Ashamed of Penal Substitution, Not Ashamed of the Gospel!

Being ashamed and mortified by the hideous distortion of God’s character perpetrated (with all the best intentions) by penal substitution dogmatists should be distinguished emphatically from being “ashamed of the Gospel” (Rom. 1:16) as taught in Scripture in its own authentic, honest, robust terms. [6/28/11]

The imputing of false and alien attitudes to God (such as demanding that every sin be punished—even the “forgiven ones“!—in the person of an innocent substitute) can only result in detrimental effects on our attitudes concerning Him. Does anyone get this? This is serious, very serious indeed! Thus to impute our sins to Christ (for the sake of getting them punished “in him” by God’s wrath) is to impute injustice to God Himself! [6/28/11]

The teaching that God needed to punish someone. even His perfectly innocent and obedient Offspring, in order to forgive the sins of others, allegedly to accord with “justice,” is one hell of a doctrine! That such an expenditure of divine wrath could “satisfy” God’s justice, especially in the total absence of any show of restorative justice toward that innocent sufferer—and just to be clear, please remind yourself that you have honestly never heard any sincere and ardent advocate of penal substitution articulate the necessity (not to mention the urgency!) of God rendering any rectifying or reparative justice to Jesus in return for the horrors he wrongfully suffered at the cross, including the judicial lead-up to it [11/22/24]—utterly defies any logic brought forward by Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture. Wicked theology hereby defies the very Lord it loudly claims to honor, anaesthetizing sensitive consciences by scrambling words into toxic formulas alien to the sound patterns of the apostles. May God be merciful to their twisted souls, but exceedingly more merciful to the unsuspecting souls they are deluding and spiritually injuring, and rescue them decisively from this defiling miasma of reprehensible and disgraceful dogma. [6/29/11]

“ECONOMIZING” THE ATONEMENT

Calvinistic/Reformed soteriology is saturated with and captivated by the “necessities,” “requirements,” “absolutes,” “limits,” and “decrees” of a kind of economic absolutism regarding the Atonement. Accordingly, it “economizes” the “extent” and “application” of “penalties” and “benefits” of penal justice along with Christ’s alleged “satisfaction” for “indebtedness,” etc. Calvinistic theory, far, far more than the Anselmian theory, is shackled hand and foot to these actually “weak and poor” (Gal. 4:9) indeed, carnal elements of economic analogy, in starkest contrast to the actual usage of such guiding metaphors in Scripture, along with the linguistic controls placed upon them by multiple diverse contexts. In Calvinism, mundane economics sprawls undisciplined beyond control. Narrative contexts get dishonored or stripped away unceremoniously. Basic semantic elements of biblical thought get dissociated, distorted, and recombined into toxic end-products of theological legerdemain. [6/10/11]

Prof. Leon Morris’s culpable lumping together of the book of Romans along with Paul’s other epistles, in his well-known treatments of the cross in the New Testament, is a prime example of shoving the square peg of the resurrectionary Gospel into the round hole dug for the cross by the shovel of penal substitution. [7/1/11] Hence a book that never so much as mentions the cross anywhere (Romans) and therefore would appear to any candid mind to be an exceedingly awkward piece of evidence “for” Morris’s penal theory—an embarrassing outlier, to say the least—is brushed over to blend in with his failed hypothesis, and Prof. Morris stands guilty of tampering with the insuppressible evidence for a resurrection-centered…better yet, a resurrection-obsessed epistle that argues for doctrines of atonement, justification, and conciliation radically contradictory to the ones he has determined to impose everywhere without exception. Morris’s method is to apply a devious pseudo-scholarly uniformity over what he cannot sort out fairly or accurately. [11/17/24]

The general difficulty that Christians of virtually all traditions experience, when it comes to actually putting Christ’s commandments into practice, is that we no longer grasp the justice of God as having the intention or power of justifying us against our enemies (see scores of Psalms), especially during “the present wicked age” (Gal. 1:4). That weakness derives largely from viewing God’s justice as entirely penal, with no happy, vindicating upside! The premial element that rewards the righteous and restores their losses with a gracious surplus has dropped out of view completely, elbowed into the shadows by a shabby, blustering, domineering, “absolute,” punitive caricature more severe even than God’s rightfully penal justice toward the incorrigible! [7/1/11]

The premial exposition of Christ’s suffering of abuse does not glorify suffering per se; rather, it glorifies the persevering suffering of injustices WITHOUT REVILING, WITHOUT COMPLAINING, WITHOUT REVENGE, WITHOUT RETALIATION…IN SUM, WITHOUT SINNING. In shuddering contrast, penal substitution theory, in effect, nakedly ventures to offer only a morally repulsive substitutionary retaliation! For Jesus both taught and modeled WAITING FOR THE FATHER’S JUST AVENGING WITH DUE PENALTIES AND DUE REWARDS FAIRLY DIVVIED UP IN THE BARGAIN…ALL IN DUE TIME. [7/1/11]

The popular distinction between “freedom from the guilt of sin” and “freedom from the power of sin” is a mis-formulation skewed by the Protestant Reformation’s artificial distinction (nay, actual separation!) between “justification” and “sanctification”; “imputed” and “imparted”; “objective” and “subjective.” It amounts to a systematizing of the deception (Eph. 4:14) of penal substitution.

By contrast, the authentic premial inclusion or premial restitution doctrine of Christ’s apostles comprehends all of Christ’s just award from his Father, the Judge, as conveyed to believers exclusively by the gift of the Holy Spirit—both royal judicial righteousness and sacred priestly holiness alike. Thus the apostolic premial concept is fully integral (and, with undisguised irony, actually more “trinitarian” than the vaunted “orthodox” substitute). [7/1/11]

The CRUCIFIXION and RESURRECTION constitute the historic epicenters of the Gospel, where God Himself respectively ABSORBED and REPAID Christ’s losses from the crime of the cross.

“SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD” vs. THE RIGHTEOUS IN THE HANDS OF A GRACIOUS GOD

The former circumstance—the fateful condition of every stubborn, hardened, unrepentant sinner—can only be remedied by the exclusive One who ever-enjoyed the latter circumstance. In fact, it was precisely his power to sustain this circumstance—even when all outward indicators appeared to compromise it, as he stood isolated, seemingly abandoned by all, and virtually accursed by the Law of Moses—that gives us the unshakable assurance of our own safekeeping within God’s graciousness, provided we stay in Christ, whose resurrection sealed forever God’s graciousness to him, manifesting on earth Heaven’s glorious judgment in his favor! [6/22/11]

The incidental scattered errors that were in due course to fester into the monstrous dogma of penal substitution were present, seemingly harmlessly, as early as Tertullian, Athanasius, Eusebius, Augustine, and Pope Gregory I, and only continued to litter theology as history wore on. Yet here they were unsystematically uttered in brief, seemingly in passing, perhaps for their rhetorical value, or as homiletical novelties to hold the attention of illiterate audiences. Still, they were not to be found in Scripture, so could not be endorsed by apostolic authority, and were by no means innocent, even if inadvertent (even as Israelites were not held guiltless for unintentional sins under Moses’ Law). It required a clever mind to piece together such ‘impressionist’ shreds of unsound wording into a grand scheme that effected a delusive “systematizing of the deception” (Eph. 4:14), inveigling the young, innocent, and unwary, and in time whole nations. Anselm of Canterbury was only the first of many to make their bid to spin out elaborate syntheses from select remnants scattered among Christian authors (over more than a millennium even by his time). [6/23/11; 5/20/24]

Christ’s resurrection was such an overpowering eruption of justice in answer to the injustice of his cross, that the whole cosmos subsequently has felt the recoil. [6/23/11; 5/20/24]

The cross of Christ proved unequivocally, in a way that should quell serious doubts, that God Himself forgives sins in the very same way that, through Christ’s teaching, he commanded us to forgive. In other words, God forgives others as he expects others to forgive one another. He set the example of such wholehearted forgiveness at the cross, where He did not immediately avenge that horrendous murder, but also at the resurrection, where He Himself totally and gloriously more than reversed the very bodily effects of that crime! Thus, God both ABSORBED the loss and RECTIFIED it as well, in justice and graciousness! He sought no “payment” for sin whatever. In fact, He Himself paid Jesus back (and some!) for the loss he unjustly sustained from the cross. What a salutary example God set for us vengeful, grasping, possessive, ungracious sinners! Jesus was only reflecting and emulating his Father in Heaven…yet never “outdid” Him! [6/24/11]

WHERE’S THE SMOKING GUN?

If, as so many allege, God unleashed (“had to”!) His wrath on Jesus as a “substitute” for exerting it against actual sinners, then there should be some visible evidence of it somewhere, right? But where are the explicit scriptures that teach such a deed? Nowhere! “Wrath” is never associated this way with the Cross. Sin is never said to be “imputed” to Jesus by God. Christ is never said to be “condemned” by God, nor said to be “punished” by God. Where’s the “there” here, or there, or anywhere, if you please? Scripture never teaaches that every sin “must be punished.” “Eternal” death is never prescribed as the penalty for Adam’s sin, nor for any other sin, within Scripture. Nor did God need to become “reconciled with” sinners (much less with sin, as a few might errantly dare extend the inference!) These, and many more outright errors, were made up by fallible theologians out of ignorance or unbelief concerning the plainest (?) teachings in holy Scripture about God’s rewarding justice and pardoning graciousness. Now go figure. [6/24/11; 5/20/24]

IN Christ was NO SIN, consequently, ON Christ was NO DIVINE WRATH. End of discussion.

We can be grateful for C. H. Dodd’s inexplicable lapses of citations in his famous treatment of כפר and ΊΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ (“atone“) in the Septuagint (LXX) and some other ancient literature. The odd incompleteness of his scholarship roused his theological opponents to a more thorough examination of Scripture (both Hebrew and LXX) along with especially Hellenistic Jewish authors such as Philo and Josephus. The delightfully ironic upshot of this adversarial exploration and mutual critique would appear to be at least a partial, yet strong, vindication of Dodd’s controversial conclusions. This is the more persuasive precisely because the complementary investigations were performed by scholars with contrary assumptions. Clearly, there was no sympathetic collusion between these antithetic parties. So, what we learn from both skeins, taken together, is of heightened impartiality and interest even today as we pursue a comparison of both positions with the independent research of, e.g., Adolph E. Knoch, who, though an active contemporary, was not a public participant in the historic controversy. [5/20/11; 5/14/24]

Every time an Israelite laid hands on a sacrificial beast’s head he was confessing he had a hand in its death and likewise, prophetically, in the slaying of the “Lamb of God”—their own Messiah and Savior, God’s own Son. That ritual act was, ipso facto, their confession of sin (in the sin[-offering]) and guilt (in the guilt[-offering]), and similarly at Passover (mid-April), the Day of Sheltering (“Atonement,” mid-Ocrober, 6 months later), and the daily morning and evening sacrifices. [5/23/11; 5/14/24]

In Christ was no sin, therefore, on Christ could come no divine wrath. For this reason he constituted the ideal protective cover, shielding, or shelter (כפרת; ΊΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ) concerning sins; only divine graciousness could issue toward him from above. Therefore, all who are included in Christ by faith (depicted by baptism) are continuously in God’s graciousness that Christ supremely deserves as the fruit of his faithful obedience to his Father through all, and exceedingly severe, tests. Consequently, all who remain in Christ stay safe from God’s indignation against their sins. To his blood, which represents his soul or sentient existence, is attributed his faithfulness, which deserved not only his Father’s graciousness, but additionally a very great just award (ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ) from God’s just judgment. This award, the Holy Spirit, comes, therefore, as a gift to all who likewise exert faith in God’s Explanation of this saving Proclamation, which is God’s power for salvation. Christ’s resurrection was the heavenly seal of God’s favor/graciousness toward him. The superexcessive magnitude of that graciousness is meant for our benefit as otherwise hopeless sinners with no escape from the fate of death that Adam’s sin consigned us to. The grace of Christ’s resurrection is, by the same token, our confident entree into the Father’s graciousness. [5/25/11]

God could not have used the exceedingly slow process of evolution to create life forms for the simple (but true) reason that he sent His Son to earth in the form of Jesus and commissioned him to heal and cure and restore diseased, maimed people instantaneously. Furthermore, Jesus, in turn, commissioned his apostles and other disciples to do likewise in order to validate his Proclamation of salvation from death. Moreover, Jesus was raised from among the dead by God as a powerful sign to confirm our own future destiny if we endure faithful to him and his message. What is the likelihood that a God of such amazing power and care for His creatures would employ such a clumsy, improbable method as evolution to construct beings that He could reconstruct in moments? Not a chance. It’s utterly inconceivable to a normal mind. Salvation is re-creation, not re-evolution. [5/26/11; 5/14/24]

The very narrative of Scripture, in addition to the explicit declarations of God to human beings, reveals the regularities of God’s behavior and the “necessities” entailed by His character traits. These are often a far cry from the orthodox teachings that have been the stock-in-trade of theology. A storyline can reveal, as no amount of abstract theology can, the nuances of God’s behavior over multiple generations, and it can fill otherwise abstruse words with human-scale meanings and relatable contents. The so-called “demands,” “requirements,” and “necessities” of such presumed staples as God’s “[penal!] justice,” look very different from the narrative standpoint of wholesome Scripture than they do from the abstruse angle of scholastic theologizing. [5/26/11]