor. Which is one reason why I'm leaning that route.
@@jdsmith2k7 what is the problem with the idea that God poured out his wrath on his son?
@@SneakyEmu If you have two sons, one misbehaves so you beat his brother. Does that sound like a loving father?
Christ did not suffer the wrath of God in his crucifixion, that would not be love.
I’m a former Calvinist that is being confirmed this Sunday- I would very much like to understand this distinction, but it really sounds like he’s saying the same thing twice but with different words.
Exactly my thoughts. What’s the controversy here? I see the creation of a division where there is none really. Sorry, for now I’ll just stick with confessional protestantism…
Which part sounds the same? Pretty vague comment.
How's your new catholic life been? I'm also a former calvinist thinking about converting... pray for me!
@@carsonhornsby5177 the difference is if you look at it how prots see it, it will explain their view of once saved always saved because the wrath of God has already been poured out once and for all.
On the other hand, us Catholics, we are told to imitate Christ. We sacrifice ourselves out of love. We are saved ONLY if we remain in Him. Thus, once saved always saved is false.
Yes! Our God is so beautiful. Life giving love poured out.
Thank you! I could not continue with Calvinist or Protestant over all after I started reading scripture.
Much of my past was a mere identity. Being able to see Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary has shown my that I have a soul. I am not JUST my identity.
It was Christ’s love that I felt while being pulled towards him, not guilt.
Jesus didn’t command us you make of neighbors feel guilty he told us to lay our lives down out of love. The kind of love that he showed us.
I may not be perfect doctrinally but thank you Dr Hahn for explaining it better.
Most Protestants don't agree with Calvinism either. It is a very small group although they seem to be the loudest.
Where are you seeing devotion to Mary in scripture? The only references to Mary in the New Testament are her role as the mother of Christ. The Apostles don’t mention her in their instructions to the church.
@@laurasmith4498not everything has to be in scripture to be true
@ScottJackson420 the idea that Mary is the new Ark or new Eve is completely based on very obscure and shady typology and doesn’t work theologically.
@ScottJackson420 the Ark of of Covenant was related to the law which is fulfilled in Christ. There is no mention of there being a “new” Ark or new tablets of the law in heaven. I’m not sure what purpose this would serve. There isn’t a new covenant version of every detail in the old covenant. As Hebrews explains Christ fulfills all of the OT types and shadows.
Thank you Dr. Hahn for totally and clearly explaining a problem that has stumped me, a cradle 72 year-old Catholic, for many, many years.
“The problem with Calvin is he can’t admit how much God loves us.”
St Robert Bellarmine
Weird quote. How was his view of God’s love inadequate?
@@hettinga359 denial of our free will, the idea that God would create people predetermined to damnation
@@sentjojo not sure how you have an omnipotent Creator who is outside of time and at the same time have creatures that are free in an absolute sense. If God is the boss how could things not be predetermined? As far as Calvin’s view of God’s love…”Jesus Christ reaches out his arms to call and allure all men both great and small, and to win them to Him.” Calvin, Sermon #28, Deut. 4.36-38
Reading Calvin on adoption makes it evident that Calvin had a higher view of God's love than the vast majority of professing Christians, especially those of Rome.
@@hettinga359 "not sure how" exactly because you are not the omnipotent one. You don't have to understand every aspect of God. In fact you can't. God is not limited in what he can and can't do just because we think there's a logical limitation on him. Free will is a revealed truth from God, to deny it is to make a liar of scripture.
I’ll admit I don’t fully understand vicarious satisfaction as described by Dr Hahn, but it sounds like it fails to explain why Christs death was required, whereas penal substitution describes it as the perfect being slain as an infinite sacrifice that covers all sins just as OT sacrifices did. An offering is required for all sins, and a perfect sacrifice is the only thing that can do this once and for all.
Also seems like a strawman to say that it’s Trinitary schizophrenia, because the trinity is united in understanding of the purpose of the incarnation - it’s not the father coercing the son into becoming the embodiment of evil, it’s the son willingly bearing the sin of the world. Would love to hear clarification if anyone can provide it
As an old believer who's primarily just read the Bible repeatedly over many decades, it seems to me that people just want to argue over matters instead of focusing on walking the walk. I agree that the OT sacrificial system gives us the example of what was needed, and no one took the Savior's life; He willingly gave it. He's God, and thus, God did what was necessary to redeem His creation. Do we believe Him, accept it, and live a life of thankfulness and obedience, or do we argue about how it all works when we don't really understand an infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator? Shalom!
Since Christ removes our sins, there's no need for them to be paid. The Bible already tells how why Christ's death is required, and how contradictions are removed. PS says adds to the Bible for no reason.
I like the analogy of the pained creator wishing desperately to fix their creation over a legal analogy
It's less about anger & replacement of the broken & more love for which is broken & a desire to fix it, no matter the cost
Penal substitution never sat well with me, but at least now I can articulate why a little better. It sounds like God winning the salvation of man by a technicality, and that event therefore set a new legal precedent in which the elect are forever saved. It characterizes wrath as that which satisfies the debt of sin.
On the other hand, I appreciate that, contrary to what Catholicism's reputation for penance suggests, it doesn't say that the sin is satisfied by the enactment of a justified wrath, but that it is overcome by an act of love that endures and survives sin's ultimate end. Consequently, Catholics, in following their Lord, do penance as an act of love rather than as a fulfillment of a sense of justice. Such acts prior to Christ's death would have been in vain, but as Christ bears the burden of sin, these acts reflect His love in our person at the final judgement, and we have a well-founded hope that His love overcomes our sins just He did in His Resurrection.
YES... If you want to see God's wrath see where God said, "I repenteth for every having made man." Genesis 6:7
Just believe the scriptures, Catholics are wrong, Protestant Calvinist, there all false, the calling of grace comes to all man and we repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and we receive the Holy Spirit Then we must obey the Lord Jesus to the very end because Christ blood only covers us if we are walking in the light NOT SINNING!
“But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
I John 1:7
“eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
Romans 2:7-10
“Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.”
Colossians 1:28
“Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;”
II Peter 3:14
“Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.”
I John 4:17
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Hebrews 10:26-31
“Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.”
James 5:19-20
“For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.”
I Peter 4:17-19
“Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,”
I Peter 4:1
When I first came to Christ sincerely, I didn't realize I was learning from Calvinism. I was just doing what I knew to do at the time. to watch sermons and try to learn. I was ignorant and didn't know better. I actually didn't know anything about it. After a few weeks I realized it was a denomination. It hurt me and and a close family member. I can't completely blame the denomination , I really have to blame my self because I didn't realize how different protestant views could be , so that was my fault. Looking back , I see that my heart was not in a place of peace at all. I can't say every Calvinist feels the way I did, but that was my experience. Even my approach about Jesus lacked love. It was a lesson for me that I was able to learn from. Calvinism is just something I really don't align with. I love Calvinists, their my neighbor, but the Calvinistic view just doesn't sit right with me.
Do you believe that everyone, universally, will be saved?
Just believe the scriptures, Catholics are wrong, Protestant Calvinist, there all false, the calling of grace comes to all man and we repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and we receive the Holy Spirit Then we must obey the Lord Jesus to the very end because Christ blood only covers us if we are walking in the light NOT SINNING!
“But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
I John 1:7
“eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
Romans 2:7-10
“Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.”
Colossians 1:28
“Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;”
II Peter 3:14
“Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.”
I John 4:17
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Hebrews 10:26-31
“Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.”
James 5:19-20
“For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.”
I Peter 4:17-19
“Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,”
I Peter 4:1
@@PaDutchRunnerrejecting Calvinism doesn’t mean you embrace universalism
@@countryboyred It depends on “why” you are rejecting Calvinism. Are you rejecting it so that you can embrace unbiblical doctrines regarding God, man and salvation?
@@PaDutchRunner why are you following man that lived in the 1500s to tell you about scripture? I thought Protestants hated “man made traditions”? Furthermore, who told you Calvinism was biblical?
I've heard this argument against Christianity so many times. Protestant theology has tainted the Christian name, especially in America, and it is the saddest thing to see people abandon Christ because of a poor representation.
Not all Protestants are Calvinists.
Asked about Calvinism / Reformed Theology and that guy comes straight out with "Luther". So the whole explanation is misrepresenting. Luther is not Calvin. Even on this they differ
Just like your Mariolatry.
@@Dilley_G45That's because Luther and Calvin both are the author's of PSA. That a systematic system of atonement from the 16th century would dominate protestantism is so sad. I am very happy to see that Christus Victor and the Recapitulation theory are slowly becoming more prominent within protestantism.
@@Anonymousduck161 calvinists have limited atonement. Luther did not teach that.
I’m Catholic. I sing in church choirs. I complain about songs borrowed from Protestant hymnody that are about Jesus suffering the wrath of his sadistic bloodthirsty Father. The Catholic music director doesn’t see anything wrong with them. My fellow choristers don’t see anything wrong with them. I suspect the priest won’t either. Usually I just sing the blasted things anyway, treating them as gross oversimplifications of the truth, but maybe I shouldn’t.
Yeah I love contemporary Christian but certain songs sound like Jesus is their girlfriend or some protestant theology that makes me wince but as long as you understand that they don't have the fullness of truth they are trying hard to worship the lord. As far as singing in church that's on another level. I would just say a prayer and ask the lord to grant forgiveness
Try to get your church to switch to the missalette called "the source and summit". The music director at our church did a lot of research to find one without protestant hymns mixed in...
That’s the missal we use at my parish, it’s great
I'm Protestant and the PSA-heavy hymns almost make me sick. Its sad because usually the other surrounding lyrics and accompaniment is excellent.
Just believe the scriptures, Catholics are wrong, Protestant Calvinist, there all false, the calling of grace comes to all man and we repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and we receive the Holy Spirit Then we must obey the Lord Jesus to the very end because Christ blood only covers us if we are walking in the light NOT SINNING!
“But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
I John 1:7
“eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
Romans 2:7-10
“Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.”
Colossians 1:28
“Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;”
II Peter 3:14
“Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.”
I John 4:17
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Hebrews 10:26-31
“Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.”
James 5:19-20
“For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.”
I Peter 4:17-19
“Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,”
I Peter 4:1
"But Yahweh was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief;"
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
The Father crushed the Son on in our place according to the Scriptures.
Yes, but that isn't the same thing as saying the "Father poured out His wrath on the Son". The nuanced distinction is very important
Now try looking at that passage in tbe Septuagint.
The masoretic text uses much harsher language than the Greek
It's simply YOUR interpretation and doesn't address the Trinitarian schizophrenia issue
Not a Catholic, but the LXX renders that passage "And the Lord desired to purify/cleanse him from his wound". When Paul quotes Isaiah in Romans, and when Isaiah 53 is quoted in Matthew they're both from the LXX. The vast majority of OT quotations in the NT are from the Greek, and the early church primarily used the Greek. It's strange to me that we protestants insist on using OT translation that are based on the Masoretic text.
Notice there is a complete lack of scripture in Scott Hahn’s reply. Here is some scripture concerning the atonement to chew on.
“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed….
“Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt.” (Isaiah 53:4-5, 10)
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
2 Corinthians 5:21. (Notice Scott mentioned this verse and Isaiah 53, but did not explain them. He just said they seem to show penal substitution… that’s because they do)
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
1 John 2:2 (propitiation - hilasmos in Greek - means an atoning sacrifice, or appeasing offering. It’s a direct reference back to the Old Testament atoning sacrifices. That is what Jesus was. The reason the temple sacrifices have been put to an end is because Jesus is the final sacrifice for our sins. He has finally once and for all appeased Gods wrath.)
“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?””
Mark 15:34
“And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.””
Mark 14:36
What is the CUP that Jesus is dreading? See.. Jeremiah 25:15-16, Lamentations 4:21, Habakkuk 2:16
Thanks for the response.
Amen, Brother John!!!! These foolish men are unwitting servants of the Devil. I can't see it any other way. The Devil LOVES to hide behind an appearance of benevolence.
The word salad Hahn is tossing somehow never gets around to explaining how one can be made righteous before God. How, precisely, is this not apostasy?
this was the 1st explanation of RCC atonement theory I've heard. I've looked into the "process" & "rules" but not the "how". I've never been more convinced that the Roman faith is far from Christianity. How do catholics (in the universal way, not the Roman way) accept that Roman Catholics are saved? This is a crazy explanation. For Matt there to say it's reasonable? If this is true, can we really love God enough to be saved?
Thank you! For someone who is so boldly claiming that the protestant view is ridiculous, he sure didn't bother using any scripture to bolster his point.
I rejected the Protestant view of penal substitution before I became Catholic because somehow it seemed to destroy the unity within the Trinity.
Same. Heard it when I was 12 and never believed it
PSA splits the Trinity!
Complete heresy!
Calvinists do not start with God to develop their theology!
They need to study the 7 ecumenical councils!
I now believe as a Catholic, former Protestant, that we (Sinners) can't worship God. We come alongside JESUS worshiping and loving the father , offering himself completely. It is through and with HIM we worship God, offering ourselves with him. The Holy Mass, Christ really and Truly Present, The Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.
Christ's sacrifice was "once for all" time. That's the word of God - Hebrews chapter 10. Why reject that and say you need the sacrifice of the Mass again and again? - see Hebrews chapter 10.
The reformed Protestant understanding of the Lord's Supper ("Eucharist") is Christ present with His people. Not carnally, but spiritually, giving life, as He Himself declares in John 6.
Why would you turn to Rome? I can see only three options - It's either:
1. plain ignorance - deliberate or misunderstood,
2. wilful love of idolatry
3. cowardice
I hope in your case it is the ignorance of misunderstanding, and in which case I plead with you to seek from the authority of the word of God how He would have us to worship Him in Spirit and truth (John 4), and follow the Lamb accordingly.
@@doctor1alex poor you, subverting the catholic teaching - the Church teaches that the SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS becomes present and is offered by the whole community of the believers in the Eucharist, meaning that we receive the grace of being avble to unite ourselves with Christ in his sacrificial act - however, you, protestants, thinking you venerate God by lying and slandering, pretend that catholics clam to offer a new sacrifice each time the Mass is celebrated - that is just the opposite of the doctrine of the faith... notice that it is precisely because the sacrifice of the cross was accomplished once and for all that it is offered to the Church so that believers can present it to God as the reason for forgiveness and grace throughout time...
@@silveriorebelo2920 RCs teach that you come to Christ by coming to the church.
But the truth is you come to the church by coming to Christ.
@@lawrence1318 The Church is the body of Christ. You cannot separate the body from the head. This is clearly stated in scripture. “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ” - read 1 Corinthians 12: 12-26 - You cannot have one without the other.
@@MariaGarcia-el6ph The church is only the church if its members are born again. The church isn't the church before it is the church. So your idea is circular and cultish.
So glad to grow out of penal substation,and really try and grasp the love of God. He loved us so much he died for us… hard to comprehend
As a lifelong Anglican I have wrestled with this a lot. I have found it really difficult to fully put together in my head the astonishing kove I am told about plus the massive wrath and desire to kill as atonement. I still don’t know enough to understand how the Bible doesn’t point to substitutionary atonement but thankyou for helping me along my way.
This is simple: Jeremiah 19:5 has God saying, "The people built the high places to sacrifice their children to idols. Something I did NOT command, nor did I speak it, nor did it enter my mind." This CLEARLY says God does NOT cause EVERYTHING
Wouldn't it be both? According to our Jewish roots, the sacrifice was for our atonement.
I’m becoming part of the Catholic Church in April. And this doctrine has been the hardest for me to understand because I had that old Protestant view for the longest time
How did you eventually comprehend it?
Same here..still struggling..:(
@@ThejaTseikhaHey, it's actually beautifully simple:
God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction fulfilled on the cross. PSA flips it the other way.
Pax
@@mrtee3988 I am struggling to comprehend it. I understand it as a marital covenant more than a judicial substitution... but I am still having a hard time :)
If you put aside God's attributes and only think of love - you'll get it.
Frankly, I don't believe this at all - as a parent, you do hard things for your children out of love for them - God is a God of justice and the 'non PSA ' side seems to conveniently forget that. I am convinced that people are very comfortable in their sin nature find PSA incorrect.
So we should forget about Isaiah 53:10?
“Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.”
That's the Jewish Messiah
@@dansaber4427 Exactly, that’s Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah!
@@Diallelus yet to come
@@dansaber4427 So you’re not a Christian I take it?
@@Diallelus I'm just discussing the literature
I have a friend who told me once "If God killed his own Son, what do you think He's going to do to us?" I knew his thinking was mixed up, but I didn't know how to answer it at the time. I think this helps! Still trying to wrap my mind around it though
Jesus willingly let himself be killed to show the fullness of Love God has for us; There is no big Ledger in the sky, there is only a God of love beyond imagination who is hoping we become as loving as He is, but is willing to let us turn away from Love and permanently turn away from His presence and go to hell.
@@thomascramer1954 But how does his loving action apply to us?
I think this Scripture sums it up pretty well.
Acts 2:23
[23] this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
I've always thought about that. God does sacrifice His people but only in their best interest, it was totally worth while for Jesus. Wrath is only for unbelievers, Biblically. Since the sins were removed by Christ's body, no one has to pay their consequences. Since Christ was forsaken, there's no need for PSA, if it was real.
Calvin is clear on the point:
Inst. 2.16.11
And certainly no abyss can be imagined more dreadful than to feel that you are abandoned and forsaken of God, and not heard when you invoke him, just as if he had conspired your destruction. To such a degree was Christ dejected, that in the depth of his agony he was forced to exclaim, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The view taken by some, that he here expressed the opinion of others rather than his own conviction, is most improbable; for it is evident that the expression was wrung from the anguish of his inmost soul. We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God.
Another big problem with PSA is that there is no forgiveness. What I mean is, if the Father demands a payment in order to be appeased, and the Son steps in & pays it for us, then the Father didn't forgive the debt owed to him. He was paid (by the Son). This also causes a split in the Trinity. But, the biggest issue I have with PSA is that the whole theory is based on retribution, something Christ rejected.
Colossians 2:13-14 (ESV): And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
If someone crashes into your car and you choose to forgive them, you consequently wear the cost. Similarly, in PSA the entire Trinity wears the cost - the Father sacrificially gives His Son, Jesus dies, the Holy Spirit is sent and He's poured into our hearts.
Exactly. So so true, I came to the same realization. Jesus tells us we must be like our Father in heaven, we must forgive and turn the other cheek. But under PSA the Father didnt do this, He got paid off by Christ. PSA turns God into Shylock from the The Merchant of Venice who has to have his pound of flesh, ultimately accepting it from someone who didnt even owe it. The sacrifice Christ offered was total obedience, fulfilling the law and succeeding where Adam failed in disobedience. Thats why Christ is referred to as the New Adam. We cant offer God anything from the world that is His to begin with, the only thing we can offer is obedience because its the one thing we own because He gave us free will.
@@user-lh5li8ll7i "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Heb. 9:22)
John Owen addresses this and it’s quite simple to grasp. The gift literally IS Christ who made the payment. The mercy is found in the giving of Christ. He did not have to do this. Meanwhile, Christ Jesus actually did make the payment of sin in full. Justice and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive in the atonement.
Love this! Penal substitution did so much damage to my understanding of God the Father. I saw Him mostly as angry and vengeful and Jesus as mercy and love. It’s a cancerous teaching.
@@jojobrewer8006 if this is the conclusion you came to from PSA I would ask you what you learned……because it causes no harm to the nature of God.
It helps not to think of these things in the context of our low emotional states. Dont imagine. Be still and let The Word enter rather then applying words to concepts.
At the end of the video he re-emphasizes the point of penal substitution promoting the idea of God punishing the innocent and releasing the guilty. I think he misses the point of God the Father being the giving one in penal substitution, demonstrating His great love for us.
I think there is much more to the atonement than the legal aspect, but to me, the video made a caricature of penal substitution, at least in respect of omitting the Father's love in it.
The thing is most articulations of PSA are exactly what he described.
@UltraX34 i question that because so many people I have known and talked to haven't thought about it like that.
Completely agree with you @colin501 - I see no division here in the way this person intends to create
@@collin501 That's because it's not in the Bible, you wouldn't get PS just from reading, PS is added afterward
@@Iffmeister Yes, I took all the words from the thesaurus I could to make PS sound as good as I could, but it comes out with the same idea. Unless you purposely hide it, PS is naturally ugly.
This. THIS. ALL OF THIS!
Dr. Hahn is knocking it out of the park for Our Lord on this.
What's so awesome about this is that through Jesus, our relationship with God is COMPLETELY repaired! And actually so (not just forensically), even from our end as human persons!
It is only repaired if you accept it and live it. I am a Christian and a Catholic, and I am not compassionate I rarely give to the poor, I talk behind peoples backs, swear and curse at others regularly. I have started to turn back a little bit again, but I am so far far from where I should be. I am not a model follower of Christ yet I truly believe he is God. I have a good feeling that I will suffer greatly in purgatory or(hopefully not) hell. I am lazy.!please pray for me.
I will pray for you Den man. I suffer from the sín of despair often, but do your best to love God and be obedient to him. Remember the graves given in the sacraments and try to clean up your life to prevent you from falling to any and all vices. Aim for heaven, and even if you and I have to suffer in purgatory before hand, then that’s still merciful. All better than the fires of hell.
@@den8863The Bible seems to indicate we cannot accept salvation apart from God predestining us, and He will give the Spirit to those who are His. So we must trust in Christs work on the cross, and rely on Him, and pray to strengthen us
@@matthewodonnell6495 see Matthew 25, - to the sheep and the goats- “That what you have done to the least if my brothers, you have done to me.”
At 3:16 he says "not bearing the brunt of divine wrath"...if not then what's with the references to the cup in the garden? It was the cup of wrath
I love you Jesus! Without you we would never know the fulness of God’s love. Jesus you are the key to the universe for “all things have been created through you” So I’m waiting on you Jesus. You give me strength. As a single mother things aren’t isn’t easy on me. I’m overwhelmed at times because both of my children are autistic. I’m desperately struggling trying to support them and myself because like so many others. I lost my job as a social worker at Forsyth hospital because I declined the vaccine. I declined because of my pre existing health condition lupus and heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption. I wish I could go back to the hospital but the mandate is still in place for hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. I’m waitressing and I’m so thankful to be working again, but I’m not making nearly enough to make ends meet. But God continues to help me. I get harassed and called names for simply asking for prayers, but prayers are all we need to get by, and when you’re a real christian people will always crucify you. Thankfully, God gives me strength to keep going. Even as I face homelessness almost every month with two children. I have faith God will provide. He HAS THIS FAR. Please pray for me and my children.
As I read Luther’s catechisms, he never once uses language of Jesus bearing God’s wrath, and focuses his attention to bring rescued from sin, death, and Satan. He does say Jesus bore our punishment and guilt, but I never understood it to mean God’s punishment. And in the Lutheran confessions, I don’t see that language being used either, so it’s interesting to hear him say these things about Luther.
Only the Judge has the right to punish crimes.
Dr Hahn, you really really hit the nail in the coffin with this one. Remarkable work love it, thank you! Live Jesus our love and Mary our hope!
So in Dr. Hahn's view, I still am not sure why Christ had to die? In other words, if he didn't take the judgment of God that we deserved (i.e. death for our sins as the just judgment of God) but rather only paid the debt we owed (to love God with all of our heart), then why did he have to die at all? Couldn't his life of love have done that? I'm not arguing with Dr. Hahn, but sincerely just trying to understand what he is saying. Thanks!
I read the book he recommended and put simply Christ didn’t have to die or undergo any suffering at all for that matter in order to make satisfaction but he does it out of love.
@@purplelegendxd6024 That doesn't make any sense at all. If he didn't have to die at all, then why did he? If it wasn't as a substitution for us?
@@leonardu6094It was never a substitution, he died FOR us not instead of us, and on the Cross Jesus took power over death. Atonement is part of baptism, it is the promise of pardon of past sins for those who are sanctified in his covenant, based on our promise not to sin.
He is the Judge of those baptised.
I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' and my latest video #29 is about atonement.
@@simonskinner1450 Isaiah 53:5 _But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed_
If someone is crushed for *YOUR* iniquities, i think it's clear he took your punishment.
@@leonardu6094 After the Cross nothing changed directly for us, Jesus was raised for purpose of propitiation as high priest, indirectly able to atone for our past sins. The high priest can reconcile us with God, Jesus took power over death when raised, and sin is judicial condemnation, meaning Jesus can forgive past sins so that those who declare themselves dead to sin can enter the church of God.
My latest Ytube video #29 shows atonement in Romans 5:1-11, entering the church gives access to grace.
Now what everyone misses in Isaiah 53 is the outcome of his death for us, which is "by his knowledge zealous shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquitues". He shall bear only the iniquities of many not everyone, because he will be asked by God the Father only to bear the iniquities of those he baptises for their profession of faith, and only those he knows shall he make intercession for.
All this is covered in my Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity', I hope you check it out.
Catholic theology is so much more difficult to understand compared to protestant doctrine.
Yes. Wonder why that is.
@@PastorClevelandbecause it was created by men. Ultimate reconciliationism is the one TRUE WAY to spend ones short time on this planet. God loves ALL but God only protects those who accept His son into their life. A life without Jesus is a life living in hell.
@@daMillenialTruckerwow. I used to be a Protestant Calvinist my man. All of it is unbiblical and false doctrine. Faith alone is not found anywhere in scripture except James chapter 2 look it up. I find it funny how non Catholics always say that we are not saved when the reality is that everything Protestants teach as far as doctrine is literally not in the Bible. Your so lost man. I feel very sad for you. You persecute the true church of Christ and don’t even know it. Your like Saul. I highly doubt with how you just throw out something so fallacious like that, that you know nothing about actual church history, or the history of the Protestant reformation, or the history of mattin Luther and his atrocity’s l. The truth is your version of Christianity is not Christianity at all. You have been greatly deceived to where you don’t even know your deceived and believe that your false version of the gospel is the truth! I can literally answer any objections that you have about the Catholic Church. Especially since you just throw out statements without any facts to back them up. That’s what all Protestants do. Where as I can cite my sources and their all proven by history. I encourage you to look into church history but do it from an unbiased view point. Your world will come crashing down. It’s really stupid for you to just throw out things you have learned from other Protestants that are literally just not true. You guys do it all the time. The reason the doctrines of God are hard to understand is because you have to have the Holy Spirit to be able to understand them. Not saying you don’t. But the doctrines of the Protestant church’s are literally not of God. Your severely misinformed and wrong love you though
@@PastorClevelandbecause Protestant church is an unbiblical fallacy created by an evil wicked man named Martin Luther. It’s super simple. Just look up the history of the man? That’s your faith hero? Would you like me to tell you the evil things he did and cite my sources? Also faith alone doctrine is unbiblical. Only where’s you find faith and alone is James chapter 2 verse 24 you see a man is saved by WORKS and NOT by faith alone. Take a look into church history and the reformations and the history of the church from an unbiased view point and your results will be shocking
@@daMillenialTruckerthe fact that you think catholics don’t know Jesus shows how little you actually understand I feel sad for you
Many like to brag about God's love only. The point is without umderstanding His justice, you will never know how much His love really is.
And one thing people need to know is not God punishing His Son, but His Son willingly take up the cross for His lover. That is two very different things. Salvation is disigned by the triune God not just the Father.
The Son can willingly take God's punishment, it's not a logical problem.
I didn't understand.
I need more explanation.
One of the best things I ever heard said about this was "The Blood wasn't spilled FOR God, it was spilled FROM God." Shattered the schizophrenic, rage filled Father image completely for me.
So if going to the cross was all about love and not the satisfying of our debt through taking on our sin, then why did God turn away from Jesus and Jesus ask God why he forsook him on the cross?
Jesus was quoting psalm 22, to show that the prophesy it spoke of was being fulfilled and Jews of the time would have known exactly what he was speaking of. Jesus is God incarnate and God cannot be separated from Himself or then God would cease to be the trinity.
@@berserkerbard Yes, Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, but why would Jesus accuse God of turning away from him if he really didn't? I get he was quoting prophecy but the prophecy prophesied that God would turn his face from Jesus on the cross.
@@berserkerbard Still doesn't answer the question. Why did he quote that saying that the father had forsaken him?
@@leonardu6094 how does my answer not answer the question? Unless you’re looking for a specific answer that I can’t give? Read my above comment again, it does answer the question.
@@berserkerbard All you did was tell us Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy (nobody disputes that) but you didn't actually answer as to what the point of that prophesy is; if jesus going to the cross was all about love and not him acting as a substitute for us.
I read this book, it was eye opening. Great recommendation Dr. Hahn.
It’s new year so prayers for all mankind, Jesus came to save us all, every man and woman can answer to their conscience.
The language of vicarious satisfaction seems to be the most scripturally accurate, but penal substitution wins in the well developed analogy department: someone steping in to pay for your sin on your behalf, paying on the debt and taking the punishment before the judge. There's an strong appealing narrative with penal substitution that isn't so obvious with vicarious satisfaction.
“Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of Yahweh been revealed? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should desire Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. ¶Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our peace fell upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. ¶He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living, That for the transgression of my people, striking was due to Him? So His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. ¶But Yahweh was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If You would place His soul as a guilt offering, He will see His seed, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of Yahweh will succeed in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will divide for Him a portion with the many, And He will divide the spoil with the strong; Because He poured out His soul to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.”
Isaiah 53:1-12 LSB
bible.com/bible/3345/isa.53.4.LSB
There is a catholic type of penal substitutionary atonement. Aquinas mentions this in his commentary on Gal.3:13, also Eric Ybarra has a few great articles on this topic.
Great point, if the Catholic view is not nuanced, then it can easily be confused with the Protestant version.
If you don't mind, what is the core difference between the Catholic view and the Protestant view of penal substitution?
@@tjs.5044 The main difference is that for some protestants, penal substitution essentially means that Christ was imputed with our sins and counted as guilty before the Father in our place. As a result, the Father punished the Son for all the sins imputed to him. This means that the Father really counted Jesus a murderer and adulterer. Consequently, Christ was punished by paying for our sins through eternal damnation - hell.
There are various problems with this. First, it is blasphemous to impute sins to Christ. Christ is perfect and sinless. Second, the legal punishment for sin is not only death but eternal damnation. This means that Christ was condemned to hell/suffered hell on our behalf. The Bible nowhere teaches that and it's blasphemous. Third, it can lend itself towards to heresy of Nestorianism, where it separates Christ into two persons - the divine person did not undergo punishment but the human person did. This last point is not explicitly made, but it can logically lead to it.
In contrast, in the Catholic view, Christ as the incarnate God is our representative before the Father. We say that Christ made a vicarious sacrificial offering for our sins and atoned for them on the cross. Here, Christ is offering his unblemished and sinless body as a pleasing sacrifice and gift to the Father on our behalf. The Father, out of his love for the Son, accepts his sacrifice. This sacrifice has infinite merits because Christ is the God-man. And Christ as our eternal mediator achieves reconciliation between God and man. None of this entails Christ being imputed with sin and therefore punished in hell for those sins.
So in short, the views can overlap and are similar, with the exception of imputation of sin to Christ and him paying the penalty of sin, which is eternal damnation.
@@Mkvine But the aforementioned Catholic scholar, Eric Ybarra, actually argues that our sins are imputed to Christ. What you described is vicarious atonement, not penal substitution.
@@tjs.5044 Yes, we believe in vicarious satisfaction, not penal substitution. I’ve talked to Erick before and I’ve asked him if he could provide an official statement (Council of Trent for example) that says our sins were imputed to Christ. He has not been able to do so. From talking to him, he does not hold to penal substitution in the Protestant sense, but I haven’t gotten further clarification on what exactly he means.
My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me?- Matthew 27:46. I guess that means nothing you, Dr. Scott Hahn. The fact that this man is called Doctor while completely misunderstanding the Word of God makes me glad that all of my spiritual knowledge is a gift from God. How can you study so much and know so little?
Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. 1 Samuel 3:14 God said “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” That's Limited atonement.
If not penal substitution - what did Jesus mean in Gethsemane, "If possible, take this cup from me". Jesus was about to drink the full cup of God's wrath.
I suggest Dr. Hahn’s book “The Fourth Cup” for a proper answer to this question
It wasn't a cup of blessing but a curse. Who wouldn't pray that. But what stands out to me, is that as human as He was, He submitted to God's will.
Regarding penal substitution, isn't the just punishment for our sins eternal damnation? So then, for penal substitution to be true and result in Christ taking on this punishment in our stead, wouldn't Christ then have to be eternally damned?
Christ is of infinite value, so when the infinite, eternal Son of God is killed, it is worth everything
@matthewodonnell6495 I don't disagree, but I'm saying for someone who holds to penal substitution, wouldn't this be irrelevant? If the point is not that "he paid for our punishment in full" but that he "received our just punishment", then wouldn't that "just punishment" be eternal damnation?
@@pjelpers I wouldn’t say it’s irrelevant because it’s about satisfying Gods wrath. So when Gods perfect, innocent Son is crushed for our sin, then if our sin penalty is transferred to Him and His atonement to us than it a mysterious way God is satisfied. I see your point I’ve asked myself that as well, but I think it’s about the value of Christs person. You could say If our sin is an eternal offense than we need an eternally valuable sacrifice.
In his argument Dr. Hahn claims Isaiah 53 is misunderstood and Paul is problematic.........NO THANK YOU!
Colossians 2:8 "See to it that there is no one who takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition, in accordance with the elementary principles of the world, rather than in accordance with Christ."
Don't be deceived by the addition of Penal Substitution. God must remove sins, not punish them.
I never heard it in this form of the penal substitution, but I must say some scriptures and how it’s interpreted may mislead us to believe in a sense that God is punishing Jesus instead of us, but that could be further from the truth from what I understand now.
I’ve listened to this several times, and I fail to grasp the problem with PSA that Dr Hahn is articulating here. The doctrine of PSA as taught by Vos and others is logically sound - to borrow from Scott’s terminology, it “squares the circle.” Progressive revelation makes an obvious effort to prepare us theologically leading up to the incarnation so that we can appreciate fullness of the salvation that Christ wins for us in the gospel - beginning with Gen 3:15, Gen 15:17, the near-sacrifice of Isaac, through the mosaic cult and the scapegoat etc. - clearly we are being taught that the nature of the atonement is PSA.
Great explanation of his point of view, although nearly void of scriptural explanation. Both penal substitution and vicarious satisfaction are harmonious and scriptural, if you believe scripture that is.
1. As the prisoner Henry 'Papillon' Charriere was delivered from the penal colony of French Guiana, so was Scott Hahn delivered from the zero sum penal substitution of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross as an equal exchange for the sins of men, based upon the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone.
2. Charriere discovered a new life of freedom for himself in South America after his release from captivity.
3. Scott Hahn discovered that because it originated in a Person who was both divine and human, Christ's death on the cross was of infinite value, infinitely greater than the finite number of mankind's sins, and that it produced a superabundance of grace involving a justification by grace, faith and agape (divine love of God and neighbor), which was intended by God as a reflection of and a participation in the interior relations of the Holy Trinity.
4. "So faith, hope, love (agape) remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love." [1 Corinthians 13:13]
Calvinism is heresy.
The Calvinistic approach to these issues are not monolithic. PSA is just one of many atonement theories ...
”And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.“
Colossians 2:13-14
I don’t see why both can’t be true
Both are true. James White challenged Scott two times to have a formal debate on how atonement should be understood and Scott declined both times.
Thanks!
wonderful insightful clip, thank you 🙏🏻 Praise Abba Father.
th-cam.com/video/woj7ZsmgpxA/w-d-xo.html
"i preached this until i became a father and realized that doesn't work" ... that is an emotional response not a logical one.
*morpheus meme*
what if i told you vicarious satisfaction... was achieved through penal substitution atonement?
1:56 , I can understand where calvinists are coming from but it’s build from an inherent flaw. Jesus and God aren’t human. We are using human laws and fairness to classify how a all powerful God would handle the unrighteousness of people.
I grew up Protestant, and I thought penal substitution was what ALL Christians believed cause this was taught to me as the literal gospel. It always seemed very cruel, and I had a lot of issues believing God was loving at all. I became an Atheist for a time because of many things, but among them the idea that the God I was taught to believe in seemed despicable to me. I think it's very important for Catholics to address this issue cause this Calvinist heresy causes so many trust issues. Even converting, I still felt like God was wrathful and it led to a lot of scrupulosity. If anyone is interested in a more in depth break down, the channel Shameless Popery Podcast does a very good video on this. I honestly cried while I was watching it cause I was so relieved to be rid of this demonic idea, and to finally understand the love of God has within the persons of the trinity.
How is this not relief from a legal debt???
“When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
Colossians 2:13-14
Genuine question here: if the debt Christ had to pay was only to love God and neighbor perfectly, why did He have to die? Would not His perfect life accomplish the atonement without the need to die?
Yes, he is already loved and righteous in the Father's eyes, but obedience unto death is a great manifestation of obedience and a great example of the power of love, that God wants to express to us. The fruit of a great love is the action, Jesus die for us. John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friend"
I was an evangelical Protestant for 17 years and near the end of it, I became convinced that the Penal Substitution theory is a monstrous idea. The soteriology of George MacDonald (whom C.S. Lewis called his master) was the one thing that saved me from atheism/despair then. Even now, as a Catholic, I still hold to his view in essence (with, of course, the caution that the Council of Trent itself has called it a mystery).
But, with all due respect, what Scott Hahn given us here is a mere word salad. He has completely failed to convince me that Vicarious Sacrifice differs from the Penal Substitution model in any essential way.
If someone disagree, please enlighten me in what way those two differ in any concrete and logical way. I am happy to learn.
I still don't understand it. What about Isaiah 53,10 where it says it pleased God to crush the messiah?
What brother Scott said is nowhere alluded to in Scripture
He crushed and forsook Christ to remove sin in Christ's body. Sin must be removed. But there's no need for PS consequence during that removal.
“It pleased the Lord to crush Him”
You need to read another translation on Isaiah 53!
PSA splits the Trinity!
@@Bigchickens Christ and the Apostles read the Septuagint / Greek version of the Scriptures. You should check it out. Isa. 53:10 reads significantly different:
“The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound, and if You give an offering for sin, Your soul shall see a long-lived seed.”
“In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own” (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2). Eusebius of Caesarea
"In his mercy he took upon himself our sins; he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners!" Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2-5
many more early fathers could be cited.
Yes! So much of this is a false debate
William lane Craig has videos on penal substitution...he points out the MANY aspects of the atonement...and many of the theories of the atonement...i think everyone would benefit by knowing these variants.... scripture says the is safety in a multitude of counselors....i have benefitted by acquainting myself with this info...👍💕
The fact that Calvin being part of Law just made it more apparent that he is attributing to God what an all powerful human would do. More so an all powerful Calvin
I'm Catholic. This is the first time I've ever heard of penal substitution, and this kind of concept shocked me. Our community always believes that Jesus's sacrifice at the cross is the purest and most perfect form and expression of love for God . It is the hardest to emulate, but we as Christians are called to try. Let God's will be done on us. To conceive Christ's act as a substitution degrades the very sacrifice and passion of Christ. It is very sad.
I like the notion that Christ is capable of loving God infinitely beyond our capabilities and does so in our stead and that is the unpayable debt we owe.
That said, what about Romans 6:23? Is our sin (which the wages of are death) simply tantamount to not loving God?
Couple of things wrong with this video:
1. Penal substitution isn’t just a Calvinist thing and also has been believed early in church history
2. ”Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 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 53:4-6, 10 ( seems pretty much sums up the argument he made for “ schizophrenic Trinity” and penal substitution)
3. He made the assumption that is has to only be love. Why can’t it be both love and justice ??
4. He made arguments I’ve heard liberal progressives make on the nature of the atonement.
Not tryna to start a war. Just pointing out serious flaws in the video. I have great love and respect for Catholics. God bless.
It is because of Justice and Love, there isn't a dichotomy here really. It is at the cross where Justice and Love come together. Where the deepest longing of man's heart is satisfied. He became sin who knew no sin so that we may become the righteousness of God.
Do consider this:
That divine joy does not obliterate the divine sorrow. In our world, joy and sorrow exclude each other. Here below, joy means the absence of sorrow and sorrow the absence of joy. But such distinctions do not exit in God.
Jesus, the Son of God, is the man of sorrows, but also the man of complete joy.
We catch a glimpse of this when we realize that in the midst of his greatest suffering Jesus is never seprated from his Father. His union with God is never broken even when he "feels" abandoned by God. The joy of God belongs to his sonship, and this joy of Jesus and his Father is offered to me. "
-Henri Nouwen
The Return of the Prodigal son.
Think especially of the Prodigal son in the pig sty. What made him get up from the pig sty and turn his face towards home? Yes, deprivation made him get back from the pig sty but it is chesed (loving kindness) love of the Father that made him turn his face towards home.
The Justice is taken care of on the son, Isaiah 53 explains what a father does out of Justice and Mercy and Love.
@@camythomas6860 you’re affirming my point ?
@@michaelbanda9993 Just replying to your point no. 3 on the comment above. I don't see a dichotomy that Scott is speaking only of God's love and not His justice. It is not an either/or argument, it is a both/and point.
@patriceagulu8315 Augustine, Aquinas, Hillary of Arles, should I go on ??
I have never heard such apostasy from.the many clear statements of Scripture
💯
Yes, Hold fast to sound words, cast away Penal Substitution, like Christ did with His body. Removing sin, there's no wrath to pay.
Is this really counter to Luther's view? I can understand it to be counter to John Calvin's view, but Luther's.
Thanks for answering my question!
Problem with PSA is with the hypostatic union of Jesus in Trinity. With the doctrine of penal substitution,it is held that God the Father ruptured His relationship with God the Son on the cross in order to punish Jesus. But this element of the doctrine is contrary to the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Doesn’t make sense that a just God punishes Jesus who is without sin.
Penal substitutionary atonement does not hold that the relationship of the Trinity is ever severed or ruptured. No reformer ever says this. The assumption made by some is that if the Father is pouring out wrath on the Son, then there must be a severing of relationship. But no where does the text of scripture say that the Son and the Father are severed. God is able to pour out divine Justice on the Son. The Son is able to become our sin and yet their Godhead is not disturbed. God never ceases to be God.
@@PastorCleveland there’s no divine justice inflicting punishment on an innocent individual. That’s the description of injustice.
@@kevinmc62 2 Cor. 5:21 - "God made him who had no sin (innocent) to be sin for us (not innocent), so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
Isaiah 53:6 - "The Lord has laid on him (innocent Jesus) the iniquity of us all."
Kevin, you would be right if on the cross Jesus was looked at by God as an innocent individual. But, graciously the Lord laid the sins of his people ON CHRIST so that Christ would bear our guilt on our behalf. This is why Jesus is our scapegoat (Lev. 16:8-22). He is our sacrificial offering, so that "by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Heb. 10:14)
@@PastorCleveland Catholicism’s interpretation makes much more logical sense and even the Protestant New Testament scholar N.T. Wright concurs:
The little word genōmetha in 2 Corinthians 5:21b-“that we might become God’s righteousness in him”-does not sit comfortably with the normal interpretation, according to which God’s righteousness is “imputed” or “reckoned” to believers. If that was what Paul meant, with the overtones of “extraneous righteousness” that normally come with that theory, the one thing he ought not to have said is that we “become” that righteousness. Surely that leans far too much toward a Roman Catholic notion of infused righteousness?
Corinthians 5:21 as positive evidence for God making us actually righteous, it remains the case that 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not support the teaching that we, as justified Christians, have only our legal standing changed before God.
2 Corinthians 5:21. We can still believe that when God justifies us, he makes us intrinsically righteous by his grace. In the words of Paul, he makes us a “new creation,” with the old passing away and the new having come (2 Cor. 5:17).
@@kevinmc62 Well, let me first point out that your quotation from Wright does not in any way deal with the first part of 2 Cor. 5:21 and the discussion of Christ becoming sin on our behalf.
Also, N.T. Wright is by no means a trustworthy protestant voice when it comes to the issue of the atonement. He is at odds with most protestant New Testament scholars on this issue. (See: "New Perspective On Paul").
Finally, "Catholicism's interpretation makes much more logical sense" is not an argument and does not deal with the texts of scripture provided.
Kevin, you tell me, in your own words ... What do 2 Cor. 5:21 and Isaiah 53:6 mean? How do you interpret the language of the Lord laying on Jesus our iniquities and making Jesus sin on our behalf?
Can you explain the "love" that Dr. Hahn was talking about. It is a tough concept, unlike the love that most of us know. It has got to be something so much more than what we commonly understand. Thank you.
Willing the good of the other for the other
How does the notion of sinful imputation, as the sin sacrifices of old did. Taking upon the unblemished lamb the sin of Israel?
Hahn doesn't tackle the verses he brings up that are Penal Substitution's proof texts. The bible doesn't pain a simplistic view of the cross. Satisfaction, substitution, victory - are all aspects of the cross. To call one false/inferior simply because it is terrifying is unfortunate.
6:00 what satisfies divine justice is the shedding of blood Heb 9:22
What I don't understand about penal substitution is that it implies that if we went to the cross we could atone for our own sins
Your sins are atoned without Penal Substitution. We should not add punishment payment to Christ's sacrifice. He was forsaken not as punishment but to remove sin. I think your talking about an outer camp of PS where Christ pays as a sinner- and thus cannot pay. Therefore, we might as well pay like you said. Arguing against those 5 unreasonable camps, seems like less bang for your buck. They are not the back bone. Spend your time on people like Dr Craig, or one of the 3 moderate camps of PS. Nominals are also a waste. The best thing we may be able to do with moderate PenSubs is just to prove that this addition is not in the Bible.
Penal Substitution is biggest cringe that made me leave evangelical protestantism and could count as heresy.
If our sins aren't punished, how can God be just?
Theosis and Christus Victor are more reliable models than Penal Substitution. Sure! I believe that Jesus died for us. Our redemption from sin thru Christ is real because GOD LOVES US. But to believe that Jesus died in place of us is something else. I refuse to believe that God The Father is a schizophrenic who demands blood for our sins. "I demand mercy not sacrifice."
By the way, our affliction as a result of sin is not God's punishment but rather self-inflicted. If you lived a promiscuous life and get STD, God didn't punish you. You did it to yourself.
th-cam.com/video/gB3yKu2sXJo/w-d-xo.html
@@marshallballantine-jones3819
If God is purely about punishment, how can He be loving and merciful?
Your sins are forgived
It's like you read the Bible, got through the Old Testament, then stopped. Classic protestantism, always judaising
@chico
No, God the Father didn't smite the Son
The Son was a self-voluntary sacraficial lamb
@@InhabitantOfOddworldThose two things aren’t contradictory.
Acts 2:23
[23] this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
Romans 3:24-26
[24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Luther see God like that. His scrupulously went on overdrive. He see God as abusive father.
I think that's a caricature
If the purpose of the cross is to show God's perfect love, then why did Christ need to die? Not a loaded question, I would genuinely like to hear a good answer
My thoughts are that he didn’t need to die. But because man was in such a deprived state we killed him. I’d imagine if Jesus were to incarnate now we would probably kill him as well. Christs love came into exisistence and the love was able to shine through 2000 years.
But others would give answers about the need for sacrifice in the OT law. But even then the foundations of sacrifice I believe stemmed from love. Originally people loved god so much they gave gifts. Eventually that love dried out and sacrifices were given in obligation instead of love.
Why can't he see any love in penal substitution? Now i don't think the penal view is the complete picture, and parts of the way its formulated may be flawed. But there is definitely a legal aspect straight from scripture, and denying that seems absurd to me, and that's not only Isaiah 53, but the many judgements God deals out through scripture.
But I want to point out that Calvin said the Father was never angry with the Son whom He loved for even a moment. Mr. Hahn doesn't give that picture.
For me, there is love, there is payment for penalty, there is washing and cleansing, there is defeating the enemy, there is tasting death and the curse on our behalf, there is demonstration of God's love,there is purchase of our lives, and more. You don't need to have atonement theories that narrow our focus when you have atonement facts. Take all facts about the atonement that scripture teaches, and don't omit a single one!
I see his point, but I wish he would have spoken more on the love of God that is displayed in Christ on the cross in light of our sinfulness and why that needed to be taken care of. Would love to hear more Catholic perspective in that regard
What about the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East view?
They are still Christ's church.
Christus Victor / Ransom Theory? The question is who is the ransom paid to and what is the mechanism of victory? The book of Romans suggests that justification is the mechanism of victory, that Christ defeated sin by averting the rightful wrath of the Father, purifying us and wiping our slate clean by taking our due.
Brilliant presentation.
My impasse to Catholicism is Papal succession.
It rests squarely on Peter’s Confession and the interpretation of Jesus words.
I don’t see Peter as a Vicor of Christ. A lot of theology read into the concept without scriptural support.
The Rock Jesus was referring to was the actual Rock near Pan’sGrotto.
Jesus was declaring war to the unseen powers of darkness.
Transfiguration was on Mt Hermon. The place where the Watchers descended Gen 6.
That whole area of Bashan was Evil Central.
Dr Micheal Heiser Unseen Realm and Reversing Hermon.
sorry, but you have much more than that - you have the witness of the first 150 years after Jesus - beginning with the Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (around the year 90); in it, Clement acted with authority in order disciple the church of Corinth - you must also read Ireneaus in the Adversus haereses, III, 3 (around 170), saying that all the churches must follow the teaching of the church of Rome - you can also read the letter of Ireneaus to the pope Victor in the question of the quatordecimanos - Pope Victor was willing to excommunicate the churches of the province of Asia due to the fact they celebrated Easter according to the Jewish calendar - Ireneaus advised hm not to do that because the matter did not justify such radical measure - you have also Tertulian (210) criticisng the bishop of Rome because he pretends to be the master of all the churches, etc etc
The Rock IS Jesus Christ
RC was the first to schism from the Universal Church.
Short Answer: EVERYTHING
Catholic here former Protestant, not really hearing much of a difference between Penal Substitutionary Atonement vs Vicarious Satisfaction. I don't know about Luther but the Calvinist perspective of law is for the perfection of the individual not just juridical.
I need Scott Hahn to name my fantasy football team. He is a wordsmith.
This makes Mary born without sin make sense as well. Brilliant
We might question the notion of the Father pouring out His wrath on the Son. But can we question the Son taking away the Father's wrath? I think those are two separate things. I think the one is debatable biblically, but the other is not. I hope that is maintained in the catholic view.
Yes, while I would not use the language of the Father pouring out His wrath on Jesus, I would say that the Son unquestionably takes away the Father's wrath
When Calvinists, Evangelicals and other Protestants who believe in the “penal substitution theory of atonement” finally realize how unjust, how immoral, how illogical it is, they are faced with three choices: either become an atheist or become a Catholic at best, or become cruel bigots at worst.
If they choose to believe that God is too loving for penal substitution to be true, then they will gravitate to a theology which emphasizes both forgiveness and justice (vicarious satisfaction, i.e., the “ransom theory”) over a fictional courtroom drama that supposedly happens in eternity (penal substitution of Calvinists and Evangelicals).
Those who choose to believe that God will punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, no matter how willing the innocent victim is to be punished for the sins of the guilty, they either will accept such a cruel and unjust “god” and become cruel and unjust themselves, or they become practical atheists, i.e., knowing full well that God exists but denying his existence to “punish” God for his perceived “cruelty and injustice”.
Few atheists really believe in God's non-existence, if any at all, many only claiming that they see no evidence that God exists just to “hurt” God by their denials, which seems to be the case when they vehemently deny God's existence but not that of leprechauns or mermaids, or even the existence of Thor.
But those who chose to be cruel and unjust because they believe that God is “rightly” cruel and unjust are the worst people of all, for in truth they are worshipping a false god more akin to Baal (who demands the death of the innocent) than to Adonai.
I hear you man, but this is a super nuanced topic!
They could become Orthodox as well