Penal substitution in the dock (2): Dismantling the charge of "cosmic child abuse"

More from Garry Williams' 2005 EA Symposium paper.

Read the whole paper here.

But what, lastly, about the dark side of this criticism, its accusation that penal substitution, is, as Chalke says, tantamount to a form of child abuse?33 The claim is that any infliction of pain on a child by a parent is unjust, and that penal substitution mandates such infliction. There is an immediate problem here with the criticism, namely that the Lord Jesus Christ when he died was a child in the sense that he was a son, but not in the sense that he was a minor. As an adult, he had a mature will which could choose to co-operate or not with the will of his Father. So we are in fact looking at a father and an adult son who will together for the father to inflict suffering on the son, as we have seen in our Trinitarian exploration.

But there is a major problem here for the critics of penal substitution. While they have used the feminist critique of the cross as a critique of penal substitution, it is in its original form a critique not of penal substitution but of the Christian doctrine of redemption generally. It attacks the general idea that the Father willed the suffering of the Son, not the specific idea that he willed the penal substitutionary suffering of the Son. Let me give you the criticism, as found in the work of Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker:

The central image of Christ on the cross as the savior of the world communicates the message that suffering is redemptive. […] The message is complicated further by the theology that says Christ suffered in obedience to his Father’s will. Divine child abuse is paraded as salvific and the child who suffers “without even raising a voice” is lauded as the hope of the world.34

Furthermore, it is evident that Brown and Parker attack not just the idea that Jesus was a passive sufferer, but even the idea that he was the active Subject of the cross, an idea Green endorses. If Jesus was active in accepting his suffering, then we have a model of the victim of suffering being responsible for it. Such a model will mandate blaming victims.35

For many feminists their criticism results in the rejection of Christianity because it undeniably involves the idea that God purposed the sufferings of Christ. Others try to rescue a re-invented theology, but I have to say I am with the rejectionists. If purposed redemptive suffering is an insurmountable problem, then Christianity must go. The child abuse problem in their minds remains with any model of the atonement which maintains divine sovereignty, even in a limited form. Unless we remove the suffering of the Son from the realm of events over which God rules, then God wills it.36

Hence there is a trajectory from unease with penal substitution to a denial of the rule of God over the cross, and thence, we may presume, the world. In the more frank writers, this trajectory emerges clearly. J. Denny Weaver, for example, in arguing for a non-violent view of the atonement which he terms ‘narrative Christus Victor’, sees that to succeed he must remove the cross from the plan and purpose of God. He explains that Jesus was not sent to die, that his death was not the will of God, that it was not needed or aimed at by God.37

Yet in terms of the metaphysics of the divine relation to creation, even this view is unsustainable. So long as God sustains the world in which the Son suffers, then in a strong sense he wills the suffering of the Son. If he does not stop history as the first blow is struck, then he wills that the Son suffer.

There is something which prevents him intervening to rescue his beloved Son, some purpose he intends to achieve through the suffering, and therefore a strong sense in which even such a diminished god as Weaver’s wills the suffering. If someone else had wrested from God his work in sustaining the world, if we lived and moved and had our being elsewhere, then perhaps we could say that God did not will the suffering of the Son. But my hope is that none of the participants in this debate think that.

Which means that any view where God maintains control, even at arm’s length, succumbs to the feminist criticism. Their target is not just penal substitution. We therefore need to ask about that criticism itself. Are they right? They are evidently not so with regard to penal substitution itself. According to penal substitution, the cross does not have the character simply of suffering, but of necessary penal suffering for a good end. It is in this sense ‘violent’, but not reducible to the category of ‘violence’. Can we conceive of scenarios in which an adult son and father rightly together will the suffering of the son? Indeed we can, we can imagine endless such scenarios, such as a father who directs teams of Médecins Sans Frontières, sending a son into an area where he knows the son may suffer greatly. He wills it, the son wills to go. There is no injustice here, because the purpose is good. The same applies in the case of penal substitution.

In fact the feminist criticism really only applies when we deny penal substitution, because it is then that we are in danger of denying the necessity of the suffering of the Son. According to penal substitution the necessity of punishment arises from God’s own nature and his divine government.38 He is bound only by who he is, by faithfulness to himself. On the other hand, if we opt for some kind of voluntarist account wherein the suffering of the Son is not a necessity arising from divine justice, then we are left with a very difficult question, with the feminists’ question at its most acute. If God can freely remit sins, we must ask, why did the Father send the Son purposing his death, as Acts 2:23 says? The more deeply we grasp the Trinity, the love of the Father for the Son, the more we will ask why a loving Father would lay the burden of suffering on his eternally beloved Son.

Penal substitution preserves a necessity, which alone explains why this needed to happen as part of God’s saving plan. Remove the necessity, deny penal substitution, and then you are left with the unjustifiable suffering of the Son. Then you feel the full force of the feminists criticism, because you have the Father willing the suffering of the Son for no necessary reason. For instance, Christus Victor by itself without penal substitution does not explain why Christ needed to suffer like this. Deny penal substitution and you ham-stringing Christus Victor. Hence it is that in Colossians 2:13-15 the victory over the rulers and authorities is accomplished by forensic means, by the cancellation of the legal bond (Colossians, 2:14).

Penal substitution is central in terms of its explanatory power with regard to the justice of the other models, and that claim affirms rather than denies the existence of other models. Without penal substitution, the rejectionist feminists are right that the Father has no sufficient reason to inflict suffering on the Son. A cross without penal substitution therefore would indeed mandate the unjustified infliction of suffering on children, because it would have no basis in justice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33 ‘Cross Purposes’, p. 47.

34 Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker, ‘For God So Loved the World?’, in Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse, ed. Joannne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn (New York: Pilgrim, 1989), pp. 1-30 (p. 2).

35 Here is how they criticise Jurgen Moltman’s statement that Jesus suffered actively: ‘Jesus is responsible for his death on the cross, just as a woman who walks alone at night on a deserted street is to blame when she is raped’, ‘For God So Loved’, p. 18.

36 Here I agree with Hans Boersma in Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), p. 41: ‘Only by radically limiting Christ’s redemptive role to his life (so that his life becomes an example to us) or by absolutely dissociating God from any role in the cross (turning the crucifixion into a solely human act) can we somehow avoid dealing with the difficulty of divine violence.’ Cf. p. 117.

37 The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 132: ‘In narrative Christus Victor, Jesus’ mission is certainly not about tricking the devil. Neither did the Father send him for the specific purpose of dying, nor was his mission about death […]. And since Jesus’ mission was to make the reign of God visible, his death was not the will of God as it would be if it is a debt payment owed to God. In narrative Christus Victor, the death of Jesus is clearly the responsibility of the forces of evil, and it is not needed by or aimed at God.’

38 Contra Joel Green: ‘Within a penal substitution model, God’s ability to love and relate to humans is circumscribed by something outside of God—that is, an abstract concept of justice instructs God as to how God must behave.’ (Recovering, p. 147).

"Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?"

The arrest of Jesus in the Garden, as recorded by John, is one of the most deeply moving passages in the gospel. Here we see the sovereign power, the shepherd's heart, and the sacrificial obedience of the Son of God.

What an awesome privilege it was to preach from that text. Here, including the reading, is the sermon from John 18:1-11 that I preached at Christ Church Deeside last Sunday.

Penal substitution in the dock (1): Why doesn't God turn the other cheek if he expects us to?

As a follow up to Guy Davies' interview with Garry Williams it is well worth reading Garry's paper, "Justice, Law and Guilt," given at the Evangelical Alliance Symposium on Penal Substitution (July 2005). The paper is a very fine defense of specific criticisms levelled against penal substitution. It repays careful reading.

You can download it here.

I will be posting some extracts from the paper.

1. Faustus Socinus, Steve Chalke and the Example of Jesus

A key argument which is used against retributive punishment by theological opponents of penal substitution is that it is ruled out by Jesus’s own teaching on how we should relate to one another. A form of this argument was used as far back as Faustus Socinus in 1578.4

A more recent form is found in the work of Walter Wink. He cites the Babylonian Enuma Elish myth as an ancient instance of the view that violence is ‘the central dynamic of existence’ which ‘possesses ontological priority over good’.5 In this ancient ‘myth of redemptive violence’, the spiral of heavenly violence triggers the creation itself and then continues through history: ‘Heavenly events are mirrored by earthly events, and what happens above happens below.’6 As in heaven, so on earth.

Now the opponents of penal substitution want to endorse this principle: the way you describe God is the way you will behave. Steve Chalke tells us that this kind of mirroring is contradicted by penal substitution in an unthinkable fashion when it says that we should not mirror God: ‘If the cross has anything to do with penal substitution then Jesus’ teaching becomes a divine case of “do as I say, not as I do”. I, for one, believe that God practices what he preaches!’7 In short, Jesus says ‘turn the other cheek’, so how could God punish in a way that exacts satisfaction for sin? If God denies retribution to us, he must eschew it himself.

In reply to this Socinian argument there is a clear counter-case which suggests a quite different construal of the relation between divine and human justice. The Apostle Paul distinguishes sharply the different spheres of justice which operate within creation and between God and creation. At the end of Romans 12 he follows Jesus in teaching that we must not take revenge. Here, then, is his ideal opportunity to point out that we must not because God does not. But the striking thing is that Paul does the opposite. He explains that individuals must not take revenge precisely because God is going to do so: ‘Do not take revenge my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord’ (12:19, quoting Deut. 32:35). From here Paul moves to argue in 13:1-7 that God has given a limited remit to the state to implement this final justice in the present time by the power of the sword.

Paul could therefore deny vengeance in the sphere of human personal conduct, and at the same time ascribe retribution to God, shared in limited part with the ruling authorities. Where Chalke would have us infer that God would never do what he tells us not to do, Paul argues exactly the opposite. God would have us not do what he does precisely because he does it. God says 'do as I say, not as I do,' and justly so, since he is God and we are not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 Faustus Socinus, De Iesu Christo Servatore, iii. 2, in Opera Omnia, Vols 1-2 of Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum Quos Unitarios Vocant, 8 Vols (Irenopoli: post 1656), 2:115-246: Paulus itidem, ut alibi vidimus, monet nos, ut imitators Dei sumus: et quemadmodum is per Christum peccata nobis condonavit, sic nos invicem condonemus. Quod si Deus ita per Christum nobis peccata condonavit, ut interim ab ipso Christo eorum poenas repetierit, quid vetat, quo minus eos, ex Pauli praescripto, Deum imitate, pro offensis proximi nostri non quidem ab ipso, se dab alio quopiam, ut modo dicebamus, nobis satisfieri curemus? = ‘As we saw elsewhere, Paul likewise instructs us to be imitators of God: just as he forgave our sins through Christ, so we should forgive each other. But if God so forgave our sins through Christ, that he yet demanded the punishments of them from Christ himself, what prevents us, on the basis of Paul’s command, as imitators of God, from seeking satisfaction for ourselves for the offences of our neighbour not from the man himself, but from anyone else, as we were just saying?’ (GW translation).

5 Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 14.

6 Engaging, p. 15.

7 ‘Cross Purposes’, p. 47.

Guy Davies interviews Garry Williams

Over the Exiled Preacher. Garry Williams is the new director of the John Owen Centre at London Theological Seminary.

Guy didn't ask about Garry's Welsh connections. Personally, I think he's slipping.

Here's a taster:

GD: You have written on the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. Why do you think that this teaching is so important?

GW: For so many reasons. Key of course is that the Bible teaches it and so we must too if we are to honour the Lord Jesus and rightly proclaim his saving work. Spiritually, clarity on the atonement grounds our assurance of the Lord’s forgiveness and favour – without it we are left with the burden of sin, which we know is intolerable. Theologically, it goes with the doctrine of God’s justice – if we redefine the atonement we are usually redefining the nature of God.

GD: Why do you think that the doctrine has become so unpopular in some supposedly evangelical circles?

GW: What we see often with a denial of penal substitution is a wholesale rewriting of a series of the more (humanly speaking) uncomfortable doctrines. Penal substitution is a glorious description of the love and mercy of God, but it also entails a belief in the retributive wrath of God, and that is always hard for people to accept. This is where the link to the doctrine of God is so important: the pressure often arises to redefine the atonement because a different god is wanted. This is obviously not the case for every critic of the doctrine, but many critics themselves rightly make the connection to the doctrine of God.

Encountering false teachers: Appearances can be deceptive

Heresy is attractive, deeply attractive. It is the truth we all want in the way we all want it. Heresy appears to allow us to have God, Jesus, and a gospel to tell that is really good news. Inevitably heresy comes loaded with gifts, benefits and selling points, and without costs, drawbacks, or small print. People who teach heresy don't present it as anything other than gospel truth.

There are two obvious points of application from this:

1. We should never be satisfied with the sound of well known words and phrases. We need to be satisfied that the meaning of those words are filled with biblical content and established historic (confessional) use. It is all well and good hearing that someone believes in the substitutionary nature of the atonement and justification by faith, but history is littered with examples of teachers who meant by those terms quite different ideas. Orthodox words are the passports of heretics that enable them to move freely, and without suspicion, among churches.

2. We should never be so naive as to think that false teachers wear disguises as authentic as a Groucho Marx "spectacles-nose-moustache" combo. False teaching never seeks to pass itself off as false teaching but as orthodox, sound, biblical, authentic, gospel truth. It is amazing that preachers can change their theology quite radically and yet in the same breath say that they have always believed the gospel. The less convincing the disguise the more likely it will be that a reaction will be caused, a controversy flare up, and maybe the progress of error will start to slow down.

Here are some of the key New Testament passages that deal with the deceptive appearance and words of false teachers.

Matthew 7:15-16 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits."

Matthew 24:4-5 "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray."

Romans 16:17-18 "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive."

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 "But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough."

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness."

Galatians 1:6-7 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ."

Ephesians 4:14 "so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."

Colossians 2:4 "I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments."

Colossians 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way."

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 "The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

1 Timothy 4:1-2 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared."

1 Timothy 6:20-21 "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith."

2 Timothy 3:5 "having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power."

2 Timothy 3:12-13 "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."

2 Peter 2:1-3 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words."

2 Peter 2:13 "They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you."

1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world"

2 John 7 "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Revelation 2:2 "I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false."

Revelation 13:11 "Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon."

Some stuff about the summer

Here are some of the things that I have been, or will be, doing this summer. Naturally, there are five points.

Summer speaking:

I'm doing two parts of a four part Bible overview at the Extratime sessions (for 16s-25s) at the EMW Aberystwyth Conference (despite rumours the picture above is not a recent one of a family attending the conference). I'm speaking on Adam and Moses, tracing their significance across the OT and NT. The other two sessions will be given by Mark Barnes. Jonathan Thomas is also speaking at the conference, and the main addresses will be given by Joel Beeke. The usual suspects (see here and here) should be there too.

Summer listening:

Those good old boys at the Reformed Forum/Christ the Center recorded an interview with me yesterday about Risking the Truth. It should appear mid to late August. You can have a listen to their latest interview with John Fesko here.

Summer writing:

My chapter "Heresy Never Dies: Socinians and Open Theists on the denial of God's foreknowledge" which will be part of a collection of essays "in honor of..." (not sure that his identity is public knowledge yet) is being written up over the next two weeks.

Summer reading:

Marsden's bio of Jonathan Edwards, a stack of commentaries on Galatians, and who knows what else (see summer writing for a theological angle on that). And if I can get hold of it I'll be reading John Fesko's The Rule of Love: Broken, Fulfilled, Applied (which, as you can probably tell, is an exposition of the ten commandments).

Summer relaxation:

The Downes' family are looking forward to getting away from it all.

May Christ have my best affections

[Picture from Tony Reinke]

From Jonathan Edwards:

If we ought ever to exercise our affections at all, and if the Creator has not unwisely constituted the human nature in making these principles a part of it, when they are vain and useless; then they ought to be exercised about those objects which are most worthy of them.

But is there anything which Christians can find in heaven or earth, so worthy to be the objects of their admiration and love, their earnest and longing desires, their hope, and their rejoicing, and their fervent zeal, as those things that are held forth to us in the gospel of Jesus Christ? In which not only are things declared most worthy to affect us, but they are exhibited in the most affecting manner.

The glory and beauty of the blessed Jehovah, which is most worthy in itself, to be the object of our admiration and love, is there exhibited in the most affecting manner that can he conceived of, as it appears, shining in all its luster, in the face of an incarnate, infinitely loving, meek, compassionate, dying Redeemer.

All the virtues of the Lamb of God, his humility, patience, meekness, submission, obedience, love and compassion, are exhibited to our view, in a manner the most tending to move our affections, of any that can be imagined; as they all had their greatest trial, and their highest exercise, and so their brightest manifestation, when he was in the most affecting circumstances; even when he was under his last sufferings, those unutterable and unparalleled sufferings he endured, from his tender love and pity to us.

There also the hateful nature of our sins is manifested in the most affecting manner possible: as we see the dreadful effects of them, in that our Redeemer, who undertook to answer for us, suffered for them. And there we have the most affecting manifestation of God's hatred of sin, and his wrath and justice in punishing it; as we see his justice in the strictness and inflexibleness of it; and his wrath in its terribleness, in so dreadfully punishing our sins, in one who was infinitely dear to him, and loving to us.

So has God disposed things, in the affair of our redemption, and in his glorious dispensations, revealed to us in the gospel, as though everything were purposely contrived in such a manner, as to have the greatest possible tendency to reach our hearts in the most tender part, and move our affections most sensibly and strongly. How great cause have we therefore to be humbled to the dust, that we are no more affected!

Let's swap bank accounts

I posted this illustration back in July. Several people have linked to it, but if you missed it the first time here it is again. I hope that it encourages you.

Two brothers were talking one day. One of them had made a great success of his business career and had amassed a fortune. The other brother had made one bad decision after another and in the end racked up debts that he had no way of paying for.

One day, as they are talking together, the brother with the debts tells the other of his folly and shame.

The millionaire brother takes out his cheque book and asks "How much do you owe?" He then writes out a cheque and hands it to his brother and says "all your debts are cleared."

Taking hold of the cheque, with a lump in his throat, the other brother says "how can I ever find words to express how much your kindness means to me."

And yet, as wonderful as this would be, it is not enough to adequately illustrate the gospel.

Revisit the scene:

One day, as they are talking together, the brother with the debts tells the other of his folly and shame. The millionaire brother...paused...and said "let's swap bank accounts. I will take your debts and you may have all my riches."

That is the gospel.

Here are some statements that express the truth in clear terms:

The gospel is not just that we are forgiven, but that believers are reckoned as law keepers for the sake of Christ's law keeping credited to them (Rom. 4:3; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Gal 3:6). Whoever trusts in Jesus and rests in his finished work alone is righteous before God. It is as if the Christian has performed all that the law requires.

R. Scott Clark, "Do This and Live," in Covenant Justification and Pastoral Ministry, p. 265

By becoming incarnate, the Son of God became the representative and substitute for sinners, in his life keeping the law of God in all its demands and in his death bearing the full punishment that sin merits in the estimate of God. This provision of righteousness coram deo [before God] is the supreme expression of the grace of God--not just something undeserved but the opposite of what is deserved.

Hywel R. Jones, "Preaching Sola Fide Better," in Covenant Justification and Pastoral Ministry, p. 321

And in the statements of the Heidelberg Catechism:

60. How are you righteous before God?

Only by true faith in Jesus Christ:¹ that is, although my conscience accuses me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them,² and am still prone always to all evil;³ yet God, without any merit of mine,⁴ of mere grace,⁵ grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction,⁶ righteousness, and holiness of Christ,⁷ as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me;⁸ if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.⁹

¹ Rom 3:21-28; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; Php 3:8-11; ² Rom 3:9-10; ³ Rom 7:23; ⁴ Dt 9:6; Ezek 36:22; Tit 3:4-5; ⁵ Rom 3:24; Eph 2:8; ⁶ 1 Jn 2:2; ⁷ Rom 4:3-5; 2 Cor 5:17-19; 1 Jn 2:1; ⁸ Rom 4:24-25; 2 Cor 5:21; ⁹ Jn 3:18; Acts 16:30-31; Rom 3:22, 28, 10:10

61. Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only?

Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God;¹ and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only.²

¹ 1 Cor 1:30-31, 2:2; ² Isa 53:5; Rom 4:16, 10:10; Gal 3:22; 1 Jn 5:10-12

Interviewed by the Exiled Preacher

Guy Davies recently interviewed me about the book Risking the Truth. You can read it here.

Heresy: A catechism question

The following answer is by Mike Horton. I thought that it was helpful to put it into the form of a catechism question:

Q. What is heresy?

A. Heresy is any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance.

John Owen on John Bunyan

I love this anecdote:

"...the most learned of the Puritans hung for hours, that seemed like moments, upon the lips of this untutored genius.

The king is reported to have asked Owen, on one occasion, how a learned man like him could go "to hear a tinker prate;" to which the great theologian answered, "May it please your majesty, could I possess the tinker's abilities for preaching, I would willingly relinquish all my learning."

But it was good for us that this never happened. And good that the writings of both men, so different in style, and yet so full and fragrant of Christ, influence us still today.

Happy 500th: John Calvin (audio links)

Here are some audio links on John Calvin.

John Piper

John Calvin: The Divine Majesty of the Word

Robert Godfrey (President, Westminster Seminary California)

Heroes of the Faith: John Calvin
John Calvin and the Pentateuch

David Calhoun (Professor Emeritus of Church History, Covenant Seminary)

Knowing God and Ourselves: The Institutes of John Calvin

Calvin's Institutes (This course consists of 27 audio lectures plus lecture transcripts and study guides available as pdf documents)

Michael Haykin (Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at SBTS and Director of the Andrew Fuller Center)

Early Years, 1509-1536
Ministry Years, 1536-1564

These links are available at Sermon Audio.com, Covenant Seminary's Worldwide-Classroom and Monergism.

D. A. Carson sermon series on John

Originally preached at the 1992 EMW Aberystwyth Conference.

John 3:1-16

John 6:1-71

John 1:1-51

John 11:1-57

If you download the sermons you are allowed to make one copy for your personal use. Please don’t redistribute copies of these sermons without first asking permission.

D. A. Carson sermon series on Revelation

From the 1995 EMW Aberystwyth Conference.

Studies in Revelation (1)

Studies in Revelation (2)

Studies in Revelation (3)

Studies in Revelation (4)

If you download the sermons you are allowed to make one copy for your personal use. Please don’t redistribute copies of these sermons without first asking permission.

Out now: The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Volume 3

Christian Focus have now made this third volume available.

Here's the blurb:

This important collection of essays seeks to place the work of the Westminster Assembly in its historical, theological, political and social setting and challenge inaccurate historical assertions that have since become commonplace. It places Westminster in its relation to earlier and later Reformed theology and provides a fresh evaluation of its contribution to the Calvinist tradition. It commends it to us as a faithful expression of clear-headed Christian thinking.

Topics include: The Thirty Nine Articles at the Confession; Karl Barth and the Westminster Confession of Faith; The New Perspective, Paul, Luther & Judaism; Objections to the Covenant Theology of the Confession; The Nature of the Lord’s Supper according to Calvin and the Westminster Assembly.

You can take a look at the contents page and the introduction by the editor Ligon Duncan here.

Al Mohler writes:

“We live in a day of wholesale historical amnesia and theological confusion. The antidote for this crisis is clear - we need a recovery of what has been lost. That is what makes The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century so important and timely.

The Westminster Assembly represents one of the most decisive moments in church history, and this collection of essays brings new light to our understanding of the Westminster divines and their work.

Here we find scholarship matched to a deep love for the church. This book is a worthy successor to the first two volumes in this series. I celebrate its publication and commend it to all who love the church.”

Joel Beeke on Assurance (audio)

This message was given at the EMW Aberystwyth Conference in 2000.

Joel Beeke, Assurance

If you download this message you are allowed to make one copy for your personal use. Please don’t redistribute copies of these sermons without first asking permission.

Doug Kelly sermons on the Trinity

These sermons were preached at the EMW Aberystwyth Conference in 1991.

The Importance of Knowing the Triune God

Who is the King of Glory? Father/Son relationship

My Father works and I work

Access in One Spirit

If you download the sermons you are allowed to make one copy for your personal use. Please don’t redistribute copies of these sermons without first asking permission.

Remembering Calvin's God

In his exposition of 2 Kings 2 ("Seismic Shift in the Kingdom of God") Dale Ralph Davis underlines the point that not only is God's power not tied to a particular era, it is also not tied to a particular instrument.

He then relates the details of John Calvin's funeral as described by Emanuel Stickelberger:

Calvin had given definite instructions for his funeral. Nothing must distinguish it from that of any other citizen. His body was to be sewed into a white shroud and laid in a simple pine coffin. At the grave there were to be neither words nor song.

The wishes of the deceased were scrupulously carried out. But although in accordance with his will all pomp was avoided, an unnumbered multitude followed the coffin to the cemetery Plainpalais with deep respect and silent grief. He who was averse to all ambition did not even want a tombstone.

Just a few months later when foreign students desired to visit the place where the Reformer's earthly remains rest, the place could no longer be pointed out among the fresh mounds.

2 Kings: The Power and the Fury, p. 33

As Dale Ralph Davis vividly expresses it "Why do we need a Calvin grotto when we have the God he served?"

Afraid of Infinitude

The following is Doug Kelly's contribution to the Christianity Today Forum "Has God been held hostage by philosophy?" (January 9th, 1995). You can also read the contributions of Roger Olson, Timothy George and Alister McGrath here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the best things about this most provocative book is its subject: it is actually about God, rather than being another evangelical "how to" or self-help manual. Clark Pinnock is certainly right about one thing: "The concept of God is the most important topic in theology." To their credit, the five authors have done something far from universal among theologians and philosophers; they have written in clear, straightforward English prose. It seems to me that they have been honest and aboveboard in plainly expressing what they think. Even those who strongly disagree with their conclusions will have to respect them for their transparent clarity.

Moreover, one must commend their desire to make their theological discourse practical so that it addresses living issues such as the reality of intercessory prayer, and how to interpret evil and fight it in today's world.

Several of these authors properly point out that the classical tradition has not always done full exegetical, theological justice to the matter of God's impassability. I was genuinely disappointed that, because of crucial, exegetical and central theological weaknesses, these brethren were unable to improve this situation. Indeed, what they have to say on this point and many others constitutes one of the saddest intellectual and spiritual retrogressions I have ever seen outside openly heterodox thinking.

The really crucial weakness that devastates the promise of this volume to present a fresh, more biblical view of God is this: The authors feel that God cannot be infinite and personal at the same time. To deal with us personally, rather than harshly and mechanically (which is how they see "sovereignty"), God either must be finite or, at least, refrain from employing such infinitude. Some of the authors hold that God really is not infinite (e.g., God literally does not know what is future); some of them suggest that he must voluntarily refuse to use his infinite abilities as the price of humankind's being guaranteed personal significance.

As a result of a selective biblical exegesis (that looks only at the human limitations implied in a word—such as repent—and strangely fails to consider the word in the light of the infinite subject to whom it refers) and a failure actually to read the Fathers of the Christian church, these writers attempt to get rid of God's infinity by ascribing it to classical theology's being the illegitimate offspring of the cohabitation of biblical concepts with pagan Hellenistic philosophy.

In reality, a careful reading of the Fathers (such as Athanasius, for instance) would indicate the profound Christianization of Hellenistic terms and concepts. Though they began as Greek terms conveying pagan content, such concepts as creation, being, logos, providence, and person were thoroughly transformed during the first four or five centuries of the Christian era in the light of Old Testament prophecy and the apostolic testimony to Christ.

Perhaps lack of familiarity with this field of study explains why the authors dismiss so easily the entire classical tradition as being no less Neo-Platonic than Pseudo-Dionysius, who in truly unbiblical fashion describes God as "beyond being." But they fail to point out the very significant fact that when Athanasius (long before the time of Pseudo-Dionysius) quotes this passage from Plato's Republic, he changes it to state that God is "beyond all created being"—a profoundly biblical concept (Athanasius, Contra Gentes, 2.2;40.2). This leads us to the heart of their problem.

It seems to me that these "openness" writers have failed to think through the profound implications of the difference between created (finite) being and uncreated (infinite) being. This failure to think clearly is manifestly demonstrated in their impoverished grasp of the relationship of language to being (i.e., epistemology). They seem to work on the assumption of the univocal validity of language for both God and man. That is, a word must mean for God the exact same thing it does for a human. For instance, "before and after" impose on God's experience the same limitations they do on that of humankind.

But one wonders how they could have neglected the church's pivotal teaching on the analogical usage of language (i.e., that there are both similarities and differences when the same word is applied to created and uncreated being). A brief reading of a few sections of Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae or perhaps chapter five of E. L. Mascall's Existence and Analogy might have transformed this book. And long before Aquinas or Mascall, Saint Hilary of Poitiers (fourth century) wisely remarked (in De Trinitate 4:14) that human words are subject to God, rather than God being subject to human words (in the sense of comprehensively defined and thus limited by them). The human mind "must not measure the divine nature by the limitations of [its] own, but must gauge God's assertions concerning himself by the scale of his own glorious self-revelation. … Since we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of himself, and bow with humble reverence to his words" (1:17).

In other words, the reason the five authors of The Openness of God deny the infinitude of nearly all the attributes of God is their failure to have heard what Hilary (and the whole orthodox Christian tradition) could have said to them. That is, we must not attempt to project our creaturely limitations onto the God who made us (as though we had made him). That would be a violation of the second commandment. Rather, with Saint Paul, let us understand that the analogy (and glorious reality) of God as our Father makes sense because fatherhood is from God (Eph. 3:14-15), as the incarnate Christ and outpoured Spirit have shown us. Hence, as Athanasius says, "God does not make man his pattern, but rather, since God alone is properly and truly Father, we men are called fathers of our own children, for of him every fatherhood in heaven and earth is named" (Contra Arianos 1:23).

Human reason, therefore, must adjust itself to God's being and not the reverse. Repeatedly in this volume, the authors univocally limit the infinite God by what they are able to understand (see, for example, the definition of divine omniscience on p. 136). This short-sighted procedure causes them throughout the book to deny one side of clear biblical teaching (such as God's sovereignty) in order to affirm the other side (such as human responsibility). Sadly, all too little that they write in this volume can be taken seriously either by scholars or by ordinary Christian layfolk until its authors rethink their basic approach. May they be blessed in doing so!

Interview with David McWilliams, author of Galatians (a Mentor Commentary)

David McWilliams commentary on Galatians has just been released. He was recently interviewed over at the WTS Bookstore Blog.

WTSBooks: As a veteran pastor, how would you advise the Church to interact with proponents of the New Perspective? Put another way, how can someone responsibly dialogue with the new perspective?

DM: I have been an ordained Presbyterian minister for 25 years. I have seen many fads come and go, many errors proliferate and I think that the best way to handle this is to teach the truth.

If justification by grace alone, through faith alone on the basis of the finished work of Christ alone had been so part of the warp and woof of the church’s preaching and teaching and had been understood by Christians to be indispensable for daily Christian living, the new perspective would have been a tempest in a tea cup.

I am not saying that we do not have to point out error; but, getting the gospel way down deep in the heart is the best defense against false gospels. This has been my aim with my congregation and with my seminary students.

Dialogue with those who are confused is part of the minister’s work. Paul makes this plain in his writing to Timothy. So, we must be gentle, patient, pastoral. On the other hand, the teaching of this in our churches is intolerable and calls for us to take seriously the anathema proclaimed by Paul in Galatians 1.

We who have a biblical view of Paul’s doctrine of justification, as summarized in the Reformed confessions and the leaders of the new perspective understand one another. We do not agree. And the disagreement is vital and serious; it relates to the very nature of the gospel itself.

Paul defines the gospel in terms of justification, the work of Christ, and makes plain that new covenant ministry is ministry of righteousness as over against condemnation (Rom. 5:16; 2 Cor. 3:9).

About this, in the teaching ministry of the church, there can be no dialogue; only faithful proclamation of justification by grace through faith. We do nothing to be accepted by God; Christ has done it all.

You can read the whole thing here and buy the commentary here (US, WTS don't ship overseas) or here.

David McWilliams is the Senior Minister of Covenant Presbyterian Church, Lakeland, Florida where he has served for 20 years. In 2009, McWiliams was appointed as Adjunct Professor of Systematic Theology at Redeemer Seminary, Texas. He has earned degrees from Mercer University, Westminster Theological Seminary, and University of Wales.

David Robertson on recent developments in the Church of Scotland

A worthy piece. Stare carefully at the background and you may see the ghost of Lloyd-Jones.

Read it here.

(HT: Derek Thomas)

Paul Helm reviews N.T. Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision

There is more to come but the first post, which is a rewarding read and merits careful attention, can be found here

Hug me, I'm a false apostle

I'm currently reading through, with great profit, Phil Ryken's commentary on Galatians in the Reformed Expository Commentary series. Here's a snippet:

We cannot simply assume that we have the gospel. Unless we keep the gospel at the center of the church, we are always in danger of shoving it off to one side and letting something else take its place.

Martin Luther rightly warned that "there is a clear and present danger that the devil may take away from us the pure doctrine of faith and may substitute for it the doctrines of works and of human traditions..." The good news of the cross and resurrection must be preached, believed, and lived. Otherwise it will be lost.

The church's greatest danger is not the anti-gospel outside the church; it is the counterfeit gospel inside the church. The Judaizers did not walk around Pisidian Antioch wearing T-shirts that said, "Hug me, I'm a false apostle."

What made them so dangerous was that they knew how to talk the way that Christians talk. They used all the right terminology. They talked about how they "got saved." They told people to "trust in Christ." They "presented the gospel." Only they did not have the gospel after all.

We should expect, therefore, that the most serious threat to the one true gospel is something that is also called the gospel. The most dangerous teachers are the ones who preach a different Christ but still call him "Jesus."

Ryken, Galatians, p. 21

On this day in history: Samuel Davies

250 years ago today the great preacher Samuel Davies, author of the hymn "Great God of Wonders" and described by Martyn Lloyd-Jones as "the greatest preacher [America]...ever produced, left his congregation in Hanover to become the president of "The College of New Jersey" at Princeton. Less than two years later his earthly course would be over. Samuel Davies died of pneumonia in February 1761.

In his farewell sermon at Hanover, Virginia, Davies urged his listeners to consider the "now" and the "not yet":

Survey the sacred treasure of the divine promises laid up for you in the Bible, and stand lost in delightful wonder at your own riches. Behold the immense inheritance which the blood of Christ has purchased for you.

Quoted in Iain H. Murray, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism 1750-1858, p. 17

Risking the Truth: Available in the US

Risking the Truth: Handling Error in the Church is now available at Reformation Heritage Books, Monergism and at the Westminster Bookstore

“It is a privilege to introduce and recommend this unique book. …a very distinctive contribution to the early twenty-first century church. Martin Downes has assembled an all-star team…”
--Sinclair B. Ferguson, Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Columbia, South Carolina

"Serious. Thoughtful. Humble. Godly. Loving. Bracing. Encouraging. These interviews will be a blessing to anyone seeking to be faithful in Christian ministry."
--James M. Hamilton Jr., Associate Professor of Biblical Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

"This is a book that promotes reflection. By introducing you to a number of leading Christian thinkers, it gives you a read that is interesting, informative and stimulating. It provides you with a treasure-chest of historical, theological and practical insights as it airs issues that are confronting the worldwide church and its leaders at the present time. Christian pastors, leaders and academics who neglect this book will be very much the poorer intellectually, spiritually and practically."
--Stuart Olyott, Pastoral Director, Evangelical Movement of Wales

"This collection is fascinating, sobering and encouraging. It presents an impressive range of experience and wisdom on the challenges facing the church and its ministry in dealing with false teaching while being sensitive to those affected by it."
--Robert Letham, Senior Tutor, Systematic & Historicial Theology, Wales Evangelical School of Theology, Bridgend, Wales

"What a novel way to approach this most vital of subjects! Given that theological reflection is human thought about the Scriptural revelation of a tri-personal God, I have always believed that the personal element has a place in all of our theologizing. The subjective should not-indeed cannot-be removed from theology. And here we see the way that some of the most important theological minds of our day personally grapple with how truth is to be defended. This mesh of subjectivity and Christian apologetics-in which objectivity is so vital-makes for both compelling and profoundly instructive reading."
--Michael A. G. Haykin, Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

Interview with Carl Trueman

You can download my interview with Carl Trueman ("Sin in High Places," Chapter Two from Risking The Truth: Handling Error in the Church).

Visit this page and click on Preview Sample (PDF).

The book is available in the US here.

Coming Soon: The Marrow of Modern Divinity

A new edition of the classic work is being published by Christian Focus. Here's the blurb:

A dialogue between a minister of the gospel and a young Christian. Both legalism and antinomianism are perennial dangers for the church and for individual Christians. When we begin to think of the Christian life primarily as a list of ‘do’s and ‘dont’s’, we are under the sway of legalism. When we begin to think that it is okay for us to go ahead and sin because God will forgive us anyway, we are feeling the temptation of antinomianism. The Marrow of Modern Divinity proclaims a gospel that can rescue us from both of these dangers.

Clearly laid out edition available after many years of being out of print. Explanatory notes by Thomas Boston and Introduction notes by Philip Ryken.

Details can be found here.

Phil Ryken has an article on Boston over at Ref 21:

One of the first people that I hope to meet in heaven is the Scottish theologian Thomas Boston, who was the subject of my doctoral research in church history. I admire the man for the depth of his theology. Jonathan Edwards said that Boston's work on the covenants distinguished him as a "truly great divine."

I also admire for the breadth of his writing: twelve thick volumes on almost every doctrine of the Christian faith, taught from every book of the Bible. I admire Thomas Boston even more for his faithfulness as a pastor over twenty-five years in the same rural parish. But I admire him most of all for his perseverance through suffering.

Read the rest here.

A series of addresses on the neglected but vitally important pastoral issues in the Marrow controversy by Sinclair Ferguson can be found here.

The West Wing: Apologetics and Hermeneutics 101

This extract from season one of The West Wing is a useful prompt for engaging with the hermeneutical and apologetic challenge to the relevance and use of the OT in sexual ethics.

Once you have watched it settle down and watch (at least) the opening six or seven minutes of this Robert Gagnon video. Although this video is not intended to be a response to the one above it does do a helpful job in answering the misquotations and wrong interpretative methods in it.

Dr. Robert Gagnon, What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? S3E2 from Pure Passion on Vimeo.

[HT: Justin Taylor]

Gaining perspective on difficult times in ministry

Helpful words from Ray Van Neste:

Is it the Lord’s will that I suffer so at the hands of difficult people? That I labor to so little result amongst non-responsive people? Would not the Lord use me? Is such pain and uselessness the will of God?

Consider Moses, the promised Deliverer. He ended up fleeing for his life which led to 40 years of watching sheep in the desert. Yet, God was at work preparing him for use.

Consider also David, the promised King. He had to suffer rejection, conspiracies against his life, living on the run and hiding in caves before God placed him on the throne.

Consider also Jesus, Himself, who accomplished his great work precisely in the midst of his great suffering.

God is at work, and we must relinquish the demand to see the results in our own time.

Read the whole thing here

(HT: Milton Stanley)

Risking the Truth now available in the US

Risking the Truth is now available in the US here.

The legend that is JonathanThomas has reviewed the book here.

Here are some highlights:

I need to make a confession… When I bought this book I wasn’t expecting much. You see, I never really like reading interviews, and the thought of reading 20 interviews on heresy wasn’t the most exciting thing...

By the middle of the first interview (with Carl Trueman) I was hooked. I could not put the book down...What I loved is that Martin was asking the questions that I ask. Questions I would love to sit down and ask seasoned church leaders.

Questions like:

How should a minister keep his heart, mind, and will from theological error?

How have you dealt with church members or students who have been attracted to, or taken in by false teaching?

How can a minister keep himself from bitterness, pride and cynicism as he faces controversy?

How should a pastor protect the flock and help them to value sound doctrine?

Ultimately, if you are a pastor, or going into the pastorate, read this book.

Sinclair Ferguson: Sermons on Ruth

From the 1996 EMW Aberystwyth Conference:

Ruth 1

Ruth 2

Ruth 3

Ruth 4

Please note: If you download the sermons you are allowed to make one copy for your personal use. Please don’t redistribute copies of these sermons without first asking permission.

Ted Donnelly on Isaiah 53

Sermons preached at the 1993 EMW Aberystwyth Conference:

Servant of the Lord 1

Servant of the Lord 2

Servant of the Lord 3

Servant of the Lord 4

Please note: If you download the sermons you are allowed to make one copy for your personal use. Please don’t redistribute copies of these sermons without first asking permission.

Ted Donnelly on Union with Christ

Have a listen to these very helpful addresses from the 2001 Evangelical Movement of Wales Aberystwyth Conference:

Believing Into Christ (Romans 5:12-21)

We Who Died To Sin (Romans 6:1-23)

All One In Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:10-29)

The Fellowship Of His Sufferings (Philippians 3:1-16)

Please note: If you download the sermons you are allowed to make one copy for your personal use. Please don’t redistribute copies of these sermons without first asking permission.

Guy Davies interviews R. Scott Clark

You can read it here.

Easter service invite leads to Police questioning

Please watch this short clip.

When people cannot out reason the Christian faith they often resort to more coercive approaches.

(HT: Alan Davey)

Free stuff on a Friday at ProGnosis

If you go here you can have a shot at getting this for free

I've also got the cover of Jonathan's book on display. We will look forward to seeing it.

How to memorize

How to memorize: 10 Fast Facts from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.

Ten fast facts from Dr. David Murray of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. This is a really helpful video clip.

Ministry matters: Off to the Lakes

This weekend we head off to the Lake District where I will be speaking on the theme of "Truth Matters" at the Lakeland Bible School. The sessions will be:

The Gospel matters (Galatians 1)
The Word of God matters (2 Timothy 3:14-17)
Your relationship with Christ matters (Colossians 2)
The local church matters (Acts 20)

Do pray.