tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32439216.post8600262940252578604..comments2011-07-11T20:38:37.749-05:00Chedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04008363735281618528noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32439216.post-39492619186872477422008-04-16T23:08:00.000-05:002008-04-16T23:08:00.000-05:00I didn't realize Green outright denied the place of P/S, even as one among others. I agree; that's a problem.<BR/><BR/>From what I remember, McKnight sees P/S as a story, although he argues that an Irenaeus-like recapitulation is the Story. But he does note that P/S too often hogs the ball in evangelical discussions.<BR/><BR/>All (orthodox) Christians believe in substitutionary atonement ("... for us and for our salvation..."). And all Christians believe in the need to be forgiven of sin ("... one baptism for the the remission of sins.")<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the question isn't sin or substitution, but the issue of punishment (e.g. over healing, recapitulation, etc.).<BR/><BR/>So, what makes you privilege punishment? Why is rejecting punishment missing the main point, but a denial of the other models isn't?<BR/><BR/>(I'm looking for verses here. Like, "Thus saith the Lord, 'P/S atonement: One Model To Rule Them All, One Model To Find Them, One Model To Bring Them All And In Its Modelness Bind Them!'")Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10273244181522032681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32439216.post-64255077422905642302008-04-14T11:17:00.000-05:002008-04-14T11:17:00.000-05:00Did my response get lost somewhere in the interwebs? That's wisdom lost to humanity forever - or until I have time to type it again.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10273244181522032681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32439216.post-31843047945610964862008-04-11T16:45:00.000-05:002008-04-11T16:45:00.000-05:00Michael, <BR/><BR/>I hadn't read it, but now I have. I like what he's attempting to do in the current dialogue about the atonement. <BR/><BR/>Though, I think the crux of the matter relates to what he says in the middle of the article. He talks about how the ancient creeds echoing 1 Cor 15 affirm that "for our sake Jesus was crucified, buried, and on the third day rose again." Then, he says that Christians reflect on this in different ways. <BR/><BR/>Though, what's missing from this is the phrase that says Christ died "for our sins" (1 Cor 15:3). I think the most pressing question in the Atonement discussion is, "How does the cross deal with the sin problem?" <BR/><BR/>Hsu advocates Green's "kaleidoscope view" of the Atonement where all shades of the story of the cross are held together on equal footing. However, penal substitution is not one of the "hues" of Green's kaleidoscope. He wants to affirm all images <I>except</I> penal substitution. This is where I'm not onboard with what Green and McKnight are advocating. <BR/><BR/>If the fact that Christ died for our sins and took our punishment in our place is not one of your "stories of the Story," then I would argue, you've missed the main point of the Story.<BR/><BR/>I do like what he says about needing "variety and creativity in our gospel witness." <BR/><BR/>However, in some of these recent proposals, it seems that the Penal Substitution view is the guy on the ecumenical basketball court who gets picked last, but then only as the water boy or equipment manager. <BR/><BR/>Note: I do realize that for some, the Penal Substitution view is the biggest guy on the court, acts like he's the only guy on the team, and hogs the ball a lot.Chednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32439216.post-20281721873134098882008-04-11T14:18:00.000-05:002008-04-11T14:18:00.000-05:00Ched,<BR/><BR/>Did you read Hsu's CT article? <BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/6sy59f<BR/><BR/>Any thoughts?Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10273244181522032681noreply@blogger.com