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

[JonC]

Dead men still speak!

Yea...but it sounds funny. Like "ahhhhhgggg". And they eat brains.

 

[DaveXR650]

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?

I wouldn't go there on a thread where just above you said this about Calvinists:

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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).

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

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Actually, the real question would be are those who deny that atonement view really saved, for Pauline Justification supports Psa?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Were we saved by the precious shed blood of God Himself hanging upon that Cross?

 

[JesusFan]

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).

Test the Confessions of faith against the scriptures though and they do very indeed tell us what the bible actually teaches to us

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Did not the entire sacrificial OT system feasts and festivals point towards the coming Messiah being the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53?

 

[JesusFan]

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?

Calvins beza Hodge Owen Spurgeon etc concept of atonement was derived from and by the very inspired scriptures themselves

 

[JonC]

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.

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.

 

[JonC]

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

That is not forgiving sins. That is substitution (God punishes sins on a substitute to clear the sinner).

 

[JonC]

Did not the entire sacrificial OT system feasts and festivals point towards the coming Messiah being the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53?

The entire Old Testanent points to Christ.