Hebrews 2:14. How does the devil have the power of death?

[Martin Marprelate]

Hebrews 2:14. 'Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.....'

One purpose of the Lord Jesus in coming to the earth is revealed here: the destruction of Satan. What seemed to some to be a terrible tragedy, was in fact a glorious victiory, for our Lord, in His death and resurrection, stripped the devil of his power and took away his trusted weapon. "Just as the scars which a soldier carries are no discredit or dishonour to him if received in an honourable cause, so the cross-sufferings of Christ, instead of marking His defeat, were actually a wonderous victory, for by them He overthrew the arch-enemy of God and man" (A.W. Pink).

I want to discuss, firstly, what is meant by the devil having 'the power of death' and secondly, what that death constituted.
So first of all, it does not mean that the devil had absolute power in the infliction of physical death. Only God has that. "Now see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God beside Me; I kill and I make alive...' (Deut. 32:39; c.f. also 1 Sam. 2:6). Satan could do to Job no more that the Lord allowed him.
Yet we are told in John 8:44 that he 'was a murderer from the beginning.' So what happened at the beginning? The devil seduced our first parents into sin, and by that act the sentence of death passed against their posterity (Rom. 5:12). Satan had a just claim against us all as is shown by him standing at the right hand of the angel of the Lord to oppose (or 'accuse') Joshua the high priest (Zech. 3:1). Therefore he is called, 'the accuser of our brethren, w'ho accused them before our God day and night' (Rev. 12:10). Also, he has justice on his side; Joshua is unspeakably dirty (v.3; c.f. Isaiah 64:6), mired in sin, utterly unsuitable to come to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Matt. 22:11-13). So Satan could enter right into God's presence (Job 1:6; 2:1ff) to accuse God's people and insist that He would be unrighteous if He did not punish them in hell.

The Levitical sacrifices allowed God to pass over sin, but 'it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.' It is only by looking to the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, that Joshua could be (Zech. 3:4-5) 'clothed ... with the garments of savation' and 'covered ... with a robe of righeousness.' But when Christ died on the cross, He 'put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself' (Heb. 9:26), and in doing so utterly defeated Satan because he has now nothing with which to accuse God's people. His 'power of death' is gone. Through believers' union with Christ, our old self was crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6), and we are now cleared from sin (v.7)

Satan is not yet actually destroyed, but rather, made null and void. The word used in Heb. 2:14 is katargeo, which means 'bring to nothing' in 1 Cor. 1:28 and 'make void' in Rom. 3:31. He has been defeated so utterly that he cannot prevail against those in Christ. We may read that 'Your adverary the devil walks about like a roaring lion seeking whom He may devour,' but he may not devour us for Christ has taken away our sin (1 John 3:5), hence James tells us, Resist the devil and he will flee from you.' In due course, Satan will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10).

 

[JonC]

The problem is you have to bend all Scripture to your theory.

Think about it.

We have God's words. You say that is fine but we also need what your sect has concluded is really taught by the Bible.

Then you say not only is what your sect teaches important, but it is even more important than what God has said.


Just step back and look at how far you have drifted. You can't see it now, but if you step back you will.

The Bible says God forgives sins. You say that is a lie. God must punish sins but allows us to escape this punishment by punishing Jesus in our place.

Scripture says - IN THE SAME PASSAGE - that Christ died and destroyed the power of the who has the power of death, that is the devil. You say that is a lie.

Scripture says it is an abomination to clear the wicked and punish the righteous. You say that is a lie and only the first part applies to God.

Scripture says God predestined us to be righteous, made into new creations, made into Christ's image, to be glorified. You say that is a lie, that we remain wicked but God lays Jesus' righteousness on us.


Think about your theory.

God must transfer the sins of the wicked to Jesus and punish those sins there.

Why? Because Calvin's philosophy demanded it.

Yet you just end up with God clearing the wicked. They are still wicked.

You could pick back up with Scripture here but then it would be obvious that you ultimately trample the blood of Christ underfoot. His death, in your theory, only serves to make God just (we would still be wicked).

 

[JonC]

The ultimate question is whether men who believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement are saved.

Are they Christistians like brethren who disagree about open vs closed communion?

Or are they "Christians" like Mormons claim to be Christian?

Since they hold to another gospel and have abandoned the "faith once delivered" will they hear "I never knew you"?

I believe it depends on how they hold the doctrine. They are like Catholics. There are Catholic Christians, but this is despite their doctrine. Those dedicated to their understanding are false converts (they were among us). But those who hold their understanding at arms length may be saved.

 

[DaveXR650]

The ultimate question is whether men who believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement are saved.

Are they Christistians like brethren who disagree about open vs closed communion?

Or are they "Christians" like Mormons claim to be Christian?

Since they hold to another gospel and have abandoned the "faith once delivered" will they hear "I never knew you"?

I believe it depends on how they hold the doctrine. They are like Catholics. There are Catholic Christians, but this is despite their doctrine. Those dedicated to their understanding are false converts (they were among us). But those who hold their understanding at arms length may be saved.

This is very informative. It's the attitude I always suspected but thanks for confirming.

 

[JonC]

This is very informative. It's the attitude I always suspected but thanks for confirming.

Yes. It is a question we always have to consider.

God warns us not to be carried away by philosophy.

How does this work since we, being human and seeing "as through a glass dimily" cannot but hold an understanding of reality (philosophy)?

God answers this as well.

Lean not on your own understanding. Trust in His words.

The difference between holding an understanding and leaning on our understanding depends on our choices - do we hold our understanding as if it were God's words or do we keep our understanding at arms length?

The danger of being carried away by our philosophies, of leaning on our own understanding rather than the words that come from God is a serious danger.

If it were not God would not have warned us of the danger.

 

[JonC]

This is very informative. It's the attitude I always suspected but thanks for confirming.

I will add....when we lean not on our understanding but trust God, He will make us stand despite errors. Those errors do not substantiate a danger.

But if we lean on our understanding and are carried away by our philosophies then how can we expect anything but hearing "I never knew you"?

Leaning on our understanding is not repenting. It is trusting in ourselves rather than God. It is elevating ourselves to the position of God. It is the original temptation, to be wise like God rather than trusting in Him.


That is why we can be united in Christ even though there exist differences in understanding. As Christians we know that we "see as through a glass, dimly" in this lifetime.

 

[Ascetic X]

Yet we are told in John 8:44 that he (the devil) 'was a murderer from the beginning.' So what happened at the beginning? The devil seduced our first parents into sin, and by that act the sentence of death passed against their posterity (Rom. 5:12).

I have wondered if “murderer from the beginning” goes back even further than Adam and Eve, to the time when Lucifer attempted to usurp the throne of God Almighty. Did he want to kill God?

 

[JonC]

I have wondered if “murderer from the beginning” goes back even further than Adam and Eve, to the time when Lucifer attempted to usurp the throne of God Almighty. Did he want to kill God?

I'd say "murder" speaks of the nature.

That is why the atonement was not purposed merely to forgive sins (if you forgive a murder that does not change the nature...he is still a murderer).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have wondered if “murderer from the beginning” goes back even further than Adam and Eve, to the time when Lucifer attempted to usurp the throne of God Almighty. Did he want to kill God?

It is a possibility, but the Biblical data simply isn't there so anything I might post would be speculation. What we do know is that the devil seduced Adam and Eve into disobeying God, and that brought death upon them and all their posterity.

 

[Reformed]

Hebrews 2:14. 'Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.....'

One purpose of the Lord Jesus in coming to the earth is revealed here: the destruction of Satan. What seemed to some to be a terrible tragedy, was in fact a glorious victiory, for our Lord, in His death and resurrection, stripped the devil of his power and took away his trusted weapon. "Just as the scars which a soldier carries are no discredit or dishonour to him if received in an honourable cause, so the cross-sufferings of Christ, instead of marking His defeat, were actually a wonderous victory, for by them He overthrew the arch-enemy of God and man" (A.W. Pink).

I want to discuss, firstly, what is meant by the devil having 'the power of death' and secondly, what that death constituted.
So first of all, it does not mean that the devil had absolute power in the infliction of physical death. Only God has that. "Now see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God beside Me; I kill and I make alive...' (Deut. 32:39; c.f. also 1 Sam. 2:6). Satan could do to Job no more that the Lord allowed him.
Yet we are told in John 8:44 that he 'was a murderer from the beginning.' So what happened at the beginning? The devil seduced our first parents into sin, and by that act the sentence of death passed against their posterity (Rom. 5:12). Satan had a just claim against us all as is shown by him standing at the right hand of the angel of the Lord to oppose (or 'accuse') Joshua the high priest (Zech. 3:1). Therefore he is called, 'the accuser of our brethren, w'ho accused them before our God day and night' (Rev. 12:10). Also, he has justice on his side; Joshua is unspeakably dirty (v.3; c.f. Isaiah 64:6), mired in sin, utterly unsuitable to come to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Matt. 22:11-13). So Satan could enter right into God's presence (Job 1:6; 2:1ff) to accuse God's people and insist that He would be unrighteous if He did not punish them in hell.

The Levitical sacrifices allowed God to pass over sin, but 'it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.' It is only by looking to the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, that Joshua could be (Zech. 3:4-5) 'clothed ... with the garments of savation' and 'covered ... with a robe of righeousness.' But when Christ died on the cross, He 'put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself' (Heb. 9:26), and in doing so utterly defeated Satan because he has now nothing with which to accuse God's people. His 'power of death' is gone. Through believers' union with Christ, our old self was crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6), and we are now cleared from sin (v.7)

Satan is not yet actually destroyed, but rather, made null and void. The word used in Heb. 2:14 is katargeo, which means 'bring to nothing' in 1 Cor. 1:28 and 'make void' in Rom. 3:31. He has been defeated so utterly that he cannot prevail against those in Christ. We may read that 'Your adverary the devil walks about like a roaring lion seeking whom He may devour,' but he may not devour us for Christ has taken away our sin (1 John 3:5), hence James tells us, Resist the devil and he will flee from you.' In due course, Satan will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10).

I guess the best answer is the simple answer.

1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update (Eph 2:1–3). (1995). The Lockman Foundation.

Is Paul making the case that Satan is a prince, albeit a dark one? No. Satan is no more a prince than he has the power of death. The operative word here is "power". God is the ultimate power. He created all there is. Any power that any other creature possesses is delegated by God. Satan is certainly powerful. I have always thought it is fool hardy for Pentecostals to so cavalierly "bind Satan" as though they have some special power that the rest of us don't. But I digress. Satan's power in relation to death is explained in some of the passages you cited. His lie to Eve lead to her deception and Adam's disobedience resulting in spiritual and physical death.

Some notables on Satan possessing the power of death...


Satan’s use of the power of death is subject to God’s will (see Job 2:6).

MacArthur, J. (2001). Hebrews: Christ—Perfect Sacrifice, Perfect Priest (p. 14). W Publishing Group.

Since, as Luther said, “even the devil is God’s devil,” and since death came into the world because of Adam and Eve’s sin, and since God was the one who decreed physical death as a consequence of sin, in what sense might it be said that Satan holds the power of death? It is because he was the instigator of sin through his temptation of the first couple in the garden. God, not Satan, holds the ultimate power of death, “but the power which he presently wields is also the power by which he is destroyed.”

Allen, D. L. (2010). Hebrews (p. 219). B & H Publishing Group.

So Satan, as far as his power over death is concerned, is completely destroyed by Christ’s death. And all this depended on God appointing the satisfactory sufferings of Christ and accepting them instead of the sufferings of the children themselves.

Owen, J. (1998). Hebrews (p. 45). Crossway Books.

Interesting about Owen (above). Owen does not state plainly (like MacArthur and Allen) that Satan's power is "subject to the will of God" or "God...holds the ultimate power of death" but it is strongly inferred on God wielding the ultimate power by appointing His Son to be the propitiation for sin.

The definite article helps here. Satan does not possess the power of death. That power rests with God:

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update (Mt 10:28). (1995). The Lockman Foundation.

 

[JonC]

I guess the best answer is the simple answer.

1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update (Eph 2:1–3). (1995). The Lockman Foundation.

Is Paul making the case that Satan is a prince, albeit a dark one? No. Satan is no more a prince than he has the power of death. The operative word here is "power". God is the ultimate power. He created all there is. Any power that any other creature possesses is delegated by God. Satan is certainly powerful. I have always thought it is fool hardy for Pentecostals to so cavalierly "bind Satan" as though they have some special power that the rest of us don't. But I digress. Satan's power in relation to death is explained in some of the passages you cited. His lie to Eve lead to her deception and Adam's disobedience resulting in spiritual and physical death.

Some notables on Satan possessing the power of death...


Satan’s use of the power of death is subject to God’s will (see Job 2:6).

MacArthur, J. (2001). Hebrews: Christ—Perfect Sacrifice, Perfect Priest (p. 14). W Publishing Group.

Since, as Luther said, “even the devil is God’s devil,” and since death came into the world because of Adam and Eve’s sin, and since God was the one who decreed physical death as a consequence of sin, in what sense might it be said that Satan holds the power of death? It is because he was the instigator of sin through his temptation of the first couple in the garden. God, not Satan, holds the ultimate power of death, “but the power which he presently wields is also the power by which he is destroyed.”

Allen, D. L. (2010). Hebrews (p. 219). B & H Publishing Group.

So Satan, as far as his power over death is concerned, is completely destroyed by Christ’s death. And all this depended on God appointing the satisfactory sufferings of Christ and accepting them instead of the sufferings of the children themselves.

Owen, J. (1998). Hebrews (p. 45). Crossway Books.

Interesting about Owen (above). Owen does not state plainly (like MacArthur and Allen) that Satan's power is "subject to the will of God" or "God...holds the ultimate power of death" but it is strongly inferred on God wielding the ultimate power by appointing His Son to be the propitiation for sin.

The definite article helps here. Satan does not possess the power of death. That power rests with God:

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update (Mt 10:28). (1995). The Lockman Foundation.

That is not actually a simple answer. But the reason you find it simple is it falls within your theology.

The simplest answer is that Satan will crush His heel and He will crush Satan's head.

I think we all believe thar the wicked will also be raised but to eternal condemnation (body and soul destroyed in Hell).

I am not sure that you providing writings from your sect is any more legitimate than me (or anybody else) doing the same.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am not sure that you providing writings from your sect is any more legitimate than me (or anybody else) doing the same.

This issue keeps coming up. You have inadvertently said a real truth. We live in the age of the common man, magnified and speeded up by the internet I think. Writings from a "sect", referring to Reformed theology is in fact an accumulation of a lot of combined Bible study. While it's not necessarily always right and can lead in wrong directions it probably is indeed more reliable than an individual's "doing the same".

I would suggest that everyone look at confessions and statements of faith or at least other writings and blogs in the case of those who make a big issue of not having a confession. See what else they are doing. I have not found any exceptions so far when I look up "theologians" who deny penal substitution who have not gone completely into the weeds in other areas as well. Don't take my word for it. Look up penal substitution, find articles refuting it, then find other articles and figure out where they are on other issues.

 

[Zaatar71]

I guess the best answer is the simple answer.

1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update (Eph 2:1–3). (1995). The Lockman Foundation.

Is Paul making the case that Satan is a prince, albeit a dark one? No. Satan is no more a prince than he has the power of death. The operative word here is "power". God is the ultimate power. He created all there is. Any power that any other creature possesses is delegated by God. Satan is certainly powerful. I have always thought it is fool hardy for Pentecostals to so cavalierly "bind Satan" as though they have some special power that the rest of us don't. But I digress. Satan's power in relation to death is explained in some of the passages you cited. His lie to Eve lead to her deception and Adam's disobedience resulting in spiritual and physical death.

Some notables on Satan possessing the power of death...


Satan’s use of the power of death is subject to God’s will (see Job 2:6).

MacArthur, J. (2001). Hebrews: Christ—Perfect Sacrifice, Perfect Priest (p. 14). W Publishing Group.

Since, as Luther said, “even the devil is God’s devil,” and since death came into the world because of Adam and Eve’s sin, and since God was the one who decreed physical death as a consequence of sin, in what sense might it be said that Satan holds the power of death? It is because he was the instigator of sin through his temptation of the first couple in the garden. God, not Satan, holds the ultimate power of death, “but the power which he presently wields is also the power by which he is destroyed.”

Allen, D. L. (2010). Hebrews (p. 219). B & H Publishing Group.

So Satan, as far as his power over death is concerned, is completely destroyed by Christ’s death. And all this depended on God appointing the satisfactory sufferings of Christ and accepting them instead of the sufferings of the children themselves.

Owen, J. (1998). Hebrews (p. 45). Crossway Books.

Interesting about Owen (above). Owen does not state plainly (like MacArthur and Allen) that Satan's power is "subject to the will of God" or "God...holds the ultimate power of death" but it is strongly inferred on God wielding the ultimate power by appointing His Son to be the propitiation for sin.

The definite article helps here. Satan does not possess the power of death. That power rests with God:

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update (Mt 10:28). (1995). The Lockman Foundation.

Thank you for this solid and helpful Post Reformed!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This issue keeps coming up. You have inadvertently said a real truth. We live in the age of the common man, magnified and speeded up by the internet I think. Writings from a "sect", referring to Reformed theology is in fact an accumulation of a lot of combined Bible study. While it's not necessarily always right and can lead in wrong directions it probably is indeed more reliable than an individual's "doing the same".

I would suggest that everyone look at confessions and statements of faith or at least other writings and blogs in the case of those who make a big issue of not having a confession. See what else they are doing. I have not found any exceptions so far when I look up "theologians" who deny penal substitution who have not gone completely into the weeds in other areas as well. Don't take my word for it. Look up penal substitution, find articles refuting it, then find other articles and figure out where they are on other issues.

Absolutely! We should not be prevented from reading good books, either by a pride that will not let us consult those wiser than ourselves, or by foolish posters on this board who, pretending to be wise have become fools. Read constantly; read wisely, being careful what you receive as truth, but not despising those who have gone before.

 

[JonC]

This issue keeps coming up. You have inadvertently said a real truth. We live in the age of the common man, magnified and speeded up by the internet I think. Writings from a "sect", referring to Reformed theology is in fact an accumulation of a lot of combined Bible study. While it's not necessarily always right and can lead in wrong directions it probably is indeed more reliable than an individual's "doing the same".

I would suggest that everyone look at confessions and statements of faith or at least other writings and blogs in the case of those who make a big issue of not having a confession. See what else they are doing. I have not found any exceptions so far when I look up "theologians" who deny penal substitution who have not gone completely into the weeds in other areas as well. Don't take my word for it. Look up penal substitution, find articles refuting it, then find other articles and figure out where they are on other issues.

Not inadvertently

All of the theologies we have mentioned is an accumulation of a lot of combined Bible study.

The theology of my sect is an accumulation of a lot of combined Bible study.

Pentecostal theology is an accumulation of a lot of combined Bible study.

Roman Catholic theology is an accumulation of a lot of combined Bible study.

But we are talking systematic theologies.

Reformed theology itself is a perfect examole of systematic theology. It takes Scripture, historical positions, theories about ancient worldviews, philosophy, secular writings, etc. and it reasons out an understanding.

What if just one thing those theologies include and build on is wrong? Then the whole thing is in jeopardy.


For example, if John Calvin's philosophy (a 16th century French philosophy of justice that ended up being insufficient) was wrong then the Reformed understanding of divine justice is wrong.

And if the Reformed understanding of divine justice is wrong then their theory of Atonement is wrong (they place Atonement under divine justice).

And if that Atonement theory is wrong then conclusions based on that Atonement is wrong.


Do you see what I mean?

It is more than just seeing what any sect concludes for given verses because they may sound right to our ears. You have to see how they came to that conclusion.

We have to evaluate every doctrine with Scripture, not subjective creeds or confessions.


Why? Because God's Word is objective. Confessions were developed by men. And ultimately each individual chooses which sect to follow and which confessions to believe.

Test your doctrine against a 16th century Anabaptist confession and it fails. Test it against an Arminian confession and it fails. Test it against some Roman Catholic confessions and it fails. Test it against the Pentecostal confessions and it fails.

Test it against Reformed confessions and it passes (excluding the Doctrines of Grace, which is a type of confessions, but if you drop some of it your theology passes).


I can test my faith against several confessions and it passes....but I would be choosing the comfession so it is subjective (not really a test at all).

 

[DaveXR650]

Reformed theology itself is a perfect examole of systematic theology. It takes Scripture, historical positions, theories about ancient worldviews, philosophy, secular writings, etc. and it reasons out an understanding.

The fact is we all have to do that. If you read that Jesus died for our sins then you have to make some analysis of that. Was is then "necessary" and was it part of God's plan, Satan's plan, an accident? How does my sin now apply to me? Regarding Old Testament scriptures, do the animal sacrifices mean anything that we can use? Can Isaiah and Psalms passages really be applied to use in any manner now? The fact is we all, you included, accept, reject, apply and misapply all these things and if you insist that your view alone is valid and try to make it seem like something put into a confession necessarily becomes more unbiblical than your private view then at the least, you poison any chance of real discussion.

 

[Reformed]

Absolutely! We should not be prevented from reading good books, either by a pride that will not let us consult those wiser than ourselves, or by foolish posters on this board who, pretending to be wise have become fools. Read constantly; read wisely, being careful what you receive as truth, but not despising those who have gone before.

Dead men still speak!

 

[JonC]

The fact is we all have to do that. If you read that Jesus died for our sins then you have to make some analysis of that. Was is then "necessary" and was it part of God's plan, Satan's plan, an accident? How does my sin now apply to me? Regarding Old Testament scriptures, do the animal sacrifices mean anything that we can use? Can Isaiah and Psalms passages really be applied to use in any manner now? The fact is we all, you included, accept, reject, apply and misapply all these things and if you insist that your view alone is valid and try to make it seem like something put into a confession necessarily becomes more unbiblical than your private view then at the least, you poison any chance of real discussion.

We do all use reason to form an understanding. I said several times I do as well.

BUT there is a difference between leaning on our understanding, teaching our understanding, etc. and believing God's Word.

Our understanding should change over time because we "see as through a glass, dimly" as we move "from glory to glory".

This cannot happen if we lean on our understanding.


Calvinism is a stagnant faith. It is built on a philosophy even Calvinists reject today (outside of a religious context).


But the more important problem is it goes beyond God's Word (it is not an interpretation of Scripture but a theory about what is really taught).

For example, I am sure my understanding is flawed. But I can highlight my understanding in the biblical text. Calvinists cannot.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC. You are all over the place on this thread and this one should be read by all. It would help if you would answer the original post and refute what was said instead of these passive aggressive rants. It looks to me like you are the one who has built a theology on a verse that says Satan has the power of death. That has been questioned and I would like to see your answer.

I question your whole method of Bible study. It seems that if you really do as you claim, which is to only accept a direct explicit passage as the sum total of what is intended for us then you leave yourself open to gross error. You have done so with the question of Satan's power of death, you seem to be unable to mentally link prophetic Old Testament passages with Jesus even though Jesus himself does so in several instances, you are unwilling to accept the whole Levitical sacrificial system as having any relevance to the New Testament. Your method also opens one up to being unable to have something mean more or in addition to the stated scripture you refer to. What I mean is that you use a scripture showing some aspect of the atonement that is not penal substitution and because of your method you must assume any other aspect, like PSA must by definition, be false because you have discovered a different scripture. That, by your method, must be a contradiction, when in reality it's an additional point to be made. You simply cannot seriously say you have read prominent Calvinists on the atonement and not know that they held many additional beliefs on what the atonement accomplished. All they insisted on was that at some point one has to deal with God's desire to be just as well as loving and that something was thus done for us regarding our sin.

Lastly, because of your visceral hatred of Calvinism, you come up with one bizarre thing after another to try to discredit it. The latest being French Humanism, or was it Jewish legalism, or Jewish French Legalistic Humanism. Forgetting all the time that the evidence for the concept of God by his nature, exhibiting what we would describe as wrath regarding sin, along with the need for justice is well documented in scripture, early church writers, and, when it comes to modern law, I can't speak for French Humanism but I know our law is hugely influenced by the Old Testament law and I bet so was French legal theory.

 

[JonC]

@JonC. You are all over the place on this thread and this one should be read by all. It would help if you would answer the original post and refute what was said instead of these passive aggressive rants. It looks to me like you are the one who has built a theology on a verse that says Satan has the power of death. That has been questioned and I would like to see your answer.

I question your whole method of Bible study. It seems that if you really do as you claim, which is to only accept a direct explicit passage as the sum total of what is intended for us then you leave yourself open to gross error. You have done so with the question of Satan's power of death, you seem to be unable to mentally link prophetic Old Testament passages with Jesus even though Jesus himself does so in several instances, you are unwilling to accept the whole Levitical sacrificial system as having any relevance to the New Testament. Your method also opens one up to being unable to have something mean more or in addition to the stated scripture you refer to. What I mean is that you use a scripture showing some aspect of the atonement that is not penal substitution and because of your method you must assume any other aspect, like PSA must by definition, be false because you have discovered a different scripture. That, by your method, must be a contradiction, when in reality it's an additional point to be made. You simply cannot seriously say you have read prominent Calvinists on the atonement and not know that they held many additional beliefs on what the atonement accomplished. All they insisted on was that at some point one has to deal with God's desire to be just as well as loving and that something was thus done for us regarding our sin.

Lastly, because of your visceral hatred of Calvinism, you come up with one bizarre thing after another to try to discredit it. The latest being French Humanism, or was it Jewish legalism, or Jewish French Legalistic Humanism. Forgetting all the time that the evidence for the concept of God by his nature, exhibiting what we would describe as wrath regarding sin, along with the need for justice is well documented in scripture, early church writers, and, when it comes to modern law, I can't speak for French Humanism but I know our law is hugely influenced by the Old Testament law and I bet so was French legal theory.

My view is not all over the place. The issue is multifacited....like a diamond. Sum up your worldview in one thing. You can't.

1. Calvin used his understanding of justice in developing his theory od how God met the requirements of justice.

That is kinda common sense, that you disagree is a bit odd.

2. The Reformers viewed the situation between Christianity and the Jewish leaders similar to what they experienced.

Again, common sense. The Reformers week human beings, not robots.

3. You complain that I use Scripture to talk about what is not penal substitution rather than what is penal substitution.

Again, common sense as I do not believe the penal substitution theory is in the biblical text.


You are trying so hard to insult and discredit me. Why don't you just listen and then discard or accept what I am saying?

1. We know Calvin's philosophy of justice because of Calvin's writings on justice.

2. We know how Calvin developed penal substitution because he wrote about how he developed the theory.

3. We know that the Reformers viewed their situation similar to the Jewish leadership vs Christians because of their writings against the Roman Catholic Church.

Those are facts. We can pick up their accounts and read those facts in their own words.

Why should I pick only one fact to explain how a whole theology came into bring?


You are also confusing my looking at a theory with the Reformation. Not all Reformers held Calvin's theory. John Calvin was not the only Reformer.

You confusing these things, even denying facts any of us can read for ourselves, is bizarre.

I do not understand your mentality of defending a camp at all costs. I don't understand it in the secular world either (I like baseball, and the Braves, but just to watch. I do not understand that sports fan mentality).



All of this bluster you have given seems to me to be an attempt to hide the fact that Calvin's theory of divine justice is dependent on Calvin's understanding of justice.

You are offering smoke and mirrors.


Why don't YOU explain how Calvin's understanding of divine justice is NOT determined by Calvin's understanding of justice?