God’s forgiveness coming down to essentially a legal loophole is the most telling sign that penal substitutionary atonement comes from a lawyer.
@commonschurch16 күн бұрын
lol yes!
@MusicalRaichu8 күн бұрын
What do you think Paul means in Rom 3.21 that God's righteousness is revealed and similarly Rom 3.25f God demonstrates his righteousness? When I first read it, I thought it meant God demonstrates his justice by satisfying his desire to punish sin. That's how I came to the same conclusion as PSA.
@commonschurch8 күн бұрын
I would adjust two small things in most translations of Romans 3. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe… God presented Christ as the mercy seat, in the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith… I think that highlights the work of Jesus more accurately. The right-ness of God is demonstrated in the faithfulness of Jesus. And Jesus’ death represents a new mercy seat where forgiveness enters the earth.
@MusicalRaichu8 күн бұрын
@@commonschurch That makes more sense. I'm thinking that God's righteousness is God doing the right thing by us, solving the problems of sin and death which we are helpless to fix on our own, and repairing our relationship with him, in the way you describe. I would amend your rendering of 3.22 a bit more. 3.21-22 is one sentence. God's righteousness is REVEALED to all who believe. I can't find anything else to which "to all who believe" could meaningfully apply. The subject of "sinned" 3.23, everyone, is the same for "justified" 3.24. Thus Christ's atonement justifies everyone "for free", but it's only those with faith who actually recognize it. What do you think? Have I misread it? It's a very dense and complex passage.
@zacdredge38592 ай бұрын
Numbers 23;19 / Titus 1;2 / Hebrews 6;18: "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" 3:00 So God can be limited by his own character and the things he has promised, Covenants he has formed etc.
@commonschurch2 ай бұрын
You can use “cannot” in the sense of God will not break God’s character or go against promises God has made. That’s obviously true. You can also use “cannot” in the sense of God is prevented by some higher more powerful source. That I take issue with. When people say, God cannot forgive sin without a blood sacrifice, they are usually attempting to shift an uncomfortable burden (the desire for blood) away from God‘s character and onto some imposed sense of justice. If you want to say, God just really likes blood, that’s fine.
@commonschurch2 ай бұрын
Either way you have to deal with 1 kings 22:21-23 😜
@kwesikamau3458 Жыл бұрын
Saying "God cannot" represents logical consistency, not divine capacity. Also, substitution did not appear with Anselm/Abelard. It was demonstrated, rightly or wrongly, from the times of the apostolic fathers. Full-blown atonement systems appear in 11th C, but their components have been with us for the duration. Would you agree?
@commonschurch Жыл бұрын
"God won't," maybe, But, if you are genuinely saying "God can't," you're creating rules for God and that's problematic. Substitution images are deeply biblical, but satisfaction and penal substitution don't come until later. Abelard is more famous for the moral influence paradigm, but he was trying to solve a similar problem to Anselm. Check out the full sermon here kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIWWpGN_i66njqM
@kwesikamau3458 Жыл бұрын
@Commons Church Thank you for answering. I was not clear. You are correct. PSA did not appear prominently until the Reformers. Substitution has always been a part of the convo. Regarding "cannot" versus "will not," most people would aver God cannot perform a logical contradiction, i.e., create a rock God cannot lift. It is not about God's ability but the faultiness of a logical inference. I would enjoy watching the full sermon. Thank you.
@commonschurch Жыл бұрын
@@kwesikamau3458 agreed. But, when people say things like God cannot forgive without a blood sacrifice what they really mean is "God won't" and that has implications.
@kwesikamau3458 Жыл бұрын
@Commons Church Thanks. I do appreciate your point of view. I believe two things: we generally mischaracterize what competent PSA adherents say and that PSA is an inferior, flawed view of atonement. To the first point, the cant/wont rhetoric feels like batting at flies to me. I'm just saying it may not be useful because it does really address the PSA system - only a caricature. As to the second point: As said in the sermon, a competent PSA holder inserts a modernist theory of justice into the framework. I haven't heard the rest of the sermon yet (so you may get to this point), but this framework and many general frameworks since the early fathers use a foreign system of justice to explain atonement. Paul's dikaiosune is closer to David's sadaqa than medival churches iustitia (maybe exempting Augustine). Anyway, I appreciate you tackling the issue and allowing me to process with you! Peace.
@kwesikamau3458 Жыл бұрын
@@commonschurch Yeah, I see your point. But I wonder if that properly characterizes the position on the other side. Believe me, I think it's inferior, but maybe not as demonic as it comes across. The competent PSA position will note that God "cannot" contradict Godself in terms of justice. I would like to hold that assertion and not ascribe to God arbitrariness. So I do not agree with the assertion in the sermon that God's limit expressed in holding back forgiveness from sinners is one of capacity. It is one of consistency--from a PSA point of view. Consistency or faithfulness in action is something I think we all hold as good. In fairness, I want to say what they are saying correctly and criticize the right thing with the hope of forwarding a faithful witness to all sides.
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
“Yet he bore the sin of many.” Isaiah 53:12
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
Again, a great verse, but nothing to suggest that Jesus died to appease God.
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch if you deny penal substitution, you deny that Jesus bore the sins of His people. Only penal substitution teaches that Jesus actually bore the sins of his people.
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
why?
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch what view of the atonement teaches that He actually bore the sins of His people besides penal substitution? And if not penal substation, why did he have to bear them at all?
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
All of them :) They just don't think the penalty was paid to God.
@neurodivergentdadАй бұрын
Excellent! I’d love to hear the whole lecture 😊
@commonschurchАй бұрын
Thanks! You can find it here: Atonement Theory kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIWWpGN_i66njqM We cover the 6 major theories of atonement.
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10, ESV)
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
Now this one is relevant. And if you are already convinced of penal substitution this is an important verse. That said, even if it was God’s will to play a part in Jesus death for the salvation of all mankind that does not mean that Jesus’s death was intended to appease God’s wrath. All Christian’s believe that Jesus died to save us. Some of us simply believe he saved us from sin and not from God.
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch “It was the will of the LORD to crush him.” God is clearly the actor here inflicting judgement on his Son.
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
Hmm a lot of Calvinists believe that it is God’s will whenever anything bad happens to someone. Is that also God appeasing godself, or it possible that you’re reading your theology into this statement?
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch I’m just reading the statement for what it plainly says. The only way you could get around this statement would be to read your theology into this statement. How do you interpret it?
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
Leaving aside the conversation of how to read Christological themes back into a passage that originally had an alternate meaning, a plain Christological reading would be that God intended for Jesus to suffer and die and eventually rise from the dead (v11) and that through this salvation would come to the world. All Christians would affirm this. You are adding substitutionary motifs that maybe reaosnabel but aren't there explicitly in the text. To quote Andrew Rillera, "If Isa 53 was such an obvious" atonement" prooftext, why didn't the two NT authors who explicitly identify Jesus with kipper rely on Isa 53 for their proof, especially since making this link was an obvious uphill battle (cf. Heb 7:13-14)? The answer is that Isa 53 was not read by the early Christ-followers as either about atonement or substitution." Lamb of the Free pg. 244 BTW We're not even getting into the differences btween the MT and the LXX in this verse :)
@aantoine58192 ай бұрын
Did he mentions single verse to back up his point? And anyway what was his point? That God doesn’t have a legal system to his justice?
@commonschurch2 ай бұрын
Essentially yes. God is not bound to a legal system. The gospel is grace.
@aantoine58192 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch so what is God bound to? Nothing? That’s sounds like a false god. If I can’t trust any order to his governance then he may as well not intervene in my life because it’s a gamble. The bible claims the wage of sin is death (Romans 6:23; although I suspect you think Paul’s words are his own and don’t represent the immutable word of God). The gospel is grace AND mercy.
@commonschurch2 ай бұрын
Hmm I guess there’s two ways to think about it because if God is bound to your interpretation and your concepts of a legal system, that sounds to me like you’ve created your own God. From my perspective, God is bound only to God’s character.
@theeternalslayer2 ай бұрын
@@aantoine5819God is above everything because he created all things. He is not bound to the laws we are. Youd be trying to prove your point backwards or you'd be suggesting God isn't an all knowing powerful and wise creator. He is pointing out the contradictions that this doctrine produces. So you're correct, you would be following a lesser god (that's rooted in gnostic doctrine)
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
if we are faithless, he remains faithful- for he cannot deny himself. (2 Timothy 2:13, ESV)
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
One of my all time favourites! It is only by the faithfulness of Christ we are saved 🙏
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
That’s something God cannot do. It contradicts what was said in the video where it is said that as soon as you say God cannot do something, you’ve created a more powerful God.
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
I guess 🤷♂️ but that’s talking about a logical inconsistency within God. The video is talking about a specific action that people claim God can’t take.
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch ok. Here’s a specific action that God cannot take: “it is impossible for God to lie.” Hebrews 6:18
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
Do you mean God is not powerful enough to do that or are you saying it’s not in God’s nature to lie. Cause if the second it’s the same argument.
@wqwwqwqqpoppopoo5 ай бұрын
Romans 3 : 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. It would be unjust for God to simply forgive us without our sins being paid for. God must follow "rules" not because there is something above him forcing him to do so, but because of his character. God is perfectly Just, and therefore requires that Justice be done. The wage of our sin was death. Jesus paid our debt. That we might be reconciled with God (2 Corinthians 5)
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
God doesn’t HAVE to follow blood sacrifice rules, God WANTS to follow blood sacrifices rules, is not better.
@zacdredge38592 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch So when Scripture says 'God cannot lie' do you take this to be a limitation on his omnipotence?
@commonschurch2 ай бұрын
No. I take that as God telling us what God will not do.
@jaspin5554 ай бұрын
if you cannot say God cannot, then how does scripture says God cannot lie, and God cannot be tempted?
@commonschurch4 ай бұрын
I thought I read somewhere that Jesus was tempted… like three times
@jaspin5554 ай бұрын
@commonschurch well that opens up some conundrums doesn't it. regardless, James 1:13 says this "for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one." so would you say you agree with what James says, or is the bible in error here? my point is not about temptation. it's about the fact that there is nothing wrong with saying God cannot do something that is against his nature. and then an argument for penal sub atonement would be his justice demands sin be dealt with. thanks for responding!
@jaspin5554 ай бұрын
personally, I'm leaning against a penal substitutions atonement being the primary way of understanding it, I just don't think that is the best argument against it. that there is biblical precedent to say God does not do some things. God is all powerful, that does not mean he does all things possible. the question of God's grace vs justice does need addressed though, but Paul seems to care about both when he says this in romans 3: " It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Both grace and justice are upheld and in focus.
@commonschurch4 ай бұрын
I think any time you put limits on God you are going to find an inconvenient scripture that undermines those limits. Just like when you say God cannot forgive without a sacrifice but then you find Jesus forgiving sins before the cross. God cannot is a false statement :) On the other hand, “God does not do some things. God is all powerful, that does not mean he does all things possible” is exactly it! God chooses what is good every time. Also think it’s better to think of justice as subordinate to love. God chooses what is most loving. Sometimes that requires justice. Sometimes that requires mercy.
@theeternalslayer2 ай бұрын
Meaningless question.
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, (1 Peter 3:18, ESV)
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
This is another great verse. And all Christians affirm that Jesus died for our sins. But there’s nothing here that suggests that Jesus died to appease God.
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:25, ESV)
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
The word propitiation literally means to appease!
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
That’s why it’s a bad translation :)
@Scott-d8j5 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch why? Because it doesn’t fit your view? I don’t know of a single credible Greek scholar that would make that argument. Enlighten me. What should the translation say?
@josephkuzara26096 ай бұрын
The scriptural conundrum those who are ensnared by penal substitution is that with accordance to scripture as a whole anyone who dies under divine wrath are in a sinful state that is unforgivable. But also nowhere in the Law and teachings does God ever transfer the penalty of the offender to an innocent person.such is a perversion of justice according to scripture . to be declared guilty by God one must at first sin. Also Yeshua offered Himself to Father as a ransom to redeem but also for atonement, in fulfillment of the Animal offerings and sacrifices, where the animals had to be unblemished outwardly, Yeshua had to be morally unblemished inwardly. If at any point yeshua became a child of wrath as we are and were then yeshua in that full embodied corruption while offering himself to Father, Father would deem the offerer and offering abominable according to scripture. Thus God would reject the offerrer who in this case is the offering. Thus yeshuas spiritual state and position before Father would not redeem nor atone or even ratify the new covenant. As his blood would be in Gods eyes tainted. Because of Gods promise to not lose one child of Their election but to bring them to glory, God would not even allow one legit child to voluntarily be blotted out of the book of life in the place of another. As per example of Moses in exodus 32:30-33 how much more the eternal Son incarnate?!
@theeternalslayer2 ай бұрын
It contradicts who God is. Dont we reject islam for the same reason?
@davevandervelde479911 ай бұрын
As soon as he said 'common era" and not " AD" I knew to not listen.
@commonschurch11 ай бұрын
That’s weird.
@davevandervelde479911 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch Yes it is. PSA is Paul's theology that goes right through the true church until today. Through Augustine , through the Reformation and to now. Hebrews 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. PSA is not a cultural phenomenon developed in the middle ages. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4HRkohqatKIecU
@commonschurch11 ай бұрын
I’ll grant that it is definitely one of the ways Paul talks about atonement. Not sure why you’re quoting Hebrews to prove that though ;)
@davevandervelde479911 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch I looked up "propitiation" and the Hebrews text I thought explained it best. I believe Paul preached the book of Hebrews and Luke recorded it. That is not known but seems to make sense based on Paul's theology and Luke's writing style. I have seen alot of people wanting to disprove PSA but simple reading of scripture is all that is needed to verify it was taught by the new testament writers. It uses the same argument's that want to disprove the doctrines of grace and God's ordained plan throughout scripture to "save a people for Himself" The Bible needs to be read as a Historic Redemptive Narrative to make it all come together coherently. Thank you for the responses. good to stretch and learn to be sure we are teaching Biblical theology.
@commonschurch11 ай бұрын
I'm with you on the Historic Redemptive Narrative part 💯 I'm not sure the Bible is as coherent as you are though. I think there are many different opinions, threads, approaches, all woven togeter in Scripture, and in that we see both the beauty of God and the limits of our ablity to explain the Divine. On the penal substituion part, I can absolutely see the substitution theme in Scripture, but I think the legal/penal aspect is a relatvely modern invention. The penality of sin in Scripture seems to be more along the lines of cost and consequence. Regardless thanks for the comments. Grace and peace.
@aantoine58192 ай бұрын
common statements who follow this: “God can do what he wants, don’t put him in a box!” How long until “God can forgive who he wants! Jesus didn’t have to die for our sins” then “You don’t need Jesus to get to heaven!”.
@commonschurch2 ай бұрын
Why would those statements follow? They seem unconnected. Other than “God can forgive who God wants.” That one seems obviously true. Unless there is a bigger scarier God that our god has to follow.
@theeternalslayer2 ай бұрын
If it leaves you feeling conflicting and confused and irritated, then it's not from God, its man made.
@BibleGod2 ай бұрын
We know that Christ's body was cut off with our sins. And so, believers don't get hell. Why change the feel of the atonement by something so random? Clarification of PSA: Multiply the 3 penalty types by the 3 substitution types to get an array of 9 shades of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Five of them end up contradicting God and are too unreasonable. Don't argue with those! Also, when I talk to PenSubs they tend to back into a nominal defensive type of PS. That leaves us with really only 3 forms of PS to disprove. Now then, the only tool you need is to show them that neither of their two circle reasoning points are in the Bible. Easy. They prove a substitutional relation by Christ getting our penalty and visa versa. That's it, it's ping pong. (It hard to see because of all the words and verses used assuming one of those two things, that is, whichever of the two you're not currently questioning.)
@commonschurch2 ай бұрын
There is certainly a penalty or cost to sin and Jesus bore that penalty and overcame death. On board with all of that. But I don’t think the concept of Jesus paying a penalty TO God is representative of the historic understanding of atonement.
@debshirley69047 ай бұрын
What does the Bible mean when it says, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin?
@commonschurch6 ай бұрын
In Hebrews 9:22 it says, that "under the law... there is no forgiveness of sins." Then it says in Hebrews 10:1 that "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming-not the realities themselves." And so concludes in Hebrew 10:4 that "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." This section is contrasting the sacrificial system of Leviticaus with salvation in Christ.
@JonathanGrandt Жыл бұрын
God cannot…. …. deny Himself.
@commonschurch Жыл бұрын
But what does that mean? Jesus certainly denied himself certain desires. Jesus emptied himself and did not consider even equality with God something to be grasped. God denying Godself for the love of creation seems central to the Gospel story, no?
@TheHumbuckerboy Жыл бұрын
God cannot sin and God cannot fail to achieve His purposes
@Scott-t2p8 ай бұрын
@@TheHumbuckerboy Jesus had confidence but he feared death
@TheHumbuckerboy8 ай бұрын
@@Scott-t2p Jesus never feared death but he dreaded the suffering that he knew he would have to go through before he would die.
@Scott-t2p8 ай бұрын
@@TheHumbuckerboy Read Hebrews 5:7 KJV
@palavraespiritoepoder62332 күн бұрын
Here is something that God CANNOT DO: "That by two immutable things, in which IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO LIE, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us" Hebrews 6:18
@commonschurchКүн бұрын
Is that verse saying that some rule or higher power prevents God from lying or that God will not lie because God is good? There is a difference between saying God “cannot” do something because it is against God’s character and God cannot do something because God is prevented from doing it.
@palavraespiritoepoder6233Күн бұрын
My response is to the quote: “as soon as you say - God cannot - it doesn’t matters what comes after that; you have now created a new, larger, more powerful god, that seats above God and gives rules to God in witch God haves to follow”. There are things that God HAVE TO DO, and things that he CANNOT DO, not because someone is forcing Him, but because He will not operate outside his nature and character. But that doesn’t nullify the fact that God have or cannot do things. Or, in others words, He is obligated to do, or not to do what is against His nature. So if someone says: “God cannot receive you as sons if He doesn’t deal with the Death that came through sin.” The person is not creating a new God, he is stating the fact of how God would act in order to be truthful to His nature.
@commonschurchКүн бұрын
Fair enough. But if someone was to say “God cannot receive you as sons if He doesn’t deal with the Death that came through sin by enacting a blood sacrifice ritual" that doesn't have anything to do with God's character, it's about a specific formula God "must" use to forgive. PSA creates rules God must follow.
@palavraespiritoepoder6233Күн бұрын
@@commonschurch That would be true if this statement wasn’t correct in light of the nature of God (I’m not advocating that it is)… but then for someone to say that you are creating a new God by simply stating this could only be true if we know what is true about Gods nature. So the conversation need to be about the nature of God, then to see if the affirmation is correct or not, not simply stating that no one can say what God can ou cannot do, or else that would imply automatically that you are creating a new god.
@commonschurchКүн бұрын
Can you really argue that requiring a particular blood sacrifice to enable forgiveness is in God's nature 🤷♂️ I'm not even sure proponents of PSA would make the leap. They usually just want to avoid saying that God "wants" blood sacrifices, although some will grant that.
@SonOfGodphotography5 ай бұрын
God CANNOT lie nor Die
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
I mean… you may be forgetting a pretty central tenant of Christianity ;)
@randomname23663 ай бұрын
Jesus is God and Jesus died. Pretty important not to forget that.
@BJ-ju9oo5 ай бұрын
“God can not lie” That’s Scripture!!! This should be called “how to debunk your own argument in 5mins”
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
Hmm Jeremiah 20:7… or maybe 2 Thessalonians 2:11 or perhaps 1 Kings 22:23?
@BJ-ju9oo5 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch you have taken these scriptures out of context… God did not lie in these situations. You are preaching a false gospel and you need to repent. If you studied at any reputable seminary- you would have learned in THEO101 that Scripture never contradicts itself, if it seems to - you are misinterpreting it.
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
you’re welcome to explain the context of each or to acknowledge that sometimes it’s not as easy as saying “That’s Scripture!!!” to make your argument. FTR I trust that God does not lie because God is good but not because God somehow incapable of deception.
@BJ-ju9oo5 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch if you’re implying somehow that God can lie… than you are saying that He is not Holy and He is corruptible. Philosophically it doesn’t work - the law of noncontradiction. On top of that, God is truth, so if He (for example) said that the sky is red… guess what the result would be - the sky would turn red.
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
If you're suggesting God is incapable of deception, you'll eventually have to deal with all the scriptures where God does it. Perhaps that's why Hebrews 6:18 qualifies the claim. BTW we've got a video about one of the contradictions in the Bible here over: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oou1g2ucq7d9mKs
@travissharon15368 ай бұрын
a preacher using C.E. instead of A.D. Is concerning. Our current calendar is based on Christ, why use a term that diminishes history.
@commonschurch8 ай бұрын
I speak English. So anno domini feels a little presumptuous ;)
@paulcimijotti7 ай бұрын
@@commonschurchyou say what it means in English “The year of our Lord”
@commonschurch7 ай бұрын
@@paulcimijotti I'm probably not going to say that every time I refer to a date 🤷♂ I will confess that "Jesus is Lord" though ❤
@anthonybarber38722 ай бұрын
The Wages of sin is death...man sins, there must be a penalty. Bible says it! Although there is truth in say Christus Victor, and Moral example, Penal substitutionary atonement is biblical. Also the Father and Son are not in conflict...Jesus was in concert with the Father in His going to the Cross. God's justice and love were not compromised at Calvary.
@commonschurch2 ай бұрын
That’s been pretty common interpretation for the last 500 years. I’m not convinced God has to follow reformed conceptions of justice though. I think God uses the cross to demonstrate forgiveness and overcome sin not acquiesce to the power and penalty of sin.
@Scott-d8j27 күн бұрын
You should reject any teaching that doesn’t align with Scripture, regardless of whether you think it comes from the only true church. Deuterocanonical books should not be included because they weren’t included in the Bible that Jesus used. Those books were considered to be uninspired during His time. Jerome did not view them as Scripture either.
@commonschurch24 күн бұрын
Deuterocanonical books have never been considered part of the Canon; they have only been welcomed as helpful by various traditions, but always under the authority of Scripture.
@Scott-d8j24 күн бұрын
@ the Catholic Church affirmed deuterocanonical books as part of their canon at the counsel of Trent in 1546.
@commonschurch24 күн бұрын
@@Scott-d8j@Scott-d8j That's not exactly fair, Trent responded to the Protestant removal of those books by listing them alongside the Canon for the first time, but it didn't retroactively add them to the Catholic canon.
@Scott-d8j24 күн бұрын
@@commonschurch you just stated that deuterocanonical books have never been considered part of the Canon, so now you’re arguing against yourself. Jerome didn’t consider the deuterocanonical books to be Scripture when he translated the Bible. He specifically wrote that. So yes, those books were retroactively included in the Catholic Canon.
@Scott-d8j24 күн бұрын
Deuterocanonical books were included by Jerome in the Vulgate in the late 4th century.
@bryanbaez44128 ай бұрын
I went ahead a read your “about us”. This now makes a whole lot more sense.
@commonschurch8 ай бұрын
🙏
@MacLaw30846 ай бұрын
This is all made up by people, and if it’s not, why would this god choose a method that appears so by so many people seeking the truth? Secondly, to say that this god had to allow jesus to be killed is simply untrue. This god could simply “forgive” his creation right now, or never “tested” adam and eve in the garden (another made up story), or he simply could have never created in the first place (which would be infinitely better).
@commonschurch6 ай бұрын
All theology is absolutely made up by people. It’s how we talk about God.
@EDCREVIEWS2 ай бұрын
WHAT???! THE FATHER IS NOT PITTED AGAINST THE SON IN THE ATONEMENT. Jesus IS GOD, God is not against Himself. God came in the flesh HIMSELF to offer Himself for our sins. Thereby maintaining His justice while still forgiving the guilty. It's not what God " can't do" it's about what God WILL NOT do. God WILL NOT violate His own standards and decrees. You, my friend, have no business teaching but instead should be prayerfully learning.
@commonschurch2 ай бұрын
I can appreciate what you’re saying. Most proponents of PSA will not come right out and admit that they think God wants blood sacrifices offered to him so they will offer a rationalization that says God cannot forgive unless there is a sacrifice. To acknowledge that within the PSA perspective, God will not forgive without a blood sacrifice because God wants blood sacrifices is fair. I just hold a different imagination of God’s character.
@MrBazinthenowАй бұрын
The atonement is not what saves. Of course we cannot be saved without the death of Jesus. But his death is one of several components that saves. We are saved by his life. The moment we step away from Augustine and his view on total depravity we see scripture saying something different about the atonement and how Jesus saves. Jesus died and paid for all our sins. Everyone's sins. Sin is no longer the issue as that was dealt with on the cross what's limited is Glorification. Only those who receive Jesus will be predestined to Glorification. . What saves is to receive the atonement through faith. The Gospel is the Good news that Jesus HAS reconciled the world and the free gift of Justification to life is freely available to all who simply receive the free gift. Augustinian theology misses the mark completely.
@commonschurchАй бұрын
Atonement is our at-one-ment with God. But that atonement is through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Amen.
@tomtemple69Ай бұрын
denial of PSA is a denial of the gospel
@commonschurchАй бұрын
Look friend, I get that many people think PSA is a beneficial concept but to confuse it with the gospel is wild. I’m gonna stick with Jesus on this one 🙏
@tomtemple69Ай бұрын
@@commonschurch it's not just a beneficial concept, its essential > but to confuse it with the gospel is wild.< im not confusing it... im saying it's an essential, you are misrepresenting what im saying
@commonschurchАй бұрын
hmm, you have closely enough aligned PSA with the gospel so as to argue that denying one is denying the other. That sounds like a category confusion to me, but I will defer. I deny PSA. Which is not the same as the gospel :)
@tomtemple69Ай бұрын
@@commonschurch yeah and i can totally drive my car without gas... that's what a gospel without PSA is, it can't do anything
@commonschurchАй бұрын
My faith remains in Jesus alone 🙏 not theories of atonement ❤️
@jeremynethercutt206Ай бұрын
This is foolishness, this is not the gospel
@commonschurchАй бұрын
Agreed. The gospel is salvation through the faithfulness of Christ. This is exploring our theories of atonement 🙏
@stephenscott57115 ай бұрын
This is false teaching, plain and simple. He is a master of building straw men and then explaining why those straw men fail. Notice he did not start with Scripture for his foundation for disagreeing with PSA.
@commonschurch5 ай бұрын
This is a 5 min clip from a 30 minute sermon from a 6 part series talking about atonement theories. It’s obviously fine to disagree with my thoughts but usually “false teaching” is what people use to describe misrepresenting the gospel and I do find it concerning when people equate the gospel with one particular atonement theory. It erases so much of Christian thought and history :(
@DrVarner10 ай бұрын
There is so much terrible theology and biblical history in this short clip it is amazing. You can avoid this problem by reading Scripture (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, 2 Cor. 5:21, Romans 3:25). Terrible teaching.
@commonschurch10 ай бұрын
Rom 3:25 “God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement.” Who did God present the sacrifice to? Penal substitution makes no sense here. God is showing us redemption in Jesus. 2 Cor 5:21 “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us.” Thinking that you can kill someone else for your own salvation is sin. Jesus shows us that. Isaiah 53 “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God.” Jesus stands in our place, and we might even consider him punished by God, but what is the purpose? Jesus bore our suffering, not some weird suffering that God demanded. Psalm 22 This is a Psalm of lament. There is nothing in here about God demanding someone else’s suffering in order to forgive. You’ve been reading verses out of context rather than thinking about the story of redemption across the Scriptures, friend.
@DrVarner10 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch I’d like to respond in detail to all of your replies. However, before I do would you mind telling me what you think the Gospel is?
@commonschurch10 ай бұрын
hmm that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures (1 cor 15:3-4) and that this happened so that good news could be proclaim to the poor, freedom proclaimed for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, that the oppressed would be set free, that the year of the Lord’s favor would be prociamed (lk 4:18-19) so that all things can be renewed (mt 19:28)
@DrVarner10 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch Agreed, and key to the Gospel is that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 1 Peter 2:24, He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness .1 Peter 3:18 continues the theme, “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God.
@commonschurch10 ай бұрын
I'm with you on all that but there's nothign there about God wanting the death of an innocent man 🤷♂️
@honeyboy3rd8 ай бұрын
This isn't true what you're saying brother...the patristics taught this before the 11th century...before Anslem. Careful with this doctrine, people
@commonschurch8 ай бұрын
That would be a remarkable discovery, you should definitely publish something to demonstrate all those patristic penal substitutionary models.
@Scott-d8j3 ай бұрын
God’s “justice demands that every sin that has ever been committed, by every person who has ever lived, will be punished-either in the eternal torment of hell or on Christ at the cross.” -John MacArthur 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:23-26)
@commonschurch3 ай бұрын
Thankful I get my image of God from Jesus and not JMac. But thanks.
@Scott-d8j3 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch Penal substitutionary atonement is the gospel. You are a false teacher.
@Scott-d8j3 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch I plead with you to repent!
@commonschurch3 ай бұрын
Friend, you don't need to repent for not following John MacArthur. Only Jesus can save. Grace and peace.
@Scott-d8j3 ай бұрын
@@commonschurch that sentence doesn’t make any sense with the double negative. I follow what the Scripture teaches. It teaches not that it is a matter of God defending his honor, but that it is a matter of God upholding his justice. God is a just judge. Sin must be paid for (Romans 3:26). Your God is not just; your Jesus is the wrong Jesus, not the Jesus of Scripture.