|
The true meaning of the cross
I’m writing in response to ‘Shack’s author stokes debate over the cross’ (April).
The fact that, in contemporary evangelicalism, there is to be found a major
theological debate concerning the significance of Christ’s death on the cross is no less than amazing – but unfortunately true!
If, among Christian leaders, there is absent theological clarity concerning the
meaning of the cross, then the centrality of Christ’s commission to his church is not only misunderstood but misrepresented to the
world audience of nations.
Many times, the substance of these debates is centred not in theology but in
dogma. Unfortunately, dogma runs interference against the pursuit of truth.
Your article asks a crucial question: “What does Christ’s death truly mean to us?”
This is, in fact, the pivotal question to which divine revelation explicitly addresses itself.
But first a reminder – that biblically, the subject of the cross is without controversy (1 Timothy 3:16).
So where does theology take us, concerning the meaning of the cross?
Certainly not down the path of William P. Young’s The Shack.
How is it in evangelicalism that one may ‘stoke’ a debate over the cross? Young’s commentary, that “there’s no hope for any human being . . . apart from the cross,” is true. But when this assertion is contrasted with his hypothetical
universalist conclusion – that all people will be saved, reconciled to God in the end – I see a contradiction.
Contrary to this hypothesis is the clarity of Christ’s message to Nicodemus: “No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” (John 3:3)
What Kendall Adams refutes concerning Young’s suppositional dogma, advancing the concept that Jesus paid the penalty for human sins on the cross, is of course
exegetically central to the biblical doctrine of repentance and the forgiveness
of sins. (Acts 2:38)
Theologians who make the biblical case for the atonement circumspectly adhere to
the very centre of God’s eternal purpose for humankind. Understanding the atonement is essential to
understanding the very incarnation of Christ.
Stoking a theological debate should begin with our understanding God’s declared will.
Introduced in 1 Corinthians 2:6-7, God’s secret wisdom – destined for our glory before time began – was that humankind was not to live in endless innocence in Eden.
If, from the creation account, we conclude that man’s expulsion from his dwelling in Eden wrecked Plan A and forced God into a
redemptive salvage operation – Plan B – do we not then demonstrate a most shallow and superficial understanding of God’s immutability?
The biblical account of how sin entered into the world is explicit. Equally
explicit is that redemption via the atonement, decreed before creation, is to
be acknowledged as the cornerstone of God’s eternal purpose.
The overriding question is this: Did God intend for Adam and Eve to live in a
state of sinlessness, forever innocent in an environment of a perpetuated holy
fellowship with their Creator?
What was the ‘endgame’ God decreed for humankind?
Our best commentary on scripture is scripture. This is what theology is about!
By harmonizing several key passages of New Testament scripture, we can have
confidence in what God’s eternal purpose is for us:
“[He] has saved us and called us to a holy life – not because of anything we have done, but because of his own purpose and grace.
“This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time . . . . a
faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life – which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time . . . .
[through] the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.”
On the day of Pentecost, the church was empowered by the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit, for the explicit purpose of guiding us into all truth – so that the preaching of the gospel will be in accord with the eternal purpose
of God, to carry out the Great Commission of world evangelization.
The ‘saints’ of the kingdom of God are in transition from the mortal to the immortal – from the corruptible to the incorruptible – from the earthly to the heavenly.
The Spirit-breathed scripture of Ephesians 1:4 dictates: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world, to be holy and
blameless in his sight.” So it was that our creation, foreordained by divine decree in eternity past,
had our [s]inclination – and redemption – guaranteed.
Herein is given the ordained purpose of God for mankind beyond Eden.
In conclusion:
The purpose of God is eternal and unchangeable, and humanity is at the centre of
God’s eternal purpose. The created earth is the finite stage on which God elected to
carry out his infinite purpose.
Our finite planet is designed to limit mortal existence, as the penalty for sin.
The occurrence of sin as a predetermined event is theologically verifiable, in
that the atonement was divinely decreed before the foundation of the world.
Jesus Christ is central in God’s eternal purpose, to bring about man’s eternal standing before God – holy and blameless!
Walter Rachinski, Vancouver
Continue article >>
|
Perspectives on Israel / Palestine
The land is theirs.
The Jews’ history in Israel goes back approximately 3,500 years. Like China and India,
Israel’s occupation of their homeland predates both Christianity and Islam. Few nations
can make such a claim. They have lived there since the days of Moses.
Continuing archeological discoveries of coins, cities, pottery and cultural
treasures prove conclusively that Israel has a right to the land. History also
supports Israel’s claim to the land, because Israel existed there up until the time of the Roman
Empire – and in spite of two dispersions, there has always been a Jewish presence in the
land.
Israel is being accused by the world of stealing land, and being illegitimate ‘occupiers’ of what is – and has always been – theirs.
The US, UK and UN are either ingenuous, naive or willingly ignorant in demanding
that Israel negotiate with people who have no right to the land – and have no intention of negotiating peace.
In just over 60 years of its modern existence, Israel has never known one day of
peace. Within 11 minutes of President Harry S. Truman’s announcement recognizing the creation of the state of Israel, on May 14, 1948,
the Arab League declared war.
The future of the state of Israel is now in grave doubt. Should it cease to
exist, our Western civilization will bear the repercussions.
God, through Abraham, gave the land to Israel. How extraordinarily arrogant and
presumptuous of mere men to imagine they can take it away with impunity.
Gerald Hall, Parksville
If you repeat over and over the letters ‘P’ and ‘S’ (standing for ‘Palestinian’ and ‘State’) they begin to sound like the word ‘peace.’ However, although they may begin to sound alike, they are not necessarily the
same.
Stating the obvious, the Middle East peace process was designed to create peace
between Israel and the Palestinians. This aim is, as it always has been,
honourable – despite being too difficult to achieve thus far.
The latest overture in the peace process is the idea of creating a Palestinian
state void of a peace agreement. This is a recipe for disaster. The assumption
that establishing a Palestinian state will automatically bring peace as a
by-product is most naive. Far more likely, this ‘solution’ will bring far more deadly wars.
Palestinian terrorism needs to be dealt with, for there to be peace. Once the
Palestinians have their own state, what motivation will they have to stop
terrorism? None whatsoever. The state of Palestine could have access to ever
more sophisticated weaponry, making it more likely that terrorism would
increase.
Israel ended the occupation of Gaza, which served only to increase the violence
from there – ultimately resulting in the recent Gaza war. Who exactly are the winners, from
Israel leaving Gaza without a peace agreement?
The Palestinian leadership has given little or no indication that the creation
of Palestine is the end of the conflict.
Receiving a state without having to commit to peace serves not only as a reward
for terrorism, but will embolden the extremists whose goal it is to eradicate
Israel. It also sends to other conflict-ridden peoples the very negative
message that violence brings results.
The only way to bring peace is when the Palestinians (and Israelis) agree to it.
The Israeli leadership has always expressed its approval for realistic peaceful
solutions. The Israeli populace has demonstrated its desire for peace time and
again, through voting, demonstrations and other peace movements.
Conversely, Hamas’ founding charter expresses its sheer disapproval of a peaceful solution to the
conflict, and it should not be ignored that it was the majority of Palestinian
voters that elected this Islamist terrorist group to represent them in the
first place – hardly a fanfare for a peaceful solution.
Establishing a Palestinian state as a quick fix to the conflict simply won’t work. It seems to be more a case of crossing one’s fingers in the hope that it will work, while sticking one’s head in the sand and disregarding the very real problems that exist. The
problems won’t disappear by ignoring them.
The last thing the world needs is another terrorist state or another failed
state – which would be the ultimate result of this quick fix.
The Palestinians deserve a leadership that comprehends, and implements, the
responsibilities that having a state involves – notably the focus on the welfare of the people living there, as opposed to a
fixation on continuing warfare with neighbours. And the Israelis deserve a
peaceful state alongside their own. Anything less is an insult to all those who
have worked toward a peaceful solution.
It seems to be more a case of politicians wanting progress ‘on their watch,’ while conveniently ignoring the inevitable problems that their quick fix
solution produces.
Michelle Moshelian, Givatayim, Israel
Church now in sad spiritual shape
So much has changed in the Christian churches over the past 40 years.
Many churches are no longer having mid-week Bible studies or prayer meetings, as
was the case decades ago.
In fact, many Christians don’t carry a Bible with them, or even read it at any time.
Today, some churches are adopting marketing techniques, in an attempt to grow
their congregations. They are doing this at the expense of sound biblical
doctrine, instead of teaching the word of God and relying on the Holy Spirit.
It has become the norm, or fashion, in many churches, to offer people a positive
or memorable emotional experience, rather than solid scriptural teaching.
Generally speaking, the Christian church today is in a sad spiritual state. No
wonder we are now experiencing economic turmoil all over the world.
It’s time to re-read 1 Timothy 4:1-5 and Revelation 2:4-5.
Lionel Jubinville, Vernon
June 2009
|
