GOAT & It’s Left-Handed Corollaries

 Our criticism of the Governmental Atonement Theory (hereafter GOAT) focuses primarily on the conclusion that God can deny himself in that view. Specifically, he could abstain from justice, which is an inherent part of his nature and person. (Presupposing Divine Command Theory, & it's voluntaristic errors.) This would be equally erroneous to conclude that he could cease to be everlasting from time to time. It is a contradiction to himself. (God is Just and cannot deny himself Job 8:3, 34:17, 40:8, Dt.32:4, Dan.9:14, Isa.45:19,21, 26:7, Jn.17:25, Psa.145:17, 11:7, 103:6, 33:4-5, 97:2, 48:10, 116:5, 119:137-8, 142, 172, Zep.3:5, Zec.8:8, 1 Jn.1:5, 2:29, Psa.5:5, Heb.1:9, 6:10, 2 Tim.4:8, Ezr.9:15) (Prior work on GOAT here & here.) 

GOAT is the idea that God can choose to pardon sinners without regard to inherent obligations to justice. However, pardons too frequently doled out would give the impression to those under his government (men & angels etc.) that either his law is too harsh, or that he doesn’t respect it, or that he is ‘soft on crime’. This would have an unravelling mutinous effect of sentient beings rebelling in anticipation of their inevitable future pardon. But if he rarely or never pardons then he looks mean and severe and this also will affect his creatures' view of him, also setting his government on the precipice of some disastrous rebellion. Either God appears cruel if he doesn’t freely pardon without punishment. Or he appears lax if he does freely pardon without punishment. To fix this perception and dispel the idea that he might not be Just or Righteous enough and to permit better governance he sends Christ to be killed by ungodly men as a token or symbolic gesture that he so loves the law that he would permit his only begotten Son to suffer physical death by. God is beholden to the perception of creatures rather than his own immutability. The cross then becomes a declaration that God so loves the law that he gave his only begotten Son over to death to prove that point to the universe. To men & angels this indicates that they should not take advantage of his gratuitous use of the pardon. And to sinners, if they accept this reality demonstrated in Jesus’ death (i.e. believe), they can be pardoned themselves. Jesus’ death is not a punishment for sin but a substitute for a real punishment. It is not justice it is a substitute instead of actual justice. It does not propitiate any past sins through God’s forbearance, but it is intended only to deter future disobedience.  

You could illustrate this idea of a ‘substitute for justice’ this way. ‘My argument for GOAT is not a logical argument; it is a substitute for a logical one. It serves to illustrate my high view of logic while not requiring the rigid meticulousness of an actual logical argument.’ In GOAT the cross is not itself a just act it is instead of or in place of justice. Obviously absurd, but let’s continue. (Rom.3:25-6, 1 Jn.1:9) 

Maybe you think it sounds cartoonish, or pretend theology but GOAT is usually presented in contrast to Calvinism & Universalism (given penal substitutionary atonement theory -PSA) as the more reasonable alternative. GOATs argue that if PSA is true then the problem of double jeopardy enters mandating that either Christ only died for the elect (the L in Calvinist TULIP) or everyone will ultimately be saved. Both of which are demonstrably false, ‘therefore... GOAT’. We’ve addressed the double jeopardy challenge (bottom here). That when situated within a Trinitarian framework the analogy falls short (as all analogies do, e.g. water & electricity). The legal obligation transfer now is involving the man Christ Jesus. (1 Tim.2:5, Rom.5:15, Ac.2:22) The infinite person of the Son in the days of his flesh in the economic Trinity must be factored in. The nature of the atonement is related to the persons of God not God and the sinner directly, thus will not map human legal categories precisely onto the divine. Regarding universalism, it would deny hell and eternal judgment, so it’s clearly wrong but outside our scope for now. 

Another supporting argument for GOAT is that Christ could not and did not suffer an eternal hell, which is the true penalty or full measure of justice for our sins. Therefore, he suffered far far less than justice requires (i.e. not PSA) but the cross is intended to function as the same governmental deterrent as the sinner going into hellfire itself. This is fallacious and assumes Christ was not fully God manifest in the flesh, which is antichrist (and we address here). Finite men take an infinity to experience the infinite justice of God. Christ the infinite person could experience it in a moment on the cross.  

They will also assert that guilt is a necessary component of penalty, and that since Jesus never felt guilt for sins (as he was sinless) he could not have met the legal requirements for a penal substitution. I see no reason to force this into the divine atonement economy. Using limited human analogies to the infinite work of God needs more humility. (Psa.131) Jesus took responsibility for our sin, and they were imputed to him (Isa.53:5-6,8,10-12, 2 Cor.5:19,21,1Pt.2:24, 3:18, Heb.9:28,1 Jn.3:5, Col.1:19-22). This is illustrated in the laying on of hands and discussed extensively here. 

 Additionally, they will charge that in PSA there is no forgiveness because the penalty is paid. Assuming that forgiveness with God requires that he disannul his own Just nature, begging the question and assuming God can deny Himself. GOAT demands justice and mercy to be seamlessly blended giving equal status to both resulting in a diminishing of their absoluteness. Instead of a subordinate role of mercy to justice, (as PSA) whereby justice cannot be diminished or disregarded. The picture of GOAT is a hermaphrodite. The picture of PSA is a marriage. 

 

Here we focus on the corollaries of GOAT proceeding that if its corollaries are false and they correctly follow from it, then GOAT is itself false. 

1. If Christ’s death is not an act of justice propitiating God’s retributive just wrath, but only a ‘symbol of justice’ then it was no more necessary for forgiveness than the blood of bulls and of goats. 

2. If God can pardon men without satisfying his just or righteous nature, then has no obligations to himself and can thus deny himself. Thus, he need not punish eternally in hell. Or he could accept 3^rd party substitutes for justice. Mercy could only be administered at the expense of justice. 

3. If GOAT is true, it follows that the unjust judge in Luke 18 (also Rev.6:10) could very well have said in response to her plea for justice, ‘I have chosen pardon for your offender, so there will be no justice here’. In fact, all pleas for vengeance themselves would be subject to rebuke. 

4. If Jesus only suffered a physical death, then he was afraid of men killing his body (Heb.5:7, Mt.26:38-9, Lk.22:42-4) in contrast to his own instruction. (Mt.10:28, Lk.12:4-5) 

5. If GOAT is true, then Jesus' death has no judicial application of past, present or future sins. It is only a deterrent for future sins. 

6. In GOAT view, God should appear cruel and harsh to the angels, for unto which of the angels said he at any time ‘You are pardoned for your rebellion’? 

7. GOAT speaks of God’s law as something independent of Himself. It depersonalizes the law almost as a created order and not the reflection of his immutable divine nature. (Jn.4:24, Rom.7:14, 8:4, 13:8,10, Gal.5:14, 1 Jn.4:7-5:3) 

8. But for the optics God could forgive all sins of men and angels and not enforce retribution or vengeance.  

I cannot see why this repugnant theology would not be a slander against God.