If you had a thread called, "Is Penal Substitution in accordance with the Spirit of Prophecy" then would you quote Scripture, with no, or virtually no, Spirit of Prophecy references?



This is the main argument I've used in discussions with you, for two reasons. One is that you rely so heavily on the Spirit of Prophecy. Two is that the argument is very powerful and easy to follow.

However, I don't only discuss this topic with you. In other discussions, I don't rely on this argument at all, but use arguments similar to the ones I've been presenting here. I'd be very pleased if you would address the arguments I've been presenting.



The conclusion is Biblical (i.e. inspired) because it is in harmony with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, which I've been able to give plenty of examples showing, and could give more. You haven't been able to substantiate your view with anything from the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, however, or from anywhere in Scripture, for that matter. That is, specifically, where is the idea that God needed death in order to obtain the legal right to pardon found in Scripture? So far, all you've produced are texts saying that death was necessary, which I fully agree with. But why was it necessary? The answers I see in Scripture all point to its being for our benefit, not for some need that God had.

Yes, to the first question; this seems to be what Waggoner is implying. To the second, we are the ones for whom the sacrifice was provided.

Arnold, I'm sorry, but I completely missed your post somehow, which mentioned some Scriptures. I'll respond to it as soon as I can.

The sacrifice was FOR us, no question. But who was the sacrifice TO?

It wasn't "to". It was "for."

God so loved the world, He *gave* His only Son. This is the sacrifice.

Christ "gave Himself" for our sins. He "gave Himself" for us.

From EGW:



From His own love comes the Gift which reconciles us to Himself. This is the sacrifice.

Nice quote, but it can still be interpreted in a way that supports penal substitution. I'll look at it some more.

Was the sacrifice TO anyone?

Arnold, I responded,



If you get a chance to consider the Fifield quotes, please do so. He has had a large impact on thinking. I find his explanations to be eloquent, beautiful and convincing.

Let's start with 1 Pet. 2:24, 25:



I'll also quote 1 Pet. 3:18a, which is along the same idea:



These verses give as the reason for Christ's death that we might be brought to God, returned to Him. So there's no forensic idea here that I see. In fact, 1 Pet. 3:18 is probably my favorite verse for discussing this, as the phrase "bring us to God" is very clear and to the point as a reason for Christ's death.

Regarding Rom. 3:25, this is from the Greek "hilasterion" which means "mercy seat." There's no reason to suppose that the mercy seat has anything to do with God's obtaining the legal right to pardon.

That Christ is an atoning sacrifice for our sins, I fully agree with. To atone is to bring "at one," to reconcile. We could not have been reconciled without His death. As EGW puts it, without Christ's death, sin would have been perpetuated.

Regarding Hebrews 9:5, I already commented on the fact that there's no reason to suppose that the mercy seat has anything to do with God's needing a legal right to pardon us. I'm not aware that there's any Jewish precedent for interpreting "mercy seat" in this way. In fact, I'm not aware of "mercy seat" being interpreted in a penal substitution way as existing before just a couple of centuries ago. I think it's a very recent idea.



You'd have to clarify what you mean here. "Forensic" just means "legal," and Christ's sacrifice was certainly that.

The particular idea I have been taking issue with is the idea that God was dependent upon the death of Christ in order to have the legal right to pardon us. I see absolutely nothing in Scripture that even remotely suggests this.

By way of arguing against this idea, I note the following points:

a)This idea did not exist at the time the Scriptures were written. As evidence for this, I note two things:
i)There is no contemporary historical literature which suggests that animal sacrifice had this meaning (i.e., animal sacrifice pointed to a legal right to pardon being obtained).
ii)The Eastern Orthodox church does not have this idea of the atonement, and never has. Why not? Because they split off from Rome before Anselm came around. If this idea had some sort of patristic heritage, the Eastern Orthodox church would have carried it with them.

Here's an interesting article which discusses this: (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/whats-at-stake-in-the-atonement/)

b)I see Jesus' whole life and teachings as giving meaning to His death. However, I see nothing in His life or teachings which suggest, even remotely, that Christ was dying to that God could legally forgive us. Not only does this idea not exist in Christ's life and teachings, but He acted in taught in a way that is diametrically opposed to this idea. For example:
i)His forgiveness of the paralytic.
ii)His forgiveness of the woman caught in adultery
iii)The story of the prodigal Son.
iv)His prayer on the cross "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

I'll stop there, but there are many more episodes in Jesus' life which teach that God freely forgives.



Since our repentance is dependent upon Christ's death, it's difficult to answer this question. If there was any way to "bring us to God," other than Christ's death, I'm sure that the Plan of Salvation would have consisted of that instead of Christ's death. As you have asked the question, my hesitant answer would be "yes." (hesitant because of not knowing what all you have in mind in your presuppositions here).

If everyone had repented and followed Christ, then that would have been enough, as all that is needed in order for us to be right with God is to repent, since God is already right with us. God so loved us that He gave His Son. No change needs to be effected in Him. The father of the prodigal son didn't even need to hear what the son had to say.

Interesting that you mention the prodigal son. I will be preaching this Sabbath and he's a big chunk of what I'm talking about.

Anyway, your hesitant answer to my hypothetical question clears up some things for me.

I'm curious, though, why you say that our repentance is dependent on Christ's death. Enoch and Elijah and all the OT greats repented without it (at least, not physically).

I don't think they repented without it. That is, I think the Holy Spirit revealed the Savior to them, and His death, pretty similarly to how He does for us, actually. I know when I saw Christ crucified for me, I didn't know Scripture at all, so the fact that the event was recorded in Scripture didn't matter to me. I'm sure God could have revealed something similar to them.

Also, they knew of the Plan of Salvation passed down from Adam and Eve. They had the sacrificial system which pointed to Christ.