I’m looking forward to regular posts from CJ Mahaney on his new blog; ably assisted by Tony Reinke.
I love CJ’s opening remarks as he sets out his stall for this new venture:
“…I think you can anticipate a disproportionate number of posts on one topic, “Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2), for that, by the grace of God, is what I am most passionate about. So here would be my hope for this blog, and for the handful of you that will join my family in reading it. If I can somehow draw your attention each week to the hill called Calvary and remind you of the Savior’s substitutionary sacrifice on the cross for our sins, if I can draw your attention away from yourself and direct your affections to him, then this blog will have served your soul and made some small difference for the glory of God. I pray it does.”
This resonates with my own blog. Without a doubt, in recent months, I have become more concerned about gospel issues than charismatic ones.
Already Not Yet 
I’ m so glad CJ has a blog now! The quote Tony
posted there yesterday was amazing!
allsufficientgrace.wordpress.com
I love Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones take on it;
“”Orthodoxy is absolutely essential. But orthodoxy alone is not enough. A church can be perfectly orthodox and perfectly useless. The Apostolic message was orthodox but there was something else. Our Gospel came not unto you in word only but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance … you see the Apostle always relied on the power of the Holy Spirit”.
We don’t have to thankfully seperate the gospel from the dynamic or the charismatic. As 1 Corinthians 4:20 says – the two MUST come together. Otherwise they are just empty semantics.
I have been reading many books on the nature of the atonement. C J seems to focus mainly on the penal substitution aspect of the cross. There is so much more to the cross. Romans 5 shows Jesus as the Last Adam, the new representative head of all mankind, defeating and undoing the sin and the curse of the first Adam.
Also, another great aspect of the cross is Jesus’s defeat of Satan, principalities and powers, spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places. Jesus came to defeat the works of Satan, who had blinded the eyes of unbelievers and kept them captive to do his will.
Jesus also delivered us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. He who knew no sin, became sin on our behalf!
If you want to know more about the cross, check out books about the atonement by John Driver, Stephen Finland, Gregory Boyd, Joel Green, John Stott, and Bruce Reichenbach.
Hi Dan,
I agree with you, and ‘the Doctor’, it’s not about choice. But it is about emphasis or doctrinal proportion. Here’s how CJ puts it by quoting Graham Cole (see CJ’s blog on being a Reformed Charismatic):
“And I appreciate his [Cole’s] discernment. Later in the book he writes a section on “Discerning the Spirit” (pp. 273–276). He opens this subsection by writing, “Discerning what is a genuine work of God’s Spirit in today’s world is a tricky matter.” He then sets out three criteria for discernment: (1) the scriptural test, (2) the Christological test, and (3) the moral test. Within the Christological test, Dr. Cole writes,
He [the Holy Spirit] has not come, as we have seen in previous chapters, to thematize himself but Christ (John 14–16). Christology is at the center, not pneumatology.
A great Christian leader of an earlier century, Bishop J.C. Ryle, suggested that the gospel may be spoiled in a number of ways.…We can spoil the gospel when the NT sense of proportion is lost and pneumatology becomes our primary emphasis rather than Christology. The idea in some charismatic circles, for example, that “the major compass point for moving ahead in active ministry” is not “the cross” but “charisma” is extremely troubling. (pp. 274–275)
I recall reading this thinking, “Dr. Cole, you are more kind and generous and patient than I am.” I find that final phrase, “is extremely troubling,” to be very tactful. Had I been interacting with the author as he fashioned and finished this sentence, I would have said, “It’s not only troubling, but bogus and emphatically unacceptable.” But I admire Cole for his gentleness and humility. I hope one day to be like him.
Hi Dennis,
You’re right, the atonement is more than penal substitution, but it is not less than penal substitution. It’s penal substitution that gives meaning and substance and efficacy to the other benefits of the cross. For example, Jesus undoes Satan’s power by removing the grounds of his condemnation, i.e. receiving in his person the just penalty for our sin. Without the penal aspect of the cross there is no reason for Christ to be our representative (as the last Adam) in any other way. Check out CJ’s post on books about the cross that have most influenced him. Given the recent controversy concerning PSA, it’s not surprising that we’re hearing more about this aspect of the atonement more than others.
Hi Peter,
There are some that would say that the defeat of Satanic powers and the defeat of the power of sin and death is what gives the other aspects their meaning. Satan is depicted as the prince of the world, blinding the eyes of unbelievers and holding sinners captive. Satan was the one in the Garden of Eden who brought the temptation to sin. 1 John says that Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan. Certainly what happened in the Garden was one of the works that Jesus came to destroy.
In the book “Four Views of the Atonement, all of these aspects are discussed and debated. It is not clear that the emphasis or focus of the cross is or should be penal substitution.
In the book “Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, Joel Green and Mark Baker, do an excellent job of blending all aspects of the cross without arguing that any particular aspect of the atonement is being central. They speak of reconciliation, the defeat of evil, the conquering of death, the physical and spiritual healing aspect of the atonement, the representative headship of Jesus as the Last Adam, undoing the sin of the first Adam.
John Driver in his book ” Understanding the Atonement for the Mission of the Church” also explains the import of all aspects of the cross, and the drawbacks to putting penal substitution as the primary focus. He discusses the history of the penal substitution teaching and Anselm of Cantebury, who was the first to really put this specific aspect of the atonement to the forefront of cross theology.
One of the things that C J quotes from R C Sproul is that Jesus came to save us from God! God came in the flesh to rescue us from Himself! We are being saved from God???!!!! I understand the aspect of God’s wrath toward sin, bit I think this way of looking at it, is a dangerous distortion of why Jesus came and died on our behalf.
Thanks for your thoughts Dennis.
I like the way Professor Thomas Schreiner puts it in a paper , ‘Penal Substitution as the Heart of the Gospel’, given at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. You can listen to it online:
“The theory of penal substitution is the heart and soul of an evangelical view of the atonement. I am not claiming that it is the only truth about the atonement taught in the scriptures. Nor am I claiming that penal substitution is emphasized in every piece of literature, or that every author articulates clearly penal substitution. I am claiming that penal substitution functions as the anchor and foundation for all other dimensions of the atonement when the scriptures are considered as a canonical whole. I define penal substitution as follows: The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy his justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested.
The riches of what God has accomplished in Christ for his people are not exhausted by penal substitution. The multifaceted character of the atonement must be recognized to do justice the canonical witness. God’s people are impoverished if Christ’s triumph over evil powers at the cross is slighted, or Christ’s exemplarly love is shoved to the side, or the healing bestowed on believers by Christ’s cross and resurrection is downplayed. While not denying the wide-ranging character of Christ’s atonement, I am arguing that penal substitution is foundational and the heart of the atonement.”
Hi Peter,
Thomas Schreiner is one of the contributors in the book “Four Views on the Nature of the Atonement” and he argues in favor of the penal substitution aspect and focus. I personally found his arguments to be much weaker and well less defined than Gregory Boyd (Christus Victor view) and Joel Green (Kaleidoscopic view).
John Drivers book that I mentioned before, also gives a much more balanced and detailed view of the atonement. Thomas Schreiner is a very gifted and knowledgeable Christian writer, and very well qualified. However, I found his presentation to be too narrow in focus and too shallow in it’s depth.
Have your read “Recovering the Scandal of the Cross” or “Understanding The Atonement for the Mission of the Church”? With all due respect to Thomas Schreiner, I would say that his penal substitution focus, pales in comparison to these other more well rounded presentations of the work of the cross.
Hi Peter,
There is another very crucial element of the atonement expressed in Romans 8:20-21: “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (NKJV)
The earth was cursed as a result of the sin in the Garden, but there will be a new earth where righteousness dwells. The entire creation will be set free from it’s bondage to corruption! Jesus stilled the storm, multilpied loaves and fishes, turned water into wine etc. He was victorious over the limits and evils of nature.
Jesus spent much time healing diseases and sicknesses, healing the blind, deaf and mute, and casting out demons After Jesus cast out the legion of demons, the man was sitting with Jesus, clothed and in his right mind. He had been delivered from evil. Jesus came to deliver the entire cosmos from the clutches of evil.
Penal substitution for sin, does not seem to be played out as the main focus of the earthly ministry of Christ.
Hi Dennis,
I don’t think anyone is denying the multiple facets of the atonement. The question is whether emphasis should be placed on one particular aspect of the atonement or not? For me it’s not about balance, as if each facet merits equal weight. It’s about doctrinal proportion and how different doctrines – and aspects of the same doctrine – relate to each other and the central theme of Scripture. Thus we are able to distinguish the relative importance of doctrines in relation to each other.
In ‘Pierced for our Transgressions’, the authors pick up on the objection to citing PSA as more central to our understnding and application of the atonemnent. Check out their interaction with Green and Baker in Chapter 7. (pp. 208 – 211)
Chapter 3 deals conclusively, to my mind, with PSA being the hinge that other aspects of the atonement turn upon.
I appreciate your comments and am just about to order a copy of the ‘four views’ you mentioned.
As for your last comment: “Penal substitution for sin, does not seem to be played out as the main focus of the earthly ministry of Christ”, I think the opposite. Giving his life as a ransom for many is why he came into the world and why he set his face as flint to go to Jerusalem. And woe betide anyone who tried to deflect him from this path. Sure, there is much else that Jesus came to do. But what is central? His very name is prophetic of him dealing with sin.
Pete
Hi Peter,
Thank you for the feedback, and I am enjoing our converstation. There is no more important topic to examine than the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and the power of His ressurection.
Do you know of any scriptures that clearly indicate substitution rather than the federal headship of Christ and the representative aspect of the atonement of the cross on our behalf?