Categories Book Notes, Theology

Unsatisfactory Satisfaction (Part 2)

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 5: Satisfaction for Sin

If you haven’t read the first part yet, I recommend that you take a look. This post is a direct continuation of the previous.

2. The cross satisfied the law

This view is also suggested in the Witch’s conversation with Aslan:

“‘Fool,’ said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl, ‘do you really think your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.'”
~C.S. Lewis, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

Sin is violation of the law–and to fail to punish it would be to fail to satisfy the law. Stott gives a human example of this in the law that had Daniel thrown into the lion’s den. Even though King Darius really didn’t want to throw Daniel into the den, he had no choice but to do it. Even he was not above the law he had created.

This view has some utility and some Scriptural support. The Bible makes clear that the wages of sin are death. That price had to be paid. Sin has a curse associated with it. Jesus bore that curse.

Yet this view fails in that it subjects God to the law, as though God were “caught in a technical legal muddle.” Stott quotes R.W. Dale in saying that “God’s connection with the law is ‘not a relation of subjection but of identity….In God the law is alive; it reigns on his throe, sways his sceptre, is crowned with his glory.’ For the law is the expression of his own moral being, and his moral being is always self-consistent.”

3. The cross satisfied God’s honour and justice.

This view is likely to hold great appeal to Piper fans. It suggests that our sin is a dishonoring of God’s name, taking away the honor that is due Him, and that “God upholds nothing more justly than he doth the honour of his own dignity.”

Quoting Anselm (an early proponent of this view):

“Man the sinner owes to God, on account of sin, what he cannot repay, and unless he repays it he cannot be saved….There is no one who can make this satisfaction except God himself…But no one ought to make it except man; otherwise man does not make satisfaction….It is necessary that one who is God-man should make it.”
~from The Cross of Christ

C.S. Lewis takes a similar tack to explain the necessity of the Incarnation in Mere Christianity.

The reformers took on this view and the former, claiming that Christ’s death provided a double satisfaction: of God’s law and of God’s justice.

Again, this view has utility and Biblical support–but it has the same flaw as the second view. It suggests that somehow God is subservient to justice.

While the first view (discussed yesterday) was mostly wrong, these two views are mostly right. Yet none of the models that have been mentioned so far are satisfactory to Stott (or to me as Stott leads me along.) They’re missing something, some vital element.

What is satisfied at the cross if not the devil?
What is satisfied at the cross if not the law?
What is satisfied at the cross if not God’s honor and justice?

I’m getting long again, so this chapter will spill into another day. I promise you, though–only ONE more day! :-)

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Unsatisfactory satisfaction (Part 1)

3 Comments by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 5: Satisfaction for Sin

Satisfaction is a frankly theological term–and one it is hard to come to grips with. Stott writes:

“How, people ask, can we possibly believe that God needed some kind of ‘satisfaction’ before he was prepared to forgive, and that Jesus Christ provided it by enduring as our ‘substitute’ the punishment we sinners deserved? Are not such notions unworthy of the God of the biblical revelation, a hangover from primitive superstitions, indeed frankly immoral?”
~John Stott, The Cross of Christ

Merriam-Webster’s entry for satisfaction gives me little satisfaction.

Satisfaction
1 a : the payment through penance of the temporal punishment incurred by a sin b : reparation for sin that meets the demands of divine justice
2 a : fulfillment of a need or want b : the quality or state of being satisfied : contentment c : a source or means of enjoyment : gratification
3 a : compensation for a loss or injury : atonement, restitution b : the discharge of a legal obligation or claim c : vindication
4 : convinced assurance or certainty

Okay, so it mentions a theological meaning–but still, this seems difficult. Who’s doing the satisfying? Who or what is being satisfied? This definition doesn’t really cut it.

Stott describes four historical and contemporary views on satisfaction.

1. The cross satisfied the devil’s demands

This view suggests that humans, having sold themselves into slavery to the devil, are satan’s property, and can only be ransomed (bought back) if the devil’s conditions are met. I find a bit of this view in C.S. Lewis’ description of Aslan’s conversation with the White Witch regarding Edmund:

“‘Tell you?’ said the Witch, her voice growing suddenly shriller. ‘…You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and the for every treachery I have a right to a kill.’

‘And so,’ continued the witch, ‘that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property.’

‘Come and take it then,’ said the Bull with the man’s head in a great bellowing voice.

‘Fool,’ said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl, ‘do you really think your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.’

‘It is very true,’ said Aslan, ‘I do not deny it.'”
~C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

Here the Witch (the devil) stakes her claim on the lives of all traitors (sinners). Aslan (God) does not deny it. Instead, he dies in the traitor’s place to satisfy the witch’s demand for blood while satisfying his own love for Edmund the traitor.

There is certainly appeal to this view. It lets the devil be the “bad guy”, the one responsible for the particularly grotesque display that is the cross.

Yet there is a profound problem with this view as well. It gives the devil too much power. It gives him power over even God Himself. It makes God subject to satan’s demands.

No, the satisfaction obtained at the cross was not a satisfaction of the devil’s demands.

Since I’m getting a bit long-winded here and still have three more views to discuss, I’ll be stretching this chapter into a couple of posts. Check back tomorrow for the rest.

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Faith, Politics, The Week in Words

WiW: Patriotism and the Christian

2 Comments by

The Week in Words

I’ve been reading and discussing Greg Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation with a book group here in town. The reading–and the discussion–has been intellectually and spiritually stimulating. Some of my assumptions have been confirmed–but far more have been challenged, forcing me to think through how being “in but not of” the world informs a Christian’s political involvement.

Boyd on the calling of the church to be “set apart”

“We utterly trivialize this profound biblical teaching if we associate our peculiar holiness with a pet list of religious taboos…No, the holiness the New Testament is concerned with is centered on being Christlike, living in outrageous, self-sacrificial love. If you make this your life aspiration, you will certainly be peculiar–about as peculiar as a Messiah dying on a cursed tree! You will be a ‘resident alien.'”

Although I might disagree with Boyd over how involved a Christian can be in politics, I sincerely appreciate Boyd’s emphasis that the kingdom of God is not about promoting a certain political or social agenda but about being Christ-like (the culmination of course, of Christ-likeness being exemplified in the cross.)

Boyd on Patriotism, at Relevant Magazine via Becky S. on Facebook

“So over the Fourth of July weekend—and all year—be appreciative of your country. Be patriotic. But make sure your patriotism pales in comparison to your sacrifice, commitment and allegiance to the Kingdom of God.”

I was glad I saw this article linked by a friend on Facebook. From where I’m at in The Myth of a Christian Nation (Chapter 4), Boyd appears to be bashing any “proud to be an American” sentiment. I’ve been relatively cautious about making conclusions based on just these few chapters, but I’m glad to have this notice that Boyd doesn’t have a problem with patriotism in general, just overemphasis on patriotism at the expense of the Kingdom of God. :-)

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

Categories Family & Friends

The Infamous “Talk”

3 Comments by

I was 20 years old before I got “the talk”.

When I was going through puberty, my parents were still finishing up going through newborns–and somehow “the talk” escaped them.

They decided to do better for my brothers, so they purchased Barbara and Dennis Rainey’s Passport 2 Purity weekend retreat kit and Dad started preparing for a guys weekend retreat.

They rented a cabin at one of our state parks and purchased massive amounts of meat and “bellywash” (soda). And they headed off for a weekend of manly pursuits (fire building, mountain biking, and copious amounts of meat.)

And, of course, they had “the talk”.

Joshua and Daniel got theirs. John and Timothy got theirs.

Then Mom started talking of preparing for Grace’s weekend retreat and Anna and I got jealous.

It wasn’t fair, we said. We’d never gotten “the talk”. We’d never enjoyed a weekend retreat with our mother, doing girlie things. We’d never listened to the Rainey audio-cassette tapes that my brothers rolled their eyes and shook their heads at.

So at last, when I was 20 years old, my parents decided to backtrack. They’d do the right thing by their eldest daughters. They’d give us “the talk.” Better late than never, right?

We got a hotel room at a hotel with a pool. We ate Macaroni Grill for dinner. We explored craft boutiques during the day and had lunch at The Green Gateau, a fancy little Lincoln restaurant. And when we weren’t doing other things, we listened to the Raineys talk about purity.

Not surprisingly, “the talk” was geared towards a younger audience. The content was good, but nothing we hadn’t managed to discuss already in much less formal conversations. The official “birds and the bees” segment passed so quickly that we had to stop and comment to each other. “Was that it? Was that all they were going to say about the mechanics?” Apparently so.

Yes, “the talk” was a bit belated–and therefore rather comical.

But we came away from our weekend talk having joined the fraternity of Passport 2 Purity graduates, proudly bearing our badge of membership: a musical rendition of Colossians 1:18.

Now all the Menter children can proudly sing:

“He is also head of the body, the church. And He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself may come to have first place in everything…” YE-AH-AH

And sing it we do, whether needling one another with a “private” reminder of the weekends we shared or enjoying a moment of family togetherness around the Fourth of July dinner table.

Ah, fond memories of “the talk”.

Categories Technology

In which Rebekah rolls out a new layout…

2 Comments by

and stays up way too late.

Introducing bekahcubed version 10.

This is my first design adjustment since I switched to using WordPress and reformatted all my static pages to use php for ease of reformatting.

I have to say that I’m LOVING how easy php makes the design process (and how my design skills might actually be reaching passable levels.)

It took me somewhere between 12 and 48 hours to create each template for my first half-dozen or so designs. Thanks to finally reaching some level of proficiency with CSS and HTML, it took me about four hours to create and troubleshoot this design.

Pre-PHP, it took me at least an hour a day for several months to completely switch over my site to a new design. Today, thanks to PHP, it took me three minutes.

Yep, I’m definitely liking the PHP.

Now, had I just started the process a bit earlier, I might be in good shape. As it is, I had REALLY better get to bed. I’ve got nursery duty at church and I best not be late!

Please let me know what you think of the new layout–and give me suggestions for how I might make bekahcubed even more user-friendly. I’d also appreciate your letting me know if you find any bugs. I vetted the site fairly thoroughly in Firefox, cursorily in IE, and not at all in Safari. So I covet your feedback!

Categories Recap

Recap (June 27-July 3)

2 Comments by

On bekahcubed

Book Reviews:

  • Stardust by Neil Gaiman

    “I loved the movie Stardust when I saw it several years back–and when I discovered that it was based on a book, I rapidly added the book to my “To be read” list. I checked the library and discovered that they owned a copy, so every time I went to the library, I’d faithfully check for books by Neil Gaiman in the YA fiction section. After six months or so of checking during my almost weekly library visits, I had not once seen a copy of the elusive title.”

    Read the rest of my review.

On the web

Books for the TBR list:

  • The Checklist Manifesto by Atule Gawande
    I am a checklist girl. I have lists for my morning routines, for my evening routines, for my daily tasks, for the tasks that deviate from my daily routines. I have lists for packing, for traveling, for reading, for last-minute-wedding-details (imagine that!) Lisa’s review suggests that this title is all about checklists and their power to transform how we do things. It sounds like more of a sociological-type book than a “how-to” book (But since I’m a fan of either, I wouldn’t mind if it turned out either way.) Thankfully, my library has a copy, so I’ll be looking this one up.
  • Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe by Mark Driscoll
    According to Tim Challies, “this is not abstract theology, but theology in motion, theology in practice.” I enjoy reading theology and doctrine–and my resolution this year has been to exercise my mind towards the things of God. It sounds like this might be a good introduction to basic (baptistic) reformed theology (although certainly with Driscoll’s unique voice.)

Videos worth seeing:

  • A fantastic commentary and animation on how time perspectives affect nations.

    HT: Challies.com
Categories Faith, Politics

The Secret Socialist (Part 3)

Leave a comment by

I have heretofore described the Scriptural role of the government to administer justice and the Scriptural call to the church to be agents of mercy. Here, I shall attempt to describe what I see as the union of the two.

We are aliens in this world.

Whenever a Christian enters into the realm of politics, he must realize that in doing so he is stepping out of his native land into the affairs of the land in which He is a sojourner.

A Christian belongs to the kingdom of God–a kingdom firmly established on mercy, love, and nonaggression. This is the kingdom whose people decry self-defense, instead offering their cheeks to be struck. This is the kingdom whose citizens give to those who steal from them. This is the kingdom whose people would much rather be cheated than go to court.

The kingdoms of this world, on the other hand, are kingdoms (established by God) for the carrying out of justice. They are responsible, first and foremost, (at least inasmuch as Scripture reveals God’s plan for the kingdoms of this earth) for the punishing of wrongdoers and praising of the righteous.

The two kingdoms could not be more different.

The kingdom of God recognizes that Christ has borne the whole punishment for all sins–against God and against mankind–and therefore demands that citizens extend mercy to all. The kingdom of the world still labors under the fallenness of sin–and must punish wrongdoers lest injustice prevail.

The question, then, is how a Christian is to go about dealing with the political world. How is a Christian to navigate these opposing worlds of justice and mercy?

There are three common “takes” on a Christian’s involvement in politics.

Some take the conservative view, demanding justice on this earth–politically and personally. People should get what they deserve and nothing more. This is the view of the harsh disciplinarian, the uncompromising taskmaster, the down-with-the-welfare-state-up-with-the-military-state politico.

Others take a liberal stance, arguing for mercy at all costs. These are the bleeding hearts, the fairness police. They want redistribution of wealth, equal access to everything, a mother state who babies her citizens, and a non-aggressive foreign policy.

Still others urge avoidance. Best to stay out of politics, they say, lest you forsake the kingdom of God in your involvement with the kingdoms of this world.

But are these the only options for Christian involvement in the world?

My personal take lies outside of each of these. I believe that inasmuch as God’s revealed will for the governments of this world is that they be ministers of justice, I as a Christian should work to promote justice in political affairs. And inasmuch as God’s clearly revealed call to His church is that they be ministers of mercy, as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, I should seek to live a life marked by mercy.

What does this mean for me?

In my political involvement, I fight for justice–laws that reflect just practices, punishments that befit crimes, honest court systems. Yet as a citizen of the kingdom of God, I would never dream of making use of these courts to demand justice for myself. I am called to extend mercy to those who misuse me.

As an American citizen, I support just war (of course, the definition of just war is fuzzy and must be considered carefully) entered into by the state, whether preemptive or retaliatory. But as a citizen of the kingdom of God, I clearly recognize the call to never take justice into my own hands and wage war on my own accord. I could never bomb an abortion clinic or assassinate even the most evil of characters.

I disapprove of the governmental redistribution of wealth in order to secure social programs as an injustice to the deserving and the undeserving alike (punishing those who have earned their money justly and rewarding those who have failed to justly earn money). But as a citizen of the kingdom of God, I seek to liberally give my own money, goods, and services indiscriminately.

From my conception of God’s plan for the kingdoms of this world and for the kingdom of heaven, I am politically conservative and personally liberal. I work to promote a political system that is founded on justice–and seek to always live a life marked by mercy.

Of course, I like all people, am fallen–and regularly fail to live up to this goal. Too often, I demand justice for myself when I ought to extend mercy to others. And too often I request mercy of the political system, when I ought to accept and promote justice. But the above is my ideal–and I pray that by the grace of God, I might grow more and more to walk mercifully as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven–and to promote justice in this nation in which I am an alien.

Categories Book Notes, Theology

The Cross: Righteousness and Peace Have Kissed

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 4: The Problem of Forgiveness

In chapter 4, Stott addresses the question of why the cross was necessary to grant us forgiveness of sins. In essence, the question is:

Why can’t God forgive us without requiring a bloody, gruesome death of His Son?

This is a common question and one that is frequently brought up by Christians and non-Christians alike. The cross is detestable, disgusting, reprehensible. If God is love, how could He do such a thing? How could He cause the cruel death of His Son? Many people would like to believe in a universalist God–all Teddy Bear, no judgment. Others decry God as taking sadomasochist pleasure in torturing His Son.

Clearly, this is an important point to grapple with–and our conclusions regarding it have far-reaching implications for how we view God and humanity.

In order to understand the necessity of the cross for securing our forgiveness, we must become aware of the righteousness of God, the gravity of sin, and our culpability as sinners.

Why can God not “simply” forgive sinners?

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because sin is a big deal. Sin is not simply a “mistake” or a “mess-up”. Sin is an act of rebellion against God. Sin is defiance not only against God’s law, but against God’s very nature.

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because sinners are culpable for their sins. We are not automatons “forced” into rebellion against God by no choice of our own. True, our wills have been corrupted by original sin. But even still, we will to rebel against God. God did not create us sinners and then punish us for the sin He created us to do–no, we chose sin, chose rebellion, and willingly walk in it.

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because God is righteous. He is completely pure, spotless, without blemish. He is far above and is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, just and unjust. He is holy, separate, distinct from evil. He cannot embrace the impure, the spotted, the blemished, the wrong, the unjust, the profane, the evil–or else He will no longer be righteous and holy.

God’s holiness demands that He cannot merely “forget” our sins and embrace us. Our sins must be punished. What’s more, because we are sinners, not only our actions but our selves must be punished. Our sins–and we as sinners–must bear the wrath of God.

This is the beauty of the cross

In the cross, Jesus Christ bore our sins, became our sin–and fully bore the wrath of God in Himself. God’s wrath satisfied, He is now free to forgive without compromising His nature. In the cross, righteousness and peace have kissed.

“Mercy and truth have met together;
Righteousness and peace have kissed.”
Psalm 85:10

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Why Did Christ Die?

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 3: Looking below the surface

I feel a bit guilty to be merely summarizing Stott’s main points in this chapter–yet his points are so good, I feel they require little comment from me. This is a fantastic intro to the significance of the cross, from Jesus’ perspective.

What is the significance of the cross?

1) Christ died for us.
2) Christ died to bring us to God
3) Christ died for our sins
4) Christ died our death

Jesus on His death

The Last Supper

1) Jesus affirmed the centrality of His death

  • The Last Supper, a commemoration of the death of Christ, was the ONLY commemorative act commanded by Jesus

2) Jesus affirmed the purpose of His death

  • Intended to create a new covenant
  • Intended to obtain forgiveness of sins

3) Jesus affirmed the necessity of personally appropriating His death

  • The disciples were commanded to eat and drink–to receive the work of Christ on their behalf

Gethsemane

4) Jesus agonizes over the wrath of God soon to be poured out on Him

  • Jesus’ agony in the garden was not over the prospect of physical pain and death, but in contemplation of the impending “cup” of God’s wrath to be poured out on Him.

The Cross

5) Jesus experienced true separation from the Father on the cross

  • In His cry “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?”, Jesus expresses true agony at the true, necessary, voluntary separation of Himself from the Father

Conclusions

When we look at the cross of Christ, we are forced to make three conclusions:
1) Our sin must be horrible
2) God’s love must be wonderful
3) Salvation must be free

“…We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
I Corinthians 1:23-24

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories None

Counting to 843 on 2 hands

1 Comment by

My mother-out-law said my brother had told her she could count into the hundreds with just two hands. I corrected her/his faulty value. Using binary, you can count to 1023 using only two hands.

My brother-out-law asked me to demonstrate (smart-alec!) I explained that I didn’t have the time to count all the way up from 1 to 1023, but if he’d like to choose a number within that range, I’d be pleased to demonstrate.

He chose 843.

Here it is:
843 on two hands (in binary)

The technique is simple.

First you need to choose a side to begin with. I chose to have my right pinkie represent the ones place.

In binary, this means that each finger represents the following place values:

binary place values on two hands

If a finger is extended (the “1” position), this means that you sum in that value. If a finger is not extended (the “0” position), you do not sum in that value (or you add in zero, if that’s easier for you).

Thus, the above image (in which all ten of my fingers are extended) represents
512+256+128+64+32+16+8+4+2+1
which is 1023

When I demonstrated 843, I extended the fingers that represented
512, 256, 64, 8, 2, and 1
512+256+64+8+2+1=843

Easy as pi, right?

That’s the interpreting. If you want to do the counting, I find it easiest to work from the top down, subtracting as you go.

Thus, if I wanted to represent 765, I would start at the largest place value that can fit into 765.

This is the 512.

binary place values on two hands

Extend that digit (in this case, the pinkie of your left hand) and subtract 512 from 765.

This gives you 253.

The largest value that can fit into 253 is 128.

binary place values on two hands

Extend that finger and continue on until you have:

binary place values on two hands

512+128+64+32+16+8+4+1=765

Ta-Da!

Now you’re an absolute pro and are ready to do some numbers of your own. Use the random number generator to get a number to practice with.

Please recognize that while both of my selected numbers are symmetrical, not all numbers will turn out to be such. Since my numbers were symmetrical, you could read them the same way regardless of which side was the ones place and which side was the 512s place. For non-symmetric numbers, you need to pay attention to which side the counter started from (for example, in my picture of 743, my ones place was MY right pinkie–which is the pinkie to YOUR left.)