Jay Dyer & David Erhan on Penal Substitionary Atonement
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- This is a clip from the stream I did with @JayDyer where we answered many questions from the audience: • A Conversation Between...
Shoutouts to all of my Financiers:
Carl
Phil
Dejan
Marko
Teodor
Vander
Sean
Larry
Andy
Payton
Giga Chad
Quinn
Shaun
Bryan
Marko
Diet Sodalite
Eddie
Node
Maximus
Mitch
Vlad
Cary
Nektarios
Norbert
All of my Links: linktr.ee/ther...
Check out Patristic Faith: www.patristicf...
Follow on Twitter: / medwhiteacolyte
CZcams Membership / @therealmedwhite
Donate to my Patreon: / therealmedwhite
Subscribe to my Telegram: t.me/therealme...
My Discord: / discord
BTC wallet if you want to donate in BTC: bc1q7lszxzfwv2vmsfyx24kzpjhpyyrzse374hhp44
My Substack if you want to read my articles: therealmedwhit...
Rokfin: www.rokfin.com...
Odysee: odysee.com/@th...
St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Ch. 18: For neither as God nor as man was He ever forsaken by the Father, nor did He become sin or a curse, nor did He require to be made subject to the Father. For as God He is equal to the Father and not opposed to Him nor subjected to Him; and as God, He was never at any time disobedient to His Begetter to make it necessary for Him to make Him subject. Appropriating, then, our person and ranking Himself with us, He used these words. For we are bound in the fetters of sin and the curse as faithless and disobedient, and therefore forsaken.
Penal substitution is a false godpel. A created bank account in heavan that Jesus deposited on our behalf to pay our debts- totally misses the point that eternal life is in the blood and it's this glorified human nature is what Christ is offering
That John MacArthur statement "in this lies the true meaning of the cross." is thoroughly refuted by Saint Gregory Palamas in his homily on "The Cross". For a great blessing I recommend strongly reading that homily, especially for those reformed folks who are digging deeper into the meaning of the Cross.
Thank you for all these great videos, as an eastern cradle orthodox who grew up in the west (majority protestant) you help me understand and relearn much and especially how to recognize heretical protestant teaching that caused me at times much confusion and anguish. God bless you!
I have an honest question because I'm trying to understand:
How would the OC interpret the following verses if St. John of Damascus says that Christ didnot become sin or a curse?
"For He hath *made Him to be sin* for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." 2 Corinthians 5:21
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, *being made a curse* for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13
Another great video, David. Would you be willing to address the recent video released by Gavin Ortlund? It's basically a brief overview of why we should all be Protestants? It's a five minute video, but contains a lot of misinformation and downright dishonesty. His charming demeanor seems to make people overlook his bad arguments. Thanks.
@4:05 2 Cor 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” ),
Yo David. How can we meet up in Istanbul?!?!
David, would you or Jay or both of you, please make a video giving, kindly but firmly & convincingly, the Orthodox correction to the many errors in the video at the link below?
It was sent to me by a dear, friend, who holds the preacher, DJ, in high esteem.
All I was able to do was tell him:
I listened to what you sent me. The Lord's Kingdom is not 1000 yrs. It is without end. 1000 is merely a symbolic number. It stands for not eternity, but a long (not a short) time from His Ascension to His Second Coming (in glory, at the End of history, to judge the living and the dead).
Also the reward of the faithful is the Lord Himself. He is the reward we seek.
DJ is right in saying every knee will bend to Him on the Last Day & it will be too late for those who rejected Him during their lives, prior to that.
But he's wrong on pretty much everything else.
___
David Jeremiah, What is the millennium?
czcams.com/video/JurtiKYOFOY/video.html
As the asker, I appreciate the response. I didn't want to dominate the chat on this one topic, but I did have a follow up question. Ultimately the answer went into significate details on the theory of Penal Substitution, but it seems the general algebra is the same. Our sin separated us from God. A price was required. That price was paid by Christ on our behalf. But then it sounds like Calvin's fault is just taking it too far, saying the price is damnation, separation, etc.
This is in contrast to much of what I've read of Orthodox apologetics, which often says something along the lines of: "those crazy protestants think that mean old God couldn't forgive our sins without killing something, so He killed His son. But we don't believe that, we believe that Christ died as a means of sneaking into hades so He could destroy death."
Here's an example I found with a little searching: czcams.com/video/55Z7S7wn77k/video.html
But in these cases it seems like the answer is to ignore sin as a problem altogether and say that Christ exclusively dealt with death. That's what seems to be contradicted by the text.
This has been something I remain unclear on since entering Orthodoxy, partly because I have read Orthodox sources saying two different things. Some say penal substitution is not true at all, while others say it is a valid angle but not the most important of many valid angles.
As I say, I am unclear so I'm interested in more teaching and any replies to your question.
Because death is the central problem
@@TheMhouk2 I can grant that, but not to the extent that sin isn't a problem at all, or is purely contingent on death. "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
And of course from St John Damascene: " He dies, therefore, because He took on Himself death on our behalf, and He makes Himself an offering to the Father for our sakes. For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus he delivered from the condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant."
@@boochparadise i heard a priest say, Jesus did not come to make bad man good, but dead man alive
Our problem is DEATH..... SIN is seen as a force that comes to control us through our passions.
1. It is the nature of things that man does not have a legal problem with God. That is to say, the nature of our problem is not forensic. The universe is not a law-court.
2. It is the nature of things that Christ did not come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live. This is to say that the nature of our problem is not moral but existential or ontological. We have a problem that is rooted in the very nature of our existence, not in our behaviour. We behave badly because of a prior problem. Good behaviour will not correct the problem.
3. It is the nature of things that human beings were created to live through communion with God. We were not created to live as self-sufficient individuals marked largely by our capacity for choice and decision. To restate this: we are creatures of communion, not creatures of consumption.
@@sstudios12 This is exactly what I was thinking is contradicted by St John Damascene.
Jesus himself never went under damnation by the Father. That is true. As our substitute, He went through the *effects* of what would have been *our damnation* for being born as corrupted flesh from birth.
I do think so sincerely. Hebrews 9 does state that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of (our) sins.
I think we just say that this is God's appointed way for salvation to come to all. No need to speculate whether there is damnation or substitution. It is a mystery of God!
What are “the effects of what would’ve been our damnation” specifically?
@@littlefishbigmountain We being fallen would not have survived the first sin that would have been imputed for judgment. We would have gone straight to Hell once God's wrath kicked in. Jesus being sinless, could both take the punishment of wrath, and continued to remain on the Cross to receive the the full amount of sins needed to pay for the sins of the world. Only Jesus could have finished the work required by God for all mankind.
Could you please comment on the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:3
Sin was one of the three barriers standing between God and a man. To remove barrier of sin, He took all of our sins upon Him and as a consequence He had to die. By His death due to our sins, God gave us a potential to return to the pre-lapse state of the Adam, even beyond what Adam was meant to become, had he not fallen.
How do we explain Matthew 29:46 then?
You really had me looking for Matthew Chapter 29
@Smh1054 Sorry it must have been a typo and I cannot remember why I posted
1. It is the nature of things that man does not have a legal problem with God. That is to say, the nature of our problem is not forensic. The universe is not a law-court.
2. It is the nature of things that Christ did not come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live. This is to say that the nature of our problem is not moral but existential or ontological. We have a problem that is rooted in the very nature of our existence, not in our behaviour. We behave badly because of a prior problem. Good behaviour will not correct the problem.
3. It is the nature of things that human beings were created to live through communion with God. We were not created to live as self-sufficient individuals marked largely by our capacity for choice and decision. To restate this: we are creatures of communion, not creatures of consumption.
1. Man has not transgressed the Law of God?
2. False dialectic. Man's problem is immoral and ontological.
Beautifully written.
Jesus asked God why he turned his back on him while he was on the cross
@@isavedharlem2079 He was invoking psalm 22, which asks why God seems to be forsaking the psalmist, and ends with the statement that God doesn't ever abandon the faithful. It was common in that time to invoke a psalm by reciting the first line.
@@bigbosssauce7 for by grace are we saved , thru faith . And that not of ourselves lest any man should boast
@@isavedharlem2079 You didn't respond to what I commented
Throwing out vague statements like "it's not Trinitarian" is not a refutation. How is it not Trinitarian? This is all just word salad which tries to make PSA look bad when nothing coherent was offered in it's place.
They clearly explained how it is anti-trinitarian
@connorblasing3969 They didn't. I listened to 3 of Dyer's videos on PSA. All three have been straw-men. He redefines what PSA is when he describes why its not Trinitarian.
@@mkbr1992if the Son is punished by the Father, how do you avoid separation in in the Trinity? This is a question that Faustus Socinus asked Calvin some 600 years ago and never got an answer back. Socinianism is a thing due to the trinitarian implications of PSA.
@justin_messer Cite your source regarding Socinus. Considering that Socinianism denied the need for an atoning sacrifice altogether, this feels misleading.
If the Father, Son, and Spirit all will for the Son to be crucified, then where is the separation?
@@mkbr1992 Except you are pulling a bait and switch. None of the atonement models deny the passion was ordained by the Trinity. What is explicitly denied is the peculiar PSA doctrine where God the Father personally punished the Person of God the Son. That he became an object of scorn and wrath from the father, that the Father turned his back on the Son, that the Son became a literal obscene embodiment of sin and other frankly blasphemous things that came out of the mouth of RC Sproul.