I am working my way through John Stott's classic book 'The Cross of Christ', Stott reminds us that The cross is not the Son working against the Father's will to redeem us as the cross is just as much the Father's initiative.
Stuart Townend's song 'How deep the Father's love for us' also reminds us of this:
How deep the Father's love for us
how vast beyond all measure
that He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.
How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the Chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory
John 3:16 tell's us that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. The cross therefore isn't the means to God loving us but is the result, the effect of that love.
Stott puts it like this, 'We must never make Christ the object of God's punishment or God the object of Christ's persuasion, for both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative together to save sinners. Whatever happened on the cross in terms of 'Godforsakeness' was voluntarily accepted by both in the same holy which made atonement necessary. It was God in our nature forsaken of God. If the Father gave the Son, The Son gave Himself. If the Father "sent the Son, the Son 'came' Himself. The Father did not lay on the Son an ordeal he was reluctant to bear, nor did the Son extract from the Father a salvation he was reluctant to bestow.' Stott, The Cross of Christ p151
We find at the cross God's wrath poured out upon His beloved Son, the place where wrath and mercy met. Divine justice, mercy and love are fulfilled as God in love both punishes and receives punishment to bring many sons to glory. How great is God!
God Bless
Stephen <><
2 comments:
Hi Stephen,
Hope you are enjoying your time in the USA.
You know I have q's over this book so I just could not help myself... Do you think that Stott really appreciates propitiation, (meaning to turn the wrath of God away)? He doesn't seem to here or on page 172 where he critiques such ideas as "neither Christian" and as "a crude construction." In the quote you give there does not seem to be any appreciation of submission in the Godhead. To me it smacks of Neo Orthodoxy which just leads to a blurring of the distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time, but I'm always a suspicious mind.
Anyway, Christmas greetings to y'all over the pond.
Ross
Hi Ross,
Yes I have been thinking of your q's as I read it. Certainly he quotes Barth and Emil Bruner quite a bit. Yet he seems to be clear that the Father and Son have different roles in work on the cross. Although that could be me reading orthodoxy into what he is saying. On p170/171 he has argued against expiation and for propitation so his comments at the start of p172 are referring to the characture of propitiation not propitiation itself. In earlier chapters Stott argues against the legal transaction idea as being the dominate idea. He argues that at the centre of the atonement is God being true to His holy love/ his character. So out of love he appeases his wrath. Hope you have a good Christmas on Presbyterian Island. love Stephen
Post a Comment