Reallocating the Locus and Role of God’s Wrath in History and Soteriology

When did we start psychoanalyzing God? In trying to rationalize why God “needed” to exert His wrath against a perfectly innocent victim in order to be able to express His graciousness to sinners, theologians have wandered far astray from their honest calling and the beaten path of apostolic explanation. For their part, the apostles taught that for his sinless, faithful obedience, Jesus was worthy only of God’s stupendous graciousness (instead of wrath) when he voluntarily surrendered (as per the divine Plan) to the envious hatred and fury of his foes, and was deserving only of God’s exaltation for that outrageous humiliation. We’re talkin’ justice here–premial justice, nothin’ penal about it! God’s wrath did show up, however, after a lapse of one generation, upon the city of Jerusalem, who had consigned God’s Anointed to a miserable cross. [4/18/12; 2/7/26]

The modern nation of Israel, which we should recognize as the prophesied Counter-Messiah, was a creation of Zionism and Dispensationalism. The latter Christian movement, under the influence of conventional secular chronology that displaces and “replaces” Biblical chronology at key points, miscalculated a host of important events in Old Testament and New Testament prophecy. Having been misled from the authentic apostolic view concerning many decisive prophecies long ago fulfilled in Christ’s career and the the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, they have spun out volumes of vain speculations that obscure the true Gospel message of the apostles, which fundamentally universalized the application of the blessings of Abraham and required Jews to get reconciled with Gentiles by seeing incorporation into one body as the consummate goal of the Savior–a joint body!

Ironically, these modern fabricators of a counter-Messiah (antichristos) dare to label the apostolic message of trans-racial unification in Jesus Christ as “replacement theology,” AS IF THEY THEMSELVES WERE NOT GUILTY OF REPLACING BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY WITH THE SELF-AGGRANDIZING ARTIFICE CALCULATED BY A NATIONALISTIC PAGAN PTOLEMAIC-ERA (305 B.C.-30 B.C.) EGYPTIAN PRIESTHOOD! But more on that another time. [4/19/12; 2/6-7/26]

The point of Christ’s abuse-taking and curse-taking is not that he “bore what we should have borne,”* but much rather that he bore what he should not have borne. Yet happily, that very injustice supplied the grounds for God to turn around his condemnation to death into a justification of life via resurrection from the dead, whereby much, much more was returned to Christ than he lost to Satan’s savage assault.

*Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. (Eerdmans 1965) p. 61. [4/20/12]

Faustus Socinus SHOT PENAL SUBSTITUTION ALL TO HELL, WHENCE IT HAD COME. [4/30/12]

It is LOVE that sacrifices whatever is necessary to conciliate enemies so as to make peace and re-unify those who had become estranged. [5/2/12; 2/7/26]

SCRIPTURE + GOOD SENSE

Faustus Socinus (along with several generations of his Polish successors) approached theological, ethical, and ecclesiastical issues with an explicit and honest combination of Scripture plus good sense (mostly). Wielding this double-barreled weapon with strategic skill, he levelled devastating fire against Calvin’s theory of penal substitution. That he did not happen to rediscover the correct alternative is hardly a fault peculiar to him. It was scarcely possible to get this right until Christ’s resurrection came back into prominence (since apostolic days!) as a theological locus of decisive significance, i.e., until the late 20th century. Yet, however that may be, it should be clear that holy Scripture + good sense trumps Scripture + traditional dogmatic prejudice, in principle, every time. The Holy Spirit has weighed in decisively on this controverted matter. It is not hard to guess which of these couplets is an unholy alliance. [5/7/12]

Calvinism is like a dandelion. Although you may pull up all visible flowers, leaves, and stems (the “five points,” “original sin,” “predestination,” “sovereign decrees,” “imputation of Christ’s righteousness,” “eternal conscious punishment,” etc.), unless you manage to pull up the toxic root—”penal substitution“—this ‘lion will come roaring back, in due time, with all its well-known visible appendages bristling. Penal substitution harbors, at root, every distinctive of Reformed soteriology (especially in its more complete and thorough post-Reformation guise). No superficial pruning will eradicate these outgrowths that reside implicit in a rigid adherence to and elaboration of the penal/economic logic of this artificial core doctrine. One of the most striking and instructive examples of inner contradiction on this topic is the greatly enlarged second edition of the monumental study by Laurence M. Vance intended to refute the Five Points of Calvinism, The Other Side of Calvinism, revised edition (Orlando, FL: Vance Publications, 1999) 800pp: the author remained an undaunted, if foolhardy, champion of penal substitution (esp. pp.414-32)! [5/24/12; 2/5/26]

“T U L I P” Some playful toying with the Five Points of Calvinism (which so many painstaking students of Scripture have found hard to take seriously, as well.) Obviously these whimsical takes are not intended to represent their adherents’ own too-sober exposition of the points at issue!

1. “Total Depravity“—Theology in general has become depraved in many respects, but Calvinism is a textbook example of total depravity at work—every one of the Five Points is a corruption of Gospel truth, accordingly attended by psychological malaise and behavioral deviance, as candid observers have repeatedly noted.

2. “Unconditional Election“—God chooses everyone who believes the Gospel without any conditions attached! However, He rejects those who distrust the News about His Son.

3. “Limited Atonement“—Christ’s atonement is strictly limited to Adam’s descendants—human beings. Angels are not included in its benefits.

4. “Irresistible Grace“—God’s graciousness is almost irresistible. Sadly, many people do manage to resist the Holy Spirit of grace and hence eventually suffer the wrath of God and get destroyed forever. Moral: Don’t resist the drawing power of the gospel story!

5. “Perseverance of the Saints“—People must persist in faith in order to remain holy (wholesome), i.e., “saints.” [5/24/12; 2/5/26]

For a worthy victory, Jesus needed a real enemy of daunting might and jurisdiction as suitable foil for displaying God’s crowning virtues so as to win our steadfast love and loyalty.

“…[B]ut this is your hour and the jurisdiction of darkness.” (Luke 22:53b)

The Lord Jesus does not minimize in the least the actual jurisdiction (exousia—authority, rights) of darkness or of Satan. Indeed, God’s mightiest work is that he “rescues us out of the jurisdiction of darkness and transports us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we are having liberation, the release of sins.” (Col. 1:13-14)

To be sure, it was Satan’s jurisdiction that surreptitiously apprehended, falsely accused, roundly condemned, and unlawfully crucified the Lord, yet God’s superior jurisdiction that reversed the wicked sentence by resurrection to glory with “all jurisdiction in heaven and on the earth.” (Matt. 28:18) For Jesus had declared, “Now is the judging of this world, Now shall the Chief of this world be cast out. And I, if I should be exalted out of the earth, shall be drawing all to myself.” (John 12:31-32) For he, too, conquered because he “love[d] not [his] soul until death” (Rev. 12:11), but “surrendered to Him Who is judging justly” (1Pet. 2:23), knowing full well the glorious outcome would be life forevermore.

For a real victory, Jesus needed a real enemy of daunting might and jurisdiction as suitable foil for displaying God’s crowning virtues so as to win our love and loyalty. [10/5/11]

Any talk of the “sinful” or “sinless” nature of Christ is needlessly misdirected since neither ascription can be found in Scripture. However, it is certain that the Son of God did take on mortal flesh. Such flesh—the flesh derived from Adam, without access to the Tree of Life—was by no means inherently immortal even during Adam’s original innocence. It was, accordingly, death that “passed on” (dielthen) by human generation, not sin (Romans 5:12). “Original sin” is a ruse and a hoax. Nevertheless, residual mortality is attended by its own evils, most notably, temptation. It was precisely Jesus’ mission to take the common human legacy of mortal flesh and to return it to its pristine state—nay, to surpass that state and bring all his believing seed along with him in his own transcendent salvation. He took the common lot and “improved” it by ever resisting temptation until, via the gross injustice of the cross, he won God’s just restitution of extraordinary exaltation and immortality. Had he not assumed mortal flesh just like ours—exclusive of sin!—he could assuredly not have “achieved” or “won” anything worthwhile for the salvation of other humans. His was a mighty auspicious context of faithfulness through every contingency allowed, indeed designedly intended by God, to attain the most glorious outcome possible for all concerned.

The basic issue, therefore, is not that concerning a ‘sinless versus sinful nature‘ at all; that’s a false dilemma. Much rather, it’s whether Christ remained unswervingly sinless despite his mortal condition shared with sinners who most certainly could not stay sinless or regain sinlessness by their own feckless, fretful, feverish devices, sound, and fury. [10/7/11]

In manifest irony, the very event that proved beyond doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed Israel’s long-awaited Messiah, with divine authority to avenge all injustices against them, is the identical event that rescued him from their aggravated injustice against him—his resurrection from the dead! On the strength of such a stunning reversal, God declares mercy to all and graciousness to all who believe! [10/12/11]]

To assert that 2 Cor. 5:21 has any bearing on the doctrine of the Atonement but yet deny that the host of passages in Leviticus that translate “sin” as “sin offering” (clearly a matter of atonement!) have any bearing on this passage of Paul’s is transparently to indulge in special pleading. An impartial exegetical examination will confirm a direct and most illuminating relevance. [10/27/11]

The energy deficiency of Calvin’s gospel itself demanded a coercive ‘sovereign’ to get the job done.

The potent drawing power of the apostolic Gospel that moves sinners to get conciliated with God resides in the humanly astonishing message that God gave His own beloved Son into the hands of the very sinners He wanted to save. When they publicly assassinated him instead of accepting him as their divinely chosen Messiah, rather than destroying them for their vicious crime God simply (!) reversed their sinless victim’s death and HELD THEM HARMLESS IF THEY CONFESSED THEIR SIN! Such a Proclamation possesses inherent conciliatory punch to spur sinners to change their minds and return to such a God.

By stark contrast with this premial justice of God manifested at Christ’s resurrection, John Calvin’s doctrine concerning God’s penal justice at the cross has no such evident heart-transforming power, consequently he was constrained to make up for this energy deficiency by inventing a prior regeneration by the Holy Spirit acting only upon the ‘unconditionally elect’ with an ‘irresistible grace‘ on account of their ‘total depravity’ that disenables them from believing his ‘gospel’ — thus placing the blame for his own deficient ‘gospel’ on each sinner’s supposed ‘fallen’ condition!

This disembowling of the Apostolic Gospel into an effete substitute goes far to explain why any appeal to the power of the Message itself (such as Abelard had championed, though arguably on an insufficient basis) falls on deaf ears when presented to hardened Calvinists. Yet how might the authentic premial Gospel itself fare?!

Still, we must concur with Calvin that the penal satisfaction/substitution message does, to be sure, lack full power to conciliate sinners to such a deity who must show his wrath before forgiveness can be forthcoming. It lacks ethical force; it lacks a prima facie exhibit of appealing love. It must be hedged by a cartload of qualifiers to pose it as rational and moral. It is fraught with contradictions. It makes a pretty embarrassing showing, needing to be propped up by an assemblage of crutches and feeble apologetics. [9/22/11]

Penal substitutionary leaders of the Jews — the high priesthood in particular — were so totally clueless in their hardheartedness and forensic blindness that they reasoned that unless they eliminated the ‘threat’ of Jesus and his messiahood, the Romans would come and “take away our place as well as out nation“ (John 11:47-48) not comprehending that getting rid of him is exactly what would culminate their national turpitude and precipitate the destruction of their cherished temple, the city of Jerusalem, and indeed their prized national existence. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and priests! [9/26/11]

Penal substitution advocates tend to hold that justice in Scripture is mainly, if not exclusively, to be construed as penal, although justification yet somehow tests ‘positive‘ (i.e., premial!) when we get around to Paul’s epistles (however, only in a roundabout manner via a penal substitute). Yet the lexical facts stack up differently: in both the Old and New Testaments, justice is two-sided, i.e., either penal or premial, depending what the deserts of the defendant in question call for — penal toward the vicious and premial toward the upright, in accord with the two-fold sanctions of the ancient Sinai Covenant. Even so, justice often appears prominently premial in the O.T., without explanation or apology.

Moreover, in virtually all Greek literature outside the New Testament “justification” (dikaioo) is penal, never premial.* Only in Paul’s writings do we find an outright premial interpretation of “justify” — in particular, God’s “justification.” He could not have derived this definition from Greek (much less, Roman) literature or judicial customs or terminological usages. But if from the Old Testament (i.e., the LXX), where the concept of justice is likewise weighted to the premial, why would “justify” ever need to entail a penal twist?! [9/26/11]

*See Mark A. Seifrid, Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol 2 (2004) 39-74.

The bland shorthand coupling, “death and resurrection” (not actually found in the New Testament), subtly underplays the uniform Biblical emphasis on Christ’s resurrection from the dead (not his crucifixion) as the authentic, true, and vibrant centerpiece of the Gospel.

The common theological use of the juxtaposed terms “death and resurrection” of Christ should raise questions in our minds. Scripture prefers the locution “resurrection from the dead,” thus giving the priority to resurrection and emphasizing not so much the death itself as Christ’s escape from the realm of the dead. This clear note of triumph and victory over the grave is unsettlingly subdued in the rather bland apposition of the words “death and resurrection.” (It is most unfortunate that Gustav Aulen’s masterpiece, Christus Victor: A Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement [SPCK, 1931], is marred by his consistent appeal to this ‘tandemizing’ of the two distinct epicenters of the apostolic proclamation, thus numbingly slurring over their crucial non-symmetric relationship. This pairing is now virtually a universal commonplace in evangelical theology.) This shorthand expression arguably suffers from the side-effects of the theologies of Anselm and the Protestant Reformers in which Christ’s resurrection appears as more of an afterthought than an integral necessity for justification and atonement, as in the New Testament. Once we get this subtle loss rectified, we should instinctively return to the more common apostolic usages, “risen/raised from the dead” and “resurrection from the dead.” [9/18/11; 1/2/25; 8/15/25]

God never demanded a ransom from human beings on account of their sins. For Heaven’s sake, HE GAVE A RANSOM: HIS ONLY-BORN AND BELOVED AND WELL-PLEASING SON, whose viciously wrongful death deprived him of the throne of Israel SO THAT GOD HIMSELF WAS JUSTIFIED TO INTERVENE AND SAVE HIM BY SUPER-COMPENSATING JUSTICE AND AWARD HIM AUTHORITY OVER ALL NATIONS, ALONG WITH ALL THE COSMIC TRIMMINGS! [9/19/11]

In the deepest sense, Peter Abelard was right: Anselm should have focused on God’s love in the work of Atonement, but he instead elaborated on God getting His justice satisfied. Calvin erred yet further by urging that God’s penal justice get satisfied. However, by focusing on God’s premial justice instead of the satisfaction of either civil or criminal law as means to justice, Abelard’s focus on love WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN AMPLY FULFILLED. Alas! So close, yet so far away. For not only did Anselm and Calvin veer from the norm, but so also did Abelard by not recognizing or identifying the manifestation of love via premial (rewarding, restorative) justice at Christ’s resurrection! This solution requires no substitution, because love is “satisfied” by a direct award to the Victim. [9/20/11]

Let’s grant for argument’s sake that Abelard’s critics are correct that his particular “theory” about the “exemplary” “moral” influence of Christ’s submission to crucifixion for the sake of sinners out of love for them may not have the wherewithal to actually accomplish all he claimed for it. But is that the case also for the Gospel understood as the supreme revelation of God’s premial justice, whereby He manifested not only His merciful love at the cross by not destroying His dear Son’s killers, but, much more, displayed His staggering capacity for restorative justice at Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement on high, followed by His outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Would it likewise be impossible for such an historic demonstration to lack the power to conciliate sinners?

Furthermore, again for the sake of argument, if Abelard can validly be accused of underestimating the corrupting force of “original sin” by imagining that the exemplary force of Christ’s crucifixion is sufficient to overcome its depravity, can this deficiency equally be alleged concerning such a demonstration understood as God’s gracious willingness to permit vicious sinners, ignorant of His deep love and true justice, to slay His precious and perfectly exemplary Son without any immediate retribution, and in combination with a certifiable resurrection from the dead to demonstrate additionally God’s ability to bring justice to their Victim so as to graciously exonerate them of their premeditated murder? Moreover, what if this double-barreled demonstration occurs in conjunction with an unprecedented, overwhelming bestowal of God’s own Wholesome Spirit of prophecy and healing power to back up those amazing deeds of mercy and utterly unexpected graciousness? What then?

WOULD ALL THAT BE UNEQUAL TO THE “TOTAL DEPRAVITY” OF HUMAN SINFULNESS, OR MUST WE ADDITIONALLY RESORT TO AN “IRRESISTIBLE GRACE” THAT COERCES THOSE THOUGHT TO BE “DEAD ‘IN’ SIN,” AFTER ELECTING A FEW OF THEM “UNCONDITIONALLY” BY A “SOVEREIGN DECREE”? Or can we finally shuck off all this superfluous gnostic soteriology and rely on the pure words and true testimony of Scripture alone on this topic?

Accordingly, it appears that Abelard’s “exemplary” atonement proffered a shrunken example—his demonstration was incomplete, yet no less a valid, even indispensable, demonstration, so far as it went. [9/20/11; 1/2/25]