Christ's victory over Satan

[DaveXR650]

"In that double deed of the God-man, of God and man in inconceivable union in Christ, atonement is wrought in the life and blood of Christ. It is at once substitutionary sacrifice in that life is given for life as Christ stands under the divine judgement obedient unto death, the death of the cross, and substitutionary oblation in that here obedience and holiness are offered to God in place of our disobedience and sin.

Direct quote from Torrance.

"Penal Substitutionary Atonement is therefore a straight forward exchange wherein one person bears the penalty someone else deserves. Christ's death on the cross was a penal substitution. He bore the guilt and punishment for His people's sins."'
John Macarthur

People can compare it themselves. Of course you can say that isn't all either of the guys said on the subject. But that is real close. Torrance may very well have distanced himself from penal substitution in his lectures. He seems to be able to say a lot about anything. He seems to want to be ecumenical when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy but not so much with Reformed theologians. I will keep reading to try to figure out why.

Is MacArthur's definition above wrong? It covers what I think is involved. Or do you insist that God had to be angry with Jesus or that God was off by himself nursing his anger until Jesus did this for us? How exactly does Mac's definition differ from what Torrance said above. I know Torrance said that the idea that one could substitute for someone else in bearing punishment is wrong and unjust - but then he turns around and admits it is in scripture and says he is left aghast. So yeah, he is complicated, but who's doing the doubletalk? He also seems to be a favorite of those trying to make sense of the Greek Orthodox system and also of the Emergent Church, which is already defunct. Was he ever a preacher? What church did he end up affiliated with. This all matters to me because I want to know if his teaching ends up in theological liberalism, apostate church teaching, useless modernism or is this just a thing going around the colleges. What modern teachers or heads of churches or organizations use Torrance today? You don't need to answer because I will find out anyway.

As a side note, if you know this, I don't but by any chance did Tim Keller read Torrance?

 

[JonC]

Direct quote from Torrance.

"Penal Substitutionary Atonement is therefore a straight forward exchange wherein one person bears the penalty someone else deserves. Christ's death on the cross was a penal substitution. He bore the guilt and punishment for His people's sins."'
John Macarthur

People can compare it themselves. Of course you can say that isn't all either of the guys said on the subject. But that is real close. Torrance may very well have distanced himself from penal substitution in his lectures. He seems to be able to say a lot about anything. He seems to want to be ecumenical when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy but not so much with Reformed theologians. I will keep reading to try to figure out why.

Is MacArthur's definition above wrong? It covers what I think is involved. Or do you insist that God had to be angry with Jesus or that God was off by himself nursing his anger until Jesus did this for us? How exactly does Mac's definition differ from what Torrance said above. I know Torrance said that the idea that one could substitute for someone else in bearing punishment is wrong and unjust - but then he turns around and admits it is in scripture and says he is left aghast. So yeah, he is complicated, but who's doing the doubletalk? He also seems to be a favorite of those trying to make sense of the Greek Orthodox system and also of the Emergent Church, which is already defunct. Was he ever a preacher? What church did he end up affiliated with. This all matters to me because I want to know if his teaching ends up in theological liberalism, apostate church teaching, useless modernism or is this just a thing going around the colleges. What modern teachers or heads of churches or organizations use Torrance today? You don't need to answer because I will find out anyway.

As a side note, if you know this, I don't but by any chance did Tim Keller read Torrance?

I am not going to pit Torrance against Torrance. Reformed theologians criticize Torrance for his view of the Atonement. Torrance's published lectures criticized Penal Substitution Theory and offered another view.

I don't trust your argument against Sproul, Piper, and Torrance's lectures. Sorry, but I just do not know your qualifications and expertise in the field.

It does not matter to me because while I have studied Torrance and Barth I am not Reformed.

Maybe the Reformed scholars who labeled Torrance as Barthian were wrong. I don't know....he seems so to me but I never met the man. Maybe Torrance did not believe what he said about the Penal Substitution Theory in his lectures. Again, I never met the man.

That does not change the fact that you are unable to distinguish different views of substitution from Penal Substitution.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sorry, but I just do not know your qualifications and expertise in the field.

Well, I can help our there. My qualifications are zero, zilch. And this is the Baptist Board, not the lounge at Princeton.

 

[JonC]

Well, I can help our there. My qualifications are zero, zilch. And this is the Baptist Board, not the lounge at Princeton.

I was just asking.

I don't believe seminary a requirement for understanding Scripture (I think it can be a barrier).

But when talking about historical theology and the positions of Christian scholars, I do wonder how much weight should be given to those who studied these theologies at at least a graduate level for years compared to those who have not.

I don't mean that as arrogant (and it isn't), but it seems odd to me to argue about a topic I formally studied for years with somebody who didn't even know Torrance a few days ago. I'm not saying you cannot bring anything legitimate to the discussion, but before you can you should read professor Torrance's lectures addressing the subject.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is true. Surely you know this. Every Christian believes that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute. Otherwise the person professing Christianity is not Christian.

Can you name one Christian who did not believe that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute?

Of course you can't. All you can do is say most Christians don't believe that because they don't read into those statements your theories.

I have accused you several times of not reading my posts, and you have denied it. Here is proof positive that you do not.. I have already given you two names - one from church history and and one from the present day who deny any form of penal substitution, even, I suppose, your 'theory.'. The post is not hard to find. Go and look for it.

 

[JonC]

I have accused you several times of not reading my posts, and you have denied it. Here is proof positive that you do not.. I have already given you two names - one from church history and and one from the present day who deny any form of penal substitution, even, I suppose, your 'theory.'. The post is not hard to find. Go and look for it.

This is false. You did not read my posts before responding.

I addressed one of the people you offered

I never said that nobody rejected penal substitution.

I said every Christian believes that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute.

Most Christians reject penal substitution. Augustine rejected penal substitution. Aquinas rejected penal substitution. Every Early church writer rejected penal substitution.

Peter Abelard (Moral Influence Theory) rejected penal substitution. Some suggest he rejected any type of substitution, but scholars are divided. He appears to at least have accepted representative substitution.


You obviously don't read before responding.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is false. You did not read my posts before responding.

I addressed one of the people you offered

I never said that nobody rejected penal substitution.

I said every Christian believes that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute.

What you don't seem to understand is that 'penal' refers to punishment and 'substitution' refers to being a substitute.
Therefore you are saying that every Christian believes in Penal Substitution.

Most Christians reject penal substitution.

And you've counted them, have you?

Augustine rejected penal substitution. Aquinas rejected penal substitution. Every Early church writer rejected penal substitution.

No they didn't.
[QUOTE}
Peter Abelard (Moral Influence Theory) rejected penal substitution. Some suggest he rejected any type of substitution, but scholars are divided. He appears to at least have accepted representative substitution.[/QUOTE]
Where are all these scholars that you keep on quoting? Abelard spent much time specifically denying Penal Substitution

You obviously don't read before responding.

The temptation is strong, but I do actually read all your post addressed to me. It's like a form of medieval self-flagellation, but I do it.

 

[JonC]

What you don't seem to understand is that 'penal' refers to punishment and 'substitution' refers to being a substitute.
Therefore you are saying that every Christian believes in Penal Substitution.

And you've counted them, have you?

No they didn't.
[QUOTE}
Peter Abelard (Moral Influence Theory) rejected penal substitution. Some suggest he rejected any type of substitution, but scholars are divided. He appears to at least have accepted representative substitution.

Where are all these scholars that you keep on quoting? Abelard spent much time specifically denying Penal Substitution

The temptation is strong, but I do actually read all your post addressed to me. It's like a form of medieval self-flagellation, but I do it.[/QUOTE]
What you do not understand is "penal substitution" refers to the type of substitution - not just penal and substitution aspects. That IS what penal substitution has always meant (a substitute for us taking our punishment instead of us for our sins).

The distinction is very clear between Aquinas (who taught that Christ was our substitute and was punished for our behalf) but made it very clear He was not punished for sins.

It is made very clear when Gregory of Nazianzus specifies that Christ's death was on our behalf but not in our stead (a different kind of substitution).

Penal Substitution refers to Christ's suffering and death being a punishment for our sin instead of us suffering that punishment.

Traditional Christianity holds that Christ experienced the punishment we deserved (the stroke we were due) for us (not instead of us) as our substitute (representative substitution....the "last Adam").

You need to study a bit more on penal substitution.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What you do not understand is "penal substitution" refers to the type of substitution - not just penal and substitution aspects. That IS what penal substitution has always meant (a substitute for us taking our punishment instead of us for our sins).

What you do not understand is that "penal substitution" refers to Christ taking the penalty for our sins - becoming our substitute.
The Doctrine of Penal Substitution I have explained many times to you. That God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty for sin. What your "theory" of penal substitution means is anyone's guess - whatever you want it to mean, I suppose.

If you want to make any headway in these discussions you need to be very clear what you are talking about, and give some quotations instead of saying airily that Aquinas did this or someone else did that. And when you do it, you need to quote your source so that I'm not trawling all over the internet looking for Nazianus when you meant Nyssa.

But with regard to Greg Naz, let's look at the quotation I gave earlier:
As for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse; and sin who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so, He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions. so long is Christ also called disobedient on my account.

Gregory's argument here is that believers are united to Christ, the "Head of the whole body" and that our sin is thereby transferred to Him - "He makes my disobedience His own." This is the reason, he argues, that Christ "was called a curse .... and sin." He took "the sin of the world" upon Himself and suffered the curse of God "for my sake." He was not himself a sinner, and was not cursed for His own sin, but for ours. This is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. .You need to study up on it a bit more.

Finally, a quick quote from Peter Abelard: 'Indeed, how cruel and wicked it seems that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything .... still less that God should consider the death of His Son so agreeable that by it He should be reconciled to the whole world.'

Now you go and find quotes from all those mythical theologians who believe that Abelard believed in penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

What you do not understand is that "penal substitution" refers to Christ taking the penalty for our sins - becoming our substitute.
The Doctrine of Penal Substitution I have explained many times to you. That God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty for sin. What your "theory" of penal substitution means is anyone's guess - whatever you want it to mean, I suppose.

If you want to make any headway in these discussions you need to be very clear what you are talking about, and give some quotations instead of saying airily that Aquinas did this or someone else did that. And when you do it, you need to quote your source so that I'm not trawling all over the internet looking for Nazianus when you meant Nyssa.

But with regard to Greg Naz, let's look at the quotation I gave earlier:
As for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse; and sin who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so, He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions. so long is Christ also called disobedient on my account.

Gregory's argument here is that believers are united to Christ, the "Head of the whole body" and that our sin is thereby transferred to Him - "He makes my disobedience His own." This is the reason, he argues, that Christ "was called a curse .... and sin." He took "the sin of the world" upon Himself and suffered the curse of God "for my sake." He was not himself a sinner, and was not cursed for His own sin, but for ours. This is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. .You need to study up on it a bit more.

Finally, a quick quote from Peter Abelard: 'Indeed, how cruel and wicked it seems that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything .... still less that God should consider the death of His Son so agreeable that by it He should be reconciled to the whole world.'

Now you go and find quotes from all those mythical theologians who believe that Abelard believed in penal substitution.

You are again pretending we do not all believe Christ was made sin for us or became a curse for us.

If you cannot comprehend the "medical substitution" of Gregory of Nazianzus or the "satisfaction substitution" of Aquinas then how can you comprehend how they are different from penal substitution? You can't because you are completely ignorant of historical theology and positions before the Reformation.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does incorporate more than penal substitution (you are speaking of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement). But penal substitution is also the type of substitution upon which the theory is built.

You know this, I'm sure, as you studied theology in university (I'm sure you read Thomas Aquinas as well). Your education simply did not stick as you prefer mythology.

Calvinism attempted to reform Roman Catholic Atonement by replacing "satisfactory substitution" with "penal substitution".

 

[JonC]

Oh ...and stop making an issue if the word "doctrine". The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is merely the teaching of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Pre-mil doctrine, Amil doctrine, and post-mil doctrine are teachings of each particular theory.

The doctrine of evolution is the teachings of the theory of evolution as well

Trying to pretend saying "the doctrine of penal substitution" does not make it any less a theory.

You should know this, if you really did attend university. But the fact you cannot grasp that the doctrine of Penal Substitution is the teachings of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement merely proves your subjectivity as you are much too invested in your tradition than you are with God's Word.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than:
1100 GMT, 700 AM EDT; 400 AM PDT

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oh ...and stop making an issue if the word "doctrine". The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is merely the teaching of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Pre-mil doctrine, Amil doctrine, and post-mil doctrine are teachings of each particular theory.

The doctrine of evolution is the teachings of the theory of evolution as well

Trying to pretend saying "the doctrine of penal substitution" does not make it any less a theory.

You should know this, if you really did attend university. But the fact you cannot grasp that the doctrine of Penal Substitution is the teachings of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement merely proves your subjectivity as you are much too invested in your tradition than you are with God's Word.

There are two reasons I insist on using the word "Doctrine."
1. I gave you (umpteen times!) a definition of it. Without a definition we are stumbling about in the dark, or at least, you are.
2. You insist on using the term "Theory." What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you cannot comprehend the "medical substitution" of Gregory of Nazianzus or the "satisfaction substitution" of Aquinas then how can you comprehend how they are different from penal substitution? You can't because you are completely ignorant of historical theology and positions before the Reformation.

And this is all tripe. You never mentioned these terms for around ten years and now suddenly they they are indispensable to you. I don't think so!
Where does Gregory of Nazianzus mention the term 'medical substitution? Are you sure it wasn't Gregory of Nyssa? Or Pope Gregory? Or Gregory Peck? As for 'satisfaction Substitution,' have you read The Satisfaction of Christ by A.W. Pink? It's probably the most detailed book on Penal Substitution there is. Don't try and separate satisfaction from Penal Substitution. It's a basic ingredient.

'What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.'

 

[JonC]

There are two reasons I insist on using the word "Doctrine."
1. I gave you (umpteen times!) a definition of it. Without a definition we are stumbling about in the dark, or at least, you are.
2. You insist on using the term "Theory." What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I do insist on the word "theory". And it is good for any doctrine that is not actually in the text of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

And this is all tripe. You never mentioned these terms for around ten years and now suddenly they they are indispensable to you. I don't think so!
Where does Gregory of Nazianzus mention the term 'medical substitution? Are you sure it wasn't Gregory of Nyssa? Or Pope Gregory? Or Gregory Peck? As for 'satisfaction Substitution,' have you read The Satisfaction of Christ by A.W. Pink? It's probably the most detailed book on Penal Substitution there is. Don't try and separate satisfaction from Penal Substitution. It's a basic ingredient.

'What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.'

This is why I have wanted a section of the BB opened only to those of us who have a formal education in theology.

I enjoy discussing issues with anybody. BUT I also enjoy looking at theological differences.

What would be interesting is a discussion about the differences between Atonement theories. It would be interesting to examine theological developments.

But this cannot happen here because members, like you, who are ignorant regarding the topics insist that no differences exist.

 

[JonC]

Where does Gregory of Nazianzus mention the term 'medical substitution? '

????
In the writings I previously provided.

You are again expressing ignorance on the topic.

Satisfaction substitution refers to satisfaction as Christ dying for us rather than instead of us. It is the opposite of penal substitution.

You pick up on words like "satisfaction", "penal", "substitution" but do not grasp the actual theological concepts.

It's like trying to discuss the Bremsstrahlung effect with somebody who doesn't believe beta particles exist. It's a waste of time.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than:
1100 GMT, 700 AM EDT; 400 AM PDT

This thread is closed
Feel free to start a new thread