Dr Brown debates Pastor Brian Zahnd on substitutionary atonement, September 13, 2014. For the doctrine of substitutionary atonement in early Church history, see here: www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf.
@@troymatthews3374 straw man noun noun: strawman 1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach" God bless:)
I grew up in a Christian home, went to Christian schools my whole life, I have a degree in Biblical Studies, and yet watching this I feel like I have only just heard the Gospel. What Brian Zahnd is saying about God is breaking my heart in the most awesome way.
He may use words that make it sound nice but it lacks power. What he is preaching takes away a vast amount of the importance and the seriousness of what Jesus' sacrifice was all about. It seems more of a way to condone living a worldly lifestyle. Dr. Brown spoke nearly all of his debate from scripture but Brian spoke nearly the whole time with his more poetic self interpreted words.
@@hunterelilindstrom3093 what sins or worldly lifestyle were he condoning? I missed that part. And why should the person who reads the most scripture indicate anything other than they read more scripture? I've seen the Westborough baptist church read a lot of scripture too! So What? What if a person can't read? What if they dont have the intellectual facilities to understand what they read? There's this very Americanized obsession that has a tendency to idolize the bible. Our bible brings us TO Christ, it is not the gem of our salvation; its a brilliant and wonderful tool to get us there. You dont even need to believe in biblical inerrancy to be saved. That's never been a part of the deal. An honest love and trust in Christ is our goal, not a prefect understanding of the bible.
@@jdm11060 jdm11060 jdm11060 As I heard him say, maybe I misinterpreted him, he stated that God doesnt judge sin because that would mean God is a "pagan deity god" out for blood to right everyone's wrongs making it sound like God only operates in wrath which scripture clearly indicates is not true. But if God doesnt judge us and there is no punishment for sin, then why dont we sin all the time, no judgement sounds nice! This has hints of once saved always saved to me but maybe I misinterpreted him. As for scripture being used in the debate, it is quite literally the biggest trump card anyone can use. Seeing how scripture is the only thing we can pull sound doctrine from, we must live according to the word and not deviate from it. We dont idolize the bible, we recognize that it is a divinely inspired document that should be highly esteemed, Yeshua/Jesus is the manifestation of the word in the flesh as John tells us in John 1. You have to use the bible in this debate as it is the baseline of truth. I'd rather hear straight scripture rather than hear some man made doctrine simply because man made things aremt divine. As the your last comment, I never said we need to perfectly understand the bible God knows we simply lack the ability too. I never said the bible was our salvation but it plays a HUGE part in it and shouldn't be taken lightly. I'm curious, which side do you believe is right. The man made doctrine or scripture? Mathew 15:9 In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I think too often we forget it was God on the cross. Everything Jesus did while on earth was revealing the full nature and character of who God is.
@@samspangler9530 …or…what happened on the cross was the Roman Empire and the religious system working together to condemn God to death on a cross. While they did this God remained true to His nature…non violent….unconditionally loving and radically forgiving. God didn’t require the cross in order to forgive, the cross was what God endured as He forgave.
@@57andstillkicking I would like to hear how you understand this part of the verse ( some translations say “the names written in the book of life since the foundation of the earth”) I have no doubt that God shed his blood on the cross in the body of Jesus. I believe this happened in a specific time in history as recorded in the Gospels. I believe Gods death was crucial for him to enter death and have victory over death but not to enable him to be able to forgive. His nature is unchanging he is forgiving and loving. Jesus displayed this through this whole life and while being killed. He remained true to his non violent, radically forgiving, unconditional loving nature.
@@272attwell I think the sacrifice was made in the heart of God before He created man. He already and always had a way to bring man back to Himself. God’s loving and forgiving nature are what held Him to the cross, opening His welcoming heart to the world.
Brian absolutely killed this. I'm thankful to people like him who are challenging the modern heresies of the church and helping me to break out of religion and encounter a more loving Christlike God.
@@oneagleswings8456 that's heartbreaking that you can't see that this is a heart issue of humans, not a knock on who God is, you poor thing bless your heart.
So much of Zahnd's message has breathed new life into my soul. And it was so nice for Mike bickle to make it clear that Zahnd is a friend of the church even though they disagree theologically.
@@PaDutchRunner well, yeah, obviously all Evangelical leaders have seriously flawed ideologies, but I appreciate that Zahnd is trying to influence people away from fundamentalism and forms of Christianity that celebrate bigotry.
@@andrewm3997 There’s a much better route though - how do you feel about reformed covenant theology? And there is another important question that here to the heart of the issue: do you believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God (plenary verbal inspiration)?
Thank you, Brian, for using all of scripture, as it points to the Word. I appreciate your scholarship and your obvious love of the Bible. I tried hard to see Dr. Brown's point of view, but, to me, Brian was the one declaring the preeminence of Christ.
You lost me there. Using all of scripture? In this entire debate, Brian quoted less than 1/10 of what Dr. Brown did from the bible. Brian's points of discussion were equally as confusing as they were redundant since it refused to acknowledge of the full context of the Word. What's funny to me is that a lot of his points ARE true. They are biblical. But I'd put it like this: if Brian's argument were like a donut, then Dr. Brown held the donut hole.
All Brian does with mischaracterize and misrepresent exactly what PSA is isn't it Christ who said no one takes my life I'll wait lay it down willingly is there not judgment on sin where does that judgment go is it a abusive father or killing his son no it was God the Father and God the son before the foundation of the world already knew that
Thank you for sharing. This is so good! May Holy Spirit continue to give us great wisdom, revelation and knowledge as we lean into the heart of what Jesus would have us know.
I thought both presented strongly and substantively. This is a good debate and should be used in any effort to talk about the cross and what it accomplishes. Both men discussed civilly and modeled good Christian behavior. Thanks for posting!
@@oneagleswings8456 Hey Friend, this discussion is just a modern version of what's been debated for millennia. Study the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of God and you'll see a similar view to Zahnd's. Jesus never prescribed that we have a perfect doctrine of God. He did prescribe that we love one another. Zahnd and Brown do this and we need to commend them for it. Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree Chris. While I lean towards PSA, I believe it’s not essential doctrine. It seems like they agree on the result of Christ crucified and his resurrection. I disagree with Zahnd, but from this and other things I’ve read he seems to genuinely be trying to point people to Jesus.
Thank you for uploading this debate. I have not even finished it, and I am praising the LORD for how these Scriptures are being brought forth! I understand finally how God used the Torah to foreshadow my salvation through His Servant, Jesus Christ. I always have remembered Dr. Michael's Brown explanation of the law of the manslayer, and I have always struggled with this ideal of God's wrath--but God is perfect! I am certain after this debate that I need to become more studied on the subject of His wrath. I am so thankful for this video so that I may know God's character according to the Holy Scripture. Thomas J.M. Harvey
@@vivianeborkholder2268Maybe because Brown was condescending and rude on top of admittedly mis informed because he never even bothered to study why the concept of hell is even interpreted in the Bible
God is Amazing in his vast ability to love us although he is also a God of wrath and justice (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). We have all wronged him by breaking his laws and Justly deserve his wrath. And yet he is merciful through the payment of Jesus on the cross to give us a way back to him. (If we recieve it) And we show him love in return by our gratitude and obedience. God is Good! Amazing Grace! Amazing love! Awesome job Dr. Brown. I hope someday to have the kindness towards others to the extent you do. (With God's help)
Also the scapegoat imagery is explained in Christ. Jews understood it one way, but it is really simple. The people are forgiven when the animal is killed. But not only that, it was losing something valuable because of your sin. They did not see the animal being punished, rather a price to pay. Thus, Christ must die so we can RECEiVE forgiveness. We can receive not so that God can dispense forgiveness. Someone had to die, but not just anyone, He has to be sinless, and no one can be that but the Son Himself. Thus we understand, that the only way for man to receive forgiveness, is to see that God himself should give up His only begotten Son. Give up to whom? The world, sinners, and die and God not doing anything about it, when these sinners are worthy of death. Why did God turn away justice at the cross? Why did He not smite those people? Because He wants to bring them back to Him. And if Jesus doea and says nothing unless the Father tells Him to, then Him saying, Forgive them Father, reflects the heart of God. Compassion trumps vengeance. Love covers a multitude of sins.
Righteousness = justice Justice = something put to rights Grace in itself empowers and compels one to live righteously. At the heart of that, justice is fulfilled and injustice is put to right. Not too long ago, I heard someone define righteousness as “seeing the Goodness of God”. It is when we behold the goodness of the One who is Righteousness itself where we are made the Righteousness of God, and how we begin to live just lives. ☝️This is the lens we must see the atonement through.
First debate ive ever watched. Very dangerous how entertaining and interesting that was! I beleive how dr brown put it to be the truth. But both gave as good as they got and now i want to watch more.
Here's what I would like to see. Peter, Paul and John appear in the audience and then start asking questions. I hate most debates. But I still listen to some of them hoping to get something out of it I guess. Will we still have these debates once the Tribulation period starts and the stuff hits the fan?
What this really comes down to is rejection of the True Christ of God. Paraphrasing Zahnd from memory, "A Hindu who was a potential member of our church was offended by the real Christ, soooooo..." Well, got news for ya, Christ Jesus doesn't bend to our liking. We are to bend to His. What to do when a Hindu, a Muslim and an atheist all walk in on the same day? "C'mon, baby, let's do the twist..."
You shouldn't argue against a paraphrase. Zahnd argues that God is a God of love and Brown argues that God for some reason could not cure sin on his own but had to kill his son. Browns position, a modern church position (Zahnd argues what James, Paul and others believed) is that God demands pain and suffering. It's fascinating that so many modern Christians want to hold on to a relatively post-modern interpretation simply because that's how they were raised.
I don’t think he would forgiving us freely implies he forgives everyone but no you have to be lucky enough to be born into a Christian country to be forgiven if you were born in the Amazon rainforest and never seen a white person before your pretty much screwed
@@jdoe7674 He does. Notice how the first believers were told to just take the abuse and endure, forgiving and showing agape. God's love is known all over the world. But yahweh is not Jesus nor the Father.
@@graceoverreligion2509 exactly fam Yahweh and yeshuas name are not known everywhere so it wouldn’t be fair and just for him to say u must confess my name in this life to escape eternal torture sure there is no verse that states there’s salvation after death just like there is no verse that says there is not salvation after death or there is no verse that says God is a trinity none of that is clearly stated in the Bible but it’s all a possibility and we would be arrogant to claim to know 100% either way God is mysterious and doesn’t want us to know everything right away but when i tell you he told me that he isn’t going to cast off anyone forever you have no choice but to be skeptical I know but I have no choice but to believe it with all my heart and soul and just ask that you consider it an option and realize God isn’t terrifying he loves us he made us in his image we’re all his children and yeah some stray away but he won’t stop until he finds his one lost sheep ❤️
Yet the LORD was pleased to crush him severely. When you make him a guilt offering, he will see his seed, he will prolong his days, and by his hand, the LORD’s pleasure will be accomplished. Isaiah 53:10
Two Christian gentlemen discuss a theological theory in an intelligent, polite and thoughtful way. Great example of how we can explore one another's opinions on important issues without getting upset about it.
This debate wasn't even close. Brian Zahnds argument (if you can call it that) was basically "I don't think this is the way a loving God would act." On the other hand Dr. Brown basically just read Scripture after Scripture to prove his points. Brown destroyed him. It was no contest.
Maybe it’s because you would prefer to jump to a conclusion in lieu of doing the work of seeking to understand. A lot easier to jump to our suspicions and turn off having to think and consider different thinking then what we have already entrenched.
I was thinking the same thing just listening to his opening statement. He literally said God didn't require this when it was prophesied through the law and the prophets.
What if these are both right? I don't see these as being in opposition except when people pose it in such a way. I think Christus Victus and PSA are not mutually exclusive concepts. This seems weird to me. Maybe as Zahnd is presenting it, but I see NT Wright affirming substitutionary atonement while favoring CV as the controlling lens.
The reason that they're mutually exclusive is bc of nestorianism. Under psa, God separates Himself from God the Son, Jesus endures wrath from God. CV teaches that Jesus' purpose had nothing to do w divine justice, but conquering death via wrath from satan. It goes a lot more in depth but I think it comes down to this: who killed God? God or someone else?
This silly doctrine is what happens when people forget that God is both Kind and Severe. Both Merciful and Just. Abraham offered his son, while his son trusted him, in faith knowing God would raise him from the dead which was a shadow of what Father God and Jesus did. The shedding of blood is required for the repayment of sin. Its not God killing his son... It's a father offering his son in faith (with the permission of his son) as a sacrafice for attonment for the sin of others. It shows the incredible ugliness of sin,but the incredible beauty and power of love conquering all through sacrifice. It is not pagan. God set it up. It's symbolostic. Metaphorical. It's freaking amazing. Life is in the blood.
I don't think we should stray from the language of "killing". God is the sole authority over life so there's nothing wrong with him killing people. Murder isn't wrong because it's killing, but because the individual is killing in the place of God. That said, the real problem with this characterization is that the Son (who is also omniscient btw) GAVE HIMSELF. Father and Son were in agreement. To use the language of "Father killing the Son" is an a reductionism fallacy that tunnel-visions one's perception of what actually happened. It's an emotional argument with no logical weight behind it.
@@UltraX34 you are correct, it was his father's will that he give his life and he was in perfect unity with that will. Jesus, as a man actually prayed for another way in the garden (probobly because he was stressed out about it from a flesh sense) but he said "not my will, but your will father". Jesus's faith in the father's will pleased the father. They had a unified perfect relationship and Jesus was in complete agreement with the father. It was not done forceful issue as im sure you would agree Bless you!
Nah but I think they actually needed more time to dialogue rather than present back and forth. They were talking past each other at times. BZ doesn't deny substitution and Brown spent a lot of time reaffirming substitution for example. Another example, a big part of BZ's point is to reject the "wrath onto Jesus" piece (which is the "penal" part of penal substitution), and Brown seemed to tread carefully on the point of whether or not God forgives only after wrath is satisfied by the death of Jesus. The discussion really didn't hit the core on that topic, either.
Thank you Dr. Brown for always adhering to scripture. God is perfectly loving and perfectly just! Simple as that! It’s so simple I think sometimes it’s hard to grasp. I think if you don’t see your sin and sin as the horrible offense it is, then you are more prone to want to reject Gods just aspect and only want him to be loving. Systemic sin comes from us, sin infects everything it touches. Thank you Jesus for your divine justice and divine love. Please try to see yourself clearly, your sin clearly and God clearly.
Another problem is Christians who perpetuate the lie & heresy of Marcionism -- without bothering to read & study the Bible. There is a lot of grace in the Old Testament, and a lot of judgment in the New Testament. Same God in both Testaments. And Jesus is not all -- as one commenter already called Him -- "lovey-dovey."
@@IndianaJoe0321 I've read through a free replies here and no where did I see anyone argue that there are distant God's. No one argued that Jesus does not have some judgement. Your entire point is some sort of argument against something no one said.
@@hellohelloing9066: the OP had written, "... then you are more prone to want to reject God's just aspect and only want him [sic] to be loving." This clearly hints at the teachings of Marcion -- to which many modern Christians unknowingly adhere: two gods -- one angry, mean god of the Old Testament ... and one good, loving god of the New Testament.
@@IndianaJoe0321 Yeah no one says God doesnt judge or has vengeance or gives up His right to judge or have vegeance, we are saying God also has the right to set aside His wrath and still be just , and no one beside opinion can claim this is not true. So arguing that God has the right to judge or has vengeance is arguing against another argument not the argument made here.
@@IndianaJoe0321 It's not Marcionism. Zahnd does not pit the OT god against the NT God, but rather says that both the OT & the NT words about God should bow at the feet of the Living Word of God. Neither the OT nor the NT are the infallible Word of God, but Jesus is the infallible Word of God.
"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thes 2:11-12
Brian spent 15 minutes answering the last two back to back questions and never quotes a scripture. (1:11:55-1126:05) He has done this throughout the debate. When he has quoted scripture it always supports what Dr. Brown has said. That is because the scripture is so crystal clear, at least for this debate topic that a simple person can understand its truth and theme. I was so biblically illiterate when I got saved that I got confused while reading the Gospels because I kept thinking I was reading a book that I didn’t know I read, meaning I didn’t know that the four Gospels were the same story narrated by four eyewitnesses. I just read it from front to back. With that said when Brian brought up the idea that Luther introduced the wrath of God etc. I immediately knew he was wrong because like so many others if not all Gods blood bought saints can agree with us that The Holy Spirit revealed not only The traditional view that Dr. Brown is explaining but so much more. I cried reading God’s word as my heart began to respond to it. I realized that Christ not only died in my place on the cross but that if he were on earth he would be mingling with the undesirable sinners of our day, like me so I thought at the time. I used to disagree in my mind with Paul, thinking no, I’m Chief sinner. I was able to see the condition of my heart by the law and the Old Testament. And the Grace of God in Christ healed my wounded heart (conviction). He even took the guilt, which I struggled with for many years, because it feels like death when I sin knowingly because I have The Holy Spirit living inside me now. Hoe could I do such a thing, I say to myself. But I repent. I have too, some say “ you don’t have repent every time!” I do. The wages of sin is death. I know my salvation cannot be taken from me now but as Paul says “ work out your salvation with fear and trembling “ I’m being sanctified. I will receive a new body when I’m resurrected into God’s kingdom. I will finally be ridden with this cursed body of sin. It will weigh me down no more. Hallelujah!!!! Brian avoids the straight question about who is saved and who goes to Hell and what Hell is. This is dangerous because I believe we are in certainty the beginning of the end times. Never before are so many turning to a different Gospel. People are leaving the churches and persons are becoming pastors who are full blown atheists. Christians are no longer putting up with sound doctrine. And people like Brian I fear is not sowing seed that is from the full grit of Gods word and will not take root. If it does it will be a tare GOD IS JUST, PERIOD
@brent holladay Very, very, very good post, Brent! I enjoyed it, and appreciate that it gives such glory to God. One day, you, I and Paul shall argue as to who was really the chief of sinners. ;-) It's my position that we're all going to be a bit shocked. Did you happen to catch the "debate" posted before this one with, IIRC, Michael Sullivan? If you really want your head twisted... Meanwhile, we all need to keep doing what you're doing. Sometimes spreading the truth of God's word is all we can do. If there's more we can do, we need to do it. I agree that time is short. Watching it all unfold is somewhat reassuring, however. I never thought I'd live to see this day. Know what I mean? "2Ti_3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." Again, great post. May God bless you and yours, Brent.
Pastor Brian, this is for you. But first of all I thank you Dr. Brown for all your good works and for lettlling me use your platform to congratulate Pastor Brian. We are all saved from satan by the message of the cross and the knowledge of God's justice. But I believe Pastor Brian is doing a very godd job, bringing us to the knowledge of God's Love. Pastor Brian is also trying to teach us about the character of God. That the God of the old is the same as the God of the new. Because Jesus and God are one. I believe Pstor Brian was also trying to get us to the point where we will understand the OT in the light of the NT. With which comes the principle of accommodation. Because of the nature of the people near ancient East, their culture ,language and their background before know Yaweh. The I Am that I Am Further more, about the judgement of God, pastor Brian was trying to share with us how we can interprate the bible with the bible. When we do, all the difficult passages such as killing or God using the services of demons and satan passages will complements each other. They do not complecate things at all. Yes God judges sin but How? You know Dr. Brown, I love you and your work with the scriptures are wonderful. You have served your generation well. Thank you. We will contenue to appreciate you here and long after you are gone. But I think the character of God is consistent with what who God said He is in the light of What Pastor Brian was sharing. When we get to understand what pastor was saying you will see that people will not only feel saved by the blood to escape satan but we all will be able to Love the Lord Our God With all our HEART... SOUL... STREANGHT. The Love of God is Beautiful Thing. It is Deep. If you will allow me I can also share a few bookS and resourses with you here. Thank you. My email is akrong37@gmail.com. I put this here because I love and respect you and will welcome any coments and or advise that you habe for me. You can also contact my pastor. Pastor Troy J Edwards at Vindicating God Ministries.
On the left, a man who forces the text to fit his reasoning. On the right, a man who forces his reasoning to fit the text. Thanks for being on the right side, Dr. Brown.
I have a question for Dr. Brown: Being Jewish, and, of course, for the sake of argument, can you imagine yourself being invited to a Jewish funeral, where a very old man (whom you knew, perhaps) is being remembered as a survivor of the Holocaust. This man has remained with his Jewish faith all his life, therefore, died in "his sins", as evangelicals like to believe. Would you be comfortable letting everyone know that this poor man, in spite of all his sufferings, will know something much worse (eternal helll) now that he has passed away?? Awaiting your reply. Diane.
Zahnd would not have smeared the lamb’s blood above the door had he lived during the last plague because that would have been “penal substitutionary atonement.” So do you think God’s judgment would come or would it have passed over? “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Nope, Zahnd’s son would have suffered the same fate as pharaoh’s son.
Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the PUNISHMENT that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. iSAIAH 53:4-5
It is sad to see how much of our human angst and folly we want/need to assign to the actions of God in order to satisfy our human sense of justice. The speaker in defense of the penal substitution theory appears to have an overdeveloped sense of vengence.
Oh contraire. It is the modern mentality that wishes to deny the absolute justice of God. The modern mentality wishes to believe that God is a lawless, unprincipled God who simply overlooks human sin and evil without any consequence whatsoever. Penal Substitutionary Atonement has nothing to do with human angst -- it is about God's justice and human evil.
People appeal to feeling and what they would like to believe, then they start to change a little here and there to fit into their interpretation of the scripture. I am not sure if he believes that there is a specific place called hell. He has said a few times that sins send us to hell over and over again.
From the word Go, Zhand is arguing a straw man. Nobody says God killed Jesus! Rather that God in the Trinity offered Jesus to take sin, WHICH MUST BE DESTROYED, God judges sin, to eradicate it. It's us who decide whether or not to attach ourselves to sin and go down with it. Hebrews 10.
"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush Him; He has put him to grief; when His soul makes an offering for guilt, He shall see His offspring; He shall prolong His days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in His hand" ~ Isaiah 53:10
@@IndianaJoe0321 yes by offering Him over into the hands of sinful men. That is a sovereignty deal. "You don't take my life, I give it." It's not the Father literally killing the Son. It's the Son and the father's plan for the Son to give his life. Zhand presents it as the Father pulling the trigger. No, the Father crushes him by giving him over, and the people are accountable because of their willingness to kill the Son.
I didnt like the title of the debate but learned a lot from the debate itself. The shift made by Zahnd to Cain and systemic sin is a new thing to me, I had never heard that before and on the surface it makes me think he has no concept of how deep sin is from the fall or has never felt the conviction of personal sin infront of The Holy God, i could be wrong.
Great points by both speakers, love the discussion. If your interested in more about Brian Zahnd check out Brad Jersak. He has some really good teaching on church history and the hear to God.
Church history is corrupted and not valid. Fairytales told woth some truth inside. But can't be proven. Examples: church history/traditions say Peter was the 1st pope and doed upside down in Rome. Bhr about 7 years ago, peter's bones together with his wife and family wer e foynd in Israel. Proving church history was wrong and lies to benefit the Catholic church. Do research. If the so called history would've been true, It would've been put in th e Bible. Follow The Bible, not men or man's teachings on what they assume. Trust The Word! Peace
@Sue Blue All the content in your citations can be accounted within a Christus Victor framework. Understanding of the texts all depend on your presuppositions. That's why this debate was useful, if for no other reasons than to understand what each camp means when the use the words, sin, forgiveness, mercy, justice, wrath, etc..
@Sue Blue I shouldn't be, but I'm always stunned by the rampant intellectual insecurity of other Christians who feel the need to respond so sarcastically to information they disagree with. Would you resoond to me like that face to face? Would Jesus be proud of the way you responded? If I were wrong, would that be an effective way of changing my mind? Your response was borderline incoherent, which leads me to believe you dont even know Christus Victor is a theory of atonement. Its not even a theory I strictly hold to, either. There is no need to be so ridiculous just because you're comfortable being an irrational woman hiding behind a keyboard. Practice that walk with Christ in all your relationships, and yes, that even includes strangers online.
@Sue Blue thank you for making it clear which side of the mob that crucified jesus you would have been standing. Time for a sobering look in the mirror, Sue. May God bless you.
I am glad I didn't have a horse in this race. That said, the concept of "God's wrath" was repeated numerous times, nearly every time emphasized as a satisfying (punitive) punishment. That same person quoted Paul in Romans numerous times yet omitted Paul's own definition of God's wrath in Romans 1. Not to be disrespectful but it felt a bit like he was kicking against the goad, all the while confusing the listening audience about the true nature of God's wrath and even more importantly, the true nature of His character: Love.
Dr. Brown's explanation is a masterpiece! And I humbly add this ... Jesus' great victory over spiritual death was also won in the hours AFTER the cross. Please follow. Jesus' crucifixion was Satan's act to get Jesus to curse God and mankind, which He didn't. He glorified God by His Grace and forgiveness for his executioners. After the cross, Jesus was thrust under a colossal tidal wave of sin - the entire mass of ugly, furious, formation of sin - like a giant tornado - from mankind's history and future. Here He paid the price of sin because He endured something He did not deserve. He was the perfect and innocent lamb. Total victory for God. Total defeat and humiliation of Satan. Jesus completed His mission by sprinkling His precious and innocently shed blood on the Mercy Seat, which sealed the transaction for all eternity.
short debate recap:-Dr Brown: the Bible is true & says x about PSA , Brian Zahnd: While the bible is true, my feelings are more true and God can't be a big meanie, plus some people from church history also agree with me
micu radu You’re not upsetting me or I should just trust some random person from the internet. What is your real name if you claim to be a professor? What papers have you written? Do you have any peer review papers? Who have you worked with? Which school are you teaching at? I can sum up what I saw in this debate, and I agree with most of the comments here. BZ’s version of God is heretic. Does not use the verses in context. Brown on the hand supported his theology and his side with what is written in the scriptures, within its context.
Every verse Sir Brown quotes can be understood to support the other side. You need to define those words individually to establish the meaning of said phrases.
My assessment of the closing statements-- Dr. Brown: The most important thing about Christianity is Jesus' death. Pastor Brian: The most important thing about Christianity is that Jesus is LORD.
After listening to this debate, it saddened me to hear Dr browns comment on the early Church, we must realise the church as been here for 2500 years not 500 years dose he realise it was the early church who put the books of the bible into the book we have now called the bible. I once heard a minister say we don't need jesus to be here now because we have the written word but I would say give me the living word who is jesus christ every time .
The cross was no more child sacrifice than Capt. Miller in Saving Private Ryan. I'm shocked at the level to which "progressive" believers throw around these terms out of context!
He is not progresive and if you have a learning heart and you are not set in your ways I will ask you to follow up with him and and his ministry and clear up things for yourself. Christians have been too sit back for far so long. Okay this is what a learner does. Take the information you got from there and learn in that line to prove it for yourself. Do not get spoon feed. Wait which of the past revival do you well know and which one does your denomination still hold on to. Find out about church history and also ibwill advise that you check out God's Generals by Robert L
You can also check out these by Pastor Troy J Edward. At Vindicating God ministries And even if you are not able to afford them at the price, get in touch with Him "The Wrath" "How" "The Permisive Sense" " Is The Future Set In Stone? "Untying God's "NOTs!" "Does God send Sickeness" "Does God work with Demons"
zahnd is not progressive in the sense that he would openly condone cheating on your wife. he's not that bad. but progressive in the sense that his conclusions, namely his theory on atonement, are not always rooted in scripture. can you find things to support his monster god? sure. proof-texting at its finest. but even atheists do that. but if, in humility, you approach scripture and truly desire to discover the god of the bible you will not come out looking like zahnd. what's interesting is that not everyone who is commenting here against zahnd is a calvinist/cessationist. some are. but many of us are just as charismatic as dr. brown. but at the end of the day we don't settle on theology that feels good or sounds good. we base our doctrines on scripture. @@euniceakrong8054
The cross is God letting people know He loves them, and they should come and be reconcilled to Him. To change our minds which was once in enmity towards God. Rmember, it was Adam who hid himself, not God. LOVE IS ENOUGH. now be reconcilled to God, and receive healing. Rrmember the New Covenant and what it is. The law covenant is obsolite to those who are in Christ.
I happily and without reservation left the Christianity with a monster god for years and years. I came back to the Christianity where Jesus is the exact representation of God.
All forgiveness costs someone, just not necessarily the one who benefits. For example, if a bank forgives your loan, someone pays the price, in that case it would be the bank.
@@scottfranklin9670 E.x.a.c.t.l.y. This is exactly what Jesus meant by "turn the other cheek". God's grace was being slapped by humanity by our disobedience starting with Adam, but then turning the other cheek by dying for us on the cross instead of slapping us back. This is true grace and true forgiveness, demonstrating the justice and mercy of God. We created a debt before God, and He paid it Himself for everyone who receives Jesus. Pretty simple to me, and this Gospel doesn't require mutilating Scripture.
@@scottfranklin9670 if the bank" paid the price' that wouldnt be forgiveness. So Jesus pays the price, and because Jesus is God there is no seperation , God pays the price, but when God pours out His wrath, there is seperation , so God doesnt pour out His wrath on Himself. Be consistent. Is there seperation or not ?? Does the Bank withdraw the amount of the loan from its reserve, and then deposit the amount of the Loan back to its reserve and then says " I paid the price" ? Does God expel His wrath and then pours it on Himself and say I paid your price???
@@fredarroyo7429 Sounds like you don't believe the concept of the Trinity, but correct me if I'm wrong. Let's stay with the simple illustration of the "bank paying the price." If I'm the debtor owing the bank a million $, but they absolve my debt, HOW is that not FORGIVENESS? Regardless of where payment came from, a million $ was owed and needed to be paid. If the bank absorbed the debt, yes, it is forgiveness from the debtor's perspective.
Ps Brian didn't make an argument from scripture, its more of an opinion based on a critique of Penal Substitution using caricatures of the position to show how terrible it supposedly is
In some ways they are saying a very similar thing- Jesus absorbed / took away our sins. It concerns me that Dr. Brown reasons primarily out of the OT. I also hear him saying that God is subordinate to justice.- in other words, God ‘has rules by which he must abide.’ I do agree with Brian, though I’m not sure he stated his case as clearly as he could have. In short, Jesus’ death on the cross is the supreme demonstration of God’s love- it is not a requirement that God needed to fulfill in order to forgive sinful humans. I am so grateful for Jesus’s love & sacrifice- He is Truth and He is Life. As He said, “If you have seen the Me yoiuhave seen the Father.”
As God Jahweh spoke His word, Satan uses the seem word and twists it and deceives people who do not know the word of God or do not wanna know the word of God, cause that is not what they wanna hear. This is what pictured the two enclosing statements of brother Michael brown and paster Brian. Paster Brian is deceived and with his doctrine he creates a different picture of God mainly a God that has to please his wish view of the God of the Bible. Michael Brown discribes God based on what everyone can read - a God that is loving just and will show His wrath In the end for those ignored or rejected Jesus sacrificial offer. My question is, does the view from Brian can have a salvation concequence or not? And.... What value has the call for repentence, when God forgives, because He forgives? And... Why needed Our Yeshua to die, when God forgives, because He forgives? Anybody?
I am Splitting with Dr. Brown on this one. Who was the Sacrificed paid to? So Sin needed to Punished. So God Punished Himself as a Man on Earth? WHO DOES THE SACRIFICED HAVE TO PAID TO??? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE If that was the case. God could have just Forgiven Sin without sacrificing himself. Dr. Brown's idea makes sense if Jesus wasn't God but only God's son. But that betrays the Trinity. Jesus is God. This is like watching my son break out a window and me responding by whipping myself with a Belt? It isn't necessary and doesn't make sense. When I can just Forgive my son for breaking the window.
you and your son are too different to compare to the father and son of the trinity. the father and son were both in on the crucifixion arrangement. it's not like the father was super pissed off about sin and jesus wasn't. it's not like the father was swinging an axe and poor jesus decided to get in the way. no. the father and son both eternally hate sin. upon the cross the son suffered in his humanity (his body, his mind, his emotions, etc.) this gets a little more sketchy because scripture does not say--but did the father suffer in "losing" his son to a nasty plague called sin? i think so. theologians try to protect the trinity but the triune god did not protect himself. he hung naked on a pagan symbol of torture because of the greatness of his love. so jesus offered the sacrifice to his father in heaven but he (jesus) was in some real sense (because he is part of the triune god) placated as well. he did away with the thing that was separating him from his beloved creation. jesus is the victor. he gets to be the hero of his own story. not jesus the man. not jesus the divine. but jesus the divine man. god does things in accordance with his own nature. you say that he could have just forgiven. but i suspect that that oversimplification of dealing with sin is contrary to god's nature. i think you identify the mystery of the cross with all of your questions. i understand you're asking them rhetorically but it's just as well--god punished himself? yes. that's the whole point of immanuel. immanu = with us el = god. it was prophesied that the coming messiah wouldn't just be a man but that he would somehow be divine as well. he could not entrust the job to anyone else. what would be the point of punishing a mere human? how does bob's death atone (in any substantial way) for joe's life? you said, "Dr. Brown's idea makes sense if Jesus wasn't God but only God's son" but how is he any kind of mediator if he is not both man and god? the divine part of jesus did not need to be punished. but it's the only way to accomplish the goal. and technically the human part of jesus didn't require any punishment either. did an innocent lamb deserve to be sacrificed. well, no. but when the offerer brings that lamb the lamb becomes a whole other thing. jesus didn't have to die. that is true. but if he chose not to then humanity would have been lost. so if god wanted the conclusion to be that humanity could be reconciled to him then jesus DID in fact have to die.
As a 3x deployed veteran, I find Dr. Browns thoughtless dismissal of the question at 1:20:50 the most disturbing part of this video. "Christians" have, at least in the US, lead the way in the retributive justice category. To me, that fact alone undermines the underlying theology of the loudest supporters of the US military.
Well done Dr. Brown!
Mike Winger What is a straw man?
@@troymatthews3374
straw man
noun
noun: strawman
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
God bless:)
AMEN!
Do I need Facts in Order to believe something?
Hah! I knew I was rooting for the right side. lol
I grew up in a Christian home, went to Christian schools my whole life, I have a degree in Biblical Studies, and yet watching this I feel like I have only just heard the Gospel. What Brian Zahnd is saying about God is breaking my heart in the most awesome way.
He may use words that make it sound nice but it lacks power. What he is preaching takes away a vast amount of the importance and the seriousness of what Jesus' sacrifice was all about. It seems more of a way to condone living a worldly lifestyle. Dr. Brown spoke nearly all of his debate from scripture but Brian spoke nearly the whole time with his more poetic self interpreted words.
@@hunterelilindstrom3093 what sins or worldly lifestyle were he condoning? I missed that part. And why should the person who reads the most scripture indicate anything other than they read more scripture? I've seen the Westborough baptist church read a lot of scripture too! So What? What if a person can't read? What if they dont have the intellectual facilities to understand what they read? There's this very Americanized obsession that has a tendency to idolize the bible. Our bible brings us TO Christ, it is not the gem of our salvation; its a brilliant and wonderful tool to get us there. You dont even need to believe in biblical inerrancy to be saved. That's never been a part of the deal. An honest love and trust in Christ is our goal, not a prefect understanding of the bible.
@@jdm11060 jdm11060 jdm11060 As I heard him say, maybe I misinterpreted him, he stated that God doesnt judge sin because that would mean God is a "pagan deity god" out for blood to right everyone's wrongs making it sound like God only operates in wrath which scripture clearly indicates is not true. But if God doesnt judge us and there is no punishment for sin, then why dont we sin all the time, no judgement sounds nice! This has hints of once saved always saved to me but maybe I misinterpreted him.
As for scripture being used in the debate, it is quite literally the biggest trump card anyone can use. Seeing how scripture is the only thing we can pull sound doctrine from, we must live according to the word and not deviate from it. We dont idolize the bible, we recognize that it is a divinely inspired document that should be highly esteemed, Yeshua/Jesus is the manifestation of the word in the flesh as John tells us in John 1. You have to use the bible in this debate as it is the baseline of truth. I'd rather hear straight scripture rather than hear some man made doctrine simply because man made things aremt divine.
As the your last comment, I never said we need to perfectly understand the bible God knows we simply lack the ability too. I never said the bible was our salvation but it plays a HUGE part in it and shouldn't be taken lightly.
I'm curious, which side do you believe is right. The man made doctrine or scripture?
Mathew 15:9
In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
@@hunterelilindstrom3093 You're making a foundational mistake common to most western evangelicals. The "Bible" is not the Word of God. Jesus is.
@@Jordan-hz1wr hey Jordan, awesome to hear from you. I totally agree that Jesus is the word. Didn't think I said he wasn't.
Great debate!
Who holds the final truth?
you didnt review this on your channel - tsk tsk!
:D
Thank you Pastor Brian
Yes. Yes. Yes. I think too often we forget it was God on the cross. Everything Jesus did while on earth was revealing the full nature and character of who God is.
@@samspangler9530 …or…what happened on the cross was the Roman Empire and the religious system working together to condemn God to death on a cross. While they did this God remained true to His nature…non violent….unconditionally loving and radically forgiving. God didn’t require the cross in order to forgive, the cross was what God endured as He forgave.
@@57andstillkicking ..and yet in the gospels we see Jesus going around forgiving all sorts of people’s sins…without shedding any blood.
@@272attwell
The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 13:8.
@@57andstillkicking I would like to hear how you understand this part of the verse ( some translations say “the names written in the book of life since the foundation of the earth”) I have no doubt that God shed his blood on the cross in the body of Jesus. I believe this happened in a specific time in history as recorded in the Gospels. I believe Gods death was crucial for him to enter death and have victory over death but not to enable him to be able to forgive. His nature is unchanging he is forgiving and loving. Jesus displayed this through this whole life and while being killed. He remained true to his non violent, radically forgiving, unconditional loving nature.
@@272attwell
I think the sacrifice was made in the heart of God before He created man. He already and always had a way to bring man back to Himself. God’s loving and forgiving nature are what held Him to the cross, opening His welcoming heart to the world.
Thank you! I've been waiting for this to be re-uploaded.
Brian absolutely killed this. I'm thankful to people like him who are challenging the modern heresies of the church and helping me to break out of religion and encounter a more loving Christlike God.
Stephen that's heartbreaking to hear. God can't deny his justice he doesn't change. We must be washed before coming into his presence
@@oneagleswings8456 that's heartbreaking that you can't see that this is a heart issue of humans, not a knock on who God is, you poor thing bless your heart.
@@salparedo it is a knock on the True God of scripture. He's literally calling him a monster
@@oneagleswings8456No. YOU’RE calling him a monster
Thank you Dr. Brown!
Didn't expect Dr. Brown's opening statement. Fantastic!
So much of Zahnd's message has breathed new life into my soul. And it was so nice for Mike bickle to make it clear that Zahnd is a friend of the church even though they disagree theologically.
Zahnd and Bickle are both bad news.
@@PaDutchRunner well, yeah, obviously all Evangelical leaders have seriously flawed ideologies, but I appreciate that Zahnd is trying to influence people away from fundamentalism and forms of Christianity that celebrate bigotry.
@@andrewm3997 There’s a much better route though - how do you feel about reformed covenant theology?
And there is another important question that here to the heart of the issue: do you believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God (plenary verbal inspiration)?
Thank you, Brian, for using all of scripture, as it points to the Word. I appreciate your scholarship and your obvious love of the Bible. I tried hard to see Dr. Brown's point of view, but, to me, Brian was the one declaring the preeminence of Christ.
You lost me there. Using all of scripture? In this entire debate, Brian quoted less than 1/10 of what Dr. Brown did from the bible. Brian's points of discussion were equally as confusing as they were redundant since it refused to acknowledge of the full context of the Word. What's funny to me is that a lot of his points ARE true. They are biblical. But I'd put it like this: if Brian's argument were like a donut, then Dr. Brown held the donut hole.
All Brian does with mischaracterize and misrepresent exactly what PSA is isn't it Christ who said no one takes my life I'll wait lay it down willingly is there not judgment on sin where does that judgment go is it a abusive father or killing his son no it was God the Father and God the son before the foundation of the world already knew that
Thank you for sharing. This is so good! May Holy Spirit continue to give us great wisdom, revelation and knowledge as we lean into the heart of what Jesus would have us know.
This is my first time here. It’s now 2/8/20. Interesting debate. Dr. Brown I agree with you. ❤️🙏🙋🏼♀️💝
Scripture disagrees with Dr brown
Amen !,,,the Reconciliation of ALL....as in Adam all die so in Christ all shall live. 1 Corinthians 15.18
The Good News !
I thought both presented strongly and substantively. This is a good debate and should be used in any effort to talk about the cross and what it accomplishes. Both men discussed civilly and modeled good Christian behavior. Thanks for posting!
Chris you gotta still realize no matter how civil. The claims made by Zahnd are absolutely blasphemous he is calling the true God a monster
@@oneagleswings8456 Hey Friend, this discussion is just a modern version of what's been debated for millennia. Study the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of God and you'll see a similar view to Zahnd's. Jesus never prescribed that we have a perfect doctrine of God. He did prescribe that we love one another. Zahnd and Brown do this and we need to commend them for it. Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree Chris. While I lean towards PSA, I believe it’s not essential doctrine. It seems like they agree on the result of Christ crucified and his resurrection. I disagree with Zahnd, but from this and other things I’ve read he seems to genuinely be trying to point people to Jesus.
I’m gonna respectfully disagree with you here
@@oneagleswings8456That’s because you’re just ignorant. Not meant to be an insult.
Thank you for uploading this debate. I have not even finished it, and I am praising the LORD for how these Scriptures are being brought forth! I understand finally how God used the Torah to foreshadow my salvation through His Servant, Jesus Christ. I always have remembered Dr. Michael's Brown explanation of the law of the manslayer, and I have always struggled with this ideal of God's wrath--but God is perfect! I am certain after this debate that I need to become more studied on the subject of His wrath. I am so thankful for this video so that I may know God's character according to the Holy Scripture.
Thomas J.M. Harvey
Great debate by both Dr Brown and Brian Zahnd. Dr Brown nailed it.
Praise God for Dr Brown!
Well said Dr.Brown
Dr. Micheal Brown 🏆🥇🏅🎖️💪
I LOVE MY JESUS!!! THANK YOU FOR DYING ON THE CROSS FOR ME♥️😭
Last week I was discussing this debate with an acquaintance of mine. Such great timing! Thank you, Dr. Brown!
It boils down to true and complete justice. That’s all- not wrath not vengeance. Justice pure.
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Amen! Amen!
Well done Mr Brown.
Brian Zahnd absolutely amazing ❤
Lol you must be watching a different debate than me
@@vivianeborkholder2268Maybe because Brown was condescending and rude on top of admittedly mis informed because he never even bothered to study why the concept of hell is even interpreted in the Bible
@@vivianeborkholder2268I found him a bit rude as well.
Dr Broen was 100%!on point. Truly courageous of him to call Zahnd out.
@@PaDutchRunner Courageous? How is taking the majority view ever courageous??
God is Amazing in his vast ability to love us although he is also a God of wrath and justice (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). We have all wronged him by breaking his laws and Justly deserve his wrath. And yet he is merciful through the payment of Jesus on the cross to give us a way back to him. (If we recieve it) And we show him love in return by our gratitude and obedience. God is Good! Amazing Grace! Amazing love!
Awesome job Dr. Brown. I hope someday to have the kindness towards others to the extent you do. (With God's help)
GOD IS WAR AND HE OVES IT SO,,,ALL THE CAUSULTIES BE DAMNED
bigfigism is English your first language? That comment is not a complete thought.
Thank you, Dr. Brown. Well done, and very comforting.
Thank you for the PDF of Penal Substitution in Church history. Have not read it yet; its a good start for me, looks very comprehensive. Thanks again
Is not opening now or couldn't be downloaded. Any other ways?
@@seyalmanit5713you are right. I will have a look to see whether I can find my copy and let you know. However, a brief look does not look promising.
It begins at 9:07
Goodness thank you lol
The wrath of God is offensive for those who believe in the Gospel of Grace which Jesus preached
Brian Zahnd has it right!
I assume your go to translation is "The Passion" translation.
Also the scapegoat imagery is explained in Christ. Jews understood it one way, but it is really simple.
The people are forgiven when the animal is killed. But not only that, it was losing something valuable because of your sin.
They did not see the animal being punished, rather a price to pay.
Thus, Christ must die so we can RECEiVE forgiveness. We can receive not so that God can dispense forgiveness.
Someone had to die, but not just anyone, He has to be sinless, and no one can be that but the Son Himself.
Thus we understand, that the only way for man to receive forgiveness, is to see that God himself should give up His only begotten Son. Give up to whom? The world, sinners, and die and God not doing anything about it, when these sinners are worthy of death.
Why did God turn away justice at the cross? Why did He not smite those people? Because He wants to bring them back to Him.
And if Jesus doea and says nothing unless the Father tells Him to, then Him saying, Forgive them Father, reflects the heart of God.
Compassion trumps vengeance. Love covers a multitude of sins.
love Brian Zahnd. So glad he did this.
Righteousness = justice
Justice = something put to rights
Grace in itself empowers and compels one to live righteously.
At the heart of that, justice is fulfilled and injustice is put to right.
Not too long ago, I heard someone define righteousness as “seeing the Goodness of God”.
It is when we behold the goodness of the One who is Righteousness itself where we are made the Righteousness of God, and how we begin to live just lives.
☝️This is the lens we must see the atonement through.
First debate ive ever watched. Very dangerous how entertaining and interesting that was!
I beleive how dr brown put it to be the truth.
But both gave as good as they got and now i want to watch more.
Here's what I would like to see. Peter, Paul and John appear in the audience and then start asking questions.
I hate most debates. But I still listen to some of them hoping to get something out of it I guess.
Will we still have these debates once the Tribulation period starts and the stuff hits the fan?
What this really comes down to is rejection of the True Christ of God. Paraphrasing Zahnd from memory, "A Hindu who was a potential member of our church was offended by the real Christ, soooooo..." Well, got news for ya, Christ Jesus doesn't bend to our liking. We are to bend to His. What to do when a Hindu, a Muslim and an atheist all walk in on the same day? "C'mon, baby, let's do the twist..."
Carole Wilson very good
Amen. This Brian better check his theology.
You shouldn't argue against a paraphrase. Zahnd argues that God is a God of love and Brown argues that God for some reason could not cure sin on his own but had to kill his son. Browns position, a modern church position (Zahnd argues what James, Paul and others believed) is that God demands pain and suffering. It's fascinating that so many modern Christians want to hold on to a relatively post-modern interpretation simply because that's how they were raised.
God bless them both. I know I wouldn’t want to debate Dr. Brown!!
Just Say Yes Brother, Yes~!
Because he is loud and patronizing in his tone ?
God forgives us freely. I think Dr Brown agrees.
I don’t think he would forgiving us freely implies he forgives everyone but no you have to be lucky enough to be born into a Christian country to be forgiven if you were born in the Amazon rainforest and never seen a white person before your pretty much screwed
@@jdoe7674 He does. Notice how the first believers were told to just take the abuse and endure, forgiving and showing agape.
God's love is known all over the world.
But yahweh is not Jesus nor the Father.
@@graceoverreligion2509 exactly fam Yahweh and yeshuas name are not known everywhere so it wouldn’t be fair and just for him to say u must confess my name in this life to escape eternal torture sure there is no verse that states there’s salvation after death just like there is no verse that says there is not salvation after death or there is no verse that says God is a trinity none of that is clearly stated in the Bible but it’s all a possibility and we would be arrogant to claim to know 100% either way God is mysterious and doesn’t want us to know everything right away but when i tell you he told me that he isn’t going to cast off anyone forever you have no choice but to be skeptical I know but I have no choice but to believe it with all my heart and soul and just ask that you consider it an option and realize God isn’t terrifying he loves us he made us in his image we’re all his children and yeah some stray away but he won’t stop until he finds his one lost sheep ❤️
Yet the LORD was pleased to crush him severely. When you make him a guilt offering, he will see his seed, he will prolong his days, and by his hand, the LORD’s pleasure will be accomplished.
Isaiah 53:10
Thanks for the debate to both of you. Sinners in the hands of a loving God book is so very good!
Awful book. Blasphemous even.
@@PaDutchRunner it was so very edifying for me. :)
@@NickWattsOregon That is not good news for your soul, my friend.
@@PaDutchRunner my soul is whole and at peace. :)
@@NickWattsOregon Our hearts are inherently dishonest due to our sinful natures.
Is this new? Looks like an older one I saw dr white review
Two Christian gentlemen discuss a theological theory in an intelligent, polite and thoughtful way. Great example of how we can explore one another's opinions on important issues without getting upset about it.
This debate wasn't even close. Brian Zahnds argument (if you can call it that) was basically "I don't think this is the way a loving God would act." On the other hand Dr. Brown basically just read Scripture after Scripture to prove his points. Brown destroyed him. It was no contest.
What happened to the offence of the cross Brian?
Why do I suspect Brian here is one of those "I don't like reading the OT" guys...
Maybe it’s because you would prefer to jump to a conclusion in lieu of doing the work of seeking to understand. A lot easier to jump to our suspicions and turn off having to think and consider different thinking then what we have already entrenched.
@@mattmorris135 WHAT?
I was thinking the same thing just listening to his opening statement. He literally said God didn't require this when it was prophesied through the law and the prophets.
What if these are both right? I don't see these as being in opposition except when people pose it in such a way. I think Christus Victus and PSA are not mutually exclusive concepts. This seems weird to me. Maybe as Zahnd is presenting it, but I see NT Wright affirming substitutionary atonement while favoring CV as the controlling lens.
The reason that they're mutually exclusive is bc of nestorianism. Under psa, God separates Himself from God the Son, Jesus endures wrath from God. CV teaches that Jesus' purpose had nothing to do w divine justice, but conquering death via wrath from satan. It goes a lot more in depth but I think it comes down to this: who killed God? God or someone else?
This silly doctrine is what happens when people forget that God is both Kind and Severe. Both Merciful and Just.
Abraham offered his son, while his son trusted him, in faith knowing God would raise him from the dead which was a shadow of what Father God and Jesus did. The shedding of blood is required for the repayment of sin.
Its not God killing his son... It's a father offering his son in faith (with the permission of his son) as a sacrafice for attonment for the sin of others.
It shows the incredible ugliness of sin,but the incredible beauty and power of love conquering all through sacrifice. It is not pagan. God set it up. It's symbolostic. Metaphorical. It's freaking amazing.
Life is in the blood.
I don't think we should stray from the language of "killing". God is the sole authority over life so there's nothing wrong with him killing people. Murder isn't wrong because it's killing, but because the individual is killing in the place of God.
That said, the real problem with this characterization is that the Son (who is also omniscient btw) GAVE HIMSELF. Father and Son were in agreement. To use the language of "Father killing the Son" is an a reductionism fallacy that tunnel-visions one's perception of what actually happened. It's an emotional argument with no logical weight behind it.
God is a consuming fire they forget about this.
Jesus willingly gave himself. The father didn't force him, Jesus did it willingly.
@@UltraX34 you are correct, it was his father's will that he give his life and he was in perfect unity with that will.
Jesus, as a man actually prayed for another way in the garden (probobly because he was stressed out about it from a flesh sense) but he said "not my will, but your will father". Jesus's faith in the father's will pleased the father.
They had a unified perfect relationship and Jesus was in complete agreement with the father. It was not done forceful issue as im sure you would agree
Bless you!
@@worshipwarrior12 dude that's just right! I'm sad for Brian Zahnd. He has completely missed the gospel by forgetting the holiness of God.
Dr Michael L Brown won this debate. Thank you Dr!
LMAO. Ha, ha, ha, ha.
Not so sure about that... well done on both sides
Yes agreed, not sure he won, he (Dr Brown) still doesn't understand the spirit of the scriptures, Brian does
@@colintavui7149 That is how it seems to me also
Nah but I think they actually needed more time to dialogue rather than present back and forth. They were talking past each other at times. BZ doesn't deny substitution and Brown spent a lot of time reaffirming substitution for example. Another example, a big part of BZ's point is to reject the "wrath onto Jesus" piece (which is the "penal" part of penal substitution), and Brown seemed to tread carefully on the point of whether or not God forgives only after wrath is satisfied by the death of Jesus. The discussion really didn't hit the core on that topic, either.
Look at my SLS teacher go! We love you Dr. Brown. 😊
Thank you Dr. Brown for always adhering to scripture. God is perfectly loving and perfectly just! Simple as that! It’s so simple I think sometimes it’s hard to grasp.
I think if you don’t see your sin and sin as the horrible offense it is, then you are more prone to want to reject Gods just aspect and only want him to be loving. Systemic sin comes from us, sin infects everything it touches.
Thank you Jesus for your divine justice and divine love. Please try to see yourself clearly, your sin clearly and God clearly.
Another problem is Christians who perpetuate the lie & heresy of Marcionism -- without bothering to read & study the Bible. There is a lot of grace in the Old Testament, and a lot of judgment in the New Testament.
Same God in both Testaments.
And Jesus is not all -- as one commenter already called Him -- "lovey-dovey."
@@IndianaJoe0321 I've read through a free replies here and no where did I see anyone argue that there are distant God's. No one argued that Jesus does not have some judgement. Your entire point is some sort of argument against something no one said.
@@hellohelloing9066: the OP had written, "... then you are more prone to want to reject God's just aspect and only want him [sic] to be loving."
This clearly hints at the teachings of Marcion -- to which many modern Christians unknowingly adhere: two gods -- one angry, mean god of the Old Testament ... and one good, loving god of the New Testament.
@@IndianaJoe0321 Yeah no one says God doesnt judge or has vengeance or gives up His right to judge or have vegeance, we are saying God also has the right to set aside His wrath and still be just , and no one beside opinion can claim this is not true. So arguing that God has the right to judge or has vengeance is arguing against another argument not the argument made here.
@@IndianaJoe0321 It's not Marcionism. Zahnd does not pit the OT god against the NT God, but rather says that both the OT & the NT words about God should bow at the feet of the Living Word of God. Neither the OT nor the NT are the infallible Word of God, but Jesus is the infallible Word of God.
Waiting for the debate of Zakir Hussain with Dr Brown.
Has anyone sees clips of this in American Gospel: Christ Crucified
Yep
Yes, it’s excellent!
"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thes 2:11-12
Brian spent 15 minutes answering the last two back to back questions and never quotes a scripture. (1:11:55-1126:05) He has done this throughout the debate. When he has quoted scripture it always supports what Dr. Brown has said. That is because the scripture is so crystal clear, at least for this debate topic that a simple person can understand its truth and theme. I was so biblically illiterate when I got saved that I got confused while reading the Gospels because I kept thinking I was reading a book that I didn’t know I read, meaning I didn’t know that the four Gospels were the same story narrated by four eyewitnesses. I just read it from front to back. With that said when Brian brought up the idea that Luther introduced the wrath of God etc. I immediately knew he was wrong because like so many others if not all Gods blood bought saints can agree with us that The Holy Spirit revealed not only The traditional view that Dr. Brown is explaining but so much more. I cried reading God’s word as my heart began to respond to it. I realized that Christ not only died in my place on the cross but that if he were on earth he would be mingling with the undesirable sinners of our day, like me so I thought at the time. I used to disagree in my mind with Paul, thinking no, I’m Chief sinner. I was able to see the condition of my heart by the law and the Old Testament. And the Grace of God in Christ healed my wounded heart (conviction). He even took the guilt, which I struggled with for many years, because it feels like death when I sin knowingly because I have The Holy Spirit living inside me now. Hoe could I do such a thing, I say to myself. But I repent. I have too, some say “ you don’t have repent every time!” I do. The wages of sin is death. I know my salvation cannot be taken from me now but as Paul says “ work out your salvation with fear and trembling “ I’m being sanctified. I will receive a new body when I’m resurrected into God’s kingdom. I will finally be ridden with this cursed body of sin. It will weigh me down no more. Hallelujah!!!! Brian avoids the straight question about who is saved and who goes to Hell and what Hell is. This is dangerous because I believe we are in certainty the beginning of the end times. Never before are so many turning to a different Gospel. People are leaving the churches and persons are becoming pastors who are full blown atheists. Christians are no longer putting up with sound doctrine. And people like Brian I fear is not sowing seed that is from the full grit of Gods word and will not take root. If it does it will be a tare
GOD IS JUST, PERIOD
@brent holladay Very, very, very good post, Brent! I enjoyed it, and appreciate that it gives such glory to God. One day, you, I and Paul shall argue as to who was really the chief of sinners. ;-) It's my position that we're all going to be a bit shocked.
Did you happen to catch the "debate" posted before this one with, IIRC, Michael Sullivan? If you really want your head twisted...
Meanwhile, we all need to keep doing what you're doing. Sometimes spreading the truth of God's word is all we can do. If there's more we can do, we need to do it. I agree that time is short. Watching it all unfold is somewhat reassuring, however. I never thought I'd live to see this day. Know what I mean?
"2Ti_3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."
Again, great post. May God bless you and yours, Brent.
I too noted it. He doesn't quote scripture
He does, he even starts off by quoting John 1:14. You are so eager to criticize that you don't even listen.
@@jonesjones5663 For real
So this is a video from 4,5 years ago, correct? It's not a fresh debate??
TheNikolinho
I’m guessing do because Dr. brown looked heavy
🎯Dr. Brown
I was living in KC when this took place. I can’t believe I missed it. Good stuff, Dr. Brown!
U da man 🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕 thanks for the upload
Pastor Brian, this is for you. But first of all I thank you Dr. Brown for all your good works and for lettlling me use your platform to congratulate Pastor Brian.
We are all saved from satan by the message of the cross and the knowledge of God's justice.
But I believe Pastor Brian is doing a very godd job, bringing us to the knowledge of God's Love.
Pastor Brian is also trying to teach us about the character of God.
That the God of the old is the same as the God of the new. Because Jesus and God are one.
I believe Pstor Brian was also trying to get us to the point where we will understand the OT in the light of the NT. With which comes the principle of accommodation. Because of the nature of the people near ancient East, their culture ,language and their background before know Yaweh. The I Am that I Am
Further more, about the judgement of God, pastor Brian was trying to share with us how we can interprate the bible with the bible. When we do, all the difficult passages such as killing or God using the services of demons and satan passages will complements each other. They do not complecate things at all. Yes God judges sin but How? You know Dr. Brown, I love you and your work with the scriptures are wonderful. You have served your generation well. Thank you. We will contenue to appreciate you here and long after you are gone. But I think the character of God is consistent with what who God said He is in the light of What Pastor Brian was sharing.
When we get to understand what pastor was saying you will see that people will not only feel saved by the blood to escape satan but we all will be able to Love the Lord Our God With all our HEART... SOUL... STREANGHT.
The Love of God is Beautiful Thing. It is Deep.
If you will allow me I can also share a few bookS and resourses with you here.
Thank you.
My email is akrong37@gmail.com. I put this here because I love and respect you and will welcome any coments and or advise that you habe for me.
You can also contact my pastor. Pastor Troy J Edwards at Vindicating God Ministries.
On the left, a man who forces the text to fit his reasoning. On the right, a man who forces his reasoning to fit the text. Thanks for being on the right side, Dr. Brown.
The cross is a display of love like the open door of noah's ark.
But the bible says God shut the door on the ark.
@@davidb5857 that happened yes.
And there will be a time, @@davidb5857 , when Jesus will return and nobody will have an opportunity to repent -- the door will be shut.
I have a question for Dr. Brown: Being Jewish, and, of course, for the sake of argument, can you imagine yourself being invited to a Jewish funeral, where a very old man (whom you knew, perhaps) is being remembered as a survivor of the Holocaust. This man has remained with his Jewish faith all his life, therefore, died in "his sins", as evangelicals like to believe. Would you be comfortable letting everyone know that this poor man, in spite of all his sufferings, will know something much worse (eternal helll) now that he has passed away?? Awaiting your reply. Diane.
It is sad but God is the judge not human beings.
Zahnd would not have smeared the lamb’s blood above the door had he lived during the last plague because that would have been “penal substitutionary atonement.” So do you think God’s judgment would come or would it have passed over? “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Nope, Zahnd’s son would have suffered the same fate as pharaoh’s son.
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the PUNISHMENT that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed. iSAIAH 53:4-5
It is sad to see how much of our human angst and folly we want/need to assign to the actions of God in order to satisfy our human sense of justice. The speaker in defense of the penal substitution theory appears to have an overdeveloped sense of vengence.
Oh contraire. It is the modern mentality that wishes to deny the absolute justice of God. The modern mentality wishes to believe that God is a lawless, unprincipled God who simply overlooks human sin and evil without any consequence whatsoever. Penal Substitutionary Atonement has nothing to do with human angst -- it is about God's justice and human evil.
People appeal to feeling and what they would like to believe, then they start to change a little here and there to fit into their interpretation of the scripture. I am not sure if he believes that there is a specific place called hell. He has said a few times that sins send us to hell over and over again.
From the word Go, Zhand is arguing a straw man. Nobody says God killed Jesus! Rather that God in the Trinity offered Jesus to take sin, WHICH MUST BE DESTROYED, God judges sin, to eradicate it. It's us who decide whether or not to attach ourselves to sin and go down with it. Hebrews 10.
"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush Him; He has put him to grief; when His soul makes an offering for guilt, He shall see His offspring; He shall prolong His days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in His hand"
~ Isaiah 53:10
@@IndianaJoe0321 yes by offering Him over into the hands of sinful men. That is a sovereignty deal. "You don't take my life, I give it." It's not the Father literally killing the Son. It's the Son and the father's plan for the Son to give his life. Zhand presents it as the Father pulling the trigger. No, the Father crushes him by giving him over, and the people are accountable because of their willingness to kill the Son.
Charles Horning www.desiringgod.org/articles/who-killed-jesus
@@CharlesHorning So God gives His son over to murderers...how is this much different than pulling the trigger Himself?
@@mr.e1220 He gave his Son over to murders so that the murderers may have life, and that they may be forgiven by his infinite grace
Overall I think both parties could have approached each other with more curiosity.
I didnt like the title of the debate but learned a lot from the debate itself. The shift made by Zahnd to Cain and systemic sin is a new thing to me, I had never heard that before and on the surface it makes me think he has no concept of how deep sin is from the fall or has never felt the conviction of personal sin infront of The Holy God, i could be wrong.
Great points by both speakers, love the discussion. If your interested in more about Brian Zahnd check out Brad Jersak. He has some really good teaching on church history and the hear to God.
Church history is corrupted and not valid. Fairytales told woth some truth inside. But can't be proven. Examples: church history/traditions say Peter was the 1st pope and doed upside down in Rome. Bhr about 7 years ago, peter's bones together with his wife and family wer e foynd in Israel. Proving church history was wrong and lies to benefit the Catholic church. Do research. If the so called history would've been true, It would've been put in th e Bible. Follow The Bible, not men or man's teachings on what they assume. Trust The Word! Peace
This is the first positive comment I've seen about Pastor Brian. Love Jersak would also recommend Richard Rohr
@Sue Blue All the content in your citations can be accounted within a Christus Victor framework. Understanding of the texts all depend on your presuppositions. That's why this debate was useful, if for no other reasons than to understand what each camp means when the use the words, sin, forgiveness, mercy, justice, wrath, etc..
@Sue Blue I shouldn't be, but I'm always stunned by the rampant intellectual insecurity of other Christians who feel the need to respond so sarcastically to information they disagree with. Would you resoond to me like that face to face? Would Jesus be proud of the way you responded? If I were wrong, would that be an effective way of changing my mind? Your response was borderline incoherent, which leads me to believe you dont even know Christus Victor is a theory of atonement. Its not even a theory I strictly hold to, either. There is no need to be so ridiculous just because you're comfortable being an irrational woman hiding behind a keyboard. Practice that walk with Christ in all your relationships, and yes, that even includes strangers online.
@Sue Blue thank you for making it clear which side of the mob that crucified jesus you would have been standing. Time for a sobering look in the mirror, Sue. May God bless you.
Thank God for BZ
I am glad I didn't have a horse in this race. That said, the concept of "God's wrath" was repeated numerous times, nearly every time emphasized as a satisfying (punitive) punishment. That same person quoted Paul in Romans numerous times yet omitted Paul's own definition of God's wrath in Romans 1. Not to be disrespectful but it felt a bit like he was kicking against the goad, all the while confusing the listening audience about the true nature of God's wrath and even more importantly, the true nature of His character: Love.
Well done!!!!!!! Pastor Brian
Dr. Brown's explanation is a masterpiece! And I humbly add this ...
Jesus' great victory over spiritual death was also won in the hours AFTER the cross. Please follow. Jesus' crucifixion was Satan's act to get Jesus to curse God and mankind, which He didn't. He glorified God by His Grace and forgiveness for his executioners. After the cross, Jesus was thrust under a colossal tidal wave of sin - the entire mass of ugly, furious, formation of sin - like a giant tornado - from mankind's history and future. Here He paid the price of sin because He endured something He did not deserve. He was the perfect and innocent lamb. Total victory for God. Total defeat and humiliation of Satan. Jesus completed His mission by sprinkling His precious and innocently shed blood on the Mercy Seat, which sealed the transaction for all eternity.
short debate recap:-Dr Brown: the Bible is true & says x about PSA , Brian Zahnd: While the bible is true, my feelings are more true and God can't be a big meanie, plus some people from church history also agree with me
Accurate recap. It’s no surprise to me Zahnd has such a massive church. Also, I learned a lot about him when he responded to Mike Winger’s criticism.
@@TylerDaleHood do you have a link to see his response to Winger's criticism?
Brian Zahnd is brilliant, compelling, ORTHODOX.
Brilliant? Compelling? Orthodox? Are you serious?
@@sionesione956 I am dead serious.
micu radu
You’re not upsetting me or I should just trust some random person from the internet. What is your real name if you claim to be a professor? What papers have you written? Do you have any peer review papers? Who have you worked with? Which school are you teaching at?
I can sum up what I saw in this debate, and I agree with most of the comments here. BZ’s version of God is heretic. Does not use the verses in context. Brown on the hand supported his theology and his side with what is written in the scriptures, within its context.
Way to go Dr. Brown!!
Every verse Sir Brown quotes can be understood to support the other side.
You need to define those words individually to establish the meaning of said phrases.
My assessment of the closing statements--
Dr. Brown: The most important thing about Christianity is Jesus' death.
Pastor Brian: The most important thing about Christianity is that Jesus is LORD.
Dr. Brown gets it right here. I appreciate the robust defense of the Biblical doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Brian Zhands book Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God has been a blessing to myself 😃
PSA is classical? Someone tell the early church that...
Thank you Dr Brown, Bible Bible Bible
20:00
After listening to this debate, it saddened me to hear Dr browns comment on the early Church, we must realise the church as been here for 2500 years not 500 years dose he realise it was the early church who put the books of the bible into the book we have now called the bible. I once heard a minister say we don't need jesus to be here now because we have the written word but I would say give me the living word who is jesus christ every time .
this is a weird comment.
The cross was no more child sacrifice than Capt. Miller in Saving Private Ryan. I'm shocked at the level to which "progressive" believers throw around these terms out of context!
He is not progresive and if you have a learning heart and you are not set in your ways I will ask you to follow up with him and and his ministry and clear up things for yourself.
Christians have been too sit back for far so long.
Okay this is what a learner does. Take the information you got from there and learn in that line to prove it for yourself. Do not get spoon feed.
Wait which of the past revival do you well know and which one does your denomination still hold on to. Find out about church history and also ibwill advise that you check out God's Generals by Robert L
You can also check out these
by Pastor Troy J Edward. At Vindicating God ministries
And even if you are not able to afford them at the price, get in touch with Him
"The Wrath"
"How"
"The Permisive Sense"
" Is The Future Set In Stone?
"Untying God's "NOTs!"
"Does God send Sickeness"
"Does God work with Demons"
zahnd is not progressive in the sense that he would openly condone cheating on your wife. he's not that bad. but progressive in the sense that his conclusions, namely his theory on atonement, are not always rooted in scripture. can you find things to support his monster god? sure. proof-texting at its finest. but even atheists do that. but if, in humility, you approach scripture and truly desire to discover the god of the bible you will not come out looking like zahnd. what's interesting is that not everyone who is commenting here against zahnd is a calvinist/cessationist. some are. but many of us are just as charismatic as dr. brown. but at the end of the day we don't settle on theology that feels good or sounds good. we base our doctrines on scripture. @@euniceakrong8054
Comparing the cross to child sacrifice is ludicrous. Was Christ not a grown man who willingly drank the cup of wrath?
I guess he says that because it was the Son of God, so it was the Child of God. Thats what im guessing either way i wouldnt use that
If hell is the natural consequences of our sin, what exactly are the natural consequences of Eve eating a fruit?
What do you mean? You got the curses from God, she will have pain in childbirth and will be under her husband. Is that the answer you're looking for?
The cross is God letting people know He loves them, and they should come and be reconcilled to Him. To change our minds which was once in enmity towards God.
Rmember, it was Adam who hid himself, not God.
LOVE IS ENOUGH. now be reconcilled to God, and receive healing.
Rrmember the New Covenant and what it is. The law covenant is obsolite to those who are in Christ.
I happily and without reservation left the Christianity with a monster god for years and years. I came back to the Christianity where Jesus is the exact representation of God.
Great exposition, Mr. Zahnd!
Pretty tough to forgive if you demand payment first.
All forgiveness costs someone, just not necessarily the one who benefits. For example, if a bank forgives your loan, someone pays the price, in that case it would be the bank.
@@scottfranklin9670 E.x.a.c.t.l.y.
This is exactly what Jesus meant by "turn the other cheek". God's grace was being slapped by humanity by our disobedience starting with Adam, but then turning the other cheek by dying for us on the cross instead of slapping us back. This is true grace and true forgiveness, demonstrating the justice and mercy of God.
We created a debt before God, and He paid it Himself for everyone who receives Jesus. Pretty simple to me, and this Gospel doesn't require mutilating Scripture.
@@scottfranklin9670 if the bank" paid the price' that wouldnt be forgiveness. So Jesus pays the price, and because Jesus is God there is no seperation , God pays the price, but when God pours out His wrath, there is seperation , so God doesnt pour out His wrath on Himself. Be consistent. Is there seperation or not ?? Does the Bank withdraw the amount of the loan from its reserve, and then deposit the amount of the Loan back to its reserve and then says " I paid the price" ? Does God expel His wrath and then pours it on Himself and say I paid your price???
Pretty easy to forgive when you make the payment yourself.
@@fredarroyo7429 Sounds like you don't believe the concept of the Trinity, but correct me if I'm wrong. Let's stay with the simple illustration of the "bank paying the price." If I'm the debtor owing the bank a million $, but they absolve my debt, HOW is that not FORGIVENESS? Regardless of where payment came from, a million $ was owed and needed to be paid. If the bank absorbed the debt, yes, it is forgiveness from the debtor's perspective.
Yes he is
Does Brian Zahnd ever read the words of Yeshua in the Gospels and Revelation?
Yes, but as he explained, he interprets them based off what he wants to hear, not what the Bible actually says.
Amen Dr. Brown! Praise God for the sacrifice of His Son on the cross!
Ps Brian didn't make an argument from scripture, its more of an opinion based on a critique of Penal Substitution using caricatures of the position to show how terrible it supposedly is
In some ways they are saying a very similar thing- Jesus absorbed / took away our sins. It concerns me that Dr. Brown reasons primarily out of the OT. I also hear him
saying that God is subordinate to justice.- in other words, God ‘has rules by which he must abide.’ I do agree with Brian, though I’m not sure he stated his case as clearly as he could have. In short, Jesus’ death on the cross is the supreme demonstration of God’s love- it is not a requirement that God needed to fulfill in order to forgive sinful humans.
I am so grateful for Jesus’s love & sacrifice- He is Truth and He is Life. As He said, “If you have seen the Me yoiuhave seen the Father.”
As God Jahweh spoke His word, Satan uses the seem word and twists it and deceives people who do not know the word of God or do not wanna know the word of God, cause that is not what they wanna hear.
This is what pictured the two enclosing statements of brother Michael brown and paster Brian.
Paster Brian is deceived and with his doctrine he creates a different picture of God mainly a God that has to please his wish view of the God of the Bible.
Michael Brown discribes God based on what everyone can read - a God that is loving just and will show His wrath In the end for those ignored or rejected Jesus sacrificial offer.
My question is, does the view from Brian can have a salvation concequence or not?
And....
What value has the call for repentence, when God forgives, because He forgives?
And...
Why needed Our Yeshua to die, when God forgives, because He forgives?
Anybody?
I am Splitting with Dr. Brown on this one.
Who was the Sacrificed paid to?
So Sin needed to Punished. So God Punished Himself as a Man on Earth?
WHO DOES THE SACRIFICED HAVE TO PAID TO???
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
If that was the case. God could have just Forgiven Sin without sacrificing himself.
Dr. Brown's idea makes sense if Jesus wasn't God but only God's son.
But that betrays the Trinity. Jesus is God.
This is like watching my son break out a window and me responding by whipping myself with a Belt? It isn't necessary and doesn't make sense. When I can just Forgive my son for breaking the window.
you and your son are too different to compare to the father and son of the trinity. the father and son were both in on the crucifixion arrangement. it's not like the father was super pissed off about sin and jesus wasn't. it's not like the father was swinging an axe and poor jesus decided to get in the way. no. the father and son both eternally hate sin. upon the cross the son suffered in his humanity (his body, his mind, his emotions, etc.) this gets a little more sketchy because scripture does not say--but did the father suffer in "losing" his son to a nasty plague called sin? i think so. theologians try to protect the trinity but the triune god did not protect himself. he hung naked on a pagan symbol of torture because of the greatness of his love. so jesus offered the sacrifice to his father in heaven but he (jesus) was in some real sense (because he is part of the triune god) placated as well. he did away with the thing that was separating him from his beloved creation. jesus is the victor. he gets to be the hero of his own story. not jesus the man. not jesus the divine. but jesus the divine man.
god does things in accordance with his own nature. you say that he could have just forgiven. but i suspect that that oversimplification of dealing with sin is contrary to god's nature. i think you identify the mystery of the cross with all of your questions. i understand you're asking them rhetorically but it's just as well--god punished himself? yes. that's the whole point of immanuel. immanu = with us el = god. it was prophesied that the coming messiah wouldn't just be a man but that he would somehow be divine as well. he could not entrust the job to anyone else. what would be the point of punishing a mere human? how does bob's death atone (in any substantial way) for joe's life? you said, "Dr. Brown's idea makes sense if Jesus wasn't God but only God's son" but how is he any kind of mediator if he is not both man and god? the divine part of jesus did not need to be punished. but it's the only way to accomplish the goal. and technically the human part of jesus didn't require any punishment either. did an innocent lamb deserve to be sacrificed. well, no. but when the offerer brings that lamb the lamb becomes a whole other thing. jesus didn't have to die. that is true. but if he chose not to then humanity would have been lost. so if god wanted the conclusion to be that humanity could be reconciled to him then jesus DID in fact have to die.
As a 3x deployed veteran, I find Dr. Browns thoughtless dismissal of the question at 1:20:50 the most disturbing part of this video. "Christians" have, at least in the US, lead the way in the retributive justice category. To me, that fact alone undermines the underlying theology of the loudest supporters of the US military.