Strange that you would say that, since every time I answered your questions, you agreed with me, IIRC. Care to elaborate how you got to know my theology so well? And how you concluded that mine is different from yours, when you keep agreeing with my answers?

Scott, he seems to be agreeing with me too, so we may all (the three of us) be on the same page, or very nearly so anyway.

Oh the joys of the Internet! We can be in agreement, yet disagree anyway.

I only give yes or no answers when yes or no express my thoughts. A yes or no answer could misrepresent what I believe.

But I did answer your question. Jesus experienced separation from God very similar in some ways and very different in others to those who never rise again, but it is very obvious that the "eternal" part Jesus didn't experience even though He could have perceived the possibility and suffered the mental anguish of the possibility of eternity!

But, OTOH, one could easily say that Jesus suffered the death of the sinner. And one could easily say that Jesus tasted death for all men or that He tasted the 2nd death. The problem is in taking any description and making it say too much.

Where I disagree is in making what Jesus did a legal payment to God so that God had a legal right to forgive. If God demanded Jesus' death then God commissioned the executioners. Therefore the Jews and Romans who crucified Christ were working for God.

scott

Hi Arnold,

I have been under the impression that you advocate the penal view of the atonement. It was something that you said to Tammy:

If that is so then I do understand your theology very well. If not then please forgive me for assuming.

scott

Scott, Arnold hasn't said a lot, but he has been agreeing with what you and I have been saying. He said this:



Also this:



He's also said other things which indicate he believes the destruction of the wicked is a natural consequence of their choice, as opposed to something God imposes upon them because they haven't acted in some way (e.g., God destroys them because they didn't accept Christ as their personal Savior).

Tom, this Christus Victor idea that God's glory by itself glorifies the saints and annihilates the wicked, and that's all there is to it, plus Christ's death didn't secure legal permission to forgive guilt is inadequate. (It is guilt that is forgiven, since God does not forgive violation or rejection of his law - not forgive treason: Christ bore our condemnation & punishment of guilt - so may forgive it us by faith, etc., but he had to die for sin to deal with it - it requires sacrifice.)

"Remission of sin" is only by the shed life of the Lamb of God: that's your legal requirement for forgiveness. Law and reality are mutually inclusive: the law condemns sin because God does.

God imposes unnatural judgement with hell fire? "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." Don't challenge the Judge's just pronouncement!

It seems like your answer is Yes and No; there are similarities, but also differences.

Technically, that answer is No. For Jesus to have suffered the punishment of sinners, it had to be the same. If there were differences, then they were not the same.

But I believe that what Jesus suffered was the 2nd death "on steroids." Consider this: What if the 2nd death is simply complete separation from God? Aren't we all agreed that that's what the impenitent will experience? Moreover, isn't that what Jesus experienced?

But one big difference is that when creatures become completely separated from the Source of life, they die. Jesus, OTOH, had life in Himself, so divinity did not die. While the impenitent will momentarily feel the agony of being without God and then have the respite of death, what Jesus was looking at was eternal separation from God without dying. So while the wicked suffer the 2nd death for a short time, Jesus was willing to continue to suffer the 2nd death forever.

Even if I did hold to a penal paradigm, that doesn't mean you know what I'm saying. Especially since I haven't said it. As Tom pointed out, I haven't said much; that is by design. I'm keeping my comments on that topic to a minimum, because I think they should be addressed in the "Lesson 10" thread.

Even if you know well the theology of others who hold to the penal view, that still doesn't mean you know the theology of everyone who holds a penal view. Here's the logic so you can clearly see the fallacy:

Person A and Person B hold to the penal view.
Scott knows Person A's theology.
Therefore, Scott knows Person B's theology.

If one's paradigm of the atonement was all there was about theology, that might work. But there are many facets of theology. Consider my answers to the questions you asked me, and my exchanges with Tom. Does that match the sentiments of all the other people you've come across who hold a penal view?

Plus, the penal view is in the Bible, so outright rejection of it is nothing to sneeze at.

Anyway, as you said, "The problem is in taking any description and making it say too much."

Hi Colin,

If I may address this question you asked Tom; I don’t quite know where you are coming from with your question: “this Christus Victor idea that God's glory by itself glorifies the saints”.

What do you mean by “glorifies the saints”? What do you mean by “God’s glory by itself”?

And what do you mean by “that’s all there is to it”? All there is to what?

And where in the Bible do you get the idea that Christ died to secure a “legal permission to forgive guilt”. I’ve always thought that the idea of forgiveness was always one’s prerogative. Didn’t Jesus, by His nature, have the right to forgive without some higher authority’s permission? Do I need some “legal permission” to forgive someone who had done me wrong? Isn’t forgiveness something that happens inside the forgiver’s mind and to the forgiven? Why would Jesus need permission to forgive us?

If payments are made to secure forgiveness then is it really forgiveness?

There are many ways to see things, but sometimes the way we view one thing can block our view to seeing something else. You seem to be having difficulty understanding that God can punish, but punishment doesn’t have to be punitive. Most of the punishments we receive in our lives are simply natural consequences that we set in motion. Imagine setting up a 20’ high ladder on rocky sloped ground.

You are in such a hurry that you don’t bother to secure the top and so you load both arms full of tools and begin to climb the ladder balancing your knees against the rails and without using your hands to hold on. Now you get about 2/3 the way up the ladder and it begins to slide down the wall. Does gravity punish you? Whose fault is it that you hit the ground and broke your neck? What if God were to suspend gravity for a moment and suddenly place a pool of water right where you were to hit the ground? What if God did that for you 10 times hoping that you would learn to be more careful, gave ladder safety classes, warned you multiple times that He wouldn’t keep building the pond under you if you didn’t learn to be careful, and finally one day the pond wasn’t there! Who punished you? God . . . gravity . . . ignorance . . . the ladder manufacturer? God simply suspended your probation and you felt the full extent of your choice to be careless.

Now the problem with sin is that it is rebellion against the only source of life in the universe. There is no other source of life. There is no alternate life energy. God is life! To be connected to Him is to live. Satan deceived humanity into believing that there was life outside of God and that God couldn’t be trusted. We began to set our ladders up against the wall on unstable ground. God catches us over and over, sends us teachers, gives us written instructions of what our sins will do to us, and does everything He can do to teach us how lethal sin is. Finally He comes down Himself and demonstrates His faithfulness, His character, His love and we watch how hateful sinners destroy Him. We watch evil men push Him up the ladder, we watch Him fall knowing full well the pond wasn’t going to be there, and we watch Him break His neck. Did God punish Him? Or did He feel the consequences of our choice and taste the punishment of our sorrow?

The only legal aspect of salvation is God’s word. God said it and He can’t lie. So we have legal contract in His word. God gave this earth to the family of Adam and Adam gave it to Satan! Can God break His word to save Adam? Does God change His mind and take back Adam’s earth along with Adam’s freedom to choose? What would freedom look like if God were to suspend the consequences of our choices?

So God enters the family of Adam, destroys the power of Satan’s lies by demonstrating the truth, and invites everyone out of Satan’s family into His! Christus Victor!

scott

Hi Arnold,

If Person A and Person B hold to the penal view.
If scott knows A’s penal view.
Therefore scott knows B’s penal view.

The only thing that would make this not true is if the phrase “penal view” had more than one meaning. I’m sure there is a range of beliefs within those who hold the penal view of atonement, but I have yet to hear one that I agree with. Do you have a view I’m not familiar with that would fit into the category of “penal view”? If so I would love to hear it!



What you agree with doesn’t match the sentiments of most of the people I’ve met with the penal view. And I also believe there is a legal aspect to the atonement. And I do believe that God punishes unrepentant sinners so in a sense there is even a “penal” aspect to the atonement.

Tell me more!

scott