God’s LOVE AT THE CROSS is linked necessarily to His show of JUSTICE AT THE RESURRECTION

Truly moving and captivating exposition and elaboration concerning the Cross of Christ AS A REVELATION OF THE LOVE OF GOD is scarcely possible on the foundation of the “PENAL SATISFACTION AND SUBSTITUTION” theory about the Atonement, for the latter not only sets itself consciously against the pejoratively so-called “MORAL INFLUENCE” approach, which has long championed some such alleged “theory,” but it necessarily abridges the varied possibilities for exploring it further by short-circuiting through a pseudo-trinitarian shunt that rationalizes God’s VENTING OF WRATH AGAINST CHRIST ON THE CROSS as “LOVE FOR THE SAKE OF SINNERS” who actually deserved it, whereas Jesus surely did not.  This SUBSTITUTIONARY PROSTHETIC ends up absorbing the brunt of disturbing inquests and doubts about the reality and scope of God’s love toward His sinful creatures.  But it is simply not up to the challenge.  It even stirs up more doubts and, worse, gets manipulated by sinful hearers as a pretext for “LOVING“ IN THE SAME WAY, i.e., FORGIVING ONLY WHEN A “DEBT” OF SIN HAS ALREADY BEEN “PAID.”  But to make forgiveness conditional on repayment, restitution, or reparation instead of on repentance (from which repayment, restitution, and reparations may gratefully flow as consequences and appropriate fruits) is to put the cart before the horse.  For God to credibly be able to direct us to forgive our brother from the heart for his offenses (and to make His own forgiveness of us dependent on our forgiveness of fellow sinners!), requires that THIS IS HIS OWN MODUS OPERANDI AND AUTHENTIC STANDARD OF CONDUCT, AS REVEALED AT THE CROSS.  It could hardly be otherwise.  Yet the Cross construed as a demonstration of substitutionary wrath in order to “SATISFY JUSTICE” and hence “indirectly” show us “love” is pathologically counter-intuitive and, worse, splices love uncomfortably with punitive justice with often very tenuous stitches–in any case a ragged makeshift unworthy of patching the troublesome breach of good sense.

However, this disappointing conclusion is not the last word on the puzzling history of Atonement doctrines regarding the relation of God’s love and justice. For God has obligated Himself NOT ONLY TO PUNISH RECALCITRANT EVILDOERS BUT TO REWARD WELL-DOERS… AS A MATTER OF SIMPLE JUSTICE! The theological hesitance or incapacity to contemplate anyone, EVEN THE SON OF GOD HIMSELF, as a WORTHY RECIPIENT OF SUCH PREMIAL JUSTICE goes very far indeed to account for the DESTABILIZED RELATIONS BETWEEN LOVE AND JUSTICE. Yet to re-open negotiations of those relations in this radiant light is to open the sluice gates of ancient Biblical truth and unleash a floodtide of refreshing insight to irrigate the parched landscape of atonement discourse and bring forth surprising new fruit–GOOD FRUIT–where, before, diverse noxious weeds proliferated to choke a more nourishing and bountiful crop.

Accordingly, when the Cross of Christ is looked upon as A REVELATION OF GOD’S FORBEARING TO PUNISH THOSE WHO PERPETRATED SUCH A DISMAL, NOT TO SAY HORRIFIC, EXHIBIT OF INJUSTICE, then we are on the right track to finally clear the weeds and cultivate much good fruit in consequence.  But to scan the whole picture, this stunning manifestation of God’s longsuffering at the Cross must be securely linked to the UNVEILING OF HIS PREMIAL OR REWARDING JUSTICE DIRECTLY TO JESUS IN RETURN FOR THIS VERY SAME VIRTUE OF FOREBEARANCE WHEREBY HE THERE REVEALED HIS FATHER’S OWN DISPOSITION TOWARD THE WORLD.  Christ’s reward, of course, started to become visible at his RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, which served to JUSTIFY HIS KIND AND HEROIC CONDUCT AT THE CROSS (INSTEAD OF INVOKING HIS MESSIANIC RIGHTS TO SUMMON LEGIONS OF ANGELS TO HIS DEFENSE).  This interpretation of God’s LOVE AT THE CROSS is obviously linked necessarily to His manifestation of JUSTICE at THE RESURRECTION and is ENTIRELY UNSULLIED BY ANY HINT OF A PUNITIVE IMPULSE, EITHER TOWARD THOSE MOST DESERVING OF OF IT, WHO CRUCIFIED THE LORD, OR TOWARD HIM WHO WAS MOST UNDESERVING OF ANY SUCH TREATMENT, VIA SOME SUBSTITUTIONARY RATIONALE, NAMELY, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.

This approach to the high and holy events at the very core of the Proclamation of God’s Kingdom allows enormous scope to explore every angle of view on those climactic elements of our grand salvation IN TERMS OF GOD’S UNAMBIGUOUS AND UNEQUIVOCAL REVELATION OF LOVE.  Yet the results of this approach to the Atonement (and Justification, etc.!) can scarcely be covered by the rubric “MORAL INFLUENCE.”  Indeed, “FAITH INFLUENCE” would surely be more fitting because this was the INTENDED EFFECT as stated many times in apostolic Scripture.  John 20:31 is but one such declaration:  “THESE ARE WRITTEN THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH, THE SON OF GOD, AND THAT BELIEVING, YOU MIGHT HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME.”  To call such an influence a “MORAL” one is to make a category error of momentous and ruinous consequence.  Much rather, this is a FIDUCIAL INFLUENCE, clear and simple.  [9/28/10]

The Penal Substitution Doctrine of “Imputation”–a Human Contrivance

Now that we have it straight that “the righteousness of God” in Paul has reference exclusively to the Father’s demonstrated justice in raising Jesus from the dead, not the Son’s personal righteousness (about which Paul never writes in those particular words), the question still remains, “Is that ‘imputed to us’ by faith à la penal substitution logic?” The question almost answers itself. The significance of this emphatic and all but self-evident “No!” is that the so-called penal substitutionary “doctrine” of imputation cannot possibly be correct, now or ever. It is a desperate contrivance—a last resort of those who have slipped off the solid and secure foundation of God’s own personal righteousness. [1/13/09]

It was Augustine who entrenched the prejudice against faith itself being “imputed for/as righteousness” by his arguments in the Pelagian (echoed decades after his death, during the inaptly labeled “semi-Pelagian”) controversies. Thereafter, faith—so honored, even glorified, by the apostles in Hebrews 11 and many other places (e.g., Romans 14)—was rendered unworthy of such exalted treatment. Augustine took a fatefully wrong step in his attempt to refute his opponents, and Western Christianity has become impoverished profoundly ever since. [1/13/09] I had almost said, “has been punished profoundly for Augustine’s sin ever since.” But that gives too much credit to Augustine’s own signature misunderstanding of sin. Far be it! Augustine’s sinful doctrines (are they not?) cannot be “imputed” to subsequent generations, however much they may be voluntarily parroted and repeated by his willing disciples, any more than Adam’s sin could be. Nevertheless, the evils consequent on believing such a doctrine certainly can be inflicted upon later generations, and in fact have been so inflicted in spades! [9/08/16]

The quasi-“historic” doctrine of penal substitutionary Atonement is at root human centered, anthropocentric, sinner focused. By contrast, the apostolic position is radically Christocentric. The entire New Testament collection of authentic apostolic documents emphasizes the faithful and obedient Son as worthy of the Father’s full reward and just reparations exhibited at the Resurrection and Ascension to the Throne. The Son’s heroic suffering of the full-bore fury of the Dragon, without flinching, in faithful obedience to the Father’s desire, won him the just award of our salvation, for He had the right to have descendants to join him in his much-deserved glory. Penal substitution can’t hold a candle to the dazzle of this mighty luminescent Truth of God’s tangible righteousness toward Jesus. [1/17/09]

Some early Christian writers use the beautifully revealing expression, “the grace of the Resurrection.” We should have expected it if indeed Christ’s resurrection was understood as the inaugurating moment of his overcompensating and just restitution from God (rather than his cross as a reputed event of God’s justice). This phrase should come back into vogue when the atoning truth about Christ’s resurrection returns to prominence, by God’s grace. [1/21/09]

The authentic ethos of apostolic Christianity is exceedingly simple…not easy, but simple and straightforward: keep or follow the directions and example of Jesus against all opposition, at whatever cost or sacrifice may be called for. The reward may be long in coming, and may not even show up prominently in this life. [1/23/09] But hold on!