Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Rethinking Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2024
- Skye and Brian Zahnd delve into the complexities of atonement theology within Christianity, challenging common assumptions and shedding light on historical shifts that have influenced our understanding of the cross. Brian argues we need to stop thinking of the cross as redemptive violence.
Listen to the full episode on the Holy Post Podcast, Episode 603
www.holypost.c...
Watch the full video for free on our Patreon
/ 97986842
Subscribe to watch more Holy Post videos
/ @holypost
Listen to the full podcast
Apple - podcasts.apple...
Spotify - open.spotify.c...
Man, I've listened to this a few times now. And i just keep coming back to it. It feels like being set free in a way. The ransom as paid to death not God. You really did blow my mind. Thank you for being a part of my journey as I press into the scriptures.
Edit: spelling
It really sounds good, but it leaves out the details of the Gospel. Jesus volenteers to take on the justice we deserved. Please don't be deceived. Watch America Gospel 2 for a real example of penal substutionary atonement theory. This is one strawman after another.
@@DeJay14 I find it funny that in your answer you simply use the assumptions and wording of mainstream Christianity in disqualifying this new line of reasoning. This is all assuming that justice is what is required. It is also funny how most Christians balk at the idea of legalism, but then make legalism the entire driving force behind the plan of salvation. God has been striving with man in hopes he’ll understand righteousness. He calls us no longer his servants but his friends (John 15:15) because he wants us to change-not just be pardoned. But most “Christians” are quick to lord a difference in understanding over others. ☹️
@@ericzachman3615 "New line of reasoning" liberalism ironically isn't new friend. We need to understand that legalism and justice are not the same. One is making laws that don't exist, the other are righteous laws that do. God is loving, yes and amen, he is just. This came together at the cross in which Jesus himself volunteered to take part in. He is the humble hero. I don't mind new ideas, but when you think you can navigate around God, I have an issue with that. Nothing personal, but this is the gospel, not a secondary issue.
@@DeJay14 Forgiveness isn't justice mate, forgiveness is the forgoing of justice. Forgiveness is the offended party, in this case God, forgoing justice and carrying the loss the damage Himself and giving us freedom from our consequences.
The Good News is that God has provided Himself to carry the consequence of our sin, that is forgoing "justice".
@@DeJay14 I have been looking at your posts, trying to figure out what your fear is, what your understanding is that causes you to call it "liberalism".
All they are doing is trying to get an accurate understanding of the dynamic that is being played out in the crucifixion. The idea being that their previous understanding was flawed.
Yes Jesus ransomed us from death/the grave/sin, what else is there to believe? Nothing else would have occurred to me. What did Jesus do that saved us from death? He dropped the charges against us and nailed them to his cross and accepted the consequences of our sin and gave himself to death' He became sin/death for us. He gave himself as a ransom to death and then destroyed that death. Rising on the third day, we rose with him, his life in us, saving us from the wrath of God, (Jesus own wrath against sin which he shares with the Father).
We are forced back to the idea that this is a relational issue between us and God not a legal one. It was Adam who turned it into a legal issue when he put his faith in The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, rather than leaving his union with God, relational. Our connection with God is not through Law but Spirit. Law was Adams' choice, The second Adam relates to the Father in Spirit, as do we.
So whatever happened at Calvary it is between us and God, Jesus is our interface with God, Jesus is not separate to God, and he is not separate to us. Jesus is acting both for God and us. We exist in him and therefore in God, Acts 17:28.
Sin is refusing to live in the ontology of God whose image we are created in, Psa.51:4. It is actually refusing Gods union with us and trusting that union. That was Adams' sin, and that cuts us off from life.
In accepting that Jesus died our death for us, we are accepting our union with God, and through that union flows our life. We are saved from death in Adam to life in Christ. Blood which is life takes away sin, i.e., death, Lev.17:11. In other words, the life of God in us takes away death.
Just as Jonah was swallowed by the fish but not digested, so was Christ swallowed by death but not digested. That's why Jesus referred the sign of Jonah given to Israel as a sign of His mission? This is beautiful. All of it. Thank you. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.
God and Christ are one
The good thing about this discussion is that it is about SECONDARY issues that are THEORETICAL.
It's wonderful to find the truth being spoken. I wish we could speak. We could add so much to one another.
I am currently reading Wright's "The Day the Revolution Began"... so this is right in the ball park!
As a Catholic the notion of Penal Substitution has always been somewhat problematic... Jesus did not take our punishment for us... rather he let himself be the victim of human injustice so that no one can say God can't forgive us, because at most, he could see us as disobedient children... by letting himself become man and be crucified by man their is no aspect of sin that he could be said not understand or be able to forgive.
Beauty will save the world, true, in it I hope it can save Christianity
Amen!! I am so thankful to see this discussion. I have believed this for some time and have actually started to become embittered towards “Christianity” as a result. In John 17:4 and 6 Jesus talks about having “finished” the work he was to do. Verse 6 says what that work was-to reveal the father. In Christian pagan mythology thinking they would say he was still yet to do the work of “paying the price” on the cross. Agree 100%. Thank you thank you thank you
I'm finishing up Michael Hortons book on Justification and I think the "Old perspective" on Paul is the most Biblical. I can see caricatures that people believe of it that are not great, but I think penal substitution holds up. Calvin's Institutes were really helpful to me honestly.
no do not rely on Calvin who is a man and subject to error read the bible thoroughly and think it would be more profitable for you
@@frankcostello2973 Good advice, I have been studying Romans for awhile now and I feel like on the topic of justification, Calvin has it right on interpreting Romans correctly. All men are subject to error of course, I just think the reformed tradition has the most robust understanding of justification and the atonement.
thanks for your gentle reply @@commanderchair
that is a good witness for Christ let your gentleness be known to all
Idol killer Warren Mcgrew/Paul Vendredi on 17 claims of penal substitution will show an opened minded man Calvin did not love God
Isaiah 53:6 the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all
If you take that to mean He became a sinner on the cross you end up with sinners being washed with sinners blood
@@JoshuaLeibrant-dr3xv 2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
Jesus was not a sinner, but took on the wrath due a sinner. He was not a sinner, but treated as a sinner. He bore my sins.
I think I'm going to start saying "earth turn" now 😂
When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, God provided a ram, symbolizing His own Son. It never said Abraham was sacrificing Isaac to atone for his sins, but as an act of obedience and trust that God would raise Isaac from the dead because God had promised Abraham his descendants would come from Isaac. What a beautiful picture of God's love for mankind in not sparing His own Son to defeat hell and death. This is beautiful. I definitely need to read this book. It so resonates with my spirit.
I don’t know…the god of the Old Testament seems to like being appeased through violence. When the son of Aaron speared through the woman and man in the tent to end the plague god sent to kill the people under Moses. That seemed to do the trick
Psalm 145:8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
2 Peter 3:9-10 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 BUT the day of the Lord WILL COME like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
I LOVE Pastor Brian! I have just recently discovered his church but thoroughly enjoy attending his service every week online! I am so proud to have found a church that teaches BIBLICAL TRUTH!! Thanks so much for this interview!
He's a false teacher
I have rarely heard even the most progressive pastors dissect substutionary attonement. But it's part of realizing that the Jewish/Christian God is "slow to anger", is loving, is compassionate. And indeed, it sets the Hebrew God apart from gods of the time who desired human sacrifice, rather than a spiritual one. The God of the Hebrews doesn't want us to engage in that- it's why the Canaanites were controversial, it's part of the practices that were dangerous, unloving, not necesary. Why would a Father want to kill his son for someone else's iniquities? Why would God kill, effectively, himself to take punishment off of us?
I know there's the argument that Jesus took place as the "lamb of God". I think that's a misunderstanding. I think in the midst of the worst of the worst, in the midst of our iniquities, God STILL sought to reconcile us with Godself. Humbled Godself. Suffered with and among us. That's a powerful takeaway. This is a merciful God, a God that sees value in relationship.
A pity Skye's invite to go through Isa 53 was not taken up. The penalty borne on our behalf for our sin is very plainly there (How else can you interpret 'stricken ,bruised, chastisement for our transgressions and iniquities ?)And Philip in Acts 8 and Peter (1 Pet.2:22-25) clearly see Isa 53 as referring to the Cross. By diminishing the Penal aspect you also diminish Justice. It was not about Jesus changing God. That is a pagan perversion of what was going on its true but that is a 'straw man' of the PSA argument. The 'steel man' of this doctrine is about God, the righteous Judge stepping down from the throne of judgement to receive His own judgement and tje penalty of our sin in His Own body in Christ on the Cross.
Wonder why lol
But what you’re saying means that death comes from god, as if it’s this righteous commandment: thou shalt not sin or by my righteousness and the holiness of my character I must put you to death. My Bible says the wage of SIN is death. Death comes from sin, god is trying to save us from it. Now in the end those that are sinful will ultimately be destroyed, so they will not partake of the everlasting life he offers-is that not justice enough?
"By diminishing the Penal aspect you also diminish Justice", and herein lays the discussion. Is Jesus receiving the penalty of the Law or is He receiving the consequence of sin (ungodliness) which is death?
Is Jesus death to balance the the scales of justice, or is it something else.
Is it a relational thing, an accounting thing. Whereby we the recipients of life don't pay our I.O.U. to love , the manifestation of God life in us, the lack of which is death. We thus have brought death into the union, to be carried by us or them.
They decide to carry the loss, Jesus enters into death for us with our sin/death and conquers death with his life. Blood which is life takes away sin/death, Lev.17:11 the sin offering.
This is the justice of God that while we were still sinners he loved us and saved us from death, or Rom.11:23 For God has made all people prisoners of disobedience, so that He might show mercy to them all.
@@ericzachman3615 Don't see where or how what I have said death comes from God. Death came through our sin (as you rightly say) and throughout scripture the penalty of sin in the Law is death (Genesis: "the soul that sins, it shall die") by counting us believers to have "died with him" (Romans 6) God suffers that judgement in our behalf and in order to both rescue us but at the same time justifying by fulfilling the righteous judgement of the Law.
@@wilfredmancy The Holy Post is on their denying the hard parts of the Gospel on the slippery slope arch
This totally works…if you don’t read the rest of the Bible. Has he not read the Old Testament prophets? Yes, there was lots of imagery in them, but the imagery pointed to the reality. God’s wrath was poured out on real people who really died. Ever heard of Noah? But Jesus took our punishment in our place. What great news! The only way you can make his view of the scriptures make sense is if you do what Greg Boyd did and just say “Oh yeah, all that OT violence was just silly Jews getting God wrong. That’s just what they THOUGHT was happening.” Ridiculous. I’ve read the early church fathers, God’s wrath was very real to them. I also think this guy really needs to read more Wright. I have read every single page Tom has written, and Wright affirms penal substitutionary atonement. Even in the beginning of The Day the Revolution Began he states that many think that he doesn’t believe in it, but he does! He is just trying to make the point that penal substitution was just one element of what happened on the cross, and people have often heard it wrong due to a poor understanding of the Trinity. His only objection is presenting it in a way that conveys almost cosmic child abuse, but he says that view only comes from a lack of realizing that Jesus is fully God. He and the Father are one. Wright has actually written on multiple occasions how it annoys him that he is categorized by both the left and the right as not believing in penal substitution.
Your comment is interesting to me, as it gives quite a good example of how you think and read the Bible, I assume. I am not saying you are wrong, it is just that it is an eye opening experience for me. It would never have occurred to me to read the Bible that way.
You say, "But Jesus took our punishment in our place. What great news!" Which it is, no denying that, which is why people who have the P.S.A. model in their brain get so upset. I believe also that Jesus took our punishment in our place, but because I am not sure what is going on in the minds of P.S.A. people, I avoid the term.
There is a lot going on in this discussion that is background to how we understand the crucifixion, and our understanding of the background is very variable. You have explained your "seeing". I suspect it is different to mine and in the bigger scheme of things it may not matter much.
A lot hinges on whether you think sin is the destruction of life, death, or whether death is administered by God for sin. In other words do we kill ourselves or does God kill us. Does sin kill us or does God kill us. In the O.t. as you point out there are plenty of examples of God killing because of sin, did Adam die because of sin or did God kill him because of sin. Paul says death reigned because of sin. Do we die because of sin or because God kills us?
What is sin? In my mind sin is anything contrary to the ontology of God. God is life/love, therefore sin being contrary to Gods ontology has to be non existence, death. Sin is against what God is Psalm 51:4.
Jesus took the death we created for ourselves by our refusal to accept the ontology of God, even though he created us with his ontology, and forgave us our sins against Himself by taking the death we created, by refusing Him, into Himself and offers us His life in us again. Redemption from sin, His ontology in us.
So that is my understanding of the crucifixion..
I just don't think it's so binary. I think it's both and, not either or. Sin does kill us, but sometimes because of sin God enters in and also enacts punishment. Whether it's passive or not doesn't really make a difference to me, God still sets the rules of the universe in place, if people die as a direct punishment or indirect you can't run from it still being the rules of the universe set into place by him. I totally agree that lots of God's wrath is him pulling away and letting sin do to us what it naturally does, but I don't think it's so binary that when we have clear examples of God stepping in with wrath (Ananias and Sapphira for example) that we just write those off as well. I just personally think how you're reading the scriptures I way too binary, and to be honest very white and western. I could be wrong, but this binary theology didn't exist until very recently, and most of its advocates are white well-off westerners. Most of the Christians in the world don't agree with this interpretation. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but it might be that western culture just genuinely struggles with this doctrine of God and wrath. @@wilfredmancy
@@thatchurchguyshandleThank you. My comment and your reply have both disappeared. I get that a lot on this channel.
@@thatchurchguyshandleI think you mean singular, binary means two or composed of two.
The comments have reappeared.
Yes, we are talking both , punishment, and consequence. I see God's wrath as a manifestation of God's love, something designed to have a good outcome eventually, something very valuable even if not enjoyable. Gods hostility to the things that cause death.
@@wilfredmancy I also agree that it's an outpouring of his love, but we might have different applications as to what we think that means! Appreciate the dialogue! I'm not sure why comments go missing so often here.
Isn't this the same man that says Jesus isn't the only to heaven.
He promotes this in his book, "Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God" on page 140-144.
The title of the book isn't mentioned here?
I think at the end: The Wood Between the Worlds
In and of myself, I am a sinner and a rebel against God's good commands and purposes. My thoughts and intents say, God, you are not good or trustworthy. I will do what I want. I deserve death for my sinfulness. It is just for God to pour out his wrath on me in hell forever. If God failed to punish my rebellion, he would not be good or trustworthy. He would be a liar.
If my sin had not been imputed to Jesus Christ, the God-man, and God had not punished Jesus in my place, I would still be accountable for my sinfulness and rebellion. And to hell, God would rightly condemn me.
But God is the Just and the Justifier. He extended mercy to me and satisfied justice through the cross.
I can not wait until the holy posters and Zahnd collaborate on a new translation of scriptures so we can finally have the truth after all these years of getting it wrong. Maybe you can get Russell, Beth and Alistar Begg to contribute. I'll put it next to my copy of the New world translation done by such great minds like Charles Taze Russell. Where would we be with out great minds such as Russell and Zahnd.
While more theologically astute thinkers my decry PST, the vast majority of Christians - especially older Christians - will hold to PST because it's what they were taught as a child, believed as an adult, etc. I think the professional scholars and pastors who do not hold with PST are a drop in the bucket. The non-PST view of the crucifixion is just another difference between the university educated and the less educated laity, which - if one wants to be steadily employed in the ministry - might not get a lot of air time on Sunday morning.
Next they’ll be telling us that the Trinity is a pagan concept! Anyone who goes secular in their politics invariably gets secular in their theology. Holy Post is no exception.
It isn’t pagan, but Nicene-Constantinopolitan Trinitarianism (that is, coequal consubstantiality) isn’t strictly biblical. It took centuries of theological development to arrive at that position.
Hallelujah to God, i falied to see this now i see
Brian uses “forgiveness” language - but this is incoherent under his view of sin and divine wrath. Why is forgiveness necessary, according to Zahnd’s view?
If PSA is to blame for violence, how do you explain the Russian invasion of Ukraine with Kirill's blessing?
Perhaps atonement theories have nothing whatsoever to do with violence. Perhaps violence is more about church-state mergers, plain old greed, fear, and/or lust for power.
It seems to me that the Christus Victor theory is more about violence than PSA.
Rev 19:13 and John 1:1.
Only Holy Post selective scripture here please. If other scripture is here it will be filtered through them and their friends. Your too stupid to figure it out on your own.
Christ took our sins upon us because of His great love.
Christ came to show us true righteousness because of his great love. Our sinful, misguided view of religion killed him for it. So where most Christians say he would have come to die for just one person, I would say he would have come to die for none. It was out of righteousness he came and by our beholding that righteousness that we become changed - in our minds. It is not that his death appeased god the father so that he’ll sheepishly accept us. That is an entirely pagan philosophy and one of deception/misunderstanding. ☹️
You are brainwashed
He came to be a good example? No dude thats only partly true. Nothing pagan about God's justice being satisfied by the only one who can.
penal substitution is not in the Bible but Christ dying for our sins because God so loved us is why complicate this ? ??
Interesting, Mike Winger cites Brian Zahnd as one of those who says PSA was only started 500 years ago. Have Brian's views changed over the years as I did not get this from this talk. ua-cam.com/users/liveO4bTHScjdEo?si=tUvnm29R4NsZyzAm
Your mistake is in thinking the sin is dealt with on the cross…. It is repentance where it is dealt with.you must turn from sin and because Christ has paid the ransom you are freed from sin and the father of it! There was no debt paid to the Father just as no debt was paid the the prodigal sons father… the son need only return from the mire( sin) . Indeed… if Christ paid my debt the father did not forgive me… it was paid.
This is the baptism into Christ in Roman’s 6.. the repentance and baptism Peter talked about on Pentecost. I die yo self and in His death and resurrection I become a new man… all things…ALL THINGS are made new and the old man is dead!!repentance unto the remission of sin!
I’m not sure how you can get rid of the rest of scripture that is full of penal substitutionary atonement prefiguring Christ as the final sacrifice. SMH
Nothing he says here precludes Jesus from being the final sacrifice
Correct.
@dannydawson701 He clearly says Jesus on the cross did nothing in terms of salvation - it was only to demonstrate that Jesus was fully “Divine”.
That’s heresy. Period
Yeah Rob Bower I can’t agree more. Dig deeper y’all. Test the spirits. Zahnd is not even left of centre: he is way out of the ball park in key areas. Again; can I recommend that we all watch the YT piece by Mike Winger on the theology of Zahnd, Richard Rohr and others. It’s fair and fairly exhaustive (not exhausting). Popular names, invites to big conferences and massive book sales do not necessarily mean orthodox biblical theology from the whole counsel of Scripture. And I’d also add that my understanding from that, is that scripture asks us to have nothing to do with the deeds of darkness or peddlers of a different gospel and whether in this social media age platforms like the Holy Post and others should even give them a voice. “Don’t cause the weaker brother (or these little ones) to stumble”. Were we as Christians filling our churches Bible-literate today that might be more OK as they’d know to go check out what was said but that isn’t the case. You’ll not hear much about the sin word (as a state) from Zahnd or the holiness of God. Lots of talk about the love of God. (Biblically it’s God’s love yes but also his holiness which drove him to the cross, not one without the other) We are in modern terms in massive danger of making God in our image: something more palatable; that’s idolatry; elevating our state to something less than it is (Christ died for us when we were DEAD in our sins) and lowering the bar around the holiness of God almost at times to the point of “ah it’s alright, How could a God of love allow decent people to go to a place devoid of him, hell?” Anyway, on that basis everyone will get to God’s perfect heaven. This is a different gospel folks. Not saying Zahnd subscribes to all this but he is for sure in a lot of it.
You don’t. Point made.
As has been said many times before, some people sure are going to be surprised when they get to heaven aren't they?
and Jesus laughed 🙌
Christians have been debating this since the very beginning. it wasn't heresy in the church for the first 500 years to believe in universal reconciliation . you will pass through the fire but the point of the fire is to refine you and reconcilie you to Christ.
been told my entire life that forgiveness was because of the cross yet there it is right in the gospel Jesus telling people all the time their sins were forgiven well before he went to the cross....
💯
The Holy Post interviewing a guy who says the bible contradicts itself but shying away from people like Neil Shenvi doesnt suprise me AT ALL.
Not by GOD the Father and not by the Trinity. If the Father punished the Son and the Son was innocent the Father is unjust, if Jesus became guilty on the cross of all the sins of the elect, He cannot cleanse sinners with guilty blood. If the Trinity or the Father killed themselves/Himself then they/He committed suicide in violation of the law, "thou shalt not murder" any way you slice it or dice it, penal substitution is a wicked doctrine of demons which leaves men subject to sin and satan and demons. Was Jesus punished unjustly then as Isaiah 53 says? Oh yes He was! By wicked men and demons and satan (John8:44) Don't worship the created serpent folks.
This program has reached a whole new level of apostacy. Now promoting grossly heretical material.
Please name the heresy?
Lol, gmen7131 showing us all the arrogance of the western church summed up in one comment.
@@jonyoung9274 Is your comment any different? None of you have pointed out actual facts just throwing around insults
@@algomaone121The part where he is against the penal substutionary atonement
some folks want just want God to be as mad as they are 😬 cause how could they ever defend the 2nd Amendment again? 😮
A note to you soft headed holyposters:
Whenever these lovey dovey rock and roll preachers try to explain away the clear teachings of scripture by saying it’s just a symbol, ask them what is the reality that the symbol represents.
The reality that the symbol represents is that our sin is an attack on God Ps.51:4, "whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me". Sin is contrary to what God is life/love. Sin is the destruction of life, our life originates in God, therefore sin is an attack on God.
We destroyed our own life given to us by God by not living the life he gave us in love. The fact that he has taken the death we created into himself so that we can live is the forgiveness of our sin against Him. He accepts the loss that we have created in Him, in whom we exist Acts 17:28. The cross is God accepting our transgressions against himself, the destruction of his life, into himself and not putting it on us Rom 6:23 and offering us his life in us again. This act is called the forgiveness of sin. God forgiving our failure to pay our I.O.U. to love Him, by loving our neighbour. That failure is the activity of death, our attack on God, which He has accepted .
Jesus was "bruised" for our iniquities. Taking away our sin was not the suffering Jesus endured. Imagine you punch someone in the face. Jesus died to take away your sin of punching someone. Jesus suffered because you punched him in the face. "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me."
We don't do works to be saved, we do works because we are saved and recognize that the suffering we inflict on others is suffering we inflict on Jesus himself. Suffering we take away from others is suffering we take away from Jesus.
Stop thinking for yourself, just let them do the thinking for you, or else your an extremist or whatevrr
100%
The evidence supporting PSA theory in the bible is definitely a big reason that I have never been a Christian. Marcion was right if anyone was!
You had me in the first half. Calvinism/Determinism is unbiblical. But "he arms them, to disarm them"?
Why would Christ command them to sell their cloak and go buy a sword, when they already had one? "To fulfill the scriptures"
Isaiah 53:12
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
What about this says that they needed to go buy swords, that they already had?
And i thought you opposed calvinism/Determinism.
(I admit this aspect is something im still trying to understand more)
Prophecy is God's Foreknowledge revealed. If Peter had chosen to deny Jesus twice, then the prophecy would have been that peter would deny Jesus twice. The prophecy isn't causational, its Foreknowledge.
So to say they bought swords to be disarmed so as to fulfill the scripture seems like you're say God determined for them to buy swords. When the prophecy says nothing of it.
Luke 22:37 ESV
[37] For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”
Violence is a Christian value?
There's a reason so many Christians exclusively see God through the wrathful PSA lens: projection.
I hate to say it but they weren't boo-ing TRUMP. They were boo-ing Judge Engoron & his judgment against djt.
Sorry. While I appreciate all your work to curtail MAGA madness and hearing out divergent views, I am not on the Skye train to start "re-thinking" core evangelical theology. I'm sure he will say that such theology is the root of MAGA madness. But he would be wrong. It's. much more prosaic than that.
Interestingly, Evangelicalism comes out of rethinking theology. Evangelical theology was not given on holy tablets, but is the work of humans. And that work will always continue because each generation has to work through things. The "penal" portion of the theology is what this video is addressing... That is such a small part of our broader evangelical understanding of theology--it is also incredibly recent and is built on an incomplete understanding of the sacrificial system. See John goldingay for more info on that in his ot overview.
Core evangelism theology? I hate to break it to you but PSA is a relatively recent invention. Look up church history.
Yet again we have an attempt to EXCUSE God's action or inaction and to praise God for inaction and claim to God credit for something God has NOTHING to do with.
One of the weakest arguments in Theodicy is the Free Will argument and we can see this in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
A man is attacked and robbed and left for dead - but this is not God's fault - this is Human Free Will.
Two Temple Officials walk by and do nothing to help the victim - but this is not God's fault (despite the reality that both of these officials could point to passages in Scripture, as they knew it, where God TOLD them to keep themselves ritually clean), this failure to help is Human Free Will.
Along comes a Samaritan and treats the man's wounds and cares for him and brings him to somewhere where he can get further aid and pays for this - but this is NOT Human Free Will; this is God acting!!!
If God isn't responsible for the attack and isn't responsible for his Servants (as the Temple Officials would have seen themselves) not aiding the victim, God is also NOT responsible when someone does help the victim - that is ALSO Human Free Will.
And the Crucifixion is a parallel to this,
If "God sent his Son to die for our sins", then God (and not the Humans who do what this Filicidal God wanted) is RESPONSBLE for what happens.
Or God didn't intend or want Jesus to suffer - and most of the New Testament is lying to us - you cannot have it both ways...
This guy blocked me on twitter a long time ago when I corrected him by saying God’s love cannot save anyone.
We are saved by grace through faith - not by His love.
God only gives us grace because of love.
Exactly.
Love is God’s motivation but not his way of salvation.
But that’s not what he claims.
He claims God’s love is sufficient for salvation.
@@robbower5489is that all you did, or did you insult and disparage him as well?
@@robbower5489
“The kindness of God leads to repentance.” So…
If you don't like this, don't watch it. That simple 🙄
Some of us watch it to warn others of the subtle deception it is.
I wish Skye would have stayed in his lane on this. Stick to cultural and political analysis. We cannot dismiss the cup of wrath poured out on Jesus.