Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Soteriology

  • Doctrine and Reality – The Need for Balance

    In a recent post Dave Warnock looks through the preface by John Piper to Pierced for Our Trangressions, and quotes the following:

    This is how I feel today about teachers of Christ’s people who deny and even belittle precious, life-saving, biblical truth.When a person says that God’s ‘punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed’ would be as evil as child abuse, I am angered and grieved. For if God did not punish his Son in my place, I am not saved from my greatest peril, the wrath of God.

    (The whole post by Dave is worthwhile reading, but this post is just a tangent from that.)

    The more I read about this the more I realize that I will be reading this book eventually. But right now I’m not trying to review the book, or even directly to argue with John Piper. He has written and said much that I value, and also much with which I disagree. Often I even value the disagreement more than the agreement.

    But I want to respond to this point of doctrine. It is clear from scripture that good teaching is a good thing. In other words, it does matter what we teach. At the same time it’s very easy to make our doctrine, especially detailed doctrinal issues into something that stands instead of God. If Christ did not die for me, I am still in my sins, but if I fail to understand in a detailed way just why Christ died for me and how the atonement was accomplished, that does not diminish the fact that Christ died for me.

    This is where I am troubled by the teaching about Penal Substituionary Atonement (PSA). It is not that I think the teaching in and of itself is wrong, it is that it seems to be taking the place of the reality in some people’s theology. PSA is a metaphor, a limited human expression of the meaning of the atonement. As with most metaphors, it conveys some of the meaning of the atonement, but it can easily obscure other parts of that meaning.

    But in conversation with many advocates of PSA I can’t simply affirm my acceptance of PSA as a single metaphor among many for the atonement. I am asked to affirm that PSA is the central meaning of the cross, essentially making it the reality, rather than a metaphor. That I will not do, because I believe that is not worthy of the cross. That reduces the cross to a sense of human retribution and punishment, and reduces God to a human judge. It does not adequately express the trinitarian view of God himself becoming one of us and dying for our sins. It does not adequately express the depth and breadth of God’s love and forgiveness. Seeing it in that light, for me–and I reemphasize for me–it would be idolatry to put a lesser thing in place of the reality that is God, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself (2 Corinthians 5:19).

    There is no language to adequately express the incarnation and atonement. No matter how well we express it, we run up against the difficulty of describing and encompassing infinite God with finite human expressions. Our doctrines on this and every other topic will always contain some taint of the traditions of men.

    For that reason, we need to allow our doctrines and our perceptions to constantly come up against the scriptural presentation and against our experience of God’s presence. This is true whether those doctrines be modern, liberal, post-modern, conservative, or any other label we might put on them. It is true even if we believe our doctrines are scriptural.

    I read a report by a committee in the PCA, examining the New Perspective on Paul and another movement to see if they are in accord with the Westminster Standards. In explaining how they do this, and also elevate scripture above the standards, they wrote the following tortured paragraph:

    In addition, we are a confessional church. The PCA has affirmed that “the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice” (BCO 29-1; cf. 21-5.2; 26-1; 39-3). The church has historically understood that this claim does not elevate the Standards over Scripture itself; and yet, our Constitution does recognize the Standards as our “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture.” Because this is the case, the main focus of our study will be to determine whether the views of the NPP and AAT/FV are in conformity with our Westminster Standards.

    It’s not my intention here to criticize the PCA any more than specifically John Piper. The question I have is whether you can say that a certain set of standards is not elevated above scripture, and at the same time make the assumption that those standards define what scripture says. The NPP scholars believe they have found good, new interpretations of Paul, and they think their interpretations are closer to Paul’s intention than were earlier studies. Would not the correct question be this: Are these new interpretations more accurate? If you ask instead whether those interpretations are in accordance with the standards, does that not place the standards in the superior position?

    I grew up as a Seventh-day Adventist, and the writings of Ellen G. White were frequently placed in that position. In seminary I began to forcefully reject the claim that Ellen White was not above scripture, and yet when I went to interpret scripture, what Ellen White said was supposed to be definitive. If the Bible was superior, then I could test Ellen White by scripture, not the scripture by her.

    I feel the same way about doctrinal statements and confessions. Confessions are good for denominational unity, but if I am ever studying a proposed new interpretation my question will not be whether it is consistent with a particular confession, but whether it is more accurate. The confession can be adjusted.

    I think that all metaphors and all doctrines (as a subcategory of metaphor) need to be subject to revision at any time. Many have been and will be reaffirmed over and over, but the examination is still good. I think God will be grieved if we don’t allow his presence to shatter our limited understandings.

  • A Practical Application of Grace Before Law

    In an earlier post on salvation I mentioned that I would try to expand on some of the points I had only briefly mentioned. I have followed up with an extract from my earlier essay A Fruitful Faith. I encountered an excellent example of the grace before law principle in my devotions the other day to which I’d like to call attention.

    (Those who want to complain about the grace before law pattern based on passages such as Romans 5:20, I’ll simply note that the perspective there is a bit different. Wesleyans will probably recognize discussion of varieties of prevenient grace.)

    The first verse I noted was a turning point in the speech of Moses to the Israelites in Deuteronomy:

    (1) And now, Israel, listen to the statutes and judgments that I am teaching you to follow, so that you may live, and may enter and possess the land that YHWH, the God of your fathers, is giving to you. — Deuteronomy 4:1

    The reason this verse caught my attention is that Moses has just completed a review of the way in which Israel was rescued and what God has done for them. Having recited God’s prior actions, he then turns to the teaching of commands. The right to give the commands and the reason to hear them is rooted in God’s saving activity–the grace that was given before the law. (An extension of this principle is that God’s grace is truly undeserved, that is it comes before anyone has done anything to deserve it.)

    (more…)

  • A Fruitful Faith

    As I mentioned in a prior post on salvation, I plan to make a few more comments over the next few months filling out my views. In support of some future posts, I want to post an extract from a previous essay, A Fruitful Faith. You can read the remainder of that essay by following the link, but this essay describes the pattern, to which I will refer multiple times in future posts.

    There are many views in Christianity on the details of salvation and the various terms, events or processes that go into it. I would like to survey some Biblical material which I believe suggests that one always becomes right with God through a relationship mediated by faith, i.e. by the grace of God, but that the faith must always be a faith that bears fruit. No simple set of words, no transaction, no non-productive faith will do. A few of the texts that I will quote go a little farther than that, but I am interested right now in a broad survey rather than the details.

    Let me clarify some terminology. The word “salvation” can refer in scripture to redeeming someone from the rule of evil, to a process of spiritual healing and growth, and also to the final entry into the kingdom of God. Looking at texts from this perspective would constitute another essay. I will simply assume it here. Second, I will use the term “Old Testament” for the Hebrew scriptures for the most part, because I am looking at that body of literature from a primarily Christian point of view.

    I will proceed in seven parts (this extract includes only the first section):

    1. The original pattern from creation through the end of the flood
    2. The pattern of the Exodus
    3. Messianic prophecy and the new covenant
    4. Jesus
    5. Paul and fruit
    6. General Epistles
    7. Revelation and the coming kingdom

    (Since each of these is a rather large topic I’m simply going to outline the main points. This is a topic in which I believe one can say that the notion of salvation by a non-producing faith is unscriptural because it goes against the grain of all of scripture.)

    1. The pattern

    The “sin” pattern starts in Genesis 3 or 4, but can be most clearly seen, I believe, in the contrast between Genesis 1:31 (God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good!) and Genesis 6:5, (God saw . . . that the pattern of the intentions of his [man’s] heart was only evil continually.) Here we see the simple statement of the state of the world. It is good to recall that we are reading a story here with the moral points made through narrative. If we grant the situation as described in the story, the world is already in serious trouble before God brings on the flood. The focus in this story from the teller’s point of view is not the destruction of the rest of the world, but rather the saving of the eight people.

    Note here that the problem is not that everyone is running around bothered by guilt. It is also not that they are afraid of death and of hell fire. Rather it is that the entire tendency of their thinking is evil. Thus an atonement that simply removed guilt would not meet the need. An atonement that left their thinking in the same state in which it was before would not be a response to the problem indicated.

    This establishes the pattern that I believe is frequently seen in scripture, in particular in narrative form, which follows through all discussions of salvation–grace comes before law and instruction. Let’s look at that pattern as it occurs following the flood. Recall that for the eight people described here, they have just survived a harrowing experience–they have experienced a form of salvation from the situation.

    1. God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
    2. The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.
    3. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
    4. Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
    5. For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.
    6. Whoever sheds the blood of a human,
    by a human shall that person’s blood be shed;
    for in his own image
    God made humankind.
    7. And you, be fruitful and multiply, abound on the earth and multiply in it”
    (Genesis 9:1-7 NRSV).

    First, there is a blessing which is the result of a rescue, then there is instruction. We will see the pattern repeated further on in the same chapter.

    The same pattern occurs with Abraham who is called out without any particular request of good action recorded on his part, but who simply believes God. But his belief also results in action (Genesis 12:1-4; Genesis 15:6). One might even say that, beyond simply accepting that what God said was true, he put it into action–he put his trust in God. God’s act of rescue occurs first, followed by God’s promise of blessing, followed by the obedience of the person.

    Read more . . .

  • Inerrancy and Liberal-Conservative Dialogue

    In a comment at , Adrian Warnock says the following:

    Dr Grudem has expressed regret for the use of the word “blasphemy”, and as far as the quote from his systematic theology goes you have to understand that his aim is explicitly to build a theology based on the assumption that the bible is inerrant – I am not too sure how you think a liberal theology would help in that aim…

    (See also Dr. Grudem’s retraction of his agreement to the use of the word blasphemy.)

    (more…)

  • Pleading Guilty to Blasphemy

    . . . at least as defined by Dr. Wayne Grudem, a point he makes in the current (6th) installment of Adrian’s interview. Again, he’s not talking about me. I’m just going ahead and pleading guilty under an “if the shoe fits” standard.

    (more…)

  • Inclusivism and the Heathen

    I was getting geared up to write about salvation, because of various comments on my views that I’ve received here and in real life, but as I was doing so, John at Locusts and Honey weighed in on the issue, giving preliminary assent to exclusivism. He does outline the three major positions quite well, even though I disagree with the exclusivist conclusion and practically all of the logic that lies behind it.

    Though I’d already started my other post (<a href="it’s here) I thought I’d respond to his more specific case first, and then make some further comments on salvation generally. He says the following near the conclusion. (You can go to John’s blog to see the nifty picture he put with this!)

    Let us say that that the state catches two brutal serial killers who terrorized a community for years. Dozens of people have died slowly and savagely, and hundreds of people have seen their loved ones face their last moments in agony. Both murderers are tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. They are brought to the gallows on the day of their scheduled execution. As the nooses are placed around their necks, suddenly and unexpectedly, a telegram arrives from the governor pardoning one of them. One walks free; the other is executed immediately.

    Is this outcome unjust?

    We have done absolutely nothing to merit God’s forgiveness, and absolutely everything to merit his wrath. Ignorant pagans are not damned because they have never heard the Gospel; they are damned because of their sins. Christians are not saved because of their goodness; they are saved only by the inexplicable pardon of God.

    (more…)

  • Deciding who is Saved

    A few short comments on salvation resulted in some comments that indicate to me that I haven’t been entirely clear on this issue. I have heard such comments in real life from readers of my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic. In general people wonder whether I believe that people who reject Christ or who are too apathetic to listen to the gospel even though it is available to them.

    After starting this post, I responded to one on exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism, and so I will assume some of the minimum arguments made there.

    Here is a summary of my view, without any of the scriptural backing:

    1. Faith and works are always combined. True faith produces fruit. True fruit indicates that there is some divine working going on.
    2. Salvation by correct theology, by which I mean the idea that salvation is predicated on believing a certain set of doctrines, is as much a form of works salvation and a denial of grace as is old fashioned salvation by works. In either case, we are accomplishing something, either attaining an intellectual understanding, or accomplishing a particular set of activities, for the purpose of earning God’s favor.
    3. While God is one, and Jesus is the bridge between God and man, God has multiple ways of working in and with people.
    4. God is much more likely to communicate with people who are listening that we give him credit for. After we’ve given him more credit, he’s still more likely . . . 🙂
    5. It is not essential for me to know who God is saving and who he is not, but I can gather from his actions in history that he is doing so to many.
    6. If you’re still looking, you’re not lost.

    Now that’s way more than I can cover in a single post. In fact, I expect it is likely that I will post occasionally on this over a period of months.

    So where is my problem with the standard doctrine? Most particularly I object to the claim that those Christians who allow for the salvation of people who are not Christians in one way or another are simply rejecting the Bible outright. It is not merely that I am uncomfortable with a God who makes salvation difficult (see below), though I admit I am uncomfortable with that. My problem is with the combination of scriptural claims, that God is merciful, compassionate, and just, and yet will fry a rather large assortment of people eternally.

    (more…)

  • On Being a Love Preacher

    I’ve been talking about the incarnation and the two laws, and placing the concept of love at the center of Christianity. There are those who think that preaching love is somehow a weak form of Christianity, and a soft form of ethics. “All you need is love” is not regarded as a particularly profound message. “There’s lots more to it than just love,” I’ve been told.

    But I don’t think so. I think love requires some definition, because not everything we call love actually is. There are lots of details required to implement love. But love is the key, and love is anything but easy.

    My pastor this morning referred to the “cliche of ‘What Would Jesus Do?’” And indeed WWJD has become a cliche, with just about anything you might want to justify being explained as, of course, precisely what Jesus would do. And in practice WWJD has become something of a cliche, and unfortunately, in general people claim that Jesus would do whatever it was they wanted to do anyhow.

    But what would Jesus actually do? Well, we can get some idea from the gospel of John. (This message is scattered throughout scripture, but I’m using the passage in which it is most clearly stated.) Jesus gave up his life for his friends. And then he gave a command:

    12This is my command, that you love one another just as I loved you. 13Nobody has greater love than this, that he lays down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do that which I command you. — John 15:12-14 (TFBV, or see the CEV using BibleGateway.com)

    What would Jesus do? Well, he did give his life for his friends. And he did provide that to his disciples as a definition of love, of the love that they were to carry out.

    Now which is easier?

    • Believe a set of doctrines so that despite whatever you may do, you will still be saved and live eternally?
    • Put your trust in God and let him transform your life so that you exemplify this love, that is exemplify what Jesus would do?

    I think the easy road out is option ‘a’. We would really rather not be confronted with what Jesus actually would do in most circumstances.

    But that, I believe, is the challenge of the gospel.

  • T4G: Salvation

    Articles VIII-XIII of the Together for the Gospel statement all deal with salvation, in this case with a strong focus on justification. (Note that the link above is to the final revision of the statement rather than the earlier form I have referenced in previous comments.) Those who have read my previous entries on this topic will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with the emphasis of these statements.

    My objections can generally be placed under two headings: 1) Elements that undergird Calvinism, and 2) Elements that constitute what I call “salvation by correct theology,” which I regard as an even more insidious version of salvation by works.

    Calvinism

    Let me first state that I do regard Calvinists as Christian brethren, but I do not think that Calvinism and predestination are consistent with the gospel. I cannot see how it can be regarded as “good news” that God has ordained that certain people will burn in hell. I understand that some find it comforting to have the assurance of election, but that assurance comes at the cost of the election of certain others to eternal punishment.

    I’m going to limit myself to these few remarks on this issue at this point, because this issue has been beaten into the ground. Some of my own thoughts on salvation can be found in my essay A Fruitful Faith.

    Salvation by Theology

    I want to give a bit more time to the second issue, what I call “salvation by correct theology.” While there are numerous statements that relate to this in the articles I cited above, the concept is best illustrated by this quote from Article X:

    We deny that there is salvation in any other name, or that saving faith can take any form other than conscious belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving acts.

    Notice the elements involved in saving faith, just according to this one sentence:

    • Conscious belief
    • Acceptance of Jesus as Lord
    • Acceptance of Jesus as Messiah
    • Knowledge of the saving acts of Jesus

    Now I’m assuming that the T4G statement is written carefully, and that the authors actually intend all of these implications. It is still unclear, of course, just how much one must understand about each of these elements. What are included in the “saving acts?” How much must one know? It seems from the remaining articles that the authors of the T4G statement think one must know quite a bit, and some quite specific theology.

    All options such as a limited knowledge of God, such as described in Romans 2, are eliminated. One must consciously believe specific things in detail. One wonders how much detail Paul and Silas taught the jailer in Philippi before they baptized him, but they seem to have gotten done by morning. The possibility of salvation for those who have not heard the gospel is eliminated as well. Only conscious belief in details will do.

    I would suggest that this view stands against a number of texts, such as Romans 2, and the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46, in which people who clearly do not realize they are saved are nonetheless received by Jesus into his kingdom.

    Why do I regard this as more insidious than salvation by works? At least good works are of some value in themselves. But more importantly, one who is not a deep thinker can understanding doing right and avoiding wrong. Loving one’s neighbor is accessible to the intellectually challenged as well as to geniuses. Theology, especially systematic theology, is only accessible to a minority. Salvation by correct theology limits God’s kingdom to certain people who can understand and be consciously convinced of a number of intellectual propositions.

    Worst of all, it equates “put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” with intellectual assent to a set of propositions.

  • In and Around God

    I found a wonderful post on the relationship to which God invites us over at connexions (via the the Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup), titled Living in God. The author, Richard Hall, brings to us the word “perichoresis” used by early church fathers to describe the union of the human and divine in Jesus and then the trinity (details in the post and comments to it.

    It’s not the big word that made me like this post so much, but the discussion of it. I rarely like the use of a Greek word in preaching and teaching. If you’re teaching in English, teach in English. Generally. Here, the very mystery of the word, and the mysteries it can be used to describe combine to help us think about mysterious things. And the trinity is indeed a mysterious thing, and so is the closeness of the relationship to which Jesus calls us. Often we forget that. One of the benefits of the doctrine of the trinity is simply that it makes us think constantly about relationships. It forces us to try to imagine relationships that are closer than any that we experience.

    At the same time, it illustrates how much more there is to the atonement than substitution and the paying of debts. I do not reject the notion of substitution in the atonement. I think that substitution is a metaphor that can convey to us some of the meaning. But it is a metaphor, and it conveys only part of the picture. If we allow ourselves to spend time thinking about some of these other aspects, and taking seriously Biblical materials that reach beyond that point, we will find a richness in atonement and reconciliation that will enrich our relationship with God, and flow out into our relationship with others.

    Our hope in both divine and human relationships should be this: They can be better.