Sad Division

Things happen very quickly in the e-world. Yesterday afternoon, I was informed of N. T. Wright’s response to Jeffrey John’s denial of penal substitution and Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach’s affirmation of it in Pierced for our Transgressions. Today, I found that people had already posted very helpfully HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE (amongst many other pages, I’m sure). The authors post their own response HERE. Having actually read the book, I ought to add my own two penn’orth, in case anyone out there is still reading this ‘blog and it is helpful for you.

Wright starts by clearly refuting the error that Jeffrey John spoke in his BBC Lent Lecture. He then turns to criticise Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach for their book. He begins by trying to assert that Steve Chalke, notorious for comparing penal substitution to ‘cosmic child abuse’ actually does privately believe in penal substitution, but was only rejecting a caricature. I am not familar with Chalke’s work, but my suspicion is that this is slightly improbable given the clarifications Chalke has apparently made of his doctrine of the atonement.

Wright acknowledges at the beginning of his essay that were he to wright a thousand pages on the subject of the cross, he would barely have scratched the surface. He acknowledges that PFOT is substantial. And yet he nevertheless manages to criticise the authors for not being that exhaustive themlselves. He highlights their lack of coverage of several additional significant Christian writers to the already large number they mention. He also highlights the brevity of coverage of the gospels in their “Biblical Foundations” section. PFOT doesn’t claim to exhaust the Biblical material and seems to me to be faithful to the balance of the whole Bible (after all, the gospels aren’t any more authoritative than any other part of Scripture, are they?). They do aim to produce a work beyond some of the helpful introductions to penal substitution yet still accessible to the lay reader and this they have achieved.

He also criticises the omission of the history of Israel from their account, saying that there is no sense in which the solution to the basic problem of sin begins with Abram in Genesis 12 and that the story of Israel is seen as the divine answer to the problem of Adam. After criticising them for scarcely grasping this foundational framework for the Bible, he dismisses or even overlooks sections where grasp it the authors clearly do.Wright wants to urge the authors to actually read the works of those they are criticising. I want to say the same to him. J, O and S write:

Israel’s exile from the land for breaking God’s law parallels Adam’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden for breaking God’s command. Thus the problem of curse and exclusion from God’s presence is common to all humanity, not just Old Testament Israel. The fact that Israel Adam’s fall is the more tragic given that they ought to have been the solution to it: as Abraham’s offspring they should have been a blessing to ‘all peoples on earth’ (Gen. 12:3), ‘a light to the nations’ (Isa. 51:4). Interestingly, having stated that Christ ‘redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us’ (Gal. 3:13), Paul goes on to explain that he fulfilled this very function, bringing ‘the blessing given to Abraham… to the Gentiles’ (v. 14). PFOT, p. 95

Later, they write:

Jesus was the second Israel, brought out of Egypt as a child just as was the Jewish nation in its infancy (such is the perspective of Matt. 2:15, quoting Hos. 11:1, which in turn reflects on the events of the exodus). Just as Israel endured a period of testing in the desert for forty years (see e.g. Deut. 8:2-3), so also Jesus ‘was in the desert for forty days, being tempted by Satan’ (Mark 1:13). Again, where Israel proved faithless, Jesus was faithful to God’s covenant. PFOT, p. 134

With his stinging rhetoric, Wright labels conservative evangelicals as ‘the new right-wing’, a phrase almost as loaded and pregnant with derogatory connotations as “extremist” or “fundamentalist”, and dismisses PFOT as “hopelessly sub-Biblical”. This is sadly not the first time Wright has turned against those who sincerely want to proclaim the Biblical gospel for the sake of the lost and the glory of God. See HERE for his frankly nasty response to the Covenant produced by a partnership of evangelicals. At a time when evangelicals ought to be standing together for the sake of the gospel, he is unfairly and ungraciously attacking them and my fear is that he will lead those who look up to him to do the same and cause further division. I don’t like to say this, but I am becoming increasingly less convinced that he a friend to those who glory in the Bible’s declaration that Christ died in the place of his people to take the punishment they deserve, who defend that truth against those who would empty the gospel of its power, and who boldly want to proclaim it to our world.

In case you haven’t quite realised yet, I think PFOT is a great book and everyone should read it. It is clear, readable and faithful to what the Bible says and seeks to set the doctrine of penal substitution in the whole Bible story. It will arm the reader against those who would attack it – as I have already remarked, I have encountered no objection that J, O and S have not decisively refuted in this book. I was going to post about penal substitution and the resurrection in answer to Giles Fraser’s vitriolic criticism of conservative evangelicals, another issue in which this book is singularly helpful, but I think I probably ought to stop posting on this book for now and move on to something else. PFOT will help the reader see why it is so vital to hold on to and rejoice in the doctrine of penal substitution, to the praise and glory of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Malachi 1.1-5

In his sovereignty God has freely elected his people and reprobated others, so as God’s people, be assured of his love and acknowledge his greatness.

Where might we look to be assured of God’s love?

The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.

“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the LORD of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.’” Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, “Great is the LORD beyond the border of Israel!” (Malachi 1.1-5, ESV)

What is the dispute here?

Why is there a dispute? (Where are we in the history of God’s people? What were they experiencing? How did that match up to what they were expecting? E.g. Isaiah 35)

What is God’s response?

Read Genesis 25.19-26: What do we learn about Jacob and Esau here?

Read Romans 10.10-13: What does this tell us about the basis of God’s relationship to Jacob and Esau?

How do vv. 2 and 3 answer Israel’s question?

What does God’s rejection look like? (Past/present? Future?)

Why do you think this description is here?

Why is God’s treatment of Esau/Edom just? See e.g. Obadiah 10-11

What impact is that to have on Israel?

Application:

When might we, or Christians we know, doubt God’s love?

Where does this passage go to assure us, as God’s people, of his love? (New Testament control: Ephesians 1.3-6)

Who is the equivalent of Esau? (What did we see earlier about Jacob and Esau?)

How therefore can we see God’s love for us? (What components of this were there for Israel? Can something similar be said today?)

What effect should election and reprobation have on our view of ourselves? Of God?

Hearing God’s Voice

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2021_The_Morning_I_Heard_the_Voice_of_God/

(HT: Adrian Warnock)

Nothing new under the sun: forgiveness and retribution

“What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already in the ages before us.” (Ecclesiastes 1.9-10, ESV)

Well might that be said about the objections that certain people raise against penal substitution. In the second half of their book, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach address a number of these, one of which is: “Penal substitution implicitly denies that God forgives sin.” Interestingly, it is precisely this objection which Giles Fraser raises in his vitrolic attack on the heart of the gospel. He remarks, “It refuses to believe that forgiveness can ever be a proper response to sin.”

J, O and S respond by saying that penal substitution does not deny that God forgives sin because it is God himself in the person of his Son who pays the debt we owe. They write:

“God is not like human beings. As Trinity he has both personal distinction and essential oneness. He did what no human creditor could do, even in principle: he received payment by giving himself in the person of his Son to take our human nature and duffer the punishment we deserve. In this way he repaid the debt of all who are in Christ, paving the way for us to receive his forgiveness.” (p. 264-265)

They continue by remarking that one may arrive at the conclusion that God offers forgiveness without requiring repayment by considering certain passages in isolation: they cite the examples of the parable of the prodigal son or the woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee. They remind the reader that these passages must be read “in the context of a gospel that reaches its climax as the Son of Man dies and rises again.”

They point out that this objection is undermined by the OT law, in which forgiveness and atonement go hand in hand, and Psalm 130 teaches simultaneously that with the Lord there is forgiveness and that he will redeem Israel from their sins. Pardon is on offer because a price will be paid.

Fraser’s objection is very close to another dealt with in PFOT, that, “the retributive violence involved in penal substitution contradicts Jesus’ message of peace and love”. He writes:

Debts are to be unilaterally wiped away. It’s what has inspired Christians to campaign for the unilateral eradication of third world debt. Jesus clearly follows this tradition. Not an eye for an eye, but the forgiveness even of enemies. Unfortunately, conservative evangelicals don’t agree with Jesus. They see him as a dangerous liberal. Instead they think all debt has to be paid off in full.

Where Fraser errs is his assumption that whatever human beings are commanded to do precisely mirrors what God does. What he and his fellow objectors fail to recognize is that while the Bible urges us to imitate God in many ways, it does not in every way. There are some things to avoid precisely because God uniquely has the right to do them. This is the case for the exaction of retribution for sinful behaviour. “We should not take revenge,” they write, “not because retribution is inherently wrong, but because it rests with God” (p. 235). They appeal, correctly in my opinion, to Romans 12.17-19 in support of this. Paul writes:

“Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Romans 12.17-19, ESV)

This is yet another example of elevating God’s love and overlooking what the Bible has to say about his justice. They are not two attributes in conflict with one another. They meet perfectly at the cross.

Blood

Giles Fraser writes of conservative evangelicals:

Their message of Good Friday is as simple as it is nasty: sin can only be paid off by blood.

This message, however, is the unambiguous, indisputable message of the Bible. Fraser’s problem isn’t so much with conservative evangelicals as with the Bible, huge swathes of which he finds repulsive and chooses to ignore. At least let him be open about that and acknowledge that we are the ones who are holding on to the orthodox faith, and that he is the one who has departed from and rejects what the Bible plainly teaches. And let us not be afraid to keep the atoning blood of Jesus central to our gospel.

Romans 3.23-25: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forwards as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

Romans 5.9: “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.”

Ephesians 1.7: “In him we have redemption through this blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.”

Ephesians 2.13: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”

Colossians 1.19: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”

Hebrews 9.12-14: “He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”

Hebrews 9.22: “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”

Hebrews 13.12: “So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.”

1 Peter 1.18-19: “You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.”

1 John 1.7: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.”

Revelation 1.5-6: “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”

Revelation 5.9: “And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

Revelation 7.13-14: “Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, “Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?” I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

Penal Substitution and the Church Fathers

One of the most encouraging sections of Pierced for our Transgressions is the chapter on the historical pedigree of penal substitution. Clearly the Bible is our supreme authority, and even had the glorious doctrine only been discovered in the Bible in the sixteenth century, we would still be bound by the word of God to believe it. Nevertheless another of the objections raised to penal substitution is that it is mediaeval invention, and it would at least be worrying if something we held to be foundational had gone unnoticed for centuries of Christian thought. Giles Fraser continues the current trend of regarding the heart of the gospel as a sick perversion and writes:

The technical theological term for this nasty perversion of the Easter story is penal substitution. It was dreamt up by Anselm in the 11th century and later added to by Calvin. The argument goes like this: human beings have sinned against God and thus insulted him. Under medieval conceptions of law, human beings must be put to death for insulting so grand and mighty a personage as God. There is a way out, however. In order to escape death they can make some sort of “satisfaction” to compensate God for the insult against him. The problem is, no human being could pay off the size of debt required by so grave an insult as an insult against God. Therefore human beings are doomed. Except – ah, here, apparently is the wonderful bit – God graciously allows his son to take our place, paying off the debt by giving to Jesus the punishment that is properly ours. Thus satisfaction is achieved and human beings are spared hell. Jeffrey John is quite right to think of this as sick.

PFOT shows us that writers of the early church clearly believed and assumed penal substitution, even when it wasn’t the prime focus of their defence, busy as they were defending the Trinity and the person and work of Christ! Many of the examples can be found on the website HERE but one that can’t, and which is perhaps my favourite, is that of Athaniasius, who expresses so well how penal substitution fits into the grand sweep of the Bible and is vital for God to achieve his original purposes for creation, yet uphold his justice and truthfulness. It’s all there – the incarnation, Christ’s death as an exchange and a substitute, and the sufficiency of his death because of Christ’s deity.

It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption. It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil… Yet, true though this is…it was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon his word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify himself; what then was God to do? …

The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the World, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which he had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. pp. 170-172

This was going to be my penultimate post on PFOT. However, it is a testimony to the thoroughness of its authors that the wrong assertions Fraser makes in his article (which is frankly nasty and spiteful about Evangelical Christians) have been refuted and I feel this should be addressed in future posts, when I have the time.

Union with Christ and Penal Substitution

Apologies for the lack of posting since Monday. Unlike Liam, who has been busy fuelling his new-found Facebook addiction, I have been busy at the John Radcliffe. It is most definitely not an addiction.

One of the objections commonly raised to penal substitution is that it is unfair for God to punish someone else for our sins. Jeffrey John did exactly this in his Lent talk:

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.

This is one of the objections which Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach so clearly refute in their book and the solution is to be found in the often neglected doctrine of union with Christ. This they consider not only in the section of the book where they examine common objections to penal substitution, but also in the “Theological Framework” chapter.

It is on the basis of our union with Christ that our sins are imputed to him and his righteousness imputed to us. Christ is in us and we are in him, indwelt by the Spirit. He was no innocent third party when he suffered, bled and died on the cross. It was God himself, the Son incarnate as a man, who suffered the just punishment for sins that became his on account of his union with sinners.

Our sin must have been imputed to Christ in the first century AD, but God who is outside time contemplates in advance the union of his people with him and so the imputation of our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us is just, for in God’s mind, the accomplishment of redemption at Calvary and its application to believers at conversion when they are united to Christ by faith and indwelt by the Spirit are a unity.

On the cross, Christ died as our representative and substitute.

Contemporary Western individualism has perhaps obscured the Bible’s teaching on corporate moral responsibility. In Romans 5, Paul teaches that because of the union of fallen humanity with Adam, the guilt and corruption of original sin are imputed to us. There are similar occasions in which people are corporately held responsible for sin in Scripture – Joshua 7 and 2 Samuel 21, as well as occasions where people are corporately blessed as a consequence of the righteousness of others – 2 Samuel 21, 2 Kings 22). Yes, human courts are forbidden to punish the children for the sins of the father, but God’s judgment may and can extend further than ours. Where individual responsibility appears to be taught in contradiction to this, for example in Ezekiel 18, the particular situation and context has to be considered.

The authors point out the implications of the doctrine of union with Christ. If our guilt was not imputed to Christ, then his death was an injustice for he has no guilt of his own for which he was guilty of death. Far from penal substitution indicating that God is insane, psychopathic or monstrous, it is the god of those who deny penal substitution who is unjust. If our guilt was not imputed to Christ, then it remains on us and we are guilty. All then are consigned to condemnation, or God has to violate his justice and holiness and truthfulness in order to pass over our sins. If our sin cannot be imputed to Christ, then his righteousness cannot be imputed to us, and we are left to try and establish a righteousness of our own in which to stand before God. Gone is justification by faith and we are either left, again, in despair, or pride.

Imagine you’re taking a photograph at a large family gathering and everyone is jostling to be at the front. You notice that Grandfather, who has worked hard all his life, who has survived several wars and who has held the family together through difficult times, is barely able to be seen. You beckon to him and say, “Come forward, Grandfather. You’re far too important to be stuck at the back.” In the family photograph of Christian doctrines, let us bring union with Christ towards the front, where it rightly belongs.

One reason I am not convinced by postmillennialism

“Postmillennialists… contend that the spread of the gospel will eventually “Christianize” the world, ushering in a “golden age of righteousness” on the earth. This golden age, still in the future (which may or may not be literally a thousand years long), is said to be the thousand-year period alluded to in Revelation 20. It will be terminated with the great apostasy referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, which apostasy will be addressed by Christ himself at his second coming. In other words, according to postmillennial teaching Christ will return after (“post”) the “millennium.”

A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Dr. Robert L. Reymond, pp. 980-1, fn. 3

I am currently reading through the gospel according to Luke at the moment, and this morning lookd at chapter 12, verses 35 to 48. It seems to me that Jesus wasn’t a postmillennialist.

“And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful.” (Luke 12.42-46, ESV)

It strikes me that the force of this parable for professing Christians, to whom this parable appears to be addressed (cf v. 41), comes from the possibility that Christ’s return to judge could be at any time, a force which is substantially undermined if Christ’s return were thousands of years in the future. If postmillennialism were true, would not the servant be perfectly justified in saying that his master is delayed and so using the opportunity to exploit his power and indulge his sinful nature?

Children of Light

Another one-to-one on Ephesians…

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,

“Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:3-21, ESV)

 

Have nothing to do with sin and instead live a holy life, because sin belongs to your old way of life from which you have been saved in order to be part of God’s holy people

 

• What should our attitude be to sin if we’re Christian believers?

• Why are the things Paul mentions completely inappropriate for the Christian believer?

• What must characterize the saved Christian life instead?

• What implications does this have for

- what we get involved with in College?

- our time with other Christians?

Alleluia! Christ is Risen!

Happy Easter to my readers (all five of you). Ros has already posted the poem Easter by George Herbert which I wanted to share with you. Here is a good Easter hymn instead.

THIS JOYFUL EASTER-TIDE
Away with care and sorrow!
My Love, the Crucified,
Hath sprung to life this morrow.

Refrain

Had Christ, that once was slain,
Ne’er burst His three day prison,
Our faith had been in vain;
But now hath Christ arisen,
Arisen, arisen, arisen!

My flesh in hope shall rest,
And for a season slumber;
Till trump from east to west,
Shall wake the dead in number.

Refrain

Death’s flood hath lost his chill,
Since Jesus crossed the river:
Lover of souls, from ill
My passing soul deliver.

Refrain

Words: George R. Woodward

Easter Even

THE COLLECT

GRANT, O Lord, that as we are baptized into the death of thy blessed Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, so by continual mortifying our corrupt affections we may be buried with him; and that through the grave, and gate of death, we may pass to our joyful resurrection; for his merits, who died, and was buried, and rose again for us, thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

A Passage from Scripture

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! how can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:1-11)

God’s Image Restored

Another one-to-one study on Ephesians…

Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ!– assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Ephesians 4:17-5:1, ESV)

As a Christian, you mustn’t live like you used to, which flowed from a darkened mind, but you must live in the likeness of God, which comes from a renewed mind.

• What is the real state of unbelievers / was our state before we became Christians?

• How is our lifestyle able to be different and what shape should that take?

• How does this relate to God’s original plan for humanity?

• What implications does this have for

- our speech?

- our feelings towards one another?

- how we get what we need?

Shiny Orange Thoughts

A slightly belated welcome to Daniel Blanche whose new ‘blog looks very promising indeed, imho.

Truth Creates Unity

Having been rather relaxed shall we say in my preparation for one-to-one Bible studies on Ephesians hitherto, I thought I ought to be a little bit more diligent this term.

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call– one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says,

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”

(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4.1-16, ESV)

Maintain Christian unity by being built up through Christ’s word-gifts to the church then through speaking Christian truth in love.

• Recap: What have we seen God’s calling is for Christian believers in Ephesians so far?

• In light of that, what is Paul’s concern for Christians in this section?

• How do we see Christians trying to establish unity?

• On what basis does true Christian unity exist?

• How does the description of Christ’s descent and ascent fit in?

• How is Christian unity fully attained and why?

• What implications does this have for:

- our attitude to other Christians?

- our quiet times?

- how we see church meetings?

- our responsibility towards other Christians?

- how we see those other attempts at Christian unity?

Good Friday

THE COLLECTS

ALMIGHTY God, we beseech thee graciously to behold this thy family, for which our Lord Jesus Christ was contented to be betrayed and given up into the hands of wicked men, and to suffer death upon the cross, who now liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, by whose Spirit the whole body of the Church is governed and sanctified; Receive our supplications and prayers, which we offer before thee for all estates of men in thy holy Church, that every memeber of the same, in his vocation and ministry, may truly and godly serve thee; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

O MERCIFUL God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live; Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

Some Verses of Scripture

“Christ loved the church and gave himself for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” Ephesians 5.25-27

“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.” 1 Peter 2.24

“I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” John 10.14-18

Penal Substitution and the Trinity

A reader of this weblog requested that I post something about the Trinity. Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, in PFOT, capture sharply and Biblically how Trinitarian the doctrine of penal substitution, rightly understood, actually is, and it should warm the heart of every believer.

God the Father gave his Son to save rebellious, God-hating people, knowing that he would be despised and rejected by those he had made, that he would be a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. He spared sinful people from condemnation, death and punishment, but he did not spare his own beloved Son, with whom he was well pleased.

God the Son gave himself, willingly undertaking the task appointed for him by his Father. He veiled his glory in a human body, experienced every temptation we face without succumbing to any, and lived a perfect human life. Yet he took our sin and guilt upon himself and died a cursed death, suffering in his human nature the infinite torment of the wrath and fury of his Father. After three days he was vindicated in his resurrection before being exalted to his heavenly throne. From there he rules his kingdom, awaiting the day of his glorious appearing when every eye shall see him, every knee bow before him, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

God the Holy Spirit, having been sent by the Father and the Son, now works in our hearts through the proclamation of the gospel to convict us of sin, righteousness and judgment, to draw us to Christ in repentance and faith, and so to unite us to Christ that we may share in every blessing he has won for us.

God the Holy Trinity thus turned aside his own righteous wrath against sinful humanity; endured and exhaused the curse of the law that stood against us; cleansed us of our sin and clothed us in Christ’s righteousness; ransomed us from our slavery to sin, the world and the devil by paying our debt, cancelling the devil’s power of accusation against us, and liberating us to live new lives empowered by the Spirit; triumphed over all evil powers by punishing evil in the person of the Son; and reconciled us with himself by removing the barrier of sin and enmity between us; in order that we may stand blameless and forgiven in his glorious presence, credited with the perfect righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, as adopted children of God, gazing upon his face for all eternity.

God vindicated his truthfulness by remaining faithful to his promise that sin will be punished; he glorified his name by exalting his Son and placing all things under his feet; and he demonstrated his love by dying for sinners and reconciling to himself those who were once his enemies. (p. 104)

A Timely Book

The Sunday Telegraph carried THIS report on Jeffrey John’s Easter Message for the BBC (HT Alastair via Ros inadvertently). The article reads:

Christian theology has taught that because humans have sinned, God sent Christ as a substitute to suffer and die in our place.

“In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him,” says Mr John. “This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we’d say that they were a monster.”

Mr John argues that too many Christians go through their lives failing to realise that God is about “love and truth”, not “wrath and punishment”. He offers an alternative interpretation, suggesting that Christ was crucified so he could “share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us”.

This book clearly addresses the issues Mr John raises, explaining why it isn’t monstrous that God can punish another in our place, and why God being “about love and truth” isn’t incompatible with being about “wrath and punishment”. As I continue to review my first print run, first edition PFOT (for my own consolidation, and for the benefit of those poor individuals who haven’t yet been able to acquire it), I shall consider in this post what the book has to say regarding the latter, before considering the former accusation later.

Having shown that the Scriptures clearly teach penal substitution, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach seek to set the doctrine in its theological framework. They first briefly defend why it is possible to get a “big picture” view of Christian theology, affirming that there are things we can know about God, and that those things we can know about God have important implications, whilst recognizing that we cannot know exhaustively everything about him. They then define penal substitution (a definition which they also make at the beginning of the book): “The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.” They then expand on this in a gloriously Trinitarian way, which bears repetition in full in its own separate post. It’s worth noting in passing how the Sunday Telegraph article acknowledges, perhaps even unwittingly, that penal substitution is “one of the most fundamental tenets of Christian belief” and is “The Church’s traditional teaching”, which PFOT also seeks to demonstrate, as, DV, I will show in a later post.

The theological framework they set out starts, as does the Bible, with creation, which is significant, because redemption is often referred to as an act of recreation. In creation we see that God’s word is effective and his creation is good, which points us to God’s truthfulness. God makes, and then continues to sustain and uphold his universe. God is actively involved in his world. All things belong to him, making him the rightful ruler, and he has so ordained things that man has limited, delegated and subordinate authority over the creation, not independent from God. The relationship between God and man is loving and personal – he blesses and provides for them – as well as legal – their relationship entails boundaries and laws for mankind. Such a reality, sometimes not comprehended by modern society, is well illustrated by marriage, and is embraced by the idea of covenant which runs throughout Scripture.

The fall is a reversal of God’s plans for creation, a decreation. The serpent denies God’s truthfulness and goodness displayed in the creation, and Eve and Adam disbelieve God’s truthfulness and goodness. The ordered network of relationships God set in place is overturned. The authors then explore the idea of “false faith”: Adam and Eve, like all people, believe in something, only it’s the wrong thing: they believe the creature rather than the Creator. False faith is related to idolatry, it is delusional, darkening our minds, willing and a relational disaster which alienates us from God and one another.

Sin has consequences. God warned Adam about this in Genesis 2:17 when death was threatened. This is certainly physical death, but not just physical death. The promise is, “In the day you eat of it, you will surely die.” The banishment from Eden was an immediate penalty, a kind of death, exclusion from the presence of God, in the sense of absence from the fullness of his blessing. There will be a second death (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8), the eternal punishment that comes from God in hell. God’s punishment of sin upholds his truthfulness therefore. To withhold the penalty for sin would be for God not to be truthful. So here is the first reason that Jeffrey John’s comment that “God is about love and truth” not punishment is utterly wrong. Moreover, God has revealed himself a being wrathful and angry at sin, and the instances this occurs in the Bible are legion.

However, God’s truthfulness not only means that God must punish sin, but must also requires him to restore creation in line with his original purposes. The solution is found in Jesus Christ. His work is recapitulation, being the perfect man, succeeding where Adam failed, the sinless, human ruler which creation needs and by which God intended his creation to be ruled. Paul writes of this (1 Corinthians 15:45-49, Romans 5:12-21). Jesus is the second Israel, faithful to God’s covenant, the true Son of David, leading where other kings failed in loving obedience to God. His wilderness temptations in Matthew 4 show Jesus believing in God’s goodness and truthfulness where Adam and Eve didn’t. Moreover, Christ is our penal substitute, bearing the penal consequences of sin, a death which wasmore than just physical, in our place. So for the reason that penal substitution upholds God’s truthfulness, saving people for relationship with himself without going back on his word that sin must be punished, further shows that Jeffrey John and critics like him are wrong. Furthermore, penal substitution is a demontration that all God’s attributes – love, goodness, justice, holiness, truthfulness are all in harmony, and shows that justice is rooted in God’s character.

While some people have suggested that there are other models of the atonement in Scripture, e.g. Christus victor, PFOT shows that penal substitution provides the basis for these explanations. So with Christ’s triumph over evil, we need to consider that the greatest weapon of the devil against us is his power to accuse us before God. Satan appeals to God’s justice, calling upon him to punish humanity as we deserve (cf. Zech. 3). The defeat of the devil must involve the removal of our guilt, which is precisely what happens. Furthermore, “Jesus destroys the work of the devil in believers [sin] by liberating them to live for righteousness and justice (cf 1 Peter 2:24)”. With the idea of the atonement as bringing reconciliation, we need to realise that reconciliation is needed because our sin alienates us from God. There is a legal problem, and the solution is penal substitution, removing our guilt. Christ ransoms in that our sin has brought us under God’s righteous wrath and we deserve his punishment, and Christ pays that price. We under obligation to God and to him the ransom must, and has been, paid.

How We Learn

HT to David Field for THIS link. Some clever researchers at the University of New South Wales have discovered that the human brain retains and processes more information if it presented audibly or verbally, but not both simultaneously. There are apparently limits on the brain’s capacity to process and retain information in short-term memory.

They point out some important implications:

It also questions the wisdom of centuries-old habits, such as reading along with Bible passages, at the same time they are being read aloud in church. More of the passages would be understood and retained, the researchers suggest, if heard or read separately.

and:

The findings that challenge common teaching methods suggest that instead of asking students to solve problems on their own, teachers helped students more if they presented already solved problems.

“Looking at an already solved problem reduces the working memory load and allows you to learn. It means the next time you come across a problem like that, you have a better chance at solving it,” Professor Sweller said.

This means:

• Bibles should be shut during the Bible readings in the Lord’s Day service. (Obviously they should still be open when the minister is preaching to make sure he isn’t leading you astray.)
• My Bible studies should be more sermonic in nature. Excellent.