Tag: Soteriology

John Murray on Propitiation

Posted on May 10, 2009

On Sunday we examined the Atonement, lingering on the idea of propitiation from Romans 3:25: “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” To “propitiate” is to absorb, appease, or placate. On the cross, Jesus absorbed God’s just wrath that should have been absorbed by us. Is God’s wrath at odds with his love? John Murray helpfully states:

The propitiation of the the divine wrath, effected in the expiatory work of Christ, is the provision of God’s eternal and unchangeable love, so that through the propitiation of his own wrath that love may realize its purpose in a way that is consonant with and to the glory of the dictates of his holiness. It is one thing to say that the wrathful God is made loving. That would be entirely false. It is another thing to say the wrathful God is loving. That is profoundly true. ~ John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 31

Piper: Should Arminians Be Allowed to Teach?

Posted on March 4, 2008

The ancient Arminian/Calvinist hornet’s nest has been stirred. In his Resurgence address, Piper commented:

Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace.

Piper clarifies in a follow up blog post:

What is not precise here is the implication of the word “should.” “The less Arminianism should be tolerated.” By way of clarification, I would say: In an Arminian institution, Arminians should be allowed to teach. But in institutions that regard Arminianism as defective view of God’s grace, they should not be allowed to teach. Or, more broadly, in an institution that thinks the truth is better served by having advocates of Arminianism and Calvinism, both should be allowed to teach.

Read the rest.

Choose-Your-Own Adventure Jesus

Posted on January 16, 2008

At some point in their lives, most Americans have been asked, “Is Jesus your savior?” Though the American Jesus has stripped the historical Jesus of many things (deity, Trinity, truth-telling), the notion that he is a savior still remains in the general consciousness of our nation. Most people that lay any claim to Jesus do so in favor of his morality not his deity.

However, Jesus does not offer us different versions for different desires–human or divine, moral guide or righteous God, healer or comforter. Jesus unequivocally claimed to be God and to be a savior. He is not a choose-your-own-adventure savior. Remember those books? You got to choose the ending by picking a page number for a different scenario. With Jesus we don’t get topick what he is and what he isnt. He is who he is, all or nothing, take him or leave him. To pick and choose is to end up with no Jesus at all, a fictional Christ, made in our own image.

The domestication or nationalization of Jesus has been to embolden Jesus to rise up and overthrow his Father as the dominant person of the Trinity. Separating Jesus from the distant grand-Father, many have chosen to emphasize Jesus’ humanity. He saves us from sickness, from pain, from hurt, from depression, from loneliness, but not from our sin. He is a healer not a sin-confronter, a comforter not a heart-changer.

Interestingly, the Bible does not reserve the title of “Savior” for Jesus alone. It is used repeatedly in the Old testament and New to refer to God the Father. Separating Jesus from God the Father is not an act that Jesus would approve of. In fact, he longed for communion with his Father while he walked the earth.

Long before Jesus was on the planet, God the Father was savior. He was savior to Israel, rescuing them from slavery, oppression, and despair in Egypt. Then from exile, first with the Assyrians then with the Babylonians. Israel wanted God as provider but not as king. A choose-your-adventure approach to God got Israel into crisis.

Inevitably, Israel would cry out to God from exile, recognizing the soul-wrenching pain of separation from God. And God’s mercy got them out. God the Father is savior both spiritual and physical, restoring Israel into his love and rescuing them from deplorable conditions of slavery and exile.

Jesus is a savior in cooperation with, not distinction from the Father. The Father desires that none would perish and so sent Jesus as the mediator of salvation. Yes, we are hurt, broken and in need of comfort. However, these things are the product of personal sin—our own or someone else’s against us.

Jesus came to reconcile us to God, not displace him. His loving sacrifice for sin—an ancient electric chair—was not an accident. It was for you and me, to bring us into his heart-changing, world-renewing agenda. To redeem the creation project he started with the Father and to magnify their creativity, mercy, love and power in making this the best of all possible worlds. The Jesus we would choose is vastly inferior to the Jesus who is.