Isaiah 53:4-5: "he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed."
Am I the only one who becomes more confused on this topic the more I listen to non PSA? I'm not being snarky and I'm not joking I really become more and more confused on the topic.
What is missing in your assessment of PSA is the fact that what Christ did, He did in real time within human history to fulfill the law and the prophets which will never be fully understood until we are in eternity so when you say that the adherence of those who affirm PSA do not believe there is no real redemptive work in the life of Christ during the first 33 years of his life (1:00:11) is to miss fulfillment part of Christ’s ministry.
I did make a reply to Warren on a video that had William Lane Craig in it. Found it interesting this came up immediately after(within a few hours). I deleted the reply, because I sort of realized maybe I don't have a full understanding of this issue with the atonement. I know there are supposedly multiple theories and understand that the issue with PSA it seems to be 'God pouring wrath on Jesus Christ', where scripture seems to show that the atonement is more of an act of love rather than wrath. Where scripture does show God does have wrath, but not at the atonement.
Warren calls into question Hebrews 9:22 (b) by quoting Hebrews 9:22 (a) without addressing (b). What does b mean? (a) refers to the purification of all things, which is not the same as the forgiveness mentioned in (b). No explanation was given except logic in relation to Is. 53:10 and "if-then" fallacies with respect to Trinitarian philosophy and the character of God. What is needed is a biblical-theological foundation for what we believe.
“And almost all things are cleansed with blood…” Heb 9:22 (a) “…according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Heb 9:22 (b) God gave them animal sacrifices in the same way He gave them divorce and a human king… a concession meeting them where they were, while using all as examples, drawing our attention to our brokenness and His ideal and plan of redemption and restoration. See Isaiah 1, Isaiah 55:7, Ezekiel 18, etc. Note that life is in the blood (Lev 17:11). Blood symbolizes life and purity… sin is a synonym for death, impurity and defilement. Life purifies death, replacing death with life. The work of Christ was to destroy the hold of the grave and redeem us, by His life. "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" Rom 5:10. The Old Testament included animal sacrifices as the animal’s life served as a symbolic covering of the community, but note that the animal was not tortured or intended to suffer, as it was not its suffering and death which appeased God, but its life that symbolized God’s coming merciful covering and purification in Christ. Also, note the “almost” in (a), a qualifier noting the ordinances included sacrifices that did not involve blood. They could also bring a grain offering of fine flour instead of an animal (blood), as the flour would be turned into bread, a food sustaining life - again, the emphasis is on life and provision, not death and suffering. Here again we see the animal’s life symbolizing the Life of Christ and the bread His body (think Last Supper). At the Last Supper, Jesus used the Greek term ἄρτος (artos) for bread... this is not unleavened bread, but the every day leavened bread. While the Passover used unleavened bread to symbolize they didn't have time for their bread to rise, given their hurried escape from slavery... Jesus was using leavened bread specifically drawing attention to His raised body, the return of Life to His dead body.... Life literally driving out death. Hebrews 9 is affirming God doesn’t stop at merely pardoning the repentant, but fully redeeming them and restoring them. He did not simply forgive the repentant, leaving them prisoners of the grave… but assumed the totality of human nature to die, conquer death, bringing life and renewal… thereby demonstrating He was just in pardoning, and the Justifier of those whom He pardons.
Drew, I would love to talk to you if you were interested. I have done an insane amount of study on this over the last year mainly focused on the scriptures. I am not as motivated to read the early church fathers, even though I think what they have to say is important and should be taken into consideration. I did a massive study on the “atonement” words in the scriptures. This applies to the Hebrew words “kapar” and “kipur” as well as the Greek words ”hilaskomai” and “hilasmos”, among others. There is a lot of confusion surrounding the word atonement because it has been so broadly used by translators and has evolved to mean something different than what it originally meant. One thing I would draw your attention to is that if the Greek word “hilaskomai” was meant to refer to the act of propitiation or appeasement, notice what the object of that appeasement is in Hebrews 2:17. It is “the sins”, not God’s wrath. What sense does it make to say sins were appeased? It turns out that this is consistently how these words are used throughout the scriptures. When it comes to sacrificial language, the “atonement words” never have as their object God or His wrath. I would be more than happy to share more hard data with you, if you are interested. I am just not sure the YT comment section is the best place to share all of that.
The biggest problem I see is that Warren (whom I like, BTW) argues from a philosophical POV. Trinitarian "orthodoxy" is almost purely philosophical in nature. What the early church and "Fathers" believed and taught is interesting but not authoritative. The only authority is what the scripture teaches. So, let's approach this by only using Scripture. Let's build a biblical-theological position.
I think you can use both without arguing what the fathers or early church believed is authoritative the same as scripture. The church fathers, reformers, modern theologians, etc can all be people who help us understand and interact with scripture while still not being the authority on its interpretation. My push back here is just that we do not need to go to just Bible only here to counteract the error we see in Warren's theological method.
I may be behind on the scholarship regarding PSA but I am not understanding the objection people have with it. From my perspective Christ took the penulty, we justly deserve, in our place, so that we can be forgiven and God can remain perfectly just in judgment of sins. Its penal (P) in that he took our punishment. Its substitutionary (S) in that he stood in for us and suffered for our sins, and Its (A)tonement because if we have faith in it we are justified and made right with God. It was both the most loving act ever done and involved the propitiation of the Father's wrath, thus producing the satisfaction of the demands of devine justice. Sins had to be punished and that retains God’s perfect justice as Judge of all. It's truly the gospel. [21] for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him. 2 Corinthians 5:21 YLT98 Note: It was late when I started this video and I haven't finished it yet. ( i will tomorrow) So maybe my understanding of your points will improve.
32:12 Yes! God was already propitious and well-disposed toward humanity. His anger and wrath did not have to be assuaged by the gruesome death of his Son on the cross.
I think there is some confusion on this point. many who hold PSA believe that the Father or our unique union and communion with the Father is categorized by His love for us. I think Warren's view supposes a passible God.
I have a criticism and a positive to share in response; I'll start with the criticism first: As someone from the outside of Provisionism and "Open" perspectives looking in, beware of defining "honesty" in a partisan fashion. When only one side is "being honest," it looks like an attempt by that one side to win the culture wars by shifting the Overton window. That's bad news. But perhaps it's the logical extension of the "I can't believe anyone would be a Calvinist" style podcast. Maybe my expectations are too high here?! Having said that, Drew and Warren are a lot of fun to listen to and winsome. Your ideas and ways of expressing your positions are entertaining and enjoyable! Kind Calvinist regards, JC Bear!
In real life, I hate using the term "honest" as it suggests a rarity in an otherwise dishonest lifestyle... but I think Drew meant he was being honest about his own concerns over PSA. At least, that's how I took it rather than others were being dishonest.
12:25 The biblical record, mostly in the Old Testament, but also in the New, of how God's wrath/anger is expressed has always baffled and challenged me. I've struggled to make sense of it in light of Christ's teachings, life, death and resurrection. The Hebrew Scriptures can't be taken in isolation from the Christian Scriptures with the revelation of the Messiah. The Bible doesn't teach that God is anger or wrath. Certainly, God gets angry. But, in his essence, God is love. This, and other things, may be characteristic of God. But they must flow from his divine nature, which is love. Everything we read about God in Scripture - his holiness, righteousness, anger, justice, mercy, forgiveness, etc. - must be defined by the God who is love. So, whatever is said about PSA must also be defined in this way. If it can't be, then it's not biblical.
This is all too complicated. I see the atonement as a bridge over a great chasm, or a ladder from Earth to Heaven. Man is on one side, haters of God (in that we do not believe/obey Him), enemies, sinners, enslaved to the sins we have done individually and even corporately (God visits the sins of the fathers for generations), doomed to die. God is on the other, perfect, holy, unknown by the world, loving, slow to anger, just. Our sin had to be dealt with, death needed to be defeated, we needed to know Him. Gods holiness had to be appeased, His wrath/judgement/justice had to be satisfied, He had to be revealed so that we could believe in Him. Jesus did all of this in the cross, He has, in one tragedy, saved mankind, and appeased God. We can now know Him through Christ and be reconciled to Him through faith. I agree God can forgive, but the sin, the consequences of that sin still needed to be done with.
The problem is some of what you said cannot be supported with scripture so while it may be simple, it isn’t true. Also, lies are not harmless. They serve to keep people in bondage to sin, not free them to live and serve their Creator. Finally, I think the complication isn’t in what is true, but what it takes to untangle ourselves from the lies we’ve been told and have naively believed. I feel your pain. I used to believe in PSA. When I became convinced it was false, I had a born again experience because I finally had an unadulterated understanding of the love of God and the destructive power of sin. I have spent over a year studying and anxiously trying to understand what is actually true. It’s not easy, but I wouldn’t trade it for anything. I am just thankful that God rescued me from false teachings such as this. I would encourage you not to take this lightly. I don’t know how you live your life so you may be different than most, but so many have time for TV shows, movies, sports, video games, etc., but get overwhelmed at the idea of spending focused time studying the Word of God and learning the truth. This shouldn’t be how it is. We should pursue truth with everything we have. It may save us from eternal death and may help us save others or protect us from hurting others by sharing lies with them that affect them in ways they didn’t affect us.
Hmmmm....I don't find this very convincing. I'm open to correction by the Lord though, but these arguments seem to be more philosophical, using human reasoning, than scriptural. Just because we don't want a thing to be true doesn't mean it isn't. I can reason myself into or out of anything if I try hard enough, which is why I always rest on what is plain in the scriptures. Scripture is where I find God's truth, not in any man made doctrine, even if it is encouraged by those I respect (Warren McGrew). That's where I am at this point in time. If I'm wrong on certain aspects or the whole thing, I trust and pray God will show me as I study further. I am open and learning as I read the word each time.
@savemyplace235 if scripture is where you find God’s truth, then you’d quickly realize that nowhere in scripture does God pour out His wrath on Christ. For God so LOVED the world that He sent His son. NOT God so hated the world! He satisfied His LOVE at the cross. He sent His Son to satisfy His LOVE not His wrath! The cross was an act of love not wrath. The pagan god Molech required human sacrifice to satisfy wrath. Our holy God required the sacrifice of His Son to satisfy His LOVE. 1 JOHN 4:10 10 HEREIN IS 👉LOVE,👈 not that we loved God, but that HE LOVED US, and sent his Son to be the PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS. 1 John 4:10 does not say, “herein is WRATH.” God sent His Son to appease God’s LOVE not His wrath. ROMANS 5:8,9 8 But God COMMENDETH HIS 👉LOVE👈toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from WRATH through him. This is scripture for you, not philosophy. For God soo LOVED the world…
@@apilkey Interesting way of putting things. I will keep this in mind as I read the word. I'm still not convinced and I'm not looking to go against my conscience, but like I said I am open to God correcting me through His Holy Spirit as I study and pray. I'm just not easily swayed by any person, when things don't add up to me when I take the whole of scripture into account. I always allow my mind to be changed if God says something is true, or false though. It's why my mind was changed very quickly concerning certain Calvinistic belief's that had crept in and also how I jumped at the chance to embrace a dynamic open theism when I heard it spoken of. Why? Because it all added up in the scriptures, I just didn't know there was any other way of thinking of them. There was so much cognitive dissonance that was instantly relieved in those moments. Such joy. Anyway, I will return here to this thread if there is any change in my beliefs concerning this. Thank you for your comment. God bless you.
@@savemyplace235I have a google document I have worked hard on that I would love to share with you if you’re interested and care about what the scriptures say. It basically follows a “people say…” “however, the Bible says…” theme. PSA is anti Christ, anti God and anti follower of Christ. I used to hold to it so I appreciate why people think the Bible teaches it. So many verses have been colored for us that it can be difficult to untangle ourselves from the indoctrination. PSA is a very clever twisting of the truth that blasphemes God and contributes to keeping people in bondage to sin. Just a couple of snippets from my google document to give you an idea what’s in it… People say, “God punished an innocent person in the place of guilty people“ However, the Bible says, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” - Ezekiel 18:20 (NASB95) People say, “God shed innocent blood so He could give life to the guilty” However, the Bible says, “There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood,” - Proverbs 6:16-17 (NASB95) People say, “God condemned a righteous person so He could justify the wicked” However, the Bible says, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.” - Proverbs 17:15 (NASB95)
@apilkey It was the will of the father to wound and crush him... Isaiah 53:10 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.
PSA was something that took me some time to study out and eventually abandon. Does t seem to be in scripture at all. Big reason for me was understanding the priesthood throughout all of scripture. And how atonemt was made. And never was it by a human Sacrifice. In fact a human sacrifice is what the other nations around them did. And that was an abomination and anti Gods law as described in Leviticus. God bless
Which always bothered me the story of Abraham and Isaac. Did Abraham really hear from God to sacrifice his son? It was an abomination, so why would God ask him to do something that was an abomination
@ he was testing his faith, Abraham said God would provide the perfect lamb sacrafice ( type and shadow of how The Father had to let His only son go down and suffer) A ram was caught in the thicket though. It wasn't time yet. Which if you study the Old Testament, is an animal used as a sin offering, prepared and eaten by the priest and the community. Sacrifices weren't just for blood. They were meals for Israel. It was a type and shadow I think of Christ used as a metaphors but the priests were the ones that made atonement for the people. Any time an animal was used, especially the spotless lamb. Just metaphor. Not actual human flesh as an atonement meal. The entire story is a type and shadow of How our Father in Heaven had to sacrifice His only son in order that we could have access to the kingdom of heaven. And Christ could be lifted up as our high priest to atone for our sins just like the priesthood in earth was set up. A copy and shadow of that in heaven. As well as the images of the altar and the priest... (in this case Abraham). Why the ram was used and not the human
@ but it didnt happen brother. It was a faith test that was never going to happen. The angel of the lord stepped in to divert his attention to the ram. Not an abomination in the sense that it was directed to be carried out. I'm sure your faith had been tested by abominations in your life hasn't it? It's how our faith is refined stronger than iron. Like sexual immorality? Tested by these things to prove our faith to our Father and our lord
@@jhrsmailI would add that it might have been God teaching Abraham that, unlike the other gods Abraham had grown up with, He did not want human sacrifice. If humans were going to give Him a gift, it was not to involve the shedding of human blood. It definitely seems twisted to us who have been brought up in a post Christ world, but if it was God’s way of distinguishing Himself from the gods of the other nations, it makes more sense to me. God made it clear that, while He deserved as much as any other god, unlike the others gods, He would not demand and did not want human sacrifice from those who worshipped Him
What is the Father is "rendered propitious" supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that the Father was propitiated? You seem to be using weird grammar...
The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The Lord takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies. 3 The Lord is slow to anger but great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished.
2 Corinthians 11:3-4 -But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. -For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Jesus was the second Adam. Jesus had all the human weaknesses and Adam's sinless nature before the fall. Adam sinned. Adam didn't trust God. Jesus did not sin. Thus defeating Satan. Jesus trusted the Father.
As someone with both Celtic and Viking ancestry (that now follows Messiah) it really bothers me how Christians have incorporated pagan practices to celebrate our Messiah 🤔... Could someone please provide scriptural evidence of how we are told to celebrate Christmas and what date our Messiah was actually born using scripture thanks...
Dr. Michael Heiser did a lot of research on the date. It was September 11, and the year (I think) was 3 BC. He also did a video on Christmas. If you search UA-cam you can find them and then consider the information provided and follow your conscience. I personally don’t celebrate Christmas, but not because I consider it pagan. I don’t celebrate Easter, either. I just celebrate the Biblical feasts, but acknowledge the work of Christ that they point to.
@DepDawg thanks my friend I've seen his videos I agree it was around September time... Way before Christians incorporated dressing their home with evergreens in the winter my ancestors were doing it the Druids,( the priests of the Celts) decorated the temples with evergreens as a symbol of everlasting life... The Vikings thought that evergreens were the special plant of the sun god... Even the early Romans marked the solstice by decorated their homes and temples with evergreens...
I agree, but an honest question for you, should God be angry at some things? God's wrath being satisfied seems like it will be fulfilled in the future. An example I can think of is the "wine of the wrath of God" in Revelation 14:10.
@@goodshorts - "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb" (Speaking of those who take the mark of the beast, and worship a truly heinous false God) I think what is being referred to there is echoing what we see in Isaih 44, of those who make and worship idols; "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish" Simply put, I think the wine of the wrath of God is Him allowing the disintegration of the minds (and hearts) of the people who seriously attempt to play God, by Him doing nothing to prevent it. Withdrawing His orderliness, one might say, leaving them to their own futile struggle to save themselves from the inevitable collapse of sanity itself, without it.
It seems like u just love the goal post. If god could just for give without the cross why couldn’t he save and redeem without the cross. He is god right? To me it just seams like that HOW god chooses to forgive and the same with redeeming those who trust in his son. And that makes him both just the the justifier.
What do you make of “We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and *the Lord has punished him* for the iniquity of us all. ” -Isaiah 53:6
@@TheProvisionistPerspective That is simply an awful translation that must be completely influenced by the bias that resulted from the translator’s preexisting acceptance of PSA. I am going to share notes I wrote for Isaiah 53:6 from a google document I created which covers all of Isaiah 53 below. Hope they are helpful. (NASB95) All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. Both Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 53:12 use the Hebrew word “pāḡaʿ” which basically means “to encounter” or “to meet” The NASB95 renders pāḡaʿ as “has caused to fall” in Isaiah 53:6, “interceded” in Isaiah 53:12, Isaiah 59:16 and Jeremiah 7:16, “approach” in Genesis 23:8, “came” in Genesis 28:11, “met” in Genesis 32:1 and “meet” in Exodus 23:4 Isaiah 53:6 (παρέδωκεν) and Isaiah 53:12 (παρεδόθη) both use variations of the Greek word “παραδίδωμι” which means “to give into the hands” or “to give over into (one's) power or use”. This same Greek word is used in Matthew 17:22, Matthew 20:18, Matthew 26:2, Matthew 26:45, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33, Luke 9:44, Luke 18:32, Luke 24:7, Romans 4:25, Romans 8:32, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 5:2 and Ephesians 5:25 where we learn that Christ was delivered over into the hands of evil men I think this verse, given the meaning of the Hebrew word pāḡa, is intending to communicate something like, “He caused Him and our iniquities to meet”. The reality is this is exactly what happened during His life. He met our iniquities and either disposed of them or endured them. The gospel accounts testify clearly about these things Even though the words "to fall on Him" sound weird and seemed to support an incorrect understanding of it to me in the past, the words themselves are not inaccurate. When leaves from a tree fall on me, the leaves and I meet.
@@TheProvisionistPerspective How certain are you that this is the best translation of that verse? Most translations render Isaiah 53:6 in a way that doesn't necessitate PSA. The Hebrew verb, פָּגַע, is not normally translated as "punished." It may be a bias in your chosen translation that is the stumbling block here. But I really appreciate where you're coming from on this subject. I assumed PSA was biblical, and I'm also questioning it.
@@servant-of-Yeshuathe reading in the NET is very close to the Hebrew. If you have the full version with notes, there is an accompany note that is really worth reading. “All of us had wandered off like sheep; each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him.” Note: Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע (paga’) means “to intercede verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25) or “to intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, “encounter, meet, touch.” The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (bet, see Josh 2:16; Judg 8:21; 15:12, etc.). Here the causative Hiphil has a double object-the Lord makes “sin” attack “him” (note that the object attacked is introduced by the preposition -בְּ. In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack.
Well, fellas, I think the next topic that needs to be explored is the Trinity doctrine. I love watching men of the faith grow and change because of the word of God and our Messiah's words rather than the doctrines that have been pushed on us for 1000s of years. This one is a big one for me. PSA was a big one for me to walk away from and now the Trinity is another one that I'm exploring deeply. And I would urge you all to explore through scripture as well. Sean Griffin of the channel Kingdom in context would be a great person to have on and discuss. God bless and Godspeed on your journey
@ Well, as I agree with looking into things. I do disagree with you that we need to look into the Diety of Christ as something that isn't clear. Unfortunately, the Trinitarian group has lumped that into the argument. But just doesn't exist. All throughout the Old Testament its prophesied of Gods sons Diety and lordship. He's just his own being. God bless. Have a great day.
@@scottyfleming2203 Just to be clear you believe Jesus is God and there is more than one God? So you believe in the diety of Jesus but that God the Father is also a diety? So they are all separate Gods? More of a polytheism?
@ oh well here we go. No, I just believe the words that are written. That the son was begotten. Please just go do some research brother before you start arguing. Find out where this Trinity thing came from. And go just look up the definitions of words. Like Elohim in Hebrew. It's uses. Christ is lord. But he's not the almighty. This is another discussion that people from the modern church Don't understand the front of the Bible that they use. If you did, you would understand if there are two seats in the temple. You are conforming to old philosophies's brother I'm not gonna get into a long form argument with someone that doesn't understand what the other perspective is. God bless. I hope you do look into it. And I hope you throw away. Roman Catholic lies and philosophies from the first second centuries God bless From the father and son and the Holy Spirit O
@ There is a channel on UA-cam called Kingdom in context. I think they do a really good job of breaking down the story of the Bible from beginning to end Without a lot of of the philosophical ideas and doctrines that have been created by men along the centuries. They have a playlist. There's a bunch of them, but if you start with the first one, I think it's just labeled for beginners. Meaning, beginning to understand these concepts not that you're somehow not knowledgeable enough Give that shot. And again, I'm very sorry
Warren you have to define wrath. You don't understand the position God inhabits. You want to bring God down to human emotional level. This is a failure to understand the position God hold in the universe. Also there is a lack of understanding of OT sacrificial system and what it is.
The legal penal substitution theory is a lie. I don't believe that nonsense. Jesus was the sacrifice. Jesus offers you and me His life. By faith, righteousness is imparted and imputed. Sin is in humanity, not God. Humans need healing. Accept Christ's life, like the metaphor of the bread and wine, and be saved.
I don’t know how anybody can honestly continue believing these ancient fantasies. Don’t Theists have the slightest capacity to differentiate between imagination and reality?
@davethebrahman9870 your name suggests an affirmation of Hinduism, yet here you argue against Theists at large. Have your views evolved since choosing that handle?
7:35 “as far as I know I affirm PSA, but I’m kind of questioning it” Drew
Wow what a rock ribbed statement affirming PSA! 😅
Sorry to disappoint! 😅
Isaiah 53:4-5: "he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed."
Without the resurrection we are still in our sin. We are saved by His life.
Am I the only one who becomes more confused on this topic the more I listen to non PSA? I'm not being snarky and I'm not joking I really become more and more confused on the topic.
What is missing in your assessment of PSA is the fact that what Christ did, He did in real time within human history to fulfill the law and the prophets which will never be fully understood until we are in eternity so when you say that the adherence of those who affirm PSA do not believe there is no real redemptive work in the life of Christ during the first 33 years of his life (1:00:11) is to miss fulfillment part of Christ’s ministry.
I did make a reply to Warren on a video that had William Lane Craig in it. Found it interesting this came up immediately after(within a few hours). I deleted the reply, because I sort of realized maybe I don't have a full understanding of this issue with the atonement. I know there are supposedly multiple theories and understand that the issue with PSA it seems to be 'God pouring wrath on Jesus Christ', where scripture seems to show that the atonement is more of an act of love rather than wrath. Where scripture does show God does have wrath, but not at the atonement.
Warren calls into question Hebrews 9:22 (b) by quoting Hebrews 9:22 (a) without addressing (b). What does b mean? (a) refers to the purification of all things, which is not the same as the forgiveness mentioned in (b). No explanation was given except logic in relation to Is. 53:10 and "if-then" fallacies with respect to Trinitarian philosophy and the character of God. What is needed is a biblical-theological foundation for what we believe.
“And almost all things are cleansed with blood…” Heb 9:22 (a)
“…according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Heb 9:22 (b)
God gave them animal sacrifices in the same way He gave them divorce and a human king… a concession meeting them where they were, while using all as examples, drawing our attention to our brokenness and His ideal and plan of redemption and restoration. See Isaiah 1, Isaiah 55:7, Ezekiel 18, etc.
Note that life is in the blood (Lev 17:11). Blood symbolizes life and purity… sin is a synonym for death, impurity and defilement. Life purifies death, replacing death with life. The work of Christ was to destroy the hold of the grave and redeem us, by His life. "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" Rom 5:10.
The Old Testament included animal sacrifices as the animal’s life served as a symbolic covering of the community, but note that the animal was not tortured or intended to suffer, as it was not its suffering and death which appeased God, but its life that symbolized God’s coming merciful covering and purification in Christ. Also, note the “almost” in (a), a qualifier noting the ordinances included sacrifices that did not involve blood. They could also bring a grain offering of fine flour instead of an animal (blood), as the flour would be turned into bread, a food sustaining life - again, the emphasis is on life and provision, not death and suffering. Here again we see the animal’s life symbolizing the Life of Christ and the bread His body (think Last Supper). At the Last Supper, Jesus used the Greek term ἄρτος (artos) for bread... this is not unleavened bread, but the every day leavened bread. While the Passover used unleavened bread to symbolize they didn't have time for their bread to rise, given their hurried escape from slavery... Jesus was using leavened bread specifically drawing attention to His raised body, the return of Life to His dead body.... Life literally driving out death.
Hebrews 9 is affirming God doesn’t stop at merely pardoning the repentant, but fully redeeming them and restoring them. He did not simply forgive the repentant, leaving them prisoners of the grave… but assumed the totality of human nature to die, conquer death, bringing life and renewal… thereby demonstrating He was just in pardoning, and the Justifier of those whom He pardons.
@@IdolKiller Thank you for this response. I'll get back to you in due course...
Drew, I would love to talk to you if you were interested. I have done an insane amount of study on this over the last year mainly focused on the scriptures. I am not as motivated to read the early church fathers, even though I think what they have to say is important and should be taken into consideration.
I did a massive study on the “atonement” words in the scriptures. This applies to the Hebrew words “kapar” and “kipur” as well as the Greek words ”hilaskomai” and “hilasmos”, among others. There is a lot of confusion surrounding the word atonement because it has been so broadly used by translators and has evolved to mean something different than what it originally meant. One thing I would draw your attention to is that if the Greek word “hilaskomai” was meant to refer to the act of propitiation or appeasement, notice what the object of that appeasement is in Hebrews 2:17. It is “the sins”, not God’s wrath. What sense does it make to say sins were appeased? It turns out that this is consistently how these words are used throughout the scriptures. When it comes to sacrificial language, the “atonement words” never have as their object God or His wrath. I would be more than happy to share more hard data with you, if you are interested. I am just not sure the YT comment section is the best place to share all of that.
Excellent points.
The biggest problem I see is that Warren (whom I like, BTW) argues from a philosophical POV. Trinitarian "orthodoxy" is almost purely philosophical in nature. What the early church and "Fathers" believed and taught is interesting but not authoritative. The only authority is what the scripture teaches. So, let's approach this by only using Scripture. Let's build a biblical-theological position.
I think you can use both without arguing what the fathers or early church believed is authoritative the same as scripture. The church fathers, reformers, modern theologians, etc can all be people who help us understand and interact with scripture while still not being the authority on its interpretation. My push back here is just that we do not need to go to just Bible only here to counteract the error we see in Warren's theological method.
He would be speaking for most Texans though 😆👍🏻
I may be behind on the scholarship regarding PSA but I am not understanding the objection people have with it. From my perspective Christ took the penulty, we justly deserve, in our place, so that we can be forgiven and God can remain perfectly just in judgment of sins. Its penal (P) in that he took our punishment. Its substitutionary (S) in that he stood in for us and suffered for our sins, and Its (A)tonement because if we have faith in it we are justified and made right with God.
It was both the most loving act ever done and involved the propitiation of the Father's wrath, thus producing the satisfaction of the demands of devine justice. Sins had to be punished and that retains God’s perfect justice as Judge of all. It's truly the gospel.
[21] for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him. 2 Corinthians 5:21 YLT98
Note: It was late when I started this video and I haven't finished it yet. ( i will tomorrow) So maybe my understanding of your points will improve.
32:12 Yes! God was already propitious and well-disposed toward humanity. His anger and wrath did not have to be assuaged by the gruesome death of his Son on the cross.
I think there is some confusion on this point. many who hold PSA believe that the Father or our unique union and communion with the Father is categorized by His love for us. I think Warren's view supposes a passible God.
WLC is not a Calvinist but affirms PSA
I’m not under the impression it is exclusive to Calvinism though it seems all Calvinists hold to it
I can't tell you how much I get from these. Love you brothers!
I have a criticism and a positive to share in response; I'll start with the criticism first:
As someone from the outside of Provisionism and "Open" perspectives looking in, beware of defining "honesty" in a partisan fashion. When only one side is "being honest," it looks like an attempt by that one side to win the culture wars by shifting the Overton window. That's bad news. But perhaps it's the logical extension of the "I can't believe anyone would be a Calvinist" style podcast. Maybe my expectations are too high here?!
Having said that, Drew and Warren are a lot of fun to listen to and winsome. Your ideas and ways of expressing your positions are entertaining and enjoyable!
Kind Calvinist regards, JC Bear!
In real life, I hate using the term "honest" as it suggests a rarity in an otherwise dishonest lifestyle... but I think Drew meant he was being honest about his own concerns over PSA. At least, that's how I took it rather than others were being dishonest.
“Honest” here is meaning more “vulnerable” than that others are somehow dealing dishonestly with this subject 😊
12:25 The biblical record, mostly in the Old Testament, but also in the New, of how God's wrath/anger is expressed has always baffled and challenged me.
I've struggled to make sense of it in light of Christ's teachings, life, death and resurrection.
The Hebrew Scriptures can't be taken in isolation from the Christian Scriptures with the revelation of the Messiah.
The Bible doesn't teach that God is anger or wrath. Certainly, God gets angry.
But, in his essence, God is love.
This, and other things, may be characteristic of God. But they must flow from his divine nature, which is love.
Everything we read about God in Scripture - his holiness, righteousness, anger, justice, mercy, forgiveness, etc. - must be defined by the God who is love.
So, whatever is said about PSA must also be defined in this way.
If it can't be, then it's not biblical.
@9:20 .. oops you were consumed.
This is all too complicated. I see the atonement as a bridge over a great chasm, or a ladder from Earth to Heaven. Man is on one side, haters of God (in that we do not believe/obey Him), enemies, sinners, enslaved to the sins we have done individually and even corporately (God visits the sins of the fathers for generations), doomed to die. God is on the other, perfect, holy, unknown by the world, loving, slow to anger, just.
Our sin had to be dealt with, death needed to be defeated, we needed to know Him. Gods holiness had to be appeased, His wrath/judgement/justice had to be satisfied, He had to be revealed so that we could believe in Him. Jesus did all of this in the cross, He has, in one tragedy, saved mankind, and appeased God. We can now know Him through Christ and be reconciled to Him through faith.
I agree God can forgive, but the sin, the consequences of that sin still needed to be done with.
The problem is some of what you said cannot be supported with scripture so while it may be simple, it isn’t true. Also, lies are not harmless. They serve to keep people in bondage to sin, not free them to live and serve their Creator. Finally, I think the complication isn’t in what is true, but what it takes to untangle ourselves from the lies we’ve been told and have naively believed. I feel your pain. I used to believe in PSA. When I became convinced it was false, I had a born again experience because I finally had an unadulterated understanding of the love of God and the destructive power of sin. I have spent over a year studying and anxiously trying to understand what is actually true. It’s not easy, but I wouldn’t trade it for anything. I am just thankful that God rescued me from false teachings such as this. I would encourage you not to take this lightly. I don’t know how you live your life so you may be different than most, but so many have time for TV shows, movies, sports, video games, etc., but get overwhelmed at the idea of spending focused time studying the Word of God and learning the truth. This shouldn’t be how it is. We should pursue truth with everything we have. It may save us from eternal death and may help us save others or protect us from hurting others by sharing lies with them that affect them in ways they didn’t affect us.
Hmmmm....I don't find this very convincing. I'm open to correction by the Lord though, but these arguments seem to be more philosophical, using human reasoning, than scriptural. Just because we don't want a thing to be true doesn't mean it isn't. I can reason myself into or out of anything if I try hard enough, which is why I always rest on what is plain in the scriptures. Scripture is where I find God's truth, not in any man made doctrine, even if it is encouraged by those I respect (Warren McGrew). That's where I am at this point in time. If I'm wrong on certain aspects or the whole thing, I trust and pray God will show me as I study further. I am open and learning as I read the word each time.
@savemyplace235 if scripture is where you find God’s truth, then you’d quickly realize that nowhere in scripture does God pour out His wrath on Christ.
For God so LOVED the world that He sent His son.
NOT God so hated the world!
He satisfied His LOVE at the cross.
He sent His Son to satisfy His LOVE not His wrath!
The cross was an act of love not wrath.
The pagan god Molech required human sacrifice to satisfy wrath.
Our holy God required the sacrifice of His Son to satisfy His LOVE.
1 JOHN 4:10
10 HEREIN IS 👉LOVE,👈 not that we loved God, but that HE LOVED US, and sent his Son to be the PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS.
1 John 4:10 does not say, “herein is WRATH.”
God sent His Son to appease God’s LOVE not His wrath.
ROMANS 5:8,9
8 But God COMMENDETH HIS
👉LOVE👈toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from WRATH through him.
This is scripture for you, not philosophy.
For God soo LOVED the world…
PSA isn't found in scripture... and isn't even philosophical. It's just dangerous.
@@apilkey Interesting way of putting things. I will keep this in mind as I read the word. I'm still not convinced and I'm not looking to go against my conscience, but like I said I am open to God correcting me through His Holy Spirit as I study and pray. I'm just not easily swayed by any person, when things don't add up to me when I take the whole of scripture into account. I always allow my mind to be changed if God says something is true, or false though. It's why my mind was changed very quickly concerning certain Calvinistic belief's that had crept in and also how I jumped at the chance to embrace a dynamic open theism when I heard it spoken of. Why? Because it all added up in the scriptures, I just didn't know there was any other way of thinking of them. There was so much cognitive dissonance that was instantly relieved in those moments. Such joy. Anyway, I will return here to this thread if there is any change in my beliefs concerning this. Thank you for your comment. God bless you.
@@savemyplace235I have a google document I have worked hard on that I would love to share with you if you’re interested and care about what the scriptures say. It basically follows a “people say…” “however, the Bible says…” theme. PSA is anti Christ, anti God and anti follower of Christ. I used to hold to it so I appreciate why people think the Bible teaches it. So many verses have been colored for us that it can be difficult to untangle ourselves from the indoctrination. PSA is a very clever twisting of the truth that blasphemes God and contributes to keeping people in bondage to sin. Just a couple of snippets from my google document to give you an idea what’s in it…
People say, “God punished an innocent person in the place of guilty people“
However, the Bible says,
“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” - Ezekiel 18:20 (NASB95)
People say, “God shed innocent blood so He could give life to the guilty”
However, the Bible says,
“There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood,” - Proverbs 6:16-17 (NASB95)
People say, “God condemned a righteous person so He could justify the wicked”
However, the Bible says,
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.” - Proverbs 17:15 (NASB95)
@apilkey It was the will of the father to wound and crush him...
Isaiah 53:10
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.
PSA was something that took me some time to study out and eventually abandon.
Does t seem to be in scripture at all.
Big reason for me was understanding the priesthood throughout all of scripture.
And how atonemt was made.
And never was it by a human Sacrifice. In fact a human sacrifice is what the other nations around them did.
And that was an abomination and anti Gods law as described in Leviticus.
God bless
Which always bothered me the story of Abraham and Isaac. Did Abraham really hear from God to sacrifice his son? It was an abomination, so why would God ask him to do something that was an abomination
@ he was testing his faith, Abraham said God would provide the perfect lamb sacrafice ( type and shadow of how The Father had to let His only son go down and suffer) A ram was caught in the thicket though. It wasn't time yet.
Which if you study the Old Testament, is an animal used as a sin offering, prepared and eaten by the priest and the community. Sacrifices weren't just for blood.
They were meals for Israel.
It was a type and shadow I think of Christ used as a metaphors but the priests were the ones that made atonement for the people.
Any time an animal was used, especially the spotless lamb. Just metaphor. Not actual human flesh as an atonement meal.
The entire story is a type and shadow of How our Father in Heaven had to sacrifice His only son in order that we could have access to the kingdom of heaven. And Christ could be lifted up as our high priest to atone for our sins just like the priesthood in earth was set up.
A copy and shadow of that in heaven.
As well as the images of the altar and the priest... (in this case Abraham).
Why the ram was used and not the human
@@scottyfleming2203 Right, I've been taught that all my life.. type and shadow of God and Christ, but it was still an abomination.
@ but it didnt happen brother.
It was a faith test that was never going to happen.
The angel of the lord stepped in to divert his attention to the ram.
Not an abomination in the sense that it was directed to be carried out.
I'm sure your faith had been tested by abominations in your life hasn't it?
It's how our faith is refined stronger than iron.
Like sexual immorality?
Tested by these things to prove our faith to our Father and our lord
@@jhrsmailI would add that it might have been God teaching Abraham that, unlike the other gods Abraham had grown up with, He did not want human sacrifice. If humans were going to give Him a gift, it was not to involve the shedding of human blood. It definitely seems twisted to us who have been brought up in a post Christ world, but if it was God’s way of distinguishing Himself from the gods of the other nations, it makes more sense to me. God made it clear that, while He deserved as much as any other god, unlike the others gods, He would not demand and did not want human sacrifice from those who worshipped Him
What is the Father is "rendered propitious" supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that the Father was propitiated?
You seem to be using weird grammar...
We’re just trying to be precise
The Lord is a jealous and avenging God;
the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath.
The Lord takes vengeance on his foes
and vents his wrath against his enemies.
3 The Lord is slow to anger but great in power;
the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished.
2 Corinthians 11:3-4
-But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
-For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Jesus was the second Adam.
Jesus had all the human weaknesses and Adam's sinless nature before the fall.
Adam sinned. Adam didn't trust God.
Jesus did not sin. Thus defeating Satan. Jesus trusted the Father.
Read Dr. Timothy Jennings. He is a psychologist.
As someone with both Celtic and Viking ancestry (that now follows Messiah) it really bothers me how Christians have incorporated pagan practices to celebrate our Messiah 🤔... Could someone please provide scriptural evidence of how we are told to celebrate Christmas and what date our Messiah was actually born using scripture thanks...
Dr. Michael Heiser did a lot of research on the date. It was September 11, and the year (I think) was 3 BC.
He also did a video on Christmas. If you search UA-cam you can find them and then consider the information provided and follow your conscience. I personally don’t celebrate Christmas, but not because I consider it pagan. I don’t celebrate Easter, either. I just celebrate the Biblical feasts, but acknowledge the work of Christ that they point to.
@DepDawg thanks my friend I've seen his videos I agree it was around September time... Way before Christians incorporated dressing their home with evergreens in the winter my ancestors were doing it the Druids,( the priests of the Celts) decorated the temples with evergreens as a symbol of everlasting life...
The Vikings thought that evergreens were the special plant of the sun god...
Even the early Romans marked the solstice by decorated their homes and temples with evergreens...
The very concept of God essentially having an anger management problem, seems silly to me.
I agree, but an honest question for you, should God be angry at some things? God's wrath being satisfied seems like it will be fulfilled in the future. An example I can think of is the "wine of the wrath of God" in Revelation 14:10.
@@goodshorts - "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb" (Speaking of those who take the mark of the beast, and worship a truly heinous false God)
I think what is being referred to there is echoing what we see in Isaih 44, of those who make and worship idols;
"Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish"
Simply put, I think the wine of the wrath of God is Him allowing the disintegration of the minds (and hearts) of the people who seriously attempt to play God, by Him doing nothing to prevent it. Withdrawing His orderliness, one might say, leaving them to their own futile struggle to save themselves from the inevitable collapse of sanity itself, without it.
It seems like u just love the goal post. If god could just for give without the cross why couldn’t he save and redeem without the cross. He is god right? To me it just seams like that HOW god chooses to forgive and the same with redeeming those who trust in his son. And that makes him both just the the justifier.
The Bible never says that God poured out His wrath on The Word of God His Son.
What do you make of “We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and *the Lord has punished him* for the iniquity of us all. ”
-Isaiah 53:6
@@TheProvisionistPerspective Yes, it's scriptures like this that are hard to refute.
@@TheProvisionistPerspective That is simply an awful translation that must be completely influenced by the bias that resulted from the translator’s preexisting acceptance of PSA. I am going to share notes I wrote for Isaiah 53:6 from a google document I created which covers all of Isaiah 53 below. Hope they are helpful.
(NASB95) All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
Both Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 53:12 use the Hebrew word “pāḡaʿ” which basically means “to encounter” or “to meet”
The NASB95 renders pāḡaʿ as “has caused to fall” in Isaiah 53:6, “interceded” in Isaiah 53:12, Isaiah 59:16 and Jeremiah 7:16, “approach” in Genesis 23:8, “came” in Genesis 28:11, “met” in Genesis 32:1 and “meet” in Exodus 23:4
Isaiah 53:6 (παρέδωκεν) and Isaiah 53:12 (παρεδόθη) both use variations of the Greek word “παραδίδωμι” which means “to give into the hands” or “to give over into (one's) power or use”. This same Greek word is used in Matthew 17:22, Matthew 20:18, Matthew 26:2, Matthew 26:45, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33, Luke 9:44, Luke 18:32, Luke 24:7, Romans 4:25, Romans 8:32, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 5:2 and Ephesians 5:25 where we learn that Christ was delivered over into the hands of evil men
I think this verse, given the meaning of the Hebrew word pāḡa, is intending to communicate something like, “He caused Him and our iniquities to meet”. The reality is this is exactly what happened during His life. He met our iniquities and either disposed of them or endured them. The gospel accounts testify clearly about these things
Even though the words "to fall on Him" sound weird and seemed to support an incorrect understanding of it to me in the past, the words themselves are not inaccurate. When leaves from a tree fall on me, the leaves and I meet.
@@TheProvisionistPerspective How certain are you that this is the best translation of that verse? Most translations render Isaiah 53:6 in a way that doesn't necessitate PSA.
The Hebrew verb, פָּגַע, is not normally translated as "punished." It may be a bias in your chosen translation that is the stumbling block here.
But I really appreciate where you're coming from on this subject. I assumed PSA was biblical, and I'm also questioning it.
@@servant-of-Yeshuathe reading in the NET is very close to the Hebrew. If you have the full version with notes, there is an accompany note that is really worth reading.
“All of us had wandered off like sheep; each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him.”
Note: Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע (paga’) means “to intercede verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25) or “to intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, “encounter, meet, touch.” The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (bet, see Josh 2:16; Judg 8:21; 15:12, etc.). Here the causative Hiphil has a double object-the Lord makes “sin” attack “him” (note that the object attacked is introduced by the preposition -בְּ. In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack.
12:35 Yes, the work of Christ is multifaceted. I don't think any of them were worked out in great detail.
Maybe we would be wise to leave it that way.
Well, fellas, I think the next topic that needs to be explored is the Trinity doctrine.
I love watching men of the faith grow and change because of the word of God and our Messiah's words rather than the doctrines that have been pushed on us for 1000s of years.
This one is a big one for me. PSA was a big one for me to walk away from and now the Trinity is another one that I'm exploring deeply. And I would urge you all to explore through scripture as well.
Sean Griffin of the channel Kingdom in context would be a great person to have on and discuss.
God bless and Godspeed on your journey
@
Well, as I agree with looking into things. I do disagree with you that we need to look into the Diety of Christ as something that isn't clear.
Unfortunately, the Trinitarian group has lumped that into the argument.
But just doesn't exist.
All throughout the Old Testament its prophesied of Gods sons Diety and lordship.
He's just his own being.
God bless. Have a great day.
@@scottyfleming2203 Just to be clear you believe Jesus is God and there is more than one God? So you believe in the diety of Jesus but that God the Father is also a diety? So they are all separate Gods? More of a polytheism?
@ oh well here we go.
No, I just believe the words that are written. That the son was begotten.
Please just go do some research brother before you start arguing.
Find out where this Trinity thing came from.
And go just look up the definitions of words.
Like Elohim in Hebrew.
It's uses. Christ is lord. But he's not the almighty.
This is another discussion that people from the modern church Don't understand the front of the Bible that they use.
If you did, you would understand if there are two seats in the temple.
You are conforming to old philosophies's brother
I'm not gonna get into a long form argument with someone that doesn't understand what the other perspective is. God bless. I hope you do look into it.
And I hope you throw away. Roman Catholic lies and philosophies from the first second centuries
God bless
From the father and son and the Holy Spirit
O
@@scottyfleming2203 Wow. Really wasn't arguing in the least. I was seriously curious as to where you were coming from. lol
@
There is a channel on UA-cam called Kingdom in context.
I think they do a really good job of breaking down the story of the Bible from beginning to end
Without a lot of of the philosophical ideas and doctrines that have been created by men along the centuries.
They have a playlist. There's a bunch of them, but if you start with the first one, I think it's just labeled for beginners.
Meaning, beginning to understand these concepts not that you're somehow not knowledgeable enough
Give that shot.
And again, I'm very sorry
Warren you have to define wrath. You don't understand the position God inhabits. You want to bring God down to human emotional level. This is a failure to understand the position God hold in the universe. Also there is a lack of understanding of OT sacrificial system and what it is.
Jesus came to save Israel from the curse of their law (1st covenant) - see Heb. 9.15. Jesus saves mankind from death - see Romans 5.
😂 Never trust a Calvinist who uses the word "possible".
The legal penal substitution theory is a lie. I don't believe that nonsense.
Jesus was the sacrifice. Jesus offers you and me His life. By faith, righteousness is imparted and imputed. Sin is in humanity, not God. Humans need healing. Accept Christ's life, like the metaphor of the bread and wine, and be saved.
If God doesn't have wrath, explain reaping and sowing? Jesus Himself said, "live by the sword, die by the sword.".
I don’t know that any of us were arguing that God “doesn’t have wrath”…
@@TheProvisionistPerspectiveGod has wrath. It's poured out at the second coming.
Atonement is understood through one's own view of God's character. A false view of God is harmful. It creates mental anguish.
I don’t know how anybody can honestly continue believing these ancient fantasies. Don’t Theists have the slightest capacity to differentiate between imagination and reality?
welcome to the channel friend!
@ Thank you! I hope your beliefs are strong enough to encourage you to engage in discussion!
@davethebrahman9870 your name suggests an affirmation of Hinduism, yet here you argue against Theists at large. Have your views evolved since choosing that handle?
@@IdolKiller No, the handle is in respect of a type of docile and ugly bull popular in my country :)
@@davethebrahman9870 ah! That was my second guess lol
Without the resurrection we are still in our sin. We are saved by His life.