Dr. William Lane Craig Explains the Atonement and Atonement Theories
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 10. 2019
- In this clip, Dr. William Lane Craig explains why Jesus had to die on the cross (ie: the "atonement") and what the various theories are for the atonement.
Link to the full interview: • Answering Objections t...
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: / capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Thanks to all of our patrons for your continued support! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: capturingchristianity.com
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchristianity.com/fre...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchristianity.com/ult...
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#WilliamLaneCraig #Jesus #Apologetics
Notes:
What does atonement mean? 0:40
greek and hebrew: to cleanse, to purge, to expiate sin or impurity 1:07
Biblical vs etymotologically 1:30
How did Jesus see his death? 2:56
Christus Victor 4:50
Moral Influence theory 5:23
Satisfaction? 6:01
Penal Substitution 6:52
The fact that this has 500 views shows this channel is underrated. Amazing content Cameron!
It has 12 k now!😄
@@danielschouteeten9421
It has 18k now.
😁😁😁
21k😃
23k now haha
27k 😉💕🙌🏽
Your intro is the definition of Quality and Dedication in work
What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
@@TorahisLifeandLight I looked at your link. The Atonement is based on God’s covenant with Israel. Not as the doctrines of Christianity suggest. God gave up his kingdom when the Israelites asked for a king during Samuel. They got Saul. When Saul fell into disobedience, God rejected him and chose David as king of his own choice during Saul's reign. The kingdom of Saul was given by the will of men, but the kingdom of David was of God. God needed only one innocent man for that kingdom that would be eternal. Jesus is this king and it is in his power to rule over all mankind, now as God’s substitute. Jesus redeemed all mankind under his own kingdom. Thus we are no longer directly subject to the laws of God. The death of Jesus was a crime against our king (promiced Messiah) directly. Therefore, all our actions are now subject to his kingdom, not directly against God.
I thought I’d listen to this while I did something else. Silly me! This is W L Craig. I sat down and took a page of notes. Would love to hear more like this.
Well rounded short presentation 👍👍💕...there is a kernel of ransom aspect in scriptures, but very hard to determine much about it with confidence...at least for me at this time🤔
thank you for the knowledge.
First meanings of ationtiment in english (etymologically) is oneness/ reconciliation/
Hebrew/ Greek meaning of ationtiment is cleanse, purge, purification.
Outstanding post by a solid Christian philosopher.
Thank you! Excellent approach. Definitely have a lot to think about with this. Never thought to look at the angle other faiths viewed before, and it has me all the more compelled to continue studying this subject. Seems the more I search for an understanding, the more I find my previous one to be vague and realize I still have much to learn about the atonement from God. Thank you for helping me find more truth today.
How did the kool-aid taste?
Disappointing that WLC doesn’t really go to the Bible for any of his reasons for presenting a good “atonement theory”
I just did a two part series on my channel for anyone interested in diving into the doctrine of atonement biblically.
I was thinking the same thing watching this video! Just checked yours out: fantastic!!!
I doubt it, you seem like a typical Billy bob
@@l21n18 technically, I'm a typical "joe" ....it's kind of in the name of my channel...but you wouldn't know that since you are a typical billy bob. ;-)
@@Gospelogian typical American, I’m gonna guess you’re a yec
In case yo're like me...
Etymological - relating to the origin and historical development of words and their meanings
this means the words are altered over time (even if only a little)
Justice Eriksen I’d love an example of a word that started out with one meaning and ended to with another some time later, if you have a one that you find particularly apt.
James Bush the word gay originally meant happy, and now it means homosexual
“Dumb” used to mean mute. Now means stupid:)
@@henriquegomes9326 and before happy and joyful it came from the Frankish word gahi meaning quick or impetuous.
Most words are still right on line with what they originally meant. I always look up the derivations of words as it’ll give me a better understanding of that word
Still makes no sense to me why an eternally sinless person is the only thing that can be offered to appease god. Why not an eternally sinful person?
Also, makes no sense that the sinless offering to god is god himself. How is that a sacrifice?
God in the form of man, completely sinless, sent to atone for our sins. Since before, men were sacrificing animals to cover their sins.
Read cur deus homo.
ɧąყɖɛŋ that doesn’t explain anything. What I understand that you said is - god, who is sinless, made himself into a guy who got killed and that appeased himself.
G Will why? Why do the so-called scales of justice need to be balanced?
d lon Dr Craig also addressed the meme about the weekend doing the rounds you might want to check it out gain some perspective
Är det CS Lewis teori (the ransom theory) som den framställs i Narnia?
Jan-Olof Sundin Det vet jag faktiskt inte. Men det slog mig precis att huvudpersonen i CS Lewis rymdtrilogi heter just Ransom.
Only Christians can think that there's a God who would send us a very important message which everyone would understand differently, even those who desperately want this god to be real and want to understand the message.
@G Will We, atheists, believe there's no message at all because there's no god. But how about, Muslims, who believe in the same god of Abraham? How about the Jews, who believe in the same God of Abraham, Moses and Salomon? Even worst, how about Catholics, Geovah Witnesses, Calvinists etc, who besides God of Abraham believe also in Jesus? Do you really think that God couldn't send the same intelligible message to all of them? They are all waiting for a message just wanting to obey God whatever God orders them to do.
I mean, some ppl believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows. At this point, I don't think it's the fault of God.
A very good point although explaining something supremely spiritual to 'fallen' mankind (Jesus and Nicodemus) is like a sighted man explaining colour to blind men
@@richardfletcher4209 how do you know if you're blind or sighted?
@@GaudioWind hi! Since you are an atheist visiting a Christian website, I suspect you are here to 'make merry' rather than genuinely enquire ?!!
I was an articulate, indeed amoral, atheist until age 33 when the veracity of the resurrection hit me like a train. I am now 70 and still trying to unravel the 'whole story'. If in good faith you do not believe in Jesus' resurrection, then you should stay an atheist and what I say will be of only passing interest to you
There are three categories of people (i) those who know they do not see. This includes you. You are one of the blind ! (ii) those who think they see but do not see the 'right thing'. They are also blind (iii) those who think they do see and in fact they do see the truth.
Categories (ii) and (iii) cannot be easily distinguished, so I cannot give you the straw men you would love to knock down ! But I will give you another analogy.
If there were several of us looking up at openings in a cliff face and suddenly we saw a flash of light, we might think we saw the glint of treasure. But the person who would really know would be the one who climbed up and peered into, indeed walked into, that cave. If he came out saying it was treasure, then that would be more persuasive than the 'flashes'. Unfortunately you are neither prepared to climb up to see, not believe those who have climbed up. I can't help you. No-one can
There is evidence but not proof for the existence of God, and there is no proof that he does not exist. Yours 'bless you' is as much a 'faith' position as those who do believe
Explain the positive reasons/evidence why you are an atheist. I challenge you !
Well, purging and cleansing ends up as reconciliation and harmony. 🤗 But why need repentance if there is purging, and, vice versa, need cancelling if there is repentance?
Repentance is acknowledging your sins to God and asking for mercy. This is an act of faith
humility... if my people will humble themselves...
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2Chr 7:14)
His balanced approach is right on..
I like the lighting...
That was fascinating going through all the different models. This goes into much more depth to the reasons behind the Crucifixion that is not always understood during normal sermons.
If Jesus was God then he orchestrated his own crucifixion to prove to his followers that he was God although it seems like overkill to me.
Amazing discussion . So much to learn .
Pure BS to the outsider.
Sir never be discouraged . love your channel. Be courageous and know God loves u.
What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
Right. A close read of the Yom Kippur sacrifice shows that the goat is not offered as a substitute for men and women - as the Ram was a substitute for Isaac - rather the goat was a substitute for the LORD, therefore a “substitute” (the NT says “type and shadow”) for Jesus Christ, who, like the animal, was sacrificed not in place of, but for the sake of, people.
This is the most helpful video I have seen in a long time. Thank you Cameron. What I personally valued is that the foundation of Christian belief is the Atonement; in particular the Biblical definition which is to cleanse and purge impurity and why Christ willingly suffered for us. The living and active work of this in our own lives is what defines the spine of our belief through repentance and the paradigm of looking at it from a much bigger understanding makes our faith in our Lord redeemer even stronger. Thank you. Really cool 🙂
I like your reply ,and the fact of Cameron's deep concern for his salvation, how ever I take no thought or acceptance of penal punishment, please let me know you view,.
Why is there such a premium on obedience? Why is blood a sin cleanser? Has blood ever cleaned anything in history?
What's the difference between satisfaction theory and penal substitution?
Honor vs guilt? Both are substitutionary in nature but for different reasons I guess.
interesting listening. ive often wondered, given God always asks us to forgive, why couldnt God just forgive Satan when he rebelled? Surely the devil musta been in a world of hurt. Why wasnt the option of unconditional love and forgiveness offered to him?
Interesting question, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone ask that question.
God the Father doesn't need Jesus to die to forgive us (although there are reasons why Jesus 'had' to die). As for forgiving Satan - forgiveness means (God) putting aside the wrong done to Him in order to have a reconciliation, a reunion. But Satan does not want a reunion. There are many people today who want to keep their grievances and will not let God in. Some say God will eventually allow them their choice; others say that God's love will eventually wear them down.
That means you dont know the nature of the Devil at all...
We human dont see God with our own eyes, we are limited and weak.
But Lucifer was with God, he know God personally, he was the annointed cherub. He knows the concequence of rebellion against God.
Your question assume that the Devil would repent willfully, I dont think thats possible at all!!! The devil is evil.
It would be interesting to hear Bill's take on the technical ways Jesus beats the game of life (2 Tim 2:5). Based on this conversation, however, it appears he has not yet studied that. After studying that, it would be interesting to hear his take on how anyone could continue to form an opinion other than universalism.
Throughout our study of Exodus in Men's group, and now the Synagogue and its system of atonement. The symbolism of sacrifice is very integral, and Dr. Craig unpacks the historical meaning and evolution of that word "atonement" very effectively and inspirationally.
Thanks
Translate in Spanish please. A lot, but really a lot, of viewers will come to see your videos if they have Spanish captions.
Multifaceted Atonement for the win!
0:51 atonement etymologically means at onement which is the state of harmony or oneness with god, so atonement in this etymological sense of the word is the state of reconciliation with god...
WLC is awesome!
"Ambivalent" or "ambiguous?" (the word atonement and its meaning...)
I think ambivalent works better, even if it sounds weirder.
What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
He didn't have to die, but just because of who he was and what he said he was invoked an uprising that caused them to kill him but even if Jesus didn't say anything about who he was then would he still have been put to death he wouldn't be denying his spirit if he didn't say anything about who he was but only cause they asked who he was which ended with jesus response to end up being his demise so he had no choice either way it was going to come out about who he was
This is one of the best videos on this subject, I'm struggling with understanding the atonement and most resources just state 'Jesus died for our sins, that's it' without any real explanation.
Understanding the concepts of martyrdom, self-sacrifice, & the merit of righteous men in the Law & Prophets will help.
Look into what some call “moral atonement theory” and concepts like “death of the righteous” in Judaism.
God didn’t punish Jesus.
Christ paid the price IN OUR PLACE, for our moral debts. It's quite simple to ME... But I do appreciate William Lane Craig laying out the various theories, and using such technically precise (and sometimes difficult to understand) terminology LOL. I always tend to LEARN a thing or two, whenever I listen to him.
LoveYourNeighbour I recommend you listen to his rich and lengthy Defenders series, also free on CZcams. It may show you why it’s not as clear cut as you think.
MEN need no atonement for another human sacrifice. The SINNER or WICKED must repent from their sins and obey and keep God's commandments and do what is right. This is what he Bible commands: Why is Christianity contradicting what is written by the Prophets?? Religion opposes the spirit of the prophets.
Ezekiel 18: 18-22
“As for his father, he will die for his own iniquity because he practiced fraud, robbed his brother, and did among his people what was not good.“But you may ask, ‘Why doesn’t the son suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity? ’ Since the son has done what is just and right, carefully observing all my statutes, he will certainly live“
The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won’t suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him.But if the wicked person turns from all the sins he has committed, keeps all my statutes, and does what is just and right, he will certainly live; he will not die.“None of the transgressions he has committed will be held against him. He will live because of the righteousness he has practiced."
Would you God a liar? Did Ezekiel lie on behalf of God then? if you don't believe on what Ezekiel said.
I see a potential problem with this theory. Wages and price are different things. Also, if we deserve hell and thats the "penalty" for eating an apple, why didn't Christ go to hell and have to stay there for eternity?
@@ayekaye8055 link?
@@jenntorres337 just type in William Craig Defender Series and a bunch will pop up 👍🏽
Imagine if we all treated each other like this sadistic God of no second chances. And always sentenced people to infinite punishment for finite offenses. Fortunately, it's only a twisted fable, which does not represent the actual "Source Consciousness."
If you dishonor a being owed infinite honor, you need some help to satisfy the moral equation. This was the purpose of Christ’s’ ministry. When we sin against each other, we are not dishonoring a being who is purely and infinitely good, and thus penance can be proportionate to the crime/damage inflicted. If I broke your leg, im morally obliged to pay for their medical treatments and ask for forgiveness.
A lot of existence is WORDS
very interesting, but actually there is a 3rd more literally meaning of Atonement, which is covering. to cover up something. there was a covering (atonement) on the ark of the covenant. christ provided covering over our sins
Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. 1 Samuel 3:14 God said “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” That's Limited atonement.
I'm suprised to see that you didn't talk about the area of coverage of the atonement of Christ. Christ expiate the sins for:
1. The whole world (universalits - armianians - semi-pelagians)
2. Or some people (calvinisim - reformed theology)
This issue is one of the most discussed theological aspects in the atonement doctrine.
1 Timothy 4:10
10For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
Being “the savior of all people” means the atonement of Jesus, which was to reconcile all men back to the father, such that it was possible that anyone could be presented to the father for judgement, and god could see Christ instead of them. This is why after Jesus dies in the cross, he goes to get captivity and led them out of Abraham’s bosom, where they were waiting for the accomplished works of Christ to be done, so they could go to the father.
The “Especially those who believe” is those who submit to Jesus Christ in faith unto obedience, and put on Christ in baptism, such that when god sees them at judgement, he will see Christ in their place.
So, the atonement for all people, such that it’s possible that they can be presented as righteous before the father. Then, that potentially that was accomplished by Jesus Christ, is actualized for those who place their faith in Jesus. The faithful of the Old Testament and the faithful in Christ, are all covered by Jesus atoning work, because they were faithful to god, and any man could have been or can be in that group of people counted as faithful.
Calvinism loses.
Oh, and scriptural references.
2 Corinthians 5:18-21 KJV
[18] And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; [19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. [20] Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. [21] For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Colossians 1:20-23 KJV
[20] And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. [21] And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled [22] In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: [23] If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Craig Joyner It sounds good but you still can’t explain John 3:16 which talks about those who believed him. Or how do you explain in revelation when it talks about the unbelievers who are thrown away in the lake of fire. The idea of universalism still doesn’t make sense you have to accept Jesus sacrifice to have eternal life
Ella smith , maybe you missed it.
God reconciled the world (all of mankind) back to himself, via Jesus Christ accomplished work in the cross. This makes salvation attainable, where as before, we had no means to be saved.
Now, for that reconciliation (that made salvation possible for any man), we must submit in faith and remain grounded and settled in the faith (striving in obedience), to actually be saved and see heaven at the end of this life. That’s exactly what Colossians says below. See specifically, verse 23.
Colossians 1:20-23 KJV
[20] And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. [21] And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled [22] In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: [23] If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Ella smith , regarding John 3:16, my view agrees with that. We must submit, in faith unto obedience, to Jesus Christ, and whosoever does so, will be saved via Jesus accomplished work on the cross.
What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
My understanding is the power of the cross lies in revelation-it reveals the truth about God, about Christ, about sin, the devil, ourselves, everything. The truth sets us free. The idea of a jewel, a multi-faceted representation is nice, but not that a payment had to be extracted so that God could forgive us, which is completely misunderstanding the fundamental problem, which is that sin is deadly, not something which would otherwise be innocuous if only God wasn’t so against it.
i am always amazed that these guys arguments for god if you listen closely are full of guesses and interpretations and just when you think you have heard it all a new answer comes along like "its like a jewel a multi faceted theory combining all theories". its gone so far that now the best they can do is say everything is everything
Garreth Oien I don’t think you understand the concept. There are many qualities to the atonement, and there is truth in each of these qualities, and each can be researched separately, but each of these qualities are what make up the atonement. It’s like how light is both a particle and a wave.
Audra Addison it is not how like how light is both a particle and wave. That’s egregious. We came to understand that light is a particle and a wave through science. Which uses scientific method to determine what accurately describes the reality we live in. Christians believe that the Bible accurately describes the reality we live in, regardless of how many times it has obviously conflicted with science, which we know is the most accurate way to describe what we live in.. And anytime science conflicts the Bible what do the Christians claim?? Oh it’s a conspiracy of the devil to bring Christianity down, or that god created it that way, even though it clearly conflicts with the word of god! You lot are depressing.
MEN need no atonement for another human sacrifice. The SINNER or WICKED must repent from their sins and obey and keep God's commandments and do what is right. This is what he Bible commands: Why is Christianity contradicting what is written by the Prophets?? Religion opposes the spirit of the prophets.
Ezekiel 18: 18-22
“As for his father, he will die for his own iniquity because he practiced fraud, robbed his brother, and did among his people what was not good.“But you may ask, ‘Why doesn’t the son suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity? ’ Since the son has done what is just and right, carefully observing all my statutes, he will certainly live“The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won’t suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him.But if the wicked person turns from all the sins he has committed, keeps all my statutes, and does what is just and right, he will certainly live; he will not die.“None of the transgressions he has committed will be held against him. He will live because of the righteousness he has practiced."
Most likely a natural extension of the concept of animal blood rituals that existed in that area before.
Spot on.
Few people seem willing or able to wrestle with the possibility that God appeared to various people (including Abraham) but started where Abraham was. In those days it was accepted that you would sacrifice your first born for the family, for your lineage. Isaac had no problem with that (why do people not wonder how Abraham forced or persuaded Isaac?!)
The key here was that, at the last minute, God said No to human sacrifice, let's go with animal sacrifice. Hundreds of years later, God said 'I'm really not interested in the blood of bulls etc'. This is called 'accommodation' ie how God speaks to us where we are but seeks to move us on. Most evangelicals find this disturbing
@@richardfletcher4209 the firstborn wasn’t usually sacrificed they had special status, animal sacrifice prefigured Christ’s sacrifice.
Substitutionary view on the attornment has no answer to the question of what and who will substitute then for Jesus’s wrath to sin and sinners and the unjust treatment of Him on the cross? If Jesus is the equal God as the Father, then why substitutional attornment has to be paid only to God Father and to come to His wrath for the sinner but not also to God Jesus also? And why Jesus was able simply to forgive the sinners and took their unjust evil acts on Him BUT God Father couldn’t do the same, yet He needs an additional substitutionary attornment before He could forgive the sin or sinners? And why it is only God the Father has to expel His just wrath on someone (even unguilty) before He can forgive the sinners, while Jesus actually forgave them without substitutionary attornment paid to Him as equal God? Moreover, if God the Father was actually expelling His wrath killing Jesus instead of sinners. Then why Jesus asked the Father from the cross to forgive those who were killing Him in order to satisfied God’s Father wrath on HIM? Something really wrong with logic thoughts here!!! The substitutional attornment of unguilty children was only given to the pagan idols and demons to satisfied their anger or sadism or desire for dirty valence, God Father would never do that to His Son Jesus!
.
Secondly, the idea of substitutionary attornment sims only eliminates debt and guilt of the sinners but it nothing to do with saving their souls from sin or sinful nature! Because even now there are a lot of sinners still stay away from God even all the debt was already paid for them on the cross! And the idea of full legal satisfaction paid of the Father did not change the mind and soul of the sinners. SO, even fully legal satisfaction is paid to the Debtor who is God Father this fact does not lead to their repentance and personal reconciliation with the Father of the sinners, and thus it is not saving the soul. The last came only through personal repentance that really based not on the understanding of the need of giving substitutionary attornment to God Father but on the fact that Jesus unjustly paid it for them! So, again, if Jesus could can pay someone debt and forgive them without requiring substitutionary attornment to Himself why God Father can’t do the same? So, the actual repentance and salvation of the sinners’ souls came just from an understanding of Jesus's love and willingness to scarifies for them to save them from the “angry” Father! And sinners fully understood that only Jesus truly love and can forgive them without requiring them to pay for their sins, while Father is still not the same loving person like Jesus. And the argument that God Father has to satisfy the “Higher Justice” can’t work because the “Higher Justice” (even it seems to exist above God) can’t be satisfied with the unjust act of killing unguilty for the guilty ones. The true satisfaction of the Justice can be only Justice made to guilty but not unguilty. So, this why our souls actually were saved only when we realized that it was done by the biggest act that unjustly made to Jesus by those whom He loved! And this is leading all of us to repentance before God the Father who also suffered by watching His Son being killed by the sinners. So, it is not God the Father who was satisfied His wrath by killing Jesus, it is us, sinners who always expelled our sinful anger and wrath on unguilty ones! And as the apogee of the story God showed us our sin by giving us His Son whom we have killed. Yet, after this, His death and suffering pierced our heart with guilt and lead us to true repentance that saved our soul from the further distraction of it. This is how God Son and God Father paid for our repentance that absolutely crucial for our salvation of our souls. And only after repentance God gave us His unconditional forgiveness accepting all of the suffering and wounds that we cause Him by all our sins. So, God Son and God Father are actually the true victims or our sins, rather than substitutional attornment of the One to the Other!
This was intriguing. Thanks for posting this. Do you hold to a certain view of the atonement or just anti-penal substitution?
Very late comment, but what you and many people misunderstand is that Christ's death wasn't the passive and submissive Son sacrificing Himself to satisfy the Father's wrath and justice. It was the Son, who is "very God of very God" and in whom "dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily", sacrificing Himself to satisfy HIS OWN wrath and justice. It was the Judge (and Executioner) taking upon himself the punishment of the criminal. "For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment over to the Son" (John 5:22). It is Christ who will sit upon the Great White Throne of Judgment and cast all those whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:11-15).
Why does Dr Graig portray the "Christos Nikas" view of the atonement as an early Christian view? The Eastern Christian Orthodox Church still holds that view.
I think he was referring to the fact that this was the most popular view of the early church. He acknowledges at the end that this view has not gone away, and that the penal substitution view came about with the reformation, at least that was my understanding of what he was saying.
What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
The 'good news' of the gospel is simply that, on the cross, Jesus died for us. How his death on the cross achieved that is not clearly spelt out. There are some clues (ransom, sacrifice, substitution etc) but we tend to take them too literally and end up focussing on the Process not the Person
I offer one thread from the 'Deer Hunter' film which might help some people although others will no doubt tear their hair. Spoiler alert if you have not seen the film
Twice in the film, two brothers play Russian roulette. The first time, early on, they are forced to and manage to shoot their way out. The second time, one brother voluntarily plays to give himself the chance to talk to his brother who was by now half-crazed by the war.
The volunteering brother did not want to die, or for his brother to die, but he felt he had to play. He was ready to die for his brother but sadly the bullet came round for his brother.
The crucifixion is really the volunteer brother trying to get through to us, but also knowing that this time the bullet would come to him. Indeed Jesus engineered his own death to be on Passover
Personal claims do not a God or messiah make. "Jesus saw his death as an expiatory sacrifice..." Really? What about Ezek. 18:21, which made his atonement claims null and void some 700 years before he, Jesus, ever came one the scene? I would ask Dr. Craig, why was it that Jesus, the all knowing God, never identified himself to anyone, not even his disciples? And why did he not appoint a scribe to accurately record his life's story? And why did he not, on day one, sit down with Jewish authorities and Jewish biblical scholars, identify and introduce himself in the name of good order and decency? And then show them where and how he was the fulfillment of specified scriptures? Finally, as no one knew, who he was, how was it that Jesus felt justified in condemning and damning them to hell if they didn't believe in him? The didn't know him.
Clear indication that u misinformed ......Jesus didn't come to satisfy your wishes ...God does his work in his own way ....you seem to know it all right .....seek God and be saved instead of making useless claims
@@obega14:
You know Zack, according to Numbers 23:19, if you bow to Jesus, then you are an idol worshipper. If you care to bother, check out Jeremiah 16:19 and Zechariah 8:21-23. They reinforce N. 23:19. My studies suggest to me that religion, and especially Christianity is anti-intellectual and is the only field of endeavor where truth and knowledge are categorically rejected and forced into the background. Man made, concocted and deception contrived dogma and doctrine disguised as the word of God, in order to deceive and mislead, are put front and center. It was this type of man-made religious based ignorance that led to savage destruction of the lives of Galileo and Maria Celeste, his only daughter and millions of other similar stupidities, savageries, atrocities and immoral and repugnant abominations. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22 describe Jesus, an apostate, blasphemer and heretic from Judaism, exactly.
If you would bother to do some in depth checking of the relevant history, you would find that Europeans went into Africa and the Middle East and as they typically did, stole bits and pieces, demeaned, insulted and told the Jews (Note that to this day Jewish religious scholars are ignored by Christians.) they didn't know their own language, prophets and prophecies. These Europeans intentionally and criminally cherry picked, stole and misinterpreted Jewish scriptures and used all the above to create a Eurocentric religion (blue eyed, blond hair, effeminate looking and all) based upon an idol character called Jesus. They bowed down to this idol, on the order of King Nebuchadnezzar, and then tried to force the Jews to ignore Num. 23:19, Deut. 5:7 and Deut. 6:4, and do the same. Rather than bow down to a lie, the Jews refused and elected to die. Christianity is pass due for a badly needed makeover. If the truth matters, then let it be told.
@@ernestmonroe2240 well said. Religion isnt about truth. It's about man controlling other men.
Rich man - I am going to take most of the resources. Blessed are the meek, for he should inherit the earth.
Poor theist - i may be suffering now but **I** am going to heaven and the rich guy isnt.
Right. I agree with you. IF he was arrested and charged. There is no single verse in the NT that says the Messiah turned himself in to be sacrificed. Instead, there are assumptions or interpretation using symbolism. What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
I think WLC is probably correct (he ofc knows 100x's more than me). Looks like Christus Victor & Penal Substitution do not contradict one another whatsoever.
I still am going to die. I still have to pay for my misdeeds I don't understand the atonement theories at all. No one can die for me, I always have to face the music for my sins.
My suggestion to you is, don't try to comprehend those theories, start first to investigate what the best explanation for the empty tomb of Jesus is, try to be open to where the evidence leads you. I say this because the truth of Christianity stands or falls with the resurrection of Jesus.
''And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith...If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied''.
We know Jesus died on the cross and was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. We know also as an undisputed historical fact that the tomb was totally empty on the third day. What is the evidence for that fact? After some weeks after Jesus's death, his followers were boldly proclaiming the risen Christ Jesus in Jerusalem, in front of the Sanhedrin who was the main factor in getting Jesus sentenced to death by crucifixion.
If the tomb were not empty, they could not have preached the risen Christ in Jerusalem (were his tomb was located, and could easily have been taken out and shown to everybody, thus refuting their claim).
We know also for a fact that his followers were in total hopelessness that Jesus whom they thought was the promised Messiah, who would free them from the Romans, was now dead in the grave.
The question now is how did they go from this paralyzing state of mind to bold and fearless preachers of the resurrected savior Jesus Christ? They claimed that Jesus indeed was resurrected from the dead and hade showed himself to them in flesh and blood, in a glorious transparent body. Did they perhaps lie? A lie can't make 12 sane Jewish people die for something they would 100% know was a made-up fairytale, especially when they didn't gain anything, other than hatred and severe persecution (and eventually executions). Also, in their Jewish mind, the Messiah would not die, but redeem and restore Israel again, so this idea of a risen Messiah for the forgiveness of sins would not enter their fixed minds (evidence for that is all the hostility and mockery from their fellow Jews). All other naturalistic explanations have utterly failed to account for the empty tomb, in light of all the facts.
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the *best* explanation for the empty tomb, in light of the facts presented in the gospels. The empty tomb is accounted for, the miraculous transformation of his followers is accounted for, their willingness to suffer persecution and death by their fellow Jews and Romans is accounted for and this new mysterious idea that the Messiah would suffer, die and be resurrected again on the third day for the forgiveness of sins for all the Jews and for all Gentiles, whom Jews despised and considered as unclean (attested in Acts), is also best accounted for by the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this is true, then the promises of eternal life as a free gift through Christ is also 100% true.
If the resurrection is true, then it also follows and confirms without a doubt that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies that were written about him in the old testament and that the bible is the word of God.
Think of it as a legal loophole. Humans have sinned. They have to pay the penalty of that sin. Instead of doing so God the son which is Jesus is the one who paid the penalty of the sin. So someone else is still paying the penalty of our sins not just you. All you do is to accept Jesus sacrifice by believing in him and then trying to be a better person and asking for forgiveness if you do fall back into sin
@Edward King ''there is no evidence for any Jesus''
You can't dismiss the new testament, just because they are written by followers of Jesus. You have to objectively test their claims. We test every *any ancient text* with the same historical methodology. If you knew the criteria for the historical methodology of ancient testimonies, then you would know that the New Testament has checked every criterion, and been authenticated as valuable eyewitness testimony of the life of Jesus.
The underlying objection you have is against the supernatural aspect of the life of Jesus. You are probably a naturalist and have rejected any supernatural claim. You are in fact rejecting Jesus, because of your presupposed worldview. If Jesus was just a philosopher, and had the exact same evidence for his existence, as he has now, you would *never* object to his existence as a historical person.
You need to have your worldview challenged, to see the shaky ground you stand on.
Yes, we are going to die but not die a spiritual death. God’s wrath on sinners was to judge them by taking back the life he gave them, but people whos lives were taken still can go to heaven by believing in Yahweh meaning that the sacrafice of Jesus counted for them. Jesus sacrifice basically took the wrath of God from us and all who believe are going to be resurected when he comes back and he represented it by the reserection. Jesus’ love for humanity was willing for him to take the judgement of God from the wrong they did by simply having faith in Yahweh ( old testament ) and Jesus ( new testament ).
@@ellasmith6554 And after Jesus sacrificed himself for mankind and geve His blood, many people are thrown in Hell. Then why did Jesus sacrificed himself?
I've tried to understand this for years, but I just can't get my head around the notion that Jesus died for our sins.
Why?
Why would such a thing be necessary?
In my world, what matters more than anything is that we take full responsibility for ourselves and any wrongdoing we may have committed. We can't just palm it all off onto someone else and pretend it's been dealt with.
Fully embracing self responsibility does lead to a kind of secular salvation, in my experience.
It is the mark of a fully mature adult human.
There's a profoundly spiritual side to it, as well.
I don't see how the intervention of a divine intermediary helps promote such an outcome, in any way.
I'd even go as far as to argue that it does the precise opposite; that is, it keeps people in a state of juvenile immaturity and spiritual dependence.
Having said all that, I'm still working on it and may yet have to admit I was wrong.
God willing, we'll see!
Nick hi, I've just posted a reply to Cristobal (two comments below) which might help your enquiries
@@richardfletcher4209 Hi Richard
I've looked, but can't find it.
Can you copy and paste it as a direct reply to me?
Best wishes.
@@gedofgont1006 Sure thing. Sorry, I forgot to say that you can find the exchange with her by 'Sorting' according to 'Newest first' and she is a week ago, just a few from the top. But as follows
@@gedofgont1006
cristobal garza
1 week ago
WLC: “Jesus saw his death as an expiatory sacrifice to God akin to the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament” that makes no sense, I was taught that animal sacrifice foreshadowed the real true sacrifice. Still the question, how is it that painful death cleanses sin or quelches God’s anger?
Richard Fletcher
I have not yet listened to WLC’s talk but various comments point to its content
The main problem with all atonement theories is that they create a man-centred system (guilt, shame, honour) and then somehow oblige God to fall in line with that (appeasement, sacrifice, satisfaction)
The way ‘I’ see it, mankind can move towards God or away. If we move away (which seems to be the case), the inevitable consequence is death, because God is life and the author of life, and to move away from him is to enter death. This is not God ‘punishing’ us but simply what it means to be away from God. If you want to be technical, the problem is ontological not moral
To resolve that ‘problem’, God has to go to the one place in the ‘universe’ where He is not. He has to enter death. So he becomes a man and dies. But since death cannot retain hold of him (how can darkness overcome light?), He returns to life and frees captives with Him
One may or may not choose to take this one step further. Either God is simply responding to man’s rebellion. But there is another view some theologians take, that the ‘process’ above, the ‘cross’, is a key part of God’s creative process. It is how He makes something ‘outside of’ Himself, but then brings it into His life. This view would see us as still living in the 6th day of creation, with the 7th day coming when Jesus returns to restore all things to Himself
The above is a variation of the Eastern Orthodox view. They, incidentally, find the penal substitution model to be ‘offensive’
cristobal garza
@Richard Fletcher Thanks for the info, it is super interesting, I always like to learn about the quirky theologies and doctrines people come up with.
Richard Fletcher
@cristobal garza Hi. It is not my theory/theology. It is called the 'Christus Victor' theory and was re-popularised by Gustav Aulen about 100 years ago. Many theologians date its original formulation to the early church, well before the better known penal substitution (appeasement) theory which is about 500 years old
cristobal garza
@Richard Fletcher I remember some of those ideas from church, there are some books and even Catholic Churches named Christ Rex, etc., associated with His victory, but I don’t remember that doctrine explaining in full the need for a bloody sacrifice to triumph over sin, it seems to me a rhetorical move.
Richard Fletcher
@cristobal garza hi, the 'need for a bloody sacrifice etc' is indeed a human invention to which we assume God is also bound. But God can forgive without the need for blood, sacrifice etc. However we in fact need more than forgiveness; we need life. we need healing. we need a restoration to our pre-fallen state. For that we need God and since we have gone to where God is 'not', then He comes to us, ie in death
The Protestant church has taken its 'atonement' theory from the Luther-Calvin 'anger-appeasement' reformation, but the Catholic doctrine dates back a further 400 years to Anselm who set out a basically feudal 'Satisfaction' theory that God's honour is offended by our sin and needs a 'solution'.
@Ged of Gont how goes the search?
I agree that it is vital for someone to put their own skin in the game for them to mature. To feel the consequences of your own actions is certainly how you grow up. But what if... what if there was a problem that was so astronomical no amount of human effort could solve it? That is what the Bible, I believe, is ultimately hinting at.
Here's a translation of what I believe (hope) Dr. William Lane Craig is saying: the blood of Christ does not represent His righteousness for us, rather it present us holy, which means there is a labor (a good work) that we must do after we confess and repent of our sins upon hearing His testimony (life, death, burial, resurrection, and two ascensions), as per Heb. 4:1-11 (KJV). In other words, because of His testimony, He expects all that names His name to keep His Law, the Ten Commandments, which is His name (Person and Character), that by His Cross is how He reconciles us to Himself...for those that believe and continue in Him.
JESUS IS
THE
LIVING WORD⚡
When will the Living Word pay us a visit?
CASE IN POINT: PROPHETICALLY SPEAKING: Was Yeshuah/Jesus a expiatory sacrifice "atonement" OR was he the escape goat exchange for evil for reconciliation token to Israel through the murder of an innocent man? Show a me a single messianic prophecy in the Old Testament that the Messiah will be offered as a human sacrifice for the salvation of Israel and gentiles for the forgiveness of their sins. murder and self sacrifice are two different things in context and without context.
Can you also show a single verse in the New Testament when the Messiah offered himself as a sacrifice? . I mean.. a single verse that that says that the messiah turned himself in instead of being arrested and being sentenced to death?.
If he was arrested and charged..why are you assuming that his arrest and charge was a sacrifice??? non sense. If your best friend was murdered by a mob . You will call that human sacrifice???? are you OK?? does that make sense to you????
If it's not found in the Old Testament as a Messianic Prophecy then it 's a false doctrine. PERIOD>. I don't care how it is sliced and diced as a doctrine. Ask yourself......Did the first century believers who were Jews have the New Testament in order to be saved or their sins to be forgiven?? Absolutely not! the New Testament was not in existence yet.
Ezekiel 18:32
“For I take no pleasure in anyone's death.” This is the declaration of the Lord GOD. “So repent and live!"
why would Adonai Elohim (God ) will be delighted with the death of "Jesus" ?? or Did God only allow his Son to be murdered? Just like he allow all this prophets to murdered as well??
Did not God love his prophets?? The death of "Jesus" was not the single time that God was sad . All his prophets were murdered by his own people.
They only relied 100% in the Old Testament prophecies to be verified and confirmed in the Hebrew Scriptures in order to identify the Messiah if he was really the messiah prophesied by the prophets. The Messiah told his followers that if they believe his message and obey the Gospel predicted in the Old Testament that their sins will be forgiven and redeemed.
Mark 1:15 ; Mark 14:49 ; Acts 3:19
Luke 24:44
"He told them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you - that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
You can find all the quotes in the New Testament attesting the prophecies from all the Old Testament. So if religious claims are not aligned "word for word" with the Old Testament prophecies then ,most definitely are false doctrines. check the link below to understand the Jewish meaning of salvation for forgiveness of their sins.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
Please ask Dr. Craig to explain what "etymological" means.
"Etymology" has to do with the origin of words. So, the etymological meaning of a word is the meaning that is found by looking at how the word came to be, how the word developed from earlier languages.
YHWH wants a people that can commune with Him forever. To have these people they need to be pure at heart. What is pure at heart? This means to NEVER have thoughts of greed, lust etc. It means to be totally committed to sacred relationships. It means to be COMPLETELY thankful for what one has and who they are, because YHWH has provided.
The only Way to be pure of heart is to know that one is not pure at heart.
Confess your sins and let Jesus take them upon Himself. See the pain and suffering your sin has caused on His person. Know your sin has broke His very soul. Your sin is an Eternal suffering for the Godhead. Yet YHWH can bare it and does this willingly.
Believe this and YHWH will create in you a new heart. You will be born again into Life.
blah blah blah........whatever.
What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
Is YHWH God?
"Your sin is an Eternal suffering for the Godhead."
@@landofw56 yes
The ransom theory and Satan’s claim that he is humanity’s rightful owner because of our sins, is also found in C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia”.
I see a potential problem with this theory. The plaintiff (Satan) has an active legal case against him related to the claim. There's also a question of whether he could represent himself, as he has a habit of shapeshifting and the Court does not deem him a reliable witness.
I am not sure that I understand. The new testament says Jesus was executed by the roman governor. Then raised from the dead. Where does Jesus say, he will offer himself ?
"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life-only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
John 10:17-18 NIV
Elsewhere, there's the speaking of the Father offering His Son:
Yet it was the Lord ’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
Isaiah 53:10 NIV
This leads into the nature of God and the Trinity. To over-simplify it, God is sovreign and the Father, Son, and Spirit are always in agreement with one another.
Rome and the Jewish people crucifying Him were just the means God accomplished His will to usher in salvation for humanity. This does not justify their actions, but often we see God accomplishing His will using the sinful actions of people, such as with King Nebuchanezzar, whom was used to deal judgment to Israel according to the prophets but then God turned around and dealt judgment to Babylon for their sinful actions.
Right. I agree with you. IF he was arrested and charged. There is no single verse in the NT that says the Messiah turned himself in to be sacrificed. Instead, there are assumptions or interpretation using symbolism. What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
@@keeganryan8156 thanks for the answer. John 10:17-18 , actually does not say he will offer himself for us (as a atonement), it rather highlights that the resurrection of Christ is important. What I would like to know is , if atonement theory is so important for many churches, why did Jesus not say much about that ? he talked a lot more about the Kingdom of God coming to earth.
But did God not create us as sinful beings? So why are we indebted to Him for something that, ultimately, He is responsible for?
God gave us free will which we used for evil, and we're not indebted now since Jesus sacrificed himself.
Me having to look up the word ambivalent, just so I can understand the word atonement. Lol
Atonement is a lie. Trust me.
@@JamesRichardWiley ok, why should I trust you?
WLC: “Jesus saw his death as an expiatory sacrifice to God akin to the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament” that makes no sense, I was taught that animal sacrifice foreshadowed the real true sacrifice. Still the question remain: how is it that painful death cleanses sin or quelches God’s anger?
I have not yet listened to WLC’s talk but various comments point to its content
The main problem with all atonement theories is that they create a man-centred system (guilt, shame, honour) and then somehow oblige God to fall in line with that (appeasement, sacrifice, satisfaction)
The way ‘I’ see it, mankind can move towards God or away. If we move away (which seems to be the case), the inevitable consequence is death, because God is life and the author of life, and to move away from him is to enter death. This is not God ‘punishing’ us but simply what it means to be away from God. If you want to be technical, the problem is ontological not moral
To resolve that ‘problem’, God has to go to the one place in the ‘universe’ where He is not. He has to enter death. So he becomes a man and dies. But since death cannot retain hold of him (how can darkness overcome light?), He returns to life and frees captives with Him
One may or may not choose to take this one step further. Either God is simply responding to man’s rebellion. But there is another view some theologians take, that the ‘process’ above, the ‘cross’, is a key part of God’s creative process. It is how He makes something ‘outside of’ Himself, but then brings it into His life. This view would see us as still living in the 6th day of creation, with the 7th day coming when Jesus returns to restore all things to Himself
The above is a variation of the Eastern Orthodox view. They, incidentally, find the penal substitution model to be ‘offensive’
@@richardfletcher4209 Thanks for the info, it is super interesting, I always like to learn about the quirky theologies and doctrines people come up with.
@@estuchedepeluche2212 Hi. It is not my theory/theology. It is called the 'Christus Victor' theory and was re-popularised by Gustav Aulen about 100 years ago. Many theologians date its original formulation to the early church, well before the better known penal substitution (appeasement) theory which is about 500 years old
@@richardfletcher4209 I remember some of those ideas from church, there are some books and even Catholic Churches named Christ Rex, etc., associated with His victory, but I don’t remember that doctrine explaining in full the need for a bloody sacrifice to triumph over sin, it seems to me a rhetorical move.
@@estuchedepeluche2212 hi, the 'need for a bloody sacrifice etc' is indeed a human invention to which we assume God is also bound. But God can forgive without the need for blood, sacrifice etc. However we in fact need more than forgiveness; we need life. we need healing. we need a restoration to our pre-fallen state. For that we need God and since we have gone to where God is 'not', then He comes to us, ie in death
The Protestant church has taken its 'atonement' theory from the Luther-Calvin 'anger-appeasement' reformation, but the Catholic doctrine dates back a further 400 years to Anselm who set out a basically feudal 'Satisfaction' theory that God's honour is offended by our sin and needs a 'solution'.
How can Chrsitians claim this was a sacrifice. A sacrifice is a LOSS. God never lost jesus. He temporarily "died". To call it a sacrifice is a lie!
Besides, why is not believing an unforgivable sin? Why must god pretend to sacrifice his son. Just forgive us. No sacrifice needed. They are your rules.
Jesus IS God, so yes God did not lose himself.
Sacrifice is not "loss" in this context.
Sacrifice: "an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure."
@@karozans it should not be called a sacrifice then. Priests are being misleading and dishonest because they use sacrifice as a loss.
If it was an offering, then it should be called an offering.
@@derekmizer6293 you are mincing definitions to suit your argument. It was a sacrifice.
@@karozans no it wasn't. Sacrifice is a loss. God can never lose anything.
@@derekmizer6293 sacrifice does not mean loss.
Sorry bit I wouldn't trust this guy's theology to a Sunday School class. Ignore Genesis for the real Word of God and torture the scriptures to depict something they clearly don't at your peril. Twisted!
The theory of penal substitutional atonement is basically saying that Jesus needed to be punished for something that was not his fault in anyway to appease God. It is basically denying God's justice and God's mercy. The Moral Influence theory is basically saying that all Jesus did was teach us a lesson. But if that was all he did, then that lesson could have been taught by someone else in some other way, or we could have figured it out on our own with sufficient time and care. So the moral influence theory isn't affirming the necessity of Christ's death and resurrection. Its denying the necessity of his death and resurrection. For me, the Christus Victor model is the most appealing, because its the most manly and heroic. I like to think that when Jesus went to hell he knocked Satan out with one punch.
Yep, Christus Victor - come back Aulen
I'm glad William Lane Craig has a syncretic view of the atonement. I also think (almost) every theory of the atonement can be applied to it. I think the penal substitution theory is the most comprehensive and biblically-based theory.
Except there's literally no verses that say Christ died in substitution of us. Instead, they all say He died for us (like giving a gift).
The ransom is paid to God, not Satan
You have given no scripture references to support your argument-
Atonement is reconciliation not salvation, as a true believer is baptised into the church with access to grace. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
I don't know... it seems to me that if someone else is bearing the punishment for the crime then the crime has not been truly forgiven.... and I can't help but notice that the Jesus of the Scripture tells us to turn the other cheek, not kick the dog instead!
@inTruthbyGrace, no one is saying to kick the dog instead. The point is that God himself is bearing the punishment willingly. The difference is:
1) the dog didn't willfully accept the punishment
2) even if the dog did, it wouldn't have been sufficient because the dog isn't God.
@@brentporter4754 you did not address the issue of FORGIVENESS which is to "remember no more" (Jer 31-34)
the lamb was slain (Ex 30:10, Rev 5:6, 5:12, 13:8)
NOT _punished_ for sin
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." (Lev 17:11, Heb 9:22)
the blood of the lamb was a shadow of the things to come in Christ
"Jesus also, that he might SANCTIFY THE PEOPLE BY HIS OWN BLOOD, suffered without the gate." (Heb 13:12)
but the distinction was about the remembrance of sin NOT punishment..
punishment is not even mentioned in regards to ANY sacrifice.. anywhere.. ever in the Bible
"blood was brought in to make atonement" (Lev 16:17) and the sin offering was a SHADOW of what was to come but the distinction was the remembrance of sin...NOT the PUNISHMENT (Hebrews 10:1-14)
The blood of the lamb was for the washing of sin (Psalm 51:2) and Jesus *_WASHED_* us from our sins in his own blood Acts 22:16, Rev 1:5)
Jesus bore the sin... not the punishment: His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree (1Pet 2;24)
for WITHOUT THE SHEDDING of blood there is no remission of sin... "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." (Lev 17:11, Heb 9:22)
NOTHING about punishment
and if someone is being punished for the sin, it is NOT being forgiven
@@inTruthbyGrace We can use a different word, sure. Doesn't have to be punished, it can be "slained". Jesus was slain on our behalf. The point is, there was a life debt that was owed, and the lamb acted as a substitution for the person and was slain instead. God didn't NEED the lamb to forgive us, but he chose to do that so we would see exactly what our sin produces: death. So we would see just how bad our sin really is and how much we really need Him. With that said, do we really disagree?
@@brentporter4754 My original comment and comments thereafter are trying to distinguish between atonement and PENAL (punishment) substitution which is HUGE distinction:
we do kind of agree but let me emphasize where I see the distinction:
"God didn't NEED the lamb to forgive us,"
@@inTruthbyGrace Hmmm. I can follow what you're saying. So you are affirming that the sacrifice of the lamb expiates/cleanses us of sin and that this is the only way God has given us to be certain of our forgiveness of sin, by having faith in the blood of Him whose blood washes all clean. But then saying this slaying of the lamb isn't punishment of the lamb... how is it not? The lamb is being murdered to cover our transgression of the law thereby making us clean. I don't think the difference between what you're saying and the idea of punishment is really that big, despite how well you argued your points. I am still failing to see how a lamb dying in our place is NOT some kind of punishment being put onto the lamb that is not being put onto us. Just because you don't use the word punishment to describe what is happening to the lamb, doesn't mean it isn't...right? I welcome your thoughts on that.
With that said, I couldn't agree more that the object of our faith of course isn't the punishment in our place, it is in Him and His blood which washes away sin. The central message isn't about God's wrath, but about His mercy! No one would contest this.
I did think you had a really interesting thought, "It is wicked to punish the innocent!! God Himself says He will not justify the wicked by slaying an innocent person!"
I will have to think about that one. Although, the point is, that the lamb, which was not guilty of any uncleanness, was offered in place of the person offering said lamb. Again... it seems someone innocent (even if just an animal) is suffering for someone wicked. Now of course, these lambs' blood would have no power if not for the Lamb of God who gives life for us to take away the sin of the world. The lambs point to Jesus, so that is why I draw conclusions of punishment on Jesus, based on what I see with the lambs themselves who seem to be indeed punished in our place. You will have to explain to me why a lamb getting its throat cut out and bled out on an altar is NOT punishment.
It is not God's punishment which cleanses us, it is the mechanism by which he crushes the lamb, and the emerging phenomenon is the blood of the lamb. It is His blood which cleanses us. This, I believe, is fully in line with what you are saying and what PSA advocates say. Sorry if I am being dense, but I am calling it the best I can see it.
As for your last points, it seems things change when we rightly begin thinking of Jesus as God himself. It is not as if God is punishing just his Son like an earthly father does to his own son... it is that He is punishing Himself. This seems to be the ultimate straw man mistake I see when I hear people compare PSA to "cosmic child abuse". This imagery of God offering His son as the sacrifice is the ending to the story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22, is it not? God himself offers up His only son instead of making Abraham offer up HIS only son, Isaac. But then again, as I write that, this isn't a story about taking punishment. I guess I would need to know what an animal sacrifice was really supposed to me to those people at that time.
Honestly At-one-ment or Atonement is the quest for ONENESS with Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact in St. John chapter 17, Jesus in His prayer for the disciples and all those who would come HIM...by their word, THAT THEY BE ONE EVEN AS WE ARE ONE. So whatever term you attach it must ALWAYS come back to ONENESS with Jesus Christ. Otherwise THERE CAN BE NO FELLOWSHIP.
Right. I agree with you. IF he was arrested and charged. There is no single verse in the NT that says the Messiah turned himself in to be sacrificed. Instead, there are assumptions or interpretation using symbolism. What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
So sad ur cstholic
Atonement is what finally sets us straight with god by him sending Himself, to sacrifice Himself, to Himself, to save us from Himself, if we will apologize for being made as he made us, and obey some laws we get to cherry pick from his book, excluding the ones we deem too crazy.
Andre Montana well yes... if we accept an erroneous view...
Oh yes indeed. I left out belief. You must also choose to believe certain things, on bad evidence. So one will make claims w/out demonstrable evidence as long as you feel something, had a dream, or some other anecdotal experience. This is what they call faith. Results vary widely
because there is nothing you can't believe on faith, giving us the 1000 versions of Christianity we have. As well as Islam and others.
What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
You really highlighted the problem here. This man thinks the problem of sin affects God, in reality the problem lies with us.
If Jesus died for our sins, what happened to all of the sinners before Jesus came along? Did everyone just end up going to hell?
The Bible says no one can take the punishment for someone else’s sin. How did Jesus die to save sinners with this being said?
Deuteronomy 24:16
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
Jesus Did Not Die on the Cross For Our Sins The idea Jesus “paid the price” isn’t found in the Bible.
” Dying for our sins is not the same thing as dying to pay the penalty for our sins. If an innocent person dies because of another person’s wrongdoing, the person who did wrong is still guilty. Whenever the Bible talks about penalties, it always attaches them to the one who committed the offense. We are still held responsible for the sins we commit. At the end, each of us will have to pay for our deeds and there is no way around that. We are responsible for the totality of our actions.
How were people saved before Jesus died for our sins?
... What was the way of salvation before Jesus died for our sins?
If murdererIng is wrong then Salvation through murder is also absolutely wrong.
Jesus own death con·tra·dic·ts - Deu. 24:16, 2 Chron. 25:4; Deuteronomy 5:17 and Ezekiel 18:1-20.
Christ died for No Man!
Men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
The thumbnail highlights the error at the start. God did not have to die. He did it because he wanted to be with is in our suffering. Not because another member of the Trinity became unstable. Divine Love must be emptied out. That's what the rationalist cannot comprehend.
I Like Mr. Craig’s works BUT I prefer to believe in the earlier fathers. They were closer to the facts, they spoke the same language and some of them were the apostles’ disciple. How after 2000 years someone can come to a conclusion better than them on this meter? That was a common sense teaching in the earlier church.
But why would satan only want one human being (jesus) for the rest of humanity. And wym he didn't know that jesus was the son of God??
Only 137 likes!? What the heck?
What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
First off, the PSA view of atonement is problematic given eternal conscious torment.
(P1) The punishment for our sins is death, which entails separation from God and eternal conscious torment.
(P2) Jesus did not suffer separation from God, nor was he eternally tormented.
(C) Therefore, Jesus did not take the punishment for sins.
One must either reject P1, that the punishment for sins is eternal conscious torment, or affirm that Christ did not take the *precise punishment* that was due to us, in which case it is not PSA. Please don't bother equivocating between PSA as a doctrine and substitution conceptually - they are not the same thing. Or one can affirm that Christ *was* separated from God, and descend into Heresy, breaking the Trinity and Hypostatic Union (as Craig does). Take your pick. Thankfully Conditional Immortality comes to the rescue and removes the necessity for all of this mental gymnastics.
Also, regarding "Ransom Theory," Scripture explicitly describes the sacrifice of Christ as a ransom (Mark 10:45, 1 Tim 2:6, Hebrews 9:15). This ransom was certainly paid to *someone.* If not Satan, then the only other possible entity to whom the debt is owed is God himself, which is just as problematic as Craig's criticism regarding Satan being the object of Christ's sacrifice. This makes the atheist parody accurate: God sacrificed himself to himself to save us all from himself. Given that Scripture also explicitly teaches that the world a) belongs to Satan (Ephesians 2:2) and that b) sinners are captive to him and described as prisoners (Luke 4:18, 2 Timothy 2:26), I'm inclined to believe that the Ransom was rather paid to Satan in spite of my modern, Western sensibilities, which Craig seems to have not been able to shake.
Whatever atonement view that you choose should be based on exactly what the Bible teaches of course. But you use these problems that don't exist because there is no such thing as a hypostatic union and there is no such thing as God being a trinity. So maybe you can free up your mind to choose your atonement Theory without filtering them through those errors. The Bible teaches that Yahweh is one God and he is the father and God of all of us including Christ who is actually YAHshua.
@@mr.e1220 Which part of the Trinity do you deny?
@@ChipKempston anyone that just reads the scriptures without any bias would never believe that God is more than one being. Then when you see the history of how that doctrine came about, I believe the whole doctrine to be false. It is also a very nonsensical idea and when they cannot explain their position using the scriptures they always call it a mystery. I hate the Trinity doctrine.
@@mr.e1220 The Trinity doctrine doesn't say God is more than one being. It says God is more than one person. Maybe try to understand the doctrine before criticizing it.
@@ChipKempston a person is a being. Give me the definition of a person. Tell me who is the person that is not a being? That's your problem unbiblical language. You don't even know what a person is they are the same thing as a being. A human being is a person. There are thousands of scriptures where God uses singular personal pronouns to describe who he is. He is one being, the word person is not used but we are having a conversation and I made my point. I know exactly with the Trinity Doctrine teaches. That God is one being that consists of three distinct persons. It's a three-headed monstrosity that doesn't exist.
At-ONE-ment is a Be-YOU-to-full thing.
Big problem, according to the myth, JC died and then came back to life. That's not a sacrifice, in this case it's a bad weekend.
God's justice, not really justice when we are all judged as sinners just because our fathers and their fathers etc. are supposedly sinners. That's like saying we are all sinners because we are human. There is nothing that passes sin on from parent to child. To be a sinner you must commit sin, which is only a concept in the bible.
God decided that we wronged him because Adam and Eve wronged him. We are all judged guilty before we were born. That is not justice. Even if we were, god could forgive us instead of giving an infinite penalty for a finite crime, which was only a crime because god said it was. Does not sound like justice to me, more like a temper tantrum of what is supposed to be a perfect being.
Satan had a claim to us, how? Because he tricked Adam and Eve into eating the fruit. Utter non-sense.
Have you ever sinned.
@@samuelarthur887 You reply doesn't even address my comment. By your response we should assume that we don't need redemption until we commit that first "sin". Thus if we never sin, we don't need forgiveness. So then was jc's bad weekend in hopes that we would sin so that it would be needed. This "sacrifice" for sins not committed by persons not even born yet is just ludicrous.
@@fdameron do you know representation, when someone acts in a way that affects you, like your government, parents, etc, even though you are innocent?
And in anticipation of your answers I ask you about insurance. Have you ever taken insurance?
@@samuelarthur887 So if my dad is a bank robber, I am represented as a bank robber, that line of reasoning is so flawed that it would never hold up. Just because someone in your lineage is a wrong doer, doesn't mean you are represented as one.
Insurance, that is something that is purchased and not taken. My guess is you want to imply that this is some sort of insurance policy for eternal life. Problem is there is no compelling evidence for eternal life. So far both of your points have no merit.
@@fdameron You didn't answer my question about national representation. Indirectly, if the president of your country does something innocent people can be implicated. Secondly, directly, in an existential way one person's act can determine the course of history for many others (Hitler's for example), or a smoker's action on an unborn child, hereditary diseases, or lifestyle, etc. And, yes, if your dad robbed a bank it could affect your reputation; if he was incarcerated and you had been dependent on him you could or your family could be affected. Insurance future proofs you. It eliminates the consequences of a possible future action and its potential present stress. Think carefully. I am not interested in scoring 'debate points'.
The absence of 'compelling evidence' does not mean the absence of evidence. I have evidence of eternal life. Unless you are claiming agnosticism, which I think is fair, you should act positively about your eternal state given the slightest possibility that you may be wrong.
Scientists keep finding things they didn't know was there before. Just because you think something isn't the case doesn't prove it is so.
I wrote a book that presents a new model and middle ground perspective between the Penal view and Christus Victor. I call it Perfectus Liberatio. In short the wrath of God is not directed AT Christ, but operates THROUGH Christ. God’s wrath is his moral perfection being revealed against all that is contrary to moral perfection. Christ is the sinless Lamb. Thus God can transfer all sin upon his sinless Lamb and condemn it as being in the wrong-in the sinless perfection of the Son. For sin was unable to accuse, condemn or to lay a charge against the Son for any wrongdoing. Like trying to stick the barbs of Velcro onto a smooth mirror, sin cannot attach itself to the Son- for the Son offers no “hooks” for sin to grab hold of. Therefore because sin cannot justify its presence in the Son, the Father’s wrath is able to condemn sin as being “in the wrong” IN THE SINLESS perfection of the Son.
Like pouring a vile of deadly bacteria into a bucket of pure bleach, the bacteria does NOT infect the bleach. Rather the bleach destroys the bacteria. In the cross the sinfulness of sin is undone by the sin-less nature of the Son. The wrath of God is the basis by which sin is condemned THROUGH the Son. But the Son is NOT being condemned (Rom. 8:3).
There is more to say. Feel free to buy my short, 100 page book that begins with a parable story to prepare you for the later commentary on the atonement. Go to Amazon and type either my name or “The Fall and Redemption of Shadowmere.”
Peace
I thought I recall reading this when it was posted on the chans a while back
Man! That's a load of confusing sophistry you've come up with, right there!
If your book's on similar lines, I dont think you're going to have a very wide readership.
Sorry brother, but if it takes that level of convoluted reasoning, to try and make a persuasive case, I'd say the original premise is probably untenable.
@@gedofgont1006 sorry you find it confusing. When you realize that in Romans 5-8, Paul personifies sin in 10 different ways , then it is easier to see that everything is driving towards Romans 8:3. There Paul personifies sin one last time as a defendant God condemns. Paul is quite specific and explicit. The Son is not condemned, rather sin is condemned in the humanity of Christ’s (sinless) life. To be “condemned” is to be judged by God “to be in the wrong.” The Son is not condemned “to be in the wrong”. Rather, sin is condemned to be “in the wrong” in the righteousness of the Son’s lived humanity. He was “tested and all points, yet without sin.” He was the only One that could bear and take away our sin without sin itself being able to lay a charge against him. God could not judge or condemn sin to be “in the wrong” in any of our lives, because we have given it the right to be in our lives through our sinful choices. But not so with Christ. Only in the sinless perfection of His Son, could God condemn sin once and for all. Christ then enters into the realm of death, but not on sin’s terms, but on his terms. Sin’s terms involved guilt and justifiable condemnation for wrongdoing. But Christ enters into the realm of death as the sinless One who redeems us from the law of sin and death and strips Satan of the power of death that held us as hostages under its sway.
Peace
@@mattb7069 Those are marvellous words, but they are so far from getting to grips with the questions and doubts I have about the life of Christ that I'm afraid I'm going to have to wish you well and graciously exit stage left.
God be with you.
The existence of so many Atonement theories is because none of them make sense and they probably aren't correct. (I mean if one of the several is right the others are wrong and probably none of them are right.)
See St Isaac the Syrian. To summarize St Isaac, Jesus did not die on the Cross to propitiate an angry Deity. If God's sole purpose was the remission of sins he absolutely could have done so by other means. Instead the Cross is the perfect and compelling revelation of God's love. Sinners couldn't believe in the possibility of their reconciliation with God without a revelation embodied in the terrible suffering and bloody death of God himself.
"The Lord surrendered His own Son to death on the Cross for his fervent love of creation. This was not because he could not have redeemed us in another way, but so that His surpassing love manifested thereby, be a teacher onto us. And by the death of his only-begotten son He made himself near to us. Yeah, if he had anything more precious, He would have given it to us, so that by it our race might be His own." Volume 1 "The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian," p. 492.
We should hear this astonishing Gospel every Sunday, instead of this nonsense about changing the mind of an angry or creditor God. This is the Gospel. We need to hear the proclamation of God's absolute and astonishing love and mercy and to believe it in the face of all the evidence of this fallen world.
He paid the ransom to who then? The devil? Not according to Rom 5:19
And Since, therefore, now we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
I also note that St Isaac was big on universalism … which the Orthodox Church doesn’t fully accept.
You are assuming!
DId, Dr. Craig really just call him Oregon? Woah!
...how would you pronounce "Origen"?
@@therealmrfishpastethe correct way, as in “origin”
@@nobey1kanobey ...except it's Greek, so the G isn't soft
@@therealmrfishpaste Origen is the English transliteration. After a quick search, my pronunciation is the standard in the states, while yours is akin to the British pronunciation.
If Jesus bore a punishment for sin, God did not forgive anything. Yet, scripture tells we are forgiven. So that’s a problem for PSA.
We are sprinkled with Christ's own blood, a better sacrifice.... Hebrews 10( I think )a good spot to get an overview ...blessed is the man to whom God will not impute sin....as far as the east is from the west God will remove sin from you....cover a multitude sins... partial quotes... hopefully close enough....point being God and Christ remove , cover, forgive etc....many terms... variations..... without the shedding of blood there is no remission....Christ had the power to forgive sin( healed then said you sins a forgiven).... Show us the father....have I been so long with you ,if you seen me you have seen the father.... forgive them for they no not what they do .....all of these concepts are integral in our salvation...All ... seems to me.... Many people go off the rails emphasizing one aspect neglecting the others....my 2 cents 🤔
@@donaldmonzon1774 Yes, God forgives us our sins and saves us from sin and death, and Christ was a sacrifice for us. But you don’t need PSA for that.
@@jackshadow325 read Isaiah completely and carefully....the word are very specific...some refer to his ministry before the cross....others to his work on the cross and after...it is surprising... hope to know what you think 🤔
@@donaldmonzon1774 If you want to know what I think, be more specific.
I find it troubling that Craig’s CZcams channel, ReasonableFaith always has comments turned off. He claims to be an apologist and yet he can’t really allow for any pushback on his ideas.
It's probably turned off so that uneducated atheists won't waste everyone's time with silly arguments. You can "pushback" on any or all of Craig's ideas by, for one, submitting a paper for peer review and have it published in any number of philosophy journals. Oh wait........for you to do that would require you to be educated in a relevant field......are you?
People have death problem. The resurrection of Yeshua is the remedy, but to have a resurrection there must be a death.
Does this actually convince anyone that understands what he's saying? Because to me it sounds like philosophical mumbo jumbo that makes vague surface level sense for Christians to trust that smart people figured it out.
All the mumbo jumbo is so unnecessary.
Jesus didn’t have to die. He chose to. He gave His life. If He “had to” then He would be beholden to us which is ridiculous on its face.
The Baptist shook his head, rolled his eyes, and said, "No. Water works much better than Jesus' blood." Paul agreed (1Cor., 15.29).
What?
Holy blasphemy of a demonic feminine being. Are satanic wow.. Corinthians 15 is amazing yet not the lie u saying here
jesus death does not atone.
no tanakh scriptures teach this. jesus is not mention nor told this would happen in any scripture.
Deuteronomy 24:16
Ezekiel 18:20-22
Leviticus 5:5-13
Exodus 30:16
just a few scriptures about why and things used atonement of sins.
I've heard of mental gymnastics but never mental contortionists. Thank you!!
Today is the day of atonement.
God is our heavenly Father, not our heavenly Bureaucrat! There is a long list of the biblical and logical problems with Penal Substitutional Atonement and many mistranslated texts that are used to support it. Look for the book, “Atonement and Reconciliation” for this in-depth examination.
God can simply forgive. In any case if Christ died and came back to life after 3 measly days there was no sacrifice. He should be dead forever. Thats the sacrifice. Being dead for only 3 days is no sacrifice at all.
Of course Jewish people don't believe in original sin. I don't think Jesus mentions it either. It appears to be an after death rationalization by his followers to explain why Jesus died.
Right. I agree with you. IF he was arrested and charged. There is no single verse in the NT that says the Messiah turned himself in to be sacrificed. Instead, there are assumptions or interpretation using symbolism to justify the new Roman Empire Christian church doctrines created by Roman theologians. . What about the Jewish perspective of Atonement or Salvation in order for Jews to be forgiven? Check out this link below for the Sephardim Messianic Jew believer.
czcams.com/video/O--9paB7rjE/video.html
yes
God so loved the world and gave his son,where is the appeasement there? appeasement and reconciliation comes from the party at fault,the great flood could have appeased God
Bernadette Roberts - CZcams
OK OK let me get this straight. God created humans with sin and we couldn't got to heaven or be judged by God. God then sent himself to earth to pay for our sins by sacrificing himself to himself for 1 day (alive on Fri, dead Saturday and alive Sunday). By god sacrificing himself to himself we are magically rid of the sins god gave us in the first place? Think i've got that part.
Wow...God makes up really odd rules that he has to hold himself to. Why not just magic them away? If they are not his rules, then whose are they? Is there some higher higher power that makes the rules (and enjoys blood letting)?
This is true i had a visitation into the Holiest of Holy and GLORY told me we all died under the law of Moses and GLORY died so that we could get another chance at life. I posted it on my channel about a year ago
Origen was wrong as God does not owe Satan anything. He was a great genius of his time but got a few things badly wrong he was never called a church father. In fact a lot of his teachings were deemed heretical and he was excommunicated first by Alexandria and later by Rome.
If I believe that this version of god is true, then who will hold god responsible for his sins? Really? God creates a creature who "sins". He knows the end from the beginning, so he knew all this would happen. He, after creating this mess, wants to sit in judgement over his own creation, who he created knowing that they would "sin". Then he plans to sentence his own creation to burn in hell FOREVER!!! NO hope of ever escaping his wrath. That is a horrible, vicious, freak who I will never "worship".
I agree with you. This conception is destroyed by an emdless number o contradictions.
Why a few people understand what you underline in this perfect way?
It seems to me that part of what it means to say that sinners deserve death is that they ought to die. But if sinners ought to die, and if sinners aren’t deserving of Christ’s sacrifice, then doesn’t it logically follow that sinners ought not attain eternal life though acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice? How is it not a contradiction to maintain that sinners ought to die, and that they ought *_not_* die (through substitutionary atonement) at the same time?
My little girl ate smtg that would kill her. She " deserves" to die, meaning that's the consequence of eating smtg that would kill her. I kept telling her not to eat it, but she did anyway because she's a toddler and doesn't understand more than her limited mind. She doesn't "deserve " me going out of my way to help her, as it's her fault. But I love her so much I took her to the hospital to get it surgically removed and save her from her "deserving" destiny. All she needs to do is to stop crying and asking qsts and get in the car so I can take her there.
@@TheFlyingPastaMonster "She " deserves" to die, meaning that's the consequence of eating smtg that would kill her."
I think you're using the word "deserve" in a rather unconventional way. If I were to drop a bowling ball off my roof, the consequence is that it will accelerate at 9.8 meters per second squared, but no one would say that the ball "deserves" to accelerate at that speed just because that's what will happen. If one were to go shoot a random pedestrian in the head, the consequence is that that person will die, but no one would say that therefore the person "deserves" to die just because that's the consequence of the action. That's just now how people use the word "deserve".
_______
"She doesn't "deserve " me going out of my way to help her, as it's her fault."
Now it looks like you're equivocating between two different usages of the word "deserve". If you were being consistent with your prior usage of the word then you would say that she does deserve you going out your way to help her, since you going out of your way to help her is a consequence of her action of eating something that would kill her.
@@chad969
You used it in the same way..
"Sinners deserve to die". No, it's a consequence : the wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)
She eats something bad, she'll die. Consequences.
"Sinners aren't deserving of Christ's sacrifice" no they are not, because we're nt good and therefore we don't deserve his sacrifice. But he loves us so he gave it anw.
If ur son kept buying drugs and using them despite u telling him not to, and he kept getting in trouble with the law and u kept bailing him out of jail. Does he deserve ur money after the 15th time? No he does not deserve it. Why do u still do it? Cz u love him.
@@TheFlyingPastaMonster "You used it in the same way.."
No I didn't. When I said "Sinners deserve to die" I wasn't saying anything about what necessarily will happen, I was making a statement about what OUGHT to happen according to the precepts of Christianity.
_______
"(Romans 6:23)
She eats something bad, she'll die. Consequences."
Why do you think God decided to make death the consequence of sin? The standard Christian response to this question is that sinners OUGHT to die in order for justice to be fulfilled. If you disagree with that answer then tell me why God decided to make death the penalty for sin. Was it a completely random, arbitrary decision on God's part, or did he have some reason for it?
_______
"She doesn't "deserve " me going out of my way to help her, as it's her fault."
Earlier you said. "She "deserves" to die, meaning that's the consequence of eating smtg that would kill her." Well you know what's also a consequence of her eating something that would kill her? You going out of your way to help her. So by your own logic you'd have to acknowledge that she does deserve you going out of your way to help her since that's the consequence of her eating something harmful. Also, if she doesn't die because you took her to the hospital, then death isn't a consequence of her eating something poisonous. This means that even by your own definition of "deserve", your statement that she deserves death for eating something that would kill her is false, so long as you choose to help her.
________
"If ur son kept buying drugs and using them despite u telling him not to, and he kept getting in trouble with the law and u kept bailing him out of jail. Does he deserve ur money after the 15th time? No he does not deserve it."
Again, remember how you said "She "deserves" to die, meaning that's the consequence of eating smtg that would kill her." Well by using the word "deserve" in that way I could just say "he deserves to be bailed out, meaning that's the consequence of him repeatedly breaking the law". Under your definition, if bailing him out of jail is a consequence of him breaking the law(in conjunction with me loving him), then he deserves to be bailed out as many times as I choose to do it.
@@chad969 oh my God you're so hung up on the word deserve.
All I wanted to explain is that according to the Bible, death is the wages of sin.
Mankind are not worthy of Jesus sacrifice because they are evil creatures.
Jesus loves them anyways, so he offered it despite their evilness.
Now, why did he make death the wage of sin? I don't knw, I'll ask him for u if I ever see him.
Do I care about the meaning of deserve? No, because I'm not an expert in language nor in philosophy, and english is my third language.
I was just trying to explain to u how we see it, not intrested in a philosophical debate about what deserve means.
Maybe I read ur first cmnt in a wrong way nt knowing u wanted to debate and fight over philosophical issues like the word deserve. Maybe my first example was bad, but I just wanted to give a small comparison. I read ur vibes wrong. My bad.
Just ignore me for the rest of ur life like u do God, and I'm good.
Peace out.