Christ's victory over Satan

[JonC]

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.

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

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.

What that means is the punishment for our sins fell upon Him.

If you do not believe that the punishment for our sins fell on Jesus, then you are correct that you may not hold the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Men like RC Sproul and Author Pink held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. They even thought that God saw Jesus as if He were a sinner and punished Him (or our sins in Him, as He was sinless) instead of us.

But you and I both know that you are playing a word game (God didn't punish Jesus, He just punished our sins that He laid on Jesus....a very stupid argument).

We already established (AND YOU AGREED) that sinners, not sinful actions, are punished. That is men, not what men did, are punished (people are punished for sins). So now you are pretending that God did not punish a Person but instead punished actions and thoughts that were on that Person. How intellectually dishonest.



I have invited you to prove the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement via Scripture. You failed everytime you tried (you always had to resort to "Scripture says... BUT it means ...and teaches...."

I have always been amazed that you thought posting verses we all agree on proves Penal Substitution Theory. I think by now everybody realizes the theory is one of several and is not stated in God's Word.

 

[DaveXR650]

Here is one example of how the classic view differs from your understanding:

' . . . 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)

I think Torrance is saying that we don't want to isolate Jesus in our minds so that he only suffers and dies physically as a victim sacrifice. If we only focus on the actual death of Jesus we miss a major part of the atonement. What Torrance is doing is insisting that we never forget to emphasize the fact that Jesus was one with God at all times and that he was offering himself in sacrifice for us and God was himself reconciling us to himself at the time. He's saying that that is just as much a part of the atonement as the actual death Christ suffered on our behalf. He is not going against the idea of propitiation as appeasement of the wrath of God against sin but he is saying that what happened at the atonement is God actually dealing with sin himself.

But God does deal with sin, according to Torrance. "in which through the shedding of his blood, Christ offered himself in sacrifice, in amen to God's righteous judgement upon our sin and so accepted our judgement or our infliction in our place. In so doing he took to himself and upon himself the righteous wrath of the divine love and freed us from receiving the stroke of divine condemnation which we could not have endured, for under it we could only have been destroyed".

I haven't had time to read much but it seems that Torrance expanded the notion of atonement to encompass doctrines that the Calvinists tended to isolate and separate but in reality agreed upon. For instance my quote above comes from page 154 where he has just said that he is now going to talk about the passive obedience of Christ because he has already covered the active obedience. Torrance included the active obedience in the overarching work of the atonement whereas those who hold to penal substitution believe that it's an essential doctrine but they don't include it in the atonement itself.

I have noticed that Torrance quotes Calvin a lot, as well as Augustine, and he does not seem to me to be enamored with the accuracy of the early church fathers in their views on the atonement. He certainly does not like the idea of a "limited atonement" though and he tends to view individual salvation as not so much being a case of striving to enter in at the strait gate but more of an idea that reconciliation has been accomplished and you will be saved unless you reject it and turn away. That could be a problem, but like I said I just got the book today.

 

[JonC]

I think Torrance is saying that we don't want to isolate Jesus in our minds so that he only suffers and dies physically as a victim sacrifice. If we only focus on the actual death of Jesus we miss a major part of the atonement. What Torrance is doing is insisting that we never forget to emphasize the fact that Jesus was one with God at all times and that he was offering himself in sacrifice for us and God was himself reconciling us to himself at the time. He's saying that that is just as much a part of the atonement as the actual death Christ suffered on our behalf. He is not going against the idea of propitiation as appeasement of the wrath of God against sin but he is saying that what happened at the atonement is God actually dealing with sin himself.

But God does deal with sin, according to Torrance. "in which through the shedding of his blood, Christ offered himself in sacrifice, in amen to God's righteous judgement upon our sin and so accepted our judgement or our infliction in our place. In so doing he took to himself and upon himself the righteous wrath of the divine love and freed us from receiving the stroke of divine condemnation which we could not have endured, for under it we could only have been destroyed".

I haven't had time to read much but it seems that Torrance expanded the notion of atonement to encompass doctrines that the Calvinists tended to isolate and separate but in reality agreed upon. For instance my quote above comes from page 154 where he has just said that he is now going to talk about the passive obedience of Christ because he has already covered the active obedience. Torrance included the active obedience in the overarching work of the atonement whereas those who hold to penal substitution believe that it's an essential doctrine but they don't include it in the atonement itself.

I have noticed that Torrance quotes Calvin a lot, as well as Augustine, and he does not seem to me to be enamored with the accuracy of the early church fathers in their views on the atonement. He certainly does not like the idea of a "limited atonement" though and he tends to view individual salvation as not so much being a case of striving to enter in at the strait gate but more of an idea that reconciliation has been accomplished and you will be saved unless you reject it and turn away. That could be a problem, but like I said I just got the book today.

Torrance believed in what he called "total substitution". This is also called "medical substitution"and "ontological substitution". It is the Classic View of Christ as our substitute, dying on our behalf.

I think you are mixing up a couple of things here. That is understandable because the language is the same.

N.T. Wright (along the same lines as Torrance) illustrated it along the lines of you seeing a man receiving a briefcase at an airport. It could be the man is a spy. But it could be an attendant returning a briefcase he left on a plane. Or a family member giving it to him. The fact is a man received the case, but the context will determine what that means.

The Classic View does hold that "through the shedding of his blood, Christ offered himself in sacrifice, in amen to God's righteous judgement upon our sin and so accepted our judgement or our infliction in our place. In so doing he took to himself and upon himself the righteous wrath of the divine love and freed us from receiving the stroke of divine condemnation which we could not have endured, for under it we could only have been destroyed".

I agree with that completely. Your mistake is in thinking only Penal Substitution Theory deals with sin and divine justice.

A major difference is how Christ died in our place. Is this on our behalf or instead of us? In other words, does it mean that we do not experience the wages of sin or that Christ also experienced these wages and in Him we are delivered through that death.

Now, don't get me wrong.....I'm not saying to follow Torrance. I just used him as an example of a scholar who rejected the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement yet maintained that Christ died for us.

 

[JonC]

It is above all in the Cross of Christ that evil is unmasked for what it actually is, in its inconceivable wickedness and malevolence, in its sheer contradiction of the love of God incarnate in Jesus Christ, in its undiluted enmity to God himself—not to mention the way in which it operates under the cover of the right and the good and the lawful. That the infinite God should take the way of the Cross to save mankind from the pit of evil which has engulfed it and deceived it, is the measure of the evil of evil: its depth is revealed to be ‘absymal’ (literally, ‘without bottom’). However, it is only from the vantage point of God’s victory over evil in the resurrection of Christ, from the bridge which in him God has overthrown across the chasm of evil that has opened up in our violence and death and guilt, that we may look into the full horror of it all and not be destroyed in the withering of our souls through misanthropy, pessimism, and despair. What hope could there ever be for a humanity that crucifies the incarnate love of God and sets itself implacably against the order of divine love even at the point of its atoning and healing operation? But the resurrection tells us that evil, even this abysmal evil, does not and cannot have the last word, for that belongs to the love of God which has negated evil once and for all and which through the Cross and resurrection is able to make all things work together for good, so that nothing in the end will ever separate us from the love of God. It is from the heart of that love in the resurrected Son of God that we may reflect on the radical nature of evil without suffering morbid mesmerization or resurrection and crucifixion events, which belong inseparably together, has behind it the incarnation, the staggering fact that God himself has come directly into our creaturely being to become one of us, for our sakes. Thus the incarnation, passion, and resurrection conjointly tell us that far from evil having to do only with human hearts and minds, it has become entrenched in the ontological depths of created existence and that it is only from within those ontological depths that God could get at the heart of evil in order to destroy it, and set about rebuilding what he had made to be good. (We have to think of that as the only way that God ‘could’ take, for the fact that he has as a matter of fact taken this way in the freedom of his grace excludes any other possibility from our consideration.) It is surely in the light of this ontological salvation that we are to understand the so-called ‘nature of miracles’, as well as the resurrection of Jesus from death, for they represent not a suspension of the natural or created order but the very reverse, the recreation of the natural order wherever it suffers from decay or damage or corruption or disorder through evil. God does not give up his claim that the creation is ‘good’, but insists on upholding that claim by incarnating within the creation the personal presence of his own Logos, the creative and ordering source of the creation, thereby pledging his own eternal constancy and rationality as the ground for the redemption and final establishment of all created reality. (Torrance, Divine And Contingent Order)

 

[DaveXR650]

I agree with that completely. Your mistake is in thinking only Penal Substitution Theory deals with sin and divine justice.

Jon there is at the most basic level the fact that penal substitution is essential and IS the core issue and my point is that Torrance was not against that. Regarding the OP, Martin in post #1 said things that I am finding in Torrance's book (although I haven't had much time with the book yet) but I think the OP was answered there.

In addition I want to say something about this Western or "Latinized" thinking. I agree that we are products of thought patterns that we get from our age and culture. I find that humbling and somewhat scary because we are completely unaware of them. I have mentioned before that I noticed that for instance the ancients could give God total credit for something and at the same time realize it was something they had to do. We moderns fight over that constantly. To us it has to be one or the other, not both. But that is what it is and that same modern logic keeps us from falling into the idea that Jesus had to pay Satan a ransom or that bread and wine literally turned into Christ's body and blood. We will examine it and see for ourselves. In other words, we're stuck with our time and how we think although we can learn from others - we are moderns.

I have not seen anything, anywhere that refutes the idea that the actual, most basic level of our salvation is about Christ taking upon himself our sin, in our place and bearing it. Torrance is good at reminding us that it was God the Father's plan and he actually dealt with our sin himself and himself satisfied his wrath and justice and love for us in a way only God could do. There are volumes written correctly about what the atonement means for us, for Satan, for all of creation but penal substitution is at the core when you are talking about our salvation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jon there is at the most basic level the fact that penal substitution is essential and IS the core issue and my point is that Torrance was not against that. Regarding the OP, Martin in post #1 said things that I am finding in Torrance's book (although I haven't had much time with the book yet) but I think the OP was answered there

First of all, thank you for mentioning the O.P. I was almost in despair.
Secondly, Torrance mentions evil being unmasked and so forth at the cross, but he does not seem to find anywhere to mention God's justice. How is that justice set forth at the cross or at the resurrection? How is God 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus'? Torrance doesn't tell us. The fact that he seems to see no need to mention the Scriptures at all in that extended quotation worries me. He seems to be setting forth his philosophy rather than dealing with the word of God.
Thirdly, anytime someone mentions 'ontological,' let alone three times in a sentence and a half, I tend to reach for my non-ontological shotgun.

Back to my holiday.

 

[JonC]

Jon there is at the most basic level the fact that penal substitution is essential and IS the core issue and my point is that Torrance was not against that.

This is a false assumption.

We know that Penal Substitution Theory did not exist until 1500 years after the Resurrection. You acknowledged this fact when you wrote that 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".

History proves you wrong. Traditional Christianity held a view of the Atonement that contradicts the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

So whether correct or error we know, as an objective fact, that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is not essential as Christianity existed without the theory much longer than with it.


Now, I do not agree with Torrance's theology as a whole. I offered him as an example of Ontological Substitution (the view Torrance stated that he held rather than Penal Substitution).

Torrance took Aquinas' position regarding substitution (I believe both Aquinas and Penal Substitution Theory are wrong.....as I've stated before). It at least Torrance said he did. You seem to know what Torrance believed better than Torrance himself.


You see the Theory of Atonement under every rock. The reason is any Christian who sees penal and substitution in the Atonement, which is ALL CHRISTIANS, you assign as Penal Substitution theorists.


Let me ask you:

Traditional Christianity correctly holds that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering punishment as our substitute in that He is the last "Adam".

Do you understand how it is that that is NOT Penal Substitution?

Can you see the difference in that statement between your belief and traditional Christianity?

 

[JonC]

First of all, thank you for mentioning the O.P. I was almost in despair.
Secondly, Torrance mentions evil being unmasked and so forth at the cross, but he does not seem to find anywhere to mention God's justice. How is that justice set forth at the cross or at the resurrection? How is God 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus'? Torrance doesn't tell us. The fact that he seems to see no need to mention the Scriptures at all in that extended quotation worries me. He seems to be setting forth his philosophy rather than dealing with the word of God.
Thirdly, anytime someone mentions 'ontological,' let alone three times in a sentence and a half, I tend to reach for my non-ontological shotgun.

Back to my holiday.

Lol.....yes, Torrance did favor using "ontological substitution" in his lectures.

I can picture students playing a drinking game - everytime he says "ontological" take a shot.

But to be fair, scholars tend to emphasize what differentiates them from a given tradition.

Luther emphasized justification by faith because it defined his view among his peers. Torrance was reformed but emphasized ontological substitution because it defined his view among his peers.

So making fun of Torrance for using the term does not negate the his point in using the term.

 

[JonC]

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.

Satan was a servant of God, even in his rebellion. This speaks to God's sovereignty (Satan is the adversary....man's adversary).

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

Now that I think about it, answering this question will explain the entire issue.

Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute in that He is the last "Adam".

That is not, of course, Penal Substitution Theory (it is actually my belief).

But do you understand how it is that that is NOT Penal Substitution?

 

[DaveXR650]

We know that Penal Substitution Theory did not exist until 1500 years after the Resurrection. You acknowledged this fact when you wrote that 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".

How much was written about it or when it was correctly articulated has nothing to do with the truth of it. The Earth was going around the Sun in reality long before men figured it out.

History proves you wrong. Traditional Christianity held a view of the Atonement that contradicts the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

That is not the case and you have not been able to show that. Other writers are satisfied they find the concept of penal substitution in the writings of early church fathers and in scripture. You don't. I get that but I'm going with them because I see their point and I find it in scripture.

Traditional Christianity correctly holds that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering punishment as our substitute in that He is the last "Adam".

Do you understand how it is that that is NOT Penal Substitution?

I do believe that Christ was in the role of the last "Adam" but I also believe that when Christ is suffering punishment as our substitute it is because of our sin and NOT just the fact that Adam fell and Christ is a new Adam.

 

[DaveXR650]

Satan was a servant of God, even in his rebellion. This speaks to God's sovereignty (Satan is the adversary....man's adversary).

That is true but it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

[JonC]

How much was written about it or when it was correctly articulated has nothing to do with the truth of it. The Earth was going around the Sun in reality long before men figured it out.

The issue is believing it remained hidden until the Reformation.

More than that is your insurance that Christianity itself was ignorant of what you consider a central part of redemption for 1,500 years.

You are in essence saying a couple of 16th Century men coming out of the Roman Catholic Church successfully explained what Jesus, the Apostles, and Christianity for a millennia and a half failed to articulate.

Your faith is a departure from the faith delivered through the Apostles and your justification is they just didn't understand.

 

[JonC]

I do believe that Christ was in the role of the last "Adam" but I also believe that when Christ is suffering punishment as our substitute it is because of our sin and NOT just the fact that Adam fell and Christ is a new Adam.

That does not answer the question.


Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute in that He is the last "Adam".

But do you understand how it is that that is NOT Penal Substitution?


I ask because you seem to realize that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a fairly recent articulation of the Cross but you still read the theory into every expression of Atonement (for example, you do not seem to understand Torrance's substitution as opposed to penal substitution as a type of substitution).

 

[DaveXR650]

Jon, we just disagree on this. I find the evidence ample in both scripture and in the writings of the early church fathers concerning this definition of the atonement. You don't. I respect that but am not going to go with your opinion over everyone else who believes like I do and are as qualified as you are. I bought the book called "Atonement, The Person and Work of Christ" by Torrance and of course I've only had it one day and you know he's rather difficult to read. But it does not look to me like he takes your view either. Before I bought the book I got on the Puritan Board site to see what they thought of him and most recommended him (if you could read him). Thank you for the recommendation of the book as I am finding him to be thought provoking to say the least but he seems to be in agreement with PSA and only insists that the atonement encompasses a lot in addition.

You are in essence saying a couple of 16th Century men coming out of the Roman Catholic Church successfully explained what Jesus, the Apostles, and Christianity for a millennia and a half failed to articulate.

No. That's what you are saying. That is not what is going on.

 

[JonC]

Jon, we just disagree on this. I find the evidence ample in both scripture and in the writings of the early church fathers concerning this definition of the atonement. You don't. I respect that but am not going to go with your opinion over everyone else who believes like I do and are as qualified as you are. I bought the book called "Atonement, The Person and Work of Christ" by Torrance and of course I've only had it one day and you know he's rather difficult to read. But it does not look to me like he takes your view either. Before I bought the book I got on the Puritan Board site to see what they thought of him and most recommended him (if you could read him). Thank you for the recommendation of the book as I am finding him to be thought provoking to say the least but he seems to be in agreement with PSA and only insists that the atonement encompasses a lot in addition.

No. That's what you are saying. That is not what is going on.

I am going to ask again as this will help me to better understand what you are seeing -

Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute.

How is that NOT the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement?

 

[DaveXR650]

I ask because you seem to realize that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a fairly recent articulation of the Cross but you still read the theory into every expression of Atonement (for example, you do not seem to understand Torrance's substitution as opposed to penal substitution as a type of substitution).

Like I said, I just got the book but I have yet to find where Torrance contradicts the idea of penal substitutionary atonement. Rather, he expands on it. For instance, he says that the obedient life of Christ was part of the atonement. Well, in my Western mind I tend to focus in on the actual death of Christ because I'm thinking of the Old Testament sacrifices but when I went back and looked at Edwards on redemption it seems he alluded to the same thing.

 

[JonC]

Like I said, I just got the book but I have yet to find where Torrance contradicts the idea of penal substitutionary atonement. Rather, he expands on it. For instance, he says that the obedient life of Christ was part of the atonement. Well, in my Western mind I tend to focus in on the actual death of Christ because I'm thinking of the Old Testament sacrifices but when I went back and looked at Edwards on redemption it seems he alluded to the same thing.

The development of the penal and satisfaction notions in atonement owes a great deal to the Latin language and highly Latinised concepts as we can see when we compare the western development of these notions, either in Roman or Protestant thought, with the exposition of the penal and satisfaction aspects in the thought of Cyril of Alexandria especially. It was the penal-substitution notion, together with a narrowed understanding of justification, that became dominant in the centuries of so-called Protestant Orthodoxy and today in so-called Evangelical Protestantism.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am going to ask again as this will help me to better understand what you are seeing -

Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute.

How is that NOT the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement?

What happened to "the last Adam". Yes. The above would satisfy me as penal substitution. I suspect what may be bothering you is the idea that each specific sin that each specific person ever committed was subject to a specific amount of "punishment" meted out to Christ to placate the anger of God. Because this is the way Owen presented it in defending particular atonement. "Did Christ die for some sins of everyone, all the sins of everyone or all the sins of some?" I do think there is a danger of turning this into a mechanical process, if I can say that reverently, where you are then lead into logical requirements that require absolute determinism in order to have God be personally involved at all. But to me, that's a whole different argument and does not take away from the truth of PSA.

 

[JonC]

What happened to "the last Adam". Yes. The above would satisfy me as penal substitution. I suspect what may be bothering you is the idea that each specific sin that each specific person ever committed was subject to a specific amount of "punishment" meted out to Christ to placate the anger of God. Because this is the way Owen presented it in defending particular atonement. "Did Christ die for some sins of everyone, all the sins of everyone or all the sins of some?" I do think there is a danger of turning this into a mechanical process, if I can say that reverently, where you are then lead into logical requirements that require absolute determinism in order to have God be personally involved at all. But to me, that's a whole different argument and does not take away from the truth of PSA.

I removed it to keep it simple.

I ask because that is not the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Traditional Christianity held that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute.

That you take those statements as Penal Substitution helps explain why you read the theory in other writings.

Every Christian believes that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute. BUT most Christians do not believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement correct.

Torrance, for example, rejected penal substitution in favor of ontological substitution (the type of substitution).

In addition I want to say something about this Western or "Latinized" thinking. I agree that we are products of thought patterns that we get from our age and culture.

This is true. But it is something we need to address rather than accept. Scripture was not written in a Latin context. It was not written in a Western context.

My complaint is that you and @Martin Marprelate read words of men in an entirely different context than they were written and assign to those men beliefs those people's fuller statements reject because the language is similar or they use Bible verses.

That is why I asked if you believed the statement I offered was Penal Substitution. The reason is it is not, yet you read your theory into that statement.

I take it you have never read Thomas Aquinas or Augustine, so you read "punishment" as "punishment for sin", "substitution" as "penal substitution" rather than "medical/ total/ ontological substitution" and "for" as "instead of" rather than "in one's behalf".