What Calvinists Get WRONG About Atonement w/ Dr. Scott Hahn
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Full Episode: • The Holiness of God, P...
Penal Substitution is the protestant idea that Jesus was punished by God the Father instead of sinful mankind. This goes against Church teaching and Dr. Hahn explains why.
Hallow: hallow.com/matt
Exodus 90: exodus90.com/matt
Add Me on Parler: parler.com/mat...
---
📚 My new book!: amzn.to/3FXQDuj
🔴 LINKS
Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.loca...
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
We get a small kick back from affiliate links.
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
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
@@laurasmith4498 Mary is the ark in heaven so she has a high status
@@Scott48-w9i 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.
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?
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?
“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.
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.
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.
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!
This. THIS. ALL OF THIS!
Dr. Hahn is knocking it out of the park for Our Lord on this.
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.
Wouldn't it be both? According to our Jewish roots, the sacrifice was for our atonement.
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
I read this book, it was eye opening. Great recommendation Dr. Hahn.
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.”
I don’t see why both can’t be true
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.
wonderful insightful clip, thank you 🙏🏻 Praise Abba Father.
th-cam.com/video/woj7ZsmgpxA/w-d-xo.html
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.
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.
“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
Calvinism is heresy.
Luther see God like that. His scrupulously went on overdrive. He see God as abusive father.
I think that's a caricature
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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?
“It pleased the Lord to crush Him”
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
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
“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
”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
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
@@InhabitantOfOddworld God is loving and merciful, and just to punish sin, that is why "The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all" Isaiah 53:6 and "the punishment that brought us peace was on him." God is loving because God The Father smites his own Son for love of the unrighteous, which the Son willingly takes so that we, the unrighteous may be declared righteous.
@@chico2033
No, God the Father didn't smite the Son
The Son was a self-voluntary sacraficial lamb
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.
"We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to [His Son] 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."
(Calvin, Institutes II.vi.xi)
Seems like a contradiction. If Christ bore the wrath of God, then God of necessity hated and cursed him at that moment. Even R.C. Sproul says this.
@@gch8810
1) I don't see the contradiction. Maybe you can flesh it out?
2) Will you link me to the RC Sproul quote?
3) And for the record...
The Magisterial Reformers > Sproul and 21st century neo-calvinists.
Yes! Catholics should agree 100% with this perspective
Does anybody else think Scott looks like, Padre Pio?
Brilliant. Thank you.
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.
6:00 what satisfies divine justice is the shedding of blood Heb 9:22
To all watching: vicarious satisfaction is NOT the only theory of atonement found within Catholicism. Christus Victor is a far superior theory IMO and is equally 'Catholic.' The non-violent atonement as promulgated by Rene Girard, Gil Bailie, James Alison, etc. makes more sense than satisfaction-based theories.
I (reformed) still don't see the issue here. I don't see how this understanding excludes substitutionary attornment.
Also, what does it mean when Jesus asks the father "why have you forsaken me?"
Clearly that implies he is the subject of his father's rath at that point??
@@Harvesterain maybe. But still, why?
PSA isn't counter to God's love. It's how God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) agreed to love us. Nothing schizophrenic about it either, because there really are 3 persons of the Trinity and they truly are 1 being. "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 Cor 5:21).
Was it a show of God's love? Yes, absolutely! "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). He loves us BY dying for us. Please, guys- don't set up a false dichotomy. Let's read the Scriptures and glory in the love of God, shown in his sinless life, substitutionary death, and victorious resurrection.
THO CHRIST SAVED US , THERES PEOPLE HERE ON EARTH THAT WILL NOT ACCEPT THIE FACTUAL SACRIFICE OF JESUS FOR OUR SINS . SOME ARE DOWNRIGHT ANGRY AT THOSE WHO TRY TO REACH THEM WITH THIS TRUTH WHEN DO WE LET GO WHAT ONLY GOD CAN GRAFT IN
Penal substitution seems to make a lot more sense than vicarious satisfaction. Just from this guys explanation vicarious satisfaction seems very vague and nebulous.
Satisfaction theory is not early church theology. Jude 3 should be our guide post understanding what the original hearers understood. Ransom, Christus Victor, Passover lamb (protecting blood from death).
I think Anselm’s time in History reflects the notion needed satisfaction. Like a man who slaps another man and demands satisfaction w a duel. God is bigger than this. As if a human reaction is applied the King of the Universe.
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 recommend viewers read the words of the Hymn Amazing Grace.
Partially true, but not the whole picture-
Isaiah 53 is quite forceful in its declaration that atonement happened because Jesus was a sacrifice for sin- and was crushed for our iniquities.
I hate Calvinism, but Mr. Hahn’s view chooses to ignore the entire blood atonement sacrificial system in the OT.
It’s also a bit straw-manned as far as Mr Hahn’s descriptions of the punishment.
Also it ignores the idea of propitiation, and real wrath, which is quite scriptural.
what do you think about the idea, i'm coining the phrase penal participation?
the idea is that Christ participates in our penalty of sin voluntarily, and because of his obedience and his love his participation in our penalty is able to satisfy God’s Justice.
like wise we christians who are in christ by the spirit, who have been forgiven of our sins, who in obedience and love participate in christ penalty.
to make the distinction more clear from penal substitution, that is christ suffers instead of us, in penal participation all men suffer the penalty of sin like wise by christ being a man he suffers that penalty with us voluntarily, however his suffering alone is what is able to cover the debt of sin. but our suffering lacked value because of our sin our rebellion and lack of love towards god and our finite nature.
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
Isaiah 53?
You cannot discuss redemption without referring to the book of Leviticus, there we clearly see an animal taking the place of an offerer. In Genesis 22, we see a lamb taking Isaac's place. He who knew no sin was made sin 2 Corinthians 5:21 and was judged as thus. Also in John 2:1-2 the word is propitiation instead of expiation, clearly not supporting Prof Hahn's views!
How did God's image become dunghills covered in snow, Mr. Luther?
53 Who has believed what he has heard from us?[a]
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected[b] by men,
a man of sorrows[c] and acquainted with[d] grief;[e]
and as one from whom men hide their faces[f]
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 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.
6 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.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 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,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;[g]
when his soul makes[h] an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see[i] and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,[j]
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,[k]
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Believe the Word not humans I beg you
So where goes the wrath of God against the sin entity in all this?
isn't the answer to this found in taking all points together as correctly representing the many sided wisdom of God
I don't understand what he's saying? I think I understand the Calvinist explanation but I am confused about what the correct understanding.
If Jesus didn't suffer the punishment for the sins of those who trust in him, does that mean we will have to bear the infinite punishment of God on our sins for eternity ?
But how then can the apostle Paul write "we have peace with God" and "there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 5:1 & 8:1) ?
The answer is that Jesus is the High Priest who represented his people, who carried their names on his high priestly clothes as he offered himself as the sacrifice for the sins of his people, who suffered the punishment they deserved, and presented that sacrifice before the Father who accepted it, who then raised His Son from the dead, and seated him on the throne until his return in glory.
If God's wrath against sin isn't poured out on a substitute, then it is reserved for the day of judgment.
But those who turn to Jesus Christ in faith, who truly see what he has accomplished on the cross, can know and rejoice with the apostle Paul and say : "we have peace with God, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus".
I have never heard such apostasy from.the many clear statements of Scripture
I don’t see where they are mutually exclusive. It seems more natural to consider them, like so many topics in the Protestant-Catholic conversation, as two perspectives of the same subject. The work f our Lord is multi- faceted. Fred.
Seems like no point in the crucifixion then!
If you can’t say that Jesus died for our sins then you make the cross useless and your still in your sins. Also if Jesus isn’t the fulfillment of the sacrificial lamb then why does he have to come down and die for us? If you take the substitutionary atonement away your are taking the gospel away and making it superficial.
Isn't Penal Substition from St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo?
I think Anselm formulated a substitutionary satisfaction theory of atonement, which Calvin streamlined into a penal substitutionary theory of atonement.
@@sunnybuckle3979 Anselm's theory was also penal
OK, thanks, this is something I'm trying to figure out - ie whether PSA is an original biblical doctrine or developed later and injected into Christian ideology.
yeah, he broke the chains of body controlling amulets/talismans.... he was so happy people could actually walk for once and do what they chose to....
Everything Dr Hahn says about vicarous satisfaction according to Aquinas is the same if not extremely similar from what I have learned about Penal Subsitution Atonement in my theology studies of the reformation.
I genuinely do not understand what he is on about or what the issue is. I am seeing a division where there is none.
In fact, it is the first time I am encountering an opposition or contrasting debate between PSA and VS, as though in conflict with each other - never heard it before in any reformed courses (Lutheranism or otherwise). And to be clear, there are important soterological differences btw Roman Catholicism and Confessional Protestantism - but this isnt one of them…
You’re completely right. I won’t say that Hahn is lying here, but he’s seemingly ignorant on the subject.
Thanks much for this video.
This really is diabolical. What Hahn is saying is a contemporary man's way of saying the thing that caused Jesus to rebuke Peter: "Get thee behind me, Satan!"
Until this moment, I had not really grasped that Catholicism really is "another Gospel," and must be regarded as the Devil's tool.
Thank God, there are many, many Catholics who understand that Jesus died for their sins.
Hahn makes the Father out to be a monster. May God bring light to his unseeing eyes.
Isaiah : WITH his stripes we are healed, The stripes that man gave him out of sin become his own Burden, he who had no sin became sin for us, The stripes that man gave him he uses to to redeem unto the Biblical words "I Hurt & I Heal"(Job) unto ",My Burden is light & my Yoke easy " the words that underscore the Communion, The Body & Blood of the STRIPED Christ received through FAITH, The GRACE
FAITH has its works within, comes through following the TWO COMMANDMENTS of Love, amounts to picking up ones own crosses daily to following him as commanded, thus Equating WITH his sacrifice on the Cross
So the stripes that man gave him is the reason why it pleased God to Bruise him (Isaiah) not for the bruises itself but for its Fruit,
for which he had to Resurrect, that he did, cause Our sins could not hold him down in hell (where Sin & death rules) as he was found stronger than Sin itself, unto his words "I have overcome the world" (its sins)
This is basically a Conversion act instead of a Substitution (magical) as generally believed by Protestants The Error has its origins through Protestantism's theologically leavening the Faith by Faith Only that James specifically says is not unto mis interpretation Paul (the reason why Martin Luther rejected James cause it was a hinderance to his erranous view of redemption) and the philosophies that arise out of the leavens becomes to another Christ another Gospel, incidentally the source of the prophesied Apostasy theologically in the leavens of the Faith through Protestantization
Give unto God what is to God -- FAITH, surely not a Leavened /Corrupted Faith,
The Catholic view seems to leave the law and what it demands outside the issue, but Romans 3 is very clear, the work of Christ is propitiatory, it satisfies God’s justice by the sacrifice. The problem we have is that we think of God has having wrath like men do, no, the manifestation of the wrath of God is the death of his Son, is not some angry feeling, but he did this out of love for his own glory, the glory of the trinity. The Son came into the world for that very hour sent by the Father in agreement.
I think it's worth being clear that there are MANY instances of the Church fathers - whom Catholic tradition would hardly condemn as theologically ludicrous - teaching something that smells suspiciously like PSA long before Calvin.
Cyril of Alexandria - Commentary on John, Book XII: "He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law...The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the cross that awaited us, and was our due, through our condemnation by the Law…He took upon Himself the Cross that was our due, passing on Himself the condemnation of the Law, that the mouth of all lawlessness might henceforth be stopped, according to the saying of the Psalmist; the Sinless having suffered condemnation for the sin of all...For our sake He paid the penalty for our sins. For though He was One that suffered, yet was He far above any creature, as God, and more precious than the life of all."
Athanasius - Letter to Marcellinus - "And Psalm 22…They pierced my hands and my feet- what else can that mean except the cross? And Psalms 88 and 69, again speaking in the Lord’s own person, tell us further that He suffered these things, not for His own sake but for ours. Thou has made Thy wrath to rest upon me, says the one; and the other adds, I paid them things I never took. For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself bore our weaknesses."
Augustine - Contra Faustus - "The apostle boldly says of Christ, "He was made a curse for us;" for he could also venture to say, "He died for all." "He died," and "He was cursed," are the same. Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment."
And, we could go on listing many citations from many fathers, both east and west, that explicitly state something much like PSA - which is where Calvin got it.
It's also worth being clear that this high-sounding Catholic view of Christ's vicarious satisfaction espoused in the video is also the framework from which the RCC explicitly condemns those who believe in the doctrine of justification by faith alone through the merits of Christ alone, in order to argue that the satisfaction of Christ merits for us the grace of justification, which justification is NOT simply the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but is BOTH the forgiveness of sins AND the subsequent formation in hope and charity to be perfected by OUR grace-enabled cooperation with Christ.
And, likewise, in RCC theology, the satisfaction of Christ does not negate the need for subsequent satisfactions for sins we commit after the fact of being made partakers of the grace of Christ. Therefore, in Catholic theology, plainly taught in Trent and the catechism of the Catholic church, we need to make satisfactions for our sins through the sacrament of penance/reconciliation - both in order to return to the state of grace/justification in the event we have fallen through serious sin, and also to expiate the temporal punishments merited by our sins committed after receiving grace.
Thus, Council of Trent - Chapter 14 - On the Fallen and Their Restoration: "Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian man after his fall, is very different from that at his baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and ... a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the same sins...and sacerdotal absolution, and likewise satisfaction by fasts, almsgivings, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament; but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, unto those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit,"
And the expiation of the remaining temporal punishments for which insufficient satisfaction has been made is, of course, the point of purgatory - wherein the remaining penal and medicinal satisfactions to be made in view of the temporal punishments merited by our sins are to be paid.
Thus, Council of Trent - Canon 30 - "If any one shall say, that, after the grace of justification received, unto every penitent sinner the guilt is so remitted, and the penalty of eternal punishment so blotted out, that there remains not any penalty of temporal punishment, to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be laid open; let him be anathema."
So...not all that satisfactory of a satisfaction.
Please read Isaiah 53.
i didn't follow that explanation at all and it's not that i'm incapable of understanding, but the logical progression wasn't there for me
Google who started the Catholic Church?
I still dont understand the difference
Penal substitution theory says that our redemption was wrought by virtue of Jesus' being tortured to death in our stead. For this to be pleasing to God, God would have to like seeing those He loves be tortured to death. Which is a bit disturbing.
Vicarious substitution says that our redemption was wrought by the vast love for God that Jesus offered when he was tortured to death. God is pleased by the love, not by the suffering.
If you read the book Dr. Hahn mentioned, it goes into a lot of detail about how, because God is pleased by the love, He would have been satisfied as easily by one of Jesus' laughs or smiles. Per St. Thomas Aquinas, the reason that wasn't used for our Redemption (even though it could have been, it was not) was in order to demonstrate to men the serious and fatal nature of sin. But it was Jesus love for His Father in the suffering that redeemed us, not the suffering itself.
In both cases, it is through the Passion and Death of Our Lord that we are saved, the difference is in what specifically about that whole thing was pleasing to God: venting His anger on an innocent target, or being loved infinitely and perfectly by a human.
Why would God need satisfaction?
Great stuff
th-cam.com/video/woj7ZsmgpxA/w-d-xo.html
Thanks!
Converts never really become one of us.
Always that forced application about them.
Remember it is through faith and works we are saved
How many works do I need to be saved? How good do they need to be? How much righteousness? If we have to do anything, that’s terrible news, not good news. Hope you’re working hard!
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast.”
- Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV)
Are you calling the Apostle Paul a liar?
@@Diallelus “What good is it, my brothers and sisters,[e] if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”
James 2:14
Do you deny the words of St James? Look how I say it is by both we are saved as is the official position of God’s Holy Church
@@florida8953 You need both faith and works to be saved as the Church teaches and as Christ says in Mark 25:31 31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,[g] you did it to me.’ 41Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
@@florida8953 Notice how he separates the sheeps and the goats by their works, however understand that one needs both faith and works to be saved. My brother in Christ we must avoid saying you need one or the other when the teaching has been both for 2000 years while faith alone only 500 years
I wish I could understand this.
life is the way we pay our debits.... can't pay debits by cowardice of retardeath and not paying debits.... isn't that what death does? doesn't pay its' debits?
Please interview Dr John Bergsma
Romans 8:3-4 (ESV): For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit
I didn’t hear any of this in the explanation that was given. Sounds like you’re appealing to emotions
Brilliant!
Curious as to whether Dr. Hahn-or anyone who has commented on this page-considers himself an "evangelical (Roman) Catholic).
All sounds very rational until you read Isaiah 53. Which says the very thing he is arguing against.
Claptrap. Jesus died to take power over death, atonement is acceptance into the church. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for the truth.
1:40 I think Jesus statement “My God My God” can be seen to argue against this point.
Jesus was quoting psalm 22. Read it.
@@Vico1985. I was talking about the point that was being made that the father is somehow the closest to the son at the cross. I know he’s quoting Psalm 22 it’s awesome. I think the statement made at 1:40 (sorry I put the wrong time stamp earlier) is just emotional and not really theologically true especially in light of what Jesus is quoting and context
@Prinzabraham I do believe He is at His closest to us in our sufferings. How much more would He be with His son. It's a mystery. John 14:23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." Jesus was at the climax of doing His Father's will at Calvary.
@@Vico1985. Jesus suffering is different. Jesus suffered on our behalf and He carried our sin 1 Peter 2:24. I think it’s an assumption, not scriptural, to say that the Father is closest to the son at this moment when the son is clearly feeling the separation from the Father just like Adam and Eve felt only that the eternal relationship in that moment was distanced for the first time.
Like the Psalm 22 ends Jesus puts His faith in the Father that even with what He is feeling He knows His Father will rescue Him.
@Prinzabraham oh yes, I agree that our sufferings and Jesus suffering are different. I'm not questioning that. I was trying to say that God is closest to us in our sufferings. Feeling separation and actually having separation are 2 different things. A lot of us feel God far away when we suffer, but is that true? That God us far away just because we feel he is away? It's Jesus human nature that feels in that way. Just as His prayer in the garden asking God to remove the cup from Him. It's not assumption but reading the Bible in context. As John said God is love. It's not one of His atreibute but is who He is.
Sorry! Great respect for Mr. Kahn and for Matt also, but the explanation is relying more on human logic and not so much on scripture. Not satisfactory for me.
Nah I’ll stick to Scripture the Just for the unjust.
Please invite eleonore stump for a discussion on the atonement!
It happens to be in the Bible. Christ died once for sin, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God. But then, the Catholic church never has had that much use for the Bible, has it?
So, exactly how can a sinner be made righteous?
It's revolting that the Father's giving up the Son is seen as showing lovelessness by these two men. His giving up the Son, who was willing, for us is the greatest evidence there could be of God's love for us.
Babble notwithstanding, what Hahn says amounts to a rejection of Jesus Christ. Thank God for the Reformation.
Nobody can ever love God perfectly in this life. Jesus did it for us. Gods very nature is wrath against the smallest sin. Jesus sweated drops of blood because he knew he was going to suffer eternal wrath of the Father in our place. Gods law is meant to show us we can’t keep it, only Jesus can in our place. I can’t believe Catholics believe this.
I don’t understand, is this guy, throwing out God’s wrath and justice? I don’t fully understand what he is renouncing.
You have to ignore ignore that Christ did it all so that you can justify requiring the Mass
Penal substitution is biblical. What we have here is a caricature.