Atonement and the Death of Christ: A Symposium | EPS 2024

[@ji8044]

I want to give a shout out to the people who run this and the other Dr. Craig channels. Many, probably the majority of Christian channels block/shadow ban any disagreement with the owners or even scholarly Biblical discussion. That has never happened to me here which is a thing worthy of praise.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Kind words! Thank you! - RF Admin

[@ConvincedofChristianity]

Great discussion!

[@mikejurney9102]

Is it God who falsely accuses the innocent of wrong doing? Is it God that vents his fury on the most righteous person to have ever lived? I don't think so. Actually, that sound more like a description of the devil. So it seems this PSA is a form of devil worship. I don't think it does any good to try to apply examples of human legal systems to the idea of the true justice of God. For we all have questions about whether these legal maneuvers are just to begin with. Our salvation does not rely on human legal trickery.

[@ethanrichard4950]

But you seem to inherently misunderstand the very doctrine of PSA by insinuating that we believe God punishes and vents on those of innocence. That's false language. He doesn't "vent fury."" How childish of a manuever. No, He has wrath on sin, and that wrath based in righteousness is the foundation from which justice pours forth. Christ became sin, died for peace, The Just dying for unjust to make them just (1st Peter) - He was life given so that sin may finally be cleansed off us. Most importantly, if we go to Moses and the Israelites, when they had made the calf and worshiped it, And God intended on destroying them, Moses interceded. How so? He gave His life, saying that if God was going to destroy them, that Moses would take the place. Moses understood that death was deserved. I think it's because He knew God is righteous. He knew no sin is left or ignored, and so death of one was necessary (the same is shown by sacrifices of lambs and even the goat which carries our sin away.) Now, Moses was merely a sinful man Himself, so of course He couldn't pay the price, but Christ being righteous and divine, paid the price of sin by death, so that righteousness can be ours. That's the beauty of it. God has a law. When we break it, He doesn't just ignore it and say "oh well" and take us in as children. Rather, the law will find it's followance in Christ who was perfect in it, that by His righteousness, we may indeed have it, as if we followed law. As if we were innocent, never having sinned. God's plan is to get rid of sin. To do that is to accept the wage. To do that is to take on death. God's standard has always been perfection. Thankfully, though in our repentant hearts we don't come close to reaching it, Christ did, so that perfection comes through Christ. Hebrews 10:1-4 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. If sin is a problem worthy of taking away, and God intended to take it way instead of ignoring it, then there must be death for sin. The wage taken. When Christ returns and judges with justice- will the justice of the law not be in view? Will those be counted free because they broke law but were sorry for it, or will they be counted free as far as they are in Christ who followed the law, who was righteous, and who took our sin away and gave us His righteousness? Acts 17:31 ESV Because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” 2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. If we are to be righteous, our sin must be dealt with. What mercy that God takes our sin. What love that He dies so that we may be as if we died to sin. As if we were out of that debt and now free from the wage of sin. Isaiah 53:11 ESV 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

[@mikejurney9102]

@@ethanrichard4950 I can't understand what you're talking about. You seem to be denying the premise of the video which is that God was somehow justified in punishing Christ for the sins of the whole human race. He goes into some convoluted circumlocutions about the legal system of men and "legal fictions" to justify Gods punishment of Christ. And he seems to be making a distinction between moral responsibility and legal responsibility for sins. But I don't think God makes that kind of distinction. I can't imagine God saying to anyone, "You are not morality responsible for those sins, but you are legally responsible for those sins." For God knows exactly who is responsible for sin and will judge them accordingly for their willful arrogance. If it were a matter of Christ taking on the punishment, then we would all be saved by that fact whether we continue to sin or not. So I think this PSA is just an analogy, not to be taken literally. For if we examine the historical facts of the matter as recorded in the gospels, we never here God say, "I hereby punish you for the sins of the world." Nor does Christ ever say on the cross, "I am suffering the punishment of all mankind." Or anything like that. The facts simply don't support the PSA interpretation. When you say that Christ simply stepped in the way of God's wrath, that's not PSA which says that God had specific intentions to poor wrath on Christ, particularly, to satisfy some legal considerations. Only a medieval lawyer could concoct something as corrupt as that. To my mind, Christ is the perfect example of virtue, love, and righteousness. And to suggest that God would hold that responsible for all the sins of the world is the worst blasphemy anyone could ever possibly imagine. The demons accuse God of evil and hate him for it. But others accuse God of the worst imaginable injustice and love him for it. I don't know which one is worse.

[@ethanrichard4950]

@@mikejurney9102 You say the facts don't support PSA, yet you didn't give any. You simply gave a lack of verses with blunt language. That's an argument from silence. No where does Jesus say "I am the third person in the trinity and am God along side the Holy Spirit." Yet that's biblical truth. No, Im not here to defend Doctor Craig's views as they relate to the U.S. system. I'm here to show what the Bible says, and it says that we're only saved because our sin was taken. It can only be taken by life given. Christ's life was given, instead of us giving ours- hence substitution.

[@mikejurney9102]

@@ethanrichard4950 Your supposition seems to be pure interpretation. But I'm asking what historical facts can you give in support of it. Without historical support, your interpretation is just an analogy. And you don't really know what you are talking about. As far as the Trinity is considered, how do you define God? And how do you define spirit?

[@ethanrichard4950]

@@mikejurney9102 Do you believe in the trinity? Also, I'm not going off of historical facts. I'm going off of the Bible. There's no way to take the understanding of God's law, of the punishment therein, of the cleansing from sin, of Christ being a redeemer and mediator, and of Him washing us- to take all that together and not have substitution for payment of sins. Else, sin is lessened and Christ's death, not necessary. In fact, people could've been saved apart from Christ.

[@mikejurney9102]

Is there a difference in God's sight between morality and legality? I don't think so. If Jesus was not morally guilty of the sins of all humankind, then he is not legally guilty of it.

[@williammcenaney1331]

Dr. Craig believes Our Lord took a fallen human nature. So, he suggests that Christ inherited original sin from his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. In St. Luke's holy Gospel, Gabriel the Archangel says, "Hail full of grace" because he knows she's already holy. If original sin didn't harm her soul, she had no original sin to give her divine son. Does Dr. Craig believe Our Lord was born with something he had from birth? Prof. Craig misrepresents what Catholics mean by "temporal punishment." Some Protestants seem to believe that Christians don't need to make amends for their sins because Our Savior died to take them away. Think about an analogy I use to defend the Catholic dogma about Purgatory. Suppose I smash your front window with a brick. When my conscience scolds me, I visit your home, apologize, and hear you say, "I forgive you." You also tell me that I must pay for the broken window., Should you have replied, "Don't worry about it, Bill. I'll pay for the new window?" Would that answer tempt me to shatter the new one if I got angry with you? Catholics think saved souls go to Purgatory make up for forgiven sins they've committed. It's not a way to "get saved after death." If I become a Christian, murder 10 people in cold blood, and tell God I'm sorry, I don't have to do penance? Although I admire Dr. Craig, he shocks me with his Monothelitism, his Neo-Appolonarianism, and his opinion of what Catholics call temporal punishment. He knows ancient ecumenical councils condemned Neo-Appolonarianism and Monothelitism. But since he "takes doctrines to the bar of Scripture," he doubts that he should agree with those councils. Does he believe he knows the Bible better than their Council Fathers did? Again, I think highly of Prof. Craig. But if I had children, Iwouldn't let them attend his Sunday school classes.

[@donaldmonzon1774]

@@williammcenaney1331 you have slandered Craig...he does not believe in inherited guilty...he has a video devoted to that topic....an apology to him is appropriate

[@nothingtoitbuttodoit]

To say I forgive you and I absolve of you of all wrong doing isn't the same. I forgive you but still demand you pay for the damage, then you must go to prison. You must pay for that debt that you owe me. For you have committed an offense against me. Is this accurate to what you're saying? What does i forgive you mean then?

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@donaldmonzon1774 I didn’t hint that Dr. Craig thought Christ was guilty, but the good professor said Our Lord adopted a fallen nature. Catholics distinguish between original and actual sin. Original sin is the lack of the holiness we would have had from birth if Adam and Eve had always obeyed God. Actual sins include robbery, lying, murder, gluttony, and more. Those sins are actions, but some other sins are omissions. Catholics believe Christ got his human nature from his sinless mother, Mary, who didn’t “catch” original sin. After all, the Holy Ghost impregnated her. Original sin goes from natural parents to their children. So, we know the Holy Ghost wouldn’t transmit it. And that makes it hard to see how Christ got a fallen human nature if he did.

[@adamduarte895]

@@williammcenaney1331no

[@donaldmonzon1774]

Isaiah 55: 5-9............. sometimes take things at face value Isaiah 53 :10-12 . Kiss.....53:5,6.... Don't forget Jesus is God.... surely God the father and God the Son came up with this plan together 'let us'....these men are judging whether God is just, offended by his ways, surely God should have run it by some of these fellows for approval first 🤔

[@donaldmonzon1774]

For the transgression of my people he was stricken...........he shall bear their iniquities........or you can complicate things so that you can feel more sophisticated, making your ways are above God's ways....🤔...go wash in the dirty Jordan river and your leprosy shall be healed, not good enough for this bunch with their 'vain janglings'

[@andreyillnips7550]

I agree, it's so interesting hearing them explain how assuming substitution is unjust and therefore wrong, justice would be for all of us to endure damnation yet we are saved, how can we expect to understand perfect justice and perfect mercy? God's ways are above ours

[@donaldmonzon1774]

@@andreyillnips7550 beautiful, pure, lovely lambs and doves ( that God loves) died for four thousand years ...the absolutely innocent, for the guilty...they paid the price in our place

[@donaldmonzon1774]

@@andreyillnips7550 they can't see the forest for the trees it seems..1 Peter 3:18 seems concise enough 🤔

[@Godandgrappling]

⁠@@andreyillnips7550Whether “justice would be for all of us to endure damnation” is true is not up for debate here, although I would argue that your definition of justice is not a scriptural or a godly one. What matters is whether God is willing to do something He calls an abomination through His inspired writers (Proverbs 17:15, Proverbs 6:16-17). Also, most of us, if we are being honest, can admit it has been written on our hearts that it is wrong to condemn an innocent and righteous person in the place of a guilty person and to shed innocent blood. Assuming you haven’t severely hardened your heart, I have no doubt that, if you met someone who was practicing “godly forgiveness” and, as a result, they could only forgive others after they had “punished” an innocent person, you would want nothing to do with them. You would probably even call the police on them. I can speak for myself here. When God revealed to me that PSA was false, my whole life changed. It was literally transformative. I became a much more forgiving, patient, gentle and kind person overnight. My wife can testify to that. Ultimately, personal testimonies don’t matter though. What matters is what the scriptures say and don’t say and they never say the things PSA advocates need them to say to support their claims and they even speak against them, as I already demonstrated.

[@simonskinner1450]

There was no atonement at the Cross, it was not an altar, and Jesus was not liable, he was wrongly killed. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for NT truth.

[@ji8044]

How could Jesus have been "wrongly killed" when it was his plan all along?

[@simonskinner1450]

@ji8044 That is the point of his death, it was unjust as he took on the punishment of Barabas, this 'knocked the devil off his perch' so to speak.

[@ji8044]

@@simonskinner1450 WTF? Never mind, sorry I replied to you.

[@simonskinner1450]

@@ji8044 Jesus was also killed for a purpose that he understood, it pleased his Father that he allowed his own death, but it was injustice all the same hence wrong.

[@donaldmonzon1774]

Hebrews 4:15....you are treading on dangerous ground by suggesting Christ sinned....he suffered for us...the JUST for the unjust

[@AaronDavis95]

Which one of the panelists suggests this?

[@donaldmonzon1774]

@AaronDavis95 ji8044

[@donaldmonzon1774]

​@@AaronDavis95richartsowa in comments

[@ethanrichard4950]

no, Christ didn't sin, but bore ours. He became sin. Our sin was "in" Him. By such, sin as dealt with. Sin is either dealt with or ignored. God doesn't ignore sin nor is that His plan in scripture. To deal with sin is to take on the wage- death. By His blood (life given, i.e. death) we are cleansed and sin is finally dealt with, so that on judgment day, when Christ judges with justice- and we are compared to the righteous law of God, instead of making the appeal that we were sorry enough and repentant enough, we can have an advocate who finally brought peace to us and God by being righteousness by the law in His perfection. God never lowers His standards (which is pefection) rather, He finds a way to raise us up to them- namely by being clothed in Christ's righteousness and having our sins washed. Having our consciences cleaned. Having sin dealt with.

[@donaldmonzon1774]

Hebrews 9:28..... simple......... these vain janglings are grievous

[@jonathanw1106]

This is a 2h video with multiple papers and viewpoints, what were you referencing?

[@donaldmonzon1774]

@@jonathanw1106 all the jabbering that obscures what is obvious, that being, that the innocent ( animals and Jesus) died for the guilty, penal substitution... simple...but... offensive to the wise apparently 🤔

[@jonathanw1106]

@donaldmonzon1774 the only obscuring jabbering is you right now what on earth are you talking about

[@donaldmonzon1774]

@jonathanw1106 1 Peter 3 :18... simple...get it ?

[@ChumX100]

All sides of the argument affirm what's written: Christ was sacrificed to take away the sins of many. (Heb 9:28) Christ suffered for our sins. To bring us to God. (1 Pet 3:18) Just citing the passages does not validate PSA, unless we presuppose that they are to be interpreted that way.

[@richartsowa9852]

To truly get to the bottom of this we need to realize that througout the bible animal sacrifices were used in an attempt to atone for sin even though the prophets often spoke out against this practice. Jesus actually went against his own teaching of loving and praying for enemies when he severely judged in the temple. So in this way his sufferings and death could be attributed to this as the scripture states 'when much is given much is asked' this fits with Paul's words that 'Christ was made perfect b y his sufferings' This gives Jesus the ability to understand the difficulty of living a sinless life and have empathy for imperfect humans. So Jesus overcame death by forgiving those that killed him and became the perfect example for all. God's justice is perfect and although the old testament sacrificial traditions were not actually needed, Jesus's anger in the temple concerning corruption and unnecessary animal suffering perfectly connects by ending All sacrifice with his death and ressurection.

[@Dizerner]

The animal sacrifices where a shadow of Christ, it clearly tell us this. The prophets did NOT speak against the Torah, they preached against only outwardly and not inwardly keeping it.

[@jonathanw1106]

Jesus was not mad about animal suffering lol what bible are you reading? He was angry about money changers and swindlers

[@ji8044]

No that's false. Animal sacrifice was only for minor sins, never anything major. The Torah is very detailed about what is covered for what type of sin.

[@jonathanw1106]

@ji8044 that is also false lol there were multiple animal sacrifices some ritually each year to cover all the sins of the nation and major ones as well

[@Dizerner]

@@jonathanw1106 Exactly, it's crazy how Rabbinical Judaism just ignores that, unbelievable.

[@ji8044]

Arguing that only the death of Jesus could atone for the sin of Adam is like arguing that only the death of a member of Congress could atone for violations of Federal law.

[@donaldmonzon1774]

@@ji8044 take up some other hobby...in this area you're woefully inadequate

[@Dizerner]

False equivalence, violates the Creator/creature distinction.

[@ChristLovesYouSoMuch]

Hello, not at all. That member of congress is a man just like any other man who violated the law. On the contrary, there is a categorical difference when it comes to that of Christ's atoning sacrifice. Jesus is not a mere man, but -- within the Hypostatic Union -- also our infinite God. Jesus loves you. God bless.

[@ji8044]

@@donaldmonzon1774 That's what all the poorly educated stalkers say to me.

[@ji8044]

@@Dizerner True, because it's a much worse idea that God somehow needed to atone for the sin of his creation. That's why it was never a part of Judaism.