It isn't penal substitution, it's love substitution

I was postmill/amill before i knew Apokatastasis. So i thinks history ends when all the nations turn to God on earth and the remaining unbelieving remanet of Jews finally do too, the reign of christ, all are under the feet of Christ. Then the return of christ with the last enemy remaining to be abolished, That is death. With the trope that some of the last will be first and some of the first will be last. But all come to Him. That's How do I view it right now until I see otherwise.

My only thing is was any violence used in that whip jesus made.

Very interesting video. Genuine question here, even though it may inadvertently sound antagonistic: does any particular amount of Scripture need to be true to maintain it’s authority? So for example, to take an extreme as a test of the principle, if nothing in Scripture were true, would it still have authority in your view?

The reading really help put it together.

How on earth do you participate in Christ’s death?

This is the message that Pauline dispensational midax and acts 28 Believers have been saying the Evangel of 1st Corinthians 15 the conciliation these are all locked within Paul's Epistles

Good summary of this rich article. I’ve read through it multiple times in the past. My one small quibble would be that at one point you discuss and critique DBH and his exaltation of pre-Augustinian / Byzantine theologians and note that the Byzantines were also twisted and perpetrators of violence. Of course, Hart speaks to the eastern flaws in many instances elsewhere (Atheist delusions & his history of Christianity). However, first, the Byzantines were not what Hart is referring to with pre-Augustine theologians. Second, one can’t really conflate pre-Augustine with Byzantine. The Byzantine empire was in its infancy when Augustine was born. There was hardly a well established Byzantine school of theological thought when Augustine began writing. But, Hart has in mind the Cappadocian fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Nazianzus) as well as Origen, et al. These were neither violent nor did their theology lead to such horrors as Augustine’s did/does. But thanks otherwise.

I agree that western theology does have errors but heterosexualuality is God’s way. We are in a time of deception and great awakening and the more time I spend with the Father and nurture our relationship, the more my spiritual eyes are opened and the lies fall away. That’s key to revelation, time spent with Holy Spirit, a quiet time with the Father will reveal his truth to us.

The basis of antisemitism in Christian and Islamic society is the colonialist cultural appropriation of Judaism by these other religions. Cultural appropriation also results in hatred by the larger dominant society that is doing the appropriation for the smaller, weaker society that is being appropriated. In places like China and India where there is no cultural appropriation of Judaism, then there is no antisemitism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation Cultural appropriation[1][2] is the inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity.[3][4][5] This can be especially controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from minority cultures.[6][1][7][8] According to critics of the practice, cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or equal cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism. When cultural elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context - sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture - the practice is often received negatively.[9][10][11][12][13] Cultural appropriation is considered harmful by various groups and individuals,[14] including some Indigenous people working for cultural preservation,[15][16] those who advocate for collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures,[17][18][19][20] and some of those who have lived or are living under colonial rule.[1][21][22][20] Cultural appropriation can include exploitation of another culture's religious and cultural traditions, dance steps, fashion, symbols, language, and music.[23] Those who see this appropriation as exploitative state that cultural elements are lost or distorted when they are removed from their originating cultural contexts, and that such displays are disrespectful or even a form of desecration. The above perfectly describes the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Amazing! And the problematic issues created by this colonialist cultural appropriation of Judaism have entered into the collective unconscious of Christians and Muslims: "According to Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts, as well as by archetypes: ancient primal symbols such as The Great Mother, the Wise Old Man, the Shadow, the Tower, Water, and the Tree of Life.[1] Jung considered the collective unconscious to underpin and surround the unconscious mind, distinguishing it from the personal unconscious of Freudian psychoanalysis. He believed that the concept of the collective unconscious helps to explain why similar themes occur in mythologies around the world. He argued that the collective unconscious had a profound influence on the lives of individuals, who lived out its symbols and clothed them in meaning through their experiences. The psychotherapeutic practice of analytical psychology revolves around examining the patient's relationship to the collective unconscious." Hiding beneath the surface of both Islam and Christianity will always be the need to create in their societies an overriding compulsion to dispossess, oppress, and diminish Jews and Judaism. There are about 2.8 billion people in India plus China, but with a relatively small sector of Christians or Muslims, and there is little antisemitism. Even in Christian and Muslim countries where there are no Jews, there is still intense antisemitism. But did the Jews give Christianity permission to use and appropriate our cultural heritage like this? No way. The original sin of cultural appropriation not only damages Jews, but also damages non Jewish people that are exposed to Islam and Christianity by supplying them with a fertile source for antisemitic discourse and consciousness. I can very confidently say that most of the hate focused on Jews on college campuses today is from a confluence of Islamic and Christian collective unconscious and conscious antisemitic narratives. I won't sugar coat this. Islam and Christianity are total frauds. It would be great if they had made the pagan world more civilized. If these religions had used Judaism to improve on the horrible practices of paganism. But I can't say that happened. To be honest, both Christianity and Islam should have consulted with Judaism so they could create something based on Judaism that would be appropriate and positive. Nazi antisemitism in Germany was ostensibly about race, but really it was about aspects of the collective unconscious of Christian uncivilization, about the deep antisemitic discourse inherent in their uncivilization. And this is now resurfacing here in America. The hate for Israel and Judaism we find today is certainly not about the Palestinians. Otherwise, we would see the woke folks also protesting about other far more lethal conflicts now taking place in places like Sudan and Ethiopia. We Jews saw that in WW2 when Jews were being loaded onto cattle cars and transported to places like Awschwitz and Triblinka, that countries like Great Britain and the United States neither bombed the rail lines or allowed Jewish refugees to immigrate into their countries. It has been observed that in the postwar period that post Holocaust Christianity was forced to reconsider their traditional antisemitism due to the recognition of Christian barbarity and savagery towards Jews during WW2. However, by now much of this memory and self examination has, by the passage of time, been forgotten. Also, criticism of Israeli policy has been used to allow Christians to resurrect their suppressed antisemitic religious discourse. However, when it comes to Islam, their Jew hatred has never been repressed, never been denied. It is overt, highly toxic, and dangerous. The antisemitism inherent in Islam is what brought on the barbarism displayed on October 7th. And this has nothing at all to do with Palestinian national aspirations or modern Zionism.

Let’s go!

lfggggggg🫡🫡

Another great video thx guys 🙏

Apologetics (when it comes to bible scholarship) is just literary-historical creationism. The denialism they engage in is the same - they’ll either 1. deny the very legitimacy of the field or 2. try to create false ambiguity when it comes to the academic consensus, acting like the subject is more debated or there’s more room for non-naturalistic explanations (and “traditional” beliefs on subjects) to be true than there actually is. It's this dishonesty that guarantees none of them have actual relevant education or credentials in the field - most don't even read actual scholarship.

I noticed you guys critiquing Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicals converting to it. Have you made an episode detailing your criticisms? I’d definitely be interested in hearing your take on it.

Yea, missing worship on Sunday has a very negative and oppressive effect on your mind and spirit as a believer. Missed Sundsy worship with other believers for 5 months because of work. Then another 2 months after major surgery. Once I was able to return for the past 2 months, immediately my thoughts, and my thinking has cleared, was able to think about my future and reprioritze my goals. Returning to work next week and back to working Sundays. But only briefly as I may have secured another job that not only have Sundays off but have time to pursue goals. I will make less money but the tradeoff is worth it.

I was laughing so hard when Metaxas seems to be under the impression that the Confessional Church was "against" the Third Reich's antisemitism.

Are there any organizations you could recommend to start getting involved with prison ministry, or finding a mentor?

Love all your videos you guys are right on👍

Time to heed the warning of a friend of mine. Read Cost of Discipleship Read Life Together Then stop and read Sasse

This is really great news love knowing this thanks 🙏

I see it perfectly thanks Doug and Jon this means a lot!!!!!

I love the message here yet I think we have to be careful about glibly casting aspersions on 'Reaganomics' or reducing the Gospel to a social cause. If we are going to talk about 'persons' being connected then throw people with a different idea of economics or politics under the bus then it's not really helping.

This song at the beginning is so awesome. What is it? I cant find it for the life of me on the internet.

Great video love it

Great conversation. Timestamps would be nice.

Succinct presentation

[updated: fixed my mistranslation of 1 Thess 2.6-7] I find myself in complete agreement with the evaluation of chapters 1-3 presented in the video. I am puzzled as to why some scholars imagine that Timothy brought back acusations against Paul of him and Silas being perceived by some as exploitative charlatans, when they without justification try to mirror-read 1 Thess 2:3-6 as a defense against acusations. By contrast, it looks to me as if Paul is narrating their shared memories of the pattern of Jesus being presented through the ethos of Paul and Silas (see also the allusion in 1:5), and that this portrait was rightly perceived by the Thessalonians (kathos oidate - in alignment with how you know) Paul is overflowingly thankful for their perception of his Christ-inspired pattern for imitation, which was implanted in them during their endurance of afflictions (1.6 - ‘and you transitioned as imitators of us and of the Lord, having-accepted-with receptiveness the word into much affliction with joy in the Spirit of sanctity’) All throughout, he is emphasizing their familial relashinship with ‘adelphoi’. The Greek of 2.6-7 is badly punctuated and interpretedl in most English translations, imo. The problem is that the word for burden/weight/charge, which recurs as a verb in 2.9, is translated as ‘authority’, and interpreted as an omission. The present tense middle participle that means ‘being-able/being-enabled’ (dynamenoi) is inteprreted as ‘though we could have asserted’ Thus ‘though we could have asserted our weight as Christ’s apostles. But the Greek, plainly read mean the opposite in my judgement Woodenly translated, it goes like this: nor [were we] seeking glory from-out-of men - neither from-of you, nor from-of others. Being able in(to) weight to be as Christ’s apostles, we-transitioned in contrast thereto (the strong adversative ‘alla’) as unpretentious/naive (‘nephoi’ - childlike) among you… It seems to me that The participle dynamenoi is the beginning of the next sentence and is part of an adverbial phrase that modifies how they ‘transitioned’. How they positively were as Christ’s representatives - namely unpretentious and genuine caretakers who fully invested themselves : the image of the nursing mother. They were not seeking glory sourced in men, and were not being in if for money, but (see the division in NA28 which I think is correct) They were able to make a profound impression (weight) by transitioning among the Thessalonians as genuine caretakers - genuine representatives of Jesus. They were unpretentious caretakers who carry the burdens for others. This is the weighty model/pattern that is enabled in Christ’s true representatives (apostles), who portray his humility and self-giving love. Thus my translation, looking back to the beginning of the sentense in 2.4, where they are living among the Thessalonians as those approved of God and entrusted with the gospel, v4b-6 (‘not as pleasing men or with unhonorable pretense’, God being invoked twice) defines what they were not, and v7 then begins defining what they were positively as apostles: “(6) nor seeking glory sourced from men - neither from you, nor from others. (7) In being able to carry weight as Christ’s representatives, we instead transitioned as unpretentious among you, as if a nursing mother who would cherish her own children.” Here we see that not only were they not having any negative traits - but as true delegates of Christ they were able to be with weight in becoming caretakers for the Thessalonians, bearing the burdens of their converts. This strikes me as Isaiah 53:2 LXX inspired imitation of the the way the suffering servant is announced before God: as a male child/servant (hos paidion) , and like the scripted suffering servant in the poem, which Jesus chose to enflesh instead of grasping for the inheritance of being like God, they make sure that the announcement that is expressed through their appearance and ethos, is not what would normaly appeal to human ideas of glory and significance. In sum, it is not at all a defense against acusations by Paul’s dearly beloved brethern. The report Timothy brought is presented as 100% positive (3:6-8), though verse 10 indicates that they are not yet as far advanced on the path towards sanctification as Paul and Silas and Timothy. Paul uses loving richly metaphorical language here like nowhere else in all of his letters, and it seems to me that the Thessalonians are simply his favorite people in the world in the moment where he writes this letter. When he writes at the end of Chapter 2 ‘you are my glory’ I can’t imagine that he means that he receives glory from them or on account of them, but that what he cares most about in the world is that they will be there along with him, when Jesus returns at his parousia with the saints.

Beker visited our class when I was at Drew University in 1989. I had no idea who he was at the time, but I have come to appreciate his often-overlooked contributions to Pauline studies since then.

He keeps forcing legal language onto biblical ideas. I learned forgiveness was the divorce or separation from sin. The thing that we were indebted to. The thing which held us in bondage. "In whom we have redemption: the forgiveness of sins." The redemption or being delivered from the place of slave to free in Christ is the "forgiveness" of sin. We are no longer bound to its service.

Just got Doug’s and John new book going to start reading today thx so much this way of looking at paul change me also Steve Chalke new book is excellent 🙏

Irenaeus and Tertullian recorded that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus Florinus I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.-Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1. Irenaeus who was a Greek

My brother Ethan sounds high af haha love this series though 😁

Book Review: The authors are rightly bothered by the weaknesses that are present in what they call Justification Theory, shortened to JT. This JT theory is a large component of the systematic of the Penal Substitution Atonement theory. One of the biggest problems with JT is that it makes personal transformation optional, and this has personal and social consequences. “If our proclamation…or “gospel” - is off, then the church is off, and our influence on surrounding society is off…” (xvii). Part of the problem is that the gospel “has been cleverly reframed so that its key truths have been lost” (xvii). The authors say that salvation results “in what we call a “participatory,” “resurrectional,” and “transformational” gospel” (xviii). They point out “deep contradictions that are present between the participatory, resurrectional gospel…and an account of the gospel in terms of JT [Justification Theory]” (xix). Part of the problem is that “advocates of JT… have overinterpreted Paul’s arguments and JT has snuck into the gaps in these ancient texts and flipped a few key commitments around…that is very similar at a basic textual level to JT but very different at the theological level” (xxii). This has resulted in a gospel that often has little effect in the life of the believer. The authors write, “We show how “faith” in Paul often refers to Jesus’s faith: the faith he displayed…” (xxii). They point out that Paul’s teaching of being “in Christ” is primarily participational, not primarily positional. A lot of this participatory understanding comes from the fact that biblical “kinship relations are not constructed in contractual terms…And God relates to us as kin” (65). Further, “To construe our relationship with God in terms of conditions like a contract is to fundamentally alter and to undermine it.” “Covenantal relationships possess very strong expectations of good and right behavior, and ultimately place stronger pressures on their participants to act well than contractual arrangements do” (66). The authors point to how, “Both the cross and resurrection work together to save us by transforming us as we participate in them.” In contrast, in JT, “nothing is transformed by this theory, except, in a sense, God’s attitude toward us. We are left very much as God found us…we are essentially the same” (77-78). When the full gospel message is being applied, “By God’s great and unbreakable relationship of love with us…we begin to see and to address our sinful habits and practices” (79). “Christ is the preeminently faithful One who believed steadfastly and was resurrected, and our believing is participation, effected by the Spirit…” (267). In the last page of the Conclusion chapter, we read this summary that could be considered a primary thesis of the authors: “Paul…attacks a legalistic and contractual approach to salvation…” Instead, “…we are saved and transformed as we participate in the risen Christ… Jesus is our faith, and our faith comes from his” (271). My conclusion: The book makes some powerful points about understanding that God works through relationships instead of contracts, and how this would by necessity impact our participation and personal transformation. Beyond that point, the author’s valiant attempts to explain salvation will appear to be jumbled and complicated to anyone who is firmly committed to reading the Bible with Justification lenses.

Excellent discussion. I read the book a couple months ago. I plan to read it again and write a book review. I agree very much with the primary premise that Paul is using "justification" with the meaning of setting or making right that which was wrong. This is due to how he writes "ek pistis", out from faith, a product of faith. It is a functional faith that influences how we think, reason, feel, and act. It is in that sense that we are justified by faith, set right by faith. For example, Galatians 2:17-18 "But if, in our ENDEAVOR TO BE JUSTIFIED in Christ, we too were found to be sinners..." The Greek word for "endeavor" is "zētountes," and indicates a desire that is acted upon - it is not passive. The word "justified" in this verse is translated as "made right" in several Bible versions. Romans 5:1 "Therefore, since we have been justified [dikaiōthentes, set right] by faith..." “Dikaiōthentes” means “to make right, to set right, to righten, to rectify, to correct, or to render right.” We are justified set right by/out from [ek] faith, a byproduct of functional faith. Romans 5:9 “Much more therefore, having now been justified/corrected/set right/rightened by his blood, we shall be saved by him from wrath.” “Dikaiōthentes” indicates “to righten, to make right, to set right, or to render right.” The blood covenant which he made, and we accept, sets us right, changes our direction by active faith to repentance, setting us on the path of righteousness. Romans 6:16, “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which LEADS TO righteousness [dikaiosynēn]?” The Greek word here is the same as justification. 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 “Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified [set right, edikaiōthētet] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” The context demands not a mere declaration of being right, but a genuine personal change to living right.

If the ransom was paid to God that makes Him the same as the other” gods” who require gory payment and strips Him of His forgiveness. Forgiveness comes from repentance ( the prodigal son had to leave the more and his father required no payment… hence” repentance unto the remission of sin”( quit sinning and forgiveness is granted). If I owe a debt and someone else pays it the debt was paid… not forgiven! It also strips us from any obligations….. but a testament requires both parties make input. I draw near to God by using my freewill to quit sinning and He draws near to me out of mercy and love!

As I read this book I am happy to see that the original gospel Paul preached included the universal defeat of the oppresssive powers of sin, death, and evil (archons and such) which have put humanity in a terrible bondage. But the good news is that a universally effective victory has been accomplished in Christ. Part of salvation is the opportunity to live in the power of this victory now. Part of the salvation is also that at the end of the ages God will be all in all! Please say more!

So what's the gospel for parachute centers?Where are the churches where the pastors?How cheer for your?I contacted reality ministries and was Very underwhelmed with their lack of christ to Do those searching for answers

I appreciate the headache that your music gives ma'am

Where can I watch the previous videos?

Do you ever touch on the supposed supercessionist texts in the book of Hebrews?

I thought I was interested to hear your critique of this book, but you blither too much.

Atonement : God as Man did what Man without God could never have done... Including... The deification of our nature within his own in which we, as persons, might "partake". The defeat of all our enemies. Reconciliation. Forgiveness. And, because our sentence of death in Eden was not purely "consequential" (and partly an act of mercy), but also a "punishment" / God's wrath expressed as his energy acting upon that which is contrary to it (his justice / righteousness / order), we are, therefore, in this sense, saved from God too - when, on the day when the universe is shaken and that which is not relationally restored with him will "go down with the ship of sin" so to speak "And the chastisement / punishment that was upon him, bought us peace" Christ is not bearing the anger and fury of God on the cross, but he is undergoing death, which is a punishment (our death and punishment) so he provides the way within himself - as the Ark - to escape punishment and the consequential reaping of death of that final day.

First

Cats will....

We can’t know what happens after death. As an agnostic leaning towards Christianity, I am beginning to see hell as a possibility just like a void after death is a possibility. And even some strange possibility where Jesus takes people to hell is a possibility 🤷‍♂️. So, my theology as a Christian would be, we don’t know what happens after death, but throughout history, personal and karmic responsibility is a religious theme worth taking into account. We need to surrender to the reality that no matter what we believe, we can’t change where we end up. To me, both universalism and its evangelical polarity are both built partially on the unconscious desire to control one’s future. What I admire about Judaism is its surrender to God’s judgment. In a way, the absence of Christ in Jewish theology is an act of surrender and trust in the overarching laws of the universe (which may reflect the laws of God). It annihilates the need for post-death theology. It forces the individual to confront their fear of death and the after life. It’s a psychological hell on earth to confront this fear and when one reaches the mental peace and paradise of having faced it, their motive for being godly becomes pure. It becomes authentically driven by a belief that we were made to be godly just because we were made to be godly. The afterlife becomes somewhat irrelevant at this point. That the gospel is a gift becomes more evident. And it forces an individual to take this moment as a taste both of Paradise and hell… Because we don’t know if we will have either after we die.

@ 30:19 - i think he is using a hyperbole of a guy like Elhanan Winchester. Maybe scooping up Robin Parry (wrongly) into it, because Parry likes Winchester.

Evidence of the speech in character is listed in detail, and I don’t remember every bullet point Douglas makes, but I remember one interesting grammatical inclusio he talks about where the speech is framed by alpha privative alliteration.

Nyaah.... Fine-sounding words as ammo for a supercilious argument only make the ridiculous more so. Read Isaiah 53, and compare to this: [2 Corinthians 5:21] "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Also, one might consider one of the mysteries of the cross, namely Jesus' cry, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Jesus says repeatedly throughout the New Testament that he can only do that which he sees The Father do, and say only that which The Father bids him speak. In other words, Jesus here acknowledges that he is one with The Father, yet he is still subordinate to him. Also, we learn in the New Testament that there will come a day when Jesus surrenders all to The Father, that God might be all in all. But isn't Jesus' cry from the cross altogether strange? Yes. It most certainly is. However, that feeling of abject separation from God is part of that which must be borne by the ungodly in the day they are consigned to an eternity apart from God; yet this, too, is part of what Jesus bore on the cross in order to save us from an otherwise limitless disjunct ineluctably entailed by our own sinfulness and God's holiness. But my thinking all this strange (or yours, for that matter) in no way nullifies it. Will you contend that you must understand all that God does in order for all that God does to be true? If so, you cannot be righteous before God, since the righteous shall live by faith. Therefore, the mysteries of God shall remain mysteries until we are finally known, even as we are known, in the day when we behold the exalted Christ and become like him in knowing all that love is. Here's wishing you all success. Go in peace.