Don't forget this is going to be a series on PSA I'm doing each Tuesday at 5pm PST. If you want to be notified when I go live you need to subscribe, click the bell icon and make sure KZfaq notifications are enabled on your device. Thanks for joining me!

Don't neglect the fact that the entire eastern orthodox church does not believe in substitutionary atonement. It's an interesting topic

I'm not sure one could understand Jewish sacrifice, let alone Jesus's sacrifice, without holding to some form of substitutionary atonement.

As an academic myself (linguistics), I am shocked when I hear that supposed scholars do not go back to original sources. This is the bedrock, the foundation of research-especially historical work. If a doctrinal candidate presented only hearsay, secondary sources, we would thoroughly attack them. If I were in a debate and heard someone claim that an ‘early church father”’ held to a point, I would immediately ask for the reference. Next, I would ask for Fathers who disagreed with the position. This is standard research practice. People always have different views. To say that all early Christians held to exactly the same views is to ignore the diversity of experience. People didn’t have the Bible in a singular form, as we have today, nor were there creeds to guide people in every aspect. And a number of heresies arose because of these missing elements. Thanks Mike for attempting to educate people about how some are misusing research. I would encourage everyone, always ask for original sources. Always ask speakers for the alternative interpretations, and the reasons they themselves reject others’ research. These are fundamental guidelines for doing research, and I have caught many graduate students on these points.

Cat-Cams are such a nice bonus! Excellent work, Pastor Mike!

Penal substitution misunderstands the word “propitiation”: Propitiation should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments-the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.)

Jeremy Treat is my Pastor! 👍 Got super stoked when you mentioned his book! Thanks for all the hard work you do Mike! Your channel has been a huge blessing!

We’re studying the American Gospel: Christ Crucified in Sunday School and, of course you know about it since you’re in the videos, but these videos you do are SO helpful and in-depth. I’d say I’ve been a Christian since a very young age, and I’d gone to schools for biblical studies, but it hasn’t been till now (age 43) that I am realizing the importance of understanding Church history and the doctrines I’ve been “brought up” in. It’s SO important for Christians to understand these essential doctrines that we believe in them so we can make a proper defense. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

How is this even a debate? He was pierced for our transgressions. Crushed for our iniquities. Its so clear!

Excellent video, Pastor Mike. I was encouraged by a friend to listen to this series, and this first video was extremely edifying. After listening to this, I feel much more at peace, knowing that my understanding of Jesus's atoning sacrifice on the cross aligns with what Scripture teaches. If Jesus never died for my sins, I would still be dead in my sins. Without the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross, I would be absolutely hopeless! I cannot fully comprehend the depth and width of His great love for sinners, especially me, but God's perfect righteousness and perfect love were made perfectly manifest on the cross. All I know is, I once was dead, and now I'm alive; I once was fatherless, and now I have an eternal Father who knows everything about me, down to the number of atoms in my body and every word before I speak it. I can't wait for the day when He calls me home -- a day when I will truly be able to love Him and glorify Him with all my mind, soul, strength, and heart with a glorified body. I can't wait to see the color of my Lord's eyes and the scars in His hands. He has given me everything, and He is my inheritance forever.

I was nearly won over by Matt Fradd talking to Scott Hahn about this. They too repeated the idea that PSA began with Calvin as he was a lawyer. Thanks so much for delving back into the ancient writings and making it clear that this belief is very early. May God always bless you…and your lovely moggie.

I listened carefully to all the quotes you read. I'm not certain that they were expressing PSA as defined today. After all, the Reformers redefined many theological terms, good or bad. In one's zeal to prove one's case, anachronistic interpretations must be avoided. Even a PSA proponent disagrees with your church history assessment on this topic (or perhaps Master Seminary assessment) J.I. Packer said, “…Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it (PSA)… What the Reformers did was to redefine satisfactio (satisfaction), the main medieval category for thought about the cross. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?, which largely determined the medieval development, saw Christ’s satisfactio for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice).” (What Did the Cross Achieve: The Logic of Penal Substitution: J.I. Packer) I plan to listen to your series, and I'm not necessarily anti-PSA either. I do believe that all writings must be understood through authorial intent. Blessings

As Mike said, how does Christ’s victory over death even conflict with substitutionary atonement? They’re complementary beliefs

The early church did not believe that the Father poured out His wrath upon the Son and scripture says Jesus died on our behalf not in our place. The two major words in the Greek New Testament translated "FOR" are ANTI and HUPER. ANTI means "instead of" or "in the place of". The word HUPER is translated in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of and is translated FOR in the New Testament. Whenever the death and atonement of Christ are described in the New Testament as "for" us, the word HUPER is used which means in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of.(D. Carroll).

Thanks so much Mike! Definitely needed to hear this in the midst of this crazy conversation. Keep at it and bless you!

To the question of whether Augustine was an influence on Calvin, yes...as were many church fathers. But more specifically, Augustine was a strong influence in Luther's thought, and Luther a strong influence on Calvin (although WE tend to focus on the differences). But all the reformers knew the church fathers' writings well, and knew church history.

I’ve known that revisionists at my school were full of it but I couldn’t point out how. Now I can after watching this. Thank you for taking the time to do this.

This is great. I've never been able to get my head round all the atonement theories, so I am looking forward to the rest of the series.

Hey Mike. Thanks for your faithfulness to the Word of God.

Appreciate your channel and your honesty in addressing questions.

This video went over a lot of things that I have been thinking about lately!! Very appreciative of your teaching style.

Thanks for this study. Looking forward to the rest of them. Love the cat cam! 😂

My problem with PSA as it is taught today is that there is no forgiveness of sins. If Jesus took our place and paid the penalty for our sins then they are not forgiven. They are paid for. Think of this if I owe a dime to the court and cannot pay it but you step in on my behalf and pay the debt, can the court in any way say my debt is forgiven? No my debt is paid and not forgiven.

At 52:05 when you're talking about Jesus sacrifice achieving both Justice and Mercy for reconciliation reminded me of Psalms 85:10 KJV "Mercy and Truth are met together. Riteousness and Peace have kissed each other." That spoke deeply to me. Thank you Pastor Mike.

Warren Mcgrew recently uploaded a video refuting PSA, so, I decided to come and listen to all of your teachings on this because I always believed PSA is an Orthodox Christian Doctrine. But, Warren is alleging that this is Augustinian.? 😳 So, here I am. I watched a couple of your teachings in this list but haven’t yet listened to them all, so I’m doing that now. I want to listen to all of these before finishing What Warren has uploaded because I know that you are a very diligent and careful student and teacher and you don’t use emotional manipulation tactics to sway or persuade others, because of that I trust you. So, I’m tuned in, and I’m listening 👂 😇🙏

The penalty is what I do not see in scripture. Jesus defeated death. Death could not hold him. He died physically like we will, but he defeated death and resurrected and now we will too because he defeated death for us to also not be held by it when we believe. I do not see penalty, but I do see substitution. Jesus didn’t die the death of a sinner. A sinner gets the second death which is the lake of fire. Death could not hold him. So, who did he pay the penalty for? Will non believers pay a penalty at final judgement? Why? Did Jesus only pay some peoples “penalty?”

Do we have a list of citations here? I'll take the time to go write them down soon if not, but it would be nice to have a list of the works quoted to be read later.

I agree with you when they say all these theories of atonement are complementary theories. I really don't see how one can rule out the penal substitution theory after reading scripture. It says Christ died for our sins it doesn't say Christ died just to show us how sinful we are, while it certainly does show us this. Jews don't even believe that they need a savior to atone for their sins so they really don't get the crucifiction.

Always good teachings from you bro...Thanks again.

Mike, I was quite glad that I stopped to listen to this tonight. It sincerely isn't empty flattery/man pleasing stuff I'm saying. What you taught on brought a huge sense of relief. Recently I ran across some folks who literally believe that we never sin again in thought or deed if we've truly been born again. When I asked, "Have you ever sinned once since believing in Him?" the question was totally ignored. ha ha I know the answer to it, but it still somehow left a massive dark weight on me just thinking about what they said. This helped remove that cloud. Don't suppose you could one day address the "We Never Sin" crowd at some point? Another believer told me that it had been a growing sort of cult around 30 years ago but then quietly went away.

Thank you for this series. I am reading Rohr's "The Universal Christ" and reached Ch 12 which talks about penal substitutionary atonement being developed after the Reformation. It's good to have this antidote.

Some notes from video with my comments: Clement (95AD) wrote: “Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ, our Lord, gave His blood for us by the will of God. His body for our bodies, and His soul for our souls.” Mike claims this speaks clearly of substitution. You said: “I’m going to die, but instead He dies.” You continued: “You have to do some kind of a weird thing to get out of this.” This seems to imply that “for” must mean “instead of,” which is absolutely untrue. That Christ died “for us” does not have to mean that he died “instead of us.” And it seems, to me, that “you have to do some kind of weird thing” to believe that “I’m going to die, but instead he dies.” How does he die instead of you? What about the fact that “the wages of sin is death” AND “every soul that sinneth, it shall die”? What about the fact that “if one died for all, then were all dead”? And that it was “while we were yet sinners” (we were already dead in sin) that Christ died for us? Those statements of scriptures cannot be reconciled with the assertion that “I’m going to die, but instead He dies.” Christ’s death does not prevent us from dying. It redeems/ransoms us FROM DEATH. Ignatius in 107AD: “Now he suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved.” Again, you claim that this was a substitutionary death, which leads to salvation. But that is not what the statement says. Again, you seem to be forcing “for” to mean something other than what the author seems to mean, as I understand it. Yes! Jesus suffered FOR OUR SAKES. That doesn’t mean he suffered IN OUR PLACE. The Epistle of Barnabas (written between 70AD-135AD): “For this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling.” You point out that those are sacrificial terms from the OT, indicating that they contain a “legal term” that cannot be attributed to Calvin. I’m not sure why you equate ‘the blood of sprinkling” with “a legal term,” or why you read PSA into these statements. Maybe you will clarify that later. Continuing with Barnabas: “For it is written of Him, partly with reference to Israel and partly to us, and the scriptures sayeth thus: He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; with his stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearers.” You point out that this comes from Isaiah 53, which is “one of the classic Penal Substitutionary texts.” Yes, but that understanding of the text forces “for our transgressions” and “for our iniquities” to mean that Christ died “instead of us” or “in or place,” instead of AS A RESULT OF our transgressions and our iniquities, SO THAT we might be redeemed FROM DEATH (which is THE penalty for sin that EVERY SOUL that sins suffers) THROUGH His death… and, more importantly, His subsequent resurrection. More from Barnabas: “Moreover, when he was affixed to the cross he had given him to drink vinegar and gall. Harking how the Priests and the people gave previous indications of this, His commandment having been written, the Lord enjoined that whosoever did not keep the fast should be put to death because he also himself was to offer in sacrifice for our sins the vessel of the Spirit.” You point out, again, that he was offered as a sacrifice “for our sins,” implying that “for” must mean what those who adhere to the theory of PSA say it means, but it doesn't. You also points out that Isaac served as a type of Christ and say this is “clear PSA talk.” While it is true that Isaac served as a type, so did the whole system of sacrificial offerings we read about in the OT. However, that these things typed or prefigured the sacrifice that was to come at the cross in no way demonstrates or proves that Jesus’ death was “substitutionary” in nature. The Epistle of Diognetus (2nd century): “When our wickedness had reached its height, he himself took on him the burden of our iniquities. He gave His son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the Blameless One for the wicked, the Righteous One for the unrighteous. Oh sweet exchange, oh unsearchable operation, oh benefits surpassing all expectation, that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous one. And that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors.” You said that this epistle is “a clear example of the early belief that Jesus paid the price for unjust sinners, so they could be forgiven of their sin.” But how does that translate into Penal Substitutionary Atonement? Aren’t these sinners being redeemed/ransomed FROM something? FROM what? Is it not FROM “the wages of sin” (ie: DEATH)? If so, how is Jesus ransoming them FROM DEATH by taking their place? by dying INSTEAD OF them? He can't be. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to die “for” someone who is already dead, if "for" is supposed to mean "instead of." He gave HIS BODY “for” OUR BODIES in that our union with him makes us a part of HIS BODY. So, yes, there is an “exchange” of sorts, but I don't see how that proves PSA. It doesn’t even imply PSA, unless you force a meaning on the word “for” that the context doesn’t seem to support, IMO. You also have to force “death” to mean something other than death, as well. Because no one who believes in PSA believes that they will not “die” because Jesus “died for them.” Do they? They might believe they will not go to hell because Jesus went to hell for them, but to use that argument you have to make “death” = “hell” and make hell the wages of sin. Jesus’ death did not save us “from” the wages of sin, in the sense that His death prevents us from having to suffer the wages of sin, which is death. His death saves us “from” the wages of sin in the sense that it provides us with a way OUT OF death. His death provides us with “the resurrection of the dead.” He has ransomed us from THE GRAVE… from THE BONDAGE OF SIN. He does this, not by preventing our deaths but, by joining himself to us IN DEATH, that we might become partakers of HIS RESURRECTION, as a part of HIS BODY. These are just my notes and comments from the first 23 minutes. That is as far as I can go tonight. I am certainly willing to be convinced otherwise and I will continue to listen to the arguments but, so far, I find the argument for PSA to be poor, and even illogical, in some cases. I will come back to listen to the rest. I may or may not comment further. However, I will let you know if I change my mind after listening to the rest of this video and/or the series. (CAPS are just for emphasis... I'm not yelling or upset.) :) And though I do not always agree with your position I do enjoy your videos and appreciate the time and effort you put into your ministry here on KZfaq. I think I have said that before, but it's worth repeating. :)

Really well done and very thorough, yet I would say you're conflating what has traditionally been considered "ransom" and "recapitulation" with "penal substitution". Calvin expands the penalty beyond Christ being subjected to the death which all humans face as a result of Adam's transgression. For Calvin, it is that PLUS the additional punishment of retribution for each and every sin of each and every person-and that is what has been called Penal Substitution. Death, AND the due retribution by the eternal wrath of God in suffering damnation, as Calvin would have it. Hugo Grotius, an Arminian, later tempers this with his "governmental" model, which says the Father exacted a great amount of wrath against the Son to demonstrate the seriousness of sin, but not the full measure due to us. The key point of contention for the Eastern Orthodox would not be whether or not Jesus gave His body for our body or suffered an unjust penalty at the hands of humans-the ransom and recapitulation perspectives account for that, and that language is clear in the Isaiah text and is certainly ancient and Biblical, as found in Clement and Ignatius and the Letter to Barnabas. The key question is does God the Son pay this debt to God the Father by taking and exhausting the wrathful retribution due for our each of our sins? Does God the Father pour out His wrath and damnation on the Son? Or is the false and unjust penalizing, chastisement, and bruising of the perfect Jesus being done by humans? You say no, it is the punishment of God, yet none of the fathers say that God poured out His wrath on Jesus, because that specific idea is not clearly articulated anywhere in Scripture. The recapitulation view would say Christ assumed our nature and thus became subject to human death (which you could say is a penalty, but not in the sense Calvin or Grotius speak, which is what we understand as PSA), so that He could conquer death and redeem the complete human nature which he assumed. He was subjected to the death caused by the fall, beaten and bruised and chastised and cursed by us, experienced human death, and conquered the finality and permanence of death as only God could, all so that we could be freed from the bondage of death and be resurrected in a glorified body like His, and it is in that sense that He gave Himself for us. He did this in obedience to God the Father, and in that sense did it unto Him, not in the sense of receiving the individual retribution for each of our particular offenses. I agree the modern Christus Victor crowd tends to strawman A LOT and use emotional language as if Jesus-God the Son-were nothing more than a helpless child, subject to a cruel parent throwing them into a volcano for appeasement, and is overly critical of the language of substitution which is obviously present, but the patristic view is a combination of the concept of recapitulation found particularly in Athanasius and Irenaeus and ransom found in countless others-a ransom not paid to the Father, but paid in a similar sense to how we say a soldier "Paid the ultimate price" by giving his life for his countrymen, so that they don't have to be subject to the violence of the enemy. Calling what Clement, Ignatius, Athanasius, Chrysostom and others said "penal substitution" is re-labelling what has traditionally been considered ransom and recapitulation to "penal substitution." Penal substitution has specifically to do with the Father punishing the Son, and that is nowhere to be found in any quote you read of the early Church. The closest is probably Hilary of Poitier, but I'd contend that God pouring out his wrath is still being read into that, rather than simply offering Himself as a victim of false and unjust punishment and death at human hands in obedience to the Father's plan. I would also contend the passages in Athanasius are in a very different framework, which I have presented above. Anselm is first to see Jesus as paying a debt we owe to the Father, but it isn't punishment, but rather giving the Father His due and even excess obedience in our place to make up for our failure to obey. Then Luther and Calvin later expand this to God the Father pouring out His wrath on God the Son who absorbs and exhausts all the eternal punishment due each of us for our offenses against God. The conceptions of Anselm and Calvin are not what the early Church nor the Bible express. The problem is not that Penal Substitution (as Calvin has it) is mutually exclusive with other conceptions. The problem is that the Father pouring out wrath and anger on the Son divides the Trinity and breaks the eternal and inseparable mutual love and mutual indwelling between all three persons, as well as destroys the concept of inseparable operations, as God the Father acts upon God the Son, while God the Holy Spirit does nothing apparent. The crucifixion is not one Divine person acting against another, but a mutual mission.

Dear Mike, Sébastien from Switzerland here. Thank you SO MUCH for your videos, and even more so to our Saviour Jesus Christ in whom I try to abide. So many thanks for your work. Just want to inform that at least on my device, video persistently and consistently fails playing at 47:15, though I can move the time slider a bit and resume from 47:22. You may want to check if that's anyhow related to the actual video, others might be experiencing the same issue.

Hey Mike, will you ever do (or have you done) a video on hell and different views of it? (ECT, Conditional Immortality, Universalism)? I think there are really great arguments for how PSA goes hand in hand with Conditional Immortality/Annihilationism.

The thing that makes me not be convinced of PSA is that although we are Expiated, that is our sins are forgiven and removed, God is still angry and He needs to be pleased by killing someone, that is to be Propitiated, so He can not be any with us anymore. If God forgives but there is a condition then it's not love, can't God just forgive and forget without staying angry? I believe Jesus is a substitution for our sin but I don't believe His Father killed Jesus just because God was angry and wanted the pleasure to kill someone, but we killed Jesus with our sins and God's wrath, that is God gave us up to our desire to kill Jesus, was poured out on Christ, but not God's rage to kill something because He needs pleasure.

I Thank God for you and your minister Mike, from Monterrey, México

What software are you using for the multi-screen / countdown / split screen etc. ?

Great vid, Mike. The Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) has the "died for our sins" part. There's no way around it, obviously, He was the substitute who bore our penalty (death). Like how are people believing the gospel without believing penal substitution?! I've noticed that opponents attack not penal substitution in its simplicity, but their caricature of it. Jesus dying in the place of transgressors, on account of their sins is such a beautiful vital truth! Love it!

What software do you use for this?

Thank you tremendously for your work on this subject!!!

your ability to teach is a gift, brother. praise God and thankful for being in the fold.

Mike - How do you view the finished work of Christ when you hold to Penal Substitution at the same time as you deny a definite atonement? If it is an actual substitution, how can it not be Definite?

Thank you Pastor for this video. Really well done and well argued. It would be great if you could write down the references for the early church guys that you used. It would be good for the listeners to know where exactly the quotations come from. God bless you

I didn’t know this was even an issue. Thanks for keeping us informed :D I just don’t get why people would twist info to strengthen their own view.

If God’s justice demands that He punish sin, then there is a higher force than God-necessity-which determines what God can and cannot do. Calvinists will be quick to argue, “No, justice is an aspect of God’s nature. There is no necessity laid on Him from outside His nature.” The problem, though, is that if I do “A” then God must do “B.” If I sin, God must punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise. Thus God’s actions are bound and controlled by something outside of Himself, i.e. my actions. This becomes even more confusing if we add in the Calvinistic notion that God foreordained my sinful actions in the first place, thus forcing Him to respond to them. Furthermore, it is often argued by the Reformed that God is sovereign and doesn’t have to save anyone if He chooses not to. On the other hand, He does have to punish sin. So God has to punish sin, but He doesn’t have to save sinners. It’s very interesting that justice (or at least what the Reformed see as justice) becomes the defining characteristic of God rather than love. Justice forces God to respond to our actions, but love does not.

It's not necessarily PSA that's problematic, rather the way that justification, righteousness and grace are interpreted within its frame. Nobody I know of denies Christ died a sacrificial death.

Again, really excellent teaching. Thanks so much, God bless ya'll!

What God's holiness demanded, His love provided. The entirety of the doctrines of salvation truly slay my heart. Your ministry is a blessing from God. Thank you for being faithful.

Is there a source for the quotes that are cited in this video?

Once again, Mike, Thank You!!

preaching this on easter, great video

I wish you would have said Anything to about the question of the verse in hebrews , I read that and it scared me because of not always overcoming temptation, I'm still so new and my desire is to live for Christ but can't seem to always do the right things. Not that I have any righteousness of my own beyond faith in Jesus's finished works but I've given up everything I was doing I knew to be wrong and now after reading that wonder what it means if i don't resist sin to the death, basically. I am weak. I want to just go be at church and be in a discipleship training program but my church has 30 members and dropping, no help for me whatsoever.

Mike id like to personally contact you at some point if that is at all possible concerning some questions about this. I ran into a gentleman who holds to Father Son theology. is there a way that i could get ahold of you?

Is there any way you can name the letters which you're referencing?

1:02:30 - I think not His BEING was split, but the personalities of The Son and of the Father and the Holy Spirit were separated. So in a way He was separated, but in a way He wasn't. I think The Son is the only person who knows what it's like to be separated from the Father, yet He wasn't separated from Him in His being, and thus due to that death couldn't beat Him, and due to His holiness and lack of sin it couldn't condemn Him, and so the Holy Spirit rose Him from the dead. Does this make any sense? I'm no convinced in this understanding but it is my understanding as of now.

The Apostles never used "by his stripes you are healed" to mean "physical healing" 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls the healing is OUR SOULS

Do you have a list of all those PSA quotes from early church fathers?

This was right in time for me. So, for the past three months I have about 500 hours of reading and watching videos from various groups of Christians who (among many other things) are against PSA...I never know there ever was such a thing actually. I just thought it was a given that. Christ paid for my sins. There’s so much Scripture that I just assumed everyone understood that. My journey down that paths started with The Shack and the various materials that arose from that book and movie. I began watching William Paul Young in KZfaq which led me to a multitude of very smart and dedicated teachers. Baxter Kruger, Francois Du Toit, Andre Rabe, Bertie Brits, C.A. Miller, Brad Jersak.....many others. I thought I had really found something. I was starting to think I’d been mistaken the whole time. PSA is only part of what gets deconstructed by these ministries though. In order to deconstruct this the Bible gets deconstructed and reduced to part myth that needs to be deciphered. It moves into a type of Universalism as well. Not so much that all roads lead to God but Universal salvation. I have to be honest, I feel learned a lot in these months but one thing was really bothering me....I never really got a clear understanding of what salvation is. No matter how much I searched it was still vague to me why Jesus died. I was being told that the early church NEVER believed in PSA and that it was invented 500 years ago. That seemed strange to me. I began to wonder about all of this deconstruction. Satan was deconstructed as a myth. Evolutionary theory was said to be in harmony with Biblical creation. The sacrificial system of the Old Testament is said to be God giving in to our evil tendency for scapegoating. God’s Wrath is said to be the writers of the OT projection their own evil into God. I was really left with nothing to hold on to. This Video that shows that the early church actually had a very clear understanding that our salvation is Gods love expressed through his Justice. I’ve always believed that I just got really sidetracked. The way PSA was presented by these other teachers made it sound like God is and angry, petulant child who abuses people in a drunken stupor and demands appeasement on an emotional level. That’s just not true. Anyway, I’m rambling because I just barely came back to my senses. This video makes it clear that the main basis for their case against PSA is totally untrue. Thanks, now I’ll spend a few months pouring over this content :) Shalom! PS...this post is the first post I’ve ever made on KZfaq and is chock full of typos and grammatical errors. Typing with my thumbs on my phone and don’t feel like fixing them. Lol! :)

You keep saying true, biblical things about Jesus suffering on our behalf, removing our sins, making it so there's no punishment for us, getting God to forgive us, offering himself as a sacrifice, etc. But I hear nothing in those true statements about Jesus being a SUBSTITUTE for us. A ransom, a sacrifice, an atonement lamb, is not one who is punished. It's one who removes a penalty from another.

What is it that makes the statement “sinners deserve death” true? Is it god’s nature that makes it true, or is it god’s will that makes it true, or is it both?

How do you get penal atonement, when it says "ransom, there was an exchange" and you just say "this is substitution" that doesn't mean PSA as other views hold to substitution as well So if it says substitution (it doesnt), can I point and say oh it's ransom?

Very interesting and enjoyable listening! The truth about history always matters.

Sin brought physical death and separation from God. The penalty suffered by the perfect one, that we deserve all day long, legally exempts us from the cutting off we. The sin-filled ones deserve, when we continually choose to be obedient to the Victorious one. Both Penal and Victor motifs in the diamond like atonement doctrine. Am I missing something here? Critical thoughts? Thx.

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the arguments against PSA. At 18:56 you quote from the epistle of Barnabas: "For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up his flesh to corruption that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins which is effected by his blood of sprinkling". You go to add that this has something to do with the "legal side" of the atonement. In my view, you can come to that conclusion only if you presuppose that. He only says that Jesus' blood was a means to the end - nothing about 'paying off the just punishment' as PSA usually puts it. In fact, in the same chapter Barnabas seems to refer to Isaiah 53:5 when he says: "For God saith, 'The stroke of his flesh is from them' ", which would imply he didn't read Isaiah as 'he bore our punishment', but as 'he was punished because of our wickedness". I do suspect, however, that most people see no difference between these statements - and that is precisely the reason why fruitful discussion concerning PSA is really hard to come by. Most people just presuppose PSA into many texts.

If penal substitution is true, God cannot or will not do what he asks us to do: freely forgive. Here’s a question: if penal substitution is true, wouldn’t that make God a hypocrite? After all, it would mean God either cannot or will not do the very thing he asks us to do: forgive without demanding something on the part of the one who offended us. Jesus tells us we are to forgive over and over again. He tells us that we should be loving toward our enemies to emulate God who is “kind to the ungrateful and wicked.” He tells us we should walk the extra mile, turn the other cheek, and to freely give without expecting in return. However, if God demanded a blood sacrifice and was unwilling or unable to extend forgiveness without it, God himself is unwilling to follow the teachings of Jesus. Furthermore, it would mean Jesus was wrong about God when he claimed that God was kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Hey Mike I was really hoping you would comment on Hebrews 10:26-31, does it really mean what it sounds to mean? Almost leaves me feeling hopeless. Thanks God bless you.

I don’t get it. What exactly is the alternative if PSA isn’t true? What exactly are they saying?

hi pastor mike, can you make a video about hearing God's voice audibly and non audibly?

Very interesting study. Thanks Mike for all your work in digging all of this out! This is so basic to our faith that it's hard to imagine a Christian not believing in PSA.

Hello mr. Winger first off I just wanted to say thank you very much because your content has helped me greatly and I do thank God for you. I have no other believers around me in my life so I don't really have anyone to bounce this off of but I think God may have brought something across to me and I figured I would just share it. Could you take a look at Deuteronomy chapter 21:1-9 and Matthew 27:24. I think I see the spiritual connection there.

I really love your heart as you share and debate. Unlike so many others who do this type of thing, you are not speaking under a religious spirit, but from the heart of Jesus. Many have a hard, condemning, judgmental attitude about them and in the tone of their voice and the comments they make. You do not. Thank you. 🙏🏼🙂

Yeay David! At 59:28. Great question! I agree. Punishment is opposite to forgiveness. Mikes answer (hey I like you so don’t get me wrong) but it was not good. Like at all...:// such a vague definition of forgiveness. If you do something wrong against me and I say that I will forgive you, I then would release what you have done, not punish you (or someone else) and then forgive you. That is NOT forgiveness and it’s so twisted to hear otherwise! I literally can’t even believe that people would be persuades by this weak definition.

It never occurred to me that anyone could believe anything other than penal substitution. It would seem that the basic platform in the Bible shows this. This is very interesting. I learn so much from you. I am going to be off work and in the hospital for a week soon. I look forward to having a lot of time to listen to you and learn more.

Good discussion so far! It's especially important that people understand that the theories of atonement are not in opposition to one another. I imagine things will come more into focus as you continue in this series, but as of now I think you've painted such a broad picture of SPA that you aren't accurately representing many of the people who hold it. If SPA is simply, Jesus suffered on our behalf for our sins so we don't have to (let's call that "base SPA"), then sure there is wide attestation of that in the early church fathers. But those under the auspices of SPA often goes farther than that, and I think it is fair to say that base SPA has evolved to take on new dimensions through the work of Anselm and eventually Calvin and others. My concern is that without addressing that we leave ourselves open to some strong rhetoric from the other side (notice I didn't say strong arguments :) ). I'm always a big fan of pulling things back into their original context. You have done a good job showing that there is a thread of thought that runs all the way back to the beginning, but that doesn't mean we're done and can say that Augustine or Jerome's thoughts on SPA are the same as those of Calvin. There's one thing I'd like to hear your input on: Isaiah 53:10 is definitely an important passage in all this. I'm super weak in Hebrew so I usually look at the LXX to give some additional insight since I can hold my own in Greek at least. I find the differences between the MT and the LXX in this passage to be rather stark. Obviously it doesn't have to be an "either/or" type of thing, but the LXX doesn't say that it was the will of the Lord to crush him, rather it says, "it was the will of the Lord to cleanse him from the blow." In hindsight it makes me think of the resurrection... how it would please God to raise Jesus up as vindication of His righteousness. LXX is an earlier witness to Isaiah, and would likely have significant influence in early Christian thought so I think it's important to weigh it as a source. Some other thoughts: 1) Who the penalty is paid to: I think this might be looking at the atonement too much as a transaction. Jesus suffered and died; we are in Christ; therefore we have suffered and died (and thankfully will share in His life as well!) so long as we remain in Him. There doesn't have to be an actual transaction for this to work. I usually express this as "atonement is mechanically substitutionary, but experientially sympathetic." The "penalty" language may just be pulling in the idea that there was a "cost" and it was because of another's action. Note also that when we say a solder "paid the ultimate price" no one asks "who did the soldier pay the price to?" We understand that the language is about the cost, not the target of payment. 2) Expiate vs propitiate: this might be a good topic for a video if you haven't already done one (I feel like you have addressed it somewhat here and there). Personally I think these words should just be struck out of theological vocabulary. They have limited utility, and most of the time I see them become a proxy war waged in English instead of looking at the original language. Hilasterion references the lid of the ark and is the place of atonement, and Jesus being our hilasterion just means that he is the exclusive place where atonement can be found. Done. If you want to understand atonement itself, then work on understanding Hebrew "kaphar." There is no single, English word that will adequately describe kaphar so let's just move on from trying to insist on one.

Whilst I agree that there are many aspects to the atonement including substitution, the emergence of the theory of evolution challenges the conventional view of inherited original sin and drives me towards an emphasis on the inspiration of God’s love on the cross which shames my sin more than the payment of the debt itself. Either way it was the supreme sacrifice which compels me to worship Christ.

I thought this was beautifully put. From W James Hidley "I'm a Calvinist Christian, and I used to scratch my head trying to figure out, "Why are these Arminians [and some Lutherans] so 'dead set' against affirming the Penal Substitution of Christ on the cross for the redeemed?" As in, "Christ died as a substitute penalty for His people, who will therefore never suffer the penalty." Think of the difficulty: Say [hypothetically] I embrace Arminianism. I come to someone not a believer and I say, "Brother, Jesus took the penalty of your sins to the cross, so you may and ought to believe in him." Suppose he never believes, and instead dies in a state of sin. Now, the only thing I can say [if I reject Calvinism] is, "There was someone whose sins Christ took to the cross." Someone else could rightly ask, "Then how will he not be saved?" If I'm Arminian, I say, "Christ purchased forgiveness for him, but he rejected, resisted, did not believe." They may ask in turn, "But isn't his rejection, resistance and unbelief sin? And didn't you say, 'Christ took all his sin to the cross?'" This is a problem for the "deep thinking Arminian," who tries to hold on to the Penal Substitution of Christ for sinners. So, what are the options? Either embrace that Christ offered a real propitiation that really takes away sin from God's people [aka Calvinism] or "downgrade" the cross to an offer, which in itself, redeems no one. Which as such only "takes away sin," by the consent of the sinner. Being subject to man's fickle "free choice," there is equally no reason to suppose the Perseverance of every Christian in grace. If he comes in by "his free will," [there being no "irresistible" grace], he can "go out" just as easily. And herein is what our Arminian friend trades for the truth of Calvinism. He reads 1 Jn. 2:2, and determines, "'World' here is every man universally." Rightly rejecting assured universal salvation for all, there is only one option remaining to him. That is to deny Christ died to give His people all they need for salvation. Instead, Christ dies for each, every man in the same way, and gains nothing for any man in particular. Or others will say He gains redemption and forgiveness, yet it becomes null and void, because it is rejected. Penal substitution for Calvinists means that if you are a believer already, you know that Christ died to assure you of holiness and everlasting salvation. Christ's death FOR YOU is THE REASON you came to faith. It was His efficacious grace, giving you A NEW HEART, to receive Christ's benefits [Eze. 36:26; Philippians 1:29; Acts 16:14]. If you have heard the gospel, and yet do not believe, you are on dangerous ground. Refusing to believe, to repent, telling yourself, "I can do this whenever I finally feel like it," is one way of hardening your heart against God. [see note 1]. What to do, if you are not a believer? If you have not repented of sin? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" [Acts 16:31]. Tell God, "I'm sorry I have resisted You for so long. Lord, grant me a new heart, the gift of faith and repentance." Keep looking to Jesus Christ and His death for sin. As you come to know your saving interest in Him, you too may say, "He died for me; God chose me in His Son, that I might believe and be saved. Thank you, precious Lord." Note 1: In all this it is presupposed that if one doesn't clearly understand the Bible message of Christ's death for sin, that God wants the "seeker" to get the needed information. Some people wrongly question their own "real belief," thinking, "I would feel a certain emotion if I were a true believer; or I would feel more sorrow for my sins." Or perhaps they tell themselves, "I want to be a believer, only I struggle with . . ." Yet struggling with stuff doesn't in itself prove one is not a believer. Many believers struggle with many things. I used to belong to a denomination which wouldn't baptize cigarette smokers, unless they first quit! So all these cases of "imaginary sin," and [supposed] "unconverted feelings," have nothing to do with the topic of conversion of which we are speaking. Also, [contrary to some other Calvinists] one is not lost or an unbeliever, merely owing to Arminian/Calvinist disagreements. God forbid that "theological maturity" be made a barrier to the merits and salvation of the Lord Jesus! The intention of the above is to clarify sound doctrine and remove some barriers to a mature faith and witness."

coming from 2021, and realized something I have not hear from Mike's channel!

Keep up the good work bro.

What other word or phrase could be used for “ chastised on our behalf” if the authors were trying to convey that Jesus suffered for us, as Jesus suffered only for our benefit, as opposed to Jesus took the penalty in our place? The problem with this video is that a lot of phrases are assumed to be” penal substitutionary “

"Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes, He endured all things, that we might live in Him." - Polycarp, "Epistle to the Philippians" 8:98

Great video! Thanks for sharing.

What about the simple verse in 2 Chorinthians 5:21? «He who knew no sin, was made to be sin, that we might inherhet the righteoussness of God through Him?»

Thank you Mike for your dedication to the truth! I just started researching this topic after listening to NT Wright. Does NT Wright fall into the category of Bryan Zand as well?

I'm a post-tribulation evisionist and I follow swingley interpretation of the Bible, now my brother is a pre trib preaderest and follows that great anti-catholic James White, and oh yes he believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Could you help us Winger? Who is right me or my brother, or maybe we should become a Winger so there will be a lot of Wingers following a new Protestant man, or should we just follow the First Christian Church which interprets the scriptures without private interpretation?

I think there is an argument to be made to PSA in the Abraham sacrifice, particularly in that innocuous little word "burnt" sacrifice. The burnt sacrifice would atone for a person, not necessarily an act i.e. a sin. Big question is why. Best conclusion I can make is that the burnt sacrifice atoned for a sinner in their capacity as sinner.

I've been looking for comprehensive books on church history. Any recommendations?

I have no idea if this means anything but I find it interesting that Jesus was 'substituted' for barabbas. I am not claiming that barabbas was saved or went on to be a believer - that's not my angle. I am only saying that I find it highly interesting and a possible foreshadowing and glimpse/parallel of the meaning behind what was getting ready to happen. I am no biblical scholar or theologian by a LONG STRETCH but I see the sacrificial death and substitutionary idea of said sacrifice all over the bible.

Maybe its a distinction of terms but i dont hear "PSA" at all in the Epistle of Barnabas. Im thinking PSA as, Jesus takes on sin and becomes a curse and the Father condemns sin in the flesh by "pouring out his wrath so as to uphold his holiness and justice. " The wrath of God satisfied.... Did i miss that in the Barnabas Epistle?

Great teaching and cute cat... I'm so happy right now💓😄😅

9:54 did you keep him paused in that pose for 5 minutes on purpose? :D

In your argument about PSA, you end up citing a lot of scriptures and writings of the Church Fathers about atonement, and whenever "sacrifice" is brought up, you say, "See, that's PSA!" At a first level, this is begging the question. At a deeper level, this doesn't really take into account how sacrifice for sin worked in the Old Testament. You end up taking an interpretation of the New Testament, and then back-reading it into the Old Testament. If you start from the other direction, which is what the Apostles would have been doing (understanding the role of sacrifice, especially sin offerings and the Day of Atonement, in the Old Testament, and then seeing that fulfilled in Christ), you get something that is almost like PSA, but also fundamentally different (and not just "Christus Victor" - which, as you point out, doesn't necessarily contradict PSA or any other "theory of atonement"). I'd be very interested to see you engage with The Religion of the Apostles, by Fr. Stephen De Young, or to discuss this with Fr. Stephen himself. It'd be a really good conversation.

Excellent. Exactly. Thank you for doing this.

Correction: The satisfaction model, closely related to the PSA model of the atonement was popularized by Roman Catholic archbishop Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm wrote the book "Why God was a man" in 1098, which popularized the satisfaction theory. John Calvin then modified the satisfaction theory to say atonement was attributed only to individuals, the elect ones.

Death for Sinners is permanent. Wow, Jesus's quote on quote death is just a temporary situation. . So, please explain to me how his death is so significant for our salvation. ? Death as something that is negative. Is only so because of how it relates to us. Death to an internal Divine being is insignificant. So explain to me how its payment in anyway.?

No one who rejects PSA is saying there isn’t some type of substitution that occurs on the cross (e.g. Jesus’ death in place of ours).... we are rejecting the notion God pours out on his wrath on Jesus, a concept you definitely won’t find in any of the church fathers, nor explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible.

Good informative vid! but, substititionary atonement is not necessarily Penal substitutionary atonement. God in Christ, assumed, identified with, and 'recapitulated' (Ireneaus) our nature. He was the ultimate and perfect sacrifice. He took the fall X Augustine did speak contrary to the majority (regarding human will, transmission of guilt etc... Anselm took 'satisfaction' thinking to an extreme... Calvin did pick up his thoughts and put them on steroids.

12 minutes into it and you have not defined PSA yet or CV

Question: Theologians normally distinguish between "ransom theory" and "penal substitution" which is why church historians often say penal substitution was a late theory. Do you (Mike) think they should be considered the same thing?

Here's the one problem I have with PSA, and I'd love to hear a response: if Jesus takes our punishment, and the due penalty for my sins is *eternal* separation from God, then why did Jesus only stay dead for 40 hours or so, and then go back to being with the Father and Spirit? Isn't the punishment eternal separation, not a couple of days?