We are completely fascinated with this complex and beautiful collection of texts we call the Bible-but we worship Jesus. The scriptures lead us to the realization that Jesus is the only exact representation of the divine and that God has always looked like Jesus, even when we didn’t see that clearly. Because of that, we have abandoned the idea of an angry, violent God in order to fully embrace the good news brought forward by Jesus. We believe that Jesus came not to change God’s mind about us but to repair our imagination of God. Realizing this and coming to understand that God is love we affirm surprising acceptance and scandalous grace as the way God chooses to heal all things. We desire to participate in that renewal by following the way of Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, trusting that this good news is even better than we can imagine. Welcome.
Okay, you correctly identify that Jerome's translation of the Greek to Latin is flawed in Romans 5:12 but look at Romans 5:19. Rom. 5:19 - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. This is even stronger support for a notion of "Original Sin" in that it comes out and says that Adam's disobedience is the reason that we are all sinners. But, I believe, the theology is put forward in order to emphasize how Christ's singular obedience is what makes the sinner righteous (i.e. just or justified). That said, however, you can't ignore the fact that it does say, "Adam's disobedience makes us sinners". The doctrine violates the established theology of, "The soul that sinneth it shall die", put forth by Ezekiel, to wit: Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Romans 5:19 is in conflict with that theology on its face and must be massaged in order for it not to break canon. This is where we go to work to make the bible say what we need it to say. It's deceptive but in some cases, it needs to be done because we can't have both of these things be true. We need to make it work. So, we justify the nullification of the first part of that verse to focus on the latter half - that Jesus' obedience makes us righteous. We can all get behind the last part. So how do we reconcile the first part? We are all of the family of Adam. Adam's last name is "Sinner Boy" and so we're all from that same family. Although you'll never find those exact words in the bible, the concept is there and it also exists within the context of Romans 5. Adam sinned and so, guess what, we're all part of that same family. But we are not guilty of HIS sin - God knows, we have enough of our own to worry about. So, we're CALLED sinners because of Adam's family heritage but the sin that we're held accountable for is whatever sin we happen to be personally addicted to. Enter Jesus... Jesus scrubs all that and we are now of the family of Jesus, the Son of God. Our last name changes from "Sinner Boy" to "The Righteousness of God". And this theology is detailed in the previous chapter, Romans 4. So, while Catholicism can use a verse like Romans 5:19 to put forward this unbiblical notion of "Original Sin", the whole theology of that doctrine does violence to the rest of the canon. It does not take into account Ezekiel's doctrine of "The soul that sinneth..." I think this is what Peter was talking about when he said that some of Paul's teachings were sometimes hard to be understood. I took a year one year to read Romans and when I was through, I read it again and again. Romans is a great book and most people have never done the leg work. This is why you get screwball preachers teaching the kind of bunk we hear from most pulpits.
Well done. Such a difficult topic to understand biblical violence and the loving example of Jesus. I have found the books The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Interpreting the Old Testament’s Violent Portraits of God in Light of the Cross, Volume 1 & 2 by Greg Boyd very helpful on this subject.
How True; but who were doing it bcuz after da flood no one were it until!?... Pt ♊ Da Caves of Treasure one of our hidden away holy book from da Apocrypha...👀 Thine holy book of Da 1st book of MAKKABIYM, which were also hidden in da Apocrypha... 👁️🪟da big🖼️
This is all made up by people, and if it’s not, why would this god choose a method that appears so by so many people seeking the truth? Secondly, to say that this god had to allow jesus to be killed is simply untrue. This god could simply “forgive” his creation right now, or never “tested” adam and eve in the garden (another made up story), or he simply could have never created in the first place (which would be infinitely better).
Just read the bible in its entirety instead of hanging on every word by Spurgeon, Mcarthur, etc. You're literally doing the most complicated gymnastics to justify clearly evil acts. Yahweh is not Jesus' father, it's very clear he represents The Most High God and not "yahweh". For example, you're never going to try to justify yahweh sending 2 mother bears to maul 42 kids to death, for making fun of elisha's bald head.
I am praying for the Caucasian community. While others are praying for their communities ours need prayers and support during this time of attack. You are beautifully a d wonderfully made and Jesus loves you because you were created in his image. God Bless you. ❤
My goodness what a complete destruction of the gospel. We aren't by nature children of wrath, you'd posit, not dead in trespasses and sins and among those of whom it is said there are none righteous, no not one; indeed we are by contrast mostly good, just merely confused by the structure and social constructions around us; themselves merely the product of one single Augustinian mistranslation. You might read Ambrose in 'Jacob and the Happy Life'; that Ambrose who came before Augustine and whom the latter regarded as mentor; that same Ambrose who spoke on the Apostolic inheritance of, and at length on, not only justification of all men by Christ through faith, but the new freedom in that faith from the slavery in which we were born, enabling us to live to God for the very transformative good you would advocate we do. He speaks at length and repeatedly on the concupiscence inherited from Adam, which remains sin and is not merely the product of "mistakes", but their cause; itself sin made manifest by the word of Law.
@@commonschurch I didn't say that the gospel is original sin. Yet I can understand why you might draw that inference from the rest of the first paragraph. One must understand the nature of depravity to understand the grace of God in the forgiveness of sins in Christ. The entire Reformation, once it got past the relative trifles of indulgences and the like, centered on the free and unmerited forgiveness of sins, given through faith in Christ and alone for His sake, which is itself a gift of grace; but it finds its beginning in the NEED for Christ. Rome claimed not to be Pelagian, yet formulated a doctrine where faith was merely a start, with which the will with various infused graces cooperated (sound familiar?) and then MAYBE obtained salvation by a life of love and good works. We are reconciled to God by the shed blood of Christ, and nothing other. This is received through faith and reckoned as righteous by nothing other. If we do not understand the deadness of our nature inherited from Adam, we bury Christ and merely append him to those portions of our lives that are "mistakes". Almost worse, is those portions of our lives where we do NOT make a mistake in your terminology, they DO NOT require Christ at all, since they're not, well, mistakes. You are free to disagree it goes without saying, but this gospel of the free and complete forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake alone ENABLES one to live the life you'd advocate, freed from the Law and its just desserts for transgression. Peace be with you.
"One must understand the nature of depravity to understand the grace of God in the forgiveness of sins in Christ." I'm not convinced that's true at all. I think you can absolutely trust yourself completely to God without any intellectual ascent to weird theological ideas like total depravity. Also, even though I am a protestant, I remain unconvinced that the reformation was when Christianity finally got it right.
The scriptural conundrum those who are ensnared by penal substitution is that with accordance to scripture as a whole anyone who dies under divine wrath are in a sinful state that is unforgivable. But also nowhere in the Law and teachings does God ever transfer the penalty of the offender to an innocent person.such is a perversion of justice according to scripture . to be declared guilty by God one must at first sin. Also Yeshua offered Himself to Father as a ransom to redeem but also for atonement, in fulfillment of the Animal offerings and sacrifices, where the animals had to be unblemished outwardly, Yeshua had to be morally unblemished inwardly. If at any point yeshua became a child of wrath as we are and were then yeshua in that full embodied corruption while offering himself to Father, Father would deem the offerer and offering abominable according to scripture. Thus God would reject the offerrer who in this case is the offering. Thus yeshuas spiritual state and position before Father would not redeem nor atone or even ratify the new covenant. As his blood would be in Gods eyes tainted. Because of Gods promise to not lose one child of Their election but to bring them to glory, God would not even allow one legit child to voluntarily be blotted out of the book of life in the place of another. As per example of Moses in exodus 32:30-33 how much more the eternal Son incarnate?!
Honestly a good deconstruction of how the Bible and any religious text really, is nothing but ancient propaganda that is not longer relevant to today's world. It should be done away with entirely.
that's kind of weird because i am Catholic and i knew all along that he is as orthodox as it gets, it's one thing for you to be an outsider like a protestant or eastern orthodox and not know, but isn't it your job to read the documents on the Vatican website as a Roman Catholic instead of going to news articles about our Pope? I'm not saying this to throw you under the bus by the way i am just curious
@@rass4609I know for us in the Anglican Church we always read what the Archbishop of Canterbury puts out. Around the world we follow the Archbishop closely
It’s almost comical that Protestants are saying that the Pope went against Catholic teachings, when not only are they not Catholic, but they are determining Catholic teaching to be something that the Church would call heretical.
Original sin does not hold the character of a personal fault, sure. But individuals are still held responsible/condemned for original sin, regardless of their own personal character flaws/mistakes.
@@commonschurch They suffer an ontological deficit that can lead to damnation. Without the sanctifying grace of baptism, as Christ says, one cannot enter heaven. But this is the result of a matter of ontology; it isn't due to responsibility or guilt.
@@trying-to-learn@trying-to-learn I'm not sure that's a compelling apologetic for original sin 🤷♂ people go to hell for something they didn't do 😕 and I don't buy it. But I do still appreciate Pope Francis 🙏
@@commonschurch we are born with a privation of sanctifying grace. Baptism provides this. Without being born of water & spirit, one cannot enter heaven. Christ says this. It may not be warm & fuzzy (or 'convincing') but its what Jesus says.
It’s true that guilt is not the word used in the catechism. But the doctrine holds that individuals are held responsible/condemned for original sin, regardless of their own personal failings.
Limbo is a little nebulous in Catholic doctrine. Limbo for children is not official as I understand it. This is part why I don’t think original sin is a good idea. You have to add more unclear ideas on top to clarify the discrepancies it creates.
Funny how there are so many different opinions. I don't believe in "the fall" as a transition from sinless to sinful. I think Gen 3 is a parable about human nature, basically, we act, sometimes irrationally, out of perceived self-interest. That's how we've always been. We are "fallen" by creation, not by a decision by some ancestor. Surely even back then they would have known that you can't inherit acquired characteristics. I think "total depravity" is an excuse made up to support a misinterpretation of the gospel, but there's something to it. People are capable of both good and bad. Said tendency to act out of self-interest makes us sinful at the core of who we are. But we also have the capacity for repentance, to learn to consider others and do good.
I think you’re on to something 🙌 the fall narrative is not meant to be the switch from perfect to sinful, it is the story of a good creation heading in the wrong direction which sets up redemption and return. The Hebrew idea of good (tov) always had more potential for movement than the Greek concept of perfection did.
In Hebrews 9:22 it says, that "under the law... there is no forgiveness of sins." Then it says in Hebrews 10:1 that "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming-not the realities themselves." And so concludes in Hebrew 10:4 that "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." This section is contrasting the sacrificial system of Leviticaus with salvation in Christ.
If anyone needs more details, this linked video makes very similar points and critiques of PSA with a deep dive into the verses. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7htAJWH53Xo.htmlsi=zcFmWN4MF3Euu3rD
Jeremy - props on this presentation. So many characters to introduce and the drama of the story, to include the historical set up and conclude with a message of patient hope. My head spun a bit at all the threads. Nice work.
You’re absolutely brilliant. I swear this is probably the best way to explain revelation, and brings to light one of the key issues I’ve had with religion. Live the word - not recite it 🙏🏽
REALLY well done! Scapegoat is a difficult topic to internalize. I know you studied this. You did a great job of tying that to the violence and the Jewish self-story.
Nice work, Jeremy! I have been in a reframing of my view of God for while now, and I appreciate all you do. I wish I could find a church like the commons near me. Thanks!
this was the first time I deliberately made myself listen to the sermon of a church, I really liked your presentation and the idea behind it, I hope this channel can grow even more✌. Peace.
Wow, that's cool! And I don't blame you. I've deliberately listened to many sermons of pastors who did not know what they were talking about. This guy I have watched a few of his videos and he has more revelation from God himself. God is infinite, so I think we barely know anything on this planet, in this realm, but God is revealing more to those who are open to hearing from Him.
Thank you. A kind man once said to me, “John, whatever is not love is abuse. Why? Because God is love.” When he said that, it startled me. Only by love is love awakened.
The comments on this video are so frustrating. Apparently to many christians, the gospel is an atonement theory that wasn't developed until the 16th century. I guess Jesus never preached the gospel.
I am familiar with the passage in 1 Clem. 49:6 that is often cited. Although, tbh it is pretty weak support if you actually read it. If you want cite any of the others I will certainly read them though. It is possible you are confusing substitution, which many of the early fathers spoke about, with penal substitution?
Sometimes, joy requires "our hope for the future to overrule our testimony of the present." These words reflect-- and add to-- so many ideas I've sensed God teaching me lately. So beautiful and helpful... many thanks and blessings to/through you all from Maryland in the USA!! 🌞🙏🏻🇺🇸🇨🇦🌻🌈
I think I understand the idea, but I can never escape the feeling most Christians give off when we make any enjoyable experience outside of fearing God sound detestable
