ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Forsaking Penal Substitution, Pt. 1: A Theological Critique
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 เม.ย. 2021
- Penal substitution is theologically problematic. In this video, I criticize the theory and its claims about God. This is part one of a three-part series examining why I think penal substitution must be rejected on theological and biblical grounds. Part two will examine the scriptural basis for this, while part one establishes the theological framework for that critique. Part three will suggest a few of the ways we might interpret the cross apart from this theory.
Enjoy my work? Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoff...
Part 2 (a biblical critique): • Forsaking Penal Substi...
Part 3 (If not PSA, then what?): • Forsaking Penal Substi...
Suggested reading:
Darrin W. Snyder Belousek: "Atonement, Justice, Peace" - amzn.to/32geCBU
Thomas F. Torrance: "The Mediation of Christ" - amzn.to/3tAzDTK
Thomas F. Torrance: "Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ" - amzn.to/3uUFGmB
C. Baxter Kruger: "Jesus and the Undoing of Adam" - amzn.to/3gm9yUG
C. Baxter Kruger: "Across All Worlds" - amzn.to/3e4qOLH
Karl Barth: "Church Dogmatics II/1 & IV/1" - amzn.to/3x20V7G amzn.to/3adjvQy
"The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views" - amzn.to/3wZQxxy
Fleming Rutledge: "The Crucifixion" - amzn.to/3mSWWWz
John McLeod Campbell: "The Nature of the Atonement" - amzn.to/3mPP08m
My books related to this subject:
"T. F. Torrance in Plain English" - amzn.to/2QwrL77
"Karl Barth in Plain English" - amzn.to/3snkG6i
"We Belong: Trinitarian Good News" - amzn.to/3drARvj
**Please note that all Amazon links are associate links, wherein I receive a percentage of your total purchase.
![Exclusive! น้องลิกก้า&น้องโรร่า มาแล้ว!! [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.48 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UmlpJhRekyY/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Catholic, I have always felt this way. Understanding the cross in light of love, as opposed to wrath, is far more glorious.
That's what the Bible teaches...
I'm not a Roman Catholic, and I've always looked at it like that as well
Maybe you should consider the whole context. God is a God of Love and Wrath, as both are displayed in scripture.
Let us just look at the writing of John.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He sent his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life
Now
John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the Wrath of God abides on him.
Then,
1 John 4:10
In this is Love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to a the propitiation for our sins.
Paul agrees in his Roman letter connecting God's love and wrath together in context
Romans 5:8-11- 8but God shows his LOVE for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the WRATH of God.
So you can see how both are present in context
Thanks so much for this! This is coming at a great time for me. I grew up in a fundamentalist church and Bible college and I’m doing a lot of deconstruction right now. Thankfully my faith in Christ is actually stronger than ever right now even though I have many questions of how to properly understand the faith. I think it was St. Augustine who talked about “faith seeking understanding”. That is how I feel right now.
Thanks for watching, Jared! Glad to hear it’s helpful. Your story sounds similar to mine. And I feel the same; after deconstruction, what I’ve found is a deeper, fuller faith! I also love that definition of theology, “faith seeking understanding.” Blessings!
Isn't that amazing? Being in a place of not knowing and having questions is the closest I've been to God
Actually, it was Agustin who came with the three first elements of PSA, then Anselm elaborated with another nine elements , and finally Protestants added the final five elements : 17 that form the matrix of PSA.
I can’t tell you how life changing this video is for me. I was raised in a church that somehow managed to teach me tons of reformed theology, but as an adult I can see it never actually introduced me to the person of Jesus. I remember as a young teen feeling terrified of God’s “goodness” because I now realize I only knew to view atonement through the lense of penal substitution. I remember saying to my pastor “How can I trust in God’s goodness when his justice compelled him to treat his own son in such a horrific way?” Because of the doctrine of penal substitution, I have struggled my whole life to believe in God’s restorative love, because it seemed like what his ultimately cares the most about was this transactional “eye for an eye”. I really can’t thank you enough for breaking this doctrine down, and helping me consider that there is another way to hold onto the importance of Christ’s death on the cross, without having to hold on to the violence of the penal substitution doctrine.
Thank you for these kind words, and I am very glad this video was liberating for you. I can relate to what you have written. Growing up, I could not understand why the gospel was "good news" through the lens of PSA. God bless you!
You're right . Calvinism corruptly portrays GOD and HIS righteousness and accuses CHRIST of hypocrisy.
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421PSA separates the trinity. It separates God and Jesus into two different people. Think about it. God pours his wrath out on himself? Doesn’t make much sense. Be careful studying NIV11 CSB NLT NEB NASB2020, LSB translations. They are filled with PSA propaganda dude to the people putting them together.
It shows that he is a consistent God and he stays true to his promises and word and own law that he has given to us and has written on our hearts that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. And Yeshua; Jesus's actual name, literally means 'Salvation'. And Elohim translates to 'The powers, singular and plural, masculine and feminine.' God shouldn't have had to sacrifice his only son, but it's about the law of consequence. If any parent were to waiver in their disciplinary techniques with their kids over the same type of misbehavior; do you expect the kids to take their parents seriously when each kid is getting a lesser or greater punishment for the same type of misbehavior between them?! Who are we to say that the wages of sin should or shouldn't be death?! Did you create the idea of death or life? The One who created it all gets to decide what the rules are. Not us.
Thank you for this. To realize that this doctrine is in fact ONLY theory is so incredibly freeing for me. I grew up with this horrible mindset as if it was the only biblical interpretation around. It is really toxic. Thanks for helping people get out from under this ugly world view.
Thanks for watching! I had a similar experience with psa. It was definitely freeing to unlearn!
Very good though I would say you still hold to a Christus victor type of theory. But it sounds sort of like recapitulation as well.
There are four types of atonements:
1. Ransom to Deity
2. Ransom to Devil
3. Ransom to Death
4. Ransom doesn't mean payment but actually Rescue.
There are many atonement theories/models some these are:
Satisfaction theory- a ransom to Deity theory. It teaches that we have infinitely offended God's honor and Jesus is the only sacrifice that can satisfy the payment of that Honor. (The early church shows ideas of these theories like punishment and payment of a debt but nothing less than satisfying God's infinite offended honor is satisfaction theory.)
Penal Substitutionary Atonement- a ransom to Deity theory. It is a modified version of the satisfaction theory which is still evolving. It teaches that the Father pours out his Wrath on the Son for our sin. It teaches that Jesus took our penalty for sin. It teaches that Jesus became a literal sin on the cross. (The early church fathers use ideas of penal substitutionary atonement such as punishment or payment of debt just like the satisfaction theory. But again ideas are not the theory itself. This theory has a robust defense which they pull from scripture. It requires massive amounts of study to convince someone otherwise. But anything less than the Father pouring out wrath on his Son is not penal substitutionary atonement.)
Moral influence theory- a ransom to anyone but the Devil theory. It teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ were to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection. This theory is often combined with other theories. (The early church does express ideas of the moral influence theory but that's not all it expresses. Therefore the theory is not complete in of itself explaining scripture or the early church.)
Ransom theory- a ransom to the Deity, Devil or Death theory. It teaches that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip. In some views paid to God the Father, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin. Other views even include the ransom being paid to death.
(The early church did show some ideas for this theory. This theory is one of the oldest theories of Christianity. In the Bible, we are told Jesus is a ransom but not to whom. Anything less then Bible saying that the Ransom was paid to the devil is not this theory.)
Christus Victor theory/restored icon model- a ransom doesn't mean payment but rescue theory. It is a modified understanding of the ransom theory, it teaches that Christ's death defeated the power of the evil, which had held humankind in their power which are sin, death, and the devil. The Christus Victor Theory teaches that the idea of ransom should not be the same as Satisfaction or Penal substitutionary atonement view it which is a legal transaction by the payment of penalty to satisfy the demands of Gods justice but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity in which is rooted in the incarnation and Jesus entering human misery and wickedness and redeemed it. (This early church shows some ideas for this theory. People do question some of the early church's use of punishment and debt. This theory is one of the oldest theories of Christianity.)
The Governmental Theory- a ransom to Deity theory. It teaches God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually, God does not exact strict justice. This [governmental atonement] view teaches that Christ by His death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. And What His death did was to demonstrate what their sins deserved at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men.
(The early church may seem to teach ideas of this theory. However as for the theory itself I do not see it in the early church after examining the ideas which are in the early church.)
Recapitulation theory-a ransom doesn't mean payment but rescue theory. It teaches that the atonement of Christ reverses the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. They teach that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. (The first person to teach this theory was Irenaeus after him this theory is basically lost even though some of the ideas are seen in the early church later on.)
Thanks for this background info. I would add that while all these theories explain certain aspect of mechanism of our redemption (probably all of them are partially true), the presentation fails to distinguish between redemption and salvation, at times talking about one while addressing the other. Salvation is about how - with God’s help - we apply Christ’a redemptive act to our life and what is the ‘finished product’ of this process, ie being ‘reborn’ as a ‘new creation’ in Christ. These distinction is important, as only then we can fully appreciate the role of our ‘works’ including penance, charitable endeavors, personal sacrifices m, such as mortification of flesh and participation in sacraments in restoration of fallen human nature!
Your channel is extremely underrated. Thanks for the great content
Thank you for saying that!
When people get sick in the hospital they wonder if God has forsaken them!
When Jesus was on the cross he cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me!"
Jesus is quoting and taking us to Psalm 22, and when we read the entire Psalm we learn that God has not forsaken Jesus. God is with Jesus and God is not pouring out his wrath on God - that is - Jesus who is truly God and truly man in one person.
Jesus is being murdered by sinful creatures and Jesus is going through this death to identify with us but he will raise from the dead and is this way conquer death, sin, and the devil.
Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8
Jesus Christ is VICTORIOUS by raising from the dead but he had to lovingly sacrifice to die first.
Jesus who is truly man and truly God without separation, division, mixture, or confusion cannot suffer wrath and damnation from God.
Malachi 3:6 1 John 4:8
There is only one God and Jesus is one person of the Holy Trinity!
Penal substitution atonement is pure Nestorian heresy and never taught in the Bible or until the eleventh century.
In summary, PSA believes God poured out his wrath on God to please God who is one.
Thinking Atheists have a hey day with PSA heresy and it keeps them from being Christians.
The Orthodox Church has the correct Biblical doctrine of the atonement.
Christ is risen!
Truly he has risen!
"Christus Victor" which has been taught since the Apostles and the Bible.
Agreed on your views regarding penal substitution, but I don’t believe in the Trinity, as a former Trinitarian.
If Jesus didn’t claim to be God, why did the Jews want Him killed? What does the name Emmanuel mean? What is the “mystery” Paul refers to that lets “sin leave the world through one man?”
@@GracieDontPlayDat , because he exposed their works and objected to them.
In John, Jesus flat out denies being a blasphemer: John 10:33-36: The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?
If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came,
do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
In similar fashion, John said he wanted to do what? "…these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, *the Son of God"* (John 20:31)
Peter’s confession:
Matthew 16:15-17:
"He said to them, "But *who do you say that I am?"*
Simon Peter answered, *"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."*
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."
This is good stuff, Stephen! I am also in the process of deconstructing a lot of my previous theories of atonement, especially penal substitution, as I finish my second and last year of seminary. It was not until my last semester at seminary that I got a chance to read some of your faves (Moltmann, Barth, Cone, Schleiermacher), and they have all forced me to rethink things I took for granted when it came to theological anthropology and the atonement. You have also been of tremendous help in processing these things! God's peace be with you, brother! :)
Hi Isaiah! I am glad to hear my works helpful. Your story sounds similar to mine. Thanks for watching and for these kind words. I hope the rest of your time at seminary is fruitful. Blessings!
Blessings to you, Stephen. As you surely know, you have entered the "theological atmosphere" of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Welcome!
Thanks, Gary!
And anabaptist, which seems to be the western remnant of Empirical Orthodoxy even if they are unorthodox in some areas
Curious, to which era of EO's "theological atmosphere" are you welcoming him?
to the atmosphere _before_ Barlaam sounded the whistle on the hesychasts' and their belly worshiping yoga picked up from the Sufi practice of dhikr?? .
..or after, when Pallamas was backed by the mid 14th century "synod" that validated literally *_observing your OWN BELLY BUTTON_* to find the "uncreated light" that illumines the hesychasts?
or
... are you talking more like the 8th century when "Saint" John of Damascus, like Mohamed, embraced the Mary narratives of the long-reject Protoevangelium/ Gospel of James to substantiate the EO's Mariolatry "feasts" like the one of the 6th century, celebrating the gnostic fable of a 3year old "Mary" entering into the Holy of Holies in direct disobedience to God (Heb 9:7, Lev 16:2, Ex 26:33)?
and (like all good platonists holding to the metaphysics of ascending images) established the *_spiritual necessity_* of literally "προσκυνήσεις" to icons made in the very similitude of things on earth, again, in direct literal disobedience to the very specific Word of God teaching the literal exact opposite in Exodus 20:4-5, ...because, as "Saint" John claimed:
because Jesus took on flesh then somehow.... “The saints, during their earthly life, are filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit. After their departure the same grace remains in their souls as in their bodies. The very same grace is present and active in their sacred images and icons” (St. John of Damascus)?
I am not sure into which era of EO mysticism you might be welcoming this man for his rejection of PSA considering it is a "theological atmosphere" shared by just about every religious and philosophical sect on earth, from Talmudic Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, secular humanism, every known sect of American Indian and just about anyone who actually *_believes_* God meant Proverbs 17:15, 26 He that pronounces the unjust just, and the just unjust, is unclean and abominable with God...it is not right to punish a righteous man, nor is it holy to plot against righteous princes."
7:41 wow I think this was a lightbulb moment for me, “If we seek after a nature of God that is behind the back of Jesus…”
Thank you for this video and your work.
I'm an adult convert that largely came in through trying to read the Bible for myself without presupposition, as much as is possible. One of the greatest things that struck in reading the Bible was the revelation of the Kingdom in it's inversion of what I expected, especially concerning love and justice.
PSA causes serious barriers of seeing the expression of love that the Crucifixion reveals, and a lot of theological problems will follow from that.
Thanks for watching and also for sharing some of your story. I like your observation about the kingdom. I think that’s central. Thanks again and God bless!
Yes, the Atonement is Christ himself, and not our striving to understand it or what has happened.
While I'm not against systemic Theology/ dogma, necessarily, part of the danger of that we blow apart everything into isolated pieces, study them in isolation, then jam them back together without allowing for proper interaction/ tension amongst the pieces.
I really appreciate your work.
I really liked this video a lot. Many good thoughts. In regards to PSA requiring violence, that’s especially an excellent point, because if anyone was non-violent, or, better yet, anti-violent, it was Jesus Christ, who said “When you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.” How, then, can God be violent?
Thank you for taking the time to make this series it’s been very insightful!
Thanks for watching, Kyla!
Might be one of the best treatments against penal substitution I’ve seen.
I wish I found this long ago before I taught my kids penal substitution.
I want to give this video a thousand more thumbs ups.
I hold to PSA, and I agree the idea that the Father and Son were separated on the cross is problematic. Jesus quoting Psalm 22 makes sense, especially when you note its prophetic elements. I would note that I am far from an anomaly in PSA asherents in believing this. Mike Winger, for instance, is strongly PSA and also holds to Psalm 22 as the source behind "My God my God, why have you forsaken me."
This series is a wonderful explanation for the Love of God. I found you looking for an explanation of an alternative to PSA. Your work that is well referenced brings liberation to many. Liberation is the Love of God. Amen,
Thanks for watching, Rick! Glad you've found it to be helpful! :)
Absolutely the best video that I have heard on this subject! God bless you!
Agreed
This is great. Fortunately, I was not raised in a fundamentalist setting. PSA is not only incoherent but morally wicked.
Thanks, El Chinito!
Wow this is good! Very helpful! Appreciated. Love how this is grounded in Christ, restoration & his character rather than a retributive, transaction. Excellent.
Thanks for watching! Glad to hear it was helpful!
This was a very good presentation. The best criterion of this is that it this presentation naturally leads to praise and worship of Jesus and the God he reveals! Great job brother!
Really good!! I was PSA believer for years but in last 6 months have learned the error of PSA. Your video is best I’ve seen thus far explaining the error. Thank you!
Thank you for your great work. I have been working through atonement theories and I appreciate your erudite and measured response and presentation.
Thanks for watching, Stephen!
Another approach one could take to arrive at the same place is to ask the question of what it is that causes death. If death is the organic, or natural consequence, of sin, due to the fact that sin separates us from God, not God from us, but us from God, by impacting our minds such that we believe things about God that aren’t true, such as that He us angry at us and wants to harm us (such as seen by Adam and Eve’s response to God’s calling them for their daily walk), then the solution is to effect reconciliation. How is reconciliation accomplished? By revelation. The power of the cross is in what it reveals.
You argue well for something that I have always considered instinctive from my first encounter with Christian writing in CS Lewis's Mere Christianity.
Hebrews Ch.10:30NIV"For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”"
The Lex talliones is the law of God not man
Thoughtful analysis thanks. PSA is surely the most pernicious of the false doctrines, together with eternal torment.
What is the biblical alternative to “eternal torment” and how do we demonstrate it from the text of Holy Scripture
@@jn9032 Thanks for the query. Salvation of all is the only outcome that gives God the glory. He has promised it, sealed in holy blood, and will deliver on it. The Abrahamic Covenant, the Koreshic Oath, the Universal Renewal Declaration are 3 pillars. That's Gen 18:18, Isa 45:23 and Rev 21:5. And lots more, like Lk 2:10, 1 Cor 15 28, Rom 11:32. The list goes on and on. God wants all saved, doubt not that He can achieve it.
Thank you for this. It takes courage to undertake something like this
Thanks for watching, Nic!
Great video! Put into words what Ive been thinking for a while.
Although the one point I would disagree with is God using violence to resolve something. God being eternally omniscient, and us not, would be enough of a distinction to note that his acts of his violence would be actions that shape history and transcend simple retribution. But even in the case of Noahs flood, Jesus still ended up preaching to those souls while he was in the grave - which leads to a restorative ending of that narrative. I dont think that acknowledging Gods rightious use of violence is dangerous if the one acknowledging it also knows it is justified by his omniscience - while our acts of violence are not justified precisely because we are not God.
Thanks, Justin! And thanks for your feedback on violence. I can definitely see what you mean.
hope it was ok.and also if it is possible i really lke to have this script to translate
I really appreciate this video and agree with your argument. What do you make of Isaiah 53 (v 10 mentions that “it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer”). Not sure what to make of this passage.
Edit: Btw, I should note that I don’t have a strong position on whether the suffering servant in this passage refers to Christ, but if it is does it doesn’t seem to perfectly harmonize with the idea of restorative justice.
Thanks for watching! I talk about Isaiah 53 in part two, which you can watch here: th-cam.com/video/R2ifzf1P0c0/w-d-xo.html.
But in brief, I don't think Isaiah 53 teaches PSA, but that the doctrine has been read into it by theologians. The case for PSA in that verse is more eisegesis than exegesis. And that reading only makes sense if PSA is assumed to be true, but it is not in the text itself upon closer reading of the verse on its own terms.
The problem with the criticism of the PSA is that when we sin it is against God. In Eden the lamb was slain to cover the sins of Adam and Eve. The lamb slain by God was also used to make clothes for Adam and Eve, covering their nakedness, and their shame. Christ said that HE laid down his own life willingly and had the power to take it up again. God is one being. The father and the son are not separate in substance and the judge who condemned our sin loved us so much that he bore the just condemnation.
This is the subject that drove me from decades in Evangelicalism into the Eastern Orthodox Church. Seventeen years later, I have no regrets. Along the way, I read a very helpful online critique by Robin Collins, prof. of philosophy at Messiah College called “Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory”. I highly recommend it.
Thanks for the book recommendation!
I like that Eastern Orthodox and Catholics have some great criticism of Protestantism, but vice versa is true as well. Most of the mainstream Christianity thus is wrong in many ways, which is seen in the mutual criticism produced by each part of the Christianity.
I am a Unitarian believer now. A former Trinitarian
Penal substitution, eternal conscious torment and the Trinity are the three most important yet misinterpreted doctrines of Christianity. Thank you for shining some light on this subject.
I would rank your insight on this as equal to C. Baxter Krueger's work with the Trinity and Robin Parry's work with eternal torment.
@@shokannon1806 Thank you for the kind words!
Why is ETC on the same level as the Trinity? Do you mean rather the extent of salvation?
@@trappedcat3615 Eternal conscious torment is a misinterpretation of the presence of God. The purpose of the fire is to refine and unite in ever increasing degrees. An experience all people will be faced with, Christian and non Christian alike. PSA and ECT runs contrary to the nature and character of God. That the Father would demand a child sacrifice in the form of His only son to pacify His own anger (PSA), forces division between the Father and the Son. Once those two issues are placed in their proper position we're reunited with our Creator. Same with the Trinity. Once I learned that the Trinity is three persons in perfect, loving fellowship from all eternity. That creation was born from a desire to bring us into that eternal relationship of Love.. I could finally come face to face with God.
I don't know if I explained that well? Or if I even answered the question.
God bless
@@shokannon1806 I strongly hold to the Trinity, PSA and lean heavily toward Universal Reconciliation and remedial judgements. It makes the most sense. I find most arguments against PSA to be humanistic thinking and not rooted in scripture. Example, "I just can't believe that because I don't like x, y, and z. It does not work for my thinking..." That is a childish way to approach theology and scripture.
This is simply excellent and most edifying. I've always had an instinctive uneasiness about the penal explanation of the atonement.
I'd like to invite you to read the "River of Fire" by Kalamiros. The free pdf can be found online.
You should add Psychologist Doctor Timothy Jennings books to your reading lists especially God-shaped Heart.
Stephen, this is deep work! Very well done.
Thanks, Jon!
Thank you so much Stephen. This is the clearest critique of PSA I have heard. You have answered so many questions.
Thanks for watching!
I agree wholeheartedly with Blocker 1954
Yes and amen! ❤🙌🏻
THANK YOU so much for this excellent and clearly articulated discussion. I've just recently started studying the Atonement in earnest and your channel accidentally popped up. I am so grateful. I look forward to Parts 2 and 3. The idea of penal substitution never sat right with my understanding of a loving God, just as Reformed theology slanders his character. I do have one reservation in what you said which has to do with the "Trinity". I believe the Trinity is a false doctrine and that Jesus (Yahushua) is the literal, begotten, "born in eternity past" before the world was created, "Son of God", inheriting his Father's divine nature but distinct from his Father, and then born again at Bethlehem as the "Son of Man", but that he is NOT "God the Son" and "co-equal, co-eternal" with the rest of some "Tri-une conglomeration". This will sound heretical and unorthodox at first, but I challenge you, as a truth seeker, to research the matter. Your love for a REAL father and a REAL son will be transforming. Father and Son are not "ROLE-PLAYING", "acting a part", which is what the "Trinity" requires. Anyway, back to the Atonement, though obviously whether Jesus is a real son, or a pretend son, will make a big difference.
Hi Geri! I’m glad to hear you enjoyed my video. I am firmly convinced of the Trinity. I hope you too will study the matter further. T. F. Torrance has an excellent book on this, “Trinitarian Faith,” which I highly recommend. Thanks for watching!
I hear from those who hold to PSA that, it is the gospel in a nutshell. Loved your explanation.
Thanks for those videos, Stephen. It is my belief that the PSA theory remains a theory that actually vanishes into thin air if put into practice. After all, aren't we and don't we do what we have in mind (Proverbs 23 : 7) ? So every doctrine needs to be put into practice so it can be tested. Hardly an honest PSA supporter would ever forgive as God forgives him in Jesus-Christ (as Paul recommended, i.e., Ephesians 4 : 32).
Thanks for watching, Andry! I agree that the verification of a theory is in praxis.
Thanks for the video. Have you come across anything about the logical problem of penal substitution? Namely, that if Jesus died instead of us, then, necessarily, we would not die?
Thanks for watching, Finney! And yes, I've heard of that argument before. But there is always a way around them. So I think the theological/biblical is more convincing.
@@StephenDMorrison I’m curious how you might respond, as I’m working on a paper on that subject and haven’t really seen this argument made by others
@@FinneyRaju I'm not sure there's much to say. PSA doesn't really hold that in the atonement Jesus died instead of us, but rather in our place, as a substitute and payment to satisfy the justice of God. So death is a natural event but believers do not die alone but in Christ. So there is a logic to Christ's death even in PSA. I think a proponent of PSA would say that this objection is faulty and misunderstands the atonement. That's why I don't think a logical argument such as that one would be enough to convincingly argue against PSA. Such an argument would have to follow a theological/biblical POV rather than a strictly logical one.
Hopefully that's what you mean?
Hi Stephen, do you have an email address where I can reach you? I would like to send you something I have written on the topic of PSA. Thank you. Neil Ericksson
Sure, my email is stephen@sdmorrison.org.
Hey, thanks for this video series. I'm looking forward to watching the rest of it. I haven't completed this video yet but I'm liking what I'm hearing for the most part. I started out watching idol killer, Warren McGrew and Paul vendredi, they got me started looking at the problems with PSA.
So far I only have one problem with your video and it's where you stated that an eye for an eye is a man-made concept of justice, if I understood correctly.
My problem with that is that an eye for an eye appears three times in the Old testament law.
Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21.
I think because it says " you have heard it said" in the New testament, people jump to the conclusion that this was a man-made saying. The problem with this is that it would require that portions of the Old testament law are man-made not God directed.
Even if they were borrowed from earlier legal codes, I believe those borrowings would have happened at God's direction and God would not have directed them to borrow illegal code that he did not intend for Israel to have.
It's my current stance that an eye for an eye was directed by God, but at certain times for specific reasons and is not his ideal justice.
The first instance of it in Exodus applies only to physical violence around a pregnant woman. This law protects and elevates women. I don't know about Israel's neighbors, you know traditional Chinese attitudes towards women or that they were worth less than animals.
The second instance in Leviticus has to do with murder and assault, and killing or assault at the hands of an animal owned by a human. It also carries with it a directive that there is one standard for both Hebrew and gentile. There is no double standard and the Hebrews were not to treat each other better in this regard than their gentile neighbors. I thought it was interesting to note that if you were gored by the animal, the animal had to be put to death but no one could eat its meat and the owner of the animal went unpunished. I think this is very wise because it foresees the possibility of someone goading an animal to be gored by it in order to take it from the owner and use its meat, which would be a perversion of justice.
The third instance in Deuteronomy has to do with bearing false witness in conspiracy to harm someone or take advantage of the legal system. This one is easily dealt with because the book of Deuteronomy contains the second law which was added because of Israel's earlier transgressions. If they had not made themselves the golden calf, Deuteronomy probably would not have existed. At least that's my understanding.
In all three cases, an eye for an eye is used as an extreme harsh standard of punishment because the people themselves would have abused the mercy of a lesser standard.
I would like to add though that these are about restitution not atonement.
Also in Hebrews it talks about the old covenant as a guardian meant to prepare the people for a new covenant and all that it contains. The implication being that those laws were not meant to remain forever, only God's law which endures into the New covenant will last forever and not one jot or tittle will fall away. God's law, I think may be the ten commandments, and is the kind of law that can occur in gentiles who do not have the letter of the law, becoming a law unto themselves.
This is a perfectly valid critique of reformation theology in general. It’s very uninvolved with anything Christ said or did prior to the cross.
Isaiah 53 “pleased”. Vs LXX. You’re thoughts?
Have you explored public Justice theory or the moral government theory?
In another video, I discuss governmental. I’m not familiar with public justice theory. Is it similar?
I have a sibling who refuses to believe in a God who would kill His own son! Of course God didn’t kill Him we did! And how do we then relate to this God as a loving Father?
I guess the issue is that God allows us to choose things for ourselves, but at the same time this would fulfill the part that says to love our enemies. God loves us even when we do not love him. I understand why many have issues with the death burial and resurrection for it's brutal nature, but I don't know. I choose not to reject that it happened, because it just reveals how awful people can be. Regardless of how well intended we might be. Even Peter rejected that he knew who Jesus Christ was 3 times. It's amazing that even some of the best of us would still deny him when he needed us most. People do not want to wrap their head around the idea that we can do bad whether at our worst or best of times.
What do you make of this passage from Romans referring to the forgiveness of sins (context implies gentiles also) BEFORE Christ?
Romans 3:25 - NKJV
“whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,”
The context is Jewish works, and Paul saying gentiles are justified by faith now because no one kept the Law, and Christ’s blood payed for gentile lawlessness since they were not punished for sins in the past.
Thank you for the dispassionate yet firm way in which you have pointed out the problems with PSA.
I’ve grown up in the “PSA” camp. Now looking to other theories. What do you make of all of the violence in the OT? Can you square it with Jesus’ teaching? I agree that God wouldn’t condone violence, but it seems like He does that rather much in OT stories.
Thanks for watching! I think most of the OT stories of violence fall into the category of nationalistic myth. At least that’s my understanding of biblical scholarship atm. The genocide of the Canaanites, for example: there’s no archeological evidence of that happening, and most likely the account was written later while in exile to bolster a sense of Israel’s self identity, ie, as God’s chosen. Peter Enns is an OT scholar whose book “The Bible Tells Me So” addresses this question.
@@StephenDMorrisonthanks for the clarification, this does a lot to give me peace about psa
Thanks for your clear books and posting.
Glad you've found them helpful.
Yes very.
I posted regarding LGBT+ also when I listened to your vid.
I hope it's something you can receive. I try to point out the issues with respect to your reasoning while affirming the need to love all as Jesus does.
Several questions
1. Do you believe that an eye for an eye was given by God in the law?
1a. Was Jesus saying that a common person should not judge or deal out justice? Because that was never the prerogative of a common person in the law to begin with. Wasn't Jesus was teaching, along the lines of Proverbs 25:21-22 returning good for evil leads to a reward with God and places justice in God's hands, which Paul also says in Romans 12:18-21?
2. Does Romans 5:8-11 not teach that in some sense Christ saves us from God's own wrath by His death?
3. Does Matthew 16:27 not teach that God will ultimately deal out retribution to all men in the end? And if so, then how can you say that Christ did away with retributive justice?
4. Isn't saying that punishment for sin has nothing to do with healing the sinner contradict Proverbs 20:30, and also 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 and 11:29-32 shows punishment can be for the sinners's benefit?
5. What is your explanation of Isaiah 53 which at face value says that God punished Christ for our sins, in particular, with the punishment due us? This doesn't have to be an internal conflict in God like standard PSA, but maybe something else like God instituted the law for some greater purpose. The language regarding the law and punishment needs explanation. If not PSA, then what?
7. If you make the issue with PSA about an angry God, then in the end what do you do with the wrath of God? There are expressions of God's anger throughout the Bible, and a lot in the the New Testament as well. If a person believes in the reality of those portions of scripture, then what exactly is it that provides a person safety from that in your theology?
"Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times”
PSA: hold my beer
Interesting and some good point though I was not personally convinced by your argument. Some of your arguments were based on caricatures of psa and some were against arguments psa doesn’t make. Nonetheless it’s was helpful 👍🏽
Thanks for watching!
I mean PSA has yet to be proven . It’s an underdeterminate theory
Wow! Wow! This was an excellent insightful and illuminate teaching.
Thanks, Pedro!
So i am a Unitarian. Am I an heretic?
Thank you! This is a helpful clarification!
Thanks, Benjamin! Glad to hear it
The problem I have with this is that it makes Christianity the religion of abusers and bullies. There’s no concern nor compassion for victims. Right and wrong have been superseded. This seems to me to be an astoundingly cruel religion devoid of good news. The best you can come up with is that every victim is at least as sinful as every criminal. Victims re condemned if they refuse to be complicit in their own torture.
thanks for your work
Thanks for watching!
This is very good. You are a blessing Stephen.
Thank you, Avweroswo!
Matthew 5:38-45, not Matthew 3:38-45-- six minute mark
I feel like you're creating a bit of a false dichotomy between retributive and restorative justice here. Is not PSA restorative as well? All Christians believe atonement is something Christ did for us to restore us to relationship with himself (salvation) and rehabilitate us (sanctification) to become part of his eternal Kingdom.
Oh.. thank you for this
Excellent, exquisite!
This was 🔥🔥 🔥
Thank you thank you thank you! This is what the early church believed at one time before it was corrupted by Justin I and Augustine
Augustine didn’t believe in penal substitution he believed in ransom theory and sometimes basic Substitutionary he gets blamed for everything Calvinist he was not Calvinist though he agreed a form of determinism but not double pre destination ie Calvin. Also he would not prescribe to anything that separated Jesus from the father thus relegating no Jesus nor Holy Spirit as God in substance or being that is Calvinist put the blame where it lies.
St. Augustine of Hippo, On the Holy Trinity
A Difficulty, How We are Justitified in the Blood of the Son of God.
But what is meant by justified in His blood? What power is there in this blood, I beseech you, that they who believe should be justified in it? And what is meant by being reconciled by the death of His Son? Was it indeed so, that when God the Father was angry with us, He saw the death of His Son for us, and was appeased towards us? Was then His Son already so far appeased towards us, that He even deigned to die for us; while the Father was still so far angry, that except His Son died for us, He would not be appeased? And what, then, is that which the same teacher of the Gentiles himself says in another place: What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; how has He not with Him also freely given us all things? Pray, unless the Father had been already appeased, would He have delivered up His own Son, not sparing Him for us? Does not this opinion seem to be as it were contrary to that? In the one, the Son dies for us, and the Father is reconciled to us by His death; in the other, as though the Father first loved us, He Himself on our account does not spare the Son, He Himself for us delivers Him up to death. But I see that the Father loved us also before, not only before the Son died for us, but before He created the world; the apostle himself being witness, who says, According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world. Nor was the Son delivered up for us as it were unwillingly, the Father Himself not sparing Him; for it is said also concerning Him, Who loved me, and delivered up Himself for me. Therefore together both the Father and the Son, and the Spirit of both, work all things equally and harmoniously; yet we are justified in the blood of Christ, and we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son.
@@lilwaynesworld0 St. Augustine of Hippo, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
If we read, "Cursed of God is every one that hangs on a tree," the addition of the words "of God" creates no difficulty. For had not God hated sin and our death, He would not have sent His Son to bear and to abolish it. And there is nothing strange in God's cursing what He hates. For His readiness to give us the immortality which will be had at the coming of Christ, is in proportion to the compassion with which He hated our death when it hung on the cross at the death of Christ. And if Moses curses every one that hangs on a tree, it is certainly not because he did not foresee that righteous men would be crucified, but rather because He foresaw that heretics would deny the death of the Lord to be real, and would try to disprove the application of this curse to Christ, in order that they might disprove the reality of His death. For if Christ's death was not real, nothing cursed hung on the cross when He was crucified, for the crucifixion cannot have been real. Moses cries from the distant past to these heretics: Your evasion in denying the reality of the death of Christ is useless. Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree; not this one or that, but absolutely every one. What! The Son of God? Yes, assuredly. This is the very thing you object to, and that you are so anxious to evade. You will not allow that He was cursed for us, because you will not allow that He died for us. Exemption from Adam's curse implies exemption from his death. But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment. And these words "every one" are intended to check the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of the curse to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would lead to the denial of the true death of Christ.
The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised by the Manichæans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death. In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christ's humility, while in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a charge of falsehood. If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you must deny that He died; and then you have to meet, not Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment. Now the punishment of sin cannot be blessed, or else it would be a thing to be desired. The curse is pronounced by divine justice, and it will be well for us if we are redeemed from it. Confess then that Christ died, and you may confess that He bore the curse for us; and that when Moses said, "Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree," he said in fact, To hang on a tree is to be mortal, or actually to die.
Have you ever read John Piper's "The Justification of God" on Romans 9? My understanding is that Paul argues the Gospel is about the revelation of the glory of grace, in the context of both justice towards self-hardened/God-permitted-hardened sinners, and free electing mercy to the saints, reveals God's character.
I guess I'm confused about how you say there is no biblical basis- how do you understand Psalm 5, or Romans 1's use of "the wrath of God". What is God angry with in both cases?
Hi George, thanks for the comment! I haven't read Piper's book, but from what I know about him, I assume he is for PSA? I talk about some of the Biblical texts in part two, though not Psalm 5 explicitly. I can't remember if I discuss Romans 1. I would read the wrath in that passage as being directed towards sin and unrighteousness as that which blinds and binds humanity, which is then what Christ removes in his death. Athanasius talks about that motif in the first few sections of "On the Incarnation," which is the framework I would probably read this text through.
@@StephenDMorrison
"5 Give ear to my words, O Lord, consider my meditation.
2 Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray.
3 My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O Lord; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up.
4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man." - Psalm 5:1-6. It seems pretty explicit in Psalm 5:6 that God has such a specific category in his revelation- there are other places in Scripture that speak similarly. Totally agree that whatever is meant here can't be a hate that extinguishes his will to allow us to exist, but this in my mind corresponds to Paul's citations of Psalms in Romans 3 of the universal state of humanity as having become "worthless" by becoming intrinsically sinful, building off the kinds of people that live under God's wrath in Romans 1. It seems the Bible includes categories for God to feel both hatred towards sin, and to talk of God feeling a hatred towards particular kinds of people. Is there something in the Scripture that convinces you the dichotomy between God's hatred of sinner, and his hatred of sin, can't exist together in God's mind, albeit in different ways given his nature? Can both God's failure to take pleasure in wickedness in v.4 and his abhorrence of certain men in v.6 stand together as read in Psalm 5?
Is there anything in Athanasius or a kind of recapitulation that excludes a PSA view? I see things in Aulen, Athansius, and Anselm that I find consistent with biblical revelation concerning Christ's victory in crushing the serpent's head and fooling the powers and principalities, Christ's healing/recpaitulating our broken human nature, and Christ's atonement on Passover to satisfy God's justice against our law breaking. I've considered the categories of Christ as Mediator of the covenant of grace/new covenant to his people as King, Prophet, and Priest broadly correspond to those paradigms- assembled together by Calvin in the Institutes.
@@StephenDMorrison yes for Piper. Would recommend it, and would be interested in your own review of it, given your background.
I did glance at a resource you have on multiple atonement views, and you seem to acknowledge those views can stand together in combinations- if the video response above, in pt 2 or 3 answer this comment in that regard, feel free to direct me there. Thanks for the time again.
HI DR morrison
Super solid. Thank you.
Thanks for watching, Jeremy!
If our forgiveness of others is no longer based on the lex talionis but grace isn’t that because it is derivative of God’s free forgiveness of us in Christ? But Christ’s atonement accomplishes this FREE grace precisely because his wasn’t free. It was a payment based solely upon God’s justice. Without the one you cannot have the other. God is angry at sin. Just look at the story of Noah or Yahweh at the golden calf incident. In both cases it was a sacrifice that turned God’s anger away. If you don’t see deep into the problem you will never see deep into the solution.
i would like to see some scri[tures dealt with mainly isaiah 53 galatians 3 and 2 corinthians 5
Part two addresses Isaiah 53 at length. Galatians 3 refers to death on the cross as a curse but not that it is a curse from God, i.e., that God punished/cursed Jesus. 2 Cor. 5 actually confirms my argument. God was in Christ reconciling the world to God, not God to the world.
@@StephenDMorrison so was God merely ok with our sin and needed no reconciling? You like all antagonists of Substitutionary atonement seem to be fine with casting awat divine justice, I plan on uploading a video affirming P.s.a and christus victor, also the moral exemplary position because all these have their place in the scriptures
@@brianfox3092 When did I claim there is no reconciliation? I am not convinced you've even watched these videos if that is your conclusion.
@@StephenDMorrison in your first comment you said only the world needed to be reconciled and God didnt need to be reconciled to us as if he was fine with the sinful state of humanity, no my friend in his divine forbearance he passed over , untill christ was set forward as a hilasterion on our behalf Romans 3
@@brianfox3092 Ah I see. Yes, there is NO biblical passage that says God needed to be reconciled to humanity. Only that humanity is reconciled to God. That is my point. PSA relies entirely on eisegesis.
Love it! Thanks Stephen
Thanks, Lucas!
i translate one of your articles on 7 theories of atonment
Good!
The scriptural conundrum those who are ensnared by penal substitution wether temporally(God willing) and or permanently is that with accordance to scripture as a whole anyone who dies under divine wrath are in a sinful state that is unforgivable.
But also nowhere in the Law and teachings does God ever transfer the guilt of the offender to an innocent person to take their place of divine punishment.such is a perversion of justice according to scripture . to be declared guilty by God one must at first sin and Adam did and we mere humans inherited his marred state being sold into slavery at conception and upon birth can sin ignorantly until we are consciously aware of good and evil to then sin deliberately.
Yeshua is the 2nd Adam conceived supernaturally to not take on the marred state of the first Adam but through the woman his body was prepared to be mortal (likeness of sinful flesh) yet without being enslaved to sin and spiritually dead.
Also Yeshua offered Himself to Father as a ransom to redeem as the means of forgivness, in fulfillment of the Animal offerings and sacrifices, where the animals had to be unblemished outwardly, Yeshua had to be morally unblemished inwardly. If at any point yeshua became a child of wrath as we are and were then yeshua in that full embodied corruption while offering himself to Father, Father would deem the offerer and offering abominable according to scripture. Thus God would reject the offerrer who is the offering.
Because of Gods promise to not lose one child of Their election but to bring them to glory, God would not even allow one legit child to voluntarily be blotted out of the book of life in the place of another. As per example of Moses in exodus 32:30-33 how much more the eternal Son?! Who is the reason for how God treats us as our source and example!
This is so good
Thanks!
Wonderful!
Thanks, Joshua!
Nowhere in the Bible does God reject retributive justice, which He proclaims from the OT through the NT. Mercy is distinct from justice. Your unbiblical rejection of retributive justice is what obscures your theology.
Jesus rejected/corrected the Lex Tailionis in Matthew 5. Did you watch the video? So no, it is not an unbiblical rejection of retribution because it is based on the words of Christ.
@@StephenDMorrison
I watched. You woefully misunderstand the Scriptures (and basic grammar) if you think Jesus was invalidating God’s own command for “eye for eye”, when all Jesus was actually saying is that (1) forgiveness of the kind Jesus gave to us is the next step of righteous living in addition to justice and (2) that vigilante revenge without due process is not justice.
@@IAmisMaster That is more a difference of interpretation than a woeful misunderstanding.
@@IAmisMaster Even the Lex Talionis underwent a shift in meaning from retributive to restorative justice, when the Jewish community brought this phrase out from the Babylonian Code over into the SInai covenant. In Jewish law, "an eye for an eye" means, "If I harm your eye, I become your second eye." This is clear when we look at how the offender has to work towards the healing of the victim in Exodus 21:18 - 19, and also when we see that proportional financial payment for loss is established in Exodus 21:28ff. In modern terms, it is called "reparations" and "restitution." Jewish rabbis made a joke out of it: If the offender is already blind, how do you blind an already blind man? It must therefore mean something else. Darren Snyder-Belousek discusses this issue, adding that Leviticus 19:17 - 18 is restorative justice, thus confirming that we must interpret Exodus 21 - 22 in the framework of restorative justice as well. God was already demonstrating restorative justice in the OT. It's not just with Jesus.
Retributive justice does not reflect the character or heart of God. Period. This video was merciful in describing the pollutive effect of the concept of retributive justice within Christianity. David B. Hart’s description of the same is less kind although no less true.
Interesting, yet simply disagree from the fact that no, evangelical do not presuppose a justice system from a human lens as the video seems to suggest. In fact the justice is completely illogical to human mind, because the just is punished for the unjust, which echoes turning the other cheek, praying for your enemies, so on. That's why the cross is foolishness for those who are perishing. Denying psa simply blends grace with good works or make good works the salvation path.
The sort of justice I reject as humanistic and unbiblical is not that the just are punished for the unjust but rather the very need for punishment as a prerequisite for justice. This assumes that justice requires a pound of flesh and an "eye for an eye." But that is not justice but payment. Justice taught by Christ is not a balancing of scales but one of free forgiveness despite the imbalance.
Thanks for the video. However, I think most of your critiques can simply be swiped away by taking a both/and approach instead of either/or. Justice is both retributive and restorative. The atonement is both healing and a payment for wrath. Also, although some proponents of PSA distort the doctrine of God with how they pit the Father against the Son, the historic Protestant doctrine never does this. In fact, it cannot because of the doctrine of divine simplicity. Jesus taking the punishment for our sins only makes sense when you realize He is God. He willingly took His own punishment.
I don’t think that’s right. Restorative and retributive justice indicate two distinct motivations, which cannot be reconciled. Besides, Christ explicitly rejects the latter. It’s intellectual laziness to just say “both” to complex issues. (I’m not calling *you* lazy, just saying the centrist tendency to say both is a cop-out, IMO.)
I also didn't say proponents of PSA intentionally distort the doctrine of God, but it is a side effect.
@@StephenDMorrison I have to strongly disagree with just about everything you just said, haha. I really don’t think there’s anything contradictory about restorative and retributive justice both being central to Christ’s mission. But it is probably too large of an issue to tackle in a TH-cam comments section.
@@Qhaon thanks for your thoughts on this. I agree that a “both and” is the biblically faithful answer to the question of restorative and retributive justice. I can’t read Isaiah 53, Matthew 5:17, and Hebrews 9:22-28 (just to name a few) and not come to the conclusion that both kinds of justice are at play.
If God does not punish, why is there a Helll? Why does anyone spend an eternity in Hell?
The best biblical evidence against penal substitution is the resurrection of Christ. If Jesus had "taken our punishment" or "died in our place" then He would have gone to hell and died the eternal death of the lost with no resurrection.
Yes except mankinds payment for sin was never eternal seperation from God forever in hell....it was death..cessation of life.We are notnresponsible for what Adam did.The ECT camp is in a cult and they don't even know it.They say we've sinned against a holy God therefore...hell.However why does anyone sin...the sin nature....how did we get the sin nature...passed down from Adam.Did I ask to have a sin nature...no.
Jesus Christ took care of it in Romans 5.We see just how all mankind was doomed because of one man's sin yet all are justified because of ones sacrifice
Jesus died for us as our high priest to take power over death, so he can judge those in the church. I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
The core issue is your view of God's laws.
how can i contact you if it is possible