 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ryan Member Joined Jul 22, 2008 26 posts Location: Nanaimo, BC |
 |
Posted Feb 21, 2010; 5:32 pm |
|
Thanks for your response, Kenneth, but you haven't really addressed my question. You seem to have offered further assertions that have to do with what you understand to be incorrect thinking about what the cross accomplishes or something to that effect, and then attached this to a few other issues such as moral relativism or our understanding of hell. What I want to know is: a) what is Baker's understanding of the cross (in your view); and b) how would Baker's view of the cross be damaging if embraced "on the ground?" Would it make people poorer followers of Jesus if they adopted Baker's view?
In addition, are you suggesting that Baker does not believe in "objective moral guilt?" That he is an advocate of moral relativism? If you do, please point us to the relevant sections of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross or Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross where he says this (I assume you have read Baker's books based on the charges you are leveling against him). Based on my reading of his works and conversations I have had with him, I would be very surprised if this were the case (to put it mildly).
| Quote: | | The gospel begins with the bad news of our guilt and condemnation before God, before going on to the good news of salvation. |
The gospel begins with more than simply the bad news of our guilt and condemnation. This is part of the problem but it is not the whole problem. The gospel is not merely the response to a forensic determination of human guilt. It includes our (objective) moral guilt, but goes far beyond this as well and includes all of what it means to put God's world right again. As human beings, we are both perpetrators and victims of sin and evil; the cross addresses both of these basic realities. Among other things, this is what I understand Baker to be saying in his book. |
|
|
|
| Kenneth Affleck Member Joined Oct 7, 2008 33 posts Location: New Westminster, BC |
| Response to roadrunning |
Posted Feb 23, 2010; 6:45 am |
|
Isaiah 53 clearly teaches that the expression of God’s justice on the cross was both retributive and restorative. It was retributive toward Christ and restorative toward us. Christ was punished so that we could be forgiven (because some have attempted to interpret away the clear meaning of Isaiah 53, I have outlined a detailed defense of this understanding in an earlier post). According to Isaiah 53, God’s forgiveness does not circumvent His retributive justice; rather, God’s retribution against Christ is the basis for our forgiveness. It would be against God’s character to circumvent His own justice; but He can suspend it temporarily:
| Quote: | | 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Roman 3:25-26) |
According to this, God’s forgiveness in the Old Testament was a temporary suspension of God’s retributive justice until that justice was satisfied by Christ on the cross (v.25). According to that passage, Christ’s death on the cross was not just a demonstration of God’s love and grace, but also a demonstration of His justice. Christ’s death enabled God to do two things simultaneously: to satisfy the demands of his retributive justice and to forgive us (v.26). |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Feb 23, 2010; 9:40 am |
|
| Since, Isaiah 53 is an important text in this discussion and Dr. Martens’ work on Isaiah 53 has been referred to I thought it might be helpful to provide a link to his Herald article Link. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 23, 2010; 1:52 pm |
|
Kenneth
You began this post with a hard hitting claim and then identified Mark Baker as the object of your concern-
| Quote: | | Some of the seminary professors deny that Christ bore the penalty for our sins when He died on the cross. |
Lorne has pressed you to give evidence of this. You have failed to do so. You have publicly charged a leader among us of an extremely serious heresy and have not brought evidence for this.
Numerous issues have been raised that are legitimately part of a broader theological discussion but I think that is inappropriate to engage these with you if you will not withdraw that first charge.
I don’t doubt your good intentions, Kenneth, but that is not a legitimate defense of your words and actions. As a person who is “intolerant of bad logic and bad doctrine” I am sure you will agree with me on this last point. |
|
|
|
| Kenneth Affleck Member Joined Oct 7, 2008 33 posts Location: New Westminster, BC |
| Response to James Toews |
Posted Feb 25, 2010; 4:30 am |
|
Let me respond with an illustration. If a theologian affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity, but seriously undermined the doctrine of the divinity of Christ or the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t his affirmation of the Trinity be a sham? The two positions cannot be reconciled without redefining the Trinity in a way that is unbiblical.
In the same way, Baker affirms the doctrine of penal substitution and yet repeatedly undermines the doctrine of God’s retributive justice (which is the basis of PSA). He explicitly affirms PSA, but implicitly denies it.
My criticism of Mark Baker is based solely on his presentation at the conference last fall. I have not referred to the book “Recovering the Scandal of the Cross” because I haven’t read it; but I do intend to read it as soon as I can get my hands on a copy.
I believe that the evidence I have given is sufficient to say that Baker’s doctrine of penal substitution is unbiblical. I also sense that, in the MB denomination, people’s faith in the theological leadership has compromised their ability to hold the leaders to account. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Feb 25, 2010; 10:08 am |
|
If Kenneth Affleck had said in the first post what he is now saying, namely: "Based solely on his presentation at the conference last fall, I say that Mark Baker affirms the doctrine of penal substitution and yet repeatedly undermines the doctrine of God’s retributive justice (which is the basis of PSA). He explicitly affirms PSA, but implicitly denies it," I would not be writing this. But that statement is NOT equivalent to the one he did make, namely: "Some of the seminary professors deny that Christ bore the penalty for our sins when He died on the cross."
1. "Some of the seminary professors" is NOT the same as "Mark Baker"
2. Whatever his take on PSA, I can find no evidence that Mark Baker or any other MBBS professor, either expressly or by necessary implication, denies " that Christ bore the penalty for our sins when He died on the cross."
Having made a public accusation of heresy against a group of MB leaders, I call on Mr. Affleck, having failed to prove the charge AS STATED, to likewise publicly withdraw it.
| Quote: | | I also sense that, in the MB denomination, people’s faith in the theological leadership has compromised their ability to hold the leaders to account. |
I am not sure that it is people's faith in the theological leadership which prevent them from holding them to account. Actually, that trust seems rather lacking. But it do share Mr. Affleck's concern for accountability concerning the theological content of the seminary's teaching AND for the accountability of those who pubicly accuse them of heresy. Hence I posted a topic on this forum under Pastors and Ministry Leaders, called "Seminary accountability." see http://www.mbforum.ca/viewtopic.php?t=3002 |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 25, 2010; 1:43 pm |
|
| Quote: | | "Some of the seminary professors deny that Christ bore the penalty for our sins when He died on the cross." |
Ken, IMO, I don't think you really meant this to be worded this way in your zeal to retain the retributive aspect of atonement. As stated you have not provided ample evidence that 'some of the seminary professors' deny this truth and this is considered as quite an unwarranted and untrue comment as stated. Why not just post 'I withdraw this statement as written' and perhaps we can move on.
IMO, you may still retain your personal view regarding Mark Baker's beliefs on the subject but understanding that this is just your view and others do not agree with you. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| The Slippery Slope slides both ways |
Posted Feb 27, 2010; 5:17 pm |
|
A Forum Member on this Mighty Oak Thread argued that Professor Baker holds and teaches a view of the Atonement (what was accomplished by or what happened to Jesus on the Cross) is contrary to the Bible. The charge was made that this view ‘departs from orthodox doctrine’, was a ‘serious departure from scripture’ and ‘unbiblical.’ The member understood this view as part of ‘a greater shift from the gospel of Christ’ [the slippery slope].
The Mighty Oak thread and the statements quoted above prompted another Thread asking for information about the process that may be in place regarding Seminary Faculty Accountability. President Jost (MBBS) has responded to Lorne’s enquiry. On another thread, James Toews commented that letters were sent to the churches by the Seminary regarding the Study Conference (I can’t recall where James mentioned these letters or if the letters went only to BC MB Churches).
It turns out that ‘due diligence’ has taken place, indeed Lorne mentioned on this Mighty Oak Thread how his own local church engaged in a similar enquiry regarding PSA. With the public medium of the MB Forum ongoing debate can take place. This isn’t necessarily wrong or unhealthy. Indeed we can learn and grow from one another. Perhaps in some small way the MB Forum can be a vehicle where ongoing dialogue takes place.
In this post I want to focus on the ‘slippery slope’ argument. We all know of denominations that at one time were within what is generally thought to be biblical orthodoxy but are now ordaining homosexuals and where leaders question the reality of the resurrection and so forth. But the slippery slope can slide both ways; a case in point is the Southern Baptist Convention.
For the past year or so, I’ve tracked some of their blogs and websites. Depending on whom you believe there are political movements bent on making the SB Convention fundamentalist. To that end in 2000 a complimentarian gender view became a part of their faith statement Link (see section on Family). It appears that a Hebrew Professor was removed from her post because of her gender Link. Apparently Southern Baptist missionaries who have a private prayer language (speak in tongues in private) were fired Link. And just recently it appears that a pastor who believes in Store House Tithing (10% OT Tithing is mandatory for NT Xtians) attempted to start a secretive process aimed at the removal of a Professor who held and taught the ‘wrong view’ of tithing. Link.
Moderators of the MB Forum have struggled with this Thread. Forum Rule #2 No personal attacks or bigotry. Feel free to debate and disagree with others, but don't insult or judge those who disagree with you. Don't call into question someone's Christianity or use labels to demean people. Since a MBBS Professor a fellow Christian has been named and 'labeled' it seems the spirit of the rule may have been breached. And yet open discussion is a value - so we mods struggle. The information/links posted in the last paragraph were examples of behaviors I hope our denomination does not develop. |
|
|
|
| Kenneth Affleck Member Joined Oct 7, 2008 33 posts Location: New Westminster, BC |
| Response to lornewel and Sudsy and James Toews |
Posted Feb 28, 2010; 7:21 am |
|
I would like to say two things in response to lornewel and Sudsy. The first is a recognition that my broad criticism of “some of the seminary professors” was inappropriate. The second is my insistence that Mark Baker’s position on penal substitution is unbiblical.
1. I apologize for making an accusation that I was not prepared to substantiate. And even if I had been prepared to substantiate it, the Forum may not have the proper forum to deal with such a serious accusation.
2. Because the atonement is such an important doctrine (witness Paul’s warning in Galatians 1:8-9), Christian leaders must face special scrutiny when they publicly depart from the orthodox position. I would like to bring additional evidence regarding Mark Baker’s denial of the doctrine of God’s retributive justice (and his consequent undermining of PSA). This quote is taken from a different document authored by Mark Baker: “What Story do We Tell?: Two Foundational Stories of the Cross and How They Affect Evangelism”.
| Quote: | | Throughout the Bible, however, we see God seeking to rein in the human propensity for revenge and retaliation. God‘s own actions go beyond simply moderating the retaliatory urge. God rejects the logic of retribution and practices a radically different justice—a restorative justice. |
"God rejects the logic of retribution"? While God’s restorative justice is clearly present in the Old Testament, so is His retributive justice. This statement clearly disregards the many instances in the Old Testament when God’s judgment was retributive (Capital punishment in the Mosaic law; Israel in the desert: Numbers 16:28-35, 41-50; statements of judgment against the nations in the Prophets; judgments against Israel and Judah that nearly exterminated them).
Either the doctrine of God’s retributive justice is true and Jesus was the object of that justice on the cross, or the doctrine is not true and Jesus was not the object of that justice on the cross. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Thanks for your post Ken |
Posted Feb 28, 2010; 10:56 am |
|
I thought other Forum members may find it helpful to read Baker’s complete paper Link. The paper is 17 pages long.The sentence Ken quotes from can be found at the bottom of page 12 and onto page 13.
Yesterday I read a paper by Frances F. Hiebert called ‘The Atonement in Anabaptist Theology.’ This 19 page paper can be found at this Link (MB Direction Journal). I thought this was a good paragraph:
| Quote: | | There was indeed a critical difference between Anabaptists and the Magisterial Reformers on the doctrine of the Atonement. It was not so much about how Christ’s sacrifice affected the Divine as how it {128} accomplished liberation and divinization for human beings. Anabaptists rejected justification by the law as a means of salvation as did the other Reformers, but they insisted that those who are saved will follow the law of Christ written in their hearts and do the “works of faith.” |
p. 8.
The term ‘divinization’ sounds strange to us and is explained in a further section of the paper
| Quote: | | This then is the critical distinction between the Anabaptists and the {132} Magisterial Reformers. For Anabaptists, atonement is not God’s act of forensic justification in which the sinner is declared righteous without actually being made so. It is the transformation of the believer’s life, an ontological change brought about by the work of Christ and the faith of the believer. |
p.12 ‘divinization’ is their way of saying the Holy Spirit changes the believer. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Feb 28, 2010; 10:58 am |
|
| Thank you, Ken. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 28, 2010; 11:34 am |
|
| Ken, I think you would have enjoyed our youth pastor's sermon this morning as he preached from Romans 5:6-11. From my seat it was quite a PSA sermon. He was not afraid to talk about the 'wrath of God' even though it is an unpopular subject today for many. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Feb 28, 2010; 12:02 pm |
|
I have read the 17 page paper by Baker to which Ken has just referred and to which WCFOM has provided a link.
If one reads the whole paper in a fair manner, I think he would see that Baker does NOT exclude penal substitution as a way to understand the cross but argues that it is surely not the ONLY way nor, in some contexts of evangelism, the best way.
He argues against "viewing the penal substitution model of atonement as being the one and only explanation of how the cross provides salvation. In the New Testament, legal language of justification is one of a number of images used to proclaim the saving significance of Jesus‘ life, death and resurrection. Yet this one image has, in the form of penal substitution theory, become for many the foundational narrative of how the cross saves...
New Testament writers use a variety of images and motifs to proclaim the saving significance of the cross and resurrection, including: redemption, reconciliation, victory/triumph, justification, sacrifice, and ransom."
I fully agree with this quote. "
Maybe the term "retributive justice" needs more exploration. If if means "revenge" or "retaliation" then I think it is not a biblically faithful portrayal of God in Jesus Christ...or at least is so skewed to one aspect of the atonement out of several that it borders on falsity.
It seems to me that the penal substitution/retributive justice model does not need the resurrection. The penalty is paid by death. But the triumph of the atonement is not complete at that point. Our sins are pi
aid for by Christs' death, but we are justified by his resurrection. Romans 4:25
And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. 1 Cor 15:17-19
The work of God in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection is SO MUCH MORE than retributive justice |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Feb 28, 2010; 5:12 pm |
|
I have been following this discussion with interest. I think I agree with Lorne in maintaining that the theory of justification under discussion here is part of the picture, but not the whole. I have tried to consistently reject the human tendency to reduce everything to a formula, or logical (read “systematic”) presentation. “Of the making of books there is no end.” As a translator, I was more than once thankful that our scriptures are not so long as that of, say, Hinduism – How long would it take to translate ALL THAT?
I enjoy reading commentaries, but wonder if we would read the scriptures themselves more if we did not have so many statements of faith – Do we really think we can condense truth into a short statement like that? Why didn’t God do it that way – Put a summary statement & outline at the front, then say “This is the essential part. If you want to know more, read the rest of the book. But if you don’t have time, just stick to the synopsis in the book cover.” (I am NOT saying that anyone here is saying anything like this – but I believe it is a danger we all deal with.)
| lornewel wrote: | It seems to me that the penal substitution/retributive justice model does not need the resurrection. The penalty is paid by death. But the triumph of the atonement is not complete at that point. Our sins are paid for by Christ’s death, but we are justified by his resurrection. Romans 4:25
And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. 1 Cor 15:17-19 |
I realize that this is somewhat of a bunny trail, but the above statement reminded me of an Easter sermon I heard from a Catholic priest in Brazil many years ago. He used the illustration of a hammock as one’s life, and stated that you fall to the floor if you don’t have both hooks: the cross, and the empty tomb. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| Thanks Kenneth |
Posted Feb 28, 2010; 9:45 pm |
|
Thanks, Kenneth!
As you can imagine I have had more than enough turns at having to withdraw statements I have made :)
As you can see, there is lots of interest in engaging you in a PSA discussion.
On the matter of what is appropriate on the Forum- I hope the standard of the Forum is freedom to tackle any issue and if it shouldn’t be said here- it shouldn’t be said anywhere. That's the rule that I try to live by.
Blessings
James |
|
|
|
|
|
