Just as God did for his Son, so for his adopted sons he is always at work turning bad situations ultimately (whether in this life or later) into good ones, reversing defeat into victory. This general principle of ironic reversion, according to which God is constantly working in favor of his people, is set forth lucidly in this twenty-eighth verse: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God,” those who have trusted in Christ’s saving death (see also Rom. 8:30–34). Roman Christians to whom Paul was writing needed to be reminded of this truth since they were undergoing various forms of suffering and persecution because of their faith. Just as we today might be tempted to feel forsaken by God, so Paul’s original readers were fearful that their lamentable circumstances could be an indication that God had abandoned and forgotten them. 

Bringing Good Out of Evil
The life of the Christian is based on and modeled after that of Jesus Christ. Christ persevered in his faith in spite of pressures to compromise and was killed because of it. Nevertheless, his death was reversed into life and was overcome through resurrection. Jesus’s ironic overcoming is pictured in Revelation 5:5–6, 11–12:
Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah. . . . And I saw . . . a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain. . . . And I heard the voice of many angels . . . saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”
Jesus conquered the forces of evil through both his death and his resurrection. John first hears that Jesus overcame as a lion (Rev. 5:5), but when he sees a vision of his Lord, he perceives exactly in what manner Jesus won his victory: Jesus overcame by being overcome at the cross. The cross itself was an invisible victory over satanic forces and was subsequently expressed visibly in his resurrection body. So the Lamb slew his spiritual opponents by allowing himself to be slain temporarily (see Rev. 1:18; cf. 4:67 and 5:5–6 with 15:21). This is why immediately before his death he told his disciples, “Take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).Christians should reflect in their lives the same paradoxical pattern of their Lord’s life. We also must persevere in faith through temptations to compromise. When we remain steadfast in belief, we also, like our Savior, will suffer tribulation. Yet our victory lies in the continued maintenance of faith in the face of discouraging circumstances. Jesus says, “If any one wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Matt. 16:24). Christ is saying not merely that we should model our lives after his life but that it must be so modeled, and will be, if we are genuine believers. Christians must overcome through faith while suffering, as Jesus did.
God Works for Our Good
It is helpful to focus on Romans 8:28 in its immediate context in Romans 8. Just as God did for his Son, so for his adopted sons he is always at work turning bad situations ultimately (whether in this life or later) into good ones, reversing defeat into victory.
Read More
Related Posts:

Of all the atonement views, only penal substitution best captures the God-centered nature of the cross. The alternatives either minimize or deny 1) that God’s holy justice is essential to him, 2) why our sin is first against God (Ps. 51:4), and 3) why Christ as our penal substitute is central to the cross. Before we can speak of the horizontal results of the cross (e.g., moral example, inter-personal reconciliation, etc.), we must first speak of the vertical: namely the triune God, in his Son, taking his own demand on himself so that we, in Christ, may be justified before him (Rom. 5:1–2). The other views miss this point. For them, the object of the cross is either our sin (forms of recapitulation), or Satan (ransom theory), or the powers (forms of Christus Victor). But what they fail to see is that the primary person we have sinned against is God, and as such, the ultimate object of the cross is God himself.

Trying to state all that our Lord Jesus achieved in his glorious work is difficult given its multi-faceted aspects. John Calvin sought to grasp the comprehensive nature of Christ’s work by the munus triplex—Christ’s threefold office as our new covenant head and mediator—prophet, priest, and king. What Calvin sought to avoid was reductionism, the “cardinal” sin of theology. Yet, although there is a danger in prioritizing one aspect of our Lord’s work, Scripture does stress the centrality of Christ’s priestly office and his sacrificial death for our sins (Matt. 1:21; 1 Cor. 15:3–4). And given the centrality of Christ’s cross, it is crucial that we explain it correctly.
However, one problem we face is that, throughout church history, there have been a number of atonement theologies. Unlike the ecumenical confessions of Nicaea and Chalcedon that established orthodox Trinitarian and Christological doctrine, there is no catholic confession regarding the cross. From this fact, some have concluded that no one view best explains what is central to the cross—a conclusion I reject. The truth is that despite an ecumenical confession, all Christians have agreed that Christ’s death “is for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3) resulting in our reconciliation with God.
While conceptual clarity of the doctrine occurred over time, similar to other doctrines, clarity and precision was achieved, as various atonement debates occurred. Specifically, it was during the Reformation and post-Reformation eras, building on the work of people like Anselm, that conceptual clarity occurred in the articulation of penal substitution as the best theological explanation for why the cross was necessary and what it achieved.
Recently, however, some have challenged the claim that penal substitution best explains what is central to Christ’s cross. We are told repeatedly that penal substitution does not account for the richness of the cross. What is needed is not one view but multiple views. Is this correct? My thesis is that it is not, and for at least two reasons. First, views other than penal substitution fail to grasp the central problem that the cross remedies, namely our sin before God. Second, from another angle, other views stress various legitimate results of the cross, but without penal substitution as the foundation, the results alone cannot explain the central problem of our sin before God. Before developing these two points, let me first describe the basic atonement views set over against penal substitution.
Atonement Views in Historical Theology
Over the centuries, five main atonement theologies have been given:
Recapitulation
First, there is the recapitulation view, often associated with Irenaeus and Athanasius. This view interprets Christ’s work primarily in terms of his identification with us through the incarnation. By becoming human, the divine Son reversed what Adam did by living our life and dying our death. Adam’s disobedience resulted in the corruption of our nature and the deprivation of Godlikeness. Christ reverses both of these results in his incarnation and entire cross-work. Especially in Christ’s resurrection, immortality and reconciliation with God is restored to us. This view captures much biblical truth. Christ’s work is presented in representational and substitutionary terms. But its central focus is on sin’s effects on us and Christ’s restorative work, not on our sin before God and the need for Christ to satisfy God’s own righteous demand against us by paying for our sin.
Christus Victor (Or Ransom)
Second, Christus Victor is another view of the cross, often associated with the ransom theory to Satan. The primary object(s) of Christ’s death is (are) the powers which he liberates us from, namely, sin, death, and Satan. Like recapitulation, this view captures a lot of biblical truth, especially Christ’s defeat of the powers (Gen. 3:15; John 12:31–33; Col. 2:13–15; Heb. 2:14–16; Rev. 12:1–12), but unlike penal substitution, God is not viewed as the primary object of the cross.
Moral Influence (or Example)
Third, the moral influence view was promoted within non-orthodox theology. It had its roots in the theology of Peter Abelard (1079–1142), but came into its own with the rise of classic liberal theology (eighteenth to nineteenth centuries). It taught that God’s love is more basic than his justice and that God can forgive our sins without Christ satisfying divine justice. God is not the primary object of the cross. Instead, Christ’s death reveals God’s love and sets an example for us.
The Governmental View
Fourth, the governmental view arose in the post-Reformation era and it is identified with Hugo Grotius, John Miley, and the Arminian tradition. Against penal substitution, this view denies that God’s justice necessitates the full payment of our sin since God’s justice is not viewed as essential to him.
Read More
Related Posts:

God did sometimes ask his people to do some rather odd things as recorded in the Bible. It is possible he might ask us to do some strange things as well. But generally speaking, we have the whole of Scripture to give us directions and guidelines as to both proper speech and proper action.

Christians have the Bible to guide us in what we are to believe and what we are to do. The Scriptures offer us helpful guidelines on how God’s people should think, speak and act. But there are many things we may not have specific guidelines on, or clear instructions.
Thus we may not have certain details about a future marriage partner. But certainly, important guidelines are there: a member of the opposite sex; someone who is also a believer; and so on. Some of this has to do with discerning God’s will in various areas.
However, some of the things God asked his people to do have confused believers over the years. A major example would be when God wanted Abraham to be willing to offer his own son as a sacrifice. Of course in the end it does not take place, since God provides his own sacrificial lamb. See my writeup about this difficult Bible passage here.
But often believers will question other believers, including about things such as worship styles and the like. Some think believers are too Pentecostal and charismatic. Some think believers are too cold, lifeless and formal. There can be some truth in both critiques.
Consider just one biblical example of a ‘worship style’ that bothered some others. One time King David was praising God, but not everyone approved of the way he went about it. In 2 Samuel 6:12-16 we read this:
Now King David was told, “The Lord has blessed the household of Obed-Edom and everything he has, because of the ark of God.” So David went to bring up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David with rejoicing. When those who were carrying the ark of the Lord had taken six steps, he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. Wearing a linen ephod, David was dancing before the Lord with all his might, while he and all Israel were bringing up the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. As the ark of the Lord was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, she despised him in her heart.
The point is, we are not all the same, and some Christians will do things differently than other Christians. Sure, some things are simply out of bounds. If a Christian regularly resorts to theft, he has violated a clear Commandment—the Eighth. Or if a Christian claims that God told him to dump his wife and take off with the church secretary, that is another obvious no-no.
So in some areas there are clear boundaries, whereas in some other areas there can be some room to move. Some believers might think what others are doing is rather strange, and sometimes it is! But the point of my piece is this: At times God asked his people to do things that certainly do seem to be quite odd and quite weird. Consider just four obvious examples of this:
Isaiah 20:1-4 In the year that the supreme commander, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it—at that time the Lord spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, “Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet.” And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot. Then the Lord said, “Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared—to Egypt’s shame.
Jeremiah 13:1-11 This is what the Lord said to me: “Go and buy a linen belt and put it around your waist, but do not let it touch water.” So I bought a belt, as the Lord directed, and put it around my waist. Then the word of the Lord came to me a second time: “Take the belt you bought and are wearing around your waist, and go now to Perath and hide it there in a crevice in the rocks.” So I went and hid it at Perath, as the Lord told me. Many days later the Lord said to me, “Go now to Perath and get the belt I told you to hide there.” So I went to Perath and dug up the belt and took it from the place where I had hidden it, but now it was ruined and completely useless. Then the word of the Lord came to me: “This is what the Lord says: ‘In the same way I will ruin the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. These wicked people, who refuse to listen to my words, who follow the stubbornness of their hearts and go after other gods to serve and worship them, will be like this belt—completely useless! For as a belt is bound around the waist, so I bound all the people of Israel and all the people of Judah to me,’ declares the Lord, ‘to be my people for my renown and praise and honor. But they have not listened.’
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.