What do you think?
Rate this book
The Cruciality of the Cross
This Is A New Release Of The Original 1909 Edition.
- GenresTheology
104 pages, Paperback
First published January 17, 1997
About the author
P.T. Forsyth
142 books19 followersPeter Taylor Forsyth, Scottish theologian.
From The Soul of Prayer book description:
P. T. Forsyth is sometimes described as an English pre-cursor to Karl Barth. He was born in 1848 to a Scottish family of humble origins and later in life attended Aberdeen University, where he graduated with first-class honours in classical literature in 1869. In 1876 he was ordained and called to minister in Shipley, Yorkshire. In his early ministry in the Congregational Church, Forsyth fought orthodoxy and sought for the right to rethink Christian theology and pursue liberal thought. In 1878, however, Forsyth experienced a conversion from, in his own words, "being a Christian to being a believer, from a lover of love to an object of grace." A profound awareness of pastoral responsibility was awakened which radically altered the the course of his ministry. His conversion thrust him from the leadership of liberalism to a recovery of the theology of grace. Quickly, he became one of the better-known figures in British Nonconformity. In 1894, he received a call to Emmanuel College in Cambridge, where he preached his famous sermon, "Holy Father" in 1896. In 1901, he accepted a position as principal of Hackney Theological College, London where he remained until he died in 1921. Over his lifetime Forsyth published 25 books and more than 260 articles. He is often credited with recovering for his generation the reality and true dimensions of the grace of God.(
From The Soul of Prayer book description:
P. T. Forsyth is sometimes described as an English pre-cursor to Karl Barth. He was born in 1848 to a Scottish family of humble origins and later in life attended Aberdeen University, where he graduated with first-class honours in classical literature in 1869. In 1876 he was ordained and called to minister in Shipley, Yorkshire. In his early ministry in the Congregational Church, Forsyth fought orthodoxy and sought for the right to rethink Christian theology and pursue liberal thought. In 1878, however, Forsyth experienced a conversion from, in his own words, "being a Christian to being a believer, from a lover of love to an object of grace." A profound awareness of pastoral responsibility was awakened which radically altered the the course of his ministry. His conversion thrust him from the leadership of liberalism to a recovery of the theology of grace. Quickly, he became one of the better-known figures in British Nonconformity. In 1894, he received a call to Emmanuel College in Cambridge, where he preached his famous sermon, "Holy Father" in 1896. In 1901, he accepted a position as principal of Hackney Theological College, London where he remained until he died in 1921. Over his lifetime Forsyth published 25 books and more than 260 articles. He is often credited with recovering for his generation the reality and true dimensions of the grace of God.(
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
November 7, 2021
After using a copy of this title from the library at my graduate school, I was delighted to see a reprint of The Cruciality of the Cross pop up in the student bookstore. I quickly purchased it, expecting to re-read it almost immediately. And while I have read portions of the little book over the decades since, it wasn’t until this week that I started from the beginning and consumed the entire work for the first time since the mid-1970s. The Cruciality of the Cross was P. T. Forsyth’s early 20th century work on atonement, humanity’s need for a restored relationship with a holy, Transcendent God. His concern is not for how atonement works but how academic speculation may water down what we need from atonement and what we can learn from focusing on atonement. It is clear that Forsyth is reacting to the historical Jesus movement and the social gospel movement as he emphasizes the cross. “It was the cross, when it came home by the resurrection through the Spirit. It was then that Jesus became the matter and not merely the master of gospel preaching.” (p. 15)
Where many theologians attempt to anchor their Christology in the person of Christ, Forsyth focuses on the work of Christ: “We know the Incarnation only as the foundation of the cross.” (p. 16) Don’t get me wrong. Forsyth is not against a social gospel but he wants that social gospel centered on God’s holiness, holiness which he defines in a footnote on p. 78 as not: “…anything so abstract or subjective as mystical absorption, but the whole concrete righteousness of existence, self-sustained at white heat. For our God is a consuming fire.” Humanity can only be restored to that holiness through the work of the cross. He speaks of holiness in writing: “Love is but its outgoing; sin is but its defiance; grace is but its action on sin; the cross is but its victory; faith is but its worship.” (p. 23) As he later asks, “Can you have a telescopic infinity which is not microscopic as well? Can you think of a moral ideal for the whole world which is not urgent also on each whole soul?” (p. 73)
In contrasting New Testament versus Old Testament views of atonement, Forsyth says that though Judaism can preach/teach righteousness (even forgiveness), the cross says that God is not only ready to forgive but God has redeemed (p. 29). Acceptance of that redemption is up to the individual, but that acceptance can and should have a ripple effect on society. For those who preach the “satisfaction” theory of atonement, that Jesus “satisfied” God’s “need” for vengeance on the sinner, Forsyth reminds us: “The atonement did not procure grace, it flowed from grace. What was historically offered to God was also eternally offered by God, within the Godhead’s unity.” (p. 41) Later (on p. 102), Forsyth rather redefines “satisfaction” to avoid this idea.
Therefore, any approach to atonement has to be a holistic approach: “To preach only the atonement, the death apart from the life, or only the person of Christ, the life apart from the death, or only the teaching of Christ, His words apart from His life, may be all equally one-sided, and extreme to falsity.” (p. 42)
From there, Forsyth considers modern thought versus this idea of atonement. He objects to limiting the experience of God to what humans can observe and measure, writing “…if man is a He, and God is an It, man is his own god.” (p. 58) Forsyth waxes creative in writing a parody in verse of what he was perceiving in the modernism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries:
They talk to us so of an immanent God
As if man were the true Transcendent;
As if man were the judge of all the Earth,
And God the poor defendant.
As if God were arraigned with a very black case,
On the skill of his bar dependent,
And ‘I wouldn’t like to be God,’ says one,
‘For his record is not resplendent.’ (p. 59)
After explaining that society talks a great deal of morality in general, but doesn’t recognize the significance of individual morality, he suggests, “The strange, unstable conjunction of the age is the co-existence of a high morality with a lowered sense of the living God.” (p. 62) Forsyth waxes eloquent on the idea of the conscience as inner judge and then, far from a Freudian or Jungian perspective, equates Conscience and Christ. “Sense solicits, but the soul enjoins.” (p. 63) “Conscience is something spiritual, a thinking being, a living moral mind.” (p. 63) “Conscience is the Word of God within us; …Christ was and is the conscience of mankind…” (p. 64). He explains that the “person” of Christ is too complex, too paradoxical for humans to comprehend, so the focus must be on the “work,” the atonement provided in the cross. “The New Testament at least cannot sever Atonement from Reconciliation. …The reconciliation is attached to Christ’s death, and to that as an expiation. For reconciliation there means more than changing the temper of individuals; it means changing the relations between God and the race.” (p. 68)
I particularly liked his summary indictment of the social reformation versus holistic reformation: “You are too engrossed with the soul’s conduct instead of the soul’s quality. Your society would be but a mosaic of souls instead of a body of Christ. You would change men without changing the inmost heart, change conduct and relations without changing life. You would increase men’s power of will without altering the style of will.” (p. 75) Then, after explaining the inadequacies of human sympathy (complete with a shot at Marcus Aurelius who combined the Stoic ideal of compassion with a reputation for being a thorough torturer), he states, “The greatest human need is not only holy love, but holy love.” (p. 82)
After these discussions, Forsyth zeroes in on the moral nature of the “Blood of Christ.” Forsyth’s position is that “Everything turns, not on His life having been taken from Him, but on its having been laid down. Everything, for His purpose, turns on the will to die. But, …it had to be a death of moral violence (inflicted, that is, by human wickedness and the wresting of the law), to give its full force to both man’s sin and Christ’s blood.” (p. 86) He cites Leviticus 17:11 where the life is in the blood but points out the phrase where God says, “I have given it to you… along with the giving up of life by shedding the blood (p. 89). The shedding of blood was not then to be understood as punishment on the guilty or innocent but as the release of life back to the Giver of life. He goes on further to interpret the Levitical understanding as: “The sacrifices were consecrated by self-sacrifice. It was the offerer’s will that lay on the altar. What was precious was not the thing, not the elements, but the act.” (p. 91) With that reasoning, he goes on to suggest that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, the shedding of His blood, was “…the absolute active death of self-will into the holy will of God; but also by that will; the complete, central, vital obedience of the holy to the holy in a necessary act on the Eternal scale.” (p. 92) Or again, “The saving work of God drew blood from Christ as it drew Christ from God—and not from God’s side only but from His heart.” (p. 93)
Yet, Forsyth does not want us to think of Jesus’ sacrifice as bloodless. His use of words like expiation, atonement, and judgment demonstrates that he does not. He specifically states that “Holiness and judgment are for ever inseparable.” (p. 98) And by that, he wants us to know that God who is holy must either “punish” sin or “expiate” it, inflict punishment or assume it on man’s behalf (p. 98). Fortunately, for those who receive God’s grace in Christ, that means “expiation.” I like the way Forsyth explains it: “No one could reveal a holy God by any amount of suffering or sacrifice which did not recognize this element of judgment, -- did not atone.” (p. 100) In this sense, Forsyth redefines “satisfaction” as: “…justifying a God of holy love with a love equally holy from the side of sinful man.” (p. 104) Yet, that satisfaction could never have occurred without God becoming human (Incarnation) and without the “work” of Christ in atonement.
Where many theologians attempt to anchor their Christology in the person of Christ, Forsyth focuses on the work of Christ: “We know the Incarnation only as the foundation of the cross.” (p. 16) Don’t get me wrong. Forsyth is not against a social gospel but he wants that social gospel centered on God’s holiness, holiness which he defines in a footnote on p. 78 as not: “…anything so abstract or subjective as mystical absorption, but the whole concrete righteousness of existence, self-sustained at white heat. For our God is a consuming fire.” Humanity can only be restored to that holiness through the work of the cross. He speaks of holiness in writing: “Love is but its outgoing; sin is but its defiance; grace is but its action on sin; the cross is but its victory; faith is but its worship.” (p. 23) As he later asks, “Can you have a telescopic infinity which is not microscopic as well? Can you think of a moral ideal for the whole world which is not urgent also on each whole soul?” (p. 73)
In contrasting New Testament versus Old Testament views of atonement, Forsyth says that though Judaism can preach/teach righteousness (even forgiveness), the cross says that God is not only ready to forgive but God has redeemed (p. 29). Acceptance of that redemption is up to the individual, but that acceptance can and should have a ripple effect on society. For those who preach the “satisfaction” theory of atonement, that Jesus “satisfied” God’s “need” for vengeance on the sinner, Forsyth reminds us: “The atonement did not procure grace, it flowed from grace. What was historically offered to God was also eternally offered by God, within the Godhead’s unity.” (p. 41) Later (on p. 102), Forsyth rather redefines “satisfaction” to avoid this idea.
Therefore, any approach to atonement has to be a holistic approach: “To preach only the atonement, the death apart from the life, or only the person of Christ, the life apart from the death, or only the teaching of Christ, His words apart from His life, may be all equally one-sided, and extreme to falsity.” (p. 42)
From there, Forsyth considers modern thought versus this idea of atonement. He objects to limiting the experience of God to what humans can observe and measure, writing “…if man is a He, and God is an It, man is his own god.” (p. 58) Forsyth waxes creative in writing a parody in verse of what he was perceiving in the modernism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries:
They talk to us so of an immanent God
As if man were the true Transcendent;
As if man were the judge of all the Earth,
And God the poor defendant.
As if God were arraigned with a very black case,
On the skill of his bar dependent,
And ‘I wouldn’t like to be God,’ says one,
‘For his record is not resplendent.’ (p. 59)
After explaining that society talks a great deal of morality in general, but doesn’t recognize the significance of individual morality, he suggests, “The strange, unstable conjunction of the age is the co-existence of a high morality with a lowered sense of the living God.” (p. 62) Forsyth waxes eloquent on the idea of the conscience as inner judge and then, far from a Freudian or Jungian perspective, equates Conscience and Christ. “Sense solicits, but the soul enjoins.” (p. 63) “Conscience is something spiritual, a thinking being, a living moral mind.” (p. 63) “Conscience is the Word of God within us; …Christ was and is the conscience of mankind…” (p. 64). He explains that the “person” of Christ is too complex, too paradoxical for humans to comprehend, so the focus must be on the “work,” the atonement provided in the cross. “The New Testament at least cannot sever Atonement from Reconciliation. …The reconciliation is attached to Christ’s death, and to that as an expiation. For reconciliation there means more than changing the temper of individuals; it means changing the relations between God and the race.” (p. 68)
I particularly liked his summary indictment of the social reformation versus holistic reformation: “You are too engrossed with the soul’s conduct instead of the soul’s quality. Your society would be but a mosaic of souls instead of a body of Christ. You would change men without changing the inmost heart, change conduct and relations without changing life. You would increase men’s power of will without altering the style of will.” (p. 75) Then, after explaining the inadequacies of human sympathy (complete with a shot at Marcus Aurelius who combined the Stoic ideal of compassion with a reputation for being a thorough torturer), he states, “The greatest human need is not only holy love, but holy love.” (p. 82)
After these discussions, Forsyth zeroes in on the moral nature of the “Blood of Christ.” Forsyth’s position is that “Everything turns, not on His life having been taken from Him, but on its having been laid down. Everything, for His purpose, turns on the will to die. But, …it had to be a death of moral violence (inflicted, that is, by human wickedness and the wresting of the law), to give its full force to both man’s sin and Christ’s blood.” (p. 86) He cites Leviticus 17:11 where the life is in the blood but points out the phrase where God says, “I have given it to you… along with the giving up of life by shedding the blood (p. 89). The shedding of blood was not then to be understood as punishment on the guilty or innocent but as the release of life back to the Giver of life. He goes on further to interpret the Levitical understanding as: “The sacrifices were consecrated by self-sacrifice. It was the offerer’s will that lay on the altar. What was precious was not the thing, not the elements, but the act.” (p. 91) With that reasoning, he goes on to suggest that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, the shedding of His blood, was “…the absolute active death of self-will into the holy will of God; but also by that will; the complete, central, vital obedience of the holy to the holy in a necessary act on the Eternal scale.” (p. 92) Or again, “The saving work of God drew blood from Christ as it drew Christ from God—and not from God’s side only but from His heart.” (p. 93)
Yet, Forsyth does not want us to think of Jesus’ sacrifice as bloodless. His use of words like expiation, atonement, and judgment demonstrates that he does not. He specifically states that “Holiness and judgment are for ever inseparable.” (p. 98) And by that, he wants us to know that God who is holy must either “punish” sin or “expiate” it, inflict punishment or assume it on man’s behalf (p. 98). Fortunately, for those who receive God’s grace in Christ, that means “expiation.” I like the way Forsyth explains it: “No one could reveal a holy God by any amount of suffering or sacrifice which did not recognize this element of judgment, -- did not atone.” (p. 100) In this sense, Forsyth redefines “satisfaction” as: “…justifying a God of holy love with a love equally holy from the side of sinful man.” (p. 104) Yet, that satisfaction could never have occurred without God becoming human (Incarnation) and without the “work” of Christ in atonement.
December 7, 2022
Timeless message
The overall message of this book is timeless and much needed in our day, though it was authored in 1909. I found Forsyth's reasoning sometimes hard to follow, in part due to his 19th century writing style and his references to Biblical criticism as was contemporary to his day. Even so, I highly recommend it for anyone seeking an understanding of the theology of the cross, and its implications for modern culture.
The overall message of this book is timeless and much needed in our day, though it was authored in 1909. I found Forsyth's reasoning sometimes hard to follow, in part due to his 19th century writing style and his references to Biblical criticism as was contemporary to his day. Even so, I highly recommend it for anyone seeking an understanding of the theology of the cross, and its implications for modern culture.
March 17, 2020
Theology/Spirituality. Essential gospel heart.
January 25, 2013
P.T. Forsyth is an English Theologian who died in 1921. I find his insight into the cross of Christ to be deep and meaningful. This book was written in 1908. In it he describes the atonement accomplished by Christ on the cross as central to:
1. The New Testament Gospel.
2. The Christian experience.
3. The leading features of modern thought.
1908 is not exactly modern to the 21st century, but the work of Christ on the Cross is timeless. Here is a snippet:
1. The New Testament Gospel.
2. The Christian experience.
3. The leading features of modern thought.
1908 is not exactly modern to the 21st century, but the work of Christ on the Cross is timeless. Here is a snippet:
I would bear you back upon your own conscience, and bid you listen to its voice.
We must have a common starting ground.
Man is more than a consciousness, he is a conscience.
He is not only aware of himself, he is critical of himself.
There is in the soul a bar, a tribunal; our thoughts and actions are ranged before it; judgment is passed there upon what we have been and done. Everyone who believes in morality believes in the conscience as the power we have of passing moral judgment upon ourselves.
Talk of public opinion! What is it in severity and power to private opinion - a man's most private opinion of himself?
And we treat him - our judicial self - with much respect.
His praise will carry us a long way; his censure cast us down.
It will divide and set us against ourselves, and destroy the joy in every other part of us.
We fear this judge, this critic, in our own heart; we go as far, at times, as to hate him.
If we could get at him we would put him out of the way.
We would bribe him. And we even try that, but always with incomplete success.
We would blind him, throw dust in his eyes, sophisticate him; and that is partially successful at times.
We would kill him, and that we think sometimes we do.
But we wake up to find it is a delusion, and he has been fooling us.
Some have even tried, having failed in every other way, to kill this voice by killing themselves; but there has never been any certainty that this was a success.
And we have an uneasy surmise that the dream beyond may be worse than the waking here, that the persecuting voice only reappears after the silence in another quarter, like the subterranean ghost of Hamlet's father, who made a conscience for him.
We cannot get rid of this judge.
He is not in our power.
We cannot unmake him, though he be against ourselves.
Then we did not make him.
What a strange thing we are - two, yet one!
Two that cannot agree - one that cannot be severed.
Our enemy is of our essence, taken from under our very heart.
We are one by being two.
We are unhappy both because we are two and quarrel, and because we are one and cannot part.
Neither of us can go out of the other's hearing.
We may cease to attend much to each other, but we are always within call.
And every now and then we are called, and we quail.
And it is then that some men curse the voice they thought gone, and do desperate things so inexplicable.
Ah! people did not know what went on inside the spirit's house.
They saw us walk out together, the two of us, us and our conscience, and we seemed on good terms with each other, seemed quite one.
They heard nothing of the bitter quarrels indoors.
But one day there is a crisis and a great to do.
The man is gone, and his partner is not to be found. When they went they went together.
We cannot get out of this critic's hearing, or leave our moral partner's presence.
We are wedded under laws which allow of no divorce, for any incompatibility, cruelty or infidelity.
April 2, 2008
This is a wonderful little book composed of lectures given in early 1900's by this Scottish Theologian. I give it the killer 5 star rating because some of the quotes in here are paradigm shifting. His exposure of the inadequacy of liberalism reveals that the cross is always the place where any social righteousness is established and social righteousness in itself cannot truly accomplish anything without the reality of God's holy love in the crucifixion of His Son. Read this book, especially if your flirting with liberalism.
(Small disclaimer: It is my understanding that Forsyth may actually be neo-orthodox, as he is a forerunner of Karl Barth.)
(Small disclaimer: It is my understanding that Forsyth may actually be neo-orthodox, as he is a forerunner of Karl Barth.)
March 7, 2021
I started this book, lost my copy while out walking, got another copy and started again. Like much of Forsyth it's not easy going, and it's a book I need to read again. It focuses on one of Forsyth's strong themes: the cross of Christ (which is the title of another one of his books, of course). He explores the theme yet again and somehow finds more to say on a subject that you'd think he'd explored thoroughly.
I'm making this note now almost a year after I read the book, so it's not really a review. It's probably a reminder to myself that I need to tackle this book again!
I'm making this note now almost a year after I read the book, so it's not really a review. It's probably a reminder to myself that I need to tackle this book again!
April 19, 2017
I am afraid to admit it but ... I abandoned this book. I gave it a chapter, but I just couldn't get through it or get anything from it. I could say it's just too dense (which it is), but I think I could still find a challenge in slowly getting through that denseness. But I could re-read several pages 10 times and still get nothing from it. I don't know if there's a difference hearing these lectures in person v. reading it on a page, but it just seems like a lot of goobleygook at the end of the day. I'm sure I'm just not smart enough to understand this all (...I do not believe this at all...) but I could never recommend this to anyone.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews