Satisfaction through substitution

We strongly reject, therefore, every explanation of the death of Christ which does not have at it's centre 'satisfaction through substitution' indeed divine self satisfaction through divine self substitution. The cross was not a commercial bargain with the devil, let alone one which tricked and trapped him, nor an exact equivalent, a quid pro quo to satisfy a code of honour or technical point of law, nor a compulsory submission to God to some moral authority above Him from which He could not otherwise escape, nor a punishment of a meek Christ through a harsh and punitive Father, nor a procurement of salvation by a loving Christ from a mean and reluctant Father, nor an action by which the Father bypassed Christ as mediator.

Instead the righteous, loving Father humbled Himself to become in and through His only Son, flesh, sin and a curse for us, in order to redeem us without compromising His own character. The theological words 'satisfaction' and 'substitution' need to be carefully defined and safeguarded, but they can not, under any circumstances by given up. The Biblical Gospel of atonement is of God satisfying Himself by substituting Himself for us.

John Stott, The Cross Of Christ, Pp 159-160

If you've not yet read 'The Cross of Christ' run, don't walk to your nearest bookshop and grab a copy. It's clear, it's helpful, it's heart warming. It may be the most vital book you'll ever read. Increasingly as i go through it, and as i read the Bible, i think that a defective view of the atonement leads to a defective view of God, and vice versa. If Christ death was about bearing our pain, or offering a perfect confession of our sin, we've lost the holiness of God. A holy God demands satisfaction for our sin, not someone to suffer so we know how bad it is. In and through Jesus, God became just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ.

Secondly, it may be fed by a poor Biblical Theology, a poor understanding of how the Old Testament is a Christian book. Read Leviticus...why are those sheep being killed? So they can empathise with us? To show us the worst excess of our sin? By way of example? They are being killed, like Christ our passover lamb was, to show that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, that God, rightly, demands a bloody sacrifice to pay for our sins. This is not a primitive, base understanding of crime and punishment, this is not an pagan idea grafted onto Christianity...this is justice, humbling, sacrificial substitutional justice, which is probably why we dislike it so much...

Blood: From the beginning

There isn't much that happens in the rest of the Bible that isn't touched upon in Genesis. I'd go so far as to say that there's nothing in the New Testament that isn't foreshadowed, or revealed to a lesser extent in the Old. So the Old Testament should be where we go to prove a controversial doctrine, or a teaching that has come under attack. If it's not the the Old Testament, we should probably be wary of it.

Probably the best known controversy of the 21st Century so far is the storm created over the doctrine of Penal Substitution, the idea that Christ was punished for our sins. His flesh, our sins. Our death conquered by His life. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. So is this a post enlightenment idea? Is this a Pauline idea? Is it an idea thrown together from a few obscure New Testament texts? Or does it appear to occur from almost the first page of the Bible?

Genesis 1-3, creation: good, man: very good. Serpent, fall, sin, exile. There's no need for blood to be shed for the forgiveness of sins until Genesis 3. What happens just as Adam and Eve are thrown out of the Garden? God clothes them. Oh grace! Your leaves are no good, have some animal skins...animal skins? So animals died, and, presumably, shed blood. So as soon as we see sin, we see it's consequences, the shedding of blood. Interesting.

Later on we meet Cain and Abel. The search for the seed is on... is it one of these two. We learn that Abel was the keeper of the sheep, and Cain the worker of the ground. Both bought the fruit of their labour to God as an offering. Abel; the firstborn of the flock, Cain; some fruit. 'The LORD has regard for Abel and His offering, but for Cain and His offering, He had no regard' (Gen 4:4).

This presents a huge problem unless more than meets the eye is going on here. You could easily read this passage, and see God as a moody god who had gotten out of bed on the wrong side and had decided to take it out upon Cain. That is bad news for Christians, that is no sort of God. Unless...unless Abel's offering was regarded because it was a lamb, a firstborn, an offering that needed the shedding of blood. 

We're not told if Abel knew this, or if he just lucked out...but we're not even told why they were offering to the Lord, Genesis is as Genesis does, that's it's beauty. People didn't begin to call upon the name of the Lord until the end of the chapter, when Abel's brothers were born.

So here we see it. We'd be pushed to build the whole doctrine from here but we don't have to. For an offering to be regarded, it must involve the shedding of blood. And the shedding of blood and the forgiveness of sins are closely related. Thank God for Jesus. Thank God it will never be our blood.

Five Books

A while ago someone asked me what five books i would always recommend to people no matter the occasion or circumstance would be. After a bit of thought, and in no particular order, here they are:

A Call to Spiritual Reformation. (Don Cason)

This book more of less reformed my prayer life. If the title is too wordy, think of it as 'praying with Paul', because thats exactly what this book is. Carson takes us, in his own style though the content, heart and vision of Paul's prayers as recorded in his letters. I read this in September 2006 and what i learnt from it still impacts me today. I think we all need help praying from time to time, and this is the book i'd recommend for that.

The Reason for God. (Tim Keller)

I don't do much apologetics reading, but this was excellent. I reviewed it when i first read it and i can only reiterate what i said then really. A few months on i can say that is has helped me think more clearly about the way i present the Gospel, engage with people, think about objections to faith, answer objections to faith. Also, it's as well designed as any book i've read for a while!

Desiring God/Don't Waste Your Life (John Piper)

Well obviously! I've chosen two together because i'm not sure they really work without each other. I don't think that was the way they were meant to be written, but i know a lot of people that really didn't get along with dwyl, and i think that may well be because Desiring God lays such a firm foundation for the application that appears in Don't Waste Your Life. Desiring God was the first Christian book i ever read back in spring 2005. I really think that the seeds planted by these two books are why i'm sitting in North Carolina right now, and why Bulgaria seems to be seared onto my heart.

The Mortification of Sin (John Owen)

Why does no one write like this about sin any more? I have never ever read a book that made me despair about my sin, that drove me to real self abasement before the Lord as this one. WE really need to do this. It's not without encouragement, it changed the way i looked at sin, helped me to see why it is to be hated and made me want to hate it more. We need to the Puritans, we need to read Owen. He's hard but he's so worth it. I think it's best summed up by when i asked a close friend how he was getting on with the book.

'oh man (sits down heavily) urgghh'

Pierced for our Transgression (Jeffrey, Ovey, Sach)

There were a couple of contenders for this, but since i'm an evangelical, and since it's 2008, it has to be this. Do you want to understand the controversy around penal substitution? Do you want to know why this doctrine is 'pure gold'? Do you want to know why New Word Alive exists? Do you want to understand why what Steve Chalke etc are doing and writing and believing isn't new and breathlessly exciting but rather old and deadly? Get hold of this, and soak in Biblical, bloody, glory.

Prozac and Penal Substitution

Last night i read these verses:

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows

yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted

Yet he was wounded for our transgression, He was crushed for our iniquities

Upon Him was the chastisement that bought us peace

And with His stripes we are healed.

Aren't they beautiful? Don't they explain a heart thrilling truth? Especially in the light of yesterdays reports that prozac is no more effective in some cases then a placebo. What have they got to do with each other? Well, despite, perhaps because of, the advancement in science and technology and medicine, most of us still feel like there's something missing. That we need something alien to fulfill ourselves. Which i guess is why people take prozac. Michael Ramsden tells the story of an investigation that finds that most people feel like at one point in time they were happy, and now they're not. That we've lost something that needs to be regained at any cost. Goodness knows how many dollars spent on research and we get to the end of Genesis 3.

But what's any of this got to do with Isaiah 53? Well, where does the need for medicine come from? it must and can only be from the fall. Not that medicine is evil or anything like that, but simply that people are ill because people are fallen. People are ill because people don't have a perfect, unbroken relationship with God. No one living does. I'm not saying that people sin so God makes them ill, but that sickness is a result of the Fall. Did Adam and Eve ever need prozac? Exactly.

God has dealt with this problem.

He has sent Christ to bear our grief, to carry our sorrow, to be wounded for us, crushed for us, chastised for us. Jesus has died to demonstrate the righteousness of God, and so that we might know God. He restores what is lost. He gives us hope of a future without mental or physical illness. And He does this by punishing His Son for our sin. So to deny this doctrine, to cast scorn on this life giving truth is not only supremely silly, it also robs people of hope.

Theology, proper theology, is not limited to the ivory towered academy in it's effect. It changes people's lives. It's not about pens and paper, it's about people's lives, its about pastoring the broken in our churches. Penal substitution gives us that hope. It gives us the ability to look at objective historical events and say to the sick and suffering: there is hope, there is life, you will have joy. God is righteous but He has made a way for us.

Two great truths. Here then is a doctrine worth preaching, writing about and defending. Because here is a doctrine that imparts life and hope.

God is love?

What we say about the atonement naturally flows from our understanding of the charecter of God. I believe, as i make clear in my book, that the most profound theological truth expressed in the whole canon of scripture is 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) Indeed again i have been attacked for 'over emphasising God's love and not putting it in context'

It seems that the statement 'God is love' is sometimes used to cover and end a multitude of disagreement and controversy. Indeed, even yesterday i was checking my Nooma post from the summer again, to see how many more comments have been made on it, (current tally, 37) and one guy ended his comment of disagreement with the statement 'God is love'. Now, thats true. God is love, otherwise the Bible wouldn't tell us He was. If we don't affirm that scripture is God-breathed and therefore true and authoritative then we are cut adrift as Christians with neither boat nor paddle.

So yes, of course. God is love. That is a great neccesary and life giving truth. And i love it. But it what sense is is a life giving and neccesary thruth? What does it mean that God is love? How is this love expressed. In the quote about Steve Chalke says he's been accused of 'not putting it in context'. Well thats do that now, and lets see if the argument against, particularly in this case penal substitution is affected in any way by the context of the rest of the passage:

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

So John's argument seems to be 1) if we don't love each other we don't know God, why? Because 2) God is love. And how can we know His love? What does His love look like? 3) He sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 4) Look how much God loves us, so love each other.

So it seems from this that 'God is love' far from giving trouble to the doctrine of penal substitution is actually based on that doctrine. God is love. This is what His love looks like, that He sent His Son to bear our sins on the cross. God is love seems to lead us straight to penal substitution. And it seems to suggest that God is love means that God will give us Himself, that God's greatest gift in His love is Himself in His Son. Why? Well what did the cross achieve for us? Forgiveness of sins? Yes,

Infinitly neccesary but not ultimate. It's not ultimate because the cross is not about God. So what difference does that make? Well when a God ultimatly concerned with His own glory (as we also see from this verse, God being love demonstrates Father loves Son, Father loves Holy Spirit, Son loves Father and Holy Spirit and Holy Spirit loves Father and Son) sends His own Son to die, it's going to be for God glorifying reasons. It's going to be to bring us to Him, so we can worship, enjoy and praise Him. And thats what it does.

So God's love is the gift of His Son so that we might know Him. But do we see this idea anywhere else in scripture? I think we do, in John 17:26: I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them. So Jesus makes known to us the love of the Father. Why? So that we might love the father has for the Son will be in us. This must be referring to Heaven, when we see Jesus as he really is, and therefore begin to love Him as we should do. 'And I in them'. Which i think means, given the context, the love i have for the Farther you will have for the Father. So suddenly we're caught up into this eternal intra trinity love

In Heaven we will love the Son as the Father does, and vice versa. This love withh be eternal, infinite, white hot, overwhelmed with joy. And, for us, as we continue to see the glory of Jesus unfold for eternity, it will be a love that grows and grows. How does this happen? How can jesus possibly win this for sinners like you and me? By what He did on the cross. By removing every barrier, every sin that stood between us and this all satisfying, white hot joy filled relationship with the Father.

So yes, God is love. All day every day. But we can only know and taste this because in His love, because God is love, He sent Jesus, to bare the wrath that we deserve on our behalf, so that we might spend eternity caught up in, and experiencing this Father, Son, Holy Spirit love.

Liberal Christianity and evangelism

This week i read this:

Once again we have a father demonstrating love by subjecting a son to death by torture, but this time the father is not trying to impress god. He is god, and he is trying to impress humans. (HT: Challies)

Now the guy who wrote this, Christopher Hitchens isn't a Christian, as we have guessed by the title of his book, 'God is not great', but i think it's still worth asking where he got such a skewed view fo the atonement from...

One things that the 'cosmic child abuse' crowd always seem to overlook is the willingness of Jesus to go to the cross. 'the world must know that i love my Father'. Does this sound like child abuse? Does this sound like what Hitchens and those who would deny penal substitution are talking about? A helpless defenceless child beaten by his merciless father? Even at Gethsemene, where Jesus sweated blood with anxiety at what is about the happen, He still comes to the conlcusion that 'not what i will, but what you will be done'... Again, Jesus is not dragged by His Father to the cross. The Father did not have the cajole the Son into this, the Trinity never disagree and never discuss...this the Plan from ages past. Jesus longed to show the world the rightouesness of God. He longed to show the world the glory of God by bringing the elect into communion with Him. He was not 'subjected to death by torture' in the way that Hitchens, or indeed many Christians would have us believe.

Secondly, 'God was trying to impress man'? No no no. It's hard to know where to start here. The Creator of the universe, the One who knit us together in our mothers' wombs trying to impress us? Trying to pull something out of the bag to make us look? No. And again no. Christ showed His love for us while we were still sinners, there's no doubt about that, but i'm not sure thats what Hitchens means. Christs death on the cross demonstrates the righteousness of God, because He had passed over former sins...It doesn't demonstrate that God was lonely and wanted to impress some new friends.

So what does this mean for evangelism? It makes it much harder. It's not difficult to to work out where Hitchens has picked these ideas up from, because it's surely not the Bible. Liberal Christianity, those who deny penal substitutionary atonement have made the job of portraying the utter glory and mercy and wisdom of the Godhead at Calvery all the more hard. Poor theology doesn't just matter in the libraries and seminaries...it affects people's eternity.

Packer on Penal Substitution

The following are quotes from an article written by Jim Packer in this quarter's NB:news, the magazine for uccf staff and supporters

'...as i get older i want to tell everyone who will listen: 'i am so glad for the penal substitutionary death of Jesus, no hope without it'

...it was with His own will and His own love mirroring the Father's therefore that He took the place of human sinners exposed to divine judgement and laid down His life as a sacrifice for them, entering fully into the state and experience of death that was due to them. The He rose to death to reign by the Fathers appointment in the Kingdom of God. From His throne He sent the Spirit to enduce faith in Himself, and in the saving work He has done...

Since this was all planned by the holy Three in their eternal solidarity of mutual love, and since the Father's central purpose in it was and it the glorify and exalt the Son as Head and savior of a new humanity. smartypant's notions like 'divine child abuse' as a comment on the cross, are supremely silly, and as irrelevant and wrong as they possibly could be...

What is stated above is clearly revealed in God's own witness to Himself in the Bible and so must be given the status of non-negotiable fact...

Penal substitution therefore, will not be focused properly until it is recognised that God's redemptive love must not be conceived, misconcieved rather, as somehow replacing God's retributive justice, as if the Creator-Judge simply decided to let bygones be bygones. The measure of God's holy love for us is that 'while we were still sinners Christ died for us', and that 'He...did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all' (Romans 5:8; 8:32)

Hebrews 9

[this was possibly the best evening of the lot. The choice of songs, what Richard said, the atmosphere at the end. Incredible stuff. God was truly present as Richard defended the Gospel against those who denied and continue to deny the Biblical teaching of penal substitution and as we worshipped afterwards. To be reminded of the truth is such a forceful way was a joy, as was the feeling from knowing that UCCF:thechristianunions are in safe hands.]

The Goal.

The fail to enter God’s rest is to fail life. How do we make sure we don’t fail?

The Problem

The problem we all face is outlined in v27. we are appointed to live, die and face judgement. And we know how we will be judged. Sin is serious and dealing with it is an endless ministry, and it requires blood. Animals had to be killed to deal with Adam and Eve’s sin, right from the beginning sin has required blood to deal with it. The Most Holy Place could only be entered once a year, Uzzah died for being too blasé about the holiness of the Ark. The Priest’s work was never done, sin was never sorted by what happened in the Temple. It was a tireless, bloody work. The Temple was just a shadow of what was to become. The shadow becomes a person in Jesus, the High Priest is Jesus.

Religion is just a shadow.

God is being true to who He is. He can not, will not and does not run around forgiving sin. We are made in the image of God, not the other way around. He will be true to His own character, not to what we want Him to do. It requires blood to deal with sin. This is God’s standard.

The Solution.

Now He has appeared to do away with sin once and for all by sacrifice. He shed His own blood under the weight of our sin. He did this once for all. The tireless, bloody work of the High Priest is done once and for all by the deadly, bloody work of the cross. This is why it’s so suicidal to deny propitiation. It guts the Gospel, it takes the heart out of what the Bible says. It takes away our confidence by denying the work of the High Priest. There is no forgiveness without the forgiveness of sin (v22), Jesus blood is shed to forgive our sins. That’s the only way we can move into relationship with God, that’s the only way we can be forgiven, by our sin being dealt with by the death of Jesus, for our sins, on the cross. This is not a religion, this is a rescue.

[and there you go, what was said on this night if worth far more accurate and complete recording that what i wrote, but i guess it does mean i listened more carefully!]

some things i stole.

i have never, to my knowledge, had a decent original thought. as such, here are some things from the April edition of 'Evangelicals Now'

SORs

'this legislation is unprecedented in its complete intolerance of those who have religious beliefs. The Government did not put forward a single piece of evidence to justify the need for the regulations, has ignored the 72% of the public who opposed it's approach to the law, and has ignored the majority of the 3000 responses to its' consultation. Despite this weak basis to the law, the government is prepared to take the legal landmark of making it illegal for Christians to hold the clear teaching that God loves everyone and wants all people to know Him, but also that extra marital sexual conduct (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is wrong.
To think that the Government would prefer to shut down the widespread and compassionate services provided by Christian adoption agencies, drug rehabiliation, homeless shelters and community centres rather than accept that Christians should not be forced to promote homosexual practices is astounding

- Thomas Cordrey P1+2

Oh dear Mr Blair. 10 years and three landslides later is this the best you can do? Along with denying the livlihoods of thousands who relied on the fox hunting industries and taking us into a long and bloody war, you're responsible for this unenforcible shambles as well, meanwhile the NHS staggers from disaster to disaster, inner city schools continue to fail, and kids kill each other on the streets of London. What a waste eh? What a waste.


Theology

We need a healthy balance between the academic and the practical. There is no dichotomy between the two. We make no apology for the fact that more PHDs in theology are supervised here than anywhere else in the UK. Anyone who imagines that academic research is a distraction or irrelevant simply doesn't understand the threat that postmodernist deconstruction of the Bible now poses. The recent attack on the doctrine of penal substitution is just the beginning. Not since the Reformation has there been such a need for faithful Pastors who are theological prepared and alert. At the same time, we are determined to prepare men who will not be taken by surprise by all the practical demands of pastoral ministry. What we really need is a return to the pre 19th century pastor theologian model- think of Edwards, Luther and Calvin, where theology is both the queen of the sciences and the servant of the churches.

- Jonathan Steven, Principal of Wales Evangelical School of Theology, P14

I remember when Jonathan was pastor of Carey Baptist Church in Reading came to talk on justification at CU, he pretty much blew me away. I'd like to give a hearty amen to what he says here, (not that it needs it!) and add pastor-theologian to the list of things i want to be when i grow up!

war and peace

One of the things we looked at during the recent south-east team days was the early days of some of the earliest statements of faith. This was during our second session on church history, which took us into the days of Constantine and Athanasius, two charecters interesting in their own ways. Athanasius could certainly become a hero of mine, as i find out more about him.

These early statements of faith were formed by way of response to a growing number of heresies in the early church. On the one hand this heresy was probably sadly to be expected. The Christian message about God stepping into human space time history and being killed and then rising again is, literally, incredible. And as the church grew quicker than teachers could be trained people started to re model aspects of the Christian faith, particulaly with regard to either the humanity or divinity of Christ. Both clearly serious problems. And so the earliest statements of faith, the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed were drawn up by way of defending historic, Biblical Christianity from attack and heresy.

Which brings us to Athansius. He spent most of his life after the institution of the Council of Nicaea defending it. He was outcast by most of the church who didn't accept the creed, and spent day after day, month after month, year after year, being worn down by his enemies for the sake of Gospel truth. I wonder if there are men like that around today, who would hold their lives cheaply for the sake of truth. I wonder how many would stick at it for two years, five years, ten years, before giving up. The thing that fascinates me and inspires me the most about this period of church division is how much of it seems, on the face of it at least, to be a question of semantics. Two words were in question and opposition to eachother were 'homoousious' meaning of the same substance, and homoiousious meaning of similar substance. Just to confuse the issue there was a third word 'homoios' meaning of like substance that was also thrown into the mix. Athanasius spent this time of his life fighting to defend the Biblical teaching that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, not of simialar or like substance, the same. Imagine if that debate was going on today, how many liberalists would complain about the debate, probably saying that the debate was only over a single letter, and 'wouldn't it be better if we all just tried to get along'. It is never better to try and 'get along' with a teaching that clearly denies the teaching of the Bible. Never. We must love the people but utterly, utterly reject their teaching.

Schaeffer says that if we are not fighting the battles of our generation we are no good as a soldier of Christ. That is to say that if people were still fighting the battles today that were won in the last generation then they are wasting their time. It seems to me that the battles that will need fighting by my generation come from inside and outside the church. Postmodern attacks on the authority and reliability of scripture from outside, and liberal attacks on penal substitution from inside. I will shamelessly quote Mark Driscoll on both these counts. He says that 'the Bible, the 66 books is the first hill to die on'. That is we must also contend and fight for the truth of the Bible. For what the Bible teaches about ourselves. Always contend and never contextualise here. 'Propitiation...is the best part of the Bible', is another one of my favourites of his. And he's right. We, who were once vessels of wrath are now children of God. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus because He soaked up all the wrath of God on the cross. It's all gone. If the wrath of God was not satisfied in the death of His Son on the cross, where and when will it be satisfied. Unless you worship a less-than-holy 'god' who doesn't love justice. Who isn't just. Thats no sort of God at all. Increasingly the western church is becoming a wrathless church, both in teaching and in worship, but the problem exists in the church, not in God.

All of which brings us back to statements of faith. (actually i'm not sure it does, but lets pretend). The problems CU's in Exeter and Birmingham are facing are down to their insistence that their leaders and teachers sign the Doctinal Basis, a statement of faith. I'll make no pretence here of impartiality. I love the DB and what it stands for. I'd happily sign it every day if i needed to. But isn't it just a bit divisive and exclusive? Well, yes and no. It is exclusive in that it excludes people who don't want to stand by the historic evangelical truths. Is it divisive? Not a bit of it. It's neccesary to protect the integrity and vision of CUs across the country. Signing the DB is a matter for rejoicing. Rejoicing in the great truth of the God is who holy, who loves us and who gave Himself for us. Who made a way back to Himself without compromising either Him or us. It's wonderful to be able to write my name at the bottom of that statement, and i thank God that i can.

The all sufficiency of Christ (2)

Substitution.

Christ's penal substitutionary death on the cross achieved many, many, many great things. Everything good we see in the world in fact. Every lovely sunset, every good moment with our friends, every answered prayer, every spiritual blessing...it all comes from the cross. Jesus' work was all satusfying, all encompassing, and all sufficient.

Christ's death on the cross provided a substitute for us in two ways, one of which is controversial, one of which is probably less so. Both of them are hugely important and fantastic news. In both of them Christ has become the once for all, final, satisfying substitute for us, in a way that lambs and goats never could be. Two of my favourite verses, both written by John describe Jesus put Him in these terms. He is 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' and 'the Lamb, looking like he had been slain'. Throughout the Old Testament, from the time when Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac, sheep and goats have been used as a sacrifice to God for human sin. Animals are killed, blood is shed and the sin is dealt with. But it leaves the question, what sort of God is happy with the blood of an animal to deal with the sins of people? What sort of God thinks of animals as a decent substitution for people? Surely there must be another plan, a better way?

Expiation.
In Leviticus 16:21, Aaron is told to lay his hands on the live goat, confess on it all the sins and iniquities of Israel and send it off into the wilderness to die. This goat them symbolically carries the sin of Israel against God far away from it. This animal had sins laid onto it, it is deserted and then goes off and dies. The cross, as Liam Goligher says, is Jesus fulfilling this picture and experiencing that abandonment. God is removing the problem of our sin by Jesus taking it out of sight. And because of this God will never again feel wrath for us, or punish us for our sins. They have been removed from us. God is now working all things together for the good of those who love Him. Our sin has been removed. It had to be done by a perfect, humna sacrifice, not by an animal. What sort of substitute is a goat for a man? This is why Jesus' deity and virgin birth are so important. No virgin birth means that Jesus is born into the line of Adam and therefore, like us all, imputed with his sin. No deity means that Jesus is incapable of living a sinless life, and therefore not a satisfying sacrifice for the Lord.

Propitiation.
This doctrine is the best bit of the Bible. The one we must fight for. One of the first 'hills to die on', as Mark Driscoll said. His first 'hill to die on' is the Bible but i guess this is much the same. I don't think you can clearly and literally read the Bible and come away without the doctrine of propitiation. In Leviticus 16:15 Aaron is told to kill the goat that is the sin offering for the people. He's told to kill it, to shed it's blood. This is how our holy and righteous God feels about sin. Sin deserves death, the shedding of blood. This goat was to be killed for the sins of the people, because sin deserves death. Again though, how can a goat be killed for the sins of men? Surely only a man can die for the sins of men? On the day of atonement the High Priest had to first kill a goat for his own sins before he could move onto dealing with the sins of the people...so even the one doing the killing had to deal with himself first. Jesus was killed for the sins of the people, fulfilling the picture given on the day of atonement. He was sinless, so didn't have to deal with His own sin first. He brought with him no sin offering, he was High Preist and sacrifice all rolled into one. He bore the whole weight of God's right, holy, measure, justified wrath against sin on His shoulders. He died under the weight of that sin. He fulfilled the picture of the day of atonement. The day of atonement had to happen every year...Jesus' death was once for all time, we will never have to kill another goat, never have to suffer the penalty of our sins, never have to face the wrath of God. Jesus has taken is all. He bore it all, and died under it all. Now we only need to believe...what a small price to pay.

Jesus really was the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world, He removed it from us, and bore its penalty. What a sufficient work. What an awesome God!

Martin's gone to change the world

Today is Reformation Day. Did you know that? Happy Reformation Day! Here are some reasons why i believe that the Reformation is not only still boneshakingly important today, but also why i believe it is the second most significant moment in history not recorded in Scripture.

The Word.
The Bible is the most important thing we have to help us to persevere as Christians. Where else are we to find a book that is God breathed? Where else are we to find a book that contains such good news? Nowhere? Where else are we to find a book that is useful for teaching and correction and rebuke? That tells us of our Savior? Nowhere. Lose the Word, and soon you're probably going to lose the virgin birth or the resurection or the bodily crucifixtion...lose those and you've lost Jesus. Lose Jesus, and you'll waste your life. The Reformation called people back to the Word of God, to a literal interpretation of it. The Reformation today calls people to live by every word the Lord speaks and to humbly submit to it. There is nothing more important than that. What would you rather listen to? Someone using vague 'biblical principle' to illustrate his point, or someone soaked in God's Word, handling it well, book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse to enthrone the Lord in our hearts? I know which one i'd choose.

The Cross.
It upsets me to my core that i live in a time where people are denying the all sufficiency of the cross of Christ. I want you to stop reading and say five times, out loud: penal substitution is true and vital...done that? Once more, penal substitution is true and vital. Some people have lost the message of the cross and liken the idea of propitiation to 'cosmic child abuse'. How dare they. How dare they compare and debase the wisdom of God in salvation to the grossest form of perversion there is. Where they rob God of His mighty Holiness. What sort of God do these people worship? Not the One i worship, thats for sure. Luther fought against this loss of Cross focus, which in his day took the form of paying for indulgences at church...salvation by works under another name. If we are to have a big view of God we must have a big view of the Cross and majesterial work and effectiveness. We must kneel at Calvary, staying close to it all our lives. Otherwise arrogance and pride are the results. The Reformation bought us back to the cross, and the Reformed superheroes since have carried on that work.

The Church.
I have been blessed by being part of an amazing church, and it's probably because of that that i have such a passion for local Church. If you are a Christian and you're not committed to one local church...sort it out. Church should be the place where people feel safest of all, where people who have nowhere else to go can feel totally at home, where the lost and the broken can just come and sit, where single mums can bring their kids, where people who have been made to feel socially outcast can feel at home. That is church. People from every conceivable walk of life coming together in breathless gratitude and worship. Not somewhere where people are made to pay for their salvation (financially pay) or where they are made to feel like second class citizens if they can't. Not some sort of upper middle class social club where people dress up, drink coffee and pat eachother on the back. It should be somewhere where people are confronted with God's truth, where people are challenged and loved. Going to and hearing of some churches today, you get the impression that the Reformation was just something that happened to other people. I never want to be part of a church like that. The Reformation, bought us back to a model of church that is biblical, and for that, i am thankful.

The Lord.
Last, but never ever ever ever least ever ever ever, comes the Lord. Through some of the things i've just mentioned, which is in no way an extensive list, people were bought back to the Lord. By His word, His people and His truth, from the Reformation, many were saved. God did not let us slip into something that would condemn and judge us, and for that we should rejoice. He did not judge us by hardening our hearts, He gave us men to point us to the truth. Real life heros. And now, thanks to the work that started 489 years ago and continues the Reformed Tradition today, we have a much bigger, better and clearer view of God than we would have done otherwise. We have an actual view of God, and not some misguided view. We can be justified through faith, and know God through faith. Before the Reformation we were losing sight of these things.

The Reformation was pretty cool...anyone think we kind of need another one?

Anger and love are not mutually exclusive

Currently reading this at the moment, getting fairly raged up about the school of thought that denies the cross is about penal substitution.

If the Cross of Jesus Christ is not about penal substitution, at least in part, then it seems to follow that God is not angry with us, neither on a corporate nor personal level.
It would seem then to follow, that God is not bothered by sin, let alone angry with it. He can tolarate it, He doesn't mind it. He will indulge our lustful worldly passions. How can you worship a God like this? A God that doesn't mind the fall, a God that is happy to watch the rebellion and consequent misery of the ones He created and loved. If God doesn't mind sin, why did He remove Adam and Eve from Eden? If God doesn't mind sin then why punish His Son at all?
In Heaven we believe there will be no more misery or death, for me at least, this is based on His charecter, that fact that in heaven we will have a perfect fellowship with Him, and that this will involve no death or misery, only pure and perfect joy. But, all that falls apart if you start to believe that God doesn't mind our sin, that He's not perfectly angry with us. That His holiness doesn't burn within Him when we sin.

Yes, God is love. Yes He loves us completly. Thats WHY the Cross is about Penal Substutution. Thats why Christ is a propitionary sacrifice. If He didn't love us He wouldn't give us a way out of Hell, He wouldn't die to provide life for us. God loves us, God is angry with us. God's love + God's anger = Jesus dieing on the Cross for our sins.

If God just wanted to tell us He loved us, he would not needed to have His son executed. God needed to punish sin. Our sin. This is what the cross is about. Punishment for sins, because of God's anger, not inspite of it. I'm not going to pretend that this is anything like a perfect piece of prose on the subject, or even that i've got everything right. But for me, penal substitution says 'i am angry but i love you'...not just one or the other.