Pride, in the name of sin and nihilism

What is the root of all actual, personal sins?  What is the source of nihilism?  Hear Augustine on the matter. 

“Now, could anything but pride have been the start of the evil will?  For ‘pride is the start of every kind of sin’ (Ecclus. 10:13).  And what is pride except a longing for a perverse kind of exaltation?  For it is a perverse kind of exaltation to abandon the basis on which the mind should be firmly fixed, and to become, as it were, based on oneself, and so remain.  This happens when a man is too pleased with himself: and a man is self-complacent when he deserts that changeless Good in which, rather than in himself, he ought to have found his satisfaction…And so, to abandon God and to exist in oneself, that is to please oneself, is not immediately to lose all being; but it is to come nearer to nothingness”

City of God, Book XIV, Ch. 13   

No God, No Knowledge--Transcendental Argument from Knowledge

I. From Truth:

P1. If knowledge[1] is possible, then truth exists.[2]

P2. And if truth exists, then it exists as immaterial,[3] invariable,[4] and eternal.[5]

P3. Hence, if truth thus exists, then truth is absolute.[6]

P4. Likewise, if truth is the object and necessary condition of knowledge, and truth is absolute, then knowledge depends on the absolute.

P5. Truth indeed is the object and necessary condition of knowledge; and it is absolute.

C1. Thus, knowledge depends on the absolute.

C2. Therefore, if knowledge is possible, then knowledge depends on the absolute.

II. From Belief:

P1. Furthermore, if knowledge is possible, then it depends on a knowing subject who holds some belief.[7]

P2. In addition, if belief depends on a knowing subject, then such a one’s act of believing presupposes the involvement of the collective complex of intellect, emotion, and volition, which together constitute the personal.

P3. Moreover, knowledge is communicable.

C1. Hence, if knowledge is possible, then knowledge is communicable and thus depends on the personal.

III. From Justification:

P1. What's more, if the possibility of knowledge depends on a personal knower, then it likewise depends on the knower’s mental activity—it depends on mind.[8] 

P2. If the human mind, either individually or collectively, is the sufficient grounds for the integration of knowledge, then the human mind would also have to be absolute (i.e., invariable and eternal, see I:P2, 6); however, it is not the case that the human mind is thus.

P3. It is not the case, therefore, that the human mind, either individually or collectively, is the sufficient grounds for the integration and communication of knowledge.[9]

P4. Hence, if knowledge is possible, then by transcendental necessity there exists an absolute and personal being whose mind alone is the sufficient grounds for the integration of knowledge and can communicate knowledge.[10]

P5. Only the mind of the triune God of Christian theism, which alone is both absolute and personal, provides the transcendentally necessary and sufficient grounds for the integration and communication of knowledge.

P6. Therefore, if knowledge is possible, then by transcendental necessity the triune God of Christian theism exists as the transcendental integration point of all knowledge and communicates knowledge to humans.

P7. It is the case that knowledge is possible for humans.

C1. Therefore, the triune God of Christian theism must exist and communicate knowledge necessarily.  Hence, all knowledge and knowing is dependent of the triune God of Christian theism.

C2. Thus, the denial of God’s necessary existence is to annihilate the possibility of knowing anything at all; not least, that God’s existence can be known to be even the slightest degree doubtful.

---

[1] Herein knowledge is to be understood in the traditional constitution of having three necessary conditions or properties, which are (1) belief that is (2) true, and the truth thereof having (3) justification, reason, or warrant.  The three of these together—a true, justified belief—are thus the sufficient condition of knowledge.  Furthermore, the term truth is to be taken in the sense of the correspondence theory of knowledge.   Truth is a real relation or correspondence between a signifier and that which it signifies, between a proposition and some fact, state of affairs, or event to which it refers. 

[2] The statement “truth does not exist” is an “I” categorical statement of the traditional square of opposition, making it to be an absolute negative statement.  Denying the existence of truth’s absolutivity is merely the contrary of its absolute affirmation; both statements, whereby, being absolute and declared to be true. That is to say, the proposition “truth exists” cannot be denied, for if one were right in asserting that “it is not the case that truth exists,” then one would be wrong, as that statement itself would be true, and absolutely so.  Hence, to deny the existence of truth is self-defeating—self-contradictory; it is false by declaration.

[3] Like the logical laws that govern them, propositions, which are the vehicles of truth, are immaterial entities.  One cannot grab, freeze, or stub his or her toe on truth.  In addition, truth is not dependant on particular statements or sentences.  The sentences “Kevin is Fanny’s husband” and “Fanny is married to Kevin” both express the same truth, the same proposition. 

[4] If a proposition is ever true, it has always been and always will be true.  For instance, certain statements that are “tenseless,” that is are closed by a particular temporal reference like “at 6:00 pm...” rather than a tensed verb like “now” or “was,” denote a fact or state of affairs that is always true. So,  “At 8:00 am on January 26, 2009 it is (tenseless) snowing in Big Island, VA.” is a closed statement having a meaning that is true always; its truth is unchanging—invariable.

[5] The eternality of truth is related closely to the invariability of truth in fn. 4 and the existence of truth in fn. 2.  Since truth never changes, it’s invariable (fn. 4) and one cannot deny the existence of truth without affirming it (fn. 2), so too, a statement denying the eternality of truth would presuppose truth’s existence and if the statement was true it would always be so, thus eternally so.  Hence, denying truth’s eternality is to affirm it.  Therefore, it’s self-defeating to deny the eternality of truth.

[6] The eternality and invariability of truth constitutes its absolutivity.  Furthermore, truth is independent of any relative or particular knower or thing known.  The laws of logic, for example, are true without reference to any particular object.  So, knowledge does not judge truth rather truth is the transcendent standard by which all knowledge is judged as such (see fn. 1).  Therefore, truth is absolute.

[7] Again, “belief” is one of the three necessary conditions of knowledge.

[8] Granted, there are a number of materialist, physicalist or anti-metaphysicians who have attempted to either flatly deny the existence of “mind” as an immaterial reality of human nature or have strenuously sought to explain it in materialistic, functional categories.   This presentation, let alone footnote, is not the venue to attempt a rebuttal to these claims.  Many philosophers have elsewhere undermined these hypothesises and shown them to be most untenable, Thus, I refer the reader to them.  Nevertheless, given the validity of the foregoing argument and conclusions, an immaterial mind seems self-evidently necessary for the residency of immaterial truth, which has been seen to exist as a real entity.  And the reduction of mind and reason to mere physical functions of the brain alone (i.e., chemical events) is to annihilate any possibility of knowledge at all, since it would make “reason” and “truth” to have no more axiological force than other bodily functions.

[9] There is among “spirituality” and para-psychology in the West today the increasing hope, even foundational hope in the collective human consciousness.  Perhaps premise III: P4 would be meet with a challenge from the likes of them or a similar camp.  And in today’s pluralistic landscape of worldview, such a challenge must be taken seriously and addressed as such, however absurd it may seem—but again, not here.  The notion that a disintegrated collection of mutable and fractured parts can comprise an absolute, unchanging, eternal whole is simply nonsensical.  So, an attempt to argue that it could would be mere morosophy.

[10] The first conclusion of section III, P5, undoubtedly will be met by the strongest contradiction from the unbelieving opponent.  Psychologically speaking, this is exactly what should be expected.  The unbeliever’s problem with his or her professing belief in the true God is much more a moral issue than an intellectual one. (I would argue that the concepts of intellect, emotions, and volition, which are often seen in very sharp distinction from one another in the modern West, are nearly conflated into a unity that is seen as the whole person; one domain never acting apart from the others, in Scripture.)  Intellectually speaking, this statement squarely faces and unequivocally challenges the unbeliever’s intellectual autonomy.  Thinking themselves to be utterly independent in reference to his or her ability to rightly reason and sit in intellectual judgment over the question of God’s existence, the unbeliever is immediately (and psychologically) confronted with the necessary conclusion that such a presumption  would be categorically impossible.  It is this goad, then, at which he or she will kick the hardest.  There is no other answer, however.  Either, it is the triune God who speaks with absolute authority in Christ and the Scriptures or it is nothing, literally, nothing. 

Three Views on Apologetics

In defending the Christian faith, believers should be aware of the three general approaches to apologetics, and which method is the most consistent with that faith.  The three approaches are the classical, the evidential, and the presuppositional methods.  First, there is the classical method, which operates on a form of rationalism.  Generally speaking, rationalism maintains that, beginning with self-evident truths and applying the laws of logic, the human mind can arrive at epistemic certainty by deduction.  Additionally, the legitimacy of natural theology is assumed; that is, that man can begin with general human experience alone and arrive at an accurate understanding of God, the world, and man’s relation to both.  Moreover, classical apologetics presupposes that the reprobate mind is neutral toward God’s truth, and functions properly independent of God (contra, Jn. 3:19; Rom. 8:7; Eph. 4:17—19).  Classical apologetics, then, appeals to human autonomy as the source of ultimate authority.  Secondly, evidential apologetics, or evidentialism, is similar to the classical view.  However, evidentialism begins with the presupposition of empiricism rather than rationalism.  Empiricism supposes the validity of sense perceptions; and, applying induction and verification, man can arrive at true knowledge.  Similarly too, evidentialism makes its final court of appeal the authority of autonomous human reason.  Lastly, presuppositional apologetics, or presuppositionalism, works on the epistemological presupposition of revelation, that of Christ and the Scriptures.  Because unbelievers suppress the truth of God clearly and authoritatively revealed in the natural world, the Scriptures are required as corrective lenses for reinterpreting natural revelation after God (see Rom. 1:18ff;).  Presuppositionalism does not rely on human wisdom to persuade the unbeliever.  Rather it rests on the foolishness of the cross and the saving, regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, without which no one can believe (1 Cor. 1:18—25; 2:14).  Presuppositionalism makes the self-attesting Word of Christ its final authority, seeking to bring the sinner’s intellect in submission to the Lordship of God in Christ.  Classical and evidential apologetics suggest that human reason is competent to authoritatively judge the veracity of Christ and his Word.  Therefore, of the three approaches to apologetics, presuppositionalism is most consistent with the faith that Christians are defending.    

Persecution and the Expansion of the Church

I must agree with Philip Schaff, that the “chief positive cause of the rapid spread and ultimate triumph of Christianity is to be found in its own absolute intrinsic worth, as the universal religion of salvation, and in the perfect teaching and example of its divine-human Founder.”[1]  Either Christ and his life and doctrine are final truth and reality or they are not.  These are the only two options.  Because the former is the veritable truth, the utter supremacy and sublimity of the Christian faith is its strongest draw card.  Regarding methodology, the Father has given an elect people to be his Son’s own; the Son accomplished their redemption and promised that “[he] will build [his] church” (Matt. 16:18), and this begins by the Holy Spirit descending on the “little flock,” to whom it is the Father’s “good pleasure to give…the kingdom” (Lk. 12:32).  The expansion of the early (or latter) church is ultimately the result of the infinite wisdom, plan, and power of its Author, the triune God.  Ultimately, therefore, the essential value and altogether worthiness of its Object of devotion, Jesus Christ, was, is, and always will be its final, ultimate means of growth. 

Of course, the synagogues, which scattered the Hebraic religion and worldview through the Roman Empire like seeds, and Roman highways, the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (i.e., the Septuagint or LXX), the pax Romana or Peace of Rome, the degradation of the heathen moral and religious world, as well as the despaired condition Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple all served, in the providence of God, as preparatory antecedents for the arrival of the kingdom in the Son of God, who came in the “fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4).  However, persecution appears to have been (and continues to be in many societies the Church finds herself in) the primary means of expansion.  The weighty and oft quoted words of early Church Father Tertullian are of a truth.  Speaking to the Roman rulers, “Nor does your cruelty, however exquisite, avail you; it is rather a temptation to us.  The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.”[2]  It was unflinching faith in the supremely worthy Christ that watered the seed of blood spilt by the martyrs.  “As war brings out the heroic qualities of men, so did the persecutions develop the patience, the gentleness, the endurance of Christians, and prove the world-conquering power of faith.”[3] One of the most faith-invigorating experiences I had in my earlier walk was reading through Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.  Learning of the legacy of suffering by grace through faith, upon which the Christian faith was built, really helped to put into perspective the minor resistances I had experienced in my own faith and evangelism. That season was one of great personal growth in faith.  Reading the early Church Fathers continues that growth today.

The Lord Jesus himself both prescribed and predicted this means in Matthew’s Gospel.  He prescribed to the disciple that when they were persecuted in one town or city to “flee to the next” and take with them the gospel there (Matt. 10:23).  Later, when pronouncing the seven woes on the Sanhedrin, Jesus predicted their persecution of the fledgling church would be “from town to town” (Matt. 23:34).  This is precisely the plan we see unfolding in the book of Acts, as the persecution which arose about Stephen “scattered” Christians throughout the surrounding regions, thus fulfilling the divine purpose for reaching the concentric mission fields laid out in Acts 1:8; “they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4; cf. 8:1; 11:19).  Again, from Schaff, “History reports no mightier, longer and deadlier conflict that this war of extermination waged by the heather Rome against defenseless Christianity…Thus this bloody baptism of the church resulted in the birth of a Christian world.”[4]  In less than 300 years, by pouring out their own blood rather than the blood of others, the early church conquered the known world.  Are these means of missionary growth still in effect today?  Of course they are.  First, God’s glory, beauty, and infinite value cannot be diminished one iota.  And since Christ Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, the intrinsic worth of the faith will continue to grow the Church.  Second, in most Two-Thirds countries, the Global South, persecution is the norm, and is one of the primary means of evangelism.  A visit to Voice of the Martyrs (www.persecution.com) or a reading of the outstanding biography of Sergei Kourdakov The Persecutor suffice to demonstrate this point.   

---

[1] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2: Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100—325, (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 16.

[2] Tertullian, “The Apology,” pp. 17—55 in Ante-Nicene Fathers: Tertullian (I, II, III), vol. 3, (Peabody, Mass. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 55, italics original.

[3] Schaff, History, 33, italics added.

[4] Ibid., 33, 32 respectively.

MEREDITH KLINE—THE TWO TABLETS OF THE COVENANT

Everyone should indulge himself or herself by reading Meredith Kline’s rich article “The Two Tablets of the Covenant,” from a 1960 edition of The Westminster Theological Journal.

Although the article has a great number of insights, one that was especially penetrating for me was the idea that the Ten Words, in their entirety, were inscribed on both of the tablets. Here is an excerpt from p. 139.

“These considerations point to the conclusion that each table
was complete in itself. The two tables were duplicate copies
of the covenant. And the correctness of this interpretation is
decisively confirmed by the fact that it was normal procedure
in establishing suzerainty covenants to prepare duplicate
copies of the treaty text.”

The Trilemma of the Atonement

Few theological questions can ignite a firestorm of controversy as easily as the question concerning the divine intent of Christ’s cross-work.  At the center of this issue is the query, for whose sins did Christ die?  This question creates a trilemma; only three answers are possible.  Christ’s death propitiated and satisfied for either (1) some of the sins of all people, (2) all of the sins of some people, or (3) all of the sins of all people.  The Reformed perspective of the intent of Christ’s death, that his death atoned for all of the sins of only some people, is the correct view of the atonement.

Option one (1), which states that Christ died for some of the sins of all people, is essentially the Roman Catholic position.  On this view, Christ’s death propitiated the wrath of God against humanity’s guilt of original sin.  Postbaptismal sins, however, must be atoned for through the efforts of the believer by means of good works.  This truncated view is utterly foreign to a biblical theology of what Christ’s death accomplished.  If option (1) is the case, then all people have innumerable sins for which Christ did not die. Consequently, no one is actually saved by Christ’s death, if option one is the case. 

         
Option two (2),the historic Reformed understanding of the atonement, holds that Christ died for all of the sins of some people.  These beneficiaries are variously related to Christ as “his people” (Matt. 1:21), his “friends” (Jn. 15:13), his “body” (Eph. 5:23—26), his “Bride” (Rev. 19:7), his “church” (Acts 20:28), and his “sheep” for whom he lays down his life (Jn. 10:11, 15).  In theological parlance, the term of choice is the “elect” (Rom. 8:32—34).  On this view, option two, Christ’s death efficaciously accomplished the full redemption of  some people, namely the elect. 

         
Option three (3) is that Christ died for all of the sins of all people without exception.  This view is held by Arminians and Amyraldians.  However, if Christ’s death was substitutionary and efficacious, and he died for all people, then it follows that all people are redeemed and thus saved.  The teaching that all are saved is called universalism.  Historic Christian orthodoxy precludes universalism as a biblically faithful conclusion.  The attempt to avoid the charge of universalism is often made by maintaining that while Christ died for all the sins of all men, a person’s unbelief is what ultimately condemns him or her.  It may be asked, however, is not unbelief also a sin?  If unbelief is a sin, then Christ also died for that sin, since he died for all sins, as presented by option three.  If, on the contrary, unbelief is not a sin, then it may be rightly asked why God condemns a person for it?  Hence, if option three is maintained, and Christ’s death was efficacious, then universalism is unavoidable.

The foregoing has demonstrated that, despite the heated controversy that is often invoked by the question of the intent of the atonement, two of the three horns of this logical trilemma are pointedly unbiblical.  If the choice is option one (1), then all are condemned, which is unbiblical.  If the choice is option three (3), then unbelief would be included as a sin for which Christ died, and thus universalism is the unavoidable conclusion.  This is likewise unbiblical. Therefore, it has been proved that only option two (2), which posits that Christ died for all of the sins of only some people, the historic Reformed view, is the correct view of the atonement.  Hence, only option two, the historic Reformed view of the atonement, offers theologically self-conscious, critical-minded Christians a logically consistent perspective of Christ’s atonement, one which also couches coherently within the broader edifice of orthodox Christian theology.

____________________________________________________________

Bibliography

Owen, John, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. London: Banner of Truth, 1959.

New Exodus Typological Observations on Acts 12:1—24: Peter’s exodus and the judgment of Herod Agrippa I

1. Hints from the gospels (Matt and Lk). A Herod representing an antitypal Pharaoh has precedents in the early gospel traditions. Matt 2:13—18 provides a clear example of Herod serving as an antitypal Pharaoh, who tries to kill God’s firstborn Son, Jesus, True Israel.[1] Also, with great peculiarity, Luke, the author of our considered text, uses the term ἔξοδον "exodus" (Lk 9:31) to refer to Jesus’ death, resurrection, and exaltation he was about to “fulfill in Jerusalem” (πληροῦν ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ) (rightly so, NEB).

2. There is a broad framing of this pericope (Acts 12:1—24) that also serves to hint toward the original exodus. First, according to historical criticism, the story is a somewhat questionable, perhaps non-chronological interpolation couched between Paul and Barnabas commissioning and departure from the church in Antioch Syria (11:19—30) and their return from the famine relief mission to the Judean church(es) in 12:25. (There are dating questions with respect to the famine in Palestine [A.D. 41?] and the death of Agrippa I [A.D. 44?] that raise questions about the chronological ‘fit’ of the story of Peter’s imprisonment within the broader flow of the book.) Second, there is the conceptual inclusio that frames the pericope proper. This inclusio begins with Herod stretching out his hands in violence against the church; he killed James of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter (vv. 1—3). The end cap of the story presents the angel of the Lord stretching out his hands and strikes Herod dead in poetic justice (think lex talionis, of course). A strikingly similar framework surrounds the first exodus story. Exodus 1 – 2 tell of Pharaoh’s tireless efforts to kill all the firstborn of Israel. This section of the book closes with Israel’s Mighty Warrior, YHWH, striking dead the firstborn of Pharaoh and all of Egypt (Ex 12:29—32). Luke, like Moses, frames his pericope with ironic judicial inclusio.

3. Another stirring feature of the narrative that evokes the exodus motif in the reader’s mind is the parenthetical clause of 12:3b, which disrupts the flow of the report. “…[Herod] proceeded to arrest Peter / This was during the days of Unleavened Bread / And when he had seized him…” (vv. 3, 4a, italics added). By the time of writing, the festival of Unleavened Bread and the Passover had nearly become the same event (compare with v 4c). This feature conjures all the cultic imagery of Ex 12:43—13:16. The feast of Unleavened Bread was to be perpetually kept by Israel so as to recapitulate the event when “By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage” (Ex 13:14b KJV, italics added). One can hardly imagine a more appropriate paradigm for the telling of Peter’s deliverance or exodus.

---

[1]See Peter Leithart’s Jesus as Israel: The Typological Structure of Matthew’s Gospel here, http://www.leithart.com/pdf/jesus-as-israel-the-typological-structure-of-matthew-s-gospel.pdf

Lay It Up, Christian!

“If you live in the hope of much from the world you will be but like dreamers, that have an imaginary content in their sleep, but they meet with real disappointment when they awake; so when we expect much from the creature, we meet with nothing but burden, vanity, and vexation. Christians are to blame for continuing so long in uncertainties, because they do not get their own title confirmed: 1 Tim. 6:20, ‘Laying up in store for yourselves a good foundation against the time to come, that you may lay hold of eternal life.’ If you would make eternal life present to the soul, then lay up solid evidences. And mark, he speaks ‘laying up’ to note this work is always a doing; always we must be laying this foundation.”

—Thomas Manton, By Faith

One Good Reason for Developing a Philosophical Mindset

For all you Liberty students taking PHIL201 and finding this page by googling one form or another of your second discussion board topic, if you find this post helpful, take the time to drop a comment.  I'd love to hear from you and where your going with school. KLS.

One good reason for developing a philosophical mindset is that, philosophy helps us to define and clarify what we and others believe. Moreover, I have three reasons to believe this is a sufficient cause to culture a philosophical mindset.

First, for Christians, there is eternal significance in defining and clarifying one’s beliefs. In creation, God, whose mind is the final residency of the real, rationality, unity, coherence, et cetera, created humans in his image to reflect his rationality and glory in the world and so view it aright. Adopting and engendering a view of God, the world, and ourselves as his creatures, is a fundamental step in correctly reflecting God’s image. However, since man’s fall, our natural tendency is to throw of God’s view of things and create false epistemological constructs and pseudo-realities, wherein we ourselves become the ultimate authorities in predicating the real, the right, and the reasonable. Through the redemption in Christ, we are rescued from the futility of our self-idolatry; we are renewed in true knowledge after the image of him that created him (Col 3:10), given the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16), and are thus enabled to again love the Lord our God with all our minds, thinking God’s thoughts after him (Mk 12:30). Finally, for the Christian, developing a philosophical mindset is an integral part of continually growing in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet 3:18); it is a discipline within the sanctification process.

Secondly, with respect to others, be they authors, movie producers, bloggers, or the next door neighbor, defining and clarifying the beliefs of others is critically important. Regarding beliefs and entire belief systems, there is no neutrality in one’s relation to God (Lk 16:13). Christ is the ultimate dilemma, one is either for him or against him; neutrality and middle ground are excluded (Matt 12:30). Everyone’s beliefs are therefore covenantally conditioned by their relationship to God. One will have either Christ speaking in his self-attesting word as their ultimate epistemological authority or will surrogate himself or herself as that authority. A philosophical mindset helps the Christian examine and systematize the corollaries and consequences of the innumerable non-Christian worldviews, which make up the philosophical ambiance and spirit of our age.

Third, then, is the profit of a philosophical mindset in the relation of the two antithetical views expressed in the two points above. By aiding us to define and clarify both our own and the beliefs of others, developing a philosophical mindset helps to detect and avoid the temptation of syncretism, the dangerous admixture of humanistic, materialistic, or otherwise antagonistic beliefs incompatible with Christian presuppositions. We hereby avoid the sin of “double mindedness” (James 1:8; 4:8; cf. Ps 119:113). Furthermore, on the one hand, by being enabled to define and clarify beliefs, Christians are in a much better position to defend and commend the gospel and the worldview in terms of which the gospel makes sense. On the other hand, we are better equipped to understand and deconstruct the non-Christian worldviews that are raised as strongholds against the knowledge of God in Christ (2 Cor 10:4, 5). Cultivating a philosophical mindset equips Christians to answer the folly of competing worldviews without becoming foolish themselves (Prov 26:4, 5).

The Ultimate Lex Talionic Judgment!

“The devil was conquered by his own trophy of victory. The devil jumped for joy, when he seduced the first man and cast him down to death. By seducing the first man, he slew him; by slaying the last man, he lost the first from his snare. The victory of our Lord Jesus Christ came when he rose, and ascended into heaven; then was fulfilled what you have heard when the Apocalypse was being read, ‘The Lion of the tribe of Judah has won the day’ [Rev 5:5]…The devil jumped for joy when Christ died; and by the very death of Christ the devil was overcome: he took, as it were, the bait in the mousetrap. He rejoiced at the death, thinking himself death’s commander. But that which caused his joy dangled the bait before him. The Lord’s cross was the devils’ mousetrap: the bait which caught him was the death of the Lord!”

— Augustine, Sermons, 261