Classical vs Latin Atonement

[Martin Marprelate]

The Classic View is focused on Christ as suffering under the powers of evil and gaining victory over those powers.

Once again, Isaiah 53:10 refutes your theory. In fact the one thing Satan did not want Christ to do was to die on the cross. In the wilderness, in Gethsemane and even on the cross, Satan's efforts were directed at stopping our Lord from going through with His atoning death. The victory that Christ gained over Satan was in paying the debts of His people in full so that Satan could accuse them no more before God.

The problem is the rest of the writing is a complete denial of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Whether it is a denial of your theory or not, it is not a denial of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution and you have provided no evidence to say that it is.

 

[JonC]

Once again, Isaiah 53:10 refutes your theory. In fact the one thing Satan did not want Christ to do was to die on the cross. In the wilderness, in Gethsemane and even on the cross, Satan's efforts were directed at stopping our Lord from going through with His atoning death. The victory that Christ gained over Satan was in paying the debts of His people in full so that Satan could accuse them no more before God.

Whether it is a denial of your theory or not, it is not a denial of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution and you have provided no evidence to say that it is.

My theory? I was telling you what Gregory believed as you think his view is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

As far as I know all Christian views hold that "the Lord was pleased to crush Him". Peter says it well when he tells us that Christ died at the hands of the wicked but also by the predetermined will of God.

Now, if you are thinking that God was giddy when Jesus died then that's an entirely different story. That is a misinterpretation of "pleased" (which refers to God's will). God takes no pleasure in even the destruction of the wicked.

 

[Mikey]

The Ransom Theory does fall within the Classical View. But you are not understanding the significance. The Ransom Theory itself isn't the Classical View.

Likewise, the Roman Catholic theology of the Cross falls under the Latin View (along with the Penal Substitution Theory). But the theories are not the same.

The Classic View is focused on Christ as suffering under the powers of evil and gaining victory over those powers.

The Latin View focuses on Christ satisfying some divine demand against man.

Under each there are numerous positions.

Under the Classic View there is Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, Moral Influence Theory,....and so on.

Under the Latin View there is the Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution.


I think you have misunderstood the meaning of "doctrine". The word means "teaching". The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is Penal Substitution Theory. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine. These things are theories that are doctrines....they are false doctrines, but doctrines nonetheless.

Calling it the Doctrine of Penal Substitution does not change the fact that it is simply the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement taught.

Have you watched the video I posted? Thoughts?

 

[JonC]

Have you watched the video I posted? Thoughts?

I did. There are things I really like about the video (especially union and reconciliation).

I agree with the video that there are truths in all views, and if I understood him correctly that no one view really encompass the totality of Christ's work.

But there is still an issue. In a way he is taking a position similar to Warren on the other thread. No one there is completely right, but he provides no real solution except a type of compromise.

My issue with him is that he is not really discussing the theories. He is doing what many often do (and what I often did). Each theory does point out biblical truths, even Penal Substitution Theory. BUT when you go outside of the Classic view they actually contradict one another.

Here is what I mean - within the Classic view each theory focuses on some point but not at the exclusion of another view. Recapitulation, for example, presents Christ as in effect walking through Adam's life doing right what he failed. The Moral Influence and Random theories can sit side by side. Augustine's atonement view was Recapitulation and Ransom Theory. The Orthodox Church holds Moral Influence and Recapitulation.

BUT all of the theories under the Classic View oppose the theories under the Latin View.

Under the Latin View each theory (Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, Ontological Substitution, and Penal Substitution Theory) directly opposed each other. Either they are all wrong and we try to pick out what we agree with or only one of them is correct.

 

[kyredneck]

the one thing Satan did not want Christ to do was to die on the cross

??? ...yet that is precisely the way Satan murdered Him.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

??? ...yet that is precisely the way Satan murdered Him.

Satan murdered Christ? Where is your Scripture for that? Isaiah 53:10; John 10:18; Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28.
Satan's temptations of Christ in the wilderness were intended to keep Him from obeying His Father. At the end of those, we read that the devil departed from Him 'until an opportune time' (Luke 4:13).. What more opportune time that Gethsemane? And what was the temptation? Not to go to the cross (Matthew 26:39 etc.). And on the cross, what was everyone telling Him to do, perhaps at the instigation of Satan? "Come down from the cross!" Mark 15:30-31; Luke 23:39.
The only evidence the other way is that Satan entered into Judas Iscariot, but I cannot think of any other verses that speak of Satan killing Christ. I think you may have been reading too much from the Church Fathers.

 

[kyredneck]

Satan murdered Christ?

Yes! That's basic fundamental Bible knowledge, foretold from the very beginning, contained within "the germ of all prophecy":

14 And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3

 

[kyredneck]

Satan murdered Christ? Where is your Scripture for that? Isaiah 53:10; John 10:18; Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28.
Satan's temptations of Christ in the wilderness were intended to keep Him from obeying His Father. At the end of those, we read that the devil departed from Him 'until an opportune time' (Luke 4:13).. What more opportune time that Gethsemane? And what was the temptation? Not to go to the cross (Matthew 26:39 etc.). And on the cross, what was everyone telling Him to do, perhaps at the instigation of Satan? "Come down from the cross!" Mark 15:30-31; Luke 23:39.
The only evidence the other way is that Satan entered into Judas Iscariot, but I cannot think of any other verses that speak of Satan killing Christ. I think you may have been reading too much from the Church Fathers.

Your ignorance of basic scripture ever amazes me. Do you actually think that Satan himself had to physically materialize in this realm to murder Christ?

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. Jn 8

Did Jesus resurrect himself?

 

[37818]

. . . thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3

Brusing Christ's heel didn't kill Christ. And you did not complete an argument for Satan murdering Christ. I believe Satan murdered Christ by intent. No one killed Christ, John 10:17-18, ". . . Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. . . ."

 

[37818]

. . . thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3

Brusing Christ's heel didn't kill Christ. And you did not complete an argument for Satan murdering Christ. I believe Satan murdered Christ by intent. No one killed Christ, John 10:17-18, ". . . Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. . . ."

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"Orthodox" as in within orthodox Christianity.

Free-will Baptist and Reformed Baptist contradict one another, but both are orthodox beliefs.

Eastern Orthodoxy and its close kin is not Orthodox in its theology despite it being known as Eastern Orthodoxy.

Roman Catholicism is not Orthodox either. It is not Christianity. They believe in too many (as if one isn't enough) heresies. And their beliefs down through the centuries have not remained uniform. One age of RCism contradicts other Roman Church doctrines.

 

[kyredneck]

Brusing Christ's heel didn't kill Christ.

Did God raise Him from the dead or not?

And you did not complete an argument for Satan murdering Christ.

I didn't intend to provide a 'complete argument'.

I believe Satan murdered Christ by intent.

Well, yeah, that's what murder is, first-degree homicide.

No one killed Christ, John 10:17-18, ". . . Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. . . ."

K, but, the Spirit makes no bones about laying the blame for Christ's murder squarely on the Jews.

 

[DaveXR650]

I wouldn't get too caught up in trying to get deeply into "who killed Jesus". We know from scripture the immediate guilty party is the Romans. They were set up by the Jewish leaders who manipulated them into doing that in order to keep the peace. In Matthew and in Mark, Peter, who loved Jesus tried to take him aside and rebuke him for saying he had to go to Jerusalem and be killed. And Jesus response was the famous "Get thee behind me Satan". So trying to prevent it was not OK with Jesus. Yet it seems like Judas was under Satanic control at the point where he betrayed Jesus.

In a sense, we all killed Jesus, if you believe it was part of God's plan and it was necessary for Jesus to die in order for our salvation to be accomplished. And if God's plan you could say, carefully, that it was God.

We know it was not an accident or a situation gone wrong where Satan had an unexpected victory. Yet, in a sense that is what every human who loved Jesus thought at first at least. I wonder if Satan thought that too. In other words, does scripture reveal that Satan knew enough of Christ's real mission to want to prevent the cross or did he just know something big was up and he tempted Jesus knowing that if he could induce Jesus to disobey the Father he could derail whatever was going on. At the point of Jesus death did Satan think of that at that moment as a victory or as a defeat, which in reality it was?

 

[37818]

. . . into "who killed Jesus". . . .

Brings to mind, John 10:17-18, ". . . Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. . . ."

 

[kyredneck]

I wouldn't get too caught up in trying to get deeply into "who killed Jesus".

So, you agree with Martin?:

the one thing Satan did not want Christ to do was to die on the cross.

We know from scripture the immediate guilty party is the Romans.

Well, not that I would expect you to know this, but that's not at all how the scripture presents it. Acts Of The Apostles 2:22-23

They were set up by the Jewish leaders who manipulated them into doing that in order to keep the peace.

Was it to the Romans that Christ declared this?:

"...upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation...."

Was it Roman multitudes that the Jewish leaders were manipulating?:

"...the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus...."

Was it a Roman multitude that made the choice?:

"...the governor answered and said unto them, Which of the two will ye that I release unto you? And they said, Barabbas...."

Was it a Roman multitude that called for His execution?:

"...Pilate saith unto them, What then shall I do unto Jesus who is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified...."

Was it Romans that pronounced this and openly took the blame?:

"... And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children...."

Once again, the Spirit makes no bones about laying the blame for Christ's murder squarely on the Jews.....not that I expect you to get "too caught up" into what the scripture actually says.

the famous "Get thee behind me Satan". So
trying to prevent it was not OK with Jesus.

K. Changes nothing as far as who killed Christ, which ultimately was Satan through his children on earth.

Judas was under Satanic control at the point where he betrayed Jesus.

Well, yea, Judas was a child of the devil.

 

[37818]

Did God raise Him from the dead or not?

Yes.

Well, yeah, that's what murder is, first-degree homicide.

But Satan did not kill the Christ. In Jesus' words, "but I lay it down of myself."

K, but, the Spirit makes no bones about laying the blame for Christ's murder squarely on the Jews.

It was on the part of the Jews contrary to their Law. The Romans did the crucifixion. But Jesus died and arose Himself on the third day by His own power, John 1:3.

 

[DaveXR650]

You guys are getting off topic. I was just raising the question of whether Satan was fully aware of the consequences of Christ dying a sacrificial death or was he looking at it as a final victory over Christ if he could get him killed. It would make a good thread if there is not some specific answer I have overlooked.

Well, not that I would expect you to know this, but that's not at all how the scripture presents it. Acts Of The Apostles 2:22-23

You should at least try to hide your dislike for me. Otherwise it just reflects on you. I occasionally read scripture. The Jews could not crucify Jesus. The Roman authorities had to do that. Jesus actually won his case with the Romans but due to the composition of the Jewish crowd at the time of the trial went along with the mob. There were no "Roman multitudes" involved. I don't know where you get that.

I wasn't trying to make any kind of debate point but you need to be careful that if you take the position that Jesus was murdered that you don't give people the erroneous impression that this was not the plan of Jesus all along. A plan he could have rescued himself from, as he said, or a plan Peter could have interfered with if Jesus had not rebuked him. My guess is that that is the issue Martin is concerned about. There is a modern school of thought that the death of Jesus was a great, unplanned tragedy and nothing more. Of course then you don't have Christianity although you have some good moral teachings. Some of your earlier statements seemed to be moving in that direction.

 

[JonC]

Eastern Orthodoxy and its close kin is not Orthodox in its theology despite it being known as Eastern Orthodoxy.

Roman Catholicism is not Orthodox either. It is not Christianity. They believe in too many (as if one isn't enough) heresies. And their beliefs down through the centuries have not remained uniform. One age of RCism contradicts other Roman Church doctrines.

You are wrong. Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism are within Orthodox Christianity.

I believe they are both wrong.

That said, we were discussing your comment that opposing doctrines cannot both be orthodox. So those extremes are a bit misleading.

Presbyterian Theology and Baptist Theology are opposing views. By your statement Presbyterians are unorthodox (RC Sproul, for example, would have been spreading a message that stood outside of orthodox Christianity).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your ignorance of basic scripture ever amazes me. Do you actually think that Satan himself had to physically materialize in this realm to murder Christ?

I might say the same about you. Satan did not have to materialize in order to murder Christ, but the fact is, he didn't do it. The Son laid down His own life at the behest of the Father.
The cross was Satan's defeat. Do you think he did not hear our Lord foretell His death and resurrection several times to His disciples? Why would he facilitate God's pre-announced plan since it was His ultimate downfall?

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. Jn 8

When was the 'beginning? When he caused the death of Adam and Eve.

 

[kyredneck]

you need to be careful that if you take the position that Jesus was murdered....

Egad, the Spirit makes no bones about calling it murder, plainly, repeatedly, from scripture.

Satan did not have to materialize in order to murder Christ, but the fact is, he didn't do it.

So God got it all wrong then. The Serpent did NOT bruise His heel, nor did the Great Red Dragon chase after the Woman to devour her Child.