Featured Christ's victory over Satan

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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