Arminius attacked the FRUIT, whereas Socinus attacked the ROOT, of the penal substitution theory.

The entire agenda of Jacob (James) Arminius amounted to a grand broadside against PENAL SUBSTITUTION, albeit slightly off center.  He did not target penal substitution (Calvin’s invention) nor even vicarious satisfaction (Anselm’s) head on.  However, he did challenge several key doctrines that directly flowed from Calvin’s theory of atonement.  (Although he did not challenge Calvin’s acceptance of “eternal conscious punishment,” for instance, which was a necessary implication of penal satisfaction.)  Had he lived longer, he surely would have traced yet more threads of influence.  As matters actually unfolded, every main point of the Remonstrants drawn up after the death of Arminius (1609) was countered by the Calvinists in the steps of Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Calvin’s successor in Geneva (under whom Arminius, as well, had studied at the Academy as a young scholar), and was ensconced by way of rejection in the signature “five points of Calvinism” at the international Synod of Dordrecht (1618-19).

One wonders what might have unreeled historically if Socinus and Arminius had ever conferred with one another, since they were contemporaries, or if their respective followers, the Polish Brethren and Dutch Remonstrants, had ever edged toward mutual consultation, or even alliance.  Naturally, that would have been most unlikely in view of their divergence on other main points of doctrine.  However, after Polish unitarians started suffering persecution by Calvinists and expulsion by Jesuit machinations a generation or two later, many did flee to the Low Countries and make some degree of common cause with the Arminian Remonstrants, Mennonites, and other groups that flourished during the increasing religious freedom there.  What did the outcome look like up close and doctrinally?  This deserves more research.

Since both Socinus and Arminius were basically attacking PENAL SUBSTITUTION — the former headlong (the unitary root) and the latter sidelong (the diverse fruit) — they were, in effect, allies and were reinforcing each other.  Did they ever realize it?

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), in any case, evidently did not perceive their common cause.  Although a Remonstrant in full sympathy with his mentor and friend Arminius, Grotius launched an attack on Socinus’ position concerning the Atonement.  On this single point, however, regardless of their obvious differences on other doctrinal points, Grotius should have noticed the common root of their opposition to Calvin’s soteriology.  But instead of making common cause with the Polish Brethren and finally clinching the solid vital link between the contributions of Socinus and Arminius on the subject of the Atonement, Grotius effected a severe cleavage between potential allies and forestalled the forging of a more integral and complete doctrine of the Atonement to replace the erroneous and deleterious dogmatic theories of Anselm and especially Calvin.  This is the more tragic because Grotius was ideally positioned historically and even professionally as the eminent scholar of international law with broad knowledge and sympathies in favor of peace and amity.  Instead, he simply denatured penal substitution and recycled a variant version, devising yet another fated theory to be substantially discarded by the end of the 19th century.  [10/29/10]

“Penal substitution” has compromised many a dissenting intuition and exegetical scruple in order to assert and impose domineering conformity to what many theologians insisted “must be” the case regardless.  The primal intuitions of those who opposed “penal satisfaction” were often correct.  Those minds who gave in to “penal satisfaction,” therefore, were suppressing their better judgment.  The theory has self-selected as its advocates those types of personalities capable of overriding or wholesale bulldozing their basic sensibilities in order to be loyal to what they were told was “Biblical truth”…the “letter.”  On the topic of the Atonement, the words of Calvin, Owen, Turretin, C. Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Smeaton, Shedd, Strong, Warfield, Bavinck, Denney, L. Berkhof, Pink, J. Murray, Berkouwer, L. Morris, Nicole, H. D. McDonald, Stott, Packer, I. H. Marshall, Sproul, MacArthur, Piper, Craig, Schreiner — a representative sampling of penal substitution’s celebrated champions — all too often grate against the finer sensibilities of the human conscience, not to mention the divine Spirit.  Yet it is the divine Explanation in holy Scripture that provides the most explicit lingual norm violated by the human letter of such Calvinistic orthodoxy.  This Sword of the Spirit is yet destined to conquer every pretension exalted against it, good intentions notwithstanding.  [10/30/10; 3/9/22]

Since every single one of the five points of the Remonstrants (of 1610) was an assault (although sidelong, addressing direct implications) on PENAL SUBSTITUTION, it is passing strange that Hugo Grotius did not apprehend how well the Arminian achievement comported with at least the Socinian assault (headlong) on PENAL SUBSTITUTION.  The authentic drift of Arminius’s advances against the atonement errors of Calvinism were considerably weakened by Grotius’ obliviousness on this key point.  His critique completely missed “the point” of Arminius’s whole expose of Calvin’s system.  The irony of this blindness is the more poignant in view of Grotius’ evident commitment to international peace.  Had he made peace with Socinus’ valid critique of penal substitution (never mind his lapses), the religious course of Western civilization might have been radically different and more tranquil, especially in view of Calvinism’s actual historic track record on violence, war, exclusivism, racism, slavery, apartheid, and generally punitive effects on criminal justice, child rearing, and many other functions and institutions of society.  Hugo Grotius strategically missed his grandest opportunity to make good on the promise of international law conceived on a Christian basis.  The hope of peace within Western Christianity fled with Grotius’ defensiveness concerning the fateful prospects of the Remonstrant cause in the Netherlands if they should happen to become associated with the Socinian position, already well known in the Low Countries through Polish immigrants.  The immediate fortunes of the Remonstrants, especially in view of the imminent Synod of Dort (1618-19), appear to have overshadowed Grotius’ objectivity and large-mindedness.  The immediate outcome of his strategy was more sanguinary than his sanguine hopes justified.  The long-term consequences have been little better.  Yet perhaps it is not too late to seek rapprochement, especially since the exertions of Calvinist dogmaticians and systematicians have not brought healing to the doctrine of atonement, much less to the reflexive rifts in the body of Christ.  Yet the Truth can surely bring peace and unity among us to a degree heretofore unrealized provided we yield yet further to “Scripture alone,” like we profess, instead of to factional survival instincts and defense mechanisms.

(I wonder whether Grotius ever even touched upon any of those unique points of remonstration that characterized his own Arminian stance over against the Calvinists while he was elaborating his criticisms of Socinus in order to ferret out the latter’s authentic opinions on those facets of Calvin’s doctrinal system.  Granted, Socinus died (1604) before Arminius’ position was articulated for public inspection in 1610, but didn’t Socinus articulate any objections in these general areas during his lifetime?  That is, was he also, like Grotius, possibly unaware how much of Calvin’s unique soteriology was simply a ramifying of PENAL SUBSTITUTION?  Wouldn’t Socinus have exploited such an observation in order the more thoroughly to invalidate it as well as to reinforce his own non-penal-substitutionary better impulses, irresolute as they turned out to be?)

What does seem certain is this: The PREMIAL JUSTICE of God COMPLETELY OBVIATES this entire tedious controversy once and for all.  For no penal satisfaction was either required, prophesied, or culminated in the whole scope of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on our behalf. You can stake your life on it.  [11/1/10; 3/11/22; 4/6/22]

The Deity of Jesus did not disqualify him from solidarity with his fellow humans for the sake of their salvation, because PREMIAL RESTITUTION renders invalid that objection, which rests on the false assumption of PENAL SATISFACTION.

God ordained the SURRENDER (paradosis) of His beloved Son to the murderous Judeans, but He did not ordain their MURDER itself.  He well knew, as did Jesus, what would ensue.  Yet lest we sinful human beings nurture any doubts about it….  In God’s strategy, it must occur that His Son get slain under such adverse circumstances in order to demonstrate and confirm 1) Christ’s SINLESS, FAITHFUL OBEDIENCE, 2) mankind’s SINFUL HATRED OF SUCH UPRIGHTNESS, and 3) God’s SUPERABUNDANT REWARDING JUSTICE/UPRIGHTNESS on behalf of the Crucified One via RESURRECTION AND BEYOND, even in the face of such lethal opposition.  [10/18/10; 2/23/22]

The Deity of Jesus did not prevent or disqualify him from securing the salvation of humanity, because his unique work as Savior had nothing to do with “satisfying the penal justice of God’s wrath, in our place,” in which case his Deity (or perhaps even simply his extraordinary enduement with the Holy Spirit after his baptism) would seem to have rendered him ineligible as a human being to win our salvation (as Faustus Socinus has correctly argued, in my judgment).  The reason why Christ did remain eligible, however, is that his Deity as son rendered him separable (in principle) from his Father, which status would not in itself disallow bodily death, although nor would it prejudice his unprecedented bodily return to life!  When the Son was born a human being at Bethlehem, he became a mortal in principle, i.e., capable of dying as his fellow humans die.  Therefore, he became eligible by virtue of his solidarity with human bodily mortality, his Deity notwithstanding (contrary to the unitarian assumption of Socinus).

Accordingly, Christ’s role in salvation was achieved not by “satisfying God’s penal justice” at all, but by winning His PREMIAL (i.e., rewarding) JUSTICE for the sake of his human brethren.  For this work he indeed needed a superior endowment of Holy Spirit, which he did receive at his baptism.  He had qualified for this endowment by virtue of his being the Word of God in human flesh, faithful and obedient in all things, i.e., without sin.  The extra portion of Holy Spirit enabled him to fulfill the higher requirements of his public teaching and healing ministry to Israel, and especially to remain faithful through an unjust, humiliating, and agonizing death by crucifixion.  But this death was not in any sense a penalty, punishment, or condemnation by God on behalf of our sins, which, as just noted, would have disqualified him from the solidarity necessary to accomplish human salvation.  Much rather, his death, IN VIEW OF HIS PERFECT HUMAN OBEDIENCE TO GOD, was profoundly UNJUST and FOR THAT REASON was DECISIVELY REVERSED BY THE VERDICT AND POWER OF GOD’S JUSTICE, PREMIALLY EXECUTED FOR HIS BENEFIT VIA RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD.  The result was a GLORIFIED HUMAN BODY FOR JESUS, NOW PUBLICLY SPECIFIED AS LORD AND MESSIAH.

Therefore, in terms of this aspect of divine justice, the help Jesus received from God, whether as His only-begotten/born Son or as specially endowed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism, could not give him an “UNFAIR ADVANTAGE” since the central issue is no longer that of “FAIR, TRULY HUMAN PAYMENT OF THE PENALTY FOR SIN(S)” ON BEHALF OF OTHERS/SINNERS at all, but of a PERFECTLY SINLESS SACRIFICE OF A TRUE HUMAN BEING AT THE HANDS OF VICIOUS HUMAN BEINGS, BEFORE THE WATCHFUL EYE OF GOD, IN EXPECTATION OF HIS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE.  And since in terms of this facet of God’s justice no “SUBSTITUTION” or “VICARIOUS EXCHANGE” of PENALTY is entailed, there is no inherent difficulty in RENDERING THE RIGHTFUL REWARD DIRECTLY TO ITS PROPER RECIPIENT, JESUS HIMSELF.  Naturally, he was free and authorized to disburse his own judicial award to his fellow human beings in any manner he pleased.  And since FAITH pleases God and is within reach of any human being within hearing of the Gospel, regardless of their ineradicable mortal weakness and consequent sinfulness, this is the perfect choice of criterion for channeling salvation fairly.

This all implies that Christ’s inherent Deity should not have been perceived as a threat to the integrity and fairness (“justice” in its true sense, according to Socinus) of his atonement in the eyes of Socinus and his followers.  A PREMIAL atonement gives Christ no unfair (i.e., unjust), inequitable advantage, seeing as the issue is not one of HOW TO SUSTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF A PENAL SANCTION BY ONE WHO IS [“ALLEGED TO BE,” as Socinus would characterize the orthodox claim] MORE THAN MERELY HUMAN, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS (or even just “the elect”) AS THEIR SUBSTITUTE BEFORE GOD AND HIS ABSOLUTE (PENAL) JUSTICE, but rather HOW TO FAIRLY WIN A SUFFICIENT JUDICIAL AWARD TO RANSOM THE WHOLE WORLD OF SINFUL HUMANITY OUT OF THE GRIP AND FEAR OF DEATH AND HENCE OF SATAN AND SIN AS WELL.  The problematics of the two faces of JUSTICE are very different.  The power of the Atonement lies exclusively with the PREMIAL facet, and not at all with the PENAL one.  How different the history of Christianity might have been if all sides had seen this luminous, conciliatory truth! Will our future be different?  Help us, oh God!  [10/19/10; 2/24/22; 3/11/22]

An OPEN LETTER to Jesse Morrell and FRIENDLY CRITIQUE of The Vicarous Atonement of Christ (2012), part 7

Jacob Arminius, like a mighty Samson, took down five pillars of Calvinistic soteriology, but not the main, central pillar: penal satisfaction. It was Faustus Socinus who performed that service. However, history has strange twists and turns that often leave us asking what “might have been.” This is one of those transitions. Had the thought of Arminius and Socinus on the subject of salvation (I don’t refer to the latter’s unitarian opinions) converged, say, within the first two decades of the 17^th century, we might have beheld a radically different outcome than what actually ensued. I have written elsewhere on this matter, so will not repeat myself here except to say that all “five points of Calvinism” are implicit in the idea of penal satisfaction. Those who take in hand to lop off the famous TULIP without pulling up the bulb itself will find that it keeps growing back again and again.

Socinus died at 65 in 1604, whereas Arminius died at 49 in 1609. They did not address precisely the same issues of soteriology during their careers. Nor did they ever meet or correspond. Yet we can speculate that if they had, and a dialogue had developed, they might have put two and two together. They were coming at the topic of salvation from different ends. Arminius was plucking off the petals while Socinus was digging up the root of Calvin’s prize hybrid. If they had compared notes, they might have recognized what kind of GMO they were actually up against. Calvin had spliced Biblical ideas with Augustine’s resurgent gnostic ideas from his overreaction to Pelagius. Augustine’s pervasive punitive elements were in the very soil where Calvin’s tulip alone could thrive. A viable alternative to Calvin’s system would require an altered environment in order to flourish—ground with a more premial pH than Augustine’s penal ground. In fact, it necessitates reconstituting the balance that characterized the Biblical explanation itself.

Then along came Hugo Grotius, an ardent young friend of Arminius, who was only 26 at the latter’s death. A prodigy, who early mastered Latin, became a diplomat while still in his teens, pursued expertise in several fields, and excelled at jurisprudence, for which he is most famous, also wrote significant theological treatises and celebrated commentaries on Scripture. The latter were notable for applying the “rational” (i.e., allegedly eschewing dogmatic assumptions) grammatical principles developed by Joseph Scaliger, the most eminent Protestant scholar of his age. So when Grotius decided to devote serious attention to Socinus’s work on the Atonement, something truly noteworthy was sure to emerge.

However, despite the ostensive neutrality of his undertaking, Grotius undeniably had mixed motives. As an ardent Arminian, he was keen to assert the orthodoxy of the Remonstrant cause, which was coming under increasing attack by Calvinists. Scarcely a better means could be conceived than to make common cause with his opponents by joining them against some alleged heretic who was menacing from a safe distance. Poland would do nicely. Grotius had to make a hard choice. There might still be time to pour oil on the waters and make peace with his bellicose adversaries. (In 1604, at the age of 21, he had already written the work that was to make him most famous when finally published in a more mature version in 1625: De jure belli et pacis, The Law of War and Peace.) He made a diplomatic move.

Rather than entertaining any thought of finding common cause against the errors of Calvinism by engaging in a fresh and friendly examination of Socinus’s De Jesu Christo Servatore, which was an explicit refutation of Calvin’s penal satisfaction views, occasioned by the attacks of a Reformed pastor named Covetus—wouldn’t this be an obvious approach to take if theological candor were uppermost?—Grotius instead leveraged himself against Socinus on this single doctrine of Atonement (not, mind you, against his more vulnerable anti-trinitarian doctrines!). This would still look good on his résumé, but is not quite ingenuous. (Nor could a frank reading of Grotius’s Defense of the Catholic Faith concerning the Satisfaction of Christ [against Faustus Socinus] justify an assessment of dispassionate rationality in his handling of Scripture, in my opinion, as I hope to show later.)

Grotius’s treatise was published in 1617, eight years after the death of Arminius. Convergence was resisted from the outset. What Grotius actually did share with Socinus—opposition to Calvin’s doctrine of salvation (on Arminian premises)—was sabotaged by something Grotius still shared with Calvin: the assumption of penal dominance in divine justice. And as you might infer, Grotius’s overwhelming emphasis on punishment in his treatise is but a re-echo of Augustine’s hyper-penal language, indeed, entire worldview. Grotius’s view, not one whit less than Calvin’s and even Anselm’s, is an unintended (but by no means innocent) travesty of the surprising, even blessedly shocking premial view of the Apostles. How much of this might have been channeled through Arminius, I have not personally investigated yet. But it is certain that the ground Socinus was cultivating had a pH significantly altered from the exclusively penal. He had already departed from Augustinian premises and was plowing a fresh furrow, although the contents of his own treatise makes clear that he was still at the stage of breaking up the clods of Calvinistic doctrine rather than systematically elaborating the native apostolic doctrine of the New Testament. Therefore he never arrived at the fully premial explanation of the Atonement. But he had shifted ground decisively and should be given due credit.

However, Grotius’s well-meant attempt was, after all, futile in achieving his objective. Although published a year before the famous Synod of Dordtrecht convened (1618-1619), every plank in the Remonstrant five-fold platform of theological reforms was condemned outright, and the ousting and persecution of Remonstrant leaders commenced.

More significantly, however, Grotius himself eventually had second thoughts about what he had written. In later years, he penned marginal annotations in his own work that showed he was questioning his own earlier position and moving into sympathy with Socinus. (Keep in mind, both his own and Socinus’s volumes treated mainly the doctrine of the Atonement, so we must not imagine that Grotius was edging toward unitarianism by his concessions.)

~to be continued~