Module review

In Christianity and Liberalism (1923) Machen compared liberal and historic answers doctrine by doctrine and concluded that liberalism kept Christian vocabulary while changing its meaning, so it was a different religion. The same test shows deep differences in progressive Christianity. On Scripture, historic faith receives the Bible as God-breathed and the supreme judge (2 Tim 3:16; WCF 1.10), while progressives treat it as a human record judged by conscience. On the cross, Christ is the propitiation for our sins (Rom 3:25; 1 John 4:10), while many progressives see only an example or a protest against violence. On judgement, Jesus taught eternal punishment (Matt 25:46), which progressives commonly deny; and on exclusivity, Jesus is the only way (John 14:6), while the 8 Points call his teaching 'one of many ways'. Paul says a changed gospel is no gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Yet views vary widely, so we must not assume any one person holds all of this, and the Lord's servant must be kind and correct with gentleness, trusting God to grant repentance (2 Tim 2:24-25).

• Machen's doctrine-by-doctrine thesis
• at least four doctrines compared with texts
• 8 Points quoted accurately
• Gal 1:6-9 and Jude 3
• views vary; gentleness (2 Tim 2:24-25)

Wanting Jesus at the centre is right, but the only Jesus we know comes from Scripture, and he treated Scripture as God's word that 'cannot be broken' (John 10:35). He said not an iota of the Law would pass away (Matt 5:17-18), quoted the narrator of Genesis 2:24 as what the Creator said (Matt 19:4-5), accepted the flood and Sodom as real judgements (Luke 17:26-30), and authorised the apostles through the Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13). So a Jesus-shaped reading must share his view of the Bible. The trajectory argument fails because Scripture regulated slavery but never grounded it in creation, and its own movement runs back to creation (Gen 1:27; Philem 16; 1 Tim 1:10), whereas Jesus grounds marriage in creation 'from the beginning' (Matt 19:4-8). New Testament sexual ethics become stricter, not looser (Matt 5:27-28), and even William Webb found no movement toward accepting same-sex relationships. A trajectory beyond the text has no stopping point except the culture, which makes us the final authority. I would ask, 'If a text clashed with your values, would you ever let it change your mind?'

• Jesus' view: John 10:35; Matt 5:17-18; 19:4-5
• Jesus authorised the apostles
• slavery regulated, marriage grounded in creation
• Webb found no movement on homosexuality
• culture becomes the authority; a good question

The phrase comes from Chalke and Mann's The Lost Message of Jesus (2003), and if the cross were an angry father beating an unwilling child it would be monstrous. But Father and Son are one God with one saving will, so Stott rightly called the cross 'the self-substitution of God'; the Son lays down his life of his own accord (John 10:18), and the cross shows the Father's love rather than buying it (John 3:16; Rom 5:8). God put Christ forward as a propitiation so that he might be 'just and the justifier' (Rom 3:25-26), and John defines love as sending the Son to be that propitiation (1 John 4:10): love absorbing wrath. Christus Victor and moral influence are true, but the victory follows the cancelling of our debt (Col 2:14-15). On universalism, Bell reads Matthew 25:46 as a limited age of 'pruning', but the same adjective aionios describes both the punishment and the life, and kolasis means punishment. Love does not win by denying the danger; it wins at the cross for all who come to Christ, which is why the invitation is urgent.

• source of the phrase and its moral concern
• Trinity, Son's freedom, Father's love
• Rom 3:25-26 and 1 John 4:10
• Bell's aion/kolasis reading answered
• urgency of the invitation

A strong reply thanks her for caring about people and admits honestly that some churches have been cruel or hypocritical, which calls for repentance. It states Vines' view fairly: the Bible never directly addresses, and certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships. It then starts with God's good design: Jesus joins Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to define marriage as one man and one woman (Matt 19:4-6), and sex belongs only there (Heb 13:4), which judges heterosexual lust as much as anything. It answers the exploitation claim from Romans 1:26-27, which includes women, describes mutual desire 'for one another' and appeals to creation, and from arsenokoitai, which likely echoes the Greek of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. It shows that Jesus' fruit test checks teaching against God's word and does not let pain overturn it. It notes that Romans 1:32 makes approving sin serious, so this is not a matter of indifference. It closes with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 'such were some of you. But you were washed', identity in Christ rather than desire, and a concrete step of friendship or hospitality.

• acknowledges real church failures
• states Vines fairly
• creation design (Matt 19:4-6; Heb 13:4)
• Rom 1:26-27 and arsenokoitai answered
• 1 Cor 6:11 hope and practical hospitality