Steve Chalke Lost Message debate, Thursday 7 October 2004

edited transcript v1.1

Running order
Welcome & prayer- Joel Edwards (EA General Director) Introduction- Derek Tidball (Chair) Opening statement- Steve Chalke Opening statement- Simon Gathercole Response- Steve Chalke Response- Simon Gathercole Statement- Stuart Murray Williams Statement- Anna Robbins Break & collection of written questions Question time (Speakers + Mike Ovey)

Joel Edwards (EA General Director)- welcome

Others have disliked its emphasis on original goodness than original sinby the far the most pointed criticism has been concerned with the doctrine of penal substitution the issues at stake tonight are far greater than any one individual they are symptoms of an age-old commitment to unity in diversity, what it means to be an evangelicalThe EA is committed both to promoting evangelical truth and fostering evangelical unity (Ephesians 4:3). This is not a forum for personal vilification or personal vindication it is not a forum for gladiators. It is a place for robust loveI hope that nothing that is said robs any of us of our love and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ truth without grace may make us feel better, but truth without grace is always unbiblical together we will judge how much truth is mediated by grace; because of the indwelling Spirit every word we say tonight becomes memorable, and those of us who get lost in the technical talk about truth, will still recognise grace when we hear iteach of us must maintain that critical balance between grace and truth I want to be part of a grown-up evangelical unity that exercises robust loveI have no wish to be a part of or to lead a group of Christians who panic in the face of controversy, retreat from each other or condemn each other without conversation. I want to be a part of an evangelicalismwhich holds truth and love in tension For some of us in the final analysis this may turn out to be a totally irresolvable problem.

Derek Tidball (principal of London School of Theology; chair of EA Council)

[Reads out EAs Basis of Faith Clause 3 & 4 & Practical Resolutions, including Clause 3 & 4 of the EA Basis of Faith affirm, The universal sinfulness and guilt of fallen man, making him subject to Gods wrath and condemnation, and The substitutionary sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God as the sole and all-sufficient ground of redemption from the guilt and power of sin, and from its eternal consequence.] I want to express my thanks right at the beginning to Steve Chalke for consenting for this evening and joining in this discussion. Steve has worked happily with the Alliance for many years. The recent comments and criticisms have beenenough to air the issues in public, but I want us to do so within the spirit of thankful resolutions Steve Chalke MBE is a Baptist Minister [laughter from audience] I dont often get to say that[various plaudits for Steve Chalkes achievements]he writes for Prima Baby. [Introduction for Simon Gathercole]

Steve Chalkes opening statement

Derek [addressing chairs pronunciation], its not called Praima Baby, its called Preema Baby, and its the second best-selling parents magazine in the country. Its called Prima. I write for Prima Why did I write The Lost Message of Jesus? Because much of what Jesus came to say has been lost. And its been lost by us, lost by me. Ive been a Christian since I was 14, Im 48, Ill be 49 in a few weeks time. And

Ive grown up in an atmosphere where I believe that weve not yelled and screamed from the rooftops that God is love and God is on peoples side. I began the Oasis Trust in 1985, as a result of my conversion actually, the day I became a Christian, I knew from that moment on, I had to tell people about Jesus I set up a hostel, a hospital and a school for the poor, and now Oasis runs these things around the world. And Ive worked with many people who have been rejected, abandoned and today I sat with someone at my church in Waterloowhat do all these people need to know? That God is love, and somehow weve failed to get this across. Id like to begin by admitting that Im open to some of the charges about this book 1. I dont know it all. Im a struggler, Im a learning, those of you who know me, thats who I am I get by every day I have enormous periods of doubt just like you do I can ride high and sink low all in a day, thats me. 2. There are massive gaps in my book. I know its got more than 182 pages, because everyone always says, Its on page 182 that terrible heresy. Ive never looked! It must have more than that. These are some things about Jesus, and the book has enormous gaps in it. But I would say that every book that has ever been written has enormous gaps in it. And actually the evangelical church of which I am a part has enormous gaps in what it says about Gods love 3. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If I was rewriting this book, I would add three sentences. I believe in the principle that says, Tell them what youre going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what youve told them. I think that at one or two points, I said what I was saying, but didnt tell them what I was going to tell them, or tell them what Ive told themI didnt write this book for you, I wrote it for all the people who dont know Christ yet. And I have to say that though there have been some very hard letters written to me, the overwhelming thing is that- from university professors, professors teaching in evangelical colleges, where the college has said, We dont agree with this, but the NT teacher or the OT teacher or Church History teacher has written to me privately and said, This is great. Church leaders have written to me. I got one letter from a pastor condemning me, and I got another letter from his wife saying, This book liberates me and it could save our marriage. 4. Theres nothing new in my book. I wish it was new, I wish it was original, it would prove I was a lot smarter than I am. Its old hat. In fact, Professor James Dunn (Simons teacher, with whom he disagrees), would actually agree with me. Im not the first and Im not the last. 5. My book does not offer a critique of penal substitution. Joel, I wonder where youve gone, but I wonder if youve read it. I doubt it! It doesnt mention the word atonement, let alone substitution, let alone penal. [Becoming very passionate] There is one sentence in it that talks about people that talk of the Cross as an angry God punishing His Son, and I say that if you have that view of the Cross, then actually you have distorted God, distorted Him. Some people have written to me and said, I believe in penal substitution, but I dont believe in that. Well OK, if the cap doesnt fit, dont wear it. I do feel a bit unread and misunderstood. Let me talk about some things I do believe 1. I believe in the Cross. It says it loud and clear on every page. I believe that the Cross is central to the Biblical framework and the Biblical theme. I believe that Paul said that he purposed to know nothing while he was amongst the Corinthians except Christ crucified. But I want to explore what that Cross means, and its bigness. I believe in a bigger view of the Cross than that which I was taught, which actually I think is minimalistic. 2. I believe in sin. Ive not rejected sin. But I do want to say this, that the first affirmation that God makes of us is that we are made in His image, and we are originally good. Sin enters the world and we are marred by it, but every man, woman and child needs to know that they are made in Gods image, and that He loves them, and thats the first thing they need to understand, I believe thats what Jesus taught. I was in Cyprus this summer, Id only been there about four hours, I sat down with a church leader from Nicosia who has been working there for 20 years with the Protestants and the Orthodox he said, We think its good, but we think one parts great when you talk about Original Goodness. If only the Western Church could learn what the Eastern Church has always known. 3. I believe in Gods anger. I believe Gods anger and Gods judgement are real. The Bible talks about them constantly. But I believe they are aspects of His love. Just as, Im a father, and when my love works best, my anger becomes part of it. Sometimes my anger operates outside of my love, and Im always ashamed of it afterwards. But God is perfectly loving. His anger and His justice are part of His

love. I believe He rages about sin, and I believe He rages about evil. But I believe He loves us passionately, I believe He loves us passionately. 4. I believe in Final Judgement. But its not final yet. Its not our job, its not the time. 5. I believe in repentance. Jesus isnt just to be worshipped, Hes to be followed. I hope thats the way I live my life. 6. I believe in sacrifice as a category of understanding what happened on the Cross. I just want us to have a discussion about what that means. 7. I believe in substitution- by His stripes we are healed. I believe that Christ died in our place, I believe its apparent. In Romans 1-5, its apparent that as in Adam all die, so in Christ we are made alive. He is our substitute. Its penal substitution thats a different thing. And the EA believes in substitution, not penal substitution. 8. I believe in forgiveness, its the air that we need to breathe, and without it we are lost. 9. I believe in the OT, but Jesus relativises some of the OT. 10. I believe in the atonement, its fully orbed, we see it many ways. I do not however believe that penal substitution is a legitimate way or metaphor for the Cross. I think it distorts Gods character. 11. I believe in conversion and transformation personally. 12. I believe in discipleship. What am I being accused of? EN said I had a wrong view of God, Man and the Cross. I believe that this debate is to do with Gods character, nothing less. I believe that what happens on the Cross is an outworking of who God is. I believe if we misunderstand God we will misunderstand the Cross. Its not an issue about the atonement at all, its about who God is. Who do we worship? Anna [Robbins] says that my book offers a Jesus of the 21st Century, rather than a Jesus for the 21st Century, and that we need a little more robust transformational theology. But I believe that orthodoxy must always work itself in orthopraxis. And actually that is the background in which my book was written The thing I dont like being accused of is being a reader of feminist theology! They say that the thing I say about cosmic child abuse I get from feminist theologians Do you know why I said that its cosmic child abuse? Its because that whats said by the blokes down the pub. However, if feminist theologians offer the same critique, we shouldnt reject it just because it comes from feminist theologians. I now know theyve said the same thing. John Stott says that all inadequate doctrines of the atonement are due to inadequate doctrines of God and Man. I respect John greatly but I think it works the other way round a lot of the time. I would like to argue that inadequate doctrines of the atonement lead to inadequate doctrines of God and humanity, and that if you believe the wrong things about the Cross, you can end up believing wrong things about God. I believe that penal substitution is arrogant. Someone said to me, I believe in penal substitution because it is the Biblical approach. Paul uses different metaphors for atonements in different books, Luke has a different model than Paul does, and actually most people knows that. But there is an arrogant movement I think from Australia and certain parts of the States that want to make penal substitution the box that you have to tick in order to be an evangelical and be a Christian, I want to say thats not Biblical, I want to put that stake in the ground. And any one theory that claims to be the whole way of viewing the Cross and nothing else besides leaves us all the poorer, all the poorer, because what Christ did on the Cross was huge. I believe that penal substitution is repressive because I believe that it crushes debate. You cannot believe the number of people who have told me that Im not a Christian. People have written such unkind things, they really have. My biggest worry in all of this has been my children, because Ive not wanted them to lose their faith in a God of love, because of the way theyve seen me treated. I believe that penal substitution, because it teaches that Gods anger and then youre made in the image of God, and you believe that theres an angry God whose the Judge behind the universe, you believe that youre His agent, you can act in that way. Some of the language thats been used about me, claiming Im not a Christian, let alone an evangelical. My book has been bannedpeople have sold it from the counters- still wanting to make the money, but not wanting to put it out in the shop. I know that one friend of mine wrote to EN with a reply to the article that has been written about me, and they refused to publish his letter. He wrote again and they still refused to publish the letter. We have to debate and be grown up.

I believe that penal substitution is distorted. I believe it misrepresents God as enraged and infuriated, bent on retribution. I believe that it misunderstands Gods wrath, and places it totally out of context. I believe that it overplays His wrath, and that it predicates judgement and punishment before the Cross. Now, those would say Ive got the wrong end of the stick I believe that penal substitution encourages rudeness. We are judgemental, rude, thats our evangelical problem. I would say that you could walk out of here to the nearest pub and the first person you would have the chance to talk to would say youre all kind of rude and obnoxious and judgemental. Theres a lot of smoke, but I dont believe theres smoke without fire. I think penal substitution is ethically weak. I think penal substitution is simplistic. It doesnt deal with systemic sin, only individual sin. I believe that penal substitution perpetuates the myth that violence can be redemptive. This moment of all moments is the time for the church to stand up and say, You can only combat violence by forgiveness and mercy and not bearing a grudge. Its been thrown at the church for years and years that religion breeds wars and hostilities. It comes from deep down in our theologies. So what do I believe? The Bible and the NT talk about in many and various ways. Lots and lots of metaphors are very rich. The theory that is called Christus Victor that a guy called Gustav Aulen put together in the 1930s has been held down through the centuries. What I believe about Christs death is this: in and through Jesus Christs life, death and resurrection, God confronts evil in a very definite way. But in doing so, Jesus will not choose the tools of evil itself: coercion, unjust force, violence, etc. Instead in weakness He confronts Satan and evil, and He confounds it. He lures those who wield unjust power into exposing themselves. He provokes, and in the end they use the only power they can: domination and violence. But He soaks up their violence, He soaks up evil, He soaks up sin, both individual and corporate, the systems of Israel and Rome, as well as the individual sins of Judas, and those who betrayed Him and turned their back on Him, and Jesus will not return violence for violence. But He goes down in the end into death taking it all on Him, and He conquers death and He rises from the dead, and He is seen as Lord. He absorbs all the worlds rubbish and sin and evil, and triumphs. So Paul writes, As in Adam we all die, because Eve gave in, so in Christ.the clocks been turned back, things are new, a second Adam has arrived, theres a new beginning for us all. Dereks coming overhes probably after a copy of Prima Baby.

Simon Gathercoles opening statement

My first concern is how to follow that from Steve to take part in what my wife has been calling Chalkegate. Steve and I do agree on a number of premises and on a number of things that we need to take seriously in order to look at Jesus and His teaching: 1. How seriously he takes Scripture and how we look at Scripture 2. Jesus being fully God and fully Man Favourite bit: the Indestructible Sandwich. I was delighted to see so much passion in the book Im not a warmonger, but there are some serious reservations and serious problems. It seems to me in a number of places very one-sided [Gathercoles statement continues; I may type it out more fully in future.]

Steve Chalkes response

You quoted The Lords prayer, Thy kingdom come, you missed off the other half of the statement Paul tells us that as Christ wrestled against the forces of evil and would not succumb and He would not give in (unlike Adam who caved in), Jesus would not cave in and He soaked up the very worst that Satan had to throw at Him, and He came through it, and He cries on the Cross, It is finished! Ive done it! Theres a second Adam to the fight. As in one man, we die; so, in this new Adam, many will be made alive. Thats the truth. The

kingdom begins now. I dont deny future judgement at all, I believe that we have good news to offer people now, though. I hope that in my book theres a clear call for repentance this isnt some easy-peasy go-to-heaven-when-youdie. In fact one of my critiques of penal substitution is a cash value version of the Cross; you know, Jesus died on the Cross for you. Just say the sinners prayer, and youre in. Its devoid of ethical depth, and thats one of our problems. What I say about God being love is not about my sensibilities of the 21st Century, its about Gods sensibilities, its about what God says: For God so loved the world I think you quoted it. I think we need to say that loud and clear. Ive read John Stotts book, John is a friend of mine, Ive discussed these things in some measure with John, I have the greatest respect for him, I believe I have my differences with him. But I believe that in the hands of characters like John, penal substitution- with his nuancing, with his tenderness- actually penal substitution has the rougher edges rubbed off it. But in the end, if you believe in penal substitution, the real reason for the Cross is not Gods love, its to deal with Gods angry. That is it. An angry God has to have His anger turned away. That is what penal substitution is about in the end. It is the reason for the Cross. I think youll read in the EN article, that they agree with that. They say, If God is not angry, what is the reason for the Cross? or some such thing. I do not believe the Cross is about Gods anger at the world, I believe its about Gods anger at sin in the world, and the systems of people, both individual and corporate. And I believe that Jesus comes to take it all on, and He will not cave in. And in a mystical way that no metaphor of the Cross can capture (and all these are metaphors), he deals that blow. The world did its worst to Jesus and God did His worst to Jesus as well (Roger Carswell). That is when penal substitution gets out of the hands of people like John Stott, and into the hands of people who frighten people. And I dont think anyone should be frightened into a relationship with God, who describes Himself as love. In Mark 10:45 Jesus said He didnt come to be served but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many. This has nothing to do with penal substitution whatsoever. Jesus was of course referencing Exodus 6 & 16. Its referring to the first Exodus. Jesus had come to bring them out of bondage. God says He is paying ransom for His people Israel. Who is He paying it to? Is He paying it to Himself? Is He paying it to Pharaoh? In actual fact, the Church took guesses at who God was paying a ransom to, and they got themselves into a right pickle. Its a metaphor, and if you take it too far, youll always land yourself in serious trouble. Follow it though, and it means that God paid a ransom to Pharaoh, which He didnt. I think we need to talk about sacrifice, atonement, what these terms mean and what they dont mean. We need a serious debate about these concepts. So that we see 1 John 4:10, In this is love, not that we love God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be an atoning sacrifice for our sins. We need to study Leviticus and study the Old Testament, and I think youll find theres no direct link with Gods anger. Leon Morris Ive got in my bag I can quote John Stott who says, Its impossible to understand what sacrifice and atonement were about in the OT or what the writer to the Hebrews is really talking about. Perhaps well never know. We ought to study those things before leaping to conclusions. Time & space do not permit typing out the following sections

Simon Gathercoles response Statement- Stuart Murray Williams Statement- Anna Robbins Break & collection of written questions Question time (Speakers + Mike Ovey)
All words from Steve Chalke except those in square brackets. This section is highly edited to focus on Steve Chalkes comments.

SC: I believe that Jesus died on the Cross to bear away the sins of the worldGods anger burns at sin and evil, and Christ came to deal with it. I dont believe that God is angry at people The vast majority of Christians throughout history and alive on planet earth today would not say that penal substitution was their first way of understanding the Cross, and many would say that it is not a way of understanding the Cross at all. Thats just a fact Question from Andrew Sach: You dont like the idea of Gods anger at people. But in Ephesians 2:3 Paul writes that we were by nature objects of wrath and in 2 Thessalonians 1:8, Paul says that God will punish those who dont know God and dont obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think the problem about all this is that we need to have a serious discussion about these conceptsrather than just cherry-picking verses. Its great to latch on to a verse like that But it would be good to look at the whole concept of the anger and wrath of God. I think the place to start is in Romans, and build out from there. And I would love to be part of a discussion about that. I promise you Ive never read a word of CH Dodd, but he says that Gods anger is just the natural consequences, the outworking of mans wrong on himself. John Stott on CH Dodd in The Cross of Christ says, The attempts of CH Dodd and others to reconstruct wrath and understand wrath as an impersonal process must be declared, at least, not proven. John does not say, I can prove theyre wrong. This is a debate and a discussion. A lot of people say, referring to Romans 1 or whatever it is, Ah but Gods wrath is worked out on sinners and He gives them over to their sins, and He works out their wrath I notice, however, that when you sit with a person who is dying with AIDS, or when you talk to the press about people who are HIV positive, and we get asked by the press, Is this Gods anger? Is He doing this out of His anger? I realise, I see, constantly, Ive heard evangelical after evangelical saying, Its the consequences of rebellion against God working themselves out Gods not angry at this person, He loves them. But the consequences of our sin wind us up in this sort of way. I think that we talk tough, but when we meet real people, we come under a different kind of ethic. Andrew Sach: Im sorry youve accused me of cherry-picking verses, I chose the clearest two I could find. The truth is that theres hundreds of pages in the Bible where God expresses His rage and anger against human beings whore rebelling against Him. I think what Ive found extraordinary is that none of those verses make it into your book. Its almost that youve had to be so selective in order to avoid those verses. SC: Im sorry if theres things missing from the bookbut if you read the book youll discover that I talk about Gods anger, Gods judgement, and I follow the mind of Karl Barth who says quite clearly that all of these are different ways of saying that God is loveit is the big anguish of Godwe need to understand Gods wrath in that way as well. Some of my friends are rabbis, and I have to say that I spend much of my time talking to them about their understanding of the Old Testament. And they say the concept of Gods anger is also the concept of His anguish, divine anguish and struggle and trouble and turmoil and torture, because God in His heart looks at all of this sin in the world, and its there, and is angry at it, but a father can never give up loving a child. Thats how I understand it, and I think Jesus made that pretty clear in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Questioner: How can you believe that God did not turn His back on Jesus when He was on the Cross, when Jesus Himself cried out in Aramaic, My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me? Surely to deny penal substitution is to deny the very words of Jesus on the Cross? Mike Ovey: Steve has said that the reason for penal substitution is Gods anger. That cant be so, because Gods anger- just that alone- would be satisfied by the administration of justice in itself without salvation. The fact that there is salvation through penal substitution is a testimony to Gods just anger against sin, and also His incomparable love in His three Persons in His action to save us. SC: Jesus is quoting the Psalmist saying, My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me? Where are you? Of course, Hes not been abandoned by God either, because Hes in Gods world. Its His human condition, His human emotions. Jesus was fully human, and He went through this. This last time I heard someone cry, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? was about four days ago as I sat with someone whod been told that they had terminal cancer, and there was no way out of it. My God, where are you God? Where are you?

Why have you abandoned me? Thats what we feel as humans, but of course Gods there, Hes omnipresent, Hes always there. Hes with us even when we feel abandoned. God was there with Jesus as He went through, and He would not give in to sin, and a second Adam won, and so salvation was brought to us. Sin and evil were defeated. Simon Gathercole: So did Jesus get it wrong, Steve? SC: Yes. Yes, Jesus is fully human and fully God. Not partly one, partly the other. Thats what we believe, isnt it? Fully man, fully God. He suffered and was tempted in every way as we are, thats what the Scripture teaches us. He was tempted in every way as I am, and sometimes I feel that in my circumstances, God just cant be there any moreI think thats what Jesus was going through at that moment. And His Cross transformed history [simultaneously] {Mike Ovey: So the answer to the question is that yes, He was wrong. {Derek Tidball: Let me, let meinvite [the next questioner] to the microphone, please.

Derek Tidball: But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, we have been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from Gods wrath through Him (Romans 5:8). Questioner: Separating Gods love from an understanding of His wrathsurely Gods love is demonstrated in Christs dying for us, saving us from the wrath of God, through Him? SC: If God didnt like us that muchwhy wouldand felt that angry with us God loves us! Gods angry at sin. It burns within Him. It burns within me. Its just a little reflection. In some of the situations that Oasis has worked in around the world, I see the evil of individual sin, and I see the evil of corporate sin. Those two things: systemic sin. I see all of that, and Ill sometimes come to a place when Ill just weep and weep and weep, and Im angry, and I see the mess that people get themselves into, and the wrath- if you like- that they bring on themselves. I see that theyve made this own hole for themselves, and theyve dug it, and theyve got into a mess. And yet, I still love them. We run a health centre in central London. Last year we treated 13,000 people off the street, alcoholics and drug addicts. Ive learnt over the years- weve been running this for 12 years- to look into the eyes of an alcoholic, and see the eyes of Jesus. I used to look at them and just have disdain for them. And yet, Ive learnt that if I look at them as I believe God looks at them, I see the mess that theyre in, and Im angry at what theyve done, and I really am angry at what theyve done, and what theyve become. But I love them. I love them. And all Im saying is that we need a serious debate about the wrath of God, and those concepts from Romans and elsewhere. A serious debate. And John Stotts book begins down the road and gives up. I think that we need a serious debate about that. Leon Morris book does too. We need a serious debate. And Im up for a serious debate. But lets have the serious debate about these things, so that we are grown-up and have something to say to this world and ours, who are struggling with life. It needs to be deeper than this sound-bite stuff, were all rushing, and some of us need to sit down and look at these things together. Mike Ovey: The point about Steves book is that classic evangelicals have nothing to say about Gods wrath, because theyre completely wrong about it. We say that theres a future judgement, Steve, and that theres a future judgement in which we will be judged, and that- judging by Romans 5:9, the text you didnt deal with- it actually says, How much more shall we be saved from Gods wrath. Comparable material, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, Jesus who rescues us from the coming wrath. Comparable material, Ephesians 2:3, that we are objects of wrath, we are objects of wrath in the future. The Lord Jesus tells us Himself in John chapter 5 (v28,29) that there will come a day that the dead will answer His call. Some will rise to life, some will rise to shame and condemnation. The passionate concern that classic advocates of penal substitution have, is that people should rise to life. That they should have their sins forgiven. That is the point. And that theyve been- Pauls words in 1 Thessalonians 1:10- rescued from the coming wrath. Whose wrath? Gods wrath. Thats the quote that we have been having. Those are the texts that you havent addressed, either in the book, or here.

Simon Gathercoles closing statement

This isnt just about the individual doctrine of penal substitution. Its about the future, its about the final judgement, heaven and hell. I think Steve and I are very much in agreement on a lot of points. Im awed at the stuff that he does. My worry is though, that in the book as he doesnt talk about final judgement, it doesnt really get much of a mentionThe Gospel isnt really about heaven, its about something else? My worry is the book only gives us half the gospel, really. On penal substitution, weve got to look at it rightly understood and not the caricatures. Steve has focused on the point that God is love, thats exactly right. Its Gods love thats started, maintained and is going to finish the whole salvation process. But in the same letter that God is defined as love (1 John), He is also described as light: God is light, in Him is no darkness at all. Again, we cant cherry-pick, we cant just sort of, have the God-is-love, but not the God-is-light. Gods holy, and God has a hatred of sin. Penal substitution obviously isnt the whole truth about the Gospel, but it is the element in the Cross, which means that were not going to face the wrath to come, and that is where I disagree with Steve, seeing it as really crucial.

Steve Chalkes closing statement

Michael, Im really sorry if you feel that Im not [leading?] with this concept of wrath. I would recommend to you this book. And if you read it, you will read, that John Stott says that in him its impossible to make a judgement- he thinks- about whether CH Dodd is right or not, that actually Gods wrath is just the outworking through our conditions of the consequences of our sin. Both now and in the age to come. Romans talks about wrath now and in the age to come. I am not denying the future judgement, but I also believe that those who end up in hell away from God, end up there as the consequences of the life that they have chosen to live. I think that God grants them their choice, if you like, to shut the door. And that is the way I fall down on this issue. I would like to say that penal substitution is not the traditional or classic way of understanding the Cross. You can argue from a sentence or two that some of the early apostolic fathers may have had some leaning towards it. But actually there is no defence. Penal substitution comes into its own in the second millennium, not the first millennium. Thats just a matter of fact, you can read about that. Id like to quote to you the Apostolic Creed He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. It does not give an interpretation. So when we say that penal substitution is the way which we must believe, we have gone beyond the creeds. What is the meaning of sacrifice in the Old Testament? Because sacrifice is not always by the shedding of blood. I quote John Stott again, who misquotes Hebrews chapter 9 on page 151 of his book [great laughter from audience]. He says there is no forgiveness of shedding of blood. Romans chapter 9 [sic- he means Hebrews 9] says in most cases there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood, because there are many cases in the OT where there is forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. We need to understand again how sacrifice worked, what atonement meant. When a woman had her period, she did have to sacrifice and gain atonement for having a period. So what does atonement mean? What does sacrifice mean? These things we have to debate and think about, and we cannot understand these verses I close with 1 John 4:10, In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Until we understand the term atonement and the term sacrifice from the OT, we get nowhere. Leon Morris gives up on it. Read his book. At the end of the day, I believe this, that when I went to Sunday School, I was taught to hate the sin, and love the sinner. I believe God hates the sin and loves the sinner. We have to stand at this point, where I stand. I will spend my life, preaching this, acting it out- that God loves us, He loves us desperately. He hates our sin, He weeps over it, Hes in anguish about it. But He loves us, and He cannot give up. Thats where I stand, thats what I believe. Derek Tidball: I was nearly going to ask if John Stott was present to come and defend himself Joel Edwards: Clauses 3 & 4 of the EA Basis of Faith fully and strongly imply penal substitution, and that would certainly be the understanding of very many people within the EA. Now, whether or not it excludes those who dont, is a very important question, and an exercise for us to enter into together. So this is not a one-night stand if you will I have read the book and recommend it to those of you who havent.