Apocalypse Here - Debate Review, pt. 1 - William Lane Craig and Greg Boyd on Penal Substitution

I watched this the other day. Looking forward to hearing your guy's take on it.

You guys had some really good insights. Looking forward to the next part.

Loved Laura’s Roger Stone comparison

I missed this live. Haven’t seen this debate. I’ll go check it out.

Great insights from you both. Wish I had you two around when I studied this extensively a few years ago. It would have been great to hear your points as I went along reading the books I have on this topic. At that time though I was reading very fast and did not 'chew' on many of the issues of this topic. I have since though.

I totally agree, PSA is easy to explain and is very immediately coherent so it is appealing in that regard, but then it has larger difficulties to overcome.

Listening to an Evangelical like Craig, what I keep coming back to over and over is how small his god is. Craig's god isn't worthy of the capital "G" he's often graced with, let alone our worship.

Hello, first time on this channel.
I agree WLC never really explained how he thinks PSA "anchors" the other views, he just claims that it does. So I completely agree with that point, it should have been discussed more.
Since I agree with him in general, let me explain how I think about that, especially in relationship to Christus Victor:
I think all agree that Jesus defeated Satan and all the powers of evil on the cross and in His resurrection. It is really a very central theme of the New Testament. But how does the cross accomplish this? Just dying on a cross is not a victory. It is the greatest act of selfsacrifice and love, but only if it was actually needed. If someone wants to show their love for me by throwing themselves off a building, it would not be a great thing. It must be a sacrifice that is needed to help.
If PSA is true, we had a debt we could never pay, a debt that gave Satan and the demons a certain amount of ownership of us. We were seperated by sin from God, and evil is having a grip on the world because of sin. In this case, Jesus death on the cross is a great victory over darkness because it robs evil of it´s hold on us.

How would you describe what Christus Victor means if you do not accept PSA? Why is it the victory that it is? Was the cross necessary, and in that case, why?
I don´t think I´ve ever heard an explanation for those things from a non-PSA perspective.

Regarding Boyd’s usage of words like “punishment” he’s using it to mean “natural punishment” such as if you break the speed limit, then losing control of your car and getting into an accident would be a “punishment.” Death is in this sense a “punishment” for sin. A cop giving you a ticket would be an imposed punishment. Boyd doesn’t believe in that. “Natural consequence” is the idea.

Hi, Jon!

Was that a typo, the o in Apocalypse in your opening poster?

Is your view that there is no such biblical thing as penal substitution in atonement? Do you have place for substitution at (without penal substitution)? If so, how would substitution play a role in the atonement and be distinct from penal substitution?

What do you think of Romans 12:19 which, at least in the NRSV, mentions God's vengeance and wrath? Along with Old Testament genocides, do you think this shows that God is retributive?

He keeps forcing legal language onto biblical ideas. I learned forgiveness was the divorce or separation from sin. The thing that we were indebted to. The thing which held us in bondage. "In whom we have redemption: the forgiveness of sins."

The redemption or being delivered from the place of slave to free in Christ is the "forgiveness" of sin. We are no longer bound to its service.

It isn't penal substitution, it's love substitution