though I usually can't stand Reformed types and Reformed theology, I must say that I am in complete agreement with Chandler here. Jesus "slaughtered the giant of sin and death"... so then why do the Reformed have such a hard time accepting Christus Victor as the first amongst equals in atonement theory? Indeed CV is the logical interpretation of the atonement from the grand narrative that Matt described.
In fact i would say that penal substitution is very man-centered, because then the focus is all on me and my salvation rather than God's cosmic purposes. Just as the earth revolves around the sun, so we revolve around the Son of God. The Son of God does not revolve around us. I'm with the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, some Anglicans and the new perspective types on justification and atonement. the Reformed understanding of justificaiton and atonement is not only anachranistic, it is man-centered!
@brendos444 And in standing with the Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans on atonement and justification I am standing within the apostolic tradition and not on the protestant "every man is his own pope and can start his own church" tradition.
@NealMcCrispy "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery." Hebrews 2:15-15 (ESV). Does that sound like penal substitution or Christus Victor to you?
@brendos444 You see Neal, not one atonement theory captures all that is going on with the atonement. Scripture does support substitutionary atonement, but it also supports Christus Victor (more strongly in my opinion). In that Hebrews passage there isn't a hint of PS. This is telling as Hebrews deals specifically with the OT sacrificial system. And yet we don't find PS anywhere in the book.
@brendos444 I should also note that we don't find penal substitution in the early church fathers despite the weak attempt made by Jeffery, Ovey and Sach to show otherwise.
@brendos444 Thank you for sharing that scripture. These all support substitution, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." -- 2 Cor 5:21. "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." -- 1 Peter 2:24. Also check out Isaiah 53:4-6, Ephesians 5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 Peter 3:18, Genesis 22:13 (which is a prefigure).
@NealMcCrispy Thanks for those scriptures. I must say that I don't think those scriptures are explicit statements of penal substitution. The statement "by his wounds you have been healed" does not at all conflict with Christus Victor. But it does not have the same meaning as the Reformed doctrine of penal substitution. You have to show me a scripture that says God is angry with us, and to placate his anger, he punishes Jesus instead of us. This is the Reformed doctrine of PS..
... I don't think there's a scripture which says this explicitly. To be sure, Christ was our substitute. But he was our substitute because he is our representative. He became man and identified with us. where Adam failed at being human, Jesus succeeded in being genuinely human. so he died on our behalf to release us from our bondage to sin and death - not to appease an angry God. I think this is the true substitutionary atonement. And it fits well into the Christus Victor scheme
@brendos444 But God IS angry with sinners. "The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers." -- Psalm 5:5. Look at Luke 19:11-27. "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." (verse 27). We get punished for our sin. That's what hell is for. Jesus took that punishment. That's why it says he took our sin in all of those verses. The Isaiah verses are pointing that out as well.
@NealMcCrispy You have to remember that in the OT, language of wrath was used in the same way we scold little children when they do something wrong. We love them, but they arent mature enuf to grasp the full implications of our love so we take actions that they can understand. But when we are grown up, we can have a more mature discussion. The Torah was a "babysitter" as St Paul says. Now we must grow up into Christ. God is love and thru Jesus we see God's true character.
@brendos444 No. Wrath in the OT means wrath. You're basically denying Psalms 5:5-6 "The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man." And a host of other verses. And Paul didn't say that. He said the Law was our παιδαγωγὸς (schoolmaster, tutor, or guardian). Denying that Jesus died for your sins is denying the Word of God.
@NealMcCrispy Currently I'm a Protestant Christian, but I am investigating Eastern Orthodoxy and high church Anglicanism. Contrary to popular opinion, Anglicanism is not Protestant.
@TheVonFinleys Part 2: This is really apparent from the context of this clip. For he doesn't only say that David is Christ, he also says that we tend to say that we are David. But obviously no one thinks they're literarily David. What he means is we identify with David - we say we're *like* David. Thus when he says Christ is David, what he means is he is *like* Christ in his slaying of a huge, strong foe in order to protect his powerless people. Matt is not a heretic. Haha.
@bskil It definitely doesn't echo that passage (other than the use of the word "head"). That passage alludes to coming of the messiah.
Saying Jesus IS David is ridiculous. David is David, just because God chose David and worked through him to protect the Israelites from the Philistines, doesn't mean they're one and the same. I've never heard such drivel. "Matt Chandler: You're Not the Point", more like, "Matt Chandler: I've missed the Point"
@TheVonFinleys Part 1: When Matt says that Jesus is David, he means David is a type of Christ, similar to how when 1 Cor 10:4 says, "The rock was Christ," it means the rock was a foreshadowing of Christ.
Zechariah 12:8 - "In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them.
If this guy would stop insulting and demeaning the saints of his own congregation he would probably end up accomplishing more for the glory of God than David... ironic.
@MrD2dude He's trying to say that everything created is about God and the whole story of this life is about God and his glory. While we are jus pieces of clay which God uses for his glory.
@MrD2dude If you would listen to more than 59 seconds of a sermon before posting a partially informed judgement, you might accomplish more for the glory of God as well. Quick to listen and slow to speak.
IT IS ABOUT """ME""" TO!
HOW ABSURD!
JOEL OILSTAIN TOLD ME IT WAS ABOUT ME, I LIKE JOEL!
:^)
jehovahuponyou 2 days ago
though I usually can't stand Reformed types and Reformed theology, I must say that I am in complete agreement with Chandler here. Jesus "slaughtered the giant of sin and death"... so then why do the Reformed have such a hard time accepting Christus Victor as the first amongst equals in atonement theory? Indeed CV is the logical interpretation of the atonement from the grand narrative that Matt described.
brendos444 1 month ago
In fact i would say that penal substitution is very man-centered, because then the focus is all on me and my salvation rather than God's cosmic purposes. Just as the earth revolves around the sun, so we revolve around the Son of God. The Son of God does not revolve around us. I'm with the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, some Anglicans and the new perspective types on justification and atonement. the Reformed understanding of justificaiton and atonement is not only anachranistic, it is man-centered!
brendos444 1 month ago
@brendos444 And in standing with the Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans on atonement and justification I am standing within the apostolic tradition and not on the protestant "every man is his own pope and can start his own church" tradition.
brendos444 1 month ago
@brendos444 The problem with accepting atonement theories other than substitutional atonement is that they aren't supported by scripture.
NealMcCrispy 1 month ago
@NealMcCrispy "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery." Hebrews 2:15-15 (ESV). Does that sound like penal substitution or Christus Victor to you?
brendos444 1 month ago
@brendos444 You see Neal, not one atonement theory captures all that is going on with the atonement. Scripture does support substitutionary atonement, but it also supports Christus Victor (more strongly in my opinion). In that Hebrews passage there isn't a hint of PS. This is telling as Hebrews deals specifically with the OT sacrificial system. And yet we don't find PS anywhere in the book.
brendos444 1 month ago
@brendos444 I should also note that we don't find penal substitution in the early church fathers despite the weak attempt made by Jeffery, Ovey and Sach to show otherwise.
brendos444 1 month ago
@brendos444 Thank you for sharing that scripture. These all support substitution, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." -- 2 Cor 5:21. "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." -- 1 Peter 2:24. Also check out Isaiah 53:4-6, Ephesians 5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 Peter 3:18, Genesis 22:13 (which is a prefigure).
NealMcCrispy 1 month ago
@NealMcCrispy Thanks for those scriptures. I must say that I don't think those scriptures are explicit statements of penal substitution. The statement "by his wounds you have been healed" does not at all conflict with Christus Victor. But it does not have the same meaning as the Reformed doctrine of penal substitution. You have to show me a scripture that says God is angry with us, and to placate his anger, he punishes Jesus instead of us. This is the Reformed doctrine of PS..
brendos444 1 month ago
... I don't think there's a scripture which says this explicitly. To be sure, Christ was our substitute. But he was our substitute because he is our representative. He became man and identified with us. where Adam failed at being human, Jesus succeeded in being genuinely human. so he died on our behalf to release us from our bondage to sin and death - not to appease an angry God. I think this is the true substitutionary atonement. And it fits well into the Christus Victor scheme
brendos444 1 month ago
@brendos444 But God IS angry with sinners. "The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers." -- Psalm 5:5. Look at Luke 19:11-27. "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." (verse 27). We get punished for our sin. That's what hell is for. Jesus took that punishment. That's why it says he took our sin in all of those verses. The Isaiah verses are pointing that out as well.
NealMcCrispy 1 month ago
@NealMcCrispy You have to remember that in the OT, language of wrath was used in the same way we scold little children when they do something wrong. We love them, but they arent mature enuf to grasp the full implications of our love so we take actions that they can understand. But when we are grown up, we can have a more mature discussion. The Torah was a "babysitter" as St Paul says. Now we must grow up into Christ. God is love and thru Jesus we see God's true character.
brendos444 1 month ago
@brendos444 No. Wrath in the OT means wrath. You're basically denying Psalms 5:5-6 "The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man." And a host of other verses. And Paul didn't say that. He said the Law was our παιδαγωγὸς (schoolmaster, tutor, or guardian). Denying that Jesus died for your sins is denying the Word of God.
NealMcCrispy 3 weeks ago
@brendos444 Romans explains this much better than I can though. What branch of the Christian tree do you represent?
NealMcCrispy 1 month ago
@NealMcCrispy Currently I'm a Protestant Christian, but I am investigating Eastern Orthodoxy and high church Anglicanism. Contrary to popular opinion, Anglicanism is not Protestant.
brendos444 1 month ago
@brendos444 I'm not really familiar with Christus Victor anyway, I'm about to read up on it.
NealMcCrispy 1 month ago
@brendos444 And read Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10. Read and rejoice in the grace of God. Jesus died in our place!
NealMcCrispy 1 month ago
@TheVonFinleys Part 2: This is really apparent from the context of this clip. For he doesn't only say that David is Christ, he also says that we tend to say that we are David. But obviously no one thinks they're literarily David. What he means is we identify with David - we say we're *like* David. Thus when he says Christ is David, what he means is he is *like* Christ in his slaying of a huge, strong foe in order to protect his powerless people. Matt is not a heretic. Haha.
clayhutchins 4 months ago 2
Jesus is David?
TheVonFinleys 5 months ago
@TheVonFinleys yes. when david slices the head of goliath off, it's an echo of genesis 3:15, crushing the head of the enemy
bskil 4 months ago
@bskil It definitely doesn't echo that passage (other than the use of the word "head"). That passage alludes to coming of the messiah.
Saying Jesus IS David is ridiculous. David is David, just because God chose David and worked through him to protect the Israelites from the Philistines, doesn't mean they're one and the same. I've never heard such drivel. "Matt Chandler: You're Not the Point", more like, "Matt Chandler: I've missed the Point"
TheVonFinleys 4 months ago
@TheVonFinleys Part 1: When Matt says that Jesus is David, he means David is a type of Christ, similar to how when 1 Cor 10:4 says, "The rock was Christ," it means the rock was a foreshadowing of Christ.
clayhutchins 4 months ago
... what in the world is he trying to say?
Zechariah 12:8 - "In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them.
If this guy would stop insulting and demeaning the saints of his own congregation he would probably end up accomplishing more for the glory of God than David... ironic.
MrD2dude 5 months ago
@MrD2dude He's trying to say that everything created is about God and the whole story of this life is about God and his glory. While we are jus pieces of clay which God uses for his glory.
KelloggzProductions 5 months ago
@MrD2dude If you would listen to more than 59 seconds of a sermon before posting a partially informed judgement, you might accomplish more for the glory of God as well. Quick to listen and slow to speak.
djking2d 3 months ago
which sermon is this from? thanks
facepalmxo 8 months ago
@facepalmxo If I remember correctly, it's from the Habakkuk series. Sermon 6-7 I believe.
a0adio0 8 months ago
AMEN
blakeash2 9 months ago