J.I. Packer wrote the following in the introduction to In My Place Condemned He Stood: Celebrating the Glory of the Atonement co-authored by him and Mark Dever. Just before these words he explained the atoning work of Christ as an act involving the entire God-head and then follows with this counter to those who criticize the idea of Jesus dying to receive the wrath of God in our place.
Since all this was planned by the holy Three in their eternal solidarity of mutual love, and since the Father’s central purpose in it all was and is to glorify the Son as Savior and Head of a new humanity, smartypants notions like “divine child abuse” as a comment on the cross are supremely silly and as irreverent and wrong as they could possibly be.
I am sure that some find this offensive, but before someone calls J.I. Packer unloving, it should be noted that he is attacking the idea and not the people who hold them. Also, can we argue with the logic? If Scripture teaches that Jesus atoned for God’s wrath, and I believe based on Scriptural evidence that it does, it follows that it is “silly” to disagree with God and say anything else. I would go beyond irreverent, and say it is close to blasphemous to call the greatest act of divine love ever expressed “divine child abuse.”
I have just started reading this book. It is has been very good thus far, and I am looking forward to reading the rest.
CA DAWG Thoughts and Links 