Malcolm Smith and The Real Gospel

Thank God for men like Malcolm Smith, who has been proclaiming the pure gospel of Jesus Christ for fifty years. Take the time to listen to this message. It's worth your time.

Bill Gillham Has Gone Home

It is with bittersweet emotion that I learned of the passing of Dr. Bill Gillham, my friend and mentor. Bill has been in steady decline since his dear Anabel took the short step across the veil between time and eternity not so very long ago. My mind can only imagine what a precious sight it must have been when she greeted him on the other side.

Bill had more influence in my life than almost anybody I’ve ever known. It was his book, Lifetime Guarantee, that I was reading in 1990 when the scales fell off my eyes and for the first time I began to understand monumental truths that transformed my life. My knowledge of my co-crucifixion with Christ, my own flesh patterns, my identity in Him, what it means to live in grace, and other realities that anchor me until today were realized because of Bill Gillham. He was the voice of truth and heart of love that reshaped me completely.

I’ll never forget one early Saturday morning in 1994. I had written about 60 pages of a booklet I’d called “The Grace Walk.” It was mostly my own story of how my life had been transformed by grace, with little paragraphs of biblical truth thrown into the mix. My plan was to copy it at church, staple it together and share it with church members I counseled.

Bill had sent me a note months earlier after hearing me share my story that had been recorded on a cassette tape at a pastor’s conference in Atlanta. He had been very complimentary of the talk. Some time later, after I had written my 60 page paper, the thought kept nagging me to send it to him to see, so I finally did.
My note said, “Bill, you’ve been an encourager to me. If you have time to take a look at this, I’d appreciate it.” I now realize how presumptuous that was since people do the same with me these days. Truthfully, I inwardly cringe when I get those unsolicited packages because I don’t want to be rude to the one who sent it, but neither do I normally have time to read their manuscript.

Bill, being the gracious man that he is, read what I sent. Now, here it was at 7:30 on a Saturday morning and I was still in bed asleep. I heard the phone ring and Melanie rushed into the bedroom, “It’s Bill Gillham on the phone! He wants to talk to you!” She might as well have told me it was Billy Graham. I jumped up and cleared my throat, lest he think I was still in bed that time of morning and answered.

I don’t remember all that he said, but I do remember his remark, “Brother, I’ve read what you sent me and God is all over this!” My heart stopped as I listened to him ask me if I minded him contacting his publisher about reading it. You know the rest of the story. There would be no books and no Grace Walk Ministries today were it not for Bill.

I’ve called Bill at home many times when I’ve needed answers, encouragement and direction and he has always had the exact word I needed to hear at the moment. I remember asking him once about feeling overwhelmed in ministry and his answer was, “Brother, you have too many things on your calendar.”

Sometimes he would call me to talk about a theological idea he’d been mulling over in his own mind. When I would give my opinion, he would graciously act like I was brilliant for thinking such a thing. He was the brilliant teacher I was the student.

Then there was the oft-repeated question, “Have you heard the one about . . .?” which would be followed by a funny, mildly cute or not-so-funny story. Bill loved to laugh and he made me laugh whether the story was funny or not.

I’ll miss my friend. I’ll miss his wisdom. I’ll miss his voicemail messages that, without exception, began with the words, “Hey Stevo.” I’ll miss his laughter. I’ll miss him.

Many people teach the grace of God, but I’ve known nobody who does it with the humility, simplicity and ease that Bill did. This world has lost a giant. Bill told me one time that he wanted himself and Anabel to die together in an airplane crash. I was appalled at such a thought. “Why?” I asked in horror. “Because we would go together, and even have a couple of moments to express our love once more to each other and leave this world holding hands.” It didn’t happen that way, but I have no doubt that right now they’re holding hands and he’s calling her “Sug” (sugar) and she’s calling him, “Hon.”

My heart aches today, but it’s a sweet ache in knowing that Bill Gillham is exactly where he belongs. Heaven is a sweeter place today. One day, no so long from now, I’ll see my friend again.

When Your Husband Isn't Walking With You In Grace

Barb grew up in a healthy home where her mom and dad were obviously in love. Her dad was an elder in their local church and her mom taught the young couple’s class in Bible Study. “When the doors were opened, we were there,” is the way she has sometimes described her experience.

Due to the way her own family always functioned, Barb took it for granted that a Christian husband does certain things. First and foremost, he takes his family to church every week. She thought that’s a given in a Christian home. There were other expectations she held about what a Christian man does at home too. Basic things like saying the prayer before meals, leading the family in a daily “family altar” time where the Bible is read and they pray together, talking about life in terms of spiritual realities – these weren’t monumental acts to her. They were the normal and routine things that Christian families experienced under the leadership of a godly man.

Barb met Zack during her sophomore year in college. He was playing the guitar and leading choruses at the Young Life meeting being held on campus. She immediately was attracted to Zack. He had a good sense of humor. He seemed comfortable with his faith and related easily to the people around him. Zack was the son of a pastor and, it seemed to her, had grown up pretty much the way she had.

Zack asked Barb to go to a Christian concert with him for their first date. Over the next two years, they were inseparable. It didn’t take long until they both realized that they wanted to spend their lives together and so they began making wedding preparations. A few months after graduation, on a warm Saturday afternoon in June, Zack’s dad performed the ceremony.

Barb’s dreams were immersed in and inseparable from her new life with Zack. She saw nothing but bright days ahead. Zack had begun a new career in a sales position with a successful company. It didn’t take long until he was breaking sales records and distinguishing himself in exceptional ways through his sales skills.

Barb was proud of him. The bonuses and progressively increasing income were great. Then there were the trips Zack had won at work through his achievements. Barb had certainly enjoyed those.

After eighteen months, Barb found out that she was going to have a baby and they were both thrilled. One thing that had happened though bothered Barb and she thought it was important to discuss it with Zack since they would soon have a child. The thing that had happened had been what Barb thought was a gradual decline in the area of their spiritual lives.

Because of Zack’s demanding work weeks, he had often said that he was too tired to go to church on Sunday and wanted the two of them to just rest and enjoy the day together. Although Barb wasn’t completely comfortable with missing church, after having been taught all her life about the importance of attending, she did enjoy those relaxed Sundays together. Now things were different though. In her mind, since they were going to have a baby, changes were needed. “We need to get back in church,” was the way she talked to Zack about it.

She couldn’t have been more surprised by his response. “Barb, I understand your concern but I’m in a different place now than I was when we were first married,” he explained. “You know my spiritual life is real to me, but God has put me in the place where I need to provide for you and for our coming baby. My work is demanding. I’ll do the best I can but I may need you to step up on the home front for a while when it comes to spiritual things.”

For the first time in their marriage, Barb began to be afraid about the spiritual condition of her husband. Being the spiritual leader as a husband wasn’t optional in the world of her childhood and now she was hearing Zack delegate this important responsibility to her.

For the next few years, things continued to evolve. Their baby girl was born and less than two years later, they learned that a son was on the way. Barb and Zack continued to be deeply in love but by the time the two children were beginning school, Barb felt that Zack had totally abandoned all responsibility for spiritual leadership at home. She was the one who said prayers with the children at night. She took them to church alone most of the time. She felt like the only spiritual influence her children ever saw at home was from her and it bothered her – greatly.

By the time I met Barb, they had been married ten years. She was discouraged and wondering aloud with me about what to do. “I don’t get it,” she said. “I grew up in a godly home with a godly dad. Zack grew up in a godly home. He knows better than this. I’ve talked and talked and talked to him about it but it does no good. I’ve prayed about it but nothing changes. I’ve wondered why God won’t change Zack. If He can, why won’t He? Sometimes it seems like I care more about my husband’s spiritual condition than God does.”

I knew Barb didn’t really believe that, but I also knew that she honestly felt that way at times. She wanted to see God’s Spirit move in Zack’s life and change him. She had prayed for that for a number of years but nothing ever happened. It wasn’t unreasonable that she could wonder if God really cares. She wondered if she was destined to spend her life being the spiritual leader, married to a man who didn’t care much about that part of life anymore.

I’ve shared Barb’s story with you for one primary reason and that’s to let you see how much your story may be like hers. The details may differ but the underlying story is so often the same. I hear it all the time. She marries him. She envisions that they will grow spiritually together but after awhile he seems to lose interest in spiritual things.

Maybe your marriage scenario is similar. In the next chapter, I’ll discuss the challenge for women who married a man that never showed any spiritual interest but for now I want to speak to the one whose husband seems to have grown cold in his walk with God. What’s a wife to do? It’s obvious that talking about it doesn’t work. Pleading with him to step up and lead spiritually doesn’t work. In fact, that sometimes seems to cause a man to pull back even more. So what is the answer?

The answer may surprise you. It’s this: Stop trying to change him. Giving him CDs with preaching from your favorite speaker and telling him all about what’s going on at church and trying to entice him to catch your enthusiasm isn’t working and chances are that it’s not going to work.

Here’s an important principle to understand that could help you avoid delaying the very thing you want to see: It’s a natural human reaction that when we feel like somebody is crowding into our personal space, we will automatically and usually unconsciously step back. It’s a defense mechanism built into all of us. None of us like to have other people push in to our space. If we invite them, that’s one thing, but when they intrude into an area that we haven’t invited them it is an uncomfortable situation that seldom has a positive outcome. If it’s somebody we don’t care about we may push back, but if it’s somebody we do care about we will typically just step back and try to reestablish our personal space in as benign a way as possible.

This you-push-in-and-I’ll-step-back reflex is true in your marriage too. You may mean well by stepping into the space reserved for your husband and his God but it’s not a space where you belong uninvited. I don’t mean to suggest that husbands and wives don’t share their walk with Christ together. What I’m suggesting is that you cannot force intimacy between your husband and Christ like a religious matchmaker who is trying to create a love-connection because you see its value. He has to see it too and only the Holy Spirit can make that happen.

Depending on your personality and your relationship to your husband, it’s possible that you could use your influence with him to elicit a greater level of religious behavior from him, but would that really accomplish what you want? If he did the things outwardly that you think he needs to be doing but his heart wasn’t in it, would there be real value in that? Don’t think that at least your children would benefit because, in the long run, they would not. Children have finely tuned ability to distinguish what’s real from what’s artificial when it comes to this sort of thing.

There are far too many religious families who go through the motions without an authentic and vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ. You don’t want your husband to be that kind of man nor your family that kind of family. You want Christ to be real in your home and for that to happen, you’re going to have to wait until He is the One who brings the result you long to see.

So give up in thinking that you’ll be the one to make something happen. Your Heavenly Father loves your husband even more than you do and, despite all external evidence to the contrary, He hasn’t forgotten about him. Your Father is acting in your husband’s life at this very moment, working out things in his heart and head that you don’t know anything about. In fact, your husband may not even be aware of what God’s Spirit is doing in his life right now. That’s okay. Unlike us, God never gets hyped up about a matter and acts out of panic. He does His thing – quietly, consistently and miraculously – until that which He has decreed happens. And it will happen; you can be assured of that fact. Nobody wins a tug-of-war contest with Almighty God, not even your husband. It doesn’t matter how stubborn he may seem. God always wins. That’s a big benefit in being God.

So be patient and put your eyes on your Father instead of your husband. I know that’s easier said than done but it is essential that you understand the wisdom of this. It’s not incidental that it is in the very first chapter of this book that I lay out this prescription for frustrated wives. It’s the nature of the flesh in all of us to become control freaks over things we care passionately about, and I know you care passionately about your husband’s spiritual well being. So does God, so let Him be who He is to your husband. He will do it in His own way and in His own time.

Maybe you’ve tried enough things to change your husband to see that you can’t do it? If so, then stop trying harder to make something happen and simply trust Him to work it out based on His plan and power. Your Father can do what you can never do. He can get in your husband’s head. He can stir up his heart. He can control his external circumstances. He can move heaven and earth to get the result He wants.

You want to see your Heavenly Father change your husband, but is it possible that He may want to change you too? Is it possible that before the change comes to your husband’s life, He may want you to give up any effort to be the facilitator of this situation and simply surrender your husband into His loving hands?

I’ve spoken plainly here about the need for you to resign your position as coordinator of your husband’s spiritual condition because I assume you want the truth enough that you don’t mind me stating plainly what the most important thing is first. To keep first things first, it’s important for you to internalize what you’ve read in this chapter and appropriate it to your life. You don’t have to feel like doing it to do it. You just need to see that it’s true and respond in faith to what the Holy Spirit is showing you. You can’t change your husband, so stop trying. It’s that simple. Not easy, but simple. Why not pray right now and ask your Father to enable you to entrust your husband to him? That simple act of faith may have more impact on your situation than you could possibly imagine right now.

Lie #89

We Need God’s Law to Understand His Righteousness

Those who preach the law of God today in the New Testament Church, often tell us that the reason God gave the law was to reveal His righteousness to us, but that isn't true. The Bible clearly states why God gave the law in Romans 5:20. The Scripture says that the law came in so that transgressions might increase.

The reason God gave the law was to because of the self-righteous attitude the Jewish people had in thinking they could achieve righteousness through doing the right things. God's plan was that the Law would stimulate sin in the behavior of mankind, so that he would see his need for a Savior. The law does not reveal to us God’s righteousness - not today it doesn’t. The law in the Old Testament was a glimpse – it was a little snapshot of the righteousness of God. But today, you and I don’t have to have the Law to understand the righteousness of God. God’s righteousness is revealed to us in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:16–17 says, “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe – to the Jew first, and then to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed.”

It is in the gospel that the righteousness of God is revealed. The complete revelation of the righteousness of God is in the person of Jesus Christ. So, we don’t need the Law to cause us to understand the righteousness of God. We have Jesus the personification of God’s righteousness. He is the one who enables us to understand what righteousness really is, and also the one who enables us to receive that righteousness by faith.

The idea that we need the law in order to reveal God’s righteousness - that is a lie. Jesus Christ reveals the righteousness of God to us, and then as we trust Him, He gives us that righteousness by the abundance of his grace, and it becomes ours, Romans 5:17 says that the gift of righteousness has come to us through the abundance of His grace.

Righteousness has been received in Him. We don't need to try to achieve it.

There Is No Such Thing As Trinitarian-Universalism

The trend today among many who oppose a Trinitarian approach to theology is to link Trinitarianism to Universalism as if they are one and the same. Thus, when others fail to investigate the matter for themselves but simply take this flawed premise as truth, those who deplore the views of Universalism immediately indict Trinitarianism as guilty-by-association.

I myself have been called a Universalist many times because of my Trinitarian views. Some (but not all) who have brought this charge against me have done so with an inflammatory sense of urgency and with impassioned emotion that might sway those who haven’t studied the topics for themselves. When somebody in a theatre screams, “Fire!” people seldom pause to ascertain whether or not the building is indeed burning. If they rush out of the theatre only to discover afterwards that there was no fire, they wouldn’t appreciate the false alarm. However, the problem when somebody screams, “Heresy!” is that even after people have fled the building, few take the time afterwards to investigate whether or not the alarming cry was grounded in reality and truth.

Charges that try to combine Trinitarianism and Universalism come from those who are either are uninformed or misinformed about these two viewpoints. While most biblical perspectives share some similarity, as do these, they are also very different in other ways. There is no such thing as a Trinitarian-Universalist. There are Universalists who believe in the Trinity (Christian Universalism) and there are those who don't (Unitarian Universalism). The soteriological viewpoint called "Trinitarianism" is not a Universalist position. To use the phrase, "Trinitarian Universalist" reflects either a lack of academic investigation or scholastic integrity. It’s sloppy at best and dishonest at worst. Even a cursory study of the two fields of study would readily reveal stark differences.

Mention the name, Thomas F. Torrance, and the subject of Trinitarianism will immediately come to the minds of those familiar with both Torrance and Trinitarianism. Torrance is among a handful of contemporary theologians who have articulated Trinitarian thought in the clearest way and in a way most faithful to the ancient Church Fathers who espoused this view.

Back in the 1940’s, there was an interesting dialogue and debate between TF Torrance and renowned New Testament scholar J.A.T. Robinson. The following quote from Torrance was a response to Robinson’s compelling defense of the Universalist viewpoint.

“All that Dr. Robinson's argument succeeds in doing is to point to the possibility that all might be saved in as much as God loves all to the utmost, but it does not and cannot carry as a corollary the impossibility of being eternally lost. The fallacy of every universalist argument lies not in proving the love of God to be universal and omnipotent but in laying down the impossibility of ultimate damnation. Dr. Robinson has cited passages from the New Testament which would seem to him to point in the direction of universalism, but what of those many other passages which declare in no uncertain terms that at the last judgment there will be a final division between the children of light and the children of darkness? What of the shuddering horror of the words: "It were better for that man had he never been born", which came from the lips of Omnipotent Love? There is not a shred of Biblical witness that can be adduced to support the impossibility of ultimate damnation. All the weight of Biblical teaching is on the other side.”

Torrance continues later in the article:

“The doctrine of universalism gains its plausibility not from itself, for it is inherently and inevitably inconsistent, but from the inconsistency of the position it attacks. That is very apparent in Dr. Robinson's essay which attains its force in criticism of a position where God's righteousness and love, or His omnipotence and love, are thrown into false antithesis. That has long been the difficulty with the traditional doctrine of predestination and reprobation as a double decree. In actual fact, however, the Biblical doctrine of election is the very doctrine which expresses the universal action of God's grace in such a way that, far from dissolving the personal elements of choice and decision, it establishes them. It is the doctrine of election therefore which is the great truth that is partly apprehended and yet obscured in the error of universalism.

(Unversalism) commits the dogmatic fallacy of systematising the illogical. Sin has a fundamentally surd-like character. Somehow evil posits itself and cannot be rationalised. The New Testament teaches that when it speaks of the mystery of iniquity, and of the bottomless pit (abyssos). Evil is fundamentally discontinuity. No explanation involving only continuity or coherence can ever approach the problem, for that would be to draw the line of continuity dialectically over discontinuity. The doctrine of the atonement teaches us that no matter how much we think about it, here our reason reaches its limit. It cannot bridge the contradiction between God and man in guilt. The contradiction is resolved only by an act of God in which man in contradiction to God is reconciled and yet the terrible bottomless reality of sin is not denied. That act of God is ultimately eschatological so that just how the contradiction is dealt with in atonement is yet to be revealed at the Parousia. That is the relevance of apocalyptic, but apocalyptic is the antithesis of universalism. Universalism is the doctrine that rationalises sin, that refuses to admit in its dark fathomless mystery a limit to reason. Universalism means that the contradiction can be bridged by reason after all, and constitutes therefore the denial of atonement and the anguished action of Calvary. The Christian faith which has looked into the limitless depth of the “Eli, Eli lama sabachthani,” and considered the great weight of sin to discover that only by act of God can man get across the gulf, will accept the way of humility where the Cross makes foolish the wisdom of this world.

It will learn the disciple of suspending judgment in order to avoid foisting a false and abortive unity or a closed system of thought upon the actual facts of existence. The irrational mystery of evil is the other rock upon which universalism as a unitary interpretation of existence inevitably suffers shipwreck. True dogmatic procedure at this point is to suspend judgment, for here that is the most rational thing reason can do. Whether all men will as a matter of fact be saved or not, in the nature of the case, cannot be known. The doctrine of universalism gains its plausibility not from itself, for it is inherently and inevitably inconsistent, but from the inconsistency of the position it attacks. That is very apparent in Dr. Robinson's essay which attains its force in criticism of a position where God's righteousness and love, or His omnipotence and love, are thrown into false antithesis. That has long been the difficulty with the traditional doctrine of predestination and reprobation as a double decree.

In actual fact, however, the Biblical doctrine of election is the very doctrine which expresses the universal action of God's grace in such a way that, far from dissolving the personal elements of choice and decision, it establishes them. It is the doctrine of election therefore which is the great truth that is partly apprehended and yet obscured in the error of universalism.”

Torrance continues:

“Election is the love of God enacted and inserted into history in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so that in the strictest sense Jesus Christ is the election of God. He is the one and indivisible act of divine love. There is therefore no decree of predestination which precedes this act of grace or goes behind the back of Jesus Christ, for that would be to split the act of God into two, and to divide Christ from God. Jesus Christ is wholly identical with God's action, that which was, and that which is, and that which shall be, the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

And to conclude Torrance’s response to Robinson:

“The Incarnation of the Son of God means therefore that the eternal Word of God has become event in time, and that through the Cross the eternal decision of God has invaded the sphere of our temporal relations. Just because the love of God is not only act in time but a Person, Jesus Christ, the eternal election of God has become encounter, acutely personalised in the midst of our choices and decisions, demanding response and decision. Election is not therefore some dead predestination in the past or some still point in a timeless eternity, but a living act that enters time and confronts us face to face in Jesus Christ the living Word of God. Precisely because this Word is also eternal it is always contemporary with us, travelling, as it were, through time. The great fact of the Gospel then is this: that God has actually chosen us in Jesus Christ in spite of our sin, and that in the death of Christ that election has become a fait accompli. It means too that God has chosen all men, in as much as Christ died for all men, and because that is once and for all no one can ever elude the election of His love, as no one exists except by the Word of God by who In as much all things were made and in whom all things consist, and in as much as this is the Word that has once and for all enacted the eternal election of grace to embrace all men, the existence of every man whether he will or no is bound up inextricably with that election—with the Cross of Jesus Christ. Every man's being is bound up for ever with the one and indivisible act of God's love in Jesus Christ. How could it be otherwise? The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the final reality of our world upon which everything else depends. All things are summed up in Him, things visible, and invisible, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. The whole universe revolves round the Love of God in Jesus Christ and all its motion depends entirely upon Him.”

If you’ve come this far in your reading of this blog, that tells me that you have the aptitude for understanding Torrance’s point, whether you agree with it or not. Trinitarianism is not Universalism. So, in the interest of scholastic integrity and in the name of Christian harmony, please don’t postulate publicly that it is.

What do I believe? I believe that, in Christ, our Triune God has adopted all of humanity into Himself. I believe that this objective reality is factual whether or not it ever becomes an actual, subjective experience to a person. I believe that the proclamation of the gospel is to announce the good news of what has been done by our sovereign God, not what could be done if a frail human will only let Him. I believe that apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ, a person will not inherit the kingdom of God, neither now nor in eternity. I believe there are aspects of the afterlife that cannot be known and defended as dogma because of the apparent ambiguity we experience when we try to filter infinite reality through our finite ability to understand. I believe there are paradoxical statements in Scripture that we can embrace without the necessity of reconciling every detail of biblical truth in our own understanding. I believe that there is no place for loving brothers and sisters to vilify those whose understanding is different from our own. I believe that we can discuss and debate with passion yet maintain an attitude of loving respect for each other that is obvious to any onlooker. I acknowledge that I do not have perfect understanding of anything but teach through “a glass darkly” and believe this is the attitude we all need to possess.

Finally, where I am wrong, I am sincerely wrong. I am wrong after years of study, prolonged periods of prayer, intense interaction with respected colleagues and friends, moments of agonizing doubts and exhilarating certainty. As best as I know my heart, I am teachable, but I am where I am and sense an internal mandate to be true to myself, to what I believe to be my calling and to the message I believe has been entrusted to me by Him. I ask foes and friends alike to pray for me. None of us have cornered the market on the truth. May we each be open to learn and to change so that our souls and actions may increasingly be conformed to the image of the One who unites us all together.

………………………………………
The information in this blog from TF Torrance came directly from the article cited at the bottom of this page. Copyrights forbid me from publishing the article in its entirety but it is available for sale at:
https://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3282104&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0036930600004713
T. F. Torrance (1949). Universalism or Election?. Scottish Journal of Theology, 2, pp 310-318 doi:10.1017/S0036930600004713

Was What I Taught In Australia Biblical?

I'm used to people disagreeing with me. That is an inevitable part of being a public speaker. Those of us who speak plainly and boldly about God's grace in contrast to the world of religion find ourselves particularly vulnerable to that. I usually don't respond publicly, but my recent visit to Australia compels me to respond to a stirring that has started there since my departure.

My recent visit to Australia was very well received by the people. I heard not one word of dissension while I was there. However, after my departure, a denominational leader posted an article that has apparently taken some traction. It's called “Was The Cross of Jesus A Form Of Divine Child Abuse?” The implication of the title is that those who don’t hold the penal-substitution view of the atonement would take that position. I can’t speak for others like myself who do not see the atonement as the Father pouring out angry revenge on the son for my sin, but I certainly would never use inflammatory language like “divine child abuse” to characterize those who do hold that viewpoint.

For the sake of readers, let us begin with the meaning of penal-substitution. I’m fine with the definition used by my critic. It is, “The death of Jesus was ‘penal’ because He paid the penalty for sins which the justice of God demanded; it was a ‘substitution’ because He died not for His own sins, but for ours.”

I do believe that Jesus’ death was subsitutionary in that He died in our place. I do not believe it was the case that an angry Father poured out revenge for my sin upon Jesus in my place. Jesus was indeed punished, but it was by sin, not His Father. If the death of the Son was the Father’s punishment for our sin, are we to conclude that the Father’s and Son’s views of sin were different? Is it the case that the Father has a particular kind of “sense of justice” that required Him to release divine anger against somebody for our sin but the Son didn’t have that same kind of angry justice toward our sin, but instead felt compassionate enough toward us to be the One who allowed the Father to get it out of His system by taking it out on the Son instead of us?

No, divine justice does not require payback. To think so is to superimpose our own flawed human sense of justice onto the mind and heart of God. Divine justice is very different. A biblical study of what it means to "bring justice" does not mean to bring retribution at all, but rather to bring healing and reconciliation. Justice means to make things right. All through the prophetic bible passages, justice is associated with caring for others, as something that is not in conflict with mercy, but rather an expression of it. Biblically, justice is God's saving action at work for all that are oppressed:

"Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isaiah 1:17)

"This is what the LORD says: "`Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed" (Jeremiah 21:12)

The way that we "administer justice", the Prophets tell us, is by encouraging and helping the oppressed. In contrast to what we may have been taught, God's justice is not in conflict with his mercy, they are inseparable. True justice can only come though mercy. Did God show justice at the cross? Yes! He showed justice by making it right for us, not by venting anger at His Son. Divine justice is seen by expressing mercy and compassion.

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Administer true justice: show mercy and compassion to one another. (Zechariah 7:9)

"Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice".( Isaiah 30:18)

If we want to understand the concept of justice as the writers of the Old Testament did, then we must see it as a "setting things right again". Thus when Christ comes, the way that he brings about justice is through mercy and compassion. Notice how in this next verse Christ does not bring justice with a hammer, but with a tenderness that cares for the broken and the abused.

"I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations… A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory" (Matthew 12:18-21)

The way that God brings about justice and "leads it to victory" is through acts of compassion - sheltering the "smoldering wick", and the "bruised reed". And what does Christ "proclaim to the nations" to bring about this justice?

"He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19)

It is interesting that many believe justice would require that people be put in prison, but Jesus said His mission of justice was to set people free from prison. There is no conflict between God's justice and mercy. Justice is about mercy. Justice comes through mercy and always has. It is a quality born of compassion and the desire to make things right.

So the whole wrongheaded idea that divine justice requires for somebody to be paid back because of our sin originates from a human, fleshly understanding of the word. As just shown in biblical text, God justice is an expression of His love toward us, not a compelling need to make somebody pay for the wrong we’ve done.

The author of the article said that the penal substitution view is what the apostles taught, as well as the Church Fathers, the Reformers and great gospel preachers such as John Wesley, George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon and Billy Graham.” First, to suggest that the apostles taught the penal substitution (PS) view is not correct. One must lay the template of his own preexisting understanding on the words of the Apostles to come to such a conclusion. As to great gospel preachers, we can go back to the early church and read the Cappadocian Fathers, Saint Athanasius and others whose vein of thought fit well with my viewpoint. So don't fall for the suggestion that there's a solid and indisputable bedrock upon which the PS view is built.

Consider, for example, the words of the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, “18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

Where is the evidence there that God the Father was standing outside the cross, punishing His Son, Jesus? No, Paul said He was in Christ while the world was being reconciled to Him. This “word of reconciliation” (message of the finished work of the cross) is the gospel we now proclaim! The Father was in the Son and by the power of the eternal Spirit dealt with our sin! (Hebrews 9:14 says that Jesus through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God.)

The writer of the blog furthermore uses the fact that “many precious hymns which have stood the test of time” validate a penal substitution view. Knowing this pastor’s ministry focus, I feel sure that upon further thought, he wouldn’t argue that the length of a hymn’s popularity validates the veracity of its message. I think that both he and I would agree that many hymns the church has sung for years do stand in great contradiction to the message of grace we both want to see spread. So the fact that there are existing hymns that do reflect his opinion doesn’t really strengthen his position at all.

I would find it amusing if it weren’t so unfair that the writer then cites Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) as one with whom he chooses to connect to the message I teach. Here is a quote from his critique: “Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who is generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism, and who denied the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, objected to the idea that salvation is deliverance from divine wrath. Those who take a similar hostile view to penal substitution have likewise tended to be those who do not believe in the authority of the Scriptures.”

For the record, I believe the Bible. I suspect my view of the Bible would be as high as that of the one who wrote this article. So the use of Schleiermacher as a guilt-by-association tactic in trying to establish his point is not fair. It borders on insult. It's no more fair than it would be for me to suggest that since Jim Baker was an Assembly of God pastor and this critic is an Assembly of God pastor would imply or suggest anything about the one who wrote the critique. That kind of attempt to link people in guilt is wrong, misleading and counterproductive to respectful dialogue.

For a few paragraphs, the critique then pulls together an eclectic view of the PS view based on the varying views of those with whose writings the author must be somewhat acquainted. Since it is a composite description of various writers views all pulled into one, it is difficult to respond. I find myself agreeing with some of what those he referenced said and disagreeing with others. For instance, I do agree that the PS view is inconsistent with the Bible’s portrayal of a loving God. On the other hand, I would never use the words, “cosmic child abuse” to describe anything God the Father does.

The greatest inherent weakness in the critique comes under the section entitled, “Understanding the Cross From the Backdrop of the Old Testament.” Immediately, this title should raise a red flag in the mind of anybody who is familiar with biblical hermeneutics. For those who don’t know, hermeneutics refers to the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation of the Bible. It’s the agreed upon system of interpreting so that we are intellectually honest in the way we reach conclusions.

One of the most basic foundations of understanding the Bible is what is called, “The Christo-Centric Principle” The underlying premise of this principle is that the lynchpin of understanding Scripture is Jesus. Everything is centered in Christ. Everthing in existance finds its meaning and purpose in Him. So the entire Bible finds its meaning in Jesus Christ. To suggest that we are to understand the work of Christ on the cross by looking at the Old Testament stands in exact contradiction to sound hermeneutics. Conversely, we are to understand the Old Testament through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. To put it in a simple rhyme I learned as a child: “The New is in the Old concealed. The Old is in the New revealed.” In other words, we understand the Old by the New, not the other way around.

Any attempt, therefore, to give meaning to the work of the cross that starts in the Old Testament, apart from Jesus Christ is bound to lead to faulty conclusions. Our starting point in Biblical interpretation is Jesus Christ. He stands above everything else in defining, expressing and revealing the Father’s eternal purposes to us. Hebrews 1:1-2 says, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” If you want to understand your God and His works, start with Jesus!

If you want to understand your Old Testament, start with Jesus and work backward, not the other way around! The OT writers gave us a glimpse of our Father. Through Jesus we may gaze into His face. Start from the right place when you want to understand our Triune God’s eternal purpose for mankind. Start with Him, not Old Testament verses that you mentally isolate from the Son of God.

The critique against my teaching then set forth verse after verse after verse, strung together with no apparent inner correlation other than the common denominator that they all seem to speak of an angry, vindictive God. For sake of illustration, let’s look at what can happen when the approach of Bible discussion takes the form of “seeing who can build up the biggest pile of verses.”

His verse: “Sin must be understood as opposition to God’s will as expressed in His law” (Gen.3:1-6; Rom.4:15; 1 Jn.3:4).

My verse: “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23).

His verse: “…your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear” (Isa.59:2).

My verse: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:39-40).

His verse: “Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him” (Num.15:31).

My verse: First, that’s right that person will be completely cut off – BY SIN. Look at the next chapter; Numbers 16:26 Depart now from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing that belongs to them, or you WILL BE SWEPT AWAY IN ALL THEIR SIN (not by God, but by sin!)

His verse: “So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the LORD, because he did not keep the word of the LORD…” (1 Chron.10:13).

My verse: “For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 3:23) What does this have to do with Saul? What killed Saul? Was it God who killed him in angry judgment? NO, it was Saul’s disobedience that led to his death. Just like Adam in the Garden. God didn’t tell Adam, “I’ll kill you for eating from that tree.” He said, “In the day you eat from it, you will surely die.” God warned Adam. God warned Saul. There’s love and grace. But disobedience led to sin and sin brought on the judgment of death. It was SIN NOT GOD who killed Saul. Like Adam, he didn’t do what the Lord told him and reaped the WAGES OF SIN.

His verse: “Upon the wicked He will rain coals; Fire and brimstone and a burning wind shall be the portion of their cup” (Psa.11:6).

My verse: “Though He scoffs at the scoffers, Yet He gives grace to the afflicted” Psalm 34:4. Does God allow the wicked to experience the consequence of their sins? Of course!! He wants to bring them to brokenness. It never benefits to do wrong. Living in rebellion against God always brings its own judgment and misery but our loving God desires to lift up any who will turn from their wickedness to Him.

His verse: “For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; It is fully mixed, and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down” (Psa.75:8).

My verse: Ah, yes, as my critic points out so well, “Notice in the last two references that the wrath of God is referred to as His “cup”. This is important because Jesus spoke of His death as drinking the cup that the Father had given Him (Matt.20:22-23; Lk.22:42).

Look at my choice – Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” As my critic pointed out, there’s a correlation between the old covenant cup and the cup of the new covenant. What is that NT cup? It is the cup of His blood that reminds us that the bitter cup of the old covenant has now been replaced with the better cup of the new covenant. The wages of sin have been replaced with the gift of life! The wrath of God’s cup in the Old Testament was His “tough love” which allowed rebellious humanity to experience it’s bitter dregs so that when Jesus came they would see “the more excellent way” in Christ. They could forever throw away the old cup and drink living water from the new cup forever!

His verse: Punishment of sin vindicates the righteousness of God. God by no means clears the guilty (Ex.34:7):

My verse: Punishment of WHAT? SIN! NOT punishment of God. How does sin’s punishment vindicate God’s righteousness? Easy! It shows that we would be wise to choose Life – His Life and not the death that SIN brings. “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live (Duet 30:19). I’m not even going to respond to the quote, “God by no means clears the guilty.” Is my critic really going to stand on that point in light of the rest of the Bible? This point means he will not clear then while they stand in their guilt. When they see their forgiveness and acceptance, they will rush from guilt to grace!

His verse: Righteous are You, O LORD, and upright are Your judgments” (Psa.119:137).
My verse: Righteous are You, O LORD, and upright are Your judgments” (Psa.119:137). Of course He is upright and judges with the bias of a very prejudiced Father ☺

His verse: For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You. The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity” (Psa.5:4-5).

My verse: God so love THE WORLD that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeith in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16) God loves every person. He hates when people do iniquity/sin for the reason that He loves people and hates to see them hurt themselves. If Psalm 5:5 suggests that God hates all workers of iniquity, what about believers who sometimes do those works? Does He hate them too at that time? Of course not. This verse is one that clearly shows how the OT verses must be seen through the light of the New Covenant texts and not pitted in opposition to each other.

His verse: “God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; the LORD avenges and is furious. The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserves wrath for His enemies” (Nah.1:2).

My verse: Did he even look at verse 3? “The Lord is slow to anger and great in power. In whirlwind and storm is His way and clouds are the dust beneath His feat.” Then, going on and describing God’s greatness, he concludes by showing that even divine wrath is an expression of love. “His wrath is poured out like fire and the rocks are broken up by Him. The Lord is good. A stronghold in the day of trouble (judgment) and he knows those who take refuge in Him” (Nah.1:6-7). What is this wrath? Nothing other than an expression of intense, unbearable, love intended to bring the resistant to the end of themselves and their pride so that they will turn to Him.

The writer’s long end of spurious verses concludes with mention of the Old Testament sacrifices and with the idea that blood must be shed so that God is satisfied. Unfortunately, similarities rather than contrasts between these sacrifices and those of Jesus were offered.

The Old Covenant sacrifices were totally insufficient to deal with our sin. If they have been capable, there would have been no need for a new covenant and a perfect sacrifice. I challenge the reader to examine Hebrews 8-11 to see how inferior the whole OT system was to the New Covenant in which we now live.

I am weary in my writing of this whole tit-for-tat, who can build the biggest pile of verses approach. I used it just this one time simply to demonstrate that you can pull verses to illustrate whatever you want to prove. The key is not in what the Bible says, but IN WHAT IT MEANS. Personally, I understand my Bible, my God and myself through the person of Jesus Christ. As stated previously, my hermeneutic is Christo-centric (Christ centered) and thus that starting place is reflected in every conclusion I make about what the Scripture means.

If a person’s underlying starting position is that our God is primarily one who is first and foremost concerned with right and wrong, his path will be a different one. My starting place is that our God is primarily one who is first and foremost concerned about the humanity He created to live in Trinitarian life and love with Him. It’s not about rules, but relationship.

If a person’s concept of God the Father is that His justice demands payback, retribution, Jesus-eye-for-our-eye, His-tooth-for-our-tooth, he will see what happened at the cross in a very different way. I don’t see it as an angry Father watching in contempt as His Son took His anger about my sin, while the Holy Spirit stood idly by. I see it as out Triune God – Father, Son and Spirit coming down here determined to straighten out this mess the first Adam made. They agreed not to stop until the Last Adam finished the job and said so. “It is Finished” was the ending bell that day.

If a person’s concept of God is that wrong happens, somebody has to be paid and He’s not happy until that happens, PLEASE SORT OUT IN YOUR MIND HOW THAT IS NOT A LEGALIST GOD? No! Our God is a God of grace. He has wiped the sin deck clean by His work. The cross wasn’t a penal substitution. It was a precious solution for all humanity. It really IS finished. Now we get to tell people about it and excitedly invite them to simply believe it!

Many of you have heard me say for years, “Don’t take my word for it. Study your Bibles!” In that same vein, I encourage you, “Don’t take somebody else word for it either. Study your Bibles!” The concept of God we have will determine how we read the Bible. May His Spirit guide us all into the knowledge of our Abba so that the Scripture will serve to encourage us and bless us and show us His true nature, which is Love.

(I would be remiss not to mention Brad Jersak and his book, "Stricken by God?" which has had an influence on my thinking. Finally, let me say that the one who wrote the critique I responded to here is no an enemy. He is a kind and loving man who also wants to see the message of grace spread across Australia. In this case, we simply don't see the matter of Penal Substitution the same. Obviously, we both think it's an important topic. Despite his criticism of my teaching, I believe he respects me and I certainly respect him.)

Johns, Jims and Jesus

Consider John: John is a believer in Jesus Christ. At the age of 14, he heard a guest speaker at youth camp teach that Jesus died for our sins and John believed what he heard. He prayed with a counselor at the end of that service and has never doubted that he is a Christian since then.

However, here are some things John does not know or believe:

1. That all of his sins – past, present, and future, have been already been forgiven because of the finished work of Christ on the cross. He has never been taught that and doesn’t know it. He thinks that only past sins were forgiven and that he still has to ask for forgiveness every day.

2. That he is a already a righteous person. John tries to become increasingly righteous by reading his Bible, praying, attending church, and other disciplines he has been taught are necessary for growing in righteousness.

3. That he is already holy. He would say, “I’m trying to be” if somebody were to ask him if he is holy. He doesn’t know that his holiness is because of what Jesus Christ has done and isn’t accomplished by what we do or don’t do.

Are these three aspects of the work of the cross true of John even though he doesn’t know or believe them? Of course the answer is, “yes.” (That’s called “objective reality.”) They are true of John whether he knows them or believes them or not. This is the “factual reality” of the matter. His complete forgiveness, righteousness and holiness won’t become a beneficial reality to him experientially until he knows and believes, but they are true nonetheless. Correct?

Now consider Jim: Jim doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ. He grew up in a moral family who didn’t attend church at all. Jim has never even heard one sermon preached. He has never given much thought to being a Christian.

Here are some things that Jim doesn’t know or believe:

1. He doesn’t know that his sins have all been forgiven. Have they? Is the forgiveness of his sins something that happened because of the finished work of the cross or must he believe it before the work of the cross is a success when it comes to the forgiveness of his sins?

2. He doesn’t believe that he is righteous. Is he? Must Jim believe on Jesus Christ before this aspect of the work of the cross is applied to him? Or is righteousness a gift he has received but doesn’t know it?

3. He would never see himself as holy. Is he? Was Jim included when God set apart those for whom Jesus died?

In the case of both John and Jim, it isn’t their knowledge or belief that causes what Jesus Christ did on the cross to be successful. When Jesus said, “It is finished,” He affirmed the victorious work of the cross was complete for all mankind; for every John and Jim in the world.

Christian John’s forgiveness, righteousness and holiness are real even though he doesn’t know it. Why? Because Jesus succeeded in what He died to accomplish for John. Unless and until John knows and believes these things, he won’t benefit from them but they are real nonetheless. They are factual realities even if he never knows them as actual experience.

Did the work of Jesus Christ on the cross only accomplish these things for the Johns of the world? They don’t know or believe they are fully forgiven, righteous and holy, but they are simply because they believed just enough to make these things happen for them at some point in life? Is that it?

On the other hand, are the Jims of the world are not forgiven or made righteous or holy until they come to that same level of minimal belief as the Johns? John doesn't know and believe he is holy but he is. Jim doesn't know and believe he is holy so he isn't? Is it the case that the cross of Jesus Christ was wasted on them because while the Johns of the world don’t know or believe the complete news of the gospel, they do believe just enough to make all these things real for them.The Jims haven’t believed the necessary information about Jesus’ death to have any of it be true for them.

Or is any of it true? Some Christians would say the Jims are forgiven already too. They just don’t know it. However, righteousness and holiness, they say, won’t be true until
Jim believes. So the benefits of the cross are piecemealed and divided into parts. One part is true without knowledge or belief (forgiveness), but the rest (righteousness, holiness, etc.) of the benefits of Jesus’ death require belief. The net outcome of the cross in this view is that it has partially affected everybody but won’t be complete until people believe. It isn’t really “finished” but is “being finished” one person at a time, as they believe.

What is the truth about the matter? The truth is that Jesus did what He did for all the Johns and Jims of the world. It is His finished work that has lifted us up from Adam’s race and adopted us in Christ. The success of the cross in delivering us from our doom in Adam is due entirely to Jesus! He did it all! It really is finished! That is the gospel we proclaim to the world!!

Does this mean everybody is a Christian? No. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, one who has placed their faith in Him. However, those who haven’t believed are still included. They simply don’t know or enjoy the benefits. Hebrews 4:2 says, “The same gospel (this finished work of Jesus on our behalf) that was preached unto us was preached unto them also, but it benefited them nothing because they did not combine the truth with faith.”

It simple. They’re spiritually rich too, but unless they believe it they will continue to live as paupers. They will remain dead to the reality and live in an illusion that they are self-sustaining beings who lead their own lives apart from the Father, Son and Spirit Who have brought them into the Circle of Love and Life. They’re standing in The Light but are blind to it.

Let’s not insult the finished work of the cross by insisting that it is our vote that determines whether He succeeded or not. He did succeed. The only question now is whether or not we will live in His victory or in the illusion of our own independence. To do that is living hell – one that we can insist on in this world and the next if we so choose.

Your Sins Are Gone, So Let It Go

Think of the worst sin you have ever committed. Do you have it in mind? Do you remember the specifics of the sin — what you were thinking and how you were feeling when you committed it?

Now think of Jesus Christ hanging on the cross, his brow, feet and hands pierced and bleeding. His head hangs in agony. You are standing at the foot of the cross when He lifts His head and looks you directly in the eyes. He looks deeply into your eyes and you into His. You feel the love emanating from His gaze, then He speaks: “I love you, my child. I know about your worst sin. I know every detail. I know about all your sins. I absorbed all your sins into Myself. I've taken them away. They are gone - forever. I have forgiven you. I have forgiven you; now forgive yourself and let’s forget this sin and agree to never mention it again."

If it were possible for a moment to move beyond the restraints of this dimension we call “time” and see the cross from the eternal perspective, that is what we would hear Jesus say. All is well. Your sins are forgiven forever. You are immersed in Divine Grace and that's all there is to it.

Robert Capon said it well:

Trust him. And when you have done that, you are living the life of grace. No matter what happens to you in the course of that trusting — no matter how many waverings you may have, no matter how many suspicions that you have bought a poke with no pig in it, no matter how much heaviness and sadness your lapses, vices, indispositions, and bratty whining may cause you — you simply believe that Somebody Else,by his death and resurrection, has made it all right, and you just say thank you and shut up. The whole slop-closet full of mildewed performances (which is all you have to offer) is simply your death; it is Jesus who is your life. If he refused to condemn you because your works were rotten, he certainly isn’t going to flunk you because your faith isn’t so hot. You can fail utterly, therefore, and still live the life of grace. You can fold up spiritually, morally, or intellectually and still be safe. Because at the very worst, all you can be is dead — and for him who is the Resurrection and the Life, that just makes you his cup of tea.

That, my friend, is the gospel of Jesus Christ.