<?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: More on the Atonement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/more-on-the-atonement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/more-on-the-atonement/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Religion in the World from a passionate, moderate, liberal charismatic Christian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 14:29:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Coops</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/more-on-the-atonement/comment-page-1/#comment-37936</link>
		<dc:creator>Coops</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:41:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=676#comment-37936</guid>
		<description>Ahh! Yes, must continue the series... it has too many open questions now!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ahh! Yes, must continue the series&#8230; it has too many open questions now!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Neufeld</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/more-on-the-atonement/comment-page-1/#comment-37193</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry Neufeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:40:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=676#comment-37193</guid>
		<description>For what it&#039;s worth, I&#039;m not disappointed not to get into a discussion of that. I&#039;d almost have to simply refer people to Martyn&#039;s Galatians commentary, and he isn&#039;t even discussing PSA, but rather only Paul&#039;s word usage.

It&#039;s pretty complex and I&#039;m enjoying studying my way through Galatians with his commentary, but it would be almost impossible to discuss some of the material without both persons having the commentary to reference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For what it&#8217;s worth, I&#8217;m not disappointed not to get into a discussion of that. I&#8217;d almost have to simply refer people to Martyn&#8217;s Galatians commentary, and he isn&#8217;t even discussing PSA, but rather only Paul&#8217;s word usage.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s pretty complex and I&#8217;m enjoying studying my way through Galatians with his commentary, but it would be almost impossible to discuss some of the material without both persons having the commentary to reference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Kirk</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/more-on-the-atonement/comment-page-1/#comment-37191</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Kirk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:31:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=676#comment-37191</guid>
		<description>Yes, we can get really tangled! That&#039;s why I decided not to get involved in your Participatory Bible Study discussion. I don&#039;t think you need to reject the use of legal language (as a model) for justification to have serious doubts about PSA.

But I suppose I might ask whether, in legal terms, someone who has been &quot;justified&quot; is more like someone who has been found guilty but their penalty has been paid or more like someone who has been acquitted. PSA implies the former. I would understand &quot;justified&quot; as meaning the latter - that the sinner is found &quot;not guilty&quot; despite having broken the law, but without any injustice being done.

If I relate this to modern law, I might suggest that a mechanism would be that the sinner is acquitted on a legal technicality. But perhaps in suggesting this I am committing the same error as those who modelled PSA theory on 16th century justice.

Is this a profound observation? I&#039;m not sure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, we can get really tangled! That&#8217;s why I decided not to get involved in your Participatory Bible Study discussion. I don&#8217;t think you need to reject the use of legal language (as a model) for justification to have serious doubts about PSA.</p>
<p>But I suppose I might ask whether, in legal terms, someone who has been &#8220;justified&#8221; is more like someone who has been found guilty but their penalty has been paid or more like someone who has been acquitted. PSA implies the former. I would understand &#8220;justified&#8221; as meaning the latter &#8211; that the sinner is found &#8220;not guilty&#8221; despite having broken the law, but without any injustice being done.</p>
<p>If I relate this to modern law, I might suggest that a mechanism would be that the sinner is acquitted on a legal technicality. But perhaps in suggesting this I am committing the same error as those who modelled PSA theory on 16th century justice.</p>
<p>Is this a profound observation? I&#8217;m not sure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

