3 posts tagged “propitiation”
This is probably the first book review that I have done on my blog...soo, here goes nothing.
I have long heard critiques of Brian McLaren and other leaders in the Emergent Village, and have been worried about what I have heard that their theology is doing. However, I decided that this winter break I would go straight to the horses mouth, and read McLaren's book A Generous Orthodoxy, so that instead of disagreeing four times removed, I can at least know first-hand what his theology is. This book goes through why he is missional, evangelical, etc., and so is a manifesto of sorts about what the Emergent Village stands for.
Instead of immediately laying into McLaren, I believe it is important to acknowledge the good things that he has done with this book. First, he has reminded us that true Christianity must care for the environment. We were charged from the beginning to rule over creation, and since we can only understand that through the lens of the way Christ rules, by serving, we must then serve and protect the environment. I also like how he draws from different Christian traditions, acknowledging that there is some good in almost every branch of the church. I also agree with his emphasis on being missional: understanding God's mission and our sent-ness, so that we might engage the culture, not syncretize with it or thoroughly reject it either.
However, there are many places where McLaren is too generous, forgetting all about the importance of orthodoxy, or reading the Bible in general. The first is where he spends almost a page apologizing for the use of masculine pronouns in reference to Jesus and God. For some reason, God chose to reveal himself as the Father. I am not going to apologize for that. I am going to seek to understand that, but to apologize for what the Bible says is a rejection of Scripture.
Also, throughout the book, it seems as if he is reacting to a small percentage of Christianity on the hard right end of the spectrum, and pushes so hard that he ends up on the left. Most of his critiques of Christian culture and beliefs I agreed with, but he shares them as if they were brand-new things (even though the majority of Christians have realized these faults a long time ago).
Furthermore, through most of the book McLaren will implicity let things slip, but never explicitly state his opinion on a certain thing, so as to not be so obvious where he has gone astray of an accurate theological picture. Instead of giving answers, he simply asks questions, which has led mankind astray since a serpent simply asked questions in the garden of Eden, never explicitly contradicting God, but allowing the questions to lead to contradiction.
Probably the best example of what I am describing is when McLaren is critiquing fundamentalism. He writes in his chapter on the subject:
"Their [fundamentalists'] five fundamentals were largely chosen because they represented battle lines with theological liberals of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: the virgin birth, the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of scripture, penal substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus. Of the five, only two (virgin birth and bodily resurrection) were rooted in the creeds."
Do you see what he just did? He just implicitly chucked the innerrancy of scripture and penal substitutionary atonement. He doesn't come out and declare them wrong or incorrect. He simply lays them aside quietly, hoping no one will notice.
I want to go on a side note here. It seems as though the emergent church has tried to seem orthodox by appealing always to the creeds, Nicene and Apostles. However, in doing this McLaren chucks the penal substitutionary atonement (for a "brief" description of what that is, check out my post about it). There are many reasons it was not in the original creeds. For one, creeds are written to address heresies in that time period. But there was no such heresy denying penal substitutionary atonement at that time (the Nicene creed written in the late 4th century and the Apostles' creed written between the 1st and 5th centuries), because every pagan temple around them upheld the same basic idea of propitiating the gods. Also, it is clear not just in the Christian New Testament, but in the Old Testament, that penal substitutionary atonement is a theme of the entire Bible, from Genesis 22 through almost every epistle that Paul writes, and the letters of John as well.
Where then does McLaren leave us, by ditching the penal substitutionary atonement? It leaves us unforgiven. Without Jesus dying in our place to satisfy the justice of a righteous God, we are still under condemnation from God, and so we ought to tremble, for the wrath of God still stands over us.
The good news is that, while McLaren would throw away the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, he is not above the Bible and above Jesus. Instead, the doctrine stands, and we can rejoice that Jesus would take our sin onto himself, becoming sin on the cross for us so that we might be free from sin, if we fall at his feet, trusting him with all that we are.
And now to him who can do more than we would ever ask, think, or even imagine. Amen.
I seem to remember promising to break down God's wrath and propitiation (Jesus' atonement for God's wrath) at some point, so I wanted to get that out of the way now that I have some time. Here goes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, the attribute to describe God the most is holy. In Leviticus alone, it is used 123 times, usually in the refrain, "be holy, as I am holy." (i.e. Leveticus 11:44) This means that God is sacred, and cannot be in the presence of sin. He is holy.
But the problem is that we sin. This requires a response from God. It is not just that we sin, but that we reject God altogether (Romans 1:21), refusing to give him the worship that he deserves. Truly, anytime we sin, we sin against God. (Psalm 51:4) Being holy and righteous, God hates sin, as Psalm 5:5 says, "The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong." Sin as an affront to God's holiness is justly condemned, for God is also a just God (Deuteronomy 32:4). God's just response to this affront of God's character and God's creation is wrath.
While not dealt with much in most mainstream churches, it is dealt with quite prominently in the Bible. Actually, God's wrath is mentioned over 600 times using 20 different words in the Old Testament, while it appears prominently, but less frequently, in the new testament. Most often in the Old Testament, anger and wrath are used jointly, such as in Deuteronomy 9:19, 29:28, and Psalm 2:5. Some people see God as a God of wrath only in the Old Testament, but God does not change. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, and he has wrath today as well. Prominent examples in the Old Testament are 2 Chronicles 28:13b, which says, "Do you intend to add to our sin and guilt? For our guilt is already great, and his fierce anger rests on Israel." Also, the prophetic book of Nahum opens up with a description of God, saying, "The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies." (Nahum 1:2) Too often we read these passages and make a mental list of all the people who are God's enemies. But if we sin, against God especially, we are God's enemies. I just realized I have been throwing around this term wrath without really defining it, so allow me to provide the defenition that John Piper gave in his sermon on Romans 1:18-32. "The wrath of God is the settled anger toward sin expressed in repayment of suitable vengance on guilty sinners."
At first glance, this doctrine of God's wrath seems in conflict with His love. But if we reject God's personal wrath towards us, we also must reject his personal love towards us. A loving God's response to the destruction of his creation is wrath, for he not only loves the destroyer, but the destroyed, and therefore is wrathful at its defilement. Too often, we picture God as one of senile benevolence; but God's love is a fierce love, and He is wrathful when His creation, which He loves, is being destroyed.
Furthermore, God's anger and wrath are expressed in the New Testament as well. For if Jesus was not wrathful, and Jesus was God incarnate, then truly God cannot be wrathful. But in Mark 3:5, it says that Jesus was truly angry. Additionally, Jesus is described as wrathful in Revelation 6:16, when a chorus of voices cried out, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!" Also, God's wrath is described in Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6, and throughout much of the earlier part of Romans. Additionally, Romans 3:5-6 reports that God's wrath is deserved. It is described in Matthew 25:41-46 as an unquenchable fire, and as eternal in Mark 9:43.
If this is where we stand, under God's wrath and just condemnation, how shall we be saved? Where is the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Indeed, if I simply had told you that Jesus died for you, without showing you why that was so significant, you would not have listened. It would not have been good news, simply ok or apathetic news. But we are under God's wrath, and at this point, Jesus steps in and takes God's wrath on himself, in our place. This doctrine, known as penal substitutionary atonement, is the good news.. Many people want to reject this doctrine because of certain philosophical presuppositions that they carry with them. But you reject this, and it is no longer fully the gospel. This is the most beautiful part of the gospel.
In Romans, Paul writes, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith" (Romans 3:23-25, NASB) The word "propitiation" literally means a satisfaction of God's wrath, a clearing of his response, as Jesus bore God's wrath in our place.
Jesus' propiatory sacrifice atoned for our sins, allowing the possibility for us to be at one with God. But that is not the end of this process. You must believe in Jesus Christ, and follow him and obey him. Jesus proclaimed in John 3:36 that, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." In order to participate in the riches of God's grace, you must believe in Jesus. The death, burial, and ressurection of Jesus. No other religion or ideology. Jesus. You might tell me I am narrow-minded. But I am just as narrow-minded as Jesus was, no more, no less.
Do not be fooled. Do not think that this is a free ticket out. That everyone is cleared just because Jesus died. Some might say that this is errant, but "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient." (Ephesians 5:6) Also, "for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." (Romans 2:8)
Truly God is holy. Truly God is just. And truly God is merciful. He has extended to us a way out, in Jesus and his death on the cross. But we must not stop there. It requires action on our part, a turning towards Jesus and away from sin. A.W. Tozer notes that "the hope that God will not carry out his wrath because he is merciful is a deadly opiate to many people" (Paraphrase of Knowledge of the Holy). Do not be lulled in thinking that God's wrath will not be carried out because his love trumps all. Instead, let us fall to our knees, and proclaim:
O God, truly, you are holy, and just, and mighty, and merciful and loving. And we thank you for your good news, and for giving us a second chance. Truly salvation is of the Lord, and we thank you. O Praise Him, who sacrificed himself for us, so that we might be reconciled to God. Amen. So be it. Amen.
I received a comment tonight with a few questions that are very necessary to the Christian faith, and so being a theodoulos (slave of god), I gladly will answer them. Thank you poptart for asking them, nothing makes me more happy than answering questions I know have been asked.
- "Why would Christ, who is now God, as many people say, pray to himself?"
To understand any answer to this question, we must first understand the nature of God. God lives in community: he exists eternally in three persons as one Godhead- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is very hard to grasp, no matter how long you have been a student and disciple of the faith. The best tactile example I can give you is that of marriage- indeed, in Genesis, it says, "he created them in the image of God." When male and female are united in marriage, this is the closest equivalent to the Trinity we have. They exist "as one flesh." They are two distinct people, but united. Now take this to the next level. Three personalities, three spirits, the Trinity, who are closer than a man and woman can ever be. Indeed, they are so close, that they constitute one person. (Most of the description I used was gleaned from A.W. Tozer's Knowledge of the Holy or C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity)
And so Christ is only on part of the Godhead. Christ is the Son. In the beginning, before Genesis 1:1, there existed God, in three persons, each glorifying the others. And so Christ praying to the Father (which is what he almost always refers to him as, either that or Lord), is nothing out of the ordinary - it is what He has been doing for all eternity. Because prayer is first and foremost a glorification of the object of that prayer.
So Christ, who was always God the Son, prayed not to himself, but to the Father. I hope that is satisfying. If it isn't, push me harder, and I will search for better answers from more learned people (maybe who actually have a degree from a seminary).
- "If he were God, and knew what was to happen, being a God, why not just wipe the slate clean?"
This is a very important question, because if not properly answered, it could call into question God's justice. First of all, let me begin with an analogy - a chess match. If my opponent wants to take back an errant move, and as an easy going person, I let him take it back, that is all well and fine. But imagine if he could take any move back that he wanted. Imagine if I allowed him not only to do this, but to move my pieces if they got in his way. We would no longer have a chess match. It would be nothing. If God had miraculously intervened to offset any effects of the Original Sin, and then did it again and again with each new sin, there would be no choice. There would be a choice for good, and a null choice. And this would not be a freedom of will. This would be tyranny.
Also, if God just wiped the slate clean and said, "its ok, no worries," he would not be just. Bad actions demand punishment. And these actions must be punished. This is where Christ and the third question come into play.
- "What's the need with the blood sacrifice?"
First I want to address the necessity of sacrifice in general. What did Jesus accomplish on the cross? It is impossible to address every single accomplishment of the cross, and so I will focus the propitiation on the cross. For a more detailed overview of the Cross, see Mark Driscoll's series of sermons entitled Christ on the Cross.
I am going to focus on penal substitutionary atonement. Let me lay this out.
First there was God and then creation and paradise. Then we sinned. Because of our sin, God's just response is wrath. In fact, if you piled up the verses about wrath of God and the verses about love of God, you would probably have more about the wrath of God. His just response to our sin and disobedience is wrath. It is not unlike the situation if I was married, and I walked in on my wife sleeping with another man. My first response, and just response, would be wrath. Anger. The same thing has happened- we have been whoring ourselves around with everyone but God. We were meant to be in communion with God. And so he is wrathful, as he ought to be. He is disgusted by sin. Which is why in the Old Testament, there was a copious amount of blood everytime a sin offering had to be performed. It is disgusting. It is meant to be that way. God is trying to demonstrate how much sin disgusts him.
Enter Jesus. He dies on the cross, as a substitute for our sins. Just as a lamb was slaughtered as a substitution in ancient Israel, The Lamb was slain as a substitution for men (Calvin says limited atonement, Jacobus Arminius says unlimited atonement. But we must first choose Jesus). When on the cross, the wrath of God was wiped away. This clearing of the wrath of God is known as propitiation, and it is so important.
So why did there have to be blood sacrifice? - because sin is disgusting, and God wants us to know that. Let us kneel at the foot of the Cross, for surely, the blood of the Lamb will wash away our sins, atoning for our misdeeds, sins of omission and comission. Let us cling to Jesus.
- "Some say he didn't know what was going to happen, that he was a
confused son of man, falliable in such a state, but then... was he
really God, or just a servant?"
There are a lot of issues in this question. First I must say that Jesus was full God and fully man. If he is anything less, he cannot mediate between God and man, and so we have no hope from him. But thanks be to God, for he is, and so he can mediate between man and God, as Job yearned for in Job 9.
The argument that Mark Driscoll makes regarding this is that although Jesus was God, he never leaned heavily into his God character, but instead relied on the Holy Spirit. He was surely not a confused son of man, and proved his sovereignty through his prediction of his betrayal, Peter's denial, among others. Did he know exactly what was going to happen? I don't know. Did he know in the Garden that he was going to be crucified - why else would he be sweating blood? He was under immense stress (which is how one sweats blood), and so he knew how it was going down. We cannot call Christ fallible, for this means that he can be wrong, which he never was - he was the Lamb without spot or blemish. He had no sin. He was mutable (changing), because he had taken on a human body, but not fallible. Finally, he was really God, and also a servant. Because, as I said earlier, his life was a contiual glorification of God the Father, he continually submitted himself to the Father's will, to the point of death on a cross, the most horrible way to die. He was fully God the Son, serving God the Father fully for his entire life.
If there are any more questions, or any clarifications (after all, it is 2am here), I would be more than happy to answer them.
Let us remember to cling to Christ. For hope from Him does not dissapoint us.
