About seven years ago Dr. Rod Rosenbladt gave a series of talks at the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, Alabama. It is not an understatement to say that the following two quotes from that event literally changed my life. I felt like I was given a clear picture of the Gospel for the very first time, and looking back, I realize that the long, bumpy road to seminary (and a mid-stream career change) began that day. These are both from the first part of his Saturday morning lecture. He spent about an hour doing some theology with us from Romans 3, 4 and 5. Please forgive me if these aren’t exact quotes! I have transcribed them from a very worn-out CD of the lecture.
First, the diagnosis:
Now, look specifically at Romans 3, verses 19-20. I want to specifically focus on what it says about purpose of the law: “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.”
This is the point to which the apostle has been relentlessly grinding forward. The idolatrous and immoral Gentiles are ‘without excuse’. The Jews equally ‘have no excuse’. The special status of the Jews does not exonerate them.
In fact, all the inhabitants of the whole world, without any exception, are inexcusable before God, because all have known something of God and of morality, but all have disregarded and even stifled their knowledge in order to go their own way. All are guilty and condemned before God and without excuse.
Paul states in Verse 19 the purpose of the law is that “every mouth be silenced”. The purpose of the law is to shut our mouths, stop us in mid-excuse and hold us accountable to God. When confronted with the law we will shut our mouths. All of the excuses we learned to use so early in life will immediately fail us. We won’t say a word. As the verse goes on to say, the whole world will be held accountable to God.
In the end, God will assign one of two grades, 0 or 100, he does not grade on the curve and he will not hear our excuses. Those who have perfectly lived the law in thought, word and deed will be counted as righteous. Others like myself will be utterly doomed, check mate. Of course, Paul said earlier that “there is no one righteous, not even one”. None of us can place our hope in the law.
Now what does it all mean?You and I as Adam’s children not only are ungodly, not only infected from top to bottom with sin—we can’t fix ourselves. Now this is difficult to say in our postmodern American society. It’s counter-cultural. We believe we can fix anything, even ourselves: Positive thinking, a couple of self-help courses, and all will be fine. But the Bible, especially Romans 3 says we’re wrong. I stand guilty before God and there’s nothing I can do to change that. My sentence is a just one and it is death.
Heavy stuff, no doubt. Now here’s the cure:
Now God could have erased this world and no one could have accused him of injustice if he had done that, but he did not. While under no obligation at all to us rebels he instead put in motion a plan in which he freely, graciously, and at tremendous cost to himself satisfied his own justice in our place. Into my hopeless situation Paul speaks of God acting to rescue me anyway.
Let’s look at Chapter 5, verses 6 and 7: “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
The language of Christianity is the language of substitution. It is not primarily the language of morals. God is not presented as a mother saying “eat all your vegetables”. Instead, Christianity is about a one-sided rescue, that we didn’t want and certainly didn’t deserve, and he did it anyway. At the cross, Paul says God made Jesus to be sin, who himself knew no sin. Peter says he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.
Now how can this be just? How can God reckon like this? The answer is in Romans 3:24: gratuitously, or by his grace, through the ransoming that is in connection with Christ Jesus. It is not arbitrary, it’s not capricious, it’s not unjust for God to do this. If God died for us in Christ, God has every right having satisfied his own justice, by taking it all in our stead, to give us whatever he wants to give us.
In other words, God has his right to save us for free! He’s the one who allowed himself in Christ to be crucified for our sin. He has the right to give us eternal life. Having died in our place, he has a right to reckon to us a righteousness that isn’t really ours. And he does!
COMMENTS
17 responses to “Two Rod Rosenbladt Quotes That Changed My Life”
Leave a Reply
Jeff,
Great quote! Thanks for this. I posted a link over at the NRP blog so people can see what you guys are posting over here in preparation for next week.
Also, I wanted to say that I've got the audio files which I think comprise the CDs you've worn down to a nub. If you email me, maybe I can send you a new copy to listen to? Or some MP3s which you could use to burn your own through iTunes?
Thanks again. I'm SO sad I won't be there next week. Maybe I can get out there for another one of your events like this at another time.
Now THAT is substitutionary atonement!!! Thanks for the great quotes, Jeff.
Michael,
this quote: Instead, Christianity is about a one-sided rescue, that we didn’t want and certainly didn’t deserve, and he did it anyway. .
Is exactly where Forde is going with his view of the Atonement. I will be interested to hear where he and Rod disagree, because this is certainly not a clear example.
The question is not (nor has it ever been) about substitution, because everybody (at least here) believes that we require a substitutionary atonement.
anyway, I'm sure we'll be able to work this all out over a few beers next week:)
see you soon!
"Now God could have erased this world and no one could have accused him of injustice if he had done that, but he did not. While under no obligation at all to us rebels he instead put in motion a plan in which he freely, graciously, and at tremendous cost to himself satisfied his own justice in our place."
Jady, it is this quote from Rosenbladt that, as I understand it anyway, reflects a very different view of the atonement than that of Forde. My understanding of a purely "subjective" view of the atonement is not really "substitutionary" at all, except in some highly abstract way. But if you buy the first round, I could be persuaded to concede the point.
Michael,
That line you just quoted is my favorite line from the whole lecture…it really goes straight to the heart of the matter.
See you soon!
Sounds good!
Jady–This is deep weeds, to be sure. As far as being "more abstract", what I said was, if we are to call a PURELY subjective view of the atonement "substitutionary" (which I don't think it is at all) it can only be in some highly esoteric, abstract way of God "doing for me what I can't "do for myself." But, "do what" "for me"? and what exactly IS it that "I can't do for myself"? All this is usually undefined, or defined in purely psychological terms of my "feeling" of being "condemned." In my view ,anyway (big deal and so what :)) the "cross" can become a cleaned-up metaphor to illustrate the "idea" that God has "put to death" any notion of Him being a "God of wrath." Now, I want to be clear I agree that the "objective" substitutionary atonement has a powerful subjective and psychological beneficial effect. But that is not the issue here, as I see it.
I was a little shocked when I first read Forde's essay in _A More Radical Gospel_ to see his views on the atonement, considering that _On Being a Theologian of the Cross_ is so good.
I think that Forde is trying to argue that any notion of God being "wrathful" is an OT idea that God has rejected "on the Cross." I don't find that to be the case in the NT at all. Peter's first sermon after Pentecost is full of "condemnation" and Jesus says much about future condemnation in the gospels. As for the idea that the God of the post-Cross NT is not full of holy and justified "wrath"
against sin, Ananias and Sapphira might beg to differ.
In any event, I hope that I am wrong about Forde, and that I have misread him on this. But most of all, I look forward to seeing you next week!
Jady, My comment above is in response to your comment that somehow disappeared while I was writing my comment. This "internets" stuff is sure weird sometimes.
Sorry Michael! I deleted my earlier comments because I was not completely comfortable arguing from a position that I don't know if I actually hold. Yes, this would not be the first, but since it is so near and dear to our hearts, I thought it could wait a week!
I'm with you about being uncomfortable about Forde's essay–and it may turn out that I'm trying to read into him something that is not there. But, it is no small thing to say that his book "On Being. . . "changed my life. So, I've got to wrestle with where THAT was coming from, and it is taking me down a different path—but that's why they call it "research," (even w/a supervisor who is the Dogmatics chair!:)
I am hopeful (confident?) that this may be an aspect of Forde that we either have to qualify or reject, but I'm sort of neck deep in his thinking right now, so perhaps, in this respect, I should not be spared the Rod:) haha!
Love to you, my friend!
See you all soon:)
Jady
Jady–That's funny–as a lawyer, about %50 of the time I am getting paid to argue from positions that I "don't actually hold" 😉
Awesome, Thank God for Jesus Christ which by His work and not our own has given to us fallen, sinful, and wretched humans His perfect and righteous life. Thank God for His substitutionary atonement through the works of the Son Jesus Christ!
"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom.2:13
FYI the law of God has had a change made to it by Jesus' crucifixion. See Rom.5:20 & Heb.7:12. This fact exposes the theoretical assumptive "in place of" to be in error. No person has obtained a direct benefit from any man's death whenever the cause of death is bloodshed. For if the bloodshed of any man could result in resolving of all outstanding issues God holds in reserve any man's life taken by bloodshed would be the resolution. Actually the crucifixion of Jesus regarding that his life was taken by bloodshed is the satisfactory base for combining two immutable things. See Heb. 6. These two immutable things are the oath of God, Gen. 9:5, and the law, Repent, the command given through the apostles. Therefore the only Way the crucifixion of Jesus is an advantage to any individual is by the faith of confessing directly to God that you are sorry Jesus' life was lost by bloodshed. For if not you disobey a law for which it impossible to be forgiven.
@Theodore You're taking the texts out of their contexts which clearly refute your position. Read them in context and you'll see law and gospel, sin and grace.
But Forde clearly denied the substitutionary atonement, and that Christ reconciled us to the Father through the imposition of His blood against God’s wrath. Forde also denied that the Bible is the Word of God, and so on.
How can it be that Anglicans and Reformed are glomming onto Gerhard Forde? He denied the eternal law, natural law, and law in its 3rd use, essential doctrines of the universal Church believed in and taught by orthodox Lutherans.