Don't forget this is going to be a series on PSA I'm doing each Tuesday at 5pm PST. If you want to be notified when I go live you need to subscribe, click the bell icon and make sure TH-cam notifications are enabled on your device. Thanks for joining me!
@Dustin Neely This is the Catholic teaching which has clearly mucked up the waters on this teaching. The Catholic church came out with this confusion after the scholars made these distinctions in order to keep the uneducated masses under their control, in confusion and ignorance.
@Dustin Neely I agree with some of your comment but certainly the comment that none of the ECF believed that death was a punishment but just a consequence is an oversimplification and a generalization. The ECF certainly had a view of God's punishment, and that punishment being death. In response to your last two statements, do you believe that God has wrath and punishes those who do not believe in His Son?
@Dustin Neely You clearly did not watch the entire video did you? He cites some who explicitly say Christ took our *penalty* or that he was *punished* for our sins or *chastised.* I have read some of these primary sources and other texts that predate Calvin and know for a fact that this is what they taught. You are one of the many people (or are getting information from one of the people) who strains as much as possible to push a false narrative.
@Dustin Neely Funny. You accused him of not reading the sources and then conclude your comment with this assertion: "You are confusing 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement' with 'Substitutionary Atonement'." I then point out that Mike, anticipating your objection, specifically cited fathers that discussed the penal element of the atonement. You ignore that and just make another assertion. Very funny. I don't know who has instilled your hatred of PSA in you, but your objections are flawed.
Mike Winger I am a Calvinist and have been reading reformed theology for decades and go to a Calvinist church. Not ones have I been taught or believed that people are saved when Christ died, we receive salvation by faith. Please correct this misrepresentation of the reformed faith.
As an academic myself (linguistics), I am shocked when I hear that supposed scholars do not go back to original sources. This is the bedrock, the foundation of research-especially historical work. If a doctrinal candidate presented only hearsay, secondary sources, we would thoroughly attack them. If I were in a debate and heard someone claim that an ‘early church father”’ held to a point, I would immediately ask for the reference. Next, I would ask for Fathers who disagreed with the position. This is standard research practice. People always have different views. To say that all early Christians held to exactly the same views is to ignore the diversity of experience. People didn’t have the Bible in a singular form, as we have today, nor were there creeds to guide people in every aspect. And a number of heresies arose because of these missing elements. Thanks Mike for attempting to educate people about how some are misusing research. I would encourage everyone, always ask for original sources. Always ask speakers for the alternative interpretations, and the reasons they themselves reject others’ research. These are fundamental guidelines for doing research, and I have caught many graduate students on these points.
To whom was the ransom (Christ’s death on the Cross) paid?” Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and Highpriest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence. St. Gregory the Theologian
the devil then holds the blood of Christ as the price of man, What ... For him the deity of Christ is the fish-hook that catches the devil (Basil of Caesarea)
As an Egyptian Coptic orthodox, when I hear about Origin and Athanasius as promoters to penal substitution it really makes me laugh, this shows how much the people in the west no nothing about their thoughts. If I was a good English writer I would have written thousands of sentence of Athanasius to demolish this PSA silly doctrine
The old orthodox desert fathers are a great place to start. BEFORE One bishop heads off to Europe and we base the bulk of our western theology out of one of the five fingers on the hand. I like to remind people that Christianity IS an eastern religion 1st.
According to NT wright, even Jewish scholars don't know what the sacrifices were about. I'm not a PSA hater, but I don't think that we can "understand" the Jewish sacrificial system unless God gave an explicit explanation (such as, "the lamb will die in your place and bear the punishment of your sins." )
@@danielcartwright8868 Isaiah 53:10. Jesus is called the Lamb of God who takes away our sin (John 1:29), a sin offering (Romans 8:3 and 2 Corinthians 5:21). The argument I often get against PSA is that 'why can't God just forgive?' and then they argue for Christus Victor (a motif of Atonement I hold to wholeheartedly - cause it's directly in scripture in many places, Hebrews 2:14 being one - I also think Christus Victor and PSA are only beneficial if both are tied together with satisfaction theory, moral Influence, aspects of random theory, etc ) and claim the atonement didn't have anything to do with forgiveness in terms of getting rid of of guilt (completely ignoring Romans 5:8-9, Romans 3:21-25, Romans 4:25, Romans 5:18, Ephesians 2:1-10 saying we're children of wrath and that being made alive in Christ freeing us from that, that we are United with him in his death (Romans 6:3-6) therefore ending our slavery to sin - Christus Victor- and making us no longer children of wrath) and that he's making a new covenant or cleansing us but not taking our guilt. So why did the Israelites have to even sacrifice animals (who, notably, are referred to as sin offerings in Leviticus and Numbers 15). They were being sin offerings cause they were in the place of the people. That's literally substitution. And if death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23) then we have to conclude that it being sacrificed is the penalty or punishment and consequence of sin. If that's the case, then Jesus death which takes away guilt as pointed out by many of the passages I have pointed out is what makes atonement and justification, making us right with God and giving us peace with him. Why peace? Cause we had his wrath on us BEFORE we were saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 3:36). PSA is fax my guy. Wasn't arguing "angrily" just giving my view. Blessings.
Penal substitution misunderstands the word “propitiation”: Propitiation should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments-the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.)
Was the mercy seat a human? - No. Ok, then Jesus was not a human. This "argument" is silly analogy slavery. Jesus was chastized for our sins (Isa 53:4-6), regardless of lousy philosophy that is used to attack this truth.
If PSA isn't true, then why did Jesus even die? What's the point? Cause He wanted a vacation from heaven? Cause He wanted to chill with the bros? What is the point?
@@BloodBoughtMinistries I have come to realise religionists despise the clear written word of God Almighty. please see my prior post and tell me what you think of Hebrews 10:26:
@@BloodBoughtMinistries Man's curse. Spot on! JW - Mormon - Catholic Doctrine of "the confessional" - Church of God (Pentecostal) - Islam - Buddhism - etc All works religions of Babylonians (idol worship) Christ to Peter, who did deny Christ, *"Do you LOVE ME?"* Love in Christ (Proverbs 1:9 "The Fear (reverence in our vernacular) of God is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge." That simple
We’re studying the American Gospel: Christ Crucified in Sunday School and, of course you know about it since you’re in the videos, but these videos you do are SO helpful and in-depth. I’d say I’ve been a Christian since a very young age, and I’d gone to schools for biblical studies, but it hasn’t been till now (age 43) that I am realizing the importance of understanding Church history and the doctrines I’ve been “brought up” in. It’s SO important for Christians to understand these essential doctrines that we believe in them so we can make a proper defense. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
I was nearly won over by Matt Fradd talking to Scott Hahn about this. They too repeated the idea that PSA began with Calvin as he was a lawyer. Thanks so much for delving back into the ancient writings and making it clear that this belief is very early. May God always bless you…and your lovely moggie.
Jeremy Treat is my Pastor! 👍 Got super stoked when you mentioned his book! Thanks for all the hard work you do Mike! Your channel has been a huge blessing!
Excellent video, Pastor Mike. I was encouraged by a friend to listen to this series, and this first video was extremely edifying. After listening to this, I feel much more at peace, knowing that my understanding of Jesus's atoning sacrifice on the cross aligns with what Scripture teaches. If Jesus never died for my sins, I would still be dead in my sins. Without the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross, I would be absolutely hopeless! I cannot fully comprehend the depth and width of His great love for sinners, especially me, but God's perfect righteousness and perfect love were made perfectly manifest on the cross. All I know is, I once was dead, and now I'm alive; I once was fatherless, and now I have an eternal Father who knows everything about me, down to the number of atoms in my body and every word before I speak it. I can't wait for the day when He calls me home -- a day when I will truly be able to love Him and glorify Him with all my mind, soul, strength, and heart with a glorified body. I can't wait to see the color of my Lord's eyes and the scars in His hands. He has given me everything, and He is my inheritance forever.
The early church did not believe that the Father poured out His wrath upon the Son and scripture says Jesus died on our behalf not in our place. The two major words in the Greek New Testament translated "FOR" are ANTI and HUPER. ANTI means "instead of" or "in the place of". The word HUPER is translated in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of and is translated FOR in the New Testament. Whenever the death and atonement of Christ are described in the New Testament as "for" us, the word HUPER is used which means in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of.(D. Carroll).
To the question of whether Augustine was an influence on Calvin, yes...as were many church fathers. But more specifically, Augustine was a strong influence in Luther's thought, and Luther a strong influence on Calvin (although WE tend to focus on the differences). But all the reformers knew the church fathers' writings well, and knew church history.
I’ve known that revisionists at my school were full of it but I couldn’t point out how. Now I can after watching this. Thank you for taking the time to do this.
At 52:05 when you're talking about Jesus sacrifice achieving both Justice and Mercy for reconciliation reminded me of Psalms 85:10 KJV "Mercy and Truth are met together. Riteousness and Peace have kissed each other." That spoke deeply to me. Thank you Pastor Mike.
I listened carefully to all the quotes you read. I'm not certain that they were expressing PSA as defined today. After all, the Reformers redefined many theological terms, good or bad. In one's zeal to prove one's case, anachronistic interpretations must be avoided. Even a PSA proponent disagrees with your church history assessment on this topic (or perhaps Master Seminary assessment) J.I. Packer said, “…Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it (PSA)… What the Reformers did was to redefine satisfactio (satisfaction), the main medieval category for thought about the cross. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?, which largely determined the medieval development, saw Christ’s satisfactio for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice).” (What Did the Cross Achieve: The Logic of Penal Substitution: J.I. Packer) I plan to listen to your series, and I'm not necessarily anti-PSA either. I do believe that all writings must be understood through authorial intent. Blessings
I find this as well. People who try and defend PSA from church fathers is not often talking about PSA. They may be somewhat similar in some regards but not the same. It is common knowledge that PSA is a development of satisfaction theory. I am not against PSA per say, but I find the arguments rather lacking.
Just because it's not called PSA doesn't mean it isn't PSA. Keep in mind, none of the reformers called it PSA either, as they didn't speak English. The idea is what's identical, the idea that Jesus accepted our debt and paid it Himself so we don't have to(by going to hell/eternity away from God). Literally every verse which talks about Jesus' death goes on and on about how Jesus died "for our sins", he was pierced for our transgressions etc. If the apostles believed it when they wrote the Epistles and letters, it's true. No other explanation truly exists at all, nor is any other explanation biblically founded.
And another problem is constantly conflating substitutionary atonement with penal substitution. I don’t know why you folks keep doing that. Maybe it’s a blind spot.
The penalty is what I do not see in scripture. Jesus defeated death. Death could not hold him. He died physically like we will, but he defeated death and resurrected and now we will too because he defeated death for us to also not be held by it when we believe. I do not see penalty, but I do see substitution. Jesus didn’t die the death of a sinner. A sinner gets the second death which is the lake of fire. Death could not hold him. So, who did he pay the penalty for? Will non believers pay a penalty at final judgement? Why? Did Jesus only pay some peoples “penalty?”
@@gospelguidebook yes you are correct! Imputed righteousness is a legal fiction. It goes and people need to start actually listening to the Lord again and obey Him.
I am partway through this video and feel that Mike regularly conflates "substitution" with "payment". The early Church fathers clearly spoke of a substitution, but PSA builds on that idea and seems to place emphasis on God pouring his wrath onto Christ to fulfill a debt. I find this emphasis problematic, as it plays into the atheist stereotype of a hateful God. Christus Victor is emphasized by the early Church and is not given enough consideration in this video. Perhaps the middle ground is to recognize that the atonement is a complex, metaphysical occurrence that humans will never fully comprehend in this life. Christ's sacrifice has many layers of meaning, and narrowing it down to only PSA is likely an over-simplification. But it is not unreasonable to believe that the nature of atonement is ultimately one of forgiveness, undeserved justification, and love, rather than one of debt repayment and wrath satisfaction.
@@nathanielchristian7027 One gets the feeling when Mike goes to the zoo he sees PSA in every caged, animal, especially if he had to drive by a state penitentiary on the way there in a borrowed car!
"The wages for sin is death" "GOD is just" "God is merciful" Therefore "GOD showed mercy and Justice through Jesus dying, allowing others to not pay their own debt because Jesus already paid it." Your question is strange because it requires that God isn't Just. But God IS just, therefore He requires a penalty for sin.
@@SeanWinters they aren’t paying anything…they’re receiving their wages…receiving their wage of death for their sins vs. the gift of life for their faith in Jesus. Yes God is just. He gives us what we want. Life or death.
Thank you for this series. I am reading Rohr's "The Universal Christ" and reached Ch 12 which talks about penal substitutionary atonement being developed after the Reformation. It's good to have this antidote.
My problem with PSA as it is taught today is that there is no forgiveness of sins. If Jesus took our place and paid the penalty for our sins then they are not forgiven. They are paid for. Think of this if I owe a dime to the court and cannot pay it but you step in on my behalf and pay the debt, can the court in any way say my debt is forgiven? No my debt is paid and not forgiven.
Exactly. Just like in the parable of the unforgiving servant...God didn't make someone else pay his fine, but forgave him. If someone had paid his fine, it would have been impossible to re-instate the fine which is what happened.
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" Hebrews 9:22 Also if u commit s crime u think a judge would met u scott free
@@jenex5608 you are taking a verse out of context… of course that is what is done with almost every proof text. There are several verses in the Old Testament where people are forgiven without the shredding of blood. And yes judges sometimes let people off scot free. That’s not the point however, the point is that someone else paying a debt on your behalf is not forgiveness. It’s payment. PSA leads to no forgiveness
I agree with you when they say all these theories of atonement are complementary theories. I really don't see how one can rule out the penal substitution theory after reading scripture. It says Christ died for our sins it doesn't say Christ died just to show us how sinful we are, while it certainly does show us this. Jews don't even believe that they need a savior to atone for their sins so they really don't get the crucifiction.
The thing about PSA though is that is focused on Propitiation which means that they believe that God is angry with us and he has to punish us(kill us) for doming but instead he kills Jesus to satisfy his need to kill someone for sin. I do believe Jesus died in place of us but I don't believe the focus that is God is angry like a pagan god. Also, he is talking more on Governmental Theory of Atonement rather than PSA.
Because PSA concludes when thought through that Yeshua is not a human child of God and sense what is true of his humanity is true of his person being one person with two distinct natures cloncludes that he was not even the eternal son. Because PSA teaches that Yeshua died under Fathers wrath and vengeance through wrath is reserved for Gods enemies.(kjv nahum 1:2) and God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked Ezekiel 33:11, nor accepts a blemished sacrifice and offering so to say Yeshua died under divine wrath, makes him an enemy, and an sacrifice that does not become an propitiation as it would not please God. Different people have different perspectives of PSA trying to reconcile what the doctrine actually concludes which does not sit well with advocates of PSA. some denying that Yeshua was killed by God(to which i agree), wether He was the actual embodiment of sin or if by Father He was treated as if a sinner without becoming a sinner but the conclusion is that they all believe he died under wrath being accursed by Father(kjv 1 cor 12:3). And that makes Yeshua an enemy and not an elect human child of God. As no one elected by God loses sonship, none are separated from God nor abandoned as an orphan. This would also conclude that Yeshua became enslaved to sin with a sinful nature as spiritually dead in order to die under Divine Wrath. PSA erroneously teaches that Yeshua is an exception to what God has repetitively taught us of how He treats and sees the righteous and ungodly along with there fate.
Warren Mcgrew recently uploaded a video refuting PSA, so, I decided to come and listen to all of your teachings on this because I always believed PSA is an Orthodox Christian Doctrine. But, Warren is alleging that this is Augustinian.? 😳 So, here I am. I watched a couple of your teachings in this list but haven’t yet listened to them all, so I’m doing that now. I want to listen to all of these before finishing What Warren has uploaded because I know that you are a very diligent and careful student and teacher and you don’t use emotional manipulation tactics to sway or persuade others, because of that I trust you. So, I’m tuned in, and I’m listening 👂 😇🙏
Mike, I was quite glad that I stopped to listen to this tonight. It sincerely isn't empty flattery/man pleasing stuff I'm saying. What you taught on brought a huge sense of relief. Recently I ran across some folks who literally believe that we never sin again in thought or deed if we've truly been born again. When I asked, "Have you ever sinned once since believing in Him?" the question was totally ignored. ha ha I know the answer to it, but it still somehow left a massive dark weight on me just thinking about what they said. This helped remove that cloud. Don't suppose you could one day address the "We Never Sin" crowd at some point? Another believer told me that it had been a growing sort of cult around 30 years ago but then quietly went away.
Some notes from video with my comments: Clement (95AD) wrote: “Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ, our Lord, gave His blood for us by the will of God. His body for our bodies, and His soul for our souls.” Mike claims this speaks clearly of substitution. You said: “I’m going to die, but instead He dies.” You continued: “You have to do some kind of a weird thing to get out of this.” This seems to imply that “for” must mean “instead of,” which is absolutely untrue. That Christ died “for us” does not have to mean that he died “instead of us.” And it seems, to me, that “you have to do some kind of weird thing” to believe that “I’m going to die, but instead he dies.” How does he die instead of you? What about the fact that “the wages of sin is death” AND “every soul that sinneth, it shall die”? What about the fact that “if one died for all, then were all dead”? And that it was “while we were yet sinners” (we were already dead in sin) that Christ died for us? Those statements of scriptures cannot be reconciled with the assertion that “I’m going to die, but instead He dies.” Christ’s death does not prevent us from dying. It redeems/ransoms us FROM DEATH. Ignatius in 107AD: “Now he suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved.” Again, you claim that this was a substitutionary death, which leads to salvation. But that is not what the statement says. Again, you seem to be forcing “for” to mean something other than what the author seems to mean, as I understand it. Yes! Jesus suffered FOR OUR SAKES. That doesn’t mean he suffered IN OUR PLACE. The Epistle of Barnabas (written between 70AD-135AD): “For this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling.” You point out that those are sacrificial terms from the OT, indicating that they contain a “legal term” that cannot be attributed to Calvin. I’m not sure why you equate ‘the blood of sprinkling” with “a legal term,” or why you read PSA into these statements. Maybe you will clarify that later. Continuing with Barnabas: “For it is written of Him, partly with reference to Israel and partly to us, and the scriptures sayeth thus: He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; with his stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearers.” You point out that this comes from Isaiah 53, which is “one of the classic Penal Substitutionary texts.” Yes, but that understanding of the text forces “for our transgressions” and “for our iniquities” to mean that Christ died “instead of us” or “in or place,” instead of AS A RESULT OF our transgressions and our iniquities, SO THAT we might be redeemed FROM DEATH (which is THE penalty for sin that EVERY SOUL that sins suffers) THROUGH His death… and, more importantly, His subsequent resurrection. More from Barnabas: “Moreover, when he was affixed to the cross he had given him to drink vinegar and gall. Harking how the Priests and the people gave previous indications of this, His commandment having been written, the Lord enjoined that whosoever did not keep the fast should be put to death because he also himself was to offer in sacrifice for our sins the vessel of the Spirit.” You point out, again, that he was offered as a sacrifice “for our sins,” implying that “for” must mean what those who adhere to the theory of PSA say it means, but it doesn't. You also points out that Isaac served as a type of Christ and say this is “clear PSA talk.” While it is true that Isaac served as a type, so did the whole system of sacrificial offerings we read about in the OT. However, that these things typed or prefigured the sacrifice that was to come at the cross in no way demonstrates or proves that Jesus’ death was “substitutionary” in nature. The Epistle of Diognetus (2nd century): “When our wickedness had reached its height, he himself took on him the burden of our iniquities. He gave His son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the Blameless One for the wicked, the Righteous One for the unrighteous. Oh sweet exchange, oh unsearchable operation, oh benefits surpassing all expectation, that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous one. And that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors.” You said that this epistle is “a clear example of the early belief that Jesus paid the price for unjust sinners, so they could be forgiven of their sin.” But how does that translate into Penal Substitutionary Atonement? Aren’t these sinners being redeemed/ransomed FROM something? FROM what? Is it not FROM “the wages of sin” (ie: DEATH)? If so, how is Jesus ransoming them FROM DEATH by taking their place? by dying INSTEAD OF them? He can't be. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to die “for” someone who is already dead, if "for" is supposed to mean "instead of." He gave HIS BODY “for” OUR BODIES in that our union with him makes us a part of HIS BODY. So, yes, there is an “exchange” of sorts, but I don't see how that proves PSA. It doesn’t even imply PSA, unless you force a meaning on the word “for” that the context doesn’t seem to support, IMO. You also have to force “death” to mean something other than death, as well. Because no one who believes in PSA believes that they will not “die” because Jesus “died for them.” Do they? They might believe they will not go to hell because Jesus went to hell for them, but to use that argument you have to make “death” = “hell” and make hell the wages of sin. Jesus’ death did not save us “from” the wages of sin, in the sense that His death prevents us from having to suffer the wages of sin, which is death. His death saves us “from” the wages of sin in the sense that it provides us with a way OUT OF death. His death provides us with “the resurrection of the dead.” He has ransomed us from THE GRAVE… from THE BONDAGE OF SIN. He does this, not by preventing our deaths but, by joining himself to us IN DEATH, that we might become partakers of HIS RESURRECTION, as a part of HIS BODY. These are just my notes and comments from the first 23 minutes. That is as far as I can go tonight. I am certainly willing to be convinced otherwise and I will continue to listen to the arguments but, so far, I find the argument for PSA to be poor, and even illogical, in some cases. I will come back to listen to the rest. I may or may not comment further. However, I will let you know if I change my mind after listening to the rest of this video and/or the series. (CAPS are just for emphasis... I'm not yelling or upset.) :) And though I do not always agree with your position I do enjoy your videos and appreciate the time and effort you put into your ministry here on TH-cam. I think I have said that before, but it's worth repeating. :)
These were my thoughts exactly! That PSA is being read into the quotes when it seems to be that ransom is what is the early church fathers believed. Thank you for this post. I know Mike will consider it deeply he is fair and loves it when ppl refute a passage instead of just tell him hes wrong
You do not seem to agree with or be aware of then that there are 2 kinds of death described n scripture. Physical death (which seems to be the only one that you acknowledge). And Spiritual Death. One is separation of Spirit and body and the other is separation of your soul from the presence of God. When we are born again in The Spirit we are once again in God's presence and therefore that spiritual death is nullified. You sad that you do not understand why talking about the sprinkling of blood is being mentioned in relation to law.. which is kind of astounding if you claim to have any relevant understanding of the entire point of the Old Testament so maybe you you just asking a rhetorical question for the sake of later argument? Because you seem you be aware that the sacrifices were there to look forward to the death of Christ... did those sacrifices all look forward to His resurrection too? Or the fulfillment of the law and though it was fulfilled through Him By His Death death could not hold Him. There is scripture of back all of this up.. naturally you folk seem to hand-wave it all away. For what? To ridicule God's Law.
@@kelvyquayo This is the opposite of what mike appreciates. When someone simply says an argument is wrong and doesnt show how its wrong just assumes it is. Consider actually making a point.
@@kelvyquayo I am quite aware of the fact that there are two different kinds of death. I'm not exactly sure why you think I understand only one and that one is physical death, when much of what I have said actually pertains to spiritual death. That is the death we suffer as the result of sin. Physical death is the result of man's mortality and it only the "type," that which is seen that reveals that which is not seen. As to the sprinkling of blood. I made no indication that I don't understand it's connection to the Law. I said I didn't understand what connection Mike was making to a certain "legal term," a term he did not identify or elaborate on. So I have no idea if it's a term related to the Law (of Moses, and the sacrificial offerings) or just a legal term in general. As to ridiculing God's Law, I've done no such thing. Disagreement with a particular interpretation is not ridicule. I am a believer and I believe that the sacrificial offerings made under the Law bore witness to the one sacrifice that was to come, that fulfilled them all. I don't have to believe that Christ died "in my place" to believe he died "for me." Even you point out that there are two deaths and we all suffer BOTH physical and spiritual death, yet one is "nullified" when we are "born again." In other words, we are redeemed from death in the sense that we are "resurrected," or saved "out of" death, not prevented from dying because Jesus died "instead." Which is my point exactly.
Do we have a list of citations here? I'll take the time to go write them down soon if not, but it would be nice to have a list of the works quoted to be read later.
What God's holiness demanded, His love provided. The entirety of the doctrines of salvation truly slay my heart. Your ministry is a blessing from God. Thank you for being faithful.
Really well done and very thorough, yet I would say you're conflating what has traditionally been considered "ransom" and "recapitulation" with "penal substitution". Calvin expands the penalty beyond Christ being subjected to the death which all humans face as a result of Adam's transgression. For Calvin, it is that PLUS the additional punishment of retribution for each and every sin of each and every person-and that is what has been called Penal Substitution. Death, AND the due retribution by the eternal wrath of God in suffering damnation, as Calvin would have it. Hugo Grotius, an Arminian, later tempers this with his "governmental" model, which says the Father exacted a great amount of wrath against the Son to demonstrate the seriousness of sin, but not the full measure due to us. The key point of contention for the Eastern Orthodox would not be whether or not Jesus gave His body for our body or suffered an unjust penalty at the hands of humans-the ransom and recapitulation perspectives account for that, and that language is clear in the Isaiah text and is certainly ancient and Biblical, as found in Clement and Ignatius and the Letter to Barnabas. The key question is does God the Son pay this debt to God the Father by taking and exhausting the wrathful retribution due for our each of our sins? Does God the Father pour out His wrath and damnation on the Son? Or is the false and unjust penalizing, chastisement, and bruising of the perfect Jesus being done by humans? You say no, it is the punishment of God, yet none of the fathers say that God poured out His wrath on Jesus, because that specific idea is not clearly articulated anywhere in Scripture. The recapitulation view would say Christ assumed our nature and thus became subject to human death (which you could say is a penalty, but not in the sense Calvin or Grotius speak, which is what we understand as PSA), so that He could conquer death and redeem the complete human nature which he assumed. He was subjected to the death caused by the fall, beaten and bruised and chastised and cursed by us, experienced human death, and conquered the finality and permanence of death as only God could, all so that we could be freed from the bondage of death and be resurrected in a glorified body like His, and it is in that sense that He gave Himself for us. He did this in obedience to God the Father, and in that sense did it unto Him, not in the sense of receiving the individual retribution for each of our particular offenses. I agree the modern Christus Victor crowd tends to strawman A LOT and use emotional language as if Jesus-God the Son-were nothing more than a helpless child, subject to a cruel parent throwing them into a volcano for appeasement, and is overly critical of the language of substitution which is obviously present, but the patristic view is a combination of the concept of recapitulation found particularly in Athanasius and Irenaeus and ransom found in countless others-a ransom not paid to the Father, but paid in a similar sense to how we say a soldier "Paid the ultimate price" by giving his life for his countrymen, so that they don't have to be subject to the violence of the enemy. Calling what Clement, Ignatius, Athanasius, Chrysostom and others said "penal substitution" is re-labelling what has traditionally been considered ransom and recapitulation to "penal substitution." Penal substitution has specifically to do with the Father punishing the Son, and that is nowhere to be found in any quote you read of the early Church. The closest is probably Hilary of Poitier, but I'd contend that God pouring out his wrath is still being read into that, rather than simply offering Himself as a victim of false and unjust punishment and death at human hands in obedience to the Father's plan. I would also contend the passages in Athanasius are in a very different framework, which I have presented above. Anselm is first to see Jesus as paying a debt we owe to the Father, but it isn't punishment, but rather giving the Father His due and even excess obedience in our place to make up for our failure to obey. Then Luther and Calvin later expand this to God the Father pouring out His wrath on God the Son who absorbs and exhausts all the eternal punishment due each of us for our offenses against God. The conceptions of Anselm and Calvin are not what the early Church nor the Bible express. The problem is not that Penal Substitution (as Calvin has it) is mutually exclusive with other conceptions. The problem is that the Father pouring out wrath and anger on the Son divides the Trinity and breaks the eternal and inseparable mutual love and mutual indwelling between all three persons, as well as destroys the concept of inseparable operations, as God the Father acts upon God the Son, while God the Holy Spirit does nothing apparent. The crucifixion is not one Divine person acting against another, but a mutual mission.
Dear Mike, Sébastien from Switzerland here. Thank you SO MUCH for your videos, and even more so to our Saviour Jesus Christ in whom I try to abide. So many thanks for your work. Just want to inform that at least on my device, video persistently and consistently fails playing at 47:15, though I can move the time slider a bit and resume from 47:22. You may want to check if that's anyhow related to the actual video, others might be experiencing the same issue.
@@MikeWinger oh, and funny finding, the automatically generated subtitles (English speech recognition) from TH-cam are also completely out of sync after the 47:15 passage. There must be some discontinuity in the video causing all of this.
I thought this was beautifully put. From W James Hidley "I'm a Calvinist Christian, and I used to scratch my head trying to figure out, "Why are these Arminians [and some Lutherans] so 'dead set' against affirming the Penal Substitution of Christ on the cross for the redeemed?" As in, "Christ died as a substitute penalty for His people, who will therefore never suffer the penalty." Think of the difficulty: Say [hypothetically] I embrace Arminianism. I come to someone not a believer and I say, "Brother, Jesus took the penalty of your sins to the cross, so you may and ought to believe in him." Suppose he never believes, and instead dies in a state of sin. Now, the only thing I can say [if I reject Calvinism] is, "There was someone whose sins Christ took to the cross." Someone else could rightly ask, "Then how will he not be saved?" If I'm Arminian, I say, "Christ purchased forgiveness for him, but he rejected, resisted, did not believe." They may ask in turn, "But isn't his rejection, resistance and unbelief sin? And didn't you say, 'Christ took all his sin to the cross?'" This is a problem for the "deep thinking Arminian," who tries to hold on to the Penal Substitution of Christ for sinners. So, what are the options? Either embrace that Christ offered a real propitiation that really takes away sin from God's people [aka Calvinism] or "downgrade" the cross to an offer, which in itself, redeems no one. Which as such only "takes away sin," by the consent of the sinner. Being subject to man's fickle "free choice," there is equally no reason to suppose the Perseverance of every Christian in grace. If he comes in by "his free will," [there being no "irresistible" grace], he can "go out" just as easily. And herein is what our Arminian friend trades for the truth of Calvinism. He reads 1 Jn. 2:2, and determines, "'World' here is every man universally." Rightly rejecting assured universal salvation for all, there is only one option remaining to him. That is to deny Christ died to give His people all they need for salvation. Instead, Christ dies for each, every man in the same way, and gains nothing for any man in particular. Or others will say He gains redemption and forgiveness, yet it becomes null and void, because it is rejected. Penal substitution for Calvinists means that if you are a believer already, you know that Christ died to assure you of holiness and everlasting salvation. Christ's death FOR YOU is THE REASON you came to faith. It was His efficacious grace, giving you A NEW HEART, to receive Christ's benefits [Eze. 36:26; Philippians 1:29; Acts 16:14]. If you have heard the gospel, and yet do not believe, you are on dangerous ground. Refusing to believe, to repent, telling yourself, "I can do this whenever I finally feel like it," is one way of hardening your heart against God. [see note 1]. What to do, if you are not a believer? If you have not repented of sin? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" [Acts 16:31]. Tell God, "I'm sorry I have resisted You for so long. Lord, grant me a new heart, the gift of faith and repentance." Keep looking to Jesus Christ and His death for sin. As you come to know your saving interest in Him, you too may say, "He died for me; God chose me in His Son, that I might believe and be saved. Thank you, precious Lord." Note 1: In all this it is presupposed that if one doesn't clearly understand the Bible message of Christ's death for sin, that God wants the "seeker" to get the needed information. Some people wrongly question their own "real belief," thinking, "I would feel a certain emotion if I were a true believer; or I would feel more sorrow for my sins." Or perhaps they tell themselves, "I want to be a believer, only I struggle with . . ." Yet struggling with stuff doesn't in itself prove one is not a believer. Many believers struggle with many things. I used to belong to a denomination which wouldn't baptize cigarette smokers, unless they first quit! So all these cases of "imaginary sin," and [supposed] "unconverted feelings," have nothing to do with the topic of conversion of which we are speaking. Also, [contrary to some other Calvinists] one is not lost or an unbeliever, merely owing to Arminian/Calvinist disagreements. God forbid that "theological maturity" be made a barrier to the merits and salvation of the Lord Jesus! The intention of the above is to clarify sound doctrine and remove some barriers to a mature faith and witness."
Thank you Pastor for this video. Really well done and well argued. It would be great if you could write down the references for the early church guys that you used. It would be good for the listeners to know where exactly the quotations come from. God bless you
The Apostles never used "by his stripes you are healed" to mean "physical healing" 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls the healing is OUR SOULS
I haven't listen to this yet, but it's an issue for sure, introduced through people like Greg Boyd, Brian Zahnd, Richard Rohr, Rob Bell etc, sometimes even by leaders in some evangelical churches, maybe not from the pulpit but from videos, books etc recommended to people, especially young people who may not understand the atonement properly. It's tragic. It tries to make God more appealing, less of a judge.
Carole Armstrong oh so if I’m understanding correctly, it probably serves them as an excuse for them to live their life however they want with no fear of eternal consequences and not having to answer to God. That would seem to explain why atheists work so hard not to believe in God.
@@SusanMorales Do you and this "pastor" regard Mary as the mother of God? I haven't looked much into your religion, since there are too many Protestant sects to keep up with. haha
Dan. Sss. Hi, Well what we believe is that God is one, 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mankind fell into sin in the garden of Eden and needed to be saved. The Father’s will was for his Son Jesus to die on the cross and rise again from the grave on the third day. By doing this, all of our sin fell on Jesus and he paid the price of death that we all deserved. Only he could have done this since he is the sinless son of God. Because of this Jesus also needed to take on flesh which is why God chose Mary to be the woman the Holy Spirit came upon causing her to become pregnant with Jesus. So we don’t elevate Mary as the mother of “God” making her into a deity or anything more than simply a person that was privileged to have been a part in God’s will being fulfilled through Jesus Christ.
It's not necessarily PSA that's problematic, rather the way that justification, righteousness and grace are interpreted within its frame. Nobody I know of denies Christ died a sacrificial death.
Hey Mike, will you ever do (or have you done) a video on hell and different views of it? (ECT, Conditional Immortality, Universalism)? I think there are really great arguments for how PSA goes hand in hand with Conditional Immortality/Annihilationism.
Great vid, Mike. The Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) has the "died for our sins" part. There's no way around it, obviously, He was the substitute who bore our penalty (death). Like how are people believing the gospel without believing penal substitution?! I've noticed that opponents attack not penal substitution in its simplicity, but their caricature of it. Jesus dying in the place of transgressors, on account of their sins is such a beautiful vital truth! Love it!
If God’s justice demands that He punish sin, then there is a higher force than God-necessity-which determines what God can and cannot do. Calvinists will be quick to argue, “No, justice is an aspect of God’s nature. There is no necessity laid on Him from outside His nature.” The problem, though, is that if I do “A” then God must do “B.” If I sin, God must punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise. Thus God’s actions are bound and controlled by something outside of Himself, i.e. my actions. This becomes even more confusing if we add in the Calvinistic notion that God foreordained my sinful actions in the first place, thus forcing Him to respond to them. Furthermore, it is often argued by the Reformed that God is sovereign and doesn’t have to save anyone if He chooses not to. On the other hand, He does have to punish sin. So God has to punish sin, but He doesn’t have to save sinners. It’s very interesting that justice (or at least what the Reformed see as justice) becomes the defining characteristic of God rather than love. Justice forces God to respond to our actions, but love does not.
Before John said ' God is love ' in 1 john, he said ' God is light .' speaking to the holiness of God, and it is the holiness of God that demanded the cross of Christ. I've read a lot of your comments on this thread and it seems like you a have a version of a loving God that isn't a holy God. Holiness is utter separation from sin, and a dedication to His own glory. God doesn't set aside His holiness to have fellowship with anyone, so how do sinful people have fellowship with a holy God? For Him to be like ' no it's cool, I'm just going to over look your sins' does violence to His own Holiness, righteousness, and justice. He would have to violate His own character. A thing God would never do. I think for some it's hard to see the sacrifice of Christ biblically, because they don't see God biblically, and they don't see sin biblically. Tell me then; for what did Christ die for? And, what hope do you have in salvation if it is not Christ dying for YOUR sins?
@@itisnow "For Him to be like ' no it's cool, I'm just going to over look your sins' does violence to His own Holiness, righteousness, and justice. He would have to violate His own character. A thing God would never do." Yet, in this view, God PRETENDS Jesus is a sinner, punishes Him, then PRETENDS the actual sinner is innocent and receives no punishment at all because, well, God can't just overlook your sin. You are correct, what a shoddy argument.
This was right in time for me. So, for the past three months I have about 500 hours of reading and watching videos from various groups of Christians who (among many other things) are against PSA...I never know there ever was such a thing actually. I just thought it was a given that. Christ paid for my sins. There’s so much Scripture that I just assumed everyone understood that. My journey down that paths started with The Shack and the various materials that arose from that book and movie. I began watching William Paul Young in TH-cam which led me to a multitude of very smart and dedicated teachers. Baxter Kruger, Francois Du Toit, Andre Rabe, Bertie Brits, C.A. Miller, Brad Jersak.....many others. I thought I had really found something. I was starting to think I’d been mistaken the whole time. PSA is only part of what gets deconstructed by these ministries though. In order to deconstruct this the Bible gets deconstructed and reduced to part myth that needs to be deciphered. It moves into a type of Universalism as well. Not so much that all roads lead to God but Universal salvation. I have to be honest, I feel learned a lot in these months but one thing was really bothering me....I never really got a clear understanding of what salvation is. No matter how much I searched it was still vague to me why Jesus died. I was being told that the early church NEVER believed in PSA and that it was invented 500 years ago. That seemed strange to me. I began to wonder about all of this deconstruction. Satan was deconstructed as a myth. Evolutionary theory was said to be in harmony with Biblical creation. The sacrificial system of the Old Testament is said to be God giving in to our evil tendency for scapegoating. God’s Wrath is said to be the writers of the OT projection their own evil into God. I was really left with nothing to hold on to. This Video that shows that the early church actually had a very clear understanding that our salvation is Gods love expressed through his Justice. I’ve always believed that I just got really sidetracked. The way PSA was presented by these other teachers made it sound like God is and angry, petulant child who abuses people in a drunken stupor and demands appeasement on an emotional level. That’s just not true. Anyway, I’m rambling because I just barely came back to my senses. This video makes it clear that the main basis for their case against PSA is totally untrue. Thanks, now I’ll spend a few months pouring over this content :) Shalom! PS...this post is the first post I’ve ever made on TH-cam and is chock full of typos and grammatical errors. Typing with my thumbs on my phone and don’t feel like fixing them. Lol! :)
So glad the Lord rescued you from the crafty deceptive Jesuits pretending to be Protestant ministers. Concentrate on "Old time" Christianity..Puritans ect.
Mike id like to personally contact you at some point if that is at all possible concerning some questions about this. I ran into a gentleman who holds to Father Son theology. is there a way that i could get ahold of you?
I really love your heart as you share and debate. Unlike so many others who do this type of thing, you are not speaking under a religious spirit, but from the heart of Jesus. Many have a hard, condemning, judgmental attitude about them and in the tone of their voice and the comments they make. You do not. Thank you. 🙏🏼🙂
If penal substitution is true, God cannot or will not do what he asks us to do: freely forgive. Here’s a question: if penal substitution is true, wouldn’t that make God a hypocrite? After all, it would mean God either cannot or will not do the very thing he asks us to do: forgive without demanding something on the part of the one who offended us. Jesus tells us we are to forgive over and over again. He tells us that we should be loving toward our enemies to emulate God who is “kind to the ungrateful and wicked.” He tells us we should walk the extra mile, turn the other cheek, and to freely give without expecting in return. However, if God demanded a blood sacrifice and was unwilling or unable to extend forgiveness without it, God himself is unwilling to follow the teachings of Jesus. Furthermore, it would mean Jesus was wrong about God when he claimed that God was kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
@@ottonormal5641 Colossians 2 tells us not to be taken captive of hollow and deceptive philosophy which depends on human tradition rather than on Christ. The comment tells us what Jesus teached explicitly, while PSA depends on human tradition. Seems like your warning is aimed at the wrong target.
We forgive because we have been forgiven, we dont freely forgive its only because of what Christ did that we do. Penal substitutionary atonement does not make God a hypocrite or a liar.
Absolutely ridiculous and unbiblical. I noticed how you didn't bring any scripture to your comment, that's because you don't have scriptures supporting your claim. We ARE freely forgiven, and at the same time God got His justice. The forgiveness given to us is free to us, and so we should grant forgiveness free to others. How is this hard to understand?
Very interesting study. Thanks Mike for all your work in digging all of this out! This is so basic to our faith that it's hard to imagine a Christian not believing in PSA.
"Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes, He endured all things, that we might live in Him." - Polycarp, "Epistle to the Philippians" 8:98
I wish you would have said Anything to about the question of the verse in hebrews , I read that and it scared me because of not always overcoming temptation, I'm still so new and my desire is to live for Christ but can't seem to always do the right things. Not that I have any righteousness of my own beyond faith in Jesus's finished works but I've given up everything I was doing I knew to be wrong and now after reading that wonder what it means if i don't resist sin to the death, basically. I am weak. I want to just go be at church and be in a discipleship training program but my church has 30 members and dropping, no help for me whatsoever.
Hello mr. Winger first off I just wanted to say thank you very much because your content has helped me greatly and I do thank God for you. I have no other believers around me in my life so I don't really have anyone to bounce this off of but I think God may have brought something across to me and I figured I would just share it. Could you take a look at Deuteronomy chapter 21:1-9 and Matthew 27:24. I think I see the spiritual connection there.
Mike - How do you view the finished work of Christ when you hold to Penal Substitution at the same time as you deny a definite atonement? If it is an actual substitution, how can it not be Definite?
The thing that makes me not be convinced of PSA is that although we are Expiated, that is our sins are forgiven and removed, God is still angry and He needs to be pleased by killing someone, that is to be Propitiated, so He can not be any with us anymore. If God forgives but there is a condition then it's not love, can't God just forgive and forget without staying angry? I believe Jesus is a substitution for our sin but I don't believe His Father killed Jesus just because God was angry and wanted the pleasure to kill someone, but we killed Jesus with our sins and God's wrath, that is God gave us up to our desire to kill Jesus, was poured out on Christ, but not God's rage to kill something because He needs pleasure.
@TheLegendofMclovin (i know you commented 4 years ago) the issue is that God while forgiving and merciful also just, and so hates sin, judges get into the job (theoretically) because the justice and hate injustice, this is god (see explanation of gods name in exodus 34:5-8). Forgive and forget (not including being unwise to potential future sin) is something we are called to do as we are not an almighty God of justice. God anger burns against sin, this is seen in many old testament storys, and on the cross (darkness). Its is part of his character. God is rightly angry at child abusers, at murderes, at corrupt company owners who cause the death of their workers (and the list keeps going till you get to our sin). Imagine a father, who hears that his daughter has been raped by "Greg". When he meets Greg, Greg says sorry, and the dad shrugs his shoulders and says "no probs pal". Forgive and forget doesn't work because it leaves the victims without justice, God has to pour out his wrath on the evil that we do. Praise God jesus was our substitute, cos we deserve the fathers wrath.
How do you get penal atonement, when it says "ransom, there was an exchange" and you just say "this is substitution" that doesn't mean PSA as other views hold to substitution as well So if it says substitution (it doesnt), can I point and say oh it's ransom?
Whilst I agree that there are many aspects to the atonement including substitution, the emergence of the theory of evolution challenges the conventional view of inherited original sin and drives me towards an emphasis on the inspiration of God’s love on the cross which shames my sin more than the payment of the debt itself. Either way it was the supreme sacrifice which compels me to worship Christ.
Yeay David! At 59:28. Great question! I agree. Punishment is opposite to forgiveness. Mikes answer (hey I like you so don’t get me wrong) but it was not good. Like at all...:// such a vague definition of forgiveness. If you do something wrong against me and I say that I will forgive you, I then would release what you have done, not punish you (or someone else) and then forgive you. That is NOT forgiveness and it’s so twisted to hear otherwise! I literally can’t even believe that people would be persuades by this weak definition.
But the FORGIVENESS is in and through what Jesus did for you !... HIS FREE GIFT OF SALVATION AND FORGIVENESS through His death, for without the shedding of blood there remains NO remission of Sin....He took the sin of the world upon Himself ( THE PERFECT DEPICTION OF FORGIVENESS ) for those whom believe and come to Him..How can mere man the created question what GOD THE CREATOR decides to do,... He chose this perfect way, why try to understand with carnal humanistic understanding.
Sister, the problem there is that you are conflating our rights or demands for justice with God's rights and demands for justice. We are not free to do that because we are guilty sinners before God while God is holy and righteous before all. The danger in that conflation is that we are literally seeking to mandate that God issue justice according to our demands and or preference. We do not stand in righteous judgment over sin, only God does.
Correction: The satisfaction model, closely related to the PSA model of the atonement was popularized by Roman Catholic archbishop Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm wrote the book "Why God was a man" in 1098, which popularized the satisfaction theory. John Calvin then modified the satisfaction theory to say atonement was attributed only to individuals, the elect ones.
Good discussion so far! It's especially important that people understand that the theories of atonement are not in opposition to one another. I imagine things will come more into focus as you continue in this series, but as of now I think you've painted such a broad picture of SPA that you aren't accurately representing many of the people who hold it. If SPA is simply, Jesus suffered on our behalf for our sins so we don't have to (let's call that "base SPA"), then sure there is wide attestation of that in the early church fathers. But those under the auspices of SPA often goes farther than that, and I think it is fair to say that base SPA has evolved to take on new dimensions through the work of Anselm and eventually Calvin and others. My concern is that without addressing that we leave ourselves open to some strong rhetoric from the other side (notice I didn't say strong arguments :) ). I'm always a big fan of pulling things back into their original context. You have done a good job showing that there is a thread of thought that runs all the way back to the beginning, but that doesn't mean we're done and can say that Augustine or Jerome's thoughts on SPA are the same as those of Calvin. There's one thing I'd like to hear your input on: Isaiah 53:10 is definitely an important passage in all this. I'm super weak in Hebrew so I usually look at the LXX to give some additional insight since I can hold my own in Greek at least. I find the differences between the MT and the LXX in this passage to be rather stark. Obviously it doesn't have to be an "either/or" type of thing, but the LXX doesn't say that it was the will of the Lord to crush him, rather it says, "it was the will of the Lord to cleanse him from the blow." In hindsight it makes me think of the resurrection... how it would please God to raise Jesus up as vindication of His righteousness. LXX is an earlier witness to Isaiah, and would likely have significant influence in early Christian thought so I think it's important to weigh it as a source. Some other thoughts: 1) Who the penalty is paid to: I think this might be looking at the atonement too much as a transaction. Jesus suffered and died; we are in Christ; therefore we have suffered and died (and thankfully will share in His life as well!) so long as we remain in Him. There doesn't have to be an actual transaction for this to work. I usually express this as "atonement is mechanically substitutionary, but experientially sympathetic." The "penalty" language may just be pulling in the idea that there was a "cost" and it was because of another's action. Note also that when we say a solder "paid the ultimate price" no one asks "who did the soldier pay the price to?" We understand that the language is about the cost, not the target of payment. 2) Expiate vs propitiate: this might be a good topic for a video if you haven't already done one (I feel like you have addressed it somewhat here and there). Personally I think these words should just be struck out of theological vocabulary. They have limited utility, and most of the time I see them become a proxy war waged in English instead of looking at the original language. Hilasterion references the lid of the ark and is the place of atonement, and Jesus being our hilasterion just means that he is the exclusive place where atonement can be found. Done. If you want to understand atonement itself, then work on understanding Hebrew "kaphar." There is no single, English word that will adequately describe kaphar so let's just move on from trying to insist on one.
It never occurred to me that anyone could believe anything other than penal substitution. It would seem that the basic platform in the Bible shows this. This is very interesting. I learn so much from you. I am going to be off work and in the hospital for a week soon. I look forward to having a lot of time to listen to you and learn more.
To which was the means for Jesus suffering for our sins? It clearly was not by Divine wrath and punishment. Jesus suffering and death was voluntary to undergo such a wrongful cursed death on the tree. Jesus learning obedience by what He suffered(heb 5:8-9) even unto death(Philipp 2:8) resulting in His perfection does not come by Wrathful punishment but by loving discipline. Heb 12:4-11 with the correlation of Isaiah 53:5 as discipline perfectly reflects the capacity of Jesus' voluntary suffering for our sins to learn obedience which produced a harvest of Righteousness and Peace being trained by such discipline even shedding his own blood in resistance to sin.
@@itisnow What is the PENALTY of sin? DEATH "The Soul that sins shall die" This is why it is said "without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins" So with that said, the only way to atone for ones sin is "to shed your own blood" which is "to give your life" or simple put "DIE" That is the only means of Justice So when Christ said, “Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and *to give his life* as a ransom for many." He came to take our place AKA - A Substitute Just as a Lamb was provided by God - As a substitute for Isaac - so that Abraham would not need to take his sons life - they were swapped. The Lamb for Isaac LIKEWISE JESUS IS THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD God has provided the way for us to be made right with him... through his Son... whom is our substitute... whom takes our place... receiving the penalty for our sins - death But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; *that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man* Our sins were imputed onto Christ - When God made him who knew no sin *to be made sin for us* ^ When it is written that God made him sin for us... does that mean he was made an actual sinner? NO!! it means sin was imputed unto him So that we could be made the righteousness of God IN HIM .... his righteousness is imputed to us ... though we be not righteous Clearly SUBSTITUTION is biblical And this is why we pray IN JESUS NAME we have been clothed IN CHRIST
@@itisnow If you think PSA which is "Jesus dying as a sacrifice in our place, taking the punishment for our sins upon himself" is something that was only understood at the 16th century and is a false teaching - that the church Fathers did not preach this I am very doubtful that you have read Gods Word for yourself ... Now, I am not saying that you haven't done so... But I am doubtful have you opened up a bible for yourself and spent time each day to read it? Or do you just listen to what others have told you? Being a Ransom & Penal Substitution are not in opposition How did Jesus ransom us from the penalty of sin, which is death? "He bore our sins in his body on the cross" (1 Peter 2:24). "Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust" (1 Peter 3:18) *The JUST for the UNJUST* = Substitution through faith in him the ungodly are justified (DECLARED righteous)
I think there is an argument to be made to PSA in the Abraham sacrifice, particularly in that innocuous little word "burnt" sacrifice. The burnt sacrifice would atone for a person, not necessarily an act i.e. a sin. Big question is why. Best conclusion I can make is that the burnt sacrifice atoned for a sinner in their capacity as sinner.
I'm having a really hard time hearing "God punished Jesus so He wouldn't have to punish us" from any of those quotes. In what way do any of those quotes say that? Seriously. God punished Jesus is very different from "Jesus suffered for us." Also "Jesus suffered for us" is very different from "Jesus suffered so we won't have to." It's like you completely missed what the opponents of PSA are contesting. Love you Mike. Keep doing what you do. You're one of the few who has a great heart and works hard!
@@blxck3978 I'm not sure where you're getting "punished" "wrath of God" "Substitution" "Satisfied Justice" or anything related to penal substitution theory from "Chapets Yehova daka'" It was God's will for (the suffering servant) to be made sick (physical weakness). This passage doesn't say anything one way or another about why his body was weakened, just that it was God's will. We learn from Romans 6 that suffering in the flesh is how we overcome sin. We must also suffer in the same way as Jesus if we are to escape slavery to sin. Eze 18:32 is interesting. God does not take pleasure (same word "chaphets") in the death of the wicked. Penal Theory would have us believe that God is not pleased with destroying the wicked but he somehow takes pleasure in destroying the righteous to satisfy his need to punish sin. It would be immensely helpful if teachers like Mike would learn the difference between theories and what the text actually says.
Hey Mike I was really hoping you would comment on Hebrews 10:26-31, does it really mean what it sounds to mean? Almost leaves me feeling hopeless. Thanks God bless you.
You are never hopeless. But willful sin should stop after true conversion. That does not mean we are perfect in knowledge or free from ignorance. Romans 6:1-3 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
Jesus preached the opposite of those traditional 'christian' doctrines of forgiveness and atonement. - The prodigal son, and two debtors, much is forgiven if one loves much, we will be judged by the measure we use, 'forgive us our sins like we forgive those who sin against us'. God just forgives, he doesn't need or want any sacrifices.* - Jesus was directly asked how to be saved. His answer was do not kill, do not steal, do not falsely testify, honor your parents, if you have wealth give it to the poor, love your neighbor as yourself. When he talked about who will go to heaven and who will go to hell he said those who did or didn't feed the hungry, accept the foreigners, take care of the sick, and visit the prisoners. Nothing there about needing to believe in Jesus' sacrificial death. Just repent, avoid evil, and do good, and you will be forgiven and be saved. Substitutionary /sacrificial atonement theology in general is contrary to Jesus' teachings, whether penal substitution, or ransom view, or the satisfaction view, or the governmental view, they are all substitutionary /sacrificial atonement views (something which Mike is obviously ignorant of, being that he reads any substitution language as "clearly" PSA, but whatever). And all of them are simply contradictory to what Jesus preached. Even if it could be proved that Pauline epistles teach any of them, ok, whatever, that would just mean that Paul and/or other writers of pauline epistles were the first main heretics contradicting Jesus on this (and also other issues tbh).
* Didn't God command sacrifices in the Old Testament? Yes, God did command animal sacrifices, if we accept the tradition of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. But there was a third theological group among the Jews - the Essenes. They taught that God doesn't want any sacrifices and that He never gave Moses commandments to make animal sacrifices, but instead that such things were later false additions to the scriptures. They appealed to eg prophet Jeremiah who presents God as saying (7:22) "At the time I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I didn't command them to offer sacrifices to me." also in another place (6:20) "Your burnt offerings are not acceptable; your sacrifices do not please Me.". They held to the message found in the Psalms (40:6) "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but my ears You have opened. Burnt offerings and sin offerings You did not require." and (51:16) "For You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; You take no pleasure in burnt offerings.". And also God is noted as saying - in Isaiah (1:11) "I take no delight in the blood of bulls, of lambs and goats." and another verse says (66:3) "Whoever slaughters an ox is like one who slays a man; whoever sacrifices a lamb is like one who breaks a dog’s neck". Also the prophet Hosea presents God as saying (6:6) "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." This last one is an important verse. Jesus actually quotes this verse from Hosea in Matthew 9:13 and then 12:7 again. It's not important only for that reason, but this verse is actually where the Essenes get their name from, ther name in Hebrew is the word "hasid" meaning "compassionate, kind". The verse says "I desire mercy (hesed - compassion, kindness), not sacrifice." The early group of 'christians' which will later become the mainstream christianity accepted the Jewish scripture from the Pharisees and the Sadducees, not from the Essenes, and they made the connection between Jesus' death and Old Testament sacrifices ascribed to God in that tradition, and made that into atonement theology. But, as pointed out above - this is contradictory to the teachings of Jesus. Interestingly, the Essenes also opposed making oaths, like Jesus. And a lot of them they lived communally - like the first Christians. And they were also opposed to slavery (which Old Testament law, as presented by Pharisees and Sadducees - allows, and which the mainstream 'christianity' also allows), and didn't have masters and servants among them but "served each other", which is also similar to one of the most noble teachings of Jesus: that there should be no rulers and superiors but "who wants to be first should be a servant to all" (Matthew 20:26). So we should note how Jesus' preaching is different from the tradition of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the teachings of what became mainstream 'christianity'. An we should ask ourselves the question - do we want to be followers of Jesus, or followers of some other people and their traditions and preachings?
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father~ John 10:18
With penal substitution, the debt is not really forgiven; it’s just transferred. But we are commanded to forgive as God forgave us. If my brother offends me, should I demand justice and vent my wrath on someone else? Should I beat myself up? No, obviously we are to simply let it go and graciously accept the offense.
The problem that arises is this: many uphold the human law model where a death penalty is issued by a broken law and someone has to pay the penalty that has now come forth from the broken law. Jesus came in order to satiate the justice the law demanded in our place. Now if we claim Jesus' blood as our own, it will cover the record of our sins; therefore, we can be declared [legally] righteous even though we are not. Then, as our name is called up in the judgement and Satan accuses us, Jesus is our defendant in the court room in heaven and He pleads to His Father, “My blood, Father, my blood!” Our Heavenly Father looks over the record and sees that there is absolutely no record of sins and Jesus' perfect law-keeping has been applied to their heavenly record. The sinner lived a righteous life up to they were thirty-three years old, had a perjured trial, and died on a cross. This may sounds like absolute nonsense but this how they actually teach what Jesus' righteousness does. His record of perfect law-keeping is ascribed to our record in heaven by a legal mechanism. That's because they believe sin is an *act or deed* breaking some law that the Divine Magistrate imposed and now they are in legal trouble where someone now must pay some off some legal debt they cannot pay themselves. Therefore, Jesus came to pay the debt in order that they can now be declared [legally] righteousness *even though they are not.* And so, in the penal-legal view the innocent dies in the guilty's place and now the Divine Magistrate who imposed the law lies and says you are only legally righteous and not actually righteous. It's a Roman lie that the church continues to perpetuate because they are replacing how God's justice works with how human justice works. It's a sick perversion that continues to cycle people through guilt and shame and relief because my legal debt has been paid for by Jesus applying His blood in some legal mechanism in the heavenly record books in heaven. 2 Corinthians 5:21-He who knew know sin became sin (took up our humanity) in order that we might *become the righteousness of God in Him.* Not that we are declared legally righteous by some legal application of His blood in a record book in heaven.
Jesus saves you by his grace and mercy in judgement. The cross removed the curse of death, and renewed God's covenant with believers, but did not punish Jesus.
What is it that makes the statement “sinners deserve death” true? Is it god’s nature that makes it true, or is it god’s will that makes it true, or is it both?
I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the arguments against PSA. At 18:56 you quote from the epistle of Barnabas: "For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up his flesh to corruption that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins which is effected by his blood of sprinkling". You go to add that this has something to do with the "legal side" of the atonement. In my view, you can come to that conclusion only if you presuppose that. He only says that Jesus' blood was a means to the end - nothing about 'paying off the just punishment' as PSA usually puts it. In fact, in the same chapter Barnabas seems to refer to Isaiah 53:5 when he says: "For God saith, 'The stroke of his flesh is from them' ", which would imply he didn't read Isaiah as 'he bore our punishment', but as 'he was punished because of our wickedness". I do suspect, however, that most people see no difference between these statements - and that is precisely the reason why fruitful discussion concerning PSA is really hard to come by. Most people just presuppose PSA into many texts.
1:02:30 - I think not His BEING was split, but the personalities of The Son and of the Father and the Holy Spirit were separated. So in a way He was separated, but in a way He wasn't. I think The Son is the only person who knows what it's like to be separated from the Father, yet He wasn't separated from Him in His being, and thus due to that death couldn't beat Him, and due to His holiness and lack of sin it couldn't condemn Him, and so the Holy Spirit rose Him from the dead. Does this make any sense? I'm no convinced in this understanding but it is my understanding as of now.
There is an additional aspect of Christ having to endure suffering for us is that this empowered him to be a totally empathetic High Priest having been tempted in all points...obeyed unto death... endured shame, pain hopelessness,thirst ...all the while being mocked....if you be the King of Israel come down from the cross( he could have called a legion of angels)....he healed others let him heal himself)... enduring all this he is now a faithful high priest able to save to the uttermost....we will not probably know but a fraction of what he accomplished... atonement is multi facetted indeed...no aspect should be diminished....some fined penal substitution offensive to brutal for they're sensibilities...the suffering was necessary for multiple reasons...be cautious if you diminish what love he demonstrated towards us
Thank you Mike for your dedication to the truth! I just started researching this topic after listening to NT Wright. Does NT Wright fall into the category of Bryan Zand as well?
Fortunately not. NT Wright seems to confuse people quite a bit but from what I can gather it is because he actually affirms PSA (along with strongly supporting other aspects of the atonement like Christus Victor) and, at the same time, he tends to speak against caricatures of PSA without acknowledging they are caricatures. In other words it sounds like he is challenging the view when he is fighting straw-men yet he has affirmed on several occasions that he holds to PSA.
Mike Winger So true. As I’m new to your page i appreciate the content! I just subscribed recently as I searched up on this topic. I currently am struggling with the topic of standing for the truth. For example a notorious person like Johnny Mac, stands for the truth but so controversially calls out those he considers wrong. Have you done a video about something around this topic? The more i love researching into doctrine the more it confuses me about all the opposition! I almost commend someone like John to be so consistent in a belief that it’s consistent all the way through unlike others.
Great stuff Pastor Mike! here's my thing with all of it I mean I guess I can belly button gaze into this and try to understand exactly what happened up on the cross and how that worked out for us as far as a propitiation for sins and what that involves but as a man I don't need that necessarily to understand that to fully comprehend salvation(or at least I don't think so unless I need to know that if I'm going to be an apologist when I'm in evangelizing to intelligent atheists) I don't know maybe I do? maybe that's needed for those who are too smart for their own good? so the mechanics of sin and propitiation of sin and atonement and replacement of sin by the blood of Christ and the Holiness of God and how that negates sin... maybe that's needed for some, but for some we rely upon that God is love Jesus loved us Jesus died for us and that's good enough for now. now the whole process of sanctification that's where things get dicey because if we're forgiven of sins because Jesus died for our sins and put to death our sins yet we still sin it's almost like a double guilty now that we've been forgiven of our sins when we sin that sin we knowingly commit it carries more weight than just ignorantly sinning... Where the book of Hebrews talks about recrucifying Christ those that have lost their salvation if that were possible to backslide that far (but I think Paul was speaking to the people who had snuck into the church trying to steer people back under the law?) The path is narrow....... thank you for the meat pastor Mike a bunch more to ponder this Sunday afternoon 😎 God bless you and yours. sorry for the run-on sentences and lack of punctuation because I'm using Google voice transcription instead of typing this by hand
No one who rejects PSA is saying there isn’t some type of substitution that occurs on the cross (e.g. Jesus’ death in place of ours).... we are rejecting the notion God pours out on his wrath on Jesus, a concept you definitely won’t find in any of the church fathers, nor explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible.
Yeah that phrase is unfortunately popular, much more biblical version would the Father, Son, and Spirit working in tandem to provide salvation for humanity that God(Yahweh) loves. Jesus has just as much wrath for sin as the Father because the trinity is always in unity. He is bearing His own wrath and demonstrating his own Justice and Love on the cross.
@@ethantucker3191 "much more biblical version would the Father, Son, and Spirit working in tandem to provide salvation for humanity that God(Yahweh) loves. Jesus has just as much wrath for sin as the Father because the trinity is always in unity. He is bearing His own wrath and demonstrating his own Justice and Love on the cross." Thank you. That's a very helpful description of penal substitutionary atonement with a biblical view of the Trinity.
Absolutely. I feel like I’ve wasted 30 minutes of my life listening to this so far. Mike is defending PSA, but who would deny anything he’s said so far (and still call themself a Christian)? The issue with PSA today, and what brought me here, is the issue of God’s wrath being poured out on his Son. I’m disappointed Mikes not talking about that almost at all, and then saying “PSA is in the church fathers.”
@@danielcrawford6748, I feel like the problem is with the modern day critics of PSA. The theologically informed proponents of the view readily grant that Jesus did not bear the penalty for himself (as he was righteous), but in our place. The difficulty of attribution is inherent with the notion of substitution. Obviously, Christ suffered and death was the penalty for sin given in the Garden (the manifestation of the wrath). And this teaching on PSA (a substitute judgment) is found in Irenaeus as well as Athanasius and others. I think the modern critics, on this point, are making a mountain out of a conceded mole hill.
@@danielcrawford6748 Eaten Orthodox would deny what he said and still call themselves Christian. In fact, they call themselves the only legitimate church.
27:35 - Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339) “Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” He then stated, “And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us
This is such a blessing Pastor Mike, thank you! I have been waiting a long time for you to address this topic of the Atonement theories. Especially the way some scholars twist Romans 3 and Isaiah 53. Can't wait for the next 2 videos my friend! Much love and blessings to you!
Don't forget this is going to be a series on PSA I'm doing each Tuesday at 5pm PST. If you want to be notified when I go live you need to subscribe, click the bell icon and make sure TH-cam notifications are enabled on your device. Thanks for joining me!
@Dustin Neely This is the Catholic teaching which has clearly mucked up the waters on this teaching. The Catholic church came out with this confusion after the scholars made these distinctions in order to keep the uneducated masses under their control, in confusion and ignorance.
@Dustin Neely I agree with some of your comment but certainly the comment that none of the ECF believed that death was a punishment but just a consequence is an oversimplification and a generalization. The ECF certainly had a view of God's punishment, and that punishment being death. In response to your last two statements, do you believe that God has wrath and punishes those who do not believe in His Son?
@Dustin Neely You clearly did not watch the entire video did you?
He cites some who explicitly say Christ took our *penalty* or that he was *punished* for our sins or *chastised.* I have read some of these primary sources and other texts that predate Calvin and know for a fact that this is what they taught.
You are one of the many people (or are getting information from one of the people) who strains as much as possible to push a false narrative.
@Dustin Neely Funny. You accused him of not reading the sources and then conclude your comment with this assertion: "You are confusing 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement' with 'Substitutionary Atonement'."
I then point out that Mike, anticipating your objection, specifically cited fathers that discussed the penal element of the atonement. You ignore that and just make another assertion. Very funny.
I don't know who has instilled your hatred of PSA in you, but your objections are flawed.
Mike Winger I am a Calvinist and have been reading reformed theology for decades and go to a Calvinist church. Not ones have I been taught or believed that people are saved when Christ died, we receive salvation by faith. Please correct this misrepresentation of the reformed faith.
Don't neglect the fact that the entire eastern orthodox church does not believe in substitutionary atonement. It's an interesting topic
As an academic myself (linguistics), I am shocked when I hear that supposed scholars do not go back to original sources. This is the bedrock, the foundation of research-especially historical work. If a doctrinal candidate presented only hearsay, secondary sources, we would thoroughly attack them. If I were in a debate and heard someone claim that an ‘early church father”’ held to a point, I would immediately ask for the reference. Next, I would ask for Fathers who disagreed with the position. This is standard research practice. People always have different views. To say that all early Christians held to exactly the same views is to ignore the diversity of experience. People didn’t have the Bible in a singular form, as we have today, nor were there creeds to guide people in every aspect. And a number of heresies arose because of these missing elements.
Thanks Mike for attempting to educate people about how some are misusing research.
I would encourage everyone, always ask for original sources. Always ask speakers for the alternative interpretations, and the reasons they themselves reject others’ research. These are fundamental guidelines for doing research, and I have caught many graduate students on these points.
To whom was the ransom (Christ’s death on the Cross) paid?”
Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into.
To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and Highpriest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence.
St. Gregory the Theologian
the ransom was paid to the evil one ( not father ) who possessed us as prisoners until he received the ransom (Origin of Alex)
the devil then holds the blood of Christ as the price of man, What ... For him the deity of Christ is the fish-hook that catches the devil (Basil of Caesarea)
As an Egyptian Coptic orthodox, when I hear about Origin and Athanasius as promoters to penal substitution it really makes me laugh, this shows how much the people in the west no nothing about their thoughts. If I was a good English writer I would have written thousands of sentence of Athanasius to demolish this PSA silly doctrine
The old orthodox desert fathers are a great place to start. BEFORE One bishop heads off to Europe and we base the bulk of our western theology out of one of the five fingers on the hand.
I like to remind people that Christianity IS an eastern religion 1st.
I'm not sure one could understand Jewish sacrifice, let alone Jesus's sacrifice, without holding to some form of substitutionary atonement.
Agreed
Great point
Boom
According to NT wright, even Jewish scholars don't know what the sacrifices were about. I'm not a PSA hater, but I don't think that we can "understand" the Jewish sacrificial system unless God gave an explicit explanation (such as, "the lamb will die in your place and bear the punishment of your sins." )
@@danielcartwright8868 Isaiah 53:10. Jesus is called the Lamb of God who takes away our sin (John 1:29), a sin offering (Romans 8:3 and 2 Corinthians 5:21).
The argument I often get against PSA is that 'why can't God just forgive?' and then they argue for Christus Victor (a motif of Atonement I hold to wholeheartedly - cause it's directly in scripture in many places, Hebrews 2:14 being one - I also think Christus Victor and PSA are only beneficial if both are tied together with satisfaction theory, moral Influence, aspects of random theory, etc ) and claim the atonement didn't have anything to do with forgiveness in terms of getting rid of of guilt (completely ignoring Romans 5:8-9, Romans 3:21-25, Romans 4:25, Romans 5:18, Ephesians 2:1-10 saying we're children of wrath and that being made alive in Christ freeing us from that, that we are United with him in his death (Romans 6:3-6) therefore ending our slavery to sin - Christus Victor- and making us no longer children of wrath) and that he's making a new covenant or cleansing us but not taking our guilt.
So why did the Israelites have to even sacrifice animals (who, notably, are referred to as sin offerings in Leviticus and Numbers 15). They were being sin offerings cause they were in the place of the people. That's literally substitution. And if death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23) then we have to conclude that it being sacrificed is the penalty or punishment and consequence of sin. If that's the case, then Jesus death which takes away guilt as pointed out by many of the passages I have pointed out is what makes atonement and justification, making us right with God and giving us peace with him. Why peace? Cause we had his wrath on us BEFORE we were saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 3:36).
PSA is fax my guy. Wasn't arguing "angrily" just giving my view. Blessings.
Cat-Cams are such a nice bonus! Excellent work, Pastor Mike!
Penal substitution misunderstands the word “propitiation”:
Propitiation should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments-the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.)
Was the mercy seat a human? - No. Ok, then Jesus was not a human. This "argument" is silly analogy slavery. Jesus was chastized for our sins (Isa 53:4-6), regardless of lousy philosophy that is used to attack this truth.
If PSA isn't true, then why did Jesus even die? What's the point? Cause He wanted a vacation from heaven? Cause He wanted to chill with the bros? What is the point?
This is very interesting. How would this view take Isaiah 53:10? Is there a good video to watch? What denomination holds to this?
How is this even a debate? He was pierced for our transgressions. Crushed for our iniquities. Its so clear!
I have a saying that goes with this. ‘Why be easy when it can be hard?’
@@BloodBoughtMinistries I have come to realise religionists despise the clear written word of God Almighty. please see my prior post and tell me what you think of Hebrews 10:26:
Clearly, it's hated so much by Satan and his fallen minions and they inspire mankind to be deceived.
@@BloodBoughtMinistries
Man's curse. Spot on!
JW - Mormon - Catholic Doctrine of "the confessional" - Church of God (Pentecostal) - Islam - Buddhism - etc
All works religions of Babylonians (idol worship)
Christ to Peter, who did deny Christ, *"Do you LOVE ME?"*
Love in Christ (Proverbs 1:9 "The Fear (reverence in our vernacular) of God is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge."
That simple
I think at the core, it's pride. Our flesh hates hearing how wretched and irredeemable it is.
We’re studying the American Gospel: Christ Crucified in Sunday School and, of course you know about it since you’re in the videos, but these videos you do are SO helpful and in-depth. I’d say I’ve been a Christian since a very young age, and I’d gone to schools for biblical studies, but it hasn’t been till now (age 43) that I am realizing the importance of understanding Church history and the doctrines I’ve been “brought up” in. It’s SO important for Christians to understand these essential doctrines that we believe in them so we can make a proper defense. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
I was nearly won over by Matt Fradd talking to Scott Hahn about this. They too repeated the idea that PSA began with Calvin as he was a lawyer. Thanks so much for delving back into the ancient writings and making it clear that this belief is very early. May God always bless you…and your lovely moggie.
Jeremy Treat is my Pastor! 👍
Got super stoked when you mentioned his book! Thanks for all the hard work you do Mike! Your channel has been a huge blessing!
Excellent video, Pastor Mike. I was encouraged by a friend to listen to this series, and this first video was extremely edifying. After listening to this, I feel much more at peace, knowing that my understanding of Jesus's atoning sacrifice on the cross aligns with what Scripture teaches.
If Jesus never died for my sins, I would still be dead in my sins. Without the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross, I would be absolutely hopeless! I cannot fully comprehend the depth and width of His great love for sinners, especially me, but God's perfect righteousness and perfect love were made perfectly manifest on the cross. All I know is, I once was dead, and now I'm alive; I once was fatherless, and now I have an eternal Father who knows everything about me, down to the number of atoms in my body and every word before I speak it. I can't wait for the day when He calls me home -- a day when I will truly be able to love Him and glorify Him with all my mind, soul, strength, and heart with a glorified body. I can't wait to see the color of my Lord's eyes and the scars in His hands. He has given me everything, and He is my inheritance forever.
AMEN!!!
The early church did not believe that the Father poured out His wrath upon the Son and scripture says Jesus died on our behalf not in our place.
The two major words in the Greek New Testament translated "FOR" are ANTI and HUPER.
ANTI means "instead of" or "in the place of". The word HUPER is translated
in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of
and is translated FOR in the New Testament. Whenever the death and atonement of Christ are described in the New Testament as "for" us, the word HUPER is used which means in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of.(D. Carroll).
amen Christ died on our behalf, not in our place. That's what the early church believed.
@@freeindeed51 either way. God will not have those for whom Christ died for, go to eternal damnation.
To the question of whether Augustine was an influence on Calvin, yes...as were many church fathers. But more specifically, Augustine was a strong influence in Luther's thought, and Luther a strong influence on Calvin (although WE tend to focus on the differences). But all the reformers knew the church fathers' writings well, and knew church history.
I’ve known that revisionists at my school were full of it but I couldn’t point out how. Now I can after watching this. Thank you for taking the time to do this.
Thanks so much Mike! Definitely needed to hear this in the midst of this crazy conversation. Keep at it and bless you!
This is great. I've never been able to get my head round all the atonement theories, so I am looking forward to the rest of the series.
At 52:05 when you're talking about Jesus sacrifice achieving both Justice and Mercy for reconciliation reminded me of Psalms 85:10 KJV "Mercy and Truth are met together. Riteousness and Peace have kissed each other." That spoke deeply to me. Thank you Pastor Mike.
Don’t assume justice means retribution
Appreciate your channel and your honesty in addressing questions.
I listened carefully to all the quotes you read. I'm not certain that they were expressing PSA as defined today. After all, the Reformers redefined many theological terms, good or bad. In one's zeal to prove one's case, anachronistic interpretations must be avoided. Even a PSA proponent disagrees with your church history assessment on this topic (or perhaps Master Seminary assessment) J.I. Packer said,
“…Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it (PSA)… What the Reformers did was to redefine satisfactio (satisfaction), the main medieval category for thought about the cross. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?, which largely determined the medieval development, saw Christ’s satisfactio for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice).”
(What Did the Cross Achieve: The Logic of Penal Substitution: J.I. Packer)
I plan to listen to your series, and I'm not necessarily anti-PSA either. I do believe that all writings must be understood through authorial intent.
Blessings
I recognized this problem as well. Trying to retrofit today's understanding of penal substitution into the early church quotes was a bust.
I find this as well. People who try and defend PSA from church fathers is not often talking about PSA. They may be somewhat similar in some regards but not the same. It is common knowledge that PSA is a development of satisfaction theory. I am not against PSA per say, but I find the arguments rather lacking.
Just because it's not called PSA doesn't mean it isn't PSA. Keep in mind, none of the reformers called it PSA either, as they didn't speak English.
The idea is what's identical, the idea that Jesus accepted our debt and paid it Himself so we don't have to(by going to hell/eternity away from God). Literally every verse which talks about Jesus' death goes on and on about how Jesus died "for our sins", he was pierced for our transgressions etc.
If the apostles believed it when they wrote the Epistles and letters, it's true. No other explanation truly exists at all, nor is any other explanation biblically founded.
Hey Mike. Thanks for your faithfulness to the Word of God.
This video went over a lot of things that I have been thinking about lately!! Very appreciative of your teaching style.
As Mike said, how does Christ’s victory over death even conflict with substitutionary atonement? They’re complementary beliefs
It doesn't.
Because Christ’s victory is for the whole world while penal substitution is limited.
And another problem is constantly conflating substitutionary atonement with penal substitution. I don’t know why you folks keep doing that. Maybe it’s a blind spot.
@@JonathanGrandt Why would the two be separate?
The penalty is what I do not see in scripture. Jesus defeated death. Death could not hold him. He died physically like we will, but he defeated death and resurrected and now we will too because he defeated death for us to also not be held by it when we believe. I do not see penalty, but I do see substitution.
Jesus didn’t die the death of a sinner. A sinner gets the second death which is the lake of fire. Death could not hold him.
So, who did he pay the penalty for?
Will non believers pay a penalty at final judgement? Why?
Did Jesus only pay some peoples “penalty?”
@@gospelguidebook yes you are correct! Imputed righteousness is a legal fiction. It goes and people need to start actually listening to the Lord again and obey Him.
I am partway through this video and feel that Mike regularly conflates "substitution" with "payment". The early Church fathers clearly spoke of a substitution, but PSA builds on that idea and seems to place emphasis on God pouring his wrath onto Christ to fulfill a debt. I find this emphasis problematic, as it plays into the atheist stereotype of a hateful God. Christus Victor is emphasized by the early Church and is not given enough consideration in this video.
Perhaps the middle ground is to recognize that the atonement is a complex, metaphysical occurrence that humans will never fully comprehend in this life. Christ's sacrifice has many layers of meaning, and narrowing it down to only PSA is likely an over-simplification. But it is not unreasonable to believe that the nature of atonement is ultimately one of forgiveness, undeserved justification, and love, rather than one of debt repayment and wrath satisfaction.
@@nathanielchristian7027 One gets the feeling when Mike goes to the zoo he sees PSA in every caged, animal, especially if he had to drive by a state penitentiary on the way there in a borrowed car!
"The wages for sin is death"
"GOD is just"
"God is merciful"
Therefore
"GOD showed mercy and Justice through Jesus dying, allowing others to not pay their own debt because Jesus already paid it."
Your question is strange because it requires that God isn't Just. But God IS just, therefore He requires a penalty for sin.
@@SeanWinters they aren’t paying anything…they’re receiving their wages…receiving their wage of death for their sins vs. the gift of life for their faith in Jesus.
Yes God is just.
He gives us what we want. Life or death.
Thank you for this series. I am reading Rohr's "The Universal Christ" and reached Ch 12 which talks about penal substitutionary atonement being developed after the Reformation. It's good to have this antidote.
Thanks for this study. Looking forward to the rest of them. Love the cat cam! 😂
My problem with PSA as it is taught today is that there is no forgiveness of sins. If Jesus took our place and paid the penalty for our sins then they are not forgiven. They are paid for. Think of this if I owe a dime to the court and cannot pay it but you step in on my behalf and pay the debt, can the court in any way say my debt is forgiven? No my debt is paid and not forgiven.
Exactly. Just like in the parable of the unforgiving servant...God didn't make someone else pay his fine, but forgave him. If someone had paid his fine, it would have been impossible to re-instate the fine which is what happened.
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
Hebrews 9:22
Also if u commit s crime u think a judge would met u scott free
@@jenex5608 you are taking a verse out of context… of course that is what is done with almost every proof text. There are several verses in the Old Testament where people are forgiven without the shredding of blood. And yes judges sometimes let people off scot free. That’s not the point however, the point is that someone else paying a debt on your behalf is not forgiveness. It’s payment. PSA leads to no forgiveness
If we are to forgive as God forgave us that's just free forgiveness.
your ability to teach is a gift, brother. praise God and thankful for being in the fold.
I agree with you when they say all these theories of atonement are complementary theories. I really don't see how one can rule out the penal substitution theory after reading scripture. It says Christ died for our sins it doesn't say Christ died just to show us how sinful we are, while it certainly does show us this.
Jews don't even believe that they need a savior to atone for their sins so they really don't get the crucifiction.
The thing about PSA though is that is focused on Propitiation which means that they believe that God is angry with us and he has to punish us(kill us) for doming but instead he kills Jesus to satisfy his need to kill someone for sin. I do believe Jesus died in place of us but I don't believe the focus that is God is angry like a pagan god. Also, he is talking more on Governmental Theory of Atonement rather than PSA.
Because PSA concludes when thought through that Yeshua is not a human child of God and sense what is true of his humanity is true of his person being one person with two distinct natures cloncludes that he was not even the eternal son. Because PSA teaches that Yeshua died under Fathers wrath and vengeance through wrath is reserved for Gods enemies.(kjv nahum 1:2) and God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked Ezekiel 33:11, nor accepts a blemished sacrifice and offering so to say Yeshua died under divine wrath, makes him an enemy, and an sacrifice that does not become an propitiation as it would not please God.
Different people have different perspectives of PSA trying to reconcile what the doctrine actually concludes which does not sit well with advocates of PSA. some denying that Yeshua was killed by God(to which i agree), wether He was the actual embodiment of sin or if by Father He was treated as if a sinner without becoming a sinner but the conclusion is that they all believe he died under wrath being accursed by Father(kjv 1 cor 12:3). And that makes Yeshua an enemy and not an elect human child of God. As no one elected by God loses sonship, none are separated from God nor abandoned as an orphan.
This would also conclude that Yeshua became enslaved to sin with a sinful nature as spiritually dead in order to die under Divine Wrath.
PSA erroneously teaches that Yeshua is an exception to what God has repetitively taught us of how He treats and sees the righteous and ungodly along with there fate.
@@josephkuzara2609 Good points.
@@TheLegendofMclovin do you believe God has wrath against sin according to the bible?
Warren Mcgrew recently uploaded a video refuting PSA, so, I decided to come and listen to all of your teachings on this because I always believed PSA is an Orthodox Christian Doctrine. But, Warren is alleging that this is Augustinian.? 😳
So, here I am. I watched a couple of your teachings in this list but haven’t yet listened to them all, so I’m doing that now. I want to listen to all of these before finishing What Warren has uploaded because I know that you are a very diligent and careful student and teacher and you don’t use emotional manipulation tactics to sway or persuade others, because of that I trust you. So, I’m tuned in, and I’m listening 👂
😇🙏
Mike, I was quite glad that I stopped to listen to this tonight. It sincerely isn't empty flattery/man pleasing stuff I'm saying. What you taught on brought a huge sense of relief. Recently I ran across some folks who literally believe that we never sin again in thought or deed if we've truly been born again. When I asked, "Have you ever sinned once since believing in Him?" the question was totally ignored. ha ha I know the answer to it, but it still somehow left a massive dark weight on me just thinking about what they said. This helped remove that cloud. Don't suppose you could one day address the "We Never Sin" crowd at some point? Another believer told me that it had been a growing sort of cult around 30 years ago but then quietly went away.
Some notes from video with my comments:
Clement (95AD) wrote: “Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ, our Lord, gave His blood for us by the will of God. His body for our bodies, and His soul for our souls.” Mike claims this speaks clearly of substitution.
You said: “I’m going to die, but instead He dies.” You continued: “You have to do some kind of a weird thing to get out of this.” This seems to imply that “for” must mean “instead of,” which is absolutely untrue. That Christ died “for us” does not have to mean that he died “instead of us.” And it seems, to me, that “you have to do some kind of weird thing” to believe that “I’m going to die, but instead he dies.” How does he die instead of you? What about the fact that “the wages of sin is death” AND “every soul that sinneth, it shall die”? What about the fact that “if one died for all, then were all dead”? And that it was “while we were yet sinners” (we were already dead in sin) that Christ died for us?
Those statements of scriptures cannot be reconciled with the assertion that “I’m going to die, but instead He dies.” Christ’s death does not prevent us from dying. It redeems/ransoms us FROM DEATH.
Ignatius in 107AD: “Now he suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved.”
Again, you claim that this was a substitutionary death, which leads to salvation. But that is not what the statement says. Again, you seem to be forcing “for” to mean something other than what the author seems to mean, as I understand it. Yes! Jesus suffered FOR OUR SAKES. That doesn’t mean he suffered IN OUR PLACE.
The Epistle of Barnabas (written between 70AD-135AD): “For this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling.”
You point out that those are sacrificial terms from the OT, indicating that they contain a “legal term” that cannot be attributed to Calvin. I’m not sure why you equate ‘the blood of sprinkling” with “a legal term,” or why you read PSA into these statements. Maybe you will clarify that later.
Continuing with Barnabas: “For it is written of Him, partly with reference to Israel and partly to us, and the scriptures sayeth thus: He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; with his stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearers.”
You point out that this comes from Isaiah 53, which is “one of the classic Penal Substitutionary texts.” Yes, but that understanding of the text forces “for our transgressions” and “for our iniquities” to mean that Christ died “instead of us” or “in or place,” instead of AS A RESULT OF our transgressions and our iniquities, SO THAT we might be redeemed FROM DEATH (which is THE penalty for sin that EVERY SOUL that sins suffers) THROUGH His death… and, more importantly, His subsequent resurrection.
More from Barnabas: “Moreover, when he was affixed to the cross he had given him to drink vinegar and gall. Harking how the Priests and the people gave previous indications of this, His commandment having been written, the Lord enjoined that whosoever did not keep the fast should be put to death because he also himself was to offer in sacrifice for our sins the vessel of the Spirit.”
You point out, again, that he was offered as a sacrifice “for our sins,” implying that “for” must mean what those who adhere to the theory of PSA say it means, but it doesn't. You also points out that Isaac served as a type of Christ and say this is “clear PSA talk.” While it is true that Isaac served as a type, so did the whole system of sacrificial offerings we read about in the OT. However, that these things typed or prefigured the sacrifice that was to come at the cross in no way demonstrates or proves that Jesus’ death was “substitutionary” in nature.
The Epistle of Diognetus (2nd century): “When our wickedness had reached its height, he himself took on him the burden of our iniquities. He gave His son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the Blameless One for the wicked, the Righteous One for the unrighteous. Oh sweet exchange, oh unsearchable operation, oh benefits surpassing all expectation, that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous one. And that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors.”
You said that this epistle is “a clear example of the early belief that Jesus paid the price for unjust sinners, so they could be forgiven of their sin.” But how does that translate into Penal Substitutionary Atonement? Aren’t these sinners being redeemed/ransomed FROM something? FROM what? Is it not FROM “the wages of sin” (ie: DEATH)? If so, how is Jesus ransoming them FROM DEATH by taking their place? by dying INSTEAD OF them? He can't be. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to die “for” someone who is already dead, if "for" is supposed to mean "instead of."
He gave HIS BODY “for” OUR BODIES in that our union with him makes us a part of HIS BODY. So, yes, there is an “exchange” of sorts, but I don't see how that proves PSA. It doesn’t even imply PSA, unless you force a meaning on the word “for” that the context doesn’t seem to support, IMO. You also have to force “death” to mean something other than death, as well. Because no one who believes in PSA believes that they will not “die” because Jesus “died for them.” Do they? They might believe they will not go to hell because Jesus went to hell for them, but to use that argument you have to make “death” = “hell” and make hell the wages of sin.
Jesus’ death did not save us “from” the wages of sin, in the sense that His death prevents us from having to suffer the wages of sin, which is death. His death saves us “from” the wages of sin in the sense that it provides us with a way OUT OF death. His death provides us with “the resurrection of the dead.” He has ransomed us from THE GRAVE… from THE BONDAGE OF SIN. He does this, not by preventing our deaths but, by joining himself to us IN DEATH, that we might become partakers of HIS RESURRECTION, as a part of HIS BODY.
These are just my notes and comments from the first 23 minutes. That is as far as I can go tonight. I am certainly willing to be convinced otherwise and I will continue to listen to the arguments but, so far, I find the argument for PSA to be poor, and even illogical, in some cases. I will come back to listen to the rest. I may or may not comment further. However, I will let you know if I change my mind after listening to the rest of this video and/or the series. (CAPS are just for emphasis... I'm not yelling or upset.)
:) And though I do not always agree with your position I do enjoy your videos and appreciate the time and effort you put into your ministry here on TH-cam. I think I have said that before, but it's worth repeating. :)
These were my thoughts exactly! That PSA is being read into the quotes when it seems to be that ransom is what is the early church fathers believed. Thank you for this post. I know Mike will consider it deeply he is fair and loves it when ppl refute a passage instead of just tell him hes wrong
You do not seem to agree with or be aware of then that there are 2 kinds of death described n scripture. Physical death (which seems to be the only one that you acknowledge). And Spiritual Death. One is separation of Spirit and body and the other is separation of your soul from the presence of God.
When we are born again in The Spirit we are once again in God's presence and therefore that spiritual death is nullified.
You sad that you do not understand why talking about the sprinkling of blood is being mentioned in relation to law.. which is kind of astounding if you claim to have any relevant understanding of the entire point of the Old Testament so maybe you you just asking a rhetorical question for the sake of later argument? Because you seem you be aware that the sacrifices were there to look forward to the death of Christ... did those sacrifices all look forward to His resurrection too? Or the fulfillment of the law and though it was fulfilled through Him By His Death death could not hold Him.
There is scripture of back all of this up.. naturally you folk seem to hand-wave it all away. For what? To ridicule God's Law.
@@kelvyquayo This is the opposite of what mike appreciates. When someone simply says an argument is wrong and doesnt show how its wrong just assumes it is. Consider actually making a point.
@@kelvyquayo I am quite aware of the fact that there are two different kinds of death. I'm not exactly sure why you think I understand only one and that one is physical death, when much of what I have said actually pertains to spiritual death. That is the death we suffer as the result of sin. Physical death is the result of man's mortality and it only the "type," that which is seen that reveals that which is not seen. As to the sprinkling of blood. I made no indication that I don't understand it's connection to the Law. I said I didn't understand what connection Mike was making to a certain "legal term," a term he did not identify or elaborate on. So I have no idea if it's a term related to the Law (of Moses, and the sacrificial offerings) or just a legal term in general. As to ridiculing God's Law, I've done no such thing. Disagreement with a particular interpretation is not ridicule. I am a believer and I believe that the sacrificial offerings made under the Law bore witness to the one sacrifice that was to come, that fulfilled them all. I don't have to believe that Christ died "in my place" to believe he died "for me." Even you point out that there are two deaths and we all suffer BOTH physical and spiritual death, yet one is "nullified" when we are "born again." In other words, we are redeemed from death in the sense that we are "resurrected," or saved "out of" death, not prevented from dying because Jesus died "instead." Which is my point exactly.
Do we have a list of citations here? I'll take the time to go write them down soon if not, but it would be nice to have a list of the works quoted to be read later.
What God's holiness demanded, His love provided. The entirety of the doctrines of salvation truly slay my heart. Your ministry is a blessing from God. Thank you for being faithful.
Really well done and very thorough, yet I would say you're conflating what has traditionally been considered "ransom" and "recapitulation" with "penal substitution". Calvin expands the penalty beyond Christ being subjected to the death which all humans face as a result of Adam's transgression. For Calvin, it is that PLUS the additional punishment of retribution for each and every sin of each and every person-and that is what has been called Penal Substitution. Death, AND the due retribution by the eternal wrath of God in suffering damnation, as Calvin would have it. Hugo Grotius, an Arminian, later tempers this with his "governmental" model, which says the Father exacted a great amount of wrath against the Son to demonstrate the seriousness of sin, but not the full measure due to us.
The key point of contention for the Eastern Orthodox would not be whether or not Jesus gave His body for our body or suffered an unjust penalty at the hands of humans-the ransom and recapitulation perspectives account for that, and that language is clear in the Isaiah text and is certainly ancient and Biblical, as found in Clement and Ignatius and the Letter to Barnabas. The key question is does God the Son pay this debt to God the Father by taking and exhausting the wrathful retribution due for our each of our sins? Does God the Father pour out His wrath and damnation on the Son? Or is the false and unjust penalizing, chastisement, and bruising of the perfect Jesus being done by humans? You say no, it is the punishment of God, yet none of the fathers say that God poured out His wrath on Jesus, because that specific idea is not clearly articulated anywhere in Scripture. The recapitulation view would say Christ assumed our nature and thus became subject to human death (which you could say is a penalty, but not in the sense Calvin or Grotius speak, which is what we understand as PSA), so that He could conquer death and redeem the complete human nature which he assumed. He was subjected to the death caused by the fall, beaten and bruised and chastised and cursed by us, experienced human death, and conquered the finality and permanence of death as only God could, all so that we could be freed from the bondage of death and be resurrected in a glorified body like His, and it is in that sense that He gave Himself for us. He did this in obedience to God the Father, and in that sense did it unto Him, not in the sense of receiving the individual retribution for each of our particular offenses.
I agree the modern Christus Victor crowd tends to strawman A LOT and use emotional language as if Jesus-God the Son-were nothing more than a helpless child, subject to a cruel parent throwing them into a volcano for appeasement, and is overly critical of the language of substitution which is obviously present, but the patristic view is a combination of the concept of recapitulation found particularly in Athanasius and Irenaeus and ransom found in countless others-a ransom not paid to the Father, but paid in a similar sense to how we say a soldier "Paid the ultimate price" by giving his life for his countrymen, so that they don't have to be subject to the violence of the enemy. Calling what Clement, Ignatius, Athanasius, Chrysostom and others said "penal substitution" is re-labelling what has traditionally been considered ransom and recapitulation to "penal substitution." Penal substitution has specifically to do with the Father punishing the Son, and that is nowhere to be found in any quote you read of the early Church. The closest is probably Hilary of Poitier, but I'd contend that God pouring out his wrath is still being read into that, rather than simply offering Himself as a victim of false and unjust punishment and death at human hands in obedience to the Father's plan. I would also contend the passages in Athanasius are in a very different framework, which I have presented above.
Anselm is first to see Jesus as paying a debt we owe to the Father, but it isn't punishment, but rather giving the Father His due and even excess obedience in our place to make up for our failure to obey. Then Luther and Calvin later expand this to God the Father pouring out His wrath on God the Son who absorbs and exhausts all the eternal punishment due each of us for our offenses against God. The conceptions of Anselm and Calvin are not what the early Church nor the Bible express.
The problem is not that Penal Substitution (as Calvin has it) is mutually exclusive with other conceptions. The problem is that the Father pouring out wrath and anger on the Son divides the Trinity and breaks the eternal and inseparable mutual love and mutual indwelling between all three persons, as well as destroys the concept of inseparable operations, as God the Father acts upon God the Son, while God the Holy Spirit does nothing apparent. The crucifixion is not one Divine person acting against another, but a mutual mission.
Best comment I read so far below this video!
Always good teachings from you bro...Thanks again.
Dear Mike, Sébastien from Switzerland here. Thank you SO MUCH for your videos, and even more so to our Saviour Jesus Christ in whom I try to abide. So many thanks for your work. Just want to inform that at least on my device, video persistently and consistently fails playing at 47:15, though I can move the time slider a bit and resume from 47:22. You may want to check if that's anyhow related to the actual video, others might be experiencing the same issue.
Oh and it happens on 2 different devices with different hardware for me. So it may not be my devices that have issue. Hopefully not me either 😁
I’m experiencing that as well. I’m not sure why. I’m going to give it some time to see if TH-cam fixes it on its own. Thanks for letting me know.
Great! Blessings from Switzerland!
@@MikeWinger oh, and funny finding, the automatically generated subtitles (English speech recognition) from TH-cam are also completely out of sync after the 47:15 passage. There must be some discontinuity in the video causing all of this.
I Thank God for you and your minister Mike, from Monterrey, México
I thought this was beautifully put. From W James Hidley
"I'm a Calvinist Christian, and I used to scratch my head trying to figure out, "Why are these Arminians [and some Lutherans] so 'dead set' against affirming the Penal Substitution of Christ on the cross for the redeemed?" As in, "Christ died as a substitute penalty for His people, who will therefore never suffer the penalty."
Think of the difficulty: Say [hypothetically] I embrace Arminianism. I come to someone not a believer and I say, "Brother, Jesus took the penalty of your sins to the cross, so you may and ought to believe in him." Suppose he never believes, and instead dies in a state of sin. Now, the only thing I can say [if I reject Calvinism] is, "There was someone whose sins Christ took to the cross." Someone else could rightly ask, "Then how will he not be saved?" If I'm Arminian, I say, "Christ purchased forgiveness for him, but he rejected, resisted, did not believe." They may ask in turn, "But isn't his rejection, resistance and unbelief sin? And didn't you say, 'Christ took all his sin to the cross?'"
This is a problem for the "deep thinking Arminian," who tries to hold on to the Penal Substitution of Christ for sinners. So, what are the options? Either embrace that Christ offered a real propitiation that really takes away sin from God's people [aka Calvinism] or "downgrade" the cross to an offer, which in itself, redeems no one. Which as such only "takes away sin," by the consent of the sinner. Being subject to man's fickle "free choice," there is equally no reason to suppose the Perseverance of every Christian in grace. If he comes in by "his free will," [there being no "irresistible" grace], he can "go out" just as easily.
And herein is what our Arminian friend trades for the truth of Calvinism. He reads 1 Jn. 2:2, and determines, "'World' here is every man universally." Rightly rejecting assured universal salvation for all, there is only one option remaining to him. That is to deny Christ died to give His people all they need for salvation. Instead, Christ dies for each, every man in the same way, and gains nothing for any man in particular. Or others will say He gains redemption and forgiveness, yet it becomes null and void, because it is rejected.
Penal substitution for Calvinists means that if you are a believer already, you know that Christ died to assure you of holiness and everlasting salvation. Christ's death FOR YOU is THE REASON you came to faith. It was His efficacious grace, giving you A NEW HEART, to receive Christ's benefits [Eze. 36:26; Philippians 1:29; Acts 16:14].
If you have heard the gospel, and yet do not believe, you are on dangerous ground. Refusing to believe, to repent, telling yourself, "I can do this whenever I finally feel like it," is one way of hardening your heart against God. [see note 1].
What to do, if you are not a believer? If you have not repented of sin? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" [Acts 16:31]. Tell God, "I'm sorry I have resisted You for so long. Lord, grant me a new heart, the gift of faith and repentance." Keep looking to Jesus Christ and His death for sin. As you come to know your saving interest in Him, you too may say, "He died for me; God chose me in His Son, that I might believe and be saved. Thank you, precious Lord."
Note 1: In all this it is presupposed that if one doesn't clearly understand the Bible message of Christ's death for sin, that God wants the "seeker" to get the needed information. Some people wrongly question their own "real belief," thinking, "I would feel a certain emotion if I were a true believer; or I would feel more sorrow for my sins." Or perhaps they tell themselves, "I want to be a believer, only I struggle with . . ." Yet struggling with stuff doesn't in itself prove one is not a believer. Many believers struggle with many things. I used to belong to a denomination which wouldn't baptize cigarette smokers, unless they first quit! So all these cases of "imaginary sin," and [supposed] "unconverted feelings," have nothing to do with the topic of conversion of which we are speaking.
Also, [contrary to some other Calvinists] one is not lost or an unbeliever, merely owing to Arminian/Calvinist disagreements. God forbid that "theological maturity" be made a barrier to the merits and salvation of the Lord Jesus! The intention of the above is to clarify sound doctrine and remove some barriers to a mature faith and witness."
Thank you Pastor for this video. Really well done and well argued. It would be great if you could write down the references for the early church guys that you used. It would be good for the listeners to know where exactly the quotations come from.
God bless you
Read the Transcript perhaps?
The Apostles never used "by his stripes you are healed" to mean "physical healing"
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls
the healing is OUR SOULS
I didn’t know this was even an issue. Thanks for keeping us informed :D I just don’t get why people would twist info to strengthen their own view.
I haven't listen to this yet, but it's an issue for sure, introduced through people like Greg Boyd, Brian Zahnd, Richard Rohr, Rob Bell etc, sometimes even by leaders in some evangelical churches, maybe not from the pulpit but from videos, books etc recommended to people, especially young people who may not understand the atonement properly. It's tragic. It tries to make God more appealing, less of a judge.
Carole Armstrong oh so if I’m understanding correctly, it probably serves them as an excuse for them to live their life however they want with no fear of eternal consequences and not having to answer to God. That would seem to explain why atheists work so hard not to believe in God.
Susan Morales “The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked.”
@@SusanMorales Do you and this "pastor" regard Mary as the mother of God? I haven't looked much into your religion, since there are too many Protestant sects to keep up with. haha
Dan. Sss. Hi, Well what we believe is that God is one, 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mankind fell into sin in the garden of Eden and needed to be saved. The Father’s will was for his Son Jesus to die on the cross and rise again from the grave on the third day. By doing this, all of our sin fell on Jesus and he paid the price of death that we all deserved. Only he could have done this since he is the sinless son of God. Because of this Jesus also needed to take on flesh which is why God chose Mary to be the woman the Holy Spirit came upon causing her to become pregnant with Jesus. So we don’t elevate Mary as the mother of “God” making her into a deity or anything more than simply a person that was privileged to have been a part in God’s will being fulfilled through Jesus Christ.
Thank you tremendously for your work on this subject!!!
It's not necessarily PSA that's problematic, rather the way that justification, righteousness and grace are interpreted within its frame. Nobody I know of denies Christ died a sacrificial death.
Hey Mike, will you ever do (or have you done) a video on hell and different views of it? (ECT, Conditional Immortality, Universalism)? I think there are really great arguments for how PSA goes hand in hand with Conditional Immortality/Annihilationism.
Great vid, Mike. The Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) has the "died for our sins" part. There's no way around it, obviously, He was the substitute who bore our penalty (death). Like how are people believing the gospel without believing penal substitution?! I've noticed that opponents attack not penal substitution in its simplicity, but their caricature of it. Jesus dying in the place of transgressors, on account of their sins is such a beautiful vital truth! Love it!
If God’s justice demands that He punish sin, then there is a higher force than God-necessity-which determines what God can and cannot do. Calvinists will be quick to argue, “No, justice is an aspect of God’s nature. There is no necessity laid on Him from outside His nature.” The problem, though, is that if I do “A” then God must do “B.” If I sin, God must punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise. Thus God’s actions are bound and controlled by something outside of Himself, i.e. my actions. This becomes even more confusing if we add in the Calvinistic notion that God foreordained my sinful actions in the first place, thus forcing Him to respond to them. Furthermore, it is often argued by the Reformed that God is sovereign and doesn’t have to save anyone if He chooses not to. On the other hand, He does have to punish sin. So God has to punish sin, but He doesn’t have to save sinners. It’s very interesting that justice (or at least what the Reformed see as justice) becomes the defining characteristic of God rather than love. Justice forces God to respond to our actions, but love does not.
Before John said ' God is love ' in 1 john, he said ' God is light .' speaking to the holiness of God, and it is the holiness of God that demanded the cross of Christ. I've read a lot of your comments on this thread and it seems like you a have a version of a loving God that isn't a holy God. Holiness is utter separation from sin, and a dedication to His own glory. God doesn't set aside His holiness to have fellowship with anyone, so how do sinful people have fellowship with a holy God? For Him to be like ' no it's cool, I'm just going to over look your sins' does violence to His own Holiness, righteousness, and justice. He would have to violate His own character. A thing God would never do. I think for some it's hard to see the sacrifice of Christ biblically, because they don't see God biblically, and they don't see sin biblically. Tell me then; for what did Christ die for? And, what hope do you have in salvation if it is not Christ dying for YOUR sins?
@@itisnow "For Him to be like ' no it's cool, I'm just going to over look your sins' does violence to His own Holiness, righteousness, and justice. He would have to violate His own character. A thing God would never do." Yet, in this view, God PRETENDS Jesus is a sinner, punishes Him, then PRETENDS the actual sinner is innocent and receives no punishment at all because, well, God can't just overlook your sin. You are correct, what a shoddy argument.
This was right in time for me. So, for the past three months I have about 500 hours of reading and watching videos from various groups of Christians who (among many other things) are against PSA...I never know there ever was such a thing actually. I just thought it was a given that. Christ paid for my sins. There’s so much Scripture that I just assumed everyone understood that. My journey down that paths started with The Shack and the various materials that arose from that book and movie. I began watching William Paul Young in TH-cam which led me to a multitude of very smart and dedicated teachers. Baxter Kruger, Francois Du Toit, Andre Rabe, Bertie Brits, C.A. Miller, Brad Jersak.....many others. I thought I had really found something. I was starting to think I’d been mistaken the whole time. PSA is only part of what gets deconstructed by these ministries though. In order to deconstruct this the Bible gets deconstructed and reduced to part myth that needs to be deciphered. It moves into a type of Universalism as well. Not so much that all roads lead to God but Universal salvation. I have to be honest, I feel learned a lot in these months but one thing was really bothering me....I never really got a clear understanding of what salvation is. No matter how much I searched it was still vague to me why Jesus died. I was being told that the early church NEVER believed in PSA and that it was invented 500 years ago. That seemed strange to me. I began to wonder about all of this deconstruction. Satan was deconstructed as a myth. Evolutionary theory was said to be in harmony with Biblical creation. The sacrificial system of the Old Testament is said to be God giving in to our evil tendency for scapegoating. God’s Wrath is said to be the writers of the OT projection their own evil into God. I was really left with nothing to hold on to. This Video that shows that the early church actually had a very clear understanding that our salvation is Gods love expressed through his Justice. I’ve always believed that I just got really sidetracked. The way PSA was presented by these other teachers made it sound like God is and angry, petulant child who abuses people in a drunken stupor and demands appeasement on an emotional level. That’s just not true. Anyway, I’m rambling because I just barely came back to my senses. This video makes it clear that the main basis for their case against PSA is totally untrue. Thanks, now I’ll spend a few months pouring over this content :) Shalom! PS...this post is the first post I’ve ever made on TH-cam and is chock full of typos and grammatical errors. Typing with my thumbs on my phone and don’t feel like fixing them. Lol! :)
Good for you for continuing your search for truth. I hope it’s going well. The answers are in the Scriptures.
So glad the Lord rescued you from the crafty deceptive Jesuits pretending to be Protestant ministers. Concentrate on "Old time" Christianity..Puritans ect.
@@itisnowWRONG! Thomas Aquinas is a Roman Catholic scholar who does not use the proper biblical interpretation of the scriptures.
preaching this on easter, great video
Mike id like to personally contact you at some point if that is at all possible concerning some questions about this. I ran into a gentleman who holds to Father Son theology. is there a way that i could get ahold of you?
@mike winger
I really love your heart as you share and debate. Unlike so many others who do this type of thing, you are not speaking under a religious spirit, but from the heart of Jesus. Many have a hard, condemning, judgmental attitude about them and in the tone of their voice and the comments they make. You do not. Thank you. 🙏🏼🙂
What software are you using for the multi-screen / countdown / split screen etc. ?
Lagos
Again, really excellent teaching. Thanks so much, God bless ya'll!
If penal substitution is true, God cannot or will not do what he asks us to do: freely forgive. Here’s a question: if penal substitution is true, wouldn’t that make God a hypocrite? After all, it would mean God either cannot or will not do the very thing he asks us to do: forgive without demanding something on the part of the one who offended us. Jesus tells us we are to forgive over and over again. He tells us that we should be loving toward our enemies to emulate God who is “kind to the ungrateful and wicked.” He tells us we should walk the extra mile, turn the other cheek, and to freely give without expecting in return. However, if God demanded a blood sacrifice and was unwilling or unable to extend forgiveness without it, God himself is unwilling to follow the teachings of Jesus. Furthermore, it would mean Jesus was wrong about God when he claimed that God was kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
Dear readers of this deceptive comment, Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception
@@ottonormal5641 Colossians 2 tells us not to be taken captive of hollow and deceptive philosophy which depends on human tradition rather than on Christ. The comment tells us what Jesus teached explicitly, while PSA depends on human tradition. Seems like your warning is aimed at the wrong target.
We forgive because we have been forgiven, we dont freely forgive its only because of what Christ did that we do. Penal substitutionary atonement does not make God a hypocrite or a liar.
Absolutely ridiculous and unbiblical. I noticed how you didn't bring any scripture to your comment, that's because you don't have scriptures supporting your claim.
We ARE freely forgiven, and at the same time God got His justice. The forgiveness given to us is free to us, and so we should grant forgiveness free to others.
How is this hard to understand?
@@ChumX100PSA isn't tradition, it's biblical. Can you point to Bible verses which refute PSA?
Once again, Mike, Thank You!!
Very interesting study. Thanks Mike for all your work in digging all of this out! This is so basic to our faith that it's hard to imagine a Christian not believing in PSA.
"Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes, He endured all things, that we might live in Him."
- Polycarp, "Epistle to the Philippians" 8:98
I wish you would have said Anything to about the question of the verse in hebrews , I read that and it scared me because of not always overcoming temptation, I'm still so new and my desire is to live for Christ but can't seem to always do the right things. Not that I have any righteousness of my own beyond faith in Jesus's finished works but I've given up everything I was doing I knew to be wrong and now after reading that wonder what it means if i don't resist sin to the death, basically. I am weak. I want to just go be at church and be in a discipleship training program but my church has 30 members and dropping, no help for me whatsoever.
Is there any way you can name the letters which you're referencing?
Hello mr. Winger first off I just wanted to say thank you very much because your content has helped me greatly and I do thank God for you. I have no other believers around me in my life so I don't really have anyone to bounce this off of but I think God may have brought something across to me and I figured I would just share it. Could you take a look at Deuteronomy chapter 21:1-9 and Matthew 27:24. I think I see the spiritual connection there.
coming from 2021, and realized something I have not hear from Mike's channel!
Mike - How do you view the finished work of Christ when you hold to Penal Substitution at the same time as you deny a definite atonement? If it is an actual substitution, how can it not be Definite?
Very interesting and enjoyable listening! The truth about history always matters.
The thing that makes me not be convinced of PSA is that although we are Expiated, that is our sins are forgiven and removed, God is still angry and He needs to be pleased by killing someone, that is to be Propitiated, so He can not be any with us anymore. If God forgives but there is a condition then it's not love, can't God just forgive and forget without staying angry? I believe Jesus is a substitution for our sin but I don't believe His Father killed Jesus just because God was angry and wanted the pleasure to kill someone, but we killed Jesus with our sins and God's wrath, that is God gave us up to our desire to kill Jesus, was poured out on Christ, but not God's rage to kill something because He needs pleasure.
@TheLegendofMclovin (i know you commented 4 years ago) the issue is that God while forgiving and merciful also just, and so hates sin, judges get into the job (theoretically) because the justice and hate injustice, this is god (see explanation of gods name in exodus 34:5-8). Forgive and forget (not including being unwise to potential future sin) is something we are called to do as we are not an almighty God of justice. God anger burns against sin, this is seen in many old testament storys, and on the cross (darkness). Its is part of his character. God is rightly angry at child abusers, at murderes, at corrupt company owners who cause the death of their workers (and the list keeps going till you get to our sin). Imagine a father, who hears that his daughter has been raped by "Greg". When he meets Greg, Greg says sorry, and the dad shrugs his shoulders and says "no probs pal". Forgive and forget doesn't work because it leaves the victims without justice, God has to pour out his wrath on the evil that we do. Praise God jesus was our substitute, cos we deserve the fathers wrath.
How do you get penal atonement, when it says "ransom, there was an exchange" and you just say "this is substitution" that doesn't mean PSA as other views hold to substitution as well
So if it says substitution (it doesnt), can I point and say oh it's ransom?
Is there a source for the quotes that are cited in this video?
Whilst I agree that there are many aspects to the atonement including substitution, the emergence of the theory of evolution challenges the conventional view of inherited original sin and drives me towards an emphasis on the inspiration of God’s love on the cross which shames my sin more than the payment of the debt itself. Either way it was the supreme sacrifice which compels me to worship Christ.
Yeay David! At 59:28. Great question! I agree. Punishment is opposite to forgiveness. Mikes answer (hey I like you so don’t get me wrong) but it was not good. Like at all...:// such a vague definition of forgiveness.
If you do something wrong against me and I say that I will forgive you, I then would release what you have done, not punish you (or someone else) and then forgive you. That is NOT forgiveness and it’s so twisted to hear otherwise! I literally can’t even believe that people would be persuades by this weak definition.
But the FORGIVENESS is in and through what Jesus did for you !... HIS FREE GIFT OF SALVATION AND FORGIVENESS through His death, for without the shedding of blood there remains NO remission of Sin....He took the sin of the world upon Himself ( THE PERFECT DEPICTION OF FORGIVENESS ) for those whom believe and come to Him..How can mere man the created question what GOD THE CREATOR decides to do,... He chose this perfect way, why try to understand with carnal humanistic understanding.
Sister, the problem there is that you are conflating our rights or demands for justice with God's rights and demands for justice. We are not free to do that because we are guilty sinners before God while God is holy and righteous before all. The danger in that conflation is that we are literally seeking to mandate that God issue justice according to our demands and or preference. We do not stand in righteous judgment over sin, only God does.
Correction: The satisfaction model, closely related to the PSA model of the atonement was popularized by Roman Catholic archbishop Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm wrote the book "Why God was a man" in 1098, which popularized the satisfaction theory. John Calvin then modified the satisfaction theory to say atonement was attributed only to individuals, the elect ones.
What software do you use for this?
Good discussion so far! It's especially important that people understand that the theories of atonement are not in opposition to one another.
I imagine things will come more into focus as you continue in this series, but as of now I think you've painted such a broad picture of SPA that you aren't accurately representing many of the people who hold it. If SPA is simply, Jesus suffered on our behalf for our sins so we don't have to (let's call that "base SPA"), then sure there is wide attestation of that in the early church fathers. But those under the auspices of SPA often goes farther than that, and I think it is fair to say that base SPA has evolved to take on new dimensions through the work of Anselm and eventually Calvin and others. My concern is that without addressing that we leave ourselves open to some strong rhetoric from the other side (notice I didn't say strong arguments :) ).
I'm always a big fan of pulling things back into their original context. You have done a good job showing that there is a thread of thought that runs all the way back to the beginning, but that doesn't mean we're done and can say that Augustine or Jerome's thoughts on SPA are the same as those of Calvin.
There's one thing I'd like to hear your input on: Isaiah 53:10 is definitely an important passage in all this. I'm super weak in Hebrew so I usually look at the LXX to give some additional insight since I can hold my own in Greek at least. I find the differences between the MT and the LXX in this passage to be rather stark. Obviously it doesn't have to be an "either/or" type of thing, but the LXX doesn't say that it was the will of the Lord to crush him, rather it says, "it was the will of the Lord to cleanse him from the blow." In hindsight it makes me think of the resurrection... how it would please God to raise Jesus up as vindication of His righteousness. LXX is an earlier witness to Isaiah, and would likely have significant influence in early Christian thought so I think it's important to weigh it as a source.
Some other thoughts:
1) Who the penalty is paid to: I think this might be looking at the atonement too much as a transaction. Jesus suffered and died; we are in Christ; therefore we have suffered and died (and thankfully will share in His life as well!) so long as we remain in Him. There doesn't have to be an actual transaction for this to work. I usually express this as "atonement is mechanically substitutionary, but experientially sympathetic." The "penalty" language may just be pulling in the idea that there was a "cost" and it was because of another's action. Note also that when we say a solder "paid the ultimate price" no one asks "who did the soldier pay the price to?" We understand that the language is about the cost, not the target of payment.
2) Expiate vs propitiate: this might be a good topic for a video if you haven't already done one (I feel like you have addressed it somewhat here and there). Personally I think these words should just be struck out of theological vocabulary. They have limited utility, and most of the time I see them become a proxy war waged in English instead of looking at the original language. Hilasterion references the lid of the ark and is the place of atonement, and Jesus being our hilasterion just means that he is the exclusive place where atonement can be found. Done. If you want to understand atonement itself, then work on understanding Hebrew "kaphar." There is no single, English word that will adequately describe kaphar so let's just move on from trying to insist on one.
It never occurred to me that anyone could believe anything other than penal substitution. It would seem that the basic platform in the Bible shows this. This is very interesting. I learn so much from you.
I am going to be off work and in the hospital for a week soon. I look forward to having a lot of time to listen to you and learn more.
To which was the means for Jesus suffering for our sins? It clearly was not by Divine wrath and punishment. Jesus suffering and death was voluntary to undergo such a wrongful cursed death on the tree.
Jesus learning obedience by what He suffered(heb 5:8-9) even unto death(Philipp 2:8) resulting in His perfection does not come by Wrathful punishment but by loving discipline.
Heb 12:4-11 with the correlation of Isaiah 53:5 as discipline perfectly reflects the capacity of Jesus' voluntary suffering for our sins to learn obedience which produced a harvest of Righteousness and Peace being trained by such discipline even shedding his own blood in resistance to sin.
@@itisnow lol the fathers undeniably tied the victory of Christ over death to his substitution on our behalf.
@@itisnow
What is the PENALTY of sin?
DEATH
"The Soul that sins shall die"
This is why it is said "without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins"
So with that said, the only way to atone for ones sin is "to shed your own blood" which is "to give your life" or simple put "DIE"
That is the only means of Justice
So when Christ said,
“Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and *to give his life* as a ransom for many."
He came to take our place AKA - A Substitute
Just as a Lamb was provided by God - As a substitute for Isaac - so that Abraham would not need to take his sons life - they were swapped. The Lamb for Isaac
LIKEWISE
JESUS IS THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD
God has provided the way for us to be made right with him... through his Son... whom is our substitute... whom takes our place... receiving the penalty for our sins - death
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; *that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man*
Our sins were imputed onto Christ - When God made him who knew no sin *to be made sin for us*
^ When it is written that God made him sin for us... does that mean he was made an actual sinner? NO!! it means sin was imputed unto him
So that we could be made the righteousness of God IN HIM .... his righteousness is imputed to us ... though we be not righteous
Clearly SUBSTITUTION is biblical
And this is why we pray IN JESUS NAME
we have been clothed IN CHRIST
@@itisnow
If you think PSA which is "Jesus dying as a sacrifice in our place, taking the punishment for our sins upon himself" is something that was only understood at the 16th century and is a false teaching - that the church Fathers did not preach this
I am very doubtful that you have read Gods Word for yourself ... Now, I am not saying that you haven't done so... But I am doubtful
have you opened up a bible for yourself and spent time each day to read it? Or do you just listen to what others have told you?
Being a Ransom & Penal Substitution are not in opposition
How did Jesus ransom us from the penalty of sin, which is death?
"He bore our sins in his body on the cross" (1 Peter 2:24).
"Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust" (1 Peter 3:18)
*The JUST for the UNJUST* = Substitution
through faith in him the ungodly are justified (DECLARED righteous)
I think there is an argument to be made to PSA in the Abraham sacrifice, particularly in that innocuous little word "burnt" sacrifice. The burnt sacrifice would atone for a person, not necessarily an act i.e. a sin. Big question is why. Best conclusion I can make is that the burnt sacrifice atoned for a sinner in their capacity as sinner.
I'm having a really hard time hearing "God punished Jesus so He wouldn't have to punish us" from any of those quotes. In what way do any of those quotes say that? Seriously. God punished Jesus is very different from "Jesus suffered for us." Also "Jesus suffered for us" is very different from "Jesus suffered so we won't have to." It's like you completely missed what the opponents of PSA are contesting. Love you Mike. Keep doing what you do. You're one of the few who has a great heart and works hard!
Is. 53 It pleased the father to crush/bruise him?
@@blxck3978 I'm not sure where you're getting "punished" "wrath of God" "Substitution" "Satisfied Justice" or anything related to penal substitution theory from "Chapets Yehova daka'" It was God's will for (the suffering servant) to be made sick (physical weakness). This passage doesn't say anything one way or another about why his body was weakened, just that it was God's will. We learn from Romans 6 that suffering in the flesh is how we overcome sin. We must also suffer in the same way as Jesus if we are to escape slavery to sin. Eze 18:32 is interesting. God does not take pleasure (same word "chaphets") in the death of the wicked. Penal Theory would have us believe that God is not pleased with destroying the wicked but he somehow takes pleasure in destroying the righteous to satisfy his need to punish sin. It would be immensely helpful if teachers like Mike would learn the difference between theories and what the text actually says.
Hey Mike I was really hoping you would comment on Hebrews 10:26-31, does it really mean what it sounds to mean? Almost leaves me feeling hopeless. Thanks God bless you.
You are never hopeless. But willful sin should stop after true conversion. That does not mean we are perfect in knowledge or free from ignorance. Romans 6:1-3 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
some say the the New Testament Church, is different than the Reformation Church, which is the church that we are said to be following...
I didn’t think my answer would be “no” to the question “Did Calvin just make this up?”
Bamboozled!
I don’t get it. What exactly is the alternative if PSA isn’t true? What exactly are they saying?
Do you have a list of all those PSA quotes from early church fathers?
He doesn't because there are none
Jesus preached the opposite of those traditional 'christian' doctrines of forgiveness and atonement.
- The prodigal son, and two debtors, much is forgiven if one loves much, we will be judged by the measure we use, 'forgive us our sins like we forgive those who sin against us'. God just forgives, he doesn't need or want any sacrifices.*
- Jesus was directly asked how to be saved. His answer was do not kill, do not steal, do not falsely testify, honor your parents, if you have wealth give it to the poor, love your neighbor as yourself. When he talked about who will go to heaven and who will go to hell he said those who did or didn't feed the hungry, accept the foreigners, take care of the sick, and visit the prisoners.
Nothing there about needing to believe in Jesus' sacrificial death. Just repent, avoid evil, and do good, and you will be forgiven and be saved.
Substitutionary /sacrificial atonement theology in general is contrary to Jesus' teachings, whether penal substitution, or ransom view, or the satisfaction view, or the governmental view, they are all substitutionary /sacrificial atonement views (something which Mike is obviously ignorant of, being that he reads any substitution language as "clearly" PSA, but whatever). And all of them are simply contradictory to what Jesus preached. Even if it could be proved that Pauline epistles teach any of them, ok, whatever, that would just mean that Paul and/or other writers of pauline epistles were the first main heretics contradicting Jesus on this (and also other issues tbh).
* Didn't God command sacrifices in the Old Testament?
Yes, God did command animal sacrifices, if we accept the tradition of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. But there was a third theological group among the Jews - the Essenes. They taught that God doesn't want any sacrifices and that He never gave Moses commandments to make animal sacrifices, but instead that such things were later false additions to the scriptures.
They appealed to eg prophet Jeremiah who presents God as saying (7:22) "At the time I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I didn't command them to offer sacrifices to me." also in another place (6:20) "Your burnt offerings are not acceptable; your sacrifices do not please Me.". They held to the message found in the Psalms (40:6) "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but my ears You have opened. Burnt offerings and sin offerings You did not require." and (51:16) "For You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; You take no pleasure in burnt offerings.". And also God is noted as saying - in Isaiah (1:11) "I take no delight in the blood of bulls, of lambs and goats." and another verse says (66:3) "Whoever slaughters an ox is like one who slays a man; whoever sacrifices a lamb is like one who breaks a dog’s neck". Also the prophet Hosea presents God as saying (6:6) "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."
This last one is an important verse. Jesus actually quotes this verse from Hosea in Matthew 9:13 and then 12:7 again. It's not important only for that reason, but this verse is actually where the Essenes get their name from, ther name in Hebrew is the word "hasid" meaning "compassionate, kind". The verse says "I desire mercy (hesed - compassion, kindness), not sacrifice."
The early group of 'christians' which will later become the mainstream christianity accepted the Jewish scripture from the Pharisees and the Sadducees, not from the Essenes, and they made the connection between Jesus' death and Old Testament sacrifices ascribed to God in that tradition, and made that into atonement theology. But, as pointed out above - this is contradictory to the teachings of Jesus.
Interestingly, the Essenes also opposed making oaths, like Jesus. And a lot of them they lived communally - like the first Christians. And they were also opposed to slavery (which Old Testament law, as presented by Pharisees and Sadducees - allows, and which the mainstream 'christianity' also allows), and didn't have masters and servants among them but "served each other", which is also similar to one of the most noble teachings of Jesus: that there should be no rulers and superiors but "who wants to be first should be a servant to all" (Matthew 20:26).
So we should note how Jesus' preaching is different from the tradition of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the teachings of what became mainstream 'christianity'. An we should ask ourselves the question - do we want to be followers of Jesus, or followers of some other people and their traditions and preachings?
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father~ John 10:18
Simply Jesus!!! Abide in Christ Jesus!!!! For me, this is more then enough ❗️
With penal substitution, the debt is not really forgiven; it’s just transferred. But we are commanded to forgive as God forgave us. If my brother offends me, should I demand justice and vent my wrath on someone else? Should I beat myself up? No, obviously we are to simply let it go and graciously accept the offense.
The problem that arises is this: many uphold the human law model where a death penalty is issued by a broken law and someone has to pay the penalty that has now come forth from the broken law. Jesus came in order to satiate the justice the law demanded in our place.
Now if we claim Jesus' blood as our own, it will cover the record of our sins; therefore, we can be declared [legally] righteous even though we are not.
Then, as our name is called up in the judgement and Satan accuses us, Jesus is our defendant in the court room in heaven and He pleads to His Father, “My blood, Father, my blood!”
Our Heavenly Father looks over the record and sees that there is absolutely no record of sins and Jesus' perfect law-keeping has been applied to their heavenly record.
The sinner lived a righteous life up to they were thirty-three years old, had a perjured trial, and died on a cross.
This may sounds like absolute nonsense but this how they actually teach what Jesus' righteousness does. His record of perfect law-keeping is ascribed to our record in heaven by a legal mechanism.
That's because they believe sin is an *act or deed* breaking some law that the Divine Magistrate imposed and now they are in legal trouble where someone now must pay some off some legal debt they cannot pay themselves. Therefore, Jesus came to pay the debt in order that they can now be declared [legally] righteousness *even though they are not.*
And so, in the penal-legal view the innocent dies in the guilty's place and now the Divine Magistrate who imposed the law lies and says you are only legally righteous and not actually righteous.
It's a Roman lie that the church continues to perpetuate because they are replacing how God's justice works with how human justice works. It's a sick perversion that continues to cycle people through guilt and shame and relief because my legal debt has been paid for by Jesus applying His blood in some legal mechanism in the heavenly record books in heaven.
2 Corinthians 5:21-He who knew know sin became sin (took up our humanity) in order that we might *become the righteousness of God in Him.*
Not that we are declared legally righteous by some legal application of His blood in a record book in heaven.
Keep up the good work bro.
Watch Mike Winger on the "American Gospel #2" Documentary discuss this topic further! it was eye opening as to why this topic is necessary
Jesus saves you by his grace and mercy in judgement. The cross removed the curse of death, and renewed God's covenant with believers, but did not punish Jesus.
hi pastor mike, can you make a video about hearing God's voice audibly and non audibly?
What is it that makes the statement “sinners deserve death” true? Is it god’s nature that makes it true, or is it god’s will that makes it true, or is it both?
I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the arguments against PSA. At 18:56 you quote from the epistle of Barnabas: "For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up his flesh to corruption that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins which is effected by his blood of sprinkling". You go to add that this has something to do with the "legal side" of the atonement. In my view, you can come to that conclusion only if you presuppose that. He only says that Jesus' blood was a means to the end - nothing about 'paying off the just punishment' as PSA usually puts it. In fact, in the same chapter Barnabas seems to refer to Isaiah 53:5 when he says: "For God saith, 'The stroke of his flesh is from them' ", which would imply he didn't read Isaiah as 'he bore our punishment', but as 'he was punished because of our wickedness". I do suspect, however, that most people see no difference between these statements - and that is precisely the reason why fruitful discussion concerning PSA is really hard to come by. Most people just presuppose PSA into many texts.
1:02:30 - I think not His BEING was split, but the personalities of The Son and of the Father and the Holy Spirit were separated. So in a way He was separated, but in a way He wasn't. I think The Son is the only person who knows what it's like to be separated from the Father, yet He wasn't separated from Him in His being, and thus due to that death couldn't beat Him, and due to His holiness and lack of sin it couldn't condemn Him, and so the Holy Spirit rose Him from the dead. Does this make any sense? I'm no convinced in this understanding but it is my understanding as of now.
Excellent. Exactly. Thank you for doing this.
There is an additional aspect of Christ having to endure suffering for us is that this empowered him to be a totally empathetic High Priest having been tempted in all points...obeyed unto death... endured shame, pain hopelessness,thirst ...all the while being mocked....if you be the King of Israel come down from the cross( he could have called a legion of angels)....he healed others let him heal himself)... enduring all this he is now a faithful high priest able to save to the uttermost....we will not probably know but a fraction of what he accomplished... atonement is multi facetted indeed...no aspect should be diminished....some fined penal substitution offensive to brutal for they're sensibilities...the suffering was necessary for multiple reasons...be cautious if you diminish what love he demonstrated towards us
Thank you Mike for your dedication to the truth! I just started researching this topic after listening to NT Wright. Does NT Wright fall into the category of Bryan Zand as well?
Fortunately not. NT Wright seems to confuse people quite a bit but from what I can gather it is because he actually affirms PSA (along with strongly supporting other aspects of the atonement like Christus Victor) and, at the same time, he tends to speak against caricatures of PSA without acknowledging they are caricatures. In other words it sounds like he is challenging the view when he is fighting straw-men yet he has affirmed on several occasions that he holds to PSA.
Mike Winger
So true. As I’m new to your page i appreciate the content! I just subscribed recently as I searched up on this topic.
I currently am struggling with the topic of standing for the truth. For example a notorious person like Johnny Mac, stands for the truth but so controversially calls out those he considers wrong. Have you done a video about something around this topic?
The more i love researching into doctrine the more it confuses me about all the opposition!
I almost commend someone like John to be so consistent in a belief that it’s consistent all the way through unlike others.
@@MikeWinger Good to know!
Great stuff Pastor Mike!
here's my thing with all of it I mean I guess I can belly button gaze into this and try to understand exactly what happened up on the cross and how that worked out for us as far as a propitiation for sins and what that involves but as a man I don't need that necessarily to understand that to fully comprehend salvation(or at least I don't think so unless I need to know that if I'm going to be an apologist when I'm in evangelizing to intelligent atheists) I don't know maybe I do? maybe that's needed for those who are too smart for their own good? so the mechanics of sin and propitiation of sin and atonement and replacement of sin by the blood of Christ and the Holiness of God and how that negates sin... maybe that's needed for some, but for some we rely upon that God is love Jesus loved us Jesus died for us and that's good enough for now.
now the whole process of sanctification that's where things get dicey because if we're forgiven of sins because Jesus died for our sins and put to death our sins yet we still sin it's almost like a double guilty now that we've been forgiven of our sins when we sin that sin we knowingly commit it carries more weight than just ignorantly sinning... Where the book of Hebrews talks about recrucifying Christ those that have lost their salvation if that were possible to backslide that far (but I think Paul was speaking to the people who had snuck into the church trying to steer people back under the law?)
The path is narrow.......
thank you for the meat pastor Mike a bunch more to ponder this Sunday afternoon 😎 God bless you and yours.
sorry for the run-on sentences and lack of punctuation because I'm using Google voice transcription instead of typing this by hand
Great video! Thanks for sharing.
No one who rejects PSA is saying there isn’t some type of substitution that occurs on the cross (e.g. Jesus’ death in place of ours).... we are rejecting the notion God pours out on his wrath on Jesus, a concept you definitely won’t find in any of the church fathers, nor explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible.
Yeah that phrase is unfortunately popular, much more biblical version would the Father, Son, and Spirit working in tandem to provide salvation for humanity that God(Yahweh) loves. Jesus has just as much wrath for sin as the Father because the trinity is always in unity. He is bearing His own wrath and demonstrating his own Justice and Love on the cross.
@@ethantucker3191 "much more biblical version would the Father, Son, and Spirit working in tandem to provide salvation for humanity that God(Yahweh) loves. Jesus has just as much wrath for sin as the Father because the trinity is always in unity. He is bearing His own wrath and demonstrating his own Justice and Love on the cross." Thank you. That's a very helpful description of penal substitutionary atonement with a biblical view of the Trinity.
Absolutely. I feel like I’ve wasted 30 minutes of my life listening to this so far. Mike is defending PSA, but who would deny anything he’s said so far (and still call themself a Christian)? The issue with PSA today, and what brought me here, is the issue of God’s wrath being poured out on his Son. I’m disappointed Mikes not talking about that almost at all, and then saying “PSA is in the church fathers.”
@@danielcrawford6748, I feel like the problem is with the modern day critics of PSA. The theologically informed proponents of the view readily grant that Jesus did not bear the penalty for himself (as he was righteous), but in our place. The difficulty of attribution is inherent with the notion of substitution.
Obviously, Christ suffered and death was the penalty for sin given in the Garden (the manifestation of the wrath). And this teaching on PSA (a substitute judgment) is found in Irenaeus as well as Athanasius and others.
I think the modern critics, on this point, are making a mountain out of a conceded mole hill.
@@danielcrawford6748 Eaten Orthodox would deny what he said and still call themselves Christian. In fact, they call themselves the only legitimate church.
27:35 - Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339) “Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” He then stated, “And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us
Great teaching and cute cat... I'm so happy right now💓😄😅
9:54 did you keep him paused in that pose for 5 minutes on purpose? :D
This is such a blessing Pastor Mike, thank you! I have been waiting a long time for you to address this topic of the Atonement theories. Especially the way some scholars twist Romans 3 and Isaiah 53. Can't wait for the next 2 videos my friend! Much love and blessings to you!