Comments on: Resolved, To Not Think Wrongly About Jesus (But To Speak Uncharitably About Our Enemies)

By: Pastoralia » Book Review: Unprotected Texts, The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:32:45 +0000

[...] Mohler drew his pistol with “What the Bible Really Says About ex…Really?” Sadly, yet predictably, Mohler’s argument can be boiled down to “Librals are [...]

By: Pastoralia » Resolved, To Believe The Best About Other Believers

Pastoralia » Resolved, To Believe The Best About Other Believers — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:12:49 +0000

[...] been pretty critical of the preachers at Resolved (with one exception) – and I’ll have more by way [...]

By: Rick Snell

Rick Snell — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:46:21 +0000

Thanks, Jason. I’ve always maintained, in ignorant bliss, assuming that everyone – you know, all reasonable people – would just naturally agree with me – I’ve maintained that we are not saved by the quality of our theology, but rather by the fact that we’re counted as in by the one who matters – Jesus.

Brother MacArthur has always struck me as cranky, anyway. This is what makes postmodernism so attractive. I’ve always tried to imagine how the Bereans might react to some of this. “Umm, we’ve looked and searched through the Scripture, and it does not appear to be so.”

By: brambonius

brambonius — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:53:52 +0000

If you say substitution, what would they do with a ransom/christus victor style substitution (think Aslan and the witch) i which Jesus gives himself over to death/evil/…instead of us? Isn’t there enough substitutionary atonement in there without a God that requires blood and suffering and the need to satisfy His wrath?

By: Jason Coker

Jason Coker — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:56:54 +0000

Excellent question Rick! I honestly don’t know, because Mohler didn’t address the issue with that level of subtly – and neither did anyone else I heard over the course of the weekend. Now, I’d like to believe that, if pressed, he would agree with your latter construction; that (in his view) penal substitution is the accurate way to understand the utility of atonement, whether we know it or not when we come to faith. To me, that seems obvious. On the other hand, it was repeatedly said over and over again – including by Al Mohler – that “getting [doctrinal issues] right is critical” because “eternity hangs in the balance.” At one point, John MacArthur said, “You can get Jesus nearly right and still go to hell.”

The distinction you make in your question reminds me of something N.T. Wright once said: “We are saved by grace alone – not by believing in grace alone.” I think this is an important corrective, but Wright was generally lambasted by the Reformed crowd for that statement. So, in the end, I suspect that Mohler would say that any true proclamation of the gospel includes a communication of Christ as substitution, and any true exercise of faith includes some degree of trust in Christ as a substitution, even if one isn’t able to articulate it technically.

By: Rick Snell

Rick Snell — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:15:36 +0000

Jason, thanks for the post. You were there and I wasn’t, but is Mohler actually saying you have to subscribe to the doctrine of penal substitution or is he saying that it’s the piece that secures our atonement? Did the thief on the cross understand this doctrine?

I’m glad you went to this conference.

By: Pastoralia » Resolved, To Embrace Christ as the Embodiment of Healing and Hope

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:25:17 +0000

[...] to be continually frustrated by the preaching. Thus far I’d found the messages to be pedantic, fallacious, and repressive – not so much in content, but in the way the story of Christ had been [...]

By: Pastoralia » Resolved, Not To Think Too Rigorously About Jesus

Pastoralia » Resolved, Not To Think Too Rigorously About Jesus — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:41:51 +0000

[...] Saturday afternoon’s speaker was Steve Lawson. I’d never heard him before and I was anxious to shed my frustration from the morning session with Al Mohler. [...]

By: theycallmepastorbryan

theycallmepastorbryan — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:29:10 +0000

Wow, what a logical jump to claim that the NT teaching is ONLY Penal Substitution! I have never understood why that battleline feels so compelling when the NT offers something much richer than just Penal Substitution… I fear that it is the result of forcing the Bible into a systematic and not the other way around.

I think your comment on the similarities between fundies and pentecostals lands perfectly, in both cases, it adds something besides Jesus to the need of salvation. I find it specifically ironic that those who usually raise the battlecry for needing to understand penal substitution to be saved are generally the same who accuse other Christians of believing they earn their salvation, but isn’t a requirement to be able to articulate a specific doctrine a matter of works and not grace? I’ve always found that strange in their camp.

By: Julie waters

Julie waters — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:41:47 +0000

“His tactics were fear, shame, and coercion”

So basically – nothing new to look at, huh?

“After all, he has a Ph.D. in Systematic and Historical Theology from Southern Baptist Seminary.”

Dude, if you would have started off with that sentence, I wouldn’t have had to read the rest. Just sayin’.:-)

Gee, now *I’m* sounding like one whose trying to rally with differences! Crap!