is a well-written book and a skilfully designed website. You can get a good feel for the book from the site, where you can read relevant articles and extracts from the book, download music and talks, and also read news about reactions to the book.
Pierced for our transgressions is a restatement of the bible's message about Jesus' death for our sins. Some people in our world are revolted by the idea of Jesus taking the punishment due to us and are calling it cosmic child abuse. The book's authors deal with objections to this key Christian teaching, and show that it is not a Johnny-come-lately, but has been believed and taught throughout the history of the Christian church.
This may be one of the most important books of the decade. It is comprehensive without being complicated; profound but not pretentious. The authors honestly deal with the issue of Christ's death for us and all that it means.
This is a book for everyone who loves Jesus Christ, and loves the message of his death for us to read and re-read. It is also an excellent starting-point for getting an overview of the main ideas of the Christian message.
Highly recommended.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
David, have you seen the criticism of this book by Bishop Tom Wright? Is it fair? There has been a lot of discussion of this and related issues over the last week or so, see for example Adrian Warnock's blog and mine
Hi Peter.
I've been following the discussion with interest. If Tom Wright is following the discussion sufficiently, and is aware of Mr Chalke's later comments confirming that it is penal substitutionary atonement itself with which he takes issue, and not some weak caricature, I don't understand why he is going in to bat for him, and taking potshots at the three genlemen from Oak Hill.
Wright is surely aware of Chalke's 2004 comments about his 2003 book, and took this into account when discussing the issue with him apparently recently. The issue, as you will understand from my latest post, is one of definitions. It seems to me that Chalke, because he was rather unclear, has been seriously misunderstood. I don't know why Wright is not allowed to put the record straight, but instead is being vilified for reporting what Chalke actually has to say for himself.
Post a Comment