This Jesus, delivered up according to ithe definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:23–24).

In our discussion about Calvinism and Arminianism perhaps one of the critical verses is Acts 2:23-24. In it we see both man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty displayed. I thought I would share a couple of quotes from others on that verse:

Chrysostom:

“For though it was predetermined, still they were murderers.”

-Chrysostom in Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. XI (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 38.

Gangel:

Frequently the New Testament links predestination and free will, the two elements of a divine paradox. God handed over Jesus for crucifixion, but wicked men put him to death. So often people ask, “Does God choose us for salvation, or do we choose to believe the gospel?” Human reason searches for philosophical solutions, but the only biblical answer is a simple yes. Somehow in God’s eternal plan these two seemingly parallel roads come together.

-Kenneth O. Gangel, vol. 5, Acts, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 28.

Matthew Henry:

Neither God’s designing it from eternity, nor his bringing good out of it to eternity, would in the least excuse their sin; for it was their voluntary act and deed, from a principle morally evil.

-Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible : Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), Ac 2:14–36.

Polhill:

Peter carefully balanced the elements of God’s divine purposes and the human responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus.111 In the paradox of divine sovereignty and human freedom, Jesus died as the result of deliberate human decision made in the exercise of their God-given freedom of choice. The Jewish crowd at Pentecost could not avoid their responsibility in Jesus’ death. Nonetheless, in the mystery of the divine will, God was working in these events of willful human rebellion to bring about his eternal purposes, bringing out of the tragedy of the cross the triumph of the resurrection. The Jews were not alone in their responsibility for Jesus’ death, however. They worked through the agency of “lawless men” (“wicked,” NIV), a term used by Jews to designate Gentiles. Jesus died on a Roman cross;112 Gentiles too shared the guilt. Peter carefully balanced all the participants in the drama of Jesus’ death—the guilt of Jew and Gentile alike, the triumphal sovereignty of God.

-John B. Polhill, vol. 26, Acts, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 112.

Wayne Grudem:

The fact that we are responsible for our actions means that we should never begin to think, “God made me do evil, and therefore I am not responsible for it.” Significantly, Adam began to make excuses for the very first sin in terms that sounded suspiciously like this: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (Gen. 3:12). Unlike Adam, Scripture never blames God for sin. If we ever begin to think that God is to blame for sin, we have thought wrongly about God’s providence, for it is always the creature, not God who is to be blamed. Now we may object that it is not right for God to hold us responsible if he has in fact ordained all things that happen, but Paul corrects us: “You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, a man, to answer back to God?” (Rom. 9:19–20). We must realize and settle in our hearts that it is right for God to rebuke and discipline and punish evil. And, when we are responsible to do so, it is right for us to rebuke and discipline evil in our families, in the church, and even, in some ways, in the society around us. We should never say about an evil event, “God willed it and therefore it is good,” because we must recognize that some things that God’s will of decree has planned are not in themselves good, and should not receive our approval, just as they do not receive God’s approval.

-Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 333-34.

As I have now finished sharing the video from my interviews with Wayne, I thought it would be appropriate to share the following video which was shown at New Word Alive while he was there. And to think Dave Bish was responsible for these people!

This video might surprise some of my readers. Wayne is well known as a reformed theologian. Arguably he and Piper have between them, with some help from Keller and Carson, led to this resurgence of “Young Restless and Reformed” that so many people talk about. So when a man like that argues that God has not stopped speaking since completing the Bible, it is worth listening to what he has to say. Wayne is theologically charismatic (believing that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today) and argues that prophecy is still available today, representing what God is saying to individual Christians rather than the whole world:

Wayne Grudem on whether God’s revelation has really stopped or not from Adrian Warnock on Vimeo. ]]> http://adrianwarnock.com/2010/05/wayne-grudem-on-whether-gods-revelation-has-really-stopped/feed/ 0 http://adrianwarnock.com/2010/05/wayne-grudem-on-persuasion-and-insisting-on-peoples-right-to-disagree/ http://adrianwarnock.com/2010/05/wayne-grudem-on-persuasion-and-insisting-on-peoples-right-to-disagree/#comments Thu, 13 May 2010 17:16:20 +0000 hostmaster http://adrianwarnock.com/?p=8700

This video is worth watching just to see Grudem explaining the following statement: “We have to insist on the right of others to disagree with us and protect that right.” We would do well to meditate carefully on this short clip, as we think about how we should disagree both with other Christians and unbelievers. It perhaps has particular relevance to the arguments that sometimes happen with those of other persuasions in our culture over politics, religious, and other beliefs:

watch on vimeo

This interview focused on one question: How do you manage to write books that are over a thousand pages long? The answer was essentially the same way you read them: One page at a time! We also spoke about the ESV Study Bible that he edited. He argued that no single human being in a lifetime could have produced that book, since it contained specialty knowledge from 95 authors distilled down, in some cases from a lifetime of study.

Wayne Grudem on surviving as an author from Adrian Warnock on Vimeo.

This second installment of my interview with Wayne was quite far reaching. We spoke about the atonement and how he decides what kind of people to have fellowship with. He even had a comment on the recent controversy over Rick Warren and John Piper.

Watch on Vimeo

How important do you think some of the recent realignments over doctrinal matters we have seen recently in the Church are?

It’s why I am here. It was to affirm the need for drawing boundaries on doctrinal matters that I came here to this conference. In particular, the importance of affirming penal substitutionary atonement (i.e. that Jesus was punished for our sin). That is just central to the whole of the gospel. Once that is denied, other things start to unravel. It was with a desire to encourage the people who organize New Word Alive that I came here.

We must trust in Jesus as our Saviour. Sometimes the faith in peoples hearts is better than the doctrine in their minds. With the preaching of the full gospel, people ought to believe that Jesus is both God and man that he died to receive the full penalty for our sins, and that he rose from the dead and that we trust in him for salvation. Every doctrine is related to everything else. It therefore requires mature wisdom to decide whether to endorse someone who believes something you do. So for example, on the issue of baptism, Christians have agreed to disagree on the basis that it has limited effects on the rest of our understanding of the Bible.

How do you decide what kind of people to have fellowship with?

Well it depends on what purpose. I have next door neighbours who are Muslims and we are friends with them. It doesn’t mean that I endorse what they believe. I have worked on political and legal issues with Catholics as well as having a Roman Catholic woman as a participant in a neighbourhood Bible study. On the level of church membership, however, there has to be some willingness to submit to and support the doctrinal teachings and leadership of that church. Then at the level of teaching responsibility in the church, there are more requirements, and that the level of eldership there are even more. The higher one goes on the overall influence on the direction of the church, the more careful one must be to admit someone to that role.

Over the course of this week, I will be sharing a five-part interview with Wayne Grudem. I hope you will enjoy this relaxed conversation we filmed at New Word Alive. I have already shared one part of this in our interview about Politics.

After the video there is a summary of a few of the questions we address in today’s interview:

Watch on Vimeo

Your book Systematic Theology has been summarized twice, from over 1000 pages to 500 then 100. If you had to summarize it in just a few sentences what would you say

Believe the Bible. Believe it. Obey it. Love it. And through it come to love God, trust him and obey him.

Why do you think that the Bible does not look a bit more like a Systematic Theology?

Because it is historical. It tells the story of God’s dealing with man from creation till the end times. But for learning about what the Bible says it is useful to organize the material into certain topics, asking the question “What does the Bible say to us about God, about salvation, etc?”

Would you agree that there are bits of the Bible that are harder to understand than others and therefore we should be more understanding of those who differ with us about certain doctrines than others.
Some things in Scripture are more difficult to understand than others. Young children can learn from the Bible, but scholars can learn from the same passage in more detail.

There are some topics that are very clearly described in the Bible repeatedly, such as for example the deity of Christ. On the other hands ome things are much more difficult for us to understand in detail and gain consensus on. There are some things the Bible teaches that conflict more with our natural understanding of how the world works. For example the doctrine of predestination is not something we would think of on our own. So people progressively comet o accept and believe such doctrines as they read scripture more.

This is an extract of a video interview, the rest of which will be shared on the blog later on.  In light of our current election campaign, I thought it would be especially relevant for British readers to watch this right now. Wayne does not specifically address the UK’s political choice, but rather we speak about errors Christians make with regards to politics.  I believe it is vital that Christians are more engaged in politics here in Britain.  This is a crucial election with regards to our continued religious freedom among other things.  Tomorrow I will be speaking more about my own views of the choice facing the UK electorate.

As the video begins, we were just finishing talking about the ESV Study Bible, a massive project that Grudem has edited. I ask him, what he has been doing since that was completed:

Watch on Vimeo (works on an iPhone, iPad, etc.).

There is no more foundational subject than the doctrine of Scripture.  All the current theological arguments that are causing such disruption in the Church today stem from a lack of confidence in the authority of Scripture. There is no systematic teacher of God’s word who I would rather hear on the subject of why we can trust the Bible. To see a marquee rammed full of people of all ages gathering to listen to Wayne Grudem as he endeavored to increase our confidence in God’s Word was wonderful.

I will not be attempting to blog these talks on the Bible as the content is obviously available in his Systematic Theology.  Wayne was engaging, and there was a strong sense of an encounter with God as he spoke.  I would definitely include Grudem in a list of preachers that any Christian would do well to try and listen to live during their life.  As much as I value book reading and watching or listening to sermons online, there is a spiritual anointing on some preachers that leads to a sense of being in God’s presence that does not fully translate to a non-live experience.  God takes his word and applies it in our hearts as we listen.  I have previously read Grudem on this subject, but listening to him definitely accomplished the purpose of affecting my heart in a positive way. I know this can sound very subjective, but it is this mysterious transaction between hearer and God himself that makes actually attending an event like this, rather than just buying the CD’s, so worthwhile.

I do hope that almost all of my regular readers will have already bought Grudem’s Systematic Theology, but I am sure many of them have not yet read it.  I would encourage you to do so. I was privileged to interview Wayne, and the video will be shared on the site soon, and asked him how do you manage to write a book that size.  His reply was simple and applies just as much to reading it: “One page at a time”.  If you can manage just three pages a day you will have read this in just over a year.  Why not take it down form your shelf, or pick it up from being a doorstep and allow the man who I believe is the foremost popular systematic theologian of his generation teach you what God’s word says about certain subjects.

This is a classic quote from Grudem about why he prefers essentially literal translations (sometimes called word-for-word)  over the so-called dynamic equivalent (sometimes called idea for idea) For more about Bible translation see my interview with the ESV Bible translators:

“I cannot teach theology or ethics from a dynamic equivalent Bible. I tried the NIV for one semester, and I gave it up after a few weeks. Time and again I would try to use a verse to make a point and find that the specific detail I was looking for, a detail of wording that I knew was there in the original Hebrew or Greek, was missing from the verse in the NIV.

“Nor can I preach from a dynamic equivalent translation. I would end up explaining in verse after verse that the words on the page are not really what the Bible says, and the whole experience would be confusing and would lead people to distrust the Bible in English . . .

“Nor would I want to memorize passages from a dynamic equivalent translation. I would be fixing in my brain verses that were partly God’s words and partly some added ideas, and I would be leaving out of my brain some words that belonged to those verses as God inspired them but were simply missing from the dynamic equivalent translation.

“But I could readily use any essentially literal translation to teach, study, preach from, and memorize.”

~ Wayne Grudem via Wayne Grudem’s Thoughts on Bible Translation « Kowalker.com.

Wendy Virgo from Adrian Warnock on Vimeo.

Wendy is married to Terry Virgo, the leader of Newfrontiers. We spoke about what it’s like traveling with Terry to hear him speaking about grace many times, about conferences, her impression of New Word Alive, about the Brighton Newfrontiers Conference, about Mark Driscoll and Wayne Grudem, and about her new book, “Influential Women.” I wrote a summary of the interview for the on site paper which Terry has posted on his blog.

My buddy Mike shared this video of his new ESV Study Bible. Enjoy.

You can purchase an ESV Study Bible online.

The 8th post popular post on my blog at the moment is the summary of my interview with Wayne Grudem.

At number 7 is my post defining “What is a Reformed Charismatic?” Don’t miss two closely related posts — “Wanted – 1000 Reformed Charismatic Churches” and “I Don’t Want Balance, I Want It All.”

The 22nd most popular post is a summary post reporting on a debate over baptism and church membership between some of the “big guns” in theology, carried out online. When you realize both John Piper and Wayne Grudem have changed their positions on something, it’s certainly worth a listen.

The 21st most popular post is a link to the most popular blond joke in the world. Make sure you follow this one and find that joke—you won’t be disappointed!!

In connection with a post I wrote last week entitled—Has Wayne Grudem Been the Victim of Internet Pirates?—I can now confirm that the website offering a free electronic copy of his Systematic Theology is indeed theft.

Many bloggers were taken in by this scam. Although I was always suspicious of the site because of its numbers-only URL, I can see how easily bloggers could have innocently passed along such a link. Most have already removed their links. If you are a blogger and have yet to take it down, please do so now. I attach a public announcement from the publisher of the Logos electronic version of Grudem’s epic work:

“Stolen Property”

It has recently come to the attention of Wayne Grudem and myself that an illegal copy of his “Systematic Theology” has been posted on the Internet and that word of this, along with links to the site where the illegal copy is posted, has found its way to many Christian blog sites. I am working with Dr. Grudem to contact all sites that have links to this illegal copy of his book to ask them to remove the links immediately.

Dr. Grudem and I jointly hold the copyright to all electronic versions of his “Systematic Theology.” My company, Bits & Bytes, Inc., is the publisher of the Libronix, PC Study Bible, Pradis, and Olive Tree versions of this book. Posting a complete copy of “Systematic Theology” online is intellectual property theft — a federal crime. Posting a link to the illegal copy or a link to a link is at the very least directing people to stolen goods.

On behalf of Dr. Grudem and myself, we respectfully request that all links to, and all links to links to, the illegal copy of “Systematic Theology” that is on the Internet be removed from all Christian blog sites.

Thank you for honoring this request.

Sincerely,
John Hughes, President

www.bitsbytescomputer.com
johnhughes@centurytel.net

A number of bloggers have been mentioning that Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is online for free. I felt it was a bit suspicious, however, because of the web address that was being shared—it contained only numbers, i.e. in this type of format—202.202.202.202. That is generally not a good sign in a web address. I have deliberately NOT linked to that new site for the following reason:

I have made some inquiries with IVP, the UK publisher, and their initial response is that they are a bit concerned by this development and are looking into it. It is still possible that the site is legitimate and that permission was obtained by someone else within IVP and/or from Zondervan, the USA publisher. This is looking increasingly unlikely, however.

I am sure the rights and wrongs of this will emerge clearly with a bit more time. In the meantime, Christian integrity, not to mention the law of copyright, would require anyone who has innocently visited the site to desist from doing so again, and other bloggers to remove their links which, again, I am sure were innocently posted. If someone who becomes aware of this message has indeed made this file available in such a way without the publisher’s permission, they ought to remove it immediately.

If you want an electronic copy of this resource, Logos Bible Software’s version can be purchased for just a few dollars and will work even without one of their core software packages.

Today I can finally reveal that No. 1 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on April 2, 2006, and was my interview with Mark Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington.

Thanks to my friends at Crossway, a free copy of Mark Driscoll’s new book, Vintage Jesus, will be winging its way to Vince, who e-mailed the correct answer, Hugh, who blogged it, Terry B, who guessed wrong, and Craig who deserves a prize for persistence.

Back in April 2006, I had only recently heard of Mark Driscoll. When we conducted this interview, he was already prompting quite a significant response online, and as the months progressed, he would become probably the most talked-about preacher on the Internet. Other recent and popular posts on my blog about Mark Driscoll include:

• Mark Driscoll, Terry Virgo, and Shepherding God’s People

• Driscoll on the Defeat of Shame and the Scotland MP3s
• Mark Driscoll Preaches On the Atonement in Edinburgh, Scotland
• Mark Driscoll at Menmakers in Scotland
• Mark Driscoll Apologizes for Not Being Humble
• Mark Driscoll Firm, But Kind, About Joel Osteen on Prosperity Teaching
• Mark Driscoll in Christianity Today

I have also listed ways of obtaining Mark Driscoll’s sermons online at “Audio Sermons: Mark Driscoll—The Charismatic With a Seat Belt.”

It is an absolute pleasure to welcome to my blog, Mark Driscoll. Mark is known for having a prominent role in the early days of the Emergent movement, and for his rapidly growing Mars Hill Church. More recently, via his new venture, Resurgence, he has made an explosive entry into the Christian blog-world, which some have likened to none other than The Pyromaniac himself. More posts about Mark Driscoll are linked at the end of this article. You can also visit my interview with Wendy Alsup, a deacon at Mark Driscoll’s church.

Adrian
So, Mark, tell us a bit about yourself and your ministry . . .

Mark
I was born in 1970 to a hard-working blue-collar construction worker dad. I was raised Irish Catholic, but did not know Jesus until God saved me while reading Romans in college at the age of 19. Shortly thereafter, God spoke to me, telling me to plant a church, train men, preach the Bible, and marry my girlfriend, who was a Christian I dearly loved. I married Grace at the age of 21, graduated with a degree in Speech at 22, moved back to my hometown of Seattle, and launched Mars Hill Church at the age of 25. Today I am the father of five children and remain one of the elders at Mars Hill Church.

Adrian
In my first post about you I said, “Mars Hill is one of those unique churches that is probably too emerging for some evangelicals to cope with, much too traditional for the emerging folks, too charismatic for the reformed folks, and too reformed for the average charismatic. It’s a wonder anyone likes the church! Actually, the more I read of Mark the more he sounds like he is making his home in the same kind of center ground that my own church tries to occupy.” Do you recognize that description of yourself—do you sometimes feel like something of a theological misfit?

Mark
I am a theological misfit and have learned to be okay with that. We are missional, which offends fundamentalists. We hold to the fundamentals, which offends the liberals. We are theologically charismatic, but not shake and bake holy rollers, which puts us in the middle of a big debate to be shot by both sides. We are reformed, but not old school, and don’t baptize babies, don’t hold to the regulative principle, and won’t die on the hill of Limited Atonement, but hold a more unlimited/limited position, which upsets both sides of the debate. In the end, I hold to a high view of inerrant Scripture and am trying to be biblical, even when it makes a mess of my systematics.

Adrian
What other groups or individuals can you look at and say, “Yeah, they seem to have got it—I can follow them”? Who would you say have been your main influences?

Mark
I learn a lot from John Piper, D. A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, and Tim Keller. The dead guys I like tend to be Puritans and early church fathers. I also am a huge Spurgeon fan, and read every biography I can get on him. I love biographies and learn from the lives of Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, Patrick, etc. . . .

Read more . . . Interview With Mark Driscoll

No. 4 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on August 21, 2007, and was one in a series of posts that catalogued a major debate about baptism and church membership which took place online between such theological heavyweights as John Piper, Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, Lig Duncan, and Mark Dever.

The posts listed below were all so popular they could have made the top 30 in their own right. It’s worth reading all of them:

• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate

• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism
• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper on Baptism
• John Piper Disagrees with Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously
• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord’s Supper
• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord’s Supper
• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem Versus Piper Baptism Debate
• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever Versus Piper Baptism Debate

The post begins as follows:

This whole baptism debate is shaping up to be very interesting indeed. It is surely the first time in living memory that those who I can only think to call the “big guns” have used the blogging medium to have a serious theological debate in front of the rest of us. While Lig Duncan and Justin Taylor have both helpfully shared a bit about what paedobaptists believe, this debate has rather been about whether our local churches must have clear stances on this issue.

Arguing for a more rigorous approach, we have seen Wayne Grudem (who also started the whole thing), Mark Dever, and his 9Marks buddy, Aaron Menikoff, while on the other side we have had comments from John Piper, Abraham Piper, John Bunyan, and now in this post, Sam Storms.

I and many others have very deliberately steered clear of joining in the debate because, for some reason, I’m finding it one that is very stimulating and interesting to observe from the touchline. It has been a model debate, and is a clear example of how we can disagree robustly on an issue while still loving and respecting each other. The following words from Sam Storms are no exception. Sam is a good friend, and has given me permission to republish the following complete article which appeared in his newsletter.

The rest of this post is taken in its entirety with permission from an e-mail from Sam Storms, who retains the copyright and is alone responsible for its content.

---

Reflections (46)

Piper, Grudem, Dever, et al. on Baptism, the Lord’s Table, and Church Membership

(Just how “Together for the Gospel” are we?)

A few days ago Justin Taylor alerted us to a slight change in Wayne Grudem’s view on baptism, to which John Piper then responded. Wayne then posted his response to John’s response, and one needed only to wait for the ripple effect. By the way, you can read these articles on Justin’s blog in the archive section (www.theologica.blogspot.com).

Recently (August 16, 2007), Mark Dever posted on this issue at the 9Marks blog (www.blog.9marks.org). My primary concern is less with the question of the relationship between baptism and church membership (as important as that is) and more with a related topic that emerges in the course of discussion.

Let me take you back to the Together for the Gospel conference that was held in late April, 2006. It was hosted by Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and C. J. Mahaney, who also invited three others to deliver plenary messages: John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur. Registration for next year’s conference is now open and I strongly urge you to attend. I will certainly be present.

After the conference was officially over, on Friday afternoon, there was a small gathering of some 75 people in one of the adjoining rooms at the Galt House Hotel. The purpose of this meeting was to address an issue that was raised last year by John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

To be brief, John has come to the conviction that the terms on which one enters the membership of the local church should be, generally speaking, as close as possible to the terms on which one enters the membership of the universal church. In other words, he grew increasingly unsettled by the fact that conscientious, born-again, Christ-loving, Bible-believing Christians who were only baptized as infants could not join his local church. It has been the policy of Bethlehem Baptist Church, a member of the Baptist General Conference, that in order to become a functioning member one must, among other things, be baptized as a believer. On this scenario, Ligon Duncan and R. C. Sproul, being Presbyterians, could attend but would not be permitted to join Bethlehem Baptist Church. . . .

Read more . . . Sam Storms’ e-mail

No. 5 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on November 21, 2004. I felt like a lonely figure back in 2004 with my strong criticism of Steve Chalke’s views on the atonement. I argued that his words were close to blasphemy at the time. John Piper would subsequently accuse Chalke directly of blaspheming, and Wayne Grudem would first agree, then modify his position to something similar to what I had said back in 2004.

Many questions remain unanswered about this whole controversy, and I remain open to Steve coming on the blog and explaining his current position more fully to us, or indeed to quoting any clarification comments he wants to make elsewhere. Sadly, to date he has declined my repeated invitations to speak further about this controversy.

Another closely related post that was also very popular was a post which explained how Brian McLaren had supported Steve Chalke.

UPDATE #1
Controversy over Steve Chalke and the atonement continues to rage, and according to reports, may have been involved in the recent split between Spring Harvest and Word Alive.

John Piper also responded directly to Steve Chalke as follows:

“One of the most infamous and tragic paragraphs written by a church leader in the last several years heaps scorn on one of the most precious truths of the atonement: Christ’s bearing our guilt and God’s wrath . . .

With one cynical stroke of the pen, the triumph of God’s love over God’s wrath in the death of his beloved Son is blasphemed, while other church leaders write glowing blurbs on the flaps of his book. But God is not mocked. His word stands firm and clear and merciful to those who will embrace it.”

ORIGINAL POST
It doesn’t happen often, but the EA has issued a statement critical of a well-known UK Christian leader. Steve Chalke was criticized in quite strong terms for his book, which apparently says that the “penal substitutionary” aspect of the atonement is a false teaching. This latest criticism comes following a public debate and an article by Steve Chalke available online, during both of which he reaffirmed his views. The EA statement says:

We trust that instead of dismissing penal substitution out of hand as a false teaching tantamount to “cosmic child abuse,” Steve will recognise its significant place in the range of atonement theories to which Evangelicals have characteristically subscribed. We also trust that he will interact more positively both with the theology which underpins it, and with that vast majority of Evangelicals across the world who continue to affirm it. It may be true, as Steve has claimed, that Evangelicals are often perceived to be harsh, censorious, and ungracious, and that this can hamper evangelism. However, we do not accept Steve’s assertion of a causal or necessary link between affirming penal substitution and being harsh, censorious, and ungracious.

For these reasons, we do not believe that penal substitutionary atonement can be rejected as it is rejected in “The Lost Message of Jesus,” and as Steve has persisted in rejecting it since. While affirming the many gifts which Steve has to offer, we urge him, as a much-loved brother in Christ, to reconsider both the substance and style of his recently expressed views on this matter.

So what was all the fuss about? Steve Chalk in his book says this:

The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful father, punishing his son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a construct stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love.” If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and refuse to repay evil with evil. The truth is the cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his son are prepared to go to prove that love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love.

Read more . . . Steve Chalke and the Lost Message of Jesus

No. 6 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on December 18, 2006, and was a summary of the highlights of my interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem, a man who is certainly a wonderful gift to the global Church! Other segments of this interview would have made the top 30 in their own right, as would my review of Dr. Grudem’s supreme Systematic Theology.

At times it looked like it would go on forever, but the Wayne Grudem interview is over. In this post I look back on the whole interview and its aftermath. If you haven’t got time to read through the whole thing, this will give you an overview and help you select the parts you may want to read in more detail. I will also share some personal reflections of the interview – some of which, of course, directly resulted in the sudden change to my comment policy

Part 1 – Personal Matters

If there is one thing that stands out from this whole interview, it’s the fact that egalitarians simply don’t understand what complementarians like Wayne Grudem are saying. The assumption made by some people seems at least to me to be that anyone who believes in a husband leading and taking responsibility for his wife is effectively a woman-hater. I hope that particular view is indeed rare, but we need to do everything we can to ensure that we are communicating across the divides caused in part by us using words differently.

This quote sums up the man, Dr. Grudem, in my mind, and reveals that – far from being the troublemaker some people think he is – this is a man of deep love and humility. Bizarrely to me given the way I understand the word, some poeple even held this quote up as an example of Dr. Grudem “submitting” to his wife. In reality, it is a great example of him taking the responsibility for a decision that would help his wife and simultaneously hurt his career. Perhaps if this was what every husband meant by leading his wife, the whole feminist issue would evaporate:

“We moved to Phoenix Seminary in Arizona in 2001, primarily because of Margaret’s health. She had been experiencing chronic pain after an auto accident a number of years earlier, and we found that the pain was aggravated by cold and humidity. Well, the Chicago area is cold in the winter and humid in the summer! After a couple of trips to Arizona, which is hot and dry, we realized that Margaret felt much better there. So I phoned the academic dean at Phoenix Seminary and asked if there might possibly be a job opportunity there for me. It is a long and wonderful story of the Lord’s guidance and provision, but the result is that we have been here since June of 2001, Margaret has felt much better, and I also love the seminary where I am now teaching. So we are thankful for God’s blessings in many ways. I am thankful to the Lord that when we were making a decision about whether to move to Phoenix, on the very day we were talking and praying about it, I came to Ephesians 5:28 in my regular schedule of daily Bible reading, and the Lord used this verse strongly in my own decision process: “In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” After reading that, I thought it was important for me to move for the sake of Margaret’s physical body, her physical health.

Part 2 – Systematic Theology and Controversy

Dr. Grudem’s answer to my question about his book, Systematic Theology, further demonstrated his humility, but in other ways was also quite revealing. A big difference between men like Grudem and certain other theologians is that he believes it is his task to make complex theological truths understandable by ordinary “lay” people without theological degrees – people like me. I cannot agree more, as quite frankly, if a theologian cannot write about his ideas and the evidence he bases them on in a way that a person of reasonable education can understand, then there is something very wrong. I thank God for men like Grudem who can do just that.

“I am surprised, and thankful to God for the way the book seems to continue to be a blessing to people – and not just to pastors and seminary students, but lots of other Christians from all walks of life. As you know, I believe that God intended His Word to be understood, not just by specialists, but also by ordinary Christians. The “blessed man” in Psalm 1 is held up as an example for all of us: “His delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” (Psalm 1:2)”

Read more . . . Dr. Wayne Grudem—Highlights and Reflections