tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74429032024-03-24T06:49:34.816+13:00Notions IncognitoThoughts about life and Christianity.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-34179811736448127582011-03-13T08:17:00.008+13:002011-03-13T08:32:12.708+13:00Moral Transformation is now Published!It's taken 6 years, but it's finally published!<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Transformation-Original-Christian-Salvation/dp/1456389807/"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGSTv9oXxMVkFKZDuZ5WcdrDNY7m87W01Bc1WI64YFKZBs3FiK8jywpIb39qx3GmDhUnW_zhdLHxEwvmcFqIy0zCgZrZP5cTqPP-L3YBtdsImhutT8ZsLK5WL0Eq99nLw_SvwCWA/s400/Moral+Transformation.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5583278416111404098" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Transformation-Original-Christian-Salvation/dp/1456389807/"><br /></a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Transformation-Original-Christian-Salvation/dp/1456389807/">http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Transformation-Original-Christian-Salvation/dp/1456389807/</a><br /><br />Here's a little blurb about it copied from the back cover:<br /><br /><blockquote>Recent scholarship has challenged post-Reformation ideas about the early Christian doctrines of salvation. This ground-breaking book draws together the conclusions of recent scholarship into a compelling and clear view of the early Christian paradigm of salvation. It presents the case that the early Christians focussed not on Christ's death on the cross or 'saving faith', but on moral transformation. They saw Jesus as God's appointed teacher, prophet, and leader, who died as a martyr in order to teach them a new way of life. Their paradigm of salvation centred upon this way of life taught by Jesus, and on following faithfully his example and teachings.<br /><br /><b>Part 1: How the Gospels present Jesus </b>explores the way in which the early Christians understood the teaching of Jesus. It highlights five themes of Jesus' message: economics and wealth, moral purity, social equality, the temple system, and physical and spiritual affliction. It shows why people viewed Jesus as a divinely appointed teacher, prophet, and leader, and saw his death as a martyrdom for his cause and movement.<br /><br /><b>Part 2: Doctrines of the early Christians</b> presents the key early Christian doctrines of salvation and shows why several post-Reformation doctrines conflict with their views. It shows that the early Christians believed God's final judgment is made on the basis of character and conduct. They believed that by following Jesus and transforming their lives morally, they would obtain positive judgment and resurrection. This part shows how the early Christians' ideas of faith, justification, forgiveness and grace all fit into this paradigm.<br /><br /><b>Part 3: The importance of Jesus</b> looks at why the early Christians considered Jesus so significant; they focussed on the moral transformation he brought to their lives. This part highlights what they believed Jesus achieved for them, and how they used sacrificial language to explain these beliefs. It explores the evidence for viewing Jesus' death as a martyrdom, and for seeing his resurrection as equally important.<br /><br /><b>Part 4: Ideas throughout history</b> shows that Christians held this paradigm of salvation for several centuries. It outlines the key changes that occurred from the 4th century through to the Reformation, which moved tradition away from the early Christian ideas. Finally, it offers a critique of modern post-Reformation doctrines of salvation. </blockquote><br />We're currently trying to spread the word about this book. So, please spread the word!Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-75893118584592288102008-07-08T22:09:00.002+12:002008-07-08T22:13:13.932+12:00The forestUnder the rustling ferns and bushes<br />Lies green moss, dripping with winter dew.<br />Woody roots dig silently below, concealing their strength<br />With seasons of autumn leaves that keep their secret.<br />Happy earthworms devour the mulch of browns and greys<br />In which the mushrooms grow.<br />If you listen carefully, you might hear the earthworms eating.<br />Beneath them lies the soil of ages past,<br />Dark and still, visited only by the roots of tallest trees.<br />The soil knows nothing of the chirping forest above,<br />That leaf by leaf it fed.<br />Down there, amid the rocks and clay, forgotten,<br /> lies who I used to be.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-68336150242072272622008-07-06T21:32:00.004+12:002008-07-06T22:07:17.986+12:00Fundamental differences between early Christianity and modern ChristianityAs I've been trying to write an introduction for a nearly completed book on early Christianity, I've been trying to figure out the best way to break to people the news that there are fundamental differences between early Christianity and modern Christianity. These differences are surprising, even shocking, but are not easily recognized by many Christians today.<br /><br />Of course, whatever people think about the idea that such differences exist, it won't change what the early Christians believed. So if they happened to believe a set of doctrines that were indeed different, then not even the strongest of opinions or the loudest of objections will change that fact. Now nearing the completion of a book outlining early Christianity, I think there is so much evidence that their doctrines were substantially different that it is very difficult to see how this could not be the case. The problem is that the news that early Christian doctrines were very different is an uncomfortable one for many Christians today.<br /><br />I can't think of any way I can make this news more comfortable for Christians. This is especially true for older Christians, who have invested decades of their lives and identities in doctrines that the early Christians simply didn't believe. The idea that the doctrines they had built so many years of their lives on arose not with Jesus but many centuries after him would surely be a hard pill to swallow.<br /><br />One thing that may make the news more tolerable is that it fits better with current trends that emphasize social action and responsibility. I was thinking about this last Sunday, when the sermon so passionately related Jesus' concern for the poor and underprivileged. It was followed by some songs about theology that struck me as completely disconnected from such a message. At least the early Christian doctrines were, in this sense, quite modern.<br /><br />Perhaps I don't need to worry about making the news less uncomfortable for modern Christians. It's hardly a new thing to be saying. Countless people who have pointed it out in the past have been largely ignored by the general Christian population. This news won't make people uncomfortable if they ignore it. Even if they take heed, it is not my job in life to make other people feel comfortable.<br /><br />Yet in the case of the book I'm co-authoring, it is important, since I hope that some people will take the time to read it. How they react to such news might affect how they read the book, and how they feel about their own faith once they have. So does anyone have any ideas on how I could best let people know that there are major differences between early and modern Christianity?Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-75748848185685709452008-06-03T19:39:00.006+12:002008-06-03T20:31:14.567+12:00Paul's view of graceApparently, there are still some people reading my blog out there. So here's my theological thought of the day.<br /><br />I was doing some writing on the topic of justification today, and I noticed something about the times Paul says we're justified by grace through faith. Here are the passages I have in mind, which I'll abridge to highlight what I noticed:<br /><br /><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">22</sup><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rom 3:21-30:<br /></span><blockquote>But now, irrespective of law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed... the righteousness of God through faithfulness to Jesus Christ<a href="javascript:void(0);" onmouseover="" class="thinspace"><em></em><sup style="display: none;" class="fnote">*</sup></a><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">23</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">24</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">25</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">28</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">29</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">30</sup> for <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">all </span>who believe. For <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">there is no distinction</span>... <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">they are now justified by his grace as a gift</span>, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus... Then what becomes of boasting [of being Jewish]? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faithfulness. For we hold that a person is justified by faithfulness apart from works prescribed by the Torah. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also</span><span style="font-style: italic;">,</span> since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faithfulness and the uncircumcised through that same faithfulness.</blockquote><br /><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">14</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">15</sup><span style="display: none;" class="vv">16</span><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">17</sup><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Rom 4:13-16: </span><br /><blockquote>For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the Torah but through the righteousness of faith. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">If it is [only] the adherents of the Torah who are to be the heirs, faithfulness is null and the promise is void</span>... For this reason it depends on faithfulness, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">not only to the adherents of the Torah but also to those who share the faithfulness of Abraham</span>...<br /><br /></blockquote><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">2</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">3</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">4</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">5</sup><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Eph 2:1-16: </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"><br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">You [Gentiles] </span>were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived... But God, who is rich in mercy... <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">made us alive together </span>with Christ<a href="javascript:void(0);" onmouseover=""><sup style="display: none;" class="fnote">*</sup></a><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">6</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">7</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">8</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">9</sup><sup style="display: none;" class="ww">10</sup>—by grace you have been saved— and raised <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">us</span> up with him and seated <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">us </span>with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness towards <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">us </span>in Christ Jesus. For by grace <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">you </span>have been saved through faithfulness, and this [grace] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">not the result of works [of the Torah], so that no one may boast [because of their Jewishness - see </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Rom 3:21-30]</span>... So then, remember that at one time <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">you Gentiles by birth</span><a style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" href="javascript:void(0);" onmouseover="" class="thinspace"><em></em></a><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">... were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise</span>, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, so that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body</span><a style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" href="javascript:void(0);" onmouseover="" class="thinspace"> <em></em></a><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.</span></blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"><br /></span><span><br />What I noticed is this: Paul speaks of being justified by grace through faithfulness <span style="font-style: italic;">in the context of emphasizing that God accepts Gentiles as his people</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">too</span>. The common Jewish belief at the turn of the first century was that only Jews were God's people, and that Gentiles could not be - as least without fully following the Jewish way of life, their Torah. Following Jesus, though, Paul says that God will not judge people based on their Jewishness but based on whether they are faithful to live in a godly way like Jesus taught and exemplified. Paul saw the highly controversial implication - people who did not follow the Torah could be considered righteous by God. In other words, God did not limit his favour (aka. "grace") to the Jews, but also extended it to the Gentiles. This is why Paul talks of grace in the context of justification and the inclusion of the Gentiles as people whom God considers righteous.<br /><br />For Paul, the boundless favour of both God and Jesus was evident in the activity of Jesus, who revealed a way for both Jews and Gentiles to be saved <span style="font-style: italic;">from sinfulness</span>, and thus be considered righteous before God. </span><span>I do not have time here to explain why I have emphasised that this salvation was from sinfulness, as opposed to something else. (Perhaps that is the topic of another post.) </span><span>It was truly gracious of God to commission Jesus to save sinful Jews from their unrighteousness, but this grace even extended to Gentiles also. The inclusiveness of God's grace was the point that Paul laboured, and the very issue that got him in so much trouble with the Jews who zealously protected their exclusive claim as God's people.<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"><br /></span>Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-63644520499278797782008-06-01T21:44:00.003+12:002008-06-01T21:48:20.418+12:00Who's still reading my blog?It just dawned on me that my blog is over 4 years old. That's a long time. It's captured many of my ponderings, and as I look back on it I think it captures many of the ways I've grown in the last 4 years. I've been pondering the idea of breathing some life into my blog once again, but there wouldn't be any point if no one reads it.<br /><br />So, is there anyone out there who still reads my blog? Or, has it come time for my blog to be no more?Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-84463503013960203462008-04-07T07:09:00.001+12:002008-04-07T07:11:12.616+12:00StonesOh curse this heart of a thousand stones<br />And find a home to grow alone<br />A heart of more than flesh and bones<br />And things I can’t imagine.<br /><br />For every smile upon my face<br />Is laced with bitterness and hate<br />Of things I cannot change,<br />And things I cannot fathom.<br /><br />I was a pawn in the hands of fate,<br />Picked and placed without a way<br />To break the chains of my skin.<br />Now I sit again stagnating<br />With pen and hand and heart still shaking<br />Upon the path my soul is taking<br />Or being taken from.<br /><br />Yet I will find a way to grow<br />More hope along this narrow road,<br />Load my heart with brighter tones<br />And throw away the stones.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-84416290731314971052008-02-20T17:11:00.007+13:002008-02-20T21:15:51.496+13:00God™<div>It seems to me that a Relationship with God™ has for many Christians come to serve as a convenient psychological panacea for all of the deep issues people struggle with, which promotes not a healthy maturity but an infantile dependence. Let me explain...<br /><br />Without God, Christians say, you won't be able to live with any purpose, meaning, or significance. You'd be just a seething mass of proteins slithering toward oblivion. Without God, you'll feel empty inside in the God-Shaped Hole™ in your heart. Unless you've got an active relationship with him through prayer you'll never be able to find a car park when you need one, a great job that perfectly suits you, or a house that's just what you were hoping for. Nothing in your life will fall into place smoothly, since God reserves that sort of Blessing™ for Christians and gives non-Christians Wrath™. You'll feel unhappy and incomplete without God, and never be able to mature as a person without having him Work in You™ and knowing his Perfect Plan™. And in case you're looking for why, he is The Reason™.<br /><br />The problem with selling God and the full God product line like this is that these claims are untrue. Just because God had an intention in creating us it doesn't give us purpose. He could have made you to be a paperweight, but that wouldn't mean you'd get a warm fuzzy feeling whenever you stood on loose paper. Significance and purpose is something that comes from the nature of what people do. Being a paperweight is not as significant as saving a child from the clutches of fearsome death. Whether or not you were created to save children from angry bears doesn't have any bearing on how meaningful that act is. A person's sense of significance, meaning and purpose is determined from their mental map of the world - and for many people that map doesn't include God. Anything can feel significant, meaningful and purposeful if people deem it to be so, based on their values and ethical compass. People don't need God to tell them their True Purpose™ to live purposefully in positive ways that are meaningful and significant even by Christian standards.<br /><br />The God-Shaped Hole™ of unhappy incompleteness is a dangerously ambiguous name for the implacable but deeply felt shortcomings in people's lives. If people feel an emptiness in their life Christians all too quickly assume it's because they're disconnected from God rather than because they need to learn to build deeper friendships. If they're feeling depressed, they don't need to deal and resolve the underlying issues, they just need to rest in God's loving grace and allow Him to resolve it. In fact, you can adopt a very harmful mental map of the world, and think the problems in your life will all go away if you have a good Relationship with God™ without dealing with the actual reasons you are making your life into suffering.<br /><br />What I'm saying is that many Christians have a paradigm that prevents them from maturing into healthy people. Rather than addressing and leaning to competently deal with some of the deep issues in life, some Christians look to their personal Relationship with God™. I have learned that many of the issues I've discussed above are caused by poor mental maps of the world and patterns of thinking about life, and that these can be corrected through very down-to-earth means. Christians, though, seem to dismiss such ideas and instead misdiagnose the cause and cure of these kinds of problems as revolving around their Relationship with God™. A common Christian mindset is that we <span style="font-style: italic;">should be</span> dependent on God. We should not learn to stand on our own two psychological feet as mature and capable adults; instead we should learn to be as dependent on God as possible, because that's allegedly healthy. So it comes as no surprise to me that many Christians give away their own Relationship with God™ when after several years the reality dawns on them that it isn't a cure-all that will exempt them from having to deal with the issues of life like everyone else.<br /><br />So where does this little foray into the psychology of religious belief leave me, as someone who chooses to think that God does somehow exist and that he is benevolent towards us? Well, I can't help but think about the courageous examples of Christians who chose to serve others rather than be served by God. It is this kind of faith that inspires me, not religious consumerism. I think that's the kind of faith God wants too. As an analogy, I think about my biological parents. They are wise and helpful in many ways. But while I'm away from them I recognize that they want me to be strong and mature enough to live without needing them to feed me, clothe me, attend my every need and shelter me from real life. Rather, they want me to mature in a way that I too can deal with life and enjoy living as well as they can as I build friendships with those around me.<br /><br />That's how I think about God. I think he is able to help and sometimes does help me in ways that perhaps I don't have to understand, but I think he also wants me to be a mature human being who experiences the full depth of friendship with other human beings. He doesn't want to simply fill up the space in my God-Shaped Hole™; he wants my heart to grow big enough to fill it with the same kind of love and kindness that he has. He doesn't want me to think my life has purpose and meaning just because he says it does; he wants me to live purposefully as I learn to value the same things he values, and see significance and meaning in the same kind of things he sees as significant and meaningful. He doesn't want me to focus on what I get from a Relationship with Him™, but to serve others and be helped by them also in a loving community of people who recognize that love is precious not because God says so, but because it really is.<br /><br />I freely confess that I may consider myself too independent from God, perhaps like an adolescent who foolishly thinks he's old enough to look after himself. Perhaps I should pray for more Blessing™. Perhaps I should worship him more in case that's my True Purpose™ in life. Perhaps I should just learn to better comprehend his complete iWork™ package that is somehow operating somewhere in the background of my mind. But I would rather risk being too independent from God than being so immaturely dependent on him that I don't develop into the kind of person he'd want me to be. I'll let him give me the benefits of as many of his spiritual products as he'd like to give me while focusing instead on living in the way he would want me to. I'll follow Jesus' teachings and example, and those who have exemplified how to follow in his footsteps. I'll use all the tools I can find to become a mature and joyful person, even if they don't have his official trademark. And if he wants me to give him more attention in this life before I die, then he couldn't be more welcome to get it. Otherwise, I'll trust he is patient enough to wait until then.<br /></div>Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-85121206536560778392007-12-16T09:57:00.000+13:002007-12-18T21:13:19.466+13:00Confidence and credibility of biblical interpretationsWhat gives people confidence in how they understand the New Testament? Here are some approaches I've seen people use to gain confidence that their interpretations of Scripture are valid (and by extension, that their theological ideas are too) :<br /><ol><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Just "believe the Bible": </span>The bible doesn't need "interpretation". The important things are clear and cannot be misunderstood - so we can be confident that we understand key Scriptures correctly.<br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Listen to the Holy Spirit:</span> The meaning of Scripture is made clear to us through the working of the Holy Spirit as we read it, which gives us confidence about our interpretations. God wouldn't allow his Word to be misunderstood by those who listen to the Holy Spirit.<br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Follow tradition: </span>"Fifty-thousand Frenchmen can't be wrong", especially if they lived over the last few centuries. We can be confident of our interpretations if lots of other people have thought and still think the same thing.<br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">See what fits</span>: Learn how passages can be interpreted differently, and choose the way that best fits with the "big-picture". We can be confident of interpretations that fit the big picture, and can confidently reject alternatives that don't fit.<br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Comprehensively detailed research and reasoning: </span>Consider a range of big picture frameworks to see how each passage of Scripture can be interpreted within each one. Then assess the collective evidence of all Scriptures for each big picture to determine which one is best by using criteria like:</li><ol><li>Internal consistency with the whole of the text</li><li>External consistency with the socio-cultural context of the text</li><li>Explanatory power</li><li>Explanatory scope</li><li>Lack of being <span style="font-style: italic;">ad hoc</span></li></ol>The best big picture can then be used to identify the best interpretation of individual passages.</ol>Some combinations of these are possible, especially those involving revelation of the Holy Spirit and tradition. Each approach provides a different degree and quality of confidence in the interpretations they support, as I will try to explain.<br /><br />Bible-believing does not recognize the inevitable process of interpreting texts. As a result of this ignorance, people adopting this approach have high confidence that the way they have been taught to interpret Scripture is the right way. This often goes hand in hand with ignorance of alternative explanations and trust in the teacher's opinion. There is a place for trusting the opinions of more qualified people, but the validity of such opinions isn't determined by how much we trust them. To gauge the real credibility of views held through this method, we must understand the reasons behind the original interpretation. This approach thus leads us to look to other grounds for confidence.<br /><br />Revelation by the Holy Spirit provides the most confidence if it is authentic, but the least authoritative otherwise, because it would be an illegitimate claim to authority. History shows that people who have all claimed revelation by the Holy Spirit have held quite different interpretations of Scripture, which can be resolved by holding one of two options:<br /><ol><li>There is more than one legitimate meaning in the text. </li><li>One or more interpretations are not faithful to the intended meaning of the passage.</li></ol>The problem with the first way is that it leads to a very incoherent conflation of ideas that are often mutually exclusive. The problem with the second way is that it demonstrates that not all claims to divine revelation are valid. So if we want a coherent way to interpret Scripture, we need a method to determine whether or not the claim to a divinely reveled interpretation is valid - and that method obviously cannot rely on divine revelation. So this approach leads us to look further again.<br /><br />Following tradition provides no inherent grounds for credibility, as it is simply following other people. Yet people tend to be much more confident in their ideas if those around them are like-minded. There is some weight to the collective thought of many people, but the majority opinion can be wrong - and sometimes disastrously so. For this reason, the serious enquirer must investigate the origin and basis of the Scriptural interpretations themselves, and not simply assume that commonly held interpretations are well-founded.<br /><br />The fourth method of choosing what fits is at least more informed than the previous three. It is a common method, and one that gives people high confidence in their interpretations. Many who use this method are unaware of the implicit framework they use to assess the various interpretations, though. They may quite correctly discern what interpretations best fit their framework, but be ignorant of whether or not their presupposed framework is a good one or not. So what is needed is to assess not only how interpretations fit a given framework, but also the frameworks themselves.<br /><br />That is what the fifth approach does. This method weighs not only different interpretations, but it considers each within the range of possible frameworks. It looks at both the broad picture and the details to determine the best set of interpretations. Only scholars usually attempt this approach because it is very time consuming and difficult. It is made even less appealing to many because other methods allow people to feel more confident of their interpretations. This hard approach just doesn't suit Christians who want great confidence in their own beliefs without taking the time and effort to break out of their relative ignorance of other views.<br /><br />Yet can people justify having confidence in their interpretations if they don't understand the options nor take into account the possibility that they are wrong? They might think their interpretations were revealed by God, but what if they weren't? In-depth research and reasoning lessens both naive confidence and questionable claims of authority. Instead it fosters a richer and deeper kind of confidence that comes from a thorough research and careful consideration. This confidence may even be strengthened through the Holy Spirit and a knowledge of tradition, since it doesn't exclude these other approaches.<br /><br />It is for all these reasons that I think in-depth study provides far more credibility in interpreting the bible. I use the word "credibility" because confidence doesn't always correspond with the accuracy of ideas. Credible and thorough research and thought does lead to confidence, though, and I have found it to be a confidence that is far more able to weather the storms of debate. Having followed this last method for several years now, I have learned that it is important to discern the degree of authority held by others, and the degree of their in-depth study also makes a good gauge for this purpose. My opinion can be summarized simply: there is no better approach to interpreting the bible than comprehensively detailed research combined with sound reasoning, humility, and a commitment to follow Jesus.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-1464770764849299032007-12-13T21:33:00.000+13:002007-12-13T23:02:07.325+13:00Heretosis - dissent from "religion"In the churches I've attended all my life, I've often heard Christians claim that while Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on are "religions", Christianity is not. While many in the church often seem to agree that some Christians are tied up in "religion", most invariably think they themselves are not. Curious.<br /><br />Over the years my Faith has grown a great deal. The most amazing thing to me now is how much a lot of popular Christianity <span style="font-style: italic;">is </span>a religion. By religion, I essentially refer to buying into a mindset that subjugates common sense, reason and reality to "faith" in ideas that are not consistent with reason and reality. It seems to me that many Christians have crises of Faith during their lives because they notice this dissonance. There seem to be three ways people who face this deal with it.<br /> 1) They suppress it until a later life crises.<br /> 2) They give up their Faith.<br /> 3) They find ways to rationalize their Faith.<br /><br />But there are many approaches to rationalise one's Faith. Following Calvin and the Reformed tradition, many Christians would consider subjugating their beliefs to reasoning to be forsaking true "faith". So they adopt the kind of religious mindset I mentioned above, and change their reasoning to fit their Faith. Almost by definition, this approach of people seeking to resolve their faith crises in this way doesn't seem to truly resolve and discrepancies between reality and their Faith. Instead it drowns out those problems by other ideas and reasoning that fit their Faith, and hides them quietly under the carpet of ideas that are <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> problems because we just don't understand things as they <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> are. The reason I don't like that approach is that I've seen it make people unwittingly hold on to ideas that really don't help, and in some cases cause harm.<br /><br />The second way to reconcile one's Faith is to change it to fit common sense, reasoning and reality as best we can. Many Christians would see this as a process of becoming a heretic: a kind of "heretosis". It is heretosis precisely because it questions the accepted religious mindset with the aim of finding a faith that is consistent with our reasoning and experiences of reality. Care is needed, of course, because of course we don't know everything, and so a keen awareness of what's clear and what's uncertain is helpful.<br /><br />Fortunately for me, I've found other Christians who share my desire for a Faith that makes sense. I think they too share my distaste for "religion", and accept a kind of heretosis in discerning and holding less tightly some of the unhelpful traditions within popular Christian ideology. It seems we share the concept that instead of being "Christians" in a religious fairyland we can be people who follow Jesus in a very real and very down-to-earth way that makes a lot of sense.<br /><br />An unexpected effect of my dissent from religion, though, is that I've actually come to feel more comfortable discussing Jesus with non-Christians than I do with Christians. I can easily understand why now - to me following Jesus isn't about believing a whole lot of inconsistent and thus unconvincing ideas, but about living in a better way that makes a lot of sense and helping others to also.<br /><br />So where does that leave me? Various Christians think I am not one, which saddens me for several reasons - both personally, and because it highlights how quick Christians actually are to judge people because of their religious attitude. But I believe one can be a Christian without adopting a religious mindset, perhaps it's even better not to. I say that because many Church services leave me cringing and thinking of things Jesus said about people like the Scribes and Pharisees, perhaps that makes me a little judgmental too - perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly. Yet I hope for a new kind of Christianity that could be much more like the original than the popular modern version. I suppose I am a bit of a rebel. But then I think of how Jesus' was rejected and even hated by the religious authorities of his day and I see that perhaps I'm not such a rebel after all... and that in my heretosis from the mass-produced modern Christian <span style="font-style: italic;">religion</span>, I might be able to learn more orthodoxy and orthopraxy.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-45577975201417304142007-10-04T12:39:00.000+13:002007-10-04T12:41:53.852+13:00Things we can and cannot changeThere is a wise proverb: "We must accept what we cannot change." The hard thing is to figure out <em>what</em> we can change, <em>how</em> we can change it, and the way we <em>should</em> change it.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-48122025117439838832007-09-21T16:36:00.000+12:002007-09-21T17:10:24.124+12:00Important factors for Scriptural interpretation<div><div>It's amazing just how few Christians realise how small their set of particular scriptural and theological ideas are compared with the vast number of ideas that have been and are held by other Christians. I've been thinking about ways to help people understand the concept of other interpretations of Jesus and Scripture, and came up with the following diagram. Hopefully, it might also show how we can stand a much better chance of understanding Jesus if we understand what influences the interpretations of his ministry and person. </div><div> </div><div> </div><div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5112516242008575426" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixAlZ-oi_HXC2GaIZwYpdoJ2Celrr_umJZHe0pq-tPtppNW7-gCmkXvAAhyphenhypheni-seCtHbzhUiEspjhSEKhy6yRv6RxzfDlm-Y4G_km9r4IxjnFf79QuEX90-QzYU6ZP3bL-mBuDUjA/s400/development+of+interpretations.GIF" border="0" /></div><div> </div><div>Essentially, I think the NT authors interpreted Jesus in the context of their culture and their own inspiration and thought. So they wrote these interpretations down in the NT, which have now become Scripture. Later Christians have taken the NT writings, and interpreted them in the context of their own cultures and inspired thoughts. Each generation tends to take the ideas of previous Christians and interprets them in their own context. The problem with this recontextualisation is that if people aren't aware of this, they are inclined to misunderstand writings written in different cultural contexts. It is through many generations of such misunderstandings, I think, that several cherished doctrines exist today. In contrast, the best way to understand the NT authors, and ultimately Jesus, is to understand not only the culture that influences us now, but also the cultural context of the NT writers and Jesus. Understanding their cultural context helps us interpret what they say more accurately.<br /><br />However, it seems common for Christians these days to be aware of only a very small subset of the ideas held within the whole of Christendom, both past and present. So, I think it's very useful to dialogue with people who understand other ideas. Only when we have understand a range of interpretations do we really have any choice about how we understand Scripture. For this reason, I think I like to help give people more informed choices about how we understand Scripture by sharing other ideas with them. </div></div>Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-4203405093426863752007-09-20T22:03:00.000+12:002007-09-20T22:23:35.163+12:00Why people are more than biological machinesImagine a program which reprogrammed and developed its own programming based on inputted information. The original program could be quite simple – as simple as that first sentence, in fact. Yet very quickly the complexity of the program would exceed its initial complexity. This program would, in a way, be alive.<br /><br />This, I believe, is an appropriate analogy of the human mind. This effect is why I believe our thoughts can in some way transcend our biology. Our thoughts are not constrained by our DNA, our biology, and our physical environment because we are to greater or lesser extents <span style="font-style: italic;">metacognitive</span>. We think about how we think, and can change how we think accordingly – just like the above example of the self-programming program. We are an example of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_systems">complex adaptive systems</a> - and very complex ones at that.<br /><br />The reason I thought all that is because I’ve just heard that some people reduce thought and will to naturalistic, socio-biological phenomenological effects. The conclusion of such argumentation is that ethics and morality has evolved by socio-biological mechanisms, and that we are basically just biological zombies, robots, or animals. Because we are <span>metacognitive</span>, I believe our thoughts are not solely determined by biology and social phenomena. We are human, I think, precisely because we have this capacity to transcend the physicality of the atoms, proteins, cells and organs that make up our physical bodies. Instead, we can engage with ideas and thoughts which don’t exist in physical stuff – but which exist nonetheless. Perhaps even more amazingly, we can experience life consciously, rather than simply being biological machines with no self-awareness of our existence. Our cognitive processes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence">emerge </a>into a level above merely biological processes. In other words, I think that what it means to be human cannot be reduced to the atoms, proteins and biological processes in us. Recent advances in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI">artificial intelligence</a> (e.g. the controversial <a href="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4982">HTM</a>) do seem to provide support for the idea that intelligence can indeed emerge from complex adaptive systems composed of natural, physical components.<br /><br />We are somewhat like words – on a physical level, words are just markings on a page, but on another level, words convey meaning far beyond their physical nature. Another analogy would be one of Beethoven’s great pieces of music; on one level it can exist as written music, but it is not confined to that level of existence. It can be played and heard. It can be transcribed to other sheets of paper, and in doing so it transcends the physicality of the original written score. There are many examples of a system of physical or “natural” components creating more complexity than the sum of the physical components themselves. People, I think, are a very complex example of the same thing. And we are even more complex because we change our "program" based on the inputs we receive – both of physical things and of ideas that exist somehow beyond the physical realm.<br /><br />This, I think, is why being human is so wonderful.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-61614969039993049082007-09-19T21:06:00.000+12:002007-09-19T21:30:46.950+12:00Getting information vs learning wisdomI'm not very good at teaching. I fail, I think, precisely because I try to be too accurate in what I say. There's an example. As a consequence, I fear that what I write does little to help people but simply gives them reason to dislike me or my views.<br /><br />Trying to explain ideas precisely sometimes looses the whole gestalt of what's being explained. It would be like describing the Mona Lisa by a very accurate list of Cartesian coordinates and colours. It might be very accurate, but you miss the whole effect of the painting (a cool part of it, from memory, is how it appears she is always looking at you). It is much better to bring someone to the Mona Lisa so that they know the painting on more than just a level of factual information. <br /><br />Giving people facts and information sometimes doesn't really help them in the way they need to be helped. I think I'm about to begin considering opinions and even true statements in that category. People can learn more facts, but more facts don't necessarily make someone any wiser.<br /><br />I think I've placed far too much emphasis on trying to convey facts and information, and far too little on the skill of wisdom. I mean, if we knew all the facts and information in the world, what good would it do us? Facts cannot ever tell us how it is good to think. They cannot guide how we should interpret them and see the world. Facts are facts. Information is information. What I would like to do is not merely give people information, but to teach them wisdom. <br /><br />You'll notice, especially when I point it out, that I didn't say "give people wisdom". That's because wisdom is not something you can "give" like information. It's more like the skill of playing a piano, for example. I can play it for you, explain some useful concepts to help playing, and serve as a guide to help you learn - but you have to learn it. Just telling you things isn't what will ultimately get you to play the piano well. <br /><br />So, I see that on this blog especially, I've been basically trying to convey my ideas about things. Information... As if that is what would actually benefit people. I'm not sure such information is of much benefit to people. But helping people to be wise, that is something of great benefit to people. Perhaps I can learn not only more wisdom myself, but the wisdom of how to nurture wisdom in others too. Perhaps. I think I have much to learn... so to begin my learning, I will stop typing.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-18812572288068025862007-09-15T10:02:00.000+12:002007-09-15T10:15:27.419+12:00My summary of Reformed logic...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvDQ9u5mMLfG2GWT5SZ_aWGG7bwh5qgZas2VJUYpv9L0b-Wn4QURmFtb7hQK3eKeX_eQ_Vcw5kZX7yM9wNMUmS_AAQYHXEtg3MXYPSYTbA9xdhyphenhyphenwIa-cRwgUyKnfS8cDb55A-ksg/s1600-h/CircularReasoning.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvDQ9u5mMLfG2GWT5SZ_aWGG7bwh5qgZas2VJUYpv9L0b-Wn4QURmFtb7hQK3eKeX_eQ_Vcw5kZX7yM9wNMUmS_AAQYHXEtg3MXYPSYTbA9xdhyphenhyphenwIa-cRwgUyKnfS8cDb55A-ksg/s320/CircularReasoning.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5110185162547752338" /></a>Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-90466595565405749542007-09-14T17:44:00.001+12:002007-09-14T17:59:42.376+12:00Focussing on wants rather than opportunitiesI’m sick of wanting things. I want more free time. I want to be successful, liked, and funny. I want to fit in but somehow be respected and esteemed because I’m unique. I want to know more but not grow older. What don’t I want? Ironically, I don’t want this desire I have of wanting things. Wants are never fulfilled, because if they are, they become “haves” instead of “wants”. All wants ever do for me, or perhaps to me, is make me more bitter for not having what I think I should have. It’s stupid, really.<br /><br />What will I do? Trying to not want things doesn’t work. It just leaves this temporary vacuum in my mind that quickly slurps in more things to want when I’m not looking, like a mischievous little child beside an empty cookie jar… Trying to want different things doesn’t work, because I’d still be wanting things and it would just shift the target.<br /><br />No, a much better idea I had today is to replace this <span style="font-style: italic;">want</span> of things all together with something better. The thought I had today was that maybe I could look and be glad for what opportunities I have instead. Looking at opportunities seems better, because instead of being off in a daydream wishing I had what I wanted I could be engaging the real world. Looking at opportunities is seeing what I can actually do instead of being distracted by what I wish I could do, and it might help keep my outlandish expectations more realistic.<br /><br />This idea gives me the <span style="font-style: italic;">opportunity </span>to start thinking in a different way, and perhaps prevent myself from becoming a bitter old man who never got what he wanted and never wanted what he got. See, I didn’t say that I <span style="font-style: italic;">want </span>to start thinking in a different way, I said it was an <span style="font-style: italic;">opportunity</span>. That way, if I don't manage to take this opportunity, I won't be depressed that I haven't got yet another thing to add to my enormous pile of <span style="font-style: italic;">things I don't have</span>. Yes, that's the pile I'm sick of. But missed opportunities don't pile up on top of me like wants, they just drift of out of sight if you're looking ahead for more opportunities.<br /><br />I now have the opportunity to end. =)Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-87415905365570937372007-09-12T18:05:00.000+12:002007-09-15T10:16:57.968+12:00Solid faith despite uncertainty and doubtsSo what do you do as a Christian when you're confronted with skepticism, doubts, and uncertainty not from other people, but from your own mind? The postmodern perspective has let people see that the complexity of life and Christianity doesn't really fit the small tidy filing cabinet filled that apparently contains "the truth" that people should believe. Doctrines and Christian ideas once safely treasured suddenly find themselves out in the messy world, where people ignore or trample on them. What do you do when the faith once based on believing those doctrines also finds itself out in the cold, struggling to survive?<br /><br />Let me tell you of what I did, because it seems to have worked. It's quite simple really. I reestablished my Christianity not on dogma, but on principles. To base my Christianity on dogmas that I questioned was inherently unstable, so I based it instead on principles that withstood the tide of skepticism. So what were these principles? Let me investigate my own mind and hope it is coherent...<br /><br />Given that I don't know everything, I need to figure out how to live with the relatively limited understanding I have. More important than my current knowledge is my approach and attitude to the knowledge I don't have. Postmodernism seems great at establishing a lack of certain knowledge, but I think we need to go beyond that to deal with that lack - a kind of post-postmodernism. This attitude in light of what I don't know, I think, is what wisdom is all about. If you found yourself lost in a place you had never been before, the most important thing for you is not where you should be, or where you are, but how you go about getting back to where you want to be. Wisdom is not about where you are, but about <span style="font-style: italic;">how </span>you make progress. Similarly with knowledge, wisdom is not about what you know and what you do, but about how you learn and grow. Growing as a person seems to be not about accumulating life experience, but about becoming richer in wisdom, which makes our life experiences somehow better. For my Christianity, this helped me see that how we go about life in our relative ignorance of is far more important than what we know. This in itself somehow made my doubts and uncertainties seem in a strange way irrelevant. So wisdom, I think, is my first principle. And my second would be to grow in wisdom, for obvious reasons - a great wisdom is to seek more wisdom.<br /><br />So given that I currently don't know most important facts in the world, and even if I did I wouldn't have the capacity to do nearly enough about them - I have to make a few working assumptions about how to live. They might not be the best, but I need to assume them or else I couldn't do anything - and that, I believe, is worse (because it seems to contradict the first two principles). So what principle can I use to guide my assumptions? I can't see that life would be particularly like living without it involving other people. So the on e such principle is that of community - that I should live in relationship with others.<br /><br />Given that life involves other people, then, I consider as basic the idea that "I" could<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>have been o<span style="font-style: italic;">ne of the other people</span>, so I should treat as equals - and want as much good for them as I want for me (I know, sounds a lot like what Jesus taught). That, I think, is what love is about. Now I may not know the best way to act for the good of others, or my own good, but that's where wisdom comes in again.<br /><br />I think life also somehow involves God, perhaps in a significant way. I don't <span style="font-style: italic;">know </span>that with certainty, but I don't need to, because I can live according to the limited wisdom I currently have. Wisdom provides a way to live in the midst of uncertainty. I believe that God wants us to mature into experiencing life in better ways (by becoming wiser, more mature) , so I see no significant difference between a wise way to live if God exists, and a wise way to live if he does not. I seek to grow in wisdom, and I think that is both good and Godly. Because I believe God wants us to grow in wisdom as people, I don't think he will mind my uncertainty about whether he exists or not - that will all be cleared up in a few short decades anyway. And if God does indeed exist, I think he would want to help me grow in wisdom to become more like the person he'd want me to be (which I consider to be a sort of ideal "me").<br /><br />So I suppose my Christianity is built upon not ideas or doctrines or theories, but upon a disposition towards wisdom. This disposition is about growing and developing in wisdom for the good of both myself, others around me, and maybe even God. That is what my heart is set on. That is what I am committed to. That is what my faith is all about. Uncertainties about doctrines don't really seem to shake that foundation. The philosophies and cultures I am exposed to can't seem to shake it. In fact, I've not come across anything that can shake it. It is basic. It is my foundation. But it wasn't always, and seeing Christians around me trying to balance their Christianity on their own wobbling doubts, I wonder: what do other people base their faith on?Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-27384660732185871142007-09-11T21:18:00.000+12:002007-09-12T12:39:33.755+12:00The guise of authority, arrogance, and ambiguityHere's what I've been thinking lately... distilled as a rant.<br /><br />There is a cacophony of stupid doctrines resounding around the Christian community because people often don't seem to realize that teachers who (arrogantly) claim to teach "the truth" can in fact be mistaken. The common appeal to the authority of tradition isn't valid if the tradition is wrong. Yet many just seem to believe what they're told because someone says "it's the truth" without investigating what warrants that claim. The thing is, the many "true" doctrines out there are not harmonious - they don't <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">all </span>fit together. So what seems to be happening is that they are becoming blurred by ambiguity.<br /><br />People increasingly pick and choose whatever doctrines suit them, but they keep all the same language to talk about them. So superficially, it sounds like everyone believes the same thing. But in fact Christians can mean very, very different things by the same words. This is what I mean by ambiguity.<br /><br />So take the idea of "grace" for example. According to scholars, the Greek word (<span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">charis</span>) was originally quite a clearly understood word used in the ancient Favour System, where it referred to having someone's favour or a favour given to someone. These days, I have read and heard "grace" being used to describe pretty much anything good or pious-sounding that involves God. It's perhaps the most non-meaningful word used by Christians now precisely because it's used to mean so many things. It's not only God's act of sending Jesus. It's his willingness to forgive us. It's the new covenant we're under. It's the means of our redemption. It's God empowering us, even "working in us" like we're some kind of marionette being pulled by the strings of grace. It's how God's looks at us, what he gives us, why he gives us it. It's the opposite of "law", "legalism", "striving", "effort", "works" and any other equally ambiguous terms that Christians don't like. It's everything Christians want and the opposite of everything they hate. Don't think, just "rest in grace".<br /><br />Then there's "faith". When directed towards a person such as Jesus, the Greek word <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">pistis </span><span style="font-size:+0;">seems to have </span>originally referred to ideas of faithfulness, obedience, loyalty and commitment to the person. These days, though, "faith" is used to justify whatever people can't justify through normal means. "Faith" is what assures believers that whatever they happen to believe is true (which of course isn't much assurance at all). It is a gift from God, but if you struggle to have it then it's your own fault, your own "disbelief". "Faith" justifies whatever ideas you want to hold and provides a firm and solid foundation from which to reject any ideas that don't like. It is the answer to all problems, the cure for all uncertainty, and the carpet under which to sweep all contradictory evidence. All pain, evil, trouble and intelligence suddenly disappears if we just have "eyes of faith." Don't think, just "have faith".<br /><br />Complementary to faith is the idea of revelation, especially in Reformed circles. This is the truth divinely revealed by Scripture, which both the Jews and the early Christians needed to be interpreted carefully. The same Scripture can be interpreted in sometimes widely different ways. Many people who hold quite contradictory views can claim to have a divine revelation of truth - but they can't all be right. People often seem to ignore this though. Instead, they appeal to the authority of a divine revelation of Scripture, but they seem to actually be appealing to the authority of their own interpretation of Scripture (whatever than interpretation may be). The consequence is that people use this idea of having a "revelation" to justify whatever silly interpretations of Scripture they may have, and they arrogantly dismiss any and all opinions contrary to their own.<br /><br />Then of course, there's the Holy Spirit. Now I'm not sure how the early Christians understood this, but I suspect that very few Christians these days correctly understand how they did. It seems to me that the early Christians saw this Spirit as a kind of disposition of character, and that by sharing "the mind of Christ" we share his Spirit also. Today, the Holy Spirit is often thought of as some kind of external invisible cloud that floats around near the ceiling of church buildings, or that lurks around the dim corners of our hearts. It has become so mystified with ambiguous and subjective personal cognitive experience that it has almost become meaningless. There may be authentic experiences with God, but Christians seem to welcome all manner of psychological effects masquerading as the Holy Spirit. The emotional and physiological results are often seen as authentic "experiences with God" - but they seem to bear little fruit beyond the physiological high. Of course, if you express skepticism about the validity of some of these religious experiences, you just don't have enough faith and you need to accept more of God's grace...<br /><br />And there's the often mentioned "personal relationship with God". Now I think God can still interact with people personally, and the early Christians probably did too, but the modern idea of a "personal relationship with God" seems quite dangerous. It's dangerous because it's almost entirely subjective, and so can potentially be used as an invalid source of authority. These days God seems to have become the ultimate emotional substitute for an intimate relationship. In whatever ignorance they may enjoy, people seem quite happy to project onto God whatever thoughts, feelings, and views they want. There seems to be no clear doctrine of a "personal relationship with God" and everyone is left quite at liberty to imagine what God might be telling them. For example, how many times have you heard young Christians think God's telling them to marry the girl they're attracted to? Here's where the ambiguity and Christian terms and the cacophony of stupid doctrines really come into play, because people use them to construct their idea of God and his relationship with them. They reinforce their own ideas with "faith" and the experience of the "Holy Spirit", all the while taking comfort in "grace" if their character and lives don't seem to be moving in the direction Jesus taught.<br /><br />So because of the ambiguity afforded by modern Christian terms, the likelihood of some Christians these days believing biblically accurate doctrines seems alarmingly low. Yet their eagerness to assert the authority and truth of their beliefs is alarmingly high. Does Christianity make these people arrogant, or would they be arrogant whatever they believed? Does Christianity attract a certain kind of person? How should Christians and non-Christians respond to these issues?<br /><br />And what happens for the other people, who like me want to follow Jesus, but don't wish to believe stupid doctrines and imagine a inaccurate relationship with God that will meet their psychological needs? I suppose their Christianity will be as difficult and rewarding as it is authentic, and I suppose they will be humble in proportion to the amount they are willing to learn and grow. As for me, I will continue to pursue God and what is right, to do what I can to understand the bible accurately, and to be willing and open minded in sharing my thoughts with others while using all my faculties to discern what to believe as best as I am able. To help with this, I will try to be clear about my ideas rather than ambiguous. And with luck and some concerted effort, perhaps I will be able to avoid arrogantly claiming authority for my ideas, and instead to let them stand or fall on their own merits.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-59482265302526972512007-07-08T11:21:00.000+12:002007-07-14T16:48:35.955+12:00Pierced for our Transgressions: a critique - Part 2<p style="text-align: left;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Read the first part of this review <a href="http://notionsincognito.blogspot.com/2007/07/pierced-for-our-transgressions-critique.html">here</a>.</span></span></b></span></p><p style="text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:180%;"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></span></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:180%;"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Part II – “Answering the Critics”</span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 6: “Introduction”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors are to be applauded for their intention here to interact with objections commonly raised to penal substitution (PS). Furthermore, this introduction contains a far less accusatory tone the introduction to Part 1, which is quite refreshing. They give their motivation for Part 2 as being that <span style="color:blue;">“we believe penal substitution is thoroughly biblical, but it would not be good enough simply to ignore our critics.” </span>(p205-206) In this chapter they don’t frequently offend their critics as in the introduction to Part 1. Instead, they keep them in mind and say they will <span style="color:blue;">“try to present all the evidence, and invite readers to make up their own minds.”</span> (p206) The hope of the authors is that <span style="color:blue;">“this second part of the book will benefit people starting from a range of different positions.”</span> (p207) One point they make could not be truer: <span style="color:blue;">“it helps nobody if one side of the debate simply opts out of the dialogue.”</span> (p207) The chapters in this part of the book are much shorter. Each chapter contains discussions of objections, grouped thematically by chapter as follows:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 7: “Penal substitution and the bible”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Penal substitution is not the only model of the atonement</span></span><i style=""><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">This “objection” isn’t really an objection to PS, it’s simply an observation. The authors simply note “in response” that <span style="color:blue;">“a comprehensive doctrine of the atonement must include other themes besides penal substitution.”</span> (p210) Nothing lost, nothing gained, little of importance said.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-NZ">2. Penal substitution is not central to the atonement</span><i style=""><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The objection here is a valid one if it can be substantiated – that other perspectives are more important than PS and that PS only deserves a peripheral place. The response given here is to refer back to the “big-picture” of the theological doctrines which they tailored to fit around PS in Chapter 3. They use this to argue that <span style="color:blue;">“it is clear from our discussion in chapter 3 that many biblical doctrines would be compromised if we were to remove penal substitution from the picture.”</span> (p211) Other views of what Christ achieved are dismissed by claiming that <span style="color:blue;">“far from being viable alternatives to penal substitution, they are outworkings of it.”</span> (p211) Many people who do not hold to PS as strongly as the authors would see this very differently. They thus fail to adequately deal with this objection, because the theological picture they painted was tailored to PS. By claiming that PS is central to that picture, and thus central to the atonement <i style="">in general</i>, the authors demonstrate not only circular logic but an illogical extension of their argument. The response of the authors here is inadequate and leaves this objection still bearing its full force.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style=""> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Penal substitution diminishes the significance of Jesus’ life and resurrection</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors have again correctly highlighted a common objection to PS. They quote Stuart Murray Williams, Green and Baker, Tom Smail and Paul Fiddes as raising this type of objection. Their response to the first part of this objection is that Jesus’ life was significant in PS because <span style="color:blue;">“he lived in perfect obedience to the law,”</span> (p213) which they imply is so that he could be a perfect sacrifice. Because this is all the significance the authors seem to seek in Jesus’ life, it is claimed that <span style="color:blue;">“this integrates perfectly with the doctrine of penal substitution.”</span> (p213) Yet again the authors demonstrate ignorance of broader perspectives, for Jesus could have simply washed people’s feet his whole ministry or perhaps run an orphanage and still been perfect. Yet why did Jesus do the <i style="">specific</i> things he did? PS cannot answer this question. The idea of “living a perfect life” simply doesn’t give any significance to the <i style="">specific</i> things Jesus did and taught. Again, the response given is inadequate to lessen the force of this objection, and other atonement theories are required.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Regarding Jesus’ resurrection, the authors respond with a list containing aspects of its significance which are held by proponents of PS and claim that <span style="color:blue;">“these theological themes are integrated into a coherent theological framework in which penal substitution plays an indispensable part.”</span> (p214) What they fail to recognise is that the significant things listed actually have <i style="">nothing to do with PS</i> – they do not require nor indicate a framework of PS to be held. The claim of the authors here is simply untrue. Thus, this whole objection still stands in full force. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Penal substitution is not taught in the Bible</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors respond to this rejection in an obvious fashion – by pointing out the evidence they have given in Chapter 2. Indeed, it is difficult to defend the position that PS is not taught in the bible at all, and they have simply presented and refuted this objection. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The far stronger objection is that PS is a <i style="">minor</i> theme in Scripture; that it is not taught in the bible <i style="">very much</i>. By seeking to give biblical evidence for PS and ultimately providing only a handful of verses, the authors have in fact fuelled this stronger objection further. PS is <i style="">not</i> given the centrality and prominence in the NT that Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach portray it as having. The verses they give in support of PS are simply not very significant in the arguments of the NT authors. Thus while refuting this over-generalised objection that PS is not taught at all in the bible, the authors have ignored far more glaring facts that bring into question the prominence of PS asserted by this book. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Penal substitution is not important enough to be a source of division</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Firstly, this objection is not a biblical one, and it is wrongly categorised into this section on <i style="">biblical objections</i>. They again present an objection few would use against PS, that major differences in theology (like PS) should be down-played in the name of “unity of believers”. The authors simply refute this objection by pointing out that <span style="color:blue;">“when the gospel itself is the thing being debated, there is nothing around which to unite.”</span> (p216) Yet they do nothing here to defend their case for the centrality of PS against objections on biblical grounds.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">In this chapter the authors have successfully refuted one “objection” that is not really an objection to PS at all. They have failed to adequately deal with two strong objections, which remain bearing full force. The fourth objection is over-generalised to conceal a much more powerful objection that also remains in full force. Lastly, they successfully refute a completely irrelevant point. In this way, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach have demonstrated the opposite of what they sought to show. They intended to defend their position against objections on biblical grounds, but instead they have failed to. Furthermore, there are many other strong biblical objections to their theological framework that includes PS which were not even discussed here. Lastly, there are many theological doctrines given far more attention in the NT than PS, which brings into question the authors’ claim for the prominence of PS. If this chapter was intended to silence their critics, the authors have instead earned more criticism here. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 8: “Penal substitution and culture”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Penal substitution is the product of human culture, not biblical teaching</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">In essence, this objection is that PS was not a major teaching of the early Christians and instead has developed its prominence only several centuries after Jesus (i.e. later than the 4<sup>th</sup> century). The authors respond: <span style="color:blue;">“the claim that penal substitution is a relatively late doctrinal development is unsustainable in view of the historical survey we have presented in chapter 5.”</span> (p220) They seem to see the single paragraph they found from the first three centuries as enough evidence to base this claim upon, but such logic is demonstratably false simply because this paragraph is insignificant amid the 6500 pages of Christian writings from this period. Furthermore, this and several of the quotes within the next few centuries they reference are contestable over their support of PS. In light of this, most critics would simply not view their response here as valid. The authors continue for a page discussing irrelevant details and failing to deal with this objection any further, leaving it with much of its original force. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Penal substitution is unable to address the real needs of human culture</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">An issue raised by some is that penal substitution is not culturally relevant in many cultures. While an interesting point, this doesn’t inherently provide grounds for rejecting PS. Nevertheless, the authors respond to this objection by simply saying that we cannot let our doctrine be shaped by culture, and instead need to find ways of explaining the gospel in a given culture. This objection does little to oppose PS, and their response also does little to support it here.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">A related objection which the authors fail to deal with here is that Christians in several other cultures don’t seem to even notice PS in the bible. PS seems only to be observed by people in certain, mainly western, cultures who have been taught it. This brings into question the centrality and prominence of the theory. However, this objection is not even dealt with by the authors. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">3. Penal substitution relies on biblical words, metaphors and concepts that are outdated and misunderstood in our culture</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors quote extensively from Green and Baker here, whose approach is portrayed as being to <span style="color:blue;">“change our theology to fit our culture.”</span> It is unlikely critics of PS seriously hold this position. Such a position is easily refuted, and that’s exactly what the authors do: <span style="color:blue;">“the claim that the <i style="">concepts</i> connected with penal substitution are outdated… and must therefore be abandoned… must be firmly resisted.”</span> (p225) There is, however, a different important aspect of this objection that overlaps with the previous objections highlighted in this chapter. Green and Baker suggest that PS is based on anachronistic readings of New Testament words, and that if these words were understood in the 1<sup>st</sup> century context penal substitution would not be an obvious interpretation. To this objection, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach provide a completely inadequate response, simply agreeing that because of this, <span style="color:blue;">“considerable care must be taken to avoid misunderstanding.”</span> (p225) Of course, there is not room in the book to delve into this objection in detail, but nevertheless the objection that PS is based on anachronistic readings of Scripture remains unaddressed here. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors fail completely to defend against the objection that PS was not a major teaching of the early Christians, and that was instead a later development. They successfully refute a point that provides little basis to object to PS, thus helping their case little. A related objection is completely overlooked. Finally, a misrepresented objection is refuted, leaving the objection that PS draws on anachronistic readings of Scripture unanswered. Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach have again helped their case little in this chapter.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 9: “Penal substitution and violence”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Penal substitution is rests on unbiblical ideas of sacrifice</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">There are two components to this objection. The first is that PS misunderstands the nature of the sacrificial system outlined in the bible that was understood by the authors of the bible and misapplies it to Christ’s death on the cross. The second is that these misunderstandings of the sacrificial system come from paganism. It is to this second, much weaker, component that the authors respond to because they don’t seem to recognise the first component. They point out the differences between Judaic sacrifices and pagan ones, that <span style="color:blue;">“the biblical understanding of sacrifice is poles apart from pagan sacrificial ideas.”</span> (p228) So they rightly dismiss this <span style="color:blue;">“supposed dependence [of PS] on paganism</span>.” (p228) It is implicitly assumed that the view of sacrifices held by the authors is accurate, yet earlier in the book they demonstrated a poor understanding of the sacrificial system. Thus, while they adequately respond to the weak part of this objection, they fail to defend against the objection that PS draws on an inaccurate understanding of the sacrificial system.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">The violence involved in penal substitution amounts to “cosmic child abuse”</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">This is the now infamous objection attributed to Steve Chalke. Simply stated, this objection is to the idea that according to PS, the Father <span style="color:blue;">“willingly caused his son to suffer”</span> for a reason which seems objectionable. (p230) Jeffery, Ovey and Sach respond by highlighted that Jesus went to the cross of his own volition, and that his death was not for the gratification of God as a <span style="color:blue;">“child abuser.”</span> (p230) Furthermore, they quote Isa 53:10 and argue that we must accept God truly willed his son to suffer: <span style="color:blue;">“we can reject this idea only by rejecting the word of God.”</span> (p231) They scarcely recognise that Jesus could have suffered for reasons <i style="">other</i> than achieving a death for PS, if it was part of a <i style="">different</i> redemptive strategy. The central point of this objection is the idea of God willing Jesus to suffer <i style="">specifically</i> <i style="">for the reason of Jesus being a penal substitute</i>, not of him wilfully allowing Jesus to suffer as part of the redemptive strategy Christ undertook. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors seem to wrongly assume that if God didn’t prevent Jesus’ suffering, it must have been because an atonement of PS was required. Arguing from this assumption, they claim that God was in some sense <i style="">willing</i> Jesus’ death because God obviously let it happen. They use the idea of “God’s sovereignty” (by which they mean <span style="color:blue;">“control over his creation”</span>) to argue that <span style="color:blue;">“in some sense God <i style="">caused</i> Jesus’ suffering and death.”</span> (p231) Finally, they bring in the idea of predestination to complete their case that <span style="color:blue;">“God foresaw, planned and was in full control of the death of Christ”</span> (p232). None of this is at the heart of this objection to PS, though, for this objection is made on different grounds; God willing Jesus to suffer <i style="">specifically for the purpose of being a penal substitute</i> (not for some other, valid reason) does not accord with the biblical revelation of God’s character and moral code. Hence, the authors have only partially defended against this objection, and the core of the objection remains unaddressed.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">The retributive violence involved in penal substitution contradicts Jesus’ message of peace and love</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors recognise that <span style="color:blue;">“at first sight, this objection appears compelling.”</span> (p234) This is the first of several objections regarding the idea that in the PS system, God never allows sin to go unpunished. This attitude seems to contradict the portrayal of God in other parts of the bible. Yet the authors distort this objection to be simply that God is setting <span style="color:blue;">“an unworthy example.”</span> (p234) Their response is to point out that <span style="color:blue;">“the bible does not urge us to imitate all of God’s actions or every aspect of his character.”</span> (p234) Examples of God’s worship and vengeance are given. They rush to conclude that because God doesn’t tell us to imitate his action in PS, this <span style="color:blue;">“right understanding of the Bible’s teaching silences [this criticism of PS].”</span> (p235) Yet Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach have entirely missed the point of this objection by distorting the objection to one of merely about the example of Jesus, and ignoring the heart of the objection that PS appears to contradict the message of Jesus and the heart of God. The authors seem to have simply ignored the many verses which appear contradictory to their conclusion, and they have failed to convincingly refute this objection.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">The violence inherent in penal substitution is an example of “the myth of redemptive violence”, which can never overcome evil</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Essentially, this objection observes that in PS, God’s problem to the suffering caused by sin in the world is to impose more suffering, <span style="color:blue;">“which merely increases and compounds the problem.”</span> (p235) The authors respond firstly by undermining the alleged foundation of this objection. The author's correctly highlight that Rene Girard raised this objection. However, they wrongly imply this objection can only be held on the basis of his framework, and proceed to highlight several of his unbiblical positions (p236-238). After several pages of this, the objection is finally addressed. Three arguments are given in response. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The first is that Jesus willingly went to the cross. With only a framework of PS in mind – in which it is the suffering of the cross that is significant – they assert that Jesus would not have done this if he had not seen that the violence of the cross was the answer to sin. (p238) This argument is narrow-minded and fails to consider other frameworks for his death. Secondly, the authors appeal again to the sacrificial system – where their biases toward PS lead them to see the violence of the sacrifices as the significant element. (p238-239) Lastly, it is argued that the motivations behind the violence of the cross are different to those behind acts of human violence. (p239) As an after-thought, the authors add that Jesus’ death was obviously violent, as if that supports the idea that God was the perpetrator of that violence. (p239)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Yet none of these four arguments actually address the heart of this objection. All of them are based on <i style="">the presupposition of PS</i> combined with the violent elements in Christ’s death (or sacrifices) to conclude that God’s solution to sin was in the violence of the cross. PS forms necessary a presupposition for their arguments, and thus their logic here is circular to support a framework of PS. Here, the authors successfully defend a position that is not being attacked, while they fail to defend the position that the objection targets. The original objection remains. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors fail to address the central issue of the first objection in this chapter, and respond to only a weakened form of it. By presupposing a framework of PS and ignoring alternative ones, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach fail to address the second objection to how PS portrays God. They fail to answer the objection that PS seems inconstant with the message of Jesus and the heart of God, and instead simply respond to a misrepresentation of the objection. Finally, again presupposing PS in their argument, they fail to address the last objection to the logic of PS. A casual reading of this chapter may leave the reader thinking that the objections have been successfully refuted. Yet in fact the authors have attacked very minor aspects of these objections, and left the heart of these objections unaddressed. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 10: “Penal substitution and justice”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">1. It is unjust to punish an innocent person, even if he is willing to be punished</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">This objection to PS is well summarised by the authors, who distil that <span style="color:blue;">“guilt and punishment simply cannot be incurred by one person and transferred to another.”</span> (p242) The authors begin by asserting that the biblical authors believed God judged in a just manner. Penal substitution is then implicitly assumed to be what the biblical authors believe. Thus the authors reach the conclusion of a blatantly circular argument, that <span style="color:blue;">“it is unbiblical to charge penal substitution with injustice.”</span> (p242) </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">After this ridiculous initial defence, the authors appeal to the idea of a spiritual, ontological <span style="color:blue;">“union with Christ,”</span> which <span style="color:blue;">“exists by faith.”</span> (p243) Using this idea, it is argued that guilt and innocence are not transferred at all but simply <span style="color:blue;">“imputed.”</span> (p243-245) They argue that <span style="color:blue;">“this objection to PS arises from a failure to understand the significance of union with Christ.”</span> (p245) Two objections can be made in response. Firstly, this position separates Christ and believers where and when it is convenient, but unites them at other times when it is convenient for the argument. It holds that before we are united with Christ, he is seen as righteous and we are seen as sinful. When we are united with Christ, we would expect that either a) both become considered righteous or b) both become considered sinful. This is not what happens, though. Christ is considered sinful to take our punishment, <i style="">yet</i> <i style="">at the same time</i> he is also considered righteous as our representative. Likewise, we are considered sinful in that our union with Christ allows God to treat him as sinful, <i style="">yet at the same time</i> we are also righteous because Christ was righteous. It is argued that each party is <i style="">simultaneously considered sinful and righteous</i>. As such, the argument of “union with Christ” it is not a sensible explanation of the imputation of guilt and righteousness inherent in PS. Secondly, this assumes a logical progression that first we are unified with Christ, <i style="">then</i> by this we are saved. The bible presents the logic as being reversed, we are saved and <i style="">then</i> by this we can be unified with Christ. It is beyond the scope of this critique to explain this further, but needless to say the authors fail to deal with this problem. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors note that <span style="color:blue;">“Jeremiah 31:29-30 and Ezekiel 18 appear to deny that individuals will bear the responsibility for the actions of anyone but themselves.”</span> (p247) They then present a false dichotomy, that either PS is true and scripture contradicts itself or that these apply in circumstances different to those of PS. Of course, the obvious third option is that <i style="">it is PS</i> which is contradicted by these verses. They successfully argue that Old Testament characters <i style="">symbolically</i> suffer for the guilt of others, (p248) as if it proves it is possible and just to <i style="">actually</i> suffer for the guilt of others, and these demonstrate <span style="color:blue;">“transferred punishment.”</span> (p248) However, their argument here fails to be persuasive. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Finally, again in complete ignorance of other theological frameworks, the authors state that in <span style="color:blue;">“denying that our guilt could be imputed to Christ,” “the theological and pastoral casualties are severe.”</span> (p248) This fails to recognise that a whole set of other doctrines can be held apart from PS. The logic here is founded upon ignorance and bears little strength. Hence, despite a long discussion, the authors have not successfully refuted this objection to PS. <span style=""> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">2. Biblical justice is about restoring relationships, not exacting retribution</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors misrepresent this objection as being that God should never justly exact retribution or final judgment. Yet at the heart of this objection is the idea that retributive justice does not make sense<i style=""> specifically in the framework of PS</i>. Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach give their response to this objection the most discussion of all. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">To claim they present an argument that <i style="">addresses</i> this objection would be an exaggeration. The authors begin by talking at length about three “penal systems,” or <span style="color:blue;">“ways of construing the proper relationship between crime and punishment.”</span> (p251) They highlight the <i style="">retributive theory</i> (p252-253), <i style="">deterrent theory</i> (p253), and the <i style="">corrective theory</i> (253). It is then argued (wrongly) that this objection is based on holding the corrective theory and denying that the other two are biblical. The authors proceed to simply show that the other two theories are supported biblically as if that is all that is required to defend their position. Yet their premise that this objection relies on only the corrective theory being biblical is incorrect. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Furthermore, they proceed to undermine their own argument by looking at <span style="color:blue;">“the biblical criteria”</span> to assess the fairness of retribution. They highlight that </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ">1) <span style="color:blue;">“<i style="">guilty</i> people, and <i style="">only</i> guilty people, should be punished” </span>(p253) </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ">2) <span style="color:blue;">“punishment must be <i style="">proportional</i> to the crime”</span> (p254) </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ">3) <span style="color:blue;">“punishments must be <i style="">equitable</i>… equivalent punishments must be imposed on different people who have committed the same crime.”</span> (p254)<span style=""> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors then spend seven pages not discussing these at all. Instead they return to defending the idea that the bible teaches not only the <i style="">corrective</i> theory of punishment, but also the <i style="">deterrent</i> and (most importantly) the <i style="">retributive</i> theories. At one stage they also dubiously argue that it is morally right according to the corrective theory to punish people before they have offended so long as they are <span style="color:blue;">“likely to commit a crime”</span> (p257), using the film <i style="">Minority Report</i> as support. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Yet their very “biblical criteria” to assess the fairness of retribution fuels further objection to PS. PS breaks one of the principles of fair retribution. It is clear that the innocent Christ, rather than the guilty people are punished – which directly contradicts their first criteria for fair retribution. In PS, retributive punishment is exactly what is <i style="">not</i> inflicted <i style="">on those who deserve it</i> – for saved sinners <i style="">are not punished at all</i>. Thus by defending the idea of retributive justice, the authors have in fact <i style="">added</i> weight to the objections of PS. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">As a postscript, the authors discuss how it is fair that believers still suffer in various ways. It is argued that <span style="color:blue;">“the bible does not conceive of painful experiences that come upon <i style="">Christians</i> as punishment,”</span> they argue instead these are instances of discipline. (p262) This section adds nothing to their overall argument. What remains at the end of their response is a stronger objection, not a weaker one. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">3. Penal substitution implicitly denies that God forgives sin</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The main point of this objection is that PS implies that God does not forgive sin, but instead exacts <span style="color:blue;">“every bit of the debt owed him by humans.”</span> (p263) The authors sideline this objection by replacing it with a very different second objection: that it seems silly that <span style="color:blue;">“God himself pays the debt we owe in the person of his Son.”</span> (p263) They proceed to use conceptions of the Trinity to try to refute the second objection (unpersuasively). Finally, they return to the original objection and assert that stories in which God forgives without reference to an atoning sacrifice must be read <span style="color:blue;">“in the context of a gospel that reaches its climax as the Son of Man dies a rises again.”</span> (p265) Hence, they simply assert that the biblical stories where God forgives without a sacrifice do not portray what they <i style="">actually seem to portray</i>, and instead they insist that the additional framework of PS to be read into them. Their response here seems weak, and leaves the original objection in full force. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">4. Penal substitution does not work, for the penalty Christ suffered was not equivalent to that due to us</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">This objection is simple: <span style="color:blue;">“how could the suffering of Jesus for a few hours constitute an equivalent punishment to an eternity in hell?”</span> (p266) The response given here is the standard one of equivalent value. <span style="color:blue;">“Christ’s suffering, though it lasted only a finite time, was infinite in value because he is infinitely worthy.”</span> (p267) Thus they correctly observe that <span style="color:blue;">“it is true that the punishment Christ suffered at </span></span><st1:place><span lang="EN-NZ" style="color:blue;">Calvary</span></st1:place><span lang="EN-NZ" style="color:blue;"> was not identical to that due to us.”</span><span lang="EN-NZ"> (p267) </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The underlying assumption here is that infinite suffering <i style="">can</i> be transformed into a <i style="">different kind of suffering</i> for only a short duration because of the worth of who is being punished. Other than the obvious problems with that, there are more problems. The assumption is that these different punishments are <i style="">equivalent</i>. Maybe, in the eyes of God that could be so, but maybe this idea breaks the principle of <i style="">impartial</i> retributive justice. God seems to be playing favourites. If normal people sin, they are to be punished forever for it; but if God’s favourite son is to be punished for the same sins, he need only be punished for a few hours. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The logic of the authors also leads to the problem of “why the cross?” Essentially, the argument is that infinite punishment can be distilled into a small finite suffering of Christ. Thus, Christ could have taken on this infinite punishment anytime. He could have been effectively taking on the infinite punishment of the world by stubbing his toe, or cutting himself shaving. The fact that he received insults could be considered equivalent punishment for the sins of the world. The shame of the cross could have been considered equivalent. In other words, there is no need to associate Jesus’ punishment with his physical suffering on the cross. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">5. Penal substitution implies universal salvation, which is unbiblical</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">This objection of universalism only arises when our salvation is conceived of as purely <i style="">objective</i>, in which our faith plays no part. A common evangelical view is that Christ died for all, but that only those who place their faith in him are saved. Hence, PS does not imply universal salvation. Jeffery, Ovey and Sach reveal their Calvinistic background strongly here, because they seem to not even consider the place of our faith in salvation. (p268) They assert that <span style="color:blue;">“Christ’s death does not just make salvation possible, but actually achieves the salvation of God’s people.” </span>(p273) Thus, they assert the doctrine of <i style="">limited atonement</i>, where Christ died and saved only the predestined elect. (p269) Hence they claim that <span style="color:blue;">“God</span> <span style="color:blue;">did not will to save all”</span> (p270), which is an idea that many Christians rightly find incompatible with a loving God. If this were true, God ultimately sends people to suffer eternally in hell on a whim to not save them. What sort of God would do this? The authors spend the next few pages attempting to justify their view, using ideas of predestination, false dichotomies, and theological <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving#Debate">hand-waving</a>. The original objection and their response are both based on ignorance the doctrines of faith and human free will.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The first objection is responded to by a circular argument, a dubious appeal to “union with Christ”, misuse of Scripture and ignorance of alternative theological frameworks. The objection remains in force. The authors fail to understand the second objection, and instead respond to a misrepresented position through making invalid assumptions. Their discussion fails to address this objection, and instead highlights another objection to PS. The third objection is first sidelined, then it is simply claimed that this objection is not valid. Finally, they present a poor objection to PS and attempt to refute it by using a doctrine many Christians find objectionable. Their response here does not help their case. Hence, this chapter presents another disappointing effort to deal with common objections to PS. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 11: “Penal substitution and our understanding of God”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">1. Penal substitution implies a division between the persons of the Trinity</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">This objection is based on a misunderstanding of the Trinity, and few who understand the Trinity and disagree with the centrality of PS would do so on the grounds of this objection. The authors correctly explain why this is an invalid objection. (p279-285) The 6 pages taken in response seem excessive here, but nevertheless the rebuttal of this objection is largely coherent and well made. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Penal substitution relies on an unbiblical view of an angry God that is incompatible with his love</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Like the last objection, this one can only be made against a caricature of PS. Thus, it is easily and successfully rebutted by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, who simply show that the fact that God is angered at sin invalidates this objection. (p287-294) There are differences in opinion about why God is angered at sin, and some would argue that how God is portrayed by PS is inconstant with his character. However, these are not discussed here. The objection that is discussed is shown to be a poor one. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Penal substitution misunderstands the relationship between God’s wrath and human sin</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Rather than considering the reasons for God’s anger at sin, they portray this objection as being to deny a final judgment by God, in which not all people are judged favourably. Hence, the authors have an easy task to demonstrate biblical evidence that in support of a final judgment to rebut this objection. (p296-300) There are also a number of irrelevant asides here that. This objection is successfully rebutted, but it doesn’t help their case in defence against the critics of PS.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Penal substitution generates an unbiblical view of a God constrained by a law external to himself</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">This rhetorical objection is often used to express how <i style="">for the sake of PS</i>, God is portrayed as acting in ways thought unfitting for his character. As such, it is not an objection in itself, but it points to the idea that if PS is true then God acts in ways thought by many to be unfitting. The authors, however, wrongly interpret this argument as being that God is constrained by something. Again, they have an easy task to demonstrate the fallacy of suggesting God is subject to anything. (p300-302) While they successfully refute this “objection”, they do not deal with the issues that underlie it. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Penal substitution is an impersonal, mechanistic account of the atonement</span><i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Critics of PS can interpret the same doctrine as proponents of PS in different ways. This is exactly the nature of this “objection” – it is simply a different perspective on the same doctrine, in which PS is seen as <span style="color:blue;">“a mere formula.”</span> (p304) The authors simply respond by giving their perspective of the same doctrine and explaining why they simply don’t think the perspective of this objection is valid. This neither helps nor hinders their case, but it does take three pages. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">In a unusual chapter, the authors successfully refute a number of objections. Yet this doesn’t help their case because the objections are based on misunderstandings, and the portrayal of several objections misses the point of the critics. The first objection is based on misunderstanding the Trinity, while the second is based on misunderstanding PS. The third objection is misrepresented, and that misrepresentation is then successfully refuted. The essence of the forth objection is missed, and an unlikely position is presented and refuted in its stead, but the underlying issues behind the objection are not addressed. Finally, they present and refute an “objection” which is simply a difference of interpretation of the same theory, and thus neither weaken nor strengthen their case. Hence, the authors refute “objections” to PS which few scholars would use against PS, and in doing so only <i style="">appear</i> to strengthen their case. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 12: “Penal substitution and the Christian life”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">1. Penal substitution fails to address the issues of political and social sin and cosmic evil</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Unfortunately, the authors have limited this objection to only political and social sin, and cosmic evil. Yet more broadly, objection can be made that PS says little about actual transformation of people, families, communities, societies and our world. It says little about freeing them not only the guilt of sin, but its power. PS simply doesn’t seem to directly include the idea being truly liberated from a life of sin to experience the kind of life God intended for us. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors confine the objection to only the political, social, and cosmic dimensions of this objection, and highlight <span style="color:blue;">“that a belief in penal substitution does not preclude a concern” </span>for these issues. (p310) This, of course, is true. Yet throughout five pages of their response, the authors devote most of the discussion to irrelevant side-issues. Like magicians, they spend most of their effort in distracting the reader from the core of this objection. Occasionally, they simply deny the objection carries force by asserting the opposite claim, saying that in PS, sin is the <span style="color:blue;">“root problem that it treats.”</span> (p311) This fails to recognise the objection, which highlights that PS deals with the guilt and the punishment for sin, but has little to do with actually preventing it or freeing people from its power. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors claim that PS <span style="color:blue;">“deals with [sin] inasmuch as… those who are transformed by this gospel will have an impact on society around them.”</span> (p313) Yet this is simply denying the heart of the objection that PS has little to say regarding actual transformation to be freed from sin. Thus, the response here is merely to deny the objection carries weight, and distract the reader onto side-issues. The objection not only remains in full force, but it is stronger and larger than the two aspects they mention.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">2. Penal substitution is an entirely objective account of the atonement, and fails to address our side of the Creator-creature relationship</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">This objection is simply that PS is an objective “event” that involves no involvement by us, and thus that PS downplays the importance of our choices in following Jesus. (p131-215) Such an objection is particularly relevant within the framework of a Limited Atonement held by the authors. The response is to deflect the objection away from PS by emphasising that other atonement models provide what is lacking: <span style="color:blue;">“Those who make this objection fail to recognize that penal substitution is not proposed as the only biblical facet of the atonement, and certainly not as the only implication of the death of Christ.”</span> (p315) This sudden emphasis of other atonement models seems the opposite of the author’s thesis in the book of the central, prominent and foundational position given to PS. By appealing to other atonement theologies, the response here also implicitly admits that the objection carries weight – the PS is indeed deficient in this important area. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors assert without any justification that these other ideas are <span style="color:blue;">“intrinsically related” </span>to PS (p316), despite the objection pointing out that this is not the case. As a last defence, they attempt to assert that there <i style="">are</i> subjective implications of PS (namely assurance and confidence before God). The authors simply assert that if we find difficulty in making these subjective connections to PS, <span style="color:blue;">“the fault lies with us, not with the doctrine of PS”</span> (p317) – a simple denial of the original objection. While their closing remark is true that <span style="color:blue;">“an objective understanding of the atonement is in many ways the pathway to a renewed spiritual life”</span> (p318), this does not mean that PS <i style="">in particular</i> is required. The full force of the original objection remains. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">3. Penal substitution causes people to live in fear of God</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The book “Saved from what?” is firmly based in PS. In it, R C Sproul argues that <span style="color:blue;">“what we are saved from is really a who - God Himself.”</span> It is in this context that critics object that PS causes people to see God as a fearfully unreasonable judge. (p318) The heart of this objection is not simply that God’s judgment should be feared, but that <i style="">penal substitution</i> portrays his judgement as being unreasonable, and thus the sort of fear it induces is unjustified. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors divorce this objection from its context and give no indication that they even understand the context. Hence they refute an over-generalised idea that ‘God’s judgement should not be feared.’ (p319-321) Having attacked this over-generalisation, they even suggest that <span style="color:blue;">“a lingering fear of God may actually arise from a <i style="">neglect</i> of penal substitution,”</span> (p320) demonstrating ignorance of the reasons behind this objection. In this way, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach fail to address the real issue behind this objection. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">4. Penal substitution legitimates violence and encourages the passive acceptance of unjust suffering</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">In a similar way to the last objection, this one claims that <i style="">the ideas</i> <i style="">of PS in</i> <i style="">particular</i> use the story of Jesus’ death in a way that portrays violence and being passively oppressed as acceptable. In essence, this objection is that PS portrays God as setting a bad example. This objection is not a particularly strong one to begin with. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Regarding the violence of the cross, the authors respond by presupposing the accuracy of PS and their previous arguments, and proceed to create a number of circular arguments. They draw on previous sections of the book to assert that <span style="color:blue;">“the Bible does not set forth God’s judgment as an example for us to follow, on the contrary, it is something to avoid.”</span> (p323). They say this despite there being several verses advocating us to forgive as God forgives, and to imitate him, thus imitating his judgments. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">With regard to the example of “passive acceptance of unjust suffering,” they assert that this objection <span style="color:blue;">“pertains not to penal substitution but to the so-called ‘exemplary theory’ of the atonement”</span> (p324). In this way, they first attempt to deflect the objection away from PS. However, it is true that Jesus did not use violence to avoid his suffering, and thus the authors go on to reasonably conclude that Jesus’ passivity <span style="color:blue;">“hardly constitutes a valid objection to penal substitution.”</span> (p324)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The first objection is responded to by distraction and denial, and leaves an even broader objection to PS in full force. The authors implicitly concede the second objection carries weight by appealing to other atonement theories, then simply deny the second objection is valid without justification. Poor understanding of the third objection is shown, and the authors instead succeed in refuting an over-generalisation. The weak fourth objection is responded to by circular logic and misdirection away from PS, but nevertheless it is shown to be a weak objection. In this way, the authors succeed only in refuting one weak objection, while stronger objections remain. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 13: “Final word”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors conclude by dealing with <span style="color:blue;">“two objections of a different kind to those discussed above.”</span> (p325) These are called the “vague objection” and the “emotional objection.” They respond to the first by correctly pointing out that it is not valid to object to PS in a vague sense without providing reasons behind the objection. (p325-326) To the second, they also correctly highlight that it is not a valid objection to use emotionally charged language against a theory without providing a reasoned argument. (p326-328) This second concludes the author’s responses to criticisms of PS, and unfortunately there is no summary or concluding chapter. This seems to an abrupt end to Part II of the book.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Appendix: “A personal note to preachers”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">In a useful appendix, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach provide guidelines to ensure the explanations of PS given do not falsely portray key elements. They list 7 important points for illustrations of PS, which should:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ">1) Not deny the active, consenting involvement of the Father and Son</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ">2) Not imply any conflict between God’s law and God’s will</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ">3) Not imply that God’s action in averting our punishment is unjust</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ">4) Not imply and conflict between God’s wrath and God’s will</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ">5) Not imply a conflict between God’s attributes</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ">6) Not imply that God did not foreordain Christ’s atonement work</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ">7) Not imply that no-one actually benefits from God’s saving work</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">They authors point out the difficulty of finding any analogy which fulfils all these criteria simultaneously. (p334-336) Indeed, it is hard to imagine any analogy which fulfils all these criteria. The authors exhort teachers <span style="color:blue;">“not to abandon illustrations in preaching, but to make sure we use them carefully.”</span> (p334) Again, there is no concluding section to this chapter, or the whole of Part II. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Overall critique of Part II:</span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">While the intent of this part is good, the quality of the arguments is poor. Many of the objections are over-generalised or mistaken for other ideas, and the underlying issues are not addressed, some of the objections to PS are even strengthened by their responses. In cases where the objections have been addressed, invalid assumptions, faulty logic, and ignorance of alternative interpretations dominate their arguments. The response of the authors here leaves most of the strong objections to PS in full force. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The biggest problem with this Part, however, is how limited in scope it is. The authors only address objections to PS as an interpretation of what occurred on the cross. The <i style="">theological</i> <i style="">system</i> in which PS plays a central part is largely ignored. Yet many strong objections to the system of PS can be made, bearing a weight of evidence from the New Testament authors and early Christian fathers. These objections bring into serious doubt the centrality of PS in early Christian theology, yet they were not even mentioned here. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">In short, it is unlikely that this part of the book will silence the objections being made to both the specific doctrine of PS, and the theological system in which it is central. Despite the authors’ frequent assertions that their responses will silence their critics, this poor defence of PS will likely give them even more cause for criticism. Most discerning critics of PS will be not be persuaded by the responses here. At the start of this part the authors “<span style="color:blue;">invite readers to make up their own minds”</span> (p206), and no doubt readers will. It seems likely that whatever the opinion of readers prior to reading this part, it will not be changed. </span></p>Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-19065595324287148952007-07-05T22:13:00.000+12:002007-07-14T16:48:35.955+12:00Pierced for our Transgressions: a critique - Part 1<p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:15;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><i style=""> Pierced for our Transgressions</i>: a critique</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:15;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors summarise the purpose of their book as being to <span style="color:blue;">“argue that penal substitution is clearly taught in Scripture, that it has a central place in Christian theology, that a neglect of the doctrine will have serious pastoral consequences, that it has an impeccable pedigree in the history of the Christian church, and that all of the objections raised against it can be comprehensively answered.”</span> (p31) This review will go through the book part by part here with the goal of critiquing the book and explaining why it fails in its goal. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The book is structured in two parts as follows. After a brief introductory chapter of Part I, Chapter 2 is an investigation of the bible aiming to show in a way that is <span style="color:blue;">“absolutely decisive”</span> (p33) that <span style="color:blue;">“the doctrine of penal substitution is clearly taught within the pages of scripture”</span> (p33) and is <span style="color:blue;">“a central emphasis of some foundational passages in both the Old and New Testaments.”</span> (p33) They argue from these scriptures that PS <span style="color:blue;">“has such prominence that it cannot be sidelined.”</span> (p34) They continue in Chapter 3 by discussing other relevant doctrines with the aim to show that <span style="color:blue;">“penal substitution has a foundational place in Christian theology”</span> (p148) and that <span style="color:blue;">“to exclude it would distort or undermine many other theological themes.” </span>(p31) A brief Chapter 4 discusses the pastoral implications of penal substitution (hereafter PS), arguing that <span style="color:blue;">“the implications of penal substitution for the Christian life are profound, and a great deal is lost if it denied.”</span> (p150) A survey of historical Christians writings in Chapter 5 aims to <span style="color:blue;">“amply prove”</span> (p204) the <span style="color:blue;">“long and distinguished pedigree”</span> (p203) of PS that <span style="color:blue;">“has been affirmed from the earliest days of the Christian church”</span> to the present. (p203) It aims to show that <span style="color:blue;">“lots of people throughout church history have believed it” </span>(p203) and even that throughout this time <span style="color:blue;">“penal substitution was considered central to the Christian faith.”</span> (p203) Part II concludes by responding to biblical, subjective (cultural), ethical, judicial, theological and pastoral objections to PS, arguing in each case <span style="color:blue;">“that the objection does not successfully undermine the doctrine of penal substitution.”</span> (p206)<span style="color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Part I – “Building the case”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 1: “Introduction”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors provide a brief synopsis of the current debate around PS here. Yet this introduction is laced with judgements against those who disagree with the authors which are neither agreeable nor justified. For example: <span style="color:blue;">“The more disturbing thing is that some of the more recent critics of penal substitution regard themselves as evangelicals, and claim to be committed to the authority of Scripture.”</span> (p25) They liken those who disagree with the centrality of PS to those described in 2Ti 4:3-4 who will <span style="color:blue;">“turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”</span> (p24) They say that <span style="color:blue;">“the most pressing reason why this book is necessary is that the misconceived criticisms of penal substitution show no sign of abating.”</span> (p31) They write that <span style="color:blue;">“those who want to deny the doctrine [of PS] and yet own the label ‘evangelical’ would do well to recognize just how far they are departing from their heritage. Few if any of their forefathers would stand with them.”</span> (p32) While these derogatory assertions may well seem justified to the authors, they certainly do not win any favour with the readers they are seeking to persuade. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 2: “Biblical foundations of Penal Substitution”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">They preface their biblical survey by saying that the verses they list in support of PS <span style="color:blue;">“are not the only places in the bible where penal substitution is taught,” </span>and claim to have <span style="color:blue;">“selected a small number for the sake of simplicity and to allow space to explore each in some detail.”</span> (p34) However, they cover all the main verses used in support of PS, and it looks very much like they have not omitted any verse that might provide good support for PS. This chapter will be looked at in detail here because of the importance of Scripture, following the sections of the book as follows:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Exodus 12 (Passover)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">They argue that during the Passover <span style="color:blue;">“it was through the substitutionary death of a lamb… that [</span></span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-NZ" style="color:blue;">Israel</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-NZ" style="color:blue;">’s] firstborn sons were spared” </span><span lang="EN-NZ">during the plague of the firstborn. (p41) They note the comparison with Christ and the Passover and thus infer PS into his death also. <span style="color:blue;">“That penal substitution should be taught <i style="">here</i> of all places <i style="">is to give the doctrine a high prominence,</i>” </span>they claim. (p34, emph. added) A sceptical view of the same material would point out that the fact they have to search here of all places to try to prove PS shows the exact opposite. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Their argument that the Passover was PS in nature is based on the dubious assertion that in this last plague, <span style="color:blue;">“the Israelites were to be delivered not from Pharoah, but from the judgment of the Lord.”</span> (p36) The fact that they had to mark their doorposts in order to not suffer the plague is used to infer that God was intent on punishing the Israelites. (p37) This is evidently poor logic, as God not only desired to rescue them, but he told them exactly how to not be harmed by the plague <i style="">because he did not want to harm them</i>. They recognise the obvious, that <span style="color:blue;">“this might seem puzzling.”</span> (p38) To justify their view, they refer not to Exodus, but Ezekiel 20:4-10 to suggest that they deserved God’s judgement because they participated in Egyptian idolatry. (p38) Yet this reference is taken grossly out of the context of a long list of occurrences where God <i style="">withheld judgment</i>. The point Ezekiel is making is that God did <i style="">not</i> “poor our fury” upon them but patiently worked with them <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“not according to your wicked ways or corrupt doings.”</span> (Eze 20:44) </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">In addition, they draw attention to the sacrifice of the lamb as the important element in the story involving the lamb. However, Exodus makes the role of the lamb with respect to the plague quite clear: <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“the blood shall be a sign to you, on the houses where you are. And I will see the blood, and I will pass over you.”</span> (Exo 12:13) It was the distinguishing mark that was important – and what more distinguishing and symbolic of cleanliness than red blood? There is no need to assume the sacrifice <i style="">itself</i> was the reason the plague did not visit the Israelites when such a clear reason is specified. If anything about the lamb was important, it was the blood, not the death of the lamb <i style="">per se</i>. Additionally, the feast would have served to sustain the Israelites for the beginning of the Exodus the next day, which is itself a good reason to sacrifice the meat. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Despite the weak and highly contestable argument, they wrongly conclude that <span style="color:blue;">“the substitutionary element in the Passover is therefore <i style="">beyond dispute</i>.”</span> (p38, emph. added) They refer to Jesus’ last-supper statements in Mark </span><st1:time minute="22" hour="14"><span lang="EN-NZ">14:22</span></st1:time><span lang="EN-NZ">-24 as being penal-substitutionary in character, and do not consider any other possible frameworks for this passage (e.g. martyrdom, suffering righteous). So combining poor analysis of the Passover with a narrow-sighted reading of the Last Supper, they argue that the Passover proves Jesus’ death involved PS. (p38-41) It is a poor beginning to their case for biblical support of PS.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Leviticus 16 (Day of Atonement)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The significance of the scapegoat used on “Yom Kippur” (the Day of Atonement) is looked at next. They point out that <i style="">kipper</i> can mean <i style="">to forgive</i>, or <i style="">to cleanse</i>, which are obvious meanings in <i style="">Yom Kippur</i>. Yet continuing, the authors speculate that <span style="color:blue;">“a third possible meaning for <i style="">kipper</i> is <i style="">ransom</i>”</span> (p44) and use this to argue that in reference to the Day of Atonement, it refers to averting God’s wrath. (p45-47) They conclude that the Day of Atonement <span style="color:blue;">“refers to the propitiation of God’s wrath through the offering of a substitutionary animal sacrifice.”</span> (p48) Thus, they assert that God’s wrath is a central idea in Yom Kippur, and they use that to argue that the day was about propitiating God’s wrath. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Any scholar who is well familiar with the Day of Atonement will recognise not only the tenuousness of their argument here, but also that these claims are simply incorrect. Scholars such as Stephen Finlan note that the function of the scapegoat was seen as being to carry away the curses of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-NZ">Israel</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-NZ"> incurred by their sins and thus ritually cleanse the people. Yet the authors here go even further in their illogic. They dubiously assert that the term “cut off” refers primarily to <i style="">death</i> rather than separation, and use that to argue that sending the goat away was not to separate the sins from the people, but instead to die bearing their sins. (p49-50) In fact, the ritual was considered complete without the death of the scapegoat, and stories are told of the scapegoat wandering back alive to the camp after some days. They assert that God’s wrath was propitiated by the death of the scapegoat, (p48) but the scapegoat didn’t die as part of the ritual at all! They do not even mention that the goat that <i style="">was </i>actually sacrificed to God <i style="">did not carry any sins at all</i>, but instead was to remain pure. In contrast, it would have been seen as a great offence to sacrifice the sin-carrying scapegoat to God, so it was sent out to the desert alive.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Hence they very wrongly conclude that the scapegoat ritual demonstrates PS:<span style="color:blue;"> “the scapegoat is depicted… as bearing the sin, guilt and punishment of the people, and being condemned to death in their place.” </span>(p50) Later, <span style="color:blue;">“Leviticus 16 depicts the propitiation of God’s wrath by the substitutionary death of an animal.”</span> (p52) In this regard, a very limited understanding (in fact, a deceptive misunderstanding) is shown of the ancient Jewish rituals. Nevertheless, the alleged conclusion to this poor logic is that <span style="color:blue;">“penal substitution is <i style="">central</i> to God’s dealing with sin,”</span> (p50) as if this one particular ritual is the key to understanding how God deals with sin in all cases.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors completely ignore the weight of biblical stories in which God forgave people without sacrifice, which completely undermines their case. Take </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-NZ">Nineveh</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-NZ">, for example, where: <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.”</span> (Jon 3:10) They do look at God’s forgiveness of David’s adultery and murder in Ps 51, but do not recognise that it undermines their argument. They reinterpret David’s statement that <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“You [God] do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings”</span> (Ps 51:16) as referring to sacrifices of praise, incorrectly using his earlier reference to hyssop to provide the illusion of support for their argument. (p51) Far more likely is that David recognised there were no sacrifices prescribed by the Torah to atone for sins of adultery and murder, and thus appealed to God for merciful forgiveness apart from sacrifice. Indeed, for this very reason Paul points out that David was forgiven despite not “working” the Torah in Romans 4:4-8. At the end of the authors’ argument, they give a blanket disclaimer that explains Hebrew’s statement that <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins,”</span> and indeed any situations of God’s forgiveness that don’t fit with their ideology: <span style="color:blue;">“The Old Testament sacrifices provided a window through which they looked in faith to their Messiah who was yet to come.”</span> (p52) Thus it is argued that despite being thousands of years in the future, Christ’s death was what actually atoned for people’s sins all along. (p52) Such appeals to a time-travelling cosmic atonement of the cross combined with the dubious assertion that the Old Testament people of God had in mind Jesus being on the cross centuries in the future hardly strengthen their case.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (suffering servant)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 apparently is used to support PS, and this is perhaps their strongest case for PS being present in Scipture. (p52-57) Of course, it is widely accepted that the original author of this passage wrote it in reference to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-NZ">Israel</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-NZ">, not Jesus. The New Testament (hereafter NT) references this passage in the context of writing about Jesus, though. When dealing with these, Jeffery, Ovey and Sach adopt unlikely interpretations to fit their position. They choose to not see the meaning of the NT references to this passage as being defined by the context in which the authors quote verses from it. Rather, they assert that the <i style="">penal substitutionary</i> theme of the passage is what the authors refer to – despite recognising the objections that have been raised to this idea. (p63-65) Despite no NT quote occurring clearly in the context of PS ideas they claim: <span style="color:blue;">“The New Testament uses this passage to speak of Christ’s death in penal substitutionary terms.”</span> (p67) Again, they show complete disregard for other ideological frameworks of the Scriptural authors into which these quotes would fit, and do not even mention the obvious ones. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Mark<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Moving to the New Testament, the authors begin by completely omitting the Gospels of Matthew and Luke – perhaps because they found no support for PS in these gospels. Of course, one would wonder how if it is such a “central doctrine” that these Gospels could be considered complete without it. This problem is glossed over by simply beginning with the heading “The Gospel of Mark.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">One would expect a discussion of the story found in Mark, but instead the authors simply argue about the meaning of biblical words to find support. Firstly, they chose to interpret the word <i style="">lytron</i> (which refers to payment for release) in Mark 10:45 as connoting substitution rather than its plain meaning (p67). In addition, they choose to interpret <i style="">anti</i> (normally translated “for” in Mk </span><st1:time hour="10" minute="45"><span lang="EN-NZ">10:45</span></st1:time><span lang="EN-NZ">) as meaning “in place of.” Hence they see Mk 10:45 as proving <span style="color:blue;">“a substitutionary payment in the place of others.”</span> (p67) Rather than deal properly with the other frameworks into which this verse fits sensibly, they attempt to support a PS framework by looking at the context of Mk 10:45 through the eyes of PS. (p68-70) They make an un-compelling argument that because the Old Testament uses a “cup” in the context of wrath a few times, Jesus’ request that God <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“take this cup from me”</span> involves God’s wrath rather than simply the suffering of his death which he foresaw. (pg 68-90) </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">They continue by looking at Mk 10:33-34 and a third word definition for support. This time, they focus on when Jesus was <i style="">handed over</i> (<i style="">paradidomi</i>) to the Gentiles to be killed. They argue that in this case, <i style="">paradidomi</i>, <span style="color:blue;">“admits an extra shade of meaning”</span> – which they assert is that of <i style="">God’s wrath</i> while providing virtually no support for this tenuous claim. (p70-71) Again, by completely ignoring other explanatory frameworks for the verses, they conclude that Mk </span><st1:time hour="10" minute="45"><span lang="EN-NZ">10:45</span></st1:time><span lang="EN-NZ"> proves that Jesus was <span style="color:blue;">“handed over to God’s wrath”</span> in giving his life for many. (p71) Final brief appeals to Mk 15:33-34 and </span><st1:time minute="27" hour="14"><span lang="EN-NZ">14:27</span></st1:time><span lang="EN-NZ"> as proving PS exhaust their look at Mark, and appear to be “clutching at straws” for support. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">John<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">John 3:14-18 is first looked at in some detail to prove the trivial idea that God’s wrath remains on those who do not follow Jesus. (p73-74) They continue to point out that <span style="color:blue;">“death is the penalty for sin, imposed as God’s sentence of condemnation on sinful humanity.”</span> (p74)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Having established a theme of God’s wrath, they connect it to John 11:47-52, 8 chapters later, by again looking at controversial word definitions. (p75) Here they attempt to argue that <i style="">hyper</i> (“for”) <span style="color:blue;">“conveys a substitutionary sense on Caiaphas’ lips.”</span> (p75) Caiaphas probably means here that they thought it better to kill Jesus than risk suffering under military action by the Romans to crush what they might consider a rebellion. John’s connection of Caiaphas’ statement to Jesus as being “prophetic” is then regarded as <i style="">definitive</i>, not an aside. (p75) The authors continue to completely ignore the many occurrences of <i style="">hyper</i> that obviously do not mean “in stead of” and proceed to read their interpretation into John 18:14; </span><st1:time minute="51" hour="18"><span lang="EN-NZ">6:51</span></st1:time><span lang="EN-NZ">; </span><st1:time minute="11" hour="10"><span lang="EN-NZ">10:11</span></st1:time><span lang="EN-NZ">, 15. Thus choosing to define <i style="">hyper</i> in a way that suits them, they conclude that John <span style="color:blue;">“teaches clearly that Jesus’ death was substitutionary.”</span> (p77) </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">They end their conclusion by making a completely unwarranted step in their argument, concluding that because death is the penalty for sin and Jesus’ death was substitutionary, that it proves atonement worked via penal substitution. This is hardly compelling. Yet they use it to assert that <span style="color:blue;">“to ‘perish’ in John is to suffer the punishment for sin under God’s just condemnation. This is penal. [It proves] penal substitution.”</span> (p77) So after looking a sprinkling of verses from the Gospels and drawing some tenuous conclusions, they leave the Gospels, as if they have proven PS is a major theme throughout them all.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Romans<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Their attitude and approach to Romans is summarised in their opening sentence: <span style="color:blue;">“the book of Romans teaches the doctrine of penal substitution so plainly that the steady stream of attempts by some recent commentators and theologians to evade the obvious is both surprising and a little tiresome.”</span> (p77) So after again condescending upon those whom they seek to persuade, they adopt a standard Reformed reading of Rom 1-3. Despite this being a relatively easy position to try to defend, they choose to defend it again by grasping at specific words selectively throughout the text, rather than assess Paul’s overall argument. (p78-79) Of course they completely omit any reference to Rom 2:5-16, which would greatly trouble their argument. They simply use Rom 1-3 to prove that <span style="color:blue;">“we stand under the just wrath of God.”</span> (p80)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Yet none of that proves PS. So they first hold Rom 3:21-26 as their first passage in support. Despite this being a highly controversial passage amongst scholarship, they suggest that to prove it teaches PS is simple. It is clear that through Jesus’ death we are no longer under God’s wrath, and thus they state <span style="color:blue;">“we need only to establish that it was by Christ’s death in our place that this was accomplished.”</span> (p81) All they actually do is highlight Jesus’ death, our subsequent favour with God, and suggest they have proved their case. They seek to strengthen their argument through their wishful thinking: <span style="color:blue;">“the mere fact that Jesus died, in the context of the thought-world of Romans, constitutes an argument for penal substitution.”</span> (p81) Given the near non-existent evidence they give in support, it seems to be in fact their own thought-world that leads them to write, <span style="color:blue;">“we cannot conceivably imagine that the punishment for sin has been overlooked! God must punish sin, and in the death of Christ he has done so.”</span> (p81) They illogically argue that because God left past sins unpunished, he <i style="">must</i> have punished sin in Christ, simply because they do not see any of the plausible alternatives. (p81) Finally, they spend four pages “proving” that <i style="">hilasterion</i> means “propitiation” – as if that in itself proves that PS is the mechanism that turns away God’s wrath from us. (p82-85) It is amusing they even quote at length from N.T. Wright to support other meanings of <i style="">hilasterion</i> also, who called their book <span style="color:blue;">“deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical.” </span>(<i style="">The Cross and the Caricatures</i>, 2007) Despite their weak argument, they conclude that <span style="color:blue;">“the <i style="">undeniable</i> teaching of Rom 3:21-26 is that the Lord Jesus Christ was set forth as a propitiation, to turn aside God’s wrath from his people <i style="">by suffering it in their place</i>.”</span> (p85, emph. added)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">After spending eight pages on Rom 3:21-26, their argument drastically looses content as they look to Rom 4:25 for support. They make the astoundingly weak argument that because the “handing over” (<i style="">paradidomi</i>) of Christ refers to his death, <span style="color:blue;">“penal substitution is plainly in view.”</span> (p86) Again by completely ignoring alternative atonement frameworks, they look at the use of “blood” in Rom 5:8-10 and assert that <span style="color:blue;">“once again, the doctrine of penal substitution underpins the logic of Paul’s argument.”</span> (p86) They move to Rom 8:1-3, which occurs after Paul’s metaphors of “dying with Christ” to sin and during his lengthy discussion about living by the “Spirit” rather than the “Flesh.” Despite these themes being clearly in Paul’s mind, they assert that the reason there is <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus”</span> (v1) is <i style="">not</i> because they are <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“set free from the law of sin and of death”</span> to <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“walk according to flesh, but according to Spirit”</span> <i style="">as Paul continues directly to say in the very next words</i>. <span style=""> </span>Rather, they say it is because God <i style="">literally</i> <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“condemned sin in the flesh”</span> (v3) <i style="">of Jesus</i>. (p86) This constitutes poor exegesis of scripture to attempt to support a point that Paul is simply not making here. Yet they falsely claim that <span style="color:blue;">“this amounts to an explicit statement of the doctrine of penal substitution.”</span> (p87) The conclude their look at Romans by saying PS <span style="color:blue;">“is woven into the fabric of these chapters,”</span> (p88) as if restating their claims makes them sound more convincing.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Galations 3:10-13 (Mosaic curse of those hung on a tree)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Central to their next argument is that despite the huge controversy over interpretation of this passage, <span style="color:blue;">“we shall merely demonstrate that the doctrine of penal substitution remains secure, regardless of which path is taken with respect to the issues of recent controversy.”</span> (p89) They fail to demonstrate this. Three pages are spent arguing that we are still under the curse of the law. Yet again, no thought is given to other redemption frameworks, and so they wrongly conclude <span style="color:blue;">“there is no way of evading the conclusion that all people need Christ’s substitutionary death to redeem them from the curse that would otherwise be due to them for their failure to meet the requirements of God’s holy law.”</span> (p93) Most Jews, of course, believed they were keeping God’s law and thus were not under a curse. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors hinge their argument around the phrase that Christ <span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">“become a curse for us; for it has been written, ‘Cursed is everyone having been hung on a tree.’”</span> What they fail to point out is that if the passage in Deut. </span><st1:time minute="23" hour="21"><span lang="EN-NZ">21:23</span></st1:time><span lang="EN-NZ"> did not exist, Paul would have said no such thing. In other words, Paul’s motivation for mentioning this is not because it is central to his theology, but because he must explain Deut. 21:23. The authors simply ignore this, and say <span style="color:blue;">“the doctrine of penal substitution emerges plainly.”</span> (p95)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">1 Peter<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The meaning of <i style="">lytroo</i> (“redeemed”) in 1 Pet 18-19 is argued. The authors speculate upon a connection with Isiah 53, and use that to suggest Peter speaks <span style="color:blue;">“clearly about the penal substitutionary death of Christ.”</span> (p96) Moving on to 1 Pet 2:21-25, while they recognise that the passage refers to the exemplary significance of Jesus’ death, they argue that this <span style="color:blue;">“cannot, however, account for all of the teaching in the passage.”</span> (p97) This claim itself is debatable, yet the passage probably provides one of their stronger biblical arguments. They continue by ignoring the context and by connecting words in the passage to their previous arguments regarding Gal 3, Isaiah 53, and their dubious assertion of a substitutionary meaning of <i style="">hyper</i>. Apparently one <i style="">single verse</i> gives them grounds to claim that <span style="color:blue;">“Peter draws <i style="">extensively</i> on the imagery of the Servant of Isaiah 53 to explain the penal substitutionary significance of Jesus death.” </span>(p99, emph. added) Yet Peter is talking about an exemplary framework in this context, not a penal substitutionary one. While far from being their weakest argument, this one is still unconvincingly made. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">After all this, they claim that <span style="color:blue;">“the Bible speaks with a clear and united witness”</span> (p99) in support of PS. What it striking, of course, is that they have simply not compared PS with any of the other frameworks for understanding the significance of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. They also omit mentioning that they found no support for PS in two of the Gospels, and very little support in Mark and John. In fact, the diversity of these other “witnesses” and the consistent emphasis of the New Testament authors of different frameworks for understanding the significance of Jesus (which they don’t mention) would suggest that their assessment is simply untrue. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Even if we generously double the number of New Testament verses referenced, they still only find that only a handful of NT verses could <i style="">possibly</i> support PS. They state that their <span style="color:blue;">“aim in this chapter has been to demonstrate that penal substitution is taught in Scripture.”</span> (p99) So even if these verses do <span style="color:blue;">“clearly teach”</span> PS and their assessment that <span style="color:blue;">“this cannot be denied”</span> (p99) is true, they have certainly failed to evidence that PS <span style="color:blue;">“has <i style="">such prominence</i> that it cannot be sidelined”</span> (p34, emph. added). Perhaps that’s why they added the word some here: saying that PS is<span style="color:blue;"> “a central emphasis of <i style="">some</i> foundational passages in both the Old and New Testaments” </span>(p33, emph added), for judging by the evidence they give PS is hardly emphasised at all!</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 3: “The Theological Framework for Penal Substitution”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Pages 100-148 are spent outlining the “big-picture” of Christian theology, to <span style="color:blue;">“place [PS] in its proper theological context.”</span> (p101) It is fitting that the chapter is entitled “the theological framework <i style="">for</i> penal substitution,” because that is exactly what it is – a set of doctrines they have selected especially for PS. They proceed to present a number of doctrines which are used to support the theory, and omit any doctrines that don’t fit in. They seek to justify their gross bias by distinguishing between <span style="color:blue;">“understanding something <i style="">truly</i> and understanding something <i style="">exhaustively</i>.”</span> (p101-102) So then at the end of the chapter, after presenting all the peripheral doctrines <i style="">that specifically relate to PS</i>, they misleadingly claim that PS lies at the heart not simply of the doctrines they have selected, but that <span style="color:blue;">“penal substitution has a foundational place in Christian theology.”</span> (p148) </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">They begin by providing a helpful one-page summary of their view of the doctrine of PS. (p103-104). This provides the foundation from which they assess primarily only three doctrines: human depravity, God’s unwillingness to forgive sin, and redemption. These doctrines are split up between the following headings:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Creation<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ" style="color:blue;">“The doctrine of creation is plainly important for a right understand of redemption,”</span><span lang="EN-NZ"> (p105) or more accurately, of penal substitution. Thus, after a brief recount of God’s powerful words that created the universe, they highlight: <span style="color:blue;">“the fact that the universe continues to function… needs to be seen in the light of God’s continued, intentional, active, sustaining involvement.”</span> (p107) This point is used to argue that <span style="color:blue;">“since the moral consequences of sin are willed in this way, they have the character of divine punishment.”</span> (p107) The same point can also be used to argue God is responsible for all evil in the world and that God is therefore evil. Their logic simply overlooks any concept of humans as moral agents, and so it is unclear how their point here helps their case. They continue by emphasising a legal aspect of Creation, where the hierarchy of command proceeded from top to bottom as God, Humanity, The rest of Creation. (p108-109) </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">‘Decreation’ (the fall)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The preceding chapter is used as required background for this chapter describing the sinfulness of humankind. They argue that <span style="color:blue;">“the sin of Adam and Eve also overturns the order God has established in Genesis 1-2.”</span> (p111) Hence they present that due to the fall, the “hierarchy of Creation” was reversed: The rest of Creation, Humanity, God. They use this view to argue that <span style="color:blue;">“nothing less than another act by God, on the scale of creation, can set things right.”</span> (p112) This becomes a set-up to make the cosmic act of PS seem necessary later on. Five pages are then wasted discussing <span style="color:blue;">“false faith”</span> (p112-117), which seems largely irrelevant to their argument and doesn’t aid their case at all. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">The consequences of sin<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">After another irrelevant discussion on the nature of death (p118-121), it is argued that <span style="color:blue;">“death is God’s punishment for sin.”</span> (p121-123) There is nothing wrong with this conclusion, but it doesn’t help prove PS as they would like. Lastly, they assert that <span style="color:blue;">“sin is a personal affront to [God]”</span> (p123) based on nothing more than a few examples where God is portrayed as being angry at sin. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Truth, goodness, justice and salvation<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">They begin by asserting that <span style="color:blue;">“sin, as an act of decreation, is a denial of God’s truthfulness and justice.”</span> (p124) No support is offered for this creative assertion. Further claims regarding the nature of God and what it means for sin and salvation don’t further their case much. (p125) The reason for this section appears as this: to make the point that God’s nature requires him to <span style="color:blue;">“find a way to restore his creation to its original goodness, without compromising his promise that sin will bring death.”</span> (p126) Sadly this point does little to strengthen their argument for PS as the specific way in which God does that.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Relationships within the Trinity<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Here is it highlighted that the different members of the Trinity can act upon other members and yet be unified in purpose. (p127-132) This becomes important for their rebuttals to objections in Part 2 of the book, but is largely irrelevant to their main point in this chapter. It is simply concluded that <span style="color:blue;">“these aspects of God’s character… [are] reflected in God’s work of redemption.”</span> (p132)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Redemption<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">This section contains two central themes: <span style="color:blue;">“not only does the Father give the Son to believers, but he also gives believers to his Son.”</span> (p132) In the first of these, the perfection of the Son is highlighted as being suitable for a sacrifice for PS. (p132-137) This section is loaded with presuppositions suitable for PS. A few pages are given to looking at how this very biased view of Christ and PS fits into other atonement ideas of victory, reconciliation and ransom. Lest these detract from their point, they conclude that <span style="color:blue;">“we should not see these perspectives on the cross as <i style="">alternatives</i> to penal substitution, <i style="">but rather outworkings of it</i>. Penal substitution underpins and enriches them.”</span> (p144, emph. added) Having loaded the chapter with ideas that fit with PS, they give their reasoning behind this claim by saying <span style="color:blue;">“to dispense with PS would distort these other perspectives.”</span> (p144) This is a classic circular argument. Due to shear ignorance of other frameworks, they then make the completely inaccurate claim that without PS <span style="color:blue;">“the very elements of these other perspectives that are praised with such passion in Scripture… <i style="">would have to go as well</i>.”</span> (p144, emph. added) Following this, they describe a Calvinistic interpretation of God drawing believers to himself and unifying them with Christ in order to perform the double-imputation of PS. (p144-147) It is claimed from all this that <span style="color:blue;">“penal substitution emerges as a central aspect of God’s redeeming work in Christ.”</span> (p147)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Perhaps their statement that <span style="color:blue;">“penal substitution has a foundation place in Christian theology”</span> (p148) is a valid point, but it is not at all a valid conclusion from their argument. Their argument is simply far too ignorant of alternative viewpoints and too lacking in sound logic to prove their thesis here. In this chapter the authors have selected only certain doctrines that fit and even suggest PS, mixed them with many suggestive remarks connoting PS, and omitted all views and doctrines which do not fit with PS. In their conclusion, they suggest that PS is not simply central to the particular doctrines they have outlined, but that it is the foundation of all Christian theology. Yet the majority of the important other doctrines of Christian theology can be held without believing PS. Their rhetorical conclusion here is not based on a solid argument, but instead a biased and incomplete portrayal of Christian theology. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 4: “The pastoral importance of Penal Substitution”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">In this short chapter, the authors outline how they see PS as impacting our Christian lives. (p150) They discuss the assurance of God’s love (p150-153), confidence in God’s truthfulness (p153-156), a passion for God’s justice (p156-158), and realism about our sin (p158-160). None of these are particularly controversial points. Yet they present them as if PS is the only basis for having them, by saying that <span style="color:blue;">“the implications of penal substitution for the Christian life are profound, and a great deal is lost if it is denied.”</span> (p150) In fact, one can hold all the things they have presented here without holding PS. Thus, their above assertion is simply untrue, and this chapter does little to help their case.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size:14;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 5: “The historical pedigree of Penal Substitution”</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">The authors correctly observe that <span style="color:blue;">“we <i style="">ought</i> to be worried if what we believe to be a foundational biblical truth remained entirely undiscovered from the days of the apostles right up until the middle of the sixteenth century.”</span> (p162) In comparison with their biblical analysis, here they <span style="color:blue;">“have tried to be fairly exhaustive up to and including Gregory the Great”</span> in the 6<sup>th</sup> century to demonstrate support for PS. (p163) They are confident that <span style="color:blue;">“the weight of evidence is quite overwhelming.”</span> (p163)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">However, it should be sufficient to cause concern if PS was not a prominent view even in the first 300 years of Christian tradition. For the first three centuries, they only find one single paragraph from Justin Martyr (2<sup>nd</sup> century) which <i style="">may</i> support of PS. (p164-166) Justin wouldn’t even have included this paragraph if not for the existence of Deut. 21:23, and supporting PS is clearly not his main point. Nevertheless, the authors claim a total of one paragraph that supports PS out of an estimated 6500 pages of Christian writings extant from this period. The New Testament contains 260 chapters, averaging about one page each. Roughly scaling the 6500 pages of these Christian writings to the size of the New Testament, their paragraph in support of PS would be the equivalent to about <i style="">one word</i> in the New Testament. This is hardly an overwhelming <span style="color:blue;">“weight of evidence.” </span>In fact, <i style="">their own evidence</i> shows the PS <i style="">is hardly mentioned at all</i> by the early Christians within the first three centuries. This seems to prove exactly the opposite of what the authors present it in proof of. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">They find about one or at most two paragraphs to support PS from each of Eusebius (p166-167), Hilary of Poitiers (p167-169), Athanasius (p169-173), Gregory of Nazianzus (p173-174), Ambrose of Milan (p174-175), John Chrystostum (p175-176), Augustine of Hippo (p177-179), Cyril of Alexandria (p180-181), and Gregory the Great (p183). They also present a paragraph from an unheard-of Gelasius of Cyzicus (p181-183), who by their admission <span style="color:blue;">“has almost no significance as a theologian”</span> (p183) and <span style="color:blue;">“was somewhat lacking in integrity as a historian.”</span> (p182) Thus, they exhaust the references in support of PS written prior to the 13<sup>th</sup> century. Of course, from this time we have a vast amount of Christian works extant, and thus their “exhaustive” list of quotes is hardly compelling. The fact that 21 pages are taken to present only about 20 paragraphs of quotations also reveals how padded with irrelevant discussion the section is. It is clear that even in these quotes in support of PS, the writers had no intention of focussing on PS or emphasising it as an atonement theory. Thus even if these quotes do refer to PS, none of these writers considered it a theory worth emphasising at length. Furthermore, they omit any mention of several key aspects of the modern PS theory. Thus, it is unclear exactly in what way this evidence is <span style="color:blue;">“overwhelming”</span> – whether it is in support of the chapter’s case or contradictory to it.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">After a brief quote from Thomas Aquinas (p184-185) in the context not of PS, but of satisfaction, the authors nestle into the comfortably supportive quotes of the Reformed tradition. They go through quotes that are far more supportive of PS from Calvin (p185-186), Francis Turretin (p186-187), John Bunyan (p188-189), John Owen (p189-191), George Whitefield (p191-193), Spurgeon (p193-194), D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (194-195), John Stott (p196-197), J. I. Packer (p197-200), and throw in quotes from the UCCF and the EA for good measure (p200-203). Of course, they fail to mention the objection of the Catholic church to some of the Reformers ideas. They do not quote here the numerous people who have challenged PS throughout this time. Their case is built mainly on quotes from the Protestant tradition.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Despite this, the authors conclude that <span style="color:blue;">“lots of people throughout church history have believed [PS]”</span> and that it thus has <span style="color:blue;">“a long and distinguished pedigree.”</span> (p203) They neglect to mention the obvious fact evident from their “exhaustive” evidence from the first three centuries – that the vast majority of Christian writers didn’t even mention PS, and the one that allegedly did certainly didn’t consider it worth more than a passing mention. So far from finding this data <span style="color:blue;">“reassuring”</span> (p203) and their conclusions <span style="color:blue;">“amply proven”</span> (p204), a more accurate conclusion is the very one the authors sought to avoid – they <i style="">ought</i> to be worried because PS is <i style="">hardly mentioned at all</i> in the extra-biblical Christian writings of the first 300 years. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Overall critique of Part I:</span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">This book fails to prove its main thesis regarding the importance of penal substitution in the minds of the biblical authors and the early Christians. The conclusions of this book are founded upon ignorance, poor logic, and misinterpretation of evidence. Alternative views are not even considered. Biblical texts which contradict their conclusions are ignored. Circular arguments are used extensively. Claims of “clearly proving” conclusions are prolific, yet almost never supported by the arguments. Lastly, the very small amount of evidence found in support of PS in the writings of the early Christians is grossly misinterpreted. It is wrongly concluded from this evidence that PS was “a central theme” to the authors, rather than a peripheral theme that is barely even mentioned. Some claims are simply misleading from the truth. It is little wonder that N.T. Wright considered this book <span style="color:blue;">“deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ" style="color:blue;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Part 1 of this book is unlikely to persuade any of its critics, and indeed it seems likely to be heavily criticised by scholarship. Yet the condescension and cursory dismissals of those who hold different opinions in the introduction make it even less likely to be well-received by any who do not already agree with the authors. Hence, it is unlikely that this part of the book will have the effect desired by its authors.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> (The second part of this review is continued in <a href="http://notionsincognito.blogspot.com/2007/07/pierced-for-our-transgressions-critique_08.html">this next post</a>.)Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-73724307358041079442007-06-09T14:49:00.000+12:002007-07-14T16:24:09.660+12:00What "faith" really means<p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p></o:p></span></b><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p></o:p>I have recently completed a detailed study regarding the New Testament meaning of “faith”. I studied all occurrences of the <i style="">pistis</i>-group words in the New Testament, their usage in extra-biblical works, and recent scholarship regarding the words. <i style="">Pistis</i> is typically translated as “faith” or “belief” in many English versions. I thought I would briefly share my findings here.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p></o:p></span><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Its range of meaning<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Pistis is a word that has a much larger range of meanings than the English words “faith” or “belief”. In understanding how it has such a range of meanings, I have realised that <i style="">pistis</i> </span><span style="">denotes a general concept of a firm and stable “connection” between two entities. These connections of <i style="">pistis</i> can be formed between a wide variety of entities: people, God, Jesus, traditions, practices, groups, purposes, facts, or ideas. The English terms that suit this connection depend on the nature of those entities, which I’ve tried to outline in the table below:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <div align="center"> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="margin-left: -21.6pt; border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 88.2pt;color:-moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color;" valign="top" width="118"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="">From (who/what is characterized by having <i style="">pistis</i>)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 90pt;color:-moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color;" valign="top" width="120"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="">To<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none none solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 234.9pt;color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext;" valign="top" width="313"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="">Suitable English ideas relating to the connection<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 88.2pt;color:-moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color;" valign="top" width="118"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Person<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 90pt;color:-moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color;" valign="top" width="120"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Message, idea, proposition, etc<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none none solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 234.9pt;color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext;" valign="top" width="313"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Belief / assent / trust<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 88.2pt;color:-moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color;" valign="top" width="118"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Person<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 90pt;color:-moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color;" valign="top" width="120"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Person<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none none solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 234.9pt;color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext;" valign="top" width="313"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Commitment / Faith-fulness / fidelity / reliability of a person / loyalty / trust / a pledge<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 88.2pt;color:-moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color;" valign="top" width="118"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Person<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 90pt;color:-moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color;" valign="top" width="120"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Purpose, tradition, practice, things, etc<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none none solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 234.9pt;color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext;" valign="top" width="313"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Commitment / faith-fulness / perseverance / endurance / being made faith-ful, being entrusted<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid none none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 88.2pt;color:-moz-use-text-color windowtext -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;" valign="top" width="118"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Proposition / Fact<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid none none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 90pt;color:-moz-use-text-color windowtext -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;" valign="top" width="120"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border: medium none ; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 234.9pt;" valign="top" width="313"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Evidence / reliability of<span style=""> </span>a statement / proof<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </div> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p></o:p><br />This concept that <i style="">pistis</i> refers to a stable, firm connection between two entities is consistent with all the occurrences of pistis that I found both in the New Testament and in extra-biblical sources. It is also consistent with a range of opinions scholars have put forward as it’s meaning (e.g. Pilch, Malina, DeSilva, Stowers, Crossan, Reed, </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="">Campbell</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="">, Howard, Lindsay, Hay).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span><b style=""><span style="">New Testament usage<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">I found a total of 563 occurrences of <i style="">pistis</i>-group words in the New Testament. Only 62 occurrences clearly refer to <i style="">pistis</i> toward propositions, ideas, or statements. Far more commonly, pistis is directed towards <i style="">people</i> rather than propositions. The NT denotes <i style="">pistis</i> towards the <i style="">person</i> of Jesus 94 times by name, which far outweighs occurrences of <i style="">pistis</i> toward ideas concerning him. <i style="">Pistis</i> towards God is mentioned 20 times, and we also mention of it directed towards Paul, Peter, John the Baptist, Moses, the Prophets, false teachers, spirits, and masters. Jesus followers are described as having <i style="">pistis</i> about 149 times, but there are others who are described as having <i style="">pistis</i>. For example, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses' parents, Moses, the Israelites, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets all had <i style="">pistis</i>. Jesus is characterised by <i style="">pistis</i>, similarly, God’s <i style="">pistis</i> is referred to a number of times. “Words” are also described as having <i style="">pistis</i>. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p></o:p></span><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Concepts strongly related to <i style="">pistis</i> in the New Testament<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Five concepts that pistis is strongly related with became obvious. These concepts occur frequently in the context of <i style="">pistis</i>, and are sometimes used synonymously. I found that pistis is <i style="">strongly</i> paralleled with:</span></p> <ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Faithfulness</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Obedience</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Loyalty and “following”</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Endurance and perseverance</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Right thoughts and behaviour</span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p>I have used over 170 of the New Testament occurrences of <i style="">pistis</i>-group words as references for these related concepts, so I do not have room or time here to list them. In percentage terms, these five parallels of commitment are evident in about 30% of the occurrences of <i style="">pistis</i>-group words, and are typical when <i style="">pistis</i> towards Jesus is referred to. Only about 10% of occurrences clearly refer to mental belief in propositions or ideas, but a similar theme of <i style="">commitment</i> towards those propositions is evident. The remaining 60% of occurrences are “abstract” usages of <i style="">pistis</i>, in which no related concepts are evident to help clarify what <i style="">pistis</i> means. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p></o:p></span><b style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Some conclusions<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">Based on the New Testament usage of <i style="">pistis</i>, I would describe pistis towards Jesus as something like this: </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p></o:p></span><b style=""><i style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Pistis</span></i><span lang="EN-NZ"> towards Jesus:</span></b><span lang="EN-NZ"> being faithful, obedient, and loyal to follow Jesus, his teachings, his way of life, and his mission; with endurance and perseverance, and ensuring our lives, thoughts, and behaviour are consistent with this.<span style=""> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p>Comparable connections between <i style="">pistis</i> towards Jesus and belief in propositions and theories regarding his work on the cross and atonement are negligible, especially measured against the strongly related themes listed above. In addition, other Greek words which refer to concepts like trust, assurance, being convinced, confidence, being persuaded (e.g. <i style="">peitho</i>, <i style="">plerophoreo</i>, <i style="">pepoithesis</i>, or <i style="">hupostasis</i>) are also hardly used in connection with propositions and theories regarding his work on the cross and atonement. If pistis towards Jesus was about mental belief concerning these matters, these lack of parallels are difficult to explain in light of the massive number of parallels with ideas of faithfulness, obedience, loyalty, following, endurance, perseverance and right thoughts and behaviour. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ">After doing this study, it seems clear to me that the New Testament uses <i style="">pistis</i> to convey an idea of following Jesus that is perhaps quite different to the ideas many Christians today mean by “faith”. For me, this New Testament idea of <i style="">pistis</i> towards Jesus seems far more meaningful, powerful, and practical than mere belief. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-1877228325608722802007-05-21T22:36:00.000+12:002007-07-14T16:26:43.011+12:00Will my iPod make me happy?Let me break the silence of my blog once more... to say something that will probably get lost amidst the loud hubbub of our busy lives.<br /><br />I recently was given an iPod for my birthday. It's great. But the thing that struck me is this: I was quite happy without one. I didn't feel like I was missing out on anything. Having got one, I am not more happy than I was before.<br /><br />In a flurry of thought I have reached the following conclusion: we can be just as happy without things as we can with them. Beyond the basic needs of survival and safety, happiness simply doesn't seem to be dependent upon the things we own. This makes me wonder what it is that does actually make us happy. Is happiness an attitude? An outlook on life? I think so.<br /><br />My thought is this: if you can't be happy without what you don't have, you probably won't be happy with what you do have.<br /><br />Of course, I also question the value our culture culture on "happiness". I think there are is a deeper kind of joy that is somehow much more satisfying than getting good stuff or having good things happen. And maybe that's it - maybe happiness is something that's based on successes or positive turn of events. Maybe it is built on the idea of things <span style="font-style: italic;">changing</span> for the "better". Perhaps that sort of attitude is bound to lead to disappointment when we find life doesn't just keep getting "better".<br /><br />So perhaps instead, there is a kind of joy that isn't built on change, but on somehow appreciating and en-<span style="font-style: italic;">joy-</span>ing the things that you already have. Even when things change undesirably, perhaps that kind of joy might somehow learn to see that as an acceptable part of the roller-coaster ride of life. Perhaps one can actually be joyful in the midst of undesirable events. Perhaps joy is a skill that you can learn to have whenever and wherever you are.<br /><br />Perhaps I have tasted a little bit of this joy... like those fleeting moments that seem significant but are over before you have a chance to understand why, or those times where you see something little that makes you smile for a second but you don't know why. But I would like to discover something <span style="font-style: italic;">beyond </span>the happiness that our culture ascribes to <span style="font-style: italic;">getting good things</span>. I want to find the sort of joy that never gets drowned out by the drone of traffic, the wet squish of rain in my shoes on a cold winter's day, and the music from my iPod.<div style="width: 490px; position: absolute; visibility: hidden; z-index: 99999; top: -15px; left: 654px;" id="AnswersBalloon"><table class="JSBalloon" style="border-collapse: collapse; direction: ltr;" id="AutoNumber1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td height="9" width="10"><br /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);" height="9" width="1"><br /></td> <td style="visibility: hidden;" class="topimagecorner1" id="AnswerTipHook" height="9" valign="bottom"> <img class="AnswerTipNorth" src="http://www.answers.com/main/images/aNorthEast.gif" height="18" width="67" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);" height="9" width="100%"><br /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);" height="9" width="70"><br /></td> <td height="9" width="10"><br /></td> </tr> <tr class="handle" id="AnswersHandle7" handlefor="AnswersBalloon"> <td class="topimagecorner1" height="8" width="8"> <img src="http://www.answers.com/main/images/cLeftTop.gif" border="0" height="8" width="8" /></td> <td class="topimage1" colspan="4" height="8" width="100%"><br /></td> <td class="topimagecorner1" height="8" width="10"> <img src="http://www.answers.com/main/images/cRightTop.gif" border="0" height="8" width="8" /></td> </tr> <tr class="centerrow"><td style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);" class="handle" id="AnswersHandlee" handlefor="AnswersBalloon" height="100%" width="3"><br /></td> <td colspan="4" style="" valign="top"><table id="Balloontable1" class="donotmoveme" style="width: 99%;"><tbody><tr><td> <div id="Answertip" style="overflow: hidden; height: 248px; width: 100%;"></div> <div id="answertipClose" style="display: none;"></div><br /></td></tr></tbody></table> </td><td style="border-right: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);" class="handle" id="AnswersHandlef" handlefor="AnswersBalloon" height="100%" width="3"><br /></td> </tr> <tr id="sponsor" height="22"> <td style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);" class="handle" id="AnswersHandle2" handlefor="AnswersBalloon" height="100%" width="3"><br /></td> <td id="AnswersFrame" colspan="4" style="height: 100%;" valign="top"> <iframe id="AnswersAds" style="border: 0px none ; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1px; padding: 0px; width: 99%; height: 22px;" src="http://www.answers.com/main/tip2.jsp?s=hubbub&wt=1&nafid=" scrolling="no"></iframe> <br /></td><td style="border-right: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);" class="handle" id="AnswersHandle4" handlefor="AnswersBalloon" height="100%" width="3"><br /></td> </tr> <tr class="handle" id="AnswersHandle9" handlefor="AnswersBalloon"> <td class="bottomimagecorner1" height="8" width="8"> <img src="http://www.answers.com/main/images/cLeftBottom.gif" border="0" height="8" width="8" /></td> <td class="bottomimage1" style="border-width: 1px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);" colspan="4" height="8" width="280"><br /></td> <td class="bottomimagecorner1" height="8" width="8"> <img src="http://www.answers.com/main/images/cRightBottom.gif" border="0" height="8" width="8" /></td> </tr></tbody></table></div>Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-16309493690893018122007-01-28T08:44:00.000+13:002007-07-14T16:27:29.182+12:00Assuming we're "in"It's amazing how many people who call themselves "Christian" assume that they are following Jesus in the same way as the apostolic church and that they can be included in that group. People can read Paul's letter, for example, where he refers to the apostolic church with words like "you" (plural), "we" and "us" and assume that they are automatically included in those groups where it suits.<br /><br />Let me explain using two brief and arbitrary examples:<br /><blockquote>Rom 5:1: Then being justified by faith, <span style="font-weight: bold;">we</span> have peace with God through <span style="font-weight: bold;">our</span> Lord Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Rom 8:16-17 The Spirit Himself witnesses with <span style="font-weight: bold;">our</span> spirit that <span style="font-weight: bold;">we</span> are children of God. And if children, also heirs; truly heirs of God, and joint-heirs of Christ, if indeed <span style="font-weight: bold;">we</span> suffer together, that <span style="font-weight: bold;">we</span> may also be glorified together. </blockquote><br />I have heard Christians simply assume that they are part of the "us" group being discussed in verses like these, and I think I've worked out why. Whatever they think it is that makes them "Christians" (often something like believing, trusting and accepting Jesus and his atoning death for our sins), they assume the apostolic church had the same view. They assume that the group of Jesus-followers Paul means by "we" and "us" and "our" was also defined by similar beliefs or behaviors - even if it wasn't. So they think they really are part of the same "us" group - even if they aren't. And so they think statements that applied to the early Jesus-groups also apply to them - even if they don't.<br /><br />As a result, I have observed Christians often experience a kind of dissonance, a tension in their minds. They read and earnestly feel certain things apply to them, and yet they don't always seem to experience these things in their real lives. Their beliefs and observations don't line up. Yet often, Christians seem to deal with this by saying "well it must be true because it's in the bible, so I'll just believe it" rather than considering whether or not they are included in the group referred to. They muster up "faith" to believe what doesn't seem to be true rather than face the frightening thought that they might not be in the "us" group. "Faith" becomes the rug under which reality is swept.<br /><br />I think a large number of Christians are blinded by such "faith". Instead of realising that they really aren't authentically experiencing the sort of life Jesus was on about, they remain stagnant and unaware that they're missing out. They think they're experiencing authentic Christianity and so they don't search to discover it and truly experience it. This, I think, is sad.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-82720133266155892007-01-18T21:22:00.000+13:002007-07-14T16:27:48.104+12:00Did Jesus NEED to die on the cross?There is a tacit assumption made by many Christians that Jesus had to die on the cross. This kind of death was needed - no one even questions the idea even though the gospels never say that.<br /><br />The need for Christ's death on the cross is not questioned because it is indeed necessary if <a href="http://notionsincognito.blogspot.com/2004/10/fallacy-of-satisfaction-theory-of.html">penal substitution</a> and the surrounding doctrines are true. I do not believe this theory is taught by the New Testament. Once we look beyond this theory, though, we can notice the obvious - Jesus died as a martyr. He was put to death by authorities who did not like his teachings and actions. Jesus taught a message of social and cultural revolution. He gathered a following to further this revolution so that people could enjoy the benefits of experiencing this new kind of life that he called being in the "Kingdom of Heaven". Jesus brought people into the Kingdom of Heaven, and that is why he was killed.<br /><br />The cross, then, is naturally a symbol of Jesus' life and message. A powerful symbol, but a symbol nonetheless. The apostle Paul referred to the cross in this way to encapsulate Jesus and his message. For early followers of Jesus it would have been obvious to Christians that his death was not significant because of some atonement theory only voiced centuries after Jesus. Rather, the cross is significant because of his life and teachings. Likewise, his resurrection is important because of both his life and his crucification.<br /><br />Christians don't like this idea because it means that the cross was not needed to fulfill the Great Spiritual act of Atonement through penal substitution. They might think that this makes the cross meaningless. But they would be missing the message encapsulated and symbolized by the cross.<br /><br />Jesus used the cross as a symbol of what it meant to follow him:<br /><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and let him bear his cross, and let him follow Me. (Mat 16:24)<br /><br />Go, sell what things you have, and give to the poor. And you will have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow Me, taking up the cross. (Mar 10:21b)<br /><br />Whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me, he cannot be My disciple. (Luk 14:27)<br /></blockquote><br />St. Paul used a mixture of analogies and symbolism to discuss Jesus and his message. He too used the cross to symbolise the Way of life Jesus lived and encouraged:<br /><blockquote>Be fellow-imitators of me, brothers, and consider those walking this way, even as you have us for a pattern. For many walk as hostile to the cross of Christ... (Php 3:17-18a) </blockquote><br />Jesus often opposed the Torah as it was being practiced, and Paul appears to have followed Jesus' teachings. Those faithful to Jesus' teachings were thus often persecuted by Jews who wanted to enforce Torah (such as the Pharisees) because they saw the "offense of the Cross" (Gal 5:11). Paul refers to their persecution by saying they are "persecuted for the cross of Christ" (Gal 6:12). Then he says that he does not boast in the Torah, but in the "cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal 6:14) in which circumcision makes no difference (verse 15).<br /><br />In Ephesians he describes how the message of Jesus overcomes cultural and social barriers, thus uniting people in a new way within the culture of the "Kingdom of God". Specifically he refers to it breaking down the division between Jews and Gentiles that comes from the radical new values Jesus taught. Paul uses powerful, emotive symbols of both the cross and Jesus' blood (which also carries connotations of kinship) to encapsulate the message of Jesus. Perhaps he is referring also or instead to the fact that without Christ's martyrdom and subsequent resurrection Christianity probably wouldn't have got started. Listen to what (I think) Paul writes:<br /><blockquote>But now, in Christ Jesus you [Gentiles] who then were afar off, came to be near [to us Jews] by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, He making us both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, in His flesh causing to cease the enmity [created by the commandments of the Torah], that He might make these two groups united into one new man - his "body", making peace, and that He might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, slaying the enmity [within His body]. (Eph 2:13-16*, see also Col 1:20)</blockquote><br />But Paul doesn't refer to the cross in only this way. He uses it's significance in many ways to make many different points. For example, like the Gospel and other New Testament writers, notes the shame of his death on a cross (Php 2:8). In another passage, Paul uses the imagery of a list of things against us being nailed to the cross (Col 2:14). Paul's point when referring to the cross is not always the same. Combined with penal substitution, Paul's use of many different images and metaphors can make it hard to recognize that the cross found its significance because of Jesus' life and teachings.<br /><br />In summary, the question "Why did Jesus <span style="font-style: italic;">need</span> to die on the cross?" is based in a number of presupposed theological ideas that don't help us understand why he <span style="font-style: italic;">did</span> die on the cross, and what his death came to symbolize for his followers. His death is significant because of his life. And while there was no "need" for him to die on the cross, without his crucifixion and resurrection, his following would have probably died instead. Without the cross, we might not even know who Jesus was. But that doesn't mean the cross was needed for some Great Spiritual Act of Atonement, nor is it what the cross <span style="font-style: italic;">means</span>. The cross represents what Jesus lived, taught, and was ultimately killed for.<br /><br />NOTES:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">* In quoting Eph 2:13-16 I have intentionally changed the phrases "in Himself" to reflect that I think this phrase refers to people who are "in Christ" - and thereby in his group, his disciples, his "body". </span>Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-34111649863830905092007-01-18T21:20:00.000+13:002007-07-14T17:13:45.974+12:00"Christian" vs "Christ follower" Mac/PC ad parady videoI think <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8263755300086117041">this</a> short video parodying the Mac/PC ad series captures some truth. Check it out.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442903.post-1168561877192125692007-01-12T13:30:00.000+13:002007-07-14T16:28:26.077+12:00OptimismI've decided to try to be more optimistic, because I think it's actually a lot more enjoyable than being pessimistic.<br /><br />Some people think life is mostly bad. Others, mostly good. I think, philosophically, life is neutral. It's not good or bad, it just happens and it is what it is. The events of our lives have no ethical, moral, or emotional significance in and of themselves - <span style="font-style: italic;">we give them significance through our beliefs about them</span>. It is our beliefs about situations that make them "good" or "bad" (and this is a good thing, otherwise life would be pointless).<br /><br />So then by being careful what we think about situations, we can actually see them as being more "good" and less "bad". Let me explain more, borrowing a useful insight about our reactions to the events of life that I found on <a href="http://www.lieslnet.com/">Lieslnet.com</a>, an interesting site:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>Dr Albert Ellis, prominent psychology researcher developed the ABC model to explain our reaction to adversity.</p><p><span style="color: rgb(75, 0, 130);">A is the adversity.<br />B is our belief about the adversity and<br />C is the consequence of our belief.</span></p><p><strong>Our reaction to adversity is not so much a result of the adversity but a result of our belief about the adversity</strong>.</p></blockquote>Interesting. There are a series of articles on the site discussing this and what makes us optimistic or pessimistic <a href="http://www.lieslnet.com/blog/2006/09/18/how-to-become-an-optimist/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.lieslnet.com/blog/2006/09/20/how-to-become-an-optimist-part-ii-disputing-pessimistic-beliefs/">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.lieslnet.com/blog/2006/09/22/how-to-become-an-optimist-part-iii-avoiding-thinking-errors/">here</a>.<br /><br />So perhaps our overall philosophy isn't what makes us optimistic or pessimistic, but rather it is the sum of each thought we have in response to each situation. Our habits of thought become "bedded in", and become quite hard to change. The trick, I think, is understanding what our habits of thought are and finding other ways to think about situations.<br /><br />It's not a magical "3 steps to a happy life". Life doesn't work that way. But I think it's possible to see more good in life so that we can deal better with the bad, and I intend to try.Notions Incognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03563317972349417700noreply@blogger.com10