I’m loving this series of videos! I’m learning a lot! Thanks for putting this together! I’m still leaning towards the ransom theory! However I’m going to have to rewatch all these videos once they’re all out, to be grounded in my final outlook on this subject!
This sounds like the foundation for the false gospel that over-emphasises Gods love while ignoring telling people they need to repent, the false gospel that is being preached in many word of faith churches. This Moral Influence Theory sounds like it would contribute to the false gospel that William Booth warned about; “The chief danger that confronts the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, heaven without hell.” I wonder if anyone could make a case for this theory just from the First Testament Scriptures or just from the gospels without using what Paul wrote?
And any "Moral influence" causality by the work of the cross requires effort (work) on the part of the influencee. Thats works. My take is that the cross is the shedding of the blood in atonement for all who were trapped by the iniquity of Adam, which was a giving into and loss caused by the shining ones temptation to be equal with God. In that the penalty was owed by Adam, and the second Adam paid it, thus making atonement to each individual by way of their free will in faith by accepting that sacrifice. Much like the blood of the passover lamb (where Jesus was crucified on a passover so all of us who claim that blood covering in faith, are redeemed from Adams willfull disobedience. Nothing to do with making us all better, but salvation to those who choose opposite to what Adam did. The restoration of all creation (all creation groans in travail waiting the revealing of the sons of God) Its all about free will and obedience and a plan by God to restore the damage done by the spiritual enemy, not making nicer people. I admit I have been busy this last few weeks and have not caught up with the previous vids in the series, so possibly missed this version, will check you out over next few weeks.
What is often not considered is the influence of the immoral side of the death of Christ, yet it is one of the most emphasized reasons in the Bible. The fact that God’s only Son, the long awaited Messiah who was attested by God with miracles, signs and wonders which God did through him, was betrayed, tortured and killed, served to expose the evil of sin and the depths of mankind’s depravity when it is not checked with submission to a righteous God. The story shocks the conscience of those who have a heart for righteousness. It makes sin to be exceeding sinful; our selfishness to become perverse. In Acts 2 we have Peter’s sermon which was just 40 days from the crucifixion event. Did Peter tell them that Jesus died to pay for their sin? No! Peter told the crowd that what they did was evil and called them to repentance. “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” Acts 2:22-23 KJV Peter goes on, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” Acts 2:36-40 Not long after, Peter healed a man and then told the crowd, “the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead…“And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers…Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out…” Acts 3:13-19 ESV This is an excerpt from: atonementandreconciliation.com/appendix-a-reasons-why-jesus-died/
I appreciate what you have posted, but I am a little confused as well. This part is what I don't understand fully, perhaps you could clarify; you wrote: "Did Peter tell them that Jesus died to pay for their sin? No! Peter told the crowd that what they did was evil and called them to repentance." - and while I agree that he did state what they did was evil and call them to repentance, he also said "“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..." - from which it can be inferred that Jesus paid for their sins, it seems to me. Otherwise why is it not 'repentance only' that is required for forgiveness, but rather repentance AND baptism in his name? Much love and respect!
@@justinmanley6003 Good question. It is just that there is nothing in the Old Testament or the beliefs of the disciples that called for any literal payment for sin as is taught today. The disciples did not want Jesus to die and were distraught when it happened. They did not thing that "it is finished" meant their sins had been paid for, they did not celebrate. Nobody believed the payment idea. This idea came up hundreds of years later due to faulty presuppositions and misunderstandings. The baptism is to show loyalty, that they are genuine followers, that's all. About 10 years later Peter is told to go to Cornelius, a devout Gentile who believed in the God of the Jews and lived a righteous life. Before Peter said anything about Jesus, Acts 10:34-35 says, "So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Peter recognizes 2 things: 1. Fear of God and 2. doing right. This is the same as what we find over and over in the Old Testament. For example, Isaiah 55:7 "let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
@@atonementandreconciliation3749 Thanks for the reply! I'm not so sure I agree with you regarding there being nothing in the Old Testament or the beliefs of the disciples, though. You mention Peter and Cornelius, however how do reconcile Peter saying in his second letter (2 Peter 2:1) that there will be false prophets introducing heresies, even denying the master that bought them? That language, 'bought them', seems to indicate a price was paid does it not? Additionally, in his first letter Peter seems to say (1 Peter 1:18-19) pretty clearly that we were not redeemed with silver or gold, but with precious blood. This seems to indicate the precious blood was the 'price' that was paid for redemption. You also provided Isaiah 55:7 as an example, noting that it says he will abundantly pardon (great verse!), however previously in Isaiah (35:10) it also says "And the ransomed of the Lord will return and come with joyful shouting to Zion, with everlasting joy upon their heads."- this too seems to indicate a price was paid to ransom them. What are your thoughts on that?
@@justinmanley6003 That’s a reasonable question. The solution is to do some research to see how “ransom” and “redeem” are used in the Bible. If you read carefully, even in the verses you quoted, there is no literal transaction. Most of the uses are metaphoric, meaning to liberate. For example, “redeeming the time” (Eph. 5:16), “redeemed us from the curse” (Gal. 3:13), “redeem those under the law” (Gal. 4:5), “redeem us from all lawlessness” (Titus 2:14), and “redeemed from the empty way of life” (1 Peter 1:18, as you mentioned). None of these statements involve a transfer of a payment from one party to another. They are all picturing a release. The example of Isaiah 35:10 also indicates a liberation, similar to these verses and many others such as these: “Remember your congregation, which you have purchased of old, which you have redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage! Remember Mount Zion, where you have dwelt.” Psalm 74:2 “Say therefore to the people of Israel, ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment.” Exodus 6:6 For more on this particular word topic, you can check here: atonementandreconciliation.com/chapter-10-ransom-and-redemption/
@@atonementandreconciliation3749 I see where the disconnect may be - I agree there is no 'literal transaction', I apologize if that was what it seemed I was suggesting. Let me attempt to better clarify: I'm suggesting it's symbolic in much the same way that "the wages of sin are death" is symbolic... and by that I mean the 'wages' aren't literal wages, as in no one is handing out a 'death' coin to those standing in line waiting to receive their wage which they then redeem for 'death', rather it serves to provide us an earthly example we can relate to in order to understand the concept that death only came into existence because of sin, and by way of our sin we 'earn' our death. In the same way, when I say the 'price' of the precious blood 'ransomed' us, that isn't meant to suggest that God literally held out his hand for payment and the Christ put his precious blood in a bag in God's hand or something, and then God took away the debt from an actual bound leger made with paper and ink... that is not at all what I am suggesting. Rather I am saying it's a symbolic representation that we as mere humans can relate to, using it to understand an otherwise incomprehensible concept. I hope this better clarifies my position: A symbolic 'price' was paid for the 'ransom' that was owed and that 'price' was the precious blood of the Christ, whose sacrifice was necessary to 'ransom' us from the second death. His shed blood on the doorpost of our hearts (by which I mean our sincere belief God raised him from the dead and our subsequent repentance, which is a necessary outplaying of our sincere belief) allows the angel of death to pass over us on judgement day, thereby 'releasing' or 'ransoming' us from the obligatory second death, similar to the way the blood of the lamb allowed the angel of death to pass over the nation of Israel during the plagues in Egypt. Given that (hopefully) more thorough explanation, would you agree or disagree that a symbolic 'price' was paid to 'ransom' us?
John, at 1:40 you say "YHWH reveals His heart upon the cross" And so that wording implies you are saying Jesus is YHWY?? !!!? I was of the understanding you were unitarian, knowing the one God, and the son, the man Jesus?
Do you believe in Paul's writings? I only ask to see if I can then share a few verses that I think say otherwise, and I would like to get your input on them.
I’m loving this series of videos! I’m learning a lot! Thanks for putting this together!
I’m still leaning towards the ransom theory! However I’m going to have to rewatch all these videos once they’re all out, to be grounded in my final outlook on this subject!
Thanks John, I appreciate all your work. I agree with critics since nothing of these theory’s other than PSA encompasses the totality of scripture
another great video brother! I'm not fully caught up on the series but I'm on my way to watch the others now :-)
This sounds like the foundation for the false gospel that over-emphasises Gods love while ignoring telling people they need to repent, the false gospel that is being preached in many word of faith churches.
This Moral Influence Theory sounds like it would contribute to the false gospel that William Booth warned about;
“The chief danger that confronts the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, heaven without hell.”
I wonder if anyone could make a case for this theory just from the First Testament Scriptures or just from the gospels without using what Paul wrote?
I like this video 😊
And any "Moral influence" causality by the work of the cross requires effort (work) on the part of the influencee. Thats works.
My take is that the cross is the shedding of the blood in atonement for all who were trapped by the iniquity of Adam, which was a giving into and loss caused by the shining ones temptation to be equal with God. In that the penalty was owed by Adam, and the second Adam paid it, thus making atonement to each individual by way of their free will in faith by accepting that sacrifice. Much like the blood of the passover lamb (where Jesus was crucified on a passover so all of us who claim that blood covering in faith, are redeemed from Adams willfull disobedience. Nothing to do with making us all better, but salvation to those who choose opposite to what Adam did. The restoration of all creation (all creation groans in travail waiting the revealing of the sons of God)
Its all about free will and obedience and a plan by God to restore the damage done by the spiritual enemy, not making nicer people.
I admit I have been busy this last few weeks and have not caught up with the previous vids in the series, so possibly missed this version, will check you out over next few weeks.
What is often not considered is the influence of the immoral side of the death of Christ, yet it is one of the most emphasized reasons in the Bible. The fact that God’s only Son, the long awaited Messiah who was attested by God with miracles, signs and wonders which God did through him, was betrayed, tortured and killed, served to expose the evil of sin and the depths of mankind’s depravity when it is not checked with submission to a righteous God. The story shocks the conscience of those who have a heart for righteousness. It makes sin to be exceeding sinful; our selfishness to become perverse.
In Acts 2 we have Peter’s sermon which was just 40 days from the crucifixion event. Did Peter tell them that Jesus died to pay for their sin? No! Peter told the crowd that what they did was evil and called them to repentance. “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” Acts 2:22-23 KJV Peter goes on, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” Acts 2:36-40
Not long after, Peter healed a man and then told the crowd, “the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead…“And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers…Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out…” Acts 3:13-19 ESV
This is an excerpt from: atonementandreconciliation.com/appendix-a-reasons-why-jesus-died/
I appreciate what you have posted, but I am a little confused as well. This part is what I don't understand fully, perhaps you could clarify; you wrote: "Did Peter tell them that Jesus died to pay for their sin? No! Peter told the crowd that what they did was evil and called them to repentance." - and while I agree that he did state what they did was evil and call them to repentance, he also said "“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..." - from which it can be inferred that Jesus paid for their sins, it seems to me. Otherwise why is it not 'repentance only' that is required for forgiveness, but rather repentance AND baptism in his name? Much love and respect!
@@justinmanley6003 Good question. It is just that there is nothing in the Old Testament or the beliefs of the disciples that called for any literal payment for sin as is taught today. The disciples did not want Jesus to die and were distraught when it happened. They did not thing that "it is finished" meant their sins had been paid for, they did not celebrate. Nobody believed the payment idea. This idea came up hundreds of years later due to faulty presuppositions and misunderstandings.
The baptism is to show loyalty, that they are genuine followers, that's all.
About 10 years later Peter is told to go to Cornelius, a devout Gentile who believed in the God of the Jews and lived a righteous life. Before Peter said anything about Jesus, Acts 10:34-35 says, "So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Peter recognizes 2 things: 1. Fear of God and 2. doing right. This is the same as what we find over and over in the Old Testament. For example, Isaiah 55:7 "let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
@@atonementandreconciliation3749 Thanks for the reply! I'm not so sure I agree with you regarding there being nothing in the Old Testament or the beliefs of the disciples, though. You mention Peter and Cornelius, however how do reconcile Peter saying in his second letter (2 Peter 2:1) that there will be false prophets introducing heresies, even denying the master that bought them? That language, 'bought them', seems to indicate a price was paid does it not? Additionally, in his first letter Peter seems to say (1 Peter 1:18-19) pretty clearly that we were not redeemed with silver or gold, but with precious blood. This seems to indicate the precious blood was the 'price' that was paid for redemption. You also provided Isaiah 55:7 as an example, noting that it says he will abundantly pardon (great verse!), however previously in Isaiah (35:10) it also says "And the ransomed of the Lord will return and come with joyful shouting to Zion, with everlasting joy upon their heads."- this too seems to indicate a price was paid to ransom them. What are your thoughts on that?
@@justinmanley6003 That’s a reasonable question. The solution is to do some research to see how “ransom” and “redeem” are used in the Bible. If you read carefully, even in the verses you quoted, there is no literal transaction. Most of the uses are metaphoric, meaning to liberate. For example, “redeeming the time” (Eph. 5:16), “redeemed us from the curse” (Gal. 3:13), “redeem those under the law” (Gal. 4:5), “redeem us from all lawlessness” (Titus 2:14), and “redeemed from the empty way of life” (1 Peter 1:18, as you mentioned). None of these statements involve a transfer of a payment from one party to another. They are all picturing a release.
The example of Isaiah 35:10 also indicates a liberation, similar to these verses and many others such as these:
“Remember your congregation, which you have purchased of old, which you have redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage! Remember Mount Zion, where you have dwelt.” Psalm 74:2
“Say therefore to the people of Israel, ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment.” Exodus 6:6
For more on this particular word topic, you can check here:
atonementandreconciliation.com/chapter-10-ransom-and-redemption/
@@atonementandreconciliation3749 I see where the disconnect may be - I agree there is no 'literal transaction', I apologize if that was what it seemed I was suggesting. Let me attempt to better clarify: I'm suggesting it's symbolic in much the same way that "the wages of sin are death" is symbolic... and by that I mean the 'wages' aren't literal wages, as in no one is handing out a 'death' coin to those standing in line waiting to receive their wage which they then redeem for 'death', rather it serves to provide us an earthly example we can relate to in order to understand the concept that death only came into existence because of sin, and by way of our sin we 'earn' our death. In the same way, when I say the 'price' of the precious blood 'ransomed' us, that isn't meant to suggest that God literally held out his hand for payment and the Christ put his precious blood in a bag in God's hand or something, and then God took away the debt from an actual bound leger made with paper and ink... that is not at all what I am suggesting. Rather I am saying it's a symbolic representation that we as mere humans can relate to, using it to understand an otherwise incomprehensible concept. I hope this better clarifies my position: A symbolic 'price' was paid for the 'ransom' that was owed and that 'price' was the precious blood of the Christ, whose sacrifice was necessary to 'ransom' us from the second death. His shed blood on the doorpost of our hearts (by which I mean our sincere belief God raised him from the dead and our subsequent repentance, which is a necessary outplaying of our sincere belief) allows the angel of death to pass over us on judgement day, thereby 'releasing' or 'ransoming' us from the obligatory second death, similar to the way the blood of the lamb allowed the angel of death to pass over the nation of Israel during the plagues in Egypt. Given that (hopefully) more thorough explanation, would you agree or disagree that a symbolic 'price' was paid to 'ransom' us?
John, at 1:40 you say "YHWH reveals His heart upon the cross" And so that wording implies you are saying Jesus is YHWY?? !!!? I was of the understanding you were unitarian, knowing the one God, and the son, the man Jesus?
@@kingdomseekers1973 yeah i know. 😁 im just making a point about phraseology. it can lead to religion.
But if Jesus is not a sacrifice for sins?
That's the core of the debate🙂
@@kingdomseekers1973 He was not. God forgives without sacrifice and human sacrifice is problematic.
Do you believe in Paul's writings? I only ask to see if I can then share a few verses that I think say otherwise, and I would like to get your input on them.
@@kingdomseekers1973 I denied Paul.