Today, we move on to speak about the atonement controversy and the state of the Church today.

There is no doubt that it has been a difficult time in the Evangelical movement on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years. There have been numerous arguments about what the definition of an Evangelical should be and how closely we can work together with people who disagree with us about a range of issues. In the UK, for example, these arguments erupted within the Spring Harvest/Word Alive partnership and have led to the formation of a new conference, New Word Alive, which appears headed for a second highly successful year in 2009.

In the USA, one attempt to define an Evangelical is a manifesto which has received some criticim from leaders such as Al Mohler. The UK's Evangelical Alliance has a definition on their website, and the outgoing leader, Joel Edwards, has recently set forth the Alliance's vision for the future in a book, Agenda for Change. Currently that organization holds together some 7,000 churches across the UK. Joel Edwards has steered the Alliance through some fierce controversy over the years, arguing strongly that the charismatic churches should be seen as part of the mainstream and has avoided a potential split in the organization over Steve Chalke.

There are, of course, many questions about the future direction of the Alliance, and Christians in the UK do need to pray for its Board as it considers who should take the place of the much respected Joel Edwards. I asked the EA for comments about how they plan to select a new General Secretary. Mike Talbot, Chair of the Evangelical Alliance board, said:

“A very clear vision has been set under Joel’s leadership, which focuses the Alliance’s work, and will continue to do so as the new General Director is appointed.

We recognize this is a crucial appointment and that many in the evangelical world have a keen interest in Joel’s successor.

The Evangelical Alliance board members responsible for the appointment have been prayerfully consulting with a wide range of member organizations as they seek to discern God’s will for the future, and their next step is to work on the job description before advertising the post.

The Alliance has a strong leadership team, who will work with the board to run the Alliance until the new General Director is appointed.”

UPDATE
The written transcript of this video is now available and can be accessed here.

At the recent New Word Alive conference I was able to record a four-part interview with John Piper. John rarely gives interviews of any form, so it was a real privilege, and one that I hope you will enjoy.

Dr. Piper asked that we begin with prayer. His humble request of God that, for the sake of others, he would help us in our conversation was no mere lifeless routine. Here is a man who oozes the presence of God even when you are with him in such conversational moments. I found it challenging and stimulating to spend a little bit of time with him at the conference.

I began by asking him what brought him to this conference in Wales. He spoke of his surprise at realizing he seemed to have a broad appeal in the UK. He is welcomed to speak at a wide range of conferences from different backgrounds. He said that he was both “contaminated by the charismatic” and “a seven-point Calvinist.”

He described how he felt drawn to help in the process of realignment that is going on in UK evangelicalism at the moment. He spoke about the previous differences with Spring Harvest, which together with his discussions with the authors of Pierced For Our Transgressions, had made him especially keen to help the organizers of New Word Alive.

John said he was keen to do what he could to draw exegetically serious Bible, gospel people together—whether charismatic or not.

This interview will be continued tomorrow.

This is the second part of a three-part interview I did with Bishop Wallace Benn at the New Word Alive conference last week. You can read part 1 here.

In this segment, the Bishop discusses his total commitment to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, and gives some reasons why PSA "is central to a proper understanding of the gospel."

Adrian
You just mentioned a high view of the cross. For those people who might not understand what all that means, would you mind unpacking that for a moment?

Wallace Benn
Those who founded Word Alive, and Word Alive through the years, and now New Word Alive, are totally committed to the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. That is, that Jesus died as our substitute and our sin-bearer—that you and I deserve to be on the cross.

One of the lovely things (I don’t know if you know this) in Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, he was asked whether he took any part in the film, having directed it. And he said, “Well, only one. It’s my hand that holds the nails that crucified Christ in the film.” That’s a profound and right insight—that he died, not just for the whole world, but he died for ME! And actually it was understanding that which was the means of my conversion.

So, not only did Jesus die as our sin-bearing substitute, but in so doing, he took the wrath of God against our sin. He actually took our place, and the righteous judgment of God against sin Jesus dealt with. Without that, you and I would be hopeless in a very literal sense—actually without any hope at all. So I have no sympathy whatsoever with people who want to water that down for entirely wrong reasons, in my opinion. I think that’s central to a proper understanding of the gospel.

Adrian
We certainly haven’t seen any watering down of that here, have we?

Wallace Benn
No, absolutely not!

Adrian
Speaker after speaker has been crystal clear.

Wallace Benn
I’m absolutely delighted to affirm it. It’s a great joy to me to see that done.

Adrian
Yes, I think that’s right. There is obviously a joining of hands of people who all feel the same way. It’s not a minority position at all, is it?

Wallace Benn
Not at all!

Adrian
When you have, for example, that list (I think your name is on it)—that list of people who affirmed that particular book, Pierced for Our Transgressions, it’s almost like a Who’s Who of Christianity. I know there were some people who didn’t affirm it, but the number of people who did, from all kinds of different backgrounds—you might say, "Surely those two groups aren’t even talking to each other!"— and yet they both would look up and say, “No, this is the gospel!”

Wallace Benn
It was a pleasure to be one of those whose name was associated with that magnificent book, truly. That’s great to see.

Adrian
Absolutely. And it’s not as though that’s the only book either, is it? There are a lot of books out there that say the same thing basically.

Wallace Benn
I’m an old student of J. I. Packer, who thirty years ago wrote a magnificent defense of the penal substitutionary idea of the atonement. That view of the cross is the classic evangelical view, and if we move away from it, we move away from the teaching of the Bible. We move away from the teaching of our forefathers in terms of an understanding of the gospel. There are many other things you can say about the cross—there isn’t only one thing you can say about the cross. But those of us who are here believe that penal substitution is the glue that holds all the other things together.

Adrian
That’s a lovely way of putting it actually, isn’t it?

Continued in part 3 . . .

Here are some interviews I recorded with people around the site here in North Wales to gauge the response to John Piper's sermon on suffering. I end the clip with some of my own thoughts this morning after having slept on it overnight.

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. 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. 11 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on April 23, 2007, and examined what is possibly the most controversial article Bishop Tom Wright has ever written. In it, I questioned his ability to criticize some who dismiss Penal Substitutionary Atonement while approving of Steve Chalke, stating his own support for a form of PSA, and decrying angrily the value of the book, Pierced For Our Transgressions. I posed a number of questions to Wright in private e-mails, and sadly, he declined my offer to allow him to clarify his position further on my blog.

There is clearly a theological storm brewing. Bishop Wright has entered the fray, and appears reluctant to stand firmly on one side or the other of the debate. He doesn't mention the disagreement between UCCF and Spring Harvest, but he doesn't have to since the issues are clearly the same. I am sure he did not read my post from last Friday on this subject, and the comments that have been flying around here about it — but his statements definitely are as apt to the discussion as if he had!

Wright begins an important article by explaining that he is disappointed with Jeffrey John, who he feels denies the biblical doctrine of the wrath of God. Wright is clear that:

“The biblical doctrine of God’s wrath is rooted in the doctrine of God as the good, wise and loving creator, who hates — yes, hates, and hates implacably — anything that spoils, defaces, distorts or damages his beautiful creation, and in particular anything that does that to his image-bearing creatures. If God does not hate racial prejudice, he is neither good nor loving. If God is not wrathful at child abuse, he is neither good nor loving. If God is not utterly determined to root out from his creation, in an act of proper wrath and judgment, the arrogance that allows people to exploit, bomb, bully, and enslave one another, he is neither loving, nor good, nor wise.”

So far so good, but Wright seems to want to put the blame for the Dean of St. Alban’s rejection of penal substitution firmly at the door of evangelicals who, he feels, have been teaching a caricature of the true biblical teaching. Speaking of what has occurred he says:

“This is what happens when people present over-simple stories with an angry God and a loving Jesus, with a God who demands blood and doesn’t much mind whose it is as long as it’s innocent.“ You’d have thought people would notice that this flies in the face of John’s and Paul’s deep-rooted theology of the love of the triune God: not ‘God was so angry with the world that he gave us his son’ but ‘God so loved the world that he gave us his son’. That’s why, when I sing that interesting recent song ‘In Christ alone my hope is found’, and we come to the line, ‘And on the cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied’, I believe it’s more deeply true to sing ‘the love of God was satisfied’. I commend that alteration to those who sing that song, which is in other respects one of the very few really solid recent additions to our repertoire. So we must readily acknowledge that, of course, there are caricatures of the biblical doctrine all around, within easy reach — just as there are of other doctrines, of course, such as that of God’s grace.”

So if both Jeffrey John and evangelicals have got it wrong, in his opinion, what does Wright feel is the correct understanding?

“. . . this, I think, is as clear as it gets in Paul — in Romans 8:3, where Paul says explicitly that God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus Christ? Paul does not say that God condemned Jesus; rather, that he condemned sin; but the place where sin was condemned was precisely in the flesh of Jesus, and of Jesus precisely as the Son sent from the Father. And this, we remind ourselves, is the heart of the reason why there is now ‘no condemnation’ for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1) . . .”

[Wright then introduces Romans 3 and states] “To put it somewhat crudely, the logic of the whole passage makes it look as though something has happened in the death of Jesus through which the wrath of God has been turned away. It is on this passage that Charles E. B. Cranfield, one of the greatest English commentators of the last generation, wrote a memorable sentence which shows already that the caricature Dr. John has offered was exactly that:

“We take it that what Paul’s statement that God purposed Christ as a propitiatory victim means is that God, because in His mercy He willed to forgive sinful men and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against His own very Self in the person of His Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved. (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 volumes, Edinburgh: T & T Clark; vol. 1, 1975, p. 217.)”

“. . . It isn’t that God happens to have a petulant thing about petty rules. He is the wise and loving creator who cannot abide his creation being despoiled. On the cross he drew the full force, not only of that despoiling, but of his own proper, judicial, punitive rejection of it, on to himself. That is what the New Testament says. That is what Jesus himself, I have argued elsewhere, believed what was going on.”

Wright seems to want to expound a somewhat subtle and nuanced view, the likes of which some people believe Packer and Stott themselves hold — where we are allowed to say that God punished sin in Jesus, but not that Jesus Himself was punished for sin. To me, at least, that kind of statement seems to be trying to have your cake and eat it. This is certainly what Wright seems to do when he then turns to discuss Pierced for Our Transgressions.

He begins in such a way that we are warned that his overall opinion is not positive: “I was all the more frustrated when I came upon a new book . . .” He then acknowledges:

“I can fully understand the frustration, within that tradition, at the way in which some recent writers from within the evangelical world have cast doubt, or worse, on penal substitution as a whole. There do seem to me to be some evangelicals who have done what Jeffrey John has done — rejected the doctrine because of the caricatures.”

Read more . . . N. T. Wright Attacks Both Sides of the Debate

No. 25 on the list of the all-time most popular posts with readers of this blog appeared on July 2, 2007, and summarized some of my series on the atonement. It also included links to a number of other posts on the subject. There were many other posts within this series—the most popular of which was entitled "J. I. Packer on the Atonement."

As we finally draw near to the conclusion of this long-running series on the atonement, it has struck me just how the lines are being drawn. On the one hand there are those of us who feel PSA is essential to the gospel. It’s not that we think it’s the only thing—or indeed that every gospel presentation must major on it. It’s just that we think it’s essential, and that gospel presentations can’t deny it.

Just yesterday I heard what, to me, was the best gospel message I’ve ever heard. In fact, it didn't major on an explanation of the exact mechanism of the atonement, but there was a line about the coming wrath of God and how that had to be taken away. I was reminded as I was listening that the gospel shouldn’t become merely a battleground for us to fight over. It should, instead, be something we hold precious. I can't encourage you enough to download and listen to Tope’s sermon on the prodigal son. Many Christians heard the impact of this message of God's love and forgiveness with a fresh insight. Several visitors made a response to the gospel. I loved what he said at the close of the sermon—“It may be free, but it wasn't cheap. It cost the life of his son.”

It seems impossible for those of us who love the gospel of the Savior suffering the punishment of our sins to simply agree to disagree with those on the other hand who claim it is “divine child abuse.” I suspect the divisions in the visible church over this issue will grow more prominent rather than less so. This is just one of several reasons that, as Andrew Cottingham spoke of today, makes ecumenicalism so difficult for some of us who really care.

Today the American magazine, Christianity Today, published an article about the recent UK controversies over the atonement online. They were kind enough to quote me in the article, acknowledging my role in breaking the Word Alive / Spring Harvest story.

9Marks has this month published a whole issue about defining the gospel. They were eager to point out that PSA is essential to it, and the controversy over PSA is mentioned in one of their editorials. Others (including myself) were asked to write 100-word contributions explaining the gospel. I would love to read such a brief outline by someone from the other side of this debate.

There has also recently been an article by D. A. Carson on Penal Substitutionary Atonement which, not surprisingly, comes down firmly on the side of the authors of PFOT and makes plain that PSA is at the heart of the gospel. . . .

Read more of . . . "PSA—Precious Gospel or Divine Child Abuse?"

May was not as controversial a month as I reported yesterday that April had been. I continued with the following posts on the atonement and the resurrection throughout May and also into June. In fact, there were a few posts on the atonement which spilled into July, and I have listed them here also. If that's not enough for you on this vital subject, remember to look at my April review which lists a lot more!

• John Stott on the Atonement—The Conclusion
• Terry Virgo On the Results of the Cross
• C. J. Mahaney on the Cross
• Tom Schreiner on the Atonement
• Spurgeon on the Atonement
• Wayne Grudem on the Atonement
• A Limited Atonement? Did Jesus Die For All?
• J. I. Packer on the Atonement
• The Atonement—A Quiz
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement—Precious Gospel or Divine Child Abuse?
• Brian McLaren Supports Steve Chalke About the Cross
• The Atonement and the Resurrection—It's All About Jesus
• The Atonement—Jesus' Death Is Not Repeated at Communion
• The Atonement—Don't Forget the Blood of Christ
• Are You Still A Sinner?
• Is the Cross a Legal Fiction? No, Because the Resurrection Changes Us
• The Atonement—Is Penal Substitution the Only Thing That Happened at the Cross?
• Christianity Magazine Reviews Pierced For Our Transgressions
• The Atonement—Is Jesus the Good Cop?
• The Atonement—What Does Imputation Mean?
• Jonathan Edwards on the Resurrection
• The Atonement—What Did Jesus Die From?
• The Atonement—2 Corinthians 5
• Atonement—Jesus Thought He Was Fulfilling Isaiah 53
• The Atonement—Isaiah 53
• Resurrection Sunday—The Commission of the Risen Christ
• Sam Storms Reviews Pierced For Our Transgressions
• Atonement—Who is Preaching Another Gospel?
• The Atonement—What Happened to Jesus on the Cross?
• Resurrection Empowered Life—The Deposit Guaranteeing Our Inheritance
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement Summarized in Romans 15
• The Atonement in Romans 12-14
• Resurrection Empowered Life—Dying to Live
• John Piper Friday—Christ's Obedient Life and Death Entwined
• The Atonement in Romans 9-11
• The Atonement in Romans 8
• Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Separating Over the Atonement
• Resurrection Empowered Life—Raised With Christ
• John Piper Friday—Romans and the Reason for the Atonement
• The Atonement—Romans 6-7 and Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• The Atonement—Romans 4-5 on Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• The Atonement—Romans 1-3 and Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Atonement—The Angry God of the Bible
• N. T. Wright on Paul and the Resurrection Empowered Life

May and June were also the months I began to introduce my readers to the leader of the family of churches of which I am a part. I did a multi-part inteview with Terry Virgo, shared two of his sermons, and introduced his blog in these posts:

• Terry Virgo Preaches on Ephesians 4
• Terry Virgo Preaches on Jesus' First Miracle
• Terry Virgo Starts a Blog
• Terry Virgo On Healings, Driscoll, and Theology
• Amazing Grace on a Wedding Day

I highlighted a post on a subject that would later in the year lead to the first full-scale blog debate between some of my heroes of the faith. It was slightly cheeky, and I suppose the possibility of a challenge by others was implicit in Mark Dever and Ancient Baptistries. I was also very provoked by a post I quoted from Gandalf's blog, Why Do We All Like Jesus?

I very much enjoyed talking with Liam Goligher, in a wide-ranging multi-part interview, as well as The Authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions.

I also put out a plea which remains out there for anyone with old messages from Downs Bible Week, C. J. Mahaney, and Others to contact me. In particular, I am interested in messages by my old mentor, Henry Tyler.

Also in May I was fascinated to come across a sound bite that has lived with me since—"We need to show the people we understand what it's like to be unbelievers."

Today I will continue my review of the last year's blogging which we began yesterday. April was a very interesting month for me on this blog. So much so that it deserves an entire post. It was a month which single-handedly seemed to dramatically raise my UK readership, and that rise persisted after the month ended. Since I have historically had so many US readers compared to British, sometimes this feels like an American blog to me. (OK, I'm sure it doesn't to my American readers!) But it seems to me that us Brits have yet to embrace blogs as passionately as our cousins across the pond.

After Easter I considered some readily available information about a significant controversy that had risen to the fore again and now threatened to split the Evangelical movement in two. There seemed to me to be an unfathomable reluctance in certain UK Christian media outlets to cover it. I wondered if some news desk decisions were being influenced by certain commercial relationships. In the end, after much deliberation and with the support of my spiritual mentors, I did the first real piece of journalism I had ever done and broke the story that the split between Word Alive and Spring Harvest was not as amicable as many had understood. Suddenly, UK Christians were turning to my blog to read the latest developments and varying opinions of key figures on both sides to whom I tried to give a platform.

Looking back, as messy as that time was, I really don't regret the decision to break that story. My sources were several and impeccable, and without looking for gossip, I had heard rumors for several months. Interestingly, I subsequently discovered that at least one person had hinted at the same story on their own blog before me. (Sadly I cannot now remember the link to that.) I didn't expect the level of public debate between the two sides that would occur, nor the phone calls I would receive from key players on both sides to explain their version of events to me. I felt like something of an agony uncle at times, and knew far more details about the situation than I would have wanted to publish or it would have been beneficial to publish. Splits are always painful. This was the first one that played out in front of the amassed Christian blogs.

I was glad of one thing—the secular media did not pick up the story, although in a sense it shows how irrelevant we have become to their perception of our culture. I really didn't expect to have such a role, and I very much doubt that there will be too many times in the future when I will find myself doing a similar thing.

You can trace the story as it emerged here on my blog in the following posts:

• Word Alive and Spring Harvest to Separate After Fifteen Years Because of the Atonement


• Response from UCCF to the Spring Harvest Decision to End the Word Alive Bible Teaching Week After Fourteen Years.


• The Atonement—N. T. Wright Attacks Both Sides of the Debate


• Pete Broadbent of Spring Harvest Makes a Statement About Word Alive


• Peter Broadbent States Atonement Was a Factor in Spring Harvest Split

The interesting thing was that I was, in any case, in full flow in a series on the atonement. So, with the whole blogosphere lit up on this issue, the blog posts I had already written seemed so much more relevant. Here are the posts in question:

• Wright Quotes That Affirm Penal Substitutionary Atonement


• Dave Warnock Shares an Alternative View of the Atonement


• John Stott—Champion of Penal Subsitutionary Atonement Retires


• The Atonement—Penal Substitutionary Atonement Defined


• The Atonement—If Jesus Was Not a Sinner, Why Did He Die?


• The Atonement—The Place of Union With Christ


• The Atonement—The Terrible Problem of Sin


• The Atonement—Wrong Ideas About the Cross
  
• The Atonement—Should We Disagree With John Stott?


• The Atonement—Packer on Penal Substitution


• The Atonement—The Mission of Jesus


• The Atonement—The Historical Background to the Cross


• The Atonement—An Attack on Penal Substitution


• The Atonement—Quotes From Leon Morris


• The Atonement—Does the Cross of Jesus Matter?


• T4G Article 7—The Atonement: An Introduction
  

Somehow in the midst of all that, I also blogged about other subjects. Notably, the following posts reflected on other debates, and also how we can cooperate together despite certain differences:

• Relating Together for the Gospel


• A Cessationist Healing?


• Newfrontiers Magazine Focuses on Healing


• The PCA Considering Excluding Followers of N. T. Wright


• Mark Driscoll Banned Church Planting Video

I also blogged a fair bit about the resurrection, including the following:

• The Resurrection Empowered Life—Gazing on Jesus


• The Resurrection Empowered LIfe
  
• Book—How Much Does God Foreknow? by Steve Roy

I also remember one of my rare forays into the world of politics in US Election—Dipping My Toe Into a Can of Worms, and an article I published elsewhere entitled Loving God—A Guide for Beginners.

You can count on John Owen to bring some light and clarity into a debate. The following lightly edited quote was sent in by a reader and is really helpful:

"That which we affirm is that our sins were so transferred on Christ as that thereby he became responsible to God and liable to punishment in the justice of God for them. He was perfectly innocent in himself; but took our guilt on him, or our liability to punishment for sin. He may be said to be the greatest debtor in the world, who never borrowed nor owed one farthing on his own account, if he became guarantor for the greatest debt of others . . .

In order to declare the righteousness of God in this setting forth of Christ to be a propitiation and to bear our iniquities, the guilt of our sins was transferred to him in an act of the righteous judgement of God accepting and evaluating him as the guilty person—as it is with a guarantor in every case . . .

If this be not so, I desire to know what is become of the guilt of the sins of believers. If it were not transferred onto Christ, it remains still upon themselves, or it is nothing. It will be said that guilt is taken away by the free pardon of sin. But if that were so, there was no need of punishment for it at all—for if punishment is not for guilt, it is not punishment."

This is from page 200 of volume 5 of Owen's "The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ Explained, Confirmed and Vindicated." (!!)

My reader said slightly cheekily, "I love the way Puritans give the game away in the title to their books. At least you know where he would be coming from in a discussion with Bishop N. T. Wright without having to read his book!"

The MP3s of three talks from Mark Driscoll's recent visit to Scotland are now online. The first one is the only one I was there for, and for which I wrote notes.

God's Plan for the Church in This City (right click to download MP3).

Sex—A Study of the Good Bits from the Song of Solomon by Mark Driscoll (right click to download MP3).

The Gospel We Preach—A Message for Leaders by Mark Driscoll (right click to download MP3).

Driscoll is an important voice for the Church today. One thing he addressed in his well-rounded talk on the cross was the notion that Jesus died to take our shame. I came across the following post which demonstrates both the rarity of preaching that addresses this and its importance. Rik Fleming was undone by Mark Driscoll:

"On Sunday morning I was watching a sermon on the internet by Mark Driscoll titled “The Cross of Christ.” Something in this sermon got through to me for the very first time. Perhaps I have heard this before, but it had never been rooted in my mind and soul before now.

The truth of the gospel is this: Jesus not only took upon Himself my guilt, my sin, and God’s wrath for it on the cross—he also took upon himself throughout all of his suffering MY SHAME!

I have a B.A. in Biblical studies, an M.A. in theology, and I have a library full of books. Yet, somehow this truth had never gripped me.

Why?

I have 18 books on Systematic Theology and NOT ONE discusses shame or develops a doctrine of Christ in which is discussed how he has borne our shame. I have an entire shelf full of books on Christian counseling and yet not NOT ONE discusses the impact of shame on the mind of the victim and the sinner. (Perhaps I need to search for more books on the subject?)

The truth that Christ has borne our shame has significant implications for the believer—especially to those who have been sexually abused, molested as a child (like myself) or in other ways have been treated as less than a person who bears the image of God. Even more so, it is essential that those who have suffered such shame and then lived out of that shame by living in sin to understand this important aspect of Christ’s humiliation in the process of his crucifixion."

More information on the atonement is available in a series of MP3s from a recent UCCF student conference on the subject.

UPDATE The Audio of this talk is now available to download.

-----

Tonight's event took place in an ex-cinema, so I felt at home! It is the home of Destiny Church, Edinburgh. Destiny is a family of churches across Scotland, and they have some churches elsewhere in the world as well. The audience that gathered was a young one, and following an energetic time of worship, Mark Driscoll came to the platform to share with us. Here is a short video clip from the message. Following this, I will share my notes with you.

Mark spoke about the person of Jesus and his work on the cross. He said that he believed that it was important for preachers of the gospel from time to time to sit and hear the gospel.

He began in 1 Corinthians 2 — “... I resolved to know nothing when I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ....” The only thing that must be preached is Jesus and him crucified. Apart from Jesus and his death, we have nothing to offer anyone.

It takes three generations to lose the gospel. One generation believes, the next assumes too much, and the third forgets it or denies it. We cannot assume anything. If we say Jesus, Bible, God, cross, sin—we must not assume that anyone has any idea what we are talking about!

Martin Luther said that in our preaching of the cross, we should “ ... beat it into their heads continually!”

Many traditions love one side of the jewel of Jesus' death. Mark believes we must appreciate eleven sides of the cross. We must also think of it in the context of Jesus' whole life—his incarnation, holy life, death, resurrection, and ascension. We need to emotionally encounter the significance of the crucifixion and all that it has accomplished for us. The Jews couldn't understand how God himself could be cursed by hanging on a tree.

It is perhaps the most amazing thing that has ever happened—that the cross should become the most popular symbol in human history. To call the day Jesus died “Good Friday” is also astonishing. We must understand the theological aspects of the cross.

ELEVEN ASPECTS OF THE ATONEMENT

1. The Central Theme—Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)
   
   We cannot assume anything. A war is brewing over this issue. This is the issue we must be willing to fight over. If we lose this, we lose the gospel. Mark said that if you deny this, you have essentially lost the Christian faith. Isaiah 53:5 — “ ... FOR our transgressions.” Romans 5:8 — “Christ died FOR us.” 1 Corinthians 15:3 — “Christ died FOR our sins.” Sin results in death. In the Garden of Eden, our first parents sinned in our place. They substituted themselves for God—they made their own rules and lived as though they were God.
   
   As we substituted ourselves for God, God substituted himself for us to fix this. Sin is only atoned for in substitution — e.g. in the sacrifices of atonement.
   
   What does this mean practically? I MURDERED GOD! He died for MY sin! He paid MY penalty of death. As MY substitute he endured what I deserve in order to give me what I don't deserve. If you lose substitution, you lose all sense of gratitude.
   
   
2. Jesus is Our Victor
   
   Jesus conquered Satan and demons. We don't like demons, so this is a good thing! Colossians 2:13-15 — “ ... disarmed the rulers and authorities ...” It looks as if Jesus is defeated on the cross. Isaiah 45:15 — “God hides.” He hid victory in defeat because God is humble. Those who are proud (like Satan) don't see it! We aligned ourselves with Satan. Being "spiritual" is not good if it's not the Holy Spirit. Satan is real. There is a real war. Revelation 12:10 — Demons accuse people: “You are a loser; you are not a real Christian ...” The devil condemns people and haunts them with past sin. He loves death and wants to kill. Jesus cancelled the rights that Satan and demons have towards the children of God. He has been defeated and disarmed. There is victory over Satan and demons for the people of God.
   
   
3. Jesus is Our Redemption
   
   Don't teach this from the pagan slave market. Rather, speak about God redeeming his people from the slavery of Pharaoh—in slavery to sin. We can't stop. We are not free. We can't escape. But just like the people of Israel, we have been set free to worship God! We are liberated to live new lives. To have joy. To worship God together as his people.
   
   
4. Jesus is the New Covenant Sacrifice
   
   1 Peter —“... precious blood of Christ like that of a lamb.” Blood disgusts us. We must identify the horror of blood and death as sin. God is as disgusted with sin as we are with blood. God is horrified by sin. We should be as horrified by sin as we are by blood. God was the first person to shed blood in the Bible—to cover the sin of Adam. The Bible is a bloody book. The first thing Noah did after the flood was to sacrifice. Noah was not "a good guy." Noah found GRACE. He found unmerited grace, and then he became righteous. After the flood, it was as though Noah said, “God should have killed me, too”—that was why he had to offer a sacrifice. “I deserved to die.” He, of course, promptly went on to demonstrate why— by getting naked and drunk.
   
   Hebrews is clear on this. We don't need a temple or a priest or a lamb because we have Jesus. His blood was shed for our sins. When sinned against we often say, “I want blood!” Well, you already have it. The gospel is the good news that we should have died, but instead we are loved. So we must show love to others!
   
   
5. Jesus is Our Justification
   
   No one will be justified by works of the law. God would not be good if he let everyone into heaven. If he did that, when we got there it would be like earth, full of hatred and sin and evil. God's heart is gracious mercy and forgiveness. But because of his justice, he has to deal with our sin. God's standard is perfection. No one can say they are perfect. Lust counts as adultery and anger counts as murder. People want righteousness, which is why hard firm religions attract people. When you go to the bathroom, that's about how impressed I am with your righteousness. Our righteousness is described by the Bible as human excrement and menstrual rags. God hates religion. He despises it. You must call sinners to repentance, and also call "righteous" people to repent of their religious righteousness. Righteousness is GIFT righteousness. It is the righteousness of God. “Jesus was the most despised thing in all creation on the cross” (Luther). Righteousness only comes from faith in Christ. When we stand before God it will be imputed righteousness—that is what will appear on our resume. I trust Jesus.
   
   It doesn't end with imputed righteousness. He gives us a new heart and a new nature. This gives us a desire to do right things. He gives us new power through the Holy Spirit to live life. He gives us a fulfilling life. We are regenerated. We change.
   
   
6. Jesus is Our Propitiation
   
   Four times in the Greek New Testament. 1 John 4:10 — This is love—not that we have loved God. It's not because you are a good person that God loves you. You don't obey so God will love you; you obey because God already does love you!
   
   Propitiation is how God demonstrates his love. God hates sinners. You have been told that God loves sinners, but hates sin. No, Gandhi said that! God often says he hates people. We are by nature sinners. “I hate the essence sum and total of what you are, but I really love you.” We have a sinful nature and commit sins. “God hates all who do evil.” God hates a lot of people. God's wrath is mentioned more than 600 times in the Bible. More verses talk about the wrath of God than those which state that he loves us. The gospel starts with “God hates you and it's going to go really really bad forever and ever!” Jesus suffered the wrath of God, and it is thereby taken away from sinners who are in Jesus. The question is not, "How can a loving God send anyone to hell?" The real question is, "Why does a holy God take anyone to heaven?" The passover demonstrates the wrath of God passing over the ones covered by the blood of Jesus. Jesus is our passover Lamb.
   
   
7. Jesus is Our Expiation
   
   This is different from propitiation. Propitiation takes away our wrath. Expiation deals with our defilement. This is often overlooked. Sins have also been committed against us. In 1 John it says that Jesus' blood purifies us from all unrighteousness. Expiation deals with the feeling of being dirty, a feeling that is experienced by both sinners and those sinned against. “Dirty people do dirty things.” Our identity is sometimes about what people have done against us rather than what Jesus has done for us. Feeling defiled, feeling dirty, is a huge issue. The scapegoat was set free. Sin was laid on Jesus and it was taken away. The blood of Jesus CLEANSES us. We are clean. We are clothed in white by Jesus. We should see ourselves and others that way. We can be clean. We don't need to manage, shift blame, or excuse sin; rather we need to face it and deal with it.
   
   
8. Jesus is Our Ransom
   
   There is only one mediator. Music, Bible translations, etc. don't mediate. If the music changes, we can still worship God. We owe a debt to God. Every sin or omission is a debt. We have a mountain of debt. We cannot possibly pay it to God. Doing good for awhile doesn't reduce our debt, it just doesn't increase the amount of our debt! A mediator pays the debt on our behalf.
   
   
9. Jesus is Our Example
   
   1 Peter 2:21 and Philippians 2 — “Christus exemplar.” Jesus has always been God. He came into human history as man. How did Jesus live his life? It wasn't a fake—like Superman and Clark Kent— i.e. God can't be tempted. Jesus DOES sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted. Jesus did not cease to be God. He set aside the use of his divine attributes. God knows everything, but Jesus had to learn. How did he do it? It was by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit filled Jesus. He was the Anointed One. All was done by the power of the Spirit. We can now also live Spirit-filled lives. Being spirit-filled means living the life of Jesus. We do what Jesus did. The Spirit led Jesus into temptation, into suffering. We suffer too (Philippians 1). We will be led into difficult times. We are perfected by our suffering, when we suffer like Jesus did, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Don't waste your pain or your suffering. Use it for a witness, use it for the gospel. Christians are like nails—the harder you hit us, the deeper we go.
   
   
10. Jesus is Our Reconciliation
    
    Sin separates us from God and each other. The cross brings us together. “... be kind ... forgiving one another as God forgave you ...” We are sinned against and either become bitter or become like Jesus. That is the choice we have. We often have two standards. When we sin, we want mercy; when others sin, we want hell. Bitterness is often caused by the person we love the most sinning in a little way against us. There are only two problems in a marriage—the man and the woman. We can either learn to forgive or let sin destroy our relationships. We can only be true community and reconciled in the cross. We need the Prince of Peace to know true peace.
    
    
11. Jesus is Our Revelation
    
    Who is God? Where do we begin? Start at the cross. Jesus reveals God to us. The centerpiece of Jesus' life is the cross. Look at the cross to see what God is like. Love and justice. Holiness and mercy. No other religion has a concept of God like that. Our God is not a god who asks for blood; instead, he offers his own. You can talk about the attributes of God all day; it is only in the cross that it all makes sense. The revelation of God comes together at the cross.

Mark closed with a few comments on 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 — the gospel must be reiterated to us, and we must remind our people of it. We must not assume it. If we do, they will deny it. It must be continually proclaimed and declared—not offered as a helpful suggestion! Jesus must be magnified. It must be RECEIVED. It is personal. We must be changed by it. We must go on believing it. It is central in every way. You can't teach marriage, parenting, work, or for that matter, anything, without the cross. It precedes everything else. The gospel gets passed on. Paul received it and passed it on. If anyone changes it, they are a demon. They are sent from Satan and they are going to hell. We don't change what we received!

It's all about Jesus!

• It is penal—Christ died.
  
• FOR our sins—it is substitutional.
  
• It is eschatological—Jesus didn't remain dead, but was raised. Forever is a really long time!

We are continuing to look at John Piper's elegant exposure of the heart of the differences between his position and that of N. T. Wright's. For those without the time to read massive volumes written by the current Bishop of Durham, Piper has done a great service. His scrupulous attempts to be fair to Wright are most useful. I also love the way which, in responding to Wright's teaching, Piper adequately uses the opportunity with which error presents us to clarify and restate truth. In explaining where Wright disagrees with classic reformed teaching, Piper restates that teaching in a helpful way and demonstrates the way in which Wright agrees with all, but one, aspect of this explanation.

In historic Reformed exegesis, (1) a person is in union with Christ by faith alone. In this union, (2) the believer is identified with Christ in his (a) wrath absorbing death, (b) his perfect obedience to the Father, and (c) his vindication-securing resurrection. All of these are reckoned—that is, imputed—to the believer in Christ. On this basis, (3) the "dead," "righteous," "raised" believer is accepted and assured of final vindication and eternal fellowship with God.

In Wright’s exegesis, the middle element in step 2 is missing (2b), because he does not believe that the New Testament teaches that Christ’s perfect obedience is imputed to us. Thus the pattern is: (1) A person is in union with Christ by faith alone (expressed in baptism). (2) The believer is identified with Christ in his wrath-absorbing death (there is no identification with or imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience) and his vindication-securing resurrection. Both of these are reckoned—that is, imputed—to the believer in Christ. On this basis, (3) the “dead” and “raised” believer is accepted and assured of final vindication and eternal fellowship with God. (pp. 124-125)

What is striking about this explanation is precisely where this puts Tom Wright. We have seen over the last few days that both Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians have agreed that there is some sort of righteousness transfer that goes on. Where Catholics argue that this is an impartation, Protestants claim it is an imputation. That difference in wording, which led to the Reformation itself, almost sounds like a minor nuance when Wright comes along and sweeps the whole concept of an alien righteousness away! To Wright neither group is right and are both, as he puts it, “ muddle-headed.”

So far in this series we have looked at the following:

• John Piper, N. T. Wright, and Gracious Discernment
  
  
• John Piper Challenges N. T. Wright on Justification
  
  
• Piper Explains the Classic View of Justification Versus N. T. Wright's View

Today I want to share a quote from The Future of Justification in which Piper responds to another of Wright's main criticisms of traditional views of justification. Wright has argued that the Gospel is not a way of getting people saved, and that we are not saved by holding a certain doctrine, but by faith in the person of Jesus and his resurrection.

“. . . there is a misleading ambiguity in Wright’s statement that we are saved not by believing in justification by faith but by believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection. The ambiguity is that it leaves undefined what we believe in Jesus’ death and resurrection for. It is not saving faith to believe in Jesus merely for prosperity or health or a better marriage. In Wright’s passion to liberate the gospel from mere individualism and to make it historical and global, he leaves it vague for individual sinners.

The summons, “Believe the gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection” has no content that is yet clearly good news. Not until the gospel preacher tells the listener what Jesus offers him personally and freely does this proclamation have the quality of good news. My point here has simply been that from Acts 13:39 it is evident that one way Paul preached the gospel was by saying, “By him [namely, Jesus] everyone who believes is justified from everything from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Of course, it is Jesus who saves, not the doctrine. And so our faith rests decisively on Jesus. But the doctrine tells us what sort of Jesus we are resting on and what we are resting on him for. Without this, the word Jesus has no content that could be good news. . . .

If the gospel has no answer for this sinner, the mere facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus are not good news. But if the gospel has an answer, it would have to be a message about how the rebel against God can be saved—indeed, how he can be right with God and become part of the covenant people. I do not think Wright needs to marginalize these essential and glorious aspects of the gospel in order to strengthen his case that the gospel has larger global implications.” (pp. 86-89)

Book photo courtesy of Tony S. Reinke, The Shepherd's Scrapbook. Used by permission.

Today I will take you further into Piper's argument where he explains the long-held position, which Wright denies, that God cannot simply 'forgive' the guilty, but instead an exchange between guilt and righteousness must take place:

An omniscient and just judge never “finds in favor” of a guilty defendant. He always vindicates the claim that is true. If the defendant is guilty, the omniscient, just judge finds in favor of the plaintiff. The judge may show mercy. He has it in his power to bestow clemency, and to forgive, and not to condemn the guilty. But not condemning the guilty would never have been called “justification” or “finding in favor” or “bestowing the status of righteous.”

Nevertheless, justification and finding in favor and bestowing a status of righteous are indeed what happen in the law-court of God when guilty sinners who believe in Jesus are on trial. God “justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). He declares them to be righteous, that is, to be not guilty of the charge. And the charge is: “None is righteous” (Romans 3:10). So, if the discrepancy between being found “guilty as charged” and being given the status of righteous cannot be based on clemency alone, what is it based on? (p. 76)

. . . for virtually the entire history of the church, the answer has been, with various nuances, that God either imputes or imparts divine righteousness to the defendant because of his relationship with Christ.

This was the central division between the Reformers and Roman Catholicism. One of the reasons for this is that the law-court that Wright has described seems to demand it, if the judge is omniscient and just—which he is. Exercising clemency toward, or forgiving, a guilty defendant does not provide a basis for justification. Commuting the sentence of the guilty person merely because of clemency or forgiveness is not what justification is. And an omniscient, just judge does not say that a defendant has moral righteousness when he is guilty of having no moral righteousness (Romans 3:10)—unless there is a way that an alien moral righteousness can be counted as his.” (p. 77)

. . . the omniscient Judge does not merely show clemency or forgiveness and assign us a status of “righteous”; he finds in our favor precisely because he counts us as having the moral righteousness that we in fact do not have in ourselves. When the charge against us is read (“You do not have moral righteousness”) and the verdict of the Judge is rendered (“I declare that you are not guilty as charged but do indeed have moral righteousness”), the righteousness in view in this declaration is real moral righteousness.

I will argue later that this is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the guilty through faith alone. The declaration of justification in the law-court of God is not merely forgiveness; it is not merely the status of acquitted; it is counting the defendant as morally righteous though in himself he is not.” (p. 78)

That, my dear reader, is the Gospel. What better explanation of it have you ever read?

Book photo courtesy of Tony S. Reinke, The Shepherd's Scrapbook. Used by permission.

On Friday I introduced a series on John Piper’s response to N. T. Wright in The Future of Justification. We saw that to Piper the most critical difference between N. T. Wright and himself is that Wright does not believe that Christ's righteousness is in any way transferred to our account. This is a vital, vital point. Without this concept of an alien righteousness either credited or transferred to us, ironically, both the Protestant and the Roman Catholic understandings of salvation unravel. Wright seems to believe that he and other modern theologians have discovered something that every theologian for millennia have missed. We should therefore be very careful before we accept such assertions. Men as epoch-shattering as Luther only come along very rarely. Is Wright such a man? Or is he deluded and quite plainly wrong?

This is how Piper elaborates on the dilemma we finished with on Friday:

“The omniscience of the judge implies that the defendant must have a different righteousness than Wright would concede, that is, a righteousness that is more than the mere status of being acquitted, regardless of innocence or guilt. Wright stresses that for the defendant, righteousness is not a character quality (i.e., not a moral righteousness) but a status, namely, that the court has found in the defendant’s favor. The defendant may or may not have committed the crime with which he was charged. Regardless, if the court finds in his favor, he is “righteous.” He has that status.

This definition of “righteous” may work in ordinary human law-courts where judges are fallible and their judgments must stand, whether they are right or wrong. But there’s a catch. In God’s courtroom, the Judge is omniscient and just. Now everyone in the first century would agree that in a courtroom where the Judge knows everything and is just, there can never be a case where there is a discrepancy between the truth of the charge and the truth of the verdict. In this court, what would be the basis of saying, “I bestow on you the status of righteous, and I find you guilty as charged”? How could such a finding be intelligible, not to mention just? One right answer that I think Wright would agree with is that this is what the atonement is all about. Christ died for our sins to provide a basis for this finding, and therefore, though guilty, the court can exercise clemency (or in God’s case, forgiveness) because of Christ and we go free.” (p. 74)

Piper goes on to summarize his understanding of what happens in justification in the following simple, but wonderful way:

“Wherever sins are not counted—righteousness is counted. That is, the forgiven person is not considered by God merely as a sinful forgiven person, but as a righteous person—a person “to whom God counts righteousness apart from works.” (p. 75)

Book photo courtesy Tony S. Reinke, The Shepherd's Scrapbook. Used by permission.

Bishop Tom Wright has long been the darling of many evangelicals. He is praised particularly for his work on the resurrection. But there is another side to Wright which is coming increasingly to the fore. His ability to woo evangelicals has, according to some observers, made it easy for him to subtly change some key concepts we all hold dear. Many evangelicals have followed Wright away from standard understandings of doctrines that have defined evangelicalism for centuries. For example, it apparently was in Wright’s work that Steve Chalke and others found criticisms of penal substitutionary atonement as it is usually preached. Steve Chalke is not so winsome as Wright, so when he popularized the criticisms found in Wright and dismissed the ancient doctrine as "cosmic child abuse," there was a significant backlash that ultimately led to the publication, in my mind, of the most important Christian book of this year—Pierced For Our Transgressions (PFOT). I am thrilled it is now available from Crossway in the USA.

Every Christian must plumb the depths of what Christ has accomplished for us on the cross. If for some reason you have missed the whole conversation about the atonement, both here on my blog and elsewhere, I would urge you to first go and buy C. J. Mahaney's Cross Centered Life, and read it slowly and prayerfully. This is because the cross must be grasped personally, devotionally, and must affect our lives. As we begin to live in the good of the cross, we should be able to deepen our understanding of it. Pierced For Our Transgressions is a great book for that purpose, although if you find its length off-putting, there is a much shorter, but still very helpful, alternative in Liam Goligher's The Jesus Gospel.

Wright was very unhappy about the book Pierced For Our Transgressions. He wrote a scathing article at the same time that there was a major disagreement within UK Evangelicalism about Spring Harvest discontinuing a partnership, partly, it seems, over their desire to continue having Steve Chalke on their leadership team and as a main speaker. I suspect that the publication of another book which has been released this week has not pleased Bishop Wright either. It is this book that I will be spending some time discussing for the next few days here on the blog.

John Piper has now written a book, The Future of Justification, which should be read by everyone who has already read at least two of the books on the cross I have mentioned, and also by anyone who has either been influenced by Wright themselves or knows someone who has. I urge you to get a good understanding of the cross first, for this is a book on the subject of justification. It will be a great help to you in understanding Piper's current book if you already understand penal substitution. This is not an easy book to read in some ways, and if you love the work of N. T. Wright, it will be a painful book to read. But it is not very complex. Piper shines the light of Gospel clarity into the opacity of much of Wright's work.

Piper is very clear in this book. He warns against Wright's teaching specifically and explicitly. But at all times he interacts with Wright with amazing graciousness. As I am writing this post I cannot help but think of the ongoing debate with Phil Johnson over our respective blogging philosophies. I can't help but wonder what John Piper would make of those discussions. I do know one thing, and that is that I want the tone of my blog to become ever closer to the tone Piper struck in this new book and ever further away from the tone I frequently detect on TeamPyro.

I will end today with a quote from The Future of Justification which introduces the core issue and the main disagreement between Piper and Wright. Bishop Wright had every opportunity to comment on drafts of Piper's book, and as we will see as we look at his book in more detail beginning on Monday, Piper has every reason to say the following. On its own, you might be surprised, or think Piper is being unfair, but if you follow along with my interaction with his book, the reasons for the following quote will emerge. Piper is speaking about the concept of justification, and sets the scene of the cosmic law court. He begins by asking the most crucial question in his whole book:

The question is: When the Judge finds in our favor, does he count us as having the required moral righteousness—not in ourselves, but because of the divine righteousness imputed to us in Christ?

My answer is yes . . . Wright’s answer is no. To review, he thinks that the whole discussion of imputing divine righteousness to humans is muddle-headed. It is simply not operating with proper biblical-historical categories. For the last fifteen hundred years, the discussions of this issue in the church have been misguided. “If we use the language of the law-court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom.”

That infamous quote from N. T. Wright and his framing of thousands of years of debate about the imparting or imputing of Christ's righteousness as 'muddle headed' is breathtaking. Either Wright is as much of a lone figure reformed as say Martin Luther himself, pointing back centuries before him to another lost truth that makes Luther as much in error as the Pope of his time, OR Wright, however bright a scholar he is, is very wrong. I believe Piper has shown how very wrong Wright is. Join me over the next few days as we explore how he does this.

During a brief trip to the USA this past week, I had a layover in the Chicago area. I had an amazing few hours. I ate lunch with two great friends who I had never met in the flesh before. It struck me that the impression I had of them when finally meeting face-to-face was almost identical to the one I already had through our electronic communications. I thank God for the people I have been privileged to meet through this blog.

What I want to focus on in this post is what happened next. I hadn't even realized that there was a connection between Billy Graham and the town I was visiting. At my friends' suggestion, I headed to the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College.

I am well aware that there are at least two different perceptions of Billy Graham among evangelicals. You can read about both perspectives in a 2006 MSNBC interview and the Wikipedia page about Billy Graham. There are many evangelicals who, although they might have some concerns, greatly rejoice in what God has accomplished through his preaching of the Gospel. In Philippians 1, Paul rejoices that Christ was preached even by those who had bad motives. Surely all Christians can rejoice at the preaching career of a man who has been in the media spotlight for five decades and yet has never been accused of a lack of integrity.

Wikipedia believes that 2 billion people have heard Billy Graham preach the Gospel and that 2.5 million of them made a public declaration of faith in response. There is no doubt that Billy has preached to more people than any other Christian minister in the last 2000 years. If there have been some weaknesses about Billy over the years (and certainly Billy himself believes that there are) then surely the fact that God chose to use someone weak in such a dramatic way only underlines the glory of his grace.

The Billy Graham Center moved me profoundly. An overview of evangelical history in America led into a more detailed report of the life of the man often called "America's pastor." The focus was not on his role as personal counselor to every president since Harry Truman. Rather it was his preaching and crusades that were reported in most detail. Walking past photographs of massive crowds while listening to clips of his preaching brought tears to my eyes. It seemed that in every era the extracts of the messages they had playing said almost the same thing, which I have paraphrased as follows:

Christ died, took the guilt for you, became sin for you, and rose again. He's a living Christ. He's here right now. He wants you to repent, trust him, and ask him to be Lord of your life, to come into your life so you can then follow him as Lord and Saviour.

The focus was not just on the death, but also on the resurrection. It was not just on sin and wrath, but also forgiveness and love. He was not content to speak only of God in heaven, but also of Jesus living in our hearts. I stood behind Billy's traveling pulpit and listened to his voice and wept that God would raise up more preachers of Christ in our day who can fill stadiums with the Gospel.

As the exhibition closes, if visitors are in any doubt about who the organizers really want to glorify, you are led through a passageway to the foot of an enormous cross. Then you are taken into a dark passageway clearly intended to be the grave. As you round the corner, a simple inscription is written on the wall "He is not here, but risen!" The passageway then opens into a light room clearly intended to reflect glory. I was quite simply undone by this and had tears welling in my eyes.

I was left with a strong impression of the need for us to preach the simple Gospel of Jesus' death AND resurrection. I also remember reading these words of Billy Graham there (which sadly I did not write down in a notebook, so they may not be 100 per cent accurate, although the sense is definitely there):

I find that when I preach the simple Gospel with authority, quoting the very words of the Bible, the Holy Spirit drives it home into the hearts of people.

The Holy Spirit was a major focus of the exhibition in several quotes. Oh, for a return to such an emphasis on the living Jesus sending his Spirit to convict the world and bring them salvation. Deliver us from an overly intellectual Christianity, oh God. Remind us that the Gospel is indeed simple enough that a farm boy with no theological degrees can become its most prolific ambassador!

The impression left on me was striking indeed. So much so that, somewhat surprisingly for such a fan as I am, seeing the writing desks of C. S. Lewis and J. R. Tolkein, not to mention the wardrobe which inspired The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, was frankly an anticlimax!

Mark Dever is not a man who is shy of controversy. For example, during my recent interview with him, he stated concerning the book, Pierced For Our Transgressions, "If you don't like that book, you don't like Christianity!" Strong stuff!

Before we leave Mark for awhile, I want to share with you once again some excerpts from what I believe has been his best blog post ever. It was written in 2006 and is entitled "Undermining Tolerance of Egalitarianism." Whatever your views on this subject may be, you will surely see in these quotes his passion and the reasoning behind his strong belief in the crucial nature of the controversy facing the Church over this issue:

". . . it is my observation that those older than me who are complementarian generally want to downplay this issue, and those younger than me want to lead with it, or at least be very up front about it. . . .

The older group is among peers who see women's ordination as an extension of civil rights for people of different races. The younger group is among peers who see women's ordination as a precursor for creating legal categories of gay rights. But having a certain skin pigmentation is to the glory of God; having a sexual partner of the same gender is sin. The younger group is more alarmed not simply by the egalitarian position, but by what it is assumed that will eventually entail, either in those who allow it, or in those who come after them.

There are, of course, many evangelical feminists. Some Christians whom I most love and respect and have learned from are in this category. . . . 'Well then,' you might say, 'Why don't you leave this issue of complementarianism at the level of baptism or church polity? Surely you cooperate with those who disagree with you on such matters.' Because, though I could be wrong, it is my best and most sober judgment that this position is effectively an undermining of—a breach in—the authority of Scripture. As Lig [Duncan], the paedo-baptist, has often said, 'If there were a verse in 1 Timothy saying, 'I do not permit an infant to be baptized . . .' we wouldn't be having this conversation about baptism! There is such a verse about women serving as teacher/elders!'

Dear reader, you may not agree with me on this. And I don't desire to be right in my fears. But it seems to me and others (many who are younger than myself) that this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism is increasingly acting as the watershed distinguishing those who will accomodate Scripture to culture, and those who will attempt to shape culture by Scripture. You may disagree, but this is our honest concern before God. It is no lack of charity, nor honesty. It is no desire for power or tradition for tradition's sake. It is our sober conclusion from observing the last 50 years."

For more information about Mark Dever, see the following sites: Together for the Gospel Blog, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, and 9Marks.

Awhile back I blogged extensively about the atonement. I remember using an argument that others have also used—that the cross is only truly essential if, on it, Jesus bears the wrath of God. Lloyd-Jones obviously thought this before I did, and I like the way he puts it in the following quote:

. . . As Christians we believe that the Son of God came into this world, that He laid aside the insignia of His eternal glory, was born as a babe in Bethlehem, and endured all that He endured, because that was essential for our salvation. But the question is, Why was it essential to our salvation? Why did all that have to take place before we could be saved? I defy anyone to answer that question adequately without bringing in this doctrine of the judgment of God and of the wrath of God. This is still more true when you look at the great doctrine of the cross and the death of our blessed Lord and Saviour. Why did Christ die? Why had He to die? If we say that we are saved by His blood, why are we saved by His blood? Why was it essential that He should die on that cross and be buried and rise again before we could be saved? There is only one adequate answer to these questions, and that is this doctrine of the wrath of God. The death of our Lord upon the cross is not absolutely necessary unless this doctrine is true."

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. God's Way of Reconciliation—An Exposition of Ephesians 2, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1972, pp. 49-50.

For more information on Lloyd-Jones, his sermons, books, etc. see the official site at MLJ Recordings Trust.

Photo of Lloyd-Jones courtesy of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Online.

The following passage, taken from the forthcoming John Owen book, Communion with the Triune God, highlights a reason for our spiritual weakness and our lack of joy—we do not consciously commune with God the Father, and when we think of him, we think of him as full of wrath toward us:

"First, then, this is a duty wherein it is most evident that Christians are but little exercised—namely, in holding immediate communion with the Father in love. Unacquaintedness with our mercies, our privileges, is our sin as well as our trouble. We hearken not to the voice of the Spirit which is given unto us, "that we may know the things that are freely bestowed on us of God" (1 Corinthians 2:12). This makes us go heavily, when we might rejoice; and to be weak, where we might be strong in the Lord. How few of the saints are experimentally acquainted with this privilege of holding immediate communion with the Father in love! With what anxious, doubtful thoughts do they look upon him! What fears, what questionings are there, of his goodwill and kindness! At the best, many think there is no sweetness at all in him towards us, but what is purchased at the high price of the blood of Jesus. It is true: that alone is the way of communication; but the free fountain and spring of all is in the bosom of the Father. “Eternal life was with the Father, and is manifested unto us" (1 John 1:2).1 Let us then eye the Father as love; look not on him as an always lowering father, but as one most kind and tender.2 Let us look on him by faith, as one that has had thoughts of kindness towards us from everlasting." (page 123-124)

The atonement is never far from this blog. It seems that misconceptions common in our day were, sadly, also common in John Owen's day. We see in this quote something incredibly topical today. Perhaps sometimes the answers to today’s debates do indeed lie in studying the theological upsets of the past:

“Unfortunately, many Christians often have a distorted view of the heavenly Father. We tend to view him as angry and full of wrath toward us. While we imagine Jesus as the one who loves us, the Father is portrayed as full of hesitation toward us—distant at best, furious at worst. It is as if Jesus pleads with the Father to put up with us and to let us live, perhaps even against the Father’s desire. We often view Jesus as the “kind” person of the Trinity, with the Father only wanting us punished. Is the Father, in fact, really reluctant to show tenderness toward people?

According to Owen, the whole movement of the biblical drama of redemption points in a different direction. Jesus is not the one who convinces the Father to love us, but, rather, the Son of God becomes incarnate in light of the Father’s eternal and free love toward us. The Father is not at odds with the Son, but rather, God the Father is love, and out of his love he sent his Son to die for our sins—“this love [of the Father] . . . is antecedent to the purchase of Christ.” In other words, while the work of Christ is all-important for redemption, it does not make the Father love us, but is rather the outgrowth of God’s love.

Out of the Father’s love the Son is sent as the embodiment of love, and the Spirit pours this love into the hearts of his children. Here the distinct actions among the divine persons are united by the same love of God” (page 29)

I have spent a bit of time over the last few days rediscovering Theopedia. It is not quite so frenetic and unstructured as Wikkipedia. This is probably due to its requirement that you acknowledge a statement of faith and be registered before editing items. They are keen for more contributors and if you have good quality material you have blogged and are willing to adapt, they are happy for it to be included in their articles with the appropriate acknowledgments. Would be great to have a few more bloggers over there. Here are the articles for which I have made some contributions so far (some more significantly than others):

• Gifts of the Spirit
• Gift of Prophecy
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Pastor
• Steve Chalke
• Mark Driscoll
• Wayne Grudem
  
• C. J. Mahaney
  
• Together For the Gospel
  
• Mark Dever
• Ligon Duncan
• Albert Mohler
• Jacob
• Terry Virgo

As regular readers will already know, this week I am swiftly working through the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Today we reach the end of our short series with the doctrine of the persevernace of the saints, which teaches that God will insure that genuine believers in Christ remain faithful to the end. I give the last words to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

". . . the eternal God knows us and is interested in us and has a plan for us. If that is not enough for you, then I despair! The astounding thing I find here is that the eternal and absolute God knows me, that he thought of me before the foundation of the world, not only before I was born, but before he even made the world; that this eternal, absolute Being is interested in me, even me, as an individual and as a person, and that I was in his mind when he conceived this amazing plan that includes the incarnation and the cross, and the resurrection and the ascension, and the reign of his Son at his side that is going on now. What a staggering, yes, but what a glorious thought!

. . . there is therefore nothing uncertain about my acceptance with God, nor about my forgiveness, nor about my sonship. When I realize that I have been brought into God’s plan I know that nothing can frustrate this . . . plan of God which cannot be broken and which cannot fail. It is as absolute as God, himself; he knows the end as well as the beginning. ‘Neither shall any man,’ said Christ, ‘pluck them out of my hand.’ It is unthinkable.

. . . Let me put it like this: God, who is sufficiently concerned about me to send his Son to die on the cross of Calvary for me, is not going to let me down when any difficulty or temptation faces me. My dear friends, there is nothing for you to fear! You belong to One of whom we are told that all power has been given to him over all flesh. You are in the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ if you but knew and realised it, and he controls everything. He controls every human being, all the affairs of nature, he is even controlling the devil himself. All power is given unto him, thrones, dominions, principalities and powers are subject unto him, so you need never fear! You and I have but to realize that we are in those mighty hands, that that strong arm is engaged on our behalf, that all flesh under his power, and that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him."

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. The Assurance of Our Salvation: Exploring the Depth of Jesus' Prayer for His Own: Studies in John 17. Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, 2000, S. 65.

As regular readers will know, this week I am swiftly working through the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Today we reach the Limited Atonement item which is, in my opinion, the most misunderstood, and the item with possibly the most nuances needed in our understanding of it. As such, it will get the largest number of quotes so far.

I found a couple of interesting quotes in a post and comment section that asked, What does Mark Driscoll mean by limited/unlimited atonement?. The first came from D. A. Carson in The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2000, pp. 73-79).

"I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ's death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love . . . Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God's special selecting love for the elect . . . "

—D. A. Carson

The second can be found in a pdf about Limited Atonement by Bruce Ware in which he outlines an alternative to what is usually seen as classical Calvinism and classical Arminianism on this point:

"God’s intentions in the death of Christ are complex, not simple; multiple, not single:

1. Christ died for the purpose of securing the sure and certain salvation of his own, his elect.
   
   
2. Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people, making it possible for all who believe to be saved.
   
   
3. Christ died for the purpose of securing the bone fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere.
   
   
4. Christ died for the purpose of providing an additional basis for condemnation for those who hear and reject the gospel that has been genuinely offered to them.
   
   
5. Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father."

I thought I would finish this post by linking to a page on Mars Hill Church's website where Mark Driscoll and others can be heard explaining their take on limited/unlimited atonement, which is either what all true Calvinists basically believed all along or an Arminian heresy, dependent on your perspective!

This is it. The end. My final post in this series. Of course, I am sure I will return to this subject from time to time — especially if there are other developments in the wider scene. But this really is the conclusion of my series — it is time to move on to other matters.

It is only appropriate that the final quote in this prolonged series on the cross be given to that stalwart champion of penal substitution who recently finally retired — John Stott.

"The Cross is the blazing fire at which the flame of our love is kindled, but we have to get near enough for its sparks to fall on us."

"The crucial question we should ask . . . is not why God finds it difficult to forgive, but how he finds it possible to do so at all.”

“When . . . we have glimpsed the blinding glory of the holiness of God and have been so convicted of our sin by the Holy Spirit that we tremble before God and acknowledge what we are, namely hell-deserving sinners, then and only then does the necessity of the cross seem so obvious that we are astonished we never saw it before.”

— John Stott

“The Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.”

(Isaiah 53:6)

So far I have shared quotes from Wayne Grudem, Spurgeon, Tom Schreiner, and C. J. Mahaney on the cross. Today it's Terry Virgo’s turn:

“Remember God has accepted us. The gospel of grace is a message of breathtaking freedom. It must be embraced with faith and thanksgiving. You are thoroughly accepted just as you are. Jesus Christ is your righteousness and he is never going to change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. When you wake tomorrow, he will still be your righteousness, before you have done anything to enjoy God's favour. You have to earn nothing. Your spirit needs to bask in the brilliant sunlight of this reality. You need to know it inwardly and celebrate it on a daily basis.”

I have now provided thoughts on the cross from Wayne Grudem, C. H. Spurgeon, and Tom Schreiner. Today it's C. J.’s turn:

“As a pastor few things affect me more than interacting with those who are unaware of God's personal love for them. Normally there isn’t a week that goes by where I’m not talking with someone who hasn’t understood this truth — Christ loved me and gave Himself for me — in personal experience . . . very small errors in a person’s understanding of the Gospel seemed to result in very big problems in that person's life.”

“For when you are deeply aware of your sin, and of what an affront it is to God’s holiness, and how impossible it is for Him to respond to this sin with anything other than furious wrath — you can only be overwhelmed with how amazing grace is.”

“Legalism is seeking to achieve forgiveness from God and justification before God through obedience to God. A legalist is anyone who behaves as if they can earn God's forgiveness through personal performance. It says to God in effect, 'Your plan didn’t work. The cross wasn’t enough and I need to add my good works to it to be saved' — legalism is essentially self-atonement for self-glorification, and ultimately for self-worship.”

— C. J. Mahaney

So far we have shared quotes from Wayne Grudem and C. H. Spurgeon on the cross. Today I’d like to share a quote from Dr. Tom Schreiner, Associate Dean and Professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Kentucky). Incidentally, Martin Downes has just posted an interview with Dr. Schreiner.

“I define penal substitution as follows: The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy his justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested.

The riches of what God has accomplished in Christ for his people are not exhausted by penal substitution. The multifaceted character of the atonement must be recognized to do justice the canonical witness. God’s people are impoverished if Christ’s triumph over evil powers at the cross is slighted, or Christ’s exemplary love is shoved to the side, or the healing bestowed on believers by Christ’s cross and resurrection is downplayed. While not denying the wide-ranging character of Christ’s atonement, I am arguing that penal substitution is foundational and the heart of the atonement.”

Yesterday I shared a quote from Wayne Grudem on the atonement. Today it’s Spurgeon’s turn:

“All the love and acceptance which perfect obedience could have obtained of God belong to you because Christ was perfectly obedient on your behalf. Those who set aside the atonement as a satisfaction for sin also murder the doctrine of justification by faith. They must do so. There is a common element which is the essence of both doctrines; so that, if you deny the one, you destroy the other.

Modern thought is nothing but an attempt to bring back the legal system of salvation by works. Our battle is the same as that which Luther fought at the Reformation. If you go to the very ground and root of it, grace is taken away, and human merit is substituted. The gracious act of God in pardoning sin is excluded, and human effort is made all in all, both for past sin and future hope. Every man is now to set up as his own saviour, and the atonement is shelved as a pious fraud.

I will not foul my mouth with the unworthy phrases which have been used in reference to the substitutionary work of our Lord Jesus Christ; but it is a sore grief of heart to note how these evil things are tolerated by men whom we respect . . .

I must have a righteousness, perfect and Divine; yet it is beyond my own power to create. I find it in Christ: I read that it will become mine by faith, and by faith I take it. My conscience tells me that I must render to God's justice a recompense for the dishonour that I have done to His law, and I cannot find anything which bears the semblance of such a recompense till I look to Christ Jesus . . .”

— Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Over the next couple of days I will be sharing some of my favorite quotes from others on the atonement. This will finally conclude my Atonement series. We begin today with Dr. Wayne Grudem:

“ . . . there is an eternal, unchangeable requirement in the holiness and justice of God that sin be paid for. Furthermore, before the atonement ever could have an effect on our subjective consciousness, it first had an effect on God and his relation to the sinners he planned to redeem. Apart from this central truth, the death of Christ really cannot be adequately understood.”

Some say only Christians, some say the whole world. The “L” of the TULIP acronym is definitely one of the most controversial and most misunderstood. I refer you to my previous series for more detail on the “limited” nature of the atonement, but today I want to stress some points that we can surely all agree upon.

Firstly, we can surely agree that Jesus’ death was enough for the whole world, but will not be permanently applied to the whole world—so while unrepentant sinners do benefit temporarily from the death of Jesus, they will not benefit forever. It is only those who are united with Jesus that will ultimately benefit. Thus, to me the Scripture teaches that there is a sense in which Jesus died for the whole world, but another sense in which He died especially for those of us who are Christians.

“. . . we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Timothy 4:10)

I like the way that Lloyd-Jones explains the benefits that come to the whole world from Jesus’ death:

“ . . . the only thing that made it possible for God to continue to have any dealings or any relationship with this world at all was the work that our Lord was going to do. So it was the cross, as it were, that spared the world and allowed it to continue. And in the same way, it is the cross and the cross alone that spares the life of anybody who ever sins at any time. It is only because of the work of the cross that God can even tolerate sin in any shape or in any sense.”

— Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (362), Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois.

Ultimately, of course, Jesus died for THOSE OF US who are being saved.

• Isaiah 53:14 — “ . . . he bore the sin of many . . .”
  
  
• John 15:13 — “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.”
  
  
• 1 John 3:16 — "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us.”
  
  
• 1 Corinthians 5:8-9 — “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.”

Believe it or not, I am now very close to the end of this series. All that remains is for me to share a few of my favorite quotes on the atonement from other authors. As I close my own thoughts, I want to thank God that we have, indeed, been “saved by Him from the wrath of God.” (Romans 5:8)

I received the following two articles from the communications director of the UCCF, and they have been kind enough to give me permission to republish them here. The first article is by J. I. Packer, and the second one is by Richard Cunningham, and were originally published in a UCCF magazine.

Penal Substitution Revisited
J. I. Packer
Throughout my 63 years as an evangelical believer, the penal substitutionary understanding of the cross of Christ has been a flashpoint of controversy and division among Protestants. It was so before my time, in the bitter parting of ways between conservative and liberal evangelicals in the Church of England, and between the Inter-Varsity Fellowship (now UCCF) and SCM in the student world. It remains so, as liberalism keeps reinventing itself and luring evangelicals away from their heritage. Since one’s belief about the atonement is bound up with one’s belief about the character of God, the terms of the gospel and the Christian’s inner life, the intensity of the debate is understandable. If one view is right, others are more or less wrong, and the definition of Christianity itself comes to be at stake.

An evangelical theologian, dying, cabled a colleague: 'I am so thankful for the active obedience (righteousness) of Christ. No hope without it.’ As I grow old, I want to tell everyone who will listen: ‘I am so thankful for the penal substitutionary death of Christ. No hope without it.’ That is where I come from now as I attempt this brief vindication of the best part of the best news that the world has ever heard.

It is impossible to focus the atonement properly until the biblical mode of Trinitarian and incarnational thought about Jesus Christ is embraced. The Trinitarian principle is that the three distinct persons within the divine unity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, always work inseparably together, as in creation, so in providence and in every aspect of the work of redemption. The incarnational principle is that when the Son took to himself all the powers and capacities for experience that belong to human nature, and began to live through his human body, mind, and identity, his sense of being the Father’s Son was unaffected, and he knew and did his Father’s will, aided by the Spirit, at all times. It was with his own will and his own love mirroring the Father’s, therefore, that he took the place of human sinners exposed to divine judgment and laid down his life as a sacrifice for them, entering fully into the state and experience of death that was due to them. Then he rose from death to reign by the Father’s appointment in the kingdom of God. From his throne he sent the Spirit to induce faith in himself and in the saving work he had done, to communicate forgiveness and pardon, justification and adoption, to the penitent, and to unite all believers to himself to share his risen life in foretaste of the full life of heaven that is to come. Since all this was planned by the holy Three in their eternal solidarity of mutual love, and since the Father’s central purpose in it all was and is to glorify and exalt the Son as Saviour and Head of a new humanity, smartypants notions like “divine child abuse”, as a comment on the cross, are supremely silly, and as irrelevant and wrong as they could possibly be.

As in all the Creator’s interacting with the created order, there is here an element of transcendent mystery, comparable to fog in the distance hanging around a landscape, which the rising sun has effectively cleared for our view. What is stated above is clearly revealed in God’s own witness to himself in the Bible, and so must be given the status of non-negotiable fact.

Again, the atonement cannot be focused properly where the biblical view of God’s justice as one facet of his holiness, and of human willfulness as the root of our racial, communal and personal sinfulness and guilt, is not grasped. Justice, as Aristotle said long ago, is essentially giving everyone their due, and whatever more God’s justice (righteousness) means in the Bible, it certainly starts here, with retribution for wrongdoing. We see this as early as Genesis 3, and as late as Revelation 22:18-19, and consistently in-between. God’s mercy to guilty sinners is framed by his holy hostility (wrath) against their sins.

Human nature is radically twisted into an instinctive yet deliberate and ineradicable habit of God-defying or God-denying self-service, so that God’s requirement of perfect love to himself and others is permanently beyond our reach, and falling short of God’s standard marks our lives every day. What is due to us from God is condemnation and rejection.

The built-in function of the human mind that we call conscience tells everyone, uncomfortably, that when we have misbehaved we ought to suffer for it, and to that extent conscience is truly the voice of God.

Both Testaments, then, confirm that judicial retribution from God awaits those whose sins are not covered by a substitutionary sacrifice: in the Old Testament, the sacrifice of an animal; in the New Testament, the sacrifice of Christ. He, the holy Son of God in sinless human flesh, has endured what Calvin called ‘the pains of a condemned and lost person’ so that we, trusting him as our Saviour and Lord, might receive pardon for the past and a new life in him and with him for the present and future. Tellingly, Paul, having announced ‘the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation (i.e. wrath-quencher) by his blood, to be received by faith’, goes on to say: ‘This was . . . to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:2-26, my emphasis). Just justification — justified justification — through the doing of justice in penal substitution, is integral to the message of the gospel.

Penal substitution, therefore, will not be focused properly till it is recognized that God’s redemptive love must not be conceived — misconceived, rather — as somehow triumphing and displacing God’s retributive justice, as if the Creator-Judge simply decided to let bygones be bygones. The measure of God’s holy love for us is that ‘while we were still sinners, Christ died for us’ and that ‘he . . . did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all’ (Romans 5:8, 8:32). Evidently there was no alternative to paying that price if we were to be saved, so the Son, at the Father’s behest ‘through the eternal Spirit’ (Hebrews 9:14), paid it. Thus God ‘set aside . . . the record of debt that stood against us . . . nailing it to the cross’ (Colossians 2:14). Had we been among the watchers at Calvary, we should have seen, nailed to the cross, Pilate’s notice of Jesus’ alleged crime. But if, by faith, we look back to Calvary from where we now are, what we see is the list of our own unpaid debts of obedience to God, for which Christ paid the penalty in our place. Paul, having himself learned to do this, testified: ‘the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’ (Galatians 2:20).

This text starts to show us how faith in Christ our penal substitute should be shaping our lives today; which will be my final point for reflection. Thirty years ago I wrote an analysis of insights basic to personal religion that faith in Christ as one’s penal substitute yields. Since I cannot improve on it, I cite it as it stands.

1. God, in Denney’s phrase, ‘condones nothing’, but judges all sin as it deserves, which Scripture affirms, and my conscience confirms, to be right.
   
   
2. My sins merit ultimate penal suffering and rejection from God’s presence (conscience also affirms this), and nothing I do can blot them out.
   
   
3. The penalty due to me for my sins, whatever it was, was paid for me by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in his death on the cross.
   
   
4. Because this is so, I through faith in him am made ‘the righteousness of God in him’, i.e. I am justified; pardon, acceptance and sonship (to God) become mine.
   
   
5. Christ’s death for me is my sole ground of hope before God. ‘If he fulfilled not justice, I must; if he underwent not wrath, I must to eternity’ (John Owen).
   
   
6. My faith in Christ is God’s own gift to me, given in virtue of Christ’s death for me: i.e. the cross procured it.
   
   
7. Christ’s death for me guarantees my preservation to glory.
   
   
8. Christ’s death for me is the measure and pledge of the love of the Father and Son to me.
   
   
9. Christ’s death for me calls and constrains me to trust, to worship, to love and to serve.

(Cited from Tyndale Bulletin 25, 1974, pp. 42-43)

A lawyer, having completed his argument, may declare that here he rests his case. I, having surveyed the penal substitutionary sacrifice of Christ afresh, now reaffirm that here I rest my hope. So, I believe, will all truly faithful believers.

In recent years, great strides in biblical theology and contemporary canonical exegesis have brought new precision to our grasp of the Bible’s overall story of how God’s plan to bless Israel, and through Israel the world, came to its climax in and through Christ. But I do not see how it can be denied that each New Testament book, whatever other job it may be doing, has in view, one way or another, Luther’s primary question: ‘How may a weak, perverse and guilty sinner find a gracious God?’; nor can it be denied that real Christianity only really starts when that discovery is made. And to the extent that modern developments, by filling our horizon with the great meta-narrative, distract us from pursuing Luther’s question in personal terms, they hinder as well as help in our appreciation of the gospel.

The Church is and will always be at its healthiest when every Christian can line up with every other Christian to sing P. P. Bliss’s simple words, which really say it all:

Bearing shame and scoffing rude
In my place condemned he stood,
Sealed my pardon with his blood
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!

************************************

EXPLANATORY NOTE
Following the unilateral termination of the Word Alive Partnership by Spring Harvest (over the issues of Steve Chalke’s denial of Penal Substitution and his resulting status as a non-speaker at Word Alive) UCCF and Keswick Ministries have formed a new partnership (chaired by Hugh Palmer) to deliver New Word Alive (an all age event) at PW next year with Don Carson, John Piper and Terry Virgo as the main speakers. In the light of this we have asked our Director, Richard Cunningham, to comment on the significance of this doctrine and the stand UCCF has taken on it.

The issue of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) can leave some Christians scratching their head wondering whether it is really worth falling out over such a nuanced, forensic-sounding doctrine. The reality (which Jim Packer draws out so magnificently . . . ) is that the Gospel itself is at stake.

PROBLEM FOR GOD
Would God be good if he was merely pained, disappointed, and hurt by our sin? If God is not filled with wrath (a settled righteous indignation) at human sin, how can he also be good, holy, and just?

"Standing with my boots deep in the reeking muck of a Rwandan mass grave where thousands of innocent people have been horribly slaughtered, I have no words, no meaning, no life, no hope—if there is not a God of history and time who is absolutely furious, absolutely burning with anger towards those who took it in their own hands to commit such acts."

Gary Haugen (Former Director of the United Nations genocide investigation in Rwanda)

God’s primary business is not to dispense forgiveness on fallen human creatures, but to be true to his own Just and Holy character; to demonstrate the righteousness of his sovereign reign and so bring glory and honour to himself. Forgiveness only becomes possible if God in Christ is punished for our sin and thus manages to satisfy (propitiate) God’s wrath towards human wickedness.

PROBLEM FOR US
The unity that we enjoy as confessional evangelicals around the core Evangelical distinctives (such as PSA) is extremely precious. UCCF’s Doctrinal Basis is a wonderful unity document. For we are to be as exclusive as it demands (on the atonement for instance) and to be as inclusive as it allows. The temptation for Classical Evangelicals in such times is to get this the wrong way round and to maximise exclusiveness and minimise inclusiveness. This easily leads us to make too much of our tribal (that is cultural and stylistic) distinctives. Most (though not all) of the differences between confessional evangelicals (be they Anglican or NonConformist, Charismatic or non-Charismatic) are down to vocabulary, style, and culture. By contrast the differences between confessional Evangelicals and pragmatic/liberal Evangelicals (regardless of their other tribal loyalties—NonConformist, Charismatic, etc.) will, in time, become substantive, doctrinal, and (necessarily) ethical. If I do not hold firm to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, what will be the pastoral and ethical implications for my Christian faith?

LICENTIOUSNESS
On the one hand I might conclude that God has wonderfully and mysteriously expiated my sin. But I will wonder how a holy and just God can merely pronounce sin ‘forgiven’ since without the shedding of blood (a violent death) there is no forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). I may end up concluding that sin is not such a big deal to God and neither should it be for me.

LEGALISM
Alternatively, a denial of PSA will leave me with no assurance that God in Christ has taken my sin, and in exchange has imputed to me Christ’s righteousness. Consequently I will become unsure of my status before God and will do all I can to please him and merit his forgiveness. Liberalism invariably presents itself as balanced, attractive, and relevant. In reality it is death! For it will inevitably lead to either licentiousness or legalism. By contrast Confessional Evangelicalism leads us to a Grace-centred and Grace-motivated gospel:

How much more, then will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:14)

I find it comforting to remind myself that this is not a new issue for the church. Richard Niebuhr makes the following comment on C19 liberalism:

A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.

A PROBLEM SOLVED
But now (Christ) has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

The writer to the Hebrews contrasts the unfinished work of the OT priest (who is forever standing and sacrificing) with the finished work of Christ (who is now seated and waiting for his enemies to be made his footstool.) Hebrews 10:11-14

This is why Christ cried out, “It is finished.” (John 19:30). Not “I am finished.” No, this was a cry of triumph. “Finished” (teleo) is the word you would use having paid the last installment of the mortgage or a student would use it having sat their last exam. IT IS FINISHED! Nothing more to pay, nothing more to do—Finished!

NEW WORD ALIVE
By God’s grace the New Word Alive will get the exclusive/inclusive balance right. It will not be culturally narrow, emotionally clenched, or mean spirited anymore than it will be doctrinally liberal and ‘Open Evangelical’. As soon as I informed Don Carson, John Piper, and Terry Virgo (respectively) about our situation with Word Alive they instinctively recognised that this was a key moment for British Evangelicalism and made space in their over-busy diaries to be with us. We would be thrilled if you and a group from your church came to join us for this significant event as together we seek to serve the church and reach the world with the glorious gospel.

As we finally draw towards the close of our series on the atonement, I thought it would be helpful to use the following tool to help us review where we have been. I found this helpful quiz online. Many of these questions address doctrinal issues that we have discussed, although some of them are factual and may not have been answered directly in my posts.

The quiz is meant to be answered from the perspective of what John Stott says in his book The Cross of Christ. It can also be used to helpfully clarify your own position. It’s a simple true/false answer for each question. Why not jot down your answers and then see how they compare to John Stott? You may remember that earlier in the series I shared a quote from Stott with which many today would feel uncomfortable. How much do you agree with Stott?

Before we get to the quiz itself, there are two questions that the writer considers crucial to delineating where we stand on the cross—and I would certainly agree with him.

• Where is the cross directed? Is it directed toward human beings to change our minds and to bring us to repentance or to change our feelings, or is it directed toward God Himself?
  
  
• Was it absolutely necessary for God to become a man and die in our place?

TRUE OR FALSE?

1. Crucifixion was regarded with horror in the ancient world.
   
   
2. Jesus did not die of His own choice.
   
   
3. Because Judas' betrayal of Jesus was foretold in Scripture, he is not to be regarded as responsible for the betrayal.
   
   
4. We must attribute Jesus' death simultaneously to the plan of God and to the wickedness of human beings.
   
   
5. Human death is not a natural, but a penal event.
   
   
6. It is exaggerating that in the Last Supper Jesus viewed His death as a divinely appointed sacrifice by which the new covenant with its promise of forgiveness would be ratified.
   
   
7. The cup from which Jesus drank in Gethsemane was the emotional and physical trauma of crucifixion.
   
   
8. The cross of Christ shows the gravity of our sins.
   
   
9. Scripture consistently treats human beings as morally responsible agents.
   
   
10. An acknowledgement of human guilt before God diminishes the dignity of human beings.
    
    
11. Because human anger is so often tainted by sin, it is wise never to speak of God's anger or wrath.
    
    
12. All inadequate documents of the atonement are due to inadequate doctrines of God and man.
    
    
13. Anselm taught that the major effect of Christ's death was to move the hearts of sinners to love God.
    
    
14. For God to be able to forgive sinners, He Himself needed to be satisfied in His inner being.
    
    
15. There are a few things in God Himself that are incompatible with His true deity.
    
    
16. Christ's death is rarely presented as a sacrifice in the New Testament.
    
    
17. Theologians have successfully retained the vocabulary of substitution while rejecting penal substitution.
    
    
18. Jesus applied Isaiah 53 to Himself.
    
    
19. The Father and Son should be separated when we are thinking about the atonement.
    
    
20. In the cross, divine love triumphed over divine wrath by divine self-sacrifice.
    
    
21. It is impossible to hold to the historic doctrine of the cross without holding to the historic doctrine of the person of Christ.
    
    
22. There is no sense in which God needed to be propitiated.
    
    
23. The New Testament never presses the imagery of redemption to the point of telling us to whom the ransom was paid.
    
    
24. Christ's blood does not stand for His death, but for the release of His life.
    
    
25. Justification is the opposite of pollution.
    
    
26. Since the publication of Hans Kung's book, Justification, there has been widespread proclamation of justification by grace alone through faith alone in the Roman Catholic Church.
    
    
27. Justification should not be separated from union with Christ.
    
    
28. Christ reconciled the cosmic powers by disarming them.
    
    
29. God did not need to be reconciled to us.
    
    
30. In the book of John, the cross is a manifestation of God's glory.
    
    
31. Although in His forbearance God had temporarily left sins unpunished, now in justice He has punished them in Christ.
    
    
32. Peter Abelard is the father of the moral influence theory of the atonement.
    
    
33. Gustav Aulén, in Christus Victor argued for the importance of the moral influence theory of the atonement.
    
    
34. In the cross, the conquest of our enemies was achieved and consummated.
    
    
35. We ought not to ascribe saving efficacy to both Christ's death and resurrection equally.
    
    
36. Because Christ has set us free from the law, Christians have no obligation to obey God's law.
    
    
37. Because Christ died for our sicknesses as well as for our sins, there is healing in the atonement.

The quiz was written by Robert Peterson of Covenant Theological Seminary, and there is a great article online that has the answers and an explanation for each question.

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 25th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 26th most-read post was "25% Off Logos Bible Software by Libronix.

This post summarizes some of my series on the atonement, and links to a number of other posts on the subject. There are many other posts within this series—the most popular of which was one entitled "J. I. Packer on the Atonement."

***************

As we finally draw near to the conclusion of this long-running series on the atonement, it has struck me just how the lines are being drawn. On the one hand there are those of us who feel PSA is essential to the gospel. It’s not that we think it’s the only thing—or indeed that every gospel presentation must major on it. It’s just that we think it’s essential, and that gospel presentations can’t deny it.

Just yesterday I heard what, to me, was the best gospel message I’ve ever heard. In fact, it didn't major on an explanation of the exact mechanism of the atonement, but there was a line about the coming wrath of God and how that had to be taken away. I was reminded as I was listening that the gospel shouldn’t become merely a battleground for us to fight over. It should, instead, be something we hold precious. I can't encourage you enough to download and listen to Tope’s sermon on the prodigal son. Many Christians heard the impact of this message of God's love and forgiveness with a fresh insight. Several visitors made a response to the gospel. I loved what he said at the close of the sermon—“It may be free, but it wasn't cheap. It cost the life of his son.”

It seems impossible for those of us who love the gospel of the Savior suffering the punishment of our sins to simply agree to disagree with those on the other hand who claim it is “divine child abuse.” I suspect the divisions in the visible church over this issue will grow more prominent rather than less so. This is just one of several reasons that, as Andrew Cottingham spoke of today, makes ecumenicalism so difficult for some of us who really care.

Today the American magazine, Christianity Today, published an article about the recent UK controversies over the atonement online. They were kind enough to quote me in the article, acknowledging my role in breaking the Word Alive / Spring Harvest story.

9Marks has this month published a whole issue about defining the gospel. They were eager to point out that PSA is essential to it, and the controversy over PSA is mentioned in one of their editorials. Others (including myself) were asked to write 100-word contributions explaining the gospel. I would love to read such a brief outline by someone from the other side of this debate.

There has also recently been an article by D. A. Carson on Penal Substitutionary Atonement which, not surprisingly, comes down firmly on the side of the authors of PFOT and makes plain that PSA is at the heart of the gospel.

Over the weekend Tim Challies posted his review of the book Pierced For Our Transgressions. He rightly says that PSA has “come under attack by influential and popular evangelical leaders. Needless to say, controversy has followed, and for good reason.” Challies values the book and concludes:

“Endorsed by a veritable who's who of conservative evangelicals, this book is sure to clearly delineate the divide between those who hold to the historic Protestant position on this doctrine and those who do not. It has already done this in the U.K., and we expect it to do the same on the other side of the Atlantic when it is released later this year. I pray that it is widely read, widely studied, and widely influential. Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach have done the church a service with this volume. I'm grateful for it and commend it to you.”

Things are starting to look quite clear-cut. There are, however, some gray lines on the issue since, as we have seen during the debates, there are many who hold some form of PSA but seek to define it in a different way. It is not for me to propose today exactly how such lines should be drawn.

It was very interesting, considering the context of all the debate about the atonement and resultant concerns about how to ensure doctrinal unity, to hear Terry Virgo in his interview with me outline an approach to this that is radically different to the way most evangelical organizations work. He explained that the family of churches of which he is a part does not have a statement of faith. He said:

“We don't, in fact, have a statement of faith, because I wouldn't want to be defining in a kind of way that can put people in a kind of prison . . .

It’s about building churches that are flooded with the Holy Spirit's presence and genuine integrity of relationship. Into those churches the truth is taught and from them the truth is proclaimed to the world . . .

Though we are diligent for truth, we relate in and through churches rather than by doctrinal statements.”

— Terry Virgo

To anyone who thinks that pieces of paper guarantee doctrinal unity and integrity, I would simply ask them to go and read the 39 Articles of the Church of England. As great a document as that is, has it guaranteed that every member of the Anglican Movement worldwide has doctrinal unity? Of course not!

Terry is right, in my opinion, that true relational integrity is the most important thing here in maintaining the true unity of the faith. It is only as we speak with each other at great length about our hopes and dreams, our values and beliefs, and where they have come from that we can have growing confidence that we are truly on the same page as each other theologically. Such a process can be seen as the development of a kind of “theological friendship”.

As I was explaining to my daughter tonight, for each of us friendships are a bit like a ring of concentric circles. People don't become best friends overnight or by comparing some kind of written checklist of what they are looking for in a friend. When it comes to doctrinal unity, I very much see that functioning—at least in my life and in some of the churches I’m aware of.

I think some of the problems we have on the blogosphere is that we forget that we are not all in a church together. I certainly welcome and want to treat with full respect any who claim the name of Christian (and for that matter most who do not!) to this blog and to the discussion forum. Far from wanting to curse people and reject them, I want to debate and explain.

But within that circle of inclusiveness there are inevitably other circles with increasing levels of exclusiveness theologically. Thus the closer we are to each other relationally and in terms of working together in God's kingdom, the more I am going to want us to share the same values and beliefs. This is inevitable and bits of paper do not do a great job of defining something that is almost imponderable.

I am not at all surprised, for example, that as explained by Mark Dever, despite a willingness to be very open to Arminians, the Together For The Gospel friends have found themselves, as their strong relational ties formed, to all be Reformed. Mark Dever is also right to stress that the gospel itself is more central and more core, however, than some of the things that hold them together as buddies.

I guess what I am trying to say is essentially that birds of a feather flock together. I am convinced that we need not try and fight that inevitable thing. Nor is its corollary such a bad thing—which is that the journey through the concentric rings of friendship and commitment that make up the average church are often accompanied by a person changing a number of their views to match those of the group. That process of change is one reason why we should choose a church wisely, but I am convinced that it is not just a case of us being molded by the company we keep. Rather, those who do not feel they fit theologically and are not persuaded by the teaching they are hearing will tend to either keep themselves at a comfortable level of distance or possibly even leave and find a church where they do fit.

This delicate process is almost like a dance. We must learn to treat each other with respect, to allow people to be where they are currently, and as appropriate, help them to take the next step in their own journey to follow Jesus. For me, believe it or not, blogging has been a journey increasingly away from being overly controversial and argumentative towards trying to reach out and understand the opinions of others. It has not been an easy journey, nor has it been one that has been without its setbacks. No doubt some will feel that I have, at times, been too provocative. Others, probably on the contrary, feel I am too soft on those who disagree! It is certainly a fine line to draw.

Wherever you stand on all the debates that fly around the blogosphere, I hope we can journey together for awhile and learn from each other—if nothing else, we should at least be able to gain an accurate view of what we both believe. I do believe that if we each focus on moving from where we stand one step closer to the God of the Bible, we will find ourselves gradually drawing closer together in what we believe.

I will end this post with a verse that should perhaps be every bloggers’ motto. I know I don't always live up to it, but by God's grace this is certainly my aim. Remembering that not everything is worth arguing over, but that some doctrinal errors are nothing short of a snare of the devil, is vital. May God help us to be always gentle with each other—even when we feel the difference of opinion is so critically important that it cannot merely be overlooked.

“So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

(2 Timothy 2:22-26)

A reader recently pointed me to the following passage from a longer article on The Resurgence about Brett Kunkle's concerns about the Emergent movement. I hope my American readers appreciate that the atonement issue is far from being just  a UK problem at the moment; this quote certainly makes that plain!

"My first area of concern is the cross. Here we ask questions like "What is the meaning of the atonement?" and "Did Jesus actually pay for or purchase anything on the cross?" How are EC leaders answering?

Brian McLaren addresses the cross in his book, The Story We Find Ourselves In. His fictional character Kerry, who happens to be a seeker, asks how Jesus fits in to God's story. Carol, a Christian, answers with a summary of substitutionary atonement: "Well, I believe that God sent Jesus into the world to absorb all the punishment for our sins. That's what the cross was all about. It was Jesus absorbing the punishment that all of us deserve. He became the substitute for all of us. As he suffered and died, all our wrongs were paid for, so all of us can be forgiven." Kerry responds: "For starters, if God wants to forgive us, why doesn't he just do it? How does punishing an innocent person make things better? That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse. You know?" Surprisingly, Kerry's "divine child abuse" analogy is not the most disturbing aspect of McLaren's narrative. What is is the absence of a biblically informed response from the other characters. As the narrative continues, the legitimacy of the analogy is never refuted, let alone examined or questioned.

Taken alone, this is worrisome. Coupled with McLaren's endorsement of Steve Chalke's book, The Lost Message of Jesus, this is cause for concern. But add to these the following account from McLaren's book, More Ready Than You Realize, and his views on the cross are a serious concern. So what does McLaren say there?

McLaren describes an encounter with George, a parishioner at his church. George believes in God but, by his own admission, is "still no closer to believing in Jesus Christ" because Jesus doesn't make sense, particularly his death on the cross. George asks Brian, "Why did Jesus have to die?" Upon hearing the question, McLaren is struck by two thoughts. First, George seemed to be asking the question in a way McLaren had never been asked. Second, McLaren does not think his Christian answers fit the way George is asking the question. McLaren asks George for two weeks to think about an answer. After wrestling with the question but finding no answer, McLaren shares the dilemma with his brother Peter saying, “ . . . a couple of weeks ago I realized that I don't know why Jesus had to die." His brother quickly responded, "Well, neither did Jesus." After citing the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane as evidence, Peter says, "sounds to me like Jesus didn't really understand why it had to be that way either. But the point wasn't understanding it; the point was doing what needed to be done."

When it is time to meet with George again, McLaren recounts his brother's answer to George's question, "Why did Jesus have to die?" George, while acknowledging that Brian's response does not answer his question, believes this is actually better than an answer and tells Brian, "It kind of makes the question not really matter so much." And then McLaren concludes the account with this: "Over the next few weeks, George progressed in his faith to the point of becoming a committed follower of Jesus."

Let me say three things in response. First, does McLaren actually think Jesus did not know why he had to die? What about Matthew 20:28? " . . . just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Or what about Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper? "And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” Surely Jesus knew why he had to die. One cannot read the New Testament and conclude otherwise.

Second, does McLaren think one can become a "committed follower of Jesus" without knowing why Jesus had to die? This is certainly implied in his interaction with George. But is there not some minimal understanding needed of sin and the cross before one can place their trust in Christ? Is not an understanding of sin inextricably bound up with repentance? Again, I must side with the New Testament rather than McLaren.

Third, is McLaren being faithful to the gospel when a member of the flock entrusted to him asks him why Jesus has to die and he can give no answer? How can he allow George to walk away thinking this question doesn't really matter that much anymore? After reading McLaren, we are left with serious concerns regarding his view of the cross."

Sometimes we get so caught up in our doctrine of the cross that we forget the ULTIMATE PURPOSE FOR WHICH CHRIST DIED AND WAS RISEN. It was, in fact, not first and foremost for us, rather it was for Him. It was—like everything God does—for the sake of His own name and His own glory. He died and rose again so that one day everyone would acknowledge His supremacy and His right to rule over the entire universe. The following Scriptures will help us to lift our gaze from the mundane and be filled with the vision of this glorious victorious resurrected Jesus.

• “ . . . he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:8-11)
  
  
• “ . . . according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Ephesians 1:9-10)
  
  
• “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:27-28)

The GOAL OF THE CROSS AND THE RESURRECTION FOR US was that we would be changed, and that we would come to know Him—a knowledge we will know fully on that day, but which is given to us in part now through the Holy Spirit.

• “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.” (1 Peter 2:24).
  
  
• “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.” (Galatians 3:13-14)
  
  
• “ . . . that I may know him” (Philippians 3:10)

In our churches these days we have people coming from all kinds of backgrounds. I know that I probably have readers of the blog who feel the Mass or Communion in some way is a repetition of Jesus’ sacrifice. I wanted, therefore, to take this opportunity to share some verses which, to my mind, settle that point once and for all.

• “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” ( Hebrews 9:25–28)
  
  
• “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God.” (1 Peter 3:18)

A number of years ago I remember watching an evangelism training video. It had a laughable sketch where someone went up to a total stranger and asked, “Have you been washed in the blood of the lamb?” In our squeamish culture, it probably isn’t the best question to ask someone at the very beginning of a conversation about Christ. I fear for us, Howe ever, that we are in danger of loosing the appreciation that the old saints had for the “precious blood of Jesus.” So I thought in this post we would remind ourselves of what the Bible has to say about blood.

• “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9:22)
  
  
• “ . . . how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” (Hebrews 9:14)
  
  
• “ . . . we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus.” (Hebrews 10:19)
  
  
• “ . . . the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7)
  
  
• “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood.” (Revelation 1:5)
  
  
• “They have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.” (Revelation 12:11)
  
  
• “Knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:18-19)

One of my commentators didn't like my last post when I said that God really does change us when we become a Christian. I am not going to get into the philosophical arguments he does. As O don't think the Bible All I can say is that when God declares someone to be righteous, in some mysterious way he makes us righteous.

I remember well what Terry Virgo who is one of my theological heroes once said in a comment I read in one of his books. He began a sentance as follows - "When I was a sinner..."

Do you still think of yourself as a "sinner"? Or do you think of yourself as a saint - a holy one? I think it is revealing that this concept of us as made righteous is one of the casualties of the denial of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. For without a notion of Jesus bearing our sins away (Is 53) how can we believe that they are no longer ours?

Lets read together a few verses that speak to this issue of us being made righteous--

• Romans 5:19 "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous."
• Psalm 51 "Have mercy on me, O God,according to your steadfast love;according to your abundant mercyblot out my transgressions.Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,and cleanse me from my sin. . . Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Let me hear joy and gladness;let the bones that you have broken rejoice.Hide your face from my sins,and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God,and renew a right spirit within me. . . Then I will teach transgressors your ways,and sinners will return to you."
• Isaiah 6:7 "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
• John 1:29 "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
• Acts 22:16 "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."
• Hebrews 9:26 "..he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
• 1 John 3 "..Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. . .he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. . .Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous."
• Romans 6 "...can we who died to sin still live in it? . . .our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. . . So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. "
• Psalm 103 ". . .He does not deal with us according to our sins,nor repay us according to our iniquities.For as high as the heavens are above the earth,so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;as far as the east is from the west,so far does he remove our transgressions from us."
• Isaiah 43:25 "I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake,and I will not remember your sins."
• 2 Cor 5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

If God does not remember our sins, and has cleansed our guilt, then they no longer exist. We have a clean slate. We are free. It is "just as if I'd never sinned" but more than that it is "Just as if I'd always been holy"

Praise God for his wonderful mercy and love that he should provide a way that cost him so much to rescue us from the mess we have made of our own lives. We deserve nothing but wrath from him, and he gives us everything. What love. What grace. Hallelujah! What a Saviour!

Many people criticize Penal Subsitutionary Atonement on the basis that it makes justification into a legal fiction. I suppose such a criticism might be valid if a simplistic explanation of PSA was all that happened because of the cross. We have already seen that is not the case. But, more than that we must not think that nothing actually happens to us at conversion. No, we are united with Christ and a real change happens to us — we are born again. This rebirth is explictly linked to the resurrection. Justification is no mere legal fiction, for when God declares something to be the case, He also causes it to become the case. We need to be united with Christ in his death and resurrection. It is only as we become added to Christ that the benefits of His death and resurrection are applied to us.

• “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8)
  
  
• “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2:19-20)
  
  
• “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Romans 6:5)
  
  
• “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)
  
  
• “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1)
  
  
• “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit ...and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:38-39)

UPDATE - Andrew Cottingham has posted on how critical this all is to him

The answer to the question "Are you saying that Penal Substitution is the only thing that happened at the cross?" is a definite no. Whilst the concepts of sin, guilt, and punishment are indeed fundamental to what happened at the cross, the full picture of the atonement is much richer than that.

Sadly in the current debate, some have aggressively denied that Penal Substitution (PSA) has any place at all. As a result those of us who believe PSA is critical to an proper understanding of the cross respond by strongly defending it.

Others, including some who do not in fact deny PSA then accuse us of believing that PSA is the only model of the atonement found in the Bible. Neither I, nor the authors of Pierced For Our Transgressions, nor anyone else I am aware of actually believe that. We believe that on the cross Jesus took our punishment, but we also believe that the Bible describes what happened in other ways, and that as a result the concept of the atonement is much richer and broader in addition to Jesus suffering God's wrath.

There are in fact a number of biblical pictures of the Cross, all of which have a richness, and none of which contradict anything we have been saying all these weeks about Jesus bearing our sins and God's wrath. I will simply allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves about the results of Jesus’ death in terms of a number of pictures:

1. The Law Court
   
   
   
   • “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:23-24)
   
   
   
2. The Temple
   
   
   
   • “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Romans 3:25)
     
   • “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7)
   
   
   
3. The Slave Market
   
   
   • “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
   
   
   
4. The Family
   
   
   • “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” (2 Corinthians 5:19)
   
   
   
5. The Graveyard
   
   
   
   • “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.” (Colossians 2:13)
   
   
   
6. The Bankruptcy Court
   
   
   • “. . . by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” (Colossians 2:14)
   
   
   
7. The Battleground
   
   
   
   • “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” (Colossians 2:15)
   
   
   
8. The Immigration Office
   
   
   • “. . . has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son." (Colossians 1:13)
     
   • “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." (Romans 6:14)
   
   
   
9. The Perfect Example
   
   
   
   • “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” (1 Peter 2:21)
   
   
   
   

UPDATE
In this article I speak of a perception I am beginning to get that those with more traditional understandings are not entirely welcome within the UK evangelical movement. I had hoped that this was just a false impression. Since writing this article, I came across a piece from Carl Trueman that alleges that some UK ministers feel they are being leaned on quite strongly regarding the issue of the atonement. It's important for me to stress that this article is not meant as a criticism of the entire UK evangelical scene, but is rather my own personal reflections on a sense I am getting that UK evangelicalism is heading in a direction with which I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable.

_____________________________


This month's UK Christianity magazine (not to be confused with Christianity Today from the USA) has a review of PFOT. I have to confess it left me rather bemused.

On the one hand, the author seems eager to perpetrate the idea that it wasn't PSA itself that Chalke rejected. In this he is in good company as N. T. Wright has said the same thing. This would be all fine except for the fact that Chalke himself has said in an article that it was PSA itself that he had rejected.

The author of the review on the other hand states that he felt Chalke's words in his controversial book were inadvisable. One is left a little confused about the reviewer's own opinion on the issue.

He seems to have similarly mixed feelings about PFOT. He acknowledges some of the book's arguments as almost irrefutable, but also criticizes it strongly, focusing in on the issue of so-called "limited atonement" which was only a very minor part of the whole book — taking up just a couple of pages at most.

I am left bemused and confused. Although the writer seems to be concerned about a trend to harden lines within Christianity, he seems to do exactly that by focusing on an issue which is not seen by anyone I know as one of first importance. For hundreds of years people have differed about the precise extent of the atonement and how it is applied, whilst agreeing on the penal substitutionary aspects of it, and defining themselves as evangelical as a result.

However much anyone tries to turn the current debate away from PSA to another issue, the key issue of books like PFOT remains the same. This is because — to many of us, both Arminians and Reformed, both charismatic and Cessationist — the concept of Jesus' wrath-absorbing death on the cross is central to a full understanding of the Gospel.

After reading this review, I am now left wondering whether there is any room left for someone like me in the broad evangelical tent represented by Premier, Spring Harvest, and Christianity magazine. The inter-relationships of all of these organizations are made clear at the end of the online page for the review we are addressing.

It is ironic that the more inclusive the evangelical movement in the UK aims to be by including people who attack or minimize PSA, the more they seem to exclude those who hold a more traditional evangelical position.

I am wondering just where the walls of the evangelical tent now lie. Is it really possible for the tent to include both those who agree with Steve Chalke and those who agree with the writers of PFOT? Surely the tent must exclude one group or the other? Is it really possible to simply agree to disagree on the issue of the atonement and work together? Martyn Lloyd-Jones didn't seem to think so.

I think all too often we have portrayed the God of the Old Testament as a God of anger and Jesus as the “good cop” to God’s “bad cop.” The reality is far from that.

As we have already said, God is IN CHRIST reconciling the world, but also Jesus is seen as a God of wrath. It is Jesus who will judge the world. We must understand that the very same God who is full of wrath has graciously provided for us a refuge from that wrath in Himself.

I love the way this is stated in Psalm 2 in the closing verse. We are told that God is an angry God, and yet we are to take refuge in Him. I normally run away from someone who is angry. Without the penal view of the atonement, I cannot see how God can be both the source of the wrath and the place where we can hide from it.


Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
(Psalm 2:11-12)

I am going to use the next few posts to answer some specific questions about the cross. Believe it or not, it will not be very long before I finish this series, so if you have a question, do ask it and if it is not already one I plan to address, I will endeavor to answer it.

Today’s question relates to the meaning of “imputation.” I can’t think of a better way to answer this than to allow Wayne Grudem to do so:

“God imputed our sins to Christ; that is, he thought of them as belonging to Christ and, since God is the ultimate judge and definer of what really is in the universe, when God thought of our sins as belonging to Christ, then, in fact, they actually did belong to Christ. This does not mean that God thought that Christ had himself committed the sins, or that Christ himself actually had a sinful nature, but rather that the guilt for our sins (that is, the liability to punishment) was thought of by God as belonging to Christ rather than to us.”

— Wayne Grudem

Make no mistake, crucifixion is a horrific thing. This is how one writer describes it:

“Adequate exhalation required lifting the body by pushing up on the feet and by flexing the elbows … However, this manoeuvre would place the entire weight of the body on the tarsals and would produce searing pain. Furthermore, flexion of the elbows would cause rotation of the wrists about the iron nails and cause fiery pain along the damaged median nerves … Muscle cramps and paresthesias of the outstretched and uplifted arms would add to the discomfort. As a result, each respiratory effort would become agonizing and tiring and lead eventually to asphyxia.”



— Journal of the American Medical Association 1986

And yet, it was not the crucifixion itself that killed Jesus. He died much too quickly for that. Rather, it was the shock of being separated from the love of God and instead receiving the wrath of God.

It is clear that on the cross Jesus was suffering great anguish that exceeded the natural pain He would be expected to experience. Where did this come from? Jesus’ heart-rending cry on the cross was, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

The answer is clear—Jesus was forsaken on the cross because God in His nuclear reactor of holiness could not bear to look upon the sin that Jesus had taken into His flesh. In some mysterious way, without destroying the unity of the Trinity, at that moment a chasm occurred in the very nature of God as He found a way to do the unthinkable and deal with the sin that simply could not exist within His nature.

Thus the age-old question can be asked — Who killed Jesus? We could, of course, answer this in many ways — the Jews, the Romans, the Devil, you and me, — but ultimately the cross was God’s plan.

Who killed Jesus? God planned and purposed the death of Christ and ensured that it would occur at the right time:

“… this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2:23)

Thus, it is quite correct to say that the Jews, the Romans, and the "powers of this world" killed Jesus — claiming God in a sense “killed” Him is in no way intended to remove these causes for His death. An event can have multiple causes.

God should NOT be seen, however, as morally responsible for the death of Jesus — He is not and never has been the author of sin. Thus phrases like “God murdered Jesus” or “Jesus committed suicide” are NOT helpful or correct!

Also, it is vital to remove the charge of injustice at God’s door, for us to remember that Christ laid down His own life voluntarily.

“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” (John 10:17-18 )

The following passage from Paul is possibly the clearest description of penal substitutionary atonement in the New Testament. I particularly like the way it shows how this idea of the cross relates to a broader picture. We see here that Christ died FOR us. We see that as a result of His death and resurrection, something happened TO us. We see that this change is something GOD does to us — some in the comments section seem to think that God counts us as righteous after we have repented, but this could not be further from the truth.

We also see that the caricature of a loving Christ persuading a reluctant and angry Father is far from the truth since God is seen as active in what happened. We also see that “counting” or imputation is essential. Finally, we see in some of the most difficult-to-comprehend words in the Bible, Jesus, the Holy One, was made to BE sin on the cross so that we might become righteous. There was an active judgment of God that occurred through the cross.

“For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised …

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:14-21)

There has been a certain amount of reaction to yesterday's post on the atonement. Clearly there are two issues here -
1. Do we accept that Isaiah 53 teaches us about Jesus' death or is the suffering servant somebody else?
2. If we accept that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus, does it teach Penal Substitution?

The answer to the first question is very straightforward if you believe the bible is without error and Jesus can be trusted. For he himself tells us who the prophet is speaking of -

Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”

So, can we now all accept that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus? Jesus himself might not have had a theological degree, but I do think we should take his exegesis seriously!

The Oxford Bible Commentary cited in the posts of one of my commentators actually begins as follows

"No passage in Isaiah, or indeed the whole Hebrew Bible, has attracted more attention than this the fourth and last of Duhm’s Servant Songs. It is disputed to what extent it was the subject of speculation and interpretation within Judaism before the Common Era. Certainly the portrayal of the servant here was applied to Jesus within the NT, most notably in Acts (cf. 8:32–5) and in 1 Peter (e.g. 2:22), and probably in many other places as well; in view of what we have said in the introduction about the importance of the reader, it would be quite wrong to dismiss such understandings as illegitimate. This is what the Christian reader may well discern in these verses. Characteristically Jewish tradition has given a corporate interpretation to this poem, seeing it as prefiguring the persecution undergone by the Jewish community. Until the last century Christians in general followed the NT in applying it to Jesus. The rise of critical scholarship has led to an enormous variety of suggested ‘identifications’ of the servant...

The picture in these verses is clearly of the death of the servant, and the appropriateness of the NT application to Jesus is clear enough, given the presuppositions of its writers." Oxford Bible Commentary.

Despite having begun in that way, the commentary continues to argue that the servant could instead have been Israel. Evangelicals ought not to follow such paths. Surely we can all agree on an answer to question 1?

Now, as far as question 2 goes, I simply cannot see how Isaiah 53 can possibly be stripped of the idea of punishement and substitution. Dave Warnock claimed in this comment section to have found commentaries that disagree. He does not quote or explain their arguments. I do not agree that the "but" in verse four can possibly mean that there is a complete change happening in the meaning. If Isaiah had wanted to say Jesus was not actually punished by God this seems a pretty strange way of saying it.

To paraphrase the argument on the other side - it seems that they are claiming Isaiah meant something like this "We considered Jesus to be punished by God and afflicted....but he was almost but not quite punished - he carried our sins but please dont think that meant he was punished be God...." This seems like a very very odd way of reading this passage.

It is much more natural to read it something like this again paraphrasing horribly "We thought he himself was being punished by God because of his own sin, how wrong we were as he was actually punished because of OUR sin, carrying our sin - so everything he experienced he experienced instead of us and it was in fact God's will and purpose that it should happen"

It is to me an open and shut case. I am as always open for others to explain how this passage can be stripped of any penal element, but so far I just cant see it!

If there is one passage in the whole of Scripture that contains the doctrine of penal substitution in its most clear form, it is Isaiah 53. Here, truly, we stand on holy ground! Those who criticize the traditional view of the atonement must become contortionists to escape the implications of this passage. Some claim this is not referring to Jesus at all, and yet Jesus Himself and many of the New Testament writers clearly apply this passage to Him. For example, this is the passage which the Ethiopian eunuch was reading, and which Philip used to explain the Gospel to him clearly applying what the prophet had to say in Isaiah 53 to Jesus. (Acts 8)

In Isaiah's prophecy we see that Jesus takes on Himself our sins, griefs, and sorrows. We see clearly that He is ACTIVELY punished by God with words like smitten, afflicted, wounded, chastised, and crushed all being attributed to God. We see that it was Jesus’ suffering that made our salvation possible. What more do we need to convince us? I will simply let the passage speak for itself:

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all … it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin … out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities … he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:4-12)

Sam Storms has written a two part review of PFOT. This is the must-read book of the year. It is not a light read, but it is on such a vital subject that every thinking Christian needs to get a copy. The review is in two parts. I will quote from the first, but the second part is also worth reading.

Let me begin with the Foreword. Count on John Piper to say it straight and true. He pulls no punches as to why this issue is necessarily at the forefront of evangelical dialogue: "For if God did not punish his Son in my place, I am not saved from my greatest peril, the wrath of God" (14). That may strike some as odd language, but only because we have lost sight of that from which we most need to be saved and delivered: God! We have only one hope, says Piper and it is "that the infinite wisdom of God might make a way for the love of God to satisfy the wrath of God so that I might become a son of God" (14).

I suppose I should begin as the authors do with a definition of penal substitution. In the opening paragraph of the Introduction, they write: "The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin" (21). You may find it shocking that this would even be up for debate, for "this understanding of the cross of Christ," say our authors, "stands at the very heart of the gospel" (21).

There simply can be no Christian gospel apart from the truth that Jesus Christ has endured and suffered in himself, on the cross, the wrath of God due to sinners, thereby propitiating or satisfying said wrath on behalf of those for whom he died. Yes, indeed, it is shocking that professing evangelicals should call it into question or, worse still, describe it as tantamount to "cosmic child abuse."

Among those who have questioned or utterly rejected penal substitutionary atonement (hereafter, PSA), thus calling for this book to be written, are C. H. Dodd (from a generation ago), Stephen Travis, Eleonore Stump, Colin Gunton, Paul Fiddes, Vernon White, Stephen Sykes, Timothy Gorringe, Tom Smail, Joel Green, Mark Baker, J. Denny Weaver, John Goldingay, Steve Chalke, Alan Mann, and Brian McLaren.

Those who in past years have come to the exegetical and theological defense of PSA include Leon Morris, Roger Nicole, John Murray, J. I. Packer, John Stott, Mark Meynell, Henri Blocher, David Peterson, D. A. Carson, Tom Schreiner, A. T. B. McGowan, Robert Reymond, and numerous others, all of whose books are mentioned in the Introduction. One volume in particular, written to honor the life and ministry of Roger Nicole, is especially important: The Glory of the Atonement, edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III (IVP, 2004).

The focus of Pierced is summarized by its authors: "In brief, we argue that penal substitution is clearly taught in Scripture, that it has a central place in Christian theology, that a neglect of the doctrine will have serious pastoral consequences, that it has an impeccable pedigree in the history of the Christian church, and that all of the objections raised against it can be comprehensively answered" (31).

My interview with the authors of pierced for our transgressions seems to have created something of a stir. The comments section shows two very distinct reactions to the way I chose to close the interview. When one uses google blogsearch to track the way others have written about it on their own blogs a similar picture emerges.

Now, what is interesting to me is the strong reaction to me citing Paul's curse on those who preach another gospel to him. I did not curse anybody myself, and have no intention of doing so, since I am not given the authority that Paul had. BUT, and this is very important, Paul's words should give all of us cause to stop, and think very carefully about where we stand on the atonement - which is central to the gospel.

The facts are clear. There is an impressive body of people who have taught some form of penal substitution over the centuries. I recognise that there is some variation within that group - for example those who believe sin was punished in Jesus but are reluctant to say that Jesus himself was punished by God the father. But if the gospel is anything it is a message about the seriousness of sin, and what God has done to deal with it and allow us to be considered good enough to get into heaven.

There are some people in the comment section of this blog who have clearly rejected PSA and any form of justification by faith alone, arguing instead that the cross causes us to change, repent and live righteously and it is that change in us that allows God to forgive us.

The previous paragraph sure does not sound like the same gospel I was taught. Indeed PSA is so central to the presentations of the gospel I have heard that it seems to me at least that to deny it is to automatically be preaching another gospel to the one that I am preaching and that my current and historical heroes preach.

It is not as though I am alone in this view. The astonishingly long list of endorsements of the book pierced for our transgressions shows how important many people feel this is. Whatever else went on behind the scenes, the fact is that from next year there will be two Easter Christian conferences in the UK which will have different perspectives on what is essential to believe about the atonement.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones also said we cannot possibly have true fellowship with those who differ with us significantly over the atonement.

In all this we are left with the bald facts. Paul curses those who teach another gospel TO HIM. In this day of different gospels being preached in the church, it is encumbant on each of us - me as much as anyone else - to ask ourselves "Am I preaching a different gospel to Paul?"

I would challenge each of my readers, whatever they believe about the atonement to join with me in examining what the bible has to say about it. Show us why - from the bible not mere deduction and human reason- you feel I am wrong, and what you believe really is the case about the atonement. If it is me that stands in the way of Paul's curse, then you owe it to me to explain why I should believe in a different message of hope than I do. I implore you to show me the error of my ways and save me from my heresy if you believe I am so far from the true message of the bible.

It really saddens me that whilst those of us on this side of the PSA fence have written books and voluminous blog posts on the issue, there is a relative silence from the other side. Steve Chalke ought to be saying a lot more about the subject than he has if I and others are in danger of falling on the wrong side of Paul's curse. His silence has been deafening, and to me speaks volumes about how he views this issue. For his organization to highlight N T Wrights article which claims Chalke believes in something he has himself called cosmic child abuse and then refuse to explain how to square that circle seems just plain wrong to me.

It is not for me to curse anyone, and I have not done so. But I will not apologize for highlighting Paul's curse of those who disagree with him over the gospel. I really do not think it is possible for us to over-emphasize the importance of getting the gospel right. I hope you understand that I am seriously concerned for you my readers and anxious that we all ensure that what we are believing is really the same message that Paul and for that matter Jesus taught.

UPDATE - I have commented on criticism this post has received in a post entitled "Who is preaching another gospel?"

The history of the Church is quite simply the history of unlikely heroes who God raises up to meet the challenges of the hour. It was a great delight for me to recently spend some time with two such heroes—Dr. Andrew Sach and Dr. Steve Jeffery. They are both Anglican ordinands studying at Oak Hill Theological Seminary and yet, together with their new Principal-Elect, Dr. Mike Ovey, they have written a book that is shaking the evangelical world.

As we sat and ate mushroom soup in a very ordinary flat, I couldn’t help but give thanks to an extraordinary God who uses ordinary people for His purposes.

Pierced For Our Transgressions is a substantial theological book, yet it outsold its first print-run in just a few days. It has also had the longest list of endorsements of any recent evangelical book. When I spoke with Andrew and Steve, it had not been long since N. T. Wright had issued his strong rejection of their work as “profoundly unbiblical.”

I asked the two of them how they felt about Wright’s rejection of their work and the acclaim it had received from others. They both exuded the quiet, unconcerned response of those who know they have been commissioned by God. Yes, they had expected opposition, but no, they hadn’t realised it would come from N. T. Wright. As far as the long list of endorsements is concerned, this was to them not so much a reflection on the quality of the book itself as on the absolute importance of the topic to such a broad sweep of evangelical leaders. This is what Andrew said:

“We’ve been teased a bit about the length of the endorsements list! And some people have misunderstood it, thinking that it’s there just as a marketing ploy, or as evidence that we are very insecure! But those pages and pages of names at the start of Pierced for Our Transgressions are not there primarily because everyone loves the book. They are there because those people believe that penal substitution is of critical importance, and they fear that the Church will lose the Gospel if it is abandoned. The fact that such a range of people is represented—bishops, seminary professors, church leaders, songwriters, charismatic and non-charismatic, Baptist and Presbyterian, British, American, African, Australian—is testimony to the consensus that exists: penal substitution is fundamental ...

On another level, the endorsements do help with our insecurities! We’re not Old Testament specialists, and so to have top-rate scholars like T. D. Alexander or Tremper Longman III say “They got that right!” is a huge comfort. The same goes for the likes of Don Carson or Peter O’Brien on the New Testament. We’re humbled and surprised by the calibre of people who have backed us, to be honest, but if that strengthens the credibility of our work, especially in the face of opposition like that we’re getting from N. T. Wright, then we’re thankful.”

Their sense of commissioning by God was so palpable that it was no great surprise to hear from them a very similar story to what I had heard from Liam Goligher about the origins of his book on the atonement.

Andrew’s involvement in the current atonement controversy began at Spring Harvest Word Alive in 2004, when Steve Chalke’s book, The Lost Message of Jesus, first hit the shelves. One of his friends in their chalet read out the now infamous portion which speaks of penal substitution as “cosmic child abuse,” and Andrew realised that some kind of response was needed. A couple of weeks later he teamed up with his tutor, Mike, to write a review of the book for the newspaper Evangelicals Now.

Later that year, the Evangelical Alliance hosted a public debate in response to the furore caused by The Lost Message. During the debate, a friend leaned over to Steve and simply asked, “Where is the book that responds to this?” To Steve this came as a challenge that wouldn’t leave his mind. Whilst there were plenty of books that taught penal substitution—John Stott’s classic, The Cross of Christ, for example—they did not deal with recent objections. Steve felt an unshakable conviction that he should do something—he put it down to “providence.” At this point we had a good laugh about how what he had called providence I might well have called prophecy.

Before long Steve had Andrew and Mike on board and the book was born. A publishing contract with IVP UK was obtained, and the American rights have now been taken up by Crossway (rather than American IVP, who have recently published material opposed to penal substitution). Andrew and Steve spoke glowingly of the joy writers experience when they have a publisher behind their book who really cares about the message and not just the profit margin. They were eager to thank the team at IVP UK that helped them so much.

The style of the book is a little different from many previous theological works. They have revived an old model of doing theology which states your position and then interacts with every possible objection to it. At times it almost reads like blogging. I think a book like this serves us well in the age of the online conversation. Interaction and discussion can only help to bring clarity, and ultimately strengthens us theologically. Whilst the writers cannot possibly anticipate every objection, certainly the major ones are highlighted and addressed.

Andrew and Steve are two charming, gentle men who are, however, clearly passionate about our view of the cross. We spent some time discussing the implications of recent events in the evangelical scene—especially in the UK. We all agreed that a reconfiguration of the evangelical culture seems inevitable. Old alliances have broken, and new ones will be forged. Suddenly the old dividing lines do not seem to be as important as what is quite definitely the most important issue facing evangelicalism today. Andrew said:

“We were worried that things could split along charismatic versus conservative lines. Prominent critics of penal substitution, such as Steve Chalke in the UK and Brian McLaren in the States, have most influence in charismatic circles, whereas Steve, Mike, and I—and Liam Goligher for that matter—would probably be identified as “conservatives.” The fact is, though, that there are many charismatic brothers who stand exactly where we are. Mike Pilavachi of Soul Survivor has identified himself as an ally; Greg Haslam from Westminster Chapel has written a passionate article supporting penal substitution for Christianity magazine; New Frontiers are with us, and many in New Wine.

In the States they have this thing called “Together for the Gospel” which has brought together Christians from very different places on the charismatic/non-charismatic spectrum, united by their common commitment to the evangelical essentials. I think we’re beginning to see the same thing over here with New Word Alive. It’s very exciting.

But, yes, there are those who have taken the other side, and we must have the courage to part company with them.”

These two gentlemen do not pull any punches when required, as this short extract from the book which interacts with the now infamous section from Steve Chalke shows:

Consider this extract from Steve Chalke and Alan Mann's book, The Lost Message of Jesus:

John's Gospel famously declares, 'God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son' (John 3:16). How then have we come to believe that at the cross this God of love suddenly decides to vent his anger and wrath on his own Son? 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 concept 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 to refuse to repay evil with evil.” (Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), pp. 182-183.

This example has it all. First, penal substitution is criticized, but in vague and unspecified terms; it is said to contradict the Christian teaching about God's love, but we are not told exactly how; it is said to be 'morally dubious', but we are not told why; it is said to contradict the Sermon on the Mount, but there is no careful exegesis to enable us to assess this claim.

Secondly, penal substitution is misrepresented. Whoever said that God's decision to punish his Son was 'sudden,' as if to imply that it was a capricious outburst of rage? Certainly no proponent of penal substitution we have read. Was the penal suffering of the cross not carefully planned, even prophesied in Isaiah 53 many centuries before the event?

Thirdly, there is the ultimate example of guilt by association. Penal substitution is portrayed as 'a form of cosmic child abuse.' This sticks in the mind, tugging at the conscience, for there are few crimes more despicable than violence towards an innocent, defenceless child.

The fact is that none of it is true. Nowhere in Chalke and Mann's book do they even attempt to argue that it is true. The above quotation amounts to a form of verbal bullying, a scare tactic calculated to coerce people into abandoning long-held beliefs out of fear of being associated with something nasty.”

That kind of courage and direct talking is much needed in the Church today. I am very glad that Steve, Andrew, and their Principal-Elect, Mike Ovey, have been raised up by God to make such a spirited and needed defence of the Gospel.

It struck me that despite the fact that the church I attend is just a few miles from Oak Hill, if it had not been for the recent attacks on the atonement, I would probably not have met these too delightful servants of God. Sometimes theological controversy in the Church has a helpful outcome. If there had not been ancient heretics, we would never have had the creeds.

Our opponents think we are divided, think that we care more about modes of baptism and the definition of prophecy than we do about the cross. They are wrong. There is a newfound mood of determination among many confessional evangelicals such as Andrew and Steve; the list of endorsements shows a willingness for people from across the evangelical spectrum to unite around the Gospel.

Whilst many in the evangelical movement in the UK are eager only for peace and would prefer that we did not speak about issues like the atonement, the words of people like Andrew and Steve are definitely finding a resonance in many ears. A new generation is rising up who are not prepared to be silent. A generation who are saying “Enough is enough!” A generation who are convinced that our views of the cross must not be modified to become more acceptable to the culture.

As I left them I couldn’t help but be grateful for the way God chooses unassuming people like Andrew and Steve for great tasks in His Church. I suspect that they never dreamt that they would write a book which would become something of a touchstone for a generation of Christians. This issue and this book of theirs demands a clear response that will bring definition to a movement rapidly drifting into oblivion.

Where do you stand? Will you join arms with Andrew, Steve, and a whole generation of those of us who feel this issue is quite literally one of life and death?

Or will you seek to compromise, maybe downplay the importance of precisely how Jesus saves us, and adopt a gospel message that, whilst sounding more acceptable to the modern ear, is in the opinion of many of us nothing less than “another gospel.”

The stakes couldn’t possibly be higher.

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

As we discuss the atonement, it is vitally important that we come directly to the cross itself. There are two things for us to consider which, by necessity, require penal substitution.

The first is that the cross is absolutely essential in the purposes of God to save us. We have hinted at this previously, but if the cross was not an essential part of the plan of God for our salvation, allowing His Son to go through such suffering would be shameful and would, indeed, reveal a lack of love towards Him. Unless we believe that God’s justice demands judicial death for sin, it is difficult to understand why the cross was essential.

As the cross looms before Jesus, we are also faced with another immense problem — if penal substitutionary atonement is not true, why did it seem such a big thing to Jesus? While Jesus was brave and chose to go to the cross, many people throughout history have appeared to face death with more confidence than the Son of God in the Garden of Gethsemane. I believe we insult His dignity unless we understand that it was not merely death from which Jesus was instinctively recoiling.

Jesus cries out to His Father a prayer which is emotive in the extreme — “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)

The obvious implication is that it was NOT possible for the cup to pass, or at least not possible if God wanted to save us. This cup cannot possibly simply mean death on the cross; no, indeed, the cup is clearly the cup of God’s wrath spoken of in the Old Testament which Jesus would drain dry.

As Lloyd-Jones put it:

“Christ died upon the cross for no reason except this; it had to happen; it was an absolute necessity; there was no other way whereby man could be forgiven.” (God the Father, God the Son (315), Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books)

The writer to the Hebrews puts it as follows:

“Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” (Hebrews 2:17)

And Paul says,

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)

In Mark's account of this event, Jesus warns his disciples about what is about to happen to Him and them by referring to an interesting Bible verse: "For it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'" (Mark 14:27)

It is clear who is the one doing the striking — it is God. Interestingly, at least in the ESV, the Old Testament verse this is quoted from is translated slightly differently in such a way that it seems that God is the one doing the striking, but through the agency of someone else.

"Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me, declares the Lord of hosts. Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered." (Zechariah 13:7)

This slight discrepancy in our English translation may, in fact, simply be a matter of differences with the Septuagint and the Hebrew, although approximate quotations were the norm in that culture. Nonetheless, to me, Jesus is clearly summarizing the quote in such a way that He is making it clear God will be the one striking Him. He could perhaps have quoted that verse in a slightly different way if He didn't see it that way. So we have Jesus clearly saying that God is the one causing Him pain.

“The debt was so great that while man alone owed it, only God could pay it.”

— Anselm

In Romans 15 there is one more excellent summary of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.

“For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me’.” (Romans 15:3)

Thus, Jesus takes on Himself what we deserve. It is important to see that the reason Paul speaks of this here is to demonstrate that Jesus is an example for us. Just in case anyone thinks that in all our emphasis on the penal aspects of the atonement we have forgotten that it is an example to us, let’s leave this exploration of Romans with a short quote from John Piper on how Jesus was indeed our example on the cross:

“Christ is the example and empowering inspiration for us in these two things: he did not please himself, but he took on himself reproaches that were not his to bear, so that good could come to others.”
— John Piper

UPDATE
I thought I would share a couple of quotes by others who take this verse in a similar way to the way I do, and who explain it better than I can:

"Every sin is a kind of reproach to God, especially presumptuous sins; now the guilt of these fell upon Christ, when he was made sin, that is, a sacrifice, a sin-offering for us. When the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all, and he bore our sins in his own body upon the tree, they fell upon him as upon our surety. Upon me be the curse. This was the greatest piece of self-displacency that could be: considering his infinite spotless purity and holiness, the infinite love of the Father to him, and his eternal concern for his Father’s glory, nothing could be more contrary to him, nor more against him, than to be made sin and a curse for us, and to have the reproaches of God fall upon him, especially considering for whom he thus displeased himself, for strangers, enemies, and traitors, the just for the unjust."

— Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

"The quotation is verbatim from the LXX of Psalm 69:9 [LXX 68:10]. The psalm is one of the most powerful cries of personal distress in the Psalter, and for that very reason would hardly commend itself to Jewish thought as messianic in character. Just as naturally, however, the earliest Christians scanning the scriptures for prefigurations of what had happened to the Messiah in the event found this psalm to become luminous with meaning in the light of Jesus’ suffering and death. After Pss 2, 22, 110, and 118, it is about the most quoted psalm in the NT (see on 11:9–10)—the most explicit allusions usually with direct reference to Christ’s passion and the events surrounding it."

James D. G. Dunn, Vol. 38B, Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 9-16 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), page 838.

To be continued . . .

In many ways the climax of Romans is at the end of chapter 11. In the next few chapters Paul applies his doctrine — he speaks about how we need to live in the good of the wonderful salvation which was bought for us and which saved us from the wrath of God. He cannot resist reminding us a few times of God’s wrath as he does this, however, so that we are reminded of this wonderful salvation. As I have said before, only penal substitutionary atonement makes sense of what happens to the wrath of God.

“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’.” (Romans 12:19)

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.” (Romans 13:1-5)

“For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God’.” (Romans 14:10-11)

Notice that in these verses we see an answer to one of the common objections made in connection with penal substitution — why God can’t “just forget” sin the way we are told to forget it. God does not simply forgive sins for His wrath — unlike our's — sin cannot be merely brushed aside. The precise reason we can “just forgive” is that we are told to do so to make room for His judgment, which is surely coming. God’s wrath can only be turned away through Jesus receiving that judgment, by which God can then justly forgive sin.

Continues with "Penal Substitutionary Atonement Summarized in Romans 15"

I reported here a while back that Bishop Broadbent, leader of the Spring Harvest team, has accepted that disagreements over Steve Chalke played at least some role in the split between Word Alive and Spring Harvest. Today the UCCF issued a follow-up statement on their website which seems to aim to be conciliatory.

There is still no official statement or comment from Spring Harvest itself as an organisation in response to the ones from UCCF. Neither has Steve Chalke replied to the following question I asked him via the Oasis press office in light of the current controversy and N. T.Wright's intervention:-"Was N. T. Wright correct to say that you hold to a form of penal substitutionary atonement? If so, how do you reconcile that with your previous statements in follow-up articles to your book that it was penal substitutionary atonement that you described as 'cosmic child abuse'?"

Here is the full text of today's UCCF statement:

Word Alive — the past and the future

Since the recent Word Alive event in partnership with Spring Harvest, there has been much print given to the reasons for the split and these have unfortunately led to a range of complexities, distortions and disputes about the issues. In the meantime, UCCF, Keswick Ministries and Spring Harvest were approached with an offer of independent, formal mediation with a view to producing a joint, clarifying statement. UCCF and Keswick both accepted this offer but Spring Harvest unfortunately declined.

Since there is now no prospect of a formal objective procedure to clear up some of the details, we see no point in perpetuating this dispute any further. We admit that we have unwittingly contributed to it by giving the impression that the Word Alive committee rejected a specific request to allow Steve Chalke on the Word Alive platform in 2007. A request for Steve Chalke to be acceptable to Word Alive (following his signing of the updated EA Doctrinal Basis) actually had been made in general but not in specific terms to the Word Alive committee on 17th May 2006. We apologise for unintentionally being misleading about this.

While there had been niggles with Spring Harvest on other matters over the years, all parties had managed to live with them. It was made quite clear to us by Spring Harvest that the decisive issue, which caused them to end the partnership now, was our refusal to allow Steve Chalke to share our platform because of his unorthodox views on the atonement and the way he expresses them.

Other statements, which we previously made, have been disputed but on reviewing those matters, we see no good reason to change them, but we will not rehearse them again here. Others are responsible for their own statements, and although they may have emerged out of genuine misunderstandings, we feel they have not helped. (We note that not everyone was in attendance at every relevant meeting.) Since we cannot achieve the all round clarity we desire, we do not want to look backwards any longer on this unhappy episode but press on towards the future, which is a new Word Alive event in partnership between UCCF and Keswick. Furthermore, we want to wish Spring Harvest well and thank them for all they have done to make Word Alive the great success it has been.

The new Word Alive event will take place at Phwhelli in North Wales (it is pronounced something like “Porth – helly”) from 7-11 April 2008. Confirmed speakers include Don Carson, John Piper and Terry Virgo. A full programme for all the family, including crèche facilities, children and teens groups as well as our vibrant student track, is currently being arranged. We are greatly looking forward to the new event and the opportunity it gives us to develop the Word Alive conference. END

Last week I made the point that to Paul the cross and resurrection of Jesus are so closely entwined that he will often use one or the other of them as shorthand for both. Today I want to point to another passage, this time in Peter, where I believe the same thing occurs.

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." (1 Peter 2:24)

Notice first of all that this is a strong verse in support of a penal substitutionary view of the atonement. Jesus is hanging there on the cross bearing our sins. Now what is happening to our sins? Our sins are being destroyed, that’s what! Our sins are in the body of Christ and are being destroyed. How are they being destroyed? For a start, it’s on a tree, and as any reader of Galatians 3:13 knows, anyone hung on a tree is cursed. As Paul puts it “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’”

What destroys sin? The fact that it is punished and annihilated at the cross. What else can “By his wounds you have been healed” mean in this context? So a real transfer has occurred where the wounds of Christ deal with our sin. This is another of those verses that, to me, seem hard to read any other way, although my commentators are welcome to try!

Today is Resurrection Sunday, after all, so notice the middle portion of those words. You should notice a parallel with the words we were considering last week. We are told that what happened to Jesus is so that we can die to sin — that makes sense, of course, but also the words "live to righteousness" are added. I would argue that to this writer, the resurrection and the cross are so entwined that he sees no need to mention it here, it is assumed. The parallelism between Jesus’ death and our death to sin and His resurrection and our righteous life is so strong it must be a very early summary of the Gospel. To go back to what I said a few weeks back, it is sad that we often fail to even mention the Resurrection in our preaching of the Gospel.

How do I know for sure that Peter used this abbreviation — not because the resurrection was unimportant to him theologically — but because of his belief that he could trust his readers to understand what he meant? It’s because in the previous chapter he does it the other way and speaks about the resurrection itself as having saved us without any mention of the cross!

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (1 Peter 1:3-9)

In an article posted just this week, John Piper writes about how the cross has efficacy because Jesus lived an obedient life. In the debates about the atonement, some people criticise us for over-emphasising the cross at the expense of the incarnation or resurrection. I have been arguing in my series on the resurrection that the cross and resurrection are an inseparable unit. Here Piper argues that the cross and Jesus’ obedience as a man throughout his life are also inseparable

If you put these ideas together, you come up with the conclusion — which might seem obvious, but nonetheless is worth saying in this climate of debate — Jesus life, death, and resurrection as a unitary event planned before the foundation of the world saved us. If you like, Jesus was our obedience substitute during his life, our punishment substitute in His death, and our rebirth substitute in His resurrection. The doctrine of unity with Christ teaches us that we become united with Jesus in such a way that His life of obedience, death of pain, and resurrection into glorious power are all credited to our account! What a Saviour!

Here is some of what Piper said:

“. . . so the death of the Son of God is sufficient to cover all our sins as the climax of a sinless life. This is no disparagement to the cross. It is not adding to the cross. The New Testament writers saw the death of Christ as the climax of his life. His whole life was designed to bring him to the cross (Mark 10:45; John 12:27; Hebrews 2:14). That is why he was born, and why he lived. To speak of the saving effect of his death was therefore to speak of his death as the sum and climax of his sinless life.

Similarly, the final obedience of Christ in his death is sufficient to justify his people as the climax of a sinless life. It is not likely that the apostles thought of Jesus’ obedience on the cross as separate from his obedience leading to the cross. Where would one draw the line between his life of sinless obedience and the final acts of obedience? Any line would be artificial. Do we draw it at the point where he submitted to the piercing of his hands? Or at the point when he submitted to his arrest in the garden? Or at the point where he endured Judas’ departure from the supper? Or at the point where he planned his final entry to Jerusalem? Or at the point where he “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51)? Or at the point of his baptism where he said, “It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15)?

It is more likely that when Paul spoke of Jesus’ obedience as the cause of our justification he meant not merely the final acts of obedience on the cross, but rather the cross as the climax of his obedient life. This seems to be the way Paul is thinking in Philippians 2:7-8: “He emptied himself . . . being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” Notice the sequence of thought: He became a human. That is, he was found in human form. >>> He humbled himself. >>> The way he humbled himself was by becoming obedient. >>> This obedience was so complete that it willingly embraced death. >>> Even death in the most painful and shameful way—on a cross.

What this text shows is that between “being born in the likeness of men” at one end of his life and “even death on a cross” at the other end of his life was a life of self-humbling obedience. The fact that it came to its climax on the cross in the most terrible and glorious way is probably what causes Paul to speak of the cross as the sum and climax of all his obedience. But it is very unlikely that Paul would have separated the obedience of the final hours from the obedience that designed, planned, pursued, and embraced those final hours . . . .”

— John Piper

As we are working our way though Romans and highlighting passages that are related to the atonement, we now reach Romans 9-11. It is worth noting that one’s concepts of the atonement and justification are closely entwined. For many who have been influenced by the new perspectives on Paul, this next passage must be slightly awkward. Crucial to the understanding I have of the cross is that it exists in order that God can give us a free gift of righteousness that is independent of works. This passage demonstrates that Paul clearly had a perspective of the Jews that included the idea that they were pursuing salvation by working hard to please God. The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement teaches us that because someone else has been obedient on our behalf, we can receive salvation now as a free gift.

“What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 9:30-Romans 10:13)

Suddenly salvation is not about what you do, but rather about what you believe — or rather who you trust in to save you. Suddenly salvation is about believing the good news of the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection on our behalf. Suddenly it is about us not trying to please him, but recognizing our desperate need of him and crying out to him to have mercy on us and save us. Is it any wonder Paul is filled with praise of God and ends chapter 11 as follows:

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?
Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be glory forever. Amen.”
(Romans 11:33-36)

Continues with "The Atonement in Romans 12-14"

I spent the last week giving a brief overview of the teaching of Romans on the atonement. I will today turn to Romans 8. This is one of the most glorious chapters of the whole Bible, and much gain can be had from studying and memorizing the entire chapter. Today, we are interested only in the first few verses.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4)

Once again we see certain aspects of penal substitutionary atonement clearly outlined here. Our problem is presented as condemnation. It is not merely the condemnation of others — it is God’s condemnation that is the problem. We see that God, who in this sense poses a problem to us, also provides the solution. He sends His Son — no mere passive God being persuaded by His Son to relent. He sends His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, but then, in one further step, He condemns sin in the flesh. How much clearer does Paul need to get for us to grasp this? The condemnation was done to Jesus so that we might become righteous. What glorious truth this is. We don’t merely get told to pretend we are not guilty to cover up our sin. No, we are told, “You are guilty,” but another has born your guilt that your condemnation, both subjectively and objectively, can be removed. What a wonderful Gospel! What glorious news! Why would anyone want to twist and neuter this fantastic truth?

To be continued . . .

Most Mondays I take the time to raid my electronic version of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' materials, which is produced by Logos Bible Software. Today I want to share a quote from the Doctor which could have been written with current events in mind. There really is nothing new under the sun, and the battles we face today are no different in many ways from those faced by others who have gone before us. The following words should be read carefully. The most vital thing we can ask ourselves is expressed so wonderfully in the closing sentences. We are urged by the Apostle Paul to “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith.” (2 Corinthians 13:5). Let's allow the master spiritual diagnostician to help us in our quest:

“Whether we like it or not, Christianity is a most intolerant faith. It says that this and this alone is right and true . . . the only basis of unity today, as it was the only basis of unity in the early Church, is the apostolic message. And whatever men may think or say we must assert this. Let them call us intolerant, isolationists, or what they will, we must take our stand with this man of God! It is not my opinion or anybody else’s opinion that matters—what does the Word teach?

. . . this is the foundation—that man by nature is dead in trespasses and sins; that he is under the wrath of God . . . unless you believe that man, by nature, is dead in trespasses and sins, and that there is such a thing as the wrath of God upon sin, whatever else may be true of you, you are not in this holy temple in the Lord, in which God dwells . . . But thank God it does not stop at that, it goes on to tell us about the grace of God . . . the Lord Jesus Christ, His Person and His work . . . it is by His death, by His sacrificial death, by His substituting Himself for us to bear the punishment of our sins, that we are saved. It is by the blood of Christ!

. . . there are people who call themselves Christians who scoff at it. There are leaders in the big denominations who say that it is scandalous to talk about a substitutionary atonement. And I am asked to be one in fellowship with them. How can I be? It is impossible. I have no choice; this is fundamental. The blood of Christ! ‘He bore my sins in his own body on the tree.’ It is by that alone that I am delivered, and by the power of God in regeneration, and the gift of the Spirit. Union with Christ!

. . . the practical question therefore which we ask ourselves is this: Do I know what I believe about the Lord Jesus Christ? Do I know Him? Am I in Him, in this vital relationship? . . . [Or] are you just interested in a vague, nebulous Christianity that says that you must not be concerned about doctrine because doctrine separates? Is that your position? It was certainly not the position of the man who said, ‘But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel . . . let him be accursed.’

. . . do you know and confess that, as you were by nature, you were a child of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins? And that were it not for the grace of God in Jesus Christ, were it not for His atoning, sacrificial, substitutionary death you would still be in that position? Do you know that He died for you, gave Himself for you and for your sins, and that by the power of His Holy Spirit He has regenerated you, has quickened you, has raised you from the death of sin; and that you are seated even now in the heavenly places with Christ, because you are in Him and joined to Him, by the grace of God?

David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God's Way of Reconciliation (Studies in Ephesians, Chapter 2), Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972, p. 347.

As regular readers will know, I have been spending the last week giving a brief overview of the teaching of the book of Romans in connection with the atonement. I will continue with that next week, but I wanted to bring to your attention, if you are not already aware of it, Dr. John Piper’s masterful exposition of the whole book of Romans. Every single sermon is available to read and listen to online for free, and many of them are also available to watch. All 224 of these sermons are also available on a single mp3 DVD.

I would like to share a long extract with you today from one of these sermons because I think Piper expresses the nature of the problem the cross exists to solve better than I have heard anyone else express it:

God put Christ forward (he sent him to die) in order to demonstrate his righteousness (or justice). The problem that needed solving was that God for some reason seemed to be unrighteous, and wanted to vindicate himself and clear his name.

But what created that problem? Why did God face the problem of needing to give a public vindication of his righteousness? The answer is in the last phrase of verse 25: “on account of passing over sins done beforehand.”

Now what does that mean? It means that for centuries God had been doing what Psalm 103:10 says, “He does not deal with us according to our sins or requite us according to our iniquities.” He just passes over them. He does not punish them.

King David is a good example. In 2 Samuel 12 he is confronted by the prophet Nathan for committing adultery with Bathsheba and then having her husband killed. Nathan says, “Why have you despised the word of the Lord?” and God says, “Why have you despised me?” (2 Samuel 12:9-10).

David feels the rebuke of Nathan, and in verse 13 he says, “I have sinned against the Lord.” To this, Nathan responds, ‘The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.” Just like that! Adultery and murder passed over.

That is what Paul means in Romans 3:25 by the passing over of sins done beforehand. But why is that a problem? Is it felt as a problem by the secular mindset—that God is kind to sinners? How many people outside the scope of biblical influence wrestle with the problem that a holy and righteous God makes the sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45)? How many wrestle with the problem that God is kind to sinners? How many people struggle with the fact that their own forgiveness is a threat to the righteousness of God?

The secular mindset does not even assess the problem the way the biblical mindset does. Why is that? It's because the secular mindset thinks from a radically different starting point. It does not start with the Creator rights of God to display the infinite worth of His glory. It starts with man and assumes that God will conform to his rights and wishes.

Look at verse 23: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” What's at stake in sinning is the glory of God. Do you remember what God said to David when he was caught in adultery? “Why have you despised ME?”

David could have said, “What do you mean, I despised you? I didn't despise you. I wasn't even thinking of you. I was just red hot after this woman and then scared to death that people were going to find out. You weren't even in the picture.”

And God would have said, “The Creator of the universe, the designer of marriage, the fountain of life, the one who made you king, was not even in the picture—that's right. You despised me. All sin is a despising of me and my glory. All sin is a preference for the fleeting pleasures of the world over the everlasting joy of my fellowship. You demeaned my glory. You belittled my worth. You dishonored my name. That is the meaning of sin—failing to love my glory above everything else.”

The problem in God's passing over sin (that the secular mindset does not grasp) is that God's worth and glory and righteousness have been despised, and passing over it makes him look cheap.

Suppose a group of anarchists plot to assassinate President Bush and his cabinet, and almost succeed. Their bombs destroy part of the White House and kill some staff, but the President narrowly escapes. The anarchists are caught and the court finds them guilty. But then the anarchists say they are sorry and so the court suspends their sentences and releases them. What that would communicate to the world is that the President's life and his governance of the nation are cheap.

That is what the passing over of sin communicates: God's glory and his righteous governance are cheap and worthless.

Apart from divine revelation, the natural mind—the secular mind—does not see or feel this problem. What secular person loses any sleep over the unrighteousness of God's kindness to sinners?

But according to Romans this is the most basic problem that God solved by the death of his Son. Read it again (verse 25b): “It [the death of his Son] was to demonstrate God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance (or patience) he had passed over former sins; (26) it was for a demonstration of his righteousness at the present time in order that he himself might be righteous . . .” God would be unrighteous if he passed over sins as though the value of his glory were nothing.

But he didn't. God saw his glory being despised by sinners—he saw his worth belittled and his name dishonored by our sins—and rather than vindicating the worth of his glory by slaying his people, he vindicated his glory by slaying his Son.

I urge you now to embrace a biblical mindset this morning. If you never have done so before, do so now. I urge you to think and feel the way God does about the death of his Son.

And the test of that mindset is this: do you feel that, apart from the death of Jesus, God would be righteous not to forgive your sins? That he could vindicate his righteousness by requiring from us a price of suffering equal to the infinite worth of the glory we have despised?

When you look at the death of Christ what happens? Does your joy really come from translating this awesome divine work into a boost for self-esteem? Or are you drawn up out of yourself and filled with wonder and reverence and worship that here in the death of Jesus is the deepest, clearest declaration of the infinite worth of the glory of God and the Son of God?

Sermon on Romans 3:21-26 by John Piper© Desiring God.

Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/.

Email: mail@desiringGod.org.

Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.

When one discusses the atonement, one objection is that it is unjust for someone who is unconnected to us to die in our place. Paul seems to anticipate that objection, and in chapter 6 he makes plain that it is no mere “legal fiction” that has taken place. Because what God declares to be the case actually is the case, we see that we can be considered to have both died with Christ and have been raised with Him. Thus, it becomes clear why faith is so vital, for it is in faith that we become united with Jesus, and the things He has done on our behalf become counted as though we ourselves had done them.

One of the greatest mysteries of the Bible is, of course, the precise mechanics of how this happened. Clearly on the one extreme we are not conscious of having experienced dying with Christ. We are, on the other hand, expected to be conscious — both now partially and in the future fully — that we have been raised with Him. Is Paul merely using metaphor here so that we can add “it is as if” or “it is like” to every clause? Personally I suspect not, and I am confident that the tone of this passage, whilst not answering all our questions, goes a long way towards explaining why it is entirely just for Jesus to have been punished on our behalf. There is also similar language in Romans 7 — and note the link Paul makes between Jesus’ resurrection and our empowerment to bear fruit for God.

“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.” (Romans 6:3-6)

“Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.” (Romans 7:4)

Continues with "The Atonement in Romans 8"

Romans 4 elaborates on how it is faith that saves us. Without the cross being something truly efficacious in which to have saving faith, I can't see how that can be true. The cross has done something — it is no mere demonstration!

Romans 5 begins with “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” A touchstone of our view of the atonement is this — is it merely our enmity against God that is talked about here (i.e. we can now put away our anger at God) or is it that God has put away His anger towards us? Of course, both things are true! The whole of Romans builds a picture that makes this plain — not only are we God’s enemies, He, too, has righteous anger, and if you like, enmity towards us.

Romans 5 continues in such a way that I simply can't see how there is any way we can interpret the cross but as substitution:

“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person — though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die — but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned — for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:6-19)

There is very little that needs to be said about those words. We see clearly and repeatedly that Christ died “for” us. What can that possibly mean if it doesn’t mean “in place of” or “because of” or “for the good of”? Also, it is implied that the Christian is no longer a sinner — what could possibly occur to change that? How can we be changed unless our sins are taken away and dealt with on our behalf? How precisely can blood justify us unless the death itself did something to and for us? And — get this — we are saved by Jesus from God’s wrath. God’s wrath is the problem. I have yet to see an alternative view of the atonement explain that adequately. How does Jesus save us from God’s wrath if it is not by bearing the full brunt of it and thereby turning it away from us? We are reconciled by death and saved by life — what more do we want?

It is interesting to note here, as often elsewhere, that the resurrection is also seen as part of Christ’s substitutionary work for us — He doesn’t just die for us, He is also raised for us! It is also stretching the grounds of plausibility to suggest that the reconciliation language here is one-way and only involves us. No, the alienation caused by sin is a problem on God’s side of our relationship also — He is right to be angry with us, and reconciliation comes only through Jesus’ death.

We are also given clear language about representation — what happens to us is similar to what happened to us when Adam sinned. This notion of corporate responsibility is not one we often think about, but it's there. The point is clear — just as Adam’s sin was imputed to us, so Jesus’ righteousness is also imputed