Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Song not found

To Refuse
Mark Dougherty Lyrics

No lyrics text found for this track.

The lyrics can frequently be found in the comments below, by filtering for lyric videos or browsing the comments in the different videos below.
Most interesting comments from YouTube:

Dan. Sss.

@Francisco d'Anconia What's the deal with Mary? The theotokos was a title given to Mary to defend the Deity of Christ, not defend Mary. Mary was not the core issue, the Deity of Christ was.

Have you read any of your Protestant interpretations of Matthew 1,25? From the Greek there is no way to tell whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. "Firstborn" in the KJV is not the best manuscripts, and even if it was, the first can also be the only (YHWH said in the OT that he's the first, but he's also the last [i.e. only God]). The word used for the "brothers" of Christ is also used of the apostles who called each other "brother". Did they have the same mother? No. The word "brother" proves nothing.

I have two questions.

1. Can the First and the Last die?

2. Do you consider Catholics and the Orthodox brothers in Christ (i.e. saved Christians)? Of course I mean the majority, not everybody.

Francisco d'Anconia

@Dan. Sss. I think your line of questioning here is an overly reductionist one. I won't pretend to be a spokesman for Susan Morales or Mike Winger, but I will explain how I understand the status of Mary, the disagreement between my view and the view of the catholic and orthodox churches, and say that I think my understanding is generally representative of most protestants, though it probably varies in nuance, and I'm presenting it in a reductive manner to deal with the format of a YouTube comment.

Jesus was God from the beginning, not born a man who became God. John 1 is what I would first cite for proof of this. Mary bore the physical body of God in her womb, so she is the mother of God, insofar as she gave birth to the Christ and provided motherly functions to Jesus as a child. The phrase mother of God is loaded with a whole host of implications, though, so I tend to not use it. Mother of God implies, at least when I read or hear it, that the deity of Christ is somehow imparted from Mary. It also implies that either she is timeless, like the Godhead, or that God is somehow reliant on her for existence. As such, I tend to refer to her as Jesus's mother. My preference in phraseology aside, I agree with what I believe to be the catholic and orthodox tradition that through Mary, Jesus Christ who is, was, and will be, was brought into this world as fully God and fully man.

The bulk of where my doctrinal difference with catholicism and orthodoxy is strongest on this topic is when it comes to two aspects of Marian dogma (I also hold to the immaculate conception). My first issue is with perpetual virginity. Jesus has brothers (and perhaps sisters). Nowhere in the new testament does mention get made of other wives of Joseph. Furthermore, Mark 3:32 and Luke 8:20 both say that Jesus's mother and brothers were seeking to speak with him. Joseph isn't mentioned, nor are his brother's mothers, if you wish to argue that their mother is not Mary. It would be so odd as to warrant commentary on behalf of the authors if Mary was traveling alone with the sons of Joseph's other wives. Then there is Matthew 1:25, which says that Joseph, "knew her not until she had given birth to a son." The until qualifies this as he did know her, but that he waited. There is no biblical argument which can be made to support perpetual virginity, and extrabiblical arguments are contrary to what the Bible says, rather than supportive.

My second difference on Marian Doctrine is with the bodily assumption of Mary. The only reference to a bodily assumption in the Bible is Enoch, in Genesis, prior to the flood. This is so rare as to be unique. If Mary were assumed to heaven, having not died, it would be as big a deal as it was with Enoch. It would have been mentioned. Also, assuming I'm wrong, it in no way alters any foundational aspect of faith.

The biggest issue Mariology brings up for me, and I believe most other protestants, is not limited to Mary, but involves the veneration of saints and their intercession on the behalf of the living. If you are interested, Dr. James White has a series of debates on his channel, Alpha and Omega Ministries, where he debates catholic priests, theologians, and authors on matters of contention between protestantism and catholicism. They are called the great debates. I disagree with a lot of his theology on such topics as predeterminism, and he can be overly reductionist himself, at times, but if you watch those, you will get a good sense of what the key differences between protestants and catholics are, and the bulk of his arguments in that series are non-controversial to protestants. He uses arguments that almost all of us will agree are valid.

Before I conclude this wall of text, I feel compelled to mention that your original post in this thread is grossly antagonistic. To put pastor in air quotes is denigrating and serves no purpose other than to show blatant disrespect for Mr. Winger. The fact that you go on to imply that protestants are a separate religion from catholics and orthodox Christians is also a fundamental misrepresentation. That you conclude with "haha," doesn't negate the fact that you have just asserted that anyone who holds the opinion that the traditions of the catholic and orthodox churches have strayed from the biblical teachings, and that where these traditions clearly contradict the Bible they should be abandoned means that protestants are somehow no longer Christian.

This assertion is not a joke. If the differences between catholics, orthodox Christians, and protestants are so great as to make them separate religions, then we are no longer brothers in Christ. This blatant disregard is evidence of a lack of understanding of the reason protestants exist in the first place, and indicative of a need for genuine inquiry, rather than the misguided, specific, ancillary questioning that you then proceed into. If you wish to understand what kind of differences are largely extant, I highly recommend you watch the debates I mentioned earlier.

I am not asking you to apologize, agree, or even acknowledge. I'm merely trying to explain. I hope I have provided clarity on this issue, and given you something of value to use. Regardless, I wish you a merry Christmas and hope the new year will bring us both closer to God.

Joseph Kuzara

@Argotha yeshua became a sin offering, not literal sin himself as that would render Him an enemy of God but also hebrews 10:8 sheds light on this verse.

Sin is translated from the Greek word hamartia (Strong’s 266). The above phrase can also be translated as ”to be a SIN OFFERING for us” (or ”an offering for sin”),

Notice that the words in italics are not present in the original Greek language but are inserted in English. It’s not unusual to translate the original word for ”sin” as ”sin offering” and the same is true in Hebrews 10:8 above, which is a quotation from Psalm 40:6. In this Psalm the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew text) also does not have the word ”offering” (sacrifice) in the text, despite that we can see this word in English.

The Hebrew word for ”sin” above is chata’ah Strong’s 2401 and can be translated as ”sin” or ”sin offering”.

Also the Hebrew word chatta’ath Strong’s 2403, can be translated as either ”sin” or ”sin offering”. The KJV translates 2403 in the following manner: sin (182x), sin offering (116x),purification for sin (2x), purifying (1x), sinful (1x),sinner (1x). Examples of ”sin offering”:

Ex. 29:36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.

Lev. 5:12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: it isa sin offering.


1 John 5:9
If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son .

John @
"If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true .

John @
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me*

John @
- But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name , he shall teach you all things , and bring all things to your remembrance , whatsoever I have said unto you.

Proverbs @
Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.

Matthew 6: 1
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, ""to be seen of them"" : otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven .

2 Timothy @-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every ""good work"" .


Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart

With the coming of Christ, God has established a new covenant with mankind .

Jesus and His apostles gave us a radically new understanding of the true intent of the Old Testament Law; they brought a new era of the rule of love for ""all people"" and ""spiritual truth"" instead of rule by law

May Peace rule your ""Heart"" ! A brother in Christ , Bill

Kevin Ralphs

Good discussion so far! It's especially important that people understand that the theories of atonement are not in opposition to one another.

I imagine things will come more into focus as you continue in this series, but as of now I think you've painted such a broad picture of SPA that you aren't accurately representing many of the people who hold it. If SPA is simply, Jesus suffered on our behalf for our sins so we don't have to (let's call that "base SPA"), then sure there is wide attestation of that in the early church fathers. But those under the auspices of SPA often goes farther than that, and I think it is fair to say that base SPA has evolved to take on new dimensions through the work of Anselm and eventually Calvin and others. My concern is that without addressing that we leave ourselves open to some strong rhetoric from the other side (notice I didn't say strong arguments :) ).

I'm always a big fan of pulling things back into their original context. You have done a good job showing that there is a thread of thought that runs all the way back to the beginning, but that doesn't mean we're done and can say that Augustine or Jerome's thoughts on SPA are the same as those of Calvin.

There's one thing I'd like to hear your input on: Isaiah 53:10 is definitely an important passage in all this. I'm super weak in Hebrew so I usually look at the LXX to give some additional insight since I can hold my own in Greek at least. I find the differences between the MT and the LXX in this passage to be rather stark. Obviously it doesn't have to be an "either/or" type of thing, but the LXX doesn't say that it was the will of the Lord to crush him, rather it says, "it was the will of the Lord to cleanse him from the blow." In hindsight it makes me think of the resurrection... how it would please God to raise Jesus up as vindication of His righteousness. LXX is an earlier witness to Isaiah, and would likely have significant influence in early Christian thought so I think it's important to weigh it as a source.

Some other thoughts:
1) Who the penalty is paid to: I think this might be looking at the atonement too much as a transaction. Jesus suffered and died; we are in Christ; therefore we have suffered and died (and thankfully will share in His life as well!) so long as we remain in Him. There doesn't have to be an actual transaction for this to work. I usually express this as "atonement is mechanically substitutionary, but experientially sympathetic." The "penalty" language may just be pulling in the idea that there was a "cost" and it was because of another's action. Note also that when we say a solder "paid the ultimate price" no one asks "who did the soldier pay the price to?" We understand that the language is about the cost, not the target of payment.

2) Expiate vs propitiate: this might be a good topic for a video if you haven't already done one (I feel like you have addressed it somewhat here and there). Personally I think these words should just be struck out of theological vocabulary. They have limited utility, and most of the time I see them become a proxy war waged in English instead of looking at the original language. Hilasterion references the lid of the ark and is the place of atonement, and Jesus being our hilasterion just means that he is the exclusive place where atonement can be found. Done. If you want to understand atonement itself, then work on understanding Hebrew "kaphar." There is no single, English word that will adequately describe kaphar so let's just move on from trying to insist on one.


James 1: 22
But be doers of the word , and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves .

James 2: 17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone .

Romans @
For it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the Law who will be declared righteous .

Matthew 4: 17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is

""at hand"".*


Matthew 25: 33-40
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left .
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you ""from the foundation of the world"":

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me .

Matthew @
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand , Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matthew @
- But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Noe, with the help of his family built the Ark with their hands at Gods command. No one else would listen.

Matthew 4: 17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for *the kingdom of heaven is

""at hand"".*

This is when we look in the mirror. and we see a new man in Christ.The Right Hand of God through works.

We can see where Gods Spirit dwells !?

We are witnesses unto ourselves!

Matthew 18: 20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them .

*Matthew 25 33-40

A Brother in Christ Jesus, Bill

All comments from YouTube:

Mike Winger

Don't forget this is going to be a series on PSA I'm doing each Tuesday at 5pm PST. If you want to be notified when I go live you need to subscribe, click the bell icon and make sure YouTube notifications are enabled on your device. Thanks for joining me!

J. F. D. Smit

@Robert Harbitz II Are you a true Calvinist? Then you should encounter TULIP at some point. In short, God has decided who goes to hell and who goes to heaven simply because He can and nothing you choose or do will ever change it. So you're not saved by faith alone, and you don't choose to be obedient or disobedient, but it's God who's decided to allow you to have faith or not. Those who do not have the faith, is not because they have rejected the Holy Ghost so much that He decided to leave them alone, but simply because God has decided that they shall burn forever because He can. This is based on a convenient interpretation of God's stating that He has ordained some from before the foundations of the world.

Of course, they conveniently leave out that this removes God from eternity and subdues Him to time, which is a part of His creation, making the creation greater than the Creator; but hey, Johannes Calvijn said it is so, so it must be true and no objections.

House Family

Would the Epistle of Barnabus be a good resource for sparking the interest of an unbeliever?

Dalton Dupre

@mike winger
can i contact you?

Ruths Frockshop

@Tigerex966 No and stop promoting that nonsense. Only Provisionists are into that stuff.


Ken Wilson's latest is a very good read.

6 More Replies...

First Name Last Name

I'm not sure one could understand Jewish sacrifice, let alone Jesus's sacrifice, without holding to some form of substitutionary atonement.

Shaw Family Videos

@Nok Ko Very true this puts the Christian God at the same level as the pagan gods.
To believe God would actually “need” to have to pour violence out on his son “to be OK with you” Is it pagan idea that’s only about 500 years old in its popularity. The cross put an end to redemptive violence! But sadly it’s been twisted by PSA to encourage it.

First Name Last Name

@Daniel Cartwright Not to beat a dead horse, but I was reading in Jeremiah today and thinking about God's wrath and punishment, which led me down a rabbit hole online and I came across an article that makes some very good arguemnts for PSA in the OT. It's called Penal Substitution In The Old Testament by William D. Barrick. It's a PDF, so I couldn't link it here. Feel free to google it and check it out if you'd like to explore more pro-PSA. In the end this may be something like the The Trinity that is rarely defined in scripture but the concept is scattered throughout the text.

Daniel Cartwright

@First Name Last Name Just for the sake of argument, we could say that the sacrifice is a gift that pleases God and turns away his wrath. We could also say that blood has a supernatural cleansing power that we don't fully understand. I think the biblical case for PSA is very strong if we include verses like Isaiah 53 amd Galatians 3 (He became a curse for us), as well as the idea of "propitiation" in Romans (although there is some debate as to the best translation of that word), but I don't think that PSA would be the logical outworking of the levitical system alone.

More Comments

More Videos