Book Review: “In My Place Condemned He Stood”

 

In My Place Condemned He Stood: Celebrating the Glory of the Atonement. J. I Packer and Mark Dever. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007, 188 pp., $16.99, paperback.

 

The doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement is falling on hard times. Modern day theologians, pastors, and people in the pew view the idea of penal substitution as something completely horrific and foreign to the teachings of Scripture. To think that God had to punish Christ in our place is something that seems strangely outside the teaching that God is love. Yet, at the heart of the Scriptures is the teaching that man has spurned God and now is not able to pay the penalty for his sin and therefore needs someone to pay the penalty for him. Only God can pay the penalty of sin that was committed against God. Therefore Christ must come and take our place. He is our substitute. This is the very heart of redemption.

 

J. I. Packer and Mark Dever have done the church a favour with this helpful collection of pieces on the topic of the atonement. Packer is the Board of Governors’ professor of Theology at Regent College, Vancouver and Dever is senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington. Both men have contributed much for the cause of Christ in their years. Now, some of Packer’s best teaching on the atonement, and Dever’s highly acclaimed piece on the topic, appear together in one attractive and well priced book. Crossway should be commended for this release.

 

The genesis of this book comes out of that evangelical powerhouse foursome of Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and C. J. Mahaney. These men are well known individually and as those at the heart of Together for the Gospel. Commenting on how important Packer’s writing on the topic of the atonement had been in their lives, it was thought that these works needed to be released again for a new generation. Dever approached Packer on this and Packer agreed as long as Dever’s article on the topic from Christianity Today was also included. He agreed, and In My Place Condemned He Stood was born.

 

Packer introduces the book with a brief look at atonement, penal substitution, and redemption and sets the stage for the other treatises in the book. In “The Heart of the Gospel” (originally a chapter from Packer’s Knowing God) looks at the issue of propitiation (“averting God’s anger by an offering”) sets the stage for the need for penal substitution with the reality that God is angered at man and that anger needs to be appeased. It needs to be atoned for.

 

Packer goes on in “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution” (originally the Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture in 1973) to survey approaches to viewing the death of Christ in the church. He concludes, that penal substitution is necessary and logical, because God’s wrath needs to be appeased. Therefore the cross is directed at propitiating God first, and then second turns humankind toward Him. Penal substitution is completely logical when you look at the reality of sin and the sinner’s relationship to God.

 

Next Dever looks at criticisms of penal substitution in “Nothing But the Blood.” Dever’s chapter is quite important to the book as a whole because it deals with the current issues and debates surrounding the atonement. It is good to interact with opposing views and identify where the current trends are going on a theological issue so one can better present the Scriptural teaching.

 

Finally, Packer’s “Saved by His Precious Blood: An Introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” is probably worth the price of the book. This was originally written as an introduction to Owen’s book on the topic of limited atonement. Owen, and Packer, defends vigorously the teaching that Christ died for the elect. This article by Packer has been used in many a questioning mind to bring them fully over to the Calvinistic understanding of the atonement. It is a fitting look at how that penal substitutionary atonement is applied.

 

Dever and Packer conclude by expressing the reality that to be Christ-centered one must be cross-centered. Ligon Duncan rounds out the book with annotated reading lists on the topic of the atonement.

 

At the heart of the ministry is the atoning work of Christ. As Paul said, we preach Christ and Him crucified. No pastor, ministry leader, or Christian for that matter, can afford to not think through the scriptural teaching on the atonement. Particularly we need to see the reality of the death the unbeliever is in. Our synergistic approach to salvation, so prevalent in today’s society, needs to be eradicated from our thoughts. Dead means dead. The unbeliever has no power to save himself or even to participate with God in saving him. He is dead in trespasses and sins. He has angered God and that anger needs to be appeased. The ultimate sacrifice necessary to appease the anger of an infinite God is in the matchless death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. He stood in our place condemned so we could be redeemed. He paid the penalty in our stead. This is the very foundation of salvation.

 

These issues are not abstract and scholarly. They are at the very heart of the Gospel message. As the Bliss wrote in his hymn, “Guilty, vile, and helpless we; Spotless Lamb of God was He; ‘Full atonement! Can it be? Hallelujah! What a Savior!” Hallelujah for the great lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world through his death on the cross. Praise the Lord that He stood in my place condemned so I might have salvation.

 

Packer and Dever have done an incredible service to the church. All believers no matter the theological persuasion need to read this book and meditate on the reality of the penal substitutionary atoning work of Christ. Cannot be more highly recommended!

 

 

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to Book Review: “In My Place Condemned He Stood”

  1. Theodore A. Jones says:

    Happened upon your site and gald you’ve not as yet gone under an umbrella. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement does not just have opposition in the contemporary religious era. The first opposition occurred when Noah got off the boat. There is no instance of any man loosing his life by bloodshed that results in not having to account to God. Gen. 9:5. I am not writting to you for advice but will make the attempt to give you some. In Jn. 16:8 Jesus says very plainly that guilt relative to sin still is the outstanding issue for you, but this is AFTER his crucifixion. The major vunerability of the theory of substitutionary atonement is there not being any loose ends. I think you need to take a look at the parable of the tenants and read what Jesus says God’s intent is toward the son’s having been killed. For you say Jesus’ crucifixion has resolved all issues between you and God but that’s not the out come for some, but Christ died for all. You can see friend that the resolution for sins was at Pentecost and hinges on obedience in regard to the sacrifice. What sin did those people repent of?

  2. Allen Mickle says:

    Greetings Brother Theodore,

    Thank you for your comment. I really am not sure I am following your thought here (and that may be because of my lack of ability to do so!). Genesis 9:5 argues of course for death to be required of all who kill another human. Essentially what God is arguing here is capital punishment. Are we on the same page as this?

    Jon 16:8, in the context of comment by Jesus of what the Holy Spirit will do in the world following the ascension of Christ. This will be the work of the Spirit to convict the world of guilt in relation to sin, righteousness, and judgment. I am not sure how this has bearing on the doctrine of substitution?

    Perhaps there are no loose ends to substitutionary atonement, but does that make it weak? I am unsure I follow. With regards to the parable of teh tenants it is clear God’s intent to those who have killed Jesus is destruction. I am unsure again why this is a problem for substitutionary atonement.

    How did Christ die for all? I of course hold to particular atonement and therefore Christ died efficaciouslyfor the elect only. Therefore Christ’s death did resolve all issues between me and God and will ultimately resolve all issues between God and man in general through judgment.

    I think you need to flesh out for me what you mean by the resolution for sins was at Pentecost? Do you mean the call to “repent and be baptized?” No one is arguing here that repenetance is unnecessary for atonement to be applied salvifically? I’m sorry, I’m just rather confused by your statements here. Perhaps you can clarify some of these things?

    Thank you brother!

    Allen Mickle

  3. Johnb291 says:

    Some really quality blog posts on this internet site , saved to fav. becdkcdfgbdg

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: