The Apostles' Creed

William Barclay has attempted to give the Church a contemporary manifesto in analyzing the Apostles' Creed. However, I can only say "attempted" since he has given way too much ground to theological liberalism.

While I can certainly appreciate his detailed analysis of the Creed (324 pages worth), and while we certainly need to be humble in our approach to truth, I feel that Barclay has waffled on some important issues, rendering the heart force of the Christian faith a mere paper tiger.

For example: In his analysis of "I believe ... in the forgiveness of sins" he maintains that Jesus did not die instead of us but for us. He doesn't believe there is a shred of evidence in the New Testament that the Atonement contains an element of Substitution about it. He argues that it would be totally unjust for a totally just God to pour out his wrath on the sinless Jesus. He then explains that the language of sacrifice was used because the early writers were Jews ... and to Jews sacrifice only meant the means of restoring right relationship between God and Man.

So how does he work out this quandary he has created for himself? On the one hand he proclaims that Scripture doesn't teach substitionary atonement. On the other hand he acknowledges Scripture is full of sacrificial language regarding the death of Jesus. What is his solution?

Until Jesus came no one knew what God was like. In Jesus we see what God is like ... particularly the love of God. In Jesus we see God's love for his enemies ... and if Jesus had stopped short of the Cross ... then there would have been a point beyond which the love of God would not go.

While this all might "feel" nice, the truth is that which Scripture might well teach that there is not a point beyond which the love of God will not go (except against human free will), this in no wise captures the whole of the love of God nor of the justice of God. In the Old Testament forgiveness came only with the sacrifice of blood (Hebrews 9:22). The whole of the book of Hebrews is that Jesus's death fulfilled the Temple ritual system in one final act that forever made reconciliation with God possible ... not only mere reconciliation but transformation into his image. "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:12-14; ESV).

I'm afraid that if you exclude the full picture of God (which includes his wrath) you arrive at an impotent picture of his love. God's love is one that is transformative even in the vilest of men. Barclay's version of God's love is transfixed on weak victim-pity, which doesn't require transformation in depraved man.