Your average person is not living a life of dramatic wickedness, only one of mundane godlessness and average selfishness; and yet the biblical warning is that this is the root of all sin: godlessness.

Rebellion against God; in which your decent, nice, and friendly neighbour is neither decent, nor nice, nor friendly to God.

He is the God who made us for himself and who sustains their lives every day. And yet he’s un-thanked and unwanted, and kept on the margins of their lives and their societies. They may have a kind of religion, because that kind of tames God, and keeps him in a box. But it’s not the true God and its not true religion. Our fallen humanity substitutes religion for God.

– Peter Lewis, Cornerstone Church

Before I began the book, a Christian friend of mine expressed surprise that I would bother to read up on such a topic (especially such a lengthy one). He was also unconvinced about the usefulness of Church history knowledge – particularly for the layman. So the question I’d like to address is: what is Church history good for?

To begin with, I’d like to use the reasons that Shelley himself outlined in the prologue. He wrote that “many Christians today suffer from historical amnesia. The time between the apostles and their own day is one giant blank. That is hardly what God had in mind. The Old Testament is sprinkled with reminders of God’s interest in time…” Shelley further pointed out that ignorance of our history leads to vulnerability to cults (distortions of Christianity), a “shocking” case of spiritual pride (our way is the only way), and a lack of a wider context for any work in the Church (e.g., “how shall we use our time and effort?”). Shelley pointed out that study of Church history can give us the means to separate the “transient from the permanent, fads from basics”.

In addition, I would like to add that although we have the Bible for our own study today, our interpretations of the writings are coloured and shaped by our Christian ancestors. Why do we take this passage to mean one thing, that passage another? A quick glance into the past can make it clearer. There are also many valuable lessons to be learned looking though the corrective lens of hindsight. We don’t want to make the same mistakes again, do we?

For me personally, it has been a humbling experience. As I glimpsed into our past, it became surprising to me that God would choose to get anything done by us at all! We made so many stupid mistakes. It became obvious that God has his plan (whatever it may be), and manages to accomplish his will through us, by his choice.

My study also gave me an appreciation for the wider body of Christ, which is the true Church. I was suffering from some of the spiritual pride Shelley described. Now, I am in favour of denominationalism, but I was interested to discover that this idea came about in order to encourage unity though diversity (or at least, it stopped those who differed from killing each other). A denomination, by its original definition, did things the way it felt was right, but at the same time recognised that Jesus’ Church is much bigger – and there may be other ways of doing things. It seems now that I had too high a view of my particular way of doing things, and too high a view of mankind’s capability in the Church.

With this in mind, I encourage any Christian, even the layman, to investigate our Church history.

On a similar note, I am of the opinion that there is room for another equally useful list, ‘Lessons Learned from Hollywood’, that should be mandatory reading for all schoolchildren and scriptwriters (tiresome cliches anyone?).

The first few entries would go:

1. Never, ever, go into an abandoned building (especially if the front door is unlocked and slightly ajar).

2. Never split up when exploring a hazardous environment.

3. Always design robots with an easily accessible on/off switch (and prevent the robot from being able to reprogram it).

4. Better yet, don’t make AI at all.

I welcome any suggestions that the reader may have.

The tips are as follows:

1. You must be absolutely convinced that the leaflet you hold is the most important thing the recipient could read.
2. As a result of the above, you must be ‘on the front foot’. That is, leaning torward the person, confidently handing them pure gold. Mind you, it is not good to be over-confident, lest they thing you are trying to assault them.
3. Perfect timing is essential. You cannot offer the leaflet too soon (and they have enough time to think and get flustered), and you cannot be too late (and they have too little time to think).
4. If you are proffering to a large group (say at a bus stop), it is essential that the first person accepts – in this way the rest of the group is likely to follow suit. Whatever happens, a group of people is likely to follow the first person.
5. If you find that a number of people have refused a leaflet, you are better off pausing for a bit, until the people passing do not know why you are there. You are thus more likely to give a leaflet, and so to subsequent passers-by.

I can’t wait to put this into practice!

(By the way, the above was used to illustrate an inherent fear that we all have, of being outside the group. We are all sheep at heart!)

“God does not delight in evil as evil; rather, he wills that evil come to pass” (as evidenced by his control over natural and moral evil in this world) that good may come of it.

What good?

“It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionally effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all…

Thus it is necessary that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not e, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also that the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired. . .”

But is this beneficial to us? Piper explains that because our happiness consists in the knowledge of God and the sense of his love (he made it that way), evil is necessary as the means by which we gain the greatest insight and knowledge of God.

But if God ordains evil, is he evil himself? The short answer is no. “God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his ‘positive agency’”.

But is permitting evil, evil? Again, Piper explains: “God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn’t will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn’t hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.”

So we have a God who is in control of everything, and knows everything that will pass; who, in his perfection ordained that evil come to pass in order that his character may be perfectly manifest, resulting in his highest glory, and our greatest capacity for happiness. In that light, it seems possible to conclude that (considering all ends) the entirety of human history has been wrought by God to display his glory in the most perfect manner.

Remarkable – and challenging at that! It is not easy to accept first hand; so please study the topic further if you need to. Let me know what you think…

Why?

God was making a point about how Israel had treated him. Hosea’s life was to be a ‘microcosm’ of Israel’s relationship with God, and in turn, how God felt and reacted. The following points summarise the understanding of the passage that we discussed:

- Israel’s relationship with God was like a marriage – and Israel was an adulterous wife because she was worshipping other things (Baal and more), and also turning to other nations such as Assyria for security. Israel should have been faithful to God, not turning to other ‘lovers’ for satisfaction and security.

- Because of this, they were destined for destruction, rejection and no forgiveness (these are illustrated by the names of Hosea’s children). This was to happen regardless of Israel’s future actions.

- But God also promised to remain faithful to his ‘Abrahamic’ promises (Genesis 22:17, 32:12) and restore something of the Davidic line. It gets a bit tricky here: was this section only applicable to Judah, or to both Israel and Judah? And if the latter, should it then be more applied to sometime in the future (as Israel has not since been reunited). It seems to me, on the face of it, that it applies to the return of the exiles (Judah), and to the future – where Christ is the one head of verse 11.

- We noted that the book was written to both Israel and Judah, so it can be concluded that the prophecy was what will happen, and a warning of what could happen (in the case of Judah).

So, considering that the God of Israel then is the same as the God now, what can we learn? We can see that God is faithful, beyond that which we can imagine (verses 10-11). Also that God is merciful – like Israel, we at one point were not a people; we really shouldn’t be saved, but thank God for his mercy! We also can see that God is just, and serious about sin (and our actions have real consequences). Finally, it is possible to see that God’s love is a real thing. He is intimately involved with Israel – he cares how faithful they are.

So what about us? We can praise God for his faithfulness, mercy, love, justice and Sovereignty. We can also rejoice because Christ is that head of Israel – and he was the perfect Israel (and we receive God’s mercy because we are united with him).

We should also look soberly at ourselves. What is our Assyria? God is very serious about our trust in him. Who, or what, do we look to when things are tough, or simply ordinary? What is our Baal? How do we get our pleasure and satisfaction? Is it from our husband, Christ?

I was reminded of the sermon at Beeston free, on Sunday. I tend to get by autonomously – without much help from, or reference to, God. Our culture worships the self – and preaches self survival. Make you own life, and “live it your way”… But that is clearly wrong; Israel was punished for as much! Not only that, but we are God’s people, called to live for each other, and with the help of our family.

I am aware of my limitations regarding theology (a number of you are far more well read than I), and so I would point you to a book by John Stott entitled, ‘The Cross of Christ’ (IVP). It is a book that addresses all of the issues raised thus far. However, not having the book at home, I can’t use it for this post. I have instead ripped off whole sections (some parts word for word) from a reference book called ‘Evangelical Dictionary of Theology’, edited by Walter Elwell, Baker Book House.

The following list comprises a summary of the arguments raised against p.s., and the reasons behind them. I will attempt to address each of them in turn. If I misrepresent any of the following arguments supplied by Andrew and Alex, please inform me.

(1) P.s. is “a recent phenomenon”, an orthodoxy that was never meant to be.

(2) P.s. contradicts the ‘revelation of God in Christ’. (i.e. it is not consistent with Biblical teaching). The following points comprise the working out of this statement.

(3) P.s. entails a conflict between the Godhead (in particular the Father and the Son). In a sense, the Son insists on mercy, and the Father insists on justice.

(4) P.s. implies a justice system, independent of God, that he “is subject to”.

(5) P.s. fails to account for the fact that “forgiveness is God’s nature”, and that “blood is not necessary to obtain forgiveness”. Further, the Old Testament (OT) understanding of sacrifice is not of substitution, but of identification and public repentance. And sacrifice was not necessary for forgiveness in the OT.

Alex and Andrew subsequently made some further points:

(6) Substitution is not a Pauline doctrine.

(7) Jesus never said that it is his death that saves us.

(8) Jesus could not take eternal punishment, as he was on the cross for a few hours, and indeed, did not suffer eternal punishment.

The crux of the matter is, is there only one valid atonement model (Section A)? And is penal substitution a valid Biblical atonement model (Section B)? These two questions are addressed in the two sections below. Section C addresses points (7) and (8).

SECTION A
In this section, I outline the Biblical basis for the atonement, and attempt to show the need for many different atonement models. This section addresses point (1) above.

Throughout the Bible, the central question is, “how can sinful man ever be accepted by a holy God”? The Bible takes sin seriously, it sees sin as a barrier separating man from God (Isaiah 59:2), a barrier that man was able to erect, but is quite unable to demolish. But the truth on which the Bible insists is that God has dealt with the problem. He has made the way whereby sinners may find pardon, God’s enemies may find peace. Salvation is never seen as a human achievement. In the OT sacrifice has a large place, but it avails not because of any merit it has of itself (cf. Hebrews 10:4) but because God has given it as the way (Leviticus 17:11). In the New Testament (NT), the cross plainly occupies the central place, and it is insisted upon, in season and out of season, that this is God’s way of binging salvation. There are many ways of bringing this out. The NT writers do not repeat a stereotyped story. Each wrote from his own perspective. But each shows that it is the death of Christ, and not any human achievement that brings salvation.

But none of them sets out a theory of atonement. There are many references to the effectiveness of Christ’s atoning work and we are not lacking in information about it’s many sidedness. Thus Paul gives a good deal of emphasis to the atonement as a process of justification, and he uses such concepts as redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation. Sometimes, we read of the cross as a victory or as an example. It is the sacrifice that makes a new covenant, or simply, a sacrifice. There are many ways of viewing it. We are left in no doubt about its efficacy, and it’s complexity. View the human spiritual problem as you will, and the cross meets the need. But the NT does not say how it does so.

Through the centuries there have been continuing efforts to work out how this was accomplished. Theories of atonement are legion as men in different countries and in different ages have tried to bring together the varied strands of scriptural teaching and to work them into a theory that will help others understand how God has worked to bring us salvation. The way has been open, in part at least, because the church has never laid down an official, orthodox view. In the early centuries there were great controversies about the person of Christ and the nature of the Trinity. Heresies appeared, were thoroughly discussed, and were disowned. In the end the Church accepted the formula of Chalcedon as the standard expression of orthodox faith. But there was no equivalent with the atonement.

People simply held to the satisfying truth that Christ saved them by way of the cross and did not argue about this salvation was effected.

Thus there was no standard formula like the Chalcedonian statement, and this left men to pursue their quest for a satisfying theory in their own way. To this day no one theory of the atonement has ever won universal acceptance. This should not lead us to abandon the task. Every theory helps us understand a little more of what the cross means and, in any case, we are bidden to give a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). Theories of the atonement should attempt to do just that.

Penal substitution is one of many theories that tries to do this. Other theories include: the subjective view, or moral influence theory; the victory model; Anselm’s satisfaction theory; the sacrifice theory; and the governmental theory.

All those views, in their own way, recognise that the atonement is vast and deep. There is nothing quite like it, and it must be understood in its own light. The plight of sinful man is disastrous, for the NT sees the sinner as lost, as suffering hell, as perishing, as cast into outer darkness, and more. An atonement that rectifies all this must be necessarily complex. So we need all the vivid concepts: redemption, justification, propitiation, and all the rest. And we need all the theories. Each draws attention to an important aspect of our salvation and we dare not surrender any. But we are small-minded sinners, and the atonement is great and vast. We should not expect that our theories will ever explain it fully. Even when we put them together, we will no more than begin to comprehend a little of the vastness of God’s saving deed.

SECTION B
In this section, I attempt to summarise p.s., pointing out some strengths and weaknesses and also addressing common misconceptions. This section attempts to address points (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)

The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as breaking God’s law, rather than as an insult to God’s honour. The moral law, they held, is not to be taken lightly. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful man. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God (as described a bit by Dani) and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ’s saving work consisted in his taking the sinner’s place. In our stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. He bore the curse that we sinners should have borne (Galatians 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to see Christ as having borne our punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in our place.

Such views have been widely criticised. In particular it is pointed out that sin is not an external matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of a fine), others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). With regard to point (3) above, it is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to the Father so that it maximises the love of Christ, and minimises that of the Father.

Such criticisms may be valid against some of the ways in which the theory is stated, but they do not shake its essential basis. They overlook the fact that there is a double identification: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are “in” Christ, Romans 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the father are one, John 10:30; “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself”, 2 Corinthians 5:19). They also overlook the fact that there is much in the NT that supports the theory. It is special pleading to deny that Paul, for example, puts forward substitution. It may need to be carefully stated, but this view still says something important about how Christ has won our Salvation.

I believe a further misconception about modern penal substitution theories is as summarised in point (4) above. As set out by Stott, the idea that there is a standard of Justice that God must obey or align with is heresy. He explained that Justice is not merely something that God does, but is something that he is. His justice, like his love, is not independent of himself. God IS justice. Therefore, when it is said that God must fulfill justice, it means that God must act consistently with his very self.

I am not sure how to address point (5), because I am not quite sure what is meant. I do not know if it is completely true to say that it is God’s nature to forgive. I have never heard that before… Does God have to forgive? I am not sure that he does? However, it is clear that he can and desires to forgive.

I understand that God’s nature includes mercy, grace, and love; as well as holiness and justice. It is obvious that the atonement is the prime revelation of all of these: how a God of holiness could remain consistent with his own justice, and at the same time express his love for sinners, giving them grace and mercy. The different theories of atonement set out to explain how this can happen. P.s. emphasises God’s judgment as well as his sacrificial love.

It can be said that the Father’s love is somewhat under-represented in p.s. However consider the following verses:
- The Father’s love for us: (John 3:16) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
- The Father’s love for his Son: (John 10:17) “For this reason the Father loves me [Jesus], because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.�?

Andrew pointed out that in the OT people are forgiven without reference to the sacrificial system. He also said, in effect, that blood was (and is) not necessary for forgiveness. However, consider the following.

As I wrote above, in the OT sacrifice has a large place, but it avails not because of any merit it has of itself (cf. Hebrews 10:4) but because God has given it as the way (Leviticus 17:11).

Hebrews 9:22 outlines the importance of blood, particularly Christ’s (see also the whole section). It says, “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” We are told that Christ’s sacrifice was the final and effective one. “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (1 Peter 3:18). “In [Christ] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace…” (Ephesians 1:7).

How were people in the OT forgiven, particularly out of the sacrificial context? It is my understanding that the arguments Paul applies (particularly to Abraham, as he was saved before the Levitical sacrificial system) in Romans applies to these people.

Paul says that all are saved (past and present) by grace: (Romans 3:23) “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Remember again that the sacrificial system was a symbol, among other things. It pointed towards Christ. Galatians 3:24 states that the “law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith”. The old covenant was to point to Christ. This understanding is prevalent throughout the NT. It seems therefore, that the people in the OT who were forgiven by God were saved by their faith in the saving ability of God as brought out in the cross. This is often manifested in the sacrificial system.

It is clear throughout the whole Bible, that a sacrifice is needed for the forgiveness of sins. But simply stating that a sacrifice is needed is not complete. How does the sacrifice save? I believe that penal substitution is a helpful explanation.

I think that considering the above, statement (6) is a huge leap into the dark. While not completely explicit, Paul repeatedly uses substitutional themes. The verses quoted above are quite substitutional in nature. The verse from 1 Peter is also unmistakably substitutional, the “righteous for the unrighteous” (italics mine).

SECTION C
This section addresses points (7) and (8) above. Contrary to the point (7) above, Jesus mentioned a few times that his death saves us:

(Matthew 26:26) “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Please see also: John 3:14-15 [cf. Numbers 21:9], and John 6:54. There may be some dispute over different atonement models (i.e. how his death saves us), but no one should dispute that the Bible teaches salvation through Jesus’ death.

I am not sure what to say with regard to point (8) above. The Bible does not go into a lot of detail about what, exactly, happened on the cross – only that Jesus died, and is punished somehow (as a sacrifice of propitiation, Romans 3:23ff; as cursed by God, Galatians 3:13). But what kind of punishment was it? Maybe an insight into the suffering can be found in Matthew 27:46; Jesus was forsaken by the Father (remember though, this is also a quote of a quote). What does it mean, exactly? How long did it last? I don’t believe the Bible provides an answer to those questions (save a thorough look at the Greek and Hebrew language employed).

Regarding time, the following is a simple theory:
- A sin against an infinite God necessitates infinite punishment.
- This, for us, is eternal death, separation…
- Jesus was punished with an infinite punishment, enough for countless people – not just one.
- Since Jesus is infinite himself, this punishment does not have to be constrained or defined by time.

This is clearly basic and incomplete, but I believe it illustrates that it is too simplistic to say that because Jesus was dead for a short while, he could not have suffered our punishment.

I hope this discussion has helped somewhat. I have been challenged about the way I view the theories of atonement. I had obviously narrowed the vast saving work of Christ into a box of small proportions!! However, I think that it is dangerous to ignore the language of substitution and propitiation in the New Testament.