Castle Church Discussion on Pierced for our Transgressions

Riddelbarger Reviews Hannegraaf

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:47:41 GMT

John Owen on Justification

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:54:41 GMT

Todd Peddlar at Semper Ubi Sub Ubi is doing a GREAT job working through John Owen on justification. Don't miss it.

Malawi Wow!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:05:14 GMT

Earlier this summer I posted a note about the trip several Westminster Seminary California students were taking to Malawi.

They're back and Mark VanderPol has posted a site with dozens of gorgeous and amazing photos with some brief descriptions. The thumbnail I used for this post does not do these pictures justice.

One of our students Fletcher Matandika founded an organization in Malawi several years ago to feed children and teach the Bible to them. The students worked with Fletcher's organization and they also taught seminary classes -- maybe now they'll have a little more sympathy for their old seminary profs?

I'll try to get more information to you about Fletcher's work.

Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: The Creed or Chaos Interview Pt 3

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:20:46 GMT

Here is part 3 of the extended interview with Brannan Ellis at Creed or Chaos.

Better Things to Do Than Transforming the World? CT Gets it Right

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:30:37 GMT

I've been critical of CT so I try to give credit when the editorial staff gets it right. There's a nice editorial online from Mark Galli today regarding "transforming" the world. There are no references to Darryl Hart, but one wonders if Mark hasn't been reading Darryl?

The Atonement - Romans 1-3 and Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Tue, 08 May 2007 00:05:29 GMT

I have recently shared my own definition of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, as well as that given by the authors of Pierced For Our Transgressions. For the next few posts I will be giving a brief overview of some of the key passages in the Bible that help us to understand what Jesus accomplished on the cross. I will begin with a bird’s eye view of the book of Romans. We have already quoted from

Wright Quotes That Affirm Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:40:16 GMT

Justin Taylor helpfully points to some quotes from N.T.Wright that seem to clearly affirm a penal substitutionary view of the atonement. I am left though with two questions from the article Wright published earlier in the week. 1. Why then does he respond so very negatively to the new book Pierced For Our Transgressions? 2. Does Steve Chalke really believe what Wright does despite his clear

Wright on Penal Substitution

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:05:14 GMT

Last week I posted a troubling article by N. T. Wright, where, after making many true and edifying points, went on to defend Steve Chalke as affirming a "form" of penal substitutionary atonement and to castigate and mock the authors and supporters of a new book defending penal substitutionary atonement. It made me wonder to what degree Wright truly understands the traditional doctrine.

I'm thankful, therefore, to see these quotes provided by Jim Hamilton which clearly affirm the doctrine.

Wright on Substitution

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:25:02 GMT

In a previous post I wondered whether Wright includes the notion of God’s wrath being satisfied by Christ on the cross in his thinking about Penal Substitution. Several quotes have come to my attention that indicate that he has affirmed this idea in writing, so to my thinking he has answered that question. Here are the quotes:

Wright, Matthew for Everyone:

“The Old Testament prophets speak darkly about the ‘cup of YHWH’s wrath.’ These passages talk of what happens when the one God, grieving over the awful wickedness of the world, steps in at last to give the violent and bloodthirsty, the arrogant and oppressors, the reward for their ways and deeds. It’s as though God’s holy anger against such people is turned into wine: dark, sour wine which will make them drunk and helpless. They will be forced to ‘drink the cup,’ to drain to the dregs the wrath of the God who loves and vindicates the weak and helpless. The shock of this passage is that Jesus speaks of drinking this cup himself” [pp. 60, 61]

From Wright’s Romans commentary:

“No clearer statement is found in Paul, or indeed anywhere else in all early Christian literature, of the early Christian belief that what happened on the cross was the judicial punishment of sin. Taken in conjunction with 8:1 and the whole argument of the passage, not to mention the partial parallels in 2 Cor 5:21 and Gal 3:13, it is clear that Paul intends to say that in Jesus’ death the damnation that sin deserved was meted out fully and finally, so that sinners over whose heads that condemnation had hung might be liberated from this threat once and for all.”

From ch. 12 of Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God:

“God, because in His mercy He willed to forgive sinful men and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against His own very Self in the person of His Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved.”

I note also that in their response to Wright, the editors of Pierced for Our Transgressions say that the disagreement is methodological, and they don’t question his commitment to Penal Substitution.

May the Lord give his people unity on this central aspect of the Gospel!

Pierced for our Transgressions

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:10:02 GMT

Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution
by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach (IVP, March 2007)
Forward by John Piper

An increasing number of theologians and church leaders are
questioning the doctrine of penal substitution. The authors offer a fresh re-articulation of the doctrine and its central role, and engage over twenty specific objections that have been brought against it. Although this is the historic Christian view, it has recently come under attack. Controversy has raged since 2003 when Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis Trust, likened the doctrine to ‘a form of cosmic child abuse.’

“This extended declaration and defence of the penal substitutionary view of Christ’s atoning death responds to a plethora of current criticisms . . . with a thoroughness and effectiveness that is without parallel anywhere . . . I hail this treatise as an epoch-making tour de force.” J. I. Packer

“This book deserves the widespread circulation achieved by corresponding contributions a generation ago - those of Leon Morris, Jim Packer and John Stott.” D. A. Carson

“. . . I commend this book for its comprehensive and fair scrutiny of the many objections brought against the doctrine of penal substitution in recent years.” I. Howard Marshall

A U.S. edition will be published by Crossway in November 2007. Until then it is available through IVP and Amazon UK, which offer international shipping.

Deemphasis or Denial [Topic: N.T. Wrights and Wrongs]

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:10:05 GMT

I said a few days ago that I was going to say something about why I accept N.T. Wright's assertion that he holds to penal substitution. This will be brief, and may not be adequate for those with questions, but here it is. It is a methodological issue.

I am uncomfortable with assertions of what someone affirms or denials based upon what you see them emphasizing or deemphasizing, or, to use Carson's vocabulary, foregrounding or backgrounding. In my mind there is a great gulf fixed between denying something and deemphasizing something. Now, sometimes, I grant, sneaky liberals get a run up to their denial of orthodoxy by means of preliminary deemphasis. But this trick works so well because there may be all sorts of reasonable grounds for deemphasizing something.

Now when someone deemphasizes a doctrine, and their reasons for doing so include statements that by good and necessary consequence have the effect of denying the doctrine, I have no problem saying that they deny the doctrine. I would put Chalke in this category. But if there is someone else who is deemphasizing the doctrine in question (for various other reasons), he might not be the most reliable guide to Chalke, but I would still take any assertions of belief in the doctrine itself at face value. I would (obviously) put Wright in this category.

Let me illustrate this. Liberals have a deep antipathy to the doctrine of God's wrath and judgment, and consequently one of the first doctrines to be challenged by them is the doctrine of Hell. They want to deny it, and their work-up to the denial will include all kinds of squishy, sob-sister problems with it. This attitude is exhibited by Chalke throughout his book. But someone else (like me, say) might find himself deemphasizing the doctrine of Hell -- not because I don't believe in it, but because I don't believe the majority of the human race is going there. Christ came into the world to save it, not condemn it (John 3:17, and I am only one verse away from being a true evangelical!). I believe that Hell is a terrifying, everlasting reality, and I believe that the vast majority of the human race (when all is said and done) will not experience it. This is a deemphasis that has nothing to do any desire to deny it.

So it could be accurately said that I "foreground" my optimistic eschatology, but it could not be accurately said that I deny any orthodox doctrine of the final judgment. Our instruments are not sufficiently calibrated to make a big deal out of emphasis/deemphasis. If we see something going in a troublesome direction, we can and should take note of it. When it clearly goes around the bend, we should deal with it. And this means that we can say (plainly) that Chalke is not where he ought to be on the doctrine of penal substitution. Wright is not where he ought to be in his doctrine of Chalke -- but I don't have grounds yet for saying that he is not where he ought to be on the doctrine of penal satisfaction (and there are a good many things from his pen that indicate that he does affirm it).

Having said all this, I can also say that the political situation in the U.K. (ecclesiastically speaking) is weird enough that we should watch the situation closel to see how it unfolds.

N. T. Wright and Penal Substitution

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:40:04 GMT

I like N. T. Wright - I really do. I know that makes me suspect in the eyes of some but I have read the first two of his big fat books and they were immensely helpful, even though I am not on board with him in every say.

So, a couple of days ago I find some comments that he believes in penal substitution and I do the dance for joy, that he has spoken out on this important issue. Now, as Adrian and others report he has clarified his comments in an article here. And those clear blue waters just got muddier.

I won't go into all of the details and frankly I don't understand all of the hairs he is splitting. But apparently he is not happy with the position of one Jeffrey John who he says caricatures the cross, but he also doesn't like the position of the authors of Pierced for our Transgressions, a modern defense of penal substitution.

While Adrian is perplexed, to say the least, Alastair.Adversaria defends Wright here. The authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions have responded here (HT - Justin Taylor). The Ugly Vicar expresses concern over Wright's position here. Doug Wilson is quite puzzled by Wright and praises the authors of Pierced here. Jim Hamilton asks some important questions here. And D. A. Carson expresses his annoyance at some things Wright says about the atonement in a recent book. To quote Carson:

Finally, a few merely annoying things. (1) Why is it that everyone else’s understanding of the atonement can be repeatedly dismissed as mere abstract theories of the atonement, while his own presentation escapes the rubric? Are not the (other) “theories of the atonement” grounded, in their writers’ minds, in what actually happened, in what God actually accomplished? And does not Wright’s own understanding of what God actually accomplished constitute another “theory of the atonement”? The shift in terminology is merely a way of dismissing the views of others and sanctifying his own. (2) More broadly, Wright has a penchant for replicating the Elijah syndrome: “And I, even I only, am left.” To offer but one of many examples: “The trouble with imagining the future world is that we’ve all been given the wrong impression” (114). Well, I suppose we should be grateful that we have now been given the Wright impression.

The only two cents I have to offer in this whole thing is to remember something I believe John Frame said, or it might have been Frame as quoted by Richard Pratt. Frame said that truth does not equal precision, nor does precision equal truth. Something can be vague and still true.

I don't take this to mean that vagueness is to be preferred over precision, if something is spoken with precision then we err if we make it vague. At the same time, something can be vague and still be true.

It seems to me that in some of this Wright is narrowing and narrowing his definitions to such a precise point and then claiming that they all err who don't see it this way. Again, I like Wright and am not calling him a heretic, but I do think Carson has a point about the Elijah syndrome.

I also don't mean to overly simplify things here - I understand there are nuances to the penal substitution issue and areas where precision is called for. But in all of that, I fear an overzealous quest for precision may cause us to miss the glorious simplicity that Jesus, as our substitute paid the penalty for our sins, thus freeing us from the wrath of God.

Related Tags: Religion, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Doctrine, Penal Substitution, Atonement, N. T. Wright

Emergent Church: Discerning Wrong from N.T. Wright

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:30:08 GMT

Concerning this icon of the Emergent Church over at Pyromaniacs Phil Johnson writes:

Tom Wright has posted a screed on the atonement controversies. (I made note of that fact in a comment under yesterday’s post but didn’t say much more than that.) I still need to read the full article carefully, but Adrian Warnock’s observations closely mirror my own first impression. Wright seems to think since Steve Chalke read some of the Bishop’s books and echoed his positions at some key points, he can’t possibly be far wrong on the atonement.

See also my articles Brian McLaren In Denial and “Evangelicals” Attacking the Atonement, which also discuss the issues involoved.

The Atonement - The Place of Union With Christ

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:34:07 GMT

Daniel Newman has a great quote explaining something that is often missed or simply assumed about penal substitution, and which the authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions do, in fact, address. (HT Bish) “It is on the basis of our union with Christ that our sins are imputed to him and his righteousness imputed to us. Christ is in us and we are in him, indwelt by the Spirit. He was no innocent

Pierced for Our Transgressions

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:19:05 GMT

The authors of this defense of penal substitutionary atonement respond to some recent, harsh criticism by N. T. Wright.

Response to Wright from the Authors of "Pierced for Our Transgressions"

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:55:06 GMT

The authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions have responded to N.T. Wright's criticism. I'll reprint it below (in a more legible font size!).

N. T. Wright does not like Pierced for our Transgressions, as he explains HERE. Some have already responded to him HERE and HERE. While we are grateful for constructive criticism, Wright is mistaken at several important points. We offer a brief response.

First, N. T. Wright takes exception to our criticism of Steve Chalke and Alan Mann’s The Lost Message of Jesus, a book which he continues to endorse. He tries to argue that the now-notorious reference to ‘cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed’ (Lost Message, p. 182) was never intended as a description of penal substitution itself (which Wright assures us that Chalke believes), but was rather an attack on a caricature of the doctrine.

We would be pleased if that were the case, but this reading of Chalke is simply impossible. Wright seems to be unaware that Chalke clarified his position in an article in Christianity magazine entitled Cross Purposes (September 2004, pp. 44–48, available as ‘Redeeming the Cross’ from the Oasis Trust website HERE; reprinted with slight revisions in Consuming Passion: Why the Killing of Jesus Really Matters, ed. S. Barrow and J. Bartley [Darton, Longman & Todd, 2005]), written in response to the controversy triggered by The Lost Message. Here Chalke makes it plain that it is the classic doctrine of penal substitution itself, not merely its caricatures, that he finds objectionable.

‘In reality, penal substitution (in contrast to other substitutionary theories) doesn’t cohere well with either biblical or Early Church thought. Although penal substitution isn’t as old as many people assume (it’s not even as old as the pews in many of our church buildings), it is actually built on pre-Christian thought.’

Or again:

‘In The Lost Message of Jesus I claim that penal substitution is tantamount to “child abuse – a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed.” Though the sheer bluntness of this imagery (not original to me of course) might shock some, in truth, it is only a stark “unmasking” of the violent, pre-Christian thinking behind such a theology.’

If Chalke has given private assurances to Wright that he wishes to retract his previous denials of penal substitution, we hope that he will realise the importance of making this public.

Secondly, Wright’s central objection to our work seems not to be directed at any of the specific biblical or theological arguments we have advanced in support of penal substitution. Rather, his quibble is a methodological one: he complains that we have not set our whole discussion within the framework of a narrative-theological exposition of Israel’s history as it reaches its fulfilment in Christ. He even goes so far as to assert that we ‘ignore the history of Israel’ (italics original), which seems at best overstated. For example, we set the Passover in the context of the Abrahamic covenant (pp. 35, 41–42), the Levitical sacrifices in the context of the preceding Exodus narrative (pp. 42–43), God’s curse on sin in the context of Israel’s exile (pp. 93–95, 122), the life of Jesus in the context of Israel’s role in God’s purposes (pp. 134–135).

However, there is a difference between the kind of narrative theology project in which Wright has been engaged for so many years, and the approach of classical systematic theology, which looks to provide an integrated picture of the Bible’s teaching on particular themes. Surely both are helpful and appropriate. A book professing to summarise the message of John’s Gospel must begin with the whole structure of his narrative, the place of the signs, and so on. Conversely, the section on John in a systematic work on the Trinity will necessarily – and rightly – focus on those specific passages which have most to say about the Father-Son relationship, the sending of the Spirit, etc.

Wright accuses us of ‘sifting’ the Gospels for material relevant to our subject, and indeed that is exactly what we were trying to do! That does not mean that we are free to abstract ‘proof-texts’ from their contexts, but we took pains to avoid that. But Wright censures us for failing to hit a target we were not aiming at. We did not profess to answer the question, ‘What do the gospels teach about Jesus?’ nor even, ‘What picture of the atonement emerges from the gospels as a whole?’ Our aim, as we explain in the introduction to our exegetical section (pp. 33–34) was more modest. We are trying to establish simply that penal substitution has a place in this bigger picture.

Thirdly, Wright criticises our exegesis of Romans and Galatians. Interpretation of these epistles must reckon with the ongoing debates over the so-called New Perspective on Paul, in which Wright himself is a central figure. Not wanting to privilege exclusively either side, our approach in Galatians was to demonstrate that penal substitution follows from both the traditional and the New Perspective approaches; we even devoted a section to a (sympathetic) discussion of Wright’s narrative reading of the curse as exile in Galatians 3 (pp. 93–94).

In Romans we took care to avoid conclusions that depend exclusively on either framework (p. 80). Wright objects that we should have said more about the meaning of ‘the righteousness of God’ and its relationship to the Abrahamic covenant. But he himself concedes that these things are controversial, and since they are not necessary to establish the more general points (on which all can agree) that God is angered by sin (Rom. 1–3) and that Christ’s death turned aside his anger (Rom. 3:21–26), it seemed wise to omit them.

Wright is clearly dissatisfied, and wants us to make his way of reading the Bible our controlling hermeneutic; anything short of this he deems ‘sub-biblical’. But to base our case solely on a position that continues to be hotly debated in New Testament Studies would have been counterproductive. As it is, our aim was that our exegesis should stand ‘regardless of which path is taken with respect to the issues of recent controversy’ (p. 89).

As a postscript, we should say something in reply to Wright’s surprise that we ‘omit all mention or discussion of Anselm.’ The reason is simply that, contrary to (popular?) belief, Anselm did not teach penal substitution. Yes, he brought to prominence the important vocabulary of ‘satisfaction’, which became important in later formulations. But in Anselm’s feudal thought-world, it was God’s honour that needed to be satisfied by substitutionary obedience, not his justice by substitutionary penalty. Thus his omission from our list of those who have endorsed penal substitution was not accidental.

Discerning Wrong from Wright

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 05:10:17 GMT

by Phil Johnson

om Wright has posted a screed on the atonement controversies. (I made note of that fact in a comment under yesterday's post but didn't say much more than that.) I still need to read the full article carefully, but Adrian Warnock's observations closely mirror my own first impression. Wright seems to think since Steve Chalke read some of the Bishop's books and echoed his positions at some key points, he can't possibly be far wrong on the atonement. Also, since Wright endorsed Chalke's book before it caused a flap on the atonement issue, he apparently feels obliged to explain what Chalke really meant. I dunno.

In the process, Wright has some pretty harsh things to say about Pierced for Our Transgressions, a recent analysis of the atonement controversy. Adrian lists some typical samples near the end of this post.

Meanwhile, D. A. Carson has also put out a review of Wright's Evil and the Justice of God (HT: Justin Taylor), which review contains some candid remarks about Wright's position on the atonement. Following the linkbacks to Justin Taylor's post on the subject will take you to some stimulating discussions.

On the perennially pro-Wright side, Alastair has already weighed in. When Mark Horne speaks, I listen (even though I don't always agree)—and I'm pretty sure Mark will soon have an analysis of the Bish's remarks on the atonement.

My own lack of enthusiasm for Wright's opinions on the atonement, justification, and Pauline theology is well known enough. So don't look for me to jump into this dogpile this week. I'm just going to pretty much sit back and watch it all unfold.

Remember: John Piper has a critique of Wright coming, too.

Some Edifying Gossip [Topic: N.T. Wrights and Wrongs]

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:45:03 GMT

N.T. Wright has recently responded here to a new book, Pierced for Our Transgressions, and gives it a few whacks. Among other things, he says that it is "hopelessly sub-biblical" (largely on the basis of omissions and what he sees as failures of contextualization). HT: Mark Horne and Justin Taylor.

What happened was this. A few years ago, Wright did a blurb for a book by Steve Chalke. Chalke is kind of a Brian McLaren type in the UK, and in the book he appeared to call the doctrine of penal substitution a form of "cosmic child abuse." That became controversial over there, and in this new book (Pierced for Our Transgressions), the authors take Chalke to task for it, and wonder how Wright could hold to penal substitution and commend the book. Still with me? I am basing this on Wright's account, and have not yet read PFOT because the US version is not out yet. Now in this review Wright makes it plain as day that he (Wright) holds that penal substitution is biblical. He also asserts, after checking, that Chalke does too.

I read Chalke's book a couple years ago, and reviewed it briefly on this blog. This is what I said at the time.

Just finished a book called The Lost Message of Jesus, by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann. The book was a mix -- a small handful of good insights, a few places where I was glad they didn't give that part of the store away, a few sections of thundering naivete, and overall that general bleh feeling that you get when squishy moderates and squashed liberals are so busy apologizing for themselves (and the rest of us) that they forget to take their own side in the argument. Give me a cranky Lutheran or hardshell Baptist any day of the week, someone who wakes up in the morning knowing what he believes. Such gentlemen have, as the parlance goes, their own issues -- but at least we all know what they are.

A universal symptom of the apologetic disposition in this book is found in the numerous examples Chalke and Mann cite. Whenever there is misunderstanding or conflict between some non-believer and the Church, or between non-believers and believers, and so on, it is blithely assumed by these authors that the problem had to have been on the Christian side. But in the breaking news department, sometimes non-Christians complain about all the hypocrites in church, not because they have a great zeal for Reformation, but rather because it is a tried and true method for getting inexperienced evangelists to jump the rails. That, and where Cain got his wife.

Lots of responses. If there is a hypocrite between you and God, then he must be closer to God than you are. If there is a hypocrite between you and God, then you must be too far away. If hypocrites are on Satan's side (and they are), then what kind of sense does it make to stay on Satan's side yourself because you are disgusted by what people on your own team are doing? In other words, sometimes an excuse is just an excuse.

Now here is the problem. In this article, "The Cross and the Caricatures," Wright interacts with three positions -- the Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson, the Anglican Dean of St. Albans, Dr. Jeffrey John, and the three evangelical writers who produced Pierced for our Transgressions. All three of these men -- Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach -- are associated with Oak Hill College in London.

Wright's interaction with Jenson is brief and respectful. His interaction with Jeffrey John is challenging; Wright charges Dr. John with rejecting a caricature of penal substitution, and admonishes him for doing so. For those who have forgotten, Jeffrey John was the homosexual who was nominated for a bishopic in the Church of England in 2003, and whose nomination was withdrawn because of the ensuing controversy. In the course of this challenge, Wright makes many solid points and I agree with his criticisms of Dr. John's caricature. But, as I have already noted, Wright is distressed with the omissions in Pierced for our Transgressions, and so it seems reasonable to note a striking omission here. Wright says:

"Let me put it like this. If Dr John were to turn on the radio and hear someone arguing the foolish and unwarranted case, on the basis of two or three anecdotal examples and a revulusion which they had had since the age of ten, that all gay men are promiscuous paedophiles and that therefore no such thing as permanent, faithful and stable gay partnerships were possible, he would rightly object that a gross caricature was being allowed to stand as the premise of the argument, and that the conclusion therefore did not follow. That is the kind of situation I find myself in when faced with his caricature of substitutionary atonement" (p. 6, emphasis mine).

This is a debate over penal substitution. It is a debate over the wrath of God, and whether that wrath is a reality or not, and whether propitiation is a necessity if sinful men are to be saved. That is what this debate is over, and Bishop Wright is in this debate with a man who solemnized a civil union with his partner in 2006. But in this context, Wright contents himself with arguing a point of doctrine with Dr John, and does not raise the screamingly obvious point of lifestyle. I know that St. Paul is dear to Wright, but, according to Paul, what is the result when the wrath of God is visited from heaven against ungodly men? Men burn with lust for other men, and even the women are affected. This is how Paul describes wrath. One of the prime exhibits of this wrath is the kind of behavior exhibited and defended by Dr. John. But to the extent that Wright even brings the homosexual issue up, he does so in a way that is beyond mild -- as yet another thing, like penal substitution, which is subject to bigotry and caricature.

The really strong language from Wright is reserved for the men from Oak Hill, and this is where things get really weird -- "almost funny," "Go and read the book," "hopelessly sub-biblical," "it becomes embarrassing," and so on. This is because (as I take it from this distance) they offered a case for penal substitution in the language of systematic theology and not biblical theology. I don't know (not having seen the book) if I would even agree with Wright's point. But what I can say, from this distance, is that Wright has a wildly skewed view of who needs to praised, who placated, and who challenged.

Because, in the meantime, someone like Chalke -- a regular zeitgeist-meister if ever there was one -- can say that the problem with the Pharisees was their "disempowering and alienating rhetoric" (p. 43), that Yahweh was "implicated in the excessive acts of war that we see in some of the books of the Old Testament" (p. 49), that God hid His face from Moses because no-one "could bear to see a face wrung with such infinite pain and live" (p. 59), that Jesus came to offer an "inclusive Kingdom" (p. 98), that Jesus did not require change in those who came to Him (p. 99), that Ghandi is our exemplar (p. 124), and plenty more examples if you want 'em. This is the kind of book that Wright did not dismiss as "hopelessly sub-biblical," but which somebody ought to have done.

Now the edifying gossip, which I think might help contextualize some things. The folks at Oak Hill are doing some of the finest work in ministerial training in the U.K. They are doing top-flight work. I was just there a few months ago, and had an opportunity to speak to a number of their students. David Field is a friend of mine, and is on the faculty there. He is going to be speaking for us at this next year's Trinity Fest, and he is also serving as adjunct faculty for New Saint Andrew's new graduate program. These are people who have been more than prepared to learn from Wright's scholarship, and at the same time take issue where they believe it is necessary to do so. In short, these are fine conservative men who are not reactionary fundamentalists.

As I have written in this place before, Wright's central problems are not doctrinal, but rather practical. He is a bishop, which means he has to make decisions about what to do in discipline cases. He needs to say something when reporters call him up. As a friend of mine recently noted, the difference between a pastor and a theologian is that a pastor has to make up his mind. The same thing applies to bishops. You have to make up your mind. You have to decide who to support, and who should not be supported. You have to take sides.

In watching this, we have to remember the law of diminishing fantods. I really enjoy reading Wright, even where I strongly differ with him. He can read some people the same way, but if I read those people (like Chalke), I get a case of the creeps. Presumably Chalke can read others who are even further out there. If each generation gets us a little further off, at some point we will all be in serious trouble. I don't know what accounts for this, but I know it involves the peculiar placement of blind spots. Another example (also involving Wright) is his view of Middleton and Walsh. In Wright's book, The New Testament and the People of God, he demolishes postmodernism (in his gentlemanly way). But I also noticed, somewhere in the notes, that he had a personal friendship (I think) with Walsh. Now my view of Middleton and Walsh's book, Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be, can be found in Contours of Post Maturity. If postmodernism were a leprosy that could infect Christians, most of these gentlemen's fingers would have fallen off by now. And so a couple years ago I asked Wright about it -- at a lunch a group of us had in Monroe (more gossip). He was aghast that I would think of Middleton and Walsh as postmodernists, and I was aghast that he didn't think so. Particularly since Wright knows what postmodernism is, and had sent little pieces of it flying all over the room in his book. So go figure.

N. T. Wright and Penal Substitution

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:26:45 GMT

N. T. Wright has written an essay in which he “strongly” affirms penal substitutionary atonement. Adrian Warnock has thoughts on how this relates to the theological controversy in the UK. Justin Taylor quotes important excerpts from an insightful review of one of Wright’s recent books by D. A. Carson.

Wright claims to “strongly” affirm penal substation, but he never says that Christ satisfies the just wrath of God against sin. He rejects the caricature of a vengeful Father, but vengeance is not the same thing as just wrath. Wright speaks of Jesus absorbing evil and dying in place of his people, but he seems to carefully avoid stating that Jesus satisfied the just wrath of God against sin, which is at the heart of the traditional understanding of penal substitionary atonement. We are left wondering whether or not he thinks that God feels personal wrath against sin, and whether he includes this in his understanding of penal substitution. If he does not, even though he claims to strongly affirm the doctrine, one must wonder whether he is affirming what most others who affirm it mean by it.

The Atonement - N. T. Wright Attacks Both Sides of the Debate

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:20:13 GMT

There is clearly a theological storm brewing. Bishop Wright has entered the fray, and appears reluctant to stand firmly on one side or the other of the debate. He doesn't mention the disagreement between UCCF and Spring Harvest, but he doesn't have to since the issues are clearly the same. I am sure he did not read my post from last Friday on this subject, and the comments that have been flying

A Hill to Die On...the vicarious penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ for the elect

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:35:10 GMT

In the providence of God, here is a living example of what yesterday's post was concerning. I received an email from my friend and yokefellow from across the pond, Adrian Warnock, informing me of an important doctrinal issue that is brewing there. This article he has posted is a MUST read. It deals with the essential issue of: the vicarious penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins. This is a theological, doctrinal and biblical nonnegotiable, beloved, when it comes to the gospel and Christ's saving work. You can read the story here. Both myself and Phil Johnson have commented in the meta at Adrian's which I also would encourage you to read. Also, Phil has written extensively on this subject and has produced some of the most helpful teaching on the atonement you could read. I highly commend him on this issue to you--it is excellent.

Doctrine matters; truth matters; the Gospel matters.
This is an issue worth defending, discussing and a hill to die on. Satan always attacks at the crucial - never the trivial. One of his primary targets throughout all of redemptive history has been to attack the nature, person, work and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. In specific, there is an onslaught of his darts aimed at undermining the once for all sacrifice for our sins; and that being vicarious penal substitution.

Defining the terms:

1. Vicarious: willingly done on behalf of another
2. Penal: punishment deserved under the Law
3. Substitutionary: Christ died in our place as our Federal Head
4. Atonement: the act by which God reconciled sinners to Himself through Jesus Christ

The Unmistakable Authority of God's Word on Penal Substitution

Is. 53:4 ¶ Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. Is. 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. Is. 53:6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. Is. 53:10 ¶ But the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. Is. 53:11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.

2 Cor. 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Gal. 3:10 ¶ For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.” Gal. 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” Gal. 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.” Gal. 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”—

Heb. 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. Heb. 2:10 ¶ For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. Heb. 2:14 ¶ Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, Heb. 2:15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. Heb. 2:16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Heb. 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. Heb. 2:18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

1 Pet. 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

1 Pet. 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

The Issue: Cosmic Child Abuse or Divine Atonement?
One of the key words the N.T. writers use to speak of vicarious penal substitutionary atonement is propitiation (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2, 4:10, Heb. 2:17). This word carries two ideas: 1. to satisfy; 2. to quench, to assuage. Taken in context, Jesus Christ on the cross took not only the guilt and penalty of our sin, but the full wrath of God for His elect. That is what the Apostles Creed means when it says, "…He descended into hell." Jesus didn't go literally to hell after He died (the false teachings of the Word/Faith movement), but He endured God’s wrath for us as our Federal Head on the cross. “He descended…” by taking fully God’s wrath in our place. Hell is not the absence of God; hell is His wrathful presence being poured out upon all the ungodly, Satan and his demons forever. Hell would be “Club Med” if it were not for the presence of God’s wrath.

The wrath of God that you and I deserve to be poured out upon us in hell forever and ever in unmitigated gall without relenting was fully poured out upon Jesus on the cross. That was the punishment that Christ took on our behalf; that is penal substitution. This is not “cosmic child abuse” as one (who shall remain unnamed) author refers to it. This is a profound truth and mystery. Whatever eternal wrath comprises, the miracle was that it was compressed into time and poured out on the Son for us as the Father faced the Son (Greek: pros ton theon - face to face) and the fullness of His anger was consumed, quenched, and satisfied by the Lord.

Listen, the sins of the elect (every sin, that would ever be committed, by everyone, that would ever believe) was placed on Jesus. In addition, the guilt and penalty of those sins were thrust on Him as well. But also, the wrath of God that burns against our sin and us the sinners was poured out upon Jesus Christ. THAT was the cup that only Jesus could drink; that was the cup that He wrestled with in the garden. It was not the cup of dying. Wicked men had gone the way of the cross before and were rightly punished for their crimes. Many went laughing, mocking, scornful of their insurrections and offenses. But only God incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ, could drink the cup of God's wrath; and He drained it! He drank it to the very dregs and redeemed us at Calvary.

Christ was punished in our place so that we may have peace with God forever (Rom. 5:1-2). He became, what Paul says in Galatians 3, “a curse for us.”

What were we saved from? Our sins? Yes. Hell? Yes. The sting of death? Yes. But those pale in comparison with this profound reality: on the cross, God through Christ saved us from Himself. That’s right – God through Christ saved us from Himself. From His wrath, His holiness, His justice. And Because Jesus Christ fully satisfied God (propitiation) on the cross as our Divine Substitute, we need to never fear of eternal judgment, condemnation, wrath or punishment for our sins. The penalty of our sins have been fully quenched in the once for all vicarious penal substitutionary sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Isn’t that the Good News of the gospel beloved?

God treated Christ on the cross as if He lived our life, so that we by grace through faith in Him, can be treated as if we lived His life (2 Cor. 5:21). That is the great doctrine of imputation.

The fullness of the Lord being punished in our place (for the sins and the sinners) and the satisfaction of God being accomplished was when Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken Me?" Christ was forsaken in that He bore our sin, its guilt and penalty. But also that He bore the wrath of God against us. The Father faced the Son and the Son faced the Father on the cross and He “took it—all of it” for His elect. When Jesus cried, "IT IS FINISHED" what had happened? He had fulfilled the Law; went beyond the veil; satisfied God's wrath; fulfilled all righteousness; exalted grace; took away the guilt and penalty of our sin; destroyed Satan's hold of death; abolished death and its sting; secured for us eternal life; brought us into intimacy with God; instituted a new covenant; and made for us peace with God forever!

THAT is the glory of the cross.

The death of Christ was both a propitiation and an expiation of sin. Propitiation refers to the turning away of wrath by an offering. God's wrath was satisfied and His justice meted out by Jesus’ once for all sacrifice on the cross. Expiation refers to covering sins and in specific, the guilt of sin. By the vicarious penal substitutionary atonement of Christ Jesus on the cross, our sins and their penalty are removed from us. The atonement satisfies both the demands of the Father and the needs of Christ's people (1 Pet. 1:2).

I close with Spurgeon:

"When Jesus gave himself for us, he gave us all the rights and privileges which went with himself; so that now, although as eternal God, he has essential rights to which no creature may venture to pretend, yet as Jesus, the Mediator, the federal head of the covenant of grace, he has no heritage apart from us. All the glorious consequences of his obedience unto death are the joint riches of all who are in him, and on whose behalf he accomplished the divine will. See, he enters into glory, but not for himself alone, for it is written, "Whither the Forerunner is for us entered." Heb. 6:20. Does he stand in the presence of God?-"He appears in the presence of God for us." Heb. 9:24.

Consider this, believer. You have no right to heaven in yourself: your right lies in Christ. If you are pardoned, it is through His blood; if you are justified, it is through His righteousness; if you are sanctified, it is because He is made of God unto you sanctification; if you shall be kept from falling, it will be because you are preserved in Christ Jesus; and if you are perfected at the last, it will be because you are complete in Him. Thus Jesus is magnified-for all is in Him and by Him; thus the inheritance is made certain to us-for it is obtained in Him; thus each blessing is the sweeter, and even heaven itself the brighter, because it is Jesus our Beloved "in whom" we have obtained all."

Pierced for Our Transgressions

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:05:04 GMT

I'm happy to announce that Crossway Books will be publishing Pierced for Our Transgressions in North America, due out November 2007.

Pierced for Our Transgressions

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:27:33 GMT

(Author: John Piper)

One of my joys during the sabbatical last spring in Cambridge was meeting with two of the authors of the upcoming book Pierced for Our Transgressions by Mike Ovey, Steve Jeffery and Andrew Sach. Their vision for the truth of what Christ achieved for us and what the needs are in British and American Evangelicalism were so compelling that I agreed to write the foreword for their book. I recommend the book to you and commend them for building a supporting web site. If you share the belief that we lose the gospel if we lose the substitutionary, wrath-averting triumph of the cross (Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:13; Isaiah 53:4-6) then you may want to order the book and visit their web site.

On December 21, 2005 when I was told to get a biopsy for prostate cancer the most precious word was 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, "For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him." How do I move from being a "child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3) to being free from wrath? It is not because God is not a God of wrath. it is because he was "pierced for my transgressions" (Isaiah 53:5).

This is not a mere academic dispute. Our present peace and our eternal life hangs on this work of Christ.

Pierced for Our Transgressions

Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:16:53 GMT

IVP-UK is set to publish a landmark work: Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. (Clicking on the link will take you to a website for the book. You can also order it from Amazon.com/uk--it is due out in mid-March.)

The authors of the book are Mike Ovey, Steve Jeffery, and Andrew Sach. Dr. Ovey will be replacing David Peterson as principal of Oak Hill College in the UK.

You can read online the table of contents and the foreword by John Piper.

I'll be sure to let you know when the book has been picked up in North America--which publisher and when it will come out.

Here are just some of the endorsements the book has received:

This book is important not only because it deals so competently with what lies at the heart of Christ's cross work, but because it responds effectively to a new generation of people who are not listening very carefully to what either Scripture or history says. One of the delightful features of this book is reflected in the subtitle: the authors make no apology for their thesis, but underscore the glory of penal substitution. This book deserves the widespread circulation achieved by corresponding contributions a generation ago - the contributions of Leon Morris, Jim Packer, and John Stott.

D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois
The Bible historically has been understood to teach explicitly and implicitly that Christ died as a penal substitute for sinners. That�s what this excellent volume teaches us, too. Carefully studying the primary biblical texts and then answering numerous objections, this book explains and defends the understanding that Christ died in our place, taking our penalty for us. From the biblical material to patristic quotations, from pastoral implications to present objections, this book is a responsible and comprehensive introduction. All the authors� careful work promises to make this book the new standard text on Christ�s atoning work. Now, I can�t wait to read it again, devotionally.

Mark Dever, Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church

This extended declaration and defence of the penal substitutionary view of Christ�s atoning death responds to a plethora of current criticisms, many of them in-house, with a thoroughness and effectiveness that is without parallel anywhere. The book�s existence shows that a British evangelical theology which exegetically, systematically, apologetically and pastorally can take on the world is in process of coming to birth. I hail this treatise as an epoch-making tour de force, and hopefully a sign of many more good things to come.

J. I. Packer, Professor of Theology, Regent College, Vancouver

Atonement is the central doctrine of the Christian faith, and penal substitution is the heart of this doctrine. It is wonderful to have a whole book on penal substitution.

Roger Nicole, Professor of Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida

A person�s attitude to the cross tells you much about their theology as a whole, as it is on Calvary that we see the divine response to the human predicament. Thus, the perennial attempts throughout church history to relativize and even deny the propitiatory and substitutionary nature of Christ�s sacrifice should not simply be understood as peripheral discussions; they indicate a constant tendency to revise the very essence of the Christian faith to conform to wider cultural mores and shibboleths. It is thus a great pleasure to commend a book such as this, which seeks to defend a biblical, orthodox understanding of the atonement and to reinforce the non-negotiable centrality of God�s wrath against sin and merciful grace towards humanity. Careful readers will find much here that will enable them to articulate with clarity and conviction this important gospel doctrine.

Carl R. Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History, Dean of Faculty, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The doctrine of penal substitution is often maligned and misunderstood today. Pierced for our Transgressions is the perfect antidote. The authors defend the doctrine with sparkling clarity and winsome logic. I thank God for this work in which penal substitution is biblically grounded, theologically articulated, and historically vindicated. Nor could one object that the authors fail to consider alternative views. Every objection to penal substitution is considered and refuted. In this book we are summoned again to the heart of the gospel.

Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

Pierced for our Transgressions is a treasure-trove of information and analysis on the important, yet disputed doctrine of penal substitution. As a biblical scholar, I enthusiastically commend the authors for their careful exegesis of the biblical text. From this point on, critics of the biblical teaching must interact with the arguments of this book. Further, every Christian, whether aware of the debate or not, can greatly benefit from this comprehensive and penetrating treatment of this crucial doctrine.

Tremper Longman III, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California

A well-thumbed copy of Pierced for Our Transgressions ought to rest on the bookshelf of every thoughtful Christian. This even-handed, masterful defence of penal substitutionary atonement is clear and convincing. Readers will quickly grasp the theology and the urgency of the issues, and will be especially grateful for the classic objection-response format of Part Two, which makes for easy reference. A crucial read.

R. Kent Hughes, Senior Pastor Emeritus, College Church, Wheaton, Illinois

At the cross, when Jesus bore the penalty for our sins in our place, the grace of God paid the price his holiness required. This has been the message of the gospel down the ages because this is the message of the gospel as Scripture reveals it. I am deeply grateful for this book, which illumines these facts so well. It is a book faithful to Scripture, knowledgeable of history, conversant with current debate, and deeply committed to seeing the Church flourish in our day.

David F. Wells, Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Massachusetts
This is a very significant book. It addresses the subject of Christ�s penal substitutionary death, which lies at the heart of the biblical gospel, but which has now come under serious threat in the current theological ferment. The authors have carefully and convincingly evaluated the biblical material on which the teaching of penal substitution has been based and reaffirmed it. They have set the doctrine within the theological framework of creation, sin, redemption and relationships within the Trinity, while adducing key witnesses from two millennia of church history in support. Every major objection to penal substitution has been considered, and courteously but firmly answered. This refreshing affirmation encourages us to praise God in wonder at Christ�s atonement for us sinners. The authors have placed us in their debt. Their book deserves to be read widely.

Peter T. O�Brien, Senior Research Fellow in New Testament, Moore Theological College, Sydney

In a lucid and compelling manner the authors of Pierced for our Transgressions summon all of us as Christians to reflect carefully on how we understand and proclaim the cross of Christ. Their defence of penal substitution is a cautious reminder that, although traditional doctrines constantly need to be re-examined, we must ever be careful that we do not jettison the baby with the bathwater. Those who are repelled by provocative and unhelpful caricatures of the doctrine of penal substitution will find the present volume exceptionally helpful and informative.

T. D. Alexander, Union Theological College, Belfast

(HT: Dave Bish)

Pierced for Our Transgressions

Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:16:42 GMT

Here are just some of the endorsements the book has received: