The cross of Christ proves and demonstrates why and how God could always have passed over penalties for sins in His forbearance, and do so justly (though in His premial, not penal, justice), even justifying those who live out of Christ’s own faithfulness by faith. What a hoot! What a surprise! What a legacy! What an incredible boon! This is “just” too good to be false! [8/20/10]
God tricked Satan by letting him do what he wanted with His Son, knowing full well his Adversary’s murderous (but supremely foolish) intent. By this enactment of folly, Satan would inadvertently and indirectly endow his sinless Victim with fresh and superabundant rights and authority and wealth and honor and glory and dominion and thrones and blessing and more! THIS WAS A COUP WITHOUT COMPARE! [8/20/10]
What’s interesting and peculiarly satisfying about the patristic illustration of Satan swallowing God’s Son, hook, line, and sinker, is its focus on Christ’s irrepressible vitality, i.e., the power of his ineluctable resurrection. This emphasis is far superior to, and more authentic than, any vaunted “satisfaction” theory can possibly offer…unless, that is, we’re talking about the satisfaction of PREMIAL JUSTICE, since this is precisely the “spring action” behind the resurrection. [8/20/10]
The apostles did not proclaim a “doctrine of reconciliation” (such as theologians discourse about) but an act of God, namely, at the crucifixion of His precious Son, where God’s conciliating role and deed amounted to not striking out in avenging against those who strung up His Son, but instead allowing them to “win” that round, for the moment, yet only to reverse completely the debacle after a fashionable tardiness, in order to drive home the point: His greater desire for their salvation than for His veritable rights and honor, or even vindication of His penal justice. Time enough for that. But FIRST THINGS FIRST! [8/20/10]
God proffered His own Son as a protective cover (through the faithfulness in his blood) in order to display the JUSTICE of his previous bypassing of the penalties of sins! (Romans 3:25-26) [8/20/10]
The resolution of the atonement controversy in terms of premial justice rather than penal justice leaves us with the excruciating embarassment that the historic adversaries of “penal satisfaction/substitution” were at least very often right in what they denied (i.e., the key elements of penal substitution ideology) even when inadequate in what they proposed as replacements, whereas the historic advocates of penal substitution/ satisfaction were wrong both in what they affirmed and what they denied (since their opponents explored many quite valid, if partial, elements, images, models, illustrations, and theories that got slighted by the heavy-handed, indeed, punitive treatment from penal substitution champions). [8/2010]
The Premial Atonement 