Monthly Archives: July 2007

Tablet confirms Bible character

Posted on by
Reply

The Times and the Telegraph have nicely complementary reports of the discovery of the name of a minor Bible character, from the book of Jeremiah, on a cuneiform tablet from ancient Babylon. I have written about this here and here. Details like this are a strong indication that the book of Jeremiah is a genuine eye witness account of events; they are extremely hard to explain on the currently popular “minimalist” models, according to which all of the Old Testament was written centuries later, in Hellenistic times. This may also indicate what happened to the gold from the temple in Jerusalem: dedicated to the great temple in Babylon.

The least effective form of evangelism

Posted on by
Reply

Quote from Dave Walker’s The Cartoon Blog:

I have found that evangelism is probably the least effective form of evangelism.

If that doesn’t make sense to you, this is how he continues:

If you want to communicate your faith to someone else the best way to do it is not to try.

I’m not sure that I quite agree, but I certainly understand his point! So I will not call this an evangelistic blog, even if the Christian Blogging Awards might classify it as such.

Dave continues:

The fact that someone does not evangelise on their blog could mean that they are not really interested in evangelising, or it could mean that they are evangelising using a non-evangelising method.

Neither of these, Dave. I am interested in evangelising, and it would be great if this blog had that effect (although somewhat surprising given its subject matter), but I am not using any method, not even a non-evangelising one. I mainly discuss Christian and theological matters because that is the purpose of this blog. I aim to do so in a way accessible to all, not as part of a method, but because this is respectful and (hopefully) as an example to Christians of how to talk about their faith without using impenetrable jargon.

Dave asked:

If you have been converted to Christianity by this post please say so in the comments.

I would say the same (!) but would also add that if you read this blog regularly but are not a Christian please also say so in the comments, as I would like to write things which are relevant to my readers.

ElShaddai and me

Posted on by
Reply

ElShaddai Edwards writes Yes, that’s really my name…, with some interesting reflections on what it is like to live with a name of God as one’s first name. He seems daunted by the special responsibility this gives him.

I can understand a little of what ElShaddai means. I was given the name of the leader of the apostles (although perhaps more because it was a traditional name in my father’s family), which is well known to mean “rock”. And my surname effectively means “the Lord’s”; “kirk” is northern English dialect for “church”, from Greek kuriakos “belonging to the lord”. So I feel the responsibility to be the Lord’s rock in all that I say or do, especially in Christian ministry, and on this blog which I consider to be part of that ministry.

ElShaddai is right to quote

The warning that “not many should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1, HCSB) …

But this applies to all of us in Christian ministry, not just to him, not even especially to him. None of us can be confident in ourselves that what we do will not “be tragically misused for [our] personal gain and selfish heart”; we have to continue to walk with Christ and trust him to keep our hearts on the right path. And we all know times when we have failed, and need to repent and be restored. But the awareness ElShaddai has of his own weakness is perhaps the best safeguard he can have that he can succeed in Christian ministry. I too am aware of many times when I have failed and of my continuing weakness. I hope and pray that I may continue to have this awareness, but I won’t let it stop me moving on into whatever ministry God is calling me to.

PS doesn't matter: hyperbole or understatement?

Posted on by
7

Lingamish, in a comment, is relieved to read that Penal Substitution just doesn’t matter. Well, in comments on his new lingalinga blog he and I were just discussing hyperbole, which he calls “my default discourse register”; I wrote

We Brits, maybe the Kiwis too, go in more for understatement.

to which he replied

Understatement on the Internet works about as well as whispering in a train station.

Maybe. Well, the Kiwi I had in mind in the above quote was not our friend Andrew, and as I can’t read his mind I’m not sure quite how literally he intended anyone to take his post Why PS just doesn’t matter. But for me, affirming what Andrew wrote was in fact a touch of hyperbole. Or is a hyperbolic statement of something negative, like this one, in fact understatement? Of course what I wrote, and probably what Andrew wrote, was intended as a reaction to the hype (this word is surely an abbreviation of “hyperbole”) about Steve Chalke’s comments and about Pierced for Our Transgressions.

Let me clarify my position. I do affirm and believe in the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, as defined for example by JI Packer in a clearly Trinitarian way, as one proper and valid description of the atonement. But this doctrine seems to be largely a theoretical one, with no practical consequences, as long as the character of God is not demeaned by presentations with connotations of pagan child sacrifice. It is not central to my faith or to my understanding of it. I am happy for theologians to debate this doctrine, as long as they heed Packer’s point that “there is here an element of transcendent mystery” and avoid presuming to tie down God’s work with detailed formulations. But these are matters for the experts, not for everyday teaching in churches, and still less for initial presentations of the Gospel to unbelievers.

In a comment here, in response to one of mine, Iyov asked:

Hmm, which is the more important doctrine in Christian thought: Junia or atonement. Tough one.

A tough one indeed! Of course the atonement has been discussed more through the ages. However, decisions on practical issues for the church, whether one accepts women in leadership, depend on a proper understanding of Junia in Romans 16:7; see the more than 30 postings about this at Better Bibles Blog. But what are the practical consequences of a precise understanding of the atonement? None, as far as I can see, except for ones artificially imposed by those who set up a particular doctrine of the atonement as a touchstone for unity.

So let’s cut the hype and move on to some understatement about penal substitutionary atonement.

Adrian claims at last to have finished his series on the atonement. We shall see if this really is the end. If so, I expect to bring my discussion of this issue to a gradual end, although I do intend to look at the second part of Reuben’s review of Pierced for Our Transgressions, and I also plan to read and review Norman McIlwain’s book The Biblical Revelation of the Cross, of which he kindly sent me a copy.

Fullness of redemption is found in Jesus Christ

Posted on by
Reply

Iyov takes to task the Catholic priest and blogger Richard John Neuhaus for writing

Of course some Jews may be offended at the suggestion that the fullness of redemption is found in Jesus Christ, but their problem is with Christianity as such.

Neuhaus writes this in the context of the debate over the Roman Catholic Church again allowing the old Latin Mass, a debate which I do not intend to enter. The problem is that this Latin Mass includes prayers for the conversion of the Jews, as I discussed a few days ago – although, as Neuhaus points out, in the newly permitted version the Jews are not called “perfidious”. Now Neuhaus seems to believe as I do, that it is normal and natural for Christians to hold that Christianity is the most perfect religion, and would expect adherents of other religions to claim that for their religion. If we don’t believe things like this, if we insist that we have to believe that all religions are equal, we get into the kind of mess of the Anglican priest who has become a Muslim, a situation which Iyov rightly deplores, although with confusing terminology. If we want proper dialogue between religions, this has to start with what we actually believe, not from a version watered down to be supposedly more acceptable.

From the very beginning of the church the apostles and their followers have fearlessly proclaimed to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles that

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.

(Acts 4:12, TNIV)

Jesus Christ is presented in the Bible as the only way of salvation, and faithful Christians like Father Neuhaus and myself insist on the right to proclaim this. Others may not like it, but we let them make similar uniqueness claims for their own religion or atheism. But let us not allow a phony idea of political correctness or the threats of the Anti-Defamation League to muzzle our proclamation of Christian truth.

Penal Substitution just doesn't matter …

Posted on by
Reply

… or so argues Theo Geek Andrew. In apparent response to others insisting that this doctrine is central to all Christian theology and almost if not absolutely a condition for salvation, Andrew argues:

the exact consequences to us and experiences of a penal substitutionary system seem to be able to be replicated without all the penal substitutionary doctrines being there. …

PS in my estimation seems to come pretty close to being functionally equivalent to a theology that contains no PS. The implication of this is that it is not an important doctrine. It might be true, but it isn’t important that it’s true. It’s truth does not have effects on our lives that are any different to the effects its falsity would have on our lives. …

I do not think it can be validly claimed that PS is an important or central doctrine within the Christian faith, when it can be so easily in theory and practice swapped-out for other ideas. … The difference between “a God who is loving and forgives sins out of love” and “a God who demands justice be repaid but removes this need from himself by Jesus and thus forgives sins out of love” lies only in the semantics, logic and character of God depicted within this statements and not at all in the resultant functionality of these two doctrines or how they relate to our everyday experience of life.

Thanks, Andrew, for putting this matter in its proper perspective.

Kiwis respond to "Pierced for Our Transgressions"

Posted on by
Reply

I posted earlier about Reuben and Andrew’s initial reactions from New Zealand to the book Pierced for Our Transgressions.

Since then Andrew has posted seven times in response to this book: his first impressions; on the word hilasterion; on penal substitution in the early church; on a comparison with the Ransom from Satan model; and on the views of the atonement of Gregory Nazianzus, Athanasius, and Anselm and Aquinas – all these in just three days! He has certainly been busy, and is justifying his blog name Theo Geek. All very worthwhile background material, showing how one-sided is the evidence presented in the book.

And now his flatmate Reuben, a generally much less prolific blogger at Notions Incognito, has posted the first part of his full review of Pierced for Our Transgressions. The conclusion he comes to from chapter 2 is that there is indeed reasonable biblical evidence for the doctrine of penal substitution, but that this is much less widespread and certain than the authors claim, and there is no proper basis for their insistence that it is a central theme throughout the Bible. He also notes, concerning chapters 2 and 3, that they have “omitted all views and doctrines which do not fit with PS”; so effectively they presuppose rather than argue their point that “it is the foundation of all Christian theology”. His notes on chapter 5 reflect and summarise (but do not reference) what Andrew has written about the history of the doctrine. Reuben rounds up his review of Part I by agreeing with NT Wright’s assessment that the book is “deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical.”

I look forward to the forthcoming second part of this review.

Andrew and Reuben are certainly getting value for money out of their shared copy of the book!

lingalinga

Posted on by
Reply

Lingamish has started a new blog lingalinga for his more techie posts, to add to his well known Lingamish blog and no less than eight others! He even more or less admits that he is doing this simply to keep ahead of me in the Technorati rankings – as if I really care about such things! (If I did, I wouldn’t give him so many links in one post.)

He asks me not to comment on his latest post but to write my own post instead. His wish is my command, in this at least. He probably can’t comment here because of my very necessary anti-spam measures, even though I am not using Blogger. But I am happy for him, or any of you, to respond to my posts on your own blogs; just make sure you send me a pingback (automatic on most systems but not all), or e-mail peter AT qaya DOT org, so that I know that you have commented.

Cunningham: God does forgive

Posted on by
Reply

Sorry to keep on about the atonement, but this is important …

Previously I reported that Richard Cunningham, Director of UCCF, said that “God never forgives”, or “God doesn’t forgive sin”. I am pleased to report, courtesy of Adrian who has posted an article by him, that Cunningham now seems to have gone back on those words. For now he writes:

Forgiveness only becomes possible if God in Christ is punished for our sin and thus manages to satisfy (propitiate) God’s wrath towards human wickedness.

Presumably these printed words are to be understood as more authoritative than his words in a sermon, variously reported and not given in their full context. Since Cunningham does seem to believe in some kind of forgiveness of sins, I can now retract my accusation of heresy. I would like to apologise for the misunderstanding.

But what are we to make of this new version of Cunningham’s thinking?

Continue reading →