PS - Aaron, how would you answer the five questions above?

MM, I don't know if the pages display the same on everyone's computer. On mine, this is the start of page 17. Yours is the only post. It asks about "5 questions above," but there are no questions above, as yours is the only post.

It would be a courtesy for you to post the questions, so Aaron doesn't have to go back to hunt for them. I'll post them for you:



I've pointed this out to you before.

Now, again, I don't know if everyone sees things the same way. Perhaps on your computer, your new post is not on the top. In this case, I beg your pardon. The other time this happened, I asked you if you saw your post on the top. You either didn't respond, or I didn't notice your response. Please respond this time, and I'll be sure to watch for it.

What I'm asking is if we are looking at the same thing. On my computer, this post of mine is the 2nd on page 17. If it's something different on yours, then we'll just have to make do with these page breaks happening at awkward times for others.

Given the law is a transcript of God's character, what is it about God's character that causes Him to demand death for sin?

A second question that comes to mind is that the mere fact that it's necessary to demand death for sin implies that sin does not result in death. Given that sin is based on selfishness, how is it possible that a person could sin, which involves living for self and separating oneself from God, and still live?

MM I have always understood things in the terms that you describe. As in God has an imposed law and humans broke it so now God's justice demands that we must pay the price with our life. But Jesus begged God to let Him bear the punishment for us. So what we have is an angry God whose justice must be appeased and Jesus takes that for us and is killed by the Father for our sins. So now when the Father looks at us He sees the Son and not us.

There are some problems with the penal model though. One is that we dont actually get fixed and innocent die for the guilty, another is that we have two parts of the Trinity seemingly working against each other, a third is that it doesnt reveal, to me at least, a very loving picture of God.

Mrs. White says
“The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the Heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us but in our hearts and characters (Letter 406, 1906).” {6BC 1074.2}

Lately I have been trying to wrap my mind around a different model, one that could be called the medical healing model. As this is a new thing for myself Im still trying to fully grasp it. It is a model that is supported and fully explained by the Good News Tour. Imagine Adam and Eve chose as their sin something that caused them to be infected with HIV and from then on everyone born after them was born infected with HIV. Then Christ comes and while his body has HIV His immune system is perfect and He fights off the infection completely. Now He offers this via a transfusion of the antibodies from the Holy Spirit to us so that we can be HIV free as well. Christ’s blood is symbolic of the truth, the truth about God which removes the lies which break trust and then when we trust Him He pours Himself into our minds/hearts through the HS and purges the selfishness by filling us with love. We are literally healed and transformed from people who would kill others to save self to people who would give their lives to save others.

As for the questions, I think God can forgive us even if we are lost. If we display Christlike love, shouldnt we forgive people that have wronged us even if they dont want forgiveness?

Aaron, there's a good book called "The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views" that I would highly recommend.

Here's a brief sketch of how I see things. Satan raised questions about God's character, while misrepresenting Him. It was necessary for God to allow Satan's alternative plan of government play out, so that all parties could see whether the accusations were true or not.

Satan deceived men, as well as angels, and men became rebels as well. In order to "fix" man, the Plan of Salvation was put into effect, which leads to the Healing Model ideas.

While everything the Healing Model suggests is true, it is also necessary to bring out that there were larger issues involved than simply the salvation of man. The honor of God's throne, the vindication of His character, is the issue of issues that needed to be resolved.

In the aforementioned book, one of the authors speaks of a hypothetical Dr. Joe, who invents a way to eliminate viruses. All humans are cured from virus-related diseases. A person could say, "Wonderful Dr. Joe! Thanks to him I'm healed!" which would be true, but it would undersell Dr. Joe's accomplishment. He not only cured humans of virus-related diseases: He eliminated viruses!

So there's another model to consider, called "Christus Victor" in non-SDA circles, and by SDA's as well (although SDAs my refer to the view as "The Great Controversy view" or, sometimes, "The Larger View." This view is promoted by GNT as well.

Actually, as far as GNT is concerned, there's probably no difference in the Model itself, just in what it's called.

Well I am familiar with the normal models. I have always considered them all valid and not mutually exclusive. What was new to me was the fact that GNT or at least some speakers go so far as to say penal should be completely rejected as its pegan in orgin to say that angry Gods must be appeased by blood.

What Calvin (to whom is attributed the penal substitution theory)says is the following:

Institutes 16. 2, 3

2.

But before we proceed farther, we must see in passing, how can it be said that God, who prevents us with his mercy, was our enemy until he was reconciled to us by Christ. For how could he have given us in his only-begotten Son a singular pledge of his love, if he had not previously embraced us with free favour? As there thus arises some appearance of contradiction, I will explain the difficulty. The mode in which the Spirit usually speaks in Scripture is, that God was the enemy of men until they were restored to favour by the death of Christ, (Rom. 5: 10;) that they were cursed until their iniquity was expiated by the sacrifice of Christ, (Gal. 3: 10, 13;) that they were separated from God, until by means of Christ's body they were received into union, (Col. 1: 21, 22.) Such modes of expression are accommodated to our capacity, that we may the better understand how miserable and calamitous our condition is without Christ. For were it not said in clear terms, that Divine wrath, and vengeance, and eternal death, lay upon us, we should be less sensible of our wretchedness without the mercy of God, and less disposed to value the blessing of deliverance. For example, let a person be told, Had God at the time you were a sinner hated you, and cast you off as you deserved, horrible destruction must have been your doom; but spontaneously and of free indulgence he retained you in his favour, not suffering you to be estranged from him, and in this way rescued you from danger, - the person will indeed be affected, and made sensible in some degree how much he owes to the mercy of God. But again, let him be told, as Scripture teaches, that he was estranged from God by sin, an heir of wrath, exposed to the curse of eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, a complete alien from the blessing of God, the slave of Satan, captive under the yoke of sin; in fine, doomed to horrible destruction, and already involved in it; that then Christ interposed, took the punishment upon himself and bore what by the just judgement of God was impending over sinners; with his own blood expiated the sins which rendered them hateful to God, by this expiation satisfied and duly propitiated God the Father, by this intercession appeased his anger, on this basis founded peace between God and men, and by this tie secured the Divine benevolence toward them; will not these considerations move him the more deeply, the more strikingly they represent the greatness of the calamity from which he was delivered? In short, since our mind cannot lay hold of life through the mercy of God with sufficient eagerness, or receive it with becoming gratitude, unless previously impressed with fear of the Divine anger, and dismayed at the thought of eternal death, we are so instructed by divine truth, as to perceive that without Christ God is in a manner hostile to us, and has his arm raised for our destruction. Thus taught, we look to Christ alone for divine favour and paternal love.

3.

Though this is said in accommodation to the weakness of our capacity, it is not said falsely. For God, who is perfect righteousness, cannot love the iniquity which he sees in all. All of us, therefore, have that within which deserves the hatred of God. Hence, in respect, first, of our corrupt nature; and, secondly, of the depraved conduct following upon it, we are all offensive to God, guilty in his sight, and by nature the children of hell. But as the Lord wills not to destroy in us that which is his own, he still finds something in us which in kindness he can love. For though it is by our own fault that we are sinners, we are still his creatures; though we have brought death upon ourselves he had created us for life. Thus, mere gratuitous love prompts him to receive us into favour. But if there is a perpetual and irreconcilable repugnance between righteousness and iniquity, so long as we remain sinners we cannot be completely received. Therefore, in order that all ground of offence may be removed, and he may completely reconcile us to himself, he, by means of the expiation set forth in the death of Christ, abolishes all the evil that is in us, so that we, formerly impure and unclean, now appear in his sight just and holy. Accordingly, God the Father, by his love, prevents and anticipates our reconciliation in Christ. Nay, it is because he first loves us, that he afterwards reconciles us to himself. But because the iniquity, which deserves the indignation of God, remains in us until the death of Christ comes to our aid, and that iniquity is in his sight accursed and condemned, we are not admitted to full and sure communion with God, unless, in so far as Christ unites us. And, therefore, if we would indulge the hope of having God placable and propitious to us, we must fix our eyes and minds on Christ alone, as it is to him alone it is owing that our sins, which necessarily provoked the wrath of God, are not imputed to us.

So, although he uses the terms placate and propitiate, he makes clear that God has always loved us, and that His anger is against sin.

I don't think anyone disputes that those who hold to the penal substitution view believe that God loves us or hates sin.



Here Calvin speaks of abolishing all the evil that is in us by means of the death of Christ. In Calvin's theology, this is entirely outside of ourselves, not based in any part on anything that we do (including repentance or exercising faith). Also this work applies only to those whom God has predestined to be saved.

This is a marginal issue. Why don't you focus on the main issue? Is this your real objection against the penal substitution theory?

The quote is speaking of justification by faith. For Calvin, justification by faith is something which happens entirely outside of the believer. The things you were putting in bold need to be read taking that into account.

Regarding my objections to the penal theory, there are several. First of all, it's not an historically viable theory. It's similar, in this sense, to trying to have Ellen White be a prelapsarian.

Another objection is that it obfuscates the real issue, which involves the vindication of His character, as well as the healing of man. Adherents of the penal theory will pay lip service to the important of the cross as revelation, but one rarely hears it actually spoken of.

Another objection is that it presents God's character in a negative light, thus working against the Great Controversy, where the truth of God's character needs to be revealed. The theory is that God cannot forgive sin without someone being killed because the law requires death as a penalty for sin. But the law is simply a transcript of God's character. So this is tantamount to saying that God cannot forgive unless someone is killed. What about God's character would require such a thing? How is such an attribute of character, which would require someone to be killed in order to pardon someone else, a good thing? Assuming we are to be like God in character, how does that correspond to an attribute of character we should have? Should we demand payment in full before we are willing to forgive those who transgress against us? In the Lord's prayer, we are enjoined to forgive others as we have been forgiven.

Another objection is that it leads to the idea that something needs to be done on God's behalf as far as our reconciliation with Him is concerned. Rather than salvation being seen primarily as God providing the means by which we are reconciled to Him, the sacrifice of Christ is seen as something God needs.

Another objection is that it isn't just. No law will allow a guilty person to roam free while an innocent person serves his sentence. It is true that Christ, the innocent, suffered for us, the guilty, but not in the sense that the penal theory suggests.

Another objection is that it leads to much of Scripture being seen through tunnel vision. For example, we read Christ exclaim "It Is Finished." To many who believe in the penal theory this means "Christ finished paying the penalty of the law so that God can forgive us."

Here's some more examples:



Here's what Col. 1:13, 14 actually says:



There's nothing here about a sword of God's judgment hanging over our heads, or that by His death Christ met the demands of a holy law, or that a debt was canceled, or that Satan can't find anything in the files against us.

Please note that I'm not discussing the question of whether these statements are true or not, but am simply giving examples of how the penal view colors people's perceptions to read Scripture in a certain way, with a certain mindset, that leads to conclusions which have nothing whatsoever to do with what the Scripture author is actually saying.

A final objection is that it doesn't recognize the reality of sin's lethality. Sin isn't seen as something which leads to death, but as something which has a penalty, which is death. It would be like if cyanide resulted in death because there was a law against taking it, and anyone who did would be subject to capital punishment, as opposed to cyanide itself being deadly. Going back to the "antitype," seeing sin in this way (as something innocuous of itself, but which has a terrible penalty) leads one to think in terms of wanting to escape the wrath of God, the penalty of sin, rather than thinking in terms of seeing God as a Savior from sin, and of sin as something deadly from which one needs to be rescued.