Christ's victory over Satan

[DaveXR650]

For one thing, Satan was supposed to be a servant of God but he left his place. Jesus, on the other hand, always kept the will of God as his only desire. They both had individual will and power to do what they wanted according to their own desires, but Jesus never acted that way.

Secondly. Jesus never was moved from doing God's will by temptation from without like man was. Satan successfully tempted and got man to rebel against God. So man yielded to an outside temptation, but Jesus never did. Satan tried very hard, once he realized Jesus was in a position as a man where this was a possibility to tempt Jesus to act in his own interest and disobey God.

Third. Jesus then, not having any sin of his own, took on our sin and went all the way to death. Yet death could not hold him. That was also a victory.

We don't have any way to know why God allowed Satan to rebel and do what he did. But we do know that once man had sinned and in a sense also left God's kingdom, Satan had an advantage. If God did move against Satan, as a just and righteous ruler God would have to destroy all of us with Satan, or else appear unjust. If Satan could have gotten Jesus to act on his own or sin against God then he could always say that no one can possibly obey. So Satan became a great accuser of men before God. The actual victory of Jesus over Satan on our behalf then is the fact that now Jesus can lead those back into God's kingdom who become united with him like Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. Jesus suffered for our sins and paid the price, so he can now lead those who follow him into God's presence.

I'm not completely used to using these explanations. They come from G. Campbell Morgan, who was not a Calvinist. But to your question, it seems to me at least that the problem God faced was not that he couldn't crush Satan when he chose, but in his love for men, how to do this without destroying all of us who are rebels and have somehow ended up in Satan's camp, so to speak.

 

[DaveXR650]

' . . . it was not the death of Jesus that constituted atonement, but Jesus Christ the Son of God offering Himself in sacrifice for us. Everything depends on who He was, for the significance of His acts in life and death depends on the nature of His person. It was He who died for us. He who made atonement through his one self-offering in life and death. Hence we must allow the Person of Christ to determine for us the nature of His saving work, rather than the other way round." (Torrance in God and Rationality, p. 64)

Jon, I don't know who this person is but the first part makes no sense. Offering himself certainly is essential but doing what he offered seems to be demanded by reality. Everything does depend on who He is because the sacrificial death would not help us otherwise. Has this guy not read how Abraham, when he offered Isaac, was asked by his son "Where is the Lamb". And of course the truth of the importance of the seriousness of offering a sacrifice cannot be denied, the conclusion of the matter was that God has provided a lamb, who was slain. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. And in the case of Jesus he said no one takes his life without his permission so yes, the "offering" was essential or it would not have happened - but it did happen, because it had to happen.

 

[Van]

"... those who were called by God who died before the coming of Christ are nonetheless saved by Him as they looked forward by faith to the coming of the Messiah."

Here we have a false claim, that the OT saints who gained approval by faith, were "saved" because they believed the promise of the Messiah. Total fiction.

Were they made perfect in Abraham's bosom or did they have to wait to be made perfect until after Christ died?

 

[JonC]

Jon, I don't know who this person is but the first part makes no sense. Offering himself certainly is essential but doing what he offered seems to be demanded by reality. Everything does depend on who He is because the sacrificial death would not help us otherwise. Has this guy not read how Abraham, when he offered Isaac, was asked by his son "Where is the Lamb". And of course the truth of the importance of the seriousness of offering a sacrifice cannot be denied, the conclusion of the matter was that God has provided a lamb, who was slain. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. And in the case of Jesus he said no one takes his life without his permission so yes, the "offering" was essential or it would not have happened - but it did happen, because it had to happen.

It makes perfect sense now, just as it made perfect sense to Christians for fifteen hundred years before your faith was developed.

The problem is not with traditional Christianity but with the inability to view Scripture outside of a Reformed lens.

I can't make it easy for you. If I could, I would.

It may be that you never understand the "faith of our fathers" (at least prior to the Reformation). And that is OK.

But that is not an excuse to diminish traditional Christianity or to simply pull it apart to look for words and phrases towards which you can identify.

Torrance was a Scottish theologian who passed away in 2007. He was Reformed, but did not hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. He was well known for him a systematic theology (and is required reading for just about any theology degree). He also translated John Calvin's NT Commentaries into English.

Anyway, the point is that Christ Himself is the Lamb.

If you are wanting that statement to make more sense rather than address just what we were speaking of then read his Systematic Theology.

 

[JD731]

I am agreeing with God insofar as Scripture. I cannot go beyond His Word so whatever "special revelation" you believe God has given you Id suggest caution because you are putting your "secret knowledge" against God's Word.

IMHO Scripture wins every time.

I have not claimed special revelation. I have mentioned the "mystery of godliness" and used the same adjective that God inspired, great. This seems to be one of the major stumbling blocks to understanding that people like you have. God gives us several "mysteries" during this age and they are "secrets" to those to whom God does not reveal them because they do not even know they are there though they be in plain sight.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1Co 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

Mt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

1Co 13:2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

And on and on I could go. You fellows accuse believers because you seem to have never read the scriptures yourselves and if you have you have not been very curious about them.

I f you make derogatory comments about me because I have studied these mysteries of the faith that are associated with this age because Paul wrote to reveal them and explain them to us gentiles. He said that, I did not.

 

[DaveXR650]

It makes perfect sense now, just as it made perfect sense to Christians for fifteen hundred years before your faith was developed.

The problem is not with traditional Christianity but with the inability to view Scripture outside of a Reformed lens.

I can't make it easy for you. If I could, I would.

It may be that you never understand the "faith of our fathers" (at least prior to the Reformation). And that is OK.

But that is not an excuse to diminish traditional Christianity or to simply pull it apart to look for words and phrases towards which you can identify.

Torrance was a Scottish theologian who passed away in 2007. He was Reformed, but did not hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. He was well known for him a systematic theology (and is required reading for just about any theology degree). He also translated John Calvin's NT Commentaries into English.

Anyway, the point is that Christ Himself is the Lamb.

If you are wanting that statement to make more sense rather than address just what we were speaking of then read his Systematic Theology.

That statement, by itself is problematic. It's a partial quote so I really don't know but it sounds like he is saying the death of Christ is not what constituted atonement but rather it was the offer of Christ to serve as the sacrifice. What do you mean by address what we were speaking of? You put up the quote. Your going to have to explain that or put up more of what he said. True I don't know anything about him but from what little you can quickly find it seems he was against a limited atonement but I have already seen quotes that seem like he was ok with substitutionary atonement.

 

[JonC]

That statement, by itself is problematic. It's a partial quote so I really don't know but it sounds like he is saying the death of Christ is not what constituted atonement but rather it was the offer of Christ to serve as the sacrifice. What do you mean by address what we were speaking of? You put up the quote. Your going to have to explain that or put up more of what he said. True I don't know anything about him but from what little you can quickly find it seems he was against a limited atonement but I have already seen quotes that seem like he was ok with substitutionary atonement.

He is saying that the death of Christ (as you understand it) is not what constituted atonement (as you understand it).

Limited and Universal Atonement only applies within a specific theology. Within traditional Christianity it is not a logical issue (because Christ's death was the apex of God reconciling man to Himself and the start of men's reconciliation).


You are reading his comments within your limited and modern context. His words (and the belief of the early church) will not make sense in the 16th Century context you are placing them.

That is why I have said that you may simply have to be content, at least for now, with Reformed Theology. Grow in Christ and spread the gospel, coming alongside other believers and uplifting those in need.

As you do this just keep in mind that there is a greater depth of theology than Reformed Theology can offer, and consider how those theologians who disagree with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement view Christ's work.

You know these scholars, the theologians, exist. You know these Christians exist. You know Systematic Theologies have been written by those who never held the Penal Substitution Theory.

You know they believe the exact same verses while not believing Penal Substitution Theory.

So as you go about your studies simply think about what you are missing (the understanding of these Christians).

Until you can understand these opposing views you will never really be able to validate your own.

 

[JonC]

I have not claimed special revelation. I have mentioned the "mystery of godliness" and used the same adjective that God inspired, great. This seems to be one of the major stumbling blocks to understanding that people like you have. God gives us several "mysteries" during this age and they are "secrets" to those to whom God does not reveal them because they do not even know they are there though they be in plain sight.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1Co 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

Mt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

1Co 13:2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

And on and on I could go. You fellows accuse believers because you seem to have never read the scriptures yourselves and if you have you have not been very curious about them.

I f you make derogatory comments about me because I have studied these mysteries of the faith that are associated with this age because Paul wrote to reveal them and explain them to us gentiles. He said that, I did not.

I am not making derogatory comments. I am stating that you are dismissing Scripture in order to produce a "mystery".

Scripture is very clear that man dies, but that is a physical death (a judgment comes afterwards). Scripture is clear that God, in the person of Jesus Christ, died on a Roman Cross.

 

[JD731]

I am not making derogatory comments. I am stating that you are dismissing Scripture in order to produce a "mystery".

Scripture is very clear that man dies, but that is a physical death (a judgment comes afterwards). Scripture is clear that God, in the person of Jesus Christ, died on a Roman Cross.

You are accusing me of something I am not guilty of, adding to the scriptures. I took time and space, a lengthy post to explain how I was making the application. You dismissed all of that and did not answer a single point and now you are taking a condescending attitude.

Jesus, the perfect and unspotted Lamb of God, substituted himself and took the penalty for our sins, which is death, separation from God, body and soul, in the lake of fire. It is the only place God has created where he has chosen not to be. This place is described in several parables of Jesus as the place where unsaved sinners go. All the things that Jesus suffered on the cross is what sinners will suffer there. God will not be with them there. Jesus became one of us, a man, so he could suffer this in our place and then rise bodily from the dead. Why would Jesus cry out to the Father and the Spirit, my God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me, if he had not forsaken him. Separation is the meaning of death. All men are spiritually dead because they are separated from God by their sins.

Jesus Christ our Lord really did suffer on that cross what unsaved men will suffer. This is the only way to God. Jesus is the only one who could have made this way.


Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Revelation 20:12-15
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The first death is physical. There is a bodily resurrection and the second death is final when both body and soul is separated from God forever.

Jesus came to save sinful men from this. He is the only door to Gof. We must trust him and receive him as our savior and depend on what he did for us.

 

[DaveXR650]

It makes perfect sense now, just as it made perfect sense to Christians for fifteen hundred years before your faith was developed.

The problem is not with traditional Christianity but with the inability to view Scripture outside of a Reformed lens.

I can't make it easy for you. If I could, I would.

It may be that you never understand the "faith of our fathers" (at least prior to the Reformation). And that is OK.

But that is not an excuse to diminish traditional Christianity or to simply pull it apart to look for words and phrases towards which you can identify.

Torrance was a Scottish theologian who passed away in 2007. He was Reformed, but did not hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. He was well known for him a systematic theology (and is required reading for just about any theology degree). He also translated John Calvin's NT Commentaries into English.

Anyway, the point is that Christ Himself is the Lamb.

If you are wanting that statement to make more sense rather than address just what we were speaking of then read his Systematic Theology.

Don't worry about making it easy, just rebut what I said. The idea that it made perfect sense to someone else in earlier times has no meaning at all. They could have been right, or wrong, or did not have portions or scripture, or had other more pressing issues to deal with in their world.

I got a feeling that all Torrance was saying in the portion you quoted was that the actual physical death and suffering of Christ as a thing isolated from everything else in the atonement doesn't work because the benefits of his death cannot occur without all the other aspects of the work of the Trinity in our redemption. I don't know of any reformed person who would disagree with that. In fact, that bolsters the case for the strict Calvinist in my mind because it helps to integrate the council between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the determinism in the fall of man, the coming of Christ, his death, and resurrection and so on.

It may seem like reformed theology does isolate and separate the various aspects of God's work towards us especially when they are debating Catholic schoolmen or Arminians but overall, they are not guilty of that charge. Anyway, I have Torrance's book on the atonement on the way and if I can read it I will.

Anyway, the point is that Christ Himself is the Lamb.

If so. And if that is what Torrance says I'm interested in finding out how that can be anything but penal substitution. I read a little about him on the internet and on the Puritan Board and have not come across him denying penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

Don't worry about making it easy, just rebut what I said. The idea that it made perfect sense to someone else in earlier times has no meaning at all. They could have been right, or wrong, or did not have portions or scripture, or had other more pressing issues to deal with in their world.

I got a feeling that all Torrance was saying in the portion you quoted was that the actual physical death and suffering of Christ as a thing isolated from everything else in the atonement doesn't work because the benefits of his death cannot occur without all the other aspects of the work of the Trinity in our redemption. I don't know of any reformed person who would disagree with that. In fact, that bolsters the case for the strict Calvinist in my mind because it helps to integrate the council between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the determinism in the fall of man, the coming of Christ, his death, and resurrection and so on.

It may seem like reformed theology does isolate and separate the various aspects of God's work towards us especially when they are debating Catholic schoolmen or Arminians but overall, they are not guilty of that charge. Anyway, I have Torrance's book on the atonement on the way and if I can read it I will.


If so. And if that is what Torrance says I'm interested in finding out how that can be anything but penal substitution. I read a little about him on the internet and on the Puritan Board and have not come across him denying penal substitution.

I do not understand what you mean by "rebate what you said" as I already did.

I provided beliefs of the early church when that was the topic. You wanted contemporary examples and I provided them.

The point made by traditional Christianity (whether the Early Church or modern scholars and theologians) is the same: Christ ransomed man through reconciling mankind (the "human family") to Himself so that men could be reconciled to God. Redemption is ontological and all encompassing - His flesh for our flesh. We are saved not from death but through death as Christ died for us, bore our sins, shared in our infirmary. It is solidarity - another Adam.

It is not a difficult concept. Christ died for our sins, became a curse for us. He who knew no sin was made sin for us. He redeemed us. I do not get what part you find so troubling.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and Reformed Theology is a cheap and superficial replacement for traditional Christianity. It is shallow. It sounds good as a system of philosophy. But it is a benign faith that makes no demand of the believer. It is powerless to save, powerless to change a life. The Reformed are damned, if that is all they are.

But the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God, and even in the darkness of human philosophy men are saved through Christ. The Christian is saved, whether Reformed, Catholic, Baptist....because it is Christ who makes them stand.

 

[DaveXR650]

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and Reformed Theology is a cheap and superficial replacement for traditional Christianity. It is shallow. It sounds good as a system of philosophy. But it is a benign faith that makes no demand of the believer. It is powerless to save, powerless to change a life. The Reformed are damned, if that is all they are.

I do not get what part you find so troubling.

Looking at the statement above would be the kind of thing I find a little troubling. Are you by any chance into incarnational trinitarian theology?

 

[JonC]

Looking at the statement above would be the kind of thing I find a little troubling. Are you by any chance into incarnational trinitarian theology?

No (I assume you are speaking of Athanasius).

I do believe that Jesus is man-God (two inseparable "natures"). But that is the Nicene Creed - It is impossible to separate God from Jesus because the union is ontological (the Word became flesh).

I am suggesting that Christianity has it right for the millennium and a half prior to Reformed Theology and the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

We were purchased by the blood of Christ, ransomed from the powers of darkness and delivered through death. The wages of sin are death (all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God) but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus.

My statement is correct. Reformed Theology is very shallow. And it lacks the power to save (that power is the gospel of Jesus Christ). Reformed Christians are no more saved or lost than Catholics, Methodists, traditional Baptists.....Jesus saves, not theories about Him. I was no more or less saved when I affirmed Reformed Theology than I am now that God has led m from that philosophy.


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]

@JonC . When you look up Torrance you end up at websites about incarnational trinitarian theology. When you read some of their own articles you get similar sounding arguments to you. That's why I was asking. You make a mistake when you try to act like the Reformation was some kind of rebellion against the early church fathers. If anything they were attempting to get back to the ECF's from the deviant paths the RC's had taken. The ECF's had a knowledge of the atonement as a blood sacrifice to turn away the wrath of God. The Reformers developed and articulated it and linked it with the Old Testament and Hebrews better than those that came before, but they did not discover it.

At the best, all you're doing is taking elements of penal substitution and refusing to call it penal substitution. At the worst you are moving towards deemphasizing the core issue of our broken relationship with God which is our sin and God's holy nature that is opposed to it. And you are demeaning the central point of Christ's sacrifice. If that sounds strong it's no worse than what you say about reformed theology above.

Several posts on this thread explain how Christ has victory over Satan. You can keep asking the same question if you want but I can't tell you any more that what is readily available. My book by Torrance should come tomorrow. By the way, it's on sale for $25 which is cheap for his works. I heard he is a bear to read so I'll just have to see but I am interested in his views.

 

[JonC]

@JonC . When you look up Torrance you end up at websites about incarnational trinitarian theology. When you read some of their own articles you get similar sounding arguments to you. That's why I was asking. You make a mistake when you try to act like the Reformation was some kind of rebellion against the early church fathers. If anything they were attempting to get back to the ECF's from the deviant paths the RC's had taken. The ECF's had a knowledge of the atonement as a blood sacrifice to turn away the wrath of God. The Reformers developed and articulated it and linked it with the Old Testament and Hebrews better than those that came before, but they did not discover it.

At the best, all you're doing is taking elements of penal substitution and refusing to call it penal substitution. At the worst you are moving towards deemphasizing the core issue of our broken relationship with God which is our sin and God's holy nature that is opposed to it. And you are demeaning the central point of Christ's sacrifice. If that sounds strong it's no worse than what you say about reformed theology above.

Several posts on this thread explain how Christ has victory over Satan. You can keep asking the same question if you want but I can't tell you any more that what is readily available. My book by Torrance should come tomorrow. By the way, it's on sale for $25 which is cheap for his works. I heard he is a bear to read so I'll just have to see but I am interested in his views.

I understand. And it is a fair question.

When you look up Reformed Theology you get a bunch of stuff, from the anti-missions movement to infant baptism.

When you look up Ransom Theory you typically get a specific version (God paying a ransom to Satan).

It is always fair to ask for clarification, and I appreciate that you did rather than assume.

I am not taking anything at all from Penal Substitution Theory. I believe it is a false doctrine.

Substitution Theory holds that Christ died for our sins, that it will s by His stripes we are healed, that He bore our sins, and so on. But it is far from Penal Substitution Theory as it holds that Christ died for us (not instead of us) and it is impossible that He was punished for sins.

The language sounds the same because we all use the same Scripture. The difference is what exists outside of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I understand that you view my position as elements of Penal Substitution Theory.

So let's walk through them and see.

List my points that you believe to be specific to the Penal Substitution Theory and I will address them.

That may help illuminate where we differ.

 

[JonC]

I'll address some of this here, as you are in error, and offer again to address your claims if you are able to be more specific

You make a mistake when you try to act like the Reformation was some kind of rebellion against the early church fathers. If anything they were attempting to get back to the ECF's from the deviant paths the RC's had taken. The ECF's had a knowledge of the atonement as a blood sacrifice to turn away the wrath of God. The Reformers developed and articulated it and linked it with the Old Testament and Hebrews better than those that came before, but they did not discover it.

I do not believe that the Reformers were rebelling against the ECF's. I'm not exactly sure where you got that idea. The Reformers were trying to bring their inherited tradition (a Roman Catholic tradition) back to a more biblical stance by rejecting what they identified as false doctrine, reforming what they believed was reformable, and keeping what they thought correct or simply held as presuppositions.

That has nothing to do with the ECF's or the Early Church.

You are right to point out that the Reformers developed and articulated a theology different than what existed before the Reformation. It is subjective to say that new theology was better than the faith delivered by the Apostles.

I never claimed the Reformers discovered Reformed Theology. They didn't. Reformed Theology was a product of men understanding Scripture through their circumstances.

I told you early in our conversation that there were two legitimate views - one was that theology built upon theology over 1,500 years moved closer to a biblical understanding. The other was that it moved further away as it builds on human understanding rather than God's Word. You believe the former, I believe the latter. That we cannot reconcile.


Now to the meat of it:

At the best, all you're doing is taking elements of penal substitution and refusing to call it penal substitution. At the worst you are moving towards deemphasizing the core issue of our broken relationship with God which is our sin and God's holy nature that is opposed to it. And you are demeaning the central point of Christ's sacrifice. If that sounds strong it's no worse than what you say about reformed theology above.

Let's look at the issues.

At best you say I hold Penal Substitution Theory without calling it Penal Substitution Theory. I take it this is because I use verses common to all Christianity.

But that is not the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Penal Substitution Theory demands substitution be a substitution for sins. It is the ONLY theory that does this. And it is unbiblical. Penal Substitution Theory days God punished Jesus instead of us. Substitution Theory agrees that God punished Jesus, but Penal Substitution Theory is the ONLY one that thinks "instead of us".

Penal Substitution Theory is not the only theory that views Christ as our substitute, but it is the only theory that views this substitution as penal.

And Penal Substitution Theory is a relatively new theory. You say the Reformers developed and articulated the Atonement better than those who came before.....that these men coming out the Roman Catholic Church better understood Scripture than those taught by Christ and by the Apostles.

That is a foolish and unsupportable claim.



At the worst you say I am moving towards deemphasizing the core issue of our broken relationship with God which is our sin and God's holy nature that is opposed to it. And that I are demeaning the central point of Christ's sacrifice.

That is my argument against Reformed Theology. You view God as transferring our sin to Christ so that we will live.

I say no. That minimizes our sin. That diminishes God. Man must suffer the wages of sin, otherwise God is a liar. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus. God did not go back on His Word but instead went forward by redeeming man.

You reduce Christ's death to a payment for sin, demeaning His sacrifice. Christ's death was a payment for mankind.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Penal Substitution Theory days God punished Jesus instead of us.

Two quick words from holiday.
It is possible that your theory supposes that God was punishing Jesus, but the Doctrine of Penal Substitution holds that God was punishing our sin. The Lord Jesus was our sin-bearer (Isaiah 53:5-6; 1 Peter 2:24) and so 'the chastisement [NIV, ESV: 'punishment'] that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.'

Secondly, I am very disappointed that no one has made any reference to the O.P. We are being dragged away from it constantly by either the Church Fathers or by @JonC's theory about Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

Two quick words from holiday.
It is possible that your theory supposes that God was punishing Jesus, but the Doctrine of Penal Substitution holds that God was punishing our sin. The Lord Jesus was our sin-bearer (Isaiah 53:5-6; 1 Peter 2:24) and so 'the chastisement [NIV, ESV: 'punishment'] that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.'

Secondly, I am very disappointed that no one has made any reference to the O.P. We are being dragged away from it constantly by either the Church Fathers or by @JonC's theory about Penal Substitution.

No. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement views God as punishing our sin laid upon Jesus.

The "Penal" part of "Penal Substitution" refers to the type of substitution (as opposed to satisfactory substitution in Substitution Theory.....the theory from which Penal Substitution Theory grew as a step away from RCC doctrine).

Often you will see Penal Substitution theorists focus on punishment or chastisement, but that is in ignorance. All of the theories hold that the chastening for our well being fell upon Him. The question is how.

Those who condemn the theory as "cosmic child abuse" make the mistake of not recognizing the larger theme of God taking this punishment upon Himself as He takes our sins.

You are also guilty in departing from the OP and venturing into Penal Substitution Theory with your comments to another member. Your directing attention towards me is misguided.


But the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement holds that the most fundamental event of the atonement is that Jesus Christ took the full punishment that we deserved for our sins as a substitute in our place, and that all other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth. (TGC)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Penal Substitution Theory days God punished Jesus instead of us.

This was the sentence from your theory that I was opposing. God did not punish the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus had done nothing to deserve punishment.

No. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement views God as punishing our sin laid upon Jesus.

Much better. That is also what the Doctrine of Penal Substitution teaches

You are also guilty in departing from the OP and venturing into Penal Substitution Theory with your comments to another member. Your directing attention towards me is misguided.

So have you made any reference to the O.P.? Or have you not introduced your views on the Church Fathers and your theory about Penal Substitution?
I remember some years ago you challenged me to provide a Bible defence of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. When I did so you made only one vague and passing refence to it and then studiously ignored it. That seems to be your modus operandi.