God loves us so much, he will quarantine some of us forever in fire. Born in the wrong culture, too bad, misunderstood the gospel, too bad, had a horrific childhood and had a fear of a authoritative father figure, too bad, just honestly couldn’t figure out what was true despite your honest efforts, too bad. The fact alisa is so happy some people won’t be in heaven in honestly disturbing, and she is thanking God for it. This is why fewer and fewer people are taking this position seriously.

@jaysenwaller550

2 жыл бұрын

well said J&W, thank you.

@michaelhigdon2912

2 ай бұрын

How dare you make an assumption that she doesn’t care for or is happy that some will be separated from God for eternity due to choices they made. Such a shameful comment. It’s because her, and other evangelical’s belief, that they don’t wish any to spend eternity separate from God so they spread the gospel and tell others about His saving grace. How arrogant of you to believe you know justice better than the Great Judge.

My family listened to this Podcast on a road trip. It prompted great discussion! Thank you for your ministry and work Alisa!

@gloriaarcala9521

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hquDuausmrmZg9Y.html

@itzdaguy

3 жыл бұрын

now that’s a wise way to spend a road trip!

@mildmayheadless5217

2 жыл бұрын

Big ups on being able to hold a healthy discussion with family in the car. We just used to either sing or argue, lol.

Well there is a lot more than the progressive friar who has a problem with PSA how about the universally respected CS Lewis who repudiated this atonement theory. Not to mention every Orthodox Church and even the western catholic church which bought into Anselms Satisfaction theory did reject the even more far reaching PSA that Calvin and his followers invented. Western Protestants who say those who oppose it are portraying Strawman and they have the standard view of atonement that is the most biblical are ignoring Church history and other interpretations of Scripture.

Glad I found your channel. Read your about and appreciate your journey and for standing up for the truth.

@gloriaarcala9521

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hquDuausmrmZg9Y.html

I would love to see Richard Rhor interview on this channel. I believe it would be cause for a great conversation

@janadominika

Ай бұрын

He doesn t do that.

And Jesus said, NO One takes my life, I give it willingly. And God's total wrath was what sin did to His creation.

@jfish032

3 жыл бұрын

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

I bet none of y’all getting hot about this ever even read a Rohr book.

@UrsahSolar

Жыл бұрын

The man literally said Buddhism and Christianity are compatible. The dude is a joke.

@JannahPursuit

10 ай бұрын

How much?

@MerBlack

10 ай бұрын

I’ve watched hours of interview of Rohr speaking about his books. Not Christian.

@JannahPursuit

10 ай бұрын

@@MerBlack so you haven't read one of his books? lol

@maryfitz7174

9 ай бұрын

Actually, I have and was deeply concerned about his view of Jesus. So, if you wanna bet about what’s been read, don’t bet your spiritual health on it.

Great stuff!

@alisachilders

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks, Mike!

@timothytrudgen8881

3 жыл бұрын

No Mike!! This was a shallow shallow understanding of the Rohr's point. Rohr was is getting at exactly what WLC is saying, just through a longer path. What none of you guys can comprehend is that Rohr's straw man use here because it is exactly what people damaged by the institutional churches have heard. So for them this needs to be pulled down. They have seen God through abusive and manipulative pastors and fathers (the religious and family kind). Who have taught that you are unlovable without punishment. They need to be told God is not like that in words that dont stink of the churchy language of the abuser. Im mot saying Rohr is perfect. But, the hurt in this category need to see that first of all God sees you as precious and beautiful and unique despite our sins. We are not filthy rags, our sins are. Its ridiculous that people like Rohr are now nitpicked by the evangelicals these days when it was him and others like him who have awakened us to the lack of nuance and love in our preaching in the last 100 years. This discussion should be more respectful and nuanced and should include people who can take a more balanced view when we critic another Christian. God bless Rohr, even though i dont hold all his theology.

@Username-ff6ir

3 жыл бұрын

🙄

@Adesupzy

3 жыл бұрын

@@timothytrudgen8881 Well said

@rdubyatjr

3 жыл бұрын

You have to ask yourself, did the Father damn the Son, aka did the Father pour out his wrath in the Son? If you believe so, you are splitting the Trinity, agreeing with Anselm, (where this doctrine) originated, and Nestorianism.

Well it's so easy to have Rohrs view... When you don't read the scriptures and others you're leading likewise ignore God's word then anything goes. I mean ya know, 'without the shedding of blood there's no forgiveness of sin' or perhaps, well...you get it. If you're reading this far you most likely already believe that Rohr is a heretic. Have a good week!

@samboelguapo6826

2 жыл бұрын

Nope

It breaks my heart that so many of my friends follow Richard Rohr.

@Jordan-hz1wr

3 жыл бұрын

It breaks my heart that you don't.

@ayaatyoussef1443

3 жыл бұрын

@@Jordan-hz1wr 🤣🤣🤣

@ayaatyoussef1443

3 жыл бұрын

i understand why they refuse to listen this hateful man

@andrenotgiant

2 жыл бұрын

Haha

@wiggelpuppy5474

2 жыл бұрын

Me too.

Great answer. Thank you Alisa and Dr. Craig!

I spent some time listening to Richard Rohr. It was a big mistake. Please read your bible.

@jfish032

3 жыл бұрын

😱😱😱

@jfish032

3 жыл бұрын

@Sean John lol 👌 true dat

What do you mean he sets up a straw man? Lot's of people are stuck in the mentality that God loves us only after the atonement or we accept Him, etc. He is not attacking you or your conceptualization of it, not attacking anyone, He is simply pointing out something that is completely obviously going on, especially in American Christianity, and of course is a special case in our time of what humans have always been doing. In order for it to be a general straw man you must show that no one thinks like that, while actually in Anabapyist and evangelical circles it is very normal to think like that, even though the more sophisticated manage to stay away from that enormous error.

@garyboulton2302

2 жыл бұрын

Something being a straw man is not negated by the fact that some people hold to the straw man. Something is a straw man if it is a caricature or weak/manipulative formulation of the actual doctrine. Richard Rohr did set up a straw man.

@MortenBendiksen

2 жыл бұрын

@@garyboulton2302 I tend to disagree. It's a while since I saw this, so perhaps I remember it wrong, but I don't think he attacked someone in specific by pretending they held something they do not. Something being a straw man is not inherent in the argument itself, but in what it is set up to function as. If it is set up in order to show an opponent as weak, it is a straw man. If it is simply set up and then taken down, without any specific target to take down by proxy, it is simply dealing with that particular thing, and people who do not hold to it need not be defensive about it. In order for it to be a straw man you actually have to be named as the "target". I admit, there could be an implicit attempt to associate someone with it hidden in the argument, and if so I missed it.

@garyboulton2302

2 жыл бұрын

@@MortenBendiksen No that's not what a straw man is. A straw man is a weak/manipulative formation of an argument. That's it. Richard Rohr set up a straw man.

So Good!!

I searched for the blog and read it. As a mature Christian, I can handle a different perspective of interpreting God's love. However, to my disappointment, both Richard Rohr and Marcus Borg failed to support their argument with scriptures. Borg even says that the OT sacrifices were gifts to God and not for atonements, which is a big red fleg because there is such thing as atonement sacrifice in OT. Yom Kippur is a Jewish day of atonement. That blog is a deal breaker.

How is justice promoted by killing someone or become killed? This seems to me a most inhuman "logic". If justice becomes more valuable than life, wheren does this lead to?

I think you misunderstand Franciscan Theology. Check out Fr Casey’s video on Franciscan approach to God.

@sheilasmith7779

2 жыл бұрын

Martha, we must avoid road trips teachers like Rohr send us on. Stick with scripture and not Catholic or Protestant Self proclaimed, "teachers." Catholics constantly send inquisitive Christians to Catholic teachers and writers, instead of directing Christians to scripture.

@marthawissmann8268

2 жыл бұрын

did you watch Father Casey’s video? You would understand better after it.

@sheilasmith7779

2 жыл бұрын

@@marthawissmann8268 I was raised Catholic, studied my Catechism, listen to the priest's Sunday sermon. I was serious about my Catholicism. So Martha, I don't need clarity from yet another Catholic apologist, Franciscan or otherwise. What was lacking in my faith, was scripture. Once I began to read and study the Word of God, the truth was made clear. I realized I had been taught a false gospel. The more I prayed, the longer the list of false Catholic teaching became, until I had to leave, and find a new spiritual home. I would invite you to stop listening and reading Catholic theologians, just for a time, and read only scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This would include not listening to anyone. Be on a retreat for a time. For all of us the essential to faith remains, God's truth. And I trust that if you do that, Martha, God will deliver the truth to you. God Bless your journey.

Thank you so much for this, and for all of your work. I have only recently discovered you and I am coming out of progressive Christianity. This work you are doing is essential. I watched your story today too and it moved me so much. I really needed someone to come forward and start speaking out and explaining some of the things that are touted as truth in progressive Christianity. I am so grateful for these videos.

I have nothing to do with the so-called Progressives, but the PSA side totally ignores the many Scriptural problems that refute its claims: 1. God forgave people in the Old Testament (2 Chron. 7:14). Forgiveness is often past tense. Ps. 78:38, 85:2, 32:5, 99:8 2. Even while on the cross Jesus did not think he was making a payment when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34). 3. Old Testament sin sacrifices were only for unintentional sins (minor crimes) not intentional (capital) sins. Numbers 15:22-31, Leviticus 4:1-2, Hebrews 9:7 4. The Bible never taught that a human sacrifice was needed to pay for sin. The belief of needing to literally pay God for sin was not part of biblical Judaism. Peter even rebuked Jesus for saying he was going to die (Mat. 16:21-23), and when he did die, they were not celebrating that their sins had now been paid for. Read Peter’s thinking just a few weeks after the crucifixion in Acts 2 and 3:26, notice the absence of a payment idea. 5. Mercy is the setting aside of justice. Yahweh is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth” Ex. 34:6. “…Mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13). If God demands absolute, infinite justice, then God cannot have mercy nor forgive, contrary to what He Himself has stated. When mercy is given by God, judgment and justice are set aside. No payment is demanded in such cases. An “infinite justice” God is a misrepresentation of the God of the Bible. 6. Punishing an innocent third party is against God’s own law and cannot be genuine justice. Two wrongs never make the first wrong to be right. Violence, torture, and retribution upon a third party cannot satisfy a just God who has prohibited this practice. Prov. 17:15, Ex. 23:7, Deut. 27:25. 7. God had to tell the Old Testament people many times to stop their offerings - they were treating offerings as if they were indulgences. That stinks to God. Ps. 40:6, 51:16, Jer. 6:20, Is. 1:11-18, 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6-8, Amos 5:22. (The God of the Bible is relational, and men’s offerings were supposed to be a token of this relationship, not a payment to get on God’s good side.) 8. If blood as a substance is required to be shed for atonement, why was flour also acceptable? Lev. 5:11-12, 14:21 Furthermore, a complete payment cancels forgiveness. (You cannot forgive a debt that has already been paid, and you do not pay a debt that has been forgiven! Forgiveness is granted because a debt has NOT been paid. It is like grace vs. works in Romans 11:6, which could read, “And if by payment, then is it no more of forgiveness: otherwise payment is no more payment. But if it be of forgiveness, then is it no more payment: otherwise forgiveness is no more forgiveness.”) Dr. Craig attempts to deal with forgiveness in his book but never solves this problem.

@richardnoble3180

3 жыл бұрын

For me the problem is framing the theory of atonement within a Divine 'criminal justice' system paradigm...

@atonementandreconciliation3749

3 жыл бұрын

@@richardnoble3180 I agree. The legal philosophy most held today in America is often called the Roman view. It is the idea that justice must be cold, blind, equitable (the balanced scale idea), and punishing. But what we see in the Bible is the Hebrew view of justice which is based on the idea that justice should ideally lead to restitution, restoration, and reconciliation. There are hundreds of passages about God’s mercy, which is God NOT meeting out justice. God is SLOW to anger, but does anger and acts in wrath at some point. If, however, God is infinite justice, perfect justice (which cannot be defined) as some like to proclaim, then God cannot be slow to anger. He must be infinitely quick to anger and there cannot be any mercy or grace. Both God’s mercy and grace are indications of God NOT acting with the full weight of justice that He could have used if He wanted to, just as we do as parents with our children. When reading the Bible we need to discard the unbiblical view of infinite justice and use God’s version of justice, which is much more in line with what we might call parental justice - one that can be firm when needed, yet is often gentle, merciful, forgiving, loving and gracious. In short, the biblical understanding of atonement is above all, relational-based.

@theocratickingdom30

3 жыл бұрын

Atonement and Reconciliation I love that you refuted yourself. This was awful argumentation. You have so many misunderstandings. Wow! I suggest you study some more. May the triune God grant understanding.

@atonementandreconciliation3749

3 жыл бұрын

@@theocratickingdom30 I like your name - Theocratic Kingdom. Please illuminate me as to what my self-refutation is. Thank you.

@timothytrudgen8881

3 жыл бұрын

Nice run down. PSA is only one way of understanding things

Love Bill Craig. Blessed my life tremendously :)

it wasn't god demanded sacrifice, but that Jesus offered it.

Well done! Thank you. The concept of the Trinity is essential to understanding the atonement. God sacrificed Himself for us. "Greater love has no man than to lay down his life for his friends". God held Himself accountable for the Law He created.

@timothytrudgen8881

3 жыл бұрын

That the trinity is required to support penal substitution shows the weakness of that salvific metaphor. It also shows a poor understanding of the Trinity. Christ is a seperate person to the Father so the Father did not suffer as Christ on the cross. The rending of the trinity does not imply equal suffer or necessarily any suffering for all members of the Godhead at the cross. It is only the Father son relationship that helps us understand and this is without there being a trinity (per abraham and Isaac) . The point.... there are so many otherways of exploring the mystery of the cross. I wish Christians would seek to understand each other.

We have missed the real love of who God is for centuries.

@gloriaarcala9521

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hquDuausmrmZg9Y.html

It IS a total straw-man argument. Thank you both! At the 2:59m mark, Alisa's talking about the role of semantics. Picking and choosing how to define something doesn't change what it is.

I like the nonviolent atonement theory. “At-one-ment” But hey I dig the Franciscan theology. An Alternative for 800 years. How did the Catholic Church not throw them all out? Lol. Cuz deep down those Dominicans And Jesuits knew Saint Francis was right. Christ is nonviolent even when violence was done on him . And the beatitudes of Christ are intact. It makes it whole and no contradiction. Let’s face it, the atonement theory, that God demanded blood payment is garbage. And that type of Christianity is sorta tribal, us vs them. We are clean vs the dirty. Keep us from them.

Amen! So good! Thank you for such a simple answer.

Love Dr Craig. He's not a young earth creationist and discusses how God uses evolution.

To have the good news; you have to have the bad news.

"It is love 'to the end' that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction." ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 616.

I think the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross sets up our (the believer's) relationship with God for eternity. If we reject the sacrifice we reject our relationship with God. This is God's own dividing line.

Good video but how can this be integrated into healing with someone who was abused. Not looking at themselves only as a sinner saved by grace, but the reactions of survival from the abuse are more or other than that. That's always been my question and concern what does 1 Step approach to human suffering.

@annierudy6275

3 жыл бұрын

That is a good question but seems to me would take a little unpacking, maybe worthy of it's own podcast. But you start with having an accurate view of who God is, and who we are to Him.

@marthawissmann8268

3 жыл бұрын

Daniel, Sin has been done to you as Jesus had sin done to Him on the cross. You are one with Him in that pain. He knows what you suffer and you know what He suffered. Pray to Him, talk to Him about that.

@saskiascott8181

2 жыл бұрын

You've hit the nail on the head. It's all very well to *say* that the love of God comes first, but for a person who was raised in abuse and neglect, the evangelical message is internalised as "you're worthless and God hates you, he only loves Jesus and you have to to hide behind Jesus to be safe from God." That is how I internalised the evangelical message. That's why it was so toxic for me. And that is why reclaiming my own essential loved-ness and inherent value as a creation of God was vital. Only in doing so was I able to then begin to love others and really love God. Evangelicalism needs to be more trauma informed.

@whittakerdanielj

2 жыл бұрын

@@saskiascott8181 it can be a troubling issue, I agree. Learning how to love with pain and misunderstanding is a huge step forward and how God's love can work itself into trauma.

Craig’s God is primarily not a God of love but a God of Justice. God’s justice wins over. God’s justice triumphs over love. God’s justice demands that the majority of humanity ( who are unsaved ) will suffer for all of Eternity Future in an Eternal Hell. If God loves each and every person suffering in Hell, then there is not a thing He can do about it. He is completely powerless to do anything because His Justice rules over His love. If God’s love ruled over His justice, then God would never have created a Hell.

@AnAdequateViolinist

3 жыл бұрын

Beautifully put, thank you

@AR-rz3tk

3 жыл бұрын

Hell was created for satan and satan's angels. There is much we don't understand about it, but Jesus spoke more about it than anyone else in scripture. I ask, " If you don't want to have a relationship with God now, (presently on in this earthly life), why would you want to spend eternity with Him?" ... Wouldn't that be like eternal "suffering" for one "who loves darkness, rather than light"? ....just hashing out some thoughts, thanks.

@Josh_Antikainen

3 жыл бұрын

Trying to pit God's attributes (justice and love) against each other is foolish.

@garythorington1600

2 жыл бұрын

Jesus going to the cross to take our place isn’t love?? The devil has done a good job in deceiving people to worship Rohr. Remember Rorhr lovers if you made the wrong decision you have an eternal hell lament your wrong decision

As long as we feel bad about ourselves God will love us and forgive us for what we don't understand. The word unconditional means more to me. Our only flaw is to have been born and the fight for life begins.

This is the perfect reason why we shouldn't listen to someone like this lady. She's checking someone else's words out of context, giving it to an unsuspecting but respected person, and letting him run with it. It's a common way to control the listeners. I guarantee that Richard Rohr agrees with what this guy is saying. And I think Richard would say that this lady is using this particular method of communication just to feed her own ego.

@karenwilliams8534

2 жыл бұрын

she is presenting part of what Richard Rohr has said/written out of context. the Franciscan view of atonement is the minority view, but it was and is accepted as orthodox. Christ did not die on the cross to change God's opinion of us, but to change our opinion of God, that he loves us so much that he would allow the earthly government leaders and the religious leaders to kill him rather than to respond in a similar, violent manner. He died to show us how to live.

I've read some of Father Richard's books, and it seems to me that what he really says in this point is that the love of God in Christ embraced all that we are , and the cross is the mystery by which God entered in fully communion with our sufferings, to point of He Himself suffering our pains .... The Lord said to Moses in the burning bush: "I know your sufferings..." I don't think he denies the blood of Christ as the only source of salvation, but maybe he is inviting us to read it more through the eyes of God's love than the eyes of a sort of a legalism system where the Father would be considered to be like a frozen blood deity-judge thirst for revenge.

It Is interesting that the prompt read that was authored by Richard Rohr discussed about violence, especially within the Christian culture (from papacy to parenting). Richard Rohr's example is highlighting people (not God) with applying their ideas of justice upon others. Instead, this top scholar uses John 3:16 to say God sending Jesus is because he loved us. This "top Christian scholar" attempted using John 3:16 as evidenced of Jesus as Atonement sacrifice, the final blood sacrifice. ACCEPT John 3:16-17 NIV states "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Nothing about Jesus needing to die on the cross for the saving of sins. Richard Rohr's point about Sermon on the Mount is that Jesus' message is of love for others, not violence for others. A follower of Jesus' teachings would not be violent towards others, nor should they instil violent justice (denying people of sacraments due to behavior or physical punishment that can be viewed as violent). Let God be God and let God do His justice. How about your next video addresses the point being made in the example of another person's work instead of telling people that Richard Rohr is wrong. Maybe think about engaging in dialogue with Richard Rohr, but then again maybe William Lane Craig won't listen to other people like he demonstrated in his debate with Sam Harris. My hope is that William Lane Craig can learn to grow in love for the other.

He has debated many respected atheists including Christopher Hitchen} St Christopher Hitchens kicked the shit out of him too.

Wow! Then I have a serious mental health issue according to RR. If he tries to minimise sin or insinuate it only exists in our minds, no wonder he sees no need for punishment or justice.

@gloriaarcala9521

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hquDuausmrmZg9Y.html

I really am not sure if you guys are conveying his perspective. This is another quote of his that i find so fascinating. "Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity (it did not need changing)! Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God. God’s abundance and compassion make any scarcity economy of merit or atonement unhelpful and unnecessary. Jesus undid “once and for all” (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:10) all notions of human and animal sacrifice and replaced them with his new infinite economy of grace. Jesus was meant to be a game changer for religion and the human psyche. This grounds Christianity in love and freedom from the very beginning; it creates a very coherent and utterly attractive religion, which draws people toward lives of inner depth, prayer, reconciliation, healing, and universal “at-one-ment,” instead of mere sacrificial atonement. Nothing “changed” on Calvary but everything was revealed-an eternally outpouring love. Jesus switched the engines of history: instead of us needing to spill blood to get to God, we have God spilling blood to get to us!" Rohr

So many of the people I love are dipping into and accepting these false teachings. I'm trying to learn how to communicate and challenge these notions and I'm really struggling. I'm glad I found this channel.

@jfish032

3 жыл бұрын

Keep..holding..on... your only chance and hope is in interpreting the Bible exactly right. Don't mess it up 🔥🔥🔥😇😇😇

@ElliotOlson

3 жыл бұрын

@@jfish032 I sense some sarcasm haha and I get it man.

@jfish032

3 жыл бұрын

Dripping with sarcasm. I believe that we are called to trust in God, honour Him and do good. Ya, we'll mess up along the way, but the goal is to keep trying to be the kind of person God wants us to be. I get most of my vision of that from the fruit of the spirit and creation story which is rich with creativity and beauty. I believe it's our evil side that focusses on the laws and what we ought not to do. If we're too busy loving other as God loves and loving ourselves we don't have time to focus on our sins or the sins of others, cause all we see when we look at them is Christ.

@ElliotOlson

3 жыл бұрын

@@jfish032 I really like what you said here. I agree focusing on Christ and loving others is what it's all about. I really like how you mention the fruits of the spirit and finding beauty in creation. I also see a God who guides people and talks about consequences for actions. Who is loving and talks about the reality of sin. I think there's a tension between Grace and the humility we need to see what God is calling us toward. We need to understand what we're missing out on and how our sin inhibits us from becoming more like Christ. I think this means asking God to make us aware of our sin and to help us work through it so we can love others, ourselves and Him better. We need Him to give us a vision for our future. For many there's so much shame around the idea of sin that they don't want to approach it. I know this has been true for me. I also think we limit how much we can love if we don't understand our sin and our pain. It's through healing, restoration, repentance and grace that we learn to love like Jesus. Also, in a way it's how we learn to trust God. Which is such an amazing thing. When we make decisions out of trusting God we feel His love. While I feel His love through creation, it's a different love I feel and have come to know through learning to trust Him. This was a lot and I don't know you so I don't want you to think I'm making assumptions about you. Just wanted to share what I've been learning over the past couple years. Much love

@jfish032

3 жыл бұрын

@@ElliotOlson Amen brother 🙌♥️

Dr. Craig is apsolutely right. But, to understand father Rohr's mystical views one must give up dualistic either or thinking. His views and teachings of the Trinity, for example, are apsolutely on point. Unfortunatley, regarding Jesus, he seems to offer a kind of nestorian heresy mixed up with universal antropogenesis

If God made the rules of justice, Why did God make the requirement the shedding of blood? Why can’t God just forgive? If anybody wrongs me I don’t ask for blood to be shed to forgive them, I just forgive them.

@elederiruzkin8835

3 жыл бұрын

Have you not read a comment by a certain C B, down in this same comment box, where the historic evolution of the purpose and understanding of sacrifice is outlined? I'd never heard about it. At a certain point C B mentions a so-called "Scapegoat Reveal" theory, which would explain the reason why Christ's sacrifice was meant to be the last one --at least for all those "who have eyes to see and ears to hear." Let me tell you that, I think, you sort of came close to the same explanation by yourself!: "Time to mature. You have no longer excuse for falling back on the scapegoat: all that's now left for you humans is forgiveness... or death," so to say. It is worth reading, I think. Hope you find it and benefit from it! Best wishes.

@williamfranz6639

3 жыл бұрын

That is one example difference between an eye for an eye and a response of turning the other cheek, or giving ones cloak also, or loving ones enemy.

Take your Christ consciousness out on the water and see if it stands.

I only know one thing : Those who know, do not talk. Those who talk, do not know. (Tao Te Ching). Period😔

I just wonder with this understanding of justice that you teach...in Gods enactment of his “wrath”, does he not love the people who he judges? We all see God as love, and from that love brings justice...but it seems we always consider his justice as only in our favour (the victims), as though God does not also love the “criminal”. And I think Richard Rohr’s understandings recognizes God’s love for all in his justice, not just God’s love for the “victim”. Your teaching sounds good but is not very practical or realistic. We assume every criminal is just a criminal, instead of a human that is also a victim in many other ways. I think Gods justice sees farther than we could ever see as humans and brings justice to allll through his sacrificial love. Which means righting allllll wrongs, restoring all people and all balance, not just believers over sinners. Your view of the penal substitution theory, does not really cover God as all loving and actually just imho.

@michaelt.5672

3 жыл бұрын

I think the perspective of the victim is used because it is easy to comprehend. But in reality, we are ALL the perpetrators. We are all sinners. If anyone is the actually the victim, it is God, who was rejected by his own creation with no fault on his part. And here's the thing about God's wrath; In most cases in the bible, God's wrath manifests not by him doing terrible things, but merely by his absence. After all, what could be worse for us, God's creations in his image and designed for a relationship with him, than to be completely deprived of his presence? This is what hell is; A place where God is absolutely absent. Now, as for wether wrath and love are mutually exclusive, the way I see it is this; Love can never override free will. It has to be voluntarily accepted. And free will can not exist without consequences to one's descisions, for otherwise the descisions would be meaningless. God's wrath and judgement bring about the ultimate consequences of our choices. If he loves us, he MUST bring these consequences about, for otherwise he'd be overriding our free will. If humans chose to reject God, how could a loving God force his absolute presence (the defining characteristic of heaven) upon them for all eternity?

@jaysenwaller550

2 жыл бұрын

well said Sesno, thank you.

If God is perfectly just then how could he punish an innocent person, or allow an innocent person to pay the penalty for the guilty and then allow the guilty to go unpunished? And it’s not necessarily even allowing an innocent person to be punished, but God requires an innocent person to be punished, because God requires nothing less than perfection - the perfect sacrifice.

@dw5523

3 жыл бұрын

Two things: substitutionary atonement is a real thing going back to Genesis, and Christ died for our atonement because we couldn’t do it ourselves. It was a voluntary sacrifice on the part of both Father and Son in order to redeem us from sin. This Go remained just AND justified is through faith in Christ - which means laying down our life in the grave - dying daily as Paul put it. If we died with him in faith, then we are also raised with him in faith. This too has precedent in the OT.

@thefactoryratgenius4659

3 жыл бұрын

Just because something has precedent in the OT doesn’t make it just. Can you clarify what it means to be just, in your view?

@dw5523

3 жыл бұрын

@@thefactoryratgenius4659 precedent doesn't make something just, it just shows us the pattern that God's justice follows. The point is that God has always allowed a substitution - the Azazel goat on the day of atonement, the different animal sacrifices for different offenses, etc. He even allows for a substitution of the substitution - a grain offering for those who cannot afford to offer an animal. Being just is the condition of being right with God, according to his ways. There is no other standard. Since we cannot do that on our own, Christ had to in our place. However, the focus on the 'perfect sacrifice' is, I think, misguided. Christ died, not because God demanded someone die, but to put sin in its place, the grave. Consider that Abraham was reckoned as righteous because he believed. No blood sacrifice. So did God demand sacrifice, or did God work within a system of sacrifice as a means to have relationship with faithful people? There's ample evidence of cultures outside Israel committing blood sacrifice long before the time of Abraham. Were their sins atoned for? No, because they didn't have faith in Yahweh. So blood sacrifice wasn't the point, and didn't make one right with God. Only belief loyalty - faithfulness - accomplishes that. Look at Israel, which continued to commit blood sacrifice but rejected the Messiah. Were they just, or unjust? The point of the cross was to condemn sin and set us free. The power of God to do so, and our faith, is proved by the resurrection. If Jesus had died and never come out of the grave he wouldn't be who and what he claimed. So it was the cross that condemned sin and consigned it to the grave where it belongs (this is in accord with the Day of Atonement), setting us free from it and resurrecting us to new life. Your original question was: how can God be just if he lets an innocent person face the punishment of the guilty, and let the guilty go free. The answer is that substiutional atonement is a real thing, with real biblical precedent to back it up, and that Christ was that substitution for us. Furthermore, the guilty do not escape punishment. We all still die. That's the punishment for sin. What has changed now, through Jesus, is that death is no longer a permanent end state for those who are faithful. So we still suffer the punishment for sin, but it's not the end of our story. There is a resurrection beyond the grave, when we leave behind the sinful flesh and take on new, perfect life. Perfect justice is that the body dies for it's sins, but the real person - the eternal soul - has an opportunity for redemption. Sorry for the long response. I hope that answered your question; but if not, let me know and I'll do what I can.

@thefactoryratgenius4659

3 жыл бұрын

@@dw5523 I guess I don’t understand how Christ dying is what put sin in the grave, if a Christ was sinless? And it sounds like you believe in annihilationism, correct?

@dw5523

3 жыл бұрын

@@thefactoryratgenius4659 biblical scholars wrestle with it too, so you're in good company. Paul wrote that Jesus became sin, even though he never sinned himself (2 Cor 5.21). This is where substitution comes into play, and ties back to the Day of Atonement. Let me start there and work forwards. On the Day of Atonement two goats are presented to the high priest who casts lots over them, one for the Lord and the other for Azazel. The goat for the Lord was killed and used to cleanse the inner court of the sins and iniquities of Israel. After cleansing the inner court, the high priest would place both hands on the head of the live goat and confess all the sins and iniquities of Israel over it, then it would be set free go to the wilderness. This second goat never sinned itself, but symbolically took Israels sin and carried it where it belonged - the wilderness, outside of the camp, and outside of God's sacred space. Coming to Jesus, we see the same thing. Jesus symbolically took our sins upon himself, was punished for them, and took them with him into the grave. When he rose again to new life, he did so leaving sin behind in the grave, condemning it to eventual destruction when all things are made new. As a matter of course, I tend to avoid 'isms' as much as possible. However, personally, I lean towards annihilation as the second death because death and the grave are both thrown into the lake of fire as well. I'm not sure how death and the grave are eternally tormented, but I do see how they are no longer allowed to exist in a perfect world with no sin. Where there is no sin there is no death, and where there is no death there is no grave. In addition, I don't think eternally torturing people is in line with God's character. I may be wrong, but I'm willing to take that chance and trust God's grace to overcome my ignorance, because this, like the atonement, is something we will never fully understand on this side of life. That is where faith comes in. I have faith that God is good and true, even if I don't understand everything, that I can trust Him with my eternity, and that he has grace enough for my mistakes. Does that help?

What I do not understand the sacrifices of the OldT. Some say that they the God of the Old.T whas the Jahweh the God of War as you can read all the wars..Dit Jesus not say to the Scribes.. " Your father is the Devil " There's a video " Did Jesus opposed the God of the Old Testament "

The wages of sin is death but didnt Jesus demolish death ?

rationally how could one think God only incarnated into this world the one time ?

No God is actually that forgiven in love. Love is in truth and deeds.

Thats how you get crusades to get justice.

Richard does not say that God is not just or does not care about justice. I think he might say God cares more about the weightier matters of the soul. That God will not give up on us.

@michaelt.5672

3 жыл бұрын

Counterquestion: If a human rejects God, do you think God will respect that choice?

@ThebossaruChamp

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelt.5672 Absolutely.

@michaelt.5672

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThebossaruChamp Then the way I see it, there HAS to be a hell (which, to my understanding, Richard Rohr dismisses). Hell is just the absolute absence of God, which is worse than anything else.

@ThebossaruChamp

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelt.5672 Why would there have to be a hell? I agree there is one, so does Rohr, but it is a state of mind. This is clear anywhere the Bible mentions it.

@michaelt.5672

3 жыл бұрын

​@@ThebossaruChamp 1. If someone rejects God, then the only way for that choice to truly mean something is for them to end up in a place devoid of God's presence. They can either be in God's presence or not, and if they chose against it, then God can't force his presence upon them while respecting their free will. So the only way for free will to truly mean anything (and the bible makes a big deal out of it countless times), then there has to be an alternative to an eternity in God's presence. I.e. an eternity in God's absence, aka hell. 2. How and where does the bible describe hell as a state of mind? I can't think of any description of hell that does not describe it in terms of a place. My state of mind is within my control at any given time. But hell is always framed as the consequence of my descisions. I don't see how that is compatible.

a snippet taken purposely. read further

I love Richard Rohr!

@carrotstick1970

3 жыл бұрын

Richard Rohr is indeed loved by many, but Grace, he has created a non-offensive gospel with no sin, no hell, and no need for atonement. It is a false gospel, but it is a much kinder, friendlier, easier gospel to embrace and get behind. According to the infallible Word of God, this gospel will send a person---and the great masses of people who embrace it---to hell, but still, in a harsh world and a true gospel with a story that is unarguably disturbing, I can understand why a person would love Richard Rohr. I do. It's just that he's wrong. He's created a religion, or rather, repackaged a bunch of old dead religions, that is not offensive to anyone, agreeable to the masses. Just remember that Satan seeks to deceive the masses most especially at the end of the end times, but the last thing he's going to do is come in with Satanism. No. He is a counterfeiter and he has been since the beginning of time. His key strategy, just as it was in the Garden, is to get us to doubt God's Word. He said to Eve, "Did God really say. . . " So far, this tactic has been the most powerful and effective still to this day. Satan is going to come in with a counterfeit religion that is highly agreeable to the sensibilities, but the religion is the religion of Cain, the religion of the "works of the hands," that we see woven all through the theme of the Bible, and it builds up self-righteous religious folks who are dangerous. They count their own righteousness, not the righteousness of Christ bought by His precious blood on Calvary, which will culminate in the harlot church we read about in Revelation 17. The harlot church is opposed to the Bride of Christ, and just as Cain slew Able, the harlot church will slay the Bride of Christ and be victorious in the short-term, but only in the short-term. Any teaching that seeks to blot out the atonement of the precious blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is straight from Satan himself. Grace, I hope I have not been offensive to you in what I have shared. That was not my intention. It was my intention to alert you to the eternal danger of the teaching of Richard Rohr (the Emergent Church/Progressive Christianity/the Universal Church.) I wish you all the best. Take care.

@graceblackfordmusic

3 жыл бұрын

@@carrotstick1970 I don't think he doubts God's word at all, but rather takes it seriously and studies it closely. He helps me understand it. I personally think the masses find it easier to believe in Hell and damnation so that they are able to feed their egos by judging others. What is more difficult for the masses to accept is how our culture and how we live and operate completely ignores the beatitudes and actual teachings of Jesus. Richard Rohr addresses sin, so you clearly haven't read his works. He does believe in sin, just no fiery hell as punishment. It's actually much more challenging to accept his version of the gospel, in my opinion. The one you refer to is one easily accepted by many and unfortunately never challenged enough when it truly ought to be. Thanks for your comment!

@carrotstick1970

3 жыл бұрын

@@graceblackfordmusic Thank you, Grace. I hear you. I just read the Bible cover-to-cover and studied it as I went, wondering at a fiery trial in my life, what I had missed. I saw lots that I missed. By what I read, and I mean this with the deepest respect and love, Rohr's teachings are heretical and blasphemous. Please don't take my word for it, just please know how much I appreciate your words, how I am grateful for every keystroke, and how I care deeply about what we are talking about and you care deeply, too. Thank you for such a thoughtful response you wrote to me.

@ElliotOlson

3 жыл бұрын

​@@graceblackfordmusic I like Rohr's almost poetic tone to teaching. I also like his attempt to address the lack of empathy in the church and different styles of relating to others. His way of being often comes across as a good listener and being present to others. Something I haven't seen a lot of in my experience of the church. What I've been challenged by lately is the distinctions he makes in the way he interprets the bible and his sarcastic and patronizing way of talking about others that believe differently than him. Like if you believe in hell you're just shallow in your faith. Like it's some unexamined interpretation. God's justice has been really challenging for me lately and I think is a really challenging concept for a lot of Christians. I haven't seen Rohr talk about it much or talk about wrestling with the idea of a perfect, personal God. Instead he talks about personal trauma and pain and it's relationship to this collective Christ consciousness. It sounds personal but in reality it's just us relating to ourselves. Anyways, I say this not to argue or say your wrong. I just thought it might be interesting to hear from someone who's working through stuff too. :)

@graceblackfordmusic

3 жыл бұрын

@@ElliotOlson thank you for sharing! I definitely see what you're saying. I think it's good to consider all angles, and I have never thought he comes off as judgmental of other Christians but I get where you're coming from and can understand how it might be taken that way. I personally don't believe that we know what eternity will look like, and I certainly don't think a belief in Hell automatically equates to being shallow. However, I have always thought that the threat of Hell is so often incorrectly used as a tool of hate, which is something Rohr echoes. You are right.. God's justice is a challenging and complex topic. I pray for you on your journey and would be honored if you'd do the same for me

Richard Rohr said atheist have more brains that fundamentalist and so does Ken Wilber integral theory and philosophy and so did Thomas Keating od Sow mass monastery and Contemplative Outreach And check out what Meister Eckhart has to say about those who blabber about God and who know jack diddly. [ “Now pay attention to this. God is nameless for no one can either speak of him or know him. Therefore a pagan master says that what we can know or say of the First Cause reflects ourselves more than it does the First Cause, for this transcends all speech and all understanding . . . He is being beyond being: he is a nothingness beyond being. Therefore St. Augustine says: ‘The finest thing that we can say of God is to be silent concerning him from the wisdom of inner riches.’ Be silent therefore, and do not chatter about God, for by chattering about him, you tell lies and commit a sin. If you wish to be perfect and without sin, then do not prattle about God. Also you should not wish to understand anything about God, for God is beyond all understanding. A master says: If I had a God that I could understand, I would not regard him as God. If you understand anything about him, then he is not in it, and by understanding something of him, you fall into ignorance, and by falling into ignorance, you become like an animal since the animal part in creatures is that which is unknowing. If you do not wish to become like an animal therefore, do not pretend that you understand anything of the ineffable God.” ― Meister Eckhart,

Richard Rohr is 77, and is kind of a crazy ole member of the Roman Catholic family. I hate to call him a heretic, but he is certainly right on the edge in my view. If it wasnt for his edge, I would dismiss him based on his knowledge alone. Glad you addressed this concern.

I agree that there needs to be a certain level of justice, but I can’t understand the concept of eternal torture for finite sins and disbelief. Eternal torture is the most brutal, barbaric, vile, extreme, harsh, heinous, nefarious, cruel, and unusual thing I’ve ever heard in my life and this is not hyperbole. I can’t reconcile that ideology with a loving God and especially with loving God who loves unconditionally.

@TheGuiltsOfUs

2 жыл бұрын

Go bow before a pagan idol then.

I wonder if Rohr even believes in the real presence?

@CB-fb5mi

3 жыл бұрын

Of course he does, just maybe not in the same way you do. cac.org/real-presence-2018-07-24/

@robertmarriott584

2 жыл бұрын

silly question.. maybe read some of his work and you will see he is deeply connected

@calson814

2 жыл бұрын

@@CB-fb5mi yeah he's a heretic.

@CB-fb5mi

2 жыл бұрын

@@calson814 Maybe your a heretic. See how easy it was to do that?

GOD Help us, if God is not Just! I'll use that...

Encouraging video! It's hard to find videos of reputable Christians taking on Richard Rohr and his false teachings.

@williamhyman9213

3 жыл бұрын

Fundamentalist Christianity seems to me, intuitively and visually, to be dying. Christianity is still a young religion spoilt by its institutionalization in so many ways. It's a shame. Richard Rohr isn't the only critic of fundamentalist evangelism. There is a discernible movement afoot that could be the rebirthing of God, a God for All not just for evangelicals.

@jfish032

3 жыл бұрын

@@williamhyman9213 🙌

@robertmarriott584

2 жыл бұрын

Agree with William...RR has got it right, the fundalmentalists are crazy

@davidwhunt

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertmarriott584 Rohr preaches another Christ - not the Christ of the Bible. He is thus trendy and popular, but in error. He even claims in his book “The Universal Christ” that his dog was a manifestation of Christ, which is blasphemous. And noting his errors doesn’t make a person a fundamentalist, just observant.

@robertmarriott584

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidwhunt He can see Christ in all things...how wonderful

That is not the ony view of the atonement, Rohr is not the only progressed. There are progressive's who believe in atonement,

All I had to hear is Rohr ask this rhetorical question, "What is the Universe, but the body of God?" Emanationism, Panentheism or Pantheism Now that I know a bit more about him I believe he is an Emanationist. Whichever he is is bad news. Stay far, far away from him

I consider myself an outside observer, rather that side with progressives or ultra-conservatives, and I can plainly see it. The image of the harsh, punishing God is repulsive to most people. It scares me when supposedly Godly people side with violence over peace. Look, if God knows the future, he knew how mankind would fall before he created everything and everyone. So this concept of justice is nonsensical.

His writings and talks are VERY problematic! Someone tried to introduce me to his works, and when I did research to investigate him, I never saw so many red flags in all my life!

God's justice that demands punishment for sin which usually takes form on sacrificing one for benefit of manh ks called scapegoating. This is like homeopathic dose of violence used to control chaotic amounts of violence since beginning of human culture. This act of sacrificing worked so well to bring peace that victim's were seen both as cause and solution to chaos, kind of like demi gods. This really reduced violence and allowed cultures to develope but also tied those cultures and our very way of living together to this "sacred" violence. This gave birth to two faced god we are living with still, one who is at the same time loving and violent, mercifull and vengeafull. This indeed can be described as mental illness. Jesus came to untie this unholy matrimony between violence and sacred and to show that God does not reguire violence nor does his mercy come in form of violence toward you or your enemy. We people reguire violence, we are the ones who dont know how to deal with eachother and when tension builds up its either chaos or us uniting in common hatred, pouring it to common enemy, a scapegoat who is believed to be a cause for all of our problems. Jesus tried to bring this to mind by quoting first sentence of psalm 22 on a cross (my god, my god why have thy forsaken me?) Which is a psalm about unjustly persecuted scapegoat. But most christians believe god took his cumulated wrath and poured it on to poor little innocent Jesus in his murder/suicide mission to chill his own anger. And then we call that gospel...

I cant help but think how Western, Protestant, legalistic thinking and reading of scripture is so odd.

@garyboulton2302

2 жыл бұрын

What do the terms justified and condemned mean? Is God a judge? Did God give a law? Also, How is it western or protestant? The doctrine is found abundantly in scripture and the Church Fathers?

I found this rather disappointing, it’s just assumed by this scholar that God’s “justice” looks something like retribution, vengeance, and domination. While there are definitely hypocrites amongst the crowd being talked about here, the core message of Justice from people like Rohr is redemptive not retributive. It’s not punish the man whole stole a loaf of bread so some cosmic accountbook remains balanced, it’s let him away with the silver so he can be born anew. It’s not about suppressing one group in favor of another but to remove enmity so both can be fully restored. It’s the poor handling of critiques that led me out of evangelicalism years ago, by the grace of God of found better teachers, and now I can say I have just begun to hear the good news for all the people.

Thanks for this, Alisa. It grieves me to read of the damaging effect of Richard Rohr's teaching on impressionable minds, such as Sibergirl (below). If only Sibergirl had turned to the writings of William Lane Craig, John MacArthur, as well as giants of the past like Gresham Machen, Cornelius Van Til and John Murray, author of *Salvation Accomplished and Applied* now republished. To quote from the Catechism of the Free Church of Scotland (2013): Is it important for a Church to teach sound doctrine? *It is very important that the Church teaches only sound doctrine (Titus 2: 1; Timothy 1: 13) for false doctrine is like a deadly poison.* Rohr's brand of poison smells like perfume to those who are seduced by its deceptive bouquet, but the long-term effects are fatal. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, *The narrowness of the Gospel is the narrowness of God.*

@jackhaggerty1066

3 жыл бұрын

Correction. John Murray's book is *Redemption Accomplished and Applied* published by the Banner of Truth. John Murray was a classical scholar as well as a theologian and worked alongside Gresham Machen and Van Til. John Murray lost the use of one of his eyes from a piece of shrapnel in the trenches during the First World War. When he was dying, Gresham Machen sent Murray a last telegram: *I am so grateful for the perfect obedience of Christ. No hope without it.* The biography of Gresham Machen by Ned B Stonehouse has been republished by the Banner of Truth.

that was a low blow at the end and based on no evidence of the claims to back it. when one says God in human flesh sacrificed himself, would naturally think of "other gods" when referring to another belief system. not that its another belief or wrong belief in one god but belief in another god because yourself thinks of god as another god!. ok done!. 😂😅

Romans 2:29 "a jew is one within" Jesus is the bridge to Gods gentile children. What God? The God of the Israel. The One eternal living God. Richard Rohr is simply trying to get people to understand: 1) Jesus Holy work 2) through Jesus, by fidelity, like Abraham, you are credited belief. 3) By this belief, that Jesus atoned for your sins on the cross, you may receive the Holy Spirit 4) so by accepting the Holy Spirit from within (remember, a jew is one within). 5) you may learn to allow Jesus's Holy Spirit act for your life so you may be a part of building Gods Kingdom. Which kingdom? Whose Kingdom? The God that sent Jesus as a living being to be made the perfect sacrifice for the gentile man. That by this sacrifice, and belief in this Holy Work of Jesus, you may one day be spoken to by the "Word of God" as Abraham was, so through Jesus, the Holy Spirit may continue to manifest his good, perfect, and pleasing will for your life. Which will be Jesus working in you. I pray you find maturity in the Lord, and in Jesus name, and allow this manifestation in you to do His Holy work through you. "For all things are from Him, through Him, for Him" Jesus is a bridge to what Jesus intended his perfect work be of purpose in your life, to establish relationship with the One True God of Israel. For from Him, we all come. And through Jesus creating this bridge for the gentile, we may inherit the promises made to our ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Interestingly, according to PST, God did to Jesus what he invites us not to do through his commands : murdering.

@tayh.6235

2 жыл бұрын

Someone who willingly throws themself in front of someone helpless wasn't murdered. They chose to do that. Jesus was very clear that no one could take His life. He had to lay it down willingly.

@andryranivoarizaka9772

2 жыл бұрын

@@tayh.6235 I would agree with you if you tell me this in a paradigm other than the PST one because according to PST, to throw oneself means to be killed by God the Father. Indeed, according to this doctrine, Jesus was killed by the Father. In that case, the Father is a murder and Jesus was murdered.

@tayh.6235

2 жыл бұрын

@@andryranivoarizaka9772 to view it that way you have to rip apart the Trinity. As both God and man, He was simultaneously the sacrifice, the priest offering the sacrifice, and the God to whom the sacrifice was made. Now, I think holding to PST while ignoring other ways of understanding the cross is insufficient. Did Jesus bear the penalty for our sin? Yes. Did he purchase our freedom? Yes. Did he defeat the power of sin and death? Yes. Is it an example for us? Yes. I don't like choosing one illustration or way of understanding and excluding all the rest, but I think PST captures an important element of it. In some way, death was necessary to defeat sin and bear the penalty. Christ is the only one who could defeat sin fully by dying and rising again. When we are joined to him, we share in that dying and rising although we don't have the power to do it on our own. Ad C.S. Lewis said, take the illustrations that help you understand what happened, and if a particular illustration doesn't help you, keep the ones that do.

@andryranivoarizaka9772

2 жыл бұрын

​@@tayh.6235 Let us just look at Jesus' testimonies in the Gospel. I believe a realistic reading of the Bible is instrumental in order to see what it says, and what it does not. As a matter of fact, any understanding of Jesus' life and death must start with Jesus himself, through the Gospels. Never did Jesus show that God forgives by killing or shedding blood. To the contrary : he just said : "Friend, your sins are forgiven" (Luc 5 : 20). And it was so. That's the way God forgives (this inlude the Father for Jesus said "He who has seen me has seen the Father", John 14 : 9). Interesingly enough, this got his opponents mad. So mad that such salvation led them to kill him. Just read the Gospel's accounts. It is simple to see who killed Jesus, and it was definitely not the Father. The Gospel just says who did : Pilate, roman soldiers, "chief priests and teachers of the law" (Matthew 16 : 21). Even his closest disciples understood it. They said on the Emmaus' way : "But our leading priests and other religious leaders handed him over to be condemned to death, and they crucified him." (Luke 24 : 20). PST is an extra-biblical filter that forces the reading to deny this reality. It leads to an idealistic reading, and not a realistic understanding of the testimonies of Jesus.

@tayh.6235

2 жыл бұрын

@@andryranivoarizaka9772 they didn't kill Jesus because he was a nice compassionate man. He claimed godhood. They killed him for blasphemy.

Your tribalism is showing.

@wiggelpuppy5474

2 жыл бұрын

Well said. Your tribalism is showing too. I wonder which tribe will win.

Praise be to God. God's justice is perfection. God's love is perfection. And it is all bigger than my human mind can comprehend. But I can easily comprehend that I am a sinner in need of a Savior. I am a Catholic. There are two kinds of Catholics. Catholics who believe the AUTHENTIC GOSPEL of Jesus Christ. And there are people who claim to be Catholic, CINO'S who are Catholic in name only and they embrace a false gospel for itching ears. Even a priest can be a CINO. The Church is full of wheat and tares. There are Wolves in Shepards clothing. Follow Jesus! The sacrifice of Jesus is the greatest act of love ever given. Praise be to Jesus the sacrificial lamb of God slain for our redemption. Thank you Christian sister for exposing the wolf in Shepards clothing . JESUS IS THE Pearl of great price. May everyone open their eyes. Time is short, there is NO TIME to waste on a false-gospel of any kind.

Everyone should read The Universal Christ…it is a powerful book about the depth of Gods love…Read it and then comment❤️

You set up your own straw man when you imply that Rohr wouldn't want God to be just. He has a bigger view of what justice actually is. A view that I am grateful to live in a society that has to some extent moved towards. It is hard to talk about, and I believe it was even harder to talk about when the New Testament was written. It is a view that justice is to put things back together out of love for all, it is justice that does not seek punishment, but an actual end to the unnecessary suffering for all. One who desires punishment will never be satisfied. One who desires bringing together will. God's wrath is not removed from the picture because of this. It is the very reason He sets Himself up as our Father. A perfect father does not seek to punish his children for some abstract notion of justice. He might punish at times, he might be angry at times, but justice to him IS to help his child grow and live a life of beauty. All children behave like idiots at times, and hurt siblings and others. The father seeks to make it stop, but if there is any punishment, it is only to make it stop. If forgiveness is better to make it stop, that is employed instead. Justice IS the making is stop, not the having someone else suffer equally. Perhaps this isn't how God does things, but at least it's how Rohr explains his conceptions, which should have a fair representation before it gets cut down.

@elederiruzkin8835

3 жыл бұрын

Very interesting comments --the two of them. Thank you vey much. If I'm understanding you well, Rohr would be seeing God's justice inclusively, that is, as coming out of His love, or as an expression of it; whereas Craig would be seeing both justice and love "in parallel," that is, as if independent, complementary attributes of God, each one serving different purposes. In other words, for Rohr (God's) love could qualify as just, whereas for Craig, love is loving and justice is just. Although, I dare say, on second thought he would probably qualify divine justice as loving... Best wishes.

@MortenBendiksen

3 жыл бұрын

@@elederiruzkin8835 Glad it was helpful. :)

. Hi-ALISA; Thank you for posting. I agree with FRIAR-RICHARD-ROHR. And,I would like to add points of clarification since you and WILLIAM-LANE-GRAIG and many others had responded, replied, or commented on the posted stream. I will address you and Dr.Lane-Graig directly with awareness others may or may not share similar views. WILLIAM-LANE-GRAIG is not ‘theologically’ correct as he likes to polemicize, but, rather; just extraordinarily delusional with quite a well rehearsed biblical rhetorical argument. To help clarify what you might be trying to say in correcting the historical biblical narrative, and correct the worst kind of evangelical popular tripe that ‘Atonement-Theology’ advocates, I submit the full explanatory to the Life Morals Teachings and Philosophy of Jesus-of-Nazareth. But, for those whom, do not have the capacity to read and understand the full explanation; I will only point out the necessary confusion, conflation, and, therefore; ‘error’ in ‘real’’true’’biblical’ understanding. That is as follows; The; ‘It Is Finished’, comment of Jesus’ dying on the Cross, is not; ‘Him Paying the ‘Price’’Wage’’Penalty’ and ‘Judgement’ for ‘Sin’, as some-kind ‘wrathful’’justice’, but, rather; as a statement that; ‘The Law has been fulfilled, every ‘jot’ and ‘tittle’, rendering unto God which was His, in a Word; ‘obedience’. Full disclosure attached: … Continued-on-TWO ~

Either Jesus Christ fulfilled all prophecies and redeemed the world through his own blood on the cross or he did not and was a nobody. The latter will never be a christian position!

Love Richard Rohr!

@calson814

3 жыл бұрын

And his teachings contradict the Church's Teachings.

@trupela

3 жыл бұрын

@@calson814 There have always been outliers. In some ways, that’s what Rohr is. In other ways, Rohr’s is very orthodox. We need both.

@calson814

2 жыл бұрын

@@trupela he's not "Orthodox" ,he's a heretic who leads people away from the Truth and we don't need him, but we do need to pray for him.

@TheGuiltsOfUs

2 жыл бұрын

He is a false teacher!

@trupela

Жыл бұрын

This way of thinking elevates gods “perfect Justice“ above God‘s love. God is love, and therefore justice is love. If we make Justice the more fundamental nature of God, then we get penal substitutionary atonement, in the end, making God in our own image. That is Rohrs point. God is not justice, God is love. Justice is love.

I am pleased to introduce to you Bernadette Roberts, the greatest Christian mystic of all time. The nine hours of talks on the Essence of Christian Mysticism are funny, quirky, and reflect staggering spiritual integrity. They will soon become required viewing in every seminary program in the world. Enjoy!

I am RC , Rohr is wrong to say the least. I love WLC brilliant arguments . Rohr is dangerous but well meaning.

Our only hope is the wrath of God? Hahah, no wonder Trump is the New Messiah.

Love Richard Rohr.... deep love of God..not judgemental hellfire ego driven doctrine created by men...

@waynehampson9569

2 жыл бұрын

Jesus spoke more about hell than any other person in the Bible and he was the most loving person ever to walk the earth. Don't put the justice of God against the love of God.

@robertmarriott584

2 жыл бұрын

@@waynehampson9569 God loves us all... rather read the mystics, those with experience than those with own agenda... heaven and hell are in the mind.. just turn to God and all shall be well

@waynehampson9569

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertmarriott584 Nope. Jesus spoke of a day of judgement.

@waynehampson9569

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertmarriott584 And after a person dies? Where do they go?

@robertmarriott584

2 жыл бұрын

@@waynehampson9569 thats happening now within yourself.. its called living morally well otherwise i assume you are going to hell... enjoy

William Lane Craig has taught some VERY incorrect things and should tell people to use precaution with him.

God The Father: Not enough people are worshiping me and giving me the praise I deserve, and too many don't recognize my authority. What should be done about that?.... Hmmm.... I know! I will kill my Son in the most excruciating way possible. Yep, I think that is basically the only possible solution to the previous problem. Whew, and those humans were almost going to get away with it, that was a close one! Thank God for Richard Rohr #Weliveinabenevolentuniverse

@rebalspirit

3 жыл бұрын

Do you believe in the doctrine of original sin, inherited from our representative parents, Adam and Eve, who disobeyed God in the garden when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

@CB-fb5mi

3 жыл бұрын

@@rebalspirit Hi Robin. No I don't believe in original sin now, used to when I was an Evangelical. Given the way you phrased your question, I would be curious to know if you think the Tree and Fruit are literal?

@rebalspirit

3 жыл бұрын

@@CB-fb5mi indeed I do believe that all of scripture is true, inerrant and the narratives beginning in Genesis literally happened. May I ask you, on what evidence do you no longer believe that the narrative in the garden is true. Also, do you believe anything in the Bible is literally true and if so, how do you know what is or is not true? In otherwords, what is the basis for deciding what is true and what is your authority for truth? I'm assuming you believe in objective truth. If not, why not?

@rebalspirit

3 жыл бұрын

@@CB-fb5mi, Also, if there is no fall/original sin, how do you account for evil and natural disasters? I'm sincere in my question. I would like to understand how you have arrived at your beliefs, especially since you once saw yourself as an evangelical.

@CB-fb5mi

3 жыл бұрын

@@rebalspirit Sounds like you are a lot more fundamentalist than I was when I was an Evangelical. Although I was theologically conservative, there was never a point in my faith journey that I believed that Genesis was talking about literal gardens, trees, and fruit. You might be surprised to find out that many if not most Evangelical scholars don't think Genesis is talking about literal trees either. So that is not an issue between Evangelicals and Progressive Christians, that would only be an issue between hyper fundamentalists and mainstream conservative Christianity. Perhaps you think a school like Wheaton College is a bunch of liberal heretics, if so wow, that is extreme indeed. So I will break my response into two parts: What I would have said to you as an Evangelical Christian up to the end of 2018: "The narrative of the garden is absolutely true, but it is written in poetic form. Think about it, if an author wanted to communicate a complex truth using symbols (as Jesus did many times), might they use imagery like 'The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil'? If that dosen't sound like a poetic symbol to you, what on earth does? Acknowledging that the tree, garden, fruit, and snake are poetic symbols does not mean the narrative does not reflect real history, but it is obvious that the author made the choice to make a complex historical reality simple by using symbols. Almost every theologian in church history read this story as allegory, it is only hyper fundamentalist conservative Protestants in the last 200 years that have insisted otherwise. Some might ask 'if this is not literal, than how do we know about anything in the Bible'? The answer is straightforward: read each part of the Bible in the literary style that it presents itself as. The Song of Solomon is presented as love poem, so read it as a love poem not literal history. The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are presented as a historical accounts, so read them that way (except for Jesus's parables obviously). The letter to the Romans is presented as a pastoral letter to the church in Rome, so read it that way. Revelation and parts of Daniel are presented as apocalyptic literature, so read them that way. The Bible is God's authoritative word to us, written through human authors using different literary styles. If we want to discern what he is saying to us through his word, we need to be aware of what writing style the human authors used. Grace and Peace to you on your journey Robin" What I would say now, as a Humanist Christian: "I do not read the Bible as an authoritative divine constitution. I read it as a human diary of their constant wrestling with the divine over the centuries. As Richard Rohr says, 'it is only inspired insofar as it inspires us'. If you want to believe that 66 different books written over the course of nearly 1000 years by a small bronze age tribe form the basis of objective Truth for all people at all times, the burden of proof is completely on you for why you would choose to do that. I think you would agree that I would have the burden of proof if I insisted that the collected works of Shakespeare were inspired by the one true God and that they are the only valid guide to objective reality. Pause for a second and consider that the vast majority of Christians who ever lived did not have any personal access to this collection of books that apparently you need to get objective Truth. God made his own followers go without access to objective Truth until the printing press was invented? Pause for a second and consider 99.99999 percent of all Christians who have ever lived could never even read these books in the form the authors wrote them, including you unless you can fluently read ancient Hebrew and Greek. If your going to decide that a collection of books is the best guide to objective Truth, why not choose the Koran or the Book of Mormon instead? Why include the New Testament at all? Perhaps just the Torah is the true word of God. Perhaps the Jehovah's Witnesses have the most accurate translation of the Bible. Perhaps the Catholic Bible is the full word of God, and the Protestant Bible is missing books. Perhaps the Harry Potter book series is the basis of objective Truth. What do I think objective Truth is? Not sure, we all try and figure it out together as best we can. Being unsure is a sign of healthy spiritual humility, whereas saying that your particular religious-cultural group just happens to have access to objective Truth because they have the correct way of reading an arbitrarily chosen ancient library of bronze age books is, to be blunt, spiritual narcissism. I know how intoxicating the feeling of having theological certainty is, but there is something better on the other side. At some point for your own sake, you need to let go of your certainties and take a leap of faith into the unknown. And when you do that it will be scary, but after the leap you will still hear the gentle whisper of divine love, the gentle whisper that has always been with you even when you did not know it and surely will be with you always, to the very end of the age. Grace and Peace to you on your journey Robin"

Richard Rohr is saying nothing that isn't deeply rooted in Christian belief. Maybe not Evangelical belief, like us, but it's there in church history for sure. Our theology isn't perfect either. We all have a piece of the pie. I don't agree with everything Rohr says, but if you can get past your own ego wanting to call everything heresy outside of your little bubble, Rohr will back up a lot of what he's saying. He'll use Jesus' own words to back him up. He's not your typical Roman Catholic and he knows his Bible back and forth. He calls out all of our systems but shows the good from them too. Go outside of your little evangelical bubble and listen to someone else for a minute. Lightning won't strike you, I promise. You also don't have to agree with everything someone says. You also need to recognize that your own theology is flawed. We're all seeing this through a glass darkly and, we all interpret scripture differently. Christ is bigger than evangelical Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy. He is a way. Yes, we worship Him and He is worthy, but He told us to follow Him, not worship Him. Rohr will expose some things about Jesus outside of our tradition and it will open your heart in a way that can't be bad.

Rohr.is adding one more confusion,to catholics.Stay out of that rob and preach.Pl. do not pay attention to his new intelligence. It may be helpful to change the definition of attribution-retribution theory in today's understanding.

i found out when Christians say god they mean jesus 💔 jesus is a great prophet not god or son of god sorry if i offended you

@carolfalls8466

2 жыл бұрын

Jesus is God in the flesh, the second Person of the Godhead. God the Father (Jehovah), God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit who I like to say is the active Person of the Godhead on earth today who regenerates into newness of life, seals and indwells the true believer in Christ. The Holy Spirit Who reveals to us Who God and Jesus truly are is also the Comforter and Teacher who also convicts the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement and enables us to walk in Truth plus so much more. Your ignorance of the deity of Jesus Christ does not offend me but it does sadden me for your sake.

i found out when Christians say god they mean jesus 💔 jesus is not god or son of god

A load of self justifying drivel.

I prefer Richards Rohrs message of the universal Christ of love. God is a "he?" what you are preaching is old news

@TheGuiltsOfUs

2 жыл бұрын

universal christ = the antichrist