 |
| For the past 18 years, Dr Bob Terry has edited The Alabama Baptist. Earlier this month, he triggered a maelstrom by "recognizing" the "rationale" for the heretical PCUSA's removal of "In Christ Alone" from its newest hymnal. The PCUSA has not championed SOLUS CHRISTOS as a whole in decades. Hence, any defense of their general motus operandi, direct or tacit, from any member of an evangelical denomination is as utterly stupefying as a Neo- Nazi in an Afro Sheen commercial! Yesterday, Terry issued a retraction for his injudicious assessment. Yet one question will regrettably remain: Just how prevalent are these kinds of soteriologically negligent appraisals in his thinking at the end of the day? Or, for that matter, among his immediate peers? This type of fence straddling enjoys little plurality in the Yellowhammer State among evangelical Protestants, in general. Lord knows I would bristle at the very notion; as the State of Alabama is the bastion of the virtual whole of my maternal line! A notable exception would be my great great grandfather, the Rev Gilbert Dickson; who was a native South Carolinian. He relocated to Lowndes County, Alabama as a young man and answered the call to ministry in the Primitive Baptist tradition. Notwithstanding the Strict Baptist position on infant baptism, his theology was otherwise as solidly to the quinquarticular right as any teaching elder in the OPC. That's why this struck such a deep chord!!!! |
Here's what started the firestorm
Aug. 8 editorial: Why Disagree About the Words of a Hymn?
Who would expect the words of a popular modern-day Christian hymn to cause a theological dust up? That is exactly what has happened after a decision by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) not to include the hymn “In Christ Alone,” released in 2001, in its new hymnal “Glory To God: The Presbyterian Hymnal.”
Originally the committee voted to include “In Christ Alone” but with a change to one phrase. The committee proposed changing a line in the second verse that says “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisfied” to read “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The love of God was magnified.”
Changing the words of a hymn to reflect theological teaching is a common practice. The first verse of the beloved hymn “At the Cross” by Isaac Watts originally read, “Would He devote that sacred head for such a worm as I.” Compilers of the “Baptist Hymnal” changed that line to read, “Would He devote that sacred head for sinners such as I.”
This time the song’s authors Keith Getty and Stuart Townend would have none of it and refused permission to make the change. The hymnal committee then voted 9–6 not to use the song because the theology of the disputed phrase reflected the view of a part of the Presbyterian Church but was not appropriate for the diverse membership as a whole.
That decision prompted an outpouring of protest. At least one blogger cited the decision as an example of liberalism in the denomination. Beeson Divinity School Dean Timothy George was more balanced in his reaction. He wrote, “God’s love is not sentimental; it is holy. It is tender but not squishy. It involves not only compassion, kindness and mercy beyond measure, but also indignation against injustice and unremitting opposition to all that is evil.”
George cautioned that to ignore God’s wrath can result in “a less than fully biblical construal of who God is and what He has done, especially in the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ.”
George is exactly right. The Bible speaks clearly about the wrath of God and warns that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God (Ps. 90:11).
Yet there remains a question about whether God was an angry God at Golgotha whose wrath had to be appeased by the suffering of the innocent Jesus. Sometimes Christians carelessly make God out to be some kind of ogre whose angry wrath overflowed until the innocent Jesus suffered enough to calm Him down. It is the ultimate “good cop/bad cop” routine where God is against us but Jesus is for us.
Some popular theologies do hold that Jesus’ suffering appeased God’s wrath. That is not how I understand the Bible and that is why I do not sing the phrase “the wrath of God was satisfied” even though I love the song “In Christ Alone.”
I take the incarnation seriously when the Bible teaches “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). According to Scripture the One who died at Golgotha was One with the Father (John 10:30). The apostle Paul added, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19).
As I understand Scripture, Jesus opened a new window through which people could see what God is like. God has always been like Jesus and Jesus has always been like God. That is why Jesus said to the apostle Philip in John 14:8–11, “If you have seen Me you have seen the Father.”
That humankind was estranged from God by sin is not in doubt. Nor is there any question that the place of that reconciliation was the cross or that Jesus was the instrument of that reconciliation.
Mankind could not overcome being separated from God by itself. God is the one who took the initiative for reconciliation, the One who continues to take the initiative. God wants to forgive. That is why He sent His Son (John 3:16).
God is always the active agent in reconciliation. He is not reconciliation’s object.
One well-known Baptist theologian said it clearly: “Reconciliation is not the appeasement of God. It is God’s own work in restoring man to proper relationship with Himself.”
Certainly the holiness of God means that sin cannot be condoned. That is why the atoning sacrifice of Christ satisfies the demands of God’s holy law. The sacrifice also demonstrates God’s boundless love that goes beyond the law.
An entry in the Holman Bible Dictionary, published by LifeWay Christian Resources, under “expiation” makes this point. The author writes, “God was not waiting to be appeased (as in the pagan, Greek conception). Rather God condescended to meet us on our level to remedy the situation.”
Scholars will continue arguing about whether the sacrificial system of the Bible, of which Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, had God as its subject or its object. If He is the subject then God acted to cover and forgive sins through the sacrificial system. If He is the object then God received the offerings for sin that in some ways pacified His anger and need for justice.
Again the Holman Bible Dictionary says, “In the New Testament setting, this would mean that on the cross Jesus either dealt with the evil nature of human sin and covered it so that God forgives it (subject) or it means that Jesus satisfied God’s holy anger and justice so that forgiven sinners could freely enter the presence of the holy God” (object).
That is the essence between the disputed phrases in the song “In Christ Alone.” One emphasizes “the love of God was magnified” (subject); the other “the wrath of God was satisfied” (object). Whichever phrase one chooses to sing it must be remembered that it is God’s grace that initiated the sacrifice of Jesus to provide covering and forgiveness for our sin and that His sacrifice satisfied the holy demands of God’s righteousness for sin to be punished.
But God is not the enemy. He is our seeking Friend (Luke 15). That is why I prefer to focus on His love evidenced at Calvary rather than on His wrath.
Here is his subsequent offering from four days later
Before I arrived at the office on the morning of Friday, Aug. 9, I received a phone call telling me the editorial “Why Disagree about the Words of a Hymn?” had generated a lot of response overnight. I was shocked when the caller added that I was being accused of not believing in penal substitutionary atonement — the teaching that Jesus paid the price for sin when He died on the cross in our place.
That anything I write would call into question the atoning work of Jesus Christ is inappropriate and to those who read this editorial that way, I apologize.
Let me be clear. I believe in and unapologetically preach: 1. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23); 2. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life (Rom. 6:23); 3. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19); 4. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8); 5. If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom. 10:9); 6. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom. 10:13).
Consistent with that belief I wrote in the editorial “…it is God’s grace that initiated the sacrifice of Jesus to provide covering and forgiveness for our sin and that His sacrifice satisfied the holy demands of God’s righteousness for sin to be punished.” I believe that is an affirmation of the penal substitutionary atonement understanding of salvation.
Again, sin separates us from God. Sin has a price that has to be paid before sinful man can be reconciled to a holy God. Jesus paid the price for our sin on Calvary and only because of what was done for us on the cross can we be reconciled to God. I understand that to be bedrock Christian beliefs.
For those interested in my writings about the atonement, let me suggest two examples: March 25, 2010, and April 5, 2012. Other references to the atonement can be found in numerous editorials over the years and most can be found on this website. But let me emphasize again, the Aug. 8 editorial was not about the atonement.
I am beginning to wonder if part of the confusion surrounding the Aug. 8 editorial relates to different meanings of the word “wrath.”
If the meaning is that on Calvary God’s punishment for our sins was poured out on Jesus, then that is certainly biblical and something I would never question. That is my understanding of penal substitutionary atonement and is what I have written through the years.
If the meaning of “wrath” is that God is vindictive and took joy in punishing His Son then that is not how I find God described in the Bible. As I understand the Bible, it was because “God so loved the world” that He was willing “to crush him and cause him to suffer” and become a guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10 NIV). Sin had to be punished to satisfy the righteous justice of a Holy God and only the Son of God could satisfy that demand.
And the conveyance of his regrets
For the past few days I have been caught in a social media storm like nothing I have experienced before in my years as editor of a state Baptist paper. On Aug. 8 and 9, about 10 times as many people came to the The Alabama Baptist website as usually visit each day. Practically all clicked on the Aug. 8 editorial “Why Disagree About the Words of a Hymn.”
The result was an avalanche of tweets and blogs, most condemning the editorial and claiming it denied penal substitutionary atonement — that Jesus bore the penalty of our sin and died on the cross in our stead. I was called a heretic among other things. Baptist Press news service did a lengthy story on the accusations, which the press service released two consecutive days — Aug. 12 and Aug. 13.
To all Alabama Baptists and other readers I owe a sincere apology for writing in a manner that allowed some readers to conclude that I denied such a basic biblical doctrine — penal substitutionary atonement. I do not deny that belief, as an examination of my editorials over the years will clearly show.
Through the years I have written repeatedly affirming the doctrinal position of penal substitutionary atonement. In the March 28, 2013, editorial titled “The Hero of Easter,” I wrote, “In Christ, God Himself took on the sin of the world. He became the sin bearer. Again, Colossians 1:19–20 says, ‘For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him (Jesus), and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood shed on the cross.’”
In the April 5, 2012, editorial one reads, “Jesus was at one time both the Lamb being sacrificed — ‘He offered Himself’ — and the High Priest offering the sacrifice of atonement. That is why the writer of Hebrews referred to Jesus as ‘the Great High Priest.’ The imagery is of Jesus entering God’s presence with the blood offering of the sacrificial lamb to be poured out on the altar.”
Both examples are clear affirmations of the doctrine that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. There are many more examples. I have never written or preached anything to the contrary.
But because many readers understood the editorial differently than I intended, I scheduled a private conference with Timothy George, founding dean of Beeson School of Divinity at Samford University in Birmingham, to see if he could help me see blind spots I might have that prevented me from recognizing an inadvertent denial of penal substitutionary atonement. For more than an hour we talked about God’s holiness, God’s love and God’s wrath.
His appraisal was kind and direct. He pointed out that I had used some “unwise and incautious” statements. He also pointed out that it is dangerous to raise a question about something so dear to people as the hymn “In Christ Alone.”
On the critical issue of denying penal substitutionary atonement, he said for the record, “Particularly, the next- to-last paragraph in the original editorial is a very clear statement of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. (Bob Terry) affirms both — there are two dimensions of this — he affirms both expiation and propitiation. He doesn’t use those words but what he says here in this paragraph affirms both of them.”
So why the confusion over the editorial? First, the editorial in question was never about atonement. It was about the mindset of God. It was about the false notion of God’s wrath that describes God as a vengeful and vindictive being who enjoyed punishing Jesus. The editorial tried to make a caricature out of that understanding and argued against it to show that the cross is not about vindictiveness but about God’s love.
Unfortunately some readers concluded that I believed that caricature and blogged about me holding heretical positions. I was wrong not to make more abundantly clear that I was opposing the caricature of God’s wrath and not the orthodox biblical teaching itself.
Some readers felt the editorial indicted all who love the phrase “The wrath of God was satisfied” and implied they were wrong. That was never the intention. When wrath is understood as God’s punishment for sin poured out on Jesus at Calvary, that is exactly what the Bible teaches as I understand it. The editorial comments were directed only at the unbiblical understanding of God being vindictive, or a bully or having a temper-tantrum toward His Beloved Son. While to the orthodox Christian, these caricatures may seem far-fetched, they are ideas about wrath one finds in Christian history and ideas that some hold today.
Other unhappy readers charged the editorial created a false dichotomy between love and wrath. They point to the paragraphs about “expiation” as ruling out “propitiation.” Expiation is the forgiveness we have through Christ and His removing the guilt of sin. Propitiation is that on the cross Jesus experienced the
righteous wrath of God against sin. I affirm both.
The editorial attempted to be a “both/and” approach when I wrote, “Whichever phrase one chooses to sing (‘the wrath of God was satisfied’ or ‘the love of God was magnified’) it must be remembered that it is God’s grace that initiated the sacrifice of Jesus to provide covering and forgiveness for our sin (expiation) and that His sacrifice satisfied the holy demands of God’s righteousness for sin to be punished (propitiation).” There was no attempt to label one right and the other wrong.
The wrath of God is a biblical teaching. But at Calvary wrath is best understood as an expression of God’s righteousness and holiness. Sin had to be punished and Jesus as “God made flesh” absorbed into Himself that punishment. God, moved by His love for us, sent Jesus to the cross to pay the price for our sin. Jesus was always the Beloved Son of God. God was never malicious or vindictive toward Jesus as some people understand human wrath.
No editorial can contain everything one believes. Hopefully readers understand a particular column in light of what has been written over the past 18 years I have been editor of The Alabama Baptist rather than expecting every column to express the whole of my theology. And when questions arise, please know I invite conversation to clarify understandings.
Still be assured that I will attempt to be more careful and more clear in all that I write and that I sincerely regret my unwise and incautious comments in the Aug. 8 editorial.
Dear Dr Terry,
The enemies of the true faith seem poised like never before to visit their hatred and intolerance upon us. The visceral contempt exuded by the promulgators of the liberal agenda make the rancor of an Al Qaeda operative seem tame-at least more honest- by contrast! To this end, we can never be too careful- too guarded-too word perfect, in our ecclesiological rulings.
Affording benefit of the doubt has, in my experience in the mainstream, been taken by the revisionists as carte blanche in the furtherance of their crass agendas. It is therefore a remedy that I am, to say the absolute least, hesitant- bordering on loathe- to prescribe... make no mistake!
Yet, taking into account the tireless dedication to Christ's work and mission you have displayed over the years, I believe it prudent to afford you latitude-this one time- in attributing this latest outing to
"grossly incognizant misadventure"....
But going forward, be a bit more careful.....Hear Doc?
Your most affectionate brother in Christ,
Laird Eric Wells
No comments:
Post a Comment