Hugo Grotius compromised the advances of his mentor James Arminius by overreacting to the compatible advances of Faustus Socinus, and instead spun out a merely mediating theory of PENAL atonement via CRUCIFIXION rather than replacing that medieval relic in favor of apostolic PREMIAL atonement via RESURRECTION.

It is a sadly curious yet very instructive irony that Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) did not seem to perceive in the extensive refutation articulated by Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) of the received dogma concerning “penal satisfaction/substitution” THE VERY CLOSURE REQUIRED FOR CLINCHING THE SEVERAL CORRECTIONS MADE BY HIS ESTEEMED MENTOR, JAMES ARMINIUS, OF JOHN CALVIN’S MODIFICATIONS OF ANSELM’S THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT.  The five points of the Remonstrants (whose denials, of course, constitute the so-called Five Points of Calvinism) would have been rounded out and mutually integrated, along with their unity and inner logic getting powerfully reinforced and accounted for as motivated by radically Biblical opposition to late-emerging novelties of both vocabulary and concept.

HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE FOR THE ATONING EVENTS OF THE GOSPEL STORY (such as…how about, God’s RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TOWARD JESUS VIA RESURRECTION AND EXALTATION FROM HIS HUMILIATION AND CRUCIFIXION?), Grotius remained sadly blind to the inextricable mutual dependence of THE FIVE DERIVATIVE ERRORS ARMINIUS HAD EXPOSED upon THE ONE ORIGINATING ERROR SOCINUS HAD EXPOSED, not to mention their cohesive compatibility and similar ethical tendency.  Threatening political ramifications of the looming Synod of Dordt may well have cast a convenient spell of blindness upon Grotius.

A further doleful result of Grotius’ “not getting it,” was his mediating (it would appear) elaboration of yet another fated and WEARY THEORY OF ATONEMENT — the so-called “GOVERNMENTAL” or “RECTORAL,” terms Grotius himself had not applied to his adjustments of satisfaction theory amid his overreaction to Socinus and his regressive compromise with Calvin and Anselm.  Had he seen even for a moment the apostolic solution in THE MUTUAL NECESSITY OF CROSS AND RESURRECTION IN ORDER TO GRAPHICALLY REVEAL AND CLEARLY EXPOUND GOD’S PREMIAL JUSTICE TO THE WORLD, Grotius could never have resorted to the lame assistance of a token satisfaction, which is all his rectoral, governmental, or “acceptilation” variant really amounted to.  [11/06/10; 3/19/22]

The so-called “ACTIVE OBEDIENCE” of Christ is much better taken into account and parleyed into proper significance by a PREMIAL view of the justice of God in the Atonement than by the misapplied PENAL justice touted in the Calvinistic tradition.  Christ’s lifelong victory over temptations to sin were treasuring up a gargantuan AWARD, much magnified by the wicked deprivation of its rightful issue in his peremptory mistrial and horrible execution when, in God’s perfect timing, He intervened as Superior Judge and Supreme Court in order to SUPER-COMPENSATE Jesus for the CROWNING INJUSTICE OF THE CROSS by the CROWNING JUSTICE OF RESURRECTION TO LORDSHIP OVER ALL NATIONS.  There is nothing comparable to the splendor and cogency of this PREMIAL rationale for the Messianic atoning events anywhere within the vaunted “orthodox,” “evangelical” model of PENAL infliction.  In unhappy fact, the fateful attempt to situate Christ’s own personal lifelong righteousness, faithfulness, or obedience within the matrix of “PENAL SUBSTITUTION” has NECESSARILY INVOKED THE SPECTER OF “ANTINOMIANISM,” THE SHADOW OF LAWLESSNESS, since his own virtue must accordingly be construed as somehow “IN OUR PLACE,” “IN OUR STEAD,” “AS OUR SUBSTITUTE,” so that its FULL EXEMPLARY FORCE IS RADICALLY COMPROMISED AND DIMINISHED in terms of ethics, both personal and social.  To that great loss, of course, must be added the total disappearance of the logical link between Christ’s “ACTIVE” obedience and its SUPERABUNDANT PAYOFF for the sake of the entire world of sinners. However, it does get fully accounted for by the PREMIAL construct concerning God’s justice/ righteousness.  There is simply no comparably powerful conduct of God’s CHRIST-INDUCED GRACIOUSNESS (if we may so put it) generated by any of the several PENAL systems of atonement.

Furthermore, within the PREMIAL explanatory construct, Christ’s so-called “PASSIVE OBEDIENCE,” i.e., his final episode of suffering abuse, serves as the CULMINATING OCCASION THAT TRIGGERED GOD’S “DELAYED” INTERVENTION IN ORDER TO REWARD CHRIST ALL THE MORE BY WAY OF FAIR REPARATIONS! Hence, we can see that God’s “tardiness” to intervene any earlier in the course of His Son’s totally unwarranted and unjust agonies had a strategically benign motive and beneficial outcome to YET FURTHER AUGMENT HIS RIGHTFUL JUDICIAL AWARD…FOR OUR SAKE!  [11/06/10]

The nature of salvation cannot properly be assessed without taking account of the magnitude of its provisions and details of its features.  Thus, we find comparatively little about specifics of the Kingdom of God in Scripture until the coming of His Son to, quite literally, “flesh out” more details, for the simple reason that THE DETAILED CONTENTS OF THAT COMING KINGDOM WERE ALL PROMISED AS CHRIST’S JUDICIAL AWARD FOR HIS HISTORIC FAITHFULNESS TO THE ANCIENT COVENANT PLIGHTED BETWEEN THE GOD OF ISRAEL AND HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE (THROUGH ABRAHAM, MOSES, AND DAVID) AND ELABORATED BY THE PROPHETS.  But if their historic failures to maintain the stipulations of that covenant meant the forfeiture even of the temporary blessings of that age, what utility would there have been in depicting the glories of some future age?  No, only the coming of the One who alone could usher in those stirring panoramas of creational restoration and unimagined glorification would lend a significant sense of reality to such depictions, along with a tangible expectation of actual enjoyment!  [11/06/10]

God, in His kindness, patience, and forbearance, mercifully PRE-EMPTED the frightful PENALTY due those who crucified His precious Son when He INTERVENED WITH A COMPENSATING AWARD OF RESURRECTION AND ROYAL HONOR DUE HIM AS SUFFERING MESSIAH.  SUCH A DEEPLY SATISFYING DISPLAY OF “THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD” (as the apostle Paul terms it[, at least in most English translations, which regrettably obscure the PUBLIC JUSTICE component in the Greek word dikaiosune, that was so crucial to Paul’s whole point! (4/6/22)]) was strategically calculated BOTH TO STIMULATE REPENTANCE AND FAITH TOWARD SUCH A GOD BY HIS ENEMIES AND THE IRREVERENT, AND ALSO TO JUSTIFY A SUPEREXCEEDING REWARD FOR JESUS THAT HE COULD THEN GIVE AWAY FOR FREE TO ANYONE HE WISHED.  Thus, both “subjective” and “objective” elements of the Atonement are preserved intact, in their full potency, without confusion, contradiction, or diminution by the PREMIAL understanding of the Atonement.

In this marvelous way, the FIDUCIAL (not first of all “MORAL”!) INFLUENCE of the TESTIMONIES to Christ preserved in apostolic Scriptures, in tandem with the TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT in further signs, miracles, and powers in every age since Pentecost, join together to CORROBORATE “A SALVATION OF SUCH PROPORTIONS” AS JESUS UNVEILED.

To be sure, God’s pre-emption of immediate calamity upon his slayers by no means prevented their eventual punishment IF THEY DID NOT REPENT, BELIEVE, AND OBEY JESUS, who was by those events designated and proved to be both LORD AND MESSIAH, and who deserved their unconditional trust, obedience, and worship forthwith.  [11/06/10]

SATISFACTION vs. RESURRECTION

Only the Proclamation of a Resurrectionary Justification, i.e., of God’s Restorative Justice, and an understanding of the Atonement that accords with it, can provide sufficient discernment to judge among the composite options that have come down to us in the whole history of theology and credology.

The Socinians, it turns out, in spite of their serious errors, nonetheless displayed astonishing insight into the work of Christ that it behooves every serious Berean of a Bible student to analyze with care and due appreciation. Likewise Abelard, the Anabaptists, the Amyraldians and many other minority positions must be mined for their nuggets of wisdom and gems of truth. But God’s rewarding (not penal) justice is the indispensable criterion. [03/02/08]

Utterly foundational to the Protestant (i.e., Lutheran and Calvinistic) doctrine of “forensic justification,” by which they always mean “the imputation of Christ’s own righteousness to the believing sinner” is a shearing of this ostensibly “objective” justification, forgiveness, and reconciliation from whatever the Holy Spirit does, allegedly, “subjectively” within the believer, which is commonly termed “sanctification,” and which, they assert, always comes “afterward.” This shearing of “objective” from “subjective” (their distinction and terminology), paralleled or at least echoed in their distinction between Christ’s “active” and “passive” “righteousness” or obedience, constitutes a pernicious dualism that sabotages an integral apostolic ethic again and again. The Holy Spirit is said to do a “subjective” work in us—not including justification, forgiveness, or reconciliation!—only after and subsequent to the “objective” accomplishment of those three aspects of salvation “on the cross.”

This was an overreaction to the Roman Catholic error of making justification, forgiveness, and reconciliation subsequent to the lifelong operation of the Holy Spirit. Thus Protestantism is an overreaction to Roman Catholicism; neither is truly apostolic at this pivotal point. The truth is that all of those three (and much more) are continuously operative or true so long as faith exists and even reinforce faith, but do not guarantee continued faith since our increated (although restricted and mortal) sovereignty and authority resulting from our being made in the image and after the likeness of God always exists and remains inalienable until death. God’s forceful and heavily corroborated Proclamation of His Kingdom must be given the credit for keeping and preserving us in safety by its power to induce faith.

Moreover, this characteristic Protestant disconnect between “Christ’s work on the cross” (not a pattern of sound explanation found anywhere in Scripture) and “the Spirit’s work in the heart,” in effect, virtually snips the vital conduit that empowers ethical fruit or productivity. They may teach otherwise, indeed, the Holy Spirit may get a great deal of work done in spite of the erroneous doctrine, especially in those who are tutored in it less than they are in Scripture alone (which has power to override errors for those who stay in it faithfully and regularly). Nevertheless the Protestant doctrine is subversive of sound teaching by its very nature and needs to be exposed, confronted, and rejected in favor of the apostolic literature in the New Testament. [03/02/08]

SATISFACTION vs. RESURRECTION

The notion of “satisfaction” at the Cross cannot be dispensed with unless and until the Resurrection is grasped in its full justifying significance. This is why all attempts to deny and nullify the Anselmian notion of “satisfaction” have tended to be unsuccessful. For unless God’s justice can be clearly read out of Messiah’s resurrection, it will invariably be read into his crucifixion, where, to be sure, none whatever is to be found. Yet the opponents of the notion that the Cross is in any way “just” have routinely failed, one and all, to perceive God’s saving, rewarding, restorative justice in his resurrection and hence have denied the centrality of the “juridical metaphor” and, consequently of divine justice. But this loss only weakens the meaning of the Atonement as a whole and thus actually guts the full glory of God’s graciousness, which is, amazingly and wonderfully, the just outcome of Messiah’s unjust crucifixion via resurrectionary reversal!

Medieval cataracts concerning justice as seemingly purely penal (by the time of the Reformation of the 16^th century) all but blinded theologians concerning the ancient Hebrew assumptions about justice as avenging evil to restore good, i.e., eviscerating the vicious in order to enrich the righteous. [03/02/08]