The problem is: the three streams cannot be all true. It is not a matter of perspectives but of irreconcilable differences in doctrine.                       Phil Almond

Observations on "Preventing CEEC from becoming a 'Rump Parliament'":

From CEEC Basis of Belief

3 The Bible as the Revelation of Grace - We receive the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as the wholly reliable revelation and record of God's grace, given by the Holy Spirit as the true word of God written. The Bible has been given to lead us to salvation, to be the ultimate rule for Christian faith and conduct, and the supreme authority by which the Church must ever reform itself and judge its traditions.

4 The Atonement as the Work of Grace - We believe that Jesus Christ came to save lost sinners. Though sinless, he bore our sins, and their judgement, on the cross, thus accomplishing our salvation. By raising Christ bodily from the dead, God vindicated him as Lord and Saviour and his victory. Salvation is in Christ alone.

Are there disagreements among those wishing to be known as evangelicals? Almost certainly. What are those disagreements, how fundamental are they and to what extent are they a conscientious barrier to united witness and fellowship? We do not know without a full, earnest and painfully honest internet debate participated in by leading scholars and open to all.

Two obvious examples that I keep going on about.

Did God and Christ say, are saying, will say all the statements attributed to them in the Bible? Did God and Christ do, are doing, will do all the actions attributed to them in the Bible? I have not succeeded in getting anyone (Reform, Church Society, New Wine, Oak Hill, Forward in Faith, North West Partnership, Fulcrum) to engage in debate on these two questions. Only Oak Hill have replied to explain it is not their policy to engage in internet debate.

Is God’s wrath towards sinners ever, or never, a punitive wrath which is final with no possibility of it being removed? Did Christ’s death propitiate that wrath towards all who repent and believe in Jesus and towards all those lacking, for whatever reason, the faculties to make that personal response but whom nevertheless God decides to save?

These, surely, are fundamental questions. Persons giving diametrically opposite answers to these questions may feel able to subscribe with a good conscience to the CEEC Basis of Belief.

Phil Almond

I want to make a number of comments on recent posts but this posting just makes one of them, in response to Clare.

I understand from her postings on Fulcrum that one of Clare’s convictions is that God’s wrath is never a punitive wrath which is final with no possibility of it being removed, but is ‘A therapeutic wrath’. No doubt if this understanding is an inexact summary of this conviction she will tell me.

On the assumption that this is a reasonable summary of this conviction, my case is that if certain passages in the New Testament are true, then this conviction of Clare’s is untrue. Some (by no means all) of these passages are:

Luke 13:1-5

Luke 19:27

Matthew 13:36-43

Matthew 7:21-23

Matthew 25:40-46

2 Thessalonians 1:6-9

I need to define what I mean by ‘true’. The gospel passages all attribute statements to Jesus Christ. By ‘true’ I mean that Jesus did make those statements, in whatever language he made them, and that whatever the process of translation, copying, etc. was, the meaning of Jesus’ original words and the meaning of Jesus’ original statements is accurately conveyed in the English we find in our English translations. The Thessalonians passage is from a letter of Paul. By ‘true’ I mean that Paul did write those words and that whatever the process of translation, copying, etc. was, the meaning of Paul’s original words and the meaning Paul’s original statements is accurately conveyed in the English we find in our English translations, and that Jesus and his angels will do the things stated and the things stated will happen to those who know not God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

On the assumption that these passages are true in the sense defined I invite Clare to acknowledge that her conviction, as outlined above in paragraph 2, is untrue. Please note that I am not asking Clare to acknowledge that her conviction is untrue. Only that it is untrue if the passages given are true in the sense defined.

Phil Almond

The three possibilities seem to be:

1. The Bible is all true and my convictions about God and Christ and Christ’s death and about wrath and punishment (temporal and eternal) are true.

2. The Bible is all true and my convictions about God and Christ and Christ’s death and about wrath and punishment (temporal and eternal) are false.

3. Some of the Bible is true and some of the Bible is not true. The parts that are true mean that my convictions about God and Christ and Christ’s death and about wrath and punishment (temporal and eternal) are false.

The posting from Madeline on this thread (8 November) make it clear (‘It is the later interpretation of this witness, by Paul and others, which distorts it’) that in her view, at least the Pauline epistles distort the witness of Jesus. My challenge to her is to ask her whether the statements by Jesus given in my 14 August posting on NEAC 2008 are true.

Possibly Birinus (7 November) is saying roughly the same thing as Madeline. I put the same challenge to him.

In response to Clare:

If you don’t believe the Bible is all true but feel entitled to use some of it in your theology, aren’t you making the assumption that the parts of the Bible you are using are true? When you posted ‘Within the Old Testament itself there are conflicting images of what God is like. Some of these are in harmony with the Christ event and some are not. The same could be said to a lesser extent of the New Testament’, didn’t you have any passages in mind in both Testaments? I am just asking you to identify some passages in both Testaments which are in harmony with the Christ event and some that are not. In a recent post you seemed to be trying to show that Romans supports your view. Would you do that if you didn’t believe it to be true?

So I ask you, please, to answer:

Is the teaching of Romans all true?  Or only some of it?

Phil Almond

Jody

A quote from one of Clare’s earlier postings:

‘just to clarify a couple of things,  you say that I  deny that there is any harmony between the Christ event and the God the Old Testament.  No - that is not the case at all.  I argue that there are harmonies and disharmonies throughout the Bible. Within the Old Testament itself there are conflicting images of what God is like. Some of these are in harmony with the Christ event and some are not. The same could be said to a lesser extent of the New Testament’.

I am seeking clarity on Clare’s view on two specific questions:

What statements and actions attributed in the Bible to Christ and to God were said and done by them and which were not?

The second question is similar: what parts of the Old and New Testaments are true and what parts are untrue? For instance, Clare has made it clear that the true God, in her view, could not have destroyed lots of people, including children, in a flood.

I would also like to know the view on these questions of you and other members of the Fulcrum Leadership team.

Please note that answering ‘all said, all done, all true’ to these questions does not commit you to agreeing with the way that conservative evangelicals understand the statements, actions and truths. But, for the purposes of clear debate, especially with Clare, clarity on these two questions is needed.

Phil Almond

Clare

No, Romans 12:19 cannot be read as making exactly your point in a most poignant fashion.

First, I think you need to declare yourself on the following issue.

In a previous posting you have acknowledged (19 October on this thread)

‘that my belief in my (italics added)  God and Christ involves not only believing that quite a lot of the Old Testament is untrue but also that quite a number of statements and actions attributed in the New Testament to Christ and his apostles are also untrue. Of course! That’s almost the sine qua non of liberalism!  Sometimes, of course, things are true but in a different way from how they have come to be understood’.

In your 3 November posting, among other statements, you seem to be trying to show that Romans supports your view.

So I ask you, please, to answer:

1.       Is the teaching of Romans all true?  

2.       Going back to your 19 October posting, identify which statements and actions attributed in the New Testament to Christ and his apostles are untrue?

What follows assumes that your answer to question 1 is ‘yes, the teaching of Romans is all true’.

In Romans 12:19 Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35. Deuteronomy 32: 1-43 is a song that Moses recited to the whole assembly of Israel. Parts of that song are clearly Moses quoting what God has said. On the assumptions that your view is that the teaching of Romans is all true, and that in 12:19 Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35, I ask you please to answer 3 more questions:

3.       Did the true God say Deuteronomy 32:35?

4.       Did the true God say all the other statements attributed to him in Deuteronomy 32?

5.       Can you really maintain your view of what Paul is saying in 12:19, by quoting Deuteronomy 32:35, given the context of 32:35 in the rest of Deuteronomy 32?

Furthermore: Deuteronomy 32: 35,36 is quoted in Hebrews 10:30 as part of a serious warning that runs from 10:26 to 10:31.

6.       Is the teaching of the whole of Hebrews true?

If it is, the language of 10:26-31 (..some fearful expectation of judgement and zeal of fire being about to consume the adversaries…he that despised Moses law died without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses….of how much worse punishment will he be thought worthy who has trampled on the Son of God) surely rules out your interpretation.

Phil Almond

Clare

What about (Nestle Interlinear)

..since [it is] a just thing with God to repay affliction to the [ones] afflicting you and rest with us to you the [ones] being afflicted, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of power of him in fire of flame, giving full vengeance to the [ones] not knowing God and to the [ones] not obeying the gospel of the Lord of us Jesus, who will pay [the] penalty eternal destruction from [the] face of the Lord and from the glory of the strength of him….

2 Thessalonians 1:6-9

As therefore are collected the tares and with fire are consumed, thus it will be at the completion of the age; will send forth the Son of man the angels of him, and they will collect out of the kingdom of him all the things leading to sin and the [ones] doing lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there will be the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of the Father of them. The [one] having ears let him hear.

Matthew 13:40 – 43

…avenging not yourselves, beloved, but giving place to wrath; for it has been written: To me vengeance, I will repay, says the Lord.

Romans 12:19

Phil Almond

There have always been disagreements among those who consider themselves Christians, overlaid with disagreements about whether these disagreements are primary or secondary. And of course disagreements among those who consider themselves evangelicals are a subset of those wider disagreements. As NEAC2008 approaches, a few (some repeated) observations:

The enemies of the Christians are always the same: the world, the flesh and the devil. But the terrain on which the spiritual struggle takes place changes from time to time. The key features of the terrain just now are the ascendancy (and success in its own proper sphere) of the analytical and experiment-led approach to understanding reality; a revived and masterly Catholic apologetic in Ut Unum Sint, the Gift of Authority and Vatican II; and the resurgence of Islam

Process is important as well as substance. A major disagreement last century was between non-conformist evangelicals (Martyn Lloyd-Jones) and Anglican evangelicals (John Stott). The rights and wrongs of the substance of that disagreement are still strongly debated. But I suspect that few on either side would regard as satisfactory the process whereby the disagreement arose and was subsequently handled.

The most important questions are who God and Christ are, what they are like, what they have said/done etc., what human beings need saving from, in what that salvation consists and how it may become mine and ours. Questions about organisations and groupings and bishops have their place, but are secondary in comparison.

What the ordinary Christian like me, who regards these issues as vital and practical, needs, like a chess player trying to decide if the Marshall Attack is sound, are the strongest arguments from all sides. These arguments can only satisfactorily arise from an internet debate which is earnest, sustained, contributed to by leading scholars and open to all.

In the light of Christ’s prayer the urge to minimise disagreements and gain agreement is very strong. That urge needs to be resisted. Our path of humble obedience to bring about the unity for which Christ prayed is first of all to be honest and conscientious – with God and with each other. Just as God, as Warfield pointed out, is honest and conscientious – with himself and with us.

Phil Almond

Jody (wrt 23 Oct 08  9.43 posting)

You posted

‘I simply don't interpret the verses given by Phil in a way that makes God into some kind of schizophrenic who one moment is merciful and the next is angry - at some point you have to bring those two things together to have a God who is 'simple' in the 'undivided' sense.’

God is always true to his entire being. Paul’s description of all people in Ephesians 2 is: ‘by nature children of wrath’. That is our position merely by being born into the human race. God’s attitude to us remains the same through our death into eternity unless ‘God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God’. Bearing in mind what Paul says in Romans 9

‘For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy’.

There is no schizophrenia. There is no one moment merciful and the next angry. The two things are brought together by the death of Christ which propitiates the wrath of God, that he might be just and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus.

Phil Almond

Celinda

Yes. It crossed my mind the other day that Jonathan Edwards would be mentioned. A few points:

Lloyd-Jones says somewhere that in speaking about hell Edwards went beyond what the Bible says. He let his imagination run away with him. This observation is significant coming from someone who basically shared Edwards’ viewpoint.

I agree with Warfield’s comment about Elijah in the cave: ‘….it is not the Law but the Gospel, not the revelation of wrath but that of love, which saves the world. Wrath may prepare for love; but wrath never did and never will save a soul.’ 

As I see it there are 2 closely linked but distinct issues:

1.       What is the true doctrine of God and the true doctrine of the atonement?

2.       How should these truths be communicated, preached, taught to both those who are or consider themselves to be Christians and to those who are not or don’t?

On 1, much of the discussion on Fulcrum I have taken part in has been about the doctrine that the death of Christ propitiates God and that in his death he bore the penalty that we as sinners deserve, and about whether God and Christ said/are saying/will say, did/are doing/will do certain things the Bible says and whether the picture the Bible gives us of God and Christ is true. These discussions have made it clear that these doctrines and that picture are queried or rejected, implicitly or explicitly, by a number of people, including those who regard themselves and wish to be recognised as evangelicals. So a lot of what I have said is my attempt to prove the truth of those doctrines and that picture.

When we come to communicating these things to others: for the gospel to be fully and honestly preached, the diagnosis/threat of the wrath of God, of ourselves as wrath-deserving sinners and the Biblical picture of the great and terrible God the Bible gives us have to be stated sooner or later, alongside the amazing grace and love and mercy of God in Christ dying for our sins and rising for our justification and all that flows from that redemption. But we recognise that though the need to be forgiven and delivered from the wrath to come is a person’s greatest objective need, subjectively it is sometimes/often not the need that people feel most. Maybe that need is the fear of death, or a low self-esteem, or broken relationships, or inadequacy, or the meaninglessness of life, or poverty, or the struggle with particular sins, or enslavement to certain habits, or the problem of evil – I am sure that you can think of many more. The self-disclosure God has given us has something to say about all these needs and problems. In preaching the gospel, in whatever way, obviously space has to be found to bring that revelation to bear on all these needs and problems and to show that in one way or another, sooner or later, now or in eternity, the great salvation the Triune God has brought about and is bringing about will meet those needs and solve those problems.

Phil Almond

John Marshall and Jody

In seeking to think rightly about the wrath of God we should confront ourselves with all that the Bible says in both Old and New Testaments. Some relevant passages, among many others:

Genesis 19:15 makes it clear that the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah was a punishment from God; Jesus says in Matthew 10:15 that it will be more tolerable for these destroyed cities in the day of judgement than for those who do not receive the emissaries of Christ nor hear their words.

Jeremiah 25:15-38.

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matt 13 40:42

But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; Rom 2:8-9

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Rev 6:15-17

We see in these terrible passages the wrath of God described and the effect of that wrath when it is visited on people in temporal judgment and in eternal judgment. I agree that the wrath of God is not like human anger. It is a holy, righteous and pure wrath. But the language used leaves us in no doubt that it is a terrible reality, and Jody’s assertion

‘his wrath is like a fire which refines us all, it is an entirely merciful act’

cannot be an adequate statement in the light of the language used which makes it clear that it is punishment which is in view and not mercy.

Any discussion of the atonement has to take into account this dreadful reality which is consistently painted throughout the Bible and highlights the seriousness of sin and what we as sinners deserve. How can this wrath be removed other than by Christ bearing it instead of us? Here is the mercy of God, offered to all, with a certain promise of forgiveness and adoption as sons to all those who repent and cast themselves in self-despair on the mercy of Christ.

Phil Almond

Madeline, Jody

I invite you to engage with the points I made in my posting on this thread on 12 October 2008 at 2.43 pm. I am assuming it is common ground between us (tell me if it is not, I assume that it is not common ground with Clare, tell me if it is) that John 3: 36 is true, that Paul wrote Galatians 3, that Galatians 3 is true, that his references there are to Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and Deuteronomy 27:26, and his application of those references are true applications.

In particular, given those assumptions, I do not see how you avoid agreeing with my statement on John 3:36

‘The wrath of God remains on anyone who disobeys the Son. When anyone believes in the Son the wrath of God no longer remains on him but rather he has eternal life. Therefore, to put it in the most general terms, based on this verse alone, something connected with who the Son is, or what the Son has said, is saying or will say, or what the Son has done, is doing or will do, removes the wrath of God from anyone who believes in him.’

Are we agreed thus far, for the moment, perhaps deferring discussion until later about the other things I say in that posting?

Phil Almond