NT Wright: Christus victor vs penal substitution atonement // Premier Christianity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 сер 2024
- Tom Wright explains why we shouldn't separate Christus Victor and Penal Substitution views of the atonement from each other or the rest of the Gospels.
For the Ask NT Wright Anything podcast, newsletter and bonus content subscribe at www.askntwright...
Read Justin’s full interview with NT Wright about his book on the meaning of the cross "The Day The Revolution Began" at
www.premierchri...
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Premier
www.premier.org.uk
Premier exists to enable people to put their Faith at the heart of daily life and bring Christ to their communities. We support people on their faith journey and help them put their faith into action by providing spiritual nourishment and resources.
Premier Player - Exclusive videos
player.premier....
Facebook
/ togetherpremier
Twitter
/ togetherpremier
Instagram
/ premierradio
Premier Christian Radio
www.premierchri...
Premier Gospel - Music for Life
www.premiergosp...
Premier Praise
www.premierprai...
Premier Christianity magazine
www.premierchri...
Premier Youthwork magazine
www.premieryout...
Premier Childrenswork magazine
www.premierchil...
Premier Lifeline - The Nations Christian Helpline
www.premierlife...
what would I do with out that zoom in on his hands.
😄
I never fully understood the gospel until that very moment
It was especially important for Italians who may come across this video.
P
So God doesn't get angry over sinners?
These things are going over my head and it’s ok. Love this quote by A W Tozer “God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination, and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence say, "0 Lord, Thou knowest." Those things belong to the deep and mysterious Profound of God's omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints.”
Tozer apparently told a college student at one of his gatherings that "when you find men in your dormitory debating calvinism and free will, retreat from the conversation and go into your room and pray. One day you will have more understanding of what is important than them."
That pits theology against spirituality in a way that is inaccurate and spurious
Tell Tozer@@privatepyle2200
@@privatepyle2200 I don’t think it is. It’s talking about relationship with God is more important than studying without purpose. I’ve seen many people run with love for theology and not do the simple commandments and teachings of Jesus Christ. I was one of them. I’m very satisfied with theology as long as I obey the clear and simple words of Jesus Christ.
Y’all, I’m just so glad Jesus died for us so that we could have these annoying arguments. I’m so glad his grace is sufficient through all our disagreements.
It makes a huge difference. Without Christ Victor it makes God to be a egotistical God who demanded a sacrifice who wanted to kill his creation all out of ego and justice. When you put the two together it plays out while we are guilty and Christ took our place he came out of love for mankind because in compassion he saw man could not save himself and willingly died on the cross to conquer sin and death. in orthodox iconography we show Jesus pulling Adam and Eve from Hades. Jesus saving mankind and power over death, hell and the grave.
Marc Marmolejo couldn’t have put it better. These were always the questions I kept coming up against with psa, which I was taught heavily growing up.
@@sinfulyetsaved
So God doesn't get angry over sinners?
Agreed. While I reject penal substitution because its logical endpoints are heretical, I would not consider someone who believes in it to be less of a true Christian. Many sincere Christians have accepted PSA over the years (indeed, been told it's the ONLY valid way to understand he cross), and they need our prayers. Ask God to fill them with His Spirit and reveal a more biblical understanding of atonement to them.
@@hotwax9376
Why is condemnation eternal? Those who refuse to believe in Jesus' only-one-sacrifice will indeed suffer God's anger. Moreover they will suffer God's anger forever because there is no more sacrifice to free them from condemnation (Heb10:26,27).
Brilliant.Jesus recapitulates the Passover making His Own Blood stand before the Angel of Death.And creating God's Promised Land on Earth.Awesome Jesus.
'&"_*Did God show anger on Jesus on the cross?
Premise 1: God was & is angry upon humans for their sins (Rom1:18+Job42:7). Premise 2: The sins of humans was laid upon Jesus (isa53:5). Conclusion: So God was angry upon Jesus.
@@savedchristian4754 Isaiah 53:5 says by our sins, not for our sins. Jesus was the lamb slain before world where there was no wrath at all…Jesus died for our forgiveness and the sealing of an eternal covenant between Father and Son…
Father was never angry at Jesus. That’s calvanism and a view that comes from law based thinking and not the heart of the Father at all
@@tylerjohnson1352
Isa53:5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Hope you have read this verse.
Yes! And look at this promise found in Acts 16:
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your house(hold)."
In the Passover, all in the household which was covered by the Paschal blood upon the doorway were spared the wrath of God.
Excellent explanation of what happened at the cross
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
NT Wright is right on point!
Jesus emphatically insists (John's Gospel) that everything he said and did was representative of the Father; this - not an oppositional construct - is where the essential meaning and power of the cross is to be found. His sacrifice is how we know divine love, and how love that is enacted; by it God is made known and glorified - here we find who God IS in what God does - for us.
woah, never considered that. thanks friend.
That’s a piece of the puzzle certainly. But the Abelardian error isn’t in affirming the cross as a self-giving display of God but of insisting in e exclusivity of that mode of speaking.
@@vngelicath1580 I agree. My point is along those lines: that that exclusive mode of speaking is other than corroboration of all prior and other insights into the invisible God (e.g. that the cross confirms sinful humanity's most dire fears re. the essential nature of the invisible God); rather what is (more than displayed) given in the cross of Christ is utterly surprising; in that respect subversive and remaking; and calls for something new in the way of Christian life and theology - not some moral/spiritual amendment to religion.
I have been reading Gerhard Forde (again last night) and am compelling that the gospel is a radical gospel, not an amendment to Adam's religion. Thanks for the comment!
@@fr397
God is love but does not show love to humans apart from the merits of Jesus. When God's love reaches humans, it is no more love but grace that is, unmerited love.
@@savedchristian4754 Only God has the intrinsic right and power to exist. And this is what the grace of God through Jesus Christ gives His own.
It's both Christ provides redemption through his blood and power for holy living through the Spirit.
!(;+:Did God show anger on Jesus on the cross?
Premise 1: God was & is angry upon humans for their sins (Rom1:18+Job42:7). Premise 2: The sins of humans was laid upon Jesus (isa53:5). Conclusion: So God was angry upon Jesus.
God bless N.T Write
Did God show anger on Jesus on the cross?
Premise 1: God was & is angry upon humans for their sins (Rom1:18+Job42:7). Premise 2: The sins of humans was laid upon Jesus (isa53:5). Conclusion: So God was angry upon Jesus.
@@savedchristian4754 then God didn't forgive anyone
@@fernandopaulus9088
Indeed God forgave us. If God forgave us without punishing our sins in Jesus, God would be unjust.
@@savedchristian4754 dealing with the reformation is tiring, you don’t know Judaism at all, atonement has nothing to do with Justice, it is always unmerited favor, the lamb that was always sacrificed wasn’t to appease God, it was a sign of purity, Jesus dying was a sacrifice and not punishment because he atones as a pure offering
@@fernandopaulus9088
Judaism doesn't interpret the Torah correctly because it makes God to be an unjust person who forgives without punishing sin. The most holy God doesn't tolerate sin.
Brother Wright has shared so many great truth’s for many year’s. Thank you.
Did Father hate Jesus on the cross by not intervening when Jesus was abused & killed?
Yes so good! Both and…and more! The best place to start is Abba Father did not invent the cross as a torture device for his son but Evil wicked men did!! “For the Joy set before Him Christ endured the cross!” The Cross was sin at it worst “we” put him there and He redeemed us anyway! And he also defeated hell and death! What a Victory!!!!!
NT Wright is in error.
In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.
The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).
According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.
Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41-42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4-6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.
During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10. Paul, in Romans 3:25-26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous.
There are quite a few different theories about how, exactly, Christ’s sacrifice frees us from the penalty of sin. Penal substitution is the most logically and biblically sound view.
Human Responsibility for Divine Accomplishment is the work of the cross, Jesus Christ took the Wrath of God on my behalf. I needed
Substitutionary Atonement for my sins and I hope you do too, Sola Gratia, Sola Fida, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Sola Deo Gloria.
How do i view this interview in it's entirety?
Check the description of the video
Allow me to blow your minds....Jesus didn’t have to die to forgive us of our sins. We know this because He told several people their sins are forgiven and they are redeemed BEFORE He was crucified.
No, that's not how to interpret that lol.
@@Fassnight God is not bound by any rule that constrains how and when He can forgive
Not a single verse in the NT ever connects God’s “wrath” to the Cross. Not one. There is simply no Scripture to support this idea. And yet, verse after verse tell is that Jesus died to take sin away, to create a covenant of forgiveness, and that He resurrected a New Creation into existence. Penal Sub. is simply not biblical.
Joseph Kuzara Hi Joseph. Couple of things:
1) Did Jesus die for our sin or for God’s wrath?
2) Do you have a single verse that actually says that Jesus died to take away or satisfy God’s wrath? A verse that actually says that, not one where you infer it.
Romans 5:9
"Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!"
That is, in fact, a single verse.
clintmclintock Sorry, but the word “God’s” is added, not in the original.
@@riverjao Whose wrath is it then?
clintmclintock the same wrath that he mentioned in Rom. 2:5 as the “day of wrath”, which is also the same wrath that John the Baptist spoke of concerning the Pharisees when he said “who warned you to flee of the wrath to come”, which many other scriptures also speak of, all of which was the covenantal wrath which fell upon apostate Israel in 70AD.
What I don't understand is that substitutionary atonement is about the wrath and and justice of God being satisfied and the victor theory is dealing with the wrath of evil. How do you mesh those together?
I don't believe we can, Sean.
The Word of God speaks only of the former - the latter is surely of human origin.
@@deniss2623 have you read Hebrews 2?
@@sjl00c1
Thanks, Sean.
What specifically are you thinking in relation to Hebrews 2?
@@deniss2623 2:14 to the end is a atonement theory set in a Jewish temple scene. There had to be someone a high priest who could offer a sacrifice to free them from the one who had the power of death...the satan...that's victory theory not law court penal substitution. From a historical perspective victory theory was actually first..if your saying one is from man, the farthest you can actually go with that is both are from man.
@@sjl00c1
Hi, Sean.
I don't profess to understand everything, but some things are clear. Penal substitution is the VERY HEART of the Gospel (see Isaiah 53:4-6 for example), and all else must fall within its context.
The first Adam (our Representative Man) gave in to the Tempter and disobeyed God, plunging us all into hopeless alienation.
The second Adam, Jesus Christ, having no sin of his own, defeated the Tempter by his perfect obedience to God and then paid the full price, the penalty, for all who would receive him as their Lord and Saviour.
Forgiveness and reconciliation to God are available only through Him.
That the powers of evil were defeated in the process goes without saying.
Regards, Denis.
Christus Victor is the truth
The cross is both a substitution, at satisfaction of Christ Justice, and a victory over Satan and his dominion.
But also I don’t find a problem with what NT Wright says. The gospel has depth, so I don’t see how all these a views are true at the same time.
This is not clear
There is no substitution. There was no wrath or substitution story with Abraham and Isaac, the lamb that protected Israel from angel of death, or the lambs slain by priests in tabernacle/temple. Our Sin was poured out on Jesus on cross and the Father was in Him reconciling the world to Themselves together. There was no wrath, no punishment on Jesus by Father nor was Jesus in any way separated by Father. Jesus even quotes Psalm 22 while on the cross signifying victory and Union with Father on cross.
"he takes our place",Jesus is the substance of all these shadows from OT,and yes,there ARE substitute and wrath in those old Testament sacrifices,your just making claim,isaiah says God will Crush Jesus
@@tylerjohnson1352 yeah nothing about wrath cuz i didnt say anything,paul says he takes our place,he was crushed
@@tylerjohnson1352 God wrath was justified on Christ or either God didnt have any of his wrath to be justified,he has his wrath on us due to our sins and Jesus Takes our place,its explicit in bible,He takes our place,he is propitiation,none of your theology has explicit verses,its just made by a bunch of guys who want to be viral
The context of Jesus death, resurrection and victory is within the Passover Sacrifice. Jesus states his intention to offer his life to the Father at the Last Supper Passover meal. Jesus makes a New Covenant in which he offers himself as the perpetual and eternal sacrifice. The Atonement models elaborated throughout Christian history must fit into the paradigm that Jesus founded.
The Penal Substitution model, which Professor Wright correctly describes, doesn't fit into the Passover Sacrifice model that Jesus establishes. In no way is the Passover Lamb punished by God instead of his people. Quite the opposite. The importance of the lamb is for its value which is why it must be eaten in order to ratify the value of the offering. In the case of Jesus the New Passover Lamb has infinite value which is why he commands his followers to eat as a ratification of the New Covenant each time that covenant is commemorated.
Let's not forget Leviticus 16 plays a part in teaching and understanding Jesus spiritual condition before God,even though our sin and guilt was placed upon Him as our living atonement being made sin in the likeness of sinful flesh yet set free . Jesus was not transformed to be the embodiment of wickedness to die as wicked on the tree as God does not take pleasure/is not appeased in the death of the wicked Ezekiel 33:11.
Jesus was not punished for our sins but disciplined and scourged for our sins voluntarily while maintaining His righteousness on the tree as our ransom to redeem/purchase us. So Jesus could be Father's justification to pass His wrath over us in order to correct us instead if we sin while Imputed Jesus Righteousness. Just as Father corrected Jesus for our sins while righteous.
Hebrews 12:4-11 reflects Jesus suffering and our partaking in Him of the same treatment so we are not condemned with the world 1 Cor 11:32
Awesome
If that’s indeed the case, then I finally get the point of communion.
Preach!!! That’s it !
Penal substitution is not disproven if this model is true. Again, like Tom said, penal substitution fits with other atonement theories.
Interesting segment but doesn’t get into the heart of both cases. Their foundation biblically
/)(+-Did God show anger on Jesus on the cross?
Premise 1: God was & is angry upon humans for their sins (Rom1:18+Job42:7). Premise 2: The sins of humans was laid upon Jesus (isa53:5). Conclusion: So God was angry upon Jesus.
Read René Girard
Right but we shouldn't need to read a book by a theolgian to understand why and how the transaction of salvation happens for modern gentiles 1:43 it should be simple to convey. So Christus Victor can frame the atonement as powers of darkness being defeated etc but Paul is clear that individual salvation happens because "[God] is just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" Rom 3v26
While I don’t fully disagree with you, I do see some value in the reading those books. The concern I have with individuals advocating for a “Bible alone” approach or dismissing “teachings of men” is that they often fall into the trap of misinterpreting and distorting the original message. They often overlook the contextual significance of traditions and teachings, or take things out of context, similar to how they separate the Pharisees in context from the moment the statement about “tradition of men” or “teachings of men” for example was made. They become zealous for their own teaching and traditions. This can result in an overly extreme interpretation that ironically parallels the very behavior they criticize the Pharisees with.
Throughout history, God has appointed teachers, such as the Apostles and Church Fathers (I adopt the approach advocated by C.S. Lewis, who encourages engaging with old books), and see the insights of their respective eras and the wisdom of those who were the educators of their time. It’s important to seek a comprehensive understanding of our faith, at least in a reasonable sense for most.
I mean, how do we know we have the right understanding of the plain text, it's not always so clear and the Book of Revelation is a good example of that, most are very intimidated by it and ascribe whatever they want to it.
It seems like a rather strange way in which to deal with evil. There is something unconvincing about it.
I don't believe penal substitution, but I agree that simply being victorious over evil doesn't seem like much of a way to provide redemption. I do believe in a form of substitutionary atonement in the sense that Jesus experienced the effects of sin despite never committing a sin Himself, but I do not believe He "took the punishment," because that would have prevented Him from being resurrected, and as Paul says, Jesus became the firstfruits of all who have died by His resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15: 21)
You will understand the cross more when you understand why Jesus is called the "Last Adam"
why not?
Hello HotWax93, it does seem unjust of God to punish Jesus for our sins because we should pay for our own sins. Jesus didn't just experience the effects of sin, Paul said God made Jesus who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf. The prophet Isaiah said God laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all. In God's eyes, Jesus became the worst person who ever lived. Since I am such a terrible sinner, I still don't understand why I get away with it, but that is what God did.
joan - This is an incorrect interpratation of how the Father view Jesus on the cross.
yes you have to read the book
Wright is so slippery. Like Roman Catholics what he gives with one hand he takes back with the other, So which is it? Do we deny the penal substitution doctrine embraced by all of the apostles or not? I ask you how can you do anything like that? See Romans 3:25-27, Galatians 2:21-3:11, 1 Peter 2:24, Rev. 13:8. and Hebrews 9-10.
It’s both. We embrace both. The atonement was more than just about individual salvation, but about restoring all of creation and the cosmos. That’s the point-recapitulation doesn’t take away from Penal Substitution. In the individualistic West, we don’t like the idea of the atonement of being more than about “me.”
@@kengineexpress N0NSENSE, you just don't want to sound evangelical or low church. No one is fooled.
@@kengineexpress
Not only do you not sound evangelical, you are not Pauline (Galatians 2:21) or Petrine (1 Peter 3:18) or Johannine (1 John 2:1-2) or of Isaiah, (Isaiah 53:11).
The atonement is all about me. Have you not read Galatians 2:20? The ''me'' you disparage in the passage leaps off the page and nothing is said about saving the creation. The Bible is all about Christ dying in place of or for sinners. So why not preach the cross where Jesus died FOR sinners, 1 Cor. 15:1-3.
Amen. Christ plundered the kingdom of darkness, & His body the church is the church triumphant through the light & power of the Holy Spirit for the glory of the Father
@ JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'.
GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
@@savedchristian4754 can you elaborate please? He's not speaking of Universalism, but good overcoming evil through Christ & by this triumph we, the body of Christ change the world for His glory. The world attests to this as the number of professing Christians is overwhelming & Im not gonna judge their hearts, even though as the text you gave shows that biblical faith is that belief is a pregnant word w/ obedience, but also believers shouldn't see Gods wrath abiding on them but unbelievers should, but also don't care unfortunately, until the eye of their heart is opened to the truth
@@J-PLeigh8409
If God is indeed angry with humans, how can evil be overcome without God's anger being appeased first?
@@savedchristian4754 hence the cross, gospel simplicity. I think its wrong to see God as an angry vengeful God, while we were still sinners Christ died for us. No greater love knows man then to lay down ones life for his friends, but even more so Christ died for the ungodly, of course not for us to remain as we were but transformed by it & perhaps others as well, as Christ is the light that enlightens all men
@@savedchristian4754 God is angry w/ evil & Jesus Christ came to destroy the works of the devil the evil one, He binded & plundered the Strongman
It amazes me how our western cultures find it so hard to comprehend the sacrifce of Jesus as an act of love, forguiveness, justice (not retributive justice), mercy, restoration and reconciliation rather than enforcing wrath, punishment, payment, death, penatly and debt. Our sense of justice based on the roman law has distorted the meaning of God's work on the cross through Jesus.
Jesus is fulfilling all the jewish tradition had spoken about the Lord's day in which God would begin a new creation (in Luke 4 Jesus acomplhishes Isaiah 61).
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
How can we distort and turn the good news of God's favor into some bloody killing sacrifice required to satisty his wrath. We lost something along the way. We have gone too far away from the concept of justice demonstrated through the hebrew tradition.
THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS DID *NOT* BELIEVE JESUS DIED FOR THEIR SINS
Substitutionary Atonement is a belief that arose late in the First Century CE after the Jews lost the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73/74 CE), and Gentiles took over the leadership of the Church. Before that, the Jews who believed Jesus was the Expected Messiah, concluded Jesus' death and resurrection was just God's way of convincing all the Jews HE was the Messiah (read Acts 2:32-36) who would get rid of the Romans and set up a new, independent, theocratic, Jewish nation.
However, when that didn't happen, and the leadership of the Church switched to non-Jews, many of them Roman citizens, the whole thing about Jesus dying and getting raised from the dead so the Jews would get behind his rebellion against Rome and, eventually, replacing it...didn't sound so appealing! The next thing ya know, they began re-thinking the purpose of Jesus' death and, with the help of some of the Apostle Paul's metaphors, began to think Jesus' death was a sacrifice to pay God for our sins!
Trouble is, this idea completely contradicts what Jesus taught! He made it very clear that God just forgives sins, period! He taught that God has no need to get even (which is all "getting justice" means) or to make people suffer in any way as punishment. On the contrary, Jesus said God only returns good for evil, love for hate and forgiveness for sins (Matthew 5:38-45)!
How crazy it is to think God is incapable of just forgiving sins because He chooses to! And how nutty it is to think a "payment" for sins can result in "forgiveness"! By definition, forgiveness means a payment is no longer required!
Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Real-Life-Jesus-Nazareth-Really-Stood-ebook/dp/B09V4BJ62D
Are you or someone you care about a victim of Bible Abuse? Get help at ricklannoye.com/contact
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Jesus died for sin and was raised for justification. He entered death since it was the power over man and was raised - if Jesus was not raised we would still be in sin 1 Cor 15:17, no freedom without resurrection
“He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”
Romans 4:25
“Yet he himself bore our sicknesses, and he carried our pains; but we in turn regarded him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his wounds. 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 53:4-6
This is pretty clear. NT Wright is NT WRONG.
Just citing a few scriptures decontextualised demonstrates nothing!
N.T believes in penal substitutin im light. Of What Christ has done i.e. the victory.
There is a tendancy to only look at one view rather than as a whole.
NT consistently takes 20 minutes to explain away why a text doesn't mean what it clearly says. He's a borderline Christian gnostic who has to clarify what the text "really" means to us plebs.
No, wright, the harrowing of hades is not from the 60s , this is early church teachings. Penal substitution is an Augustinian invention.
I have read several of N.T. Wright's books and I still have no idea what he believes about the Gospel.
ctvtmo _I have read several of N.T. Wright's books and I still have no idea what he believes about the Gospel_
Do you find references to Bible passages in his books? Does he say that Christ is raised? Does he say that Christ's resurrection defeats the powers of sin and death and hell? Does he say that we are freed to follow God and do his work? Then you know what he thinks about the Gospel.
I don't get what that means. The powers of sin seem very much alive. As does death. Ultimately he is victorious but that doesn't help me when I fail myself. Knowing that he suffered the effects of sin just like I do but that he did so innocently on my behalf from the viewpoint of eternity. That I can grasp and apply personally.
Ben Who are you talking to?
that's because he's an obfuscating charlatan.
And it's no wonder. He doesn't believe it, plain and simple. He refers to sin as being less human. He's a false teacher.
The good bishop does not explain _how_ the death of Jesus defeats the forces of sin and death. He merely claims _that_ Jesus' death somehow or other defeats the powers of sin and death. Here we are, 2000 years after the cross, and things are as awful as ever, and we have even experienced the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Bosnia! So, I thought that he rather avoided Justin's question.
Yes, it is disappointing how he doesn't really answer the question of how the atonement works if not by penal substitution. I have my own theory, but I already outlined it in my response to another comment.
@@hotwax9376 I prefer the perspective of Abelard. The so called moral example theory. The cross shows us show to be the image of God. It’s also redemptive to be shown that we as fallen beings are nonetheless loved despite sin. The juridical model holds no weight
@@bayreuth79 I agree that the cross was a display of God's love; even Paul said so in Romans 5: 8. But I'm not sure that explains how the atonement worked. I believe in a nonpenal substitutionary model of atonement: Jesus' entire life was a payment for sin, of which the cross was merely the endpoint. He experienced all the effects and consequences of sin that we experience in our lives, despite never sinning Himself. And because He was without sin, He was resurrected to eternal life in the same way we will be if we put our faith in Him.
@@bayreuth79 - Believe that . . . and you've believed a false gospel. Question: Why would God accept You given that you're a sinner?
@@andyderksen8455 Christ accepted sinners: prostitutes, tax collectors, etc.
What is the proper understanding of “penal substitution”? NT?
Yeah, it's ALL the good theories of atonement wrapped up into one. Each individually at the expense of the others is inadequate.
This is so much nonsense,. The cross is not primarily about Jesus being victorious over Herod and the powers that were, it's about his victory over satan sin and the flesh. The disciples thought that to and Jesus had to correct their view.
So disagree with Dr. Wright--and the disciples when he says he believes the "earthly powers" were put in place by Satan and his demons?
@@crippledtalk What passage are you referring to here? I'd like to look into it please!
@@drewdog365 I'm not drawing on any one passage, but to start with Eph 6, and deyt 32:6-8
The worldly powers are the the embodiment of Satans dominion on Earth, and the structure of a society made of sinful people. So, there is no contradiction here.
@@onde.aterrar Jesus cane to crush Satan and deliver us from the curse of sin and the power of death. His mission was stated clearly by him. Never once did he focus of any earthly power. In fact he specifically discounted the notion that he was here to counter Ceasar.
"For this reason was the Son of God manifested--that He might destroy the works of the Enemy."
That pretty much sums up the Christus Victor model right there.
Don't wrap it too much up in the Patristic "tricked the Devil at his own game" theory, though we have a scripture or two for that too--"had the powers knew, they never would have crucified the Lord of Glory," He "despoiling" them, making "open shame of them."
The reason that this atonement theory is inadequate (as all atonement theories are, especially taken alone) is that not all of this victory has yet been achieved--"We do not yet see all things put under His feet," while the satisfaction of divine wrath for sin and the free gift of eternal life and the fulfillment of the Law and a bunch of other issues have clearly been accomplished in full, or at least for the believing Christian. Suffering however is part of our inheritance, and nothing to be ashamed of--"the fellowship of His sufferings."
It’s the resurrection of Jesus, that defeated death and sin, and the power of sin, and death, and defeated the works of the devil by rising from the dead he is the first born of many brethren to be resurrected.
answer to the question of 1:42-45.... Christ is the second Adam.
No question that the cross was a victory over evil, but the question is - How? What makes the cross, the bloody murder of the Son of God, a victory? Just because? No, it was a victory ONLY because of the fulfilment of the triune God's agreement to sacrifice Jesus as the propitiation for our sin. Our sin necessitates Jesus' sacrifice, but it was God's plan all along to reveal his love and glory to himself through the cross all along. This is why the doctrine of the trinity is so important - if you see Jesus as an unwilling participant then yes it's barbaric, but Jesus wasn't unwilling, he himself is the word of God who foresaw the Cross before the foundations of the earth, and he freely volunteered (John 10) as also did the Holy Spirit.
What NT Wright so tragically misses is the cross is God's great forgiving and loving power at work. God commanded us that we were to turn the other cheek. The cross is the moment that God Himself turned the other cheek. Not only was He offended by our sin, but He Himself took the just penalty we deserved onto himself - thereby forgiving our sin, exacting the justice required by his holy nature, and making a way for his rebellious creation to become Justified and eventually Glorified - through belief in his Son. That is the Gospel, and that is the Kingdom, and that is God's plan. And if you don't see Jesus as God, then it is only natural you would see Penal Substitution as cosmic child abuse.
I'm sorry NT Wright, you are NT Wrong.
If the cross is how God forgives I pray he never forgives me. I prefer resurrection thanks
Mike Graf It is how God forgives. He fulfilled the Law through his life, He sacrificed Himself and He takes our penalty in His death which we rightly deserved. This is basic scripture. Heb 9:22 - without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness.
“Bulls of Bashan” see Heiser: Unseen Realm.
The Bible is so clear and consistent , from Genesis to Revelation, on the nature of atonement and Christ's atoning work. It seems unlikely that a prayerful and avid reader of the Biblical text should lack illumination on the topic.
Truly spoken like "an Israelite in whom there is no guile."
Human Responsibility for Divine Accomplishment is the work of the cross, Jesus Christ took the Wrath of God on my behalf. I needed
Substitutionary Atonement for my sins and I hope you do too, Sola Gratia, Sola Fida, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Sola Deo Gloria.
All of this is nice but speculative and maybe true-- but penal substitution is a fact and the center of our salvation!!!!!!!!
Penal substitution is false.
Who wrote the gospels?
He's wrong. Christos Victor cannot be correct if the Satisfaction theory is correct. Killing an innocent person does not satisfy God in principle. The law was given selflessly as an act of mercy. It does not affect God. The noetic theology of the Orthodox Church explains what he is explaining in better detail. Christ won by guarding the powers of his soul from being diverted to darkness. Then He went to hades and showed His pure soul to the dead.
Is there a specific author and text I can look up to research this?
interesting ,but he misses out the fact that Jesus came to bring life which he did when he rose from the dead ,Jesus defeated death and appeared alive. the cross was one thing but the resurrection was another that was as surely the victory -death could not hold him Jesus defeated the power of death
Maybe you missed the point. Victory over the powers came on the Cross as according to Col. 2:15. Victory over death comes, according to 1 Cor. 15:26 comes after final resurrection.
sorry Kwesi but its blatantly obvious , that Jesusrising from the dead ,as the victory the cross was the means by which the victory was won not the end result .As we know Jesus was crucified spirit soul and body what a battle he went through coming to earth living his life ,going to the cross ,and it appeared for sure Jesus was defeated ,until the 3rd day when he rose from the dead in victory ,we have the victory now over the POWERS of death, sin, the law ,wrath and satan , if we believe are born again filled with the spirit and live as christians . Without the cross there is no victory ,so you are right in saying it was because of the cross but the cross wasn't the only part of the story , the point is not to take one scripture out of context but see the story as a whole Co_15:55 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
1Co_15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. Jesus came to deliver us from sin which is the sting of death, Jesus sets us free from sin by rising from the dead by overcoming death and offering life and that abundant !
Kevin Scholes, that is just not how the Bible says it works. Please do not think I (or NT Wright for that matter) am being dismissive of the resurrection. What I would avoid is a modern, anachronistic tendency to miscategorize things and ultimately regulate the cross to a by-way to the Resurrection. In so doing, we are likely to miss what Paul repeatedly talked about as the power of the Cross. We miss how the world changed on Friday pining to see Sunday come. (Now, to be clear, this is also an ancient Eastern orthodox move too. The Eastern church, for very different reasons than the modern church emphasize the Resurrection and deemphasize the Cross. What is needed is to read the Resurrection, like Paul did, in terms of the Cross and not just the other way round.)
the eastern churches view isn't a modern anachronistic view and theirs is as relevant as the wester church , and i like nt wright but he does not have a monopoly on the theology of the cross ! i thank you for this conversation and i look forward to this easter and i hope the Lord continues to bless you with understanding ,but i have just read and studied Christus victor and its a brilliant book ,i am coming to the conclusion like many that the calvinism augustinianism is terrible theology which includes the legal juridical view of the atonement namely the penal substitutionary atonement theory and the western idea of eternal torment . Like Nt wright once said ! what did Jesus say about his mission and the reason for his life ,death, resurrection! happy research!
Kevin Scholes, thanks for the well-wishes. Same to you.
For clarity, I did not say the Eastern Church was modern or anachronistic. I presented it as caveat to my prior statement. Also, you will not find me countenancing West over East in any conversation! :)
It might be too much to say that Augustine's is terrible theology. or maybe you were simply talking about the Western doctrine of Hell-a doctrine I too hold in contempt. (Note: I do believe in Hell, just not like its been presented in the West's Medieval period.)
Regarding Christus Victor, the doctrine does not go far enough. of course it's in the Scripture. The fact that we've lost sight of it is an abismal oversight and an overreach of substitutionary atonement. Yet, consider this, Augustine did not create penal substitutionary theology out of a vacuum. Substitionary theology traces back through the Antenicean church to the Bible itself. Wright gets it right here. The Cross involves both substitution and victory.
Enjoy your Easter!
Christianity, a victory of faith over reason. Arguments from ignorance again, really Wright?
Apparently Jesus did not die on the cross because eyewitnesses not only saw him in the physical but also spoke to him. He then lived out the rest of his life in India, where he also
spent about eighteen years of his life in adolescence and manhood.
?
Don't deny the beauty that is the wrath of God... PERIOD! I am no one to get into a deeply-philosophical debate about this, but God's wrath IS present, and it is only Christ Who can appease that wrath of God...
God Bless you all for HIS glory sake...
God didn’t punish Jesus.
1Cor.5.21 he was made sin.how was he made sin for us ?
'&"_God demands blood, punishment & death due to human sins because that is justice. If not, why would Jesus shed blood till death on behalf of humans?
The law of Moses commands to repay for damages. That is justice. Jesus loved humans by dying to repay for human sins. His love had a meaning. Jesus didn't shed blood till death without a reason. In your theory, the love of Jesus has no appropriate reason.
Punishing, killing & getting angry with the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is indeed mercy (undeserved forgiveness)! But the mercy taught by CV that is, mercy shown to humans without punishing their sins is one which has no ground or basis, that is, meaningless!!
@@savedchristian4754 Jesus being part of the God head ,God punished himself in our place ?no wait ,bible says man killed Jesus
@@tecomaman
Man killed Jesus? Acts2:23:"This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross".
Is it justice to not punish sinners? Would your magistrate set them free without punishment?
@@savedchristian4754 that is what I was referring to .you forgot Jesus asked God to forgive them for they don't know what they are doing ,but you are condemning them ?
@@tecomaman
Jesus pleaded for human forgiveness based on Himself who took human punishment on the cross.
So does Tom Wright also believe in penal substitution?
I sure hope he does, Because I do and have banked my entire eternity on it.
@@tylerjohnson1352 Thank You 4 your responds. John 6:28-9 after the feeding of the 5,000 the disciples asked, and what is the work of God. Jesus answered and said "to believe on the one He has sent." For those who do not believe the Wrath of God rests upon them and at the Great White Throne Judgement after seeing our Holy Son of God they will beg for hell because they have no Blood covering. Everyone has a label, I do believe that Calvinism is not the only label but that Christ is the only way. Nonsense is to not believe....Blessings
I wrote a book that presents a new model and middle ground perspective between the Penal view and Christus Victor. I call it Perfectus Liberatio. In short the wrath of God is not directed AT Christ, but operates THROUGH Christ. God’s wrath is his moral perfection being revealed against all that is contrary to moral perfection. Christ is the sinless Lamb. Thus God can transfer all sin upon his sinless Lamb and condemn it as being in the wrong-in the sinless perfection of the Son. For sin was unable to accuse, condemn or to lay a charge against the Son for any wrongdoing. Like trying to stick the barbs of Velcro onto a smooth mirror, sin cannot attach itself to the Son- for the Son offers no “hooks” for sin to grab hold of. Therefore because sin cannot justify its presence in the Son, the Father’s wrath is able to condemn sin as being “in the wrong” IN THE SINLESS perfection of the Son.
Like pouring a vile of deadly bacteria into a bucket of pure bleach, the bacteria does NOT infect the bleach. Rather the bleach destroys the bacteria. In the cross the sinfulness of sin is undone by the sin-less nature of the Son. The wrath of God is the basis by which sin is condemned THROUGH the Son. But the Son is NOT being condemned (Rom. 8:3).
There is more to say. Feel free to buy my short, 100 page book that begins with a parable story to prepare you for the later commentary on the atonement. Go to Amazon and type either my name or “The Fall and Redemption of Shadowmere.”
Peace
this is a brilliant explanation. Do you have copies of the Perfectus Liberatio for sale, or did I misread that as being a published work?
;:'"*God demands blood, punishment & death due to human sins because that is justice. If not, why would Jesus shed blood till death on behalf of humans?
The law of Moses commands to repay for damages. That is justice. Jesus loved humans by dying to repay for human sins. His love had a meaning. Jesus didn't shed blood till death without a reason. In your theory, the love of Jesus has no appropriate reason.
Punishing, killing & getting angry with the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is indeed mercy (undeserved forgiveness)! But the mercy taught by CV that is, mercy shown to humans without punishing their sins is one which has no ground or basis, that is, meaningless!!
At what point do these people wake up and realize that, "a man being killed to appease a wrathful god" is the essence of paganism? They have turned Yeshua's teachings into a pagan religion. The importance of the Passion narrative is the resurrection, period! But, there couldn't be a resurrection if there wasn't a death first. That is all the crucifixion is--the means by which Yeshua dies so he can get to the important bit: the Resurrection.
Isn't it interesting how those captured by Judaisers adopt Judaisms arguments and then confidently assert that everyone else needs to "wake up? You think this was "just about a man "being" killed - really? and what do you think about the sacrifice of animals then? You don't think there was perhaps an easier way for a man to be killed? Hmmmm? Without BLOOD there is NO remission of sins. No remission of sins = no atonement. Do you know what atonement means? When "children of wrath" are given a new status of "peace with God"- i.e. ATONEMENT. So where did this wrath of God go in your syncretic religion? And did your Christ "become sin for us"?
Not a wrathful God, but a just God.
One of Martin Luther's biggest question was how can God be both Justice and merciful. Mercy literally means not giving people what they justly deserve. Which at first seems to contradict the idea of a just judge. Martin Luther tried to reconcile this and came up with penal substation.
Like how a son who commits vandalism is required to pay for it despite having no money. His father could make right the wrong out of his own expense so his child won't be in debt.
Its not God's wrath penal substation saves us from its his justice.
And Jesus's death is just as important as his resurrection. It was his death on the cross that took the curse off us.
@Charles Carroll
That is mercy.
Jesus is the logos of God. Jesus suffering means God is suffering. If I know you did a wrong, and decided to that I'll right the wrong at my own expense, then I am being merciful. Because I'm not giving you the consequences you've earned. By definition thats mercy.
@Charles Carroll
The son is him.
The father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different aspects of the Godhead.
@Charles Carroll
I'm not a modalist.
I believe that there is one God with 3 persons. Each person is fully God in nature/substance, but not in rank/function.
Jesus is the Logos, the word of God. The one sent to dwell among us. But whatever happens to him is happening to God. And whatever he does is an action of God, since he himself is an attribute of God.
I listened to him and can agree with what he said but it seems as though he is selling half an answer as the whole answer. The way he waxes eloquent seems to hide the short selling.
it's a 4-minute clip.
If penal or substitutionary view is correct (in God's eyes) how come God does NOT mention it to Adam and Eve in the garden? God only talked about final victory and crushing the head of the serpent by woman's seed! IF God required sacrifice for His sake - how come He didn't say it plainly in the beginning? No - we, sinful men in our sinfulness, require something clear and innocent to cover us before approaching God. It was NOT God who said to Adam and Eve "oh, you are now so unclean and far away from me in spirit that I simply have to sacrifice the innocent lamb to be able to even look at you and communicate with you." It is NOT how it was. God provided covering not because He required or needed it - but because THEY (WE)needed it. He covered them with the sacrifice because with the covering which they provided for themselves (fig leaves) they would have kept running and hiding from Him!
Tatjana Virant Kramar He did. He performed the very first sacrifice and their offspring performed sacrifice. For example Abel. They heard about it.
Craig _He performed the very first sacrifice_
Sorry? You'll have to explain that one.
The animal's death is a symbol for the existential destruction that sin creates. It is destructive and acknowledging that humbly with a kind of painful artistic act is a healthy step. This seems to work at an intuitive level. But eventually the wrongs pile up and the law buries you. So a finite lamb cannot cover the sweeping nature of evil. Only an infinite, transcendent lamb can do that. And he does so voluntarily out of love and obedience. Being willing to voluntarily face suffering for a long term benefit is actually a critical principle for survival even from an evolutionary standpoint.
Well, I think you’re right that they needed it, but he cast them out of the garden did he not?
i don't deny penal substitution otherwise why would Jesus need to suffer unto death for our sins as a substitute (the just for the unjust), nor do I deny propitiation, expiation or reconciliation by Father's hand through wicked men that which affected Father being pleased by the bruising and grief He caused His Son to undergo.
What I don't accept is that for our sins Father's wrath was upon His Son when Jesus became our scapegoat leveticus 16.
Isaiah reveals that people reckoned Him smitten by God under His wrath for His own sins BUT for our sins transferred upon Him was the Chastisement (Musar #4148)of our peace with Father upon Jesus and through His scourging we are healed.
And why KJV 1 Corinthians 12:3 is stated
Hebrews 5 further clarifies Isaiah 53:5 as the type of suffering He went through and why for our sins.
No where in scripture where suffering was pronounced upon Jesus did it involve wrathful judgement but only corrective discipline of which teaches those whom God accepts as ligitimate human sons and daughters to be obedient.
Jesus did not of Himself need to suffer such correction while human as He was Sinless in His ways but because of His substitution is why Father was pleased to bruise and cause grief unto death towards His ligit son whom underwent such corrective suffering to learn obedience for our sake as our High priest. whom can sympathize with us when we upon salvation struggle against sin.
We elect of God although conceived in sin as the non-elect were not created to remain under such wrath but created to be accepted as ligitimate children of Father and an brother or sister to Jesus. Our sins were not to lead to remain in death as the non-elect because God intended to intervene and free us from such Bondage through Jesus whom satisfied Father to while Sinless in the likeness and not exactness of sinful flesh as the elects substitute and scapegoat, undergo such suffering unto death voluntarily.
He suffered corrective discipline unto volunteer death to learn obedience for our sins that don't lead to spiritual death as an set example of how God deals with ligitimate adopted children whom struggle against sin by progressive sanctification.
As why Jesus said that if we want to be His disciples we must pick up our own pole and( luke14:26) in order to follow after His example.
If the suffering and death of Jesus had anything to do with undergoing Wrath, Jesus would not use His suffering in life unto death as an set example for us to follow in His steps.(john 1:26)
So it is why and what Jesus suffered while Sinless as our substitute and ransom that at such a great price in His Sinless sons volunteered death that appeased Father to nullify His wrath toward those whom He intended to redeem and reconcile with.
God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, if PSA is as these teachers say being that Jesus became the embodiment of sin(a sinner) as our scapegoat then they say such statements from God in
Ezekiel 18:23
Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
And
Ezekiel 33:11
Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’
Is false.
Father is only pleased in the suffering he caused on ligit sons and daughters through discipline and scourging, even if such scourging leads to death as it was towards His incarnate Son as it produces fruit's of righteousness.hebrews 12:11
Proverbs 3:12
For whom YHVH loveth He disciplines, Even as a father the son He is pleased with.
Father is pleased in His Sons suffering and death because of His chastening and scourging that produced such righteous obedience to be the perfect mediator between elect sinners and Father. Not because he supposedly became the embodiment of sin as our substitute to then suffer a wrathful death.
Not that far out, come to the original christian church, Orthodoxy. Quite reinventing the church.
Amen, brother.
Can you convertodoxy kids be less obnoxiously elitist?
@@winnietheblue3633 would you like to clarify?
So obnoxious. The orthodox need to do a better job at evangelism.
@@User_Happy35 dearest Happy35. It is very difficult to convince and convict a heretical garden heart that they don't know Jesus nor are they the Church, I once was one, a baptist preacher who now found his righteousness.
" as if these were a collection of Aesop's ( Joseph/Bosat) fables"
-Jesus quotes a fable of Aesop as scripture, nay, Scripture: " Surely you will quote to me this proverb/parable, ' Dr. heal thyself' also known as The Quack Frog fable of Aesop
I used to like reading Tom Wrights books, especially The resurrection of the Son of God...which will go down as a classic in apologetic But I think on the atonement he has shown something of his failure in faith. Here he seems to play off the gospels with Paul...but the gospels very strongly spell out a propitious atonement. In both Mark and Mathew Jesus quotes in Hebrew Psalm 22.."My God my God why have you forsaken me?" In the 3 hours of darkness from 12noon til 3pm. ...as a fulfillment of the rest of the Psalm. Jesus in the cross bore the death of a damned soul as a substitute....In judgement sinners will be told "Depart from me you cursed into the eternal fire".. it's that death Jesus tasted. Thats centre stage in the gospels. Luke uses the rending of the temple curtain in a similar way. Why has Tom Wright missed something evangelists preach on?
@Arturo Belano
;-:&'_"God demands blood, punishment & death due to human sins because that is justice. If not, why would Jesus shed blood till death on behalf of humans?
The law of Moses commands to repay for damages. That is justice. Jesus loved humans by dying to repay for human sins. His love had a meaning. Jesus didn't shed blood till death without a reason. In your theory, the love of Jesus has no appropriate reason.
Punishing, killing & getting angry with the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is indeed mercy (undeserved forgiveness)! But the mercy taught by CV that is, mercy shown to humans without punishing their sins is one which has no ground or basis, that is, meaningless!!
The problem is not that we need 100 of years of analysis to understand what the atonement theory in the NT is, the problem is that those who read the NT are so used to read verse by verse and pondering it from a long f*ing tradition and 100 preconceived theories, or to literalize in absurdum. The problem is just to get people read the dirty stuff contextually! The real atonement, as read about in the Epistles -- it is *never* mentioned in the Gospels: the real atonement is like this:
Jesus sacrificed his life to 1. make a moral example (the Abelardian story) for us to follow, 2. when he did this, he paid by sacrificing his sinless person to evil forces (an opposite of the Anshelmian substitution atonement story) in order to get the evil forces to lose their authority over humankind, and to put them to shame. He did nothing like sacrifice his own life in order to satisfy a hypothetical YHWH-Moloch bloodlust, except ... in First Epistle of John, and possibly in the Hebrews. The problem with the dominant atonement theory in the Epistles is that modern Christianity erroneously regard Jesus as a Jewish rabbi, and therefore that the Epistle atonement theory claims "Blasphemic" stuff, such as God lost control over the universe to evil forces, which alleges that God is not omnipotent. But you can choose by yourselves, whether the OT is right, or NT, or the Christians. Or neither...
/)(+-&God demands blood, punishment & death due to human sins because that is justice. If not, why would Jesus shed blood till death on behalf of humans?
The law of Moses commands to repay for damages. That is justice. Jesus loved humans by dying to repay for human sins. His love had a meaning. Jesus didn't shed blood till death without a reason. In your theory, the love of Jesus has no appropriate reason.
Punishing, killing & getting angry with the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is indeed mercy (undeserved forgiveness)! But the mercy taught by CV that is, mercy shown to humans without punishing their sins is one which has no ground or basis, that is, meaningless!!
One big confusing and ambiguous mess.
Back to Orthodoxy Describing the "mechanics" of how Christ's death and resurrection provide salvation often results in an ambiguous mess. What NT Wright chooses to do in order to succinctly describe how the cross "works" is through the narrative of the entire Biblical story. He emphatically avoids speaking philosophically about how the cross functions because he believes it's much more holistic. In a sense, all the theories of atonement are correct, but no one is solely correct. He justifies this position through the narrative lens of the Bible as understood during the life of Christ.
Welcome to the fallen mind trying to make sense of God instead of following him to find out where we should go. We are called to follow, not to understand. We will understand, but only if we follow first. It's called 'faith,' and it's the beginning of wisdom.
Its not a mess though.
@@crippledtalk
So God doesn't get angry over sinners?
poor guy is so lost in his head. he is basically saying that Christ's victory over the earthly powers that be is primary, and his spiritual victory secondary. weird.
If you look at some of the other stuff Tom Wright has said, you can see that when he's talking about those "earthly powers", he sees the driving force behind them as Satan and the demonic, although he prefers not to use that language most of the time.
So in his mind, both of them are spiritual victories.
_poor guy is so lost in his head_
Not 'poor,' I think. The rest of us could use a little more use of the head (cf. the entire books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes).
That's not .even close
@@IamGrimalkin
!/;):(God demands blood, punishment & death due to human sins because that is justice. If not, why would Jesus shed blood till death on behalf of humans?
The law of Moses commands to repay for damages. That is justice. Jesus loved humans by dying to repay for human sins. His love had a meaning. Jesus didn't shed blood till death without a reason. In your theory, the love of Jesus has no appropriate reason.
Punishing, killing & getting angry with the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is indeed mercy (undeserved forgiveness)! But the mercy taught by CV that is, mercy shown to humans without punishing their sins is one which has no ground or basis, that is, meaningless!!
@@savedchristian4754
Christus Victor isn't my theory, I was explaining Tom Wright's ideas.
.
Personally, I would lean somewhat towards penal substitutionary if anything, but I think most of the theories have some truth to them and all of them are probably overly simplistic.
Neither the Christus Victor nor the penal substitutionary idea is correct. They are both mere guesses in the dark.
Rather, Christ went to the Cross in order to entitle the Holy Spirit to enter the Bride on His behalf. That is, the correct understanding of the atonement, is a matrimonial one. This is figured in the fact that when a husband enters his wife sexually, he is only able to do so by virtue of his genital filling with blood: a husband is only a true husband if he has given up himself for (committed his life to) his wife.
Thus the word "atone" comes from the adverbial phrase "atonen": "at one": a husband and wife are one flesh, and so the Lord and His wife are "one spirit" (1 Cor 6:17).
So the atonement simply speaks to the legal gateway for the metaphysical joining together of Christ and the elect, in a very experiential way via the entering in to the elect by the Holy Spirit. In this sense then the Holy Spirit can be considered to be 'the seed of Christ', which (Who) upon entering the Bride brings forth fruit (children) unto Christ her Husband.
So it has nothing to do with penal substitution, for the elect are eternally loved by the Father and the Son.
For a fuller understanding, please refer to colossians.freeforums.net/board/3/atonement and begin with the first work there: "Christ our sacrifice, not our substitute".
.
More Anglican waffle, leading only to confusion!
Definitely something wrong with Wright.
If God forgives without punishing sins, then it's love amid injustice. But if God forgives after punishing sins, then that is love amid justice.
@@savedchristian4754
Well said, Victor.
God's love and mercy must be consistent with His holiness and justice. Otherwise it is NOT love.
@@deniss2623
Don't Anglicans believe in PS?
Why does NT wright always suggest that we must understand the way early Christians "thought" as a coup de gra to Protestant evangelicalism. The first Century religious leaders got it all wrong, the disciples got it all wrong. Not until Jesus revealed it to them and especially Paul who so clearly thought he understood. We most also remember that the first century Jew had differing views in regards to the atoning work of Christ , which by the way was tainted.
So, according to your point, all the disciples - and Paul - got it wrong??? And you have it right???
Wow.
Jack Nygren Yes, until the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even so they didn't understand before his ascension. They asked, when will you bring the the restoration of the Kingdom. Paul gives a clearer explanation and proves the he has a better understanding of Jesus' work on the cross! NT wright calls it penal substitution but he's wrong in putting a label on it. Just executive what the scriptures say and you'll understand that we receive the righteousness of Christ- paid in full.
vmoreno777 Well, of course they didn't get it BEFORE the resurrection! You think you would have? But, your denigration of them is a bit arrogant - and Paul tells us to be humble and thankful for the Jewish root of the olive tree. I think NT Wright says we need to consider the 1st century Jewish context because that's how we do history. Not starting with Luther or Calvin or Barth or whomever is your fave post-reformation theologian. What did it mean to the author's audience at that time?? That's why we need to better understand 1st century context. It means a lot to how the text should be interpreted. Plenty of wrong assumptions have been made by failing to do so. For example, please define Paul's phrase "works of the law."
Jack Nygren but that's precisely my point! 1st century Jews got it wrong. And I apologize if I came off as arrogant I simply get frustrated when there were drifting views among the 1st century Jews. I'm not too family with Calvin, Luther and the rest all I know is what scripture clearly states and that alone is conflicting with the predominant view and soteriology of 1st century Judaism.
vmoreno777 Just as in Judaism today, 1st century Judaism had several strains....not monolithic. But, that said, nobody was gonna get it right anyway because as Paul says, it was a mystery. The time God chose to reveal it was then. But, when interpreting the 1st century author's, we still have to consider what that audience would have thought about in reading them. Then, we can interpret better. That's why it's important - as Wright says. That's how you do good history. Do you think historians/interpreters should NOT consider the mindset of the 1st century Jews when interpreting the Greek manuscripts? I think some big mistakes have been made because 1st century thought was ignored or misunderstood. I want more education on 1st century thought and practices so we can get closer to the author's actual intent....and the Holy Spirit's intent.
Just because he speaks in an English accent, people think he is smart... SMH... He is a heretic
How so?
@@justmeandmy
#£_&-+God demands blood, punishment & death due to human sins because that is justice. If not, why would Jesus shed blood till death on behalf of humans?
The law of Moses commands to repay for damages. That is justice. Jesus loved humans by dying to repay for human sins. His love had a meaning. Jesus didn't shed blood till death without a reason. In your theory, the love of Jesus has no appropriate reason.
Punishing, killing & getting angry with the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is indeed mercy (undeserved forgiveness)! But the mercy taught by CV that is, mercy shown to humans without punishing their sins is one which has no ground or basis, that is, meaningless!!
Christianity is disgusting. You should feel shame, but you don't feel shame.
What?
(troll alert)..-just cast it out or pay no mind.. it thrives on attention ;b
Rursus penal substitution and eternal torture in hell are both utterly disgusting concepts. Christ is the saviour of all, and it is the most beautiful love story ever. God bless you 💕
Well, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. We have no shame because Christ took it away ;)
@@lc2077
@*#"£':God demands blood, punishment & death due to human sins because that is justice. If not, why would Jesus shed blood till death on behalf of humans?
The law of Moses commands to repay for damages. That is justice. Jesus loved humans by dying to repay for human sins. His love had a meaning. Jesus didn't shed blood till death without a reason. In your theory, the love of Jesus has no appropriate reason.
Punishing, killing & getting angry with the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is indeed mercy (undeserved forgiveness)! But the mercy taught by CV that is, mercy shown to humans without punishing their sins is one which has no ground or basis, that is, meaningless!!
Selling a book because they make money off your souls. Shameful
Everywhere I see NT Wright I click DISLIKE as fast as I can
heresy
Pedro Romero Vargas En donde esta la herejia?
It's no more heresy than penal substitution, whose logic requires you to deny Christ's resurrection.
lol- "heresy" - are we in 2018 or the middle ages - want to burn someone at the stake ?
Hotwax93, in this video, NT Wright says he agrees with "Christus victor" *and* "penal substitution", so wouldn't this make him a double heretic in your eyes, if you see both as heretical?
When Christians fight instead of flight that choose to attack with the word heresy. Great brotherly love
JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'.
GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!