Zach,
Your question is an interesting one. It assumes that there is (or might be) a true Biblical understanding of the atonement, and that we can (or in theory are able to) get access to that understanding by reading scripture. As my bible teacher in seminary pointed out repeatedly, as far as we know from studying scripture, there are many different ideas of the atonement or church or Christ or the end times or God. And I would add that many of those ideas certainly seems to stand in tension, and in some cases, logical contradiction to, other ideas. This can be denied only by coming to scripture with the already-formed idea that everything somehow hangs together (it all is unified) and so what seems to look like tension or a contradiction is only seeming. But that idea (the unity of scripture) comes before the actual study of scripture and is brought from outside to the study itself. So, I suppose I'd answer your question in this way -- that there might in theory be a true Biblical understanding of the atonement, but no study of the Bible by humans is able to discern that one idea or another is in fact the truth. No matter what one says as a theologian or a pastor or a lay person, any claim to have the "true" idea of the atonement (on the basis of the examination of scripture) is at best a claim which can be supported only by blocking out all the tensive and contradictory material (or in more common parlance, "picking and choosing"). So, you see, I'm not denying that there might be a true "Biblical" understanding of the atonement (whatever that might mean), but I am denying the epistemological claim that we, as humans, can discern it.
Take care,
Jerry
My response:
Dr. Soneson,
Lots to say! Thanks for your reply.
I'll start with this: In terms of your discussion of Anselm...
From this article:
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/category/5/15/52/
Penal substitution has a long and distinguished pedigree, and was expressly articulated by many in the early Church. Sadly, the myth of the doctrine's supposed late development continues to be perpetuated in books and theological seminaries all over the world. To set the record straight, we have included a few extracts from ancient Christian writings here, all of
which we discuss in more detail in our book. Theological students are encouraged to copy and paste them into their essays as required.
In many cases, the entire works from which the extracts are taken are available from those wonderful people at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library HERE.
JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 100-165), Dialogue with Trypho
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (c.275-339), Proof of the Gospel
HILARY OF POITIERS (c. 300-368), Homily on Psalm 53 (54)
ATHANASIUS (c. 300-373), On the Incarnation
GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS (c. 330-390), The Fourth Theological Oration
AMBROSE OF MILAN (339-397), Flight from the World
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 350-407), Homilies on Second Corinthians
AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354-430), Against Faustus
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (375-444), De adoratione
GELASIUS OF CYZICUS (fifth century), Church History
GREGORY THE GREAT (c. 530-604), Morals on the Book of Job
In another place they say this:
As a postscript, we should say something in reply to N.T. Wright's surprise that we omit all mention or discussion of Anselm. The reason is simply that, contrary to (popular?) belief, Anselm did not teach penal substitution. Yes, he brought to prominence the vocabulary of
satisfaction, which became important in later formulations. But in Anselm's feudal thought-world, it was God's honour that needed to be satisfied by substitutionary obedience, not his justice by substitutionary penalty. Thus his omission from our list of those who have endorsed penal substitution was not accidental.
Found here:
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/view/107/51/
No comments:
Post a Comment