PSA

[kyredneck]

When Satan bruised Christ

...he fell for the trap, period. It was his defeat.

 

[kyredneck]

These two posts show what concerns me about Jon's views

Don't conflate me with @JonC. I'm not arguing for or against any particular atonement theory. I'm defending the truth of scripture that Satan indeed was deeply involved in had everything to do with the crucifixion of Christ. God allowed it. That should be a 'no brainer' even for the shallowest of Bible students.

 

[easternstar]

This is from Turretin and not a complete PSA but a foundational statement.
"God neither has willed, nor could have willed to forgive sins, without a satisfaction made to his justice".

This is the key to the origin of a lot of the disagreement. The Socinians, who Owen and Turretin spent a lot of ink fighting are astoundingly similar in their arguments to some of the guys on here that hate penal substitution. William Lane Craig notes that and then lists exactly what he means by it. I noticed it from reading Owen against Socinus. Most of their arguments are literally word for word. I think it's the reason for my gut reaction to loath those who attack PSA, fair or not.

Well, at least you can't kill me because of my opposition to PSA, as your spiritual ancestors would have done.

 

[easternstar]

...so much hate, from ones that will spend eternity in glory together with The Savior...

That has yet to be determined.

 

[Charlie24]

Lol, I dare say that's pretty much the norm with most of us Charlie.

I guess it's just about got to be that way.

 

[DaveXR650]

Well, at least you can't kill me because of my opposition to PSA, as your spiritual ancestors would have done.

The most widely read of these spiritual ancestors spent 12 years in prison for preaching without a license.

 

[DaveXR650]

Don't conflate me with @JonC. I'm not arguing for or against any particular atonement theory. I'm defending the truth of scripture that Satan indeed was deeply involved in had everything to do with the crucifixion of Christ. God allowed it. That should be a 'no brainer' even for the shallowest of Bible students.

Then in that case would you stop the trolling as my position on this was explained in an earlier post. I am not interested, nor is this thread about what you are trying to hijack. Post 14 explains my position sufficiently. Now I was banned from entering the discussion on another thread discussing other theories of atonement. I would appreciate some respect to allow us to put up our views on a thread about PSA.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"Instead, the righteous, loving Father humbled himself to become in and through his only Son flesh, sin and a curse for us, in order to redeem us without compromising his own character. The theological words 'satisfaction' and 'substitution' need to be carefully defined and safeguarded, but they cannot in any circumstances be given up. The biblical gospel of atonement is of God satisfying himself by substituting himself for us."

That's another great quote! Is it Stott again?

 

[JonC]

That was quoted from the OP article cited. I agree with it too. The definition by Calvin I think covers it completely. And I think here is where you are wrong as explained by Stott.
"The cross was not a commercial bargain with the devil, let alone one which tricked and trapped him; nor an exact equivalent, a quid pro quo to satisfy a code of honor or technical point of law; nor a compulsory submission by by God to some moral authority above him from which he could not otherwise escape; nor punishment of a meek Christ by a harsh and punitive Father; nor a procurement of salvation by a loving Christ by a mean and reluctant Father, nor an action of the Father which bypassed Christ as Mediator."
All those things, whether from you or the ECF's or from a modern Calvinist are mistaken ways of looking at this.

What I mean is we need to actually define our terms.

"Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever."

When we generalize a belief to make it acceptable to all we essentially rob it of it's meaning.

Here you are essentially saying that every Christistian affirms PSA. But that is not true. You are leaving terms undefined (I could say you just offered the definition of Ransom Theory, or Satisfaction Theory).

One of the problems we have today is too many want vague doctrines. At some point those doctrines become meaningless. You end up with more in the camp, but they are not believing anything specific.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Egad Dave, we've been here before. The story of Joseph and his suffering from his brothers, probably the most complete type of Christ:

20 And as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Gen 50

No mention of Satan once again. Just like Isaiah 53 and all the N.T. crucifixion accounts.
Satan could do nothing to God's people without the permission of God (Job 1:12; 2:6; Luke 4:1; 22:31). All his power came from his being 'the accuser of our brethren, who accused them day and night before our God.' In this he had some power, because he had justice on his side - we were all sinners and open to accusation. But now that Christ, on the cross, has taken away our sin (1 John 3:5), there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus and Satan is 'cast down' (Rev. 12:10)
Therefore the very last thing that he wanted was for our Lord to die on the cross. All his efforts were directed either to killing Him before He got to the cross (John 6:44 etc.) or to persuading Him not to to go there at all (Luke 4:2-13; Mark 8:31-33) or, in desperation, to get Him to come down from it (Matthew 27:39-44).
With God's permission, Satan may have tempted the Lord Jesus at Gethsemane (Luke 4:13). He certainly subverted all our Lord's apostles. Ten slept and then fled; one denied Him, and one betrayed Him. In this perhaps, he hoped to demoralize the Lord Jesus and cause Him to turn back from the cross.
We are told to fear God, and to flee from sin. We are told to resist the devil and he will flee from us (James 4:7)..

 

[JonC]

Why don't you take that up with @JonC. He's the one claiming that the atonement is about Jesus suffering the wrath of Satan. I was saying that Satan may have been involved in Christ's death but the work of atonement is not about appeasing or submitting to Satan.

Well.... if anything at least you learned I did not just make up my position, that it is a "private revelation", that it is as old as early church writings that I provided expressing my view (not that antiquity equates to validity).

That is at least something.

We do not have to agree on doctrine. We don't have to be theological clones of one another. My hope was that we could come to understand one another - what we have in common and where we disagree.

That is why I was trying to be specific about what I believe.

We could use general terms and focus on what we have in common. There is a place for that. We do hold a lot in common. But I think it helps to look at differences as well - not to demand the other submit but to understand one another.

 

[JonC]

Satan had no authority to do anything to Jesus. Jesus laid down his own life. Satan didn’t do anything judicially.

Both are true. Jesus laid down His own life, but as Peter said, wicked men killed Him (which was God's predetermined plan).

Satan is the master of the "sons of Adam" and held them in bandage. Christ came under this curse (not God's curse, but the law of sin and death). He did this willingly. It was the ultimate act of love and humility, God becoming one of us, dying our death to give us life.

 

[JonC]

We are told to fear God, and to flee from sin. We are told to resist the devil and he will flee from us (James 4:7)..

This applies because of the work of Christ. Without the cross how could man resist their master who held them in bandage? Why would the devil flee from those who were rightly his because of their sin?

 

[kyredneck]

Therefore the very last thing that he wanted was for our Lord to die on the cross. All his efforts were directed either to killing Him before He got to the cross

Good grief. You never give up. @McCree79 explained it to you here.

You're assuming Satan understood the nature of the atonement. If Satan understood the nature of Christ death, he would have acted much differently when he entered into Judas. Satan got out played by God and did exactly what God wanted him to do. Which is to play a part in the death of the Son...which is the "bruise the heel" that KYRedneck is reffering to.

Satan may have certainly been aware of Jesus talking about dying, but he did not understand what that death would accomplish.

Yes the Son laid down His own life, no one, not even Satan could take that from Him. Nor Pilate, the Jews or the Romans....but they all did play a part in His death.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[DaveXR650]

That's another great quote! Is it Stott again?

Yes. From his book "The Cross of Christ", Part 2 chapter6 "The self-substitution of God".

 

[DaveXR650]

What I mean is we need to actually define our terms.

"Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever."

When we generalize a belief to make it acceptable to all we essentially rob it of it's meaning.

Here you are essentially saying that every Christistian affirms PSA. But that is not true. You are leaving terms undefined (I could say you just offered the definition of Ransom Theory, or Satisfaction Theory).

One of the problems we have today is too many want vague doctrines. At some point those doctrines become meaningless. You end up with more in the camp, but they are not believing anything specific.

For one thing, that was just a quote from the OP article. If it sounds reasonable to you maybe you should reevaluate your opposition to PSA and to Calvinism in general, which you have shared a lot lately.
If you want more detail I provided it in two other quotes, from Calvin and Stott, so you have no complaint about generalization.

I'm not saying every Christian affirms anything. As I said before, that was a quote and given as a quote. This thread was about PSA and once again, three of you have come over and started attacking it. Why don't you actually address the specifics of one of the quotes I have used about PSA since this is a PSA thread.

Last of all, I should point out that the experts you have put up on early church teachings say themselves that they were vague and incomplete and not unified on the atonement. Nowhere will you find more vague and incomplete doctrines than by reading the early church fathers.

 

[DaveXR650]

Hence he has the names of Shiloh, the Prince of peace, the Man the Peace, and Jesus our peace, who has made both one. Or else to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin; such hilastic, propitiatory, and expiatory sacrifices there were under the law. [They were] typical of the expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ; and as God in them smelled a sweet savor of rest, as types of Christ. So his sacrifice was an offering of a sweet smelling savor to him. He was well pleased with it, it gave him content and satisfaction, because his justice was appeased by it, and the demands of his law were answered.

Moving on. The above is from Gill, who I don't use much. Not that I don't like him but I am not that familiar with him. I use that quote specifically to show Gill saying, once again, the standard PSA idea that God was given satisfaction by the sacrifice of Christ because his justice was appeased by it, and the demands of his law were answered.

This was not to appease or trick Satan. Now I have not read much Gill so if someone has something else from Gill that refutes this then put it up by all means and I will take a look.

 

[DaveXR650]

Colossians 1:20-22 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: And it was made unto God, against whom sin is committed, whose law is broken, and his justice offended; and who is the Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.

The above is more from Gill, and the bolded section is from the quote, not my doing. But it's another example of biblical scholars interpreting the propitiating blood of the cross as being intended unto God and not to trick Satan or appease Satan. Like I said, I am not that familiar with Gill, so if other writings show differences please let me know.

 

[JonC]

For one thing, that was just a quote from the OP article. If it sounds reasonable to you maybe you should reevaluate your opposition to PSA and to Calvinism in general,

It is reasonable as all Christians believe it while a minority hold PSA. That is an issue.

You take an old formula and redefine the terms, saying it does not matter. You pretend that changing the punishment of Satan to the punishment of God, changing representative substitution (the "Second Adam", the "human race anew", for the "whole human family") to simple punishment does not change anything. You are wrong.

If PSA was really defined as "Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever" and it did not matter if it was God's punishment or Satan's punishment, simple or representative punishment, ontological or judicial...etc. then PSA is meaningless because it can mean so many different things.

 

[JonC]

Moving on. The above is from Gill, who I don't use much. Not that I don't like him but I am not that familiar with him.

Gill is Reformed (he is known for insisting that the Archangel Michael is Jesus before the Incarnation).