• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Particularly Baptist

News and Theology from a Conservative, Calvinistic, Perspective.

  • About
  • News
  • History
  • Theology
  • Resources
  • Contact

Theology

Pink and the Gospel “Offer”

August 7, 2018 By Brett Lee-Price

“The Gospel is not an “offer” to be bandied around by evangelistic peddlers. The Gospel is no mere invitation but a proclamation, a proclamation concerning Christ; true whether men believe it or no.”1)Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Baker Books, 1984) p. 209

It’s probably one of the most infamous quotations from A.W. Pink (1886-1952) of all time. Appearing in his most well known title, The Sovereignty of God, this quote is seemingly taken to mean that Pink rejected the idea that the gospel is something that ought to be offered to all. It has been used extensively by others. By some to argue that Pink leaned towards hyper-calvinism, at least at the time of writing Sovereignty, and by others, who do embrace a form of hyper-calvinism, to support their position against evangelism.

Yet, is this what Pink actually meant? Is Pink against the the idea of the gospel being ‘offered’ to all? Iain Murray, in his biography of Pink, referencing this quote, mentions:

“Along with hyper-Calvinists, [Pink] still wanted to reject the idea that the gospel invitations are an ‘offer’ of Christ. … Rather, he thought, it was to be presented primarily as a witness and testimony — ‘no mere invitation, but a proclamation’. Gospel preaching was a statement of facts by which the elect are brought to faith while ‘God suffers’ it ‘to fall on the ears of the non-elect.’.”2)Iain Murray, The Life of Arthur W. Pink (Banner of Truth, 2011) p. 320

It is my intention here to demonstrate that Pink was not against the idea of the gospel being preached, proclaimed, or even offered, but instead, given the context of this quote in Sovereignty as well as the systematic and chronological thought of Pink at the time, that this quote is a statement specifically against the means in how the gospel was, and in many ways still is, being ‘offered’ (thus, Pink’s use of the offer in quotation marks.). Rather, Pink exhorted that the gospel by its very nature necessitated its sharing and proclamation to all.

However, before proceeding, I wish to also advise that it is not my intent to go into the theological discussion pertaining to the ‘Free Offer of the Gospel’, I don’t believe that this is what Pink specifically sought to engage with, either regarding the quotation or the larger context of the Difficulties and Objections chapter from which it is drawn. Although there are certainly, and obviously, implications that one can possibly draw out, I will leave a more in-depth engagement of Pink in relation to that subject to another time.

Pink and ‘Offer’

Pink lived and ministered during a time in which man-centered theology dominated the evangelical landscape. A.W. Tozer, another preacher who once quipped that he had “preached himself off every Bible Conference”, made the following assessment of the Christianity during his (and Pink’s) time:

“Christianity today is man-centered, not God-centered. God is made to wait patiently, even respectfully, on the whims of men. The image of God currently popular is that of a distracted Father, struggling in heartbroken desperation to get people to accept a Savior of whom they feel no need and in whom they have very little interest. To persuade these self-sufficient souls to respond to His generous offers God will do almost anything, even using salesmanship methods and talking down to them in the chummiest way imaginable. This view of things is, of course, a kind of religious romanticism which, while it often uses flattering and sometimes embarrassing terms in praise of God, manages nevertheless to make man the star of the show.”

Whilst Pink’s wholehearted embracement of Calvinism and God’s sovereignty3)Some have argued that Pink’s Calvinism was a ‘High’ form. However, whilst Pink was certainly a ‘staunch’ Calvinist as he labeled himself in the 1920s, the Calvinism that he did encounter was largely watered-down. This was especially the case in Australia during Pink’s time. was to leave him outside the mainstream evangelicalism of the time, this was further compounded by Pink’s firm convictions on  the nature of church, the gospel, and salvation. Like Tozer, Pink was utterly dismayed at the state of the church and evangelism. Critiquing the state of “so-called evangelism of [his] day“, which was “a grief to genuine Christians“, in his article on Evangelism appearing in the July 1948 issue of Studies in the Scriptures, Pink goes on to attack:

“[T]hose cheap-jack evangelists who aim no higher than rushing people into making a formal profession of faith in order that the membership of the churches may be swelled, take those who are inspired by a genuine compassion and deep concern for the perishing, who earnestly long and zealously endeavor to deliver souls from the wrath to come, yet unless they be much on their guard, they too will inevitably err. Unless they steadily view conversion in the way God does—as the way in which He is to he glorified—they will quickly begin to compromise in the means they employ. The feverish urge of modern evangelism is not how to promote the glory of the triune Jehovah, but how to multiply conversions. The whole current of evangelical activity during the past fifty years has taken that direction. Losing sight of God’s end, the churches have devised means of their own.”

Contemporary evangelism, in Pink’s sight, erred in its priorities and miscomprehended the focus of the gospel. Instead of focusing on Christ, it focused on the sinner. Instead of evangelism being a vehicle in which God is glorified through the unadultatation proclamation of salvation to the repentant sinner, it instead emphasised numbers. Driving so-called evangelists to attempt a plethora of tactics and theatrics in order to bring forth conversions, without imparting any real Scriptural substance. This often led, by consequence, to many unregenerate people in church holding to a superficial notion of the gospel. People who, in Pink’s experience, believed that they could avoid hell simply by intellectually ‘believing’, without exhibiting any real faith, and all while believing they could retain their carnal and worldly desires.4)“The terms of Christ’s salvation are erroneously stated by the present-day evangelist. With very rare exceptions, he tells his hearers that salvation is by grace and is received as a free gift, that Christ has done everything for the sinner, and that nothing remains but for him to “believe,” to trust in the infinite merits of His blood. And so widely does this conception now prevail in “orthodox” circles, so frequently has it been dinned in their ears, so deeply has it taken root in their minds—that for one to now challenge it and denounce it as being so inadequate and one-sided as to be deceptive and erroneous, is for him to instantly court the stigma of being a heretic, and to be charged with dishonoring the finished work of Christ by inculcating salvation by works! … Salvation is by grace, by grace alone—for a fallen creature cannot possibly do anything to merit God’s approval or earn His favor. Nevertheless, divine grace is not exercised at the expense of holiness, for it never compromises with sin. It is also true that salvation is a free gift—but an empty hand must receive it, and not a hand which still tightly grasps the world!” Evangelism, Studies in the Scriptures, July 1948:

“The Nature of Christ’s salvation is woefully misrepresented by the present-day “evangelist.” He announces a Saviour from Hell, rather than a Saviour from sin. And that is why so many are fatally deceived, for there are multitudes who who wish to escape the Lake of fire who have no desire to be delivered from their carnality and worldliness.”5)Signs of the Times, Studies in the Scriptures, December 1937

Needless to say, A.W. Pink’s use of the word “offer” needs to be framed within this context of how he saw evangelism. Pink was not an individual who simply wrote against a practice from the comfort of his own chair. Rather, at the time of writing Sovereignty, and throughout its revisions, he was involved in many different evangelistic outreaches and ministries. In the early 1920s, he was involved with Tent Evangelism in California and Seattle, had some relationship with the ministry of Open-Air Campaigners whilst in Sydney6)“Basement Town Hall, United Intercessory Services“, Sydney Morning Herald, 4th April 1925, and was involved in many Bible Conferences throughout the United States, Australia and Britain, some of which had an explicit emphasis on evangelism.7)“Bible Conference: Emphasising Evangelism“, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 19th November 1921. However, Pink had a particular distaste for those who he felt ‘sold short’ the gospel. They were nothing more than evangelistic peddlers, doing anything they could do to win converts, all while presenting a vacuous articulation of the truth and, fundamentally, an anemic God. Such peddlers failed to portray the reality of the sinfulness of sin, failed to bring people to a true understanding of their need of a Saviour, and avoided preaching about a Christian’s ongoing duty of holiness and exercising of faith. Instead, many presented the gospel in a way which potentially tackled some moral or social ill, outlined the possibility of avoiding final judgement, and then invited the listener to make a decision for Christ. The offer was on the table, if only the sinner would take it up.

An OAC event ad which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, 1925.

Pink was determined to push back against this form of decisional evangelism, which lauded man’s ability at the expense of God’s sovereignty and which sought to give men assurance without substance. He instead wanted people to have a clearer understanding of what the gospel was, what it entailed, and what it certainly was not.  He wanted to outline that Salvation belonged to the LORD 8)Psalm 3:8, and concurrently dismantle the notion that the onus of someone’s salvation rested on the messenger. This can be noted in his fourth address on Election at Ashfield Tabernacle, given in 1925 (Note the similar use of language as the main quote in question):

“Most people in this twentieth century are so ignorant they imagine that the gospel concerns sinners. It does not, and the gospel is not about sinners. The gospel is the gospel of Christ! It is about the person and the work of God’s Son! Now listen, I want you to get this very clearly. The gospel is not an “offer,” the gospel is a proclamation, not an “invitation.” The gospel is a proclamation about Christ, and the gospel, is true even if not one man on earth tonight believed it! My believing the gospel does not make the gospel true. The gospel is true whether I believe it or no, because the gospel is not about me, the gospel is about Christ.

Now listen to my next statement, and let it sink in. We are not responsible to bring sinners to Christ. No preacher is responsible to do that. No open-air worker is responsible to bring any sinner to Christ, for there is none of us [who] can do it; we have not got the power. Our responsibility is to bring Christ to the sinner. Did you get that? Our responsibility is to preach Christ to the sinner!

How man turns God’s things upside down doesn’t he, every time, and the awful thing to-day is, and it is true almost everywhere, that we are far more concerned about the results of the gospel than we are about the purity of it! We are more concerned in the blessing of man than we are about the glory of Christ! Is not that true? Is it not true that the first great question asked everywhere to-day is, What are the “results”? What is the fruitage? How many people have been saved in your church the last year? I am not saying that the question has no importance, but I do say, that if that is the first question that is asked, it only shows what a low level we are living on!”9)Election: Address by A.W. Pink at Ashfield Baptist Church, 26/6/1925

Pink was adamant that the gospel was all about Christ. It was relevant to the sinner, but it was not about sinners. Instead, the gospel was a proclamation of a universal truth about what Christ had done, not something to be simply extended, or offered, to sinners to decide if true. There was, Pink was convinced, an authoritative element to the gospel which meant it had to be proclaimed in an authoritative fashion. It was to be presented in a way where sinners were still implored to trust on Christ, but with a commanding aspect which emphasised both God’s right as sovereign Creator to command sinners to repent and the sinners obligation to do so. This is evident through Pink’s own articulation of what the Gospel is, as given in a few lines after the original quote in Sovereignty:

“The Gospel, in brief, is this: Christ died for sinners, you are a sinner, believe in Christ, and you shall be saved. In the Gospel, God simply announces the terms upon which men may be saved (namely, repentance and faith) and, indiscriminately, all are commanded to fulfill them.”10)Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Baker Books, 1984) p. 209

This understanding of both the gospel as an authoritative proclamation as well as man’s duty to repent and turn to Christ was to permeate Pink’s theological framework in regards to evangelism throughout his life.11)It is likely that Pink was particularly influenced by the apostle Paul’s addresses in Acts 17 wherein Paul ‘proclaimed‘ the good news of Christ at Thessalonica (17:3), Berea (17:13), and Athens (Acts 17:23); finishing his proclamation in Athens by stating that God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). However, Pink was never to position this understanding in a way which stifled evangelism, but rather he desired to root evangelism to its proper doctrinal bearings, and believed that evangelism was a fundamental duty of all christians. This conviction was to lead him to struggle with his pastorate at Belvoir Street Particular Baptist Church, in Sydney, between 1925-1927, a church which would rightly be identified as having hyper-calvinistic tendencies. Writing to a sympathetic congregant after his resignation, Pink states:

“Having discovered that their views of human responsibility were very defective & that they were altogether lac[k]ing in evangelistic zeal, I sought by the Lord’s help to remedy this. Seeking grace to be “as wise as a serpent & harmless as a dove,” I proceeded slowly & gently. From April to Oct. 1926 I averaged one sermon out of 5 to the unsaved, the last you heard & endorsed … : on Bartimaeus. The deacons took me to task for this sermon. At the next church-meeting, very soon after, the Secretary denounced it as a “free-will” sermon.”12)Unpublished Letter to Brooks, 27 December 1927

Indeed, Pink desired individuals to have a correct understanding of God’s Sovereignty, but in a way which compelled them to evangelism. In his third address on Election at Ashfield Tabernacle, Pink, after outlining that sinners can only come to Christ if drawn by God, aptly challenges his listeners to take mission and evangelism seriously by stating:

“Now the question arises again, why are we to preach the gospel to every creature?—if God has only elected a certain number to be saved? The reason is, because God commands us to do so. Well, but, you say, it does not seem reasonable to me That has got nothing to do with it; your business is to obey God and not to argue with Him. God commands us to preach the gospel to every creature and it means what it says—every creature and it is solemn thing. Every Christian in this room tonight has yet to answer to Christ why he has not done everything in his power to send that gospel to every creature! Yes, I believe in missions—probably stronger than most of you do, and if I preached to you on missions perhaps I would hit you harder than you have been hit yet. The great majority of Gods people who profess to believe in missions, are just playing at them—I make so bold as to say of our evangelical denominations today that we are just playing at missions and that is all. Why my friends, there is almost half of the human race—think of it—in this 20th century—travel so easy and cheap. Bibles printed in almost every language under heaven, and as we sit here tonight there is almost half of the human race that never yet heard of Christ, and we have got to answer to Christ for that yet! You have and I have, Oh yes, I believe in man’s responsibility. I do not believe in man’s “freedom” but I do in man’s responsibility, and I believe in the Christian’s responsibility in a double way, and everyone of us here tonight has yet got to face Christ and look into those eyes as a flame of fire, and He is going to say to us, I entrusted to you My gospel. It was committed as a “trust” to you, (See 1Thess 2:4) It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.

Oh, my friends, we are playing at things. We have not begun to take religion seriously, any of us. We profess to believe in the coming of Christ, and we profess to believe that the one reason why Christ has not come back yet is because His Church, His Body, is not yet complete. We believe that when His body is complete He will come back. And my friends, His “body” never, never, will be complete until the last of His elect people will be called out, and His elect people are called out under the preaching of the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit, and if you are really anxious for Christ to come back soon, then you had better be more wide awake to your responsibility in connection with taking or sending the gospel to the heathen!

Christ’s word, and it is Christ’s word to us, is “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel”, He does not say “Send ye”, He says “Go ye”, and you have to answer to Christ yet because you have not gone! Well, you say, do you mean by that that everyone of us here tonight ought to go out to the mission field? I have not said that, I am not any man’s judge, Many of you here tonight have a good reason which will satisfy Christ why you have not gone. He gave you work to do here. He put you in a position here. He has given you responsibilities to discharge here, but every Christian who is free to go, and does not go, has got to answer to Christ for it yet.

“Go ye into all the world.” Well then you say, Where am I to go? Oh, that is very easy. You say, easy? Yes, I mean it: it is very easy. There is nothing easier in the world than to know where you ought to begin missionary work. You have it in the first chapter of Acts and the eighth verse: “Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem (that is the city in which they were) and in all Judea (that is the State in which their city was), and in Samaria (that is the adjoining State), and unto the uttermost part of the earth”, If you want to begin missionary work, you have to begin it in your home-town, and my friends if you are not interested in the salvation of the Chinese in Sydney, then you are not really interested in the salvation of the Chinese in China, and you are only fooling yourselves if you think you are! Oh, I am calling a spade a spade tonight. If you are anxious about the souls of the Chinese in China, then you will be equally anxious about the souls of the Chinese here in Sydney, and I wonder how many in this building tonight have ever made any serious effort to reach the Chinese in Sydney with the gospel! I wonder? I wonder how many here tonight have been round to the Bible House in Sydney and have said to the Manager there, “Do you have any New Testaments in the Chinese language, or do you have any Gospels of John in the Chinese language? How much are they per hundred? or per dozen?” And I wonder how many of you have bought a thousand or a hundred, and then have gone round to the houses in the Chinese quarter and have said, “My friend, this is a little gift that will do your soul good if you will read it.”

Ah, my friends, we are playing at missions, it is just a farce, that is all! “Go ye” is the first command. Go where? Those around me first. Go what with? The gospel! Well, you say, “Why should I go?” Because God has commanded you to! Well, you say, “What is the use of doing it if He has just elected certain ones?” Because that gospel is the means that God uses to call out His own elect, that is why! You do not know, and I do not know, and nobody here on earth knows, who are God’s elect and who are not. They are scattered over the world, and therefore we are to preach the gospel to every creature, that it may reach the ones that God has marked out among those creatures.”13)Election: Address by A.W. Pink at Ashfield Baptist Church, 13/6/1925

Pink believed in evangelism and he believed that the gospel was to be preached, proclaimed, and offered to all. Yet, it was to be an authoritative proclamation given to sinners that God would utilise to draw forth his elect. It was God’s means to separate the wheat from chaff through the proclamation of the majestic work, achievement, and glory of Christ14)Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Baker Books, 1984) p. 210. It wasn’t to be a mere arbitrary “invitation” or “offer” extended to sinners to have the final authority to determine or accept if truth insomuch as it was a declaration to them of what Christ had done and a commanding imploration for them to believe and receive the “gift” of Christ and salvation15)“A slight distinction between receiving and believing. I would express it thus. Believing respects Christ as He is set forth in gospel testimony. When a preacher preaches the gospel he presents Christ to the hearer, if the hearer believes that testimony, he is saved. “Faith cometh by hearing.” Believing has to do with the saved hearer of the gospel testimony. Receiving has to do with Christ as He is presented to us as God’s gift: you believe a testimony, you receive a gift.” Unpublished Sermon on Exodus 12, A.W. Pink, 1925; “It is also true that salvation is a free gift—but an empty hand must receive it, and not a hand which still tightly grasps the world!” Evangelism, Studies in the Scriptures, July 1948.

Pink’s high view of God’s sovereignty was to in no way curtail nor hamper his understanding of evangelism. Rather, it was this firm belief that God was sovereign and would draw sinners which compelled Pink to advocacy for evangelism. Yet a robust evangelism fully grounded in and driven by God’s Word. One prompted by God’s command to do so, and emphasising the tenets of man’s total depravity and God’s total goodness. The gospel was not an “offer” to be thrown around haphazardly, but had to be placed in its proper moorings. To do anything other, was to sell short what he saw as the glorious treasure of the gospel.

Brett Lee-Price

Having degrees in both History and Theology, Brett has an interest in Church History and Historical Theology. He is currently focusing on the life and theology of Arthur Walkington Pink. He is married to his wonderful, gracious, and long-suffering wife, Lucy.

http://acovenantalbaptist.net

References   [ + ]

1, 10. ↑ Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Baker Books, 1984) p. 209
2. ↑ Iain Murray, The Life of Arthur W. Pink (Banner of Truth, 2011) p. 320
3. ↑ Some have argued that Pink’s Calvinism was a ‘High’ form. However, whilst Pink was certainly a ‘staunch’ Calvinist as he labeled himself in the 1920s, the Calvinism that he did encounter was largely watered-down. This was especially the case in Australia during Pink’s time.
4. ↑ “The terms of Christ’s salvation are erroneously stated by the present-day evangelist. With very rare exceptions, he tells his hearers that salvation is by grace and is received as a free gift, that Christ has done everything for the sinner, and that nothing remains but for him to “believe,” to trust in the infinite merits of His blood. And so widely does this conception now prevail in “orthodox” circles, so frequently has it been dinned in their ears, so deeply has it taken root in their minds—that for one to now challenge it and denounce it as being so inadequate and one-sided as to be deceptive and erroneous, is for him to instantly court the stigma of being a heretic, and to be charged with dishonoring the finished work of Christ by inculcating salvation by works! … Salvation is by grace, by grace alone—for a fallen creature cannot possibly do anything to merit God’s approval or earn His favor. Nevertheless, divine grace is not exercised at the expense of holiness, for it never compromises with sin. It is also true that salvation is a free gift—but an empty hand must receive it, and not a hand which still tightly grasps the world!” Evangelism, Studies in the Scriptures, July 1948
5. ↑ Signs of the Times, Studies in the Scriptures, December 1937
6. ↑ “Basement Town Hall, United Intercessory Services“, Sydney Morning Herald, 4th April 1925
7. ↑ “Bible Conference: Emphasising Evangelism“, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 19th November 1921
8. ↑ Psalm 3:8
9. ↑ Election: Address by A.W. Pink at Ashfield Baptist Church, 26/6/1925
11. ↑ It is likely that Pink was particularly influenced by the apostle Paul’s addresses in Acts 17 wherein Paul ‘proclaimed‘ the good news of Christ at Thessalonica (17:3), Berea (17:13), and Athens (Acts 17:23); finishing his proclamation in Athens by stating that God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).
12. ↑ Unpublished Letter to Brooks, 27 December 1927
13. ↑ Election: Address by A.W. Pink at Ashfield Baptist Church, 13/6/1925
14. ↑ Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Baker Books, 1984) p. 210
15. ↑ “A slight distinction between receiving and believing. I would express it thus. Believing respects Christ as He is set forth in gospel testimony. When a preacher preaches the gospel he presents Christ to the hearer, if the hearer believes that testimony, he is saved. “Faith cometh by hearing.” Believing has to do with the saved hearer of the gospel testimony. Receiving has to do with Christ as He is presented to us as God’s gift: you believe a testimony, you receive a gift.” Unpublished Sermon on Exodus 12, A.W. Pink, 1925; “It is also true that salvation is a free gift—but an empty hand must receive it, and not a hand which still tightly grasps the world!” Evangelism, Studies in the Scriptures, July 1948

Filed Under: Theology Tagged With: Arthur W. Pink, Evangelism

Is Your Study of Theology an Act of Worship?

June 30, 2018 By Josh Williamson

When you study the Bible, what is your mindset? Are you merely reading the Scripture to advance your bookmark, so that, at the end of the year, you can say, “I have read the Bible from cover to cover?” Or, do you view your study of the Scripture as an act of worship? When we hear the word “worship”, it isn’t uncommon for us to instantly think of music and hymns on the Lord’s Day. Congregational worship is a time when we openly express our love for God, and we do so with reverence. But, when it comes to studying Scripture, or reading theology, we so often can separate those acts from the function of worship; yet this shouldn’t be the case.

Baptist theologian, John L. Dagg (1794-1884) wrote in his Manual of Theology:

“The study of religious truth ought to be undertaken and prosecuted from a sense of duty, and with a view to the improvement of the heart. When learned, it ought not to be laid on the shelf, as an object of speculation; but it should be deposited deep in the heart, where its sanctifying power ought to be felt. To study theology, for the purpose of gratifying curiosity, or preparing for a profession, is an abuse and profanation of what ought to be regarded as most holy. To learn things pertaining to God, merely for the sake of amusement, or secular advantage, or to gratify the mere love of knowledge, is to treat the Most High with contempt.”

The purpose of studying the Scripture, and theology in general, is to worship God and grow in our understanding of Him. May all our study be done with a heart longing to know more about God, and not merely to produce sermons, assignments, or increase our own intellect.

Josh Williamson

Josh is an Evangelist and holds a postgraduate Diploma in Theology from Malyon College in Queensland. He has also completed studies through the London Reformed Baptist Seminary. Josh resides in Brisbane, Australia, with his wife, Louise, and their three children, Thomas, Elizabeth, and Henry.

Filed Under: Theology Tagged With: John L. Dagg, Studying, Worship

Penal Substitution is Good News

January 16, 2018 By Murray Campbell

The salvation of men and women from the penal consequences and power of sin through the perfect obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ, His atoning death, His resurrection from the dead, His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and His unchanging priesthood. (Article 5 of the Australian Baptist Union Doctrinal Statement)

Scott Higgins is offering Australian Christians an alternative Gospel to the one deeply held and preached by evangelicals.

In a recent blog post titled, Now this is really good news! Reframing the Gospel, he suggests

“The gospel of Jesus paying the penalty for our sin may have resonated powerfully in mediaeval times through to enormous upheaval in thinking, values and attitudes that emerged in Western society in the 1960s. In our era it has lost resonance.”

Higgins doesn’t settle for the view that the concept of penal substitution is no longer powerful and relevant, he wants us to believe that it is not of the Gospel taught by Jesus and by the Apostles, rather PSA belongs to a formulation created by the medieval church.

He writes,

“Walk into any evangelical church today and this is not what you are likely to hear when people declare the “good news”. You’re much more likely to hear that God is a loving but holy king who is deeply distressed at our refusal to worship him, and who is bound by the demands of justice to punish all human beings for their wrongdoing. So grievous is our offence that that God will condemn us to live eternally in hell, a place so void of goodness, so utterly and excruciatingly painful, it is beyond our worst nightmares. Yet because loves us, God has found a way out of this terrible destiny. God became incarnate in Jesus Christ and took the penalty we deserved, meaning all of who choose to follow Jesus will be considered as if we had never sinned and will be welcomed into heaven.

I suspect that there is a lot more mediaeval in the articulation of the gospel we proclaim today then we would like to admit. Go back to the preaching of the apostles in the book of Acts and you will not hear the gospel described this way. The emphasis is placed firmly on the resurrection as a sign that God had done something extraordinary in the world and that all people should follow Jesus. Was the notion that Christ paid the penalty for our sin part of the follow-on teaching that people received after they converted? Maybe. Maybe not.”

 

There are more than a few problems with Higgins presentation. Here are 4:

Firstly, Higgins hides history

Higgins’ suggestion that an emphasis on penal substitution relies on medieval theology and not the New Testament cannot be sustained.

A thousand years before medieval Europe, the Early Church Fathers taught and affirmed the necessity and centrality of penal substitutionary atonement. Here are just 3 example quotes:

“If, the, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He has been crucified and was dead, He would raise him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if he were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?” (Justin Martyr)

“Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by .the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.” (Athanasius)

“But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death.  And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.  And these words “every one” are intended to check the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of the curse to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would lead to the denial of the true death of Christ.” (Augustine)

Not only did the early church affirm and explain PSA, so did Christian theologians throughout the early and high middle ages, the Reformers, and Evangelicals from the 18th through to 21st Centuries.

Second, does the Bible teach penal substitution?

Higgins casts aspersions on the idea that either Jesus or the Apostles necessarily believed and taught the doctrine of penal substitution. To use his own words, “Maybe. Maybe not”.

Readers are left wondering, if he believes in PSA why does he want readers left to doubt?

It of course doesn’t require a Bachelor of Theology to know that both Jesus and the Apostles readily affirmed different facets to the atonement, including penal substitution. For example, the Gospel writers interpreted the significance of Jesus’ death in terms of the Old Testament, chief among them was the Passover, Yom Kippur, and the Servant of Isaiah 53. In all 3 cases one who is innocent dies in the place of the guilty in order to satisfy Divine wrath.

All four Gospels either explicitly quote or implicitly reference the Servant Song (Isaiah 53) more often than any other OT passage. R.T France is correct when he talks about Jesus‘ repeated self-identification with the servant of Isaiah 53. Thus, the entire trajectory of Jesus’ earthly ministry as recorded in Scripture is an embodiment of the suffering servant who’s life culminated in a cross and death, before climaxing in a resurrection:

“But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Indeed, Jesus described his coming death in these terms,

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. (26:28)

1 Corinthians ch.15 is the one of the Bible’s most wonderful explorations of the nature of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and of its significance. The Apostle begins the chapter by outlining the Gospel.

“Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.”

Paul makes it clear that the Gospel he received and preached, is the Gospel the Corinthians received and believed, and is the Gospel which saves. This Gospel contains primary (or essential) elements, which includes the person of Jesus Christ, the testimony of the Scriptures, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and his substitutionary death. The preposition used by Paul here, huper, denotes substitution; Christ died on our behalf/in our place for of our sins.

Thirdly, Higgins unnecessarily pits cosmic and social renewal against personal redemption.

He bemoans evangelicals talking about personal accountability before a Holy God and personal salvation through Jesus Christ, and instead wants us focusing on God defeating the powerful, the wealthy and other structures who trample on the poor and on the environment. Why do we need to choose between the two? Is not the love of money an expression of personal sin before God? Is not using power to crush the weak a demonstration of personal guilt and of need for atonement?

The Gospel of Christ offers a redemption that is individual, corporate and cosmic. We find all three in Colossians 1:15-23.

“15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

“21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.”

There is peace is for the individual who has been justified through faith in Christ (Romans 5:1). God does not redeem individuals to remain isolated and separated, for peace is inherently about relationships. In the first and primary place it is relationship with God, but God is also making peace between people, and this on view in Colossians. The cross has a established a corporate peace, known as the Church.

This peace issued through the cross will have a reconciling effect on all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Colossians 1:20 is a challenging verse, and it is difficult to conceive how this promised cosmic renewal will appear. Paul can not  be arguing that somehow every single person will be justified and brought into heavenly citizenship and that even the cosmos might somehow attain salvation; Paul was no universalist. The Scriptures make clear that the wrath of God is no empty phrase and that hell is a real place which will hold those things that have been exposed by the light and not saved to the light.

Of Colossians 1:20, F.F Bruce explains, “ultimate reconciliation involves peace. This does not imply “that every human being, irrespective…of his attitude to God, will at last enjoy celestial bliss. “When Paul speak here of reconciliation in the widest scale, he includes in it what we should call pacification”. By pacification, he is referring  to realities submitting against their will to a power they cannot resist. We must appreciate however that such Divine power is never used as an unjust and abusive sword, but always with precision against evil, not “because God is hard but because he is good”.

Murray Harris writes, “The whole universe has been restored to its God ordained destiny”. Peace is not the inclusion of all things into a state of salvific bliss but the right ordering of all things, which focuses on a great salvation but which also includes judgment.

“The point is not that the stars and planets have sinned and need atonement as human beings do. But rather, the sin of human beings has led to a twisting of the whole universe that only redemption of human sin can set right.” (John Frame)

Fourthly, Higgins suggests a view of God that is problematic.

While he doesn’t want to say it unequivocally, it appears as though his gripe with PSA is that it conflicts with his view of God and that God could ever exercise violence.

“God was refusing to play by the rules of violence and power. God’s reign would not be achieved through the triumph of violence. God would absorb every vindictive blow, every greedy grasp for power, every hateful curse and meet it with love and forgiveness. Incredibly, Jesus’s prayer was “Father forgive them”.

The problem is not so much what Higgins says in these couple of sentences, but what he insinuates by connecting them with his condemnation of Christians preaching about PSA. While again being careful to avoid open denial, he is sketching a view of God where a violent action like penal substitution is unbefitting the God who opposes violence and power. This is another example of Higgins creating a false dichotomy and fudging the biblical presentation of the cross.  As the Gospels show us, Jesus’ extraordinary words of kindness and love from the cross were accompanied with these other words, ““Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).”

On the cross the Father turned his face away. This was not an accident. God was not passive. The crucifixion was not merely the act of evil persons, for God had willed and planned that his Son would willingly go to the cross, to take the punishment of sinners,

“This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” (Acts 2:23)

At a stretch, one might read Scott’s argument as an attempt to restore an aspect of Christ’s work that is sometimes overlooked. If he is simply saying, “don’t forget about the cosmic and social implications of the cross and resurrection”, that is useful. However, he seems to be saying more than this. He’s trying to remove from Gospel presentations talk about penal substitution. According to Higgins, PSA has no power to convict and covert contemporary Australians, and it’s probably not a bible idea anyway!

I have elsewhere summarised the 4 basic positions toward the doctrine of penal substitution and I think it is worthwhile repeating them here:

4 Basic positions on penal substition

First, there are those who deny PSA. There are two basic groups of people who fall under this category: those who reject the idea that PSA is affirmed in the New Testament, and those who believe it is taught but have decided to reject that part of the Bible. There are of course further subgroups, those who have issue with concept of substitution and those who only discredit the adjective penal.

Second, those who accept the Bible’s teaching on PSA, believing it is necessary but dismissing the notion that it is central.

Third, those who accept the Bible’s teaching on PSA and who believe it is central, but who believe that other aspects of the atonement have been downplayed and need to rediscovered and given proper emphasis. To explore other dimensions of the atonement at length is not too deny PSA, but it is restoring the beauty of these facets that are sometimes hidden. Of course, there is also more to the ministry of Christ than the atonement: there is his pre-incarnate work, his incarnation, life, resurrection, ascension, reign, intercession, return and Kingly judgement.

Fourth, those who accept the Bible’s teaching on PSA but downplay other aspects of the atonement.

It is difficult to see how the first position is tenable within Christian orthodoxy, for PSA is intricately tied to too many Christian doctrines. Rejecting PSA is often preceded by a changed doctrine of God. It is worth noting that those who deny penal substitution in one hand are often redefining sin on the other hand. Scott is not the only Australian Baptist who throws mud at PSA while arguing for godly sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage. Perhaps we should not be surprised though, that those who don’t believe what God says about sin also don’t accept God’s answer to sin.

The second position is problematic because the Bible does view PSA as critical and foundational. There are many Gospel presentations found in Scripture that do not explicitly speak of either substitution or penal, but of course no Gospel outline ever says everything. And yet, there is a clear weightedness given to substitutionary nature of Jesus’ death which appeases the righteous wrath of a righteous God.

The fourth position is understandable when ministering in a context where PSA is being attacked, however in defending the truth of one doctrine we must be careful not to neglect other important biblical notions of the cross.

The fourth position can end up becoming a reduced gospel. If we only ever preach on the penal aspect of the cross, we will be missing out on the full wonder of the atonement, and we will also be guilty of executing Scripture poorly. If we never speak about PSA then we are guilty of misrepresenting God’s message, and if we neglect those other facets then we are starving our churches and cutting bridges with people where we should be building them. As I mentioned before, if this Higgins’ point then he has something worth saying, but if that is so, why not say it? 

My question to Scott Higgins is, in which of these 4 positions do you fit?  Do you believe Jesus death on the cross includes propitiation?

Aspects of the Gospel may not be popular in Australia right now but that is no reason to minimise them, or worse, to deny them. I’m not saying it’s easy. Then again, did Jesus ever say that evangelism would be easy? What Australian Christians need is to take even greater care to understand the Gospel as revealed in Scripture and to explain with clarity and earnestness this good news of God to our neighbours. It is the failure of Churches to do this, and a lack of imagination to trust God’s Gospel that will make Churches ineffective and irrelevant to Australia in 2018.

Originally Posted on MurrayCampbell.net

Murray Campbell

Murray Campbell lives in Melbourne with his family. He’s served as Lead Pastor at Mentone Baptist Church since 2005. Formerly, he was a classical pianist.

https://murraycampbell.net

Filed Under: Theology Tagged With: Penal Substitution, Scott Higgins

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • When Entertainment is King
  • Instagram: The Theological Judge
  • Pink and the Gospel “Offer”
  • Submit to Your Elders: Developments within the BUQLD
  • Baptists Believe in Freedom of Association

Copyright © 2021 · Particularly Baptist