Which Atonement Theory is Right? 

this is the most thorough harmonization of patristic, contemporary, and biblical concepts I have ever seen. I repeatedly experienced joy as each point was explained.

As an Armenian Orthodox priest I do appreciate the various viewpoints and the emphasis of compatibility of atonement theology from patristic tradition

This is an excellent, honest, and very well researched analysis of the multiple theories of the atonement. I’m confused by Christians’ reluctance to acknowledge that the atonement simply can’t be wedged into a single paradigm.

“Emphasizing what is central; incorporating all that is true.” This is why we love your channel, Gavin!

Christus Victor IS the coolest ^sounding^ one.

As I was listening to this teaching it clicked, the truth that our nature will be restored to Adam’s before the fall!! It was a wonderful moment when I got it it was life to my soul!!! …….What a great truth! Thank you for explaining it to me…my heart became full of life! It was life to me as my heart became full of joy!!!😊 thank you soooo! much!!

This was so good! At one time I was trying to settle on one Atonement motif but I realized that there’s no biblical basis for that. I love how you showed the agreement between the church fathers you quoted when some people would pit them against each other. On The Incarnation by Athanasius is one of my favorite books and probably the first church father I read. I’m so glad you talked about the Transfiguration. I couldn’t agree more that this event was a revelation of Who Christ actually is. I learned and understood this through studying Eastern Orthodoxy. Speaking of Orthodoxy, I like how they emphasize the healing aspect of the Atonement. There’s even a Medical Substitutionary Atonement motif. Anyways, this video is one I will definitely view again. Thank you!

I live and work in a land where traditional Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity dominate. I appreciate your passion to dig into the Fathers as well as the Scriptures in order to learn and in order to be a blessing to others. Thank you and God bless you and yours.

Anselmian models operate on the premise that Christ's suffering and death rendered God propitious. However, early models for the Work of Christ operated on the belief that because God was already well disposed towards man, Christ came to heal, redeem, reconcile, restore & save us from death.

"The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. ... Theories about Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works." -C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity', Chapter 4.

Really liked your presentation. You mentioned God's wrath and Anselm's theory of satisfaction of the honour of God. If God is impassible which He is, then what does God's wrath mean? Does God literally take offence on Himself when we sin? These questions are relevant for penal substitutionary atonement theory?

"To believe in a vicarious sacrifice, is to think to take refuge with the Son from the righteousness of the Father; to take refuge with his work instead of with the Son himself; to take refuge with a theory of that work instead of the work itself; to shelter behind a false quirk of law instead of nestling in the eternal heart of the unchangeable and righteous Father, who is merciful in that he renders to every man according to his work, and compels their obedience, nor admits judicial quibble or subterfuge." - George MacDonald

I was studying the headship of Adam and Christ when I first came upon this video. This made so many things come together for me. Thank you for your work, Dr. Ortlund!

Proof Of The Apostolic Teaching by Irenaus is indeed an excellent work - a favorite of mine as well.

Hebrews 4: 15,16.... Christ was tempted in all points yet sinned not...the fear( in the garden ) , pain and despair of the crucifixion was the ultimate temptation ( if you are the king of Israel then come down from the cross)....enduring the ultimate pain and humiliation he endured becoming qualified to be a truly totally compassionate and enabled high priest able to save to the uttermost...his sacrifice was truly multifaceted beyond what we'll ever understand fully in this life it seems

Great Video.Gavin! As a Pentecostal I grew up under Penal Substitution. Which I think is clear from Scripture. Also i see Christus Victor. Or Christ going to hades and conquering deathbed has ti do specifically with the ressurection. Not how he saved us from our sins through Attonment , but how he conquered death.

This is wonderful. You should reach out to Dr. Jordan Cooper again and see if he'd be interested in dialoging on theosis/atonement in a Protestant framework. You're articulating many of the ideas presented in his more recent book on union with Christ. Could be very useful.

Thank you for a very good integrative summary. Perhaps one of your most important points was that Christ was doing many things and solving many different problems by the atonement, and so there must be multiple facets to the atonement. No single proposed "mechanism" catches all that Christ was doing. There must be parallel simultaneously valid mechanisms. Separately, thank you for quoting Aquinas's comments on the Transfiguration, which helped me see this event in a new light (pun intended).

I was right there with you (Mostly. That doctrine of Eden is new to me) until the transfiguration. I think this is reading too much into the Transfiguration. Yes, the glory displayed at that moment was the glory proper to Christ Himself. But weren't the numerous workings of miracles also outworkings of Christ's native glory (as well as that of the Father which are, essentially, identical)? Incarnate, pre-resurrection Christ was the eternal Creator deigning to exist as a mere man. But for His physical life to have the redemptive meaning you otherwise attribute to it, it also must have been *identical* to ours. Otherwise, He wasn't the God-Man and perfect sacrifice, but merely God pretending to be man. Christ's physical nature is required to be identical to lost mankind's for much of atonement/soteriology to make sense. Just as Moses's physical body glowed for a time due to exposure to God's *spiritual* glorious presence, so *much more* , Christ's normal, human, physical body glowed due to the temporary revelation of His own *spiritual* glory. The nature of His physical body doesn't even come into it any more than it had anything to do with His working of miracles. This is leaning toward an overly-liberal merging of the two natures in the one Person, and also presupposes that the glowing etc. of the Transfiguration were down to material causes. The tranfiguration says nothing concerning Christ's physical, bodily nature any more than the shining of Moses's face said something about his. The only difference being that the source of the spiritual glory (not a physical attribute) came from Himself instead of being merely reflected. Further evidence is that Christ was not even fully glorified just after the resurrection. His body *was* changed and different at that point, but we do not hear of Him described as the same shining figure of the Transfiguration or the later Apocalypse. These (Transfiguration and Apocalypse) show Christ in full spiritual glory, which is available to Him regardless of where we look on the timeline, and say nothing concerning any special nature of His physical body. But the Resurrection does have to do with His physical body, and is a quite distinct change. We both agree that the Transfiguration shows the glory that Christ always had in His own right but chose to hide most of the time as part of the incarnation. However, you seem to be reading something into it which speaks more to His physical nature than logic requires. You said something like, "How could a physical body once joined to God ever die...Christ *is* life..." But that's the miracle of the Incarnation. The flesh which Christ took up *was* part of Christ, and yet *was still* the same as ours. The bald fact is, it *did* die. He Resurrected, not merely Resuscitated. The Divine Word voluntarily took up mortal flesh, voluntarily laid it down, and voluntarily took it back up again. It is not that complicated. Christ said, "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” Would you deny Him that simply to defend His glory, which doesn't even come into question? That which was mortal was voluntarily laid aside by the Ever-living One. I will agree to a sober understanding of Recapitulation, but Scripture is clear that Christ's physical body was identical in every way that mattered to yours or mine or any man's. This entire issue was beside the point at hand.

I really appreciated the chapter in your book, Theological Retrieval, on this topic. So often we pit certain theories against each other when they don't have to be.

Timing on this was impeccable! I was having a long discussion TODAY on this, and your video showed up in the middle of it. You touched on just about every point brought up on our discussion, and more. VERY helpful as we think through the topic. MUCH appreciated.

Not man (for example church fathers) decides / determines ´truth´. God´s word, the Bible, is Truth (John 17, 17).

Among the sea of comments, a question - Dr Scott Hahn discussed Aquina’s Vicarious Satisfaction in contrast to Penal Substitutionary Attonement as though at odds with one another (youtube in Pints with Aquinas). I saw no contradiction, a division that doesnt exist. But I just don’t understand it - would you explain this difference and why at odds please?

An incredibly helpful synthesis, for me at least. Thank you.

You're long videos are always so much fun

Oh please, share more about Narnia, haha! #ForNarniaAndForAslan

I am so grateful for your willingness to process through things without pointing fingers.

I'm currently reading through On the Incarnation, and just yesterday I came across an article you had written on Athanasius regarding the atonement. Perfect timing!

This was very helpful! I have often seen these ideas pitted against each other. It is great to hear how church father’s had a more comprehensive view of the atonement! I also appreciate you’re reference to universalism. I have heard recapitulation quotations made by church fathers used to support universalism. Is there room in your schedule to talk more in depth about how the early church thought about this?

The quote of Athanasius at 31:16 also contains within it the heart of Ransom Theory, when he says, "Surrendering His own temple *_to death_* in place of all, to settle man's account *_with death_* and free him from the primal transgression." Here we have the idea that man is, "sold into bondage to sin", and needs to be bought back, and since the "wages of sin is death", so "we see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." And then this in turn reveals Christus Victor, for "He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." For "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil." And so, "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

Man, 29:28 is a thought that lifts weight off of my shoulders, and I wish the church could share this posture toward theology. We would greatly benefit from it. Also, hello Gavin, it has been MANY years since we crossed paths, I enjoy your videos!

All these theories are correct. Where it goes wrong is that your asked to choose one. No it's not either/or it's but/and. They are all true at the same time. Christ's penal substitution on the cross satisfied Gods wrath, was victorious over the devil, and through his shed blood brought brought mankind towards God's love.

Every single person that explains theology inserts their ideas, current belief, bias and opinions. Everyone including the writers of scripture, the early church and the current church. Everyone.

Enjoyed your presentation. Though some theories regarding the meaning of Christ and his work seem positively wrong, it does seem to be the case that it has multiple dimensions and effects. Consequently, errors regarding Christ include imputing wrong meaning, but also asserting that only one meaning is exclusively present. These are easy mistakes to make, and I'm pleased to see and hear how you express a kind of harmony or complementarity among these facets/dimensions.

2 Timothy 1, 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

I found this very helpful and wow the atonement is so varied but it is so helpful to see how each part fits together as a whole with the centre as substitution.

Thank you for the comprehensive presentation of a wholistic view of salvation- all that Christ is and what He has done in us who have beloved and follow Him

Good stuff! (forgive the preach... Won't do it again! haha) For what is worth, this is how I see it all 'fitting'... in the context that I believe Athanasius saw the 'dept' in the quote of his that you quoted : ) The Orthodox Communions view the uniting of the divine and human natures in the Person of Christ - Who gives Himself as a ransom "to death", to the state of reality in the fallen universe, and Who enters into the place of our shameful condemnation and death (the punishment of exile and the severance of soul from body) and the pleasing, satisfying and worthy Sacrifice and Offering of Himself to Himself - as being the emphasis: the Triune God reordering and recreating of all reality through His fulfilment of all righteousness in the the Son, the good news of the whole of His incarnation which restores our union with Him and rescues us from the powers that bind us. We are covered and cleansed and alive in Him and so spared from "the wrath to come" . . . for in mercy He entered 'our place', that we might live, 'in His' Revelation Ransom Redemption Recapitulation Restoration Recreation Resurrection To the mind of the ancient Church, these words sum up the crux of the matter of the cross and the whole of the Incarnation.... But NOT the Son bearing the wrath / anger of the Father. If wrath is kind of akin to mortality and the sentance of death, then yes, He suffered it and was buried... but rose again on the third day after recapitulating and fulfilling all things, and via the Pure Body of His flesh, condemning sin "in the flesh". . . for He is the "sin offering". Whatever "bearing sin", "became sin", "was laid on Him" actually means in actual reality, in God's sight, we must remember that sin is not a thing. It describes thoughts words and deeds of persons. It is a privation of the good... an abstraction. "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"... without the costly giving of a life, there can be no covering of death... "For Love covers a multitude of sins". He is our sacrifice of atonement, the expiratory offering. To the Orthodox, "propitiation", (gk: Hilasterion / Hilasmos / place of reconciliation) for instance, in 1 John 2:2, is often misconstrued in emphasis, as it is easily equated with pagan sacrifice relating to changeable deities who need to be appeased and reconciled (in disposition) to us, as opposed to the God Who was "reconciling the world to Himself" and is already favorably disposed to it: John 3:16. Surely the Cross and Resurrection were "pleasing", and "satisfied" the heart of God: affecting a Cosmic change in ontological reality, as well as the our 'legal' status (metaphors) associated with describing that relational change; but we have to be careful not to miss figurative language / descriptions in Scripture regarding God and sin within the Atonement... for error, heresy and blasphemy shortly follow X

So grateful for your ministry. Watching this video for second or third time now. This video alone is better than many of the books on atonement I’ve read.

Thank you, Gavin. I can't stand reductive explanations of the atonement. You explicated how the different streams in the church can fit.

Thank you for this tutorial. I did not realise that Iranaeus wrote so clearly on the atonement as an objective motif. Some give the impression that objective substitution atonement did not appear until Anselm began to approach it in the 11th century.

I agree that all of the atonement theories are right and are seen in scripture - and though I think Penal Substitutionary Atonement has been misinterpreted or misapplied by Calvinism, it seems to have more scriptural support than the others.

This subject can be so vague and confusing. Thanks for boiling it down!

My opinion before watching: there is at least some truth to all classical atonement theories

Anselm states: or penalty, or satisfaction...never both. Penal Substitution states that Christ had our sins imputed to him (as Luther have said: he became the biggest thief and adulterer) and them God's wrath fell upon him. Thats not what Anselm (or Aquinas) thought. But that His sacrifice (in total obedience to the Father) was sufficient satisfaction for all of our sins, and that merit is aplied to us in baptism. Thats is why is said he is "die for us" not "in our place". He was never abandoned by the Father, never went to the Hell of the damned, God's wrath was not upon our Lord. Enough of this fake gospel.

I really appreciate this video! One clarification I would like… At 31:40, you quote St. Athanasius speaking about Christ’s death settling our debt for us. You say that this refers to a debt we owe to God. But Athanasius says here that Christ’s death settled our account with Death. Does he imply or say elsewhere that Christ paid a debt we owed to God?

Have you ever spoke with Anthony Rogers? He defends the PSA view of the atonement

Hey Dr Ortlund, Swedish brother here. Just recently found your channel and I must say I immensely enjoy the content you provide. Soon cracked them all videos! Surely you’re on a great path for arming the soldiers of Christ! Apart from the apparent arminian/reformed discussion, is there anything in particular in WLC’s work of the Atonement (his book) that you don’t agree with? Bringing this up as WLC’s favors the Anselmian view as do you. Thx! 🙏

Incredibly helpful and well researched. Thank you!

There are big issues when we take terms that were understood differently in Greek and Latin. Latin is legalistic, so when we say that Christ "covered" our sins in Latin, it uses language that would describe paying or covering a legal debt. In Greek and Hebrew, it has connotations of him "covering" us like the Passover Lamb covered the people so that death could pass over, so in Eastern Christianity what Jesus did is seen more as mechanistic. He took our place in death to cover the dead with immortality so that they could pass back to life. Likewise the terms like Justification and righteousness have legalistic Latin meanings. in legal settings, when your are justified, you have become "square" (right) with the law or the court. If you are square with the law, or justified, your are "righteous', straight, square, but in Greek the connotations are "geometric" or organic. When you justify a building, you make it straight. A justified person is straightened out, and justification is a process of walking upright, (righteously) and walking a straight path. Since a "righteous" person is someone who is actively standing straight up and walking the straight path, justification is inseparable from behavior, or righteous living. I am not going to say which is correct, but I think it can be seen how different models developed out of linguistic context. We can say that Jesus took our place as a guilty person on the cross, or we can say that he took on a human body which could not be contained by death and therefore created a path for all flesh from death to life. In Orthodoxy, also in contrast to Roman Catholicism, death is a biological consequence of the fallen cosmos, not God's punishment. And sin is "forgiven" immediately upon repentance, but forgiveness does not remove the biological consequences of sin. Absolution for sins is not freeing us from the legal consequences of sins, it is dissolution of the bonds we have made with our sins that weigh us down. Confession is a witness of forgiveness of the repentant person and a grace that dissolves our affinity for our sins so that we might not return to them.

Thank you. This has been my view as well. You are unfailingly thorough and helpful.

I have to say this was good but I just can’t get behind the satisfaction theory. It just doesn’t seem to jive with the God of scripture especially if you view it in terms that this great and holy God would be offended by our sins so therefore demand justice because of him being offended. He demands righteousness and is the server of justice. Not the one that demands it. Why would you demand something you have the power of serving? This theory is flawed per say. Even in the light of Jesus. God demands justice so God came down to appease his own justice? Seems a little petty. Jesus would be the just and justifier because why? It’s about the pathway of salvation through Jesus. So it’s a few of them. Christus victory recapitulation, and I like the idea of restored icon as well but never substitution of any sort. Death was never punitive but a consequence of an action. Christ submitted himself to the fathers will because of the reconciliation of union with God. The relationship is restored. The whole purpose of all the Old Testament sacrifices were to make atonement which is reconciliation to bring those people back into a right relationship to God. PSA is explained in that way because it’s the simple truth of the matter. God sent God to appease himself. That is such dimensioning view.

This is a good account of the subject. As much of the opposition to "juridical" language (actually opposition to Scriptural language) comes from certain Eastern Orthodox apologists, I like to point them to The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church of 1830 (under Patriarch Philaret) which speaks of Jesus' "voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death." A 20th century Congregationalist theologian, P. T. Forsyth, in his book The Work of Christ, spoke of Christ's death as a confession of God's holiness, made by the representative of the whole human race. Where I think Calvinism detracts from the glory of the atonement is when Calvinists allege that God, before they came into existence, determined that specific individuals would be excluded from the number of those for whom Christ would die. Rather, with Charles Wesley (and in agreement with Scripture), I affirm "for ALL, for ALL my Saviour died".

Gavin, thank you for this channel. What a blessing to learn so much. Have you read Lamb of the Free (Andrew Rillera) regarding the Atonement? Would be interested in your thoughts. 🙏 Maybe a good subject for a video. 😁

I have to make a vital correction here. At around 31:20 when Dr. Ortlund reads the atonement quote from St. Athanasius, St. A wrote specifically that it was to "settle man's account with death." Emphasis: *with death*. Not with God, as Dr. Ortlund wrongly interpolates just a few moments later at 32:18. The account, the debt, was with Death. Many Protestant doctrines err when applying it to God. If Dr. Ortlund wants to perpetuate that doctrine, so be it, but please do not assign it to St. Athanasius. As seen in the parable of the Prodigal Son, God does not require a payment of debt to forgive. He forgives freely to all who repent. The same applies to us and God. While we are eternally indebted to God, He does not require payment to forgive. He only requires repentance and, from there, obedience. And so, Christ came to settle the debt with Death, and did so by defeating Death (which could only occur through becoming incarnate). Therefore, the proper atonement is Christus Victor, not Penal Substitution.

Thanks for this! 1) wonderful work, and I really appreciate your zeroing in on "substitution." Has me thinking about Vos's discussion of Christ's vicarious work (thinking specifically of vicarious repentance in His baptism by John, in Biblical Theology). 2) Have you read Thomas Weinandy's "Does God Suffer," or is it on your radar. I'm think especially of his chapter on the Incarnation, "The Impassible Suffers." It was deep and deeply moving. I'm Reformed Baptist, but even though he's Roman Catholic, his work on Theology proper and Christology is spectacular. I suspect you'd enjoy it. I really appreciate your (small e!) ecumenism.

TLDR: The atonement is a complex and multifaceted concept that involves various theories and motifs, including theosis, recapitulation, substitution, and divine wrath, all of which contribute to the understanding of Christ's death and its impact on humanity. 1. 📺 Different atonement theories, including ransom, penal substitution, and Christus Victor, can be used together to avoid revisionist accounts and emphasize the importance of the cross and resurrection in bringing us back to God. 2. 📚 Christ's atonement theories emphasize recapitulation, the salvific nature of the incarnation, theosis, and participation in God. 3. 📚 The speaker discusses the necessity of the incarnation for salvation, Irenaeus' view of recapitulation and atonement, and Anselm's emphasis on satisfaction in Christ's death, all of which are complementary and have a logical relationship. 4. 🤔 Anselm and Athanasius both emphasize recapitulation in their atonement theories, with Athanasius using metaphors to explain the renewal of mankind and warning against being overly reductive in thinking about the atonement. 5. 🤔 The atonement has multiple purposes including union and reconciliation between God and humans, forgiveness, resurrection, and the defeat of Satan, with Athanasius emphasizing both recapitulation and satisfaction themes in his works. 6. 🤔 The transfiguration of Christ reveals his divine nature and connects to Old Testament theophanies, leading to multiple interpretations of atonement theories and the need to address various theological issues. 7. 🤔 Christ's atonement theory involves restorative and propitiating substitution, with his life representing restoration and his death representing propitiation, emphasizing the importance of understanding the full narrative arc of Jesus' work and the profound truth of the atonement. 8. 📚 The speaker discusses the implications of the atonement and encourages viewers to engage with the content and subscribe for future videos on related topics. By Eightify for Safari

Really glad that you're talking about this subject.

Yooo, what’s up Gavin ! Love all ur videos man, if I could give 1 critique. I’m 23 and my vocab is still not as legendary as ur sometimes, if u can where possible, perhaps, use simpler language. Other than that man, Ur videos are so detailed and awesome! love them.

Great video, really helpful

This makes me think about Acts 2:24, where Peter preaches "God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." You (and the patristics!) take that "not possible" very, very seriously. I've never heard that perspective before.

I've been studying this issue for a long time and here I will briefly summarise what I believe is the biblical theory of atonement: It comes down to penal substitution, christus victor and recapitulation combined together. The first part is that in order to satisfy justice and God's wrath someone had to take our penalty. Jesus does this by bearing our sins and entering into death (in hades) for us. The second part is that by rising from death He is free from sin and death. By being joined to Christ we are released from death and sin. This bears the fruit of imputed and infused righteousness for the believer. The legal aspect means we are counted as if we had lived Christ's life and this is the door to the ontological aspect (now we can experience union with God). The third part is that since Christ was God in the flesh He had no corruption in Him (as the New Adam) and through His resurrection life (divine) the image of God in us is restored so that we can have union with God (in the final analysis the corruption of our nature will be destroyed completely).

So very helpful! Thanks for serving us with this Gavin!

There are elements of truth in every theory of the atonement, but the primary reason for the atonement must be recognized as being the ontological expurgation of sin from human nature (specifically, the nature of the elect). Sin itself must be ripped, to to speak, from human nature so as to permit humans to be in the presence of the Almighty God in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Which Atonement Theory is Right? Response: 1. In contrast to a strict penal substitution theory of atonement that, at its crudest level, is a zero sum game where Jesus on the cross receives the punishment of God's wrath as an exchange for what mankind deserves and "little more", both Irenaeus and Anselm allude to "something greater" in the manner of a quantum difference. 2. That "something greater" is made explicit in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, Part III, Treatise On The Incarnation, Question 48 - Of the Efficacy of Christ's Passion, Article 2 - Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement? "I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. BUT BY SUFFERING OUT OF LOVE AND OBEDIENCE, CHRIST GAVE MORE TO GOD THAN WAS REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE OFFENSE OF THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; Secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; Thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Q[46], A[6]). - and - THEREFORE CHRIST'S PASSION WAS NOT ONLY A SUFFICIENT BUT A SUPERABUNDANT ATONEMENT FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE; according to 1 Jn. 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." [sacred-texts.com /chr/aquinas/summa/sum499.htm] 3. That "superabundant atonement" of Jesus Christ involves the gifts of His sacraments to Christians: (A) Seven in number to the Catholic, Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East; and (B) two in number generally acknowledged by Protestant Churches. 4. Employing the Protestant sacramental model but common to all as an analogy to Thomas Aquinas' theory of the atonement involving superabundant grace: A. Baptism, through Christ's death on the cross, is a one time event that initially reconciles sinners to God. B. Eucharist, through the Last Supper as a permanent institution, is a continuous celebratory event in the life of Christians after baptism.

WOW!!! What an amazing video! Thank you So much Dr Ortlund. I would LOVE to see you in conversation with John Behr…anything I can do to make that more likely to happen? Get a petition going with thousands of signatures?:) Seeing you guys discuss On Apostolic Preaching, or On the Incarnation…or anything for that matter…would be a REAL treat. Please give it some thought (humble plea).

This showed up in the sidebar in the last video of six that Mike Winger did on PSA. it's quite complementary to that. What I liked about this is the time spent on Recapitulation. Much of that resonated with me because of the theology that I have come to hold and developed on my own from just reading the Scriptures. You might called it 2nd Adam Theology I guess. A lot of other stuff Gavin brought up is thought-provoking and worth spending the time to ponder more. Good video.

wonderful synthesis of theories.

Either or isn't very helpful.... Christ is both High priest and Lamb of God....the atonement is multi faceted

What is Atonement? Proverbs 16:6 , Exodus 30:16 , Numbers 31:50, Leviticus 5:11-13 and Leviticus 17:11 it sounds like there are several ways to be Atoned for; The Bible also says God blinds people.

Making my heart sing, brother. "Prolepsis" and "organic continuity" were just 🍒 on top!

If Christ took away Our sins why do we still have sin ? Sin is burdersome He took the BURDEN of Our sins upon himself & puts on us what he says "MY BURDEN is light & my Yoke is easy" Isaiah : WITH his stripes we are healed " The stripes that man gave him out of sin become his own BURDEN, He who had no sin became sin for us, So the stripes that man gave him he uses to redeem unto the words "I Hurt & I Heal (Job) " unto MY Burden is light & my Yoke easy" the words that underscore the Communion, The Body & Blood of the STRIPED Christ received through Faith , The Grace FAITH has its works within unto following the TWO COMMANDMENTS of Love,, amounts to picking up ones own cross daily to following him as commanded, thus Equating WITH his sacrifice on the Cross So the stripes that man gave him is the reason why "It pleased God to Bruise him " Not for the bruises itself but for its Fruit, For which he had to RESURRECT, that he did cause the BURDENS of our sins could not hold him down in hell (where Sin & death rules) as he was found stronger than Sin itself, unto his words "I have overcome the world (its sins) This is basically a Conversion theory instead of a "Substitution (magical) theory as generally believed by Protestants The Error has its origins through Protestantism's theologically leavening the Faith by "Faith Only " that James specifically says is not unto mis interpretation Paul (the reason why Martin Luther rejected James cause it was a hinderance to his erranous view of redemption " & the philosophies that arise out of the leavens becomes to another Christ another Gospel, incidentally the source of the prophesied Apostasy theologically in the leavens of the Faith Give unto God what is to God -FAITH, surely not a Leavened/Corrupted Faith,

Has anybody bothered to go back and read the Old Testament law, which is how God governs his universe? It’s literally the constitution of the kingdom of God. Has anybody bothered to go back and see what was actually required? It’s redemption, we were sold into slavery to sin and death and Jesus redeemed us. Why is this hard? And if anyone is not redeemed, according to Leviticus 25:54, that person will be set free at the year of Jubilee. So apparently just like Passover was literally fulfilled on the cross, one of these millennia there will be an actual fulfillment of the great jubilee and all creation will be finally set free.

Hello, brother in Christ. I have a question and comment. Isn't divine wrath God letting people go their own way (slaves of their desires) because of their idolatry (Rom. 1), not satisfaction? Where can I find (explicit) passages in Scriptue which equates wrath with the satisfaction of God?

What do you think about a connection between Irenaeus’ recapitulation and a view of Christ’s obedience (Hebrews 10:9), as another way of stating the reformed view of the active obedience of Christ? Namely, that Christ recapitulates Adam, but while Adam was disobedient to the creation covenant (the standards of God’s character and will), Christ was obedient.

Thank you for your effort to show that we, as Christians, do not need to be divided over "theological" differences. I really appreciate your tag, "Truth Unites". Part of my falling away from institutionalized faith is the historical division of the church that so defines us. I would really appreciate a caring response to a continuing problem I have with classical christianity (yes, I too am divisive). It seems your entire presentation is dependent on interpreting Adam and Eve's disobedience as the Fall of Man, the undoing of God's good plan. But wasn't the fall really a necessary step forward as we progressed toward God's declared intention of "let us make man in our image", as, after the incident, God declares, "man has now become like one of us, knowing good from evil"? I see no reference in the Bible to an ideal of holy innocence if we had passed a test of perfect obedience, or any biblical reference to the idea that God intended his image-bearing creatures to remain in some childlike state of innocence Such a state, of course, would not see God setting forth any manner of atonement, or the future, higher state of humanity made possible by the necessary joining in the incarnation of the Creator to the creature. I really would appreciate an answer and not condemnation. Thank you again for your devotion.

Was just talking to people on Twitter about atonement. Excited for the video.

This is an excellent video but I'm still left asking WHY God required a sacrifice? Why did Jesus need to die to appease God? Is human sacrifice not shunned in the Old Testament, why did God require one for the atonement? I am struggling to find resources that explain this, there are many ones explaining the various different theories, but they cover how Jesus' sacrifice resulted in salvation, not explaining why a human/God sacrifice was required.

The concept of atonement is immensely fascinating to me, and very frustrating. I like the idea of separating atonement into the categories of mechanism and results, as this helps a bit. I am profoundly grateful for the results, but kinda wish I had a mechanism to understand. Recapitulation is a result, is it not? How does Jesus' death and resurrection join (or re-join) humanity to divinity? If Jesus had physical children we could talk about some sort of genetic purification, but we seem to have only symbolism, or of course the influence of the Holy Spirit (but that's apart from death & resurrection). And why did God wait thousands of years after the fall to send the remedy, and why is it taking thousands of years for the remedy to come to completion? And what of all the casualties that occur and have occurred in the meantime? Sorry, perhaps I should watch the whole video before I comment (I'm at 22:49).

Catholics and Baptists are not as far apart as it appears. Both want to explain every tiny part - and somehow know what everything means. 🤔 Disagreeing over each parcel of faith sometimes obtusifies the Mystery of God. (In the Episcopal church we allow for several degrees of God's Mystery). Everything is not black and white.

“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.

PSA starts 1000 years after Birth of Church. Gets dialed in w Calvin. What dogmas as Protestant are not part of the Jude 3 exhortation? What do we do w that?

I really hate it when people act as though Penal Substitution is the only model of the Atonement and all other views are the equivalent of endorsing Arianism, Modalism, or Partialism as legitimate views of the Trinity.

This isn't complicated at all. PSA affirms that Jesus received *the* penalty we should have received. Not just that he took some punishment in our place, but that he took THE punishment that we deserved. If the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God, then a penal substitute, as PSA defines it, would have to endure eternal separation from God. Jesus did not endure eternal separation from God. Indeed, Jesus experienced NO separation from God, because he is God. You can either accept that penal substitution is false or eternal separation from God is false. Congratulations.

Um…er…YES! All of these are trying to understand the mystery of what took place through Jesus crucifixion. Its a mystery and not something to sweat over to understand, penal substitution and redemption have problems they are not perfect and that is okay its not literal its an illustration to help us understand his sacrifice. Christus Victor is the hardest to understand🤯 Penal Substitution is pretty simple, I do like it.

Could we discuss this? There is a vein of Love in the Theological bedrock. God created us to live forever, regardless of whether we live in Heaven or Hell. God knew when He created Man He would have to redeem him. [St. Ambrose: (76) I give thanks to our Lord God, who made a work of such a nature that He could find rest therein. He made the heavens. I do not read that He rested. He made the earth. I do not read that He rested. He made the sun, moon, and stars. I do not read that He found rest there. But I do read that He made man and then found rest in one whose sins He would remit. ] How could God create a creature that limits God by its own will? The Love of God overwhelms our sin by demonstrating how to Love "even unto death". He respects our will but Incarnates and experiences human death.... because of Love. God did not destroy Death for all...we can choose "death" forever in Hell.../// I support your attraction to CS Lewis..///.. BTW Satan is not destroyed. Angels were created to be eternal, but he will live in torment forever. /// Never use "ransom" as a motivation. It could never fit..

..."lower c catholic" 😁

Irenaeus was wrong as Isaiah 53 the servant died so believers could be judged and saved by sanctification. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for NT truth.

Recapitulation ☦️

30:18 Always quoting C S Lewis? What's wrong with that? Lewis is a treasury that will make any mind wealthy by withdrawing treasure from him.

"And God made him who knew no sin, to become sin for us, so that we might be made the righteousness in him" translation: And god made pure spirit, that knew not the flesh, to become flesh for us, so that we might be converted to pure spirit. or: And God made consciousness, that knew not matter, to become matter for us, so that we might become fully conscious.

I still don't get it. I don't think I ever have. Why does anyone or any thing have to die in order to be reconciled. I don't expect sacrifice from my kids when they wrong me. Just discussion and a resolve to move forward in our relationship. All ways that have been explained to me of Christ's death and resurrection for atonement still leave me thinking we have been born into a system of God's creation. We never had a choice. Death and resurrection as a forerunner of victory over death however does make far more sense to me. And it has to be simple to understand if Christ's death and resurrection is the "good news" that the early Church says it was. But thanks for presenting the different arguments. It was helpful to work through them

Why is this even a question of "either or", rather than all (or at least most of them) being part of the atonement? Why did the LORD give multiple sacrifices in the Hebrew Scriptures, if not to demonstrate the multiple aspects of the death of Messiah on the cross?

Why would Jesus (triune god) make a torture sacrifice of himself to himself so he could forgive us for doing things he knew from the beginning we would do?

I fully agree - back around 2014 I discovered union with Christ in 1 Corinthians 15 and ever since it has fundamentally changed how I think about the atonement. I think recapitulation is the patristic way of expressing this. I wrote an essay that touched on this my first year in seminary at MBTS. Though the English term “recapitulation” doesn’t appear in English bibles, the Greek equivalent Ανακεφαλαιοω does appear describing the work of Christ in Ephesians 1:10.

Which atonement theory is right? Yes! It's always baffled me how anyone could think theories of the atonement were mutually exclusive. We see human authors and artists creating things with multiple layers of meaning operating simultaneously; why would we insist the Creator of the universe had to incorporate only one meaning for the most important event in history?

The translator of the Lavender New Testament believes Jesus died on our behalf, not in our place...?

Here's a theory, Christ died in order to end the Old Testament with Abraham. The only way to end a covenant would be for one of the parties to die and indeed only after the crucifixion were the gentiles proselytized. Before, Jesus excplicitly said that he came to save the Jews, as if wanting to give them a final chance to save the covenant. But once he was crucified, the covenant no longer held, the Jews were no longer the chosen nation, it was permissable to proseletyze among the gentiles and within a single generation the second temple gets destroyed. Does this theory have a name or did I just make it up?

This video doesn't really address the difference between atonement theories. Rather the video attempts to import PSA into the Patristic understanding of the atonement.

30:36 - bingo. Atonement is bigger than any one of these ideas because of our many needs that Christ addresses in different ways and at different times. Dr. David Moffitt's work in Hebrews on the atonement is a fantastic resource in exploring the mechanisms of atonement. I'll just say that the Levitical sacrificial system is an interesting foreshadowing that death is not the focal point of atonement, though it is crucial, and deals with one aspect of our salvation (namely, redemption and defeat of the devil). Rather, sacrifice is a process which cannot be reduced to the death. Consider what happens to the blood and flesh after the death of the animal - the conveyance of the gift of the offering into the presence of God which effects purification and forgiveness - that helps us understand just how Christ's resurrection, ascension, intercession, and return are just as necessary to the atonement as his death.