The X-istence Files

A072908G - The Doctrine of Moral Achievement and Why

the Loss of Salvation is a Non-Christian Theory

James 4:8 Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners,
and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

To will the Good for the sake of reward is hypocrisy – sheer duplicity! The person who
in truth wills the Good thinks only of the Good, not of some resulting benefit. For the
Good is its own reward. In fact, the pure in heart understands that here on earth the
Good is often rewarded by ingratitude, by lack of appreciation, by poverty, by
contempt, by many afflictions, and now and then by death. Of course, these are
inconsequential for the one who in truth wills only one thing.
Neither can one who wills the Good do so out of fear of punishment. In essence, this
is the same thing as willing the Good for the sake of a reward. The one who wills in
truth one thing fears only doing wrong, not the punishment. In fact, he who does
wrong, yet sincerely wills the Good, actually desires to face the consequences – so
that the punishment, like medicine, may heal him. He understands that punishment
only exists for the sake of the sinner. It is a helping hand. It goads one to press on
further toward the Good, if one really wills it. On the other hand, the one who is
divided considers punishment or hardship as a sickness. He fears all worldly setback
for there is nothing eternal in him.

Soren Kierkegaard
Provocations compiled and
edited by Charles E. Moore, p 36

Bart, I've never been much good - at least up till now I haven't. You aren't getting
any bargain, but I've got a funny feeling that I want to be good. I don't know. Maybe
I can't. But I'm gonna try. I'll try hard, Bart. I'll try.

_________________ I want to believe

 Laurie
from the film noir classic Gun Crazy

When this stage is reached then there will be life, not life subject to death but life that
is clearly…and assuredly life giving. There will be a body, not a body which is animal,
weighing down the soul as it decays, but a spiritual body experiencing no need and
subordinated in every part to the will. This is the peace that the Heavenly City has
while it sojourns here in faith, and in this faith it lives a life of righteousness. To the
establishing of that peace it refers all its good actions, whether they be towards God
or towards one’s neighbor, for the life of this City is utterly and entirely a life of
fellowship.

Augustine
The City of God

Dear Reader,

This paper is intended 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 she or he
believes about their salvation.

May it be understood, that the underlying support for all Protestant

denominations who claim that salvation can be lost is an almost secret, rarely,
if ever, discussed theory of atonement that has no biblical basis. It is based
upon 2 statements, or axioms. This subjective scheme was formed more than
a century after the Reformation began by Martin Luther. It is a theory of salvation based in
Catholic Soteriology. Whereas, Reformed theology teaches "justification by faith." Which is a
secured salvation based on the gift of eternal life given to whosoever is divinely recognized
as trusting in the secure, finished work of Christ for forgiveness and the transformation of a
new life "in Christ."

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, KJV translation=repentance;
which is NOT a horrible anguish over sin). Rather, when one yields their mind and heart to
initially, the gospel of God's saving grace, and later to the lessons brought by Christ, then
and only then, 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.

Arminian Religious Humanism

(The following are excerpts from my unpublished work, God Save Me From Your Followers,
or the gonzo journalism of grace.)

The citations below are used as expert testimony to establish the background and validity of
the arguments against a non-grace, salvation based on personal moral achievement that
can be lost and the exposition of God's graceful salvation - which is eternal. An eternity that

_________________ I want to believe

begins from the moment when saving faith is recognized by God.

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

The fundamental error of the Socinian view was found by Grotius to be this: That
Socinus regarded God, in the work of redemption, as holding the place of merely a
creditor, or master, whose simple will was a sufficient discharge from the existing
obligation. But, as we have in the subject before us to deal with punishment and the
remission of punishment, God cannot be looked upon as a creditor, or an injured
party, since the act of inflicting punishment does not belong to an injured party as
such. The right to punish is not one of an absolute master or a creditor, these being
merely personal in their character; it is the right of a ruler only. Hence God must be
considered as a ruler, and the right to punish belongs to the ruler as such, since it
exists, not for the punisher’s sake, but for the sake of the commonwealth, to maintain
its order and to promote the public good. (cited by Miley, Theology, Vol 2, p 161.
quoted in Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 146)

Dr. Lewis Chafer, a renowned Grace theologian responds to this view of God:
From this brief analysis it will be seen that the two major ideas are paramount in this
theory as presented by its advocates, namely, penitence and forgiveness, and no
other aspects of the value of Christ’s death are acknowledged and no other feature of
the great work of God in the salvation of a soul is comprehended by this system.
Should any question be raised about the need of an amercement or penalty that
would uphold the sanctity of the law, the fact that Christ suffered sacrificially is
deemed sufficient to meet the requirement. Grotius was Arminian in his theology
and his theory is well suited to a system of interpretation of the Scriptures which is
satisfied with modified and partial truths.

As for the methods employed by these two systems [of evaluating the death of
Christ], it may be observed that the doctrine of satisfaction follows the obvious
teachings of the Bible. It is the result of an unprejudiced induction of the Word of God
as bears on the death of Christ. On the other hand, the defenders of the Grotian
theory build a philosophy which is not drawn from Scripture, and, having declared
their speculations and reasoning, undertake to demonstrate that, by various methods
of interpretations, the Scriptures may be made to harmonize with the theory. It is
significant that Christians, being, in the main, subject to the Bible, have held the
doctrine of satisfaction throughout all generations.

Of those who have expounded and defended the Rectoral or Governmental theory,
none in the United States has given it more scholarly consideration than Dr. John
Miley, the Arminian theologian. When stating his disagreement with the time honored
doctrine of satisfaction, Dr. Miley objects (1) to the doctrine of substitution as
generally held. It is his contention that neither the sin of man is imputable to Christ,
nor the righteousness of God imputable to man; and (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. These are the major arguments which Socinius
advanced and these, in turn, have been presented by many of the Arminian school.
(Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer - founder of Dallas Theological
Seminary, Vol 3, p 146-47)

From the citation of Dr. Chafer above – as regards the assertions by Dr. Miley
- I claim that his statement (1) is an argumentum ad absurdum founded only
in a traditional creed and that (2) is merely prima facie; (2) 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

_________________ I want to believe

statement :

To clear away the double-speak of inversion, I convert Dr. Miley's claims in (1) and (2)
above, into their original form (1a and 2a) 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 is that (1a - imputation) must be false for (2a) to be true. Because if
(1a) is true, then (2a) is false (LOGICAL antecedent, e.g., if p then q). Patently, then (1a)
must be false because every one accepts man must have faith to be forgiven (as in 2a). By
using this logic, he assures one and all of the undeniable truth of his statements in (1) and
(2) below.

Summary of Arminian Logic for the Loss of Salvation

For the reasons below, 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) no imputation is true and, (1a) imputation
is false. False because “if man’s sin is imputable to Christ, [then, viz., ergo] man does not
need the personal faith which appropriates forgiveness, since nothing could remain to be
forgiven" [again, for no better reason than because the rules of [convincing] traditional logic
say so].

Why the Loss of Salvation is a Non-Christian Theory

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

A detailed disclosure of the “specious” argument that supports this Arminian theory of
salvation is given in the following discussion.

Dr. Miley’s dogmatic, logical 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 , rational deduction from (2) to further validate the lie claimed in (1 ) -
imputation is false.
In summary, he has drawn a false conclusion by introducing the truth of (1a)
into his item (2), above, with the intention to prove that two truths - (1a) and (2a) in the
doctrine of completed satisfaction - cannot logically co-exist. And this, in order to further
validate his false statement in his 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 offering a shred of comparative
Scripture. Might the assertion of “sin and righteousness are not imputable” stand on its own
merits? To prove this merit: the conclusions drawn from an Arminian theory of premises for
a divine “forgiveness” - without imputation - supposes to support its own statements by
logical deductions.

The Arminian use of false logic will be disclosed, throughout this paper - in detail and at
length. Dr. Miley has not “rationalized” his negative claim and proved statement (1a -
imputation) to be false, quite so well as he supposes. In fact, much to the contrary, he has
unwittingly illustrated an age old axiom to be true: (A) A lie is inverted truth, which when

_________________ I want to believe

challenged, (B) requires a second inversion to remain "apparently" true.

The Oracles of God’s Truth fully support a positive declaration of substitutionary demerit and
merit. This is in contradiction to Dr. Miley's traditional “opinion” stated in his item (1) - no
imputation). Additionally, as regards the validity in the charge that his logic is argumentum
ad absurdum in his 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, the deductive logic in his 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 deductive conclusion from the false statement: “because he does not
need personal faith”. Which is taken from his new premise of “nothing could remain to be
forgiven”. This is prima facie, appearing to be true. But, in fact, is terribly false 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 false deduction of “nothing could remain to be forgiven” also censors divine
reconciliation. Whereby all men may be forgiven by faith.

Reconciliation is the end result of substitutionary, imputed sin suffered by Christ which
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 of Dr. Miley's premises, (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 which satisfied
(propitiated) God’s judgment and necessary wrath towards sinners.

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 saving grace of God.” Although, he has proved his censorship of
divine grace.

Dr. Miley offers a spurious logical construct in his item (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 statements and deductions in
item (2), grace is not only censored, but thrown out with the Biblical truth of 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 for one, 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 championed by Dr. Miley, rather than
Scripture - to define Christian salvation.

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

_________________ I want to believe

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 He recognizes saving
faith. Only individual trust and recognition of His finished work may claim "the free, gracious
gift of forgiveness and imputed righteousness” for justification before God. 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 following citation 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,

_________________ I want to believe

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

_________________ I want to believe

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

_________________ I want to believe

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.

_________________ I want to believe

 (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

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 OT prophet who wrote these 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).

Strictly laying aside the argument of the "type" of substitution, one type produces a parolee
gospel and salvation based on moral achievement for everlasting life, and, the other, an
assured salvation in the free gift of complete forgiveness and eternal life from the moment
of saving grace. 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. Dr. Miley has posited an argumentum ad exemplum for Christian
salvation.

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 only 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
satisfaction provided by the substitutionary sacrificial death of Christ - whom He Himself
gave for the salvation of man.

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 historical sacrifice of Christ. The

_________________ I want to believe

Governmental theory asserts that one is benevolently forgiven after accepting Christ.
These two types of forgiveness are completely irreconciable. And, again, each one produces
a different type of salvation.

Two incompatible substitutions, two time sequences for when forgiveness is accomplished,
and two different salvations, and two different criterias for final salvation - one personal
achievement and the other based completely on the achievemnet of Christ. Dr. Miley’s
Arminian theory of atonement lacks the ability for Christ 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 presupposition 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”

_________________ I want to believe

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.

True forgiveness and the receiving of grace for salvation is accomplished through belief in a
righteous, sinless Christ who bore our substitutionary judgment. The righteous wrath of
judgment put upon Christ made the “cleansing” of reconciliation possible. The gospel and
the message of 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. The gospel preached by the Apostle
Paul is stated in such a way that one may take it or leave it. Which is a forgiveness for our
belief that we could never merit our own forgiveness and righteousness. This is not a call to
a green-eyed, envious penitence that would compete with a Great Example to receive a
completed, future, moral achievement for forgiveness and salvation.

This type of forgiveness would deny immediate divine transformation, to substitute future
behavior with divine forgiveness in reformation as 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,” Grk. 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 recognizing the reality of a just payment in penalty paid 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).

_________________ I want to believe

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 as cited here.
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-forgiven-saved are
all synonyms accomplished in one complete and divine moment. of salvation. These words
are not to be understood as 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 proved
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 merely a 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. B. B. Warfield:

The Grotian theory has come to be the orthodox Arminian view - the theory,
that is, that conceives the work of Christ not as supplying the ground on which God
forgives sin, but only as supplying the ground on which He may safely forgive sins on
the sole ground of His compassion - and is taught as such by the leading exponents of
modern Arminian thought whether in Britain or America; and he who will read the
powerful argumentation to that effect by the late Dr. John Miley, say for example,
will be compelled to agree that it is, indeed, the highest form of atonement doctrine
conformable to the Arminian System.

… In a word, wherever men have been unwilling to drop all semblance of an

“objective” atonement, as the word now goes, they have taken refuge in this half-way

_________________ I want to believe

 house that Grotius has builded for them. I do not myself look upon this as a
particularly healthful sign of the times. I do not myself think that, at bottom, there is
in principle much to choose between the Grotian and the so-called “subjective”
theories [non-Biblical personally conceived schemes, this writer]. It seems to me only
an illusion to suppose that it preserves an “objective” atonement at all. But meanwhile
it is adopted by many because they deem it “objective,” and it so far bears witness to
a remnant desire to preserve an “objective” atonement.

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.”

_________________ I want to believe

 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.

For a professing Christian belief system the Arminian concept of atonement,

like the Greek word harmatia, 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. Arminian human-
styled forgiveness falls far short of the biblical measures taken by God to secure the
salvation of men.

In closing, 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)

My regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

"The Theory of Achievement and the X-istence Files: Why The Loss Of Salvation Is A Non-Christian
Theory" by David Coulon is copyrighted and released under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at
www.koinoniaofgrace.com.

_________________ I want to believe

_________________ I want to believe