The Blessing of Family

Just two days ago I bid farewell to my dear mother who travelled all the way from Chinchilla, Australia to southern California where I now live. My treasured wife had been enduring morning sickness and my on call emergency worker, otherwise known as "mum" (or "mom" for those many readers who can't spell) arrived to help take care of our children, and provide much needed support for my wife. Words fail me to describe my mum's tireless efforts in cooking, cleaning, junior entertainment, and making me breakfast each morning (mmmm good old eggs on toast!). The family is an institution ordained by God and can, in its best moments, provide a wonderful picture of self denial, sacrifice, and love. Jesus said:


Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. (Mark 10:29-30)

This earthly family that we have is a blessing ordained by God. The fragmentation and dysfunction we so often see is a result and reminder of Adam's fall and how we are all tainted by it. We should be careful not to idolize it so much that we are unable to embrace the greater eternal reality of adoption into God's family (John 1:12). We should also take care to avoid the other ditch of resenting the terrible experiences we have had in our earthly families at the expense of seeing that as a demonstration of our need to be restored into right relationship with God.

Jesus promised all who would follow Him that it would cost them dearly. For some people they discipleship will cost them many in their extended families. But Jesus also promises those that they will gain brothers and sisters and mothers and children as they enter into God's family through adoption, and eternal life in the age to come! That is too precious to risk missing if we treasure our temporal earthly family so much that we refuse to tell them about the heavenly Father Who sent His only Begotten Son to take the punishment that our sin demands in order that His children may gain their heavenly inheritance via the Saving Substitute Who stood in their place. The question really needs to be asked how much we really do love our families if we don't tell them about that. Jesus also promised persecution because that is the common consequence of calling lost sinners to repentance.

It is a good thing that Jesus was not as hung up about His self respect, self preservation, and avoiding conflict as we often are. If that was the case He never would have set His eyes like flint towards Calvary! He never would have prayed to the Father "not My will but Thine be done"! He never would have endured the agonies of hell in the place of His adopted family! We should not be surprised then that Jesus said:

Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:16-38)

Rejoice today in the blessings that flow through our earthly families. Rejoice even more in the precious adoption and greater family we find in the body of Christ - the Church! And tell those who only have an earthly family about the loving Heavenly Father Who demonstrated His great love in dying for us while we were in our filthy sin (Romans 5:8), that we might be His children for all eternity where we can never be separated by sickness, division, or death ever again (Revelation 21:3-4). All praise and honor and glory unto You Great God Almighty!

The Father Hath Punished For Us His Dear Son

The first Easter was approaching. God incarnate was grief stricken to the point of death. The Lord prayed in the garden of Gesthemene "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

Jesus Christ was fearless when confronted with the Devil, the Pharisees, the Saducees, King Herod, the Romans and their Governor. None of these intimidated the Lord as he boldly preached in their faces. But when faced with the cup of God's Holy wrath Jesus asked for another way. Mark's Gospel account reveals that Jesus petitioned the Father three times for another way than the cup of God's wrath. The wrath of God must be terrifying beyond comprehension.

It is this wrath that rests upon all unbelievers poised to strike at any moment (John 3:36). Pause and ponder that for a moment this Easter and honestly evaluate whether you value keeping the peace with an unbeliever more than informing them about the wrath that rests upon them. Jesus Christ, Who created all things, warned us with these terrifying words "do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).

It is our endless littany of sin that fills the massive cup of God's wrath to the point of overflowing. When Jesus was in the garden he stared at the unspeakable horror that lay ahead. It was not the Roman beating that disfigured Him beyond recognition (as bad as that was). Nor was it the crown of thorns that penetrated deep into His skull (as painful as that was). Nor was it the capital punishment that Roman soldiers inflicted through crucifixion (as excrutiating as that was). It was the cup of God's just and righteous wrath poured out on the only Man who never deserved it. God demonstrated His great love at Easter in dying for His Church while we were still sinning!

As we travel back to Calvary today do you see your face in the angry mob shouting "crucify Him"? Do you hear the Savior saying "Father forgive them"? Do you grasp to some small extent the transaction that took place when Jesus cried "It is finished". Come today to the hill called Calvary and survey the wondrous cross where my Savior atoned for all my sin - past, present and future. Oh how precious is the blood that my Savior shed!

The Lord in the day

Of his anger did lay

Our sins on the Lamb, and he bore them away.

He died to atone

For sins not his own;

The Father hath punished for us his dear Son

Love moved him to die

On this I rely

My Savior hath loved me, I cannot tell why;

But this I can tell:

He loved me so well

As to lay down his life to redeem me from hell

(Charles Wesley)

Death and the curse were in our cup

O Christ, 'twas full for Thee!

But thou hast drained the last dark drop

'Tis empty now for me.

That bitter cup, love drank it up

Thy bruising healeth me!

Jehovah lifted up his rod

O Christ, it fell on Thee!

Thou wast sore stricken of thy God

There's not one stroke for me...

Thy tears, thy blood, beneath it flowed

Thy bruising healeth me!

(Fanny Crosby).

Christ Died For God

Amidst all the contending for the truth that goes on here, it is important to remember the truth we contend for, and why it is so worth contending for. At the heart of the Gospel lies the truth of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. A doctrine disdained and despised by many who cannot reconcile God's love with His wrath. But God is not a sociopath! It is precisely because of God's immense love that His wrath against wickedness is also so great. And the highness of His character demands that He deal with the smallest of sins.

And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:5-7a)

A Holy God cannot just clear the guilty or He would violate His Holy character. God had to find a way to demonstrate His reconciling love toward sinners without violating His character and nature. This is one of my favorite ever songs (perhaps my favorite) because in it, Steve Camp captures the only solution God had for this great problem - Penal Substitutionary Atonement. There is only one way because Jesus is the only way! Christ had to die for God!



Christ died for God and God was satisfied with Christ
Pure, unblemished sacrifice
Oh, Son of Grace

For who are we to boast not of works that we have done
But by faith in God's own Son
We are saved

And we cry, Holy
Worthy is the Lamb
God's love revealed to man
In the earth
And we cry, Holy
Glory to the King
Through Whom salvation brings
The new birth

Christ died for God and God has made Him Lord of all
For He drank the bitter gall
The cup of wrath

But He rose in majesty that grace might reign through righteousness
Blessed obedience
Our Sabbath rest

And we cry, Holy
Worthy is the Lamb
God's love revealed to man
In the earth
And we cry, Holy
Glory to the King
Through Whom salvation brings
The new birth

Is Anywhere Immune From Terrorism?

Many of us have been shocked at today's news of (what seems to be) a terror attack on Oslo, the capital of neighboring Norway. For this reason I thought it appropriate to postpone the next installment of my series on Jude until two weeks from today.

Living in Scandinavia can make you feel far removed from the world of Islamic terrorism. Scandinavians tend to be a passive bunch who go to great lengths not to make enemies which adds to the shock of today's revelations. According to BBC world news:

Norway has been hit by twin attacks - a massive bomb blast in the capital and a shooting attack on young people at a governing Labour Party youth camp. At least seven people were killed in the bombing, which inflicted huge damage on government buildings in Oslo city centre. Four more died at the camp, on an island outside Oslo, local media said. One witness later said he had seen more than 20 bodies on the island, but police have not confirmed this. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, whose Oslo offices were among those damaged by the bomb, described the situation as "very serious". Norwegian media reports said the shootings on the island were carried out by a man in police uniform. Police said the suspected gunman had been arrested, and later said he was also linked with the bomb attack, reports said. No group has said it carried out the attacks.

The feeling of safety and security this side of eternity can be a dangerous thing. It can quench our conscience from pondering the conviction we may otherwise feel over the conflict between our inner morality and our outward actions. The people of Norway and Scandinavia now know that terrorism is a very real possibility in their lives and the relative safety felt here may well have become a thing of the past. But while terror attacks become more probable, the judgment and wrath of God remain absolute certainties for all found wanting in the scales of God's justice - scales that demand perfection. May God open our eyes to this urgency and reality!

Fear can be a good thing, particularly if it involves fearing the God Who made us and owns us and knows us and will judge us. And there is only one embassy we can run to where we can find "diplomatic immunity" from the wrath to come. His Name is the Lord Jesus Christ - God incarnate who paid the debt we can never pay to give the gift that we can never earn. Jesus Christ bore the wrath of God on the cross in the place of all sinners who ultimately find their refuge in Him. May we pray for the victims and their families in Norway right now, and more than that, pray for their eyes to be opened to their need for eternal security. Terrorism is a very real possibility, but our day in God's court is an absolute certainty. May we be found in the embassy of Jesus Christ on that day.

There were some present at that very time who told him [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he [Jesus] answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:1-5)

What Is Good About A Friday Where A Just Man Was Condemned?

I have often been criticized by professing Christians in Denmark for talking too much about Christ's death on the cross. Can we please move onto something more interesting? They tell me that once you are saved it is time to move on to other more important things in the new life. Excuse me! What song are believers going to sing for all eternity?

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." Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" (Revelation 5:9-13)

In heaven we will sing about a murder. Why should we "move on" from the cross when we will sing about it in eternity. We don't move on from the cross - we need to grow in our understanding of it and our thankfulness for it. Yes, there are other subjects in the Bible - but they all point to the cross.

If we preach on love it should point to how God demonstrated His love by dying for us while we were sinning.

If we preach on faith it should point to our need to trust in Christ and His completed work on the cross.

If we preach on giving it should point to the One Who gave His life on the cross.

If we preach on marriage it should point to the Bridegroom Who went to the cross for His bride.

How much more should we speak of the blessed Savior on "Good Friday". A day where A Gospel where, in the words of John Macarthur:

Christ was not a sinner, but was treated as if He were, so believers who have not yet been made righteous are treated as if they were righteous. Christ bore their sins so that they could bear His righteousness. God treated Him as if He committed believers’ sins, and treats believers as if they did only the righteous deeds of the sinless Son of God (excerpt from John Macarthur's Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:21).

If that doesn't excite you then you need to spend more time thinking about God's righteousness and your sinfulness. And then look to the glorious cross.

Rob Bell Takes Off His Sheep Suit - And John Piper Bids Him "Farewell"

If it walks like a universalist, and talks like a universalist, then it's probably Rob Bell:

LOVE WINS. - Available March 15th from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Rob Bell is an enemy of the true biblical Gospel and if that is not apparent in this video then may I recommend a book called Romans written by a guy called Paul.

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? I speak in a human way. By no means! For then how could God judge the world? (Romans 3:5-6)

And it might help if Bell took the time to read all the verses in John chapter three and not just verse sixteen.

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 and for the record the word "cannot" is actually translated "no chance" in the original Greek)

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:17-18)

So the note concerning Ghandi, while perhaps inappropriate, is not based upon some guy who wants to assert his omniscience Rob! It's based upon an elementary understanding of the clear teaching of the Bible. You know - the Bible - that big old book that you spend most of your time perverting and confusing it's plain meaning! Ghandi, as a professing Hindu, is almost certainly in hell. This is not because I think so but because the Bible tells me so (the "almost certainly" disclaimer is in the genuine hope that Ghandi repented of his sin and put his trust in Jesus Christ prior to his death, in which case God would have saved him). And Rob, are you biblically incompetent or deliberately deceiving people? Which one is it? What do you do with verses like Romans 5:9 which directly refute what you assert in this video:

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 9:5)

When we deny an attribute of God, such as His wrath, we are breaking the second commandment (idolatry) by making a god in our own image. In this video, Bell just cannot conceal his utter disdain for the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and for those who defend it. I certainly didn't feel the love from "Mr Love Wins" in this video. Can you feel the love tonight?

This is the video that was the cause of the entire internet melting down a couple of weeks ago (in case you didn't notice). Partly because Bell is becoming more and more overt in his long established heretical views, and also in part because of John Piper's legendary tweet in response to this video which simply said "farewell Rob Bell". It is quite right that John Piper and the Gospel Coalition have put Bell outside of the camp, but I still have to ask the question why did it take so long? The contrast between the Gospel Piper preaches and the gospel Bell invented could not be more stark. Piper says "God is the Gospel" whereas Bell says that "you are the gospel". More than five years ago Bell wrote these words in his book Velvet Elvis in a sneaky affirmation of his universalism:

So this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross he was reconciling ‘all things, in heaven and on earth, to God. This reality then isn’t something we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making.” (Velvet Elvis p146)

What is staggering is how much of a sacred cow Rob Bell has become, and the number of professing Christians (and also unbelievers - which is telling) who are willing to relentlessly defend Bell (hence melting down the entire internet in their flurry of protest). Guys, how hard is this? I know that in his latest video (shown above) Bell does his usual schtick of asking provocative questions and never answering them. I also know that Bell has made an art form out of pretending to be a Christian for many years now. He trades on the evangelical world's willingness to always give the benefit of the doubt to vague, obscure, and foggy theology. But Bell's obvious disdain and resentment for the historic orthodox Christian faith, coupled with his continual propensity to cloud crystal clear doctrines of first importance is despicable to say the least.

This has been the MO within the emergent movement from the very beginning. Have leaders like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones grown more and more heretical over the last decade or has it been a planned gradual release of false teaching to an evangelical landscape as it gradually grows more tolerant. These guys are all non-Christian theological liberals who have held their views for a long time but had a vested interest in concealing much of their heresy until the modern evangelical climate was deemed ready to receive each incremental attack on the historic Christian faith. Tony Jones obviously didn't get that memo because by 2008 he had already run out of things to deny.

And now Bell is spending more and more time without his sheep suit on. If you meet Rob Bell, please share the Gospel with him. Like Ghandi, he also needs to repent of his sins and trust in Jesus Christ to save him from the wrath to come.

Sanctification In 847 Easy Steps - Rick Warren's Sermon At Desiring God (Part 9)

This whole sorry saga has been full of surprises.

Surprise 1 - John Piper invited Rick Warren to be a keynote speaker at his 2010 Desiring God conference.

Surprise 2 - Piper gives an explanation that is even more confusing.

Surprise 3 - Many of us know that Warren is clever, pragmatic, and not a theological dunce. It was, therefore, widely expected that Warren would deliver a solid sermon loaded with reformed theology to woo his new audience. That he delivered his usual moralistic man centered diatribe on how to fix our lives took me completely by surprise.

Surprise 4 - Burk Parsons and John Piper, in response to Warren's dreadful sermon, had nothing critical to say about it.

Surprise 5 - Virtually nobody with any profile in the evangelical world had anything to say about Warren's sermon (with the exception of a handful of people like James White, Todd Friel, and Mike Abendroth).

The lack of fallout from this has actually done a lot of damage. Warren has gained a credibility in certain circles that he should never have received. The Purpose Driven movement has driven a lot of good pastors out of their pulpits and turned many discerning church goers into outcasts. Many of us have taken refuge in fellowships with good reformed preaching from people like Dr John Piper. This is why we are horrified at the thought of Warren and his purpose driven propaganda gaining any traction whatsoever among churches that guard the Gospel and good doctrine. This series is a project I have taken upon myself because, though there are people far more qualified, there has been a lack of response and analysis. My desire is to show that the inherent problems in man centered preaching are obvious and easily detectable, that dissecting a sermon like this is beneficial for our practice of discernment in our local church context, and that their is a huge need for biblically sound hostility to all other gospels than the one found in Scripture.

The following commentary corresponds to the following video from 30:53 to 36:00



It is difficult to sift through the barrage of things we need to do. In this section of video Warren launches with his "five levels of learning". Rick - chapter and verse please! Perhaps he is right and these ideas may be helpful but I have no idea where he gets them from. And yet at the same time, we are learning that asking Warren for biblical support usually creates more problems than it solves when we see his hermeneutical practices and the bogus translations he uses. Hearing all this reminds me of my old days in a seeker friendly church where I was continually overwhelmed with the number of things I needed to do that I wasn't doing. I believe it makes most of us dizzy and discouraged.

Warren seems to think that almost every aspect of Christian development, whether it be conversion, discipleship, or sanctification, can have a lengthy "how to" manual written for it - he also thinks that he is just the man to write it. The importance of the regenerative transforming work by the Holy Spirit in taking someone dead in sin and bringing him to life with a new heart and earnest desires to obey God, is easily noticed by it's continual absence from Warren's preaching.

Rather than dismantle this diatribe, which has been done enough already in earlier posts, I will just respond to two points that Warren makes in this section of video.

1. Warren's commitment to church history and good theology.
Warren gleefully responds to his critics in these areas by pointing out that they have a "small bio" of a figure from church history on the back of their church bulletin! But wait, there's more - they even have a "theological word of the week" also on the back of their bulletin at Saddleback. How dare anyone ever question Rick Warren's commitment to church history and good theology. This is so laughable it would make a good comedy routine - if it wasn't so insulting to those in the audience who labor week in week out in the biblical text and great commentaries. The fact of the matter is that Warren's track record on these issues stands in very stark contrast to his own portrayal of himself. Is it possible that he just can't see this???

2. Warren's explanation of the cross.
In John Piper's video explaining why he invited Warren he actually tells us that he asked Warren about Penal Substitutionary Atonement. You only need to watch this video from 0:19 to 0:43 :



Warren flexes his theological muscles when Piper calls him saying that it is "absolutely essential that we get Penal Substitutionary Atonement right in the Gospel". This is a staggering comment in the light of the fact that I have heard Warren attempt to explain the Gospel on numerous occasions and have never once heard him even mention anything about this wonderful doctrine.

As is evident in Warren's sermon at Desiring God, rather than delve into the doctrine of the atonement, Warren prefers to lean on his own platitudes and cliches to describe the greatest event in history. How much does Jesus love us? Warren says the answer lies in the Savior's arm span as he hung upon the cross - that "He would rather die than live without us". These are the ingredients of a lame romantic song, not the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. In one hour of preaching this is the closest Pastor Warren gets to what should be the epicenter of his preaching. This just makes me so angry that Rick Warren can get away with this double speak.

More to come . . .

Go On To Part 10
Go Back To Part 8
Go Back To Part 1

8 Days of Christmas on The Bottom Line - Day 8

Today is the day my eager young children salivate over their impending gifts. I am reminded of the Lord's words to His disciples - "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (Luke 11:13).

May the delights of this world, so evident at this time of year, never blind us to the true riches found only in being born again with the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit. Well may we remind our children, that as much as we love to give them the desires of their hearts, it is ultimately only eternal things that matter. How wonderful it is to look "unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2).



Go Back To Day 7
Go Back To Day 1

8 Days of Christmas on The Bottom Line - Day 7

Continued from yesterday.

Today is the seventh part of our 8 part series dissecting the famous Christmas carol "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" line by line to understand the underlying message of Christmas which has ultimately more to do with a rugged wooden cross than a manger in Bethlehem.

Yesterday we finished looking at the text of "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen". What can we learn from this examination?

One thing we can learn is how oblivious we often are to the meaning of a song that becomes little more than Christmas tradition. Whenever we sing anything we should pause and ponder the theology behind it. We will one day give answer for every idle word we speak. Be careful what you proclaim. I can remember being at a gathering of Danish Christians once where they all stood to sing their national anthem. The only problem with this was that (as I sat and listened in disbelief) they proclaimed, in accordance with the song, that their homeland belongs to a false god called Freja.

Conversely with a song like "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" we can fall into the other ditch by ignoring the wonderful truths being proclaimed. That the Gospel is exceedingly good news. That this good news can only be properly understood in the light of a true grasp of our own depravity. That if Christ is a Savior then we had better know what we need saving from. That Christmas ultimately points to the cross of Jesus Christ as the pinnacle of human history. That the greatest gift will not be found under a shiny tree but at the foot of a blood stained wooden cross. That the greatest gift we can give will be wrapped in the lips of him who preaches this Gospel.



Go On To Day 8
Go Back To Day 6
Go Back To Day 1

8 Days of Christmas on The Bottom Line - Day 6

Continued from yesterday.

Today is the sixth part of our 8 part series dissecting the famous Christmas carol "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" line by line to understand the underlying message of Christmas which has ultimately more to do with a rugged wooden cross than a manger in Bethlehem.



The sixth line in the song is:

O tidings of comfort and joy, Comfort and joy, O tidings of comfort and joy

It is the “good news” that brings us tidings of comfort and joy. At Christmas 2000 years ago, God appeared in human form as a baby born in Israel. Jesus Christ came on a mission to fulfill the law that we had broken and then pay the penalty for our crimes with His own blood (II Corinthians 5:21). The cross He died on was meant for you and me. The only way God could make reconciliation possible was by living a perfect sinless life as a human and then paying for our sin with His own blood (I Peter 1:18-19). He then rose from the dead defeating the curse of sin and death because of His own righteousness (Romans 4:25) and ascended up into heaven to prepare a place for those who follow Him (John 14:2). God showed us His love in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). To receive God’s free gift of payment for our sin and inherit eternal life we must repent of our sin and put our complete trust in Him to save us (Acts 20:21) from His terrible day of judgement (Romans 5:9). To repent is to turn away from our sin and apologise to God with genuine sorrow. To trust in Him means to put our complete hope in Jesus work on the cross because no other prophet or religious leader has done that for you. Trust in Him like you would in a parachute when jumping from 10000 feet. If we confess our sin He is faithful to forgive us and clean us from all unrighteousness (I John 1:9). That is tidings of comfort and joy.

I hope and pray that you would consider these things as we approach the season when Christ was born.

You are in my prayers

Go On To Day 7
Go Back To Day 5
Go Back To Day 1

Dying To Preach? - Wise Counsel For Preachers

On my recent trip to Texas, I made a stop at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Fort Worth) to survey the campus and speak with faculty. I regularly entertain the desire to study at seminary level and Southwestern is definitely on my shortlist for many practical, as well as theological reasons. My friend Billy, who is a student there, guided me around the beautiful campus and was even able to introduce me to Dr. Steven Smith, who is the Dean of the College and Professor of Preaching. Not only was Dr. Smith a very friendly and accessible guy, but he was also someone who brought me great encouragement as a preacher. This was because Smith is a loud and vocal advocate on the evangelical landscape for a return to expository preaching. This is very much showcased in his recently released book, "Dying To Preach". The title has a double meaning referring both to the fact that preachers should have both a burning desire to preach coupled with a dying to self in order that Christ may be magnified.

In this book, Smith diagnoses and remedies one of the major plagues that has infected many modern evangelical churches - an abandonment of Scriptural foundations and a steady drift towards consumer driven philosophy. Smith sums up the disease in this brief, yet thorough statement:

When the context of preaching is more important than the content of preaching, then the context becomes the content itself (p51).

Think about that comment! We see this problem everywhere today from seeker sensitive Elvis impersonators, to second rate worship bands playing "cutting edge" 80's music, to the postmodern insanity of the emergent movement where propositional truth is despised. For the duration of the book, the reader is repeatedly bombarded with the solution - to preach messages that orbit around the biblical text. Smith's adherence to, and relentless advocacy of, expository preaching is to be commended. When something is of first importance then it usually needs to be repeatedly hammered into my skull until my mind starts to undergo renewal. There are many seeker sensitive mega church pastors that should ignore their pragmatic church growth manuals and get themselves a copy of Dying To preach. Smith goes on to say that:

It is necessary that the preacher not preach himself but Christ only. The unbeliever is in the dark; Christ turns the light on, and proclamation is used by God in the process of illumination. Therefore the damnable sin of the preacher is to put anything before people less than the message of Christ, the Word (p73).

These are sobering and convicting words. As a preacher who lives in the constant war zone between my spirit and my flesh, I have to be ever vigilant against my carnal cravings for recognition and applause. And this hazard is subtle because it can also manifest when we:

Decide that our desire not to have any attention drawn to us is more important than the people understanding the text. Therefore we never take any risk in the pulpit and defer to our covert pride that is masked as shyness (p75 emphasis mine).

Dying to Preach is also a strong apologetic against the prevailing evangelical wind of preaching moralizing stories, particularly from the Old Testament. Smith forcefully teaches the necessity of preaching Christ from ALL of Scripture:

Christ understood that the witness of the Old Testament was a revelation of Himself . . . therefore, there is not a text that one can preach that will not ultimately point to Christ. The point is not that every text is about Jesus as a person. Rather, the point is that every text fits somewhere in the history of salvation. And, the point of the history of salvation ultimately is to exalt Christ (p94).

It is also pleasing to see that a book that has so much precious insight into a biblical understanding of the who/what/how with preaching, also has fervent adherence to preaching the cross rightly with the transcendent emphasis on Penal Substitutionary Atonement:

At the risk of overstatement, I will go so far as to say that in certain contexts the statement "Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for sin" is not true. It is not that a core truth does not exist; rather, the problem is that in the statement's failure to carry the glorious meaning of the theological truth, it emasculates the statement to the point of falsehood . . . The indictment of contemporary preaching is not that it says wrong things but that it does not say right things clearly (p126 emphasis his).

Smith takes time to delve into the critical word "propitiation" and strongly advocates the traditional reformed understanding. I am hopeful that the author has an acute awareness of the sinister stealth attacks against this doctrine by several so called "respected evangelical theologians" - one of whom has the initials NT and always thinks he's Wright.

If you are dying to preach the Gospel, then get your hands on a copy of Dying To Preach.

DYING TO PREACH
Steven Smith
Category: Theology
Click Here To Order
Drawing inspiration from the seminal preacher, the apostle Paul, Steven W. Smith takes a fresh look not just at the how of preaching, but at the whys. In 2 Corinthians 4:12, Paul describes the philosophy of his ministry as “death in us, but life in you.” Building on this scriptural framework, Steve Smith illustrates the theology of preaching through the metaphor of vicarious suffering, dying so that others might live. As he elaborates the intersection of the cross and the pulpit, Smith shows why the preacher must die to self, die for others, and die in Christ so that congregations may live.

Message For Troy - Hillsong And The Gospel They Preach

Troy, who has commented previously on this blog, insists that Hillsong do faithfully preach the true biblical Gospel. When pressed to provide some evidence (in response to the mountains of evidence to the contrary) nothing has been forthcoming. Instead Troy asked for some clarification. He wrote:

Hi Cameron,

Would like you to clarify a few things. You said:

"I have heard many sermons by Brian Houston and Hillsong conference guests over the years and I am yet to hear a Gospel presentation that is faithful to what I outlined..."

This is the outline you're referring to:

"At the fundamental level, any Gospel presentation should include these five elements:
1. An explanation of The Holiness of God - His character and nature.
2. An explanation of man's depravity - define and explain sin.
3. The necessity of judgment - heaven and hell are real places where real people go - that God is bound by His character and nature to punish sin.
4. Christ's atoning work and resurrection - that Christ fulfilled the law that sinners break, and took God's wrath on the cross in the place of sinners and that the resurrection verifies God's satisfaction with Christ's payment.
5. The call on all men everywhere to repent of their sin and believe the Gospel."

Do you believe that unless someone is taken through all five of your points they are/will not be saved?

So for example simply saying "Jesus I need you, forgive me for my sin, I give you my life, you are my saviour."

Would someone "be saved" after saying that prayer? Or would God say "pretty close, but not quite..."

What about Romans 10:9:

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Does simply believing in your heart that Jesus is Lord and confessing that God raised Him from the dead, make you saved? That's what it seems to say here.

What if a person is alone and does not have someone to take them through the "five points", but in a moment of desperation cries out to God, and their life is forever changed? I've heard many stories of this type of encounter where someone meets Christ.

What are your thoughts? Is it the "five points" or you're not in, or can you be saved with out being so specific?

Dear Troy, I have never said that it is the Gospel presentation that saves people. It is God Who saves - not a salvation prayer (which is something Pastor Joel doesn't seem to understand). My point to you and Joel has never been that we can get a right formula that will save people. Salvation is a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit where He regenerates an "enemy of God" who is "dead in sin" (Ephesians 2:1) into a "new creature" (2 Corinthians 5:17, Ezekiel 36:25-27, Ezekiel 37:1-10)) who loves Him and trusts in Him for forgiveness of sin and His righteousness. Please read my series called Anatomy of the Gospel.

But God chose the foolishness of preaching (1 Corinthians 1:21) as the means of proclaiming the Gospel and we are responsible to get it right. I never said that people could not get saved at Hillsong nor that there aren't Christians attending (though genuine conversion is never cultivated in a place where the Gospel is never preached). Read Galatians 1:8-9 tells us that it is a damnable offense to preach any other gospel than the one he preached. Leaving my five points aside for a moment Hillsong's preachers violate their own doctrine statement when "presenting the gospel" in their failure to preach repentance (their faith statement says that you must repent of your sin in order to be saved). And when is repentance from sin preached at Hillsong??? It is a disgrace that they have such disregard not only for the clear teaching of Scripture, but also for their own doctrine statement (which is correct on this point). Furthermore, since the cross is about Christ taking the wrath that we deserve in the place of sinners - how can you explain the cross without preaching about God's wrath - when is God's wrath ever preached at Hillsong? How can you preach forgiveness without what you are forgiven of (sin). How can you preach salvation without preaching what you are saved from (damnation). I will stop there but I hope you get the point.

As for Romans 10:9, the belief described there is a repentant belief or faith. Scripture is clear that turning to Christ in faith involves turning away from sin.

When God graciously saved me as a biblically illiterate 20 year old I was certainly incapable of theologically formulating the doctrine of justification. But I clearly understood that I was a sinner with nothing to offer God. I knew that my salvation depended solely on the completed work of Jesus Christ. I clearly understood that my human works played absolutely no part in my redemption. I also clearly understood that my human works (or wickedness) were the main reason that I needed a Savior to rescue me from the damnation that I deserved. The issue is not our ability to formulate the doctrine of justification, it is whether we are trusting Christ's completed work alone, by faith, or trusting any other system that involves even the smallest level of works righteousness. And to consciously teach any view of justification that involves any degree of human achievement is a damnable offense - including the idea that our salvation hinges on a human decision/salvation prayer rather than a miraculous work of God. It is the reason Paul wrote to the church in Galatia.

Likewise, we might not understand all the inner workings of the doctrine of the atonement. But we do need to understand that the cross Jesus died on is what we all deserve. Remember these words:

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43)

Here we have a criminal who is most likely uneducated and lacking a deep working knowledge of the theology being played out on the cross beside him. But he does know that he is evil and deserves wrath. He does know that Christ is fully righteous. He does know that he has nothing to offer the Lamb of God. He does know that his only hope is to completely humble himself as a wretched sinner and beg the Savior for mercy. And it is to these that God grants pardon!

Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. (Isaiah 66:1-2)

It is here we get to ground zero. In order to be saved we must respond in repentance and faith. And different models of atonement elicit different responses to the Gospel. We don't hear the thief thanking Jesus for identifying with the pain of his human experience. We don't hear the thief calling out as a poor victim of Satan awaiting his rescue. We hear a thief who sees his own enormous guilt. We hear a thief who sees the righteousness of the Son of God. And we hear a thief crying out in genuine repentance, trusting in the One Who was heading for His throne. Jesus did not come to provide therapy for victimized people. He did not come to feel the pain of hurting people. He did not come to coach untrained people. He came to save sinners - even really bad ones like me!

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 6)

Today concludes my series of responses to Gandalf's critique of my emphasis on the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. In the previous posts of this series I have answered these objections and re-emphasised the critical importance of teaching and understanding the atonement correctly as it strongly affects our view of God, our view of ourselves, and thus how we approach God. Today, as a closing footnote to this series, I want to take a look at an example of a how wrong views of the atonement can infiltrate the "Christian media". It also serves as an example of how these things can sneak under our radar of discerning true and false gospels.

At the end of part 5 of this series I asked the question regarding a major theological flaw in the first Narnia movie that affects the Gospel. Do you know what it is? Watch this video and see if you can figure it out . . .



Who killed the lion? Who did she represent - Satan! This is an example of the ransom theory of the atonement where God has to pay a ransom to Satan. the ransom theory undermines human depravity in that it portrays sinful man as an unwilling and helpless captive of Satan awaiting a deliverer. This is contrary to Scripture where Paul portrays fallen man as:

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

What about Jesus, did he have a higher view of man. Most know John 3:16 but few know what follows:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. (John 3:18-20)

It is true that Satan is the accuser of the brethren. But the only accusation Satan can raise against a Holy and righteous judge is an appeal to his perfect justice and the consequent need for Him to deal with our sin. The only way God could reconcile sinners without compromising His righteousness was for Christ to die as a substitute under God's wrath:

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief (Isaiah 53:4-10 emphasis mine).

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 forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It 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 3:23-26)

I'll leave it to rapper Shai Linne to close out this discussion on Penal Substitutionary Atonement:



Go Back To Part 5
Go Back To Part 1

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 5)

Today I will continue my series on Gandalf's letter/response to my recent series on NT Wright where I severely criticized Wright for corrupting the Gospel by denying penal substitutionary atonement. I know Wright says he affirms it, but if you read the series you will see how this is standard practice for Wright to affirm something when he is really only affirming his own redefining of critical biblical truths.

The fourth point of Gandalf's letter I wish to respond to is the following:

I generally think the amount of flame and vitriol in this debate goes beyond its purpose. People on both sides should handle it more in a manner like the one you advised in your post about the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, otherwise we would only deserve the laughter of the Spongs, Borgs, Bells and McLarens in this world for our quarreling.

There is intensity this debate for good reason. There are debates that can be interesting and worthwhile on some level without being hills to die on. But the subject of the atonement is a hill worth dying on. As I discussed in part 2 of this series, our understanding of the atonement has strong repercussions as to how we view God and how we approach Him as sinners. Todd Friel discusses this here (by the way, Bart Campolo is Tony Campolo's son):



Gandalf, I understand you are a fan of CS Lewis. I don't know a lot about him but I do know that there is a major theological flaw in the first Narnia movie that affects the Gospel. Do you know what it is? Anyone?

Go On To Part 6
Go Back To Part 4
Go Back To Part 1

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 4)

Today I will continue responding to Gandalf's letter/response to my recent series on NT Wright where I severely criticized Wright for corrupting the Gospel by denying penal substitutionary atonement. I know Wright says he affirms it, but if you read the series you will see how this is standard practice for Wright to affirm something when he is really only affirming his own redefining of critical biblical truths.

The third point of Gandalf's letter I wish to respond to is the following:

You repeatedly note that certain concepts and issues are missing in Wright's books or are presented in sketchy or ambiguous manner (individual sin, hell etc.).

Have you read "Surprised by Hope"? I did not find you quoting that in your posts. In that book I found both explanation for his lack of mentioning certain things in other booke in detail, namely, that he likes to view all things as "big picture" where God wants to redeeem and bring back to right the whole cosmos (with the fate of individuals just being part of it, like in a puzzle consisting of numerous pieces but all belonging to the same story). However, in the same book he really gives explanations for questions like individual sin (includng an explanation of the word hamartia), final judgment and hell.

You probably will object to his view that hell isn't like a torture chamber in the midst of Gods kingdom and that he very much follows a middle ground between traditional teaching and a view that sees the lost ones simply becoming what they desire/practise (a grumble instead of a grumbling man or woman is an example for this from "The great Divorce") and hence being at some point no longer humans in Gods image. But I think you'll have to admit that he teaches final judgment with two outcomes, completely dismisses universalism and that God really cares for righteousness and is not laissez-faire with sin on an individual level.

The comments Gandalf is referring to is my critique of Wright's book "Simply Christian" which is supposed to be a book that summarizes the Christian faith. It is a bad joke when Wright tries to summarize Christianity in a book and ignores issues as big as Christ's deity, the Atonement, personal sin, judgment, and God's wrath (at least in a specific personal sense). Even if he discusses these things in another book (which we will get to next), it is unbelievable that these issues would find themselves scant or absent from his summation of Christianity. It is always difficult to figure out where Wright stands on so many issues because he seems to dwell in a shroud of smoke, never being explicit or clear on things in which Scripture is both explicit and clear. In these hazy postmodern times of vagueness I think it would be worthwhile to heed the counsel of the great theologian George W Bush - "if they're not for us then they're against us".

Anyway, for the sake of Gandalf I will close with Thomas Schreiner's (professor of New Testament at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author, most recently of New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ) assessment of Wright's book "Surprised By Hope".

How should we assess Surprised by Hope? Wright's fundamental thesis here is correct. Heaven will be on a new earth, and therefore it must not be regarded as floating in some kind of spiritual never-land. We look forward to our future resurrection, and to the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells. Wright's defense of the resurrection of Christ, defended more fully in his major book on the topic, is the finest treatment I have read on the subject. Wright does affirm the intermediate state, but he rightly stresses that the future hope of believers is the resurrection. Furthermore, Wright is on target in saying that we are to strive for justice, truth, and beauty in this world. Some believers have said that this world is destined for destruction, and hence only focus on the salvation of the lost.

Yet there are some significant problems with the book. Surely some believers have mistakenly thought that heaven was only spiritual, but many (most of those I know) do not conceive of heaven in this way. We could say that Wright exaggerates his thesis to make his point. Well and good. Still, he is excessively critical of the phrase "go to heaven." After all, we have a number of statements in Scripture about entering (going to!) the kingdom in the future (e.g., Matt. 5:20; 7:21; 18:3; 19:23-24; Mark 9:47; 10:15; John 3:5; Acts 14:22). Scripture also speaks of heaven as a realm above and separate from us (Matt. 6:1, 9, 10, 20; 18:10; Luke 24:51; John 1:51; Acts 1:10; 2 Cor. 12:2; Col. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:4). That does not, to be sure, communicate that our future destiny is non-physical, but it does stress that it is a realm separate from our present existence. Yes, Wright is correct in saying that heaven will be a transformed earth, and that heaven will come, so to speak, to this world. But since the Scriptures also speak of us "entering" the kingdom; since they speak of heaven as a world above and beyond us; and since the new creation is not yet here in its fullness, I don't believe it's wrong to say that we will "go there," as long as we recognize that this is just one of the ways to express the reality that awaits us. In fact, Wright's protests against using the phrase "go to heaven" betray an overly literal understanding on his part. Hence, against Wright, the hymn Away in the Manger does not contradict Scripture when it asks God to "fit us for heaven, to live with thee there" (p. 22).

As noted above, Wright often emphasizes that our work in this world is important. Christians ought not to think that their work in politics, economics, business, art, and so forth is insignificant. There has been a kind of pietism that has denigrated such work. Still, it isn't clear that forgiving third world debt is a moral obligation on the same level as abolishing slavery. Wright too confidently dismisses all who disagree with him on this matter, sweeping away any objections with rhetorical statements. Moral claims in the public sphere must be advanced by careful reasoning, and Wright does not provide arguments to support his conclusions. Perhaps in the future he will tackle the matter with reasoned public discourse instead of dicta from above.

Wright commends evangelism as part of our work as believers, but he clearly emphasizes being engaged in the political sphere. Surely Wright has his emphases backwards here. The Scriptures teach that only those who believe in Jesus Christ and repent of their sins will enjoy the new creation. Isn't the most important thing for human beings, therefore, to gain acceptance into this new creation? Aren't there great artists and gifted politicians who have improved our life in this world (for which we are all thankful), and yet who will not be part of the new creation because they have rejected the gospel? Moreover, while Wright correctly affirms that everything done in this world matters, there is also discontinuity between this world and the next. The curse of Genesis 3 will not be lifted until Jesus comes again. Our work in this world is provisional and always touched by the curse. The invention of the car solved a pollution problem in the streets caused by horses, but no one foresaw that it would cause pollution problems of its own.

All this is to say that the call for Christians to evangelize remains more pressing than any call to work in the political sphere, even though all our work in this world is significant. Wright emphasizes that the good news of the gospel is that Jesus is Lord, but, as John Piper has pointed out, this isn't good news if you're still a rebel against God; its terrifying news. The New Testament is permeated with the message that we must turn from our sins and put our faith in Christ. Wright does not disagree with the need to do so, but he seems to be most excited about our work in the political and social sphere.

I could perhaps understand why Wright would stress social concerns if England's churches were full and thriving—as if almost everyone was a believer. But what is curious is that England's churches are empty, and unbelief is common. It seems that a bishop in these circumstances would vigorously call upon the church to evangelize, and would emphasize the need to put one's faith in Jesus Christ and to turn from one's sins. I don't see that urgency in Wright's writing, and therefore he veers from the message of Jesus and the apostles.

I would also mention some bits and pieces of the book that call out for comment, even if I don't have space here to interact with them here in detail. For instance, Wright contends that Jesus never spoke about his return. He defends this claim in other works, but it's a controversial point. Here I simply want to register my disagreement with his exegesis.

Also, Wright correctly says that justification by faith and judgment according to works do not conflict (p. 140), but he gives us no help in seeing how these two themes fit together. Readers would be helped in knowing how the two themes cohere. Putting these truths together wrongly can lead to a final curse (Gal. 1:8-9), and hence Wright must be clearer in explaining the gospel in his exposition.

The section on purgatory is nicely done, showing that purgatory is absent from the biblical witness. But Wright falls into inconsistency when he endorses praying for the dead since this practice is not found in the Scriptures (p. 172). He does rightfully rule out invoking the saints for assistance.

Contrary to Wright, Jesus' statements about gehenna do not refer to the judgment of A.D. 70, though I cannot defend this argument here. Nor do I think Wright is correct in saying that judgment is a minor theme in the letters. The theme is pervasive in them, but, again, that would take too long to defend here.

Too often Wright prosecutes his case by caricaturing a view and then introducing his own view as the solution. Hence, he rightly rejects the notion that hell is a torture chamber, but his own view of hell seems to be shorn of any notion that God punishes those who refuse to believe in Christ. Wright argues that those in hell lose the divine image, and this may well be part of the picture. Nevertheless, many texts speak of God's active punishment of the wicked. Since Wright summarizes his view and does not engage in detailed exegesis, I assume he would offer a different interpretation of the relevant texts. Still, it's difficult to see how God's active punishment of the wicked can be denied (e.g., Rom. 2:8-9, 16; 2 Thess. 1:8-9, etc.).

Wright appeals to many because he is brilliant and fascinating, and some of what he says is helpful. Nevertheless, his failure to emphasize the centrality of the gospel is troubling, and pastors who find his work illuminating need to be careful that they do not veer away from their central task of proclaiming the good news to a lost generation.

Go On To Part 5
Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 3)

Today I will continue responding to Gandalf's letter/response to my recent series on NT Wright where I severely criticized Wright for corrupting the Gospel by denying penal substitutionary atonement. I know Wright says he affirms it, but if you read the series you will see how this is standard practice for Wright to affirm something when he is really only affirming his own redefining of critical biblical truths.

The second point of Gandalf's letter I wish to respond to is the following:

You know probably that Eastern Orthodox christians as one example do not believe (according to their churches doctrine) in Penal Substitutionary Atonement, imputation etc. are they all damned?

I will cut to the chase and then expand upon that. Gandalf, anyone who is practising and believing in accordance with Eastern Orthodox teaching is trusting a false gospel and will be damned. Not because of their inability to correctly formulate the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, but because they are trusting in a religious system rather than Christ's finished work on the cross.

I am not saying there are no genuine Christians in the Eastern Orthodox movement, but I am saying that any genuine born again Christian attending an Eastern Orthodox congregation is saved in spite of (and not by virtue of) Eastern Orthodox "theology". Any true Christian identifying himself as Eastern Orthodox would run for the hills if he understood the gospel they teach.

Here is a list of MAJOR problems with Eastern Orthodoxy that are completely alien to historic biblical Christianity:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy believes baptism is the initiator of the salvation experience.
2. Eastern Orthodoxy believes salvation is a gradual, life-long process by which Christians become more and more like Christ. (As you can see, salvation hinging on baptism and a lifelong process leaves no room for Jesus' demand to repent and believe the Gospel, the need to be born again).
3. Eastern Orthodoxy argues that the Holy Scriptures (as interpreted and defined by church teaching in the first seven ecumenical councils) along with Holy Tradition are of equal value and importance. They elevate human tradition to the same level as the Divinely Inspired Scriptures.
4. Veneration of icons and a mystical form of meditative prayer is commonly incorporated into their religious rituals.
5. The Eucharist is the center of worship in the Orthodox Church. Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that during the Eucharist, believers partake mystically of Christ's body and blood and through it receive his life and strength.

Do you see heretical problems with this religious system Gandalf? I'm not talking about variations in eschatology here - these are teachings that advocate another way of salvation and hence another Gospel. And as Paul tells us in Galatians 1:8-9, that is a damnable offense.

Eastern Orthodox's denial of penal substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness forces them to embrace a gospel that requires baptism to initiate salvation and then a gradual lifelong process to complete it.

Go On To Part 4
Go back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 2)

In my previous post I published a comment made by "Gandalf" which criticized my series on NT Wright. More specifically my emphasis on the importance of correctly teaching (and understanding) how the doctrine of the atonement actually works. There are several objections/points raised by Gandalf and I will respond to his first one today. Gandalf wrote:

First: Theories about how the atonement works (including PSA with all its content) are not the atonement or belief in the atonement itself. Therefore what Christians must believe in is the atonement of their sins through death and resurrection of Christ whereas ideas on how this works are secondary to this (In C.S: Lewis book Mere Christianity there is a discussion about this issue which I find very convincing).

Gandalf, what you say is true in part which can help to let the flaws in your comment sneak under the radar. It is very similar to NT Wright's modus operandi of reinventing the issue at hand. For example, when Wright objects (with regards to the doctrine of justification) that people are not saved by their ability to correctly formulate the doctrine of justification it serves as a very clever smokescreen to the real debate (RC Sproul responded brilliantly to this very issue here). When God graciously saved me as a biblically illiterate 20 year old I was certainly incapable of theologically formulating the doctrine of justification. But I clearly understood that I was a sinner with nothing to offer God. I knew that my salvation depended solely on the completed work of Jesus Christ. I clearly understood that my human works played absolutely no part in my redemption. I also clearly understood that my human works (or wickedness) were the main reason that I needed a Savior to rescue me from the damnation that I deserved. The issue is not our ability to formulate the doctrine of justification, it is whether we are trusting Christ's completed work alone, by faith, or trusting any other system that involves even the smallest level of works righteousness. And to consciously teach any view of justification that involves any degree of human achievement is a damnable offense. It is the reason Paul wrote to the church in Galatia.

Likewise, we might not understand all the inner workings of the doctrine of the atonement. But we do need to understand that the cross Jesus died on is what we all deserve. Remember these words:

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43)

Here we have a criminal who is most likely uneducated and lacking a deep working knowledge of the theology being played out on the cross beside him. But he does know that he is evil and deserves wrath. He does know that Christ is fully righteous. He does know that he has nothing to offer the Lamb of God. He does know that his only hope is to completely humble himself as a wretched sinner and beg the Savior for mercy. And it is to these that God grants pardon!

Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. (Isaiah 66:1-2)

It is here we get to ground zero. In order to be saved we must respond in repentance and faith. And different models of atonement elicit different responses to the Gospel. We don't hear the thief thanking Jesus for identifying with the pain of his human experience. We don't hear the thief calling out as a poor victim of Satan awaiting his rescue. We hear a thief who sees his own enormous guilt. We hear a thief who sees the righteousness of the Son of God. And we hear a thief crying out in genuine repentance, trusting in the One Who was heading for His throne. Jesus did not come to provide therapy for victimized people. He did not come to feel the pain of hurting people. He did not come to coach untrained people. He came to save sinners - even really bad ones like me! He came to fulfill the law that everyone broke and endure the wrath that everyone deserves. Which brings us to the word Paul Washer discussed in my previous post - propitiation:

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 forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It 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 3:23-26)

Propitiation is a very special and important word that describes a sacrifice that takes away sin and satisfies wrath. God has wrath and you can't solve that problem by pretending that He doesn't. Every time you break God's law by lying, stealing, sex outside of marriage, or even a lustful thought, or any other part of God's law - God cannot violate His demand for justice because He is good. Most people try to reassure themselves as they face eternity with the thought that God is good and loving. Yes God is good and loving - and that is exactly the problem. If God overlooks sin He stops being good and loving and becomes corrupt. So either we must burn in hell for all eternity to satisfy His wrath or a substitute must endure God's wrath in our place.

Gandalf, it is true that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. We are not saved by rightly understanding the correct view of the atonement. But it is also true that different views of the atonement impact greatly on our view of God. They impact greatly on how we view ourselves. They impact greatly on our view of Christ's life, death and resurrection. Hence it impacts greatly upon our response to the Gospel and whether we find true repentance. Ignorance of this is one thing, but conscious denial is another thing altogether. And to actively teach against penal substitution is a crime of epic proportions. Even, as in NT Wright's case, when it is a failure to acknowledge penal substitutionary atonement as the transcendent meaning of the cross. The doctrines of Christ as our example (Philippians 2:5-8), our compassionate intercessor (Hebrews 4:15-16), and our liberator (Hebrews 2:14-18) are only made possible through the satisfaction of God's wrath - that God can be both "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus".

We have seen that the doctrine of penal substitution is necessary to safeguard the justice and holiness of God, for to deny it is to suggest that God is content simply overlook evil whenever He forgives someone. To discard penal substitution would also jeapordize God's truthfulness, for He has promised that sin will lead to death. Moreover, other aspects of the atonement cease to make sense if penal substitution is denied. Penal substitution is essential to Christ's victory over evil powers (something that Gustav Aulen's Christus Victor theory fatally missed), to His restoration of the relationships between sinners and God (reconciliation) and to the liberation He brings from captivity to sin and Satan (redemption and ransom). Far from being viable alternatives to penal substitution, they are outworkings of it. As the hub from which all of these other doctrines fan out, penal substitution is surely central.

To take another example, it is impossible to understand how the atoning death of Jesus could usher in the new creation and bring new life to the corrupt and degenerating cosmos if He did not endure and exhaust the divine curse on the old creation. The renewal of the cosmos by means of Jesus' death is explicable only by reference to penal substitution. (p211 Pierced For Our Transgressions - Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach)

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 1)

Gandalf (one of the Gandalfs who is not the guy in this picture - I just wanted to narrow the possibilities by one) recently posted a comment on my series NT Wright v The Gospel where he questioned whether people's salvation hinges on their view of the atonement. Here is what he wrote:

Hi Cameron,

having read your series about N.T. Wright (and other posts about him as well) I must say that I still think some of your conclusions are at least out of scope maybe misjudging Wright.

Here my arguments for that (maybe I posted some of this earlier but I want to make it as a summary here):

First: Theories about how the atonement works (including PSA with all its content) are not the atonement or belief in the atonement itself. Therefore what Christians must believe in is the atonement of their sins through death and resurrection of Christ whereas ideas on how this works are secondary to this (In C.S: Lewis book Mere Christianity there is a discussion about this issue which I find very convincing).

Notably much of the real discussion about the atonement comes from liberals/progressives who openly dismiss that Christ's death had anything to do with human sins and human redemption (Maybe the name of the German protestant pastor Burkhard Müller is known to you for causing some stir here for saying such things).

Discussions about how this works are probably interesting for theologians but error on how it works does not amount to something you quoted McArthur for (that without imputed righteousness no salvation is possible).

You know probably that Eastern Orthodox christians as one example do not believe (according to their churches doctrine) in PSA, imputation etc. are they all damned?

Second: You repeatedly note that certain concepts and issues are missing in Wright's books or are presented in sketchy or ambiguous manner (individual sin, hell etc.).

Have you read "Surprised by Hope"? I did not find you quoting that in your posts. In that book I found both explanation for his lack of mentioning certain things in other booke in detail, namely, that he likes to view all things as "big picture" where God wants to redeeem and bring back to right the whole cosmos (with the fate of individuals just being part of it, like in a puzzle consisting of numerous pieces but all belonging to the same story). However, in the same book he really gives explanations for questions like individual sin (includng an explanation of the word hamartia), final judgment and hell.

You probably will object to his view that hell isn't like a torture chamber in the midst of Gods kingdom and that he very much follows a middle ground between traditional teaching and a view that sees the lost ones simply becoming what they desire/practise (a grumble instead of a grumbling man or woman is an example for this from "The great Divorce") and hence being at some point no longer humans in Gods image. But I think you'll have to admit that he teaches final judgment with two outcomes, completely dismisses universalism and that God really cares for righteousness and is not laissez-faire with sin on an individual level.

Third: I generally think the amount of flame and vitriol in this debate goes beyond its purpose. People on both sides should handle it more in a manner like the one you advised in your post about the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, otherwise we would only deserve the laughter of the Spongs, Borgs, Bells and McLarens in this world for our quarreling.

Gandalf, I welcome your comments and the ensuing discussion it will evoke. Over the coming days I will be responding to each issue that Gandalf raises. Unlike the emergent "conversation", I love to come to the table and reason together from the Scriptures with those who disagree with me. Our view of the atonement sets the framework through which we understand and communicate the Gospel. We must remember what Paul wrote to the church in Galatia:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

For this reason our view of the atonement matters and I will set forth my contentions from Scripture over the next week or so. In the meantime I offer this ten minute video of Paul Washer explaining the meaning of the word "propitiation" as found in Romans 3:25 (also in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10). The importance of this word is central to the issue at hand.



Go On To Part 2

NT Wright v RC Sproul

The latest edition of Tabletalk Magazine features an array of theological heavyweights taking aim at NT Wright and his new perspective on Paul (ok, I know NT Wright is not the originator, but he is the one gaining traction). I discovered this only after writing my recent series on "NT Wright v the Gospel". It serves as strong confirmation that NT Wright's writings and teachings are gaining a substantial corrupting foothold in the wider "church community".

When it comes to reformed theology, the authority of Scripture, and the purity of the Gospel, RC Sproul would be at the top end of the heavyweights. Some of his books, including "The Holiness of God" are classic landmark Christian literature. For decades Sproul has been an ardent contender for the once for all delivered faith. So it was with great interest that I read his response to NT Wright and the "new perspective". Sproul harnesses years of experience and biblical awareness to cut through the fog of Wright's assertion that he can do a better job of explaining the Apostle Paul than the Apostle himself (that's my cheeky paraphrase anyway). What follows is RC Sproul's response:

Tilting at Scarecrows
by R.C. Sproul
“We are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself—in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.”
(N.T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” p 261)

In the past few years, the British bishop and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright has emerged as an icon of biblical theology around the world. His excellent work on the resurrection of Christ has influenced many people including his own country’s most famous philosopher and former atheist Antony Flew, who has converted to deism. Wright is also known, however, for being one of the chief architects of the so-called new perspective on Paul, in which he recasts the doctrine of justification in such a way as to transcend the historic dispute between Roman Catholicism and Reformation Protestantism. In a sense, Wright says, “A pox on both your houses,” claiming that both Rome and the Reformation misunderstood and distorted the biblical view of justification. In his response to John Piper’s critique of his work, Wright drips patronizing disdain for Piper and for those who embrace the traditional Protestant view of justification. He is critical of theological traditions that he thinks miss the biblical point.

In the course of debate, one of the most effective and fallacious arguments often used is called the “straw man” fallacy. The value of a scarecrow is that it is a counterfeit human being designed to scare away a few crows. It is an effective device, but not nearly as effective as a real farmer patrolling his fields with a shotgun. The farmer made of straw is not nearly as formidable as the real one. This is usually the case in the difference between the authentic and the counterfeit. The straw man fallacy occurs when one creates a false view of his opponent’s position in a distorted caricature by which he then easily dismantles that position in total refutation.

One of the statements that N.T. Wright employs, using this same stratagem, is the statement that “we are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith.” To intimate that Protestant orthodoxy believes that we are justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith is the king of all straw men. It is the Goliath of scarecrows, the King Kong of straw man fallacies. In other words, it is a whopper. I am aware of no theologian in the history of the Reformed tradition who believes or argues that a person can be justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith. This is a pure and simple distortion of the Reformed tradition.

In Wright’s statement we see a straw man argument that falls by its own weight. It contains more straw than the stick figure can support. The doctrine of justification by faith alone not only does not teach that justification is by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but in fact, teaches that which is totally antithetical to the idea. The phrase “justification by faith alone” is theological shorthand for saying justification is by Christ alone. Anyone who understands and advocates the doctrine of justification by faith alone knows that the focal point is that which justifies — trust in Christ and not trust in a doctrine.

One of the key terms in the phrase “justification by faith” is the word by, which signals that faith is the means or tool that links us to Christ and His benefits. The concept indicates that faith is the “instrumental” cause of our justification. What is in view in the Protestant formulation is a distinction from the Roman Catholic view of the instrumental cause. Rome declares the sacrament of baptism in the first instance and penance in the second instance to be the instrumental causes of justification. So the dispute of what instrument is the basis by which we are justified was and remains critical to the classical dispute between Rome and Protestantism. The Protestant view, following Paul’s teaching in the New Testament, is that faith is the sole instrument by which we are linked to Christ.

Closely related to this is the hotly disputed issue of the grounds of our justification before God. Here is where the biblical concept of imputation is so important. Those who deny imputation as the grounds of our justification declare it to be a legal fiction, a miscarriage of justice, or even a manifestation of cosmic child abuse. Yet at the same time, it is the biblical explanation for the ground of our redemption. No biblical text more clearly teaches this concept of transfer or imputation than that of Isaiah 53, which the New Testament church singled out as a crucial prophetic explanation of the drama of redemption. The New Testament declares Christ to be our righteousness, and it is precisely our confidence in the righteousness of Christ as the grounds for our justification that is the focus of the doctrine of justification by faith. We understand that believing the doctrine of sola fide will save no one. Faith in a doctrine is not enough to save. However, though we cannot be saved by believing in the doctrine of justification, the denial of that same doctrine can indeed be fatal because to deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the apostle Paul indicated in Galatians is to reject the gospel and substitute something else for it, which would result in what Paul declares to be anathema. The gospel is too important to be dismissed by tilting at scarecrows.

Go Back To NT Wright v The Gospel