Spot-checking Some Distinctives of the Premial View

PISTIS (ΠΙΣΤΙΣ) should usually be rendered “faithfulness” when attributed to Jesus Christ.

HAMARTIA (ΆΜΑΡΤΙΑ) can denote “sin-offering” in key New Testament passages reflecting the ritual sacrificial language of Leviticus (LXX).

HAIMA (ΆΙΜΑ)—blood (of sacrificial rituals) represents the diverse powers of resurrected life.

Romans 5:8-10 equates “blood” with “life,” when the syntactical structure is accurately aligned, not with “death.”

DIKAIOMA (ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ) in Romans 5:16,18 & 8:3 signifies a “just award” (judicially granted Christ by God, namely, the Holy Spirit of life via resurrection), and not either a “righteous act/deed” (done by Christ, i.e., “suffering the cross”) (5:16,18) or “righteousness” (as inner moral virtue) (8:3), as traditionally translated.

“The righteousness of God” in the New Testament is uniformly premial (not penal) and was supremely exemplified by God’s historic act of raising Jesus from the dead.

The cross was a place of diabolical rage and fury plus human condemnation, but decidedly not a locus of divine wrath or condemnation in any sense whatsoever.

The victory of the cross was that Jesus remained sinless even in the face of the most extreme and unjust suffering of abuse, rather than either justifying himself or using his rightful messianic prerogatives to avenge himself. He waited for God’s justice/justification. Therefore, he won the just award of immortal life, and some!

God’s justice toward His Son was exclusively rewarding (premial), not at all penal.

God’s justice toward His Son was ultracompensatory.

Jesus’ ransom was a heroic exchange and not at all a penal substitution (so there was no economic equivalence or parity at play).

Jesus was not “forsaken” in the Unseen (ΆΙΔΗΣ, hades), Acts 2:25-28, Psalm 16:8-11 LXX, and only briefly “forsaken” (Psalm 22:1) on the cross to permit the strategic death of his body and compassionate cessation of his suffering abuse (which, after all, was never intended as any sort of exchange currency whose gross amount must weigh in on the extent of mercy or grace or atonement or salvation or anything else in God’s possession, for that matter, neo-liberal, zero-sum economics to the contrary notwithstanding).

God’s wrath/indignation fell not upon His Messiah at the cross, but upon all Jerusalem before that generation passed away (70 A.D.), on account of what they perpetrated by the cross as well as to earlier prophets.

To “bear” sins is to “absorb” whatever harm and loss they cause, instead of retaliating (i.e., avenging oneself). Therefore, it denotes forgiving or pardoning others of their sins against us, not some phantom notion of “getting imputed with sins” ourselves.

We should leave avenging of ourselves to God, not because avenging is wrong per se for human beings (after all, that’s what “the higher authorities” have been officially appointed by God to do, Rom. 13:1-7), but because only God can do so with truly satisfying justice, sans overreactions or lurking self-interests and hidden agendas.

Adam’s sin was not “imputed” to his descendants (rendering them guilty for them, too).

Our sins are not “imputed” to Christ (rendering him guilty before God and worthy of wrath).

Christ’s righteousness is not “imputed” (ΛΟΓΙΖ-, counted, accounted) to us who believe (allegedly rendering us righteous before God).

The Holy Spirit in superabundance was part of Christ’s just award from God for his enduring obedience to his Father’s precepts even through a treacherous, prolonged public execution.

The Holy Spirit in abundance overflows to believing sinners and actually effects the internal cleansing from our sins.

The Explanation of the Proclamation is the power of salvation and alone possessses the ability to generate faith because it provides the abundant eye-witness testimony required to validate it.

The function of believing is an ineradicable capacity of divinely-crafted human nature, which God fashioned to be dependent on evidence and proof for its proper foundation and direction.

All who are “in Christ” by faith and baptism are “dead TO” sins, offenses, lusts, and foreskin/’uncircumcision’ (Eph. 2:1, 5, Col. 2:13, properly translated, cf. Romans 6:1-14); no scripture speaks of anyone being “dead IN” sin, etc.

When Adam sinned, death “passed through to all mankind, whereupon [ΕΦΩ, literally “on/upon which”] all sinned” (Rom. 5:12), i.e., precisely the inverse causality from the Vulgate’s (Jerome’s) culpable mistranslation, “because” (which in Greek would require ΔΙΑ, with the accusative case) and Augustine’s notorious exploitation of it. “Original sin” is therefore a serious misnomer and can only lead to spurious inferences and doctrinal confusion.

The resurrection of Jesus was the supreme historic event where God was justified and Jesus was justified. On the strength of that event, all who trust God are likewise justified and, accordingly, receive the Spirit of Life.

Jesus was not saved at the cross but, much rather, destroyed there, in sight of throngs of eyewitnesses (or haven’t you read the Bible?). He was saved by his resurrection, and that salvation by God precipitated the salvation of all others who trust him as Savior.

Human sovereignty and authority, also over our own bodily and psychical faculties, have not been revoked; they account for what is commonly, popularly, but erroneously categorized under the rubric of ‘freewill.’

God’s graciousness was not ‘bought‘ by Christ’s sufferings of abuse, therefore it is not limited, metered, or calculated commensurate with them.

Sins have not been “paid for“; they neither need to, ought to, nor can be. Sacrifices were never intended for “payment“; much rather, they prophetically pre-figured the voluntary self-sacrifice of the Son and Heir of God, the King of Israel, in order to win a just repayment from God in return for that incomparaable injustice so as to ransom sinful humanity from death and its sting, alike.

Adam’s posterity ‘pay for’ (if you insist…but see Romans 6:7 and enveloping context) their own sins simply by dying. However, to gain newness of life we need to identify with Christ’s wrongful death and rightful resurrection by way of faith and baptism.

God only warned Adam of death if he should ever eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, yet not of ‘spiritual death,’ much less ‘eternal death‘ (Genesis 2:16-17). Christ’s own death (not some postulated ‘eternal‘ or ‘spiritual‘ vagary) was a quite sufficient injustice inflicted upon this sinlessly innocent man so that God was induced to render him the supercompensating justice of resurrection from the dead plus royal exaltation to David’s promised throne over the earth. Oh, and did I mention the inexpressible boon of the Holy Spirit?

“The righteousness of God” and “the faithfulness of Christ Jesus” are complementary covenantal expressions as employed by Paul’s arguments in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians.

2 Corinthians 5:21 makes reference to Christ being made a “sin [offering],” not a “sin” per se! Such normative usage is marbled throughout Leviticus. The clincher? The very function of that ritual “sin” was precisely to constitute the offerer ritually “righteous” again. Christ Jesus ushered in the prophesied real McCoy once for all on Golgotha; that real “righteousness,” in turn, was dispensed abroad at the following Pentecost, i.e., God’s promised Holy Spirit in colossal outpour (2 Corinthians 3:2-9)—God’s very own personal righteousness to all who dare to believe the News!

Romans 8:3 also makes reference to God sending His own Son an “[offering] concerning sin.” This was God’s quintessential conciliatory, propitiatory, peacemaking gesture vis a vis a long-alienated, still-desperate humanity starving, thirsting, gasping for life.

The Biblical concept of the Levitical blood sacrifices regards them as prophetic figures of the most extreme sin[-offering] of treasonously crucifying their designated Savior. Their aggregate fulfillment and radical supercession by way of the Savior’s resurrection forever nullified and dismantled the Levitical ritual system going forward.

Paul’s epistle to the Romans nowhere develops a “theology of the cross” in the slightest degree; quite the contrary, a “theology of the resurrection” is his obsessive focus. [5/2,4-6/11; 5/1-2/24]

Flotsam & Jetsam from the Slow Shipwreck of Calvinistic Soteriology on Account of Neglecting the Premial Atonement in Heaven

Occasionally sprawling, not seldom convoluted, excruciatingly tedious, yet often extraordinally innovative, seclect elaborations of the Atonement such as those of Hugo Grotius, John Owen, William Pynchon, John McLeod Campbell, Robert C. Moberly, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Leon Morris, René Girard, H. D. McDonald, John Stott, I. Howard Marshall, Fleming Rutledge, Eleonore Stump, N. T. Wright, William Lane Craig, Adonis Vidu, Michael Gorman, David Brondos, Greg Boyd, Hans Boersma, Douglas Campbell, Darrin Snyder Belousek, Mako Nagasawa, and W. Ross Hastings, hailing from widely disparate standpoints and Christian traditions, all alike manifest obliviousness to the inextricable roles of Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and enthronement WITHIN THE INTEGRAL PROCESS OF GOD’S PREMIAL JUSTICE CULMINATING IN THE PROTECTIVE COVER (“ATONEMENT”) CHRIST OFFERED EXCLUSIVELY AT GOD’S THRONE IN HEAVEN, followed by the outpouring of the promised award of Holy Spirit and Christ’s continual intercession thereafter. And that’s despite the sterling advances of many of these authors in multiple respects. I find this state of affairs almost heartbreaking, especially in view of the visibly and increasingly deleterious societal consequences of this “little” perennial oversight by “us Christians (all!).” The inevitable side-effect and byproduct of thus shunting around these vitally essential components is the palpable sense of ill-satisfaction that proliferates via compulsive but needless over-qualifying, over-elaboration, and over-defensiveness—in effect, “multiplying words without knowledge.” [3/13/11; 4/10-12/24]

A telling example of the burgeoning excesses that can spawn from just one prominent sectarian tradition of theologizing is the following ample tally of historically scattered and systematically superfluous flotsam & jetsam that has accumulated over five centuries from the slow-motion deterioration and imminent shipwreck of Calvinistic soteriology in particular, including both its own due property as well as outlying spinoffs by way of inevitable counteractions and overreactions. It should be disturbing to “true believers” that none of the following phrases or technical terms is to be found, as such, in Scripture itself, unless by way of unwarranted imposition and even outright mistranslation from the original, a practice regrettably becoming more common among scholars now that such error has become increasingly and calmly assured of widespread acceptance without risk of contradiction. (Accordingly, some or parts of the following might have been placed in quotes, but where to stop? That said, I shall spare you the technicality.)

acceptilation

active righteousness/obedience [vs. passive righteousness/obedience] of Christ

Amyraldianism

antinomianism

common grace [vs. special grace]

divine decrees

divine sovereignty [vs. human freewill]

double/triple imputation

double jeopardy (of the reprobate)

double predestination

effectual calling

equal ultimacy

eternal conscious punishment (of human beings)

eternal security

external call [vs. internal call]

fideism

freewill (hunan) [vs. divine sovereignty]

God’s reconciliation to man

governmental theory of atonement

hypothetical/conditional universalism

impetration vs. application

imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendants (from Augustine)

imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers/the elect

imputation of sin(s) to Christ

infralapsarianism

internal call [vs. external call]

irresistible grace

justification vs. sanctification

legalism

limited atonement

monergism [vs. synergism]

order of decrees

ordo salutis

original sin (reprising Augustine)

passive righteousness/obedience [vs. active righteousness/obedience] of Christ

payment for (debt of) sin(s)

penal satisfaction

penal substitution

perfectionism

predestination

perseverance of the saints

preterition

prevenient/preventive/preceding grace

rectoral theory of atonement

reprobation (decree of…)

sanctification vs. justification

secret regeneration

sovereign grace

sovereignty of God

special call [vs. universal call]

special grace [vs. common grace]

spiritual death (being dead in sin)

sublapsarianism

suffering of Christ in hell

supralapsarianism

synergism [vs. monergism]

total depravity

unconditional election

universal call [vs. special call]

universalism

The foregoing litany comprises, one and all, artificial byproducts of a toxic (if well-meaning) theology industry: plastic pollution. These irreversibly degrading plastic components cannot be rendered non-toxic and will inevitably spread within the environmental footprint of any church that tolerates their use. We must pursue the difficult task of disemploying them and getting comfortable with the crisp, spare, consistent terminology of apostolic formulation inspired by the Spirit of wholesomeness. Isn’t it about time to take out the trash, provided we can somehow dispose of it where it’s not liable to re-enter the safe places of the church and surrounding environment to recontaminate them, perhaps with yet more inveigling iterations? [3/13/11; 4/9-12/24]

The curious fact that an extremely low percentage of relatives, friends, pastors, scholars, authors, and other Christian leaders to whom I have communicated the premial approach to the Atonement, even on multiple occasions, have ever responded, and that even those who have replied were mostly non-enthusiastic, rather curt, and certainly non-committal (although curiously, somewhat fewer in number being overtly opposed or hostile to the message), and, finally, that after several years I can still count on one hand those who seem to have warmed up to it, and on the other hand those who did not maintain objections to it—all suggest the unusually captivating grip of the penal hypothesis concerning atonement on a worldwide scale (my contacts span the globe).

Clearly. I have not yet communicated…clearly! Or the Holy Spirit, whose message I firmly believe this to be, has not yet deemed it quite ready to endorse. Now, I’m not whining, but what sober, plausible reasons might be advanced to account for this odd circumstance (well, of course, aside from my own delaying to submit it for publication in normal book fashion)? [3/14/11; 4/10-12/24]

Exchanging the Resurrection for the Cross results in a ‘SUBSTITUTE’ GOSPEL!

When the shadow of the Cross falls across the entrance of the Open Tomb, it has gone too far.  It must be ruled offsides, out of order.  In Western theology a cruciform moon has eclipsed the resurrected sun.  It is worn as an amulet, a spiritualized talisman, a fetish.  Sadly, such practices actually obscure the irruptive dazzle of the henceforth ever-living Son!  [1/25/02]

Is evangelical rhetoric about ‘vicarious’ ‘substitution’ itself a substitute for the authentic apostolic emphasis on Messiah’s resurrestion (rather than His crucifixion) being the locus of God’s righteousness/justice as the saving event of history? 

The doctrine of a ‘Divine exchange’ is entailed in the Protestant emphasis on ‘substitution’ in the manner it is usually expounded.  ‘Christ’s righteousness‘ (not a Pauline—not even a Biblical—expression at all!) is ‘imputed’ to the sinner while the latter’s sin is ‘imputed’ to Christ.  This (partly early-17th century) formulation of the Protestant Reformation’s doctrine of ‘Christ’s imputed righteousness‘ goes beyond the Pauline explanation that faith itself is counted or “imputed” as righteousness/justness by God precisely because it is not an activity at all but simply a firm acceptance and avowal of God’s Proclamation as being true and trustworthy.

To be sure, Messiah “carried/bore“ sins in his body onto the cross (Isaiah 53:11,12; Heb. 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24).  The Mosaic ordinances of sacrifice give depth of shading to this image.

But since we now know that the actual locus of God’s display of His answer to the human injustice of the crucifixion was Messiah’s resurrection—for notice how Peter significantly integrates Christ’s expectancy toward “Him Who is judging justly“ (1 Peter 2:23)—how must this realization alter the traditional Protestant insistence on ‘substitution alone’?  [4/27/02]

The friction of continual resistance to the Explanation of the Proclamation concerning God’s Kingdom causes a callus to build up around the core (the heart) of a stubborn personality.  This results in a darkening of one’s apprehension (-νο-) and understanding (συνιε-) and a dulling of perception and powers of observation (Isaiah 6:9-10; Matt. 13:10-17; John 12:37-43; Acts 28:23-29).

Resistance to the power of the Proclamation, and to the corroboration of God’s Spirit along with it, is triggered by an alternative love in opposition to the love of God made clear in God’s Proclamation.  That counter-love is a love of darkness as a cover up to vicious acts and bad practices—businesses, corporations, nay, entire industries included!  (John 3:19-21; 12:35-50; 1 John 2:8-17).  This amounts to a love of the culture/world, characterized by cravings of the flesh, cravings of the eyes, and the ostentation of livelihoods (1 John 2:16).  These all have the power to snatch away or snare or stifle the good Seed of God’s Explanation, which, when implanted and rooted properly (Matt. 13:3-23)—i.e., “blended together with faith in those who hear” (Heb. 4:2)—has the power to save a human existence.

God has ‘sovereignly’ set things up this way so as not to nullify His own image and likeness in human nature.  We were created to reflect His own ‘sovereignty’ via our self-determination (αυτεξουσιοτης—auto-authorization).  When God gave humankind the so-called ‘cultural mandate’ of Genesis 1:28, He included this authority over ourselves within it.  Logical!

The power of Christ’s resurrection, with signs and miracles following, has no worthy competition from the waning and ultimately mortal powers within our nature.  But we can still put up a fuss with whatever we have remaining and then make a big stink against God’s kingdom of favor.  God has sent out, nonetheless, an open invitation for all to trust Jesus, His Son.  Our choice.

Through the public events of Messiah’s crucifixion/resurrection, and in light of Jesus’ brilliant career of liberation, God extends a free ticket, at His own expense, to every human being to hop aboard the passenger train destined for the capital of His Kingdom, where we have been “begotten above (anothen)” and thereby qualify as naturalized citizens of the New Jerusalem (Psalm 87), which is destined at length to descend upon the New Earth.

From our vantage point in the darkness of sin and evils, where we all have perilously walked, we can track the bright lights shining from the windows of the coming train.  Out of our present danger of hazards lurking in the dark, we can board this train to safety and walk in the Light.  If we stay on the train, believing that, regardless of its twists and turns and adventitious storms, it will take us to the Announced destination, we shall surely arrive in the promised peace of that glorious Realm.  For all who stay on the train are ipso facto chosen for safekeeping and ultimate sonship, plus a vast inheritance that accords with it.  We’ve got a ticket to ride!  [5/02/02]

Jesus taught that no one could come to him or trust him unless the Father drew and gave them to him (John 6:37-48).  He also taught the flip side—that the Father was about to provide the means to make it possible for all to come to the Son:  the exaltation of His own beloved Son upon a cross to die and be buried and get raised from the dead (John 12:26-33).  Simple.  In other words—how could Jesus have made it any clearer?—none of us can come to Jesus, or ever would have come to him (after all, even his disciples left him before the crucifixion!) except via the Fatherly power and justice exhibited in reversing the evil of Messiah’s crucifixion by the ensuing resurrection.

Whenever Jesus would start informing his learners about his future death by execution, many of them would leave him—the very same reaction they had to his telling them that no one could come to him without his Father’s drawing power.  His Explanation in John 12:26-33 was meant to clarify matters, but…

until the events actually were fulfilled historically, virtually all the people who ever heard his Explanations were offended by such teaching and turned away from Teacher and Teaching alike, his own Twelve included!  Not until God Himself acted with power from on high to prove and accredit Jesus as His Son, the Messiah, the Master of all, by resurrection, did anyone make their way back to the fold of safety!  [5/8/02]