Did God punish Jesus on the cross? William Lane Craig vs Greg Boyd on Penal Substitution Atonement
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- Did God punish Jesus in our place on the cross? William Lane Craig’s new book ‘Atonement and the Death of Christ’ is a major new defence of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. He discusses the doctrine of atonement with Greg Boyd who has been a critic of PSA and an advocate of the Christus Victor view of the cross.
William Lane Craig: www.reasonablef...
Greg Boyd: www.reknew.org
USA viewers check out our new USA website for exclusive resources: www.unbelievabl...
Subscribe to our newsletter and receive the free Unbelievable? e-book ‘In Conversation With…’www.premier.or...
Support the show and receive all the videos sessions from Unbelievable? USA 2019 resources.prem...
For more faith debates visit www.premierchri...
Facebook / unbelievablejb
Twitter / unbelievablejb
Insta / justin.brierley
They all agreed in one thing: we all need a library in our home just in front of a webcam
You mean in their home offices? Yeah, so surprising that academics would have books in their home office. I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.
Ego
LOL, thanks for the real nice laugh. That made my day! ROTFLMAO!
My favorite comment of the month
Brilliant, I can't unsee that now. Although I would put my hand up to have a bookshelf too to be honest.
Love Unbelievable?....Discussions like this are necessary for learning...Great discussion between Craig & Boyd....
I was shocked to hear Boyd say Satan is the one demanding justice. He is trying to escape justice by attempting to annihilate the Jews. He knows that when the Jewish nation turn to Christ, he will be heading for the wrath of God
Absolutely and they have much more charity for one another than most comments. Bless you bro.
This is an absolutely wonderful conversation - Kind, Honest, Clear and full of Depth.
My view is maturing and being challenged with each minute that passes.
Looking forward to this one
Ditto
@@MikeWinger You both should def read Crucifixion of the Warrior God
@@MikeWinger would be great to hear a debate review if you’re up for it!
I ketch some of you vids. Love you content man.
Of course penal substitution is the most immoral doctrine that the Christian Faith has ever promulgated. The idea that God will not “forgive us” until Christ is tortured to death on a cross is perhaps the ugliest doctrine one can imagine. The idea that the scapegoat receives the punishment due to the collective is as repugnant as the notion that God is so bound by legal constraints that he has to torture someone to death in order to “forgive” us. And it’s not really forgiveness: it’s simply a different form of retribution.
Boyd is very committed to an “either/or” theory of the atonement. It impacts his reasoning again and again. His “reframing” tends to result in just acknowledging that there is a fuller and more robust view of the atonement but then going on to create an artificial either/or “frame” which has him rejecting essential elements of the atonement.
He also seems to think questions are arguments.
@@MikeWinger Did you just reply to your own comment? Bold move...
C B yes. Yes I did. Sometimes I talk to myself.
This view seems to go hand and hand with several other incorrect views.. if I'm not mistaken listening to this guy... these folks seem to be Non-Trinitarian, not understand God's justice or Law, are Open Theists, seem to completely disregard majority of OT... but I'm not even half way through this...
Sorry to say.. I hope you are as frustrated watching this as I am.. and reading these comments I had no idea there were so many into this...
kelvyquayo Who said Boyd is non Trinitarian?
Finally a civil debate where both individuals are respectful.
It takes special people to debate one another . Especially on hot button topics . That's why I don't debate much if ever We must learn to be and act like me
I can’t remember Boyd ever being disrespectful in a debate. I haven’t seen as much of Craig, but from what I’ve seen, I doubt he would go there as well.
It is painfully obvious that William Lane Craig is more devoted to the idea that God is perfect: in justice, love, mercy, etc. While, on the other hand, Greg Boyd is more committed to the idea of God as only perfectly loving. Appreciated the conversation, but it seems obvious that if we are going to assert the utter perfection of God; His justice cannot be, in any sense, neglected for the sake of His love.
I’m not sure why you think there is such an easy distinction to make there. Greg seems to be objecting because he feels the need for recompense is in itself. But the idea it’s just because he wants to minimize God’s justice is uncharitable.
I really love both Craig and Boyd. So, when this popped up I had to watch. Totally delivered. Great talk.
Have really liked this channel but ultimately gave it the Sub for getting Dr. Greg Boyd on the show !!! Great debate can’t wait for the next one on Greg’s book this time.
Hosea 6:6: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." (NIV)
Amen
Read that verse in context, not just to prooftext.
Desire is not the same word as require. To assume that his requirements reflect his desires is like saying "I need that slice of cake" but do I need it, or want it? God wants mercy, but he requires blood as mercy is in short supply, as is told to us consistently throughout the WHOLE of the bible. If people showed mercy, no sin would be committed, and therefore no blood would be required. Alas, we are not merciful beings as he is.
@@dereklaing2929 where does God require blood sacrifice?
@@mohamudabdi1185 ever since Able.
I like what Dr Craig mentioned about the legal forgiveness makes us a new creature whereas us forgiving a brother doesn’t. Very interesting so far
Notice at the end that Dr. Boyd said, “I think that the most important fact in anyone‘s life is your mental conception of God,“ not, “I think that the most important fact in anyone’s life is that your your mental conception of God aligns with His actual nature and actions.” I found that to be very interesting and perhaps telling. As I was listening to Dr. Boyd and Dr. Craig discuss this issue, I was so captivated by all of their particular points. However, I was also curious how many of Dr. Boyd’s biblical and philosophical objections to Dr. Craig’s view were also psychological objections. Only the Holy Spirit knows.
As for me, I have had to admit that many of my own objections are really psychological concerns, many of which are really spiritual issues, many of which are really acts of mental rebellion.
Exactly. Progressives reinterpret the Bible through Jesus, but they interpret Jesus through themselves. So really, they interpret thr whole Bible through themselves and ignore the literal text.
@@sivad1025 Gods actual nature is revealed to us. We are made in his image. Read Matthew 5:38-48
@@jasensargent6176 Yes, I agree. But the Bible also says that you should live by the Spirit, not the flesh. And that the Spirit guides you to truth.
Progressives judge by the flesh. They say, "I don't like this passage so it must be fake or mean something different."
That's the first sin in the Bible. Adam and Eve sinned because their hearts told them they could be like God if they ate the fruit. Eve thought the fruit was good because it would make her wise. Surprise, God was right.
If the Bible says, "Jesus died for those who believe in him" (paraphrasing) and progressives say, "I feel like God wouldn't punish his Son for my sins, and I feel like God will let everyone into heaven," how are they better than Adam and Eve? They are saying God's words in the Bible are wrong and that the "fruit" of univeral forgiveness is good so it must be true.
Something isn't true simply because it sounds good and you want it. You want a lot of things God said was bad (like the fruit Adam and Eve ate)
@@sivad1025 I don’t think it’s a progressive thing, the denial of the penal substitutionary model (PSA). It wasn’t the only view held throughout Christendom. The atonement has been a challenging doctrine throughout the centuries. Most who deny PSA, don’t reject such phrases “Jesus died for you.” They just reject certain interpretations of it. They also believe some things to be metaphorical in the New Testament. Metaphors to explain deeper truths. Like putting on the new man. It’s not like I open my closet to put on a new man. But a spiritual thing.
@@jasensargent6176 I agree that it's not intrinsically progressive. My original comment was about progressives because I saw many progressives in the comment section rejecting substitutionary atonement.
Sorry if my comment seemed directed towards you personally. I was defending my criticism of the progressive belief structure
That said, why do you reject substitutionary atonement if you don't reject scripture?
The notion that the employer is responsible for the crimes of the employee, even though the employer is totally innocent, is a form of injustice. So to map that legal fiction onto the atonement is simply to apply our very imperfect legal system on to God. It’s as absurd as it is repugnant to moral good sense.
To Greg at 35:00. We are not just a bride who has been kidnapped against her will, like the bride in Ezekiel 16 we have left our bridegroom and pursued other lovers, despising His grace. He states that briefly in 26:30, but frames it as kidnapping rather than abandonment and despising Him
Kidnapped in the sense that it is the “trauma” of the kidnapping that informs our dysfunctional behavior, that is, our sinful behavior. God brings healing to this in the form of love. This may include more “punitive” means. But, even these punitive means are for the sake of “reconciliation” versus simple “retribution”.
It is a kidnapping in the sense that you are seduced by your desires, and instead of dominating your desires, your desires dominate you, you end up as a slave, and to be free you need the redemptive work of Yahweh ... you can't get free on your own, even is that we want... we need Him, there's no other way.
If we could be free by our own, we wouldn't need a savior, the redemptive work of Jesus would be in vain. But God as man dominated the flesh, and suffered the consequences of our failure.
The RESTORED ICON is the central facet of atonement I have found in the last 2 1/2 years of study from scripture and ancient Jewish and Christian insights, not penal substitution.
CV vs PSA changed my faith- a few years ago, THANKS DR BOYD. You are doing very important kingdom work
CV is only true because of PSA . How can you read Isaiah 53 or 2 Corinthians or the psalms without PSA
Psalm 88
Your wrath lies heavy upon me, and you overwhelm me with all your waves. Selah
Your wrath has swept over me; Your terrors have destroyed me.
The psalms are not about David they all about Jesus. The first two psalms tell you that psalms are about the messiah
And connosental text of 2 Samuel 23 says David was appointed by God to write psalms about the messiah .
The problem with Greg’s “Jesus pushing someone out of the way of the bus” illustration is that there’s no guilt involved there. It again removes the kingly justice images which the entire scriptures are replete with.
What about pushing someone out of the way of the bus after he was told not to go in the road and there were signs telling him not to go and he went anyway out of rebellion and pride? I don't necessarily agree entirely with Greg's view by the way.
I’m late responding but I’ll just add that this ‘bus’ example has been discussed previously by two completely different pastors on an Unbelievable show. One who did believe in traditional penal substitutionary atonement theology pointed out that he thought it was a terrible illustration and would never use it. Hard to say how frequently it’s been used but it seems to have been used by various evangelicals to explain the gospel.
@@Telorchid what i find is PSA advocates push their view of justice on the text. That justice has to be retributive. Eisegesis more than exegesis
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.)
Pure man made ideas none is scriptural
Thanks this is helpful
@@toyosioyejobi309 so nothing happened on the cross?
Thank you for this!
Ransomed from the Law
This was a really good debate in many ways.
I have some issues with some details with PSA, but also some issues with some details in Christus victor. So I had some aha-moments.
But most of all, how courteous and respectful both were to each other.
No name calling nor straw men.
A very pleasant debate/discussion
Greg has an "emotional" problem with the atonement, not an intellectual or Biblical one.
Emotions are definitely important to this topic. As long as they are sound emotions, For God gave us emotions.
I wondered if that were the case, as well. I wanted to be very careful not to assume as much. (See my separate post from today.) as for me, I have had to admit that many of my own objections were psychological concerns, many of which were actually spiritual issues, many of which were acts of mental rebellion.
@@jasensargent6176 On the contrary, the Bible is very much against using "emotions."
*For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.* _Romans 8:6-7_
If you interpret the Bible off of emotions, you are living by the flesh not the spirit.
*When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.* _John 16:13_
Jesus tells us not that the Holy Spirit guides to emotional satisfaction, but to _truth._
A conclusion is of the spirit if it is true, _not_ if it makes you emotionally satisfied.
@@sivad1025 How does your conclusion of Romans 8:6-7 follow? Where does it say emotions are fleshly?
And just because Jesus did not say something explicitly doesn’t mean he wouldn’t agree with it. Jesus never says explicitly not to listen to Lil Pump, but we know that we shouldn’t be doing so.
@@jasensargent6176 All good points. My original comment was poorly reasoned.
I do not mean to say that emotions are always "fleshy" as you put it. But when they're of the flesh and not the spirit, that's when they're bad. That's all I'm saying.
It's a hard line to balance since scripture teaches that the moral code is written on your heart, confirming that your conscience can guide you.
But on the contrary, I think that it's clear that the truth is often unpleasant. In John 15, Jesus says those who are not of the world are hated by the world. He explains that the greatest love is not a feeling, but an act of sacrifice. In Matthew 10:34-39, Jesus says he didn't come to bring peace, but instead, he came with a message for his followers to take up their own cross.
All that to say, when I read the Bible, I see Jesus affirm that living of the spirit is living according to truth which brings discomfort. The idea of paying for your sins and deserving crucifixion is not comfortable. But it's true that the Bible teaches it, so I can't reject that conclusion based upon emotion. When your emotions guide you to self-comfort and away from the truth, I personally think your emotions should be discarded. But then again, this is all just my interpretation so you're free to disagree.
What a great to discussion between two great minds. Thanks for this.
WLC has a great point at 52:47 that coincides with the scripture “but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.””
Jeremiah 9 : 24
An essential aspect of knowing who God is, involves understanding that He is not only loving but also just and righteous. All these attributes are displayed in the cross by Jesus taking the punishment we deserved 🙌
Love isn't just one among many attributes of God but it's who God is, it includes justice as justice is itself loving. Without love in our nature what sense if justice could we have? Loving Justice is the difference between the wrath of God and the wrath of man that workth not the rightousness of God. It is because I love or at least on some level acknowlage that I should love them that I feel the need to be just twords them.
@@christophersnedeker2065 I agree God is love 100% (1 John 4:8). I didn't mean to imply that love is merely an attribute of His and not important but my point was that many times people only focus on a one-sided or false definition of God's love that doesn't involve justice or righteousness in it, so I think we're on the same page with that if I understand you correctly.
I found it telling when William Lane Craig admitted that the early Church, right up to Anselm, didn't have a clear elaboration of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. He interprets this as a failing but perhaps the reason for this is that it doesn't cohere well with other Christian beliefs nor is easily supported by scripture.
He didn’t say such a thing at all, just read his book ‘Atonement and the Death of Christ’ in which he showed the earliest church fathers did affirm, among other facets, penal substitution. Since the early church was preoccupied with the person of Christ and the Trinity, the Atonement never received a full exploration by them. But it is biblical and present in the early church fathers.
Hiddetje van der Waal exactly
@@hiddetjevanderwaal2827 38:14
@@hiddetjevanderwaal2827 Well there are a few church fathers that sound like PSA but it's more substitutionry atonement. Craig is stretching things quite a bit. He will quote fathers who explicitly believed in universalism and that even Satan will repent and be forgiven. So they might sound like PSA but the rest of their work is extremely positive. For them God was only love, and wrath was only corrective and temporary and only to bring humans back to God.
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Excited about the Systematic Philosophical Theology work!
Greg’s point on the car crash articulates the idea of the organic nature of sin and judgment perfectly. I think the legal framework represents how we have made sense of the way we think God acts wrt sin. It’s kind of us working out the mechanics of this system. Very transactional. You could write code to this....
Greg’s response is at 21:15
I wonder if what we’ve always called the Wrath of God is what Greg calls the organic consequence of the car crash and what God is really rescuing us from…? 🤔 I.e. the unavoidable harsh reality of this fallen world which God in his love steps into to rescue us
This was one of the most interesting WLC debates I have seen. I have been following WLC since my conversion, and I have gone through his second and third iterations of defenders multiple times. I am deeply steeped in Craig’s sytemaatization of theology as it were. I find that I ultimately agree with Craig, of course, because a one hour debate couldn’t possibly be enough to sway me. But I found Boyd’s position to be absolutely fascinating and certainly worth additional study and consideration. Thank you both for your well thought out, respectful, and interesting discussion of some of the basic issues related to the retributive justice understanding of the atonement and the consequentialist understanding of the atonement! Wow!
Gotta get the bookshelves in the background and flex!
I would never be able to debate those guys. Don’t have enough books in beautiful shelves...
Perhaps...or none of these dudes has a wall that isn't floor to ceiling books! :)
@@Jimabiding You're probably right 😂 Given their academic backgrounds and clarity of thought, I wouldn't be surprised!
We have one book and one author, He is in heaven seated on the throne of grace, always contending for you, clearing your shame, because He loves you.
@@graceoverreligion2509 hallelujah!
Thank you, Bill, for another great debate.
“My playsure.”
Hahahahah
This debate brought me even closer to the Christus Victor view.
The beautiful thing is that Christus Victor isn't the sole truthful aspect of the atonement like some erroneously try to circumvent.
@@justineffler3172 yup
If all God had to do was to simply "forgive" then Jesus wasn't necessary.
Jesus was necessary for without him, no one could be convinced that God could simply and freely forgive and, besides other things, he got killed by those who did not believe that. Just look at the way Jesus forgave that paralyzed man in Luke 5 : 20 :
"Jesus said to the man, “Young man, your sins are forgiven.”
No death, no blood, no murder, no killing. Simply forgiveness and this got the Pharisees and the teachers mad. Interestingly, this should logically get a Penal Substitution supporter mad as well.
I love it, especially how much I am benefiting tremendously from 2 theologians debating. We the listeners are blessed. I must say, I totally agree with both of them in many ways although they are in the polar opposite. I admire both of them. At Least all of three of them have one thing in common and that's their backdrop.
Wow - what a fantastic discussion - insightful on both sides and good-natured. They actually listened to each other and dialogued rather than just trying to prove their own points. Thank you!
What videos are you watching?😂
There’s a ton of videos like this
We need Rene Gerard in on this discussion....
Why don't you debate Dr. James White on this topic?
I’m excited for this one.
Really enjoyed this. Clearly two very gifted believers in their fields. For me, very simply, if God was 'just' our friend, Greg's position would suffice. But he isn't 'just' our friend. He is also our God and King. We would do well to remember that for every time a person walked past or spoke with Jesus as any other normal person, equally in scripture there are occurrences where God appears before people - and their immediate reaction is to hit the ground - face first
Great point. You know who still hit the ground face first, muslims all around the world just like Jesus did numerous times.
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
@@jameymassengale5665 Satan a creation God killed God, well in that case Satan would be God since he killed God right. Lots of words but no substance
@@jameymassengale5665 .... I really think you need to read Galatians 5:22... You seem to have a lots of anger towards somebody you've never met...
Rewrite your message in a polite, friendly tone... So I can read it not thinking you're a hypocrite 😁👍
He is our God and King?....Sorry that is creepy!!!....Have you truly processed based on your belief that you will spend an ETERNITY groveling...worshipping...and SERVING your master....Why does that appeal to you?....Your reward is to join God in heaven and SERVE HIM FOR ETERNITY!!!....Yikes!!!
41:30 "In Christus victor, the enemy is always the powers, and that's what enables us not to make enemies of other human beings."
Death was not a legal consequence in Gen 3. The legal consequences are listed in Gen 3:14-19. Death was added in verses 22 and 23, not as a penalty but as YHWH trying to protect Man from making his consequences permanent. Bill Craig is a very bright fellow, but in this instance he's wrong.
What do you think on the atonement?
@@JustinHerchel, that's irrelevant to my comment. We can argue that when it's relevant, ok?
@@plumblinetalks7614 okay pal
Good point. The Orthodox say our death showed the love of God in that it made our sins finite rather than hopeless if we had eaten of the tree of life. Also note the consequence of sin was not eternal hell. People read crazy things into the text.
@@itisnow Yes, exactly. Had we lived forever, sin and its evil consequences would never end. We have to die in order to make sin finite. I like that word of yours!
So looking forward to this. Although hugely differing in personality and modes of thinking, here are two delightful Christian gentlemen who model robust but respectful debate. Thanks Unbelievable for setting this up.
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Dude, chill with the copy paste
@@BipolarDistortion agreed! my favorite thing about unbelievable is most of the time you have differing theological views , but with two people who disagree agreeably in love and respect.
I love Greg Boyd’s heart but it seems like he is leaning towards felt preferences. The law courtroom view might sound unappealing but what if it is simply true?
@Philip AlumboPerhaps. But by the same token, are scientists, lovers of the laws of nature, legalists? ... there is a difference between acknowledging and loving. I love gravity when I play soccer, I hate it when I fall. Nevertheless I must acknowledge this law exists and my life must accommodate it, otherwise I might actually die. What if there is such a law of sin and redemption, which we must acknowledge lest we perish?
@@iworship6951 nailed it! Yes!
@@iworship6951 f there is such a law of sin and redemption, which we must acknowledge lest we perish? that is a good summary of Boyd's view. Sin leads to death.
Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for William Lane Craig, defender of true biblical theology. Amen to PSA. God bless. Learnt so many things from him to defend the faith once delivered to the saints. God bless you brother.
Great talk ! Thanks for sharing. I believe the very foundation of the controversy lies in whether one believes God forgives by demanding death, or not. If one relies on concrete Jesus' testimonies, it is possible to see that he (who testifies of the Father) forgives without demanding death (ex. Luke 5 : 20). This must question one's theoretical understanding of the sacrifical system in the Old Testament, if one believes that killing the animals means : God opens the door to forgiveness. In light of Jesus' concrete testimony (for Scriptures testify of him, cf. John 5 : 39) it is possible to question the Penal Substitution theory, and revisit the nature of sacrifice in relationship to divine forgivness.
Consider the Law of Moses and the nature of how it was established. Galatians 3:19 explains that the Law was established by Angels, even though Exodus 20 shows that it was "Elohim" who established the Law... :O
Elohim simply refers to the Administration of the Most High God, this includes the Angels of Heaven. Understanding the truth that to Father, all the Angels are heard, regardless of stance. So the Law was established by 100% of the Angels (Elohim), not only the 2/3 of those who remained with Father.
This is how I see. I don't say anyone must agree.
We only have forgiveness through Christ shedding his blood without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin or why did he even have to go to the cross because sin must be punished God does not wink at sin.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin if you don’t believe that you’re not a saved Christian he he was bruised and punished for our iniquities by his stripes we are healed. I know the modern idea is oh they’re more understanding and nicer than God that he wouldn’t punish Jesus that’s not necessary well then why did he go to the cross I feel like it’s an unnecessary argument because it says Jesus is the sacrifice for our sins
@@TrustMe55 Jesus never taught that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness". For example, he gave forgiveness to the paralyzed man without shedding any drop of blood (Luke 5). And this, he did it for everyone who came to him for such endeavor.
A wage is not a consequence: death is the wage of sin, not its organic consequence.
One translation puts it this way: For sin pays its wage - death; but God's free gift is eternal life in union with Christ Jesus our Lord. So the verse can be seen as a consequence.
The question to ask is if the death that results from sin is “organic” (Boyd) or “inflicted” (Craig).
One wouldn’t say that a wage is “inflicted” upon someone, but it is a consequence, which is in harmony with James who says that when sin has conceived, it brings forth death, which certainly looks to be a consequence, doesn’t it?
The thing is we are bound to interpret things according to the paradigm we hold. As human beings, we cannot avoid that. So it’s important to get our paradigm right, which is a complex problem involving profound psychological issues.
@@ewallt right it is the consequence of being cut of from life who is God.
Man, I really enjoyed this discussion!
When I forgive someone, I do not require a compensation of any sort from a third party as a precondition to my forgiving; if I forgive, I forgive, and that's it. The idea of penal substitutionary atonement is utterly idiotic and morally insane.
Remember when Jesus healed the paralytic and said, "Your sins are forgiven"? By William Lane Craig's logic, how could that have happened?
Jesus explains: the Son of Man has been given the authority to forgive.
Why?
*for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.* _Matthew 26:28_
His blood is the new Covenant poured to forgive many. Because Jesus makes the sacrifice, he is the one with the authority to forgive those who accept.
@@sivad1025 So you're saying the reason he was able to forgive him was that he was going to die for his sins in the future? Seems more likely to me that the Orthodox are correct and God can simply forgive.
@@AJ-me1dg Not because Jesus would die for his sins; because Jesus already died for his sins. John 1 tells us all things were made through Jesus which would include time. Thus, Jesus is not bound by time. If he forgives once, he forgives for all eternity since he exists in all eternity as alluded to in Revelations 1.
Philosophically, it's a bit dense. But if you judge the principles, it's all straightforward. God is perfectly just and perfectly forgiving. The sacrifice allowed God to be the Just and Justifier, satisfying both of those absolute qualities.
*It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.* _Romans 3:26_
The paralytic in Mark 2:5 is forgiven because Jesus sees his faith. Thus, Jesus' _eternal_ sacrifice is offered.
@@sivad1025 Hey, thanks for the well thought out reply. I definitely see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree.
@@AJ-me1dg Thank you for being respectful as well! Prayers that our journeys lead us both to the truth
is a big problem, Greg ignores so much about the scriptures.
Elaborate?
I agree. This old understanding comes from an ancient understanding of God.
Eventually the cord will be cut, and the old wine and old wineskin will fade away, and the glorious freedom of the sons of God will become manifest and actualized.
What do you mean by this?
Greg Boyd often ENGAGES the scriptures more than your average Christian leader or academic. Quite refreshing for those of us seeking to learn and grow in faith.
@@keithdoten347 My CATS engage scripture more than the average Christian leader or academic.
@@kelvyquayo You must have smart cats. All Christians (and all Christian leaders) value certain verses and passages and themes more than others within the scriptures. IMO, Greg does this..less than others. Certainly less than I do. Considering alternatives, who according to you is smarter than your cats? Which leader or teacher is 'above average' in this department?
"He is innocent in the eyes of the law as if he had never committed the crime" (WLC). vs. Exodus 23:7, "I will not declare right the wicked."; WLC vs. Exodus 20:7, "Yahweh will not declare innocent whoever takes up his name as nothing."; WLC vs. Exodus 34:7, "And making to be innocent, he will not make to be innocent." But he will forgive. Forgiveness does not mean making the forgiven innocent.
"Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day..."
William Lane Craig mentioned Isaiah 53, but I wish he went into detail on that chapter.
Here are some fantastic verses from that chapter showing Penal Substitution Atonement is biblical :
Isaiah 53 : 4-6
"Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering,
yet *we considered him punished by God,*
*stricken by him, and afflicted.*
But he was *pierced for our transgressions,*
he was *crushed for our iniquities;*
*the punishment that brought us peace was on him,*
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
--------------------------------------------------------
The prophet Isaiah made it clear *the punishment that brought us peace was on him* [Jesus the Messiah]
The prophet Isaiah made it clear we are to consider him [Jesus the Messiah] *punished by God.*
Isaiah said *God struck him and afflicted him.*
Isaiah said Jesus was *pierced for our transgressions.*
Isaiah said Jesus was *crushed for our iniquities.*
---------------------------------------------------------
So where in history did this take place?
Where is history was Jesus stricken and afflicted?
Where in history was Jesus pierced and crushed?
Where in history was Jesus wounded?
At the cross is where God placed the punishment on Jesus that brought us peace.
✞
And the laying on of the hands of the sinner upon the head of the slain beast speaks of identification. It was slain in PLACE of the one laying his hands upon its head (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:1,4,15,24, 29,33; 8:14,18,22; 16:21; Exo. 29:10,15,19). It surely speaks of substitution.
Isaiah 53 is about Israel, my guy. That's who the "Servant" person is in Deutero-Isaiah's works (it starts at around Isaiah 40 I believe). While obviously not a literal curtain of PSA it can still be used as a symbolic paradigm in support of that, like how some Catholics use the perpetual virginity of Zion in Isaiah 66 as a symbolic paradigm in support of a certain Marian doctrine.
@@nicholocadongonan1074 In Isaiah the servant of God takes on more than one meaning, sometimes the prophet Isaiah, sometimes the Gentile king Cyrus. Isa. 53 speaks of Christ the Servant not in the Old Testament sense but in the coming new covenant. It makes no sense to say Isa 53 is about Israel. Zion was "beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth" (Psa. 48:2) and "the beautiful land" (Dan. 11:41). But the Suffering Servant "has no form nor majesty that we should look upon Him." (Isa 53:2b). Christ was "wounded for our transgressions" (v.5). Israel cannot do this for HER OWN transgressions as a national suffering Servant. If the Servant is Israel what would it mean for Yahweh to "cause the iniquity of US ALL to fall upon" Israel itself (v.6)? Nor could Israel offer Israel herself as an "offering for sin"( v.10) on her own behalf. Israel was afflicted with grief but was by no means innocent nor could it be said of her - "Nor was their any deceit found in His mouth" (v.9). Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 reveals Christ.
@@jackwilmoresongs Israel as a singular person, a Servant of God, is the main theme of Deutero-Isaiah's poetry. Again, I advise you to read Isaiah 40-55: these are works of one person, or one group of persons, during the Exile and their theology focused on Israel's international role in a world of alien peoples and alien gods. Basically, Israel (or Zion, those terms seem to be used interchangeably) has failed in drawing the nations to her God and thus, due to transgressions, they suffer from piercings. But not to worry, she will reclaim her place, because her God's commission still stands.
Furthermore: check out Isaiah 41:8, along with Isaiah 52, the beginning of ch. 53's Servant Song wherein the main character is Zion.
As I said, this still works as a theological paradigm for Christ's substitutionary atonement. It need not be literal to function.
@@nicholocadongonan1074 I will enjoy reading chapters 40 - 55 as you recommend. Do not think it will be the first time I carefully did so. I am usually opened to reading again. While much of what you wrote is certainly not wrong I am convinced specifically 52:13 - 53:12 reveals the Messiah. But let me say also that for the Christian the New Testament is the oracles of God. The NT are the oracles of God the way Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah or Jeremiah are the oracles of God. The New Testament is not a purely man-made, faulty, error prone commentary on the Hebrew Bible, but the oracles of God. And the New Testament in several places say that the Isaiah 53 utterances are about Jesus Christ. That alone settles the matter for me. But to be fair I will now go and enjoy the larger portion of Isaiah you recommend. This may take a half hour.
The way Craig talks about makes it seem like God isn't where the buck actually stops. A judge in a court of law has to uphold the law he can't wing it, but isn't God God? He makes it sound like God is saying "hey I'm just following orders, I have to do it this way"
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
I think it comes down to whether or not "justice" is an essential attribute of God. If it is, it seems to me that God can't, in fact, do it any other way. This is not said to limit God, or to be viewed as an imperfection, but is rather a *consequence* of God's perfection.
@Throw Awayy This is an area I need to do more research in (hence me watching this video), but I wonder if that's what Paul's comments in Romans 3 were about.
Regarding hatred of sin, that’s another key point to consider. From Boyd’s perspective, God hates sin because it kills those whom God loves. From Craig’s point of view, God’s hatred of sin involves God’s being righteous and sin being an unrighteousness thing. In the former paradigm, the atonement is a way to destroy sin (which is the problem that needs to be solved) and in the latter, the atonement becomes a way by which God can forgive while remaining righteous.
So in WLC God is reconciling Himself to us and in non psa theory. We must be reconciled to God
Isaiah said that WE esteemed Him stricken and smitten of God, the implication obviously being that He wasn’t, but that He was wounded by and for our sins to create an eternal covenant of peace and perfect forgiveness.
Would love to see NT Wright thrown into this debate. It’s important to view the atonement in light of the biblical narrative and Israel’s history, and both WLC and Boyd could have been challenged further in this area. Regardless it was a good discussion!
N T Wright just tells stories & draws his conclusions from them.
I would have liked this as well. They did dip into the Old Testament Levitical/sacrificial a little bit, but didn’t really focus on it. So much of the interpretive lens of what atonement and forgiveness means, if one is trying to be ‘biblical’, requires not just an examination of the sacrificial system, but also of the dialectical between those texts and how the New Testament writers engage those texts. This is a mammoth undertaking. NT Wright does something like this via his usual meta-narrative methods in The Day the Revolution Began, which I found intriguing but it’s not really the exhaustive discussion the conversation merits (IMO).
David Bentley Hart would make an interesting voice here IMO
interesting how WLC basically admits that PSA is a "trick" played by God, on God, to convince God that God is both loving and just. How on earth this theory ever appealed to anyone is beyond my comprehension.
Because the PSA talked about by Boyd is not what proponents of PSA mean. God wrath against sin is not out of anger or frustration or meanness it is out of his holiness. Just as a doctor attacks cancer cells, so God attacks sin.
@@scotthix2926 The doctor analogy is a terrible one. Doctors attack diseases in order to heal people and reduce suffering. However, retributive punishments do not really attack sin since they don't aim to heal sinners from their sin and thereby get rid of sin, but retributive punishments instead aim at making the sinner suffer so that justice can apparently be satisfied. So you see, doctors aim at healing, retributive punishers (like God in your view) aim at suffering, which doesn't seem very holy to me because aiming merely to inflict suffering does nothing to remove sin from existence.
@@thetasteofwater918 where do you get retributive punishment? This is the part of PSA, you are confused about
In so many arguments to believe something differently than at any other point in history it comes down to one key thing. We all agree God is love but so many seem to neglect that God is also holy, and His holiness may be the attribute that is emphasized more than any other in the Bible.
Greg argues that we see Jesus interacting with sinners all the time, so sin really isn’t that big a deal and God can just forgive it.
This is addressed in Romans 3.
“whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:25-26
God passed over sins throughout the entire OT (including the time period in the Gospels during which Jesus lived. But then “it pleased the Father to crush” Jesus.
I agree. I have vlogs on this subject, and i believe we share the same understanding without leaven.
I sound strange because I'm not a native english speaker, but I see also what you see.
There are far too many unacknowledged preconceptions that are underlying this discussion which is why this can't seem to find agreement:
1. What is sin? Is it a unique substance or is it a deprivation of a good?
2. Does God interact with his creation violently or non-violently? Meaning, does he destroy that which he occupies or does he bring to new life that which he occupies?
3. Most importantly, what is God? Is God's existence and essence one in the same (an analogical conception) or is he the highest possible "being" (a univocal conception) who is on the same ontological plane of what "being" is in the realm of the cosmos. Put another way, is his relationship to us a matter of his divine will or a matter of him as subsistent being itself (ipsum esse subsistens)?
All this to say, Christians can all agree wholeheartedly on the substitutionary motif as one of the dimensions on how to understand the atonement, however the language of it primarily needing to be understood in a courtroom motif too easily leads logically to a misconception of the character and nature of God towards Christ and towards us; the necessary logical path leads to claims of God of being wrathful towards his creation until his own willful justice is satisfied with Christ's death and resurrection. This about-face then necessarily implies a change in the posture of God then towards his creation and we mistakenly violate one of the attributes of God by doing this (his immutability). I submit that the analogical conception of God does not commit this error whereas the univocal conception has a more difficult time with it. Another fundamental problem with the penal lens to the atonement, particularly under a univocal conception, is that it necessarily follows that he has attained something (satisfaction of his willful justice) which he previously lacked to redeem his creation which violates the attribute of God lacking anything.
Instead, we're properly left with the wrath of God being conceptually better understood by saying what it is not rather than what it specifically is. In this case, his wrath has less to do with any changes in him as an act of his divine will or in his disposition towards his creation. Like all heresies, it is taking a truth about God and extrapolating it too far in an attempt to grasp at God and control him by our understanding.
Well said.
I agree. Well said indeed. Your point about heresy being an exaggeration of an important theological truth is important and valuable.
I think Greg is only looking at the character of God as Loving, but missing the fact that God is also Holy. His justice must be satisfied for His love to be unbiased and God remaining Just
Why does God's love have to be unbiased? "Essau I hated, Jacob I loved".
Doing a study on these two ideas and I found this interview helpful in many ways. Dr Craig said that without penal substitution there is no absolution of sin on the Christus Victor view but I disagree. Our baptism is our burial with Christ, our sins are now cut off from us because the wages of sin is death and we died to sin at our baptism when we were buried with Christ. We are raised to a new life and one that is empowered by the spirit. While we strive to live as Christ lived we may sin but Christ is interceding for us to the Father, His body was the sacrifice, we identify with it at every communion and we are given forgiveness through repentance and faith in the works and promises of Christ and His covenant with us.
I like the organic and consequences focus. Sin's natural consequences is death. The law warns us of the consequences. God is love. For God so loved the world he sent his to save us. Action have consequences. God hates sin because it kills us. Jesus Forgive people freely. We Forgive people with out payment. Christus victory personal redemption and reconciliation. Forgiveness is cleansing.
Putting the truth of this matter aside for the moment: many have emotional and psychological triggers with the whole idea of retributive punishment. Particularly those with abusive parents or caretakers. For such people, it’s often difficult to divorce the idea of retributive punishment from abuse. Putting the claim that God’s punishment is retributive alongside the claim that God is perfectly loving, is near-impossible. The notion that God is perfectly just and loving, and is not a God of rage and abuse, is of little or no comfort. Even the reality that such believers have no need for worry because they are saved from the wrath of God through Jesus death brings little or no relief. For such dear followers of Jesus, this view makes the world become one of terror. I think it’s really important to keep that in mind in our discussions about this central doctrine of Christianity.
Agreed. I think this is what keeps Greg from finding his point of rest here. To be clear, I agree with Greg that the Christus Victor model should be the primary view, and I agree that the reality of it is complex enough for us to require multiple facets through which to view it(thus giving purpose to the penal substitution view). That being said, even though he grants that he agrees with the wording Mr. Craig uses in many cases, he then goes against it by saying that he sees no need for it. I think what you've described is why that's happening. He knows, in truth, that the penal substitution view is necessary, at the least as a component, but then once acknowledged, he wants to forget all about it.
There are those of us whose consciences have been so wounded that we should reject forgiveness though we trust it is offered in good faith. We cannot abide by the notion of our guilt merely being forgiven for we have done terrible things and punishment MUST happen. For those of us who can't help but to think like this, the facet of redemption that penal substitution occupies is vitally necessary, for our ears are, perhaps forever, weak to the voice of the Accuser. Knowing that the debt has been paid gives us the ground to stand upon with which to tell him that he speaks without any justification. Greg doesn't like the penal substitution view because it makes God seem like one of the heathen lesser deities, but, just as Greg himself teaches, God bore our ugliness although he is only beauty, so that He might reach us in our filth. The penal substitution. View is necessary because some of us can't handle seeing God otherwise, just as the ancient Jews would have been even worse at recieving Jesus than the people of His time of earth were. Too pure to bear without being prepared for it. Perhaps whichever view you hold as primary is a matter of spiritual maturity, depending on the individual in a case-by-case basis.
So you're advocating compassion? Sounds Christ-like. I'm down
I think thats why considering the whole picture of Atonement presented in the bible is important. The context and culture will always play a role in how we understand the language. In a middle-eastern cultures the language of taking our shame maybe better recieved. For someone whos never had a running with the law..... Jesus taking our punishement may be harder to get at first. Maybe reconciling you to your heavenly father. At the same time the bible does not present Gods Justice in a carebears and rainbows way. Gods holiness is AWESOME and frightening at times. There is genuine Dread at the exposure of our wickedness. Yet God does forgive and extends his Love to those who are willing to recieve. My issue with punishement is it being eternal torment. Which I dont see supported in the bible as much as ceasing to exist. LIFE ETERNAL WITH GOD. Or reject his life and be dead eternally?
Let me suggest at least a possible understanding - The reality of sin is death, but also the injustice of sin upon the innocent. If morality is a "real" concept (ie, not just a mental construct or cultural restriction, then it would have to be accounted for, sort of like balancing out a chemistry equation.) In that case, everything would have to end up in a final balance. Now we don't typically think of sin/morality in this way. We think of it as a sort of fiction in either our minds or the mind of God. But, what if it is "real" and the equation has to balance out just like some physical law? (In a sense we often do this in court when we give dollar settlements to reconcile for pain and suffering. Of course, it doesn't do this, but this is the legal theory. In legal terms we try to make the innocent party "whole") We might compare this to the Buddist concept of Karma. In Buddism, every action must be accounted for in the universe like a physics problem that requires a balance of energy. If we take this approach, forgiveness is simply not enough. There must be an accounting in the world for sin. Now, this is just a rough set of thoughts, but to me, it seems like some line of understanding like this might answer both sides of this debate. Thoughts?
@@justinshadrach829, the eternal suffering thing to me for a while too because I had trouble fathoming why God would do such a thing. I always took it as annihilation, but then I reread the gospel and came across what Jesus says about it when he said, "...where their worm will not die." Perhaps God made us in such a fashion that we can't be utterly annihilated or we shouldn't be. God can do as He pleases, but He plays by the rules He sets down for Himself. Maybe a part of creation and making us in His image was that we're eternal, in one way or another. We tend to think this already because we tend to take our desire not to die as our inherent yearning for that which we were made for, eternity. I think Gid, through Jesus Christ, has forgiven us so that His divine judgment need not fall upon us and instead He sees His Son. I think that we will judge ourselves though. Jesus talks about our measure being measured to us and Paul speaks multiple times on the importance of a clean conscience, as well as that "their worm will not die" line. Apparently that notion of worm is the part of a man that says to himself that he is a dog, unworthy, and disgusting. I think that when we see God truly, we will instantly be confronted with our own failings and in that moment we will judge ourselves to a degree that will actually affect our being, and then, looking out at those results, Jesus will separate sheep from goats. That's why I think the penal substitution is so important. For people who judge themselves constantly, they ought to remember that God's judgement has already been rendered, they've been forgiven, and that they shouldn't keep on judging themselves because to do so is to belittle the work done on the cross.
I have benefitted so much from both these men. Have books from both of them on my shelf, and have consumed many hours of their lectures. To hear them debate this thrills my soul.
I am delighted that they were not as far apart as they/we thought they would be.
IMO, Boyd is closer to the truth on this topic. Perhaps the most revealing moment comes around 45:40 where when Craig then responds he has to in essence say that penal substitutionary atonement may well be fiction (46:48). God adopted legal fiction? That's problematic.
The problem with trying to add “organic” (Boyd’s word) plus “inflicted” (Craig’s word) is that if it’s organic, it cannot be inflicted. Either sin results in death on its own, as a natural consequence, or death is an imposed consequence. These are contrary to one another.
Craig used the phrase that Christ took the suffering that would have been inflicted upon us. This is clearly not in harmony with the concept of death being an organic consequence.
Telling is Jesus's crucifixion on Passover not the Day of Atonement. Jesus's death was necessary for death and its power could be overcome. The problem is overcoming death not satisfying God's wrath or penal substitution.
I feel that Greg went easy on Craig out of respect. But he could have done a better job of explaining his description of (1) God's justice, (2) the role of spiritual powers in the whole equation, and (3) how fundamental God's love is and how much the classic view of the atonement (particularly among evangelicals, I think) can distort and pervert that, as well as its real effects on people who find it difficult to feel loved by God. All this added to his exposition of (4) how extreme it is to make the legal the fundamental instead of the organic, and (5) how extreme it is to consider God fundamentally retributive as if God were a logical-mathematical machine (which needs to generate a sum of zero in a legal equation) and not a Father or, even more clearly, a person, would have left a better perspective of his position.
I'm not an expert, (and this is the comment of a non-expert, I think it's important to clarify that), but I think Greg's vision really shows the image of a loving God better, is consistent with the Bible (If you study it not only from the contemporary Western evangelical perspective), and solves the practical, theological, and philosophical problems that the classic vision among the evangelicals of the atonement can create.
I encourage everyone to go and examine his material first-hand with an open mind.
Good comment Jose. I think you're right. I don't think this was Boyd at his clearest.
Jose' I wish they had given you 5 minutes in this interview.
That was freaking brilliant!!!
Great discussion, both theses guys are a credit to their theological view and their maturity to respect the debate and each other. Greg struggles with Gods sovereignty and seems to lean to an organic philosophy that leans closer towards “ Karma “ .
I don't think it's karma. It's more like the consequences of humanity's rebellion to God is already built into human nature. Rather than saying God actively punishes humans for sinning, Greg thinks humans CHOSE to suffer from the natural consequences of sin. This is definitely a controversial idea. But it's consistent with Greg's rejection of penal substitution since God does not have a need to demand punishment from humans.
Dr. Boyd’s idea of organic sin alone being the punishment doesn’t square with the real world. No one experiences the punishment of ALL their sin in this life. We often get away with much of it. For example, his analogy of speeding and going off the road is fine, but for every person that goes off the road there’s many, many more that suffer no consequences at all. Punishment seems to become an organic cause-and-effect that is inconsistently meted out, if it is meted out at all.
Greg is simply reading his own idea of love and personal reasoning onto what God's love must mean. Isaiah 53 is pretty clearly carrying the theme of the Word of God, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of Sin. (Hebrews 9:22, Leviticus 17:11) To characterize God as Love as the primary characteristic is the problem. God is also Holy. God is Good. Exodus 34:6-7 when God shares just who He is in terms of how we should think He says: 6 The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.
Psalm 40 6
Isaiah 1, Isaiah 66 1 4, Hosea 6 6.
No…Boyd is biblical and logical. He is just not as articulate as Craig. He is correct that the “blood/sacrifice” theme is an accommodation of existing practices. In regards to love, sorry to disappoint the “justice” crowd, but love “is the greatest.” Justice must be preserved, but ONLY preserved through love i.e. justice administered through love is godly. Justice administered through any other means to include punitive measures will always be a lesser form of justice at best. At worst this lesser form of “justice” is immoral or as DBH describes retributive justice: “repugnant “.
@@garciacentral No, it is not the accommodation of existing blood sacrifice. This is clearly taught in both testaments. Your definition of ignoring the punitive is completely foreign to the Word of God. Read the Exodus, Read the Prophets, read the book of Hebrews, read Revelation. Love is not whatever we want to redefine it as. Jesus himself defines the greatest love as sacrifice John 15:13 after he has told them he will be lifted up for the sake of the sins of the people as Isaiah 53 predicts. Justice does not stand opposed to love, Jesus demonstrates his love by laying down his life and becoming a sacrifice. Romans 5:8-9 says: but 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.
In Biblical theology there is wrath, there is punitive justice awaiting unrepentant sin as I mentioned in the first post, that is the Love of Jesus to take that all away. It has nothing to do with liking justice over love, it has to do with Bible comprehension; where you see they are married in God's amazing work on the Cross.
Yes. God’s wrath is a qualifying expression of his love. Without it, his “ love” is just sentiment. His justifiable wrath makes his mercy and forgiveness all the more amazing. I think it is an offence to modern sensibilities that makes Boyd and others carve out a safe and sanitised version of God.
Seems like a strict adherence to a legal framework was one of the main warnings given by Jesus to the Pharisees. I'm not sure that Craig wants to make that a component of his main argument.
B-B-BUT GOD'S LOVE
No Jesus constantly affirmed good deeds and striving to do good deeds, but his main gripe with the pharisees was that they were hypocrites & people who in order to keep their tradition “Nullified the word of God” (Mark 7:13)
That is exactly why MOSES is our accuser in John 5:45.
I believe God does not need His “pound of flesh” and can freely forgive because He’s the only one Whom is righteous. Like David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” and Nathan responds, the LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.” For us to demand the condemnation of another for their wrong against us is to condemn ourselves because at some point we have done the same. all have sinned and all short of the glory of God. God encourages us to forgive freely. We are called to be like Him. no punishment or exaction is necessary.
If you are on your phone in the middle of the road, you are about to be hit by a bus. You are at risk of being hit by a bus. Are you legally required to be hit by the bus? Must the driver swerve to hit any distracted jaywalkers?
I cannot understand this law part at all. Doesn't Paul say the purpose of the law was to make us aware of sin? How then is the law more fundamental?
I imagine a man before a judge for stealing a car. PSA is, the judge wants to forgive you, but is required to send SOMEBODY to jail. What if the judge says, I will allow you to choose jail OR to come live in my house. I grew up in your neighborhood, I know how to deal with temptation and trauma, I overcame it, live with me and overcome with me. I even know what it's like to feel separated from me, and what it is like to die.I have walked in your shoes
This is my first introduction to WLC and I am so thankful for his example of patience and love in evangelism to GB who is clearly hurt and confused.
“Clearly hurt and confused” is quite a diagnosis. What do you mean
Greg Boyd is a brother in Christ.
He might have a few incorrect views, but that's okay.
He still has an interesting perspective that's worth listening to.
I don't think this is a charitable view of Boyd. I think he's worth listening to.
Greg doesn't come across as hurt, but he does seem somewhat confused and over-eager, stumbling over his words. That vexes me, because I'm actually "rooting" for Greg in this debate.
@Philip Alumbo
WLC isn't a legalist as legalism is usually defined.
Legalism is generally defined as meaning that you need to follow certain rules to get salvation or get into god's favour, which is not a position WLC holds.
It's interesting how Greg Boyd brings up the White Witch in the chronicles of Narnia being the one who asks for Edmund's punishment.
After Aslan dies for Edmund, the battle between good and evil still commences, and when Aslan comes back to life, he kills the White Witch with ease - Aslan could totally have killed the white witch at any point in the story, he didn't have to die. But, Aslan does die. Aslan chooses to follow through with justice, dying for Edmund, before he defeats the white witch. He completely submits to justice, because it is right.
I think God, like Aslan, has the power to destroy evil at any point, without a punishment for sin. But God's very nature demands that justice is carried out, with punishment, in order for his forgiveness to be fair. Forgiveness is certainly a different thing than justice, and God provides both in Jesus' death, otherwise God's nature is unjust.
I'm not sure why Greg Boyd doesn't see that this combination is what makes Jesus' death so victorious - if we only thought about God as forgiving, he doesn't seem quite as marvellous or incredible as a God who forgives and takes away the punishment we deserve for our sin. Because, forgiveness or not, we deserve just punishment - and Jesus' death actually takes what we deserve upon himself. The wage of our sin is not merely a bill that's been written off, it's a bill that has been paid.
I think as things went on Greg was slowly absorbing Bill's explanation. Great discussion and I think some good learning going on..
It’s written all over so clearly. Jesus drank the cup full of Gods wrath that was meant for us. And he was the perfect SACRIFICE (look up the definition of sacrifice I mean seriously) and by his wounds we were healed. Isaiah 53 explains how Christ took our spot on the cross perfectly. How he took our inequities and suffered and paid the price for them.
Dr.Craig is awesome!
Boyd: You can view Jesus as running in front of the bus to push us out of the way, in that sense he is our substitution...
PSA: Yes! And it was God the Father who was driving the bus because....um....he is so holy...you know and he is legally obligated to drive the punishment bus, yeah...I mean he wouldn't be a holy God if he didn't see...yep, so it all makes sense....um...
If WLC is concerned about caricatures of PSA, his main concern should be the way it is preached by 99% percent of its adherents (especially conservative reformed types). You can't complain about caricatures of cosmic child abuse, when they are completely justified given the way PSA is usually presented.
Also, what is the deal with his nonsense about Anglo law precedent for blameless third parties and somehow that justifies PSA? Just because there is some legal precedent for something dosen't have anything at all to do with the issue of its justice. Some Anglo law precedents: chattel slavery, women can't vote, stealing indigenous peoples land etc. Some might counter that Anglo law has improved since those things...but every precedent of blameless third party he mentioned was in the early 1800's and Anglo law was a dumpster fire back then.
God doesn't demand punishment and sacrifice, we do!
Read the Old Testament whether God demands punishment or not.
갈라디아파수꾼 Who wrote the Old Testament?...wait for it....humans did
C B question begging
@@CB-fb5mi yes...they wrote as GOD inspired them!
M S I understand you believe that, Greg does also although probably in a different way, but I don’t.
Debates like this one unfortunately imply that there must be a winner and a loser. But far better is that both of these guys are winners - the faith they each have is saving. Personally speaking, I lean more toward one than the other because the legal facet of the discussion seems to me quite biblical, and therefore resonates with me a lot. But applying the arguments of Greg and Bill to a healthy meditation on Romans 14 helped me keep what I hope is Christ’s attitude toward both positions. “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.” I think both of these guys are following “after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” And I think that at the name of Jesus, the knees of them both shall bow.
My question to Greg is: why, then, did Jesus die? Why would he do that? Or does Greg denies Christ’s voluntary death on the cross? Why did He offer Himself to die that horrible way? Why? Why?
Restorative Justice is superior to Retributive Justice.
Human reasoning. False dilemma
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Back to Orthodoxy Upon what have you based your assessment, if not upon your human reasoning?
Jamey Massengale sounds like you read “Christ: The Crisis in the Life of God’, by Jack Miles? The most challenging book I’ve read.
Praise Jesus, Son of God.
Great job Craig
what about it
Great conversation. It strikes me that since much of the church has thrown out the Torah and an understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures the God is all love and grace thinking has grown out of proportion. God is Holy and Just as well as Loving and Merciful. It's not an either or.
N.T. Wright says, "John 3:16 doesn't say "for God so hated the world that he killed his own son; rather, it says God so LOVED the world that he GAVE his own son...". Wright is clear, however, that he does believe in penal substitution. Luke 2:14: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” God's inclination towards humanity, both before and after Christ's crucifixion, was and is good will, not wrath.
The book of Hebrews is an excellent resource for understanding the Atonement through Christ, which is really about restoration of all creation, not just sinful humanity. What Jesus did on the cross is for us and for our salvation, but also makes all of creation subject to him, the Last Adam.
God wants to mass produce sons of God with His life and nature (Rom. 8:29) according to His original plan for man to be in His image and according to His likeness with dominion of His whole creation (Gen. 1:26,27). Romans 4:13, as I think you say, is good at showing the result of Justification is that the justified be heirs of the world.
@@jackwilmoresongs Yes, God intends to restore all of creation, whole and complete, all focused and ruled over by His Christ. We who are faithful and endure to the end will reign with Him.
@@darlameeks That is ruled over by Christ with His overcoming saints who co-rule with Him. This will be for a thousand years to Christ and a remnant of believers. The saved but not ready to reign believers will miss that reward but be matured during that millennial period. Then all the saints will be matured by the time of the new heaven and new earth in the eternal age.
Did not Jesus say that he would fulfill the law. And is not the penalty of law a part of the law?
Who created satan? GOD!!!
What shape did Satan take? SNAKE!!!
Who bites renegades in wilderness? SNAKE!!!
Who do renegades worship? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Jesus was lifted up like what? BRONZE SNAKE!!!
Why? So that you might stop bitching about THEODICY if HE took the blame, and BECAME SIN in the flesh and paid the penalty so that you might have eternal life if you believe that, IN HIM.
What is it called when GOD takes the blame, and penalty? SOVEREIGNTY!!!
Why did HE do it? GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!!!
PROBLEM OF EVIL SOLVED!!!
Get over it, and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
This is how Jesus made a laughing stock, a bad joke out of Satan, who thought the Cross was a defeat, when it was a victory.
No one, period, not even Satan can accuse us, because Jesus took the blame and paid the penalty, nailing even the law satan used against us to the tree, the MORAL LAW GIVER became HIMSELF the cursed of the law, so that being free from the law we are counted the righteousness of God in Christ being raised in him through faith.
So GOD took the blame for us, paid our penalty and Satan is damned for killing GOD, not us because Satan demanded GOD for a ransome.
THEODICY CRUCIFIED.
Since Jesus fulfilled the Law, then He is not subject to any of its penalties. We, on the other hand, have grossly and severely broken the Law and are condemned by it. Thus, we need someone to intervene on our behalf. Since Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, those who are IN CHRIST are also free from the penalty of eternal condemnation.
I sometimes think of it this way. "Sin" is an archery term meaning missing the mark, missing the bull's eye of the target as in an archery session. Jesus doesn't miss the mark. He hits the bull's eye. The rest of us don't. None of us does. Only He does. That bull's eye can represent eternity with God.
If we are in Christ through our faith in Him and our submission to Him as our Lord, and we have that relationship with Him, then we are also hitting the bull's eye with Him. It's like being in Christ means being on His arrow that hits the target perfectly. We are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
From 41:42-45:11, Craig establishes that he has won in this debate. The only thing holding Greg Boyd back at this point is unbelief.
Craig made a claim on what those sacrifices meant, Boyd, made a separate claim. Jesus said “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” The message that God requires blood sacrifice is not there.
@@Roescoe What do you do with Leviticus and Hebrews?
@@davidrobinson5180 Full disclosure I'm arguing Boyd's case, but I don't know where I stand. I think he would argue that the sacrifice of blood is symbolic of life being taken when sins happen. ie a consequence of sin, vs God demands that this sacrifice be made to appease Himself. I'm reading that all from the speeding car analogy.
@@Roescoe Yeah...maybe he'd say that. To me, Boyd has to do so much explaining for every verse and won't let the texts speak for themselves. I take that as a sign he's uncomfortable with scripture.
On the other hand, I want to sing what Scripture says in Revelation "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.” I see no other way.
@@davidrobinson5180 I love that verse in Revelation.
I think these verses don't say explicitly that God's wrath is satisfied by Jesus' death. That to me says the penal substitutionary atonement theory places meaning that isn't in the text. The Orthodox actually take the view that Boyd has, Jesus' death being victory over death and His descent into Hades declaring that fact.
If our very eternal salvation depends upon getting this, why would it be so unclear. Greg’s perspective rings more true to me. Assuming ancient tribal sacrifice rituals are a part of how a Divine Source relates to his creation seems like a mistake to me.
I wish William addressed the legal side better. So many assume God’s justice to reflect Western court systems. But why? Why is the court system always included in Reformed theology? I want to agree with William but can’t quite
At one time, mankind was in right standing with God. Then mankind rebelled against God.
At that point, mankind lost that "right standing" with God...because of sin. As a result, Mankind was spiritually separated from God (i.e spiritually dead) and became defiled.
Any hope of reconciliation with God would need to address sin. And also, cleanse or purify the sinner from the defilement caused by sin.
This is why the Atonement was crucial.
The Word Atonement (at-one-ment) simply means: To make something right; To reconcile.
God wanted to reconcile the world to himself.
Under the old covenant, Moses received instructions from the Lord to perform certain sacrifices for atonement e.g sacrifices for sin offering, guilt offering and there was another instruction for the day of atonement. All involving the blood of either bulls or goats e.t.c which were without blemish.
God had no desire for the blood of bulls and goats. All of these sacrifices were all for-shadowing Christ. The idea was that if they performed these rites religiously, they would recognize when it was being fulfilled in Christ on the cross.
Let us consider the day of atonement. (Refer to Leviticus 16 and 17). The priest was to present 2 goats (without blemish) for sin offering before the Lord. And then lots were cast; one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scape goat. The goat on which the lot for the Lord fell was offered as a sin offering and the other was the scape goat which was to be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement upon it and then it was sent into the wilderness.
The scapegoat bore all the iniquites of those in the assembly...and it was led away to the wilderness. It was an illustration of their "sins being taken away".
The goat offered as a sin offering for the people was slaughtered and its blood was sprinkled on (and in front of) the mercy seat. And with this the priest made atonement for all the assembly of Israel.
What was the idea behind the sin offering?
To offer something in your stead to atone for the sins. You see, when a person sins...a debt is owed which must be paid in other to make things right (i.e be reconciled).
All analogies fall short in explaining the totality of the atonement but...
Imagine Mr A gave Mr B a phone to look after. Shortly after receiving it, Mr B misused the phone and the phone was damaged beyond repair. In other for Mr B to "make things right", he would need to offer Mr A a new phone and adequately compensate for what was damaged.
A similar instruction is found in Numbers 5:6-7...
“Speak to the children of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit in unfaithfulness against the Lord , and that person is guilty, then he shall confess the sin which he has committed. He shall make restitution for his trespass in full, plus one-fifth of it, and give it to the one he has wronged" Numbers 5:6-7 (also see Leviticus 5:14-16).
This idea of restitution is found through out the old testament. From the perspective of the law, a life was required for a life, an eye was required for an eye. And a tooth for a tooth.
This requirement of the law had to be fulfilled.
When mankind sinned against God, he defiled himself (i.e damaged the God given purity). Life was lost. The consequence would be eternal condemnation on the day of judgement. For mankind to be reconciled with God, it must be on the basis of "a sin offering". And one that is sufficient to reconcile mankind with God; a life of perfect purity.
A life sufficient to atone for all of mankind would be life that is eternal.
The life of a flesh is in its blood. And it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement. This is why Christs blood was shed. It was NOT about God punishing Christ.
From the old testament perspective, the blood of bulls and goats cleansed the flesh from defilement (Heb 9:13). But it was not sufficient to make those who offered it perfect in conscience; as it could not take away sins. In those sacrifices, there was a reminder of sins year by year.
It was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things (i.e the spirit) themselves with better sacrifices than these.
We see other for-shadowings of Christ with Moses. He, more than once, wanted to be an atonement for the sins of the Israelites in the wilderness. But he was not "without blemish" as he himself needed atonement for his own sins.
There was no sin offering man could offer that would have been sufficient for His reconciliation with God. So God himself provided the "sacrificial lamb". This was first hinted by Abraham, when he was to sacrifice Isaac.
Christ is the lamb that takes away the sins of the world. And since those He was atoning for were flesh and blood, it was necessary for Him to become like us to make propitiation for sins. For this reason, Christ was manifested in the flesh.
Christ, being a propitiation for sins, provided a means by which man could be reconciled to God. It is by virtue of Christ's blood shed on the cross that there can be forgiveness of sins.
Think of the tomb as the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant. Dead Jesus was placed there. His blood covered the area of the tomb where He lay. The blood on the mercy seat, of the O.T. sacrifices, was pointing to this!
This happened shortly after the veil in the temple was torn, allowing the ark of the covenant to be accessed.
(This is not my original idea, but I don't remember who I got it from. It was from a CZcams video, though! I'm sorry that I don't remember whose video.)
Both of these guys on this subject are too technical . Just say : There’s POWER in the Blood . By HIS BLOODY stripes are healed or disease , sin , and demons . In Jesus Name
Craig is wrong on this one
I asked Chatgpt to weigh in. See my question and response.
How the penal substitute theory of atonement is not supported by the Levitical sacrifice system.
The penal substitute theory of atonement, which is also known as the substitutionary atonement theory, holds that Jesus Christ took on the penalty for human sin by dying in our place. This theory suggests that God required a perfect sacrifice to pay the price for human sin, and that Jesus' death fulfilled this requirement, allowing for the forgiveness of sins. However, this theory is not fully supported by the Levitical sacrifice system for several reasons.
First, the penal substitute theory assumes that the only purpose of sacrifice in the Old Testament was to atone for sins. While atonement for sin was certainly an important aspect of sacrifice, it was not the only purpose. Leviticus, the book that lays out the laws for the sacrificial system, describes different types of sacrifices, including offerings for thanksgiving and fellowship. These sacrifices were not intended to atone for sin, but rather to express gratitude to God and maintain a relationship with Him.
Second, the Levitical sacrificial system did not involve the concept of a penal substitution. The sacrifices were not seen as a way to transfer the punishment for sin to an innocent party, but rather as a way to restore a relationship with God. The blood of the sacrificial animal was seen as a symbol of the life of the creature, and it was offered to God as a symbol of atonement for the sins of the people. The focus was on restoring the relationship between God and His people, rather than on punishing sin.
Third, the Levitical sacrificial system did not involve the sacrifice of a human being. The penal substitute theory of atonement requires the sacrifice of an innocent human being to pay for the sins of others. However, the Levitical system only required the sacrifice of animals. The idea of a human sacrifice was considered abhorrent to the Israelites, and was explicitly forbidden by the Law of Moses.
Finally, the Levitical system was a temporary system that pointed to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The sacrifices in the Old Testament were meant to be a temporary solution to the problem of sin, and they were ultimately fulfilled by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The New Testament makes it clear that Jesus' sacrifice was the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and that it was the only sacrifice that could truly atone for the sins of the world.
In conclusion, while the Levitical sacrificial system did involve the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins, it did not support the penal substitute theory of atonement. The sacrifices were not intended to transfer the punishment for sin to an innocent party, but rather to restore the relationship between God and His people. Furthermore, the system did not require the sacrifice of a human being, and was ultimately fulfilled by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.😢
I think this stems a lot from Craig’s classic misunderstanding of the sacrificial system as presented in the OT. These animals were NOT sacrificed as penal substitutes! Also, what did the Israelites DO with the Passover lambs they sacrificed?? They ATE it, just as Christ (the Passover lamb) gave his life voluntarily on the cross so that we might live and now we likewise eat his flesh!
Very good
No, He took the death/punishment that WE deserve on our behalf, hallelujah.
The PSA theory has only been around since the reformation with Jc and ml expanding upon Anselm satisfaction theory around 1100AD. Also the Christians around Jesus’s time worked on different of laws rather than code law or common law we understand to that we tend to bring to scripture.
Christus victor is one of the oldest atonement theory dating back to the 300’s ad.
Do you believe that Jesus died for all men?
@SavedbyGrace-js8iz Romans 5:18-19
King James Version
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
SO, YES, I DO!
@@MyRoBeRtBaKeRSounds like an atonement of reversal. Jesus came to undo the mess Adam caused.
@chaddonal4331 But you're different, then Adam, how?
God has to collect a debt yes, but Greg fails to see that in the PSA model God PROVIDES the debt payment so there is a central relational forgiving aspect. Greg is simply out of his depth when it comes to understanding PSA
So does God provide the funding via giving Christ and then extract payment out of Christ’s sufferings to pay back his offended justice? Do Christ’s sufferings provide God with the capital to offer grace and forgiveness?
@@mattb7069 God provides the death penalty that is necessary for sin by sending his Son as a substitute to die on behalf of his people. As a result God is able to give a legal pardon for sin. God is consistent and will not suspend justice as justice is his nature. Someone must pay the penalty, either the wrong doer or a substitute.
@@davidclark5618 I think you are not answering the question as I have phrased it. Is Christ’s death paying Gods justice back and providing God the judicial capital he needs to extend grace and forgiveness? Pardons don’t require substitution. No one else takes the penalty of someone else for a pardon to go forward.
@@mattb7069 Because as you phrased it is a straw man. You may disagree with it and that's fine but how I articulated it and how Dr. Craig articulated it is what the NT teaches. And there is nothing internally incoherent about it, so you're gonna have to argue against the NT.
@@davidclark5618 to be clear I do think we can view the atonement through the lens of pardon and I do hold to substitution. But Craig is wrong that pardons require payment in the form of substitutionary punishment. So maybe you can answer this: What is God getting paid? And how does that payment act on God or bring about a change in God?
WLC is such a calm, formidable, masterful debater. Greg Boyd did a great job representing Christus Victor, and his conclusion, to me, is more convincing. WLC may have the rational upper hand, but Greg Boyd’s arguments resonate at a deeper level. Great Discussion!
@ 52:40
This is exactly it. Well said. Perfect breakdown of "PSA".
How could a 2.5-day sacrifice of one man fully "satisfy the wrath" of an all-knowing / all-determining God? Jesus rose, in the flesh, on the 3rd day. None of this was surprising or unknown/unplanned (according to most Christians). So what was lost? Where was the sacrifice?
@@keithdoten347
The Short Answer is HEBREWS Chapter 2. Just read the whole chapter.
The long answer is that Jesus, being Eternal God In Flesh, (and thus through His, The Father's, Spoken Word were all things in time and space created) was allowed to be tortured, humiliated, and executed. That fact that this is the Spoken Word of all creation, which is due all of the praise and worship than can be uttered was tortured, humiliated, and executed by those that He created. This treatment is as such that the worse criminal could face and yet faced by The Creator.. the implications seem pretty clear as far as sacrifice. Your claim that just because the All-Knowing God KNEW Jesus was going to rise from the dead speaks nothing to the actual even experienced by God in the flesh.
- The Reason this sacrifice matters is that God stated rules about paying for Sin which have been perverted since the beginning. Why do you think every early culture on the face of the earth is known to have practiced blood-sacrifice in one form or another? Life and Death and Sacrifice Matter because they were made to matter in order to sufficiently supplicate the Free-Will actions of Beings with the capacity to Do Evil... we will all do wrong therefore a sacrifice is required for all. If you want to argue WHY would God make such a Law then you may as well argue WHY God even created beings with Free-Will (moral agency rather) in which the answer is to have the capacity to have a true relationship.
The sacrifice of Christ paid for all sins.
supplicate
@@kelvyquayo Hebrews 2 is great text - and sheds light on the issue, though not fully. I understand and have heard this line of argument, but wouldn't the fact that Jesus was fully God and fully human mean that he should be more tolerant and able to bear the pain and torture? Not less? If we argue along your same line, then simply the incarnation must have already been quite a painful experience (God 'fitting into' flesh and dealing with all 'fleshy' issues). No Christian argues this point - the incarnation is seen as an infinitely and comprehensively loving and powerful act - but not 24/7 'pain' or 'torture' for an almighty God. Hebrews 2:14 comes close to explaining this - but this notes specifically how through his incarnation and tasting of death (and then resurrection) he would break the power of the devil (him who holds the power of death) - seeming to align primarily with a 'christus victor' perspective. Also, reverting to my initial objection, wouldn't the knowledge (as some claim - all-perfect knowledge and / or all-perfect decree) that this was all for the better and he would come back to life, in the flesh, after 2-3 days also minimize the felt suffering and anguish of the act? Paul himself exhorts believers that picturing the beauty and truth of the end and true nature of things can get us through trials. Surely the salvation of all believers ever, the remission of all past, present, future sins, the defeat of death and overturning all powers and principalities (among other things) sure seems like a meaningful goal, which would make even a mere man quite able to go through a day or so of torture and execution. Early Christians went through worse in mass persecutions.
In reverse order, no need to argue the last point - free will / loving relationship not an issue for me. We agree. The 1st part of the answer seems to assert the answer to the question - Why does it matter? 'It matters because it matters.' You note blood must be shed - but this again circles back to the question - blood was shed - for a couple days - and then he came back to life. How does God's planning (or explicit decree according to some) of his own punishment, execution, death, burial, and resurrection satisfy his anger for what he, apparently, is 'legally bound' to punish?
Couldn't a well-meaning person note that this seems like a pro-forma activity or a bit of a show?
With God playing each of:
1) The writer of the law
2) The judge (administering justice)
3) The prosecutor (the one accusing and calling for punishment for sins - requiring 'pound of flesh')
4) The Victim (the one who we've sinned against)
5) The Defense attorney (pleading on our behalf)
6) The convicted suspect (taking our place and our punishment)?
God Bless
PSA is glorious. It tells the story of our beloved savior and His Holy sacrifice to the Father. To understand it is to understand the goodness of God.
Denying the legal aspects of atonement is like saying the sun revolves around the Earth because God loves us but denying the physics of how that works.
Or saying I'm married to a woman because I love her without ever getting legally married as an expressed fulfillment of that love.
“The source of justice is not Satan, it’s God himself; it’s God’s holiness and perfect righteousness which are the source of His divine justice”
55:17 Boom.
Excellent example of civility where two brethren disagree
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:10-11