Not this particular one, but one similar.



Yes.



It's funny talking with you, because sometimes it seems like we're saying the same thing, but other times not. I think the difference comes up in that you seem to see things in what seems to me to be artificial terms (you would say legal) whereas I see the things as descriptive of reality.

At any rate, I agree that the passage describes what happened to Christ. Christ took our sin, and this had a crushing effect upon Him. I'd like to hear you respond to my questions in more detail before responding more. For your convenience, I'll repeat them:



It looks like I asked about 7 questions, but it's really only about 2. 1 is I'd like to know what it means to you to say that our sin was upon Christ. The second is, what is it you see God doing when Christ was dying.

To explain the second a bit further, I understand you would say that God was judging and condemning sin, but what does this mean? What was God doing, thinking and feeling? I'm not asking you to get inside God's head, or do something impossible in terms of explaining God, but simply trying to clarify what it is you think was happening; what you think God was doing and what His emotions were.

I guess, to ask one more question, do you see His emotions/actions towards the wicked in the final judgment as being similar?

Thanks.

The "penal substitution" view is rather a broad term. I've tried to keep my objections to a very narrow focus. In particular, I've argued against the idea that God needs atonement in order to be able to pardon. I know there are statements that say that God could not pardon us apart from Christ's death, but I believe the reason for this is what Fifield brings out:



It's a bit tricky to put this clearly, and I think Fifield did a very good job with this here.

There are some things which the penal view typically emphasize, which I think are true. For example, that the death of Christ honors God's law. Or that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Or that Christ took our place. I know I understand these concepts differently than others who use these same words, but I nevertheless agree with these concepts and believe they are important.

To mention one other difficulty I see with the penal view is that while lip service is given to other views, and the idea is stated that there are truths in all the views of the atonement, I very rarely see these other truths mentioned. This is in spite of the fact that even adherents of the penal substitution view can come up with not even a handful of texts to justify the position, whereas other views of the atonement have many times more texts dealing with the theme. For example, from the Christus Victor discussion the following texts were cited:



And this is in just one section! What's quoted to support penal substitution? Texts like Mark 10:45, Rom. 3:25, Heb. 9:22, where it is highly debatable (being generous) that these texts even deal with the subject.

Anyway, back to the main point, in spite of the fact that there are tons more texts dealing with truths brought out by other theories, these other texts and theories are very rarely ever actually mentioned by penal substitution adherents.

And there's a good reason for this. If one is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. If one views the primary issues to be legal ones, then that's what everything looks like, and non-legal texts and truths are overlooked.

On the other hand, if one sees the problem as having to do with God's character, and God's work in revealing the truth about Himself through Christ, the whole Bible becomes his oyster. (This is an interesting phrase, isn't it? from WikiAnsers: "The oyster is used as a metaphor in an idiomatic saying, 'The world is your oyster,' which means that the whole world is laid out before you like a wonderful living buffet.")

That's how I see it too. Besides giving us the breath of life, God's hold all things together (including matter proton & Neutrons, molecules, etc...) So imagine what will happen when God will withdraw His power in holding all things together.

Yes, I agree that God sustains life - he also draws all men to himself by the life of Christ and our Christian witness. God's whole story is focused on grace. God does technically keep us alive, but is that how the Bible really depicts his judgement and justice against sin? He withdraws life in evey instance of mortal death among men, but is that his revealed intent with the lost, in the last day, of their eternal death?

Nicely put, Colin!



His intent is that the wicked live, not die:



From the SOP:







This was GC 541-543. This is the best explanation I've found as to what's going on. It's not that God is angry at the wicked and punishes them against their will. It's not that He some insatiable desire that His justice be satisfied. If God could make them happy, even at this late date, He would. But He can't. Their characters are fixed. The wicked choose to be excluded from heaven. There's nothing God can do but give them what they want.

Obviously she's addressing the fairness of God's judgement, but equally obviously she elsewhere, as has been posted already by others, doesn't exclude active punishment by God of fire according to their deeds, for unbelief in Christ's gospel. While you leave out the justice required of God by his own government's law, you fail to grasp all that she's saying, and this thread will not find the most likely answer to its question. A legal debt note put where it is legally required should salvation be effected.

colin, do you think we could move out of the worldly court system into the biblical sanctuary?

here is a thought:

that seems to leave the question as to who it is that demands that the wrongdoer receive punishment.

here on earth we are more interested in punishing wrongdoers by some means than we are in rehabilitating them. some may refuse rehabilitation but in what/whose "spirit" do we execute judgment? do we do it in anger and satisfaction? or do we mourn the loss of a soul?

how we view God and His justice makes all the difference in how we treat our fellowman.

we will get what is in our hearts.

Good thoughts regarding justice, teresa. We typically think of justice in retributive terms, whereas Scripture presents it in restorative terms. The idea of justice was to restore the community to a state of "shalom."

For example:



True justice is administered by means of mercy and compassion.

Your point about Satan being judged according to his own sense of justice is well taken as well. If you think about it, this is the only possible way God can judge, right? The only way a judgment of His could be considered to be fair is to judge such a one according to the sense of justice that person has. This is pretty obvious if you think about it.

There's quite a number of parables that bring out this idea. For example, in the parable of the talents, the one with one talent was "judged" according to his own sense of judgment.

Another point to keep in mind is that God communicates to people that are in different levels of understanding. For example, in "Steps to Christ" there are appeals to shunning hell and winning heaven. Many of Ellen White's writings have these appeals, and they can be found throughout Scripture as well.

However, she also writes:



This looks like a contradiction. In one place she ways there's a heaven to gain and a hell to shun, so she's clearly using that as incentive. But here she says it's NOT the hope of reward or fear of punishment that motivates Christ's disciples. What's going on?

In one place, she's appealing to those with a lower level of understanding. Typically when one is first converted, the appeals to the heart are very self-centered, as that may be all the one being converted understands. But as time goes on, one sees that there is more to things than simply one's one eternal destiny; there's a bigger picture.

I'm using this as an example that Scripture is a multi-faceted book, being a spiritual book, and the thoughts expressed can be understood in different ways, depending on one's experience and understanding.

The Holy Spirit is constantly challenging us with our paradigms, attempting to get us to exchange our old wineskins for new wineskin, so we can receive new wine.

Sure: this is the law of God

The sanctuary God set up supplied a substitute for the justice of his own law, so any could live rather than die, thanks to the substitute.

Any who accept Christ's substitution for their penalty for sin are redeemed from the justice of God, and heaven rejoices over each who repent of sin. Christ's Gospel of grace is for rehabilitation of sinners who accept what he has done for all men by grace. We fall short by being sinful, but Christ raises us by the power of God to the glory of the character and attitude of himself: we are made like Christ in mind and character. Law and grace are the gospel: the law places us in need of Christ our Saviour and steers us to him, too, for there - when we find Christ - we find we are in God's grace by God's own initiative.

That Bible Commentary quote shows Satan understands the law but doesn't want anyone to gain from grace. Yes, we all mourn for the loss of any who refuse grace. The punishment for refusal is according to the law of God. God must apply that penalty of justice, just like he is graceous and does apply probation for this world's rehabilitation. His character is both, judge and Saviour.

A substitute for the ravage which sin causes I think is much more to the point. The problem is sin, not justice. Sin destroys its victims, and we need to be saved from its power.



What we need is to be redeemed from the power of sin, not the justice of God. It is sin which is our enemy; not the justice of God.



Amen here!



Amen again!