Westminster Conference - what's the point?

It is two weeks since the Westminster Conference (formerly Euston Road, now Tottenham Court Road conference, shortly to become the Oxford Street Conference) and I really should have got something up before now.

It was good; I always enjoy going, though I do not go every year. I also enjoy the trips to some of the local bookshops and innumerable coffee shops, and meeting friends. It is all part of the experience.

The six papers were good; one on the English Reformation by Garry Williams; on Puritan views on Roman Catholicism from Guy Davies; on the KJV from David Gregson and on Puritan views of Repentance and Faith from Sam Waldron. Daniel Webber led us through the religion and politics of the 1910 Missionary conference and Malcolm Maclean winsomely introduced us to Andrew Bonar.

But what is the point of the Westminster conference? This was the question put to me in a discussion with one of the relatively few young (under 50) men there. Had there been no attendance from LTS there would have been hardly any 'young' men.

You can see his point. An active, zealous young minister has limited time and money for conferences. Early December is a busy time of year. What is going to attract the highly prioritised time and money he has available? Does a series of relatively unconnected lectures on historical theology (with a bias towards the Puritans) do the job?

Does he not want something more dynamic, practical, forward looking, (dare one say it) obviously relevant? Already it sounds like a plug for the Carey conference (which I do not go to every year either).

Whilst sympathising with my young friend, I would like to suggest some good reasons for persevering with the Westminster/Euston/ Tottenham Court Road/Oxford Sreet conference.

1. Not everything needs to be immediately relevant or applicable. Sermons are like this. You want something that will lead to practice, but it doesn't have to be today. The Word works differently. It is seminal. So are addresses like those at Westminster - at least, the better ones, and usually they are very well researched and carefully thought out by the speakers. Be prepared to listen well to things that do not seem immediately applicable to life; you will invariably find one or both of two things happening: (i) what did not seem to hold out any practical promise will suddenly prove to be surprisingly relevant; (2) seeds will be sown that will bear fruit later.

2. Papers such as those we heard are like windows on areas of history, church life and theology that we would not otherwise visit. Look at the conference not as a working visit but as a bit of a holiday. Take a look at some unfamiliar countryside. And some interesting, if maybe slightly quaint, stately homes. Listen and think. Question. In your head if not aloud (though there is little danger of getting involved in a debate - that art has long been lost).

3. In other words, don't be a slave to the immediate. There is a place for the hands on, pastorally relevant conference, no doubt. But there is a danger of imprisonment in the present as much as in the past, and we become slightly conceited about our ability to cope without a knowledge of church history and of great figures - and many not so great figures - of the past. There is so much back there that we do not know that is very relevant if we have patience to listen and learn.

And after all, there is always Costas and Caffe Nero nearby and Waterstones' second hand section a couple of hundred yards away. From 2011 I suppose it will be the opportunity for a spot of Christmas shopping in Oxford Street. Well, perhaps not...

Which is not to say that the Westminster Conference could not be improved. It could. But perhaps the biggest job is to sell it to a generation which is rapidly losing interest in what it stands for, and that would be a shame.

'Our Lord sprang from Judah'

From Hebrews 7:14, this phrase is not perhaps the most promising of texts for four sermons, but that is to calculate without the depth and scope of the preaching of Iain D. Campbell.

At the Reformation and Revival Fellowship Conference this week at Swanwick, Dr Campbell did what perhaps he does best (though one must not underestimate any of his many talents), and focussed on the Lord Jesus Christ through a lens provided by the Old Testament.

We were led first to the verse in Hebrews 7 then quickly to Genesis 38, recounting the sins of Judah against, and with, Tamar. Can't say I have ever heard this passage read and preached on at a conference before. But moving as he does effortlessly up and down the scales of biblical theology, Iain first showed us the sinfulness of God's covenant people, then the singularity of God's covenant purpose and then the sovereignty of God's covenant grace.

The second sermon was on Genesis 42-43, showing us the purposes of Joseph, Judah and God respectively. Joseph was testing his brothers; God tests us. Iain has had his own very real trials this summer but I was greatly impressed by his not mentioning his own afflictions in illustration of his point, though it would have been very much to the point. Many ministers today can't wait to thrust in a personal illustration; and we end up seeing more of the preacher than of Christ.
Judah's purpose was to be a pledge for his younger brother, and we were immediately taken to the cross, and Christ our surety. 'I shall lose none of those you have given me' (John 6:39).
God's purpose of course is for good, and we believe this when reason fails. Faith is reasonable, but sometimes faith has to fly solo and to places reason cannot go and cannot reach.

The third in this series was on Genesis 49, showing that the great characteristic of Judah is to be the one from whom the sceptre shall not depart, till it comes to 'him to whom it belongs' (however one interprets 'Shiloh'). Christ as prophet, priest and King was shown to us, especially the last, and how God's weakness is infinitely stronger than men.

Finally we were taken to Revelation 5, to the Lion of Judah. Christ the Lion roars in the proclamation of the gospel. We were reminded of Robert Bruce's rebuke to James VI of Scotland who chatted through a sermon - when the Lion of Judah roars in the preaching, it behoves all petty kings of the earth to remain silent.

This was a wonderful series.

We were also greatly helped, moved and encouraged by Faith Cook on John Bunyan and spiritual warfare and by Geoff Thomas making Brownlow North come alive in three dimensions.

The sermons should be availabe in due course on the RRF website www.reformationand revival.org.uk, and CDs can be ordered. Next year's conference is 21-23 November.

Regeneration

Having just read the article of this title by Charles Hodge in 'Princeton vs. the New Divinity' (Banner of Truth, 2001) I have been struck again by the beauty, majesty, mystery and necessity of this wonderful work of God.

Hodge is arguing against a view of regeneraton that greatly reduces its radical nature and it impact on the sinner's life. It was this kind of view which was influential in the evangelism of such as Charles Finney. Hodge's arguments, which from an impatient 21st century viewpoint seem somewhat laboured, are nonetheless penetrating and weighty.

He insists that regeneration is not a 'physical' change in the substance of the soul, though there is in Calvinist orthodoxy the insistence that it is a real, immediate and direct work of the Holy Spirit producing a moral change. It is far more than mere moral persuasion on the mind. Behind this is a view of the depravity of man, something which characteristically Calvinists grasp more firmly than other evangelical traditions, and which the 'New Divinity' (and we might say modern evangelicalism generally,) has lost. Such a view of 'total' depravity means a monergistic work of God (i.e. God working alone) is essential, even though the soul becomes active in conversion, in repentance and faith. But the first work of giving new life has to be God's.

Hodge is also insistent that regeneration does not produce simply acts of holiness, but a holy disposition, or nature. Behind our acts, he argues, there is not just the substance of our soul (whatever that is) but a disposition to act in such and such a way. The heart that loves God is not made holy in the act of loving God, but has been made holy by a prior act of God and then it acts in a holy manner by loving God. Only if 'born anew' by the Spirit will the soul see God as lovely and as an object to be loved. No choice for God would ever be made without that prior, God- given disposition, which then controls in principle every act of the regenerate person.

How does God effect this new birth? There is mystery here which in a way we do not need to plumb. But if it is not a 'physical' change in the 'substance' of the soul then what is it? Perhaps we can think of what it means for the soul to be 'dead' in trespasses and sins. Unless it is dead it does not need to be made alive, yet 'made alive' is what we are told the soul is. 'Dead' is not a state so much as a relation to God. To be spiritually dead means to be under his wrath, turned out of his gracious presence, and potentially eternally punished in this existence.

To be made alive then would be a reversal of this. It is not a physical change so much as a moral one, a relational one. This is where the Scriptures point to our union with Christ, effected by the Spirit, as the source of our being born again. We are made alive together with him (Eph 2:5); we are born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Peter 1:3). It is this union which gives new life. Such union does not add anything new to the soul, and it certainly is more than a change of our actions; it is a renewal of our relationship with God, a renewal of our nature in Christ, so that our nature is now transformed in union with him and is conformed to his. This is the new life.

How could God stoop to do this to vile sinners? Grace. Election. Blood that cleanses from every sin. The sacrifice of Christ.

How wonderful is regeneration. How beautiful. How mysterious. How necessary.

Pooh, Aldenham and Ashdown

We had a family outing this afternoon, a warm, dry autumn day, perfect for a country walk. Aldenham country park is in Elstree, situated near the Haberdashers Aske's School and it was their Open Day so there were lots of Posh Cars around and it was not the best day to get to Aldenham but we made it.

We took the boys around the Aldenham version of the Hundred Aker Wood - Eeyore's Gloomy Place, Wol's House, Pooh Corner, the Heffalump Trap , Christopher Robin's House and other places familiar to Pooh fans. As we were coming away from that part of the Park (for there is much else to enjoy at Aldenham) a lady standing near me on the bridge from which her husband and I had been playing Pooh sticks, pretending it was our children who were playing, asked me 'Is this where Winnie the Pooh was set? I mean, did the writer live here?'

I swallowed hard, fairly sure that the Pooh books had been written in the first half of the last century (I have since checked - it was the late 1920s) and said no, I think A.A. Milne lived in Sussex and the books were set in the Ashdown Forest (which I am pleased to say I have since ascertained was correct).

Now there is no reason why people should know that - but I was a bit taken aback that someone should think that Aldenham Country Park's version of the Pooh landscape might be the original one and pre-date the books - which was the implication of the lady's question.

But then we were near Elstree; perhaps the influence of film studios is more pervasive than one thinks. The possibilities are endless. Did Margaret Mitchell base 'Gone with the Wind' on the filmset? Did T.E.Lawrence's writings come first or David Lean's 'Lawrence of Arabia'? Pasternak's novel, or Omar Sharif as Doctor Zhivago with Julie Christie? But then - we can always visit the real Coronation Street in Manchester. Real? There must be an Albert Square somewhere. And a Walmington on Sea waiting to be inhabited by a Dad's Army.

As for theme parks - the slate quarries of North Wales where real men sweated blood were surely modelled on the Llechwedd Slate Quarry in Blaenau Ffestiniog. Perhaps the castle at Alton Towers is the real Camelot.

Is this the Disneyfication of history? Life and literature viewed through the lens of later attempts to capitalise on it and popularise it. There is a place in Florida, I'm told, where history lives and culture flourishes.

There is a lot to be said for the Bereans, isn't there? They checked the original (the Scriptures), 'to see if these things were so'(Acts 18:11). 'Ad fontes' - to the fount. Do not view Truth through any later lens. And certainly know which is which - the reality or the fake.

Pooh is only a story after all, but the tendency to confuse our Ashdowns with our Aldenhams is a rather characteristic 21st Century gaff. Blame Disney? I don't think so; each one of us has the responsibility for finding out what is true.

How wise of that lady to ask someone. That is not a bad place to begin.

The Covenant of Works - revisited

In March I posted a blog airing my disagreement (I'm sure he cares!) with John Piper's view of the covenant of works - that is, his denial of it on the basis that it is quite unbiblical to think of God causing anyone to earn his/her salvation.

Since then (after a long delay caused by life, work and other hindrances to blogging) I have managed to do a bit of reading on the covenant of works and have re-read Piper's short piece in 'The Godward Life'. As a result I disagree with Piper, and with others who dismiss the idea of a covenant of works, just as strongly; and I am more convinced that the concept of such a covenant is necessary.

I really do not want to rehearse the evidence for a covenant of works - read Berkhof for a summary of the traditional arguments and then read James Henley Thornwell (Collected Writings, vol 1, Lecture XII)for theological arguments and then read John Murray (Collected Writings, vol 2, 'The Adamic Administration')for weaknesses of the traditional view. The strongest arguments are biblical-theological - the Adam - Christ parallel. Once this is established the evidence for a covenant in Genesis 2 certainly looks strong though it does not satisfy numerous biblical scholars.

From the theological perspective the covenant of works is the description of the relationship humanity in Adam bears to God, just as the covenant of grace is the relationship redeemed humanity bears to God through Christ. There is nothing artificial in working the Adam - Christ parallel through from texts such as Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 and seeing a covenant of works implied in Genesis. Much good theology is implied. Many would argue (see eg Michael Horton 'God of Promise' ) that the Genesis covenant is more than that and draws on the pattern of suzerainty treaties to strengthen the case for a covenant of works.

If Adam was our representative and was on probation in the Garden, is not a covenant the only understanding of the relationship with God that we can envisage? What else do you call it? Moreover it hinged on Adam's obedience and is best called a covenant of works.


Some comments:

1. John Murray, John Piper and others are zealous to preserve God's grace as the source of all covenants. Yet proponents of the covenant of works do not disagree with the source of this covenant being God's condescension and kindness, and Thornwell is even prepared to use the word 'grace' in Genesis, though many such as Horton prefer to restrict that word to redemptive covenants. But why should it not be gracious of God to establish a covenant of works with Adam? What does Piper mean by saying that this is obedience of 'trusting' as opposed to obedience of 'earning' ('A Godward Life, p 171-72)? What is that supposed antithesis supposed to mean?

2. The notion of merit is not a dirty word in itself, once we allow that no-one can earn from God by putting him in one's debt - any reward is of his grace. But that is admitted on all sides.

3. 'The Marrow of Modern Divinity' is a classic exposition of the gospel and the law and could be said to hang on the distinction between the covenants of works and grace. It demonstrates the hermeneutic possibilities of the two covenant scheme. We are under the covenant of works until we come under the covenant of grace. We are under the law as a covenant, then we come under the law of faith (the gospel - using the phraseology of Romans 3:27) then we are under the law of Christ as a rule of life (still the Ten Commandments as the moral law). That is, the same moral law applies though now under the covenant of grace in Christ; we are no longer under the covenant of works.

4. This schema gives a clear framework for understanding the negative and positive attributes of the law in Paul - for example in Romans 7. We are dead to the law as a covenant of works; but not dead to that which is holy and righteous and good in itself. The covenant of works is as it were the old marriage and the covenant of grace is the new marriage to Christ. The law for righteous living, the moral law, remains the same.

5. As others have pointed out, if grace swallows up justice in the covenant with Adam and in the relationship between Christ and the Father, so that merit is nothing, from where do we derive a perfect righteousness to be imputed to us? Our relationship to God in redemption is all of grace, but only because the Lord Jesus fulfilled the covenant of works for us.

I would heartily recommend reading 'The Marrow of Modern Divinity' for a practical model of how the covenant of works 'works' in terms of gospel preaching and in understanding sanctification. The covenant of works is extremely usefu! But it is useful because it is true; it is there in Genesis 2; it is necessary to give full expression to that most important of biblical 'windows' on biblical theology, the parallel between Adam and Christ.

How to read the Bible for all its worth

I am surprised I have not read this book by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart before, considering it was first published in 1981. I recently bought edition three (2003) though I understand a fourth edition has recently come out.

It is a helpful book, taking one through some general exegetical and hermeneutical principles before looking at different types of biblical literature - the letters, OT narrative, the gospels, parables, the Law, the Prophets, Wisdom, Psalms and Revelation.

Good - but. Many of the helpful suggestions for interpreting the Bible at the 'micro' level are undermined by restrictive perspectives at the 'macro' level. For instance, on OT narrative we are told: 'The story of Abraham's securing a bride for Isaac (Gen 24) is not an allegory about Christ (Isaac) securing a bride (the church / Rebecca) through the Holy Spirit(servant)'. Try telling that to the people who have heard Iain D. Campbell's masterful and powerful series on the marriages of Scripture as typical of Christ and the church - Isaac and Rebecca, Ruth and Boaz, the Song of Songs (and needless to say there is not a whiff of Christ or typology in Fee and Stuart's handling of the 'Song' or Ruth). (For Iain's sermons visit www.reformationand revival.org.uk).

We do not want irresponsible allegorising, but what of sane typology? As a message for today's church, one comes away from hearing these stories treated in a Christocentric way thinking - yes, that is the real meaning of the text.

Then in the section on the Psalms, there is not a mention of finding Christ anywhere in them, even in the 'kingly' Psalms. This may be 'p.c.' but it actually flies against a majority view in handling the Psalms in church history - even if one does not, with Luther, see all the psalms as Christ-centred. But one could do worse than that!

As for the OT law - well, it was part of the covenant with Israel and of course is only law for us if repeated in the New Testament. Discontinuity and antinomianism rule OK.

There are other weaknesses - for example, the repetition of some of Jesus' sayings in the gospels but in different contexts in different gospels, is referred too easily to editing and 'context creating' by the evangelists rather than to Jesus having said things more than once.

So it is not a book I would lend or recommend to a young Christian. We are dealing with a Christian public who, it is often remarked, seem to know their Bibles less well than in the past. Doubtless there are many reasons for this, but I would have to say that books like this do not help. Following this book's principles would not help me to get the richness out of the text, and as over 500,000 had been sold by 2003, we must assume it is quite influential in the evangelical world. Is it any wonder people do not know how to use their Bibles when the divine unity of the text and the One who above all gives it that unity, is not taught as the centre and soul of what we should be seeking in all of Scripture - as he himself taught (Luke 24: 27)?

Piety and pietism

I have listened to a CD of a talk given by Joel Beeke at the Met Tab School of Theology this summer. It is on the Puritan view of sanctification and (inevitably) is very good. One thing however puzzled me slightly. He referred to the bad press 'pietism' gets in some Christian circles, and told the congregation that if anyone was to say in a pejorative tone 'you're a pietist', they should regard it as a high honour and say ' I am not worthy of such an accolade'.

Now I know we want true piety and few would disagree. But I have always distinguished between true 'piety' and 'pietism'; between being 'pious' and being 'pietistic'. Pietism I would define (and I concede we all may define it somewhat differently) as the unhealthy separation between spiritual and secular, so that religious life is focussed on a supposed spiritual realm of private spiritual growth and experience, with a consequent neglecting of the Christian's duty in public life, say in politics, the arts or what we call 'the public square'.

Now Joel Beeke certainly does not discourage Christian effort in public life, because his theme was largely on the comprehensiveness of Puritan sanctification; and who would say of the Puritans they were not anxious to live all of life 'coram Deo'? So my slight unease is not with Dr Beeke's main thesis as with the confusion of terms. Surely we do need to make a distinction between true piety (seeking God's kingdom and the knowledge of God in all of life) and that distortion of it which restricts the spiritual life to little more than my personal experience and private life. That kind of spirituality is precisely what the Puritans would not have approved of, but it is just what the secularism of today would love us to practice.

Piety yes. But 'pietism' - or whatever else you call its counterfeit - no!

Religion as Performance

The Pope left our shores on Sunday 19th September. His warnings against 'aggressive secularism' and against excluding or marginalising religion from public life were welcome. Yet it was all riddled with inconsistencies. In his Westminster Hall speech Benedict chose Thomas More, predictably enough, as a hero of conscience against an overweening state, but how many would have stopped to reflect on More's own refusal to allow religious freedom to Protestants? Benedict talked too of the role of religion in helping to 'purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles'. It is not easy to know exactly what this means, but his context certainly seems to be the traditional Roman view of the exalted ability of reason. Meanwhile kneeling with the Archbishop of Canterbury at the shrine of Edward the Confessor was a step forward in relations between the Anglican and Roman communions, apparently. Ho hum.

Perhaps the abiding memory of the visit was the sheer performance of it all. The Pope is the great celebrity, the great actor, the politician, even kissing babies. People seeem to think they are blessed by his touching them or stretching a hand over them. The 'mass' is performed by the priests - thousands of people attend but are observers. A mass is held for schoolchildren. What remote similarity has this to the Lord's Supper or eucharistic thanksgiving? How tragic in the 450th anniversary of the Scottish Reformation to see so many of the people of Scotland kow-towing to the head of the Roman church.

But the Reformation is 'history'. All that is 'irrelevant' now. So we can return to medievalism and superstition in religion and that is 'progress', not seeing that the kind of religion the Bishop of Rome would introduce would be spiritual slavery and cultural primitivism .

I think the four days of the papal visit were the saddest I have witnessed in this country for a long time. Richard Dawkins is less of a threat to Truth and to the honour of God and of Jesus Christ than the Pope is. The elevation of this man (albeit ephemeral, no doubt, for most) surely speaks volumes for Britain's hardness of heart and utter blindness in spiritual things. How we need to pray for our land.

John Henry Newman - lessons for today

Later this month it is expected that John Henry Newman (1801 - 90) who was made a cardinal of the Roman Catholic church in 1879, will be 'beatified' by Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to England. That is, Newman will be officially 'the Blessed...' and on his way to sainthood, Roman style. This must be a bit of a kick in the teeth for the Church of England, elevating the reputation of the man who defected from their fold and influenced others to do so, at a time when the Pope has already promised a welcome to any who want to leave the Anglican priesthood. Many would say, on the other hand, that Newman revived much that was missing in Anglicanism and in the High Church movement left behind a permanent legacy that has enriched her.

What was Newman all about?

He professed evangelical conversion at the age of 16, under the influence of works by William Romaine and Thomas Scott (author of The Force of Truth). Scott's mottoes 'Holiness rather than peace' and 'Growth the only evidence of life' embedded themselves deeply in Newman's mind, and there always remained something 'evangelical' about his mental cast - intensity, supernaturalism, reverence, the pursuit of a piety that was more than intellectual. Later he came to despise evangelicalism precisely for being too rationalistic, yet he wrote in Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864) that at his conversion he came 'under the influences of a definite creed, and received into my intellect impressions of dogma, which, through God's mercy, have never been effaced or obscured'. Was this a definition of a conversion which while intellectual may not have been spiritual?

By the early 1820s Newman could truly be called evangelical in his outlook. During the next decade however influential men led him away from this. He came to accept the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; faith came to be seen more as a matter of reason and psychology than a supernatural gift; he was encouraged in the use of logic and reason (in itself of course no bad thing!) and he came to a lower view of the infallibility of Scripture and crucially to subordinating the authority of Scripture to that of the church.

It needs to be remembered too that the 1820s - 30s was a period of challenge to the monopoly of public life enjoyed for centuries by the Anglican church. In 1828 the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed allowing nonconformists to hold public office. In 1829 the Catholic Emancipation Act allowed Roman Catholics to sit in parliament. In 1832 the Reform Act gave many people the vote, including of course large numbers of non-conformists. In 1836 a theologian of liberal views was appointed to a professorship at Oxford by Lord Melbourne's Whig government, a professor who argued for the abolition of the religious test (subscription to the 39 Articles) for admission to Oxford. All around therefore there was an atmosphere of challenge to long established certainties. Change was in the air.

It was the quest for authority, or perhaps for its subjective reflection, religious certainty , that can be seen as the guiding thread in Newman's life at this time. The key period in his development was 1833-45. In July 1833 Newman returned from a tour of the Mediterranean with his friend Hurrell Froude and heard John Keble's Oxford Assize sermon 'National Apostasy'. Keble was remonstrating with the government over its interference in the Irish church (abolishing bishoprics, distributing salaries among the lower clergy, etc.) ) and for Newman in retrospect this was the start of the Oxford Movement. At least, it was the catalyst for action. The first of 90 'Tracts for the Times' (hence 'Tractarians') appeared, of which Newman wrote 27 between 1833 and 1841.

The central issue was - authority: where does ultimate authority in the church and over the church reside? Without too much difficulty he rejected the State (the Erastianism of the Elizabethan settlement), the Bible (represented by Evangelicals) and reason (represented by liberal theology). The great struggle in Newman's mind was between the Anglican Church and the Church of Rome. In the early years he rejected Rome vehemently (perhaps, dimly or even consciously aware of the pull within himself, 'he did protest too much') and sought to defend the Church of England as the Via Media a truly Catholic Church between the extremes of Romanism and Protestantism. The crumbling of this shaky intellectual construct of the Via Media and the removal of objections to Rome, guided by certain constants in his thinking and personality, is the story of Newman's development over the next twelve years. In 1833 however nothing appeared further from Newman's mind than conversion to Rome. The crusade of the Oxford Movement was to save the Anglican Church from Erastians and 'Libertines', from the control of parliament now containing RCs and dissenters, and from theological liberals.

With regard to Erastianism, Newman was at least prepared to consider disestablishment as early as 1833 in defence of the spiritual authority of the church. Yet there was a positive thrust from the Tractarians: 'Our main doctrine is the Apostolical Succession and the exclusive privilege of Bishops and Priests to consecrate the bread and the wine'. The rule of the church by a spiritual hereditary monarchy tracing descent from the apostles, and the exclusive role of the priesthood in administering the sacraments, were the central themes of Newman's early tracts.
As to theological liberalism, he defined it as 'the mistake of subjecting to human judgement those revealed doctrines which are in their nature beyond and independent of it, and of claiming to determine on intrinsic grounds the truth and value of propositions which rest for their reception simply on the external authority of the Divine Word'. The trouble is, for Newman this in practice meant the Divine Word as taught by the church. The issue was - which church? Newman confessed he had begun to drift to liberalism in 1827 when he noticed his preference for intellectual over moral excellence, in the intense atmosphere of Oriel College. After 1841, the (largely justified) fear of the triumph of liberalism at Oxford helped to propel him more quickly into the arms of Rome as his doubts about that communion dissolved. But he always implacably opposed such tenets as 'a man need not believe more than he can understand or what is not congenial to him'. Human reason had no claim to final authority in the church.

Of the Bible, much of Newman's language sounds thoroughly evangelical. How much the 'definite creed' received into his intellect at conversion included the doctrines of the Reformers is unclear. He certainly rejected the doctrines of predestination and final perseverance. In 1838 he published 'Lectures on Justification' in which he tried to apply the via media principle to that doctrine. Opposing both Rome's 'justification by obedience' and the Reformation's 'justification by faith alone' he saw justification as the beginning of the operation of the indwelling power of God, the sacred presence of the Holy Spirit. 'Justification comes through the sacraments; is received by faith; consists in God's inward presence; and lives in obedience'. Via media indeed! Or intolerable muddle.

In these as well in baptismal regeneration, his sacramentalism, and the 'Real Presence' in the eucharist, he is far from mainstream Protestantism, but it was in heart as much as in intellect that Newman departed from evangelicalism. Emotional religion, syllogistic gospel preaching and the exercise of what he would call unfettered personal judgement were anathema to him. The spirit of lawlessness, he said, came into the world with the Reformation.

In his quest for authority in religion Newman was given direction by his studies of the Early Fathers. In 1833 his 'The Arians of the Fourth Century 'was published. In these years Newman's aim was to prove that the Church of England was the only church in England 'which has a right to be quite sure that she has the Lord's body to give his people.' His doctrine of Apostolic Succession was derived from his study of the early church, but of course he is already departing radically from historic Anglicanism. He is defending basically Roman doctrines under the guise of Anglicanism. The tension was always going to be too great to endure. Newman's Via Media was different from Hooker's 16th century idea of a 'golden mediocrity' as a medium between Rome and the Puritans. But still Newman wanted to prove if possible that Anglicanism was the true church in England, and Apostolic Succession was its prerogative and its key to authority.

It was, ironically, his study of the church fathers (a favourite source for the Oxford Movement - E.B.Pusey was once described as a man 'with one foot in heaven and the other in the third century') that triggered the collapse of the Via Media and his move to Rome. In 1839 he studied the Monophysite controversy of the 5th century and saw the orthodox position (that in Christ there are two natures and one person) at one extreme, and the Eutychian monophysite position on the other (one, divine, nature) at the other and a moderate Monophysite position mediating between the two. He suddenly saw himself as that 'moderating position'. He read further in the Arian controversy and saw himself now as a semi-Arian, mediating between the Arians (represented by Protestants, he said) and the Orthodox (the Roman church) and decided now that in this controversy too the truth lay with what he had considered the 'extreme party'. The via media was crumbling. He also read a phrase of Augustine: 'The whole Christian world is assured of truth when she [Rome] makes a judgement'. 'The church of Rome will be found right after all' was the admission that entered his mind.

Such are the feeble intellectual rationalisations that satisfy even brilliant minds when the heart is already committed. In 1845 he described the Via Media as 'the great theory, which is so specious to look upon, so difficult to prove and so hopeless to work'. By the late 1830s his heart was soil well prepared, going back at least a decade, for the seed of specious rational justifications. He gave form precedence over substance; sentiment governed reason and eclipsed revelation. Rightly has the Oxford Movement been called, at least in part, the religious flowering of the Romantic movement of the early 19th century.

Newman's path to Rome was marked by doubts, unsettledness and some absurdities. His devotion to his friend Hurrell Froude led to his publishing in 1838 'Froude's Remains', memoirs which in their asceticism and expressions of hatred of the Reformation offended both good taste and Protestants. How much there was deliberate duplicity in Newman is a matter for debate though certainly in some members of the Oxford Movement, there was an intention to 'proselytise in an underhand way' (Froude). Yet in 1841 came Tract 90, an attempt by Newman to keep in the Church of England supporters of the Oxford Movement who were drifting towards Rome, by establishing that the 39 Articles could be interpreted harmoniously with the early church and the Council of Trent. Clearly the tensions with the church's doctrinal standards were being felt. This tract arouses sympathy with those who see him as dishonest and disingenuous. 'It is odd', says Owen Chadwick,'that so Protestant a document[as the 39 Articles] should be accused of making it possible for English clergy to believe all the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church'. Chadwick charges Newman's 'interpretations' with 'evasion of the plain meaning'.

Meanwhile there were positive reasons for the enormous influence Newman and his friends had. First, was Newman's preaching. From 1828-43 he was vicar of the University church of St Mary's, Oxford. His preaching was intense, earnest and compelling, his themes holiness, the reality of the eternal, the awareness of the awefulness of God. Religion entailed moral improvement; Scripture was unsystematic because it was not a doctrinal handbook but intensely practical. Holiness and growth - his evangelical maxims shone through, but it seems without the evangelical gospel to establish them.

Personal relationships were also key. Newman, Keble, Pusey, Froude and others were devoted friends and strengthened each other. Community became important; in 1843 Newman moved to found what was virtually an Anglican monastery at Littlemore near Oxford.

A constant in Newman's thought was the inadequacy of the intellect for attaining to and appropriating religious truth. 'The heart is commonly reached, not through reason, but through the imagination, by means of direct impression, facts...history...Persons influence us...Many a man will live and die upon a dogma; no man will be a martyr for a conclusion. After all, man is not a reasoning animal; he is a seeing, feeling, contemplating, acting animal...life is for action. If we insist on proofs for everything, we shall never come to action: to act you must assume, and that assumption is faith'. Religious truth could only be received in the context of worship and prayer.

Newman was committed to the importance of cumulative arguments and of acting on the basis of probabilities, and of the impossibility and needlessness of careful investigation into all the grounds of faith. Yet he was committed to dogma. 'From the age of fifteen dogma has been the fundamental principle of my religion; I know of no other religion'. Evangelicals were wrong to allow unfettered personal judgement (or at least tend towards it). Rome was wrong, he said, for adding too much to the faith, tending to a scholastic completeness in theology. Creeds were important but were at best the 'best memorials' (a photo, we may say) of a best friend, not the real thing. They were always liable to spiritless formalism. Freedom from symbols and articles was the highest state of Christian communion. At no time did Newman advocate mysticism that dispensed with rational formulations, except as an ideal. He held dogma to be essential. The issue he had to address, however, as we all do, is: what is the authoritative source of our beliefs?

In 1837 in 'Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church' he argued for a distinction between the 'Episcopal Tradition' which all Christians are to believe, and the 'Prophetical Tradition ' embodying the whole system of theological thought and reflection in a church - prayer books, worship, patristic teaching, to be received in love, confidence and trust but not imposed as Rome imposes it. The Tractarians were very keen, naturally enough, on the 'ambience' of worship - visible decoration in the church etc. as the catholic faith is learned in worship and devotion, not in arguments, learning and sermons.

Yet the Episcopal Tradition and at least the outlines of the Prophetical Tradition came from 'the Church', and at least once Newman described her as 'infallible'. His path was heading towards Rome and after 1841 it was all one way. In 1843 he retracted all the 'hard things' he had spoken against Rome in the previous decade. He also resigned as vicar of St Mary's. By 1845 people were waiting for Newman to announce his conversion to Rome. First however he wished to complete a kind of intellectual autobiography, and perhaps the most enduring theological legacy he has left: 'Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine'. It is more than anything else he wrote the intellectual apologia for his decision to convert.

'To live is to change' he wrote; he had moved from evangelicalism via a brief flirtation with liberalism, to neo-High churchmanship and now to Rome. The purpose of the essay was modest; not to prove the truth of Roman Catholicism but to remove an objection to it, the formal objection that there were apparent differences between the doctrines of Rome and both Scripture and the early church. His proposal was that the doctrines of the early church and also of Scripture could justify the creed of the Council of Trent. Christian history is the unfolding in different contexts of the original (and unchanging) Christian idea. Not all change is true development - otherwise Protestantism and liberalism could be defended by it. Seven criteria had to be satisfied for a 'true' development: it must preserve the 'type' of early Christianity; must show a continuity with it; must show power to assimilate new ideas; must flow logically from the apostolic faith etc. Newman's model is of the church as an organism, and true development is an expression of life which will survive; a false development will die. (Sounds a bit like natural selection ?) His theory would be disproved if it could be shown that in essential matters the church contradicted itself. (But note: self-contradiction is the measure of the church's failure; not that she is 'wrong' with reference to an outside authority such as an infallible Word.)

And so the church never changes but always changes.

How do we distinguish this from the Protestant experience that we do gain new insights into God's Truth? For example, the doctrines of the atonement and of justification were never as well developed in the early centuries as they were after the Reformation. We may use words like 'making explicit' or 'new illuminations' on the Word etc. But Newman could have used these words too. The real distinction is that our authority for doctrine is the Scripture. Newman's authority was the church. We say the Scriptures can never be wrong though our interpretations may be. Newman would say the Church has never been wrong - on essentials at least - a dogma in itself which allows the Roman Church to be a chameleon, differing in different circumstances to the point of deception, and holding truths contradictory to Scripture because her Tradition is at least equal to (and in practice superior to) the Bible.

It is documented that in the preparatory papers for the all important Vatican II council in the 1960s, no theologian's name appeared more frequently than Newman's. He helped the Roman church to adjust to the modern age, enabling her to change and be 'infallible' with intellectual justification -a kind of 'postmodernism'.

So Newman made his intellectual reconciliation with Rome, where his heart had been for some time. The Via Media always existed only on paper, and was now torn to shreds. His quest for religious certainty had taken him to Rome and he was received in on 9th October 1845.

Lessons?

1. There is no via media between the gospel church and Rome. There is the Whore and there is the Bride of Christ. There are the followers of the beast and there is the flock of God. Anglicanism may or may not be an exercise in 'golden mediocrity' but eventually it will have to decide. So will all professing Christians. In this sense, Newman was more honest than his colleagues who remained within Anglicanism. Yet their influence, and his, continued, in bringing Romanism within the bounds of Anglicanism - and who knows, in taking a lot of Anglicanism back to Rome?.

2. Once we depart from the authority of Scripture we end in rationalistic atheism or in Rome. Without the Scriptures, human authority becomes essential, as it was to Newman, in defining dogma.

3. Along with a rejection of Scripture's authority in the church will come a growth in emphasis on the aesthetic, the ambient, the experiential in worship. We have in recent years seen an increase within evangelicalism in the importance of the external, and of atmosphere in worship. But it is the Spirit who teaches the Word, not an atmosphere of worship.

4. Preaching - even popular preaching - even when biblical themes are preached - is not enough. It must be preaching that is submitted to Scripture's authority and adopting Scripture's priorities - preaching the purpose of Scripture: Christ and reconciliation with God through him.

5. Elements of the church on earth and professing Christians may be right on many things, as Newman and the Roman church are. We resonate with Newman's rejection of the rationalism of liberal theology, for example, and the spiritless aridity of formal, intellectual worship. Yet these same people will be dreadfully and terminally wrong when they reject God's counsel for humanity, his way of reconciliation, the gospel. We need not only to be right about certain aspects of God, but gladly acquiesce in his self-revelation to us and about how he has ordained that we enter into covenant with him.

6. Sadly Newman's career is a vivid testimony to the power of religious pride. We do not put ourselves above him in this. We are all guilty of it and prone to it. Once we think we can do better than the Bible in revealing God's way to Man we go astray. It is pride, fostered by Satan, that leads to that. May God keep us humble. True humility is not measured by words of self-deprecation, but in a real submission to the Lord and his Word.

7. The present resurgence of Roman Catholicism will not be halted by problems over child abuse etc. It will continue to be powerful, and continue to seduce souls who think they want God but in fact are running from him. It will continue to be the greatest refuge for those who love the appearance of godliness, but deny its power (2 Tim 3:5).

8. Conversions must be weighed. Newman's turned out to be, almost certainly, merely intellectual. May God preserve us from such. May we know the power of godliness within, renewed hearts as well as convinced minds, from which genuine repentance, evangelical humility and new life flow.

9. The Reformation is not over. The formal principle of the Reformation (sola Scriptura) and the material principle (justification by faith alone) were prime targets of Newman and his crew. They are under attack today - and among professing evangelicals too. The issues for which the Reformers fought will be central as long as there is a church on earth.

10. In the direction in which the heart is set, the mind will surely follow, then assent to, then justify, then proclaim. The heart is the fountain of life; guard it. The heart must be renewed; once error grips it, the mind is helpless to halt the descent to apostasy.

11. A journey of spiritual darkness can be disguised in the most religious and pious language. '...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. Their end will correspond to their deeds.'(2 Cor 11:14,15) And this does not mean there is always deliberate hypocrisy on the part of these 'servants'!

12. In his very fair and gracious 'Appreciation' of Newman, Alexander Whyte comments thus on Newman's recantation of the 'hard things' he had spoken against Rome: 'Now there was a far more significant step than that which Newman ought to have taken in 1890. But it was a step which alas he died without having taken. He ought to have laid his honoured head in the dust for all the slings and scoffs he had ever uttered in the pride of his heart at men whose shoe-latchet, he should have said, he was unworthy to unloose. The shoe-latchet of men such as Luther, and Calvin, and the Anglican Reformers, as well as Bunyan, and Newton, and Wesley, and many more men of God, whose only offence against Newman and his sectarian and intolerant school had been that they were determined to preach no other gospel than the gospel of a sinner's free justification before God by faith on the Son of God, and on him and his work alone....I am not Newman's judge; but if I were, I would say of him, in the language of his own Church, that he died unrepentant and unabsolved of the sin of having despised, and of having taught others to despise, some of the best ministers of Christ this world has ever seen.'

The Sabbath: a letter to 'The Briefing'

This is the text of a letter sent to 'The Briefing' from 'Exasperated of Welwyn'. In 'The Briefing' number 381 there was an article about the Sabbath which like their articles on worship I find frustrating. This article was actually very good except for the mantra-like refrain 'not under law but under grace therefore the Sabbath is not God's law for us today'. So this letter was sent - it helps to get things off one's chest.

It may not be published in 'The Briefing' so I am putting it here as well. I am sorry if it reads like one side of a telephone conversation.

Dear Sir,

David Moore's article on the Sabbath was stimulating and helpful. In particular, the emphases on the Sabbath being primarily a spiritual day (it belongs to the Lord; it is the day when we 'do church') and eschatological in its thrust (it points to our ultimate rest in that we 'recapture a taste of Eden before the Fall', and Christ has fulfilled it) were refreshing. The suggestions on how the Sabbath may be spent were also very helpful.

In fact I could agree with so much of the article that it seemed incongruous to read at least three times, in slightly different words, the conviction that the Sabbath is not binding on us because we are 'not under law but under grace'. I know that this is more or less 'Briefing orthodoxy', and seems to be becoming orthodoxy in much of modern western evangelicalism, but it really should not go unchallenged.

There is no space here to rehearse the arguments for the continuity of the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath in particular, but perhaps I could take up a point or two starting with David Moore's article?

First - the nature of the day. Yes, primarily spiritual and eschatological in thrust. But is there not a danger of an over-realised eschatology? Is it logical to say that because Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath it no longer binds us as law? We are not in heaven yet. We are still sinners.The truly consummated Sabbath rest is yet to come. Is it illogical to have a special day in God's law for God's people? It would seem more logical in fact to have a special day until the End comes.

Second - the authority for the day. Intriguingly David Moore seems to spend the Sabbath much as many people who, like me, believe it is an abiding divine commandment. I guess he does so on a Sunday too - as most of us do, despite all the talk about the First Day of the week not being a Sabbath or mandatory.

So the question I ask is - why? What is the authority for spending the Sabbath as the Sabbath? If it is not divine law it could be, as far as I can see, (i) convenience - it suits us; (ii) convention - we've always done it that way; (iii) consensus - agreement universally, nationally or locally that that will be the day; (iv) calculation - it pays to use that day - that is, 'it works'; or (v) commandment of men - some human authority, church or otherwise, determines that Sunday will be the day.
In what way, though, are any of these an improvement as a motive on God telling us to keep the Sabbath? I think I would prefer a Sabbath Day commanded by God to a 'Sabbath-type' day subject to the vagaries of man. The Reformers after all delighted in liberating us from the commandments of men.

What I detect behind the repeated refrain 'not under law but under grace' (which in context has of course a very rich new covenant meaning) is
(a) the idea that law and grace are somehow antithetical. Now sometimes they are; I am not under the covenant or curse or condemnation of law, for example; but I am under it as a rule of life. Why should I not include God's authority over my week as part of that? and
(b) forgetting that the spiritual person delights in the law (Psalms19:7-11; 119:97,113). Does not the heart that loves God love a duty simply because it is from God? And to obey because we love him and because he is God - is that not the essence of the spiritual life - which Adam and Eve got spectacularly wrong because they could see no evident reason for God's command?

Jesus, not we, is Lord of the Sabbath. He claimed Lordship over it; was that only for three years? Was it to abolish it? Would something good, that was made for man (Mark 2:27) be struck out of the law - quite apart from the fact that Jesus after all did say the law would abide (Matthew 5:17-21)?

These comments do not of course in themselves make the case for the First Day Sabbath, but they are important features of the debate.

Mark Driscoll on Doctrine

Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe is a Big Black Book by Mark Driscoll and Gerry (pronounced, I am informed, with a hard 'G' as in 'gold') Breshears. It covers about 450 pages and incorporates 13 chapters. It was published by Crossway this year.

I am probably the only Christian in the Western world who has not visited the Mars Hill website and I know of Mark Driscoll only by name and something of his reputation for being 'cutting edge', to say the least. That both makes me incredibly ignorant, but perhaps I can call it 'complete objectivity' which qualifies me to read the book with an open mind.

It is a rattling good read, a kind of doctrinal equivalent of a book to read on a plane or on the beach - and that is honestly intended to be a compliment. The authors cover the ground of systematic theology from 'The Trinity: God Is' to 'The Kingdom: God Reigns' in large but easily digestible chunks. Along the way we have 'Revelation: God Speaks', 'Creation: God Makes', 'Image: God Loves', 'Fall: God Judges', 'Covenant: God Pursues,' 'Incarnation: God Comes', 'Cross: God Dies', 'Resurrection: God Saves', 'Church: God Sends', 'Worship: God Transforms' and 'Stewardship: God Gives'.

For any preacher there is ample stimulation and instruction on how to preach doctrine - yes, not just doctrinally, but doctrine. The chapters are full of homiletic gold: the way the subjects are approached, such as 'the Trinity' introduced by a catalogue of human longings reflecting the reality of creation by a Triune God; and 'Worship' introduced by a scintillating discussion of contemporary idolatries; the practical applications are challenging; the illustrations and examples are illuminating as also are helpful quotes from worthies of church history.

One of the things that impressed me early on was that the vast majority of footnotes are Bible references. This is not doctrine culled from a Systematic Theology. It is fresh and vital.

What of the content? Is it 'sound'? I have heard that Mars Hill lost a lot of members through this teaching, or at least this teaching being insisted on as the condition of membership, which may mean any number of things but at least suggests that Mark Driscoll is serious about the importance of doctrinal integrity and truth.

On the whole the doctrinal content is excellent and one rejoices that so much orthodox, Biblical truth is being preached by a man who has a large following. There are some points on which I would disagree; for example, his charismatic position on gifts (in the chapter on 'Stewardship').

On 'creation' they take the view of an old earth (Genesis 1:1) but a young humanity and 6/24 hour days.

Almost inevitably (today), and sadly, they take the line that the Sabbath was a ceremonial law and not now binding on Christians (though the other nine commandments are as they are repeated by Jesus). There is nonetheless a very helpful section on how to spend the 'Sabbath' under 'Stewardship.

A reservation doctrinally was a slight fog over 'justification'. They evidently believe in the distinction between imputed and imparted righteousness, as this is explicitly stated in discussing the gospel in the chapter on 'The Church'. In the chapter on 'The Cross', when dealing with justification, they clearly state that Christ gives us 'his perfect righteousness', citing 1 Corinthians 1:30. They talk of the 'great exchange' (2 Corinthians 5:21) yet the waters are slightly muddied when they go on to say 'The gifted righteousness of Jesus is imparted to us at the time of faith, simultaneous with our justification. Not only does God give us family status, but he also gives us new power and a new heart through the indwelling Holy Spirit'.

Now - as they have previously used the concept 'gifted righteousness' to refer to imputed righteousness in justification, why now say that this is 'imparted' in a context where they are clearly referring to regeneration? It is a bit unclear and risks confusion of imputed and imparted righteousness, though they evidently believe in the distinction.

A further reservation was in the matter of proportion: whereas justification and propitiation are dealt with in about three pages each, 'stewardship' is given a whole chapter and there are about ten pages on 'giving' and eight pages on church discipline and why Christians should join a church. One wonders if the bigger concern is truth or management; liberating people from the dominion and guilt of sin or controlling church members. These matters are not unimportant of course, but in a book called 'Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe' one would have expected more on some of the fundamentals of the gospel and less on church administration.

This is no replacement for a more careful and detailed systematic theology - but then I should think its authors would never claim it was. Despite reservations it is, however, a great inspiration for preachers on making doctrine come alive.

Religious 'marriages' for gays

It is now two weeks since this headline appeared in a national newspaper. The opening paragraph reads: 'Homosexual couples could be allowed to "marry" in traditional religious ceremonies for the first time, a government minister has said.'

Question: around which noun in the headline do you think inverted commas would be most appropriate?

More substantially, what is the issue that really matters? Let me suggest some:

1. The idea that a government minister has the right to permit when 'religious readings, music and symbols' could be used in a 'civil partnership ceremony'. But I suppose the concept of the established church was acquiesced in several centuries ago. Can Anglicans complain?

2. The idea that 'religious readings, music and symbols' have some sort of influence on the nature of an act when that act is itself contrary to the law of God. Is this a kind of Coalition version of transubstantiation? To change an illicit partnership into marriage - just bless it.

3. The idea of religion entertained by the minister (Lynne Featherstone). Clearly a human construct which can be directed and regulated at will by human governments. Not novel but certainly godless.

4. The idea that a partnership between two men(or women)could ever be legitimate whatever religious or other ceremony inaugurated it. Legally, civil partnerships would become virtually identical to marriages as the Equality Act last year removed the bar on same sex unions in churches and other places of worship. So they can take place in church. But are these church civil partnerships then at present without any religious music readings or symbols? Church without religion?

Moreover, if they allow civil partnerships to take place with religious paraphernalia in secular venues, this would be unfair to civil heterosexual marriages as no religious element is allowed when these take place in register offices or venues such as stately homes, hotels or hot air balloons.

So what a muddle it is all getting in to.

And none of it makes it marriage anyway because marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman.

5. The idea, finally, that people who have no regard for the teaching of the Bible (in at least its traditional form) yet want religious elements to their ceremonies. But religion without truth has been going on since the dawn of time so one should not be surprised.

Plus ca change...

Hugh Martin on Simon Peter

Reading Ted Donnelly's excellent and moving 'Peter, Eye-witness of his Majesty' in preparation for a series of sermons on Peter, I was drawn to two books recommended in a footnote, both of which I was able to obtain easily second hand. One is 'From Simon to Peter' by J.Glyn Owen, (EP, 1985) which I am presently reading and am finding immensely helpful. The other I have just finished: Hugh Martin's 'Simon Peter' (Banner of Truth edition 1967).

Hugh Martin is one of my favourite authors though I have only read three books by him - I do not think he wrote many. He was one of those towering 19th century Scots who have bequeathed us so much. His 'Jonah', also published by the Banner is fine and full of insights, and 'The Atonement' is harder to get hold of(my second hand copy came from the USA last year) but is worth every penny you may pay for it. (Could someone re-print this some time - my copy is Knox Press, 1976)?

Anyway to get back to 'Simon Peter' - what a privilege to be a minister and read books like this for a living! It feeds one's own soul as well as one's sermon preparation. A few highlights that spoke to me were:

In relation to Andrew introducing Simon to the Lord: 'It is when you have yourself had fellowship with Jesus that you have either the heart or the power to speak of Jesus to another. Were we much with Christ we would speak of him...But if we have not fellowship with Christ for our own souls,...our religious talk, when we attempt to speak to our worldly brother, will become mere dead, and vapid, and formal cant...'

Concerning the Lord's warning of Satan wanting to 'sift' the disciples and of His prayer for Peter (Luke 22:31-2): 'It shows that the saved soul is an object of contest among the higher intelligences and before the throne of God on high...such a transaction going on on high may interpret very clearly the meaning and scope of those struggles which I am painfully conscious of within. And then - to use the language of this same Simon Peter at a later date - I may learn, in wonder, awe, meekness and gratitude, no more to "think it strange concerning the fiery trial that is to try me" (1 Peter 4:14)'.

A repeated theme in Peter is his needing to become aware of his weakness, and that weakness was often where he thought he was strong: 'Hence the Christian's safety is in the knowledge of his weakness which sends him to the Lord for strength. "When I am weak, then I am strong".'

Of Peter's denials: 'This once righteous man, [distinguished as we know for promptness and for quick decision], bold as a lion, is not so utterly bereft of any quality whatever as of exactly that which he thought never could forsake him'. He needed to be redeemed, says Martin, from self-reliance - and no more so than where he thought himself strong.

There is much more...

Six days of (re)creation and a Good Samaritan

Half term was spent in Wales. On Sunday 30th May I had the pleasant experience of preaching in the light, modern building of New Road Evangelical church in Welshpool, Powys where a former LTS man, Oliver Gross is pastor. Any time now his wife Naomi is expecting their first baby! It was a lovely day of fellowship and we enjoyed lunch with a couple who live in Abermule, where I grew up. After lunch we drove up the road to the old Manse where I had spent my boyhood and the people there welcomed us in to look around the house. The structure of the house has not changed in forty years. Nor had the garden or the old loft and stable where we played nor the old pigsty at the bottom of the garden where we kept hens for a few years. Then we saw the fat old oak tree where I used to sit and pretend I was Robin Hood. Wonderful to see it all looking so much the same - apart from dozens of houses which have now been built up around it.

The next weekend it was good to see in the 'County Times' that "Visitors swelled the congregation at New Street Evangelical Church Welshpool last Sunday as people came to hear the guest preacher, Rev Mostyn Roberts". Well, my wife and boys and my old friend Graham Hind , his wife and mother from Llandrillo, were there in the morning, and my mother (with whom we were staying in Newtown) came with me in the evening. So for 'swelled' read 'marginally expanded'.

On the Monday Hilary and I left the boys with Mum and went shopping in Newtown, rediscovering Laura Ashley. But we have got weddings this summer after all.

On Tuesday we boys got our hair cut (far cheaper than in Hertfordshire) and had coffee and a chelsea bun in Evans' cafe - you must go there if you ever visit Newtown. And get the drippingest, syruppyest chelsea buns in the world.
That afternoon we toured west Shropshire - the 'Welsh marches'. Bishop's Castle is crumbling visibly; Ludlow is definitely worth another visit.

On Wednesday we met Graham and Tina again, and (with the boys but without Graham and Tina)climbed to the top of the magnificent waterfall (pistyll) at Llanrhaeadr ym mochnant. After a good lunch of ham, eggs and chips we walked along the riverside and although it was delightful I was miffed to see that old haunts where I used to play in my youth are now fenced off by some kind of New Age retreat area which one is asked to 'respect'. It was great to chat to Graham and Tina again.

Thursday was the highlight of the week for the boys as it was a glorious day and we went to Borth y gest beach near Porthmadog. My mother ('Nain' to the boys)came with us and treated us to lunch at Kerfoots. We have eaten well this week. The beach was not exactly blue flag but great fun. Cadwaladrs ice-creams sealed the day as 'the best of the week'.

On Friday we went to Berriew to see an elderly aunt of mine and ended up with her nice South African carer catching minnows (we keep nets in the car when on holiday!) in the little river nearby . And, oh yes, a small cat-fish. All were returned alive to the water! Thomas fell in and that made his day.

That evening we came home and just as we were congratulating ourselves on a great journey the front driver's side tyre blew. We slowed down and came to the side but as there were roadworks, there was no hard shoulder - we were in the slow lane in a 'free recovery ' area. I phoned the AA; then a car pulled up behind us giving us unintended but welcome protection from any cars coming too fast . Thankfully it was a 50 mph limit so I had not been going too fast.

As this car drove away a breakdown lorry (or 'fix -up - truck' as Nathaniel excitedly called it, hopping from one leg to another) pulled up. A gentleman of Asian origin beckoned me from the window . I thought he was the AA. Not so. He offered to change the wheel. How much? Nothing, he said. I hummed and hawed. He got out and started changing the tyre. Had I got a jack? I said I thought so ; it's at times like this you feel really silly. He found it. Then the free recovery breakdown truck stopped . So there was us and two breakdown trucks, neither of which was the AA. He told the kind Asian man that he was breaking the law, changing a tyre on the highway in a roadwork area. But the man had nearly finished and thankfully the free recovery man took a sensible view and drove off. We phoned the AA to say the job was done and they said thanks for letting them know and that they would have got to us in about 45 minutes. But as it was we drove of in about 20 minutes from the time of the puncture. About a mile further on we saw the first car who had stopped behind us now completely broken down and with two highway patrol cars with him.

A new tyre on the Saturday morning set all to rights.

What a gift of God that breakdown-truck man was! He said he had seen the boys and Hilary sitting by the roadside, behind the protective barrier, and felt he could not pass us by.

So we were home no later than 30 minutes after we would have been anyway, having had a puncture, and all safe and without damage. The Lord is very very good indeed.

And so, eventfully, ended six days of recreation with an encounter with a Good Samaritan. How do I respond to my neighbour's need?

Penal substitution: response to 20 questions

This is a response to 20 questions set by 'Nick' to my last blog. For the questions please refer to his comment of 13th May.

1. If 'wrathful Father punishing an innocent Son' were biblical, I would have no problem with it. But it is an inaccurate way of describing the atonement(for example, the Father's love is the source of the atonement, which is a Triune work, and the Son is also angry against sin , and wholly willing to be made a substitute) so the phrase is best avoided. It is the kind of phrase used by people who accuse penal substitution (PS) of being 'cosmic child abuse' etc.

2. (i) It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that when blood is shed in a sacrificial context, it is punishment. The penalty for sin is death. The sacrifice is a substitute for the offeror, dying instead of him.
(ii) No single type (such as the sacrifice of an animal) can tell the whole story of the atonement, so the priest is of course involved to apply the blood to the mercy-seat - that is, Godwards. This simply explains another part of the atoning work of Christ. The fact that it is applied to the mercy-seat / altar tells in favour of PS rather than, as you claim, representing 'the value of life'. If the value were in the life, why should it be applied to the mercy seat / altar? Indeed, why kill the animal at all?
(iii) The blood of Christ is of infinite value because of the infinite Person of Christ.

3. You do not dispute that the atonement is 'to avert God's wrath'. Then you make a distinction between wrath re-directed , and God being 'appeased through pleasing him through some alternative'. In another question you talk about wrath being 'turned away' but not 're-directed'. Let's remember that wrath is a personal reaction, the self-consistent hatred that a holy God expresses against sin. He has stated that the soul that sins shall die. This is not a mere decision of his will that can be changed for it is a reflection of his character which is unchangeing. The penalty for sin is death. There is no acceptable substitute for the penalty, though God in his mercy has ordained and accepted a substitute Person. His wrath is 're-directed' to that Person to whom sin is imputed by virtue of his federal union with the people for whom he dies. As a result of that death his wrath is turned away from them. 'Re-direction', if you want to use the word, is therefore in a sense a description of the atonement, 'turning away' is a result of it. 'Appeasing through some alternative' has no part in it. The justice and the wrath of God are satisfied at the cross. The arrow of judgement flies through history from Genesis 3 to calvary, picking up interpretative weight as it goes, all the types and teaching adding meaning to the sacrifice of Christ but ultimately explained and explicable only in him.

4. Exodus 11:7 certainly speaks of God making a difference between the Egyptians and the Israelites. But if that were all there were to it, why did a lamb have to die at all - even to represent the application of blood to our souls in the Eucharist, as you claim? The fact is that the destroying angel would have slaughtered both Egyptian and Israelite had the blood of the lamb not been on the doorpost. A dead son in an Egyptian home and a dead lamb in an Israelite home - a clear picture of substitution. In NT terms, the elect need the blood of the lamb even though a distinction has been made between them and the lost in eternity.

5. I said that the agony in Gethsemane strongly suggests that the anguish of the cross was for Jesus far more than physical or emotional suffering. It was spiritual suffering consisting in the bearing of human sin and the punishment for it. As you say, he had the unique task of atoning for human sin. And of course he understood the damage sin caused in a way we cannot imagine. But that does not in itself account for the anguish of Christ before the cross. He knew the 'damage' of sin all through his life, but never did he experience such agony as he did in the garden - until calvary itself.

6. If it were God's anger against the wicked men who killed Jesus, why did it last only three hours and why is it tied in closely with Christ's cry of dereliction (Matt 27:47,48)? It seems much more reasonable to interpret it as symbolic of the wrath which Jesus bore. Why did it not get worse when Christ actually died, but in fact passed before he said 'It is finished'?

7. In 1 Corinthians Paul makes clear that believers will still die but their death is different because of Christ's death. In 1 Cor. 15:56 Paul says 'But the sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law'. He is here saying that death is a terror because of sin ie it is a penalty for sin. It is the law that condemns sin . When the law is satisfied, there is no longer any condemnation, and people who are freed from that condemnation are therefore no longer to fear the sting of death. They will pass through it but it has no terror for them. It is a passage, a transition, but not a punishment. And that is so because of Christ's PS. He has been raised as the firstfruits, but when he comes all his people will be raised with him: 15:23.

8. Good!

9. Athanasius: 'Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all' ('Against the Arians', in 'Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers', ser II, vol 4, sect 60.)
'Now that the common Saviour of all has died on our behalf, we who believe in Christ no longer die, as men died aforetime, in fulfilment of the threat of the law. That condemnation has come to an end..;' ('On the Incarnation', sec 21).
Augustine: 'Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that he might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment' ('Against Faustus', sect 4.)
'But as Christ endured death as a man, and for man, so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as he died in the flesh which he took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in his own righteousness, he was cursed for our offences, in the death which he suffered in bearing our punishment' (ibid, sect 6).

Anselm: his whole system is about Christ dying as a satisfaction to God, but certainly he speaks of satisfaction instead of punishment. A more biblical approach led to satisfaction and punishment being seen as one and the same thing.

Aquinas: 'As therefore Christ's passion provided adequate, and more than adequate satisfaction for man's sin and debt, his passion was as it were the price of punishment by which we are freed...' ('Summa Theologiae' quest 48. art 4).

For other texts from the 'Fathers' see 'Pierced for Our Transgressions' chapter 5).


10. 'Propitiation' means that God's wrath is somehow appeased or assuaged and he is 'made favourable' in the sense of his justice having been satisfied, enabling him to be just and the justifier of those who have faith; to say it means 'turned away' is fine, but not then to say that it is not 're-directed', as this is comparing different elements of the process (see above, qu. 3). In Romans Paul begins his summary of human spiritual history with the fact of God's wrath (1:18). What deals with it is the propitiation (3:25) of the cross. The best and natural explanation of propitiation is PS - that Christ bore the wrath and therefore took it from his people. To define propitiation as you do then say Paul rules out PS by speaking of propitiation, is a tad arbitrary!

11. (i) I believe the prophecy of Isa 53 can be interpreted on its own terms though it is seen most clearly in the light of the NT.

(ii) I would not argue for PS from Matt 8:16, 17 though I am right to say it does not deny it. Matthew is simply pointing out another aspect of the atonement - restoration of creation as foreshadowed in the miracles.

(iii) I am not sure which Calvin quote you are referring to. However, of course there is a distinction between retribution and chastisement. Whether this obviates the argument for PS in Isaiah 53 is another matter. Many commentators do not think so. After all, it is clear that the Servant is 'wounded for our transgressions' and 'crushed for our iniquities' and 'bore the sin of many'; the chastisement that brings us peace was upon him. However interpreted, chastisement is punishment of some form and he bore it and we benefit from it. Moreover, the Hebrew word for 'he bore' (our griefs, v 4; the sins of many, v 12) is often associated with the bearing not only of guilt but of punishment - Gen 4:13; Lev 5:17; 24:14-16; Num 5:31; 14:34; Lam 5:7). The presence of PS in Isaiah 53 is too strong to be dismissed.

(iv) As I have said, the context of 1 Peter is the example of Christ, but when Peter uses phrases like 'he bore our sins in his body on the tree (the 'cursed place') and 'By his wounds you have been healed' it seems clear that he is going beyond the exemplary element in Christ's work and pointing Christians to the basis of their hope - the atonement and in particular to PS. This is clearer if anything in 1 Peter 3:18 - he 'suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous'.

12. Good' certainly as number 4 speaks of God laying the sin of his people on the servant and punishing him.

13. The necessity of intercession if the atonement was 'finished' is a difficult issue and I have struggled with it. But it is biblical! It is interesting for example to see 1 John 1:2:1,2 speaking of Christ being our advocate and then speaking of his also being our propitiation. The fact is that the work of atonement and intercession are integral parts of the one work of the High Priest , as I said last time, and the work that is finished on earth is constantly present to God by the work in heaven. It is Christ who saves, not merely his work or any part of it. But the PS in Christ's death was an integral part of that work which without it would not have been complete. (Hugh Martin ,'The Atonement', is excellent on this).

The work of Christ is sometimes seen in firstly his work as representative and secondly as substitute. He was representative in all aspects of his work, including his presence glorified in heaven. He was substitute in respect of those things which were part of the Fall - sin, death and the curse - the penalty for sin. One should add, the dominion of Satan. He bore those as our substitute, but everything that God restores (typified by the resurrection) is borne by Christ as our representative; in other words we share in them (whereas we do not share in what he bore as substitute).

14. I can only refer to what I have said above. Gal 3:13 is all about the substitutionary curse bearing of Christ and I don't see the references to the 'tree' you mention as denting that interpretation at all.

The Mosaic law carries forward the penalty inflicted on Adam; redemption is a purchase at a price - which is the death of Christ.

15. The word for sin / sin offering may well mean different things in the references you give because the context demands it, but that is not persuasive when in 2 Corinthians 5 the word is clearly best translated the same way.

16. Romans screams out the need for righteousness and it is the righteousness of Christ, to the precept and penalty of the law that answers that need. In Rom 5:18,19 we are said to be made / constituted sinners / righteous by virtue of our federal union with Adam / Christ respectively. It is the one act of disobedience / obedience respectively that creates our status before God. We also receive a righteousness from God ( Phil 3:9). As well as 2 Cor 5:21. Nothing but the perfect righteousness of Christ satisfies God's law.

17. That is the issue - penal substitution or no gospel!

18. We cannot expect any single OT text or type to say all there is about the work of Christ. Certainly even PS does not say all there is to be said . Phinehas was a type of Christ as an intercessor. The plague was stopped when the guilty parties died. It is not a PS situation though it points to a more gracious intercession than that of Phinehas where the Lord died for the guilty ones.

19. 'Losing salvation' ( or not as the case may be) is not irrelevant to the question of PS ; indeed the security of salvation is an important consequence of it. But to go into all your texts would take me too far off the central theme of this debate - though I may do so another time!

20. I agree.

What was the death of Christ? Was it simply an extension of the incarnation into the experience of death? Or was it also an infliction, an imposition by God of something extra - something no-one else had to bear? That is, vengeance, wrath, punishment? Certainly his perfect obedience was an integral part of it but even that was not sufficient to appease God, certainly not as an alternative to the penalty of the law. Christ had to fulfil both aspects of the law, the sanction or penalty as well as the precepts or command. This entailed an infliction , brutally borne especially at the cross and expressed in the cry of dereliction most poignantly. Without Penal Substitution there is no salvation.

Penal Substitution: response to a (Catholic) comment

My late April blog on 'The Obedience of Christ' elicited a response from Nick of Nick's Catholic Blog, referring me to his article at http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/01/penal-substitution-debate-negative.html. 'Negative' that article certainly is, as far as penal substitution is concerned, though carefully written and with a host of biblical references. Printed, it amounts to 12 pages. It raises matters I never intended to tackle in my brief blog on the vocabulary we use to allude to Christ's obedience, but since I have read it I feel I should respond and set out a (relatively short) positive case for penal substitution, referring also in passing to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to which Nick's blog also refers and which he also denies.

For those who may never read Nick's article, reading this may be like listening to one half of a 'phone conversation, but hopefully some of it will make sense.

1.'Penal Substitution is grounded on the Protestant notion that justification is a legal event' is how Nick's article begins. This is a bit like saying that the tail wags the dog. The two doctrines, of penal substitution as the heart of the atonement and of justification as a legal event, are most certainly inter-related, as one would expect from a coherent system of saving acts of God, but both are derived from Scripture, not from each other in a circular fashion.

2. The definition Nick gives of penal substitution is reasonably accurate: 'God imputed the guilt of the sins of the elect to Christ. In other words, the Wrath the elect deserved for their sins was instead poured out by the Father onto Jesus'. This incorporates 'particular redemption' as it refers only to the elect, which is correct though not all definitions of penal substitution would be so precise; but it also leans towards the 'wrathful Father punishing an innocent Son' idea which is a distortion of the doctrine; it should be insisted that God was substituting himself in his Son and it was the outworking of an intra-Trinitarian agreement. The question is: is the doctrine of God giving himself in his Son to suffer instead of his people the death, punishment and curse due to them as the penalty for sin, found in Scripture?

3. Nick asserts that 'the Mosaic sacrifices did not operate in a Penal Substitutionary framework. Nowhere does the Mosaic Law indicate the punishment for sin was transferred to an animal or God's wrath being poured out upon it'. His arguments are as follows:
a) Leviticus 5:5-13 allows an offering of flour if a poor man could not afford even two pigeons. But this is to ignore the big picture which is that the heart of the sacrificial system was the shedding of blood. A key verse is Lev 17:11: 'For the life of every creature is in the blood and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life'. It is not the life of the animal, as some have tried to argue, but the life violently taken in sacrifice, that is the atonement; the blood shed, not the blood flowing in the veins. As we read in the New Testament, '...without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins' (Heb 9:22).
The heart of the sacrificial system was the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) which begins with a reference to the day when Aaron's sons were killed for offering unauthorised fire ( Lev 16:1,2; and see Lev 10:1-3). A reference to the wrath of God could not be clearer. The implication is that the atonement is to avert God's wrath and that Aaron entered the presence of God at the risk of his life unless God accepted the sacrifice.
b) The scapegoat is indeed bearing the guilt and punishment of the people of Israel into the wilderness. It is a visible picture of what is typically achieved in the blood sacrifice of the goat that was slaughtered - sin is taken away by one party instead of being borne by another.
c) The Passover lamb (Exodus 12) averted the wrath of the destroying angel not by being eaten and its blood applied to the souls of the Israelites, as Nick suggests,foreshadowing the Eucharist, but by the blood being applied to the lintels of the doors; it was the angel's seeing the blood on the lintel that saved the Israelites (Exod 12:23).
d) The description of the sacrifices as a 'fragrant aroma' to the Lord is certainly because they pleased him as of course did the sacrifice of Christ ( Eph 5:1). This is a pointer to Christ's perfect obedience and certainly, too, Christians are urged to imitate his obedience. God requires perfect self-consecration. But only Christ could offer this. For his disciples' sake he consecrated himself (John 17:19), that is, he offered the perfect self-consecration so our imperfections would be forgiven. Far from denying penal substitution this is integral to it.

4. It is next asserted (after a number of quotes from Calvinist authors) that the gospels say nothing about Christ's spiritual suffering which these authors claim. Christ's cry 'My God My God why have you forsaken me?'(Matt 27:46) Nick takes to be God simply not providing relief from his attackers, as in Psalm 22, and it is 'blasphemous' to suggest God would inflict punishment on his Son. But what of the prayer of Christ in Gethsemane? Was this a fear of physical and emotional sufferings only? Did not Christ in that case show less courage than many human martyrs? And what of the context of the cross - the three hours of darkness? Is the presence of the wrath of God not powerfully symbolised there?

But this is where we have to look at the death of Christ in a much broader context. The atonement, however it may be interpreted, is to do with sin and God's response to sin. The penalty for sin is death. Death is not extinction or annihilation; it is, certainly, physical, the separation of soul and body and the return of the body to dust; but it is also, far more, a spiritual and eternal reality. Spiritually it is a different mode of continued existence in the presence of God. We are all dead in our trespasses (Eph 2:1). It is exclusion from fellowship with God in his love and grace; it is the experience of condemnation and the wrath of God begun now in this life with the certainty of eternal death - the 'second death' - in the hereafter. (John 3:36; 5:28,29; Matthew 25:46; Rev.20:14,15; Rom 1:18-3:26). The wrath of God is so woven into the text of Scripture (there are some 580 references in the Old Testament alone using over 20 different Hebrew words, and numerous references in the New Testament) that any idea of atonement has to deal with it and with the justice of God.

Moreover wrath is no impersonal mechanistic force but is God's personal, holy and consistent revulsion against sin so that even when it is seen in the natural processes of nature and history , which it surely is (see Romans 1:18f),it is still the work of God who works through those processes - it is a wrath 'revealed from heaven'; and further, though it works in history, it is still a wrath yet to come - a wrath 'to be revealed' on 'that day' for which impenitent sinners store up wrath for themselves.

To miss this framework when interpreting texts which describe the cross-work of Christ is truly to miss the wood while peering hard at the trees. It is not a desire simply to tie up a neat system of doctrines that leads Protestants to the idea of penal substitution, but the overwhelming evidence of Scripture itself - endorsed, it should also be said, in the doctrine of the early and medieval church where, though there was much variety of description of the atonement, the doctrine of penal substitution was not lacking, from Athanasius, through Augustine, via Anselm to Aquinas. It was certainly not a doctrine invented in the 16th Century though from this time it underwent much refinement.

Just to take Romans 3:21-26, for example, it is a good translator's decision to render hilasterion (v 25) as propitiation, that is, an atoning sacrifice that not only expiates sin but by satisfying God's justice removes God's wrath and renders God 'propitious', making peace by the blood of his cross. Does this mean it makes an angry God loving? Not at all; it is the love of God that provides the atonement in the first place; but in satisfying his justice, God is now reconciled to sinners, his wrath assuaged.

Unless there is propitiation in the work of the cross, there is nothing to deal with the main problem that Paul describes in Rom 1:18-3:20.

Inadequate theories of the atonement never deal satisfactorily with the wrath of God and the justice of God. They invariably stem from inadequate views of the seriousness of sin. This in turn leads to a dilution of the meaning of grace and love; for John tells us that the love of God is seen in this, 'that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins' (1 Jn 4:10).

This is why we say that Christ truly knew forsakenness by his Father as he experienced not just mental, physical and emotional pain, but the unique spiritual pain of bearing the Father's wrath against sin for people for whom he was the representative and substitute. No other interpretation does justice to the teaching of Scripture; nor to the work of Christ; nor to the needs of lost sinners.

5. In this light too we must interpret Isaiah 53. It is not essential to good interpretation to interpret this passage only according to the specific references and allusions in the New Testament but let us at least start there as Nick does.
a) Matt. 8:16,17 in no way denies penal substituion; it only suggests that healing , especially eschatological healing, was part of what Christ won on the cross.
b) It is doubtful if the difference between 'punishment' and 'chastisement' Nick seeks to draw in Isa 53 v 5b, will take the weight of his argument - that it is to do with correcting a wrong rather than eternal punishment and therefore does not mean penal substitution. Alec Motyer in The Prophecy of Isaiah at page 430 translates it as ' "our peace punishment", the punishment necessary to secure or restore our peace with God'. That seems to be a pretty good foundation for penal substitution. The point is - it is certainly substituted punishment, even if we make the verse say no more than that.
c) V 6,7,11, and 12 are referred to in 1 Peter 2:22-25. With 1 Peter 3:18 ('For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God...') it is clear that while the immediate context of 1 Peter 2:21f is to show forth the example of Christ's sufferings to the suffering Christians to whom Peter is writing, Peter's theology of atonement is substitutionary, and to read anything less into 2:24-25 is artificial.
d) Returning directly to Isa 53, what other meaning can there be in 'It was the Lord's will to crush him' than that the Lord was inflicting punishment on him (v 10)? Clearly, out of his sufferings, many are to benefit; 'he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors'.

The following points are set out by the authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions (Jeffery, Ovey and Sach, IVP 2007) in summarising Isaiah 53's messsage (at pages 54f):
1. The Servant is explicitly said to suffer 'for' others: see the contrast in vv 4-6 between 'he', 'his' and 'him' on the one hand and 'we', 'us', 'we all' and 'us all' on the other.
2. The suffering of the Servant brings great benefits to those for whom he suffers: see especially v 5 and also the context of the following chapters, the blessings of which the beneficiaries of the Servant's sufferings enjoy.
3. The Servant suffered willngly and deliberately, not as a passive victim of the actions of others - vv 4,5.
4. It is God himself who acts to lay the people's sin upon the Servant and to punish him -vv 6,10.
5. The Servant himself is sinless and righteous - v 9.
6. He suffered not for his own sins but for the sins of others vv 11,12.
7. The word translated 'guilt offering' (see Lev 5:16,18; 7:7) in v 10 anticipates something that will become explicit in the New Testament: the animal sacrifices of Leviticus are fulfilled in the sacrificial death of a person.

This reminds us of the theology of the letter to the Hebrews where it is clear that the Lord's work of atonement was carried out in his role as the High Priest of his people - indeed the only priest his people need. His atoning work is of a piece with his continuing intercessory work. Both are the one work of priesthood, the one part completed on earth ('It is finished'), the other continuing in heaven. One does not exclude the other; both are necessary parts of the priest's one work.

6. Galatians 3:13 is, as Nick recognises, a crucial verse - Christ became a 'curse' for us. To say that it is 'blasphemous' to say that God spiritually curses his Son, is begging the question. Paul refers to Deut 21 and as Nick does elsewhere we can use the New Testament as a guide to how the Old is interpreted. Paul is clearly applying the cursedness of a humiliating death for criminals to what Christ suffered. But the fruit of Christ's 'becoming a curse' shows that it is penal substitution that is referred to - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, and so the blessing of Abraham comes to us.

7. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is also an important verse, as Nick rightly acknowledges, though more to do with the imputation of Christ's righteousness than penal substitution. The verses Nick stacks up do not, however, convincingly make a case for translating hamartia in two different ways in the same verse - first as 'sin' then as 'sin-offering'. That may work where the context demands; but here it does not; it is far more reasonable to translate it as 'sin' both times. And then it makes sense. Christ was made sin for us, we are made the righteousness of God in him. Attempts have been multiplied to get around the doctrine of imputed righteousness but few things are clearer than that it is taught here.

The issue of the imputation of righteousness deserves much more comment. Nick argues in a comment on my blog that Rom 3:21-26, Gal 2:21 and 2 Cor 5:21, major 'justification' texts, only refer to the death of Christ. It is debatable if we are ever to look at his death separated from his life, but, in addition, look at the emphasis on Christ's 'one act of obedience' (hardly an appropriate phrase if it refers only to his death, as all of Christ's life was an act of righteousness) in Romans 5:18,19; and on the righteousness received from God that comes from God through faith in Philippians 3:9.

The whole context of Romans indeed is about man's need for righteousness which he cannot provide, which meets God's claims and which Christ provides. The inevitable tendency of denials of the 'active' righteousness of Christ is to allow a righteousness of our human works to slip in the back door to fulfil the law which in reality only Christ's work can do.

8. Nick moves on to state the Catholic (that is, Roman Catholic) position, "popularly called 'satisfation' in Catholic documents (or even 'satisfactory punishment' in older works)". This Catholic position is apparently that it 'consists in appeasing God's wrath by good works rather than directing it onto someone else to endure'. Here, in a phrase, is a denial of grace, of God's love, of the gospel and of Christ's work. What a cruel sham the cross was if we ourselves are to appease God! Or if a death was not necessary! Why did Christ die?

To support his case Nick looks at various cases of Old Testament intercession; Phinehas for example in Numbers 25:1-13. But what stopped the plague was that Phinehas slew the sinning Israelite and his Midianite woman. There was a death, albeit not of Phinehas. Let us go back to basics. What is the penalty for sin? Death. What will stop the wrath of God and satisfy his justice? A death. Other examples of intercession involve death ( eg Exod 32:28-35; Numbers 16:42-49) or a sacrifice(Job 42:7-9). It just does not work to say that bloodless intercession is a principle that excludes penal substitution. Remember : without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.

9. Nick goes on to say that one of the most devastating criticisms of penal substitution is that salvation can be lost, according to the teaching of Scripture. I am grateful that someone recognises the connection between a true understanding of the atonement and the concept of eternal security, or 'perseverance of the saints'. The only problem is, that the Bible does not teach that salvation can be lost, but rather that God's elect will never be lost. Nick lists 18 texts allegedly supporting his case but none in reality do. The clear teaching of Scripture is on the side of the promise that those who trust in the Lord will never perish and that the Son and Father will never lose any who come to him: John 6:37,39,40,44; 10:27-29; 1 Peter 1:3-5; Heb 13:5 etc.

One reason for this is - what? The doctrine of penal substitution, and in particular the doctrine of particular redemption. Nick sees the connection here more clearly than many Protestant evangelicals who try to keep penal substitution in tandem with a potential or hypothetical universalism and even with the concept of the loss of salvation. But Father, Son and Holy Spirit work in perfect harmony so that those whom the Father elected, the Son purchased and the Spirit renews, so that a people is saved for eternity. None for whom such a Triune work is completed can be lost. It is unthinkable.

10. Nick throws in some really big issues at the end.
a) That it is unjust for someone to die for others. But this reckons without the doctrine of covenantal or federal union with Christ by which what is his is reckoned to us and what is ours is reckoned to him. This is not unjust nor is it a fiction; it is a real union created by God which makes the 'great exchange' quite just.

b) That God should be able to forgive without punishing someone. After all, does he not expect that of us? But (i) God's justice is the 'bottom line' in the universe. Without his justice holding firm there would be no justice at all; and most of us feel the need for some justice after this life to right the wrongs done on earth. (ii) God 's justice is an expression of his character, and cannot be set aside without implying mutability in his character. God's justice is not simply his arbitrary will which can be changed 'at will'. To sin is to 'spit at God' and that cannot be simply 'set aside' or there is no basis for right and wrong. (iii) God claims vengeance for himself; we are not to seek revenge, not because it is wrong in itself, but because it is wrong for us. We do it sinfully, ignorantly and disproportionately; God does it perfectly and so we leave justice to him. But to avenge himself on evildoers is not wrong for him. The amazing thing is that believers are also evildoers - and for them, Christ died and took the vengeance on the cross.

c)If we are eternally forgiven why do we need to repent regularly? Because repentance is not what gains forgiveness - it is only the instrument or mechanism which, as the 'flipside' of faith, enables us to receive and enjoy forgiveness. Christ alone wins forgiveness. We need to repent daily because our sins, even when forgiven, cloud the relationship with God. Repentance and faith are gifts of God, themselves aspects of salvation, and although acts whereby we instrumentally receive salvation, they are not, properly speaking, conditions of it to be performed by us. We need to be able to receive his forgiveness in our experience; but only the shed blood of Christ obtains it.

I am grateful to Nick for making me think through some aspects of the doctrine of penal substitution again but his arguments far from convince me. It is not so much the detail of some of his exegesis but the bigger issues of sin, justice, wrath and grace which he does not adequately take into account and which provide the framework in which the texts need to be interpreted.