Would it be wrong, immoral, or illegal in principle for you to pardon repentant murderers if you happened to possess the love and power to reverse the fatalities they wantonly caused?

Faith uniquely PLEASES God so that He COUNTS it as RIGHTEOUSNESS.  When we exert faith in the testimonies He has authorized by inclusion in the holy Scriptures, particularly those regarding the teaching and deeds of His only-born Son Jesus, He honors that faith that thus honors Him by BESTOWING ON US THE JUST AWARD THAT CHRIST WON AS THE GRAND PRIZE OF HIS OWN PERSONAL FAITHFULNESS TO GOD’S ANCIENT COVENANT: THE HOLY SPIRIT, PLUS ALL THE TRIMMINGS!  Hence the seed of our own authentic righteousness, namely, our faith in the Good Seed of God’s Explanation in the Gospel, procures for us the surplus of God’s own Spirit to produce the full range of fruit of God’s own authentic righteousness revealed at the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, in order to gloriously countermand the gross unrighteousness of human beings engineering the Cross.  [11/2/10]

Now I have a little question for you:

If a man, let’s say, lives an upright and honest, in fact perfectly exemplary, life of kindness and generosity to others, but then gets wrongly accused of terrible misdeeds and is summarily sentenced to an excruciating death, WOULDN’T IT BE JUST AND RIGHT TO SOMEHOW CANCEL THE DEATH SENTENCE AGAINST HIM?  HOW ABOUT TO REVERSE IT…EVEN AFTER THE SENTENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN EXECUTED, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE?  WOULD THAT BE RIGHT?  WOULD THERE BE ANYTHING WRONG OR ILLEGAL ABOUT IT?  WOULD OR COULD OR SHOULD THERE BE ANY LAW AGAINST SUCH A RESTITUTION ON HIS BEHALF?  WHAT’S WRONG WITH SUCH A JUDICIAL DECISION OR PROCEDURE?  This, in fact, is precisely what God did for His Son Jesus; the apostle Paul called it “the righteousness/justice of God.”  Any objections?  Would it be more just to prosecute his killers?  Would that do the dead man any actual good?  Would it constitute any real restitution to him?  Would it bring him back to life or restore his fortunes?  WHICH ALTERNATIVE WOULD ACTUALLY BE MORE JUST?  Does it take a savant or genius to figure this out?  “Dis ain’t rocket soigury, ya’ know!”

If justice demands that OFFENDERS MAKE RESTITUTION TO THEIR VICTIMS, what should happen in the above “exceedingly unlikely” case?  In capital crimes, does it convey any genuine RESTORATIVE JUSTICE to the victim for the offenders to pay with their lives for their crime?  Granted, PENAL JUSTICE may be done after a fashion, but that penalty CANNOT EVER COMPENSATE A DEAD VICTIM.  It is evident, then, that in such a case, PENAL JUSTICE IS POWERLESS TO BRING REAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE OR AUTHENTIC RECTIFICATION OF INJURIES, FATAL AS THEY ARE.  But IF RAISING THE ABOVE “CONJECTURED” MURDER VICTIM FROM THE DEAD, ESPECIALLY WITH ADDED COMPENSATION, DOES ACTUALLY SERVE REAL JUSTICE, THEN WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH ALL THOSE CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATORS?  Would it be fair and square to OFFER THEM A GRACIOUS PARDON, provided, of course, that they SEE THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE UNDESERVED SALVATION FROM THE DEATH THEY SO NARROWLY ESCAPED?  What ho!  [11/4/10; 3/11/22]

Jesus, God’s own beloved Son, came to earth in order to reveal fully his Father’s character of love and graciousness.  By dying under wrongful adverse circumstances, he gave God the unprecedented historic opportunity to REWARD HIM STUPENDOUSLY for our sakes, since the overflow of Christ’s award–the GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD — was given away gratuitously, WITHOUT PAY, to us needy sinners.  The key difference between the Father and the Son is that the Son GOT EXTRAORDINARILY REWARDED before the whole universe FOR HIS MANIFEST GRACIOUSNESS, whereas the Father is GRACIOUS WITHOUT RECOMPENSE, as it were.  The Son’s historic exhibit WAS FOR OUR BENEFIT, TO TAKE AWAY OUR SINS AND REPLACE THEM WITH GOD’S OWN HOLINESS AND LIFE.  This result far exceeds what sinners could enjoy from God prior to His Son’s advent.  [11/5/10; 3/11/22]

Arminius attacked the FRUIT, whereas Socinus attacked the ROOT, of the penal substitution theory.

The entire agenda of Jacob (James) Arminius amounted to a grand broadside against PENAL SUBSTITUTION, albeit slightly off center.  He did not target penal substitution (Calvin’s invention) nor even vicarious satisfaction (Anselm’s) head on.  However, he did challenge several key doctrines that directly flowed from Calvin’s theory of atonement.  (Although he did not challenge Calvin’s acceptance of “eternal conscious punishment,” for instance, which was a necessary implication of penal satisfaction.)  Had he lived longer, he surely would have traced yet more threads of influence.  As matters actually unfolded, every main point of the Remonstrants drawn up after the death of Arminius (1609) was countered by the Calvinists in the steps of Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Calvin’s successor in Geneva (under whom Arminius, as well, had studied at the Academy as a young scholar), and was ensconced by way of rejection in the signature “five points of Calvinism” at the international Synod of Dordrecht (1618-19).

One wonders what might have unreeled historically if Socinus and Arminius had ever conferred with one another, since they were contemporaries, or if their respective followers, the Polish Brethren and Dutch Remonstrants, had ever edged toward mutual consultation, or even alliance.  Naturally, that would have been most unlikely in view of their divergence on other main points of doctrine.  However, after Polish unitarians started suffering persecution by Calvinists and expulsion by Jesuit machinations a generation or two later, many did flee to the Low Countries and make some degree of common cause with the Arminian Remonstrants, Mennonites, and other groups that flourished during the increasing religious freedom there.  What did the outcome look like up close and doctrinally?  This deserves more research.

Since both Socinus and Arminius were basically attacking PENAL SUBSTITUTION — the former headlong (the unitary root) and the latter sidelong (the diverse fruit) — they were, in effect, allies and were reinforcing each other.  Did they ever realize it?

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), in any case, evidently did not perceive their common cause.  Although a Remonstrant in full sympathy with his mentor and friend Arminius, Grotius launched an attack on Socinus’ position concerning the Atonement.  On this single point, however, regardless of their obvious differences on other doctrinal points, Grotius should have noticed the common root of their opposition to Calvin’s soteriology.  But instead of making common cause with the Polish Brethren and finally clinching the solid vital link between the contributions of Socinus and Arminius on the subject of the Atonement, Grotius effected a severe cleavage between potential allies and forestalled the forging of a more integral and complete doctrine of the Atonement to replace the erroneous and deleterious dogmatic theories of Anselm and especially Calvin.  This is the more tragic because Grotius was ideally positioned historically and even professionally as the eminent scholar of international law with broad knowledge and sympathies in favor of peace and amity.  Instead, he simply denatured penal substitution and recycled a variant version, devising yet another fated theory to be substantially discarded by the end of the 19th century.  [10/29/10]

“Penal substitution” has compromised many a dissenting intuition and exegetical scruple in order to assert and impose domineering conformity to what many theologians insisted “must be” the case regardless.  The primal intuitions of those who opposed “penal satisfaction” were often correct.  Those minds who gave in to “penal satisfaction,” therefore, were suppressing their better judgment.  The theory has self-selected as its advocates those types of personalities capable of overriding or wholesale bulldozing their basic sensibilities in order to be loyal to what they were told was “Biblical truth”…the “letter.”  On the topic of the Atonement, the words of Calvin, Owen, Turretin, C. Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Smeaton, Shedd, Strong, Warfield, Bavinck, Denney, L. Berkhof, Pink, J. Murray, Berkouwer, L. Morris, Nicole, H. D. McDonald, Stott, Packer, I. H. Marshall, Sproul, MacArthur, Piper, Craig, Schreiner — a representative sampling of penal substitution’s celebrated champions — all too often grate against the finer sensibilities of the human conscience, not to mention the divine Spirit.  Yet it is the divine Explanation in holy Scripture that provides the most explicit lingual norm violated by the human letter of such Calvinistic orthodoxy.  This Sword of the Spirit is yet destined to conquer every pretension exalted against it, good intentions notwithstanding.  [10/30/10; 3/9/22]

Since every single one of the five points of the Remonstrants (of 1610) was an assault (although sidelong, addressing direct implications) on PENAL SUBSTITUTION, it is passing strange that Hugo Grotius did not apprehend how well the Arminian achievement comported with at least the Socinian assault (headlong) on PENAL SUBSTITUTION.  The authentic drift of Arminius’s advances against the atonement errors of Calvinism were considerably weakened by Grotius’ obliviousness on this key point.  His critique completely missed “the point” of Arminius’s whole expose of Calvin’s system.  The irony of this blindness is the more poignant in view of Grotius’ evident commitment to international peace.  Had he made peace with Socinus’ valid critique of penal substitution (never mind his lapses), the religious course of Western civilization might have been radically different and more tranquil, especially in view of Calvinism’s actual historic track record on violence, war, exclusivism, racism, slavery, apartheid, and generally punitive effects on criminal justice, child rearing, and many other functions and institutions of society.  Hugo Grotius strategically missed his grandest opportunity to make good on the promise of international law conceived on a Christian basis.  The hope of peace within Western Christianity fled with Grotius’ defensiveness concerning the fateful prospects of the Remonstrant cause in the Netherlands if they should happen to become associated with the Socinian position, already well known in the Low Countries through Polish immigrants.  The immediate fortunes of the Remonstrants, especially in view of the imminent Synod of Dort (1618-19), appear to have overshadowed Grotius’ objectivity and large-mindedness.  The immediate outcome of his strategy was more sanguinary than his sanguine hopes justified.  The long-term consequences have been little better.  Yet perhaps it is not too late to seek rapprochement, especially since the exertions of Calvinist dogmaticians and systematicians have not brought healing to the doctrine of atonement, much less to the reflexive rifts in the body of Christ.  Yet the Truth can surely bring peace and unity among us to a degree heretofore unrealized provided we yield yet further to “Scripture alone,” like we profess, instead of to factional survival instincts and defense mechanisms.

(I wonder whether Grotius ever even touched upon any of those unique points of remonstration that characterized his own Arminian stance over against the Calvinists while he was elaborating his criticisms of Socinus in order to ferret out the latter’s authentic opinions on those facets of Calvin’s doctrinal system.  Granted, Socinus died (1604) before Arminius’ position was articulated for public inspection in 1610, but didn’t Socinus articulate any objections in these general areas during his lifetime?  That is, was he also, like Grotius, possibly unaware how much of Calvin’s unique soteriology was simply a ramifying of PENAL SUBSTITUTION?  Wouldn’t Socinus have exploited such an observation in order the more thoroughly to invalidate it as well as to reinforce his own non-penal-substitutionary better impulses, irresolute as they turned out to be?)

What does seem certain is this: The PREMIAL JUSTICE of God COMPLETELY OBVIATES this entire tedious controversy once and for all.  For no penal satisfaction was either required, prophesied, or culminated in the whole scope of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on our behalf. You can stake your life on it.  [11/1/10; 3/11/22; 4/6/22]