Review: The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke

_This review is written by Andrew Sach and Mike Ovey from “Oak Hill College”:http://www.oakhill.ac.uk/ in London, and was originally published in the June 2004 edition of “Evangelicals Now”:http://www.e-n.org.uk/. It is republished on this site by permission of the authors._

h3. Have we lost the message of Jesus?

THE LOST MESSAGE OF JESUS
By Steve Chalke & Alan Mann
Zondervan. 204 pages. £8.99
ISBN 0 310 24882 5

Much about this year’s Word Alive was the same as usual — happy reunions with old friends, challenging teaching, the strange, permanent half-rain that characterises Skegness in April. But in the bookshop in the Skyline Pavilion, troubled voices could be heard: ‘Have you seen it?’, ‘I can’t believe he’s written that.’ OK, Christians can be more fascinated with controversy than we ought to be. But in this case it wasn’t so much fascination as genuine alarm, disappointment, grief, even.

The cause was Steve Chalke’s new bestseller, “The Lost Message of Jesus”. Steve is founder of the hugely influential Oasis Trust, which works closely with Spring Harvest, YFC, the Salvation Army, and Youthwork Magazine. A charismatic speaker, TV personality and visionary, he has inspired many. Yet his new book attacks the heart of biblical Christianity, and offers instead a ‘lost message’ which is really no gospel at all.

h3. A wrong view of God

No Christian would deny the precious truth that ‘God is love’ (1 John 4.8,16). Chalke reminds us that the Lord Jesus ‘embraces the untouchable, feeds the hungry, eats with the socially and religiously unacceptable, forgives the unforgivable, heals the sick and welcomes the marginalised to be his closest companions’ (p.45), and points out that the church has often failed to follow our Lord’s example. How many prostitutes and homosexuals can we count among our congregations? A fair challenge.

Yet Chalke is wrong when he claims that the Bible ‘never defines him as anything other than love’ (p.63). John’s first letter affirms also that ‘God is light; in him there is no darkness at all’ (1 John 1.5). This omission is no slip of the pen. As we read through the book we find that God’s white-hot moral purity and indignation at sin have been airbrushed out of the picture. Speaking of sinful people and a God who is a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4.24), Chalke rejects his Sunday School teacher’s analogy of a sheet of tissue paper that is burned up when brought near a candle flame. There is no such danger. Holiness is re-defined as just another way of talking about God’s love and the pain that he feels as he looks on a broken world. Indeed, Chalke speculates that the reason that no one can look at God’s face is that it is so contorted with suffering (p.59).

The grace of God is similarly emptied of biblical content. It means little more than inclusivism, a lowering of the doorstep that the Pharisees had set too high (p.99). Chalke is indignant that some in that society were stigmatised as ‘unclean’ (p.88), or that the temple system excluded any but the super-religious High Priest from the Holy of Holies (p.105f).

Yet while the Pharisees may have twisted them, the exclusiveness of the Levitical cleanliness laws and the Temple were originally God’s idea. To be sure, Jesus did transcend the old order, touching lepers and opening the way to God’s presence. But it was not that he abrogated the Law; he fulfilled it. Nor was he more liberal about the standard; he had to pay with his blood.

h3. A wrong view of man

If Chalke’s God has little problem with evil, then neither does humanity: ‘While we have spent centuries arguing over the doctrine of original sin we have missed a startling point: Jesus believed in original goodness! God declared that all his creation, including humankind, was very good’ (p.67, italics original). Yet this quotation from Genesis 1 describes life before the Fall, and Chalke blurs the difference the Fall brought to our nature. Augustine did not invent the view that the human heart is depraved (p. 67), for it was not he who first taught that ‘from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery’ (Mark 7.21), or who told his disciples that they were evil, almost as a throwaway line (Matthew 7.11).

Because Chalke wants to affirm the present goodness of humanity, he redefines repentance. For him it isn’t a negative word, to do with renouncing evil that we find within ourselves; it is rather a call to fulfil our natural potential. Like the social drop-outs Jamie Oliver employed as trainee chefs in his Channel 4 TV series, all we need is to be given a chance by someone who believes in us (p.120f). Yet this Pelagian picture is contradicted by the New Testament, which describes us by nature as slaves to sin (John 8.34), powerless (Romans 5.6), spiritual corpses who were once objects of God’s wrath (Ephesians 2.1-3).

h3. A wrong view of the cross

If God is not angry, and humans are not essentially guilty, then what job remains for the cross? Unsurprisingly, Chalke renounces a crucial biblical dimension of the atonement: penal substitution. For Chalke this is unnecessary and offensive. He describes it as ‘a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed, morally dubious in total contradiction to the statement “God is love”‘ (p.182). But the apostle John declares that the pouring out of God’s wrath on Jesus is the very essence of love (1 John 4.10).

This is the most tragic part of the book. Having set out an orthodox understanding of Jesus’s cry of God-forsakenness, Chalke confesses: ‘I used to preach this way myself’ (p.184). No more, however. For while ‘the cross is often portrayed as the bridge over the chasm that separates heaven and earth the reality is that it stands at the centre of our decaying world-thrust into the dirt to proclaim “God is here”‘ (p.185). In other words, the cross is no more than Jesus identifying with our suffering, sharing in the pathos of it. It is difficult to see how this helps us anymore than my injecting myself with the HIV virus would improve the lot of a friend who has AIDS.

The Lost Message of Jesus? An alarming, painful, dangerous book. More alarming is the fact that although the Word Alive leadership were made aware of its contents, it was not withdrawn from sale, nor was any statement made, and the author himself stood up to give the main Big Top address the following evening.

Andrew Sach & Mike Ovey,
Oak Hill College, London

66 Responses to “Review: The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke”

  1. James Griffin December 3, 2004 at 6:55 pm #

    I sense a “real sense of annoyance” in your comments Miriam!

    Also – please name these ‘most gifted academics’ and tell me where you heard they were trying to correct Steve?

    Peace!

  2. James Griffin December 3, 2004 at 7:55 pm #

    I sense a “real sense of annoyance” in your comments Miriam!

    Also – please name these ‘most gifted academics’ and tell me where you heard they were trying to correct Steve?

    Peace!

  3. Lyndon Drake December 12, 2004 at 9:25 pm #

    James,

    You have a valid point about which academics are opposing Steve Chalke’s “Lost Message” – while a number of people generally recognised as gifted at teaching theology (including, for example, several of the Oak Hill lecturers, and the leaders of the Evangelical Alliance), it would be exaggeration to describe them as the most gifted of our time.

    However, what Miriam was getting at (though I accept it was unclear from her comment) was that Chalke’s “Lost Message” is hardly a new or innovative departure from the truth, but simply a new packaging of an old error, and I think it is entirely fair to say that the most gifted evangelical scholars over many years have opposed this error.

    If we go as far back as the early church, it is possible to see distinct similarities between Steve Chalke’s teaching and that of the Gnostic and Marcionite heretics. Two points in particular stand out: Chalke’s dichotomy between the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament, and his view of Christ as primarily an emissary into darkness instead of the Saviour-King (see Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrine for an overview these heresies and those who opposed them).

    Chalke represents God’s revealed character in the Old Testament as an attempt to fit in with the cultural expectations of the nation of Israel: “Hence, Yahweh’s association with vengeance and violence wasn’t so much as expression of who he was but the result of his determination to be involved with his world. His unwillingness to distance himself from the people of Israel and their actions meant that at time he was implicated in the excessive acts of war that we see in some of the books of the Old Testament.” (Chalke, Lost Message of Jesus, page 48.) This is of course both an absurd reading of the Old Testament, and completely irreconcilable with the New Testament (for example, Peter not only ascribes to God responsibility for the destruction of the entire world in the flood, but tells us that God has reserved this world for destruction in the future – 2 Peter 3:5-7).

    Please don’t misunderstand me: I am not accusing Chalke of the Marcionite or Gnostic heresies, but I do want people to understand that some of Chalke’s ideas have been opposed since the beginning of the church. The first letter of John, and the works of early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian all oppose the teaching of the Gnostics.

    Specifically considering the doctrine of penal substitution, consider these four quotes from the church fathers, all teaching that Jesus died in order to bear God’s curse upon himself (both quotes taken from an article in Evangelicals Now by Garry Williams):

    … [Jesus] took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgement, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Ambrose of Milan

    As Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as he was, ever living in his own righteousness, but dying for our offences, he submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as he died in the flesh which he took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in his own righteousness, he was cursed for our offences, in the death which he suffered in bearing our punishment. Augustine

    Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that he might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment. Augustine

    The church fathers, in opposition to the heretics of their time, taught the doctrine of penal substitution and sought to correct those influenced by the heretics. The church fathers were undoubtedly gifted scholars and teachers of the Bible, used by God to oppose error in the first few centuries of the church.

    If we skip through a few centuries, we can turn to the writings of Calvin:

    … clothed with our flesh, [Jesus] warred to death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror; that the flesh which he received of us he offered in sacrifice, in order that by making expiation he might wipe away our guilt, and appease the just anger of his Father. Institutes, II.XII.3, p. 402.

    Then when he actually appeared, he declared the cause of his advent to be, that by appeasing God he might bring us from death unto life Institutes, p. 403

    Here he distinctly assigns as the reason for assuming our nature, that he might become a propitiatory victim to take away sin. Institutes, p. 404

    Again, while you might disagree with some of Calvin’s teachings, he is arguably the single most influential protestant scholar of any era. He was also incredibly gifted – his grasp of Greek and Hebrew and knowledge of the Bible resulted in him writing a set of commentaries are still widely read and studied by evangelicals today. Even his most notable opponent in terms of doctrine (Arminius), apparently said this about Calvin:

    After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other … I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read … For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers — so much that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all.

    All evangelical systematic theologies from this century teach the doctrine of penal substitution. Two examples should suffice. An entire chapter of Berkhof (1958) is devoted to the nature of the atonement, and to defending the doctrine of penal substitution from those opposed to it (interestingly, the objections covered by Berkhof include all those raised by Chalke). Grudem (1994, also available as Bible Doctrine, 1999) also devotes a whole chapter to the atonement and the importance of penal substitution. His summary is helpful:

    … Christ’s death met the four needs that we have as sinners:

    1. We deserve to die as the penalty for sin.

    2. We deserve to bear God’s wrath against sin.

    3. We are separated from God by our sins.

    4. We are in bondage to sin and to the kingdom of Satan.

    These four needs are met by Christ’s death in the following ways:

    1. Sacrifice. To pay the penalty of death that we deserved because of our sins, Christ died as a sacrifice for us. “He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb 9:26)

    2. Propitiation. To remove from us the wrath of God we deserved, Christ died as a propitiation for our sins. “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10)

    3. Reconciliation…

    4. Redemption…

    Bible Doctrine, p. 255

    Packer, also undoubtedly a gifted and widely influential evangelical scholar, taught (and still teaches!) the doctrine of penal substitution in opposition to the liberals of his day:

    When Paul tells us that God set forth Jesus to be a propitiation ‘by his blood’, his point is that what quenched God’s wrath and so redeemed us from death was not Jesus’s life or teaching, not his moral perfection nor his fidelity to the Father, as such, but the shedding of his blood in death. With the other New Testament writers, Paul always points to the death of Jesus as the atoning event, and explains the atonement in terms of representative substitution – the innocent taking the place of the guilty, in the name and for the sake of the guilty, under the axe of God’s judicial retribution. Packer, Knowing God, p. 210

    Finally, John Stott’s Cross of Christ has this to say:

    It is God himself who in holy wrath needs to be propitiated, God himself who in holy love, undertook to do the propitiating, and God himself who in the person of his Son died for the propitiation of our sins. Thus God took his own loving initiative to appease his own righteous anger by bearing it his own self in his own Son when he took our place and died for us. There is no crudity here to evoke our ridicule, only the profundity of holy love to evoke our worship. Stott, Cross of Christ, p. 161

    Chalke’s abandonment of the doctrine of penal substitution is nothing new, nor does it require the leading theologians of our day (such as Packer, Stott and Grudem) to specifically respond to Chalke when they have already spent a great deal of time and energy opposing Chalke’s repackaged old errors in their own writings. Chalke differs from earlier liberals in only two respects that I can perceive: he has written a book that is easy to read and widely popular; and for reasons that I cannot fathom he still wishes to be considered an evangelical, despite having abandoned one of the hallmark doctrines of evangelicalism. Chalke’s teachings have been opposed since the beginning of the church, and especially in the last few decades by men such as Packer and Stott.

  4. Lyndon Drake December 12, 2004 at 10:25 pm #

    James,

    You have a valid point about which academics are opposing Steve Chalke’s “Lost Message” – while a number of people generally recognised as gifted at teaching theology (including, for example, several of the Oak Hill lecturers, and the leaders of the Evangelical Alliance), it would be exaggeration to describe them as the most gifted of our time.

    However, what Miriam was getting at (though I accept it was unclear from her comment) was that Chalke’s “Lost Message” is hardly a new or innovative departure from the truth, but simply a new packaging of an old error, and I think it is entirely fair to say that the most gifted evangelical scholars over many years have opposed this error.

    If we go as far back as the early church, it is possible to see distinct similarities between Steve Chalke’s teaching and that of the Gnostic and Marcionite heretics. Two points in particular stand out: Chalke’s dichotomy between the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament, and his view of Christ as primarily an emissary into darkness instead of the Saviour-King (see Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrine for an overview these heresies and those who opposed them).

    Chalke represents God’s revealed character in the Old Testament as an attempt to fit in with the cultural expectations of the nation of Israel: “Hence, Yahweh’s association with vengeance and violence wasn’t so much as expression of who he was but the result of his determination to be involved with his world. His unwillingness to distance himself from the people of Israel and their actions meant that at time he was implicated in the excessive acts of war that we see in some of the books of the Old Testament.” (Chalke, Lost Message of Jesus, page 48.) This is of course both an absurd reading of the Old Testament, and completely irreconcilable with the New Testament (for example, Peter not only ascribes to God responsibility for the destruction of the entire world in the flood, but tells us that God has reserved this world for destruction in the future – 2 Peter 3:5-7).

    Please don’t misunderstand me: I am not accusing Chalke of the Marcionite or Gnostic heresies, but I do want people to understand that some of Chalke’s ideas have been opposed since the beginning of the church. The first letter of John, and the works of early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian all oppose the teaching of the Gnostics.

    Specifically considering the doctrine of penal substitution, consider these four quotes from the church fathers, all teaching that Jesus died in order to bear God’s curse upon himself (both quotes taken from an article in Evangelicals Now by Garry Williams):

    … [Jesus] took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgement, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Ambrose of Milan

    As Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as he was, ever living in his own righteousness, but dying for our offences, he submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as he died in the flesh which he took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in his own righteousness, he was cursed for our offences, in the death which he suffered in bearing our punishment. Augustine

    Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that he might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment. Augustine

    The church fathers, in opposition to the heretics of their time, taught the doctrine of penal substitution and sought to correct those influenced by the heretics. The church fathers were undoubtedly gifted scholars and teachers of the Bible, used by God to oppose error in the first few centuries of the church.

    If we skip through a few centuries, we can turn to the writings of Calvin:

    … clothed with our flesh, [Jesus] warred to death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror; that the flesh which he received of us he offered in sacrifice, in order that by making expiation he might wipe away our guilt, and appease the just anger of his Father. Institutes, II.XII.3, p. 402.

    Then when he actually appeared, he declared the cause of his advent to be, that by appeasing God he might bring us from death unto life Institutes, p. 403

    Here he distinctly assigns as the reason for assuming our nature, that he might become a propitiatory victim to take away sin. Institutes, p. 404

    Again, while you might disagree with some of Calvin’s teachings, he is arguably the single most influential protestant scholar of any era. He was also incredibly gifted – his grasp of Greek and Hebrew and knowledge of the Bible resulted in him writing a set of commentaries are still widely read and studied by evangelicals today. Even his most notable opponent in terms of doctrine (Arminius), apparently said this about Calvin:

    After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other … I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read … For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers — so much that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all.

    All evangelical systematic theologies from this century teach the doctrine of penal substitution. Two examples should suffice. An entire chapter of Berkhof (1958) is devoted to the nature of the atonement, and to defending the doctrine of penal substitution from those opposed to it (interestingly, the objections covered by Berkhof include all those raised by Chalke). Grudem (1994, also available as Bible Doctrine, 1999) also devotes a whole chapter to the atonement and the importance of penal substitution. His summary is helpful:

    … Christ’s death met the four needs that we have as sinners:

    1. We deserve to die as the penalty for sin.

    2. We deserve to bear God’s wrath against sin.

    3. We are separated from God by our sins.

    4. We are in bondage to sin and to the kingdom of Satan.

    These four needs are met by Christ’s death in the following ways:

    1. Sacrifice. To pay the penalty of death that we deserved because of our sins, Christ died as a sacrifice for us. “He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb 9:26)

    2. Propitiation. To remove from us the wrath of God we deserved, Christ died as a propitiation for our sins. “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10)

    3. Reconciliation…

    4. Redemption…

    Bible Doctrine, p. 255

    Packer, also undoubtedly a gifted and widely influential evangelical scholar, taught (and still teaches!) the doctrine of penal substitution in opposition to the liberals of his day:

    When Paul tells us that God set forth Jesus to be a propitiation ‘by his blood’, his point is that what quenched God’s wrath and so redeemed us from death was not Jesus’s life or teaching, not his moral perfection nor his fidelity to the Father, as such, but the shedding of his blood in death. With the other New Testament writers, Paul always points to the death of Jesus as the atoning event, and explains the atonement in terms of representative substitution – the innocent taking the place of the guilty, in the name and for the sake of the guilty, under the axe of God’s judicial retribution. Packer, Knowing God, p. 210

    Finally, John Stott’s Cross of Christ has this to say:

    It is God himself who in holy wrath needs to be propitiated, God himself who in holy love, undertook to do the propitiating, and God himself who in the person of his Son died for the propitiation of our sins. Thus God took his own loving initiative to appease his own righteous anger by bearing it his own self in his own Son when he took our place and died for us. There is no crudity here to evoke our ridicule, only the profundity of holy love to evoke our worship. Stott, Cross of Christ, p. 161

    Chalke’s abandonment of the doctrine of penal substitution is nothing new, nor does it require the leading theologians of our day (such as Packer, Stott and Grudem) to specifically respond to Chalke when they have already spent a great deal of time and energy opposing Chalke’s repackaged old errors in their own writings. Chalke differs from earlier liberals in only two respects that I can perceive: he has written a book that is easy to read and widely popular; and for reasons that I cannot fathom he still wishes to be considered an evangelical, despite having abandoned one of the hallmark doctrines of evangelicalism. Chalke’s teachings have been opposed since the beginning of the church, and especially in the last few decades by men such as Packer and Stott.

  5. Joseph Leblanc January 11, 2005 at 4:07 am #

    Hi i am very concerned regarding the above conversation. I have not looked at stevs book yet. However I am concerned that the dervision that has allready been caused. It seems most arguments for and against are missing the point. should our energy be on internall ranglings or preaching christ message.

  6. Joseph Leblanc January 11, 2005 at 5:07 am #

    Hi i am very concerned regarding the above conversation. I have not looked at stevs book yet. However I am concerned that the dervision that has allready been caused. It seems most arguments for and against are missing the point. should our energy be on internall ranglings or preaching christ message.

  7. Lyndon Drake January 12, 2005 at 8:26 pm #

    Of course the best thing would be if everyone preached Christ’s message. Unfortunately, many people (including me) think that Steve Chalke has turned away from Christ’s message so seriously that what he is teaching about the gospel message is simply false. The Bible clearly commands us to oppose false teaching and false teachers, and if we were to ignore false teaching then those who hear it and follow it will be led astray. There’s no point pretending we all agree with each other when we don’t: in fact, Steve Chalke’s book was intended in the first place to correct what he sees as an inaccurate understanding of Christ’s message. It should not generate surprise when other people point out the serious errors in what Chalke says.

    You might be interested in reading another article I wrote which explains in more detail why I believe it is important to oppose false teaching on central issues of the gospel.

  8. Lyndon Drake January 12, 2005 at 9:26 pm #

    Of course the best thing would be if everyone preached Christ’s message. Unfortunately, many people (including me) think that Steve Chalke has turned away from Christ’s message so seriously that what he is teaching about the gospel message is simply false. The Bible clearly commands us to oppose false teaching and false teachers, and if we were to ignore false teaching then those who hear it and follow it will be led astray. There’s no point pretending we all agree with each other when we don’t: in fact, Steve Chalke’s book was intended in the first place to correct what he sees as an inaccurate understanding of Christ’s message. It should not generate surprise when other people point out the serious errors in what Chalke says.

    You might be interested in reading another article I wrote which explains in more detail why I believe it is important to oppose false teaching on central issues of the gospel.

  9. James Griffin January 27, 2005 at 5:59 pm #

    Quote what you like Lyndon from people who like this wrathful God idea but Jesus knows most about God and one of His parables – which you know, is about a lost son.

    “While he was still far off the father ran to the son who had been lost and threw his arms around him.”

    The father in this story is likely to refer to God (!) and doesn’t seem to exhibit any wrath against his son at all. The father is wronged but forgives in order to restore a broken relationship…

    Also, Jesus teaches us not to be angry with one another…..be a bit hypocritical if God is angry with us.

    God is Love.

    Just a couple of thoughts.

  10. James Griffin January 27, 2005 at 6:59 pm #

    Quote what you like Lyndon from people who like this wrathful God idea but Jesus knows most about God and one of His parables – which you know, is about a lost son.

    “While he was still far off the father ran to the son who had been lost and threw his arms around him.”

    The father in this story is likely to refer to God (!) and doesn’t seem to exhibit any wrath against his son at all. The father is wronged but forgives in order to restore a broken relationship…

    Also, Jesus teaches us not to be angry with one another…..be a bit hypocritical if God is angry with us.

    God is Love.

    Just a couple of thoughts.

  11. Chris Kilgour February 9, 2005 at 11:36 pm #

    I’ve been watching this for a while, about time I stuck my oar in, I suppose.

    James, I agree with some of what you say above. It is true that Jesus knows more about God than we do – in fact Jesus is God (John 14:8-11), so it’s a pretty safe assumption that he knows more about God than anyone else. So it’s probably important to look at Jesus and try to get a feel for God. We can also see God’s character throughout the Bible, both Old and New testaments and we can learn about God from that as well.

    So, what do we see – God is a god of love. No argument there – but that’s not the whole aspect of it. Does God love me? Yes. Does God love the things I do? No, he doesn’t. So ‘God is love’ already needs qualifying.

    What about justice? ‘God is just’, would also seem to a a true statement about God.

    We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who do such things.Romans 2:2 (ESV)

    The anger of God also seems to be a theme throughout the Bible.

    But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.Romans 2:5 (ESV)

    So, yes God is love, but God is also just, and he is angry at our sin. After all,

    Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.John 3:36 (ESV)

    and

    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.Romans 6:23 (ESV)

    I really don’t think the Bible lets us entertain the idea that God isn’t angry with our sin. The Bible teaches us the price of sin is death. God’s justice means that the price has to be paid, God’s love means that by grace Jesus (that is, God) chose to pay that price on the cross.

  12. Chris Kilgour February 10, 2005 at 12:36 am #

    I’ve been watching this for a while, about time I stuck my oar in, I suppose.

    James, I agree with some of what you say above. It is true that Jesus knows more about God than we do – in fact Jesus is God (John 14:8-11), so it’s a pretty safe assumption that he knows more about God than anyone else. So it’s probably important to look at Jesus and try to get a feel for God. We can also see God’s character throughout the Bible, both Old and New testaments and we can learn about God from that as well.

    So, what do we see – God is a god of love. No argument there – but that’s not the whole aspect of it. Does God love me? Yes. Does God love the things I do? No, he doesn’t. So ‘God is love’ already needs qualifying.

    What about justice? ‘God is just’, would also seem to a a true statement about God.

    We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who do such things.Romans 2:2 (ESV)

    The anger of God also seems to be a theme throughout the Bible.

    But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.Romans 2:5 (ESV)

    So, yes God is love, but God is also just, and he is angry at our sin. After all,

    Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.John 3:36 (ESV)

    and

    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.Romans 6:23 (ESV)

    I really don’t think the Bible lets us entertain the idea that God isn’t angry with our sin. The Bible teaches us the price of sin is death. God’s justice means that the price has to be paid, God’s love means that by grace Jesus (that is, God) chose to pay that price on the cross.

  13. Chris Kilgour February 9, 2005 at 11:48 pm #

    Didn’t want to mix two points up, so here’s a quick reply to the second point.

    The key difference between God’s anger and ours is that God’s is a righteous and justified anger. This isn’t an emotional, reactionary anger, but the predictable response of a holy God to sin. Romans 1-2 paint a pretty clear picture of this. For that matter, large parts of the Old Testament show God’s response to sin as well. Fortunately that isn’t the whole picture.

    Mark 3:1-6 shows Jesus getting angry – maybe he was wrong?

  14. Chris Kilgour February 10, 2005 at 12:48 am #

    Didn’t want to mix two points up, so here’s a quick reply to the second point.

    The key difference between God’s anger and ours is that God’s is a righteous and justified anger. This isn’t an emotional, reactionary anger, but the predictable response of a holy God to sin. Romans 1-2 paint a pretty clear picture of this. For that matter, large parts of the Old Testament show God’s response to sin as well. Fortunately that isn’t the whole picture.

    Mark 3:1-6 shows Jesus getting angry – maybe he was wrong?

  15. Dr. Albert Mulligan March 2, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    I find it hard to believe that a man like Mr. Chalk can call himself a Christian when in fact he denies the fundalmental principles of the Christian Faith. Jesus states we must be born again and I believe in this. Mr Chalk with his understanding will have to ask “Born again” why? He states that he would not follow a God who “Abuses” his Son.” What a load of rubbish. Mr. Chalk. Stop preaching your falshood and repent.
    Dr. Albert P Mulligan.

  16. Lyndon Drake March 2, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    Albert, while I agree that we should oppose false teaching, do you not think that calling Steve Chalke's faith into question is going too far? Many other genuine Christians have held to wrong beliefs (I know I have), and some have even taught them widely. The Apostle Peter is surely the clearest example of this.
    BTW, the infamous reference to abuse in The Lost Message is a straw man – a mischaracterisation of the doctrine of penal substitution which is of course impossible to agree with.

Leave a Reply:

Gravatar Image

You must be logged in to post a comment.