Excellent word Greg. This really renewed my mind. This shows how much God loves us. Thanks for sharing.
@TheDoctrinalSurvivalGuide
4 жыл бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/13x7mKJ7sJOHdpg
@JeffDoles
8 жыл бұрын
Read Isaiah 53:10 in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the OT and the predominant version used by the NT writers and the early Church. Breton's translation of the Greek Septuagint has it like this: "The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke." The St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint translations puts it this way: "The Lord wishes to cleanse him of his wound."
@admiralmurat2777
6 жыл бұрын
exactly
@TheDoctrinalSurvivalGuide
4 жыл бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/spCgt5luip2Haqw
@CBALLEN
11 жыл бұрын
Poor God,he'd really like to save everyone but He just doesn't have the power or the knowledge it takes to do it,He just gets lucky when people choose Him and He wipes the sweat away from His brow when it happens and breaths a sigh of relief.
@Scratcher1960
6 жыл бұрын
Penal Substitution didn't allow the father to love His children. He loved them before. (John 3:16)
@drummaster350
11 жыл бұрын
Keep the up good work Greg. You're really helping a lot of people out there think these things through. God doesn't want people out there spouting platitudes. He wants people to show the love that he so richly exemplifies.
@hshager5548
5 жыл бұрын
Among other problems with Boyd's heresy is the fact that Jesus agreed with the plan. (Philippians 2:5-8). Further, as has been mentioned in these comments, you would need to throw out Isaiah 53 and the whole Levitical sacrificial system. This man is a false teacher. He sites 2 Cor. 5:21, then argues against Christ becoming sin. He points out Jesus "hanging out" with prostitutes and tax collectors, but conveniently omits that Jesus addressed their sin. To the broken woman of Luke 7:36-50 He says, "your sins are forgiven." To the woman of John 8 He said, "Go and sin no more." Finally, Substitutionary Atonement and Christus Victor are not mutually exclusive. Both are true.
@CBALLEN
11 жыл бұрын
The God of Heaven is not doing things to please man,He does things for His Glory and when men understand this,they will understand that God's way is always the right way,men don't even know their own way,this is why God always knows best and why trusting Him completely is the only way to have joy.
@GiniaMarie1
11 жыл бұрын
Stay present, YES! Better boundaries, you got it, You can Do this!!! You are allowed to say No. Really Appreciate you taking the time to Blog! Your teachings are edifying and invigorating with excellent food for thought. Now, go take a few days and unplug! Unplug the phone, the computer, the TV, and go sit (preferable in a nice hammock) by the lake and be still. ~Viva la' Revolution!!
@theneverending9319
5 жыл бұрын
What do you do with all of the blood of bulls and goats? All the death required in sacrifices to cover sin until Jesus death? I’m not really seeing you use scripture like you do with open theism.
@mattsigl1426
6 жыл бұрын
Penal substitution implies that we “deserve” not just violence but humiliation and extreme sadistic torture. This is sick. The beauty of the atonement seems to me to be the way that in humanity’s torture and murder of God the World condemns itself; the murder of God is the Truth of the World. But God absorbs this truth and overcomes it by accepting it and rising from it, welcoming humanity into HIS Truth over the worlds lie.
@godrulz37
11 жыл бұрын
The Moral Government Theology view is worth considering. The issues are governmental, not personal, public justice, not retributive justice. God freely wants to forgive and has a loving heart and desire to do so, but there must be an upholding of law, holiness, justice in order to wisely extend mercy. The cross is a substitute for the penalty of sin, not chicken blood to try to appease God/gods or make Him willing to forgive. He is willing but must show the awfulness of sin and His great love.
@charleswoodward3
9 жыл бұрын
It's hard to take this argument seriously because it's such a gross misrepresentation of substitionary atonement. You literally have to ignore the entire existence of the sacrificial system God ordered under his law and toss out countless texts from the NT. For example, the entire book of Hebrews is one which says bluntly, “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:22) before going on to describe how Jesus put an end to the sacrificial offerings because he was THE offering they pointed to. I mean, come on. The animals were sacrificed as a substitute. Their blood being shed in place of the one offering the sacrifice. This is the way the OT itself describes it and the lens through which the NT writers speak of Jesus's death on the cross. To get where Boyd is you have to start with the fundamental assumption that substitutionary atonement is not there and then make it so. But the only way to do it is to ignore and discount the most obvious of understandings that the bible itself puts forth such as Isaiah's messianic prophecy: “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned-every one-to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
@flyingaaron7
9 жыл бұрын
Agreed. On top of misrepresenting the model, he begins his argument with his subjective objections to PSA and therefore concludes it`s wrong. It`s interesting how he uses love against the view when 1 John 4:10 clearly connects God`s love in the act of Christ becoming a propitiation for our sins. God`s love is demonstrated in Christ bearing our sin and punishment!
@kevinscholes
9 жыл бұрын
Charles Woodward we esteemed him sticken of God ,he wasn't stricken of God it was our transgressions ,our iniquities that killed him
@charleswoodward3
9 жыл бұрын
Kevin Scholes I'm not sure if you arguing against penal substitution as the framework for Isaiah's prophecy in saying this, but if you read the whole prophecy in Isaiah it is saying he died "for" those things. But if he died for those things then why did he die for them? Why did sin require death? Again, Hebrews 9:22 tells us that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Why do sins require forgiveness? And who's doing the forgiving? And why does blood have to be shed for that forgiveness to be given? The work of Christ was not just about sin. It was also about dealing with the just wrath of God over sin. This is why we are told in Romans 5:9 that "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." This is why the prophecy in Isaiah closes with a statement that it was God's will or it pleased God depending on translation to crush him: Isaiah 53:10-11 | 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. 11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. In offering himself up as a substitute Jesus became his people's Passover lamb. But Exodus makes pretty clear that though the firstborn died for their sins; they died because of God's wrath was being poured out on them via the angel of death. The same wrath would have fallen on the Hebrews if they had not offered up the lamb as a substitute so the angel would pass over their household. Jesus as the Lamb absorbed that wrath so that it would pass over his people. Our sin, God's wrath over sin, and substitutional sacrifices being offered up for forgiveness of those sins to appease God's just wrath is the biblical paradigm presented from beginning to end that Jesus fulfilled.
@gordonj5157
6 жыл бұрын
Romans 5:9 (Conservative Version Interlinear) does not say "wrath of God" it just says "wrath"
@coreybray4200
6 жыл бұрын
Charles: It's hard to take this argument seriously because it's such a gross misrepresentation of substitionary atonement. Where? Charles: You literally have to ignore the entire existence of the sacrificial system God ordered under his law and toss out countless texts from the NT. For example, the entire book of Hebrews is one which says bluntly, “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:22) That by no means necessitates a Substitutionary conclusion. First of all, being purified by blood is not necessarily the same as being paid for by blood. Christ may have needed to go to the cross to vindicate the Father’s character as a judge before God could forgive you. You are assuming Lucifer did not argue that God was an unfit judge. If Lucifer did notmake that kind of an argument when he rebelled against God, then what is keeping Lucifer alive? God’s justice demanding payment would have consumed Lucifer long ago by demanding that payment. Yet, if you Read Revelation 5, it opens with an amazing question of who is worthy, and telling us that no one in heaven, earth or under the earth was found to be worthy. How could that be, God is worthy in heaven, right? Not if his character is in question. This realization caused John to weep, but then one of the elders shows him the victorious Christ, and then all of a sudden heaven breaks out into a NEW SONG, not an old one, declaring worthy is the lamb. Until the cross, The righteousness of the members of the Godhead could not be established on anything other than God’s claiming to be righteous. But, that righteousness and his claim of creating all things good is brought into question by Lucifer’s sin, and then it is brought in question again by Lucifer showing God he could make Adam and Eve fall just as he caused 1/3rd of the heavenly host to fall in the war described in Revelation 12. Lucifer’s point becomes if you created everything so good, how is it that your created beings keep falling into sin? Well, Lucifer being clever would obviously say it is because God has hidden depravity and has infected creation; hence, the need to find a worthy candidate in Revelation 5. So, Christ did not go to the cross to pay for sins. Christ went to the cross to demonstrate that the character of the Godhead is righteous in light of Lucifer’s accusations, this is why Revelation 12 states that the accuser of the brethren is cast down. And Revelation 12 also tells us that they overcame him by the blood of the lamb, not that they overcame the law. God never had any problem forgiving sinners who repent in light of his law. But, God could not forgive you and destroy Lucifer and the wicked while God’s character as a judge was still in question by Lucifer’s accusations. Once Christ was found to be worthy, the Godhead then had a representative who could stand as judge over the sin controversy; hence, Christ becomes the High Priest in the true sanctuary in heaven. And the responsibility of dealing with the matter of sin and how to judge falls on his shoulders. In the meantime, the characters of the Father and the Holy Spirit must be cleared next. The Father’s character is cleared by the second coming, and the Holy Spirit is cleared by the time of the battle of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 20. Then and only then will this sin controversy be over, because God’s character will finally have been vindicated in totality. Ezekiel speaks of when God’s great name will be sanctified among the heathen, meaning even his enemies will finally come to understand why his righteousness is an everlasting righteousness. So, when all tongues will confess, it will not be a forced confession. They will confess because there is no other alternative, but to recognize and acknowledge that God truly is righteous once the trial of the Godhead is over and all of Lucifer’s accusations are laid to rest and Lucifer is destroyed with the wicked.
@ronfeledichuk531
2 жыл бұрын
As an Orthodox Christian I can agree with much you say. How do so many Protestants get this teaching so wrong. The problem is that Protestants have rejected the providence of God. God led the earliest Christians to start with explaining the Trinity (first 2 Ecumenical councils), then Christology (3rd and 4th Ecumenical councils). Then everything fell into place. Protestants mistakingly start and finish with the Cross and simply get so much wrong.
@jlpearsonfarm
10 жыл бұрын
Your analysis is not based strictly and exclusively from Scripture. You are arriving at your conclusion by adding in modern political/ideological opinions about what some humans in the years 2013 subjectively consider "fair". It's not a very persuasive argument.
@henryrogers3203
8 жыл бұрын
Everyone adds their own opinions in, it's impossible to believe things free from cultural baggage. You do it too. The question is, what's more Biblical
@kkinner2762
7 жыл бұрын
Emotionalism at the core
@manfredman5075
11 ай бұрын
Even if the substitution is penal in nature it doesn't take away the fact that by God's plan through Jesus' shed blood that we will all be reconciled back to God wheras without Jesus' willing scarifice none would or could be.
@manfredman5075
11 ай бұрын
Calvinism and Arminianism are so diminishing and disrespectful toward the true power and mercy and grace in what God did for us all through His own son Jesus Christ. It's so clearly an idea born out of imperfect fallen human beings rather than from our perfectly just, merciful and loving Creator. I suggest folks look into all the mistranslations in our most popular bible versions and see how false doctrines have been created based on them. St. Augustine was probably the biggest offender tranlating the koine greek he couldn't stand or understand into Latin as he just sloppily used the made up word "hell" as a blanket word for Gahenna, Hades, Sheol and Tartarus in which none of these represent a place of neverending torture in the old testament or new. Look into the word aionios as well and see how it has been replaced by eternal or everlasting or forever even though in koine greek it is most accurately translated as meaning of an age or age lasting. Kind of makes a huge difference in meaning no? Rhetorical question
@manfredman5075
11 ай бұрын
There are more verses in scriptures to support universal reconciliation than there are to support ECT or annihilation. ECT actually has the least support biblically out of the three when translating the closest we have of "original" texts properly. It's no surprise that as language experts get better and better at being able to translate the ancient languages of the texts that "hell" starts disappearing more and more from the Bible. It's no wonder that greek mythology and hellinistic ideas made there way into the texts from influences by greek writers/philosophers like Plato and Aristotle or Aquinas.
@RyanBoutin
10 жыл бұрын
I used to hold the view of God needing to pour His wrath out on Jesus. This is a good video that points out the problems with that viewpoint. #cowtipping
@BenClarkCEC
9 жыл бұрын
Isaiah 53:4-6 "Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Sounds like penal substitution to me...
@pizzathough12
7 жыл бұрын
"yet WE CONSIDERED him punished by God," That is what we thought it was. We thought it was God who punished Jesus, but it was humanity who crucified Him.
@BenClarkCEC
7 жыл бұрын
Gerjan Dekker At first glance, from that line only, your comment makes sense. But not if you carry on reading though. "But He WAS pierced for our transgressions. He WAS crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace WAS upon Him And bt HIS wounds we ARE healed. ... The Lord HAS laid on Him the iniquities of us all.'' Or in other words, "We thought he was being punished for His own sin . But actually He was being punished for ours. Because God Himself put our sins on His shoulders." That IS penal substitionary atonement.
@admiralmurat2777
6 жыл бұрын
Ben Clark it means in Greek our nastiness killed him. It means by us
@coreybray4200
6 жыл бұрын
But, notice, it is the people who consider him stricken of God, not necessarily God that considers Christ to have been stricken of God. So, Isaiah 53 is not a great chapter for demonstrating Penal Substitution with. All Isaiah 53 guarantees is that God is pre-aware of how some people would interpret the cross. God is not saying he agrees with their assessment.
@sandoholtz1504
5 жыл бұрын
People misuses this verse. I don’t believe this points to PSA but I get how one could interpret it that way. I was brought up with this view and used it as an argument for it. But I see that it’s not a god argument. There is LITERALLY not one single verses that specifically says that God punishes Jesus. Not ONE at all. In the NT Paul never refers to Isaiah 53:5 talking about atonement. He never says that Jesus was punished instead of us. This kind is language does not exist in Scripture. Penal substitution atonement theory was not something the Early church believed in, this was developed 500 years ago...
@brotherandrew3393
11 жыл бұрын
God IS Love. Therefore Love is not an attribute of God. It is his IDENTITY. There is nothing "more" then love. (see 1. Cor. 1,13). 1. John 4,16-20 makes it crystal clear that it´s all about God´s love to us and through us. You can have all the right doctrines etc. It will not help you, if you lack love (see 1. Cor. 1,1-3) If we do not love Christ, we will not serve him in the least of his brothers and don´t belong to him. (see Matthew. 25,31-46) So, please, never underestimate that God IS Love.
@fredygump5578
7 жыл бұрын
Yeah, God himself says that sacrificing a child is something that has never entered his mind. So why would God make the killing of his own son the focal point, if he never imagined it? I greatly dislike how these objections are usually answered with the generic response, "We can't understand God's ways." That kind of thinking if wholly foolish.
@Humhab
6 жыл бұрын
In this lifetime as we know it we are never punished for our sins but we are punished by them. Our sins don't hurt God they hurt us and God loves us. The Prodigal is a good example of Jesus showing us God's love and we don't get it. Jesus was on the spiritual cross long before the physical cross pour out his life as a living sacrificial atonement and He asks us to take up our cross and follow him. The Bible says the God is love in 1st John 4:8 and that love keeps no records of wrong in 1 Corinthians 13:5. If these two verses are true and I believe they are who then is tracking our wrongs? Blessings to all and God is the anthropomorphic computer of the skies tracking our wrongs. We all do a pretty good job of that ourselves so lets let go and let God love this world in and through us.
@formerfundienowfree4235
Жыл бұрын
Amen!
@brotherandrew3393
11 жыл бұрын
Tim Ballentine, what is the purpose of your statement? To ridicule someone? If yes, where is the love in doing so? If you have a theological dissent with Greg Boyd, then that´s fine with me. In that case you can express your opinion in an non aggressive way by simple telling us, what you believe and why you do it.
@michaelosborne3414
Жыл бұрын
When Christians reject penal substitution, they then realise they can't reconcile the Old Testament, have to label it as 'progressive revelation' essentially considering it not God's word but just what people thought about God at the time. Then they say that hell isn't a one-way door. Then they don't know how to articulate the gospel to the unsaved other than in wishy washy God's love terms. And since their logic states that there is no punishment to escape from, there is no forgiveness needed, the cross is not needed, there is no Christianity. And they end up with no gospel at all
@pastor1689
11 жыл бұрын
You described the whole picture wrong. Don't set up straw men and then tear them down.
@jimmyholland590
6 жыл бұрын
No! The life of Jesus is Righteous; we are NOT His life, death, and resurrection for us! Can not believe this guy is teaching period! Hardly NO scripture and ignores many scriptures!
@randychurchill351
8 жыл бұрын
Right On. This guy has studied well. God does not have to beat up Jesus so that God can stop being mad at you. I can tell this guy has studied Eastern Orthodoxy. Western Christians need to hear this kind of theology more.
@lfcizdabest
10 жыл бұрын
Completely agree with this
@chrismachin2166
2 жыл бұрын
…”Jesus hangs around with prostitutes and tax-collectors” . He also hung around with the local farmers, shop keepers etc. There was no difference in Christ’s eyes. We’re all sinners deserving of God’s wrath. Understanding regeneration precedes faith,God draws us and we receive the imputed righteousness of Christ so we have “peace” with God. The idea of infused righteousness( the Roman Catholic view) is unbiblical - if we can make ( “under our own steam”) a decision to accept Christ as our saviour,it would be possible to say later in life “I’ve changed my mind,I’m going back to my “old ways”and reject Christ. The truth is ,once drawn by God and becoming a child of God you will never be let go from His grasp.
@biblehistoryscience3530
5 жыл бұрын
If the shed blood of Jesus is not your sin offering to God, then you remain under a death sentence because the penalty for sin is death.
@himcrucified2710
6 жыл бұрын
A wrathaholic who needs to vent his wrath on sombody, doest care who but sombody? No no no go back to the beginig of scripture where the first comandment or law was given (not to eat of the fruit) then read what is to be the just penalty for breaking the law. Where sin abounds God's wrath abounds (The flood) and violently so does it abound. Where sin abounds grace abounds but the just penalty of sin ought to paid, hence penal substitutionary atonement. To think that God will spare the rod like some parents do for their children and even argue that it should be against the law to physically chastise their children is an error, God's wrath is harsh and Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath not to defeat violence but to take upon Himself the violent wrath we deserved that we might be forgiven because the debt is paid.
@benwalls9515
9 жыл бұрын
I think we need to accept the fact that God is holy, holy, holy and hates sin. His wrath is revealed not only in the Old Testament but is a continual theme in the New Testament from the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 5, 2 Thess. 1) to the Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 1:17). While our current culture is all about "tolerance" accept towards authority, all of history is about respect for authority. Because God is perfect in knowledge, He knows whether human hearts can be transformed or if they're simply bent on destruction regardless of truth, reason, facts. Therefore, God, and only God, can exterminate, and justly so to spare the righteous from indignant, lawless, irreconcilable behavior. Where I believe Boyd errors is in not giving enough credit to just how wicked mankind is apart from the supernatural, resurrection power, of Christ. I'm glad God's wrath is coming against those who are abusive against humanity in horrific ways. If they were reconcilable, God would certainly save them, but they're not and therefore the penal theory is consistent with Scripture and a God who will destroy those who are bent on evil. God calls Christians to be peacemakers that turn the other cheek because we cannot know as God knows.
@patrickorly6141
9 жыл бұрын
1) God hates sin because he loves us, he loves his creation, and sin is damaging to us and all of creation 2) God's wrath is not like man's wrath. God's wrath is him withdrawing himself, removing his protection, giving us over to our sin (and it's natural consequences) and the dark forces come down on us. He does this after persistent rebellion and countless failed attempts to get through to us. 3) Even when he does this, he does it with the hope that we'll come to our senses and repent, much like the prodigal son.
@coreybray4200
6 жыл бұрын
Ben: I think we need to accept the fact that God is holy, holy, holy and hates sin. His wrath is revealed not only in the Old Testament but is a continual theme in the New Testament from the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 5, 2 Thess. 1) to the Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 1:17). While our current culture is all about "tolerance" accept towards authority, all of history is about respect for authority. Because God is perfect in knowledge, He knows whether human hearts can be transformed or if they're simply bent on destruction regardless of truth, reason, facts. But, if he knows an individual can change for the better and is willing to repent, what more evidence does he need to extend mercy to a repentant sinner? Your argument is kind of detrimental to Penal Substitution there, it suggests that Christians do not really have a good reason for why Christ should go to the cross in light of this development and need a better explanation of what the cross is all about. Ben: Therefore, God, and only God, can exterminate, and justly so to spare the righteous from indignant, lawless, irreconcilable behavior. But, God can equally be merciful. Justice is not the only demand in God’s court needing satisfaction. In fact, God prides himself as sitting on a mercy-seat in the law, not a justice-seat. Why do that if the demands of justice are greater than his willingness to be merciful? Ben: Where I believe Boyd errors is in not giving enough credit to just how wicked mankind is apart from the supernatural, resurrection power, of Christ. It’s not really God’s power that is in question here, Ben. It is God’s mercy that is in question here. If God cannot forgive sins until Christ goes to the cross, we kind of need to understand why that is so that we can understand why Christ would even need to die and be resurrected. But, if there is nothing hindering God from forgiving sins prior to the cross, then we need a better explanation of what the cross is really all about than Penal Substitution has been able to offer in its extremely limited scope. Ben: I'm glad God's wrath is coming against those who are abusive against humanity in horrific ways. Then you are in a very different frame of mind than god is in, because God says he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but wishes rather that they would turn and live as he pleades with them to do through the prophet Ezekiel. Ben: If they were reconcilable, God would certainly save them, but they're not and therefore the penal theory is consistent with Scripture and a God who will destroy those who are bent on evil. God calls Christians to be peacemakers that turn the other cheek because we cannot know as God knows. But, if god pays in advance for our sins at the cross, what ensentive is there to turn the other cheak? Any sin we could ever think of committing has already been prepayed for and licensed via that prepayment of our Substitute.
@manfredman5075
11 ай бұрын
"I'm glad God's wrath is coming against humanity in horrific ways" is exactly the kind of human vengeful fallen hearted thinking that gets projected onto God and creates such an attitude of u forgiveness and self righteous boastfulness from Christians. The us and them attitude feeling like it's ok to wish neverending torment on our fellow man is not what God with us taught while with us in the flesh. God does punish and is against sin but His judgement and punishments are always corrective and geared toward a change of mind in those it is inflicted upon. God wiped out entire populations for their own good and His divine purposes and our fleshly death is most certainly not the end of us. God is a flame that will purify like a refiners crucible all spirits and give freely the waters of life to all who thirst and even those cast into His purifying "lake of fire"
@TheKalazar
11 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this video, most interesting!
@JamesTwelves
10 жыл бұрын
It seems people think Calvin cooked up the penal substitution theory himself. Actually it started with Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm of Canterbury...the Reformers adopted a stricter form of it. However, it is really a Roman Catholic doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe in it. In Mt 9:13 Christ tells the Pharisees "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners". Jn 3:16 tells us God gave us his son in love to believe in, not for God to give as a sacrifice.
@fnscomedycrew
9 жыл бұрын
Augustine and the like believed the Ransom theory that which substitutionary Christus Victor stemmed from. I'd be interested in your deduction from Thomas Aquinas though. Why would you say Aquinas? It seems to me that all historical evidence of "Penal" sub [unless you want to lump Anselm's satisfaction theory in... since you mention that the "reformers adopted a stricter version of" penal sub] is further supported by the fact that it is a direct consequence of Calvinism: "Reformed theology says that Christ actually paid the penalty for sins... Arminianism says that Christ's death provided an alternative to the penalty [in a nut shell]. This is a profound difference. If Christ actually paid the penalty for sins, then God cannot require a second payment. So either everyone is saved, or (as Calvinists would choose) the atonement is limited. From this, the necessary consequence is irresistible grace and eternal security of the elect believer..." - Harold Greenlee
@coreybray4200
6 жыл бұрын
Hello Greg, That was an excellent video. To the point about guilt, if a court does not establish the guilt of the one they are putting to death, then how can the court know if the one being sentenced is worthy of death? The trouble with a Substitute truly is this process of establishing guilt. Establishing guilt is a minimal requirement of any righteous court to prevent the injustice of harming the innocent, because a righteous law cannot demand the destruction of the innocent. This is why God calls it a false matter to slay the righteous and innocent in his law in Exodus 23:7. How then could doing a wicked act that God will not justify satisfy the justice of the law of God? And if God pretends that Christ is guilty of our sins, how does he do this without himself engaging in an act of lying to himself? God and everyone else knows that Christ did not commit our sins, and the law is against false accusations, right? Can the justice of God really be satisfied by false accusations and cold blooded murder? If so, then what kind of God do we serve really? Clearly, the cross could not have been a payment for sins. In fact, if Christ had paid for our sins at the cross, why would he go on to become a High Priest to deal with sins he was supposed to have already paid for and laid to rest back at the cross? Why does the NT talk about him needing to intercede for sins he already laid to rest then? Clearly, there is a conflict here. And if Christ paid for our sins in advance back at the cross, what is wrong with committing every sin in the book? What sins can we dream of committing that have not already been fully licensed by this prepayment in penal substitution? We should call this theory of the cross, once paid always saved then. LOL!
@xskoalx
6 жыл бұрын
My initial reaction when someone speaks like this is that they don’t understand the Bible and they simply don’t truly believe in the God of the Bible.
@mattbohlman6219
4 жыл бұрын
I wrote a book that presents a new model and middle ground perspective between the Penal view and Christus Victor. I call it Perfectus Liberatio. In short the wrath of God is not directed AT Christ, but operates THROUGH Christ. God’s wrath is his moral perfection being revealed against all that is contrary to moral perfection. Christ is the sinless Lamb. Thus God can transfer all sin upon his sinless Lamb and condemn it as being in the wrong-in the sinless perfection of the Son. For sin was unable to accuse, condemn or to lay a charge against the Son for any wrongdoing. Like trying to stick the barbs of Velcro onto a smooth mirror, sin cannot attach itself to the Son- for the Son offers no “hooks” for sin to grab hold of. Therefore because sin cannot justify its presence in the Son, the Father’s wrath is able to condemn sin as being “in the wrong” IN THE SINLESS perfection of the Son. Like pouring a vile of deadly bacteria into a bucket of pure bleach, the bacteria does NOT infect the bleach. Rather the bleach destroys the bacteria. In the cross the sinfulness of sin is undone by the sin-less nature of the Son. The wrath of God is the basis by which sin is condemned THROUGH the Son. But the Son is NOT being condemned (Rom. 8:3). There is more to say. Feel free to buy my short, 100 page book that begins with a parable story to prepare you for the later commentary on the atonement. Go to Amazon and type either my name or “The Fall and Redemption of Shadowmere.” Peace
@ventriloquistmagician4735
3 жыл бұрын
How do you answer the verse that says Christ became sin for us?
@stefanielorimer
10 жыл бұрын
If we remember that Jesus IS God this becomes easier. God HIMSELF took our punishment - he did this to satisfy justice. Evil must be vanquished - justice must prevail. No-one on earth was able to do this - only God himself could and He did for the love of his children.
@coreybray4200
6 жыл бұрын
Stefanie: If we remember that Jesus IS God this becomes easier. God HIMSELF took our punishment - he did this to satisfy justice. Evil must be vanquished - justice must prevail. Justice does not prevail when you falsely charge Christ and then punish him for sins he clearly did not commit. There is no right way to wrongly charge the innocent with your sins. The 9th commandment was put in place to prevent this very thing.
@hughjordine3262
6 жыл бұрын
John 1;29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Where did John the baptist the cousin of Jesus got this idea from of Jesus been a Lamb of God? John explain yourself, why is this Lamb be able to takes away the sins of the world.? Is John the Baptist a Prophet to prepare the way? Jesus said you are the Elijah Matthew 11;4 This ceremonial cleansing and preparation for 3 days at Mount Sinai with Moses before the Father in Exodus 19;7-19; I want to know is this the preparing the way; is it a reflection on your purpose as Elijah? Explain to me John of Exodus 24;8 The reading of the Covenant and the sprinkling of blood on the people: Is this a anti-type of Jesus been a Lamb of God and the Covenant? It reminds of God telling Abraham to sacrifice Issac which some say this is anti-type of the Lamb of God that is Jesus ; John is this what you referring to of the Lamb replacing Issac as foretelling the future of Jesus death? Genesis 23;1-19 Who is your father is it not the High Priest Zechariah, did he not teach you about the Law about human sacrifice? Did John proclaim a transfer of Law and Sacrificial system by announcing Jesus as a human and as the Lamb of God? John if your placing Jesus as a sacrificial Lamb of God, then where is this Altar? Is this Altar on earth or is it heavenly? Mr Greg Boyd if John is placing Jesus as a sacrificial Lamb of God, then where is this Altar? Is this Altar on earth or is it heavenly? Your judging things from an earthly perspective? Lets explain the Book of Hebrew in a nutshell as the Purity of the Gospel What if i was suppose to say the first pattern of Jesus teaching was his baptism that reflect his death burial and resurrection; and the Great Commission of us accepting the Covenant. Jesus been the Lamb and Covenant. In this is the pardon of sin or forgiveness of Sin; for us to be Anointed by the Spirit as the Temple of God; becoming Sons and Daughters of the Father. To worship him beyond/through the curtain which is Jesus body into the Holy of Holy before the Throne of Grace. Jesus became that curtain that was torn at Calvary in the Temple at Jerusalem at the time of his death and earthquake. Only the high the priest could enter beyond the curtain to offer the atonement sacrifice. So Jesus offer himself as atonement sacrifice to provide a Way for all mankind through a spiritual curtain to the Heavenly Temple to have a personal relationship with the Father at the Throne of Grace in the Holy of Holy. Thats why we are called Royal Priesthood. Thats why Hebrew writer explain the two Will and the owner of those two living wills is Jesus by the Oath of Father blessings The first Will is the Book of the Covenant at Mount Sinai (Was the first Guardian of our Soul) In Order to establish a Second Will the Blood of the Covenant (Became the New Guardian of our Soul - Eternal Life) the Owner of both will has to die so that the children under the First and Second Will could join together as Co-Hiers and inheritance of all Earthly and Heavenly Blessing Jesus purpose was to provide a Spiritual born Again through water of the soul through a conduit his body to bound our Souls to the heavenly realm You see Jesus Baptism at the age of 30 by John in the Jordan is the first Proclamation of the Covenant and Atonement by the Spirit and the Father Sounds weird!! Listen to Jesus whatever is bound on earth is bound in Heaven If you cant understand the earthly things how can you learn the spiritual matters of the Heavenly Matthew 26;28 This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
@joechurchill8303
9 жыл бұрын
Romans 6:23 King James Version (KJV) 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the "GIFT" of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 1. The wages of sin is death. Is it a penalty? 2. Is it a gift or is God's wrath being satisfied? Greg, my most memorable sermon that you gave was when you spoke at Open Door, many years ago, and you incorporated Schindler's List into the sermon...I am continually challenged by it! Thanks!
@joechurchill8303
9 жыл бұрын
Greg, In light of the "PSA", how does one reconcile Isaiah 53 (verse 10 in particular)? Thanks in advance!
@ravikeller9626
7 жыл бұрын
Greg Boyd is a perfect example of what happens when we start with our human philosophical presuppositions and force Scripture to bend around them rather than vice versa. If Christ did not die to pay the penalty for our sin as our substitute, then we will eventually have to pay that penalty ourselves or else God is unjust and therefore unworthy of our worship. Thankfully, despite what Boyd claims, the penal substitution view IS the correct view of the atonement and we need to rebuke teachers who deny it because they're denying our only hope of salvation.
@claytonpalmer7284
7 жыл бұрын
"or else God is unjust and therefore unworthy of our worship"....who's starting with human philosophical presuppositions again?!?!
@mcjohnston2
7 жыл бұрын
As Patrick stated above, "It's punitive as opposed to natural law (which I believe God's law to be natural). Death is a natural consequence of sin. God in his mercy holds back the full consequence of our sin so that we'll have time to turn away from it. Jesus dying in our place broke the power of sin and death. He freed us from it's bondage. It had nothing to do with God needing to punish someone to be just." God freely forgives people all through the Bible, including before Jesus came, without people "paying the penalty" for their sins. Sin itself leads to death, God does not lead to death as a result of sin. Not only this, but I question your idea to rebuke teachers who disagree with you. Greg's view of the what the atonement specifically does, is not a central dogma of Christian orthodoxy and is therefore cannot be heretical--many people currently and historically hold this view. Just because it's different than yours does not mean you need to "rebuke" him. What did Paul teach in the later part of Romans about unity and caring about each other in the midst of disagreements? Greg's not preaching a different Jesus here my friend.
@TanjaVK1968
6 жыл бұрын
WHY would God require paying the penalty AT ALL? I mean Jesus preached the forgiveness to the DEBTOR who COULDN'T pay, forgiveness 70 x 7 times (simbolizing infinitely) etc. Would God preach one thing and then Himself do the other (not applying infinite forgiveness without requiring sacrifice)? The biggest sacrifice is: NOT to require just punishment for THE biggest crime in history (which was killing Jesus.) And God Himself provided such a sacrifice, willingly… Not that He required - we needed it! All were quilty and all are forgiven! According to Jesus, strict payment of one's debt is required only from those who DON'T erase debt to their debtors! No debt-payment necessary if the one freely forgives! Jesus NEVER rebuked anyone for too much forgiving-just the opposite. Abraham believed God "who justifies the wicked."Blood justifies the wicked, according to Romans (and the Law). But it is NOT God who REQUIRES blood - it is our NEED, it is the need of the wicked. "Law is not for the just". God is Just.
@coreybray4200
6 жыл бұрын
Ravi: Greg Boyd is a perfect example of what happens when we start with our human philosophical presuppositions and force Scripture to bend around them rather than vice versa. If Christ did not die to pay the penalty for our sin as our substitute, then we will eventually have to pay that penalty ourselves If that is true, then how is it that the Savior says that David is blameless for eating the shewbread that was unlawful for him to eat in Matthew 12? Clearly, Christ has crossed the line and is not even condemning David for that transgression. Being made blameless, there is nothing to pay for or forgive either one in that situation. He did the same with the woman caught in the very act of adultery. He refused to even condemn her. Maybe payment isn’t as necessary as you imagined. Maybe Christ knows and taught a better way, like in Matthew 9:13 where he says you should go and learn what it means that he will have mercy and NOT SACRIFICE, because he came to call sinners to repentance. You continue: or else God is unjust and therefore unworthy of our worship. If God’s top priority was to satisfy justice at all costs as you suggest here, then humanity would have been wiped off the earth long before Christ ever came to fulfill his mission on the cross. Clearly, that did not happen, so your reasoning above is strained by the fact that we are still here and very much a live as a race of humans. Notice that in the law, when they built the ark, God has them place the commandments inside the ark, but the seat over the law is not called a justice-seat, but a mercy-seat instead. God chose to make mercy the higher of the two priorities to suggest that God is not looking to be a terror to anyone, but he wants his people to understand that mercy is just as viable of a legal demand as justice is, so it takes intelligence to discern which one should be applied in a sinner’s case. But, understand justice is unmerciful, and mercy is unjust by definition, they are opposite sides of the same legal coin, so God can extend one, but only if he suspends the other in judgment. So, how does he suspend justice and extend mercy and still remain holy. Easy, he requires you to repent. And this is why John and the Savior came preaching repentance first and foremost. Repenting is how you obtain God’s mercy. And that is Christ’s point in Matthew 9:13. And it was always God’s point in Exodus 20:6 when he offered in the heart of the law to shew mercy to those who love him and keep his commandments.
@mr.e1220
6 жыл бұрын
I would like someone to explain why it says curse it is anyone that is hung on a tree and that Jesus Took The Curse for us, and also why did God test Abraham to see if he would kill his son if the model does not apply? I doubt a lot about PSA, and the true doctrine of PSA does say that God's Wrath is appeased and also that his Wrath is poured out on Christ. This does not fit the model of what the Old Testament sacrifices shadowed
@MissingChurchill
9 жыл бұрын
Boyd does more to caricature than dismantle the Penal Substitution Theory. His use of the word "vented" in reference to God's wrath is telling. God's wrath is not an emotional pressure that he needs to relieve in order to feel better. It is a necessary, constant, settled, unchanging expression of his Holy character. God is never anything but wrathful toward sin...always...and without fluctuation. It is logically, metaphysically, theologically, and necessarily impossible for a Holy God to respond to sin with anything other than wrath and to treat it in any other way than to punish it. Then how does Jesus graciously associate with sinners, he asks? Precisely because those sinners' sins were to be punished in Jesus! There's no dichotomy between how the Father or the Son view sin in this theory; nor does this theory imply that the cross was any less an expression of the Father's love for us than the Son's love for us. If Boyd really wants to dismantle this theory, he needs to explain why the overwhelming testimony of scripture does not, in fact, teach this theory. He cannot dismantle it simply by his own philosophical reservations of a caricatured view.
@manfredman5075
11 ай бұрын
The bible when properly translated does support universal reconciliation though. God has consigned us all to disobedience and even you that includes. None of us are exclusive to God even though sone of us like to think they God's special little pet while those others are gonna get it from God. Get em God!! as if God is there own personal revenge tool to satisfy their fallen natured vengefulness. It's not how it works ECT relishers. It's also funny how you'll never meat meet a Calvinist who doesn't believe they are one of the "elect". Hehe
@CBALLEN
11 жыл бұрын
I think you're elevating one attribute of God and forgetting or minimizing the rest.God is much more than love.
@YuTonyGraceRevolution
10 жыл бұрын
Hi there, any videos/teaching on Moral Government theology view? thanks,
@holzmann-
6 жыл бұрын
Sorry Pastor Greg, but you scared the crap out of me in the beginning. I pray in Jesus name, don't do it again!
@justindomino
7 жыл бұрын
Part of why Boyd hates PSA is because he doesn't have the correct view of the Trinity. Jesus didn't just step in the middle of God's wrath and save us. The Father and Son work together and are in unity with one another. God sent His Son to die in our place because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, not someone who stepped in like a good samaritan.
@kevinthomas7868
7 жыл бұрын
Please share your credentials brother Domino... ;)
@coreybray4200
6 жыл бұрын
J: Part of why Boyd hates PSA is because he doesn't have the correct view of the Trinity. Jesus didn't just step in the middle of God's wrath and save us. The Father and Son work together and are in unity with one another. I see, so they both agreed to conspire to lie to each other that Christ is guilty for sins he did not commit? Sorry, but you are clearly not thinking this through very well. The problem is that you cannot satisfy the demands of a just law by falsely charging the innocent with sins everyone knows the innocent did not commit, and then add insult to injury buy putting the falsely accused to death in cold blooded murder. Penal Substitutionalists make the demands of justice the priority in their model that must be satisfied, trying to talk around that by licensing the former points of injustice as a solution means you do not understand the aim of Penal Substitution. The problem is that the Penal Substitutionalists do not know how to pull their model off morally or cleanly either. So, it has remained as a disasterously incomplete theory. J: God sent His Son to die in our place because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, not someone who stepped in like a good samaritan. But, if God can forgive sins, being merciful, why does he need Christ to step in at all in that capacity? You aren’t really giving a good rationale for why God needs Christ to do this, unless you are asking us to suspect that prior to the cross God was the single most merciless being in all the universe here. But, the fact that Christ was running around forgiving sins before the cross sort of spoils the milk. It suggests that Christ did not need to die to forgive sins, because he was already doing it well in advance of going to the cross as he claimed to have the power to do in Matthew 9.
@koriclaypool9548
6 жыл бұрын
If Jesus did not atone for your sins then you are not saved.
@manfredman5075
11 ай бұрын
Correct. Without Jesus' sacrifice none are saved from death. Jesus conquered death for us all is the true gospel and all means all unless one needs it to not mean all to feel exclusive as if they've earned it somehow through their choice making skills and want God to be their personal revenge tool because someone did something really bad to them in life.
@manfredman5075
11 ай бұрын
In order to believe in the ECT doctrine one must believe that all the Jews that wrre starved and tortured and then burned alive went straight from being burned in total agony on this earth which at least the suffering cane to an end by flesh death to the neverending torment because they made the wrong choice and believed the wrong thing. That's the kind of god some Christians claim they love with all their hearts? That is disturbing
@manfredman5075
11 ай бұрын
God did not send His own Son as an atonement that only covers a few while the majority go into a place where they never come to an end but suffer horribly without end. This is not a victory in any sense of the word and anyone who to thinks it is needs to really reevaluate themselves I'm afraid. I take that back because that would absolutely be a victory for Satan so it would be a victory of sorts after all
@soteriology1012
6 жыл бұрын
The greatest work that Jesus accomplished was to atone for our sins. What makes the penal substitution so beautiful an accomplishment is that Jesus is the final sacrifice that was supposed to end all sacrifice. If all mankind would heed this principle then there would be no more sacrifice In wars, famines diseases to the gods and goddesses of this world.
@camdavis38
10 жыл бұрын
This man needs some biblical understanding. If you look at the Old Testament, it was full of various types of sacrificial atonements. These sacrifices temporarily atoned for sin. Under the New Covenant, Paul explained that Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb of God atones for our sin permanently. It is not because God is angry that there is a need for atonement, it is because God is JUST. Penal substitutionary atonement is central to understanding the Gospel. He who knew no sin was made to BE sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in Christ.(2 Corinthians 5:21)
@patrickorly6141
9 жыл бұрын
// It is not because God is angry that there is a need for atonement, it is because God is JUST.// God's justice isn't punitive. It's restorative. So in a way, yes, the atonement was made because he is just, as in he is compelled by his goodness to do everything he can to save and heal us. It says with his death, he broke the power of sin and death. It had nothing to do with punishment.
@camdavis38
9 жыл бұрын
When you say that God's justice isn't punitive, then you're really just engaging in semantics. When you say "in a way, the atonement was made because He is just", it's not in a way, it's the VERY reason that Jesus died for us. Someone had to satisfy the claims of justice in our stead, we couldn't do it for ourselves, no ifs,ands, and buts about it. I will reiterate again, it has nothing to do with God's anger, it has everything to do with God being just. Jesus paid the penalty of Justice for us, and I'm thankful for that.
@patrickorly6141
9 жыл бұрын
Cameron Davis No, it's not semantics. It's punitive as oppose to natural law (which I believe God's law to be natural). Death is a natural consequence of sin. God in his mercy holds back the full consequence of our sin so that we'll have time to turn away from it. Jesus dying in our place broke the power of sin and death. He freed us from it's bondage. It had nothing to do with God needing to punish someone to be just.
@fnscomedycrew
9 жыл бұрын
Patrick O Rly I mostly agree. One thing though: Was not the Law in place to condemn sin and is not Satan the Accuser? It appears to me that due to the nature of the written Law, punishment was needed due God's justice but not necessarily to appease the Father and His otherwise impossible to alleviate wrath. Cameron, Greg understands your OP and does not negate substitutionary atonement. He simply denies penal sub. I would recommend reading his response to Thomas Schreiner in "The Nature of the Atonement". I think you may have a skewed understanding of God's attribute of just-ness (that as taught by reformed theology) and that Patrick ultimately sees this as the epicenter of your disagreement but has not put his finger on it.
@patrickorly6141
9 жыл бұрын
That's an interesting point, especially the point about satan being the assuser. It seems that he's the one that demands punishment for sin and not God. God has always been forgiving, and he's always provided for him from himself. It's almost like the law (which had a lot of retributive justice, which Jesus comes in later and commands the opposite of it) was a huge set up for satan who thought he was going to condemn all mankind, but Jesus came, fulfilled all it's requirement, and satan had no case left. I think penal and christus victor can marry together in a biblical way in that sense.
@gordonj5157
6 жыл бұрын
Can God forgive without payment? God is not bound by retribution laws. Recall the parable in Matt 18:23 where Jesus describes the Kingdom of God. The King took pity on the servant who owed 10,000 talents even though no payment was made. no one made a payment on the servant's behalf either. God commands US to forgive when an offender repents, even 7X70 per day. Cannot God can do the same or more? His merciful ways are higher than our ways.... The bible teaches God forgives with true repentance, with NO payment needed PERIOD. What Christ's death WAS I'm not addressing here. However, it was NOT to appease a God bound by "laws of retribution." Matt 18:23 destroys that.
@MissingChurchill
9 жыл бұрын
(cont'd)...and does anyone else find it a bit amusing that he quotes 2 Corinthians 5:21 @ 6:45ff, and little more than 30 seconds later he asks, "Is guilt really the kind of thing that's transferable?" Um...well apparently the verse you just quoted thinks so. Or did Jesus "become" the non-guilt-inducing kind of sin? I guess when you begin by being opposed to something and then go to scripture to try and defend yourself, you end up saying really silly things.
@coreybray4200
6 жыл бұрын
If guilt is transferable, then who is safe in the presence of a God who would cross that line at the expense of the innocent???
@ChipKempston
5 жыл бұрын
Was our sin infused to Jesus or imputed to him? No matter what your answer, there are problems that come from that. If you say infused, that goes against most Protestant theology of the past 500 years, because nobody believes Christ actually became sinful and was actually guilty of our sin. If imputed...well, if it was merely "imputed," then Jesus does not literally "become sin" as your interpretation requires; it is merely a legal fiction, so you run into another brick wall with a simplistic reading of this passage. What is clearly meant here is that Christ became a *sin offering* (as some manuscripts correctly make clear, which agrees with the LXX translation of, for instance, Leviticus 4:24).
@seandmoore6922
3 жыл бұрын
Unwatchable....you need to slow it down and lay off the coffee before you start the camera. By the way, I agree with you.
@MikeJunior94
11 жыл бұрын
He might be twisting your interpretation, but he certainly is not 'twisting the Bible'. Penal substitution is an invention of John Calvin, who had a legalistic mindset. How is that for a world view being objected onto the Bible?
@andiroo42
4 жыл бұрын
If Jesus died instead of us, He goes to heaven...instead of us. We died in Christ.
@FutureNotFixed
11 жыл бұрын
This reminds me of The Atonement: Part 1-Boston Terrorists, Justice vs. Grace I'd like your opinion if you have some time to check it out, thanks. PST has LOTS of problems.
@torahtimes5380
9 жыл бұрын
Penal subst. means there is nothing really forgiven? Nope. The penalty is a limited penalty of suffering and a limited duration of death, 3 days and 3 nights. It is a reduced penalty that was paid by Messiah. It was a punitive penalty also, and not a compensatory penalty. God is not compensated for the loss caused by our sin. Since this is a case a lot is being outright forgiven with no compensation at all.
@xuanhungdo2083
7 жыл бұрын
3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 but he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. (Isaiah 53:3-5, ESV) This verse clearly says that He was PIERCED for OUR transgressions, He was CRUSHED for OUR iniquities. Also I wish we would not be set on arguments like pagans view it the same. Surely it doesn't matter if pagans view it same or not as long as the Bible shows it to be true. I believe that both penal substitution and Christ victor are biblical truths. And surely there must be penal substitution for God to be JUST and MERCIFUL. 6 The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, FORGIVING INIQUITY AND TRANSGRESSION AND SIN, but WHO WILL BY NO MEANS CLEAR THE GUILTY, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation." (Exodus 34:6-7, ESV)
@Theoldmanandthesea13
3 жыл бұрын
Growing up, i thought that God loves me but he has unresolved anger issues so even if he loves me, if i dont do it right, i will go to hell and that is his justice.
@Goliathreborn
8 жыл бұрын
I agree that there are problems with the penal substitution theory; Jesus on the cross didn't say "father I forgive you", but "Father forgive them" - but does someone have an answer to Isaiah 53:10, "it pleased the Lord to crush him"?
@admiralmurat2777
6 жыл бұрын
David Friesen it is very different in Greek extremely! Some guy named Hardin in a video called stricken by God? Explains it.
@rasheedfraser5680
Ай бұрын
This man has a fundamental misunderstanding of scripture. And the Nature of Sin. And of redemption.
@tecomaman
5 жыл бұрын
God so loved the world that he GAVE his son
@gottschalk4662
5 жыл бұрын
If you have to misrepresent the view you disagree with so badly it’s obvious you don’t have good arguments against it and you don’t have good arguments for your view.
@Andrew-dc7nl
7 жыл бұрын
So are you also denying that Yom Kippur had any power for the Jews prior to Christ Crucified?
@CBALLEN
11 жыл бұрын
I too came to believe in the Doctrines of Grace taught in scripture long before ever reading anything by Calvin and since I believed the Doctrines of Grace I have no idea of what Calvin actually believes since I have only read a handful of words written by him,yet when I speak with these people they want to tell me how evil Calvin was and I shouldn't believe what Calvin wrote,but when I tell them I don't know what all he wrote they call me a liar.
@CBALLEN
11 жыл бұрын
Amen,no one needs to look any further than scripture for the Doctrines of Grace.Christians have allowed themselves to be labeled as Calvinists for so long that it seems that those who use the label think Calvin invented and inserted the Doctrines of Grace into the Bible.These who hate the Doctrines.of Grace love to blame Calvin and direct their hatred toward him instead of toward God and His word.The Gospel cannot be believed or understood by those who are without the Spirit..
@brotherandrew3393
11 жыл бұрын
Your answer is not dealing with my arguments. The God I believe in IS LOVE. So the centre of his being is LOVE. And LOVE reaches out to love somebody else, otherwise it could not come to action. LOVING means to do everything possible to meet the real needs of the beloved. Therefore this GOD is not concerned about his reputation but HE was willing to be treated like a criminal to reach you and me by his LOVE = by HIMSELF. That´s why I can trust him. He does not force me to do so.
@CBALLEN
11 жыл бұрын
Sorry Andrew,but it just pains me for people to claim God is ignorant and powerless when compared to man.
@Andrew-dc7nl
7 жыл бұрын
The scriptures refute your claims. Your apparent discomfort of God's character as represented in His Word isn't a compelling argument for a complete augmentation of it. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. (1 Peter 3:18) For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 1 Timothy 2:5-6
@rbmath
6 жыл бұрын
(3) God the Father is made guilty of injustice......The doctrine of vicarious atonement, it is said, involves an injustice on the part of the Father in that He simply sacrifices the Son for the sins of mankind. This objection was already raised by Abelard, but loses sight of several pertinent facts. It was not the Father but the triune God that conceived the plan of redemption. There was a solemn agreement between the three persons in the Godhead. And in this plan the Son voluntarily undertook to bear the penalty for sin and to satisfy the demands of the divine law. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology (Kindle Locations 12726-12727). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. Kindle Edition.
@36742650885
6 жыл бұрын
Gtm.org sermon # 2644 UNDERSTANDING THE ATONEMENT is a Good sermon. By Dr Joseph Kostelnik.
@brotherandrew3393
11 жыл бұрын
Don´t you think that humans do act against God´s will? If yes, than God is willing not to treat people like robots and let them have their way even if HE is really sad about this (Matthew 23,37). I know that in the end there will be no more resistance against God´s will and even those who resisted him, must see that He used their resistance for his purposes. No open theisist is denying that. But they seem to neglect that God is the creator of time. But in time we have some kind of freedom.
@matthewmayuiers
4 жыл бұрын
Go to Aquinas, not this. Greg is an awesome smart guy, but in terms of theology he’s extremely weak. With his approach it’s easy to speak to the tired evangelicals or fundamentalists who are finding inconsistencies in their belief. Keep running with open theism and you’ll eventually hit a wall, regardless of some theological disagreements Greg is awesome tho.
@ummmerrrrummm
10 жыл бұрын
hur hur .. hehe ...penal hehehe...... ahem
@josephkuzara2609
5 жыл бұрын
Jesus being God's justification by how He treated His ligit Son while righteous yet in the likeness of sinful flesh, to act towards those whom by faith are baptized in Christ being imputed His righteousness are treated if they stumble into sin,instead of remaining under wrathful suffering. we suffer as Christ by partaking in His Body(1 corinthians 12:13kjv) but only many until His return will partake in His Cup and Baptism of death( Matthew 20:22-23kjv)being Chastized and Scourged even unto death(matthew 16:24) in order to learn what obedience is picking up our own poles to partake in God's Holiness. Jesus being made sin in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh yet not the embodiment of wickedness, being made a curse for us by condemning sin in the flesh(not Jesus) while dieing on a tree/pole yet not accursed(1 Cor 12:3kjv) to free us from the curse of the Law in order to be corrected with discipline as Christ our source so we are not condemned with the world(1 Cor 11:32) Christ suffered correction voluntarily as our substitute(the just for the unjust) instead of the elect suffering everlasting wrath so while in CHRIST we partake in His correction if we sin. Although Gods Son being born in the fullness of Father, being perfect in nature and spirit without blemish, volunteered to suffer for our sins through corrective chastening and scourging unto death to learn obedience(Isa 53:5 Musar #4148 ,Hebrews 5:8-9 Phillip 2:7-8 Kjv) being made spiritually mature and the pioneer of our salvation for the elects sake as God's Equivalent Disciplinary Substitution(TRUE PSA) to be our sin and guilt atonement as our ransom in order to Propitiate and Justify Father to correct the Elect through such suffering instead of leaving us under His wrath. Putting on Christ by being baptized in Him while partaking in His Body and Cup takes on a more deeper revelation understood within scripture once one connects the dots of His suffering not only as a remembrance of how and why He died for our sake but what it means for us in lifestyle while following Him. Such connection is marred when one disassociates through Wrathful Penal substitution atonement, what Christ went through from what and why we also partake in correction while in Him. Sense one is taught through Wrathful PSA that what Jesus goes through as our substitute(the just for the unjust) is not what we will go through as our source and example set. they miss the whole purpose of His suffering correction(Isa 53:5kjv Musar #4148) By Father for our sins(not just for His own Righteousness by evil men) and why we are corrected while in Him partaking in His suffering(not just suffering for Righteousness by evil mankind) but also suffering correction to know obedience by grant(philip 1:29; Acts 14:22) instead of remaining under wrath even if we do sin. Too often teachers of Wrathful PSA had made synonymous Gods punishment with His discipline within the English translations when in reality God makes a distinction between the two in scripture because of what His Son was predeterminedly sent to face for our sins as righteous otherwise there would be no justification for us to be disciplined while being imputed Jesus' righteousness yet still stumble nor teach of such distinctions. Even a severe discipline is not an punishment from GOD sense punishment is taught as coming from Wrath toward an enemy not Gods Mercy and Love toward a received child The teaching in Hebrews 12:4-11 Should open ones mind to reflect Jesus' suffering as our source and example and what we go through until His return while in Him following after Him.
@marshall470
6 жыл бұрын
The further this guy goes the more he exposes himself as a heretic.
@rbmath
6 жыл бұрын
1) The myth of Redemptive violence... ANSWER: Where Greg Boyd see violence, scriptures says it's JUSTICE. If I'm not mistaken, scripture does not teach "Redemptive violence" scripture teaches the cross for Jesus was LEGAL PAYMENT FOR SINS, the reward for sin is NOT Redemptive violence, it's DEATH. Rom 6:23; Isa 53:4-12; Jesus as the second Divine member of the Trinity was NOT an UNWILLING VICTIM. Therefore, we see that “righteousness” or “justification” refers to one’s relationship to a standard, most often the law of God, and that the action of declaring righteous or just does not involve a subjective change in the person so described, but is instead a declaration, a pronouncement, concerning that person’s status relative to the law. When we read of our being “justified by his grace” (Titus 3:7), we see that this is a pronouncement of our proper relationship to the law of God that is undertaken solely on the basis of God’s grace. When a man is justified, he himself is not changed (the change takes place in regeneration and sanctification). Instead, God declares that he is no longer under the penalty or curse of the law. White, James R.. The God Who Justifies (p. 72). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 2) it presents a picture of God, let's say, problematic, Does God really need to vent his wrath against somebody. ANSWER: he's really implying, What is the big deal with God's Holiness and Justice, Psa_97:2 .... righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. God's wrath MUST NOT be confused with man's wrath, God's wrath simply means, God's JUSTICE against sin. God's wrath is never out of control wrath as Greg Boyd strongly implies... Therefore, since remission of sin is, beyond all dispute and question, a forensic declaration, so too must justification be a forensic declaration on the part of God. No one can possibly deny that to remit sin is to speak of an action that requires a judge with the authority to pronounce sentence and then to remit sentence. So if remission of sin is being seen by the apostle as correlative with justification, it follows that justification is, as we have already proven but now confirm beyond dispute, a forensic, legal declaration on the part of God the Father regarding the believer, based upon the work of another, the Lord Jesus Christ. White, James R.. The God Who Justifies (pp. 200-201). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 3) Does God the Father ever really forgive us.. ANSWER: Greg Boyd know questions God's justice. The debt of sin was PAID by YAHWEH In Isa 53:4-12; notice personal pronouns relating to the suffering servant as the context teaches he is suffering for others. Jesus is the, “HE, HIM, HIS, HE SHALL BEAR, WHEN HIS SOUL MAKES AN OFFERING FOR GUILT, HE BORE THE SIN, MAKES INTERCESSION” In verse 12 the words “HE POURED OUT HIS SOUL TO DEATH” shows his death to be of his own initiative in giving himself up to die, John 10:17-18; Further in Isa 53:6,10; it clearly teaches it was YAHWEH who laid on HIM, and it was YAHWEH will to crush HIM, In context of suffering death for others, Penal substitutionary Atonement. Jesus as YAHWEH God, the second member of the divine trinity with ONE Divine will was not forced nor does this show as others blasphemy say, “its divine child abuse”, they clearly do not know God who use this to deny Penal substitution. 4) Why does Jesus hang out sinners if sin separates us from God..how is it that Christ became sin.. ANSWER: Christ as the second Adam, was the LEGAL representative of His people, Christ paid the LEGAL forensic punishment for sin, while remaining MORALLY PURE. When we come to the actual doctrine of justification in the New Testament, which meaning predominates? This is a most important inquiry, for the Protestant position teaches that it is the judicial or legal sense that is in view in the doctrine of justification by faith, not the moral or ethical one. White, James R.. The God Who Justifies (p. 60). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 5) Is guilt transferable. MORAL guilt, NO, LEGAL guilt, YES. a penal debt....If some beneficent person offers to pay the pecuniary debt of another, the payment must be accepted, and the debtor is ipso facto freed from all obligation. But this is not the case when someone offers to atone vicariously for the transgression of another. To be legal, this must be expressly permitted and authorized by the lawgiver. In reference to the law this is called relaxation, and in relation to the sinner it is known as remission. The judge need not, but can permit this; yet he can permit it only under certain conditions, as (1) that the guilty party himself is not in a position to bear the penalty through to the end, so that a righteous relation results; (2) that the transfer does' not encroach upon the rights and privileges of innocent third parties, nor cause them to suffer hardships and privations; (3) that the person enduring the penalty is not himself already indebted to justice, and does not owe all his services to the government; and (4) that the guilty party retains the consciousness of his guilt and of the fact' that the substitute is suffering for him. In view of all this it will be understood that the transfer of penal debt is well-nigh, if not entirely, impossible among men. But in the case of Christ, which is altogether unique, because in it a situation obtained which has no parallel, all the conditions named were met. There was no injustice of any kind. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology (Kindle Locations 12664-12668). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. Kindle Edition. In the process of salvation God is not transferring penalty from one man (guilty) to another man (innocent). He is bearing it Himself. The absolute oneness between the Father and the Son in the work of atonement must not for a moment be lost sight of. When Christ substitutes for sinful man in His death that is God Himself bearing the consequences of our sin, God saving man at cost to Himself, not at cost to someone else. As Leonard Hodgson puts it, “He wills that sin shall be punished, but He does not will that sin shall be punished without also willing that the punishment shall fall on Himself.” In part the atonement is to be understood as a process whereby God absorbs in Himself the consequences of man’s sin. FROM: Morris, The Cross 6) Is it ever just to punish somebody else for what someone else did. ANSWER: Again, Jesus as YAHWEH God, whose laws man broke place the punishment for the sin of his people on YAHWEH God. 7) How is it that Jesus death paid the price of infinite punishment. ANSWER: Jesus as the second member of the trinity is INFINITE. Jesus death was not just a death of a man. it was thew death of a God-man... 8) It's Jesus entire life of obedience the also matter, since the righteous life of Jesus is legally imputed to his people. what works in Christians is life long SANCTIFICATION, a) [Justification is] an act, and not, as sanctification, a continued and progressive work. b) It is an act of grace to the sinner. In himself he deserves condemnation when God justifies him. c) As to the nature of the act, it is, in the first place, not an efficient act, or an act of power. It does not produce any subjective change in the person justified. It does not effect a change of character, making those good who were bad, those holy who were unholy. That is done in regeneration and sanctification. In the second place, it is not a mere executive act, as when a sovereign pardons a criminal, and thereby restores him to his civil rights, or to his former status in the commonwealth. In the third place, it is a forensic, or judicial act, the act of a judge, not of a sovereign. That is, in the case of the sinner, or, in foro Dei, it is an act of God not in his character of sovereign, but in his character of judge. It is a declarative act in which God pronounces the sinner just or righteous, that is, declares that the claims of justice, so far as he is concerned, are satisfied, so that he cannot be justly condemned, but is in justice entitled to the reward promised or due to perfect righteousness. White, James R.. The God Who Justifies (p. 52). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Justification is about our status, while sanctification is about the work of God whereby we are changed and conformed to His image. Confusing the two utterly undoes the glorious nature of justification. White, James R.. The God Who Justifies (p. 63). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
@DavidWendt-com
10 жыл бұрын
Christ became sin...and The Father looks away?
@patrickorly6141
9 жыл бұрын
God's wrath is withdrawing himself, his protection. Then sinful men who were influenced by the devil and other demonic forces funneled all their violence on Jesus, and through this, he broke the power of sin and death. He over came evil with a self sacrificial love.
Пікірлер: 147