Atonement Theory: With Bruxy Cavey (2019) 

This seems like an inaccurate representation of church history. He says that Christus Victor was a later view after Ransom was moved away from. That’s not what I’ve read in the fathers. Not to go into the idea that Ransom never departed as a concept but merely the idea that it was paid to Satan. In addition, a needed distinction between what the atonement results in and how it is accomplished is acknowledge by Josh but then abandoned shortly after. To say Christus Victor can be sustained apart from propitiation, expiation or substitution seems unsubstantiated. In fact, I’ve seen PSA in many of the church fathers (I’ll do a survey of this in a soon coming video). It seems modern historical revisionism pretends these early discussions of the atonement were full and competing theories and does so in order to put them against PSA. I think a clear discussion of “what is God’s wrath” in scripture would help.

To answer the question in the description, it is a biblical understanding, but I'm definitely intrigued to see this video. The truth is that, once you recognize that most of these theories have correct aspects that are all true, and you put them together, you get what the bible teaches. Jesus died FOR you (PSA) but he died also AS you AND in VICTORY over Sin and Death (Christus Victor).

Remember that "Paid the price" or "Paid for sin" or "Paid sin debt" or "Purchased forgiveness" are all phrases that don't occur in scripture so we don't have to fit these concepts into a biblical theology. They are not biblical. They are all ideas beyond what is written.

I would recommend N.T.Wrights book The Day the Revolution Began. You will see he does believe in PSA but quite different imagery. It helped me hugely

This was an excellent discussion. I suggest going into a deep dive with the book "Atonement and Reconciliation".

Should this be taken down given the recent controversy over his sexual assault?

You have to go back to the Greek with that word "Ransom." It's not always freedom through paying a price. It's a word that means literally to "Loose From" as in being set free. I know in English we think paying off a kidnapper but the Greek word "lytroo" more specifically means to be loosed. In 1st Pet 1:18 Christ loosed us from the vain lifestyle we inherited from our fathers walking in the lusts of our flesh.

We have plain statements in the bible about what the cross means. Why do we need any theories? Read Titus for heaven's sake.

All theories aside, there is NO salvation without the individual learning to die to carnal, lower natured desires. Christ is our example that we must die to ascend. This must happen inwardly. We are the temple. It's metaphor.

In college I wrote a word study on Poterion, a figurative symbol of wrath. Mt 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” Mk 14:35 He went on a little farther and fell to the ground. He prayed that, if it were possible, the awful hour awaiting him might pass him by. 36 “Abba, Father,”[g] he cried out, “everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.” Curious if Bruxley would see that as a source of understanding God's wrath being poured out on Jesus. Just prior Jesus poured the wine / his blood into a cup, and then later God poured out a cup too...? Not saying it's absolute trutt, but definitely words to ponder. Edit: oh they do talk about ^^ at 56:50

It is one of several "models of the gospel" not the gospel itself. It is used by cynics to make a straw man out of the simplicity of the Protestant Gospel found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:44-48 and John 3:16, by instead reinventing it as one of what are called "models of the gospel" and then to refute the comparison as if it was the original. This was one of the most cunning examples of "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" Ephesians 4:14 . A comparison with the gospel (model) will always fail, as it is not the gospel itself, in the same way a parable is never identical to actual events, like a scythe cutting down wheat is not literally angels picking people up. If you want to refute the Protestant gospel, refute these two statements: 1) Christ died for our sins 2) Christ was resurrected for our justification. That is the actual Gospel that saves. In other words Jesus is a Saviour not a semi Saviour.

Like new covenant atonement. Did you ever consider - In ancient times the gods drank human blood. Now we know it’s the other way around, Our God loves us so much that he gives His blood for us to drink. No more monster gods!

Sin is unbelief because of enmity seeded by the serpent, which resulted in an action that is in a rebellious spirit.

I have a problem with our brother Bruxy not seeing where the anger is in the sacrifice. (38:20) "what has that to do with wrath"; Romans 6:23 says "the wages of sin is death". to me the fact that a lamb, ram or bull had to die for sin. My guess is the Anna Baptist have a hard time in seeing God's wrath in the requirement of the death - of the sacrifice of the Old Testament. Seeing death as a punishment for sin? i'm not sure why he doesn't get it. At (38:20 ) Bruxy say's "what has that have to do with wrath". it seems to me that Josh makes the point that the requirement of DEATH itself is the "WRATH" . I'm not sure why he is missing it .....

Really enjoyed this; great interviewer/interviewee. Bruxy hit the nail on the head here regarding the atonement. Caution to the meeting house - being more conservative doesn’t make you more Christian, but neither does being more liberal.

This guy is SOOOOOOO CANADIAN!!! LOL Thanks for this video. It was very interesting.

The wrath of God idea comes from Isaiah 53:4-12. But specifically see v10 that gives the possible justification for the PSA view. There are certainly problems with PSA. Like how does 3 days of physical death be substitutionary for an eternity of hell fire. Also if Jesus didn't really suffer the fires of hell, can we really call it substitutionary.

God needs a change of heart? Because God's heart was never really right until Jesus? Jesus changes the unchanging God who needs no repentance. Crazy much?

I love being charitable in discussion. However, I'm alarmed when one professes Christ but they are not comfortable acknowledging Him dying in the place of us and bearing the penalty for our sins. It baffles me! The "died for our sins" part in the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) is then undermined. The righteous suffering in the place of the unrighteous (1 Peter 3:18) Yet being Christian implies having positively received the Gospel. There had to be punishment on account of sins, no sweeping under the carpet, "let's forget it, boys will be boys". Someone had to die, blood had to be shed, no sanitizing or dodging it. If one has been truly redeemed, surely they should be happy that their sins have been punished in the body of Jesus. there's no way to dodge the clear PSA in the gospel.

Yea Cavey is a real piece of work... As an Anabaptist pastor myself, I view force and violence as more than simply acts of physical destruction. Exploitation and objectification are also mechanisms of violence and tools of the Powers of the Realm of Death. The Reign of God and Realm of the Spirit is about emancipation, liberation, solidarity and reconciliation. (Luke 4:18-19) Cavey is a predator who used his position to enrich and gratify his ego, he was captured by the powers (and may still be) and actively twisted Justice at the city gate. (Amos 5:12)

The blood did not forgive sins in the old testament. The sprinkled blood of the lamb made the temple holy for the rite to be done. And by holy making it perform a function that is spiritual, or metaphysical. Makes it beyond physical, but a kind of spiritual theatre. The sacrificial rite was a symbolic representation of the movement of man to God via the sacrifice. Like a meal between God and man, a bringing in to union. And all this is an institution of God, and the sacrifice is His. In turn Jesus is an act of God showing man is forgiven, that God does not count his faults against him, that God overlooks man's sin, and want man to come to Him for redemption. In the Aaronic atonement rite, sin is thrown away from the camp and it should be sent away so that it doesnt come back. This is symbolic of God removing man's sin, casting it away, not counting it against the camp. It's that simple. God shows us He loves us by taking beating from sinful man and he didnt do anything about it. This is to show He can take man's enmity against God, and does forgive man because He loves him. This is why the call is "therefore, be reconcilled back to God"

Ack!!! Romans 7 is a parenthetical statement between 6 and 8. Paul is describing what is was like trying to be righteous under the old covenant. I keep gagging on this whole conversation.

Is it just me, or does Bruxy have a nice beatific halo around his head that lends authority to his teaching?

Ransom to us means the price paid. Ransom to the Greeks means setting free. Not assumed that a price has to be paid for someone to be set free. Could just be unlocking a chain. Jesus sets us free from slaver to sin. Why is this hard?

If the atonement is about the wrath of god being satisfied then how is there still wrathe being stored up for the wicked? Would that not imply universalism?

I couldnt find God is wrathful against man. Since the beginning, God only had a heart to bless and redeem mankind, to show mercy and throw away our sin.

I found the verse you were looking for. Isaiah 53:10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

Bruxy is an Anabaptist who "rejects" That's rare

Bruxy gives the same view as Catholics holds.

i think the PSA theory isnt over a thousand years old.

He built up such a straw man about PSA.

How many Christians have ever read through the book of Leviticus in Hebrew? It is so completely different from what you hear in churches. Because Christians have no concept of the correct understanding of the Torah they don't understand sacrifice and consequently have no clue what the sacrifice of Jesus means. Never once in this conversation did I hear a reference to "qorban" or it's Greek equivalent "prospheron."

Penal substitution. Isn’t that Christ being circumcised in our place?

This church is 15 min. from me.

Bruxy makes a good point that the scriptures never speak of Jesus Christ being the object of God's wrath. When speaking of God's attitude towards sacrifices, the scriptures always use words such as "fragrant odor," "delight," "well-pleasing," and "acceptable." What made the cross a delight to God was the obedience, faithfulness, humility, and endurance of His Son. And that delight is the foundation of our salvation. Here's an excellent article on this topic: www.academia.edu/34689178/Introduction_to_Christus_Victor.docx

Why can't you Just believe Jesus....

Just for the record. Penal Substitution is completely wrong. There is no portion of it that does anything other than corrupt our faith.

As for wrath being satisfied what then is a propitiation? Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Clearly an unlimited atonement satisfaction of wrath. 1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Clearly then Jesus got burned instead of us but what was different about Jesus from the old testament burned sacrifices? The sacrifice was burned but not consumed.. Exodus 3:5 Here is one of Joseph Prince's finest works which I commend for its unique originality. I would not want to ever have to die and face God unless this aspect of the finished work of Jesus Christ were authentic and both wrath and justice were indeed satisfied and in fact more than satisfied. If both my sins and the wrath they earned were not buried in an infinite eternal sea of God's free grace then then I could do nothing but dread facing God and the terrible judgment my sins earned which would fall on me at the terrible Great White throne judgment instead of being judged at Calvary. Yes I appreciate the other aspects of the cross which I believe are also valid except for a ransom being paid to Satan. Though I could be wrong but I do not perceive Satan and his demons enjoying any lucrative payment of the blood of Jesus Christ and that enriching his coffers every time a soul gets saved. I was told that Satan hates the blood of Christ and even the mention thereof. Why? Because of his enrichment? No it is because the Son of man came to destroy the works of the Devil not provide treasure in His coffers. If there ever was treasure that made devils rejoice it it was when satan thought he was ridding the world of the righteous God Man Jesus Christ. I even perceive that Satan did not want to see Jesus abused and slain. Matt 16:21-26 Peter becomes an agent of Satan and wants to stop the payment that saves our souls? Verse 23 WHat then did Satan know and what then was he attempting to stop through the use of Peter and his brilliant idea to save the savior and let the world be damned? If there was no atonement then there would be no salvation to believe in.

How does someone even know Jesus existed wasn't he just an example for us to follow? There's no historical proof that he existed I believe it's all metaphor about ourselves

Hey there again, I should probably explain why I commented above; I wrote the articles on this controversy north of the border. Find the first one here: ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/seeking-clarity-bruxy-cavey/ As I said, I think you handled it very well.

I believe these verses have been misappropriated here by Mr. Cavey: “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed,” Is 53.4,5. The religious leaders looked at Christ on the cross and said, “See, God IS against him. ‘Surely, this man IS a sinner’ (as in Jn 9.24). If this man spoke the truth of God, God would save him from this death.” BUT WE realize that it was the debt of OUR sin which had to be settled, NOT any debt that the Lord Jesus Himself had incurred. THEREFORE, we do not esteem HIM stricken of God; we esteem OURSELVES stricken of God (not b/c God is vengeful against us per se, but b/c sin ALWAYS incurs a debt, and righteousness ALWAYS demands payment) - Yet HE stood in our place! It is NOT that “this much wrath must be poured out”, but that every debt must be PAID IN FULL. No payment? “You are yet in your sins.”

Good interview. Cavey comes across quite well here vs. some other material I have seen. That said, much of his theology is problematic. He mentions Isaiah 53 here and I don't see how his reading is in any way supportable. As for Penal Substitution per se and the "cat" analogy etc. - I urge you to continue to think this through. Don't be taken in or give biblical ground, work to understand what is going on here. One key to understanding these views is the tendency we all have to create God in our own image - you may find this this T4G video helpful: vimeo.com/112069968

Sorry hahaha

God has wrath on sinners. Stop being a sinner and God stops having a problem with you. Why is this hard? Read the old testament for heaven's sake. Eze 18 anyone? Stop sinning and God forgives you.

Atonement: Bringing two parties together in agreement. God: Doesn't approve of sin Man: stop sinning if you want to have agreement with God. Jesus: Here is how to stop sinning so you can be in agreement with God.

Interesting. In the well known parable of the Prodigal Son there is no indication of the father's wrath being appeased before he can forgive his wayward son. He forgives freely. In fact, it is the older son who seems to represent at least resentment if not wrath at the father's graciousness.

This seems like an inaccurate representation of church history. He says that Christus Victor was a later view after Ransom was moved away from. That’s not what I’ve read in the fathers. Not to go into the idea that Ransom never departed as a concept but merely the idea that it was paid to Satan. In addition, a needed distinction between what the atonement results in and how it is accomplished is acknowledge by Josh but then abandoned shortly after. To say Christus Victor can be sustained apart from propitiation, expiation or substitution seems unsubstantiated. In fact, I’ve seen PSA in many of the church fathers (I’ll do a survey of this in a soon coming video). It seems modern historical revisionism pretends these early discussions of the atonement were full and competing theories and does so in order to put them against PSA. I think a clear discussion of “what is God’s wrath” in scripture would help.

I just found about the allegations against Mr. Cavey. Obviously this was after the fact, but were these allegations discussed with the remnant radio crew at some point? I am just curious how you handle content like this.

The only scripture that people use that possibly point to wrath being poured on Jesus is Isiah. It pleased the Father to bruise His son. We even sing about how on the cross the wrath of God was satisfied.(mind you in the writing of that they wanted to say love instead of wrath but were afraid of how it would affect future generations) That’s not even scriptural how wrath was satisfied on the cross cause it’s actually verbatim satisfied in Revelation 15.

It is for this reason that i was born: to testify to the truth.

My understanding of this discussion is that Jesus paid our debt by being punished, however, God's wrath is on the sin. Now as I write this, I know that Jesus was made sin for us. So, someone straighten me out.

Excellent discussion, thank you so much

Great job Joshua! You've identified the actual area of disagreement and by-passed a lot of the differences that are actually more about terminology and emphasis. Commendable example of active listening and fair dialogue. I hope that this conversation will help frame the on-going debate as an important intramural discussion between Christian brothers and sisters as opposed to an attack by a heretic against the orthodox Gospel. I continue to disagree with Bruxy on several points but I affirm him as a brother in Christ trying to understand the cross so as to respond to God in worship, service and devotion. Thanks again.

Let's purify PSA by burning everything that promotes it.

Love the dialogue and the brotherly kindness shown in this episode. Question, when Christ was made to be sin and bore our sin in his flesh (body) on the cross, 1 Pt. 2:24 didn't God curse sin in the flesh, so Christ is not being cursed, but sin in the flesh is cursed? Rom. 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh,...So isn't the wrath of God poured out on sin, as to say God is punishing sin itself? He is punishing sin which has power through the way of man (flesh) in order to replace the dead way of man, with his living way, which is Jesus. Sin having it's only source of power in our yielded flesh, thereby our slavery is to sin, to obey it with our flesh until we are free from that master. Hence our liberty, our freedom from sin and it's power. Our way is slavery to sin, due to the flesh and flesh is the problem that must be crucified so sin has no avenue by which to control and those that are Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires, Gal. 5:24.Thereby leaving no means for sin to have power in our life, when flesh is no longer the way we live, but free in the spirit which now is regenerated and empowered by the Spirit of God. Also it looks like the ransom, was paid to free us from our on ways, 1 Pt. 1:18 knowing that you were ransomed from your futile ways inherited from you forefathers...... When you get the problem out of the way, which was man living for himself, flesh or the way of the flesh then the problem is gone, therefore you have peace. Col. 1:20. Sin is no longer the problem when you live by and in the Spirit, you are free from sin.