I agree. All the models have some truth in them. I just defend the penal substitution model because generally those who hold to the first and the third models attack it as if it was an absurd model, completely wrong from beginning to end.

Not really. It's more to the point that there are certain aspects of the Penal Model which are problematic. Some of the things which are asserted are true, which makes it more difficult to argue against. If everything about it were wrong, then the supporters of this view wouldn't find anything to defend it by. But since some of the things asserted are true, defenders of it latch on to those, as if they somehow proved their case.

I'll give two examples.

1."Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin."

Every Atonement Model asserts this is true, but Penal Substitution (PS) adherents quote this as if it somehow proved their view was correct.

2.Jesus Christ gave Himself "a ransom for many."

Similarly, all the Atonement Models assert this is true, yet PS adherents will quote this as if it somehow proved their view was correct.

From the "Four Views" book:



Fifield asserts the following:



I recall asking where there was any instance at all where Jesus taught the Penal Substitution model, and the only text presented was the Mark 10:45 text, that Jesus gave His life as a ransom for many. I pointed out that, in context, Jesus wasn't teaching PS at all:



In context, a request had been made to be at Jesus' right hand when He set up His kingdom. They were wanting to be closest to Him, because they wanted to be the greatest, according to the worldly way of looking at things, where the greatest is the one with the most servants.

Jesus explained that His kingdom was not of this order, that the greatest in His kingdom was not the one who was most served, but the one who served the most, and gave Himself as an example in the giving of His life.

In context, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever suggesting that Jesus had to die in order for God to be legally able to pardon us. So, since this text doesn't have anything to do with PS, I asked if there was any other text which could be adduced, but none have been suggested.

It is very odd to think that Jesus would never have clearly taught PS, if this was really the chief reason (or even a chief reason) for His death.

Otoh, under the Christus Victor, or GC, view, *everything* Jesus did ties into this model. To use Ellen White's words:



Given the "whole purpose" of His mission was the "revelation of God," it follows that everything He did was for this purpose; and this fits right in with the CV Model.

Using the words of the author cited earlier (in the 4 Views book)



How does self-sacrificial love vanquish the reign of Satan? The following quote, by EGW, speaks to this:



The GC involves the character of two beings; Christ (or God, who is revealed by Christ) and Satan. Satan vested God with his own character, presenting God as arbitrary, severe, harsh, self-serving, impatient, not having our best interest at heart, to name a few things, and presented himself as having God's characteristics, beneficent, having our best interests at heart, desiring our freedom, to name a few.

Jesus Christ vanquished the enemy by revealing the truth about the character of both protagonists.

I find myself in the same position. The penal model is not all-encompassing, but it has aspects of truth that the others do not.

Here's one specific problem with the penal model. If I owe you a debt, and someone else pays it, and I accept that payment in your behalf, I cannot say that I have forgiven you your debt. I didn't forgive it; I insisted it be paid, and accepted payment for it.

So if God accepted payment for our debt, God cannot be said to have forgiven it.

Perhaps. But just as correct aspects of a model does not mean that it is completely correct, incorrect aspects of a model does not mean that it is completely incorrect.

Here's a truth that I believe:
How do the other models teach that a debt for past sins remains even if the sinner keeps God's law from now on, a debt that Jesus pays for us?

There is a mistake here. The case is not that you owe me a debt and someone else pays it, but that you owe me a debt, and I myself pay it.

By the way, Tom, you may have missed my post #103540.

Which, at least in the case of financial debts, is the way every canceled debt works.

That's a good angle, that eradication of Satan eradicates the root. But interestingly, I will touch on this in my sermon, but will deviate from it, sort of. I think I'll post my outline in advance for critique and possible modification.

No, this is too fundamental a matter to just brush off. If the model is so flawed that we cannot correctly say that God has forgiven us, we need a new model!



First of all, a person who has not been justified by faith, which is to say pardoned, cannot keep the law. In the EGW quote, she says, "He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death." A person might try to keep the law, but the person couldn't succeed, without being justified by faith, which is to say pardoned.

If a person has been pardoned, and from that point on never sinned again, such a person would still not have a perfect record to present before God as the basis for admittance into heaven. We can appeal to God on the basis of works, or of grace. Who of us would choose to say to God, "I want into heaven on the basis of my good deeds?"

This seems to be an issue which is irrespective of the atonement model one holds. For example, for 1,500 years from Christ's death, the penal substitution model did not exist, yet Christians knew enough not to depend upon their own good works as a basis for getting into heaven.

Here's something from C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" which speaks of the debt we owe being paid, but in a non-penal way:

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed
out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the
formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories
we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite
secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us,
and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All
the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before -the one
about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment
instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was
prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible
point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all
that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense.
On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a
person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if
you take "paying the penalty," not in the sense of being punished, but in
the more general sense of "standing the racket" or "footing the bill," then,
of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got
himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind
friend. Now what was the sort of "hole" man had got himself into? He had
tried to set up on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself. In other
words, fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement:
he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your arms,
surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the
wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground
floor-that is the only way out of a "hole." This process of surrender-this
movement full speed astern-is what Christians call repentance.

Now repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating
humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we
have been training ourselves into for thousands of years. It means killing
part of yourself, undergoing a kind of death. In fact, it needs a good man
to repent. And here comes the catch. Only a bad person needs to repent: only
a good person can repent perfectly. The worse you are the more you need it
and the less you can do it. The only person who could do it perfectly would
be a perfect person-and he would not need it.

Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a
kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you
back and which He could let you off if He chose: it is simply a description
of what going back to Him is like. If you ask God to take you back without
it, you are really asking Him to let you go back without going back. It
cannot hap pen. Very well, then, we must go through with it. But the same
badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it. Can we do it if
God helps us? Yes, but what do we mean when we talk of God helping us? We
mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little
of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His
love into us and that is how we love one another. When you teach a child
writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the
letters because you are forming them. We love and reason because God loves
and reasons and holds our hand while we do it. Now if we had not fallen,
that would be all plain sailing. But unfortunately we now need God's help in
order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all-to
surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die. Nothing in God's nature corresponds
to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's
leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked.
God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, He has not.
But supposing God became a man-suppose our human nature which can
suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person-then that
person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die,
because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and
I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it
only if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we
men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it
is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's
dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man. That is the
sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not
suffer at all.

I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man,
then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, "because it must
have been so easy for him." Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude
and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the
misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are
right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission,
the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus
because He was God, but were possible only because He was God. But surely
that is a very odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to
form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how
to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher, and only because
it is easier for him can he help the child. If it rejected him because "it's
easy for grown-ups" and waited to learn writing from another child who could
not write itself (and so had no "unfair" advantage), it would not get on
very quickly.

If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one
foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout
back (between my gasps) "No, it's not fair! You have an advantage! You're
keeping one foot on the bank"? That advantage-call it "unfair" if you
like-is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you
look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?
Such is my own way of looking at what Christians call the Atonement.
But remember this is only one more picture. Do not mistake it for the thing
itself: and if it does not help you, drop it.

By "eradication of Satan" you mean the unveiling that EGW speaks about here:



Or did you have something else in mind?