MM: Your main argument against penal substitution is based on your private interpretation of Sister White's comments concerning Lucifer's rebellion in heaven. Who are you to complain about me quoting the SOP?

TE: 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.

MM: First, thank you for the compliment - "... you rely so heavily on the Spirit of Prophecy." I strive to be faithful.

Secondly, you have yet to convince me, Rosangela, or Arnold of your interpretation of the SOP.

---

TE: 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.

MM: Sister White places 1 Peter 3:18 in the context of penal substitution. With His sacrificial blood Jesus paid the penal price to redeem us from sin and death. He owed this debt to law and justice.

Here, as we see our Saviour in agony, the Son of God dying, the just for the unjust [1 Peter 3:18], we may learn lessons of meekness and lowliness of mind.... He gives Himself a sacrifice for sin.... He is dying for them; He is paying an infinite price for every one of them. He bears the penalty of man's sins without a murmur. {LHU 233.2}

Jesus is our atoning sacrifice. We can make no atonement for ourselves; but by faith we can accept the atonement that has been made. "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Peter 3:18). "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:18, 19).... Hating sin with a perfect hatred, He yet gathered to His soul the sins of the whole world. Guiltless, He bore the punishment of the guilty. Innocent, yet offering Himself as a substitute for the transgressor. {1SM 321.4}

By the way, Tom, the title of this thread, Is Penal Substitution Biblical, was not intended to exclude the SOP. When I used the word "biblical" I had in mind the concept of inspiration. In other words, Is Penal Substitution Inspired?

If you meant "inspired," then that would have been a good title, and I would have been more responsive to your SOP quotes. Not excluding the SOP is fine, in a conversation regarding whether something is Scriptural, but you were excluding Scripture, which is what I was taking issue with.

I don't think it's wise for you to include others in your comments. Let them speak for themselves.

Regarding you, I don't have any aspirations of convincing you of anything. I have no evidence that this is possible. I can't even convince you that Lucifer sinned when Ellen White wrote that he was given an opportunity to "confess his sin."

I dialog with you as a way to improve my communication skills, and also to improve my understanding of the things we are discussing. I also hope it is in some way a blessing to you.

While you can be at times frustrating, you do, not infrequently, bring up good points which I wouldn't have thought of, and ask good questions, which also get me to think about things I wouldn't have otherwise thought about. You're a good foil.
---



I'm not seeing what you say in her quotes. It seems to me she is discussing what Peter wrote in the same context that Peter was, namely, that Christ died to "bring us to God." I see no evidence that she had a different meaning in mind for Peter's words than what Peter had.

There's nothing here that says, or implies, that Christ died in order for God to obtain the legal right to pardon us. The phrase she uses that sounds most penal seems to me to be this one:



so I'll comment on this. What she says here strikes me as meaning the same thing as this:



Especially this part: "He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His." This speaks to substitutionary atonement, with which I am in agreement. Had Christ not suffered our death, our sin would have been perpetuated, and the inevitable result would have been eternal death.

To say the same thing another way, since our sin would have beevn perpetuated had not Christ died, we would have suffered the death that He suffered. However, because He suffered this death in our place, we have the opportunity to live His life instead.

There's no idea here that He had to die in order for God to obtain the legal right to forgive us.

Also, I should add that this statement of hers makes it crystal clear that Christ suffered the second death, which doesn't have to do with this topic, but it seems this may be something you didn't agree with(?).

Since what we're getting at can be obscured by theological language, I wish to make clear that the particular point that you make that I am disagreeing with is that Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to forgive us. I haven't seen you present anything from Scripture that in any way suggests such a thing.

Also, it seems reasonable to assume that Jesus Christ would have explained the Gospel somewhere in His ministry, wouldn't you agree? I see Him portraying in everything He did and said the Gospel as I believe it to be. Where do you see Him *anywhere*, even once, presenting the idea that He had to die in order for God to legally forgive us (which I take to be your understanding of the Gospel, or, at least, a vital part -- the most vital part(?) -- of the Gospel; please correct me if I have this wrong).

I don't have much time this week, as I'm polishing my sermon. So just a quickie.



Here's what Strong's has for hilasterion:



It looks like "propitiation" is a better choice than "mercyseat" for this word. "Propitiation" makes sense in Heb 9:5, but "mercyseat" makes no sense in Rom 3:25. Perhaps hilasterion means mercyseat in the sense that the blood of the propitiation was sprinkled on the mercyseat.

It still looks to me that Paul's use of hilasterion points toward an expiatory aspect of Christ's death.

The word itself just means "mercy seat." What Paul intended to say is the who point of the conversation.

This is from a "wiki" argument:



Many versions translate "hilasterion" as "expiation," demonstrating that translating it as "propitiation" is not a clear cut thing.

The specific point I've been taking issue with is that the death of Christ was necessary in order for God to have the legal right to pardon us. I would also have a problem with the idea that God's wrath needed to be propitiated in order for Him to be somehow changed so that whereas before Christ died He would be unable to offer pardon whereas after Christ died it now became possible. Here's a comment by Waggoner:



Regarding the passage in Romans 3, there are many ways this has been interpreted. Penal substitution is just one possibility among many. Problems I see with the penal substitution idea include:

a)It would make Paul's theology to be different than Jesus', as nowhere in Jesus' teaching do we see Him advocating the ideas that Paul is supposedly putting forth in Romans 3.

b)The historical evidence is that the penal substitution idea did not exist at the time that Paul wrote, and wasn't formed until many centuries later.

1)At the time of Paul's writing, the idea for sacrifice that was contemporaneously understood was that set forth by Paul in Romans 12:1



No one understood sacrifice to be a means by which a deity would obtain a legal right to pardon.

2)The Eastern Orthodox church does not have this idea of the atonement. Why not? Because it split from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm came along, and it was Anselm who developed the precursor to the penal substitution idea. If the idea had existed amongst the early fathers, the Eastern Orthodox church would have carried it with them.


Because Romans 3:21ff is such a controverted passage, it should be corroborated by a clear passage. This is the general rule of interpretation; controverted statements should be backed up by uncontroverted ones. Where is a clear statement that God obtained the legal right to pardon by Christ's death that would corroborate what Paul wrote?

By the way, an interpretation I have seen of Romans 3:21-27 that I found very interesting was one done by Timothy Luke Johnston, who, along with Richard B. Hayes have argued that Paul's theology is best understood as a narrative, in which Romans 3:25 would be dealing with the faithfulness of Christ, rather than our faith in Christ. Unfortunately in moving I can't locate many materials, so can't reproduce their argument here, but here is a similar one:



Regarding "hilasterion," Dodd is a well known scholar who has argued that Paul's use of the term here is not connected to God's wrath.

The narrative idea is more or less that God, through Jesus Christ, has revealed His righteousness, by whom He has reconciled us by way of His death. Ellen White wrote:



This goes along with what Peter wrote in 1 Pet. 3:18, that Christ died in order to "bring us to God." I see that Paul, in Romans 3, is expressing the same idea.

Unless you can prove sinners were pardoned without slaying an animal then you do not have an argument against penal substitution. Exodus and Leviticus make it clear - no death means no pardon.

This is an utterly unfounded statement. Why should one suppose that the *only* reason that pardon necessitated the slaying of an animal is penal substitution? Animal sacrifices went on for centuries, millenia even, without anyone having the idea that this was necessary because of penal substitution.

Where in the Old Testament is there even the hint of the idea that the reason that sacrifices were necessary was so that God would have the legal right to pardon? (and the same question in regards to Jesus' teaching is still open).

Tom, please address the point concerning the sacrificial system Jesus ordained. Here it is again in question form: Was pardon granted without death? Or, were sinners required to slay an animal in order to receive forgiveness?

By the way, please do not cite your private interpretation of Sister White's comments regarding Lucifer. She is clearly not saying what you think. Nothing even remotely suggests GOd can pardon willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus.

Ok, I'll do that, but you didn't address the point I was making, which is that there is no reason to presuppose that the reason for the sacrifices was so God would have the legal right to pardon. There is nothing from Moses that speaks to the idea that God needed a legal right to pardon, and the Hebrews did not understand the sacrifices to have that meaning.

To answer your question, I can't put it better than Fifield did here:



Ellen White expressed a similar thought:



The slain animal presented as an offering represented Christ, without whom pardon would be impossible, for the reasons Fifield stated. Yes, a price was paid, yes, the sacrifice was necessary. But why? That's the big question. I think Fifield's answer above nails they why, or, Ellen White's quote above as well that God, out of His love, provided the sacrifice that reconciles us to Himself.



Here's what she wrote:



I could just quote this each time, but that's a bit wordy. The point is that your idea that God needs the death of Christ in order to have the legal right to forgive obviously does not agree with this statement I am quoting here (no private interpretation here, just a quote. The quote is exactly what I think she is saying.)