A Pastor and a Philosopher Walk into a Bar

Cheap Whiskey and the Atonement

November 18, 2020 Randy Knie, Kyle Whitaker Season 1 Episode 10
A Pastor and a Philosopher Walk into a Bar
Cheap Whiskey and the Atonement
Show Notes Transcript

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.

Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/apastorandaphilosopher)

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