In a sign of just how many preachers read this blog, so far this year the sixth most read post on my blog is a Mother's Day sermon entitled "Comfort Like a Mother" that I preached earlier in the year.

At number 5 is my initial post on the Steve Chalke controversy. There are several updates to this issue listed on that page. My invitation to Steve to come on this blog or issue a statement clarifying what he believes about penal substitution remains open, but I doubt very much he will ever take me up on this, sadly.

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.”

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?"

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.

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

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

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.

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."

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.

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

Justin Taylor helpfully points to some quotes from N. T.Wright that seem to clearly affirm a penal substitutionary view of the atonement. I am left, though, with two questions from the article Wright published earlier in the week.

1. Why then does he respond so very negatively to the new book Pierced For Our Transgressions?

2. Does Steve Chalke really believe what Wright does despite his clear condemnation of all forms of PSA?

In today's news, in an article in the Church Times entitled "Atonement Row Gets Personal as Evangelical Partnership Splits," Bishop Broadbent is quoted as acknowledging that Steve Chalke was at least part of the reason for the split with UCCF. Clearly some of the details of the story remain disputed, but as I first reported just over a week ago, differences in how inclusive to be over different views of the atonement seem clearly to be at least part of the reason the two conferences are going their separate ways.

"Bishop Broadbent described the reasons for Spring Harvest’s and Word Alive’s parting company as “perfectly normal.” He said on Tuesday: “They’re trying to make it a big issue over Steve Chalke, which isn’t true. He’s one factor among many.” (Church Times)

Update - Keswick have now posted their press statement from earlier this week online.

UPDATE - Broadbent subsequently issued a further statment which acknowledged Steve Chalke was one factor in the split.

Pete Broadbent, who leads the Spring Harvest Leadership Team, has now issued the following statement in response to my post on Spring Harvest and UCCF, and the official UCCF Statement. It is also interesting in light of Tom Wright’s statement about the atonement and Steve Chalke.

Peter Broadbent’s Statement

Spring Harvest, Keswick, and UCCF (the three partners in Word Alive) agreed to go their separate ways. The statement we produced at the time reads as follows:

“2007 will be the last year of Spring Harvest Word Alive. The constituent organisations — Keswick Ministries, UCCF, and Spring Harvest — will be ending a partnership that has lasted 14 years, and have agreed to go their separate ways.

Word Alive was originally conceived as a distinctive event within Spring Harvest, drawing Christians from a more theologically conservative church background to Butlins for a week with a strong emphasis on expository Bible teaching and a major input for students. The partnership has been a fruitful one and we thank God for the way He has worked through this event over the years.

Of late it has been difficult to accommodate Word Alive as a separate week within the total mix, and after much discussion, the Spring Harvest Council of Management gave notice that Spring Harvest Word Alive could not continue beyond this year. “We’re looking to end on a high note,” said Pete Broadbent, Chair of the Spring Harvest Leadership Team. “Our theme for 2007 is One People — and we’ll be teaching and celebrating that reality throughout our programme.”

Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes and Chair of the Word Alive Committee, said the Word Alive brand would continue independently of Spring Harvest after this year’s event. Keswick Ministries and UCCF will continue their partnership and will announce very soon news of future venues and dates. Word Alive will continue its emphasis on lively, cross-centred Bible teaching, a full student programme, and fun and fellowship for all the family.

Spring Harvest wish the Word Alive partners well and we separate thanking God for the part the other plays in the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ in the UK today.”

Various people have since attempted to "spin" the reasons why we decided to go our separate ways for their own purposes. That's their decision. It's not where I am, or where Spring Harvest are. Wallace Benn and I stood on a public platform at Spring Harvest Word Alive, wished our respective events well, prayed for each other, and departed on the best of terms.

This blog has already linked to the statement made jointly by Wallace Benn and myself (Pete Broadbent) on behalf of Spring Harvest Word Alive criticising Jeffrey John's inflammatory stuff on the atonement. So there is no way that anyone can represent Spring Harvest as being anywhere other than the orthodox biblical stance on the atonement. You comment on the style of my statement. Actually it reads the way it does because it's a verbatim transcript from a seminar I was giving on the continuity of OT and NT theology, during which I made the aside about Jeffrey John. So it isn’t necessarily theologically honed and polished — our Press Officer put it out as a press release reporting what had been said.

It’s terribly sad that UCCF are now coming out with an official statement that simply isn’t true to what actually took place. I don’t want to get into a public row with UCCF, whose ministry among students I support. But this is just simply to say that I dispute most of what is contained in the statement as being either misunderstanding (willful or otherwise) or total fabrication. I could hope that they would withdraw their statement and hold their peace. They seem to want to define themselves over against Spring Harvest, which I regret. We stand for the same faith and the same gospel.

Pete Broadbent Spring Harvest Leadership Team
http://www.springharvest.org/

UPDATE #3
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 11th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 12th most widely read post was "The Toronto Blessing"—When the Church Seemed To Be Going Mad.

This post examines possibly the most controversial article Wright has written. In it, I question 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 Bishop Wright in private e-mails, and sadly, he declined my offers for him to clarify his position further on my blog.

UPDATE #2

• Justin Taylor links to a D. A. Carson review of Wright's latest book.
• Read the wide-ranging list of endorsements for Pierced For Our Transgressions

UPDATE #1
The servers hosting N. T. Wright's article, as well as Steve Chalke's, seem to have been having trouble with the demand to download them, so I have added mirrors to Wright and Chalke to help more people read them. The authors of Pierced For Our Transgressions have now responded to Wright's comments in a similar vein to my article.

---

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.”

We are left to wonder if he is speaking about Steve Chalke. If you are like me, and remember that Wright strongly endorsed Steve’s book, you will by now have begun to wonder how he can square that particular circle given some of his earlier comments. To begin with, he claims that the following statement of Chalke indicates that he does, after all, believe the cross of Jesus had something to do with wrath.

“Just as a lightning-conductor soaks up powerful and destructive bolts of electricity, so Jesus, as he hung on that cross, soaked up all the forces of hate, rejection, pain, and alienation all around him.” (The Lost Message of Jesus, p. 179).

This is disingenuous to the extreme; firstly it seeems clear — at least to me — that to Chalke the wrath involved is not God’s wrath. In any case, the article Chalke wrote explaining himself after the book makes it plain that it is not some kind of caricature of penal substitution he has rejected as cosmic child abuse, but the very concept itself. If Chalke has changed his mind, he should issue a statement to that effect.

Wright then speaks of the notorious passage in which Chalke talks about “cosmic child abuse” and says:

“I cannot tell, from this paragraph alone, which of two things Steve means. You could take the paragraph to mean (a) on the cross, as an expression of God’s love, Jesus took into and upon himself the full force of all the evil around him, in the knowledge that if he bore it we would not have to; but this, which amounts to a form of penal substitution, is quite different from other forms of penal substitution, such as the mediaeval model of a vengeful father being placated by an act of gratuitous violence against his innocent son. In other words, there are many models of penal substitution, and the vengeful-father-and-innocent-son story is at best a caricature of the true one. Or you could take the paragraph to mean (b) because the cross is an expression of God’s love, there can be no idea of penal substitution at all, because if there were it would necessarily mean the vengeful-father-and-innocent-son story, and that cannot be right.

Clearly, Steve’s critics have taken him to mean (b), as I think it is clear Jeffrey John and several others intend. I cannot now remember what I thought when I read the book four years ago and wrote my commendation, but I think, since I had been following the argument through in the light of the arguments I myself have advanced, frequently and at length, about Jesus’ death and his own understanding of it, that I must have assumed he meant (a). I have now had a good conversation with Steve about the whole subject and clarified that my initial understanding was correct: he does indeed mean (a). The book, after all, wasn’t about atonement as such, so he didn’t spell out his view of the cross in detail; and it is his experience that the word ‘penal’ has put off so many people, with its image of a violent, angry, and malevolent God, that he has decided not to use it. But the reality that I and others refer to when we use the phrase ‘penal substitution’ is not in doubt, for Steve any more than for me. ‘There is therefore now no condemnation’ in Romans 8:1 is explained by the fact, as in Romans 8:3, that God condemned sin in the flesh of his Son: he bore sin’s condemnation in his body, so we don’t bear it. That, I take it, is the heart of what the best sort of ‘penal substitution’ theory is trying to say, and Steve is fully happy with it. And this leads to the key point: there are several forms of the doctrine of penal substitution, and some are more biblical than others.”

I say it again. If Chalke has changed his mind — or indeed if, as Wright claims, he never meant it the way we have all assumed — he should say so publicly, and apologise for all the upset this has caused the Church. I have asked Oasis to contact Chalke to appear on this blog for an interview, and this has not yet been forthcoming. I am afraid, as much as I respect a man like Wright, he should not be speaking for and on behalf of Steve Chalke, who should clearly do that himself.

In fact, Steve Chalke has spoken very clearly about his views since all the controversy — in an article which remains online and is VERY different from what Wright claims Chalke has told him are his views:

"The extraordinary thing is that supporters of penal substitution, following Hodge’s lead, tend to hold it as a ‘God-given truth’ — the only biblical explanation of the atonement. Indeed for them to question this model is to question the atonement itself. So, for instance, one recent letter I received claims that I ‘demolish the fundamentals of the Christian faith’ and another that I am ‘liberal’. However, this supposed orthodoxy is no orthodoxy at all . . .

In The Lost Message of Jesus I claim that penal substitution is tantamount to ‘child abuse – a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed.’ Though the sheer bluntness of this imagery (not original to me, of course) might shock some, in truth, it is only a stark ‘unmasking’ of the violent, pre-Christian thinking behind such a theology. And the simple truth is that if God does not relate to his only Son as a perfect Father, neither can we relate to Him as such.

If we follow Hodge’s understanding of the atonement it is Jesus’ death, no more no less, that becomes our ‘good news’. This reductionist approach shrinks or ‘down grades’ the whole gospel to a single sentence: ‘God is no longer angry with us because Jesus died in our place.’

Indeed, that is exactly why evangelistic presentations based on penal substitution often don’t even bother to mention the resurrection, because for them it serves no direct purpose in the story of our salvation."

Having then carefully positioned himself as against Jeffrey John, but for Steve Chalke, perhaps inevitably given the current climate, Wright turns to discuss Pierced for Our Transgressions more fully. What he says is shockingly surprising. He begins by claiming that the writers are totally unaware of the possible nuances to PSA and to Wright's idea that people like Chalke can speak about cosmic child abuse, but still somehow uphold some watered down form of the othodox teaching of the church about the cross.

“And my sorrow, reading Pierced for Our Transgressions, is not only that the book seems to be unaware of this possibility, but that, despite the ringing endorsements of famous men, it is deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical . . . it abstracts certain elements from what the Bible actually says, elements which are undoubtedly there and which undoubtedly matter, but then places them within a different framework, which admittedly has a lot in common with the biblical one, but which, when treated as though it were the biblical one, becomes systematically misleading.”

This post has become too long already, but sadly Wright is by no means finished . . . I will just give you some of the headlines. You may want to go and read the whole post yourself.

• “. . . hopelessly sub-biblical.”
  
  
• “My heart sinks when I read what the great contemporary heroes of conservative Christianity have said inside the front cover.”
  
  
• “. . . it seems to me that it is the authors of this book who are not paying proper attention to Scripture itself.”
  
  
• “I have this unhappy sense that a large swathe of contemporary evangelicalism has (accidentally and unintentionally, of course) stopped its ears to the Bible, and hence to the God of the Bible, and is determinedly pursuing a course dictated by evangelical tradition rather than by Scripture itself.”
  
  
• "There is no evidence that [Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach] have actually listened to what other people are saying."

It is striking and sad that Wright is so scathing about a book that has ten pages of endorsements by some of the greatest teachers of the Church. Sadly it seems this debate is not going away, but is significantly heating up. I hope that we can continue to provide a forum here on this blog in the comments section where we can discuss this with clarity and charity.

The UCCF has now issued a full statement about the end of Word Alive’s association with Spring Harvest, which I blogged about on Friday. Here is the full text:

UCCF STATEMENT
For Immediate Release
23 April 2007

Response from UCCF to the SPRING HARVEST Decision to End the World Alive Bible Teaching Week After 14 Years

For the past 14 years, the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship and Keswick Ministries have been delighted to partner Spring Harvest in organising Word Alive, one of Europe's top Bible Study weeks with a vibrant student track aimed at young people. Widely recognised, orthodox Bible teaching has been the hallmark of the event.

In 2003, the Revd Steve Chalke, one of the Spring Harvest Event Leadership Team, and a member of their Council of Management (trustees) ,wrote The Lost Message of Jesus. In it, he promoted unorthodox views over the nature of the Atonement, and hit national media headlines over his controversial and graphic description of Penal Substitution.

The Word Alive committee, of which UCCF is a part, believed such views to be contrary to orthodox Biblical teaching, and as such, decided that the Revd Steve Chalke could not teach from a Word Alive platform.

The Evangelical Alliance (EA) held a Theological Forum at which various theologians debated with the Revd Steve Chalke. As a result, that organisation decided to change its constitution to clarify where the EA Council of Management stood on the issue. In May 2006 Spring Harvest advised the leadership of Word Alive that the Revd Steve Chalke was able to sign up to the new and revised EA constitution, and therefore requested he be allowed to preach from the Word Alive platform in 2007. This request was refused as Mr Chalke had publicly confirmed he had not changed his personal theological views.

In September 2006 the Word Alive Committee were called to a meeting by Spring Harvest and told that as they would not include the Revd Steve Chalke, the 14-year partnership was at an end. Spring Harvest said they regretted they were putting a personality ahead of partnership. Spring Harvest announced it would be promoting its own student-based week at Minehead in 'week one', resourced by Fusion, of which the Revd Steve Chalke is on the Council of Reference.

Our decision to allow only orthodox Christian teaching from Word Alive platforms, and Spring Harvest's subsequent decision has caused enormous pain and regret. However, UCCF believes it can no longer work with those whose understanding of the nature of the gospel and the distinctive of the atonement is so different to theirs, and mainstream evangelicals in the UK and across the world.

There comes a point when loyalty to the gospel, as we believe it to be clearly set out in Scripture, and the drive for unity with others can come into conflict, and we have reached that point.

Meanwhile, a new 'Word Alive' event, organised jointly by Keswick Ministries and UCCF has been planned for 7-11 April 2008 at Pwllheli, where speakers already confirmed include John Piper, Terry Virgo, and Don Carson. There will be an increased capacity and further details will be released shortly.

Rumours circulating that the break-up of the partnership was down to Word Alive's refusal to accept women speakers is totally refuted. UCCF regularly has women speakers on its platforms, and it is a matter of public fact that Keswick does too. The key issue is Spring Harvest's corporate support for one of its own trustees, the Revd Steve Chalke, over Biblical orthodoxy on such a central issue as Atonement.

____________________

FURTHER UPDATE
Full statements have now been issued by UCCF and Keswick, as well as Pete Broadbent of Spring Harvest, who also made a further statment. N.T. Wright has weighed into the atonement debate offering clear support to Steve Chalke. Also, Dave Bish is doing a great job of collecting blog posts about this into one place.
____________________

This Easter a clear line was drawn in the sand in British Evangelicalism. For years, whenever the word “evangelical” was mentioned, people in the UK would think almost immediately of Spring Harvest — easily the UK's largest Christian conference. Part of that package has been Word Alive, a distinct all-age event run by UCCF (who are the UK equivalent of the Intervaristy Fellowship) and the Keswick Convention in partnership with Spring Harvest. At the heart of Word Alive has been a separate student track with up to 2,000 students. Beginning in 2008, there will be no more Word Alive at Spring Harvest.

I have seen and heard lots of speculation about the detailed reasons for this parting of the ways, and I do not want to add to that here, but a quick look at what happened during the event this year, and the plans for next year from both halves of the partnership, surely makes the overall reasons behind this abundantly clear to any observer.

Firstly, Richard Cunningham (who incidentally reasserted the UCCF’s absolute commitment to Penal Substitutionary Atonement when I interviewed him eighteen months or so ago) preached very passionately about the cross during the event. The audio of this talk is available to order online, and was well reported by blogger Cat who said the following:

“I noticed that night there was a very strange atmosphere. On one hand there was a striking on our hearts showing us how Holy God is and how unworthy we are; it brought us to worship God and fall to our knees at His majesty. Yet there were some that looked bewildered or looked angry. This was the first time ever that I saw [that] the Cross truly does offend.”

The very next morning came the Radio Four Program by Jeffrey John (NOT to be confused with J. John!) in which he stated that he believed Penal Substitutionary Atonement made God into a psychopath. Bishop Broadbent, the leader of Spring Harvest, quickly issued a statement disagreeing with this.

To most observers, however, there seems to be little difference between being a psychopath and being a cosmic child abuser, as previously stated by Steve Chalke, who Broadbent works very closely with. Whilst Broadbent doesn’t seem to share the views of Chalke, he is obviously willing to work with a broad range of people. Perhaps this was the reason for the way in which Broadbent seemed, to me, to be treading a fine line in his words:

“You cannot read the Old Testament and New Testament . . . and blank out an entirety of language and concept and understanding that means that we are guilty sinners, we need our sins to be paid for, and we need Jesus Christ to die for us. That is what the Creeds say, it is what the Bible says, and you cannot rewrite them. You cannot understand Jesus Christ without understanding Old Testament atonement material . . . Of course, there are some very raw discussions amongst Christians about quite how Jesus died in our place and what that meant and how He suffered for our sins — but to ignore the entirety of the language about atonement and sacrifice and the cross is to nullify the message of what Good Friday and Jesus dying for us is all about. Jesus Christ is sacrificed and He washes away the sins of the whole world and He completes the understanding of Scripture and fulfils it in a completely new way.”

Towards the end of the whole event, in an open meeting for group organizers, Richard Cunningham was asked a direct question about why the partnership is coming to an end. He stated in his reply that Spring Harvest had been the one to take the initiative, and asked UCCF and Keswick to no longer be a part of Spring Harvest. This was because UCCF and Keswick were not willing for Steve Chalke to speak on either the student or all-age platforms at Word Alive. I was not at this event, but since it was an open meeting, what was said is clearly in the public domain — I am obviously more than willing to correct this account if I have been misinformed.

Spring Harvest is understood to be planning a student track, and at least according to an unofficial posting I ran into on Facebook, this could be run in conjunction with Fusion. This link-up would certainly be a likely option for them since Steve Chalke is a member of the Fusion Council of Reference, and both the council of management and leadership team of Spring Harvest. Perhaps not surprisingly, that is one name that does not appear on similar lists for either the UCCF or Keswick.

Meanwhile, next year UCCF and Keswick will launch New Word Alive, a conference at a venue which I am told will have the potential capacity for over 5,000 people in North Wales. This event will be for both families and students, and looks very interesting.

New Word Alive has managed to confirm a fantastic line-up of main preachers: John Piper, Terry Virgo, and Don Carson will all be speaking at the event. Not much wonder that the New Word Alive Facebook group has jumped to almost 900 members already! If they will have me, I may just have to try and go along with my whole family and live-blog, like I did at Together On A Mission 06.

No official statement about this has been released on the websites of either Spring Harvest, UCCF, or Keswick, and all these organizations declined to issue any formal statement when I gave them the opportunity to comment on the contents of this post prior to publication.

Somehow I think we have not heard the end of this.

UPDATE

The UCCF has responded to this article as follows:

"Steve Chalke has made his dislike of penal substitution very clear by likening God's act of punishing Jesus in our place to a cosmic child abuser. In good conscience, we simply could not allow Steve to teach during the Word Alive week. We're very sad that after 14 years of fruitful ministry, Spring Harvest has decided to end the Word Alive partnership because we feel unable to shift on this position."

A couple of days ago, in the first of my posts on the atonement, I quoted Jeffrey John from an article in the London Telegraph. Today, I want to share more from the transcript of his talk, which is now available on Radio 4’s website. You can also listen to him for yourself here. The words of this talk are not really any different to those controversially aired by Steve Chalke. If you want to hear Chalke for himself, there is an interview in the archives here. Dr. Albert Mohler has come out strongly against the position aired by both Chalke and Jeffrey John. I hope that to most readers of this blog it will be immediately obvious why I disagree so strongly with the ideas expressed in this quote. I think these concepts are not only wrong, they are dangerous, and worse still, they risk robbing us of the true Gospel. I hope that as we study the issue of Jesus’ cross together, we will see that the biblical view of the atonement is neither what this vicar is responding to, nor what he explains as his view. For now, though, I am going to let him speak for himself:

“The explanation I was given went something like this. God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us, he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place . . . In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him. Well, I don't know about you, but even at the age of ten I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive, as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we'd say they were a monster. Well, I haven't changed my mind since. That explanation of the cross just doesn't work, though sadly it's one that's still all too often preached. It just doesn't make sense to talk about a nice Jesus down here, placating the wrath of a nasty, angry Father God in heaven . . . the wrath of God is no more than a human projection . . . The cross, then, is not about Jesus reconciling an angry God to us; it's almost the opposite. It's about a totally loving God, incarnate in Christ, reconciling us to him. On the cross Jesus dies for our sins; the price of our sin is paid; but it is not paid to God, but by God . . .

On the cross God absorbs into himself our falleness and its consequences and offers us a new relationship. God shows he knows what it's like to be the loser; God hurts and weeps and bleeds and dies. It's a mystery we can hardly glimpse, let alone grasp; and if there is an answer to the problem of suffering, perhaps it's one for the heart, not the reason. Because the answer God's given is simply himself; to show that, so far from inflicting suffering as a punishment, he bears our griefs and shares our sorrow. From Good Friday on, God is no longer "God up there", inscrutably allotting rewards and retributions. On the Cross, even more than in the crib, he is Immanuel, God down here, God with us.” (Jeffrey John).

Continues with "The Historical Background to the Cross."

I just had my third e-mail in as many days about Pierced For Our Transgressions — a forthcoming book on penal substitution. Regular readers will know that I have frequently posted on the atonement in the past. This book is aimed at addressing the debate over Steve Chalke's allegation of "cosmic child abuse."

You may remember that before Christmas Wayne Grudem, in my blog interview, first added his voice to that of John Piper's in accusing Chalke of blasphemy, then modified his statement to really quite a similar position to mine back in 2004 when I said Chalke was "close" to blasphemy.

If the website is anything to go on, this new book should be good. The following quote from an article, focused in part on the historic pedigree of penal substitution, published on the site gives a great foretaste:

"Some claim that penal substitution makes God guilty of injustice, inflicting punishment on an innocent man. Such a doctrine, they say, plainly contradicts the Scriptural teaching that guilty people, and only guilty people, should be punished: ‘Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent — the LORD detests them both’ (Proverbs 17:15).

Some who believe in penal substitution have replied by pointing out that Christ suffered willingly, or by noting that God gave himself in Christ to suffer in our place. But while these things are gloriously true, neither actually answers the objection. If guilty sinners are acquitted and an innocent third party is punished, then irrespective of his willingness an injustice has been committed, and it is unthinkable that God would do such a thing.

How are we to respond? The flaw in the argument is the unstated premise that Christ is unrelated to the believer, an unconnected third party. This is not true, for believers are in union with Christ — he is in us, and we are in him, indwelt by his Spirit (e.g. John 17:21; Romans 6:5; 8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 1:27; Philippians 1:1). It is for this reason that the imputation of our guilt to Christ and his righteousness to us, his punishment and our acquittal, are just in the sight of God. The apostle Paul captures both sides of the exchange in a single verse: ‘God made him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Corinthians 5:21). "

Here's wishing all of you a great Christmas and a successful New Year where God blesses you richly in every way. Be prepared to be surprised, though, as God’s blessings don’t always look like we expect them to!

This time of year my thoughts always turn both forwards and backwards. So I'd like—in what will be my final post before the end of this year—to wish you all a great break, and to review the year. I did this last year and again in 2004.

Part of the purpose of this post is to give you a bumper post with links just in case you do go online during the Christmas break. Please don’t comment on the blog after the end of today (Friday, 22nd December) until I am back sometime in January after a prolonged break - that is not unless you are happy for your comment to wait in a queue. I will not be approving any comments or answering any emails either for a while. I need a rest, and so do you!

So . . . what of the year that has passed, and what glimmers of expectation do I have for the New Year? I will consider this under four headings — God, Family, Church, and Blog. You will notice the deliberate omission of work. I always try hard to keep my work out of the blog entirely — which I suspect is a wise move for most people. If you are a new reader, this blog is not my full-time job, nor is the preaching I do from time to time.

GOD

What can I say? Personally, this has been a great year for my relationship with my Savior. He has been so faithful — there have been hard times, such as beginning the year nervously wondering if my new job was the right move, and if we really would move to our new house in January. Also, my episode of shingles — which incidentally has still left me unable to sit behind a desk for more than a couple of hours at a time — was also a real low point, and yet in it I knew the peace of God in a more real sense than I had known it in other trials. I found myself able to trust God, knowing many times the sweetness of His presence. I also found myself grateful that things were not worse — that I didn’t have a job at all, or that I was homeless or dying of a serious illness. I have learned a lot, and this blog and all my preaching remains primarily addressed towards me.

I thank God for more evidences of His grace upon me, and for helping me begin to learn some key character lessons I have needed to learn for a long time. Looking forward into 2007 — I don’t think I have ever been as optimistic about the things I believe God has in store. I have a strong sense of commission from God in the things that I am currently doing. Oddly, unlike this past year, I do not expect major changes to occur in many areas of my life — although there is one to come as I will report in a moment.


FAMILY

On the 18th of January, I remember praying like I never had before. I was sitting outside the estate agent's, waiting for the money to go through so I could pick up the keys for our new house. As the hours went by, it really looked as if something else had gone wrong! Buying and selling property in the UK is never easy. You can imagine my joy when I realized that, with a matter of minutes to go before we would have faced broken contracts and a legal mess, I was given the all clear!

Buying this house has, God-willing, secured some aspects of the future of our family, and for this I am grateful. It is a nice location, and a reasonable drive from the church we all love. We now also live near two great schools, which should serve all our children right through to age 18. Like Tim Challies, we don’t home school.

You will notice that I never mention here the exact town in which I live — this is again an obvious precaution aimed at keeping my public life and private life separate — and one that I would recommend, especially to those with young children.

There was a lot of surprise among many of our friends when the news started to leak out over the last couple of months — some of you will know this already — but Andrée is now pregnant with our fifth child. Thoughts of her finding some kind of income-generating work she could do around four school-age children have, for now, evaporated, and we are preparing for what we had believed would not happen again. We are thrilled, and the poor child will undoubtedly be blogged about!

Each of our kids have grown up this year — each one has reached a new level of maturity, which is thrilling. I think that much of this has been because they have learned from such difficulties as the problems with the move — which was eventually resolved; my shingles — which caused major disruption to our lives for a while; my wife being put on bed rest for a few weeks in early pregnancy with recurrent bleeding and contractions — which stopped as suddenly as it had begun following prayers by some in the church; and more recently, the unexpected death of their pet rabbit.

Of all my roles and all the hats I wear, there is no doubt that the one that brings the most joy and biggest challenges is that of being a husband and father to these dear people God has entrusted to my care. If, at times, I neglect my blog, remember that I cannot and must not neglect my family. I am not convinced that up to now I have always had that balance right, so don’t be surprised if there are a few more times when the blog shuts down for a time, or if there is the odd day here and there when I don’t post at all.

I have a family that sacrifices a lot in order for me to be free to do the job I do, and on top of that, to blog and preach. I want to thank them all publicly now, and promise by God’s grace to try to ensure that when my time on earth is up, I will be most remembered as someone who loved his family. They are as dear to me as my soul — and I could easily adapt Jesus’ words to say, "What would it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but lose his family?"

My darling wife, and wonderful children, I truly do love you all more than anyone else alive. Let's make 2007 a great year for our family — which I trust will finally be complete after a four-year gap since the last arrival.


CHURCH

Again, what can I say? Being a part of Jubilee Church at this time of astonishing blessing and growth — both in numbers and maturity — is nothing short of a dream for me! My heart goes out in love and appreciation to every single person in Jubilee.

As our lead elder, Tope Koleoso, would say — we have a lot to be grateful for!


THE BLOG

I have deliberately left this to last; as important as it is to me, the blog definitely comes in below all of the above areas of my life in terms of the priority I place on it. Of course, I will spend more of my time in this post on the blog, but don’t think that’s because it is more important to me — far from it.

It started as a small hobby to fill idle time, and has grown into some kind of monster. I truly feel like a kite in God’s hurricane, as Driscoll describes himself.

Why do you guys keep coming back? I do everything I can to drive you away - don't I give you enough links to visit elsewhere? At the beginning of the year my strategy was to focus a lot of attention on the charismatic issue. I had only really come firmly out as a charismatic on the blog towards the end of 2005 — believe it or not, some people were surprised to hear it. Well, I was not surprised to drive about a quarter of the readers I had away in those early months by relentlessly posting on this subject. But the numbers came back, and many more, as the year drew to a close.

I don’t want to bore you with statistics — and I know it is easy for me to say, but these days I really rarely look at them. But there are a few interesting things that came out of looking at the last nine months of data I thought I would share with you.

• 37% of you have visited the blog more than once — which means there is a whole lot of passers-by, but a significant number who have stuck around to get to know me a bit more! You are welcome — old or new!
  
  
• Some of you visit the blog more than once per day — for your sakes, I just hope it is to check the Warnie Headlines box and get out of here — these days I rarely post more than once-a-day.
  
  
• 45% find the blog through Google, so thanks are due to them - assuming this was the kind of place you wanted to find!
  
  
• 15% of visits were thanks to my top 20 referring blogs; however, TeamPyro was the biggest individual referrer (i.e. not a search engine), but led to only 3% of visits, so a whole bunch of smaller blogs have sent me a whole lot of traffic between you. A BIG thank you to everyone who has linked or commented this year.
  
  
• 56% of visitors were from the USA, whilst 25% were from the UK and 5% were from Canada, but a staggering 188 countries were represented (although in many cases by just one visitor).

Whilst on the subject of statistics, I thought I would also share my 25 most visited pages over the last nine months, the non-search engine sites that have sent me the most traffic, and finally a list of the most popular and interesting searches that have led people here — not surprisingly, almost every one of these resonated with me in some way as I read them — if you want to find the posts to which the searches refer, just copy and paste these key words into the search box at the top of the blog.

But before I leave you with those lists, let's take a look at the year that was:

• January saw the pace of my interviews hotting up with two — Justin Taylor and Mark Dever. In fact, most of the interviews you see in the sidebar have been carried out this year, and I have certainly enjoyed every one of them.
  
  

• In February I had a brief period of bloggers' block — OK, it lasted less than a day — and ended when I received an email that would lead to my major blogging pre-occupation for the rest of the year — someone asked me to explain what charismatic gifts looked like in our church. I realised that it would cause an argument and send some readers away, but I felt I must blog about the Holy Spirit. I never did find out if I eventually managed to answer that reader's question to their satisfaction!
  
  Then, right at the end of February came a sovereign intervention from God that would change this blog forever - especially for those who notice typos and grammatical errors. An email from Annette Harrison arrived in my inbox and got my attention by mentioning Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. God had a plan that neither of us could have imagined and within very little time I had an editorial and research assistant who does more to help keep this blog going than most of you could imagine.
  
  

• March was a momentous time, for it was when I discovered Mark Driscoll and was very, very impressed (although I had mentioned him in passing before). O for the days when a post about Driscoll would only generate two comments!
  
  

• April was dominated by the Together for the Gospel conference — the archive page is full of links to posts I wrote whilst “remote blogging,” something I like to do almost as much as Challies likes to live-blog. I did get to do an exclusive interview with Mark Driscoll, however, and that still only generated six comments!
  
  

• May was possibly my most eclectic month — with Driscoll, Together for the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit issue competing for my attention. Picking out an individual post is not so easy.
  
  
• June was dominated by the "Did God Kill Jesus?" debate — the atonement is never far from my blog, but then I was struck down by shingles and had to actually close the blog down.
  
  
• July saw me struggling to live-blog the Together On a Mission conference whilst I should really still have been in bed, and the beginning of the snail’s pace debate Dan Phillips and I had over the charismatic — I say "had," although it is always possible Dan will be bold enough to reply to my last installment! July also was the beginning of my 25% Off Logos Bible Software offer, which is still running today.
  
  
• August saw me traveling to Washington D.C., and to the church where C. J. Mahaney and Josh Harris serve — again there are loads of posts in the archive page.
  
  

• The weekend when September became October was the Desiring God 06 conference, and somehow the blogosphere hasn't stopped criticizing Mark Driscoll since then despite his fantastic talk and John Piper's public acknowledgement that he had something to learn from Driscoll.
  
  

• In November I was thrilled to interview Al Mohler, and also had a chance to visit Toronto.
  
  

• A look at the the archive page for December shows that from December 2nd when I reviewed his book, my blog has been completely taken over by an interview with the great theologian, Wayne Grudem. I thought interviewing him would give me a few days when I wouldn’t have to think much about the blog. How wrong I was! Unprecedented traffic and comment levels mean that some of these posts have gathered more traffic in the last few days than some of my most popular previous posts managed to gather in nine months. I have even had to change my comment policy, and thanks to the graciousness of Michael Burer, although the interview has finished, the debate goes on. Thanks, Dr. Grudem, for giving me the highlight of my blogging year of 2006!

  
  The 25 Most Visited Pages on My Site

• The Home Page
  
• Mark Driscoll Interview
  
• The Google Calendar
  
• The ESV Interview
  
• Free Christian Books
  
• The Best Blond Joke in the World
  
• Beginning of the Warnock-Phillips Charismatic Debate
  
• The Toronto Blessing
  
• C. J. Mahaney Interview
  
• Books Every Christian Should Read
  
• More Books every Christian Should Read
  
• Steve Chalke and the "Lost Message"
  
• Mothers Day Poem
  
• Did God really Kill Jesus?
  
• Wayne Grudem Interview Part One
  
• What is Love?
  
• Wayne Grudem Interview Part Six
  
• What is a Reformed Charismatic?
  
• What is Reformed or Calvinistic Theology?
  
• Wayne Grudem Interview Part Four
  
• Wayne Grudem Interview Part Five
  
• Thanksgiving Sermon by Tope Koleoso
  
• Justin Taylor Interview
  
• CJ Mahaney Sermons
  
• Josh Harris Interview
  
  
  The Top 20 Referrers
  
  
• teampyro.blogspot.com
  
• challies.com
  
• theologica.blogspot.com
  
• jollyblogger.typepad.com
  
• thebluefish.blogspot.com
  
• englishbibles.blogspot.com
  
• albertmohler.com
  
• benwitherington.blogspot.com
  
• boarsheadtavern.com
  
• esv.org
  
• hughhewitt.townhall.com
  
• solofemininity.blogs.com
  
• hughhewitt.com
  
• speakertruth.blogspot.com
  
• pigwotflies.blogspot.com
  
• worldofsven.co.uk
  
• psalm305.blogspot.com
  
• smartchristian.com
  
• joshharrisblogson.blogspot.com
  

• undersovereigngrace.blogspot.com
  
  
  The Top Most Popular and Interesting Searches
  
  anointing, baptism of the holy spirit, best joke in the world, blog sponsorship, brian maclaren christian blogs, christian counseling, christian psychiatrist, christmas greeting message, cosmic child abuse, daniel ekechukwu, davinci code, derek prince, does the future have a church, electrician, emergent church, english standard version, esv bible, esv journaling bible, esv reverse interlinear, finding god's will, flylady.net, free christian books, fruit of the spirit, gods will, google calendar and outlook, grace and the adventure of leadership, c. j. mahaney, greg haslam, halal meat, Halloween, holidays for large families, how to draw swords, how to preach, how to treat your wife, ikea catalogue, inclusive language bible, is the world overpopulated, jack deere, john eldridge, john piper, jonathan aitken, joseph the dreamer, josh harris blog, joshua harris, justin taylor, life goals, lig duncan, limited atonement, m25 traffic, macarthur, mark dever, mark driscoll, john piper, martyn lloyd-jones, michael shumacher, my heart is filled with thankfulness, newfrontiers, paedobaptist, patrick armstrong, pentecostal blogs, plymouth brethren, poems about school, prayer journals, random statistics, rebecca needs, reformed charismatic, remember, remember the fifth of november, richard cunningham, rick warren, rob rufus, sam storms, science of listener attention, scottish covenanters, gifts of the spirit, selwyn hughes, shingles, social styles, sovereign grace review "worship god live", speaking in tongues, spiderman layouts, steve chalke, T4G
  

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 6th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 7th most read post was "What is a Reformed Charismatic?"

As stated below, this post summarized my interview with this gift to the global Church—Dr. Wayne Grudem. Individual segments of the interview would have also made the top 30 in their own right, as would my review of Grudem's supreme Systematic Theology.

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

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

Part 1 - Personal Matters

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

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

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

Part 2 - Systematic Theology and Controversy

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

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

Part 3 - Evangelical Feminism - A New Path to Liberalism

At first sight Dr. Grudem's charge that it is inevitable that an evangelical feminist positon will erode confidence in the Bible seemed unduly harsh to many readers. If there was one quote that made his point well, it was this one. In its context he is essentially explaining that it just will not do for us to effectively remove certain passages from the canon of Scripture essentially just because we do not like them - relabeling them as "disputed."

"If I come to a pastor who is wanting to put women on the elder board, or to ordain women as pastors, and I say, “1 Timothy 2:11–14 prohibits that,” and he just says, “I don’t want to hear about that verse because it’s disputed,” then he has really decided that he won’t let that verse speak to the controversy. But that is the most central passage in the whole dispute, the one that speaks most directly to the issue! If we refuse to be subject to passages that speak most directly to an issue, then we are almost guaranteed to come to the wrong decision. I’m not sure if I can think of a better way to come to a wrong decision than excluding from the discussion the verses that speak most directly to an issue."

Part 4 - Ethical Trajectories, Feminism, and Homosexuality

Advocates of evangelical feminism argue for an "ethical trajectory" approach to Scripture, appealing to slavery as an example, shortly to be followed in the debates on the role of women. Grudem made a robust attempt to totally debunk that argument:

"Now today, what worries me about these “trajectory hermeneutic” advocates is that they seem unaware of this entire history of biblical arguments against slavery, and they wrongly assume that the Bible actually supports slavery of the kind seen in the horrible abuses in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is preposterous. To say that the Bible supports such evils would be to say that the Bible, at the time of the New Testament, supported things that were morally evil, and I am simply not willing to do that."

Supplement - Wayne Grudem Replies to a Critic

Dr. Grudem's patient, yet methodical, nature comes out in this detailed response to some of the comment critics. Already by this point I am beginning to be irritated rather than helped by the tone of some of the comments. Grudem also shows he is far from being a walk-over in this reply. I think it is a model of how to have a robust disagreement with someone without being rude to them.

Part 5 - Must a Woman Always Remain Silent in Church?

Although anxious to point out that he does not believe that Scripture intends for women to remain totally silent at all times in church, he reserves some strong words for those who want to say that a woman should be allowed to teach provided they are "under the authority" of a male elder.

"I don’t think a pastor can give a woman “permission” to do Bible teaching before the church, because the Bible says not to do that. Would we say a pastor, or a board of elders, could give a woman “permission” to violate the command, “You should not steal”, or to violate any other command of Scripture? No pastor or elder board has authority to give permission to anyone to disobey the Bible. It’s God’s Word and we need to obey it.

Part 6 - Did Steve Chalke Blaspheme About the Atonement?

If you are new to the debate about prominent UK evangelical leader, Steve Chalkes' criticism of the notion of Jesus' death being required to take the punishment for our sin, then this is the jumping off post for you - there are links to more details about the whole issue and a very interesting debate. Dr. Grudem was impacted by reading the comments section, for as a direct result he made a retraction of the word "blasphemy" afterwards. He did not, however, retract his agreement with John Piper's serious concerns about this issue:

"Evangelicals in the academic world battled against liberals in scholarly writings about this issue fifty years ago, and I think that evangelicals like Leon Morris won the argument and won the theological battle. Now Chalke is giving away the hard-won victory. He is giving away the heart of the Gospel. I would never agree to give my approval to anyone who denies penal substitutionary atonement to be an elder at a church I attended, or to be a pastor or Bible teacher, or to teach at a theological seminary where I had influence on the appointment."

Part 7 - Things We Can Agree to Disagree About?

Dr. Grudem appears to be very clear about his theological triage - explaining that he believes that some issues are much more important than others.

"I’m thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can still have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views. I certainly do not put the question of baptism in the same category as the denial of penal substitutionary atonement which you mentioned [yesterday] because that seems to me to be a denial of the heart of the Gospel. And, as I mentioned, it seems to me that evangelical feminism involves, implicitly at least, a denial of the authority of the Bible. But differing views on baptism or the millennium do not have serious consequences of that type"

Justin Taylor has highlighted a section of this post in which Grudem explains he is reconsidering his position on baptism - this has led to an interesting discussion over at his place.

Part 8 - What Does the Future Hold for the Church?

Dr. Grudem is optimistic about the immediate future for the church. Sitting where I am, I tend to agree with him.

"I’m very hopeful. I see indications that God is bringing renewal and revival (as well as exposing sin and “cleaning house”) in many churches around the world. I am hoping that God will yet bring a great world-wide revival in our lifetimes, with many millions of people suddenly turning to Christ in genuine faith."

Part 9 - Models of Church Government and Theological Blind Spots

As we drew to an end exploring one of the issues Dr. Grudem and I disagree on, he came back to a point he made much earlier in the interview - it was a point that encouraged me as a preacher and blogger with no theological degrees.

". . . it is always wise to have a governing structure where the highest governing offices in the church and the highest positions of influence are open to lay people as well as ordained people. The denominations where only clergy have the highest of authority seem to be the ones that are never able to be brought back once they drift into liberalism because the ordinary lay people who have common sense and are reading their Bibles every day don’t have any way to regain control of a denomination that has gone astray if it has that kind of structure."

So, the hope for the church is bright if brilliant theologians like Dr. Grudem and jobbing preachers in local churches can forge a partnership. Whilst Dr. Grudem cannot possibly personally relate to the millions of preachers there are in the world, through the Internet something approaching a feeling of partnership can arise. I have had an amazing time interacting with him, and sharing those interactions with you. I hope that you, too, feel a bit more as though you know the man, as well as the theologian, as a result of this interview.

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three, we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Part four honed in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. In part five, we looked at the issue of women addressing church congregations. Part six examined John Piper's accusation of Steve Chalke over the atonement. In part seven, Dr. Grudem discussed two areas where we perhaps can agree to disagree - the charismatic and baptism. Part eight focused on Dr. Grudem's predictions concerning the future of the Church. This part concludes the interview. It addresses theological blind spots and an issue where there is clear disagreement between me and my theological hero.

 

The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

I will shortly be posting a "highlights and personal reflections" round-up post, and have a couple of other things I want to say before I go on a Christmas break - so keep coming back!

Please join me in thanking Dr. Grudem for the time he has spent on this interview - I have enjoyed having him around! I hope you have, too.

Adrian
At the end of the day, with all these theological arguments, to me the most critical question boils down to "Can we accept the simple clear message of the Bible on this subject?" Do you agree that this is the most important question, and also, where do many go wrong?

Wayne
I tend to see many questions that way, and I hope others see them that way as well. The problem is that people on the other side of these questions wonder why I do not accept “the simple clear message of the Bible” on the subject at hand! And so we discuss these things with one another in Christian love.

But I do have to say that the egalitarian position is anything but obvious from the text of the Bible. It was hardly held by anyone (except the Quakers) for over 1800 years, as I explain in detail in my earlier book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (2004).

Adrian
I do think that a humble attitude towards the Bible is perhaps the most important thing we should strive to have. Do you agree, however, that there are probably areas for many, if not all, of us where we are "blind" to the simple message of the Bible and allow either our traditions or our human reasoning to shape our teaching?

Wayne
Yes, I’m sure there are areas for all of us where we have made mistakes. I just wish I knew where they were! James has a good caution for us: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways, and if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body” (James 3:1-2).

Adrian
I recently heard a respected Bible teacher criticise one chapter of your Systematic Theology and essentially accuse it of having just such a blind spot. He said that throughout the rest of the book you were constantly simply asking - "What do the verses say?" - but that on the subject of the structure of the church, that seemed to suddenly change and you were merely describing, "Well, this is what the Methodists do . . . this is what the Anglicans do . . ." How would you answer this accusation, and do you believe that the New Testament does have a clear model for church government that could be applied today?

Wayne
I’m not sure that he took account of the whole chapter. I did describe what various denominations have done about church government in the history of the church because I wanted students to understand how different denominations govern themselves, and how they’ve reached different conclusions about this question. But I also argued for my own understanding of a biblical pattern for church government, which is plural local elders governing a church, with the pastor or senior pastor being one of those elders. That seems to me to be the pattern in several verses of Scripture where we have indications about church government. James writes to all the churches in the Roman Empire at that time and he expects that there will be “elders” who will pray for the sick in every church (James 5:14). Paul appointed “elders” (plural) in “every church” (Acts 14:23), and he wants Titus to appoint “elders” in “every town” in Crete (Titus 1:5). There is a consistent pattern of plural elders governing every church.

Adrian
This Bible teacher went on to explain in his talk what he felt was the biblical model for the church – independent local congregations led by teams of elders who were appointed and helped by apostles. He argued we should have an identical structure today. Such a view separates the gift of Scripture writing and apostleship – after all, many of the original apostles didn’t write any Scripture at all, so if that was their only job they weren’t very efficient at it! I guess it could be argued that such a view does to apostles what you did to prophecy in your book – i.e. it removes their infallibility and instead makes them something that serves the local church and that, as per Ephesians 4, should be expected to persist until the church is perfect. What would your response be to such an argument?

Wayne
The whole issue is - What replaces the apostles? Everybody agrees that apostles were in charge of the churches at the time of the New Testament. The Roman Catholics say that the bishops and Pope have replaced the apostles. But the Protestant position has generally been that the writings of the apostles – that is, the New Testament Scriptures that were written or authorized by apostles – have replaced living apostles in the church.

There is no record of the apostles appointing successor “apostles” to fill in for them when they were gone. Peter sends not a replacement apostle, but an epistle to the churches of Asia Minor, telling them he is doing this so that “after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things” (2 Peter 1:15). Paul tells the Ephesian elders that “after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock,” but he does not tell them to be subject to some new apostles whom he will send, but tells them to look to Scripture: “And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).

And I do think that the apostles had absolute authority to speak words of God and govern the churches as Christ’s direct representatives, a kind of authority that no human being has today. (I argue this in the chapter on church government in Systematic Theology).

But this does not mean that the apostles intended churches to be completely independent of one another. In fact, I don’t think there were any truly “independent” local churches in the New Testament, for they were all under the authority of the apostles. But if the apostles’ writings (in the New Testament) replace the apostles’ absolute authority over the churches, is there anything that is a modern counterpart to the personal oversight and connection that the early churches had?

Many denominations have thought that a wise modern counterpart for the apostolic oversight of local churches is some kind of denominational structure, and historically many denominations have had stronger or weaker denominational authority over individual local congregations. Honestly, I think the New Testament leaves us a fair bit of freedom in this regard, and various structures seem to work fairly well.

I have found it interesting to be in an “independent Bible church” - for the first time in my life - during the last five years. I love the church and think it does many things very well. But there is frequent talk of forming an “association” with other like-minded churches, or at least the other churches we have planted. And I do see some benefits that come from association with other churches in a denomination, benefits that my own church now does not share in because it is independent. So it seems to me that churches over time just seem to have a tendency to form networks or association with other like-minded churches, and these are the beginnings of denominations. I just think there is quite a bit of freedom in the Bible in this regard, and various systems seem to work very well.

However, I think I also argue in Systematic Theology that it is always wise to have a governing structure where the highest governing offices in the church and the highest positions of influence are open to lay people as well as ordained people. The denominations where only clergy have the highest of authority seem to be the ones that are never able to be brought back once they drift into liberalism because the ordinary lay people who have common sense and are reading their Bibles every day don’t have any way to regain control of a denomination that has gone astray if it has that kind of structure.

Adrian
This has turned into quite a long interview. Before I let you go, is there anything else you would like to say to my readers – perhaps one last reason why they should go and get the book?

Wayne
One last reason why they should go and get the book? I think the book, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? will help readers to know the danger signs and the arguments to avoid when evangelical feminists try to take their churches down the path to liberalism.

And then for much fuller documentation and argument, readers may also want to buy the 856-page comprehensive reference book I published two years ago on this subject, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Multnomah and IVP-UK). That book answers in some detail all of the 118 evangelical feminist arguments that I found in my research.

Finally, just in case someone thinks that an 856-page reference work is too long, Multnomah has published (just last month) a condensed version of that huge book that is a popular overview of the whole controversy. It’s called Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism. It’s just 320 pages - a quick read. So there you have three books on this topic, all in one interview. (And I hope I’ve finished writing on this topic for the rest of my life!)

Adrian
Thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to join us, Dr. Grudem!

Wayne
Thank you, Adrian, for your excellent ministry, and for allowing me the privilege of participating in this dialog.

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three, we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Part four honed in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. In part five, we looked at the issue of women addressing church congregations. Part six examined John Piper's accusation of Steve Chalke over the atonement. In part seven, Dr. Grudem discussed two areas where we perhaps can agree to disagree - the charismatic and baptism. In today's segment, we will be focusing on Dr Grudem's predictions concerning the future of the Church. The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian
Do you see any signs that the feminist issue will also similarly be resolved eventually? How do you think churches and denominations can best handle it practically going forward? It seems impractical to expect denominations to allow churches holding both positions to remain together in the same group of churches – Do you agree?

Wayne
I wrote in an earlier book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Multnomah and IVP-UK, 2004) that I think churches will have to come to one position or another on this issue. Either you have some women elders (in which case the egalitarian position has won and will continue to expand its influence) or you don’t have women elders (in which case the complementarian position has won). It is impossible to have it both ways.

Yes, I have great confidence that this issue will eventually be resolved, and that the vast majority of God’s people who take the Bible as the Word of God will adopt and practice a complementarian position, and will put it in their statements of faith. I am thankful that out of this controversy has come a greater appreciation for women’s gifts and wisdom, and a greater openness to many more ministries for women, but the church will still, by and large, be complementarian until Christ returns. Jesus Christ has not given up on His church, and He has not abandoned it. He is still building His church, and He is purifying it, “so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:27).

There have been many doctrinal controversies in the history of the church, and God in His providence always eventually guides the vast majority of the people who sincerely believe the Bible to the right conclusion. Then those who hold the wrong position eventually are marginalized, their churches lose God’s blessing, and they then decline or even close. It will be that way in this controversy as well, although it may take some time, and before it is resolved many churches will adopt a feminist position, to the detriment of many marriages and ministries along the way. (I was just told last week of a complementarian church in a major American city that hired an egalitarian pastor; [they] gave in to his demands that all church offices be open to women, and he took the church from 2500 people on Sunday to under 400 today. I think we will see that more and more, though there will be temporary exceptions from time to time.)

Adrian
Given your perspective as being involved in all of these debates, do you feel hopeful or cynical about the future of evangelical Gospel-believing churches? What do you think the Gospel-believing church movements will look like in, say, thirty years' time?

Wayne
I’m very hopeful. I see indications that God is bringing renewal and revival (as well as exposing sin and “cleaning house”) in many churches around the world. I am hoping that God will yet bring a great world-wide revival in our lifetimes, with many millions of people suddenly turning to Christ in genuine faith. I don’t know this for sure, but I am hopeful. I was speaking of this with Terry Virgo in Brighton in July. I am hopeful for both the United States and for the United Kingdom in this regard.

Continued in part nine . . .

My interview with Dr. Grudem has been serialised on this blog for some while now. Several days ago I asked Dr. Grudem about whether he agreed with Dr. Piper's use of the word "blasphemy" in connection with Steve Chalke. I posted his answer here.

After some time for personal reflection on what was, of course, just one question in a rather long interview, Dr. Grudem posted me the following email this morning with a request that I publish it here:

Adrian,

After considering some of the discussion on your blog, and after reflecting on this for two or three days, I have had second thoughts about agreeing to the term "blasphemy" to describe Steve Chalke's statements implying that the penal substitutionary view of the atonement is "divine child abuse," for this reason:

As a general rule, I try to be cautious about using terms that seem to be inflammatory (such as "heresy" and "heretic"), and "blaspheme" seems to me to be a term like that. The term may carry unnecessary baggage with it.

It is interesting to me that your question was not what I thought about Chalke's view, but whether I agreed with somebody else's assessment of Chalke's view (namely, John Piper's assessment, and John is a close friend with whom I agree about the danger of Chalke's view). But the word "blasphemy" was not a word I had previously used of Chalke, and in the interview you were asking me if I agreed with that word to apply to his view. My response was "yes," but I don't think, in my quick response, that I gave enough consideration to what I mention above about that word.

Therefore on reconsideration, I would like (if I could!) to retract my comment about Chalke's statements being "blasphemy," and I would rather say that when Chalke implies that the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is "cosmic child abuse," he uses language that I think to be deeply dishonoring to God and to God's reputation, and deeply dishonoring to the Bible's teaching on the heart of the atonement and the heart of the Christian Gospel. To say what he says brings reproach on God's name whenever the true Gospel of Christ's atoning work is proclaimed. What Chalke says is very serious indeed. And people will have to decide for themselves whether they use the term "blasphemy" to apply to that. But I have not used this term in the past to refer to people who hold Chalke's view, and I don't think I will use that term in the future either.

Let me also affirm that I am also very thankful for John Piper's courageous stand on this, and I do not differ with him at all in my deep dismay at the serious doctrinal error that I think Chalke is making. I am not trying to criticize John's use of the word, but just saying that I myself do not choose to use it in this case.

Wayne Grudem

Continue interview in part eight . . .

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three, we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Part four honed in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. In part five, we looked at the issue of women addressing church congregations. Part six examined John Piper's accusation of Steve Chalke over the atonement. Today we continue the interview with a look at two areas over which we can perhaps agree to disagree - the charismatic issue and baptism. The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian

As an observer, it appears to me that there are certain issues that are fast becoming less "hot" theologically. This seemed to happen to eschatology decades ago – no one seems to be that bothered about it anymore, and it seems to be generally accepted that godly Bible-fearing believers can hold different views. More recently baptism and the charismata seem to be going the same way. Do you think that they will go the way of eschatology and become issues that are broadly accepted as secondary, or do you predict that the evangelical church will come to an understanding on both or either issues that the majority will accept?

Wayne

The issue of the charismatic movement and miraculous gifts is somewhat different in the United States, since there are still some denominations and educational institutions which officially support a “cessationist” position, or at least look with great scepticism and suspicion on the idea that miraculous gifts continue today. And, frankly, I think that American television has more examples than British television of “charismatic” figures who make many Christians distinctly uncomfortable. (I’m not speaking of all of them, because I have much respect for a number of them as well.) But there certainly exist abuses among people who claim that miraculous gifts continue today, and I have written at length to try to argue for wise and Biblically faithful use of these gifts, and to avoid abuses. The more demonstrative and unusual things still tend to get a lot of visibility on American television, and I think that is unhelpful.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the vast majority of younger seminary students and recent seminary graduates today, while they may not call themselves charismatic or Pentecostal, will generally say, “Well I’m certainly not a cessationist because I can’t see proof for that view in Scripture. But I haven’t seen many good examples of how these things actually work either.” So they often fall in what I would call an “open but cautious” category – some more open and some more cautious! And I do think that people who are strongly committed to a cessationist view are in a much smaller minority today than they were twenty or thirty years ago, at least in the academic world and among younger seminary students and pastors.

It is very hard to get around 1 Corinthians 13:10: “When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” People read that in context and nearly always conclude (rightly, I think) that “when the perfect comes” refers to the time of Christ’s return, and “the partial” refers to the miraculous gifts that Paul has been discussing in verses 8-9, such as prophecy and speaking in tongues. So I think most younger pastors and seminary students who think about this topic read that verse and conclude that Paul is saying, “When Christ returns, prophecy and speaking in tongues (and by implication, other spiritual gifts) will pass away.” That means that these gifts are still with us today, and our only question is how to encourage them and use them rightly, seeking always to be subject to Scripture.

The baptism issue is a little different. It’s very hard to have it both ways because when an infant is born in a church, you either baptize the infant, or you don’t. So it’s much more difficult to say, “Let’s just all get along on this.” Well, fine, we all get along. But do we baptize this new baby or not? A church can’t have it both ways. When I wrote my book, Systematic Theology, I was more hopeful that a compromise might be possible in which churches would allow individual pastors and individual families to make this decision for themselves. That is what the Evangelical Free Church of America has done, and it is a strong, healthy denomination in the United States that holds fully to the inerrancy of Scripture. But after many decades, no other denomination, to my knowledge, seems willing to follow them in this position.

The problem is what such a “compromise” implies about the views of baptism of the people who adopt it. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it’s OK for believing parents not to baptize their infant children, which seems to them to be disobeying a command of Scripture as they understand it. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not, of course, make any profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But these people (such as myself) who think that genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith are then put in position of saying that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism. And that contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27)

I don’t think I realized this difficulty when I wrote my Systematic Theology. I had been in an Evangelical Free Church for about four years and it seemed to me to work well enough. But now I’m beginning to realize that admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism, what it really is. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! If we didn’t think it was valid baptism, we should be telling people who were baptized as infants that their “baptism” was not valid baptism and they should be baptized now, after their personal profession of faith. They would need to do this in obedience to Christ’s command.

So I have been re-thinking my position on this issue, and I have been considering sending a change to the publishers of my Systematic Theology book, at least explaining that there are more difficulties to my “compromise” view than I had initially realized.

In short, I don’t think the baptism issue is going to go away any time soon.

Finally, I’m thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can still have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views. I certainly do not put the question of baptism in the same category as the denial of penal substitutionary atonement which you mentioned [yesterday] because that seems to me to be a denial of the heart of the Gospel. And, as I mentioned, it seems to me that evangelical feminism involves, implicitly at least, a denial of the authority of the Bible. But differing views on baptism or the millennium do not have serious consequences of that type.

Continued in part eight . . . . See also supplementary post, "Wayne Grudem Retracts His Agreement With the Use of the Word "Blasphemy" in Regard to Steve Chalke."

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Part four honed in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. In part five we looked at the issue of women addressing church congregations. We now continue the interview with a look at a thorny issue in the church today - the Atonement.  The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian

John Piper - like you - is better known as a theological bridge-builder rather than a theological warrior. But he has gone into battle over at least two issues – the openness of God – where he stood out strongly against individuals who teach that God doesn’t know the future – and more recently in defence of penal substitution.

Personally, I was quite surprised by the level of passion he expressed in his recent talk at the DGM conference. He quoted a now infamous passage from Steve Chalke - a very well-known and influential member of the UK's Evangelical Alliance - which claims that a traditional evangelical view of penal substitution is nothing more than "cosmic child abuse." Do you agree with Piper's choice of these two issues as ones to stand up for vigorously? Do you also think he was fair to then boldly declare that he believed that Chalke's words were blasphemy? Do you agree with that assessment?

Wayne

(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. Chalke is denying the heart of the Gospel. (Ed: Grudem has since retracted his agreement to the use of the word blasphemy of Chalke but not his strong criticism of Chalke's views)

Evangelicals in the academic world battled against liberals in scholarly writings about this issue fifty years ago, and I think that evangelicals like Leon Morris won the argument and won the theological battle. Now Chalke is giving away the hard-won victory. He is giving away the heart of the Gospel. I would never agree to give my approval to anyone who denies penal substitutionary atonement to be an elder at a church I attended, or to be a pastor or Bible teacher, or to teach at a theological seminary where I had influence on the appointment.

Adrian

It seems to me that each generation has specific theological arguments that define it. Do you agree with that? If so, what theological arguments do you see breaking in the future that maybe are not that prominent yet?

Wayne

I don’t claim to be a prophet, so I really don’t know. But one way to predict trends in the church is to watch the culture. Sadly, too many churches give in to pressures to conform to the culture in every generation. And two issues that come to mind, where the Bible differs clearly with the culture, are universalism (the idea that everybody will be saved whether they believe in Christ or not) and homosexuality. A third issue is moral relativism, which is counter to the entire moral fabric of the Bible and the fact that God wants people to live in conformity with His moral laws.

---

I have kept this portion of the interview short due to the vital importance of the subject we were discussing. I plan a major post sharing a recent talk I gave on the subject of the Atonement sometime in the New Year - probably as part of my plans to revive and complete my series on the Together for the Gospel Statement.

For now, let me share with you some links to pages from this and other websites on this vital subject, and feel free to comment away. I should tell you that I am in the middle of writing a more strict blog comment policy, and one of the points (which is in operation as of now) is that I want to keep comments on topic. Thus, this is a post about competing theories of the Atonement and nothing else.

To have Wayne Grudem and John Piper both agree that one of the UK's leading evangelicals was committing blasphemy is about as serious a position as I can imagine us to be in, and one worthy of a bit of careful discussion, but first here is the passage in John Piper's talk at DG06 that speaks of Steve Chalke, and which I asked Wayne Grudem about.

"The Son of God, Jesus Christ, came into the world, lived a perfect life, died to bear the penalty for our sins, absorbed the wrath of God that hung over us, rose from the dead triumphant over death and Satan and all evil, so that all who receive Jesus as the Savior, Lord, and Treasure of their lives would be forgiven for Christ’s sake, counted righteous in Christ, and fitted to know and enjoy God forever.

Oh, how I wish that at least here, at the center of the Gospel, there would be common ground among those who claim to be followers of Jesus today. But that’s not the case, and one of the reasons is that the postmodern mind, inside and outside of the church, has no place for the biblical truth of the wrath of God. And, therefore, it has no place for a wrath-bearing Savior who endures God’s curse that we might go free. 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.

The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offense 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.)

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:

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. (Isaiah 53:4-6, 10)

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.” (Galatians 3:13)

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. (Romans 8:3)

Whose sin? My sin. Whose flesh? Jesus’ flesh. Whose condemnation? God’s condemnation.

In our present fallen, rebellious condition, nothing — I say it again carefully — nothing is more crucial for humanity than escaping the omnipotent wrath of God. That is not the ultimate goal of the cross. It is just infinitely necessary—and valuable beyond words.

The ultimate goal of the cross, the ultimate good of the Gospel, is the everlasting enjoyment of God. The glorious work of Christ in bearing our sins and removing God’s wrath and providing our righteousness is aimed finally at this: “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). Jesus died for us so that we might say with the psalmist, “I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy” (Psalm 43:4). (John Piper)

Before I share some more links with you, let me share a quote from Calvin which goes some way to alleviating some of the concerns that critics of penal substitution have. For what they say is: "How could God be displeased with Christ on the cross?" My answer is that God was both displeased with the sin that Jesus had become, but remained pleased with Jesus' infinite goodness which in some way swallowed up sin, thereby destroying it. Calvin puts it this way:

"We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? Or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God."

(Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1997). Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translation of: Institutio Christianae Religionis; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (II, xvi, 11). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)

More Links on the Atonement on My Blog

• Steve Chalke and Cosmic Child Abuse
  
  
• Attacking the Atonement From the Other Side?
  
  
• L - Limited Atonement - In this post, I begin talking about Limited Atonement by asking first what atonement is and addressing Chalke's viewpoint.
  
  
• Arguing About the Atonement - Here I address the concerns some have about how the Trinity can reject itself.
  
  
• Mark Driscoll on the Atonement
  
  
• What Must I Believe to be Saved?
  
  
• Did God Kill Jesus?

Other Sites

• The Atonement Debate - Hosted by the UK's Evangelical Alliance.
  
  
• Steve Chalke Explains Himself
  
  
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement at Monergism.com
  
  
• The Nature Of The Atonement - By Phil Johnson
  
  
• No Punishment Required? - By Phil Johnson
  
  
• Spurgeon on the Atonement - The Prince of Preachers is at his best and most relevant to today here.
  
  
• Daniel Strange on the Atonement
  
  
• Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the Atonement
  

Continued in part seven . . .

What is Tongues?
This blogger shares about their experience of tongues and what they feel it is.

Poll Says Many Pentecostals Don't Speak in Tongues
CT says many charismatics no longer practice glossalia

Young, Restless, Reformed
I know I am a bit behind the time, but CT had an interesting article last month on the resurgence of reformed teaching among America's young Chrisitans

Between Two Worlds: Top 15 Finds of Biblical Archaeology
Justin Taylor links to some great articles summarising some fantasic archelogical support for the bible.

Penal Substitution - the Debate Continues
The Atonement is a subject never very far away from the God blogopshere. This time Tall Skinny Kiwi has collected a bunch of links and describes a lunch meeting with John Piper on the subject. Speaking of Piper in his talk at the DGM conference he accused Steve Chalke and those who doubt the sunstitutionary atonement of blasphemey against God. To me that made Driscoll's comemnts on the same subject at the conference look mild!

Logos Bible Software - Free Books Available
If you have certain of the logos bible software packages (available for 25% off if you follow the link from my site) you can use a wide range of free books from the likes of Jonathan Edwards, John Owen and others - well worth a look!


What is a Missional Church?
Unveiled face wants us to think how we can learn from other churches that are good at areas we are not rather than throwing stones at them!


Well thats your lot, except to say that I have decided to try an experiment. Its Open Mic day here at BT, so please feel free to add a link to your favorite post of the week from your own or someone elses blog. If its God-related then feel free to link to it right here! To add a link to a related site here in my comments section - just type something that looks like the following <a href="http://www.yourlink.com/text.htm">Here is my link</a> into your comment.

• How to Sleep Comfortably on a Hot Night
  
  
  It's hot over here right now. None of us has air conditioning. So, to those of you who live in places that were hot even before this global warming thing kicked in - which of these ideas works best?
  
  (tags: cool reference web)



• 
  True Professions of Faith: The Problems in Uganda
  
  
  Lig Duncan posts a prayer letter from an evangelist in Uganda, addressing some of the same issues raised by Mark Dever regarding the importance of true professions of faith.
  
  (tags: church duncan gospel T4GB)
  



• 
  The Importance of WORDS
  
  
  It seems that Dan Phillips and I were thinking similar thoughts yesterday. We both posted on subjects pertaining to WORDS. In this article, Dan shows how the lack of even one small word can completely change the meaning of a verse of Scripture.
  
  (tags: blogging communications cool english pyromaniacs)
  



• 
  American Spectator: A Precious Morning
  
  
  Ben Stein writes about the preciousness of life, the sacrifices of the men and women in the armed forces, and is ashamed for feeling despondent over the trivial things of day-to-day living. He was, he says, thrown to his knees in thanksgiving.
  
  (tags: article gifts news)
  



• "The Jesus Gospel: Recovering the Lost Message".
  
  
  "A new book by Liam Goligher, published in the United Kingdom, responds to the work of Steve Chalke." Justin Taylor cites Sinclair Ferguson and J. I. Packer, who provide a couple of endorsements.
  
  (tags: discernment gospel taylor)

• "Now, this gets my goat." So says a Calvinist Mum of one of my commentators, Peter Kirk
  Watch out, Peter, did you never read about the wrath of women or don't you believe in it? Conflict of interest declaration: I put pictures of my kids on my blog, too.
  (tags: adrianw family)
• Cosmic Child Abuse? "I don't think I've ever heard or seen someone scoff at the idea of penal substitution by calling it this first-hand . . ."
  "Such a statement, says James Spurgeon, belies a fundamental misunderstanding of so many different aspects of (or rejection of?) classical Christian theology that it boggles the mind ..."
  (tags: atonement pyromaniacs theology)
• "Cosmic Child Abuse" - Steve Chalke on Penal Substitution
  This post from 2004 links to a leading UK evangelical who used this near blasphemous description of the classical evangelical position on why Jesus died. He wasn't the first, and it seems he won't be the last.
  (tags: atonement chalke neoliberal)
• Best Meme Ever!
  Have a good laugh with Catez Stevens on this one! It's thoroughly enjoyable . . .
  (tags: humor)
  
• 
  ". . . the guy next door to me and I do it to live dangerously. We have deceived ourselves into believing that the consequences of drinking a Coke at your desk while using electronic equipment are minimal because we are more careful than most people . . ."
  Centurion and an excellent parable on justice and mercy.
  (tags: justice mercy)
  
• 
  "We set ourselves up for a false dichotomy if we demand an answer to the question as to whether God killed Jesus, or man killed Jesus."
  Dan throws his hat into the ring over at TeamPyro . . .
  (tags: atonement pyromaniacs theology)

Mathew Sims on the T4G Statement, Part 4

(Tags: T4GB)

Mathew Sims Gets to Part 5
. . . and I've only posted one . . . still this T4G statement is sure making for some interesting blogging!

(Tags: T4GB)

"If any single quote could encapsulate why I am not a Christian, this one, by C. J. Mahaney, has to be it. The sheer, hideous inanity of a god that demands a blood sacrifice from an innocent in repayment for the sins of the guilty is beautifully captured here. It is a theology that captures the worst aspects of an archaic moral worldview, one that promulgates the barbaric idea of blood guilt and blood sacrifice."
The gospel is veiled to the perishing . . . .

(Tags: mahaney atonement gospel)

Is Complementarianism Simply Analogous to Racism?
Dave Warnock doesn't waste another opportunity to tell us that it is - I find the connection he makes to be most bizarre, don't you?

(Tags: T4GB complementarianism racism)

The Life and Death of the Missional Leader
The audio from session one of Mark Driscoll's recent Resurgence Conference is now available.

(Tags: driscoll)

"There's no Christian life presented in the Bible apart from being connected to the people of God," he said. "Let's go home and let's live it!"
Josh challenges the NA attendees to go live it out!

(Tags: church SGM harris ... on May 30)

"Rather than being treated as a metaphor, the model of penal substitution has been given an objective reality which does not belong to it."
Herein lies the rub in the atonement debate. Do we hold (as I do) that there IS an objective reality to punishment and wrath and substitution, or do we think it's JUST a metaphor?

(Tags: atonement theology gospel cross chalke)

"... the phrase verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible is problematical ..."
Dave Warnock pits the T4G guys against the Evangelical Alliance and other statements of faith in his latest post - this time on Article I.

(Tags: T4GB bible)

links for 2006-04-12

• Adrian and his Church
  (tags: blogsearch cool)
• Mark Driscoll Interview
  (tags: driscoll adrianw interview emerging church gospel evangelism mission)
• Adrian's Posts by Subject or Book of the Bible
  (tags: blogsearch cool)
• Mark Dever's "The Message of the Old Testament"
  Justin Taylor makes available the contents, foreward, introduction, and first chapter of Mark Dever's latest book, along with various endorsements.
  (tags: book dever taylor)
• Re-Igniting the Steve Chalke Atonement Debate - Is He an Abuser of the Bible?
  A comment on an old post of mine has identified Chalke as an abuser of the Bible, in the way he has deliberately omitted a phrase from his quotation of Isaiah 53:5 - "the punishment that brought us peace was upon him."
  (tags: atonement chalke)
• The Contemporary Myth Gets It Exactly Wrong-An Essay on the DaVinci Code and Its Popularity
  Dr. N. T. Wright (Bishop of Durham, Church of England) waxes eloquent: "You may salve your conscience by embracing Gnosticism . . . but if Caesar takes any notice at all, all he will do is sneer at you and go on his way to yet more triumphs . . ."
  (tags: gospel mohler review)
• Changing Opinions in Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"
  Catez Stevens agrees we are seeking to know the mind of God, "but I do not think human reason can attain this. That would be trying to enclose the infinite within the finite." "We can begin by considering the spiritual reality behind the material world."
  (tags: creationism design)
• Dr. Sam Storms, Jonathan Edwards, and the Lowly Act of Footwashing
  "If one worm be a little exalted above another, by having more dust, or a bigger dunghill, how much he does make of himself! What a distance he does keep from those who are below him." But in Christ meets infinite highness and infinite condescension.
  (tags: christ grace preaching puritans)
• Things Are Bad All Over
  "According to the Christian Post (UK), less than a quarter of Christians in the UK possess enough knowledge of the Bible to be able to place key events in the order they appear." HT Jim Bublitz
  (tags: bible news)
• Confusion About Conservatives
  Article written by Udo Middleman and gleaned off The Francis A. Schaeffer Foundation new website. "Conservative implies there are realities we cannot avoid. Some are even worth keeping."
  (tags: conservative)
• Sam Storms Interview
  (tags: adrianw interview)

I was very sad to hear of the latest row that has been rocking the blogosphere.  Once again, Christians are giving ammunition to unbelievers who are only too eager to jump on unwise comments and over-the-top reactions.  I wish that I wasnt so embarrassed by the words and actions of some of the people who passionately believe the same gospel I do.  I wish that certain people would stop and think before they write the sort of throw away comment that can be said in a private conversation but which looks REALLY REALLY bad plastered all over the mainstream media.

 

We have to learn how to speak the truth IN LOVE and with a little bit of care before we hit the "publish" button.  There are things that are more important than whether a homosexual activist is a suitable candidate to play a Christian hero, or indeed for that matter exactly what certain ministers think an appropriate Christian view of homosexuality is.  We have to instead ask ourself what has gone wrong that we have got to a point where the spectrum of views on homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) amongst professing Christians would stretch as widely as recent events have demonstrated it does.

 

The problem is that the actions of some do not help us regain the ground we have already lost in the eyes of the public.  The whole church is these days in danger of being relegated to being perceived as nothing more than anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-modernity, anti-progress, anti-muslim, anti-democrat, in short antiquated.

 

Some might say, "well of course they hate us, its persecution".  I feel its about time we started doing a better job of explaining what exactly we are for and doing so in a winsome way that might leave people actually willing to think about what they have just heard. Once they understand what we are actually saying they may still hate us anyway, but let them hate us for the message not for our insensitive attitude!

 

I am not in any way calling for us to comrpomise on issues and jettison what the bible says.  But I am calling for us to demonstrate our love for all kinds of people, including those who disagree with us.  We need to stop acting like we are surprised when we meet someone who's values are so opposite to our own.  We need to stop being surprised even when that person calls themselves a Christian or is a prominent member of the church.    We in the UK have had to deal with one of our most prominent evangelicals, Steve Chalke coming out as someone who believes that most of the rest of us are teaching nothing more than "cosmic child abuse" when we preach of the gospel of Christs death.  We have also seen too many prominent christians suddenly declare that they have fallen into different forms of sexual sin.  Sadly for many their sin is hidden for years precisely because they fear the response even of those close to them will be very far from a loving attempt to bring repentance, forgiveness and healing.

 

We live in a broken world.  Lets remember that, and remind ourselves of our own part in being broken and sinful in all our public and private pronouncements.  In short, lets pray we all learn how to "speak the truth in love" 

 

 

 

 

In todays blog interview Richard makes it very clear that as far as the UK's Christian Unions are concerned charismatics (especially from newfrontiers) are welcome but those who question the atonement ought to go elsewhere......

Adrian: It is my pleasure to welcome to my blog today the Director of UCCF in the UK, Richard Cunningham. For my American readers, UCCF is equivalent to your Intervarsity Fellowship Richard, it is a pleasure to welcome you, please can you begin by telling us a bit about yourself and how you ended up leading the UCCF?

Richard: I live in north Oxfordshire with my wife and five kids. I�m an ordained Anglican minister and previously worked for St Andrew�s Oxford. I first came across the UCCF as a student in London. I was greatly helped by a UCCF staff worker during a time of profound intellectual doubt about the Christian faith. He introduced me to the writings of Francis Schaeffer and CS Lewis. This not only rescued my faith, but also gave me the confidence to run Agnostics Anonymous courses for my university mates- a number of who were converted.

Following a stint on staff as Evangelism trainer in the 90s � I remained hugely interested in the ministry of UCCF and continued leading student missions. But I never imagined I would ever go back to work for UCCF- so was as surprised as anyone when I was made Director in 2004.

Adrian: Richard, how would you describe the state of the Christian Union movement in the UK and worldwide at the moment?

Richard: The UK CUs in the established Universities are for the most part vigorously healthy. Many CUs are still the largest student societies on campus. Some of the newer Universities with multi- site campuses and minimal student accommodation make it harder for the CUs to reach their fellow students.

I have just come from taking meetings in the north of England which were most encouraging: I spoke to a packed lunchtime student gathering in Manchester on the subject of �how can you say Jesus is the only way?� I also spoke at the Durham University CU Carol service with 2,000 students and lecturers crammed into Durham Cathedral with many signing up for enquirer�s courses. Similarly Exeter Uni hired the main stand of the football ground for their carol service and had about 3000 attending. For the first time in memory the University of Falmouth held a carol service and 200 attended. In other words CUs are wonderfully placed to reach their campuses for Christ.

It is much harder to answer that question for the whole of IFES (International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) of which UCCF is a founding member. The challenges and opportunities across countries and continents vary so massively. Some CUs in Moslem countries are barely viable, whereas The CU in University of Rwanda is 3000 strong and has grown in- spite of most of the CU leaders and IFES staff being murdered in the genocide of �95. The former leader of the Rwandan work was converted as an international student at Bangor Uni through the witness of the CU. He is now vice chair of the truth and reconciliation committee in Rwanda.

Adrian: What do you see as the role of a Christian Union? What is it there for?

Richard: CUs are mission teams, whose team members (gathered from both sending and local churches) spend 3-4 years helping each other to live and speak for Jesus on campus. They are not churches and are not a substitute for churches. But since their members are living and studying together on campus, CUs can quickly become vibrant witnessing communities reaching out to fellow students.

Students have a freedom to set up societies; book college rooms and reach their friends in a way that churches don�t. University authorities are increasingly nervous about religious societies on campus, especially in the wake of 9/11. There is a serious risk to these freedoms now enjoyed if churches start moving their activities onto campus. It is important for both sending and receiving churches to support the CU leaders (with all the obvious limitations of young leadership) with the opportunities that God has given to them.

Adrian: We often hear that many students involved in CU fall away from Christ after graduation. Is this the case?

Richard: I think that the CUs rescue many students who come up to college with the intention of giving up on Church and faith.

Clearly the mobility of a new graduate (job, marriage, location) creates a big opportunity for reinvention. Christians are even more vulnerable in a work context, because they do not have the support of peers in a Christian Union. It is the students who are the most sorted theologically and who nail their colours to the mast (morally and evangelistically) that tend to be the most stable later on.

By contrast those who leave college without clear convictions and theological clarity seem less able to hold on to their faith after graduation. For example I heard last week of a graduate from Manchester who avoided the CU because it seemed too tight theologically. But upon graduating she worked among HIV AIDS patients in South Africa and rapidly came to the conclusion that she could no longer believe in God in the face of all the suffering she was seeing.

Adrian: How should Christian Unions relate to churches?

Richard: UCCF The Christian Unions is a partnership between students, staff and supporters all of whom are encouraged to be committed to a local church. A CU does not have the breadth and depth of age, maturity and gifting to be a substitute for church. A CU does not have the tested maturity of church leadership. CU members are encouraged to seek pastoral oversight and care from their local church and to see CU as a short-term mission community.

Because UCCF has such a high view of local church it is not surprising that a huge proportion of our former staff end up leading churches. The health of many CUs is greatly affected by the presence of lively, Bible teaching churches in the vicinity. Also without church support UCCF would be barely viable.

Adrian: Relationships between CUs and churches are not always so easy- what do you feel are the most common pitfalls and how can we avoid them?

Richard: There are 2 main pitfalls. One is when a CU misunderstands itself and begins to ape a church by putting on more and more meetings which cover everything from how lead worship to how to have a quiet time. This could lead to some students not having enough time to get involved in a local church.

The other is when a local church misunderstands the nature of a CU and criticizes the existence of student led bible study groups or the teaching of the Bible at main meetings. In the most extreme cases they seek to take over the leadership from the students and regard the CU as a place to extend their own church activities.

Now that may appear a little contradictory at first sight. What is important though is for both students and churches to understand the purpose of a CU. The CU is a mission team in the form of a student society. The officers of the CU are obviously students, because it is inappropriate for anyone other than students to be leading a student society.

The CUs are in existence for their non- members, but obviously they cannot be doing wall-to-wall evangelism. They need weekly �team times� like any other mission society in which they study what the gospel is in order to live it and tell it more clearly. They also need to pray and mutually encourage each other.

It is important that churches allow CUs to be CUs and not seek to dampen their freedom and joy as they do something quite unique and strategic.

Adrian: Christian Unions seem to vary a lot in my experience in their friendliness to differing types of Christian. Should a Christian Union be totally accepting of anyone who claims to be a Christian?

I hope that every CU is friendly to anyone and everyone who comes along. UCCF Christian Unions are evangelical. We seek to unite students from different Christian traditions on the essentials of evangelical belief.

This means that non-evangelicals may feel uncomfortable as we will talk about the uniqueness of Christ or the infallibility of scripture or Christ�s death as a propitiation to a holy God etc. We insist that everyone who serves as a leader in the CU is able to sign our doctrinal basis agreeing to maintain the evangelical standing of the CU.

All evangelicals should feel at home in CU as these evangelical essentials that unify us across the denominations are shared by us all and speak of the wonder of God�s salvation in Christ revealed in Scripture.

Adrian: In the past there has been some CU's who have not been very accepting of people from charismatic backgrounds. Why do you think that was, and what is being done today to ensure that no longer is the case?

Richard: It is difficult to speak about the past. What I want to be clear about is the present. UCCF wishes to unite all evangelical believers in order to reach the 2 million students in Higher Education, the vast majority of whom know nothing of Jesus. Uniting students in this great task is a joy but can be difficult. The church scene in the UK reflects this. I think that CUs can one of the best examples of evangelical partnership in the UK. In our CUs and on our staff we have Christians from across the evangelical\spectrum.

In the past some Charismatics were insistent on a particular view of the gifts of the Spirit and that all gifts should be practiced in the CU as they are practiced in the local church. Some CUs reflected the evangelical church at the time of the charismatic renewal �and became nervous and suspicious.

But that was then- the question for now is how do we ensure Charismatics are accepted in to CUs? The CU needs to be clear about its mission. Uniting students for mission and not being the local church should make CUs accepting of all evangelicals- charismatic or non-Charismatic. Mission drives this unity, based on the great evangelical truths of our faith. People who love the Gospel and the Word of God will be happy in CUs and UCCF whether charismatic or not.

Adrian: I noticed that UCCF as a national body certainly seems to be working with charismatic groups, especially newfrontiers. I understand Terry Virgo recently spoke at your national leaders meeting and is also on your national advisory board. That may be a surprise to some, can you tell me how it came about?

Richard: It is UCCF�s policy to invite keynote speakers and advisors on merit alone. Terry is a world-renowned Bible teacher with a high view of Scripture and believes passionately in proclamation evangelism. The national advisory board should reflect the breath of UCCF so we invite men and women who are recognized in the evangelical world for their maturity and expertise from across the evangelical spectrum.

We have a number of staff and Relay (one year staff) who are very appreciative of the ministry of NFI. It seems to me that, unlike some of the other so- called �new churches� that seem to be looking for a fresh mandate, NFI are growing rapidly because of their commitment to Scripture and evangelism.

Adrian: How did Terry Virgo go down at the conference?

Richard: His Bible readings were of exceptional quality and unsurprisingly many people (staff and students) felt that what they had heard was life changing. Terry opened up for us the glory and beauty of the Gospel, which drew out a renewed commitment in many.

Adrian: From what you say, charismatics definitely seem to be welcome to work with the UCCF these days, which is a most welcome development. Do you think this is going to be important for the future of the kingdom today?

Richard: This may sound a little grand, but one of the last best hopes for saving British evangelicalism from corrosive tribalism are our university and college CUs. The18 and 19 yr olds flooding into the CUs are tomorrow�s church leaders. They come from a range of church traditions but are easily united (if allowed to) by their desire to stay Christian and reach their friends for Christ.

Their unity is necessarily based around a �mere� but glorious Christianity. By being a confessional movement, which unites Christians around core Biblical truths we are able to provide a context within which disparate traditions can work together. This has to be good for the future of the British church.

One of my concerns about caricaturing UCCF as anti charismatic (which of course it isn�t) is that CUs can rapidly become politicized. There have been occasions where local charismatic churches have been encouraged to take over existing CU small groups or cells. It is hard to think of any instances where this has not robbed the CU of its unity and evangelistic effectiveness.

Adrian: So does this mean now that for UCCF anything goes? What would your approach be towards those today who are challenging traditional views of the atonement for example? Should CU's be able to work just as well with them?

Richard: It is not the case that anything goes, neither morally nor doctrinally. We are concerned for godly living and Biblical truth. As I mentioned earlier UCCF is unashamedly confessional, which means that we are as broad as our doctrinal basis allows and only as narrow as it insists. We ask all those who hold office in CUs plus staff and speakers to be able to affirm their belief in the core truths that is the UCCF�s doctrinal basis (DB).

There is a commitment within our DB to Penal substitutionary atonement as a fundamental truth. The origins of UCCF date back to 1919 when a group of students split from the then very large Student Christian Movement because the atonement was not central to SCMs teaching.

For the sake of unity UCCF has flexed (and continues to) culturally and stylistically since these early days. However by Gods grace we will never sell the family silver of core Biblical truth for the sake of unity.

Adrian: Richard, I am sorry but thats all we have time for today. Many, many thanks for joining us. I wish you well in your future ministry.....

It seems that some peoples mechanistic idea of the trinity "It cannot be separated in any way" is behind at least part of the disagreement with penal substitution which is rampant these days. Spurgeon would have had exactly the same things to say about the people today who deny the plain teaching of scripture that Christ bore in his body the punishment due for our sin. And yes, Steve Chalke is among the number of those who deny this teaching (follow the link for more information)

Last night I had a late night google talk conversation who's identity will remain secret to protect the guilty (unless he chooses to unveil himself!)

I batted around the plain notion that Jesus became sin "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 Cor 5:21). This blogging friend of mine said something like "Jesus somehow took sinful man into God and reconcilled them", to which I strongly disagreed since the bible plainly says that Jesus became sin.

We discussed Romans 1 and the wrath of God, Romans 3 and the fact that simply leaving sin un punished is not possible if God is to be just. Again, the blogger wriggled. It seemed the notion of an actively angry and yes vengeful God was just too much for him. But the bible plainly teaches the terrible wrath of God. If it wasnt poured out on Jesus then the wrath of God still exists towards me.

It is only possible for God to forgive and lay aside his anger against us because he has punished sin in Christ. He can only accept us because he actively rejected Christ on the cross.

This statement caused even more antibodies to be raised in my friend. He simply couldnt accept the statement Jesus made on the cross: "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"

My friend even dared to contradict Jesus and say "But God DIDNT forsake him, he only FELT like he was being forsaken. This contradiction of the very words of the son of God hanging on the cross is the closest thing to blasphemy I have heard in a long time. My friend says his theology of the trinity wont allow it. I say my theology of who Christ is will not permit Christ to be wrong and my friend right!

The bible is very very clear, we are saved by Christ from the wrath of God. If you cannot accept that, I am not convinced that you are definitely saved and I would be concerned that you might fall short of the test that we will all undergo on that final day. This issue really is that important.

Anyone would think Spurgeon had met Steve Chalke It is amazing how our battle never changes throughout the centuries. PyroManiac has done us a great service by finding this fantastic quote which I stand behind 100%

"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 savior, 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.

We shall not cease, dear brethren, in our ministry, most definitely and decidedly to preach the atoning sacrifice; and I will tell you why I shall be sure to do so. I have not personally a shadow of a hope of salvation from any other quarter: I am lost if Jesus be not my Substitute. I have been driven up into a corner by a pressing sense of my own personal sin, and have been made to despair of ever doing or being such that God can accept me in myself.

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 dishonor 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. Do I not remember when I first looked to Him, and was lightened? Do I not remember how often I have gone as a sinner to my Savior's feet, and looked anew at His wounds, and believed over again unto eternal life, feeling the old joy repeated by the deed?

Brethren, I cannot preach anything else, for I know nothing else. New dogmas may or may not be true; but of the truth of this doctrine, I am sure.

If anybody here is preaching the atonement, but does not like it, I dare not advise him to cease preaching it, but the words tremble on my lips. I am firmly persuaded that the unwilling or cold-hearted preacher of any doctrine is its worst enemy. It comes to this, in the long run, that the wounds of truth in the house of its false friends are worse than those given it by foes. If you do not love the cross in your heart's core, you had better let it alone. I can truly say that I preach the atonement con amore, with all my heart.......

Observers will have noticed that the joyous element has gone out of many pulpits. The preacher does not enjoy his own subject, and seldom speaks of having been in the Spirit while he was discoursing. He likes twenty minutes' preaching a great deal better than forty; and he is peculiarly apt to merge his two week-night services into one.

Nobody enjoys modern doctrine, for there is nothing to enjoy.......

I would like to rise from my bed, during the last five minutes of my life, to bear witness to the Divine sacrifice and the sin-atoning blood. I would then repeat those words which speak the truth of substitution most positively, even should I shock my hearers; for how could I regret that, as in Heaven my first words would be to ascribe my salvation to my Master's blood, my last act on earth was to shock His enemies by a testimony to the same fact?

I received this email today-

I read with interest your article on Steve Chalke and The lost message of Jesus? posted on Sunday November the 21st 2004.

I am currently doing a dissertation for my theology degree.....and came upon this article during some research. My dissertation is about the atonement theory and whether the theory of penal substitution is necessary to Christianity. You seem to feel extremely strongly that the idea that Jesus'? death as an atonement for our sins is essential to you faith.

I have been doing a lot of reading of feminist, black and liberation theology and a lot of writers such as Delores Williams (Sisters in the wilderness) and Rita Brock (Journey's by heart) and they often point to the fact that viewing Jesus'? death on the cross as Jesus accepting death to atone for our sins often leads to oppression. An example of this is that it encourages people to accept their suffering as Jesus did on the cross rather than encouraging them to be pro active about their situation. Coming from a Catholic background (although I have subsequently left the Church) I think it is fair to say that the idea of penal substitution is almost impossible to remove from the Church, but just wondered what your opinion is on the idea that it encourages oppression of those marginalised by society.

If you have any thoughts on this or any ideas of other places I could look it would be greatly appreciated; sorry if this is a bit vague but I am in very initial stages and just trying to make sense of my own ideas.

Well, what I will say straight away is that the practical effects of any doctrine should not be our first port of call in examining it. It is vital that we identify exactly what the bible says. Then, in comparing this to what people have said it means we may actually discover that any negative effects of a doctrine are not actually negative effects of that doctrine, but of it misunderstood.

A reading of Isaiah 53 and the new testament verses that quote or allude to it is surely a good place to start in any study of this.

I would also love it if some of my more theological readers could help us out with more thoughts on this matter. I promised at the beginning of the year that what I termed "neo-liberalism" would feature heavily in my blogging this year and it has.

It is of some disappointment to me that there hasnt been more interest from other bloggers in this matter. It may not be very hot in the USA yet, but it will be. For once we Brits seem to be leading the way with a major theological disagreement. The outputs of a recent theological symposium on the subject of the atonement certainly deserve to be poured over by as many of us as have time- I regret that thus far I still havent had time to do so myself.

This debate could lead to the end of evangelicalism as we know it. It is important for us to study it well.

Posts by Subject: blogging books bible translations calvinism charismatics church christianity counselling/mental health history Ethics faith films family music neo-liberalism news politics The Gospel The Warnie Awards �the war on terror� work

Posts and sermons by book of the Bible : Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1&2Samuel 1&2Kings 1&2Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1&2Thessalonians 1&2Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1&2 Peter 1,2&3John Jude Revelation

Blogotional did a great job of bringing together my call for us to learn from any corner we can with pyromaniacs concerns about the decline of the concept of evangelical as in any way useful as a definition.

One of the things that Phil and I spoke of minutes before the first london bombers was what we termed an evangelical war over doctrine which was being fought by theological 'terrorists'. Up till now I havent wanted to share that term as recent events made it seem inappropriate. Imagine my surprise when I heard the real terrorists described today on the BBC as using 'emergent' techniqes! (I dont think we should read too much into that......!)

If recent events have taught us anything it is that ideas matter. Truth is vital when you are a copper trying to decide in seconds if the man you are about to shoot dead really is a terrorist or instead a well-wrapped Brazillian electrician who doesnt realise that this is about as warm as summer ever gets over here.

It also matters to terrorists who wouldnt do what they do unless they believed certain beliefs.

When we spoke about evangelical terrorism, we didnt mean to imply that there was any real similarity between evangelicals who I have sometimes tongue-in-cheek called "neo-liberals" What we meant was that the very eddifice of evangelicalism is under attack from many different quarters and in a non-organised way. Sadly, many of those attacking the eddifice are probably genuine, and do not realise that they are endangering the very concept of evangelicalism. I trust that by the time you have finished reading the rest of this post you will understand the seriousness of the batttle for truth we face

In the church, our enemy is never flesh and blood. The battle for truth happens on many fronts. Rather than an organised war, what we find is a preacher here and a theologian there attacking a single facet of our wonderful gospel whilst claiming that they want to keep every other doctrine intact. The men and women who are doing this are usually totally unaware that taken together with all the others attacking different aspects of the truth from within evangelicalism there is next to nothing left that isnt under attack!

This idea is never more clear than in the penal substitution debate. An attempt was made to bring together proponents of penal substitutionary atonement and men like Steve Chalke who oppose it in a symposium, the results of which were announced today in a press statement.

Attempts to learn from both sides of a debate like this have to be welcome. At first sight it might seem that the conclusions of this symposium would also be welcome to me. They werent.

Joel Edwards said "...we welcome the fact that both Steve Chalke and Alan Mann affirmed their willingness to continue creative engagement with penal substitutionary atonement, and to work alongside its proponents in the cause of the gospel. In the spirit of the symposium, we hope that others will continue to listen to their concerns."

Suddenly, it seems that we are all one big happy family willing to work alongside each other for the sake of the gospel. The trouble is without a penal substitution I cannot see how there is much of a gospel to work together for. Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence, others say that the gospel that I and many others preach amounts to nothing more than a theory of "cosmic child abuse". It simply cannot be the case that both sides are right. One or other group of people are not evangelical, and it is interesting that this quote made me feel that we are so on the back foot that it almost sounded like it was those who hold to penal subsitution that were being considered for ejection from the EA!

I would love to engage some bloggers in an analysis of the papers that have came out of the EA. Thus far I have only had time to read the press statement, the programme (note that spelling my US readers!) and the first paper by I. Howard Marshall

I am eager that we dissect this paper and the rest of these papers one by one as only bloggers can do. Lets take them apart in order on as many Christian blogs as possible. Here are links to the other papers so you can really get your teeth stuck into them.

• Romans 3.25-26: An Exegetical Study Simon Gathercole
• Atonement in the Old Testament - Chris Wright
• Steve Motyer The Atonement in Hebrews
• 
  Why Did Christ Die? Sue Groom
  
• Penal Substitution on the Myth of Redemptive Violence Stuart Murray Williams
• Questions on The Lost Message of Jesus

I was gratified to read in the Marshall paper a defense of penal substitution but felt it lacked something by way of rigour and passion. Where is pyromaniac when you need him? Anyway, a couple of highlights from the paper were as follows-

..this compilation of the evidence leads to three significant conclusions:

1. There is a clear framework of thought in the NT which assumes a background of the future action of God against evildoers, an action of judgment in which God displays his wrath against sin and carries out judgment involving the destruction or death of sinners.

2. There is no other kind of future scenario or description of the attitude and actions of God. This is not one type of metaphorical description among others. And there is no indication of a universalism in which all are saved and none are ultimately condemned.

3. This teaching is more than just a background of thought. It becomes thematic on many occasions, and it lies at the centre of the evangelism of the early church in that salvation is conceived of as being deliverance from the consequences of sin and specifically from death and the wrath of God. Consequently, we cannot push it to one side as being less important than the other aspects of human sin and need.........

The charge of cosmic child abuse is totally misplaced. It fails to recognise the points that have just been made which emphasise that it was God who initiated the cross, it was God himself who suffered on the cross and bore the sin of the world. A parent who puts herself into the breach and dies to save her child from a burning house is considered praiseworthy. The God who suffers and dies in the person of Jesus for human sin belongs in the same category. It is true that the concept of God the Son suffering and dying is paradoxical and incomprehensible, and we have to recognise that fact, but that is what Scripture says. It is part of the mystery of the incarnation.

Salvation is available to sinful human beings through the death of Christ that involves him in bearing the consequences of sin. These consequences constitute the penalty due to sin, rightly called a penalty because it is painful and deprives the sinner of life with God and all its blessings. In this way the holy and loving God upholds righteousness through judging sinners and saving those who accept what he has done in his Son on their behalf and instead of them. It is not a case of God being angry with Christ but of God himself in Christ taking on himself the sin and its penalty. Indeed, at some point the challenge needs to be issued: where are these evangelicals who say that God was angry with Christ? Name them! Where is the evangelical who will repudiate this statement: �We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him�, written by John Calvin? You will not find them among serious theologians, although I recognise that popular preachers may err in this respect.

In other words "you better believe judgement is coming and if Jesus isnt the one who will save you from the wrath of God then there is nobody else gonna do it"

I will leave the last words of this post, but not this debate to a member of my family. One of my children was asked by my wife "Some people say that Jesus died for us but that he wasnt punished for our sins- what do you think of that?" "Thats stupid," my young child said "because he did."

Listened to a great talk from Phil Johnson today. It covers N.T.Wright, New Perspectives on Paul, Steve Chalke and the atonement in a very helpful way. Phil has excelled himself and if you are looking for a critical review of Wright then look no further than this talk.

Carson has also got some good messages on this subject online.

Deep calls to Deep - A New Kind of Christian asks

"How old does something? have to be to be considered traditional?......Traditions can be a few years old, as some of our family Christmas traditions are, such as opening stockings on the bed, or they can stretch back several thousand years. An awful lot of traditions that we hold to though simply stretch back a few generations or a few hundred years, but have become in the minds of us who hold them, truths for all time."

So far, fair enough. I have been deliberately vague in my definition of this concept for the aggregator- but I think we all know what I mean dont we?

Deep goes to Deep then goes on to rather muddy the water by saying "I would argue that much of the emerging church exploration is not about modifying traditional evangelical thought, but rather about recovering traditional evangelical thought."

Now my question would be, just sticking to the issue that got my fires going on this one- penal substitution- please show me the traditional Evangelical who didn't believe in this. Note I do not say Christian, I say Evangelical.

This is a debate from both sides about what it means to be an evangelical. Steve Chalke and others themselves upped the stakes by accusing traditional evangelicals of preaching "cosmic child abuse". Since the vast majoirty of Evangelicals have held to this view why is it that so many of these Emergent folk would rather still identify themselves with Evangelicals? Why are they surprised by our offence at such absolute statements as "Penal Substitution is plain wrong"?

Who do they think they are to be able to re-define what an evangelical is? Clearly they are entitled to believe whatever they like but for a "post-modern" group some of them seem rather intolerant of those who happen to hold a different view to them.

I do think that they have much more in common with the liberals than the evangelicals. It remains a mystery to me that people with these views would not be happy to be called neo-liberals.

Back last April Christianity Magazine did a good article critiquing the drive to close down congregations and replcace them with "emerging church" structures. They described Key Insights of the emergents many of which are valid, but they also listed concerns which could be aired.

KEY INSIGHTS

1. That most churches have moved away from the pioneering spirit of
the early church to be focused on �set meetings�.

2. Many Christians find commitment to church activities leaves no time or energy reaching work colleagues and friends.

3. The language and assumptions of most churches are antagonistic to most postmoderns.

4. There is very little creativity in many church services designed to reach those outside church.

5. Churches don�t spend time encouraging their members in personal
witness and understanding people with a postmodern mindset.

CONCERNS

1. Emerging church writers, analysis of the demise of the church in the west could be analysed differently. The church in other parts of the world (Africa, south east Asia, South America,) has seen rapid growth, with structures and approaches that are pretty similar to the styles being written off by emerging church writers. Some churches in the UK are making headway too. Is it because postmodernism hasn�t affected these places, or is it because the church in these areas more vibrant?

2. A church is by biblical definition, a group of those �called together� by God. This definition may free church from the �trappings� that have little to do with the Bible, but in some cases Emerging Church writers judge that the product (the church community) is not attractive to outsiders, as if the people who gather to worship are the �focal point�. Isn�t this like me failing to take a friend to see my favourite football team because I didn�t think the socio-economic background of the fans wouldn�t be to their liking? By all means work with affinity groups in evangelism, but when it comes to nurture, the church is diverse in age, background and outlook � that�s its genius. The apostles were concerned to tell people how to get right with God. There was little or no comment on whether the community of believers was �culturally relevant� or not. They hoped their witness to God would be attractive but were equally aware that some would not wish to join them (see Acts 5:13).

Amazingly the writer of the article lets the following go uncommented-

In a joint interview with Christianity+Renewal Brian McLaren, pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church, USA, and author of many books on Post-Modernity and Emerging Church, and Steve Chalke, founding director of Oasis Trust, agreed that Jesus� message was largely the kingdom of God, not �trusting in his death for salvation�. McLaren and Chalke speak of the need to stress �original goodness� alongside original sin, helping to create less rigid distinctions and connecting points that are less hostile and more amenable to the postmoderns� distrust of �universal truths�. The mood is not the courtroom seeking to �obtain a verdict� but the pub, �having a natter about what is going on in our lives�.

I am sorry to say that I have not been able to read the original article for this, but I have to question whether such statements leave any room to describe the authors as Christians let alone Evangelicals.

In a letter from the heart Joel Edwards says of Steve Chalke-

Firstly, I am not convinced that Steve really has answered the plethora of key biblical texts dealing with the relationship between wrath, judgement and punishment. (Isaiah 53:1-11 and Romans 5:8-11 and the book of Hebrews for starters.) Apart from the concept of punishment, what can it possibly mean to say "the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,"? (Isa 53:5) These passages simply cannot be waved away by an emphasis on love.

Secondly, it�s one thing to question the place of penal substitution as an appropriate model of atonement but it�s quite another to dismiss it and anathematise those who do. Steve�s exclusion clause disqualifies the majority of Christians like me around the world who hold to a doctrine of Penal Substitution. I haven�t yet worked out if Steve recognises the implications of his position.

By insisting that Penal Substitution is pagan and therefore unorthodox, he makes himself a theological policeman and as much an excluder as anyone else I know. Ironic. Evangelical unity is threatened here, not by open theological debate but by theological intolerance.

But I also wonder what this means for the emerging generation of Christians who may be happy with the sentiments without grasping the theological implications, and for whom the experience of �church� is limited to their immediate circle of friends. Will someone take time to ensure that they embrace the Scriptures as well as they have happily welcome these ideas? We are in this for the long run and in the long run, happy Christians don�t necessarily make the most effective disciples.

Joel also expresses a concern that those on "the other side" be gracious loving and seek "the truth in love"

This isnt going to go away.

Leaving Munster was disappointed but does a good job of describing the public EA debate on Steve Chalke from his perspective- I hadnt seen this before today: "It was enjoyable but, ultimately, a little disappointing. The really disappointing thing, from my perspective, was that the responses againt Steve weren't good enough. That's my own subjective opinion of course, but I was really looking forward to hearing some knowledgable well thought-out defenses of penal substitution (which Steve denies) and Kingdom-centred discipleship-ethic which he promotes."

I thought I would defend my new nickname "neo-liberalism" by looking at the definition of classic "liberalism" from a theological perspective. The concise Oxford Dictionary states theological liberalism is "regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change". Since neo-liberalism indeed does just that but with post-modern thought and does indeed dispense with classical evangelical beliefs then surely this is a good word to coin? Its certainly better than the alternatives "post-evangelical" etc.... Neo-liberals need to realise that there are evangelicals who will rexamine their beliefs and practices in the light of current culture, then examine these in the light of the bible and conclude that the "old old story" need not be changed.

Liberal theology is defined on one website as "The intentional adaptation of Christianity to modernity using insights from the new social sciences to redefine religious authority." I would define neo-liberalism as the intentional adaptation of Christianity to post-modernity. This should be distinguished from those who assume certain truths as given and therefore fail to preach them, although by doing so the opportunity for neo-liberalism to take hold increases dramatically.

I wonder whether some of the people I am speaking of might eventually even come to recognise this label as one that defines them quite nicely? The Oxford Paperback thesauraus lists the following as some of synomyns- "TOLERANT, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; permissive, free (and easy), easy-going, libertarian, indulgent, lenient, PROGRESSIVE, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical; informal go-ahead, WIDE-RANGING, broad-based, general, FLEXIBLE, broad, loose, rough, free, general, non-literal, non-specific, imprecise, vague, indefinite, rich, GENEROUS, open-handed, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, big-hearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; poetic/literary bounteous"

They might be entitled to look at the rest of us and ask, do we embody the opposites of liberalism, are we: "reactionary, strict, miserly"?

The world of Sven has taken up my challenge somewhat and states

Modernist Christianity (very influential in Evangelicalism) prefers to think of truth as propositional rather than personal. Truth is found by arranging appropriate proof-texts from an inerrant scripture rather than through knowledge of the person of Christ. Modernism likes everything to be black and white, but a knowledge of Jesus is accquired on a journey along which his word guides us, but that we will only complete eschatologically, where we will know fully even as we are now fully known.

Jn 14:6 states Jesus said to him, �I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Apparently even today in many Eastern countries people might respond when asked "what is the way to such and such a place?" as follows "I am the way" and then show them the way.

Jesus showed us that knowing truth is vitally important, but I will concede to Wink that acting on that truth is crucial- but to be honest who (assuming they were actually on a beach at the time) if they truly came to know and believe the truth that their lives were in jeapordy would not have turned and run? Truth if properly known should indeed lead to action, indeed one must question wether truth is ever known in the biblical sense if it does not lead to action.

Jn 8:31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, �If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.�

So, was Jesus being a "Modernist"?

Whilst it is clear from the UK website that there is a close association with Steve Chalke, recently criticised by the UK Evangelical Alliance, I think it is important not to throw out everything that the "emergent" movement are saying. Tony Campallo in a recent article stated that the movement expresses what I call "progressive evangelicalism. Whilst I might be more happy to describe much of what is being said as neo-liberalism I do think that an important conversation must be had. We cannot deny one of the main premises of the movement as reported by Campallo is broadly accurate "traditional mainline churches are devoid of vitality and mega-churches are irrelevantly narrow."

Brian Maclaren has said (and here I agree with him) "So if we are a self-centered church in America, it is because our systems�including our theological systems�are perfectly designed to produce such a church. It has been said that the greatest obstacle to the coming of the kingdom of God is the church, preoccupied with her own existence. Could our preoccupation with making better churches rather than better blessing the world be the heart disease that plagues us?"

The question is the right one- how can the church become vital and relevant to todays world. I am just not 100% sure that some of the answers are the right ones......

Stuart Murray Williams was a speaker in defence of Steve Chalke before he was censored by the EA. I thought I would read his article and give you the chance to- it is of course only fair having questioned (as has the EA) whether it is possible to take his view of the atonement and still call yourself an evangelical christian.

The criticisms Steve Murray levels against classical penal substitutionary theory are all rational arguments rather than biblical expositions.

There is always a danger inherrant in a theological discussion that starts from premises and arguments rather than beginning with a blank sheet and asking "What does the bible say?"

I am quite happy to engage on this issue on the level of serious interaction with the text of the bible but am only going to quote Stuart's arguments as an illustration of my previous points that most of those with a different view rarely properly engage with the bible.

He argues

1. Punishing an innocent man � even a willing victim � is fundamentally unjust.

2. Biblical justice is essentially about restoration of relationships rather than retribution.

3. Penal substitution is inherently violent and contravenes central aspects of the message of Jesus.

4. Penal substitution raises serious difficulties for our understanding of the Trinity.

5. Penal substitution fails to engage adequately with structural and systemic evil.

6. If penal substitution is correct, neither the life of Jesus nor his resurrection have much significance.

He goes onto say that the marginalised of society struggle to accept the traditional view and that the doctrine is too closely associated with the view of the church as dominating society.

There is no attempt in this article to interact with the scriptures in any meaningful sense- indeed the bible isnt even quoted directly.

So, anyone out there have a better web-based article for me from the side of what I am terming the neo-liberals? Do any of them even attempt to argue their position is more biblical than the standard evangelical view?

Well, this Christmas the carnival of the reformation has asked us to post about the centrality of Christ the "sola christus". This is a request I am only too happy to comply with and helps bring a number of threads together that I have been posting on lately.

The last thing I posted was a link to our series on the book of acts Any good bible student knows of course that this book should really be called the acts of Jesus as Luke introduces it in such a way as to make clear he believes that Jesus was still around at the time "doing stuff"

I do believe that he is still around today doing stuff also. In fact, it is Christ that is central to the other issue I have been discussing lately- assurance of our faith.

I asked "How can I know if I am saved?" and my answer which I will unpack in the next little while in later posts I am sure is simply this- You can know you are saved because of Christ, what he has done and your current relationship with him.

There is much that can be said about that but really too many people fail to realise that the essense of calvinism is