<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Not blogging at the moment studying atonement theories</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/</link>
	<description>no longer walking away when God opens a door</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:13:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Brit Windel</title>
		<link>http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-362</link>
		<dc:creator>Brit Windel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/#comment-362</guid>
		<description>Hey Ron, some resources i used when writing my paper &quot;Place of Atonement: the need to define church in a global world&quot;

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)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Ron, some resources i used when writing my paper &#8220;Place of Atonement: the need to define church in a global world&#8221;</p>
<p>St. Anselm Cur Des Homo</p>
<p>Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight</p>
<p>Theology for the Community of God by Stanley Grenz (Best theological author of our day)</p>
<p>Doctrine of the Atonement by George Smeaton</p>
<p>God our Savior by Peter Rosa (Catholic with pretty anti denomination spin, but interesting none the less)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-303</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:41:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/#comment-303</guid>
		<description>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&#039;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&#039;t realize there were 7 theories, so I do have something to learn there, but I did know Luther wasn&#039;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 &quot;Jesus was damned, I don&#039;t understand this, but I know it&#039;s true.&quot; That is simply irresponsible exegesis!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>As for Isaiah, yes, I&#8217;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.</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t realize there were 7 theories, so I do have something to learn there, but I did know Luther wasn&#8217;t always systematic.</p>
<p>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 &#8220;Jesus was damned, I don&#8217;t understand this, but I know it&#8217;s true.&#8221; That is simply irresponsible exegesis!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joelle</title>
		<link>http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-302</link>
		<dc:creator>Joelle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:09:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/#comment-302</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a Christus Victor person myself.  But I don&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a Christus Victor person myself.  But I don&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Amundson</title>
		<link>http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-300</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Amundson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:02:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/#comment-300</guid>
		<description>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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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&#8230; but its not cool at all).</p>
<p>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</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-299</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:43:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lutheranforums.com/blog/2009/04/15/not-blogging-at-the-moment-studying-atonement-theories/#comment-299</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m glad to have come across this blog!

I&#039;m glad you are looking into various views on the atonement, because it&#039;s a key issue that shouldnt be assumed.

I&#039;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 &quot;email follow up comments&quot; so visitors can get email updates to your posts in case new comments come in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m glad to have come across this blog!</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad you are looking into various views on the atonement, because it&#8217;s a key issue that shouldnt be assumed.</p>
<p>I&#8217;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:</p>
<p><a href="http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/psdebate" rel="nofollow">http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/psdebate</a></p>
<p>p.s. You should enable the option in comments to &#8220;email follow up comments&#8221; so visitors can get email updates to your posts in case new comments come in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

