Yea...but it sounds funny. Like "ahhhhhgggg". And they eat brains.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hebrews 2:14. How does the devil have the power of death?
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't go there on a thread where just above you said this about Calvinists:
Is that your answer to the original post? "Death" is found over 400 times in scripture. Much of which is God's direct command. After the things you have said about this you have to address these apparent discrepancies, especially if you are claiming that you only use scripture. It just won't do as an answer to then immediately go into another rant about how Calvin was dependent upon the time he lived in. It just seems to me that you are taking as many liberties with interpretation as any Calvinist.
The direct and correct answer is two fold. One, Calvin was indeed influenced by the times he lived in and what he studied. But he also studied the scriptures. You have no right to leave that out when making your claim. No one denies that men deal with what they are living with. That is precisely why the early church fathers were more interested in proving Christ as Lord and Victor than explaining penal substitution.
Two. This is not exclusively Calvin's. He does not own penal substitution. Others who defend it are not Calvinists. If your point is true then others, who are not Calvinists, would not believe it.
Now, why don't you answer the point made in the OP. You say you only use scripture. I am stating right now that you cannot really do that. You have been confronted with another scripture that doesn't say what you have been saying.
You show us all, how, without using any analysis or theological principle, or previous knowledge, someone like you who only uses scripture, can explain this.
God can freely forgive our sins because someone else had died in our place and took upon Himself our due wrath and condemnation. Due to that Cross, the father can now declare us justified and make us born again by the Holy Spirit. as no shedding of divine blood, no remission for our sins
Actually, the real question would be are those who deny that atonement view really saved, for Pauline Justification supports Psa?
Were we saved by the precious shed blood of God Himself hanging upon that Cross?
Test the Confessions of faith against the scriptures though and they do very indeed tell us what the bible actually teaches to usNot 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).
Did not the entire sacrificial OT system feasts and festivals point towards the coming Messiah being the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53?
The ultimate question about penal substitution theorists IS whether they are saved. My conclusion is that I know many are as I was one of them. We need to ask that about any theology. Are Catholics saved? Some are, some are not. Are Calvinists saved? Some are, some are not.
Having an understanding does not mean leaning on that understanding. Do we lean on our understanding? Some do, some do not.
I did not say the second part about Calvinists. I said that about one member. Spurgeon, Beeke, Sproul...they are Calvinists who said the same thing I said about that point.
You seem to become upset to see me arguing as Calvinists on this board argue against non-Calvinists like @Van and @Silverhair .
BUT I have not seen you argue against Calvinists for saying free-will theology or universal atonement is wrong. I have not seen you stand against Calvinists for insulting non-Calvinists, for saying that they are holding a false philosophy, making man the author of their salvation, etc.
I like you because you seem reasonable, even though you flee legitimate discourse when challenged. But you are doing nothing but rooting for your team.
Explain how John Calvin did not rely on his understanding of justice when dealing with divine justice.
You can't.
Calvin does not own anything. He is dead. But Calvin developed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement you hold. You can read how in his writings.
Now, the Calvinistic argument is that those elements existed before Calvin but he articulated them.
The problem is when you look at those elements they are common Christian belief.
They didn't become Penal Substitution Theory until placed under Calvin's idea of justice.
And I do not actually hate Calvinism any more than I have Roman Catholic doctrine. I speak against Calvinism because I was a Calvinist on the way to being carried away by that philosophy. I was never a Roman Catholic.
What I hate about Calvinism is what it does (and this only about a couple of theories in the theology). It replaces doctrines in God's Word (what the Bible teaches if it teaches God's words) that I love.
So I ask very simple questions.
How do you connect the biblical text to your conclusions?
Can God literally forgive sins or does God have to punish sins in order to clear the sinners?
At judgment, if we are really made new creations, our old self is really dead, we are in the image of Christ, glorified...then why did God have to punish the sins of our old self?
What is the "problem" of man, sins or that we fall short of God's glory which is evidenced by our sins?
Why put the Atonement under the law?
BUT rather than a legitimate conversation Calvinists just insult, post passages we all believe, blow smoke and run away.
Why? Because they cannot defend the philosophies of their Reformed forefathers.
That is not forgiving sins. That is substitution (God punishes sins on a substitute to clear the sinner).
The entire Old Testament points to Christ.
Last edited:
@DaveXR650
I think my last post appeared rude, which was not my intention. I deal with words and ideas on online forums rather than personal interactions. Forgive me if you took me as rude. I will explain, hopefully fully, my agreements and disagreements.
To address what you see as bouncing all over the place:
1. I do believe that the Reformers viewed the situation in 1st century Judaism like they viewed their situation. Some of their observations are true (both the Jewish leadership and the Catholic Church created a religious entity foreign from what it purposed to represent). But some things were assumed. They assumed that the Jews held the same view of justification through the law as did Roman Catholics. But a closer look at the Roman Catholic doctrine of that time casts doubt on this assumption. That said, they both seemed to reject Luther's truth about how men ate justified. My comment on that thread was towards the idea that developing a more accurate view of the 1st century mindset demands some untangling of assumptions.
But that was not about how the Penal Substitution Theory developed or irs accuracy. That was about what we need to consider when looking at how 1st century Jews viewed justification. My point was that they believed themselves God's people by virtue of their birth (by God choosing Israel).
2. My point about needing to look at how we understand justice when developing a doctrine concerning divine justice was about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
If we say that God cannot literally forgive sins because this would make Him unjust, so to justify sinners He punishes sins on Christ to allow sinners escape punishment then we have to address the philosophy of justice being used to define divine justice.
Why does God have to punish sins apart from this meaning the wicked be the recipients of that punishment?
That goes to judicial philosophy. There is only one philosophy that demands sins or crimes be punished for justice to be had. That is the 16th century view John Calvin held.
Now, that does not mean Calvin was wrong. But since there are dozens of judicial philosophies out there it does mean it has to be addressed.
Personally, I believe that divine justice is restorative justice. I have the obligation to state and defend that philosophy as well. And I have.
Restorative justice is creating an end point that is just (here, that meets the righteousness of God, the glory of God). Does it include punishment? Yes. But it does not demand punishment. It focuses on the outcome. It is detailed in Ezekiel 18, for example.
Anyway, my point is we need to discuss how we differ in developing our conclusions. We never get there because Calvinists here jump on any disagreement and will not consider or even allow explanation or debate.
I think my last post appeared rude, which was not my intention. I deal with words and ideas on online forums rather than personal interactions. Forgive me if you took me as rude. I will explain, hopefully fully, my agreements and disagreements.
To address what you see as bouncing all over the place:
1. I do believe that the Reformers viewed the situation in 1st century Judaism like they viewed their situation. Some of their observations are true (both the Jewish leadership and the Catholic Church created a religious entity foreign from what it purposed to represent). But some things were assumed. They assumed that the Jews held the same view of justification through the law as did Roman Catholics. But a closer look at the Roman Catholic doctrine of that time casts doubt on this assumption. That said, they both seemed to reject Luther's truth about how men ate justified. My comment on that thread was towards the idea that developing a more accurate view of the 1st century mindset demands some untangling of assumptions.
But that was not about how the Penal Substitution Theory developed or irs accuracy. That was about what we need to consider when looking at how 1st century Jews viewed justification. My point was that they believed themselves God's people by virtue of their birth (by God choosing Israel).
2. My point about needing to look at how we understand justice when developing a doctrine concerning divine justice was about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
If we say that God cannot literally forgive sins because this would make Him unjust, so to justify sinners He punishes sins on Christ to allow sinners escape punishment then we have to address the philosophy of justice being used to define divine justice.
Why does God have to punish sins apart from this meaning the wicked be the recipients of that punishment?
That goes to judicial philosophy. There is only one philosophy that demands sins or crimes be punished for justice to be had. That is the 16th century view John Calvin held.
Now, that does not mean Calvin was wrong. But since there are dozens of judicial philosophies out there it does mean it has to be addressed.
Personally, I believe that divine justice is restorative justice. I have the obligation to state and defend that philosophy as well. And I have.
Restorative justice is creating an end point that is just (here, that meets the righteousness of God, the glory of God). Does it include punishment? Yes. But it does not demand punishment. It focuses on the outcome. It is detailed in Ezekiel 18, for example.
Anyway, my point is we need to discuss how we differ in developing our conclusions. We never get there because Calvinists here jump on any disagreement and will not consider or even allow explanation or debate.
God the Father can forgive our sins due to the death of Jesus in our stead and for our behalf , that is the very basis, what other basis can there even be?
I agree. He is the "second Adam" and represents spiritual man just as Adam represents natural man.
That is the basis. We repent (turn from our wickedness and to Christ). It is in Christ that we are made new creations.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
@JonC. I don't want this thread to get off track too much because with all the talk of using only scripture, well, here is an example of scripture that clearly indicates a possible mistake in viewing Satan as having the power of death as it relates to discrediting penal substitutionary atonement, which you have tried to do. Once again, what do you do with that passage Martin put up which seems to contradict you? I am referring to Deuteronomy 32:39 and 1 Samuel 2:6.
Regarding Calvinism in general, I could say a lot but not in this thread. Start a new one.
Regarding Calvinism in general, I could say a lot but not in this thread. Start a new one.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Most of those who dislike penal substitutionary atonement do not accept those connections. And they view the shedding of blood in some convoluted way different than we do. I suggest you read any of them and see what I mean. You seem grounded enough not to be lead away by their views. Also, read other articles they write to come up with a fuller picture of what they believe and where they are coming from.
I truly don't think Jon is guilty of this. I do think he is aware of this and thus is a little shy about revealing sources that agree with him. And there again, you can try to get out of that by claiming only to use scripture. I think that is impossible, which is why we are observing a failure of anyone to answer the OP as to how you can explain scriptures that seem to disagree without well, explaining.
I do the same as what you do with this passage:
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.
That is, I rely on context. Hebrews 2:14 is speaking of Satan as having the power of death in relation to sin as sin produces death, Jesus bore our sins, and broke the bonds of this power.
Deuteronomy is speaking of God having the power of life and death, but it seems to me that this is more than physical death (For a fire has flared in My anger,
And it burns to the lowest part of [j]Sheol,
And devours the earth with its yield,
And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains....for the Lord will vindicate His people,and will have compassion on His servants).
1 Samuel can be seen both ways (The Lord puts to death and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and brings up) but the context is the might of God.
Hebrews 2:14 is dealing specifically with the Atonement.
And Satan holding the power of death is not my argument against Calvinism. The reason is Christ's death was also by God's predetermined plan.
@DaveXR650
A lot of my objections were in seeking legitimate responses. Calvinisys on this board should be better with their own theology if they insist on leaning on that understanding. I was years ago when I held your view.
For example:
1. I have repeatedly said that Calvinism holds that God cannot forgive sins. They hold that God has to punish sins in order to allow the guilty to avoid punishment.
And that is true.
Here Calvinists jump all around that fact trying to stir up enough dust that people move on.
A better answer from them would be thar God does not forgive sins, but He punishes those sins on Christ to forgive the sinner.
2. I have repeatedly pointed out that every passage dealing with Christ's death places the responsibility on Satan, evil, or the powers of darkness.
That is true.
Calvinists here actually skip those passages to go try and find others speaking of God's might.
A better answer would be that God uses Satan as the instrument. Satan has no power except by the will of God.
My point in posting is that everybody, not just Calvinists, need to explain how they get from the biblical text to their conclusions when those conclusions are not in the text.
I just do it in a mean way because I am not a nice guy. (Not really...I'm a nice guy but we are just dealing with doctrine).
A lot of my objections were in seeking legitimate responses. Calvinisys on this board should be better with their own theology if they insist on leaning on that understanding. I was years ago when I held your view.
For example:
1. I have repeatedly said that Calvinism holds that God cannot forgive sins. They hold that God has to punish sins in order to allow the guilty to avoid punishment.
And that is true.
Here Calvinists jump all around that fact trying to stir up enough dust that people move on.
A better answer from them would be thar God does not forgive sins, but He punishes those sins on Christ to forgive the sinner.
2. I have repeatedly pointed out that every passage dealing with Christ's death places the responsibility on Satan, evil, or the powers of darkness.
That is true.
Calvinists here actually skip those passages to go try and find others speaking of God's might.
A better answer would be that God uses Satan as the instrument. Satan has no power except by the will of God.
My point in posting is that everybody, not just Calvinists, need to explain how they get from the biblical text to their conclusions when those conclusions are not in the text.
I just do it in a mean way because I am not a nice guy. (Not really...I'm a nice guy but we are just dealing with doctrine).
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
See. I think you are mistaken. I am saying that God has the role of supreme judge and indeed does not just forgive sins. We are told not to seek revenge because it belongs to God. We see in our times how disgusting it is for judges and politicians to forgive something that didn't affect them at all. We have nothing but contempt both for those that do so and for those who falsely demand such a meaningless charade. I say right now that God only forgives sins when his sense of justice about the sin was satisfied in his view. I am not saying he could not - just that his revealed will from scripture indicates that he does not because it would be against his revealed nature, as we know it.
You can stop right here because there is no sense going any further than this. If you reject this you are rejecting an essential part of God's revealed nature - as revealed in scripture, not French Humanists.
I think you misunderstood my position.
I have never said that God just forgives sins. I said God does forgive sins. The Bible gives us God's requirements and God meets these requirements in Christ.
The Bible states that God will forgive us when we repent. This is described as "making a new heart", "turning from wickedness", "dying to sin", "setting one's mind on the Spirit", "laying aside the old self", etc.
I am not sure why Calvinists view God making us new creations, God removing our old heart and spirit, giving us a new heart and spirit, putting His Spirit in us, us dying to sin, being made alive in Christ and being made in the likeness of Christ to be such a minute thing (compared to God punishing sins).
But what you cannot deny is that how I say God forgives us is in the actual text of Scripture while how you say God forgives is what a sect of Christians believe is taught by Scripture.
How we view justice changes how we view the Atonement.
You hold a view that is called legal humanism (Calvin's philosophy of justice) regardless of how you came about it.
I hold a view that is called restorative justice (the Hebrew view of justice, whether right or wrong).
In the OT, this is why you see the Hebrew people constantly calling out and looking for God's judgment (in contrast to viewing it as a day God will punish their sins). They looked at judgment not as punishing sins but as God restoring the nation to a just state consistent with His righteousness, His glory.
Now, if you know of an understanding other than the 16th century French legal humanism of Calvin that presents justice as avenging the law (essentially collecting debts for sins) the by all means I am interested.
What you describe as your belief is Calvin's philosophy (a 16th century French philosophy), but that dies not mean it was not held before. I just know of no other instance, and unlike restorative justice (which we see in passages like Ezekiel 18) it is not in the text of Scripture.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that their purpose is to make clear that it is God who saves us and they meticulously frame everything in a way that brings that out. Their objection to the way you state it above is that for all one can tell, you are say that the meritorious cause of the forgiveness is that you repented. In your statement following the first sentence there may be some mixing up of sanctification with regeneration but a Calvinist would say, and so do I, that you don't make yourself a new heart and turning from wickedness and such are fruits or results of regeneration.
I think you might be mistakenly thinking that when they are objecting they are making light of those things, when what they are objecting to is making them have anything to do with the meritorious cause or reason that God forgives you. Calvinism teaches sanctification and even good works as being "necessary" for salvation. It was Owen that as far as I can tell said we are saved by faith alone but a faith is never alone.
You are again misunderstanding my view. It is my fault as I think people just skim through posts picking up on what sticks out.
You mistake repentance with merit.
Ezekiel 18 gives the requirement ("repent", "turn from wickedness", "turn to God", "make yourself a new heart").
My comment is that this is what God does in us. God gives us "a godly sorrow leading to repentance". God gives us "a new heart and a new spirit". We are "made a new creation in Christ". God "conforms us into the image of Christ".
This, I believe, is by faith in Christ. This is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.
Do you know of any biblical text that states Jesus suffered God's wrath, or that states any other requirements for God to forgive sins than I have listed?
Last edited:
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
@JonC. You asked about Calvinism. Look at what you are doing. By denying a place of preeminence for the blood of Christ being actually causative or supplying a reason for God's forgiveness you indeed are left with your repentance and endeavor to change your ways as providing either merit or if you wish, inducing God to decide to forgive you. When I look at my Bible the notes link John 1:29 with John the Baptist saying "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" with 1 Peter 2:24 which says "He himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree". This is in no way to minimize the importance of repentance or of other things in scripture like "dying to sin and living for righteousness", which follows in 1 Peter but to show that the essential core element of this is the atoning work of Christ in taking our sins on himself. We are not voluntarily or consciously involved in the atonement at all except as recipients of the benefit. You cannot jump in at the point of what we do and call it a day without making a huge mistake in leaving out the most important part.
Now part of the reason Calvinists get so short with you I think when you bring this up in this way is that they are hearing a similar argument that Arminians and Provisionists use to refute the idea that regeneration precedes faith and repentance. And that is a point of Calvinism I am not sure about. But I am just saying that you are partially getting a reaction to that in my opinion.
Now. Is it true that repentance and faith are really what we do? Yes. And I would not object to telling someone that with the only requirement being that they believe Jesus somehow was the one who forgives sins. You see, this gets into the reason I get so upset with you on this. Bare naked repentance and faith leaves out the need for Christ if that's really all you require. This is Socinianism and a false gospel because it is no gospel at all. You might object but it's fair since you question the salvation of Calvinists who go full on with their doctrine. You go full on with your path and it will lead to Socinianism and apostacy.
Now part of the reason Calvinists get so short with you I think when you bring this up in this way is that they are hearing a similar argument that Arminians and Provisionists use to refute the idea that regeneration precedes faith and repentance. And that is a point of Calvinism I am not sure about. But I am just saying that you are partially getting a reaction to that in my opinion.
Now. Is it true that repentance and faith are really what we do? Yes. And I would not object to telling someone that with the only requirement being that they believe Jesus somehow was the one who forgives sins. You see, this gets into the reason I get so upset with you on this. Bare naked repentance and faith leaves out the need for Christ if that's really all you require. This is Socinianism and a false gospel because it is no gospel at all. You might object but it's fair since you question the salvation of Calvinists who go full on with their doctrine. You go full on with your path and it will lead to Socinianism and apostacy.
God the Father got God the Son nailed upon that Cross, due to our sinfulness, and due to Jesus taking what was due us as sinners , in order to be able to declare us justified now
The question to be answered would be on what basis can Holy God declare lost sinners justified now, and yet still remain Holy?
I did not ask about Calvinism.
You misunderstood, again, my statements.
I do not deny a place of preeminence of Christ's blood...it is quite the opposite.
I find your description of the Cross, of God punishing Jesus for our sins instead of us, as extradionary superficial.
At judgment Christ's blood (in the Calvinistic view) is obsolete. We will have been made in Christ's image so the sins of a former self foes not matter.
I do not believe Christ's blood is as superficial as you think.
Instead I believe that it is through His blood that He remedies natural man falling short of God's glory.
His work is not the band-aid you suggest. He did not just address the symptoms of our sickness but addressed the disease, thereby removing the symptoms.