There is a long history of division over penal substitution in church history, particularly in the
Way back in 1910 The Split between The CICCU and SCM was precisely over the centrality of penal substitution. The Leaders of SCM at the time didn't deny penal substitution. They merely denied its centrality. IVF (later renamed UCCF) came from those root in
To refuse to allow someone who not only denies the doctrine, but likens it to child abuse is therefore utterly consistent with the roots and foundation of UCCF.
5 comments:
Mike,
I think that your historical link is absolutely right but haven't there been failures? One might wonder how it is that IVP managed to publish Joel Green and Mark Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts for example.
John, I think the issue is that the UCCF is a partner of the IVP-UK...
The IVP-USA is a different publisher which does have links to the IFES movement. It seems they have somewhat lower standards on many issues, sadly.
Thanks, Dave,
I should have picked up on the British/US distinction myself. That does make all the difference here, I suspect and Mike's heading is therefore absolutely right.
Joyfully, IVP-UK brings us John Stott's The Cross of Christ, Mark Meynell's Cross-examined and the new Pierced for our Transgressions.
Yes, though it is true that IVF/IVP over in the states have the same ROOTS as UCCF in the UK, it would not be accurate to suggest that they have remained as true to those roots.
The famous 1947 meetings in Boston saw the birth of IFES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fellowship_of_Evangelical_Students
This shows that though there are share roots of UCCF (associated with IVP-UK) and IVF (associated with IVP-USA) there is more consistency with those roots in the UK. To read more on these roots, Iain Murray's biography of Lloyd-Jones has a great chapter on this - Volume 2, Ch8.
Post a Comment