How does Jesus's death work? In this episode, Randy, Kyle, and Elliot discuss atonement, the theological issue of how Jesus saves humans. It's a deep dive, and a bit nerdy, but we think it's important.
The whiskey featured in this episode is Bulleit Rye.
How does Jesus's death work? In this episode, Randy, Kyle, and Elliot discuss atonement, the theological issue of how Jesus saves humans. It's a deep dive, and a bit nerdy, but we think it's important.
The whiskey featured in this episode is Bulleit Rye.
00:00
[Music]
00:14
welcome to
00:14
a pastor and a philosopher walk into a
00:16
bar the podcast where we mix a sometimes
00:19
weird but always delicious cocktail of
00:21
theology
00:22
philosophy and spirituality
00:28
well welcome everyone on this episode of
00:31
a pastor and a philosopher walking to a
00:33
bar
00:33
we're discussing atonement that is the
00:36
question of how it is that jesus's death
00:39
and resurrection actually saves humans
00:42
how is it that that's the thing that
00:44
fixes the problem that we have with god
00:46
and randy and i have thought about this
00:48
both of us independently for quite a
00:49
while
00:50
and probably have some different views
00:52
on it so i look forward to maybe hashing
00:54
some of that out
00:55
and there's a possibility that we might
00:57
just deflate somebody's faith
00:59
and in this episode we're not aiming to
01:00
do that but it very well may happen
01:03
so hang on uh
01:06
and you know what better to have next to
01:09
you when you're deflating faith
01:10
than a good drama whiskey so
01:14
kind of a must it is we're doing things
01:16
a little bit differently in this episode
01:19
uh our producer my night tonight
01:21
producer bartender
01:23
i like it our producer has uh selected
01:26
for us
01:27
something that we don't know what it is
01:29
so ellie yeah this is a blind tasting
01:32
so there's no bottle in sight yeah all
01:34
you have is a unmarked glass with
01:36
some goldish colored liquid in it and
01:39
yeah i thought it'd be fun if you could
01:41
tell me if if not exactly what you're
01:43
tasting
01:44
uh give me some notes that uh make me
01:47
think you know what you're talking about
01:49
i love i love blind taste tests we've
01:51
done
01:52
blind blind cheap beer taste tests
01:55
which you'd be interested it'd be it's
01:57
interesting what comes out
01:58
you know close to the top hams hams is
02:01
pretty good by the way
02:02
um done many whiskey plantain cysts this
02:06
is fun here we go
02:07
yeah and i'm usually in fact every time
02:09
we do it i'm surprised at what my
02:10
favorite thing is so
02:12
i really like the nose it's uh not very
02:15
oaky actually it's kind of sweet got a
02:17
honey
02:18
but yet not like new makey it doesn't
02:20
have that vibe to it it's
02:22
very so my first question is
02:25
did i get this off the top shelf or the
02:27
bottom shelf like did i go
02:28
find the 10 bottle from the nose i'm
02:31
saying
02:32
definitely middle shelf not bottom i
02:34
would say
02:35
the bottom half of the middle
02:38
all right have you tasted it yes
02:42
it's very sweet it tastes a little young
02:44
okay
02:46
yeah now that we're yep all the
02:48
complexity is in the nose
02:50
and then none of it on the palate it's a
02:52
little hot yeah but not so much that i
02:54
think it's
02:54
you know cask strength against again
02:57
that that sweetness doesn't translate to
02:59
tasting new makey because that's my
03:00
least favorite
03:01
flavor in a whiskey but it's just not
03:04
very complex
03:05
it tastes young in that it it doesn't
03:08
taste oaked
03:08
very well yeah like not much barrel
03:10
presents have you ever had
03:12
uh just uncut uh just moonshine just
03:15
uncut like corn whiskey yes yes
03:18
this has that it's very a very strong
03:21
young
03:22
sweet corn flavor that kind of dominates
03:25
but yet it's not
03:26
bad any guesses
03:31
how how household of his innate of like
03:34
so
03:34
i i'm actually a little disappointed
03:35
because i really like the
03:37
the bourbon from this brand this is not
03:41
that
03:42
um oh so this isn't bourbon no oh
03:44
interesting
03:45
interesting is it a it's not a rye it's
03:48
a rye
03:48
this is a rye okay that explains that
03:50
you've got the heat yes
03:52
okay yep i'll go with bullet
03:56
that's a good that's a good guess
03:57
actually that is a good guess yeah
04:00
that's the correctness
04:03
this is bullet 95 rye so so yeah
04:06
i love uh bullet uh the bourbon but
04:10
i hadn't tried this i know i like rye's
04:13
hadn't tried this before
04:14
and um this is so funny so couple things
04:17
one
04:18
now that it's awry i'm able to like
04:21
appreciate it a little bit more because
04:23
when you're thinking that it's bourbon
04:24
it's not that
04:25
impressive really absolutely and b this
04:28
is the crappiest beer i've ever had
04:29
right right and b when you guys tasted
04:32
before me and kyle you particularly
04:34
started saying that you didn't like it
04:35
it's about near the bottom of the
04:37
you know middle shelf that immediately
04:40
took my mind to
04:41
oh it's not that good and then i heard
04:43
it's bullet ride and then i was like
04:44
actually i like it more than i think it
04:46
did
04:46
yeah you know what i mean i mean again
04:48
if you would have told me this is rye i
04:49
would have
04:50
i think i would have approached it
04:51
differently but i would say yeah
04:53
this is this is clearly the lower end of
04:55
what we've had so far yeah
04:57
for sure but i still enjoy it and
04:59
there's room for it there's room for all
05:01
all whiskeys yeah well not really not
05:04
really
05:04
i take that back i retract that
05:06
statement only so
05:07
only so much sin can be covered exactly
05:10
exactly
05:12
that's your segway yeah yeah jesus death
05:14
did not atone for old crow
05:16
[Laughter]
05:17
[Music]
05:19
well now that we're fully hydrated how
05:20
about we uh talk about the atonement a
05:22
little bit huh
05:23
sounds good so why don't you set this up
05:26
for us randy what uh
05:28
what is it we're going to be talking
05:29
about why is it important
05:31
why is it an episode on our podcast yeah
05:34
the atonement is one of many christian
05:36
doctrines and
05:38
i know it's you know trendy to
05:42
say doctrine is lame but doctrine is
05:45
really really important
05:46
um if we're christians or maybe you're
05:48
on the outside looking in maybe you're
05:50
an atheist and
05:52
i would still say doctrine is very
05:54
important what we believe about god what
05:57
we believe about the world what we
05:58
believe about humanity what we believe
06:00
about all sorts of things
06:02
matter it influences the way we see god
06:04
it influences the way we see one another
06:06
it influences the way we
06:09
act with one another and act in the
06:10
world and in
06:12
and engage with humanity in the world
06:14
around us so i would say doctrine
06:16
matters an awful lot and
06:18
what i've noticed and observed is
06:21
people will say they're a certain
06:22
doctrine or not a certain doctrine
06:25
they'll say that but the way they talk
06:28
the way they
06:28
act is one thing but the way they talk
06:31
that totally doesn't make sense actually
06:33
i don't know if you've i'm sure you've
06:34
had this kyle because we both are
06:36
we're at one time very passionate about
06:38
being non-calvinistic and i still
06:39
am quite passionate about it right yeah
06:41
i mean i used to care more than i do now
06:43
but i'm still
06:44
exactly so yeah love all you reformed
06:47
guys and gals out there but um
06:49
mostly guys let's be honest
06:51
[Laughter]
06:53
don't write us yeah yeah um
06:57
many people will say this for instance
06:58
they'll say no i'm not a calvinist at
07:00
all i don't believe
07:01
in in predestination i'm like okay
07:03
that's great and then you'll be in
07:04
conversation with them and all of a
07:06
sudden they'll say
07:07
oh yeah this happened to us the other
07:08
day it was really it really sucked but
07:11
you know god has a purpose in everything
07:13
yeah and i'll just stop and be like did
07:16
you hear yourself
07:18
because you told me a couple weeks ago
07:20
that you're not a calvinist and that you
07:21
don't
07:21
believe in predestination but now you
07:23
just told me that you did and you didn't
07:25
even know it
07:25
right there's millions of times like
07:27
that i think the atonement is one of
07:29
those
07:30
one of those things where if we're not
07:32
cautious about what we think about it
07:34
in what we believe about it it's
07:35
actually going to
07:37
to season and spice the way we think
07:40
about god and how we look at god and how
07:42
we look at
07:42
that there's all sorts of wrong
07:44
approaches to god because of
07:46
our belief in what we think about the
07:49
atonement so even if we've never thought
07:50
about the atonement right it's one of
07:52
those lenses that you don't realize
07:54
you're looking through until you look
07:55
through a different one
07:56
and think oh wow my whole view of god
07:59
and religion was kind of
08:00
colored by that one position that i'd
08:02
never really even considered
08:04
exactly exactly so because it's so
08:07
important we're excited to talk about it
08:09
and
08:10
in be in conversation with you listeners
08:12
and
08:13
really love to hear from you about what
08:15
your thoughts about the atonement have
08:16
been and how that's been constructive or
08:18
destructive in your faith journey
08:20
we'd love to hear from you about um how
08:22
maybe this
08:23
maybe this is old news or maybe this is
08:25
really the first time you've really
08:26
considered this so let's talk kyle can
08:29
you
08:30
give us an example of how to think about
08:32
what the atonement is what do we mean
08:34
when we say the word
08:35
atonement yeah good in regard not not in
08:38
british you know literature but in
08:41
theology yeah well so the word
08:45
this is it's kind of an interesting word
08:47
um it
08:49
you might have heard it set up like you
08:52
separate
08:52
out the parts of the word and you have
08:54
at and then one
08:56
and then mint exactly the explanation is
08:59
uh it's it's the explanation of how
09:02
humans
09:02
and god are at one with each other
09:06
and it sounds like something a sunday
09:08
school teacher made up when you put it
09:09
there probably did
09:10
probably did but well no that's the
09:11
interesting thing about it i mean it's a
09:13
translation of an old latin word
09:15
but they chose this english word
09:17
precisely for that reason that literally
09:19
is what it means yeah it's not like
09:22
cobble you know it's just
09:23
that's just what it is originally that's
09:25
what the word means
09:26
interesting so this is a very vivid kind
09:29
of visual word
09:30
automatically so maybe a fun way to
09:33
think about this
09:33
would be let's imagine the conversation
09:36
that might happen
09:37
if a pastor and a philosopher actually
09:40
did
09:40
walk into a bar together hey yo and
09:43
start and start thinking about
09:46
god and theology because this might be
09:47
one of the very first things
09:49
that comes up right so you're a pastor
09:52
right let's say we went into a bar
09:54
and let's say i was the typical
09:55
philosopher which means i'm skeptical of
09:57
everything
09:59
and you know i find out you're a pastor
10:01
and i say well
10:02
tell me about that whole jesus thing
10:04
what's that about
10:06
what kind of answer might you give well
10:08
i'll i'll be a stereotypical
10:10
evangelical pastor and say well i mean
10:14
you know jesus means everything to me
10:16
jesus is salvation
10:18
and you would probably ask if i said
10:20
jesus means salvation
10:21
i'd say what is that what does that mean
10:24
yeah and i would say well
10:26
humanity has a sin problem we in the in
10:28
the beginning
10:30
sinned and mistrusted god and when we
10:33
did that
10:34
we broke something we broke a
10:35
relationship with god and therefore we
10:37
can't be with god anymore
10:38
sin is a barrier from being with god and
10:42
that's a that's a problem that humanity
10:44
is incapable of fixing ourselves we are
10:46
powerless against
10:48
the power sin and the death and the
10:49
isolation in the punishment
10:52
that is justly coming to us because of
10:54
our sin
10:55
however jesus is such a big deal to me
10:58
because
10:58
jesus saved me god sent his son into the
11:01
world
11:02
to to die to die on a cross and when he
11:05
died on that cross
11:06
he actually gave us salvation there's
11:09
imagine this
11:09
imagine there's there's two cliffs
11:11
you're standing in the grand
11:12
canyon i'm on one side god's in the
11:15
other the reason that we're on two
11:16
different sides is because of our sin
11:17
we've been separated from god and we
11:19
can't get across
11:21
jesus comes and he dies on the cross and
11:23
it's as if that cross
11:25
is a bridge over the grand canyon and
11:27
now we can go and be with god because
11:29
jesus
11:29
died for us in our place that's
11:32
why i believe in jesus i bet you got an
11:36
a
11:36
in your homiletics class that was really
11:38
good
11:40
well done pastor thank you thank you
11:42
thank you so at this point the
11:43
philosopher would say something like the
11:45
following
11:46
uh okay well explain to me in a little
11:48
more detail it's a nice story
11:49
that you know with the chasm and the
11:51
cross across the world thank you thanks
11:53
very you know vivid metaphor but why was
11:56
that
11:57
necessary to begin with why why is it
12:00
that we need the cross in order to fix
12:03
this sin problem or for that matter why
12:06
is there a sin
12:07
problem if god set up the world
12:09
intending to love humans and everything
12:11
why did he set it up in such a way that
12:13
there would be this problem that would
12:14
then need to be solved
12:16
by this cross across the chasm thing and
12:18
how does that cross work anyhow
12:21
so you know for example if if i did a
12:23
wrong thing
12:25
and jesus is stepping in to take
12:28
the consequences of the wrong thing that
12:30
i did and god is
12:32
you know pleased by that well that seems
12:34
unfair
12:35
doesn't it i mean that's not how we do
12:38
things in in our normal life if
12:40
if i got in trouble for a crime that i
12:42
committed
12:43
and some really kind person came in and
12:45
said hey judge i'm going to take the
12:47
punishment for that crime so that person
12:49
doesn't have to
12:50
if the judge said yeah that seems fair
12:53
we would impeach that judge that's not
12:56
fair that's not how that works so
13:00
tell me a story that explains precisely
13:02
how it is that the cross fixes all these
13:04
problems
13:05
in a fair and logical way
13:09
and instantly aya's said pastor would
13:12
get very insecure very defensive
13:15
and offended mostly by the fact that you
13:18
don't just take it as a given
13:19
that it makes perfect sense yeah so
13:23
that whole conversation and just this
13:26
this question of
13:27
how do we get salvation from the cross
13:31
most christians would say from the cross
13:32
i would say from the life death and
13:34
resurrection of jesus
13:35
um how does that work what happened
13:37
what's what
13:38
what needed to happen and what happened
13:40
in order to affect salvation and life
13:42
for humanity right yeah that's what
13:44
we're talking about when we talk about
13:45
the atonement
13:47
yeah there have been a plethora of
13:49
theories of
13:50
on atonement throughout church history
13:53
and
13:53
there are several main ones that i think
13:55
we should mention so let's just do a
13:57
quick overview of the main theories of
13:59
atonement kyle
14:01
so the moral influence theory basically
14:04
says that jesus dies to save humanity
14:06
show us how to live and show us what god
14:08
is like christus victor was probably the
14:11
widest held theory of atonement for the
14:13
first
14:14
thousand years of the church and that
14:15
just basically says that jesus died and
14:17
rose again
14:18
to defeat the powers of sin death and
14:20
satan then there's the
14:21
ransom theory this is the idea that god
14:25
and satan are in a kind of economic
14:27
relationship
14:28
and that god somehow owes satan a ransom
14:32
for the ownership of humans satisfaction
14:34
theory then comes along in about the
14:36
11th century and says that
14:37
the problem isn't with satan the problem
14:39
isn't with sin and death the problem was
14:41
with
14:41
our position with god satisfaction
14:43
theory says that god's justice must be
14:45
satisfied
14:46
in order for us to have life god is just
14:48
and so therefore he would be unjust to
14:50
let us sin
14:52
and come into his eternal glory so god's
14:55
justice must be satisfied jesus death
14:57
is the satisfaction of god's justice and
15:00
then a later development
15:02
of the satisfaction theory is a very
15:04
influential one
15:05
these days and in the modern period and
15:07
that is penal substitution
15:09
theory so it's very similar to
15:12
satisfaction
15:13
or sometimes also called substitution
15:14
theory but it adds to it
15:17
this idea of this metaphor of kind of a
15:20
courtroom
15:20
situation so that god is a judge and
15:23
he's a just
15:24
judge and we are kind of defendants
15:27
trying to defend ourselves for our sin
15:29
and something about our sin triggers
15:32
god's wrath
15:33
god's wrath must be poured out on sin
15:35
and therefore it must be poured out on
15:37
us and because we are guilty and we
15:40
cannot pay the punishment for our guilt
15:42
ourselves we can't pay that price god
15:44
sends jesus to do it for us and so
15:46
god's punishment is poured out his wrath
15:48
is poured out on jesus
15:50
instead of us the scapegoat theory is
15:52
probably the main non-violent
15:54
theory of atonement that just says jesus
15:55
is not a sacrifice
15:57
but rather a victim of the violence of
15:59
humanity and of sin
16:01
and when he actually willingly
16:04
participates
16:05
and becomes that victim he actually
16:07
overcomes the whole system
16:08
and we get to enjoy life because
16:12
jesus was our scapegoat it has
16:15
hints back to the old testament but
16:16
really is this non-violent theory of
16:18
atonement that a lot of philosophers
16:20
like you kyle
16:21
tend to prefer so let's dig into
16:25
to some of these theories then the maybe
16:27
most liberal one
16:28
if i can use that word the one that's
16:31
probably going to make our conservative
16:32
listeners the most uncomfortable
16:34
would be the moral influence theory
16:36
absolutely now sometimes this is also
16:38
called subjective because the focus is
16:40
on humans
16:41
so there was a guy a 20th century
16:44
theologian who was pretty
16:45
influential on the atonement question
16:48
and he divided up all of the various
16:49
theories of atonement into three
16:51
categories he called them subjective
16:53
objective
16:54
and then classical subjective because
16:56
they focus on human beings the whole
16:58
thing is about how things appear
17:00
from our perspective and that's
17:02
definitely what the moral influence
17:03
theory
17:04
focuses on the whole point of jesus
17:06
coming and dying
17:08
and being resurrected all of it was to
17:10
teach us to be good people
17:12
to give us an example maybe or even to
17:14
influence us in a more material way
17:16
to become the best kind of human that we
17:18
can be yep
17:20
and good evangelicals would say why did
17:23
jesus
17:23
even have to die if it was just to show
17:25
us how to live and be good people that's
17:27
ridiculous why would jesus have sweat
17:29
bullets in the garden
17:30
of gethsemane just to show us a cool way
17:33
of living
17:35
that's not necessary and that doesn't
17:36
sound biblical yeah
17:38
and even worse than that if you're a
17:39
kind of traditionalist conservative
17:41
christian nothing after the death of
17:43
jesus is actually necessary
17:45
for this view jesus might not have been
17:47
resurrected and he still could have been
17:49
just as good of a moral influence as if
17:51
he was
17:51
as a matter of fact god god doesn't even
17:53
need to exist on this view
17:55
all we really need is a story about
17:58
jesus
17:59
being a moral example of story it could
18:01
have just been a nice philosophical tale
18:04
yeah and while i don't hold to the moral
18:05
influence theory i really think there's
18:08
beautiful truth in it where part of the
18:11
cross see the cross for me and the
18:13
well the whole of it the incarnation the
18:15
cross and the resurrection
18:16
it's like a diamond right there's
18:18
there's an endless amount of facets to
18:20
it
18:20
that you can learn from that you can be
18:22
inspired by that you can fall in love
18:24
with
18:24
and that's completely true with the
18:26
moral influence a huge part of the cross
18:28
is showing us what god is like that that
18:31
right there in and of itself
18:32
is bomb dropping material god actually
18:36
hangs on a cross is executed by the
18:39
empire
18:40
god in our world sits in the electric
18:43
chair
18:44
and lets the man flip the switch
18:47
that is cataclysmic earthquake
18:50
level stuff for me and one thing we're
18:52
going to see as we go through these
18:53
theories is that there's something
18:55
beautiful and good and right about all
18:56
of them
18:57
there's definitely something biblical
18:58
about all of them but they also all have
19:00
a kernel of truth
19:01
it's just how they've been received
19:03
historically the kinds of metaphors that
19:05
have been used
19:06
to promote each one correct this
19:08
particular theory
19:10
is is associated with some people who
19:11
are excommunicated
19:13
who are deemed heretical and so because
19:16
of that it's viewed as pretty liberal
19:18
so then the christus victor theory of
19:20
atonement again
19:22
is seen as one of those what kyle
19:26
just described as classical it was held
19:28
through the church
19:29
for the first 11 centuries really with
19:31
the ransom theory but
19:33
the christus victor theory of atonement
19:35
says that our
19:36
problem is with sin death
19:39
and satan that those three things add up
19:42
to giving us
19:43
eternal death and separation from
19:46
the life that we were created to have
19:48
they actually have power over us that we
19:50
are powerless
19:51
to address only god can do that and so
19:54
jesus in his incarnation comes and lives
19:57
the
19:58
perfect life shows us what that looks
20:00
like who god is but also he lives this
20:02
perfect life and he
20:04
he in his death and in his resurrection
20:07
overcomes the power of the grave
20:09
overcomes the power of sin
20:11
paul says in in romans 6 you are no
20:13
longer slaves to sin
20:15
the christus victor theory would say
20:17
that's because jesus
20:19
broke that chain you are no longer slave
20:21
to sin now you can walk in freedom
20:23
and you are no longer enslaved to satan
20:25
and death you no longer have to
20:27
fear it this is colossians 2 material
20:29
coming out where it says that jesus
20:31
while you were still dead in your sin
20:33
came and and died for your sins and
20:35
conquered
20:36
the power of hell and the power of death
20:38
and and made a public spectacle of them
20:40
that's the christus victor theory of
20:42
atonement which again
20:43
was the by far the most commonly held
20:44
theory of atonement for the first
20:46
millennia of the church
20:47
yeah and then a kind of twist on that a
20:51
riff on that that was
20:52
uh became popular around the third
20:54
century with an eastern
20:56
father named origen is known as the
20:58
ransom
20:59
theory and this would be sort of adding
21:01
to that whole crisis victor story
21:03
this idea that humans are somehow held
21:06
captive by satan
21:08
and the powers how that happened is open
21:11
to interpretation and debate
21:12
but he's like the ruler of the world in
21:14
fact you see
21:16
language and paul and even jesus himself
21:17
referring to satan as
21:19
the ruler of the world like he owns us
21:21
somehow
21:23
and then god sends jesus as a ransom
21:27
as a payment to satan and the powers
21:30
to redeem humanity so you have this kind
21:32
of economic language
21:33
in this view and in this view the ransom
21:35
theory it's
21:37
there is a reality that that god kind of
21:39
pulled a fast one on satan right he's
21:41
like here you can have my son
21:42
here as a ransom and satan didn't
21:45
realize he got fooled because he didn't
21:46
realize that jesus actually can't be
21:48
killed and stay dead
21:49
yeah and and god got the last laugh when
21:52
jesus came back to life right there's
21:54
that
21:54
picture in there when i think of the
21:56
ransom theory in the best way possible
21:58
it's the lion the witch in the wardrobe
22:00
you know i think what's which kid in the
22:03
line which in the wardrobe is the one
22:04
who the
22:05
white witch has power over because he
22:06
said was it edmund
22:08
edmund uh edmund is the witch's
22:11
possession
22:12
because he did this that or the other
22:14
it's been too long since i've read those
22:15
books but
22:16
aslan does that slow march whenever i
22:19
read that part it just gives me the
22:21
chills
22:21
aslan does that slow march to the stone
22:23
table and
22:24
this in this awful scene aslan is
22:28
shaved and tortured and shamed
22:31
and then finally killed and then all of
22:33
a sudden the stone
22:34
the stone table splits in half and aslan
22:37
is alive
22:38
that's the ransom theory yeah and then
22:40
later you get this
22:41
uh this interesting explanation that you
22:43
know the white witch
22:44
her knowledge of magic only went back to
22:47
her beginning
22:48
yep and she didn't realize there was an
22:50
older or deeper
22:51
deeper magic having to do with sacrifice
22:54
so this yeah this motif is picked up in
22:56
a lot of english literature you see a
22:58
very similar thing in harry potter
23:00
actually i'm a huge harry potter fan so
23:02
uh the idea that
23:04
that evil contains the seeds of its own
23:06
destruction
23:08
that to be evil is also somehow to be
23:11
ignorant
23:12
so you see you know voldemort who is
23:14
this consummately evil character
23:16
he doesn't understand what lewis would
23:18
call the deep magic
23:19
about love and so he thinks it's foolish
23:23
and silly and weak
23:24
and so he just grasped after power not
23:26
realizing that the more he grasps after
23:28
power
23:28
he's setting up the tools for his own
23:30
downfall eventually
23:32
so the ransom theory is the idea that
23:34
god does that to satan he sets up a
23:36
story in which satan thinks he's winning
23:38
only to find out he's destroying himself
23:41
[Music]
23:42
you know cheers to c.s lewis and jk
23:44
rowling
23:45
i mean come on funnily enough
23:49
rowling one time in an interview uh
23:52
they were asking her about the christian
23:55
themes in harry potter and
23:57
you know a lot of people think it's
23:58
demonic or witchcraft or whatever
24:02
evil and uh she was like yeah actually i
24:05
didn't talk about
24:06
anything related to christianity about
24:07
it for a long time before the seventh
24:09
book came out because i didn't want to
24:10
give away the ending
24:12
like if you if you put it in connection
24:14
with christianity you kind of figure out
24:16
what's going to happen
24:17
if she had just said something i
24:18
probably would have been allowed to read
24:19
them as a kid
24:23
absolutely that still wouldn't make it
24:26
okay with my parents though
24:29
all right next we have the satisfaction
24:32
theory of atonement
24:34
this one is where a big divide a big
24:38
shift happened in the way we think of
24:40
the atonement
24:42
before this for the first thousand years
24:44
of the church of church history
24:46
the problem was with either satan or
24:47
satan death and sin
24:49
that was our problem and some came along
24:52
in the 11th or 12th century and came
24:55
along and said
24:56
that's actually not our problem our
24:57
problem was with god
24:59
god is the one who we have a problem
25:01
with and who we have to
25:02
have that problem fixed and that is that
25:05
god is a just god
25:07
it says that in the scriptures that god
25:08
is a god of justice god is god who loves
25:10
loves justice he's just and
25:14
god's justice cannot be compromised
25:16
god's justice has to be satisfied
25:18
and so we can't satisfy god's justice
25:21
therefore jesus god sent jesus to
25:24
satisfy
25:25
god's own justice and in jesus death
25:28
vicariously and in substitutionary
25:32
substitutionarily is that a word i'm
25:35
looking at you phd why not
25:37
all right substitutionarily jesus dies
25:40
in our place to satisfy the justice of
25:42
god and boom
25:43
we get in yeah yeah and sometimes this
25:46
view
25:46
is uh it's part of a class of theories
25:49
called
25:49
objective so whereas the moral influence
25:52
theory was subjective because it focuses
25:54
on humans and how things are from
25:56
our perspective and making us better
25:58
this kind of theory is objective because
25:59
it's not about humans it's not about
26:01
how things look from our subjective
26:03
point of view it's all about god
26:05
the the need for sin to be fixed
26:08
is all about god's justice and the
26:10
solution for fixing it
26:11
is entirely on god which kind of helps
26:14
us understand why this point of view is
26:16
so popular
26:17
among reformed christians
26:20
christians who want to place a whole lot
26:22
of emphasis on
26:24
god's point of view and everything
26:26
happens in order to glorify god
26:29
christians like that tend to also be
26:31
some version of objective atonement
26:33
theorists
26:34
usually correct yep because what humans
26:37
do is kind of incidental it's really
26:39
god's gonna do what god's gonna do yep
26:41
and this
26:42
has its roots in paul correct yeah well
26:45
yeah so
26:46
you know to be because we're about to
26:48
pick on a version of this theory
26:50
a little bit later but to be fair to it
26:52
i mean paul talks this way sometimes so
26:54
he says in romans and it's important to
26:57
point out that it's in romans because a
26:59
lot of people take romans a lot of
27:00
theologians take romans to be
27:02
kind of paul's summary statement of
27:05
christianity i mean it's
27:06
probably the most in-depth theology that
27:08
you find in the bible
27:10
absolutely and in romans when when paul
27:13
is talking about sin and death he says
27:15
is chapter 3
27:16
god presented christ as a sacrifice of
27:18
atonement
27:19
through the shedding of his blood to be
27:21
received by faith
27:23
he did this to demonstrate his
27:24
righteousness because in his forbearance
27:26
he had left the sins committed before
27:29
unpunished he did it to demonstrate his
27:31
righteousness
27:32
at the present time so as to be just and
27:34
the one who justifies
27:36
those who have faith so a lot of the
27:38
ideas
27:39
of of this um satisfaction view of
27:42
atonement
27:43
are in that passage yeah i'll i'll just
27:46
like turn off my
27:48
the thing that's screaming in the back
27:50
of my head to talk about what paul
27:51
actually means when he talks about
27:53
righteousness there
27:54
or when he talks about faith what that
27:56
wasn't
27:57
what that was in the greek and what paul
27:59
was really trying to get across
28:00
as opposed to how we've interpreted it
28:02
but i'm going to turn that off
28:04
we don't need to go there yeah maybe
28:06
when we when we uh
28:08
revisit some of the more problematic
28:09
versions of this theory we can come back
28:11
to that if we want
28:12
it's worth pointing out here so because
28:13
i'm a philosopher i love anselm and this
28:16
is not my view of the atonement i just
28:17
love anselm independently because
28:19
he is the creator of the ontological
28:22
argument for god's existence
28:24
which is one of yeah which is one of the
28:26
oldest topics in
28:27
in philosophy uh well at least since the
28:29
11th century when he came up with it
28:31
and it's fascinating and i won't go into
28:33
all details here but it's really
28:34
interesting so i admire anselm as a
28:36
philosopher
28:38
and so it's interesting to see how he
28:39
gets to this
28:41
view of atonement it's all logical he
28:44
he doesn't actually use the bible or
28:47
what he knows about jesus
28:49
to build this theory of atonement he he
28:51
does it from
28:52
purely philosophical foundations
28:55
so he defines god in a particular way
28:58
and then because of the way he defines
28:59
god
29:00
it turns out on his view that jesus
29:03
coming and dying
29:04
for us was actually necessary it was
29:07
logically
29:07
necessary required god had to do it this
29:10
way
29:11
and it's really interesting how he gets
29:12
to that so he says that
29:14
here's his definition of god he says god
29:16
is that then which
29:18
nothing greater can be conceived so
29:21
modern philosophers rephrase that as
29:23
god is the greatest possible being okay
29:26
where god is a maximally great being
29:29
is the greatest possible thing there
29:30
could be and if you could think of
29:32
something greater than that thing would
29:33
be god
29:34
so just wherever your greatness meter
29:36
stops that's what god is
29:38
and because of that because god is the
29:40
greatest conceivable thing
29:42
when i as a human dishonor
29:46
god when i sin and therefore i i say you
29:49
know i know better i'm going to do this
29:50
thing that you didn't want me to do
29:53
i am dishonoring the greatest possible
29:55
thing
29:56
i am i'm devaluing the source of all
29:59
value
30:00
literally and so for ansem that means
30:03
i've done the worst possible thing i can
30:04
do i've said to the source of value
30:07
i'm going to go my own way and so
30:11
i owe god now a kind of debt i need to
30:14
make this right
30:15
i've dishonored the most valuable thing
30:17
in creation and yet
30:19
i'm a puny little human and so i can't
30:22
make it right literally cannot it's not
30:24
within my power
30:25
to repay the kind of wrong that i have
30:27
done
30:28
it's not just a a simple little wrong
30:30
that i've done it's the worst possible
30:32
thing i could have done
30:33
and so god god is now in a position
30:36
where he can go a couple of ways
30:38
he can say i'm going to leave you in
30:39
your sin and you deserve it
30:42
and that would be just right because
30:44
i've dishonored the most valuable thing
30:47
that could be but god also loves me
30:50
and is infinitely kind and so instead of
30:53
that
30:55
he's going to come up with another way
30:56
for that debt to be repaid
30:58
i can't repay it but a human has to
31:00
repay it because a human caused it
31:03
but there aren't any other humans that
31:05
can do it so what is god left to do well
31:07
he has to become a human because only
31:10
god can repay the debt
31:11
and only a human can repay the debt and
31:14
so the incarnation according to ensem
31:16
is absolutely necessary it had to happen
31:19
so he's got it all worked out in this
31:21
really rigorous logical fashion which
31:24
to a philosopher is kind of appealing at
31:26
the end of the day i don't buy it but
31:27
that's that's how he went about that i
31:29
like how you chose to geek out on
31:31
anselm's theory of atonement because
31:33
he's a philosopher
31:34
it's fun yeah so the next one penal
31:37
substitutionary
31:38
penal substitution theory of atonement
31:41
um it
31:42
riffs on anselm's satisfaction theory
31:45
but it's born in the reformation right
31:47
that this is the
31:48
of the major sub atonement theories
31:52
this is the youngest it's born in the
31:53
reformation with calvin primarily but
31:55
also luther
31:56
and it basically just says not only do
31:59
we need
32:00
a substitute or not only does god's
32:02
justice need to be satisfied
32:05
but the wrath of god needs to be
32:07
satisfied and they would
32:09
take the wrath of god as being the anger
32:11
the the
32:12
the just punishment for sin this is the
32:15
one that works in
32:16
punishment it's penal god has to
32:19
punish somebody if god is if god is good
32:22
and sin is sin
32:24
god has to punish somebody so we've got
32:26
this giant i'm going to be cross here
32:27
we've got this giant weapon coming to us
32:29
because of sin
32:30
we've got this eternal nonstop weapon
32:33
coming to us
32:34
and it's this courtroom theory is this
32:37
courtroom picture that we've been given
32:39
that says
32:40
god is the judge we're on trial and
32:42
jesus is the
32:43
defense attorney and satan is the is the
32:47
prosecutor right and satan comes to us
32:50
comes to the judge and he says to god
32:52
he's guilty she's guilty look at all
32:54
that she's done wrong
32:55
and on this day she did this on this day
32:58
she said did that
32:59
you guys have heard this thing right
33:01
yeah yeah and
33:02
the case is closed it's it's obviously
33:04
true and god
33:05
the father just says well all right and
33:08
he's about to
33:08
bring his gavel down jesus goes father
33:11
father father
33:12
don't do it how about this
33:15
you punish me you kill me instead of
33:18
them let them go free yeah and the
33:21
father looks he thinks
33:24
actually yeah that'll work douche
33:27
case closed jesus dies we live
33:30
we need a gavel sound maybe we can put
33:33
in a
33:33
gavel sound you asked for reverb last
33:36
week again
33:39
i'm gonna give you some coupons for your
33:40
birthday and you can use them like
33:42
throughout the year
33:44
sound effects coupons no you should just
33:47
we now we we have a producer we have a
33:50
plaster if we have a philosopher
33:51
we also need a sound effects guy that
33:53
could do it like police academy style
33:55
with his mouth you know what i'm talking
33:56
about
33:59
that's so cheap that's a missing piece
34:02
that's a missing piece
34:03
once we've got some patreon supporters
34:04
we'll give you some buttons you can push
34:06
with sound effects
34:06
there you go how about that nice i will
34:09
abuse that
34:10
man so a
34:13
kind of a twist a maybe a less angry
34:16
twist
34:17
on this kind of substitution view
34:20
would be the wesleyan version of it
34:21
sometimes this is called the moral
34:23
government view
34:24
very much the same idea the the whole
34:26
focus is on god's justice
34:28
he he is the moral governor of the
34:30
universe
34:32
he's the source of all goodness he's
34:33
he's the he's the metric that by which
34:36
we determine what's right and wrong
34:37
and so he can't just let sin slide but
34:40
he's also not mean
34:43
you know he's not he maybe he's not
34:44
necessarily angry he just has to uphold
34:47
a really tough standard so that gives it
34:50
a slight twist maybe makes it a
34:52
little bit more palatable for you know
34:54
still very evangelical but more in the
34:56
wesleyan side of things than the
34:57
calvinist side of things
34:58
absolutely when in doubt about the
35:00
evangelicals look to the wesleyans look
35:02
to the methodists
35:03
their their theology is usually a little
35:05
bit better than the random average run
35:06
of the mill
35:07
evangelical they went there and then
35:09
finally we have the scapegoat theory of
35:11
atonement and this is within this larger
35:13
umbrella of
35:14
new theories of atonement because we
35:17
haven't liked what we've gotten before
35:19
we haven't liked the violence of them we
35:21
haven't liked the penal
35:23
part of them we haven't liked what it's
35:24
done to god we haven't liked all sorts
35:26
of things about
35:27
atonement theories and so recently and
35:30
the most prominent
35:31
people who have been advocates or even
35:33
kind of uh where this originated
35:35
would be and don't quote me on that
35:37
because i'm not positive but rene gerard
35:38
is a
35:40
is a you know flag bearer for the
35:42
scapegoat theory
35:43
a man named james allison is big on
35:46
scapegoat theory and
35:47
really this is the biggest one that
35:48
falls under the non-violent theories of
35:50
atonement
35:51
and that being that god would never use
35:53
violence in order to bring about life
35:56
he couldn't do it that's just that just
35:59
incompatible it doesn't work and so
36:01
when we think about this non-violent
36:03
theory of atonement
36:04
jesus becomes the victim of our violence
36:08
so he and this is another one of those
36:10
that's more subjective
36:12
there's not like it's hard to get the
36:14
scriptures around it
36:15
but jesus basically is a victim of the
36:18
empire
36:19
which is us in their violence and he
36:22
instead of becoming a sacrifice
36:23
he's a victim and in that he opens us up
36:26
to the
36:27
you know fullness of creation as if
36:29
death were not a thing
36:31
yeah these non-violent theories of
36:33
atonement are more and more
36:35
appealing i would say to the younger
36:37
church to the more liberal church to the
36:38
ones that just say
36:40
i can't deal with that idea of god being
36:43
that angry being that
36:44
you know cranky fill in the blank yeah
36:47
this really appeals to me so i don't
36:49
know anything about it this is uh
36:51
you know just prepping for this is my
36:52
first introduction to it i've not read
36:54
any of these guys
36:55
but it you don't know where nature
36:56
gerard i've heard of him but i've never
36:58
read him
36:59
and i've not never read anything about
37:01
this particular theory of atonement
37:03
but already it seems kind of promising
37:05
because
37:06
i'm a pacifist and uh i think i'm a
37:09
pacifist because i think jesus was a
37:10
pacifist which means i think god is
37:12
pacifist and so
37:13
uh in these other views i mean they're
37:15
all very bloody
37:16
they're all warfare-like you know
37:18
they're all very much
37:19
uh god is battling someone else maybe
37:21
even battling us
37:23
and somehow we need to make a blood
37:25
sacrifice to atone for
37:27
the sins and whatever and it just does
37:29
it's hard to square that
37:30
with the kind of self-sacrificial
37:34
other focused violence denying
37:37
teachings and activity of jesus that you
37:39
see in the new testament so
37:41
this sounds promising to me yeah in i
37:43
would say non-violent
37:45
the scapegoat theory and then also the
37:46
just these non-violent theories of
37:48
atonement
37:49
they would say scripturally my guess is
37:50
they would say the book of revelation
37:52
is is our scriptural foundation
37:56
that the lamb of god right like you look
37:59
in revelation 4 john looks and he sees
38:02
he hears a lion and then he looks and he
38:03
sees a lamb and
38:04
it's this lamb of god who had been
38:06
slayed before the foundations of the
38:07
world who actually
38:08
is able to open the book of book of life
38:11
and open its seals and read it out loud
38:12
and so the idea behind that is that the
38:15
empire the roman empire
38:17
the most powerful violent empire in the
38:20
world
38:21
at that moment ex exacts all of its
38:24
violence
38:25
onto god himself who takes it as a lamb
38:28
led to the slaughter and that's how he
38:31
wins the lamb
38:32
overcomes by the by his shedding of his
38:35
own blood
38:35
by the empire's violence and in that act
38:39
s takes all that violence and makes it
38:41
completely useless
38:43
which is beautiful and that is scripture
38:45
it is it is yeah this
38:47
is making me want to read more about it
38:49
there was a there's an obscure passage
38:51
of nietzsche
38:52
and i'm going to butcher it because i
38:53
don't remember exactly where it is but
38:55
uh he
38:56
says something like um you can you can
38:58
measure the power of a being by how much
39:00
violence it can absorb without having to
39:03
fight back
39:04
um and that seems right to me it seems
39:07
like
39:08
god needing to exact vengeance in some
39:10
way
39:12
is inconsistent with the character that
39:13
you see in jesus or god requiring that
39:16
the payment be
39:18
crucifixion yeah some off about that so
39:22
i'm liking this framework the more we
39:24
talk about it the more it appeals to me
39:25
yeah and i like how you sound more
39:27
southern when you you get a little
39:29
you know off the cuff and there's
39:30
there's some off about that
39:33
some just something about it um let's
39:35
let's hone in a little bit on
39:37
the one that we really get a little
39:38
cranky about kyle and that's the penal
39:40
substitution theory of atonement
39:42
yeah so why is it that we get cranky
39:44
about this randy
39:45
well i would agree with you that
39:46
basically it's what
39:49
what this what we said in the beginning
39:51
about our doctrine matters because what
39:52
we believe
39:54
these doctrines that we believe it
39:56
actually frames up
39:57
in and paints a picture of who our god
40:00
is and
40:01
with the penal substitutionary theory of
40:03
atonement
40:04
it does a number of things it creates an
40:06
angry god
40:07
whose wrath must be satisfied right and
40:10
i know
40:11
many of you out there are quoting
40:13
excluding scriptures
40:14
you're going to email them to us that's
40:16
fine i know them all
40:17
but it basically creates this angry god
40:21
whose wrath and whose who whose wrath
40:23
must be satisfied
40:24
and that is inconsistent with the god
40:26
that jesus came to show us
40:28
another thing it does is it promotes
40:31
this dissonance between the father and
40:33
the son and that's what i grew up in i
40:34
don't know about you guys
40:35
but when i was growing up i felt like
40:37
jesus was my buddy and
40:38
i'm scared of the father and this theory
40:41
of atonement
40:42
really doubles down on that that the
40:43
father has to be satisfied the father
40:45
has to punish someone and he's satisfied
40:49
with if he punishes jesus he's just got
40:51
a
40:51
big whooping in him and if you can get
40:53
it out on someone we're going to be okay
40:55
now that's being crass in in in kind of
40:58
unfair in some ways to that theory of
41:00
atonement but there is that to it right
41:02
well to try to to try to represent in a
41:06
in the way that that i can knowing this
41:08
is this is my whole context this my
41:10
tradition and so
41:11
you know to kind of channel that that
41:13
voice if i were to argue for this this
41:15
is
41:16
uh it goes back to the holiness of god
41:18
and it's not that there's this this
41:19
angry father but
41:21
it's a father who can't can't actually
41:23
be exposed to sin and so there's kind of
41:25
this
41:26
this logical maze that has to be
41:29
navigated as you know father okay so
41:31
father can't touch sin uh
41:34
we we are sin only jesus can take sin
41:37
and so therefore jesus takes sin and now
41:38
okay so now
41:39
father can be with us and and it all
41:41
works out and so it's kind of like this
41:44
you know it's not that that god is
41:46
inherently
41:47
violent or anything like that but in the
41:49
presence of
41:50
this you know this enemy that kind of
41:52
twisted twisted things and then there's
41:54
this
41:55
fall that puts us on the side of the
41:57
enemy it's like there's this
41:58
this kind of necessary like the
42:01
bloodshed it's not something that god
42:03
wanted but because he's holy and because
42:05
there's an enemy there's this
42:06
this battle that commences or this you
42:09
know
42:09
god outsmarts the devil and finally
42:11
we're able to be reunited
42:13
with a holy god as we're made holy like
42:15
he is yep yeah
42:17
now let me remind us thank you for
42:20
playing devil's advocate of bringing to
42:22
to you know the conversation that
42:24
perspective elliot but
42:26
we have to remember when we're talking
42:27
about really any of these atonement
42:29
theories
42:30
particularly penal substitution we're
42:33
talk we're drawing from the scriptures
42:35
where
42:35
the writers of the scriptures and
42:36
primarily that primarily the apostle
42:39
paul
42:39
is speaking in metaphorical language we
42:42
take this
42:43
as just fact and real
42:46
like i don't know what the word would be
42:48
kyle but but
42:49
we take this as just like this is the
42:51
truth when paul is painting pictures
42:53
trying to explain to his audience who
42:55
our first century jewish
42:56
audience primarily and with some
42:58
gentiles mixed in there but they've also
43:00
been given this kind of
43:01
jewish upgrade he's a jewish man and
43:04
he's making
43:05
he's making he's creating metaphors like
43:07
a jewish man would which is
43:09
drawing from the old testament the
43:10
sacrificial system and saying hey you
43:12
know how that lamb would go into the
43:13
wilderness once a year as a scapegoat
43:15
and
43:15
all the sins would be put on that lamb
43:17
of the sins of the community and then
43:18
we're okay before god on the day of
43:20
atonement
43:21
that's what happened in jesus paul is
43:22
painting pictures to try to get his
43:24
audience to understand
43:26
so this is just a metaphor we need to
43:28
remember
43:29
in particularly a metaphor from 2000
43:32
years ago
43:33
for people who lived on the other side
43:34
of the world who had a very different
43:36
belief system than we do
43:38
and we're still using this metaphor
43:40
today i understand it's scriptures
43:42
but we have to remember it's paul
43:44
painting a picture to try to get this
43:46
particular people to understand what
43:48
happened in the cross
43:50
yeah and what you just described elliott
43:53
is it's a different take but it seems to
43:56
me no less
43:56
problematic of a take on this view
43:59
because
44:00
while we might be getting rid of the
44:03
violent or abusive kind of
44:07
problem that's inherent in this theory
44:09
we're replacing it with a kind of purity
44:11
idea
44:12
that god can't be tainted by sin and
44:15
that we are sin
44:16
and therefore god must distance himself
44:18
from us because we're unclean
44:20
or something like that and so we still
44:22
end up having the same dissonance
44:24
problem that randy talked about it's not
44:26
a it's not a problem of god is angry and
44:28
jesus
44:28
isn't anymore it's a problem of god is
44:30
holy and jesus apparently isn't
44:32
or is apparently less concerned about
44:34
that because he's happy getting down in
44:36
the muck
44:36
with us the incarnation kind of does
44:39
away with that yeah yeah i mean he was
44:40
rumored to be a drunkard and criminal
44:42
himself because that's the people that
44:44
he hung out with so we still have this
44:45
problem of why
44:46
a lot of us are more liberal than our
44:48
parents so
44:49
it kind of makes sense right well not
44:52
not jesus
44:52
right we can't we can't we can't just
44:54
say yeah well you know he
44:56
he just uh hung out with the wrong crowd
44:59
for a little while he's still the second
45:01
person of the trinity i mean there's
45:03
there's literal identity happening here
45:05
so yes
45:06
you know the new testament's fairly
45:07
clear what goes for jesus goes for the
45:09
father
45:10
uh so the father shouldn't have more
45:12
exacting purity standards than the son
45:14
does
45:14
yep so here's another problem that i
45:17
have with
45:18
the penal substitution theory of
45:20
atonement it's that
45:21
i'm i'm pretty certain there's no actual
45:25
forgiveness
45:26
in the penal substitution theory of
45:28
atonement
45:30
do you know what i mean where that's a
45:32
strong strong claim unpack that
45:34
okay god it seems like
45:38
people would say god can't forgive our
45:40
sins unless he punishes
45:42
us which is actually not forgiving
45:45
he's punishing he he's actually like
45:48
none unable or doesn't want to
45:52
forgive us our sins he wants to punish
45:54
us for them and he has to actually
45:56
punish
45:57
us for them in order to be for us to be
46:00
punished somebody right yeah
46:01
yeah i think has to fly somewhere like
46:03
it's coming
46:04
it's just a matter right and so is that
46:07
actual forgiveness
46:08
forgiveness is you wronged me but i'm
46:11
gonna choose to not
46:12
hold that against you we're okay we're
46:14
good that like i'm going to forgive you
46:16
for that offense
46:17
and not hold on let's be clear that's
46:19
not to say there's no consequences
46:21
sure after forgiveness happens right
46:23
forgiveness
46:25
especially in a christian context
46:26
implies that you expect
46:29
the good of the other person so we could
46:32
talk more about that if you want but
46:34
so it's not as though me forgiving you
46:36
means you're off the hook and you never
46:38
have to improve
46:39
or anything like that and we just ignore
46:40
what happened that's not
46:42
the idea of forgiveness but there is
46:44
something
46:45
i think i see what you're saying there
46:46
is something here that seems a little
46:48
contradictory like
46:50
if i've forgiven you but then also
46:53
expect to be able to take vengeance on
46:55
you in some way
46:56
or expect you to pay a price that i set
46:59
is that really forgiveness right well i
47:01
mean let's go to the lord's prayer
47:03
we say forgive us in the old school way
47:05
we say forgive us our debts
47:08
as we you know if we forgive others is
47:11
it really forgiveness if you say well
47:13
sure i can forgive you your debt when
47:14
you pay the your debt
47:15
like when you actually have paid it then
47:18
i'll forgive it that's not forgiveness
47:19
actually and
47:21
jesus then comes along god in the flesh
47:24
comes along and tells his
47:25
disciples hey i want you to be forgiving
47:27
people and they're like
47:28
hey jesus what if we forgave seven times
47:31
that'd be awesome wouldn't it he'd be
47:33
like
47:34
um how about 77 times seven
47:38
which is jesus way in that culture of
47:40
saying
47:41
an infinite amount of times i'm asking
47:43
you to forgive your brother who sins
47:44
against you
47:46
that is strong that is beautiful and it
47:49
seems to me
47:50
that if we hold to the penal
47:51
substitution theory of atonement
47:53
jesus is actually expecting us to be
47:55
more forgiving
47:56
than god himself because jesus doesn't
47:59
say
48:01
well here's what forgiveness looks like
48:03
make sure they are punished for their
48:04
sins for what they did against you and
48:06
then forgive them an endless amount of
48:08
times but every time they have to be
48:09
punished for their sins
48:10
he just says forgive them that's a
48:12
problem for me
48:16
me too
48:17
[Music]
48:19
you've convinced me
48:22
here's another problem i have with the
48:24
penal substitution
48:26
theory of atonement or with the
48:27
satisfaction theory of atonement
48:30
is it scriptural to say that the justice
48:31
of god has to be satisfied
48:34
would you say that well
48:40
it's scriptural in the sense that paul
48:42
says things that seem to imply that
48:46
is it is it consistent with you know the
48:48
whole
48:49
narrative of scripture taken as a whole
48:53
that's more complicated um i just want
48:55
to be careful that you know the people
48:57
that take this view
48:58
take themselves to be honoring scripture
49:00
that's why they take the view
49:02
absolutely but what about where
49:05
in the psalms and jesus quotes this to
49:08
the pharisees
49:10
david is saying david basically has
49:13
sinned
49:14
and god god comes to him and says i
49:16
delight in mercy not
49:17
sacrifice what is that saying there
49:20
sacrifice being
49:22
the sacrificial system that god gave his
49:24
people to make them right before god
49:26
really was it doing that or was it god
49:27
god give that to them so that they could
49:29
actually
49:30
change their hearts that's what i would
49:31
say but david's saying i'm doing all the
49:34
things
49:35
and god's saying actually i just desire
49:37
mercy rather than sacrifice that's
49:39
that i think is an example of god saying
49:42
my justice is
49:43
secondary to my mercy fast forward now
49:45
to james
49:46
the book of james james says
49:49
you desire mercy or mercy triumphs over
49:52
judgment
49:52
right you know what i'm talking about
49:54
yeah mercy triumphs over judgment
49:57
does that not say that the heart of god
49:59
is a heart of
50:00
mercy over judgment judgment the heart
50:02
of god
50:03
in the heart of god the atmosphere of
50:06
god
50:07
grace and mercy triumph over are greater
50:10
than
50:11
are held higher than judgment and
50:13
justice god
50:14
is willing to suspend his justice for
50:17
the sake of having mercy on the ones he
50:18
loves i would say that's scriptural
50:22
so devil's advocate here yep so we
50:26
we could read passages like that as
50:28
saying that
50:29
when god has like direct interactions
50:31
with humans or
50:32
or when humans have direct interactions
50:34
with each other
50:35
we should privilege mercy over judgment
50:38
and god gives us an example of doing
50:40
that in jesus because that's what he
50:42
wants us to do
50:43
and you maybe you'd add to that that the
50:45
reason for that is that humans are not
50:47
good at judgment
50:48
we're we're we don't know enough to be
50:51
good at judgment we're really frail and
50:53
weak and limited
50:54
and so we end up judging wrongly but god
50:57
is perfect he doesn't have the
50:58
limitations that we do
51:00
and as we already said he is the the
51:02
moral governor of the universe he's
51:03
where the buck stops he has to ensure
51:05
that everything turns out to be good
51:08
and right so judgment is his job
51:11
i mean sure if you know if the heaven we
51:14
all look forward to is going to be a
51:16
reality it's going to be the result of
51:17
god's judgment
51:18
so in some sense his mercy and his
51:21
exhortations to us to be merciful
51:24
has to be consistent with him serving
51:26
the role as
51:27
a moral judge does that make sense
51:30
it does i would just say a couple
51:32
caveats one
51:33
um again far be it from god to ask us to
51:37
be
51:37
something better and more than he is in
51:39
other words just like
51:41
jesus saying forgive an infinite amount
51:43
of times when god has to be
51:45
you know be the punisher in order to
51:46
forgive there's there's dissonance there
51:48
also if god is telling us choose mercy
51:52
over
51:52
over judgment but i'm not going to do
51:54
that for you that's that's that's a
51:56
problem for me but also when we talk
51:57
about judgment
51:58
i think we need to remember we're not
52:00
when we're talking about judgment
52:01
especially in the book of revelation but
52:03
just final judgment
52:04
it's not talking purely about punishment
52:07
judging things is setting things to
52:09
right right balancing the scales for
52:12
once and for all
52:14
god setting things to right for all of
52:16
those who have had injustice and
52:17
oppression
52:19
thrust upon them that's what we're
52:20
talking about when we talk about
52:21
judgment
52:22
setting the world to rights so let's be
52:25
careful there
52:26
so if justice is making everything right
52:31
could it not be then that that a perfect
52:33
god
52:34
he he fulfills his his justice by the
52:37
make the making it right even even the
52:40
the mercy the way he's not asking us to
52:42
be better than him is by
52:43
making uh us perfect in the way that he
52:46
is perfect you know it's so it's through
52:48
that alignment to jesus like all of the
52:50
shenanigans we just talked about
52:51
but but those are the it's it's the
52:54
provision of that that that equals that
52:57
mercy
52:58
and and that justice that justice then
53:01
is served without
53:02
uh us having to perish forever
53:05
sure i can see the mercy in that but i
53:07
don't see the justice in it
53:09
because as kyle said as the philosopher
53:12
the hypothetical philosopher
53:14
who walked into a bar the philosopher
53:16
would
53:17
listen to that and say there's no
53:19
justice in punishing an
53:21
innocent man for instead of a guilty
53:23
person
53:24
there's no justice in that if if jesus
53:27
is going to say hey kill me and god says
53:29
okay that's fine you that works as long
53:33
as you
53:33
say that god needs to punish someone the
53:35
wrath of god needs to be you know
53:37
satisfied but that doesn't work if
53:39
you're saying god is a god of justice
53:41
and he has to
53:42
punish it's not just to punish an
53:44
innocent person for a guilty person
53:46
that's actually
53:47
injustice now it would
53:52
mitigate that problem if we recognize
53:54
that god and jesus are the same
53:56
character in this story right god is
53:58
taking the pun
53:59
it would mitigate it but not solve it
54:01
because god is taking the punishment
54:02
on himself but god is still the innocent
54:04
party
54:06
in this okay now he's the you know
54:08
governor of the universe and do what he
54:09
wants
54:10
uh and some would go as far as to say
54:12
that whatever god does is right
54:14
i'm i think that's a problematic view
54:16
but
54:17
is it we solve the question is it really
54:19
just is it really moral is it really
54:21
right
54:22
for an innocent person to take the
54:24
punishment of the
54:25
i mean isn't this where we get back to
54:27
the like this is the you know greater
54:29
love
54:29
has no man than this part like this is
54:32
the
54:34
no there's nothing really good about
54:37
dying for somebody who
54:39
who you love for you know for for your
54:41
friend for your family for a good man
54:43
whatever this is this is that greater
54:45
love
54:46
uh that it seems like only god can kind
54:48
of set that standard of
54:50
of love or at least exemplify that
54:52
standard of love
54:54
i wonder if this is related to that i
54:57
believe all of what you just said i
54:58
don't think that
55:00
i don't know if that has a whole lot to
55:02
do with the
55:04
the justice of god though well so it's
55:06
interesting that if we take that route
55:09
yeah we're we're no longer focusing on
55:11
justice we're focusing on love
55:13
right we're defining the nature of what
55:15
agape is like not the nature of justice
55:18
which raises a deeper harder question of
55:22
is there a tension between
55:24
self-sacrificial love
55:26
and doing what's right correct
55:29
meeting our justice yeah and that's a
55:32
hard hard question
55:34
yeah and now where if we even then
55:37
like to think about what we think about
55:39
the atonement i mean i
55:41
i love talking about the atonement and i
55:44
love it because
55:45
it magnifies the beauty and the love of
55:47
god to me in
55:48
incredible ways i have a lot of problems
55:51
with
55:52
any theory of atonement that says that
55:54
we have to satisfy god's wrath we have
55:56
to satisfy god's
55:57
god's justice i'm very uncomfortable
55:59
with that because i don't see
56:00
any of that in christ and in and if you
56:03
look at colossians 2 there's
56:04
there's many scriptures that contradict
56:07
that but what
56:08
the the theories of atonement that i
56:09
love and i would hold more to the
56:10
christus victor it's not perfect
56:12
i have some moral influence in there but
56:14
really i think the christmas victor
56:15
boils it down for me scripturally
56:18
in a much better way that says we
56:20
humanity brought this on ourselves
56:22
we have a problem and it's called sin
56:24
death and satan we're powerless against
56:26
that enemy we're powerless against that
56:28
problem
56:29
god isn't though and god becomes a human
56:32
being in the incarnation
56:34
to to live that life that we are
56:36
powerless to
56:38
then gives himself dies killed
56:41
slaughtered by the empire
56:42
in all of the beautiful imagery that
56:44
comes through with that with the
56:46
scapegoating theory of the non-violent
56:47
theory of atonement that
56:48
that god himself takes all the violence
56:50
the empire could ever throw at him
56:52
and he kills it in romans 8 in romans 8
56:55
it says that god condemned sin
56:57
in his fl in in christ he actually
57:00
condemned it
57:01
in himself all that violence all that we
57:03
could throw at god
57:04
he took it and he absorbed it and he
57:06
healed it all
57:08
and when he rose again he gave us that
57:10
life
57:11
that's the theory of atonement that i
57:13
can buy into that i see in the
57:14
scriptures and
57:15
that i think makes me fall in love with
57:17
jesus and the father
57:19
and the spirit more and more and more so
57:22
i want to make a distinction here
57:24
between because we're
57:26
picking on the penal substitution view
57:27
pretty hard we should distinguish a
57:29
little bit i think between
57:31
the the version of that view that's held
57:34
by
57:34
theologians and scholars and the version
57:37
of that view
57:39
that you're likely to encounter at your
57:41
average evangelical church
57:43
so so most of what we've just been
57:46
discussing and all the problems we've
57:47
just
57:48
laid out those mostly
57:51
apply to the version of this theory that
57:54
you're probably going to encounter in
57:55
church
57:56
now now sometimes those those problems
57:58
are endemic to the theory itself
58:00
as it's presented by various theologians
58:03
but
58:04
i personally know some some theologians
58:06
have some friends
58:08
who are reformed theologians who their
58:10
version of penal substitutionary
58:12
atonement would be able to avoid
58:15
most of these problems so that they
58:16
could definitely if they wanted to
58:18
explain
58:19
explain the view in such a way that god
58:21
and jesus don't end up being different
58:23
characters there doesn't
58:24
need to be that kind of radical break
58:26
between them god doesn't actually hate
58:27
us he's not
58:28
out to get us or vengeful or anything
58:30
like that but it is important to say
58:33
that that kind of view of god you know
58:36
the good theology doesn't always trickle
58:38
down
58:38
so i have lots and lots of friends and
58:40
i'm sure you do as well
58:42
who grew up in a kind of reformed faith
58:44
tradition and that very much was
58:46
the view of god that they got maybe
58:48
because their pastors didn't read the
58:49
theology carefully enough maybe they
58:51
just read the
58:52
wrong theologians who knows but that is
58:54
an extremely common view to encounter in
58:56
a church
58:56
itself whether or not it's it's uh
58:59
theologically defensible
59:01
so why do you think it is that
59:04
so many christians particularly
59:05
evangelical christians are still
59:07
so committed to that really problematic
59:09
version of this theory
59:12
i mean i think part of it is that many
59:14
christians
59:15
particularly evangelical christians or
59:17
their parents
59:18
were brought into the camp based on that
59:21
tract that they were given or that idea
59:24
they were sold
59:26
the whole thing began on this theory of
59:28
atonement that they didn't even
59:29
wouldn't even be able to say that but
59:32
they were brought into the the chris
59:34
to christendom based on this picture and
59:36
it makes it
59:38
sense to them and it's everything for
59:40
them it's this key that unlocks
59:42
everything and so if you lose that key
59:44
and all that goes with it everything
59:46
seems to fall apart right
59:47
i mean that's whether it's the evolution
59:50
or the penal substitutionary theory of
59:51
atonement there's a number of things
59:53
that it seems like
59:54
this kind of christian says if one thing
59:57
if you pull this out
59:58
you're a heretic you don't have the
60:00
traditional face there was uh
60:02
i wonder if you've heard of this guy
60:03
there's a guy named ray comfort do you
60:05
know who that is
60:06
sure he uh he he's
60:09
a street preacher evangelist and
60:13
he also i know right runs an
60:15
organization that makes tracts
60:17
uh to hand out on the street so if
60:19
you've ever been involved in doing that
60:20
you probably came across some of his
60:22
tracks
60:23
some of them are really deceptive like
60:24
they look like hundred dollar bills and
60:26
they don't pick it up and you see a
60:27
gospel message on the inside that's
60:29
that's right comfort
60:30
my one of my kids had that happened we
60:32
were walking downtown and they're like
60:33
oh check it out now they go the worst
60:36
the worst thing and i've had
60:37
i've had pastors recommend this to me is
60:40
they say you should leave that
60:42
as a tip imagine that
60:46
now the better ones will also say but
60:48
also leave real money but
60:49
yeah it's definitely a bait and switch i
60:51
mean what's what's worth more than the
60:52
gospel right
60:53
yeah yeah yeah for real they'll say
60:56
treasure
60:57
a 20 or 25 tip
61:01
tip your wait steph please absolutely um
61:03
so
61:04
the reason i bring him up is if you
61:06
watch him engage in his kind of street
61:08
ministry
61:10
what he does usually or did i don't know
61:12
if he's still doing it
61:13
is he'll he'll use the ten commandments
61:16
and he'll ask people uh he'll go through
61:19
the list and
61:20
say have you ever told a lie and of
61:22
course everybody's total loss they'll
61:23
say yes and they'll say what does that
61:24
make you
61:25
and the right answer is a liar and
61:28
they'll say uh
61:29
have you ever you know thought about
61:31
anybody that you weren't married to
61:32
sexually
61:33
and then he'll you know use jesus to say
61:35
well that's just as bad as doing it what
61:36
does that make you oh it makes you an
61:37
adulterer and he'll go through all this
61:39
list of things and then he says well
61:40
you're clearly a sinner
61:43
at the end of that right and then that
61:45
sets up the gospel message for him this
61:47
is how he does it he
61:48
he it's judgment first you've got to
61:51
recognize the gravity of your sin
61:52
first so that you realize how broken and
61:54
devastated and hopeless you are
61:56
so that we can then present the cure
61:58
because if you're not going to care
61:59
about the cure
62:00
in his view unless you're convinced of
62:04
your need for it and if that's if that's
62:06
how you come into christianity
62:08
and that is how many many evangelicals
62:10
come into christianity
62:12
then the suggestion that maybe the whole
62:16
sin plus cure equals salvation
62:20
that maybe that's not necessarily the
62:22
best way to read christianity
62:24
well that's the whole thing if you give
62:26
that up what's left
62:28
uh you know i've had this conversation
62:30
with friends before
62:32
if i'm not being saved from my sin then
62:34
what is it what is the whole thing
62:36
and so there's this um this theological
62:39
conversation about
62:40
well maybe salvation can make sense as
62:44
becoming a certain kind of human
62:48
even if we subtract from that you know
62:51
the necessary
62:52
sin and death component as a way to
62:54
start the whole thing maybe we can still
62:55
think of salvation as being saved to
62:57
some kind of higher uh existence rather
63:00
than
63:01
from some kind of sin that automatically
63:04
damns us all
63:05
now i don't want to necessarily remove
63:07
sin from the whole story at all i'm just
63:09
agreeing with your point here that if if
63:11
you know if that's how you came into
63:12
christianity then
63:14
tipping that apple card over is going to
63:17
be very difficult
63:17
very scary very scary yeah and
63:22
again i would just say the apostle paul
63:25
didn't say the wrath of god compels us
63:28
or he didn't paul didn't say the anger
63:31
of god
63:32
compels us paul didn't say the judgment
63:34
of god compels us he said the love
63:36
of god compels us he said in romans 5
63:39
god demonstrated his love for us that
63:42
while we were still sinners are still
63:43
his
63:44
enemy in some translations christ died
63:46
for us
63:48
there's dissonance there with the penal
63:51
substitutionary view of atonement that
63:54
jesus the action of jesus life death and
63:57
resurrection
63:58
isn't actually to save us from wrath
64:00
it's actually to express the love of god
64:02
towards us
64:03
yeah in john 3 16
64:06
the thing you may read on one of those
64:08
tracks i mean that's what it's all about
64:09
i mean
64:10
also says it was for the joy set before
64:13
jesus that he endured the cross not for
64:14
the
64:15
satisfaction not for the appeasement of
64:17
his anger
64:18
yeah but there is a there's some nuance
64:20
some tension to be held because
64:22
you know right after romans 5 we're in
64:24
romans 7 and it's wretched man
64:26
that i am who can save me and then and
64:28
then we move on and there's kind of this
64:30
you know it's that judgment and then
64:33
oh the answer the salvation uh that that
64:36
immediately follows and
64:39
and this is especially
64:42
especially in a in a culture where we're
64:45
where we're all told that we're like
64:47
we're okay we're
64:48
we're all doing the right thing we're
64:50
all we're worthy of acceptance just as
64:52
we are
64:53
i i don't know if this is me speaking or
64:56
if this is my fundy background speaking
64:58
but there's a
64:59
there's a comfort level i i need to know
65:02
that i'm okay just how i am
65:04
and i think the looking into certain
65:07
parts of the scripture we see
65:08
actually there's a really deep
65:10
fundamental problem
65:12
with well there's a deep problem the
65:14
question is is it really fundamental
65:16
the the fundamental language is going to
65:18
be problematic that that's what becomes
65:20
controversial is it part of
65:22
my nature my essential nature to be
65:24
sinful
65:26
the view that it is comports really well
65:28
with
65:29
the substitutionary atonement view
65:31
because on that view humans are
65:33
in that broader theological view humans
65:36
are
65:37
damned by their sin they are
65:40
uh lifeless dead in sin literally and i
65:43
would agree with that
65:44
personally i mean doesn't sound like you
65:46
do kyle but i do
65:47
i don't think that's the whole story uh
65:49
because that's difficult to square with
65:51
genesis
65:52
where humans are essentially good and
65:55
have the image of god on them
65:57
yeah and they are life isn't the fall
66:00
the entire
66:02
like that's the entire thing though it
66:04
was good yeah creation fell
66:06
everybody you know it's that mark of
66:08
atom that's then on all of us until the
66:10
new atom comes
66:11
so the question then is how far did we
66:13
fall
66:14
did we fall to the point of losing the
66:16
essential goodness
66:18
such that it requires another creative
66:20
act of god to give it
66:22
or did we just kind of mar it such that
66:25
we can still
66:26
be brought back and this is
66:28
fundamentally the disagreement between
66:30
reformed theology and
66:32
a more you could call it armenian if you
66:34
want but
66:35
a different theological strand that says
66:39
that didn't that didn't do away with the
66:41
human essence it was a later accretion
66:43
it was unfortunate but it's fixable and
66:46
it's we're not
66:47
killing a thing and then creating a
66:49
brand new thing we're fixing a thing
66:51
and i mean to your roman 7 citation
66:54
elliot
66:55
i would just say paul isn't talking
66:57
about his eternal
66:59
self there he's talking about the
67:02
struggle against
67:03
his flesh he's talking about the
67:04
struggle against his
67:06
deep innate desire to sin to you know
67:09
where he's going through this like the
67:10
stuff
67:11
the exact stuff that i don't want to do
67:12
i do wretched man that i am and when he
67:15
says that it's not like
67:16
god's wrath is resting upon me he's
67:18
frustrated by his own
67:20
self by his own sin it's not making any
67:23
pronouncements on him like how god sees
67:25
me it's just like this
67:26
sucks brokenness which every human being
67:29
carries
67:30
really sucks like it hurt it sucks to
67:32
hurt people
67:33
when i don't mean to it sucks to to
67:36
violate
67:37
things with my wife when i don't mean to
67:39
that sucks and it feels like it's almost
67:41
inevitable
67:42
but then he comes and brings and here's
67:44
the beauty of it
67:45
god in christ condemns sin and sinful
67:48
man so that it's over
67:49
for once and for all and he did that and
67:52
he just said it in romans 5
67:53
because he was motivated it was
67:55
motivated by his love not his wrath
67:57
i hate myself when i look at myself god
67:59
that's the miracle actually god doesn't
68:02
god doesn't hate me even though i might
68:04
hate myself and my sin god sees me in my
68:06
sin
68:06
it's real it's broken but he still loves
68:09
me
68:09
and he still made a way for me to be
68:12
with him so i would say
68:14
yeah you can have that but don't don't
68:16
put that on god
68:17
don't don't let don't put that view of
68:20
yourself on god because that is
68:21
far from god's view of you yeah part of
68:24
what we're running into here is the fact
68:26
that all of these theories have their
68:28
roots in the same text
68:30
that they're all represented in the
68:32
bible and our need to make them all
68:34
consistent
68:36
is and this might be a little bit
68:37
controversial statement here
68:39
our our need to make them consistent
68:41
might itself be
68:43
expecting the bible to be something that
68:45
it's not
68:46
so we we need to ask the question i'm
68:49
stealing this from peter ends
68:51
we need to ask the question of
68:55
what what right do i have to expect the
68:58
bible to
68:59
to live up to what i want it to be what
69:02
can i really expect from it given the
69:03
kind of document that it is and the fact
69:06
is it's written by a lot of different
69:07
people
69:08
who sometimes contradict each other and
69:11
sometimes contradict themselves
69:13
and so we do find these various motifs
69:16
in there and some of these motifs
69:18
seem to be in tension with each other
69:20
and part of the reason for that is
69:21
because
69:22
the authors of scripture were sometimes
69:24
in tension with each other
69:25
so i don't want i think the project of
69:28
trying to make a consistent
69:29
atonement theory is a really good and
69:31
worthwhile project
69:33
but what you see a lot of times in these
69:35
debates between these theologians is
69:37
they're all trying to show how their
69:39
theory makes all the texts consistent
69:42
yeah instead of admitting that the texts
69:44
aren't consistent
69:45
uh and when when we pick our favorite
69:48
theory that's what we're doing we're
69:49
picking the part of the text that
69:51
seems to best explain how we understand
69:54
god from an extra biblical perspective
69:56
yeah and as much as i would like to
69:58
think that my
70:00
favorite theory of atonement again shout
70:02
out christus victor
70:04
is the best and the only one in the game
70:07
the
70:07
when we talk about the atonement we're
70:08
not talking about a portrait we're
70:10
talking about a mosaic we're talking
70:12
about
70:12
something that is all-encompassing and
70:15
you
70:16
it the fat again the diamond has a
70:19
never-ending amount of facets to it so
70:21
we can actually enjoy
70:23
and glean from all of these many really
70:25
in many ways
70:27
and we can actually let the the rough
70:29
stuff the
70:30
in untrue the the stuff that paints god
70:33
in a really ugly way
70:35
we can let that fall off and feel really
70:37
okay with that and that's
70:38
that's good and scriptural how about you
70:41
kyle where do you land
70:42
on this on these theories of atonement
70:45
how do you look at it yeah so
70:49
i wouldn't i wouldn't be totally happy
70:50
with any of these views on their own i
70:52
mean they all have
70:53
issues that kind of make me a little bit
70:55
uncomfortable the way i
70:56
i've sort of sorted it out in my mind is
70:59
uh
70:59
we can we can distinguish all of the
71:02
important aspects of all of these
71:04
theories and we can kind of classify
71:07
them
71:08
by asking three main questions or these
71:10
questions
71:11
help to explain how these theories have
71:13
been classified
71:15
so we can ask these three questions who
71:18
what
71:18
and how who would be the question of who
71:21
are the main characters
71:22
in this story and for objective theories
71:26
the answer is god god is the main
71:28
character he's who matters
71:29
and uh for crisis victor theories
71:32
it's also god but plus satan god plus
71:35
satan or god plus the powers
71:37
or something like that satan is a main
71:39
character in the christ the classical
71:41
views and in the subjective view the
71:43
answer is humans
71:44
humans are at center stage they're the
71:46
so you know asking the
71:48
the who question helps us to sort of
71:50
understand the classifications of these
71:51
theories
71:52
similarly we can ask what meaning what
71:55
is the problem
71:56
what is the main problem for the and
71:57
each one gives their own little
71:59
kind of answer to what the problem is
72:01
and most of them have something to do
72:02
with human sinfulness or human weakness
72:04
or something like that
72:06
and then most of the meat of the
72:08
discussion between
72:09
theologians about atonement is the how
72:12
question
72:13
how do we fix the problem how is it that
72:16
the main characters what do they do
72:19
to solve the answer to the what question
72:21
and that's where
72:22
most of the conversation that i've
72:24
encountered about atonement that's kind
72:26
of
72:26
the whole thing less common
72:30
is the question why and what i mean here
72:33
is why did this have to happen at all
72:37
why did jesus need to die was that
72:40
necessary
72:41
why did god need to become incarnate and
72:43
some gives a kind answer to that but if
72:45
you don't accept his first principles
72:46
you're not going to accept the rest of
72:48
it
72:48
and most theologians today would not
72:50
accept his first principles
72:51
i'd like personally to see more
72:54
conversation debate
72:55
about that question because it seems to
72:57
me that
72:58
and this pushes me a little bit towards
73:00
the subjective
73:01
point of view or the moral influence
73:03
point of view
73:04
it seems to me the answer to that
73:06
question if i want to avoid a really
73:08
problematic view of god's providence
73:11
and his control of nature then the
73:14
answer to the why
73:14
question needs to be something like
73:18
because humans decided that it
73:22
for me and there's some other
73:23
theological reasons for this
73:26
the answer cannot be god planned it that
73:28
way
73:30
god demanded that kind of sacrifice
73:35
because i have a hard time worshiping a
73:38
god who would set things up to play out
73:39
in that way intentionally
73:41
so the why question for me is really
73:43
primary
73:44
it seems to me that jesus didn't need to
73:46
die the
73:48
the god used this hateful
73:51
violent thing that humans did to save
73:54
them
73:55
and that he did that as a reaction to
73:56
our violence and this is why i really
73:58
like the
73:59
the scapegoat thing it really kind of
74:00
resonates with how i was already
74:02
thinking about this
74:03
so i would maybe gravitate towards the
74:05
non-violent points of view but also kind
74:07
of the subjective points of view
74:08
you know all the stuff we talked about
74:10
with substitution those are all real
74:12
problems i have with it
74:13
the crisis victor seems a little too
74:15
warfare-like for me
74:17
it seems to give a whole lot of power
74:19
and authority to satan
74:21
which i have a hard time with because i
74:24
don't really believe in demons anyways
74:26
you know there's all this stuff all this
74:28
baggage attached to all those so
74:30
at the end of the day i would kind of
74:31
gravitate towards the subjective views
74:33
got it i like it yep
74:36
the fun thing is that we get a lot of
74:39
conversations in places like this
74:42
proverbial bars to be able to noodle
74:44
over this stuff for a long long time
74:46
but yeah talking about things like the
74:47
atonement is good good fun
74:50
and i should say that if we were
74:51
actually having this conversation in a
74:53
bar we'd both probably be a lot more
74:54
drunk
74:55
than we are so we it's heavy stuff and
74:58
we've talked about it for quite a while
74:59
now so
75:01
i'm obsession might have taken a look
75:02
[Laughter]
75:06
well thanks everyone for following us
75:08
through what is a pretty
75:10
geeky topic we've really taken a deep
75:12
dive here and we hope that it was
75:13
valuable to you
75:14
we've had a whole lot of fun so thanks
75:17
for listening
75:27
thanks for listening we hope you enjoyed
75:29
this conversation you can find us on
75:31
social media
75:32
like and share and subscribe wherever
75:34
you get your podcasts
75:35
if you're inclined to leave a review we
75:37
read through all of those and we love
75:39
the feedback
75:39
till next time this has been a pastor
75:42
and a philosopher
75:42
walking to a bar
75:53
[Music]
76:09
well i hope this prompts some thought in
76:11
some conversation
76:13
uh for you listening community uh we'd
76:16
love to hear from you love to hear what
76:18
your
76:18
your thoughts are and what what this is
76:21
prompting and pricking and
76:22
or if this is just old news to you but
76:24
we love
76:25
processing and journeying together with
76:27
you so
76:30
i didn't say i i was like i don't want
76:32
to say like good night and good luck
76:34
in god's speed i felt like that's that
76:37
was like inevitable coming up there
76:40
yeah um how do we should we bring it
76:42
home like that
76:43
yeah that was great just just give it
76:45
one more time
76:46
whenever you're done saying what you
76:48
mean to say then just stop talking yeah
76:50
well i know i know i love talking about
76:52
stuff like this with friends
76:54
um i love talking about stuff like this
76:56
with friends in bars even
76:58
or in kitchens or in living rooms but
77:00
this is fun stuff hopefully
77:02
we've given you some fodders for some
77:04
conversation and for some reflection
77:07
and if not there's always a skip button
77:09
so
77:11
let's maybe not offer that yeah yeah
77:14
they would have skipped
77:18
here we go well i love conversations
77:22
like this
77:22
particularly about the atonement but
77:24
just about things that we can look at
77:25
the complexity of something and turn it
77:27
inside out
77:29
hopefully this prompts some conversation
77:31
some thought
77:32
in your listeners we love thinking with
77:34
you we love hearing from you so let us
77:35
know what you're thinking what your what
77:37
your reflections are where you land
77:39
and where your faith is maybe your faith
77:41
journey has changed in
77:42
and been dynamic and you're maybe you're
77:46
in
77:46
the course of one of those points now
77:48
that's fun stuff we love hearing about
77:49
that
77:52
[ __ ] man i don't know what do i say to
77:55
landon like yeah if you have your last
77:57
sentence
77:57
everything else is gonna be good what's
77:58
the last sentence yeah what's the last
78:00
sentence
78:01
uh it might just be thanks for listening
78:05
like all right yep
78:08
well thanks for geeking out with us dear
78:10
listeners we
78:12
had a whole lot of fun i hope you did we
78:14
hope you did
78:15
and we're excited to geek out with you
78:24
again
78:27
you do it you do it