Did God punish Jesus on the cross? William Lane Craig vs Greg Boyd on Penal Substitution Atonement 

They all agreed in one thing: we all need a library in our home just in front of a webcam

Looking forward to this one

Love Unbelievable?....Discussions like this are necessary for learning...Great discussion between Craig & Boyd....

Finally a civil debate where both individuals are respectful.

Boyd is very committed to an “either/or” theory of the atonement. It impacts his reasoning again and again. His “reframing” tends to result in just acknowledging that there is a fuller and more robust view of the atonement but then going on to create an artificial either/or “frame” which has him rejecting essential elements of the atonement.

This is an absolutely wonderful conversation - Kind, Honest, Clear and full of Depth. My view is maturing and being challenged with each minute that passes.

Have really liked this channel but ultimately gave it the Sub for getting Dr. Greg Boyd on the show !!! Great debate can’t wait for the next one on Greg’s book this time.

I really love both Craig and Boyd. So, when this popped up I had to watch. Totally delivered. Great talk.

Hosea 6:6: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." (NIV)

I’m excited for this one.

It is painfully obvious that William Lane Craig is more devoted to the idea that God is perfect: in justice, love, mercy, etc. While, on the other hand, Greg Boyd is more committed to the idea of God as only perfectly loving. Appreciated the conversation, but it seems obvious that if we are going to assert the utter perfection of God; His justice cannot be, in any sense, neglected for the sake of His love.

Looking forward to it!

That was freaking brilliant!!!

I like what Dr Craig mentioned about the legal forgiveness makes us a new creature whereas us forgiving a brother doesn’t. Very interesting so far

CV vs PSA changed my faith- a few years ago, THANKS DR BOYD. You are doing very important kingdom work

I'm stoked for this one.

Man, I really enjoyed this discussion!

What a great to discussion between two great minds. Thanks for this.

This was a really good debate in many ways. I have some issues with some details with PSA, but also some issues with some details in Christus victor. So I had some aha-moments. But most of all, how courteous and respectful both were to each other. No name calling nor straw men. A very pleasant debate/discussion

This was a wonderful discussion!

Thank you, Bill, for another great debate. “My playsure.”

Notice at the end that Dr. Boyd said, “I think that the most important fact in anyone‘s life is your mental conception of God,“ not, “I think that the most important fact in anyone’s life is that your your mental conception of God aligns with His actual nature and actions.” I found that to be very interesting and perhaps telling. As I was listening to Dr. Boyd and Dr. Craig discuss this issue, I was so captivated by all of their particular points. However, I was also curious how many of Dr. Boyd’s biblical and philosophical objections to Dr. Craig’s view were also psychological objections. Only the Holy Spirit knows. As for me, I have had to admit that many of my own objections are really psychological concerns, many of which are really spiritual issues, many of which are really acts of mental rebellion.

Excited about the Systematic Philosophical Theology work!

I love it, especially how much I am benefiting tremendously from 2 theologians debating. We the listeners are blessed. I must say, I totally agree with both of them in many ways although they are in the polar opposite. I admire both of them. At Least all of three of them have one thing in common and that's their backdrop.

Gotta get the bookshelves in the background and flex!

The problem with Greg’s “Jesus pushing someone out of the way of the bus” illustration is that there’s no guilt involved there. It again removes the kingly justice images which the entire scriptures are replete with.

Wow! Two of my favorites!

"Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day..."

This was one of the most interesting WLC debates I have seen. I have been following WLC since my conversion, and I have gone through his second and third iterations of defenders multiple times. I am deeply steeped in Craig’s sytemaatization of theology as it were. I find that I ultimately agree with Craig, of course, because a one hour debate couldn’t possibly be enough to sway me. But I found Boyd’s position to be absolutely fascinating and certainly worth additional study and consideration. Thank you both for your well thought out, respectful, and interesting discussion of some of the basic issues related to the retributive justice understanding of the atonement and the consequentialist understanding of the atonement! Wow!

Great job Craig

Interesting discussion!

@ 52:40 This is exactly it. Well said. Perfect breakdown of "PSA".

To Greg at 35:00. We are not just a bride who has been kidnapped against her will, like the bride in Ezekiel 16 we have left our bridegroom and pursued other lovers, despising His grace. He states that briefly in 26:30, but frames it as kidnapping rather than abandonment and despising Him

There are four types of atonements: 1. Ransom to Deity 2. Ransom to Devil 3. Ransom to Death 4. Ransom doesn't mean payment but actually Rescue. There are many atonement theories/models some these are: Satisfaction theory- a ransom to Deity theory. It teaches that we have infinitely offended God's honor and Jesus is the only sacrifice that can satisfy the payment of that Honor. (The early church shows ideas of these theories like punishment and payment of a debt but nothing less than satisfying God's infinite offended honor is satisfaction theory.) Penal Substitutionary Atonement- a ransom to Deity theory. It is a modified version of the satisfaction theory which is still evolving. It teaches that the Father pours out his Wrath on the Son for our sin. It teaches that Jesus took our penalty for sin. It teaches that Jesus became a literal sin on the cross. (The early church fathers use ideas of penal substitutionary atonement such as punishment or payment of debt just like the satisfaction theory. But again ideas are not the theory itself. This theory has a robust defense which they pull from scripture. It requires massive amounts of study to convince someone otherwise. But anything less than the Father pouring out wrath on his Son is not penal substitutionary atonement.) Moral influence theory- a ransom to anyone but the Devil theory. It teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ were to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection. This theory is often combined with other theories. (The early church does express ideas of the moral influence theory but that's not all it expresses. Therefore the theory is not complete in of itself explaining scripture or the early church.) Ransom theory- a ransom to the Deity, Devil or Death theory. It teaches that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip. In some views paid to God the Father, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin. Other views even include the ransom being paid to death. (The early church did show some ideas for this theory. This theory is one of the oldest theories of Christianity. In the Bible, we are told Jesus is a ransom but not to whom. Anything less then Bible saying that the Ransom was paid to the devil is not this theory.) Christus Victor theory/restored icon model- a ransom doesn't mean payment but rescue theory. It is a modified understanding of the ransom theory, it teaches that Christ's death defeated the power of the evil, which had held humankind in their power which are sin, death, and the devil. The Christus Victor Theory teaches that the idea of ransom should not be the same as Satisfaction or Penal substitutionary atonement view it which is a legal transaction by the payment of penalty to satisfy the demands of Gods justice but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity in which is rooted in the incarnation and Jesus entering human misery and wickedness and redeemed it. (This early church shows some ideas for this theory. People do question some of the early church's use of punishment and debt. This theory is one of the oldest theories of Christianity.) The Governmental Theory- a ransom to Deity theory. It teaches God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually, God does not exact strict justice. This [governmental atonement] view teaches that Christ by His death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. And What His death did was to demonstrate what their sins deserved at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men. (The early church may seem to teach ideas of this theory. However as for the theory itself I do not see it in the early church after examining the ideas which are in the early church.) Recapitulation theory-a ransom doesn't mean payment but rescue theory. It teaches that the atonement of Christ reverses the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. They teach that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. (The first person to teach this theory was Irenaeus after him this theory is basically lost even though some of the ideas are seen in the early church later on.)

N T Wright,we needed you here

You are doing a good job 😊

Greg has an "emotional" problem with the atonement, not an intellectual or Biblical one.

Dr.Craig is awesome!

Love to listen to WLC. Brilliant.

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for William Lane Craig, defender of true biblical theology. Amen to PSA. God bless. Learnt so many things from him to defend the faith once delivered to the saints. God bless you brother.

I found it telling when William Lane Craig admitted that the early Church, right up to Anselm, didn't have a clear elaboration of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. He interprets this as a failing but perhaps the reason for this is that it doesn't cohere well with other Christian beliefs nor is easily supported by scripture.

WLC has a great point at 52:47 that coincides with the scripture “but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”” ‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭9 : 24‬ An essential aspect of knowing who God is, involves understanding that He is not only loving but also just and righteous. All these attributes are displayed in the cross by Jesus taking the punishment we deserved 🙌

Though I haven’t read this particular book they are discussing, I think The Cross Of Christ, by the late John Stott is an adequate work which covers a great deal of ground, on similar subjects.

Greg’s point on the car crash articulates the idea of the organic nature of sin and judgment perfectly. I think the legal framework represents how we have made sense of the way we think God acts wrt sin. It’s kind of us working out the mechanics of this system. Very transactional. You could write code to this....

So looking forward to this. Although hugely differing in personality and modes of thinking, here are two delightful Christian gentlemen who model robust but respectful debate. Thanks Unbelievable for setting this up.

This debate brought me even closer to the Christus Victor view.

Great discussion with insights for me. Questions: We are “Dead in our Sin” so redemption is also “We are reborn” and forgiveness does not explain our “Bondage to death”. We are also “Rebels filled with Pride” and must be “Converted”. Finally, as we see in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve also “Experienced Shame” or loss of “Identity” so God “Adopts” those who are reborn so we have a new identity. Craig gets at Death/Bondage with Christus Victor.

I think as things went on Greg was slowly absorbing Bill's explanation. Great discussion and I think some good learning going on..

Really enjoyed this. Clearly two very gifted believers in their fields. For me, very simply, if God was 'just' our friend, Greg's position would suffice. But he isn't 'just' our friend. He is also our God and King. We would do well to remember that for every time a person walked past or spoke with Jesus as any other normal person, equally in scripture there are occurrences where God appears before people - and their immediate reaction is to hit the ground - face first

41:30 "In Christus victor, the enemy is always the powers, and that's what enables us not to make enemies of other human beings."

Great discussion, both theses guys are a credit to their theological view and their maturity to respect the debate and each other. Greg struggles with Gods sovereignty and seems to lean to an organic philosophy that leans closer towards “ Karma “ .

Thank you brother Craig .. You're a very patient man..

Great talk ! Thanks for sharing. I believe the very foundation of the controversy lies in whether one believes God forgives by demanding death, or not. If one relies on concrete Jesus' testimonies, it is possible to see that he (who testifies of the Father) forgives without demanding death (ex. Luke 5 : 20). This must question one's theoretical understanding of the sacrifical system in the Old Testament, if one believes that killing the animals means : God opens the door to forgiveness. In light of Jesus' concrete testimony (for Scriptures testify of him, cf. John 5 : 39) it is possible to question the Penal Substitution theory, and revisit the nature of sacrifice in relationship to divine forgivness.

We need Rene Gerard in on this discussion....

The RESTORED ICON is the central facet of atonement I have found in the last 2 1/2 years of study from scripture and ancient Jewish and Christian insights, not penal substitution.

Would love to hear a discussion or debate on Greg Boyd's book on innerrancy!

If all God had to do was to simply "forgive" then Jesus wasn't necessary.

I love Greg Boyd’s heart but it seems like he is leaning towards felt preferences. The law courtroom view might sound unappealing but what if it is simply true?

I've disagreed with Boyd for a while but lately I'm coming around to his perspective and listening to this discussion again was definitely thought-provoking!

Best conversation on this so far in human history.

Death was not a legal consequence in Gen 3. The legal consequences are listed in Gen 3:14-19. Death was added in verses 22 and 23, not as a penalty but as YHWH trying to protect Man from making his consequences permanent. Bill Craig is a very bright fellow, but in this instance he's wrong.

I have benefitted so much from both these men. Have books from both of them on my shelf, and have consumed many hours of their lectures. To hear them debate this thrills my soul. I am delighted that they were not as far apart as they/we thought they would be. IMO, Boyd is closer to the truth on this topic. Perhaps the most revealing moment comes around 45:40 where when Craig then responds he has to in essence say that penal substitutionary atonement may well be fiction (46:48). God adopted legal fiction? That's problematic.

The notion that the employer is responsible for the crimes of the employee, even though the employer is totally innocent, is a form of injustice. So to map that legal fiction onto the atonement is simply to apply our very imperfect legal system on to God. It’s as absurd as it is repugnant to moral good sense.

+Unbelievable? This was a really good exchange! Would love if there could be a second part to unpack it more and clarify how they believe each theory impacted society and culture. i believe Boyd suggested maybe the christian persecutions started because of the signals put out to Rome by Anselm. As a vegan i can sympathize with Greg Boyd, with emphasizing that the reason God went with penal substitution/sacrifice was because it was something people deeply held onto as a practice that they already did as pagans (thus maybe why he says it came from satan), but He just used and permitted it to attempt to retool it as a way to wean them off it, similar to how He dealt with them when the Israelites rejected His plant based diet of mana and demanded meat from bloodlust addiction, and were willing to revolt against God over it. Could God saying did i ever ask for animal sacrifice, and telling the israelites i hope you eat animal products/meat till it comes out of your nostrils be the same kind of evidence He provides that it didnt come from to Him, similar to His response to their insistence on rejecting Him as their national ruler to demand a human king like the luciferian nephilim pagan nations around them instead, where He says you want a king i'll give you a king and he'll take take take, where a human king will largely oppress you and be a tyrant but hey here ya go? Could it be He permitted and used it as the way to have the human king of the line of Judah and sacrificial lamb who takes away the sin of the world come to meet them where they were at because sacrificial retributive violence, bloodlust, and a human ruler was theirs and satans idea that He paid for, absorbed and did away with it? Between the 2 views, maybe its something in the middle, but i believe a follow up would be very cool to see. If Anselms view is what helped turn the 1st century church away from being largely vegan under James leadership, and helped foment Romes persecution of christians, might it be critically important to get this right?

Remember when Jesus healed the paralytic and said, "Your sins are forgiven"? By William Lane Craig's logic, how could that have happened?

A wage is not a consequence: death is the wage of sin, not its organic consequence.

Doing a study on these two ideas and I found this interview helpful in many ways. Dr Craig said that without penal substitution there is no absolution of sin on the Christus Victor view but I disagree. Our baptism is our burial with Christ, our sins are now cut off from us because the wages of sin is death and we died to sin at our baptism when we were buried with Christ. We are raised to a new life and one that is empowered by the spirit. While we strive to live as Christ lived we may sin but Christ is interceding for us to the Father, His body was the sacrifice, we identify with it at every communion and we are given forgiveness through repentance and faith in the works and promises of Christ and His covenant with us.

This will be good ! Arguementation against and arguementation in defense.

is a big problem, Greg ignores so much about the scriptures.

Would love to see NT Wright thrown into this debate. It’s important to view the atonement in light of the biblical narrative and Israel’s history, and both WLC and Boyd could have been challenged further in this area. Regardless it was a good discussion!

In so many arguments to believe something differently than at any other point in history it comes down to one key thing. We all agree God is love but so many seem to neglect that God is also holy, and His holiness may be the attribute that is emphasized more than any other in the Bible.

Thus far, I have listened to only half of the discourse, so this may come up later in the recording ... But on the point of the legal / judicial aspect of atonement, I haven't heard either Craig or Boyd mention the thought that God's atonement , along with its applications for both God and humanity, also has an application for the fallen powers "When He had disarmed the ruleras and authorities, He made a public display of them having triumphed over them through Him (or through it, the cross)." (Colossians 2:15) This says to me that the atonment required that legal / judicial aspect in dealing with the fallen powers (if not also with regards to God and humanity).

interesting how WLC basically admits that PSA is a "trick" played by God, on God, to convince God that God is both loving and just. How on earth this theory ever appealed to anyone is beyond my comprehension.

William Lane Craig mentioned Isaiah 53, but I wish he went into detail on that chapter. Here are some fantastic verses from that chapter showing Penal Substitution Atonement is biblical : Isaiah 53 : 4-6 "Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet *we considered him punished by God,* *stricken by him, and afflicted.* But he was *pierced for our transgressions,* he was *crushed for our iniquities;* *the punishment that brought us peace was on him,* and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. -------------------------------------------------------- The prophet Isaiah made it clear *the punishment that brought us peace was on him* [Jesus the Messiah] The prophet Isaiah made it clear we are to consider him [Jesus the Messiah] *punished by God.* Isaiah said *God struck him and afflicted him.* Isaiah said Jesus was *pierced for our transgressions.* Isaiah said Jesus was *crushed for our iniquities.* --------------------------------------------------------- So where in history did this take place? Where is history was Jesus stricken and afflicted? Where in history was Jesus pierced and crushed? Where in history was Jesus wounded? At the cross is where God placed the punishment on Jesus that brought us peace. ✞

beautiful

Debates like this one unfortunately imply that there must be a winner and a loser. But far better is that both of these guys are winners - the faith they each have is saving. Personally speaking, I lean more toward one than the other because the legal facet of the discussion seems to me quite biblical, and therefore resonates with me a lot. But applying the arguments of Greg and Bill to a healthy meditation on Romans 14 helped me keep what I hope is Christ’s attitude toward both positions. “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.” I think both of these guys are following “after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” And I think that at the name of Jesus, the knees of them both shall bow.

This is my first introduction to WLC and I am so thankful for his example of patience and love in evangelism to GB who is clearly hurt and confused.

Seems like a strict adherence to a legal framework was one of the main warnings given by Jesus to the Pharisees. I'm not sure that Craig wants to make that a component of his main argument.

The problem with trying to add “organic” (Boyd’s word) plus “inflicted” (Craig’s word) is that if it’s organic, it cannot be inflicted. Either sin results in death on its own, as a natural consequence, or death is an imposed consequence. These are contrary to one another. Craig used the phrase that Christ took the suffering that would have been inflicted upon us. This is clearly not in harmony with the concept of death being an organic consequence.

Great conversation. It strikes me that since much of the church has thrown out the Torah and an understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures the God is all love and grace thinking has grown out of proportion. God is Holy and Just as well as Loving and Merciful. It's not an either or.

William can debate so well, with good arguments. Looking for it!

Putting the truth of this matter aside for the moment: many have emotional and psychological triggers with the whole idea of retributive punishment. Particularly those with abusive parents or caretakers. For such people, it’s often difficult to divorce the idea of retributive punishment from abuse. Putting the claim that God’s punishment is retributive alongside the claim that God is perfectly loving, is near-impossible. The notion that God is perfectly just and loving, and is not a God of rage and abuse, is of little or no comfort. Even the reality that such believers have no need for worry because they are saved from the wrath of God through Jesus death brings little or no relief. For such dear followers of Jesus, this view makes the world become one of terror. I think it’s really important to keep that in mind in our discussions about this central doctrine of Christianity.

So part of this debate on penal substitution, a punishment or a consequence of sin. Both Craig's view and Boyd's view make sense.

Regarding hatred of sin, that’s another key point to consider. From Boyd’s perspective, God hates sin because it kills those whom God loves. From Craig’s point of view, God’s hatred of sin involves God’s being righteous and sin being an unrighteousness thing. In the former paradigm, the atonement is a way to destroy sin (which is the problem that needs to be solved) and in the latter, the atonement becomes a way by which God can forgive while remaining righteous.

Greg is simply reading his own idea of love and personal reasoning onto what God's love must mean. Isaiah 53 is pretty clearly carrying the theme of the Word of God, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of Sin. (Hebrews 9:22, Leviticus 17:11) To characterize God as Love as the primary characteristic is the problem. God is also Holy. God is Good. Exodus 34:6-7 when God shares just who He is in terms of how we should think He says: 6 The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.

There are far too many unacknowledged preconceptions that are underlying this discussion which is why this can't seem to find agreement: 1. What is sin? Is it a unique substance or is it a deprivation of a good? 2. Does God interact with his creation violently or non-violently? Meaning, does he destroy that which he occupies or does he bring to new life that which he occupies? 3. Most importantly, what is God? Is God's existence and essence one in the same (an analogical conception) or is he the highest possible "being" (a univocal conception) who is on the same ontological plane of what "being" is in the realm of the cosmos. Put another way, is his relationship to us a matter of his divine will or a matter of him as subsistent being itself (ipsum esse subsistens)? All this to say, Christians can all agree wholeheartedly on the substitutionary motif as one of the dimensions on how to understand the atonement, however the language of it primarily needing to be understood in a courtroom motif too easily leads logically to a misconception of the character and nature of God towards Christ and towards us; the necessary logical path leads to claims of God of being wrathful towards his creation until his own willful justice is satisfied with Christ's death and resurrection. This about-face then necessarily implies a change in the posture of God then towards his creation and we mistakenly violate one of the attributes of God by doing this (his immutability). I submit that the analogical conception of God does not commit this error whereas the univocal conception has a more difficult time with it. Another fundamental problem with the penal lens to the atonement, particularly under a univocal conception, is that it necessarily follows that he has attained something (satisfaction of his willful justice) which he previously lacked to redeem his creation which violates the attribute of God lacking anything. Instead, we're properly left with the wrath of God being conceptually better understood by saying what it is not rather than what it specifically is. In this case, his wrath has less to do with any changes in him as an act of his divine will or in his disposition towards his creation. Like all heresies, it is taking a truth about God and extrapolating it too far in an attempt to grasp at God and control him by our understanding.

Reminds me of the trolley car problem. Majority of people would pull the lever to save the 5 and kill the 1, but not physically push 1 person off the bridge to save the 5. Organic justice is like saying God will pull the lever (of creation and the moral order), but it feels worse to say God demands direct retributive justice on someone.

"He is innocent in the eyes of the law as if he had never committed the crime" (WLC). vs. Exodus 23:7, "I will not declare right the wicked."; WLC vs. Exodus 20:7, "Yahweh will not declare innocent whoever takes up his name as nothing."; WLC vs. Exodus 34:7, "And making to be innocent, he will not make to be innocent." But he will forgive. Forgiveness does not mean making the forgiven innocent.

Love Greg!

Restorative Justice is superior to Retributive Justice.

Isaiah said that WE esteemed Him stricken and smitten of God, the implication obviously being that He wasn’t, but that He was wounded by and for our sins to create an eternal covenant of peace and perfect forgiveness.

I wish William addressed the legal side better. So many assume God’s justice to reflect Western court systems. But why? Why is the court system always included in Reformed theology? I want to agree with William but can’t quite

It's interesting how Greg Boyd brings up the White Witch in the chronicles of Narnia being the one who asks for Edmund's punishment. After Aslan dies for Edmund, the battle between good and evil still commences, and when Aslan comes back to life, he kills the White Witch with ease - Aslan could totally have killed the white witch at any point in the story, he didn't have to die. But, Aslan does die. Aslan chooses to follow through with justice, dying for Edmund, before he defeats the white witch. He completely submits to justice, because it is right. I think God, like Aslan, has the power to destroy evil at any point, without a punishment for sin. But God's very nature demands that justice is carried out, with punishment, in order for his forgiveness to be fair. Forgiveness is certainly a different thing than justice, and God provides both in Jesus' death, otherwise God's nature is unjust. I'm not sure why Greg Boyd doesn't see that this combination is what makes Jesus' death so victorious - if we only thought about God as forgiving, he doesn't seem quite as marvellous or incredible as a God who forgives and takes away the punishment we deserve for our sin. Because, forgiveness or not, we deserve just punishment - and Jesus' death actually takes what we deserve upon himself. The wage of our sin is not merely a bill that's been written off, it's a bill that has been paid.

I feel that Greg went easy on Craig out of respect. But he could have done a better job of explaining his description of (1) God's justice, (2) the role of spiritual powers in the whole equation, and (3) how fundamental God's love is and how much the classic view of the atonement (particularly among evangelicals, I think) can distort and pervert that, as well as its real effects on people who find it difficult to feel loved by God. All this added to his exposition of (4) how extreme it is to make the legal the fundamental instead of the organic, and (5) how extreme it is to consider God fundamentally retributive as if God were a logical-mathematical machine (which needs to generate a sum of zero in a legal equation) and not a Father or, even more clearly, a person, would have left a better perspective of his position. I'm not an expert, (and this is the comment of a non-expert, I think it's important to clarify that), but I think Greg's vision really shows the image of a loving God better, is consistent with the Bible (If you study it not only from the contemporary Western evangelical perspective), and solves the practical, theological, and philosophical problems that the classic vision among the evangelicals of the atonement can create. I encourage everyone to go and examine his material first-hand with an open mind.

I like the organic and consequences focus. Sin's natural consequences is death. The law warns us of the consequences. God is love. For God so loved the world he sent his to save us. Action have consequences. God hates sin because it kills us. Jesus Forgive people freely. We Forgive people with out payment. Christus victory personal redemption and reconciliation. Forgiveness is cleansing.

Here is a question that I have, if we inheret sin, if it is in our very nature, then why our we responsible for its effects, it seems that everyone is bound to sin, then why so harsh a judgement? And listen I am a Christian, and have repented, but sometimes it is very hard to wrap your head around.

Boyd: You can view Jesus as running in front of the bus to push us out of the way, in that sense he is our substitution... PSA: Yes! And it was God the Father who was driving the bus because....um....he is so holy...you know and he is legally obligated to drive the punishment bus, yeah...I mean he wouldn't be a holy God if he didn't see...yep, so it all makes sense....um... If WLC is concerned about caricatures of PSA, his main concern should be the way it is preached by 99% percent of its adherents (especially conservative reformed types). You can't complain about caricatures of cosmic child abuse, when they are completely justified given the way PSA is usually presented. Also, what is the deal with his nonsense about Anglo law precedent for blameless third parties and somehow that justifies PSA? Just because there is some legal precedent for something dosen't have anything at all to do with the issue of its justice. Some Anglo law precedents: chattel slavery, women can't vote, stealing indigenous peoples land etc. Some might counter that Anglo law has improved since those things...but every precedent of blameless third party he mentioned was in the early 1800's and Anglo law was a dumpster fire back then. God doesn't demand punishment and sacrifice, we do!

At one time, mankind was in right standing with God. Then mankind rebelled against God. At that point, mankind lost that "right standing" with God...because of sin. As a result, Mankind was spiritually separated from God (i.e spiritually dead) and became defiled. Any hope of reconciliation with God would need to address sin. And also, cleanse or purify the sinner from the defilement caused by sin. This is why the Atonement was crucial. The Word Atonement (at-one-ment) simply means: To make something right; To reconcile. God wanted to reconcile the world to himself. Under the old covenant, Moses received instructions from the Lord to perform certain sacrifices for atonement e.g sacrifices for sin offering, guilt offering and there was another instruction for the day of atonement. All involving the blood of either bulls or goats e.t.c which were without blemish. God had no desire for the blood of bulls and goats. All of these sacrifices were all for-shadowing Christ. The idea was that if they performed these rites religiously, they would recognize when it was being fulfilled in Christ on the cross. Let us consider the day of atonement. (Refer to Leviticus 16 and 17). The priest was to present 2 goats (without blemish) for sin offering before the Lord. And then lots were cast; one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scape goat. The goat on which the lot for the Lord fell was offered as a sin offering and the other was the scape goat which was to be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement upon it and then it was sent into the wilderness. The scapegoat bore all the iniquites of those in the assembly...and it was led away to the wilderness. It was an illustration of their "sins being taken away". The goat offered as a sin offering for the people was slaughtered and its blood was sprinkled on (and in front of) the mercy seat. And with this the priest made atonement for all the assembly of Israel. What was the idea behind the sin offering? To offer something in your stead to atone for the sins. You see, when a person sins...a debt is owed which must be paid in other to make things right (i.e be reconciled). All analogies fall short in explaining the totality of the atonement but... Imagine Mr A gave Mr B a phone to look after. Shortly after receiving it, Mr B misused the phone and the phone was damaged beyond repair. In other for Mr B to "make things right", he would need to offer Mr A a new phone and adequately compensate for what was damaged. A similar instruction is found in Numbers 5:6-7... “Speak to the children of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit in unfaithfulness against the Lord , and that person is guilty, then he shall confess the sin which he has committed. He shall make restitution for his trespass in full, plus one-fifth of it, and give it to the one he has wronged" Numbers 5:6‭-‬7 (also see Leviticus 5:14-16). This idea of restitution is found through out the old testament. From the perspective of the law, a life was required for a life, an eye was required for an eye. And a tooth for a tooth. This requirement of the law had to be fulfilled. When mankind sinned against God, he defiled himself (i.e damaged the God given purity). Life was lost. The consequence would be eternal condemnation on the day of judgement. For mankind to be reconciled with God, it must be on the basis of "a sin offering". And one that is sufficient to reconcile mankind with God; a life of perfect purity. A life sufficient to atone for all of mankind would be life that is eternal. The life of a flesh is in its blood. And it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement. This is why Christs blood was shed. It was NOT about God punishing Christ. From the old testament perspective, the blood of bulls and goats cleansed the flesh from defilement (Heb 9:13). But it was not sufficient to make those who offered it perfect in conscience; as it could not take away sins. In those sacrifices, there was a reminder of sins year by year. It was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things (i.e the spirit) themselves with better sacrifices than these. We see other for-shadowings of Christ with Moses. He, more than once, wanted to be an atonement for the sins of the Israelites in the wilderness. But he was not "without blemish" as he himself needed atonement for his own sins. There was no sin offering man could offer that would have been sufficient for His reconciliation with God. So God himself provided the "sacrificial lamb". This was first hinted by Abraham, when he was to sacrifice Isaac. Christ is the lamb that takes away the sins of the world. And since those He was atoning for were flesh and blood, it was necessary for Him to become like us to make propitiation for sins. For this reason, Christ was manifested in the flesh. Christ, being a propitiation for sins, provided a means by which man could be reconciled to God. It is by virtue of Christ's blood shed on the cross that there can be forgiveness of sins.

Minute 51:48. Brother the reason behind an employer paying his employee's penalty is none other than he is totally incapable of paying it, is the risk the owner incurred originally.

Bill had to admit that vicarious substitution equates to Christus victor. I’m glad for the iron sharpening iron here.