tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post6785810749466882670..comments2024-03-09T04:00:18.309-06:00Comments on Know Thyself: Barth I.2 §13.1-2Keith Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-81311587648629489852012-08-28T07:18:50.737-05:002012-08-28T07:18:50.737-05:00Beau,
I am not sure that statement is quite accur...Beau, <br />I am not sure that statement is quite accurate. For sure, Paul talks about atonement, but I am not sure I would call it atonement "theory." The distinction I would like to make is that Paul discusses various images or metaphors to describe what God had accomplished in Christ, while atonement theory is a later theological construct. That is, later theologians have tried to systematize what Paul and other NT authors said about atonement into nice, neat packages that describe in propositional statements exactly what Christ accomplished on the cross. <br /><br />The problem is that what the NT says about what Christ accomplished on the cross does not fit into nice, neat, theological packages. Sometimes it is the image of sacrifice, a la OT animal sacrifice. Sometimes the image is of Christ being victorious over sin, death, and the devil. Sometimes the image is of a ransom paid (presumably to the devil). Sometimes the image is one of an example that spurs one on to imitation. Sometimes it is a legal image of clearing guilt. All of these images/metaphors are used to describe what Christ accomplished on the cross, yet none of them is complete, and none, as metaphors, tell it exactly how it is. My difficulty with systematic theology is that it often tries to abstract a propositional statement: e.g., Christ substituted himself in your place and took your rightful legal punishment for your sin on the cross. Yet, this statement removes the story in which Christ's death is embedded and tries to extract a timeless truth, an in turn, goes beyond the various metaphors used in scripture which are closely tied in with the story. <br /><br />So yes, Paul talks about atonement, but atonement theory is a later theological abstraction that makes me uncomfortable. Keith Reichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-91776864383928726232012-08-27T23:53:42.991-05:002012-08-27T23:53:42.991-05:00Doesn't the apostle Paul engage in "atone...Doesn't the apostle Paul engage in "atonement theory"?Beauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16231021323767556713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-76931604210494845352011-05-12T15:11:12.935-05:002011-05-12T15:11:12.935-05:00Somehow I'd missed that you were keeping up wi...Somehow I'd missed that you were keeping up with the Barth reading and blogging. Great work! I'll try to come around on Fridays to see what you're thinking. Also, feel free to post a link to your page from mine.<br /><br />Glad to have you along.J. R. Daniel Kirkhttp://jrdkirk.comnoreply@blogger.com