Monthly Archives: March 2014

THE CROSS INSIDE OUT

God turned the Cross of Jesus inside out for me when He revealed (bless His reputation forever!) that it was there that Jesus paid Him the supreme sacrifice of sinlessly faithful obedience in order that the Father would be justified in breaking into history (his story) to exuberantly repay His Son the proper vindication of superrestoration to life immortal and agelong from his own royal throne, along with the sovereign possession of created totality—and all in place of vindictiveness against his assailants!

This royal exhibit, then, is the very definition of “graciousness”! Construed in the above light, the demonstration is unmistakable!  In fact, in this light the supreme mistake (read: “sin,” “miss,” “failure,” “wrong”) is to interpret the Cross as “PENAL SUBSTITUTION.”  This erroneous teaching tragically twists a vicious display of subhuman malfeasance into a “mysteriousdisplay of divine catharsis!  The cathartic unleashing of all God’s pent-up wrath against human sin upon a perfectly innocent victim is then represented as “paying for sin(s),” the alleged necessity for which is nowhere taught in Scripture.

God turns that kind of Cross virtually inside out by His revelation that His vastly overcompensating award to Jesus which “trickles down” to us in ever-flowing cascades of graciousness for all ages to come, was by no means the effect of the Son’s “paying for sin” by enduring “vicarious punishment of divine wrath” to square the accounts.  It was the just award for Messiah’s completely consummate resistance against the screaming of his own corrupt flesh, in its death throes, for sinful vengeance against his enemies! [11/23/06]

If the Resurrection stands as the lasting monument to God’s answer to the violence of the Cross, then it stands to reason that the latter does not, must not, can not entail the least drop of divine wrath, anger, indignation, vengeance, punishment, condemnation — in a word, violence — against the Savior, Jesus.  This certainly does not mean that we could have a “violence-free” Atonement, but it most certainly does mean that God had no hand in it!  Sinners alone under Satanic aggravation, were entirely to blame for what happened to our Master at the Cross.  When God finally removed His protective hand from Jesus to actually see for Himself AND LET THE WHOLE PUBLIC SEE what the world was capable of doing to a perfect paragon of personal wholesomeness, an absolute model of inter-personal righteousness, an ideal pattern of devoutness to God and, beyond that, the quintessence of love and graciousness, then the lesson became starkly clear. God, at the Cross, let the sinful world “make an example” of His Son so that by raising him from the dead beyond their jurisdiction he could MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF THEIR CORRUPTION, ONE AND ALL! THUS DID GOD’S SUPERVENING WISDOM MAKE SIN HATEFUL AND HOLD IT UP TO INFAMY! Nothing less and nothing other could do the job.

The horrid Cross thus stands as the PERFECT MOCKERY of all human pretensions to be able and willing to judge right and wrong, good and evil. THE CROSS BEARS THE TRUE, BITTER FRUIT OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL:  A MANGLED SAVIOR!  “SIN, THAT IT MAY BE APPEARING SIN,” PINNED OUR RESCUER FROM SIN TO A PUBLIC STAKE AND POKED AT HIM WITH MORE THAN FUN, DARING HIM A MIRACULOUS ESCAPE. THAT DIRE TEMPTATION NOBLY OVERCOME THROUGH THE POWER OF THE EVERLASTING SPIRIT, JESUS THEREBY ROUNDLY UNMASKED SIN AS AN “INORDINATE SINNER” AND PILLORIED IT, IN TURN, ON HIS OWN CROSS!  THIS EXQUISITE COMEUPPANCE LOSES ITS FORCE ENTIRELY IF THE SAVIOR WAS IN ANY SENSE SUFFERING PUNITIVE ABUSE FROM GOD RATHER THAN FROM MERE INTRA-MUNDANE FORCES UNDER THE CONTROL OF “THE SPIRITUAL [FORCE]S OF VICIOUSNESS AMONG THE CELESTIALS(Ephesians 6:12). [11/23/06]

2 Comments

Filed under The Atonement

Failing to follow our Manufacturer’s recommendations

Would we say that appliances designed to operate on 110 volts in the U.S. are “inherently flawed” when taken overseas to countries with lower voltages or irregular electrical service, if they do not operate optimally or fail to function properly (hamart-)? Of course not. Their structure — their nature — is perfect (assuming no manufacturing flaws). But their circumstances or external conditions are not ideal and do not conform to the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Similarly, human nature (structure) is good, in fact perfect!  But we were designed to operate on divine power, direct current from our manufacturer.  If we fail (hamart) to function ideally because of not getting and staying plugged into Him, it is no fault of His!  To actually blame our nature for being, or rather having become, flawed and corrupt because it never conforms to specifications, is to impugn our Maker! [11/20/06]

“PENAL FIXATION”

The stubborn attachment of orthodoxy to “penal substitution” is surely a “penal fixation” of great tenacity.  This diabolical twist on the Atonement must be judged a renegade theory.  But whereas in science proper theories may come and go and contend without much actual harm to man or beast, the theory of penal substitution has proved RUINOUS!  Psychologically, socially, politically, economically, ethically, militarily, educationally, and religiously, this maverick formulation has manifested infernal results of horrifying proportions.  It calls for incisive exposure and decisive refutation lest the damage continue. A first task is therefore to throw an arc light on the baneful record of its evil fruits and thereby help people recognize the damage. We should start with the CROSS!  [11/21/06]

Leave a comment

Filed under The Atonement

An Historic Episode of Quenching the Spirit of God

The National Scotch Church, Regent Square, London, of which Edward Irving was the first pastor, not being officially under the authority of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, was uniquely placed by the good providence of God in a relatively safe and unusually privileged position to become used of God to introduce (actually reintroduce) into the church worldwide the exceptional powers of the Kingdom of God vouchsafed to Christ’s body on earth, in answer to his exaltation as its Head to the right hand of the Father, and intended to equip it with signs and wonders and exceptional wholesomeness in order to draw all peoples to the Father in the midst of the enemies arrayed against us.  The National Scotch Church appears to have fumbled the opportunity of the century to accept their high privilege.  They refused to exploit their unique circumstance as an “international” center in London, protected and highly favored for their historic task and destiny.  Tragic.  This congregation had been ideally placed to challenge the gathering irregularities of the Scottish Presbyterian traditions of theology and ecclesial practice, both of which were by then (1830) strangling the freedom of Christ’s Spirit to speak, lead, testify, inform, teach, and remind, not to mention empower Christ’s own body in its mission during the present vicious age of the world.  This historic point of resisting and quenching, if not outright slandering the Holy Spirit was a decidedly momentous turning point in that church’s career.  It was now exactly four decades since John Wesley’s death—one full generation (1792-1832).  This was an obvious next step in British Christianity, building on the gains of the past.  God was seemingly passing the baton from English to Scottish (was He moving a candlestick?).  The industrial Revolution was wreaking a terrible toll from the English population.  The masses of poor were growing, especially in London. Charles Dickens was painting their agonies with powerful strokes.  Cold utilitarianism was joining hands with wayward theologies of penal substitutionary atonement to justify imposing oppressive sufferings of abuse on this nation. Would this single Scottish congregation rise to meet its destiny?

They did not — determinedly, emphatically not.  Rejecting the earnest, fledgling labors of Edward Irving to pastor such an unexpected and unbidden move of God for the edification of the whole congregation,  the opponents fell upon this budding new Reformation—a continuing Reformation — and aborted it by a mayhem of contradiction and misrepresentation of the Holy Spirit’s abundant evidence and testimony.  A potential regeneration was now to turn degenerate and become cause for the most unjustified and untethered slanders imaginable in the English language.  Thus was the agelong Spirit of the royal and sovereign Son, sent from the Father, rebuffed and repelled after a brief season of the tenderest and most wholesome overtures:  “Behold I stand at the door and knock.”  Thus was another candlestick removed and a point of light snuffed.  They who tried and condemned the Voice of God must now themselves be sifted and tried by Satan to their incalculable loss.  What a fearful, what a frightful, what an unmitigated tragedy!  [11/19/06]

Leave a comment

Filed under The Atonement

The Tragic Forgetfulness of the Evangelical Free Church Regarding the Atonement

The fact that Charles Swindoll, the leading pastor in the Evangelical Free Church denomination—founded both by J. G. Princell, translator of several key books on atonement by Paul Peter Waldenström from Swedish, and by John Martenson, publisher of those books—and mainstay of “Insight for Living,” the most widely listened to radio preaching program in America (and perhaps in the world), could write a book about grace that repeats the unbiblical refrain, “substitutionary atonement,” over and over again, chapter after chapter, although Waldenström had labored strenuously to expose its falsehood, if construed penally, is a sad object lesson in historical forgetfulness, if not theological ingratitude. Indeed, the Evangelical Free Church has all but left its doctrinal origins in obscurity.  Its website has virtually zero information about their history prior to the merger in 1950 of the Swedish Evangelical Free Church and the Norwegian-Danish Evangelical Free Church Association.  Since Dr. Arnold T. Olson of the latter denomination, who largely engineered the friendly merger, became President of the combined denomination after a year, and held that position for a quarter century, it may not be so surprising that the unique distinctive of the Swedish branch became obscured.  In fact, however, Dr. Olson retained much of the spirit and simplicity of Waldenström’s stance through his oversight of the original Statement of Faith (1950) of the merged denomination.  He was also an able peacemaker and helped the new denomination  prosper and its new divinity school advance to become one of the half-dozen largest seminaries in the United States (among Southwestern Baptist, Dallas, Fuller, and Princeton). However, this was at the expense of the single most distinctive feature of the Swedish free church heritage—its uniquely Biblical doctrine of the Atonement, ably expounded and faithfully defended by a host of its first generations of pastors.  [11/13/06]  This declension is sadly reflected in the new Statement of Faith, adopted in 2008, which reverted to substitution (penal) language, and in other subtle ways needlessly overdetermined the biblical essentials.  This appears to be a case of the tail wagging the dog, where its Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, plus such stalwarts as Chuck Swindoll (a magna cum laude graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, however), steadily re-educated the whole denomination away from its authentic roots.  This constitutes an oddly strategic, though tragic,  setback.

Leave a comment

Filed under The Atonement

Recovery of the Resurrectionary Atonement Heralds Amnesty to Penal Payment Dogmatists!

In celebration of the current grand recovery of the ancient Resurrectionary Atonement, God is graciously and generously granting to the orthodox and evangelicals repentance for all their penal theories and pardon for all their payment theories! Today is the day! For all these offenders who duly repent and accept acquittal there can be a new era of fresh proclamation, unparalleled in power, accompanied by a rich harvest and abundant good fruits! Hip, hip, hooray! [11/10/06]  Or am I only whistling in the dark?

The Old Covenant, of necessity, had to have a torah full of “thou shalt nots,” complete with penalties and curses and penal administration, “for not as yet had Holy Spirit gotten bestowed” (John 7:39)! But this indescribable Gift is a complete package whose rich, full reality virtually replaces the whole of the old legislation, designed for people without the Spirit of power and life and love and graciousness. The flesh is too weak to manage staying the course of righteousness without external props and paraphernalia for chastising and penalizing…unless it gets immersed in the Spirit that can resist the blandishments of the Tempter and Adversary.  [11/11/06]

THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD’S OPERATION!

If the faithfulness of the Son of God in obedience to his Father’s desire, all the way to the cross and beyond, is what “annulled the acts of the Adversary” (1 John 3:8) and dissolved our miserable plight, “IN PRINCIPLE” (SINCE, NATURALLY, CHRIST WAS NOW DEAD), THAT PRINCIPLE EXPLODED INTO GLORIOUS REALITY THROUGH THE OVERMATCHING “FAITHFULNESS OF THE OPERATION OF GOD, WHO RAISES HIM FROM THE DEAD”!  (Colossians 2:12).  [11/11/06]

DEAD TO THE OFFENSES”!

The core meaning of “the stripping off of the body of flesh” (Colossians 2:11) that happened to Jesus in “the circumcision of the Messiah” (Colossians 2:11) at the cross is that he became DEAD TO THE OFFENSES DONE TO HIM BY SINNERS! HE LET THEM KILL HIM INSTEAD OF AVENGING HIMSELF! That’s why Paul can go on to write, “YOU ALSO BEING DEAD TO THE OFFENSES AND THE FORESKIN [DEPICTING HIS WHOLE BODY] OF FLESH” (Colossians 2:13)! THUS HE “DIED TO SIN” AND ALL THAT IT DID TO HIM SO CRUELLY AND UNJUSTLY. SO THAT WHEN GOD FINALLY ACTED IN TRUE JUSTICE TO COUNTER ALL THOSE SINS BY PUTTING HIM WAY BEYOND THEM VIA RESURRECTION, HE MADE ALL THOSE AGONIZING PANGS SUPREMELY WORTH HIS WAIT AND HIS WHILE BY BIRTHING HIM A WHOLE NEW CREATION PLUS MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF HIS VERY BEST FRIENDS AND ADORING FANS (!) TO COME BACK TO LIFE AND WORSHIP HIM AND SHARE HIS GOOD FORTUNE[11/11-12/06]

Leave a comment

Filed under The Atonement

Getting the Story Right, for Heaven’s Sake!

Is it true, as Lesslie Newbigin asserts, that, “He who alone was sinless alone could take upon Himself the whole burden of our sin and suffer for it, accepting that suffering as God’s just judgment upon sin” (Sin and Salvation, p. 78, all emphases added)? The Bible never says so. Should we believe it on Newbigin’s say so alone? Did I say “alone”? But he is not alone. Legions of orthodox teachers are fellow travelers down this well-worn rut. Maybe we should rephrase the question: “Should we disbelieve it on God’s Say So alone?” That is what it comes down to in the final analysis. The answer is not blowing in the wind.

The apostle Peter, a chief witness of all the suffering of abuse of him who called him to be an apostle, declared, “Yet if you may be suffering abuse also because of righteousness, happy are you” (1 Peter 3:14), echoing his Master, who similarly declared, “Happy are those persecuted on account of righteousness” (Matthew 5:10). These authentic testimonies to Divine truth force us to reconsider the nature of Messiah’s work on that miserable cross. He did not accept that abuse “as God’s just judgment upon sin”; he accepted that suffering of abuse as MAN’S UNJUST JUDGMENT UPON RIGHTEOUSNESS! He “despised the shame” of it! He very well knew their cruel hatred was not of God, yet he suffered the abuse of it without either reviling or threatening in return, because he came to earth to live down his name—JE-SUS. HE WAS UTTERLY CONFIDENT THAT GOD’S JUDGMENT WOULD EVENTUALLY COME—SWIFT AND DECISIVE!…BUT THAT THIS WAS NOT THAT!

No wonder Newbigin begins his next sentence, “It is a paradox….” The resorting to paradox by theologians is a bad habit that breeds only mystagogues instead of clear thinkers. And it bewilders not only the saints but also the would-be saints. The eager wannabees who must often turn away in sadness and distress at the toot of our “unclear sound,” which of itself can rally little of enduring good fruit. If one’s son requests a pair o’ socks, shall we hand him a paradox?

Astonishingly, even a thief on a nearby cross, whom Newbigin quotes (for Heaven’s sake!), sees more clearly than the theologian: We receive the due reward of our deeds, but this man hath done nothing amiss (emphases added), HE IS SUFFERING UNJUST ABUSE FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS SAKE! Yet Newbigin makes out that this “penitent thief began to understand that GOD’S JUDGMENT WAS JUST” because “we only understand God’s judgment upon sin when we see it in the sinless one (p. 78, emphases added)! Forsooth! If ‘Newbigin’ must have it both ways, he will perforce have a lukewarm gospel. Rather, we need a ‘New beginning’.

Yet Newbigin will not relent. He goes on, “when we see what happened on Calvary”—which one would think the penitent thief, as a captive eyewitness, might just be in a better position to interpret than our contemporary theologian—“where in humble obedience He—the sinless One—accepted in His own soul the just judgment of God upon human sin, there repentance is made possible to us, as to the dying thief” (p. 79, emphases added). We have seen that the Bible never says so, which may help explain why Newbigin is repeating himself instead of quoting the many explanations of Christ’s work found in apostolic Scripture, and in their own words. Yet even if we let that pass, what shall we make of the appended words about repentance? We must take them in conjunction with his later words in the same long paragraph where, in noting the fruit of understanding all that occurred at the Cross, he deduces, “there is real repentance; we have to accept the judgment which Jesus has accepted for us” (p. 79, emphases added). So how exactly does this substitutionary judgment (for so it is, and Newbigin would surely have used the word but for the fact that that his intended audience was “mostly village teachers of elementary grade…without theological training,” p. 7) make “real” repentance “possible”?

There is certainly no evidence in Scripture that the penitent thief saw an ounce of divine judgment in Jesus’ crucifixion. What he actually saw—and amazingly so from their perspective as victims of an irreversibly lethal execution method—was ONE WHO “COMMITS NOTHING AMISS” AND THEREFORE WILL CERTAINLY “BE COMING IN [HIS] KINGDOM (Luke 23:41-42)! INCREDIBLE INSIGHT!!! This, at least, is what brought that former robber to repent and enter by the Door of the sheepfold and be saved (John 10:7-9). HE SAW THE INVISIBLE, BY FAITH, IN VISIONARY EXPECTANCY! WOW! HE DIDN’T SEE ANY JUSTICE THAT DAY…FOR THE MESSIAH GETTING CRUCIFIED BESIDE HIM. HE ONLY KNEW THAT THIS JUDGMENT WAS…NOT RIGHT AND THAT JESUS WAS MOST CERTAINLY NOTGETTING BACK THE DESERTS [axia]” OF WHAT HE “PRACTICED [pra],” ALTHOUGH THEY, “INDEED, JUSTLY [dikaion]” WERE, FOR HE PRACTICED NOTHING “AMISS [atopon],” “OUT OF PLACE,” i.e., “OUT OF ORDER.” SO THIS WAYWARD MALEFACTOR KNEW FOR A CERTAINTY THAT THIS JUDGMENT WAS PHONY! AND THAT GOD HAD TO REVERSE IT WITH TRUE JUSTICE AND ALL THE TRIMMINGS! So he boldly dared to plead to be remembered by the Lord “whenever(hotan) that Grand Reversal might happen to be (Luke 23:42).

Therefore what this dear penitent “sawinthe Sinless One” was ANYTHING BUT GOD’S JUDGMENT! WHAT HE SAW EVER SO CLEARLY FROM A FRONT ROW CROSS WAS A MELTINGLY INNOCENT KING OF ALL THE JEWS, HIMSELF INCLUDED, WHO WAS STILL HARMLESSLY AND, THOUGH NOW IN GREAT PAIN AND MENTAL ANGUISH, RESOLUTELY WAITING FOR HIS FATHER TO GIVE HIM HIS RIGHTFUL KINGDOM. GOD ALMIGHTY! THAT’S WHO PERCEIVED FROM HIS HIGHEST HEAVEN EVERY WORD AND DEED ON THAT BLACK DAY OF INFAMY. THAT WAS NO DAY OF HIS JUDGMENT UPON SIN; THAT WAS THE DAY SIN UNLEASHED AND EXHAUSTED ITS DREAD ORDNANCE UPON THE SON!

Everything in due time. The Son of God was center stage that high noon of this fallen planet. With arms outstretched, pinned open in cosmic blessing, the Son of Mankind sustained a merciless bombardment of temptations to “save yourself” if you are truly “the chosen of God (Luke 23:35-39, Matthew 27: 39-44, Mark 15:29-32). Such taunts were unmitigated torment, well calculated to play on his divinely, designedly saving impulses as appointed, anointed, and now grotesquely disjointed Savior, commissioned by Jehovah with the name “Jesus” to rescue the world from sin and Satan, not himself from abuse.

AND HE CONQUERED! We know this because if he had ever caved in to the ultimate temptation to save himself, “the place of the skull” would have become ground zero for a detonation of angelic devastation that would have made the Abomination of Desolation seem like the aftermath of a Boy Scout Jamboree. And that would have been the end of us, forever.

But instead—what a gloriously joyful word at this juncture!—he preceded that unnamed robber into Paradise that very day and, as promised, welcomed him by name as a true son of Abraham into the Bosom of the faithful (Luke 23:43). What a hilarious denouement to a confirmed tragedy! But, as we all know, that was only the beginning.

This, then, is the ‘New Beginning’ I would contrast with ‘Newbigin’ regarding the supposed “judgment of God” at the Cross. His genuine judgment, I declare, came to light before the dawn of the Third Day: “He was raised from the dead(Matthew 28:7)! With that powerful act God himself finally spoke volumes concerning justice! A single resurrection is worth a thousand words, for starters.

And while I’m on the subject of God’s justice or righteousness as the resurrection of Jesus in vindication and acquittal, this seems the moment to make the point that this “judgment of God,” like the fictional one it replaces, is “for us”! The Master both died and was raised for our sakes (2 Corinthians 5:15)! No halfway measures here!

But, you may still ask, how about those rascals who strung him up? Well, what about ‘em? Their deed was rendered gloriously harmless by the sequel. Why should Justice need to “take it out on” them? Yes, even they get an invitation to enter the Kingdom of God…provided they admit they were terribly wrong and submit to Jesus as King. In historic fact, “a vast throng of the priests obeyed the faith” (Acts 6:7). For “there is to be heralded on/at his name a change of mind for pardon of sins, to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47), where he was slain! But, granted, for those who hardened up under the fresh Sonshine of God’s newly ignited graciousness, Jesus prophesied frightful woes upon Jerusalem, exacted in the last days of that generation—70 A.D. God is not mocked. It therefore appears that God’s own authentic judgment appeared historically in two parts as regards Israel’s response to his sending His Son for salvation. In Jesus’ resurrection God manifested His saving, rescuing, rewarding righteousness, announced so clearly (!) and repeatedly (!) in the Psalms and the Prophets. And in Jerusalem’s destruction God manifested His condemning, avenging, punishing righteousness. But first came the graciousness for all who believed in him, plus mercy, patience, kindness, and forbearance toward the stubborn…but that stuff runs out after a good while. Here we behold the gentle and necessarily severe ways of “the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, sole, and wise God,to Whom be “honor and credit for the ages of the ages! Amen.” (1 Timothy 1:17)  [11/10/06]

Leave a comment

Filed under The Atonement

THE CROSS: NOT GOD’S JUDGMENT ON SIN

The Cross of Christ, contrary to the assertion of Lesslie Newbigin (Sin and Salvation, pp. 65-66, 73-80), was most emphatically not God’s judgment upon sin. It was God’s exposure of human judgment upon righteousness and truth. Newbigin’s conclusion on page 66, “The crucifixion of Jesus is the decisive judgment of God upon the world,” is a stark non sequitur from page 65. Yes, God instructed His Son to submit to it. Yes, God knew it would happen. Yes, God let it unfold, uninhibited, unsuppressed, unameliorated, uncompromised, unvarnished, to provide the world a graphic ‘demonstration’, without parallel, of its own true state of alienation from wholesomeness, goodness, and sinlessness.

However, to make out the Cross to be God’s “judgment” in any sense whatever is to twist the truth of the Proclamation and to dishonor His own veritable judgment when it does make its advent…at the RESURRECTION!

The misguided impulse to pile up all “theological meaning” onto the Cross simply bullies its truth into silence, the inertial reflex of a blind-sided “theologia crucis” tradition. To be sure, the viciously unjust judgment of the human dupes of Satan’s deceptions prepared the way for — made possible, in fact, made necessary — God’s own authentic judgment from on high, but that was not visible from the standpoint of “the place of the Skull” by anybody who observed the event. Newbigin is quite right that

Evil wins most of its victories by deceit, by pretending to be good, by confusing and blinding men’s eyes so that they cannot distinguish good from evil. Jesus tore all this subterfuge aside, exposed evil in its true nature, endured the whole assault of its power, and remained steadfast in love and purity to the end [my emphasis].

Yet, in diametric contradiction of Newbigin’s conclusion, “therefore He condemned it” (emphasis added), the historic fact of that grim, terrible, horrible, Good very Bad Friday is that it condemned Him! And that’s that. That’s not the end of the Story, but that clearly is the actual conclusion of that historic episode. [11/10/06]

The staggeringly profound irony of these fine words of Newbigin’s is that he himself got sadly snookered into Satan’s subterfuge. His own two eyes are “confused” and “blinded” so that he himself “cannot distinguish good from evil”! Somehow his eyes got crossed at the Cross. He perceived the Cross as the place where God condemned “evil.” By such reckoning we might indeed have warrant to dub that day, “Good” Friday. But in reality, it was nothing of the kind. Right here, then, by Newbigin’s own logic, evil has won a victory by deceiving him into believing and even teaching with solemn “authority,” on the pretext of long tradition, that such an evil day was a “good” Friday. What a perversely ironic table-turning that confronts us with. If this can happen to a Newbigin, whom else could it not take in? Indeed, it is a pervasive perversion…AN INVASIVE INVERSION! [6/12/08] Isn’t it high time we begin to challenge the consensus of tradition that has wormed its way into our theologies, hymnodies, and liturgies with such dulling effects that obscure the Gospel truth?

2 Comments

Filed under The Atonement