Author Archives: Peter Kirk

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 →

More from Packer on the Atonement

Posted on by
Reply

J.I. Packer has re-entered the atonement debate with an article written for UCCF, and published in full by Reformation21. Martin Downes quotes extensively from it; thanks to Justin Taylor for the tip.

UPDATE: No surprise that Adrian Warnock was also quick to post the full text of this article, on his blog which is now at this new location. Adrian’s post also includes an article by Richard Cunningham, which I will comment on separately.

Packer presents the same view of the atonement as in his 1973 lecture, which I discussed at length here; indeed, Packer quotes from this lecture and reaffirms what he wrote then.

Continue reading →

Does the risen Jesus have blood?

Posted on by
34

This is the somewhat arcane question which has been raised on the b-trans e-mail list, and is also related to my post on Hebrews 2:14 at Better Bibles Blog and to Lingamish’s response to that post.

The discussion started when I objected to a proposed rendering “mortal humanity” in Hebrews 2:14, to replace or refer back to the literal “flesh and blood”. My issue was that “flesh and blood” refers to humanity in general, not just to mortal humanity but also to the resurrection bodies which Jesus has and which we will have. But I was surprised that my suggestion proved so controversial. Here I hope to show that Jesus’ resurrection body has blood, and that this is important for our salvation.

Continue reading →

Meeting Tim Chesterton and Paul Trathen

Posted on by
Reply

It has been good to meet my fellow bloggers Tim Chesterton and (rather briefly) Paul Trathen. I don’t think I have mentioned Paul here before; his blog is called the journey home. I have mentioned Tim’s blog An Anabaptist Anglican, but perhaps not his other blog Tale Spin which is more about his music and his story-telling. Tim is an Anglican pastor in Edmonton, Canada, but originally from here in Essex. Paul is also an Anglican priest, but still is here in Essex.

Continue reading →