Now on sale! Slowly by Slowly

Available from Xulon http://www.xulonpress.com/book_detail.php?id=8287

Atonement and Ransom

Here is something about the atonement. In my studies about the early church fathers, I run across the idea of the ‘Ransom to Satan’ theory of the atonement. As a good evangelical I know that is totally bogus, but as a curious weirdo, I can’t let go of the thing. So here is a proposal as to how the ‘ransom to Satan’ and vicarious atonement propitiation can actually fit together. Please understand that I am not simply interested in trying to reconcile everything. I genuinely feel that our evangelical theory of the atonement needs some supplement. The doctrine of redemption where Jesus pays the penalty for our sins is pretty solid in the Scriptures. I have no objection to it. But I feel like there is more. Anyway, here goes.

God has said that whoever sins will be punished, usually with death. Who does the punishing? Often we feel lke God does it. But I noticed a pattern in Scripture. God usually has an angel do the job. Often both God and the angel are given credit for the task. But the angel actually does the deed. In Exodus 12:21, 29 it says that God killed the first-born. But in Exodus 12:23, it says that ‘the Lord will pass over your door and not allow the destroyer to enter.’

In church discipline, Paul turns someone over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, 1 Cor. 5:5. The scapegoat ritual in Leviticus 16 is very interesting on this score. Two goats are at the center of this Day of Atonement ritual. One goat is sacrificed and its blood shed. The other is set aside. The priest places his hands on the live goat and transfers all the sins of the people onto the goat’s head, Lev. 16:21. Then, they will send the live goat out into the desert to Azazel, Lev. 16:8, 22. Many commentators, including Keil and Delitzsch believe this refers to a demon in the wilderness, who takes the goat with the sins. They are sending the sins back to where they come from, namely, the devil.

Now, Hebrews 2:14 says that Satan held the power of death, and that Christ set us free from him. What if that power were delegated to Satan? Therefore, in order to pay for our sins, the Father turned Jesus over to Satan to be killed, to pay the penalty we deserved. This might make Lewis’s Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe make more sense. In order to pay for Edmund’s sin, Aslan was not turned over to his father, the emporer across the sea. What does the witch say? ‘Traitors belong to me?’ Maybe she is right, and that that ownership was given to her, just as to Satan. So when a person becomes a believer, they are transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, Col. 1:14. They are set free from the devil who has taken them captive, 2 Tim 2:26. Wel, it is something to think about. Perhaps more interesting than evolution and creation.

Views on the Bible and Creation

Well, I think that last post on imputation was probably fairly incomprehensible, so I will proceed to the next topic I said some time ago that I would discuss. I wanted to mention some ideas about the creation / evolution controversy. I have been studying this issue seriously for a number of years, and the only real conclusion I have come to is that it is very complicated on every front. The science is complicated and so are the Biblical exegesis and theological discussions. Therefore, I advocate that churches allow discussion and a wide range of options as serious options for Evangelicals to believe, instead of only one. In many churches young earth creationism (Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, Duane Gish) is the only option. But we should recognize other options from old earth creationism (Gleason Archer, Hugh Ross) to theistic evolution (Howard Van Til, C. S. Lewis).

YEC’s (young earth creationists) are usually very intolerant of any other views. But one of the great ironies in theological writing comes in Henry Morris’s book the Genesis Flood which was largely responsible for the modern young earth creationism, flood geology movement. In the introduction to Genesis Flood, Morris speaks about how his scientific views are based on the Bible. He says, “We accept as basic the doctrine of the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, to which Benjamin B. Warfield has given admirable expression in the following words:”. And then he quotes a paragraph from Warfield about inerrancy. Why is this ironic? It is ironic because even with his belief in verbal inerrancy, Benjamin Warfield was a theistic evolutionist. He believed in macroevolution and the theory of Charles Darwin. He simply believed that God had created the process and worked providentially in making it happen.

Joshua Zorn is a missionary in Asia and wrote an essay pleading with pastors and missionaries to not make a big issue of the age of the earth. You can find it here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/zorn.html

The ASA website in general is good and helpful. Another website that talks about different perspectives on science and the Bible is the Answers in Creation website:

http://www.answersincreation.org

Imputation and Imputation

I hope that the discussion of death before the law as physical death or hell is somewhat resolved. Trying to work through these texts can be difficult. This response to Naz is a little longer and so I decided to surface this submarine discussion up to the level of a new post since it has little to do with the original post anyway.

I wanted to respond to Naz’s concern about taking Paul’s words in their apparent plain sense. I have nothing but applause to take the text for what it says. My concern is that as Naz is surely aware in interpreting the text, there are many examples where the plain reading of the text is the exact opposite of the sense that God wants us to get. Amos 4 is a favorite where God commands the Israelites to “go to Bethel and sin, and go to Gilgal and sin yet more.” Jesus commands those with sin problems to cut off hands and gouge out eyes in Matthew 5. And yet we are expected to directly disobey these grammatically and lexically clear statements, because there is a clearer theological idea.

In other places there are ambiguities in how a word is supposed to be understood in a given context, simply because this word is used in different senses in different contexts. What I was saying about the phrase you objected to, is that Paul is not talking about imputation of sin in the normal sense that we talk about it in Reformation theology. Because there must be a sense in which people before Moses’ day who were unsaved, unforgiven, and unrighteous to have been understood as such, and condemned by God.

In trying to understand the meaning, I think we need to solidify our understanding of the law of Moses as the specific law under discussion and its role in that society. According to the Jewish understanding of things in Jesus’ and Paul’s day, adherence to such commands as circumcision, feast days and sacrifices defined who the people of God were. Thus Paul refers to those ‘outside the law’ as sinners (Galatians 2:16). However, Jesus (Matthew 23:23) and Paul (1 Corinthians 7:19) were making a distinction between simple adherence to outward observances and true obedience to the law (Romans 2:25-29). Thus a true Jew is not one who is Jewish on the outside, but one on the inside.

It seems to me that Paul in Romans 5:13-14 may be saying with his ‘sin is not imputed where there is no law’, that ‘when the law of Moses is not around, it cannot do its job of defining who is a member of the people of God and who is not; it cannot say that this person is a sinner, in the sense that they do not participate in the physical rite of circumcision or in the feast days. And yet people were sinners and were punished accordingly.

Abraham lived before the law and was accepted by God because of his faith. And we in the post-law period are also accepted by faith. And even though we are not under the law of Moses, and therefore it cannot be used to distinguish the sinners from the people of God, there still are sinners and saints. The defining characteristic, according to Paul in Romans, and this is his point, is the Holy Spirit and faith.

I hope this gives some justification for my understanding of the text. In this case, I think that a plain reading, if understood from a certain perspective, forces one to say things that are not true, even in the context of the passage itself.

Why Do People Not Want Grace?

Why do people not want God’s grace? This was the question I asked a friend of mine a few weeks ago. God’s grace is amazing, wonderful, rich, free and endless. And most people don’t want it. My friend answered that the reason people did not want grace was because they wanted to earn salvation. People want to work for salvation rather than receive it freely; thus, the old works versus faith.

However, the longer I thought about it, the more I disagree. I don’t usually see people welcoming the idea of earning salvation. I certainly would be content to get salvation as a gift rather than have to work for it.

Even in the Bible I don’t see a strong desire on the part of people to prefer to earn their salvation rather than receive it freely. Sometimes the Pharisee in Luke 18, in contrast to the tax collector, is used as an example of someone who is trying to earn his salvation by works. However, I am not sure that religious pride is necessarily a sign that someone is trying to earn their salvation by works.

I think the real reason that people don’t want grace is that the method of grace is transformation rather rescue. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:7-9a –

To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

Most of the time, God does not rescue us out of difficult situations. Rather he wants to transform us within difficult situations. The fruit of the Spirit is not health, wealth, happiness, and success, but love, joy, peace, and patience. And in the transformation process God requires our active participation. The obedience of faith responds to God’s grace in our hearts and produces salvation (look at the verb katergazomai in Philippians 2:12 and how it is used in other passages).

So when we are offering God’s grace to people, we are not offering them rescue from their problems. We are offering them a cross to carry. And most people don’t want it. But they are certainly not sitting there thinking, “No thanks, I would rather earn my salvation.” They may feel that they are somehow already worthy, like the Pharisee. And getting them to see their sin and need for salvation is always a work of God’s illumination.

The message of Christmas is not simply that God saves, but how God saves. Jesus grew up in obscurity and grew in obedience through suffering (Hebrews 5:8-9). And the message of saving grace is “Take up your cross and follow me.”

The Sacrament of Penance

I hope you don’t mind, Patrick if I mix blogs, but I read your remarks on penance and had more to say than was reasonable in a comment slot. I also just wanted to make sure it didn’t get lost because it was a post from some time ago. I was also deeply moved again by your post about Lauren. I wish I could be there to encourage and pray with you. Lord, so much I don’t understand. But I was grateful to see that we have the elite French forces to fall back on if all else fails.

I am thankful Patrick that you touch on subjects that get most people in trouble. I wanted to comment on your post about PENANCE. This is not a controversial topic among Protestants simply because it is not a topic at all, but it should be. I agree with your need for more in the repentance process, and with your concern to guard against saying that somehow we need to share with Jesus in the payment of our sins. As people who are trying to follow Biblical teaching, we believe that Christ died for our sins, and that we must confess our sins to God and repent. You are introducing the idea of confessing to another person, which I think is good (cf. James 5:16). I have also always wondered if there is something more to John 20:23, where Jesus apparently gives the disciples power to communicate God’s forgiveness to confessing sinners. But that is another topic.

I would like to advocate an additional step, and that is something that looks like the traditional form of penance as extra activities after confession, good works in some form. And why? Because sin harms and damages us, body and soul. Let me explain.

In the Old Testament, when a person stole something (Leviticus 6:2-7), the person was required to do at least three things: 1) make a sacrifice to God for forgiveness, 2) restore what was taken, 3) and (and this is the interesting part to me here) add one-fifth to what was being restored in step two. What is this third step? Is it payment for sin? No, that was dealt with in step one. You don’t pay for sin twice. God required something more than simple restitution. But why?

Isaiah 1:4-6 describes sinful Israel in terms of sickness. The truth is sin harms us. When we sin, we damage our soul. We do not only need forgiveness, we need healing. Let me quote from the Catholic Cathecism which I feel like at least on this point has some good things to say (hopefully I haven’t lost everybody at this point):

“Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, . . .). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, . . . Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for his sin.

“The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, . . .” (Taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1459-1460).

When I sin through hate, it makes an impression on my heart, soul and mind such that it is easier for me to hate more the next time the occasion arises. If I look at pornography, I can quickly develop that practice into a habit, and it gets stronger each time I sin. I need to counteract that habitual tendency of hate, lust, greed, whatver, with new actions, new habits.

Now, how do these “extra activities” at the time of repentance relate to normal activities in a healthy, Christian life? We can go with the analogy of a physical illness or injury. If I spend too much time out in the cold without a coat, etc., I may get a bacterial respiratory infection. I may need some special treatment to get rid of the infection like antibiotics, staying home, etc. But when I return to normal life, I will try to be more careful to live in a careful healthy way. Penance is like the antibiotic, after which a spiritually healthy way of life can keep us stable.

Alcoholics and drug addicts sometimes go into a 30 day or so rehab to break the initial hold that those chemicals have on the person, and then they have a follow-up program after that. That program could be understood as a kind of penance, extraordinary measures taken to help restore order to body and soul.

So, sin creates guilt before God and disorder in the soul. Forgiveness through the cross of Christ removes guilt, but penance in the form of an extra, additional, and temporary program activities can help bring some healing for the disorder that sin creates.

I look forward to your comments.

Imputation of Christ's Righteousness

I wrote in my last post about the imputation of Adam’s guilt to all mankind. While agreeing that the Bible calls all people sinners and that we all inherit Adam’s tendency to sin, his sin nature if you will, I concluded that I saw no evidence in the Bible, nor any need theologically, for the doctrine that I and all people are born guilty of Adam’s sin. We are all sinners and in need of God’s grace, but I am not guilty of what Adam did. I am still open to interaction on that, but that is where I am now.

Now I want to address the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. R. C. Sproul describe the difference between the Catholic doctrine and the Evangelical doctrine of justification as follows:

Nor is it sufficient merely to say that Rome teaches that justification means "to make just," while Protestants teach that justification means "to declare just." For Rome God both makes just and declares just. For Protestants God both makes just and declares just -- but not in the same way. For Rome the declaration of justice follows the making inwardly just of the regenerate sinner. For the Reformation the declaration of justice follows the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the regenerated sinner.

So then, in his view (which I think is pretty standard) is that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is not the same as justification, but rather is the basis for justification. Now I am not going to argue for the Catholic view here. Rather I want to argue against the whole system of categories that require me to choose between either basing my justification on some infused justice or on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

My thesis is that I am justified by faith. According to Romans 4:3-5, God sees my faith in Christ, and then declares me righteous. This righteousness is not a substance which is given to me, or a credit that is put into some account somewhere. To the extent that Paul uses this language, he seems to be speaking metaphorically.

Part of the problem with this issue revolves around the idea of what righteousness is. I want to define righteousness, whether God’s or ours, as faithfulness to the covenant. This is always how it is understood in the Old Testament. Righteousness is not some abstract idea of goodness or correctness, but refers to the covenant which defines relationship with God. To be justified means that God declares that you are a member in good standing within the covenant community.

In Romans and Galatians, Paul was arguing that under the New Covenant introduced by Christ and confirmed by his death, entrance into the covenant is not based on circumcision, feast days, or eating the right foods. Rather God accepts us by faith. He shows grace to those who simply believe the gospel.

I have read John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Louis Berkhof and others on this issue. The standard passages they show to prove the imputation of Christ’s righteousness are Romans 4:6, 5:19; I Corinthians 1:30, II Corinthians 5:21; and Philippians 3:9. However, in none of these passages do we find the phrase “imputation of (or the verb ‘imputes’) the righteousness of Christ to us (believers).” Now simply because the phrase is not used does not automatically rule out the idea. But we should then look closely to see if we can build the idea from the texts. It is my contention that we can not. The verses simply do not require it.

So what difference does it make theologically to let go of the imputation of Christ's righteousness? Well, the issue is justification and salvation. However, justification is still by faith, by grace, and by Christ. Christ died for my sins and his sacrifice is the basis for God’s offering salvation to me. He shows me grace, I believe in him. He then justifies me and gives more grace and salvation. It seems to me that the idea of the Father’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers is not necessary theologically.

My view at this point is that the doctrine of Christ's imputation arose in the context of the reformation debates about justification. The reformers like Luther and Calvin debated with the Catholics and often gave different answers to questions like justification, but did not change the overall conceptual structure in which those answers were put. Thus, in thinking about justification, if our justification is not based on infused righteousness, then on whose righteousness is it based? Well, Christ’s of course! However, I say that the question of whose righteousness it was was related to a conceptual box that did not need to be filled. It is enough to say that God declares us righteous because we believe the gospel. That seems to me to be all that Paul said.