Why would you think that? He said:



Why would you limit this to American theologians? Surely Bacchiocchi knows theologians who aren't Americans, or don't live in the U.S.

Please amplify this, both Scott's idea and your own, as I'm still not getting your point.

Regarding the forensic aspect of the process, I don't deny that there is a forensic aspect, nor does Scott, I'm quite sure. However, from our perspective, it is not the forensic aspect that drives the process. The forensic aspect recognizes the legality of the process.

So in regards to sin and death, the inevitable result of sin is death. This is true regardless of whether or not anything is written down. The things written down simply register the reality of the circumstances; they do not create new truth.

From Bacchiocchi:



What do you think of this? This is, of course, accepting his idea of cheirographon, but I don't see the idea that where the record of sin is taken away then so is the penalty.



Throwing out what the prophets taught isn't the right way of looking at it, if you have what I'm suggesting in mind. The prophets receive visions and dreams from God, and record them to the best of their ability. Those who came after them were able to see things in what they wrote that they themselves were unable to see. Peter, I think, discusses this, and talks about angels longing to understand.

Jesus Christ immeasurably increased the light we had in regards to God's character. Now knowing things the prophets did not know, we can see more than what they saw. That we can see things they didn't see doesn't mean their writings are being rejected.

The same is true in regards to Ellen White. The metaphor of a midget standing on the shoulders of giants comes to mind.

Regarding Maxwell, everyone agrees that there must be a change in the sinner. That's not really accepting Maxwell's paradigm as that's not what his paradigm is about.

His paradigm involves what the essence of the problem and the solution is. He sees the problem as being greater than simply the problem of saving man. The problem is that God's character has been assaulted, and the truth must be made known. This is the only way in which freedom can be preserved. The accusations of Satan against God must be disproved. Even if the race of men were lost, this would still need to be done. So the GC involves much more than simply the salvation of man.

In regards to man, he sees the problem of being one of trust. God's trustworthiness has been questioned by a clever and lying adversary. How can God be trusted? Only by demonstrated His trustworthiness. The Bible is a record of how God acts in different circumstances, so we can learn what He is like. Above all, Jesus Christ demonstrated the truth about God. In Him, we see that God is kind, patient, forgiving, and so forth, not at all like the arbitrary, severe and harsh Being Satan has portrayed him of being.

Even the wicked have nothing to fear of God. (this is still Maxwell).

Given the problem is one of believing lies about God, which makes trust/faith in Him impossible, the solution is the revelation of truth.



This is a "sound-bite" I often quote, but the whole article is fantastic. I came to know of this article from AGM. It encapsulates his paradigm (or, at least, this last aspect of it I've been discussing).

Now if one accepts this paradigm, then the penal paradigm because unnecessary. One can discard it and lose nothing, as all the essential truths necessary for salvation and explaining the GC can be expressed without it. The question becomes, is it simply the case that the penal paradigm is unnecessary, or is it actually "bad"? Bad, in the sense that it teaches negative things about God, things which are not true. I believe it does, given how many people understand it.

I don't see even a trace of it in Scripture, and have yet to see any evidence that it existed before Calvin (in the sense that people nowadays conceive of it; Anselm certainly had elements of it, but people's idea of it nowadays is much different than Anselm's, but not different than Calvin's). In the Spirit of Prophecy, one certainly sees penal language in many places. How should this penal language be understood?

I often quote Fifield for two reasons. One is he was a contemporary of EGW, well known by her. The second is he also uses the same penal language, and explains its meaning in a way which I think is perfectly in harmony with Scripture.

Penal language was the language of the time. To communicate in the world in which Ellen White was working, one had to use it. But what did she mean by it? Did she mean, as is often asserted, that God was dependent upon Jesus Christ in order to forgive us? The reason I bring up Lucifer's case is because it disproves this idea. Lucifer sinned, God offered him pardon "again and again," yet there was no dependence upon Jesus Christ in order for Him to do so. Therefore there must have been some non-penal reason that the death of Christ was necessary in the case of man.

It seems to me that Tom has mentioned something very basic. If I marry my wife I make a commitment to her that is reflected by a marriage license. The marriage license is a legal document that represents a relationship. The only two reasons that I know of to pull it out is if the commitment is broken or one has to verify the marriage. The marriage certificate is not the marriage, but represents what has taken place in the marriage.

The record in heaven is just that . . . a record of the reality of what is going on in our lives. What happens in our minds is recorded in heaven. The record condemns us because we sin. The proof that we have sinned is in the record. If the law is penal and the record is destroyed or the incriminating evidence that the record shows is not admissible in court then one might get away with breaking the law, but if the penalty for breaking the law is the natural consequence of breaking the law then it doesn’t matter if the record is altered, thrown in the trash, or lost. The consequences still remain.

Christ covering our sins
Christ making atonement
Christ’s propitiation
Christ’s forgiveness
Christ’s cleansing
Christ’s blood
Christ’s reconciliation

All of these are language explaining the same thing. Christ doesn’t hold our sins (past, present, and future) against us as long as we are “in Him”. The proof is in the fact that we still sin. So for Christ to forgive us while we are daily being selfish, proud, narcissistic, and egocentric is simply His way of telling us that everything is going to be ok. It’s His problem! He will fix it! He doesn’t hold it against us! He says to us, “Don’t worry, spend time with me, let’s fall deeper in love, learn to trust me, and never stop coming to Me no matter what you do! I can comfort and help you because I know what you are going through and I know what you need.”

If one is convinced that his sin is so great that God can never forgive him then believing in a legal acquittal might be just the thing they need to feel God’s grace. But if one sees God’s character of forgiveness and comes face to face with His love then a legal acquittal is the furthest thing from his mind. Our assurance, either way, is in His character of love.

I’m sure that the last thing on my mind if my wife was unfaithful to me would be, “Honey, you broke your agreement with me!” It would be, “Honey, you broke my heart!”

scott

A problem with paper requires a solution for paper. A paper solution addresses only paper problems.

In a human court of law, if there is no record of a conviction, there cannot be any record of a punishment. So also, a written record of sin precipitates a written record of its wages. Therefore, taking away the written record of the sin takes away also the written record of the penalty of sin. That seems pretty obvious to me.

You'll have to ask Scott to get the definitive explanation of his position, but what I can tell from his previous posts is that there is no condemnation for Christians because the Christian is no longer under the jurisdiction of the written law. No law -> no condemnation.

I agree that there is no condemnation for Christians. But God's solution, as I see it, is by taking away the transgression, not the law.

What Scott is saying in reference to the law is not that the law does not need to be kept, but that for the Christian Christ overshadows the law in terms of being a revelation of God's character or of God's will for us. The Christian is thus not under the jurisdiction of law, because he is under Christ. (Note that "jurisdiction of law" is not the same thing as "jurisdiction of the law," the former dealing with the principle of what motivates the Christ, the latter dealing with whether or not the law needs to be kept).

I'm not sure how Scott has worded what he has said, but I'm quite sure this is what he means.

God's solution involves taking away temptation, but also involves writing the law in the heart, which happens in Christ. The way Waggoner put it is that the law was in Christ's heart ("Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, I my God; yea, thy law is within my heart"), so when we receive Christ, we receive the law in Him.

Back to your point, what is the written record of the penalty of sin? What is the written record of sin?

I don't have any way to know what Scott means except by his words in his posts, since we don't hang out. Here are some words in this thread:
What I get from that is: God wrote the 10Cs down and that caused enmity and condemnation. Christ's death abolished that enmity and condemnation by abolishing the 10Cs.

I said earlier in this thread:
Rather than saying, "Yes, those are good things that we should keep doing," Scott's reply was, "All your posts tell me is that you aren’t hearing a word I’m saying." That means what I was saying - the principles of the 10C are to be lived out by Christians - is not what he is saying.


While the solution of taking away temptation doesn't happen until the controversy has been resolved, writing the law in the heart is God's immediate solution.

I agree with your reference to Waggoner. I do not see Christ as taking away the law. To the contrary, He makes the law a vital part of the believer. Rather than doing away with what He wrote, He rewrites it in our hearts. Therefore, the law that was in Christ's heart is also in our hearts. The law is not cast away; it is internalized.



There's the written record of sin. Romans 6:23 tells us what the penalty is.

Of course, for those who accept Jesus, that cheirographon is gone and there's nothing to look at, but Christ's righteousness in place of our unrighteousness.

This isn't Scott's point. The Ten C's were a part of a system, the Old Covenant. Scott's argument is that it is that system, of which the Ten C's were a part, which was abolished by the cross. A. T. Jones speaks of "ceremonialism" being abolished by the cross. This is the same idea. It's the mindset that would have one find favor by keeping the law (any law) that was done away with.



It's easy to see that you are taking Scott's comments woefully out of context. It seems he is correct that you are not hearing what he is saying, because here's what he said:

This is from Scott's very first post!



He says plainly "not because there was a problem with the law."

From his second post:



Another post:



I'll treat your response to my question separately.

Arnold, you wrote this:



So I asked what the written record of sin is, and what the written record of the penalty of sin is. You have identified the written record of sin as the books of judgment. You have yet to identify what the written record of the penalty of sin is (you merely commented that death is the penalty of sin).

You really get that from what I wrote?

I’m shocked! First; God didn’t cause the enmity by writing down the 10Cs. The enmity was there in the form of division between God and man, one nation against another, men against women, slave against the free, and the law exposed it as sin thus revealing their condemnation.

Second; Christ’s death abolished the enmity and condemnation by not by abolishing the law, but by giving such a grand demonstration of God’s love and forgiveness that the law was no longer needed for those who accepted Christ and came into His family. It became an unemployed school teacher, obsolete, and ready to pass away! When we fall in love with God He puts love in our hearts for others and the enmity dies. The condemnation goes because we finally see that God doesn’t condemn us and neither does Christ. So if God is for us who can be against us?

scott

Then why didn't he say, "Amen! That's the good stuff that God wants us to do," when I summarized the concepts of the moral law? You see, I was checking to see if I understood what he was saying. I was careful not to use the WORDS of the law in expressing the PRINCIPLES of the law. I also wanted to see if he was an honest evaluator of what he read. So far, he seems to agree or disagree with posts based on who wrote them, not what they contain.

Tom, is it possible that Scott may have taken me out of context? Is it possible that Scott is not infallible? Is it possible that Scott has a personal reason for disagreeing with what I say? Are you being a good friend to him by being his apologist at almost every turn?

Jesus loved the rich young ruler. Because of that love, Jesus pointed out to him his shortcomings.