from the Episcopalian Church, has written this blasphemous little tome just in time for Easter this year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/lent_talks/scripts/jeffreyjohn.html
Al Mohler wrote the following rebuttal about this here:
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=915
The one glaring error in John's speech is that he only quotes Scripture from the point of view of refuting it with his own sinful, depraved emotional feelings about the truth. It is truly sickening. How does a man who clearly rejects Scripture continue to be a leader in the Anglican Church?
And then finally, at the end of it all, he got himself crucified. Crucifixion may or may not be the worst form of torture in the world, but it had a particular theological significance we mustn't miss. As St Paul explains, crucifixion was the method of execution which, according to the Law, was the special sign of God's ultimate punishment, his absolute curse: "Cursed be he that hangs upon a tree". On the cross, says Paul, Jesus took the place of all those who were supposed to be punished according to the Law. "God made him into sin who knew no sin". "He became a curse for us".
But hang on - you may well say - what exactly does that mean - 'Jesus took our place' ? Does it mean, then, that we are back with a punishing God after all, and that the Cross is somehow to be understood as God's ultimate punishment for sin?
That's certainly what I was told in my Calvinistic childhood. The explanation I was given went something like this. God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place. The blood of Jesus paid the price of our sins, and because of him God stopped being angry with us. In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him.
Well, I don't know about you, but even at the age of ten I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we'd say they were a monster.
Well, I haven't changed my mind since. That explanation of the cross just doesn't work, though sadly it's one that's still all too often preached. It just doesn't make sense to talk about a nice Jesus down here, placating the wrath of a nasty, angry Father God in heaven. Christians believe Jesus is God incarnate. As he said, 'Whoever sees me has seen the Father'. Jesus is what God is: he is the one who shows us God's nature. And the most basic truth about God's nature is that He is Love, not wrath and punishment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/lent_talks/scripts/jeffreyjohn.html
Al Mohler wrote the following rebuttal about this here:
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=915
The one glaring error in John's speech is that he only quotes Scripture from the point of view of refuting it with his own sinful, depraved emotional feelings about the truth. It is truly sickening. How does a man who clearly rejects Scripture continue to be a leader in the Anglican Church?