Fri, Jul 25th - 9:19PM

The Fourth Temptation of Christ

The Fourth Temptation of Christ

  

          gonzodave

---

Oh, that the Lord Jesus would lay his hands upon our eyes, too, so that we too begin to look not at the visible but at the invisible! Oh, that he would open our eyes, too, to see not the things of the present but the things of the future! Oh, that he would unveil to us too that vision of the heart which perceives God in the Spirit through Him, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Origen

Dear Reader,

The Christian apologists, journalist, and highly regarded British intellectual, Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge, gave a series of four lectures in 1976 on the topic of Christ and the media. He, himself, was employed by one form of media or another as a journalist for many years. I can add little that will not detract from the words of Mr. Muggeridge. What better reason might there be - to be a Christian?

The prevailing impression I have come to have of the contemporary scene is of an ever-widening chasm between the fantasy in terms of which the media induce us to live, and the reality of our existence as made in the image of God, as sojourners in time whose true habitat is eternity. The fantasy is all encompassing; awareness of reality requires the seeing eye which comes to those born again in Christ. It is like a coming to after an anesthetic; the mist lifts, consciousness returns, everything in the world is more beautiful than ever it was, because related to a reality beyond the world - every thought clearer, love deeper, joy more abounding, hope more certain. Who could hesitate, confronted with this choice between an old fantasy and a newly discovered reality? As well prefer the coloured pictures of golden beaches and azure skies in the travel supplements to the sea and sky; mere erotic excitement to the ecstasy of love, life inside a camera to life inside a universe as an infinitesimal participant in its Creator's purposes. The choice is clear enough, but how can it best be presented? With or without the media? Seeking their help or despite of them? Would St. Paul, when he was at Corinth, have agreed to deliver an address during an interval in the games, which were so like television today, being essentially purveyors of spectator violence and spectator eroticism? Supposing there had been a fourth temptation when our Lord encountered the Devil in the wilderness - this time an offer of networked TV appearances, in prime time, to proclaim and expound His Gospel. Would this offer, too, have been rejected like the others? If so, why?

My kind regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

---

Tue, Jul 22nd - 10:53AM

The Paradox of Law and Grace

The Paradox of Law and Grace

  

           gonzodave

---

Dear Reader,



Our most treasured sentiments are reflected as selfish in the eyes of a practiced observer. In the Book of Proverbs it says: "Even the kindest acts of the unrighteous man are cruel. But, the righteous man tends to the needs of his cattle."

10 Complete Works by Carlos Castenada p. 302/1497 @
http://www.scribd.com/doc/428051/Castaneda-Carlos-Complete-Bibliography-10-Complete-Books
 
"To be inaccessible means that you touch the world around you sparingly. You don't eat five quail; you eat one. You don't damage the plants just to make a barbecue pit. You don't expose yourself to the power of the wind unless it is mandatory. You don't use and squeeze people until they have shriveled to nothing, especially the people you love.

""I have never used anyone," I said sincerely. But don Juan maintained that I had, and thus I could bluntly state that I became tired and bored with people.

"To be unavailable means that you deliberately avoid exhausting yourself and others," he continued. "It means that you are not hungry and desperate, like the poor bastard that feels he will never eat again and devours all the food he can, all five quail!"

Don Juan was definitely hitting me below the belt. I laughed and that seemed to please him. He touched my back lightly.

"A hunter knows he will lure game into his traps over and over again, so he doesn't worry. To worry is to become accessible, unwittingly accessible. And once you worry you cling to anything out of desperation; and once you cling you are bound to get exhausted or to exhaust whoever or whatever you are clinging to.

I told him that in my day-to-day life it was inconceivable to be inaccessible. My point was that in order to function I had to be within reach of everyone that had something to do with me.

"I've told you already that to be inaccessible does not mean to hide or to be secretive," he said calmly. "It doesn't mean that you cannot deal with people either. A hunter uses his world sparingly and with tenderness, regardless of whether the world might be things, or plants, or animals, or people, or power. A hunter deals intimately with his world and yet he is inaccessible to that same world.

""That's a contradiction," I said. "He cannot be inaccessible if he is there in his world, hour after hour, day after day.

""You did not understand," don Juan said patiently. "He is inaccessible because he's not squeezing his world out of shape. He taps it lightly, stays for as long as he needs to, and then swiftly moves away leaving hardly a mark."

The Sonnets by William Shakespeare @
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2223699/Shakespeare-Complete-Works

1

From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decease,
His tender heir might bear his memory:
But thou contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
Thy self thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel:
Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament,
And only herald to the gaudy spring,
Within thine own bud buriest thy content,
And tender churl mak'st waste in niggarding:

Pity the world, or else this glutton be,

To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.

Prologue to The Alchemist by Paulo Coehlo @
http://booksiread.org/view/browsebookframe.php?productid=BOK-10042441-8&isbn10
=0060887966&refuid=D60181CE-48E9-4182-8417-342F433F03C0&src=bookdetail

[The lake which had turned from fresh to salty waters at the death of Narcissus, when asked by the goddesses, "Why do you weep?" responded:]

" ... I weep because, each time he knelt beside my banks, I could see in the depths of his eyes, my own beauty reflected."

'What a lovely story,' the alchemist thought." 

A great misunderstanding is left in the mind of most Christians. This being where to draw a line between Law and Grace. A simple answer may be given as to the reason why - Galatianism. To understand Galatianism is to see through the predominance of Protestant (no matter the denomination) preaching and teaching that in itself is the cause of this confusion. A confusion of biblical teaching that robs the believer of her/his God given right to Grace. For a clear insight into this vital understanding and distinction, read the following article by Dr. C. I. Scofield that appeared in the classic collection of essential Christian doctrine published in 1917, "The Fundamentals". This four volume set was republished by Baker Books in 1993.

After renewing your mind about God's grace, read the second essay that discloses the supranatural aspect of Christian salvation. Present Oneness is virtually ignored and considered foolish by those who preach a self-determined salvation. However. it remains true that Oneness with God is the end of the means of God's grace.

---

The Grace Of God - C. I. Scofield

---

Three Divine Onenesses – James A. Fowler (copyrighted 2002)

---

Browse Inside this book Get this for your site

---

Sun, Jul 13th - 10:36AM

Synoptic Discussion of 'The Gonzo Journalism of Grace' Books 1 and 2 of 3

 
by gonzodave

Blind Men and an Elephant - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Blind monks examining an elephant", an 1888 ukiyo-e print by Hanabusa Itchō.

The story of the blind men and an elephant appears to have originated in South Asia, but its original source is debated. It has been attributed to the Sufis, Jainists, Buddhists, or Hindus, and has been used by all those groups. The version best-known in the West is the 19th Century poem by John Godfrey Saxe. Buddha used the simile of blind men in Tittha sutta in Udana (Pali canon). Buddha used a row of blind men as an example in Canki sutta as well to explain the blind following of a leader or an old text that had come down generation after generation.

In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths.

Various versions are similar, and differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes, and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved.

Minimalist - One who sees Christianity as a system of belief that only recognizes the least common denominator. In other words, let’s just find out what all those who call themselves Christian believe and say that this is true Christianity and then let’s not talk about anything else. Talking about what divides, well . . . divides. And division is bad, bad, and double bad. Therefore, let’s just all get along.

C. Michael Patton

Reclaiming the Mind July 2008 Newsletter

Justification 'By' Faith: Union with Christ - The word "by," per, lends itself meantime to the expression of another aspect of the subject. One of the great problems attaching to the mighty truth of Christ our Righteousness, our Merit, our Acceptance, is that of the nexus, the bond, which so draws us and Him together that, not in fiction but in fact, our load can pass over to Him and His wealth to us. The New Testament largely teaches, what lies assuredly in the very nature of things, as it puts the facts of salvation before us, that we enter "into" Christ, we come to be "in" Him, we get part and lot in the life eternal, which is in Him alone, by Faith. "He gave power to become the sons of God, to them that believed on His Name." "Believing, we have life in His Name" (John 1:12; 20:31). Faith is our soul-contact with the Son of God, setting up (upon our side) that union with Him in His life of which Scripture is so full. And thus it is open to us, surely, to say that justification by Faith means, from one momentous aspect, justification be-cause of the Christ with whom through Faith we are made mysteriously but truly one. Believing, we are one with Him, one in the common life with which the living members live with the Head, by the power of His Spirit. One with Him in life, we are therefore, by no mere legal fiction but in vital fact, capable of oneness with Him in interest also.

H. G. C. Moule

The Fundamentals, (reprinted by Baker Books) Vol3, Ch XI

Dear Reader,

Wed, Jul 9th - 2:05PM

Salvation By Grace Through Faith May NOT Be Lost Or Given Back To Jesus

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain. RSV

What you do in the power of the Spirit will not fade away. Those that you win to Christ, those that are brought by the ministry that you will be ministering will abide, and this cause will nourish in the earth and spread unto the uttermost parts till every nation shall hear the word, and out of every tribe and nation of earth shall come, at last, fruit that shall remain. This is what he means, “Greater work than these shall you do, because I go to the Father.” It is his work in us.

Ray C. Stedman

Dear Reader,

Arminian pastors and leaders love to bandy the words grace and gospel in front of their listeners. The sobering truth is that they mean something entirely different by these words than can be found in the Bible. An Arminian congregation can go several generations and never hear the term Governmental theory of atonement. Nor will the name Grotius ever be mentioned - nor Pelagius - nor imputation. I propose the seminarians schooled in Arminian salvation are ashamed of the underlying supportive rationale of the theory (the means), but relish the hammer (the effect) held over the heads of those naive enough to believe that they can lose or give back a salvation by faith through grace secured in the all-sufficient blood of Christ.

Life In God's Grace

---

The following article appeared in Faithreaders.com:

Author's Afterword: Salvation By Grace Through Faith May Not Be Lost or Given Back to Jesus

by gonzodave coulon

 2/22/2008 / Marriage

 

Maxim: One may not appreciate the priceless antiques in a room filled with modern distractions.

[ Arminian theology, aside from a more detailed and illuminating discussion, simply stated, says that salvation, once believed and received may be lost and regained, in a revolving door system of salvation. The "Purpose Driven Church" philosophy, "Dake's Annotated Reference Bible," and the salvation offered by a Jehovah Witness in comparison to: "Charles Ryrie's Study Bible," "The Old Scofield Study Bible," some - but not all - Baptist, Reformed salvation (e.g., Presbyterian), or the ministry of Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary. These are commonly encountered, every-day examples.]

My focus is not on the "person" of what is termed Arminian Christian belief. Rather, the underlying basis of a contemporary Soteriology (the biblical teaching or doctrine of salvation), or the value of the death of Christ in salvation, is the object of my exposition. The evaluation of the sacrifice made by Christ shapes and underlies a gospel presentation. Quite the reverse of a widely preached and personally accepted Lordship gospel is the believing and receiving of salvation through a divinely recognized and accepted trust that one is forgiven and saved eternally.

Whereas, it may be easily grasped in a "Lordship " gospel that the responsibility of a self-maintained "parolee" salvation rests upon the individual - not Christ. The more difficult gospel claim is that salvation becomes final during one living moment. That is to say, forgiveness and destiny is not determined after death. When confronted with this dichotomy in Christian salvation, the sincere Arminian (e.g., John Wesley and Methodist salvation, etc.) follower of salvation is inclined to respond: I only wish that were true. He sees not a choice, but an impossible wish, like that of human flight.

If a system of so-called Christianity and its gospel is wrong about the value in the death of Christ, that system's evangelical presentations and teachings concerning the believer's salvation and daily walk are quite literally - a waste of time and effort. Likewise, faith in Buddha nor Mohammed, or a great spirit will afford myself or anyone else the certainty of a secure, greatly improved afterlife. Jesus is "all things," (Gk. ta panta), and all things come by Jesus.

I hold forth the magnified differences between the two systems of salvation and advise strongly to avoid the distraction of semi-Pelagian (the heretical "humanistic" teachings of Pelagius, circa 400 A.D., denounced in the letters of Augustine) arguments concerning man's unlimited ability to effect his "free will" in choice and the continuance of salvation. Free will and saving faith are a response, not a cause of salvation. Man did not manifest the conditions of salvation, he merely responds to an offer created by God through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God. A Savior who is acting even now to expand and conform His body of believers. Therefore, my prime concern is that the reader may understand what is a proper gospel invitation to God's graceful salvation in Christ Jesus.

In sharp contradiction to Arminian teaching, salvation, like conception, is not a continuing process. Whereas, practice in spiritual maturity, or sanctification, as with natural development and growth, does continue throughout a believer's lifetime.

Naturally developed fruit is not man-made. Fruit requires a tree or a vine. Abundant fruit requires cultivation of the branches. A believer is not the fruit; but the branch. The bloom on the branch fertilizes another by the natural process of bird, wind, or bee. The fruit is of the Spirit and the Light. The fruit is of the tree and holds the potential to produce new branches for new fruit. And the cycle continues.

The original tree or vine, the Alpha, is essential to the fruit, the Omega; but, by natural design the fruit proceeds from the branch. It is God who enjoys the fruits of His labor. But just here a problem arises. Based upon a theory of atonement that rejects the imputation of penalty and worth in the death of Christ which, accordingly - translates into recognition for personal worth - the Arminian fully anticipates entrance into heaven by taking advantage of grace and assuming the greater part of God's enjoyment to be rightfully his.

Saving faith is not a response that can ever be repeated. It might only be improved upon as daily faith is exercised in the belief that one is saved and destined for the glory prepared by Christ. A glory waiting on the souls of those who are vitally joined through His glorified humanity to His divine and ever-existing "fullness," (Gk. pleroma), and felicity of eternal life. The very life in the Godhead shared by the Father and the Spirit of God. Unity with God is a grand and marvelous reality straight from the truthful lips of Jesus in the Gospel of John, chapters 13-17.

Salvation is why God became the Unique God-Man of a new race of women and men possessed of a heavenly destiny. The Arminian doctrine of salvation, where the death of Christ is seen as a token death that releases the Father to benignly forgive some sins, is defined by a man-made conception known variously as the Federal, Governmental, or Rectoral theory of atonement may not - because of inherent self-destruction - allow itself the freedom to cherish the real divine motive of salvation. Jesus, the ultimate husband, loves His own "body" so very much. How might He ever deny a truly trusting soul after the two have become one?

2 Cor 11:3 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy, because I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 11:3 But I am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough! NET

*If you enjoyed this article, perhaps you would like to read, "Author's Forward, "Is It Really True That You Can Lose Your Salvation?"" found under the heading of Christian Living.

______________________________________

References:

"The Pursuit of God," AW Tozer

"The Freedom of the Will," Jonathan Edwards

On-line reading:

A paper discussing the many different gospel invitations has been produced by the AWANA Clubs International and may be found at bible.org. As well, many other articles detailing the salvation taught in the Bible may be found on this Dallas Theological Seminary ministry site.

___________________________________

Visit my weblog @ http://www.koinoniaofgrace.com or
http://members.christiansunite.com/members/blog/gonzodave for full featured postings.

CC licensed 2008 by David Coulon. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode. Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported.

 

Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com-CHRISTIAN WRITERS

---

Below is a link to a brochure that contains an Anthology of four articles about God's grace as opposed to the negative gospel of non-grace. All of the pieces have been posted here at ChristiansUnite. The brochure can be printed for free. Or, the Anthology may be viewed in the window provided below.

Anthology: The Gonzo Journalism Of Grace, True Spirituality, And Saving Grace

Read this document on Scribd: Anthology

My kind regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave
_______________

Fri, Jul 4th - 1:02PM

(κοινωνία=2841- 43) Koinonia: The Communication of Grace

Why The Loss Of Salvation Is A Non-Christian Theory

 gonzodave

Dear Reader,

This is an expository discussion produced to reveal the irreconcilable differences within Protestant salvation teachings. The important factor is how the would-be and the assumed-to-be Christian is relating to Christ based upon what he/she believes about their salvation.

An undeniable principle in the NT Epistles is the renewing of the mind of the believer. This may only come about by proper teaching. Teaching that must come by those whom Christ has prepared through gifts to edify and grow His Church. Every believer is given a spiritual gift for service by Christ. A gift is not a natural talent. A gift is not intended for the unsaved world at large; rather, as one of many gifts, the gift of evangelism is to grow the Church, the Body of Christ, until such time as the preordained number of believers, past and present, has been reached. The purposes of God cannot be stalled or defeated. Nor, may His timetable be expedited by the efforts of men. Christ is "all things" (Gk. ta panta) to the invisible Church of believers.

Grace is not something that is intuitively nor rationally comprehended by the unsaved - or the saved. May it be understood, there is a well documented biblical blindness regarding spiritual matters. This can be observed daily from milk to meat in the carnal and mature Christian. Only a voluntary change of mind (Gk. metanoia, Eng. repentance; not a horrible anguish over sin). Rather, when one yields their mind and heart to the lessons brought by Christ might spiritual maturity be progressively gained. These lessons are uniquely suited to each regenerate believer. Yet, a common truth remains to be shared, as the source is always contained in the Holy Scriptures.

The following citations are used as expert testimony to establish the background and validity of the arguments against non-grace and the exposition of God's grace.

This writer:

The following are excerpts from my work,"God Save Me From Your Followers, or the Gonzo Journalism of Grace."

Protestant Religious Humanism

Dr. John Miley, a prominent Arminian theologian and author of his own systematic theology, is cited in the following:

Dr. Lewis Chafer, a renowned Grace theologian responds to this view of God:

From the citation of Dr. Chafer above – as regards the assertions by Dr. Miley - his statement (1) is argumentum ad absurdum founded only in a traditional creed and (2) prima facie seems convincing, but at bottom it is a feeble and specious (Latin – good looking) induction from two truths. If the reader will be patient with this writer in his analysis on this matter of infinite importance, a disclosure of the false premises in the deduction made by Dr. Miley will be detailed. The order of Dr. Miley’s premises and conclusion may be clarified in the following structure that resolves into the subsequent summary statement :

Col 2:4 I say this so that no one will deceive you through arguments [7tn by specious arguments, the art of persuasion] that sound reasonable. NET

To clear away the double-speak of inversion, I reduce (1) and (2), above, to their original statement in the doctrine of “completed satisfaction,” disputed by Dr. Miley:

(1a) Sin and righteousness is imputable [because Jesus is the Christ – the Lamb of God who “expiates,” takes away sin]
(2a) Forgiveness comes through faith [because of God’s grace]

Dr. Miley’s rationale for his claim of (1a) as false proves (2a) to be true. Because if (1a) is true, then (2a) is false (LOGICAL antecedent, if p then q). Patently, then (1a) must be false because every one accepts man must have faith to be forgiven. Thus he has proven the validity of his claim in item (1) and (2) below.

Summary:

For these reasons, the Rectoral or Governmental theory, championed by Dr. Miley, is secure in its assertions:

(1) Sin and righteousness is not imputable [because tradition says so]
(2) Forgiveness comes through faith [because (1) is true and (1a) is false – “if man’s sin is imputable to Christ, man does not need the personal faith which appropriates forgiveness, since nothing could remain to be forgiven (again, because tradition says so).”]

Detailed disclosure of the “specious” argument:

Dr. Miley’s dogmatic argument chases its tail endlessly around the same circle. On the one hand, he has made a logical statement using a false premise (1) to prove a universal truth (2a), to be true. Proving (2a) to be true was unnecessary, as there was no initial dispute until he introduced one. On the other hand, he has taken the truth of (1a) to prove (2a) false by drawing a false induction in (2) to further validate the lie claimed in (1).

In summary, he has drawn a false conclusion by introducing (1a) into item (2), above, intended to prove that two truths - (1a) and (2a) in the doctrine of “completed satisfaction - cannot logically co-exist in order to further validate his lie in item (1). This is a classic use of a logical statement to support an apparently true but actually false, specious (good looking), syllogism (Greek sullogismos < sullogizesthai "infer" < logos "reason").

Dr. Miley, in defending a lie with an innocent truth - grabbing a child as a shield in a firefight – has left himself the burden to support his claim without a comparison to God’s truth. Might the assertion of “sin and righteousness are not imputable” stand on its own merits? [to prove this merit: the deductive conclusions drawn from an Arminian theory of premises for a divine “forgiveness,” without imputation, supposes to support its own statements. This will be disclosed, throughout this paper - at length]. Dr. Miley has not “rationalized” his negative claim and proven item (1a) to be false, quite to the contrary, he has unwittingly illustrated an age old axiom to be true: A lie is inverted truth (1), which when challenged, requires a second inversion (2) to remain apparently true.

The Oracles of God’s Truth fully support a positive declaration of substitutional demerit and merit, in contradiction to his traditional “opinion” stated in item (1). Additionally, as regards the validity in the charge that his logic is argumentum ad absurdum in item (1): What school board, city government, or corporation is not liable for the actions of its employees? What parent is not legally responsible for the acts of their minor child? Guilt and penalty are transferable in this world - as well as beyond. Finally, his statement in item (2): “if man’s sin is imputable to Christ, man does not need the personal faith which appropriates forgiveness, since nothing could remain to be forgiven”; is a false inductive conclusion from “does not need personal faith” from his new premise of “nothing could remain to be forgiven” is prima facie, because it violates the unalterable biblical requirement for faith, “by grace through faith are you saved.” The point is - there is no valid rational argument that can be introduced to prove or disprove the need for faith, it stands by itself, as “Scripture may not be broken.” Secondly, his statement “nothing could remain to be forgiven” censors divine reconciliation. Whereby all men may be forgiven by faith. Reconciliation is the end result of substitutionary imputed sin suffered by Christ that rendered God “completely satisfied” in the His judgment against all sin. For this reason, Christ is the worthy object of a required faith for forgiveness that is given to whosoever shall believe in Jesus Christ for the reality that he has been forgiven. Therefore, in the final analysis, both premise (1) and (2) may be classed together as argumentum ad absurdum in the effort to rationally prove the necessity for a divine forgiveness not grounded in divine imputation and the sacrificial blood of Christ that satisfied God’s judgment and wrath against sin.

God is not obligated to explain Himself to men by deduction – He reveals Himself and His plan and men may by induction, rightly or wrongly, take Him at His Word and conclude His purposes. He has simply stated, many times over, the positive command for unsaved men to “obey the gospel” and, that “righteousness” comes through faith. Dr. Miley has failed to preach the “gospel of the grace of God.” He has proven his censorship of divine grace. Dr. Miley offers a spurious logical construct in (1) as a substitute truth for God’s work in the imputation of sin to Christ that purchased the grace of righteousness that is imputed and imparted to men in (1a). By his substitute induction in item (2), grace is not only censored, but thrown out with the truth in item (1a). Should grace ever raise “its ugly head,” it is supposed, by a “good looking” substitute, to be irrational, “since nothing could remain to be forgiven.”

I cannot find in the NT declarations, or in the OT prophecies of Christ, where it is revealed that God’s rights, either as a creditor or as a ruler protecting a commonwealth existing only for a common good, was the basis for the sacrificial death of His “Servant.” These ideas are simply holy smoke and mirrors. God’s rights, unlike those stated in the citation from Dr. Miley, were clearly established in the OT. He is the “God of all flesh” (Num 16:22; 26:16). What God does on earth is for His “reputation” before the nations of the world. This is a central theme in the book of Ezekiel. What God does for His heavenly “glory,” salvation by grace, is for the witness of all intelligences throughout the ages. This is the central theme of all the Epistles, which culminates in the earth shattering events and glorious conclusion in the Book of Revelation. Unfortunately, Arminian Christians follow the notions of Dr. Miley, rather than Scripture - to define Christianity.

As a concise rebuttal of Dr. Miley’s censorship of grace: In the passage from Romans 5:12-21, at the beginning of this division, what the NET renders “gracious gift,” the KJV translates as “free gift.” In this passage, the “free, gracious gift” is defined as the “gift of righteousness” that leads to justification. Christ redeemed sin, yes, and all unsaved men stand reconciled before God, but the unsaved have not reconciled themselves to God. They have not entered into the New Covenant by faith. An everyday illustration would be: One might receive a suspicious “worthless check” in their mail. But, until that person believes the check is “worthy” - will he produce that check for payment? Christ redeemed sin, but retains grace until such time as saving faith may claim His finished work and the “free, gracious gift of righteousness.” Only by grace through faith is man saved. This is the infinite merit of the imputed righteousness of the Righteous One, Jesus Christ. Dr. Charles Ryrie gives this definition of Arminianism:

Though the views of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) were not divergent from traditional Reformed theology, those of his successors were increasingly so. Arminianism teaches that Adam was created in innocency, not holiness, that sin consists in acts of the will, that we inherit pollution from Adam but not guilt or a sin nature, that man is not totally depraved, that man has the ability to will to do good and to conform to God’s will in this life so as to be perfect, and that the human will is one of the causes of regeneration. Wesleyan theology, sometimes called evangelical Arminianism, holds similar views on the subjects of Adam’s and man’s ability, though it differs in other points.

After the personal appeal in this, Book Two – Glorious Grace, the arguments and proofs for the positive claims of grace in items (1a) and (2a) above, will be the scope of Book Three - The Tribunal.

Gal 2:21 I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing! NET

The following is a full quotation of the Arminian theory of the value of the death of Christ. Upon which is based the many invalid gospel presentations and teachings about God's salvation.

“THE NECESSITY FOR ATONEMENT”

The unabridged citation below is from Dr. John Miley, who will be stating and defending the Rectoral or Governmental theory of atonement against the biblical doctrine of “Completed Satisfaction”:

"(1). An Answer to the Real Necessity. – The redemptive mediation implies a necessity for it. There should be, and in scientific consistency must be, an accordance between a doctrine of atonement and the ground of its necessity. The moral theory finds in the ignorance and evil tendencies of man a need for the higher moral truth and motive than reason affords; a need for all the higher truths and motives of the Gospel. There is such a need – very real and very urgent. And Christ has graciously supplied the help so needed. But we yet have no part of the necessity for an objective ground of forgiveness. Hence this scheme does not answer to the real necessity for an atonement. Did the necessity arise out of an absolute justice which must punish sin, the theory of satisfaction would be in accord with it, but without power to answer to its requirement, because such a necessity precludes substitutional atonement. We do find the real necessity in the interests of moral government – interests which concern the divine glory and authority, and the welfare of moral beings. Whatever will conserve these ends while opening the way of forgiveness answers to the real necessity in the case. Precisely this is done by the atonement we maintain. In the requirement of the sacrifice of Christ as the only ground of forgiveness the standard of the divine estimate of sin is exalted, and merited penalty is rendered more certain respecting all who fail of forgiveness through redemptive grace. And these are the special moral forces whereby the divine law may restrain sin, protect rights, guard innocence, and secure the common welfare. Further, the doctrine we maintain not only gives to these salutary forces the highest moral potency, but also combines with them the yet higher force of divine love as revealed in the marvelous means of our redemption. Thus, while the highest good of moral beings is secured, the divine glory receives its highest revelation. The doctrine has, therefore, not only the support derived from an answer to real necessity for an atonement, but also the commendation of a vast increase in the moral forces of the divine government.

(2). Grounded in the deepest Necessity. – We are here in direct issue with the doctrine of satisfaction: for here its advocates make special claim in its favor, and urge special objections against ours. We already have the principles and facts which must decide the question. In their scheme, the necessity lies in an absolute obligation of justice to punish sin, and ultimately in a divine punitive disposition. But we have previously shown that there is no such necessity.

We have maintained a punitive disposition in God; but we also find in him a compassion for the very sinners whom his justice so condemns. And we may as reasonably conclude that his disposition of clemency will find its satisfaction in a gratuitous forgiveness of all as that he will not forgive any, except on the equivalent punishment of a substitute. Who can show that the punitive disposition is the stronger? We challenge the presentation of a fact in its expression that shall parallel the cross in its disposition of mercy. And with no absolute necessity for the punishment of sin, it seems clear that but for the requirement of rectoral justice compassion would triumph over the disposition of a purely retributive justice. Hence this alleged absolute necessity for an atonement is really no necessity at all. What is the necessity in the governmental theory? It is such as arises in the rightful honor and authority of the divine Ruler, and in the rights and interests in the moral beings under him. The free remission of sins without an atonement would be their surrender. Hence divine justice itself, still having all its punitive disposition, but infinitely more concerned for these rights than in the mere retribution of sins, must interpose all its authority in bar of a mere administrative forgiveness. The divine holiness and goodness, infinitely concerned for these great ends, must equally bar a forgiveness in their surrender. The divine justice, holiness, and love must, therefore, combine in the imperative requirement of an atonement in Christ as the necessary ground of forgiveness. These facts ground it in the deepest necessity. The rectoral ends of moral government are a profounder imperative with justice itself than the retribution of sin, simply as such. One stands before the law in the demerit of crime. His demerit renders his punishment just. Though not a necessity. But the protection of others, who would suffer wrong through his impunity, makes his punishment an obligation of judicial rectitude. The same principles are valid in the divine government. The demerit of sin imposes no obligation of punishment upon the divine Ruler; but the protection of rights and interests by means of merited penalty is a requirement of his judicial rectitude, except as that protection can be secured through some other means. It is true, therefore, that the rectoral atonement is grounded in the deepest necessity.

(3). Rectoral Value of Penalty. – We have sufficiently distinguished between the purely retributive and the rectoral offices of penalty. The former respects simply the demerit of sin; the latter, the great ends to be attained through the ministry of justice and law. As the demerit of sin is the only thing justly punishable, the retributive element always conditions the rectoral office of justice; but the former is conceivable without the latter. Penal retribution may, therefore, be viewed as a distinct fact, and entirely in itself. As such, it is simply the punishment of sin because of its demerit, and without respect to any other reason or end. But as we rise to the contemplation of divine justice in its infinitely larger sphere, and yet not as an isolated attribute, but in its inseparable association with infinite holiness, and wisdom, and love, as attributes of one divine Ruler over innumerable moral beings, we must think his retribution of sin always has ulterior ends in the interest of his moral government. We therefore hold all divine punishment to have a strictly rectoral function.

Punishment is the resource of all righteous government. Every good ruler will seek to secure obedience, and all other true ends of a wise and beneficent administration, through the highest and best means. Of no other is this so true as of the divine Ruler. On the failure of such means there is still the resource of punishment which shall put in subjection the harmful agency of the incorrigible. Thus rights and interests are protected. This protection is a proper rectoral value of penalty, but a value only realized in its execution. There is a rectoral value of penalty simply as an element of law. It has such value in a potency of influence upon human conduct. A little analysis will reveal its salutary forces. Penalty, in its own nature, and also, through the moral ideas with which it is associated, makes its appeal to certain motivities in man. As it finds a response therein, so has it a governing influence, and a more salutary influence as the response is to the higher associated ideas. First of all, penalty, as an element of law, appeals to an instinctive fear.

The intrinsic force of the appeal is determined by its severity and the certainty of its execution; but the actual influence is largely determined by the state of our subjective motivity. Some are seemingly quite insensible to the greatest severity and certainty of threatened penalty, while others are deeply moved thereby. Human conduct is, in fact, thus greatly influenced. This, however, is the lowest power of penalty as a motive; yet it is not without value. Far better is it that evil tendencies should be restrained, and outward conformity to law secured, through such fear than not at all. The chief rectoral value of penalty, simply as an element of law, is through the moral ideas which it conveys, and the response which it thus finds in the moral reason. As the answers to these ideas in the helpful activities of conscience and the profounder sense of obligation, so the governing force of penalty takes the higher form of moral excellence. As it becomes the clear utterance of justice itself in the declaration of rights in all their sacredness, and in the reprobation of crime in all its form of injury or wrong, and depth of punitive desert, so it conveys the imperative lessons of duty, and rules through the profounder principles of moral obligation. Now rights are felt to be sacred, and duties are filled because they are such, and not from fear of the penal consequences of their violation or neglect. The same facts have the fullest application to penalty as an element of divine law. Here its higher rectoral value will be, and can only be, through the higher revelation of God in his moral attributes as ever active in all moral administration.

(4). Rectoral Value of Atonement. – The sufferings of Christ, as a proper substitute for the punishment, must fulfill the office of penalty in the obligatory ends of moral government. The manner of fulfillment is determined by the nature of the service. As the salutary rectoral force of penalty, as an element of law, is specially through the moral ideas which it reveals, so the vicarious sufferings of Christ must reveal like moral ideas, and rule through them. Not else can they take the place of penalty as they reveal God in his justice, holiness, and love; in his regard for his own honor and law; in his concern for the rights and interests of moral beings; in his reprobation of sin as intrinsically evil, utterly hostile to his own rights and to the welfare of his subjects. Does the atonement in Christ reveal such truths? We answer, Yes. Nor do we need the impossible penal element of the theory of satisfaction for any part of this revelation. God reveals his profound regard for the sacredness of his law, and for the interests which it conserves, by what he does for their support and protection. In direct legislative and administrative forms he ordains his law, with declarations of its sacredness and authority; embodies in it the weightiest sanctions of reward and penalty; reprobates in severest terms all disregard of its requirements, and all violation of the rights and interests which it would protect; visits upon transgression the fearful penalties of his retributive justice, though always at the sacrifice of his compassion. The absence of such facts would evince an indifference to the great concerned; while their presence evinces, in the strongest manner possible to such facts, the divine regard for these interest. The facts, with the moral ideas they embody, give weight and salutary governing power to the divine law. The omission of the penal element would, without a proper rectoral substitution, leave the law in utter weakness.

Now let the sacrifice of Christ be substituted for the primary necessity of punishment, and as the sole ground of forgiveness. But we should distinctly note what it replaces in the divine law and wherein it may modify the divine administration. The law remains, with all its precepts and sanctions. Penalty is not annulled. There is no surrender of the divine honor and authority. Rights and interests are no less sacred, nor guarded in feebler terms. Sin has the same reprobation; penalty the same imminence and severity respecting all persistent impenitence and unbelief. The whole change in the divine economy is this – that on the sole ground of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ all who repent and believe may be forgiven and saved. This is the divine substitution for the primary necessity of punishment. While, therefore, all other facts in the divine legislation and administration remain the same, and in an unabated expression of truths of the highest rectoral force and value, this divine sacrifice in atonement for sin replaces the lesson of a primary necessity for punishment with its own higher revelation of the same salutary truths; rather it adds its own higher lesson to that penalty. As penalty remains in its place, remissible, indeed, on proper conditions, yet certain of execution in all cases of unrepented sin, and, therefore, often executed in fact, the penal sanction of law still proclaims all the rectoral truth which it may utter. Hence the sacrifice of Christ in atonement for sin, and in the declaration of the divine righteousness in forgiveness, is an additional and infinitely higher utterance of the most salutary moral truths.

The cross is the highest revelation of all the truths which embody the best moral forces of the divine government. The atonement in Christ is so original and singular in many of its facts that it is the more difficult to find in human facts the analogies for its proper illustration. Yet there are facts not without service here. An eminent lecturer, in a recent discussion of the atonement, has given notoriety to a measure of Bronson Alcott in the government of his school. He substituted his own chastisement for the infliction of penalty upon his offending pupil, receiving the affliction at the hand of the offender. No one can rationally think such a substitution penal, or that the sin of the pupil was expiated by the stripes which the master suffered instead. The substitution answered simply for the disciplinary ends of penalty. Without reference either to the theory of Bronson Alcott or to the interpretation of Joseph Cook, we so state the case as obvious in the philosophy of its own facts. Such office it might well fulfill. And we accept the report of the very salutary result, not only certified by the most reliable authority, but also as intrinsically most credible. No one in the school, and to be ruled by its discipline, could henceforth think less gravely of any offense against its laws. No one could think either that the master regarded with lighter reprobation the evil of such offense, or that he was less resolved upon a rigid enforcement of obedience.

All these ideas must have been intensified, and in a manner to give them the most helpful influence. The vicarious sacrifice of the master became a potent and most salutary moral element in the government maintained. Even the actual punishment of the offender could not have so secured obedience for the sake of its own obligation and excellence. We may also instance the case of Zaleucus, very familiar in discussions of atonement, though usually accompanied with such denials of analogy as would render it useless for illustration. It is useless on the theory of satisfaction, but valuable on a true theory. Zaleucus was lawgiver and ruler of the Locrians, a Grecian colony early founded in southern Italy. His laws were severe, and his administration rigid; yet both were well suited to the manners of the people. His own son was convicted of violating a law, the penalty of which was blindness. The case came to Zaleucus both as ruler and father. Hence there was a conflict in his soul. He would have been an unnatural father, and of such a character as to be unfit for a ruler, had he suffered no conflict of feeling. His people entreated his clemency for his son. But, as a statesman he knew that the sympathy which prompted such entreaty could be but transient; that in the reaction he would suffer their accusation of partiality and injustice; that his laws would be dishonored and his authority broken. Still there was the conflict of soul. What should he do for the reconciliation of the ruler and the father? In this exigency he devised an atonement by the substitution of one of his own eyes for one of his son’s. This was a provision above law and retributive justice. Neither had any penalty for the father on account of the sin of the son.

The substitution therefore, was not penal. The vicarious suffering was not in any sense retributive. It could not be so. All the conditions for penal retribution were wanting. No one can rationally think that the sin of the son, or any part of it, was expiated by the suffering of his father in his stead. The transference of sin as a whole is unreasonable enough; but the idea of a division of it, a part being left with the actual sinner and punished in him, and the other part being transferred to a substitute and being punished in him, transcends all the capabilities of rational thought. The substitution, without being penal, did answer for the rectoral office of penalty. The ruler fully protected his own honor and authority. Law still voiced its behests and sanctions with unabated force. And the vicarious sacrifice of the ruler upon the alter of his parental compassion, and as well as upon the alter of his administration, could but intensify all the ideas which might command for him honor and authority as a ruler, or give to his laws a salutary power over his people. This, therefore, is a true case of atonement through vicarious suffering, and in close analogy to the divine atonement. In neither case is the substitution for the retribution of sin, but in each for the sake of the rectoral ends of penalty, and thus constitutes the objective ground of its remissibility. We have, therefore, in this instance a clear and forceful illustration of the rectoral value of the atonement. But so far we have presented this value in its nature rather than its measure. This will find its proper place in the sufficiency of the atonement.

(5). Only Sufficient Atonement. - Nothing could be more fallacious than the objection that the governmental theory is in any sense acceptilational, or implicitly indifferent to the character of the substitute in atonement. In the inevitable logic of its deepest and most determining principles it excludes all inferior substitutions and requires a divine sacrifice as the only sufficient atonement. Only such a substitution can give adequate expression to the great truths which may fulfill the rectoral office of penalty. The case of Zaleucus may illustrate this. Many other devices were also at his command. He, no doubt, had money, and might have essayed the purchase of impunity for his son by the distribution of large sums. In his absolute power he might have substituted the blindness of some inferior person. But what would have been the signification or rectoral value of any such measure? It could give no answer to the real necessity in the case, and must have been utterly silent respecting the great truths imperatively requiring affirmation in any adequate substitution. The sacrifice of one of his own eyes for one of his sons did give the requisite affirmation, while nothing below it could. So in the substitution of Christ for us. No inferior being and no inferior sacrifice could answer, through the expression and affirmation of great rectoral truths, for the necessary ends of penalty. And, as we shall see in the proper place, no other theory can so fully interpret and appropriate all the facts in the sacrifice of Christ. It has a place and a need for every element of atoning value in his substitution." (Ibid., Vol 2, pp 176-84, cited in Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, pp 147-153) (bold italics and highlights mine, this writer)

Witnesses for the Prosecution - Analysis and Response

This writer:

Superficial views of an all-important cosmic government may only contain a dishonoring evaluation of the work of Christ. I ask: If this loving God who can deny Himself and overcome His wrath for judgment against sin, was He the same God that authored the Flood and the writings of the prophet Ezekiel? The O.T. prophet who wrote the words of God, “You will not be cleansed from your uncleanness until I have fully unleashed my anger upon you. I the LORD have spoken: judgment is coming and I will act. I will not relent, or show pity, or change my mind. I will judge you according to your conduct and your deeds, declares the Sovereign LORD” (Ezk 24:13-14 NET).

The underlying principles proposed by Dr. Miley are not to be found in the Scriptures of Truth and, without exception, are an insult to the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sin of man. It is an argumentum ad exemplum. Initially, the learned Dr. Miley seems to have excised his NT Bible from all mention of the much prized word that recognizes the crowning completion of salvation in this life – justification. Justification is the act of a judge requiring due payment of penalty, not that of a “Ruler” maintaining a common good. God is and can only be - good. Additionally, Dr. Miley completely confuses human forgiveness as divine forgiveness. Whereas the latter demands the just payment of a debt for satisfaction – divine substitutions who actually suffer the penalty being acceptable. And, the former may only relinquish the right to be satisfied. Thirdly, Dr. Miley has made partial use of the doctrine of reconciliation in his scheme of forgiveness. Although the unsaved may be forgiven, this forgiveness is but one part of divine salvation. The sinner is reconciled (changed thoroughly from un-savable to savable) and God is propitiated (completely satisfied) by the redeeming reconciliation and propitiation provided by the substitutionary sacrificial death of Christ. However, forgiveness may not be claimed by the unregenerate, i.e., those not “born from above” (begotten) by God the Father, baptized into Christ, indwelt, and sealed “until the day of redemption” by the Holy Spirit until saving trust is placed in the finished work of Christ. The simple message and truth of the gospel of grace is to trust that the one who believes is forgiven all sins by the once-and for-all sacrifice of Christ. The Governmental theory asserts that one is forgiven after tru Dr. Miley’s theory lacks the ability to produce the desired result - salvation. This Governmental theory of atonement is inadequate in that it lacks the “necessity” of usefulness.

As to the origins of the Governmental theory, one may note, Hugo Grotius was a Dutchman, who possessed the inherent baggage of the national beginnings of the emerging global power of Holland in the 17th century. A country that was fighting for freedom from Spanish rule. The Dutch equivalent of our George Washington was the one-eyed Clavius Civilus (cf. “Zaleucus”; the late works of Rembrandt) who deserted the Roman army to lead the Batavians to independence. The following is a an excerpt from Encarta: “Earlier, his [Hugo Grotius] efforts to moderate a bitter doctrinal dispute among Dutch Calvinists had embroiled him in a political clash between his province of Holland and the rest of the Dutch Republic and its orthodox majority. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1619 but escaped to Paris in 1621. There he finished De Veritate Religionis Christianae (On the Truth of the Christian Religion, 1627), a nonsectarian statement of basic Christian beliefs that was widely translated and won Grotius great acclaim. His voluminous writings included other theological and legal works as well as poetry, histories, and classical translations.

The Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius is considered the founder of the modern theory of natural law. His break with Scholasticism is in methodology rather than content. His definition of natural law as that body of rules which can be discovered by the use of reason is traditional, but in raising the hypothetical argument that his law would have validity even if there were no God or if the affairs of human beings were of no concern to God, he effected a divorce from theological presupposetions and prepared the way for the purely rationalistic theories of the 17th and 18th centuries. A second innovation of Grotius was to view this law as deductive and independent of experience: “Just as the mathematicians treat their figures as abstracted from bodies, so in treating law I have withdrawn my mind from every particular fact” (De Iure Belli ac Pacis; On the Law of War and Peace, 1625).”

Additionally, the political content in the scheme of Governmental atonement, based as it is in ancient emperor worship contained in Roman Caesarian law, is more in the vein of early 20th century Italian Fascism. To think of God in natural, material terms as an all powerful ruler is most unlike communism, but greatly related to the smoke and mirror social engineering for a common beneficial good and the peaceful co-existence ideal of fascist intolerance. For example, during his public appearances in the United States in the late 1950’s the darling of the American press, the “El Loco” Cuban attorney, the hero of the July 26 slaughter of Batista’s army forces sleeping in the barracks at Moncado, and the leader of the revolt hiding in the Sierra Maestra whose famous claim was, “History will absolve me” - Fidel Castro - portrayed himself as an idealist and his Cuban revolt as “Green” not “Red.” He lied.

Today’s idealistic, South American democratic socialism, based on the Christian ideals of community, not private property, will be tomorrow’s military dictator-ships. If I were to attempt to duplicate the political hyperbole and rhetoric of the Governmental theory espoused by Dr. Miley, I would say: No one can pose a rational objection to this deepest and most determining principle of the undeniable logic of the salutary good that with the utmost force is stated to be the highest and most exalted rights of the state and the protection of the rights of the individual to share in a common beneficial good – a common beneficial good which, incidentally, would be controlled by and determined by a state with zero tolerance for dissent. The all hail Caesar, who sacrificed his son (symbolized as the eye of Zaleucus) for the public good motif of the Rectoral or Governmental theory, conceived by a man, Hugo Grotius who was obsessed by the natural laws of this world, is not the place to find God. The logic of this thinking, biblically, conforms to the ideas embodied in a world controlled by the ultimate stealth control freak, Satan, in this, the God permitted penumbra of our world - the cosmos diabolicus. The entire concept is based in penalty and reward for the superficial. The “Ruler” is not the Father that Jesus came to manifest and, it is not the new law of life – to obey the gospel of the grace of God. “Jesus replied, “This is the deed God requires—to believe in the one whom he sent” (John 6:29).

Easton’s Bible Dictionary credits the revelation of justification to the following: “The Epistle to the Galatians and that to the Romans taken together "form a complete proof that justification is not to be obtained meritoriously either by works of morality or by rites and ceremonies, though of divine appointment; but that it is a free gift, proceeding entirely from the mercy of God, to those who receive it by faith in Jesus our Lord."” I would include the book of Hebrews, also, as it is outlined from Galatians. Hebrews is intended to prove Christ is superior to Moses and the Mosaic Law. Additionally, Hebrews states that salvation is a new system under a new High Priest that lives forever to intercede for His brothers and sisters “begotten of the Father”".

Once again, this theory is based on carrots and sticks. Regardless, that the Governmental exempli gratia atonement theory predicts fear for penalty, the effect of the stated cause is jealousy brought forth by the inherited sin nature in all men that requires a completed satisfaction for all sin by God in the substitutionary penal death of His Son.. When NT Scripture is read without bias, one finds that God has designed forgiveness in such a way as to preclude the competitive enticement of merit. The passage quoted at the end of this paragraph describes the motive of God as righteous judgment placed upon Christ, which makes one worthy of the kingdom through the finished work of Christ.

Thu, Jul 3rd - 11:00AM

Continued ... Why The Loss of Salvation Is A Non-Christian Theory

Continued ... Why The Loss Of Salvation Is A Non-Christian Theory
 
  gonzodave

---

Forgiveness is accomplished through belief in a righteous Christ who bore our substitutionary judgment. The righteous wrath of judgment put upon Christ made the “cleansing” of reconciliation possible. Reconciliation is self-validating and forgiveness is not waggled as a future competitive goal to those who do not obey the gospel and believe that Christ paid a just penalty for all sin. It is not a solicitation to pragmatism. It is stated in such a way that one may take it or leave it. This is forgiveness for a belief that we could never merit our own forgiveness and righteousness which is not a call to a green-eyed envious penitence that would compete with a Great Example to receive a completed future satisfaction. A forgiveness that would deny immediate divine transformation to substitute future behavior with divine forgiveness in reformation is an insignificant surrogate. Belief in the imputed righteousness of Christ excludes the stealth of a marketed, “I will be like the most high God – You must forgive me” and the underlying enticement, “You will be like gods,” originally conceived and offered to Eve, who was deceived. To his credit and man’s federal shame, Adam did not believe the false religious proposal, but only desired his now pagan companion and boldly rejected God’s one command. Thereby demonstrating by his actions, “My progeny be damned, I will have my companion.” A sad excuse for a mother and father were they both. They begat a murderer. They begot a race of “marred,” apollumi, men and women that are doomed to “perish” in eternal perdition unless they receive zoen aionion, eternal life (cf. John 3:16). And this eternal life may be received only after the reality of a just payment in penalty by the Righteous Substitute – Jesus Christ. Divine wrath is most real. The Apostle Paul explains:

Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he? (Grk “That God is not unjust to inflict wrath, is he?”) (I am speaking in human terms.) 3:6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world? NET

 The Governmental theory meets the criteria for a biblical “strong delusion” sent by God: “… and with every kind of evil deception directed against those who are perishing, because they found no place in their hearts for the truth so as to be saved. Consequently God sends on them a deluding influence [23tn Grk “a working of error.”] so that they will believe what is false. And so all of them who have not believed the truth but have delighted in evil will be condemned” (2 Thess 2:10-12 NET).

 

2 Thess 1:5 This is evidence of God’s righteous judgment, to make you worthy of the kingdom of God, for which in fact you are suffering. 1:6 For it is right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 1:7 and to you who are being afflicted to give rest together with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. 1:8 With flaming fire he will mete out punishment on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 1:9 They will undergo the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 1:10 when he comes to be glorified among his saints and admired on that day among all who have believed—and you did in fact believe our testimony. (bold highlights mine) NET

 

Whereas, NT Christianity, for me, is not to be a protected subject that is the property of a Cosmic State, it is to be a family member, with not a shared, divine, and sinless blood, but a shared humanity that is to be glorified, and a shared pleroma [the very life of God; eternal life] that is afforded by the “objective” at-one-ment. Objective meaning that the authority of the Bible plainly states it. Heaven high revelation and world wide subjective instrumentalism are antithetical, sharing only the single orthodoxy that Christ, the Son of God, died on a cross. From this single common point, Arminian Christianity leaves the Bible and enters into the proven allegory and fiction of the Rectoral theory of fear cited above. The above citation is not abridged, it is an unabridged statement by a leading theologian of Arminian Christianity. His thought and writings have been taught and cited by generations of Arminian seminary graduates. Thus, this de facto theory of atonement is well established Christian fascism, spread by its derivative false negative gospel of repent/believe and forgiven/saved to the naïve and ignorant. This theory and the offshoot gospel is a parody of catholicizing. Biblically, in sense and word root, faith-believe-repent are synonyms and are not required separate acts. Over 130 verses state salvation is by belief only. Some, but a very few, use two of these synonyms. An often repeated false dichotomy does not a truth make. Repetition induces tradition.

Salvation is revealed to be a completed satisfaction began by the sacrificial death of Christ and finalized by His resurrection and ad interim ascension into heaven. This transformation is available by God assisted faith. Who in their right mind would not desire, but reject the thought of God’s assistance in salvation? Yes, faith is assisted, plainly proven by the fact that it is His Son – His Bible – His Spirit - His messengers – His plan - that assists simple trust in Christ for the “whole enchilada” which is an eternal salvation in a new progressive state of existence lived in the righteousness and the image of Christ.

The death of Christ is not just a mere cosmic background for forgiveness of personal sins, it includes the judgment of the primary source of sin - my inherited sin nature and my personal guilt in original sin. The forgiveness of inherited and personal sin produced by the sin nature was completed 2,000 years ago. This is to say, conclusively, whosoever will believe on Christ as Savior possesses a completed salvation based in the Word of God that states God’s judgment against sin was completely satisfied. Thereby, a completed satisfaction and an eternal salvation from the moment of saving faith is available to whosoever and each and everyone of their earthly family with the never-ending assurance of son and daughtership in the heavenly family of God. This, His New Creation of glorified humanity in Christ Jesus our Savior, now and forevermore.

Dr. Lewis Chafer:

As a summarization of this discussion of the Rectoral or Governmental theory, three indictments may be lodged against this system.

(a) It is a hypothesis based on human reason, which makes no avowed induction of the Scriptures on the theme which it essays to expound, but contends that the Scriptures, by special interpretation, can be made to harmonize with it.
(b) It attempts an impossible distinction between the sufferings of Christ as sacrificial in contrast to the sufferings of Christ as penal. The weakness of this distinction is well published in Dr. Miley’s two illustrations, quoted above – the teacher punished in place of the pupil and the Zaleucus who sacrificed his eye for the crime of his son. Of these, Dr. Miley asserts that they could not be penal. If he means they render no satisfaction to God for sin as God saw it, none will contend with him; but within their sphere as related to human laws and regulations, each became a definite penal substitute which not only upheld the law that was involved, but gave, so far as human standards may require, a righteous discharge of the offender. One fallacy which dominates this theory lies hidden in the unrecognized distinction which exists between divine and human governments.
(c) It restricts the scope of the value of Christ’s death to the one issue of the forgiveness of the sins of the unsaved, the assumption being that fallen man – if, indeed, man be fallen at all – needs no more than the forgiveness of sin. The death of Christ unto the sin nature and the death of Christ for imputed righteousness are either neglected or rejected.

Dr. B. B. Warfield:

We are getting more closely down to the real characteristic of modern theories of the atonement when we note that there is a strong tendency observable all around us to rest the forgiveness of sins solely on repentance as its ground. In its last analysis, the Grotian theory itself reduces to this. The demonstration of God’s righteousness, which is held by it to be the heart of Christ’s work and particularly His death, is supposed to have no other effect on God than to render it safe for Him to forgive sin. And this does not as effecting Him, but as effecting men – namely, by awakening in them such a poignant sense of the evil of sin as to cause them to hate it soundly and to turn decisively away from it. This is just Repentance. We could desire no better illustration of this feature of the theory than is afforded by the statement of it by one of its most distinguished living advocates, Dr. Marcus Dods. The necessity of atonement, he tells us, lies in the “need of some such demonstration of God’s righteousness as will make it possible and safe for Him to forgive the unrighteous.” Whatever begets in the sinner true penitence and impels him towards the practice of righteousness will render it safe to forgive him.

Hence Dr. Dodds asserts that it is inconceivable that God should not forgive the penitent sinner, and that Christ’s work is summed up in such an exhibition of God’s righteousness and love as produces, on its apprehension, adequate repentance. “By being the source, then, of true and fruitful penitence, the death of Christ removes the radical subjective obstacle in the way of forgiveness.” “The death of Christ, then, has made forgiveness possible, because it enables man to repent with an adequate penitence and because it manifests righteousness and binds men to God.” There is no hint here that man needs anything more to enable him to repent than the presentation of motives calculated powerfully to induce him to repent. That is to say, there is no hint here of an adequate appreciation of the subjective effects of sin on the human heart, deadening it to the appeal of motives to right action however powerful, and requiring therefore an internal action of the Spirit of God upon it before it can repent: or of the purchase of such a gift of the a Spirit by the sacrifice of Christ. As little is there any hint here of the existence of any sense of justice in God, forbidding Him to account the guilty righteous without satisfaction of guilt. All God requires for forgiveness is repentance: all the sinner needs for repentance is a moving inducement. It is all very simple; but we are afraid it does not go to the root of matters as presented either in Scripture or in the throes of our awakened heart.

Conclusion - this writer:

For a professing Christian belief system the Arminian concept of atonement, like the Greek word hamartia, meaning sin, has completely missed the mark. Man’s rationalizations can never weigh against God’s revelations. From a grace understanding, this theory is comparable to voluntarily using an incomplete deck of cards where in order to play a game one needs to draft special senseless rules. Grotius, Miley, and Wardlaw are to be given this measure of credit. It is to be expected from a scheme that is drawn from natural law and not the heaven high divine principles given in the Bible. The mercy seat, substitution, redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, expiation, holiness, the cross, blood atonement, imputation, and righteousness are not contained in the Arminian scheme of atonement for the beggarly rights of Rulership. The Arminian, easily grasped and rationally explainable, human-styled forgiveness falls far short of the revealed biblical measures taken by God to secure the salvation of men.

Dr. Charles Ryrie would define and group atonement theories in the following manner:

Governmental – Grotius (1583-1645) Also Wardlaw and Miley. God’s government demanded the death of Christ to show His displeasure with sin. Christ also did not suffer the penalty of the Law, but God accepted His suffering as a substitute for that penalty.

Penal Substitution – Calvin (1509-1564). Christ the sinless One took on Himself the penalty that should have been borne by man and others.

(1) Views that related the death of Christ to Satan (Origin and Aulen)
(2) Views that consider His death a powerful example to influence people (Abelard, Socinus, Grotius, Barth).
(3) Views that emphasize punishment due to the justice of God and substitution (perhaps Anselm – though deficient – and the Reformers). Although there may be some truth in views that do not include penal substitution, it is important to remember that such truth, if there be some, cannot save eternally. Only the substitutionary death of Christ can provide that which God’s justice demands and thereby become the basis for the gift of eternal life to those who believe. (Basic Theology, Dr. Charles Ryrie, p 356)

END

My regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

---

"Why The Loss Of Salvation Is A Non-Christian Theory" by David Coulon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at www.koinoniaofgrace.com.

Wed, Jul 2nd - 3:27PM

(κοινωνία=2841- 43) Koinonia: The Communication of Grace

Carbon Neutral Digital Edition

The Gonzo Journalism of Grace at koinoniaofgrace.com

"God Save Me From Your Followers! or, the gonzo journalism of grace" by David Coulon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at www.koinioniaofgrace.com. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.koinoniaofgrace.com.
___________