You might find this article intriguing. Dr. Al Mohler is critiquing an influential book written by a gentleman in England which was promoted by NT Wright who spoke at a Grad IVCF national conference. The book is also promoted by other big names in church growth on this side of the pond. Of particular concern is the sacrifice of Christ and what is called penal substitution, where Christ dies in our place and takes the punishment we deserve for sin. Isaiah 53 really hammers this truth home as does the apostle Peter.
But mainline liberals (never very appreciative of absolutes, sin, any hint of God's wrath, punishment and such) and apparently now a significant number of fast-grow evangelical leaders like a fellow named McLaren who writes sometimes for Christianity Today are now rejecting this teaching (penal substitution) as 'celestial child abuse'. But doesn't the doctrine of penal substitution seem rather central to the gospel itself. I'd be curious as to your thoughts on this. Note these players as they are not going away. In fairness to NT Wright, his blog states that he does not reject penal substitution though it is unclear why he writes a promotion piece on the book's jacket for his author friend who does reject it. The writer of this critique below is a good guy and is the president of the Southern Baptist seminary in Louisville, KY. Enjoy being cutting edge on another 'evangelical borders' discussion.
Short Quiz: The first press on the definition of 'evangelical' in post 'year of the evangelical' history, biggie question was, Is the Bible true in all it properly interpreted, intends to teach? Answer. Yes. The second was, Does God really know everything including every detail of the past, present, and future? Answer. Yes. In review of this new question below, Did Christ take the penalty (punishment, death, wrath on sin) from His father for our sins when he took them into his body on the cross? Answer. Yes. What is wrong with the hip and happening evangelical scholars these days?! Answer. Not sure but odd ideas in hero mouths, do apparently sell books. Read the full article here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Joe,
I have been watching with interest on how some EC people try to cite medieval practices plus some of the patristic fathers to justify their positions on some things. I was reading book one of John Calvin's "Institutes" and noted in his defense to the King that Calvin's opponents also tried to cite patristic authority, mistakenly as it turns out. John C. turns them on their heads, making the point that while the early church fathers wrote much that was commendable, many did depart from Scripture in certain areas and THAT was the problem.
Post a Comment