Jesus the Son of Man
His Words and His Deeds As Told and Recorded by Those Who Knew Him
by Kahlil Gibran
His Words and His Deeds As Told and Recorded by Those Who Knew Him
by Kahlil Gibran
Monday, August 25, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Atonement theories A Critique
There is no truth of the holy Scriptures that has not been perverted by man, and this is especially true of the doctrine now before us, and these perversions of it are accepted as true in many religious denominations of this day. Modernism, as might be expected, is especially prominent in the advocacy of the perverted forms of the atonement. We believe that the chief cause of most of the erroneous theories of the atonement is man’s unwillingness to recognize and admit what God declares of his sinfulness.
The meaning of the atonement is that God could not give himself to man in such a way as to disregard moral conditions and obligations. The integrity of God’s character and of his moral government of the world must be sustained even at infinite cost to himself. He could not give himself to man, nor could he receive man into his favor without regard to moral conditions. Hence before man can be received and forgiven, he must confess and repudiate his sins. —W. T. Connor, Christian Doctrines, p. 99. Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1949.
This last sentence in this quotation lies, we believe, at the root of every false theory of the atonement, for man, being unwilling to confess and repudiate his sinfulness, is constrained to formulate a theory of the atonement which will allow him to maintain his pride and self-sufficiency, while giving the appearance of being biblical in his beliefs on this great doctrine.
Read more
The meaning of the atonement is that God could not give himself to man in such a way as to disregard moral conditions and obligations. The integrity of God’s character and of his moral government of the world must be sustained even at infinite cost to himself. He could not give himself to man, nor could he receive man into his favor without regard to moral conditions. Hence before man can be received and forgiven, he must confess and repudiate his sins. —W. T. Connor, Christian Doctrines, p. 99. Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1949.
This last sentence in this quotation lies, we believe, at the root of every false theory of the atonement, for man, being unwilling to confess and repudiate his sinfulness, is constrained to formulate a theory of the atonement which will allow him to maintain his pride and self-sufficiency, while giving the appearance of being biblical in his beliefs on this great doctrine.
Read more
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Reformed faith and Limited Atonement
The Reformed faith maintains, on the basis of Scripture, that the death of Christ was limited vicarious atonement. That is, Christ atoned as a substitute not for all and every man, but for His elect people alone.
The term atonement occurs sometimes in our King James Version where it could better be translated either by "reconciliation" or by "propitiation, covering." The terms limited and atonement are simply dogmatic terms which have grown up in the church's vocabulary and which are used to describe briefly a thoroughly Scriptural and confessional concept. The term atonement covers such confessional terms as redemption, redeem, purchase, satisfy, propitiatory sacrifice, etc. And it covers such Scriptural terms as reconciliation, propitiation, ransom, purchase, etc. It simply looks at all these various Scriptural and confessional terms from a very basic point of view, a point of view which as far as the term is concerned is closely related to the idea of reconciliation. Atonement is really in its root idea at-one-ment. It refers to the fact that through the death of Christ God wrought reconciliation.
The doctrine of limited atonement is the Reformed doctrine concerning the death of Christ and the redemption of men thereby (as Canons II puts it in its title) as it was officially set forth over against the Arminian heresy of general, or universal, atonement.
I want to point out by way of introduction, first of all, that it is in this truth of limited atonement that the doctrine of sovereign election (and, in fact, sovereign predestination with its two aspects of election and reprobation) comes into focus. The cross is the objective realization and revelation of God's predestinating purpose. That revelation of God's sovereign predestination in the cross is painted upon the background of the reality of man's total depravity, of man's totally, hopelessly lost estate by nature. On the other hand, there is in the cross the focal point of the whole of the truth of salvation by grace as far as the irresistible calling and the preservation and the glorification of the saints are concerned, - from this point of view, that it is in the cross and the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, that centrally and objectively all of the salvation of God's people, as it is actually realized in their hearts and lives, is concentrated. It is in the atonement that we have the guarantee, the absolutely certain guarantee, of the calling and of the preservation and of the final glorification of God's people. Salvation by sovereign grace is a closed system, - closed to any work and any boasting of man. It is from beginning to end the work of God alone. It is the realization of that which is set forth in Romans 8:29, 30 in the well-known words: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." What according to God's counsel was fixed and finished from all eternity, from before the foundation of the world, is realized and revealed in time.
Read it in full
The term atonement occurs sometimes in our King James Version where it could better be translated either by "reconciliation" or by "propitiation, covering." The terms limited and atonement are simply dogmatic terms which have grown up in the church's vocabulary and which are used to describe briefly a thoroughly Scriptural and confessional concept. The term atonement covers such confessional terms as redemption, redeem, purchase, satisfy, propitiatory sacrifice, etc. And it covers such Scriptural terms as reconciliation, propitiation, ransom, purchase, etc. It simply looks at all these various Scriptural and confessional terms from a very basic point of view, a point of view which as far as the term is concerned is closely related to the idea of reconciliation. Atonement is really in its root idea at-one-ment. It refers to the fact that through the death of Christ God wrought reconciliation.
The doctrine of limited atonement is the Reformed doctrine concerning the death of Christ and the redemption of men thereby (as Canons II puts it in its title) as it was officially set forth over against the Arminian heresy of general, or universal, atonement.
I want to point out by way of introduction, first of all, that it is in this truth of limited atonement that the doctrine of sovereign election (and, in fact, sovereign predestination with its two aspects of election and reprobation) comes into focus. The cross is the objective realization and revelation of God's predestinating purpose. That revelation of God's sovereign predestination in the cross is painted upon the background of the reality of man's total depravity, of man's totally, hopelessly lost estate by nature. On the other hand, there is in the cross the focal point of the whole of the truth of salvation by grace as far as the irresistible calling and the preservation and the glorification of the saints are concerned, - from this point of view, that it is in the cross and the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, that centrally and objectively all of the salvation of God's people, as it is actually realized in their hearts and lives, is concentrated. It is in the atonement that we have the guarantee, the absolutely certain guarantee, of the calling and of the preservation and of the final glorification of God's people. Salvation by sovereign grace is a closed system, - closed to any work and any boasting of man. It is from beginning to end the work of God alone. It is the realization of that which is set forth in Romans 8:29, 30 in the well-known words: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." What according to God's counsel was fixed and finished from all eternity, from before the foundation of the world, is realized and revealed in time.
Read it in full
Meaning of the death of Christ : Research resources
Here is what Calvin says about Christ's death.
John Calvin:
With my whole soul I embrace the mercy which he has exercised towards me through Jesus Christ, atoning for my sins with the merits of his death and passion, that in this way he might satisfy for all my crimes and faults, and blot them from his remembrance. I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him that he may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race, that under his shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat. I likewise declare that, according to the measure of grace and goodness which the Lord hath employed towards me I have endeavored, both in my sermons and also in my writings and commentaries, to preach His Word purely and chastely, and faithfully to interpret His sacred Scriptures. I also testify and declare, that, in all the contentions and disputations in which I have been engaged with the enemies of the Gospel, I have used no impostures, no wicked and sophistical devices, but have acted candidly and sincerely in defending the truth. "Last Will and Testament."
Here is rich resource for research on the meaning of the death of Christ
Also see yahoo groups on Calvin and Calvinism
John Calvin:
With my whole soul I embrace the mercy which he has exercised towards me through Jesus Christ, atoning for my sins with the merits of his death and passion, that in this way he might satisfy for all my crimes and faults, and blot them from his remembrance. I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him that he may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race, that under his shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat. I likewise declare that, according to the measure of grace and goodness which the Lord hath employed towards me I have endeavored, both in my sermons and also in my writings and commentaries, to preach His Word purely and chastely, and faithfully to interpret His sacred Scriptures. I also testify and declare, that, in all the contentions and disputations in which I have been engaged with the enemies of the Gospel, I have used no impostures, no wicked and sophistical devices, but have acted candidly and sincerely in defending the truth. "Last Will and Testament."
Here is rich resource for research on the meaning of the death of Christ
Also see yahoo groups on Calvin and Calvinism
Monday, August 11, 2008
Atonement Theories
The Ransom Theory -- God deceitfully bribes and tricks Satan:
This was the dominant belief in the early Christian church. It has also been called the "Classic" theory of the atonement. It was accepted by church leaders for about a millennium, from the second to the twelfth century CE. There are very few theologians outside of the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Protestant Word-faith Movement who believe in it today. 1 However, one might argue that this concept may be the most accurate theory of all, because it was accepted by Christian leaders within two centuries after Yeshua's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) and Paul's death. This happened when memories of their teachings were still relatively fresh.
Read it all here
------------------------------------
Satisfaction theory: Jesus appeases God via a ritual human sacrifice:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches this theory of the atonement (or a variation on it), as do most Protestant denominations. However the Catholic Church does not raise the theory to the level of dogma.
This theory is grounded in the concept of personal honor found in the European feudal culture. During the Middle Ages, a serf had to honor both God and the feudal lord who controlled his/her life and land. Human sin dishonors God. A price must be paid to satisfy God and restore his divine honor. The only penalty suitable to God was Christ's obedience when he willingly suffered torture and death at his crucifixion. 8
The satisfaction theory is related to the ancient Hebrew ritual sacrifice of animals at the altar of the Jerusalem Temple. Such sacrifices were made in the centuries before Yeshua's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ's) birth, during his lifetime, and only ended with the destruction of the temple and much of the rest of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70 CE. By allowing himself to be ritually sacrificed, Yeshua's death replicated in many ways the ritual sacrifice of animals were slaughtered in the Temple.
Read it all here
--------------------------------------------
The Moral Theory
(a.k.a. Moral Influence Theory)
The Moral Theory was first fully developed in the writings of Peter Abelard (1079 - 1142) in the 12th century CE. 2 Abelard was an French abbot, theologian and philosopher. His birth surname was du Pallet; he took the nickname Abelard while in college. He had a rather interesting private life. Abelard fell in love with a woman whose uncle-guardian owned the house where he was boarding. After she became pregnant, they were secretly married. But in order to keep his job and professorship at Notre Dame Cathedral, he was forced to pretend that he was still single and celibate. The uncle became convinced that they were not married, that he had ruined her reputation, and that he was preparing to abandon her. The uncle hired some thugs to seize Abelard and castrate him. He recovered, but his wife, Heloise, went into a convent and became a nun. Later she became an abbess. After an unsuccessful experience as a monk, he returned to teaching.
Read it all here
---------------------------------
Penal Theory
The Penal Theory is a modification of Anselem's Satisfaction Theory. He had based the latter from the feudal culture in which he lived. In his era, human sin was seen as an insult to God's honor that he cannot simply overlook. Just as an insult by a serf against the honor of his lord demanded satisfaction, God also required compensation for the dishonor created by human sin. The only suitable action to offset the dishonor was the death of a perfectly sinless god-man who represented all of humanity.
Criticisms
Read it all here
-----------------------------------------
Paul Enns: Various theories of atonement
Throughout church history several different views or theories of the atonement, some true and some false, have been put forth at different times by different individuals or denominations. One of the reasons for this is that both the Old and New Testaments reveal many truths about Christ’s atonement, so it is hard, if not impossible, to find any single “theory” that fully encapsulates or explains the richness of this doctrine.
Read it all here
------------------------
John Piper :substitutionary atonement
Answer: The “substitutionary atonement” refers to the fact that Jesus Christ died on behalf of all sinners. The Scriptures teach that all men are sinners (read Romans 3:9-18 and Romans 3:23). The penalty for our sinfulness is death. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Read it all
here
-------------------------------------
Mark M. Mattison: Meaning of atonement
Yet another is the Arminian "Rectoral" or "Governmental" theory, most prominent within Wesleyan churches (particularly the Church of the Nazarene). This theory is an attempt to take the Socinian critique seriously while not fully discarding Penal Substitution. It rejects full substitution, characterizing Christ's death as a "partial payment" instead. This theory also emphasizes sacrifice and Atonement as a precondition to forgiveness, not the direct cause of forgiveness. Some Arminians combined this with the Socinian approach by emphasizing Atonement as sacrifice without trying to explain the mechanics of sacrifice.
Read it all here
----------------------------------
Anselm :Satisfaction Theory
The eleventh-century scholar Saint Anselm didn't like the Ransom Theory. He believed that an outlaw like the Devil had no right to exert power over humankind, and therefore God didn't need to pay him anything for our release.
To replace the Ransom Theory, Anselm put forward another explanation known as the Satisfaction Theory (or Debt Theory). According to this theory, humankind owes a debt to God because we dishonored him through our disobedience and sin. But his pride, as well as universal justice, prevents him from simply forgiving us. To resolve the matter, Jesus volunteered to pay our debt for us by suffering and dying on the cross. God accepted this act of love as a full atonement, and thus satisfied, he then forgave us and offered us salvation.
Read it all here
---------------------------------------
The Anthropology of René Girard and Traditional Doctrines of Atonement
Girard's entire work is dedicated to helping theologians with a theology of the cross by offering an anthropology of the cross. For him anthropology aids the work of theologians. He makes use of mimetic theory's fundamental distinction between myth and Gospel. Both involve stories foundational to culture, but myth is from the perspective of the perpetrators of founding violence and Gospel is from the perspective of the victims. The Resurrection of Christ represents the permanent establishment of the victim's perspective in history.
Girard: "It is easier than in the past to observe collective transferences upon a scapegoat because they are no longer sanctioned and concealed by religion. And yet it is still difficult because the individuals addicted to them do everything they can to conceal their scapegoating from themselves, and as a general rule they succeed. Today as in the past, to have a scapegoat is to believe one doesn't have any."
James Alison, On Being Liked,
It seems to me that one of the things that we are still flailing about looking for in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council is an account of our salvation which makes sense to us. The old default account, common to both Catholic and Protestant "orthodoxy" was some variation on the "substitionary theory of the atonement." That is, some version of a tale in which Jesus died for us, instead of us who really deserved it, so as to pay a bill for sin that we could not pay, but for whose settlement God himself immutably demanded payment. Not only does this not make sense, but it is scandalous in a variety of ways. It has been one of the principal merits of the thought of René Girard that at last it is enabling us to scrabble towards a new account of how we are being saved which is free from the long shadow of pagan sacrificial attitudes and practice. ... The real question is: how can we understand anew that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God, come among us, undergoing murder and rising again so that we can be unbound from our sin and enabled to live for ever. This is what I begin to re-imagine in chapter 3 by trying to find a non-resentful understanding of forgiveness, and it leads to what has been for me a hugely difficult imaginative shift: that of seeing "God wanting us to share in the act of creation from the inside" rather than "God dealing with sin" as being the central axis of the Christian story.
Mark Heim, Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross [Eerdmans, forthcoming Summer 2006]. The Eerdmans webpage on this book says, "In order to highlight the dimensions of his argument, Heim carefully and critically draws on the groundbreaking work of French theorist and biblical scholar René Girard. Yet Heim goes beyond Girard to develop a comprehensive theology of the atonement and the cross through his fresh readings of well-known biblical passages and his exploration of the place of the victim."
Read it all here
-----------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
This was the dominant belief in the early Christian church. It has also been called the "Classic" theory of the atonement. It was accepted by church leaders for about a millennium, from the second to the twelfth century CE. There are very few theologians outside of the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Protestant Word-faith Movement who believe in it today. 1 However, one might argue that this concept may be the most accurate theory of all, because it was accepted by Christian leaders within two centuries after Yeshua's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) and Paul's death. This happened when memories of their teachings were still relatively fresh.
Read it all here
------------------------------------
Satisfaction theory: Jesus appeases God via a ritual human sacrifice:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches this theory of the atonement (or a variation on it), as do most Protestant denominations. However the Catholic Church does not raise the theory to the level of dogma.
This theory is grounded in the concept of personal honor found in the European feudal culture. During the Middle Ages, a serf had to honor both God and the feudal lord who controlled his/her life and land. Human sin dishonors God. A price must be paid to satisfy God and restore his divine honor. The only penalty suitable to God was Christ's obedience when he willingly suffered torture and death at his crucifixion. 8
The satisfaction theory is related to the ancient Hebrew ritual sacrifice of animals at the altar of the Jerusalem Temple. Such sacrifices were made in the centuries before Yeshua's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ's) birth, during his lifetime, and only ended with the destruction of the temple and much of the rest of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70 CE. By allowing himself to be ritually sacrificed, Yeshua's death replicated in many ways the ritual sacrifice of animals were slaughtered in the Temple.
Read it all here
--------------------------------------------
The Moral Theory
(a.k.a. Moral Influence Theory)
The Moral Theory was first fully developed in the writings of Peter Abelard (1079 - 1142) in the 12th century CE. 2 Abelard was an French abbot, theologian and philosopher. His birth surname was du Pallet; he took the nickname Abelard while in college. He had a rather interesting private life. Abelard fell in love with a woman whose uncle-guardian owned the house where he was boarding. After she became pregnant, they were secretly married. But in order to keep his job and professorship at Notre Dame Cathedral, he was forced to pretend that he was still single and celibate. The uncle became convinced that they were not married, that he had ruined her reputation, and that he was preparing to abandon her. The uncle hired some thugs to seize Abelard and castrate him. He recovered, but his wife, Heloise, went into a convent and became a nun. Later she became an abbess. After an unsuccessful experience as a monk, he returned to teaching.
Read it all here
---------------------------------
Penal Theory
The Penal Theory is a modification of Anselem's Satisfaction Theory. He had based the latter from the feudal culture in which he lived. In his era, human sin was seen as an insult to God's honor that he cannot simply overlook. Just as an insult by a serf against the honor of his lord demanded satisfaction, God also required compensation for the dishonor created by human sin. The only suitable action to offset the dishonor was the death of a perfectly sinless god-man who represented all of humanity.
Criticisms
 | One of Jesus' main messages was that we must love our enemies, forgive those who injure us, and overcome evil with good. These teachings appear to be totally opposite to God's demand for blood and a torture death of an innocent man. Fr. John Mabry views the Penal Theory as "..an oppressive theology, and inauthentic in light of Jesus' teaching." He asks: "how can a God who in Jesus told us that we were never to exact vengeance, that we were to forgive each other perpetually without retribution, demand of us behavior that God 'himself' is unwilling or unable to perform?...why can God not simply forgive as we are instructed to do, rather than mandating that some 'innocent and spotless victim' bear the brunt of 'his' reservoir of wrath? The ability of humans to do this when God will not or cannot logically casts humanity as God's moral superior. This is of course absurd!" |
| Presumably, the Penal Theory would require that any new human sins committed after Yeshua's execution would also have to be punished. They would necessitate the ritual sacrifice of a second God-Man. Thus, multiple incarnations and executions would be required over the millennia of human history since the first century CE. An indefinite number of human sacrifices might eventually be required. |
| It seems logical that if the death of Yeshua satisfied God's need for justice, and if humans made no contribution to the process, then salvation and atonement should be granted to everyone -- to Christian believers and unbelievers alike. It is unclear why only those individuals who trust Yeshua as Lord and Savior will attains salvation, atonement, and Heaven. To send those who have not trusted Yeshua to Hell for eternal punishment is to penalize a person for committing a thought crime -- a despicable act in today's world. |
Read it all here
-----------------------------------------
Paul Enns: Various theories of atonement
Throughout church history several different views or theories of the atonement, some true and some false, have been put forth at different times by different individuals or denominations. One of the reasons for this is that both the Old and New Testaments reveal many truths about Christ’s atonement, so it is hard, if not impossible, to find any single “theory” that fully encapsulates or explains the richness of this doctrine.
Read it all here
------------------------
John Piper :substitutionary atonement
Answer: The “substitutionary atonement” refers to the fact that Jesus Christ died on behalf of all sinners. The Scriptures teach that all men are sinners (read Romans 3:9-18 and Romans 3:23). The penalty for our sinfulness is death. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Read it all
here
-------------------------------------
Mark M. Mattison: Meaning of atonement
Yet another is the Arminian "Rectoral" or "Governmental" theory, most prominent within Wesleyan churches (particularly the Church of the Nazarene). This theory is an attempt to take the Socinian critique seriously while not fully discarding Penal Substitution. It rejects full substitution, characterizing Christ's death as a "partial payment" instead. This theory also emphasizes sacrifice and Atonement as a precondition to forgiveness, not the direct cause of forgiveness. Some Arminians combined this with the Socinian approach by emphasizing Atonement as sacrifice without trying to explain the mechanics of sacrifice.
Read it all here
----------------------------------
Anselm :Satisfaction Theory
The eleventh-century scholar Saint Anselm didn't like the Ransom Theory. He believed that an outlaw like the Devil had no right to exert power over humankind, and therefore God didn't need to pay him anything for our release.
To replace the Ransom Theory, Anselm put forward another explanation known as the Satisfaction Theory (or Debt Theory). According to this theory, humankind owes a debt to God because we dishonored him through our disobedience and sin. But his pride, as well as universal justice, prevents him from simply forgiving us. To resolve the matter, Jesus volunteered to pay our debt for us by suffering and dying on the cross. God accepted this act of love as a full atonement, and thus satisfied, he then forgave us and offered us salvation.
Read it all here
---------------------------------------
The Anthropology of René Girard and Traditional Doctrines of Atonement
Girard's entire work is dedicated to helping theologians with a theology of the cross by offering an anthropology of the cross. For him anthropology aids the work of theologians. He makes use of mimetic theory's fundamental distinction between myth and Gospel. Both involve stories foundational to culture, but myth is from the perspective of the perpetrators of founding violence and Gospel is from the perspective of the victims. The Resurrection of Christ represents the permanent establishment of the victim's perspective in history.
Girard: "It is easier than in the past to observe collective transferences upon a scapegoat because they are no longer sanctioned and concealed by religion. And yet it is still difficult because the individuals addicted to them do everything they can to conceal their scapegoating from themselves, and as a general rule they succeed. Today as in the past, to have a scapegoat is to believe one doesn't have any."
James Alison, On Being Liked,
It seems to me that one of the things that we are still flailing about looking for in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council is an account of our salvation which makes sense to us. The old default account, common to both Catholic and Protestant "orthodoxy" was some variation on the "substitionary theory of the atonement." That is, some version of a tale in which Jesus died for us, instead of us who really deserved it, so as to pay a bill for sin that we could not pay, but for whose settlement God himself immutably demanded payment. Not only does this not make sense, but it is scandalous in a variety of ways. It has been one of the principal merits of the thought of René Girard that at last it is enabling us to scrabble towards a new account of how we are being saved which is free from the long shadow of pagan sacrificial attitudes and practice. ... The real question is: how can we understand anew that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God, come among us, undergoing murder and rising again so that we can be unbound from our sin and enabled to live for ever. This is what I begin to re-imagine in chapter 3 by trying to find a non-resentful understanding of forgiveness, and it leads to what has been for me a hugely difficult imaginative shift: that of seeing "God wanting us to share in the act of creation from the inside" rather than "God dealing with sin" as being the central axis of the Christian story.
Mark Heim, Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross [Eerdmans, forthcoming Summer 2006]. The Eerdmans webpage on this book says, "In order to highlight the dimensions of his argument, Heim carefully and critically draws on the groundbreaking work of French theorist and biblical scholar René Girard. Yet Heim goes beyond Girard to develop a comprehensive theology of the atonement and the cross through his fresh readings of well-known biblical passages and his exploration of the place of the victim."
Read it all here
-----------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Various Atonement Theories
Various Christian theories of the Atonement
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")