David Bentley Hart on Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[@donrayjay]

David doesn’t give much away with his facial expressions

[@gre8]

I'm surprised at his hability to speak like a ventriloquist without moving his mouth. Truly a genius.

[@Jordan-hz1wr]

😂

[@Elisplaytimeanimals]

He's a great active listener!

[@jeffryblair6816]

😂😂

[@user-cz8gi2om3n]

Fascinating, the way I've always explained it is that, when one forgives a debt, they take the burden on themselves rather than retrieve what is owed to them. And so God chose to suffer the damage we did to his creation rather than take what is owed to him from us. But this is also a good way of looking at it.

[@nistan3]

Here is what I believe. The Father never required sacrifices, only WE did. Hebrews 10:8, Psalm 51:16, Hosea 6:6. We have always been sons and daughters of the Father, our own guilt, shame, resentments and ultimate angers (wrath) were taken out on Christ. He submitted to US as a lamb. They were performing animal sacrifices to temporarily ease their guilt and mental anguish, and when they killed Christ, it was the end of sacrifices because He "finished" the endless work of reconciling all minds back to the Father Colossians 1:19 - 22. "It is finished" can also be translated "paid in full" where we get this "ransom" theory, but when He said it is "paid in full" what he is saying is, now that YOU killed me, I PAID IN FULL YOUR endless cycle of "payments" via animal sacrifices to buy you temporary peace of mind from guilt and shame. Now you can be one with the Father again, ONCE FOR ALL. Do you see the difference? The prodigal son's father didn’t require a sacrifice to take his son back, it was when his son's mind changed about his father that HE saw his father differently than before he left. His father on the other hand was always waiting and watching for his son with open arms. Can you see this difference vs PSA? Would any of you parents here need a sacrifice to take back your child for ANY reason, or would you lay down your life if your child’s mind could be healed of their anger toward you? Peace

[@stevenfrasier5718]

Very good explanation, brother. ~S

[@nevbillett7554]

Yes you are correct, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 20 declare God was in Christ and He was NOT counting our sins against us ; He was pleading for us to make peace with Him (who already loved us, that's why He sent His Son) God judged and dealt with SIN on the cross, he wasn't angry at us or Jesus, He was getting rid of sin. "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world John 1:29 Yahooo praise Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit

[@jesseseaborn1674]

Wow what a great explanation. My mind is blown. Never thought of it that way. Thank you.

[@einarabelc5]

You've been watching too much Jordan Peterson, Golden Corral is too close to home.

[@einarabelc5]

So, let's just ignore Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 53...plus all of the book of Kings, Chronicles, the rest of Isaiah, Psalms all of Jeremiah, and so on. Way to pick and chose. It's obvious. you just made a god in your own mage. It goes with the pic too... So, explain Job for me if you will please.

[@storba3860]

Evangelicals will wax poetically about the beauty of PSA when it's basically "sacrificing yourself unto yourself to appease yourself".

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Wee bit more complicated than that lol

[@js1817]

I think it works. I understand anger at sin and the identification of justice with the punishment of a sinner. Just consider a heinous crime to feel those emotions. As for "himself to himself", well, we've already got the difficult idea of a Trinity, so why not? I can see where it all comes from, a story that says a lot about our hatred of evil. I don't think it's ridiculous; and it is emotionally satisfying in ways that Christus Victor ideas don't cover. Again, just consider a heinous crime, and the story makes emotional sense.

[@Willflop]

Any time we forgive someone we are bearing the burden of that violation within our own being, choosing not to extract it from the violator. Besides, if all the covenants ultimately roll up into the Abrahamic covenant, we know this was a self-maledictory oath. Only Yahweh passed through the cut animals, signifying that the penalty for Abraham and his seed not keeping their end of the covenant would ultimately be born by Yahweh.

[@jaslanr]

In talking to “Christians” I find that they have stripped words of their meaning. It makes it impossible to communicate ideas and concepts. It’s a confusion that renders them unreachable.

[@bradyhornstra7510]

Nice username! What are some examples of words being stripped of their meaning? (Not disagreeing with you; it's just better to give specific examples instead of broad generalities).

[@jaslanr]

Brady Hornstra thx for the response. One example is the word “good” in describing God. They turn “good” into a vague and distant concept that allows for an all “loving” God allowing millions to burn in eternal torment with no means of correction. “Good” is therefore stripped of any coherent meaning that it no longer means anything. I have more if you like?

[@bradyhornstra7510]

Oh yeah, that makes sense. I remember a sermon from the church I grew up in where the pastor told us not too have a view of God that is too loving nor too just, but rather one that is both loving and just. If those two concepts can be placed in opposition, they’ve lost all sense of meaning.

[@jaslanr]

Brady Hornstra exactly! This is my frustration with “Christians” that I’m unable to have deep conversations because words have lost meaning. I find the way the Bible is interpreted is just as discouraging. It seems as if a brainwashing has occurred and they are unable to receive, consider or process any new information or opposing ideas. Thankfully my wife is just as free and open as I am and she is always searching for more truth. I like how one man put it, “ the mysteries of God don’t make Him unknowable but rather we can endlessly know him more.” There is more and more depth to the truth and we are encouraged to search it out.

[@phaturtha216]

What about how God's 'holiness', 'righteous judgment' and 'goodness' are all variously displayed in condemning those who reject His 'love' to eternal damnation. Thank God He's true! Woe unto those who put good for evil.

[@gamnamoo6195]

It's rather stunning to see that so many Christians are believing the Penal Theory which is, as Hart points out, not found in the Bible. People don't know that Penal theory is not compatible with the reality of forgiveness which is the core of the atonement.

[@ttownsupreme2183]

Im making my way out of it...anything thing that would absolutely make it blatantly obvious PSA is false(I believe it is) just deconsctructing.

[@brentonstanfield5198]

Penal substitution is all over scripture. Even Hart admits that a debt is owed, a ransom must be paid. This is a “penal-ty“. You don’t pay that penalty. Christ does as your substitute.

[@ttownsupreme2183]

@@brentonstanfield5198 I made no argument against penal substitution...i made one against penal substitutionary atonement. penal SUBSTIONARY atonement is impossible if ECT is objectively true and wages for sin is eternal separation from God forever in hell....however thats not the case. The wages for sin is death.Its always been death...we just have over complicated it

[@ttownsupreme2183]

@@brentonstanfield5198 And its all over the Bible in the sense of the old covenant that was done away with and a new one that took its place...thats where you find PA or PSA...but not in the sense of eternal destination

[@brentonstanfield5198]

@@ttownsupreme2183 - All atonement adds to the equation is that the damage done by our sin is repaired, ie the wrongs we have done have been made right. It doesn’t matter if the penalty is death or ect. If Christ paid the penalty then atonement has occurred in some sense.

[@atonementandreconciliation3749]

“Jesus died "for" our sin, but the English word "for" can have a range of meanings, such as an exchange or a cause of action. There is a specific Greek word that can be translated as "for," indicating an exchange or a replacement, and it is the word "anti." An example of this is when Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for [anti] an eye and a tooth for [anti] a tooth.'" Both of the words translated as "for" in this verse are the Greek word "anti." It's literally, "an eye in place of an eye," or "an eye instead of an eye," or "an eye against an eye." However, the word "anti" is never used even once in any statement regarding the fact that "Christ died for us." The word "for" in all of the statements of "Christ died for us" or "Christ died for our sin," are the Greek words "dia" (meaning through), "hyper" (meaning over), and "peri" (meaning around). Not once in the Greek text is there a direct substitutionary statement used about Jesus literally taking our place as an exchange or a payment. Nevertheless, translators (for unknown reasons) seem to have preferred to use the much more ambiguous word "for," which enables the teacher and reader to assume things about the text that were never intended.” An excerpt from Chapter 12 of the book “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.

[@danstoian7721]

Romans 5:8 "[…] while we were yet sinners, Christ died for (huper) us" - huper, aka, "on behalf of", "for the sake of"

[@Willflop]

Hmmm... For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for "anti" many (Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45).

[@atonementandreconciliation3749]

@@Willflop Yes. This is the conclusion of an account when there was a discussion about future positions in the coming kingdom of Christ, yet Jesus turned their dreams upside down with his response - but his response is still within the original topic under discussion. Please notice that the topic under discussion had nothing to do with atonement or sin, it was about position and power. The Greek word "anti" in "anti lytron" can mean “for, against, contrary to, in opposition to, instead of, etc.” The word "anti" can also indicate a support, as when something leans against something else in order to render support (seen also in 1 Timothy 2:5-6). There is a considerable range of options, so it is not advisable to be dogmatic about a single choice, especially since the greater context under discussion was regarding positions of authority in the anticipated kingdom. Note also that verse 28 starts with “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve…” The “just as” indicates a continuation of what he had just asked them to do, which is to be a servant in service for others. The entire topic was a contrast between a worldly pursuit of power versus being willing to be a faithful servant, obedient unto death. Nothing in this passage indicates that the topic of atonement was even remotely under consideration. Furthermore, the idea of penal substitutionary atonement had never been taught in the Old Testament, so they had no reason to think along that line at all. They believed that Jesus was going to take the throne and rule as Messiah; they had no thought of him dying to pay a penalty for sin.

[@Willflop]

@@atonementandreconciliation3749 Hi, I was merely responding to this statement: "However, the word "anti" is never used even once in any statement regarding the fact that "Christ died for us." " This is clearly false, whether you think Mark 10:45 should be understood in a PSA way or not. If you don't think the statement about Jesus giving his life a ransom for many is a literary connection to his sacrificial death overall (cf. Mk. 14:24), I don't know what to tell you. If you want to argue for a different meaning of anti, so be it, but like I said, I was responding to the absolutist claim you made about 'anti'. The entire OT is built around the scaffolding of substitutionary atonement, most explicitly but often overlooked is the self-maledictory oath of Genesis 15. Now, you may not like some of the brash ways PSA has been characterized or defined, which I may agree with you, but you are vastly underestimating the argument that can be made for it.

[@atonementandreconciliation3749]

@@Willflop You are imagining substitutionary atonement in the Old Testament. PSA is a "modern" idea from the 1500s with Luther and Calvin and further refined by Owens in the 1700s. One way you can tell that the Jews had no such idea is to read the book of Acts and notice that in sermon after sermon, often given in the actual synagogues, the announcement is that Jesus is the Messiah, not that their sins have been paid for, that substitution has been made. That is never a consideration at all. That was not the gospel message that was being proclaimed.

[@bman5257]

Is it just me or does Hart sound like James Spader? The voice of Ultron.

[@GreenWeasel11]

Well, now I can't unhear that.

[@bayreuth79]

William Lane Craig should listen to more David Bentley Hart: it might liberate Craig from his dismal Evangelical theology. God, according to Craig, so hated the world that he sent his only son so that he could be punished on a cross so that we would not have to be punished. If _that_ is Christianity then you are welcome to keep it. God the Father and God the Son seem to be different 'gods': one needs to lash out violently, the other protects us from this violent, vengeful god.

[@theguyver4934]

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

[@js1817]

He doesn't hate the world, tho, does He? He hates the sin. I think you're not telling the story right. "For God so loved the world...", right? I think PSA makes emotional sense when you think about our desire for justice from heinous sins.

[@bayreuth79]

@@js1817But God (in PSA) does not simply eliminate sin or evil: he has to kill the sinner. Christ is killed in our stead, yes, but he still has to kill someone. And that is effectively hatred for the sinner, which is inconsistent with the NT texts. Craig also thinks that God punishes some people in hell forever without reprieve: what is that if not hatred of the sinner? God could not find a way for such a person?

[@js1817]

@@bayreuth79 Maybe PSA is inconsistent with the NT. Dunno. My point is just that I can understnd why PSA would be invented and held and I don't think it's risible, contemptible, or incoherent, as some might think. I don't know what Craigs view on hell is, beyond the fact that I expect he falls within orthodox lines. I like the idea of God saving everyone, or at least, most people. Could God really save someone like Albert Fish, tho? Maybe some people destroy themselves by their evil and are annihilated. Maybe actions have consequences. I think I'm fine with that, even tho universalists might complain that it's not a total victory for good. Seems good enough.

[@TheTom1998386]

But isn't Hebrews drawing a parallel between the sacrificial system of the old covenant (for the forgiveness of sin) and the cross of Christ as the ultimate sacrifice in the New covenant (for the forgiveness of sin)?

[@markrich1603]

Hebrews draws a parallel, but not a direct line. The parallel lines don't meet. Christ is not a priest on the order of Aaron, the model of bloody sacrifice who mediates satisfaction of a - supposedly - wrathful God by death. He is a priest on the order of Melchizedek, the model of NO sacrifice, who brings only bread and wine (BIG HINT!!) to Abraham - and who, as the author of Hebrews elaborates, neither kills nor dies. This is exactly why Christ's sacrifice is efficacious in stopping sin and death, and not merely in ameliorating guilt. He is no part of the levitical killing sacrifices which - supposedly - ameliorate guilt for sin, but do nothing to actually stop the whole system of sin and death. It is an IRONIC parallel. Instead of making the two sacrificial systems similar, the parallel highlights at every point their utter and complete dissimilarity! It completely misses the WHOLE argument of Hebrews to make it conform to Leviticus. It also erases the witness of some of the Israelite prophets who argued against the whole sacrificial system.

[@CDUTT360]

@@markrich1603 Can you share any reading recommendations on this topic? OT and NT passages, Church Fathers, secondary literature? :)

[@nevbillett7554]

@@markrich1603 Nonsense, "there is no forgiveness for sin without the shedding of blood " Hebrews 9:22 " For the life of the flesh is in the blood " Leviticus 17:11 Read Romans 7:18 , no good thing lives in flesh Romans 7:20 It is sin living in me (flesh) that does it Romans 7:25 but with my flesh I serve the law of sin Romans 7:23 the law of sin which is in my members (flesh) Jesus became sin (flesh) and dwelt among us 2 Corinthians 5:21 Jesus conquered sin and death > through His sinless blood dying to flesh in the flesh, being buried, and rising again in Spirit (with a spiritual body that could go through walls) The Law is Spiritual but I am unspiritual (carnal, flesh) sold (created) as a slave unto sin Romans 7:14 Yes God really did create all things ; not all things except sin, but ALL things and he "is working all things according to the counsel of His will" Ephesians 1:11 The forgiveness of sin is the removal of sin " Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World" John 1:29 God put sin in our flesh so we could know it , so that He could display His righteousness and when we know that, He can remove that (sin) which He used to display His glorious righteousness. How else could we learn and appreciate His magnificence .

[@markrich1603]

@@CDUTT360 Yes. The anti-sacrificial tradition in the OT is found in Amos 5:18ff, Micah 6:1-8, Hosea 6:4-6; Isaiah 1:10-17 (remember that Sodom and Gomorrah AREN'T about homosexuality in Isaiah - they are models of the wealthy unrighteously oppressing the poor), Jeremiah 7 (esp. vv. 21 & 22), and Pss 40, 50, and 51. It's worth noting, I think, that in Amos God asks rhetorically whether Israel sacrificed during the 40 years in the desert (with the presumed answer of 'No!'), and in Jeremiah God directly asserts that "in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices." This directly denies the sacrificial system laid out in Leviticus. As for the NT, I've already discussed Hebrews. But please note also Mark's version of Jesus in the Temple routing the commerce around sacrificial animals. Mark also mentions that Jesus prevents anyone from carrying anything into the Temple - which would have been their own sacrificial animals (of course, they didn't HAVE to buy their animal at the Temple if they had their own they could bring in). So Jesus is definitely interrupting the whole sacrificial system, not just the commerce in sacrificial animals. Immediately after he does that action in Mark, the Temple leaders begin seeking a way to kill him, as they correctly see that it must be either Jesus or them. If the people believe Jesus, then they won't need priests anymore, as anyone can pray directly to God with neither a sacrifice nor a priest to carry it out. I hope that helps!

[@stevenhunter3345]

Neither Hart nor the ancient fathers of the Church deny that Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. The disagreement is over the nature of that sacrifice and its purpose. PSA says that His sacrifice was to appease the wrath of the Father, whereas the Scriptures and the fathers of the Church teach that His sacrifice was to, as Hart says, enter fully into the estrangement of death, conquer it, and deliver us from it.

[@BibleGod]

PenSubs tend to reason that: God thinks it's not enough to be holy and pure from sin by removing the contradictions by sacrifice. He also requires revenge on those who disadvantage themselves from God. (So it's like God gets double glory out of the vessels of mercy prepared for glory (both the glory of mercy and wrath.) I can't find a way to agree. One problem is Penal Substitution mixes God's real and manipulated curse. PenSubs tell us that there's a decree that doesn't agree with God about Christ's innocence but instead agrees with God's curse which we used against Jesus, to cut him off physically. So God didn't have any active WRATH when Jesus bore our sins (in three ways.) What do they always say: "Jesus paid for sins"- No, that's adds blasphemy, He only died for them. "God forsook Jesus"- Blasphemy, God only forsook Him physically. "God poured wrath on Jesus"- Blasphemy, huge distraction from the gospel.

[@joeywampler298]

The only reason someone would say that the doctrine of the substitutionary death of Christ is a "bizarrely irrational and horrific" picture of God is that they are unregenerate. 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[@Valhalla369]

So would you rather believe God to be a moral monster?

[@joeywampler298]

@@Valhalla369 I'd rather believe the Bible. Not a man made theology.

[@MrKreinen]

I feel like this is all the issues that arise from demanding one's personification of God be universal. Why not admit the Gnostic dualism of the "story" vs the metaphysics of Logos, or the Philosophies of transcendental love? Isn't it kind of childish to demand a unilateral literalism? I mean, I grew up hearing that Krishna is a trickester, and kinda celebrating that it didn't matter if Sat Guru Krishna (or Buddha, either) was ever a real person, celebrating the wisdom of the Gita, but as Satsang, and only some-part shruti, weather that's Krishna's Satsang or the collective authors of the wisdom tale. I mean, why wouldn't the power and truth of the practice of transcendental morality, or transcendental passion, or transcendental compassion be even MORE highlighted if the story was entirely fabricated, but actively inspiring the living religion, the visions, the gospels, the reflective thinking, and active-personification of practitioners. IMO Historic Literalism, and this fascistic cult of radical feats of Belief, and teleologic micromanagement in fascistic social-units (cult management) have both convinced the Western (and Anlgocized) world that their Faith is actually the definition of Religion, and if you don't believe in something analogous, you are a "Godless" people without-religion. And hey, the Anglo-Evangelical fascistic "Faiths" are a people slowly emerging form a Thousand Years of INQUISITION, thought policing, and heretic burnings, and emerging from having kept doing that to each other even after escaping it. The relationship of mutually respectable cosmological conceptions within the Vedanta Traditions including the forms of Advaita Vedanta enabled a rational anchor to even the radical personalism of the Hare Krishna's, without compromising their ability to reach that kind of theistic revery/enlightenment; similarly, shouldn't the Catholic Church embrace a number of schools of Universalist, Spinosa/Hegelian, and Gnostic metaphysics, philosophies and theological interpretations to be celebrated, and conjoined to their Cannon Dogma? Frankly, I thought that's more-or-less what they HAD done in Vatican 2 (which turned out to be a common hippie-catholic myth):/ though even if true, has clearly not been promoted and used to re-enliven the Catholic Church in the way that bringing-in controlled opposition and heterodoxies into their perishes, colleges, and politics would. At least that's how it seems to me (correct me if I'm confused).

[@williamoarlock8634]

What about your power god and principality Christ?

[@OmarDenison]

A lucid and passionate summary of the Muslim position.

[@scottforesman7968]

who Himself bore [Jesus] our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness-by whose stripes you were healed. 1 Peter 2.24 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mt.26.28

[@abrahamphilip6439]

Isaiah: WITH his stripes we are healed " The stripes that man gave him out of sin become his own BURDEN, he who had no sin became sin for us, by which he REDEEMS unto the Biblical words "I Hurt & I Heal " (Job) " My Burden is light & my Yoke easy" the words that underscore the Communion (the reason why Satanits Hate/Desecrate it cause they cannot withstand pain,other than to give) The Body & Blood of the STRIPED Christ received through FAITH-- The GRACE Faith has its works within, comes through following the TWO COMMANDMENTS of Love, amounts to picking up ones own cross daily to following him as commanded, thus Equating WITH his sacrifice on the Cross So, the stripes that man gave him he uses to redeem is the reason why "It pleased God to Bruise him " (Isaiah) Not for the bruises itself but for its Fruit, For which he had to RESURRECT, that he did cause the BURDENS of our sins could not hold him down in hell (where Sin & death rules) as he was found stronger than Sin, unto his words "I have overcome the world" (its sins) to say there is no sin that he cannot remove This is basically a Conversion act instead of a Substitution (magical) act as generally believed by Protestants, The Error has its origins through Protestantism's theologically leavening the Faith by Faith Only, that James specifically says is not unto mis interpretation Paul (the reason why Martin Luther rejected James cause it was a hinderance to his erranous view of redemption) and the philosophies that arise out of the leavens becomes to another Christ another Gospel, incidentally the source of the prophesied Apostasy theologically in the leavens of the Faith Give unto God what is to God --- FAITH, surely not a Leavened/Corrupted Faith,

[@SonOfGodphotography]

I am a Street evangelist in Chicago. I used to believe and was taught penal substitutionary atonement, and I don’t know which other theory if any that I will choose, but I know that Christus Victor is the closest, but I don’t like theories of men, Jesus exposed the people that nullify God’s word by taking the traditions of men as God‘s word. Now I AM feeling JUSTIFYING WHY I resurrected my old street fighting self, and I forgot how ruthless I can be. Usually, I don’t have to even put hands on anybody because my countenance changes and my words are SATURATED with RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION and SUCH GODLY AUTHORITY and most of them just fall back, like the soldiers did when they came to arrest Jesus, asking who is Jesus and hearing “I AM” (GOD’s NAME) only to be Made aware that they are definitely not any type of match for an angry GOD- I AM THE prophet of THE MOST HIGH AND “I never seen violence, looking so gorgeous when my G-FORCE awakens their dormant cerebral cortex . I will smack somebody’s mouth HARD! I don’t care if I go to jail- especially if they teach this BS and a child is present, I give them a memorable experience that, they can revisit on how their dad got his teeth knocked out or his face all bloody because of the damaging lies he was teaching to his children. All lies and creating the spirit of fear in their child!!! plus the fact that I love that I hate FALSE theology so MUCH! that I have to react! 😅I feel like I’m entering the battle royale in a WWF/UFC cage fight, and I AM Jimmy Superfly Snuka on the top rope and when I land on your chest, it will SILENCE you! So, quit teaching BS lies, especially the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. If I hear that, I probably will decapitate someone and just go to jail happily.

[@evgeny9965]

Isn’t penal substitution a byproduct of Gnosticism by its very implications!

[@1littlefish]

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” ‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭5: 21‬ ‭NASB τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ 2 Corinthians‬ ‭5: 21 SBLGNT Says the same in greek.

[@gooders7366]

_poetic sensibility_ In his new commentary on Revelation Peter Liethard holds that this is the idiom to enter for an interpretation of the book, and by inference, the rest of scripture also.

[@bman5257]

But PSA doesn’t flow from that verse. If you actually knew Greek you would know that the word for sin there hamartian is also the word for sin offering.

[@paulsurbitonryan9632]

I think the spiritual universe is governed by laws that are irreversible. Thus sin has to be accounted for. Considering sin on the one hand and sins on the other it is clear that the former relates to the symptoms ie, stealing lying and cheating are all sins. But sin is the spiritual disease by which we are all affected and the only sure way of dealing with this was through innocent sacrifice. Is there another way of dealing with sin? Jesus was that innocent's sacrifice for all of us. It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. I think God requires us to choose our eternal destiny. If Adam and Eve who were perfect could walk away from God and have the gates of Paradise permanently closed to them then we must be cautious about our ultimate possible decision to reject Christ. Universalism destroys too much of the fabric of scripture to the extent of having to rewrite all of it in order to make universalist sense.

[@Dizerner]

ALL other theories of atonement, and I do mean ALL, can only have meaning if derived from the ideas of sin and its punishment. WHY are we even in this mess? Why does God have to FIX anything at all? What is it God is even fixing? Without a thorough understanding of what sin and its punishment entails. you are lost in the water, you are floundering. The ONLY reason that makes any sense for God to become a man and die, to save the world, forgive sins, defeat death, defeat the devil, be a good influence, establish his government, and ransom everyone back, is this: The punishment of sin creates all the problems, and sin must be fully judged for God to redeem. Jesus judges sin on the Cross, and "payment" language permeates all of Scripture. *God became a man and died for one reason: to suffer the punishment sin deserves.* Here's the deal: God can defeat the devil and death without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way? *Makes no sense.* God can influence people and display his government without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way? *Makes no sense.* God can ransom people back and prove himself innocent, without becoming a man and dying; why does he need to do it that way? *Makes no sense.* Ever heard the saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch?" Or how about, "A shortcut seldom is?" We know, even if the lunch comes to us free, someone, somewhere paid for it. And it is interesting just how much Scripture uses "payment" language in both the OT and the NT, this is very significant. But what is essentially being said by denying PSA is: *Jesus can pay for us, without really paying.* That's the argument, logically, from the anti-PSA crowd. It's not about God being angry, we already know there are instances of this. It's not about God punishing God, or breaking up the Trinity, or suffering an eternity of wrath, we know all things are possible for God, it's a relational not ontological break, an infinite being can suffer in finite time what a finite being can suffer infinitely, God can experience himself negatively, none of those are real problems. It's about *the holiness of God demanding punishment for sin.* And yet if all we emphasize is "God is all love" language, we deny a very vital, essential, and integral part of God, his justice. God is not *just* love. Else there would be no punishment, no judgment, no hell, no wrath anywhere at all, no diseases, viruses, pain, suffering, torture, abuse, neglect, unfairness, loneliness, sadness, unhappiness, violence, evil. God is not just love. If God were JUST love-think of it-God would allow anybody to do anything. God would not have enemies, if he were JUST love. God would send Satan flowers every morning and make him a fresh cup of coffee, if God were JUST love. God would never rebuke or warn or threaten anyone, if God were JUST love. There would be nothing painful or confusing or offensive or hard, if God were JUST love. _If God were JUST love, there would be no need to punish sin.... ever._ Now there are those who try to change the word punishment with a watered down version they just call "consequences." But this is just a semantic game removing the moral guilt element inherent in committing an evil action. If I trip walking down some stairs, that's a consequence of my actions, but there is no morally wrong aspect to what I did, there is no guilt. If we just redefine "if you do something evil and have something bad happen to you as a result of what you deserve" with the term "consequence," all we did was put a new word to the same meaning as "punishment." What is being attempted here, is removing moral guilt from sinful actions, and a removal of God's rightful acting role as Judge and dispenser of justice, as if "karma" takes over the job from God. So what we see here, is that people who deny PSA, are denying an essential attribute of God: *God's hatred for sin, God's necessary judgment on sin.* So they "rewrite" the Cross to be about anything BUT judging sin. _The Cross is about God being willing to show he will suffer._ *But not judgment on sin.* _The Cross is about God being a super nice fella' who is willing to get beat up and killed._ *But not judgment on sin.* _The Cross is about God showing he's in charge and governs the world._ *But not judgment on sin.* _The Cross is about God beating up the devil and giving him a big black eye._ *But not judgment on sin.* _The Cross is about God defeating death and giving creation a brand new chance._ *But not judgment on sin!* _The Cross is about Jesus being a great example to us, and inspiring us to die like him._ *But not judgment... on our sins.* See how that tricky "swapparoo" happens in this shell game, where we sneak out one of God's essential attributes? Anti-PSA advocates, like those who deny the Trinity, like to claim there is no verse to support God has to judge sin with wrath on his Son. But, like the Trinity, there are clear and obvious deductions we cannot escape from, and God expects us to make deductions in the Bible. There is no verse that says *God skips over justice.* There is no verse that says *God will leave sin unpunished.* And yet they try to take verses that express God's forgiveness won through the Cross and through Jesus' suffering, and neuter and rip out the actual sacrificial element of Christ that is made to suffer for the sins of the world, as if God can just skip over his own holiness! _Anti-PSA is a spiritual "free lunch."_ The Law doesn't bring wrath under this scenario, because Jesus never really has to pay for our sins. But the whole reason Jesus said he came, the cup of redemption in his blood for the forgiveness, the basis of the ransom, was the true actual substitution in our place. "The Law brings wrath," but it's not true, if we all sinned against the Law, yet there was no wrath against our sins, it all just magically disappears without honoring God's holiness. That's striking at the very CORE of the Gospel, the DEEPEST and MOST CENTRAL reason Christ came to die, to die in our place, to suffer what we should have gotten. Not less-God's integrity uses equal weights and measures. There's a great advertisement for sugar I once saw, it is short and gets your attention: *"Sugar. There is no substitute."* Now we all know they are always trying to find a substitute for sugar, because everyone has a sweet tooth. But there is a substance and authenticity that an artificial substitute just never has to the original. What we are being offered here, is a spiritual "artificial substitute" for the punishment of our sins. Jesus does not have to really fulfill the Law's punishment, he doesn't really have to pay, he just has to physically die the first death, and never the second. All other theories of the atonement derive from Jesus paying the penalty for sin. Jesus paying a ransom, Jesus conquering death, Jesus conquering the devil, Jesus being a a good moral influence, Jesus conquering sin, Jesus redeeming the suffering and imperfections of creation. All these bad things that need redeeming all came from the creation's rebellion, all these things came from the original sins, all these things are curses and judgments that came as a consequence of what each of our sin deserves- There is no "problem" Jesus "solves" that is not in some way connected to "sin"!! The atonement of Jesus Christ is not just a good example, a legal loophole, fighting the bad guys, or doing a good deed for humanity. The atonement of Jesus Christ and all the good things that come from it are based in one thing, the Law bringing wrath. Jesus is judged with the consequences of what sinning against a holy God deserves on our behalf. Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, it pleased the Lord to bruise him, his soul became a guilt offering. He takes the bullet, he takes the fall, he takes the exact punishment we deserve. *That's the Gospel.*

[@theologian1456]

What religion is this guy?

[@digital0day]

Theo Logian Eastern Orthodox Christian

[@bobtaylor170]

Pseudochristian.

[@paulwinters6024]

He’s apart of the oldest tradition of the Christian faith, connected to church fathers and Saints, and devoted to a Liturgy that’s almost 1800 years old. What he’s saying doesn’t deny the centrality of Christ. In Orthodox terms, Christ is the ransom for emancipation, Christ brings together all things, fills the gaps, reconciles truths unto him, connects people to the infinite transcendence of God while cementing that God is the root of all reality. There’s nothing “pseudo” about his faith, at all.

[@evgeny9965]

Eastern Orthodox. The religion that enjoys the fullness of the faith!

[@ecclenctica]

It's like he's never read the Old Testament.

[@philip8802]

Ransom theory is the best one.

[@internetenjoyer1044]

i can't really take seriously the image of Satan slapping his knee, crying "drats, and i would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling trinity!!"

[@josephkuzara2609]

I believe that PSA is a false theory of atonement and robs Yeshua of his ligitimacy as a elect human child of God. I believe a ransomed substitutionary atonement is what is intended, being that Yeshua was offering Himself to Father(heb 9:12-14) as this blood ransom to redeem and atone and Father recieved Him as a sweet smelling sacrifice(eph 5:1-2) Did Yeshua suffer and die for my sin? Yes , Isa 53 is quite clear on this. Did He suffer and die for me as a substitute? Yes 1 Peter 3:18 is clear on this. But none of this was accomplished by divine Wrath, or as a sub that Yeshua took my place of sin to become the embodiment of or viewed as by Father as if wicked to die as wicked under divine wrath in my place, his death was not a divinely accursed death such would nullify His sonship(that God strongly teaches that none He recieves will ever lose) but also His sinlessness thus His propitiatory ransom in His blood to redeem and atone. scripture is quite clear on this Having no sin in Him 1 jhn 5:3 nor knowing sin He learned while carrying away our sins, grief and sorrow being contrited; obedience by what He suffered(heb 5:8-9) even obedience on the tree(Philip 2:8) by divine discipline and scourging(Isa 53:5 musar #4148) becoming the perfect pioneer of our salvation as the testing of His faith by such loving discipline being received as a ligit elected human child of God .(Heb 12:4-11) Yeshua's' voluntary death to be treated and condemned as if a defiant sinner willingly being numbered with transgressors to recieve a cursed death through sinners(acts 2:22-24; 3:13-15) influenced by Satan who would bruise His heel(gen 3:15), did so to release us from the curse of the Law, but was never a accursed death Kjv 1 Corinthians 12:3 by Father is quite clear. God separates his wrathful punishment which is reserved for His enemies (nahum 1:3)from his discipline and scourging reserved for His recieved children(heb 12:4-11). teaching us through Messiah our source and example the means that which God causes us to obey so we are while in Messiah through Faith not condemned with the world. 1 Cor 11:32. Hebrews 12:4-11 is a reflection of Yeshua as we partake in Him and his suffering being partakers of His cup (mark 10:38-39)to learn to obey. PSA forces an erroneous exception for Yeshua to the pattern of teaching what God reveals how He treats and sees both the Godly and Ungodly along with there fate. And God teaches that no son recieved loses sonship nor that no son recieved will die under His wrath because Yeshua is that source and example even when he voluntarily died for our sins treated by evil men as if a defiant sinner deserving to be cursed yet all the while presenting himself as an propitiatory ransom while learning obedience by such suffering in righteousness being tested as a faithful high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses while being made the pioneer of our salvation by Fathers discipline and scourging and not while under divine wrath.

[@moonman5543]

Christus Victor is the correct understanding

[@josephkuzara2609]

@@moonman5543 Christus victor does not sufficiently explain of its own as to why, how and by who Yeshua died for the sins of many according to the scriptures. Any atonement theory that involves the death of Yeshua must explain this aspect of the Gospel according to the scriptures. Christus victor only speaks of some things that were provisioned and done away with in Yeshua's death. But not the means that it was provisioned. Which we can see in hebrews 2 that Yeshua came to destroy the one(satan) who had power over death through our enslavement of sin. That Yeshua set us free from while also dealing with our spiritual death upon hearing the Gospel(1 peter 1:23;jms 1:18) through the agency of the Spirit to be reborn from above. But not all of us will be free from dieing physically until the 1st resurrection occurs upon Yeshua's 2nd and last return to earth. Many will not see the 1st death and will live mortal in the millinial kingdom for the duration of Yeshua's's physical reign to then at the end of the Gog and Magog battle, be transformed to the conformity of the Image and Glory of Yeshua as those in the 1st resurrection. Even though Yeshua's death and resurrection provisions freedom, not all things provided in His ransomed death will be realised for certain people until there appointed times( mainly conforming to the image and glory of Yeshua unto immortality) Not every saint to ever live will partake in the first resurrection unto immortality. But will be conformed to it without tasting death at the appointed time. A corrected ransom theory involving Yeshua's discipline and scourging to learn obedience unto suffering even to the point of death while presenting Himself to Father as an propitiating ransom to atone and redeem to release us from the curse of the Law by allowing himself to be cursed by certain sinners. As Father treated Yeshua as a legit righteous mortal son on behalf of the elect and our sins to put to death it's mastery in our body, using as instruments these certain men(who's intent was to wrathfully condemn) but was right with God , God utilizing sich sinners as the rod of discipline and scourging that enabled Yeshua to learn to obey .(2 samuel 7:14-15kjv) Without Father by the Apostles, being accredited to the betrayal of His son over to a accursed death(1 cor 12:3kjv) everywhere the greek word #3680 involving Yeshua's betrayal/abandoning over to death, Father is never paired with that word involving his son but only Judas iscariot, the priests and scribes along with the general hebrew population. Judas committing the greater sin in Yeshua's betrayal above everyone else personally involved because of his involvement in Yeshua's ministry. So the process that secured our freedom is how , why and by who being the means of Yeshua's death for the sins of many according to the scriptures is what needs to be sufficiently understood in any atonement theory. So Yeshua as a ransom while being a legit mortal son(Heb 12:4-11) Father intended in behalf of our sins to have Yeshua learn obedience by what He suffered (heb 5:8-9)even such obedience on the pole/tree(philip 2:8) as he drunk the cup of suffering Father gave Him (mark 10:38-39) by such discipline and scourging while presenting himself as a unblemished propitiating ransom to Father to atone and redeem allowing reconciliation by no longer fearing wrathful death. Through ignorant people who were Sovereignly used by Gods predetermined plan to be the instruments of Fathers discipline and scourging. Even though such evil people intended apart from Fathers intent toward Yeshua to condemn Yeshua as a accursed blasphemer. This is not what Father did toward His Son.

[@moonman5543]

@@josephkuzara2609 while I appreciate your comment, I dont believe in theories and traditions of men and I dont really enjoy engaging in long winded fuitless debates either.

[@mr.e1220]

It sounds like this guy is trying to do an impersonation of NT Wright. I think I would rather hear a robot voice.

[@NicholasCoyV]

It's funny because him and N.T Wright both dislike each other. They both are Christus Victor. Wright catches more hell for it because he's in the reformed tradition. Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian. All EO are Christus Victor. That's why eastern christians find the term "new perspective" to be odd if not insulting. It's the only perspective they've ever had.

[@mr.e1220]

@@NicholasCoyV I watch this video because I'm still trying to find alternative atonement theories other than penal substitutionary atonement. My friend pretty much believes that the gospel is penal substitutionary atonement. Everything is legal imputation to him. I think Christus Victor or Ransom sounds the best so far

[@NicholasCoyV]

Christus Victor is what we call the gospel when their are a dozen other competing theories. All satisfaction theories of the atonement begin in the 11th century and reach their height or depth depending on your perspective with Calvin. For the first thousand years the only version of the gospel that existed was Christ' victory over death, sin, the devil, the law etc. Good luck sir.

[@mr.e1220]

@@NicholasCoyV thank you. So the other views are under the banner of satisfaction theories? Is Ransom theory part of Christus Victor? The only part that puzzles me is the Old Testament sacrificial system. Did Jesus die in the atonement as the animal that is sacrifice or the high priest in the atonement? I don't want to believe he was a human sacrifice but all those sacrificial animal deaths , did he fulfill those? How were our sins put on him? Sometimes I think the Bible is not meant for me, I don't understand it

[@NicholasCoyV]

@@mr.e1220 it would be difficult to summarize this in a youtube comment but yes, ransom theory would fall under Christus Victor. It's the Pauline language and the language of the early church. The book of Hebrews is written by an educated hellinized Jew who talks about the sacrificial system in the past being a reflection of what is to come basically the language of Plato's cave. But western Christian's read too much into this. Jesus is described as the passover lamb not the scape goat, over and over Jesus is the lamb of God. The Passover lamb from the story in Exodus has its blood spread over the doors so that death will passover all the households with the blood. It's a metaphor but its a metaphor about salvation not irrational anger. I hope this helps. kzbin.info/aero/PLRru9Of-dldo5ghVHok7k8JbkK3Ov2egP

[@aosidh]

"a series of irrational and arbitrary connections, eventuating in an act of meaningless cruelty" - a better description of christianity than any of the new atheists' 😽

[@n8branim]

It amazes me that the so called scholars can not see penal substitutionary atonement from beginning to end in the Scriptures. It began in the garden with the killing of an animal to clothe our parents. It continued through the sacrificial system to Christ! Paul says that the father made the Son to become a sin offering so that we could become perfect. What more needs to be said?

[@zhugh9556]

Did you not listen at all to what David Bentley Hart was saying here? He thinks the language in the NT that implies penal substitution is a mistranslation of the Greek as meant by the writers of the NT. To simply quote a translation that DBH is arguing is inaccurate is missing the point and not interacting with the argument.

[@englandshope689]

ALOT more !

[@n8branim]

@@englandshope689 Adding to the work of the Cross and Word are a dangerous endeavor! But have at it if you choose!

[@peterbell5924]

@@n8branim I'm sorry to tell you that you are the one that has added to the text of the NT an interpretation that comes from totally outside the Bible and the biblical worldview.

[@badsocks756]

@@n8branim The text was written in Koine Greek, not English. Since you're in such a privileged positition as to tell other Christians what to believe, I assume you know your Greek, right? So why are you quoting an English translation?

[@stevenfrasier5718]

The Father did not sacrifice His Son, although it was His will to "allow it", by not intervening in this particular affair of MAN. The Father gave His Son the "choice", as can be seen in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus struggled with His flesh in prayer, finally giving in to His Father's will to allow it. Otherwise, Jesus could of let the cup pass and thereby opt for being supernaturally protected, the back-up plan that wasn't God's will, though still made "available". Jesus sacrificed Himself FOR HIS FRIENDS in that garden, that very evening (no greater love). Jesus laid down His sinless life for His sinful friends. Peter was ready to do political Zionist Battle, which would of had him, and the other disciples, killed in the process. Jesus even healed the Roman soldier's ear to qualm that initial intent from Peter, who chose the ongoing path of mankind's "oppositional" nature. (aw shawtawn). Jesus "Surrendered" His will to the Father's will, which is for all men to be willing to sacrifice for each other, as "living sacrifices", fulfilling the twofold command to Love God & each other. WE crucified Him and then devise a BS theology to say God did. Jesus did not by any means "become sin" because the wages of sin is death and therefore no resurrection to overcome death. Neither did God become a man, because He is Eternal and cannot die. If Jesus is God, then it begs the question as to who resurrected Him? Can the dead raise the dead? NO! Such theology is yet further BS. ~Steven of Montreal

[@nevbillett7554]

That God predetermined Christ be delivered into wicked hands to be slain Acts 2:23 destroys your fantasy ; as does Ephesians 1:11 that God is working all things according to the counsel of his will. For your enlightenment read how God directs a mans steps Proverbs 20:24 and how God controls everything down to the roll of a dice Proverbs 16:33. God makes vessels of honor, who do honorable things, guess what vessels of dishonor, made from the same lump of clay , do, yes give Jonny an apple they do things like nail Jesus to a cross; which means they are doing His will , yes Jonny goodies and baddies , cowboys , Canadians and the Devil, the Lord God made them all,

[@nevbillett7554]

Gee wiz let's see how an Almighty God could possibly turn Himself (if you have seen me, you have seen the Father) into a man while still being God, kill that man, and zip back to heaven to burn up sin and plead to us from God to love God because He loves us so much ( i got to tell ya sounds easy peasy for God to me because of that Omni power , presence and knowledge stuff that makes Him ALL powerful lol. Jesus/God was turned into a man (took the form of a man, and dwelt among us). The " man " Christ died, got buried, and rose again , oh yeah the Holy Spirit and the Father resurrected (roused, woke up, breathed Spirit into him) the man Christ and Jesus went back to God . Poor old Holy Spirit never hardly ever gets a mention. How come Jesus said that HE (Jesus) would send God's Spirit to help us out ; did he mean to say Dad will send it? Just because your a clever boy Steve doesn't mean you should call Jesus a liar for saying " I " will raise my body (temple) in 3 days John 2:19 . You need to do a bit more checking on the Trinity stuff, John 1:1 for example , its the first clause that definitively proves the Word is God. In the beginning " was " the Word : now check out the Greek on this baby and you will find it means self existed with no cause, and apart from that Christ is the Beginning Rev 22:13. let's see how Jesus, could be omnipresent : In the Beginning God created... Jesus is the Beginning Rev 22:13 " In Him all things were created" Colossians 1:16 So you reckon Jesus didn't become sin huh, you don't really believe scripture much do you, 2 Corinthians 5:21 " God made Christ, who had no sin , to be sin for us..... Jesus became sin by becoming man (flesh) "..but it is sin living in me that does it, for I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good thing" Romans 7: 17, 18 " I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me " Romans 7:23 Jesus did not commit a sin, He conquered sin and death through putting His sinless flesh to death on the cross and rising again the third day in glorious Victory

[@josephkuzara2609]

@@nevbillett7554 Father does not have personal involvment in handing his son over to be betrayed as did judah iscariot and the priests, Father gave His Son so that His Son would offer himself through the Spirit unblemished to Father to be an ransom price to atone and redeem from under his wrath as Father surrendered Yeshua unto another authority(john 19:11) by Fathers foreknowledge and predetermined plan to send His Son to voluntarily die through Fathers permissive will being numbered with the transgressors and treated as if a defiant sinner by evil people (2:22-24; 3:13-15), while learning to obey in righteousness through such instruments of suffering(Heb 2:10;5:8-9;philip 2:8) for our sins being disciplined and scourged by Father(Heb 12:4'11) as intended through these certain instruments influenced by satan to bruise his heel.

[@josephkuzara2609]

Your not of the elected as even though you understand that Father did not kill his Son nor did Yeshua die according to PSA theory under Fathers wrath as a sinner or treated as if by Father. You reject Yeshua as God incarnate which is the foundation of our confession that Yeshua is the Son of the living God. The opposing hebrews understood who Yeshua claimed to be(ex 3:14-15;john 8:24;58) and why they tried to stone him and plot his death as a blasphemer in thinking as you that he was just a mere man and nothing more. John 10:30-39 John 1 is quite clear that the word was with God and is God who became flesh And the OT is quite clear of the triunity of God.

[@nevbillett7554]

@@josephkuzara2609Acts 2;23 says differently than your opinion

[@einarabelc5]

So David, explain Job.

[@brianjanson3498]

I like how he belittles the irrational while discussing nothing but. How people can waste their time listening to such hogwash is beyond me.

[@st.mephisto8564]

Let me Guess you must be an evangelical

[@tomw6271]

You do not understand scripture. It is not just for people who know ancient Greek. The gospel is the best news ever that Jesus died to pay for the sins of His own and then rose again. Because of this His own don't pay for their own sins because He did. Those who are not His pay for their own sin. God is holy and cannot hoodwink sin. The good news of the gospel is that Christ died once for sinners, the Just for the unjust so that they may have eternal life. It's not some secret knowledge for ancient Greek language scholars.

[@markdaniels1730]

This is the real good news: "Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people." - Romans 5:18 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:22 "When He has done this, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under Him, so that God may be all in all." - 1 Corinthians 15:28

[@CTomCooper]

Ultimate reconciliation in time is the fullness of the Gospel. The lake of fire is just the outpouring of Christ as the Holy Spirit as a refining fire that compels all who’ve died in sin to confess and repent. Christendom in terms of doctrines of men has cheapened it to only mean for the elect, and not for all. It has made the focus on receiving a reward, rather than on God’s love for the world Whom he gave his Som for.

[@christophergraves6725]

Dr. Hart makes the mistake of failing to see God as more of a libertarian (in the sense of free will) than a humanitarian ( the assumption that all pleasure is good and all pain is bad and we have a moral duty to minimize pain at all costs).

[@CTomCooper]

When it comes to cultural views, Hart does seem critical of a libertarian view from what short commentary I’ve seen him give, though I’m not sure of he was conflating that with libertinism which is a common misconception.

[@christophergraves6725]

@@CTomCooper I am only referring to free will. People have the ability to freely decide to do right or wrong (so people can decide to be licentious but that is a wrong decision) and freely decide to accept or reject God's offer of personal salvation even though on the latter issue, a person's spirit must be quickened by the Holy Spirit in order to accept Jesus as their Savior. Free will was compromised in the Fall of Humanity since when Adam & Eve sinned, they instantly died spiritually and that is the default position of all humans descending from them.

[@An_Urban_monk]

@@christophergraves6725free will was not compromised it was exemplified. That is the point of the Eden story that in Man, being made in God’s image, has free will. Either outcome, eat the fruit or don’t, had a consequence. “Choose wisely”

[@christophergraves6725]

@@An_Urban_monk I don't disagree with you.

[@jps0117]

The future is Islam.

[@SamTheSubSaharan]

@jps0117 💀 you mean the religion where the black stone, which was formerly white, intercedes for your sins before Allah on the last day.

[@toobsterdude]

Ughhh. This guy would be right if he wasn't so wrong.

[@Yard_Machine]

It’s been said that sin against an infinitely holy God requires infinite justice. The Father pouring out his wrath on the Son was necessary for salvation. The cross is how the Father remains perfectly merciful and perfectly just. When the Father turned his face away from the Son, He bore our sins in his body, became a curse for us, and satisfied justice that we might believe in Him unto eternal life. Thank God Christian’s bear the righteousness of Christ before the Father instead of our own sin.

[@ttownsupreme2183]

The first sentence you said is nowhere in the Bible

[@bradleyperry1735]

If the Father turned His Face away from the Son, this would have severed the Trinity.

[@williamkeller5541]

Straw man much?

[@ransomcoates546]

He gets further and further off the rails with time. He needs an old fashioned Pope to correct his errors (which are chiefly connected to false historicism).