I appreciate this. What you have written is not repulsive, but very familiar and even comfortable. Not in a "feel good" manner, but in a "this is truth" manner. When I was taking systematic theology, this was part of what we learned about the atonement. We cannot cut this piece out if we are to preach and teach the gospel to its fullest.
Amen, Jeffrey! You’ll hear no pushback from me on this particular topic. I was raised in a Confessional Lutheran tradition (LCMS). I might have issues with some of their praxis concerning Sanctification, but none with their doctrines concerning Original Sin, or our total reliance on God’s grace and Christ’s atoning sacrifice to enable our salvation. I noticed your Paul Washer quote. He’s fighting a similar battle wit the preaching of a watered down Gospel amongst Evangelical churches, in order to gain more “decisions for Christ”.
Paul Washer's comment reminds me of what Jesus said when the Pharisees questioned why he ate with tax collectors and sinners; "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Another well spoken substack. The Bible says that the righteousness of man is like filthy rags to a Holy God.
Please do yourself a favor and watch this interview on penal substitution/atonement/satisfaction and how far too many today - particularly and especially those of the YRR crowd/mentality - have gotten Christ's satisfaction for sin wrong. (Is it long? Yes. Should you slog thru it anyway, glazed over eyes and all? Again, yep.) In short, the Father did not pour out His wrath on His beloved Son. - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ULn-8T4ACy8&t=865s&pp=ygUeY2FybCBtb3NzZXIgcGVuYWwgc3Vic3RpdHV0aW9u
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
In the American Republic, everyone starts out in the world “presumed innocent.” In order to be found guilty (moved from a central, neutral, column, one first has to be charged, tried and found guilty. Under this Common Law View, there are three columns; to the left is “guilty,” to the center is “innocent,” and to the right can be “acquitted.”
Jesus (above, but mindful of his ‘suffering the little not’ passage) describes only two columns; the left column has a “-“ heading (lost/guilty/condemned) and the column on the right has a “+” heading (found/veiled/covered/ saved). We cannot do anything to move ourselves from the negative column and into the positive column unless we do what the thief on the cross did - that would be the one who was in Paradise with Jesus that day.
The words of Jesus regarding the Prodigal Son: “for your brother was lost and now is found, he was dead and is now alive”
Unlike American Jurisprudence which includes an “innocent” classification, the matter you are presenting, rightly, here; Christ describes just two columns in John 3:17-18.
We, by faith, can be moved from the condemned column!
One word in the New Testament made me ashamed of having any embarrassment over this doctrine: “dei”—Greek for “it is necessary”—referring to the betrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. From the strangely warmed heart of John Wesley, to a prisoner in solitary seeing Christ’s agony in a vision, the experience of the Lord Jesus looking on each of us from the cross and saying, “I did this for you” cannot be received if we deny its necessity. This reconciling confrontation awakens us to our sins, swallows wrath, fills our hearts with the love of God, and opens the way to eternal life through the resurrection. I heartily agree with you: any doctrine that soft-pedals or evades this encounter with our Lord and Savior “can create some pretty messed up beliefs.”
Truth! Should not be controversial in the GMC like it was in the UMC.
Jeffrey,
Consider these opposites that resolve themselves:
The total deprivation of man
The all-sufficiency of Christ
Then, there is what David Watson has written
https://davidfwatson.me/2019/02/18/did-john-wesley-affirm-total-depravity/
I appreciate this. What you have written is not repulsive, but very familiar and even comfortable. Not in a "feel good" manner, but in a "this is truth" manner. When I was taking systematic theology, this was part of what we learned about the atonement. We cannot cut this piece out if we are to preach and teach the gospel to its fullest.
Amen, Jeffrey! You’ll hear no pushback from me on this particular topic. I was raised in a Confessional Lutheran tradition (LCMS). I might have issues with some of their praxis concerning Sanctification, but none with their doctrines concerning Original Sin, or our total reliance on God’s grace and Christ’s atoning sacrifice to enable our salvation. I noticed your Paul Washer quote. He’s fighting a similar battle wit the preaching of a watered down Gospel amongst Evangelical churches, in order to gain more “decisions for Christ”.
Most excellent article, Jeffery.
Paul Washer's comment reminds me of what Jesus said when the Pharisees questioned why he ate with tax collectors and sinners; "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Another well spoken substack. The Bible says that the righteousness of man is like filthy rags to a Holy God.
Please do yourself a favor and watch this interview on penal substitution/atonement/satisfaction and how far too many today - particularly and especially those of the YRR crowd/mentality - have gotten Christ's satisfaction for sin wrong. (Is it long? Yes. Should you slog thru it anyway, glazed over eyes and all? Again, yep.) In short, the Father did not pour out His wrath on His beloved Son. - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ULn-8T4ACy8&t=865s&pp=ygUeY2FybCBtb3NzZXIgcGVuYWwgc3Vic3RpdHV0aW9u
It would also behoove you to view the following on 2 Cor 5:21: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=81cC1WHHuJM&pp=ygUPYnJhbnQgcGl0cmUgc2lu
Jeffrey never disappoints!! Can’t wait for more!
Consider these words of Jesus:
John 3:17-19
New King James Version
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
In the American Republic, everyone starts out in the world “presumed innocent.” In order to be found guilty (moved from a central, neutral, column, one first has to be charged, tried and found guilty. Under this Common Law View, there are three columns; to the left is “guilty,” to the center is “innocent,” and to the right can be “acquitted.”
Jesus (above, but mindful of his ‘suffering the little not’ passage) describes only two columns; the left column has a “-“ heading (lost/guilty/condemned) and the column on the right has a “+” heading (found/veiled/covered/ saved). We cannot do anything to move ourselves from the negative column and into the positive column unless we do what the thief on the cross did - that would be the one who was in Paradise with Jesus that day.
The words of Jesus regarding the Prodigal Son: “for your brother was lost and now is found, he was dead and is now alive”
Unlike American Jurisprudence which includes an “innocent” classification, the matter you are presenting, rightly, here; Christ describes just two columns in John 3:17-18.
We, by faith, can be moved from the condemned column!
One word in the New Testament made me ashamed of having any embarrassment over this doctrine: “dei”—Greek for “it is necessary”—referring to the betrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. From the strangely warmed heart of John Wesley, to a prisoner in solitary seeing Christ’s agony in a vision, the experience of the Lord Jesus looking on each of us from the cross and saying, “I did this for you” cannot be received if we deny its necessity. This reconciling confrontation awakens us to our sins, swallows wrath, fills our hearts with the love of God, and opens the way to eternal life through the resurrection. I heartily agree with you: any doctrine that soft-pedals or evades this encounter with our Lord and Savior “can create some pretty messed up beliefs.”