My Jesus I Love Thee

The Go Fish guys do great harmonies together with timeless truth. I just wanted to post this glorious song on the Lord's day . . .

A Rugged Cross, An Empty Grave, And A Throne In Heaven (Part 3)

The Resurrection on Trial – Evidence For The Resurrection

There is enormous evidence for the resurrection. I’ll mention just five of them.

1. Jesus was seen by hundreds of witnesses. That is good enough in a court of law.
2. When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost he testified to the resurrection in Jerusalem. Thousands were there and no one questioned him.
3. The Bible has never been proven wrong on anything. We have a document more trustworthy than any other book ever written.
4. That Christianity has survived for 2000 years.
5. The change in the disciples behavior. What else could explain how these cowards who fled when Jesus was crucified had suddenly become bold and fearless witnesses ready to preach endlessly and die willingly in His Name. (Read from Foxes book of Martyr’s)

There is no reason to deny the resurrection other than a desire to keep on sinning in the hope that you will not have to face the resurrected Lord on the day of judgment.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:20)

Christ’s resurrection guarantees the resurrection of His church.

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

Adam’s one sin brought death on everyone. The ultimate statistic – one out of one people die. Adam’s sin brought the curse of death. In Christ’s resurrection shall all be made alive. Now – does this verse teach universalism that everyone will be saved? We know the Scripture cannot contradict itself and it clearly teaches that not everyone gets saved – that there are sheep and goats. So what is Paul saying here? It depends upon the link with the man. All who are in Adam – who are the descendants of Adam? We all are. All who are in Christ – who are the descendants of Christ? John 1:12 says "as many as believed in Him, to them He gave the power to become the sons of God."

The first all includes all who are in Adam by the common factor of . . . sin. The second all includes all who are in Christ by the common factor of . . . faith. All who are in Adam die. All who are in Christ live. Who are you in?

But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Corinthians 15:23-26)

Christ was raised bodily, glorified so that His human frame was perfectly suited for both heaven and earth. His body could be seen, and touched (Luke 24:39; John 20:27; 1 John 1:1). He ate food (Luke 24:42-43) and walked and talked as He had before the crucifixion. At this very moment, he sits on the Father's right hand in that same body—making intercession for the saints, including me.

More amazing than all of that, I will one day have a body like His: able to traverse heaven and earth, immortal, yet familiar in its physical form. In fact, it will be this very body, thoroughly healed of all its infirmities and imperfections. That amazes me and thrills me (Phil Johnson, online source).

Go Back To Part 2
Go back To Part 1

A Rugged Cross, An Empty Grave, And A Throne In Heaven (Part 2)

The Resurrection on Trial – Refuting False Theories

Most reasonable historians will concede that Jesus Christ was a true historical figure. In recent times there have been people who try to deny this, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. I’ll give just one example of this evidence. In the middle of the first century, a man called Thallus wrote a history of the Mediterranean world from the time of the Trojan War until his own time. What is interesting about this is that Thallus was not a believer and yet tried to explain the darkness that covered the earth during the crucifixion of Christ. He suggested it was an eclipse, which was ridiculous because it happened at the time of the full moon and solar eclipses don’t happen during full moons. Note that Thallus did not try to deny the darkness – why, because everyone knew about it. Most reasonable unbelievers who do their research agree that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure, that He was crucified, and that his body went missing. It is over the reason for the empty tomb that the debate is fought. This is why there are several theories that attempt to give an explanation for the empty tomb rather than denying that there was an empty tomb. And as you will see, it probably takes a lot more faith to believe these theories than what the Bible clearly teaches – that Jesus rose from the dead. I will respond to the two most popular theories as the others aren't even worth using time on. My responses to these two theories are much shorter than they can be. I will only be bringing up some of the reasons they are false or stupid or both false and stupid.

1. The Stolen Body Theory

The first theory is the one the Pharisees gave. That the disciples stole the body. I think we all know that the tomb where they laid Jesus was being guarded by at least 10 Roman soldiers – because Jesus had prophesied his resurrection and the Pharisees thought the best chance of stopping God’s plan involved Roman soldiers and a giant rock. Well it was pretty hard for the soldiers to ignore a severe earthquake caused by an angel rolling the stone away. (As a sidenote – do you think the stone was rolled away to let Jesus out, or to let the disciples come in and take a look?)
Back to the story, the soldiers ran away in fear and headed for the city where the Pharisees were:

While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. (Matthew 28:11-15)

The Pharisees were not only corrupt liars, they were really dumb corrupt
liars. Can you imagine how this story would go in a court of law?

1. Who can guess what the punishment was for a Roman soldier who slept on duty?
2. If the soldiers were sleeping how did they know who stole the body? If they were awake – why did they let them?
3. Can you imagine the disciples sneaking up on 10 or more Roman soldiers, all sleeping at the same time, and saying shhhhhh roll that giant rock very quietly. It’s doubtful if they could have even moved it.
4. Who has ever seen CSI? What is the first thing they always do when a body is missing? – look for it.
5. Other than John, all the disciples had fled. They thought it was over. Peter had publicly denied Christ three times. Why would these frightened men risk their lives to steal a dead body of a man they had abandoned?

2. The Swoon Theory
The swoon theory says that Christ did not actually die on the cross. He was seriously wounded and the soldiers thought he was dead. But after the beating, the crucifixion, and three days in a cold tomb with no food or water and a giant rock trapping him in there, Jesus regained his strength rolled away the giant rock and beat up all the Roman guards. Here’s just a few points to consider:

1. The Roman soldiers could be executed for failure to complete an execution.
2. The Roman soldiers were experts at killing people – the fact that they didn’t break Jesus’ legs shows that they were certain he was dead.
3. John testified to seeing separated water and blood flow out of Jesus side when the spear was thrust into Him. If Jesus were still alive there would have been blood pumping out with every heartbeat.

There are more theories but I don’t think they are worth talking about. I find all of these theories much harder to believe than what the Scipture says. They only serve to show sinful man’s desire to reject God so he can keep on sinning.

Concludes on Friday - The Resurrection on Trial: Evidence For The Resurrection

Go On To Part 3
Go back To Part 1

A Rugged Cross, An Empty Grave, And A Throne In Heaven (Part 1)

The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. And he led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. And he said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord GOD, you know." Then he said to me, "Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the LORD." So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live." So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army. Then he said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, 'Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.' Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the LORD. (Ezekiel 37:1-14)

Can these dead bones live? Oh Lord you know. Prophesy over these dead bones and say “Hear the Word of the Lord – so says the Lord, I will cause breath to enter you and you shall live”.

What is that a picture of? That is evangelism. Evangelism always involves three parties. A corpse, a prophet, and the God of the resurrection. Who is the corpse? That valley of dry bones is a good picture of every lost sinner we speak to. Ephesians 2:1-3 tells us:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

A dead body needs a lot more than persuasion to become a Christian. He needs to be resurrected by the God Who raises the dead. And that God Who raises the dead chose the "foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Corinthians 1:21b).

This prophet God uses are those Christians who are called to preach the
Gospel. Which Christians are they? Which of us?

But do we just hope that God raises the dead or do we know it? I recently did a series called The Exhilaration Of Double Imputation which spoke about Christ’s atoning death and how it secures a double imputation for Christians. The sins of the sinner are credited to Christ and the righteousness of Christ is credited to the sinner. But this good news would remain an empty hope without Christ’s resurrection.

Who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (Romans 4:25)

This means that the resurrection would prove that God had accepted the sacrifice of His son and was now able to be both just and the justifier of the sinner who repents and trusts the Savior. Without Christ’s resurrection we have no hope of being justified with God and no hope of our own resurrection body.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:12-17)

To be continued on Wednesday - The Resurrection on Trial: Refuting False Theories

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

NT Wright v The Gospel (Part 3)

As we saw in part 2 of this series, NT Wright says he believes in Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). But the PSA that Wright believes in is just like the jesus that the Mormons believe in - a phony, a product of their own imaginations and not found in Scripture. But Wright's gross error on PSA and the Gospel continues to manifest itself in his understanding of the doctrine of imputation:

If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom . . . If we leave the notion of 'righteousness' as a law-court metaphor only, as so many have done in the past, this gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship (p98 What St Paul Really Said).

What God’s righteousness never becomes, in the Jewish background which Paul is so richly summing up, is an attribute which is passed on to, reckoned to, or imputed to, his people. Nor does Paul treat it in this way. (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm).

Hmmm

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (Romans 4:3-8).

John Macarthur has this to say about the importance of getting imputation right:

The cornerstone of justification is the reckoning of righteousness to the believer's account. This is the truth that sets Christian doctrine apart from every form of false religion. We call it "imputed righteousness". Apart from it salvation is utterly impossible (p197 The Gospel According to Jesus).

But the problems don't end here. Wright confuses justification with sanctification, and salvation with eternal rewards:

Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works . . . I am fascinated by the way in which some of those most conscious of their reformation heritage shy away from Paul’s clear statements about future judgment according to works. It is not often enough remarked upon, for instance, that in the Thessalonian letters, and in Philippians, he looks ahead to the coming day of judgment and sees God’s favourable verdict not on the basis of the merits and death of Christ, not because like Lord Hailsham he simply casts himself on the mercy of the judge, but on the basis of his apostolic work. ‘What is our hope and joy and crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus Christ at his royal appearing? Is it not you? For you are our glory and our joy.’ (1 Thess. 3.19f.; cp. Phil. 2.16f.) I suspect that if you or I were to say such a thing, we could expect a swift rebuke of ‘nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling’. The fact that Paul does not feel obliged at every point to say this shows, I think, that he is not as concerned as we are about the danger of speaking of the things he himself has done – though sometimes, to be sure, he adds a rider, which proves my point, that it is not his own energy but that which God gives and inspires within him (1 Cor. 15.10; Col. 1.29). But he is still clear that the things he does in the present, by moral and physical effort, will count to his credit on the last day, precisely because they are the effective signs that the Spirit of the living Christ has been at work in him. We are embarrassed about saying this kind of thing; Paul clearly is not. What on earth can have happened to a sola scriptura theology that it should find itself forced to screen out such emphatic, indeed celebratory, statements? (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm)

The bottom line with all false gospels is works. Justification depends solely on Christ's finished work so that "no man can boast". There are rewards and also varying degrees of punishment dependant on our works. But the Lambs book of Life contains only names with the imputed rightoeusness of Christ. Those who entrust their personal salvation (a subject that Wright has a strong aversion to) solely to Christ's finished work. It is solely by faith as Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches so that "no man can boast". There it is! God wants ALL the glory for His gracious redemptive work in saving sinners fully deserving of eternal condemnation.



In some ways I regret delving into this subject because it should be pretty obvious that Wright is a heretic. Also, he is playing the same game as the emergents of using a term and then redefining it's meaning. Many Pastors in Denmark (where I live) read Wright's ideas indirectly through people like Brian McLaren who have latched onto them. This is why I take such strong exception to Wright. The shadow of NT Wright's teaching looms large in my own backyard - which is what provokes my severe response. What Paul really said is laid out for us in the New Testament. And much of it is avoided by Wright. One would think he's never read the first three chapters of Romans. Anyone can read the New Testament and see that all men are very evil sinners, God punishes sin, future judgment is a very real threat, salvation is a VERY major theme, that God wants all the glory for saving us, that the law condemns us because we cannot keep it, that Christ fulfilled the law by not sinning, that Christ took the punishment in the place of sinners . . . this stuff is so obvious I was able to grasp it the first time I delved into the pages of the Bible. Why does Wright continually deny, ignore, or downplay these issues. "that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life", "the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life" etc. Individual salvation, and how it can take place is a HUGE theme in the New testament.

Wright's denial of imputation is flat out heresy. Secondly, good teachers are explicitly clear on the Gospel whereas Wright is obscure, and confusing. Thirdly, how can he write a book on a basic understanding of Christianity and ignore so many major themes such as the Atonement. People like NT Wright survive in a climate of niceness and civility where being vague entitles them to the benefit of the doubt. I think George W Bush was right when he said "If they're not for us, they're against us". Maybe you don't want to label him a heretic, but in an environment of biblical illiteracy and lack of discernment, you should at least tell people to read something more worthwhile and stay away from the fog.

We are not called to be passive or silent in the face of such opposition to the glorious Gospel.

Coming on Friday- NT Wright v RC Sproul

Go On To NT Wright v RC Sproul
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

NT Wright v The Gospel (Part 2)

I realise it is easy to quote Wright in support of Penal Substitution in some of his earlier writings. But there are two things worth noting. One is that Wright himself confesses to having a theology that has changed over the years (ie moving from the old perspective on Paul to the new perspective). Secondly, that like emergents, Wright sometimes holds to a terminology but changes the definition. This is evident in Wright's support of Steve Chalke's book (The Lost Message of Jesus) and his refusal to retract that support and all the while claiming to hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). Here is how Wright responded to calls for him to retract his endorsement for "The Lost Message of Jesus":

NT Wright And Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Steve Chalke's new book is rooted on good scholarship, but its clear, punchy style makes it accessible to anyone and everyone. Its message is stark and exciting: Jesus of Nazareth was far more challenging in his own day, and remains far more relevant to ours, than the church has dared to believe, let alone preach. Part of that was quoted prominently on the front cover. I stand by every word I wrote. Imagine my puzzlement, then, when I heard that a great storm had broken out because 'Steve Chalke has denied substitutionary atonement' . . .

And what did Steve Chalke say that was so controversial?

"The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement that "God is Love". If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil." (p182 The Lost Message of Jesus)

Wright continues:

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

Clearly, Steve's critics have taken him to mean (b), as I think it is clear Jeffrey John and several others intend. I cannot now remember what I thought when I read the book four years ago and wrote my commendation, but I think, since I had been following the argument through in the light of the arguments I myself have advanced, frequently and at length, about Jesus' death and his own understanding of it, that I must have assumed he meant (a). I have now had a good conversation with Steve about the whole subject and clarified that my initial understanding was correct: he does indeed mean (a). The book, after all, wasn't about atonement as such, so he didn't spell out his view of the cross in detail; and it is his experience that the word 'penal' has put off so many people, with its image of a violent, angry and malevolent God, that he has decided not to use it. But the reality that I and others refer to when we use the phrase 'penal substitution' is not in doubt, for Steve any more than for me. 'There is therefore now no condemnation' in Romans 8.1 is explained by the fact, as in Romans 8.3, that God condemned sin in the flesh of his Son: he bore sin's condemnation in his body, so we don't bear it. That, I take it, is the heart of what the best sort of 'penal substitution' theory is trying to say, and Steve is fully happy with it. And this leads to the key point: there are several forms of the doctrine of penal substitution, and some are more biblical than others. (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205)

The real problem here is that both models, (a) and (b), are not PSA. The caricature (a vengeful father being placated by an act of gratuitous violence against his innocent son) Wright refers to is his own caricature. That is not what the Macarthurs, Pipers, and Sprouls of today are preaching. Wright's vague "forces of evil" never quite get specified. The issues of personal guilt, God's specific wrath aimed against guilty individuals, and Christ's love demonstrated as a substitute, is ignored in Wright's version whereas they are beautifully harmonized in the reformed understanding. This probably explains why Wright, when singing "In Christ Alone", changes the line "the wrath of God was satisfied" to "the love of God was satisfied". So much for authorial intent! There is a constant theme of absence when Wright discusses the Gospel and it makes sense in the light of his understanding of PSA. Wright believes that PSA must submit within the Christus Victor model of the atonement. Wright gets this back to front - and it also confirms that Wright holds to a different/wrong version of PSA if it is not the transcendant theory from which all others flow and find their meaning. This view again reveals Wright's faulty understanding - "it is only in Penal substitution that God must punish evil in order for His defeat of Satan to be consistent with His rightoeusness" (p142 Pierced for Our Transgressions).

What surprises me is that people focus only on the "cosmic child abuse" quote in Chalke's book. Here is a little more revelation of Chalke's view of the Gospel:

People are desperate for a message that they can buy into, that they can see will make a difference to them and to the world in which they live. The truth is that you can't engender a sense of lostness or need into people simply by pointing out that they are sinners. It just doesn't work. (p117-118 The Lost Message of Jesus).

So it would seem that they believe there are good pragmatic grounds for rejecting PSA.

But Wright's gross error on PSA, and the Gospel continue to manifest in his understanding of imputation which I will discuss in Wednesday's post.

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

NT Wright v The Gospel (Part 1)

I recently posted about NT Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, who is revered in many circles for his defense of the resurrection. However, there are major problems with Wright's understanding of the cross itself, and I was very critical of Wright when I posted on him.

Unfortunately, that answer just won't do for those who suffer from paralysis by analysis. I was heavily criticized by an apologist recently for passing sentence on NT Wright without reading some of his books in entirity. That is a bad argument in itself because it is only necessary to prove someone is not a heretic. You only need to get the Gospel wrong in one point to be anathema as Paul points out to the church at Galatia (Galatians 1:8-9). Furthermore I suppose I could ask my critics to read all of my relevant blog posts before passing judgment. Michael Horton even laid it out very plainly in an earlier post. However, for the sake of further clarity on a man who furthers his theological career by being vague and hazy about fundamental Christian truths, I will delve somewhat deeper in this series on NT Wright.

When I immerse myself in excellent works such as "The Gospel According to Jesus", "Desiring God", "The Holiness of God", "Pierced For Our Transgressions", "In My Place Condemned He Stood", "9 Marks of a Healthy Church", "Christless Christianity", "The God Who Justifies", "Justification and Regeneration", "The Trellis and the Vine", and Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology it becomes very obvious that some things are very wrong with NT Wright. I refuse to spend money buying one of Wright's books, and find him incredibly boring, and unable to give a clear answer to many simple questions (unlike the abovementioned books which are unmistakable crystal clear concerning soteriology). I have read good sized chunks of "What St Paul Really Said", "Simply Christian", and "Justified". I have also read Wright's online responses to both John Piper's "The Future Of Justification" and the book "Pierced for Our Transgressions". I have studied Phil Johnson's lectures at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in 2004 concerning Wright and the "new perspective", as well as reviews at the 9 Marks website, and discussed the issue extensively face to face with both Phil Johnson and Todd Friel. All of this wasn't necessary anyway, as a plain reading of Wrtight's understanding of imputation (or lack thereof) and works based maintenance of salvation is stuff worthy of Pauls Galatian rebuke. It's really not that hard. In fact, I would even contend that Wright's confusing waffling on the question of homosexuality verifies either a low view of Scipture, cowardice, or incompetence.

How NT Wright Became The First Person In 2000 Years Of Church History To Figure Out What The Apostle Paul Really Said!

Reading Wright was not only exceedingly boring, it actually revealed where many of the emergents get their ideas from. He seems to be their "Yoda". Constant themes prevail in his writing. Sin on a corporate level but rarely on an individual level. Kingdom this, kingdom that, kingdom here (I remember Jesus saying that if His Kingdom were of this world then his servants would fight). Blurred lines between this world and eternity. Nothing of God's wrath against sinners who are law breakers, nothing of depravity, nothing of hell, complete failure to understand the function of the Mosaic law, all of which lead up to the gross distortion of penal substitution and the historic understanding of imputation. It is a telling sign that Wright's understanding of justification has influenced numerous evangelicals to do the unthinkable and "come home to Rome". In fact Wright has an amazing knack of missing what a plain reading of Scripture reveals. He denies the major problem in Galatians was that they were adding works to the Gospel or teaching works rightoeusness:

the tradition of Pauline interpretation has manufactured a false Paul by manufacturing a false Judaism for him to oppose (The Paul of History p78).

It is blindingly obvious when you read Romans and Galatians that virtually whenever Paul talks about justification he does so in the context of a critique of Judaism and of the coming together of Jew and Gentile in Christ. As an exegete determined to listen to scripture rather than abstract my favourite bits from it I cannot ignore this. The only notice that most mainstream theology has taken of this context is to assume that the Jews were guilty of the kind of works-righteousness of which theologians from Augustine to Calvin and beyond have criticised their opponents; and, though Sanders’s account of Judaism needs a lot more nuancing, I regard the New Perspective’s challenge to this point as more or less established. What I miss entirely in the Old Perspective, but find so powerfully in some modern Pauline scholarship, is Paul’s sense of an underlying narrative, the story of God and Israel, God and Abraham, God and the covenant people, and the way in which that story came to its climax, as he says, ‘when the time had fully come’ with the coming of Jesus the Messiah. How all this works out is still very controversial within the New Perspective. But at these points, for good exegetical and historical reasons, I find myself saying Here I Stand (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm).

Here I stand???? What Romans and Galatians was he reading? The reformed understanding is the plain reading.

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; (Romans 9:31-32)

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2:11-21)

One can only speculate as to why or how they (new perspective on Paul folks) would arrive at their conclusion. Possibly an attempt to avoid potential anti-semitism objections??? Everything unravels around this as seen by Wright's failure to recognize the law as a schoolmaster - I cannot find him writing on it anywhere. This is backed up by the critique of Wright's book "Simply Christian" over at the 9 Marks website:

In his zeal to avoid the "Old Perspective on Paul," Wright has missed a full, rich discussion of the power of the cross of Jesus Christ. The pale "exhausted the powers of evil" is too vague, and seems untrue, because Wright also avoids strong discussion of personal evil as exposed by the Law of God. The omission of talk about personal sin, repentance and Judgment Day necessarily follows from the previous discussion. If the Law is not meant to stand as a judge over our personal behavior, then our sin remains as indistinct and vague as the "powers of evil" Wright speaks so much of. Scripture is not so vague: everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).

This is not a case of seeing the forest but not seeing the trees. Wright continually sees neither the trees nor the forest. Wright continually drags out oblique revelations from reading through his rabbinical filter but misses so much obvious fundamental truth. "Simply Christian" misses the mark on many other levels and is disgraceful. 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).

To be continued on Monday where we'll look at NT Wright's view on Penal Substitutionary Atonement and his endoresement of the controversial book "The Lost Message of Jesus".

Go On To Part 2

REFORMATION RESURRECTION 2010

Click Here To Check Out Our 2011 Conference


WHEN:
Wednesday July 7th through to Saturday July 10th 2010.

WHERE:
Hedemølle Boarding School
Hedemøllevej 31
8850 Bjerringbro
Denmark
(pictured to the right, scroll down to view an online map)

PRICE:
Prices include all food and accomodation.
Adults: 700 Danish Kroner (124 USD, 94 EUR, 82 GBP)
Students: 400 Danish Kroner ( 71 USD, 54 EUR, 47 GBP)
Ages 0-6: 150 Danish Kroner ( 27 USD, 20 EUR, 18 GBP)
Ages 7-14: 300 Danish Kroner ( 53 USD, 40 EUR, 35 GBP)
Ages 15-20: 400 Danish Kroner ( 71 USD, 54 EUR, 47 GBP)

SUBJECTS:
At Reformation Resurrection 2010, Dr. Peter Hammond will be teaching in subjects including the doctrine of justification, evangelism, biblical manhood and biblical womanhood, the Lord's day, and recount inspiring stories of the reformers themselves. Please don't miss this rare opportunity to be exposed to teaching and training of such high quality, biblical soundness, and fervent passion.

LANGUAGE:
All preaching and teaching for the duration of the conference will be in english. Some translation will be available.

CONTACT:
For further information and travel advice please e-mail
Henrik Mortensen
henrik.m@postkasse.net

The Tilbage Til Bibelen (Back to Scripture) network of Denmark is proud to present Reformation Resurrection 2010. Reformation Resurrection 2010 is a four day conference in the Danish countryside devoted to the furtherance of the Gospel in Europe and around the world. There is a lot of talk today about "new reformations" with new solutions to new problems. But we face the same problem today that we did 500 years ago - the pulpits of Europe have abandoned the Gospel. Reformation Resurrection 2010 is a rallying cry to the same solution that the reformers risked their lives to proclaim. That sinful men can be justified before a Holy God by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. And that this truth is faithfully proclaimed in God's Word alone, and to God's glory alone. The reformation isn't over - it just needs new life breathed into old truth. Men and women who are not ashamed of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, the power of God unto salvation. Will you forsake the silence to join with us and be a voice in resurrecting the Reformation?

Europe has an amazing heritage of godly men and women who risked their lives for the proclamation of the Gospel and the preservation of the Bible. Thus it is entirely appropriate that this years guest speaker is no stranger to risking his life for the cause of Jesus Christ. Dr. Peter Hammond is a rare and diverse creature indeed. Trained as a soldier, educated as a historian and theologian, Dr. Hammond has been at the forefront of taking the Gospel into some of the most hostile places in Africa and around the world. It is no coincidence that the Sudanese government has a death warrant on this man when he repeatedly risks his life by travelling into the warzone of this hostile Islamic regime with the call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. He has been stabbed, shot at, bombed, and tortured all for the sake of the message he preaches. Dr. Hammond is also an historian of the highest order having written books on subjects like the Crusades, Inquisition, and of course the Reformation.

Click here to view Dr. Hammonds CV.
Click here to watch a short interview of Dr. Hammond on "Wretched TV".
Click here to listen to Todd Friel interview Dr. Hammond.
Click here to download some of Dr. Hammond's sermons.

Below you can view an online map of the campsite:


View Larger Map

The Matthew 25 Network v Matthew 25

I was reading through Matthew 25 yesterday during the gathering of our fellowship and I was reminded of the social gospel/political activism "ministry" called "The matthew 25 Network" which was pioneered by Brian McLaren. The Matthew 25 network came to my attention in September of 2008 with my post The Lie Of The Social Gospel. Brian McLaren used the money of donors to fund political advertisements in support of radical pro-abortionist Barack Obama. The hypocrisy of McLaren is staggering enough considering his years of pontificating against conservative Christians for their political involvement. But as I read through the 25th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, I was staggered between how far removed it was from the agenda outlined on the Matthew 25 Network mission statement:

We are a community of Christians from diverse paths gathering in response to the words and acts of Christ. We humbly seek to love and care for all our neighbors.

Government policies and the election of our public officials reflect our core values. As citizens we recognize our responsibility to partake in and affect our national and global community through our government. We believe people of faith and good will should actively engage in the political process as advocates for social justice.

We engage the world as it is and hope for the world as it ought to be, working to strengthen families, to see the dignity in all, to conserve God’s creation, and to seek peace and justice at home and abroad – unabashedly advocating for the least of these.

The Matthew 25 Network identifies their main issues as health care, immigration reform, prison reform, "abortion reduction" (can you smell what that is code for), environmentalism, domestic poverty, rural investment, inner city investment, foreign aid, and civil rights. And what does this have to do with Matthew 25? Good question!

The first part of Matthew 25 (verses 1 to 13) is the parable of the ten virgins which warns us to be ready for Christ's second coming in any event. However, you will find nothing on the Matthew 25 Network about Christ's second coming. Perhaps this is because McLaren doesn't even believe in the "ten virgin" warning:

The phrase “the Second Coming of Christ” never actually appears in the Bible. Whether or not the doctrine to which the phrase refers deserves re-thinking, a popular abuse of it certainly needs to be named and rejected. If we believe that Jesus came in peace the first time, but that wasn’t his “real” and decisive coming - it was just a kind of warm-up for the real thing - then we leave the door open to envisioning a second coming that will be characterized by violence, killing, domination, and eternal torture. This vision reflects a diversion, a return to trust in the power of Pilate, not the unarmed truth that stood before Pilate, refusing to fight...

If we remain charmed by this kind of eschatology, we will be forced to see the nonviolence of the Jesus of the Gospels as a kind of strategic fake-out, like a feigned retreat in war, to be followed up by a crushing blow of so-called redemptive violence in the end. The gentle Jesus of the first coming becomes a kind of trick Jesus, a fake-me-out Messiah, to be replaced by the true jihadist Jesus of a violent second coming.

This is why I believe that many of our current eschatologies, intoxicated by dubious interpretations of John’s Apocalypse are not only ignorant and wrong, but dangerous and immoral.” (page 144, Everything Must Change).

Don't you just wish McLaren could be a little more succinct in articulating his denials of established Christian teaching? Anyway, the disconnect between the Matthew 25 Network and the Matthew 25 of Scripture doesn't end there.

Following on in Matthew 25 we come to the "parable of the talents" (verses 14 to 30)before closing with the terrifying account of God separating the sheep (true converts) from the goats (false converts) (verses 31 to 46). Both the parable of talents and God's separation of the sheep and the goats contain overwhelming warnings of eternal damnation. Again, the subject of hell is an absent subject on The Matthew 25 Network. The irony is staggering.

Surprise, surprise, Brian McLaren is not a big fan of the doctrine of hell . . .



The Matthew 25 Network should consider naming themselves after another chapter in the Bible like . . . actually I can't think of one that describes their agenda.