Anthology

The Gonzo Journalism of Grace, True

Spirituality, and Saving Grace

gonzodave

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

 The Scales of Justice

gonzodave

GOD'S VIEW OF RELIGION

Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an

empty, deceitful philosophy [theology] that is according to
human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and
not according to Christ. 1 For if Abraham was declared
righteous by the works of the law, he has something to boast
about but not before God. For what does the scripture say?
"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness." Now to the one who works, his pay is not
credited due to grace but due to obligation. But to the one
who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the
ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness. 2

THE SCALES OF JUSTICE

A recent poll indicates that a majority of churched Americans hold the belief that heaven is a reward for
good deeds. Personal sins and meritorious acts will be weighed on a set of scales by the God of the Bible
Himself. This reckoning is considered a determination of one's final destiny. In Western culture this fits the
very icon of justice - and blind faith.

I consider the day to day reality of this kind of belief to be a martyrdom. A

martyrdom of doubt, or sacrificing for a cause which denies the
certain knowledge that you and, those you love, will be together in
heaven. On the other hand, a Muslim with a better grasp of his
sacred text in Sirah 9:111, has a sure way to heaven. He has a
guarantee of salvation when he suicides for Islam. The effect of
which he hopes to make heaven his day to day reality. These two
views of religion and God maintain widely differing ideas of the
eternal state and what is expedient, I admit, but a parallel means of
obtaining a heavenly end may be noted - that of what man may do
for God. This is the fatal syncretism of religious-humanism - saved
by faith - yet, sanctified by the flesh. The classic antithesis of
monergism versus synergism. 3

To illustrate, further similarities exist between the Muslim who follows radical Islam and the American who

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

follows populist Christianity. The soon-to-be-gone Muslim, true to his teaching, earnestly believes God's
reward is carnal pleasure now in exchange for his jihad (a struggle by heart, tongue, hand, or sword to
please God and lead a virtuous life. 4). As he is taught, the American, who has only a hope and no
assurance of heaven, sincerely believes God will reward him with a measure of health, wealth, and
happiness now in exchange for his jihad.

The religious American and the devout Muslim share

much in common. Both focus on the here and now.
Also, under the threat of expulsion, radical Islam and
popular Christianity have expositors who put upon the
supplicants a pay-as-you-go duty to give them God's
money, as the tithe or zakat. Each religion reveres and
maintains the bones of the same dead patriarchs.
Mutually, they are a stipulated assortment of
communal postures, prayers and ordinances to gain
the favor of God. The followers of each believe that the
question of heaven is answered by death. At which
time a just God is obligated to give them what they
deserve. They share in the belief that heaven is a
reward.

GOD SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS! From those who pronounce God
as a four syllable word; religious garb and rings that need to be
kissed; from those who pronounce sin in a high nasal pitch; from
those who film themselves screaming your praise and wiping their
mouths and foreheads with the same cloth; from greed and the
prosperity gospel; from those who film themselves healing in huge
sports arenas not hospitals; from killer martyrs and their bombs;
from those who film themselves separating the head from the body
of an innocent kidnapped victim; from those who pride themselves
as your 144,000; and those who accumulate vast records of birth
and death in order to conscript and baptize the dead into a non-
Christian heaven.

But first and foremost, save the lost from those who, through
ignorance or by design, insult Your Son and Your untold grace by
following a false hope in religious humanism to teach SALVATION
BY CHRIST IS IN CONTINUED FAITH. Only because Your justice
was completely satisfied in the blood of Your Son, Jesus Christ, may
we believe the Good News that SALVATION IN CHRIST IS FOR
FAITH to release us from the law of sin and death.

1 Col 2:8 NET (brackets mine, this writer) NET

2 Rom 4:2-5 (verse omission mine) NET
3 http://www.monergism.com/what_is_monergism.php
4 Microsoft Encarta 2006

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

 She That Is Spiritual

gonzodave

Mtw 11:6 And blessed is he who takes no offense at Me and finds no cause for
stumbling in or through Me and is not hindered from seeing the Truth. AMP

Lk 21:14-15 Therefore be resolved not to rehearse ahead of time how to make your
defense. For I (Myself) will give the words (a mouth) along with the wisdom that
none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. NET

Eph 6:16 Pray for me also, that I may be given the message when I begin to speak -
that I may confidently make known the mystery of the gospel (good news). NET

"Of indwelling sin, Owen wrote: ‘its nature and formal design is to oppose God; God
as a lawgiver, God as holy, God as the author of the gospel, a way of salvation by grace
and not by works, are the direct object of the law of sin.’16 Ungodliness,
unrighteousness, unbelief and heresy are its natural forms of self-expression. It
pervades and pollutes the whole man: ‘it adheres as a depraved principle unto our
minds, in darkness and vanity; unto our affections in sensuality; unto our wills, in a
loathing of, and aversion from, that which is good; and ... continually putting itself
upon us, in inclinations, motions, or suggestions, to evil.’17 And, as we shall see, it
resists the whole work of grace, from first to last: ‘when Christ comes with his
spiritual power upon the soul to conquer it to himself, he hath no quiet landing place.
He can set foot on no ground but what he must fight for.’18"

The Spirituality of John Owen, J. I. Packer

Dear Reader,

What is the informed sharing of God's graceful salvation? I'll attempt a statement. Knowing beforehand,
that no condensed iteration will encompass all of the vast understandings that are contained in God's
grace.

Christianity is the living imputation and monergism (not a partnership with God, but the permanent
indwelling power of the Holy Spirit given to regenerate men accomplishes God's work on earth). God's

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

work is accomplished through and in Christ by His resurrection, not a synergism (partnership) and
example of Christ in His redemptive death. His death was the past work of Christ, the foundation, not to
be repeated, for the present work of the gospel of God's saving grace. The Greek "anothen," in John 3
means both born-again and from-above. This birth is from death to life.

The Apostle Paul was given this gospel of grace as

the first of two revelations. The second being the
mystery of the Body of Christ for the power of daily
living in faith - after salvation and regeneration.
Justification by faith is the core doctrine of the
gospel of grace for salvation that brings one into the
covenant of grace. Whereas, sanctification that
leads to an end purpose of communion (koinonia =
mutual giving and receiving; yet God the Father
remains the giver of the divine gift of joy in
communion) with God the Father, the Son and Holy
Spirit is the core teaching of the covenant of grace.
"The chief aim of man is to glorify God and to enjoy
Him."

Many have taught and died sharing God's saving

grace in the first revelation of the gospel - the Cross
with Christ as the redeeming gift who revealed the
Father's love. The second was not rediscovered by
Luther. Calvin and the Puritans, who later followed
him and ignited the 20 year English Civil War under Cromwell, were the standard bearers of the covenant
of grace. The Spirit is executor of the grace that flows through Christ. The Apostle Paul termed both his
"my gospel" of salvation and the gospel of the covenant of grace in the Body of Christ (the Church of
regenerated believers) as "the gospel of God's saving grace."

The Cross and the Spirit. The world died, the raven left; but the dove returned to Noah with a living
branch. New beginnings began on Resurrection Sunday. The covenant of grace has been in full effect
since Pentecost.

In summary, the sovereignty of God in all things, combined with man's free choice in a saving belief that
God's Promise is true - when recognized by God in a single moment - guarantees an assured salvation.
And, from that moment forward, the power of the Spirit of Christ guarantees future transformation, good
works, and the spiritual joy of communion (1 John 3:23). The Cross gives merit to the sinner through
Christ in which the Spirit has righteous ground to transform the sinning believer into the image of the Son
of God by the works of grace. This is the purpose of salvation by the graceful works of God.

And finally - keep forever in mind - salvation from the penalty of sin was accomplished first by Christ for
"whomsoever" shall believe that He died for them. Secondly, salvation is accomplished from the power of
sin by the willing saint's reliance on the power of the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. And
lastly, the saint's salvation from the possession of sin will be finally accomplished in his bodily death and
the death of the old sin nature that comes with natural birth. Death to life everlasting and release from the
power of the world organized by Satan, the flesh with its inborn sin nature, and the devil himself (John
16:7-11).

Why then would God's Truth in His grace not be one among many counterfeits? What is the
distinguishing mark? A consensus of opinion? Scripture tells us no man needs another to teach him
God's Truth. Without the inner witness of the Holy Spirit for confirmation Truth may not be discerned. For
this reason, many unregenerate professing Christians are rationally convinced of a truth. A truth they do

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

not personally possess. Read about the life and works of John Owen for a life that exemplified "he that is
spiritual."

"Again, Owen knew the power of his gospel. Preachers, he held,

must have ‘experience of the power of the truth which they
preach in and upon their own souls. . . . man preacheth that
sermon only well unto others which preacheth itself in his own
soul.’6 Therefore he made this rule: "I hold myself bound in
conscience and in honour, not even to imagine that I have
attained a proper knowledge of any one article of truth, much
less to publish it, unless through the Holy Spirit I have had such
a taste of it, in its spiritual sense, that I may be able, from the
heart, to say with the psalmist, ‘I have believed, and therefore
have I spoken.

... Affection may be the helm of the ship, but the mind must steer; and the chart to
steer by is God’s revealed truth. Consequently, it is the preacher’s first task to teach
his flock the doctrines of the Bible, eschewing emotionalism (the attempt to play
directly on the affections) and addressing himself constantly to the mind. Owen
habitually spoke of himself as a teacher, and conducted his own ministry on these
principles, as his published sermons and practical treaties show.

... Fourth, the Christian is a regenerate man, a new creature in Christ. A new
principle of life, and habit of obedience, has been implanted in him. This is the
prophesied ‘circumcision of the heart’. ‘Whereas the blindness, obstinacy, and
stubbornness in sin, that is in us by nature, with the prejudices which possess our
minds and affections, hinder us from conversion unto God, by this circumcision they
are taken away’, 21 and man’s first act of true, saving faith in Jesus Christ, his
conscious ‘conversion’, is its immediate result. This act, though directly caused by the
Spirit’s regenerative operation in the depths of his being, is perfectly free (i.e.,
deliberate): ‘in order of nature, the acting of grace in the will in our conversion is
antecedent unto its own acting; though in the same instant of time wherein the will is
moved, it moves; and when it is acted, it acts itself, and preserves its own liberty in its
exercise.’" (Pp 3, 5, 6)

Below is a short biographical work on John Owen, whom Charles Spurgeon named the prince of divines,
written by the well-known J. I. Packer. You can click on the top far-right button for a full screen window.
The iPaper button at the top-left of the embedded screen allows you to select a view in the 'book mode.'
Additionally, you can email-print-download by selecting the iPaper button.

Link to the iPaper document - The Spirituality of John Owen, by J. I. Packer (28 pages)

My regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

Credits:
_____________

For further reading: He That Is Spiritual - A Classic Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Spirituality, by Lewis
Sperry Chafer, D. D., LITT. D. Former President of Dallas Theological Seminary. Former Professor of
Systematic Theology. Former Editor of Bibliotheca Sacra. Copyright 1918. Revised edition copyright 1967
by Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-22341-5
______________

Photo used in title image: Copyright 2007-2008~neonka

http://neonka.deviantart.com/art/eye-2-60420711
______________

Photo used to depict Cross and Spirit:

http://saviourmachine.deviantart.com/art/The-cross-of-Christ-85070495
_____________

Photo used as accent in quotation block: angel 'la celeste by ~frame2fame on deviantART
http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs19/300W/i/2007/304/4/7/angel___la_celeste_by_frame2fame.jpg
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works
3.0 License.

____________ The Gonzo Journalism 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 Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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

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.

Protestant Religious Humanism

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 Chafer, Vol 3, p 146-47)

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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

This writer:

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,
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

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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 Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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 dictatorships. 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”".

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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.

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

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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. 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 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

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

 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.

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.

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

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. 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

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

 "A Practical View Of Prevailing Religious
Systems Of Professed Christianity, in the
higher and middle classes, Contrasted With
Real Christianity"

by Wm Wilberforce

gonzodave

Dear Reader,

Below is a link that I have arranged for downloads (about 1MB in PDF) to:

"William Wilberforce's classic early 19th Century bestseller, now in the public domain (but hard to
find), about living the authentic Christian Life as opposed to the sterile and hypocritical
"Christianity" as practiced by many in his day, and in our own. Formal but lively, entertaining, and
very practical prose from the great leader of the English anti-slavery movement." -
(BrianMChampion @ scibd.com)

I have no warrant to relieve "short attention spans." I cannot stress how vital this understanding is for the
Christian. Cultural Christianity is no Christianity at all. My work is permeated by this single-minded
devotion in my printed missionary efforts. This work of antiquity, when properly framed, is as up-to-date
as one could wish. The source remains one powerfully Spirit gifted Christian who expounds the ancient
Truth of God's immeasurable gift to men - His Son and the manifold and multi-faceted works of His grace
that flows from His gift. True Christianity takes your mind off yourself to focus and rest on Him.

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________

Should anyone have a thought to share I would deeply appreciate an email or a comment. In my
experience, encouragement from another Christian writer is the rare exception, not the rule. Then again, I
do not champion a parroted Christianity. One must own every spiritual understanding they possess and
know that it only comes through the will of Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Christianity - Popular thought vs real Christianity - by Wm Wilberforce

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.

____________ The Gonzo Journalism of Grace ____________