You didn't even see fit to respond to post #14. Instead, you resort to accusing me of 'attacking' you. Good grief.
Last edited:
-
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!
Penal Substitution Atonement Theory - Question
- Thread starter kyredneck
- Start date
- Status
You didn't even see fit to respond to post #14. Instead, you resort to accusing me of 'attacking' you. Good grief.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Jesus said in John 10:18 “no one takes it from Me, I lay it down of many own accord”
I understand “Christus Victor” as Satan over powered Jesus, God Himself, and killed Him in an attempt to stop God from redeeming His creation.
In humiliation and shame, God was about to be forced from His throne in heaven (since Satan was victorious) when God pulled the ‘ol switch-a-roo on Satan and resurrected Jesus:Ta Da!! Christus Victor.
The many problems with this view includes that it ignores all of the sacrificial language associated with the death of Jesus. Much too numerous to mention here.
It gives far too much power to Satan and presents Jesus as helpless before him.
I will state again the premise that Satan crucified Jesus is unfounded, according to Jesus’s own words mention in John 10:18.
The Genesis passage says “bruise His heel”, not “crucify” It refers to a non/lethal wound.
The revelation that assuage refers to Israel”
You accused me of allowing “dogma” to prevent me from seeing the truth of God’s Word. That is a personal attack
Call me thin skinned if you like, doesn’t really help the conversation but it does tend to cause me to respond in turn, so I will bow out of your thread.
Peace talks you
I understand “Christus Victor” as Satan over powered Jesus, God Himself, and killed Him in an attempt to stop God from redeeming His creation.
In humiliation and shame, God was about to be forced from His throne in heaven (since Satan was victorious) when God pulled the ‘ol switch-a-roo on Satan and resurrected Jesus:Ta Da!! Christus Victor.
The many problems with this view includes that it ignores all of the sacrificial language associated with the death of Jesus. Much too numerous to mention here.
It gives far too much power to Satan and presents Jesus as helpless before him.
I will state again the premise that Satan crucified Jesus is unfounded, according to Jesus’s own words mention in John 10:18.
The Genesis passage says “bruise His heel”, not “crucify” It refers to a non/lethal wound.
The revelation that assuage refers to Israel”
You accused me of allowing “dogma” to prevent me from seeing the truth of God’s Word. That is a personal attack
Call me thin skinned if you like, doesn’t really help the conversation but it does tend to cause me to respond in turn, so I will bow out of your thread.
Peace talks you
We've been through all this before on the previous thread. If you think that 'bruising the heel' is equivalent to killing, then there's nothing more I can say.
I have answered the question you asked in the OP.
I'm not positing that, at all. The scripture does not posit that. I personally don't care about all the 'bloviation' that's transpired between the two camps of PST and CV on the BB. I have refrained from participating in that 'bloviation', but when I see blatant anti-scriptural positions stating that Satan had nothing to do with the crucifixion I can no longer refrain.
God doesn't lie, neither is He ever mistaken, the serpent bruised the seed of the woman as foretold. Satan was deeply involved in the crucifixion of our Saviour.
It is the equivalent of killing. "Bruising" in the verse is the same as "crushing" (if you are focused on "bruise").
The snakes bit the Jews in the desert and they died. But God had Moses make a bronze snake and lift on a pole. Those who looked upon it lived.
Snakes have traditionally been symbolic with death because they strike at the heels of men and men die.
Thankfully we now hav antivenom that did not exist in the ANE environment.
Do you not have snakes in the UK?
Here in the US we do, except Hawaii. Our concern is rattlesnakes, copperheads, cotton mouths, and coral snakes (although coral snakes are rare).
The serpent crushes His heel but he crushes the serpent's head. The Serpent kills the Seed of the woman but He destroys the Serpent.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The whole point of the Genesis passage (Satan brides the Heel, the seed of the woman brides his head) is to distinguish between a non fatal wound and a fatal wound
peace to you
Yet in Scripture the snake striking man resulted in death. The exception is Paul. And that was considered a miracle as those with him thought he would die.
That said, it also is not a fatal wound as Christ was not destroyed.
Christ suffered and died under the power of Satan, yet was victorious and crushed the Serpent's head.
No need to invent new interpretations for such an old account.
This is nothing new:
Genesis 3:15 Commentaries: And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." (biblehub.com)
What's 'new and strange' is the idea that Satan had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Christ as posited by @canadyjd and @Martin Marprelate and @Mikoo (he agrees with Martin a lot in the background).
Give us some examples of theologians that agree with you - that Satan had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Christ.
Last edited:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
What is not new or strange is folks misrepresent what others say.
You claimed Satan crucified Jesus. That is not supported by scripture.
Satan was used by God (He entered Judas, Jesus was betrayed, arrested, beaten, crucified by wicked men)
So, I never said, as you claimed, that Satan had “nothing that do” with the crucifixion.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
It really seems the issue what was the purpose of the crucifixion.
Was Jesus crucified so God could win a victory over Satan by resurrecting Jesus (Christus Victor)
Or….
Was Jesus crucified so God could redeem His chosen people?
I believe scripture supports the second.
peace to you
Was Jesus crucified so God could win a victory over Satan by resurrecting Jesus (Christus Victor)
Or….
Was Jesus crucified so God could redeem His chosen people?
I believe scripture supports the second.
peace to you
I believe Scripture clearly stated the former - that the Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself, forgiving man's sins, and now men can be reconciled to God.
Christ having victory over Satan points to the Resurrection, breaking the bond of sin and death.
But the Cross (Christ's suffering and death) is reconciliation (solidarity, unity, as Christ experienced the wages of sin we will suffer....that bondage).
No. Satan's seed bruised Christ. Just as foretold in Genesis 3:15. It's absolutely fully supported by scripture.
Last edited:
Last edited:
In your mind it couldn't possibly be both? WHY be so exclusive? So narrow. Is it your dogma that dominates you in lieu of scripture?
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
No, scripture defines what I believe.
This is becoming mindless back and forth. No edification. No substance.
peace to you
Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of [the] death -- that is, the devil -- Heb 2:14 YLT
and him who was made some little less than messengers we see -- Jesus -- because of the suffering of the death, with glory and honour having been crowned, that by the grace of God for every one he might taste of death. Heb 2:9 YLT
When did the devil, Satan, acquire the power of the death?
or to vanity was the creation made subject -- not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it -- in hope, Rom 8:20 YLT
I do not believe reconciliation and or redemption was a reaction to something that might happen but the plan of God through which God would destroy the devil and his works, including, the death, by the creation of man a little lower than than the angels the figure him to come, the Son of God, made a little lower than the angels.
Penal Substitution or a means unto an end?
and him who was made some little less than messengers we see -- Jesus -- because of the suffering of the death, with glory and honour having been crowned, that by the grace of God for every one he might taste of death. Heb 2:9 YLT
When did the devil, Satan, acquire the power of the death?
or to vanity was the creation made subject -- not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it -- in hope, Rom 8:20 YLT
I do not believe reconciliation and or redemption was a reaction to something that might happen but the plan of God through which God would destroy the devil and his works, including, the death, by the creation of man a little lower than than the angels the figure him to come, the Son of God, made a little lower than the angels.
Penal Substitution or a means unto an end?
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
God is not in a competition with Satan. Satan has been “defeated” since God cast him from heaven. He can only do what Gid allows and nothing more.
Christ conquered death, the result of sin, to give eternal life in His presence, through faith in Jesus.
Satan did what God allowed to further His plan of redemption.
That is what scripture plainly teaches.
peace to you
Arthur King
Active Member
Penal substitution requires at least two criteria:
1) That Jesus' death is just/deserved. That is, he dies in order to satisfy specifically the retributive demands of God's justice. Another way of saying it is that he dies to pay a "debt of punishment" as opposed to a debt of obedience or a debt of restitution.
2) That Jesus dies in our place, instead of us, as our substitute, so that we avoid that death.
A penal substitution advocate can still claim that Satan killed Jesus and hold to these criteria. Satan would just be an agent of God's justice, carrying out the deserved penalty for sin on Jesus to satisfy God's wrath.
The above two criteria, I would argue, are still unbiblical though.
- Status