Christ's victory over Satan

[JonC]

I do not think Jon is going to get it no matter what door we go through in order to show him.

Whatever was to take place relative to sin and God took place in Christ or it hasn't taken place.

Not so. I get it. I just disagree with it. I held Penal Substitution Theory for most of my life (and was a Calvinist for much of it).

Do you understand the difference between Medical Substitution and Penal Substitution?

I didn't at first (I didn't really think about it, really) but as a graduate student studying historical theology I learned of these men and their beliefs.

Before then it did not make sense how they could say that Christ died for our sins, God was pleased to crush Him, and Christ is the Propitiation for sins and then say Satan arranged the Ransom (Gregory of Nyssa), Christ was the bait Satan took as payment (Augustine), God paid the powers of darkness (Origen), Christ took upon Himself our humanity by his death (Gregory of Nazianzus)....

But once you understand how they viewed substitution then what they were saying makes sense (even if it is incorrect).

My point here is that until you understand what you are arguing against you have no real argument.

So please explain to us the difference between Gregory of Nazianzus' Medical Substitution and Penal Substitution.

Looking forward to your reply.

 

[percho]

I believe sin and death were on/in the earth before man was created in the image of God for the manifestation of the Son of God, the Word made flesh, and that man Adam brought sin into the world which brought forth the death.

Before the foundation of the world God through [into and out of by the Son of God] the death would destroy the devil who had the power of the death.

It's called, through, redemption.

 

[JonC]

I believe sin and death were on/in the earth before man was created in the image of God for the manifestation of the Son of God, the Word made flesh, and that man Adam brought sin into the world which brought forth the death.

Before the foundation of the world God through [into and out of by the Son of God] the death would destroy the devil who had the power of the death.

It's called, through, redemption.

But that was not what you spoke of when you claimed I did not understand.

I was speaking of the difference between the Early Church's (and Gregory of Nazianzus') Medical (Ontological) Substitution and how it differed from Penal Substitution.

So what I am asking for you to do (in proving your post true) is explain exactly how medical-ontological substitution as held my the early church differs from penal substitution as held by a minority of the Reformers. I'm not even talking Penal Substitution Theory. I'm talking much more narrow - the type of substitution.

You claim that I don't understand. I've studied this for years at the graduate level and am suggesting that you may not understand.

So please illuminate us with your understanding of exactly how Gregory of Nazianzus' Medical substitution differed from penal substitution.

That way we will have something from which to work.

 

[percho]

Does Penal Substitution imply penalty for something ?

Penalty for what?

From the word of God what is the penalty thereof?

Is the wrath of God relative to sin the same as the penalty for sin?

 

[percho]

But that was not what you spoke of when you claimed I did not understand.

I was speaking of the difference between the Early Church's (and Gregory of Nazianzus') Medical (Ontological) Substitution and how it differed from Penal Substitution.

So what I am asking for you to do (in proving your post true) is explain exactly how medical-ontological substitution as held my the early church differs from penal substitution as held by a minority of the Reformers. I'm not even talking Penal Substitution Theory. I'm talking much more narrow - the type of substitution.

You claim that I don't understand. I've studied this for years at the graduate level and am suggesting that you may not understand.

So please illuminate us with your understanding of exactly how Gregory of Nazianzus' Medical substitution differed from penal substitution.

That way we will have something from which to work.

I understand, looked it up and would take me a while to read all of what I found and then may not understand what I read. Looked rather in depth. Thanks for drawing my attention to your thoughts.

To be honest I had never heard of the Medical substitution

 

[JonC]

I understand, looked it up and would take me a while to read all of what I found and then may not understand what I read. Looked rather in depth. Thanks for drawing my attention to your thoughts.

To be honest I had never heard of the Medical substitution

Then why say I don't understand???

The reason I ask is that I have studied these theologies formally for a several years. All you needed to do was ask.

I mention Gregory of Nazianzus because he offers a classic example of the Early Church belief - not that I am saying I believe him correct on everything (I do about ontological substitution).

Here are a few differences:

Medical Substitution views Christ as suffering for us.

Penal Substitution views Christ as suffering instead of us

Medical Substitution views Christ's death as the final point of becoming fully united with man, thereby taking all my f humanity upon Himself as the Last Adam

Penal Substitution views Christ's death as God's punishment on sin, satisfying the demands of divine justice.


The easiest difference is Medical Substitution believes Christ died for us while Penal Substitution views Christ as dying instead of us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Does Penal Substitution imply penalty for something ?

Penalty for what?

For sin. Isaiah 53:4-6.. 'He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement that brought us peace was upon Him.'

From the word of God what is the penalty thereof?

Romans 6:23a. 'The wages of sin is death' and Hebrews 9:27. 'As it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.'

Is the wrath of God relative to sin the same as the penalty for sin?

Psalms 7:11. 'God is a just Judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day.' Romans 5:8. 'But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for the ungodly.'

You asked for evidence from the word of God, and so I have limited myself to that. If you would like me to expand on anything I will be happy to oblige.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@JonC,
This thread is supposed to be about Christ's victory over Satan. If you want to talk about 'medical substitution' and exactly where that is in the Bible, why don't you start a new thread.

 

[DaveXR650]

Christ the Victor - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

If you like to just listen rather than read MLJ has a good sermon on "Christ the Victor". He has about 5 sermons on the atonement and the various aspect of it.

 

[JonC]

@JonC,
This thread is supposed to be about Christ's victory over Satan. If you want to talk about 'medical substitution' and exactly where that is in the Bible, why don't you start a new thread.

Read your previous post. It is about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Ontological Substitution is about Christ's victory over Satan insofar as that victory frees us from bondage.

Ontological Substitution views Christ as the "Last Adam". Mankind was unified in Adam. We had his nature, and he ours. Adam was our substitute (medically speaking). Christ died as our substitute, having victory over the powers of darkness.

We were united in Adam, but now we are united in Christ. His flesh for our flesh. He was bruised for our last iniquities, bore our sins, is the Propitiation for our sins, and by His stripes we are healed.

It is by medical substitution that we are freed from bondage of sin and death as we share Christ's victory over Satan through Him.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Christ the Victor - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

If you like to just listen rather than read MLJ has a good sermon on "Christ the Victor". He has about 5 sermons on the atonement and the various aspect of it.

Great! Thank you so much for finding that. Well worth listening to. Many years ago I bought the three volumes of Great Christian Doctrines, but I donated them to our church library a few years ago and I had forgotten this sermon. It was great to hear it; better, I think than reading it.
Ll-J is so logical and so biblical that it is easy to forget that he was trained as a medical doctor and entirely self-taught in theology.

 

[JonC]

Great! Thank you so much for finding that. Well worth listening to. Many years ago I bought the three volumes of Great Christian Doctrines, but I donated them to our church library a few years ago and I had forgotten this sermon. It was great to hear it; better, I think than reading it.
Ll-J is so logical and so biblical that it is easy to forget that he was trained as a medical doctor and entirely self-taught in theology.

In what way, do you believe, did Christ have victory over Satan, and what role did it play, in your opinion, in our redemption?

 

[DaveXR650]

In what way, do you believe, did Christ have victory over Satan, and what role did it play, in your opinion, in our redemption?

There are multiple ways. MLJ talks about that specifically in the sermon link at about the 15 minute mark if you're not inclined to listen to the whole thing. Among other things, Satan had lied about God and misrepresented the love of God. There is a sense in which Satan is god of this world and has a command in the kingdom of death - everything under the realm of sin. MLJ even talks about how the idea of a ransom paid to Satan could be deduced by the ECF's. He said Jesus crushed all that in the atonement, in the sense of proving to the whole world that it's God that loves and Satan who is the liar. He goes into a little of what some were arguing about in some of these threads regarding how much Satan knew about Jesus mission and whether he knew enough to try to prevent the crucifixion or whether he thought he had won by bringing it about. It is certain that Satan knew he could win if he could get Jesus to act independently from the Father's will or disobey the Father. He talks about the idea that the resurrection was the ultimate victory after the redemptive mission was completed. He goes into a lot of detail about the victory over death also.

These things are wonderful and beautiful and had Christ not won these victories by completing his purpose for coming we could not have been redeemed. But that is because, and you always have this as the underlying principle fact, that had Jesus not completed his mission you would not have a substitutionary atonement and you would not have Christianity. You cannot get away from that fact. It is perfectly alright to bring out these other wonderful things about the atonement but at the core level Christ took our sins upon himself and died in our place. It is ridiculous to go round and round on this for the simple reason that if Christ successfully went to the cross the by logic he had to have had a victory over Satan also. He also would have been the best example we will ever have of how to obey the Father. Since we can be saved by our union with Christ instead of Adam he has also put things right in that respect as the second Adam. Since we can get out of Satan's kingdom and get into Christ's kingdom we can say we were ransomed. We can in a sense say we were even ransomed from Satan's kingdom.

There is so much that can be said about the atonement that an early church father or a given theologian, wanting to bring out an aspect of Christ's work may not always center the discussion on penal substitution. But it seems to me that anyone who denies that is practicing a religion different from Christianity. It is that central.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In what way, do you believe, did Christ have victory over Satan, and what role did it play, in your opinion, in our redemption?

Why don't you read the OP?

 

[JonC]

Why don't you read the OP?

I did. The OP tells me you believe that Christ had but victory over the Devil. But it does not answer my questions.

In what way, do you believe, did Christ have victory over Satan, and what role did it play, in your opinion, in our redemption?

 

[JonC]

There are multiple ways. MLJ talks about that specifically in the sermon link at about the 15 minute mark if you're not inclined to listen to the whole thing. Among other things, Satan had lied about God and misrepresented the love of God. There is a sense in which Satan is god of this world and has a command in the kingdom of death - everything under the realm of sin. MLJ even talks about how the idea of a ransom paid to Satan could be deduced by the ECF's. He said Jesus crushed all that in the atonement, in the sense of proving to the whole world that it's God that loves and Satan who is the liar. He goes into a little of what some were arguing about in some of these threads regarding how much Satan knew about Jesus mission and whether he knew enough to try to prevent the crucifixion or whether he thought he had won by bringing it about. It is certain that Satan knew he could win if he could get Jesus to act independently from the Father's will or disobey the Father. He talks about the idea that the resurrection was the ultimate victory after the redemptive mission was completed. He goes into a lot of detail about the victory over death also.

These things are wonderful and beautiful and had Christ not won these victories by completing his purpose for coming we could not have been redeemed. But that is because, and you always have this as the underlying principle fact, that had Jesus not completed his mission you would not have a substitutionary atonement and you would not have Christianity. You cannot get away from that fact. It is perfectly alright to bring out these other wonderful things about the atonement but at the core level Christ took our sins upon himself and died in our place. It is ridiculous to go round and round on this for the simple reason that if Christ successfully went to the cross the by logic he had to have had a victory over Satan also. He also would have been the best example we will ever have of how to obey the Father. Since we can be saved by our union with Christ instead of Adam he has also put things right in that respect as the second Adam. Since we can get out of Satan's kingdom and get into Christ's kingdom we can say we were ransomed. We can in a sense say we were even ransomed from Satan's kingdom.

There is so much that can be said about the atonement that an early church father or a given theologian, wanting to bring out an aspect of Christ's work may not always center the discussion on penal substitution. But it seems to me that anyone who denies that is practicing a religion different from Christianity. It is that central.

I did watch the video. I agree with a lot of it. But it really did not address my questions.

Basically - if you set aside the fluff - you seem to be looking at Christ's victory over Satan as a byproduct of God punishing Jesus.

Who held us in bondage? Traditional Christianity teaches we were in bondage to Satan. Reformed theology teaches we were in bondage to God (it is a debt owed to God that must be satisfied).

Do I am asking you, not MLJ, how did Christ gain victory over Satan and what role did this play in our redemption - in freeing us from bondage?


I'll give you an example - Traditional Christianity teaches that Christ gained victory over Satan by rendering death powerless (death lost its "sting") and overcoming the influence Satan had over man. This is done through unity - Christ's death is the point where He reconciled mankind to God (Christ accomplished all that is man, death being the conclusion). Victory was gained in the Resurrection.

We all experience the wages of sin, which is death, and Christ had to experience this also. He bore our sins bodily on the cross. And it is by His stripes that we are healed as we gain victory over Satan in Christ. We are no longer bound to sin, and although we die because we have sinned as God does not change and His Word stands. But although we die so also shall we live (the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus).

Traditional Christianity took Scripture more literally than you and @Martin Marprelate will allow. You hold a view that has been around for a few centuries. It is a relatively new way of looking at Atonement. So I ask these questions just to be able to compare the differences between views.

MLJ is not helpful here because he looks for similarities. The truth comes out when we look at differences.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC . Where I disagree with you is that you have a deep seated animosity to reformed theology that is inconsistent.

Do I am asking you, not MLJ, how did Christ gain victory over Satan and what role did this play in our redemption - in freeing us from bondage?

You raise this question. You act like reformed theology has come up with some strange notion that our problem was with God not Satan. Then you turn around and say this "Christ's death is the point where he reconciled mankind to God". Well if we needed to be reconciled to God then there was a problem between us and God. You constantly circle around this fact. You acknowledge that the reformed idea is indeed correct and the same understanding we have always had then turn around and try to obscure the language enough to make it sound slightly off. Our bondage is because of our cosmic rebellion against God. Scripture teaches us that part of it is because we are born "in Adam" as he was a figurative head and in addition we have all individually sinned against God, proving that this was not something we can blame Adam for as if we would have done better.

Basically - if you set aside the fluff - you seem to be looking at Christ's victory over Satan as a byproduct of God punishing Jesus.

Yes and basically, when you set aside all your fluff and twisting of words, as shown above, you also admit the same thing. Because of your animosity for reformed theology you a falling into a grave error where you are trying to embrace parts of atonement theologies of those with a far more nefarious end in mind than you have. That is why your atonement views seem so disjointed and hard to follow. Look at your post 18. Points 2 and then 4-13, if they are true then you cannot say, as you do, that 1,3,4 and 6 in the second section of that post are not true. No one else does that because it is so obviously self contradictory that no one else would try it. Those who really believe the second section try to get away from a blood atonement because they want to eliminate that, because they want to get away from the idea that Jesus does something more for man than just act as an example or a great teacher.

I'm trying to tell you that you will not successfully refute reformed theology on the atonement and still have orthodox Christianity because it is too similar to what ALL other Christians believed. People like to say that we look through things through reformed glasses. But the enemies of reformed theology are doing the same thing in this case. If you know that reformed theology takes a logical leap - and says that all the specific sins of all the elect were specifically paid for at the time of Christ's death, then it makes sense that if that is not what the atonement was then you can destroy reformed theology. You would, but if you attack reformed theology at the point of the atonement you destroy Christianity. The idea that Jesus died in our place and took our sins upon himself and was the propitiation which satisfied God's just wrath against us as sinners and that he acted as the lamb of God is not something owned by reformed theology. The reformed system uses those aspects but does not have exclusive rights to them. That is why classic Arminians, general Baptists, and many Wesleyans hold to penal substitutionary atonement. They do not buy into other aspects of reformed theology - but they do not attack it at the point of the atonement.

The simple truth is this. You are way off base in trying to come up with this novel way of attacking reformed theology. You seem to make a great effort to act like there is some virtue in having an opinion of your own instead of listening to someone else. That is why you start out with "I'm asking you, not MLJ" as if it is some defect that I would defer to the explanation of an effective teacher who is known and published. Yet, you don't seem to be able to cite any source that backs up your string of random ideas strung together. Is that supposed to be superior to some actual school of thought? Is there an actual theologian or a preacher from some time period that really articulated your combination of ideas on the atonement? Why is it that it bothers you so much that a theologian may be wrong on some other aspect, like the extent of the atonement, yet it does not seem to bother you if a theologian also believes a ransom had to be paid to Satan?

 

[JonC]

@JonC . Where I disagree with you is that you have a deep seated animosity to reformed theology that is inconsistent.

You raise this question. You act like reformed theology has come up with some strange notion that our problem was with God not Satan. Then you turn around and say this "Christ's death is the point where he reconciled mankind to God". Well if we needed to be reconciled to God then there was a problem between us and God. You constantly circle around this fact. You acknowledge that the reformed idea is indeed correct and the same understanding we have always had then turn around and try to obscure the language enough to make it sound slightly off. Our bondage is because of our cosmic rebellion against God. Scripture teaches us that part of it is because we are born "in Adam" as he was a figurative head and in addition we have all individually sinned against God, proving that this was not something we can blame Adam for as if we would have done better.


Yes and basically, when you set aside all your fluff and twisting of words, as shown above, you also admit the same thing. Because of your animosity for reformed theology you a falling into a grave error where you are trying to embrace parts of atonement theologies of those with a far more nefarious end in mind than you have. That is why your atonement views seem so disjointed and hard to follow. Look at your post 18. Points 2 and then 4-13, if they are true then you cannot say, as you do, that 1,3,4 and 6 in the second section of that post are not true. No one else does that because it is so obviously self contradictory that no one else would try it. Those who really believe the second section try to get away from a blood atonement because they want to eliminate that, because they want to get away from the idea that Jesus does something more for man than just act as an example or a great teacher.

I'm trying to tell you that you will not successfully refute reformed theology on the atonement and still have orthodox Christianity because it is too similar to what ALL other Christians believed. People like to say that we look through things through reformed glasses. But the enemies of reformed theology are doing the same thing in this case. If you know that reformed theology takes a logical leap - and says that all the specific sins of all the elect were specifically paid for at the time of Christ's death, then it makes sense that if that is not what the atonement was then you can destroy reformed theology. You would, but if you attack reformed theology at the point of the atonement you destroy Christianity. The idea that Jesus died in our place and took our sins upon himself and was the propitiation which satisfied God's just wrath against us as sinners and that he acted as the lamb of God is not something owned by reformed theology. The reformed system uses those aspects but does not have exclusive rights to them. That is why classic Arminians, general Baptists, and many Wesleyans hold to penal substitutionary atonement. They do not buy into other aspects of reformed theology - but they do not attack it at the point of the atonement.

The simple truth is this. You are way off base in trying to come up with this novel way of attacking reformed theology. You seem to make a great effort to act like there is some virtue in having an opinion of your own instead of listening to someone else. That is why you start out with "I'm asking you, not MLJ" as if it is some defect that I would defer to the explanation of an effective teacher who is known and published. Yet, you don't seem to be able to cite any source that backs up your string of random ideas strung together. Is that supposed to be superior to some actual school of thought? Is there an actual theologian or a preacher from some time period that really articulated your combination of ideas on the atonement? Why is it that it bothers you so much that a theologian may be wrong on some other aspect, like the extent of the atonement, yet it does not seem to bother you if a theologian also believes a ransom had to be paid to Satan?

You make understand me. I have no animosity towards reformed theology, much less any that is inconsistent.

I appreciate reformed theology for bring to light truths that were overshadowed by the Catholic Church. These truths existed outside of the RCC, but God used the Reformation to move churches away from a corrupt religion.

I held Reformed Theology for a long time. What you interpret as animosity towards Reformed Theology is gratitude to God for leading me to a more biblical understanding.

I have not come up with a novel way of attacking Reformed Theology. I am speaking of traditional Christianity which you are taking as an attack on Reformed Theology (a fact which speaks volume of the compatablity of Reformed Theology and traditional Christianity).

The fact is Reformed Theology is a newer form of the Christian faith. That does not mean it is wrong. It could be that sixteen centuries of theological development led to a better understanding of God.

I believe l, however, that sixteen centuries of reforming and revising theology has integrated more human ideas into theology. But I understand why you see Reformed Theology as growing that original doctrine from an embryonic state to a fuller expression.

Is traditional Christianity as I have quoted from the Early Church and Systematic Theologies of Classic Atonement adherents superior to the 16th Century Reformed school of thought?

I believe it is. I find more depth in the theology of the Early Church than I do in Reformed Theology. I find Reformed Theology extraordinary superficial as it lacks the ontological depth traditional Christianity held.

But that does not answer my questions. Instead it looks more like a smoke screen to hide that fact.

You posted MLJ. What I asked for is not in MLJ's words.

I asked you what you how you believe Christ gained victory over Satan and what role did this victory play in our redemption - in freeing us from bondage?

 

[JonC]

@JonC Why is it that it bothers you so much that a theologian may be wrong on some other aspect, like the extent of the atonement, yet it does not seem to bother you if a theologian also believes a ransom had to be paid to Satan?

Why should what dead men thought bother me?

Gregory of Nazianzus is the first example of praying to Mary. I disagree with that, but it doesn't bother me.

I agree completely with Ransom Theory, depending on who expressed it. You seem to think that the Ransom Theory is God paying Satan (which is how many held it). But you ignore other beliefs under the Ransom Theory (that Christ died to pay a due to death, the use of "Satan" as death personified, and the fact that many did not view Christ as paying a ransom to anybody....just a random paid).

You say my belief is problematic, which is fair. What is not fair is you fail to point out where my stated belief is problematic according to Scripture.

I believe all of the theories under the Classic View have something legitimate to offer (primarily the Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, and Recapitulation). They focus on different aspects of the Atonement, and I am not convinced that we should prioritize these aspects.

So I believe that:

1. Christ ransomed us from the bondage of sin and death
2. We are purchased with His blood
3. We are saved for the purpose of good works preordained for us
4. Christ bore our sins bodily
5. Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world
6. God gave His Son as a sacrifice
7. Christ gave Himself in obedience as a guilt offering
8. Christ died for our sins
9. God lain upon Him our iniquity
10. God was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief
11. Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us
12. The chastening for our well being fell upon Him
13. He took the stroke due us
14. By His stripes we are healed
15. Christ became a curse for us
16. In Christ we escape the wrath to come
17. Christ rose from the grave in the third day
18. Christ defeated the powers of darkness
19. Christ removed the sting from death
20. Christ is a Life Giving Spirit
21. The New Covenant is God's righteousness manifested apart from the Law
22. Christ died for us

What I do not believe:

1. God punished Christ instead of punishing us
2. Redemption centers on satisfying the demands of the Law
3. Sins were transferred from man to God
4. God separated from Jesus on the cross
6. Christ died instead of us
7. Divine justice is 16th century retributive justice in form

 

[37818]

What I do not believe:
. . .
4. God separated from Jesus on the cross

Your view is difficult.

Matthew 27:46, ". . . And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?. . ."