Not blogging at the moment studying atonement theories
I took off blogging for Holy Week, and a bit more. I’m trying to get a handle on atonement theories, and the more I dig, the more it seems like the onion becomes larger, and there is more grey all the time. Of course part of this is that I’m approaching it in an ecumenical fashion, and of course no one can agree 
but it still is pretty cool.
Now, some might say atonement theory, why… its not like it has a lot of relevance, and on the surface I’d have to agree. However, entire worldviews seem to proceed from specific views on atonement, so there is a whole lot of things which are likely unseen.
One thing i do know, is dont go and present the ransom theory in the midst of a group of penal substitution advocates, unless you enjoy controvery city. I’m actually debating with a fellow at Dallas Theological Seminary, and on a 1:1 basis, its pretty cool. I dont need 123 commenters or whatever number it was where it seemed half of them came down hard on a fellow from twiiter named Tony Jones.
I also found, that few share the excitement I have over atonement theories… but thats ok. I do get accused of not speaking English quite a bit anyhow in scientific matters, I guess the same might well apply in theology as well.
An offshoot of this, is that third use of the law thing again, and the controversy over it. I’ll need to do some more digging, maybe even find a recent seminary grad to bug, as discrepancies in that area could have a huge impact at the upcoming convention.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
April 16th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I’m glad to have come across this blog!
I’m glad you are looking into various views on the atonement, because it’s a key issue that shouldnt be assumed.
I’m Catholic and believe Penal Substitution (the specific and critical atonement view of Lutherans and Calvinists) is flatly unbiblical. I have a great debate with a Calvinist on this very issue, you should really check it out:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/psdebate
p.s. You should enable the option in comments to “email follow up comments” so visitors can get email updates to your posts in case new comments come in.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Fascinating debate for sure! I especially appreciated the stance you chose on dealing with Isaiah, which is often used for purposes of advancing PSA. It will take some time and study to dig through all that the two of you have written.
The other thing is, I can see bits and pieces of the other 7 major theories in your defense. I had not dug into depth the aspects of satisfaction theory, instead preferring to look back at the ransom theory first.
As far as Lutherans and atonement theory, PSA was certainly raised by Luther, but his theology was anything but systematic, as such it appears are mixes of Christus Victor and other theories in there as well. Perhaps seen more so by the liberal ELCA than the more confessional LCMS, not sure.
I also echo your concern for the potential of Nestorianism in PSA. Apart from the contemporary world approaches deriven from PSA, the trinitarian problems I find to be of a potentially serious concern. (Why some protestants seem to lean Nestorian is beyond me… but its not cool at all).
I was unaware I did not have email comments selected, I will fix that when I get to my office. This antique machine really dislikes the wp-admin panel. LOL
April 17th, 2009 at 4:09 am
I’m a Christus Victor person myself. But I don’t think you can get away from the sacrifice aspect, that is really hard for post-moderns to grasp. Both the ancient Jews and pagans understood ritual sacrifice so it made sense to them in a way that is very hard for us to get.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Hi,
Thanks for taking interest in this critical issue. I do apologize for sending people to such a long debate, I had no idea it would be that long originally. I wanted something short but meaty, and it ballooned into something huge.
As for Isaiah, yes, I’m glad to see you are taking a fresh look at Ch53, which is a beautiful prophecy, but unfortunately is often read as God dumping His wrath on His Beloved Son.
I didn’t realize there were 7 theories, so I do have something to learn there, but I did know Luther wasn’t always systematic.
What I am most happy to hear is the Nestorian concerns you have as well. Proper Christology should always remain at the front of any interpretation, not put at the back of the line. I was horrified to see people (esp Calvinists) like RC Sproul say stuff like “Jesus was damned, I don’t understand this, but I know it’s true.” That is simply irresponsible exegesis!
July 12th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Hey Ron, some resources i used when writing my paper “Place of Atonement: the need to define church in a global world”
St. Anselm Cur Des Homo
Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight
Theology for the Community of God by Stanley Grenz (Best theological author of our day)
Doctrine of the Atonement by George Smeaton
God our Savior by Peter Rosa (Catholic with pretty anti denomination spin, but interesting none the less)