Sunday, August 24, 2025
Dr Thambar
DR SUKUMARAN THAMBAR
Cardiology, Interventional Cardiology
Dr Suku Thambar undertook his specialist training in cardiology at St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, USA. He has since lived in the Hunter region where he practices as an interventional cardiologist in the private and public sectors. Dr Thambar is a Visiting Medical Officer at Lake Macquarie Private Hospital, Newcastle Private Hospital and Mayo Private Hospital. He holds a conjoint appointment as a Senior Staff Specialist at the John Hunter Hospital and Senior Lecturer of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Newcastle.
Dr Thambar is an active clinical researcher who acknowledges the significance of research in contributing to the advancement of cardiology. His major research interests are the use of adult stem cells in the management of acute and chronic cardiovascular diseases, and the emerging technology of renal artery denervation using catheter-based radio frequency ablation to manage conditions such as resistant hypertension and heart failure.
Expertise
- Coronary angiography
- Left and Right heart catheterisation for valve assessment
- Complex Coronary intervention with intra coronary imaging and lesion modifying devices
- Complex coronary intervention with jarmo dynamic support
- Left Atrial Appendage closure with Watchman device
- Renal Denervation
- Hypertension Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty
Stem cell research
He also initiated research on delivering heart valve replacements intravenously. A good godly man.
Wednesday, August 20, 2025
Public speaking delivery
Peter Adam article N.T. Wright and the Death of Jesus: A Review of ‘The Day the Revolution Began’ 06/04/2017 | PETER ADAM
N. T. Wright continues his prolific contribution to New Testament studies with an extensive focus on the meaning of Christ's death. It is written for a broad readership, rather than for academics. In it we find many familiar Wright themes, here used with specific attention to this one subject. The great strength of Wright's approach is his work on uncovering the coherence and resonances of the big Bible story, and of showing how narrative both expresses and reflects this larger picture. I particularly value his constant attention to God's people and to our responsibility for God's world. This is a valuable correction to solely individualistic interpretations of the gospel of Christ.
I have some sympathy for some of his frustrations. How many series on Romans end with chapter 8, while chapters 9-16 are ignored! And how often the application of Romans 1-8 is personal assurance of salvation, or the need for right doctrine, or the key to the Christian life. Individualism often distorts our reading of the Bible, and our preaching and teaching of the Bible.
His final moving section on the sufferings of the church is excellent, and an apt message for the church in the West, as it is for the church in the 2/3rds world.
However, his positive aim of showing us the meaning of Christ's death is undermined by his constant critique of the traditional doctrine of the death of Christ as our substitute undergoing God's punishment for sin on behalf of sinners. He does this in the broader context of a sustained and extensive attack on 'a platonic view of the ultimate goal' ('heaven'), a moralistic view of the human vocation ('good behaviour'), and a downright pagan view of salvation (an innocent death placating an angry deity).' (311) There is no interaction with Christian tradition or scholarly views which hold traditional nuanced interpretations of penal substitution, but an attack on what he perceives as the common preaching and teaching on the atoning death of Christ in evangelical circles. It is an intentionally divisive book, and its criticisms are harshly expressed. It reflects an academic impatience with those of less theological ability, and a reaction against perceived errors which runs the risks of falling into opposite errors!
It is an unfortunate feature of the book that other views are pilloried, and given the worst possible interpretation. So, the traditional view of penal substitution is constantly portrayed as an angry Father venting his anger on his innocent Son. He damns the traditional doctrine of penal substitution by constantly referring to it as pagan and capricious: 'paganising 'angry God punishing Jesus;'' (234) 'divine petulance;' (224) 'Capricious, or malevolent divinity longing to kill someone, and happening to light upon a convenient innocent victim;' (232) 'rescue this substitution from its pagan captivity;' (287) 'an arbitrary and abstract 'punishment' meted upon an innocent victim;' (337) 'the paganised vision of an angry God looming over the world and bent on blood.' (349) Guilt by association is rhetorically effective, but intellectually weak. He is attacking a straw person. As GK Chesterton observed: 'Any stigma to beat a dogma.'
Wright then opposes this pagan view with the not-so-novel idea of God's love expressed in Christ: 'not an angry father lashing out at an innocent and defenceless son, but … someone embodying the love of God.' (201) One might have thought that the popularity of John 3:16 in evangelical circles would have reassured Wright that his fears are not justified. He writes, 'we do not find a wrathful God bent on killing someone… Instead we find the image … of a covenant-keeping God who takes the full force of sin onto himself.' (185) That sounds just like John Stott's memorable phrase, 'the self-substitution of God.'[1] Words used to describe the death of Christ by those who are not trained as academic theologians may be unwise and simplistic, but to accuse them of paganism is grossly unfair. Wright does not even mention Christian theologians whose writings defend the Christian tradition of penal substitution, and who make the same point he wants to make—that Christ's death reveals God's love. This idea is not new! Calvin, for example, quotes Augustine:
The fact that we were reconciled through Christ's death must not be understood as if his Son reconciled us to him that he might now begin to love those whom he had hated. Rather, we have already been reconciled to him who loves us, with whom we were enemies on account of sin.[2]
And Calvin himself writes:
The secret love in which our Heavenly Father embraced us to Himself is, since it flows from the eternal good pleasure, precedent to all other causes…The true looking of faith…is placing Christ before one's eyes, and beholding in Him the heart of God poured out in love.[3]
And Calvin has a carefully expressed view of the relationship between the Father and the Son in the atonement:
How could (God the Father) be angry toward his beloved Son, 'in whom his heart reposed'? (Matt 3:17). How could Christ by his intercession appease the Father towards others, if he were himself hateful to God?[4]
Christ endured the punishment of God in our place, and the Father delighted in his self-offering, and accepted his sacrifice. Any similarities between some pagan themes and the Biblical view of willing Trinitarian penal substitution do not mean identity of meaning, nor demonstrate derivation.
Wright holds the view that evangelical preaching of the cross has been entirely focussed on 'getting to heaven when you die.' I think it is more often focussed on relating to God now, and knowing his love and acceptance. Wright's negative assessment of evangelical engagement in the world is not justified. At its worst, evangelical Christianity can be solely individualistic, and retreat from involvement with the world. But at its best, evangelicalism has a fine record in planting churches, encouraging people to be prolific in good works, and made a significant contribution to global grass-roots improvements in education, health-care, and evangelism. The historian David Bebbington claims that one of the four characteristics of evangelicalism is 'Activism:' sustained and effective service of God in the world.
On Idolatry
Wright's focus on the significance of the atonement is on Christ's powerful death breaking the power of idolatry, on defeat of false gods and evil powers. For him, idolatry is our greatest problem: 'not only sin, but the idolatry that underlies it.' (68) The disease and the cure are closely linked. However in Romans 1:18ff, both idolatry and sin are the results of a prior and deeper sin, that of suppressing the truth about God and failing to honour him and thank him. The heart of our problem is our relationship with God: our idolatry, our sin, and our failure to serve God is the result of failing to worship God and turning away from him. It is the rupture in our relationship with God which is the cause of other problems, including idolatry and our other internal and external sins. So the restoration of this relationship must be at the heart of the atonement. Wright says that we are mistaken to think that fellowship with God is the goal (74). He is wrong: it is the heart of the problem and so the heart of the solution. Despite his claim to take note of the big Biblical narrative, he has missed the climax of the narrative in Genesis 1-3, as Adam is cast out of the garden. The point is made so clearly in Hebrews, that most extensive New Testament explanation of the atonement. The defeat of Satan and evil powers is present, albeit very briefly (2:14, 10:13). But the climax of the letter is entrance into 'the most holy place' by our great priest and his shed blood (10:19-15). In John's gospel eternal life comprises knowing Jesus and so knowing the Father.
So much contemporary atonement theology focusses on God's solution to 'horizontal' problems: our internal problems, our human relationships, our relationship with evil powers, our duties in the world. These are all significant, but they are the result of the dislocation of our relationship with God, resolved in Christ. Wright's focus on idolatry is a useful servant, but a bad master. He writes that 'lawbreaking is a symptom of a much more serious disease … idolatry.' (77) Actually, lawbreaking and idolatry are terrible because they are aspects of our turning away from, and against, God. The most fundamental problem we have is our broken relationship with him; not the deficiency of the idols we worship in his stead. Wright does acknowledge that 'humans are made to worship the God who created them,' (100) but his way of talking about idolatry marginalises that perspective.
Wright is willing to use the traditional words associated with the atonement, namely that it is achieved by the death of a representative, who dies a substitutionary death, and suffers punishment (240-241). He clearly claims that 'Jesus dies, innocently, bearing the punishment that he himself had marked out for his fellow Jews as a whole.' (211) However, he is at pains to point out that he uses such words in ways thoroughly distinct from traditional usage. The purpose of Christ's death is not reconciliation with God. The effects of Christ's death include the following:
- 'Taking on himself the scorn, malevolence, and hatred of the world.' (219)
- 'Self-giving love turns out to have a power of a totally different sort to that known in the world.' (253)
- 'The Messiah's death 'for sins' under the right and proper curse of the law was therefore the necessary means by which victory could be won.' (245)
- 'The Messiah's crucifixion…means the creation…of a single covenantal family.' (244)
- 'The answer to human idolatry, the root of sin, is the fresh revelation of the one true God.' (332)
- 'The Messiah as the place of meeting, the ultimate revelation of the divine righteousness and love.' (339)
All this is true: it is what is missing that matters. How did Jesus' death achieve all this? We know it was revelation, and we know its results. But what did it do?
Wright claims that God did not punish Jesus, but punished sin in Jesus:
Paul does not say that God punished Jesus. He declares that God punishes Sin in the flesh of Jesus. … Equally, it is certainly substitutionary: God condemned Sin (in the flesh of the Messiah), and therefore sinners who are 'in the Messiah' are not condemned. (287)
Yet if Christ died 'under the right and proper curse of the law' (245), then he died under God's curse. I know that Paul does not use the phrase 'cursed by God' in Galatians 3:13, but whose curse is it? It is God who sends curses to his covenant people in the big biblical narrative (Deut 27-28). To say that Christ 'bore sin,' and was 'made sin' (1 Pet 2:24, 2 Cor 5:21) is to say that he suffered the consequences of sin. That sin was our sin: he was our substitute. And the most significant problem with sin is that it brings death, which is the judgement of God, and expresses the breakdown of our relationship with God. Christ suffered as our penal substitute.
His desire to avoid the God-ward element of the atonement is also expressed in his view that no Old Testament sacrifices relate to punishment for sin. Instead he claims they are signs of penitence; and blood-sacrifices release the life that is in the blood which then has detergent or cleansing power. So the blood cleanses people, it is not a propitiatory offering to God (329). In my opinion, what Wright affirms is right, but what he denies is wrong. The Old Testament claims atoning power for some of its sacrifices. It is because Christ's blood is propitiatory that it has the power to forgive and to cleanse. The God-ward meaning of Christ's death is fundamental.
Israel and the Gentiles
Wright makes it clear that Christ's death benefits Israel, as he suffers their covenant curse. How then does Jesus' death help Gentiles? His answer:
The servant will die for the nation, but will thereby do for the world what Israel was called to do but could not do, setting the nations free from their ancient bondage, so that they now can join the single people of God. (212)
While joining the people of God is the privilege of believing Gentiles, this does not explain how Jesus is their saviour. Salvation includes deliverance from the powers of evil, and the power to do good works in the world, but salvation is at heart the forgiveness from the penalty of sin, which is death. It is not clear how Jesus is the Gentiles' saviour.
Furthermore, while defeating the power of Gentile idols is a wonderful victory, Wright does not clarify how it was achieved. He writes,
Jesus, by taking upon himself the weight of Israel's sins and thereby of the world's sins, dies under the accumulated force of evil, so that at last the kingdom can come in its fullness. (217)
But how? Christus Victor is only one aspect of the death of Christ. In the words of Graham Cole,
The good news is that Christ's cross not only saves us but additionally disarms those forces arraigned against us … The key to the disarmament is the forgiveness of sins on the basis of the cross … Christus Victor needs the explanatory power of substitutionary atonement. (1)
Another unsatisfactory feature of his argument is the forcing of false dichotomies, the artificial creation of unnecessary alternatives. Here is an example:
Not a system but a story; not a theory but a meal and an act of humble service; not a celestial mechanism for punishing sin and taking people to heaven but an earthly story of a human Messiah… (415)
In fact, the New Testament gives us interpretation as well as story, theology as well as enactment; our forgiveness is a heavenly reality (as Hebrews makes clear), and eternal life begins now and continues forever; and while we have an earthly story of a human Messiah, he is also our high priest at the right hand of God. False dichotomies are powerful rhetoric, but do not reflect clear thinking. Similarly, when he writes that Jesus 'did not give them a theory, a model, a metaphor…he gave them a meal,' (182) this is another example of simplistic confusion. Yes, Jesus did give them a meal. But his words provided his interpretation of the meal. And elsewhere Jesus spoke of the powerful effect of the words he had spoken to his disciples, and of the power of the truth he had revealed (Jn 17:6-8, 8:31).
Another form of adversarial rhetoric Wright uses is to dismiss others and promote his own enlightenment: '(T)he gospels … give (atonement theology) not as a neat little system, but as a powerful, sprawling, many-sided, richly revelatory narrative.' (415-16) Goodness me! Has no one else ever realised that before? How amazing!
Other issues
There are five other issues that arise from this book, as they do from Wright's other writings.
- We have learnt that the meaning of words lies in their use, not in their derivation. Does not the same rule apply to the use of images and rites? If so, should we not understand the Old Testament in the light of the New, rather than assuming all Old Testament meaning is carried forward into New Testament meaning? Do we not move from 'shadow' to 'substance'? And similarly, while understanding the Judaistic background of New Testament words and ideas is important, does not their use in the New Testament define their meaning?
- While it is instructive to see the Judaistic background to the New Testament, the New Testament itself interacts most often with the Old Testament itself, not contemporary writings. And in both Jesus and his followers we find a sense of distance from contemporary Jewish thought and especially contemporary Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament. Was not Jewish opposition to Jesus' Old Testament hermeneutic one reason for his death?
- In Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Lk 18:9-14), there is a striking contrast between the self-justification of the Pharisee and the humility of the tax collector. And it is the tax collector who is 'justified.' Here justification is not about Jewish-Gentile divisions, but division within God's people. Is this not 1st Century AD evidence of an unhealthy 'works-righteousness' within contemporary Judaism?
- Could not Jesus' teaching on the water of eternal life and the bread of life in John 4 and 6 be described as a 'spiritualising' of these worldly Old Testament images?
- Wright constantly affirms that for the New Testament writers the exile ended with Christ's death, yet in James 1:1 we read that Christians are still in exile. And he constantly claims that return from exile includes forgiveness of sins. Yet in 1 Peter 1:1-2 we read that believers are still in exile, yet also that they are sanctified by the Spirit and sprinkled with the blood of Christ! These are the only two references to 'exile' in the New Testament! Peter refers to the church in Rome as being in Babylon (5:13). And in Revelation the fall of Babylon is yet to happen (Rev 18). Wright's theory does not deal with all the evidence. Perhaps the Bible narrative is even richer and more nuanced than at first appears?
A thought-provoking book, as you can see!
[1] Graham Cole, God the Peacemaker: How atonement brings shalom, NSBT, Nottingham, Apollos/ Downers Grove, IVP, 2009, 183.
[2] John Stott, The Cross of Christ, Leicester, IVP, 133-163.
[3] John Calvin, The Institutes, 2.16.4, quoting from Augustine, John's Gospel, cx. 6.
[4] Calvin, Commentary on John, 3:16.
Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Attitudes to education
I got a PhD now and last year my uncle (who wouldn't attend my dad's funeral) finally accepted me back in the family.
Saturday, August 16, 2025
O S Hawkins Cuttjng edge
The book of 2 Kings details the story of the building of a new dormitory to house his students. When they were cutting down the trees, one of the men's axe heads flew off the handle and into the river. The rest of the story is taken up with recovering the lost axe head.
What is the axe head? It is the cutting edge. For us, it is the dynamic power of the Holy Spirit at work in our lives. All the education in the world will not suffice for the cutting edge. All the natural ability in the world will not suffice for the cutting edge. The cutting edge is the life of Christ made real in me through the Holy Spirit as I continually yield myself to Him.
Does anyone reading these words need to recover the cutting edge? This account in 2 Kings shows us the way.
I. The problem simplified (v. 5)
It was lost! The young man admitted that he lost it. Some of us never quite get to this place.
II. The problem clarified (v. 5)
It was "borrowed." It wasn't his. It belonged to another. And so it is with the cutting edge. We don't possess the power of God. He possesses us.
III. The problem identified (v. 6)
The young man showed Elisha the place where he lost it. It is not enough to admit we have lost the cutting edge, we must return to where we lost it. Perhaps it was lost in the waters of worldliness or even in the stagnant pools of indifference.
IV. The problem nullified (v. 6)
The young man was willing to trust the supernatural power of God for the recovery of the cutting edge. Elisha took a small tree, threw it into the water, and he made the iron float.
V. The problem rectified (v. 7)
Elisha told the young man to pick it up for yourself. So he reached out his hand and took it. Some continue to live without the cutting edge even though they have seen the supernatural power of God because they will not, as an act of their will, reach out and take it.
What about you? Are you simply swinging axe handles at the trees of life only to return home bruised and battered while the sound of the felling of trees remains silent? There is a lot of difference in something done for God and something done by God. The cutting edge is the life of Christ made real in you through the Holy Spirit. Nothing suffices for the cutting edge in ministry. Reach and take it!
2Kings 6 losing your cutting edge. H B Charles
Friday, August 15, 2025
Ryle
These two parables are meant to teach us, that men really convinced of the importance of salvation, will give up everything to win Christ, and eternal life.
What was the conduct of the two men our Lord describes? The one was persuaded that there was a "treasure hidden in the field," which would amply repay him, if he bought the field, however great the price that he might give. The other was persuaded that the "pearl" he had found was so immensely valuable, that it would compensate him to purchase it at any cost. Both were convinced that they had found a thing of great value. Both were satisfied that it wasworth a great present sacrifice to make this thing their own.Others might wonder at them. Others might think them foolish for paying such a sum of money for the field and pearl. But they knew what they were about. They were sure that they were making a good bargain.
Behold in this single picture, the conduct of a true Christian explained! He is what he is, and does what he does in his religion, because he is thoroughly persuaded that it is worth while. He comes out from the world. He puts off the old man. He forsakes the vain companions of his past life. Like Matthew, he gives up everything, and, like Paul, he "counts all things loss" for Christ's sake. And why? Because he is convinced that Christ will make amends to him for all he gives up. He sees in Christ an endless "treasure." He sees in Christ a precious "pearl." To win Christ he will make any sacrifice. This is true faith. This is the stamp of a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.
Behold in these two parables the real clue to the conduct of many unconverted people! They are what they are in religion, because they are not fully persuaded that it is worth while to be different. They flinch from decision. They shrink from taking up the cross. They halt between two opinions. They will not commit themselves. They will not come forward boldly on the Lord's side. And why? Because they are not convinced that it will compensate them. They are not sure that "the treasure" is before them. They are not satisfied that "the pearl" is worth so great a price. They cannot yet make up their minds to "sell all," that they may win Christ. And so too often they perish everlastingly! When a man will venture nothing for Christ's sake, we must draw the sorrowful conclusion that he has not got the grace of God.
The parable of the NET let down into the sea, has some points in common with that of the wheat and the tares. It is intended to instruct us on a most important subject, the true nature of the visible Church of Christ.
Wednesday, August 13, 2025
Matthew 13:44-58 Understanding The Gospel Of The Kingdom of God
It was not I that found, O Savior true, No, I was found of Thee.
'Twas not so much that I on Thee took hold As Thou, dear Lord, on me.
The Kingdom is Priceless
Matthew 13:44-58 Understanding The Gospel Of The Kingdom of God
It was not I that found, O Savior true, No, I was found of Thee.
'Twas not so much that I on Thee took hold As Thou, dear Lord, on me.
The Kingdom is Priceless
Friday, August 08, 2025
Where will you spend Eternity
Jeremiah and Jesus on hell
The specialist believed it was jaw cancer.
There are two main types of jaw cancer One is terminal after 6 months The other they call it cheesecake cancer where the bones of the jaw basically turn to cheesecake and the jaw has to be replaced with titanium. It takes 3 months in ICU to recover. Needless to say, my boss at the Anglican Church sacked me immediately.
I since met with a variety of medical professionals as my condition was critical. From X-ray and MRI technicians to radiologists, nurses, and surgeons and specialists, I have seen excellent health care providers in several different settings.
Not one of them ridiculed me for my problem or blamed me for my condition.
The surgeon who removed the tumour in 2016 did it in one go. It left a huge gap in my jaw and I had to wait 6 months for the bone in my jaw to grow back before I could eat anything more solid than broccoli juice. Most of the health professionals treated me with kindness and compassion.
It would have been frustrating for these professionals to take a position of moral superiority as if they were somehow better people than me. They do not have my condition, but I do not face some of the physical challenges they face. They understand that we are all in this together and want the best for their patients. They know that my problem is not my fault and want to help me get better.
This is precisely the spirit Christians should manifest with those who reject biblical truth and morality. Unfortunately, such compassion can lose in competition with a "culture warrior" attitude of antagonism toward those who are antagonistic toward us.
This topic has been resonating with me as I have been reading the book of Jeremiah in my personal Bible study. I was impressed by the prophet's statement, "My anguish, my anguish! I writhe in pain! Oh the walls of my heart! My heart is beating wildly; I cannot keep silent, for I hear the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war. Crash follows hard on crash; the whole land is laid waste" (Jeremiah 3:19–20).
This is just one of many examples that lead theologians to call Jeremiah the "weeping prophet." Here's another: "My joy is gone; grief is upon me; my heart is sick within me. Behold, the cry of the daughter of my people from the length and breadth of the land. . . . For the wound of the daughter of my people is my heart wounded; I mourn, and dismay has taken hold on me" (Jeremiah 8:18–21).
Here's another: "Oh that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!" (Jeremiah 9:1).
Such compassion is echoed even more fully in the heart of Jesus. When he saw a "great crowd," Matthew tells us that "he had compassion on them and healed their sick" (Matthew 14:14). When he met blind men, "Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they received their sight and followed him" (Matthew 20:34). When he saw the city of Jerusalem, "he wept over it, saying, 'Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes'" (Luke 19:41–42).
Hebrews tells us, "We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
Both Jeremiah and Jesus could rebuke sin and sinners with stern boldness. Both stood courageously and sacrificially for biblical truth and morality.
But both also cared deeply for the broken people they were called to serve. They ministered not out of a spirit of moral superiority but a posture of gracious service. Jesus especially modeled this spirit when he washed the feet of the very men who would betray, deny, and forsake him that night (John 13:1–13).
Then he called us to do the same: "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you" (vv. 14–15).
Compassion for broken people is vital to caring effectively for them. The old saying is still true: People do not care how much you know until they know how much you care. Ken Medema says in one of his songs, "Don't tell me I have a friend in Jesus until you show me I have a friend in you."
As our sinless Savior shows, compassion for sinners is not compromise with sin. Rather, it is empathy with fellow humans as a beggar helping beggars find bread. It is a demonstration of our mutual humanity.
Lost people act like lost people. So did I. So did you. There is no sin I cannot commit. And there is no sin you cannot commit.
I also heard a pastor once say, "Beware the person who preached on hell as if he liked it." Another CH Spurgeon advised, "Always preach on hell with a tear in your eye."
The greater my problem, which before the surgery caused me no pain, the more I needed the help of physicians.
Most lost people don't feel their problem is with God. Being convicted of sin is part of the work of conversion that the Holy Spirit works in people.
The Lord Jesus explained:
The more people reject our Lord, the more they need our Lord.
Let's pray today for the heart of God for the people we are called to reach. I believe that "weeping prophets" are empowered prophets. The more we are able to minister with empathy, the more we will draw souls to our Savior.
John Stott stated, "The truth is that there are such things as Christian tears, and too few of us ever weep them."
Will you weep them today?
Will you seek their salvation today ?