The Problem with Penal Substitution in 5 MINUTES
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 бер 2023
- For many who are most familiar with evangelical expressions of Christianity, Penal Substitutionary Atonement (or PSA) is the only way they have heard the idea of the cross articulated. Like all metaphors, however, this law court image breaks if stretched too far.
![ЛЕБЕДЕВ у ДУДЯ: муху не обманешь 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E74h5fvVrqs/mqdefault.jpg)
As soon as he said 'common era" and not " AD" I knew to not listen.
That’s weird.
@@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.
ua-cam.com/video/-PnaU45mUCc/v-deo.html
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 ;)
@@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.
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.
What does the Bible mean when it says, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin?
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.
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?!
I went ahead a read your “about us”. This now makes a whole lot more sense.
🙏
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)
God doesn’t HAVE to follow blood sacrifice rules, God WANTS to follow blood sacrifices rules, is not better.
if we are faithless, he remains faithful- for he cannot deny himself. (2 Timothy 2:13, ESV)
One of my all time favourites! It is only by the faithfulness of Christ we are saved 🙏
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.
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.
@@commonschurch ok. Here’s a specific action that God cannot take: “it is impossible for God to lie.” Hebrews 6:18
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.
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?
"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 ua-cam.com/video/NT3s0IVItXA/v-deo.html
@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.
@@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.
@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.
@@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.
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.
I speak English. So anno domini feels a little presumptuous ;)
@@commonschurchyou say what it means in English “The year of our Lord”
@@paulcimijotti I'm probably not going to say that every time I refer to a date 🤷♂
I will confess that "Jesus is Lord" though ❤
“Yet he bore the sin of many.” Isaiah 53:12
Again, a great verse, but nothing to suggest that Jesus died to appease God.
@@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.
why?
@@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?
All of them :) They just don't think the penalty was paid to God.
if you cannot say God cannot, then how does scripture says God cannot lie, and God cannot be tempted?
I thought I read somewhere that Jesus was tempted… like three times
@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!
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.
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.
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)
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.
@@commonschurch “It was the will of the LORD to crush him.” God is clearly the actor here inflicting judgement on his Son.
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?
@@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?
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 :)
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)
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.
@@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)
The word propitiation literally means to appease!
That’s why it’s a bad translation :)
@@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?
God CANNOT lie nor Die
I mean… you may be forgetting a pretty central tenant of Christianity ;)
God cannot….
…. deny Himself.
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?
God cannot sin and God cannot fail to achieve His purposes
@@TheHumbuckerboy Jesus had confidence but he feared death
@@Scott23882 Jesus never feared death but he dreaded the suffering that he knew he would have to go through before he would die.
@@TheHumbuckerboy Read Hebrews 5:7 KJV
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).
All theology is absolutely made up by people. It’s how we talk about God.
“God can not lie” That’s Scripture!!! This should be called “how to debunk your own argument in 5mins”
Hmm Jeremiah 20:7… or maybe 2 Thessalonians 2:11 or perhaps 1 Kings 22:23?
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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: ua-cam.com/video/lZRR8fvRJbI/v-deo.html
This isn't true what you're saying brother...the patristics taught this before the 11th century...before Anslem.
Careful with this doctrine, people
That would be a remarkable discovery, you should definitely publish something to demonstrate all those patristic penal substitutionary models.
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.
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 :(
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.
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.
@@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?
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)
@@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.
I'm with you on all that but there's nothign there about God wanting the death of an innocent man 🤷♂️