Tom Wright THE ATONEMENT DEBATE 

Very well said, I couldn't agree more.

me neither !... Love his clear and indept explanation him and Dallas Willards are my go to guys when it comes to Christianity!

NTW is a huge gift to the global church 🙏

agree 100% even he is a great gift to non-Christians. He is one of the few who has completely read the Quraan!

Tom looks at scripture 'historically' when talking about Paul but refuses to look at the atonement the same way. Why is that?

Dr. Wright referenced a book -- which dealt well with the Patristic Fathers -- about which was stated, "This is the greatest treatment of the pip local doctrine of atonement." I didn't catch a title, and was unable to understand the author's name. Would you happen to know the source?

Steven Hunter, deep insightful comments on the short video. I loved the quote from George MacDonald, so moving and beautiful. Thanks!

Thank you. i am writing an essay on the atonement and you words and references have helped a lot.

I say there is a systematic reality of atonement written in Romans 5:1-2, as Paul was writing to those baptised he says of Jesus (with reference to Romans 4:25), "By whom also we have access by faith, into this grace wherein we stand". They have received atonement and are in a state of grace. Of course atonement is not salvation, but reconciliation with God into the church of God. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' which brings the truth that not even Tom Wright can give you.

​@@GaryWaldronUKI suggest you read my reply to the initial comment, as I do have the answer.

What? "all He always wanted was to keep them from judging themselves in their own eyes". Where do you get that? The whole of scripture and revelation is a call for men to judge themselves and repent towards God. Indeed, in their sin Adam and Eve were no longer suited for eternal life, which is why they were cast out of Eden...."lest they should take from the tree of life..and live forever".

This is a remarkable comment at its face value. But it has more to do with time, than it does with theology. You seem to limit this mans experience, simply because he seemed to have no time to study. But I think he did. Firstly, he deems Jesus perfect in his offering, or declares to the other thief, his perfectness. This is actually a theological view on atonement that flies in the face of the reformers, who made Jesus anthologically a sinner, instead of perfect.. He admits that he and the other thief, are there due to real and earned sin. This too, admits that sin is not reincarnated, by a nature, but is real moral choice, that has consequence. . Thirdly he relies on grace, and gospel forgiveness above Justice, destroying Anselms idea that God cannot forgive because he is just. So he is saved not by justice but grace an faith, and reliance on the ,memory of Jesus to take him to paradise.. But yes, agreed that there are many self evident truths that are better understood by the childlike, and accepted that way

@@granthollandvideos He said apologetics, friend, not theology

I’m not sure it would be a friendly conversation

ὁ κατέχων how are those different? Genuinely curious.

Why do they exclude each other?

What's the distinction?

I was about to raise my finger, but then I laughed.

Precisely.... can't begin to listen to him any longer.... always a complete disappointment....just my 2 cents 🤔

I've listened to him a little , the more I do the more I am of the opinion that he's a waffler. Seems to me he's on a mission to confuse and to subtly mock those who take scripture literally.

You just made the same mistake he clearly stated some Christians make, the ransom in Mark 10:45 is the defeat of death, evil and suffering, not against God but against those who perform it, that's why Write stated that these principalities exhausted their powers on Christ

Jesus took the responsibility of your sins on the cross. He became sin on the cross, took on the penalty of sin (which is death), and overcame the penalty of sin through His resurrection on the 3rd day. Jesus has paid the debt. Believe and be saved, my friend. For further clarification, blood is required for the atonement of sins (refer back to the old testament law), and Jesus became the "slain lamb" and His blood is sufficient to forgive all sins for all time. And faith in Christ alone is sufficient to receive God's grace, and the eternal life won at the cross, through His resurrection.

​@@joela.5933Amen brother.

​@@joela.5933But death is simply a biological necessity, not a penalty for anything. Genesis 2, the work of a completely other author or set of authors from Genesis 1, which it flagrantly contradicts on the creation of humanity, has caused a lot of trouble and has much to answer for

Read 46-52 This Indicatea the whole show from the foundation (creation) he said ahead of time what he would do in major and obvious intervention in the story of redemption. Each day prophetically hinting at every thousand years of history. Assuming you take the bible as straight forward history. The great Light coming in that 4th milennium. Or the only day which does not have God deckari g it good or very good being the day which corresponds to the milennium of the flood.

@@mikebarsson-emcee The book contains words that give life. What does black magic provide? What does academia provide but tweed jackets and pipe smoke?

Yeah, except that human sacrifice had long been rejected by Judaism and by God.

@@vaska1999 God doesn't reject human sacrifice. if you dedicate your life to God, he won't reject you. now, just as the destroyer passed over the blood-sprinkled houses, on a cosmic level, on the day of the Lord, God's destroyers will pass over those sprinkled with the blood of Messiah, who being higher than lambs and humans, offered himself as a higher sacrifice on a higher altar by a higher priesthood bringing higher salvation.

Willing going along with a crime makes you an accomplice

+oukexergon Jesus was the victim in that crime...

Zag Dog very well stated (from Spokane) 😉

Jamie Russell Beautifully formed thoughts, written with clarity and passion! Where did this come from? Well done!

why is that wrong?

The full accomplishment of the cross will only be realised when Jesus comes again at the end of time. The powers of darkness have been defeated but we are living in between times. One day all will see the full scope of his victory but that will only happen when the new Jerusalem is established and things revert back to how they were before the fall.

SOme sarcirfice staying dead or going to hell would be a sacrifice, going to heaven not so much.

1 John 2:2

Eugen Olsen then jesus didnt even preach the gospel because he never said that

"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Jesus emphasized that He came to die. The mission of the incarnation climaxed at the cross. Now what we need to understand is what He accomplished there - explained by Jesus, the Apostles and the entire body of Scripture. The epistles (which explain the Gospel - and fulfill Jesus' command to "teach them all I have taught you") make it abundantly clear that the Gospel Jesus taught and accomplished has at its center penal substitutionary atonement. Even the Gospels are simply the testimony of the Apostles (who explain what they mean in their epistles). We are not to take Jesus in isolation. How do we understand what Jesus accomplished on the cross? Read Hebrews, Isaiah 53, Romans 3. Of course the cross embodies Christ's victory (Col 2, Eph 4 etc), His humility and obedience and exaltation (Phil 2) - but it starts and flows out of his accomplished atonement on the cross (the core of Christ's mission). His victory flows out of his accomplished atonement: having died for His own, He proved the efficacy of His sacrifice by rising from the dead, gloriously victorious over sin, death and Satan.

Eugen Olsen ,An awful lot of words, I think its very simple, in spite of the main central biblical story there are still people who are evil and sinners, (I would just say bad people)and people who strive to do good,just as there were before the (alleged) biblical happenings,so if people are going to be judged it should be by what they are and what they do ,not what their alleged ancestors are supposed to have or not done..our law is based on logic and fairness( ideally)if it was based on the bible and it's there would be horrible injustices

Hi Frank... This is a discussion on theology, right? There are a couple assumptions I've made, particularly in light of the crucifixion. From a humanistic worldview, the crucifixion was merely a Roman execution of an obscure Jewish itinerant teacher, but according to Scripture, there was much more at play. In the narrative of the Scriptures, the crucifixion is the crescendo of the story: the Creator God took on human form through the incarnation and in His death (and subsequent resurrection) accomplished atonement for those who believe in Him (His person, work, and revelation). This is what the Bible claims and any discussion on the atonement - to some extent - needs to have this as an assumption. Now I understand that unless you accept (at least to some degree) that the Scriptures are God's revelation to man, all of this is absurd. Now, you say that "if people are going to be judged, it should be by what they are, and what they do" and Scripture agrees with that ("each one is to give account for what he has done"). However, the problem is that all people are therefore under judgment (just read Romans 1-3, and focus on chapter 3, which concludes Paul's indictment of all of mankind in v10-20 by saying "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" after which he goes on to explain the necessity, the accomplishment, and the appropriation of the atonement in v21-26). The Christian gospel (gospel meaning "good news") is that while all of mankind stands condemned before God (not by comparative morality, but by the high and holy standard revealed in Scripture and conscience), He Himself has made provision in His Son who has become a substitute for us, and by faith we may be represented by Him. Martin Luther illustrated this in a beautiful picture which extends beyond being merely forensic - he said that in faith, we become joined to Christ as in marriage. Which means that all we are and have, He takes on Himself (our failure, our sin) and all that He is and has, He gives to us (His righteousness). And so, just as a prince marrying a prostitute joins himself to her, and with his name, wealth, and position covers her shame and poverty. It is ridiculous to assume that we create our ultimate reality - that we can decide what is the way we think/feel is just because it makes all morality and truth relative. We must have a transcendent truth and morality, outside of us. This was the argument of the Nazis during the Nuremberg trials. In murdering Jews, they were doing what they thought was morally right by obeying orders predicated on the "scientific reality" that Jews were an inferior race. This would not stand as we all know (by our conscience) that what they did was morally abhorrent. If the Bible is true (truth simply being the way things really are) then all our moral speculation over what God should consider good and bad, how He should grade on a curve, how He should judge - all of that is fanciful and pointless. We must deal with reality as it is. If you're confident that you've figured it out by yourself without considering Scriptural revelation, you may find yourself making the Nuremberg argument before an eternal judge.

It also appears you have a misconception about original sin. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates man will be judged according to the sin of another, it consistently says man will be judged according to his own actions; every man will give account for what he has done. Of course, the issue of original sin is that we have inherited Adam's sinful nature, which theologians have dubbed 'total depravity'. This does not mean man is as wicked or depraved as he possibly could be, but he is tainted by the fall in every part of his being (corrupted in his desires, his thinking, his conscience, and even his body). So he is now a conflicted being - aware, on some level - of what is required of him (in his conscience) and yet unable and, ultimately, unwilling to do so. Hence "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God".

There's different views of penal substitution.

True. But we shouldn’t pick one of the views of the atonement and prop it up as THE view, but recognize that the Bible teaches several different ways to look at the atonement, and each of those ways compliments the others and keeps them in balance.

If all Jesus came to say was, live like the children, we wouldn't have or need the Bible nor would he have needed more than 1 minute to teach everywhere he went. You are right, sometimes people make this too complicated and stressful. But at the same time Paul says "study to show yourself approved". And arm yourself with "the word of God". How do you do this without studying? Why wouldn't we find it fun to read and learn about God, his teaching and his history of involvement with the world? How we believe and what we believe will affect how we think and act. It's very important. It's good to know Jesus died for us, it's even better to why and how it works. People from Jesus time would be SHOCKED to learn we can ALL read and all EASILY have access to ALL scripture and can read at our leisure for free anytime we want. My guess, they would look at us as fools and ingrates for not reading our Bible's and complaining about learning and reading.

contrary to moral perfection? sounds platonic

bob polo well just go with God’s moral perfection or holiness. That is all I am saying. Sin is by definition anything that is contrary to God’s holiness.

@@mattb7069 Do you think God's wrath comes from His love?

bob polo it’s a good question. We canNOt divide God into divisible attributes and play them off against each other. So I would say God’s wrath is not divorced from his love. It is an expression of his holiness. It is the proper moral response to all that is not good.

@@mattb7069 Divide God? Probably an ill-advised term. I'm assuming you mean categorize His attributes. Also, I think it's improper to speak of God's moral acts as if He's just a really good person who dislikes bad things. That's an impersonal way of viewing someone who self-designates Himself as Father. I argue that God's wrath is the proper relational response to sin since it harms His image bearing creatures, particularly the creatures whom He loves in Christ

The cross is the subject the plot point of the chaismus of history. It cuts the book in twain. And declares the beginning of the second half, a reverse of the first half returning to a new creation. As evidenced by As in the days of Noah, when referring cing his second coming. Or the first shall be last And the last first. Or I am the aloha and Omega, the first and the last. The one who was (creation /Creator), the one who is (Calvary his life and ministry etc), and is to come The three points of history That's why it calls the cross a tree. And the tree of life will feed the 12 tribes, 12 fruits, every 12 months.

I think it's worth taking that passage in context. A few points based on that: 1) The following verse suggests that persuasive words would not be ineffective in evangelism: the idea of evangelism through miracles is to make a higher quality convert whose faith rests on God's power. So using persuasive words is not bad, it's just sub-optimal. 2) The next verse and continuing on to 3:2 suggests that wisdom *is* helpful among the mature: when you need "solid food" instead of "milk". So debating and such is useful for disciplining believers, just not (in this case) as much for conversions. 3) Arguably the previous chapter lays out the premise that the reason miracles have been used is because the gentiles (which would then be the Corinthians) insist on wisdom dislike the idea of miracles, whilst the Jews look for signs and don't hold much for wisdom; so Paul evangelizes them using the opposite to get rid of their preconceptions (which is what seems to happen in practice in Acts). 4) Paul had the option of evangelism via miracles because he had the relevant gifts that make that possible (e.g. healing). He was also good enough at evangelism that he had freedom to worry about what kind of Christians his converts would become and not just being able to evangelize people at all. Tom Wright or others may not have those gifts. If you think it would be good for them to have them, you could do something about it by praying for them, rather than simply commenting about it on RU-vid.

If he's puffed up then he not really good. This is rewriting the fundamentals of Christianity. Think about it, if he doesn't believe Jesus died for his sins, how is he saved?

I believe in penal substitutionary atonement. But that belief doesn't save me. Jesus saves me. Romans 10:9-10 says, "If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by openly declaring your faith that you are saved." This says nothing about understanding and agreeing with a specific atonement theory.

I am very glad to hear that you adhere to penal substitutionary atonement. I do not agree with your conclusion, however, regarding the necessity of believing in penal substitutionary atonement. You quoted Romans 10:9-10, which unfortunately has been used by many an evangelist as the be all end all of salvation. Giving Jesus lip service at one time in your life does not guarantee salvation. First, let me explain what Romans says salvation is. The first 8 chapters of Romans are a treatise on salvation. In Romans 1:1-17, Paul greets the Romans. In Romans 1:18-3:20, Paul condemns every reader by showing how everyone is so sinfully wicked that there is no way anyone can be saved on their own. In Romans 3:21-5:21, Paul shows the Romans how salvation is and always has been by faith, not works. In Romans 6:1-8:17, Paul shows the Romans how the believer in the present will be sanctified and live a holy life. In Romans 8:18-38, Paul shows the Romans how salvation culminates in glorification for the believer because God will keep them forever. You quoted Romans 10:9-10 as the main criteria for salvation. However, did you notice that Romans 10 does not fall within Paul's treatise on the gospel, which can be found in Romans 1-8? Romans 10 falls under Paul's argument in Romans 9-11 that the Jews have fallen into unbelief, but they will believe in the future. Therefore, it does not make sense to form our soteriology (doctrine of salvation) from a passage that Paul does not intend to be the crux of salvation. Instead, let us look at what Paul does use as the crux of salvation. Remember that Romans 3:21 is the beginning of the section that proves salvation is by faith. Romans 3:21-26 says, "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." This passage is the most important passage in the Bible in my humble opinion. This passage also describes penal substitutionary atonement perfectly. This passage says people are justified (declared innocent and righteous by God) when they have faith. God is able to declare people justified because Jesus redeemed (bought) them and was their propitiation (satisfaction/appeasement) on the cross. Jesus had to do this so that God can justify wicked people and still be "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ." In a nutshell, this passage is saying that Jesus bought people from sin and appeased the Father's wrath and justice so that He can forgive wicked sinners. That passage is how Paul opens his argument of salvation by faith. That passage clearly argues for penal substitutionary atonement as the crux of salvation. Therefore, if you do not believe in penal substitutionary atonement, then you are not saved. Someone who does not believe in penal substitutionary atonement is not trusting in Jesus as their appeasement to the Father. They are trusting in Jesus as a moral example or something false.

+Daniel Stowers If you don't believe that Jesus took the punishment you deserve so that you can go free, then what are you trusting Him for? What did He do if He didn't take the penalty of sin on your behalf?

+Daniel Stowers You could say the same thing about the Trinity. "Show me where Jesus says you have to believe in the Trinity in order to be saved." That is also the same argument homosexuals use when they says, "Show me where Jesus says homosexuality is sin." You won't find it. You will find it in other places in Scripture, however, and if you believe in the doctrine of inspiration, then it is God who wrote all of Scripture. In essence, the whole Bible is "red letters." Anyways, back to penal substitutionary atonement. According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, we must believe that Jesus died for sin. However, Paul is giving a very abbreviated description here, and he doesn't explain what it means that Jesus died for sin. So, my question is this: If you're not trusting that Jesus died for sin by taking the divine punishment sin deserves, then what are you trusting that He did?

I read your comments and was very impressed by your biblical knowledge, it defiantly surpasses mine to be sure, but I must ask you this: If it is indeed true that the early church did not teach penal substitution (I believe this to be a historic fact but I may be wrong), than by your logic would that mean the majority of the early church will not be saved? To be clear about my mind set it would take a very well cited scholarly article from a well credited historian/ biblical scholar to convince me that the church has always believed in penal substitution. That is nothing against you just me being honest in what it takes to convince me.

You are badly confused. Paul's letters, which discuss the atonement, are agreed by scholars of all perspectives to have been written in the middle of the first century AD / CE (mostly in the 50s, starting about 20 years after Jesus died. There is more disagreement about the dating of the New Testament Gospels. The majority of leading NT scholars date them from around 70-100 AD / CE. Others argue that Acts (the second half of Luke / Acts) must be from around 62 AD (given which major events it does & doesn't mention), pushing Mark, Matthew, and Luke back to the 50s and early 60s. John is dated with the widest range (from the 50s until about 120). The consensus date for the Gospel of John is probably 90-100 AD / CE. In any event, no responsible scholar thinks that any of the NT books were written "centuries after" Jesus's time.

He needs to apply at The Master Seminary