All Comments for: Cross Purposes | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > July

Christianity Today, July, 2007 |

Cross Purposes

Biggest Christian conference splits amid growing atonement debate.

Madison Trammel | posted 7/02/2007 08:50AM

Three of Great Britain's most prominent Christian groups have ended their 14-year conference partnership, scuttling the annual Word Alive youth event. At issue was disagreement over a speaker, the Rev. ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Allan W., Portland, Oregon USA

Posted: July 09, 2007 2:55 PM


It's frankly difficult for me to understand what the fuss is all about. This seems to be an inevitable path that Christian groups or churches end up on: disagreements about peripheral issues, rather than disputes about core doctrine. Anyone care to clarify what the issue is? How is this a "battle for the very definition of what is an evangelical"?

Trevor h

Posted: July 04, 2007 8:38 AM

To throw out substitutionary atonement because of a simplistic complaint that it is "child abuse" takes away the beauty of deeper knowledge of God, which can come from a mature theology. God takes pleasure in forgiving sin and takes no pleasure at all in remonstrating with his people. Thus, for His own sake, to make his own joy complete, he took on flesh and laid down his life, under the obedience of Sonship, to take our punishment. Chalke therefore doesn't understand the absolute Unity of the trinity, nor the completeness of our Father's desire to forgive those who sin;thus it was for him pleasureable to substitute One capable of dying for those who have sinned. To deny these things denies the completeness of God's love. To leave us suffering under sin without Christ and without his atoning death would be abuse of a grander scale and one God is not capable of, seeing that he is perfect in his love for us. So, it was his pleasure to hand over his loved One to death on the cross.

wjm	Posted: July 04, 2007 7:54 AM


Reading this article, I was a bit disappointed. There was no full explanation of Chalke's views. I feel that the article would be worthwhile with Chalke's views as well World Alives views.

Prespilot

Posted: July 03, 2007 1:23 PM

I always find it interesting when a debate about the atonement comes up its typically between the Penal Substitution and the Ransom Theory camps. However, after many years of searching I have found a historical view of the atonement that preceeds Calvin or Augustine and that is the Public Justice model. For me this makes clearly more sense than any other model out there presently. It was one that the Early Church held to and one that will truly transform your life - which is what the atonement is supposed to do to begin with. Interestingly enough during both Great Awakenings it was this Atonement model that was preached. Even though Whitefield and Edwards were Calvinist - its the Public Justice model they preached from the pulpit. Whenever this model is preached it always produces results. Charles Finney is another great example of Public Justice Atonement preaching.

Aquinas

Posted: July 02, 2007 4:08 PM


At least this issue is forcing Evangelicals to think about God. Something that I find lacking these days.

Ruth Bard

Posted: July 02, 2007 3:42 PM

How sad that we bite and devour each other while Satan laughs. Chalke's position is reminiscent of "how could a loving God send people to hell" et al. Human comprehension is not adequate for the purposes and work of God, but lack of comprehension is not grounds for dismissing what Scripture makes abundantly clear: He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree... That's what makes it personal: He bore my sin. I thank Him every day for that.

GDP	Posted: July 02, 2007 3:37 PM

Some people just can't handle the notion not to mention reality of evil, even beyond human condition. Professing Christ doesn't escape the existence and working of evil, its ongoing force. To deny it denies Christ's life, but more emphatically His resurrection - for to deny evil is to deny death, the very basis of atonement, the epitomy of a condemnation. The Biblical consequences are laid out in Romans and John in his Epistles. For those who argue multiple methods of atonement, they should consider the relation of option to truth. Christ said it is one, and there HIS way. Accepting a multiplicity in doctrine is like accepting multiple description in definition, one never gets beyond connotation, a warping of truth in opinion. Christ's declaration that He is the way, the truth and the life, implies alternatives leading elsewhere but continuing to death. By God's grace we know the difference, and there to the limits He has prescribed in His word so that we may have eternal life

Jay	Posted: July 02, 2007 1:14 PM

Steve Chalke must does not believe Romans 3:23, 6:23 or John 3:16 and from what it sounds like not very much else of the Bible. How much of the Bible does one have to “Not Believe” to be an “Unbeliever”? On the subject of being angry, Chalke is confused about Matthew 5:22 and Ephesians 4:26-27. We should be angry at each other from time to time, God even tells us to be angry but within His guidelines. Jesus was angry Mark 3:5 but for a reason. A perfect God refusing to accept sin is not the same as us being angry at someone for NO REASON. Steve Chalke needs to study the Bible. Way to go Word Alive committee for being obedient to Romans 16:17-18. Thank you for the example. John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. That was Jesus speaking ther e. Steve is way of base suggesting child abuse. Jesus loves every one of us and willilngly went to His death on the cross. It's in the Bible. See John 3:18. God bless

Keith

Posted: July 02, 2007 1:01 PM

I can recall when I first started to study theology, over 25 years ago; it was known/called the “Theory of Atonement.” We do not KNOW how Jesus’ death affected God and our relationship with God. Yes, the Bible indicates some ideas but none state: this is THE way. Of more of a concern, at least for me, is this: what does this show the non-believers around us? What are they going to say; ‘here go those crazy Christians, burning each other at the stack rather than showing the Love of Christ. ‘ For those of you who want to throw-out, condemn, ex-communicate, each other over a theory—from our perspective, might I remind you that Jesus had disciples/apostles who were part of the two extremes of his political/societal world. {Matthew/Levi a tax collector for the Romans and Simon the Zealot who would’ve wanted to see the Romans killed along with collaborators.} It is our relationship to Jesus, our acceptance of him as Lord and Savior that counts, not how we came into that relationship.

Cecil Hampton

Posted: July 02, 2007 1:00 PM

I'm sure Rev. Chalke is well versed in the Bible. But it seems that he would have to throw out a whole lot of Scripture to deny the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross. Lots of views of the Lord and his relationship to His creation rely more on what the observer thinks must be true rather than what God has actually revealed about Himself. The core doctrines of the Bible must make sense to a reader but the reader must give the Lord time to bring him to a more complete understanding of the wonderful work He has done out of His love for His creatures. God is far above us. We can't assume that we can grasp all that He is and has done for us. but He has revealed much in His Word and we can understand a great deal if we approach Him as a teachable supplicant rather than an equal.

Ignatius

Posted: July 02, 2007 11:40 AM


Re: Andrew Tucker I am rather confused by your review. What does it have to do with the atonement debate?

Andrew Tucker

Posted: July 02, 2007 10:38 AM

Great Jesus came to give a christian education, not die on the cross. Great God made super smart angels. A group rebelled against God the father. Rev. 12:9. They can be invisible. Faith in God is one reason he may of created them to be invisble. They can talk to persons. It will be proven that a large group of persons of the world would work for the devil. It could be over jealousy,money or drugs. Satanic angels and possessed persons know about mental weaknesses. Great Jesus is not the son of David. Holy Lord Jesus is the son of God. We must learn about understanding Great Jesus, how to be a servant, repentance and be a witness. Thank you for you time! Gal 3:2! 1 corinth 14:26! Psalms 99:9! Hill pray!

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment