Extract from C. S. Lewis

With this discussion with Adrian and co. regarding the atonement. I thought that a quote from Adrians good friend Jollyblogger seemingly favorite writer C. S. Lewis. When reading Mere Christianity for the first time one may not as I did not that Lewis is denying penal substitution. However a careful reading show that he is. Arguing that sin is more that a moral problem the hole that man has got himself in is rebellion. The change that is needed is man to stop being a rebel. Lewis lifts his chapter from R. C. Moberly's Atonement and Personality which in tern is an attempt to defend John Mcleod Campbell magesterial work The natuer of the Atonement. I place this quote on here from mere Christianity in the hope of those defending penal substituion can here clearly from the lucid pen of Lewis.

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.

The one most people have heard is the one about our being let off because Christ volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if you take "paying the penalty," not in the sense of being punished, but in the more general sense of "footing the bill," then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend.

Now what was the sort of "hole" man had gotten himself into? He had tried to set up on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself. In other words, fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your arms, surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor - that is the only way out of a "hole." This process of surrender - this movement full speed astern - is what Christians call repentance. Now repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we have been training ourselves into for thousands of years. It means undergoing a kind of death. In fact, it needs a good man to repent. And here's the catch. Only a bad person needs to repent: only a good person can repent perfectly. The worse you are the more you need it and the less you can do it. The only person who could do it perfectly would be a perfect person - and he would not need it.

Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you back and which He could let you off of if He chose: it is simply a description of what going back to Him is like. If you ask God to take you back without it, you are really asking Him to let you go back without going back. It cannot happen. Very well, then, we must go through with it. But the same badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it. Can we do it if God helps us? Yes, but what do we mean when we talk of God helping us? We mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another. When you teach a child writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the letters because you are forming them. We love and reason because God loves and reasons and holds our hand while we do it. Now if we had not fallen, that would all be plain sailing. But unfortunately we now need God's help in order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all - to surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die. Nothing in God's nature corresponds to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked. God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, He has not.

But supposing God became a man - suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person - then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it only if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying unless God dies; and he cannot die except by being a man. That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all

To be Reformed or Not to Be Reformed

Hi there,

Adrian Warnock (www.adrian.warnock.info) who goes to the same denomination as me in London sent me an email saying that I was not reformed in my thelogy. Basicaly cause I did not believe in penal substition as classicaly concieved, (though I do believe Christ took our penalty as our substitute though not so we can avoid it but so we can follow him in penatence). Any how here is the bit from the letter. May be adrian will reply regarding the atonement any one elses comments would be cool to.

Also I did a myers brigs test and Came out ENTP, I hope that is good so if your and ENTP too good for you.

Before some people worry I believe in the

Total inability of Man outside of Christ
unconditional election of Christ (aka Barth doctrine of election)
irrisistability of the Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ
perseverance of Christ


Here is the letter:

Regarding me being reformed. I would like to say that
my major theolgical influances (after Jesus and the
bible of course) are Athenasius, Edward Irving, John
McCleod Campbell and T. F. Torrance. Three out of four
would have to be considered reforemed. Unless of
course you want to use your amazing invent-a-name
machine :-p (tounge in cheek)

So i am not a five pointer(probably 4,ie minus
limited), but I do believe that we cannot make a
decision for God, but rather even that desision is the
gift of God,in Jesus Chrst. Thus only Grace, only
faith, only christ are the sweetest of doctrines to
me. They remind us that we come with nothing and that
God accepts and restores us throught Christ. Arminians
are clearly wrong for trying to put the emphsis on our
desision or our good works. Which ultimely removes the
center of our faith from Christ to Us. Which is to
remove hope of the Gospel.

This is why as R. T. Kendal rightly points out that
limited atonement in it clasical formation does not
offer us hope of salvation. For as the westminister
confession of faith explaining limited atonement
states we cannot know for certain we are elect, we
must look to our good works to see if they bear fruit
in keeping with being elect! Again putting us in the
centre instead of Jesus Chrst.

"I live by the faith OF the son of god" -Praise God!

I could write about that subject for a long time :)
With regard to steve chalke and the "neo-liberals". I
do think that penal substitution can easily as John
Stott points out in "the cross of Christ" be turned
into a caracture of what it should be. The Term
'cosmic child abuse' is over the line I will agree, in
attacking other christian's attempts to explain the
mystery of the Cross. Stott and Paker for instance
are about the best exponents of penal substitution I
have read. But they do still tend to see sin as
something which is a moral problem before God rather
than something ontological. And ultimately, this was
the major weakness of Greg Haslam's artical in
christianty. We do I think have to be careful how we
use the terms of God's anger against sin lest we
denegrade the love of the father. It is christ who is
the expresion of the heart of the father who submits
to and express the will of God showing us as Barth
puts it Gods Against us is contained in his for us.
The Father therefore does not punish the son, rather
the son expresses the mind of God about sin. He is
after all the revelation of the Father Read my T. F.
Torrance post for more.

If you want to know what I think on the atonement, you
can wait for my essay that I am trying to write on it.
But you can also read The nature of the atonement by
John Mcleod Campbell. Though as peter says of paul
"In them there are some things hard to understand that
the ignorant and unstable distort." Basicaly it is
that Gods justice is ultimetly restorative. P. T.
Foryth is on the right track when he says:

Christ confessed not merely human sin - which in a
certain sense, indeed, He could not do - but He
confessed God's holiness in reacting mortally against
human sin, in cursing human sin, in judging it to its
very death. He stood in the midst of human sin full of
love to man, such love as enabled Him to identify
Himself in the most profound, sympathetic way with the
evil race; fuller still of love to the God whose name
He was hallowing; and, as with one mouth, as if the
whole race confessed through Him, as with one soul, as
though the whole race at last did justice to God
through His soul, He lifted up His face unto God and
said, "Thou art holy in all Thy judgments, even in
this judgment which turns not aside even from Me, but
strikes the sinful spot if even I stand on it." The
dereliction upon the Cross, the sense of love's
desertion by love, was Christ's practical confession
of the holy God's repulsion of sin. He accepted the
divine situation - the situation of the race before
God. By God's will He did so. By His own free consent
He did so.

later on he states

This is the bearing of sin - the holy bearing of its
judgment. This is the taking of sin away - the
acknowledgment of judgment as holy, wise, and good,
and its conversion into blessing; the absorption and
conversion of judgment into confession and praise, the
removal of that guilt which stood between God and
man's reconciliation - the robbing sin of its power to
prevent communion with God.
see

http://www.ccel.org/f/forsyth/work_of_christ/work08.htm

A brief note on Issiah 53 & Romans

After adrian Warnock (www.adrian.warnock.info) reply to worldofsven (worldofsven.blogspot.com) satire of his own page. He asked for some response regarding Issiah 53 and Romans 3. So here is just a small bit of the argument. I would just like to add that every time I read through issiah 53 I am more and more filled with the wonder of the cross.

The suffering servant is Isreal par excelence. We must also note the theme of exile for Issiah. What this passage is saying is that the servent will do what Isreal is unwilling to do. Namely, he will go through the whole of exile he will fullfill lev 26

And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

This is the meaning of v5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

The Chatisement that brought us peace should be seen as He takes the chastisement not so Israel has no suffering left for her sins. Rather peace (shalom) in hebrew is more about wholeness than the absence of strife. Which is really important to rember when coming from a western background. Secoundly we should also refer this back to Hebrews 12

⁶For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

⁸But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

This fits in very well were Hebrew says that the son learnt obedience through what he suffered. The suffering then of the servent is the setting of the Law in the heart of Israel.

And a quick note on Romans 3 my edditing of KJV

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

²²Even the righteousness of God which is by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;Being righteousified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be Righteous , and the righteousifier of him which which are of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

The important point i suppose for those that want to argue for Penal substitution is the word propitiation. However this word is no way near as acurate as those who contend for penal substitution would have it. It cannot be the pacification of God rather I would argue that it is the satisfaction of Gods justice. Compare to with Romans 8 3 I think that christs condemnation(holy life and death) of sin in fallen flesh is the vindication of God's Wrath against sin. Why? because th e Wrath of God finds it goal in the end of sin.

Richard
Sorry to all the biblical scholars out there

A Trinitarian Theologian

After reading sven’s articles on theologians I was inspired to write this one on one of my favourite theologians, T. F. Torrance. Born in China to Missionary perants he was Later to become the Moderator of the Kirk of Scotland.


Torrance is the most important English speaking theologian of the 20th century and I am sure will continue to be for this century. He studied theology under H. R. Mackintosh in Edinburgh moving to Basel for his doctorate under Karl Barth. His connection to Barth is certainly influential, but he is certainly not a mere repetition of Barth.

For Torrance the major problem of western theology was the notion of Dualism. That the reality that we experience is only a shadow of the reality (Plato) or the we impress that reality on our experience (Kant). For Torrance this has led the weakness that there is an unknown God behind the incarnation. For instance in Federal Calvinism, God’s revelation of his will to save all by Christ is in fact not God’s ultimate will, rather a hidden will stands behind this 'Christ revealed' Will.

This dualism is also evident in Augustine’s theology of the Trinity and those who follow him. For Augustine and his later follows the Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not ultimately who God is. The Divine being is who God is in of himself. Again this is to deny that in the incarnation God has revealed who his is in himself.


For Torrance God has revealed his very self in the incarnation. Not that incarnation has exhausted who God is. But that in the incarnation we are truly meeting God, there is not hidden diety behind Jesus. ‘For in Christ all the fullness of the Diety lives in bodily form’. In this method Torrance is consciously following the Great church Father Athenasius. In the incarnation Christ reveals to us who God really is, there is ultimately no split between the economic trinity and the imminent Trinity.

For Torrance the act of incarnation is ultimately salvific, as the Word, which in greek also means rationality, restored reason to man. This was by assuming our fallen humanity and sanctifying it. Christ heals us not from without but from within.

In Jesus God himself descended to the very bottom of our human existence where we are alienated and antagonistic, into the very hell of our godlessness and despair, laying fast hold of us and taking our cursed condition upon himself, in order to embrace us for ever in his reconciling love.

The Mediation of Christ, T. F. Torrance (T T Clark: 1992)pg 43


This expresses for Torrance another major theme, that of the Vicarious Humanity of Christ. For Torrance Christ makes the perfect human response to God. Thus a Christians actions and responses are not on their own but rather a participation in the action of Christ. So as Torrance puts it all of Grace does not mean nothing of man, but rather in Christ it means all of Man.

These are just my Sketch of Torrance’s thought for a better understaning of this great theologian try reading his book:

The mediation of Christ.

Miscellene

Dear All

Having had most of my extended student holiday. I have unfortuanetly achived less than I would have liked or hoped. Started well but went down hill.

It is, however, really good having Steve (aka worldofsven.blogspot.com) living with us. Hoping that he gets better soon. Till then he can try and convince me to read moltmann, which i have thus far avoided doing.

My essay on the atonement has at least started. Had a bit of a break through in my thinking. Which was really just realising what others had written. The Justice of God which is expressed on the cross and the life of Christ is not something that happens outside or to Jesus. But rather 'I have come to do your will" Hebrews 10. Expresses the truth that Jesus himself represents and appropriates the justice of God not in some abstract and impersonal way. Or that the father is really wrathful to son externaly. But rather, Jesus expresses the wrath of God in his own person, in the way that we all appropriate justice. Jesus is penitent, penitent in its fullest sence must means the application of Justice inwardly. Jesus expresses perfectly the mind of God to sin. *

Also thinking about God the Father, he does seem sometimes to be a bit distance from us or unknown.( And if penal substitution is to be believed he spends most of his time being angry!!!
As Penal substution is obiously not meant to be believed we can scratch that one.) We know the Father through the Son, but this then teaches us that all relationships are mediated. The corollory is that God the Father only knows us by Jesus Christ through the holy spirit. Sorry if this is obvious for trinitarian buffs.

More thougths now on penal substitution. Had a fun youth groop today. Had them discuss questions that they had made up. Unfortunately the main christian truth they knew was that God Wanted to punish us and Jesus died so he didn't have to. It is amazing as I am reading recovering the scandel of the cross. In this book it desicribes that penal substitution can give people a negative view of God. The more 'chrsitian ones' all seemed quite happy that people are going to hell. This doctrine so easily leads to the angry God who is God the Father. I just cant believe that age 12 there is already so much to unlearn!! How can the church be changed to a more appropriate doctrine of agonement to reveal the deepth of the fathers heart.

Richard

*point endebtied to Edward Irving though taking a long time for the penny to drop for me.

My Tummy is Funky-And the atonement is confusing

Dear All

My tummy is funky so it is 230am and I cant sleep. This may not be all bad 'cause I can now write my thoughts on the atonement.

It was so cool reading christus victor, a quote that really stuck out was that the Church Fathers (the theologians of the church for the first 600 years) had a proper understanding of the incarnation because they understood the atonement. However, good old gustaf did not seem to see Man to God realationship of the incarnation/atonement. Only the God man ward realationship which was a bit of a weakness. But anyhow a really good book.

Also read Vernon White's atonement and incarnation. Which was also really good. It suggested that in the incarnation God recieves the abitlity to be the saviour. Through his life as a human being in the fallen world. And thus he states the penal theory was correct in saying that God could not save without the atonement. But wrong in that God could not forgive without it.

He also challanged my favorite atonement model at the moment. The Torrances' McCleod Irving model of the vicarious humaity of jesus Christ. He argued that humanity being seeing as one entity. Or as the creed says cosubstantial with 0ne another is a neo platonic idea. and therefore out dated and wrong. Which means I really need to find out wether the consubstantial nature of humanity needs more thought. James Torrance does address that theme in his didsbury lectures. But more thought I think is needed.

What James Torrance said that was really helpfull in understanding the great mcleod Campbell (wrote The nature of the Atonement, which J Packer commments that if his critism of penal substitution is correct that it is indeed moraly bancrupt). That when Forgiveness is offered. The acceptance of that forgiveness is the acceptance of the vedict of Guilty. Thus Christ's vicarious penenance is not that he would escape the judgement of God. But truly a perfect Amen to the judgement.

What is the upshot of this, read McLeod Cambell of course.

Maybe I will actually manage to write my pre-term essay on the atonement. But it really feels like such a large subject. Though maybe I should.

Thoughts comments and antacid tablets please

Reading Gustaf Allen

Reading Christus Victor it is so good, for every bad point there is a brilliance that shines through

Richard

Thanks for lending it to me sven

Back for good?

Hi people

Back from my most excelent holiday sking and speaking. Went well on both fronts, which was nice.

Also had vomiting and the other stuff while I was there which was not really that nice.

Hoping to get my life together before term starts again which is a hopeful i Know.

Looking forward to trying to write something about the atonement.

Was a good blog on Svens

worldofsven.blogspot.com

Richard