What do you think?
Rate this book
Forsaken: The Trinity and the Cross, and Why It Matters
"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" How should a Christian interpret this passage? What implications does the cross have for the trinitarian theology? Did the Father kill the Son?Theologian Thomas McCall presents a trinitarian reading of Christ's darkest moment--the moment of his prayer to his heavenly Father from the cross. McCall revisits the biblical texts and surveys the various interpretations of Jesus cry, ranging from early church theologians to the Reformation to contemporary theologians. Along the way, he explains the terms of the scholarly debate and clearly marks out what he believes to be the historically orthodox point of view. By approaching the Son's cry to the Father as an event in the life of the Triune God, Forsaken seeks to recover the true poignancy of the orthodox perspective on the cross.
171 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 2012
62 people are currently reading
263 people want to read
About the author
Thomas H. McCall
23 books7 followersDr. McCall is Professor of Theology and Scholar-in-Residence at Asbury University. Prior to this, he served for sixteen years as Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, where he was also the Director of the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding. During this same time, he held an appointment as Professorial Fellow in Exegetical and Analytic Theology at the University of St. Andrews.
Dr. McCall is ordained in the Wesleyan Church and has pastored churches in southwestern Michigan and southcentral Alaska.
Dr. McCall is ordained in the Wesleyan Church and has pastored churches in southwestern Michigan and southcentral Alaska.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
April 3, 2020
Forsaken has valuable insights on doctrinal shortcomings in the church—some of which I suspect will keep in my mind for a while.
However, I had a hard time not wanting to close this book and open up some Cone. A lot of the questions he raises about suffering, liberation, and the Trinity are not answered because he doesn't talk about the liberating nature of God.
That said, his final chapter is heartfelt and beautiful and made clear to me the value of what he is doing.
However, I had a hard time not wanting to close this book and open up some Cone. A lot of the questions he raises about suffering, liberation, and the Trinity are not answered because he doesn't talk about the liberating nature of God.
That said, his final chapter is heartfelt and beautiful and made clear to me the value of what he is doing.
April 3, 2019
Top notch. Loved it. Everyone who struggles with the Trinitarian aspects of the atonement should read it.
July 19, 2014
Chapter 1 is a very good, solid representation of the doctrine of the Trinity. It was very clear and concise while doing a fantastic job explaining a difficult doctrine in a very approachable fashion. After my initial reading, I generally thought this book, as a whole, was solid objective work from an author of a different stripe than I. Initially, I only noticed a couple of seemingly minor issues with the remaining 3 chapters. I wrote a raving review and went along my way. The next couple days, parts of the book that I had quickly glazed over began to eat away at me. Something wasn't right. I went back and reread potions of chapters 2, 3, and 4. What i had previously considered an objective work, was really not so objective. The subjectivity makes sense to me as it is very difficult to remove the lens of soteriology from our eyes. What upset me was the fact that i derived his supposed objectiveness from the fact that he quoted many theologians whom i find to be excellent exegetes (and not of his ilk) along with the fact that he chose to refer to monergism as determinism. I also vehemently disagree with his exegesis of Romans 7, which highlights our differences on the doctrine of sanctification. I am more angry with myself skimming past this, assuming objectivity rather than being more critical of his positions. I would still recommend this book, but a warning will accompany that recommendation.
June 9, 2022
Tom McCall walks through some challenging topics related to the Trinity, Jesus’ death on the cross, and the Christian life. McCall’s engagement with the early church fathers is a rare find among evangelicals. I love that he dove into challenging topics, offers biblical insight, and connects all of this to the beautiful message of the gospel. Left me saying, “Yes, this is what’s great about the gospel.”
March 18, 2025
A very helpful and beautifully written explanation of what the cross means, what God’s wrath is, what the holy love of the Triune God is, and the importance of properly understanding both justification and sanctification.
Quotes:
What the Father abandoned the Son to was death at the hands of sinful people. So while the abandonment is real, it in no way implies a loss of contact or relationship between the Father and the Son.
The fact that [God] is implacably, unchangingly and personally opposed to all that is hostile to him is a testament to his sheer goodness. He cares about our sin—and the damage it does to us more than we do. The fact that the whole world is under the wrath of God tells us—in no uncertain terms— that the triune God of holy love cares about the whole world. The wrath of God is an expression of his love; it serves his holy love.
It is impossible to read Scripture carefully and come away with the conviction that God's only (or even primary) purpose is to change our legal status… The Son died and rose again so that we might be holy, and the Holy Spirit lives and works today to apply the work of Christ to our lives and communities.
[S]anctification is the gracious provision of the triune God in the death and resurrection of the Son, applied by the continuing ministry of the Holy Spirit, to make us whole, to make us truly fitting for communion with the triune God. It is God's work to make us what he intends us to be, to make us more than we could ever ask or even dare to dream.
Quotes:
What the Father abandoned the Son to was death at the hands of sinful people. So while the abandonment is real, it in no way implies a loss of contact or relationship between the Father and the Son.
The fact that [God] is implacably, unchangingly and personally opposed to all that is hostile to him is a testament to his sheer goodness. He cares about our sin—and the damage it does to us more than we do. The fact that the whole world is under the wrath of God tells us—in no uncertain terms— that the triune God of holy love cares about the whole world. The wrath of God is an expression of his love; it serves his holy love.
It is impossible to read Scripture carefully and come away with the conviction that God's only (or even primary) purpose is to change our legal status… The Son died and rose again so that we might be holy, and the Holy Spirit lives and works today to apply the work of Christ to our lives and communities.
[S]anctification is the gracious provision of the triune God in the death and resurrection of the Son, applied by the continuing ministry of the Holy Spirit, to make us whole, to make us truly fitting for communion with the triune God. It is God's work to make us what he intends us to be, to make us more than we could ever ask or even dare to dream.
August 6, 2012
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
"Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."
"I and the Father are one."
Wondering how these three verses of Scripture fit together? I often have. Cognitive dissonance finally got the better of me, and I decided I should try to think through this one a little more deeply. To that end I read Thomas H. McCall's Forsaken: The Trinity and the Cross, and Why It Matters. (Thanks to IVP for the free review copy, in exchange for an unbiased review.)
First, the very short summary of my review, if you want to cut to the chase and head off and do something else after this next paragraph.
McCall tackles some difficult questions: "Did God forsake Jesus [on the cross]? Did the Father turn his back on the Son in rage? Was the Trinity ruptured or broken on that day?" His answers and arguments are rooted in Scripture, the history of interpretation of that Scripture, and are consistently compelling. McCall really helped me through my own struggles to grasp some of these questions, leading me to a fuller understanding of the life of the Trinity and the relationship between its persons, particularly in terms of what happened on the cross. And he spells out the implications of his assertions beautifully. God is not divided, he concludes, but God--all of God--is for us. So we can rejoice and rest secure in that. Five stars, no doubt.
McCall writes "not for other scholars...but for pastors, students and friends--indeed, for anyone genuinely interested in moving toward a deeper understanding of God's being and actions." Forsaken is heavy theological lifting for a non-scholar (and not lightweight for a scholar, either), but the effort is well worth it. McCall answers some very common questions people ask (or are scared to ask and should ask) about the Trinity, also showing ramifications for our relationship to God.
Forsaken has four chapters. Each asks a theological question, addresses it, then concludes with some theological assertions to avoid, some to affirm, and why it matters.
The first chapter asks, "Was the Trinity Broken?" Here McCall discusses the theological concept of "dereliction," or the idea that Jesus was abandoned by God on the cross. Recent theology notwithstanding, McCall makes a strong Scriptural case that God the Father did not forsake the Son on the Cross. Understanding Psalm 22 as an "interpretive key" to Jesus' death, McCall writes: "No, the only text of Scripture that we can understand to address this question directly, Psalm 22:24, says that the Father did not hide his face from his Son. To the contrary, he has 'listened to his cry for help.'"
Not only that, the author argues, but if God truly had forsaken Jesus, why would Jesus bother--after his cry--to say, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit"? Jesus "prefaces his last words with a sense of deep relational intimacy: Jesus addresses his 'Father.'"
In chapter two McCall asks, "Just what are we to make of the biblical witness to the wrath of God? Is it opposed to his love? Is it a 'dark side' to God that is inconsistent with his holiness or with his mercy?" He makes a pretty hard-to-argue-with case that "the biblical witness does not set love and wrath in opposition to one another." McCall, I thought, was at his best in this chapter when he highlighted multiple New Testament references to wrath--not only the wrath of God generally, but Jesus' wrath specifically. So there's no Old Testament God=wrath, New Testament God=mercy conclusion to be drawn from the Bible. The author utilizes the theological categories of divine impassibility and simplicity to show that "wrath" as God exhibits it is not what we might envision in human anger; rather, it is an expression of holy love.
McCall's third chapter asks whether God's divine foreknowledge means that God killed Jesus, since he knew it was going to happen, could have stopped it, but didn't. "God's plan was to use the death of Jesus for his purposes and for our good," but God himself did not cause the death. As Acts so often makes clear, McCall points out, "The apostolic proclamation of the gospel places the fault and blame on the sinners who are responsible for the death of Jesus."
Chapter four articulates a robust theology of justification (forensic; instantaneous; by which I enter into the life of God) and sanctification (separation unto God; progressive; by which I grow in communion with God). Page 145 and following has a brilliant interpretation of Paul's famous Romans 7:14-25 passage where he (seemingly) wrestles with sin.
One difficult implication of this book for me as a worship leader (and coach of worship leaders) is that, if McCall is right, we may be singing some not-quite-right theology in two well-known songs. "How Deep the Father's Love for Us" has a line that says, "The Father turns his face away." And the song "In Christ Alone" says, "...till on that cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied." McCall addresses these two claims head on and (in my opinion, successfully) refutes them. The Father did not turn his face away (as noted above). And to say that God the Son mollified the wrath of God the Father is to bifurcate the Trinity in some unorthodox ways. (!)
I'm not sure if it's generally accepted for a book reviewer to admit to shedding tears when reading a review copy. (Objectivity! Right?) No matter. McCall's concluding postscript ("A Personal Theological Testimony") moved me to tears, as he recounted the difference "the trinitarian gospel" made for him and his family as they processed the death of his father.
Getting the theological details of the Trinity right (as best we can!) matters. It matters for our understanding of God, our relationship with him, and for all of life. In the life and truths of the Trinity--properly understood, and I think McCall a good guide here--there is great comfort. We see a God who, as McCall says, is for us. We find a God who has granted us victory over sin and death, making it possible for us to enter into communion with the triune God of love.
"Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."
"I and the Father are one."
Wondering how these three verses of Scripture fit together? I often have. Cognitive dissonance finally got the better of me, and I decided I should try to think through this one a little more deeply. To that end I read Thomas H. McCall's Forsaken: The Trinity and the Cross, and Why It Matters. (Thanks to IVP for the free review copy, in exchange for an unbiased review.)
First, the very short summary of my review, if you want to cut to the chase and head off and do something else after this next paragraph.
McCall tackles some difficult questions: "Did God forsake Jesus [on the cross]? Did the Father turn his back on the Son in rage? Was the Trinity ruptured or broken on that day?" His answers and arguments are rooted in Scripture, the history of interpretation of that Scripture, and are consistently compelling. McCall really helped me through my own struggles to grasp some of these questions, leading me to a fuller understanding of the life of the Trinity and the relationship between its persons, particularly in terms of what happened on the cross. And he spells out the implications of his assertions beautifully. God is not divided, he concludes, but God--all of God--is for us. So we can rejoice and rest secure in that. Five stars, no doubt.
McCall writes "not for other scholars...but for pastors, students and friends--indeed, for anyone genuinely interested in moving toward a deeper understanding of God's being and actions." Forsaken is heavy theological lifting for a non-scholar (and not lightweight for a scholar, either), but the effort is well worth it. McCall answers some very common questions people ask (or are scared to ask and should ask) about the Trinity, also showing ramifications for our relationship to God.
Forsaken has four chapters. Each asks a theological question, addresses it, then concludes with some theological assertions to avoid, some to affirm, and why it matters.
The first chapter asks, "Was the Trinity Broken?" Here McCall discusses the theological concept of "dereliction," or the idea that Jesus was abandoned by God on the cross. Recent theology notwithstanding, McCall makes a strong Scriptural case that God the Father did not forsake the Son on the Cross. Understanding Psalm 22 as an "interpretive key" to Jesus' death, McCall writes: "No, the only text of Scripture that we can understand to address this question directly, Psalm 22:24, says that the Father did not hide his face from his Son. To the contrary, he has 'listened to his cry for help.'"
Not only that, the author argues, but if God truly had forsaken Jesus, why would Jesus bother--after his cry--to say, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit"? Jesus "prefaces his last words with a sense of deep relational intimacy: Jesus addresses his 'Father.'"
In chapter two McCall asks, "Just what are we to make of the biblical witness to the wrath of God? Is it opposed to his love? Is it a 'dark side' to God that is inconsistent with his holiness or with his mercy?" He makes a pretty hard-to-argue-with case that "the biblical witness does not set love and wrath in opposition to one another." McCall, I thought, was at his best in this chapter when he highlighted multiple New Testament references to wrath--not only the wrath of God generally, but Jesus' wrath specifically. So there's no Old Testament God=wrath, New Testament God=mercy conclusion to be drawn from the Bible. The author utilizes the theological categories of divine impassibility and simplicity to show that "wrath" as God exhibits it is not what we might envision in human anger; rather, it is an expression of holy love.
McCall's third chapter asks whether God's divine foreknowledge means that God killed Jesus, since he knew it was going to happen, could have stopped it, but didn't. "God's plan was to use the death of Jesus for his purposes and for our good," but God himself did not cause the death. As Acts so often makes clear, McCall points out, "The apostolic proclamation of the gospel places the fault and blame on the sinners who are responsible for the death of Jesus."
Chapter four articulates a robust theology of justification (forensic; instantaneous; by which I enter into the life of God) and sanctification (separation unto God; progressive; by which I grow in communion with God). Page 145 and following has a brilliant interpretation of Paul's famous Romans 7:14-25 passage where he (seemingly) wrestles with sin.
One difficult implication of this book for me as a worship leader (and coach of worship leaders) is that, if McCall is right, we may be singing some not-quite-right theology in two well-known songs. "How Deep the Father's Love for Us" has a line that says, "The Father turns his face away." And the song "In Christ Alone" says, "...till on that cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied." McCall addresses these two claims head on and (in my opinion, successfully) refutes them. The Father did not turn his face away (as noted above). And to say that God the Son mollified the wrath of God the Father is to bifurcate the Trinity in some unorthodox ways. (!)
I'm not sure if it's generally accepted for a book reviewer to admit to shedding tears when reading a review copy. (Objectivity! Right?) No matter. McCall's concluding postscript ("A Personal Theological Testimony") moved me to tears, as he recounted the difference "the trinitarian gospel" made for him and his family as they processed the death of his father.
Getting the theological details of the Trinity right (as best we can!) matters. It matters for our understanding of God, our relationship with him, and for all of life. In the life and truths of the Trinity--properly understood, and I think McCall a good guide here--there is great comfort. We see a God who, as McCall says, is for us. We find a God who has granted us victory over sin and death, making it possible for us to enter into communion with the triune God of love.
May 25, 2012
Most excellent! McCall sets out to clear up some bad theology, and he does it well. Very readable and power packed with many deep insights. The first chapter should be a "must read" for preachers and teachers. In it he asks the question: "Did God the Father really turn His back on Jesus as He hung on the cross?" McCall opposes popular theology (siding instead with classic theology) and answers: "No!"
I greatly appreciate the fact that McCall engages many dialogue partners and looks at this subject for many angles. Fantastic! Props to IVP for publishing it.
I greatly appreciate the fact that McCall engages many dialogue partners and looks at this subject for many angles. Fantastic! Props to IVP for publishing it.
April 1, 2021
Wonderful!
Extremely helpful and well-written book! I read it all in one day and enjoyed it thoroughly. It’s deepened my love and gratitude for the triune God. Highly recommended!
Extremely helpful and well-written book! I read it all in one day and enjoyed it thoroughly. It’s deepened my love and gratitude for the triune God. Highly recommended!
December 4, 2021
Was the Trinity broken at the cross?
Can God be divided?
Thomas McCall argues that God is undivided in every step of our salvation:
"God--the triune God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit--is for us. It is not as though one divine persons is for us or on "our side" while another is against us, for the being and actions of the triune God are always undivided." (from page 160)
As part of this he argues that:
1. The undivided trinity could not be divided at the cross - and therefore the Father could not forsake his son.
2. God's wrath and God's love never be thought of us as in conflict.
3. The work of the spirit in sanctification is an integral part of salvation.
4. Our hope as christians is seen in the wonderful truth that the Undivided Trinity is on our side.
These are all wonderful truths. The key aim of this book is a noble one, to promote those truths and highlight turnings from them in modern theology.
There are several points along the way in which I cannot agree with McCall's conclusions, I'll proceed with the reason for the book, the highlights and
Why this book?
Thomas McCall argues that modern evangelicalism has neglected or even denied these truths.
Examples he gives include:
1. Jurgen Moltmann (perhaps not an evangelical but he has influenced us) teaching that "The suffering in the passion of Christ is abandonment, rejection by his Father."
2. Popular preachers talking of the Father "turning his face away from the son" at the cross
3. Craig Blomburg's commentary on Matthew asserting that Jesus experienced "an abrupt loss of communion with the Father"
4. RT France's commentary on Matthew saying that there was "a temporary loss of contact" between the Father and the Son
5. John Stott's "The Cross of Christ" teaching that God's mercy and wrath are (or were) in conflict - "a conflict of emotions, a strife of attributes, within God"
6. Helmut Thielicke teaching that "God does contradict himself, that he sets his grace in opposition to his judgement and his love in opposition to his holiness; indeed the gospel can be traced back to this fundamental opposition within God himself."
All of the above contradict historic christianity - the God who is simple cannot be conflicted within himself. The Father, Son and Spirit who are one being can never be divided. AND if we take these ideas consistently - if we say there is conflict and the possibility of division within God, how can God be our rock through all the storms of life? How can we be sure of our eternal salvation if the God upon whom we depend is conflicted?
Looking further at John Stott's "the Cross of Christ" (beyond the parts that McCall cites) it is alarming to see his frequent appeals to Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann, his implicit denial of simplicity and his explicit denial of impassibility, he was bold enough to say that the historic theologians (including church fathers) who have taught impassibility were all wrong. Stott, following Moltmann made the passibility of God a key aspect of his theology, his doctrine of the cross and his understanding of theodicy. As a young christian I loved Stott's "the Cross of Christ" but now as I think about the implications of this aberrant theology proper its popularity horrifies me.
McCall's book takes its place within a growing set of attempts to raise an alarm over the modern erosion of the classical doctrine of God - an alarm that needs to be heard loud and clear by the modern church.
Strong arguments made by this book
1. No conflict or change in the godhead
McCall argues powerfully that the doctrine of the trinity permits no division between the persons in the godhead and the doctrine of simplicity (whether held strongly or "weakly") permits no conflict between attributes of God.
Building off of these points he argues that we must see the Father loving us and sending his son for us, and the son willingly coming. We should see this as the natural outworking of God's "Holy love" and not due to any conflict. And on a related note, the cross did not make it possible for God to love us rather God's love for us resulted in the cross (1 John 4:10).
2. Matthew 27:46 and Psalm 22 - the Son was not abandoned on the cross
Further McCall argues that Matthew 27:46 (the cry of Dereliction) must be seen as a reference to Psalm 22 (he shows how the psalm predicts numerous aspects of Jesus' crucifixion), and then how following Psalm 22 (and the interpretation of a wide range of ancient theologians - including both Calvin and Aquinas) we must understand that on the cross the Father and the Son remained unified, as Psalm 22 may begin with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" but in verse 19 it goes onto "But you, O LORD, do not be far off!" and in verse 24 "For he has not despised or abhorred
the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him."
Ultimately I believe we must affirm that the demonstration that the Father heard Jesus' cry is the resurrection and yet the relevance of the psalm undermines the statement that the Father abandoned the son or cut him off on this cross.
3. Jesus suffered according to his humanity
In light of the points above and also as an implication of impassibility, all the suffering that Jesus bore on the cross, he bore according to his human nature; not according to his divine nature - the Trinity was not sundered.
4. Salvation from sin, not in sin
Towards the end of the book, continuing on its theme of trinitarian harmony, McCall moves from the accomplishment of the atonement to its application - if the trinity is unified in all stages of redemption it is unthinkable that the Son could die for us BUT the spirit not sanctify us. Along the way McCall seeks to show a broad unity between Calvin and Wesley on the doctrine of Justification.
What gives me pause?
1. Who killed Jesus?
McCall seeks to ascribe all volition for the death of Christ and all agency in the suffering of Christ to men.
He insists (on page 122) that "we should refrain from saying that God killed Jesus. The Bible does not actually say that God killed his Son." I'd argue that his is contradicted by Isaiah 53:10 - and by some of what he quotes from Calvin earlier in the book. "It was the will of the Lord to crush him".
Not addressed clearly but also relevant here is the question of whether Jesus (according to his humanity) experienced some sense of being under the curse of God on the cross (as is affirmed by Calvin and many other reformed theologians) McCall seems to imply strongly that the answer is no.
2. Was the Cross determined by God?
McCall argues that the actions of sinful men in killing the son of God were not divinely pre-determined as that would remove their guilt but rather God foreknew what they would do and used it for good.
In Chapter 3 he makes an emotional argument against determinism of all forms (including compatibilism), perhaps there is a better way of explaining the Bible's teaching than compatabilism - but McCall makes it clear here that he is rejecting what the 1689 (and the WCF) say "God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass" and going beyond a general rejection he is specifically rejecting this with respect to the events of the death of Christ.
On page 104 McCall suggests that we look to either Molinisim or non-determinist understandings of Thomism to explain events.
3. Romans 7
On page 145 and following amidst his argument that justification must lead to sanctification (as the Son and the Spirit work together) McCall argues that Romans 7 describes the unconverted man and not the christian life. I know this topic is hotly debated - broadly speaking I think he's talking an Arminian line here - this is a long way from the initial focus of the book.
Conclusion
This book has many wonderful points but also many points I cannot follow. I would love to see a book on the cross from a confessionally reformed writer emphasising the strengths of this book.
Can God be divided?
Thomas McCall argues that God is undivided in every step of our salvation:
"God--the triune God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit--is for us. It is not as though one divine persons is for us or on "our side" while another is against us, for the being and actions of the triune God are always undivided." (from page 160)
As part of this he argues that:
1. The undivided trinity could not be divided at the cross - and therefore the Father could not forsake his son.
2. God's wrath and God's love never be thought of us as in conflict.
3. The work of the spirit in sanctification is an integral part of salvation.
4. Our hope as christians is seen in the wonderful truth that the Undivided Trinity is on our side.
These are all wonderful truths. The key aim of this book is a noble one, to promote those truths and highlight turnings from them in modern theology.
There are several points along the way in which I cannot agree with McCall's conclusions, I'll proceed with the reason for the book, the highlights and
Why this book?
Thomas McCall argues that modern evangelicalism has neglected or even denied these truths.
Examples he gives include:
1. Jurgen Moltmann (perhaps not an evangelical but he has influenced us) teaching that "The suffering in the passion of Christ is abandonment, rejection by his Father."
2. Popular preachers talking of the Father "turning his face away from the son" at the cross
3. Craig Blomburg's commentary on Matthew asserting that Jesus experienced "an abrupt loss of communion with the Father"
4. RT France's commentary on Matthew saying that there was "a temporary loss of contact" between the Father and the Son
5. John Stott's "The Cross of Christ" teaching that God's mercy and wrath are (or were) in conflict - "a conflict of emotions, a strife of attributes, within God"
6. Helmut Thielicke teaching that "God does contradict himself, that he sets his grace in opposition to his judgement and his love in opposition to his holiness; indeed the gospel can be traced back to this fundamental opposition within God himself."
All of the above contradict historic christianity - the God who is simple cannot be conflicted within himself. The Father, Son and Spirit who are one being can never be divided. AND if we take these ideas consistently - if we say there is conflict and the possibility of division within God, how can God be our rock through all the storms of life? How can we be sure of our eternal salvation if the God upon whom we depend is conflicted?
Looking further at John Stott's "the Cross of Christ" (beyond the parts that McCall cites) it is alarming to see his frequent appeals to Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann, his implicit denial of simplicity and his explicit denial of impassibility, he was bold enough to say that the historic theologians (including church fathers) who have taught impassibility were all wrong. Stott, following Moltmann made the passibility of God a key aspect of his theology, his doctrine of the cross and his understanding of theodicy. As a young christian I loved Stott's "the Cross of Christ" but now as I think about the implications of this aberrant theology proper its popularity horrifies me.
McCall's book takes its place within a growing set of attempts to raise an alarm over the modern erosion of the classical doctrine of God - an alarm that needs to be heard loud and clear by the modern church.
Strong arguments made by this book
1. No conflict or change in the godhead
McCall argues powerfully that the doctrine of the trinity permits no division between the persons in the godhead and the doctrine of simplicity (whether held strongly or "weakly") permits no conflict between attributes of God.
Building off of these points he argues that we must see the Father loving us and sending his son for us, and the son willingly coming. We should see this as the natural outworking of God's "Holy love" and not due to any conflict. And on a related note, the cross did not make it possible for God to love us rather God's love for us resulted in the cross (1 John 4:10).
2. Matthew 27:46 and Psalm 22 - the Son was not abandoned on the cross
Further McCall argues that Matthew 27:46 (the cry of Dereliction) must be seen as a reference to Psalm 22 (he shows how the psalm predicts numerous aspects of Jesus' crucifixion), and then how following Psalm 22 (and the interpretation of a wide range of ancient theologians - including both Calvin and Aquinas) we must understand that on the cross the Father and the Son remained unified, as Psalm 22 may begin with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" but in verse 19 it goes onto "But you, O LORD, do not be far off!" and in verse 24 "For he has not despised or abhorred
the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him."
Ultimately I believe we must affirm that the demonstration that the Father heard Jesus' cry is the resurrection and yet the relevance of the psalm undermines the statement that the Father abandoned the son or cut him off on this cross.
3. Jesus suffered according to his humanity
In light of the points above and also as an implication of impassibility, all the suffering that Jesus bore on the cross, he bore according to his human nature; not according to his divine nature - the Trinity was not sundered.
4. Salvation from sin, not in sin
Towards the end of the book, continuing on its theme of trinitarian harmony, McCall moves from the accomplishment of the atonement to its application - if the trinity is unified in all stages of redemption it is unthinkable that the Son could die for us BUT the spirit not sanctify us. Along the way McCall seeks to show a broad unity between Calvin and Wesley on the doctrine of Justification.
What gives me pause?
1. Who killed Jesus?
McCall seeks to ascribe all volition for the death of Christ and all agency in the suffering of Christ to men.
He insists (on page 122) that "we should refrain from saying that God killed Jesus. The Bible does not actually say that God killed his Son." I'd argue that his is contradicted by Isaiah 53:10 - and by some of what he quotes from Calvin earlier in the book. "It was the will of the Lord to crush him".
Not addressed clearly but also relevant here is the question of whether Jesus (according to his humanity) experienced some sense of being under the curse of God on the cross (as is affirmed by Calvin and many other reformed theologians) McCall seems to imply strongly that the answer is no.
2. Was the Cross determined by God?
McCall argues that the actions of sinful men in killing the son of God were not divinely pre-determined as that would remove their guilt but rather God foreknew what they would do and used it for good.
In Chapter 3 he makes an emotional argument against determinism of all forms (including compatibilism), perhaps there is a better way of explaining the Bible's teaching than compatabilism - but McCall makes it clear here that he is rejecting what the 1689 (and the WCF) say "God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass" and going beyond a general rejection he is specifically rejecting this with respect to the events of the death of Christ.
On page 104 McCall suggests that we look to either Molinisim or non-determinist understandings of Thomism to explain events.
3. Romans 7
On page 145 and following amidst his argument that justification must lead to sanctification (as the Son and the Spirit work together) McCall argues that Romans 7 describes the unconverted man and not the christian life. I know this topic is hotly debated - broadly speaking I think he's talking an Arminian line here - this is a long way from the initial focus of the book.
Conclusion
This book has many wonderful points but also many points I cannot follow. I would love to see a book on the cross from a confessionally reformed writer emphasising the strengths of this book.
August 13, 2024
Absolutely phenomenal reading! It is a powerful book that I can only describe as hopeful, a book to bring hope into your life. It's four chapters (which I list in this video & pull a little bit out of the first chapter itself for: https://youtu.be/q4gIaSMPnjQ), and each is worth it. This work not only shows the unity of Christ in the Godhead even on the Cross, but shows how the powerful work of redemption is the work of all 3 persons in the Godhead. All three are working together in the incarnation, passion, crucifixion, and resurrections. There is no pitting the love of the Son against the wrath of the Father. It is the love of the great I AM that pours out onto us through it all, and even in God's wrath we can see it in the promise of His love and draw hope from. How did Christ atone for us? How does Christ work not only make us righteous before God, but actually transform us? So much is covered in this book and it's worth it all. Have hope, in the God who is always working out from His love toward us.
March 8, 2023
“I have hope - ‘sure and certain hope’, as some liturgical formulations put it - because the man Jesus Christ offered himself for our sins. I have hope because the Father did not reject or abandon Jesus but instead raised Jesus from death. I have hope because the Holy Spirit is with us today, bringing to us the benefits of Christ’s victory.” (Pg. 162)
This book is a pretty approachable and succinct theological study of the cross, justification and sanctification, and why Trinitarian theology matters to those doctrines. It was worth reading, especially leading up to Easter.
This book is a pretty approachable and succinct theological study of the cross, justification and sanctification, and why Trinitarian theology matters to those doctrines. It was worth reading, especially leading up to Easter.
September 30, 2022
A good intro to divine impassability and simplicity. His section on determinism was disappointing.
January 31, 2013
Thomas McCall writes to save us from some of the distortions of the gospel that violate the nature and work of the Triune God. We sometimes speak as if in the death of Christ, the trinity was broken as God turned his back on his son. Or we oppose the wrath of the Father to the love of the Son on the cross. Sometimes we treat the death of Christ as little more than a tragic accident. Or we speak of salvation only in a forensic sense of dealing with our guilt before God without transforming our lives.
McCall argues that a proper understanding of the Triune God can save us from these distortions and open up to us a much richer understanding of how Father, Son, and Spirit act as one in our salvation and in the transforming work of sanctification. Son and Father are not set against one another on Calvary. Nor is holy love of the Triune God violated or cut into pieces by God's wrath against sin.
This is a very helpful book to all who seek to convey the gospel with fidelity to the truth of who God is. It can help us guard against ways of communicating the message that leave us open to charges of the cross being divine child abuse or worse. It exalts the goodness, love and holiness of our God. I hope to see more by this author!
McCall argues that a proper understanding of the Triune God can save us from these distortions and open up to us a much richer understanding of how Father, Son, and Spirit act as one in our salvation and in the transforming work of sanctification. Son and Father are not set against one another on Calvary. Nor is holy love of the Triune God violated or cut into pieces by God's wrath against sin.
This is a very helpful book to all who seek to convey the gospel with fidelity to the truth of who God is. It can help us guard against ways of communicating the message that leave us open to charges of the cross being divine child abuse or worse. It exalts the goodness, love and holiness of our God. I hope to see more by this author!
October 6, 2024
A great book on the atonement, highly recommended.
McCall first starts by asking if the Trinity was broken on the cross, as some modern theologians have taught based on the cry of dereliction ("my God, my God, why have You forsaken me?"). Surveying the early church data, the early church fathers (with their strong foundation in an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity) actually taught the exact opposite – that the Trinity was not broken (indeed, that is impossible), but rather, Christ was saying those words in His role of representing mankind on the cross and identifying with our plight as sinful humans. McCall cites Athanasius, Ambrose, and Gregory Nazianzus among other fathers, but I think his citation of Cyril of Alexandria makes the point the clearest: we should not understand a broken Trinity from the cry of dereliction, but rather,
Looking at the Biblical data, McCall observes that the cry was an explicit quotation of Psalm 22, and that there is no trace of God having rejected or abandoned the psalmist (cf. Ps 22:24). Indeed, properly understanding the doctrine of the Trinity and the importance of the unity of substance/essence of God also strongly militates against the view that the Trinity was broken. With these strands of evidence, McCall submits that the Trinity was not broken, nor did the Father abandon the Son on the cross.
McCall then explores the relationship between God's righteous wrath and Holy Love by going though the doctrines of impassibility and simplicity. The former teaches that "God does not undergo successive or fluctuating emotional states", and is not "debilitated" or "crippled" by passions as humans are. This is the grounding on which theologians can say that God's love is "perfect" and his love "unalterable". In the words of a theologian riffing off St Thomas Aquinas, God "loves without undergoing the passible processes and changes that are inherent in human love."
The latter teaches that God is without parts and pieces, and this not only means that God does not depend on anything outside Himself to be put together (neither can He come apart), but it also means that His attributes cannot be separated. Linking back to the discussion of God's wrath and love, it is therefore impossible that God's wrath and holiness competes with or opposes His love, but rather, they "cohere within his own nature" and are two sides of the same coin – "God's righteous wrath is the expression of holy impassible love." This is good news, because that means that there is no part of God that is not "for us" (Romans 8:31), and that it is God's love that is the source of the atonement. God is radically for us, and "The death of Jesus does not make it possible for God to love us." Rather, "Christ died for us because God loved us".
Third, McCall goes through doctrines of God's foreknowledge to refute the notion that Jesus' death was a tragic accident, meaningless tragedy, or somehow take God by surprise. Rather, Christ was clearly foretold in the Old Testament to suffer and die for His people. However, McCall urges us to avoid the language that "God killed Jesus" (which may also be a statement that leads from strict divine determinism), pointing to the gospel proclaimed by the apostles (in Acts) that it is "you" who killed Christ, but God raised Him from the dead. At the same time, McCall also emphasises that Christ's death is not merely concerned with forgiving past sins, but it also looks to the future – He both "shows us how to live a life pleasing to God", and also "wins the decisive victory for us in his death and resurrection". And we receive all these benefits when we are joined, by the Holy Spirit, in union with Christ. What good news!
Lastly, McCall goes through the doctrines of justification and sanctification. He submits that justification is forensic, but it is not as if one part of God only cares about changing our legal status and another part cares about corrective (or secondary) justice – rather, "the doctrine of justification itself points us to the fact that God graciously seeks to restore us really and actually to the place where we are "right with God."" Justification is thus not an end in itself, but rather, it "brings us home", and God continues to sanctify us. Sanctification is also inherently trinitarian – it "is the will of the Father, who gives his Son and Spirit to us; it is the provision of the Mediator, who gave himself for our cleansing and renewal; and it is the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, who comes as the other comforter (Jn 14:16)." This is good news – we are sinners that have rebelled against God, plunging our selves into blindness and ruin, but God, being faithful, did not abandon us. He redeemed us sinners, and "has not pardoned us to live as criminals who cower and scurry away; [but] he has saved us for nothing less than participation in the holy love of the triune life."
All Christians, when reciting the creeds, confess belief in a triune God. McCall not only goes through essential aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity (such as divine simplicity and impassibility), but also links it to the atonement, justification, and sanctification, and showing how it is good news and intrinsically tied up with the gospel that God is triune. A hopeful, insightful read.
McCall first starts by asking if the Trinity was broken on the cross, as some modern theologians have taught based on the cry of dereliction ("my God, my God, why have You forsaken me?"). Surveying the early church data, the early church fathers (with their strong foundation in an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity) actually taught the exact opposite – that the Trinity was not broken (indeed, that is impossible), but rather, Christ was saying those words in His role of representing mankind on the cross and identifying with our plight as sinful humans. McCall cites Athanasius, Ambrose, and Gregory Nazianzus among other fathers, but I think his citation of Cyril of Alexandria makes the point the clearest: we should not understand a broken Trinity from the cry of dereliction, but rather,
"in becoming man, the Only Begotten spoke these words as one of us and on behalf of our nature. It was as if he were saying this: “The first man has transgressed. He slipped into disobedience... But you Lord have made me a second beginning for all on the earth, and I am called the Second Adam. In me you see the nature of man made clean, its faults corrected, made holy and pure." (Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ)Medieval theologians were also against the view that the Trinity was broken.
Looking at the Biblical data, McCall observes that the cry was an explicit quotation of Psalm 22, and that there is no trace of God having rejected or abandoned the psalmist (cf. Ps 22:24). Indeed, properly understanding the doctrine of the Trinity and the importance of the unity of substance/essence of God also strongly militates against the view that the Trinity was broken. With these strands of evidence, McCall submits that the Trinity was not broken, nor did the Father abandon the Son on the cross.
McCall then explores the relationship between God's righteous wrath and Holy Love by going though the doctrines of impassibility and simplicity. The former teaches that "God does not undergo successive or fluctuating emotional states", and is not "debilitated" or "crippled" by passions as humans are. This is the grounding on which theologians can say that God's love is "perfect" and his love "unalterable". In the words of a theologian riffing off St Thomas Aquinas, God "loves without undergoing the passible processes and changes that are inherent in human love."
The latter teaches that God is without parts and pieces, and this not only means that God does not depend on anything outside Himself to be put together (neither can He come apart), but it also means that His attributes cannot be separated. Linking back to the discussion of God's wrath and love, it is therefore impossible that God's wrath and holiness competes with or opposes His love, but rather, they "cohere within his own nature" and are two sides of the same coin – "God's righteous wrath is the expression of holy impassible love." This is good news, because that means that there is no part of God that is not "for us" (Romans 8:31), and that it is God's love that is the source of the atonement. God is radically for us, and "The death of Jesus does not make it possible for God to love us." Rather, "Christ died for us because God loved us".
Third, McCall goes through doctrines of God's foreknowledge to refute the notion that Jesus' death was a tragic accident, meaningless tragedy, or somehow take God by surprise. Rather, Christ was clearly foretold in the Old Testament to suffer and die for His people. However, McCall urges us to avoid the language that "God killed Jesus" (which may also be a statement that leads from strict divine determinism), pointing to the gospel proclaimed by the apostles (in Acts) that it is "you" who killed Christ, but God raised Him from the dead. At the same time, McCall also emphasises that Christ's death is not merely concerned with forgiving past sins, but it also looks to the future – He both "shows us how to live a life pleasing to God", and also "wins the decisive victory for us in his death and resurrection". And we receive all these benefits when we are joined, by the Holy Spirit, in union with Christ. What good news!
Lastly, McCall goes through the doctrines of justification and sanctification. He submits that justification is forensic, but it is not as if one part of God only cares about changing our legal status and another part cares about corrective (or secondary) justice – rather, "the doctrine of justification itself points us to the fact that God graciously seeks to restore us really and actually to the place where we are "right with God."" Justification is thus not an end in itself, but rather, it "brings us home", and God continues to sanctify us. Sanctification is also inherently trinitarian – it "is the will of the Father, who gives his Son and Spirit to us; it is the provision of the Mediator, who gave himself for our cleansing and renewal; and it is the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, who comes as the other comforter (Jn 14:16)." This is good news – we are sinners that have rebelled against God, plunging our selves into blindness and ruin, but God, being faithful, did not abandon us. He redeemed us sinners, and "has not pardoned us to live as criminals who cower and scurry away; [but] he has saved us for nothing less than participation in the holy love of the triune life."
All Christians, when reciting the creeds, confess belief in a triune God. McCall not only goes through essential aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity (such as divine simplicity and impassibility), but also links it to the atonement, justification, and sanctification, and showing how it is good news and intrinsically tied up with the gospel that God is triune. A hopeful, insightful read.
Read
July 26, 2020Four star average. First two chapters were outstanding, essential reading, and worth the price of admission, not only on the unity of the Trinity in the work of redemption (up to and including the cross) but on the issues of divine impassibility and simplicity. McCall also points out weaknesses in some social trinitarian thought. Third chapter was the least compelling. McCall is implicitly critiquing Calvinism here. He is rightly critical of some versions of determinism but his indeterminist account is unsatisfactory and he doesn’t adequately interact with classical reformed sources. Last chapter on justification and sanctification was clear and features a helpful discussion on Romans 7.
December 27, 2025
This book reads like McCall found a really good premise as an excuse to expound all sorts of theological concepts and doctrines.
It's a great popular level read that also serves as a primer for wider theological concepts such as trinitarian doctrine, classical attributes of God like Simplicity and Impassibility, Atonement theology, etc.
All in all, a really good and readable book. Highly recommend as a primer into deeper theology.
It's a great popular level read that also serves as a primer for wider theological concepts such as trinitarian doctrine, classical attributes of God like Simplicity and Impassibility, Atonement theology, etc.
All in all, a really good and readable book. Highly recommend as a primer into deeper theology.
May 17, 2012
The cross is the Triune God's way of addressing human sinfulness and reconciling the world to Godself. Yet theologians and popular preachers make certain inferences which undermine a robust doctrine of the Trinity. In Forsaken: The Trinity and the Cross, and Why it Matters, Thomas McCall (associate professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) aims at answering some of the thorny questions people ask when they consider the cross and the Trinity. The title comes in reference to Christ's cry on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" and is the subject of the first chapter. McCall asks what can we and should we infer from this cry and how do we understand this in light of contemporary scholarship, patristic and historical theology and attention to the actual text.
I really like McCall's approach of taking popular questions which we've all encountered (or asked!) and addressing them theologically. Although this may make this a somewhat lengthy post, let me walk you through each chapter before concluding with some general reflections on the book:
Chapter 1- "Was the Trinity Broken? -The Father, the Son and Their Cross- How are we to understand Christ's cry of dereliciton? Does it mean total desperation and desertion of the Son by the Father? Was the Trinity completely ruptured? McCall points to contemporary theologians and biblical scholars which conclude that Christ was completely abandoned by the Father. But McCall reads these contemporary conclusions against traditional readings (Patristic and Medieval sources) and observes that traditionally, these words have been understood, not as a broken relationship within the Trinity, but as the 'Father forsaking the Son to this death for us and for our salvation. McCall also invites readers to reread the passion narratives in light of the allusion to Psalm 22 (the cry of dereliction is a direct quote from Psalm 22:1) and a Christian understanding of the Trinity. He reviews the Social Trinity and Latin Models of the Trinity and concludes that for either model, the Father's complete abandoment of the son is impossible (For the Latin model, if the Father abandons the son entirely, he also forsakes his own fatherliness and the unity of God is broken; for the Social trinitarians a broken relationship within the Trinity brings God into an ontological crisis (following Zizuoulas, God's being is bound up with his ' being in communion'). He also argues that the biblical evidence does not warrant a complete break within the Trinity, and that we ought to read Christ's cry with the stunning reversal in mind that is implied by it's allusion to Psalm 22. Finally he concludes that we should avoid any position which says Jesus did not suffer and was not 'really abandoned' but also reject any approach which asserts God's abandonment of the Son's humanity during crucifixion. We should affirm that the Father did abandon the Son (to death on the cross) but that this no way implies a break in Jesus' union with either humanity or in the Son's relationship with God.
Chapter 2 Did the Death of Jesus Make it Possible for God to Love Me? "Righteous Wrath, Holy Love and the Heart of the Triune God" -McCall begins by observing that the God of scripture is revealed as a God of wrath, which is directed againt human sinfulness; however wrath is not presented in opposition to God's love but both are affirmed in scripture. He reviews the ways contemporary theologians sometimes ignore , minimizing and depersonalizing God's wrath, or place them in opposition to God's love. Yet McCallseeks to place God's love and wrath within the context of the doctrine of God. He argues that Divine impassibility does not imply that God does not love, but it does point to his eternal trustworthiness and solidity of divine love. He also points at the doctrine of Divine simplicity to frame the discussion of what we mean when we refer to divine attributes and the unity of God's character. He concludes that God's righteous wrath is a contingent expression of what is essential or necessary to him against sin, and a contigent expression of the holy love of the Trinity. Furthermore, God's wrath is an expression of his holy impassible love. From this discussion, McCall concludes that we should avoid downplaying, depersonalizing, or anthropomorphizing God's wrath, or any explanation which posits tension or 'strife of attributes' within God but we need to affirm that God's wrath is real and personal and that it finds it source God's holy love. McCall claims that this is important because if we ignore God's wrath we ultimately trivialize his love and if we put God's love in opposition to God's wrath, we malign the character of the Trinity. Furthermore, by clarifying our thinking we see that the atonement 'did not procure grace, but flowed from it."
Chapter 3-Was the Death of Jesus a Meaningless Tragedy? "Foreknowledge, Fulfillment and the Plan of the Trinity- This chapter addresses the meaning of the cross. McCall first points to how it was foreknown by God and foretold in scripture (though he is careful to frame how this is different from determinism). He then discusses the nature of Christ's work. He discusses the substitutionary dimension of the cross, but also how it achieves Christ's victory (Christus Victor) and sets an example for us (Moral influence). He concludes by saying we should avoid understanding Christ's death as just a tragic accident or meaningless tragedy, avoid saying God killed his Son, avoid determinism, and avoid pagan notions of substitutionary atonement or one-sided affirmations of Christus Victor or moral-influence themes. Instead, we should affirm that Christ's death was according toGod's plan, and that through it Christ makes satisfcation for our sin and guilt, wins us a decisive victory over the powers through his death and resurrection and shows us how to lead lives pleasing to God.
Chapter 4- Does It Make A Difference? "The Brokenness of Humanity and the Unbroken Work of the Trinity?" - In chapter 4, McCall ties together the themes of this book to discuss what it means to understand the cross as the work of the Trinity. He places the concept of Justification under the category of 'primary justice,' referencing a rightly ordered social whole, rather than 'secondary justice' (rendering judgment). This doesn't alter the traditional view of justification, but it places it on a 'broader soteriological canvas." Thus forensic judgment (important as it is) describes God's secondary justice, while primarily the cross is about 'God bringing us home.' McCall also moves beyond the doctrine of justification to discuss the process of sanctification as flowing out of our justification (and involving the Spirit's work in our salvation). He concludes that we should avoid understanding our salvation, only in legal terms, and that we need to reflect on the relationship between justification and sanctification. We also need to affirm the proper order of salvation (we can't sanctify ourselves into justification by the cross) and realize that justification entitles more than where you go when you die, but also how you live now.
Conclusion- "A Personal Theological Testimony" McCall closes with a moving tale of his father's final day and how the Triune God's work through the cross brings him hope.
As the above summary should indicate, McCall's reflections are theologically rich and he draws from variety of sources (philosophical, historical and biblical theol0gy). I really appreciate the way he is able to affirm the substitutionary and forensic character of the atonement while avoiding the popular (and tritheistic) caricature of penal substitution which paints the father as the angry father and Jesus as the God of love. To my mind McCall is judicious in his conclusions and is able to demonstrate both biblical and theologically the ways in which the cross was the work of the entire trinity for our salvation.
There were a couple of places I wish he unpacked certain scriptures because I have heard them used as proof texts for alternative positions (i.e. He claims that the Bible never teaches that God killed Jesus, but I have heard preachers point to Isa. 53:4 as evidence that God did). But this is a short book (171 pages) and you can't address everything. McCall really does a solid job untangling many of the issues surrounding the implications of the trinity and the cross.
I recieved a copy of this book from IVP Academic in exchange for this review. The views above are my own.
I really like McCall's approach of taking popular questions which we've all encountered (or asked!) and addressing them theologically. Although this may make this a somewhat lengthy post, let me walk you through each chapter before concluding with some general reflections on the book:
Chapter 1- "Was the Trinity Broken? -The Father, the Son and Their Cross- How are we to understand Christ's cry of dereliciton? Does it mean total desperation and desertion of the Son by the Father? Was the Trinity completely ruptured? McCall points to contemporary theologians and biblical scholars which conclude that Christ was completely abandoned by the Father. But McCall reads these contemporary conclusions against traditional readings (Patristic and Medieval sources) and observes that traditionally, these words have been understood, not as a broken relationship within the Trinity, but as the 'Father forsaking the Son to this death for us and for our salvation. McCall also invites readers to reread the passion narratives in light of the allusion to Psalm 22 (the cry of dereliction is a direct quote from Psalm 22:1) and a Christian understanding of the Trinity. He reviews the Social Trinity and Latin Models of the Trinity and concludes that for either model, the Father's complete abandoment of the son is impossible (For the Latin model, if the Father abandons the son entirely, he also forsakes his own fatherliness and the unity of God is broken; for the Social trinitarians a broken relationship within the Trinity brings God into an ontological crisis (following Zizuoulas, God's being is bound up with his ' being in communion'). He also argues that the biblical evidence does not warrant a complete break within the Trinity, and that we ought to read Christ's cry with the stunning reversal in mind that is implied by it's allusion to Psalm 22. Finally he concludes that we should avoid any position which says Jesus did not suffer and was not 'really abandoned' but also reject any approach which asserts God's abandonment of the Son's humanity during crucifixion. We should affirm that the Father did abandon the Son (to death on the cross) but that this no way implies a break in Jesus' union with either humanity or in the Son's relationship with God.
Chapter 2 Did the Death of Jesus Make it Possible for God to Love Me? "Righteous Wrath, Holy Love and the Heart of the Triune God" -McCall begins by observing that the God of scripture is revealed as a God of wrath, which is directed againt human sinfulness; however wrath is not presented in opposition to God's love but both are affirmed in scripture. He reviews the ways contemporary theologians sometimes ignore , minimizing and depersonalizing God's wrath, or place them in opposition to God's love. Yet McCallseeks to place God's love and wrath within the context of the doctrine of God. He argues that Divine impassibility does not imply that God does not love, but it does point to his eternal trustworthiness and solidity of divine love. He also points at the doctrine of Divine simplicity to frame the discussion of what we mean when we refer to divine attributes and the unity of God's character. He concludes that God's righteous wrath is a contingent expression of what is essential or necessary to him against sin, and a contigent expression of the holy love of the Trinity. Furthermore, God's wrath is an expression of his holy impassible love. From this discussion, McCall concludes that we should avoid downplaying, depersonalizing, or anthropomorphizing God's wrath, or any explanation which posits tension or 'strife of attributes' within God but we need to affirm that God's wrath is real and personal and that it finds it source God's holy love. McCall claims that this is important because if we ignore God's wrath we ultimately trivialize his love and if we put God's love in opposition to God's wrath, we malign the character of the Trinity. Furthermore, by clarifying our thinking we see that the atonement 'did not procure grace, but flowed from it."
Chapter 3-Was the Death of Jesus a Meaningless Tragedy? "Foreknowledge, Fulfillment and the Plan of the Trinity- This chapter addresses the meaning of the cross. McCall first points to how it was foreknown by God and foretold in scripture (though he is careful to frame how this is different from determinism). He then discusses the nature of Christ's work. He discusses the substitutionary dimension of the cross, but also how it achieves Christ's victory (Christus Victor) and sets an example for us (Moral influence). He concludes by saying we should avoid understanding Christ's death as just a tragic accident or meaningless tragedy, avoid saying God killed his Son, avoid determinism, and avoid pagan notions of substitutionary atonement or one-sided affirmations of Christus Victor or moral-influence themes. Instead, we should affirm that Christ's death was according toGod's plan, and that through it Christ makes satisfcation for our sin and guilt, wins us a decisive victory over the powers through his death and resurrection and shows us how to lead lives pleasing to God.
Chapter 4- Does It Make A Difference? "The Brokenness of Humanity and the Unbroken Work of the Trinity?" - In chapter 4, McCall ties together the themes of this book to discuss what it means to understand the cross as the work of the Trinity. He places the concept of Justification under the category of 'primary justice,' referencing a rightly ordered social whole, rather than 'secondary justice' (rendering judgment). This doesn't alter the traditional view of justification, but it places it on a 'broader soteriological canvas." Thus forensic judgment (important as it is) describes God's secondary justice, while primarily the cross is about 'God bringing us home.' McCall also moves beyond the doctrine of justification to discuss the process of sanctification as flowing out of our justification (and involving the Spirit's work in our salvation). He concludes that we should avoid understanding our salvation, only in legal terms, and that we need to reflect on the relationship between justification and sanctification. We also need to affirm the proper order of salvation (we can't sanctify ourselves into justification by the cross) and realize that justification entitles more than where you go when you die, but also how you live now.
Conclusion- "A Personal Theological Testimony" McCall closes with a moving tale of his father's final day and how the Triune God's work through the cross brings him hope.
As the above summary should indicate, McCall's reflections are theologically rich and he draws from variety of sources (philosophical, historical and biblical theol0gy). I really appreciate the way he is able to affirm the substitutionary and forensic character of the atonement while avoiding the popular (and tritheistic) caricature of penal substitution which paints the father as the angry father and Jesus as the God of love. To my mind McCall is judicious in his conclusions and is able to demonstrate both biblical and theologically the ways in which the cross was the work of the entire trinity for our salvation.
There were a couple of places I wish he unpacked certain scriptures because I have heard them used as proof texts for alternative positions (i.e. He claims that the Bible never teaches that God killed Jesus, but I have heard preachers point to Isa. 53:4 as evidence that God did). But this is a short book (171 pages) and you can't address everything. McCall really does a solid job untangling many of the issues surrounding the implications of the trinity and the cross.
I recieved a copy of this book from IVP Academic in exchange for this review. The views above are my own.
September 21, 2019
McCall’s primary concern is that, contrary to many popular presentations in sermons, the relationship between the Father and the Son was not ruptured when Christ cried out on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” His main argument is that if the relationship were in fact ruptured, then that would mean that the Trinity was broken, which is unthinkable. It would mean that God had ceased to be God. McCall provides other ways of interpreting Jesus’ cry of dereliction. His argument here was convincing. I think I needed to hear this, because I am pretty sure I have fallen into careless language myself when preaching.
However, as much as I appreciated this corrective, I can’t really recommend the book as a whole. There are strands in his thought that seemed too influenced by less than orthodox theology. For example, he argues, reminiscent of Ritschlian liberalism, that God’s wrath is actually an expression of his love (pp. 80-86). He also holds a libertarian view of free-will, which causes him to shrink from stating that God sovereignly decreed that Judas and the Sanhedrin would hand Jesus over to be killed. He acknowledges that it was part of God’s foreknowledge, and that God used the evil of men to bring about his redemptive plan, but he is afraid of “determinism” with respect to the crucifixion (p. 101). In his presentation of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, he affirms it but then goes on to quote favorably too many theologians who are critical of the received doctrine and who want to emphasize other “models” of the atonement, such as the Christus Victor theory. Finally, McCall seems to have a somewhat Wesleyan view of soteriology. While he acknowledges that justification and sanctification are distinct, he spends more time showing how they are “aspects of one and the same union with Christ,” quoting the Methodist theologian William Pope (p. 137).
However, as much as I appreciated this corrective, I can’t really recommend the book as a whole. There are strands in his thought that seemed too influenced by less than orthodox theology. For example, he argues, reminiscent of Ritschlian liberalism, that God’s wrath is actually an expression of his love (pp. 80-86). He also holds a libertarian view of free-will, which causes him to shrink from stating that God sovereignly decreed that Judas and the Sanhedrin would hand Jesus over to be killed. He acknowledges that it was part of God’s foreknowledge, and that God used the evil of men to bring about his redemptive plan, but he is afraid of “determinism” with respect to the crucifixion (p. 101). In his presentation of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, he affirms it but then goes on to quote favorably too many theologians who are critical of the received doctrine and who want to emphasize other “models” of the atonement, such as the Christus Victor theory. Finally, McCall seems to have a somewhat Wesleyan view of soteriology. While he acknowledges that justification and sanctification are distinct, he spends more time showing how they are “aspects of one and the same union with Christ,” quoting the Methodist theologian William Pope (p. 137).
May 24, 2022
While I found McCall's first section (dealing with question of Christ's abandonment from a broad historical and critical perspective) excellent and important, the volume progresses less remarkably not just into the theological weeds around the title question but into—what reads to me at least—some fairly tedious evangelical handwringing. On that score, I might be wrong to fault McCall as an evangelical theologian writing about finer points of systematic theology, but where I do lose esteem for his work is in finding myself uncompelled when he explicitly purports to sell the importance and where I find myself wading through litanies of extraneous airdropped quotes and block quotes from beloved evangelical and modern Protestant theologians as an almost implicit appeal to authority. In another word, while McCall begins by showing a well-rounded deference to the earliest traditions of reading the Passion narratives, he seems to largely abandon them in their import in favor of bolstering his argument with Protestant reformers and contemporary systematics that he seems to treat as giving implicit credibility to his otherwise decently made (if not so obscured) arguments.
April 11, 2025
A Thought Provoking Treatment of the Holy Trinity
The author’s commitment to Christ and the Trinity comes through clearly in this book. However, it would appear that he believes that while Jesus was fully God AND fully man as He walked this planet, he does not believe that duality can ever be separated, not even for a moment.
McCall insists that the Trinity was not broken that day so long ago, when Christ hung on the cross and declared, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me!” He does not appear to believe that Christ literally “became sin for us,” as Paul states in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Rather, McCall says Christ became a sin-offering for us.
Other than that issue, the book offers much to ponder and consider. McCall will challenge the reader to a deeper understanding of the Trinity, and the importance of the roles of each part of the Trinity in bringing sinful man to forgiveness and salvation.
When you have read the chapters, do NOT fail to read the “Conclusion.” It is there that McCall shares his personal testimony of faith and grasping of the Trinity. It is moving and passionate. He draws the reader into his story in a very effective way.
The author’s commitment to Christ and the Trinity comes through clearly in this book. However, it would appear that he believes that while Jesus was fully God AND fully man as He walked this planet, he does not believe that duality can ever be separated, not even for a moment.
McCall insists that the Trinity was not broken that day so long ago, when Christ hung on the cross and declared, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me!” He does not appear to believe that Christ literally “became sin for us,” as Paul states in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Rather, McCall says Christ became a sin-offering for us.
Other than that issue, the book offers much to ponder and consider. McCall will challenge the reader to a deeper understanding of the Trinity, and the importance of the roles of each part of the Trinity in bringing sinful man to forgiveness and salvation.
When you have read the chapters, do NOT fail to read the “Conclusion.” It is there that McCall shares his personal testimony of faith and grasping of the Trinity. It is moving and passionate. He draws the reader into his story in a very effective way.
April 20, 2025
This was a great concise read on the implications of the Trinity at the cross. The author stated his goal to communicate this to lay people and pastors, not theologians and scholars, while it is rather scholarly and theological. He did a good job at this, most ideas communicated were easy to understand, thus showing great ability to communicate difficult ideas on a lower level. This book helps explain some debates that have taken place over the centuries on the trinity as well as describing both sides and arguing for the orthodox view. He also embarks to show why the trinity matters especially in the area of Jesus’ crucifixion. That being that the Trinity maintained unity throughout showing its absolute power over sin and that it was a chief expression of God’s love for humanity, rather than making God able to love humanity. Through this read I was more and more struck with the love shown in the cross and subsequently the power shown in the resurrection, both of which are needed for the redemption which God has purposed.
March 23, 2023
This is very solid, and shockingly short! I'm pretty amazed at how much ground McCall is able to cover in such a trim little book. He makes a competent case for the impassibility and simplicity of God, as well as a robust defense of deeply orthodox trinitarian thought over and against some of the disturbing, pop-theology discussions of what happened in the cross that edge more into quasi-paganism than traditional Christianity. In a book with so much nuance, I wish he would have engaged a bit with the arguments around the language of "imputed" righteousness, as well as some of the implications of the New Perspective, and also some of what liberation theologians do with the cross.
That said, because the book is so short and competently argued, I will likely refer to it over and over again when I want a refresh on some of the arguments, and especially when I want to make sure my own teaching and preaching on the cross is robustly trinitarian. A solid resource.
That said, because the book is so short and competently argued, I will likely refer to it over and over again when I want a refresh on some of the arguments, and especially when I want to make sure my own teaching and preaching on the cross is robustly trinitarian. A solid resource.
October 17, 2021
Excellent review of the Trinity and it’s impact specifically on Christ’s death on the Cross, the wrath and love of God, foreknowledge, God’s divine plan, and justification & sanctification. Chapter one was superb and dealt with many problematic contemporary teachings about the Trinity being broken at the Cross and was likely the biggest thrust of the book. The other chapters were very well done though not comprehensive. Reformed theologians and hyper-Calvinist will truly dislike his stance on determinism and likely his take on Romans 7, but I found both compelling and thoughtful. The conclusion of the book was a wonderful reminder of the application of theology and it’s meaningfulness in all of life - a beautifully written personal testimony.
Very good (and actually easy) read, despite any quibbles I might have with some details.
Very good (and actually easy) read, despite any quibbles I might have with some details.
April 2, 2024
Although this book was very different from Delighting in the Trinity, which was more devotional, I find it equally as valuable to my growth in knowledge. Forsaken is theologically rich and laden with Scripture, providing the reader with the right information. The hard work the reader must do before reading this book is finding a way to communicate and integrate those truths into their personal life. It would be meaningless to learn of the reality of the wrath of God if the reader does not find a way to cultivate a healthy fear and love of God in response. The fear of God should and can be just as much of a motivator for obedience as the love of God. Doing so would be in alignment with what is revealed in the Old and New Testaments.
May 10, 2012
Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection is the central event in the Christian story. What we believe about what happens in this short period shapes everything else we believe. Little has been more confusing for many Christians than what happened when Jesus died.
When Jesus is on the cross, he cries out
My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me?
What did Jesus mean when he called out those words? How we answer that question informs a lot of what we believe: who we understand God to be, what our relationship with God looks like, how we live out our faith in the world.
Many Christians have heard that Jesus' statement means that the Trinity was broken in these moments. That God the Son became sin, so God the Father abandoned him. That because Jesus became our sin on the Cross, the Father poured all his wrath onto Jesus (instead of us), so now God can love us because his wrath has been satisfied.
All of those statements are completely, dangerously wrong.
In his excellent new book Forsaken, theology professor and pastor Thomas McCall comes to the Cross, arriving with a robust, fully-formed and orthodox Trinitarian theology. Looking at Jesus' death through the lens of the Trinity helps us to understand the God who rescues us more fully.
Dr. McCall arranges the book with four questions that take us through his argument clearly and succinctly:
1. Was the Trinity Broken?
In a word, No. McCall boils some complex and often-confusing theological positions on the nature of the Trinity down to accessible, understandable concepts. Because God is fundamentally Love, because God is essentially relational, McCall argues that
If the being of God is a relational being, and if the relationships are sundered, then surely there is no God at all.
To say that the Trinity is divided is to say that God ceases to be God. To say that any one person of the Trinity ceases to be God is to claim that all persons in the Trinity cease to be God.
As McCall concludes:
The works of God in creation and redemption are always undivided, and the Son's communion with the Father is unblemished.
2. Did the Death of Jesus Make it Possible for God to Love Me?
An important issue in dealing with the Crucifixion is the relationship between divine Love and divine Wrath. As McCall notes, we often pit these against each other to the extent that Jesus the (loving) Son is in tension with God the (wrathful) Father.
Having established that the Trinity is always and fully undivided in the last chapter, McCall is able to go on to show that
The Son does not love me and bless me while the Father hates me and curses me (or would like to do so, and would do so, if not for the presence of the Son between us). Rather, it is God who is for us.
Working carefully through exactly what divine Love and Wrath are (and what they are not), McCall demonstrates that these attributes are never in conflict. Rather, God's Love (the essence of who God is), is the foundation of God's wrath.
God's wrath is God's judgment of sin, but it is a judgment in which God asserts that he is the God of the sinner and that the sinner is God's creature… Holy love is the "source" of God's righteous wrath. Wrath is not essential to God's nature; God would be God without it. In short, God doesn't love us because Jesus died for us. God died for us because God loves us.
3. Was the Death of Jesus a Meaningless Tragedy?
Obviously, McCall answers No. But this chapter is really an exploration of how Jesus atoned for our Sin. McCall explores all three major models of Atonement - Penal Substitution, Christus Victor and Moral Influence. After carefully defining each theory, McCall weaves all three together. He claims that we can't discard any of them without missing some vital aspect of what Jesus' death accomplished.
As the sin offering, Christ makes satisfaction for our sin and guilt. As the one who gives himself away, Christ shows us how to live a life pleasing to God in the power of the Spirit. As the one who wins the decisive victory for us in his death and resurrection, Christ defeats the enslaving powers of sin.
4. Does it Make a Difference?
From his strongly Trinitarian foundation, McCall builds in his final chapter a picture of what Christians are called to.
Rightly observing that most discussions on the Cross center on what we were saved from (justification), McCall reminds us that we were also saved for:
Forensic justification, important and precious though it is, is not and cannot be the whole sum of the gospel message… It is impossible to read Scripture carefully and come away with the conviction that God's only (or even primary) purpose is to change our legal status.
McCall is talking about Sanctification, the process by which we are made holy. With language as clear and compelling as it's been throughout the book, McCall dispels the legalism that often accompanies discussions of sanctification.
This final chapter is a wonderful summary of themes McCall sketches throughout the book. Sanctification is God inviting us into the holy, Trinitarian love that is God's essence. We are not just saved from Sin and Death, we are also saved for Life.
Bottom Line: Though it's a bit technical, Forsaken deserves to be read carefully and discussed thoroughly. It's an excellent reminder of who God actually is, and a helpful corrective to a lot of the bad theology that's out there.
When Jesus is on the cross, he cries out
My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me?
What did Jesus mean when he called out those words? How we answer that question informs a lot of what we believe: who we understand God to be, what our relationship with God looks like, how we live out our faith in the world.
Many Christians have heard that Jesus' statement means that the Trinity was broken in these moments. That God the Son became sin, so God the Father abandoned him. That because Jesus became our sin on the Cross, the Father poured all his wrath onto Jesus (instead of us), so now God can love us because his wrath has been satisfied.
All of those statements are completely, dangerously wrong.
In his excellent new book Forsaken, theology professor and pastor Thomas McCall comes to the Cross, arriving with a robust, fully-formed and orthodox Trinitarian theology. Looking at Jesus' death through the lens of the Trinity helps us to understand the God who rescues us more fully.
Dr. McCall arranges the book with four questions that take us through his argument clearly and succinctly:
1. Was the Trinity Broken?
In a word, No. McCall boils some complex and often-confusing theological positions on the nature of the Trinity down to accessible, understandable concepts. Because God is fundamentally Love, because God is essentially relational, McCall argues that
If the being of God is a relational being, and if the relationships are sundered, then surely there is no God at all.
To say that the Trinity is divided is to say that God ceases to be God. To say that any one person of the Trinity ceases to be God is to claim that all persons in the Trinity cease to be God.
As McCall concludes:
The works of God in creation and redemption are always undivided, and the Son's communion with the Father is unblemished.
2. Did the Death of Jesus Make it Possible for God to Love Me?
An important issue in dealing with the Crucifixion is the relationship between divine Love and divine Wrath. As McCall notes, we often pit these against each other to the extent that Jesus the (loving) Son is in tension with God the (wrathful) Father.
Having established that the Trinity is always and fully undivided in the last chapter, McCall is able to go on to show that
The Son does not love me and bless me while the Father hates me and curses me (or would like to do so, and would do so, if not for the presence of the Son between us). Rather, it is God who is for us.
Working carefully through exactly what divine Love and Wrath are (and what they are not), McCall demonstrates that these attributes are never in conflict. Rather, God's Love (the essence of who God is), is the foundation of God's wrath.
God's wrath is God's judgment of sin, but it is a judgment in which God asserts that he is the God of the sinner and that the sinner is God's creature… Holy love is the "source" of God's righteous wrath. Wrath is not essential to God's nature; God would be God without it. In short, God doesn't love us because Jesus died for us. God died for us because God loves us.
3. Was the Death of Jesus a Meaningless Tragedy?
Obviously, McCall answers No. But this chapter is really an exploration of how Jesus atoned for our Sin. McCall explores all three major models of Atonement - Penal Substitution, Christus Victor and Moral Influence. After carefully defining each theory, McCall weaves all three together. He claims that we can't discard any of them without missing some vital aspect of what Jesus' death accomplished.
As the sin offering, Christ makes satisfaction for our sin and guilt. As the one who gives himself away, Christ shows us how to live a life pleasing to God in the power of the Spirit. As the one who wins the decisive victory for us in his death and resurrection, Christ defeats the enslaving powers of sin.
4. Does it Make a Difference?
From his strongly Trinitarian foundation, McCall builds in his final chapter a picture of what Christians are called to.
Rightly observing that most discussions on the Cross center on what we were saved from (justification), McCall reminds us that we were also saved for:
Forensic justification, important and precious though it is, is not and cannot be the whole sum of the gospel message… It is impossible to read Scripture carefully and come away with the conviction that God's only (or even primary) purpose is to change our legal status.
McCall is talking about Sanctification, the process by which we are made holy. With language as clear and compelling as it's been throughout the book, McCall dispels the legalism that often accompanies discussions of sanctification.
This final chapter is a wonderful summary of themes McCall sketches throughout the book. Sanctification is God inviting us into the holy, Trinitarian love that is God's essence. We are not just saved from Sin and Death, we are also saved for Life.
Bottom Line: Though it's a bit technical, Forsaken deserves to be read carefully and discussed thoroughly. It's an excellent reminder of who God actually is, and a helpful corrective to a lot of the bad theology that's out there.
May 6, 2022
While the four chapters of this book are tied together you could almost read them separately as 4 different articles on elements of Trinitarian soteriology. The first chapter (which was also the one I was most interested in) was the best in my opinion. The question of what happened to the Trinity on the cross is a fascinating one for me. While I didn't always agree with his conclusions, I appreciated his willingness to state strongly, "here's what I believe and why."
February 18, 2024
I really enjoyed it.
Taking the cry of dereliction and looking at the doctrine of the Trinity. Touching on impossibility, divine simplicity, and other doctrines. And for me, they came to life through this book.
Further looking at atonement and the value of all these things.
The last chapter almost brought me to literal tears.
It brought me a deeper appreciation of the work of Jesus and gave me the desire to worship God.
Taking the cry of dereliction and looking at the doctrine of the Trinity. Touching on impossibility, divine simplicity, and other doctrines. And for me, they came to life through this book.
Further looking at atonement and the value of all these things.
The last chapter almost brought me to literal tears.
It brought me a deeper appreciation of the work of Jesus and gave me the desire to worship God.
February 4, 2025
Solid teachings on the Trinity and the doctrines of sanctification and justification. Helpful analysis of God’s perception of sin, the crucification and the kindness of the Lord as He makes us more like Him, if we allow Him to do so.
“If I am truly justified before God by the righteousness of Christ, if I am joined in union with him by faith, then while I never have righteous standing on my own, I always have enough in him.”
“If I am truly justified before God by the righteousness of Christ, if I am joined in union with him by faith, then while I never have righteous standing on my own, I always have enough in him.”
September 3, 2021
McCall tackles the somewhat confusing understanding of the Crucifixion of Jesus as it relates to the Trinity, arguing that there is no separation or severance of the divine persons, preserving the unity and divinity in the Son throughout His work. It is informative, biblically sound, and a helpful resource on a difficult subject!
August 27, 2022
Forsaken unpacks the ramifications of the popular notion that Jesus was separated from the Father on the cross because he had taken upon himself all the sins of humanity. McCall points out that if the Son was actually separated from the Father, the Trinity would cease to exist. There's much more for me to consider here, so I suspect a re-reading awaits me in the future.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews