I'm surprised at his hability to speak like a ventriloquist without moving his mouth. Truly a genius.

😂

Wee bit more complicated than that lol

Very good explanation, brother. ~S

Yes you are correct, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 20 declare God was in Christ and He was NOT counting our sins against us ; He was pleading for us to make peace with Him (who already loved us, that's why He sent His Son) God judged and dealt with SIN on the cross, he wasn't angry at us or Jesus, He was getting rid of sin. "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world John 1:29 Yahooo praise Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit

Wow what a great explanation. My mind is blown. Never thought of it that way. Thank you.

You've been watching too much Jordan Peterson, Golden Corral is too close to home.

So, let's just ignore Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 53...plus all of the book of Kings, Chronicles, the rest of Isaiah, Psalms all of Jeremiah, and so on. Way to pick and chose. It's obvious. you just made a god in your own mage. It goes with the pic too... So, explain Job for me if you will please.

Nice username! What are some examples of words being stripped of their meaning? (Not disagreeing with you; it's just better to give specific examples instead of broad generalities).

Brady Hornstra thx for the response. One example is the word “good” in describing God. They turn “good” into a vague and distant concept that allows for an all “loving” God allowing millions to burn in eternal torment with no means of correction. “Good” is therefore stripped of any coherent meaning that it no longer means anything. I have more if you like?

Oh yeah, that makes sense. I remember a sermon from the church I grew up in where the pastor told us not too have a view of God that is too loving nor too just, but rather one that is both loving and just. If those two concepts can be placed in opposition, they’ve lost all sense of meaning.

Brady Hornstra exactly! This is my frustration with “Christians” that I’m unable to have deep conversations because words have lost meaning. I find the way the Bible is interpreted is just as discouraging. It seems as if a brainwashing has occurred and they are unable to receive, consider or process any new information or opposing ideas. Thankfully my wife is just as free and open as I am and she is always searching for more truth. I like how one man put it, “ the mysteries of God don’t make Him unknowable but rather we can endlessly know him more.” There is more and more depth to the truth and we are encouraged to search it out.

What about how God's 'holiness', 'righteous judgment' and 'goodness' are all variously displayed in condemning those who reject His 'love' to eternal damnation. Thank God He's true! Woe unto those who put good for evil.

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 )

Im making my way out of it...anything thing that would absolutely make it blatantly obvious PSA is false(I believe it is) just deconsctructing.

Penal substitution is all over scripture. Even Hart admits that a debt is owed, a ransom must be paid. This is a “penal-ty“. You don’t pay that penalty. Christ does as your substitute.

@@brentonstanfield5198 I made no argument against penal substitution...i made one against penal substitutionary atonement. penal SUBSTIONARY atonement is impossible if ECT is objectively true and wages for sin is eternal separation from God forever in hell....however thats not the case. The wages for sin is death.Its always been death...we just have over complicated it

@@brentonstanfield5198 And its all over the Bible in the sense of the old covenant that was done away with and a new one that took its place...thats where you find PA or PSA...but not in the sense of eternal destination

@@ttownsupreme2183 - All atonement adds to the equation is that the damage done by our sin is repaired, ie the wrongs we have done have been made right. It doesn’t matter if the penalty is death or ect. If Christ paid the penalty then atonement has occurred in some sense.

Well, now I can't unhear that.

Hebrews draws a parallel, but not a direct line. The parallel lines don't meet. Christ is not a priest on the order of Aaron, the model of bloody sacrifice who mediates satisfaction of a - supposedly - wrathful God by death. He is a priest on the order of Melchizedek, the model of NO sacrifice, who brings only bread and wine (BIG HINT!!) to Abraham - and who, as the author of Hebrews elaborates, neither kills nor dies. This is exactly why Christ's sacrifice is efficacious in stopping sin and death, and not merely in ameliorating guilt. He is no part of the levitical killing sacrifices which - supposedly - ameliorate guilt for sin, but do nothing to actually stop the whole system of sin and death. It is an IRONIC parallel. Instead of making the two sacrificial systems similar, the parallel highlights at every point their utter and complete dissimilarity! It completely misses the WHOLE argument of Hebrews to make it conform to Leviticus. It also erases the witness of some of the Israelite prophets who argued against the whole sacrificial system.

@@markrich1603 Can you share any reading recommendations on this topic? OT and NT passages, Church Fathers, secondary literature? :)

@@markrich1603 Nonsense, "there is no forgiveness for sin without the shedding of blood " Hebrews 9:22 " For the life of the flesh is in the blood " Leviticus 17:11 Read Romans 7:18 , no good thing lives in flesh Romans 7:20 It is sin living in me (flesh) that does it Romans 7:25 but with my flesh I serve the law of sin Romans 7:23 the law of sin which is in my members (flesh) Jesus became sin (flesh) and dwelt among us 2 Corinthians 5:21 Jesus conquered sin and death > through His sinless blood dying to flesh in the flesh, being buried, and rising again in Spirit (with a spiritual body that could go through walls) The Law is Spiritual but I am unspiritual (carnal, flesh) sold (created) as a slave unto sin Romans 7:14 Yes God really did create all things ; not all things except sin, but ALL things and he "is working all things according to the counsel of His will" Ephesians 1:11 The forgiveness of sin is the removal of sin " Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World" John 1:29 God put sin in our flesh so we could know it , so that He could display His righteousness and when we know that, He can remove that (sin) which He used to display His glorious righteousness. How else could we learn and appreciate His magnificence .

@@CDUTT360 Yes. The anti-sacrificial tradition in the OT is found in Amos 5:18ff, Micah 6:1-8, Hosea 6:4-6; Isaiah 1:10-17 (remember that Sodom and Gomorrah AREN'T about homosexuality in Isaiah - they are models of the wealthy unrighteously oppressing the poor), Jeremiah 7 (esp. vv. 21 & 22), and Pss 40, 50, and 51. It's worth noting, I think, that in Amos God asks rhetorically whether Israel sacrificed during the 40 years in the desert (with the presumed answer of 'No!'), and in Jeremiah God directly asserts that "in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices." This directly denies the sacrificial system laid out in Leviticus. As for the NT, I've already discussed Hebrews. But please note also Mark's version of Jesus in the Temple routing the commerce around sacrificial animals. Mark also mentions that Jesus prevents anyone from carrying anything into the Temple - which would have been their own sacrificial animals (of course, they didn't HAVE to buy their animal at the Temple if they had their own they could bring in). So Jesus is definitely interrupting the whole sacrificial system, not just the commerce in sacrificial animals. Immediately after he does that action in Mark, the Temple leaders begin seeking a way to kill him, as they correctly see that it must be either Jesus or them. If the people believe Jesus, then they won't need priests anymore, as anyone can pray directly to God with neither a sacrifice nor a priest to carry it out. I hope that helps!

Neither Hart nor the ancient fathers of the Church deny that Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. The disagreement is over the nature of that sacrifice and its purpose. PSA says that His sacrifice was to appease the wrath of the Father, whereas the Scriptures and the fathers of the Church teach that His sacrifice was to, as Hart says, enter fully into the estrangement of death, conquer it, and deliver us from it.

Theo Logian Eastern Orthodox Christian

Pseudochristian.

He’s apart of the oldest tradition of the Christian faith, connected to church fathers and Saints, and devoted to a Liturgy that’s almost 1800 years old. What he’s saying doesn’t deny the centrality of Christ. In Orthodox terms, Christ is the ransom for emancipation, Christ brings together all things, fills the gaps, reconciles truths unto him, connects people to the infinite transcendence of God while cementing that God is the root of all reality. There’s nothing “pseudo” about his faith, at all.

Eastern Orthodox. The religion that enjoys the fullness of the faith!

i can't really take seriously the image of Satan slapping his knee, crying "drats, and i would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling trinity!!"

I believe that PSA is a false theory of atonement and robs Yeshua of his ligitimacy as a elect human child of God. I believe a ransomed substitutionary atonement is what is intended, being that Yeshua was offering Himself to Father(heb 9:12-14) as this blood ransom to redeem and atone and Father recieved Him as a sweet smelling sacrifice(eph 5:1-2) Did Yeshua suffer and die for my sin? Yes , Isa 53 is quite clear on this. Did He suffer and die for me as a substitute? Yes 1 Peter 3:18 is clear on this. But none of this was accomplished by divine Wrath, or as a sub that Yeshua took my place of sin to become the embodiment of or viewed as by Father as if wicked to die as wicked under divine wrath in my place, his death was not a divinely accursed death such would nullify His sonship(that God strongly teaches that none He recieves will ever lose) but also His sinlessness thus His propitiatory ransom in His blood to redeem and atone. scripture is quite clear on this Having no sin in Him 1 jhn 5:3 nor knowing sin He learned while carrying away our sins, grief and sorrow being contrited; obedience by what He suffered(heb 5:8-9) even obedience on the tree(Philip 2:8) by divine discipline and scourging(Isa 53:5 musar #4148) becoming the perfect pioneer of our salvation as the testing of His faith by such loving discipline being received as a ligit elected human child of God .(Heb 12:4-11) Yeshua's' voluntary death to be treated and condemned as if a defiant sinner willingly being numbered with transgressors to recieve a cursed death through sinners(acts 2:22-24; 3:13-15) influenced by Satan who would bruise His heel(gen 3:15), did so to release us from the curse of the Law, but was never a accursed death Kjv 1 Corinthians 12:3 by Father is quite clear. God separates his wrathful punishment which is reserved for His enemies (nahum 1:3)from his discipline and scourging reserved for His recieved children(heb 12:4-11). teaching us through Messiah our source and example the means that which God causes us to obey so we are while in Messiah through Faith not condemned with the world. 1 Cor 11:32. Hebrews 12:4-11 is a reflection of Yeshua as we partake in Him and his suffering being partakers of His cup (mark 10:38-39)to learn to obey. PSA forces an erroneous exception for Yeshua to the pattern of teaching what God reveals how He treats and sees both the Godly and Ungodly along with there fate. And God teaches that no son recieved loses sonship nor that no son recieved will die under His wrath because Yeshua is that source and example even when he voluntarily died for our sins treated by evil men as if a defiant sinner deserving to be cursed yet all the while presenting himself as an propitiatory ransom while learning obedience by such suffering in righteousness being tested as a faithful high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses while being made the pioneer of our salvation by Fathers discipline and scourging and not while under divine wrath.

Christus Victor is the correct understanding

@@moonman5543 Christus victor does not sufficiently explain of its own as to why, how and by who Yeshua died for the sins of many according to the scriptures. Any atonement theory that involves the death of Yeshua must explain this aspect of the Gospel according to the scriptures. Christus victor only speaks of some things that were provisioned and done away with in Yeshua's death. But not the means that it was provisioned. Which we can see in hebrews 2 that Yeshua came to destroy the one(satan) who had power over death through our enslavement of sin. That Yeshua set us free from while also dealing with our spiritual death upon hearing the Gospel(1 peter 1:23;jms 1:18) through the agency of the Spirit to be reborn from above. But not all of us will be free from dieing physically until the 1st resurrection occurs upon Yeshua's 2nd and last return to earth. Many will not see the 1st death and will live mortal in the millinial kingdom for the duration of Yeshua's's physical reign to then at the end of the Gog and Magog battle, be transformed to the conformity of the Image and Glory of Yeshua as those in the 1st resurrection. Even though Yeshua's death and resurrection provisions freedom, not all things provided in His ransomed death will be realised for certain people until there appointed times( mainly conforming to the image and glory of Yeshua unto immortality) Not every saint to ever live will partake in the first resurrection unto immortality. But will be conformed to it without tasting death at the appointed time. A corrected ransom theory involving Yeshua's discipline and scourging to learn obedience unto suffering even to the point of death while presenting Himself to Father as an propitiating ransom to atone and redeem to release us from the curse of the Law by allowing himself to be cursed by certain sinners. As Father treated Yeshua as a legit righteous mortal son on behalf of the elect and our sins to put to death it's mastery in our body, using as instruments these certain men(who's intent was to wrathfully condemn) but was right with God , God utilizing sich sinners as the rod of discipline and scourging that enabled Yeshua to learn to obey .(2 samuel 7:14-15kjv) Without Father by the Apostles, being accredited to the betrayal of His son over to a accursed death(1 cor 12:3kjv) everywhere the greek word #3680 involving Yeshua's betrayal/abandoning over to death, Father is never paired with that word involving his son but only Judas iscariot, the priests and scribes along with the general hebrew population. Judas committing the greater sin in Yeshua's betrayal above everyone else personally involved because of his involvement in Yeshua's ministry. So the process that secured our freedom is how , why and by who being the means of Yeshua's death for the sins of many according to the scriptures is what needs to be sufficiently understood in any atonement theory. So Yeshua as a ransom while being a legit mortal son(Heb 12:4-11) Father intended in behalf of our sins to have Yeshua learn obedience by what He suffered (heb 5:8-9)even such obedience on the pole/tree(philip 2:8) as he drunk the cup of suffering Father gave Him (mark 10:38-39) by such discipline and scourging while presenting himself as a unblemished propitiating ransom to Father to atone and redeem allowing reconciliation by no longer fearing wrathful death. Through ignorant people who were Sovereignly used by Gods predetermined plan to be the instruments of Fathers discipline and scourging. Even though such evil people intended apart from Fathers intent toward Yeshua to condemn Yeshua as a accursed blasphemer. This is not what Father did toward His Son.

@@josephkuzara2609 while I appreciate your comment, I dont believe in theories and traditions of men and I dont really enjoy engaging in long winded fuitless debates either.

_poetic sensibility_ In his new commentary on Revelation Peter Liethard holds that this is the idiom to enter for an interpretation of the book, and by inference, the rest of scripture also.

Did you not listen at all to what David Bentley Hart was saying here? He thinks the language in the NT that implies penal substitution is a mistranslation of the Greek as meant by the writers of the NT. To simply quote a translation that DBH is arguing is inaccurate is missing the point and not interacting with the argument.

ALOT more !

@@englandshope689 Adding to the work of the Cross and Word are a dangerous endeavor! But have at it if you choose!

@@n8branim I'm sorry to tell you that you are the one that has added to the text of the NT an interpretation that comes from totally outside the Bible and the biblical worldview.

@@n8branim The text was written in Koine Greek, not English. Since you're in such a privileged positition as to tell other Christians what to believe, I assume you know your Greek, right? So why are you quoting an English translation?

It's funny because him and N.T Wright both dislike each other. They both are Christus Victor. Wright catches more hell for it because he's in the reformed tradition. Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian. All EO are Christus Victor. That's why eastern christians find the term "new perspective" to be odd if not insulting. It's the only perspective they've ever had.

@@FattyMcFatkins I watch this video because I'm still trying to find alternative atonement theories other than penal substitutionary atonement. My friend pretty much believes that the gospel is penal substitutionary atonement. Everything is legal imputation to him. I think Christus Victor or Ransom sounds the best so far

Christus Victor is what we call the gospel when their are a dozen other competing theories. All satisfaction theories of the atonement begin in the 11th century and reach their height or depth depending on your perspective with Calvin. For the first thousand years the only version of the gospel that existed was Christ' victory over death, sin, the devil, the law etc. Good luck sir.

@@FattyMcFatkins thank you. So the other views are under the banner of satisfaction theories? Is Ransom theory part of Christus Victor? The only part that puzzles me is the Old Testament sacrificial system. Did Jesus die in the atonement as the animal that is sacrifice or the high priest in the atonement? I don't want to believe he was a human sacrifice but all those sacrificial animal deaths , did he fulfill those? How were our sins put on him? Sometimes I think the Bible is not meant for me, I don't understand it

@@mr.e1220 it would be difficult to summarize this in a youtube comment but yes, ransom theory would fall under Christus Victor. It's the Pauline language and the language of the early church. The book of Hebrews is written by an educated hellinized Jew who talks about the sacrificial system in the past being a reflection of what is to come basically the language of Plato's cave. But western Christian's read too much into this. Jesus is described as the passover lamb not the scape goat, over and over Jesus is the lamb of God. The Passover lamb from the story in Exodus has its blood spread over the doors so that death will passover all the households with the blood. It's a metaphor but its a metaphor about salvation not irrational anger. I hope this helps. kzfaq.info/sun/PLRru9Of-dldo5ghVHok7k8JbkK3Ov2egP

That God predetermined Christ be delivered into wicked hands to be slain Acts 2:23 destroys your fantasy ; as does Ephesians 1:11 that God is working all things according to the counsel of his will. For your enlightenment read how God directs a mans steps Proverbs 20:24 and how God controls everything down to the roll of a dice Proverbs 16:33. God makes vessels of honor, who do honorable things, guess what vessels of dishonor, made from the same lump of clay , do, yes give Jonny an apple they do things like nail Jesus to a cross; which means they are doing His will , yes Jonny goodies and baddies , cowboys , Canadians and the Devil, the Lord God made them all,

Gee wiz let's see how an Almighty God could possibly turn Himself (if you have seen me, you have seen the Father) into a man while still being God, kill that man, and zip back to heaven to burn up sin and plead to us from God to love God because He loves us so much ( i got to tell ya sounds easy peasy for God to me because of that Omni power , presence and knowledge stuff that makes Him ALL powerful lol. Jesus/God was turned into a man (took the form of a man, and dwelt among us). The " man " Christ died, got buried, and rose again , oh yeah the Holy Spirit and the Father resurrected (roused, woke up, breathed Spirit into him) the man Christ and Jesus went back to God . Poor old Holy Spirit never hardly ever gets a mention. How come Jesus said that HE (Jesus) would send God's Spirit to help us out ; did he mean to say Dad will send it? Just because your a clever boy Steve doesn't mean you should call Jesus a liar for saying " I " will raise my body (temple) in 3 days John 2:19 . You need to do a bit more checking on the Trinity stuff, John 1:1 for example , its the first clause that definitively proves the Word is God. In the beginning " was " the Word : now check out the Greek on this baby and you will find it means self existed with no cause, and apart from that Christ is the Beginning Rev 22:13. let's see how Jesus, could be omnipresent : In the Beginning God created... Jesus is the Beginning Rev 22:13 " In Him all things were created" Colossians 1:16 So you reckon Jesus didn't become sin huh, you don't really believe scripture much do you, 2 Corinthians 5:21 " God made Christ, who had no sin , to be sin for us..... Jesus became sin by becoming man (flesh) "..but it is sin living in me that does it, for I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good thing" Romans 7: 17, 18 " I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me " Romans 7:23 Jesus did not commit a sin, He conquered sin and death through putting His sinless flesh to death on the cross and rising again the third day in glorious Victory

@@nevbillett7554 Father does not have personal involvment in handing his son over to be betrayed as did judah iscariot and the priests, Father gave His Son so that His Son would offer himself through the Spirit unblemished to Father to be an ransom price to atone and redeem from under his wrath as Father surrendered Yeshua unto another authority(john 19:11) by Fathers foreknowledge and predetermined plan to send His Son to voluntarily die through Fathers permissive will being numbered with the transgressors and treated as if a defiant sinner by evil people (2:22-24; 3:13-15), while learning to obey in righteousness through such instruments of suffering(Heb 2:10;5:8-9;philip 2:8) for our sins being disciplined and scourged by Father(Heb 12:4'11) as intended through these certain instruments influenced by satan to bruise his heel.

Your not of the elected as even though you understand that Father did not kill his Son nor did Yeshua die according to PSA theory under Fathers wrath as a sinner or treated as if by Father. You reject Yeshua as God incarnate which is the foundation of our confession that Yeshua is the Son of the living God. The opposing hebrews understood who Yeshua claimed to be(ex 3:14-15;john 8:24;58) and why they tried to stone him and plot his death as a blasphemer in thinking as you that he was just a mere man and nothing more. John 10:30-39 John 1 is quite clear that the word was with God and is God who became flesh And the OT is quite clear of the triunity of God.

@@josephkuzara2609Acts 2;23 says differently than your opinion

Let me Guess you must be an evangelical

This is the real good news: "Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people." - Romans 5:18 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:22 "When He has done this, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under Him, so that God may be all in all." - 1 Corinthians 15:28

Ultimate reconciliation in time is the fullness of the Gospel. The lake of fire is just the outpouring of Christ as the Holy Spirit as a refining fire that compels all who’ve died in sin to confess and repent. Christendom in terms of doctrines of men has cheapened it to only mean for the elect, and not for all. It has made the focus on receiving a reward, rather than on God’s love for the world Whom he gave his Som for.

When it comes to cultural views, Hart does seem critical of a libertarian view from what short commentary I’ve seen him give, though I’m not sure of he was conflating that with libertinism which is a common misconception.

@@CTomCooper I am only referring to free will. People have the ability to freely decide to do right or wrong (so people can decide to be licentious but that is a wrong decision) and freely decide to accept or reject God's offer of personal salvation even though on the latter issue, a person's spirit must be quickened by the Holy Spirit in order to accept Jesus as their Savior. Free will was compromised in the Fall of Humanity since when Adam & Eve sinned, they instantly died spiritually and that is the default position of all humans descending from them.

The first sentence you said is nowhere in the Bible

If the Father turned His Face away from the Son, this would have severed the Trinity.