Issuu

Editor-in-Chief Michael Horton

modern REFORMATION

Managing Editor Sara McReynolds

Editorial Consultant

MARCHIAPRil 1996

Michael Rutherford

Contributins .S cholars Dr. John Arnl'~trong

Volume 5 Number 2

Dr. S. M. Baugh >'~"

Dr. James M. Boice :'

Dr. D. A. Carson

Dr. Knox Chamblin

Dr. Bryan Chapell

Dr. Daniel Dorian!

Dr. J. LigonDuncan

Dr. Timothy George

Dr. W ,iRobert Godfrey ..

Dr. John Hann;:lh

Dr. D. G. Hart~,.

Dr. Carl F. H.Henry :,

The Rev. Michael HOlton '

Dr. Robert Kolb ;,

Dr. Allen MawhinrJ~Y{

Dr. Joel Ned,~JhQod : ' . . •.

Dr. Roger Ni'c91~

The Rev. Klm'Riddlebarger

Dr. RodR.os(illbladt

Dr. R.C. ,Sproul

Dr. Robert Strimple

Dr. WillerilA:VanGemeren

Dr. Gene E. Veith

Dr. David Wells

saved from GOD

CURE Boatdof Directors

contents 4

Michael Horton

for

A DYING MAN'S CONSOLATION Michael Horton

RAISED FOR OUR JUSTIFICATION Lee Irons

REFORM.ATION

REFORMATION

2034 East Lincoln Road #3~O Anaheim, California 92806 ,

714-956-CURE :0J SUBSCRIBE TO

NO ORDINARY DEATH-JESUS CHRIST, THE PROPITATION OF OUR SINS Kim Riddlebarger

CURE is a non-profit educationaIJQund~tio1) committed to communicating the insights of the 16th century Reformation to the 20th century church. For more information, call or write us at:

for

CHRIST THE VICTIM, CHRIST THE PRIEST Rick Ritchie

CHRISTIANS UNITED

BROTHER, ARE YOU SAVED? R. C. Sproul

Douglas ,Abendroth

MichaeLE: Aldrich

Ch~ryl Biehl

The Rev. Earl Blackburn

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

The: Rev; Michael Horton

JamesiLipnel1

CBI'uSrIANS UNITED

SAVED FROM GOD

":~;,

modern REFORMATION US One Year $22

Two Year $40

Canada One Year $25

Two Year $45

Europe One Year $34

Two Year $62

inside 2 In this Issue

If Jesus is the answer, what's the question? Michael Horton 2 7

Letters To The Ed itor Terrible H<;>nesty in an Age of Sentimentalism

An Inter~view with Dr. Ann Douglas 21 Probing Ch~lIrch Unity: Proposals for the Third Millenium

Dr. Carl F. H. Henry Cover: The Crucifixion ofJesus by Graham Sutherland (painted in 1946 for St. Matthew's, Northampton).

In This Issue

by Michael Horton "If Jesus is the answer, what's the ques:.. tion?" What a great bumper sticker!lusu~lly do not like bumper stickers, but this onewas an apt reply to the one that gra~d many of our evangelical autos a dec(ige ago, , In our day, Jesusis'offe~eClas'tberapy. In o,ther words, he's «tneret0'r you," or ((ready 'to make you whole,~' oy('the (ulfillmen t ofall your needs , Unlike the generations before the'triumph ofthe psychological society, ours assumes that the "fel(needs" are the only needs. Unbelievers may not know the right answers, ';,we say, but they have the correctquestions. So we letthem tell

'''- us what their needs are and then find a way tos~nthem how

Jesus fit§ into their picture. ,.'

What we ~ant to do in this issue isr,~orientour approach to this whole Dusil1:'ess. Questions at en) neutral. Ifyou ask the wrong que,~t~pn, yoq'll get the wrong<lns~er. For instance, if ((Jesus is tJ;i~.answer" to everything,and,ffiY tCthihg" happens to be th,etailure of my small business, thea~wer (i.e., salva tion)j vill a major capital infusion and a growi1).g market. x.,What ao you think is the greatest problem you f~~e?' :Lack of ,,/Zself::~steem, loneliness, a broken marriage or dysfunctional " fartiHy? Then ((the answer" has to correspondto'the question. , Jesussaidhe came to save us from God'swratb'andto recon cile ustoour Qffended Creator. But that;is the' ~rong solution if the problem~ as we perceive it;is soniehoyv different. InQtherwords, one ofthe reasons that the unchurched do not haVe a ~(felt need" for redemption andjustifi~ation, sanc tJt1catlon, adoption, and the like, is that they are not convicted 9ftheir sin. If they heard the Law proclaimed in all its terror, bringing them face to face with the reality of their sinfulness , and guilt before a holy God, their felt need would b~ )for something far more ultimate than even significant, but penultimate, earthly woes. It is our fault that theirfeltneed is not for, the Gospel. Church growth gurus tell the r,eligious mar~etplace, ((You have to start where people areftrst, and the :Jact is, they're just not asking, (How can I be saved frontGod' s , wrath?'" Of course, they aren't asking that question. B~tJhat is descriptive, not presCJiptive: It tells us what is, but not what ·, ought to be. The reasqn )the,yart Hot asking that question is ' because we are no longer tellii1g~hem the bad news that makes the good news reallygreat. l\ndbefore we decide that the need.. , Jesus answers is sOinethiniother than the biblical doctrines of ,' sin and grace, wrath and forgiveness, judgment and justifi~~~ ti?n, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether our laudable. eyangelistic zeal has actually led us to the same fountainhead of Protestant liberalism, where, asH. Richard Niebuhr de scribed it, ((A Godyvithout wrath prought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross." , In this issu~, some ofyour favorite teached~will be show ing us why there is not only no other answer than Christ, but why there is no other ultimate ~risis than the wrath of a holy God.~ '.,

MARCH/APRIL 1996

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

modern REFORMATION is very welcome in our home. It has addressed situations that are troubling to us and has hel ped us make difficult decisions regard i ng ch urch membership and worship. L.c.

Via E-mail

I justwanted you all to know th at modern REFORMATION is doing quite well here in Spain. It seems that we are finding people allover the country who are now receiving the magazine. Congratulations! L. T.

Via E-mail

I was just writing to say thanks for the great work you are doing! It is great to find Christians who are willing to stick their necks out to defend the faith in this age of compromise and false unity. Keep up the good work. S. C. Via E-mail I listen regularly to The White Horse Inn and I also subscribe to modern REFORMATION and really like both. I don't know what I would do without them. I used to read other type books C'Finney" type), but now read crazy authors like Sproul, Horton, Riddlebarger, Rosenbladt, Parker, Pink, Berkhof, Hoekema, Calvin, Luther and a bunch of others that I can't spell much less pronounce. Anyway thanks a million for all your work. O. Via E-mail I am a recent subscriber to modern REFORMATION and would liketo take this opportunity to say thank you for all of your hard work. I spent a number of years floating from one evangelical camp to another. I soon became bored and unfulfilled with sing-alongs, camp fire devotions, and pizza-centered Bible studies that focused on living the ever-so-futile "triumphant Christian" life. I thank God for your publication. It is a great source of inspiration, education, and fellowship for: us all. ...

R.M. Bfdpkfield, WI

I have been reading your magazine for a while and it has truly led to a literal reformation of my life. My father is an independent, fundamental pastor and I grew up with an anti-intellectual, anti-historical, separatist world-view. Your magazine was one of the few influences that led me to seek a richer, more coherent, Biblical theology. When I look back now, I

modern REFORMATION

believe that I probably would have renounced my Christian beliefsduetotheshallow, legalistic context that they had been presented in if I had not been introduced to Reformed, historical theology. I am now a member of a Presbyterian church, and the depths of Scripture are being presented as I have ' never seen them before. My understandingof"deep" theological truths which supposedly never hinder the, heretofore prized, simple, childish communion with Christ have, actually, brought a greater understanding of Christ and his relationship to the Church. In retrospect, the communion that I experienced before was just some type of sensationalized, hyped psychological release with Christ being the purveyor of a "fortune-cookie" view of the Christian life: Crack open the Bible, pull a verse completelyoutof context and "claim it in the name of Jesus!" J. B.

New Haven, CT

As one who agrees theologically with most of what I read in modern REFORMATION I want to say that I am at times grieved by the tone that often comes with the content. I am prone to sarcasm and theological pride so I know it when I read it, and it isn't becoming. In particular I refer to the issue on Gnos ticism Uuly/August 1995). This letter is so late be cause a friend just passed me his old issue. I don't think I need to go into detail because if you read your columns you'll see it for yourself. My concern is pastoral. Brothers, when you pullout your knives to do theological surgery, and it needs to be done, remember that you're cutting on people. Your readers who are with you aren't edified by needless cutting comments, and those you are trying to con vince aren't drawn to your position when the tone is so negative. I've learned that I often need to run my written ideas by my wife first because she is more sensitive to tone, etc. You might do the same. Sincere believers are convinced by loving Biblically based argumentation, not by cutting erudition. I've read at least six issues of modern REFORMATION and I usually come away with feeling that you guys are always angry.Sure, you need to be clear and give insights, but Proverbs has a lot to say about how we present our message. T. M.

Via E-mail

PLEASE SEND US YOUR LETTE'RS

BY MAIL, FAX, OR E-MAIL TO:

modern REFORMATION: Letters to. the Editor

2221 East Winston Road, Suite I<

Anaheim, California 92806

Fax: 714-956-5111 E-mail: CURElnc@netcom.com. /"> or c:,URElnc@aol.com

Just a note to let you know how much I appreciate your ministry. Keep up the good work. I am a long time reader/listener-first time writer. You are stirring a pot that has needed it for a long time! Your latest issue of modern REFORMATION really struck a chord. I too have grown tired of the free form worship and have longed for something meaningful that does not change on a whim or the latest fad. I long for a church that holds to tradition and walks in fellowship with those saints that have gone before us. K. M.

Thousand Oaks, CA

I am a Reformed pastor and I look forward to every issue of modern REFORMATION. I did think it a little ironic, however, that the January/February edition, which purported to support the use of traditional Reformed liturgies in public worship, included a liturgy written by Michael Horton. If the folks at Christ Reformed are in search of the best Reformed liturgy, they need look no further than the 1662 edition of The Book of Common Prayer.

Q.M. Oceanside, CA ~..

' c;

,n ext ; 1SS'Ue: , 'scriflJUt;~ . .

Most ofps recallthe Sundayschool song, \'(Jesus

loves me, tqjs I kngw; for the,Biole tells me .~o.» It is

one of tho§e sOI?~s: that stilhconveys aricE'depth of

meaning;',1;egardless ofitsa$sociations With childho04~

But;~hat doesitmean,tq.say, «The B~ble tells me s'O/

. It\l)lay be easyJor most bfus to be1i¢ve that we can cbe

confident in G9d's loveJor us "because the Biblesays

sq.» B1itwhatifthe Bible also says other things, abQpt

a historIcal Ad~m, an olel guy with a <~tjck parting t!i:e:'

RedS..~a., Jonah .a nd a wh~le, and the resurrection oi'a'

..man who claimed to h9-ve conceive,it;b y a union9fthe

Holy Spirit ~nd a virgin? Many modern m~nand

women seel11 to h'We no trou~le acceptingtnat the

Bible can be trusted for som~'information ard not for

its other,parts. .~

Whafcan we make ofthis? Do we !iveJike this in . any other area ofour livestbo we ever trust a source or authbri~ythat makes such,audacious ch:l~ms, when those dairris are actually wto"'ng? Furthermore, who decides what isJtue and what is false? People cannot hav~ theJuxury 'h f conduding that Jesus was God incarnate, Creator of Heaven and Earth, but made a lot .of historical blu.nders andilaively accepted premodern ideas abolit the natural world. In our next issue we will look forward to rolling !lP our sleeves together so We will be better abl~to say , {c .•,.because the Bible tells me so," with mature , corifidence ev:~n afte; 'o ur childhood Sunday school day:~ have bec0me disFant memories. ~ it"

MARCH/APRIL 1996

SAVEDF& "jfor (!?job so Iobeb toe worlb tbat be gabe

bis ollip -begotten ~on , tbat tubosoeber belietles

in 1)1111 suaII not perisU,butbabe eberlasting life."

ndoubtedly the most familiar words in the En glish-Bible, John 3:16 rightly holds the highest place in the Christian memory. For in one suc cinct sentence, it announces the center ofbiblical revelation. First, it assures us that God was loving toward his fallen creatures even before the actual event of the Crucifixion, keeping us from the mistake (too often committed) of assuming that the Cross persuaded God to be merciful. Rather, it was because of his eternally merciful nature that he found a way to reconcile us without alienating himself. God's love comes before the Cross, eternally prior to it, as he established a covenant ofredemption with Christ as the Mediator before the creation of the world (Eph 1:4-11; Jn 6:39; 1 Pt 1:20). Second, it reminds us that God the Father is not the "bad guy" in the drama who would like to con demn, with the Son stepping in to persuade him of the loving path. What could be clearer throughout John's Gos pel than that the Father sentthe Son on this loving mission? Too often, in our desire to defend the biblical doctrine of the substitutionary atonement, we risk envisioning the Father as the one who reluctantly saves sinners, as ifhe has to save them, after all, because the Son has offered the perfect sacrifice. Few actually state it in such stark terms, but often this is the message that people have heard as we explain the orthodox doctrine. The Son, not the Father, was the self-giving victim, but the Father was in Christ when his Son bore his wrath. Instead of confusing or separating the divine persons, let us simplywonder at the foot ofthe Cross at how God the Father, even in executing his just wrath, could be filled with such anguish and loathing that he would turn his eyes from his own Son (Mk 15:33-34). But there is still more to this verse: God gave his only begotten Son. As John's Gospel declared at the beginning, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God ... N 0 one has seen God but God the One and Only. " Not only did God send a Savior, but the Savior he sent was himself God. Furthermore, he was and remains God's "only-begotten Son." There are no incarna tions before or after the virginal conception ofJesus of Nazareth. Thus, there is no other way to the Father but through this Son. He is not an idea or a principle, but a

MARCHIAPRIL 1996

person. Redemption cannot come through other sons or daughters, through universal truths ofhuman reason, experience, or morality that are somehow present in all major religions. There is only one God and one ((only begotten Son" who is capable of saving. All who are named God's children derive their sonship by adoption, but this Son is ((eternally-begotten before all worlds." As the eleventh-century theologian Anselm expressed it, our Savior had to be God in order to pay an infinite debt and conquer sin and death. But he had to be Man, since it was humanity, after all, that had merited divine wrath through original and personal sin. So alreadywe see that a high view ofthe work ofChrist requires and rests upon a high view of the person of Christ. But we still have not even sufficiently summarized John 3: 16. Beyond the identity ofthe Sender and the One who is sent, we are given the reason and its effect: (( ... so that whosoever believes in him shall never perish, but have everlasting life." IfJ esus had come merely to help us make our way through this world, or to give us helpful · advice for daily living, or to demonstrate to the world what can be done if only we seek to do good, surely we would be over-shooting if we said that his work saves us from perishing. In other words, this announcement of good news assumes that the bad news is rather serious: Our very life is imperiled. But what does it mean to perish? In the same passage, we are told that it means that we ((stand condemned." There is a legal verdict, as the defendant rises to hear the verdict read. In fact, ((This is the verdict," comes next in the sentence. Weare carried by John into the courtroom, where we are on trial-a familiar image ..throughout Scripture. The verdict is ((gujlty," and the sentence is death. This is the nature of the peril that forms the backdrop for John's good news. If the bad news is something different (a broken marriage, wayward children, low self-esteem, loss of cultural values and personal morality), the good news would be something different as well. That is not to say that these other things are not serious, nor that they are not addressed in Christ's mission, but when the Gospel announcement is made, it is always pointing to this one

modern REFORMATION

BY MICHAEL HORTON

GOD

answer to this one problem: Weare born under the wrath of God and remain there until news of the Cross reaches us and we receive it with divinely-given faith. The result is that we are no longer in a state of perilous condemnation, but are reconciled to God forever. We will never perish. But this is not just good news for us; it is good news for the world and everyone in it: «whosoever believes." Here is an announcement that the redeemed, like John, carryon their lips to a condemned and dying world, and it is meant for everyone with whom we come into contact. While hyper-Calvinists (and there are very few of them) have had trouble with this universal Gos pel invitation, ithas been the happy news that Reformed theology, with other Christian confessions, has insisted upon in theory and its missionaries and adherents have carried out in practice. The Holy Spirit has made every believer a priest, an agent ofreconciliation, to bring the good news to the ends of the earth (2 Cor 5:19). How could such a simple text become so divisive? How could such a wonderful, clear, warm invitation become a battleground for theology in our day? And yet, that is precisely what has happened. Of course, few who oppose the remarks I have just made in attempting to unfold this famous verse would directly attack a verse that is both so positive and hallowed in Christian piety, but nearly everything I have said thus far is being chal lenged today. Nobody is surprised to learn that this is the case in liberal circles, but the same objections that they have raised are now being advanced well within the evangelical camp.

Courtroom or Family Room? In January, 1996, the Church ofEngland made interna tional news by announcing that there is no such thing as eternal judgment. Embracing «annihilation," the view that the unbelievers are simply non-existent in eternity, this perspective was cham pioned by leading evangelicals as well as moderates and liberals in that church body. As an article in the Chicago Tribune (January 28, 1996) observes, the Anglican statement called the traditional doctrine of hell a distortion of «the revelation of God's love in Christ," but ifwe take John's good news ofGod's love in Christ seriously, how can we fail to see those who do not embrace it as «condemned already." In other words, if there really is no such thing as this peril of

perishing, how can God's love in Christ mean anything beyond sentimentalism? Annihilationists like respected evangelical John Stott are quick to add that this position does insist on the reality of which John warns here, but «perishing," they believe, does not refer to eternal, con scious torment. According to the Anglican statement, the implication ofthe traditional view is that God is «a sadistic monster. ..who consigned millions to eternal torment." ut underneath this controversy seethes the real trouble with this biblical view of God's justice and love. As the Chicago Tribune article points out, it is increasingly difficult for Christians who are con stantly brushing shoulders with fine people from other religions to conclude that their friends, co-workers, per haps even family members, are really deserving of eternal death and that they are, in fact, already under divine wrath. In More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Zondervan), edited by Wheaton profes sors Dennis Okholm and Timothy Phillips, various views are set forth as legitimate options for evangelicals. The traditional Christian view that there is no salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ is now at the center of contro versy in evangelical circles. If, as recent surveys have con cluded, 77% ofAmerica's evangelical Christians believe that man is «basicaliygood by nature," surely in the minds of even conservative Protestants today the peril is not so great as John's announcement presupposes. A few years ago, Christianity Today ran a cover story titled, «Evangelical Megashift," with Dr. Clark Pinnock, professor of theology at McMaster Divinity College in Canada, leading the proponents of the shift. After this article appeared, our organization sponsored a conference around these issues, with Dr. Pinnock and other represen tatives of the «megashift." What became increasingly ap parent was that this «megashift" is chiefly represented by the metaphors ofcourtroom versus family room. But as the discussions progressed, it "Qecame clearer that it was the running debat~ between classical Christianity and the fifth century Pelagia* heresy that we know in our time as Protes tant Liberalism. ' For a long time, critics of classical Christian doctrines have been fond of suggesting that these themes emerged out of the context of Roman law and its emphasis on lex taliones-in other words, «Let the punishment fit the crime." (Evidently, such critics have forgotten that «an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" comes from Hebrew law

MARCH/APRIL 1996

issued centuries earlier, Exodus 21 offering examples!) A and deists during the Enlightenment, nineteenth-cen

strict, confining, precise system of penal codes ang legal tury liberals, and the adherents of the world's religions.

frameworks that governed the Roman Empire eventually While Paul insists, "By one man sin entered the world

came to dominate Christian thinking about the Cross, and death through sin," the world asks, "How can the

critics insist. Therefore, the image of a judge in a court guilt ofone man, Adam, be charged to my account? And

room pronouncing a verdict and sentencirig someone to how can my guilt be charged to another man, Christ?", as

condemnation is simply unavoidable in that particular Paul says in that same passage in Romans 5. How can one

context. However, they argue, Scripture is centered on a man bear the world's sin? It can't be that easy: God

relational, familial paradigm, with the prodigal son as the accepting the sacrifice ofhis Son in our place even though

we are still sinful. Why, that would create a society of

most obvious parabolic example. urely we cannot deny the influence of our con moral laxity just when we need people to take responsi

. text. But what is so surprising is that in our day bility and pull themselves together! The message of the

those who are so prepared to cheerfully consign Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.

classical views ofChrist's work to the history books do not What is so troubling about this is that so much ofthe

seem to recognize that they are themselves rooted in a vanguard ofcontemporary radical theologies consists of

particular time and place. How is it, for instance, that just men and women who were reared in fundamentalist and

at the time when relational psychology and the endless evangelical Christianity. Oxford theologian Keith Ward,

tinkering with the therapeutic well-being of the self domi who has been moving steadily from his evangelical roots,

nate our culture, we are gravitating to a more relational finds in Christ a universal emblem ofspiritual conscious

view of the atonement? In our day, criminals are often ness. As for the atonement,

viewed as victims themselves and treated as though their Is it not a slightly odd view of a morally perfect God real problem were a dysfunctional background. In reality, that the divine nature can be so slighted and of they are no different from law-abiding citizens, we often fended by what human beings do? ..Anselm's idea is hear, so what they need is to be reformed, not punished. Is that the penalty must be paid in full; but is this really it possible that the same judicial culture that tends to favor compatible with belief in the mercy of God? Sec criminals over victims has affected our view of the atone ondly, even if one can accept that the sinner must ment? The triumph of the therapeutic and relational, the paysucha tremendous penalty, how can it bejustfor persuasiveness of self-expression as a chief virtue (espe someone else to pay it for me? ...God shows love by cially in evidence on TV talk shows and in small groups at healing, forgiving, suffering for us. God gives us love church): Do these influences not have farmore to do with by placing the Spirit in our hearts. God places before the "new model" than Roman courts had to do with shaping us the ideal of the Christ life, and forms it within us classical Christian theology? Perhaps this is why Dr. Pinnock as we contemplate it. But there is here no substitu tionary death, no vicarious justice, no literal death of is happy to admit that he and his circle are "making peace with the culture ofmodernity."] one person in place of another. 2 And yet, this business of making peace with alien No wonder Ward regards the related doctrines of world views that is precisely what we are warned against Christ's divinity, virgin conception and resurrection fabu

throughout biblical history. With what great frequency lous! "That the fifteen-billion-light-year large (and ex

panding) cosmos should be thought to be fulfilled in one

does God warn Israel against making peace with the na tions, attracted to their gods and to their idolatrous beliefs human youth, sitting on a throne and surrounded by a

and practices? Our Lord himself consistently reminded his chorus of doleful white-robed patriarchs, is too childish

flock that as long as they had the Word ofChrist, the world . to contemplate seriously."3 For Baptist theologian Paul

would hate them, and when the Corinthian church was S. Fiddes, the orthodox view "promotes an unhealthy

sense ofhuman guilt and an image of a tyrant God."4 We

being tempted to soften the offense of the Cross by com promise with Greek philosophy and signs and wonders, are much better off with the medieval view popularized

Paul declared, "The message of the Cross is foolishness to by Abelard, of God as an estranged lover. This view,

those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved, Fidges laments,"-was not recovered until the Romantic

it is the power of God and the wisdom of God." He deter mo~ement of the last century.s While Enlightenment

mined to know nothing else among them besides "Christ rationalism moved God outside of human experience,

and him crucified." Whenever our message ceases to be Romanticism made him virtually identical to it. "Jesus in

foolishness to those who are perishing, it ceases to be the my heart," whether articulated by liberals or evangelicals,

message with which we are entrusted by Christ and his is more appealing to Romantics than «Jesus on a cross."

apostles. It is precisely its "foolishness" that was a stum One can even see this shift in the songs evangelicals are

bling block for the Pelagians and Semi-pelagians in the most likely to sing on Sunday morning. Vanishing from

fifth century, the medieval church, moralistic Unitarians the scene are the Cross-centered hymns of the period

MARCH/APRIL 1996

modern REFORMATION

between the Reformation and the triumph ofpietism, as personal experience and private, almost roman tic, encounters with God become the great attraction of contemporary services.

The Cross as a Moral Lesson: Eradicating The Offense In a dialogue with liberal theologian Delwin Brown, Clark Pinnock says he is ((not surprised that liberals have turned away from it [evangelical emphasis on penal substitution] in disgust." It is a ((troubling emphasis on substitution",that is «oriented to a one sided vertical definition ofsalvation itself," although Pinnock observes broad movement away from this perspective. ((Surely it would be better to say that God is love, everywher~ and always, and that what we needed from Christ was a decisive presentation of it in history. What we needed once and for all was a representative act on the part of the Messiah that would deal with something in the holiness of God's nature that would open up the perfectly satisfactory basis ofreconciliation." This act was an ((expression of what God has always been like," but which had until then ((been inadequately seen." I have added italics to point out the dominance of the subjective andmoral understanding ofthe atonement here. It is not the effect of the atonement on God's ability to justly forgive, but its effect on me that really counts. Just as sentimentality in our judicial system leads judges to provide even dangerous criminals with lighter sentences calculated for psychological im provement over punishment, this same sentimen tality disregards divine justice in the service of the criminal's potential. It is the sentence's effect on the criminal, not its justice, that counts. It is interesting, however, to see how quickly some victims change their views of this sentimental orientation of the judicial system when they are wronged. Suddenly, they feel a desire for right to be done, for justice to be served. Of course, sometimes it is revenge they seek, but often it is a sense of vindication. We all know the public outrage that can be generated when a convicted murderer (or some one who is believed by many to be guilty) goes free. Suddenly, we become indignant, outraged that jus tice has not been served. It is different, however, when we or someone we love is the defendant. Ifwe can all agree that a convicted murderer ought to receive justice, not mercy, then at least the principle is established that justice ought not to be held hos tage by sentimental views of love and compassion. The only question left is whether we and those we love are, in fact, deserving of that justice. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reads the Law to us, convicting us ofadultery ifwe have ever lusted and of

'~:'

.. ';?

Terrible Honeaty in an A~e :qf 5entimen$~lJam: An Interview with Dr..'Ann Douglaa " Hail~'d as ((one ofthe leading feminists ofour tiIp.e," Dr. Ann Douglas is Professor of American Studies at Columbi<:¥JJniversity and has 'al~.o taught ;at Princeton and Harvard. Her higqlyacclaimed work, <!'cfz,e Feminization of American Culture, was fOllowed recently by T~fJible Honesty: Mongrel Manhattan in the 192Q~$. One of Dr. Dougl~$~$" inain th~ses is that the demise ofCalvinismleqto'a sentimentalist:n''ifireligion th~t shaped the larger society. Althqug'l1' Dr~ Douglas is comlB!~&ed to a mu~h broader theological perspective",than we would el1'lbr<l;ce, ' her critique is trenchant. It is an especiallyappr<:5p~iate topic in relationtRour :::,;: understanding of Christ's saving work in 0U.r,itime and place. ~~;.,u/.'~.

mR: You talka lotabo:u;t's~ntirnentalism. Is thatpart ofthe dismantlirrs · ,:<'" ' ";' ,:,:~.;:;:", :-', ' .' ','-'~" ," .. '<~//' process in the 19th century? .~ .,' . .,Jr" Dr. Doue1a5: Yes, it is. Calvinism had exper.iertced sustained atfatks, espe9ially in the eighteenth century, wi~,th'e founding of suchJ~!'oups as the,Universalists and then, of cours~', itf1e Unitarians. TReli~erals, headed by Unitarians and Universallstsal}dsome CongregatiOil'alists as well,' began to say as we enter the 19th :s~ntury, <No, if God10cves human beings, he understands and sympathiz,tswith human befu,gs. He wouldp't ask fheln to 'do something or Belje.ve something that would goa,gair~tth~ir ow~n~eds or desires.' Th~re'~~thatline in Job::" <Though he slay me,y~~ Will lworship him,' andtll~~was:the Calvinistiq: ethos that the liber;~s:simply could not accept> 'that ~dea that God is much g¥eater and larg~f than our own happiness. Calvinism wasn:,( saying th,at God w~nted to be cruel, but that hi~plans are so mUfh vaster andgra~derthftp. anything human beingss~n conceive. The,. liberals couldrio,{accept t1f~~yj~w of God, due in part to thehumanist . tradition, bu1:it.isalso partly commercial: You know, ifwe?vegottosell ourselves now-since the churches a~e now self-suppotting,rather tha,n dependent on state-funding-isthis the adspiel, so to spe~kj that ' witlbest sell our product? I mR: Today, especially in what isp~thg called the chll:F~h growth $ovement, we hear, in varyingdegtees, that we mU$ttoHe down . doctrinal distinctives and meet felt needs, focus on healing and whole 'ness, and prefer soft inspiration to hard sayings. S~ft)ights, soft sermons, soft choruses caressing the a:ir, ~ave become the rage. In steacjof<Eternal Father, Strong To Save," ' ~~sing about walking with Jesus alone in a garden «while the dew is sti1l.on the roses," or, in the words ofone.chorus, «I keep falling in love with hi.rnover and over arid over and over again~ .', i' , Dr. Dou~la6: Right:"this is straight out of the Hl?~ral Unitarian, sentF" mental tradition of the last ce~tury. Women", byfar, comprised tlJ.e largest number ofc.hurch -goers ~nd theywere staffing mission boarps, Sunday school claJ~es, and any other churchpo,s ition they could, at a. time when they could not vote Or purchase property. As writers, moral reformers~ <Sunday schoof tea<:;hers, and women transformed the church and .they wondered, 'Why do we have to have all this theology and an emphasis on sin and the need for redemption? Why isn't the home the model for God? Why shouldn't the things we do and hear in ~hurch suit us where we are and W£?O us where we are, ' rather than -

Continfled 'on Page 8"

MARCHI APRIL 1996

,.>5entlmentaIi6m, Continued... ,expecting this radical change of heart that Calvintsm had would hav~believedalso. The problem is that,there is inj~sj·, requi~ed?' ,' ,' ' tice ~n the vyorld and there is suffering. By constantly soft~ni. mR: That'saninterestitigpoint. Afewyearsago;phtistianity ingChristi~n doctrine, thereis a danger thliil you are simply Tod(1Y ran a cover st6ry on a so+.called «megashifC in evan gO,ing to efface them altogeth~r, and people are going't,obe geliFal theology, from the 'cou.t troom' modeI'that empha left in a real way unguided and left to themse!ves,astl)ey sizeS sin, guilt,judgroent, and the need for an atonement and already are. ""\; " justification, 10 a more 'relatiohaI' model. It was a switch mR:So consumerisnri~ all one is left with in this bargain., fromthe courtroom t,9 the family: ,room, toning down the Dr. Douca1a6: Well, that's the danger. I am not on the side of ' tough theology in favoXofa mor~,therapeutic approach. Do the fundamentalists,pb.t there is a kind of rush toward ' you see this .as in way the 'arrival of the~~htimental accommodation these 'days, to get rid ofall the elements tl1~t ' creed firmly within that same ,evangelical Protestant estab ,don't suit our own causes. Two things seem clear to me: one, lishment that endec(i up leaving liberal Pro,testantism over that the liberalization is here to stay, at least for the foresee.:' . these same issues~arly this 'century? able future, and that most ofthe groups that are fighting~it are ,Dr. Do~~Ja6: Oh, it is. I could quote you chapter and verse of doing so on the wrong front: on the social and moral issues. minister~',and evangelical women writers and reformers inl'his seems to me to simply be a continuation ofthis procesw the 1830's'\vho said exactlyth:e same thing-a sense that we of turning God's terms into human terms. I'm not saying need a mQre human God, aG:pd who is nearer and will they are n~t impor'tant issues, but they are social and politi ' cal; they are not theological isunderstand us better. It's a tough iss:ue, and Galvinists weren't saJ'ing To exten't , my own sues. It seems clear that we're go ~hatGodisnotuncaring. Theprob 6ympathie6 lie with the" ing to go on in this more human lemwith this whole sentimentaltra CaIvini6t tradition, ~ecaU6e 1 ized fashion. At the same time, it ,dition, which you're describing in seems to me that life is such that the20thcenturyandI'mdescribing h~ve enOrmOU6 re6pect for the mostpeople\\ ho believe in some ~ntheI9th,isth~lon~eyoudropthe inteliectuaJ ~ntd 6piritua,1 thing, hoV\ever they describe it, Idea that God '15; a !udge, you do of trying to ' are going to need a faith and a j ..J . I..J . h concept ofGod that includes rather seem to weaken thmgs. To ,some extent, my own sympathies lie with un~,~r~tanfA a' war fA t .at, you than mitigates or denies the harsh the Calvinist tradition, because I admit, 16 not .nece66arlly there realities of life as \ e experience it. have enormous' Fespect f0r the injU6t to m~ke you happy. mR:Thisis whatyoucall, 'terrible tellectual and spiritual endeavor of honesty'? tryingto understand~world that,'.you admit, is notneces Dr. Doucala~: Well, this is especiall) in relation to the 1920's, sadly there just to make you happ.y. wheI}America's leading artists and cultural figures were still mR:'In the 19th century, the Arminian revivalist Sam Jones dealing with theological questions, whether Ernest thundered, <God neverdid throw a javelin into th~ heart of HemiJ;lgway,'who described his Sun Always Rises as a story his Son,' thusattackingthe classical QQctrine ofthe ~tiQstitu about how people go to hell, or F. Scott Fitzgerald, who said tionary atone~ent as jnsufficiently';moral and sensitive. the ultimate ,question was you standing in a white light Incrtiilsingly, there is this cry for a 'kihder, gentler' God in before your,God. These very secular writers were still speak evangelism ..'then yovhave th~" Re-Imaging' copf~'rence of ing in terms of saving souls: What constitutes a life lived in mainline feminist~, 'among -whom was one speaker who the sight of God? In Europe, Karl Barth was launching the e don't need ' gl1Ys hanging{)n crosses with Neo~Orthodox: movement, a revival of these older views of , deslared, blood dripping and all thatj veird stuff.' As strange as the sin and the need for salvation. How did one explain the parallel .l1iay seell.1, is ther,~ a connectiO.l1 here between Holocaust without an almost Calvinist sense oforiginal sin? ' Arminian{'tevivaH{,;j:s and liberal Unitarians that makes Difficult explanations may get in the way ofsentimentalism, tQcl,ay's evangelicals and liberal's more simil~r than we might Du( theyare ultimatelY"a solace because they m~tch difficult have thoughi? In rea~tion against offense ofthe/Cross, many re'1Iities.: " , '<.' . came to see Christ ~ore as a caring nurtur.;~r(a mother, as m~: Studi~s of evangelical seminarians an4}he laity have you say in your book), rather than as ,a bloody sacrific~. shown tha't, in spite of whatever they ll1(iY hold officiall)[;~. Doesn't this mak~\tnlikelY'bedfellows? when asked whether they vjew the self as' essentially'ip;1~O Dr. Douca1a6: Of course, it:is part of tile,whole thing, Ag~in, cent, the findings are startHilg. Seventy-seven percentofthe it does have to do with fhat sense thai/Let's not make all of nation~ s evangelicals believe that "man iis by nature1?asically this pain and suffering.) Surely, oner~p1ies, 'Ofcourseilet's good.,,>Is thi~ the triumpl1 of the Sentimental Cre.e d even not. Faith is also a matte.r of joy' -so~ething a Calvinist over the body of Protestants who haye at least officially

s9.ine

eome

entdeavor

'vv

MARCH/APRIL 1996

(:ontinued onP:age 24 ..

'~.>

modern REFORMATION

murder if we have ever failed to love our neighbor perfectly. In the eyes of God, who is too pure to look upon sin, we are all convicted criminals whose crimes against an infinitely holy God demand an infinite penalty. n our relation to God, the therapeutic view of justice assumes that the problem is not that I am perishing under divine condemnation, but oc casionally ignorant of God's loving nature. To say that «what we needed once and for all was a representative act" or «presentation" of God's love is to say that our problem is different from the one assumed by John 3: 16. Pinnock speaks further ofthe Cross as a divine «gesture," exposing «man's injustice while revealing the righteous ness of God."6 When Brown asks Pinnock whether his views are actually «closer to most of twentieth century liberal ism," Pinnock replies, «If you find some of my ideas more liberal than evangelical, then I will take that as a compliment."? Getting rid of the classical doctrine of God 8 , original sin9 and justification by faith alone,lo Pinnock has also abandoned the classical evangelical position on the nature ofthe atonement. He realizes the implications of his antecedent departures: «Obviously, it required me to reduce the precision in which I under stood the substitution to take place," so that he now sees the atonement as"an act ofjudicial demonstration rather than a strict or quantitative substitution as such."1l The suffering of the Cross reminds us that God is " ... with us on our journey... "12 This final comment leads us to consider another related diversion from the biblical doctrine of the Cross.

The Cross as Divine Suffering With Creation Beyond these more subtle examples, our culture's way of viewing God these days is, in large measure, deter mined by the dominant forces within the culture itself. We have already touched briefly on the therapeutic orientation, and this is key in the dominance of the relational and subjective over the legal and objective understanding of Christ's work. Today, it is important to see God as a partner. Much of this has to do with the upheaval in the wake ofthe Holocaust. A lot ofrethink ing has taken place. How can we, in a sense, «justify" the Creator in the face ofsuch obvious injustice? Is he pow erless, capricious, vindictive, apathetic? How can we explain God's existence in the light of the bloodiest centuryin human history? In the sixties, TIME expressed the sentiment in the form of a fashionable theological trend with its famous cover, "God Is Dead." As far as our culture is concerned, God is dead. There may be a spiri tual realm where impersonal forces reign, but the notion of a personal God who is both all-powerful and all loving is something that deeply troubles our contempo raries when they bother with religion at all.

This is why many theologians have attempted to vin dicate God by making him a victim along with the rest of us. Jurgen Moltmann is perhaps the most influential advo cate ofthis perspective in our day, especially in The Cruci fied God and The Theology ofHope. «In the crucified Christ," he writes, «Godhimselfisthevictimamongvictims."13There is enough truth in what Moltmann is saying to console even those of us who are wary ofhis doctrine of God: People who cry out for God in their suffering can find that they are joining in Christ's death cry. They dis cover in the suffering Christ the God who understands them and suffers with them. Once we sense this, we perceive that God is not the cold, remote force of destiny whom we have to accuse and cry out against, but that in Christ he has become the human God who cries out with us and in us, and who intervenes on our behalf when torment makes us dumb. 14 Do we not see God crying out in anger against death at the tomb of Lazerus in the person of Christ? We dare not separate the two natures of Christ (human and divine) in such a way as to leave half a Christ frozen in any moment of his life and times. He was and always will remain the God-Man. It is true that this insight is often missing in orthodox circles today, where either Christ's divinity or humanity is emphasized to the exclusion of the other. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself..." (2 Cor 5:18), so we cannot think as ifthe Father was sealed off in some Greek realm of Pure Idea, alooffrom the events of Calvary. In fact, Isaiah speaks of this sacrifice pleasing the Father, just as he abandoned his Son on the Cross because he was so displeased with the horrifying depths of iniquity that had been heaped upon the Suffering Servant (Is 53). And yet, this emphasis on God's suffering in the Cross is often simply one more way ofsetting the more offensive notion of sacrifice and satisfaction aside. Referring to the phrase, «substitutional suffering," Paul Tillich argues, "It is a rather unfortunate term and should not be used in theology. God participates in the suffering of existential estrangement, but his suffering is not a substitute for the suffering of the creature. Neither is the suffering of the Christ a substitute for the suffering ofman. But the suffer-

If we can all agree that a convicted murderer ought to receive justice, not mercy, then at least the principle is established that justice ought not to be held hostage by sentimental views of love and compassion.The only question left is whether we and those we love are, in fact, deserving of that justice. MARCHI APRIL 1996

If we "trap" God within this world, with its suffering, evil, and pain, we simply cut ourselves off from hope. ing ofGod, universally and in the Christ, is the power which overcomes creaturelyself-destruction by participation and transformation. Not substitution, but free participation, is the character ofthe divine suffering. "15 In an age that feels a need to put God on trial, divine suffering makes sense, but in the biblical story, itiswewho are on trial before a just and holy tribunal. As helpful as some ofthese ideas may be, reminding us ofimportant biblical themes that we have perhaps ignored, they fall far short ofthe preponderance ofbiblical evidence. But that is not where the problems end, for even our expe rience is failed by the short-cut provided by advocates of God's suffering because ofrather than for sin. The problem is that when we make God a co-sufferer with the rest of creation, we end up leaving ourselves bereft ofour only real comfort in suffering. If I had been trapped in an elevator dueto afire, it might be helpful to know that I have a fireman in there as well: someone to talk to, with whom to share my feelings about the great inferno that has the two of us trapped. But I have no trouble saying that I would prefer to be alone in the elevator and to have a fireman outside, blasting through concrete and steel, rescuing me from my precarious situation. If we "trap" God within this world, with its suffering, evil, and pain, we simply cut ourselves off from hope. It does not help to strip God of his power in favor of his love, for it ends up being of no consequence. Furthermore, love without justice is mere sentimentality. A God who would like to save everybody if he could, but cannot, will never give genuine comfort, still less can he be a suitable object of worship. This is why the title for this article, and this issue, is "Saved From God." We mayrecoilfrom such a thought, but we should suspend immediate rejection for two reasons: first, because we cannot reject it without setting aside some of the clearest and most abundant biblical references for any doctrine in Scripture. Second, we should be careful not to hastily reject it because, at the end of the day, however offensive it may sound, it is the only final resolution to the great restlessness and anxiety ofour conscience. Ifthe Cross merely represents the fact that God is a victim of evil and suffering like us, howdoes it actually accomplish anything that might somehow secure a future beyond evil and suffering? Conclusion

At last we are brought full-circle, back to our opening verse that has so captivated our thoughts and feelings. Those who would substitute a so-called "legal model" with a "relational model" of salvation do not seem to recognize that they cannot have the latter without the former. As the substitu 10

MARCHI APRIL 1996

tionary view of the atonement is the only way to really secure even the benefits claimed by the other views, the only way to a secure relationship with a holy God in a family oflove is by the legal satisfaction of God's glori ous nature. How can we enter into joyful community with God and his people until we know that our guilt is remitted, that we are adopted legally into God's house hold and justified in spite of our ongoing sinfulness? Classical Christianity moves on from the legal demands to the heavenly table around which God's adopted chil dren gather in filial delight. But the relational model begins and ends with itself. Unable to account for the full range of the biblical material, it simply opts for the family room over the courtroom, while the classical view is never faced with such a fork in the road. oved only by his own character, God sent his only Son into the world to save sinners from thejudgmenttheydeserve. At the end of the day, it was not the Jews who crucified Jesus or even the Romans. It was not even we who put him there, although it was because of our sin and guilt thathehunginderision. Ultimately, God crucified Jesus. "Yet it was the LORD'S will to crush him and cause him to suffer," not because God is sadistic, but because of his great love for those who would be rescued by this selfless act, "and though the LORDmakes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied" (Is 53: 10-11). Although Jesus freely gave his life up to the Father as a sacrifice that he was not forced to give, it was a death penalty that God executed as the just judge of the universe. Turning his eyes from the mutilated bodyofhis Son, now carrying the sins ofus all, the Father abandoned Jesus Christ so that he would never have to abandon us in our deepest trial or most heinous sin. God saved us from himself in order to save us for himself forever. Praise to the Lamb!~

1 Clark 2 Keith 1991 ). 3 Ibid., 4 Paul

Pinnock, ed., Crace Unlimited (Bethany, 1 ?~5~, p.27:. . Ward, A Vision to Pursue: Beyond the Cnsls In Chnstlanlty (SCM, p. 84.

Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation: The Chnstlan I ea Atonement (Darton, Longman and Todd, 1989), p.935.

. . III' 10' I 5 Ibid., p. 9. 6 Pinnock and Brown, Theological Crossfire: An Evangehca I Libera la ogue

(Zondervan, 1990), pp. 148-9.

7 Ibid., p. 154. d b CI k

8 Crace Unlimited, op. cit., p. 23; d. The Openness of Cod, e . y ar

Pinnock (lVP, 1994) ....

9 Grace Unlimited, p. 128.

10 William Crocket, ed ., Four Views on Hel/(Zondervan, 1992), pp. 127-31 .

11 Grace Unlimited, p. 23.

12 Ibid., p. 25 . 1

13 Jurgen Moltmann, jesus Christ for Today s World(Fortress, 1994), p.4 .

14 Ibia., p. 45 . '" 6

15 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (University of Chicago), vol. 2, p. 17 .

Michael Horton is president of CHRISTIANS UNITED for REF?RMA~ION a~d is. a

graduate of Biola University, Westminster Theological Seminary In California,

Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, ~n.~ the University of Coventry. The author of ten

books, MichaeliS also a vIsiting p~ofessor of theology a~ Reformec:! The~logl~al

Seminary and is co-pastor of Christ Reformed Church In Placentia, California.

modern REFORMATION

B'lothe'l,

;4'le )Iou

S aved?

BY R. C. SPROUL W[he great day of the IJ)RD is near near and coming quickly~ Listen! ~rhe cry on the day of the LC)RD \vill be bitter, the shouting of the \varrior there. l-hat day vviI1 be a day of vvrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness, a day of trumpet and battle cry against. the fortified cities and against the corner tC'l\vers. 1'viI1 bring distress on the people and they vvilIvvaHz like blind tuen, because they have sinned against the LC)RD. I-heir blood 'vill be poured out like dust and their entrails like filth. Neither their silver nor their gold 'vill be able to save then1 on the day of the LORD's \vrath. In fire of his jealously the vv-hole vvorld 'viII be consumed, for he\villmake a sudden end of all\vho live in the earth" (Lephaniah t14-18).

everal years ago, I was walking across a

courtyard on the campus of Temple

University in Philadelphia. I was alone,

minding my own business, on'the way to the faculty lounge in the School of Theology, when suddenly out ofnowhere a gentleman stood in front ofme blocking my movement. «Are you saved?," he demanded. I wasn't quite sure how to respond to this intrusion and the first words that came into my mouth were, «Saved from what?" What I was thinking, but was given the grace to refrain from saying, was that I'm certainly not saved from strangers coming up to me and asking me questions like this. When I said, «Saved from what," Ithinkmyfriend was as surprised by my question as I had been by his and he kind oflost it. He stammered and stuttered and wasn't quite sure how to respond to the question, «Saved from what?" «Well, you know what I mean," he replied. «Do you know Jesus?" That brief encounter left an impression on me. On the other hand, ofcourse, I was delighted in my soul that somebody cared enough about me. Even as I was a stranger, this person was concerned enough to stop me and ask about II\Y salvation. But what dis tressed me was that it was clear that though this man had a zeal for salvation, he had little understanding of what salvation is. How easy it is for us to speak in jargon, in words without any content. As Christians, we develop our own speech patterns. I remember one fellow I used to play golf with whose wife became a Christian and he remained an unbeliever. He said to me on one occa sion, (Tm happy for my wife's conversion, but you, know R. C., there's one thing that frustrates me to no end." «What's that?," I said. «My wife never tells me anything anymore. She shares it." I had an opportunity to get from him the pagan response to some of our language patterns. When we're talking about salvation, we are talking about the concept that is the central theme of all of the sacred Scripture, a concept that is simply imperative that we understand. When we examine the Scriptures and search the meaning of the term «salvation," the first thing that we notice is that th~ term «salvation" is used in a wide variety_of ways. .. All sorts of,ipings are discussed in terms of the noun «salvation"'br the verb «to save". Paul and Silas were freed from the jail in Philippi when God delivered them by the earthquake. In panic, the jailer came up to Paul and Silas and said, «Sir, what must I do to be saved?" And Paul responded immediately by saying, «Believe on the name ofthe Lord Jesus Christ and you and your household will be saved."

MARCH/APRIL 1996

---[he last thing in the \vorld the unrepentant sinner ever \vants to meet on the other side of the grave is God. But the glory of the Gospel is that the one fron1 whom \ve neec1 to be saved is the very one \vho saves lIS. God saves us from himself. But\voe unto those who l1ave no savior on the day of wrath.

N ow, ~ think I know what Paul meant by salvation when he responded to the jailer, but I have wondered what was in the jailer's mind? Here is a man who is responsible to the government for the guarding and keeping of prisoners; and the law in that day, in the provinces was simply this: if prisoners escaped from the jail, whatever penalty they were awaiting to suffer for their crimes, their jailer had to take in the escapees' place. So when the walls of the jail fell down and the prisoners started to run free, this jailer runs to Paul and Silas and asks them about salvation. oW, it is certainly possible that what he had in his mind at that moment was a question about his eternal destiny, about his relationship with God, and having heard Paul and Silas singing hymns and knowing that they were religious fellows, he then addressed the question to the greatest theologian in history, the apostle Paul: "What must I do to be saved?" Or maybe all the jailer hadinhis mind was how he was going to escape from the consequences ofthis jailbreak. The word "salvation" in the Bible doesn't always refer to the ultimate question of salvation in terms of being reconciled with God. A woman comes to Jesus for healing and beseeches him to cure her ofher disease and Jesus touches her and heals her and says to her, "Go in peace, your faith has saved you." They did not even talk about reconciliation with God. The woman was looking for relief from pain and sickness. She was wanting to be saved from disease and Jesus saved her from the disease. Now, when Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you," he may have mzeant it in the ultimate sense or maybe he didn't. Every time the Bible uses the word "salvation" or the verb "to save" it does not refer neces sarily to what we mean by the doctrine ofsalvation. The Bible teaches that we have been saved from the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4-13). Here the ulti mate past sense is used for salvation. So, in one narrow sense, at least from all eternity in the hidden wisdom of God, we were saved. That is why Jesus says that there will come a moment when the Father will say, "Come my beloved, inherit the kingdom that was prepared for

MARCH/APRIL 1996

you from the foundation of the world." But, the Bible also uses the imperfect tense and says there is a sense in which we were being saved. But salvation from the hands of God for his people is something that he has been accomplishing through all of the pages of history. Our salvation was being pre pared for us through the call ofAbraham and the life of Isaac and of Jacob. Throughout the life of Israel, the Church-of which we are a part-was being saved, awaiting the Day of Salvation in the advent of Christ. And then the Bible speaks ofsalvation in the present sense. There is a sense in which we are saved. The moment one puts his or her trust in Christ and in Christ alone, that moment God pronounces the be liever just in his sight. He imputes the righteousness of Christ the believer's account and he or she is safe in the arms of Jesus, saved. The Bible also teaches that we are being saved. Therefore, in one sense, salvation is not simply a com pleted event, but begins with justification and leads on to sanctification. As one grows in grace, that process of sanctification is also described as a process ofsalvation. Finally, the Bible speaks ofthe future when we shall be saved. Weare saved, we are being saved, we shall be saved. As we look forward to our glorification together with Christ and the final consummation ofour salvation, it is with this realization that we have been saved (i.e. justi fied) and are being saved (i.e. sanctification). Therefore, let us focus our thinking on the ulti mate sense of salvation, and I repeat the question that I asked my friend in Philadelphia so many years ago: «Saved from what?" Paul explains that we are to receive the "son from heaven, whom [God] raised from the dead - Jesus;'who rescues us from the coming wrath (1 ~hes 1:10). The ultimate salvation that any human b~ing can ever experience is rescue "from the wrath that is to come." Do you believe that there is a wrath that is to come? I think the greatest point ofunbelief in our culture and in our Church at this juncture in the 20th century is an unbelief in the wrath of God and the certain promises of judgment for the human race.

modern REFORMATION

I talk to people all the time about Jesus and they say things like this: "R. C., ifyou find believing in Jesus meaningful-ifthat turns you on and gives you some kind of solace or whatever-then that's fine for you, but I don't feel the need for Jesus." What does this say? It is as if somebody were to say, "I don't feel the need for a fireman," because his house is not on fire. Who needs a fireman when there is no fire? Who needs a savior when there is no clear and present threat of judgment? Modern man simply does not believe that there will be a day ofjudgment. Ifwe believed it, really believed it, the energy of our evangelism would in crease a hundredfold. n the Old Testament the difference, be tween.the true prophet and the false prophet was that the true prophet proclaims the day of the Lord as a day of consuming wrath. People did not want to hear that, so the false prophet got rich promising the people that the day ofthe Lord was a day ofbrightness, light, and joy and that there was nothing to worry about: "Smile, God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." The plan will not look so good on the day of judgment for those who do not repent, for God will speak to them in his fury. That was the message ofIsaiah, ofJ eremiah, ofEzekiel, ofDaniel, of Micah, of Amos; and every other prophet of God. Amos came to the people and he said to the people, "You celebrate the day ofthe LORD. Don't you realize thatthe day ofthe LORD is a dayofdarkness; there's not light in it, for it is the day when God will speak in wrath and his anger will consume the planet and his judgment will go forth and his violence will be seen in the streets." Can't wait for the return ofJesus? oh, happy day! Yes, for the saved, but for the unsaved, the return of Jesus is the worst of all conceivable ca lamities. Listen again, not to me, but to the word of God: «Near is the greatest day ofthe LORD; near, com ing very quickly, a day of wrath is that day a day of trouble of distress, destruction, desolation, darkness, gloom. On the day ofthe LORD'S wrath, all ofthe earth will be desired for he will make a terrifying end to the inhabitants of this world" (Am 5:18-24). Again, at the core ofthe biblical message ofsalva tion is this, which is also obscured in modern thought: "Salvation is of the LORD" (Jonah 2:9). No human being has the resources, the power, the money or the merit to save himself. A few years ago, I was in the hospital for kidney stones. Ifyou have ever had kidney stones, you know what catastrophe means. It was Christmas-time and I was lying in my bed and looking up at the television set on the wall, spinning the dial. And I came to the

worship service that was coming from Hollywood Presbyterian Church in California. The minister was reading the Christmas Story from Luke. How many times have you heard the Christmas Story from Luke? "Par, beloved, unto you is born this day in the city of Bethlehem, a savior, who is Christ the Lord." I heard that a thousand times. As a lay there with these kidney stones, I said "Oh, that is what I need right now-I need a savior: (it is well with my soul,' but my kidney needs to be saved, quickly!" What do you need to be saved from? You need to be saved from God! Not from kidney stones, not from hurricanes, not from military defeats. The thing that every human being needs to be saved from 'is God. The last thing in the world the unrepentant sinner ever wants to meet on the other side ofthe grave is God. But the glory of the Gospel is that the one from whom we need to be saved is the very one who saves us. God saves us from himself. But woe unto those who have no savior on the day of wrath. The Bible says that on that day, the unbeliever will scream to the mountains to fall upon him; to the hills to hide him. He will be looking for refuge from nature itself, saying, "Cover me, give me a shield." But, there is only one shield that can protect anyone from the wrath that is to come, and it is the covering of the righteousness of Christ. When we put our faith in Jesus, God clothes us with the garments of Jesus and the garments of his righteousness are never the target ofthe wrath ofGod. The one who trusts in Jesus has peace with God and there is no condemnation left. And as it was in the days of Noah, when calamity struck, the day of the Lord came and almost all ofthe world perished in the flood. Believing Noah and his family alone were spared. The day of the Lord was a day of salvation for the Christians, a day oflight and there is no darkness in it. Are you saved? The answer to that question is the most important question you will ever know. ~ R. C. Sproul, theologian, minister, and teacher, is chairman of the board for Ligonier Ministries. His is widely known for his videocassette series on topi cs of th eology, apologetics, and the Christian life. Dr. R. C. Sproul is a graduate of Westminster College, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and the Free University of Amsterdam. His many books include Chosen by Cod, The Holiness of Cod, and Faith Alone: The Evangelical Ooctrin.e ofjustificatiofl

MA RCHI APRIL 1996

BY RICK RITCHIE

oseph was told by an angel to name his son Jesus, because he would save his people from their sins (Mt 1:21). In times past in Egypt, the Passover lamb had borne people's sins. But now Jesus came into the world to become the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (J n 1:29). In our day some would have us confess Jesus as Savior, but sug gest that he saved us by doing something other than taking our sin ,away. Or if they admit that sin needs to be taken away, they say that Jesus does this by training us not to sin. In either case, we are left with something other than Biblical salvation. No plan of salvation that leaves out Christ's pay ment for sin is a Biblical plan ofsalvation. And yet I find that those who fight for this doctrine (may they always be given the honor that is their due) often are so fo cused on the truths under contention that they forget to flesh them out with other Biblical truths. In the heat of battle it is forgotten that we must not only contend for that part of the truth that is being attacked, but we must tell the whole truth, even that part that might not be objected to. It might put the controversial state ments in a new light. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement needs to be fleshed out with the doctrine of Christ's deity, his two natures, and his Supper if people are to see just how glorious a teaching is at stake. Purchased w ith God's Own Blood The doctrine of substitutionary atonement teaches us that Christ saved us by paying for our sins, that is, he died in our place. As the Scriptures say "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). Christ, who being sinless did

MARCH/APR IL 1996

not need to die, laid down his life for the sake of those who were condemned to death. The resurrection shows that God accepted the payment as complete. Christ was raised for our justification. It is what Luther called the great exchange. Our sins are im puted to Christ. His righteousness is imputed to us. We can press these images even further. When we are united to Christ, God looks at us as if we had done our time. Eternal hell is our sentence, and we show up in God's presence as if we had done the unthinkable and made full payment. Of course, we did not. Christ did it for us, but we receive the benefit. While the church could certainly profit from hear ing more about how Christ as a perfect man paid for the sins of all humanity, this doctrine is taught even out side of Reformation churches. The doctrine received one ofits clearest expressions at the hand ofSt. Anselm ofCanterbury in the thirteenth century. \i\fhathas been under-emphasized is that the one \\-ho made the pay ment was God himself. N ow I want to be clear ab out this. St. Anselm's work Why God Became M an (Latin Cur Deus homo) proves that Anselm understood the identity of Christ. And most trained theologians, if a -ed would admit that the Jesus who died on the cro for our sins was God as well as Man, and teach and .efend it. But while this teaching is well-known, it i not emphasized enough. There are many ways ofspeaking ofthe divine action in relation to the cross that do not in themselves convey the fullness of the picture. The di, ine action about which many have heard ofi he Father pouring out his wrath on his Son. Ifthe pa tOf\\-ishes to empha size the benevolent side ofthis, he p ak of the Father sending the Son on our behalf. orne"" es we even see an attempt to link divinity to the uffering, as when we are told that the divine nature lent ,,-eight to the suffer ing of the human nature. True and important as these things are, they are not what is usuall) lacking, at least in those churches where the ero s is still central. Many pastors have preached the cross in such a way that the most stunning element of the picture was missing, or at least hidden. In the middle of telling about the cru. c. ifixion, unless the pastor outright states tpat the one who suffers is God, many listeners will ~iss it, even if they know that Jesus is God. It is not that listeners are inattentive, but that their attention is fo cused so narrowly on what is said that the unspoken logical implications are lost on the periphery. Added to that is the fact that so much ofthe teach ing on the two natures in Christ is so sloppy. The doctrine of Christ's two natures teaches us that Christ

modern REFORMATION

is both God and Man in one person. We say that Christ has two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. But these two natures are not two persons. This dis tinction is what is in danger ofbeing lost, especially in speaking of the cross. Many laymen are under the impression that even though Jesus was God, his divine nature was utterly removed from the event somehow. Sometimes they will even use the term «divine na ture." But they miss the point. The picture they convey makes it sound as if Christ's two natures were two persons. ome have even suggested that Jesus's cry, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" (Mt 27:46), was Jesus's human nature speaking to the divine. Such sloppy teaching obscures the wonder that God is the one who atoned for us. This is no technicality. It is part ofthe good news. God does not just provide salvation, he does the saving work himself. At a specific point in human history, the Almighty Second Person of the Trinity, the Lord of Glory, stooped down and took on a human nature. For our sake he was condemned to death and suffered the wrath ofGod. This is a stranger, more glorious picture than we derive from the other ways of stating things that technically tell us of the same event. While it is certainly correct to speak of Christ as a man with a divine nature, we may also, and in this case much more profitably speak of him as God 'with a human nature. When Jesus cried "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me," the reality behind this cry staggers the imagination. God was forsaken by God. What we formerly knew of the Father in infinite holiness turn ing his back on his Son who had become sin for us remains true. But now we see God's action in the bearing of his punishment. God who is too holy to look upon sin is at the same time God who so identifies with us that he suffers the abandonment of the holy God. If you have ever felt removed from God, you must realize that God knows what that is like. It is important that this point be emphasized. There are too many people in the world who have heard ofthe crucified one spoken ofas God's Son, who never knew that he was God. What kind of thoughts about God does the cross kindle in such people? Are they overtaken by the wonder of divine mercy? Not really. While they may be thankful to Jesus that he was willing to take their place, they wonder about the character of God. He sounds like a harsh judge who is just happy that someone paid. It is not that he takes

pleasure in setting people free, but that he is not par ticular about whom he punishes. If we do not know who Jesus is, we do not know to whom we should be grateful. When we learn that God willingly became the victim of his own rejection so that we could belong to him, all is different. I hold no degrees in philosophical theology, but I have read several defenses ofthe goodness ofGod, and have found many of the insights useful. Still, I have found that few arguments really "solve" the problem of evil. The difficulty is that there is more than one problem. Depending on circumstances, we have vari ous types of problems with evil, some of which come and go, some which persist. I think that this view ofthe divine mercy manifested in God's adopting of a hu man nature through which he could suffer the penalty ofhis own justice goes along way toward making some of my problems with evil less foreboding. One ofthe worst fears that lurks in the back ofour minds is that God's punishment is unlimited by em pa thy. We fear that we are dealing with one whose at tributes react like chemical formulas. Who wants to get crushed in the gears of an eternal principle? Who can be moved by an atonement reduced to a math ematical equation? Add perfect justice to perfect power and you get perfect hell. An infinite man can pay for all the sins of finite people, assuming he is innocent. Justice will be satisfied equally either way, by way of satisfaction or byway ofretribution. It all makes sense on a chalkboard, but our human sensibilities balk, especially when we are speaking of something other than war-criminals or child-molesters. Sure, some people may deserve to pay for their crimes, but just how much wrath do they deserve?

MARCH/APRIL 1996

God's involvement in redemption changes the nature ofthe problem. He is not sitting in a laboratory dispassionately concocting a perfect justice to threaten humanity, while resting in the knowledge that his per fect goodness cannot be questioned. To be sure, God could have done this, and we would be in no position of moral superiority to ques tion it. But that would have been a hopeless situation for us. God's justice, would to us, be a merely formal invitation. Lurking doubts as to the justice of God would be silenced by prudence. Our self-protective ness would tell us, «Don't complain about the problem

unleGu want it to be a problem for you." od's solution is better. It has all ofthe advan tages ofsatisfying perfect justice as demanded by his attributes, but it goes further; there is divine involvement. God has entered into the mess he allowed, and taken the brunt ofthe pain. What this says is that one who knew perfect goodness himself was willing to undergo trouble for the sake of the world he created. When we question the goodness of existence by asking if it is worth it to go through life in a fallen world, and then wonder ifGod's decision to allow these conditions was based on his being removed from it all, the cross reminds us to think better things of God. He decided that it was worth creating and redeem~ng such a world in spite ofwhat it would cost him in suffering. We cannot quantify suffering, but it is probably best to assume that Christ's decision to endure the cross was more than equivalent to a man choosing to suffer all the suffering that has ever taken place in the world. Find someone in history whose miserable cir cumstances cause you to doubt whether creation was worth it and ponder this: God the Son willingly under went far worse. Not for the sake ofbeing stoic, but «for the joy set before him." He knew his love for us to be sufficient to motivate his own acceptance of suffering. For us, we are in to suffer less ofit, and what we receive at the end is ours not by merit, but by gift. It is in light ofthis involvement that we cherish the

Fi~d sOmeone in,'history whose

"mise'Fabl, circumstances cause yo",to doubt whet;her /c'"ation .VlIS wor,th,il and ponder this: :~,~Gld the ~n wiUing:1y u'nd.rwent farworse. Not 'for the sake ;,of being'stoic, but for ____-'-'---~_~·.>;t~~ i:oy.et,bet.r:e him. <

MARCH/APRIL 1996

•

rigorously developed scholastic theology of the atonement. That the divine nature can add weight to human suffering has exp lanatory value when a skeptic wonders how one man's death can pay for the sins of the world. The value of the explanation is greater, however, when we understand better what we are defending. We do like to speak ofthe Atonement with mathematical precision, not because we think of God as a math problem, but so that we know we have found the true measure ofwhat was done for us, done by an involved God, in human flesh. Setting the record straight on these doctrines may take some painstaking study in some highly technical doctrinal areas. The doctrine of the two natures in Christ is one of the most difficult doctrines to learn well. But the difficulty of setting the record straight does not mean that the main point is hard to grasp. A small child can learn that God is the one who saved us. When I was younger, a Roman Catholic friend and I were paging through my family Bible, a Bible that contained Rembrandt's Biblical paintings. (The painting of the blinding of Samson was one we liked to reenact!) When we reached the painting ofthe crucifixion my friend said, «That's God," pointing to Jesus. I, thinking myself to be better ta ugh t, said «No, that's his son." My Roman Catholic friend had been taught the heart of the matter better than I. He knew that God saves. What little I knew did involve the Father sending his son on our behalf, but I did not grasp that it was God the Son who was sent. Even when I later became aware that Jesus was God, this point did not sink in quickly. It might have if my pastors and Sunday school teachers had shown us Rembrandt pictures or crucifixes and said «That is God." It takes so little. I hope my readers take the time to tell their children and Sunday school students that God is the one on the cross. At the Lamb's High Feast

Our high Priest knows what it is like to be forsaken by God, and does not wish his children to suffer this forsakenness. This sense of separation, of the Son from the Fatherashehungon the cross, ofChrist from his body as he lqy in the tomb, is something Christ suffeted so we would not have to. He assures us ofthis not only'tprough an announcement, but through a meal . When we celebrate the Lord's Supper, Christ's body and blood are offered for the forgiveness of our sins. We partake of his separation bodily so that we don't have to experience separation from our bodies for eternity. The wages of sin is death. Christ's body and blood are sacrificed so that at the resurrection we might be reunited with our bodies. Christ was be-

modern REFORMATION

trayed by men and then rejected by the Father so that we might be accepted by the Father and reconciled to our fellow man. In the ancient church the Lord's Sup per was known as the «medicine ofimmortality.» The body and blood of Christ ofwhich we partake are the body and blood which have already borne the wrath of God. We can look at them as a vaccine. When we partake of the spent wrath of God, we become im mune to the living wrath he bears toward sin. he children ofIsrael escaped the plague ofthe firstborn of Egypt by painting blood on the doorposts of their houses. In one Commun ion hymn, this is linked to what happens when we receive the body and blood of Christ. Where the paschal blood is poured Death's dread angel sheaths the sword Israel's hosts triumphant go Through the waves that drown the foe, Alleluia! As the church, we are the Israel of God. Christ is the Lamb ofGod who takes away the sin ofthe world. His blood is poured into our mouths at Communion, the doorway, as it were, to our bodies. When God comes injudgment, he will see the blood on thedoorpost and pass over us. Triumphantly, we will enter his eternal kingdom. It may sound shocking to American Protestants to hear a son ofthe Reformation speak thus. But this is the character of the Lutheran Reformation. To be sure, Communion will not avail ifwe do not receive it in faith. Eating and drinking at the Lord's Table are not a way of receiving salvation at odds with hearing the Gospel and believing. Luther called the sacra mentsthevisible Word. Unlike the audible word which is received by the hearing offaith, this word ofGospel is received by the eating of faith.

Contending for the Whole Faith A sad truth about American Christianity is what the fight against liberalism has done even to those who have remained faithful in battle. Early in the century, the strategy was to define the fundamentals ofthe faith so that all would know what doctrines would have to be fought for to the death. Differences in non-funda mental doctrines would be occasions for charity. This sounded like a good strategy, but it has born some bitter fruit. The list of fundamental doctrines grows shorter and shorter. This makes things more difficult. A short list of fundamental doctrines, removed from their larger context of Biblical truth, is a very gray, bland, utilitarian object, compared to the robust body of Biblical doctrine. We spend our time fighting not for doctrines, but for doctrinoids. Who can develop a passion for a K-Mart system of doctrine?

When we raise our sights to a fuller body of Biblical truth, we find that God weaves his work to gether richly. Our best expressions ofhis truth strive to embody such a texture. The Apostle's Creed is a won derful expression of doctrines which had to be ham mered out in the midst ofcontroversy. But it reads not like a list, but almost like a story. When more doctrines came to be fought over, the Nicene Creed was written. Again, the doctrines are orthodox, but they are clothed in a rich garment. The story of redemption is ex pressed in the Trinitarian structure. Luther's Small Catechism teaches doctrine to children in sections devoted to, among other things, the Ten Command ments, the Apostles Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. The doctrinal teaching is hung on a structure of writings that are committed to memory. The whole is coherent. It is a beautiful thing I want to believe, not just some thing I am told I must fight to defend. That God saves is the theme ofthe Bible. Substitu tionary atonement is an important doctrine not just because we need a substitute. It is important because in it we learn that God is our substitute. The story comes together here. We will be much better able to contend for the story when we know how it hangs together . We will be much more motivated to contend for the story when we realize what has been done for us and by whom. Jesus is God in the flesh saving his people from their sins. That is the Gospel. Anything less is not good news. But our High Priest has not left us with less. ~ Rick Ritchie, CURE staff writer and a contributing author to Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation, is a graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. He attends Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in Hacienda Heights, California.

MARCH/APRIL 1996

BY KIM RIDDLEBARGER

here is no way this side of eternity we will ever be able to fully understand the words of our Lord recorded in Matthew 27:46: «MyGod,myGod, why have you forsaken me?" Asthe mob mocked him, and while the thief who was cruci fied next to him hurled insults at him, our Lord's thoughts turned not to his own physical anguish or the ridicule he faced from onlookers. His mind was on something far different from that ofmost dying men his dying lament was the anguish he felt at being es tranged from his heavenly father, whose wrath he bore as he faced an excruciating death by crucifixion. The Father he had known from all eternity had now turned his back on his only begotten son. Just moments after uttering these awesome words, he took his final breath. The significance of his death was only then slowly being grasped by those who watched him give up his spirit. For at the very moment when his heart ceased beating the afternoon sky was suddenly darkened and terrafirma itself shuddered beneath his cross. This was no ordinary death. There are other signs which marked the time ofhis death as well. The great curtain in the Jerusalem temple-separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place-was dramatically torn in two all the way from top to bottom. It was as though God Himself was removing his blessing from what had been his earthly temple. The sacrifices offered in that temple were no longer accepted by God, and any further shedding of the blood ofbulls and goats was now an offense to God and only served to further increase the guilt of those who offered them. And when it was finally and merci fully over, one soldier responsible for seeing to it that the sentence ofdeath was carried out, and now terribly frightened because of the cosmic upheaval that ac companied this man's dying, is reported to have exclaimed «Surely, this man was the Son of God" (Mt 27:54). For it was now clear to all that this was not just another common criminal who had died before their eyes. Indeed, this bloody, disfigured, and humiliated man, the one identified by the crude sign that adorned his cross as the «King ofthe Jews," was none other than

MARCH/APRIL 1996

the Son ofGod. Without guilt before God or man, and a willing victim despite his complete and total inno cence, this man died under the wrath of his Father in order to save those who were even then taking per verse delight in his death. This was no ordinary death. Surely we will never fully understand everything that happened when Jesus Christ died on a Roman gibbet for the sins ofthe world. But Scripture does tell us quite a bit about what Christ's death accom plished, and how his death benefits us today, nearly2,OOOyears later. While there are several striking explanations offeredthroughouttheNewTestamentastothemean ing of Christ's death by crucifixion, one term strikes me as capturing the meaning behind our Lord's la ment perhaps better than any other: Christ's death is said to be a (<propitiation for our sins. " Used only four times in the New Testament (twice by John: 1 In 2:2, 4:10; once by Paul: Romans 3:25; and once by the author of Hebrews: 9:5), the term has a rich Old Tes tament background, and we will be unable to under stand why this term is so significant when used of Christ's death apart from such a context. There is one theme, however, no doubtmorethan any other, which underlies the concept ofpropitiation in both the Old and New Testaments and that is the notion of God's wrath. «In the Old Testament, more than twenty words are used of the wrath of God (in addition to a number of others which are used in reference only of human anger). The total number of references to God's wrath exceeds 580, so that it can not be said to be an occasional topic." [ While the pagans describeq. their ((gods" as possessing a capri ciou~ and almost irrational anger, which they believed was'qften turned loose against them without percep tible rhyme or reason, «the Hebrews were not in doubt," about why their God was angry with them. «They knew that one thing and one thing only aroused God's anger, and that was sin."2 Thus we can never understand why the biblical writers speak of Christ's death as a propitiation if we do not see the fundamen tal fact that God is Holy, and that he must punish all sin. Take for example God's reaction to idolatry re-

modern REFORMATION

corded in Exodus 32:8-10: «They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, (These are your gods, 0 Israel.'" God's reaction is swift and quite clear: «I have seen these people," the Lord said to Moses, «and they are a stiff necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them." One of the most sobering declarations of God's holy anger is found in Isaiah 30:27: See, the Name of the Lord comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds ofsmoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire. His breath is like a rushing torrent, rising up to the neck. He shakes the nations in the sieve of destruction; he places in the jaws of the peoples a bit that leads them astray. And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel. The Lord will cause men to hear his majestic voice and will make them see his arm coming down with raging anger and consuming fire, with cloudburst, thunderstorm and hail. God's righteous anger against sin is also seen by his response to those who commit murde'r and adul tery: «I will bring upon you the blood vengeance ofmy wrath and jealous anger" (Ez 16:38). Even what we might impudently consider «small" and insignificant sins nevertheless provoke the same reaction from the Holy God. «Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. Ifyou do and they cryout to me I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless" (Ex 22:22-24). Indeed, lies and greed meet with a similar response, as Jeremiah laments, «I am full of the wrath of the Lord, and I cannot hold it in" (J er 6: 11). God is Holy and he will punish all sin with an eternal and righteous vengeance. There is an unfortunate tendency on the part of some to argue that it is the «bad" god of the Old Testament who acts in such wrath, while the God of the New Testament is loving and would never express such righteous anger toward his creatures. While not spoken ofas frequently as in the Old Testament, God's anger toward sin and evil-doers is clearly spoken of in a number of ways in the New Testament. In John's Gospel, for example, we read that God's wrath abides on everyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ (J n 3:36). Jesus himself spoke of Hell and eternal punish

ment quite frequently (see Mt 5:22, 18:8, Mk 9:48; Lk 12:5). The Apostle Paul argues that «God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men" (Rom 1:18) and that «God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient" (Eph 5:6). In Revelation, John speaks of «God's fury, which has been poured into the cup of his wrath" (Rv 14:10,cf. 16: 19), and John even goes so far to speak of Christ's coming in judgment as «the wrath of the lamb" (Rv 6:16). Thus we cannot drive a wedge between God's anger in the Old and New Testaments. huS the question necessarily arises as to how any will enter heaven since God's righteous anger burns against all those who commit sin, and if the biblical record is clear about anything, it is that everyone living has sinned and is therefore under the just condemnation of God. How will anyone be admitted into heaven and on what grounds? If God cannot overlook sin, then he must punish it. But how can he punish sinners without annihilating them? We will never understand the cross of Christ if we first do not contemplate God's anger toward all sin and those who commit it. And so it is against this background that we must endeavor to understand the term «propitiation." When those who were translating the Old Testa ment from Hebrew into Greek looked for a word to describe God's forgiveness, in reference to his anger, they choose the term hilsokomai in a number of in stances. The idea in view by using that specific term is certainly a turning aside ofanger through the offering of a sacrifice (cf. Ex 32:14, Ps 78:38, and Lam 3:42).3 But the term's full meaning is seen most clearly in the New Testament when it is applied to the cross of Christ. When John speaks of the death of Christ as a «propitiation [hilasmos] for our sins" (1 In 2:2; 4:10), the meaning is clear. Christ's death on the cross turns aside God's wrath that otherwise would be directed toward us in the judgment because of our sins. Christ accomplishes this for us through his offering up of himself as the sacrifice on whom God has poured out his anger. Christ shed his blood then, in part, to ap pease the HolyGod's anger toward our sins.4 The same idea is in view in Romans ~:25. Paul says that «God presented his Spn as a propitiation [hilasterion]," to demonstrate hi~ justice-he will indeed forgive sin only because he punishes it in Christ-and so that he can justify those who have faith in his Son. Since God cannot simply overlook sin but must punish it, Christ must stand in the sinner's stead. The guilt ofthe sinner's sin has been dealt with in that Christ's shed blood turns aside the wrath of God toward the sinner, thereby

MARCH/ APRIL 1996

removing that guilt from him or her. In this sense, the concept ofpropitiation is foundational to understand ing not only the substitutionary aspect of the atone ment, but also forensic justification as well. The reason that sinners can be justified at all is that the guilt for their own sins has been imputed to Christ, so that Christ in turn can turn aside God's wrath toward sin ners by being punished for the sinner in the sinner's place (Phil 3:9). Perhaps James Dennyput it best when he said, «the simplest word offaith is the deepest word of theology: Christ died for our sins." he prissiness of Protestant Liberalism is clearly evident in the notion that Chris tianity is a religion of morality and ethics, rather thana religion ofrescue from real personal guilt and the penalty due us from the HolyGod, whose «eyes are too pure to look on evil; [who] cannot tolerate wrong" (Hab 1: 13). Protestant liberals have always had a problem with the vivid biblical language of personal guilt before a Holy God and the necessity of shedding the blood of the Son of God if there was to be any real remission ofsin. One thinks ofthe rather pitiful efforts ofC. H. Dodd to redefine and reduce God's wrath to mere reciprocity-our bad actions inevitably produce bad consequences for us. 5 According to Dodd, anger is a human trait, so «how can God, who is love, be angry in the way in which men understand anger?" So Dodd redefines «wrath" according to his own theologically liberal sensitivities. The God ofthe Bible is too barbaric for those who don't believe that God is holy and will, therefore, necessarily punish eternally all who violate his law as a matter ofjustice. I have always shuddered at the story recounted by one ofmy colleagues about a liberally inclined fellow seminarian who once asked him, «You're not one of those guys who's into the (blood' and all that stuff, are you?" Protestant liberal ism has always struggled to fashion a «god" who serves as a mascot for whatever political or moral cause that happens to be in vogue that week. Redemption by the blood of Christ, and the turning aside of God's righ teous anger, is always a problem for those who don't take sin and guilt seriously. The liberals are not the only branch ofthe broader

Perhap~ James Denny put it best when he said, uthe simplest word "of 'faith is the deepest word of theology: Christ died for our sins." 20

MARCHIAPRIL 1996

Protestant tradition, however, who have had serious problems with the wrath of God and the language of propitiation. John Miley (1813-1895), noted Ameri can Methodist theologian, was quite certain that a consistent Arminian theology-one based squarely " on the first principle of the absolute freedom of the human will-demanded that «an atonement of satis faction" be rejected in favor of the so-called govern mental theory ofthe atonement. Declares Miley, «The Wesleyan soteriology, taken as a whole, excludes the satisfaction theory, and requires the governmental as the only theory consistent with itself." According to Miley, this means that «the atonement is only provi sory in character; that it renders men savable, but does not necessarily save them...and the consequence is the conditionality of salvation." A conditionality, Miley notes, which must be «in accord with the synergism of the truest Arminianism."6 Thus the death of Christ doesn't actually accomplish anything, according to Miley, other than showing God to be a just governor of his universe and that by offering up his Son on the cross he shows his love for a lost world. But in Miley's scheme, the death of Christ merely makes it possible for God to remit sin on the condition offaith, and does not actually turn aside God's wrath toward sinners. The cross then, supposedly enables God to find some other less brutal way to save sinners, such as enabling God to now forgive sin through faith. But the nagging question remains: «If Christ did not need to die to satisfy God's wrath toward sinners, then why did God cause his Son to suffer such unspeakable torment, if he really didn't need to?" The governmental atonement ofconsistent Wesleyan Arminianism turns the cross of Christ into the torture ofthe Son by God the Father for no good reason. Such a notion is an offense to the holiness of God and the suffering of Christ. The unfortunate fact that many of our evangelical contemporaries find the whole idea of God pouring out his wrath on his Son as repulsive, demonstrating both the influence of Protestant liberalism and Wesleyan Arminianism, is seen in the fact that several of our major English translations of the Bible have abandoned the term propitiation for the weaker term expiation (RSV ,NEB) or the more nebulous sacrifice of ato,¥ement (NIV, NRSV).7 As Leon Morris has noted, the'r~ is indeed a very important theological point in view here. «Propitiation means the turning away of anger; expiation is rather making amends for a wrong. Propitiation is a personal word; one propitiates a per son. Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or crime."8 The term «sacrifice ofatonement" tries perhaps to allow for both meanings, but is sufficiently

modern REFORMATION

vague to lose both meanings altogether. Fuzzy theo logical language, it seems, helps avoid the rather sticky problem of deciding the correct rendering in the face of differing opinions. Evangelicalism has no doubt become more pre: occupied with morality and ethics, and increasingly embarrassed by its biblical and historic Protestant roots. There is also no doubt that in more and more circles, synergism in regard to sin and grace is now the rule and not the exception. We should not be sur prised then that certain evangelicals would argue that God is not vengeful upon sin (cf. Clark Pinnock's book A Wideness in God's Mercy), or that we can no longer speak of our sins as the reason Christ suffered upon the cross since that would be psychological bat tering (cf. Fuller Seminary Professor Ray Anderson's The Gospel According to Judas). It is hard to imagine being an ((evangelical" without an evangel, but that is where Dodd, Miley, Pinnock, and Anderson would lead us if they could. As for me and my house, we will not follow. If we as Christians are to be faithful to the biblical account, we must see that the death of Jesus Christ was no ordinary death. For the biblical writers are crystal clear about both God's wrath on sin and his grace in offering up his own Son to satisfy his own righteous anger for sins that we have committed. Chris tianity is not a religion of ethics; morality, or politics. Its central message is the proclamation ofthe death of God's Son, under God's curse, dying in unspeakable anguish to turn aside God's holy hatred ofsin, so that all who trust in him and in him alone can be saved from God's wrath and be assured of God's favor toward them. Ifwe lose that message we have lost Christianity itself. ~ 1 Leon Morris, The Atonement: ItsMeaningand Significance (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983), p. 153. 2 Ibid., p. 154. 3 Ibid ., pp. 158 ff. 4 Historically, the Reformed have based the notion of "particular redemption" on the idea of propitiation, namely that Christ's death actually appeases the wrath of God toward the sinners for whom Christ is said to die. If God 's anger is actually appeased by the death of his Son, how then could God punish sinners a second time after Christ had propitiated God's anger toward them? If you don'tlimitthe atonement's extent, you must limit its efficacy and, in effect, this leaves you with a propitiation that ultimately doesn't propitiate! Thus the Reformed argue that Christ's death was designed to turn aside God's righteous anger toward the sin of the elect specifically, and not to make salvation possible for mankind generically. 5 SeeC. H. Dodd , The Epistle of Paul to the Romans(NewYork : Harper and Bros., 1932), pp. 22-23 . 6 John Miley, Systematic Theology, (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1894), 11.169. See B. B. Warfield's decimating critique of Miley's efforts in B. B. Warfield, Review of Systematic Theology by John Miley in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. 2, (ed., John E. Meeter) (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 308-320 . 7 The NIV margin notes do, however, give the preferred tran slation of hilasmos-hilasteerion, "turning aside wrath, taking away sin ." 8 Morris, The Atonement, p. 151. The Rev. Kim Riddlebarger is a graduate of California State University in Fullerton, Westminster Theological Seminary in California, and is currently a Ph. D . candidate at FuTier Theological Seminary. He is the co-host on the White Horse Inn and co-pastor of Christ Refo rmed Church in Placentia, California .

probingChlArch,]Anit{j: proposals for the c[hfrr;;f)'vlfllent1ilAm 60 D~, Carl}. H.Henrlj

".,' 'S

" . , A

s ni.g.h..Christianjnillennium t.fall nearS..• for the twel1t . i . e.th. cenhitr.a ..n. ..d. •. a someQ~~erv third dawns, ers discern n0tmerely ai1: energizing ' 9f eschatological interest, but also new and bolder ecclesiastical proposals for religious unity. . , " Beyond end-times and doomsday warn~ngs they dete,ct signals foreboding<both ' a reconstructed evangelical Protes:; ; tantism and a r~fashioned liberal mainlin~ , ecumenistU,, ~nd, even more notably, the eme;fgence ofa Catholic- Lutheran~nd run around the Protestant.Reformation. The WqrldCouncil of Churches (WCC),formed in 1948~ , soon subordinated eYClngelicaJis'tll to socio-politk:al concerns and some leaders were criticized for quasi-Marxist redistributiQnist sympathies. Its: effort to achievy One great visible world church yielded instead to the emergence of ever larger global denominational bodies (e. g. Lutheran World: Federation, W orldMethodist Council, W orldAlliance of Re formed ghurch~s) . Many evangelical churches viewedth¢; WCC's doctrinal basis as top: inclusive, while some liberal ' churches considered it too restrictive. DebatehasemergedoverwhetherthefutureotLutheranism lies in closer liaison with the Roman Catholic Chli;rch. World Lutheran Federation (WLF) reportedly is probipgpossibilities of a new apd more intimate relationship. This is ironic, since ./ Luther identifiedthe papacy w-ith the antichrist. , Later this year some WLF leaders are expected to pres'e nt to committee, for further consideration by'the movement's na tidnaLa$semblyin 1997, significant proposals to be subn}itted later to the eigh't hassemblx ofthe World Council of Church~s: The proposals, purportedlyi1(yolving comp-romise on the real ~, presence ofChrist in the Lorqs:S;:Supper, woul~facilitate a maj9X ' announsehlent~l1 the year 2000. " ..,\:;J,;~' The'Church of Romeis not without gnbfficial repr~:$enta tidn,Ip.relateddialogues.ln recent writihgs Pope Johri'Paul II ,notably views himse~f as God's appointed servant.i n;the pro ' motion of ecumenidty. The Pett-iue ministry is> ~,afd to make . ecumenism hnperative. Formulated as an integrafc,omponent "QfCatholic orthodoxy, ecumenism h~~been among]obn Paul's ,p kiorities and he addre$ses".Eastern Qrthodoxy, Western Prot estantism' an4 Evangelicalism. In May 1994, a consistory ofcardinals shared projections leading to the Jubilee Year 2000. Aproposal th~tthe Catholic Church publicly confess sins an~ guilt for the Inquisition and for the persecution of heretiCs and Jews was .offensive to rnaQJ' , cardinals;>who &re reluctant to concede the Catholic Church's: instituti0!lal cap;a;city for sin;~ing. Catholictheologiansa,re ex~,' ploringways in which the chUt:cp can offer at}solution to others ' CODtin(led on Page 22 ..

MARCH/APRIL 1996

while it affirms internal institutional repentance. One report from a usually informed source is that John Paul has designated seven cardinals to prepare a major meeting initiating the new millennium. While direct confirmation is lacking, an influential represen tative ofthe World Council ofChurches reportedly was chagrined, because no invitation was simultaneously issued to WCC authorities to participate in the plan ning. The emphasis on unity in truth is increasingly cast in dialectical form, so that plural differences can be viewed as contributory to intellectual congruity. Any comprehensive ecumenical approach inevita bly involves the question addressed by John Paul in a chapter titled "Is Only Rome Right?" in his recent book Crossing the Threshold of Hope. To say there is "no salvation outside Christ," he tells us, does not mean that many who do not know the name ofChrist are therefore outside of Christ. Other religions, as John Paul sees it, contain "seeds of the Word," apparently "true and holy" elements which are aspects of Christ. Christ re deemed all, and has "His own ways ofreaching them" in salvation history. Ohn Paul is not saying that other religions are redemptive. When it comes to the New Age he can even sweep.it aside as in conflict "with all th is essentially Christian." Yet he writes of redemption's cosmic character. Though he considers fear ofhell well-founded, he hesitates over the certainty of eternal damnation. Despite unfamiliarity with the Gospel a "truly upright life" is nonetheless one in which the Gospel is already at work. Yet if such persons are saved, it is "by God's grace in Christ." Among evangelicals the response to pluralistic ecumenism has largely been reactionary. Spokesmen voice little agony of soul over the Christian church's divided condition. This indifference explains partly why they shun exploration of deeper unity and, worse yet, why they accommodate more and more divisions. Yet, to their credit, evangelical denominations rally with interdenominational fervor in sponsoring biblical evangelicalism and missions, the priority that liberal ecumenism most dwarfs. Mainline modernism deteriorated into a political ideology. At the same time conservatives, supposedly the guardians of biblical theology, pursued church growth through murky evangelical pluralism. Their annual conventions featured individual leaders more than a cognitively definitive movement impacting the culture, and their funding appeals sometimes had more fervor than their cultural confrontation. To be sure, the growing disposition of Southern Baptists to be known as evangelicals stimulated the National Association of

MARCHI APRIL 1996

Evangelicals, yet Christian Reformed and Fuller Semi nary spokesmen preferred a pluralistic framework, hoping to reshape liberal ecumenism into a moderate evangelicalism affirming a broad view of biblical au thority. orld Evangelical Fellowship, constituted in 1951, links 57 autonomous national and regional bodies through an international headquarters in Singapore. The movement's history, written by missionary veteran Harold Fuller, is to appear shortly. Commissions in theology, women's concerns, and church renewal have had only modest influence, although the reinforcement of missions interests has been more significant. WEF has discussed possible sponsorship in the summer of 1999 of a major global meeting which would issue a strong evangelical statement on the continuing imperative of world evangelization based on Reformation doctrine and principles. A considerable variety of new ecumenical alterna tives is postulated in the United Sates, not all of them involving church structures. Southern Baptists have reached out for closer cooperation with Afro-Ameri can churches and churchmen. Conservative Reformed churches, troubled by the doctrinal thinness of many contemporary evangelical churches, are meeting April 17-20, 1996, as the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals emphasizing "the great solas of the Reformation" Scripture alone and justification by faith alone. Yet the participating Reformed scholars have faced distressing subdivisions in their own ranks. One of their spokesmen, Michael Horton, has spoken of the Reformed world as "a divided part of the vineyard that cannot seem to get along with itself, much less with other Christians." Yet he comments rightly that it is rarely those who are committed to the classical Re formed distinctives who evidence this spirit. "Rather, it is those who want to redefine Reformed in terms of contemporary trends and fashions, ranging from theonomy to therapy." The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals notably encompasses both Reformed and Lutheran participants and its summit will even include some dispensationalists. ~

V\!:

Dr. Carl F. H. Henry is the founding editor of Christianity Today and is the ali/thor of some 35 books, including Twilight ofA Great Civilization, and tnje six volume set God, Revelation, ana Authority. Formed in the fall of 1994, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals is an association of evangelical pastors, teachers, and leaders of para-church organizations whicn has the recovery of this apostolic witness as its goal:

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the church, admist our dying culture, to repent ofits worldliness, to recover and confess the truth ofGod's Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship, and life.

modern REFORMATION

BY MICHAEL HORTON

Dismissinghis doctor's orders, J. Gresham Nlachell, beaten down by a career of5 truggling for the Faith even within his own communion, kept his commitments to a small circle ofOrthodox Presbyterian parishes in South Dakota. "] have too much to do,» he insisted) as his chest was even then tightfrom pneumonia. The next day, however) IVJachen was hospitalized. On New Year's Eve, the host pastor visited the lion on his deathbed and the elder statesman related a dream he had enjoyed that made him long for Heaven. "Sam, it was glorious, it was glorious,» he said. "Sam) isn)t the Reformed Faith grand?" lust before he passed into'the next world, A1achen dictated a telegram to John Nfurray, professor ofsystematic theology at ~Vestminster Seminary. These last lvords read, "I'm so thankjiJI for the active obedience ofChrist. No hope without it. "1

nce more we are reminded of just how practical and relevant doctrine can be in our deepest crises. When all is well, we can dispense with such questions, but not when the truly great issues of life are staring us in the face. But what is this "active obedience of Christ" to which Machen referred and why was it such a remarkable comfort in his dying hour? John Murray, the recipient of that famous telegram, wrote eloquently ofthis great biblical doctrine. «Early in our Lord's ministry we have his own witness" to being the promised «Servant ofthe LORD" in Isaiah, says Murray. When John the Baptist questioned the propriety of him baptizing the Messiah, Jesus answered, «Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness" (Mt 3: 15).2 It was our Lord's great pleasure and duty to «fulfill all righteousness" down to the least stroke of the Law: «I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me" On 6:38). Calvin observes, «Now someone asks, how has Christ abolished sin, banished the separation between us and God, and acquired righteousness to render God favorable and kindly toward us? To this we can in general reply that he has achieved this for us by the whole course ofhis obedience."3 We are told in Scripture that Jesus Christ was both human and divine. Because of this union of the divine with the human nature, «he grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man" (Lk 2:52). In fact, he «learned obedience from the things he suffered" (Heb 5:8). This is not at all to suggestthatour Lord was sinful, but in his humiliation he was truly and fully human. That is, just as he grew up physically, so too he progressively obeyed God throughout his life. At no point did he fail to respond positively to his Father's will, so his growth was perfect and complete. It is impossible for us to imagine what it would have been like for this Son ofMan to experience genuine temptation in precisely the same way as it comes to us and still to have turned his will from every form of hatred, lust, selfishness, greed, pride, laziness, and every other form of disobedience, whether in thought, word, or deed. He sinned neither by omission nor commission, neither by ignorance nor malice. Even when faced with the temptation in the wilderness, where Lucifer offered him the kingdoms of the world (as ifhe owned

them), in addition to food to satiate his fast-weary body, Jesus, unlike the first Adam, answered with the Word of God. But more than all ofthese countless acts of obedience and perfect conformity to his Father's will in mind, body, soul, and heart, there was one act ofobedience that crowned our Savior's righteousness: «Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-even death on a cross!" (Phil 2:6-8). This death is our Lord's passive obedience, just as his active obedience is his thirty-three years ofperfect conformity to God's will. Although some other word might be preferred, the «passive" nature of Christ's obedience to death took the form ofsuffering, while his «active" obedience took the form ofdoing. It was not merely the agony ofthe cross as a form of human punishment, nor indeed even the unjust accusations of his tormentors, but the divine curse that was attached to this death that made this step of obedience so daunting. For this reason, our Lord prayed in Gethsemane, «Lord, ifit is possible, take this cup from me." And yet, even in the face ofdivine judgment, when he would bear the sins ofhis people, he still prayed, «Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done" (Mt 26:41-43). This obedience was voluntary. «I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-just as the Father knows me and I know the Father-and I lay down my life for thesheep ... No one takes it from me, but Ilayit down ofmy own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father" On 10:14 18). Because it was a voluntary obedience, it is offered to the Father as the eternally ~eritorious sacrifice of the God-Man. «By the ob~dience of the one man many shall be declared righteous/\ Paul declared (Rom 5:19), contrasting the imputation of the first Adam's guilt and the imputation of the last Adam's righteousness. Thus, in his high priestly prayer, our Lord prays, «For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified" On 17:19). Throughout the Old Testament, one ofGod's names had been Yireh- Tsadikenu, «The LORD Our Righteousness," and in First Corinthians this is applied to Christ, «who has become for us our righteousness, holiness and

MARCH/APRIL 1996

redemption" (1:30). So what does all ofthis mean for us in our troubles? Why did Machen find so much satisfaction in clinging to this promise on his deathbed? First, it is quite easy for us to believe that God is lenient. We conceive ofhim as Santa Claus: «He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake. He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake." But who would think of jolly (01 St. Nick punishing people for their sins? And yet, that is what the Bible insists God will do at the end of history. The same Jesus who emptied himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross, will return to judge the living and the dead. It will be a trial ofstrict justice and nothing short of perfect righteousness will be required of each of us. Either it will be our own, or borrowed from the host, but God will not be lenient on that dreadful day. econd, it is quite easy for us to believe that God's grace makes up for what we lack. We even hear justification defined as «just-as-if-I'd-never sinned." But surely this would not be sufficient for our salvation. God not only requires an absence of sin, but a positive possession ofthe righteousness his nature requires of us. «It is finished," our suffering Savior cried out, not only concerning this final trial, but as the capstone to the whole life that he so willingly lived to God for us. While his passive obedience on the cross canceled our sins, it is his active obedience throughout his life that provides the ground upon which God can declare us righteous. This perfect obedience does not merelymake up what we lack, but satisfies God's just wrath against even the imperfection of our best works as believers. The Father «so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son," so it is not as if the Father is a harsh, demanding taskmaster who must be persuaded by the Son to have mercy. Rather, itis the Father himselfwho sends the Son to save the world by his voluntary obedience in life and death. Finally, it is good to know-especially when facing the next world-that for every time we have failed to conform to God's will in thought, word, and deed, by actively sinning or failing to conform to his revealed will, his Son has fulfilled the obedience that we owe. By never once giving in to the lust, pride, sloth, greed, selfishness, and malice that are so often allowed space in our overcrowded hearts, Jesus Christ becomes our Savior not only in his atoning death but throughout his life. In this way, every day of his life was as necessary for our salvation as that dark afternoon on Golgotha. He was the only «fully surrendered, victorious, sold-out," Christian who ever lived! Our surrender is halfhearted and partial; our victories seem always to be sullied by pride. Even if we could live the «higher life," could God not smell our smugness? Wouldn't our best works be sabotaged by our own depravity? These good works would be corrupt enough to condemn us on the last day, so what we require is the obedience of someone else to stand in for us. It is not only Christ's atoning death, but his saving life during the thirty-three years of his conformity to

MARCH/APRIL 1996

the Father's will that shelters us from God's just sentence. «This is why," wrote Charles Hodge, «the believer, when arrayed in this righteousness, need fear neither death nor hell. This is the reason why Paul challenges the universe to lay anything to the charge of God's elect."4 Maywe proclaim this hope while we have breath, and then may it find its way to the center ofour vision when God calls us home. For it is the only reason we will hear those welcome words, «Well done, thou good and faithful servant."~ 1 Ned B. Stonehouse,). Gresham Machen : A Biographical Memoir (Banner of Truth,

1977), p. 508.

2 John Murray, Collected Writings: Systematic Theology (Banner ofTruth, 1977), pp.

151-157.

3 John Calvin, Institutes 2.16.5.

4 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 1946), vo l. 3, p. 144.

Senti:menta Hem ,'Cpntin ued... .attempted.:to defend dassh::;~l Christianity? 'Dr. Dou~bi5: Sure it is, bec~use the arguments in the last century reyolved arouJ?dfhe question, <Can you really tell ;me that children are reallyborn sinful?' The Bible, after all, says that the imaginatioJ,1s of man's heart are evil continu ally. Now I thinkwea.llfee1 that that's a bittoo strong, butthe notion thatthe human!leart is essentially innocent seems to me tot~flect denicUrather than optimism. "mR: George Lindbeck at Yale says that the shift in convic ; tions can be measured bythe factthat onlyliberalsentimen tcUists couici swallow Norman Vincent Peale in the (50s, but ' today evangelicals accept the same message in the form of Robert S;~huller. Sermons on sin and grace, with the Cross at the center, are often replaced ,"lith the focus on my happiness and self-esteem. Are you saying that positions that would have been regarded as more in line vdth U nitar ian, liberal sentim~ntalism are now easily marketed in con servative circles? 1n other words, would someone like Rob ert Schuller have been considered an enemy of the Faith in the earliest days of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton? Dr. D0bl.0la5: Yes, very much so. Harvard became the bas tion of Unitarianism by the early nineteenth century, but earlyqn that would have been true. The emphasis on therapy is really the big distinction: Do you see faith as therapy? We ar~ movingsteadilytoward a therapeutic world order: Now, much ofthis isso admirable. Good therapy has ahuge claim, butit isn't re~lly theology-friendly because it's pragmatic. t · believe in the Twelve Steps programs. Theywork. But there has to be some sense that there are other realities out there. Befor~·~ithe therapeutic triumph there was this sense that denying one's desires and one's importance was a sign of character. Getting one's life in order is a good thing, but it is not the only thing-oreven the ultimate thing. When Roosevelt struggled to understand Hitler and the Nazis} he was at a loss until he was given abOQk oftheology and was able to finally see in a bit deeper to the human condition. More llberal explana tions just couldn't explain!iitler to him. ~

modern REFORMATION

EY LEE ,f(.ON5 tis a commonplace of theology that the life of the incarnate Son of God can be divided into two major states. Reformed theologians call these two states the state ofhumiliation and the state of exaltation. ' The humiliation ofChrist begins with his incarna tion, when the divine Word of God left the bliss of his Father's glory and willingly became flesh for our salva tion. His birth was in humble circumstances-his mother laid the divine baby in a feeding-trough for animals. His upbringing was unattended by the gaudy displays ofwealth normally associated with the royalty of this world. He suffered as any ordinary peasant did who lived in the backwaters ofGalilee during the 1mpe rial occupation. In addition to the common lot ofhu manity under the curse, the Messiah ofIsrael's ancient hopes suffered the further ignominy of being rejected by the majority of his family and fellow countrymen. Even further, he was tried for blasphemy, convicted by false-witnesses, cruelly tortured by Roman soldiers, and finally executed as a criminal more dangerous to the societal order than the insurrectionist Barabbas. But even this was not the height of his suffering. He endured excruciating abandonment by his own Father, accursed and judged by a holy God for our sins: «My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And he was buried, entombed in the belly ofa more wretched whale than Jonah's (Mt 12:40). But this is not the end of the story! «The Kerygma: Part II" is now playing in churches everywhere. Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, the light ofthe first day ofthe new creation dawned. Some thing deep within the fundamental fabric ofthe cosmos changed. The Son of God reclaimed his former glory - and the world has never been, nor will it ever be, the same again. The exaltation of Christ commenced with the glorious resurrection of the Firstborn from the

dead. Forty days he showed himself to his disciples with convincing proofs until he was received bythe Shekinah cloud of the divine glory. He ascended into heaven, approached the Ancient of Days to receive his king dom, took his seat at the right hand of the Father, and broke the seals of the scroll of history. He now reigns from heaven, with all authority and dominion, waiting until all his enemies are made his footstool. And he will come again to judge the living and the dead, to present to himself his Bride, the church, bodily transformed into his likeness without spot or wrinkle. The exaltation of Christ began at the resurrection and it continues eternally into the future. It is indeed a great and mag nificent theme. Dividing Christ's life into these two states has its precedent in Scripture itself. Peter tells us that the prin cipal theme of the Old Testament prophets was «the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow" (1 Pt 1: 10-11). Paul agrees. In his apology before King Agrippa he argued that he was «saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen-that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles" (Acts 26:22-23). But ultimately the apostles were following in the hermeneutical footsteps of their Lord. It was he who, on the day of his resurrection, rebuked two ofhis disciples for the shallowness oftheir biblical understanding: «Ho~ foolish you are, and how slow of heart to.~elieve all th~t the prophets have spo ken! Did not the1!=hrist have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" (Lk 24:25-26). It is a constant theme: the sufferings and then the glory; the humilia tion and then the exaltation. Like the disciples, it is sadly true that more often than not we have a better grasp of the sufferings of Christ than of his glory. We understand in some mea sure that Christ had to die for our sins. But why is the

MARCH/APRIL 1996

exaltation of Christ so important? Why did Christ have to rise from the dead? What is the theological signifi cance ofthe exaltation ofChrist? Ifit is true that the Bible places just as much emphasis on the exaltation ofChrist as his humiliation, we must ask, «Why?» . The Heidelberg Catechism helps us begin to answer this question. Lord's Day 17 is devoted to a single ques tion and answer: «Question: How does Christ's resur rection benefit us? Answer: First, by his resurrection he has overcome death, so that he might make us share in the righteousness he won for us by his death.» The catechism goes on to deal with the other saving benefits of regeneration and glorification, but here we will re strict our attention to justification. However, this does not mean that our study will be restricted, for «the doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas: it bears a world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowl edge of saving grace.»1 Justification is a primary soteriological benefit of Christ's resurrection. This is plainly taught in Scripture: «He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification» (Rom 4:25). But the precise nature ofthe connection between the resurrection of Christ and our justification needs some explaining. Let's begin bymaking sure we understand the mean ingoftheverse itself. Paul's basic pointis not difficult to understand. In his death, Christ was judicially «handed over» on account of our sins. Our sins were the judicial basis of his death. He was condemned because of our transgressions. But in his resurrection, the judicial rela tionship changes. His resurrection becomes the judi cial basis of our justification. By being raised from the dead, Christ was vindicated, acquitted, freed of all charges. He was declared to be righteous and accepted as such in the court of heaven. But ultimately this was for our justification. It is a mistake to assume that the repetition of the prepositional phrases Cfor our sins ... for our justifica tion») is intended to convey a parallelism. Upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the force ofthis verse actually lies in the exact reversal ofthe judicial relation ship. Our sins caused Christ's death. But Christ's life causes us to be freed ofthe guilt of our sins. The prepo sition «for» is being used in two different senses: «He was delivered to death on account of our sins and was raised to life for the purpose of our justification.»2 Paul likes to do this sort of thing. He likes to craft antithetical parallelisms in order to express the heart of the gospel in a nutshell. For example, «God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God» (2 Cor 5:21). Or, «For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that

MARCH/APRIL 1996

though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich» (2 Cor 8:9). These verses are like brilliant diamonds cut to precise tolerances in order to let the light of God's incredible grace dazzle the eye offaith. All ofthese texts have something in common: Paul wants to highlight the «marvelous exchange» of our sins for Christ's righ teousness. Accordingly, Romans 4:25 teaches that ifour sins killed Christ then his resurrection lets us go free. He received the rap that we might receive the blessing. Our sins (which should have resulted in our judgment) caused him to be handed over to die, and his resurrec tion (which we might imagine he deserved to enjoy solely for himself) caused us to be declared righteous in God's sight. tis t.h e idea ofjudicial representation. Generally speaking, most ofus understand this idea when applied to the death of Christ. He judicially represented us on the cross by paying for our sins. But how 'many of us would apply this to Christ's resurrec tion as well? Paul tells us that Christ represented us not only in his vicarious death but in his resurrection: «And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake both died and was raised» (2 Cor 5:15). If Christ's death was substitutionary, then his resurrection was as well. Just as we can say that Christ was condemned in our place, we can equally say that he was justified in our place. At first this may sound heretical. «If you say Jesus was justified, you're saying he was a sinner in need of forgiveness. Only sinners need to be justified, right?» Wrong! It is imperative that we expand our definition of «justification» beyond merely the forgiveness of sins. Following Paul's own example (Rom 5:12-21), we will therefore take a little detour back to the garden of Eden in order to make sense of this odd-sounding claim. Even before the entrance of sin into the world Adam needed to be justified, that is, he needed a judicial declaration granting him a right to eternal life. Consider Adam as he was before the fall, innocent and without sin. He did not yet possess eternal life. True, he had not yet incurred the punishment that God had threatened CIn the day that you eat ofthe tree you will surely die»). He was not yet mortal in the sense that we are mortal, i.e., destined to-die. But on the other hand, he was not immortal either. He could die-an obvious statement, an'd.one that is clearlydemonstrated bythe fact that he did. And ifhe could die, then he did not have eternal life. But although he did not actually possess eternal life as he was created, God offered him a way of getting it. According to the Reformed understanding of Genesis 1-3, God entered into a covenant with Adam in order to give him the possibility of gaining the right to eternal

modern REFORMATION

life. «The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience» (Westminster Confession VII.2). In other words, Adam was put under a test or a proba tion. Ifhe had kept the condition (perfect obedience to God), he would have obtained eternal life-a higher kind oflife than the life he had by virtue ofhis creation, a life that can never be forfeited. This aspect of the pre fall arrangement usually goes unnoticed. The negative side is obvious: ifAdam sins, he must die. But there was a positive side as well. The tree oflife was pledge of the reward ofeternal life that God offered Adam on condi tion that he passed his probation (Gn 2:9; 3:22-24; Rv 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). . iS is the broader biblical picture of justifica tion. Justification presupposes the existence of a covenant of works. It is impossible to conceive of someone being justified unless there is a covenantal arrangement that makes this possible. "Jus tification is impossible without a covenant.»3 Imagine what it would be like if God had not entered into a covenant with Adam but had simply required per petual obedience with no promise of eternal life. Only two options would lie before him. Either he could disobey God and fall into judgment (death). Or he could just continue to obey. But at any point he would - be capable of falling. He could remain in this state of integrity indefinitely. But that would be all. Even after millions ofyears, he would still be «on probation.» He could never have a confirmed relationship with God, a non-forfeitable life. No "secure horizons» for Adam! Just the endless potential for falling. But a covenant makes justification possible. On such an arrangement, if the human party successfully passes the period of testing, then he will be justified, that is, his relationship with God will be advanced to a level of permanent security. He will be granted a non forfeitable right to eternal life. In fact, it will be an inalienable right-that is, it is a right which the pos sessor cannot surrender even ifhe theoretically wanted to. Justification is God's judicial recognition that the covenant ofworks has been fulfilled and that therefore the right to eternal life has been obtained. On this definition ofjustification, it is legitimate to say that Christ was justified. For as the Last Adam he entered into a covenant of works on our behalf (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22,45). The first Adam miserably failed. Butthe Last Adam gloriously triumphs! The first Adam broke the covenant, thus bringing death. Butthe Last Adam keeps the covenant, thus bringing life and that more abundantly! On these two Adams the entire gospel hangs.

There are differences between the two Adams, of course. First, because ofthe introduction ofsin into the world, the probationary phase of the Last Adam in cluded something that the first Adam never had to do, namely, satisfy the wrath of God for the broken cov enant ofworks. In submitting to the covenant ofworks on our behalf the Last Adam must submit to the judg ment that justly fell upon us all for the first Adam's rebellion. His probation involves his whole life of obe dience to the Father, beginning with his humbling him self in his incarnation. But it reaches its climactic ex pression in his "obedience unto death-even death upon a cross» (Phil 2:5-8). The second difference is that the Last Adam -who is not only true man but true God-received a greater reward than the first Adam. Because of his covenant faithfulness, God highly exalted him by raising him from the dead and seating him upon the throne of

o~ ~ t~ 0 tc tk aJ~~ ~tk~~~!C~t1~ ~~~~~~~~~~! d¢~ ~ vk tc C~ ~ ~t

0.'!

~, ~

#'t-

~ ~ ~ ~~~.

universal dominion. God the Father gave his Son the name that is above every name, that at the name ofJ esus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is «Lord» (i.e., Jehovah), to the glory ofGod the Father (Phil 2:9-11). Christ therefore receives di vine worship and authority, something Adam would never have achieved even ifhe had kept his probation. Thus, unlike the first Adam, the probation of the Last Adam is a cursed humiliation, and his confirmation a divine exaltation. Yet in spite of these differences, the basic pattern remains the same. For both, probation is followed by confirmation. And for both, the basis of confirmation is meritorious obedience. This is brought out very clearly in the passage we have cited (PhiI2:5-11). Christ's humiliation (vv. 5-8) is followed by his exaltation (vv. 9-11), and the judicial link connecting the two is found in the key worq "therefore.» Christ fully obeyed the Father's will, becoming obedient unto death. There fore, God highly exalted him. On the meritorious ground of his obedience unto death, even death on a cross, God transcendently, gloriously, and cosmically vindicated the law-fulfilling Last Adam. It is impos sible to conceive of a Christ who has fulfilled the cov enant of works but who remains in the grave unjusti-

MARCH/APRIL 1996

fied. Ifthe servant ofthe covenant (Christ) has fully met its stipulations, then the Lord ofthe covenant (God the Father) is bound to honor its terms-terms to which in eternity he had bound himself in immutable self-com mitment On 17:4-5). Thanks be to God that Christ fulfilled the terms, thus winning his reward! For these reasons we can say that Christ's resurrec tion was his justification. And this is not just a theologi cal deduction. One ofthe ancient creeds ofthe apostolic church states that "he was justified in the Spirit" (1 Tm 3:16), the same Spirit that is often described as the agent ofthe resurrection ofChrist (Rom 1:4; 8: 11). And though not as explicit, the verse with which we began our dis cussion affirms that just as Christ was condemned in our place, so he was justified in our place (Rom 4:25). "The unexpressed assumption is that Jesus' resurrec tion is his justification."4 u.r justification, therefore, is not to be con ceived of primarily as something each be liever receives individually by faith at the moment ofsalvation. Rather, it is first and foremost the justification of the sinner's representative-Christ, the Last Probationer. And by virtue of union with this exalted and justified Head, we have a full and free justi fication. In Christ, our probation is over! In Christ, we are regarded as those who have fully kept the covenant! In Christ, who is our life, eternal life cannot be lost or foreited by sin! «Secure horizons" for us who by grace have been transferred out of the first Adam into the Last! No wonder Paul wrote with exuberant joy, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel. ..for in the Gospel the righ teousness ofGod is revealed" (Rom 1: 16-17). And what is this righteousness? "Christ Jesus, who has become...our righteousness" (1 Cor 1:30). Perhaps the best proof that our justification and Christ's resurrection go together is the fact that they both produce the same "triumphant gladness" in our hearts. The eighth century Eastern theologian John of Damascus has written one of the great hymns of the Christian church celebrating the redemptive joy and judicial benediction that flow from the resurrection of Christ: Come, ye faithful, raise the strain oftriumphantgladness;

God hath brought his Israel into joy from sadness;

Loosed from Pharaoh's bitter yoke Jacob's sons and

daughters;

Led them with unmoistened foot through the Red Sea

waters.

'Tis the spring ofsouls today; Christ hath burst hisprison,

And from three days' sleep in death, as a sun hath risen;

All the winter ofour sins, long and dark, is flying

From his light, to whom wegive laud and praise undying.

Now the queen ofseasons, bright with the day ofsplendor,

With the royalfeast offeasts, comes its joy to render;

Comes to glad Jerusalem, who with true affection

Welcomes in unwearied strains Jesus' resurrection.

MARCH/APRIL 1996

Neither might the gates of death, nor the tomb's dark

portal,

Nor the watchers, nor the seal hold thee as a mortal:

But today amidst thine own thou didst stand, bestowing

Thine own peace, which evermore passeth human ,.,

knowing.

The reference in the last stanza is to Christ's bless ing his disciples as he ascended into heaven. Only Luke records this. "When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven" (Lk 24:50-51). Our theological study has led to the conclusion that Christ's resurrection and exaltation were for our justification. But the disciples experienced this in a tangible, concrete, historical man ner. The risen Christ departs to ascend his heavenly throne, and as he goes, his hands are lifted up in the Aaronic benediction ofpeace-the divine shalom which comes only from the knowledge that the covenant of works is complete. In Christ they are now on the other side of the probation, at peace with God in the eternal happiness of a confirmed relationship that can never, never be ruptured by sin. Weare not surprised, then, that the disciples "worshipped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God." We will never deny that the death of Christ is cen tral to the Christian faith. Indeed, the apostle tells the Corinthian Christians that he "resolved to know noth ing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor2:2).ButwhatGodhasjoinedtogether let not man separate. Our study brings us to the conclu sion that the humiliation of Christ by itself and isolated from his exaltation is of absolutely no value to us. If Christ is not raised, then we are still in our sins (1 Cor 15:17). "A dead Christ is an unjustified Christ, and an unjustified Christ means an unjustified believer. "5 Yes, it is true that we are "justified by his blood" (Rom 5:9). But as important as this central truth ofthe Gospel may be, we must not abstract it from its broader covenantal context. For the same Paul who declared that he would preach nothing but "Christ and him crucified" urged Timothy, "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my Gospel" (2 Tm 2:8).~ .. .~

1 J: .~ Packer, "Introductory Essay," in the Banner of Truth edition of

James Buchanan's The Doctrine of Justification, p. viii.

2 The first "for" is causal, the second is final. C. E. B. Cranfield,

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. I, p. 252.

3 John L. Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, p. 473.

4 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption, p. 123.

5 Gaffin, p. 124.

Lee Irons was educated at the University of California in Los Angeles

and is completing his studies at Westminster Theological Seminary in

Cal iforn ia. He is cu rrently planti ng a new congregation of the Orthodox

Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles.

modern REFORMATION

•

WHERE IN THE

WORLD IS THE

CHURCH?

•

...in California! .. .where you can join students from throughout the world, eager to share the Good News of the Lord Jesus Christ, developing their gifts through solid training in the Bible, theology, biblical languages, counseling, and Christian ministry. • Continuing Westminster's historic commitment to the absolute authority of the inerrant Scriptures and to academic excellence in an independent, interdenominational setting • With a fresh accent on the practice of ministry (our M.Div. offers extensive supervised field education and reflection seminars) • Taught by a complete resident faculty of respected scholars (such as W Robert Godfrey, John Frame, Robert Strimple, Peter Jones...) .. • On our beautiful, growing catl}-pus near scenic San Diego • Offering fully accredited Master ofArts, Master of Divjnity, and Doctor of Ministry degree programs ' J~

Discover Westminster in California T--

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN CALIFORNIA

For more information, contact the Office ofAdmissions to(~ 1725 Bear Valley Parkway· Escondido, CA 92027 Voice: 619/480-8474 • Fax: 619/480-0252