Answering The TOUGHEST Objections to Penal Substitution 

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” ‭‭John‬ ‭15:13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

It's not a like an innocent man dying for a guilty one. It's the judge stepping down after sentencing and taking the worst offenders place in the noose. Thank you Jesus😥

The message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing

Thank you Mike and your wife for all the sacrifice that went into this year! I’m so thankful God is teaching me about Himself through your channel!

“When scripture teaches it, it has authority”. Love this and thank you so much.

I was so happy to see you in the new American Gospel film!! Praise God! Such an awesome documentary. God has really used you to help us in our Christian walk. We are in San Bernardino ca so we’re actually not that far from you so we’ll have to stop by sometime! Gd bless you Mike!

1:15:00 I was bad at studying too until I got saved. I think the purpose and desire for truth give a hunger for understanding and wisdom. Whereas the foolish don't desire and the wicked despise, yet both claim to have them.

Hey Mike I hope you have a wonderful Christmas and a blessed New Years. And I don’t know if you this came up in the series though I do try and hang on every word but this verse has helped me with the why and it being more than just about forgiving our sins. Ephesians 2:7 that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” It’s an eternal mind blow probably gonna take an eternity to understand what Christ gave up to reconcile us. Anyway thanks for all you do and everyone I turn on to the ministry is falling in love with what Christ is doing through you and everyone involved here.

Thank you so much for this ministry! Enjoy your Holiday season Mike!

I have had thoughts for a sermon on this subject for a long time. Will watch video and see what you have to say. I have been blessed by all of the videos that I have watched so far.

Thank you Mike for all of your videos! I’m a new Christian and often times I’m swayed by false teachings. I’ve learned a lot from listening to your series on Calvinism and now Penal Substitution!

Thank you for your richly informative teaching videos, Mike. I am listening to them ALL. So thankful for your ministry!! God Bless you, Rebecca in Michigan

Hey Pastor Mike, I wanted to see what you thought about possibly doing a Patreon with options for donation levels to support your ministry that included a one on one q&a with you for 30 or 60 min.? It’s really hard to find good theology, and I have questions I’d really love to hear your opinion on. I’m really, really grateful that you’ve decided to go full time using your gift of teaching here. The plain truth of the gospel is desperately needed.

That pause at 36:10 before "reasonable" made me laugh really hard, not sure why. Great stream!

Thank you for this series Mike, its helping me to draw closer to the gospel. I think the most valuable thing I walk away with, is to trust the gospel. If I believe God is real, and that he has indeed spoken, then I must trust his word, even if my limited human understanding makes it difficult to grasp things like how exactly sin can be reduplicated in Christ for a just and vicarious punishment. God bless and keep up the great work!

Romans 6:23 ²³For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Huge fan here in China, good work Mike, keep it up

“Jesus died "for" our sin, but the English word "for" can have a range of meanings, such as an exchange or a cause of action. There is a specific Greek word that can be translated as "for," indicating an exchange or a replacement, and it is the word "anti." An example of this is when Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for [anti] an eye and a tooth for [anti] a tooth.'" Both of the words translated as "for" in this verse are the Greek word "anti." It's literally, "an eye in place of an eye," or "an eye instead of an eye," or "an eye against an eye." However, the word "anti" is never used even once in any statement regarding the fact that "Christ died for us." The word "for" in all of the statements of "Christ died for us" or "Christ died for our sin," are the Greek words "dia" (meaning through), "hyper" (meaning over), and "peri" (meaning around). Not once in the Greek text is there a direct substitutionary statement used about Jesus literally taking our place as an exchange or a payment. Nevertheless, translators (for unknown reasons) seem to have preferred to use the much more ambiguous word "for," which enables the teacher and reader to assume things about the text that were never intended.” An excerpt from Chapter 12 of the book “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.

Hey Mike : I know it's been a couple days, and you're getting involved in other things, but, later can you address how to see God as a loving Father for those of us who had neglectful, indifferent, or abusive fathers?

Really useful Mike. Thank you, I've grown a lot in appreciating PSA by going through your series. Not sure if the legal analogies work though :D Good job, and God bless.

One of my favorite teachers. I'm so glad to see young conservative, biblical teachers.

ok THIS video is what I have been waiting for, your other content is good too, but this one has been on my wishlist. Santa came early this year. EDIT: at 16:55, does this imply that animals are sinless? If the OT animals met only some categories, not all of course. Just a thought.

Best livestream. Way to end the year on a high note.

It is an Amazingly Beautiful Gospel...Such an Amazing Gift He has given ...Freely Given..Such a Price...I Love your clarity Mike in communicating...Thank you so much

Hi Mr. Winger, I've just watched your series defending PSA, and intend on going through it all at least one more time. I enjoy your videos. I also happen to take the sacrifice of Christ very seriously, as you obviously do, and have prayerfully studied the topic intently, even obsessively, for decades. Where we differ is in the effect that PSA has had upon our perspectives. To me, the doctrine has never made sense, has no overt scriptural support, and was a major impediment to my faith in God as a young believer. I can therefore understand those who teach against it. On the other hand, the need and responsibility we all have to avoid caricatures when addressing a point of view with which we disagree (such as PSA) has definitely stood out to me from watching this series. For this, I thank you. If there is a question I could ask you, it would be this, in hopes that you would consider it carefully: In light of the public stand that you have now made in defense of PSA, do you think that you could ever be willing to change your views? If not, then I wish you well. If so, what would it take for you to be willing to do so? Thank you kindly, Joe

The movie passion of Christ makes me cry.

That mortgage analogy was spot on! I never thought of it that way.

Thank you brother Mike for the spiritual meat to chew on,

Thank you so much Mike you do a great job and explaining the word of God

To add on to your examples of vicarious liability, I was thinking of times where even when people have 0 legal liability, we see leaders step up and take on liability for people below them. For example, when a company employee mistreats a customer: if the situation is not properly resolved, the CEO may step in, apologize and take ownership of the problem, and reach out to the customer to personally make amends. Or when soldiers of a country commits war crimes, the president apologizes on behalf of his country and offers restitution. In these cases, we consider the leader's actions as representative of those underneath him and authoritative to atone for their mistakes. We commend, laud, and even expect this from a truly good leader. I found this all very helpful, so thank you for wrestling with these questions that I have often wondered about and found difficult to answer.

At 16:51, Mike brings up an objection to PSA. He summarizes it as "Humans know this is unjust." But what makes something unjust? Mike (following William Lane Craig) wants to ask the lawyers and it turns out the law has some surprising ideas including vicarious liability and strict liability, but what's legal isn't always just (ahem, slavery), so we need to keep thinking the whole time. If a bartender serves alcohol to a minor, could it be just to punish the bar owner? Maybe. If the bar owner properly trained his bartender, then the bartender (who knows better) is the bad guy and deserves punishment. If the bar owner failed to train his employee, then the owner's the bad guy. Before it's just to punish the owner, he has to bear some responsibility for his employee's actions. Again, at this point, I personally don't care what a court says. I'm focusing on what's just. Likewise in the case of Jesus being punished in place of sinful man, that can only be just if Jesus bears some responsibility for man's sin. But we all know it doesn't work that way (ahem, free will). So this whole detour into obscure legal theory is a bust for the apologist. Penal substitution remains what it looks like at first glance - punishment imposed on an innocent party combined with a wicked party escaping his just deserts. Yuck.

There is a far bigger issue with PSA and this is why I argue it’s heretical: In Turretin, Calvin, Luther, and modern advocates, the Son is split from the Father as the Father’s wrath is also vented on the Son. Thus, it fundamentally breaks the Trinity as you just junked perichoresis and the persons being of the same will. Or you could posit it was just the human Christ, then you’re just Nestorian. Or, if you’re desperate, say Christ felt those things, in which case, He didn’t take our real penalty now, did He? The theory is either anti-Trinitarian, Nestorian, or does no work if Christ just feels the feeling of separation from the Father yet He’s really not.

Hi Mike. I'll still continue watching this to understand your explanation of How the Cross Makes Sense, however only part way in I noticed a concern: When you offer an alternative philosophical approach (around 8 minutes in) on PSA you say that "God... may well be a positive retributist but he may not be an unqualified, negative retributist." Then say that you "don't bank [your] own thoughts on that" but recommend William Lane Craig's "The Atonement" saying that it encounters the philosophical issues. My concern: I'm someone who has watched and studied many WLC debates and loved the way he interacts with the historicity of the Resurrection as well as being able to articulate great arguments for the existence of God from a philosophical perspective. But, having not read "The Atonement", it seems to me that either the philosophical approach you articulated is someone else's and one that WLC would reject, or you haven't succeeded in representing his arguments successfully, or in my understanding he would be terribly disappointing in this book compared to his normal excellence in classical philosophy. A positive retributalist would say that punishing one who has done evil is a good in and of itself (it needs no other benefits to justify it). A negative retributalist would say that one who has done evil has forfeited their right not to suffer punishment, but that the punishment isn't itself good and only becomes just if it accomplishes a good result. However, both positive an negative retributalists would agree that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent. A 'qualified' approach to either side would both restrict the punishment to be proportional to the actions of the evil-doer or, as is almost relevant to PSA, might restrict the punishment, even if fitting to the evil-doer, if it had a secondary effect on an innocent person (i.e. one not guilty of the act being punished, not necessarily a person completely free from sin). An example of a qualified retributist, for example would be if a criminal could be justly given a stronger punishment, but is given a weaker punishment because the stronger punishment would unfairly harm his children who had no part in the crime. However, God being an "unqualified, negative retributist" would mean that He would see fit to punish a guilty person to the full extent it is due if it accomplishes a good result, even if it accidentally also had a negative effect on an innocent, but it would still never permit Him to directly, intentionally punish an innocent person, such as Christ, in place of the guilty person. You can then introduce concepts, such as Christ willingly forfeiting his own rights even though not a sinner, then bring in the substitution nature of sacrificial offerings; but that is not at all native to the classical philosophical terms and the argument as you presented it; making me really concerned that either WLC really missed the boat here. I'm hoping that in "The Atonement" either he rejects the explanation as you described it or provides more support outside of the explanation as you describe; but in that case this was not the video to even bring it up without defending it, it really deserves it's own video, because without further development it is an entirely false philosophy.

we were bought for a price..... he paid the price.... (the wages of sin is death)

Thank-you for the video. "humans know of no vicarious imputation, at least not in our legal system." I personally fell for this. I just assumed the truth of it and so I'm grateful for your examples and explanation of, "yes it exists in both civil and criminal law." And you're right, people make these objections before putting any real thought or research into them. Thanks for your videos.

God sacrificing Himself to redeem His creation isn't that complicated, Hes God! He will do what He wants, and everyone arrogant enough to question Him should be ashamed of themselves. Thank you, Mike, for your accurate studies.

Haven’t finished the video yet. Does anyone know if Mike addresses NT Wrights view of justification as this is a differing view of the cross? From What I’ve seen NT Wright dances around this and can’t clearly state what he means

Great info Mike! I know you've probably been getting bugged about this topic a lot, but you have many thousands of people who are VERY curious to hear what you have to say about "flat" or "biblical" earth as some call it. We'd love to hear an in depth study of the original languages and see how the globe fits into scripture. thanks so much. eagerly awaiting! Thanks for all you do and your channel, me and my family listed all the time while we work.

I was thinking through RU-vid and saw a few shots back to back of Muslims basically saying that punishing the innocent is bad, the the God of Christianity was bad because he killed Jesus, who was innocent. So naturally I wanted to see what Mike had to say about this. I’ve done a study in the atonement but there always seem to be gaps that get identified along the way and I’m so thankful people like Mike have ministries like this. Such a timeless way of defending God’s work on our behalf.

I like your honesty. Dr. Craig is a wonderfully intelligent Theologian & Philosopher! However he is hard to listen to when he gives lectures & his books are very dry & a rough read for those who don't enjoy the information. Ever watch Dr. Craig debate? I swear that man writes a thesis paper every debate lol It's great watching him trap & call out his naturalist colleagues tho! A real treat when sitting thru a debate of his lol

Excellent video!

About "devos", I've also recently learned that a simple word search across the bible using almost any bible software with a search tool is just great

Hey mike can you do a video on the ebionites and why some scholars think that they had different views from the Christians that followed Paul? Thank you for all your content!

But God never has needs “payment” for sin before forgiveness according to what Jesus taught. In the parables Jesus used he doesn’t allude to payment before forgiveness, it’s just forgiveness period. The parable of the master and the servant that owes him, that was a perfect example of God’s forgiveness.

Enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work! One note: 1 Peter 2:24 talks about Jesus bearing our sins in his body, so it seems to me that sins indeed were transferred to Jesus.

The objection I have to PSA is how the situation appears to me - God declares X to be a sin. God declares the punishment for sin to be death. God creates humans with a nature that makes them unable to refrain from doing X. God incarnates and suffers the punishment. The human didn't choose to be created, didn't get a vote on what the law would be, didn't have the capacity to follow the law, but is held responsible for the law? Where exactly is the justice in that? At every step all of the volition and capacity lies with God so how are humans held responsible? I do not question that Jesus is my savior and it is through faith in his sacrifice that I am made reconciled to him. What I do question the way PSA characterizes this. I think you can see it as Christ's sacrifice enabling us to be purified of the corruption of sin rather than having to view it in terms of wrath and punishment.

I am one minute in and nervous. You better have some great answers for me Mike. (He always does)

Hey Mike, would be interested in debating an Orthodox priest on the validity of PSA? I could arrange it.

Amazing video

The voluntary nature of the Son's payment for sin is key to all of this. The Godhead is obviously unified in their purpose and I don't think "had the idea first", so to speak. I do like to think, in my own imagination, that the Son stood up and offered to pay the price of sin for his people. It wasn't forced upon him.

Regarding the penal substitution topic.Does the person who pays the debt on behalf of another get back his money\ be refunded after the payment is made? In the case of Jesus was his life which he sacrificed on our behalf returned to him after 3 days?In other words was he given a full refund?Please explain !

For me, GOD IS LOVE......This vid is so deep. I submit myself for my life and God takes care of me. This vid is so good!!!! But I see God and I feel God in my life, in the feeling, that I am loved. I do acknowledge... GOD ALL THE TIME. I AM HUMBLE WHEN IT COMES TO GOD. God's Love is so much that it just stops me from thinking about Him. I can only trust and believe what He said. In truth, I am not a bad person that includes you. But, we are here in this reality or dream so then we (humans) are condemned. I'm still learning. In the meantime, I trust and believe I am forgiven and loved. God is awesome!!!!!......even though, I do fall and sin. It does happen but I still work it. Thank you.

Question: Is it possible, or at least logically sensible to beleive PSA but not imputed rightousness(specifically, believing infused rightousness, where we are rightous because we behave rightousnessly)?

It boils down to how could a pure HOLY righteous deity forgive sin?? The only logical answer is that HE pay the fine HIMSELF through pure righteous love that only GOD can have..

They say God didn't punish David for his sin with Bathsheba? Excuse me? David paid dearly for that sin! For one, the child conceived in that unholy union died as punishment by God (2 Sam 12:15-23). And God condemned the rest of David's reign with constant turmoil from within ("the sword shall never leave your house," 2 Sam 12:7-12). Yes, David's ultimate forgiveness comes through Christ alone, as does our own. But anyone who declares David was not punished for his sin is patently ignorant of Scripture. Yes, he was. He paid dearly for his crimes.

Yeah it says he died barring our sin. He who knew no sin became sin. It's not a strong objection. We just overcomplicate things.

What was the WLC book he mentioned?

Are there any Mark videos left or are all of those up as well?

I’ve been doing some research into The Bible Project and Tim Mackie (one of the creators of it) and this entire doctrine is missing from the videos. Infact, Tim Mackie has said that he thinks PSA is a gross misreading of the text. He talks about sin and how if affects others and now how is affects our relationship with God. I’m concerned because our church has just started a reading plan using the Bible Project videos. Have you ever looked into them?

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

It seems to me (I could be mistaken) that: Premise 1: The Bible teaches penal substitutionary atonement directly (or by good and necessary inference). Premise 2: Many who complain or are offended by penal substitutionary atonement have adopted a soft, non-judgmental concept of justice. Premise 3: Many who complain or are offended by penal substitutionary atonement are not very familiar with the text of the Bible. Conclusion: Therefore, objections to penal substitutionary atonement often stem from a combination of an inadequate view of justice and a lack of familiarity with the biblical teachings supporting it. What do I mean by a soft, non-judgmental view of Justice? That they have adopted a view of justice that refuses punishment of any kind. It’s as though they rule out any kind of retributive Justice as petty and therefore below God’s level of tolerance. Rather than getting our clues on justice from a laissez faire culture, we should get our clues from God who is inherently just. Corrections to my interpretation welcome.

Anyone feel free to answer. My confusion on vicarious liability is, if someone has the power to stop something and doesn't, that does make them guilty doesn't it?

Why did God change His mind? The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. [Deuteronomy 24:16] Jeremiah 31:29-30 NIV - “In those days people will no longer say, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes-their own teeth will be set on edge. Malachi 3:6 NIV - “I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. respondeat superior : a doctrine in tort law that makes a master liable for the wrong of a servant specifically : the doctrine making an employer or principal liable for the wrong of an employee or agent if it was committed within the scope of employment or agency So when I was sinning, was I acting as God’s representative? So, what your saying is that God was liable for my sins? Under respondeat superior, when a subordinate commits a crime, the superior is not prosecuted instead of the subordinate. Both the superior and the subordinate bear liability.

God didn't Kill Jesus, Jesus went willingly to the Cross in obedience to the Father, Jesus wasn't killed nor murdered. He could have come of that Cross whenever he wanted but He died for our sins so that we might have Everlasting Life.Jesus is Truly God and Truly Man.

Who is the theologian referenced at 14:30 with the 5 requirements for a proper substitute?

Thank you for these helpful videos! I have a question.. In the end of the video you answered a question about sin and mentioned that if christians were perfect the bible should never said for example "walk according to the spirit" if christians never could sin.. this made me think about verses in 1 john. Maybe yu can help me interpret 1 john 3 8-9. I do not understand. It says that we cannot sin and if we do we are sons of the devil?

Another issue. God is equitable not strictly just. We forgive others freely as God in Christ forgave us. We don't have to hurt an innocent person first before releasing someone.

Hi Mike, Found you on youtube quite recently and I like the videos I've seen so far. I am undecided on penal substitution. Penal substitution means my sins were imputed to Jesus on the cross right? How can it be that sins not yet committed could have been imputed to Christ on the cross? That Christ took the consequence of sin or took the punishment sin deserves, which is death, I can understand, but not how my sins could have been imputed. Keep up the good work! Christ love, Peter

Hi Mike, I hope I’ve come back to the right video with this comment. I’ve just been listening to Jim W Wallace in this subject, answering a phone in on Greg Koukl’s show (standing in for him). Asked about penal substitutionary atonement in our society, Jim asked the caller what he thought it was, and he said it’s when someone else speaks up on your behalf after sentencing and takes the punishment for you. And that could be similar in effect to your idea of vicarious or strict liability. No, Jim said, it’s when the Judge intervenes, having said he’s guilty, but on his own responsibility, handed down no penalty. And that is also happening in our world right now, as judges decide when it’s safe to do this, so as not to fill up the jails during covid. NOw perhaps it doesn’t quite matter which is the legal thing here, when comparing to our justification, because Jesus is both Judge and our stand-in, but I’m interested to understand this distinction please? Thank you☺️

Check out Paul vendredi who is one of the main proponents againts PSA who also comes out with Idol killer againts PSA. I love Leighton Flowers and also consider myself a Provisionist but I would much rather stand shoulder to shoulder with 5 point calvinist, than with anti-PSA's (Eastern Orthodox), open theism, and conditional security in salvation.

It is strange how the SDA think that that satan was the scape goat for our sins. There was a scape goat in law for their sin, but not in the new covenant of Christ. Jesus paid it all.

"And let us not grow weary of doing good for in due season we will reap if we do not give up." Galatians 6:9 Keep following Christ in every way and don't give up. Don't let the temporary temptations distract you from the eternal treasures in heaven. Be encouraged knowing that God is with you and that He will never leave you nor forsake you. And if God is for us then who could ever be against us. Hopefully this helped you today. God bless you.

I’m happy to see you deal with the platonic/pagan view of justice that I thought you were promoting in earlier videos. Now, if God is Just and Holy (we all agree), however he chooses to defeat/punish sin would naturally be an extension of his character. It seems to me to be normative for God to punish sin in some ways that are very foreign to our normal understanding of the term “punishment”. Greg Boyd frequently refers to this as “The foolishness/power of the cross”...You quoted this verse here as well. God’s punishment of Sin (as you seem to agree) may not have been to “pour out his wrath on Jesus and whip him as a whipping boy”, rather His defeat of sin was in absorbing the violent wages handed out by the principality & powers and rising victorious. Gods wrath was poured out on Sin by Jesus embarrassing it and exposing it as powerless. The greater the violence He endured at the hands of the principality & powers, the greater the embarrassment/punishment it suffered when Jesus Rose again! In addition to this “foolish” style of punishment, it also seems normative for God to “turn people over” to the consequences of their wickedness. He allows them to walk away from the source of life, “The wages of sin is death”. God doesn’t have to DO anything when WE walk away. It seems Jesus turned Himself over to the wages of sin, but since He IS the source of life, death could not hold Him. He was the “hook” surrounded by the meat of incarnation that death swallowed. Again, this may seem foolish, but to those of us who believe, THIS is the power and wisdom of God that left death gutted. Again, from what I have heard/read of Zahnd,Boyd,Bruxy (ZBB) I think you all agree more than you disagree! It seems to me that ZBB oppose a version(perversion) of PSA that you also disagree with. I don’t get the impression that they misunderstand PSA like you often incredulously point out, but i gather that they “understand the misunderstanding” all to well! They see the destructive effects that it causes from being preached from pulpits every Sunday! It’s a reason why many have walked away from Christianity (if Twitter is any indication), or struggle to feel loved by their heavenly Father! Unfortunately, I think PSA is commonly understood as God punishing Jesus. You do a fantastic job of clarifying, but depending on who you’re talking to, you might get further in using more neutral language & allowing the term “PSA” to stand in proxy (for a time) for the perversion that many people already think it is in order to bring them forward? Maybe? I have the idea, that that’s what ZBB are doing, though at times IMO, imperfectly. Our foundation is the crucified and risen Jesus, not a title of any particular theory. I hear you brother! I’m not sure you’re accurately hearing ZBB. Peace

Is this false doctrine common? Is it gaining ground? I ask because as far as I am aware it is not common here in the UK but usually whatever starts in America, whether good or bad, will reach here quite quickly and I'd like to be prepared.

You danced so much in your “explanations” but I couldn’t hear the music. I’m an engineer so I look for logical “reasons” for how Jesus’ Atonement “worked” but I’m not angry - just curious. But I did expect you to invoke Gen 15 in your discussion.

Addendum to previous question: I think I just need to go back to review the basics to remind myself that God's love is vastly greater than an earthly father. I feel like He abandoned me because I drifted away from His word-how He speaks to me. Sorry to have come across as weak faith(ed) if that's a word.😁

The Father and Son and Spirit all agreed to the cross before time began for us humans.

Honestly, I think the best description here is that Jesus is God who took our sins upon himself willingly and accepted the punishment for our crimes. I don't think you even need to go further than that.

I’m amazed that the narrative of Genesis 15 is not mentioned at all in this narrative. God promised that He would be responsible (pay the penalty of death) for fulfilling our part of the covenant when we failed to keep the law.

Could the timelessness of Christ and God mean that his short suffering really is eternal since God is not bound by time and can experience a moment eternally? Maybe my theology is way off. Just a thought.

Regarding the inequality of punishment between us and christ, you said that Jesus suffered so much more than us therefore this 3 days or moments of suffering equal our potentially infinite suffering, there is a mistake here because suffering is relative. For example, a child who had lost his favorite toy experiences as much suffering as an adult who lost a close friend or a child due to death, simply because the child's awareness isn't as developed as the adults, that toy was the most meaningful most precious thing he had, and he lost it. The same emotions follow, grief, anger, regret frustration. The things the child is attached to are seen as not so important, but only from our POV, a POV in which things like relationships and hard earned items hold more value. Our attachments change, but our suffering from losing them doesn't. If we draw a parallel, we are like children, Jesus is like the adult, his POV is unknown to us. His attachments differ from ours, but that does not ultimately mean he suffers more than we do in loss. We never shared his full POV.

Mike sees penal substitution as a doctrine so thoroughly bound to the work of the cross that to deny penal substitution is to deny the cross. But what if this is only seen as essential doctrine because Mike knows of no alternative answer for the work of the cross. In other words, there may be an alternate explanation that does a better job of explaining the cross, but because it is not known, any deviation from penal substitution is seen as minor heresy.

Perhaps part of the reason there is so much confusion on a pretty biblically clear topic, is that teachers fail to lay the ground work for PSA because they do not teach literally the following text: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). I'm watching your videos on this topic and I'm waiting for this proof text to be used as THE fundamental truth of God's justice that sets the stage for PSA. Indeed it sets the stage for the entire plan of salvation! Do Christians believe that death is what they deserve? Or rather do we teach that everlasting conscious torment is what unrepentant sinners deserve? Christians are confused because if our punishment is eternal torture, but Christ suffered and died, who then takes on my punishment of eternal torture? The truth is that Jesus didn't suffer eternal torment in my place. He suffered the second death in my place. If you can answer from scripture, and not conjecture why Jesus got a different punishment than sinners (death vs. eternal torture ), perhaps you could sweep away some of the confusion surrounding Christ taking on the sinner's just punishment as a substitute. So long as Christians cling to the unbiblical teaching of the immortality of the soul, they will not be able to give satisfactory answers to why Jesus was the only one who could bear the guild of the sinner and take on the sinner's punishment.

Wouldn't mind Mike's (or anyone who's thought this through) take on this. Something I've wondered for a while is if the teaching of Hebrews 9 shows the atonement fulfilled in heaven (in the real most holy place) in addition to what happened on earth? Is there like a second, real version of the sacrifice? And does this having bearing on the interpretation of Heb 2:9--like is "death" the second death here? I don't think this poses any threat to PSA though, but I do wonder. Also great job on this series! Currently watching Christ Crucified!

Hey Mike, what about the concept of fairness? As in God chooses to judge one person more harshly than another. Someone might say that being unfair is being unjust or unloving.

Hey Pastor Winger- you’ve been one of my favorite men of God on YT because you usually display the fruits of the spirit so well but I gotta say that your PSA videos really disappointed me. Not because of your positions on PSA but because of the accusatory tone and complete intolerance for Christians who disagree with your stance. It seemed to me that emotional attachments to the issue might’ve clouded your judgement so I watched a response series by Warren MGrew on his RU-vid channel, Idol Killer. Obviously, biases exist everywhere people do, but even so, Warren and his Guest Reverend Paul Vendredi offer pretty convincing biblical corrections to your claims and what seem to be a more accurate understanding of the historical background you presented on PSA. And although I’ve no horse in the race, I’m still in the air as to where I’ll land, so I was REALLY hoping you’d do a response to claims that you’ve misrepresented alternative views and arrived at false conclusions that are unbiblical, because I’d really like to get to the truth in all of this. Thanks Pastor Winger- I appreciate all you do. 🙏

Concerning hermenuetics The first principle states that when interpreting a text, one may not ignore other texts on the same subject. The second principle states that no interpretation may be accepted if it renders a passage absurd. PSA’s interpretation of the atonement violates the first principle because it creates a contradiction with a number of passages that not only rejects as a mechanism but also forbids the execution of the innocent in place of the guilty (Exodus 32:32,Deut.24:16; Jer.31:29-30; Ezek.18:20). Scripture also states that punishing the righteous is not good (Prov.17:26). This claim renders any so called proof text for PSA absurd because it makes God well pleased to abandon and pour out His wrath upon His sinless Son in whom He is well pleased (John 8:29,Matt.3:17; 12:18; 17:5). Talk about an absurd contradiction! It also makes the interpretation of PSA's proof texts absurd because we end up with God directly shedding the blood of an innocent man so the guilty can go free, the Bible doesn’t call that justice (Prov.24:24) also the scriptures do reveal that betraying Yeshua over to death was a great sin John 19:11, PSA renders Father directly responsible for Yeshua's death as such a death was by Divine Wrath and not just finite wrath from creation both material and immaterial . Thus PSA when thought through consistently renders God tempting people into evil and being tempted by evil when betraying over to death an innocent person. It is betrayal because what was promised of the declared righteous became a lie when according to PSA Father poured out wrath upon the declared innocent that God said They would not do .The Son of God incarnate being the source of that promise. PSA falsely makes Yeshua an exception to the pattern of teaching of the whole written word of How God treats His righteous mortal children and others bring not His children who are unrighteous. Who's Divine Wrath is solely preserved being Their enemy nahum 1:2. PSA is not a mechanism for atonement, reconciliation nor redemption as God would violate Their own promises, to not under Their wrath punish who Father declares righteous, in place of the guilty nor because of the guilty. How can the ONE we are to look upon for hope of mercy, forgiveness, freedom and reconciliation , convince a sinner of such a hope to cause repentance, faith and reconciliation toward God, if not even a sinless man is preserved from Gods wrath but instead punished as a enemy thus a illegitimate child of God ? How can a finite person who at the first are enslaved to sin and spiritually dead unable to obey God,hope for a good standing before God in trusting in a righteousness that comes from God the Son and not of ourselves, when God the Son in becoming flesh being without sin and sin not being in Him ,declared truly righteous ,was then betrayed in not being spared from Divine Wrath according to the hypothesis of PSA? How can one trust in such a righteousness from a god who through PSA concludes to be a liar, is mutable instead of immutable and passible instead of impassible? Not including that such a substitution through PSA would render Yeshua blemished thus an abomination to Father. Yeshua who offered Himself up to Father as a ransom to redeem through His voluntary shed blood would not be accepted if such a hypothesis of PSA were true.

So the picture is not a son who disobeys his father and why can't the father freely forgive. The picture is the son murdered his brother, and his father is the judge in the trial, and the rest of the broken family looks on as the murderer fully repents in court. In this case, the father still freely forgives the personal wrong done to him, but cannot pardon the man legally and still be a good judge. The family would be appalled if he did, and the family nemesis would be the first to stand up in court and accuse the judge. So what is the father to do? The family wants to forgive and accept the genuinely sorrowful murderer back in, but the crime cannot go unpaid for. Now here's the shakiest part; the judge's solution is to choose a sentence of lashes with a whip held by those most hurt by the murder, and then steps in front of the murderer and whips himself. I think it works, but that last part is tough to get to, because the more obvious analogy is that it was a death sentence and the judge let himself be executed instead, which does seem to fall apart as a good analogy that convinces one of the justness of this all. But, I think the conundrum still stands solidly; God freely forgives the personal wrong, but as perfect judge and with all in attendance cannot freely pardon the crime without exacting some form of restitution, so what is He to do? He's gotta find a way to get that restitution or the criminal cannot be set free.

Huge point - unbelievers think they must understand and agree with God's ways "passing everything through THEIR APPROVAL SYSTEM"......before they can submit/believe the Bible, etc. YES! Also the point that maybe we just can't comprehend everything involved or felt but wasn't/couldn't be written down. Plausible, no? I've also noticed they say (nonsensically) they can't believe some of it bc it couldn't naturally happen.? I would think that if God could create the universe, there's not a problem creating everything in a literal 6 days and all the other miracles we read about. For some reason, it's too much for them to just logically decide to "trust the Scriptures" anyway - since we are not God, therefore it's impossible for us to agree & understand all this. He doesn't command that we understand or agree - but He rightfully demands loyalty, obedience, acknowledgement that He is the the only One who deserves it as the Creator of everything. How do we know there isn't some "holy laws" that demand it in the spiritual realms/dimensions that God lives in. Jesus wouldn't have submitted if He thought it wasn't absolutely necessary. That also pertains to why He created us and allowed what He has. And the issue about proving the Bible true can be resolved with some honest study as Mike has pointed out in other vids.

How can God forgive you for a sin that you commit against another human? Can he say, "John I know you killed Bill and I am going to forgive you"? Bill is not around to say its ok. I have a problem with this. Can you give me your understanding of this preferably through Scripture? I can understand sin solely against him.

For people who are against PSA: Would you rather you have to pay the price for your sin personally? Or would you rather have your sin paid for on the cross?

Hey Mike, I really like you tom make an episode to talk about all kinds of sex cultures in our age. Hook up culture, early sex, pornography, all kinds of things... really like to hear :) thank you!

Your last video for 2019, huh? So you didn’t know Covid was about to begin. I’m sorry, but everything is about to change, but it gets better. Looking back from 2023!

It's hard to imagine what Jesus went through when he died on the cross. The Roman soldiers were so cruel with their method of crucifixion.

THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF SACRIFICIAL DEATH FROM COVER TO COVER WHY SUCH CONFUSION ??? Either believe it or don't , this is the best deal for atonement and salvation anywhere in any galaxy , so... I HIGHLY RECCOMMEND IT !!!

If you covered this, I missed it, but in 1 Kings 21 God postpones the punishment of Ahab's sin onto his son.

Philosophical scrutiny is the right given by God for us to be free thinkers. That doesn't mean we are right.

William lane craig is a great debater but did you know he does not believe that genesis is literal

I purchased and read Dr. Craig's book due to this video. Every example of Craig's "vicarious liability" is an example of INjustice. All these cases do is find a bigger pocket who can be charged to extract money, but this only creates additional victims. I have myself been a victim of something like this, left holding an empty bag even after doing a transaction with full integrity. God himself bans punishing the innocent. Two wrongs never make the first wrong to be right. Violence, torture, and retribution upon a third party cannot satisfy a just God who has prohibited this practice. Prov. 17:15, Ex. 23:7, Deut. 27:25.

Debt forgiveness, when a lending company forgives your debt they take it on themselves, even writing off bad debt means the debt is payed through other legal means through the government.