Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Theories of the Atonement
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 кві 2019
- Ransom / Christus Victor; Penal Substitution; Moral Influence... each of these theories of what Christ accomplished on the cross is summarized. Which one is right?
Rev. Michael Fredericks
Thanks for this Mike! Clear, concise, and I could see your passion and love for our Savior!
Dude: the ransom and Christi's Victor are two distinct theories
True. I should have been clearer. They’re in the same family, but not the same theory. Good feedback.
Thanks for explaining these, a combination of “Christus Victor” & the “Moral Influence” Theory makes the most sense to me & feels the most true.
Penal substitution has NEVER sat right. 🙅🏾♀️
Hmm read Isaiah 53:6. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isaiah 53:10 It pleased the Lord to bruise him. He put him to grief and made his soul a sacrifice for sin.
All three theories are true and cannot be divided.
To refute a penal substitution you must refute at least one of three premises.
Premise #1. That because of our sins, we deserve a penalty. In other words you must disprove, "The wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23
Premise #2. Christ died for our sins. You must disprove that Christ suffered once for sins the righteous for the unrighteous to bring us to God. And that the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Premise #3. Christ atoned, that is, made us at one with the Father. You must disprove that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
Unless you can refute one or more of these premises, Penal Substitutionary Atonement stands as a legitimate biblical view of the atonement.
@@verse-by-versethroughthebi5921 The wages of sin is death not eternal torture
@@englandshope689 I don’t think he said it is and I definitely didn’t say it is.
I actually believe in conditional immortality / terminal punishment / annihilationism.
Nice explanation , thank you so much sir 🙏.
Just noticed that this is 3 years old today. Thanks for the work on it.
Discussions and debates about "atonement theory" have been huge lately. This is one of the easiest to understand explanations I have heard so far. Thanks so much for laying this out so clearly.
Wonderful 👏 explanation. Thank you for the great efforts. How come. Only 300 views this lecture should be at least 5 million views. The world is no more interested in listening to God's word.
All of these theories are true. None of them contradict. No one is fully complete without the other. Jesus did defeat the devil. Jesus did satisfy God's wrath and pay our debt. His death is the greatest example of love. We must not pick one and ignore the others.
Rightly understood they do contradict. If you whittle them down enough you can force them together, but there are a lot of problems.
Thank you for this!!!
Jesus did everything required to save us...let us lean not on our own understanding but simply trust in Him. He will lead us through death into the Kingdom.... come Lord Jesus.
thank you so much
Thank you. Very nice.
Thanks, great summary.
Oops I commented too early... You said what I was thinking: All of the above.
Wow this was awesome! Right after you got done explaining each of the three theories, I got to thinking, well each one of these theories has elements that are true! Then you said that you also thought it was all three! Goes to show how much the cross accomplished! 😊
That's what I was thinking!
I suppose it now comes down to "by their fruits you shall know them" as to which view produces what affect. Which view "wins" the heart and life over. All views claim hold to a form of the first initial act of the Holy Spirt and all are by Faith through Grace. Perhaps all would produce obedience as wanted by God, if we held highly the pursuit of "LOVE".
Actually most of the eastern/greek fathers, niece and post Nicene fathers, provide different approach.
You should read Incarceration of the word by st Athanasius of Alexandria
René Girard would provide interesting material for this discussion also.
The Oldest atonement theory was St. Iraneus of Lyon's recapitulation theory not Agustine's or Origen's Ransom Theory. Your analysis is incomplete.
I’ll have to take a look at that. Thanks for the heads up. I was trying to introduce the main ideas, but definitely aware there are even more theories. I think in the future I may do an updated version. The feedback is helpful.
Jesus became martyred. That’s important. He wouldn’t be the messiah unless he fulfilled prophecy.
All the theories seem to me to be partially true
Christus Victor and Ransom are two different ideas. 😉
True. In the same family, but not the same. I should have made that clearer. Good feedback.
20:48 - your phone buzzed. Better answer that text!
I just can't accept the "Jesus loves you" claim. The fact that God gives people a time limit and after that sweeps them into hell just makes it impossible to believe that God loves me. I could never ever allow that to happen to even my enemies.
I'm not saying that God does not love people. It's just utterly impossible for me to believe it given the nightmare end that is in store for most people - according to traditional Christianity.
To accept this god's love would be to endorse something that is so repulsive to me that I would need to renounce the compassion I have for the dammed.
The traditional Christian view of Hell (Eternal Conscious Torment) is not the only option. In fact, I would argue it is not a Biblically defendable doctrine. If you’re interested in further study, check out the position called “Conditional Immortality” aka “Annihilationism.” There is also a growing interest in the idea of universal salvation ultimately. Which I find also hard to defend Biblically, but many faithful Biblical interpreters make a case for it.
I agree that the traditional view of Hell doesn’t seem to match the love nature of God.
None of these theories make sense Bc if a ransom was paid then then God owes somebody something that a ransom had to be paid ? And the present penal theory that took the Holy Spirit a 1000 years to explain does not make sense bc it means God needs a debt to be paid to forgive and again puts god in a position of need and weakness that he cannot just forgive and it also means that since Adam to prior to Jesus every prophet came and preached salvation thru actions and keeping the law are then condemned
No, not forgiveness. This is the problem with PSA. Somehow God cannot forgive sin; instead, His justice must be fulfilled. He demands satisfaction. With Christus Victor, the sins are truly forgiven because the Son breaks humanity out of its captivity to its sin nature.
so understand that you’re not agreeing with the early church disciples who are literally picked by the apostles, instead, you’re agreeing with the reformation doctrin, which came over athousand years ago. And you’re agreeing with the doctrine of alliance gods character, stop agreeing with man’s ideas, and agree with what is revealed through his word. Don’t read your theology into the text. Take your theology from the text.
What is the atonement theory of the early church fathers?
PSA basically is "Jesus forgives, but the Father can't", painting them as opposite personalities and puts Jesus and the Father on 2 opposite ends of a transaction such that the Father then becomes the one who stands as the captor of humanity to sin and death since the Father is the one being paid off. That's not tenable. Christus Victor is the most straightforward one and is oldest. I don't know why we think we need go beyond that.
If you must choose a satisfaction theory, at least go with governmental. PSA is really really awful. It's far more difficult to win converts if you show the Father to be the way that PSA explains it.
I’m sorry pastor but your presentation of the ransom theory is a-historical. I challenge you to show me historical evidence of your presentation. The early church believed in recapitulation, substitution and ransom. The last one is that Jesus is the new Passover lamb who causes us to enter a new exodus.
I’m definitely open to digging further into the history of the views. I wasn’t trying so much in this video to get into the history as much as trying to help people understand the key aspects of the theories. I’m certain there’s room for improvement.
Do you have a source for your assertion that the early church believed in recapitulation, substitution, and ransom? I would love to see that. Thanks.
I don’t see god’s forgiveness in your view. You can’t claim he forgives when in fact he was paid and his justice was satisfied by killing an innocent being, Jesus, for no fault of his own. That’s not forgiveness. That’s not justice. That’s just another way of claiming that Jesus was sacrificed to appease a wrathful god. How is that any different from human sacrifice done to appease the gods and their wrath. It is so primitive.
Are you saying Jesus was wrong when taught that god forgives a repentant person. Wasn’t that what his gospel was all about: repentance, forgiveness and mercy of god. Was his preaching in vain? These atonement theories show god to be wrathful and just but lacks any kind of mercy and forgiveness. Is that who god is to you?
I definitely agree that there are issues with the penal substitution theory (PSA). I’ve heard the objections. Today, I lean more heavily toward Christie Victor as the primary thing that was happening on the cross. My video here doesn’t say that PSA is ‘my view’ - my view is that multiple things were happening simultaneously on the cross.
The problem with rejecting PSA outright is the Bible. The Scriptures pretty clearly describe something along the lines of penal substitution. I’ve heard Brian Zahnd and others explain it away. I find Zahnd’s arguments interesting but I haven’t been convinced yet.
I wonder if it’s possible that the PSA language of the Bible could be more metaphorical / symbolic than literal… that is, using Old Testament era imagery of animal sacrifice to portray the crucifixion in a certain way that wasn’t actually reflective of spiritual realities. That’s something I’m exploring.
At the end of the day, bottom line is Jesus’ death was more powerful than we can imagine.
The problem is: gods that die on crosses to save humans is mythlogy. Humans beings should believe only in the One and True God, who forgives whoever is seeking his forgiveness and punishes whoever deserves his punishment. "To Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. He forgives whomever He wills, and He punishes whomever He wills. Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
Forget about theories of the Atonement. Here is truth.
Jesus died to be the ransom for our sins. But who did he pay the ransom? Some say God, but that makes no sense. If God needed there to be a penalty for sin, he then becoming that sacrifice to appease himself is an absurd theory. Jesus paid Satan. Romans 6:16 states "unto whom you yield yourself a servant to obey, his servant you are." If you do the deeds of Satan, you fall under his rule and jurisdiction. Jesus died to pay Satan to release us from his jurisdiction if we would convert unto Christ and live a holy life thereafter. "He whom the Son sets free, he is completely free."
John 8:31-36
Acts 2:38
Romans 6:1-23
Matthew 18:1-10
1 John 5:16-17
Numbers 15:28-31
Hebrews 10:26-27
Mark 16:16
John 3:3-5